Laroyce Demond Allen v. State
06-16-00142-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Appellant Laroyce Demond Allen was indicted for sexual assault of a child (Penal Code §22.011) based on allegations and documentary evidence discovered during a June 2015 investigation.
- Law enforcement recovered letters and a purported contract among Allen’s belongings; a DPS questioned-documents examiner testified the writings were likely authored by Allen.
- The alleged victim gave testimony accusing Allen; other family witnesses provided context with some timeline conflicts.
- A jury convicted Allen after a two-day trial and assessed punishment at 20 years’ imprisonment.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous appellate issues, moved to withdraw, and identified twelve categories of potential issues (indictment sufficiency, pretrial rulings, evidentiary rulings, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, ineffective assistance, sentencing, etc.).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Allen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency | Indictment met statutory requisites; alleged acts and date (on or about) were adequate | Allen contended indictment might be deficient (raised as possible appellate issue) | Anders brief: indictment sufficient as a matter of law; no reversible error identified |
| Pretrial voir dire objections (commitment questions) | State objected that defense questions impermissibly committed jurors | Defense argued questions probed jurors’ expectations/bias and were proper voir dire | Trial court sustained some objections; appellate review found no harm and no reversible error |
| Evidentiary rulings & authentication (letters, documents, hearsay) | State authenticated documents via investigator and DPS examiner; court admitted exhibits | Defense objected to authentication and hearsay for several items and some testimony about unrelated allegations | Trial rulings largely upheld; limited hearsay ruled excluded; Anders brief finds rulings not prejudicial and evidence sufficient for conviction |
| Ineffective-assistance and sentence challenge | State: trial counsel’s performance was adequate; sentence (20 years) within statutory range | Allen raised ineffective-assistance as potential issue and contest to sentencing/credit | Anders brief (appellate counsel): no arguable ineffective-assistance claims apparent on record; sentence lawful and judgment accurately reflects sentence/credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (Anders procedure guidance for appellate counsel withdrawal)
- Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) ("on or about" dating in indictments)
- Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (standards related to counsel effectiveness precedents)
- Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (Strickland standard adoption and ineffective-assistance review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance of counsel test)