Temika Charnette Owens v. State

Opinion

ACCEPTED 06-15-00069-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/17/2015 10:03:39 AM DEBBIE AUTREY CLERK

FILED IN I$ The Sj.xth Court of A1>peal's 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS Texarkana, Texas 8/17/2015 10:03:39 AM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk Tqika Charnette Owetts, Ap'pe77ant, v. THE STAW OF TE){AS,

Ay>pellee.

Ay:,peal-s from the Ath Distri<:t Court, Rusk Courtty, Texas Trial Court No. G.74-,305

Anders Brief

ATTORNEY FOR .APPELI,ANT:

ileff T. J'ackson SBOT No. 2406997 6 736-A Hwy' 259 N. KilEone, TX 75662 Phonr:: -654-3362 1903 Fax: 8L7 -887-4333

ORAL ARGTTMENT NOT REQUESTED LIST OF" PARSTES AI{D COUNSIIL

APPELLAIiIT: Ternika Charnette Owens TDCJ No. 019991628 SrD No. 060614L0 Texas Department of Criminal Justice San Saba Unit 206 S. Wallace Creek Rd. San Saba, TX 1 6817 Represented at appeal by: SBOT No. 24069916 136-A Hwy 259 N. Kilgore, TX 15662 Phone : 903-65 4-3362 Fax: BIl - BB7-4333 Represented at trial_ by: ffi SBOT No. 00785248 P.O" Box 1108 Henderson, TX 75653 Phone: 903-657-0561

APPELLEE: State of Texas Renrescn1-od vUvIIuvV af sU .l_r'i U!rq! al hrz. py.

PrrqJr f-nrrnfrz vvurr9J DiStflCt UJUUI.| AtfOrneV nuuvltruy

SBOT: 00189406 115 N. Main St. Hencl6rrson - TX 15652 Phone: 903-651-2265 Fax: 903- 651 -0329 TABLES OE' CONTENTS

List of Parties and Counsel_ Tabl-e of Content.s Index of Authorities- Statemen +'U aF VI 1_l.r^ (-II.g t.\--^ UClDC

Tq.qrraq P resent.ed Statemen t of Facts St tmma rr; of the Arguments 7\ rnr rmn n I nr v LrllrgLr L-

I. WHETHER THE IND]CTMENT WAS SUFF-TC]ENT......3 II. WHETHER THE TR]AL COURT ERRED IN RULING ON PRETRIAL MATTERS OR APPELLANT' S OBJECTIONS DUR]NG TRIAL, OR WHETHER THERE WAS FUNDAMENTAL ERROR ......6 ITT. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SI]FF-TCIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT OF A PUBLIC SERVANT ....13 rV. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSJEL IS NOT A VIABLE CLA]M BASED ON THE RECOF|D ]SEFORE THE COURT .....15 Statement of Attorney to the Court . . .18 Conclusion and Prayer... .....19 Certificate of Compliance ....20 Certificate of Service.. .....2I rNDEX OF AUTHORTTTES vsVV !UVY.

Anders v. CaLifornia, 385 u.s. 138, '744, (1961) 2,LB Brooks v. State, 951 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Crim.App. L99j). .6,L3 Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.I914). .18

Duff-Snith v. State, 685 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. L9B5). B

Frausto v. State, 642 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). 11

Fttr"rafa \r _ql_ate / 200 S.W.3d 7BI (Tex. App.-Fort Worrh 200G) .6 Hawkins v. State, 605 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. I9B0). L2

Hernandez v. State, 126 S.W.2d53,51 (Tex.Crim.App.19B6). 15

Jackson v " State, 811 S.W.2d '768, 11I (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) . 13,15 Jeffery v" St.ate, 903 S. W. 11 6 (Tex.App. -Dallas 1995 ) . 1B

Lawrence v. State, 240 S.W.3d 9I2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). .3,5 Lindley v" State, 535 S.W.2d 54I, (Tex. Crim. App. 7982) .B

111 PoLk v. State, 337 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App. -Eastland ,1010 ) . .13

Riney v" State, 28 S.W.3d 56I, (Tex.Crim.App.200O) Smith v " State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 3

State v" Moff, I54 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). .3,5 Strickfand v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). .]-5,16

Stoker v. State, 7BB S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Crim.App.l9B9). -B

Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d BOB, BL2 (Tex.Crim.App.7999) . -15,L6

United States v" Johnson, 521 F .2d I32B , 1329 (5th Cir " I91 6) ,' 2

Vil-f escas v. State , 189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) 6

SLatutes: Tex. Pen. Code sec. B .04 (a) . 12

Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 12.42 10

Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 22.II

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art 36.01(a) 11

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14(b) B

1V STATEIVIENT OE' THIE CA$E

By a single count indictment relurned by the Rusk

County grand jury at the Sanl-aml'-rar VVI/UVILLJJU! fUV!ILL, arm )n1 LVLA A I

AppelIant was charged with Harassment of a Publ-ic Qarrr.anf f-P vr\ n A v| r^rhi nl "",.--i) rs a l-h urrf!ui rrl rlanr^aa \aEYIq:\, fo I nnrz rrnrlo- !vtvrrj urt\-lcI

m^-'^^ r g2!d.D n^^^'r relIct_L Code Sec. 22.LI . The trial- court granted the State's moti-on to amend and interlineate the indictment. CR p. 30. Appellant was represented at trial by .Brent Wil-der. On April 21, 2015| a jury was empaneLed to hear the case. RR2, pp. 191-L94. Appellant pleaded "not guilt.y" to both counts on the indictment. fd p. 195. A trial- was held on t.he issue of gu-11t, RR3, and on

April 29, 2015, the jury returned a verdict of "guilLy." RRS1, pp. I51 p. 5. The pun:Lshment phase of the trial was held on the same dav t-he verdict was

rafrrrnad rrvv/ .nj srrv fhe erfv irrrrz:qqaqqod )v-J quuvJUvv nUnishment I/urr!9rrrrlvrru Of vr 2 vears - Jgq!o

incarceration. RR4 p. 39. On April 29, 2015, the Trial Cortrt sentenced Appellant j-n accordance with t-he j ury' s recommendations. RR4, p. 47-42. Jeff T" Jackson was

appointed to represent Appellant on appeal. CR p.98. Appellant timely perfected appeal by f iling wri-tten Notice of Appeal on May 1 , 2075. CR p. 94.

vi ISST'ES PRESENTED

I. Whether the indict.ment was suffidierLt?

rr. whether the trlal court erred j-n ruling on

Appellant.' s ob j ections during trial , o.c whether there was fundamental error?

rrr. whether the evidence was suffiqient Lo support a

conviction f or t.he of f ense of hara s.smenf of a publ-ic servant ?

vll TO THE HONORABLE STXTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now l^++ rll I. ,T: r'lz vsvJ\uvrrt < nn attorney for Temika Charnette Owens, Appellant in the ablove styled and numbered cause, and respectfully submits thi-s Brief on

such cause. STATEI\4ENT OF THE FAcEq On June 1"., 2014, dt about 3:00 a.m., .Appellant. was

stopped by officer Goodson, a public servant of Henderson Police Department, f or drlvinq without headlights. she was arrested f,or d::ivinq whil-e intoxicated. The arresting officer accused her of intending to assaul-t him by causing her sar-iva to contact his person while struggllng with him in the back of hi s ne I rn I rzoh i cle . RR3 pp . 2I-28 .

NOTE: The record is referred to as: "CR": cferk's record in Cause No. CR14-305. *RR 7-4": reporter's record in Cause No. CR14-305. "RR S1": reporter's supplemental record in Cause No. CRl4-305. ST,MI4ARY OF THE ARGIJI\4NTSI

Under Anders v. Cal-if ornia , 385 U. S . 7 3B , 7 44 ,

(7967), a court-appointed attorney may not raise an

issue in an appeal i f he makes i1 conscientious examj-nation of the case and finds the crppeal is wholly f rivolous. To comply with Andersl counrsel- must isol-at.e "possibly important issues" and "furnistr the court with ref erences to the record and l-eqal- author:i-ties to aid

it in itS ^nnal I af a functiOn " " Un.tted States v. Johnson, 52'7 E .2d I32B , i-329 ( 5th Cir . I91 6) . Af t er rne fll^ apperra--, -h^n1I16l- iq ryirran an ^n opporru a\nna\rJ-rrnil-rz J-n raqrrn6rl .l-ha

court makes a full- examination of the r:ecord to detect whether the case is f rivolous . Andez:s, 3B 6 U. S. at 144. As set forth by his Brief , counsel for Appel-l-ant has determined that there are no non-fri-volous issues to appeal-. ARGUMENTS AI{D AUTHORTETETS

ARGI'MENT I. THE TNDICTMENT !{AS SUFFICIENT.

