Frank Ricci Flores v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 29, 2014
Docket03-14-00260-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Frank Ricci Flores v. State (Frank Ricci Flores v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frank Ricci Flores v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00260-CR 3599727 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/29/2014 11:07:16 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK

No. 03-14-00260-CR FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS In the AUSTIN, TEXAS Court of Appeals 12/29/2014 11:07:16 AM Of the Third Supreme Judicial District JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk Austin, Texas

FRANK RICCI FLORES, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 391st Judicial District Court Tom Green County, Texas Cause Number A-12-0701-SA

STATE’S BRIEF

Allison Palmer District Attorney 51st Judicial District

Leland Lacy Assistant District Attorney 124 W. Beauregard, Suite B San Angelo, Texas 76903 (325) 659-6583 (325) 658-6831 FAX Leland.lacy@co.tom-green.tx.us State Bar No. 24057953

Oral argument is not requested Table of Contents

Index of Authorities............................................................................. ii

Statement of the Case....................................................................... iii

Statement of Facts ............................................................................ 2

State's Counterpoint One .................................................................. 3

Summary of the State's Argument ..................................................... 4

Argument and Authorities .................................................................. 4

Prayer ............................................................................................... 6

Certificate of Compliance .................................................................. 7

Certificate of Service ......................................................................... 7

i Index of Authorities

Cases

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) .................... 4

Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ..................... 5

Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ........................ 5

ii Statement of the Case

Frank Ricci Flores was indicted on September 12, 2013, for

Possession of a Controlled Substance, to-wit heroin less than a gram,

enhanced to a Second Degree Felony by two prior convictions. (C.R.

p. 7). Flores was found guilty of the indicted charge by a jury on

February 25, 2014. (R.R. Vol. 5 p. 60). Flores elected to have the

jury assess punishment. (C.R. p. 37). Flores pled “not true” to the

enhancements. (R.R. Vol. 6 p. 13). The jury found the enhancements

to be true and assessed punishment at 12 years confinement in

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division and a fine

of $5,000.00. (R.R. Vol. 6 pp. 74-75). The Court sentenced the

Defendant to that punishment. (R.R. Vol. 6. p. 77). Flores timely filed

a Motion for New Trial and Motion in Arrest of Judgment stating that

the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence. (C.R. p. 65).

This Motion contained a certification that a copy of the Motion was

hand-delivered to the Trial Court. (C.R. p. 66). The Trial Court

certified that Flores had the right to appeal. (C.R. p. 43).

iii No. 03-14-00260-CR

In the Court of Appeals Of the Third Supreme Judicial District Austin, Texas

Appeal from the 391st Judicial District Court Tom Green County, Texas Cause Number A-12-0701-SA

To the Honorable Third Court of Appeals:

Now comes the State of Texas and files this brief in response to

that of the appellant.

1 Statement of Facts

Flores was stopped for a traffic violation on May 18, 2012, by

Officer Ryan Morgan of the San Angelo Police Department in the City

of San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas. (R.R. Vol. 4 p. 18). After

Flores stopped his vehicle, he opened the door of the vehicle and

exited the vehicle. (R.R. Vol.4 p. 19 lines 13-15). The officer saw two

pill bottles in the driver’s door. (R.R. Vol. 4 p. 20 lines 21-25). One of

the bottles was empty and one contained a small piece of heroin.

(R.R. Vol. 4; p. 20 lines 3-6). Flores was taken to the Tom Green

County jail and was searched prior to being taken into the jail. (R.R.

Vol. 4 pp. 23 line 23 - p. 24 line 1). At this time the Flores was

searched and another small amount of heroin was found in the

baseball cap that was removed from the Flores’ head. (R.R. Vol. 4 p.

24 lines 3-11). Marissa Silva, a chemist with the Texas Department

of Public Safety testified that the substance was heroin. (R.R. Vol. 4

p. 54 lines 18-25). Silva also testified that the combined weight of the

two separate packages of heroin was .18 grams and would be about

the size of two eraser parts of the end of a pencil. (R.R. Vol. 4 p. 58

lines 4-7).

2 Carlota Menchacha testified that she and the Flores were living

together at the time the Defendant was arrested. (R.R. Vol. 5 p. 10

lines 13 - p. 11 line 6). Menchacha further testified that she was in

control of the automobile earlier in the day on the day the Flores was

arrested. (R.R. Vol. 5 p. 11 lines 8-9). Menchacha testified that the

insurance on the vehicle was in her name. (R.R. Vol. 5 p.13 lines 1-9)

She testified that she had used the vehicle earlier in the day and had

purchased heroin and had left the herion in the car (R.R. Vol. 5 p. 15

line 5 - p. 16 line 20). Specifically Menchacha testified that she left

one “paper” of heroin in a pill bottle and one “paper” in a cap. (R.R.

Vol. 5 p. 18 lines 18-21). Ms. Menchacha testified that Flores was

not aware that the drugs were in the car. (R.R. Vol. 5 p. 18 line 25; p.

19 line 9).

State’s Counterpoint One

The verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence.

3 Summary of the Argument

Officer Morgan testified that he found heroin inside a pill bottle

in a car under the Appellant’s sole care, custody and control. Officer

Morgan testified that he found heroin within Appellant’s hat during a

search at the jail. A chemist with the Midland crime lab testified that

the substance was heroin.

Argument and Authorities

In Texas, evidence to support a verdict is legally sufficient if

viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence, and all

reasonable inferences there from would allow a rational trier of fact to

find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 895, 916 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

Officer Morgan testified at trial that the alleged heroin was found

in a pill bottle that was found within the door panel in appellant’s car.

(R.R. Vol. 4 pp. 20). Officer Morgan testified that when he searched

Appellant at the jail another paper of heroin was found in the

Appellant’s hat. (R.R. Vol. 4 p. 24).

4 When conducting review on appeal, an appellate court is required

to defer to the jury's role as the sole judge of witness credibility, and the

weight their testimony is to be afforded. Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d

735, 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). To find legal sufficiency, "[e]ach fact

need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the defendant,

as long as the cumulative force of the incriminating circumstances is

sufficient to support the conviction." Hooper v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hooper v. State
214 S.W.3d 9 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Dewberry v. State
4 S.W.3d 735 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Brooks v. State
323 S.W.3d 893 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Frank Ricci Flores v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-ricci-flores-v-state-texapp-2014.