Grizzle, Ronald Gene
PD-0136-15
| Tex. App. | Apr 17, 2015Background
- Ronald Gene Grizzle Jr. was convicted by a Johnson County jury of: one count aggravated sexual assault of a child (first‑degree), two counts indecency with a child by contact (second‑degree), and two counts indecency with a child by exposure; sentences were imposed and some were ordered consecutive.
- The conviction on the aggravated‑sexual‑assault count relied substantially on (1) a pre‑indictment forensic/medical report by Rebecca Sullivan (State Exhibit 14) and (2) testimony of the alleged victim H.H., age 14 at trial, whose direct testimony contained inconsistent answers about whether penetration/contact occurred or was only an attempt.
- Grizzle challenged sufficiency of evidence for the aggravated‑sexual‑assault conviction, arguing the record at most supported non‑contact or attempted conduct and that Sullivan’s report was unreliable and improperly used as hearsay/forensic evidence.
- Grizzle also challenged the cumulative sentencing (stacking/consecutive sentences), arguing Texas law and practice (Penal Code §§ 3.01, 3.03) allow the executive (prosecutor) to make factual determinations about a “single criminal episode,” violating Apprendi and separation of powers; he requested that the jury, not the judge, decide cumulation facts.
- On appeal the Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed: it found the victim’s testimony sufficient to support the aggravated‑sexual‑assault conviction, upheld convictions on the indecency counts, held the trial court had statutory discretion to cumulate sentences (Apprendi not violated under Texas law/exceptions), and denied Grizzle’s mistrial motion regarding a witness’s belief question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grizzle) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated sexual assault (penetration/contact element) | Sullivan’s pre‑indictment report is unreliable; H.H.’s trial testimony shows only exposure or attempt, not penetration/contact; conviction violates due process | Victim’s testimony (H.H.) and corroborating testimony support a finding that penetration/contact occurred; child testimony alone can suffice | Court of Appeals: Evidence, when viewed in light most favorable to verdict, was sufficient to support aggravated sexual assault conviction; issue overruled |
| Admissibility/trustworthiness of forensic medical/interview report (State Ex. 14) | Report recorded statements not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment and was investigative; Rule 803(4) exception inapplicable; report prejudiced rights | Report authenticated and used at trial; errors not raised at trial or were harmless under appellate standards | Court of Appeals did not accept argument as warranting reversal; sufficiency and conviction stand |
| Cumulative sentencing / separation of powers / Apprendi (who decides "single criminal episode") | Penal Code § 3.01 lets the executive (prosecutor) treat multiple offenses as one criminal episode pretrial, usurping judicial/jury fact‑finding and violating Apprendi and Texas separation of powers | Texas statutes (Pen. Code §§ 3.01, 3.03; Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.08) give trial court discretion to cumulate sentences; indecency and aggravated sexual assault fall within statutory exceptions; Apprendi inapplicable to the court’s discretionary cumulation | Court of Appeals: No Apprendi violation; trial court had authority to cumulate sentences; jury need not be instructed about cumulation; issues overruled |
| Motion for mistrial after witness opinion (T.H. said he believed his sister) | Question improperly bolstered victim; prejudicial; mistrial required | Trial court sustained objection, instructed jury to disregard; same belief testimony admitted earlier for other witnesses without objection; any error cured | Court of Appeals: Denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion; instruction to disregard effective; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (allowed a sentencing judge, under some state schemes, to make findings to impose consecutive sentences)
- Lucio v. State, 351 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (Texas standard on sufficiency review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency principles)