Gordon, Steven Lee
PD-1312-15
Tex. App.Dec 18, 2015Background
- Steven Lee Gordon was convicted by a jury of criminal solicitation of capital murder (Tex. Penal Code § 15.03) for allegedly paying a third party to kill his wife; the trial court assessed 60 years' imprisonment.
- Gordon posted on Craigslist seeking ways to revoke his wife's immigration status; he paid Robert Bass progressively large sums after a proposed deportation scheme reportedly shifted to a murder plot.
- Gordon left court-ordered rehab early twice, communicated with Bass about the murder timing, and deposited/withdrew large cash amounts shortly before the events.
- After receiving threatening texts indicating the killing was imminent and learning Bass had Aryan Brotherhood connections, Gordon went to the Allen Police Department, disclosed his role, identified Bass, and assisted police; Bass was subsequently arrested.
- Gordon asserted the affirmative defense of voluntary renunciation at guilt and a renunciation mitigation issue at punishment; the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the judgment to correct date and statute references.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gordon) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support jury's rejection of renunciation defense at guilt | Gordon argues he withdrew from the conspiracy and took affirmative steps (reporting to police, identifying Bass) that prevented the offense, satisfying Tex. Penal Code § 15.04(b) | State argues renunciation requires countermanding the solicitation (or withdrawal from conspiracy only when charged with conspiracy); Gordon never countermanded Bass and earlier urged Bass to act | Court held evidence supported jury rejection: Gordon did not countermand the solicitation to Bass and renunciation was not voluntary under the governing standard; sufficiency review affirmed. |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support rejection of renunciation mitigation at punishment | Gordon contends he abandoned the conduct and made substantial efforts to prevent the offense, entitling him to mitigation under § 15.04(d) (one-grade reduction) | State contends Gordon never countermanded the solicitation and his statements/behavior showed self-interest (fear of detection/retaliation), so mitigation was properly denied | Court held trial court properly rejected mitigation: evidence supported finding Gordon did not countermand and mitigation finding was not required. |
| Whether the court of appeals improperly expanded § 15.04 (judicial amendment/abuse of power) | Gordon argues the court improperly read extra-statutory limits into § 15.04(c) (requiring repentance/change of heart) and thereby amended the statute to deny relief | State defends application of precedent construing § 15.04(c) as nonexclusive and permitting consideration of factors like continued intent to kill | Court applied existing Dallas precedent (Chennault) interpreting § 15.04(c) as nonexclusive and upheld the sufficiency rulings; it did not accept Gordon's claim of unlawful judicial amendment. |
| Whether the trial-court judgment contained clerical errors requiring correction | Gordon sought corrections for date, statute citation, and offense name | State agreed some items should be corrected; court recalculated/confirmed details from record | Court reformed judgment to reflect correct judgment date and statute (§ 15.03(d)(1)) and affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butcher v. State, 454 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence including affirmative defenses)
- Matlock v. State, 392 S.W.3d 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (deference to factfinder on credibility in sufficiency review)
- Morrow v. State, 862 S.W.2d 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (ordinary-meaning rule for undefined statutory terms)
- Cornet v. State, 359 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (use of dictionaries to determine legislative meaning)
- Chennault v. State, 667 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1984) (interpreting § 15.04(c) as nonexclusive and requiring more than mere change of heart)
- Hall v. State, 160 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (burden and nature of renunciation as punishment-phase affirmative defense)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate authority to reform judgments to reflect the record)