Raymond Lee Cavitt v. State
01-13-00900-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 20, 2015Background
- Raymond Lee Cavitt was indicted for sexual assault of a child (charged June 14, 2012), tried Sept.–Oct. 2013, convicted by a jury and sentenced to life with an enhancement found true. Trial court denied his motion for new trial; appeal follows.
- The complainant (R.R.), a 15‑year‑old, testified she awoke to Cavitt on top of her in his home after ingesting drugs; no medical abnormalities were found on exam performed 22 days later.
- Defense theory: the allegation was fabricated by R.R. and others after interpersonal conflicts; multiple defense‑favoring witness statements existed (some not called) and a recantation/withdrawal letter in R.R.’s handwriting was produced for the defense.
- Trial events relied on in appellate claims: (1) defense counsel told the venire/jury Cavitt had been jailed ~542 days pretrial and elicited testimony about his long criminal history; (2) a material defense witness (D.R.) was brought into the courtroom in jail uniform and handcuffs; (3) defense elicited and the prosecutor explored details of Cavitt’s prior convictions; (4) defense says counsel failed to subpoena/locate multiple favorable witnesses or elicit key favorable testimony; (5) an expert for the defense testified about sexual‑offender recidivism without timely objection.
- Procedural posture: Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial and a pro se motion for a speedy trial (denied). Appellant raises claims on appeal: ineffective assistance of counsel, speedy‑trial violation, denial of an evidentiary hearing on the motion for new trial, courtroom shackling of a defense witness, and newly discovered evidence (post‑trial statements recanting).
Issues
| Issue | Cavitt's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple failures) | Counsel: (1) prejudicially disclosed Cavitt’s lengthy pretrial incarceration and elicited his prior convictions; (2) failed to advise adequately on testifying; (3) failed to secure/subpoena material defense witnesses or elicit motive evidence; (4) failed to object to prejudicial expert testimony | (Not in brief; presumed State contends counsel’s choices were strategic and within wide professional range) | Trial court denied new trial; appellate court disposition not included in brief (appellant asks for reversal/remand) |
| Speedy trial | Cavitt: over 16 months pretrial delay triggered Barker factors; delay caused oppressive incarceration, anxiety, and loss of witnesses | (Not in brief; presumed State attributes delay to case management, defense requests, or no prejudice) | Trial court denied Cavitt’s pro se speedy‑trial motion; appellate outcome not provided in brief |
| Denial of evidentiary hearing on motion for new trial | Cavitt: motion supported by affidavit and raised matters outside the record (ineffective assistance and missing witness testimony) — therefore hearing required under Reyes | (Not in brief) | Trial court denied hearing on new trial motion; appellant seeks remand for evidentiary hearing |
| Courtroom shackling of defense witness (D.R.) | Cavitt: jurors saw D.R. in jail uniform and restraints, prejudicing her credibility and defendant’s case; trial court abused discretion by allowing it | (Not in brief; presumed State argued security needs justified restraint or no prejudice) | D.R. was brought shackled during trial; trial court removed wrist cuffs before testimony but ankle shackles remained; court denied new‑trial relief; appellate outcome not provided |
| Newly discovered evidence (recantation) | Cavitt: post‑trial statements from Deanna Hoedzoade that she lied and wants to recant are new, admissible, and would likely change result | (Not in brief) | Appellant alleges entitlement to new trial; trial court denied MNT; appellate ruling not included |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance — deficient performance and prejudice)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
- Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1976) (defendant forced to wear prison clothing undermines presumption of innocence)
- Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (factors for weighing impeachment value vs. prejudicial effect of prior convictions under Rule 609)
- Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (motion for new trial supported by affidavit raising matters outside the record entitles defendant to evidentiary hearing)