496 S.W.3d 919
Tex. App.2016Background
- Appellant Joshua Patterson was convicted by a jury of murder for the shooting death of Kristian Sullivan and sentenced to 50 years and a $1,000 fine.
- State's theory: Patterson, as a member of the gang "100 Click," drove gang members to Sullivan (a rival gang member) in a retaliation shooting; defense claimed Patterson unknowingly transported them believing they were buying marijuana.
- Pretrial: Patterson filed a broad Article 38.22 suppression motion but did not obtain a ruling; he also sought Rule 404(b) notice of extraneous acts. The State disclosed an aggravated robbery (postdating the murder) allegedly involving Patterson and co-defendant Edwards.
- The trial court granted a motion in limine excluding extraneous acts generally, but later (after defense attacked Patterson's gang membership) admitted evidence and photos of the EZ Money aggravated robbery over defense objection.
- Patterson's videotaped custodial interview (played for the jury) contained admissions that he drove Edwards and Morrison to/from the scene but claimed no knowledge of the plan to kill.
- On appeal Patterson raised nine issues: (1) in pari materia challenge (murder vs. organized-crime statute), (2) erroneous admission of extraneous robbery evidence, (3) Article 38.22 custodial-warning defects, (4–7) ineffective assistance claims, and other related claims. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether murder statute and organized-crime statute are in pari materia | Patterson: statutes conflict; he should have been prosecuted under the more specific organized-crime statute | State: statutes have different objects, elements, and purposes; no irreconcilable conflict | Court: not in pari materia; statutes address different subjects; prosecution under murder proper |
| Admission of extraneous aggravated-robbery evidence | Patterson: State misled court; defense did not open the door; evidence unfairly prejudicial | State: defense attacked Patterson's gang involvement and opened door; robbery relevant to rebut innocence and show gang membership/motive | Court: defense opened the door; trial court did not abuse discretion and Rule 403 balance was implicit and proper |
| Failure to preserve Article 38.22 custodial-warning challenge | Patterson: warnings were defective (specifically right to terminate interview) and statements should be excluded | State: defense raised only a general Article 38.22 objection and declined to pursue suppression hearing | Court: issue not preserved—no specific statutory subsection identified and no ruling requested |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (various omissions) | Patterson: counsel failed to move for mistrial, secure suppression ruling, and object to videotaped statement on statutory grounds | State: counsel's choices can be strategic; record lacks explanation for omissions; many contested items were admissible | Court: counsel not ineffective—failure to move for mistrial was not deficient (evidence admissible); other claims not shown by record and are speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. Crim. App.) (in pari materia doctrine requires prosecution under narrower statute when irreconcilable conflict exists)
- Bearnth v. State, 361 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]) (factors for deciding whether statutes address same subject)
- Lomax v. State, 233 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. Crim. App.) (two statutes applying to same conduct does not necessarily create irreconcilable conflict)
- Powell v. State, 63 S.W.3d 435 (Tex. Crim. App.) (defense may open door to extraneous-offense evidence by raising motive/intent/mistake)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App.) (Rule 403 balancing; factors to determine unfair prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S.) (two-pronged ineffective-assistance standard)