In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-07-00113-CR
______________________________
CLIFTON WAYNE PERRY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 278th Judicial District Court
Leon County, Texas
Trial Court No. CM-05-489
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clifton Wayne Perry appeals his conviction by a jury for murder under the immediate influence of sudden passion with a deadly weapon finding. The jury found the enhancements true and assessed a punishment of sixty years' imprisonment. The trial court sentenced Perry consistent with the jury's findings. On appeal, Perry argues the trial court erred in denying his requested instruction on necessity. Because the evidence clearly implicates the application of self-defense using deadly force, the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the jury concerning both self-defense using deadly force and necessity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
At the conclusion of the guilt/innocence phase of the trial, Perry requested a jury instruction on both self-defense and necessity. The necessity defense is contained in Section 9.22 of the Texas Penal Code, which states:
Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;
(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and
(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.22 (Vernon 2003). Under Section 9.32 of the Texas Penal Code, a person's conduct is justified, under deadly force in defense of a person:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 235, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2141, 2141-42 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.32 (Vernon Supp. 2008)). (1) The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense but refused to give an instruction on necessity. Perry argues that the evidence raised an issue concerning necessity, and the trial court erred by denying the requested instruction.
Generally, if the evidence raises the issue, the defendant is entitled to have this issue submitted to the jury. Riddle v. State, 888 S.W.2d 1, 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). "When evidence . . . raises a defensive issue, and the defendant properly requests a jury charge on that issue, the trial court must submit the issue to the jury." Muniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 254 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); see Gibson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 129, 132 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). "[A]n accused has the right to an instruction on any defensive issue raised by the evidence, whether that evidence is weak or strong, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may or may not think about the credibility of the defense." Hamel v. State, 916 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).
Perry argues that his testimony raised the issue of whether the murder was justified by necessity. Perry testified his cousin, Jerry Wayne Bailey, gave him a ride home from a family reunion. When they arrived at Perry's house, Bailey and Perry drank beer together outside the house, leaning on Bailey's truck. After a while, Perry lit a "premo," which he described as a mixture of tobacco, crack cocaine, and marihuana. Bailey objected to the "premo." Eventually, curse words were exchanged and fisticuffs ensued. According to Perry, Bailey then opened the driver's side door of the truck. Thinking that Bailey was attempting to retrieve a weapon, Perry reached into the bed of the truck and seized a metal pipe. Perry testified he saw Bailey coming toward him with "something in his hand." Perry admitted to striking Bailey twice with the pipe and observing Bailey fall to the ground covered in blood.
Subsection (3) of Section 9.22 precludes the defense of necessity when there exists a legislative purpose to exclude the necessity for the conduct alleged. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.22(3). This Court has concluded the defense of necessity is not applicable in murder cases in which self-defense is raised. Searcy v. State, 231 S.W.3d 539, 544 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2007, pet. ref'd); see Gonzales v. State, 2 S.W.3d 600, 606 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 1999, pet. ref'd). At the time Perry committed the offense in question, a defendant who used deadly force was required to establish that "a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated." Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 235, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2141, 2141-42 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 9.32). In Searcy, we held that including an instruction on the "'necessity defense together with self-defense would thwart the legislative purpose to impose a higher standard and circumvent the "retreat" requirement of Section 9.32 where the use of deadly force is sought to be justified.'" Searcy, 231 S.W.3d at 544 (quoting Banks v. State, 955 S.W.2d 116, 119 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1997, no pet.)); see Butler v. State, 663 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1983), aff'd, 736 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987); cf. Banks, 955 S.W.2d 116 (suggesting, when both necessity and self-defense justifications are raised, the inclusion of one of the justifications in the charge precludes the inclusion of the other); Fitch v. State, No. 14-06-00408-CR, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 7065 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 30, 2007, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding counsel not ineffective for failing to request charge on necessity because necessity not available).
Perry cites Bowen v. State, 162 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), in support of his argument on appeal. (2) In Bowen, a prosecution for resisting arrest, the defendant had kicked a police officer in response to pain allegedly inflicted by the officer and in an attempt to regain her balance. Id. Noting the justification based on self-defense is extremely limited when a person uses force to resist arrest, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held the trial court erred in denying the requested instruction on necessity. Id. at 229. In reaching the above conclusion, the court held Section 9.31, which concerns self-defense not involving deadly force, does not limit the necessity defense's application because the court was unable to "glean any clear legislative purpose indicating that the necessity defense is not available." Id.
Bowen is distinguishable from this case because it did not involve the use of deadly force. The use of deadly force in the defense of a person involves a different section of the Texas Penal Code and requires proof that a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated. Because the retreat requirement was not at issue in Bowen, we conclude Bowen is distinguishable.
