2021-12-22 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Randall County Grand Jury, on March 24, 2021, charged Appellant by indictment for one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of possession of a controlled substance, one gram or more but less than four grams, both of which were enhanced by two prior felony convictions. (C.R. 1: 8-9)
Appellant proceeded to trial by jury with counsel on July 12, 2021. (R.R. 2: 6) The jury, after hearing evidence, being duly charged by the trial court, and considering closing argument by counsel, found Appellant guilty on both counts as alleged in the indictment.

Appellant pleaded “not true” to the enhancement paragraphs included in the indictment, but the jury found both enhancement paragraphs to be true and assessed punishment at 30 years of incarceration on each count. (R.R. 4: 104-05; 5: 55-58) Immediately thereafter, on July 15, 2021, the trial court pronounced sentence in accordance with the verdict and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. (R.R. 5: 60; C.R. 1:n 105-117) The Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s Right of Appeal was filed on July 14, 2021, and Notice of Appeal was filed on the following day.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

This incident stems from a dispute over whether it is permissible to remove a stranger’s laundry from a community washing machine left unattended. The difference of opinion was brought to resolution by the commission of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Though Appellant was also convicted of possession of a controlled substance,1 both points of error raised by Appellant relate only to the aggravated assault conviction. This brief will focus on the facts relevant to the assaultive conduct.

Henry Miles, a black male originally from Detroit, was residing at the Amarillo Motel during the later weeks of November in 2020. (R.R. 3: 21-23, 68-69) It was common for guests to reside at this motel for weeks or months at a time. (R.R. 3: 23) The motel provided a small laundry room packed with two washers, two dryers, and a folding table, leaving just enough space to accommodate a couple of people at most. (R.R. 3: 27; 4: 37-38) Miles was staying in a room directly across the parking lot from the laundry room, just a short distance away. (R.R. 3: 28-29)

About an hour before noon on the 27th day of November, Miles walked across the parking lot and started a load of laundry. (R.R. 3: 28) The laundry room was unoccupied at the time, and rather than hang around, he decided to wait in his room while the washing machine completed its cycle. (R.R. 3: 28-30) He held the view that “if you didn’t put it in the washing machine, don’t touch it.” (R.R. 3: 29)

Appellant, a white male with a propensity for uttering racial slurs, was also residing at the motel with his girlfriend, Pegan Cook. (R.R. 3: 74, 221, 223-25; 4: 8, 40-41; 6: 4; State’s Ex. 41) She decided to start a load of laundry on the same day as Miles, who she had never seen or met during her stay at the motel. (R.R. 4: 9-11) No one was present when Cook entered the laundry room. (R.R. 4: 11) One washing machine was running and the other one contained a finished load of laundry. (R.R. 4: 11, 38) Being of the mind that it was permissible to handle a stranger’s laundry, she removed the load and placed the damp laundry on a folding table. (R.R. 3: 30; 4: 12, 37- 38)

Early that afternoon, Miles returned to laundry room to place his clothes in the dryer. (R.R. 3: 27) Nobody was in the laundry room at the time, but Miles discovered someone placed his clothes on table while he was gone. (R.R. 3: 30) He became particularly upset because an expensive pair of jeans was missing. (R.R. 3: 30-32, 45) Meanwhile, Cook returned to the laundry room and admitted to Miles that she removed his laundry from the washing machine. (R.R. 3: 31) A heated argument ensued.

Miles took the position that if Cook had not removed his laundry, his jeans would not have been stolen. (R.R. 3: 32) He told her that she was not getting her clothes back until he got his jeans back. (R.R. 3: 32) Cook responded, “[O]kay, stay right here. I’ve got somebody for that – for you.” Miles never attempted to prevent Cook from leaving and did not threaten her with any physical violence. (R.R. 3: 33, 39, 44, 46) He did not block her way or place his hands on her. (R.R. 4: 17, 43, 54- 55)

He simply replied, “[D]o what you got to do.” (R.R. 3: 32)

Cook went back to her room to get Appellant, a man she described as short- tempered to the point of needing “anger management times a million.” (R.R. 4: 40) As soon as she told her version of what happened, Appellant “took off running” to the laundry room with her following behind him. (R.R. 3: 34; 4: 19, 41-42) Miles only had enough time to pivot in the laundry room before being struck in the face. (R.R. 3: 34) Appellant used his right fist to punch Miles in the mouth two times. (R.R. 3: 34) The blows cut the inside of his lip and “snapped a couple of the teeth loose in [his] plate.” (R.R. 3: 36)2

