ORIGINAL™5 COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS
COURT OF CRllilML APPEALS CASE NUMBER PD- COURT OF APPEALS CASE ^MBER™*™™"™* DEC 18 2015
ob-m-oom-m ' ' u Abel Acosta. Clerk
BEHHIE JOHNSON, JR. FLED IN Pe-f/f/nner COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS \/ ' DtC 1.8 Zvjjss
Ab©l Acosta, Clerk 5//l/t C/l ILAI1J, Respondent.
, PETI770/V FOR DISCRETIONARY REV/EW FffOM ,, JU6MENT OF THE" S/X'ffl COURTOFAPPEALS
Parrick D. Moreno, TmNo.011523% t1ofkUShlesUn,i. 306DFM35M Qeaumon^Tx,77765 La/man tor Peiiiioner rage
TABLE OF CONTENTS j TABLEOFJMTHORITIES.,, .... iif STATEMENTREGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.. V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE vi STATEMENTOFPROCEDURAL UlSTORV. vi QUESTIONS PRESEHTED FOR RFMIE13 1 mUMFHT... a -i- Introduction. *.-..,.......,,_,,,,,. .. %
JL. Discussion .,,*.,- 4 /I,The Evidence is Nor SuPPicienh to Sup- norr {he Con\iichon oP Aqqravated Sexua I rAssauH^ ..,.?? ;._.. . M daor Counsel to ResT On aTrialSirateqy Necessities the Existence aPOne. Openinq {he OoorvD Exhaneous OPfense Cannot Be Considered Reas^nablelrialStftnegy^^ iv
I 1
C.Tr/a/ Counsels failure to Investigate, de - Velcf^and Present Evidence oPf\\ternative DklA lestinaMo Tactical Reason in failina +o A-Hock Veraciiy oP"Rape"Evidence.,. .1 J1L norm.,., . •8 PR/IYER FORREL/EF .
t e
JJ TARIFF AUTHORITIES
Page lexas Cases
Wernanrlez v. Sink 726SU2d'53,57 Clex.Crim.App.W26l ...6 Mnrhn v, SEnfe, 76IS.LJ.2d 876,8SO (Tex.App. -fiusFin \m) 39 Thompson v. %rk: 9 SM 33 80S, 813 1 (Tex.Crlm.Ao. IW) 8 [dicker v. Skk. 667 SH2d 137, H2 \lex,Cc,f\op. )i8M) 8
Federnl Coses
ferryman v. Morton, 100 F3d 1089 (CR3 M%)...3 Waynes v. Cain. 292 F3d 315,380,311 (5^dr. 2002).. .7 Lunberry v. Hornhenk, 60S F3d 75M (CA 9 2010) .3
Supreme Courr Cases fle//v. Cnne. 535 U.S. 625, 111 S.CI 12% 1251 (2602). . . 7 JJJ. *«W Crane v. Kerrlucky Ml6 US. 683,690, ~~^ 106 S.Cb 2H2 (I9M) 3 \n re Oliver..333 US. 257, 63S. Cb 411(1942). H Jackson v. Virdah, 433 U.S. 301,320 J Q9 S.Cb. 2121 0979). 2 He Warn v. Ridhnrd&n, 391113.7W 11In. id qos.cb.MLimOmo) £ PoLOellv. Alabama, 221 U,S,45,53S,Cb.55(l(?32)...,.6 Strickland v. Uasbinamn 466 US. 66$ ~ MS.Cb 2d52 (mi) &,7 UnS-kd&hhs v. Cranie. 466 U.S. 64?, 66d, 16)43Cb 26)3%2S47(MM)...6,1 Mashln^n v. Skrhsd"Texas.322U.S. H, 27S.e+./920 (196?) 3,4 Texas Cansh-krn'on nrbicle I, Section Id .6 Un'rfaU S-bhs ConsT/TuTidri, U.S.6.A. SixlhadlzM-f&Ji. ,o Texas renal Crude
Tex. Penal Code §2% 621.., VI, 4
IV STATEMENT-REfi/JMB OMLMBUMENT
Oral arqumenF )s ?equesFeJi.
