VALLE, ANTHONY ANDREW v. the State of Texas
This text of VALLE, ANTHONY ANDREW v. the State of Texas (VALLE, ANTHONY ANDREW v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0653-23
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant
V.
ANTHONY ANDREW VALLE, Appellee
ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam.
OPINION
Appellee was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child, pleaded not guilty,
and elected to be tried by a jury. TEX. PEN. CODE § 22.021(a), (e). Appellee filed an election
under Article 37.07, § 2(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the jury decide
punishment. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.07, § 2(b). The statute requires that an election
be filed before voir dire begins. Id. Appellee’s election was file-stamped on November 9, Valle, PD-0653-23--2
2021, the day after voir dire began.
The jury found Appellee guilty. During the punishment phase, he filed a motion to
recuse the trial judge and a motion for mistrial. His motion to recuse was granted, and the
new trial judge appointed to his case granted his motion for mistrial as to both guilt and
punishment.
On appeal, the State argued that Appellee was not entitled to a mistrial on guilt. The
court of appeals agreed, finding that because Appellee’s election was filed one day after voir
dire began, Article 37.07, § 2(b) did not provide a valid basis for the trial court’s decision to
grant a mistrial on guilt. The court of appeals reversed the portion of the trial court’s order
granting Appellee’s motion for mistrial as to the guilt phase of trial and affirmed the
remaining portion of the order granting a mistrial as to the punishment phase of trial. State
v. Valle, No. 01-22-00279-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 24, 2023).
Appellee has filed a petition for discretionary review and argues that the file-stamped
date of November 9, 2021, on his election is a clerical error. He points to other documents
in the record that are clearly file-stamped with the wrong dates. He urges this Court to grant
his petition, reverse the court of appeals’ judgment, and abate his case.
We grant Appellee’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the
court of appeals, and remand the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals shall abate
the case so the trial court can determine whether the November 9, 2021 date is a clerical error
and, if so, further determine when Appellee’s election was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4; Valle, PD-0653-23--3
Taylor v. State, 247 S.W.3d 223, 223–24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (given conflicting record,
court of appeals should have abated case so trial court could clarify which action it intended).
If the court of appeals determines that the election was, in fact, filed before voir dire began,
the court shall reconsider the State’s point of error claiming that Appellee was not entitled
to a mistrial on guilt.
DATE DELIVERED: January 17, 2024 DO NOT PUBLISH
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
VALLE, ANTHONY ANDREW v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valle-anthony-andrew-v-the-state-of-texas-texcrimapp-2024.