MAJORITY OPINION Appellant Marco Antonio Contreras was charged with assault on a family member and proceeded to a jury trial. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01. During trial, the trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial. Afterwards, Appellant filed a motion for a writ of habeas corpus and asserted that further prosecution against him was barred by the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy clause. See U.S. Const. amend. V. The trial court denied the motion and Appellant appealed. For the reasons below, we affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant proceeded to a jury trial in July 2019. On the second day of trial, the trial court declared a mistrial on grounds that defense counsel was “not prepared for trial” and was “not able to provide effective assistance of counsel to complete this matter at this time.” After the jury was released, defense counsel objected to the trial court’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial. Appellant filed a motion for a writ of habeas corpus and the trial court held a hearing on the motion. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion in an order signed March 25, 2020. Appellant appealed. ANALYSIS In his sole issue, Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for a writ of habeas corpus and asserts that “no manifest necessity existed for the trial court to declare a mistrial on its own motion.” Accordingly, Appellant argues, further prosecution of the pending charge is barred by the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy clause. Standard of Review and Governing Law We generally review a trial court’s decision on an application for a writ of habeas corpus for an abuse of discretion. Ex parte Perez, 525 S.W.3d 325, 333 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Ex parte Allen, 619 S.W.3d 813, 816 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d). In making this determination, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and accord great deference to the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Parrish v. State, 38 S.W.3d 831, 834 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d). “Absent a clear abuse of discretion, we accept the trial court’s decision whether to grant the relief requested in a habeas corpus application.” Id. Under the Fifth Amendment, a criminal defendant may not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. See U.S. Const. amend. V; Ex parte Little, 887 S.W.2d 62, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (en banc); Ex parte Perez, 525 S.W.3d at 333. Jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled and sworn. Parrish, 38 S.W.3d at 834. Because jeopardy attaches at this point, the Constitution “confers upon a criminal defendant a ‘valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.’” Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d 903, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 688 (1949)). Accordingly, the premature termination of a criminal prosecution via the declaration of a mistrial — if it is against the defendant’s wishes — ordinarily bars further prosecution for the same offense. Id.; see also Parrish, 38 S.W.3d at 834. But as an exception to this general rule, further prosecution is not barred if there was a “manifest necessity” to grant the mistrial. Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d at 909; Ex parte Perez, 525 S.W.3d at 334. The trial court’s discretion to declare a mistrial based on manifest necessity is limited to and must be justified by extraordinary circumstances. Ex parte Perez, 525 S.W.3d at 334. “As a general rule, manifest necessity exists where the circumstances render it impossible to reach a fair verdict, where it is impossible to proceed with trial, or where the verdict would be automatically reversed on appeal because of trial error.” Parrish, 38 S.W.3d at 834. Under this framework, the defendant and the State have shifting burdens. “Once the defendant shows he is being tried for the same offense after declaration of a mistrial to which he objected, a heavy burden shifts to the State to justify the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial.” Ex parte Garza, 337 S.W.3d at 909. Accordingly, it is the State’s burden to demonstrate the manifest necessity for a mistrial. Ex parte Perez, 525 S.W.3d at 334. In addition, before it grants a mistrial on grounds of manifest necessity, the trial court first must determine whether alternative courses of action are available and, if so, choose one less drastic than a mistrial. Parrish, 38 S.W.3d at 835. Specifically, the trial court must “carefully and deliberately consider which of all the alternatives best balances the defendant’s interest in having his trial concluded in a single proceeding with society’s interest in fair trials designated to end in just judgments.” Ex parte Fierro, 79 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (en banc) (internal quotation omitted). But the trial court is not required to expressly articulate the basis for the mistrial in order to justify it to a reviewing court, so long as manifest necessity is apparent from the record. Ex parte Perez, 525 S.W.3d at 334. As the reviewing court, we determine (1) whether the trial court acted irrationally or irresponsibly, and (2) whether the mistrial order reflects the sound exercise of discretion. Parrish, 38 S.W.3d at 835. “[I]f the record shows that the trial