V. STATEMENT OF THE CME
Mr. Jphnsqri ujas convicted oPao^ravared sec- ual assautr. See Iems Penal Code §22.021, AjuryHaid Johnson auilty and assessedpunishment- cxtmultiple iiPe sentences, do be served Consecutively in the lexos (tepacTfYienT oPCriminal dushce -\r\srituriona\ division, A^ucke sentenced Johnson accordingly. (CR. 7$). Johnsons deFeoze htoyer, Mr. John Stroud, askedthe \rial Judge Bobby Ldckhad cxhout -testifying ~k> a Consensual dePense before trialandoutof^the hmrim oPihejury, (RR2 pp. 15,16). J Tudqe Lockhod -men asked iP Mr. Stroud hod ad~ \lised Johnson itort he uixddheve 4d testify in ordertz present aConsensual sex dePense. CRRS^pp l£S-llo\ S1KFEMENT OFPROCEDURAL HISTORY
Tjohnson appealed a conviction oPaaaravated sexualazsaultj Cause number d^-N-Ooi^1!-CRt lis appellate lawyer File on Anders br/eP and Motion trc iuithdrauj on April 11, 20I5> Johnson filed apro & brieP appealing his oonviedrion on -three points oPerror CnTulyl3,2flf. The Sixth Courr of nppetxU upheld W ludw&nr and sentence \nhh\zCase. iAHadmeni /t)^
VI. QlBVOm PRESENTED FOR RfVIEbl
I idhether the evidence ah trial \s suFPidenh to Suppoda (Conviction oPaqaravated sexadassaalr, 2. Uheiner dePense Counsel u)aspreparedand presented any irial strategy in dhis cose., 3, Uhcther Counsel investiqahdj developed, and DOZsenfad evidence for a cdtto alternative OftA {esf\A<^ and aihdk'the veracdy Op Victims outcry, /)ftfi(MNT I. ItmODUCTIOM
Uhe-ther -there uJas evidence -to support convic tion oPamravated sexual assault is a cjuesiion &P Pod and law. Jackson v. Virginia /M'.? U.S. ini.?)/). Inveshaector Daphne Stiles trestiPiedthat the victim's medical records did not have median she sup- percd Ony in juries. CRRS, p. 96), Mrs. Sti \es Pudher testi - Pied thdFPe lock aP injuries didfid Cern heraiven her 27yearsoPexperience in lau) enforcement-, CnR^p^l), Krisiy Pink Prom Phe Terns OPS Crime Loh testified thatanalysis ujus performed oP the sexual assault kit and The sperm cell Predion khs Consistent- with amixture aP Johnson, h~he vidim, and an unknaon individual, CRR2,pp,l25il3l). Johnson UJillindy alloived bet. Brad Thacker obtain a £W/9 sampPe fCRR8,fl.l3t 74), The victim heshiFtedhnatron Tune 2b, 2012, she had leP-t a "parly'" Qnd a Friends apartment cmd UJas ujalfonq daoon Robison (U> CRRSJpp. M3'WX Armn in a black Sli\J oPFered her a ride and she reco^ - nized him so she accept&d, CRR2,p.W)> The man shhed he neededto make a sdvp betare dakinj dhe Miedim on her dashnation. According ^ He Vicrim^ dne man pulledinio a lot, pulledodra^un} puiit 'ta her head/ and demandedora.Isex, CkRV, p. Hl), She Pudher iestiPed' thatsheJumped'outoPrhe -truck, but the man chased, Gaivyhtr herand 'dhreoo ''her onto z. the lot, or,on the around. (RR2tp.M%). held aqun to her head and sexually assaulted