Alex Darrell Mays v. State ( 2011 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00304-CR
ALEX DARRELL MAYS APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
AND
NO. 02-10-00354-CR
EX PARTE ALEX DARRELL MAYS
----------
FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
I. INTRODUCTION
In this consolidated appeal, appellant Alex Darrell Mays appeals his
conviction for sexual assault. Mays also appeals the trial court’s denial of his
“Motion for Release Pending Appeal.” We will affirm.
II. BACKGROUND
Lisa Flannigan2 and Mays were friends. On the evening of September 20,
2008, Lisa arranged for her young daughter to stay with her mother while she
spent some time at Mays’s apartment watching television. According to Lisa’s
testimony, when she attempted to leave, Mays walked her to her car and took
her cell phone from her. To her surprise, Mays began to scroll through her
phone. Mays took the phone with him to his apartment. Lisa said she followed
him because she wanted her phone back.
Once they were both in the doorway, Mays grabbed Lisa by her throat and
pushed her into his apartment. According to Lisa, she tripped and fell to the floor
as Mays began to repeatedly punch her. Lisa freed herself from Mays, grabbed
her cell phone, and went into the bathroom and closed the door. Mays then
forced his way into the bathroom. Lisa’s mother called her cell phone at this
time. Lisa was able to answer, but said that she could not say much: “I was able
to answer . . . And I tried to tell [my mother] real quick what was going on, who I
2
The record reflects that the complainant’s name is a pseudonym. We are
using that same pseudonym.
2
was with, but by that time [Mays] had snatched my phone and threw it against
the wall.” Mays began to hit her again.
According to Lisa, she told Mays to “just let [her] go home.” Mays told her
to shut up and threatened to punch her in her mouth. He also told her “if he was
going to jail, it was going to be worth it.” Lisa averred that Mays then told her that
he could kill her if he wanted and that no one would ever be able to find her.
Mays demanded that Lisa remove her clothes, motioned for her to go to his
bedroom, and had sexual intercourse with her. Lisa said that she complied
because she was scared of “getting beat up again, for everything.” Mays then
told Lisa to take a shower in order to get his DNA off her. Lisa again complied.
The next morning, Lisa begged Mays to let her go. He let her go. After she got
home and saw her mother, Lisa went to the hospital with a friend.
During the State’s direct examination of Lisa, the following exchange
occurred:
[Prosecutor]: Where was he hitting you at?
[Lisa]: Everywhere. He just kept hitting and just punching me. He didn't
have to do that. . . . Why would you do that?
[Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, we’re going to -- Judge, we’re going to
object to the nonresponsiveness -- to the nonresponsiveness as well as --
[Lisa]: How can you defend somebody like that?
[Trial Court]: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen --
[Defense Counsel]: Judge --
3
[Trial Court]: Just a moment. . . . Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to
excuse you to the jury room. Please remember the Court’s instructions.
Thank you.
[Lisa]: (Inaudible Outburst).
[Trial Court]: Do not say another word.
Outside the jury’s presence, defense counsel made a formal objection.
The trial court sustained the objection. Defense counsel asked that when the
jury returned, the trial court instruct them to disregard Lisa’s outburst. The trial
court agreed. Defense counsel then moved for a mistrial. The trial court denied
the motion. The trial court then instructed Lisa not to address the defendant and
also instructed the State to talk to Lisa about her decorum. The trial court then
took a ten minute recess.
Once the jury returned, the trial court immediately instructed the jury:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, at the time you were being
excused, there was an objection that was made by the Defense to a
nonresponsive response given to a question. I sustained the
objection. Furthermore, you are instructed that the last comments
coming from the witness stand, you are to disregard.
The trial continued. The State called Lisa’s mother. Lisa’s mother
discussed her phone call to Lisa that night. Although unable to testify to what
Lisa and Mays said, Lisa’s mother said that she heard enough from a “man’s”
voice and Lisa’s voice during the brief call that she was disturbed. She called the
police and filed a report. Lisa’s mother also repeatedly attempted to call Lisa
after that call, both that night and the next morning. But Lisa did not answer until
the next morning. When Lisa’s mother finally did see Lisa that next morning, she
4
said that Lisa was distraught and covered in scratches and bruises. Lisa’s
mother averred that Lisa went to the hospital with a friend.
The sexual assault nurse, who examined Lisa, also testified and described
Lisa’s injuries to the jury. The State also introduced numerous photos of Lisa,
depicting the scratches and bruises she sustained that night.
The jury found Mays guilty of sexual assault, assessed punishment at ten
years’ confinement and recommended that the sentence be suspended and that
Mays be placed on community supervision for ten years. The trial court entered
judgment accordingly.
As a condition of community supervision, the trial court ordered Mays to
serve thirty days’ confinement in jail. Mays’s confinement began on July 1, 2010.
