Temika Charnette Owens v. State
06-15-00069-CR
| Tex. App. | Aug 17, 2015Background
- Appellant Temika Charnette Owens was charged by Rusk County indictment with harassment of a public servant for causing Officer Chris Goodson to contact her saliva during an arrest on June 1, 2014.
- The indictment was amended with the trial court's leave to track the statutory language of Tex. Penal Code §22.11.
- A jury convicted Owens after a guilt phase; punishment was assessed consistent with the jury's recommendation and she was sentenced on April 29, 2015.
- Pretrial and trial disputes included (a) the State's Brooks notice seeking enhanced punishment based on a prior conviction, (b) amendment of the indictment, (c) objection to the State’s designation/calling of an expert (Chad Taylor), and (d) voir dire questioning about potential enhanced punishment.
- Appellant asserted insufficient indictment, trial-court error on pretrial rulings/objections, insufficiency of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. Court‑appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding no non‑frivolous issues existed on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Owens) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indictment sufficiency | Indictment (as amended) tracks statute and gives constitutionally adequate notice | Indictment defective (insufficient notice) | Court: Indictment sufficient; it tracks statutory language and satisfies notice requirements |
| Trial-court rulings / pretrial matters & objections | Rulings (Brooks notice, amendments, expert testimony allowance, voir dire on punishment) were proper and complied with procedure | Rulings erroneous; prejudicial (untimely expert notice, prejudicial voir dire about enhancement, improper charge language) | Court: No reversible or fundamental error; Brooks notice/treatment and indictment amendment proper; expert testimony and voir dire allowed within legal bounds; charge correct on intoxication law |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict | Evidence (officer testimony and circumstances) supports jury verdict beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient to prove elements of harassment of a public servant | Court: Evidence sufficient under Jackson standard; a rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel's performance was reasonable; no record-based showing of deficient performance or prejudice | Trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective | Court: Ineffective-assistance claim not viable on this record; appellant did not affirmatively demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for appointed counsel who concludes appeal is frivolous)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in Texas)
- Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indictment sufficiency reviewed de novo)
- State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (indictment and notice principles)
- Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (indictment tracking statute satisfies notice requirement)
- Frausto v. State, 642 S.W.2d 505 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (limits on revealing prior convictions to the venire)