Jesse Dwayne Black v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
06-15-00060-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
8/27/2015 10:17:41 AM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
NOS. 06-15-00060-CR
IN THE FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS
8/27/2015 10:17:41 AM
AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS
DEBBIE AUTREY
_______________________ Clerk
Jesse Dwayne Black,
Appellant,
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee.
_______________________________
On Appeal from the
County Court, Lamar County, Texas
Hon. M. C. Superville, Presiding
_______________________________
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
Don Biard
State Bar No. 24047755
Counsel for Appellant
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Defendant Below
Appellant in this Court
Jesse Dwayne Black
Counsel for Appellant:
Don Biard (on appeal)
State Bar No. 24047755
38 First Northwest
Paris, Texas 75460
Tel: (903)785-1606
Fax: (903)785-7580
Email: dbiard@att.net
Jerry Coyle (at trial)
State Bar No. 04966700
117 1st Street SE
Paris, Texas 75460
Tel: (903)732-0030
Fax: (214)722-1373
Appellee in this Court
The State of Texas
Counsel for Appellee:
Gary Young
Lamar County Attorney’s Office
119 N. Main Street
Paris, Texas 75460
Tel: (903)737-2458
Fax: (903)737-2455
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel………………..........………………………………1
Table of Contents………………………..........…………………………………….2
Index of Authorities………………......………………………………………….....3
Issues Presented…………………………………………………………….………4
Summary of the Argument........................................................................................4
Statement of the Case………………………………….…………………………...5
Procedural History………………………....…………………………………….....6
Facts…………...…………..……………………………………………………..7-9
Argument and Authorities……………………......…………………….……...10-17
Prayer……………………..……………………………………………………….18
Certificate of Service…………………......…………………………………..…...19
Certificate of Compliance With Rule 9.4(i)(3)........................................................20
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Caselaw
Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).........................15
Armour v. State, 606 S.W.2d at 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).................................15
Billie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).........................................15
Blackshear v. State, 385 S.W. 589, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)...........................15
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)..............................10
Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).............................10
Foster v. State, 497 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)...............................15
Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)...........................13
Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010)...............10
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)...................................10
Hudson v. State, 510 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).....................................11
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).......................................................10
Reddie v. State, 736 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987)................12
Tawater v. State, Tex. App. LEXIS 1015 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2015)..............15
Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)..............................13
White v. State, 823 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)................................15
Statutes
Tex. Code Crim. Pro. 29.06.....................................................................................16
Tex. Code Crim. Pro. 29.08.....................................................................................16
3
SUBJECT MATTER OF ISSUES PRESENTED
I. Whether the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict because
there is insufficient evidence that Appellant was operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated?
II. Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for
continuance in order to secure the testimony of a key witness?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
First, there were no witnesses who saw Appellant driving the vehicle in which
he was found. Additionally, evidence was presented at trial that showed
Appellant was found in the passenger seat of the vehicle and that another
individual had been driving. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to
support the jury’s verdict that Appellant had been driving while intoxicated.
Second, the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for a
continuance. Appellant’s main theory at trial was that another man, Gregory
Don Winkler, was the actual driver of the vehicle. Appellant had a subpoena
issued for Winkler but was unable to locate him to serve the subpoena.
Appellant requested a continuance in order to attempt to find and serve
Winkler. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion thus depriving Appellant
of material evidence to support the primary defense theory at trial.
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case: Plea of Not Guilty to an information charging one
count of Driving While Intoxicated
Trial Court: The Honorable M. C. Superville
County Judge, Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court Disposition: A jury convicted Appellant of the charged offense
and the trial court sentenced Appellant to 270 days
in jail.
5
1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 26, 2014, Appellant was charged by information with the Class A
misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol
concentration of 0.15 or more in violation of Tex. Pen. Code §49.04(d).2 On
February 12, 2015, Appellant was appointed trial counsel.3 The case proceeded to
trial on April 15, 2015.4
Appellant pled not guilty to the charged offense but the jury found Appellant
guilty.5 Appellant elected to have the trial court assess punishment and the judge
sentenced Appellant to serve 270 days in jail.6 Appellant timely filed notice of
appeal on April 17, 2015.7
1
All references to the Reporter’s Record are to Volume 3 of the record unless otherwise
indicated.
