Clifford Allen Smith v. Brad Livingston ( 2009 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-09-00003-CV

Clifford Allen Smith,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

Brad Livingston,

                                                                                    Appellees

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24,147

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

            Clifford Allen Smith, a Texas inmate, sued Brad Livingston, executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  The Attorney General filed a motion to declare Smith a vexatious litigant.  After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion and ordered Smith to furnish security.  Smith failed to pay the required security and the trial court dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice.  In a single issue, Smith challenges the trial court’s granting of the motion to declare him a vexatious litigant.  We affirm.

 A plaintiff may be found to be vexatious if (1) there is no reasonable probability that he will prevail; and (2) in the preceding seven-year period, he has commenced, prosecuted, or personally maintained at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been (a) finally determined adversely to him; (b) pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing; or (c) found to be frivolous or groundless.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.054(1)(A)-(C) (Vernon 2002).  A trial court’s vexatious litigant finding is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  See Pandozy v. Beaty, 254 S.W.3d 613, 619 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.).

Reasonable Probability of Prevailing

            In his petition, Smith alleged that labor was not a condition of confinement at the time he entered his plea agreement; thus, forcing him to perform labor breached his plea agreement in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions and statutes.  The Attorney General argues that Smith pleaded a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, which fails because Smith did not allege any personal involvement by Livingston.  See 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (LexisNexis 2002).  Smith argues that he did not plead a section 1983 claim.  Because Smith’s petition does not specify any legal basis for his claim, but essentially alleges a violation of his civil rights, we will treat his claim as a section 1983 cause of action.   

“[S]upervisory officials are not liable for the actions of subordinates on any theory of vicarious liability.”  Thompkins v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303 (5th Cir. 1987).  “[A] supervisor may be held liable if there exists either (1) his personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.”  Id. at 304 (emphasis added).  Personal involvement is an essential element in a civil rights cause of action alleging constitutional deprivation.  Poteet v. Sullivan, 218 S.W.3d 780, 794 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007), cert denied 129 S. Ct. 623, 172 L. Ed. 2d 607 (2008) (citing Thompkins, 828 F.2d at 303). The plaintiff must plead specific facts establishing the defendant’s participation in the alleged violation.  See Murphy v. Kellar, 950 F.2d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1992). “[G]eneralized allegations” are insufficient.  See id. at 292 n.7.   

Smith failed to plead any facts establishing Livingston’s personal involvement or participation in the alleged violation of his plea agreement.  See Anthony v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, No. 01-08-00465-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1482, at *21-22 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 5, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Anthony did not allege any facts regarding the personal involvement of any of the named defendants in removing him from his SSI position,” but “merely made the conclusory statement that Trinci, Ellis, and Carrillo were ‘involved’ in his removal.”); see also Johns v. Johnson, No. 10-03-00388-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 1500, at *8 (Tex. App.—Waco Feb. 23, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Johns fails to allege any affirmative participation by the six defendants in a constitutional deprivation and fails to allege wrongful conduct on their part that caused a constitutional violation.”). Accordingly, there is no reasonable probability that he will prevail on his claim.

Lawsuits Filed in the Preceding Seven-Year Period

Smith has filed at least ten previous lawsuits. Seven of these lawsuits were dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which allows a court to dismiss a proceeding filed in forma pauperis if the suit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim.  See 28 U.S.C.S. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (LexisNexis 2003).  Thus, in the seven years preceding the current suit, Smith has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations that have either been determined adversely to him or determined to be frivolous or groundless.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.054(1)(A), (C).

