Justices send appeal back to 6th District
State court says trial judge was right in club shooting
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned a decision Thursday issued last year by a Texarkana appellate court involving a 2009 New Year’s Day nightclub shooting death.
Billy Dee Riley Jr., 24, was found guilty by a Bowie County jury in 2010 of fatally shooting 19-year-old Terry Matthews in the parking lot of Texarkana Expo Hall, where a brawl had broken out during the first hours of Jan. 1, 2009.
Riley and Matthews did not know each other.
Witnesses at trial testified that Riley was part of a fight inside the club, that he left, retrieved a gun from the glove box of his car and shot Matthews, who was unarmed, from 1 to 4 feet away during the chaos in the club’s parking lot.
Riley argued self-defense at trial.
The jury had the choice to acquit Riley, find him guilty of manslaughter or find him guilty of murder. They chose murder and handed down a 50-year sentence.
In July 2011, the 6th District reversed Riley’s conviction and sentence and ordered a new trial in a 2-1 opinion. The majority opinion found that mistakes made by Riley’s defense team—Texarkana lawyers Kyle Davis, Shorty Barrett and Joe Tyler—affected the outcome of the case. The defense had mistakenly advised Riley that he would be eligible for probation
if a jury found him guilty of murder, sentenced him to 10 or fewer years and recommended that the sentence be probated.
The lawyers did not realize that the law allowing probation for those convicted by a jury of murder involving a deadly weapon had been eradicated by the Legislature in 2007. Their mistake did not come to light until all witnesses had testified in both the guilt and punishment phases of the trial.
Riley’s only chance at probation under the existing law was from a judge.
A judge can order deferred adjudication probation for a murder defendant who pleads guilty and asks that the court assess punishment. If a judge grants a deferred adjudication, a defendant will not have the conviction on his record if he successfully completes a term of probation.
Riley’s lawyers argued that Riley was denied that possibility because they incorrectly advised him that a jury could assess probation. The lawyers claimed that Riley’s case would have likely had a different outcome had they not mis-advised him.
The 6th District agreed with Riley’s lawyers in a 2-1 decision in December. Justice Jack Carter disagreed with Chief Justice Josh Morriss and Justice Bailey Moseley. Carter cited case law, as did the higher Court of Criminal Appeals, that was in conflict with the 6th District’s reversal.
In a footnote to its opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals wrote, as was argued by the state, that the state never waived its right to a jury trial, which would have been necessary for Riley to plead guilty and receive a term of deferred adjudication probation from a judge.
Unlike the 6th District, the higher court found that the trial judge did not make a mistake when he denied a request from the defense for a new trial.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has sent the case back to the 6th District with an order for that court to evaluate other issues raised in Riley’s appeal that the lower court did not address when it penned the opinion stating that a new trial was warranted.
The 6th District must now evaluate Riley’s claim that the trial court should have advised him that a jury could not give him probation; his claim that there was a problem with the jury instructions during punishment; that his lawyers failed to object to the jury instructions; that the jury incorrectly rejected Riley’s claim of sudden passion, which would have lowered his punishment range from five to 99 years or life to two to 20 years; and that certain photographs and testimony that were deemed inadmissible by the trial judge should have been presented to the jury.
Until those issues raised by Riley in his appeal are settled, the case remains in the hands of the 6th District.