Case Information
*0 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/17/2015 10:03:39 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 06-15-00069-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/17/2015 10:03:39 AM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK I$ The Sj.xth Court of A1>peal's Texarkana, Texas Tqika Charnette Owetts, Ap'pe77ant, v.
THE STAW OF TE){AS, Ay>pellee.
Ay:,peal-s from the Ath Distri<:t Court, Rusk Courtty, Texas Trial Court No. G.74-,305 Anders Brief ATTORNEY FOR .APPELI,ANT: ileff T. J'ackson SBOT No. 2406997 [6] 736-A Hwy' N. KilEone, TX Phonr:: -654-3362 Fax: 8L7 -887-4333 ORAL ARGTTMENT NOT REQUESTED
LIST OF" PARSTES AI{D COUNSIIL APPELLAIiIT: Ternika Charnette Owens
TDCJ No. 019991628
SrD No. 060614L0 Texas Department of Criminal Justice San Saba Unit
206 S. Wallace Creek Rd.
San Saba, TX [1] 6817
Represented at appeal by:
SBOT No. 24069916
136-A Hwy 259 N.
Kilgore, TX 15662
Phone : 903-65 4-3362 Fax:
BIl - BB7-4333
Represented at trial_ by: ffi
SBOT No. 00785248
P.O" Box 1108
Henderson, TX 75653
Phone: 903-657-0561
APPELLEE: State of Texas .l_r'i al hrz.
Renrescn1-od af vUvIIuvV py. sU U!rq!
PrrqJr f-nrrnfrz DiStflCt AtfOrneV vvurr9J UJUUI.| nuuvltruy SBOT: 00189406 N. Main St.
Hencl6rrson - TX
Phone: 903-651-2265
Fax: 903- -0329
TABLES OE' CONTENTS List of Parties and Counsel_
Tabl-e of Content.s
Index of Authorities -
Statemen +' aF 1_l.r^ t.\--^ (-II.g U VI UClDC resent.ed
Tq.qrraq P t of Facts
Statemen of the Arguments
St tmma rr; 7\ rnr rmn n I
nr v LrllrgLr L-
I. WHETHER THE IND]CTMENT WAS SUFF-TC]ENT......3
II. WHETHER THE TR]AL COURT ERRED IN RULING ON
PRETRIAL MATTERS OR APPELLANT' S OBJECTIONS DUR]NG TRIAL, OR WHETHER THERE WAS FUNDAMENTAL ERROR ......6 ITT. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SI]FF-TCIENT TO
SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT OF A PUBLIC SERVANT ....13 rV. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSJEL IS NOT A
VIABLE CLA]M BASED ON THE RECOF|D ]SEFORE THE COURT .....15 Statement of Attorney to the Court . . .18
Conclusion and Prayer... .....19
Certificate of Compliance ....20
Certificate of Service.. .....2I
rNDEX OF AUTHORTTTES vsVV !UVY.
Anders v. CaLifornia,
385 u.s. 138, '744, (1961) 2,LB
Brooks v. State,
951 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Crim.App. L99j). .6,L3
Currie v. State,
516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.I914). .18
Duff-Snith v. State,
685 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. L9B5).
B Frausto v. State,
642 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). 11 ql _ _ate /
Fttr"rafa \r
200 S.W.3d 7BI (Tex. App.-Fort Worrh 200G) .6
Hawkins v. State,
605 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. I9B0). L2
Hernandez v. State,
126 S.W.2d53,51 (Tex.Crim.App.19B6). 15
Jackson v " State,
811 S.W.2d '768, 11I (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) . 13,15
Jeffery v" St.ate, S. W. 11 6 (Tex.App. -Dallas 1995 ) . 1B
Lawrence v. State, S.W.3d 9I2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). .3,5
Lindley v" State,
535 S.W.2d 54I, (Tex. Crim. App. 7982) .B
PoLk v. State,
337 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App. -Eastland ,1010 ) . .13
Riney v" State,
28 S.W.3d 56I, (Tex.Crim.App.200O)
Smith v " State,
309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). [3]
State v" Moff,
I54 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). .3,5
Strickfand v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984). .]-5,16
Stoker v. State,
7BB S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Crim.App.l9B9). -B
Thompson v. State,
9 S.W.3d BOB, BL2 (Tex.Crim.App.7999) . -15,L6
United States v" Johnson, F .2d I32B , (5th Cir " I91 6) ,' [2]
Vil-f escas v. State ,
189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) [6]
SLatutes:
Tex. Pen. Code sec. B .04 (a) . 12
Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 12.42 10
Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 22.II
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art 36.01(a)
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14(b) B
1V *6
STATEIVIENT OE' THIE CA$E By a single count indictment relurned by the Rusk
County grand jury at the Sanl-aml'-rar f arm )n1 A VVI/UVILLJJU! UV!ILL, LVLA I
AppelIant was charged with Harassment of a Publ-ic
Qarrr.anf f-P n A r^rhi nl l-h i rrl rlanr^aa fo I nnrz rrnrlo- vr\ v | rs a "",.--i) urrf!u \aEYIq:\, !vtvrrj urt\-lcI
m^-'^^ n^^^'r Code Sec. 22.LI . The trial- court granted r g2!d.D relIct_L
the State's moti-on to amend and interlineate the
indictment. CR p. 30.
