Samaripas v. Texas

A jury convicted appellant David Samaripas, Jr. of engaging in organized criminal activity and sentenced him, as a habitual criminal, to 53 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional Institutions Division, an enhanced punishment based on two alleged prior convictions. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly sustained the State’s objection to Appellant’s questions during voir dire. The court of appeals concluded that Appellant failed to preserve error. On appeal, the issues presented for the Court of Criminal Appeals' review were: (1) in order to preserve error relative to a limitation on voir dire examination of a prospective juror, must a defendant object after the trial court sustains the State’s objection to a proposed question?; and (2) may a non-aggravated state-jail felony conviction, previously punished under the range for a second-degree felony, be used for the purpose of enhancing punishment to that of a habitual criminal? The Court held that that the error was preserved and that the court of appeals failed to apply the correct, particularized standard regarding preservation of error during voir dire. Furthermore, the Court held that, under Sections 12.42(d) and (e) of the Texas Penal Code as it was worded at the time of Appellant’s offense in this case, the non-aggravated state-jail felony conviction that was punished as a second-degree felony was properly used for subsequent habitual-criminal punishment enhancement. View "Samaripas v. Texas" on Justia Law