In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-05-00075-CV
______________________________
ROY LYNN LAWHORN AND ROY LEE LAWHORN, Appellants
V.
D. C. ABBOTT, Appellee
On Appeal from the 4th Judicial District Court
Rusk County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2004-128
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Ross
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roy Lynn Lawhorn and Roy Lee Lawhorn, appellants, have filed a motion seeking to dismiss their appeal due to the final settlement of their case in mediation. Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1, their motion is granted.
We dismiss the appeal.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: February 27, 2006
Date Decided: February 28, 2006
0;
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Allan Cunningham appeals from his conviction for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. A jury assessed his punishment at two years' confinement. On appeal, Cunningham argues that we should reverse his conviction because the trial court failed to charge the jury that Bobby Lemon, a codefendant, was an accomplice witness as a matter of law, and erred by denying Cunningham's motion for an instructed verdict because there was not enough nonaccomplice evidence tending to connect him with the crime. Cunningham also contends that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the verdict and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel did not request an accomplice-witness instruction and failed to object to the admission of evidence about juvenile adjudications.
The evidence shows the following sequence of events. During an evening in which Cunningham was riding around with Lemon and Christopher Ray, in Ray's sister's car, they backed into the driveway of John Lightfoot's house. As Lemon so colorfully put it, at the time they were all pretty well "lit." Lemon testified that he went inside the garage to steal something and ended up taking beer out of a cooler. When Lemon came back out with stolen beer in hand, Cunningham was arguing with one of Lightfoot's neighbors, Larry Buster, who had come over to see what was going on. A fight ensued, and both Cunningham and Lemon struck Buster before they drove away, leaving him unconscious in the driveway. Ray testified that he stayed in the car, that Lemon said it was a friend's house, and that he had no idea a crime would occur.
Buster testified that, when he saw the car backed into Lightfoot's driveway, he went over to see what was going on, and Cunningham was in the car. Buster testified that Cunningham yelled at him and got out of the car, that Buster then saw someone else come out of the garage with beer in his hand, and that both Cunningham and Lemon hit and kicked Buster until he blacked out.
Lightfoot testified that he was in the house at the time and did not hear the fight. Buster, bloody from the battle, knocked on Lightfoot's door and told him what had happened. Lightfoot checked and found that some beer was missing from an ice chest in his garage.
Lemon testified that, after this occurred and while they were driving around, he saw a pickup truck with tools in the back, that Lemon got out of the car and drove the truck away, and that Cunningham followed in the car. Lemon stopped near a business, unloaded items from the truck into the car, left the truck there, and drove away. When they stopped again a few minutes later, Ray got into an argument with Cunningham and Lemon about a number of things involving the theft and assault, after which they beat Ray severely and left him beside the road.
Officer Steven Hill testified that he worked on the case. Officers stopped the car and arrested its occupants. When officers inventoried the car, they found three cans of beer of the type taken from Lightfoot's cooler, and also found tools, a C.D. case, a rifle, a cell phone, a video camera, and other items that were identified as property stolen from the pickup truck.
We affirm the judgment because we hold (1) the failure to provide the jury an accomplice-witness instruction was not egregiously harmful, (2) the nonaccomplice evidence sufficiently connects Cunningham with the crime, (3) legally and factually sufficient evidence supports the conviction, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel has not been shown.
(1) The Failure to Provide the Jury an Accomplice-Witness Instruction Was Not Egregiously Harmful
Without question, Lemon was an accomplice in this case. He was indicted and convicted for the same offense and was in prison at the time of this trial. Cunningham did not request an accomplice-witness instruction. Accordingly, we review the charge under the Almanza standard. Under Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), the appropriate harm analysis depends on whether the defendant preserved error by bringing the improper omission to the trial court's attention. When the error is preserved, we must reverse if "some harm" is shown. But when, as in this case, the defendant has not preserved error, he must show egregious harm. Under either instance, we must review the entirety of the record in reaching our determination. Id. at 171. The difference in harm standards affects how strong the nonaccomplice evidence must be for the error in omitting an accomplice-witness instruction to be considered harmless. Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, in applying the egregious harm standard, the omission of an accomplice-witness instruction is generally harmless unless the corroborating, nonaccomplice evidence is "so unconvincing in fact as to render the State's overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive." Id.; Saunders v. State, 817 S.W.2d 688, 692 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In Saunders, the court found egregious harm because the corroborating nonaccomplice evidence was weak and was contradicted by other evidence. The alleged crime was arson, and the corroborating evidence involved financial circumstances that seemed somewhat suspicious at first glance but were given persuasive innocent explanations. As a result, the corroborating evidence, even if believed, did not have a very strong tendency to connect the defendant to the crime. Further, much of the evidence in the defendant's favor was uncontradicted, and the court observed that "[r]ational jurors may not utterly disregard undisputed evidence without a sensible basis for thinking it unreliable any more than they may simply assume a critical part of the proof without evidence having an inclination to confirm it." Saunders, 817 S.W.2d at 693.
