Carl Wayne Horne v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 07-07-00498-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 13, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Carl Wayne Horne was convicted of two counts of engaging in organized criminal activity related to the sale of controlled substances, specifically methamphetamine. Horne appealed the convictions on three grounds: (1) factual insufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, (2) lack of independent corroborative evidence for accomplice witness testimony, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed the convictions.

Regarding the second issue, the court found sufficient corroboration of the accomplice witness testimony. Although Horne contended that only Ann Marie Adkins' testimony linked him to the drug sale, a taped conversation was presented as evidence. In this recording, Horne discussed his involvement, expressing a desire to withdraw from the drug trade while mentioning debts owed to him, which connected him to the criminal activity.

For the first issue, the court addressed the sufficiency of evidence concerning organized crime. The State needed to prove that Horne intended to participate in a combination of three or more individuals involved in criminal activities and that he conspired to commit predicate offenses. The court noted that “combination” includes individuals collaborating in illicit activities, regardless of their knowledge of one another. Evidence indicated Horne was part of a group with known members involved in drug trafficking, despite his claims of not being connected to their criminal activities. The court acknowledged that while the credibility of witnesses was disputed, there was overwhelming evidence of Horne's involvement in the conspiracy.

Evidence presented included testimonies that Kristopher Compton observed the appellant at Drager's, inferring drug transactions from negotiations he overheard. Compton also witnessed the appellant collecting a bag he believed contained methamphetamine. Lisa Bailey reported hearing discussions about money to pay the appellant, presumed to be for drugs, while Jason Roberts indicated Drager mentioned needing to meet with "Carl" (the appellant) for methamphetamine supplies. Drager’s sister, Shepic, testified that the appellant previously sold methamphetamine to Drager, and they had an agreement to distribute the drug. Shepic also recounted overhearing discussions about quantities of methamphetamine exchanged between them. A witness named Crystal stated the appellant acquired an ounce of “ice” every few days from Drager, and Adkins testified that the appellant regularly sold drugs with Drager and delivered them to various locations. Adkins further noted that drug transactions benefited Drager, as the money flowed upward. Agent Bill Redden revealed that Drager discussed plans to collect debts owed to the appellant in recorded jail calls. The court concluded that the jury was tasked with resolving any conflicting testimonies regarding the appellant's guilt, and the evidence was sufficient to uphold the verdict, which was not deemed unjust.

Regarding the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the indictment, the court found the claim unsubstantiated. The appellant needed to demonstrate both deficient counsel performance and resultant prejudice, but the indictment's wording was consistent with statutory requirements. Previous case law rejected the appellant's argument about the indictment’s phrasing, indicating that trial counsel was not obligated to make a meritless objection. The court affirmed the judgment, with a note on the efficiency of citing specific evidence in future cases.