Susan Coleman v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJanuary 13, 2005
Docket07-04-00248-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Susan Coleman v. State (Susan Coleman 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
Susan Coleman v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

NO. 07-04-0248-CR


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AT AMARILLO


PANEL D


JANUARY 13, 2005



______________________________


SUSAN JENNIFER COLEMAN, APPELLANT


V.


THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


_________________________________


FROM THE 316 DISTRICT COURT OF HUTCHINSON COUNTY;


NO. 9047; HONORABLE JOHN W. LAGRONE, JUDGE


_______________________________


Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a plea of not guilty, appellant Susan Jennifer Coleman was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and punishment was assessed at 12 years confinement. In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders (1) brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant counsel's motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); Monroe v. State, 671 S.W.2d 583, 585 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1984, no pet.). By the brief accompanying the motion to withdraw, counsel reviews the testimony presented during appellant's case-in-chief and the punishment phase and various trial court rulings. He then concludes the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the court's judgment. Counsel has also shown that he sent a copy of the brief to appellant and informed appellant that, in counsel's view, the appeal is without merit. In addition, counsel has demonstrated that he notified appellant of her right to review the record and file a pro se brief if she desired to do so. Appellant filed a pro se response. The State, however, did not favor us with a brief.

While in her home on the afternoon of April 14, 2003, Gladys Stroud heard two women banging on a door across the street and yelling for help and called 911. Several Borger Police Officers responded to the neighborhood to investigate. Detective Dennis Burton met with appellant who, in a hysterical state, reported that someone named Brandon Blakemore had stolen her Glock gun and run away. The vicinity was searched and with appellant's consent so was her person and vehicle. There was no contraband, gun, or knife found, and the evidence established that appellant was not intoxicated nor under the influence of any narcotics.

After the police left, appellant, still upset, sat in her vehicle with her head on the steering wheel. A neighbor noticed and approached appellant with some tissues to wipe her face and check on her. Appellant told her about the incident and the neighbor offered to help search the area for the gun including a nearby alley on the chance that Blakemore might have dropped it. As appellant walked further into the alley, the neighbor reconsidered her offer to help and returned home.

Leslie Kay Ford, the victim of the alleged aggravated assault, was driving in the neighborhood on her way to her exercise class when she noticed appellant run out of the alley and flag her down. Thinking appellant might need directions, Ford rolled down her passenger window. However, appellant opened the passenger door and entered Ford's van, slumped down in the seat, and pulled her hair over her face as to avoid being recognized. Appellant then pulled a knife from her side, told Ford her gun had been stolen by Blakemore, and demanded to be driven to Blakemore's house. Ford testified that appellant said, "I've got this knife. Where does Brandon Blakemore live?" Ford responded that she knew of some Blakemores and would drive her there. She explained that she tried to remain calm and accommodate appellant to avoid agitating her. Ford also testified that she complied with appellant's request because the Blakemores lived on a busy street where people would be in their yards and able to help if something happened.

When Ford arrived at the Blakemore residence, appellant changed her mind and demanded to be driven back to her vehicle. According to Ford, although appellant never made verbal threats, her instructions were always accompanied by waiving the knife in Ford's direction causing her apprehension. After Ford drove appellant back to her vehicle and she was inside it, a nearby officer approached appellant. After a brief conversation, appellant drove away in a normal fashion and the officer started to return to his vehicle when Ford motioned for him to come to her van. She recounted the incident to the officer of appellant threatening her with a knife. The officer did not offer any assistance nor suggest that she file a report. After he departed, Ford telephoned her husband from her cell phone to tell him of the incident. She testified that after their conversation, she proceeded to her exercise class. The next day she went to the Borger Police Department to make a statement; however, the officer who took her statement testified that most of it was directed to the officer's conduct whom she had spoken with immediately after the incident.

On April 28, 2003, Detective Burton, who had spoken with appellant on the 14th when she claimed her gun was stolen, telephoned appellant and asked her to come to the police station because she was a suspect in an aggravated assault. Appellant responded that she wanted the name of the "witch" who accused her. According to the evidence, shortly after the call from Detective Burton, appellant telephoned Gary Garrett at the Borger Sheriff's Department to report that her knife had been stolen when her gun was stolen on the 14th, but she had failed to report it. According to Garrett, the Sheriff's Department does not have access to the Police Department's reports so he was unaware of the earlier incident. He claimed appellant was insistent that her knife had been stolen.

Appellant was arrested for aggravated assault on June 28, 2003, and according to one of the deputies, she was belligerent, profane, and refused to cooperate. A review of the record also demonstrates she was disruptive during trial. Following her conviction, the trial court appointed a psychiatrist to evaluate her and determine her competency at the time of trial and current mental condition. The doctor concluded appellant was competent during trial and except for some depression, her mental status was normal.

By the brief, counsel advances three arguable grounds, to-wit: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support appellant's conviction; (2) the punishment assessed was grossly disproportionate to the offense; and (3) appellant was denied reasonably effective assistance of counsel. Counsel then concludes no reversible error is presented.

By his first arguable point, counsel questions whether the evidence is legally sufficient to support appellant's conviction and after reviewing the evidence concludes the trial court properly overruled appellant's motion for instructed verdict. Questioning a trial court's ruling on a motion for instructed verdict is equivalent to a legal sufficiency challenge. Cook v. State, 858 S.W.2d 467, 470 (Tex.Cr.App.

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Solem v. Helm
463 U.S. 277 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Penson v. Ohio
488 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Davis v. State
22 S.W.3d 638 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
McCain v. State
22 S.W.3d 497 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2000)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Mallett v. State
65 S.W.3d 59 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Davidson v. State
602 S.W.2d 272 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)
Morales v. State
633 S.W.2d 866 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Ex Parte Kunkle
852 S.W.2d 499 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Hernandez v. State
726 S.W.2d 53 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Malik v. State
953 S.W.2d 234 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Garrett v. State
619 S.W.2d 172 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1981)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Garcia v. State
17 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
In the Interest of AWT
61 S.W.3d 87 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Rylander v. State
101 S.W.3d 107 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Cook v. State
858 S.W.2d 467 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Susan Coleman v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/susan-coleman-v-state-texapp-2005.