In determining the strength of a particular item of nonaccomplice evidence, we examine (1) its reliability or believability and (2) the strength of its tendency to connect the defendant to the crime. Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632.
In the companion appeal, Cunningham v. State, cause number 06-05-00215-CR, we discuss at length the nonaccomplice testimony linking Cunningham to the burglary of a habitation. This requires a different review. In this case, we look at the nonaccomplice evidence linking Cunningham to the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle.
There is no direct evidence that Cunningham personally exercised control over the pickup truck. The jury convicted him, necessarily, as a party criminally responsible for the offense committed by Lemon. That type of responsibility exists if "with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense." Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2) (Vernon 2003).
In this case, there is nonaccomplice testimony that Cunningham was riding around in the car with Lemon, that Lemon took them to a house, that Lemon entered the garage and came out with cans of beer, and that Cunningham exited the car and attacked, without provocation, a neighbor who approached and asked what they were doing. There is evidence that Cunningham helped assault the neighbor, and that they then drove away, leaving the neighbor unconscious on the ground. The evidence shows that Lemon and Cunningham were arrested when the car was stopped by police, and that a number of items stolen from the pickup truck were found in that car. There was no evidence Cunningham ever entered or operated the pickup truck. Ray testified he, Cunningham, and Lemon all knew at the time that the truck was stolen. The evidence places Cunningham in the car with the stolen items, and shows that he was in the car both before and after the pickup truck was stolen.
Although an accomplice-witness instruction should have been sent to the jury, egregious harm did not result from its absence. The nonaccomplice evidence, as summarized above, is not "so unconvincing in fact as to render the State's overall case for conviction clearly and significantly less persuasive." Herron, 86 S.W.3d at 632. We overrule this contention of error.
(2) The Nonaccomplice Evidence Sufficiently Connects Cunningham with the Crime
Cunningham also contends his conviction must be reversed because the nonaccomplice evidence was insufficient to connect him to the crime. We disagree.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the corroboration is to eliminate the accomplice-witness testimony from consideration and then determine if there is any other incriminating evidence which "tends to connect" the defendant with the crime. Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Bulington, 179 S.W.3d at 229 (citing Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173, 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Reed v. State, 744 S.W.2d 112, 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)). The nonaccomplice evidence need not prove all the elements of the alleged offense. Bulington, 179 S.W.3d at 229.
We have already set out the nonaccomplice evidence above. We find that believable evidence tends to connect Cunningham with the crime. We overrule this contention of error.
(3) Legally and Factually Sufficient Evidence Supports the Conviction
Cunningham next contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the verdict. In our review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we employ the standards set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). This calls on the reviewing court to view the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In our review, we must evaluate all the evidence in the record, both direct and circumstantial, whether admissible or inadmissible. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
In a factual sufficiency review, the appellate court views all the evidence in a neutral light and determines whether the evidence supporting the verdict is too weak to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or if evidence contrary to the verdict is strong enough that the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard could not have been met. Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 664 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (citing Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477, 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)).
We have summarized the evidence above. There is evidence that the crime occurred. There is evidence that Cunningham was in the vehicle with the person who stole the pickup truck and that he followed Lemon to a location where Lemon took the items from the truck and transferred them to the car. According to the evidence, Cunningham knew it was going to occur and attacked a third person in the car, who complained about the unlawful activities. There is no evidence that distances Cunningham from the crime or that shows he was not an accomplice to its commission. The evidence shows more than Cunningham's mere presence. The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict. We overrule these contentions of error.
(4) Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Has Not Been Shown
Cunningham's final contention of error is that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). He alleges that his counsel was ineffective for not requesting an accomplice-witness instruction and for failing to object when his juvenile adjudications were admitted into evidence. These same arguments are addressed in our opinion in Cunningham v. State, cause number 06-05-00215-CR, and we here adopt the reasoning and authorities set out in that opinion.
Because the offenses are different, we look at different evidence in connection with the failure to request an accomplice-witness instruction. The result, however, is the same. In this appeal, as in the companion, even without the accomplice-witness testimony, there is substantial evidence that supports a conclusion that Cunningham was indeed criminally responsible for Lemon's unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. It is apparent, under the facts as previously discussed and our analysis of applicable law in our opinion in cause number 06-05-00215-CR, that counsel's failure to request the instruction was deficient. Based on the analysis previously conducted on the evidence, we are not convinced that the failure created a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different in the absence of the deficient conduct. Id. at 687.
The remaining asserted deficiency of counsel, not objecting to evidence of Cunningham's juvenile adjudications, is identical to and is addressed in our opinion in the companion appeal, cause number 06-05-00215-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise find from this record that Cunningham has not shown trial counsel's actions to have been below an objective standard of reasonableness.
We affirm the judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: August 16, 2006
Date Decided: September 19, 2006
Do Not Publish