Because both prongs of section 11.054 are met, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Smith to be vexatious.  We overrule issue one and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

(Chief Justice Gray concurring with note)*

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 30, 2009

[CV06]

*           (Chief Justice Gray would have dismissed this proceeding for want of jurisdiction. The majority, however, rendered a void abatement order.  It was void because we had no jurisdiction and could not validly take any action other than to dismiss the proceeding.  See Smith v. Livingston, No. 10-09-00003 (Tex. App.—Waco  May 13, 2009, abatement order) (per curiam) (Gray, C.J., dissenting). Notwithstanding the invalidity of that order, the parties and the trial court acted upon it and took those actions necessary to give the Court jurisdiction, specifically the trial court rendered a final judgment dismissing Smith’s suit.  Our prior error, thus having been overtaken and corrected by subsequent events, does not now deprive us of jurisdiction and we may proceed to a discussion on the merits.  With these comments I concur only in the judgment and only to the extent it affirms the trial court’s judgment of dismissal and assesses cost against Smith.)

ntends that Walker has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review because he failed to request a dismissal in the trial court.

          The record reflects that Walker’s IAD paperwork was received by Texas authorities on November 18, 2003.  This is the date on which the 180-day period began to run.  Fex, 507 U.S. at 52, 113 S. Ct. at 1091.  However, Walker’s trial did not commence until more than 325 days later in October 2004.

          Walker arrived back in Texas in February 2004.  The docket sheet reflects two trial settings for his case: May 24 and October 11.  The record also contains a motion for substitution of counsel filed by Walker on April 20 and granted on that same date.  Walker did not file a motion to dismiss.  The record is silent regarding whether his attorney agreed to any postponement of his trial date.

          In Marin v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals identified three categories of rights with regard to error preservation.[2]  851 S.W.2d 275, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 

[O]ur system may be thought to contain rules of three distinct kinds:  (1) absolute requirements and prohibitions; (2) rights of litigants which must be implemented by the system unless expressly waived; and (3) rights of litigants which are to be implemented upon request.  In the present context, the most important thing to remember about the Texas law of procedural default is that it only applies to the last category.

Id.

          The Court of Criminal Appeals has consistently followed this tripartite approach to preservation of error.  See, e.g., id.; Jimenez v. State, 32 S.W.3d 233, 235 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 533 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).  This Court too has followed this approach.  See, e.g., Marbut v. State, 76 S.W.3d 742, 749-50 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d); Kieschnick v. State, 911 S.W.2d 156, 162 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, no pet.); see also Fonseca v. State, 163 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d); Modica v. State, 151 S.W.3d 716, 721 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, pet. ref’d); Washington v. State, 127 S.W.3d 197, 202 n.4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d, untimely filed); Hill v. State, 78 S.W.3d 374, 383 n.4 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, pet. ref’d).

          Thus, under Marin and its progeny the determination of whether and how a defendant must preserve a particular issue for appellate review depends on whether and how the underlying right at issue may be waived. 

          This approach is illustrated by a recent decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in which the Court held that the right to an interpreter is a “Category Two” right under Marin.  Garcia v. State, 149 S.W.3d 135, 144-45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).  As the Court explained:

rights in the second category . . . “do not vanish so easily.  Although a litigant might give them up and, indeed, has a right to do so, he is never deemed to have done so in fact unless he says so plainly, freely, and intelligently, sometimes in writing and always on the record.”  Regarding these rights, “the judge has an independent duty to implement them absent an effective waiver by him.  As a consequence, failure of the judge to implement them at trial is an error which might be urged on appeal whether or not it was first urged in the trial court.”

Id. at 144 (quoting Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 280) (footnotes omitted).

          The Court in Garcia first focused on prior decisions which “had concluded that the right to an interpreter could be waived, but that it would not be deemed waived if the trial judge was aware that the defendant had a language problem.”  Id.  Thus, the Court gave attention to the “waiveability” of this right in determining how to classify it under Marin.

