Lawrence Leon Cloud v. the State of Texas
13-19-00508-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 24, 2021Background
- On May 9, 2018, a license-plate reader alerted DPS Special Agent Carroll Frost to a stolen vehicle at a Days Inn in San Antonio; Lawrence Cloud was observed exiting the vehicle and entering the hotel.
- Frost and other special agents encountered Cloud in a hallway; Cloud ran, was chased to his hotel room door, and a struggle occurred during apprehension.
- Dolores Garcia opened the room door and told officers Cloud had a weapon; agents subdued Cloud and Agent Conquest recovered a loaded .45 pistol from Cloud’s waistband; surveillance video and a jail phone call (Cloud: “they caught me with my .45 on me”) were admitted at trial.
- Cloud testified he referred to a different gun in the phone call, denied ownership of the recovered pistol, blamed others in the room, and admitted being a convicted felon.
- A jury found Cloud guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm (third-degree felony) and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment; on appeal Cloud raised (1) sufficiency of evidence, (2) denial of motion to suppress, and (3) improper/prosecutorial argument.
Issues
| Issue | Cloud's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession | Evidence was insufficient to prove Cloud possessed the gun | Agent testimony, surveillance, and Cloud’s jail call support possession beyond a reasonable doubt | Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient |
| Denial of motion to suppress (insufficient probable cause) | Arrest/search lacked probable cause; evidence should be suppressed | Cloud forfeited the complaint by failing to timely present the motion and obtain a pretrial ruling | Appeal forfeited suppression claim for lack of preservation; denial stands |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / improper argument and witness opinion | State argued facts and elicited impermissible opinion testimony, prejudicing Cloud | Objections were sustained or not timely pursued; any error cured or not preserved | Claims overruled: court presumed jury followed curative instructions or Cloud failed to preserve error |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deference to jury, circumstantial evidence can prove guilt)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (circumstantial evidence as probative as direct evidence)
- Whatley v. State, 445 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (application of Jackson standard in Texas)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (hypothetically correct jury charge framework)
- Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) (clarifying sufficiency measure against correct jury charge)
- Garza v. State, 126 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preservation of error requires timely objection/motion and ruling)
- Strehl v. State, 486 S.W.3d 110 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016) (motion to suppress forfeited if jury hears evidence before ruling)
- Weeks v. State, 396 S.W.3d 737 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013) (timeliness requirement for motions to suppress)
- McGinn v. State, 961 S.W.2d 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (preservation of jury-argument complaints requires adverse ruling, limiting instruction, or mistrial motion)
- Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (presumption that jury follows curative instructions)
- Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (similar rule on curative instructions)
- Campos v. State, 946 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (requirements to preserve improper-argument claims)