Chandler, Michael Ray Jr.
PD-1447-14
| Tex. App. | Jan 23, 2015Background
- Defendant Michael Ray Chandler Jr. was indicted on three counts of indecency with a child by exposure; victim was his 15‑year‑old stepdaughter C.F.B.\
- After a jury trial Chandler was convicted on two counts; enhancement findings led to a life sentence on count 1 and 98 years 10 months on count 2, to run consecutively.\
- State introduced a computer internet‑history exhibit containing numerous sexual search terms (including incest/step‑daughter searches) and searches referencing demons; police forensic testimony linked the searches to a computer from Chandler’s home.\
- The State also introduced letters written by Chandler (which referenced “demons”) and a recorded police interview in which Chandler admitted the conduct.\
- Chandler appealed raising three issues: (1) insufficiency of evidence to prove venue (Comal County); (2) trial court erred admitting certain computer search terms (particularly demon‑sex searches); and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to that testimony.\
- The Third Court of Appeals affirmed: it held venue was sufficiently proven, the trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the internet searches, and Chandler failed to show ineffectiveness on the undeveloped record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Chandler) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue: was there sufficient evidence the offenses occurred in Comal County? | Venue is a constitutional component of a criminal prosecution; record did not affirmatively prove the crimes occurred in Comal County. | Venue is not an element of the offense; presumption that venue was proven applies and testimony placed home, school, and investigation in Comal County. | Affirmed: venue sufficiently established by testimony and presumption on appeal. |
| Admissibility of computer internet‑search terms (including "demons" searches) | The demon‑related searches were irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, offered only to inflame the jury. | Searches about teenagers/stepfather and demon searches were relevant to intent and linked Chandler to the computer (letters used similar "demons" language); probative value outweighed any prejudice. | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the searches under Rules 401–403. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to testimony about a specific search term | Trial counsel should have specifically objected to testimony reading the demon‑sex search; failure was prejudicial. | The appellate record is undeveloped for an ineffectiveness claim; objections were made generally and other counsel actions show reasonable representation. | Affirmed: claim not cognizable on direct appeal given undeveloped record and because admission was not erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings; Rule 403 analysis)
- Lopez v. State, 86 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (trial‑court abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Mechler v. State, 153 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (deference to trial court on Rule 403 determinations)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (factors for balancing probative value versus unfair prejudice)
- Couchman v. State, 3 S.W.3d 155 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999) (venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence)
- Blankenship v. State, 170 S.W.3d 676 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (failure to prove venue does not negate guilt)
- Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (direct‑appeal limits for ineffective‑assistance claims)