Brandon Keione Williams v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
12-14-00274-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
5/29/2015 2:54:30 PM
CATHY LUSK
CLERK
NO ORAL ARGUMENT R E Q U E S T E D
FILED IN
C A U S E NO. 12-14-00274-CR 12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
5/29/2015 2:54:30 PM
IN T H E CATHY S. LUSK
COURT OF APPEALS Clerk
TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER, TEXAS
BRANDON KEIONE WILLIAMS
Appellant
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal in C a u s e No. 31599
O n A p p e a l f r o m t h e Third Judicial District C o u r t
of Anderson County, T e x a s
BRIEF FOR APPELIJ\NT
Philip C . Fletcher
Texas Bar No. 00787478
800 North Mallard
Palestine, Texas 75801
Telephone No.: (903) 731-4440
Facsimile No.: (903)731-4474
Email: fletchlaw@yahoo.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
T A B L E OF CONTENTS
P A G E NO.
Table of C o n t e n t s • 2
List of A u t h o r i t i e s 3
Appearances... 4
Address to the Court 5
Statement of the Case -6
Issues Presented •• • 7
Statement of Facts 8
S u m m a r y of the Argument •• 12
Argument, Point of Error 13
Prayer • •• 15
C e r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l i a n c e - T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e 9 . 4 (i) ( 3 ) 1 4 16
Certificate of Service 17
LIST O F AUTHORITIES
CASES: P A G E NO.
/W/raA7dav.^A7Z0A?a, 3 8 4 U . S . 4 3 6 , 8 6 S . C t . 1 6 0 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) 13
Rhode Island V. Innis, 4 4 6 U . S . 2 9 1 , 1 0 0 S . C t . 1 6 8 2 ( 1 9 8 0 . ) . 14
WolfV. State, 9 1 7 S . W . 2 d 2 7 0 ( T e x . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) 13
STATUTES: PAGE NO.
T e x a s C o d e o fCriminal Procedure Article 15.17 13
T e x a s C o d e o fCriminal Procedure Article 15.22 13
T e x a s C o d e o fCriminal Procedure Article 38.21 13
T e x a s C o d e o fCriminal Procedure Article 38.22 13
T e x a s Constitution, Article I Sec. 19, T e x a s D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e 13
United States Constitution, Fifth A m e n d m e n t 13
APPEARANCES
P u r s u a n t t o Rule 38.1 (a), T e x a s R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e , A p p e l l a t e p r o v i d e s
a c o m p l e t e list o f all p a r t i e s a n d n a m e s a n d a d d r e s s e s o f C o u n s e l :
Trial Defendant: Brandon Ketone Williams
Trial Defendant's Counsel: Colin D. McFall
Attorney at Law
617 East Lacy Street, Suite 106
Palestine, T e x a s 75801-2965
Telephone: (903) 723-1923
Facsimile: (903) 723-0269
Trial State's Counsel: Stanley Sokolowski
A n d e r s o n C o u n t y A s s i s t a n t District A t t o r n e y
500 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801
Telephone:(903) 723-7400
Facsimile: (903) 723-7818
Appellant: Brandon Ketone Williams
Appellant's Counsel: Philip C . Fletcher
Attorney at Law
800 North Mallard Street
Palestine, T e x a s 75801
Telephone: (903) 731-4440
Facsimile: (903)731-4474
Appellee's Counsel: Allyson Mitchell and Scott Holden
A n d e r s o n C o u n t y District A t t o r n e y ' s Office
500 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801
Telephone:(903) 723-7400
Facsimile: (903)723-7818
C A U S E NO. 12-14-00274-CR
IN T H E
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER, TEXAS
BRANDON KEIONE WILLIAMS
Appellant
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
A p p e a l in C a u s e N o . 3 1 5 9 9
O n A p p e a l f r o m t h e Third Judicial District C o u r t
of Anderson County, T e x a s
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
C O M E S N O W , B R A N D O N K E I O N E W I L L I A M S , hereinafter referred to as
A p p e l l a n t , a n d s u b m i t s t h i s B r i e f in s u p p o r t o f t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t t h a t j u d g m e n t
r e n d e r e d in C a u s e N u m b e r 3 1 5 9 9 b e r e v e r s e d .
