Andrew Whitaker v. State
12-15-00069-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 17, 2015Background
- Andrew P.J. Whitaker was tried and convicted by a Nacogdoches County jury of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle (state-jail felony) and Evading Arrest (Class A misdemeanor) for events in June 2014; sentences assessed: 2 years (state jail) and 13 years (TDCJ), respectively.
- Owner Jesus Barrios Quezada testified he did not give Whitaker permission to use his 2002 Dodge truck, which went missing June 3, 2014.
- On June 6, 2014 Deputy McDonald attempted a traffic stop of a tan Dodge; the vehicle fled, was identified by dispatch as stolen by tag check, became stuck, and Whitaker fled on foot but was captured.
- At trial Whitaker testified he borrowed the truck from a man named "Runny" for $10 and believed Runny owned the truck (raising a mistake-of-fact defense about consent).
- Defense did not request a jury instruction on mistake of fact nor object to its omission; Whitaker raised additional complaints about sufficiency of the evidence and venue proof.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Whitaker's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court duty to instruct sua sponte on mistake of fact | No duty; defendant must request such instructions; omission not error without objection | Omission of mistake-of-fact instruction deprived him of fair trial | No error — trial court has no sua sponte duty; Posey controls; no preserved charge error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Unauthorized Use of Vehicle | Evidence (owner denial of consent, stolen-vehicle radio hit, flight and capture) is sufficient for a rational juror to find knowing use without consent | Evidence insufficient to prove knowing lack of consent | Evidence sufficient under Jackson standard; jury could reject defendant's claim of permission |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request/ object to mistake instruction | Strategic choice to avoid lowering State's burden; requesting such instruction could have allowed conviction on unreasonable-belief theory | Counsel ineffective for not requesting/ objecting | Not ineffective — counsel's failure was objectively reasonable trial strategy (Strickland/Okonkwo) |
| Venue proof (crime in Texas/Nacogdoches County) | Venue proven circumstantially (owner lived in Nacogdoches County; officer on patrol there); preponderance met; no harm shown | State failed to prove venue; requires new trial | Venue adequately proved circumstantially; no demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (trial court has no sua sponte duty to instruct on unrequested defensive issues)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal-sufficiency standard: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Okonkwo v. State, 398 S.W.3d 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (declining ineffective-assistance claim where requesting mistake-of-fact instruction could have reduced State's burden)
- McQueen v. State, 781 S.W.2d 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (clarifying mens rea elements for Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (framework for harm analysis when a jury-charge error is preserved or unpreserved)