-
NO. 12-05-00382-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
ANTONIO DATWAN SCOTT, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Antonio D. Scott appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. In five issues, Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient, that the trial court should have excluded evidence from the punishment phase of the trial, and that he was denied his right to a speedy trial. We affirm.
Background
Gerald Petty lived in a small apartment complex near downtown Tyler, Texas. On March 20, 2005, Petty had a conversation with Jerome Scott who was working on his car near Petty’s apartment. The men argued and Appellant, who is Scott’s cousin, shoved Petty. Petty did not know Appellant, and he called the police to report the assault.
Later that evening, Scott appeared at Petty’s apartment, banging loudly on the front door. Petty answered the door, spoke with Scott briefly, and slammed the door in his face. Scott continued to bang on the door, and Petty called the police to report that Scott had returned. While he was on the telephone, five gunshots rang out from the back of Petty’s apartment. The shots came in through a window and barely missed Petty. No one saw the shooter, but two residents of the apartment, Rhonda Lee and Gayle Brown, saw Appellant in the complex with Scott. Lee saw Appellant with Scott at Petty’s front door and then saw Appellant go around to the back of Petty’s apartment immediately before the shooting began. Brown saw Appellant get something from a car, and then shortly thereafter she saw him with a gun in his hand. Brown saw Appellant go around to the back of Petty’s apartment, but she was listening to music and did not hear any shots. Soon after Brown saw Appellant go to the back of Petty’s apartment, Lee came to Brown’s apartment and told her there had been shooting at Petty’s apartment.
A Smith County grand jury indicted Appellant for aggravated assault for shooting into Petty’s apartment. A jury trial was held, and Appellant was convicted as charged. The jury assessed punishment at fifteen years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
In the first three issues, Appellant complains that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Specifically, Appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence that he was the shooter or that the gun, which was not recovered, was a deadly weapon.
Standards of Review
The due process guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a conviction be supported by legally sufficient evidence. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315–16, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2786–87, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979); Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Willis v. State, 192 S.W.3d 585, 592 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2006, pet. ref’d). Evidence is not legally sufficient if, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; see also Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).1
While legal sufficiency review is all that is required by the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has determined that the Texas Constitution requires further review of the factual sufficiency of the evidence. Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129–30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Our review of the factual sufficiency of the evidence is without the light most favorable to the verdict, and we determine whether the evidence supporting the verdict is so obviously weak as to undermine our confidence in the jury’s determination, or the proof of guilt, although adequate if taken alone, is greatly outweighed by contrary proof. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); see also Watson v. State, No. PD–469–05, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2040, at *39 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 18, 2006) (Evidence is factually insufficient only when reviewing court objectively concludes that the great weight and preponderance of the evidence contradicts the jury’s verdict.).
Under either standard, our role is that of appellate review, and the fact finder is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of a witness’s testimony. Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 111–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The fact finder may choose to believe all, some, or none of a witness’s testimony. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
The sufficiency of the evidence is measured against the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. See Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). A hypothetically correct jury charge “accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant is tried.” Id.
As authorized by the indictment, the State was required to prove that Appellant knowingly or intentionally threatened Gerald Petty with imminent bodily injury and used or exhibited a deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006). A deadly weapon is a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 1.07(17)(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006).
Analysis
Appellant argues that Gayle Brown’s testimony that she saw a gun was insufficient to prove that it was a deadly weapon and that the evidence generally was insufficient to show that he was the shooter. While a firearm is a deadly weapon, it is at least conceivable that the “gun” Brown saw was not a firearm or a deadly weapon. But it is undisputed that someone shot a firearm through the back window of Petty’s apartment. The jury saw pictures of what were described as bullet holes in the curtains, the wall of the apartment, and the television within the apartment. The curtains had burn marks consistent with the firing of a firearm, and the police recovered shell casings from outside the apartment and bullet fragments from within the apartment. Someone shot into Petty’s apartment, and it was with a deadly weapon.2
There is evidence that Appellant was the person who shot into Petty’s apartment. Two witnesses testified that Appellant was in the apartment complex immediately before the shooting. One witness identified him as having a gun, and both testified that he went behind Petty’s apartment immediately before the shots were fired. Furthermore, Petty had an argument with Appellant and his cousin earlier in the day that had become violent when Appellant shoved Petty. This is circumstantial evidence, but it is compelling nonetheless. When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence that Appellant went behind the apartment with a gun immediately before the shooting and after arguing with Petty is sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that Appellant was the shooter.