Appellant was represented at trial by .Brent Wil-der.
On April 21, 2015| a jury was empaneLed to hear the
case. RR2, pp. 191-L94. Appellant pleaded "not
guilt.y" to both counts on the indictment. fd p. 195.
A trial- was held on t.he issue of gu-11t, RR3, and on jury
April 29, 2015, the returned a verdict of
"guilLy." RRS1, pp. I51 p. 5. The pun:Lshment phase of
the trial was held on the same dav t-he verdict was
rafrrrnad .nj fhe irrrrz:qqaqqod nUnishment Of 2 vears rrvv/ quuvJUvv srrv erfv vr )v-J I/urr!9rrrrlvrru - Jgq!o
incarceration. RR4 p. 39.
On April 29, 2015, the Trial Cortrt sentenced j-n Appellant accordance with t-he j ury' s
recommendations. RR4, p. 47-42. Jeff T" Jackson was
appointed to represent Appellant on appeal. CR p.98.
Appellant timely perfected appeal by iling wri-tten
Notice of Appeal on May , 2075. CR p. 94.
vi *8 ISST'ES PRESENTED I. Whether the indict.ment was suffidierLt? court erred j-n ruling on
rr. whether the trlal
Appellant.' s ob j ections during trial , o.c whether there
was fundamental error?
rrr. whether the evidence was suffiqient Lo support a
conviction or t.he of f ense of hara s.smenf of a publ-ic
servant ?
vll
TO THE HONORABLE STXTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Comes now l^++ attorney for Temika ,T: r'lz < nn rll I. vsvJ\uvrrt
Charnette Owens, Appellant in the ablove styled and
numbered cause, and respectfully submits thi-s Brief on
such cause.
STATEI\4ENT OF THE FAcEq On June 1"., 2014, dt about 3:00 a.m., .Appellant. was
stopped by officer Goodson, a public servant of
Henderson Police Department, or drlvinq without
headlights. she was arrested f,or d::ivinq whil-e
intoxicated. The arresting officer accused her of
intending to assaul-t him by causing her sar-iva to
contact his person while struggllng with him in the
back of hi s ne I rn I rzoh i cle . RR3 pp . 2I-28 .
NOTE: The record is referred to as:
"CR": cferk's record in Cause No. CR14-305.
*RR 7-4": reporter's record in Cause No. CR14-305.
"RR S1": reporter's supplemental record in Cause No. CRl4-305.
ST,MI4ARY OF THE ARGIJI\4NTSI Under Anders v. Cal-if ornia , 385 U. S . [7] 3B , ,
(7967), a court-appointed attorney may not raise an
issue in an appeal i f he makes i1 conscientious
examj-nation of the case and finds the crppeal is wholly
f rivolous. To comply with Andersl counrsel- must isol-at.e
"possibly important issues" and "furnistr the court with
ref erences to the record and l-eqal- author:i-ties to aid itS ^nnal I af a functiOn " " Un.tted States v.
it in
Johnson, 52'7 E .2d I32B , i-329 ( 5th Cir . I91 6) . Af t er
rne apperra--, an opporru .l-ha fll^ iq ryirran a\nna\rJ-rrnil-rz J-n raqrrn6rl -h^n1I16l- ^n
court makes a full- examination of the r:ecord to detect
whether the case is rivolous . Andez:s, 3B 6 U. S. at
144. As set forth by his Brief , counsel for Appel-l-ant
has determined that there are no non-fri-volous issues
to appeal-.
ARGUMENTS AI{D AUTHORTETETS ARGI'MENT I.