her (RRfyp.m). She Further testified She had "sexual intercourse'' (not lave) Dim her Piance^Michael, "(RR2,p 158), that morning, Mr. Shroud hells Johnson thd the only uJay to raise a Consensual sex defense utts to either through his shapement ho the police or look the jury "in the eye ' in -testifying To the caurtroam his defense, (RRS,p. \(&-&). It is clear that Johnson's dePense attorney ujos illprepared (-or trial Par uJas he prepared for any strategy in Jahnsan's dePense, Due process includes a right to'a meaningPd op portunity to present a Complete dePensed' Lunherry v. Horn - heap 605 F3d 75V COt 9 2dIO)Ceding Cranev, Kentucky, M76 US. 6$3( 690, Ip6 S. Gh 2m (/9M). "For counsel Po rest on aSTrategy' necessitates trhc existence oPone'This Case lacked strategy/opening The door 'ho otherwise in - admissible evidence ivhere The vicTi/n is the State's dhieP UJrtness is not reasonable ePPeod-veassishanceoP Counsel as auananreed ho Hahnsan in tine S/'xih Plryiendmorr U,S£.A> Berryman v. Marion. 100 PodT0?lCCA3 IW&). hnally, fir. Stroud s Pailure To ascertain the Po,ds} investigateJ develop andpresenh evidence., for one, adernaT/ve ddd TesThg,ha^ nadzxdiaalreasoning in to presanha dedense, andcaiIunfitnesses in favor the Slates, This 3, Coud had occasion in In re Oliver 333 U.S. 257, 62S,C~h HW Cl9lfS)/ tcD descrihe uhahd regardedos dhe most basic ingredients oPdue pracess oPlaid.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ORIGINAL™5 COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS
COURT OF CRllilML APPEALS CASE NUMBER PD- COURT OF APPEALS CASE ^MBER™*™™"™* DEC 18 2015
ob-m-oom-m ' ' u Abel Acosta. Clerk
BEHHIE JOHNSON, JR. FLED IN Pe-f/f/nner COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS \/ ' DtC 1.8 Zvjjss
Ab©l Acosta, Clerk 5//l/t C/l ILAI1J, Respondent.
, PETI770/V FOR DISCRETIONARY REV/EW FffOM ,, JU6MENT OF THE" S/X'ffl COURTOFAPPEALS
Parrick D. Moreno, TmNo.011523% t1ofkUShlesUn,i. 306DFM35M Qeaumon^Tx,77765 La/man tor Peiiiioner rage
TABLE OF CONTENTS j TABLEOFJMTHORITIES.,, .... iif STATEMENTREGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.. V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE vi STATEMENTOFPROCEDURAL UlSTORV. vi QUESTIONS PRESEHTED FOR RFMIE13 1 mUMFHT... a -i- Introduction. *.-..,.......,,_,,,,,. .. %
JL. Discussion .,,*.,- 4 /I,The Evidence is Nor SuPPicienh to Sup- norr {he Con\iichon oP Aqqravated Sexua I rAssauH^ ..,.?? ;._.. . M daor Counsel to ResT On aTrialSirateqy Necessities the Existence aPOne. Openinq {he OoorvD Exhaneous OPfense Cannot Be Considered Reas^nablelrialStftnegy^^ iv
I 1
C.Tr/a/ Counsels failure to Investigate, de - Velcf^and Present Evidence oPf\\ternative DklA lestinaMo Tactical Reason in failina +o A-Hock Veraciiy oP"Rape"Evidence.,. .1 J1L norm.,., . •8 PR/IYER FORREL/EF .
