Jeremy Henderson v. State, 14-18-00926-CR

Background

In February 2017 Jeremy Henderson and his then–girlfriend (the complainant) met at a motel; Henderson allegedly punched, bit, kicked, dragged, and repeatedly choked her until she nearly blacked out. EMS and hospital personnel observed fresh injuries; photographs were taken. Henderson was arrested and indicted for assault by impeding breathing as a dating partner (second-degree felony) with prior family-violence convictions.
Henderson pleaded not guilty; the State alleged a prior 2016 family-violence assault conviction as an element and additional prior convictions as enhancements. The jury found Henderson guilty and found two enhancement paragraphs true.
The jury assessed punishment at 65 years’ confinement; judgment was entered October 11, 2018. Henderson timely appealed, raising six issues: denial of continuance; denial of a hearing on his motion for new trial; inclusion of a lesser-included offense in the charge; ineffective assistance for not objecting to introduction of a prior conviction at guilt phase; denial of mistrial after an alternate juror participated in deliberations; and sufficiency of the evidence.
The court reviewed legal-sufficiency under Jackson v. Virginia and considered charge-error harm under Almanza. It considered procedural prerequisites for a new-trial hearing (presentment) and standards for ineffective assistance under Strickland.
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a memorandum opinion, rejecting all six appellate issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Henderson)	Held
1. Denial of motion for continuance to review ~240 jail calls	State: It had disclosed the 11 calls it intended to use and did not plan to use the others; court excluded undisclosed calls.	Henderson: Counsel needed 120 days to review newly produced ~240 calls to prepare and possibly impeach.	Denial not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown and undisclosed calls were excluded.
2. Denial of hearing on motion for new trial	State: No evidence the motion was actually presented to the trial court (presentment).	Henderson: Motion raised matters not determinable from record and requested a hearing.	No error — record lacked proof of presentment, so no mandatory hearing.
3. Inclusion of lesser-included offense (third-degree assault family member) in jury charge	State: Requested the instruction; trial court must instruct on law applicable to the case.	Henderson: Lesser instruction should be excluded; objection preserved.	Even if erroneous, any error was harmless because jury convicted of the greater offense; no reversal.
4. Ineffective assistance for failing to object to admission of 2016 prior conviction at guilt phase	State: Prior conviction was alleged in indictment and admissible as charged; counsel could have strategic reasons.	Henderson: Prior conviction was for punishment enhancement only and was highly prejudicial; counsel should have objected.	Claim fails — record silent on counsel strategy; no affirmative showing of deficient performance or prejudice.
5. Denial of mistrial after alternate juror participated and voted	State: Trial court cured by instructing jury to disregard prior deliberations and segregating alternate; defense preserved only outside-influence claim.	Henderson: Alternate participated in guilt deliberations and voted, violating right to a 12-member jury and requiring a mistrial.	Denial not an abuse of discretion; instruction to disregard/redeliberate and polling cured and other grounds were not preserved on appeal.
6. Sufficiency of the evidence	State: Complainant’s detailed testimony plus photos and medical testimony corroborated strangulation and bodily injury.	Henderson: Case is he-said/she-she; complainant was sole eyewitness and her testimony was not independently corroborated.	Evidence legally sufficient—complainant’s testimony alone (corroborated by injuries and medical testimony) supports conviction.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sets the legal-sufficiency standard under which evidence must support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (harm analysis for preserved jury-charge error)
Zuniga v. State, 551 S.W.3d 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (use of the hypothetically correct jury charge for sufficiency review)
Mendez v. State, 545 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (trial court’s duty to correctly instruct the jury on applicable law)
Stokes v. State, 277 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (requirements for presentment of a motion for new trial)
Ocon v. State, 284 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (review standard for mistrial rulings and role of jury instructions to cure errors)