Casey Austin Jones v. State
06-15-00113-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Dec 21, 2015Background
- Appellant Casey Austin Jones pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault of a child (under 17) in Harrison County; the trial court assessed concurrent three-year TDCJ sentences.
- The indictment was purportedly amended by the court, but handwritten interlineations left duplicate/conflicting dates in two counts and made Count I and Count III materially identical.
- Appellant was placed on electronic monitored house arrest for about 2 years and 299 days pretrial; the trial court later removed the electronic-monitor requirement.
- Appellant moved to suppress a recorded custodial statement; detectives had told him, during interview, that his wife was "being honest" and giving a detailed statement—an assertion the defense says was false and induced his confession. The trial court denied suppression.
- Appellant argued (in his brief) that (1) proof did not match the indictment (date variance) and Double Jeopardy/Blockburger problems exist; (2) he should receive credit on his sentence for time on electronic house arrest under Art. 42.035; and (3) his confession was involuntary/obtained by impermissible deception and should have been suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held (trial-court disposition reflected in record) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / fatal variance in indictment dates | The State prosecuted on the amended indictment and relied on Appellant's judicial confession and victim testimony to prove elements. | Jones: amended indictment still contained conflicting dates and duplicate counts; proof did not match allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, so evidence is legally insufficient. | Court accepted guilty plea; no contemporaneous reversal — conviction entered on plea. |
| Double jeopardy (Blockburger) | The State proceeded on separate counts as charged. | Jones: Count I and Count III allege the identical offense (same date after amendment), exposing double punishment in violation of Blockburger. | No relief granted below; conviction remains. |
| Credit for time on electronic house arrest (Art. 42.035) | The State relied on Tagorda and argued standard credit rules; the State opposed treating monitored house arrest as equivalent to jail credit on a TDCJ sentence. | Jones: Art. 42.035 equates successful participation in electronic monitored house arrest to jail time; he served ~1,097 days under monitoring and is entitled to sentence credit or judgment reformation. | Trial court did not reform judgment on record; Appellant raised issue on appeal/new-trial motion denied. |
| Suppression of custodial statement (due process / fraud) | The State argued context matters; police deception short of coercion is permissible in some circumstances and no legal bar applied to the statements here. | Jones: officers knowingly or recklessly misrepresented that his wife was giving a truthful, detailed statement; that extrinsic deception induced his confession (Lynumn-style due-process claim and common-law fraud), so the statement should be suppressed. | Trial court denied the motion to suppress; confession used in proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (double‑jeopardy and sentencing principles)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (same‑offense test for double jeopardy)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (legal‑sufficiency standard)
- Puente v. State, 320 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (limits on amending judicial confessions vs. indictments)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (proof beyond a reasonable doubt requirement)
- Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1963) (due‑process limits on police deception inducing confessions)
- Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (U.S. 1969) (police deception doctrine in confession admissibility)
- Moran v. Burdine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (Miranda and waiver analysis)
- Pierce v. State, 32 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (article 38.23 statutory suppression principles)
- Holmes v. State, 323 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (harmless‑error analysis for constitutional trial error)