Aestede James Treadway v. State
04-15-00265-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2015Background
- Defendant Arestede James Treadway was tried in a bench trial on two indictments for burglary of a habitation: one alleging burglary by committing/attempting aggravated assault (first‑degree) and the other alleging burglary by committing/attempting theft (second‑degree).
- Facts: Treadway stayed at victim Shaun Smagacz’s house after work; when Smagacz left to retrieve Treadway’s truck keys, Treadway reentered the house (alarm later sounded). Smagacz found Treadway in the laundry area going through cabinets; a physical altercation ensued and a 9mm handgun was involved; Smagacz was struck and feared for his life but was not shot; a rifle belonging to Smagacz was later missing.
- Treadway testified he went into the house to retrieve his personal items, denied intending to steal or to assault, admitted recent drug use, and claimed he did not shoot or have control of the gun.
- The trial court convicted Treadway on both burglary counts and assessed concurrent 25‑year sentences after he stipulated to enhancement allegations; Treadway appeals raising sufficiency and double‑jeopardy claims.
- Appellant argues (1) evidence was legally insufficient to prove he intended or knowingly entered to attempt/commit aggravated assault, (2) evidence was legally insufficient to prove he intended or knowingly entered to attempt/commit theft, and (3) double jeopardy was violated by convicting him twice for burglary based on the same entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Treadway) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Sufficiency — aggravated assault element of burglary | Evidence (victim testimony, gun, punches, broken entry) supports that Treadway committed/attempted aggravated assault during the entry | Treadway lacked intent to assault; altercation began when victim pushed/reached for gun; he did not shoot or attempt to shoot and did not have control of the gun | Appellant argues evidence legally insufficient; relief sought: acquittal (court of appeals to decide) |
| 2) Sufficiency — theft element of burglary | Evidence of forced entry and requests for money/pay support attempted/committed theft during the entry | Treadway only intended to retrieve his own clothes/personal effects and denied intent to deprive owner of property | Appellant argues evidence legally insufficient; relief sought: acquittal (court of appeals to decide) |
| 3) Double jeopardy — multiple burglary convictions from same entry | Each burglary charge rests on distinct underlying felonies (assault vs theft) so separate convictions are valid | Burglary’s unit of prosecution is the unlawful entry; both convictions arose from the same single entry, so multiple convictions/punishments violate double jeopardy; if violation, vacate lesser/retain more serious offense | Appellant argues double jeopardy apparent on record; asks vacation of theft‑based burglary and retention of assault‑based burglary |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of the evidence)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (remedy for legal insufficiency and appellate review role)
- Ex parte Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (burglary’s gravamen is unlawful entry; unit of prosecution analysis)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (application of Jackson standard and circumstantial evidence equivalence)
- Matamoros v. State, 901 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (appellate duty as final due‑process safeguard in sufficiency review)