Texas Prison Guard's Convictions Upheld Again

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) upheld the conviction and sentence of a Texas prison guard for sexual assault and impersonating a police officer. This was the second time the CCA reviewed this case.

In 1997, Charlie Melvin Page was a prison guard at the Texas City Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), a women's prison that serves as a medical recovery unit. He owned a maroon Chevy four-door with a police scanner in the back seat. He used the Chevy and a fake police badge to cruise the sea wall area in Galveston looking for prostitutes.

When he located a prostitute, he would invite her into his car, negotiate with her then identify himself as a police officer. He would then threaten to take the prostitute to jail if she didn't perform sexual acts with him.

At his trial, the state introduced as witnesses the complainant and four other prostitutes whom Page had coerced into sexual acts in a similar fashion. Page was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison for the sexual assault and five years in prison for impersonating a peace officer. Page appealed.

The court of appeals reversed, stating that identity was not an issue and therefore the extraneous offenses should not have been admitted into evidence. Page v. State, 88 S.W.3d 755 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002). [PLN, May 2003, p. 24]. The state appealed.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals, stating that the extraneous offenses were admissible because the defense counsel's cross-examination of the complaining witness had put identity at issue. Page v. State, 137 S.W.3d 75 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004).[PLN, Nov. 2004, p. 44].

On remand, the court of appeals again reversed the conviction, stating that the extraneous offenses were insufficiently similar to the charged offense and were therefore inadmissible. Page v. State, 170 S.W.3d 829 (Tex.App. Corpus Christi 2005). The state appealed again.

The CCA again reversed the court of appeals, holding that the five cases, which involved the same type of victim (prostitutes working the Galveston sea wall), same car, same scanner, same badge, same impersonation, same threats and same sexual demands were sufficiently similar to show a pattern of conduct that amounted to a "signature" or distinctive and idiosyncratic manner of committing criminal acts. The court of appeals was reversed and the case returned to that court for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Texas litigators are left with two things to wonder about in this case. First, since the issue of admissibility of extraneous offenses has essentially been a dead issue--a claim that cannot be successfully appealed--for the better part of two decades in the State of Texas, how is this ex-prison guard getting so much play out of it. Second, since the crime was committed in Galveston, and appeals from Galveston go to the courts of appeals in Houston, why has the Corpus Christi court of appeals twice reviewed, and twice attempted to reverse, this fairly humdrum case. For that matter, why has this humdrum case generated four published opinions. Is it because the defendant is a prison guard. See: Page v. State, 213 S.W.3d 332 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case