From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hudgins v. State

State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Mar 2, 2021
NO. 14-19-00210-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 2, 2021)

Opinion

NO. 14-19-00210-CR

03-02-2021

CEDRIC D. HUDGINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1620914

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Cedric D. Hudgins guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant pleaded "true" to an enhancement paragraph of aggravated robbery, as set forth in the indictment; the trial court sentenced him to 30 years' confinement. In a single issue, appellant complains that the trial court erred by failing to include an issue of self-defense in the jury charge. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case and the evidence adduced at trial, we set forth the facts of the case necessary to advise the parties of the court's decision and the basic reasons for it in light of the issues raised. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1, 47.4. --------

The grand jury indicted appellant for aggravated assault by intentionally causing bodily injury to Nicholas Franklin by shooting him, while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon, namely a firearm. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02(a)(1)(2). Franklin was shot on October 7, 2016 outside of a convenience store in Houston, Texas. Appellant pled not guilty.

Appellant testified during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. Appellant admitted he was at the convenience store at the time of the shooting, that he was armed, and that he confronted Franklin with his weapon drawn, in the store's parking lot. Appellant testified that Franklin was also armed, and the two grappled over Franklin's weapon. However, appellant denied shooting the victim. According to appellant, Franklin was shot during the struggle by Franklin's nephew, Joshua Taylor, one of several bystanders in the convenience store parking lot.

At the guilt-innocence phase charge conference, defense counsel requested an instruction on self-defense, claiming that "[m]y client did not provoke the situation, Your Honor, it is his perception that it was the Complainant." The trial court denied the request for an instruction on self-defense, observing: "At no time did he admit to the conduct that's charged in the indictment, and that is shooting the complaining witness with a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm." On February 26, 2019, the jury convicted appellant of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court sentenced appellant to 30 years' confinement on March 4, 2019.

II. ANALYSIS

Appellant presents a single issue on appeal:

The trial court erred by refusing the request by Hudgins for a jury charge on self-defense.
This issue requires us to determine whether, on this record, appellant was entitled to have the jury so instructed.

A. CHARGE ERROR -STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing alleged jury charge error, appellate courts engage in a two-step process. Cortez v. State, 469 S.W.3d 593, 598 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015); Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). First, we determine whether there was error in the charge; if not, our analysis ends. Cortez, 469 S.W.3d at 598; Kirsch, 357 S.W.3d at 649. If we find there was error in the charge, we must then determine whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to require reversal. Cortez, 469 S.W.3d at 598; Kirsch, 357 S.W.3d at 649.

B. LAW GOVERNING SELF DEFENSE

Generally, a defendant is entitled to a self-defense jury instruction when the issue is raised by the evidence, "whether that evidence is strong or weak, unimpeached or contradicted, and regardless of what the trial court may think about the credibility of the defense." Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). "A trial court errs in denying a self-defense instruction if there is some evidence, from any source, that will support the elements of self-defense." Fury v. State, 607 S.W.3d 866, 875 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, pet. ref'd) (citing Gamino, 537 S.W.3d at 510). "A person is justified in using deadly force against another if . . . he reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force." Jordan v. State, 593 S.W.3d 340, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (citing Tex. Penal Code § 9.32(a)).

"Self-defense is a confession-and-avoidance defense requiring the defendant to admit to his otherwise illegal conduct." Jordan, 593 S.W.3d at 343 (citing Juarez v. State, 308 S.W.3d 398, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)); see Rogers v. State, 550 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). "He cannot both invoke self-defense and flatly deny the charged conduct." Jordan, 593 S.W.3d at 343 (citing Juarez, 308 S.W.3d at 406 (confession-and-avoidance requirements satisfied despite Juarez's inconsistent testimony alternatively admitting to the conduct and claiming it was an accident)). Under this doctrine, "a defensive instruction is only appropriate when the defendant's defensive evidence essentially admits to every element of the offense including the culpable mental state but interposes the justification to excuse the otherwise criminal conduct." Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647, 659 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (emphasis in original). A defendant who denies committing the offense, on the other hand, is not entitled to such an instruction because he contends "he has engaged in no conduct which needs justifying." Gilmore v. State, 44 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2001, pet. ref'd).