THE TNDICTMENT !{AS SUFFICIENT.
The sufficiency of the indictment is reviewed de
novo because that issue is a question of l-aw. Smith v.
State, 309 S.W.3d 10, 13-14 (Tex. Crj-m. App. 2010);
State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 501 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004) . A criminal defendant has a constitutional rlqht
to not j-ce . Lawrence v. State, 240 lS . W. 3d 9I2 , 9L6
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). To satisfy this notice
radrr i ramant- , an indictment must be .qne,r-.i f=i r: enorroh f o gII !VYUT!VIILVIIU' IITVIVUILIVIIU lIIUJ U Vg O}/E;Uf,T-IU EAIUUYIl L-\J
inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation
against him so he may prepare a defense. Id.; Moff, L54
S . W. 3d at . "An indictment is gene-raIly suf icient
as long as it tracks the language of a penal statute
that itself satisfies the constitut.ional requirement of
notice." Lawrence, S.W.3d at 9t6; see Snith,
S.W.3d at L4.
nl1-yE r _L o.Lr L was indicted for the offense 7\nnn'l'l of -^l- Public Servant. Tex
Harassment of Pon f-nrlo Qon uvv reads:
22. person commits an of f ense rf , with. tLre intent
A
to assault, harass, or alarm, the p,3rson
causes Snnfhor n^rson the actor knows to be a
public servant to contact the blood, seminal_
f luid, vaginal f l_uid, sal_iva, uriner , or f eces
of the actor, ofly other person I or a.n anj_mal
while t.he public servant is lawf uf l_y
discharging an of icial- duty or in retal_iation
or on account of an exercise of the pub]ic
servant's official power or performance of an
official dutv. Id.
The indictment in the instant case was amended bv order
of the trial court to read:
. that TEMIKA CHARNETTE OWENS hereinafter styled Defendant, on or about the 1" day of
June , 2014, and before the presentment of this
'i ncli cf ment - the Qgrrnf rz of Rrisk - Slf a1- e of in urrv vvurru v! r\uol\f r) uqug \ )/
Texas, did then with the intent to assault,
harass, or al-arm, the person cause i1 person the
defendant knew to be a publrc servant, namely;
Chris Goodson, to contact the salLiva of the
defendant whil-e sai-d Chris Goodson \/vas lawfullv
di scharging hi s o f f icial duty as a police
of f j-cer or the City of Hender:son Pol-ice
Department . RR p. 6, 29 .
The indictment tracks the Ianguage of the appfi-cable
penal statute sufficient to give the r,=quisite notice,
as rerriri rccl under Lawrence and Moff - stt":,ra uvJvLu.
I
ARGI'MENT TT .
THE TRTAL COURT DID NOT ERR ]:N RIULING ON AP]PELI,ANT / S
PRETR.IAI, MATTERS, NOR WERE
OB.]]ECTIONS ERRONEOUSLY O\ZERRULED .DTJIRINIG TRIAL,
NOR If,AS THERE FUNDAI\4ENTAL ERTi.OR OTHEIRW]ISE.
The Brooks Notice.
The trial court rul-ed on several pl:e-Lrial matters
in the instant case. Included amonq tliem was "state's to Seek Hiqher Pun j-shm,ent Based on
Notice of Intent ." CR p. 18-
Prj-or Conviction Pursuant to Brooks
L9 . Appellant did not ob; ect to thLis Notice, and
Appellant stipulated to the admisslon of the court/ s
judgment of the prior conviction during trial. RR4 pp.
The Brooks Notice was timely qj-ven under Brooks
v. State, 95'7 S.W.2d 30, 33-34 (Tex. Cr:im,, App. \991);
See al-so Vill-escas v. State , LBg S . W " 3it , 294 (Tex .
Crim. App. 2006) and Fugate v. State, 20Ct S.W.3d'lBL,
783 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006).
The Amendment of the fndictment.
The state a-l-so moved to amend the :Lndictment twice
without objection by Appellant" An amendment of a
charging instrument shalf be made with Lhe leave of the
court and under its dlrecti-on . Tex. cod.e crim. proc .
art. 28.r0. Here, the writt.en amendment \,vas submitted
to t.he trial- court and included in th.e record in
compliance with Riney v. State, 28 St.W.3d 56I,
(Tex . Crim. App . 2 0 0 [0] ) .
