Brian James Lacy v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: July 1, 2026
• Docket: 06-25-00202-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00202-CR

BRIAN JAMES LACY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 2329934

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Brian James Lacy pled guilty to obstruction or retaliation, a third-degree felony. See

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(c) (Supp.). Pursuant to a plea bargain, Lacy was placed on

deferred adjudication community supervision for seven years. In a motion to proceed with an

adjudication of guilt, the State alleged that Lacy violated the terms and conditions of his

community supervision by failing to submit to a random drug test. After Lacy entered an open

plea of true to the State’s allegation, the trial court adjudicated Lacy’s guilt and sentenced him to

ten years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Lacy argues that his constitutional rights to confrontation and due process

were violated during the punishment hearing when a witness testified about “out-of-court

statements by absent witnesses.” The State argues that Lacy failed to preserve his sole complaint

for our review. We agree. As a result, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Lacy Failed to Preserve His Sole Complaint

The State’s indictment for the underlying offense alleged that Lacy intentionally or

knowingly retaliated by threatening to harm the Honorable Eddie Northcutt, the judge presiding

over a family-law matter involving Lacy, “by posting a picture of a man being cut open by two

people on [Judge Northcutt’s] Facebook page titled ‘Eddie Northcutt for District Judge’ with the

comment, ‘This is what they used to do to corrupt Judges! Kind of looks like you doesn’t it

Judge?’”

2 In his plea paperwork and in open court, Lacy stipulated to the evidence against him and

waived his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him.1 Lacy further swore in

writing that the State’s allegation against him in its motion to adjudicate Lacy’s guilt was true.

Lacy also pled true to the allegation in open court. After accepting Lacy’s plea, the trial court

heard testimony from Judge Northcutt about the underlying allegation of obstruction or

retaliation, to which Lacy had previously pled guilty.

During Lacy’s punishment hearing, Judge Northcutt testified that he presided over a

family-law matter involving Lacy, and that the case was transferred to him after Lacy confronted

the judge of the transferring court and scared the court reporter “to death.” Lacy objected to that

testimony on confrontation clause grounds, and the objection was sustained by the trial court.

Without objection, Judge Northcutt testified that the judge of the transferring court had placed

Lacy in contempt and sentenced him to confinement in county jail, that the case was transferred

to Northcutt, he issued a ruling in Lacy’s family-law matter, and within two months of the ruling,

law enforcement contacted him about a threat from Lacy. Also, without objection, Judge

Northcutt, who had a sister who committed suicide, testified that Lacy sent Lacy’s mother-in-law

a text message stating, “Maybe that Judge has a conflict of interest; dot, dot, dot. Oh wait, he

does because he voiced what happened to his sister. She killed herself. Before long the Judge

will be with her where she resides.” Judge Northcutt continued to testify about Lacy’s threats,

including those on Facebook, and the impact of those threats, without objection.

1 Lacy’s plea paperwork was admitted as evidence. 3 A reviewing court should not address the merits of an issue that has not been preserved

for appeal. Ford v. State, 305 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). To preserve a

complaint for our review, a “defendant must object and pursue his objection to an adverse ruling

. . . to complain on appeal about the argument.” Hernandez v. State, 538 S.W.3d 619, 622 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2018) (citation omitted); see TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Geuder v. State, 115 S.W.3d

11, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). “It is well settled that when an appellant has been given all the

relief he or she requested at trial, there is nothing to complain of on appeal.” Kay v. State, 340

S.W.3d 470, 473 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, no pet.) (citing Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d

686, 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Lasker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978)).

Here, the reporter’s record shows that Lacy did not raise a due-process complaint at trial

and that he only lodged one confrontation-clause objection, which was sustained by the trial

court. As a result, Lacy failed to preserve his appellate complaint for our review.

II. Conclusion

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 10, 2026 Date Decided: July 1, 2026

Do Not Publish