Foreman, Freddie James ( 2015 )

?0?-f5
MO.
RIGINAL
IN THE CORT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
FREDDIE J. FOREMAN
REC'D IN COURT OF APPEALS
RECEIVED IN DEFENDANT - APPELLANT
2th Court of Appeals District
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
VS. 12.
JUL 2 2 2015
SVIEW
THE STATE OF TEXAS
"IVLER TEXAS
Abel Acosta, Cleit PLAINTIFF - APPELLEE CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK
REVIEW SOUGHT FROM THE 12TH. COURT OF APPEALS
NO. 12-14-00232-CR
FILED IN
APPEALLED FROM THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
349th. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
JUL 22 2C.5 HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. 13CR-184
Abel Acosta, Cierk
THE HONORABLE MARK A. CALHOON
PRESIDING JUDGE
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
FREDDIE JAMES FOREMAN
#925367 ELLIS UNIT
1697 FM 980
HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS
77343
PRO SE
TffiBLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2
APPELLANT'S GROUND FOR REVIEW. 3
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING
APPELLANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION UNDER TEXAS CODE OF CRINI-
NAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 38.23: EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION
OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OR THOSE OF
TEXAS MAY NOT BE ADMITTED IN A CRIMINAL CASE. SEE TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ART. 38.23 INSTRUCTION.
ARGUMENT 3
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 10
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATE CASES
ATKINSON V- STATE,
923 S.W.2d 21 (TX.CR.APP. 1996) 3
MADDEN V. STATE,
242 S.W 3d 504 (TEX .CR. APP. 2007 ) 5
STATE STATUTES
TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ART. 38.23 (A) 5
TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ART. 38.23 3,5,8
TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ART. 18.01 (B) 6,7,8,9
TEXAS CODE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ART. 18.06 (B) 6
TEXAS RULE APP. PROC. ANN. 68.2 (VERN.2003) 2
TEXAS RULE APP. PROC. ANN. 68.4 (VERN.2003) 2
TEXAS RULE APP. PROC. ANN. 69.1 (VERN. 2003) 9
(PAGE ONE)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF
A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013. APPELLANT WAS
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A CONTRILLED SUBSTANCE ON AUGUST
06.2014, AND WAS SENTENCED TO TWENTY (20) YEARS CONFINEMENT
IN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION, AND A TEN-THOUSAND DOLLAR FINE. NO MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL WAS FILED. NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED AUGUST 06,2014.
THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED APPELLANT'S CONVICTION ON JUNE
17.2015. NO MOTION FOR REHEARING WAS FILED. THIS COURT HAS
JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 68.2(VERN.
2003).
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THIS APPEAL LIES FROM APPELLANT'S FELONY JURY TRIAL AND
CONVICTION. THIS ISSUE BROUGHT FORWARD WAS DEVELOPED IN THE
TRIAL COURT OR OTHERWISE APPEAR IN THE RECORD.
PROCEDDRAL HISTORY
APPELLANT RAISED ONE GROUND OF ERROR FOR REVIEW IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS. THE COURT CONSIDERED THIS GROUND ON THE
MERIT, AND DECIDED THE SAME ADVERSELY TO APPELLANT. THE COURT
OF APPEALS RENDERED IT'S JUDGMENT ON JUNE 17,2015. NO MOTION
FOR REHEARING WAS FILED. TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 68.4(e) (VERN.
2003).
(PAGE TWO)
APPELLANT'S GROUND FOR REVIEW
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT ALLOW
ING APPELLANT'S REQUESTED JURY INSTRUCTION UNDER TEX. CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 38.23; EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES,
OR THOSE OF TEXAS MAY NOT BE ADMITTED IN A CRIMINAL CASE.
SEE TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 38.23 (A) (WEST 2005) .
APPELLANT DISAGREES WITH THE 12TH. COURT OF APPEALS ARGUE-
MENT THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ARTICLE 38.23
INSTRUCTION, AND AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT.