With respect to the factual sufficiency of the evidence, Appellant points out that one of the witnesses had been previously convicted of misdemeanor charges. Furthermore, he argues that Brown’s testimony is “preposterous” because she was inside her apartment when she saw some of the activity outside. Appellant also notes that Brown had consumed alcohol before the shooting. Appellant suggests that Jerome Scott could have been the shooter and, indeed, that Petty had guessed that he was. These arguments are in the nature of attacking the credibility of the witnesses and the inferences drawn from their testimony. Generally, it is for the jury to determine which inferences it will draw and the weight to be afforded to the testimony of a witness. We exercise our factual jurisdiction only when the great weight and preponderance of the evidence contradicts the jury’s verdict or when the verdict is “clearly wrong” or “manifestly unjust.” Watson, 2006 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2040, at *39.
The evidence here does not contradict the verdict, and the verdict is neither clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. We do not agree that Brown described something that she could not possibly have seen. She testified that her door faced the apartment complex and was open, as were the curtains on her windows. She also testified that she was outside when Scott first went to Petty’s door. Her consumption of alcohol, as described, was not so copious that the jury could not have believed her testimony. The jury’s conclusion, drawn from all of the testimony, that Appellant was the shooter was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. We overrule Appellant’s first three issues.
Punishment Phase Evidence
In his fourth issue, Appellant complains that the trial court erred when it allowed a witness to testify during the punishment phase of the trial that Appellant had bragged about getting away with a murder in Virginia.
Applicable Law
Evidence of prior criminal acts is generally inadmissible except in a few narrowly drawn exceptions. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). However, in the punishment phase of a criminal trial, the veil is lifted, and the State may introduce evidence of extraneous crimes or bad acts “that [are] shown beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence to have been committed by the defendant or for which he could be held criminally responsible . . . .” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 § 3(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The jury determines whether an extraneous act is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the court must make a threshold determination that the jury could reasonably find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the extraneous act before it allows evidence of the extraneous act to be admitted at the punishment phase of a trial. Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Malpica v. State, 108 S.W.3d 374, 377 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2003, no pet.).
The decision to admit extraneous evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Malpica, 108 S.W.3d at 377. Although the burden to prove an extraneous act beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as is necessary to secure a conviction for commission of a crime, the procedural safeguards that require corroboration of extrajudicial confessions do not apply for extraneous acts. Id. at 378; see also Bible v. State, 162 S.W.3d 234, 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Consequently, we hold that the corpus delicti doctrine does not apply to extraneous offenses offered at the punishment phase of a capital murder trial.”).
Analysis
Jerome Scott testified that Appellant bragged about getting away with killing a man in Virginia. Appellant showed Scott and others a long newspaper clipping with his picture at the top of it. Scott testified that he did not read the newspaper article, but that Appellant indicated that it pertained to the murder. Appellant’s mother testified that she had lived in Virginia since 1999 and that Appellant had lived with her during some portion of his life.
