Christopher Nigel Weeks v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

Affirm and Opinion Filed May 31, 2022
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00427-CR
CHRISTOPHER NIGEL WEEKS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 401-82143-2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Molberg
Appellant Christopher Nigel Weeks appeals a judgment convicting him of
repeatedly violating a protective order and, after Weeks pleaded true to an
enhancement paragraph included in the indictment, sentencing him to fourteen
years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (TDCJ). See TEX. PENAL CODE § 25.072. On appeal, Weeks argues the trial
court erred in excluding evidence of his mental illness during the guilt/innocence
phase of his trial. Because he failed to preserve error, we affirm in this memorandum
opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
I. BACKGROUND
Weeks was charged by indictment with repeatedly violating a protective
order. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 25.072. He pleaded not guilty and elected to have a
jury decide guilt or innocence and to have the court assess punishment. After the
jury found him guilty during the guilt/innocence phase, Weeks pleaded true to an
enhancement paragraph included in the indictment, and the trial court assessed
punishment at fourteen years’ confinement in TDCJ’s Institutional Division. The
trial court then entered judgment accordingly and certified Weeks’ right of appeal.
II. ISSUE & ANALYSIS
In his sole issue, Weeks argues that the trial court erroneously excluded
evidence of Weeks’ mental illness during the guilt/innocence phase of trial, based
on what he characterizes as the trial court’s misinterpretation of two cases.1 He
complains that the trial court excluded evidence of his mental illness during the
guilt/innocence phase of the trial, including testimony from Dr. Kyle Clayton. In
directing us to this alleged error in the record, Weeks cites only a May 19, 2021
order granting the State’s motion in limine. That order stated, in pertinent part:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the State’s Motion in Limine is
GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED that the defense shall not offer
evidence of, or comment on, Defendant’s mental health or diminished
capacity without first offering such evidence or comments out of the
hearing or presence of the jury or the voir dire panel for specific ruling
on admissibility by the Court.
1
See Jackson v. State, 160 S.W.3d 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ruffin v. State, 270 S.W.3d 586 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
–2–
On appeal, Weeks argues that the trial court erred by granting the State’s
motion in limine and excluding evidence of his mental illness during the
guilt/innocence phase at trial because such testimony could have negated the mens
rea element of the offense and more than likely resulted in his conviction.
Weeks ignores, however, that he failed to preserve error on this issue. See
Warner v. State, 969 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc) (per curiam) (op.
on appellant’s pet. for discretionary review). In Warner, the State filed, and Warner
opposed, a motion in limine regarding evidence of Warner’s post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD)—evidence Warner claimed was admissible to prove that he had not
had the specific intent to commit the charged offenses. Id. at 1. The trial court
granted the motion and found that such evidence would be admissible in the
punishment phase but not in the guilt/innocence phase. Id. at 2. Warner did not
offer any PTSD-related evidence during the guilt/innocence phase, and the jury
found him guilty of the offenses charged. Id. Warner appealed, claiming the
exclusion of such evidence was error; our sister court rejected his argument and
affirmed the judgment. Id. (citation omitted).
Warner filed a petition for review, and initially, the court of criminal appeals
granted it in order to determine whether the appeals court had erred in rejecting his
argument. Id. The court then dismissed the petition, concluding its decision to
initially grant the petition was improvident because, “plainly,” Warner did not
preserve his complaint for appellate review. Id.–3–
The court stated, “[A] ruling on a State’s motion in limine that excludes
defense evidence is subject to reconsideration throughout trial,” and “to preserve
error an offer of the evidence must be made at trial.” Id. After noting that Warner
failed to offer the PTSD evidence in the guilt/innocence phase, it dismissed his
petition. Id.Weeks followed the same missteps. By not offering any mental illness
evidence during the guilt/innocence phase, Weeks plainly failed to preserve error.
See id.; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (preservation of error); TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)
(rulings on evidence); Fuller v. State, 253 S.W.3d 220, 232 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(citation omitted) (“A motion in limine . . . is a preliminary matter and normally
preserves nothing for appellate review.”); Landaverde v. State, No. 05-19-00175-
CR, 2020 WL 2897108, at *10 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 3, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem.
op., not designated for publication) (same, citing Fuller). We overrule Weeks’ sole
issue on appeal.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Ken Molberg/
KEN MOLBERG
JUSTICE
210427f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHRISTOPHER NIGEL WEEKS, On Appeal from the 401st Judicial
Appellant District Court, Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 401-82143-
No. 05-21-00427-CR V. 2021.
Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Molberg. Justices Reichek and
Garcia participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 31st day of May, 2022.
–5–