Washington v. State
| Decision Date | 31 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | NO. 02-14-00454-CR,02-14-00454-CR |
| Parties | NATHANIEL WASHINGTON APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
Pro se Appellant Nathaniel Washington appeals his conviction for the delivery of a controlled substance—cocaine—in the amount of more than four grams but less than 200 grams. In eight issues, Washington argues that the State withheld exculpatory evidence and elicited false testimony at trial; that theevidence is insufficient to support his conviction; that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury; that his rights to a speedy trial were violated; and that the trial court abused its discretion by not recusing itself and by not conducting a hearing on his motion for new trial. We will affirm.
After the State charged Washington with delivery of a controlled substance and after the trial court determined that Washington was indigent, the trial court appointed counsel. Despite having appointed counsel, Washington filed more than thirty pro se motions prior to trial. Among these motions, Washington motioned the court for a "Speedy Hearing"; filed numerous motions to set aside the State's charges2; filed multiple motions asking for continuances; and filed a motion to recuse the trial court. In addition to these motions, Washington filed multiple motions that he titled writs of mandamus and writs of habeas corpus. In many of these filings, Washington asked that his appointed counsel be substituted or that the State's charges be dismissed. The contents of some of his motions allege a conspiracy between the State and his appointed counsel. And one of his motions asked that the "entire Tarrant County District Attorney's Office" be recused.
It is not clear from the record which motion the trial court was responding to, or if to any of Washington's pro se filings at all, but the trial court granted a substitution of appointed counsel prior to trial. Nonetheless, Washington continued to file numerous pro se motions in the trial court asking for reductions in bail and continuances. In one of his filings, titled as a writ of habeas corpus, Washington alleged that his first appointed counsel and the State were "trying to convince [him] to plea[d] guilty[] without [his] defense lawyer investigating finding a . . . defense." Coupled with this filing, Washington also wrote a letter to the trial court judge requesting a "bond reduction." The trial court then ordered Washington's court-appointed counsel to "advise [Washington] to not communicate with the Court directly regarding any plea bargain efforts or desires." Nonetheless, Washington sent a letter to the trial court judge alleging that his substituted, appointed counsel was "working with the D.A. to railroad" him and that he would not allow substituted counsel to represent him. Washington's pro se filings continued.
During the time preceding trial, both of Washington's appointed attorneys filed numerous motions, including motions for the appointment of an investigator; motions requesting disclosures from the State, and motions for bond reduction. In addition to other filings, the State also filed its notice of potential Brady material, notice of its intent to introduce extraneous offense evidence, and its witness lists. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963).
Prior to trial, the trial court judge sent a letter, stamped by the trial court clerk, to the administrative judge. In the letter, the trial court judge informed the administrative judge of Washington's pro se recusal motion, expressed that he would not voluntarily recuse himself from the case, and asked the administrative judge how he should proceed. The record does not contain a ruling by the administrative judge, but on the day of trial and outside the jury's presence, Washington testified that his substituted, appointed counsel had withdrawn that motion.
Also outside the presence of the jury, Washington testified that he believed he had been disadvantaged by the time that had elapsed between his arrest and the time of trial. Specifically, Washington averred that he had been unable to locate witnesses and that videos containing exculpatory evidence no longer existed due to the alleged delay. The trial court also inquired at this time whether Washington wished to represent himself or to continue the trial with substituted, appointed counsel. The trial court also informed Washington that if he continued with counsel, it would not rule on any of his pro se motions. Washington said that he wished to continue with counsel.
At trial, Detective Robert Walsh of the Arlington Police Department testified that he received information that Washington was a "midlevel narcotics dealer." Walsh also learned Washington's phone number. Walsh said that he met with Washington on June 1, 2012, as part of a prearranged "crack cocaine" purchase. Walsh testified that the preliminary calls he made were to Terion Robinson andthat the parties originally agreed to meet at a local gas station to conduct the deal.
According to Walsh, he ultimately met Washington at a Lisa's Chicken located in Fort Worth. Walsh averred that there were "multiple people" in Washington's vehicle, including Washington and another person that Walsh identified as Robinson. Walsh said that he had a recorder running during the buy and that he was able to audibly record the conversation he had while making the purchase.
The State introduced and published for the jury a recording that Walsh averred was an accurate audio recording of the buy—State's Exhibit 1. Walsh testified that the recording was split into three segments and that he routinely split his audio recordings into three tracks. Walsh said that typically the first track contained "the actual introduction, which lists the date and time and all persons involved in the operation." Walsh said that the second track typically contained "the deal" and that the third track was normally "just [] the ending of [the] transaction."
As State's Exhibit 1 was published for the jury, the State would pause between tracks and ask Walsh to explain to the jury what it was hearing. Walsh identified all three tracks specifically and explained who was talking and what was occurring on each track. Walsh identified the "first track" and explained to the jury that at that point, Washington was not in his car and that the purpose ofthe first track was to set the stage and make a record of what Walsh expected to transpire.
The State then published track two for the jury. Walsh testified that in the second track, he was speaking to Robinson. The State then published track three for the jury. Walsh identified that it was "track three" which contained the audio portion where the deal actually took place. Walsh testified that during "the deal" portion of the audio recording, Washington had gotten into his car and handed him a "clear plastic bag" which contained what he believed to be crack cocaine.
Walsh identified the person speaking on track three as Washington and explained that he and Washington had discussed Washington obtaining a "bird" of cocaine for the purchase price of $20,000 and that the two discussed the present deal. Walsh testified that it was he who could be heard asking "how much?" for the crack cocaine. Walsh testified that it was Washington stating "[$]450." Walsh said that he actually gave Washington $460.
This court has listened to the three tracks, and it appears that Walsh's testimony is consistent with the three tracks. It is also evident that the State played each of the tracks separately and elicited testimony from Walsh after each track. In the first track, Walsh can be heard stating the date and time. He can also be heard stating that he was on his way to buy "a half ounce of crack cocaine" from "Nate Washington." In the second track, Walsh can be heard making what appears to be a phone call wherein he explains to the other personthat he missed the designated gas station and that he was at "Lisa's Chicken." The other speaker can be heard saying, "What's up man?" It is clear that the speaker in track two is a different person than the person who can be heard having a conversation with Walsh in track three.
In track three, Walsh can be heard stating that at least three individuals were in the car that was "pull[ing] right next to" him "on the passenger side." The conversation between Walsh and the other speaker involves what appears to be the consideration of several different drug-buy scenarios. The majority of the conversation is a discussion of whether the other speaker can obtain a "bird . . . of powder" for Walsh for the amount of $20,000. At one point, Walsh can be heard asking, "How much for this?" and the other speaker can be heard stating, "[$]450." Walsh can be heard stating, "That's [$]460." The other person can be heard stating, "Alright."
Walsh said that he again met Washington on June 14, 2012. According to Walsh, he had a video-recording device on that day. The State produced still photographs from the video of images that Walsh testified were true and accurate photographs of Washington from the June 14, 2012 meeting.
Sarah Skiles, a senior forensic chemist for the Tarrant County Medical Examiner's Office, testified that she tested the contents of the clear baggie which Washington gave Walsh on June 1, 2012. According to Skiles, the baggie contained 13.07 grams of cocaine.
After the State closed and outside the presence of the jury, Washington's attorney questioned him. Washington averred that he agreed with his attorney's advice that he should not take the stand, that he was satisfied with his attorney's performance, and that there was not a different defensive strategy or route that he preferred to take. Washington also testified that he had been at trial during the testimony of the State's witnesses and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial