Leon Willis Wilkerson v. State of Texas
391 S.W.3d 190
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Leon Willis Wilkerson was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 99 years after pleas of true to enhancement allegations.
- The case was appealed from the 19th District Court, McLennan County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 2009-66-C1.
- Wilkerson challenged voir dire restrictions, requested a lesser-included theft instruction, challenged certain costs, and argued improper punishment range.
- The State argued that Wilkerson waived guilt/innocence errors under DeGarmo doctrine, which the court rejected.
- The trial court restricted questions comparing burdens of proof, but the court later found this error non-prejudicial under harm analysis.
- One enhancement was improper (state jail felony used for enhancement), requiring modification of the judgment and remand for punishment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voir dire on burdens of proof | Wilkerson sought to compare burdens of proof on venire panel. | State restricted inquiry as improper; Paulson/Fuller restrictions apply. | Trial court abused discretion; error harmless under Rule 44.2(b). |
| Effectiveness of trial counsel | Restriction impaired counsel’s ability to educate on burdens of proof. | Counsel effectively conducted voir dire and preserved error for appeal. | No ineffective assistance; second issue overruled. |
| Charge on lesser included offense | Evidence could support theft as lesser included offense. | No evidence to support a theft-only conviction; proper to omit charge. | Court did not err in denying theft instruction; third issue overruled. |
| Assessment of fees as court costs | Fees should not be charged against indigent defendant. | Evidence insufficient to support these costs; remedy to delete them. | Judgment modified to delete court-appointed attorney’s and investigator’s fees. |
| Range of punishment | Improper enhancement range due to incorrect use of a state jail felony. | Waiver argued; however, improper enhancement requires remand. | Fifth issue sustained; punishment remanded for new hearing; error egregious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuller v. State, 363 S.W.3d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (reaffirms voir dire on reasonable doubt; trial court abused discretion restricting burden comparisons)
- Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (juror understanding of reasonable doubt; trial rights preserved via voir dire)
- Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (cognate-pleadings approach for lesser included offenses; determines inclusion criteria)
- Jordan v. State, 256 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (harm analysis in improper enhancement sequence; sequencing affects remedy)
- Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (harm standard for Rule 44.2(b) errors in criminal cases)
- Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (remand/remedy framework for improper enhancements; preservation despite no objection)
- Moore v. State, 574 S.W.2d 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (defendant entitled to instruction on every issue raised by evidence)
- Arzaga v. State, 86 S.W.3d 767 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2002) (inquiry on lesser included offenses proper when supported by evidence)