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.
Shane Jermaine Matthews v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-12-00051-CR
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 25, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Shane Jermaine Matthews, John Lawrence Matthews, and David Lewis Haywood were convicted of capital murder for the shooting death of Jessie Palomo, Jr. during an attempted robbery on December 13, 2009. The jury assessed their punishment at life imprisonment without parole. The three brothers were tried together, and despite no formal request for consolidation of their appeals, the court issued a single opinion due to overlapping facts and legal issues. The appeals were transferred from the Ninth Court of Appeals under a docket-equalization order from the Texas Supreme Court. During the trial, Miesha Kelly, an accomplice witness, testified about her involvement and relationships with the appellants. She indicated she was under indictment for the same crime but chose to testify truthfully to seek leniency. Kelly recounted that on the day of the murder, she, along with the Matthews brothers, traveled from Galveston to Kirbyville in David's girlfriend's SUV, ostensibly to buy marijuana and a car. The group engaged in drug use during the trip and made a stop at a gas station where they encountered other associates. The court ultimately affirmed the convictions against all three appellants, despite their various challenges to the verdicts. Kelly and the appellants visited a convenience store in Kirbyville, where David paid for gas and purchased a soda and chips. Afterward, they drove to the Gateway Motel, where Kelly parked in front of a room occupied by Brown, Adams, and their daughter. Kelly entered the motel room to use the restroom, finding it empty and recalling nothing unusual. Upon exiting, she found Brown and the appellants inside. A motel clerk informed Brown about too many occupants, prompting Kelly to leave. As she stood at the doorway, Palomo arrived in a Cadillac, with a woman in a red shirt in the car. Kelly left in the Equinox but was later called back to the motel by Shane via walkie-talkie. Upon her return, she found Palomo lying outside, assisted by the woman from the Cadillac. Although she did not see Brown or the appellants, they were communicating with her. When she spotted them running from a nearby house, she picked them up, and they drove back to Galveston. Kelly maintained she was unaware she would be driving a "getaway car" or of any robbery plan. She described the clothing of John, David, and Shane as hooded and baggy. While driving, they encountered police, and Shane threatened Kelly to continue driving. During the trip, Brown called to inquire about their location and later advised Kelly to dispose of her phone. Shane and David discussed shooting Palomo, with Shane claiming he shot him first. They also talked about duct tape, and Kelly noted that John was quiet but later apologized for the incident. After discarding their undershirts en route, they returned to Galveston, where Kelly observed two small guns, one in Shane's possession, and noted that Shane wore gloves while handling them. She was unaware of the guns during the trip to Kirbyville and did not see any duct tape or masks. Shane was dropped off in Galveston, and Kelly and John were subsequently taken to their house, but instead of returning home, they rented a motel room. The following morning, Galveston police arrested them, leading to their transfer to Jasper County Jail. Kelly admitted to providing a false police statement about a fictitious fourth man, 'North Carolina,' due to fear. She recognized John’s handwriting in letters he sent from jail, specifically State’s Exhibits 64 and 65. In Exhibit 64, dated May 14, 2010, John mentioned needing to "get out to get them tools," referring to guns, and expressed concern about her not discussing the 'spot' where they hung out, implying the guns had not been disposed of in water. He urged her to remain silent about the 'spot' and stated he needed her help. Exhibit 65, dated May 18, 2010, reiterated his request for her silence about the 'spot.' Kelly recounted Shane’s claim that Palomo had a gun when he was shot in the back while attempting to escape through a window. She observed the appellants cleaning themselves after the incident, noting John had blood on his mouth. Jason Brown, who had known Palomo since childhood and was related to Kelly, testified about his interactions with John regarding a drug deal. John, also known as 'John Boy,' mentioned a robbery worth $40,000 and sought drugs, leading Brown to contact Palomo, a known drug dealer. After failed arrangements in Baytown, they planned to meet Palomo in Kirbyville. On December 13, 2009, Brown, his girlfriend Melissa Adams, and their daughter drove to Kirbyville, stopping in Baytown where they encountered Kelly, John, and his brothers. Brown later took his family to the Gateway Motel, while Kelly and the appellants did not join them immediately. Adams rented a motel room using Brown’s debit card and provided him with the room key before leaving for a family event. Brown anticipated a marihuana deal would occur in the room. Shortly after Adams departed, Palomo arrived in a dark blue Cadillac STS with a woman, entered the room with Brown, and waited. The room was unoccupied and clean, with no prior occupant's belongings. A motel clerk informed Brown that only two persons were allowed in the room, prompting them to stand by Palomo’s car. Despite a motel policy stating 'TWO PERSONS PER ROOM. NO VISITORS,' Brown did not express concern about Palomo's marihuana claim, indicating