Stafford, Curtis Roscoe
PD-1619-14
| Tex. App. | Mar 6, 2015Background
- Stafford convicted of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon in the trial court.
- Extraneous offense (1985 sexual assault) was admitted during the State’s case-in-chief.
- Appellant admitted to sex offender counseling; testified to other personal history.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unpublished memorandum; rehearing denied; discretionary review sought.
- State argues any error was harmless and open to rebuttal/door-opening theories after extraneous offense admission.
- Appellant contends admission of counseling evidence and subsequent testimony cannot justify harmlessness; relies on Rogers framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant’s first ground matches the appellate complaint | Stafford | Stafford | No; argument not preserved |
| Whether the first ground presents a fact-bound issue unworthy of discretionary review | Stafford | Stafford | Yes; issue is intensely fact-bound and unworthy |
| Whether the second ground seeks an improper advisory opinion or misconstrues the law | Stafford | Stafford | No relief; not a valid ground |
| Whether any error was harmless given Stafford’s admissions and defense theory | Stafford | Stafford | Harmless; court of appeals properly found harmlessness |
Key Cases Cited
- Arcila v. State, 834 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) (fact-bound review generally disfavored; compelling circumstances required)
- Daggett v. State, 187 S.W.3d 444 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (premature admission of extraneous offense harmless when later challenged)
- Maynard v. State, 685 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (limits on admissibility and harmlessness considerations)
- Marlo v. State, 720 S.W.2d 496 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (preservation requirements and argument timing in discretionary review)
- Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) ( Rogers exception; merit of argument hinges on who introduced the evidence)
- Plante v. State, 692 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (similarity requirements for extraneous offenses; frame-up defense context)
- Ex parte Ruiz, 750 S.W.2d 217 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) (admissions of error; some grounds cannot be raised via advisory opinions)
- Siqueiros v. State, 685 S.W.2d 68 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (extraneous-offense testimony admissible for rebuttal of fabrication)
- Rubio v. State, 607 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (premature extraneous evidence rendered harmless when defense later rebutted)
- Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005) (extraneous-offense evidence may rebut intentional-defense theories)
- Blackwell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (extraneous-offense admissibility to rebut LACK of intent/defense theories)
- Casey v. State, 215 S.W.3d 870 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (opening door to extraneous evidence allows rebuttal of fabrication theories)