ACCEPTED 06-17-00102-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 6/5/2018 11:37 AM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK NO. 06-17-00102-CV
FILED IN In the Court of Appeals 6th COURT OF APPEALS For the TEXARKANA, TEXAS Sixth Supreme Judicial District at 6/5/2018 11:37:21 AM Texarkana, Texas DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
RrcnnnD H. Dnnw, III Appellant
vs.
A.C.B. Appellee
Appnr,Lnnts Bnrpr WRAY, Wrr,r,nrr & Srorrnn, PLLC
Jason M. Willett State Bar No. 00788669 200 A. North Rogers Street Waxahachie, Texas 7 5 165 Telephone: (972) 93 8- I 850 Facsimile : (972) 937 -6844 Email : jason@elliscountylaw.com
Attorney for Appellee A.C.B.
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED NO. 06- 17-00 t02-CV
RICFIARD H. DREV/, III. $ IN TFIE SIXTH COURT OF $ APPEALS Appellant, $ $ VS. $ $ A.C.B., $ $ Appellee $ TEXARKANA, TEXAS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellee certifies that the following is a complete list of the parties, attorneys,
and any other person who has any interest in the outcome of this lawsuit.
APPELLANT: Richard H. Drew, III APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: Daniel L. Barnes Attorney atLaw 306 Sixth Street Waxahachie, Texas 75 165 Telephone: (8 17) 300-217 5 Facsimile : (97 2) 923 -9606 Email : danielbarneslaw@email.com
APPELLEE: A.C.B.
APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY: Jason M. Willett \Mray, Willett & Stoffer, PLLC 200 A. North Rogers Street W'axahachie, Texas 75165 Telephone: (97 2) 93 8- 1 85 0 Facsimile : (972) 937 -6844 Email: iason@,e lliscountvlaw.com
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pnce 2or23 AppgLLgB's Bnrp¡ TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES... .2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE..... .......5
ISSUES PRESENTED 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS. 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....10
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES t2
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.... .......21
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 22
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 23
No. 06-17-00102-CV P¡.ce 3 op 23 AppplLee's BRIer INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Ater v. Ellis, 227 5.W.222 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1921, writ dismissed w.oj.) 15
DeLeon v. Hernandez, 814 S.W. 2d 531 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] l99l)............ ........17
Fulmer v. Thompson, 573 S.W. 2d256 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, writ refused n.r.e.) t8
Operation Res cue-Nat' I v. P lanned P arentho od, 975 S.W.zd546,560 (Tex. 1998) I2
Priest v. Texqs Animal Health Commission, 780 S.W. 2d,874,875 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1989, no writ) t2
Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3 d 423,427 (Tex.2004)...... ..... 18
San Saba Energy, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.W.3 d323,337 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.)...... l8
Sixth RMA Partners v. Sibley, 111 S.W. 3d 46,52 (Tex.2003) t7
Rules
TEX.R.APP. P. 38.1(h) 18
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pece 4op23 AppgLLep's BRle¡ NO. 06-17-00102-CV
RICHARD H. DREW, III. $ IN TIIE SIXTH COURT OF $ APPEALS Appellant, $ $ VS $ $ A.C.B., $ $ Appellee $ TEXARKANA, TEXAS
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
Appellee, A.C.B., files her Briet and will be hereinafter referred to as "Appellee" or "4.C.8." Appellant is RICHARD H. DREW, III, referred to as "Appellant" or 'oRichard" in this brief.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A.C.B. filed an Original Petition, Application for Injunctive Relief and
Application for Ex Parte Restraining Order on October 19,2016 (CR, I, p. 1) That
same day the Court signed a Temporary Restraining Order, which in essence,
prohibited all contact or communication between the parties (CR, I, p. 20). The
Order was personally served upon the Appellant (CR, I, p. 30). A Temporary
Injunction hearing was held on November 2,2016 (CR, I, p. 38). Appellant did not
appear at the hearing, and a Temporary Injunction was entered by the Trial Court
which included notice of a final trial setting on JuIy 7, 2017 (CR, I, p. 39). The
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pece 5 o¡ 23 Appgll,Be's BRIS¡ Temporary Injunction was also personally served upon the Appellant (CR, I, p. 48)
A bench trial was held on JuIy 7,2017, on Plaintifls tort claim of civil assault and
request for permanent injunction against Defendanl Appellant (RR, I, p. l). The
Appellant appeared in person, pro se, but did not file an answer, motion or other
request for relief of any kind. Both parties announced ready for trial. (RR, I, p.7)
No legal objections were lodged by Appellant during the trial to any testimony or
evidence. The Trial Court announced its judgment from the bench on the day of trial
on the record (RR, p.8a-86). A Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction was
signed and entered July 24,2017 (CR, I, p. 50). Post-trial, the Appellant retained
counsel and a Motion forNew Trial was filed on July 25,2017, which was thereafter
denied (CR, I, p. 48). The Trial Court's Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction
continued the "no contact" terms of the prior order (with a modification to remove
A.C.B.'s father from the requirements of the Injunction) and awarded her monetary
relief of $10,000.00, for actual damages on her assault claim. Appellee urges this
Court to affirm the Trial Court's judgment.
