Jerry Belton v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-11-01052-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 30, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On January 31, 2013, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the life sentence of Jerry Belton, who pleaded guilty to murdering his wife without an agreed sentencing recommendation. Belton admitted to a prior conviction for attempted murder, which led to an enhancement of his sentence. He contended in his appeal that he acted under sudden passion, arguing for a lesser sentence within the second-degree felony range instead of the first-degree felony range applicable to his case.

The background reveals that Belton, who is deaf and mute, traveled from Louisiana to Texas to visit his estranged wife Chandra and their daughter J.B. despite warnings from his family about the volatile nature of the relationship. After initially enjoying family time, Belton became agitated when Chandra returned home late after drinking and was uncooperative during church services. Following a heated argument about Chandra's new boyfriend, Belton retrieved a gun from his car in a fit of rage after she allegedly disrespected him during a phone call. Witnesses, including security guards at the location, confirmed seeing Belton shoot Chandra multiple times after a confrontation.

A third witness, located about 35 yards away, reported hearing three gunshots. Belton returned to Chandra’s home, parked his SUV, gave the keys to their daughter, and left in another vehicle. At approximately 5:00 p.m., Harris County Sheriff’s deputies discovered Chandra in the parking lot, deceased with a significant pool of blood. An autopsy confirmed she had five gunshot wounds, with the medical examiner ruling her death a homicide. Although no shell casings were found, Chandra’s broken mobile phone yielded three incriminating text messages suggesting a confrontation over infidelity. Belton was arrested in Louisiana, where he confessed to the shooting, claiming it followed a pattern of discovering Chandra's infidelity. He pleaded guilty to murder without a plea deal concerning sentencing, leading to a PSI report's preparation. During the punishment hearing, Belton sought judicial notice of his written statement from the PSI report, but only family photographs of Chandra were formally admitted as evidence. The PSI report revealed Belton's violent criminal history, including multiple stabbings in the late 1980s. Testimonies from family and friends characterized Chandra negatively while asserting Belton's good character and recent positive changes in his life. The trial court sentenced Belton to life in prison. On appeal, he argued that he acted under sudden passion, warranting a reduction of his offense from first-degree to second-degree felony, thereby challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence against this claim. The legal standard requires the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the killing occurred under the immediate influence of sudden passion, as defined by Texas Penal Code.

Adequate cause is defined as a provocation that would elicit significant emotional responses, such as anger or fear, in an average person, sufficient to impair rational thought. However, mere ordinary emotions do not suffice to establish sudden passion; the emotional state must prevent the individual from engaging in cool reflection. A defendant must demonstrate that the homicide occurred while still under the influence of such passion and before it had the opportunity to dissipate. Evidence of anticipation or planning indicates that the defendant had time to reflect, contradicting claims of acting under sudden passion.

In the case of Belton, the facts highlighted his premeditated actions: he traveled from Louisiana to Houston with a firearm, was aware of Chandra’s infidelity, and communicated with her boyfriend. The shooting occurred in a secluded area, and Belton continued to shoot after Chandra fell. His premeditated conduct supports the trial court's finding against sudden passion. Belton's assertion that he became angry during a phone call lacked legal merit, as he was already aware of Chandra's affair. Therefore, the trial court’s negative finding on sudden passion is backed by the evidence, and no contrary evidence was presented. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.