Joseph Andrew Wilcox v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-22-00100-CR
JOSEPH ANDREW WILCOX, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 336th District Court
Fannin County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR-21-28090
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A Fannin County jury convicted Joseph Andrew Wilcox of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. After it found the State’s punishment enhancement allegations true, the jury
assessed a sentence of twenty-five years’ imprisonment. In his sole point of error on appeal,
Wilcox argues that the trial court erred by failing to submit his requested jury instruction on the
issue of self-defense. Because we conclude that Wilcox was not entitled to the instruction, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Factual Background
The evidence at trial showed that Wilcox assaulted Troy Minchey while Minchey was
attempting to enter his mother’s home. The question before us is whether this evidence also
showed that Wilcox was entitled to a self-defense instruction.
Minchey testified that he was kicked out of his girlfriend’s house and went to his
mother’s home because it had “been [his] home over the last 20 years,” even though his mother
had told him he was no longer welcome there. Minchey, who was carrying an overnight bag,
knocked on the door several times and walked around the house to see if his mother, Donna
Reynolds, was home. Even though Reynolds’s vehicle was in the driveway, no one responded to
Minchey’s knocking, which lasted for twenty to thirty minutes. Minchey testified that he
became worried about Reynolds’s well-being because she had a history of drug overdoses. He
did not have a key to the house and decided to gain entry by using his shoulder to pry open the
front door. When he crossed the threshold, Minchey encountered Wilcox, who was carrying a
homemade club.
2
Minchey told Wilcox, who was larger than him, that he was Reynolds’s son, in case
Wilcox thought he was an intruder. According to Minchey, Wilcox said that he did not care and
“began flailing a wooden [club].” Minchey exited the house and went into the yard, but Wilcox
swung the club and hit Minchey in the head, “dropp[ing] [him] to the ground.” The assault was
captured by the home’s surveillance video camera. The recording showed that Minchey, who
had no weapons, had walked back into the yard and was stepping away from Wilcox when he
struck Minchey with the club, knocking him down. While Minchey was still on the ground,
Wilcox struck Minchey with the club again at least eight times. Reynolds and her boyfriend,
David Hoaglin, watched the beating, and Reynolds tried to intervene. Wilcox walked away for
over a minute, but returned, got on top of Minchey, who was already on the ground, and
continued his assault by hand. Minchey testified, “Once he puts the bat down and gets on top of
me with both hands around my neck, he asked me to beg for my life twice.” Wilcox then fled
the scene.
Minchey, badly beaten, was left in the yard. When he tried to get up and walk, he fell
back down to the ground. Eventually, Minchey was able to get to his phone and call 9-1-1. On
the call, which was played for the jury, Minchey reported that Wilcox had beaten him with a
weapon, he was bleeding from his head, and he needed an ambulance. Minchey told dispatchers
that Wilcox “kept beating [him] and kept beating [him].” Jonathan McCann, a patrol sergeant
with the Fannin County Sheriff’s Office (FCSO), testified that he was dispatched to Reynolds’s
home and found Minchey with “fresh blood coming from . . . severe lacerations on his head.”
According to Randy Vasquez, an investigator with FCSO, Minchey was bleeding profusely, did
3
not have full functioning capability, and required stitches at the hospital. Minchey testified that
he had to have eight stitches for his head injury and suffered “a bone chipped in [his] knee.”
Photos of Minchey’s bloody injuries were shown to the jury.
McCann described the homemade weapon wielded by Wilcox as “a homemade wooden
club,” approximately three feet long and “[a] couple inches” thick. Both McCann and Vasquez
testified that the club was a deadly weapon capable of causing serious bodily injury or death.
McCann said that there were no other weapons at the scene. Vasquez testified that Wilcox’s
actions went beyond what was immediately necessary to protect himself because Wilcox
continued to strike Minchey when he was already on the ground. Referring to the surveillance
recording, Vasquez added, “There’s even a point where you can see that [Wilcox] stops.
[Reynolds and Hoaglin] try to stop him from it too, and [Wilcox] [i]s still continuing.”
Vasquez said that, from statements made by Reynolds, Vasquez gathered that Minchey
lived in Reynolds’s home. McCann testified that Minchey’s driver’s license listed Reynolds’s
home as his address and that Reynolds said Minchey was no longer welcome but was not
“legally evicted.” During her testimony, Reynolds clarified that Minchey was not living with her
at the time and that she lived in the home with Hoaglin and Wilcox.
Reynolds testified that Minchey had a history of heroin use, which made him “mean,”
and that his morning text messages led her to believe he was on drugs on the day of the incident.