5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A p p e l l a n t w a s indicted in C a u s e N u m b e r 3 1 5 9 9 w i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f E v a d i n g A r r e s t
or Detention with a Vehicle. T h i s o f f e n s e w a s alleged to h a v e occurred o n N o v e m b e r 9,
2 0 1 3 , in A n d e r s o n C o u n t y , T e x a s . A p p e l l a n t pled n o t guilty t o t h e s e c h a r g e s . O n A u g u s t
19-20, 2 0 1 4 , this c a s e w a s tried to a jury, T h e jury f o u n d Appellant guilty of t h e charge.
On August 20, 2014, the Court assessed Appellant's punishment for C a u s e Number
3 1 5 9 9 a t s e v e n (7) y e a r s in t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m e n t o f C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e . O n S e p t e m b e r 1 9 ,
2 0 1 4 , Appellant timely g a v e his Notice of Appeal to this Honorable Court. Appellant n o w
t i m e l y files t h i s Brief in s u p p o r t o f t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t r e n d e r e d in
C a u s e N u m b e r 31599 be reversed.
6
ISSUES PRESENTED
Point of Error; T h e T r i a l C o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n o f
certain questions a n d statements o f Appellant that w e r e m a d e while Appellant w a s in
c u s t o d y in violation o f his Fifth A m e n d m e n t right against self-incrimination.
7
STATEMENT OF F A C T S
POINT OF E R R O R :
T h e S t a t e first called J o h n n y G o r d e n , a f o r m e r patrol d e p u t y f o r t h e A n d e r s o n
County Sheriff's Department. H ew o r k e d for the A n d e r s o n C o u n t y Sheriff's Department
for three a n d a half y e a r s a n d w a s o n patrol a t t h e t i m e o f t h e arrest. H ew a s driving a
m a r k e d s h e r i f T s c a r w i t h w o r k i n g lights a n d sirens. (R.R. Vol. 3., Pgs. 9-11) Officer
G o r d e n w a s working t h e 10:45 p.m. t o 7:15 a . m . shift and h ew a s patrolling t h e Elkhart,
T e x a s area o fA n d e r s o n County. ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g . 12) Officer G o r d e n originally s a w t h e
red Cadillac and noticed their registration sticker w a s expired a s h e passed him. H e
a t t e m p t e d t o initiate a stop a t that t i m e b u t w a s u n a b l e t o g e t t u r n e d a r o u n d i n t i m e
b e c a u s e o f t h e traffic in that area. ( R . R . V o l . 3 . , P g s . 1 2 - 1 3 ) A p p r o x i m a t e l y , 2 0 m i n u t e s
later Officer G o r d e n noticed the s a m e vehicle and in addition t o t h e expired registration
sticker t h e Cadillac w a s speeding, according t o his radar. ( R . R . V o l . 3., Pgs. 13) Officer
G o r d e n turned the car a r o u n d a n d caught u pt o the car at t h e intersection o f 2 8 7 a n d 2 9 4
in E l k h a r t . T h e C a d i l l a c m a d e a left t u r n o n t o 2 8 7 h e a d i n g t o w a r d s P a l e s t i n e , T e x a s . A t
that t i m e , Officer G o r d e n a t t e m p t e d t o initiate a stop. H e t u r n e d o n his o v e r h e a d lights a n d
sirens t o gain the driver's attention. A t o n e point the driver a p p e a r e d t o b e pulling t o the
side o f the road t o stop b u t m o v e d back over into t h e lane a n d continued driving. ( R . R .
