Timothy Dean Scott A/K/A Mark Anthony Scott v. State ( 2009 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-08-023-CR
TIMOTHY DEAN SCOTT APPELLANT
A/K/A MARK ANTHONY SCOTT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
I. Introduction
In three points, Appellant Timothy Dean Scott appeals his convictions for
aggravated assault on a public servant and for resisting arrest. We affirm.
1
… See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
During a September evening in 2006, Hood County Deputy James
Yarbrough responded to a domestic violence call. He testified that when he
arrived, he “could see a disturbance and assault taking place. It was a male
subject, striking a female subject around the face area and upper chest area.”
The male subject, Scott, had a knife in his hand. The female subject was Alice
Sue Schuman, Scott’s common law wife. The scene was dark and chaotic,
with several children contributing to the chaos by running around and
screaming.
Deputy Yarbrough testified that Schuman’s demeanor changed when he
approached, and she tried to block him from reaching Scott. He pulled
Schuman out of the way. Scott started cutting himself with the knife. Deputy
Yarbrough instructed Scott to put the knife down, but Scott continued to cut
himself. Deputy Yarbrough testified that Scott said he was going to cut him or
throw the knife at him and “that he was going to make [Deputy Yarbrough]
commit death by cop,” i.e., force Deputy Yarbrough to shoot him. He then
testified that Scott made two swiping motions towards Deputy Yarbrough’s
chest, close enough that the knife touched his uniform shirt. Although Deputy
Yarbrough drew his gun, he managed to knock the knife out of Scott’s hand
with his baton.
2
Deputy Yarbrough testified that Scott actively resisted arrest and that it
took three officers to put him in handcuffs. The officers took Scott to Lake
Granbury Medical Center; he was released that evening and transported to the
Hood County Jail. Deputy Yarbrough did not suffer any cut or stab wounds,
but he tore ligaments in his right hand that required surgery. A videotape of the
incident, taken from Deputy Yarbrough’s patrol car, was published to the jury.
Scott pleaded not guilty. A jury convicted him of the two offenses and
assessed punishment at thirty-five years’ confinement for the aggravated
assault charge and twenty-five years’ confinement for the resisting arrest
charge. This appeal followed.
III. Discussion
A. Jury Instruction
In his second point, Scott argues that the trial court erred when it refused
to submit a jury instruction on the insanity defense under code of criminal
procedure article 46C.151 because he presented some evidence of insanity and
properly requested the instruction. Scott claims that the dispositive issue in his
case was whether he was aware that his conduct was wrong at the time of the
incident that produced the aggravated assault and resisting arrest charges.
3
1. Standard of Review
Appellate review of error in a jury charge involves a two-step process.
Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Initially, we
must determine whether error occurred. If so, we must then evaluate whether
sufficient harm resulted from the error to require reversal. Id. at 731–32. Error
in the charge, if timely objected to in the trial court, requires reversal if the error
was “calculated to injure the rights of [the] defendant,” which means no more
than that there must be some harm to the accused from the error. Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 36.19 (Vernon 2007); see also Abdnor, 871 S.W.2d at
731–32; Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op.
on reh’g). In other words, a properly preserved error will require reversal as
long as the error is not harmless. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171.
A defendant is entitled to an affirmative defensive instruction on every
issue raised by the evidence regardless of the strength of the evidence. Brown
v. State, 955 S.W.2d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Golden v. State, 851
S.W.2d 291, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Pennington v. State, 54 S.W.3d
852, 856 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). The defendant’s testimony
alone may be sufficient to raise a defensive theory requiring a charge. Brown,
955 S.W.2d at 279; Golden, 851 S.W.2d at 295. We review the evidence in
the light most favorable to the defendant to determine whether a defensive
4
issue should have been submitted. Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2001).