Miles testified that Appellant held a knife with his left hand “in a striking position” during the assault. (R.R. 3: 34-35) Miles did not see the handle of the knife because “[i]t was balled up in [Appellant’s] fist.” (R.R. 3: 35) He did see, however, that the knife had a “dark” or “black blade,” not a bright and shiny blade. Id. Miles also testified that it was “like a survival knife” with “little ridges in it.” Id. This testimony reflects what Miles told police at the scene. (R.R. 3: 41-42) During the ensuing investigation at the motel, responding officers recovered a pocketknife from Appellant’s pocket. (R.R. 3: 100, 108, 132) It had a dark blade with little ridges.
(R.R. 3: 122; 6: 3; State’s Ex. 22)

The knife was not shown to Miles at the scene. (R.R. 3: 49) A photograph of the knife was shown to Miles sometime before trial, but he testified that he was not “100 percent sure” it was the knife in question, stating that he could not be sure whether the knife used by Appellant was a folding blade or not. (R.R. 3: 41-42, 49-56) “I can’t tell you the design, the particular design of the handle or if it folded or this, that and the other, but it was a knife.” (R.R. 3: 49) Miles felt that he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death when Appellant held the knife in striking position. (R.R. 3: 38) That is why he did not defend himself. (R.R. 3: 35-36) He cautiously conceded the clothes, eased his way out the door, and returned to his room where he called the police. (R.R. 3: 37; 4: 21) Miles also revealed that Appellant “kept calling [him] the N word. […] And then [Appellant] said, I’m going to get my gun because I shoot – the N word.”

Detective Brent Harlan from the Amarillo Police Department, who spent 16 years in the SWAT unit, testified about the danger posed by knives. (R.R. 3: 197, 198, 200, 201) He reviewed the body cam footage from the responding officers in his role as detective. (R.R. 3: 201-02) The trial prosecutor also played a portion of the footage in open court where Miles described the assault to the officers. (R.R. 3: 203; State’s Ex. 31) After that, Harlan reviewed the actual knife admitted into evidence. (R.R. 3: 203-04; State’s Ex. 38)
Based on his training and experience, Harlan testified that he would feel as though he was in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death under the circumstances described by Miles. (R.R. 3: 204-06) He also testified that the knife was capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. (R.R. 3: 206)

At the motel on the day of the incident, Appellant gave the fictitious name “Jared Matlock” to responding officers. (R.R. 3: 74, 86-87, 105) Cook initially referred to Appellant as “Christian” when speaking to the officers, but realizing her mistake, she began referring to Appellant as “Jared.” (R.R. 3: 79-80) Appellant denied being involved in a confrontation when first questioned but eventually admitted to a verbal altercation in the laundry room. (R.R. 3: 74) Officers placed him under arrest after observing a fresh injury on his right knuckles. (R.R. 3: 75, 87)

While confined in county jail, Appellant concocted multiple schemes to undermine the prosecution by means of deception. He encouraged Cook, during a recorded jail call, to find a black man willing to pose as Miles and ask the police to drop charges. (R.R. 3: 220-21, 223-25; 4: 31-32; 6: 4; State’s Ex. 41) Cook conceded that she was a willing co-conspirator in this ploy on cross-examination. (R.R. 4: 31- 32) Appellant also mailed a letter to the trial court, claiming that he caught Miles in the act of sexually assaulting Cook in the laundry room. (R.R. 4: 54-55; 6: 4; State’s Ex. 51) On cross-examination, Cook conceded that this statement was a lie. (R.R. 4: 43, 55)

Cook did however deny seeing Appellant wield a knife during the assault: “I just saw him hit him, and that guy spit teeth out in his hand. […] And then he gave Christian the clothes and told him, we’re good.” (R.R. 4: 20-21) Though she claimed she did not see a weapon, on cross-examination, Cook admitted that she could not see Appellant’s hands at first, given that his back was to her and given the small confines of the laundry room. (R.R. 4: 21, 42) She also acknowledged that the knife in evidence was the same knife that Appellant always carried on his person. (R.R. 4: 21, 41)

The credibility of Cook’s testimony favorable to the defense was undermined extensively on cross-examination. After claiming she would not lie for Appellant, the prosecutor confronted her two examples to the contrary. (R.R. 4: 30-32) She endorsed Appellant’s fictitious name at the scene, and she conspired with Appellant to undermine the prosecution by procuring a false witness. Id. These examples forced Cook to admit that she would indeed lie for Appellant. (R.R. 4: 31)

Additionally, the prosecutor impeached Cook with her convictions for theft and for securing execution of a document by deception. (R.R. 4: 32) She was the only witness called by the defense.