Murderpedia

 

 

Juan Ignacio Blanco  

 

  MALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

  FEMALE murderers

index by country

index by name   A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

 

 

 
   

Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.

   

 

 

Terry Darnell EDWARDS

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
Classification: Murderer
Characteristics: Robbery
Number of victims: 2
Date of murders: July 8, 2002
Date of arrest: Same day
Date of birth: August 10, 1973
Victims profile: Tommy Walker, 34, and Mickell Goodwin, 26 (Subway sandwich shop workers)
Method of murder: Shooting
Location: Dallas County, Texas, USA
Status: Sentenced to death December 4, 2003
 
 
 
 
 
 

Name

TDCJ Number

Date of Birth

Edwards, Terry Darnell

999463

08/10/1973

Date Received

Age (when Received)

Education Level

12/04/2003

30

12

Date of Offense

Age (at the Offense)

County

07/08/2002

28

Dallas

Race

Gender

Hair Color

Black

Male

Black

Height

Weight

Eye Color

05'07"

157

Brown

Native County

Native State

Prior Occupation

Dallas

Texas

Warehouseman, Carpenter, Laborer

Prior Prison Record


#807214 on a 7 year sentence from Dallas County for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and theft of property.
 

Summary of incident


On July 8, 2002, in Dallas, Texas, Edwards and co-defendant Kirk Edwards entered a restaurant, fatally shot 2 adult males, took money from the cash register and fled the scene.
 

Co-defendants

Edwards, Kirk

Race and Gender of Victim

Unknown/Male, Unknown/Male

 
 
 
 
 
 

Suspect surrenders in sandwich shop slaying

By Susan Parrott - Associated Press Writer

Laredo Morning Times

Wednesday, July 10, 2002

BALCH SPRINGS, Texas — The second suspect in the shooting deaths of two Subway sandwich shop workers turned himself in to authorities Tuesday morning after his mother helped him negotiate with police.

Kirk Darnell Edwards, 32, surrendered the day after his cousin Terry Darnell Edwards, a 28-year-old former employee at the shop, was arrested after allegedly disposing of a gun in a trash bin near the restaurant.

Arrest warrants for the men alleged two counts of capital murder.

Two men entered the sandwich shop Monday as it was opening, shot and killed the manager, Tommy Walker, 34, and an employee, Mickell Goodwin, a 26-year-old mother of two.

Both Dallas residents were shot in the upper torso, and the men fled with about $3,000, Balch Springs Police Chief Ed Morris said. He said police found three spent cartridges.

Kirk Edwards turned himself in to the Dallas Police Department about 11 a.m. Tuesday.

“I believe that his mother was very instrumental in having him turn himself in,” Morris said.

Terry Edwards, an ex-convict, was fired from the Subway about a month ago. He was arrested after he was seen dumping a gun into a trash bin next to a cafeteria across the street from the sandwich shop in suburban Balch Springs. Lancaster is 25 miles east of Balch Springs, a southeast Dallas suburb.

Police said they found a .380-caliber hand gun in the trash bin.

Morris said he didn’t know why Terry Edwards was fired but said the motive for the killings appeared to be robbery.

“We believe there is no other indication except for pure robbery,” he said.

Terry Edwards was jailed on two probable cause capital murder arrest warrants. His bond was set at $1 million on each count. He was transported Tuesday to the Dallas County jail, where Kirk Edwards also was to be taken after interviews by Balch Springs investigators.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice said Terry Edwards was sentenced in November 1997 to concurrent five-year terms for theft in 1992 and for possession of cocaine in 1997 with intent to deliver. He was released from prison on Oct. 1, 1999 and was to remain on parole until Aug. 14.

Walker, who was 6-foot, 350 pounds, was an ordained minister who had planned to leave the Subway job and open his own tattoo parlor soon, family members said.

“He was a big teddy bear,” said Walker’s wife, Beth. “He was famous for making people laugh. His kids and grandkids were his life. He got himself ordained so he could preside at his own kids’ weddings.”

 
 

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

No. AP-74,844

Terry Darnell Edwards, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas

On Direct Appeal From Dallas County

Cochran, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Hervey, and Holcomb, JJ., joinedMeyers, J., not participating.

O P I N I O N

In November 2003, a jury convicted appellant of capital murder.[1]  Pursuant to the jury=s answers to the special issues set forth in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced appellant to death.[2]  Direct appeal to this Court is automatic.[3]  Appellant raises thirteen points of error including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence at the punishment stage of trial.  We affirm.

