James Earl Piland v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13437
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- In April 2013, Overton police responded to a reported domestic disturbance and encountered James Earl Piland, who smelled of alcohol and acted erratically.
- Officer Brad Loden attempted to handcuff Piland; Piland punched Loden in the upper arm, causing pain. Piland was charged and convicted of assault on a public servant and sentenced to 16 years.
- The State had extended a plea offer of three years’ confinement that trial counsel did not communicate to Piland; the State later re-offered the same plea during appeal.
- Piland raised three issues on appeal: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to convey the plea offer; (2) legally insufficient evidence to support the conviction (including whether officers were attempting an arrest and whether bodily injury was proven); and (3) indictment defect for failure to allege mens rea.
- The Court reviewed ineffective-assistance law under Strickland and the Argent/Frye framework for prejudice from uncommunicated plea offers, applied hypothetically correct jury-charge and variance/fatal-variance precedent to sufficiency issues, and addressed forfeiture for indictment defects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to relay plea offer | Piland: counsel never informed him of State’s 3-year plea; thus counsel performed deficiently and prejudice requires reversal | State: conceded offer was not transmitted and suggested reversal or remand for enforcement or resentencing | Court: Counsel’s omission was deficient but Piland failed to prove all three Argent/Frye prejudice prongs (no evidence trial court would have accepted plea); claim not established on this record |
| Sufficiency: allegation that officer was attempting an arrest | Piland: evidence showed officers were not attempting an arrest, so State failed to prove charged manner of performance of duty | State: claimed officers were performing official duties investigating alleged injury—sufficient to support assault on public servant | Court: The arrest allegation was non-statutory manner/means and not part of the hypothetically correct charge; proof that officers were performing duties was sufficient; variance not fatal |
| Sufficiency: bodily injury element | Piland: punched arm caused no lasting injury so no bodily injury | State: bodily injury includes simple physical pain; Loden testified it hurt | Court: Testimony of pain satisfied statutory definition of bodily injury; evidence sufficient |
| Indictment defect: failure to allege mens rea | Piland: indictment did not specify culpable mental state for assault | State: waived/respondent argued forfeiture applies because no timely trial objection | Court: Defendant forfeited the complaint by not objecting before trial; cannot raise on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ex parte Argent, 393 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (applies Frye framework to show prejudice from failure to convey plea offers)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (plea-offer cases require show that defendant would have accepted, offer not withdrawn, and court would have accepted plea)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (Jackson/Brooks standard for legal sufficiency review)
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (discusses surplusage, variance, and when variance is fatal)