2
CR, pg. 6
3
CR, pg. 16
4
RR, Vols. 3,4
5
CR, pg. 48
6
CR, pg. 48
7
CR, pg. 4
6
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Trial on the Merits
Mark Black got a call in the early evening of August 2, 2014 that his cousin’s truck
had been in an accident on Tudor Street in Paris, Texas. Mark drove to the scene
of the accident where he was the first person to arrive.8 Mark walked to the truck
and found his cousin, Jesse Dwayne Black, in the passenger seat of the truck.9
There was blood in the truck and Jesse had a cut on his head.10 The keys were
missing from the ignition.11
After Mark Black arrived, Paris Police Officers Bangs and Flatt arrived on
the scene. Officer Bangs testified that upon arrival he found Jesse Black in the
passenger seat of the vehicle.12 Upon further questioning from the state, Officer
Bangs revised his testimony and stated he found Black in the driver’s seat.13
Bangs testified that he had not seen Black driving the vehicle nor was he aware of
anyone else who had witnessed Black driving.14
8
RR, pg. 169-170
9
RR, pg. 171
10
RR, pg. 171
11
RR, pg. 170
12
RR, pg. 36
13
RR, pg. 37
14
RR, pg. 53
7
Black was removed from the truck and transported to the hospital. At the
hospital, medical personnel took blood and urine samples.15 Black’s blood sample
showed his blood alcohol concentration at the time of the blood draw to be .264.
Following the close of the state’s case-in-chief, the defense called several
witnesses. The defense first called Rayna Sneed, Black’s former girlfriend. She
was at home on the day of the accident when two women knocked on her door.
The women informed Ms. Sneed that Black had been in an accident and gave her
the keys to his truck.16 Ms. Sneed walked to the scene of the accident and handed
the keys to a police officer who was already there.17
Jesse Black also testified in his own defense.18 Black testified that on the
day of the accident he had been drinking with Gregory Don Winkler, Danny
Winkler, and some other friends.19 That evening, Black asked Gregory Don
Winkler if he would drive him home in his truck.20 Black testified that the two left
in Black’s truck with Winkler driving. While driving down Tudor street, Winkler
left the road and crashed the truck into a tree.21 Winkler told Black he was going
to get help and left the scene.22
15
RR, pg. 118
16
RR, pg. 165
17
RR, pg. 166
18
RR, pg. 186
19
RR, pg. 180
20
RR, pg 189
21
RR, pg. 190
22
RR, pg. 190
8
Motion for Continuance
Prior to the introduction of evidence, the defense made a motion for continuance.23
On the day of jury selection, the defense had learned of Gregory Don Winkler.24
The defense believed that Winkler was the actual driver of Black’s truck during the
accident.25 A subpoena had been issued for Winkler’s testimony but a defense
investigator had been unable to serve Winkler.26
The defense investigator, Ray Ball, testified on the motion. Ball testified
that he had tried several residencies in the Paris area but had been unable to locate
Winkler. Ball found a potential address for Winkler in Hooks, Texas the evening
prior to trial. However, given the late hour he decided not to travel to Hooks to
investigate that address.27 Following Ball’s testimony, the trial court denied the
motion for continuance.28
Prior to the close of the defense case, Appellant renewed his motion for
continuance in order to find Winkler.29 The trial court again denied the motion but
did allow Ball to testify in front of the jury regarding his efforts to locate
Winkler.30
23
RR, pg. 11
24
RR, pg. 12
25
RR, pg. 11
26
RR, pg. 11
27
RR, pg. 23
28
RR, pg. 24
29
RR, pg. 218
30
RR, pg. 218, 229
9
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Issue No. 1 Restated: The evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict
because there is insufficient evidence that Appellant was the driver of the
truck.
Standard of Review
In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must review all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment to determine
whether any rational jury could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.31 This court must conduct a rigorous sufficiency
review focusing on the quality of the evidence presented while giving deference to
the responsibility of the jury to fairly resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.32
Analysis
No one saw Jesse Black driving the truck that he was found in after the
crash. Mark Black testified that he was the first person to arrive at the scene of the
accident. When he got there, Jesse Black was sitting in the passenger side of the
31
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307, 319 (1979)); Hartsfield v. State, 305 S.W.3d 859, 863 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010,
pet. ref’d).
