Jones v. State, No. 09-06-126 CR (Tex. App. 5/9/2007)

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Steve McKeithen
• Decision Date: 09 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 09-06-126 CR.,09-06-126 CR.
• Citation: Jones v. State, No. 09-06-126 CR (Tex. App. 5/9/2007), No. 09-06-126 CR. (Tex. App. May 09, 2007)
• Parties: JAMES JONES a/k/a SQUIRE JAMES JONES, JR. a/k/a DERRICK JOSEPH JONES a/k/a DERRICK JOSEPH, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

JAMES JONES a/k/a SQUIRE JAMES JONES, JR. a/k/a DERRICK JOSEPH JONES a/k/a DERRICK JOSEPH, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

No. 09-06-126 CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont.

Submitted on March 8, 2007.

Opinion Delivered May 9, 2007.

Do Not Publish.

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 84140.

Affirmed.

Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

STEVE McKEITHEN, Chief Justice.

A jury convicted appellant, James Jones a/k/a Squire James Jones, Jr. a/k/a Derrick Joseph Jones a/k/a Derrick Joseph ("Jones"), of the murder of Graffit Jones Winford and assessed punishment at fifty years of confinement. In this appeal, Jones argues the trial court reversibly erred by restricting his counsel's cross-examination of a State's witness during the punishment phase and by permitting the Court's bailiff to testify during the punishment phase. We affirm.

Background

Shaquita Janise, Winford's widow, testified that at the time of Winford's death, she and Winford had been separated for a month or two. During the separation, Janise began a romantic relationship with Jones. Janise explained that she and Winford frequently argued, and they sometimes had physical altercations. According to Janise, Winford often drank heavily. Winford had been warned by Janise not to come to Janise's residence in the Maida apartment complex. On one occasion, Winford broke Janise's sister's arm with a baseball bat. Winford had threatened Janise on the phone, and Jones had heard Winford threaten Janise.

According to Janise, on April 8, 2001, she spent the day with her children and a co-worker. Janise's son, Graffit, Jr., was spending the day with Winford. On that date, Jones called Janise and asked her to pick him up so he could eat with them. Janise picked up Jones and brought him to her apartment. Janise explained that when Winford arrived to drop off their son, Winford wanted to talk to her, but she refused. According to Janise, Winford threatened her, but she did not see him with any type of weapon. Janise testified that Jones and Winford got into an argument because Winford "didn't want [Jones] there with his family."

According to Janise, Winford then got into his car and started to leave the apartment complex. As Winford was attempting to leave, he and Jones exchanged words. Janise saw Jones raise his arm and point a gun at Winford, and she then heard a single "pop noise." Janise testified that Winford's car then "sped off and hit the ditch." Janise ran to Winford's vehicle, opened the door, and found Winford slumped over toward the passenger side of the car. Winford had no pulse, and Janise was unable to revive him. Janise did not see any weapons in Winford's car or in his pockets. Janise further explained that to her knowledge, her husband did not have a gun.

Joyce McKinney testified that on April 8, 2001, she was traveling down Maida while taking children home from her daycare center. McKinney observed a car traveling behind her, and the car stopped in an alley. When McKinney backed up, the headlights of her car were facing the stopped car. McKinney then observed someone come out of an apartment, and the person began talking to the driver of the car. McKinney saw the person in the car hand something to the person who was standing outside the car. McKinney testified, "They went in the apartment, came back out. When they came back out, they had something dark throw[n] across their hand but one hand in front of him. . . . When he got to the car window, he made a step back and start[ed] firing." According to McKinney, the man fired a shot into the car. McKinney heard more shots being fired, and as she looked into her mirror, she saw the car into which shots had been fired approaching her van from behind. McKinney explained, "There was no exchange of gunfire. There was only one person shooting." McKinney recalled hearing "at least three" shots. McKinney testified that she then saw the car travel "straight into the ditch."

Angela Griffin testified that in April of 2001, she was living at the Maida apartment complex. Griffin testified that Janise was a good friend of hers, and she also knew Winford. Griffin testified that on April 8, 2001, while she was with her family at the Maida apartments, she heard four or five noises that sounded like gunshots. After hearing the noises, Griffin left her apartment and saw Janise standing at her door and Jones standing outside. Griffin also saw Jones get into Derwin Maxey's vehicle, and the vehicle left the scene. Griffin further observed Winford in a vehicle that was backing out of the complex, and the vehicle ended up in the ditch. Griffin approached Winford's car and checked to see if Winford had a pulse, but she found that he did not. When Griffin viewed the inside of Winford's vehicle, she did not see any weapons. Griffin testified that before he left the scene, she overheard Jones say, "He pulled a gun on me," but she did not know if Jones was "speaking of that day that this incident happened or another day."

Dr. Tommy Brown, a forensic pathologist for Jefferson County, testified that he performed an autopsy on Winford's body. Dr. Brown found that Winford had three upper abrasions of his right temple and a gunshot wound in his left back. Dr. Brown testified that the gunshot wound to Winford's back caused his death. Dr. Brown also testified that a gun is a deadly weapon, and he testified that Winford's death was caused by a gun.

Tor Roy Russell testified that he has been Jones's friend for a number of years. In April of 2001, Jones came to Russell's house to clean up, and he told Russell, "Well, man, I shot a guy." According to Russell, Jones had some bags in his possession. When Russell later examined the items (which included a bag of clothes and two shoe boxes) he found a gun. Russell testified that Jones told him "he was already over at the girl's apartment. . . . And the guy came and dropped the baby off and they had words . . . and . . . after they had words, the guy was reaching in his car as if he was getting something . . . to shoot him with . . . because they had had a confrontation and he sa[id] . . . then he just shot him." Russell eventually contacted Crime Stoppers, and he showed detectives what he had found among Jones's belongings.

Chris Davis, an identification technician with the Beaumont Police Department, testified that he was dispatched to the Maida apartments in April of 2001 to process the crime scene. Davis marked and photographed the shell casings he found at the scene. Davis testified that all of the shell casings were of the same caliber. According to Davis, there were four bullet holes in the vehicle, and another bullet was lodged in the door frame. Davis was also dispatched to the home of Tor Roy Russell to investigate whether the gun found at Russell's residence was used to kill Winford. Davis testified that he also recovered live rounds from the weapon, and the caliber of those rounds matched that of the shell casings found at the crime scene. Davis did not locate any weapons in Winford's vehicle.

Deputy Charles Fancey of the Jefferson County Crime Lab testified that he oversees the ballistics lab. Deputy Fancey testified that he and another individual conducted ballistics testing on the weapon recovered from Russell's residence, and he determined that the markings on bullets fired from the recovered weapon matched the rounds found at the crime scene.

The jury found Jones guilty and proceeded to hear evidence on punishment. At the beginning of the punishment phase, the State tendered all evidence from the guilt/innocence phase, and the Court ruled, "It'll be admitted." The State introduced into evidence the pen packet pertaining to Jones's prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance, as well as exhibits showing that Jones had committed eleven prior misdemeanor offenses.

The State called Rodney Winford, the brother of the victim, to testify. Rodney testified that Winford enjoyed sports and liked to have fun while they were growing up together. Rodney also testified that Winford and Janise had children, and that Winford loved playing with his children. Rodney testified that Winford "was fun to be around, and he loved to joke. If he was around you-all, he'd make you laugh, have fun. He was a person to respect you." Rodney also testified that things had been rough for him, for Winford's children, and Winford's entire family since Winford's death. Jones's counsel then began cross-examining Rodney, as follows:

Q. Mr. Winford, this is a pretty important case to us.

Was it fun and was it a joke when he broke the sister-in-law's arm with a baseball bat?

[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, I'm going to object to relevance.

THE COURT: That's sustained.

[Defense counsel]: Judge, he's testified he was fun to be around.

THE COURT: It's sustained.

Q. Was it fun when you took a gun away from him?

[Prosecutor]: Again, object to relevance.

THE COURT: That's sustained.

Q. Your brother drank heavily, didn't he?

[Prosecutor]: Object to relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

[Defense counsel]: No questions, Your Honor.

The State also called Deputy Rodney Williams, the trial court's bailiff, to testify. The following colloquy then occurred between defense counsel and the trial court:

[Defense counsel]: We would object to Deputy Williams testifying because he is the Court's official bailiff. The Court has instructed the jury that they were in his care for the remainder of the trial, if there was anything to assist them, he was the one to go to, which you say is his normal function. He is the only person who has had direct contact with this jury . . . during deliberations. He is also the person who arranged the mechanism [for the] jurors' lunch to be provided for them.

We believe that the Court's normal and necessary comments to this witness...