No. 06-17-00102-CV Prcp 6op23 AppeLLse's Bnrs¡ ISSUES PRESENTED BY APPELLANT
ISSUE NO. 1: The Order granting a perrnanent injunction should be vacated
since Plaintiff (A.C.B.) failed to establish that she was in
imminent danger from the Defendant (Appellant)
ISSUE NO.2: The Order granting $10,000.00 in damages should be vacated
since no evidence at trial established or proved any damages. In
Plaintiffs Original Petition, Application for Injunctive Relief,
and Application for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order,
Clerk's Record, Vol. I, Pages 6-12, Plaintiff (A.C.B.) pled for
attorney's fees, however, no attorney's fees were proved atTrial.
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pece 7 op23 AppeLLgp's Bnler STATEMENT OF FACTS
A.C.B. resided in Hampton, Georgia (RR, I, p. l2). She was eighteen years old (RR, I,p. I2). She came to Ellis County, Texas, on October 6,2016, to visit her
father (RR. I, p. I2). Upon returning to her father's residence in Midlothian, Texas,
she and her father discovered that her step-mother had committed suicide in the
home (RR, I,p.13-14). Members of both families came to Midlothian over the next
day or two (RR, I, p. 15). The Appellant is the biological son of the A.C.B.'s step-
mother, and lives in San Antonio, Texas. Id. Hewas26 years old (RR, I, p. 16). On
the night of October 8, 2016, family members gather at A.C.B.'s father's residence
trying to process the recent events. 1d. A.C.B. and Appellant were talking on the
porch of the home (RR, I, p. l9). After everyone had gone to bed, they began
kissing-which was not something they had ever done before. Id. Itwas an awkward
moment, and A.C.B. testified that they agreed to stop. Id. At the time, the Appellant's hands were on A.C.B.'s face. He then moved his hands down to her
neck, and the last thing she remembered was pressure on her neck (RR, I, p.20)
She awoke the next morning in her clothes, but without her bra and underwear. Id
As she began to piece together what had transpired, she felt as though the parties had
sexual intercours e. Id.
That morning, she spoke to the Appellant about what had transpired the night
before (RR, I, p. 2l). She specifically asked the Appellant if they had sex, and he
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pace I or 23 AppeLLpg's BRrpr confirmed that they had. Id. A.C.B. knew that she had not consented to such activity.
rd.
She also testified that, as a result of the sexual encounter with Appellant, she
suffered physical soreness in her groin and neck (RR, I, p.22), had dark symmetrical
bruises on her neck consistent with finger marks (RR, I, p. 24), sought medical
treatment at Parkland Hospital where she underwent rape kit testing, sought follow-
up treatment with multiple doctors and gynecologists (RR, I, p.25), withdrew from
college, lost her job (RR, I, p. 27), started taking antidepressants, (RR, I, p. 28)
sought counselling (RR, I, p.27), moved into a gated community with her parents
(RR, I, p.28), and was unable to sleep or rest well (RR, I, p. 28).