trust in Palomo. Subsequently, appellants drove in, and after some interaction, Palomo asked Brown to remain outside with the woman while he and the appellants entered the room. Brown, who did not notice any bags or containers with anyone, waited in the Cadillac for about ten minutes before chaos ensued. Palomo abruptly fell through the motel window, revealing two masked men with guns who fled the scene. Brown fled to a nearby store for safety and later contacted a friend for a ride, advising Adams to report her purse stolen to avoid her involvement. Approximately two hours later, Brown called Kelly and John, who assured him to stay silent about the incident. Aware the police were searching for him, he eventually informed his father of his location, leading to his arrest for conspiracy to deliver marihuana and subsequent detention at the Jasper County Jail. Brown testified to recognizing the voices of the appellants while in jail, recalling an instance where Shane spoke about 'sticking to the script.' During cross-examination, Brown admitted to initially lying to police and claiming ignorance about Palomo’s death, acknowledging that he believed the State would drop charges against him in exchange for truthful testimony. Melissa Adams, Brown’s partner of twelve years, testified about their trip on December 13, 2009, from Houston to Kirbyville for her father's birthday. During this trip, they stopped at a gas station in Baytown where they encountered a gold SUV containing John, Shane, David, and Brown’s cousin Kelly. Adams noted that they did not get gas and did not recall anyone exiting their vehicles, stating that the meeting was not pre-arranged. Adams estimated the travel time from Baytown to Kirbyville at about an hour and a half, during which she fell asleep after approximately 30 to 45 minutes. Upon waking, they had arrived at the Gateway Motel in Kirbyville, where Adams rented a room using Brown's debit card. She confirmed her signature on the receipt, dated December 13, 2009, at 14:22:44, and stated that Brown remained at the motel while she and their daughter went to her mother's house for the party. Adams did not see Palomo at the motel and was unaware of any altercation there. After leaving the motel, Brown called her shortly to inform her of an incident. Adams later invoked her right against self-incrimination regarding her subsequent actions. She acknowledged having criminal charges related to Palomo's death, including conspiracy to deliver marijuana and making a false report, but stated she had no agreement with the District Attorney concerning her testimony. The State presented testimony from fifteen non-accomplice witnesses, while Shane called two witnesses whose testimonies are summarized in the document. Euretha Wagner, a 20-year-old from Beaumont, Texas, and her 27-28-year-old boyfriend, Palomo, traveled to the Gateway Motel in Kirbyville on December 13, 2009, under the pretense of getting food. Wagner was unaware of Palomo's intent to stop at the motel and had heard he dealt drugs. Upon arrival, Palomo parked the running Cadillac STS in front of a motel room. A man named Jason Brown exited the motel, briefly conversed with Palomo, and then entered the motel room with him. Wagner noticed a big woman with short hair leave the room and drive away in a gold SUV, while Brown later entered the Cadillac with Wagner, causing her to feel scared. Brown made small talk, mentioning waiting for Palomo and 'counting money,' yet Wagner claimed to see and smell no drugs and denied knowledge of a drug deal. As she waited, Wagner observed no one else entering or exiting the motel room. Suddenly, Palomo crashed through a window, prompting Wagner to exit the Cadillac to help him. She did not see Brown's subsequent actions, and he did not assist Palomo. Wagner then saw three individuals in black hoodies and masks flee the motel room but could not confirm their identities or whether they were male or female, as she did not hear gunshots or see any weapons. Wagner found Palomo unresponsive and bleeding, with his pants down and hands tied. Deldrick Minter arrived, and Wagner asked him to call 911. She then contacted her friend Charles Beatty, who brought a comforter for Palomo and suggested they inform his parents. They drove to Bleakwood to relay the incident to Palomo's parents. Later, Wagner returned to the motel, where she spoke to the police but initially provided inconsistent statements due to fear. At trial, she identified photographs of Brown and the woman from the SUV but could not recognize the three individuals who ran from the motel room. Deldrick Minter, a 22-year-old resident of Kirbyville, testified that he witnessed the aftermath of a violent incident while at 'Johnny’s Stop ‘n Stay' store. He observed glass breaking and saw an individual, Palomo, fall through a motel window, followed by three individuals dressed in black fleeing the scene. Minter was unable to identify the fleeing individuals and did not see them again. He later saw another individual, Brown, exit the motel room and leave in a vehicle. Minter noted that Lakesha Wagner arrived shortly after, attempting to assist Palomo, who was found bleeding on the ground. Minter called 911, and police arrived approximately twenty minutes later. Dr. Tommy Brown, a forensic pathologist, conducted Palomo's autopsy on December 14, 2009, and was recognized as an expert witness. His autopsy report detailed Palomo's physical attributes and noted the absence of personal belongings. Dr. Brown identified multiple lacerations on Palomo's head, suggesting blunt-force trauma potentially caused by a gun barrel, and noted injuries to Palomo's