Oscar Malik King v. the State of Texas

Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-21-00511-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 27, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Oscar Malik King appealed his convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a child, two counts of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault, and assault family violence with a prior conviction. He raised five issues on appeal: (1) the trial court's denial of his motion for continuance, and (2-5) the need for reformation of the judgments to accurately reflect the sentencing outcomes. The State presented two cross-issues seeking modification of the assault family violence judgment.

In 2017, King received three years of deferred adjudication community supervision for assault family violence. In 2019, he was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of burglary, all with enhancement for a previous felony. The State also moved to revoke his community supervision, leading to a consolidation of the four cases for trial.

Twelve days before the trial, the State re-indicted King on the aggravated sexual assault charge, increasing the mandatory minimum sentence to 25 years. King requested a continuance, citing his need for more time to consult with his attorney. The State opposed the motion, arguing King was adequately informed of the case details and the plea offer had been available for months. The trial court denied the continuance request. Subsequently, King chose not to accept the State's plea offer, which was closed after his statement. 

At trial, the State abandoned the additional language from the indictment. King pleaded not guilty, but a jury found him guilty. During sentencing, he pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs related to the sexual assault charges but not true concerning the revocation allegations. The trial court sentenced him to 85 years for each sexual assault offense and 20 years for assault family violence, all to run concurrently. King's motions for a new trial were overruled by operation of law, prompting this appeal. The court affirmed the convictions with modifications.

King argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for continuance and that the sentencing judgments should be reformed. The State presents two cross-issues for further modifications to the assault family violence judgment. 

The denial of a motion for continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. To establish reversible error from such denial, a defendant must demonstrate: (1) that the reasons for delay were compelling enough that no reasonable judge could prioritize scheduling and fairness to the State over the defendant’s need for a delay; and (2) actual prejudice resulting from the denial. 

King requested a continuance to evaluate options before trial, citing a re-indictment that changed the nature of the charges and increased the minimum punishment from fifteen to twenty-five years. The State countered that the new language was included in the initial discovery, negating claims of surprise. The trial court allowed time for consideration and postponed the hearing, but ultimately denied the continuance request when King’s counsel did not specify how much additional time was needed or justify the request further. 

The court concluded that King did not convince the trial court that he required a delay and could not demonstrate actual prejudice, as the State abandoned the additional language in the indictment before trial began. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the motion for continuance was upheld as not an abuse of discretion. 

In subsequent issues, King seeks specific modifications to the judgments, which the State supports, along with additional modifications to the assault family violence judgment.

Modification of a judgment is permitted when sufficient information is available, per TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). In cases of conflict between oral pronouncements and written judgments, the oral pronouncement takes precedence, necessitating a reform of the judgment. In reviewing the record, all of King's issues and the State's cross-appeal issues are sustained, leading to multiple required modifications of the judgment in case 05-21-00511-CR regarding the assault family violence conviction. King’s assertion that there was no plea bargain is accepted, and the judgment is amended to remove the 'Open' plea bargain designation. Additionally, the judgment is modified to accurately reflect that King was convicted under section 22.01(b)(2)(A) of the Penal Code, which pertains specifically to family violence offenses. The judgment is further amended to include a family violence finding under 'Special Findings' as mandated by Texas law. 

In case 05-21-00513-CR, King requested a correction regarding his conviction for burglary with intent to commit sexual assault, which the court agrees with, changing the conviction from 'Aggravated Sexual Assault to a Child' to 'Burglary of a Habitation with the Intent to Commit a Sexual Offense' under the relevant statute. Additionally, in cases 05-21-00512-CR, 05-21-00513-CR, and 05-21-00514-CR, the judgments are corrected to reflect that King pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs, rather than not true. 

The court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying King’s motion for continuance. King's first issue is overruled, while his second through fifth issues and the State's two cross-appeal issues are sustained, resulting in the modification and affirmation of the judgments as detailed.

Judgment was entered on December 28, 2022, by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas regarding Oscar Malik King, the Appellant, in three separate cases originating from the 194th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. 

In case No. 05-21-00512-CR (Trial Court Cause No. F-2100153-M), the trial court's judgment was modified to reflect that the Defendant pleaded 'True' to the enhancement paragraph, and as reformed, the judgment was affirmed. 

In case No. 05-21-00513-CR (Trial Court Cause No. F-2100154-M), the judgment was modified to change the offense from "Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child" to "Burglary of a Habitation with Intent to Commit Sexual Assault" and the offense code from Penal Code 22.01(A)(2)(B) to Penal Code 30.02(d). The Defendant's plea was also modified to 'True' for the enhancement paragraph, with the judgment affirmed as reformed.

In case No. 05-21-00514-CR (Trial Court Cause No. F-2100155-M), similar modifications were made regarding the plea to the enhancement paragraph, with the judgment affirmed as reformed.

In all three cases, opinions were delivered by Justice Partida-Kipness, with Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating.