Jimmy Earl Van-Cleave v. State
14-14-00473-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 27, 2015Background
- Appellant Jimmy Earl Van‑Cleave was convicted of aggravated kidnapping in 1994 and originally sentenced to life; he obtained habeas relief on punishment due to ineffective assistance of counsel and received a new punishment hearing.
- At the second punishment hearing Van‑Cleave pleaded true to an enhancement (prior sexual‑assault conviction) and the State proved he was on parole for that conviction when he committed the charged offense.
- Defense presented mitigating evidence (difficult upbringing and testimony that Van‑Cleave later showed improved prison behavior); the State offered prison disciplinary records showing numerous early infractions.
- Trial court admitted the disciplinary records over objection; some records contained descriptive, narrative language (e.g., fight refusal narrative, exposure "with intent to arouse," possession of razor‑bladed toothbrush handles).
- Appellant argued (1) the disciplinary infractions could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, (2) the records contained testimonial statements violating the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and (3) the State failed to give proper notice of intent to use the records.
- The court held the trial court did not err in admitting the records generally, but identified three reports that contained testimonial narrative (Confrontation Clause error). The court found the Confrontation error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the life sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Van‑Cleave's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility standard for prison disciplinary infractions | Prison disciplinary findings are only by preponderance and therefore cannot be used unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Trial court as factfinder may determine beyond a reasonable doubt from records plus corroborating testimony | Court: No abuse of discretion; judge could find beyond a reasonable doubt given records and corroboration; admission correct (any error harmless) |
| Confrontation Clause — testimonial content of records | Descriptive/narrative phrases in some reports are testimonial and violate Sixth Amendment because witnesses did not testify | Many records are business records (Rule 803(6)) and non‑testimonial; only boilerplate/sterile entries are admissible without confrontation | Court: Three reports contained testimonial narrative and admission of those three was error, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; overall punishment unaffected |
| State notice of intent to use disciplinary records | Notice was defective (allegedly listed wrong county) | Appellant failed to brief or cite authority; State's notice adequate as issue not developed | Court: Issue waived/insufficiently briefed; overruled |
| Harmless‑error standard for Confrontation error at punishment | Admission of testimonial records affected punishment | State: Evidence of violent offense, enhancement plea, and other proof made any error harmless | Court: Error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; affirmed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Delgado v. State, 235 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reasonable‑doubt requirement for extraneous offenses at punishment)
- Fields v. State, 1 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (fact‑finder must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed extraneous acts)
- Jackson v. State, 822 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (prison/jail records may qualify as business records under Rule 803(6))
- Russeau v. State, 171 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (disciplinary reports containing testimonial narrative can violate Confrontation Clause)
- Smith v. State, 297 S.W.3d 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (distinguishing boilerplate business records from testimonial narratives; testimonial phrases render reports inadmissible without confrontation)
- Ford v. State, 179 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (sterile recitation entries in disciplinary records are non‑testimonial and admissible)