• '-Oft! - Voice For The Defense Online

United States v. Molina-Gazca, 571 F.3d 470 (5th Cir.
2009)
For purposes of 18 U.S.C. §3624(e), which provides that
“[a] term of supervised release does not run during any period
in which the person is imprisoned in connection with a con viction.
. . ,” a term of supervised release is tolled during the pe riod
of pretrial detention in a case in which the defendant is ul timately
convicted and sentenced with credit for time served, even
where the conviction does not occur until after the supervised
release period would otherwise have expired; thus, based on
May 3, 2007, warrant, district court had jurisdiction to revoke
defendant’s supervised release where, although defendant’s super
vised release would have normally expired on November 2,
2006, defendant was taken into custody on a state charge on
July 8, 2005, for which he was convicted and sentenced after
No vem ber 2, 2006 (with sentencing credit for his pretrial detention).
(The Fifth Circuit noted that its ruling agreed with
the Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Goins, 516 F.3d
416 (6th Cir. 2008), but conflicted with the Ninth Circuit’s
decision in United States v. Morales-Alejo, 193 F.3d 1102 (9th
Cir. 1999).)
United States v. Armendariz-Moreno, 571 F.3d 490 (5th
Cir. 2009)
On remand from the United States Supreme Court for further
consideration in light of Begay v. United States, 553 U.S.____,
128 S. Ct. 1581 (2008), and Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S.
____, 129 S. Ct. 687 (2009), see Armendariz-Moreno v. United
States, 129 S. Ct. 993 (2009), the government conceded, and the
Fifth Circuit agreed, that in light of Begay and Chambers, the
Texas offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle can no longer
be considered a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. §16 or,
hence, an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43)(F);
ef fectively overruling United States v. Galvan-Rodriguez, 169
F.3d 217, 219–20 (5th Cir. 1999), and Brieva-Perez v. Gonzales,
482 F.3d 356, 360–61 (5th Cir. 2007).
Court of Criminal Appeals
Appellants’ PDRs
Grammer v. State, __S.W.3d__ (Tex.Crim.App. No.
1508-08, 9/30/09); Affirmed, Hervey (9–0)
Appellant was placed on deferred-adjudication community
supervision (“probation”) for ten years after pleading guilty to a
9-count indictment charging him with aggravated sexual assault
and indecency against an 11-year-old. A condition of appellant’s
probation required him to pay $250 in court costs, and another
condition required him to “avoid association with persons having
criminal records and having disreputable or harmful character.”
The trial court later found that appellant violated these
two conditions and sentenced him to lengthy concurrent prison
terms (60 years on the three aggravated sexual-assault counts
and 20 years on the six indecency counts) immediately after
ad ju di cating his guilt. CCA affirms that the trial court did not
have to hold a separate punishment hearing before sentencing.
CCA finds that at the adjudication hearing, the trial court did
not prevent appellant from presenting punishment evidence,
and that appellant presented extensive punishment evidence
(e.g., his theory that he innocently believed he had permission
to associate with and marry a convicted felon and his reasons
for not paying the $250).
Tapps v. State, __S.W.3d__ (Tex.Crim.App. No. 0946-08,
9/30/09); Affirmed, Price (9–0)
Appellant was indicted under Tex.Penal Code §46.04(a)(1)
for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The underlying
felony was failure to register as a sex offender, a state jail
fel ony. Four additional priors were alleged for enhancement.
The jury convicted Appellant, and the trial court found two of
the priors “true” and sentenced him to 32 years confinement.
Ques tion raised by Appellant’s PDR is whether a state jail felony
is a “felony” for purposes of Section 46.04(a)(1), and therefore
whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Appellant’s
con vic tion for possession of a firearm by a felon. CCA holds
that a state-jail felony is a “felony” for purposes of §46.04(a)
(1); therefore, the evidence was legally sufficient to support
Ap pellant’s conviction for possession of a firearm.
State’s PDRs
Ex parte Hunter, __S.W.3d__ (Tex.Crim.App. No. 1047-
08, 9/16/09); Dismissed: Price (9–0)
When it was discovered early in Hunter’s trial for aggravated
sexual assault that one of the jurors had also served on
the grand jury, the trial court sua sponte declared a mistrial.
COA held that the State’s attempt to try Hunter a second time
vio lated double jeopardy. CCA granted the State’s PDR, but
Hunter has since died. Ordinarily under these circumstances,
in which appeal has been perfected but COA has yet to issue
its mandate, the appeal will be permanently abated. CCA has
made an exception for cases in which the State is the appealing
party. If a defendant dies during an appeal by the State from a
pre-trial order, the appellate court should dismiss the appeal
rather than abate it.
Hall v. State, __S.W.3d__ (Tex.Crim.App. No. 1304-08,
9/16/09); Affirmed, Keasler (8–1)
At a suppression hearing in Hall’s DWI trial, Hall challenged
the reliability of a LIDAR device that the officer used to measure
Hall’s speed. Hall claimed that because the State failed to prove
the reliability of the LIDAR, the officer’s decision to stop him
was not supported by probable cause. CCA holds that the judge
was not required to hold a Rule 702 Kelly hearing to evaluate