Lanis Ray Hitt v. State
14-15-00268-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 9, 2016Background
- Around 11:00 p.m., Tomball PD stopped Lanis Ray Hitt for an alleged license-plate light violation; officer observed signs of impairment and Hitt admitted taking prescription drugs.
- Hitt performed standardized field sobriety tests, failing two of three; breath test negative for alcohol; he initially refused blood draw, prompting a warrant and blood draw around 3:00 a.m.
- Toxicology showed Alprazolam, Carisoprodol, and Meprobamate; State expert testified combined levels could cause impairment; prescription labels warned against operating machinery.
- Video (dashcam) and officer testimony showed droopy eyes, slow responses, and corroborated test performance; two additional prescription bottles were recovered from the car.
- Jury convicted Hitt of DWI (intoxicated by drugs); sentence: 180 days jail probated 1 year, fine, community service, DWI course, drug patch, ignition interlock.
- On appeal Hitt raised ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims (various alleged omissions) and argued jury-charge error for referring to alcohol when evidence concerned drugs.
Issues
| Issue | Hitt's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to move to suppress stop/search/video | Counsel should have moved to suppress evidence from an illegal stop and challenged video | Stop was lawful: officer observed license-plate light violation; video and testimony support reasonableness | Overruled — no deficient performance shown; suppression would not have succeeded |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to statements/Miranda | Counsel should have objected that roadside questioning was custodial interrogation requiring Miranda | Roadside questioning during DWI investigation is not custodial; Miranda not required | Overruled — objection would not likely succeed |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to lab report / Confrontation Clause | Counsel should have objected because the testifying expert did not perform the lab tests (Melendez‑Diaz issue) | Record silent as to strategy; counsel may have refrained; even if objected, other overwhelming evidence would remain | Overruled — record does not show deficient performance and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Jury-charge error — abstract definition referenced alcohol though evidence concerned drugs | Instruction misled jury by defining intoxication with alcohol-focused concentration language, causing egregious harm | Any error harmless: charge read as whole, jury instructions and arguments focused on drugs, overwhelming evidence of drug intoxication | Overruled — no egregious harm; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
- Ex parte Jimenez, 364 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate discussion of Strickland)
- Jackson v. State, 877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (testimonials lab reports implicate Confrontation Clause)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for jury‑charge harm review)
- Menefield v. State, 363 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. Crim. App.) (limitations of appellate record to show ineffective assistance)