Keevin Dashawn Byrd v. State
03-16-00133-CR
| Tex. | Oct 10, 2016Background
- Byrd was indicted for manslaughter in Bell County, Texas, and convicted by a jury.
- Trial court sentenced Byrd to eight years’ imprisonment with a deadly weapon finding.
- The State presented eyewitness, lay, and forensic evidence about speeding and reckless driving preceding Harvey’s death.
- Crash data recorder showed Byrd’s vehicle decelerated only seconds before impact after speeds approaching 100 mph.
- Appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, arguing the appeal is frivolous; no pro se brief was filed by Byrd in this excerpt.
- The appellate brief concludes there are no meritorious points of error and seeks dismissal of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the deadly weapon finding supported by the verdict? | Byrd argues the verdict does not support a separate deadly weapon finding. | State contends the application paragraph aligns with the indictment’s deadly weapon allegation, supporting the finding. | Supported by the verdict and application paragraph. |
| Is the parole instruction in the punishment charge accurate? | Byrd challenges the accuracy of parole eligibility language. | State asserts the instruction tracks Article 37.07 § 4 and is correct. | Accurate and proper under statute. |
| Was Byrd’s sentence within the statutory punishment range? | Byrd contends sentence may exceed permissible range. | State maintains eight years falls within the two-to-twenty-year range for a second-degree felony. | Sentence within the statutory range. |
| Were lay witnesses’ opinions that Byrd was driving ‘recklessly’ admissible? | Deficient preservation of error due to lack of objection should bar review. | Lay opinions permitted if rationally based on perception and helpful to fact-finding; admissible here. | Admissible; lack of objection did not negate admissibility after review. |
| Did the jury charge’s definition of ‘recklessness’ track the statutory language of Section 6.03(c)? | Definition may diverge from statutory language, affecting mens rea. | Definition substantially tracked the statute. | DefinitionTracked; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (appointed counsel may withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Lafleur v. State, 106 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (application paragraph can support deadly weapon finding)
- Fairow v. State, 943 S.W.2d 895 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (lay opinion admissibility under Rule 701; personal knowledge requirement)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency review under Jackson v. Virginia)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) (dilemma of withdrawal and duty to inform court)
- Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (scope of punishment and reasonableness in review)