Robert Earnest Wilkerson v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 5, 2019
Docket02-19-00210-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Robert Earnest Wilkerson v. State (Robert Earnest Wilkerson 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
Robert Earnest Wilkerson v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00210-CR ___________________________

ROBERT EARNEST WILKERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court No. CR13905

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Bassel, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a single issue, Appellant Robert Earnest Wilkerson appeals his conviction

for possession of a controlled substance (psilocin mushrooms). See Tex. Health &

Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.103 (categorizing psilocin substances in penalty group two),

.116 (criminalizing possession of a penalty-group-two substance). Because he failed to

preserve his argument, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

After Appellant was charged with unlawful possession of psilocin mushrooms

and before his trial, his trial counsel filed a motion to dismiss the charge asserting that

Appellant possessed the mushrooms for use in a Native American religious ceremony.

This is the basis of Appellant’s sole issue on appeal. But as his appellate counsel

conceded at oral argument,1 the trial court never ruled upon the motion to dismiss.

To preserve a complaint for our review, a party must have made to the trial

court a timely request, objection, or motion stating the specific grounds, if not

apparent from the context, for the desired ruling. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Thomas v.

State, 505 S.W.3d 916, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016). Further, the party must obtain an

express or implicit adverse trial-court ruling or object to the trial court’s refusal to

rule. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Everitt v. State, 407 S.W.3d 259, 262–63 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2013); Martinez v. State, 17 S.W.3d 677, 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). We have a

1 See Tex. Disciplinary Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 3.03, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A (requiring counsel to act with candor toward the tribunal).

2 duty to independently review error preservation and to ensure that a claim is properly

preserved in the trial court before we address its merits. Darcy v. State, 488 S.W.3d

325, 327–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Wilson v. State, 311 S.W.3d 452, 473 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2010).

By failing to obtain a ruling on his motion to dismiss, Appellant forfeited his

argument that the possession charge should have been dismissed as violating his

sincerely held religious beliefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(2); Everitt, 407 S.W.3d at

262–63. We therefore overrule his sole issue on appeal and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

/s/ Bonnie Sudderth Bonnie Sudderth Chief Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 5, 2019

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

Related

Martinez v. State
17 S.W.3d 677 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Wilson v. State
311 S.W.3d 452 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Everitt, Michael Paul
407 S.W.3d 259 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Darcy, Christopher Earl
488 S.W.3d 325 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Thomas v. State
505 S.W.3d 916 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Robert Earnest Wilkerson v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-earnest-wilkerson-v-state-texapp-2019.