t e
JJ TARIFF AUTHORITIES
Page lexas Cases
Wernanrlez v. Sink 726SU2d'53,57 Clex.Crim.App.W26l ...6 Mnrhn v, SEnfe, 76IS.LJ.2d 876,8SO (Tex.App. -fiusFin \m) 39 Thompson v. %rk: 9 SM 33 80S, 813 1 (Tex.Crlm.Ao. IW) 8 [dicker v. Skk. 667 SH2d 137, H2 \lex,Cc,f\op. )i8M) 8
Federnl Coses
ferryman v. Morton, 100 F3d 1089 (CR3 M%)...3 Waynes v. Cain. 292 F3d 315,380,311 (5^dr. 2002).. .7 Lunberry v. Hornhenk, 60S F3d 75M (CA 9 2010) .3
Supreme Courr Cases fle//v. Cnne. 535 U.S. 625, 111 S.CI 12% 1251 (2602). . . 7 JJJ. *«W Crane v. Kerrlucky Ml6 US. 683,690, ~~^ 106 S.Cb 2H2 (I9M) 3 \n re Oliver..333 US. 257, 63S. Cb 411(1942). H Jackson v. Virdah, 433 U.S. 301,320 J Q9 S.Cb. 2121 0979). 2 He Warn v. Ridhnrd&n, 391113.7W 11In. id qos.cb.MLimOmo) £ PoLOellv. Alabama, 221 U,S,45,53S,Cb.55(l(?32)...,.6 Strickland v. Uasbinamn 466 US. 66$ ~ MS.Cb 2d52 (mi) &,7 UnS-kd&hhs v. Cranie. 466 U.S. 64?, 66d, 16)43Cb 26)3%2S47(MM)...6,1 Mashln^n v. Skrhsd"Texas.322U.S. H, 27S.e+./920 (196?) 3,4 Texas Cansh-krn'on nrbicle I, Section Id .6 Un'rfaU S-bhs ConsT/TuTidri, U.S.6.A. SixlhadlzM-f&Ji. ,o Texas renal Crude
Tex. Penal Code §2% 621.., VI, 4
IV STATEMENT-REfi/JMB OMLMBUMENT
Oral arqumenF )s ?equesFeJi.
V. STATEMENT OF THE CME
Mr. Jphnsqri ujas convicted oPao^ravared sec- ual assautr. See Iems Penal Code §22.021, AjuryHaid Johnson auilty and assessedpunishment- cxtmultiple iiPe sentences, do be served Consecutively in the lexos (tepacTfYienT oPCriminal dushce -\r\srituriona\ division, A^ucke sentenced Johnson accordingly. (CR. 7$). Johnsons deFeoze htoyer, Mr. John Stroud, askedthe \rial Judge Bobby Ldckhad cxhout -testifying ~k> a Consensual dePense before trialandoutof^the hmrim oPihejury, (RR2 pp. 15,16). J Tudqe Lockhod -men asked iP Mr. Stroud hod ad~ \lised Johnson itort he uixddheve 4d testify in ordertz present aConsensual sex dePense. CRRS^pp l£S-llo\ S1KFEMENT OFPROCEDURAL HISTORY
Tjohnson appealed a conviction oPaaaravated sexualazsaultj Cause number d^-N-Ooi^1!-CRt lis appellate lawyer File on Anders br/eP and Motion trc iuithdrauj on April 11, 20I5> Johnson filed apro & brieP appealing his oonviedrion on -three points oPerror CnTulyl3,2flf. The Sixth Courr of nppetxU upheld W ludw&nr and sentence \nhh\zCase. iAHadmeni /t)^
VI. QlBVOm PRESENTED FOR RfVIEbl
I idhether the evidence ah trial \s suFPidenh to Suppoda (Conviction oPaqaravated sexadassaalr, 2. Uheiner dePense Counsel u)aspreparedand presented any irial strategy in dhis cose., 3, Uhcther Counsel investiqahdj developed, and DOZsenfad evidence for a cdtto alternative OftA {esf\A<^ and aihdk'the veracdy Op Victims outcry, /)ftfi(MNT I. ItmODUCTIOM
Uhe-ther -there uJas evidence -to support convic tion oPamravated sexual assault is a cjuesiion &P Pod and law. Jackson v. Virginia /M'.? U.S. ini.?)/). Inveshaector Daphne Stiles trestiPiedthat the victim's medical records did not have median she sup- percd Ony in juries. CRRS, p. 96), Mrs. Sti \es Pudher testi - Pied thdFPe lock aP injuries didfid Cern heraiven her 27yearsoPexperience in lau) enforcement-, CnR^p^l), Krisiy Pink Prom Phe Terns OPS Crime Loh testified thatanalysis ujus performed oP the sexual assault kit and The sperm cell Predion khs Consistent- with amixture aP Johnson, h~he vidim, and an unknaon individual, CRR2,pp,l25il3l). Johnson UJillindy alloived bet. Brad Thacker obtain a £W/9 sampPe