Roberts v. State

• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Per Curiam
• Citation: Roberts v. State, 77 S.W.3d 837 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)
• Decision Date: 19 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. 476-99.,476-99.
• Parties: Bennie Earl ROBERTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.

77 S.W.3d 837

Bennie Earl ROBERTS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas.

No. 476-99.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 19, 2002.

173rd District Court, Henderson County, Thomas N. Crofts, Judge.

Petition for Discretionary Review from Court of Appeals 12th Supreme Judicial District.

Steve Stark, Athens, for appellant.

Jeffrey L. Van Horn, Assist. St. Atty., Matthew Paul, State's Attorney, Austin, for state.

OPINION

The opinion of the Court was delivered PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Appellant of delivery of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced him to confinement for thirty years. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, concluding that the trial court erred in conducting a jury shuffle after the conclusion of voir dire. Roberts v. State, No. 12-94-00205-CR (Tex.App.-Tyler, delivered August 29, 1997). This Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to conduct a harm analysis. Roberts v. State, 978 S.W.2d 580 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). The Court of Appeals again reversed the conviction, citing Ford v. State, 977 S.W.2d 824 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. pending), and deciding that the erroneous jury shuffle "defies analysis by harmless error standards, and thus cannot be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Rule 44.2." Roberts v. State, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, slip op. at 6, 1999 WL 115104 (Tex.App.-Tyler, No. 12-94-00205-CR, delivered February 26, 1999). The State filed a petition for discretionary review challenging the Court of Appeals' conclusion that this type of error defies a harm analysis.

In Ford v. State, 73 S.W.3d 923 (Tex. Crim.App.2002), this Court addressed the Fort Worth Court of Appeals' holding that error in failing to order a jury shuffle was harmful because the appellate court was unable to measure whether the error had a substantial or injurious effect on the jury's verdict. This Court explained that the purpose of the jury shuffle is to ensure that venire members are listed in random order. Id., 73 S.W.3d at 926. Because applicable rules and statutes already require that panels be listed randomly from the outset, a trial judge's failure to order a shuffle does not, by itself, indicate a nonrandom listing of the venire. This Court held that nothing in the record indicated that the procedures outlined in the applicable statutes and rules were disregarded or that the process of assembling a jury panel was subverted to achieve a nonrandom listing of the venire. Id. Thus, this Court concluded the error...