From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Middleton v. State

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Aug 10, 2017
No. 06-16-00221-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2017)

Opinion

No. 06-16-00221-CR

08-10-2017

JOYCELYN MIDDLETON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR1600213 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

A bench trial resulted in the conviction of Joycelyn Middleton for the commission of family violence assault against her husband, Paul Lamb, causing him bodily injury. Middleton was sentenced to 365 days' confinement in the Hunt County Jail, but the sentence was suspended and she was placed on community supervision for twenty-four months.

In her sole point of error on appeal, Middleton argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court's rejection of her claim of self-defense. Because we conclude otherwise, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Standard of Review

"[A] person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a) (West 2011). "The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary . . . is presumed to be reasonable if the actor . . . did not provoke the person against whom the force was used." TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31(a)(2). When self-defense or defense of a third person is asserted, "the reasonableness of the defendant's actions [is viewed] solely from the defendant's standpoint." Ex parte Drinkert, 821 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Bennett v. State, 726 S.W.2d 32, 37-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)).

A defendant who raises the issue of self-defense has the initial burden to produce some evidence supporting that claim. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Once evidence is produced, the burden of persuasion shifts to the State to disprove the defense. Id. at 594. The State is not required to produce evidence rebutting the defense, but rather must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A fact-finder's verdict of guilt is an implicit finding rejecting the defense. Id.

Since the State had the burden of persuasion to disprove the justification beyond a reasonable doubt, we evaluate the legal sufficiency of the evidence by reviewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment to determine whether any rational jury could have found against the defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, on the issue of self-defense. Hernandez v. State, 309 S.W.3d 661, 665 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd); see Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). In examining legal sufficiency, we defer to the fact-finder's role "to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts." 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)). The fact-finder is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony and may "believe all of a witnesses' testimony, portions of it, or none of it." Thomas v. State, 444 S.W.3d 4, 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). We give "almost complete deference to a [fact-finder's] decision when that decision is based on an evaluation of credibility." Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

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, 214 S.W.3d at 13 (quoting Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)). Each fact need not "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. 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)). In our review, we consider all the evidence admitted at trial, even improperly admitted evidence. Thomas, 444 S.W.3d at 8; Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13.

II. The Rejection of Middleton's Self-Defense Claims Is Supported by Legally Sufficient Evidence

Evidence at trial revealed that jealously plagued Middleton and Lamb's marriage, causing their relationship to become an extremely tumultuous one which occasionally resulted in mutual combat. In July 2015, after a particularly serious fight placed Middleton in the hospital with cracked vertebrae, Middleton left Lamb and removed her name from the lease of an apartment they had shared. In November 2015, Middleton returned to Lamb's apartment and was arrested for family violence assault. The contested events of that evening follow.

Lamb coached basketball at a Greenville, Texas, high school along with his co-worker, Corado Johnson. Johnson and Lamb both testified that Middleton made an appearance at a basketball game being played in Paris, Texas, and stood behind the bench to get Lamb's attention—an act which Johnson deemed inappropriate. Johnson was friends with both Middleton and Lamb and was aware of the nature of their relationship. Johnson instructed Lamb to escort Middleton outside of the gym so that the two could talk. During that conversation, Middleton informed Lamb that she needed to retrieve her college transcript from his apartment and asked him for the key to his apartment. When Lamb, who had not seen Middleton in two months, refused to deliver the key, an argument ensued, and Middleton left the premises. According to Johnson, Lamb asked him to accompany him to his apartment in order to provide Lamb "security" from Middleton. Johnson agreed, and after arriving back in Greenville, the two drove to Lamb's apartment at approximately 11:30 p.m. However, because Middleton's car was not in the apartment parking lot, Johnson left as Lamb walked to his apartment alone.

To Lamb's surprise, Middleton, who had driven from Paris to Greenville, was already in his apartment. Lamb testified that he was talking with his mother on the telephone as he walked up the staircase to his apartment and paused when he noticed that the handle on the door was loose. Keeping his mother on the line, Lamb walked into the apartment, at which point Middleton came toward him, screaming. Lamb testified that Middleton tried to wrestle the telephone out of his hand, scratched his face, and prevented him from leaving the apartment. He stated,

I'm trying to stop her from hitting me. We're tussling and all that stuff. She ends up biting my hand, my finger, where it bleeds. . . . And I remember her putting her fingers in my mouth trying to pull my cheek. She had her fingers trying to pull. So I'm just trying to grab her, hold her down, and stop her from hitting.
According to Lamb, his efforts were of no avail since Middleton was "just out of control." In the middle of the commotion, police officers from the Greenville Police Department were dispatched to the apartment.

Corporal Lee Dixon and Officer Warren Williamson testified that officers heard Lamb and Middleton screaming as they approached Lamb's apartment. Dixon stated, "We determined at that point that she was the aggressor." Dixon and Officer Kenneth Drozeski testified that the door lock had been bent or broken, indicating forced entry into the apartment. As they entered, officers also noticed that Lamb's apartment had been damaged. Dixon and Williamson saw that eggs had been thrown all over the walls, and photographs of that damage were admitted into evidence. Officers also saw broken glass strewn about the apartment and noticed that broken picture frames had been placed into a garbage bag. Recalling the damage done to his apartment, Lamb testified that Middleton "egged the house, poured . . . syrup on the TV, on the walls . . . . there was glass all over the house. . . . lightbulbs was unscrewed. . . . all four boxes of cereal was poured in the commode . . . . moved the refrigerator and unplugged that . . . [and] unrinated in the bed."

Officer Trainee Edward Redd, Dixon, and Williamson all testified that they observed no evidence of injuries to Middleton and documented their conclusions by taking pictures of her. Lamb, on the other hand, had suffered a cut under his eye, scratches on his face and chest, and a cut on his finger, which Drozeski documented by taking pictures that were admitted into evidence.

All of the officers testified that Middleton and Lamb were both evasive during questioning and that Lamb initially claimed that nothing had happened. At trial, Lamb testified that he did not want to get Middleton into trouble. To prevent Middleton's arrest, Lamb told Williamson that he received the injuries while Middleton was defending herself. According to Dixon, Middleton, who was questioned separately from Lamb, never claimed that Lamb was the first aggressor. After looking at the damage to the apartment and speaking with both parties, the police officers determined that Middleton was the aggressor and arrested her for family violence assault causing bodily injury. Dixon testified that as Middleton was walking towards the police car, she claimed that she had been hospitalized as a result of Lamb's past abuse toward her and opined that he also should have been arrested for family violence assault.

At trial, Lamb and his mother, Cleo Lamb, maintained that Middleton had attacked Lamb in his apartment. Cleo, who was on the cell phone with Lamb, heard him climb the metal stairs to his apartment and open the door. Cleo testified that she heard Lamb screaming, "stop, stop it" shortly after he opened the door. Both Cleo and Lamb said that Middleton had hidden her car at "Bob's Repair Shop," where it was located the following day. In jailhouse calls, Middleton argued with Lamb while she attempted to convince him to bail her out of jail. Middleton told Lamb, "I'm not trying to bother you anymore."

Lamb had filed a petition for divorce by the time of the trial.

In the face of this evidence, Middleton recalled a different account of the events. She first detailed the July 2015 assault that placed her in the hospital and testified that Lamb had assaulted her five times during their marriage. As for the incident in November, Middleton claimed that she was invited to the apartment and that Lamb had met her there to let her in. Middleton testified that Lamb then prevented her from leaving the apartment by grabbing her and pushing her into the entertainment center, which broke all the picture frames that were on it. She said that Lamb continued to push her around the apartment and even tried to rape her. Middleton's mother, Deborah Middleton, testified about prior instances of abuse of her daughter at Lamb's hands. Although she did not know what happened on the night of Middleton's arrest, Deborah testified that her daughter was not an aggressive person.

When questioned about the broken door lock, Middleton claimed that there was no damage to the door. Because an explanation of how the eggs ended up on the walls was omitted from Middleton's initial account, she was questioned about them during cross-examination and said, "I do not remember throwing any eggs. He had something in his hands walking in." When asked if she caused Lamb's injures, she testified, "I do not know. I don't remember doing all of that. I know I was pushing him, his face." Middleton also testified that Lamb had collected the broken picture frames and placed them into the garbage during the fight. After calling Cleo a liar, Middleton said that she was the one yelling for Lamb to "stop it." In a jailhouse call, she told Lamb that she did not like the way he jerked her around, which prompted Lamb's accusation on the telephone that she was lying. Middleton denied urinating in Lamb's bed and testified that she had been injured in the altercation.

Middleton contends that in light of the evidence of prior abuse committed by Lamb, the evidence was insufficient for the trial court to reject her claim of self-defense. She argued that "the trial court could only have drawn on the assumptions, on the conclusory testimony of the officers and speculative evidence presented to find Middleton guilty." We disagree.

In this case, the trial court was faced with two different versions of what happened on the night of Middleton's arrest. As the fact-finder, the trial court was free to resolve the matter in Lamb's favor in light of (1) Johnson's testimony that Lamb asked him to follow him to the apartment for "security," (2) the fact that Middleton had driven from Paris to Greenville without having a key to Lamb's apartment, (2) Cleo's testimony that she heard Lamb being attacked as he entered his front door, (3) evidence of forced entry into the apartment, (4) the extent of damage to the apartment, including that eggs had been thrown all over Lamb's walls, (5) evidence that Lamb had sustained injuries while officers testified Middleton had not, (6) the conclusion by four officers that Middleton was the aggressor, (7) Middleton's failure to tell the officers that Lamb was the first aggressor, even after her arrest, and (8) Middleton's jailhouse call in which she told Lamb she would no longer bother him.

Because the trial court could have concluded that Middleton provoked Lamb, or that Lamb did not use unlawful force, the trial court could have determined that no force was immediately necessary to protect Middleton from Lamb. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to reject Middleton's claim of self-defense and find her guilty of family violence assault causing bodily injury. Accordingly, we overrule Middleton's sole point of error.

III. Conclusion

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice Date Submitted: August 4, 2017
Date Decided: August 10, 2017 Do Not Publish


Summaries of

Middleton v. State

Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
Aug 10, 2017
No. 06-16-00221-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2017)
Case details for

Middleton v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOYCELYN MIDDLETON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Date published: Aug 10, 2017

Citations

No. 06-16-00221-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2017)