Tommie Coleman v. State
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-19-00266-CR
TOMMIE COLEMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court Delta County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019-085
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tommie Coleman appeals his conviction for the Class B misdemeanor offense of
disorderly conduct.1 Coleman filed a notice of appeal but has not filed a brief.2 For that reason,
we review the trial proceedings for fundamental error. Finding no fundamental error, we affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
I. Background
Coleman was charged by information with disorderly conduct for displaying a firearm in
a public place in a manner calculated to alarm. Coleman moved for a court reporter to record his
trial before the trial court. None was available, though, and Coleman apparently agreed to
proceed by having the trial recorded on law enforcement officer body cameras. We infer this
because the first recording of the trial begins with Coleman’s trial counsel agreeing to begin
recording at the point where apparently the trial court noticed the body camera had not been
recording and the trial court remedied that situation. And in a letter to this Court, the trial court
said that, in the absence of a court reporter, Coleman did not object to proceeding with body
cameras to record the trial.
Most of the trial was recorded. The beginning of the State’s first witness—a Delta
County deputy—was not recorded. Even so, the deputy’s recorded testimony covered the events
1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.01(a)(8). 2 Coleman filed a document that he styled “Appellant[’]s Brief.” Some references in that document quote or refer to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure’s requirements for an appellant’s brief. Coleman also makes general references to and complaints about the state of the evidence. Yet, despite this Court’s detailed correspondence directing Coleman to Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Coleman did not present a brief suitable to satisfy the requirements. 2 that led to the allegation that Coleman displayed a firearm “in a public place in a manner
calculated to alarm.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.01(a)(8).
Complainant George Brown’s testimony was recorded in full. Brown testified that, while
he was helping move belongings out of his mother’s house, Coleman approached him and asked
what he was doing. Brown told Coleman it was none of his business, at which time Coleman
reportedly threatened him with a pistol.
A third witness, who was also a Delta County deputy, testified that he saw Coleman
sometime after that encounter. Coleman seemed agitated or angry and had a pistol with him.
The second deputy also corroborated much of the first deputy’s descriptions of their
investigation of, contact with, and apprehension of Coleman.
Coleman testified that it was Brown, rather, who had threatened him. Coleman explained
that he left the area, retrieved his pistol at home, and returned to the area only to retrieve lawn
equipment he had left at the church. The church was across the street from the residence where
the incident with Brown occurred.
After the bench trial, the trial court found Coleman guilty of disorderly conduct as
alleged in the information. Coleman was sentenced to “confinement in the Delta County jail for
[one] year [probated] and a fine of $0.” Following Coleman’s sentencing, his lawyer filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel, which was granted by the trial court. Coleman, appearing pro se,
filed a notice of appeal.3
3 Coleman was indigent at trial. Upon receipt of this appeal, this Court abated the matter to the trial court to determine if Coleman was indigent and wished to continue his appeal. The trial court held a hearing, at which time it found that Coleman did not qualify for an appointed appellate attorney. 3 This Court sent Coleman a letter summarizing the requirements of Rule 38.1 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. In reply, Coleman sent two documents which generally quoted
briefing requisites from the rule, summarized witness testimony, and then stated that the
testimony was not true. Even so, the documents Coleman sent to this Court failed to satisfy the
requisites of Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. We, therefore, consider this
appeal without a brief.
II. Standard of Review
When a criminal appellant does not file a brief but has filed or indicated an intention to
appeal, we review the record for fundamental error. Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1994). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has described three categories of
fundamental error. See Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 887–88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). “One
such class of fundamental errors has been recognized by the legislature. A statute permits our
appellate courts to consider claims that an error in the [trial] court’s charge to the jury, to which
no objection was made, was so grave as to deny a defendant a fair trial.” Id. at 887.4 Also
considered fundamental are “rights that are waivable-only includ[ing] the rights to the assistance
of counsel and the right to trial by jury”5 and the right for appointed counsel to have ten days to
4 Here, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals referred to Article 36.19 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 36.19; see Sanchez v. State, 209 S.W.3d 117, 125 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
5 Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 888 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
4 prepare for trial.6 Finally, a third category of fundamental errors are “[a]bsolute, systemic
requirements,”7 such as
• jurisdiction over the defendant;8 • jurisdiction over the subject matter;9 • protection from being sentenced under a statute that violates the separation of powers;10 • Trial in a location other than the county seat;11 • Trial upon an ex post facto statute;12 and • comments by the trial court that “taint[] appellant’s presumption of innocence in front of the venire.”13
III. Analysis
We have reviewed the record on appeal and have found none of the fundamental errors
recognized by statute or the courts.
6 Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 7 Saldano, 70 S.W.3d at 888. 8 Ex parte Stanley, 703 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding).
9 Garcia v. Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).
10 Rose v. State, 752 S.W.2d 529, 535 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987), abrogated on other grounds by Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 11 Stine v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tommie Coleman v. State (Tommie Coleman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.