ACCEPTED 06-15-00081-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/10/2015 7:28:17 PM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS BOBBY JOE EVENS, § TEXARKANA, TEXAS APPELLANT § 9/11/2015 9:18:00 AM § DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk v. § Nos. 06-15-00081-CR § § THE STATE OF TEXAS, § APPELLEE §
STATE'S BRIEF
FROM THE 196m JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL CAUSE NUMBER 27,364 THE HONORABLE J. ANDREW BENCH, JUDGE PRESIDING
NOBLE DAN WALKER, JR. District Attorney Hunt County, Texas
KELI M. AIKEN First Assistant District Attorney P. 0. Box 441 4111 Floor Hunt County Courthouse Greenville, TX 75403 THE STATE REQUESTS THE kaiken@huntcounty.net OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ORAL (903) 408-4180 ARGUMENT ONLY IF APPELLANT'S FAX (903) 408-4296 REQUEST IS GRANTED State Bar No. 24043442 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... .ii
Index of Authorities ..................................................................................................... iii
State1nent of the Case ................................................................................................. 5
Issues Presented .................................................................................................... 6-21
1. The evidence was legally sufficient in that it proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. ............................................................ 6-15
2. Appellant received an appropriate sentence based upon the evidence heard at trial by the jury for a habitual offender facing 25 years to life. Fmihermore, the trial comi imposed consecutive sentences after hearing both trials and Appellant's numerous admissions to selling drugs in Hunt County for over two decades. .................................................................. 15-21
Prayer ........................................................................................................................ 21
Certificate of Service ................................................................................................ 22
Cetiificate of Compliance with Rule 9.4 .................................................................. 22
ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES:
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ................................. 6
Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240, 245-47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) ...................... 7
Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999), ce1i. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 (2000) .............................................................................................................. 6
Hines v. State, 978 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.-Texarkana, no pet.) ............................ 6
Fernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ................................. 7
Jackson v. Virginia, 433 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979) ....................................... 11
Johnson v. State, 23 W.W.3d 1(Tex. Crim. App. 2001) .......................................... 6
Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ................................. 7
Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) .......................... 6
Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ...................................... 6-7
STATE STATUTES:
TEX. CON. SUB. ACT§ 481.112(a) (Vernon 2015) ................................................... 7
TEX. PEN. C. § 1.07(a)(39) (Ve1non 2015) ............................................................... 7
TEX. PEN. C. § 6.01 (b) (Vernon 20 15) ..................................................................... 7
TEX. PEN. C.§ 12.42(d) (Ve1non 2015) .................................................................... 15
iii IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA
BOBBY JOE EVENS, § APPELLANT § § v. § Nos. 06-15-00081-CR § § THE STATE OF TEXAS, § APPELLEE §
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
NOW COMES the State of Texas, Appellee, in this appeal from Cause No. 27,64 in the 196th Judicial District Comi in and for Hunt County, Texas, Honorable J. Andrew Bench, Presiding, now before the Sixth District Court of Appeals, and respectfully submits this its brief to the Comi in suppmi of the judgment of sentence in the court below.
4 SUMMARY OF THE STATE'S ARGUMENT
In this case there was overwhelming evidence of Appellant's guilt. The jury
heard proof of each required element in addition to numerous admissions made by
Appellant and his conviction for federal charges that included the manufacture I
delivery of drugs on May, 26, 2010 in Hunt County, Texas with Misty Lynett
Brigham (hereinafter "Brigham").
At punishment, Appellant's priors were admitted to show proof of at least
two felonies in sequence. The jury not only saw the pen packets, and judgments,
but they heard Appellant's admissions to the priors to enhance him to habitual
offender status.
In this case, the State presented evidence showing Appellant's career as a
drug dealer in Hunt County spanning thirty years. Appellant continued his drug
sales when he was on probation, when he was on parole and even when he was
incarcerated at the Hunt County jail. The evidence showed Appellant sold over
five kilos of cocaine in Hunt County within just a seventeen month time frame in
2010-2011. Appellant's criminal drug conspiracy led to the arrest and conviction
of over 28 other defendants including several of his family members and he was
the head of the organization. The jury heard sufficient evidence to compel them to
impose a seventy-five year prison sentence and the trial court heard enough
evidence to justify making this a cumulative sentence.