A week before the incident, Reynolds told Minchey, who had physically assaulted her in the
past, that he was not welcome and that she would get a restraining order against him if he
showed up at her house. Reynolds also said that Minchey had destroyed her property before and
4
that she was concerned for her safety and property when Minchey attempted to enter the home.
Reynolds did not respond to Minchey’s knocking because she hoped he would go away.
According to Reynolds, Minchey was holding his grandmother’s garden spade when he entered
the front door.
Wilcox testified in his own defense. Wilcox did not respond to Minchey’s knocking but
said that he knew it was Minchey since he was the only person that would continue knocking for
that long. Wilcox heard a metal scraping sound coming from the door latch, thought Minchey
might have a knife, and decided to arm himself with the club. Wilcox said Minchey got through
the door with the garden spade and that he hit Minchey with the club as soon as Minchey’s foot
crossed the threshold. Wilcox felt that grabbing the club when he saw the garden spade was
reasonable and said, “[W]henever [Minchey] put his hands up, I hit him.”
Wilcox said that he pushed Minchey until he fell over “and when he did, [Minchey]
started calling [Wilcox] names and stuff, and [Wilcox] started swapping [sic] [Minchey] right on
the side of his body” with the club. Wilcox said that he was not trying to cause serious bodily
injury but was “trying to get the man that was busting into [his] house to stop.” Although he
testified that he was fearful and did what was necessary to protect himself, Wilcox admitted that
Minchey threw the spade “a foot and a half away from the front door” and that, on the video,
Minchey did not have the spade while Wilcox was beating him with the club. Wilcox denied
causing Minchey serious bodily injury. Although he said he was protecting himself and others,
Wilcox admitted that he fled the scene, leaving Reynolds behind.
5
After hearing this evidence, the trial court denied Wilcox’s requested self-defense
instruction.
II. Standard of Review
Wilcox argues that the trial court erred by omitting his requested jury instruction on self-
defense. We review this claim “under the two-pronged test set out in Almanza v. State, 686
S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (op. on reh’g).” Graves v. State, 452 S.W.3d 907, 910
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d). “We first determine whether error exists.” Id. (citing
Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “If there is no error, our analysis
ends.” Id. (citing Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
“Regardless of the strength or credibility of the evidence, a defendant is entitled to an
instruction on any defensive issue that is raised by the evidence.” Jordan v. State, 593 S.W.3d
340, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). “A defensive issue is raised by the evidence if there is
sufficient evidence to support a rational jury finding as to each element of the defense.” Id.(citing Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647, 657–58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). “We view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the defendant’s requested defensive instruction.” Id. (citing
Gamino v. State, 537 S.W.3d 507, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017). “A trial court errs to refuse a
self-defense instruction if there is some evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
defendant, that will support its elements.” Id.The State charged Wilcox with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The use of
deadly force in self-defense is justified by Section 9.32 of the Texas Penal Code, which states, in
relevant part, the following:
6
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force . . .
....
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was
immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be
reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the
deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to
enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation
....
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.32 (a)–(b).
III. Wilcox Was Not Entitled to a Self-Defense Instruction
“[I]f the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, does not establish
self-defense, the defendant is not entitled to an instruction on the issue.” Gaspar v. State, 327
S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (quoting Ferrel v. State, 55 S.W.3d 586,
591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). “Deadly force is ‘force that is intended or known by the actor to
cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily
injury.’” Rodriguez v. State, 629 S.W.3d 229, 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021) (quoting TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 9.01(3)). “In the context of self-defense, actual deadly force is not required; rather,
7
apparent danger may suffice.” Id. (citing Jordan v. State, 593 S.W.3d 340, 343 (Tex. Crim. App.
2020)).
Section 9.32’s “‘reasonably believes’ language contains subjective and objective
components.” Lozano v. State, 636 S.W.3d 25, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). “A defendant must
subjectively believe that another person used or attempted to use . . . deadly force (Section 9.32)
against the defendant and that the defendant’s use of unlawful or deadly force in response was
immediately necessary.” Id. (citing Semaire v. State, 612 S.W.2d 528, 530 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1980)). “Second, a defendant’s subjective belief must be reasonable.” Id. “A
reasonable belief is one held by an ‘ordinary and prudent man in the same circumstances as the
actor.’” Id. (citing TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.07(a)(42)). Therefore, “while the reasonableness
of [the] defendant’s belief . . . is viewed from the defendant’s standpoint at the time he acted[,]”
Benavides v. State, 992 S.W.2d 511, 521 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d)
(emphasis added), it is “measured by the objective standard of an ‘ordinary and prudent man[,]’”
Echavarria v. State, 362 S.W.3d 148, 154 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011, pet. ref’d) (emphasis
added).