32
Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 917–18 (Cochran, J., concurring); Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13
(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 318–19); Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772,
778 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)).
10
truck.33 There was blood on the passenger side of the truck and the passenger side
sun visor had been damaged.34
Officers arrived on scene minutes after they received the call regarding the
accident.35 They were not the first people on the scene and it is unclear how much
time elapsed between the time of the wreck and the time police were called.
However, there was enough time for someone to walk Black’s keys to his former
girlfriend’s house,36 for someone to call his cousin, and for his cousin to drive to
the scene and spend several minutes there before police arrived.
Jesse Black testified himself that he was not driving. He testified that his
friend Gregory Don Winkler had been the driver but had left after the accident.37
The Court of Criminal Appeals has reversed DWI convictions under facts
more concrete than present here. In Hudson v. State, police officers arrived to find
the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of his car parked on the right shoulder of a
highway. The car had a flat tire and a warped wheel resting in the roadside ditch.
Officers saw Hudson toss several empty beer cans and bottles from the car and he
began cursing.38
33
RR, pg. 171
34
Def. Ex #2-#7
35
RR, pg. 36
36
RR, pg. 165
37
RR, pg. 190
38
Hudson v. State, 510 S.W.2d 583 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)
11
In finding the evidence was insufficient to support Hudson’s conviction, the
court said, “[T]here was no testimony whatsoever as to how long [the car] had
been where it was found....no testimony regarding how the car came to be where it
was, and who was driving. In short, there is no evidence which shows that
appellant actually drove the car, an essential element of the offense.”39
In Reddie v. State, the defendant was found slumped over the wheel of his
car with the motor idling. He also smelled strongly of alcohol.40 The court
reversed the conviction, finding, “No evidence was introduced to show how or
when appellant arrived at the scene, that is, whether he drove the automobile he
was found sitting in, whether some other person drove him there...”41
Similarly in our case, there was no testimony as to how long it had been
since Black’s truck was involved in the accident and the only testimony regarding
who was driving showed Black was not the driver.
There is insufficient proof that Black was the driver of the truck. As the
court wrote in Hudson, “In the absence of such proof, the evidence is insufficient
to support the conviction.”42
39
Id.
40
Reddie v. State, 736 S.W.2d 923, 924 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, pet. ref’d).
41
Id.
42
Id.
12
Issue No. 2 Restated: The trial court erred in denying the defense motion for
continuance because a continuance was necessary to locate a key witness for
the defense.
Standard of Review
This court reviews a trial court's ruling to grant or deny a motion for a
continuance for an abuse of discretion.43 Establishing reversible error predicated
on the denial of a motion for continuance requires showing that the trial court
abused its discretion in denying the motion and that the lack of continuance
harmed the defendant.44
Analysis
The primary defense theory at trial was that Jesse Black was merely a
passenger in the truck, not the driver. Black’s opening statement focused
almost exclusively upon the idea that the evidence would be insufficient to
prove that Black was the driver.45 Black testified himself that he was not the
driver. He testified that his friend, Gregory Don Winkler, was the driver and
had left the scene after the crash.46
This theory was not without evidentiary support. There was blood on
the passenger side of the vehicle and here was damage to the passenger side
43
Vasquez v. State, 67 S.W.3d 229, 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
44
Gonzales v. State, 304 S.W.3d 838, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
45
RR, pg. 32
46
RR, pg. 190
13
visor. At a minimum, this would indicate that there was a passenger in the
truck who had fled the scene before the police arrived and who could be a
material witness at trial.
However, there was also evidence that Black had blood on his head.
Black’s cousin testified that he was the first person to arrive and found Black
sitting in the passenger seat of the truck. Even the first police officer to
testify initially testified that he found Black sitting in the passenger side of
the truck. In short, this was not a defense theory founded solely on Black’s
testimony.