5 STATE'S RESPONSE TO POINTS OF ERROR ONE
The evidence was legally sufficient to prove Appellant guilty of Manufacture I Delivery of Cocaine as alleged in the indictment.
Argument and Authorities
The proper standard of review to determine legal sufficiency is whether the
evidence would suppmi the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the
verdict. Johnson v. State, 23 W.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In other
words, if a reasonable trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the
essential elements of the crime, the verdict will be deemed legally sufficient.
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Hines v. State, 978
S.W.2d 169, 172 (Tex. App.-Texarkana, no pet.).
This standard gives full play to the responsibility of the trier of fact to
resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable
inferences from basic facts. Jackson v. Virginia, 433 U.S. 307,319,99 S.Ct. 2781
(1979); Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 663 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). When
perfonning a legal sufficiency review, the comi may not sit as a thilieenth juror,
re-evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence and substituting its
judgment for that of the factfinder. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1999), ce1i. denied, 529 U.S. 1131 (2000).
The comi must consider all of the evidence submitted before the jury, 6 including inadmissible evidence. Watson v. State, 204 S.W.3d 404, 415 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006). Specifically, the Comi held that "once the trier of fact has
weighted the probative value ofunobjected-to hearsay evidence in its fact finding
process, an appellate comi cannot deny that evidence probative value or ignore it
in a review of the sufficiency of the evidence. Poindexter v. State, 153 S.W.3d
402,406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (citing Fernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 451,
453-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and Chambers v. State, 711 S.W.2d 240, 245-47
(Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
A. The State proved every required element for the offense of possession with intent to deliver beyond a reasonable doubt.
A person commits the offense if the person knowingly manufactures,
delivers, or possesses with intent to deliver a controlled substance listed in penalty
group one. TEX. CON. SUB. AcT§ 481.112(a) (Ve1non 2015). Possession means
"actual care, custody, control or management." TEX. PEN. C.§ 1.07(a)(39)
(Vernon 2015). Possession is voluntary if the possessor knowingly obtains or
receives the thing possessed or is aware of his or her control of the thing for a time
sufficient to terminate his or her control. TEX. PEN. C.§ 6.01(b) (Vernon 2015).
The indictment required proof of the following elements: 1) On or about the
26th day ofMay, 2010 in Hunt County, Texas; 2) Bobby Joe Evens aka Bobby Joe
Grant; and 3) acting together with Misty Lynett Brigham; 4) knowingly or
intentionally possessed with intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled 7 substance, cocaine, in an amount of more than four grams but less than two
hundred grams. CR6-7.
B. Appellant admitted his guilt to this crime as part of his prior testimony in a federal case.
There is no reason to doubt the reliability or believability of Appellant's
prior testimony that admitted to the elements of this crime. The ce1iified
transcript was published to the jury. SE22. Furthermore, the transcript tends to
connect Appellant to this offense in that on May 21, 2013 in a co-conspirators
federal trial, Appellant testified that Brigham was his girlfriend and that:
Q: Now, in regards to Misty Brigham, back in May of2010, were you
aware that she was stopped with over 200 grams of crack cocaine?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And whose crack cocaine was that that she was canying on May 26,
2010?
A: It was mine.
Q: Okay. And where was she going with that crack cocaine, ifyou lmow?
A: She was supposed to have been taking it to my nephew.
Q: Your nephew, being who?
A: Chase Grant.
Q: And why was she taking it over to Chase Grant?
A: Just to hold it until I get there to cut it up. 8 Q: And where were you leaving from that day?
A: I was - we were leaving from a motel.
SE29. An additional excerpt from the same testimony was admitted as State's
Exhibit 29B. Appellant stated that he continued distributing crack cocaine while
incarcerated in the Hunt County jail though Brigham. !d. Appellant also
admitted he used jail calls to direct Brigham and give her instructions on how to
distribute cocaine. !d. Appellant explained how Brigham knew how to distribute
cocaine because she had been with him before he was incarcerated. !d.
Appellant also made it clear that Brigham knew his customers, supplier, and drop
off locations as well as what amounts of drugs to distribute based on Appellant's
directions and being with him when he conducted business. SE 29B. A
reasonable inference from this testimony shows that Appellant admitted to every
element of this offense in his prior federal testimony.