At trial, the Appellant generally affirmed these facts as alleged in A.C.B.'s
Petition (RR, I, p. 51-55), but denied that the sexual encounter was nonconsensual
(RR, I, p. 55). Although criminal charges were filed by Appellee, she concurs that
no formal criminal charges had been made against Appellant by law enforcement at
the time of trial (RR, I, p. 57)
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pacs 9 op23 AppgLLes's Bnre¡ SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ISSUE NO. 1: Both legally and factually sufficient evidence was presented at
trial to support the Trial Court's permanent injunction. A.C.B. established her
assault claim at trial against Appellant, and the imposition of a "no contact" injunction was warranted by the evidence and within the Court's discretion.
Appellant's complaint here is unclear. In parts of the Brief, he seems to suggest that
A.C.B. failed to establish a wrongful act and, as a direct result, thereby failed to
establish imminent harm. Alternatively, Appellant could also be arguing that A.C.B.
was required to show that there was an imminent threat of an assault between the
parties happening a second time in order to prevail on her request for a permanent
injunction going forward. It is just unclear. Moreover, the fact that formal criminal
proceedings against the Appellant had not been instituted as of the date of trial and
that he had not been formally charged with a crime does not create an automatic
basis for the Appellant to avoid injunctive relief or a civil damage claim.
ISSUE NO. 2: While Appellee's Original Petition did seek exemplary damages
and referenced attorney's fees in the Prayer section of the Petition, A.C.B. also
alleged that she was seeking'omonetary relief' for her "actual damages" and "bodily
injuries" proximately caused by the Appellant's assaultive conduct, and further
alleged that she sought all "other and further relief to which Plaintiff may show
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pnce l0 or 23 AppnLLgp's BRtp¡ entitlement at law or in equity." (CR, I, p. l-9). Ample evidence of both physical and mental bodily injuries was presented at trial to support the Trial Court's
Judgment. The Trial Court did not impose a criminal fine upon the Appellant and
clearly stated so on the record.
Finally, the Appellant's Brief is insufficient to provide fair notice to Appellee
and this Court regarding the precise Issues Presented on appeal
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pncs 11 o¡ 23 AppgLLgp's BRlep ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
ISSUE NO. 1 RESPONSE: The permanent injunction was properly granted
and should not be vacated.
In order to secure a peÍnanent injunction, A.C.B. was required to meet the
following elements: l) the existence of a wrongful act; 2)the existence of imminent
harm; 3) the existence of irreparable injury; and 4) the absence of an adequate
remedy at law. Priest v. Texas Animal Health Commission, TS0 S.W. 2d,874,875
(Tex. App.-Dallas 1989, no writ).
The grant or refusal of a permanent injunction is ordinarily within the trial
court's sound discretion and, on appeal, review of the trial court's action is limited
to the question of whether the action constituted a clear abuse of discretion. Id.;
Operotion Rescue-Nat'l v. Planned Parenthood,gTs S.W.zd546,560 (Tex. 1998).
A. Appellee established the existence of a wrongful act.
While Appellant states his first appellate issue relates to a lack of evidence
related to the "imminent harm" element, he seems to thereafter argue that A.C.B.
failed to establish a different elemsnf-6'¿ wrongful act."
To the contrary, attrial, A.C.B. offered the following evidence to establish a
wrongful act: 1) after the shocking suicide of her step-mother, the family gathered
to process the situation and console one another (RR, I, p. l6); 2) during the evening,
alcohol was consumed casually by both parties (RR, I, p. 17); 3) later in this
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pecp 12op23 AppeLLgg's Bzue¡ emotional evening, the parties began kissing (RR, I, p. 1Ð; Ð while kissing, A.C.B.
asked Appellant to stop (RR, I, p. 19); 5) after asking Appellant to stop, A.C.B. felt
pressure on her neck from Appellant's hands-which was the last thing she
remembered before being woke up the next day (RR, I, p. 19); 6) at the time of these
events, A.C.B. did not feel intoxicated, but did feel significantly disoriented (RR, I,
p. 19); 7) she awoke without her underwear on, and with pain in her groin and neck
(RR, l,p. 19-20); 8) A.C.B. had no recollection of having sexual intercourse with
Appellant (RR, I,p. 19-20); 9) A.C.B. had symmetrical bruises on her neck the next
day (RR, I,p.24); 10) Appellant admitted to having sexual intercourse with A.C.B.