2. Insanity Defense
Section 8.01 of the penal code states that it is an affirmative defense to
prosecution that, at the time of the charged conduct, the defendant, as a result
of severe “mental disease or defect,” did not know that his conduct was
wrong. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 8.01(a) (Vernon 2007). Article
46C.151(a) of the code of criminal procedure provides that in a case tried to a
jury, the issue of the defendant’s sanity shall be submitted to the jury “only if
the issue is supported by competent evidence.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.
art. 46C.151(a) (Vernon 2006); Fuller v. State, 423 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1968). Properly admitted opinion testimony of lay witnesses is
sufficient to support a finding of insanity. Pacheco v. State, 757 S.W.2d 729,
733, 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). But see Ross v. State, 153 Tex. Crim. 312,
327, 220 S.W.2d 137, 146 (1948) (op. on reh’g) (“Nonexpert witnesses are
confined to their opinions only at the time of their observations of the accused
person.”).
A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a defensive issue like insanity
if the issue is raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is strong or weak,
unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think
5
about the credibility of the defense—that is, if evidence from any source raises
the issue of insanity, the trial court must include an instruction on this defense
in the jury charge. See Kelly v. State, 195 S.W.3d 753, 756 (Tex.
App.— Waco 2006, pet. ref’d); see also Gibson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 129,
132–33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (defensive issues). Although reversal is
warranted if the issue is properly raised by competent evidence and the court
fails to give the charge upon timely request or objection, if the issue of insanity
at the time of the offense is not raised by the evidence, the trial court does not
err by failing to instruct the jury upon the law of insanity as a defense. Fuller,
423 S.W.2d at 926.
The focus of the insanity defense is upon the accused’s mental state at
the time of the alleged offense. Beasley v. State, 810 S.W.2d 838, 841 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 1991, pet. ref’d). Furthermore, the existence of a mental
disease, alone, is not sufficient to establish legal insanity; rather, the accused
must have been mentally ill at the time of the offense to the point that he did
not know his conduct was wrong. Nutter v. State, 93 S.W.3d 130, 132 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
3. Analysis
Scott and his witnesses gave the following testimony:
6
• According to Scott’s younger brother, Scott was not “in his right mind”
a few days before the arrest, and he hypothesized that Scott was off of
his medication.
• According to David Eugene Allsup, Scott’s parole officer, in June 2006,
several months before the incident in this case, he was concerned about
Scott’s ability to understand his rights for a parole hearing because of
Scott’s withdrawal from his anxiety medicine, Xanax. He testified that
Scott was fine ten days later, that Scott was not on the parole mental
health caseload, that there was no history of mental illness in Scott’s
records, and that he did not know if Scott really had mental problems or
if he just faked them.
• According to Schuman, Scott was not in his right mind the night of the
incident, Scott made bad decisions when not in his right mind, Scott was
suicidal, and Scott’s mental functioning had been deteriorating over the
last month or two.2
• According to Scott, he had been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and
manic depressive with delusions, he had been on the mental health
caseload while in prison, he had been to a mental hospital twice, and a
change in his medication caused him to hallucinate. He testified that he
did not remember the night of the incident, but that, based on the type
2
… Schuman testified that she and Scott had argued but that he did not
assault her and she did not assault him. She testified that Scott cut himself
that night and said he wanted to kill himself and die, that the couple had
“trouble” over the last month or two, and that the police had been called out
before. She called 911 three times before that night and had him arrested for
assault, although she testified that he never actually assaulted her or attacked
anyone in a violent way. She also testified that she usually started the fights
and that she had assaulted him on a previous occasion, hitting him with a mop
handle and breaking his ribs. Schuman testified that the State tried to threaten
or intimidate her with regard to her testimony, including threatening her with
jail, and that in exchange for her testimony, the State offered not to file charges
against her. She testified that she was telling the truth in spite of the State’s
threats.
7
of person he is and his review of the videotape of the incident, he must
not have known what he was doing was wrong.3
• According to Lieutenant Peter Collie, from the Hood County Jail, Scott
asked him to testify that Scott was crazy.
The only person to address whether Scott knew what he was doing was
wrong at the time of the offense was Scott himself, in the following testimony
during his direct examination:
Q. On the night that we’re here about today, were you able to
formulate whether or not what you were doing was right or
wrong?
