James Eric Loften v. State
09-13-00543-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 14, 2015Background
- Defendant James Eric Loften was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver cocaine (4–200 g); punishment set at 99 years and $10,000 after he pled true to a prior delivery conviction.
- Police conducted a controlled buy at a Liberty, TX residence using a confidential informant; marked buy money was later found on Loften.
- A magistrate issued search and arrest warrants based on an affidavit describing the controlled buy and the informant’s prior reliability; search of the residence produced scales, baggies, and residue.
- Loften was stopped driving an SUV shortly after; the SUV’s console contained rock-like cocaine and baggies; keys to the residence were found among the SUV keys.
- Loften appealed, raising (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) Batson challenge to prosecution’s peremptory strikes, (3) denial of motion to suppress (warrant validity and evidence), (4) denial of a Franks hearing, and (5) insufficiency of evidence tying him to the drugs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Loften) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel failed to (a) file pretrial motion to compel informant identity, (b) present evidence about lawful source of cash, (c) dispute house ownership/connection, (d) show SUV wasn’t his, (e) move for pretrial disclosure of extraneous offenses | Counsel made reasonable, tactical choices; record does not show trial counsel acted unreasonably or that outcome would likely differ | No ineffective assistance; trial strategy plausible and presumption of competence not overcome |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strikes | State struck the only African‑American venire members; strikes were pretextual | Strikes were race‑neutral (law‑enforcement background; prior acquittal) | Trial court’s acceptance of race‑neutral explanations not clearly erroneous; Batson challenge denied |
| Motion to suppress (warrant/probable cause) | Affidavit insufficient: informant reliability and corroboration were inadequate | Affidavit described controlled buy, prior reliability, and surveillance corroboration—sufficient for probable cause | Warrant valid under totality of circumstances; suppression properly denied |
| Franks hearing on affidavit truthfulness | Affidavit knowingly or recklessly misstated informant’s criminal history and investigatory steps | No deliberate or reckless falsehood shown; conflicting testimony and no proof of intentional misstatement | No preliminary showing of deliberate falsehoods; Franks hearing not required |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent to deliver | Evidence did not establish Loften exercised care, custody, or control over the drugs or exclusivity of premises | Multiple affirmative links: marked buy money on Loften, keys to house in SUV, Loften seen at house and driving SUV, scales/baggies/residue in house, cocaine in SUV console | Evidence sufficient for conviction; jury rationally could find control and intent to deliver |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (trial counsel performance and prejudice standard)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (peremptory strikes and equal protection)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (when a hearing is required to challenge affidavit falsehoods)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (Batson-step two: prosecutor need not offer persuasive motive)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency review)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (deference to trial counsel’s tactical decisions)