V o l . 3., P g s . 1 5 - 1 6 ) Officer G o r d e n s t a t e d t h a t t h e y d r o v e f r o m E l k h a r t t o P a l e s t i n e w i t h t h e
lights a n d s i r e n s o n t h e w h o l e t i m e a n d m a i n t a i n e d t h e s p e e d limit. W h e n O f f i c e r G o r d e n
got t o Palestine, Officer W e s t o n joined the pursuit behind Officer G o r d e n . (R.R. V o l .3.,
Pgs. 16-17) O n c e t h e C a d i l l a c r e a c h e d t h e P a l e s t i n e city limits, t h e driver i n c r e a s e d h i s
speed. Officer G o r d e n maintained pursuit f r o m a distance after the Cadillac avoided a n
8
accident witli a truck at the W a l m a r t intersection of L o o p 2 5 6 . H e explained that h e w a s
unable to radar the driver but stated that h e reached s p e e d s of 1 2 7 - 1 3 5 during t h e pursuit.
( R . R . V o l . 3., P g s . 1 8 - 1 9 ) A t o n e point, Officer G o r d e n lost sight o f t h e C a d i l l a c w h e n h e
w a s c o m i n g u p a hill a n d t h e C a d i l l a c w a s d o w n t o w a r d s t h e r a i l r o a d t r a c k s . . O n c e O f f i c e r
G o r d e n t o p p e d t h e hill, h e s a w s m o k e a n d d e b r i s a n d n o t i c e d t h e v e h i c l e h a d r a n t h r o u g h
t w o to three storage buildings and c a m e to a stop. Officer G o r d e n approached the vehicle,
b o t h d o o r s w e r e c l o s e d , a n d h e s a w m o v e m e n t in t h e vehicle. T h e p a s s e n g e r s i d e d o o r
o p e n e d a n d a black m a l e stepped out. Officer G o r d e n c o m m a n d e d t h e m a n to get o n t h e
g r o u n d . T h e m a n t u r n e d a n d l o o k e d at h i m a n d b e g a n t o r u n . ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g s . 2 0 - 2 1 )
Officer G o r d e n s t o p p e d a n d m a d e s u r e n o o n e e l s e w a s in t h e v e h i c l e a n d b e g a n t o r u n
after t h e black m a l e . A P a l e s t i n e Police D e p a r t m e n t unit noticed Officer G o r d e n w a s
c h a s i n g t h e s u s p e c t a n d j o i n e d in t h e c h a s e . T h e y w e r e a b l e t o r e s t r a i n t h e s u s p e c t , later
identified a s B r a n d o n W i l l i a m s , in t h e b a c k y a r d o f a r e s i d e n c e . ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g . 2 2 )
Officer G o r d e n t h e n placed t h e suspect u n d e r arrest. Officer G o r d e n a t t e m p t e d to identify
him and took him back to the scene of the accident. T h e suspect refused to be treated by
E M S . ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g . 2 3 )
Officer G o r d e n placed Mr. W i l l i a m s under arrest. Office G o r d e n asked Mr. W i l l i a m s
w h y h e ran. In r e s p o n s e to this, Mr. W i l l i a m s a s k e d w h y h e w a s h e pulled over. ( R . R . V o l .
3., P g . 2 4 ) Officer G o r d e n e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e w a s s p e e d i n g a n d h a d a e x p i r e d registration
sticker. C o n t i n u i n g in his r e s p o n s e t o Officer G o r d e n ' s q u e s t i o n , Mr. W i l l i a m s a s k e d
O f f i c e r G o r d e n if h e w o u l d h a v e l e t h i m g o . O f f i c e r G o r d e n s a i d i f h e h a d a g o o d d r i v e r ' s
license a n d n o w a r r a n t s , h e w o u l d h a v e let h i m go. T h e n Mr. W i l l i a m s stated h e h a d a
w a r r a n t a n d t h a t ' s w h y h e did n o t stop. Mr. W i l l i a m s told Officer G o r d e n h e w a s n o t t h e
9
driver of the vehicle and Officer G o r d e n stated that he s a w him get out of the vehicle and
h e w a s t h e o n l y o n e in t h e v e h i c l e . Officer G o r d e n t h e n a s k e d Mr. W i l l i a m s w h a t the
w a r r a n t w a s for. ( R . R . V o l . 3 . , P g s . 2 5 - 2 6 ) O f f i c e r G o r d e n w a s a s k e d a g a i n if h e h a d
