James Musgrove v. State
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 2423
Tex. App.2014Background
- Musgrove, in TDCJ custody, was tried for two counts of assault on a public servant and one count of attempted escape in the same courtroom where the offenses allegedly occurred.
- Evidence showed he allegedly distracted, punched, and wrestled with two officers; he attempted to seize a firearm from an officer during the incident in a courtroom with minimal third-party presence.
- He represented himself at trial after prior confinement and other felony sentences; standby counsel assisted him.
- Pretrial and trial-time complaints included confiscation of legal materials, sleep/freedom Deprivation, showering/shaving refusals, and security measures restricting defendant's approach to witnesses.
- The jury found him guilty on all counts; sentences were 20 years for each assault and 10 years for attempted escape, with the three terms concurrent; defendant moved for new trial alleging unfair trial conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated right to fair trial by handling inmate conditions | Musgrove argues confiscation of legal materials and trial conditions violated his rights | Musgrove contends safety measures and restrictions were within court discretion | Overruled: preserved claims meritless on record, safety justified |
| Whether assault offenses were correctly classified and punished | Musgrove contends two assaults should be third-degree felonies | State concedes offenses were third-degree; judgment erroneously shows second-degree | Modified: two assault convictions are third-degree felonies; ranges properly enhanced |
| Whether attempted escape conviction and enhancement were proper | Musgrove argues attempted escape should be state-jail felony and enhancement improper | State claims charge allowed state-jail or higher; record shows an error in third-degree judgment | Reversed: attempted escape judgment vitiated; remanded for new punishment trial; enhancement flaw acknowledged |
Key Cases Cited
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (right of access to courts requires adequate resources; actual injury needed)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (Bounds does not guarantee unfettered access; must show actual injury)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (right to self-representation; limits on counsel assistance)
- Dunn v. State, 819 S.W.2d 510 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (limits on pro se defense and access to resources)
- Johnson v. State, 257 S.W.3d 778 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008) (pro se defendant not entitled to law library access when counsel offered)