Donny Joe Curry v. State
06-14-00140-CR
Tex. App.Jan 23, 2015Background
- On March 1, 2013, Officer Samantha Manrique stopped Donny Joe Curry for a vehicle with no rear plate and observed no inspection sticker; Curry initially gave only the name "Donny."
- Manrique called for backup; Officers Pehl and Scott arrived, opened Curry's door, used a Taser on him, and handcuffed him; a Social Security card and driver’s license were later located.
- Manrique swore a complaint alleging Curry refused to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who had lawfully arrested him (Failure to Identify).
- Curry was convicted in county court of: Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility (CR1301625), Failure to Display/No Motor Vehicle Inspection (CR1301627), and Failure to Identify (CR1301628), each fined $250 and each entry also (handwritten) included 275 days confinement.
- Appellant appeals arguing (1) legal insufficiency of evidence for Failure to Identify and (2) that the written sentences are illegal because the offenses are Class C misdemeanors (punishable by fine only) and therefore cannot carry confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for Failure to Identify | The State relied on the complaint and facts from the stop to show Curry intentionally refused to give name/address/DOB when lawfully arrested. | Curry contends the evidence is legally insufficient: there was only one instance he gave a first name, no clear request after that before he was tased/arrested, and no proof he knowingly and intentionally refused to identify. | Appellant requests reversal/acquittal for insufficiency; the brief asks the court to overturn the conviction (no appellate decision provided in brief). |
| 2. Legality of sentence in CR1301628 (Failure to Identify) | The State treated the offense per charge; judgment includes written confinement. | Curry argues Failure to Identify under §38.02(a) is a Class C misdemeanor (fine only); written confinement is unauthorized; if not reversed, reform the judgment to remove confinement or remand for punishment. | Appellant seeks reformation/remand to eliminate confinement; brief requests correction (no appellate ruling in brief). |
| 3. Legality of sentence in CR1301625 (Failure to Maintain Financial Responsibility) | The State imposed fine and written confinement. | Curry argues §601.191 provides only a fine ($175–$350 or higher for repeat), no confinement; written confinement is unauthorized and must be reformed or remanded. | Appellant seeks reversal or reformation to remove confinement (no appellate ruling in brief). |
| 4. Legality of sentence in CR1301627 (Failure to Display Inspection Sticker) | The State imposed fine and written confinement. | Curry contends §548.601 describes a Class C misdemeanor (fine only); confinement is unauthorized; judgment should be reformed/remanded. | Appellant seeks reformation/remand to eliminate confinement (no appellate ruling in brief). |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for appellate review of sufficiency of the evidence)
- Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (discusses deference to factfinder and guarding against irrational verdicts)
- Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (legal-sufficiency review principles)
- Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (consideration of events before, during, and after offense in sufficiency review)
- Mizell v. State, 119 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (unauthorized sentence is illegal)
- Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (appellate reformation of judgments)
- Ex parte Pena, 71 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (relief for unauthorized sentence on direct appeal or habeas)