COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-04-112-CR
MARK
ANDREW ELDRED APPELLANT
V.
THE
STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM
THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
In
eight points, Appellant Mark Andrew Eldred appeals from his conviction of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Following a jury trial on
December 17, 2003, Appellant was found guilty. He pled true to a sentence
enhancement offense, and following a punishment hearing, the jury assessed his
punishment at life imprisonment. We will affirm.
Background
Facts
On
December 8, 2002, Flower Mound police responded to a call reporting a stabbing
at a party in a residential neighborhood. Jason Taylor was the first
officer to arrive at the house. He immediately observed signs that a fight
had occurred and noticed bloodstains near the house. In order to preserve
the crime scene, Officer Taylor told the twenty to thirty people who were at the
house to go stand in the driveway. When Detective Raymond Walker and
Detective Misty Sparby arrived at the house, a witness told them that a stabbing
had occurred and that there was a large amount of alcohol at the party.
Taylor interviewed approximately ten people who were present at the party in an
effort to discover what had happened.
According
to the testimony of the witnesses present at the party, Bret Taylor, the victim,
was asked to arm wrestle by Dustin Rachal. Many of the people present at
the party were drinking or intoxicated, and somehow the arm wrestling match
angered one or several individuals present and a fight erupted between the
victim and Rachal. The first punch was thrown by Jeremy Baxley, a friend
of Rachal and Appellant, and the fight escalated into a brawl and traveled
throughout the house. Several people continued to attack Taylor throughout
the fight. At some point during the brawl, Appellant’s girlfriend,
Christina Seal, was inadvertently hit in the nose causing it to bleed.
Amanda Ciccarello, who was present at the party, testified that a male
approached Seal after she had been hit and asked her who had hit her. He
responded that he was “going to f- - - - - - kill him.” Ciccarello stated
that she went to the backyard where the victim was and that she saw this man hit
the victim in the back a couple of times. She also testified that she saw
blood coming from the victim’s shirt as he tried to crawl through a hole in
the fence to get away. She testified that the person whom she saw
attacking the victim had a tattoo on his forearm of a heart and a knife and that
this person appeared to be more heavily tattooed than other people at the party.
Taylor
testified that he did not realize he had been stabbed until he was in his
friend’s car. He was taken to a Lewisville hospital and then transferred
by Careflight to Parkland Hospital. Taylor received six to seven stab
wounds, three that were very serious. Appellant was arrested and charged
with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. He pled not guilty. A
jury found Appellant guilty and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
This appeal followed.
Jury Charge
Error
In
point one, Appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to charge the
jury that it could consider evidence of an extraneous offense admitted at the
guilt/innocence phase of the trial for limited purposes only. Although
Appellant references multiple offenses contained in the motion to revoke
probation, the only offense mentioned during the guilt/innocence portion of the
trial was during Detective Sparby’s testimony, and it concerned the
retaliation offense. The two other unadjudicated offenses of which
Appellant complains were introduced during the punishment phase of the trial
when the State introduced a pen packet containing documents pertaining to these
unadjudicated offenses.
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).
An
extraneous offense limiting instruction must be requested at the time the
evidence is introduced during the guilt/innocence phase. Hammock v.
State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 893-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Otherwise, the
evidence is admitted for all purposes. Id. at 895; see also Tex. R. Evid. 105(a). Appellant
contends that part of the Detective Sparby’s testimony constituted evidence of
the extraneous offense of retaliation, but Appellant did not object or request a
limiting instruction at the time the testimony was given. Consequently,
the evidence was admitted for all purposes, and Appellant was not later entitled
to a contemporaneous limiting instruction. See Hammock, 46 S.W.3d
at 895. We hold that Appellant has not preserved anything for our
review. Point one is overruled.
Appellant
argues in his second point that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the
jury during the punishment phase of the trial that it could not consider
extraneous offenses unless they were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant did not object to the jury charge nor did he request a limiting
instruction on the extraneous offense evidence.
Evidence
of extraneous offenses may not be considered in assessing punishment until the
factfinder is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that such offenses are
attributable to the defendant. Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479, 484
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (op. on reh’g). Once the factfinder is satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt that such offenses are attributable to the defendant,
the factfinder may use the extraneous offense evidence however it chooses in
assessing punishment. Id. The reasonable doubt standard set
out in article 37.07, section 3(a) of the code of criminal procedure is “law
applicable to the case,” and thus the jury must be instructed on the burden of
proof when the State introduces evidence of extraneous bad acts at the
punishment phase of the trial. Id. at 484. Failure to sue
sponte give a reasonable doubt instruction at punishment regarding
extraneous offense evidence may be error subject to the Almanza harm
analysis. Ellison v. State, 86 S.W.3d 226, 227-28 (Tex. Crim. App.
2002); Huizar, 12 S.W.3d at 484-85. Because Appellant did not
object at trial to the error in the court’s charge, we must decide whether the
error was so egregious and created such harm that Appellant did not have a fair
and impartial trial—in short, that “egregious harm” has occurred. Almanza
v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh’g); see
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
36.19 (Vernon 1981) (providing the manner for appellate review for jury charge
error); Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996)
(holding that if jury charge error occurs the court must determine if the error
causes sufficient harm to warrant reversal).
In
making this determination, “the actual degree of harm must be assayed in light
of the entire jury charge, the state of the evidence, including the contested
issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other
relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza,
686 S.W.2d at 171; see generally Hutch, 922 S.W.2d at 172-74. The
purpose of this review is to illuminate the actual, not just theoretical, harm
to the accused. Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 174. Egregious harm is a
difficult standard to prove and must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. Ellison, 86 S.W.3d at 227; Hutch, 922 S.W.2d at 171.
Two
other unadjudicated offenses were introduced during the punishment phase when
the State, without objection, introduced a pen packet that contained court
documents including final judgments and the two unadjudicated offenses of
aggravated assault and attempted theft. The State acknowledges that no
reasonable doubt instruction was given sua sponte by the trial court
regarding the challenged extraneous offenses. However, the State asserts
that Appellant was not egregiously harmed by the lack of the instruction.
We agree.
Here,
the failure to include a “reasonable doubt” standard in the jury charge was
not so egregious that Appellant failed to receive a fair and impartial
trial. The complained-of offenses were contained in a fifty-four page
exhibit offered by the State. The State introduced no additional evidence
regarding the allegations contained in the pen packets; furthermore, the State
did not orally mention any of the complained-of offenses during the State’s
closing argument. The only method whereby the jury would have been
informed of the extraneous offenses at issue is upon a careful reading of the
fifty-four page exhibit of pen packets. Given the short deliberation time
of the jury, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the focus during
the punishment phase was on those particular pages of the pen packet containing
the offenses.
Based
on our review of the entire record of Appellant’s trial, including the charge,
the state of the evidence, the contested issues, the range of punishment, the
weight of the probative evidence, the arguments of counsel, and all relevant
information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole, we are unable to
conclude that the trial court’s error in failing to instruct the jury in the
punishment phase charge concerning the extraneous offenses is so egregious and
created such harm that Appellant did not receive a fair and impartial
trial. See Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171. We overrule
Appellant’s second point.
In
point three, Appellant complains that the trial court erred by failing to
instruct the jury that a plea of true to an allegation in the motion to revoke
probation or the motion to adjudicate guilt does not constitute proof beyond a
reasonable doubt that he committed the offenses alleged. However, the
State calls our attention to the fact that there is no “plea of true”
contained in the language of the motions. Furthermore, Appellant
acknowledges in his brief that “it is not clear” whether Appellant pled true
to these allegations. Indeed, a careful review of the record by this court does
not indicate that Appellant actually pled true to these allegations. The
judgments merely state that the court found that Appellant had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation. Therefore, we need not further
address Appellant’s complaint. We overrule Appellant’s third point.
Admission of
Extraneous Offense Evidence
In
points four, five, and six, Appellant raises additional points related to the
three extraneous acts discussed previously. In point four, Appellant
claims that the trial court erred by failing to determine the threshold
admissibility of the unadjudicated offenses before admitting them into
evidence. In point five, Appellant argues that the evidence was not
sufficient to show that Appellant committed the extraneous offenses beyond a
reasonable doubt. In point six, Appellant argues that he was denied due
process because he was sentenced based on untrue or unreliable information
regarding the extraneous offenses.