SUFFICIENCY OF FUTURE DANGEROUSNESS EVIDENCE

Appellant claims in his fourth point of error that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury=s finding that he would be a continuing threat to society.[4]  In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence at punishment, this Court looks at the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have believed beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a probability that appellant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society.[5]

Essentially, appellant argues that, while he may be a threat to free society, he is not a danger to prison society where he will be confined for a minimum of forty years.  However, in deciding whether a defendant poses a continuing threat to Asociety, this Court has repeatedly held that a jury considers free society as well as prison society.[6]

Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence of the instant offense presented at trial showed the following: 

On the morning of July 8, 2002, appellant and another man robbed and killed two clerks at a Dallas Subway sandwich shop.  Both victims were shot in the head from only inches away.  Appellant later gave a statement in which he admitted being inside the sandwich shop but claimed that the other man, AT-Bone, did the shooting.  Appellant acknowledged having the money stolen from the store and the gun used to kill the victims, but claimed that AT-Bone gave him the gun when they left the store.  Appellant had worked at that particular Subway some months earlier, but he had been fired when it appeared that he had been stealing money from the register.  Appellant had previously been fired from another Subway shop for misappropriating store funds under his control.

The State also presented evidence that appellant had been charged with felony theft and placed on deferred adjudication community supervision on March 25, 1992.  On November 7, 1997, appellant was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.  On that same day, he was also convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine and sentenced to five years and a $500 fine.

Michael Weast testified that he was in a Subway shop in Fort Worth at about 9:00 p.m. on April 26, 2002.  As he was preparing to leave, two men came in and began acting suspiciously.  One of the men pulled a gun and ordered the people behind the counter to lie down while the other man apparently took the video surveillance tape.  As they drove off from the Subway, the robbers almost ran down a uniformed deputy sheriff who drew his gun and yelled at them to stop.  Weast identified appellant as the perpetrator without the gun.

A rational jury could have concluded that appellant was engaging in an increasing pattern of violence and, thus, would continue to be a threat to society.[7]  Accordingly, we hold the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's affirmative answer to the future dangerousness issue.[8]  Point of error four is overruled.

In his fifth point of error, appellant argues that the evidence is factually insufficient to sustain the jury's affirmative answer to the future dangerousness punishment question.[9]  In McGinn v. State,[10] we determined such a review is not constitutionally required and refused to extend the Clewis[11] factual sufficiency review to the future dangerousness issue.[12]  Appellant has not persuaded us to revisit this holding.  Point of error five is overruled.

VOIR DIRE ISSUES

In his first point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court violated his rights to due process and the effective assistance of counsel by Adenying [his] motion to quash the panel of three prospective jurors which included venire member James Redden because the trial court instructed the jury panel that >mitigation= was a >justifying= or >extenuating= circumstance for the [email protected]  Appellant asserts that the definition the trial court gave the panel was improper under the law and restricted the jurors= consideration of mitigating evidence.  He claims that he was harmed by this improper definition because he had to use a valuable peremptory challenge on one member of the panel, Redden, which he would have used on a different venire person had the court not erred.

Appellant correctly states that a defendant may suffer harm when, due to trial court error, he is forced to use a peremptory strike to remove a venireperson and thereafter suffers a detriment from the loss of the strike.[13]  However, because the record reflects that appellant received an extra peremptory challenge in addition to the fifteen he was granted by statute, appellant cannot demonstrate here that he suffered a detriment from the loss of the strike he used on Redden.[14]  Appellant's first point of error is overruled.

Appellant complains in points of error two and three that the trial court erred in granting the State's challenges for cause to venire members Cecelia Hurley and Byron Tatum.  During questioning, Ms. Hurley indicated that she had a bias in favor of police testimony.  The State challenged her for cause based on this bias.[15]  Mr. Tatum, on the other hand, indicated that he harbored a bias against the range of punishment for the lesser included offense of murder.  Specifically, he did not believe he could give five years for an intentional murder.[16]  Mr. Tatum also indicated that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard was too low and he would have to be nearly one hundred percent certain before he could convict someone of such a serious crime.[17]  The State challenged Mr. Tatum on both of these bases.

Error asserted on these bases is not of constitutional dimension.[18]  Thus, a reversal is warranted only if the record shows that the error deprived the defendant of a lawfully constituted jury.[19]  Even if we assume that non-constitutional error occurred, appellant has failed to show that he was deprived of a lawfully constituted jury.[20]  Points of error two and three are overruled.

CHARGE ISSUE

In his sixth point of error, appellant claims that the trial court erred Aby refusing to instruct the jury that, when answering the future dangerousness special issue, the jury could consider that appellant would not be eligible for parole for at least forty years if a life sentence were assessed.  The record reflects that the trial court provided the parole instruction required by Article 37.071 ' 2(e)(2)(B).  Among other things, this instruction informed the jury that a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment would not be eligible for parole for 40 years and that parole eligibility did not mean that parole would be granted.  The trial court=s refusal to provide any additional parole‑eligibility instruction did not violate due process and was not error.[21]  Point of error six is overruled.