A claim of self-defense must be supported by the record, and the defendant bears the initial burden of producing evidence supporting submission of an issue on the defense. Braughton v. State, 569 S.W.3d 592, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). In reviewing this issue, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant's requested defensive instruction. Gamino, 537 S.W.3d at 510 & n.6 (citing Bufkin v. State, 207 S.W.3d 779, 782 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)).

C. APPLICATION

In this case, appellant was indicted for aggravated assault, causing bodily injury to Franklin by shooting him; the indictment also alleged the use and exhibition of a deadly weapon, namely a firearm. However, appellant took the stand in his own defense and denied shooting Franklin. Appellant testified that Franklin's nephew shot Franklin while appellant and Franklin were struggling over Franklin's gun. On cross examination, appellant testified as follows:

Q: So, you want this jury to believe that it wasn't you who shot Nicholas Franklin in the neck?
A: Yes.
Q: In fact, it was another individual who shot Nicholas Franklin in the neck?
A: It was his nephew.
Appellant presented no evidence apart from his testimony. Because appellant failed to present defensive evidence admitting to the conduct alleged in the indictment, he failed to carry his initial burden of showing he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense.

Appellant relies on Gamino v. State to argue that, on this record, he was entitled to an instruction on self-defense. Appellant's reliance on Gamino is misplaced. In that case, the defendant was indicted for aggravated assault by threatening imminent bodily injury while exhibiting or using a deadly weapon, a gun. Gamino, 537 S.W.3d at 509. The defendant admitted to displaying a gun but denied pointing it at the complainant. Id. Defendant's request for an instruction on self-defense was denied and he was convicted. Id. On appeal, the State contended Gamino was properly denied a defensive instruction because he did not admit every element of the charged offense as required by the doctrine of confession-and-avoidance. Id. at 511. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed. Because Gamino also testified to shouting "stop" "get away" and "leave us alone" while holding the gun at his side, the court explained, "[i]t would have been reasonable, then, for the jury to infer that the words, "or else I will have to use this gun to protect us," were implied. Id. at 512. The Court of Criminal Appeals found the requisite culpable mental state could reasonably be inferred from testimony about the circumstances surrounding Gamino's conduct. See id.; see also Juarez, 308 S.W.3d at 405 (trial court erred in refusing necessity defense when defendant both admitted to and denied culpable mental state of the charged conduct when it could reasonably be inferred from testimony that defendant admitted to charged conduct).

Recently, our court considered whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant a self-defense instruction in his jury trial for assault on a public servant, based on defendant's assertion that although he did not admit to the charged conduct, the jury should have been provided a self-defense instruction because defendant's actions were in response to the force used against him by the officer. Fury, 607 S.W.3d at 876. In finding the appellant was not entitled to this instruction, we again noted that appellant denied the charged conduct. Id.

Here, appellant expressly denied shooting Franklin and blamed the shooting on Franklin's nephew, Taylor. Because appellant did not admit to shooting Franklin as charged in the indictment, the doctrine of confession-and-avoidance is not satisfied, and appellant is not entitled to an instruction on self-defense. See Jordan, 593 S.W.3d at 343; Gamino, 537 S.W.3d at 511-12.

We conclude that the trial court did not err by declining to instruct the jury on self-defense. Because the jury charge was not erroneous, it is unnecessary to perform a harm analysis.

Appellant's sole issue is overruled.

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

/s/ Margaret "Meg" Poissant

Justice Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant. Do Not Publish - Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

Hudgins v. State

State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
Mar 2, 2021
NO. 14-19-00210-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 2, 2021)
Case details for

Hudgins v. State

Case Details

Full title:CEDRIC D. HUDGINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:State of Texas in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 2, 2021

Citations

NO. 14-19-00210-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 2, 2021)