An
appellate court reviews the trial court’s decision to admit extraneous offense
evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Mitchell v. State,
931 S.W.2d 950, 953 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). We point out that Appellant
couches his fifth point in terms of legal sufficiency, and a challenge to the
legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction cannot be forfeited
for failure to object at trial. See Moff v. State, 131 S.W.3d 485,
490 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). However, when an appellant complains on appeal
of the sufficiency of the evidence of an extraneous offense at punishment, his
complaint is not truly about sufficiency. Rather, his complaint goes to
the admission of the evidence. See Malpica v. State, 108 S.W.3d
374, 378-79 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, no pet.). That is, Appellant’s
complaint on appeal is a claim of evidentiary trial error—a complaint that can
be forfeited for the failure to object at trial. See Moff, 131
S.W.3d at 490. Because the verdict on a non-capital case is a general
verdict, an appellate court is unable to determine whether a jury actually
considered the extraneous conduct evidence or if it affected the jury’s
determination of punishment. Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884, 886
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). Therefore, we do not
review the sufficiency of the evidence of the extraneous offense to support the
jury’s assessment of punishment. We construe Appellant’s complaint as
a challenge to the admission of the extraneous offense evidence.
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,
983 S.W.2d at 265. 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, 138 S.W.3d at 341.
Here,
Appellant stipulated that he was the person identified in the pen packets
offered by the State and made no objection when the documents were offered into
evidence.2 Furthermore, he did not
object that the extraneous offense evidence contained in the pen packets was
unreliable or that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish assault or
theft. Because Appellant failed to object at trial, he has not preserved
his complaints for appellate review. We overrule Appellant’s fourth,
fifth, and sixth points.
Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel
In
his seventh point, Appellant claims he was denied effective assistance of
counsel. We apply a two-pronged test to ineffective assistance of counsel
claims. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct.
2052, 2064 (1984); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
1999). First, Appellant must show that his counsel's performance was
deficient; second, Appellant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced
the defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064; Hernandez
v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
In
evaluating the effectiveness of counsel under the first prong, we look to the
totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of each
case. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813. The issue is whether
counsel's assistance was reasonable under all the circumstances and prevailing
professional norms at the time of the alleged error. See Strickland,
466 U.S. at 688-89, 104 S. Ct. at 2065. “[C]ounsel is strongly presumed
to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the
exercise of reasonable professional judgment.” Id. at 690, 104 S.
Ct. at 2066. An allegation of ineffective assistance must be firmly
founded in the record, and the record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged
ineffectiveness. Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 813. A defendant bears
the burden to prove ineffectiveness of counsel and must overcome a presumption
that the challenged actions might be considered sound trial strategy—and that
burden is difficult when, as here, the defendant did not file a motion for new
trial asserting ineffectiveness of counsel. Brown v. State, 155
S.W.3d 625, 631 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. ref’d). Our scrutiny
of counsel's performance must be highly deferential, and every effort must be
made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight. Strickland,
466 U.S. at 689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065.
The
second prong of Strickland requires a showing that counsel's errors were
so serious that they deprived the defendant of a fair trial, i.e., a trial whose
result is reliable. Id. 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.
In
the present case, Appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel because his trial counsel 1) failed to request notice of extraneous
offenses to be used by the State during the guilt/innocence and punishment
portions of trial, 2) failed to object to hearsay testimony, 3) failed to
request limiting instructions during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, 4)
failed to request reasonable doubt instructions during the punishment phase, 5)
failed to object to the portions of the pen packets that contained the
extraneous unadjudicated offenses, 6) failed to request that the trial court
make a threshold determination of admissibility concerning the offenses, 7)
failed to object to the extraneous offenses during the punishment phase, and 8)
failed to request a record of the jury voir dire.
Here,
Appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails because the record
is devoid of evidence regarding trial counsel’s reasons or strategy concerning
the challenged actions. By not seeking those explanations, Appellant has
failed to overcome the presumption that the challenged actions were sound trial
strategy. See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 812. Because Appellant
failed to meet his burden under Strickland, we overrule his seventh
point.
Legal and
Factual Sufficiency
In
Appellant’s eighth point, he complains that the evidence was legally and
factually insufficient to support the verdict. Specifically, he asserts
that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the person who stabbed
the victim, Bret Taylor.
In
reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we view
all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict in order to
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979); Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d
618, 620 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). This standard gives full play to the
responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to
weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to
ultimate facts. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S. Ct. at 2789.
The trier of fact is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of the
evidence. See Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.04 (Vernon 1979); Margraves v. State, 34
S.W.3d 912, 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Thus, when performing a legal
sufficiency review, we may not re-evaluate the weight and credibility of the
evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder. Dewberry
v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), cert. denied, 529
U.S. 1131 (2000). We must resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence in
favor of the verdict. Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2000).