          In New York v. Hill, the respondent argued to the Supreme Court that article III’s 180-day deadline can be forfeited only by affirmative conduct on the part of the defendant.  528 U.S. at 118, 120 S. Ct. at 666.  The Court likened this contention to the view of the court below in Hill’s case that a waiver of the deadlines of the IAD must be accomplished “explicitly or by an affirmative request for treatment that is contrary to or inconsistent with [those deadlines].”  Id. (quoting People v. Hill, 704 N.E.2d 542, 545 (N.Y. 1998)).  However, the Court refused to adopt this position, holding instead that because the respondent’s trial counsel had agreed to a continuance beyond the 180-day deadline, the respondent had forfeited his rights under the IAD.  See id.  This holding is consistent with the holdings of several federal circuit courts of appeals and numerous state courts.

          The Sixth Circuit has held that a defendant “forfeit[s] his right to raise [an IAD] violation by failing to assert it prior to or during trial.”  United States v. Eaddy, 595 F.2d 341, 346 (6th Cir. 1979).  Other federal courts have reached similar conclusions.  See, e.g., United States v. Mazza, 792 F.2d 1210, 1228 (1st Cir. 1986); United States v. Scallion, 548 F.2d 1168, 1174 (5th Cir. 1977); but cf. United States v. Crozier, 259 F.3d 503, 516 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that defense request for continuance beyond IAD deadline did not “automatically waive” rights under IAD, but reviewing alleged IAD violation as “plain error”[3] because of failure to object).  At least eleven state courts have also adopted this reasoning.[4] Some courts have held that a guilty plea forfeits a defendant’s rights under the IAD.  See People v. Wanty, 471 N.W.2d 922, 923 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (per curiam); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct. App. 1994).  Others have held that a defendant forfeits his rights under the IAD by agreeing to a continuance beyond the pertinent deadlines.   See People v. Jones, 495 N.W.2d 159, 161 & n.1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992); see also Hill, 528 U.S. at 118, 120 S. Ct. at 666.

          Some courts have expressly or implicitly rejected the position that the IAD deadlines may be forfeited by a failure to object.  See, e.g., Brown v. Wolff, 706 F.2d 902, 907 (9th Cir. 1983) (“We think it inappropriate to [find waiver of rights under IAD by failure to object].”); People v. Allen, 744 P.2d 73, 78 (Colo. 1987) (“defendant’s conduct agreeing to two trial dates beyond the 120-day time period was not sufficient to support a finding of waiver”) (art. IV only); Bruce v. State, 781 A.2d 544, 549 (Del. 2001) (“The holding in [New York v.] Hill implicitly contemplates a waiver only where the defendant makes a request or agrees to a government request for a continuance that is ‘inconsistent with the IAD’s time limits.’”); State v. Edwards, 509 So. 2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987) (rights under IAD not forfeited by “mere silence”); State v. Dolbeare, 663 A.2d 85, 86-87 (N.H. 1995) (rights under IAD not forfeited by failure to object); see also Commonwealth v. Mayle, 780 A.2d 677, 684 n.15 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001) (“Appellant’s failure to object is not evidence of acquiescence, because any objection to the trial date would have been fruitless.”).

          This Court has suggested that the right to a dismissal under article IV[5] of the IAD (which is virtually identical to the dismissal requirement of article III)[6] cannot be forfeited.[7]  See Sephus 32 S.W.3d at 374.  Nevertheless, the facts of Sephus are distinguishable from the facts of Walker’s case because the defendant in Sephus filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss under article IV.  Id. at 371.  Sephus may also be distinguished because it involved article IV unlike Walker’s case which involves article III.  Id. at 371-72.  Thus, we need not revisit Sephus at this time.  Compare Allen, 744 P.2d at 78 (art. IV deadlines not forfeited by failure to object or by agreed continuances), with People v. Moody, 676 P.2d 691, 695 (Colo. 1984) (“defendant waived his IAD rights [under art. III] since he did not raise them until after his trial had ended”). 

