Prevost, Jeffery Keith, AP-77,039

Background

Defendant Jeffrey Keith Prevost was indicted and convicted of capital murder for the May 20, 2011 murders of Sherry White and her son Kyle Laverge; jury found punishment death. Appellant timely appealed.
The defense filed numerous pretrial motions attacking the Texas capital‑punishment procedures (including challenges to Art. 37.071 and Penal Code §§19.02–19.03), and moved to suppress statements and to exclude extraneous‑offense evidence. Many motions were denied by the trial court.
No copy of a written “State’s Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty” appears in the seven‑volume clerk’s record; appellant contends the State failed to file statutorily/constitutionally required written notice.
Guilt phase: appellant pleaded guilty in front of the jury after jury selection; a recorded custodial confession was admitted without objection and published to the jury; physical and forensic evidence and DNA linked appellant to the scene.
Punishment phase: extensive testimony (State and defense) about appellant’s criminal history, prison records, mental‑health history, family background and mitigation; defense called experts and family witnesses. Appellant moved for mistrial on several occasions after allegedly prejudicial testimony and was denied.

Issues

Issue	Prevost's Argument	State/Trial Court Position	Held/Disposition in Trial Record
Failure to file written notice of intent to seek death penalty (federal due process)	Failure to file written notice violated due process and deprived Prevost of required notice	Harris County practice may not have produced a separate written notice; trial court denied relief	Appellant asserts constitutional violation; record shows no written notice located; trial court did not grant relief (appeal)
Failure to file written notice (Texas Constitution due course of law)	Same as above under state constitution and statutory scheme (cites Art. 37.071 / notice statutes)	State proceeded; trial court denied pretrial challenges	Appellant preserves argument on appeal; trial court denied relief
Failure to file written notice = fundamental error	The omission is so prejudicial it warrants reversal even without contemporaneous objection	Trial court rejected motions; no contemporaneous objection preserved for some aspects	Appellant argues fundamental‑error review; trial record reflects denial of relief
Constitutionality of Art. 37.071 and Penal Code §§19.02–19.03 under Apprendi/Jones/Ring	Texas capital scheme unconstitutionally permits judge/jury role that avoids jury findings required when facts increase punishment exposure; statutory mitigation/aggravation scheme infirm	State relies on Texas precedent distinguishing aggravators/mitigation; trial court denied motion to preclude death	Appellant urged reconsideration of Perry and analogous authority; trial court denied relief
Challenge for cause excusal of veniremember #77 (William Hered)	Juror’s voir dire answers showed he could follow law and oath; excusal for cause was an abuse of discretion	State successfully challenged juror for cause; trial court granted challenge over defense objection	Trial court granted cause challenge; defense preserved error and raises it on appeal
Denial of mistrial after extraneous‑offense/unresponsive testimony (multiple instances: Vicky Alexander, Thomesa Hollins, prosecutorial question re: prison bribery)	Jury‑inflammatory statements and unresponsive witness remarks (including witness expressing desire for defendant to get death) could not be cured by instruction; mistrial warranted	Trial court sustained objections and instructed jury to disregard, but denied mistrial motions	Trial court denied mistrial motions; appellant preserved and raises these errors on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing punishment must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt)
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1999) (statutory facts that increase penalty exposure implicate Apprendi concerns)
Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Apprendi rule applies to capital sentencing; aggravating factors are functional elements)
Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1975) (prosecution must prove absence of heat of passion when properly raised)
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (U.S. 1977) (Eighth Amendment proportionality considerations in capital punishment)
Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (standard for reversible trial error and harmfulness review)
Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Texas precedent distinguishing aggravating and mitigating fact roles in capital sentencing)
Ex parte Patterson, 740 S.W.2d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (due‑process notice principles for punishment enhancements)
State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (discussion of practice concerning notice in capital cases)
Flores v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2000) (federal decision addressing Texas capital sentencing statute issues)