Moncier v. State

451 prior defects in the nonjurisdictional State, proceedings. King v. (Clin (Tex.Crim.App.1985)

S.W.2d J.,

ton, concurring). cases, uniformly

In civil it has held been

that, cases, if an judgment even in default diligence exercises due

through no fault his own is unable to facts, trial

obtain statement new granted. Rogers Rogers, v.

should be (Tex.1978); Texas Crushed

S.W.2d 172 Baker, (Tex. Co. v.

Stone 576 S.W.2d 894 writ); Civ.App. Tyler Garcia —

Kelly, (Tex.Civ.App S.W.2d . —Cor 1978, writ). pus Christi appears rule to be instructive cases, guilty plea is

in criminal where admitting alleged

taken as all of the facts

in the indictment. Fairfield (Tex.Crim.App.1981).

S.W.2d cases, judgment

default the defendant is material

deemed have admitted all

allegations plaintiff’s petition, yet Rob cases, mandatory.

such reversal Roberts, (Tex.

erts n.r.e.). jus If

App. writ ref’d — Waco prevail, complete recording tice is to trial, guilty whether a result of a necessary

plea or a full-blown sanctity proceedings.

protect the of the trial court is RE-

VERSED and the cause REMANDED. MONCIER, Dewayne Appellant,

Daniel Texas, Appellee. STATE

No. 05-84-01189-CR. Texas, Appeals

Dallas, Texas. 14, 1986.

Jan.

premises adjoining and area. Co-defendant apprehended Kitchens was walking down a creek bank in an area close to the location alleged of the burglary. Dianna Mitchell was parked found in the van near the trail- hiding er house under some Appel- covers. lant was arrested in a trailer house where permission he had asked to use the tele- phone. question

The crucial is whether Dianna Mitchell accomplice was an witness as a Weaver, Richard McKinney, appel- matter of law. for Her uncorroborated testi- lant. mony only is the connecting appel- lant to the commission of the crime. Con- H. Ownby, Crim. Atty., Roger Dist. V. sequently, if, law, as a matter of she is an Dickey, Asst. Dist. Atty., McKinney, for witness, accomplice her uncorroborated tes- appellee. timony conviction, will support and acquitted. must be STEPHENS, Justice. TESTIMONY OF DIANNA MITCHELL Dewayne

Daniel appeals Moncier his con- years Dianna age viction Mitchell was 19 burglary of a habitation. the time of trial. At grounds (1) three the time of the al- of error he contends: leged living offense she was with her connecting moth- him to the offense stepfather er and apartment in- an was an witness as a matter of law, McKinney, Texas. and She testified that testimony that her uncorroborated 21, 1984, inadmissible, midnight around on March (2) Monci- was the submission to the er and apartment Kitchens drove to her jury during punishment stage a van. She went outside and Moncier timely over objection, of whether asked her if she wanted to make $500. or used exhibited how, asked and was told that all she during had to the commission of the offense vio- door, it, go up do was to to a knock on turn process lated due because the indictment around, get and back in the van. She was allegation contained no deadly weapon, of a given and, (3) Needing money, more details. that there was no sup- evidence to go along she decided to with Kitchens and port the submission of the apart- Moncier. She went into the back deadly weapon. use of a disagree We with ment, got shoes, out, got came back contention, each accordingly, and we affirm away. into the van three drove and the his conviction. while, morning At about 3:00 They a.m. on the then drove around for went 21, 1984, appellant, accompanied by March apartment to Moncier’s where he went in- Kitchens, Timothy co-defendant and Dian- side about fifteen minutes. When he Mitchell, occupant they longer, na awakened the of a came out drove around a while trailer park house situated in a trailer in then Both went to Kitchen’s house. Monci- Frisco, Texas, by beating got on the door and er and and went into Kitchens out demanding occupant garage. admittance. Kitchen’s house and then into the police. occupant bag put called the They brought testified out a white it person began tearing into the van. Mitchell could not see what outside Moncier, time, hinges, trying get bag. off into her was in at this had door green pouches with little person army trailer. As the broke into the trail- on an belt er, toy through put He small stuffed into one occupant fled rear door. it. arrived, pouches, saying it would make police When searched the you Timothy grenade. a rifle his hand and look like it contained with shotgun you, saw little shells come other side of both some blue Kitchens on the They pouch. standing then went to Rob- them their backs Timothy ert Kitchens Kitchens’ house trailer and one them me, went inside for 30 minutes. Moncier about both them ban- with—excuse faces, in the van. No discus- Mitchell waited going across their what danas plans. had about their sion was at this time your mind? through with a white Kitchens exited house I doing A. am here? What [Mitchell] placed styrofoam it in the back of box and Q. frightened? you Were the van. Very. A. they going then said were to Kitchens Q. you you be where were Did want to They “country.” started the van and right then? Frisco, drove Texas. asked toward A. No. why driving up and they were down the Q. Why you didn’t leave? road, they trying to find and both said were late me A. It was too for to back out. Mitchell, According a lab. to this was the Well, Q. you by do mean that? what any explanation, their first time as to already A. I was there. given. they plans, was Moncier said were Q. you hap- think would have What do dykes.” going go to “hit two Dianna was left, pened you just if turned around and prosecutor if she recalled by asked away? walked exact that either of them said to her words they explained they to her what first Objection, calls for MR. CHAPMAN: to going were do. She answered: speculation. me, you DeWayne