ARGUMENT
THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT THIS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN THIS
CASE WAS ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE, ARTICLE 38.23 (TEXAS
EXCLUSIONARY RULE)); PERMITS THE JURY TO DISREGARD ILLEGALLY
SEIZED EVIDENCE.
THE COURT IS REQUIRED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DISREGARD
INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF THE
JURY BELIEVES OR HAS A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE EVIDENCE
WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW, ARTICLE 38.23. SEE
ATKINSON V. STATE,923 S.W.2d 21 (TX.CR.APP.1996): WHEN A
FACTUAL ISSUE IS RAISED, THE DEFENDANT HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT
TO AN INSTRUCTION.
IN THIS CASE, A FACTUAL ISSUE WAS RAISED IN THE ILLEGALITY
OF THE SEIZED EVIDENCE. CROCKETT POLICE OFFICER, CLAYTON
SMITH, FAILED TO PROVIDE THE APPELLANT WITH A COPY OF THE
SEARCH WARRANT.
ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013, THURSDAY MORNING AT 7:20am., OFFICER
C. SMITH AND FIVE OTHER OFFICERS CAME TO APPELLANT'S HOME
AT 218 WOOD STREET, OFFICER C. SMITH STATED , MR. FOREMAN
(PAGE THREE)
WE HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT TO SEARCH YOUR HOUSE..
APPELLANT ASKED OFFICER C. SMITH FOR A COPY OF THE SEARCH
WARRANT, OFFICER C. SMITH STATED, WE GOT IT. THE APPELLANT
ASKED AGAIN IN HIS BEDROOM, OFFICER C. SMITH REPLIED, WE
GOT IT. THIS WAS BEFORE BEFORE THE SEARCH BEGAN, AN HOUR
LATER THE APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGED WITH POSSESSION
OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.
A WEEK AFTER APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED, THE APPELLANT SAW
OFFICER C. SMITH AND GOT A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT. THE
APPELLANT REVIEWED THE SEARCH WARRANT AND NOTICED THE WORD
COPY AT THE TOP OF THE SEARCH WARRANT, IN BIG RED LETTERS
HE ALSO NOTICED THE DISTRICT CLERK OF HOUSTON COUNTY STAMP
MARK AT THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE SEARCH WARRANT,
IT STATES SEPTEMBER 27,2013 AT 9:43. APPELLANT ARGUES THAT
OFFICER C. SMITH CAME TO APPELLANT'S HOME ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013
AT 7:20am.; STATING HE HAD A SEARCH WARRANT.
OFFICER C. SMITH DID NOT HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT UNTIL THE
MORNING OF SEPTEMBER 27,2013 AT 9:43. THIS PROVES EVIDENCE
WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. THE SEARCH WARRANT
PROVES THAT OFFICER C. SMITH DID NOT PROVIDE THE APPELLANT
WITH A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013, WHICH
IS A THURSDAY.
THE APPELLANT CONTENDS, THE COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT
THAT HE RECEIVED FROM OFFICER C. SMITH, A WEEK AFTER APPEL
LANT'S ARREST, HAS THE CLERK STAMP-MARK DATED SEPTEMBER 27,2013,
WHICH IS A FRIDAY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OFFICER TO GIVE
THE APPELLANT A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ON THURSDAY, SEPTE)-
(PAGE FOUR)
MBER 26,2013.
APPELLANT ARGUED AT HIS TRIAL, THAT HE DID NOT RCEIVE
A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ON HIS AMENDED MOTION TO SUP
PRESS. THIS WAS FILED WITH THE COURT ON JULY 07,2,014. THE
MOTION WAS HEARD ON AUGUST 04,2014. THE JUDGE DENIED THE
MOTION A DAY BEFORE TRIAL. AT TRIAL, ON AUGUST 05,2014, DEFENSE
COUNSEL ASKED THE JUDGE FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION; CODE OF CRIM.