On August 16, 2010, Mays filed “Defendant’s Motion for Release Pending
Appeal.” The trial court denied the motion. The record does not reflect when
Mays was released from jail, but both parties agree that Mays spent more than
thirty days in jail, that he eventually was released, and that he now lives with his
family in Jasper, Texas. This consolidated appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Outburst During Trial
In his first issue, regarding cause number 02-10-00304-CR, Mays
contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after Lisa
made her emotional outburst in front of the jury in which she directed comments
5
to Mays and his counsel. The State argues that the trial court cured the error by
instructing the jury to disregard the outburst.
We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial under an abuse of
discretion standard. Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 292 (Tex. Crim. App.
2010), cert. denied, --- S. Ct. ----, No. 10-1271, 2011 WL 1481330 June 20,
2011). We uphold the trial court’s ruling if it was within the zone of reasonable
disagreement. Id. An outburst from a courtroom bystander or witness that
interferes with the normal proceedings of a trial will not result in reversible error
unless the defendant shows that a reasonable probability exists that the conduct
interfered with the jury’s verdict. Id.; Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826, 829 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1988) (citing Landry v. State, 706 S.W.2d 105, 112 (Tex. Crim. App.
1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 871 (1986)). In the context of outbursts from
courtroom bystanders or witnesses, the trial judge’s instructions to disregard are
generally considered sufficient to cure the impropriety, because it is presumed
that the jury will follow those instructions. Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574,
580 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
In this case, we conclude that Mays fails to prove that a reasonable
probability exists that Lisa’s comments interfered with the jury’s verdict. The
State introduced numerous pictures of Lisa, depicting the injuries sustained
during Mays’s assault on her. Lisa testified to the brutal manner in which Mays
violently attacked her. The evidence shows that when Lisa attempted to leave
Mays’s house, he grabbed her cell phone from her. Mays then grabbed her
6
throat and pushed her into his apartment. Mays began to punch Lisa repeatedly.
After Lisa managed to escape Mays’s grasp and hide in the bathroom, Mays
forced his way into the bathroom. When Lisa asked Mays to “let [her] go home,”
Mays responded that he already knew he was going to jail, and “if he was going
to jail, it was going to be worth it.”
Mays threatened to kill Lisa and explained that he could get away with it.
Lisa testified that after this, the only reason she complied with having sexual
intercourse with Mays was because she was scared that Mays would assault her
again. Afterwards, Mays required that Lisa shower in order to destroy any
potential DNA evidence.
During her struggle, Lisa’s mother managed to call Lisa. Although unable
to testify to what Lisa and Mays said, Lisa’s mother heard enough from a “man’s”
voice and Lisa’s voice during the brief call, which eventually disconnected, to call
the police. Lisa’s mother also repeatedly attempted to call Lisa after that call, but
Lisa did not answer until the next morning. When Lisa’s mother finally did see
Lisa the next morning, Lisa was distraught and covered in scratches and bruises.
Lisa’s mother testified that Lisa went to the hospital with a friend after she saw
her.
In light of the facts of this case, the nonresponsive statements directed at
the defendant and defense counsel were not so prejudicial that they could not be
cured by the trial court’s thorough instruction, which was given at the most
immediate moment the trial court had to instruct the jury. And we presume the
7
jury abided by the instruction. Id. The trial court’s decision to deny Mays’s
motion for new trial certainly falls within the zone of reasonable disagreement.
See Id. (holding that capital murder defendant not entitled to a mistrial based on
an outburst by the victim’s family member, shouting “You did this for 200
dollars?”, during the testimony of a prosecution witness); see also Brown v.
State, 92 S.W.3d 655, 661 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (holding that victim’s
father’s outburst of “Give my son justice, please[,]” during murder trial cured by
trial judge’s instructions to disregard his comment), aff’d on other grounds, 122
S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 938 (2004); Matthews
v. State, 960 S.W.2d 750, 757 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1997, no pet.) (holding that
outburst by manslaughter victim’s brother contradicting defense attorney’s
question about whether the victim’s car stereo was on was cured by the judge’s
instruction to disregard). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when it denied Mays’s motion for mistrial. We overrule Mays’s first issue.
B. Trial Court’s Denial of Mays’s Motion to Release Him from
Incarceration
In his second and third issues, regarding cause number 02-10-00354-CR,
Mays contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to release him
pending this appeal and incarcerating him beyond thirty days as a condition of
his community supervision. Through various arguments, Mays contends that the
incarceration violated his due process and equal protection rights. Mays
acknowledges that since the filing of this appeal in relation to the trial court’s
8
denial of his motion, he has posted bail and is now residing with his family in
Jasper, Texas.
We conclude that Mays’s second and third issues are moot. See Ex parte
Bennet, 818 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, no pet.)
(holding that when the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by
later events, the legal issues raised therein are rendered moot); see also
Ex parte Guerrero, 99 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003,
no pet.) (holding that an appeal of a denial of an application for release is
rendered moot when appellant posts bond and is released from custody). Thus,
we dismiss Mays’s second and third issues as moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having overruled Mays’s first issue and having dismissed his second and
third issues as moot, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and order.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 18, 2011
9