placed Mr. W i l l i a m s under arrest a n d h e said yes. W h i l e under arrest Officer Gorden
a d m i t s t h a t its p o s s i b l e h e a s k e d M r . W i l l i a m s w h y h e r a n . O f f i c e r G o r d e n s t a t e d t h a t h e
w a s a w a r e t h a t if s o m e o n e h a s b e e n p l a c e d u n d e r a r r e s t t h e r e c e r t a i n s t e p s t h a t h a v e t o
b e t a k e n a n d t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n is t h e b e r e c o r d e d . However, Officer Gorden admits that
w h e n he w a s asking Mr. Williams that they w e r e too far a w a y f r o m the vehicle for the
conversation to be recorded, via b o d y m i c r o p h o n e , etc.. Officer G o r d e n t h e n explained
t h a t it w a s n o t i n h i s r e p o r t b u t t h a t h e m a y h a v e a s k e d M r . W i l l i a m s w h y h e r a n . With
e v e r y t h i n g t h a t w a s g o i n g o n , h e c o u l d n o t r e m e m b e r . ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g s . 2 7 - 2 9 )
T h e judge stated that the question Officer G o r d e n a s k e d while Mr. W i l l i a m s w a s
under arrest will be objectionable. T h e judge advised Officer G o r d e n that he could only
testify to t h e q u e s t i o n s that w e r e a s k e d o f h i m . H o w e v e r , Colin M c F a l l , Appellant's trial
attoerney, brought up t h e fact that Officer Gorden's original a n s w e r w a s "yes, I asked h i m
a q u e s t i o n . " It w a s c l e a r M r . W i l l i a m s w a s u n d e r a r r e s t a t t h a t t i m e . T h i s s h o w s c u s t o d i a l
i n t e r r o g a t i o n a n d a t t h a t point M r . M c F a l l r e q u e s t s t h a t all s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y M r . W i l l i a m s
after that point be disregarded. T h e q u e s t i o n s a n d a n s w e r s at the s c e n e are custodial
i n t e r r o g a t i o n . T h e C o u r t e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e r e is n o t a c u s t o d y i s s u e , t h e q u e s t i o n is w h e t h e r
o r n o t it's a n i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s s u e . T h e C o u r t c o n f i r m s t h e prior ruling t h a t O f f i c e r G o r d e n
m a y a n s w e r regarding questions a s k e d of him, but not questions asked by him. ( R . R . V o l .
3., P g s . 3 0 - 3 2 ) T h e S t a t e e x p l a i n s t h a t t h e r e is a s t a t e m e n t t h a t M r . W i l l i a m s r a n b e c a u s e
he had a parole warrant. H e wants that statement admissible under Article 4 0 4 B . Mr.
10
M c F a l t o b j e c t s t o it b e i n g a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r A r t i c l e 3 8 . 2 2 , S e c t i o n 3 ( a ) , s t a t i n g it i s a l s o
overly prejudicial. M r . M c F a l l a d v i s e d t h e c o u r t t h a t it i s u n l i k e l y t h a t M r . W i l l i a m s w o u l d
not j u s t v o l u n t e e r that h e h a d a p a r o l e h o l d . H o w e v e r , h e w o u l d give t h a t in r e s p o n s e t o
a question f r o m Officer Gorden. ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g . 3 3 ) A f t e r Mr. M c F a l l a s k e d Officer
Gorden additional questions, Officer Gorden stated he could not r e m e m b e r w h e n he asked
h i m w h y h e ran. ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g s . 3 4 - 3 5 )
O n c e t h e j u r y is p r e s e n t a g a i n , O f f i c e r G o r d e n e x p l a i n e d t h a t h e p l a c e d M r . W i l l i a m s
u n d e r a r r e s t in t h e b a c k y a r d o f t h e r e s i d e n c e a n d Mr. W i l l i a m s a s k e d w h y h e w a s pulled
over. Officer G o r d e n advised for speeding a n d expired registration. H e stated that Mr.
W i l l i a m s t h e n told h i m h e h a d a w a r r a n t for his arrest. Officer G o r d e n stated h e placed Mr.