Here, the trial court instructed the jury on self-defense using deadly force, which included a duty to retreat. Thus, the inclusion of the justification of necessity, on facts such as these which implicate the application of self-defense using deadly force, would undermine the Legislature's purpose in imposing the duty to retreat. The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the justification of necessity. We overrule Perry's sole point of error.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Jack Carter
Justice
Date Submitted: August 11, 2008
Date Decided: August 12, 2008
Do Not Publish
1. In 2007, the Texas Legislature amended Section 9.32 to remove the requirement that "a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated." See Act of May 16, 1995, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 235, § 1, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2141, 2141-42, amended by Act of March 20, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1, § 3, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 1, 1-2. The offense for which the jury convicted Perry occurred in 2005. Our analysis of Perry's appeal is therefore governed by the prior version of Section 9.32. See Act of March 20, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1, § 3, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 1, 1-2 (stating that an offense committed before the act's effective date is governed by the sections in effect when the offense was committed).
2. We note Perry also cites Fox v. State, No. 13-03-00230-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 7898 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi Dec. 6, 2006, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). In Fox, the victim accelerated his car toward the defendant's wife and the defendant shot the victim wounding the victim in the arm. Id. at *3-4. The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals, relying on Bowen, concluded the submission of a self-defense instruction did not foreclose the availability of a necessity instruction. Id. at *11 n.25. The Corpus Christi court did not discuss whether the duty to retreat would affect the applicability of Bowen. Further, as an unpublished opinion, Fox has limited precedential value.
family: 'Times New Roman', serif"> The sentencing order in this case stated:
It is further ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the sentence pronounced herein shall begin after serving sentence in cause #58965 styled The State of Texas Vs. Larry Edward Daugherty in the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas where the defendant received twenty-five (25) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on 11th day of February, 1993, and that the Defendant is granted credit for 149 days served.
The order provides the required information for prison authorities to implement the trial court's order. When Daugherty was placed on parole status for the Jefferson County conviction, he had not yet fully discharged the judgment and sentence. The sentence in this case will become effective when the sentence in cause number 58965 ceases to operate. That is sufficient. See Jimenez v. State, 634 S.W.2d 879, 882 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1982, pet. ref'd) (The court, relying on Hamm v. State, reasoned that, despite the outcome of the first case, whether the first case was reversed or affirmed, the second sentence would become effective the moment the initial sentence ceased to operate.). No additional information is required to execute the cumulative sentence. We overrule Daugherty's first point of error.
The Sentence Is Not Disproportionate to the Offense
In his second point of error, Daugherty contends his sentence is disproportionate to his offense. Daugherty was convicted of aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003). The punishment range for a first-degree felony is no less than five years, nor more than ninety-nine years or life. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.32 (Vernon 2003). If, however, it is shown on the trial of a first-degree felony that the accused has been previously and finally convicted of two felony offenses, "and the second previous felony conviction is for an offense that occurred subsequent to the first previous conviction having become final, on conviction [of the currently charged offense, the accused] shall be punished by imprisonment . . . for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 25 years." Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004–2005). In this case, Daugherty pled true to having been previously, finally, and sequentially convicted of at least two non-state-jail felonies, thereby enhancing the minimum sentence in this case to twenty-five years.
Texas courts have traditionally held that, as long as the punishment assessed is within the range prescribed by the Legislature in a valid statute, the punishment is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. See, e.g., Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). In Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842, 845 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1999, no pet.), however, we recognized that a prohibition against grossly disproportionate punishment survives under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution apart from any consideration of whether the punishment assessed is within the range established by the Legislature. See also Fluellen v. State, 71 S.W.3d 870, 873 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd); Latham v. State, 20 S.W.3d 63, 68–69 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. ref'd).
Our proportionality analysis under both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution is guided by (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292 (1983); Simmons v. State, 944 S.W.2d 11, 15 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1996, pet. ref'd) (evaluating appellant's Texas constitutional claim of cruel and unusual punishment under test outlined in Solem). Only if we find that the sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense will we then consider the remaining factors of the Solem test and compare the sentence received to sentences for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction and to sentences for the same crime in other jurisdictions. McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir. 1992); see also Davis v. State, 905 S.W.2d 655, 664–65 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. ref'd).
There is no evidence in the record comparing the sentences imposed on persons in Texas with sentences imposed against defendants in other jurisdictions who committed a similar offense. See Fluellen, 71 S.W.3d at 873; Latham, 20 S.W.3d at 69; Davis, 905 S.W.2d at 664–65. Therefore, there is no showing that the sentence was disproportionate or excessive.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: March 15, 2005
Date Decided: March 30, 2005
Do Not Publish