Robinson, Ronald
PD-0757-15
| Tex. App. | Jun 24, 2015Background
- Ronald Robinson was tried and convicted of capital murder for the 1991 killing of Jimmy Sims; punishment was life imprisonment (death not sought). A prior conviction was reversed and case retried; the jury again convicted Robinson.
- Prosecution theory: Robinson hired Bob Mason to kill Sims because Sims had an affair with Robinson’s wife; multiple witnesses tied Mason to the shooting and placed Mason and accomplices near the scene. Several witnesses (J. Martinez, K. Martinez, Greg Fuentes) testified about Mason’s role and statements implicating Robinson.
- Greg Fuentes testified that Mason and another man came to his house after the shooting with masks and gloves, that Mason told Robinson “I took care of your problem. He's dead,” and that Robinson paid Mason; Fuentes also helped Mason travel and dispose of a gun after the murder.
- Defense elicited testimony from a police witness that Mason is serving a life sentence and that Mason was convicted of murder-for-hire with Robinson as the hirer; Robinson argued this opened the door to prejudicial conviction evidence and amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.
- On appeal Robinson argued (1) the trial court erred by not giving an accomplice-witness instruction as to Fuentes under Zamora, and (2) counsel was ineffective for eliciting or failing to object to testimony revealing Mason’s conviction for murder-for-hire.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Fuentes was not shown to have committed an affirmative act promoting the murder so no accomplice instruction was required, and Robinson failed to prove Strickland prejudice from counsel’s conduct given the overall evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give an accomplice-witness instruction for Fuentes | Fuentes’s actions (driving Mason, witnessing payment, helping Mason flee, aiding disposal of weapon, sharing criminal conduct) raised a fact issue that made him an accomplice under Zamora | No evidence showed an affirmative act by Fuentes that promoted the murder; his conduct was post‑offense assistance or mere knowledge, not accomplice conduct | Court held no error: Fuentes did not commit an affirmative act promoting the murder, so no accomplice-witness instruction was required |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for eliciting (and not objecting to) testimony that Mason was convicted of murder-for-hire implicating Robinson | Counsel’s questions opened the door to prejudicial evidence of a co-defendant’s conviction; Ex parte Hill suggests such conduct can prejudice the defendant | Defense strategy plausibly aimed to impeach Mason’s credibility by showing his criminal record; even if error, Robinson cannot show a reasonable probability of a different outcome given overwhelming corroborating evidence | Court held no Strickland prejudice: even assuming error, Robinson failed to show a reasonable probability of a different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (discusses when accomplice-witness instruction is required and standards for accomplice characterization)
- Ex parte Hill, 863 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (defense counsel opening the door to co-defendant’s conviction can prejudice defendant)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (accomplice definition and requirement of an affirmative act in furtherance of the offense)
- Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (affirmative-act requirement for accomplice-witness instruction)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)