Brittany Michelle Barrett v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
12-15-00145-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
9/22/2015 10:31:04 PM
Pam Estes
CLERK
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
NOs. 12-15-00145-CR and FILED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
12-15-00147-CR TYLER, TEXAS
9/22/2015 10:31:04 PM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS PAM ESTES
Clerk
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
BRITTANY BARRETT,
APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBERS 114-0873-12 and 114-0875-12
FROM THE 114TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
HONORABLE CHRISTI KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR.
100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805
TYLER, TEXAS 75702
903-593-2400
STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
APPELLANT:
Brittany Barrett
APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL:
Walter Nicholson
PO Box 1811
901 North Perry
Palestine, Texas 75802
903-729-5400
Brent Ratekin
422 S. Spring
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-595-1516
Norman Ladd
235 S. Broadway, Suite 200
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-705-7211
APPELLANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL
James Huggler
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-593-2400
903-593-3830 (fax)
APPELLEE
The State of Texas
APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL
Jacob Putman
Whitney Tharpe
Chris Gatewood
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
ii
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-590-1720
903-590-1719 (fax)
APPELLEE’S APPELLATE COUNSEL
Michael West
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-590-1720
903-590-1719 (fax)
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ISSUE PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Issue One, The evidence is legally insufficient to support
the final judgments assessing restitution in each case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Analysis of Relevant Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Discussion and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.037 (West 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §22.01(a)(2) (West 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
CASES
Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d 361 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth
2009, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Barton v. State, 21 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Buehler v. State, 709 S.W.2d 49 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.]
1986, pet. ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Cabla v. State, 6 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Carillo v. State, 98 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. App. – Amarillo 2003, pet. ref’d). 8
Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). . . . . . . . . 5
Davis v. State, 968 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Mart. v. State, 874 S.W.2d 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). . . . . . . . . . . . 6
McGill v. State, No. 06-10-00184-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6767
(Tex. App. – Texarkana 2012, no pet.).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
McGill v. State, No. 12-11-00387-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7453 (Tex.
App. – Tyler 2012, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
RULES
Tex. R. App. P. 9.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
v
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
vi
NOs. 12-15-00145-CR and
12-15-00147-CR
BRITTANY BARRETT, ,§ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
APPELLANT §
§
VS. § 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE JUSTICES
THEREOF:
Comes now Brittany Barrett (“Appellant”), by and through her
attorney of record, James Huggler, and pursuant to the provisions of TEX.
R. APP. PROC. 38, et seq., respectfully submits this brief on appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant was charged by felony indictment in Smith County cause
numbers 114-0873-12 and 114-0875-12 with the felony offenses of
1
aggravated arrest. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §22.02 (West 2011). I CR-A 1
and I CR-C 11. This is one of three cases which all occurred at the same
time and have been given sequential cause numbers by both the trial
court and this Court. A separate Brief has been submitted in 12-15-
00146-CR.
Following a plea agreement, the court placed Ms. Barrett on ten
years deferred adjudication supervision. I CR-A 34-35; I CR-C 42-43; III
RR 12-13.2 In each case a First Amended Application to Proceed to Final
Adjudication was filed. I CR-A 71-77; I CR-C 66-71. Ms. Barrett entered
a plea of true to each allegation. I CR-A 86; I CR-C 78; VI RR 12-20.
Following evidence and argument, the trial court proceeded to final
adjudication, found Ms. Barrett guilty of the offense. VI RR 61-62.
Following argument, the court assessed a fifteen year sentence in this
case. VI RR 65. This brief is timely filed on or before September 23, 2015.
1
References to the Clerk’s Record are made using “CR” with a roman numeral preceding “CR”
designating the correct volume and an arabic numeral following specifying the correct page. For
the convenience of the court, CR-A for appeal number 12-15-00145-CR, trial Court 114-0783-12
and CR-C for appeal number 12-15-00147-CR and 114-0875-12.
2
References to the Reporter’s Record are made using “RR” with a roman numeral preceding
designating the volume and an arabic numeral following designating the correct page.
2
ISSUE PRESENTED
Issue One: The evidence is legally insufficient to support the final
judgments assessing restitution in each case.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellant was charged by felony indictment in Smith County cause
numbers 114-0873-12 and 114-0874-12 and charged with the felony
offenses of aggravated assault. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §22.02(a)(2) and
22.01 (a)(2) (West 2011); I CR-A 1; I CR-B 1. The indictments alleged that
Ms. Barrett committed an aggravated assault against Patricia Crockett
and Terrell Brown on May 14, 2012 by striking them with a motor vehicle
while using or exhibiting a deadly weapon. Id. This case is related to
appeal number 12-15-0146-CR involving a third complainant in a separate
brief.
Ms. Barrett entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to an agreement to
receive ten years deferred adjudication supervision. I CR-A 42; I CR-C 31;
II RR 17. The court accepted the plea agreement. III RR 12-13. The State
filed an amended application to proceed to final adjudication alleging a
3
number of violations. I CR-A71-77; I CR-C 66-71. Ms. Barrett entered a
plea of true to each paragraph. I CR-A 86; I CR-C 78; VI RR 12-20.
Following evidence and argument of counsel, the court found Ms. Barrett
guilty of the offense. VI RR 61-62. Following argument, the court
imposed a fifteen year sentence with no fine. VI RR 65; I CR 73-74. This
appeal follows.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The trial court erred by including restitution amounts in the
judgments in each case when there was legally insufficient evidence to
support those findings.