PROC. ART. 38.23: THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS OBTAINED
ILLEGALLY.. WHEN EVIDENCE PRESENTED BEFORE THE JURY RAISES
A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FRUITS OF A POLICE-INITIATED SEARCH
OR ARREST, WERE ILLEGALLY OBTAINED; "THE JURY SHALL BE IN
STRUCTED THAT IF IT BELIEVES, OR HAS A REASONABLE DOUBT,
THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION
OF THIS ARTICLE, THEN AND IN SUCH EVENT, THE JURY SHALL
DISREGARD ANY SUCH EVIDENCE SO OBTAINED".
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HELD IN,MADDEN V. STATE, 242
S.W.3d 504 (TX.CR.APP.2007) WHEN A DISPUTED, MATERIAL ISSUE
OF FACT IS SUCCESSFULLY RAISED, THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE
ARE MANDATORY AND THE JURY MUST BE INSTRUCTED ACCORDINGLY.
EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY AN ARTICLE 38.23(A) INSTRUCTION CAN DERIVE
"FROM ANY SOURCE" NO MATTER WHETHER "STRONG, WEAK, CONTRA
DICTORY, UNIMPEACHED OR UNBELIEVEABLE." BUT IT MUST, IN ANY
EVENT, RAISE A FACTUAL DISPUTE ABOUT HOW THE EVIDENCE WAS
OBTAINED" APPELLANT ARGUES HE RAISED A FACTUAL DISPUTE ABOUT
HOW THE EVIDENCE WAS OBTAINED WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT UNDER
CHAPTER 18.(R.R., VOL.1, p. 185).
(PAGE FIVE)
AT TRIAL, OFFICER C. SMITH TESTIFIED THAT, HE GAVE THE
APPELLANT A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013,
AT APPELLANT'S HOME, AND AT'THE JAIL.(R.R. VOL. 1 p. 122).
THE SEARCH WARRANT, ITSELF, SHOWS THAT OFFICER C. SMITH
IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.
THE DISTRICT CLERK'S STAMP-MARK STATES SEPTEMBER 27,2013
AT 9:43 ON A FRIDAY MORNING. APPELLANT ARGUES THAT OFFICER
C. SMITH AND FIVE OTHER OFFICERS CAME TO HIS RESIDENCE ON
SEPTEMBER 26,2013 AT 7:20am. WHICH IS A THURSDAY.
THE COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT IS TWENTY-SIX (26) HOURS
LATE. THIS PROVES THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT SERVED A COPY OF
THE SEARCH WARRANT BY OFFICER C. SMITH ON THURSDAY MORNING
SEPTEMBER 26,2013 AT 7:20am.
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR A POLICE OFFICER, OR OFFICERS, TO COME
TO A PERSON'S HOME AND STATE, I HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT TO
SEARCH YOUR HOME AND NEVER PRODUCE THE SEARCH WARRANT UNTIL
DAYS LATER.
APPELLANT ARGUES THE TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. CHAPTER
18, ARTICLE 18.06, WAS VIOLATED IN THIS CASE, SEE SECTION
(B) OF THIS ARTICLE WHICH STATES, ON SEARCHING THE PLACE
ORDERED TO BE SEARCHED, THE OFFICER EXECUTING THE WARRANT
SHALL PRESENT A COPY OF THE WARRANT TO THE OWNER OF THE PLACE,
IF HE IS PRESENT. THE APPELLANT WAS AT HOME, BUT, DID NOT
RECEIVE A COPY SEARCH WARRANT.
