Court Opinion

ID: 9379248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-15 08:07:53.536325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.730857
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-22-00071-CR

        CHARLES LANCE TAYLOR, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 115th District Court
                Upshur County, Texas
                Trial Court No. 18,958

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

       An Upshur County jury found that Charles Lance Taylor threatened to shoot Barbara Fry

due to her status as a State’s witness and, as a result, convicted Taylor of the offense of

retaliation, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(a)(1)(A), (c). After

Taylor pled true to the State’s punishment enhancement allegations, the jury assessed a sentence

of ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Taylor argues that the jury’s verdict of guilt was

not supported by sufficient evidence. He also argues that the trial court erred by admitting

extraneous-offense evidence and by allowing an alternate juror to remain in the jury room.

       We find that (1) legally sufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict of guilt, (2) Taylor

failed to preserve any complaint about the admission of extraneous-offense evidence, and

(3) Taylor was unharmed by the presence of the alternate juror in the jury room during

deliberations.

       Even so, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect the proper degree of offense. As

modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I.     Legally Sufficient Evidence Supported the Jury’s Verdict of Guilt

       In his first point of error, Taylor argues that the jury’s verdict of guilt was not supported

by legally sufficient evidence. We disagree.

       A.        Standard of Review

       “In evaluating legal sufficiency, we review all the evidence in the light most favorable to

the trial court’s judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found the essential

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Williamson v. State, 589 S.W.3d 292, 297
                                                  2
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2019, pet. ref’d) (citing Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2010) (plurality op.); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Hartsfield v.

State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. ref’d)). “Our rigorous [legal

sufficiency] review focuses on the quality of the evidence presented.” Id. (citing Brooks, 323

S.W.3d at 917–18 (Cochran, J., concurring)). “We examine legal sufficiency under the direction

of the Brooks opinion, while giving deference to the responsibility of the jury ‘to fairly resolve

conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts

to ultimate facts.’” Id. (quoting Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19; Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App.

2007))).

       In our review, we consider “events occurring before, during and after the commission of

the offense and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common

design to do the prohibited act.” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)

(quoting Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). It is not required that

each fact “point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative

force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the conviction.”           Id.

“Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence are equally probative in establishing the guilt of a

defendant, and guilt can be established by circumstantial evidence alone.” Paroline v. State, 532

S.W.3d 491, 498 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, no pet.) (citing Ramsey v. State, 473 S.W.3d

805, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (citing Guevara v. State, 152

S.W.3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004))).

                                                 3
       “Legal sufficiency of the evidence is measured by the elements of the offense as defined

by a hypothetically correct jury charge.” Id. at 298 (quoting Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997)). “The ‘hypothetically correct’ jury charge is ‘one that accurately sets

out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of

proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of liability, and adequately describes the

particular offense for which the defendant was tried.’” Id. (quoting Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240).

Here, the State alleged that Taylor intentionally or knowingly threatened to harm Fry “by an

unlawful act, namely shooting her, in retaliation for or on account of [her] status . . . as a

witness.”

       B.      The Evidence at Trial

       At trial, the evidence showed that Fry became a witness when Taylor committed family

violence assault by occlusion against her. Fry testified that she and Taylor, her boyfriend, moved

in together in July 2019. She described the relationship as “[p]retty good” at first but testified

that it soured after Taylor began assaulting her on “[t]oo many” occasions. Fry said she would

split up with Taylor for a while instead of reporting his abuse but would return to him because

she loved him. On June 23, 2020, Fry left Taylor for the last time.

       The evidence showed that the couple had argued on that day because Fry had sold

Taylor’s belongings to raise enough money to bail him out of jail. Fry was not living with

Taylor at the time, and she went home after the argument. Fry said she was sleeping at her own

home when Taylor burst through her bedroom door, grabbed her, tried to drag her off the bed,

and struck her. Fry testified that Taylor choked her and that she could not breathe. According to

                                                4
Fry, Taylor kept hitting her in the head and put her in a headlock, but she was able to run and

escape after “grabb[ing] . . . his private area.” While fleeing from Taylor, Fry went to her

neighbor’s house. Seeing that Fry had escaped, Taylor fled the scene.

           Anthony Moore, an officer with the City of Lone Star Police Department, testified that he

was dispatched to Fry’s neighbor’s house, where he met with Fry. According to Moore, Fry had

“apparent bruising around her neck area” and “scratches and bruises on her hands, like she had

been in a scuffle or fight.” Fry, who was “in a panic,” told Moore “that Mr. Taylor grabbed her

by the throat, [that he] squeezed tight, and [that] . . . she couldn’t breathe at that point when he

stopped her breathing from restraining her.” Moore said that Fry’s injuries were consistent with

her statement. As a result, Moore filed a charge with the Morris County District Attorney’s

Office for family violence assault by occlusion against Taylor.

