By Deandra Grant & Griffin Grant

Welcome to The Defense File where we examine the criminal cases of public figures through the lens of Texas criminal law. Each entry looks at what happened in court, what the defense argued, and what a defendant would have faced (and how they might have been defended) if the same facts had occurred in Texas.

The IncidentSean Smith: NFL Cornerback’s Fall from Grace

On July 4, 2017, Sean Smith (then a starting cornerback for the Oakland Raiders under a $40 million contract) became involved in an altercation in Old Town Pasadena, California, near Colorado Boulevard and Arroyo Parkway. The dispute reportedly stemmed from an argument involving Smith’s sister, Rayna, and her then-boyfriend, Christopher Woods.

According to witness accounts and court testimony, Smith beat and stomped on Woods’ head. Witnesses reported that Woods was left unconscious and bleeding on the ground. Pasadena police arrested Smith on August 17, 2017, more than six weeks after the incident. He was charged with one felony count each of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury and battery with serious bodily injury. If convicted on both counts at trial, he faced up to seven years in prison.

The arrest came the same day reports surfaced that Smith had lost his starting role with the Raiders, adding professional pressure to an already serious legal situation.

What Happened in Court

Two witnesses testified at a December 2017 preliminary hearing that they saw Smith stomp on Woods’ head. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Teri Schwartz found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Smith had pleaded not guilty at his September 29, 2017 arraignment.

On March 13, 2018, Smith accepted a plea deal. He pleaded guilty to a single felony count of assault with great bodily injury and received a one-year jail sentence and five years of felony probation. The Raiders released him the day before the plea. He served approximately five months and was released August 14, 2018 for good behavior. Christopher Woods filed a civil lawsuit against both Smith and the Raiders seeking unspecified damages.

Smith’s earlier legal history is also relevant context. In June 2014, while playing for the Kansas City Chiefs, he was arrested for DUI after crashing into a light pole. He pleaded guilty in April 2015, receiving two years of probation and a fine. The NFL suspended him for three games in 2015 under its substance abuse policy, citing aggravating circumstances due to property damage from the crash. That prior conviction would have been a factor in sentencing on the 2018 assault case, and it plays directly into the Texas analysis below.

The Texas Analysis

In Texas, the conduct described (beating and stomping on an unconscious person’s head) would almost certainly be charged as aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury, a second-degree felony carrying 2 to 20 years. More significantly, a Texas prosecutor would likely pursue a deadly weapon finding based on use of a foot as the weapon. That finding (if it attaches) triggers mandatory minimum time requirements before parole and restricts probation eligibility in ways California’s resolution did not.

Aggravated Assault: Texas Penal Code §22.02

Simple assault in Texas under §22.01 includes intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another person. It is a Class A misdemeanor in most circumstances. The charge elevates to aggravated assault under §22.02 when the defendant either causes serious bodily injury or uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. Either aggravating element alone is sufficient.

Serious bodily injury is defined under Texas Penal Code §1.07(a)(46) as injury that creates a substantial risk of death, causes death, causes permanent disfigurement, or causes protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily organ or member. A person who is beaten unconscious and left bleeding on the ground with head injuries has almost certainly suffered serious bodily injury as Texas law defines it. Aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury is a second-degree felony carrying 2 to 20 years in TDCJ and a fine up to $10,000.

The Deadly Weapon Question: Can a Foot Be a Deadly Weapon?

This is where the Texas analysis becomes particularly significant. Under Texas Penal Code §1.07(a)(17), a deadly weapon is a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury, or anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

Texas courts have repeatedly held that a foot wearing a shoe or boot can qualify as a deadly weapon when used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The analysis is fact-specific: courts look at the size and weight of the defendant, the manner in which the foot was used, the vulnerability of the victim, and the nature of the resulting injuries. In cases where a defendant repeatedly stomps on the head of an unconscious victim, Texas courts have found the deadly weapon element satisfied. Relevant Texas case law on this point includes Turner v. State and similar appellate decisions holding that stomping on a victim’s head can support a deadly weapon finding even without a traditional weapon.

If a deadly weapon finding attaches in Texas, the consequences go beyond the charge level. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is still a second-degree felony (the same charge range as aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury without a deadly weapon finding). But the deadly weapon finding triggers Article 42A.054 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts community supervision (probation) eligibility and imposes mandatory minimum time requirements before parole consideration.

Probation and the Deadly Weapon Finding: Article 42A.054

Under Article 42A.054, a judge is prohibited from granting community supervision (probation) to a defendant who used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony offense, unless the jury recommends community supervision and the judge concurs. This is a meaningful restriction. In California, Sean Smith received a one-year jail sentence and five years of probation on his assault conviction. In a Texas case with a deadly weapon finding, a judge could not simply impose probation. The restriction on community supervision under Art. 42A.054 would apply unless a jury specifically recommended it. Note, however, that the State can offer deferred adjudication for this offense.

Additionally, under Texas Government Code §508.145, a defendant convicted of an offense in which a deadly weapon was used or exhibited must serve at least one-half of the sentence before becoming eligible for parole (or if sentenced to 30 years or less, at least 15 years). For a second-degree felony sentence in the mid-range (say, 10 years) the defendant would be required to serve at least 5 years before parole eligibility. Smith served approximately five months in California.