          The Supreme Court expressly rejected the proposition that the forfeiture of the IAD’s deadlines may only be accomplished “explicitly or by an affirmative request for treatment that is contrary to or inconsistent with [those deadlines].”  Hill, 528 U.S. at 118, 120 S. Ct. at 666.  As the Court explained, “such an approach would enable defendants to escape justice by willingly accepting treatment inconsistent with the IAD’s time limits, and then recanting later on.”  Id.   Accordingly, we hold that a claim that the 180-day deadline of article III has been violated is forfeited “by [a] fail[ure] to assert it prior to or during trial.”  See Eaddy, 595 F.2d at 346.[8]

          Because a defendant’s right to be tried within 180 days under article III may be forfeited by a failure to object, this is a “Category Three” right under Marin.  See Garcia, 149 S.W.3d at 144-45; Mendez, 138 S.W.3d at 340; Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 279.  Therefore, a defendant cannot complain on appeal that his case was not dismissed under article III unless the defendant made a “timely request” or objection in the trial court and suffered an adverse ruling.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).

          Here, Walker did not request a dismissal in the trial court or object to his trial setting.  He may not complain for the first time on appeal that his case should have been dismissed under article III.  Accordingly, we overrule his first point.

V.  Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

          Walker contends in his second point that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because counsel failed to request a dismissal.

          We begin with a “strong presumption” that counsel provided reasonably professional assistance, and Walker bears the burden of overcoming this presumption.  See Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Generally, the appellate record is insufficient to satisfy this burden.  Scheanette v. State, 144 S.W.3d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).  If nothing in the record reveals the reason for the act or omission which is the basis of an ineffective assistance complaint, we may not speculate on that reason.  See Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Jones v. State, 170 S.W.3d 772, 775 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. ref’d); Hajjar v. State, 176 S.W.3d 554, 567 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d).

          It is possible, as Walker suggests, that counsel was ineffective for failing to request a dismissal.  However, it is equally possible that counsel agreed to continue Walker’s trial setting beyond the 180-day deadline because counsel was continuing to investigate the case, identify witnesses, and/or develop a defensive strategy for trial.

          Walker did not raise this issue in a motion for new trial.  Without a record elucidating the reason(s) counsel failed to request a dismissal, Walker has failed to overcome the “strong presumption” that counsel provided reasonably professional assistance.  See Andrews, 159 S.W.3d at 101; Jones, 170 S.W.3d at 776-77; Hajjar, 176 S.W.3d at 567.  Accordingly, we overrule Walker’s second point.

VI.  Extraneous Offenses

          Walker contends in his fourth point that the court abused its discretion by admitting the victim K.J.’s testimony about extraneous offenses he had committed against her because the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

          When we consider a complaint that evidence of an extraneous offense has been improperly admitted under Rule 403, we consider:

· how compellingly the extraneous offense evidence serves to make a fact of consequence more or less probable—a factor which is related to the strength of the evidence presented by the proponent to show the defendant in fact committed the extraneous offense;

· the potential the other offense evidence has to impress the jury “in some irrational but nevertheless indelible way”;

· the time the proponent will need to develop the evidence, during which the jury will be distracted from consideration of the indicted offense; and

· the force of the proponent’s need for this evidence to prove a fact of consequence, i.e., does the proponent have other probative evidence available to him to help establish this fact, and is this fact related to an issue in dispute.

Manning v. State, 114 S.W.3d 922, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

          We must give appropriate deference to the trial court’s determination that the probative value of the evidence in question is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622, 627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). 

The appellate court should not conduct a de novo review of the record with a view to making a wholly independent judgment whether the probative value of evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  It should reverse the judgment of the trial court “rarely and only after a clear abuse of discretion.” 

Id. (quoting Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 392 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)).

