Kivean Deshai Coffey v. State
435 S.W.3d 834
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Coffey was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 75 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal, Coffey challenges (a) the State’s notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment filed after voir dire, and (b) the denial of his motion to suppress a recorded statement.
- The State filed notice of enhancement based on a 2008 juvenile burglary conviction; notice was post-voir dire but pre-arraignment.
- Coffey did not show surprise or need for a continuance; trial court overruled his objection and noted Coffey’s trial counsel had previously represented him in the 2008 case.
- The court held the enhancement notice satisfied due process and that the suppression ruling was harmless, affirming Coffey’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of enhancement notice | Coffey argues notice was untimely | State argues notice timing is permissible post-voir dire | Notice satisfied due process; timely enough to preserve rights |
| Harmlessness of recording-statement admission | Statement should have been suppressed for Miranda/38.22 violation | Statement admissible or harmless despite issues | Harmless error; admission did not contribute to verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due process requires notice for enhancements)
- Pelache v. State, 324 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (notice timing and due process considerations for enhancements)
- Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (pleading/form of enhancement notice; due process)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (requirements of warnings and waiver in custodial interrogation)
- Prysock, 453 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1981) (substantial compliance suffices if warnings substance communicated)
- Joseph v. State, 309 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (express vs. implied waiver; right to counsel present)
- Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) ( Miranda-related waivers and warnings)
- Scott v. State, 227 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (harm analysis for improperly admitted recording)
- Land v. State, 291 S.W.3d 23 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (recording may be considered cumulative but not cure error)