A. told “I can tell THE Overruled. COURT: it’s late.” now that too Q. Springer) you What do think (By Ms. Q. said—He you happened if had walked would have you A. it’s too He “I can tell late.” away from that trailer then? said, you “I can tell now because it’s too A. I have no idea. said, you get late for out.” He Q. frightened any particu- you Were go dykes.” going “We're hit two I’m particular? lar sor- circumstance conversation, Shortly after this ry, myself. you Were repeating I’m van, got stopped the both men into the anything particular? frightened of box, back, styrofoam opened the took a them because I was A. I scared put- from down rifle it and started broken they what would have done. didn’t know together. This the first time ting it was ANN. art. TEX.PENAL CODE had seen a rifle. Mitchell 1974) provides that a 7.02(a)(l)(2) (Vernon rifle, assembling the three After criminally responsible for an of- person is park parked a trailer within drove to another, acting with if fense committed got All three few of a trailer house. feet or the commission promote assist intent approached trailer. van and solicits, offense, encourages, di- he of the stepped up on a that she Mitchell testified aids, the other rects, attempts to aid or step on the door. The and knocked wooden the offense. person to commit standing their backs to two men were door, trailer, recited, as well one on each side From the evidence the occu- seen could adduced at where evidence as the other following testimo- pants the trailer. The re of the statute would strict construction ny developed: that Dianna quire determination as matter of witness Springer] Okay. Q. Ms. [Prosecutor, consistently However, the cases step of those law.

youAs on the bottom stood any doubt door, trailer, where there held that steps in front of accomplice, even is an a witness one side of whether on DeWayne Moncier 454

though the preponderates because, jects greater punishment favor him to a aof conclusion that an ac under TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. law, complice 42.12, 15(b) (Vernon as a matter proper 1979), period sec. procedure is to jury. submit the matter to a greater of incarceration is extended for State, Harris (Tex. 454 length eligible time before he becomes State, Crim.App.1983); Brown v. Thus, contends, 640 parole. he he is enti- Car (Tex.Crim.App.1982); S.W.2d tled notice in charging instrument State, rillo v. (Tex. S.W.2d State intends to seek an affirma- State, Crim.App.1979); Amey tive that a was used (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Co or exhibited in the S.W.2d commission of- State, lunga (Tex. S.W.2d fense. Crim.App.1975); Van Buskirk opin- We are not unmindful of the recent (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Appeals ion of the Texas Court of Criminal State, 787, v. (Tex. Crew 675 S.W.2d 788 State, v. (1985). Polk 693 S.W.2d 391 1984, ref’d); Hill v. App. pet. - Dallas Polk Judge case the court sat en banc. State, 130, 666 (Tex.App.- S.W.2d 133 majority, Judge Miller wrote for the Clin- 1983, Shanks pet.); Houston [14th Dist.] opinion, Judge ton concurred with written State, v. 150, (Tex .App.-El 643 S.W.2d 153 Teague concurred in and dissented 1982, pet. granted). Paso part, Judge opinion, with written and Onion opinion. concurred without written long This line of cases reflect procedure proper to be In this followed. Clinton, concurring opinion, Judge in his case there was doubt in mind of the expresses following philosophy: judge, by trial which was borne his by problem presented threshold ... a jury, submission of the matter and every situation in and factual this cause by finding doubt that was set to rest of charging other one in which the instru- Mitchell, witness, jury that Dianna allege expressly ment does not not in fact an witness. For weapon said to have been or exhibit- used court to an this hold that the witness was “deadly weapon.” denial of ed is a When accomplice witness matter of law as a court grant probation by a trial and by jury system, would violate the substitut liberty by deprivation of freedom and judgment our ing for the of the penitentiary confinement in a extended witness, jury. We did not view the nor process hang very question, on that due her demeanor on observe require course of law due stand. We hold that the evidence is incon stage trial on any trier fact at was an that Dianna Mitchell accom clusive to make criminal action not be authorized Appellant’s as a plice matter of law. finding against an accused an adverse ground of error is overruled. been ten- unless until issue has pleading Appellant ground dered State. argues, in his second error, erred that the trial court sub- at 397. 693 S.W.2d mitting special punishment issue at the Teague Judge considers timely objection, stage over his advisory, yet that the opinion to be believes deadly was used or weapon as to whether a He question of notice should be answered. of- during exhibited the commission opinion that the Texas Con- expresses the submission He fense. contends that this right guarantees a defendant stitution because process right violated his to due of action the nature and cause to demand allegation of a indictment contained him, recognizing and while deadly weapon. disagree. We aof finding of the use or exhibition a crime during the commission weapon under this

