Larry Dewayne Garrett v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                       ACCEPTED
    03-14-00138-CR
    5970248
    THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    7/7/2015 5:29:31 PM
    JEFFREY D. KYLE
    CLERK
    NO. 03-14-00138-CR
    IN THE                            FILED IN
    3rd COURT OF APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    COURT OF APPEALS                  7/7/2015 5:29:31 PM
    JEFFREY D. KYLE
    Clerk
    OF THE
    THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    --------------------
    LARRY DEWAYNE GARRETT
    Appellant
    vs.
    STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    --------------------
    Appeal from Cause No. 2C1307176
    Bell County Court-at-Law No. Two
    --------------------
    BRIEF FOR THE STATE
    --------------------
    JAMES NICHOLS
    BELL COUNTY ATTORNEY
    Stephen Morris
    Assist. County Attorney
    P.O. Box 1127
    Belton, Texas 76513
    Tel: (254) 933-5135
    Fax: (254) 933-5150
    SBN: 14501700
    ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE
    [Oral argument not requested]
    NO. 03-14-00138-CR
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE
    THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    --------------------
    LARRY DEWAYNE GARRETT,
    Appellant
    vs.
    STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    --------------------
    Appeal from Cause No. 2C1307176
    Bell County Court-at-Law No. Two
    --------------------
    BRIEF FOR THE STATE
    --------------------
    TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
    Comes now the STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent, hereinafter referred to as the
    state, and submits this brief, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
    requesting that the relief prayed for by Appellant be in all things denied.
    ii
    ORAL ARGUMENT IS WAIVED
    iii
    IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
    Appellant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Larry Dewayne Garrett
    Appellant’s Appellate Counsel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bobby Dale Barina
    Attorney at Law
    455 East Central Texas Expressway , Suite #104
    Harker Heights, Texas 76548
    (254) 699-3755
    Trial Counsel for the State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mark Currier
    Assistant Bell County Attorney
    P.O. Box 1127
    Belton, Texas 76513
    Appellate Counsel for the State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Stephen Morris
    Assistant Bell County Attorney
    P.O. Box 1127
    Belton, Texas 76513
    Trial Judge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hon. John Mischtian
    Judge, Bell County Court-at-Law No. Two
    P.O. Box 485
    Bell County Justice Complex
    1201Huey
    Belton, Texas 76513-0781
    iv
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Page
    State’s request that the relief prayed
    for by appellant be in all things denied. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii
    Waiver of Oral Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....iii
    Identity of Parties and Counsel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iv
    Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...v
    Index of Authorities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
    APPELLANT’S ISSUE NUMBER ONE. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
    Argument and Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
    Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
    Certificate of Service.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    v
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    STATE CASES                                                                                                 Page
    Almanza v. State, 
    686 S.W.2d 157
    , 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    Barrios v. State, 
    283 S.W.3d 348
    , 350 (Tex. Crim App. 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
    Barshaw v. State, 
    342 S.W.3d 91
    , 93-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
    Martin v. State, 
    335 S.W.3d 867
    (Tex. App. Austin 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
    Motilla v. State, 
    78 S.W.2d 352
    , 353-54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    Ngo v. State, 
    175 S.W.3d 738
    , 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
    Price v. State, 
    457 S.W.3d 437
    , 440 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
    Reeves v. State, 
    420 S.W.3d 812
    , 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    Sakil v. State, 
    287 S.W.3d 23
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
    3 Taylor v
    . State, 
    332 S.W.3d 483
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
    Warner v. State, 
    245 S.W.3d 458
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
    STATUTES
    Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Art.17.292 and Chapter 7A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .1
    Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Chap. 7 A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,2
    Tex. Fam. Code Chap. 85 and Sec. 6.504 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
    Tex. Fam. Code Chap. 88. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
    Tex. R. App. Proc . 44.2(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .4
    vi
    POINT OF ERROR
    The Evidence Was Insufficient To Support Appellant’s Conviction Because The
    State Failed To Establish Under What Statute The Protective Order Appellant
    Violated Was Issued.
    ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES AS TO POINT OF ERROR
    The trial testimony of defendant’s wife, Marina Garrett, established that she
    had obtained a protective order from the 264th Judicial District Court, which ordered
    appellant not to go within a thousand feet of her residence. Ms. Garrett identified the
    defendant as her ex-husband who was present in the courtroom. During the testimony
    of Ms. Garrett, the state introduced into evidence, a certified copy of the protective
    order as State’s Exhibit No. 1. ( R.R. Vol. 3, p. 16-17 )
    The amended information that was presented to the jury at trial states among
    other things, that appellant did there and then intentionally and knowingly go to and
    within a thousand feet of the residence of Marina Garrett at 1308 S. 13th St. Temple,
    Bell County, Texas 76504. Such act was in violation of an order issued under
    Section 6.504 and Chapter 85 Family Code and under Article 17.292 and Chapter 7A
    of the Code of Criminal Procedures and by another Jurisdiction as provided by
    Chapter 88, Family Code, in the 264th Judicial District Court. (C.R. Vol.1 p. 8), (C.R.
