Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Simon Lee Riley v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 03-04-00206-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 15, 2004; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Simon Lee Riley was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison, enhanced by two prior felony convictions. His court-appointed attorney filed an Anders brief, concluding the appeal was frivolous. The brief indicated that the only arguable points lacked merit. Riley also submitted a pro se brief claiming four points were valid. First, he alleged prosecutorial misconduct led to his withdrawal of a pro se motion for a speedy trial after his DNA samples were taken. Although he believed the DNA results would be exculpatory, there was no evidence that the prosecutor misled defense counsel intentionally or that Riley suffered harm from the misunderstanding about the testing timeline. Second, Riley contended the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress DNA test results linking him to a bandana found at the crime scene. He claimed the affidavits supporting the search warrant misrepresented that a confidential informer witnessed the robbery, but the court found the affidavit's language did not state that the informer had witnessed the crime. Third, Riley argued the trial court erred by refusing to disclose the informer's identity. After an in camera hearing, the court determined the informer only provided hearsay information and was not a witness to the crime, thus properly concluding that their testimony would not be essential for a fair trial. Trial counsel's effectiveness was challenged on the grounds of inadequate trial preparation. During the new trial hearing, counsel indicated efforts to contact all potential witnesses provided by the appellant, with each witness being either uncooperative or offering unhelpful information. While the appellant highlighted other performance issues in his pro se brief, these were not addressed at the hearing, leading to a strong presumption that counsel's conduct was within the bounds of reasonable professional assistance, as established in Jackson v. State. Additionally, appellate counsel raised a separate issue regarding the appellant's entitlement to time credit for jail time served from November 2, 2001, to January 14, 2004. The court acknowledged this entitlement at sentencing, but the judgment lacked the credit, which was subsequently modified to reflect 803 days of credit. After reviewing the record and briefs, the court found no further issues to support the appeal, affirming the modified judgment of conviction.