Randle Jack Goodrum Jr. v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Second Court of Appeals affirmed Randle Jack Goodrum Jr.'s conviction for driving while intoxicated with two or more prior convictions. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish intoxication and that Goodrum failed to preserve his complaints concerning an alleged judicial comment and expert testimony. The court sustained Goodrum's challenge to reimbursement of appointed appellate counsel fees, modified the order to remove that requirement, and affirmed the order as modified.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Goodrum was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle. The court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury's, and retrograde-extrapolation evidence was not required where the record contained other evidence of intoxication.
2. Goodrum forfeited his complaint that the officer's testimony constituted an improper comment on the weight of the evidence because he did not timely object to the testimony or otherwise present the complaint to the trial court.
3. The record did not establish ineffective assistance based on trial counsel's failure to object to the challenged testimony because the record was silent regarding counsel's reasons and a reasonable strategic explanation was possible.
4. A trial court may order an indigent defendant to contribute to appointed-counsel fees only after finding, based on supporting evidence, that the defendant has financial resources and the ability to pay. Because the trial court found Goodrum indigent and the record lacked supporting evidence of ability to pay, the reimbursement provision was erroneous and had to be deleted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Goodrum was intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle.
2. Whether Goodrum preserved his complaint that testimony identifying the trial judge as the judge who signed the blood-draw warrant constituted an improper comment on the weight of the evidence.
3. Whether Goodrum preserved his challenges to the relevance, reliability, and unfair prejudice of expert testimony concerning the number of drinks required to produce his blood-alcohol concentration.
4. Whether the trial court could order Goodrum to contribute to the cost of appointed appellate counsel without supporting evidence that he had the financial ability to pay.

Disposition

affirmed