          Here, the court admitted the victim K.J.’s testimony about several instances in Tennessee when Walker engaged in unlawful sexual contact with her.  The court also admitted a typewritten statement Walker gave to Tennessee authorities in which he admitted having “sexual contact” with K.J. on several occasions without specifying whether they occurred in Texas or Tennessee.  The extraneous acts committed in Tennessee are similar in nature to the acts which K.J. testified Walker had committed against her in Texas.  When coupled with Walker’s statement, K.J.’s testimony about the extraneous offenses compellingly serves to make it more probable that Walker is the person who committed the Texas offenses (proof of identity) and that he did so with the requisite intent.

          Because the evidence concerns the repeated commission of sex crimes against a child, it does have a tendency to impress a juror in an improper manner.  See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 397.

          K.J.’s testimony on this issue takes up 13 of the 265 pages in the trial record of testimony and evidence presented during the guilt-innocence phase or slightly less than five percent.  Thus, it cannot be said to have consumed an inordinate amount of time to present.  Cf. Russell v. State, 113 S.W.3d 530, 545-46 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref’d) (State’s evidence regarding extraneous offense involved 12 witnesses, numerous exhibits, and over 200 pages in the record).

          Virtually the whole of Walker’s argument rests on his contention that lascivious intent was readily inferable from the conduct which K.J. testified he committed against her in Texas.  Thus, he contends that the State had little need for the extraneous offense evidence.

          The State’s need for evidence of an extraneous offense as circumstantial evidence of an element of the charged offense is significantly lessened if the element is readily inferable from other uncontested evidence.  See Rankin v. State, 974 S.W.2d 707, 719 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Russell, 113 S.W.3d at 546; DeLeon v. State, 77 S.W.3d 300, 312 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, pet. ref’d).  As the Court of Criminal Appeals stated in Rankin, “Where the State’s direct evidence . . . clearly shows the intent element of the crime and that evidence is uncontradicted by the defendant or not undermined by cross-examination of the State’s witnesses, the offer of other crimes is unjustified due to the lack of relevancy.”  Rankin, 974 S.W.2d at 719.

          Here, K.J.’s testimony “clearly shows” the elements of identity and intent with regard to the charged offenses. However, one of Walker’s primary trial strategies appears to have been an effort to undermine this testimony.  Defense counsel informed the jury in his opening statement that he considered the allegations “highly questionable.” During cross-examination, counsel highlighted K.J.’s failure to report Walker’s misconduct to her mother, her aunt, or her school teachers.  Counsel also highlighted discrepancies between K.J.’s testimony and statements she made to various authorities in other states.  Counsel focused on these issues in closing argument as well.

          Because Walker sought to undermine K.J.’s testimony in opening statements, by cross-examination, and in closing argument, the State’s need for the evidence was enhanced.  Cf. Rankin, 974 S.W.2d at 719; Russell, 113 S.W.3d at 546; DeLeon, 77 S.W.3d at 312.

          Thus, three of the four factors under consideration favor the court’s decision to admit the evidence regarding the extraneous offenses.  Accordingly, giving appropriate deference to the trial court’s decision, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by admitting this evidence.  See Moses, 105 S.W.3d at 627.  Therefore, we overrule Walker’s fourth point.

VII.  Sentencing Issues

          Walker contends in his third point that the court erred by ordering his Texas sentences to run consecutively with his Tennessee sentences.  He contends in his fifth point that his right to jury trial and his right to due process were violated under Apprendi and its progeny because the jury was not asked to determine whether his Texas sentences should run consecutively with his Tennessee sentences.

          Walker argues that, under the version of section 3.03 of the Penal Code applicable to his case, the court had no discretion but to order his Texas sentences to run concurrently with his Tennessee sentences.  The pertinent version of section 3.03 provides:

          When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced.  Such sentences shall run concurrently.

Act of May 29, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 900, § 1.01, sec. 3.03, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3592 (amended 1995) (current version at Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 3.03(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005)).

