Graham Jay Sonnenberg v. State, 03-14-00530-CR

Background

Appellant Graham Sonnenberg was tried for offenses arising from an October 29, 2012 altercation with his then‑girlfriend, Alexis Manley; jury convicted him of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (hands/feet) and subsequent offense assault by strangulation (family/dating violence). Sentences: 16 and 20 years, run concurrently.
The indictment alleged overlapping acts (hand and foot pressure to the neck, striking, hair‑pulling, biting); count one alleged use of hands/feet as deadly weapon (aggravated assault); count two alleged strangulation with a prior family‑violence conviction (enhancement).
Trial controversies included (1) alleged duplicative counts/double jeopardy; (2) admission of a prior conviction record despite a fingerprint unsuitable for comparison; (3) testimony by a domestic‑violence expert on the ‘‘power and control’’ dynamics; (4) a late disclosure by the State of purportedly exculpatory material and the defense’s mistrial request; and (5) the trial court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on a filed First Amended Motion for New Trial.
The trial court conducted voir dire, admitted the evidence at trial (with limited gatekeeper rulings on expert testimony), denied the mistrial request, and later denied the amended motion for new trial without an evidentiary hearing because it lacked an affidavit.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders‑style brief concluding the appeal is frivolous, identified arguable points of error, and moved to withdraw while requesting time for the defendant to file a pro se brief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Sonnenberg)	Held
1. Submission of two counts for one incident (duplicitous/Double Jeopardy)	Counts allege distinct statutory offenses (deadly‑weapon aggravated assault vs. subsequent offense strangulation); two convictions permissible.	The single incident supports only one offense; submitting two counts violated double jeopardy principles.	Court concluded the counts charged legally distinct offenses under statutory/Art. 37.09 analysis; dual convictions permissible.
2. Admission of prior conviction record at punishment despite fingerprint issue	The record and other proof suffice to show prior conviction; limiting instruction given; probative value outweighs prejudice.	Fingerprint on judgment was unusable for comparison; admitting the document was unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.	Trial court admitted the prior judgment; Flowers standard permits various modes of proof of prior conviction and limiting instruction was given.
3. Expert testimony on domestic‑violence psychology (power & control wheel)	Expert was qualified; testimony limited to directly relevant topics; admissible under Rule 702.	Testimony was ‘‘soft science’’ unreliable and not helpful to jury.	Court held a gatekeeper hearing, limited scope, and admitted relevant expert testimony as reliable and helpful.
4. Late disclosure of purportedly exculpatory evidence / mistrial request	Defense had notice of the basis for the evidence months earlier and could have investigated; trial court offered recess; no reversible prosecutorial misconduct shown.	Late production after both sides rested deprived defense and warranted mistrial.	Trial court denied mistrial; record does not develop ineffective assistance; Brady/Kyles standards require showing of prejudice not established here.
5. Denial of hearing on First Amended Motion for New Trial	Motion lacked required supporting affidavit; court justified in denying hearing; claims may be pursued in post‑conviction proceedings.	Denial of hearing blocked development of record on trial errors and potential ineffective assistance.	Court held refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing was lawful because the motion lacked an affidavit; appellant may seek relief in collateral post‑conviction process.

Key Cases Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures when appointed counsel concludes appeal is frivolous)
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) (right to counsel on first appeal)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (counsel not required to press frivolous claims)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate counsel withdrawal procedures and court review of Anders brief)
Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standards for proving prior convictions at punishment)
Morales v. State, 32 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (expert testimony admissibility/Rule 702 guidance)
Weatherred v. State, 15 S.W.3d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (expert testimony standards)
Ex parte Davis, 957 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (Brady/ due‑process prosecutorial‑misconduct framework)