Ramon Miller v. State ( 2015 )

Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 3, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-00134-CR
No. 05-15-00135-CR
RAMON MILLER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F-10-16131-Q; F-10-34161-Q
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Myers
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Ramon Miller appeals his aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon conviction in cause
number 05-15-00134-CR and his burglary of a habitation conviction in cause number 05-15-
00135-CR. Appellant entered open pleas of guilty to both charges, and the trial court sentenced
him to fifteen years’ confinement in each case. In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court
“cut off” appellant’s explanation about the guns used in the underlying offenses, thereby
infringing on his right to testify. We affirm appellant’s convictions.
On April 14, 2010, fifteen-year-old J.K. was at home when appellant and Sedric Autrey
entered the residence. Appellant wore a ski mask, and Autrey wore a goblin mask. Both men
had guns. Autrey took J.K. to a bedroom and demanded that she tell “where the money was” and
where her parents kept the valuables. Autrey told J.K. he would kill her if she did not tell him
what he wanted to know. Autrey told appellant to tie up J.K. using some cords connecting a
DVD player to a television. Appellant tied up J.K. but loosened the cords when she complained
they were too tight. Appellant whispered to J.K. that “he wasn’t going to hurt her.” Appellant
placed J.K. in a bathtub and, at J.K.’s request, brought J.K.’s dog to her in the bathtub.
Appellant and Autrey then left.
On April 17, 2010, Autrey and appellant went to a house in Irving where Autrey “broke
the window in the doorway to get in.” Appellant’s job was to be the lookout, and he did not
enter the house. Later that same day, police arrested Autrey and appellant after an officer
stopped Autrey’s vehicle for failing to display a front license plate.
In May 2010, appellant was indicted on charges of aggravated robbery with a deadly
weapon and burglary of a habitation. After testifying at Autrey’s trial, appellant entered a
judicial confession to each offense and, in exchange for his testimony, was “allowed to go open
to the Court.” At the hearing on punishment, appellant testified he met Autrey “through an
occupant at the same complex that [appellant] lived in.” The occupant knew appellant’s military
background, and appellant repaired a twelve-gauge shotgun for him. The occupant introduced
appellant to Autrey because “it would be an opportunity for [appellant] to make money.”
Appellant testified that, at first, Autrey asked appellant what he knew about guns. Appellant did
not get any weapons, but “Autrey supplied them all.” Appellant testified he “guess[ed] they
were stolen” but was not sure. When the trial court asked appellant where his expertise came in
“as far as weapons and military,” appellant answered, “[f]rom the guns that I repaired for him.”
The trial court asked if appellant “worked on the guns,” and appellant testified, “[n]ot on those
specific guns.” Appellant testified he worked on guns for Autrey, but “they were through
another party. I did not know that they were Autrey’s until after the fact.” The trial court asked
appellant, “So your area of expertise for this group, for this syndicate, was – the benefit to them
–2–
of having you was your experience in weapons; is that right?” Appellant replied, “Your Honor, I
did not know that it was a syndicate or a group.” The trial court stated appellant was
“mitigating” and “trying to make it seem like [he was] not that bad person.” Appellant stated,
“When the guns – the guns that he brought to me, Your Honor,” and the trial court responded, “I
don’t care about that any more. You’ve had your chance. We’re not going to go round and
round over simple questions.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court accepted
appellant’s guilty pleas and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement in each case. These
appeals followed.
In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court infringed on his right to testify by saying
“I don’t care about that anymore” as appellant “was trying to explain that the guns he repaired
for Mr. Autrey were not the same guns that were used in the offense.”
A defendant has a right to testify at his own trial, and such a right is fundamental and
personal to the defendant. Johnson v. State, 169 S.W.3d 223, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 52, (1987)). At the same time, the trial court has the power and
obligation to control the courtroom for the purposes of ascertaining the truth, promoting judicial
economy, and protecting witnesses. Allen v. State, 232 S.W.3d 776, 780 (Tex. App.—Texarkana
2007, no pet.). Rule 611(a) of the rules of evidence states:
The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of
interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence to (1) make the interrogation and
presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless
consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue
embarrassment.
TEX. R. EVID. 611(a). We analyze questions committed to the trial court’s exercise of discretion
by inquiring whether the trial court acted without reference to guiding rules and principles or,
stated otherwise, whether the court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably. Allen, 232 S.W.3d at 780-
–3–
81. If a trial court’s discretionary ruling falls “within the zone of reasonable disagreement,” we
must affirm. Id. at 781.
Here, appellant testified at length and repeatedly testified he repaired guns for Autrey but
did not work on “those specific guns.” Appellant’s complaint is not that the trial court prevented
him from testifying but that the trial court “cut him off.” However, the record shows appellant
had already testified about which guns he repaired. Whether the guns appellant repaired were
the same ones used in the underlying offenses was irrelevant to the issue of whether appellant
committed the underlying offenses. Appellant did not object that he was prevented from
presenting testimony on any subject. Under these circumstances, we conclude the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in refusing to “go round and round” on the issue of which guns appellant
repaired. See TEX. R. EVID. 611(a); Allen, 232 S.W.3d at 780-81. We overrule appellant’s single
issue.
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
/David L. Bridges/
150134F.U05 DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RAMON MILLER, Appellant On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-00134-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-10-16131-Q.
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Myers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 3, 2015.
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RAMON MILLER, Appellant On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-00135-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-10-34161-Q.
Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Myers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered December 3, 2015.
–6–