The sufficiency of the indictment is reviewed de

novo because that issue is a question of l-aw. Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10, 13-14 (Tex. Crj-m. App. 2010); State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 501 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) . A criminal defendant has a constitutional rlqht to not j-ce . Lawrence v. State, 240 lS . W. 3d 9I2 , 9L6

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). To satisfy this notice radrr i ramant- , an !VYUT!VIILVIIU' gII indictment IITVIVUILIVIIU must be lIIUJ U Vg .qne,r-.i f=i O}/E;Uf,T-IU r: enorroh f o EAIUUYIl L-\J

inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation against him so he may prepare a defense. Id.; Moff, L54

S . W. 3d at 601 . "An indictment is gene-raIly suf f icient as long as it tracks the language of a penal statute that itself satisfies the constitut.ional requirement of notice." Lawrence, 240 S.W.3d at 9t6; see Snith, 309

S.W.3d at L4. 7\nnn'l'l nl1-yE r _L -^l- L o.Lr was indicted for the offense of Harassment of Public Servant. Tex Pon f-nrlo Qon uvv

22. 11 reads: A person commits an of f ense rf , with. tLre intent to assault, harass, or alarm, the p,3rson causes Snnfhor n^rson the actor knows to be a

public servant to contact the blood, seminal_

f luid, vaginal f l_uid, sal_iva, uriner , or f eces

of the actor, ofly other person I or a.n anj_mal

while t.he public servant is lawf uf l_y

discharging an of f icial- duty or in retal_iation or on account of an exercise of the pub]ic servant's official power or performance of an

official dutv. Id. The indictment in the instant case was amended bv order of the trial court to read: . that TEMIKA CHARNETTE OWENS hereinafter styled Defendant, on or about the 1" day of June , 2014, and before the presentment of this 'i ncli cf ment - in the urrv Qgrrnf vvurru rz )/ of v! Rrisk - r\uol\f Slf a1- r) uqug e of \ Texas, did then with the intent to assault, harass, or al-arm, the person cause i1 person the defendant knew to be a publrc servant, namely; Chris Goodson, to contact the salLiva of the defendant whil-e sai-d Chris Goodson \/vas lawfullv di scharging hi s o ff icial duty as a police of f j-cer f or the City of Hender:son Pol-ice Department . RR p. 6, 29 .

The indictment tracks the Ianguage of the appfi-cable penal statute sufficient to give the r,=quisite notice, as rerriri rccl under Lawrence and Moff - I stt":,ra uvJvLu. ARGI'MENT TT .

THE TRTAL COURT DID NOT ERR ]:N RIULING ON

PRETR.IAI, MATTERS, NOR WERE AP]PELI,ANT / S

OB.]]ECTIONS ERRONEOUSLY O\ZERRULED .DTJIRINIG TRIAL,

NOR If,AS THERE FUNDAI\4ENTAL ERTi.OR OTHEIRW]ISE.

The Brooks Notice. The trial court rul-ed on several pl:e-Lrial matters in the instant case. Included amonq tliem was "state's Notice of Intent to Seek Hiqher Pun j-shm,ent Based on

Prj-or Conviction Pursuant to Brooks ." CR p. 18- L9 . Appellant did not ob; ect to thLis Notice, and

Appellant stipulated to the admisslon of the court/ s

judgment of the prior conviction during trial. RR4 pp.

The Brooks Notice was timely qj-ven under Brooks v. State, 95'7 S.W.2d 30, 33-34 (Tex. Cr:im,, App. \991); See al-so Vill-escas v. State , LBg S.W" 3it 290 , 294 (Tex .

Crim. App. 2006) and Fugate v. State, 20Ct S.W.3d'lBL, 783 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006). The Amendment of the fndictment.

The state a-l-so moved to amend the :Lndictment twice without objection by Appellant" An amendment of a

charging instrument shalf be made with Lhe leave of the court and under its dlrecti-on . Tex. cod.e crim. proc . art. 28.r0. Here, the writt.en amendment \,vas submitted to t.he trial- court and included in th.e record in compliance with Riney v. State, 28 St.W.3d 56I, 566 (Tex . Crim. App .2000 ) .