-Ob-iection to State/ s Ca].].ing Expert !{itness
The other objection Appelrant made before trial was
an ob j ection to the State' s calling chiad Tayror as an
expert witness, citing j_nsuf f icient notice. CR p. .
Chad Taylor was allowed to testify as StaLte, s witness
wiLhout an nh-i ar-l- i nn t^ry Appellant at trizrl " RR3 pp. " Appellant neither requested pre-t-riiel notice of
designation of an expert witness, nor reguested a
continuance or the st.ate' s f a j-lure to give timely
not.ice of its intent to use an expert witnerss.
The state must disclose the witnesses who wilf be
used at any stage of the trial upon request by the
defendant in a pre-trial motion and oriler of the triat
court . Stoker v. State , l BB S . W., 2d L, 15
(Tex . crim. App . ) . rn the conte><t of expert
wj-Lnesses, this common law duty has b,=en codif ied by
statute, and has been extended to crimjna_L defendants.
Tex. code crim. Proc. art. 39.14 (b) . rf t-he state has
a duty to discl-ose an expert witness but fails to do
so, any error in allowing that witness to f esf 'i f rz over
a cl-aim of lack-of-notice is waived by the defendant's
failure to move for a continuance. \AA l.1n/1 I a\7 \7 LLIISLVJ v.
State, 635 S.W.2d 547, 544 (Tex. Crim. ApF,. I9B2) . See
Duff-Smith v. State, 685 S.W.2d 26, (Te><. Crim. App.
1985) .
Statels Voir Dire on Enhancement olf Punishment n-^^-t^-f al.so ohreCted tO vOir cl ire cruesf inn'i nr-r l-rrz
rr1-,lPe-L-Lcrllu qrr\J vrJJsULeLf LO VO_L.J. pJ
the State regarding the law relating tr: punishment if
it were to prove a previous felony convictj_on. RR2 pp.
B 5-168 . Appell-ant. had a prior elony' conviction on
which the punj_shment range could be enhanced. CR pp. R.-1 q Qrran'i f i ^r'l -pecl_rl_ca_Lty, the State 'l ,, asked individual
panelists:
rn a case where a person is convicted of a
third-de.rrAA for nnr4, if the state can prove a
prior elony conviction that resr-rlted in a qani_ a
neni f onf i:rrz yErrr LEIrL can you consi-der --..-vflCeT the
upper end of 20 years? you donrt have to commit
to the increased sentence, but just can you
wait and hear all the evidence i-n the
punishment phase bef ore you cons j_der your
sentence, and are you at least open to the
possibility that it could be a 2O-year
sentence? RR2 p. 86.
Over Appef lant' s running obj ection, RR2 pp. j 5-l j , t.his
l-ine of questioning was permitted by the triar court on
i-ndividual voir dire. Id.
Appellant's objection to the mention of enhanced
punishment range during individual- voir dlre was three-
pronged: first, that the issue should have been taken
up as a pretrial matter so that Appel_Iant wor-ll_d have
suf f icient time to respond to the Statr:' s argument;
sor-oncl - f hat the State had alreaclrz r:l o.secl its voir
dire, and that it could only go into .issues raised
drr ri nn rrrri r dire of the nane I clrr ri nr-i i nd'i rri dual voir 9U.!!rrY vvr! s!!v v! urlv vq!JrrY rrrva v J ygrrv!
dire; and third, that rts hiqhly pre j udir:ial and used
as A nl nrz hrz f he sf af e to Secure a rrrrv where; ^ - 1--^^
q'D q tJJ ults JLaL-s U\J DV\-LrIC A vvr--uruIl-I O )uLJ -Lo.I9tj -L1JUy
portJ-on of the panel had stated that they woul-d not be
able to follow the l-aw as to punishment for this type
of case. RR2 pp. '7 5-11 .
Harassment of a public servant j-s a third degree If the State follows the proper p,rocedures and
felony. .tr-i *^'r I "
nrn\/es hc Defendant has nrerri orrsl 'iz l-reen LIIg L-lgICIIL,IO-IIL fIC-!) I-/EErI I-LlIO.-L-Ly yr\JVgD IJTSVI\-,rLrJr_y
convicted for an offense other than a state iail
felonrz- fhe nrrnishmenf ranne for this oJ:fense Can be
enhanced from 2 10 years conflnement to 2 20 years
conf inement and probation is no't avai.ltrbl,e . Tex. Pen.
