Troy Luther Williams v. State
03-14-00228-CR
| Tex. App. | May 28, 2015Background
- Appellant Troy Williams was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault in Travis County, Texas, following a single trial that also involved related charges in a consolidated proceeding.
- The indictment alleged abduction with intent to commit bodily injury and sexual abuse, and included a prior juvenile adjudication as an enhancement.
- During punishment, evidence showed the victim, Sherry Dana, was assaulted at Gus Garcia Recreational Center, tugged toward woods, restrained, and threatened with a gun.
- DNA evidence showed appellant could not be excluded from epithelial DNA on Dana's labial swabs but could be excluded from vaginal swabs; Dana and her husband could not be excluded from certain DNA mixtures.
- A latent fingerprint expert linked an earlier juvenile adjudication for aggravated sexual assault of a child to Williams, with related probation history and juvenile corrections records presented during punishment.
- The jury ultimately sentenced Williams to 60 years for aggravated kidnapping and 85 years for aggravated sexual assault, to run concurrently with other counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Release in a safe place instruction at punishment | Williams | No safe place release evidence; not requested | In error; safe place instruction should have been given |
| Improper parole argument by prosecutor | Parole calculation argument inappropriate | Argument admissible under paraphrasing the charge | In error; prosecutorial parole argument sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex.Cr.App. 1998) (requires a record showing release in safe place for instruction)
- Ballard v. State, 193 S.W.3d 916 (Tex.Cr.App. 2006) (overt acts needed for safe-release instruction)
- Perez v. State, 994 S.W.2d 233 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999) (parole argument vs. charge paraphrase)
- Facundo v. State, 971 S.W.2d 133 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 1998) (parole argument improper)
- Espinosa v. State, 29 S.W.3d 257 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th] 2000) (harmful error review under 44.2(b))
- Alejandro v. State, 493 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.Cr.App. 1973) (summary of evidence; proper jury argument)
- Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985) (harm analysis for Almanza standard)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1956) (harms analysis standard cited)