hands consistent with breaking glass. He reported two gunshot wounds: one to the upper arm and another to the back, which was determined to be the cause of death, classified as a homicide. Dr. Brown recovered projectiles from the body and documented evidence from the autopsy, including Palomo's clothing. Gerald Hall, an expert in questioned documents, also provided testimony regarding his qualifications and experience in forensic analysis. Hall utilized State’s Exhibits 61 and 62 as known handwriting samples from John to compare against a questioned document, having analyzed a total of thirty-six samples of John's handwriting. His comparison process included assessing elements such as signature, speed, height, curvature of strokes, and character formation. He specifically analyzed State’s Exhibits 64 and 65, concluding that John authored both letters, which were subsequently admitted into evidence. Officer Constance Jordan, a certified peace officer and crime scene officer with the Jasper Police Department, testified about her investigation at the Gateway Motel on December 13, 2009. Upon arrival at approximately 4:30 p.m., she discovered a body outside Room 1, covered with a bedspread, with a broken window and an open door. She identified State’s Exhibits 17 through 29 as photos from the crime scene, noting that State’s Exhibit 19 depicted the victim falling face-first out the window. State’s Exhibit 21 illustrated the victim's shirt wrapped around his arms with duct tape over it, indicating that the duct tape did not appear to bind his hands. Additional duct tape was found outside the room, appearing torn. Officer Jordan described the chaotic state of the motel room, which included overturned furniture and significant blood spatter. She collected blood samples for DNA testing and noted specific items found at the scene, such as a Doritos bag and soda can in the bathroom (State’s Exhibit 29), a twenty-dollar bill near the doorway (State’s Exhibit 34), and a clothing button found nearby (State’s Exhibit 38). A broken piece of a gold chain was also recovered from the parking lot (State’s Exhibit 39). In the bathroom, she discovered a green nylon bag containing rubber gloves. State’s Exhibit 41 depicted a roll of duct tape found in the room, while State’s Exhibit 42 showed another piece of duct tape located outside the front door, both being silver in color. Captain Curtis Frame, a certified police officer since 1984, was dispatched to the Gateway Motel on December 13, 2009, to process a crime scene marked by signs of a struggle, including duct tape found on the victim's arm. Detective Robert Walker, an investigator with the Jasper County Sheriff’s Office since 1994, also responded and extended the crime scene perimeter. He conducted interviews, including with Melissa Adams, who claimed she was forced to rent the room by three armed individuals. Walker identified the suspects as black males based on statements from another officer and interviews with individuals, including Deldrick Minter and Brown, who mentioned a drug deal. Walker tracked a suspect named 'John Boy' using GPS and arrested him along with Kelly in Galveston. They discovered a car linked to the suspects and collected DNA samples from them, but no significant evidence emerged from the SUV or the clothing worn at the time of arrest, apart from blood on Shane's clothing, which lacked DNA results. Notably, Walker could not identify physical evidence supporting a conspiracy to commit robbery. However, he confirmed that a twenty-dollar bill with the victim's blood was found, alongside indications of severe assault and robbery: the victim was beaten, duct taped, and stripped of personal belongings. Witnesses saw three individuals fleeing the scene, and evidence indicated two guns and duct tape were used in the crime. Kelly corroborated the presence of John, Shane, and David at the motel during the incident and reported that they disposed of their clothing during their return to Galveston, which Walker failed to recover. Ginger Eastham, a forensic firearm and tool-mark examiner at the Texas Department of Public Safety, analyzed two bullets from Palomo’s autopsy, determining one was a .22 caliber lead bullet and the other a brass jacketed bullet consistent with a .38 caliber or 9mm Luger. Her findings confirmed that the bullets were fired from different firearms, with the .22 caliber potentially fired from various types of guns and the 9mm caliber fired only from handguns or pistols. The bullets were admitted as State’s Exhibit 57, and her report as State’s Exhibit 58. Mark Wild, a latent print examiner, processed various items for fingerprint evidence and successfully developed a usable fingerprint from a Doritos bag collected from a motel bathroom. He used superglue fuming and fluorescent dye staining techniques, identifying the fingerprint as belonging to David. The Doritos bag was admitted as State’s Exhibit 60, and Wild's report as State’s Exhibit 59, without objection. Andrew McWhorter, Manager of the DNA Section at the Texas Department of Public Safety, analyzed buccal swabs from the appellants and Kelly, generating DNA profiles for comparison. His report, State’s Exhibit 66, indicated that the DNA on a twenty-dollar bill found in the motel matched Palomo's profile, establishing him as the source. McWhorter also analyzed a swab from a soda can, which showed a DNA profile consistent with David and a minor component consistent with John. On cross-examination, McWhorter acknowledged that John's DNA marker was common among the population, making it uncertain that John contributed to the profile. His supplemental report was admitted as State’s Exhibit 67. Eight issues for review have been presented by the appellants, which have been reorganized into four key points. 