Stephen Ray Smith v. State ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                           COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 2-07-358-CR
    STEPHEN RAY SMITH                                                  APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                     STATE
    ------------
    FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
    ------------
    MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING 1
    ------------
    After reconsidering our opinion on appellant’s motion for rehearing, we
    deny the motion, but withdraw our opinion and judgment dated December 18,
    2008, and substitute the following to clarify some of the facts.
    Introduction
    Appellant Stephen Ray Smith appeals his conviction for theft of property
    with a value between $100,000 and $200,000. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
    1
    … See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    § 31.03(e)(6) (Vernon Supp. 2008). In two points, appellant contends that the
    trial court erred by failing to include an accomplice witness instruction in the
    jury charge and that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel
    because his counsel failed to request such an instruction. We affirm.
    Background Facts
    On December 26, 2004, Alton Kiser received a call informing him that his
    travel trailer had been stolen.2 Less than a month later, Woody Vannatta, an
    employee of Flowers Construction Company (located in Temple, Texas), arrived
    at work to find that two trucks, a flatbed trailer, a generator, and various tools
    and equipment were missing. Company employees called the police to notify
    them of the suspected theft of these items.3 On the morning of February 3,
    2005, Barbie Don Bramlett, owner of Bramlett Implement Company (a John
    Deere dealership), received a call from an employee about a break-in at his
    business. When Bramlett arrived at the business, he discovered that the locks
    on his gates had been cut. He then noticed that a long trailer, a black pickup
    2
    … Kiser filed a police report, and more than a month later, he received
    a call that the travel trailer had been found. When Kiser identified the trailer,
    he noticed that its siding had been torn and its electrical connections had been
    severed.
    3
    … Eventually, Tory Vannatta (another employee) received a call informing
    him that the trucks and some of the other equipment had been recovered.
    2
    truck, a customized generator, a four-wheeler vehicle, and two John Deere
    Gator (Gator) utility vehicles had been stolen.
    Two days later, Hood County Sheriff's Office Sergeant Steve Smith was
    flagged down by Clinton Sullivan and Jackie Mitchell, who had noticed
    Bramlett’s abandoned black truck in front of a shop Mitchell owned. After
    Sergeant Smith saw that decals had been ground off of the truck, he confirmed
    that the truck had been stolen.4 Sullivan then told Sergeant Smith that he had
    seen the same black truck along with a Gator at his neighbor’s house and that
    he had seen a heavy-set white man riding on the Gator.
    Sergeant Smith and other officers went to the location described by
    Sullivan to investigate.   Upon arriving, Sergeant Smith noticed a Gator and
    several other vehicles at the property, along with flooring, insulation, hauling
    trailers, and a large amount of construction tools and materials. Appellant was
    outside working on an old house trailer when they arrived.5 Appellant allowed
    Sergeant Smith to examine the Gator, and Sergeant Smith confirmed that it
    was one of the Gators that had been stolen from Bramlett. Appellant told
    4
    … Bramlett received a call that the pickup truck had been found and
    went with members of the Hood County Sheriff’s Department to identify the
    truck. He acknowledged that the truck belonged to his business.
    5
    … The house trailer appeared to be unlivable, and appellant seemed to
    have been remodeling it.
    3
    Sergeant Smith that he was a part owner of the real property where the stolen
    items were located.
    A man named Scott Elmore then left a travel trailer, and both he and
    appellant refused to give the officers consent to further search the trailer or the
    surrounding property.     Upon obtaining a search warrant, Sergeant Smith
    searched the travel trailer and found the keys to Bramlett’s black truck,
    marijuana, syringes, and a gun (which had also been reported stolen).
    In September 2005, appellant was indicted for theft. The indictment
    alleged that appellant participated in a continuing course of conduct that was
    intended to deprive Kiser, Vannatta, and Bramlett of more than $100,000
    worth of various items of property, including three pickup trucks, two Gators,
    two generators, and three trailers.6        The indictment also contained an
    enhancement paragraph alleging that appellant had been previously convicted
    6
    … Section 31.09 of the penal code states that when “amounts are
    obtained . . . pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, whether
    from the same or several sources, the conduct may be considered as one
    offense and the amounts aggregated in determining the grade of the offense.”
    Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.09 (Vernon 2003).
    4
    of a felony drug offense.7 Appellant went to trial before a jury in May 2006.
    Following voir dire, appellant pled not guilty.
