Destany Jenee Liles v. State
07-15-00200-CR
| Tex. Crim. App. | Oct 21, 2015Background
- Destany Jenee Liles was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in two causes (20,498-C and 24,698-C). She previously received a six‑year deferred adjudication in 20,498-C (2009 offense).
- The State filed a motion to revoke deferred adjudication after an alleged new offense on 9/28/2013 (cause 24,698-C). Liles pleaded not true to the motion and not guilty to the new charge; the matters were tried to the court on 4/27/2015.
- Facts at trial: police responded to a domestic disturbance; Ronald Liles had injuries to his genital area and abrasions to his neck and reported that Destany had grabbed his testicles and removed a gun from his backpack; officers recovered a loaded .38 revolver; officer testimony included Destany’s admission she pointed the gun at Ronald to keep him from leaving; Destany testified she pointed the gun at herself and denied pointing it at Ronald.
- Trial court adjudicated the deferred community supervision allegation true (cause 20,498-C) and found Liles guilty of the 9/28/2013 aggravated‑assault offense (cause 24,698-C).
- Sentencing: the trial court sentenced Liles to four years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on each cause, to run concurrently; judgments and bills of costs were entered 4/27/2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Legal sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault | State relied on officer and Ronald’s testimony that Liles had the gun and pointed it at Ronald, and on injuries to Ronald | Liles argued the evidence was insufficient because she claimed she pointed the gun at herself and contested that she threatened Ronald | Trial court found guilt; appellate counsel (Anders brief) concluded no meritorious sufficiency claim — record supports that the factfinder could find elements satisfied |
| 2. Abuse of discretion in sentencing (4 years TDCJ) | State argued sentence within statutory range and supported by record | Liles argued sentence was excessive / an abuse of discretion | Trial court imposed within‑range sentence; appellate counsel concluded no abuse of discretion based on record evidence |
| 3. Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (State does not assert ineffective assistance) | Liles argued trial counsel was ineffective (raised on appeal) | Appellate counsel reviewed record under Strickland standard and concluded the record did not affirmatively demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice |
| 4. Revocation of deferred adjudication (true finding) | State argued violations supported revocation and adjudication | Liles argued revocation not supported by sufficient evidence | Trial court found the motion to adjudicate true; appellate counsel concluded no reversible error in the revocation adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when appellate counsel believes an appeal is frivolous)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (legal‑sufficiency standard: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (federal proportionality framework for Eighth Amendment challenges to sentence)
- Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard of review for probation revocation matters)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard in sentencing review)