Code Sec. 12.42. During the trial, the State did not
disclose to the jury that the defend.rnt had previously
been convicted of a felonv.
vfhile the state may question the jury panel on the
applicable range of punishment, it mav noL. disclose to
the veni-re that it bel-ieves that the clef endant has
previously been convicted of a elony " ljee Tex. Code
Crim. Proc. Art 36.01 (a) . This restrj_ction is desiqned
to prevent the pre j udice that woul-d inev_Ltably result
from an announcement at the outset of the proceedings
that the state believes the defendant was previousry
convicted 9f .a n:rj- i nrrl41 of fense at a pa:rticular time
and in a particular court . See Frau,sto \r. State,
s.i,{.2d 506 (Tex.crim.App. r9B2). This:restriction does
not, however, prevent the trial court or: the prosecutor
from informing the jury panel in hypothLetj_cal terms of
the applicabre range of punishment if the state proves
any prior convj-ctions for enhancement pllrposes. rd. rn
the instant case, the state was careful- to stav within
the legal constraints set forth in Fraus;o, id.
Charglof the Court
Apperlant obj ected to an j-nstructio.n in the charqe
of the court. that voruntary intoxicati-on i s nor a
t1
defense to a criminal_ of fense. RR 3 p. . Rel_iance
on invol-untary intoxication to negate an intent element
is prohibited by Tex. pen. Code sec. B .04 (a) ; see aLso
Hawkins v. State, S.W.2d 586, ( Tex . Crim. App .
1980) . Therefore, the Charge of the Court correctly
stated that law applicabl_e in this case
t2
ARGUMENT III
IHE EVTDENCE I{AS SUFFTCIENT T(3 SIJPPORT A
CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE CIF HAITASSMENT OF A
]PT'BLIC SERVA}IT.
The standard of revlew for sufficiencv of the
evldence is whether any rationaf jury could have found
Appel-lant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (I919); Brooks v,, State,
S.W.3d 893, 9I2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); pc>J_k v. State,
331 S.W.3d 286,2BB-89 (Tex. App.-Eas;tland 2010, tr€t.
ref 'd) . Under t.he Jackson st.andard, an examination is
made of al-f of the evidence in the liqht. most favorable
to the verdict and determine whether:, based on that
evi-dence and reasonable inf erences f rom it, any
rational- trier of fact could have founrl t.he essential-
elements of the of fense bevond a reaso:nabl-e doubt.
Jackson, U . S . at . The standarcl giv'es ull ptay
to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve
conf l-icts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and
IJ
to draw reasonabl-e inf erences f rom basic facts to
uftimate facts. Jackson,443 U.S. at 379; Winfrey v.
State, S.W.3d'/63, 168 (Tex. Crim. Apil . 2013). The
st.andard of review i s the same f or direct and
circumstanti-al evidence cases.
In the instant case, the State's wit.nesses included (lomnlninant and anofher
fhe resn^^,{-i ^'* "F+:r-cr- hnfh (-l.Ig \/\-'ITLIJ.LCTIIIO.IlU o.Il\,T o.I]\-/UIIgI Tg'JT../\J.TI\,|'III,\J L,'II-L\-gI L/\JLII ' F.R3 pp. 19-52.
who testif ied to the of fense.
Appell-ant cal-l-ed no witnesses and rested wit.hout
presenting any evidence. Here, it cannot be argued
that a rational j ury could not have f or.rnd Appellant
guilty beyond a reasonabl-e doubt or the charged
oI Iense "
t4
ARGUMENT VI.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTAI{CE OF TRIAI COUNSEIL IS NOT
A VIABLE CI,AIM BASED UPON THE IIEICORD BEE'ORE
TIIIS COURT.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
analyzed under the two-prong test set out by the United
.Sf af es .Sttnreme Court. in Strickl-and v. Wa:;hinrtf on - 466
vvspttLttY uv!t = v v l' U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted by Texas in Hernandez v.
State, 126 S.W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).
Appelf ant must show that trial coun,sel-'s performance
was deficient, that is, counsel's representation fell
below an obj ective standard of reasoniableness. Thompson
v. State, 9 S.W.3d B0B, BL2 (Tex.Crim.App.L999).
