Kojuan J Miles v. State
468 S.W.3d 719
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Victim ("Amy"), age 15, left North Carolina with Kojuan Miles (22); during travel he directed her to engage in prostitution and took her money. She performed sex acts and was detained by Houston police at a known "track."
- Miles was charged with sexual assault of a child (Penal Code §22.011) and compelling prostitution (Penal Code §43.05); a jury convicted him on both counts.
- Punishment: jury assessed 7 years for sexual assault and 23 years for compelling prostitution; trial court ordered the 23-year sentence to run consecutively to the 7-year sentence (cumulation).
- Miles appealed, arguing (1) exclusion of Facebook evidence, (2) improper expert testimony, (3) unlawful cumulation of sentences under Penal Code §3.03(b), and (4) that the judgments contained excessive descriptive verbiage.
- The court affirmed the rulings on evidentiary issues and the wording of the judgments, but held as a matter of first impression that §3.03(b) does not authorize stacking a conviction under subsection (b)(5) (compelling prostitution / trafficking) with a conviction under subsection (b)(2) (sexual offenses against children) when the offenses arise from the same criminal action; it therefore reformed the compelling-prostitution judgment to delete the cumulation order and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Miles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Facebook evidence (guilt & punishment phases) | Evidence was irrelevant; exclusion proper | Facebook posts showed complainant’s sexualized behavior and preoccupation with money, undermining fabrication/credibility and culpability | Trial court did not abuse discretion; guilt exclusion proper; punishment complaint not preserved for appellate review |
| Admission of expert testimony (CAC staff, officer) | Expert background and opinions were relevant to explain child-victim behavior and qualify witnesses | Testimony was irrelevant, narrative, and prejudicial background material beyond facts of the case | No reversible error for objections preserved; most complained-of testimony either relevant or harmless |
| Cumulation (stacking) of sentences under Tex. Penal Code §3.03(b) | §3.03(b) broadly permits consecutive sentences for listed offenses; policy supports stacking child-sex offenses with trafficking/prostitution | Statutory text treats each subsection separately; offenses listed in different (b) subsections cannot be stacked together | Court holds §3.03(b) unambiguously precludes stacking offenses from different listed subsections; cumulation order reversed and judgment reformed to delete consecutive order |
| Judgment verbiage (use of descriptive phrases) | N/A (State defended judgment wording) | Judgment should use statutory offense titles only; surplus verbiage unnecessary | Inclusion of age-descriptive phrases that accurately identify the offense was proper; no reformation required |
Key Cases Cited
- Resendiz v. State, 112 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (definition of relevancy and deference to trial court)
- Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional evidentiary error)
- Nguyen v. State, 359 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (statutory interpretation of cumulation statute reviewed de novo)
- Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (appellate reformation of judgment to delete improper cumulation order)
- Jordan v. State, 928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (expert testimony must be tied to facts in issue to be helpful to jury)