1. The first issue questions whether the evidence, excluding accomplice testimony, is insufficient to establish that John and Shane were present at the crime scene during the murder. 2. The second issue challenges the sufficiency of evidence to convict John, Shane, and David of capital murder on the grounds that the robbery element was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. The third issue contemplates whether there is insufficient evidence to prove that John was a party to the murder, despite evidence of his presence at the time. 4. The fourth issue addresses whether the trial court erred in denying Shane’s motions for a speedy trial and to dismiss the indictment, claiming a violation of his right to a speedy trial. In the analysis regarding the first issue, John and Shane contend that without the testimony of an accomplice, the evidence does not sufficiently show their presence at the murder scene. The legal standard under Texas law stipulates that a conviction cannot solely rely on accomplice testimony unless corroborated by other evidence linking the defendant to the offense. While corroboration is necessary, it does not need to directly establish guilt or be substantial; even minor incriminating circumstances may suffice. Additionally, the absence of compelling evidence does not negate the existence of evidence connecting the defendant to the crime. Overall, the corroborative evidence must connect the defendant to the offense, but it need not be conclusive in itself. The jury was instructed that it could determine certain witnesses, specifically Adams and Brown, as accomplices, which allows for an analysis excluding their testimony. Assuming the jury considered Bridget an accomplice, her testimony remains well-supported by additional corroborating evidence. Even if Tate is deemed an accomplice, sufficient evidence still links Bulington to the murders. After disregarding the accomplice testimonies of Kelly, Adams, and Brown, the remaining evidence effectively connects John and Shane to the crime. Key corroborating details include witness Minter observing three males in hoodies fleeing the Gateway Motel after an incident, which aligns with Kelly and Brown's accounts. Wagner also noted seeing individuals in black hoodies running from the motel. Further corroboration includes testimony that at least one weapon used was a handgun, consistent with descriptions of firearms associated with the accused. Evidence such as a rubber glove found at the crime scene and the bloodied clothes of Shane at the time of his arrest further supports the connection to the crime. John’s flight to a hotel and avoidance of his home after the offense adds to the circumstantial evidence linking him and Shane to the murder scene. Shane's testimony indicated he discussed using duct tape and shooting Palomo in the back before he fell through the window, which was corroborated by the presence of duct tape at the crime scene and autopsy findings. After the incident, John instructed Kelly from jail to remain silent. DNA evidence from a Dorrito bag and a soda can at the crime scene matched David's DNA, while John's DNA was also present, supporting Kelly and Brown's assertion that the three appellants were in the motel room during the murder. In their appeals, John and Shane's first issue was overruled. The court examined whether the evidence sufficiently demonstrated that the murder occurred in the course of a robbery or attempted robbery, particularly focusing on John’s alleged participation in the capital murder. The appellants contended that the evidence did not meet the reasonable doubt standard for robbery, essential for elevating the crime from murder to capital murder under Texas Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2). The court emphasized that evidence must be viewed favorably towards the verdict, allowing for rational conclusions by the trier of fact, who resolves conflicts and weighs evidence. It noted that the legal sufficiency standard, as established in Jackson v. Virginia, applies equally to factual sufficiency challenges, and thus, the court no longer distinguishes between the two in its review process. Appellants argue the evidence is insufficient to establish the robbery element due to the failure to exclude every reasonable alternative hypothesis of innocence. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has clarified that this reasonable alternative hypothesis standard is not applicable in sufficiency reviews under the Jackson standard, as established in Geesa v. State. Evidence does not need to directly prove guilt; circumstantial evidence can be equally probative and sufficient for establishing guilt. The sufficiency of evidence is assessed based on the elements of the offense defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge that accurately reflects the law and the indictment without unnecessarily increasing the State's burden or restricting its theories of liability. In the case of capital murder, the jury charge must indicate that the defendant is guilty if he intentionally committed the murder while committing or attempting to commit robbery. Robbery is defined as causing bodily injury or threatening another while unlawfully appropriating property with the intent to deprive the owner, and no completed theft is required for robbery to occur. The jury was instructed on the law of parties, which holds that a person can be criminally responsible for an offense committed by another if they act with intent to assist in the commission of that offense. