DeVoe v. State

Citation354 S.W.3d 457
Decision Date14 December 2011
Docket NumberNo. AP–76,289.,AP–76,289.
PartiesPaul DEVOE, Appellant, v. The STATE Of Texas.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Karyl Anderson Krug, Austin, Attorneys for Appellant.

Michael Scott Taliaferro, Asst. D.A., Lisa C. McMinn, State's Attorney, Austin, Attorneys for State.

OPINION

HERVEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., and MEYERS, JOHNSON, KEASLER, COCHRAN and ALCALA, JJ., joined.

Appellant, Paul Devoe, was convicted in October 2009 of capital murder, specifically the intentional murder of two individuals (Haylie Faulkner and Danielle Hensley) during the same criminal transaction. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(7)(A). Based upon the jury's answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, Sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced Appellant to death. Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, § 2(g).1 Direct appeal to this Court is automatic. Art. 37.071, § 2(h). Appellant raises nine points of error. After reviewing Appellant's points of error, we find them to be without merit. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's judgment and sentence of death.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at the punishment phase of trial. We shall address this issue first. The remaining points of error will be addressed in the order presented in the briefs.

In point of error eight, Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that he will commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. See art. 37.071, § 2(b)(1). Specifically, he argues that his behavioral record in prison is “almost pristine,” and therefore, the State's evidence of problems within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) should not be weighed against him.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at the punishment phase, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of fact could make the finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Banda v. State, 890 S.W.2d 42, 50 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); see also Young v. State, 283 S.W.3d 854, 863 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). Some factors a jury may consider when determining whether a defendant will pose a continuing threat to society include the following:

1. the circumstances of the capital offense, including the defendant's state of mind and whether he or she was working alone or with other parties;

2. the calculated nature of the defendant's acts;

3. the forethought and deliberateness exhibited by the crime's execution; 4. the existence of a prior criminal record, and the severity of the prior crimes;

5. the defendant's age and personal circumstances at the time of the commission of the offense;

6. whether the defendant was acting under duress or the domination of another at the time of the commission of the offense;

7. psychiatric evidence; and

8. character evidence.

Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.1987); see also Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 287–89 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). This list is not exclusive.

In determining the special issues, the jury is entitled to consider all of the evidence at both the guilt and punishment stages of trial. Art. 37.071, § 2(d)(1); see also Young, 283 S.W.3d at 863. The circumstances of the offense and the events surrounding it may be sufficient in some instances to sustain a “yes” answer to the future dangerousness special issue. Banda, 890 S.W.2d at 51; see also Hayes v. State, 85 S.W.3d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.2002).

The evidence presented at guilt revealed that, in late August 2007, Appellant stole a silver Jennings .380–caliber handgun (“the gun”), two ammunition magazines, and fifteen Winchester bullets from his friend, Bill Brinlee. Brinlee considered Appellant to be “family,” as Appellant had previously lived with the Brinlees. Appellant had access to the house, knew that the Brinlees would be out of town for a wedding during the weekend of August 24, and was aware that the gun was kept in the master bedroom.

On August 24, 2007, Appellant was residing at the Llano home of Sharon Wilson in exchange for work he had agreed to do around her home. At about 3:00 p.m., Wilson came home to find Appellant outside with the gun. Wilson had previously informed Appellant that she did not allow firearms in her home, and she asked that he not bring it in the house. She assumed that Appellant complied with her request.

A short while later, Wilson found Appellant looking in her purse. He claimed to be looking for a cigarette. Appellant then went to take a nap. At this point, Wilson decided that it was time to ask Appellant to vacate her home. She called some friends to be with her when she told him because she was afraid of how Appellant might react to the request. While waiting for her friends, she discovered that Appellant had emptied the gas can that she had filled for her lawn mower. Angered, Wilson felt she could wait no longer, so she went to confront Appellant.

Upon finding Appellant asleep in her bedroom, Wilson woke him and told him that he needed to leave. Appellant got up and went directly to the living room couch where he retrieved the gun from a hiding place behind the cushions, and he pointed it at Wilson's head and mid-section. Wilson knocked Appellant's arm so that the gun pointed away from her. Appellant then fired the gun multiple times into the couch and walls. Appellant spoke of killing himself. He told Wilson that he had only two bullets left and that he was going to his trailer, which was parked nearby, to get more. Appellant advised Wilson not to go near her pickup truck, but he told her she could go outside to smoke a cigarette. When Appellant walked out the door, Wilson grabbed her dog and ran from her home. She hid in heavy vegetation and cactus in the adjoining field. She heard Appellant start a truck, and he drove it towards Wilson. He stopped and revved the engine several times before backing up. Wilson saw Appellant drive away in her blue Dodge Dakota pickup truck. The license plate number was 21X–ZJ5. Wilson later found that her money and credit cards were missing from her purse. Investigators recovered .380–caliber bullets and shell casings from her home, and Wilson turned over Appellant's day planner, which contained a photocopy of Paula Griffith's driver's license.

Later that evening, Glenda Purcell was at her usual hangout, O'Neill's Sports Tavern in Marble Falls. Purcell had recently broken up with Appellant after a tumultuous six-month romantic relationship that ended when she asked him to move out of her home. Following the break-up, Purcell obtained a protective order against Appellant, of which Appellant had notice. Michael Allred was on duty as a bartender that night.