           Both Fry and Steven Blythe, chief of police for the City of Lone Star Police Department,

testified that, on June 24, 2020, Fry called the police again to report the theft of two of her

pistols.     According to Blythe, Fry reported that Taylor had stolen her guns.         The State’s

indictment for family violence assault by occlusion was filed on September 17, 2020. Around

October 2020, Taylor sent Fry photographs of two pistols. Fry testified that Taylor sent her

“pages and pages of voicemails” and “20,000 or more text messages” that threatened and

intimidated her. Fry said, “[Taylor] told me that he was going to kill me with my own gun.”

Because she believed him capable of carrying out the threat since he had stolen her guns, she

reported it to the police in January 2021.

                                                   5
            David Hazel, a deputy with the Upshur County Sheriff’s Office, testified that Fry met

with Deputy Hailey Goode on January 12, 2021, to file a report of retaliation. The January 12

meeting was recorded and played for the jury. On the recording, the jury heard Taylor’s angry

voicemails, including one in which he threatened to split Fry’s head open. The jury also heard a

voicemail from Taylor accusing Fry of “hanging 25 years over [his] head.”

            Rob Bowen, an investigator with the Upshur County Sheriff’s Office, spoke with Fry,

who had many obscene and threatening messages from Taylor. According to Bowen, Fry said

that “she received a phone call where she was threated to be shot . . . by her own gun.” Also

according to Bowen, in December 2020, Taylor accused Fry of trying to have him imprisoned

for forty years, which Bowen knew was within Taylor’s sentencing range for the family violence

assault by occlusion due to habitual-offender allegations in the State’s indictment.

            Bowen reviewed several of Taylor’s text messages to Fry in the December 2020 to

January 2021 time frame. In those messages, Taylor wrote, “I’m just glad I found out truth all

about you before you got me 40 yrs behind all your lies” and “I’ll fix ur sorry ass where you

won’t never take advantage of no one else.” When Fry responded that Taylor’s threats did not

scare her and asked Taylor to leave her alone, Taylor responded, “Drop the charges like I did on

your sorry ass.”1 Taylor added, “I guarantee I’ll get all u stole see u get your ass beat . . . up,”

and “Your [sic] retarded thinking u can pull those charges off behind your sorry lies. It would be

different if you was hurt.” In Bowen’s belief, Taylor’s messages were threats that constituted

1
    Bowen testified that Fry had no criminal history.
                                                        6
retaliation. On a video recording of the meeting with Fry, Bowen recalled hearing Taylor say

that he was going to kill Fry with her own gun.

       Despite Taylor’s threats, neither Fry nor the State dropped the charge of family violence

assault by occlusion. On November 1, 2021, Taylor pled guilty to the offense and was placed on

deferred adjudication community supervision.          Soon thereafter, the State filed a motion to

adjudicate Taylor’s guilt on allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his

community supervision by contacting Fry by phone on November 14 and 15, 2021, and by using

methamphetamine. On March 22, 2022, Taylor’s community supervision was revoked, his guilt

was adjudicated, and he received a three-year sentence of imprisonment for the assault against

Fry.

       Taylor testified in his defense. He admitted that he had choked her, asked her to drop the

family violence charges, became angry when the charges were not dropped, and had violated his

community supervision by calling her. Even so, he claimed that he never threatened to shoot

Fry. He said that his angry voicemails, messages, and threats were related to her allegedly

keeping his stimulus checks. In response to his testimony, the State played a jailhouse call in

which Taylor asked his ex-mother-in-law to talk to Fry because they were “offering” him “25 to

life,” and “if she [did not] testify, they [had] nothing.” After asking his ex-mother-in-law to

persuade Fry, Taylor said he believed he would get “40 if [he was] guilty.”

       The jury rejected Taylor’s testimony and found him guilty of retaliation.

                                                  7
       C.      Analysis

       Fry argues that, even though the State showed “voluminous instances of [Taylor] sending

vulgar and angry text messages to Fry as well [as] many unsavory voicemails,” “the record lacks

evidence that he said he would shoot her because she was a witness.” We disagree.

       The jury heard that Taylor and Fry had a history of family violence but that Fry had not

reported Taylor until the June 23, 2020, choking incident. The day after, Fry reported that

Taylor had taken her guns. “Section 36.06(a) not only protects witnesses but potential witnesses

and those who have reported the occurrence of a crime.” Hudspeth v. State, 31 S.W.3d 409, 412

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, pet. ref’d). As in Hudspeth, “[u]nder the evidence presented at

trial, at the time appellant made the statements at issue, [Fry] was both a potential witness and a

person who had reported a crime. It is irrelevant that she had not yet testified.” Id.

