Charles Roberts v. State
14-14-00874-CR
Tex. App.Jul 9, 2015Background
- Charles Roberts was convicted of murder after a jury trial and sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment; he appealed raising three trial-phase challenges.
- Relevant trial events: Roberts testified; the State impeached him with a 2009 misdemeanor conviction for assault of a family member and a marijuana possession conviction. A pre-testimony hearing occurred on admissibility of priors.
- During punishment, deputies placed Roberts in leg irons after the guilty verdict; the trial court noted the irons may have clanked as he approached the stand and assumed the jury "may have seen" them; defense did not object on the record.
- At punishment the State introduced Roberts’ prior convictions and jail disciplinary infractions (fighting, disruptive conduct, threatening); the judge’s punishment charge omitted a specific instruction that extraneous offenses must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Roberts’ appellate contentions: (1) the prior assault conviction should not have been admitted because it was not a crime of moral turpitude (he says it was against his father); (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to visible shackling at punishment; (3) the jury charge at punishment failed to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for extraneous bad acts, causing egregious harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior assault as crime of moral turpitude | Assault on his father is not a crime of moral turpitude; conviction inadmissible for impeachment under Tex. R. Evid. 609 | Roberts did not preserve that legal argument at trial (objected only on prejudice); alternatively, admission harmless given limited, brief use and strong case evidence | Waived for lack of preservation; even if error, harmless (no reversal) |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to shackling | Counsel deficient for not objecting to leg irons visible to jury at punishment; prejudiced outcome | Record is silent as to counsel’s reasons; strong presumption of reasonable strategy; no showing jury actually perceived irons or that result would differ | Claim fails: record insufficient to show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland |
| Shackling violates due process/Deck when visible to jury | Visible restraints undermine presumption of innocence and dignity; should have required reasons on record | Trial court explained policy; no record showing jury saw shackles; even if visible, no prejudice shown in sentence | No reversible error shown; no demonstrated prejudice to punishment outcome |
| Jury charge omission at punishment (no reasonable-doubt instruction for extraneous bad acts) | Omission deprived jury of required burden; egregious harm because jury may have considered unproven bad acts | Court erred in omitting the instruction but omission did not egregiously harm Roberts given charge as a whole, voir dire, state of evidence, counsel arguments, and mid-range sentence | Error existed but not egregiously harmful; conviction and sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible restraints require an individualized justification because they undermine presumption of innocence and fair trial)
- Bekendam v. State, 441 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (preservation requires timely, specific objection; appellate review enforces preservation rules)
- Bagheri v. State, 119 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary rulings—substantial and injurious effect test)
- Huizar v. State, 12 S.W.3d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court must instruct jury that extraneous-offense evidence at punishment must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)