Tran, Peter Phuc Hong
PD-1221-15
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2015Background
- Appellant Peter Phuc Hong Tran, pro se, sought leave for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to consider his pro se petition for discretionary review (PDR) after the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction on August 12, 2015.
- Tran contends the Fifth Court of Appeals refused to consider evidence favorable to him when conducting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review, relying on the rule that such review views evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.
- He argues the appellate court inconsistently credited motive evidence (robbery motive) while the jury acquitted on the capital murder (murder-in-course-of-robbery) charge, creating an irrational assessment of the lesser-included murder conviction.
- Tran asserts the circumstantial proof tied him only by post-offense conduct and cites authority that such evidence alone may be insufficient to prove party liability or specific culpable acts.
- Procedural issue: Tran missed the PDR filing deadline (believes he was granted extension to Nov. 30, 2015; court records showed Nov. 10, 2015). He asks for an additional extension, that his prior extension motion be treated as a timely PDR, or that the Court stay the court-of-appeals mandate and grant review on its own motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tran) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PDR should be treated as timely / extension granted | Tran says he relied on an extension, misread notice, placed PDR in prison mail by Nov. 30; requests extension or that prior motion be treated as timely PDR | State would rely on docket deadline (Nov. 10) and oppose late filing | The filing asks the CCA to exercise discretion to grant extension, treat prior filing as timely, or stay mandate (no court ruling in text) |
| Whether CCA should grant review on its own motion | Tran argues legal questions warrant en banc review (confusion over considering exculpatory evidence in sufficiency review; inconsistency re: motive vs. lesser-included acquittal) | State would argue appellate sufficiency review standard is settled and no conflict warrants CCA intervention | Tran requests the Court to invoke its supervisory power to grant review or stay mandate (pending court decision) |
| Whether the Fifth Court of Appeals erred by excluding defendant-favorable evidence in sufficiency review | Tran contends appellate opinion improperly refused to consider exculpatory evidence and relied on motive while jury acquitted on the greater offense | State would argue sufficiency review must view evidence in light most favorable to verdict and the appellate court applied correct standard | Tran cites conflicting authority and Hooper hypotheticals to show courts sometimes consider defendant-favorable evidence; relief requested but no disposition in the motion text |
| Whether circumstantial, post-offense conduct sufficed to support murder as party liability | Tran argues the record shows only post-offense conduct and no link to specific acts against the deceased, so reasonable doubt exists | State would argue circumstantial and motive evidence suffice to support conviction under party liability precedents | Tran urges review based on cases holding post-offense conduct can be insufficient; motion seeks CCA reconsideration (no final ruling in text) |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. State, 343 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (discussing conflict over considering defendant-favorable evidence and noting en banc dissent)
- Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Hooper hypothetical considers exculpatory evidence in evaluating cumulative weight)
- Grey v. State, 298 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (lesser-included-offense analysis and comparing rationality of verdicts)
- Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (party liability standards in murder cases)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (post-offense conduct may be insufficient to show actor actually killed victim)
- Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (post-offense behavior can leave reasonable doubt about specific criminal intent)
- Redwine v. State, 305 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (addressing evidence-consideration issues in sufficiency review)
- Campbell v. State, 320 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (prison mailbox rule for inmate filings)