At approximately 8:30 p.m., Appellant entered O'Neill's Sports Tavern. He was dressed in what Purcell described as his “motorcycle attire”: a black leather vest, chaps, a cap, and a jacket. Purcell immediately called out for someone to call the police because she had a protective order against Appellant. Appellant then walked over to Purcell, put his hand over her eyes, and held the gun to her head. He pulled the trigger several times, but the gun jammed. Purcell then ran back towards the men's room where Allred was repairing something. She yelled, “Mike, Mike, [Appellant's] here, he's got a gun.” Allred stepped between Purcell and Appellant. Allred tried to persuade Appellant to calm down and to give him the gun, but Appellant then shot Allred in the chest with a .380–caliber bullet, severing his aorta and killing him. Purcell ran out of the back door to the police station next door. Witnesses saw Appellant flee the bar in a blue Dodge Dakota pickup truck with the license plate 21X–ZJ5. Appellant was headed in the direction of Jonestown.

Paula Griffith lived in a house in Jonestown with her fifteen-year-old daughter, Haylie Faulkner. Griffith previously dated Appellant, but they had not had a romantic relationship in some time. By all accounts, the break-up seemed amicable, and Appellant kept in touch with Faulkner, even paying her entry fee into some beauty pageants.

On the evening of August 24, Griffith, Faulkner, Faulkner's friend (Danielle Hensley), and Griffith's boyfriend (Jay Feltner) were at Griffith's home preparing for a trip to Fiesta Texas, an amusement park in San Antonio. Griffith had obtained tickets to celebrate the last weekend before the start of school. The group planned to travel to San Antonio on Friday night, spend the day at Fiesta Texas on Saturday, and return to Jonestown late Saturday night. Hensley was to return to her family's home in Leander on Sunday.

On that Friday evening, August 24, Hensley's mother and step-father began to worry when they did not receive a phone call from her because Hensley normally called to say good night. On Saturday, her parents were still unable to reach Hensley, Griffith, or Faulkner. They called the Jonestown police, but the police were unable to assist because the parents did not know the physical address of Griffith's house. When searching the internet for news of any auto accidents or other events that might explain Hensley's failure to make contact, Hensley's step-father learned about the murder in Marble Falls and that the police were looking for a blue Dodge Dakota pickup truck with the license plate number 21X–ZJ5.

On Sunday morning, August 26, Hensley's parents drove to Griffith's home in Jonestown. As they approached the driveway, Hensley's step-father saw a blue Dodge Dakota pickup truck parked near the house. He recognized the license plate number from his internet search the day before, and he knew that something was wrong. He parked a block away and called the police.

After securing the area, the police entered Griffith's home to check on the welfare of the people possibly inside and discovered the four bodies. Feltner had been shot in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
377 cases
  • Johnson v. Lumpkin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • 23 Marzo 2022
    ...rejected the notion that a "pristine" prison record somehow trumps a jury's finding of future dangerousness. See Devoe v. State , 354 S.W.3d 457, 468 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (holding that while good behavior in prison is a factor to consider, it does not preclude a finding of future dangerou......
  • Bible v. Stephens
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 30 Octubre 2014
    ...evidence; and8. character evidence.Walbey v. State, 926 S.W.2d 307, 311 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); see also Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457, 461-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). "Often, the circumstances of the crime provide greater probative......
  • Devoe v. Davis, CIVIL NO. A-14-CA-151-SS
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 26 Septiembre 2016
    ...Llano, Marble Falls, Jonestown, and Pennsylvania crime scenes were all fired from Brinlee's .380-caliber pistol.Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457, 462-66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). On October 2, 2009, the jury returned its verdict at the guilt-innocence phase of trial, finding Petitioner guilty b......
  • Cole v. Lumpkin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • 7 Septiembre 2021
    ... ... inculpatory statements to the police in both Wharton and ... Harris Counties ... The ... State of Texas charged Cole with capital murder for the ... shooting deaths of his wife and stepdaughter during the same ... criminal ... State , 724 S.W.2d 58, 61 (Tex. Crim. App ... 1987); see also Walbey v. State , 926 S.W.2d 307, 311 ... (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Devoe v. State , 354 S.W.3d ... 457, 461-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). “Often, the ... circumstances of the crime provide greater probative ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 books & journal articles
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2016 Contents
    • 17 Agosto 2016
    ...is a contested issue even if the defense rests with the State, puts on no evidence, and raises no defensive theories. Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The trial judge has considerable latitude in determining that identity is, in fact, disputed. Segundo v. State, 270 S.......
  • Trial Issues
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2021 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2021
    ...is a contested issue even if the defense rests with the State, puts on no evidence, and raises no defensive theories. Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The trial judge has considerable latitude in determining that identity is, in fact, disputed. Segundo v. State, 270 S.......
  • Punishment Phase
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2020 Contents
    • 16 Agosto 2020
    ...one exempt from execution under the Eighth Amendment. Mays v. State, 318 S.W.3d 368, 379-80 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Ex parte Briseno and its progeny are abrogated. While it is left to the States to develop appropriate ways to enforce th......
  • Jury Selection and Voir Dire
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2015 Contents
    • 17 Agosto 2015
    ...does not err in failing to grant a new trial where the State singles out Catholics for exclusion from the jury panel. Devoe v. State, 354 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). §14:113 Texas Procedure To codify and implement Batson in Texas, the legislature enacted Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 35......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT