William Everette Razor v. State
03-14-00379-CR
| Tex. App. | Jan 21, 2015Background
- Appellant William Everette Razor was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (second-degree felony) and sentenced to 13 years’ confinement. He timely appealed.
- Facts: Victim Jessica Stone accepted a ride, agreed to pay for sex, and was assaulted in an apartment; she was struck multiple times, screamed “rape,” and was threatened with a gun; assailant took her money.
- Medical evidence: Stone suffered facial fractures (including a fractured lower jaw), required surgery removing two molars, had her jaw partially wired with a prolonged liquid diet and persistent numbness/chewing discomfort two years later.
- Physical evidence: convenience-store surveillance and a condom recovered from the scene; DNA from the condom matched Razor with an extremely high probability favoring inclusion.
- Trial development: defendant requested a lesser-included offense charge (assault causing bodily injury), which was denied; jury convicted and assessed punishment after hearing prior bad-act evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that injury was "serious bodily injury" | Razor: fractured/jaw wiring alone insufficient to show prolonged loss of bodily function | State: fracture, surgery, limited diet, persistent numbness/discomfort support serious bodily injury | Counsel concluded no non-frivolous appellate issue; cited precedent supports that fractured/wired jaw with prolonged impairment meets serious bodily injury standard |
| Cruel and unusual punishment / excessive sentence | Razor: 13-year sentence is excessive given mitigating circumstances and may violate Eighth Amendment | State: sentence is within statutory range and thus constitutional | Counsel concluded argument fails because punishment falls within legislatively authorized range |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (establishes counsel’s procedure for withdrawing when appeal is frivolous)
- Benson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (procedural safeguards when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (applies Jackson standard in Texas sufficiency review)
- High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (procedural authority in Texas on counsel withdrawal when no arguable grounds exist)