Allen Thomas Sample v. the State of Texas, 05-19-01254-CR

Background

On May 20, 2016 Tommey Joe Tubb was found dead on a shared property; autopsy showed a single .22 gunshot wound to the head. Allen Thomas Sample (Appellant) was tried for murder and sentenced to 40 years.
Key witnesses: Ronnie Sample (Appellant’s brother) found the body, gave multiple statements, and had gunshot residue (GSR) on his hands; his accounts varied across interviews. No DNA or physical evidence tied Appellant to the shooting.
The State’s theory relied on motive (Appellant believed Tubb was stealing from him), opportunity (Appellant was on the premises), statements by Appellant to family and others implying involvement, and use of a .22 (deadly weapon). The defense emphasized investigative mistakes, Ronnie as an alternative suspect, and lack of forensic linkage.
Appellant had documented mental-health concerns; the trial court ordered competency and insanity evaluations and at one point found Appellant incompetent, later returning him as competent for trial; mental-health records were introduced but full expert reports are not in the appellate record.
Evidence admitted at trial included Appellant’s recorded custodial interview (in which he repeatedly denied involvement), jail phone calls, Ronnie’s two recorded interviews (both admitted and provided to the jury), and testimony about investigative errors. Defense counsel objected to certain impeachment questions but the videotaped interviews of Ronnie were admitted.

Issues

Issue	Sample's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress custodial statement	Sample: waiver was not knowing/voluntary given his mental stateComments during waiver (e.g., confused about identity) undermined voluntariness; counsel should have sought suppression	State: counsel had plausible tactical reasons to admit the tape (it contained persistent denials helpful to defense); court had found competency; counsel objected where appropriate	Court rejected ineffective-assistance claim — record shows competency proceedings, plausible strategic reasons for admitting the interview, no reasonable probability suppression would change outcome
2. Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of murder	Sample: proof was circumstantial and weak; Ronnie was a more likely suspect (GSR, sole person at scene), police made investigative errors	State: cumulative circumstantial evidence (statements by Sample suggesting responsibility, motive, opportunity, flight) sufficed under Jackson/Brooks	Court held evidence was legally sufficient; a rational jury could find Sample guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
3. Trial court erred by excluding prior-inconsistent impeachment of Ronnie	Sample: exclusion prevented full impeachment of the State’s key witness and hampered defense	State: many purported inconsistencies were not truly inconsistent, were already admitted, or would not expose fabrication; both Ronnie interviews were admitted into evidence	Court held no abuse of discretion — disputed statements were not sufficiently inconsistent or had been admitted; both Ronnie interviews were in evidence for the jury to evaluate

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (governs ineffective-assistance standard)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applies Jackson standard in Texas review)
Oursbourn v. State, 259 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (voluntariness of confessions; mental condition relevance)
Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated review of suppression rulings; deference to trial factfindings)
Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (counsel afforded opportunity to explain tactics; burden on appellant to show no plausible reason)
Cavazos v. State, 382 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (deadly-weapon inference from firearm use)