Raheem Abdulah Watkins v. the State of Texas

Appellant alleges 13 complaints, including the following: 1. the trial court erred by refusing to conduct a hearing with him present regarding his motion to dismiss his court-appointed trial counsel; 2. the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that appellant or his accomplice specifically intended to kill the victim; 3. the evidence was factually insufficient to establish that appellant or his accomplice specifically intended to kill the victim; 4. the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a specific intent to kill was required for conviction either individually or as a party to the murder; and 5. the trial court erred by assessing attorney's fees and investigator's fees. Because the trial court erred by assessing attorney's fees and investigator's fees, the judgment of conviction is modified to delete those fee. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Beaumont Court of Appeals, No. 10-10-00055-CR, 12-01-2010

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

Raheem Abdulah Watkins was convicted by a jury of the offense of murder, pled true to two enhancement allegations, and was sentenced to life in prison. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §§ 19.02(b)(1) & 12.42(d) (Vernon 2003). Watkins complains of the following: (1) that the trial court erred by refusing to conduct a hearing with Watkins present regarding his motion to dismiss his court-appointed trial counsel; (2) the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that Watkins or his accomplice specifically intended to kill the victim; (3) the evidence was factually insufficient to establish that Watkins or his accomplice specifically intended to kill the victim; (4) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a specific intent to kill was required for conviction either individually or as a party to the murder; (5) the trial court erred by failing to submit an instruction regarding an accomplice as a matter of law; (6) the trial court erred by failing to submit an instruction regarding a statement against interest made during Watkins’ incarceration; (7) the trial court erred by failing to include an instruction regarding a witness’s prior convictions; (8) the trial court erred by submitting instructions that allowed conviction by a manner and means that had been abandoned by the State; (9) the trial court erred by admitting extraneous conduct testimony; (10) the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct; (11) Watkins received ineffective assistance of counsel; (12) the trial court erred by not appointing new counsel when requested prior to trial (numbered also as eleven in Watkins’s brief); and (13) the trial court erred by assessing attorney’s fees and investigator’s fees (numbered as twelve in Watkins’s brief). Because we find that the trial court erred by assessing attorney’s fees and investigator’s fees, we modify the judgment of conviction to delete those fees, and as modified, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Raheem Abdulah Watkins v. the State of Texas

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal