Ex parte David Lee Victorick and David Lee Victorick v. State of Texas

Summary

This document is David Lee Victorick’s motion in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals requesting a 31-day extension, until February 9, 2015, to file a petition for discretionary review. The motion explains counsel’s competing professional obligations and identifies related appeals involving Victorick’s conviction for online solicitation of a minor and a pretrial double-jeopardy habeas challenge. It includes the Ninth Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the denial of habeas relief and Victorick’s conviction.

Holdings

1. Conditions of pretrial bond authorized to secure the defendant's appearance and protect the victim and community, and imposed without a finding of guilt, do not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. The conviction did not necessarily moot the pretrial habeas appeal because the double-jeopardy claim, if meritorious, could entitle Victorick to relief from the sentence imposed by the appealed conviction.
3. The evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Victorick knowingly solicited K.E., a minor, to meet him with the intent that she engage in sexual contact.
4. The record did not establish that the trial court prejudged Victorick's guilt or deprived him of an impartial tribunal.
5. Victorick failed to establish that Rule 18a(a)(3) or 18a(j)(1)(A) was unconstitutional as applied to him or to a hypothetical third party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the conditions of Victorick's pretrial bond constituted punishment for purposes of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether Victorick's pretrial habeas appeal became moot after his conviction.
3. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove that Victorick knowingly solicited a minor to meet him with the intent that she engage in sexual contact.
4. Whether the trial court's use of the term “victim” in a pretrial bond order demonstrated that it had prejudged Victorick's guilt and denied him an impartial tribunal.
5. Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(a)(3) and 18a(j)(1)(A), governing recusal proceedings, were unconstitutional as applied to Victorick because they did not provide an interlocutory appeal.

Disposition

affirmed