Matthew Douglas Hayes v. State
04-14-00878-CR
Tex. App.Mar 20, 2015Background
- Hayes (appellant) pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery arising from a single incident in which four victims were assaulted during a theft; he cooperated with police and agreed to testify against co-defendants.
- Victims reported bruises and a cut; none required medical treatment. One co-defendant allegedly announced he had a gun; one victim thought he saw the outline of a gun in Hayes’s sweatshirt, but another victim nearest Hayes denied a gun and said Hayes used knuckles. No weapon was recovered.
- Hayes pled guilty and submitted to a PSI; the State recommended up to 10 years; the court later sentenced Hayes to 7 years’ confinement.
- Hayes filed a motion for new trial arguing (1) the State failed to substantiate his guilty plea under art. 1.15, specifically that no evidence supported an aggravated-robbery deadly-weapon finding, (2) newly discovered evidence of PTSD (treatment records and VA psychiatrist opinion) warranted a new punishment hearing, and (3) the trial court erred by not holding a hearing on the motion.
- The trial court overruled the motion by operation of law (no hearing was held); Hayes appealed seeking reformation to robbery or a new punishment hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hayes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not holding a new‑trial hearing | No hearing required because record showed no factual matters needing resolution | Motion raised matters not determinable from record (deadly‑weapon use; PTSD evidence) entitling Hayes to a hearing | Trial court abused discretion by failing to hold hearing (appellant seeks remand) |
| Whether State substantiated guilty pleas under Art. 1.15 | Plea suffices plus victim statements (threats/possible gun) support aggravated robbery | Evidence insufficient: no serious bodily injury and no proof a deadly weapon was used or exhibited | Hayes argues lack of independent evidence to support aggravated‑robbery pleas; court should have required substantiation under art. 1.15 |
| Whether evidence supports affirmative deadly‑weapon finding | Victim’s belief and co‑defendant’s verbal claim of a gun suffice | Mere possible possession or unverified outline is insufficient; no exhibition/use shown and no weapon recovered | Hayes contends evidence fails to show ‘‘use or exhibit’’ to facilitate the felony; requests reformation to robbery or vacatur of deadly‑weapon finding |
| Whether newly discovered evidence (PTSD treatment records/opinion) warrants new punishment hearing | State likely argues existing mitigation was considered at sentencing | Hayes: post‑plea VA treatment and psychiatrist opinion are newly discovered, admissible, not cumulative, and likely to affect sentencing | Hayes argues entitlement to new punishment hearing in interest of justice based on new, material mitigating evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App.) (art. 1.15 requires evidence independent of plea to substantiate guilt)
- McCain v. State, 22 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App.) (distinguishing mere possession from "use or exhibit"; visibility and facilitation analysis)
- Plummer v. State, 410 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. Crim. App.) (deadly‑weapon finding requires conscious use/exhibition that facilitates the felony)
- Keeter v. State, 74 S.W.3d 31 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standards for newly discovered evidence and new‑trial relief)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App.) (purpose of a new‑trial hearing and scope of appellate review)