VINES, GARY EDWARD Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (original per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0499-16 THE STATE OF TEXAS v. GARY EDWARD VINES, Appellant ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE NINTH COURT OF APPEALS MONTGOMERY COUNTY Per curiam. OPINION Appellant was convicted of violating a civil commitment order and sentenced to life in prison. He appealed. While his appeal was pending, the Texas Legislature passed S.B. 746, which amended Health & Safety Code § 841.085 to make the failure to comply with the terms of sex offender treatment a civil issue rather than a criminal offense. The savings VINES, No. PD-499-16 - 2 clause to S.B. 746 provided that the change was applicable to any conviction not yet final. Appellate counsel did not argue that the savings clause to S.B. 746 de-criminalized Appellant’s offense and applied to him because his conviction was not yet final. However, Appellant raised the issue in a pro se brief, and so did another inmate in an amicus curiae brief. The Court of Appeals opted not to consider either of those briefs, but said that, even if it did consider the argument, it would reject it based on its opinion in Vandyke v. State, 485 S.W.3d 507 (Beaumont 2015). That case held that the savings clause to S.B. 746 violated the Separation of Powers clause. Appellant has filed a petition for discretionary review of this decision. We recently reversed the appellate court’s opinion in Vandyke, holding instead that the savings clause to S.B. 746 does not violate the Separation of Powers clause. Vandyke v. State, No. PD-028316, 2017 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1311 (Tex. Crim. App. December 20, 2017). The Court of Appeals in the instant case did not have the benefit of our opinion in Vandyke. Accordingly, we grant Appellant’s petition for discretionary review, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand this case to the Court of Appeals in light of our opinion in Vandyke. DATE DELIVERED: February 7, 2018 DO NOT PUBLISH
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
