PD-0765&0766-15
CAUSE NUMBER __________________
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
THOMAS LLOYD TAUNTON
PETITIONER
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
PETITON IN TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBERS CR-12-24098, CR-13-24755
FROM THE 336TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF FANNIN COUNTY,
TEXAS AND THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH COURT OF
APPEALS IN TEXARAKANA, TEXAS
CASE NUMBERS 06-14-00159-CR AND No. 06-14-00160-CR
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
STEVEN R. MIEARS
State Bar No. 14025600
211 North Main
June 25, 2015 Bonham, Texas 75418
Tel: 903-640-4963
Fax: 903-640-4964
Email: SteveMiears@msn.com
1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................3
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT....................................................4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .....................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY...............................................................4
GROUND FOR REVIEW............................................................................................... .4
The Court of Appeals erred in limiting its analysis of whether the federal
constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt to a focus on the weight
of the evidence of Petitioner’s guilt.
ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF...........................................................................................7
APPENDIX (Copies of Opinions from Court of Appeals)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.......... ..................................................................................7
2|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes, Codes, Constitutional Provisions, and Rules
Cases
Bell v. State, 415 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). p. 5
Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). p.5
Davis v. State, 203 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). p. 5
Harris v. State, 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). p.5
Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). p.5
Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). pp. 4- 5
Taunton v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6234 (Tex. App. Texarkana June 19, 2015).
p.5
Taunton v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6233 (Tex. App. Texarkana June 19, 2015).
p. 4.
3|Page
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument is waived.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This petition relates to two cases joined for trial and appeal. Petitioner was
convicted by a jury of capital murder and murder. He was sentenced to life without
parole for the capital murder, and life in prison for the murder. There are two opinions
from the Court of Appeals. Taunton v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6233 (Tex. App.
Texarkana June 19, 2015) [murder] and Taunton v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6234
(Tex. App. Texarkana June 19, 2015) [capital murder]. The opinion in the capital
murder case discusses the single issue raised on appeal in both cases. This Petition
relates to both cases as the issue is the same.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The opinions of the Court of Appeals were handed down on June 19, 2915.
No motions for rehearing were filed.
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
4|Page
The Court of Appeals erred in limiting its analysis of whether the federal
constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt to a focus on the
weight of the evidence of Petitioner’s guilt.
ARGUMENT
The Court of Appeals improperly limited its analysis of whether the
constitutional error was harmless. Review should be granted. In Snowden v. State, 353
S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) this Court advised how to assess whether federal
constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Snowden is never cited
by the Court of Appeals. Instead, the Court of Appeals cited the factors in Clay v. State,
240 S.W.3d 895, 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007), and it cited to Davis v. State, 203
S.W.3d 845 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). See Taunton v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS
6234, p. 17 (Tex. App. Texarkana June 19, 2015).
In Snowden, this Court emphasized that the factors earlier set forth in Harris v.
State, 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) were not to be the exclusive
considerations. And, the Court modified the Harris factors to include “the nature of the
error, whether it was emphasized by the State, the probable implications of the error,
and the weight the jury would likely have assigned to it in its deliberations.” See Bell v.
State, 415 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). And, as this Court said in
5|Page
Snowden, there are many other considerations which may logically inform a proper
harm analysis in a case. Any circumstance apparent in the record should be considered.
Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29, 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
The Court of Appeals erred by focusing its analysis on what it considered the
overwhelming evidence of guilt. This Court has rejected that approach. A
constitutional error may not be deemed harmless simply because the reviewing court is
confident that the result the jury reached was correct. This Court has emphasized that
Rule 81(b)(2) requires reviewing courts to focus, not upon the perceived accuracy of
the conviction, but upon the error itself in the trial. Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815,
818-819 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
Among the factors to be reviewed include “the probable implications of the
error.” Snowden, id. at 822. Included within these implications are trial choices that
only the Defendant can make. Here, after the trial court denied the motion to suppress,
the Petitioner absented himself from the trial, and only returned to testify. (RR Vol. 4
p. 8.) (RR Vol. 7 p. 5.) The Court of Appeals failed to consider how the constitutional
error may have affected his choices on these decisions that involve fundamental rights.
By focusing on the weight of the evidence supporting guilt the Court of Appeals
erred.
6|Page
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
This Court should grant review. After review, the Court should remand the
case back to the Court of Appeals for an analysis for harm.
APPENDIX
Copies of the two opinions of the Court of Appeals are attached.
RESPECTFULLY SUMITTED,
____________________
Steven R. Miears
211 North Main
Bonham, Texas 75418
Stevemiears@msn.com
Tel. 903-640-4963
Fax: 903-640-4964
State Bar Card No. 14025600
Attorney for Appellant
Certificate of Service
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Appellant’s Brief on Appeal was hand-delivered to Richard E. Glaser, Fannin
County Criminal District Attorney; 101 East Sam Rayburn Drive; Bonham, Texas
75418; on February 12, 2015; and to the State Prosecuting Attorney, LISA C.
7|Page
McMINN, P.O. Box 13046, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711, and that a copy
was mailed to the Appellant, Thomas Lloyd Taunton.
_________________________________
Steven R. Miears
8|Page