A. No. . . . I can’t remember what happened.
....
Q. Could you formulate in your mind the difference between
right and wrong on the night that this happened?
A. I guess not, because I don’t remember that night. . . . From
looking at the video, I would say I didn’t understand what
was going on, because all I was — I wasn’t trying to hurt
anybody but myself. I mean if — if I were holding a knife
and somebody were stabbing me, there’s — I couldn’t — I
couldn’t even defend myself with a knife. There’s no way I
could stab someone.
....
3
… Scott testified that the fights with Schuman made him crazy and that
she had assaulted him several times. He also testified that he never assaulted
Schuman, that he was falsely arrested three times, and that he still hears voices
but is now able to separate real from unreal.
8
Q. When did you lose recollection that night?
A. There’s times when I’ve lost three or four days. . . . I guess
I didn’t know what I was doing[.]
....
Q. Are you better now than you were then?
A. Yes, sir. I — that medication seemed to straighten me out or
— maybe I’m not getting stabbed every weekend and the
police called on me and going to work with black eyes or
broke ribs or broke fingers, yeah. I’m better.
Q. But I mean your mental condition, is it better?
A. Yes, sir. I’ve — I still hear voices, but I know that they’re
voices I’m hearing and I — I’m able to — I know that they’re
— they’re not real. I mean I can — I can separate the two
now.
....
Q. Are you cured now?
A. I don’t know. I still hear voices. And I — I’m not stressed
out now so I’m not as bad as I was, but what happens if I —
a bunch of, you know, I get really stressed out again? I
don’t know, man. I — what I do know is I’ve never tried to
hurt anybody, and I wasn’t trying to hurt anybody but
myself.
Q. And you know that from watching the video.
A. I know that from who I am by nature. I mean I might have
been — I might have been having some mental issues but I
don’t think I would have gone against my very nature and
become violent just because I was sick.
9
On cross-examination, Scott gave the following testimony:
Q. The reason why your testimony is that you don’t think you
did it is because you say it’s not in your nature.
A. That’s right.
....
Q. The idea here, I guess, is that because the police and Ms.
Schuman were picking on you, you lost your mind?
A. Well, no, I wouldn’t say that. I had been having some real
issues for months before that, but that certainly aggravated
the circumstances. I was losing my jobs. I had mortgages
to pay. I had new vehicles to pay on. I was going to work
with stab wounds, broke ribs, black eyes, broke noses, and
I was finding glass pipes under my car seats. She . . . had
me illegally jailed for two months, and then when I get out,
a 19-year-old kid has been living in my house, driving my
truck, and —.
On the record before us, Scott ultimately failed to produce any testimony
or other evidence to show that he did not know his conduct was wrong at the
time he assaulted Deputy Yarbrough or resisted arrest. Scott’s lack of memory
of the incident and his opinion that he must not have known what he was doing
was wrong, based on his review of the videotape and his opinion of his own
character, was not enough to entitle him to an instruction on insanity in the jury
charge. See Nutter, 93 S.W.3d at 131–32; see also Pacheco, 757 S.W.2d at
736 (stating only that predicated lay opinion testimony when considered with
facts and circumstances concerning an accused and of the offense may be
10
sufficient to raise the issue); Cato v. State, 534 S.W.2d 135, 138 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1976) (holding that defendant’s testimony about having visions a few
days prior to the offense and his alleged traumatic amnesia about the facts
surrounding the offense did not entitle him to an instruction on insanity); Kelley,
195 S.W.3d at 757 (holding that testimony that defendant was not himself
during the commission of the offense, that he was acting in a significantly
abnormal manner, and that he experienced mental disease or defect afterward
was not sufficient to entitle him to an instruction on insanity); Jeffley v. State,
938 S.W.2d 514, 515–16 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1997, no pet.) (holding that
testimony about defendant’s loss of memory, nervousness, and being upset
was insufficient to show insanity). Therefore, we overrule his second point.
