Matthew Houston v. The State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, reviewed Matthew Houston’s conviction for sexual assault of a child and twenty-year prison sentence. Houston challenged the denial of a continuance, evidentiary rulings concerning a forensic interview recording, alleged ineffective assistance based on a conflict of interest, and the State’s jury arguments. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Houston's motion for continuance because the motion was filed six days before trial, Houston had had months or years to make arrangements for his children, and he failed to show actual and specific prejudice to his defense.
2. The trial court properly denied Houston's request to take still photographs from the recording of a child's forensic interview because Texas law required the court to deny a request to copy, photograph, duplicate, or otherwise reproduce the recording when the recording was made reasonably available for inspection.
3. Houston's challenge to allegedly disparate rulings on leading objections was inadequately briefed and unpreserved; alternatively, the record did not clearly demonstrate judicial bias or an abuse of discretion.
4. Houston did not establish an actual conflict of interest merely because one trial attorney had represented J.C.'s father years earlier; therefore, the Cuyler v. Sullivan standard did not apply, and the ineffective-assistance claim was governed by Strickland v. Washington.
5. Houston failed to establish ineffective assistance based on counsel's limited pursuit of an alternative-perpetrator theory or failure to call additional witnesses.
6. Houston forfeited his complaints concerning the State's jury arguments because he did not object, request an instruction to disregard, or move for mistrial. His alternatively asserted ineffective-assistance claim was also inadequately briefed and did not establish deficient performance.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Houston's motion for continuance.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Houston's request to photograph a recording of a child's forensic interview.
3. Whether allegedly disparate rulings on objections to leading questions demonstrated judicial bias or otherwise denied Houston a fair trial.
4. Whether Houston's trial counsel had an actual conflict of interest because counsel had previously represented J.C.'s father, requiring review under Cuyler v. Sullivan rather than Strickland v. Washington.
5. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for limiting the alternative-perpetrator theory, failing to pursue evidence concerning J.C.'s father, or failing to object to the State's opening statement and closing argument.
6. Whether the State's comments urging the jury to listen to and believe J.C. and to find Houston guilty improperly lowered the State's burden of proof, and whether the complaint was preserved.

Disposition

affirmed