       “Comments can be evaluated as threats based, not just on the language used, but also the

context within which they are uttered.” Meyer v. State, 366 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2012, no pet.). As a result, “retaliatory intent can be inferred from [an accused’s]

acts, words, [or] conduct.” Umstead v. State, 440 S.W.3d 909, 916 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2014,

pet. ref’d) (mem. op.). Around the December 2020 to January 2021 timeframe, Taylor sent Fry

messages that blamed her for the jail time he was facing. Text messages showed that, when Fry

referenced Taylor’s threats and asked him to leave her alone, Taylor responded, “Drop the

charges.” Fry said that, around January 12, Taylor threatened to shoot her with her own gun.

Because she was concerned that he would carry out his threat, she reported the threat to the

police. Although Taylor denied threatening to shoot Fry, the jury was free to reject his claim in

                                                 8
favor of Fry’s testimony. See Williamson, 589 S.W.3d at 297. On the recording, Bowen was

heard corroborating Fry’s report that Taylor said he was going to shoot her. After reviewing

Taylor’s messages, Bowen testified that he believed Taylor was retaliating.

            We acknowledge that the record contained evidence that Taylor was angry about not

receiving his stimulus check. Even so, when we view all the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict, including the progression of the text messages, Taylor’s conversation with his ex-

mother-in-law, and Fry’s and Bowen’s testimony, we conclude that a rational jury could find that

Taylor’s threat to shoot Fry was the result of her failure to comply with his request to try to end

the family violence assault by occlusion prosecution.

            We find that legally sufficient evidence showed that Taylor intentionally or knowingly

threatened to harm Fry by shooting her, in retaliation for or on account of her status as a witness.

Consequently, we overrule Taylor’s first point of error.

II.         Taylor Failed to Preserve Any Complaint About the Admission of Extraneous-
            Offense Evidence

            In his second point of error, Taylor complains of the trial court’s admission of prior

assaults he committed against Fry.                     Specifically, Taylor argues that the evidence was

inadmissible under Article 38.371 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.2 The State argues

2
    Article 38.371 states,
                       (a)       This article applies to a proceeding in the prosecution of a defendant for an
             offense, or for an attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense, for which the alleged victim is a
             person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b),
             71.003, or 71.005, Family Code.
                       (b)       In the prosecution of an offense described by Subsection (a), subject to the
             Texas Rules of Evidence or other applicable law, each party may offer testimony or other evidence
             of all relevant facts and circumstances that would assist the trier of fact in determining whether the
                                                              9
that Taylor failed to preserve his complaints about the extraneous-offense evidence, and we

agree.

         “As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show

that” it “was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that . . . stated the

grounds for the ruling . . . with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the

complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context” and that either the trial

court “ruled on the request, objection, or motion, either expressly or implicitly” or “refused to

rule on the request, objection, or motion, and the complaining party objected to the refusal.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a).

         Taylor complains of Moore’s testimony about his assault against Fry. He also argues

about the admission of “fingerprints and previous conviction, probation revocation, and

judgment finding him guilty of Assault Family Violence Impeding Breath.” Yet, the record

shows that Taylor never objected to Moore’s testimony and that he affirmatively stated that he

had no objections to (1) his fingerprint card, (2) the judgment placing him on deferred

adjudication community supervision, (3) documents showing his community supervision

revocation, or (4) the judgment adjudicating him guilty for family violence assault by occlusion.

Because Taylor failed to timely object and secure a ruling on the admission of the extraneous-

         actor committed the offense described by Subsection (a), including testimony or evidence
         regarding the nature of the relationship between the actor and the alleged victim.
                  (c)      This article does not permit the presentation of character evidence that would
         otherwise be inadmissible under the Texas Rules of Evidence or other applicable law.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.371 (Supp.).
                                                       10
offense evidence, he has failed to preserve any complaint about the admission of that evidence.3

As a result, we overrule his second point of error.

III.    Taylor Was Unharmed by the Presence of the Alternate Juror in the Jury Room

        In his last point of error, Taylor objects to the presence of the alternate juror in the jury

room during deliberation. Article 36.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states, “No

person shall be permitted to be with a jury while it is deliberating. No person shall be permitted

to converse with a juror about the case on trial except in the presence and by the permission of

the court.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.22.

        Just before deliberation, the trial court asked if there was any objection to “letting [the

alternate juror] go.” The State asked that the alternate juror be allowed to stay “just in case,” and

Taylor voiced no objection to the State’s request. The trial court then instructed the alternate

juror in the following manner:

                THE COURT: So, Mr. [alternate juror], what your job is, is to just sit in
        the jury room. You do not participate in the deliberations, you just kind of sit
        over to the side, and if something happened to somebody then you would step up.