MOREOVER, OFFICER C. SMITH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT IN THIS CASE. OFFICER C. SMITH
VIOLATED TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. CH. 18, ART. 18.01, SEC
TION (B), WHICH STATES:
(PAGE SIX)
"NO SEARCH WARRANT MAY NOT ISSUE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN THIS
STATE UNLESS SUFFICIENT FACTS ARE FIRST PRESENTED TO SATISFY
THE ISSUING MAGISTRATE THAT PROBABLE CAUSE DOES IN FACT EXISTS
FOT ITS ISSUING. A SWORN AFFIDAVIT SETTING FORTH SUBSTANT
IAL FACTS ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE SHALL BE FILED IN EVERY
INSTANCE IN WHICH A SEARCH WARRANT IS REQUESTED. EXCEPT
AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE 18.011, THE AFFIDAVIT IS PUBLIC IN
FORMATION IF EXECUTED, AND THE MAGISTRATE'S CLERK SHALL
MAKE A COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECT
ION IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
IN THE PRESENT CASE, OFFICER C. SMITH'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT
IS NOT IN PLACE: HIS SWORN AFFIDAVIT IS NOT FILED UNTILTWO-
DAYS (2) AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED. THE SEARCH
WARRANT WAS ALLEGEDLY ISSUED TO OFFICER C. SMITH ON SEPT
EMBER 25,2013 AT 4;25pm. HIS SWORN AFFIDAVIT IS NOT FILED
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27,2013 AT 9:43; HIS SWORN AFFIDAVIT IS FILED
TWO-DAYS (2) LATER.
OFFICER CLAYTON SMITH, AND FIVE OTHER OFFICERS, CAME TO
APPELLANT'S HOUSE ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013 AT 7:20am, ALLEGING
THEY HAD A SEARCH WARRANT. OFFICER C. SMITH DOES NOT HAVE
A FILED SWORN AFFIDAVIT IN PLACE, WHICH IS USED TO OBTAIN A
SEARCH WARRANT. APPELLANT WAS ARRESTED ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013.
OFFICER C. SMITH'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT
IS NOT FILED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27,2013 AT 9:43.. ACCORDING
TO ARTICLE 18.01, SECTION (B), OFFICER C. SMITH'S SWORN AF
FIDAVIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE SEARCH WARRANT
WAS ISSUED, IT IS NOT, IT IS FILED TWO-DAYS AFTER THE SEARCH
(PAGE SEVEN)
WARRANT WAS ISSUED. THIS VIOLATED ARTICLE 18.01 OF CHAPTER
18, CODE OF CRIM. PROC, BECAUSE OFFICER C. SMITH'S SWORN
AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT FILED WITH THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE.
THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED IN ARTICLE 18.01, SECTION (B),
HAPPENS FIST BEFORE A SEARCH WARRANT IS ISSUED. THE 12TH.
COURT OF APPEALS STATED IN IT'S OPINION AT PAGE THREE: WE
NOTE THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT IS NOT IN THE APPELLATE RECORD.
THEREFORE, THE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT REVIEW THE APPELLANT'S
SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THAT APPELLANT DID
NOT GET A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ON SEPTEMBER 26,2013.
THE APPEALS COURT ALSO NOTED , AT PAGE THREE,OF IT'S OPINION
THAT APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS NEVER RULED UPON.
HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT TRUE. APPELLANT FILED TWO-MOTIONS TO
SUPPRESS THE. THE FIRST MOTION WAS INCORRECT. THE SECOND
MOTION WAS HEARD ON AUGUST 04,2014; AMENDED MOTION TO SUP
PRESS. IT WAS FILED JULY 07,2014, WITH THE COURT NOT THE
CLERK. IT WAS DENIED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE MARK A. CALHOON
AUGUST 04,2014.
IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS AND TRIAL RECORDS WERE LEFT OUT OF
THIS APPEAL FOR SOME REASON. THE AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS
ARGUED THAT APPELLANT WAS DENIED A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT
AND THE POLICE OFFICERS VIOLATED APPELLANT'S STATE AND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, ARTICLE ONE, SECTION NINE OF THE
TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND UNDER ARTICLE li.23 CODE OF CRIM.
PROC. DEFENSE ALSO ARGUED AT TRIAL THAT APPELLANT WAS DENIED
A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AND A JURY INSTRUCTION 3§.23
IS REQUIRED (R.R. VOL. 1, p. 185).
THE APPEALS COURT DID NOT HAVE THE SEARCH WARRANT, OFFI
CER C, SMITH'S SWORN AFFIDAVIT, AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS,
THE REPORTER RECORDS WAS NOT EVER MADE TO THE AMENDED MOTION
TO SUPPRESS HEARING; THAT WAS HELD ON AUGUST 04,2014.
