Sherill Ann Small v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
14-15-00039-CR
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
7/13/2015 8:11:37 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
CAUSE NO. 14-15-00039-CR
_________________________________________________
FILED IN
14th COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 7/13/2015 8:11:37 PM
FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
HOUSTON DIVISION Clerk
_________________________________________________
SHERILL ANN SMALL §
§
v. §
§
STATE OF TEXAS §
_______________________________________________
APPELLANT’S MOTION TO SUSPEND RULE REGARDING WORD
LIMITS
_______________________________________________
Justin Bradford Smith
Texas Bar No. 24072348
Harrell, Stoebner, & Russell, P.C.
2106 Bird Creek Drive
Temple, Texas 76502
Phone: (254) 771-1855
FAX: (254) 771-2082
Email: justin@templelawoffice.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule Regarding Word Limits Page 1
Small v. State; Cause No. 14-15-00039-CR
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Appellant, SHERILL ANN SMALL, who files this Motion
to Suspend Rule Regarding Word Limits, and shows unto the Court as follows:
I.
1. This is a capital murder appeal in which the death penalty was not
imposed.
2. For such an appeal, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(2)(B)
provides a limit of 15,000 words for a computer-generated brief and response in an
appellate court.
3. Appellant’s brief after editing contains 16,908 words, of those that
count under the rule.
4. One of the errors Appellant alleges pertains to the exclusion/limitation
of evidence. In such a case, the reviewing court is required to examine the record
as a whole to assess harm. Barshaw v. State, 342 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex. Crim. App.
2011).
5. The reporter’s record in this case is itself twenty-three volumes long,
necessitating an unusually lengthy statement of facts, which nonetheless may still
be lacking.
6. Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 2, the Court may suspend
Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule Regarding Word Limits Page 2
Small v. State; Cause No. 14-15-00039-CR
the operation of a rule in a particular case and order a different procedure.
7. Therefore, in light of the lengthy record and the mandate from the
Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the entire record in assessing harm,
Appellant asks this Court to suspend the operation of Rule 9.2(i)(2)(B) in this case
and accept Appellant’s brief as is. Tex. R. App. P. 9.2.
8. In the alternative, Appellant asks this Court to allow Appellant leave
to edit her brief further to bring it into compliance with Rule 9.4(i)(2)(B).
II.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant asks this Court to
accept Appellant’s brief as is, or to allow Appellant a reasonably time to bring her
brief in compliance with Rule 9.4(i)(2)(B).
Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule Regarding Word Limits Page 3
Small v. State; Cause No. 14-15-00039-CR
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Justin Bradford Smith
Justin Bradford Smith
Texas Bar No. 24072348
Harrell, Stoebner, & Russell, P.C.
2106 Bird Creek Drive
Temple, Texas 76502
Phone: (254) 771-1855
FAX: (254) 771-2082
Email: justin@templelawoffice.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule Regarding Word Limits Page 4
Small v. State; Cause No. 14-15-00039-CR
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on July 13, 2015, a true and correct copy of the
Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule Regarding Word Limits was provided to
counsel below:
W.W. Torrey
Milam County District Attorney’s Office
204 N. Central
Cameron, Texas 76520
Email: daoffice@milamcounty.net
Attorneys for the State
Craig W. Cosper
Assistant Attorney General and Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: 512-936-1400; Facsimile: 512-936-1280
craig.cosper@texasattorneygeneral.gov
/s/ Justin Bradford Smith
Justin Bradford Smith
Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Rule Regarding Word Limits Page 5
Small v. State; Cause No. 14-15-00039-CR