Robert Earl Hart v. the State of Texas, 631 S.W.3d 458

Victim Ronald Ray was the ex-boyfriend of appellant Robert Hart’s adult daughter; the daughter testified Ray was abusive, controlling, and had threatened the family.
Ray arrived uninvited at Hart’s home, behaved provocatively outside the house, and within about a minute Hart confronted him and shot him; the encounter was captured on Hart’s home surveillance cameras.
Law enforcement obtained the surveillance footage after Hart’s wife, Elizabeth, signed broad consent-to-search forms authorizing seizure of “any and all letters, papers, material and other property.”
A jury convicted Hart of first-degree murder and sentenced him to 30 years’ imprisonment plus a $5,000 fine; Hart appealed raising three issues about counsel’s effectiveness and the omission of a sudden-passion instruction at punishment.
The court affirmed the conviction (guilt phase) but held counsel was ineffective for rejecting the trial court’s offer to include a sudden-passion instruction at punishment, reversed the punishment portion of the judgment, and remanded for a new punishment hearing.

Issue	Hart's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Counsel ineffective for failing to suppress surveillance video	Elizabeth’s consent was not voluntary/ she didn’t understand what she signed, so video should have been suppressed	Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances and covered electronic surveillance equipment	Overruled — counsel’s failure to move to suppress not shown to be prejudicial; State proved voluntariness by clear-and-convincing evidence
2. Counsel ineffective for rejecting sudden-passion instruction at punishment	Evidence (daughter’s testimony, provocation, timing, video) supported sudden passion and counsel’s rejection was objectively unreasonable	Counsel reasonably exercised strategy; evidence didn’t warrant sudden-passion instruction	Sustained — counsel’s removal of the instruction was objectively deficient and prejudicial; sentence vacated and remanded for new punishment hearing
3. Trial court erred by failing sua sponte to include sudden-passion instruction	Trial court should have given the instruction as law of the case at punishment	No error because instruction unsupported / not required	Not reached — court resolved issue 2 (ineffective assistance) and remanded, so sua sponte claim was unnecessary to decide

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (governs ineffective-assistance standard)
Trevino v. State, 100 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (defendant entitled to sudden-passion instruction if evidence so raises it)
Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (analyzing harm when jury rejects self-defense but denial of sudden-passion instruction occurs)
Beltran v. State, 472 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (requires causal connection between provocation, passion, and homicide)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (consent-to-search voluntariness standard; totality of circumstances)
Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (prejudice requirement for suppression-based ineffective-assistance claims)
Vasquez v. State, 830 S.W.2d 948 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (counsel deficient for failing to request an available jury instruction)
Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (State must prove voluntariness of consent by clear-and-convincing evidence)