fCRR8,fl.l3t 74), The victim heshiFtedhnatron Tune 2b, 2012, she had leP-t a "parly'" Qnd a Friends apartment cmd UJas ujalfonq daoon Robison (U> CRRSJpp. M3'WX Armn in a black Sli\J oPFered her a ride and she reco^ - nized him so she accept&d, CRR2,p.W)> The man shhed he neededto make a sdvp betare dakinj dhe Miedim on her dashnation. According ^ He Vicrim^ dne man pulledinio a lot, pulledodra^un} puiit 'ta her head/ and demandedora.Isex, CkRV, p. Hl), She Pudher iestiPed' thatsheJumped'outoPrhe -truck, but the man chased, Gaivyhtr herand 'dhreoo ''her onto z. the lot, or,on the around. (RR2tp.M%). held aqun to her head and sexually assaulted her (RRfyp.m). She Further testified She had "sexual intercourse'' (not lave) Dim her Piance^Michael, "(RR2,p 158), that morning, Mr. Shroud hells Johnson thd the only uJay to raise a Consensual sex defense utts to either through his shapement ho the police or look the jury "in the eye ' in -testifying To the caurtroam his defense, (RRS,p. \(&-&). It is clear that Johnson's dePense attorney ujos illprepared (-or trial Par uJas he prepared for any strategy in Jahnsan's dePense, Due process includes a right to'a meaningPd op portunity to present a Complete dePensed' Lunherry v. Horn - heap 605 F3d 75V COt 9 2dIO)Ceding Cranev, Kentucky, M76 US. 6$3( 690, Ip6 S. Gh 2m (/9M). "For counsel Po rest on aSTrategy' necessitates trhc existence oPone'This Case lacked strategy/opening The door 'ho otherwise in - admissible evidence ivhere The vicTi/n is the State's dhieP UJrtness is not reasonable ePPeod-veassishanceoP Counsel as auananreed ho Hahnsan in tine S/'xih Plryiendmorr U,S£.A> Berryman v. Marion. 100 PodT0?lCCA3 IW&). hnally, fir. Stroud s Pailure To ascertain the Po,ds} investigateJ develop andpresenh evidence., for one, adernaT/ve ddd TesThg,ha^ nadzxdiaalreasoning in to presanha dedense, andcaiIunfitnesses in favor the Slates, This 3, Coud had occasion in In re Oliver 333 U.S. 257, 62S,C~h HW Cl9lfS)/ tcD descrihe uhahd regardedos dhe most basic ingredients oPdue pracess oPlaid. The right to oPPer -the resrionony aPwitnesses, and-to Compel their cxHendance/ ifaccessary/ is inplain Terms the riaht to present a defense 'the right ho pressor -the de fendant's Version oPthe facts as ue//as thepraseeuT/on's \othe jurySo it may decide inhere rhe Truth lies, Tushas an accusedhas the righh To conProni the prosecution's U)itnesses for -the purchase oPchallenging their T~eshim^r\y, he has the right ho present hisoun lortnesses ~k establish a dePense, Idoh 1923,
X DISCUSSION f\. The Evidence is Not SuPflcienT ho Support the Conviction oP ftggravated Sexual nssaulh Mr. Johnson subrnds hhahthe evidence pre sented aP Trial is noh suPPicient ho supped the Conviction oP agarcwahedsexualassault; Under the (exas Penal Code %22.021. Toprevail in a cose oPaggravated sexuoxlassault, the Stahe nnusTprove heyanda reasonable doubt{he defendant intentionally orknotoinaly causes the penetration oPhhe anus or^sexualorgan danotherperson by any means idithad thahperson's consent, and by acts orujords/ places ~me vicT'/v in fear TlnaiaPeam, serious bodily in ~ jury, or kidnapping u)ill imminently inPlidredupon any persons or, by acts or ujards occurring in the presence 4' Or the \licd\m, threatens To causeihe death, serious bodily injury, Or kidnapping oPany person, Kick only does Johnson argues