Artis Ladelle Williams v. State
06-15-00154-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Dec 1, 2015Background
- Appellant Artis Ladell Williams pled guilty to two drug possession counts: Count I (methamphetamine, third-degree) and Count II (cocaine, second-degree).
- At punishment, the jury heard the State’s evidence (including ten misdemeanor convictions) and defense mitigation testimony; the State sought 10 and 15 years respectively.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively; the court referred the jury back to the written charge.
- The punishment charge included the statutory parole-law instruction tracking Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.07(4)(c).
- Appellant raised two issues on appeal: (1) alleged error in submission of a single parole-law instruction for both counts; (2) challenge to assessment of court-appointed counsel fees against an indigent defendant.
- The State concedes the judgment should be modified to delete assessment of appointed counsel fees but defends the parole-law instruction as correct and not harmful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by submitting one parole-law instruction for both counts | Williams: single instruction/inadequate response to jury note deprived him of correct parole guidance | State: charge tracked statutory language; no objection was made; court properly referred jury to the complete statutory instruction | Court: No reversible error on parole instruction; appellant failed to show egregious harm (issue overruled) |
| Whether the court could assess court-appointed counsel fees against an indigent defendant | Williams: trial court erred in assessing fees against an indigent person | State: concedes error and agrees judgment should be modified to delete fees | Court: Judgment should be modified to delete assessment of court-appointed counsel fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (egregious-harm standard for unobjected-to jury-charge error)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on reh’g) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error and harm analysis)
- Rogers v. State, 38 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d) (distinguished; court there failed to give statutory parole instruction)
- Ramos v. State, 831 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992, pet. ref’d) (court must fully respond if jury raises parole-law questions when instruction was absent)
- Stewart v. State, 293 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (framework for assessing harm from jury-charge error)