“In certain situations, an actor’s subjective belief is presumed reasonable,” including in
circumstances where the victim “unlawfully and with force entered” the actor’s habitation.
Lozano, 636 S.W.3d at 32 (quoting TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.32(b)). Yet, “[b]y its own terms,
the presumption applies under Section 9.32(b) only if the defendant first harbors a subjective
belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary to defend himself from another’s
8
use or attempted use of deadly force.”1 Id. at 33 (emphasis added). We turn, therefore, to these
“only if . . . first” threshold matters.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Wilcox requires us to find that
Minchey unlawfully entered the habitation while holding a garden spade. A garden spade is not
a deadly weapon, per se, but could be considered one if its manner of use or intended use could
cause Wilcox serious bodily injury. Here, nothing showed that Minchey attempted to make a
deadly weapon of the garden spade, nor was there testimony that Wilcox believed the garden
spade would be used to attack a person.2 See Oestrick v. State, 939 S.W.2d 232, 238 (Tex.
App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref’d) (victim never used or attempted to use the baseball bat in a way
that could be the basis of a reasonable belief by appellant that his use of deadly force was
immediately necessary). When asked what Minchey was “attempting to do with that metal
object,” Wilcox responded, “I know he got in the door with it. But . . . past that, I have no idea.”
Also, there was no evidence that Minchey advanced toward Wilcox with the garden spade or
that, after the spade was abandoned, Wilcox believed Minchey’s fists could be considered deadly
weapons, given his stature. As a result, nothing showed that Wilcox subjectively believed
Minchey would use deadly force against him at the time Wilcox used deadly force.
Moreover, even presuming that Wilcox’s initial use of deadly force was reasonable when
Minchey entered the habitation with force, the use of deadly force is justified “to the degree the
1
Under the unique facts of this case, viewing the events from Wilcox’s standpoint requires consideration of his
knowledge that the person trying to enter the home was Reynolds’s son, a person whom he knew.
2
While Wilcox said he was generally fearful, the record does not show that he feared Minchey would use deadly
force. Likewise, while there was testimony that Minchey had assaulted Reynolds in the past, there is no testimony
that the past assault involved deadly force.
9
actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 9.32(a)(2) (emphasis added); Lozano, 636 S.W.3d at 33. “Self-defense implies defensive and
not offensive acts. When the acts of an accused cease to be defensive and take on the offensive,
then he becomes the aggressor and is no longer acting in self-defense.” Witty v. State, 203
S.W.2d 212, 218 (Tex. 1947); see Gibson v. State, 202 S.W.2d 236, 237 (Tex. 1947) (the acts
constituting self-defense “must not exceed the bounds of defense and prevention. There must be
an apparent necessity to ward off by force an unlawful act. It is a right based upon necessity.”);
see also Lozano, 636 S.W.3d at 34 (noting that defendant “might have shot [victim] once in self-
defense, then continued shooting even though he knew [victim] was no longer a threat”).
Here, Wilcox admitted that Minchey had abandoned the garden spade by the front door
and walked back into the yard. The surveillance footage shows that Minchey had no weapon and
retreated until he was close to the fenced perimeter of the property. Any threat had subsided, at
the latest, when Minchey fell to the ground outside of the home without a weapon.3 Nothing
showed that Minchey, who was much smaller in stature compared to Wilcox, posed any threat of
deadly force while on the ground. Even so, Wilcox continued to beat him with the club at least
eight times. As a result, the evidence showed that Wilcox became the aggressor. Simply put,
any presumption of reasonableness had vanished.
Based on the facts of this case, we find that Wilcox did not clear either the subjective or
the objective component required by Lozano to obtain a jury instruction on self-defense. See
3
See Graves v. State, 452 S.W.3d 907, 911 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2014, pet. ref’d) (finding self-defense instruction
not warranted when initial aggressor was unarmed and was shot while backing away from defendant); Mitchell v.
State, 590 S.W.3d 597, 605 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (collecting cases).
10
Lozano, 636 S.W.3d at 32; Dearborn v. State, 420 S.W.3d 366, 378 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (holding that defendant not entitled to self-defense instruction where
evidence showed victim armed with nothing other than fists and noting blows with fists not
typically considered deadly force). For this reason, we conclude that the trial court did not err in
refusing to submit the instruction. As a result, we overrule Wilcox’s sole point of error.
IV. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Jeff Rambin
Justice
Date Submitted: February 13, 2023
Date Decided: March 17, 2023
Do Not Publish
11