that'evidence is InsuPPicienh because aP lestiMdny aPivihnesses agree - ing That medical andphysicalevidence ts nol-cansis - PenkuJith sexual assaulh huh that there uJas sexual intercourse by ihese tua Cansenhina adults, There uJas A9 physicalor verbal abuse, i,e., any threats made, Only a- knoujn pnohestuhe Trying To make fOoney Hr her drUQ Pabih dhah is smoking CrackXRRS^p.KZpzT), Idhen ihe victim didnT geh the awounb oP Money she /kJOs looking for she hollered Cape irt Pehdliadion To Johnson and, tor nop taking her do a knoion drug Oeigh - borhood in the early hours cPdhe DighT Johnson alse> belFeves dhat "Hiehael'is not the USlA oP-the other Unknown speei/nen as tashiRed by the \JicttmdRR$J).lSSX Siyly because 'Wehaelds Dotthcviehms riance. in Fad, Flichael is involved Ldith someone else by Common laud, Pudhermore, hhe empty loh hhc vietirn claims John son Threuj nerdouonan is Put'/ aP roel
Q, For Counsel To Rest On oPTrial Shafegy Necessitates the Existence of One, Open ing the Door ha Extraneous Offense Connoh Be Considered Reasonable Trial Shrategy. The nam ho be represented by Counsel is by farthe (ndstimporhntoP adependant's constitutional rights be cause it aPFects the ability oPa defendant Pa assert a myraid aPother rights, as Justice Sutherland explained in ^ellvPrtlobarna^Slldd. *\5,53 S.Ch 55(1432). The right- to assistance oP counsel is guaranteed by the Sixth ara fourteenth Amendments oPhne united States Conshtuhian andArticle I, Sechinn ID aPthclexas ConsPdu - Mon. This right to the assistance aPeounsd has long been understoodto include o ridt to ePPedive assistance oP counsel. "See he Mann vRidadson, 317U.S. 15% 711, n. Id, qoSChMidlWCmd)' The Texas Courtat CriminalAppeals in Hernandez v, State, 716S^2d53,57(Tex.&imJfpd^)adopted the Strickland (* Idbshington. 166U.sMz/dt'SM2o"5Z0W)) test as dieproper hesh understate hid fo qauge the ePPeet- iveness oPcounse I Johnson Contends that his'trial aHorney s assis - hnce Idas so extremely small thaThe Philedh completely da subject ttieprdsectdion's- ease tomeaninaPu/hdr^g adversaria Iheading, UnitedStates v, fame.. A66 U. S, 6*1$, 660,1015,Ch2A3qp20ll7(mS)t By opening thecbdr to L dXrroneaus drpense it uas extremely prejudicial to Johnson's defense and undermined hhe reliability of the Pirdina oP qmlh UnitedStdes ^cSr^nir.. cd 6,5*1 n. 26, lot SXTatmin.26. iir Shroud's failure to ascertainthe fads and to l/V]peach Ms, Peoples, hhe Shdc'sdhiePuJitness, by uJay dr"investigating to develop andpresentevidence, i. e,, ho have ]r\ichad'' Tedcdas do sae ujhdher arPot he is the ud
Ms Peoples'ptesti'manyAcv)d'show theJury that MsMopk IS uJas in Pachnot rapedhut hcdindeedConsented'to 6exual intercourse uith Tohnson* Sohnsons attorney Completely Failed to challenge dheprosaeidbns entire Case, .' netdust elemeds oPit. hhyfies v. Cain, 2iSF.3d375 3$0, 3$Z (5th Or. 2002)en bane/ aIso see Bel/y, Cone, 5~35 Ud 6*25,122 S. St, im, 1^5/ (2002)(notag "the d/fPer^ce betiveen situations addressed by Strickland andCranio, is unodoPdearee butof kind. '')> To have Johnson tedifyy Rather than Pa eFPschive eross- examination oFhs.Peoples and' presmLujitness(es) on his behalf, "Michael, *Johnsons mawcrujho knotcs tTidiael to be involved ddh someone, Cannot be Considered reasonable trialslrde^y uJnen purring his clientan dhe stand apens the door ho extraneous aP- Pen es.