Williams under arrest for Evading Arrest with a Vehicle, Speeding, Evading o n foot, N o
Driver's license, a n d t h e w a r r a n t that h a d b e e n i s s u e d . ( R . R . V o l . 3., P g s . 3 6 - 3 8 )
11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
T h e T r i a l C o u r t a b u s e d its d i s c r e t i o n in a l l o w i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n o f c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s
a n d s t a t e m e n t s o f A p p e l l a n t t h a t w e r e m a d e w h i l e A p p e l l a n t w a s in c u s t o d y in violation o f
his Fifth A m e n d m e n t right a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c h m i n a t i o n .
An admission or a statement inculpating a declarant but n o t o n e which
a c k n o w l e d g e s guilt m a d e u n d e r c u s t o d i a l interrogation b y a n a g e n t o f t h e S t a t e i s
p r e s u m e d t o b e c o e r c e d a n d i n v o l u n t a r y a n d in v i o l a t i o n o f a p e r s o n ' s Fifth A m e n d m e n t
r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n u n l e s s Miranda w a r n i n g s a r e g i v e n .
In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , A p p e l l a n t w a s in c u s t o d y . H e h a d b e e n p l a c e d u n d e r arrest.
Appellant w a s also the subject of interrogation. H e w a s a s k e d by the officer the question,
" W h y did y o u r u n ? " T h e w a r n i n g s required b yM i r a n d a a n d T h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l
P r o c e d u r e w e r e never given. E v e r y s t a t e m e n t or question given by Appellant at t h e s c e n e
after t h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y is i n a d m i s s i b l e a n d s h o u l d h a v e b e e n e x c l u d e d b y t h e T r i a l C o u r t .
T h e T r i a l C o u r t a b u s e d its d i s c r e t i o n b y a l l o w i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e i n
violation of Appellant's Fifth A m e n d m e n t right a g a i n s t self-incrimination. A s a result, this
Court must reverse the judgment.
12
ARGUMENT
POINT O F E R R O R
T h e T r i a l C o u r t a b u s e d its d i s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w i n g t h e a d m i s s i o n o f c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s
a n d s t a t e m e n t s o f A p p e l l a n t i n violation o f h i s Fifth A m e n d m e n t right against self-
incrimination.
An admission or a statement inculpating a declarant but n o t o n e which
acknowledges guilt m a d e u n d e r c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n b y a n a g e n t o f t h e S t a t e i s
p r e s u m e d t o b e coerced and involuntary and inviolation o f a person's Fifth A m e n d m e n t
r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n u n l e s s Miranda w a r n i n g s a r e g i v e n . Miranda v. Arizona, 3 8 4
U . S . 4 3 6 , 8 6 S . C t . 1 6 0 2 ( 1 9 6 6 ) . Miranda w a r n i n g s f i n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s u p p o r t i n t h e T e x a s
Constitution. Article I S e c . 19, T e x a s D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e states t h a t " N o citizen of this
S t a t e s h a l l b e d e p r i v e d o f life, liberty, p r o p e r t y , privileges o r immunities, o r in any m a n n e r
d i s e n f r a n c h i s e d , e x c e p t b y t h e d u e c o u r s e o f t h e l a w o f t h e l a n d . " See WolfV. State, 9 1 7
S.W.2d 270 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Furthermore the Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure
Article 3 8 . 2 1 s t a t e s t h a t a s t a t e m e n t o f a n a c c u s e d c a n n o t b e a d m i t t e d u n l e s s it c a n b e
s h o w n "that the s a m e w a s freely a n d voluntarily m a d e without compulsion o r persuasion,
under the rules hereafter prescribed." T h e s e rules mentioned are found inArticle 15.17
and Article 38.22 o f the T e x a s C o d e o fCriminal Procedure. T h e y basically require the
s a m e w a r n i n g s f o u n d i n Miranda.
