Ronald Eugene Reynolds v. State
08-15-00376-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Ronald E. Reynolds, a Houston attorney and named partner at a firm, was convicted of five misdemeanor barratry counts for knowingly permitting third-party solicitations within 31 days of accidents.
- Robert and Crystal Valdez ran a referral scheme: obtaining accident reports quickly, contacting not-at-fault drivers, directing them to Valdez-controlled clinics, and delivering signed fee agreements to lawyers for cash payments.
- Investigators recovered client files and intake paperwork under Reynolds’s letterhead for five charged victims (Trevino, Taw, Sanchez, Castelan, Keller); paperwork showed contacts within 30 days and medical treatment often occurring after sign-ups.
- Robert Valdez testified that Reynolds agreed to purchase referrals at set cash rates and that Reynolds paid him; security footage and text messages corroborated meetings and coded payment messages.
- Reynolds disputed knowledge of improper solicitation, asserted referrals came from legitimate clinic walk-ins, attacked Valdez’s credibility, and noted prior legitimate payments and training practices at his former firm.
- The jury convicted; Reynolds appealed challenging evidentiary sufficiency, admission of extraneous-offense evidence (including a Harris County investigation and one disputed settlement), and venue (case tried in Montgomery County).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Reynolds's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Reynolds "knowingly permitted" improper third-party solicitations | Circumstantial proof (payments in cash, timing of sign-ups before treatment, whited-out "Robert" referrals, texts, payments stopping during unrelated investigation) supports knowledge | Reynolds claimed referrals were clinic-initiated/walk-ins, denied knowledge that Valdez solicited victims via accident reports | Affirmed: cumulative circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to find Reynolds knew of and permitted Valdez’s solicitation |
| Admissibility of extraneous-offense evidence (Harris County investigation and disputed Castelan settlement) | Evidence rebuts Reynolds’s denials (showed prior investigation, stopped/refused referrals during probe) and is probative of knowledge; limited admission and jury instructions requested | Evidence was prejudicial and remote; Castelan settlement testimony was irrelevant and should be excluded | Harris County investigation: admitted (probative and properly limited). Castelan settlement/release mechanics: admission was error but harmless. Overall no reversible error |
| Venue (Montgomery County) | Some solicitations and faxed/completed intake forms originated from Valdez’s Montgomery County office; venue proven by preponderance | Venue improper because victims and Reynolds’s offices were in Harris County and Reynolds lacked awareness of Montgomery connection | Affirmed: venue sustained by circumstantial evidence showing part of the offense occurred in Montgomery County; any venue error not harmful |
| Prejudice/harm from extraneous evidence or venue | Any alleged error did not affect substantial rights; evidence was limited and not emphasized | Argued forum-shopping and exclusion agreements would have precluded certain evidence in Harris County | Held: no substantial harm shown; appellate review finds no reversible prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (constitutional standard for legal sufficiency of evidence)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.) (Jackson standard as sole sufficiency review)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex.Crim.App.) (weight and credibility deference to jury; circumstantial evidence probative)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.) (circumstantial evidence may alone support conviction)
- Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Crim.App.) (relevance and venue principles; Rule 404(b) framework)
- Gigliobianco v. State, 210 S.W.3d 637 (Tex.Crim.App.) (Rule 403 balancing factors)
- Schmutz v. State, 440 S.W.3d 29 (Tex.Crim.App.) (venue burden and harmless-error analysis)