Allyn Shane Doyle A/K/A Shane Doyle v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               ACCEPTED
    07-14-00340-CR
    SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    AMARILLO, TEXAS
    1/13/2015 11:55:40 AM
    Vivian Long, Clerk
    NO. 07-14-00340-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED IN
    7th COURT OF APPEALS
    SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS                       AMARILLO, TEXAS
    1/13/2015 11:55:40 AM
    Amarillo, Texas                          VIVIAN LONG
    CLERK
    ALLYNE SHANE DOYLE
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    Appellee
    Appealed from the 69th Judicial District Court
    Dallam County, Texas
    Cause #4361
    APPELLANT’S BRIEF
    TIMOTHY D. SALLEY
    State Bar No. 00795633
    Salley & Lands
    102-B E 7th Street
    Dumas, TX 79029
    (806) 934-3185
    tsalley53@gmail.com
    NO. 07-14-00340-CR
    IN THE
    SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    Amarillo, Texas
    ALLYNE SHANE DOYLE
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    Appellee
    NAMES OF ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS
    So the members of the Court can determine disqualification and recusal
    under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 15 and 15a, Appellee certifies that the
    following is a complete list of the parties, attorneys, the trial court judge, and any
    other person who has any interest in the outcome of the matter:
    Timothy D. Salley, Appellant’s attorney at trial and on appeal
    102 E 7th Street, Suite B
    PO Box 974
    Dumas, Texas 79029
    Telephone: (806) 934-3185
    Nancy Nemer, Assistant Attorney General
    PO Box 12548
    Austin, Texas 78711
    Telephone: (512) 463-8376
    Honorable Ron Enns, Trial Judge
    District Judge, 69th judicial District, Dallam County
    715 S Dumas Ave.
    Dumas, Texas 79029
    Telephone: (806) 935-2700
    2
    Allyne Shane Doyle
    Defendant/Appellant
    Respectfully Submitted,
    _______/s/_Tim_Salley____
    Timothy D. Salley
    Salley & Lands, Attorneys’ at Law
    State Bar No. 00795633
    Attorney for Appellant
    102 E 7th Street, Suite B
    Dumas, Texas 79029
    (806) 934-3185
    tsalley53@gmail.com
    3
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    NAMES OF ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
    TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
    STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
    ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
    STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
    SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
    APPELLANT’S AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
    CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
    4
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    Cases
    Johnson v. State, 
    120 S.W.3d 10
    (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, affd 169 S.W.3d223)……………………………..9
    5
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    This is an appeal from a bench trial. Defendant was accused of
    Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The Court found defendant guilty
    and assessed punishment at 25 years in the Texas Department of Criminal
    Justice. From this sentence Appellant appeals.
    STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
    Appellant is not requesting oral argument. The issue in this appeal is
    straight forward. If oral argument is requested and granted to the State, then
    Appellant requests same.
    ISSUES PRESENTED
    1.     The Court erred in not granting Appellant’s Motion for a new Trial in
    the punishment phase.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    On July 8, 2014, Appellant went to trial before Ron Enns, District Judge,
    69th Judicial District, for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At the close
    of testimony, the Court found Appellant guilty of the offense.     RR 3:121.    A
    punishment hearing was immediately convened and all parties announced ready.
    RR 3:121. The State announced that it would be calling Angela Reynolds and
    Brandy Blanco and others as witnesses in the punishment phase. RR 3:121-2.
    These witnesses were in the court room as the witness rule was invoked. RR
    3:125. After the witness rule was invoked, Appellants counsel announced to the
    6
    Court that Appellant did not want to be present during the testimony of some of
    these witnesses. RR 3:125. Appellant confirmed that wish to the Court. RR
    3:126. Appellant’s reasoning was the he had been warned earlier not to look at
    these witnesses because he was coercing or threatening them. RR 3:127. He
    was chastised by the State’s Prosecutor and accused of glaring at them in an
    attempt to intimidate them. CR 43. The Court confirmed that he had heard there
    were some “rumblings” about Appellant looking angrily at witnesses. RR 3:127.
    Although the Court had been watching, he did not see anything that caused him
    concern. RR 3:128. After discussion with his counsel, Appellant still did not wish
    to be present for this part of the testimony. RR 3:129. Appellant confirmed that
    there was not one particular witness that he did not want to be present for, but
    that it was all of the witnesses.   RR 3:129.     After both sides rested in the
    punishment hearing, Appellant was brought back in and sentenced to 25 years in
    the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. RR 3:186-7.
