Conard A. Hargest v. State
14-15-00687-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 25, 2016Background
- Appellant Conrad A. Hargest was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault after a 91‑year‑old resident was sexually assaulted and robbed; DNA did not exclude him and surveillance and victim testimony supported conviction.
- At guilt phase Hargest admitted entering the apartment but denied the assault, claiming mental‑illness/medication issues caused confusion.
- During punishment the State presented extensive aggravating evidence (prior juvenile adjudications, adult convictions, bond violations, a subsequent burglary four days later, removal of ankle monitor, positive THC, possession of BB gun) and the jury heard mitigating evidence about his age and mental illness.
- The punishment jury charge erroneously instructed parole eligibility as: eligible when actual time served plus good conduct time equals one‑fourth of sentence or 15 years, whichever less; it also admonished jurors not to consider how parole/good conduct time would apply to this defendant.
- No party objected to the charge at trial; the jury sentenced Hargest to life imprisonment.
- The State conceded the instruction was legally incorrect for this offense (parole eligibility should be one‑half of sentence or 30 years, without considering good conduct time), but the court reviewed whether the error caused egregious harm requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether erroneous parole/good‑conduct jury instruction constituted reversible error when not objected to | Hargest: the incorrect instruction (saying parole eligibility counts good conduct time and uses 1/4 or 15 years) egregiously harmed him at punishment | State: error conceded but argued record (strong aggravation, admonition in charge, counsel arguments) shows no egregious harm; no timely objection | Court: Error existed but, under Almanza standard for unobjected charge error, defendant was not egregiously harmed; conviction and life sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (two‑step charge‑error review framework)
- Marshall v. State, 479 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (harm standard depends on whether charge was objected to)
- Igo v. State, 210 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (erroneous parole‑eligibility instruction alone may not show egregious harm)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (en banc) (standard for harm when no timely objection)
- Arrington v. State, 451 S.W.3d 834 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (factors for reviewing egregious harm)
- Hutch v. State, 922 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (presumption that jurors follow instructions)
- Gelinas v. State, 398 S.W.3d 703 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (overruling on other grounds cited re: jury instruction presumptions)
- Hogan v. State, 440 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (discussing how counsel’s mention of parole impacts egregious‑harm analysis)
- Hill v. State, 30 S.W.3d 505 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000) (contrasting authority that found error egregious based on charge language alone)