Dadrian Nakia Ayers v. State
05-15-01158-CR
Tex. App.May 17, 2016Background
- Dadrian Nakia Ayers pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated assault (family violence with a deadly weapon) and received four years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision in each case.
- About two years later the State filed an amended motion to adjudicate alleging violations: showing a firearm during assaults (new-offense allegation) and failure to pay community-service and urinalysis fees.
- After a revocation/adjudication hearing the trial court found Ayers violated community supervision and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment.
- At sentencing the State offered nine photographs of Ayers’ tattoos; Ayers objected on relevance and suggested the photos implicitly alleged gang membership.
- The witness who identified the tattoos (the mother of Ayers’ children) could only attribute two meanings (memorial and hometown) and denied knowledge of gang affiliation.
- The trial court’s written judgments recited violations of conditions (a), (j), and (n), but the court orally found only condition (a) (commission of a new offense); the parties agreed the judgments should be modified to reflect that.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of tattoo photographs at punishment | Ayers: photos were irrelevant and offered to insinuate gang affiliation without evidence | State: photos relevant to character/background and punishment; witness identified tattoos | Court: no abuse of discretion; tattoos are admissible at punishment as character/background evidence; any error non-reversible |
| Whether photographs improperly suggested gang membership | Ayers: photos used to insinuate Blood gang membership without competent evidence | State: preserved only limited objection; witness denied gang ties | Court: error not preserved as to later questioning about gangs, and witness offered no harmful testimony; no reversible error |
| Accuracy of judgments regarding which conditions were violated | Ayers: judgments incorrectly list violations of (a), (j), and (n); only (a) was found true | State: agrees judgments should be limited to condition (a) | Court: modify both judgments to reflect violation of condition (a) only; judgments affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Prible v. State, 175 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (trial court has discretion to admit/exclude photographs)
- Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (relevance at punishment is whether evidence aids sentencing decision)
- Jessop v. State, 368 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (punishment phase focuses on background and character)
- Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (tattoos can reflect character or motive; admissible at punishment)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate court may modify trial judgment when record supports modification)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate modification of judgments when supported by record)