Sanders v. State
346 S.W.3d 26
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Sanders was convicted of assault of Henninge following an early-morning incident in the garage apartment of Sanders's residence.
- Witnesses Henninge, Grauerholz, and Williams testified that Sanders entered the garage, pinned Henninge against a wall or caused a severe impact, and Henninge was knocked unconscious.
- EMT/paramedic Bowman treated Henninge and testified his injuries were consistent with a severe blunt-force assault.
- Medical records and photographs were admitted showing facial injuries, abrasions, and internal injuries.
- The trial court sentenced Sanders to 270 days in jail, probated for two years, and ordered restitution of $21,541 to Henninge for medical bills.
- The defense challenged sufficiency of the evidence, argued a variance between the charging instrument and proof, claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, and challenged restitution amount; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and restitution with a dissent criticizing the ineffective-assistance analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict Sanders of assault | Sanders argues a material variance and insufficient evidence | The State argues evidence supports injury causation and intent | Evidence sufficient under Jackson standard to uphold conviction |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial | Sanders contends counsel failed to present a potentially exculpatory witness | Counsel's strategy and reasons not shown; no deficient performance demonstrated | No reversible ineffective-assistance issue based on record and abatement hearing |
| Restitution amount | Restitution of $21,541 sought for Henninge's medical costs | Court should determine if amount is justified and properly supported | Restitution amount supported by evidence and within trial court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (variance requires material prejudice only; information's adequacy for defense)
- Fuller v. State, 73 S.W.3d 250 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (variance analysis; trial defense preparation)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (adopts legal-sufficiency standard focusing on rational juror finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004) (circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency; weight to be given to testimony)
- Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) (high-level standard for sufficiency review)
- Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) (reasonable-hypothesis standard in sufficiency review)
- Harris v. State, 133 S.W.3d 760 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004) (recognizes alternative reasonable hypotheses do not defeat sufficiency)
- Campbell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 693 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (restitution must be tied to loss and be fair to victim)
- Burris v. State, 172 S.W.3d 75 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005) (restitution standards; proper burden on state)