Opinion
NO. 01-17-00053-CR
04-11-2017
IN RE DAVID LORENZA JOYNER, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The January 15, 2015 indictment in the underlying case charges relator, David Lorenza Joyner, with committing sexual assault of an adult in March 1997. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011(a)(1)(A). Joyner has filed a petition for writ of mandamus claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment as being time-barred by statute of limitations. We deny the petition.
The underlying case is State of Texas v. David Lorenza Joyner, cause number 1446567, pending in the 351st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable George Powell presiding.
As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish a right to mandamus relief. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). This burden includes providing "a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of." TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), see also 52.7(a) ("Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding"). Here, Joyner fails to meet this burden because, among other things, he has not provided an order or any other document (e.g., a hearing transcript) demonstrating that the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment.
Even if the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, the incomplete record provided by Joyner is insufficient to demonstrate his claim that the indictment was barred by statue of limitations. Generally, the statute of limitations for sexual assault of an adult is ten years from "the date of the commission of the offense." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 12.01(2)(E). But there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault "if during the investigation of the offense biological matter is collected and subjected to forensic DNA testing and the testing results show that the matter does not match the victim or any other person whose identity is readily ascertained." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 12.01(1)(C). Because the applicability of the statute of limitations for sexual assault depends upon the facts of the case, Joyner's indicating that the indictment charges him with a sexual assault committed more than ten years ago is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the indictment was barred by limitations.
In March 1997—when the offense is alleged to have occurred—the applicable statute of limitations for sexual assault was five years. See Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 565, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1991 (current version at TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 12.01(2)(E)). However, in 2001, the Legislature amended the applicable statute of limitations for sexual assault to the term currently reflected in article 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Act of Apr. 20, 2001, 77th Leg., R.S., ch. 12, § 1, art. 12.01(1)(B), (2)(E), 2001 TEX. GEN. LAWS 20 (amended 2003) (current version at TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art 12.01(1)(C), (2)(E)). The 2001 amendment effectively extended the statute of limitations for the offense in this case because, at the time of the amendment's adoption, the original five-year statute of limitations had not expired. See Phillips v. State, 362 S.W.3d 606, 612-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Heilman, 456 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (explaining that if statute of limitations is extended after offense committed, prosecution is constitutional if original statute of limitations "had not already run before the law was changed"). Accordingly, the current statutes of limitations provided in article 12 apply to this case.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).