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence regarding a defendant's participation as a party, the court may consider all relevant actions and events surrounding the offense. In King v. State, the court examined the sufficiency of evidence regarding a defendant's involvement in capital murder during an attempted robbery. The case references McKinney v. State, where sufficient evidence was found to support the defendant's actions as a principal in a crime involving a drug dealer, including the use of guns and direct threats to victims. Similarly, in Slomba v. State, circumstantial evidence indicated intent to rob a bank employee, supported by the defendant's appearance and possession of a loaded pistol and mask. In the current case, the appellants arrived at a drug dealer's location armed with firearms and carrying items indicative of a robbery plan, such as duct tape, a nylon bag, masks, and gloves. Evidence from an autopsy report indicated the dealer suffered severe trauma before being shot, suggesting a robbery was executed. A witness testified that the appellants' intentions included obtaining drugs and a vehicle, contradicting the stated purpose of a drug purchase. Following the incident, the appellants attempted to evade law enforcement and exhibited suspicious behavior, including disposal of evidence and discussions of the crime in their vehicle. Overall, the actions and items possessed by the appellants established a clear intention to commit robbery, corroborated by witness accounts and post-crime conduct. John wrote letters from jail to Kelly, instructing her to remain silent about the gun's location, implying a "consciousness of guilt." This concept is significant in legal contexts as it serves as strong evidence of guilt, supported by case law. The actions of John and his co-appellants, including fleeing from police and hiding, suggest an attempt to evade arrest, which further implies guilt in connection with the murder of Palomo during a robbery attempt. The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions of all appellants. Shane Matthews contested the denial of his motions for a speedy trial and dismissal of the indictment, claiming a violation of his constitutional rights. He referenced Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 1.05 but failed to distinguish how this right differed from federal and state constitutional protections. The court evaluated the speedy trial claim using a four-factor test: the length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the defendant, establishing that no single factor determines a violation. All factors must be considered together with other relevant circumstances. A bifurcated standard of review is applied to a trial court's ruling on a speedy-trial claim, utilizing a de novo standard for legal issues and an abuse-of-discretion standard for factual issues. New arguments cannot be introduced for the first time on appeal, and the review is based solely on the information available to the trial court at the time of its ruling. The length of delay is measured from the defendant’s formal accusation or arrest to trial, with a presumption of prejudice if the delay is eight months or more, though no specific length automatically violates the right to a speedy trial. In Shane's case, he was arrested on December 15, 2009, and indicted on February 23, 2010. After filing a motion for a speedy trial in June 2011, the trial ultimately commenced on December 11, 2011, nearly two years post-arrest. The reasons for the delay are also examined, with the State bearing the burden to justify it. A silent record implies a lack of valid reasons for the delay, which may stem from deliberate state actions, justified circumstances, or neutral factors like court congestion. The defendant's actions can also affect the assessment of the speedy trial right. Defense counsel acknowledged seeking a continuance in April 2010, which contributed to the delay. Despite the focus on the delay's length, the State did not provide an explanation for the delay during the hearing, but this absence alone does not resolve the speedy-trial claim. The legal analysis addresses the factors relevant to a speedy trial claim, referencing multiple cases. An eight-month unexplained delay was weighed against the State but deemed not dispositive because the appellant had absconded for four years. Although the delay was substantial and unexcused, it must be considered alongside prejudice to the appellant. The appellant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial is critical; he must actively assert this right, which carries strong evidentiary weight. In this case, the appellant, Shane, was incarcerated for over a year before filing a speedy trial motion and indicated satisfaction with a trial date just under two months later, which weighs against his claim. Prejudice from the delay must be established, where the defendant does not need to show actual prejudice but must make a prima facie case. The burden then shifts to the State to demonstrate that any prejudice did not exceed ordinary delays. The analysis considers three interests: preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration, minimizing anxiety, and limiting impairment of defense. The record suggests no evidence of significant prejudice from the delay, leading to the conclusion that Shane suffered minimal, if any, prejudice. Ultimately, when balancing the four factors—length of delay, reasons for the delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice—it was determined that Shane was not denied his right to a speedy trial. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.