Brown, James A. v. State
PD-0729-15
| Tex. App. | Jun 18, 2015Background
- Defendant James Arthur Brown was convicted (bench trial) of retaliation under Tex. Penal Code §36.06 after comments made in a courthouse corridor immediately following a parental-termination verdict; sentenced to 15 years. The Third Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Alleged statements (per three prosecution witnesses): “I know where you work,” “I’m gonna get the electric chair,” and expressions that his life was over; victims perceived threats tied to their roles in the termination.
- Multiple law‑enforcement witnesses testified they heard Brown but did not perceive a threat and believed he was grieving; video evidence (courthouse security) was admitted but cropped and did not clearly show Brown speaking or looking at the women.
- Brown testified he was speaking to his mother about filing a lawsuit and denied threatening anyone; he admitted to figurative language about the electric chair.
- Procedural/post‑trial issues: Brown filed pro se motions including a motion for new trial claiming ineffective assistance. He alleges counsel was effectively absent during the critical 30/75‑day post‑sentencing period and that a timely motion‑for‑new‑trial hearing would likely have reduced sentence. He also sought abatement based on newly discovered evidence (a letter from the trial judge).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence to prove retaliation (§36.06) | Evidence (victim testimony + video) shows threats directed at public‑servant victims and intent to retaliate; any one pleaded alternative proved beyond a reasonable doubt. | Statements were grieving/figurative, not unlawful threats or retaliatory intent; deputies’ testimony and video undermine sufficiency. | Third Court of Appeals affirmed conviction (petition seeks PDR reviewing legal/factual sufficiency). |
| 2. Motion to quash indictment (pro se written motion status) | Oral motion at trial was addressed; procedural posture adequate. | A pro se written motion to quash was filed and not treated properly; appellate court erred in treating it only as oral. | Appellate court treated motion as oral and rejected relief; Brown raises error on PDR. |
| 3. Ineffective assistance re: motion for new trial/hearing within 75 days | Trial counsel was provided and no presumption of prejudice; no reversible deficiency shown. | Counsel failed to withdraw despite defendant’s pro se filings; no new‑trial hearing within 75 days; absence of counsel at that critical stage presumes prejudice. | Appellate court rejected ineffective‑assistance claim; Brown argues Cronic/Strickland support relief. |
| 4. Motion to abate / newly discovered evidence (judge’s letter) | Letter is not newly dispositive evidence that would produce different result. | Trial judge’s letter indicates sentence likely would have been reduced if new‑trial hearing occurred; merits abatement/remand. | Appellate court denied abatement; Brown seeks review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (legal‑sufficiency standard)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson standard as applied in Texas)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (§36.06 alternative‑elements/Chinese‑menu pleading rule)
- Vinson v. State, 252 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (role of objective/video evidence and appellate review of trial findings)
- Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (video evidence may override testimonial account when objective record contradicts trial findings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)