Home/Court of Appeals of Texas/Delvin Darnell James v. State

Delvin Darnell James v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 8, 2005
Docket06-04-00155-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Delvin Darnell James v. State (Delvin Darnell James v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Delvin Darnell James v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion



In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-04-00155-CR



DELVIN DARNELL JAMES, Appellant

 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                                              


On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court

Harrison County, Texas

Trial Court No. 04-0014X


                                                 



Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            At the conclusion of voir dire at his trial for aggravated assault, Delvin Darnell James challenged the State's use of peremptory challenges under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The trial court overruled his objection; the jury was empaneled, convicted James, assessed a sentence of twenty years, and the trial court sentenced James in accordance with the jury's assessment. In his sole point of error, James claims the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge to the State's use of its peremptory strikes against various veniremembers. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Batson Standard of Review

            In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that the State's purposeful use of peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Article 35.261 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure also specifically prohibits peremptory challenges based on race. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.261 (Vernon 1989).

            A Batson review involves a three-step analysis. Williams v. State, 937 S.W.2d 479, 485 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). The first step requires the complaining party to make a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Id. (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767–69 (1995)). A prima facie case of discrimination may be made by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. Batson, 476 U.S. at 93–96. After the complaining party establishes a prima facie case, the second step requires the party that has exercised the strike to come forward with a race-neutral reason for the strike. Williams, 937 S.W.2d at 485. This second step does not demand an explanation that is persuasive or even plausible. Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767–68. If the proponent of the strike can produce a race-neutral reason, then in the third and final step, the trial court must decide whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination. Id. at 768; Ford v. State, 1 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Further, once the State proffers race-neutral explanations for its peremptory strikes, the burden is on the defendant to convince the trial court that the State's reasons were not race neutral. Ford, 1 S.W.3d at 693 (citing Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)).

            In reviewing a Batson challenge, we review the record in the light most favorable to the trial court's rulings and determine if the court's action was clearly erroneous. Williams v. State, 804 S.W.2d 95, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support the finding, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a mistake. Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707, 721 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (op. on reh'g). The trial court is the fact-finder at a Batson hearing, and it is that court's responsibility to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Tompkins, 774 S.W.2d at 202 n.6A. We therefore accord great deference to the trial court's rulings. Robinson v. State, 851 S.W.2d 216, 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). If the exercise of even one peremptory challenge was racially motivated, however, the entire jury selection process is invalidated and a new trial is warranted. Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 65 n.5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); see Roberts v. State, 963 S.W.2d 894, 899–900 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998, no pet.).

Procedural History

            At trial, following voir dire and before the jury was sworn, James first made his Batson challenge. During this brief hearing, the parties stipulated that James is an African-American. The trial court held a short hearing on James' objection and denied relief. During the appellate process, the State moved to abate the appeal alleging the record in the Batson hearing did not reflect the race-neutral explanations for the State's peremptory challenge as to veniremembers 3 and 24. We remanded the case for the trial court to conduct a Batson hearing and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the race of veniremembers 3 and 24, and the State's reasons for exercising peremptory challenges as to them. See Hutchison v. State, 42 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001), aff'd, 86 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The trial court has now conducted such hearing and has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and determined that the State did not engage in purposeful discrimination based on race in its exercise of its peremptory challenges. The trial court found veniremembers 1, 3, 10, 14, 15, 24, and 35 were African-Americans within the range of eligibility for selection to the jury. The State used four of its peremptory challenges against veniremembers 3, 10, 15, and 24; James peremptorily struck veniremember 1.

Original Batson Hearing

            At the original Batson hearing, the State explained its reasoning for striking veniremembers 10 and 15. The State explained that number 10 was struck because he wore sunglasses during the voir dire examination.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Purkett v. Elem
514 U.S. 765 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Timothy W. Spencer v. Edward W. Murray, Director
5 F.3d 758 (Fourth Circuit, 1993)
Roberts v. State
963 S.W.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Williams v. State
804 S.W.2d 95 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Moss v. State
790 S.W.2d 731 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Hutchinson v. State
42 S.W.3d 336 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Williams v. State
937 S.W.2d 479 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Satterwhite v. State
858 S.W.2d 412 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Ford v. State
1 S.W.3d 691 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Hutchinson v. State
86 S.W.3d 636 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Alexander v. State
866 S.W.2d 1 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Silva v. State
800 S.W.2d 912 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1990)
Tompkins v. State
774 S.W.2d 195 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Brown v. State
960 S.W.2d 265 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Camacho v. State
864 S.W.2d 524 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Keeton v. State
724 S.W.2d 58 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Chivers v. State
796 S.W.2d 539 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Keeton v. State
749 S.W.2d 861 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Delvin Darnell James v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delvin-darnell-james-v-state-texapp-2005.