Nathaniel Frazier, Jr. AKA Nathaniel J. Frazier v. State
03-14-00655-CR
| Tex. App. | May 7, 2015Background
- Nathaniel J. Frazier Jr. was indicted for assault of a family/household member by impeding breathing or circulation (third-degree felony), with an enhancement alleging a prior felony—raising punishment to second-degree range.
- Trial occurred July 14–15, 2014; jury found Frazier guilty and the trial court found the enhancement true; court assessed an 18-year TDCJ sentence.
- Key factual dispute: victim Sandra Salinas testified Frazier entered her home, attacked, choked and maced her; Frazier testified he arrived to collect tools, was maced and shot-at by Salinas, and denied a dating/intimate relationship.
- Defense advanced alibi/alternative-perpetrator and contested evidentiary matters (prior convictions, witness lists, out-of-state subpoenas, authentication of inmate letters, relevance/impeachment issues).
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no non-frivolous issues for appeal and moved to withdraw, while preserving the defendant’s right to file a pro se response.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Frazier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Indictment sufficiency | Indictment meets Art. 21.02 and pleads elements of §22.01(b)(2) (impeding breathing; dating relationship). | Indictment insufficient? (no meritorious claim raised) | Indictment sufficient; no reversible error. |
| 2. Pretrial rulings (bond, subpoenas, witness-certificates) | Rulings (bond increases, denial of out‑of‑state witness subpoenas) were within trial court discretion given evidence. | Argued bond excessive; needed out‑of‑state subpoenas/material witnesses. | No abuse of discretion; no reversible error. |
| 3. Trials rulings (admission/exclusion, impeachment) | Court properly admitted/authenticated evidence (photographs, correspondence, fingerprint match); limited impeachment under Rule 609 appropriately. | Contest admission/authentication and prejudicial effect of prior convictions. | Any evidentiary errors were within discretion or harmless; no reversible error. |
| 4. Jury charge (lesser‑included offense) | No evidence supported a lesser‑included instruction; charge was proper. | Requested Class A misdemeanor instruction should have been given. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; instruction not required. |
| 5. Sufficiency of evidence | State: testimony, photos, officer observations, forensic links and rebuttal supports conviction beyond a reasonable doubt under Jackson. | Frazier: contested facts, alternative theory, argued State failed to prove elements. | Evidence sufficient under Jackson/Brooks standard to support conviction. |
| 6. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel provided active, competent representation (motions, voir dire, cross‑examination); record shows no deficient performance. | Alleged omissions (no specific meritorious claims in Anders brief). | No record-based Strickland showing; appellate counsel concluded no non‑frivolous ineffective-assistance claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (applying Jackson standard in Texas)
- Ex parte Rubac, 611 S.W.2d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (factors for bail and bond reduction review)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for bail and other trial rulings)
- Tillman v. State, 354 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)