John Andy Jones v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 183rd District Court of Harris County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 10, 2010.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
___________________
NO. 14-09-00769-CR
___________________
JOHN ANDY JONES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1121936
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of murder and sentenced him to confinement for life in
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Appellant raises two
issues on appeal.
The victim, Corkney Lee, was in a car at a red light when a truck containing two
men, Jimmie Gross and appellant, stopped on the passenger side of Lee’s car. Jasmine
Thomas was a passenger in Lee’s car. Lee and Gross exchanged words. Lee pulled into
a gas station and parked; Gross parked beside him. Gross and appellant then exited the
vehicle with appellant holding a shotgun. Lee turned and ran away from appellant, toward
the store, and appellant fired. Lee fell forward and subsequently died. Gross and
appellant drove away.
In his first issue, appellant claims the alternate juror was allowed to deliberate with
the twelve members of the jury panel during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial.
Appellant bases his claim on the fact that when the jury was polled after rendering its
verdict, the alternate juror’s name was called and she responded. The record reflects the
alternate juror responded, ―I was an alternate.‖ The alternate juror’s response does not
indicate she deliberated with the jury. There is nothing in the record that demonstrates, or
even suggests, the alternate juror was part of deliberations. Appellant’s first issue is
overruled.
Appellant argues in his second issue that the trial court erred in not allowing him to
impeach Jasmine Thomas and in denying him the opportunity to make a bill of exception.
The record reflects appellant was allowed to make a bill of exception so we reject that
claim.
Regarding appellant’s other assertion, the record indicates Thomas, a witness for
the State, had been placed on community supervision pursuant to deferred adjudication for
possession with intent to deliver.
When appellant attempted to question Thomas
regarding her deferred adjudication, the trial court refused to permit it.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Maxwell v. State, 48 S.W.3d 196, 200
(Tex. Crim. App. 2001), held ―a defendant is permitted to cross-examine a State’s witness
on the status of his deferred adjudication probation in order to show a potential motive, bias
or interest to testify for State.‖ More recently, in Woods v. State, 152 S.W.2d 105, 111
(Tex. Crim. App. 2004), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cited Maxwell for the
proposition that there is a nexus between the witness’s testimony and the witness’s
potential motive to testify in favor of the other party when a witness is serving a period of
community supervision. The court stated, ―[i]n such cases, the witness is placed in a
vulnerable position and may have a motive to testify in favor of the State.‖
2
Id.
Accordingly, we find the trial court erred in refusing to permit appellant to cross-examine
Thomas on the status of her deferred adjudication. See Drew v. State, 76 S.W.3d 436, 451
(Tex. App. – Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. ref’d).
Appellant’s brief does not identify any harm from the trial court’s error, and we
determine there was none. Thomas only testified to the events immediately surrounding
the shooting. She did not identify appellant as the shooter. Thomas’ testimony was
echoed by Jimmie Gross, Oddie Bryant and Vetrice Smith. Therefore, we find the trial
court’s error was harmless. See Shelby v. State, 819 S.W.2d 544, 547 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991); Drew, 76 S.W.3d at 451; Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a). Appellant’s second issue is
overruled.
Having overruled both of appellant’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Brown, Sullivan, and Christopher.
Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