Appellant’s precise contention it never- punishment, enhance the finding appel- does not that a ground error is the defend- the time when theless extends used or exhibited lant He parole. eligible for offense sub- ant will become during the commission

455 8, Greenholtz, at Judge notice must 442 U.S. at 99 2103- agrees with Clinton that S.Ct. Roth, Regents (quoting given charging Board of instrument. 693 2104 577, 2701, 2709, at 399-400. S.W.2d 92 S.Ct. 33 408 U.S. (1972)). L.Ed.2d 548 Judge majority opinion recog- Miller’s opinion in Judge concurring nizes Clinton’s went on to hold: The Court at 396: footnote no constitutional or inherent There is Clinton, J., concurring opinion by person condi- of a convicted to be form of a require would “notice” expiration tionally released pleading formal in the indictment before valid The natural desire of sentence. entry proper. such a would be to be released is indistin- an individual add requirement well may Such a from the initial resistance to guishable alleged, element to whatever offense conviction, being confined. But the which a reasonable doubt about safeguards, procedural its has extin- all Tew v. guilty lead to a verdict. Cf. right: guished liberty val- ‘[G]iven State, (Tex.Crim.App. 551 S.W.2d 375 conviction, the id criminal defendant has State, 1977); Rounsavall 480 S.W.2d deprived constitutionally lib- been (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Romay Fano, Meachum v. erty.’ 427 U.S. (Tex.Crim.App. S.W.2d L.Ed.2d 451 S.Ct. State, 1969); Wheat (1976). (Tex.Crim.App.1969). This is a valid Greenholtz, at 2104. U.S. S.Ct. impediment requirement. to such a v. Connecticut Board Pardons Moreover, corpus the of what we are Dumschat, 458, 464, 101 S.Ct. U.S. eligibility parole, dealing not with is for 2464, (1981). 2460, 69 L.Ed.2d 158 range what will penalty or sentence recognized pa- that a State's The Court case, Though raised in be. not this liberty create a interest role statute could process requirement of due “notice” process guarantees, protected by due clause of both the 5th and 14th Amend 2106, 13, held that at 99 S.Ct. at but U.S. ments of the U.S. Constitution and the parole provides no possibility more 1, due course of law clause in Art. 19§ hope, hope that such is not than a mere and of the Texas Constitution must be exam 12, process. at protected by due 442 U.S. light ined properly in that 2105. 99 S.Ct. at us. Estelle, 263, Rummel In 445 U.S. 294- Although the Texas Court of Criminal 1149, L.Ed. 382 S.Ct. Appeals precise has not addressed (1980), Supreme pa- stated that Court question presented in appeal, this the Unit- “simply act of executive role was Supreme ed States Court and United noted that while a State grace.” The Court Appeals States for the Fifth Cir- Court expectations legitimate “may create cuit have. protection procedural under are entitled to and Greenholtz Nebraska Penal In Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Complex, 442 U.S. Correctional 99 S.Ct. Amendment,” parole statute the Texas (1979), the 60 L.Ed.2d 668 United cognizable such a interest. does create ques- Supreme considered the States 100 S.Ct. 1149. 445 U.S. at process rights in person’s due tion discretionary parole The Court Appeals release. for The United States Court Briscoe, protectable Circuit, in stated that order to obtain Williams in Fifth right process Cir.1981), (5th analyzed under due clause F.2d 274 statute, comparing it with the parole have more Texas person clearly

... must Green- it. statute than desire for Nebraska an abstract need or the Texas holtz. The court found a unilateral He must have more than reasonably be tak- must, instead, statute could not expectation parole of it. He encourage expectancy it. legitimate en to entitlement claim of parole. 641 F.2d at 277. court Kitchens set Moncier to rob a concluded: methamphetamine lab and armed them weapons. selves Probation,

We hold that the These Texas Adult Law, success; Parole “increased the Mandatory Supervision likelihood with (Vernon [they] probably Tex.Code Crim.Proc. art. out them 42.12 would not have 1979), Moore, protectible does not create forth.” sallied 580 F.2d at 362. expectancy recognized by release We conclude there was sufficient evi- Supreme Court Greenholtz. to support dence submission Wells, Id. See Johnson F.2d ground jury. issue error is (5th 1978); v. Texas Board Cir. Craft overruled. affirmed. Paroles, Pardons and 550 F.2d (5th Cir.1977). GUITTARD, ANY, C.J., DEV GUIL- cases, Upon the authority of these MALONEY, McCRAW, LOT, VANCE and eligibility parole we conclude un ZIMMERMANN, JJ., join the majority der TEX.CODE art. CRIM.PROC.ANN. opinion. (Vernon 1979) protectible 42.12 is not a AKIN, J., concurs with without interest process under due clause. The opinion. enlarge statute punishment does punish for the or affect range crime HOWELL, J., opinion. dissents with jury ment may assess. The State allege need not “use or exhibition of a WHITHAM, J., in Justice concurs HOW- weapon” the indictment before an opinion. ELL’S dissent with affirmative can be made McCLUNG, J., joins in Justice WHIT- trier of fact under CRIM. TEX.CODE concurring opinion HAM’s to Justice HOW- 1979). (Vernon Ap 42.12 PROC.ANN. art. dissenting opinion. ELL’S pellant’s ground of error is overruled. error, ground appel final WHITHAM, Justice, concurring. sup lant there is no evidence to contends dissenting in I concur Justice Howell’s port of the submission of the issue use or opinion that Dianna was an accom- Mitchell a deadly weapon. exhibition of We dis plice of witness as a matter law. There- agree. Having concluded that Mitchell was fore, appellant’s I would sustain first law, not an accomplice as a matter of her ground of error and reverse and remand on support to testimony is evidence sufficient Consequently, I do that basis alone. of the issue. Mitchell testi submission disposition join majority’s or concur in the appellant carrying fied that a rifle grounds appellant’s third of second and they approached the trailer house. error, join and I do not or concur that She also that she noticed testified later part addressing Justice dissent Howell’s pistol tap a to on Kitchens had and used it appellant’s ground third error. fact that window of trailer. The oppor an Kitchens and Moncier never had HOWELL, Justice, dissenting. use, brandish, tunity or actu to threaten to majority refuses to hold ally not mean I dissent. The discharge the does weapons. accomplice an as Dianna Mitchell was not “use” the did Moore, 360, despite clear and convinc- United F.2d a matter law States Furthermore, denied, (9th Cir.) ing evidence of fact. cert. 439 U.S. United evidence that a (1978); produce failed to State S.Ct. L.Ed. 430 (2d Grant, weapon or exhibited. The deadly was used States v. 1312-13 545 F.2d denied, should be re- judgment of the trial court Cir.1976) 429 U.S. cert. modify the United (1977); At minimum should versed. we L.Ed.2d 554 S.Ct. Mason, 1270-71 to delete the affirmative F.2d States v. weapon. use of a (9th was evidence that on the 1981). There Cir. testimony provides the the circumstances—circumstances under herself culpability. anyone good her stated feel that establishes which sense would plans to “hit two fright. knew of the that she pangs rob- dykes.” this meant She knew money promised, the ac- The amount bery. disproportionate $500 reward arrival, prior to tivities and conversations