    At trial, Scott Elmore (who had several prior felony convictions) testified
    that he had known appellant since 2004, that he received money and
    methamphetamine from appellant, and that he had joined together with
    appellant to purchase the real property where the various items of stolen
    property were found.8 Elmore admitted that he stole property from Bramlett
    Implements and from Flowers Construction Company and testified that
    appellant had the right to use the stolen property if he desired, that appellant
    encouraged him or aided him in stealing the property, that appellant purchased
    most of the stolen property, 9 and that he bought marijuana with money that
    appellant gave him in exchange for the property.
    7
    … Though theft of property valued between $100,000 and $200,000 is
    a second degree felony, the enhancement paragraph enabled the State to seek
    punishment for a first degree offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(b),
    31.03(e)(6) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Appellant pled true to the enhancement
    paragraph’s allegation, and evidence admitted at trial further established that
    the allegation was true.
    8
    … Appellant testified that he purchased the property with Elmore to store
    old cars which he had collected.
    9
    … Specifically, Elmore testified that appellant bought three trailers and
    a four wheeler vehicle that Elmore had stolen and that appellant knew that
    these items were stolen when he bought them.
    5
    After other witnesses testified and counsel concluded their closing
    arguments, the trial court submitted a charge to the jury on the theft offense.
    The charge defined theft, generally informed the jury about criminal
    responsibility, and specifically instructed the jury that if it found that appellant,
    either acting alone or with Elmore, participated in a scheme of conduct that
    intended to deprive the owners of their property, then it was required to convict
    him. However, the charge did not contain any instruction related to accomplice
    witnesses or the evidentiary effect of Elmore’s testimony, and appellant did not
    request any such instruction or object to its omission. The jury found appellant
    guilty, found that the enhancement paragraph in the indictment was true, and
    assessed punishment at ninety-nine years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine.
    Appellant filed this appeal.
    Accomplice Witness Instruction
    In his first point, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to
    include an instruction in the jury charge regarding accomplice witness
    testimony. The State concedes and we hold that Elmore was an accomplice as
    a matter of law and that the trial court erred by not including such an
    instruction.10 See Cocke v. State, 
    201 S.W.3d 744
    , 748 (Tex. Crim. App.
    10
    … At the time of appellant’s trial, Elmore was in custody and was
    awaiting trial on the same charges as those contained in appellant’s indictment.
    6
    2006), cert. denied, 
    127 S. Ct. 1832
    (2007). However, because appellant
    admits that he made no request to the trial court that an accomplice witness
    instruction be included in the jury’s charge, he must demonstrate that he
    suffered egregious harm from the instruction’s omission. Herron v. State, 
    86 S.W.3d 621
    , 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). In other words, appellant must
    show that any corroborating evidence not linked to an accomplice’s testimony
    is “so unconvincing in fact as to render the State’s overall case for conviction
    clearly and significantly less persuasive.” 
    Id. (quoting Saunders
    v. State, 
    817 S.W.2d 688
    , 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)); see also Jones v. State, 
    195 S.W.3d 279
    , 289 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2006), aff’d, 
    235 S.W.3d 783
    (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2007) (explaining that if “the evidence clearly warrants conviction
    independent of the accomplice testimony, the trial court’s failure to instruct on
    the law of accomplice testimony is not reversible error”).
    A conviction “cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless
    corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the
    offense committed; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the
    commission of the offense.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.14 (Vernon
    2005).   In order to be an accomplice, the person must be susceptible to
    prosecution for the offense with which the accused is charged or a lesser
    7
    included offense. See Medina v. State, 
    7 S.W.3d 633
    , 641 (Tex. Crim. App.
    1999), cert. denied, 
    529 U.S. 1102
    (2000).
    When evaluating the sufficiency of corroboration evidence under the
    accomplice-witness rule, we “eliminate the accomplice testimony from
    consideration and then examine the remaining portions of the record to see if
    there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the crime.
    Malone v. State, 
    253 S.W.3d 253
    , 257 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting
    Solomon v. State, 
    49 S.W.3d 356
    , 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). To meet the
    requirements of the rule, the corroborating evidence need not prove the
    defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by itself. 
    Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257
    ; Trevino v. State, 
    991 S.W.2d 849
    , 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Gill v.