In
contrast, when reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, we are to view all the evidence in a neutral light, favoring neither
party. See Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 481 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004). The only question to be answered in a factual sufficiency review is
whether, considering the evidence in a neutral light, the fact finder was
rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
at 484. There are two ways evidence may be factually insufficient: 1) the
evidence supporting the verdict or judgment, considered by itself, is too weak
to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; or 2) when there is
evidence both supporting and contradicting the verdict or judgment, weighing all
of the evidence, the contrary evidence is so strong that guilt cannot be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 484-85. “This standard
acknowledges that evidence of guilt can ‘preponderate’ in favor of
conviction but still be insufficient to prove the elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. at 485. In other words, evidence
supporting a guilty finding can outweigh the contrary proof but still be
insufficient to prove the elements of an offense beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id.
In
performing a factual sufficiency review, we are to give deference to the fact
finder’s determinations, including determinations involving the credibility
and demeanor of witnesses. Id. at 481; Cain v. State, 958
S.W.2d 404, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We may not substitute our judgment
for that of the fact finder’s. Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 482.
A
proper factual sufficiency review requires an examination of all the
evidence. Id. at 484, 486-87. An opinion addressing factual
sufficiency must include a discussion of the most important and relevant
evidence that supports the appellant’s complaint on appeal. Sims v.
State, 99 S.W.3d 600, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
In
the instant case, several witness testified regarding the events that occurred
on the night of the stabbing. Dustin Rachal, Jeremy Baxley, and Melissa
Baxley all testified that Appellant said that he had stabbed someone.
Specifically, Rachal stated that after the fight, he and several others drove to
the home of Christina Seal’s mother. Afterwards, Appellant and Seal, his
girlfriend, arrived. Rachal testified that Appellant took a knife out of
his pocket that had red spots on it and said, “Dude, I just stabbed that
guy.” Baxley also testified that he heard Appellant say that he
“stabbed that fool.” Finally, Melissa Baxely stated that she also went
to Seal’s house after the fight and heard Appellant say, “I had to stab
somebody.”
Furthermore,
Appellant was identified as wearing a tan-colored sweater and white hat at the
party. There was also testimony that Appellant had various tattoos on his
body. Joshua Landry testified that the tattoos pictured in State’s
exhibits 13, 14, 15, and 16 were the type he saw on the man who stabbed the
victim, but Landry could not identify any specific tattoos. Richard
Goodman testified that during the fight the man who was wearing the tan-colored
sweater came into the backyard, yelling, “Who hit my girl in the
face?” The man joined the fight, and Goodman specifically identified
tattoos in State’s exhibits 13 and 16 as tattoos this man had. Goodman
stated that he never saw a knife, but that after the fight stopped, the man with
the tattoos said, “You keep messing with me, I’m going to slit your
throat.” Tara Rice testified that she saw Seal after Seal was injured at
the party. Rice stated that she saw Seal walking down a hallway saying,
“Stop him, stop him. He has a knife, he has a knife. He’s going
to kill him.”
The
jury, as fact finder, was entitled to judge the credibility of the witnesses and
could have chosen to believe all, some, or none of the testimony
presented. See Chambers v. State, 805 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); see also Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 481. Therefore, it was
entirely within the province of the jury to believe or disbelieve all, some, or
none of Rachal’s, Jeremy Baxley’s, Melissa Baxley’s, Landry’s,
Goodman’s and Rice’s testimony. See Chambers, 805 S.W.2d at
461. Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, we hold that a rational trier of fact could have found that Appellant
was the person who stabbed Bret Taylor. Jackson, 443 U.S. at
319. Furthermore, viewing all the evidence in a neutral light, favoring
neither party, we also conclude that the evidence supporting the verdict, taken
alone, is not too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
and that the contrary evidence is not so strong that guilt cannot be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Zuniga, 144 S.W.3d at 481.
Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is both legally and factually sufficient
to support Appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. We overrule Appellant’s eighth point.
Conclusion
Having
overruled Appellant’s eight points on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
PER
CURIAM
PANEL
A: HOLMAN, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and SAM J. DAY, J. (Retired, Sitting by Assignment)
DO
NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED:
July 7, 2005
NOTES
1.
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2.
We recognize that the reporter’s record states that “Defense will stipulate
and allow now [sic] objection on that, your Honor.” However, a complete
reading of the record indicates that Appellant did not object to the admission
of the pen packets contained in State’s exhibit 69.