Richard Schrader v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-10-00686-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 23, 2011; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Richard Schrader was indicted for felony theft after being observed stealing a tool from a Home Depot in Harris County, Texas. He pleaded not guilty, but the jury convicted him and sentenced him to two years in a state jail and a fine of $139. Schrader raised two issues on appeal: (1) the trial court's failure to require a plea of "true" or "not true" regarding his prior theft convictions, and (2) alleged improper jury arguments made by the State during the punishment phase. The court affirmed the conviction.

During the trial, evidence was presented showing Schrader had multiple prior theft convictions from 2007 to 2010. While he acknowledged his previous guilty pleas, he opted for a jury trial this time. The State's closing argument suggested that his choice to go to trial was influenced by not being offered county jail time, and they argued about the likelihood of recidivism, which prompted an objection from Schrader that was sustained by the court.

Regarding the first issue, the court clarified that the prior convictions were elements of the charged offense rather than enhancement paragraphs, indicating that the statutory framework elevating the offense was jurisdictional. Thus, the trial court's failure to obtain a plea on the prior convictions did not constitute error. The court referenced relevant Texas case law to support this distinction.

The prior convictions of the appellant must be included in the main charge, specifically regarding the theft of property valued at less than $1,500, with two prior theft convictions being essential elements of the offense. There were no separate enhancement paragraphs requiring a plea of “true” or “not true” regarding these convictions. 

In addressing the appellant's second issue, which claims improper jury arguments by the State during the punishment phase, the court outlines the standards for permissible jury arguments, which fall into four categories: summation of evidence, reasonable deductions from evidence, responses to opposing counsel, and pleas for law enforcement. If an argument is found to be improper, the court must assess whether it likely influenced the conviction or punishment. Typically, an instruction to disregard an improper remark is sufficient to mitigate harm unless the remarks are particularly egregious or introduce new, harmful facts.

The appellant identified two specific improper arguments: the State suggesting a motive for not accepting a plea bargain and asserting that the appellant would likely commit theft again. However, the court concluded that the appellant failed to preserve these issues for appeal, as he did not make contemporaneous objections or seek necessary rulings following any sustained objections. Although the appellant referenced an exception for particularly prejudicial arguments, this was deemed overruled by precedent requiring objections for all jury arguments, regardless of the claims of due process violations. The court noted that the appellant's complaint about the motive suggestion was specifically highlighted.

No objections were raised at trial regarding the first argument related to improper jury comments. The appellant's second complaint concerned the State's assertion that he would commit theft again, to which the appellant objected and the trial court sustained the objection. However, the appellant did not request an instruction to disregard or a mistrial, which are necessary to preserve the issue for appeal. After the trial court's ruling, the State continued its argument, and the appellant failed to renew his objection. Thus, he did not preserve this issue for appeal, leading to the overruling of his second issue. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Additionally, the appellant did not object to the trial court's failure to read enhancement allegations or obtain a plea during the punishment phase, which also needed to be raised in a timely manner to preserve any potential errors for appeal.