Billy Joe Selman v. State
06-15-00121-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 14, 2015Background
- Defendant Billy Joe Selman was convicted in Hill County Court at Law of evading arrest (Class A misdemeanor) and sentenced to eight months in county jail; he timely appealed.
- Facts: Officers went to Selman’s residence to issue a criminal-trespass notice; Selman ran inside, the officers obtained a key from his mother, entered his bedroom without a warrant, and arrested him for evading arrest.
- Selman argued the officers’ entry/search violated the Fourth Amendment (curtilage/home protection), so he had no duty to flee or comply; thus the evading-arrest charge was invalid.
- Selman also contended the trial court erred by denying his request to represent himself (Faretta claim) and by denying a hearing on his timely Motion for New Trial.
- Additional claim: the State failed to disclose dash-cam evidence (alleged Article 39.14 discovery violation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Selman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of self-representation | Court properly questioned competency and appointed counsel; denial within discretion to ensure fair trial | Selman timely and unequivocally asserted Faretta right and was coerced into accepting counsel; denial violated Sixth Amendment | (On appeal record) Appellant argues court abused discretion; record shows extensive colloquy but court denied pro se request |
| 2. Fourth Amendment: warrantless entry into home/curtilage | Officers had community-caretaking or other justification to approach and act; actions reasonable for issuing trespass warning and to effect arrest | Officers intruded on protected curtilage/house without warrant or exigency; observation/entry unconstitutional so evading charge fails (must be flight from lawful detention) | Appellant argues Jardines/Oliver principles support suppression; record presented to support Fourth Amendment violation |
| 3. Protective sweep / officer safety justification | State may argue safety or exigent circumstances supported entry or at least protective sweep | Selman: no articulable danger or exigency shown; protective-sweep exception does not apply to this residential intrusion | Appellant contends protective-sweep not supported by facts (citing Reasor, Cooksey, Davis) |
| 4. Discovery (Article 39.14): dash-cam evidence | State apparently did not produce dash-cam; may claim none was turned in or not material | Selman: officer admitted dash-cam existed and was not turned in; failure to disclose prejudiced defense and violated Article 39.14 | Appellant asks for reversal/dismissal based on nondisclosure; record contains officer testimony raising discovery issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation requires knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013) (physical intrusion onto curtilage to gather evidence is a Fourth Amendment search)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (curtilage is treated as part of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes; factors for defining curtilage)
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973) (community-caretaking function can justify certain warrantless intrusions under narrow circumstances)
- Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505 (1961) (governmental physical intrusion causing a search under Fourth Amendment principles)