Before t h e s e warnings a r e required, a n individual m u s t b e i n custody a n d t h e
subject o f interrogation. Article 15.22 o fthe T e x a s C o d e o f Criminal Procedure says that
a n individual "isarrested w h e n h e a s b e e n actually placed under restraint o r taken into
13
custody b y a n officer o r person executing a w a r r a n t o f arrest, o r b ya n officer o r person
arresting witliout a warrant." Interrogation is e x p r e s s questioning o ractions intended t o
e l i c i t a r e s p o n s e . Rhode Island v. Innis, 4 4 6 U . S , 2 9 1 , 1 0 0 S . C t . 1 6 8 2 ( 1 9 8 0 ) .
In t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , A p p e l l a n t w a s in c u s t o d y . H e h a d b e e n p l a c e d u n d e r arrest.
Appellant w a s also the subject of interrogation. H e w a s asked by the officer t h e question,
" W h y did y o u r u n ? " T h e w a r n i n g s required b y M i r a n d a a n d T h e T e x a s C o d e o f C r i m i n a l
P r o c e d u r e w e r e never given. E v e r y s t a t e m e n t or question given by Appellant at the s c e n e
a f t e r t h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r y is i n a d m i s s i b l e a n d s h o u l d h a v e b e e n e x c l u d e d b y t h e T r i a l C o u r t .
A f t e r t h e illegal custodial interrogation, A p p e l l a n t a s k e d t h e officer w h y h e w a s
getting pulled o v e r a n d if h e w o u l d h a v e pulled o v e r w o u l d h e h a v e g o t t e n a w a r n i n g . H e
a l s o told t h e officer h e did not stop b e c a u s e h e h a d a w a r r a n t . All o f t h e s e inculpatory
statements w e r e m a d e in response t o custodial interrogation by a n agent o fthe State
without the proper warnings and are presumed t o b e coerced and involuntary and in
violation o f Appellant's Fifth A m e n d m e n t right not t o incriminate himself. Appellant's
questions and statements w e r e the only direct evidence that placed Appellant behind the
wheel of the vehicle. W i t h o u t this improperly admitted evidence, the State would have had
difficulty m e e t i n g their b u r d e n o f proof in this matter.
T h e Trial Court abused itsdiscretion b y allowing the admission o f evidence in
violation of Appellant's Fifth A m e n d m e n t right a g a i n s t self-incrimination. A s a result, this
Court must reverse the judgment.
14
PRAYER
For the above and foregoing reasons, Appellant prays that Appellant's
c o n v i c t i o n in C a u s e N o . 1 2 - 1 4 - 0 0 2 7 4 - C R , a p p e a l e d in C a u s e N o . 3 1 5 9 9 f r o m t h e T h i r d
Judicial District C o u r t of A n d e r s o n C o u n t y , T e x a s , be reversed.
Respectfully submitted,
P H I L I P C. F L E T C H E R
Attorney for Appellant
15
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
TEXAS R U L E S O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 9.4(i)(3)
I certify that according t o t h e Microsoft W o r d p r o g r a m ' s w o r d - c o u n t function, t h e
brief filed inthis m a t t e r c o n t a i n s 1,938 w o r d s excluding t h e caption, identity o fparties a n d
counsel, table o fcontents, index o fauthorities, statement of the case, statement o f issues
presented, signature, proof o f service, certification a n d certificate o f compliance.
Respectfully submitted,
PHILIP C. F L E T C H E R
800 North Mallard
P. O . B o x 2 5 2
Palestine, Texas 75802
Tel: (903) 731-4440
PHILTP C. FLETCHER
State Bar No. 00787478
Attorney for Appellant
16
C E R T I F I C A T E OF S E R V I C E
I h e r e b y certify that a true a n d correct c o p y o f t h e a b o v e a n d foregoing Brief h a s
b e e n delivered by facsimile (903) 7 2 3 - 7 8 1 8 to Allyson Mitchell and Scott Holden, A n d e r s o n
C o u n t y Criminal District A t t o r n e y ' s Office, A t t o r n e y f o r Appellee, A n d e r s o n County
C o u r t h o u s e , 5 0 0 N o r t h C h u r c h S t r e e t , P a l e s t i n e , T e x a s 7 5 8 0 1 , o n this t h e 29*^ d a y o f M a y ,
2015.
17