Barney Ronald Fuller, Jr. v. The State of Texas
253 S.W.3d 220 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a capital case where the defendant pleads guilty before the jury, the plea is the functional equivalent of a jury verdict of guilt. Consequently, the jury is not required to return a separate written verdict form finding the defendant guilty before proceeding to the punishment phase.
Facts:
- Barney Ronald Fuller, Jr. had an ongoing dispute with his neighbors, Nathan and Annette Copeland, regarding his frequent firing of weapons on his property.
- The dispute escalated, and Fuller was charged with making a terroristic threat against Annette Copeland after telling her over the phone, “Happy New Year, I’m going to kill you.”
- On May 13, 2003, Fuller received a court letter regarding the terroristic threat charges, became furious, and began drinking heavily.
- Around 1:30 a.m. on May 14, 2003, Fuller walked to the Copeland home armed with an AR-15 rifle and a pistol.
- He fired approximately sixty rifle rounds into the house from outside before breaking down the back door.
- Inside, Fuller shot and killed Nathan Copeland in the master bedroom with both the rifle and the pistol.
- Fuller then found Annette Copeland in the master bathroom on the phone with 9-1-1 and shot her three times in the head, killing her.
- Fuller subsequently located and shot the Copelands' 15-year-old son, Cody, wounding him in the shoulder, and turned on the kitchen stove before leaving the residence.
Procedural Posture:
- Barney Ronald Fuller, Jr. was indicted for the capital murder of Nathan and Annette Copeland.
- The State provided notice that it would seek the death penalty.
- At the trial in a Texas district court, Fuller pleaded guilty to the charge of capital murder in front of the jury.
- The trial court accepted the plea and instructed the jury that its role was to determine punishment, not guilt.
- After a punishment hearing, the jury answered the statutory special issues, finding a probability of future dangerousness and no sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a life sentence.
- Based on the jury's answers, the trial judge sentenced Fuller to death.
- An automatic direct appeal was made to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court for criminal matters.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a death sentence violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process when, after the defendant pleads guilty to capital murder before the jury, the jury is not provided with or required to return a physical verdict form finding him guilty?
Opinions:
Majority - Price, J.
No. A death sentence under these circumstances does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights because a plea of guilty made to a jury is the functional equivalent of a jury verdict of guilt. Under Texas law, a jury trial cannot be waived in a capital case where the state seeks the death penalty. However, a plea of guilty before a jury constitutes a trial by jury that essentially becomes a trial on punishment only. Citing precedent like `Williams v. State` and `Holland v. State`, the court affirmed that this procedure is valid. The court reasoned that since the defendant's plea removes the issue of guilt from the jury's consideration, a formal written 'verdict of guilt' is not necessary. The U.S. Supreme Court held in `Kercheval v. United States` that a guilty plea is itself a conviction and is conclusive, meaning 'More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence.' Therefore, the absence of a signed verdict form for guilt is not a constitutional or statutory violation.
Concurring - Meyers, J.
The author concurs in the result but disagrees with the majority's analysis regarding the admissibility of Fuller's videotaped statement. By pleading guilty before the jury in a non-negotiated plea, Fuller waived the right to challenge the admission of his prior confession to police on appeal. His guilty plea in court was a confession to the jury that rendered the voluntariness of his earlier police statement a moot issue. The majority should not have analyzed the voluntariness claim and instead should have found that the issue was waived by the in-court guilty plea.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the procedure for handling guilty pleas in Texas capital cases, affirming that a defendant can plead guilty directly to the jury, which then transitions the trial into a punishment-only phase. It clarifies that the constitutional requirement of a jury trial on guilt is satisfied by the plea itself, rendering a separate, physical guilt verdict form superfluous. This provides procedural certainty for trial courts but also highlights the immense weight of an in-court guilty plea, which effectively waives appellate review of certain pre-trial issues, as noted in the concurrence. While the court called the use of a verdict form a 'better practice' to avoid confusion, it is not constitutionally or statutorily required.
Unlock the full brief for Barney Ronald Fuller, Jr. v. The State of Texas