C. The jury heard undisputed evidence that this offense occurred on May 26,2010 in Hunt County, Texas and involved both Appellant and his co-actor Misty Brigham.
Misty Brigham told the jury that the offense took place on May 26, 2010
RRS/91-92. The jury also saw photos of Appellant and Brigham showing them
loading their vehicles that day before the traffic stop. SE7-1 0. The jury also saw
photos of Appellant and Brigham as they encountered officers on May 26, 2010.
SE11-16. Inv. Mitchell also showed the jury photos ofthe d1ugs recovered.
9 SE17-27.
Inv. Mitchell saw Appellant and Brigham at the Best Western motel moving
items from a motel room to two vehicles- his truck and Brigham's car. RR5/42-
44. Appellant was following Brigham as they left the motel. RR2/p.45, lines 3-9.
When Officer Stillwagoner pulled Appellant over for a traffic violation Brigham
pulled over as well. RR5/p.47, lines 16-24.
Officer Russell Stillwagoner identified Appellant and told them how
Brigham was following Appellant on May 26, 2010 just prior to the traffic stop.
RR5/26-29. When Stillwagoner pulled Appellant over, Brigham pulled in behind
him and parked like she was waiting on Appellant. RR5/p.29, lines 11-14. He
stopped Appellant less than a mile fi·om the motel. RR5/p.29, lines 15-19.
Officer Robert Pemberton used canine Seko to conduct a sniff of Appellant's truck
and Seko hit on both door handles of the vehicle. RR5/3 0-31. While officers did
not find dtugs in Appellant's ttuck, Brigham did have marijuana in her possession
and handed it over to Inv. Jason Smith at the scene and was arrested. RR5/32-33;
48-49; 78-79. When Brigham was atTested, Appellant "aggressively" requested
that her vehicle be left in his possession and Brigham agreed. RR5/50-51.
D. Evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant and his co-actor Ms. Brigham possessed over four grams but less than two hundred grams of cocaine with intent to deliver.
On the way to the jail Brigham was asked if she had any other drugs in her
10 possession and warned that taking a controlled substance into the jail would result
in an additional charge. RR5/51-52. Brigham told Inv. Mitchell she did not have
any other drugs on her but at the jail she immediately said she needed to use the
restroom. RR5/52-53. Inv. Felicia White came to search Brigham prior to letting
her go to the restroom and Brigham handed over a half pound of cocaine.
RR5/53-54; 86-89.
Inv. Mitchell explained how 187 grams of cocaine could be broken down
and distributed into smaller amounts. RR5/56-57.
Brigham lived at the hotel and Appellant stayed with her off and on.
RR5/90-91. They were in a relationship from January 2010 on. RR5/103-104.
In May, 2010 Appellant was helping Brigham move into his house on Pepperpmi.
RR5/p.92-93. Brigham was following Appellant on May 26, 2010 when she saw
the traffic stop and pulled over. RR5/93-94. Brigham was anested at the scene
for possession of marijuana. RR5/94-96. On the way to the jail, Ms. Brigham
rode with the investigators who told her that if she had any more contraband she
needed to tell them before she took it into the jail and faced an additional charge.
RR5/96-97. When they got to the police department Brigham gave Inv. White the
cocaine she had on her. RR5/97-98. Appellant had initially placed the cocaine in
Brigham's purse but when she knew she was going to be anested she took the
cocaine and hid it on her body. Id. Brigham thought she could hide the drugs
11 fi·om the officers and not have to give them up so she could give them back to
Appellant. RR5/98, lines 6-8, p.1 07, lines 13-15. Brigham told the jury that the
cocaine she had that day belonged to Appellant. RR5/p.98, lines 9-17; pp.116-
117.
Brigham told the jury she was cunently incarcerated for a federal drug
cocaine conspiracy case and had worked out a deal in her federal case to testify
against any co-actors, including Appellant. RR5/114-115. Brigham did not have
a deal regarding any state charges. RR5/114, lines 15-23. Brigham's federal
conviction as based on her selling crack cocaine for Appellant. RR5/p.114-116.
Brigham started selling drugs for Appellant when he got anested and asked her to
"take over where he left off." RR5/116, lines 14-18. Prior to Appellant's atTest,
Brigham was with Appellant when he sold cocaine or cut it up. RR5/116, lines
19-22.
