Octavious Lamar Rhymes v. State
06-16-00222-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- On February 20, 2015, Octavious Rhymes, Jonathan Sanford, Jose Ponse, and Samantha Wohlford kidnapped Ernest Ibarra, Jr.; Ibarra was taken to Camp County woods and shot to death.
- Sanford and Ponse pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping and murder; Sanford testified at Rhymes’ murder trial and was an accomplice as a matter of law.
- Rhymes was convicted by jury in Camp County of murder (75 years, to run consecutively to a prior 23-year Titus County aggravated-kidnapping sentence) after a jury trial; he appealed.
- Rhymes argued (1) insufficient evidence and failure to give an accomplice-witness instruction, (2) prosecutorial and judicial vindictiveness (motion to quash), and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for advising dismissal of an appeal in the prior kidnapping case.
- The court found (a) the trial court erred by not defining accomplice or identifying Sanford as an accomplice in the charge but the omission was harmless because non-accomplice corroborating evidence connected Rhymes to the murder, (b) no prosecutorial or judicial vindictiveness was shown or preserved, and (c) no ineffective assistance given the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rhymes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to give accomplice-witness instruction | Omission of a required instruction identifying Sanford as accomplice; jury charge error | Trial court included Article 38.14 language; any omission harmless because non‑accomplice evidence corroborated accomplice testimony | Error occurred but was harmless; conviction stands |
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder conviction | Evidence insufficient to prove intentional killing or Rhymes’ criminal responsibility as party | Testimony, admissions, forensic evidence, texts, and gun tied Rhymes to planning and execution; supports intent and party liability | Evidence legally sufficient to support murder conviction |
| Prosecutorial/judicial vindictiveness (motion to quash) | Trying Rhymes for murder after a 23-year kidnapping sentence and consecutive 75-year sentence shows vindictiveness; same DA/presiding judges across counties | No prior successful appeal/new trial to trigger presumption; no objective proof of actual vindictiveness offered | Judicial vindictiveness not preserved; prosecutorial vindictiveness not shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel induced dismissal of appeal in prior case, making prior testimony admissible and enabling consecutive sentencing | Admission of prior testimony does not require finality; prior testimony admissible under rules for former testimony; court may order consecutive sentences regardless of finality | No deficient performance shown; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard for reviewing jury-charge error and harm analysis)
- Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App.) (accomplice-witness instruction requirements)
- Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App.) (purpose of accomplice-witness instruction and harmless‑error framework)
- Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726 (Tex. Crim. App.) (two-step Almanza procedural framework citation)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App.) (legal sufficiency standard under Jackson/Brooks)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two‑prong test)
- Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. Crim. App.) (presumptions and proof for prosecutorial vindictiveness)