Sullens, Everett Jesse

Opinion

PD-0835-15 PD-0835-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 7/8/2015 2:57:53 PM Accepted 7/9/2015 4:30:14 PM ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

SHAREN WILSON Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County

July 8, 2015

Hon. Abel Acosta, Clerk July 9, 2015 Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Sullens v. State, No. PD-0835-15

Greetings:

This letter is in response to Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review filed in this Court, on July 7, 2015, in Sullens v. State, No. 02– 13-00364-CR, 2015 WL 3523143 (Tex.App. -- Fort Worth June 4, 2015, pet. filed) (mem.op., not designated for publication).

Appellant’s sole ground for review contends that the court of appeals erred in finding that an instruction to disregard cured any harm in a witness’s comment that she defended herself “like always.” Pet. at 2; see also Sullens, 2015 WL 3523143, at *2. The court of appeals expressly did not reach the issue of whether the witness’s comment that she always defends herself was even a reference to an extraneous offense, much less an extraneous offense committed by Appellant. Sullens, 2015 WL 3523143, at *2.1

Appellant’s complaint to this Court makes no attempt to demonstrate that the court of appeals’ analysis was erroneous. Instead, Appellant

1 The court of appeals’ decision also failed to address the State’s contentions that (1) Appellant’s complaint was not preserved, State’s coa br. at 6-8; and (2) the trial court’s in limine order was irrelevant to Appellant’s claim that a mistrial was required. State’s coa br. at 9-10.

401 West Belknap • Fort Worth, Texas 76196 • 817.884.1400

simply repeats his complaint that the comment should not be found to be curable. Pet. at 6. Appellant’s complaint thus presents nothing for review. Degrate v. State, 712 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (discretionary review petition should specifically address court of appeals' decision); Bradley v. State, 235 S.W.3d 808, 808-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Cochran, J., concurring in denial of review); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 66.1 & 68.1.

Appellant also makes no attempt to demonstrate that consideration of his complaint by this Court would have any importance to the jurisprudence of Texas. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3.

Appellant’s fact-bound petition should be refused. Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

SHAREN WILSON /s/ ANNE SWENSON Criminal District Attorney ANNE SWENSON, Assistant Tarrant County, Texas State Bar No. 19575500 coaappellatealerts@tarrantcountytx.gov

DEBRA WINDSOR, /s/ DAVID M. CURL Assistant Criminal DAVID M. CURL, Assistant District Attorney Criminal District Attorney Chief, Post-Conviction State Bar No. 05254950 401 W. Belknap Street Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0201 (817) 884-1687 FAX (817) 884-1672 coaappellatealerts@tarrantcountytx.gov

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The number of words in the portions of the document covered by TEX.

R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1) are 356.

3

/s/ DAVID M. CURL____ DAVID M. CURL, Assistant Criminal District Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

One copy of the State's letter reply to Appellant's petition for discretionary review has been sent to (1) counsel for Appellant, Mr. Abe Factor at lawfactor@yahoo.com and (2) Ms. Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney, at information@spa.texas.gov, on this the 8th day of July 2015.

/s/ DAVID M. CURL____ DAVID M. CURL, Assistant Criminal District Attorney