THERE IS TO MANY COURT RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS MISSING
IN THIS APPEAL FOR THE APPEALS COURT TO MAKE A DECISION
THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO TO AN ARTICLE 38.23 IN
STRUCTION. DEFENSE COUNSEL RAISED A FACTUAL DISPUTE IN THIS
AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND DURING TRIAL;"MY CLIENT WAS
NOT SERVED A SEARCH WARRANT UNDER CHAPTER 18 (R.R., VOL.
1, p. 185).
THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRE
TIONARY REVIEW ON THIS GROUND, AND ORDER A FULL BRIEF ON
THE MERIT. TEX. RULE APP. P. ANN. 69.1 (VERN. 2003).
(PAGE NINE)
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, APPELLANT PRAYS THIS HONOR
ABLE COURT TO CONSIDER THIS GROUND FOR REVIEW RAISED HEREIN,
TO GRANT THIS PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, AND TO ORDER
A FULL AND COMPLETE HEARING ON THE MERIT, AND WITH BRIEF.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
-fAJ^Mjf^ id.
A defendant's right to the submission of an Article 38.23 jury instruction is limited to
disputed issues of fact that are material to his claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that
would render evidence inadmissible. Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App.
2007) (citing Pierce v. State, 32 S.W.3d 247, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). To be entitled to an
Article 38.23 jury instruction, the defendant must establish that (1) the evidence heard by the jury
raises an issue of fact, (2) the evidence on that fact is affirmatively contested, and (3) the contested
factual issue is material to the lawfulness of the challenged conduct. Hamal v. State, 390 S.W.3d
302, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). If there is no disputed factual issue, the legality of the conduct
is determined by the trial judge alone as a question of law. Madden, 242 S.W.3d at 510. "The
disputed fact must be an essential one in deciding the lawfulness of the challenged conduct." Id. at
511.
Discussion
Appellant contends in his brief that the officers had no probable cause to search his
bedroom, and that the officers exceeded the scope of the search warrant. Appellant did not provide
any analysis in his brief showing that the evidence raised an issue of material fact on these issues.
However, he cited various pages of the record he believed supports his argument. At trial, he
asked for an Article 38.23 instruction based on "the pictures being changed, the material being
placed. That the scope was exceeded and the fact [that Appellant was not] served a search warrant
under Rule 18."
The issue of whether the officers had probable cause to search his room was not a contested
issue of material fact at trial. Appellant filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence stating
generally that the officers violated his state and federal constitutional rights pertaining to search
and seizure, along with his rights under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23.
However, he never obtained a ruling on the motion, and the issue was not litigated at a pretrial
hearing or at the trial itself. Consequently, the issue of probable cause was not affirmatively
contested, and Appellant was not entitled to an Article 38.23 instruction on that basis. See
Madden, 242 S.W.3d at 510. Moreover, since the facts do not raise the issue of probable cause to
search his room, the issue was to be decided by the trial court as a question of law. See id.
With regard to Appellant's remaining argument concerning the scope of the search warrant,
we note that the search warrant is not in the appellate record, nor was it admitted into evidence at
trial. The detective who obtained the warrant testified that the warrant directed him to search the
residence at the specified address. He was not asked whether it covered the entire residence or
only a portion of it. None of the testimony or other evidence raised the issue concerning the search
warrant's scope. Therefore, an Article 38.23 instruction was not required on this ground. See id.
Appellant's sole issue is overruled.
Disposition
Having overruled Appellant's sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
James T. Wqrthen
Chief Justice
Opinion delivered June 17, 2015.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JUNE 17, 2015
NO. 12-14-00232-CR
FREDDIE JAMES FOREMAN,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 349th District Court
of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 13CR-184)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, for which execution may issue, and that this
decision be certified to the court below for observance.
James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
Panel consisted ofWorthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Nee ley, J.
ft •OV
^
3o
1
>
So'
M .
in-
—•.I
it)
•*. *
-^ 5 Si ?
\
U) X
"•t- -tv
11 \ f»j
± ^ ^