On May 26, 2010 that was the first time Appellant had her can-y the drugs
for him. RR5/117, lines 3-7. Prior to that, she had been with Appellant when he
drove to get drugs from his supplier in Dallas. RR5/117-118. Appellant had
several people who sold drugs for him. RR5/118, lines 15-23. She sold drugs for
Appellant from the time he was anested until she was taken into custody - around
six months. RR5/118-119; p.123, lines 17-22. When Appellant was in jail, he
would send her to Dallas to pick up his supply of cocaine, usually in one hundred
12 gram amounts. RR5/119-120. Appellant would then instruct her on how to break
the drugs into certain amounts and who to take them too. RR51120-121. Brigham
used the proceeds from drug sales to pay the bills while Appellant was in jail, to
buy more d1ugs, and to distribute money to other people at his direction.
RR5/122-123. She fmally stopped selling for him in July 2011 when she was
caught with 100 grams of Appellant's cocaine. RR5/125-127. Brigham has only
sold drugs for Appellant. !d.
Ms. Kiana Henderson, forensic chemist for the D1ug Enforcement
Administration crime lab, testified that she tested the drugs recovered in this case
and they contained a net weight of 187.3grams of cocaine base. SE2 & 3.
Appellant admitted that Brigham had 14grams of crack cocaine that was his
on May 26, 2010 but claims she had taken it to Campbell to his nephew Chase
Grant earlier in the mmning. RR5/134-135. Appellant admitted he helped
Brigham move items from her hotel room that morning. RR5/135-136. Appellant
was there on May 26, 2010 when Brigham was arrested. RR5/137, lines 13-16.
Appellant also admitted he took possession of Brigham's car when she was
arrested. RR5/137-138. Appellant said his federal testimony (in SE 29) was that
the d1ugs Brigham had that day were his- meaning the cocaine he had given to
Brigham earlier that mmning to deliver to his nephew. RR5/139k lines 1-24.
Appellant claimed that the cocaine Brigham was caught with was another separate
13 batch of cocaine and not his drugs that he had given her earlier that mmning.
RR5/140-141; 187-188.
Appellant admitted to his prior convictions. Appellant admitted he was
convicted of the federal crime of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute
Cocaine Base - the same conspiracy where Brigham and 17 other co-actors were
convicted. State's Exhibit 54. He was convicted of:
1.) Evading arrest with a vehicle enhanced to a second degree in 2008;
2.) Possession of Cocaine- a second degree felony in 1991;
3.) Possession with intent to deliver- a first degree felony in 1989;
4.) Receiving Stolen Property over $750.00;
5.) Escape in 1978;
SE 50, 52, 53.
State's exhibit 30- jail calls
Appellant admitted that he was talking with Brigham in the jail calls
admitted as State's Exhibit 30. RR5/150, lines 1-5. Appellant admitted that
Brigham was selling drugs for him while he was in jail. RR5/150, lines 8-21.
Appellant was instructing her to get 63 grams of crack cocaine from his supplier
and sell it. RR5/150-152. He told her to cook the cocaine and get it to at least
112 grams. Id. The jury also heard Appellant's jail calls to Brigham where he
explained how to cut the drugs into smaller amounts for sale and where to deliver
14 the drugs. SE30. In these calls, the jury also heard Appellant tell Brigham what
to do with his income from selling cocaine. Id.
At first Appellant tried to claim that Brigham only sold drugs for him for a
month in April 20 11, but then he changed his story and eventually had to admit
she was very involved in his d1ug business during their relationship. RRS/160-
180.
Appellant admitted the largest amount of drugs he bought was 500 grmns of
crack cocaine. RRS/170-171. He bought the drugs to sell them. RRS/172, lines
1-4. Appellant admitted that he broke the drugs down into sellable units of 3.5
grams, 7 grams, 14 grams, 21 grams and 28 grams. RRS/173, lines 5-9. Appellant
also admitted he sold d1ugs but claimed he did not use them. RRS/173, lines 15-
21.
The evidence in this case is legally sufficient to prove Appellant guilty of the
offense as charged; therefore, his conviction should be affinned.
