Opinion
No. 14-09-00834-CR
Opinion filed March 25, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 177th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1192979.
Panel consists of Justices FROST, BOYCE, and SULLIVAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The State of Texas challenges the trial court's granting of appellee Scott Gerard Karasek's motion to quash the indictment. We reverse and remand.
Background
Appellee was indicted for the felony offense of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated ("DWI") on November 23, 2008. To establish felony jurisdiction, the indictment also alleged that appellee had been convicted of the offense of DWI on November 14, 1989 and May 16, 2003. Appellee filed a Motion to Quash Indictment on September 8, 2009, arguing that his prior DWI convictions could not be used to enhance his current DWI charge to a felony offense. After holding a hearing, the trial court granted appellee's motion in an order signed on September 11, 2009. The State appeals from the trial court's order granting appellee's motion to quash.Analysis
We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to quash de novo. Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). A defendant must be given notice before trial of the "nature and cause" of the accusation against him. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 19. The notice must be given with sufficient clarity and detail to enable the defendant to anticipate the State's evidence and prepare a proper defense to it. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI; TEX. CONST. art. I, § 19; Garcia v. State, 981 S.W.2d 683, 685 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc). An indictment must allege all the facts and circumstances necessary to establish all material elements of the offense charged in plain and intelligible language. Garcia, 981 S.W.2d at 685; Bynum v. State, 767 S.W.2d 769, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (en banc). An indictment must allege on its face facts necessary to (1) show that an offense was committed, (2) bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense, and (3) give defendant notice of precisely what offense he is charged with committing. Terry v. State, 471 S.W.2d 848, 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). An indictment tracking the statutory language will satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements; the State need not allege facts that are merely evidentiary in nature. State v. Mays, 967 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc); Moreno v. State, 721 S.W.2d 295, 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (en banc). An individual commits an offense if the individual "is intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle in a public place." Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04(a) (Vernon 2009). The offense is a third degree felony "if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the person has previously been convicted . . . two times of any other offense relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. . . ." Id. § 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon 2009). Under the current statute, there is no time restriction on when a prior DWI conviction can be used for enhancement purposes. See id. § 49.09; Act of June 18, 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 996, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3365, 3366 (repealing Texas Penal Code section 49.09(e), eliminating any time restrictions on when a prior DWI conviction can be used to enhance a new DWI charge). Before enactment of the current statute, the use of prior DWI convictions for enhancement purposes was subject to the "ten-year rule;" under this rule, the State could not use a prior DWI conviction for enhancement purposes if the defendant had not been convicted of a DWI-related offense in the preceding ten years. See Act of June 21, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 1275, § 2(117), 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 4140, 4140, amended by Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 996, §§ 1, 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3365, 3366. The State argues that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion to quash his indictment because, under the current DWI statute, appellee's prior DWI convictions can be used to enhance his current DWI charge to a felony offense. Appellee argues that the trial court was correct in granting the motion to quash his indictment because the use of his prior DWI convictions to enhance his current DWI charge triggers a "savings clause" in the current DWI statute, making the law in effect at the time of his prior DWI convictions applicable to his current DWI charge. Under the former DWI statute, the State was prohibited from using appellee's 1989 DWI conviction for enhancement purposes. Alternatively, appellee argues that the current statute is unconstitutional because it violates (1) the United States and Texas Constitutions' prohibitions against using ex post facto laws, and (2) the Texas Constitution's prohibition against retroactive laws. Because the current offense occurred after September 1, 2005, the current DWI statute is applicable in this case. The current DWI statute was enacted in House Bill 51 in 2005, and took effect on September 1, 2005. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., R.S., ch. 996, § 3, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3365, 3366, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. House Bill 51 contains a "savings clause" which states as follows:The changes in law made by this Act apply only to the penalty or the terms of community supervision for an offense under Chapter 49, Penal Code, that is committed on or after the effective date of this Act. The penalty and the terms of community supervision for an offense under Chapter 49, Penal Code, that was committed before the effective date of this Act are covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense was committed before that date.Id. Appellee argues that the savings clause is triggered in this case by the State's use of appellee's prior DWI convictions for enhancement purposes because the prior convictions are elements of the current offense, and they were committed before September 1, 2005. Prior intoxication-related offenses are elements of the offense of felony DWI. Gibson v. State, 995 S.W.2d 693, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). But the exact date of a prior intoxication-related offense is not considered an element. See State v. Mason, 980 S.W.2d 635, 641 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Tietz v. State, 256 S.W.3d 377, 378-79 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd). Therefore, the State's use of appellee's prior DWI convictions for enhancement purposes does not trigger the savings clause in this case. See Tietz, 256 S.W.3d at 379. Appellee next argues that the trial court properly granted his motion to quash the indictment because House Bill 51 is unconstitutional. Appellee first asserts that House Bill 51 violates the United States and Texas Constitutions' prohibitions against using ex post facto laws because "it changes the legal consequences of" appellee's prior DWI convictions. We have held that House Bill 51 was not an ex post facto law:
We hold that the [ten-year rule] was not an explicit guarantee that . . . convictions could not be used in the future, but only a restriction on what prior convictions could be used to enhance an offense at that time. Therefore, the 2005 changes to the DWI enhancement statute . . . removing all time limitations on the use of prior DWI convictions to enhance current DWI charges, did not increase [a defendant's] punishment for . . . prior convictions and is therefore not an ex post facto law.State v. Pieper, 231 S.W.3d 9, 15 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Appellee next asserts that House Bill 51 violates the Texas Constitution's prohibition against retroactive laws because he had a vested right in the "ten-year rule" and House Bill 51 impairs that right. Specifically, appellee asserts that he had a "vested right in knowing all the consequences of [his 2003 guilty plea]" and that House Bill 51 "assigned a new disability, that of being eligible for felony enhancement, to a transaction, the 2003 guilty plea, that had already occurred in the past." A retroactive law is "a law that acts on things which are past." Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 219 (Tex. 2002). A retroactive law is unconstitutional if, "when applied, it takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing law." Id. A right is "vested" when it "has some definitive, rather than merely potential existence." Tex. S. Univ. v. State St. Bank Trust Co., 212 S.W.3d 893, 903 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). No one has a vested right in the continuation of present laws. Subaru of Am., 84 S.W.3d at 219. House Bill 51 is not a retroactive law. The "ten-year rule" did not create a vested, substantive right to be free from having prior DWI convictions used for enhancement purposes; rather, it established a prohibition preventing the State from using certain prior DWI convictions for enhancement purposes. See Pieper, 231 S.W.3d at 15; see also Ibarra v. State, 11 S.W.3d 189, 192-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (Prohibition against obtaining subsequent search warrants and providing that subsequent search warrants be issued by specific courts "did not create a vested, substantive right to be free from a second search and seizure; rather, it established a prohibition which operated to prevent the State from seeking a second warrant."). There is no right to be free from having prior convictions used for enhancement purposes. See generally Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 276 (1980) (Texas' interest in enacting recidivist statutes generally includes "dealing in a harsher manner with those who by repeated criminal acts have shown that they are simply incapable of conforming to the norms of society as established by its criminal law."). Further, the "ten-year rule" is procedural in nature because it affects only the circumstances under which certain prior DWI convictions can be used for enhancement purposes. Cf. Ibarra, 11 S.W.3d at 192-93 (amendment was procedural in nature because "[i]t affects only the circumstances in which subsequent evidentiary search warrants may be issued; the amendment does not impact a defendant's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures"). Procedural statutes do not affect vested rights. Subaru of Am., 84 S.W.3d at 219. We sustain appellant's sole issue.