“Whether this Court should explicitly overrule Tarver and the concept of state collateral estoppel since collateral estoppel should not bar the State from prosecuting a criminal offense following to an adverse finding at a probation revocation hearing.”
Waters was on community supervision for DWI when she was arrested and charged with another DWI. The State moved to revoke her community supervision. At the revocation hearing, the trial court found the new allegation “not true.” As a result, as mandated by Ex parte Tarver, 725 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986), the trial court later granted Waters’ writ of habeas corpus, alleging the State was barred from prosecuting the new DWI under collateral estoppel.
The court of appeals affirmed, recognizing Ex parte Tarver as binding authority.
The State argues that, even though Ex parte Tarver has been implicitly overruled, Ex parte Doan, 369 S.W.3d 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), it should be explicitly overruled. In support, the State cites numerous federal circuits and other state courts that disagree with Ex parte Tarver. The State therefore urges the Court to hold that, because a defendant is not at risk for jeopardy at parole and probation revocation proceedings, collateral estoppel does not bar a subsequent prosecution.