3
 We note that Taylor argues in his brief that “the trial court had ruled it would allow extraneous offenses dealing
with the nature of the relationship between Appellant and Fry.” This statement is inaccurate. While the trial court
heard argument regarding whether the extraneous-offense evidence could be admitted under Article 38.371 of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the hearing ended in the following manner:

               [FOR THE DEFENSE]: I’m aware of the . . . cases and if the proper predicate is laid,
        Your Honor, as a defense attorney ought to do, I’m sure I’ll be objecting.

                 THE COURT: Yes, sir.

                 [FOR THE DEFENSE]: I may not prevail, but . . . .

                  THE COURT: So when we get there, the Court will entertain your individual objections
        to that evidence.

                 [FOR THE DEFENSE]: Thank you, Judge.
                                                        11
       But once everyone gets into the jury room, you just don’t participate. I know it
       seem like an odd thing, but that’s the law in Texas. All right.

There was no objection to the trial court’s admonishment. Following deliberations, the jury

returned a unanimous verdict.

       “To preserve an Article 36.22 claim for appellate review, a defendant must object as soon

as the issue becomes apparent.” Laws v. State, 640 S.W.3d 227, 229 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022)

(citing Becerra v. State, 620 S.W.3d 745, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); Trinidad v. State, 312

S.W.3d 23, 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (holding that Article 36.22 claim was forfeited because

the appellant failed to object after the trial judge said in open court that he would require the

alternate juror to retire with the jury)). The reporter’s record in this case shows that Taylor had

ample opportunity to object to the alternate juror’s presence in the jury room but failed to do so.

As a result, we find that Taylor’s Article 36.22 complaint is not preserved for our review.

       Even so, Taylor argues that the trial court violated Article V, Section 13, of the Texas

Constitution, which requires that “petit juries in the District Court shall be composed of twelve”

members. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 13. As previously noted, Taylor failed to object to the alternate

juror’s presence. Complaints under the Texas Constitution may be forfeited by failing to object.

See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). While we would typically

conclude that Taylor failed to preserve his Article V, Section 13, complaint, the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals has contemplated but has “not determined whether Article V, Section 13,

                                                12
creates a right that requires an affirmative waiver under Marin v. State.”4 Becerra v. State, 620

S.W.3d 745, 748 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021); see Trinidad, 312 S.W.3d at 28.

        Even assuming Taylor’s Article V, Section 13, complaint does not require preservation,

we overrule it because nothing shows that “the alternate juror [was] allowed to vote on the

ultimate verdict in the case.” Trinidad, 312 S.W.3d at 28. Rather, the record shows that all

twelve jurors reached a unanimous decision and, absent evidence or indications to the contrary,

we presume that the alternate juror followed the trial court’s express instruction not to participate

in deliberations. See Thrift v. State, 176 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “As long as

only the twelve regular jurors voted on the verdicts that the appellants received, it cannot be said

that they were judged by a jury of more than the constitutionally requisite number.” Trinidad,

312 S.W.3d at 28.          “That the alternate juror[] w[as] present in the jury rooms during

deliberations, and may even have participated in all but the voting, does not mean that the jury

was ‘composed’ of more than twelve members for purposes of Article V, Section 13.” Id. As a

result, we overrule Taylor’s last point of error.

IV.     We Modify the Judgment to Reflect the Proper Degree of Offense

        Even though we have overruled Taylor’s points of error, we must modify the trial court’s

judgment to reflect the proper degree of offense. “This Court has the power to correct and

modify the judgment of the trial court for accuracy when the necessary data and information are

part of the record.” Anthony v. State, 531 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2016, no

pet.) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993);

4
 Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d
262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
                                                      13
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)). “The authority of

an appellate court to reform incorrect judgments is not dependent upon the request of any party,

nor does it turn on the question of whether a party has or has not objected in the trial court.” Id.

(quoting Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529–30).

       The trial court’s judgment lists the degree of offense as a first-degree felony, but Taylor’s

charge for retaliation was a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.06(c). As a

result of the State’s punishment-enhancement allegations, Taylor’s offense was punishable “for

any term of not more than 99 years or less than 25 years.” See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 12.42(d). While the enhancement allegations were used to elevate Taylor’s punishment range,

they did not change the classification of the underlying offense. See id.; Ford v. State, 334

S.W.3d 230, 234–35 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Bledsoe v. State, 480 S.W.3d 638, 642 n.11 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2015, pet. ref’d). As a result, the judgment’s recitation that Taylor’s offense

was a first-degree felony is incorrect, and we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect the

proper degree of offense.

                                                14
V.     Conclusion

       We modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Taylor was convicted of a third-

degree felony. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                            Scott E. Stevens
                                            Chief Justice

Date Submitted:       March 1, 2023
Date Decided:         March 13, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                               15