STATE'S RESPONSE TO POINTS OF ERROR TWO
Appellant received an appropriate sentence based upon the evidence heard at trial by the jury for a habitual offender facing 25 years to life. Furthermore, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences after hearing both trials and Appellant's numerous admissions to selling drugs in Hunt County for over two decades.
15 If a defendant is on trial for a third degree felony or higher, and the State
proves that he has been finally convicted of two prior felonies in sequence, the
punishment range increases to twenty-five years to life. TEX. PEN. C. § 12.42(d)
(Vernon 2015). First, Appellant admitted to each of these priors in his testimony.
RR5/142-148.
A.) Each of Appellant's prior felonies were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the pen packets as well as judgments offered to show how they were in sequence.
The State proved the allegations in each of the enhancement paragraphs
through the admission of pen packs and judgements as well as Appellant's
admissions. RR5/142-148. SE50, 52-53. Enhancement paragraph one alleged that
on or about February 22, 1989 in in 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County,
Texas in Cause 15,199 Appellant was finally convicted of Possession of a
Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver. SE50. The pen pack showed that
Appellant received ten years for this first degree felony offense. !d.
Enhancement paragraph two alleged that on or about the 6th day of January,
1987 in 196th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas in Cause 13,493
Appellant was finally convicted of Theft by Receiving and Concealing Stolen
Property over $750.00. SE50. Appellant first received probation in September of
1983 for this third degree felony but was later revoked and sentenced to seven years 16 in prison. I d.
Enhancement paragraph three alleged that on or about the 1st day of April,
1993, in the 354th Judicial District Court ofHunt County, Texas in Cause 15,663
Appellant was convicted of Possession of Controlled Substance, Namely: Cocaine.
SE52. Appellant was initially convicted on December 16, 1991 and placed on
probation but that probation was later revoked and he received a twenty year prison
sentence for this second degree felony. Id.
Enhancement paragraph four alleges that on or about the 30th day of June,
1980 in the 196th Judicial District Comi of Hunt County, Texas in Cause 11,805
Appellant was convicted of Escape. SE53. In 1978, Appellant initially received
probation for this third degree felony but was later revoked and sentenced to two
years in prison. I d.
B.) The jury heard ample additional punishment evidence to sentence Appellant to seventy-five years for a habitual offense and the trial court heard ample evidence to justify a cumulative sentence.
Inv. Mitchell worked on the drug conspiracy case fi·om May 26, 2010 through
the trial. RR6/p.8, lines 12-14. The conspiracy involved fifty-one individuals.
RR6/p.8, lines 17-20. The jury saw a powerpoint prepared by Inv. Mitchell
explaining the makeup of the drug conspiracy Appellant was involved in. SE57;
RR6/8-18. Appellant was the top person involved in the conspiracy in Hunt
County, with other co-actors who worked for him. RR6/p.10, lines 1-17. Inv. 17 Mitchell went on to explain to the jury the role of each co-conspirator and how they
worked for Appellant. RR6/10-18. Inv. Mitchell also explained how Appellant
continued his drug sales from the Hunt County jail through jail calls to his co-
conspirators. RR6/15-16. Appellant made over 700 calls in a four month period
and about thirty-five of those calls were offered into evidence. RR6/16, lines 8-22;
SE56.
Inv. Mitchell told the jury that since 1980's when he started as an officer, a "a
large percentage, any and everything from petty theft up into and including murder"
ofthe crimes he works are drug-related. RR6/p.22, lines 15-19. Inv. Mitchell also
confirmed that use of cocaine can make someone more violent than they might be
otherwise. RR6/pp.22-23.
Inv. Mitchell verified that Appellant con·ectly explained the process for
conve1iing powder cocaine to crack cocaine in his federal testimony. SE49;
RR6/p.23, lines 4-12. He also verified that the quantities Appellant described in his
federal testimony were similar to the amounts of cocaine sold in Hunt County.
RR6/p.23, lines 13-24. Inv. Mitchell also verified that Appellant's testimony about
using nicknames to denote a specific quantity of d1ugs, such as a "vick" were
accurate. RR6/23-24.
Inv. Mitchell reminded the jury that Appellant admitted to selling at least four
(to five) kilos of cocaine in a seventeen month period from 2010 through 2011.
18 SE49; RR6/p.29, lines 1-22. Inv. Mitchell told the jury that from a five kilo stash
of cocaine, approximately 150,000 people could get at least one high. RR6/30-31.
