explaining that, in Guerrero, the “majority, comprised of two concurring judges and three dissenting judges, noted that the legislature did not intend multiple punishments for manufacture and simultaneous possession with intent to deliver with respect to a single quantity of controlled substances.”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that, in Guerrero, the “majority, comprised of two concurring judges and three dissenting judges, noted that the legislature did not intend multiple punishments for manufacture and simultaneous possession with intent to deliver with respect to a single quantity of controlled substances.”
- stating that double jeopardy is violated when there is “a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction” (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977))
- holding a single act of simultaneous manufacture and resulting possession with intent to deliver with respect to a single quantity of a controlled substance constitutes a single violation
- holding simultaneous manufacture and resulting possession with intent to deliver when involving a single quantity of controlled substance only constitutes one offense
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KEASLER, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion in which KELLER, P.J., and HERVEY, J., joined.
The majority incorrectly distinguishes the facts of this case from those in our recent decision in Guerrero v. State. 1 But the facts of Guerrero are identical. In Guerrero, a plurality of us held that Guerrero’s convictions for manufacturing and possessing with intent to deliver the same cache of methamphetamine did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. 2 Though Guerrero’s manufacture and possession with intent to deliver were close in time, they “were discrete acts with different impulses” — “one impulse to manufacture and another impulse to possess for the purpose of delivering what has been manufactured.” 3 The same can and should be said here. I would therefore hold that there is no jeopardy violation and reverse the court of appeals’s judgment.
. 305 S.W.3d 546 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (plurality op.).
. Id. at 553-54, 557, 560-61 .
.Id. at 554.