(RR, l, p. 22, p. 55); and 11) A.C.B. did not consent to having sexual intercourse
with Appellant (RR. I, p.26). The Trial Court was the sole judge of the credibility
and demeanor of the witnesses before it. In part from this evidence, as well as all
the other evidence, the Trial Court determined that A.C.B. established and prevailed
on her assault claim-a wrongful act.
On the issue of credibility, Appellant did not do himself any favors. He was
highly evasive about: 1) his prior diagnoses for mental illness (RR, I,p.45-46, 51);
2) his prior prescription medications for mental illness (RR, I, p. 47); 3) his current
prescription medications on the day of trial (RR, I, p. 47); and 4) whether he had
been diagnosed with any type of substance abuse problems (RR, I, p. 50-51) Although he denied choking or causing her to pass out, Appellant admitted that he
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pnce 13 op 23 AppeLLee's Bruer had the military skills and training to apply pressure to the neck of another person to
do so (RR, I, p. 56).
Therefore, 1| Appellant's complaint is that A.C.B. failed to establish a
wrongful act, and that failure necessarily results in a lack of imminent harm, that
complaint fails for the reasons noted above.
However, if that is not his complaint, Appellant then seems to assert that proof
of an imminent new assault would be required to satisfy the imminent harm prong
However, Appellee should not be required to establish that Appellant was an
imminent threat to assault her again in order to obtain a permanent injunction
keeping him away from her. A prior physical altercation (especially an assault of a
sexual nature) and the reasonable belief that the parties should be permanently
enjoined from future contact in order to reduce the likelihood of continuing assaults,
confrontations or anxiety of such things is a prudent use of the injunctive remedy,
and generally common sense. After establishing that it happened in the past, the
"imminent harm" here is the permanent anguish and anxiety of having on-going
contact or communication with a person who sexually assaulted you, and the
unspeakable horror of the prospect that it could happen again.
Whether or not criminal charges were filed with law enforcement, whether a
law enforcement agency accepted those criminal charges, whether Appellant was
formerly charged or indicted, and whether Appellant was convicted of those charges
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pncp 14or23 AppeLLee's Bnlpr are all irrelevant issues to her claims of civil assault. Aterv. Ellis,227 5.W.222
(Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1921, writ dismissed w.oj.) (a party may be liable for
damages even though he may, under the facts, be relieved from responsibility for
criminal assault).
Accordingly, this Court should affirm the injunction.
ISSUE NO. 2 RESPONSE: The Trial Court's award of actual damages in
the amount of $10,000.00 to A.C.B. was
reasonable, and supported by the law and
evidence.
In addition to her actual damages, A.C.B. pled for exemplary damages and
attorney's fees in her petition, but requested neither at trial. Moreover, nothing in
the record or in the Court's Judgment suggests that the Trial Court awarded either.
Appellant's complaint is simply inaccurate. Those facts alone should resolve this
Issue. For ease of reference, the Court's ruling on the record is set forth as follows
"In Cause Number 94755, Plaintíff versus Richard Homan Drew, III, the Defendant, trial courtfinds infavor of Plaintiff A.C.B. as against the Defendant Richard Homan Drew, III.
Specifically, the trial courtfinds by a preponderance of the evidence presented here in court, along with any reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that the Plaintiff has proved her csse by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that is, the greater weight and degree of credible evidence, the so-called tipping of the scqles.
Trial court further finds that she's met all the elements for demonstrating that on the date in question, Defendant Mr. Drew, knowingly or intentionally caused an assault against Plaintffi to-wit, a sexual assault, nonconsensual sex.
