Brandon Scott Coppock v. State
05-13-00907-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 20, 2015Background
- Coppock appeals after adjudication of guilt for criminal solicitation of a minor with intent to commit sexual assault and conviction for sexual assault of a child.
- In 05-13-00907-CR Coppock pled guilty to solicitation, received eight years deferred adjudication and a $2,000 fine.
- In 05-13-00908-CR Coppock was charged with sexual assault of a child (C.P.16) and found guilty; he received 20 years plus $10,000 fine.
- C.P. testified to extensive online and in-person interactions, sexual activity, and that Coppock claimed to be a sex offender.
- A trial-culpability jury heard DNA testimony linking Coppock to the victim; a vehicle stop revealed Coppock’s sex offender status.
- The trial court adjudicated the solicitation offense and ordered sentences to run consecutively; the appellate court modifies judgments to correct statutes and apply sex-offender-registration rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting Coppock’s sex-offender status was proper. | C.P. testimony and NCIC data show identity; probative under 404(b). | Evidence highly prejudicial and not relevant to the charged offenses. | Admissible under Rule 404(b), not reversible error. |
| Whether judgments should be reformed to reflect correct statutes and admissions. | Judgments misstate plea and offenses and misstate sex-offender-registration applicability. | Corrections needed to reflect not true, correct statutes 15.031 and 22.011, and registration applicability. | Judgments reformed; as reformed, affirmed with new judgments. |
| Whether sex-offender-registration applicability was properly reflected. | Registration applies to the offenses as reported convictions. | Registration status should be clarified in judgments. | Sex-offender-registration requirements apply to Coppock; reflected in modified judgments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. State, 327 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; Rule 403 balance guidance)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (404(b) admissibility and balancing test framework)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (inflammatory nature of sexual offenses; Rule 403 considerations)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (refined Rule 403 analysis guidance for probative vs. prejudicial evidence)
- Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (jury instruction and limiting instructions relevance to extraneous offenses)
- Lee v. State, 186 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (victim testimony alone sufficient to sustain conviction in sexual assault)