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