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pnce 15 on 23 AppnLLgg's BRrep In terms of remedies, the trial court hereby makes all the necessqry predicate findings for q permqnent injunction, and, therefore, at this time, Richard Homan Drew, III, you are hereby permanently prohibited and enjoinedfrom the following conduct:
Number l, contacting or communicating directly or indirectly with PlaintiffA.C.B., by any method of communicqtion, including telephone, cellular telephone, email, text, letter or social media platform;
Number 2, comingwithin or beingwithin l000feet of her presence at any location,
And Numbcr 3, you're further enjoined, prohibited from coming within or being present within l000feet of her residence, current residence being 5613 Cornelio Court, Midlothian, Texas.
I want to be clear that there's no injunction in any way, shape orþrm with respect to Joseph Broolcshire and any prior Restraining Order or Injunction is hereby lifted with respect to.
Mr. Drew, I understand that currently you are not represented in the probate and you are free to contact Mn Brookshire or Mr. Brookshire's attorney within the rules that are established by the Probate Court. So, no injunction infavor of Joseph Brookshire.
In terms of monetary damages, there was very little testimony concerning damages. At the end of the day there's no amount of money that could compensate A.C.B. for the injury sustained, however, trial court deems that the pain, suffering, mental anguish, any other damages as testified to that an sward of 810,000 infavor of A.C.B. as against the Defendant Richard Drew, III would be substantiated and justiJìed and proved out also by a preponderonce ofthe evidence.
Though the testimony, the evidence in this case could demonstrate that the damages may be higher, they need to be limited within a reasonable amount as testified to, and although this is a civil matter and not a criminal matter,.for collateral purooses. I note that the moximum fine for ony felony is up to I 10,000.
That is the judgment, ruling of the court. There are a number of other essential findings that may be included os part of this Judgment, so thís is for big picture ruling purposes only, and I certainly reserve the right to fill in any of the other necessary prerequisite information that would comprise a judgment under Texas law.
Mr. [tr/illett, you're the prevailing party. I would qsk thqt you submit a proposed judgment, including a Permanent Injunction in accordance with the trial court's overall ruling. " (emphasis added).
RR, [, p. 84-86.
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pnce 16op23 AppgLlpn's BRIEF It is also clear from this Record that the Trial Court did not impose a criminal
fine on the Appellant.
As no findings of fact or conclusions of law were requested or entered, this
Court should imply all findings necessary to support the judgment as rendered. Sixth
RMA Partners v. Sibley, 111 S.W. 3d 46,52 (Tex. 2003).
Ample evidence was presented at trial of the awful effects of this event on
A.C.B. As noted previously, she suffered physical soreness in her groin and neck
(RR, I,p.22),had dark symmetrical bruises on her neck consistent with finger marks
(RR, l, p.24), sought medical treatment at Parkland Hospital where she underwent
rape kit testing, sought follow-up treatment with multiple doctors and gynecologists
(RR, I, p. 25), withdrew from college, lost her job (RR, I, p. 27), started taking
antidepressants, sought counselling, moved into a gated community with her parents
(RR, I,p.28), andwas unableto sleep orrestwell (RR,I,p.28).
These are the actual damages one would expect in an assault. It should also
be noted that the evidentiary bar for recovery of assault damages is even lower.
DeLeonv. Hernandez,814 S.W. 2d531 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (the
fact that Plaintiff failed to seek medical treatment or report the offense to police does
not defeat a cause of action for assault as a matter of law). Additionally, an appellate
court should not interfere with an assault finding where the evidence is sufficient to
support a judgment or verdict, even though there may be evidence to the contrary.
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pnce 17 op23 AppgLLge's Bzuep Fulmer v. Thompson, 573 S.W. 2d 256 (Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler 1978, writ refused
n.r.e.). This Court should ovemrle Appellant's Issue No. 2.
ilI. Appellantos Brief-Lack of Specificity and Consistency An appellant's brief must contain a clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to the record and caselaw TEX.R.APP.
P. 3 8. 1(h). Courts must interpret this requirement reasonably and liberally. Republic
Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Mex-Tex, Inc.,l50 S.W.3d 423,427 (Tex.2004). However,
parties asserting error on appeal must put forth some specific argument and analysis
showing that the record and the law supports their contentions. ,See TEX.R.APP. P.