strongly merely knocking on a door activity in the the fact that this occurred ac- illegal suggests understanding an night, flight, her and her middle wit- being pursued. Mitchell were tivities police, to taken false statements initial appellant Kitchens arm nessed the together, the notion that she was reject approaching complain- themselves duress, subject acting under to coercion morning door at 3:30 in and she ant’s destroy a sufficient to her free will. nature proceeded carry to out her co-indictee, testimony her Had she been a per- bargain knocking attempting to entirely adequate sus- would have been open complainant to the door while suade was, a tain conviction. She as matter companions her armed remained out of law, accomplice. an falsely employed sight. She even the name who When “Susan” when asked she was. is doubtless correct when arrived, police she hid first under a states that the whether witness mobile home then van. She accomplice ordinarily is an reserved for fleeing bymen im- continued to assist the However, I do the trier of fact. not share plicating a fictitious “John” the crime. right majority’s concern for the of trial clearly doubt, actor; by jury. History jury teaches that Beyond Mitchell was an safeguard as for individ- forged Her trial was she was more than a mere observer. liberty govern- knocking actions on the door while her ual the excesses way their companions waited to force We not limit that when we ment. do participant her into an made active will hold that the evidence not sustain tried, episode for which clearly es- conviction. Where the legitimate question only raised the ma- that a witness tablishes jority opinion is whether or she was law, duty we a matter of are under assisting into bur- coerced so Allen v. declare. glars. say, directly Suffice to she never (Tex.Crim.App.1970). Although testified that she was coerced. imagine clearly more It is difficult nineteen, worldly enough she was responsibility of criminal established case voluntarily climb into a agree van quoted the one before us. The testi- than midnight men at the hour of in return two appre- nothing shows more than mony, promise just for the five hundred dollars consequences, concerning the hension to knock on a door. The circumstances carry her of part to should she refuse voyage signed under which she aboard this reveals no threat the offense. The record Bear in bespeak nefarious conduct. mind men to violence either of these no admission, to the according her own that her begin to or continue force Mitchell stops. mid- made several Between crew Certainly conspirator a criminal conduct. a.m., to night and three she never asked be likely is to of the offense on the threshold bargain. never from her released backing out of the crime harbor fears that gave taken home. She no asked be bring reprisals from his confeder- would testimony In three of a direct threat. the provides a hardly apprehension ates. Such van, meandering in the she of about hours responsibility. to criminal defense voluntarily engaged in a act with Kitch- sex holding is aware of the cases The author Although she testified that she ens. an is question whether a witness that the of frightened knocking while on the door jury to the accomplice should be submitted home, cross on the mobile she admitted in favor prepondates even if the evidence her that of examination she was not afraid being accomplice. In each an of a witness only to companions; fright her is referable case, however, alleged accomplice guns the or any evidence indicated that were tak- gave exculpatory other witness testimony. into the en mobile home. merely recognize The cases that jury the is any record is suggestion barren of plea free to believe a witness’s inno- of gun the or that the rifle were “exhibited.” here, testimony cence. But the of Dianna inquiry to the narrows wheth- Mitchell herself be willing shows a was, er either them “used” the com-