    Vol. 3, p. 5,6).
    1
    The court’s charge to the jury recites the following:
    Now, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt
    that on or about the 10th day of September, 2013, in Bell County, Texas,
    the defendant, Larry Garrett, did then and there intentionally or
    knowingly go to or within a thousand feet of the residence of Marina
    Garrett at 1308 S. 13th Street, Bell County, Texas 76504, who was then
    and there a protected individual or a member of the family or household
    of the defendant, and such act was in violation of a court order issued
    under Section 6.504 or Chapter 85 of the Family Code in the 264th
    Judicial District Court, then you will find the defendant guilty of a
    misdemeanor as charged in the information. But, unless you so find
    beyond a reasonable doubt, or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you
    will find the defendant not guilty.
    (C.R. Vol. 1, p. 18)
    At the close of the evidence defense counsel, after reviewing the court’s
    proposed charge, announced to the court that the defense had no additions or
    corrections to the court’s charge on guilt or innocense. (R.R. Vol. 4, p.66)
    Failure to preserve jury instruction error is not a bar to appellate review. The
    degree of harm required for reversal depends on whether the error was preserved in
    the trial court. Warner v. State, 
    245 S.W.3d 458
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If the error
    was not preserved by objection, the error will not result in reversal of the conviction
    without a showing of egregious harm. Price v. State, 
    457 S.W.3d 437
    , 440 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2015).
    Egregious harm is a “high and difficult standard” to meet, and such a
    2
    determination must be “borne out by the trial record.” Reeves v. State, 420 S.W.3d3
    812, 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). To determine if charge error was egregiously
    harmful, the Court of Appeals examines the record as a whole, including the
    remainder of the charge, the evidence, including the contested issues and weight of
    the probative evidence, and the arguments of counsel. Martin v. State, 
    335 S.W.3d 867
    (Tex. App. Austin 2011); Taylor v. State, 
    332 S.W.3d 483
    (Tex. Crim. App.
    2011).
    Because appellant did not raise a timely objection to the jury instructions,
    reversal is required only if the error was fundamental in the sense that it was so
    egregious and created such harm that the defendant was deprived of a fair and
    impartial trial. Almanza v. State, 
    686 S.W.2d 157
    , 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984),
    Ngo v. State, 
    175 S.W.3d 738
    , 743 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); See also Barrios v. State,
    
    283 S.W.3d 348
    , 350 (Tex. Crim App. 2009). If no proper objection was made at
    trial the accused must claim that the error was “fundamental.” Sakil v. State, 
    287 S.W.3d 23
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
    “In the harm analysis under Rule 44.2(b), is an appellate court required to
    disregard overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt? The answer is No. We
    reaffirm our previous holdings that an appellate court can and should consider
    overwhelming evidence of guilt in a harm analysis.” Motilla v. State, 
    78 S.W.3d 352
    ,
    3
    353-54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)
    On appellate review, and pursuant to [TRAP] 44.2(b), a non-constitutional
    error must be disregarded it unless it affects the defendant’s substantial rights. This
    court will not overturn a criminal conviction for non-constitutional error if the
    appellate court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the error
    did not influence the jury, or influenced the jury only slightly. Barshaw v. State, 
    342 S.W.3d 91
    , 93-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)
    PRAYER
    The STATE OF TEXAS prays this Honorable Court affirm the findings and
    judgment rendered by the trial court and deny all relief sought by Appellant.
    Respectfully submitted,
    /S/ Stephen Morris
    Stephen Morris
    Assistant Bell County Attorney
    P.O. Box 1127
    Belton, Texas 76513
    Tel: (254) 933-5135
    Fax: (254) 933-5150
    SBN: 14501700
    ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE
    4
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief for the State was
    this date forwarded in the manner required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
    to Mr. Bobby Dale Barina, Attorney for Appellant, 455 East Central Texas Expwy
    Ste. 104, Harker Heights, Texas 76548
    Signed: July 7, 2015
    /S/ Stephen Morris
    Stephen Morris
    Assistant County Attorney
    TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
    Comes now the STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent, hereinafter referred to as the
    state, and submits this brief, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
    requesting that the relief prayed for by Appellant be in all things denied.
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
    In accordance with Rule 9.4, Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that the
    foregoing brief for the State contains 1,494 words.
    /S/ Stephen Morris
    Stephen Morris
    Assistant County Attorney
    5
    6