Jonathan D. Canfield v. State
429 S.W.3d 54
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Jonathan Canfield was tried for capital murder after Mario Towns was killed during a robbery in Houston; Canfield was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life.
- Victim Mario and family traveled to Houston to buy marijuana; an earlier March 2009 loss of money ($5,000–$7,000 disputed) created tension between Canfield and Mario.
- On May 16, 2009, Canfield, William "Plug" Garrett, and P-A were at Perney’s Houston house; Plug and others ambushed occupants, later Mario was shot in the face with a shotgun and $7,000 taken.
- Witnesses (Nicole, Perney, John, Chris, Trey, Mike) placed Canfield at the scene armed and participating in the confrontation and robbery; Plug confessed to police (did not testify at trial); Canfield testified he did not shoot and denied some witness accounts.
- Jury was instructed on alternative theories (principal actor, party under §7.02(a)(2), and co-conspirator under §7.02(b)); returned a general guilty verdict for capital murder.
Issues
| Issue | Canfield's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency as party under §7.02(a)(2) (Did he act with common purpose/promote or assist Garrett?) | No evidence he acted together with Garrett or intended to promote/assist the murder. | Evidence shows Canfield armed himself, participated in the robbery, and fled with co-actors—supporting party liability. | Not reached on appeal because alternate conspiracy theory sustained the verdict. |
| Sufficiency as co-conspirator under §7.02(b) (Did he conspire to commit aggravated robbery and should he have anticipated murder?) | The trip was to buy drugs, not to kill; no proof Canfield anticipated lethal violence. | Evidence of planning, weapons, masks, ambush, demand for money, and theft after the shooting shows conspiracy and foreseeability of murder. | Affirmed: evidence sufficient to convict as co-conspirator; murder was foreseeable in furtherance of aggravated robbery. |
| Whether murder was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy | Murder was an unanticipated act by Garrett, not in furtherance of a robbery conspiracy. | Guns obtained from P-A, ambush and demands for money, and theft after killing indicate the killing furthered the robbery. | Held sufficient: jury could find the killing furthered the robbery/conspiracy. |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to impeachment with plea-affidavit (Tex. R. Evid. 410) | Counsel deficient for not objecting to questions about an affidavit made during plea negotiations; its mention unfairly harmed credibility. | Record does not show prejudice: many inconsistencies and admissions undermined credibility regardless; failing to object could be trial strategy. | Assumed possible deficiency but no prejudice shown under Strickland; claim denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (robbery participants may be guilty for murders occurring in course of robbery)
- Whitmire v. State, 183 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (murder by a co‑conspirator during armed robbery may be foreseeable)
- Tippitt v. State, 41 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (distinguished: foreseeability less clear where defendant did not know co‑conspirator was armed)