Christopher Lee Mell v. State
07-14-00207-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 3, 2015Background
- In Sept. 2012 Amarillo police knocked on a residence after a drug tip; appellant answered and gave a false name/date of birth, saying he was David Mell; officers recorded the encounter.
- In-car database checks showed mismatching dates of birth and photos for David and Christopher Mell and revealed outstanding warrants for both.
- Officers later stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation; an officer recognized a back-seat passenger as the person who answered the door and arrested him on outstanding warrants believing him to be David Mell.
- A search incident to that arrest produced a bag of 33 methadone pills; the arrestee then said he was Christopher Mell and was charged with possession (4–200 g), a second-degree felony.
- At trial the State introduced the earlier knock-and-talk encounter (including the recording) as background/context; the jury convicted and assessed enhanced punishment to a first-degree range based on a prior felony allegation; appellant pleaded true to the enhancement and received a 40–year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officers’ earlier knock-and-talk and recorded door conversation | Evidence was inadmissible character/extraneous-act evidence and should be excluded | Evidence was permissible background contextual evidence necessary to explain arrest and officers’ actions | Admission was within trial court’s discretion; evidence admissible as background contextual evidence (issue overruled) |
| Whether State waived enhancement by amending indictment without enhancement paragraph | Amendment that omitted enhancement paragraph amounted to waiver of State’s right to seek punishment enhancement | Original indictment contained enhancement; State’s motion merely corrected offense date and did not intentionally abandon enhancement; defendant had notice and was not prejudiced | No waiver; enhancement not forfeited; appellant had notice and was not harmed (issue overruled) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses v. State, 105 S.W.3d 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (standards for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard explanation)
- De La Paz v. State, 279 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Rule 404(b) is one of inclusion; exceptions not exhaustive)
- Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (contextual evidence may be admitted to show events before/after charged offense)
- Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (contextual evidence doctrine)
- Mayes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (distinction between same-transaction and background contextual evidence)
- Wappler v. State, 138 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (waiver requires intentional relinquishment of a known right)
- Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (notice of prior convictions must be pled in some form)
- Pelache v. State, 324 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (notice timing and whether defendant was impaired or sought continuance factor into harm analysis)