Willie Frank Jackson v. State
06-14-00097-CR
| Tex. App. | Feb 18, 2015Background
- Appellant Willie Frank Jackson was convicted by a jury in Hunt County of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 90 years; this document is his appellate brief seeking reversal or a new trial.
- Victim Steven Cook testified Jackson confronted him at his truck, struck him in the face with a pistol in an oven mitt, the pistol clicked then Cook was shot in the leg; Cook later discovered money missing from his wallet and a gun missing from his truck.
- Cook knew Jackson and considered him a friend; Cook did not immediately call police or go to a hospital; some property (wallet, phone) was later recovered and there was no direct proof the recovered money belonged to Cook or that Jackson retained the items.
- During the punishment phase, the prosecutor asked Jackson to lift his shirt to authenticate tattoo photos; the record shows the jury saw Jackson wearing an electronic immobilization device ("stun/shock belt").
- The brief raises two primary appellate complaints: (1) legal insufficiency of the evidence to prove aggravated robbery (insufficient proof of the theft element/intent to deprive), and (2) trial court error in allowing the jury to see Jackson restrained in an electronic immobilization device without on-the-record findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of aggravated robbery (intent to deprive/theft) | State asserts evidence of a robbery: gun displayed/shot, property taken from truck | Jackson argues evidence fails to prove intent to deprive or that he actually appropriated victim’s property — proof is circumstantial and speculative | Not decided in this brief — appellant requests reversal; no appellate ruling included here |
| Visibility of restraints during trial (stun belt) | State justified showing tattoos and evidence; sought authentication of photos | Jackson argues the jury saw the electronic immobilization device, which dehumanizes defendant and infringes presumption of innocence; court made no specific findings | Not decided in this brief — appellant requests new punishment trial if other issues denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (appearance of physical restraints can undermine presumption of innocence and requires justification)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency: whether any rational trier of fact could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (appellate review must defer to factfinder but guard against irrational verdicts)
- Urbano v. State, 837 S.W.2d 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (mere suspicion or probability is insufficient to sustain conviction)
- Snowden v. State, 353 S.W.3d 815 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (factors for assessing harm from trial error, including nature of error and probable collateral implications)