Cedric Travaughn Hopes v. State
14-14-00403-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 5, 2015Background
- Appellant Cedric Travaughn Hopes appeals his 35-year sentence for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.
- He challenges the trial court’s admission of expert testimony about his gang tattoos.
- He contends due process was violated because punishment evidence included his purported gang affiliation.
- He argues the trial court relied on an extraneous-offense during punishment that was not sufficiently supported by the record.
- The offense occurred February 19, 2011: two masked individuals robbed an Auto Zone; appellant was in a black Impala with others and a child, with guns, masks, gloves, and money recovered.
- The court sentenced Hopes to 35 years; he timely appeals the punishment phase rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gang-tattoo expert testimony | Hopes argues Sergeant Ponder was not qualified | State contends Ponder was qualified under Rodgers | No abuse; Ponder qualified under Rodgers factors |
| Beasley-relevant gang evidence at punishment | Tattoo evidence insufficient to prove gang membership | Tattoo evidence relevant to membership and character | Tattoo evidence properly relevant to character under Beasley |
| Extraneous-offense considered at punishment; preservation | Trial court relied on extraneous offense not adequately proven | Appellant failed to preserve challenge; evidence linked circumstantially | Issue not preserved; conviction and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodgers v. State, 205 S.W.3d 525 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (tests for expert qualification: qualification, reliability, relevance)
- Beasley v. State, 902 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (gang membership evidence may be admissible at punishment to show character)
- Smith v. State, 227 S.W.3d 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (extraneous-offense evidence and PSI considerations; due process concerns if no link)
- Thompson v. State, 4 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (sufficiency challenges to extraneous-offense evidence treated as threshold admissibility issues)
- Palomo v. State, 352 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admitting extraneous-offense evidence at punishment)
- Malpica v. State, 108 S.W.3d 374 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003) (punishment-stage extraneous-offense review framework)