          For section 3.03 to apply, Walker would have to have been convicted (i.e., “found guilty”) of the Tennessee offenses and the Texas offenses in the same trial.  See LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Dach v. State, 49 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.).  Plainly, he was not.  Therefore, section 3.03 does not apply to the court’s decision to order his Texas sentences to run consecutively with his Tennessee sentences.[9] Accordingly, we overrule Walker’s third point.

          Walker argues in his fifth point that his right to jury trial and his right to due process were violated under Apprendi and its progeny because the jury was not asked to determine whether his Texas sentences should run consecutively with his Tennessee sentences. However, he candidly acknowledges that we have already decided this issue against him in a similar case.  See Marrow v. State, 169 S.W.3d 328, 330-31 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. ref’d), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 1147, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1006 (2006).  Accordingly, we overrule Walker’s fifth point.

We affirm the judgment.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

(Chief Justice Gray concurring)

(Justice Vance dissenting)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 19, 2006

Publish

[CR25]

---

[1]           Although we will ultimately conclude that Walker failed to preserve this issue by failing to object, we nevertheless address the State’s two preceding contentions regarding the procedural requirements of the IAD because these issues are likely to arise in subsequent proceedings involving other parties, because there is a dearth of Texas authority addressing these requirements, and because preservation of error is not necessarily the sine qua non of appellate review.  See, e.g., Brumit v. State, No. PD-043-05, 2006 WL 1638372, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. June 14, 2006) (declining to determine whether issue preserved because the record demonstrated no error occurred).

[2] The Court of Criminal Appeals considers Marin “a watershed decision in the law of error-preservation.”  Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (quoting Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)).

[3]           See Fed. R. Evid. 103(d) (“Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the trial court.”).

[4]           See Saffold v. State, 521 So. 2d 1368, 1372 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987); Drescher v. Super. Ct., 267 Cal. Rptr. 661, 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990); People v. Moody, 676 P.2d 691, 695 (Colo. 1984) (art. III only); Johnson v. State, 442 So. 2d 193, 196-97 (Fla. 1983); State v. Schmidt, 932 P.2d 328, 336 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997); Scrivener v. State, 441 N.E.2d 954, 956 (Ind. 1982); Ward v. Commonwealth, 62 S.W.3d 399, 404 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001); State v. Wells, 638 N.W.2d 456, 461 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002); Hicks v. State, 719 S.W.2d 86, 90 n.4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986); State v. Harper, 508 N.W.2d 584, 590 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993); State v. Suarez, 681 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).

[5]           Article IV applies when a state which has charges pending against an inmate incarcerated in another state requests the transfer of the inmate.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.14, art. IV (Vernon 1979); Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 150-51, 121 S. Ct. 2079, 2083, 150 L. Ed. 2d 188 (2001).  Under article IV, the requesting state “(a) must try the prisoner within 120 days of his arrival, and (b) must not return the prisoner to his ‘original place of imprisonment’ prior to that trial.”  Bozeman, 533 U.S. at 151, 121 S. Ct. at 2083.

[6]           Article III and article IV both provide that when the pertinent time period has elapsed, the “indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.”  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 51.14, arts. III(d), IV(e)  (Vernon 1979).

[7]           As the Court of Criminal Appeals has explained, we must “carefully distinguish[ ] waiver, which requires the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, from the forfeiture that is the consequence of not complying with Rule 33.1(a).”  See Mendez, 138 S.W.3d at 342.

[8]           Accord Saffold, 521 So. 2d at 1372; Drescher, 267 Cal. Rptr. at 666; Moody, 676 P.2d at 695; Johnson, 442 So. 2d at 196-97; Schmidt, 932 P.2d at 336; Scrivener, 441 N.E.2d at 956; Ward, 62 S.W.3d at 404; Wells, 638 N.W.2d at 461; Hicks, 719 S.W.2d at 90 n.4; Harper, 508 N.W.2d at 590; Suarez, 681 S.W.2d at 586.

[9]           Conversely, section 3.03 mandates that Walker’s Texas sentences run concurrently with each other, as they do.