Coleman, Tavaris Don, PD-1561-15

Background

Coleman was charged with aggravated robbery and evading arrest after a red vehicle carrying three men matched a victim's description following an apparent parking‑lot armed robbery. The victim could not identify the robbers' faces but described the getaway car and its partial plate.
Police pursued a red vehicle matching that description; officers observed items thrown from the vehicle, recovered a firearm later matched to the robbery, and found the victim’s property in or near the car and along the pursuit route.
The red vehicle wrecked; three men fled. Officers apprehended Coleman (wearing t‑shirt and basketball shorts) and two others; several cell phones and some of the victim’s belongings were recovered from the vehicle and Coleman.
The State tried Coleman for aggravated robbery under the law‑of‑parties theory; the jury convicted and the trial court sentenced Coleman to 45 years’ imprisonment.
The trial court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the evading‑arrest charge after jeopardy had attached and instructed the jury that that charge was no longer part of the case; evidence of flight/evading was nonetheless presented to the jury before dismissal.
Coleman appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) improper dismissal of the evading‑arrest charge (and related harm), (3) ineffective assistance of counsel (including alleged conflict of interest), and (4) exclusion of family members during voir dire/timeliness of new‑trial allegations.

Issues

Issue	Coleman’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery	Evidence did not show Coleman was present or participated in robbery; victim couldn’t ID him	Circumstantial evidence (matching car, clothing, recovered items, flight, firearm) supports party liability	Overruled — evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to verdict (Jackson standard)
Dismissal of evading‑arrest charge	Dismissal after presentation of evading evidence left false impression; should have granted Coleman’s directed‑verdict motion	State may dismiss with court permission; jury instructed to disregard dismissed charge; flight evidence still admissible	Overruled — dismissal was permissible; jury instruction presumed followed; flight admissible evidence of guilt
Ineffective assistance / conflict of interest	Defense counsel’s prior role as a Harris County chief prosecutor created an actual conflict that affected trial choices and warranted a hearing	No actual conflict shown; record lacks specific instances where counsel chose State’s interest over Coleman’s; performance not shown deficient or prejudicial	Overruled — no record evidence of an actual conflict or prejudice; Strickland standard not met
Exclusion of family during voir dire & procedural timeliness	Coleman asserted family was excluded; sought evidentiary hearing on this issue	Amended motion for new trial raising exclusion was untimely and filed without leave; untimely amended motion is a nullity	Overruled — complaint raised in untimely amended motion cannot form basis for appeal

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes legal sufficiency review standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective‑assistance two‑part test)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (due process requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute offense)
Foster v. State, 779 S.W.2d 845 (flight admissible as circumstance supporting inference of guilt)
Ransom v. State, 920 S.W.2d 288 (events before/during/after offense may prove party status)
Ex parte Huskins, 176 S.W.3d 818 (firearm is a deadly weapon per se)
Ex parte Goodman, 152 S.W.3d 67 (dismissal after jeopardy attaches bars reprosecution)