Ap'oellant must also show that courLsel-f s def icient
performance prejudiced his defense. StrickJand, 466
U.S. at ; Jackson v. State, B-l'7 S.W.2d 168, 11L
/ Tow Cri m Ann . .1 gg4 ) recltr i res Annel lant Th'i s ShOw ez\.vrlrLL.,r-y-y.LJr Jt . rrrlu \f j-s a reasonable probability thert, but
there or
couLnsel-' s unprof essional errors, the result of the
proceeding woul_d have been di_f ferenc. StrickLand,466
U. S. at 694; Jackson, 811 S.W.2d at 'j jI. A reasonabl_e
probability is a probability sufficient unde rmi ne T-ar
confidence in the outcome. Strickl_and, tI66 . at 694; rf d
Jackson, B'7'/ S . W. 2d at .
In reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, there is a strong presumpt j-on that counsel . s
conduct falls within the wlde ranqe o:f reasonabl_e
professi-onal- assistance and the appei_lant musr overcome
the presumption that the challenged conduct might be
considered sound trial s1-rafacrrz Thomps<>n, 9 S.W.3d at
813; strickland, 466 u.s. at 689. Any allegation of
ineffectiveness must be fi_rmlv founded and
af j-rmatively demonstrated in the record to ove rcome 9 S.W.3ci 813; see
fhiq. nraqlrmnfinn -\+ 'Thrlmn<nn I/!vuufrryurvrr. lttvtL.truvtt /
Jackson, 817 S . W. 2d at I . It is the Appetlant
burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel bv
preponderance of the evidence. Id.
Counsel has detected no error on the part of trial attorney, Mr. Nel-son. n^^^1'l ^^.{-t ^ A1- nn nni nl- I/vIrIL iaIJI-,,El-_LClr1L D rru rrv
t6
during any of the proceedj-ngs in thi s cause did
Appellant assert Lo the triar court that she was
unhappy with the performance and repres;entation of her
trial counsel . Based on this rcr:ord - n^ legitimate
non-frivol-ous basis exj-sts to argue trial counsel was
constitutional-l-v inef fecti_ve .
l7 *26 STATED4ENT OF ATTORNSY TO 'THE COURT This brief is fil-ed brz r:orrnsel appointed by the
court to represent Appef lant on appea-L i n accord.ance
with Anders v. Cal-ifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (I96j), and
Currie v. State, 51-6 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. I914) .
Counsel has also fil-ed wi-th this Cou:rt a Motion to
Withdraw as Court Appointed Counsel on Appeal in
accordance with t.he procedures as standards set out in
Jeffery v. State, S.W.2d (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995,
no pet. ) . After thorough examination of the clerk's
record and reportert s record, counsel can find no non- ri vol ott.s noj-nt of error that can l-ro sr'n1nrtrJ- ecl hv the UITV
record. Counsel has discussed the er,,idence and the
documents in the record, citing references to the
-^ ^^-A ^ I U\-\-,'I L,lD .
PRAYER
wherefore, premises considered, Lhe undersigned
counsel- request.s the court of Appeals rerview the record
on appeal, consi-der the Motion to withd:raw as court
Appornted Counsel, review foregoing Brief the in
Support of Motion to withdraw, and grant t-he Motion to
Withdraw.
Roqnor-J- frrl I rr qrrhmi ttarl uttvrLL.! u uvv, . {Jackson
SBOT No" 24069916 6-A Hwy 259 l{. Kj-lgore, TX Phone: 903-65 4-3362 Fax: B]-l-887-433.3 Email:
-iOf fJ- i:r-kqnn'i:r.rfinrnr.i I J _*' ___-r-Lav/Lqglnaf -1 . com Af f nrrla\7 fnr Annal I anf Lstt u / Temika Cha.rnette Owens t9
CERTIE TCATE OE COMPLIAN'CE The foregoing Appellant' s Brief is i_n compl-iance
with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i) (2) (B) . The totat_ number of
words contained in Appe]l-ant's Brief that are nor
specifically excl-uded from the word count under TEX. R.
APP. P. 9.4 (i) (1) is 2,315 words.
SBOT No. 2406991 [6] A1-t^ tar Zrrnal l tnf r-aLL\JLITCY LrJJ- rlJPC.L_LA.ttL/ Charn<>tte Owens Temika *29 CERTTFTCATE OF SERVTCE r, the undersigned attorney, do hereby certify that
a true and correct copy of the above Motion was served
on the state of Texas by mailing same to the District
Attorney of Rusk County on August Il , 2015.
I further certify that I have mail_ed a copv of the
above Brief and accompanying Motj-on by First cl-ass
Mail-, postage paid, to Appel_l_ant, Temi.ka Charnette
owens at the address fisted above on the same date.
ar:kson 2,406997 2l