Andre Duane Boyd v. the State of Texas
10-22-00165-CR
Tex. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Andre Duane Boyd was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault against a public servant, and evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, and sentenced to fifty years on each count after pleading true to two felony enhancements.
- During trial, the State moved to strike the word "serious" from the indictment for aggravated assault against a public servant, changing the requirement from causing "serious bodily injury" to merely "bodily injury" with a deadly weapon.
- Boyd challenged this and other aspects of his conviction, including the sufficiency of the evidence, double jeopardy, denial of motions to quash and suppress, exclusion of his expert, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court overruled all of Boyd’s objections and denied his motions; the appellate court was presented with these issues on direct appeal.
- Security footage and officer testimony were central to factual disputes about the events leading to Boyd’s arrest.
- The appellate court affirmed all convictions and the trial court’s decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-trial alteration of indictment | Striking "serious" was an improper amendment after jeopardy attached | State argued it was abandonment of alternate means, not amendment | Change was abandonment, not amendment; no error |
| Sufficiency of evidence (bodily injury) | State needed to prove “serious bodily injury” | Only “bodily injury” needed after abandonment | Only “bodily injury” required; sufficiency met |
| Double jeopardy (multiple convictions) | Aggravated assault was lesser-included of aggravated robbery | Assault of a public servant requires additional proof, not subsumed | Not a lesser-included offense; no double jeopardy |
| Motion to quash indictment (double jeopardy) | Indictment permitted multiple punishments for same conduct | Jury verdicts in one trial are allowed; violation only at sentencing | Motion to quash was premature; no abuse of discretion |
| Motion to suppress (detention/arrest) | No reasonable suspicion or probable cause for detention/arrest | Observations supported reasonable suspicion and probable cause | Detention and arrest proper; findings mostly supported |
| Exclusion of expert witness | Expert opinion on taser effects relevant and admissible | Testimony lacked scientific reliability and established methodology | Exclusion within discretion; no reversible error |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial | Record silent on reasons; conduct not "outrageous" | Claim not supported; no ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastep v. State, 941 S.W.2d 130 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (Distinguishes between amendment and abandonment of indictment language)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (Sets standard for sufficiency of evidence review in criminal cases)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (Defines hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency analysis)
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Sets test for determining lesser-included offenses)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (Establishes test for ineffective assistance of counsel)