ARGUMENT
Issue One, Restated: The evidence is legally insufficient to support the
final judgments assessing restitution in each case.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
When an accused receives deferred adjudication, no sentence is
imposed. Davis v. State, 968 S.W.2d 368, 371 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998);
4
Alexander v. State, 301 S.W.3d 361, 363-64 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 2009,
no pet.). If an accused violates a condition of supervision, the court may
proceed to adjudicate guilt and assess punishment. Taylor v. State, 131
S.W.3d 497, 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). While a sentencing court may
order the defendant to make restitution, there are limits. Restitution
must be made to a victim of the offense. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
42.037(a) (West 2010). The burden of proving the amount of the loss
sustained is on the states. See id. Art. 42.037(k).
Due process considerations limit the restitution can order in three
ways: (1) the amount must be just and supported by the record; (2) the
restitution ordered must be for the offense for which the defendant is
criminally responsible; and (3) the restitution must be for the victim or
victims of the offense for which the defendant is charged. Cabla v. State,
6 S.W.3d 543, 5446 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Additionally, there must be evidence in the record to support an
amount of restitution. Buehler v. State, 709 S.W.2d 49, 52 (Tex. App. –
Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref’d). In fact, the amount of restitution
must be just, and it must have a factual basis within the loss of the victim.
Cartwright v. State, 605 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). A court
5
cannot order restitution to any but the victim or victims of the offense or
reimbursement for expenses incurred by the crime victim’s compensation
fund with which the offender is charged. Martin v. State, 874 S.W.2d 674,
679-80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).
The Court of Appeals has the authority to modify incorrect
judgments when the necessary information is available to do so. TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(b).
B. Analysis of Relevant Facts
In the first case, listing Patricia Crockett as the complainant, on
September 5, 2010, the trial court imposed the ten years deferred
adjudication and determined that restitution would be determined. I CR-
A 34-35. On November 27, 2012, the court amended the conditions in this
case and included $731.96 to East Texas Medical Center - Emergency
Medical Service (ETMC-EMS) and $853.75 to East Texas Medical Center,
totaling $1,567.71. I CR-A 53. The final judgment orders $1,232.71
payable to ETMC. I CR-A 80. The judgment also incorporates an order
to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ordering withdrawal from
6
Ms. Bennett’s inmate trust account. I CR-A 83. However, the only
support in the record for any restitution is $818.69 to be paid to the Texas
Crime Victims Compensation Fund in this case. CR-PSI 74, 75, 77.3
In the third case involved, Mr. Terrell Brown is listed as the
complainant. I CR-C 1. The order placing Ms. Barrett under supervision
on September 5, 2012 orders an amount of restitution to be determined.
I CR-C 42-43. On November 3, 2012, an order amending the terms of
supervision was entered ordering payment of $68,662.15 to be paid to
Mother Francis Hospital. I CR-C 51. The record is devoid to any
reference supporting any amount to be paid to the Trinity Mother Francis
Health System.
In both of the cases, the presentence investigation was designated
to be part of the record. I CR-A 94-95, line 20; I CR-C 89-90, line 20.
C. Discussion and Analysis
While the Texas Crime Victims Compensation Fund is able to
3
In each of the three cases a presentence investigation report was prepared and ordered to be
made part of the Clerk’s Record. The same document was filed in each of Ms. Barrett’s three
appellate cases. References to this portion of the record, which must be viewed by counsel at the
Court of Appeals is designated CR-PSI.
7
receive restitution, it must be supported by the record. Here, the only
support in the record regarding restitution is for $818.69. Martin, 874
S.W.2d at 670-80. That amount does not match the amount in the
judgment involved. I CR-A 80.
This trial court has previously entered an order related to the
payment of restitution funds to the ETMC-EMS. McGill v. State, No. 06-
10-00184-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6767 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2012, no
pet.).4 The Texarkana court determined that the EMS provider was not
within the range of allowable parties entitled to restitution under the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Following remand the restitution portion to
ETMC-EMS was eliminated and the judgment affirmed. McGill v. State,
No. 12-11-00387-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7453 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2012,
no pet.). If any part of the restitution ordered was to be distributed to
ETMC-EMS, it is error at a minimum the judgment should be modified to
reflect only the restitution of $618.69 to the Crim Victims Compensation
Fund.
The other option would be to remand the cases to the trial court to
4
Although unpublished cases have no precedential value, the court may take guidance from them
“as an aid in developing reasoning that may be employed.” Carillo v. State, 98 S.W.3d 789, 794
(Tex. App. – Amarillo 2003, pet. ref’d).
8
determine the correct amount of restitution and to determine if there is
any legally sufficient evidence to determine the amount of restitution.
Burt v. State, 445 S.W.3d 752, 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Barton v.
State, 21 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In an aggravated
assault, it is certainly possible for restitution to be owed. The trial court
was authorized to order restitution, the only defect present is a lack of
support in the record. Beedy v. State, 250 S.W.3d 107, 113 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008).
CONCLUSION
In these cases, neither amount of restitution ordered is supported by
the record. Ms. Barrett seeks modification of the judgment in 114-0873-12
to an amount of $818.69 payable to the Texas Crime Victim’s
Compensation Fund and modification in 114-0875-12 to reflect no
restitution owed. In the alternative, Ms. Barrett seeks the judgment in
each case as reflected in the amount of restitution to be vacated and the
causes remanded.
9
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel respectfully
prays that this Court modify the judgment in each case or vacate and
remand to the trial court.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James Huggler
James W. Huggler, Jr.
State Bar Number 00795437
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-593-2400
903-593-3830 fax
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of the Appellant has been
forwarded to counsel for the State by electronic filing on this the 22nd day
of September, 2015.
Attorney for the State:
Mr. Mike West
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this Brief complies with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, specifically
using 14 point Century font and contains 2,272 words as counted by
Corel WordPerfect version x6.
/s/ James Huggler
James W. Huggler, Jr.
11