Dennis Ray Hayes v. State
05-13-01495-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 4, 2015Background
- Dennis Ray Hayes was convicted by a jury of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 45 years after pleading true to two enhancement paragraphs.
- Victim cashier (Pracic) and assistant manager (Blackburn) saw a Black male in a gray hoodie point a gun and demand the safe; surveillance video showed a gray hoodie with black lining and shoes with reflective toes. Blackburn narrowed a photo lineup to two photos, one of which was Hayes.
- Latent fingerprints were lifted from the dish-soap bottle used in the transaction; a fingerprint examiner matched two prints to Dennis Hayes.
- Police observed Hayes wearing a gray hoodie with black lining and shoes with reflective toes when they first contacted him. The State introduced an Arkansas pen packet showing prior convictions for enhancement.
- Hayes appealed raising four issues: (1) identity evidence insufficient; (2) trial court’s statement about collateral consequences and counsel’s failure to correct it deprived him of due process and effective assistance; (3) enhancement allegations were unclear and pleas involuntary; (4) evidence insufficient to support enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hayes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identity evidence | Fingerprint match and clothing/surveillance/photo lineup support identification | Fingerprints could have been from another occasion; eyewitness ID uncertain | Affirmed — combined fingerprint match, clothing match, and lineup narrowing suffice for a rational juror to find identity beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Right to testify / ineffective assistance | Trial court properly advised rights; no record showing Hayes would have testified or that counsel erred | Trial court’s comment about collateral consequences chilled Hayes from testifying; counsel should have corrected it | Affirmed — record does not show trial court’s statement caused involuntary waiver or that counsel’s performance was deficient; no developed record to overcome presumption of effective assistance |
| Clarity of enhancement allegations / plea voluntariness | Enhancements were read, defendant initially pleaded not true then knowingly changed to true after consulting counsel | Allegations were unclear and plea involuntary because record doesn’t show which paragraphs were read | Affirmed — record shows defendant and counsel knew the allegations, defendant pleaded true on the record and did not object; complaint not preserved if ambiguous |
| Sufficiency of evidence for enhancements | Defendant’s plea of true and admitted pen packet satisfy proof of prior convictions | Evidence insufficient to link defendant to the priors | Affirmed — plea of true constitutes sufficient proof; pen packet admitted without objection supported the priors |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (single-sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (apply Jackson sufficiency review)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (defer to jury on witness credibility)
- Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (resolve conflicting inferences for prosecution)
- Jacobson v. State, 398 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (overruled DeGarmo’s rule on punishment-stage testimony and appellate challenges)
- DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (previous rule on waiver by testifying at punishment, discussed and overruled)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (applying Strickland in Texas)
- Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (need for developed record to assess counsel performance)
- Rylander v. State, 101 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (silent record generally won’t show deficient performance)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reversal only when counsel’s conduct is outrageously incompetent)
- Garcia v. State, 57 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (declining ineffective-assistance finding where record lacks explanation of counsel’s strategy)
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (elements needed to prove prior conviction for enhancement)
- Wilson v. State, 671 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (defendant’s plea of true satisfies State’s enhancement burden)
- Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (plea of true bars later challenge to sufficiency for enhancement)