    State, 
    873 S.W.2d 45
    , 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Nor is it necessary for the
    corroborating evidence to directly link the accused to the commission of the
    offense. Cathey v. State, 
    992 S.W.2d 460
    , 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), cert.
    denied, 
    528 U.S. 1082
    (2000). Rather, the evidence must simply link the
    accused in some way to the commission of the crime and show that “rational
    jurors could conclude that this evidence sufficiently tended to connect [the
    accused] to the offense.” 
    Malone, 253 S.W.3d at 257
    (quoting Hernandez v.
    State, 
    939 S.W.2d 173
    , 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). “Independent evidence
    which generally tends to prove that an accomplice witness’s version of events
    8
    is true, rather than the version given by the defendant, is considered
    corroborative, even if it concerns a mere ‘detail,’ as opposed to a substantive
    link between the defendant and commission of the offense.” Beathard v. State,
    
    767 S.W.2d 423
    , 430 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); see also Munoz v. State, 
    853 S.W.2d 558
    , 559 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (noting that “[a]pparently
    insignificant incriminating circumstances may sometimes afford satisfactory
    evidence of corroboration”).
    The accomplice-witness rule is a statutorily imposed sufficiency review
    and is not derived from federal or state constitutional principles that define the
    legal and factual sufficiency standards. 
    Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 462
    –63. The
    “tends to connect” standard does not present a high threshold, and we must
    apply the standard by viewing corroborating evidence in the light most
    favorable to the verdict. See Simmons v. State, 
    205 S.W.3d 65
    , 73 (Tex.
    App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.); Cantelon v. State, 
    85 S.W.3d 457
    , 461 (Tex.
    App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).
    Here, appellant contends that he suffered egregious harm because he
    asserts that absent Elmore’s testimony, no evidence links appellant to the theft
    scheme. The State argues that appellant did not suffer egregious harm because
    Elmore’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence.
    9
    We conclude that the record contains sufficient evidence apart from
    accomplice testimony that tends to connect appellant to the theft scheme
    charged in the indictment.11 First, appellant jointly owned the real property
    where the various items of stolen property were found and stayed overnight at
    the property on a few occasions. Upon approaching the property to investigate,
    Sergeant Smith found appellant on the property near the location of some of the
    stolen tools.
    Next, Clinton Sullivan, who lived near the real property where the stolen
    items were found, testified that he saw appellant riding on one of the stolen
    Gators. More importantly, Sullivan stated that he saw appellant “grinding”
    Bramlett’s stolen black truck, which he later found abandoned at Mitchell’s
    shop, and also saw appellant “cutting up” other cars.        Sullivan correctly
    identified appellant from a photo lineup as being the man he had seen grinding
    the truck. 12   Sergeant Smith testified that when he first saw the truck at
    11
    … The record established that another witness at appellant’s trial, Lisa
    Diane Atkins, may also have been connected to the theft scheme. Atkins, a
    confessed thief of over two hundred cars, testified that she had previously sold
    stolen property to appellant and that she had received drugs from appellant in
    exchange for such property. Therefore, we will not consider the testimony of
    Atkins (or Elmore) in determining whether sufficient corroborating testimony
    was presented. See 
    Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at 361
    .
    12
    … At oral argument, appellant’s counsel argued that Sullivan’s testimony
    regarding appellant’s “grinding” on the truck was not credible because Sullivan
    10
    Mitchell’s shop, he “noticed that on the passenger side of the tailgate that paint
    had been ground down by what appeared to be an electric grinder . . . removing
    some decals from the side of the vehicle.” Bramlett also confirmed that the
    truck’s decals, which identified his company and provided its phone numbers,
    had been ground off.13
    Appellant’s communications with two of the witnesses who testified at
    trial demonstrated consciousness of his guilt and further connected him to the
    theft scheme.    For instance, Carol Schott, who sold the real property that
    appellant and Elmore jointly purchased (as evidenced by a real estate contract
    that appellant signed in January 2005), testified that she received a letter from
    appellant asking her to contact law enforcement and tell them that he had not
    taken any part in purchasing the property. Schott understood that this letter
    asked her to lie for appellant. Finally, Susan Elmore (Scott's mother) testified
    that after Scott had been arrested for theft, appellant called her and told her
    stated that he saw the incident at about 11:30 p.m. However, we must view
    this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we must defer to
    the jury’s resolution of the witness’s credibility.        See 
    Simmons, 205 S.W.3d at 72
    –73; Clement v. State, 
    248 S.W.3d 791
    , 797 (Tex. App.—Fort
    Worth 2008, no pet.).
