Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hawkins v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District

May 25, 2017

STEVEN DALE HAWKINS, Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 106th District Court Gaines County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 03-3319

          Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J., and Bailey, J.

          OPINION

          JOHN M. BAILEY, JUSTICE

         In 2003, [1] the jury convicted Steven Dale Hawkins of one count of aggravated sexual assault (Count One), three counts of indecency with a child by contact (Counts Two, Four, and Six), and three counts of indecency with a child by exposure (Counts Three, Five, and Seven). The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for seventy-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on the aggravated sexual assault conviction. On each of the three convictions for indecency with a child by contact, the jury assessed Appellant's punishment at confinement for a term of twenty years. On each of the three convictions for indecency with a child by exposure, the jury assessed Appellant's punishment at confinement for ten years. Furthermore, the trial court ordered that the twenty-year sentences for Counts Four and Six are to run consecutively to each other and consecutively to the seventy-five year sentence for Count One.

         In three issues on appeal, Appellant contends that (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Appellant's motion to suppress his statement, (2) Appellant's double jeopardy rights were violated as a result of his convictions on Counts Five and Seven, and (3) the evidence was legally insufficient to support Appellant's convictions for Counts Five and Seven. We affirm.

         Background Facts

         The victim, K.M., is Appellant's niece by marriage. In November 2001, when K.M. was ten years old, K.M.'s mother abandoned her. K.M. and her two brothers moved in with their aunt, Melissa Linzy. Appellant was Linzy's husband. Linzy and Appellant had three children together. Between November 2001 and February 2003, Appellant, Linzy, K.M., K.M.'s two brothers, and K.M.'s three cousins were all living together in a three-bedroom mobile home in Seminole.

         When K.M. was eleven years old, Appellant began to abuse her. K.M. described a series of incidents that occurred over the course of a year. K.M. testified that Appellant came into her bedroom while she was lying in bed. Appellant asked K.M. to put his "private" in her mouth, and she did so. K.M. testified that this happened "a lot of other times."

         K.M. testified that, while she was sitting on the couch watching cartoons, Appellant asked her to rub his feet. K.M. complied. While K.M. was rubbing Appellant's feet, Appellant asked K.M. to rub his "private." K.M. again complied.

         K.M. testified that an incident took place in the laundry room. Appellant put his "private" in K.M.'s mouth. She also testified that Appellant "put his private in [hers]." K.M. again stated that she saw Appellant's "private" "a lot of times" and that Appellant made her touch his "private" a lot.

         Next, K.M. testified that she was sitting on the couch playing Nintendo when Appellant put K.M.'s hand on Appellant's "private." Finally, K.M. testified that she was sitting outside in the car with Appellant when Appellant put his "private" in her mouth.

         In December 2002, K.M. approached Linzy and told her about the abuse. Linzy told Appellant about K.M.'s outcry, and they agreed to tell the police. One and one-half weeks later, on January 2, 2003, Linzy took K.M. to the police department. Linzy told Appellant that she and K.M. were going to talk to the police. At the police department, Linzy told Officers Ted Wadsek and Chad Hallum about K.M.'s outcry.

         Officers Wadsek and Hallum accompanied Linzy and K.M. back to their residence. Officer Wadsek was in uniform and drove a marked patrol car, and Officer Hallum was in plain clothes and drove an unmarked patrol car. Officer Hallum followed Linzy into the house, while Officer Wadsek remained outside with K.M.

         Once inside the house, Officer Hallum asked Appellant to come to the police department to talk to him. Appellant agreed. Officer Hallum did not tell Appellant that he was under arrest and did not place Appellant in handcuffs. At the police department, Officer Hallum read Appellant the Miranda[2] warnings and asked Appellant if he would like to "tell his side of the story." Appellant waived his Miranda rights and gave a statement to Officer Hallum.

         Appellant described three separate occasions where he sexually abused K.M. First, Appellant stated that, eight months prior to giving his statement, he and K.M. were sitting on the couch when Appellant asked K.M. to rub his feet. While K.M. was rubbing Appellant's feet, Appellant asked K.M. to rub his "stuff." K.M. complied with Appellant's request.

         Second, Appellant described an incident in the laundry room that occurred a couple months later. Appellant stated that, over the course of several days, he twice asked K.M. to suck his penis, and K.M. told him ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.