Appellant argues that there was an insufficient nexus between the assault in this case and the murder in Virginia, that the extraneous act did not prove identity or modus operandi for the alleged assault in this case, and that the lack of specificity about the murder should have precluded admission of Appellant’s statements. The first argument is misplaced. In Shelton v. State, 41 S.W.3d 208, 218 (Tex. App.–Austin 2001, pet. ref’d), the case cited by Appellant, the court of appeals held it was error to admit evidence that the defendant had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. In that case, the State did not prove that the organization, during a relevant time period, had committed unlawful or violent acts or had endorsed such acts. Id. Therefore, the court reasoned that Shelton’s involvement with the group was not connected to the crime, his membership in the organization was irrelevant to sentencing. Id. (“It was not relevant to prove any aggravating circumstances.”). Reasonable minds could differ as to whether membership in the Ku Klux Klan, without more, is a relevant fact to consider during the punishment phase of a trial. The fact that a defendant had previously committed a murder, on the other hand, would be considered by a person of reasonable caution to be relevant to the consideration of the appropriate sentence.
With respect to his second argument, Appellant is correct that his commission of a murder in Virginia does not help to prove identity in this case and does not provide evidence of a similar modus operandi. But those are preconditions for admission of evidence about extraneous acts during the guilt/innocence phase of trial. See Tex. R. Evid. 404(b). Rule 404(b) simply does not apply in punishment phase proceedings. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07 §3(a)(1).
Finally, Appellant cites James v. State, 47 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2001, no pet.) for the proposition that proof of the date of an extraneous act is necessary to admission of evidence regarding the act. But, as Appellant forthrightly acknowledges, the issue in James was the lack of notice to the defense. Id. (“Further, the notice is deficient in two respects. It does not give the time when the acts occurred, except to say they happened to all of the victims when they were children. It does not specify the location where the bad acts occurred, either by county as required by the statute, or in any other way.”).
Appellant did not raise a complaint about notice when the State sought to introduce evidence about the Virginia murder. In fact, Appellant’s trial counsel acknowledged that he had received information about the murder prior to trial, and it appears that Appellant himself discussed the allegation with the trial court at his bond hearing. Appellant does not suggest that he did not know which murder it was that the State was referring to, but rather that there was a lack of specificity about the murder itself. Appellant offers, and we can find, no support for the conclusion that the date of prior misconduct must be proven. The case cited by Appellant, James, does not stand for that proposition. We agree, generally, that it would be better for the date of the occurrence to be demonstrated, but Appellant’s confession that he had committed a murder is something that the trial court could have concluded was relevant even without a date of occurrence.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Scott to testify about Appellant’s extrajudicial confession to a murder. Appellant could not be convicted of murder on the basis of his confession without proof of a corpus delicti or corroboration of the statement. But those procedural requirements do not apply in the context of extraneous acts introduced at a punishment hearing. In order to be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant had committed a murder in Virginia, all that was necessary was for the trial court to believe that Appellant told Scott that he had committed the murder and that Appellant was telling the truth. Statements by party–opponents are admissible, and we cannot accept Appellant’s implicit argument that the trial court should not have believed his confession. See Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(2)(a). We overrule Appellant’s fourth issue.
Speedy Trial
In his fifth issue, Appellant complains that he was denied the right to a speedy trial. Appellant filed a motion, pro se, on September 21, 2005, requesting that the case be dismissed or that he be released without posting bond. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for a speedy trial on October 17, 2005. In that motion he alleged that Appellant had been arrested on March 24, 20053 and that trial had not been scheduled. Counsel indicated that Appellant would be prejudiced if trial was not held on or before December 1, 2005. Appellant had been indicted on June 2, 2005.
On October 20, 2005, the trial court granted the motion filed by Appellant’s counsel and scheduled trial for October 31, 2005. Subsequently, Appellant’s counsel filed a motion for a continuance to allow additional time for him to prepare. That motion was granted and trial was rescheduled for November 7, 2005. A simultaneously filed State’s motion for a continuance was also granted and the case was rescheduled for trial on November 14, 2005. The trial began on November 15, 2005.
Applicable Law
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial. Zamorano v. State, 84 S.W.3d 643, 647 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citing Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 515, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972); Dickey v. Florida, 398 U.S. 30, 37, 90 S. Ct. 1564, 26 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1970)). In addition, Article I, section 10 of the Texas Constitution guarantees the accused in all criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy and public trial. Zamorano, 84 S.W.3d at 647 & n.6 (further referencing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.05 (Vernon Supp. 2006)). When a defendant complains of the lack of a speedy trial, we evaluate that claim using a nonexclusive four part balancing test from Barker. See Shaw v. State, 117 S.W.3d 883, 888–89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The four factors from Barker are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right, and the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay. Id.
Analysis
While the right of a person to represent himself is almost absolute, a defendant has no right to hybrid representation, that is to represent himself and also to have a lawyer represent him. Meyer v. State, 27 S.W.3d 644, 648 (Tex. App.–Waco 2000, pet. ref’d); see also Scarbrough v. State, 777 S.W.2d 83, 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). Therefore, the trial court need not entertain motions filed by a defendant on his own behalf when the defendant is represented by counsel. Meyer, 27 S.W.3d at 648; Hazelwood v. State, 838 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1992, no pet.).
Appellant was represented by counsel. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it did not rule on Appellant’s pro se motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. With respect to the motion filed by counsel (“Appellant’s motion”), the trial court gave all the relief that was requested. Counsel requested that the case be tried before December 1, 2005. The case was tried before that date.
Even if granting all the relief that was requested is not sufficient to resolve this matter, Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. The first Barker factor is the length of the delay. Shaw, 117 S.W.3d at 889. The court of criminal appeals has noted that delays of longer than eight months are long enough to require analysis of the remaining Barker factors. Harris v. State, 827 S.W.2d 949, 956 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). The delay in this case is almost eight months. Even if further inquiry is required, this factor can only weigh slightly against the State, if at all. See State v. Fisher, 198 S.W.3d 332, 338 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2006, pet. ref’d) (Ten month delay weighs slightly against State.).
The second factor is the reason for the delay. Shaw, 117 S.W.3d at 889. Because Appellant’s motion for a speedy trial was granted, there was no hearing and so the State was never called upon to offer any justification for the delay. This factor does not weigh one way or the other, but there is no evidence that the State sought to delay the trial other than for a short continuance to which Appellant did not object.
The third factor is Appellant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial. Shaw, 117 S.W.3d at 890. Appellant did assert his right to a speedy trial. His motion was granted, and he was tried within the time period he suggested was required. His motion was filed on October 17, 2005, and he was tried less than a month later. Appellant was afforded all the relief he requested, and he was given a trial shortly after his motion was filed. Under the circumstances, this factor cannot weigh in favor of a violation of Appellant’s right to a speedy trial.
The fourth factor is the prejudice to Appellant. Shaw, 117 S.W.3d at 890. Courts have recognized that, to some extent, incarceration itself can cause harm to an accused person. Barker, 407 U.S. at 532, 92 S. Ct. at 2193. Additionally, the passage of time may cause witnesses to become unavailable or to forget what they observed. Id. Appellant has not shown that he was prejudiced by oppressive pretrial incarceration or that he was prejudiced in any other way. Furthermore, by the terms of his own motion, Appellant would not have been harmed unless his case was tried after December 1, 2005. He was tried before that date. This factor does not weigh in favor of a violation of Appellant’s rights.
On balance, we hold that Appellant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated. Even if the delay between arrest and trial was long enough to trigger an inquiry, there is no evidence that Appellant was prejudiced by the delay. His motion for a speedy trial was granted and a trial held before the date he requested. We overrule Appellant’s fifth issue.
Disposition
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
JAMES T. WORTHEN
Chief Justice
Opinion delivered December 1, 2006.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1 Appellant asserts that the evidence is legally insufficient under both the U.S. Constitution and Texas law. He does not argue that the standards are different. See Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).
2Any question about whether the gun was a deadly weapon is immediately dispelled by State’s exhibit 30, which depicts Petty’s television. The screen is devastated by two bullet holes and appears to be nearly equal parts broken and unbroken glass.
3 The record does not show that Appellant was arrested on that day, but the State concedes as much in its brief.
Document Info
Docket Number： 12-05-00382-CR
Filed Date： 12/1/2006
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/10/2015