C. Trial Counsel's Failure ho Investigate. De Velnp, and fhesenhtvidence aPltlfernahive DAI/1 Testing, UNt fto TacTcatReason jesting, no in fui/inc laevcal Reason m run To Itttack Veracity oP Rape Evidence.
7 ' r\ Rarely UJill a revieuina Court be provided uiiththe op ~ borturiTy do woke its dehrmination on diredappeal u.dh a record Capable oPprdvidlng aJam evaluation aPthe merits aPhhe UnePFechive OSSidancd claim,,.," Thomson v. State, 9S,U,3d t6% m(l^.&^dppt IWl This Court should CeaieuJ and ask Johnson's attorney>, Fir Stroud, uirnh triaI strategy uJas there putting his client on the stand, (RRS,pp\5,l6), ' J Idkle the Shff's medical anadsis provided three (3) s>Pecimen$> aP bbjft f evidence, iPil^e StaheToakds CJniePwitness'hided, Ms.Peoples, that the ThiPd'UA" kncion "specimen uJas her Fiance, 'dhen it uSduld be reasanable to conclude that Caanseldhould have Colled Phr a dePence medical expert do test The "an - kbuJn °specimen da see i/p in fact, it uJas fTichael's- b/\IA etna/dhe i)eed tor impeachment^>Fevidence, A process cTelimination/Carroharahinz sliaulolbe applied in this Cirumstantial Oase.Ldictcr y. State, £6 75,Ui2d \37diZ(TexCc. Apf>dW)> It is reasonable To bel/eye that fds. Peoples uas engaged inprasditutian anddoes i)dkaou) uiha the thirdsped/men belongs tz>, (RFZpJdo), ftnd.under thd. inF/uenee pFdrugs aundalcohol-the real reason shedia/ntuti/it hz> edit 9dd,
he. mm The Shahe araues thaho reasonable jury hound be yond a reasonable doubt that fjonnson Comalted trie oPPense as chamed. But ujithout C^ntr^vedin^ the thid Specimen Fund mtie testing oP the bitft, theJury uJas not Prec to determine tdhere Ihe trull IfeJ* Morten v- Slate, 161 S.U2d $16,220 (TexJpp. -Austin !