-Ob-iection to State/ s Ca].].ing Expert !{itness The other objection Appelrant made before trial was

an ob j ection to the State' s calling chiad Tayror as an expert witness, citing j_nsuf f icient notice. CR p. 33 .

Chad Taylor was allowed to testify as StaLte, s witness wiLhout an nh-i ar-l- i nn t^ry Appellant at trizrl " RR3 pp. 65 " Appellant neither requested pre-t-riiel notice of designation of an expert witness, nor reguested a

continuance f or the st.ate' s f a j-lure to give timely not.ice of its intent to use an expert witnerss. The state must disclose the witnesses who wilf be

used at any stage of the trial upon request by the defendant in a pre-trial motion and oriler of the triat court . Stoker v. State , l BB S . W., 2d L, 15

(Tex . crim. App . 198 9 ) . rn the conte>

a duty to discl-ose an expert witness but fails to do

so, any error in allowing that witness to f esf 'i f rz over

a cl-aim of lack-of-notice is waived by the defendant's failure to move for a continuance. \AA l.1n/1 LLIISLVJ I a\7 \7 v.

State, 635 S.W.2d 547, 544 (Tex. Crim. ApF,. I9B2) . See

Duff-Smith v. State, 685 S.W.2d 26, 32 (Te><. Crim. App. 1985) .

Statels Voir Dire on Enhancement olf Punishment n-^^-t^-f rr1-,lPe-L-Lcrllu al.so qrr\J ohreCted vrJJsULeLf tO VO_L.J. cl ire LO vOir cruesf inn'i nr-r l-rrz pJ

the State regarding the law relating tr: punishment if it were to prove a previous felony convictj_on. RR2 pp.

B 5-168 . Appell-ant. had a prior f elony' conviction on which the punj_shment range could be enhanced. CR pp. R.-1 q Qrran'i f i ^r'l 'l ,, the 1 -pecl_rl_ca_Lty, State asked individual panelists: rn a case where a person is convicted of a

third-de.rrAA for nnr4, if the state can prove a

prior f elony conviction that resr-rlted in a

neni fLEIrL yErrr onf i:rrz qani_ a can you consi-der --..-vflCeT the upper end of 20 years? you donrt have to commit to the increased sentence, but just can you wait and hear all the evidence i-n the punishment phase bef ore you cons j_der your sentence, and are you at least open to the possibility that it could be a 2O-year sentence? RR2 p. 86. Over Appef lant' s running obj ection, RR2 pp. j 5-l j , t.his l-ine of questioning was permitted by the triar court on

i-ndividual voir dire. Id. Appellant's objection to the mention of enhanced punishment range during individual- voir dlre was three- pronged: first, that the issue should have been taken up as a pretrial matter so that Appel_Iant wor-ll_d have

suf f icient time to respond to the Statr:' s argument; sor-oncl - f hat the State had alreaclrz r:l o.secl its voir dire, and that it could only go into .issues raised drr ri nn rrrri r dire 9U.!!rrY vvr! s!!v of v! the urlv nane I ygrrv! clrr vq!JrrYri nr-i i nd'i rri dual rrrva v J voir

dire; and third, that rts hiqhly pre j udir:ial and used as q'D A nl q nrz hrz -L1JUy tJJ fultshe JLaL-s sf af e to U\J Secure Aa rrrrv DV\-LrIC )uLJ where; vvr--uruIl-I 1--^^ ^ O- -Lo.I9tj portJ-on of the panel had stated that they woul-d not be

able to follow the l-aw as to punishment for this type of case. RR2 pp. '7 5-11 .

Harassment of a public servant j-s a third degree

felony. If the State follows the proper p,rocedures and nrn\/es yr\JVgD fLIIghc Defendant L-lgICIIL,IO-IIL has fIC-!) nrerri orrsl 'iz l-reen IJTSVI\-,rLrJr_y I-/EErI .tr-i *^'r I " I-LlIO.-L-Ly

convicted for an offense other than a state iail felonrz- fhe nrrnishmenf ranne for this oJ:fense Can be

enhanced from 2 10 years conflnement to 2 20 years conf inement and probation is no't avai.ltrbl,e . Tex. Pen.

