Andrew Scott Lott v. State
05-13-00219-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 16, 2015Background
- Andrew Scott Lott, a high-school teacher, was charged with improper relationship between an educator and a 17‑year‑old student; he entered a non‑negotiated guilty plea before a jury.
- The jury was instructed to find Lott guilty based on his plea/judicial confession, then the proceeding moved to punishment.
- Punishment evidence included Lott’s recorded admission, testimony that he continued the relationship, prior similar conduct with other students, and attempts to influence the complainant.
- The jury assessed 15 years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine; Lott appealed raising eight issues (plea/admonishments, bifurcation, misinformation at punishment, and ineffective assistance).
- The State conceded the trial-court judgment mischaracterized Lott’s plea; the court modified the judgment to show a guilty plea and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Lott’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial bifurcation / unitary proceeding | Trial court violated art. 37.07 by bifurcating guilt and punishment after a guilty‑before‑jury plea | No timely objection at trial; bifurcation error is not reversible error in this context | Overruled — no reversible error; issue forfeited by lack of objection |
| Admonishments & voluntariness of plea | Plea was not knowing/voluntary because court failed to give required constitutional/statutory admonishments and failed to explain consequences | Record shows Lott was college‑educated, advised of rights, signed judicial confession, voir dire covered punishment range; omission was harmless | Overruled — plea was voluntary/intelligent; any statutory admonishment error harmless |
| Misinformation in punishment phase (bond/no‑contact, registration, teaching employment) | Prosecutor misstated bond conditions and jury heard misleading info that made probation unlikely; other inaccuracies reinforced that | Misstatements were limited/controverted, jury charge and evidence supported punishment independently; many complaints forfeited by not objecting | Overruled — no reasonable likelihood misinformation affected punishment |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to correct bifurcation/admonishments/misinformation and failed to request parole/good‑conduct instruction | Tactical choices reasonable; record undeveloped to show deficient performance or prejudice | Overruled — no showing counsel performance was deficient or prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (constitutional sufficiency of a guilty plea requires record showing voluntariness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Weeks v. State, 521 S.W.2d 858 (preserving objection to trial format required for appellate review)
- Brinson v. State, 570 S.W.2d 937 (guilty plea to a jury should not submit guilt issues to jury)
- Davison v. State, 405 S.W.3d 682 (Boykin does not prescribe specific admonitions; voluntariness may be shown by surrounding circumstances)
- Ex parte Chavez, 371 S.W.3d 200 (materially false information at sentencing/punishment requires a reasonable likelihood of affecting the judgment to violate due process)