Quinton Jackson v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
06-15-00036-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
7/20/2015 2:01:04 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
7/20/2015 2:01:04 PM
No. 06-15-00036-CR DEBBIE AUTREY
Clerk
__________________________________________________________________________
IN THE SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS
__________________________________________________________________________
QUINTON JACKSON
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appealed from the 124th District Court
Gregg County, Texas
__________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________
Clement Dunn
State Bar No. 06249300
140 East Tyler, Suite 240
Longview, Texas 75601
Telephone: 903-753-7071
Fax: 903-753-8783
ORAL ARGUMENT WAIVED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s
judgment and the names and addresses of their trial and appellate counsel.
1. Appellant: Quinton Jackson
2. Appellant’s Trial Counsel: Richard Hurlburt
Attorney at Law
222 North Fredonia St.
Longview, TX 75601
TSB No. 10308600
3. Appellant’s Counsel on Appeal: Clement Dunn
Attorney at Law
140 E. Tyler Street, Suite 240
Longview, TX 75601
TSB No. 06249300
4. Attorney for the State: Zan Brown
Assistant District Attorney, Gregg County
101 East Methvin St., Suite 333
Longview, Texas 75601
TSB No. 03205900
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ISSUE PRESENTED . .......................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. ................................................... 2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . ................................................ 3
ARGUMENT .. .............................................................. 3
PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Constitutional Provisions
Article 1, Section 10; Texas Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Fourteenth Amendment to The United States Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Article 42.12, Sec. 3d(b), V.A.C.C.P. (1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Article 42.12, Sec. 5(b), V.A.C.C.P. (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Offense: Injury to a Child.
Verdict: Guilty; Ten (10) years confinement - Texas Department of Criminal Justice -
Institutional Division
Date of Verdict: November 24, 2014
Trial Court: 124th District Court, Gregg County, Texas.
This case involves a criminal prosecution for Injury to a Child. C.R., 58; R.R. 4, at 8.
Based on the Appellant’s plea of guilty, the District Court had initially imposed a sentence
of ten years’ imprisonment, probated for seven years. R.R. 3, at 10. Subsequently, however,
the Court granted the Appellant’s Motion for New Trial, and instead placed the Appellant on
a deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. C.R., at 68; R.R. 4,
at 4-5. This appeal arises from the District Court’s adjudication of the Appellant’s guilt, and
imposition of a sentence of ten years’ confinement. R.R. 5, at 102.
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Believing the instant case contains issues capable of resolution on the basis of record
the Appellant respectfully does not request oral argument.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The Appellant respectfully submits that the District Court erred in failing to hold a
separate hearing on punishment following the decision to adjudicate guilt.
BRIEF OF APPELLANT, QUINTON
PAGE 1
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Since this appeal arises from procedural aspects of the case, the Appellant respectfully
submits that this renders a review of the underlying facts of the offense itself, as well as the
initial procedural history, unnecessary. Instead, the pertinent facts of the record entail the
hearing on the State’s Application for Adjudication of Guilt. C.R., at 80; 86 (State’s First
Amended Application for Adjudication of Guilt). At the conclusion of this hearing, the
Appellant’s counsel argued against the adjudication of guilt: “Judge, I would ask the Court to
find the new violations ‘not true’ based on the fact I don’t believe the State has proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the new violations occurred.” R.R. 5, at 96. Though he
conceded the Appellant had pled “true” to come of the “other” violations (id.), the Appellant’s
counsel concluded:
So we’d ask the Court to find the new offense “not true,” modify the probation
to whatever the Court deems fit, We would just ask that he not be revoked and
sent to prison.
Id., at 97.
Next the State argued that the Appellant “deserves to be revoked.” Id., at 99. In arguing
for revocations, the State re-emphasized: “So the State’s asking him to be revoked because he’s
earned it.” Id. The record reflects no argument or discussion by the State regarding what the
punishment should be in th event of revocation.
Finally, the District Court expressed concerns about the Appellant’s conduct, and then
concluded:
I adjudicate you guilty. I sentence you to 10 years’ confinement in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
R.R. 5, at 102.
BRIEF OF APPELLANT, QUINTON
PAGE 2
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The District Court erred in failing to hold separate hearings, first on the adjudication
of the Appellant’s guilt and, second, on the disposition in the event of adjudication.
ARGUMENT
The record reflects that the District Court held a hearing on the State’s Application for
Adjudication of Guilt (see C.R., at 80; 86) on November 24, 2014. R.R. 5. The hearing
concluded on that date. Id. The District Court held no further hearings regarding the
adjudication or disposition.
As noted above (see Statement of Facts, supra), at the end of that hearing the Court
simultaneously adjudicated the Appellant guilty and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement.
R.R. 5, at 102. Immediately prior to that, both the Appellant’s counsel and the prosecution
representing the State had presented arguments that focused entirely upon whether or not the
Appellant’s community supervision should be revoked. The State did not recommend a
particular sentence in the event of adjudication. Similarly, in asking that the Appellant’s
community supervision not be adjudicated, the counsel for the Appellant made no mention of
what an appropriate sentence, or outcome, might be if the Court did adjudicate the Appellant
guilty.
Because the Court sentenced the Appellant to prison immediately upon adjudicating him
guilty, the Appellant had no opportunity to present evidence on the issue of sentencing. This
violates the Appellant’s right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Due Course of Law under Article 1, Section 10, of the Texas
BRIEF OF APPELLANT, QUINTON
PAGE 3
Constitution. In Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), the Court held:
Today we hold that when a trial court finds that an accused has committed a
violation as alleged by the State and adjudicates a previously deferred finding
of guilt, the court must then conduct a second phase to determine punishment.
As Art. 42.12, Sec. 3d(b), V.A.C.C.P. (1988), provides, "(a)fter an adjudication
of guilt, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment, pronouncement
of sentence, granting of probation, and defendant's appeal continue as if the
adjudication of guilt had not been deferred." See now Art. 42.12, Sec. 5(b),
V.A.C.C.P. (1990). Thus, based upon the statute, the defendant is entitled to a
punishment hearing after the adjudication of guilt, and the trial judge must allow
the accused the opportunity to present evidence.
In the instant case, the record reflects that the District Court held but one hearing; no hearing
on punishment occurred, as is required both statutorily and constitutionally.
The Appellant respectfully notes that in the instant case his counsel made no objections
to this violation. Similarly in Issa, however, trial counsel also failed to object. Id. In a manner
almost identical to the instant case, the trial court in Issa adjudicated the appellant guilty and
sentenced him to confinement for ten years “in one proclamation.” Id. Under these
circumstances, the Court in Issa held that the “appellant had no opportunity to object to the trial
court’s action until after that action was taken.” Id. The failure of the Appellant’s trial counsel
to object in the instant case arose under the same circumstances presented in Issa and should
be viewed, and excused, in the same light.
PRAYER
The Appellant respectfully requests this case be reversed and remanded to the District
Court for a hearing on punishment.
Respectfully submitted,
BRIEF OF APPELLANT, QUINTON
PAGE 4
__/s/ Clement Dunn_______________
140 East Tyler Street, Suite 240
Longview, Texas 75601
(903) 753-7071 Fax: 903-753-8783
State Bar No. 06249300
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this brief was delivered to the Gregg
County District Attorney’s Office, Longview, Texas on this 20th day of July 2015.
__/s/ Clement Dunn_______________
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
I hereby certify that a total of1362 words are included in this brief.
__/s/ Clement Dunn_______________
BRIEF OF APPELLANT, QUINTON
PAGE 5