CONSTITUTIONALITY AND RELATED ISSUES

In his seventh point of error, appellant claims that the Texas death penalty scheme violates due process because the mitigation question submitted to the jury pursuant to Article 37.071, section 2(e), does not require the State to prove the absence of sufficient mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.  Appellant relies upon the United States Supreme Court=s opinions in Apprendi v. New Jersey,[22] Ring v. Arizona,[23] and Blakely v. Washington,[24] to support his argument.  We have previously rejected such claims and appellant has given us no reason to revisit the issue here.[25]  Appellant's seventh point of error is overruled.

In his eighth through eleventh points of error, appellant further challenges the constitutionality of the Texas capital sentencing scheme.  Specifically, in his eighth point, appellant claims that the A12-10 Rule of Article 37.071 violated appellant's right to due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.  In his ninth point, appellant claims that the court=s failure to define the terms Aprobability, Acriminal acts of violence, Acontinuing threat to society, Apersonal moral culpability, and Amoral blameworthiness violated his right to due process, his right to an impartial jury, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment because the terms are vague and indefinite.  And in his tenth and eleventh points of error, appellant claims that the Texas death penalty scheme denied appellant due process of law and due course of law, and it imposed cruel and unusual punishment upon him in violation of the United States and Texas Constitutions Abecause of the impossibility of simultaneously restricting the jury's discretion to impose the death penalty while also allowing the jury unlimited discretion to consider all evidence militating against imposition of the death penalty.

This Court has previously considered and rejected all of these claims, and appellant has given us no reason to revisit the issues here.[26]  Points of error eight through eleven are overruled.

Appellant asserts in his twelfth and thirteenth points of error that the cumulative effect of the above-enumerated constitutional violations denied him due process and due course of law.  Because appellant has not shown any error, there can be no cumulative effect.[27]  Points of error twelve and thirteen are overruled.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Delivered: March 1, 2006

Do Not Publish

*****

[1] Tex. Penal Code  ' 19.03(a).

[2] Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 37.071, ' 2(g).

[3] Art. 37.071, ' 2(h).

[4] See art. 37.071, ' 2(b)(1). 

[5] Ross v. State, 133 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (applying Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), standard to review evidence on Afuture [email protected] punishment issue); see also Allridge v. State, 850 S.W.2d 471, 487 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

[6] Morris v. State, 940 S.W.2d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

[7] In arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support a rational jury=s finding that appellant probably Awould commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, appellant relies primarily upon defense expert testimony that he had not posed any special threat during his previous prison stay.  The defense experts testified that, while appellant probably would pose a future danger to others in the Afree world, they saw nothing in his history of prior incarceration that would lead them to believe that he would be especially violent in prison.  This argument ignores, however, the fact that, in the time between his first prison stay and the time that the jury was required to make its finding, appellant had committed an aggravated robbery and a very violent capital murder. 

[8] Ross, 133 S.W.3d at 621; Allridge, 850 S.W.2d at 487.

[9] See art. 37.071, ' 2(b)(1).

[10] 961 S.W.2d 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

[11] 922 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

[12] McGinn, 961 S.W.2d at 166-69; see also Manns v. State, 122 S.W.3d 171, 194 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).

[13] See, e.g., Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

[14] Id.; see also Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 743-45 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (when record showed that defendant Areceived an extra peremptory challenge in addition to the fifteen he was granted by statute, [defendant] can only demonstrate harm by showing that at least two of the complained-of challenges were erroneously [email protected]) (emphasis in original).

[15] Art. 35.16(a)(9) and (b)(3).

[16] Art. 35.16(b)(3).

[17] Id.

[18] Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

[19] Id. at 394.

[20] Id.; see also Murphy v. State, 112 S.W.3d 592, 598 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 940 (2004); Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 749.

[21] See Newbury v. State, 135 S.W.3d 22, 45 (Tex. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 990 (2004).

[22] 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

[23] 536 U.S. 584 (2002).

[24] 542 U.S. 296 (2004).

[25] See Perry v. State, 158 S.W.3d 438, 446-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 416 (2005).

[26] See, e.g., Escamilla v. State, 143 S.W.3d 814, 828 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 1697 (2005).

[27] Escamilla, 143 S.W.3d at 829; Chamberlain v. State, 998 S.W.2d 230, 238 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

 

 

 
 
 
 
home last updates contact