One hundred fifty thousand is more than the entire population of Hunt County,
Texas. RR6/p.31, lines 15-18. Inv. Mitchell told the jury that Appellant made d1ug
deals in the street, at car washes, convenience stores, grocery stores, parking lots -
in a lot of public areas where innocent civilians were around. RR6/p.35, lines 3-18.
The jury also saw multiple photos showing where Appellant did business, and the
vehicles he used for d1ug sales. SE 33-38.
C.) Appellant's own admissions established a 30 year career selling drugs from marijuana to powder cocaine, to crack cocaine exclusively to the citizens of Hunt County.
In addition to the admissions regarding Brigham and his d1ug business, the
remainder of Appellant's testimony from federal court was offered at punishment
showing the jury how long he worked as a drug dealer in Hunt County. The
additional infonnation the jury heard from the transcript was:
1.) Appellant's most recent employment included roofing and selling d1ugs in Hunt County, Texas;
2.) at the time of the prior testimony, Appellant was incarcerated in federal prison for Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base;
3.) his prior criminal history included multiple prison trips for burglary, larceny, d1ug trafficking and escape;
4.) he was distributing drugs in Hunt County, Greenville, Texas and became involved in the sale of illegal d1ugs in the early to late 80's; 19 5.) Appellant started out selling marijuana in small quantities but increased the amount over time and he started selling powder and crack cocaine in 1987 in increasing amounts
6.) He explained how to conve1i powder cocaine to crack cocaine and how 3.5 grams was a typical sell but he also sold in 7 gram amounts and called the 7 gram sell a "Vick" and 28 grams or an ounce called a "cookie jar";
7.) Appellant told the jury that he came up with different codes or niclmames for the amounts of d1ugs sold;
8.) Appellant took Brigham with him to pick up drugs from his supplier in Dallas;
9.) Appellant explained how he would buy large amounts of d1ugs from his supplier and then he would bring it back to Greenville and cut the dn1gs down into smaller amounts to package and sell;
10.) he delivered crack cocaine to customers in Greenville at convenience stores in town;
11.) he was stopped after meeting with Robert Lewis Smith (whom he calls Emory) at a convenience store and had over $1,000.00 seized frmn him;
12.) Appellant specifically talked about his d1ug sales from February 2010 through September 2011;
13.) he identified his house on Pepperport street and identified his truck that he used to deliver drugs on several occasions;
14.) Appellant also testified to how several other co-conspirators from the federal case were tied to his drug business as either suppliers or people who bought drugs from him;
15.) From Feb1uary 2010 through September 2011 Appellant sold at least four (to five) kilos of cocaine;
SE49. Appellant implicates himself as a d1ug dealer who sold cocaine to
20 Smith in up to 7 gram amounts during the timeframe to include November 9, 2010
at various convenience stores in Greenville, Hunt County, Texas while driving his
truck. Id.
The jury heard sufficient evidence to justify the seventy-five year sentence
imposed on Appellant as a habitual offender and the trial comi had ample evidence
presented to justify consecutive sentencing in this case; therefore, Appellant's points
of en-or should be denied and his conviction and sentence affinned.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The State prays that the Court will affirm Appellant's sentence.
Respectfully submitted,
Is/ Keli M. Aiken KELI M. AIKEN Assistant District Attorney P. 0. Box 441 4th Floor, Hunt County Comihouse Greenville, TX 75403 kaiken@huntcounty .net State Bar No. 240434482 (903) 408-4180 FAX (903) 408-4296
21 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE OF TYPEFACE AND WORD COUNT
In accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 (e) and (i), the undersigned attorney or record certifies that Appellants Brief contains 14-point typeface ofthe body ofthe brief and contains 3.943 words and was prepared on Microsoft Word 2013.
/s/ Keli M. Aiken KELI M. AIKEN First Assistant District Attorney P. 0. Box 441 4th Floor Hunt County Comihouse Greenville, TX 75403 (903) 408-4180 FAX (903) 408-4296 State Bar No. 24043442
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true copy of the State's brief has been placed in Elisha Hollis' box in the
Hunt County District Clerk's Office, today September 10, 2015, pursuant to local
rules.
Is/ Keli M. Aiken KELI M. AIKEN First Assistant District Attmney