B. Scott’s Evidentiary Complaints
In his first point, Scott complains that the trial court erred when it failed
to admit the prior inconsistent statements of one of his witnesses. In his third
point, Scott contends that the trial court erred when it allowed the State to
impeach one of his witnesses with multiple extraneous, unadjudicated offenses.
1. Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or to exclude evidence under
an abuse of discretion standard. Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540, 542
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A trial court does not abuse its discretion as long as
11
its decision is within the zone of reasonable disagreement. Montgomery v.
State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (op. on reh’g).
2. Prior Inconsistent Statements
Scott asserts that the trial court denied him the opportunity to effectively
cross-examine his parole officer, Allsup, when it failed to admit Allsup’s prior
statements from a parole hearing. He argues that Allsup’s statements were
admissible under a variety of hearsay exceptions, specifically, rules of evidence
613(a), 801(e)(1)(A), and 803(8). See Tex. R. Evid. 613(a) (addressing
foundation required to use prior inconsistent statements for impeachment);
801(e)(1)(A) (stating that prior inconsistent statements are not hearsay); 803(8)
(setting out hearsay exception for public records).
Scott called Allsup as a defense witness. During Allsup’s direct
testimony, the State objected to many of Scott’s questions as leading and also
objected on the bases of hearsay, relevance, lack of personal knowledge, and
speculation. The trial court sustained most of these objections. Scott
requested permission to make a bill of error, which the trial court granted.
Scott offered an audiotape from his parole hearing and a synopsis of the
testimony at the parole hearing as part of his offer of proof, and the trial court
accepted these as Exhibits A and B.
12
The record reflects that the parole hearing was held in August 2006 with
regard to an alleged assault on Schuman by Scott in June 2006. The incident
leading to the offenses charged in this case occurred in September 2006, after
a different alleged assault on Schuman by Scott. The State objected on the
basis of relevance to Scott’s questions about the parole hearing audiotape, the
trial court sustained that objection, Scott did not address relevance in his offer
of proof, and Scott does not address that objection here. 4 See Heidelberg v.
State, 144 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (stating that the
complaint made on appeal must comport with that made in the trial court).
Therefore, although Scott argues that Allsup made inconsistent statements
about Scott’s mental state at the parole hearing “just after [Scott’s] arrest” on
the charges in this case, such that he should have been allowed to impeach
Allsup with those statements, this argument fails on the timeline presented by
the record before us and on the actual objection made by the State and
sustained by the trial court.
4
… The State objected on the basis of relevance to Scott’s initial question
to Allsup about whether the tape fairly and accurately represented the parole
hearing testimony. After the trial court sustained the objection, Scott
responded by stating, “I haven’t offered it. I was just asking if it was — if it
was accurate.”
13
Furthermore, a prior inconsistent statement is a statement “inconsistent
with the declarant’s testimony,” given under oath subject to the penalty of
perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding. Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(1)(A).
Although Scott argues the applicability of hearsay exceptions based on prior
inconsistent statements for Allsup’s statements at the parole hearing about
Scott’s mental state, there is very little, if anything, that is inconsistent
between the testimony that Allsup gave at trial and Allsup’s statements during
the parole hearing. Allsup’s unobjected-to direct testimony at trial proceeded
as follows:
Q. What — what business, besides just regular visits . . . did
you have with [Scott]?
A. In like June of 2006, there was an assault charge that was
brought about and we went through the process of — of a
hearing process.
Q. That’s right. And that hearing process involved you talking
to him and taking testimony, is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And did you have to delay that process for any reason?
A. I did.
Q. Why did you delay that process?
A. When I initially went to interview him, I was told that he was
having withdrawals from Xanax, and I didn’t feel comfortable
with him understanding the — his rights before we proceeded
14
with the hearing process, so I went back and talked to my
supervisor and we delayed it.
Q. And you had spoken with him?
A. At that time?
Q. Yes.
A. I can’t recall if he responded to me or if I spoke to him. It’s
been a year and a half.
Q. Right. But you saw him and — and you saw his present
state, is that right?
