James Otis Bradley v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 283rd District Court of Dallas County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-130-CR

JAMES OTIS BRADLEY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 283rd District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # F94-37810-WT

O P I N I O N

Appellant Bradley appeals his conviction for robbery (enhanced by one prior felony conviction), for which he was sentenced to ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Appellant pled not guilty to the robbery and true to the alleged enhancement conviction. Trial was before the court.

Kevin Pearson, a courier, finished delivery of a legal document to Parkland Hospital in Dallas about 5:00 P.M. on January 17, 1994. He had just gotten into his pickup truck which was parked in front of the hospital when Appellant opened the pickup door, had his hand in his pocket and said, "I have a gun, I have a gun, I'm going to shoot you if you don't give me your truck." Pearson tried to reason with Appellant and started up his truck. The truck stalled and Appellant again told Pearson he was going to kill him. He and Appellant grappled over the steering wheel of the truck.

Eloy Mendez, a pharmacist, who was waiting for his wife to pick him up, observed the struggle and shouted out at Appellant. At this point Appellant walked away from the truck and toward the hospital.

Police Officer Holt witnessed the struggle for control of the vehicle and came running to to the vehicle. Pearson told Officer Holt what had happened and the officer followed Appellant into the hospital where he arrested him. Appellant offered evidence from Nurse Friedeman, who testified that she had examined the medical records furnished by Parkland Hospital pertaining to Appellant, and that Appellant was being treated for respiratory distress and was medicated to such extent that he would be confused and may have had a memory loss of the event.

The trial court found Appellant guilty, found the alleged enhancement to be true, and sentenced Appellant to ten years in prison.

Appellant appeals on one point of error: "The State failed to prove Appellant was not involuntarily intoxicated at the time the offense took place."

As a general defense to criminal responsibility, a defendant may not be liable for his actions if he can prove that he was involuntarily intoxicated at the time of the offense. Tex. Penal Code 8.01 and 8.04. The burden of proof in establishing an affirmative defense to prosecution for a crime is upon the defendant. Tex. Penal Code 2.04.

Appellant asserts that the finding of the trial court that his conduct was not the result of involuntary intoxication is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The standard of review when examining the factual sufficiency of evidence supporting an affirmative defense is whether, after considering all of the evidence relevant to the issue at hand, the judgment is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. Meraz v. State, 785 S.W.2d 146, 152 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Taylor v. State, 856 S.W.2d 459, 460-61 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1993); Ward v. State, 787 S.W.2d 116, 117 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 1990).

Analyzing the facts under the foregoing standard of review, we conclude that the record contains ample and sufficient evidence that the trial court correctly held that Appellant was not temporarily insane by reason of involuntary intoxication at the time of and while committing the robbery.

Kevin Pearson indicated that Appellant was in control of himself during the entire robbery. He indicated Appellant was serious about the gun and his desire for Pearson's truck. Eloy Mendez testified that Appellant did not appear to be suffering physically. Officer Holt witnessed Appellant leaving the crime scene as he approached. The officer testified Appellant seemed in control of himself during the entire time he was in custody.

Against these three witnesses who were on the scene, Appellant offered the testimony of Nurse Friedeman. Based solely on her review of his medical records, she said Appellant would have been intoxicated and not aware of what he was doing at the time he committed the offense. Her description of the debilitating effects of the medication, when contrasted against his vigorous actions, casts serious doubts on her conclusions. Nurse Friedeman only offered a limited opinion regarding the possible effects of the medication upon a hypothetical person. She provided no evidence as to Appellant's actual mental ability to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the crime.

The trial judge, the finder of fact, was under the evidence, not only authorized, but required, to find that Appellant knew that his actions were wrong at the time of the offense, and that the drugs administered to him by hospital personnel earlier did not render him involuntarily intoxicated or temporarily insane at the time of the offense. Appellant failed to carry his burden of proof on his affirmative defense.

Appellant's point is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings,

and Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed May 3, 1995

Do not publish