James Robert MacPherson, III v. State
12-17-00229-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- On Dec. 28, 2015, James MacPherson and Mark Derouville entered Alto Parts Plus to buy and test batteries; an employee (Cheyenne) became upset during their conversation.
- Store owner Cynthia Hicks intervened, and district manager J.R. Altum asked the men to step into the parking lot; the men complied and spoke with Altum for ~15 minutes.
- Cheyenne’s father arrived, a confrontation occurred, and Hicks twice told MacPherson and Derouville to leave her property; they did not leave immediately.
- The police chief arrested the men while they stood in the gas station parking lot adjacent to the store after Hicks told him they had been asked to leave repeatedly.
- MacPherson was charged with criminal trespass, waived jury and counsel, was tried before the bench, convicted, and sentenced to 90 days; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (MacPherson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of counsel / self-representation adequacy | Trial court properly accepted a knowing, voluntary waiver; proceeding pro se was permitted | Waiver was not knowing/intelligent because court failed to adequately admonish him on disadvantages, rules, punishments, defenses, and that he would receive no special consideration | Reversed: waiver inadequate; trial court failed to admonish sufficiently; new trial required |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal trespass | Evidence showed Hicks (owner) gave notice to leave and MacPherson failed to depart — a rational factfinder could convict | MacPherson argued he complied when asked to step outside, Altum (manager) permitted them to stay, and they were in the adjoining gas station lot | Affirmed as to sufficiency: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, a rational factfinder could find trespass beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (application of Jackson in Texas)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (right to self-representation)
- Williams v. State, 252 S.W.3d 353 (waiver of counsel; admonishment requirements)
- Moore v. State, 999 S.W.2d 385 (standards for waiver: competent, knowing, voluntary)
- Blankenship v. State, 673 S.W.2d 578 (scope of admonishment: charges, punishment, defenses)
- Burgess v. State, 816 S.W.2d 424 (adequacy of colloquy on self-representation)
- Buster v. State, 144 S.W.3d 71 (admonishment deficiencies requiring reversal)