A. I did.
Q. And that was back before this incident that we’re here about
today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that state was not good, right?
A. I — he just wouldn’t respond to me at that time.
Q. Did he seem to have a mental awareness of what was going
on and sufficient to — to know the difference between right
and wrong?
A. I’m not a doctor. I can’t gauge that. Alls [sic] I know is that
he wouldn’t respond to me, and I didn’t feel comfortable with
him signing the documents that would allow us to proceed
on with a hearing at that time.
....
Q. You didn’t think he was just being belligerent, did you?
15
A. No, he wasn’t belligerent. He just wouldn’t respond to me.
As I recall, he was basically just in a separate cell, and he
was — he would just stare at the wall, he wouldn’t like look
directly at me when I asked him a question, or if he
understood his rights, if I started to read, you know. Like I
said, I just didn’t feel comfortable proceeding on from there.
Q. After all that, did you see his condition improve?
A. I went back and interviewed him about ten days later, and
we proceeded on with the hearing process, and I didn’t have
any other problems or issues with him.
On redirect, in response to Scott’s question regarding whether, at the time
Allsup interviewed Scott, he had an opinion “as to whether [Scott] was right
or wrong,” Allsup testified, “I had no opinion one way or the other. Alls [sic]
I felt like it was that at that time he didn’t — he would not have understood his
rights, and I just didn’t feel right going ahead with the hearing process.”
Allsup’s testimony in Scott’s bill of error pertained to what Schuman
testified about at the parole hearing, i.e., that Scott did not actually assault her,
and to what Allsup said at the hearing about Scott’s mental state:
Q. And also in that hearing and on that tape, you — you said
that you had to hold off on this hearing because you were
concerned that he was incompetent to go to a hearing.
A. I believe my words were that he was suffering from Xanax
withdrawal, is what I was stating, and I stated that he
wasn’t in the right frame of mind at that time or I felt, in my
opinion, to sign the documents.
16
In the synopsis of the parole hearing, Allsup’s testimony is not
substantially different from that at trial:
On 6/19/06, the OFFENDER [Scott] and SCHUMAN had an
argument and the OFFENDER was alleged to have pushed
SCHUMAN down. The Hood County Sheriff’s Department was
called and before their arrival, the OFFENDER had left the
residence. Office[r]s talked with SCHUMAN and gave her
information regarding family violence. Thirty minutes later, the
OFFENDER returned and again the police were called to the
residence. The OFFENDER was arrested for Assault-Family
Violence. There were no injuries to SCHUMAN noted in the
offense report. When he spoke to the OFFENDER, the OFFENDER
denied the allegation. ALLSUP stated that he was aware that the
charge had been returned on 07/10/06. He attempted to interview
the OFFENDER after that time, but the OFFENDER informed him he
was having a withdrawal from Xanex. ALLSUP stated he did not
feel that the OFFENDER was in the right frame of mind to sign any
documents and he let it sit until the OFFENDER was in a better
frame of mind.5
Because Scott failed to respond to the State’s relevance objection and
because there is nothing in the record to show that Allsup actually made any
prior inconsistent statements to which Scott’s hearsay exceptions would apply,
we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing Scott
5
… The parole hearing audiotape reveals only that Allsup informed the
hearing officer that during Scott’s withdrawal from Xanax, Allsup did not feel
that Scott was in the right frame of mind to make decisions or sign legal
documents, and Scott himself informed the hearing officer that he had a
prescription for Xanax and stated that the anxiety disorder was his only
problem.
17
to impeach Allsup with his statements from the parole hearing. Therefore, we
overrule Scott’s first point.
3. Impeachment
Scott additionally contends that the State improperly impeached his most
critical witness, Schuman, when it questioned her about multiple extraneous,
unadjudicated criminal acts in violation of rules of evidence 608(a) and (b) and
609(f). See Tex. R. Evid. 608 (addressing when and how a witness’s credibility
may be attacked); 609(f) (stating that evidence of a conviction is not admissible
without advance notice).
