# Marascio, Eric Reed

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · October 7, 2015 · 471 S.W.3d 832

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815712

## Case

- **Full name:** EX PARTE Eric Reed MARASCIO, Applicant
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** October 7, 2015
- **Citations:** 471 S.W.3d 832; 2015 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1052
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Keasler, Hervey, Yeary, Richardson, Newell, Meyers, Johnson, Alcala
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815712

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the nature of double-jeopardy protections are best suited as category two Marin rights
- noting, with exceptions, that under current state of law, “the clearly-apparent-from-the-record 4 factor requires that we reach the merits of the claim before determining whether the claim is properly presented”
- concluding that a free-standing double-jeopardy claim that could have been raised on direct appeal is not cognizable on habeas corpus
- noting, with exceptions, that under current state of law, “the clearly-apparent-from-the-record factor requires that we reach the merits of the claim before determining whether the claim is properly presented”
- noting that defendant may waive double-jeopardy rights “by agreeing to subject himself to double jeopardy if it benefits him” as in cases where plea bargain resulted in lesser sentence being imposed

## Opinion text

OPINION
Per curiam.
Applicant was convicted of three charges of felony Bail Jumping and Failure to Appear, and he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for each charge, to run concurrently. In these applications for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Applicant contends that these multiple convictions violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We filed and set these applications to determine several issues associated with Applicant’s double-jeopardy claims. 1 We now conclude that *833 Applicant is not entitled to relief. Relief is denied.
Richardson, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Newell, J. joined.
Yeary, J., filed a concurring opinion in which Keasler, J., joined.
Meyers, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Johnson, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Alcala, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Johnson, J., joined.
. Ex parte Marascio, Nos. WR-80,939-01, WR-80,939-02, & WR-80,939-03, 2014 WL 2002276 , 2014 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEX *833 IS 488 (Tex.Crim.App. May 7, 2014) (not designated for publication).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9815712. Public record. Not legal advice.