Paula Kay Freeman A/K/A Paula Kay Heddins v. State
11-13-00232-CR
Tex. App.Aug 13, 2015Background
- Paula Kay Freeman (aka Paula Kay Heddins) pleaded guilty to felony fraudulent possession of 10–49 items of identifying information of an elderly person; punishment was submitted to the jury.
- At punishment the State introduced bank statements, a Wal‑Mart purchase video, a summary showing 66 alleged fraudulent withdrawals, and eleven prior conviction "pen packets."
- Appellant testified and admitted possessing the victim’s checkbook and using it; she admitted a prior perjury conviction.
- The jury assessed 75 years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine.
- On appeal Appellant argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to (1) prosecutor jury arguments (including alleged unsworn opinion and references to 66 felonies), (2) admission/authentication of prior‑conviction pen packets, and (3) prosecutor pleas for law enforcement; she also raised a purported Anders/unassigned‑error complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to prosecutor’s comment that she committed “66 felonies” (closing) | Counsel should have objected; statement was improper unsworn opinion and inflammatory | Comment was a summation/reasonable deduction from evidence (State’s summary listing 66 fraudulent expenditures) | Overruled — argument was proper summation and reasonable inference |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to prosecutor’s community‑impact and fine remarks (closing) | Counsel should have objected; plea for law enforcement was improper | Remarks were proper pleas for law enforcement and permissible argument about community impact and fines | Overruled — remarks were permissible pleas for law enforcement |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to admission/authentication of pen packets (prior convictions) | Several pen packets were not properly authenticated; one judgment was void due to typographical error | Pen packets contained name, DOB, SSN, address, signature; other linking evidence existed; typographical error does not void judgment | Overruled — State met permissible methods to prove priors; objections would not have succeeded |
| Alleged unassigned error under Anders regarding plea bargain dispute with trial counsel | Appellant claims trial‑counsel dispute over a plea offer warrants review | Issue was not briefed, not raised in trial court, and not part of record | Disregarded — not properly preserved or presented on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (ineffective assistance standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance framework)
- Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564 (proper jury argument categories)
- Borjan v. State, 787 S.W.2d 53 (prosecutor may argue community impact)
- Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919 (methods to prove prior convictions)
- Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (direct appeal record usually insufficient to show counsel deficiency)
- Ex parte Martinez, 330 S.W.3d 891 (when failure‑to‑object ineffectiveness claims require showing objection would have been meritorious)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (preservation and harmful‑error review of jury argument)