To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have presented to
the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion that states the specific
grounds for the desired ruling if they are not apparent from the context of the
request, objection, or motion. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Mosley v. State, 983
S.W.2d 249, 265 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (op. on reh’g), cert. denied, 526 U.S.
1070 (1999). Further, the trial court must have ruled on the request, objection,
or motion, either expressly or implicitly, or the complaining party must have
objected to the trial court’s refusal to rule. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Mendez
v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
To preserve error, a party must continue to object each time the
objectionable evidence is offered. Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 273
18
(Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026 (1999); Ethington v. State, 819
S.W.2d 854, 858–59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A trial court’s erroneous
admission of evidence will not require reversal when other such evidence was
received without objection, either before or after the complained-of ruling.
Leday v. State, 983 S.W.2d 713, 718 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Johnson v.
State, 803 S.W.2d 272, 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S.
1259 (1991), overruled on other grounds by Heitman v. State, 815 S.W.2d
681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). And an objection preserves only the specific
ground cited. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 265; Bell
v. State, 938 S.W.2d 35, 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S.
827 (1997).
Although Scott complains that he objected to the State’s questioning of
Schuman about whether she had a pending felony case for credit card abuse
and fraudulent use of identifying information, the record reflects that he only
objected to these questions on the basis of relevance and not with regard to
improper character evidence. During cross-examination, the State asked the
following questions to Schuman:
Q. How were you employed?
A. I mean I was employed as a CNA.
Q. What is that?
19
A. A Certified Nurse’s aid.
Q. You’re no longer employed in that capacity, are you?
A. No.
Q. In fact, you were fired.
A. No, I was not.
[Defense]: Objection, relevance.
[Trial] Court: Sustained.
Q. In fact, you have a pending felony case —
[Defense]: Objection, relevance.
[State]: It goes to —.
[Trial] Court: Overruled.
A. I — you know what? I don’t know nothing about that
because for some reason nobody will tell me about that. And
no, I wasn’t.
Q. Do you know whether or not you have a pending felony case
for credit card abuse or fraudulent use of the identifying
information of the elderly people you were working for?
A. Those charges didn’t come up until the day after you told me
I would be arrested for not bringing my daughter, because —
Q. I didn’t ask you that.
A. — my bondsman called that day and there was no warrant.
Q. My question to you, do you know or do you not know you
have those charges pending?
20
A. I don’t know nothing about them charges. I have pending
charges that nobody will tell me anything about.
Q. All right. But getting back to —
A. Felony charges —
Q. — this, —
A. — that weren’t there Monday.
Q. — You were — when were you fired? Or when were you not
working anymore?
A. What do you mean when I wasn’t working?
Q. Never mind.
A. After you threatened to have me thrown in jail.
Thus, Scott’s only objection was on the basis of relevance.
With regard to the other instances that Scott complains about, one
occurred during Scott’s redirect examination of Schuman, in which Scott, and
not the State, asked Schuman if she had been “offered anything in exchange
for testifying the way the State wants [her] to testify.” And Scott failed to
object at all to the State’s questions and Schuman’s testimony on recross-
examination with regard to a pending misdemeanor marijuana charge.
21
Consequently, Scott failed to preserve error on any of the subpoints within his
third point. Therefore, we overrule his third point.6
IV. Conclusion
Having overruled Scott’s three points, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MCCOY and GARDNER, JJ.; and DIXON W. HOLMAN, J. (Senior
Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment).
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: January 8, 2009
6
… In a supplemental motion to file a supplemental brief, filed by Scott
himself after the briefs in this case had already been submitted, Scott sought
permission to raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
Although we denied that motion, we note that recourse is still available to Scott
in the form of resubmitting this claim in an application for a post-conviction writ
of habeas corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp.
2008). That forum would provide an opportunity to conduct a hearing to
consider the facts, circumstances, and rationale for counsel’s actions and
inactions. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813–15 (Tex. Crim. App.
1999); Ramos v. State, 45 S.W.3d 305, 312 n.1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2001, pet. ref’d).
22