    13
    … The record indicates that the truck may have been left at Mitchell’s
    shop because it was stuck in the mud.
    11
    that if Scott would “take the fall” for the theft charges, appellant could “help
    him with money” after he was released from jail.
    We    hold   that      these   facts,   considered   cumulatively,   sufficiently
    corroborated the accomplice testimony by tending to connect appellant to the
    theft scheme; therefore, no egregious harm resulted from the lack of an
    instruction about accomplice witness testimony.14 See 
    Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at 361
    ; 
    Cathey, 992 S.W.2d at 462
    (explaining that if “the combined weight
    of the non-accomplice evidence tends to connect the defendant to the offense,
    the requirement of Article 38.14 has been fulfilled”). We therefore overrule
    appellant’s first point.15
    Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    14
    … We note that appellant’s criminal intent in purchasing the real
    property, riding on the Gator, grinding off the decals, and making these
    communications may be properly inferred by supplementing Elmore’s testimony
    (which more directly implicated appellant in the scheme). In a theft case, the
    actor's knowledge or intent may be established by the uncorroborated
    testimony of an accomplice. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(c)(2); see Nethery
    v. State, 
    29 S.W.3d 178
    , 185–86 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, pet. ref’d).
    15
    … Within the portion of appellant’s brief related to his first point, he
    included subheadings and a brief analysis regarding legal and factual
    sufficiency. However, because this analysis seems to repeat the allegations
    appellant included regarding the lack of corroborating evidence, and because
    the analysis contains no citation to authorities, we will not address legal or
    factual sufficiency as independent grounds for this appeal. See Dornbusch v.
    State, 
    262 S.W.3d 432
    , 438 n.3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
    12
    In his second point, appellant argues that his trial counsel gave him
    ineffective assistance by failing to request an accomplice witness instruction.
    To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show by a
    preponderance of the evidence that his counsel’s representation fell below the
    standard of prevailing professional norms and that there is a reasonable
    probability that, but for counsel’s deficiency, the result of the trial would have
    been different.   Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687, 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 2064 (1984); Salinas v. State, 
    163 S.W.3d 734
    , 740 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2005); Mallett v. State, 
    65 S.W.3d 59
    , 62-63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001);
    Thompson v. State, 
    9 S.W.3d 808
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
    The second prong of Strickland requires a showing that counsel’s errors
    were so serious that they deprived the defendant of a fair and reliable trial.
    
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687
    , 104 S. Ct. at 2064. In other words, appellant
    must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
    unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
    
    Id. at 694,
    104 S. Ct. at 2068.       A reasonable probability is a probability
    sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 
    Id. The ultimate
    focus of
    our inquiry must be on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result
    is being challenged. 
    Id. at 697,
    104 S. Ct. at 2070.
    13
    In this case, appellant’s ineffective assistance claim is wholly predicated
    on his counsel’s failure to request an accomplice witness instruction. Even if
    we were to assume that appellant’s counsel’s performance was legally
    deficient,16 because we have concluded that, despite no instruction being given,
    the accomplice testimony was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence that
    tended to connect appellant to the theft scheme, appellant cannot demonstrate
    that the result of his trial would have been different. See Johnson v. State,
    
    234 S.W.3d 43
    , 56 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007, no pet.) (reasoning that because
    the “non-accomplice evidence sufficiently corroborated the accomplice and
    tended to connect [the defendant] to the offense . . ., the record [did] not
    establish a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s error, the result of the
    proceeding would have been different”); Casias v. State, 
    36 S.W.3d 897
    , 902
    (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.) (overruling an ineffective assistance
    argument because the corroborating evidence was sufficient to tend to connect
    the defendant to the crime). Therefore, we overrule appellant’s second point.
    16
    … Courts have noted that failure to request an accomplice witness
    instruction may render counsel’s performance deficient. See Ex parte Zepeda,
    819 S.W .2d 874, 876–77 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Robinson v. State, 
    665 S.W.2d 826
    , 831 (Tex. App.—Austin 1984, pet. ref’d) (describing counsel’s
    failure to request an accomplice witness instruction as a “glaring error”).
    14
    Conclusion
    Having overruled both of appellant’s points, we affirm the trial court’s
    judgment.
    TERRIE LIVINGSTON
    JUSTICE
    PANEL: CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: January 29, 2009
    15