Gary W. Young v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 14, 2004
• Docket: 06-03-00259-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00259-CR

GARY W. YOUNG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 76th Judicial District Court

Morris County, Texas

Trial Court No. 8554

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

            A Morris County jury found Gary W. Young guilty of delivering a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or more, but less than four grams, to Todd Martin (an undercover narcotics officer with the Texas Department of Public Safety) as charged in the indictment. The jury further recommended Young's punishment be assessed at eighteen years' imprisonment, and the trial court sentenced Young accordingly. Young timely appealed his conviction to this Court.

            This Court had received on February 13, 2004, a completed record of the proceedings below. We informed Young's counsel that a brief on his client's behalf would be due by March 18, 2004. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a) (criminal appellant's brief is due within thirty days after the record is filed). By mid-April, however, neither Young's brief nor a request for an extension of time to file the brief had been submitted for this Court's consideration. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d). Thus, on April 15, 2004, this Court issued an order directing Young to prepare and file a brief by Monday, April 26, 2004.

            On April 22, 2004, Young filed a brief challenging the factual and legal sufficiency of the evidence in a single multifarious issue. Cf. Foster v. State, 101 S.W.3d 490, 499 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). The entirety of the argument portion of Young's brief reads,

            Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.

            In appellate review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In reviewing for factual sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in a neutral light, favoring neither party. The verdict will only be set aside only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and unjust. Johnson v. State, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

            There was no evidence presented that Appellant had an intent to deliver a controlled substance.

PRAYER

            Upon the issues presented, it is submitted that the conviction of GARY W. YOUNG should be reversed and a judgment of acquittal entered, or alternatively, that this case be remanded for a new trial.

            A multifarious point of error is a contention "that embraces more than one specific ground." Id. If an appellant combines more than one contention into a single issue, he or she risks the possibility that the reviewing court will reject the argument on the ground that nothing has been presented for review. Id. (citing Cuevas v. State, 742 S.W.2d 331, 336 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)). Similarly, a point of error that has been inadequately briefed presents nothing for review. Perez v. State, 113 S.W.3d 819, 837 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. ref'd); see also Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h) ("The brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record." (emphasis added)).

            In the case now before us, Young's brief combines the two separate issues of legal and factual sufficiency into a single point of error. Accordingly, we find the issue to be multifarious. Young's brief also makes no attempt to show why the State's evidence was insufficient. Nevertheless, we have independently reviewed the record and found that the undercover narcotics officer testified Young delivered cocaine to him. Given that a defendant's intent to deliver narcotics may be inferred from the acts of the accused, Williams v. State, 936 S.W.2d 399, 406 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd), we hold the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Young's conviction.

            We affirm the trial court's judgment.

                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:          May 13, 2004

Date Decided:             May 14, 2004

Do Not Publish