David Sylvester Chambers v. State
06-15-00122-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Oct 19, 2015Background
- On March 9, 2013, police stopped a pickup towing a trailer after a citizen followed it and called 911 reporting a possibly stolen trailer; David Sylvester Chambers was the driver.
- The trailer bore Texas plate 013686H and was owned by Woodbolt Distributors; the owner testified Chambers had no permission to take or use the trailer.
- Chambers was indicted for theft (state jail felony, value $1,500–$20,000) with two prior felony convictions alleged to enhance punishment to second-degree range.
- At trial Chambers pleaded not guilty; a jury convicted him of theft. Punishment was tried to the court, the trial court found the prior convictions true, and assessed 15 years’ imprisonment.
- Defense raised three main appellate complaints: (1) the State was permitted to amend the indictment on the day trial commenced over objection, (2) the trial court denied Chambers’ motion to suppress stemming from an allegedly unsupported warrantless stop, and (3) the written judgment misstates the offense degree (labels it "State Jail Felony Enhanced to 2nd Degree").
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Chambers) | Held (trial court / posture reflected in brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late amendment of indictment to correct prior-conviction date | Amendment was permitted and harmless; evidence at punishment matched corrected date | Amendment made after trial began and over objection in violation of art. 28.10(b); prejudiced ability to contest enhancement; requires new punishment hearing | Trial court allowed the amendment over defense objection; appellant argues this was error requiring new punishment hearing |
| Denial of motion to suppress (warrantless stop) | Officer reasonably relied on dispatch/911 report and had sufficient corroboration to justify temporary stop | Officer lacked reasonable suspicion; officer did not hear 911 before stopping, had no plate info, and corroboration occurred only after stop — suppression should have been granted | Trial court denied suppression; appellant contends de novo review shows the stop was unconstitutional and the error was not harmless |
| Judgment language re: degree of offense | Enhancement changes punishment range but does not alter the underlying classification as a state jail felony | Judgment incorrectly labels the conviction as "State Jail Felony Enhanced to 2nd Degree"; must be reformed to show underlying offense is a state jail felony | Trial court entered the contested judgment language; appellant seeks appellate reformation to reflect underlying state jail felony |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (harmless-error analysis for amendments)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (whether indictment informed defendant and risk of later prosecution in amendment/variance analysis)
- Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (bifurcated standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- Brother v. State, 166 S.W.3d 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (police corroboration of citizen reports required for stops)
- Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (enhancement affects punishment range but not the classification of the underlying offense)
- Campbell v. State, 49 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (state jail felony classification and aggravated/unaggravated distinctions)
- State v. Webb, 12 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (same topic: state jail felony characterizations)