On the day of trial, Black’s trial counsel made a motion for
continuance in order to have an opportunity to locate Gregory Don Winkler
and secure his testimony at trial.47 Black’s counsel informed the trial court
at length of the importance of Winkler’s testimony and the defense efforts to
locate him.48 The defense also presented testimony which detailed the
efforts to locate Winkler and the probability of being able to find him soon.49
In Foster v. State, Foster’s attorney learned of the existence of a key
witness just two days before trial. A subpoena was not issued until the day
of trial. Foster requested a motion for continuance on the day of trial in
47
RR, pg. 11
48
RR, pg. 11-13
49
RR, pg. 21
14
order to allow time to find this witness. The trial court denied Foster’s
request.50
The Court of Criminal Appeals held the trial court had erred in
denying the continuance and reversed the conviction. The court found that
Foster’s counsel had made only one motion for continuance and had shown
due diligence in seeking the motion.51
Here, as in Foster, the defense exercised due diligence in attempting
to locate and serve Winkler. Black’s attorney only learned of Winkler’s
importance on the day of jury selection.52 A subpoena was quickly
requested and issued and the defense investigator spent several days
attempting to find Winkler. As in Foster, Black exercised due diligence in
attempting to locate their key witness.
Written and Sworn Motion
In recent years, the Court of Criminal Appeals has overruled a line of
cases which held that an oral motion for continuance sufficiently preserved
the issue for appeal.53 The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that the Code
50
Foster v. State, 497 S.W.2d 291, 292 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973)
51
Id.
52
RR, pg. 12
53
Blackshear v. State, 385 S.W. 589, 591 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); citing Anderson v. State, 301
S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); overruling White v. State, 823 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1992); Billie v. State, 605 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Armour v. State, 606
S.W.2d at 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); see also Tawater v. State, Tex. App. LEXIS 1015 (Tex.
App. – Texarkana 2015).
15
of Criminal Procedure requires a motion for continuance to be “written and
sworn” and that no due process exception exists to allow an oral motion to
preserve the issue for appeal.54
To be sure, the record in this case does not contain a written document
styled “Motion for Continuance”.55 However, the totality of the record in
this case should be sufficient to meet the requirements of the Code.
Black filed a written Application for Subpoena setting forth the name
and suspected address of Gregory Don Winkler.56 Black also filed a written
Motion for Appointment of Investigator which set forth the need for an
investigator to locate and interview witnesses.57
Additionally, sworn testimony of a person having knowledge of the
facts supporting the motion was taken in the presence of the trial judge.58
The defense investigator set forth the name of the witness and his suspected
whereabouts, his efforts to locate him, and the fact the was not absent due to
acts of the defense.59
Taken together, Black’s written requests, coupled with the in-court
sworn testimony supporting the motion, were sufficient to effectively
54
Blackshear at 591
55
See Clerk’s Record generally
56
CR, pg.34; Tex. Code Crim. Pro. 29.06(1),(2)
57
CR, pg. 31; Tex. Code Crim. Pro. 29.06(2)
58
RR, pg. 21; Tex. Code Crim. Pro. 29.08
59
RR, pg. 21-22; Tex. Code Crim. Pro. 29.06
16
apprise the trial court of the nature and basis of the request and to meet the
requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Considering the totality of the circumstances and the need for
Winkler’s testimony, the trial court erred in denying Black’s motion for
continuance thus depriving him of a fair trial.
17
Conclusion
The evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict because there is
insufficient evidence that Appellant was the driver of the vehicle involved in the
accident. Further, the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s motion for
continuance thus depriving Appellant of his due process right to a fair trial.
Prayer
Appellant respectfully requests this court reverse the conviction below and render a
judgment of acquittal.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Don Biard
____________________________
Don Biard
State Bar No. 24047755
38 First Northwest
Paris, Texas 75460
Tel: (903)785-1606
Fax: (903)785-7580
Email: dbiard@att.net
Counsel for Appellant
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 27, 2015 a copy of the foregoing Appellant’s Brief was
served to the following parties by electronic service.
/s/ Don Biard
___________________________
Don Biard
Attorney for Appellee:
Gary Young
Lamar County Attorney’s Office
19
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 9.4(i)(3)
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Pursuant to Rule 9.4(i)(3) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Counsel for Appellant files this certification that Appellant’s brief is a computer-
generated document that contains 3,222 words. Counsel further certifies that he
relied on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this document.
Respectfully submitted,
___/s/Don Biard___________________________
DON BIARD
State Bar No. 24047755
McLaughlin, Hutchison & Biard
38 First Northwest
Paris, Texas 75460
Tel: (903)785-1606
Fax: (903)785-7580
Counsel for Appellant
20