HAAGENSEN v. State
346 S.W.3d 758
Tex. App.2011Background
- Police obtained a search warrant for Haagensen's residence after a confidential informant offered to buy methamphetamine from Haagensen.
- The informant purchased methamphetamine from Haagensen; an audio recording of the buy was made.
- Haagensen was later stopped and arrested the same evening; the money given to the informant was found in a jacket Haagensen had been sitting on.
- A subsequent search of Haagensen's residence uncovered scales, baggies, and a spoon with white residue in his bedroom.
- The State charged Haagensen with delivery of methamphetamine and alleged the offense occurred within 1,000 feet of a day-care center (Little Ark Learning Center) and that Haagensen had a prior felony conviction for violating a protective order.
- Haagensen pled not guilty to the drug-free zone enhancement, and true to the prior conviction; the jury found both enhancements true and sentenced Haagensen to 15 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for drug-free-zone | Haagensen argues the day-care center was not proven licensed/certified/registered or within 1,000 feet. | Haagensen contends the State failed to prove the day-care center met statutory definitions creating the drug-free zone. | Evidence supports the drug-free-zone; day-care facility defined by statute reasonably established. |
| Effectiveness of counsel | Haagensen asserts trial counsel failed to object to hearsay and extraneous-bad-acts evidence used to obtain the warrant and at trial. | Counsel's objections, or lack thereof, may be strategic; failure to object could be within a reasonable professional range. | No ineffective-assistance conclusion; record inadequate to show deficient performance or prejudice. |
| Preservation of error for wrong cause number on verdict | Verdict form shows an incorrect cause number (22949) versus indictment/judgment (23608). | Error not preserved due to lack of trial-court objection. | Error not preserved; points denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010) (legal-sufficiency review of evidence; guideposts for reviewing within 'Brooks' framework)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (hypothetically-correct jury charge and elements for drug-free-zone)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (hypothetically-correct jury charge may not rewrite the indictment)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (statutory alternatives as elements; how to reflect in charge)
- Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (distinguishing when definitions are elements of offense)
- Jones v. State, 300 S.W.3d 93 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2009) (drug-free zone proof; playground-definitions; careful application of law)
- Young v. State, 14 S.W.3d 748 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) (map-based proof and relevance to school/drug-free zones)
- Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (evidence sufficiency; review of direct and circumstantial evidence)
- Neal v. State, 256 S.W.3d 264 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (evidence review; consideration of admissible and inadmissible evidence)
- Ortiz v. State, 93 S.W.3d 79 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (defining reasonable-strickland standard and deference to strategy)