participant a criminal endeavor. The mission of the offense within the sense clear, being the trial court was contemplated by the statute. Black’s Law obligated to that instruct she was an ac- Dictionary “to defines use” as “to make complice a as matter law. of, service, use to convert to one’s to avail instances, following of, reversal employ.” one’s self Ninth Webster’s required if trial court fails instruct Collegiate Dictionary New states jury accomplice an witness is “use” a employed put verb means “to (1) a as matter law is if the service, reversible: of, into action or avail oneself em- is, fact, accomplice an and there ploy.” Undoubtedly these re- definitions no testimony, evidence to corroborate flect understanding the common (2) or without testimony there is insuf term. support ficient evidence to a conviction or Here, operative formed no (3) it because is the sole corroboration No evidence indicates offense. testimony of another wit guns deployed were fired or as a State, ness. Gonzales v. threat. The offense have occurred (Tex.Crim.App.1969); 541-542 Morales way appellant in the same totally had been State, (Tex.App 663 S.W.2d . —Cor unarmed. it is Certainly, unnecessary that pus pet.). Christi weapon be fired for it to been testimony, Without Mitchell’s case State, May “used.” 660 S.W.2d collapses. appellant can state (Tex.App. pet. granted). — Austin only point to four his arrest some hours However, the author believes that com burglary general after the area plainant person some or other innocent bedraggled resulting condition. The situa- the scene of the crime must made aware prong tion meets second the Gon- presence placed weapon Mitchell,there zales test. Without is insuf- apprehension declared, can be support ficient evidence to a conviction statutory concept, within the acquittal. this court should order an weapon has been used. aggravated An robbery upheld has been conviction where can writer Neither this find evidence to gun bag, was concealed in a but black support used or though gun bag, even never left weapon. phase This exhibited a identify witness was able it as a pistol. upon proper the case turns definition Riddick v. 710-711. the term “used.” The relied federal cases (Tex.App. [14th Dist.] on involve the construction — Houston knowledge coupled pet.). This They federal criminal statute. are aggravating supplied threat circum they persuasive. controlling. Neither are stances. Id. at 711. appellant and testified that upheld aggravated This assault pistol Kitchens had a rifle and with shot conviction where a man armed a gun the exited the van. Police a at found in employee a gun accosted restaurant rear of the mobile home. complainant’s gun the pointed freezer. He neither the at However, weap- complainant never saw a it, but on, complainant nor to use threatened was not was threatened one and kept “It complainant’s sight. it gun. within appellant unaware that possessed fact, appellant’s presence gun of was complainant not aware was complainant presence. she hand that installed fear appellant’s She testified bodily with only saw No and made feel threatened one man trailer. outside the deadly it was injury.” Again, weapon played visi and it because used. The go Legislature not role could have intended ble offense. Gaston (Tex.App. far. so — Dallas pet.). testi- further notes Mitchell’s author case, aggra mony tapped an indictment for Kitchens on the com- In another However, alleged robbery pistol. home with the plainant’s vated occupant and exhibited. suggestion had been used is no there confederate showed that the defendant’s be- tapping aware that the was was made employee gunpoint had held another gun. Neither is there ing done with a complain while the defendant robbed attempting testimony that actors were complainant knew that the con ant. possession complainant aware of his make was unaware that federate was armed but gun place complainant under nor holding her The court he was co-worker. The gun of its use. apprehension necessary refused find the elements tool, merely ham- being employed as a aggravation robbery because the guns, capacity mer. The in their as fire- complainant weapon’s know of the did not arms, played operative in the of- by the co-defendant and the defend use crime, Possession at time fense. complainant not a ant’s threat to alone, require- not meet standing does Taylor v. threat to use force. “no-parole” statute. ment as the (Tex.Crim. State, 637 S.W.2d 931-932 The affirmative should be deleted App.1982). judgment. from the not affirma- Possession of did committing aid tively fired, not

offense. The firearms were employed instruments of intim-

aimed or position

idation. The takes gun used wherever the

that a has been armed, an offense while

defendant commits the Legisla-

but if this was the intent of ture, People it stated. could so INSURANCE GULF Chambers, Cal.Rptr. 7 Cal.3d COMPANY, Appellant, (1972). statutes are 498 P.2d 1024 Criminal expanded by I to be construction. CHERRY, Appellee. Dorothy N. requires hold that the statute active opera- some gun must constitute use—the No. 05-85-00446-CV. part of the offense. tive Texas, Appeals interpretation This consonant Dallas. The stat- language of the entire statute. Jan. 1986. guns but to all applies ute specific “deadly weapons”, reference Rehearing Denied Feb. 1986. TEX.PENAL contained in the definition statutory 1.07(a)(ll). The defini- CODE § “anything includes “deadly weapon”

tion of its use or intended

that in the manner of causing or serious capable death

use is “no-pa- If extend

bodily injury.” we the defendant to cases where

role” statute deadly weap- arguably possessed an

merely circuity: The

on, we reach a situation inwas defend- used because

article was of the offense possession the time

ant’s

Case Details

Case Name: Moncier v. State

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Jan 14, 1986

Citation: 704 S.W.2d 451

Docket Number: 05-84-01189-CR

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.