38.1(h); San Saba Energt, L.P. v. Crawford, 171 S.\M.3d323,337 (Tex. App.- Houston U4th Dist.l 2005, no pet.).
While Appellee's comments herein ate in no way an attempt to cast
dispersions on the quality of the work in Appellant's Briet it is just that-extremely
brief. The Argument section addressing both issues is only fourteen (14) sentences
in total-four (4) of which just quote boiler plate law (Appellant's Brief, p. 7-8).
Moreover, the stated "Issues" are inconsistent and do not really track the actual
arguments. Issue No. l, as stated, focuses on a lack of "imminent danger" (notably,
not "imminent harm" as cited) (Appellant's Brief, p. 5), but the Argument addresses
the "existence of a wrongful act" element. It is difficult to discern, but Appellant
seems to be actually arguing that A.C.B.'s failure to establish a 'owrongful act'
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pnce 18 o¡ 23 AppgLLse's Bnrep should result in a finding that there is also no "imminent danger" or 'oimminent
harm"-but it is unclear. Given this type of consistent confusion, it is very difficult
to respond in a detailed or meaningful way for this Court without more elaboration
from Appellant.
On Issue No. 2, Appellant simply frames his complaint in the Table of
Contents as being that there was "no evidence" of any "damages" at trial (Appellant's Brief, p. 3). Then, in the Summary of Argument section of his Brief,
he flips the order of the two Issues Presented and specifically references a complaint
related to "exemplary damages" and "attorney's fees," but also suggests that the
Trial Court imposed a criminal fine by its award (Appellant's Brief, p. 6). Then, the
actual Argument only complains that the Trial Court improperly awarded o'exemplary damages" in its Judgment-which it did not do (Appellant's Brief, p. 7-
8). Which is it?
Counsel for Appellee has serious and respectful concerns that he has not fully
responded to this Appeal. Those concerns are based on a lack of guidance and
general confusion as to the nature and details of Appellant's actual complaints. It is,
after all, Appellant's obligation to set forth a viable and coherent argument.
Appellant's Brief: 1) vascilates in description; 2) randomly conflates a variety of
issues; 3) is presented in one general argument without delineation between the two
Issues Presented; and 4) barely scratches the surface of the evidence and caselaw in
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pncp 19 o¡ 23 AppeLLee's BRtsp only a handful of sentences. In summary, Appellee also seeks relief from this Court
via either affirmance of the Trial Court's decision or additional instructions to
Appellant to provide more adequate and specific briefing of his points of appeal,
such that Appellee can have the benefit of due process and adequate notice of the
Issues raised in her defense of the Trial Court's Judgment.
No. 06-17-00102-CV PecE 20 op 23 ApppLlne's Brupr PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Appellee prays that the underlying order of the Trial Court be affirmed in all
respects
SIGNED AND DATED this the 4th day of June 201 8
Respectfully submitted,
\ryRAY, WILLETT & STOFFER, PLLC
By: /s/ Jason M. Willett Jason M. Willett State Bar No. 00788669 200 A North Rogers Street Waxahachie, Texas 75 165 Telephone: (972) 938- I 850 Facsimile: (972) 937-6844 Email: iasonlÐelli scountvlaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE A.C.B.
No. 06-17-00102-CV Prce 2l or 23 ApppLLss's BRter CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.a(i)(3), I certifr that the total
number of words in the document, including all pages, does not exceed 3,985 words,
as computed by the undersigned's Microsoft Word 2010 software.
/s/ Jason M. Willett
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pece 22or23 AppeI-Lnn's BRIer' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on the 4th day of June 2018, a copy of
the foregoing was served on the following counsel for Richard H. Drew, III.
Via E-Filins: danielbarneslaw(ò,smail.com Via Føcsimile : 97 2-92 3-9606 Mr. Daniel L. Bums Attorney afLaw 306 Sixth Street Waxahachie, Texas 7 5 165
lsl Jason M. \Millett Jason M. Willett
No. 06-17-00102-CV Pncp 23 or23 AppeLLee's BzuEr'