Larry Earl Lee v. State
05-16-00709-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 26, 2017Background
- On Jan. 14, 2016, police responded to a prowler report at a townhome complex; resident saw a man on her back porch and pointed officers toward a nearby unit with a broken window.
- Officers entered the unit through the broken window after announcing themselves; they observed ransacked rooms, open purses, emptied drawers, and jewelry on the floor.
- In a bedroom officers found appellant Larry Earl Lee naked in bed, apparently feigning sleep; he initially spoke in a language the officers did not understand, then later said in English that he had permission to be there.
- Owners testified they had locked and left the home neat; no one had permission to be on the premises. Appellant was arrested and charged with burglary of a habitation.
- A jury convicted Lee; the State proved two prior felonies for enhancement, the trial court found both enhancement paragraphs true, and sentenced Lee to 25 years. The Court of Appeals granted the State’s motions to correct clerical errors in the judgment and affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence (intent to commit theft) | Circumstantial evidence (night entry, ransacked home, open purses, jewelry on floor, appellant hiding in bed) supports inference of intent to steal. | Evidence insufficient to prove intent to commit theft beyond a reasonable doubt. | Court: Evidence legally sufficient; cumulative incriminating circumstances support intent. |
| 2. Lesser-included offense instruction (criminal trespass) | No instruction needed because indictment did not specify full- vs partial-entry; trespass not a lesser-included unless indictment narrowed entry type or defendant moved to quash. | Requested jury charge on criminal trespass as a lesser-included offense. | Court: Trial court did not err; criminal trespass not required lesser-included here because indictment did not specify entry type and defendant did not move to quash. |
| 3. Admissibility of appellant’s statements (Miranda custodial interrogation) | Statements were routine investigatory responses (what are you doing here) during an investigatory detention; Miranda not triggered. | Statements obtained after handcuffing while detained — custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings; statements should be suppressed. | Court: No abuse of discretion denying suppression; handcuffs during investigative detention did not automatically create custody; preliminary question not interrogation under Miranda. |
| 4. Article 38.22 preservation and harmless error; judgment corrections (cross-issues) | Article 38.22 claim not preserved because defense objected only on Miranda grounds; even if error, admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State requests clerical corrections to judgment to reflect jury trial and enhancement pleas/findings. | Argues statements inadmissible under article 38.22 and Miranda; opposed modifications. | Court: Article 38.22 issue not preserved; any Miranda error harmless. Modified judgment to show conviction by jury and correct pleas/findings on enhancement paragraphs; affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation warnings required)
- State v. Meru, 414 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App.) (criminal trespass ordinarily not lesser-included of burglary absent specificity)
- Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. Crim. App.) (circumstantial evidence may establish intent)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App.) (courts may reform clerical errors in judgments when record supports correction)