Code Sec. 12.42. During the trial, the State did not disclose to the jury that the defend.rnt had previously been convicted of a felonv.

10 vfhile the state may question the jury panel on the applicable range of punishment, it mav noL. disclose to the veni-re that it bel-ieves that the clef endant has previously been convicted of a f elony " ljee Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Art 36.01 (a) . This restrj_ction is desiqned to prevent the pre j udice that woul-d inev_Ltably result from an announcement at the outset of the proceedings that the state believes the defendant was previousry convicted 9f .a n:rj- i nrrl41 of fense at a pa:rticular time and in a particular court . See Frau,sto \r. State, 642

s.i,{.2d 506 (Tex.crim.App. r9B2). This:restriction does

not, however, prevent the trial court or: the prosecutor from informing the jury panel in hypothLetj_cal terms of the applicabre range of punishment if the state proves any prior convj-ctions for enhancement pllrposes. rd. rn the instant case, the state was careful- to stav within the legal constraints set forth in Fraus;o, id. Charglof the Court Apperlant obj ected to an j-nstructio.n in the charqe of the court. that voruntary intoxicati-on i s nor a

t1 defense to a criminal_ of fense. RR 3 p. 19 . Rel_iance

on invol-untary intoxication to negate an intent element is prohibited by Tex. pen. Code sec. B .04 (a) ; see aLso Hawkins v. State, 605 S.W.2d 586, 589 ( Tex . Crim. App .

1980) . Therefore, the Charge of the Court correctly stated that law applicabl_e in this case

t2 ARGUMENT III IHE EVTDENCE I{AS SUFFTCIENT T(3 SIJPPORT A CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE CIF HAITASSMENT OF A

]PT'BLIC SERVA}IT.

The standard of revlew for sufficiencv of the evldence is whether any rationaf jury could have found Appel-lant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (I919); Brooks v,, State, 323

S.W.3d 893, 9I2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); pc>J_k v. State, 331 S.W.3d 286,2BB-89 (Tex. App.-Eas;tland 2010, tr€t. ref 'd) . Under t.he Jackson st.andard, an examination is made of al-f of the evidence in the liqht. most favorable to the verdict and determine whether:, based on that evi-dence and reasonable inf erences f rom it, any rational- trier of fact could have founrl t.he essential- elements of the of fense bevond a reaso:nabl-e doubt. Jackson, 443 U . S . at 319 . The standarcl giv'es f ull ptay to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve conf l-icts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and

IJ to draw reasonabl-e inf erences f rom basic facts to uftimate facts. Jackson,443 U.S. at 379; Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d'/63, 168 (Tex. Crim. Apil . 2013). The

st.andard of review is the same f or direct and

circumstanti-al evidence cases. In the instant case, the State's wit.nesses included fhe (-l.Ig (lomnlninant \/\-'ITLIJ.LCTIIIO.IlU and anofher o.Il\,T o.I]\-/UIIgI resn^^,{-i ^'* Tg'JT../\J.TI\,|'III,\J "F+:r-cr- L,'II-L\-gI hnfh L/\JLII '

who testif ied to the of fense. F.R3 pp. 19-52. Appell-ant cal-l-ed no witnesses and rested wit.hout presenting any evidence. Here, it cannot be argued that a rational j ury could not have f or.rnd Appellant guilty beyond a reasonabl-e doubt f or the charged oI Iense "

t4 ARGUMENT VI. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTAI{CE OF TRIAI COUNSEIL IS NOT

A VIABLE CI,AIM BASED UPON THE IIEICORD BEE'ORE TIIIS COURT.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are analyzed under the two-prong test set out by the United .Sf af es .Sttnreme Court. in Strickl-and v. Wa:;hinrtf on - vvspttLttY uv!t l' 466 = v v

U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted by Texas in Hernandez v. State, 126 S.W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.1986). Appelf ant must show that trial coun,sel-'s performance was deficient, that is, counsel's representation fell below an obj ective standard of reasoniableness. Thompson

v. State, 9 S.W.3d B0B, BL2 (Tex.Crim.App.L999). Ap'oellant must also show that courLsel-f s def icient performance prejudiced his defense. StrickJand, 466

U.S. at 681 ; Jackson v. State, B-l'7 S.W.2d 168, 11L

/\f Tow Cri m Ann ez\.vrlrLL.,r-y-y.LJr . .1 gg4Jt ) . Th'i rrrlu s recltr i res Annel lant ShOw

there j-s a reasonable probability thert, but f or couLnsel-' s unprof essional errors, the result of the

15 proceeding woul_d have been di_f ferenc. StrickLand,466 U. S. at 694; Jackson, 811 S.W.2d at 'j jI. A reasonabl_e probability is a probability sufficient T-ar unde rmi ne

confidence in the outcome. Strickl_and, tI66 rf d . at 694; Jackson, B'7'/ S . W. 2d at 117 .

In reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, there is a strong presumpt j-on that counsel . s

conduct falls within the wlde ranqe o:f reasonabl_e professi-onal- assistance and the appei_lant musr overcome the presumption that the challenged conduct might be

considered sound trial s1-rafacrrz Thomps<>n, 9 S.W.3d at 813; strickland, 466 u.s. at 689. Any allegation of ineffectiveness must be fi_rmlv founded and af f j-rmatively demonstrated in the record to ove rcome

fhiq. nraqlrmnfinn I/!vuufrryurvrr. 'Thrlmn

Counsel has detected no error on the part of n^^^1'l ^^.{-t iaIJI-,,El-_LClr1L ^ D trial attorney, Mr. Nel-son. A1- rru nn rrv nni nl- I/vIrIL

t6 during any of the proceedj-ngs in thi s cause did Appellant assert Lo the triar court that she was

unhappy with the performance and repres;entation of her trial counsel . Based on this rcr:ord - n^ legitimate non-frivol-ous basis exj-sts to argue trial counsel was

constitutional-l-v inef fecti_ve .

l7 STATED4ENT OF ATTORNSY TO 'THE COURT

This brief is fil-ed brz r:orrnsel appointed by the court to represent Appef lant on appea-L i n accord.ance with Anders v. Cal-ifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (I96j), and

Currie v. State, 51-6 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. I914) .

Counsel has also fil-ed wi-th this Cou:rt a Motion to Withdraw as Court Appointed Counsel on Appeal in accordance with t.he procedures as standards set out in Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 116 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995,

no pet. ) . After thorough examination of the clerk's record and reportert s record, counsel can find no non- f ri vol ott.s noj-nt of error that can l-ro sr'n1nrtrJ- ecl hv the UITV

record. Counsel has discussed the er,,idence and the documents in the record, citing references to the ^^-A L,lD I-^ U\-\-,'I ^ .

18 PRAYER

wherefore, premises considered, Lhe undersigned counsel- request.s the court of Appeals rerview the record on appeal, consi-der the Motion to withd:raw as court Appornted Counsel, review the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to withdraw, and grant t-he Motion to Withdraw. qrrhmi ttarl Roqnor-J- frrl I rr uttvrLL.! u uvv,

. {Jackson SBOT No" 24069916 7 3 6-A Hwy 259 l{. Kj-lgore, TX 15662 Phone: 903-65 4-3362 Fax: B]-l-887-433.3 Email: -iOf I . com J _*' fJ- i:r-kqnn'i:r.rfinrnr.i ___-r-Lav/Lqglnaf -1

Af f nrrla\7 fnr Annal I anfu Lstt /

Temika Cha.rnette Owens

t9 CERTIE TCATE OE COMPLIAN'CE

The foregoing Appellant' s Brief is i_n compl-iance with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i) (2) (B) . The totat_ number of words contained in Appe]l-ant's Brief that are nor specifically excl-uded from the word count under TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.4 (i) (1) is 2,315 words.

SBOT No. 2406991 6 A1-t^ r-aLL\JLITCY tar LrJJ- Zrrnal l tnf rlJPC.L_LA.ttL/ Temika Charn<>tte Owens

20 CERTTFTCATE OF SERVTCE

r, the undersigned attorney, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Motion was served on the state of Texas by mailing same to the District Attorney of Rusk County on August Il , 2015. I further certify that I have mail_ed a copv of the above Brief and accompanying Motj-on by First cl-ass Mail-, postage paid, to Appel_l_ant, Temi.ka Charnette owens at the address fisted above on the same date.

ar:kson 2,406997 6

2l