judge exercised sound discretion in finding a manifest necessity for a retrial, the judge’s sua sponte declaration of a mistrial is not incorrect just because the reviewing court might have ruled differently.” Id. Evidence For the purposes of our analysis, we describe the events that occurred during voir dire and at the first two days of Appellant’s jury trial. We then turn to the hearing on Appellant’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus. Trial Voir dire began on July 1, 2019. The trial court welcomed the panel and spent a few minutes discussing what the jury selection process would entail. After the trial court spoke to the panel for approximately ten minutes, defense counsel informed the court he “ha[d] some information for the Court that is very important” and asked if he could tell the court “what it is.” After defense counsel told the trial court he had a motion “on an interpreter”, the following exchange occurred at the bench:DEFENSE COUNSEL:My client does not speak English. I asked him if he could do it without an interpreter. He stated no problem. I said do you understand what the Judge said? In Spanish he told me, I don’t understand the legal terms that they are using and I think I can only understand 50 percent, so it’s a shock to me. I knew the interpreter was here. I just released her. * * *TRIAL COURT:We need someone to translate the proceedings. I mean, let me tell you how unhappy I am about this. I can’t believe it. DEFENSE COUNSEL:Judge, I understand. TRIAL COURT:I don’t care if you understand or not. * * *TRIAL COURT:Before we bring [the jury] in, we need to address how we are going to cure this. From what I can tell we started about ten minutes of the jury selection or so, that they weren’t properly interpreted. It seems to me having any part of the proceedings not interpreted, it seems like I would just have to instruct them to disregard and take it from the top. What do y’all think about that? The parties agreed with the trial court’s suggestion and the trial court began voir dire again. The trial court instructed the panel to “disregard everything you’ve heard from me so far and we are going to take it from the top.” After the jury was impaneled and sworn, the State began its case with testimony from Complainant. Complainant said she previously had a dating relationship with Appellant and, on September 15, 2018, he arrived at her apartment late in the evening and proceeded to drag her into his car and hit her in the face “many times.” During Complainant’s testimony, defense counsel asked the trial court if he “could . . . get a chance to correct the interpreter?” At the bench, the trial court instructed defense counsel as follows: If that’s something you want to go into on cross, that’s fine. We are not going to correct the interpreter. That’s not permissible. If you want to correct the interpreter, there is a process for doing that. But you know, we are not going to second guess the interpreter. Defense counsel proceeded to cross-examine Complainant. Defense counsel asked Complainant whether she “ha[d] a Texas ID” which, as defense counsel later explained, was relevant regarding whether Complainant had used another person’s name or social security number to secure employment. The trial court granted the State’s objection to the question and instructed the jury to disregard the Complainant’s answer. At the bench, the trial court told defense counsel: You know, I was pretty clear when ruling on the limine motion that any inquiry that’s made into a particular witness’ wrong doing or past wrong doing or anything like that, we would have to approach the bench before we got into it. And you know, and what was proffered at the time that there was somehow a fraudulent identity and right out the gate we went for the [jugular] on identity. Okay. If you want to talk about identity or a specific incident that you feel this witness has committed in the past or some type of conduct, then you can try to lay a foundation but you have to ask me first. All right. Do you understand? On the second day of trial, the trial court began by addressing with defense counsel an “issue with discovery.” The trial court and defense counsel had the following exchange:DEFENSE COUNSEL:When I get on the Defense portal [on the computer] and I was able to — I came here before 8:00 this morning. I was able to get to one offense report. And there is ten other items, and I get rejected and it says that the program is not set up to open this one. When I click open, it doesn’t open. It says I have to do something, install the program to open the document and I can’t get to it. TRIAL COURT:Okay. And so let me be clear that you are saying you’re attempting to access discovery on the courtroom computer that is for accessing the clerk’s website and electronic signature features; is that correct? DEFENSE COUNSEL:The District Attorney’s portal. TRIAL COURT:But the computer you are using is the Court’s computer on the table. DEFENSE COUNSEL:Yes. TRIAL COURT:For defense counsel? Do you have your own copy of the discovery in this case? DEFENSE COUNSEL:I have them in the computer. That’s how I get access to them. TRIAL COURT:What computer? DEFENSE COUNSEL:In the Defense portal. TRIAL COURT:Do you have your own — do you maintain — do you have copies for yourself? DEFENSE COUNSEL:Paper copies, I do not have. TRIAL COURT:That wasn’t the question. The question was do you have copies, the discovery that has