Prior DUI Conviction as Enhancement Context

Smith’s 2015 misdemeanor DUI conviction in Kansas City would not directly enhance the felony assault charge under Texas’s standard prior-conviction enhancement provisions, which require a prior felony conviction for enhancement of a second-degree felony to first-degree. However, the prior conviction is relevant to sentencing within the punishment range. A defendant with a prior misdemeanor conviction for impaired driving who then commits a violent felony assault is presenting a pattern to a Texas jury at punishment that may lead a prosecutor to argue against the minimum end of the 2-to-20-year range.

In Texas, the punishment phase of a felony trial is a separate proceeding in which the defendant’s full criminal history is placed before the jury. The 2015 DUI, the NFL suspension and the pattern of impulse-related conduct would all come before the jury when they determine where within the 2-to-20-year range to sentence. A defendant’s decision to plead guilty or go to trial in Texas often turns on the calculation of what a jury would do at punishment, not just at guilt-innocence.

Self-Defense and Defense of Third Persons

The reported facts indicate the altercation arose from a dispute involving Smith’s sister. Texas Penal Code §9.33 permits the use of force to protect a third person (including a family member) when the actor reasonably believes the intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person from another’s unlawful use of force.

A defense of third person argument would have significant limitations on the facts as described. The defense requires that the force used be proportionate to the threat. Stomping on the head of an already-unconscious person is difficult to characterize as proportionate force necessary to protect a third party from an ongoing threat. Once the victim is unconscious and no longer poses a threat, the justification for continued force evaporates. A Texas jury would be instructed on the defense of third persons, but the factual record (witnesses describing Smith stomping on a man who was already down and unconscious) makes this a difficult argument to sustain.

How Would the Defense Approach This in Texas?

  • Contest the deadly weapon finding. The difference between a second-degree felony with a deadly weapon finding and the same charge without one is the difference between restricted probation eligibility and a judge’s ability to place the defendant on probation outright. Contesting the deadly weapon finding (whether through expert testimony on the nature and extent of injuries, or through argument that the manner of use did not satisfy the statutory definition) is the most consequential tactical decision in the case.
  • Challenge witness accounts. Two witnesses testified at the preliminary hearing to seeing Smith stomp on Woods’ head. The defense would examine every prior statement those witnesses gave, any prior relationship with the parties, their vantage points, lighting conditions, and any inconsistencies between their accounts and any available surveillance or cell phone video from the scene.
  • Develop the altercation context. If the confrontation involved Smith intervening in a situation involving his sister, the full context of what Woods was doing, what Smith observed, and what he reasonably believed about the threat to his sister is relevant mitigation evidence (even if it does not fully support the defense of third persons justification). At the punishment phase in Texas, context and motive are fair game.
  • Negotiate to avoid the deadly weapon finding. In Texas plea negotiations on assault cases with potential deadly weapon findings, one of the most valuable concessions a defendant can obtain is the State’s agreement not to allege or pursue the deadly weapon finding. If the State agrees to the plea without the deadly weapon notation on the judgment, the Art. 42A.054 restriction and the parole minimum-service requirement do not apply.
  • Prior record context at punishment. Smith’s prior DUI is a misdemeanor, not a felony, so it does not trigger habitual offender enhancement. But a Texas defense team would work to contextualize the prior (a non-violent driving offense versus a violent assault) and present character evidence, community ties, and any evidence of changed circumstances to argue for the lower end of the punishment range or a jury-recommended probation.

What This Case Illustrates

The Sean Smith case is a study in how the specific mechanics of assault sentencing (particularly the deadly weapon finding) can transform the practical consequences of an otherwise identical charge. California gave Smith a one-year jail sentence with probation. In Texas, the same conduct would generate a second-degree felony with a potential deadly weapon finding that restricts probation eligibility and imposes mandatory parole minimums.

The distinction is not in the charge degree. It is in the downstream consequences of findings that attach to the judgment. A defendant and their attorney negotiating a plea in Texas need to understand not just the punishment range but every finding that might be made on the judgment and what each finding means for probation eligibility, parole eligibility, and the defendant’s ability to move forward after the sentence is served.

The deadly weapon question (whether a shod foot used to stomp on an unconscious person’s head qualifies under the Texas statutory definition) is a genuinely litigated issue in Texas courts, not a foregone conclusion. That means it is a defense argument worth making, and in a negotiated resolution, it is one of the most valuable concessions the defense can obtain.

Sources

  • ESPN — Sean Smith arrest and plea coverage: espn.com
  • Los Angeles Times — Smith assault case preliminary hearing: latimes.com
  • Associated Press — Sean Smith guilty plea, March 2018: apnews.com
  • Los Angeles County Superior Court records — People v. Sean Smith (2018)
  • Texas Penal Code §22.02 — Aggravated Assault: statutes.capitol.texas.gov
  • Texas Penal Code §1.07(a)(17) — Deadly Weapon Definition: statutes.capitol.texas.gov
  • Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42A.054 — Community Supervision Restriction: statutes.capitol.texas.gov
  • The Defense File is an educational series. All Texas analysis is hypothetical and does not constitute legal advice about any specific case.

If you are facing assault or aggravated assault charges in Texas, call (214) 225-7117 for a free, confidential consultation. Whether a deadly weapon finding attaches to the judgment is one of the most consequential issues in any Texas assault case. Or schedule online at texasdwisite.com.