Alexander Harrison King v. State
10-15-00398-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 26, 2017Background
- Alexander King was convicted by a jury of driving while intoxicated (DWI); sentence suspended and placed on 24 months community supervision; motion for new trial denied.
- Trooper Hubbard encountered an intoxicated, incoherent King after a rural single-vehicle crash; King had BAC 0.224 and could not recall the accident or vehicle location.
- A passenger, Marianne Holland, initially told officers she was the passenger and that King had left; the crashed truck was registered to King’s mother and King had keys on his person.
- At trial Holland recanted her field statements and testified she had been driving, gave an affidavit to that effect, and said King agreed to take the blame because her license was suspended.
- The State presented additional circumstantial evidence (flight from scene, vehicle registered to King’s family, keys on King, injury consistent with steering-wheel impact, King never denied driving) that the jury credited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove King was operating vehicle | King: evidence only showed Holland’s inconsistent statement; insufficient to prove he drove | State: cumulative circumstantial evidence plus Holland’s initial statements supported driver inference | Affirmed — evidence sufficient for rational juror to find King was driver |
| Denial of motion for new trial — ineffective assistance of counsel | King: counsel unreasonably failed to call McGrews (parents) and other witnesses; prejudiced outcome | State: counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; testimony would be cumulative or unreliable; record fails to show prejudice | Affirmed — no proof by preponderance of deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland |
| Denial of motion for new trial — actual innocence / newly discovered evidence | King: McGrews’ testimony that Holland admitted driving is newly produced evidence proving innocence | State: evidence was known to King pretrial (not "newly discovered"); Schlup gateway not met | Affirmed — evidence not "newly discovered" and Schlup claim fails absent constitutional error |
| Failure to object to video hearsay (raised on appeal) | King: trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to Holland’s statements on video | State: issue not raised at motion hearing; record silent on counsel’s reasons | Not considered on motion for new trial; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes constitutional standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to support conviction)
- Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App.) (discussing standard of review and admission of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (sets two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (applies Strickland framework to ineffective-assistance claims)
- Ex parte Brown, 205 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standards for "actual innocence" / Herrera claims)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (describes gateway standard for innocence claims tied to constitutional error)
- Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for convincing juror-error showing in Schlup context)
- Colyer v. State, 428 S.W.3d 117 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse-of-discretion review of motion-for-new-trial denial)
- Nunez v. State, 215 S.W.3d 537 (Tex. App.—Waco) (flight from scene is circumstantial evidence of guilt)