ffMYER FOR RELIEF For the roreaoina ceasens, Johnson prays thdthis Honorable Courtshould Srant this Pet'itibn fir bis - Cretidnary Revieu and review the judgment by the Texas Sixth Court oPAppeals in this ease,
(xespechPully submitted,
Patrick b. Fbreno, fltitio^r pennte Johnson, Jr., Hppe/lav)f TbCjdo.i75233& TDCTdo. tf7DO>53 Mad Id. Stiles Unri YWk Id. STPks Unit 3060 FM 35/d 30)60) FM 3dH Beaumont Id&s 77705' (deau/nantrle^s ?7?<45" layman For Appellant r<^ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE T Qennie Johnson,Tr.,cto hereby CertiFy thai; OH this tV* dasy nP Qgggmher / 26> is- ; 1 Caused a Copy or the foregoing document -fa be Served by First class maijnoddge prepaidf on the DOLuie County Districh Attorney's aPPice, 601 Plain Shy TexarkaneiJexas 1550b and the State fhsecutina Attorney, HO, 8n* J30% Austin, Texas. 727fL PursLd toTexKAppT68Jh 1jennti ^yeLvr^ fin. oennie Johnson/Tr.,&ii4ioner roahk>.mO053
CERVFICBTE OF COMPLMCE This brieP Complies uuith Tex. R. App. P. 68.5, no long - er than 15pagesf exclusive aPpages indexoPauthori - pies, sidemenTregarding sral araument, statement oP the Case, statement oPprocedural history, andthe appendix,
Bennie Johnson, Jr., Pro Se TDCJ No. M70O53
Appendix Pollaus- (i.e., Sixth Court dpAppeals' Tudarnentand Opinion ),
10. Abe\ Acosta.ClerK /2our+ o-P Qrinnal
aix4h Cour+ dc Appmls 3uc\qmer4 Chief Justice Court ofAppeals Clerk J0SHR. M0RRISS, III Debra K. Autrey Sixth Appellate District Justices State of Texas Bi-State JusticeBuilding CEBL Bailey C. Moseley 100 North State Line Avenue #20
Ralph K. Burgess Texarkana, Texas 75501 (903)798-3046
October 14, 2015
Lauren Sutton Bennie Johnson Junior Assistant District Attorney TDCJ-ID# 1970053 601 Main St Stiles Unit Texarkana, TX 75501 3060 FM 3514 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Beaumont, TX 77705
Derric Scott McFarland Attorney at Law 602 Pine Street Texarkana, TX 75504 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
RE: Appellate Case Number: 06-14-00194-CR Trial Court Case Number: 12F0821-102
Style: Bennie Johnson, Jr. v.
The State of Texas
The Judgment of the Trial Court in the referenced proceeding on appeal from Bowie County was this date AFFIRMED, in conformity with the written Opinion of this Court of even date.
A true copy of this Court's Opinion and Judgment i« enclosed. J Respectfully submitted,
Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
By. Deputy
cc: Hon. Bobby Lockhart (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Billy Fox (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-14-00194-CR
BENNIE JOHNSON, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 12F0821-102
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Carter*, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
*JackCarter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment MEMORANDUM OPINION
Bennie Johnson, Jr., appeals his conviction by a jury of aggravated sexual assault. See
Tex. PenalCode Ann. §22.021 (West Supp. 2014). Johnson was sentenced to life imprisonment and was represented by different appointed counsel attrial and on appeal.
Johnson's attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
trial proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding. Counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal, thus complying with the requirements ofAnders v. California. 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967). See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Johnson has filed a pro se response in which he argues (1) that the evidence is insufficient
to support the conviction ofaggravated sexual assault and (2) that trial counsel was ineffective (a) in failing to provide a proper trial strategy, (b) by "opening the door" to extraneous offense
evidence, and (c) by failing to investigate alternative DNA.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed
the entire record, as well as Johnson's pro se brief and the State's response, and find that no
genuinely arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the judgment ofthe trial court.1
j
Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: October 12, 2015 Date Decided: October 14, 2015
Do Not Publish
'Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review orappellant must file flDjnjg^ petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty day^lr^ej^e^rthj^ate ,,.. of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this C(Mirt+h.^cf^x^^."''s App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk ofthe Texas Court oVCriminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any / petition *:*;~- fJ- for discretionary review should comply with thf^quiremenjts.of ellate Procedure See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. Rule 68.4 ofthe Texas Rules of Appel ^ ' ' l' ^Oks 3 lexark iSxas Debra K. •v. ClPrk Court of Appeals Sixth Appel ate District of Texas
JUDGMENT
Bennie Johnson, Jr., Appellant Appeal from the 102nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. No. 06-14-00194-CR v. 12F0821-102). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter*, The State of Texas, Appellee participating. Sitting by assignment.
As stated in the Court's opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment ofthe court below. We affirm the judgment ofthe tria court.
We note that the appellant, Bennie! Johnson, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive bayment of costs.
RENDERED OCTOBER 14, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk