Robert Lyonell Phillips v. State
401 S.W.3d 282
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Phillips made multiple 911 calls February 23, 2011 seeking an officer to document visitation; he demanded immediate dispatch and warned against a specific officer, Officer Christian.
- Operators told him it was a civil matter; he nonetheless continued calling and threatened to blow the officer’s brains out if Christian came to his house.
- Three SAPD 911 operators testified; recordings and dispatcher practices showed officers are dispatched based on call priority and dispatcher discretion.
- Phillips was convicted by jury of Coercion of a Public Servant (Count I) and Terroristic Threat (Count II), with Count III (Retaliation) waived by State; he received concurrent five-year terms suspended to probation.
- Phillips appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence and alleged variances between pleading and proof; the court affirmed the judgments as modified to correct a clerical error in Count II.
- The court held there was legally sufficient evidence to support both offenses and modified the judgment to reflect the correct statute for Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of coercion of public servant | Phillips argues there is a variance; Jaramillo was not the proper complainant. | State contends Jaramillo’s actions were within or influenced by her official duties and evidence supports coercion by threat to a public servant. | No variance; evidence supports coercion of a public servant. |
| Terroristic threat sufficiency under 22.07(a)(6) | Threat must influence the specific unit and be imminent; conditional threats are insufficient. | Threat to assault a third party (Officer Christian) can satisfy §22.07(a)(6) and imminence is not required under (a)(6). | Evidence supports terroristic threat under §22.07(a)(6); no imminence requirement. |
| Imminence requirement under 22.07(a)(6) | No imminence; statute lacks imminent requirement for (a)(6). | Imminence not required for (a)(6); threat to third party can still be purposeful to influence government conduct. | Imminence not required for (a)(6); conviction sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 364 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (defines 'hypothetically correct' elements and standard for legal sufficiency)
- Cada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (variance between pleading and proof is material when statutory element differs)
- Tobias v. State, 884 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994) (addressed coercion of public servant; not controlling on third-party threats)
- Cook v. State, 940 S.W.2d 344 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1997) (intent inferred from acts and language to place victim in fear)
- In re A.C., 48 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001) (threats can support terroristic threat under conditional contexts)
- Williams v. State, 194 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (analysis of implied imminence and threat intent)
- Dues v. State, 634 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (imminence focus in terroristic threat analysis under §22.07(a)(2))
- Bryant v. State, 905 S.W.2d 457 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995) (conditional threats reviewed for fear of imminent bodily injury)
- Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (statutory interpretation regarding coercion and threats)