Antonio Markeith Jones v. the State of Texas
05-21-00021-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 23, 2022Background
- Appellant Antonio Markeith Jones entered open guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; the court conducted a partially remote punishment hearing on Dec. 17, 2020.
- The State’s counsel and witnesses testified remotely (via Zoom); Jones made no contemporaneous objection to remote testimony.
- Detective Zachary Petty testified about the charged robbery: he observed the passenger (later identified as Jones) with a gun, officers recovered a handgun in nearby bushes, and the driver was never found.
- Victim Ajay Pokhrel testified he was robbed at gunpoint of cash, passport, phone, and his car; the offense affected his safety and studies.
- Officer Pedro Trujillano testified about a 2015 aggravated robbery of a Domino’s delivery driver; defense counsel objected to hearsay when Trujillano recited the victim’s statements, the court overruled in part, and an Order of Adjudication for that offense was admitted.
- After argument and consideration of exhibits (including a letter by Jones admitting prior offenses), the court assessed concurrent sentences: 2 years for unauthorized use and 22 years for aggravated robbery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony (Officer Trujillano repeating victim’s account) | Jones: admission of the victim’s out-of-court statements was hearsay and reversible error | State: any hearsay was harmless because the same facts were elsewhere in the record and exhibits (including prior adjudication) established the same points | Court: assumed hearsay but found any error harmless under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b); overruled issue |
| Whether Jones’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right was violated by witnesses testifying via Zoom | Jones: remote testimony denied face-to-face confrontation, relying on Haggard v. State | State: Jones failed to preserve the claim by not objecting at trial; emergency COVID-19 orders permitted remote proceedings | Court: claim not preserved for appeal (no timely objection); overruled issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State, 29 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (police may testify to how investigation began; limits on hearsay)
- Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (officer statements about generalized information received are generally not hearsay; details are)
- Robinson v. State, 466 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (abrogation on other grounds noted)
- Potier v. State, 68 S.W.3d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (harmless-error analysis in criminal cases)
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard for determining whether error affected substantial rights)
- Macedo v. State, 629 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (factors for assessing harm from evidentiary error)
- Clay v. State, 240 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (erroneously admitted evidence may be harmless when cumulative of unobjected evidence)
- Haggard v. State, 612 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (Confrontation Clause requires case-specific necessity finding for two-way video testimony)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (Confrontation Clause framework permitting remote testimony only upon necessity findings)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) (right to physical, face-to-face confrontation)
- Marx v. State, 987 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant’s objection to closed-circuit testimony preserved Confrontation Clause claim)
- Gonzales v. State, 818 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (review of trial court allowing remote testimony over objection)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Confrontation Clause claims are subject to preservation requirement)
- Deener v. State, 214 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (right of confrontation is forfeitable if not timely preserved)