Emajin Trevon Jackson v. State
05-15-00415-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 22, 2016Background
- Late at night appellant Emajin Trevon Jackson approached Sheila Etonga in her apartment parking lot, displayed a pocket knife, demanded her wallet, keys, and phone, then drove away in her car.
- Police broadcasted Etonga’s car description and plate; officers located the vehicle minutes later, attempted to stop it, and Jackson fled in the car; he later crashed, ran, and was arrested with Etonga’s phone and a 3.5-inch pocket knife in his possession.
- Jackson was tried by jury, found guilty of aggravated robbery (with deadly-weapon finding) and evading arrest/detention while using a motor vehicle (jury also found deadly-weapon), and sentenced to 10 years and 2 years respectively.
- On appeal Jackson raised six main complaints: insufficiency of evidence (aggravated robbery and evading), jury-charge error (alternative theories), trial-court misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and requested modification of judgment terminology.
- The court affirmed both convictions, rejected Jackson’s claims of charge error, trial-court assumption of role, and ineffective assistance, and modified the evading judgment to record the jury’s deadly-weapon finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jackson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — fear element of robbery | Etonga’s subjective fear alone insufficient; defendant’s conduct not such as commonly to induce fear of imminent serious injury | Etonga’s testimony and knife display were sufficient to show fear in the course of theft | Held: Evidence sufficient; jury could reasonably find a reasonable person would fear imminent bodily injury when confronted alone at night with knife and demands |
| Sufficiency — deadly-weapon for aggravated robbery | Pocket knife not shown deadly: no evidence on blade characteristics, brandishing, or capacity to cause serious injury | Knife (3.5" blade), proximity, display during demand, and victim’s fear support deadly-weapon finding | Held: Evidence sufficient for jury to find the pocket knife was a deadly weapon in manner of its use/intended use |
| Sufficiency — evading arrest/detention | Officers did not clearly attempt lawful detention; no statutory instructions relating to stop included | Officers had reasonable suspicion: radio broadcast of stolen car + matching plate/registration justified lawful attempt to detain | Held: Evidence sufficient; officers lawfully attempted to detain based on articulable facts |
| Jury-charge error (alternative theories) | Charge included statutory alternative definitions ("in the course of committing theft," "deadly weapon") unsupported by evidence and reduced burden of proof | Statutory definitions must be submitted; definitions were proper and supported by evidence | Held: No error — charge correctly stated statutory law and was supported by the evidence |
| Trial-court assumed inappropriate role | Court discouraged plea, approved State’s misstatements, and misinformed about community-supervision eligibility | Record shows trial court accurately explained plea/jury/eligibility law and deferred to counsel; State’s refusal to consent affected options | Held: No error — trial court did not improperly influence plea decisions or misstate controlling law |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to seek deferred adjudication or plea to robbery, did not request lesser-included robbery instruction, exposed juror biases in voir dire, and failed to object to charge | Record silent as to trial strategy; presumption counsel acted reasonably; no showing of prejudice | Held: No ineffective assistance shown — no affirmative record of deficient strategy or resulting prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to jury on credibility/weight in sufficiency review)
- Howard v. State, 333 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.) (robbery via placing victim in fear; threats need not be verbal)
- Robertson v. State, 163 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App.) (knife not per se deadly; deadliness depends on use/circumstances)
- Tucker v. State, 274 S.W.3d 688 (Tex. Crim. App.) (weapon capacity may be shown by lay or expert testimony)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance standard)