    On July 15, 2014, Appellant filed a Motion for a New Trial. CR 1:39. On
    August 19. 2014, Appellant filed a supplement to that motion. CR 1:40. Due to a
    misunderstanding, Appellant did not testify on his behalf during the punishment
    hearing. CR 1:43. At the close of his punishment hearing, Appellant stated that
    his counsel had done everything that he had asked counsel to do. RR 3:189.
    Appellant wanted to testify but did not inform his counsel until back at the jail
    after his sentencing. CR 1:43.
    7
    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
    The Court erred by not granting Appellant’s Motion for a New Trial so he
    could testify in a punishment hearing.
    8
    STATE’S AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
    I.     The Court erred in not granting Appellant’s Motion for a new Trial
    in the punishment phase.
    “[A] criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify in his own defense.”
    Johnson v. State, 
    120 S.W.3d 10
    , 15 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2003, affd 169
    S.W.3d223)(Citing Rock v. Arkansas, 
    483 U.S. 44
    (1987)). The “Supreme Court
    [has] held this right arises from the fifth and sixth amendments, is personal to the
    defendant, and cannot be waived by counsel.” 
    Id. “To be
    effective, any waiver of
    the right to testify must be made knowingly and voluntarily.” 
    Id. (citing Emery
    v.
    Johnson, 
    139 F.3d 171
    , 198 (5th Cir. 1997)).
    On July 8, 2014, Appellant went to trial before Ron Enns, District Judge, 69 th
    Judicial District, for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.        At the close of
    testimony, the Court found Appellant guilty of the offense. RR 3:121. A punishment
    hearing was immediately convened and all parties announced ready. RR 3:121.
    The State announced that it would be calling Angela Reynolds and Brandy Blanco
    and others as witnesses in the punishment phase. RR 3:121-2. These witnesses
    were in the court room as the witness rule was invoked.         RR 3:125.     After the
    witness rule was invoked, Appellants counsel announced to the Court that Appellant
    did not want to be present during the testimony of some of these witnesses. RR
    3:125. Appellant confirmed that wish to the Court. RR 3:126. Appellant’s reasoning
    was the he had been warned earlier not to look at these witnesses because he was
    coercing or threatening them.      RR 3:127.      He was chastised by the State’s
    Prosecutor and accused of glaring at them in an attempt to intimidate them. CR 43.
    9
    The Court confirmed that he had heard there were some “rumblings” about Appellant
    looking angrily at witnesses. RR 3:127. Although the Court had been watching, he
    did not see anything that caused him concern. RR 3:128. After discussion with his
    counsel, Appellant still did not wish to be present for this part of the testimony. RR
    3:129. Appellant confirmed that there was not one particular witness that he did not
    want to be present for, but that it was all of the witnesses. RR 3:129. After both
    sides rested in the punishment hearing, Appellant was brought back in the court
    room and sentenced to 25 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. RR
    3:186-7. It was the understanding that Appellant did not want to be present during
    his punishment hearing. The State confirms this understanding in its response to
    Appellant’s supplement to his Motion for a New Trial. CR 1:50-51.
    On July 15, 2014, Appellant filed a Motion for a New Trial which was
    presented to the trial court. CR 1:39. No hearing was scheduled on that motion, so
    on August 19. 2014, Appellant filed a supplement to that motion in order to preserve
    his affidavits for the record.   CR 1:40.    Said affidavits were of the complaining
    witness and the Appellant in order to inform the trial court of a misunderstanding.
    Said supplement was also presented to the trial court. Due to the misunderstanding,
    Appellant did not testify on his behalf during the punishment hearing. CR 1:43. At
    the close of his punishment hearing, Appellant stated that his counsel had done
    everything that he had asked counsel to do. RR 3:189. Appellant wanted to testify
    but did not inform his counsel until back at the jail after his sentencing. CR 1:43.
    For these reasons, Appellant asks this Court to grant him a new punishment
    hearing.
    10
    PRAYER
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays that this Court
    reverse the trial court’s judgment in this cause.
    Respectfully submitted,
    _____/s/__Tim Salley____
    TIMOTHY D. SALLEY
    State Bar No. 00795633
    Asst. 69th District Attorney
    715 S. Dumas Avenue, Room 304
    Dumas, Texas 79029
    (806) 935-5654
    tsalley53@gmail.com
    CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
    I hereby certify that this brief contains a total of 1,940 words.
    ________/s/ Tim Salley_
    TIMOTHY D. SALLEY
    11
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing instrument was provided
    to all counsel of record in this matter on the 13th day of January, 2015, in
    accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    ________/s/ Tim Salley_
    TIMOTHY D. SALLEY
    12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-14-00340-CR

Filed Date: 1/13/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/28/2016