Donny Joe Curry v. State

ACCEPTED
06-14-00139-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
1/20/2015 9:36:05 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
NO. 06-14-00139-CR
____________________________________________________________
FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH DISTRICT
1/23/2015 1:35:00 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS Clerk
____________________________________________________________
DONNY JOE CURRY, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
____________________________________________________________
APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER CR1301508
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMBER 1
OF HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
____________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
Comes now the Appellant and submits this brief pursuant to the
provisions of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in support of his
request for the judgment of conviction to be overturned in Cause No.
CR1301508.
Appellant Requests Oral Argument
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellant’s Attorney:
Jason A. Duff
2615 Lee Street
P.O. Box 11
Greenville, Texas 75403-0011
Appellant’s Trial Attorney:
Toby Wilkinson
P.O. Box 851266
Mesquite, Texas 75149
Appellee:
The State of Texas by and through
Joel Littlefield
Hunt County Attorney
4th Floor Hunt County Courthouse
2500 Lee Street
Greenville, Texas 75401
Appellee’s Trial Counsel:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF COLLIN COUNTY
BY: MR. JACKSON DAVID 'JACKSON MCMINN' MCMINN
2100 BLOOMDALE ROAD
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
SUITE 100
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of the Parties and Counsel ............................................................. 2
Table of Contents ....................................................................................... 3
Index of Authorities ..................................................................................... 4
Statement of the Case ................................................................................ 6
Issues Presented ........................................................................................ 7
Statement of the Facts ................................................................................ 8
Summary of the Argument ........................................................................ 10
Argument and Authorities ......................................................................... 11
Issue Number One ......................................................................... 11
The evidence is legally insufficient to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, that Curry Resisting Arrest.
Prayer for relief ........................................................................................ 17
Certificate of compliance of typeface and Word Count ............................. 18
Certificate of Service ................................................................................. 19
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES:
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307. ............................................................ 11
STATE CASES:
Alexander v. State, 740 S.W.2d 749, 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987)............. 12
Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) ................. 12
Cordova v. State, 698 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) ……….……...12
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13, 15-17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ............ 12
Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) ............... 12
Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ......................... 11
Navarro v.State, 810 S.W.2d 432, 435 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, pet.
refd) .......................................................................................................... 16
Pumphrey v. State, 245 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2008) ............. 13
Reedy v. State, 214 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006) ..................... 16
Sheehan v. State, 201 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App. Waco 2006, no pet.) ........ 14
Shelton v. State, 795 S.W.2d 162, 167 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) ................... 16
Urbano v. State, 837 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992) ................... 16
Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ............. 11
Washington v. State 127 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2003,
pet. dism’d) ............................................................................................... 11
4
STATE STATUTES:
TEX PENAL CODE ANN. § 6.03(a) & (b) (West 2011) ............................ 15
TEX PENAL CODE ANN. § . §38.03(a) (Casemaker 2014) ..................... 12
5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal of the judgment and sentence in a criminal case for
the County Court at Law No. 1, in Hunt County, Texas. Appellant was
convicted by the trial court of Resisting Arrest in CR1301508.
Appellant was assessed a sentence of 275 days, in the Hunt County
Jail. Notice of appeal was given on August 1, 2014. The clerk's record
was filed on October 1, 2014; the reporter's record was filed on November
3, 2014.
6
ISSUE PRESENTED
Issue One: The evidence is legally insufficient to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, that Curry committed the offense of Resisting
Arrest.
7
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On March 1, 2013, Donny Joe Curry (Appellant) was stopped by
Officer Samantha Marique in Commerce, Texas. (RR Vol. 9 p. 63).
Marique testified at trial that while on a routine patrol she notice a blue
vehicle with no rear license plate. Marique further testified that when she
confronted Appellant he state that he had no driver’s license and no
insurance. (RR Vol. 9. 63). Later, Marique simply states that Appellant only
gave her the name of Donny and that there was no registration insignia on
the front of the windshield. (RR Vol. 9. 67).
Marique felt that she needed back up to deal with appellant so she
called for the help of Officers Pehl and Scott. During that time Appellant
waited in his vehicle. When Pehl and Scott arrived, Marique briefly
explained why she had pulled Appellant over. Pehl immediately opened
the Appellant’s door ordered him to exit and used a Taser on Appellant.
Marnique stated that while being Tased, Appellant held on to the steering
wheel. (RR Vol. 9. 69). After Appellant screamed in pain from the Taser,
and requested of Pehl to follow the law, Pehl removed Appellant from the
vehicle. As officer Pehl removed Appellant from the car Appellant held his
arms up in the air and away from officer Pehl. Officer Pehl then put hand
cuffs on Appellant, guided Appellant to the hood of Marnique’s car and then
8
escorted Appellant off camera. (State’s Exhibit 3, 8:30- 11:30). Marique
testified that the officers found Appellant’s Social Security Card and driver’s
license. (RR Vol. 9. 81).
9
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Issue One: The evidence is legally insufficient to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, that Curry committed Resisting Arrest
The evidence presented at trial could not have led a rational trial
court to find that Curry acted with a conscious objective or desire to
intentionally prevented or obstructed a peace officer or person acting in a
peace officers’ presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest,
search of Appellant by using force against the peace officer or another, or
that he was aware that her conduct was reasonably certain to cause that
result.
Concluding so, based on the evidence presented at trial, would have
been speculation or suspicion by the factfinder. Thus, the evidence is
legally insufficient to convict Curry in this case.
10
ARGUMENT
Issue One: The evidence is legally insufficient to support
the conviction of Appellant
In a criminal case, an appellant may raise legal sufficiency for the first
time on appeal. Washington v. State 127 S.W.3d 197 (Tex. App. Houston
[1st Dist.] 2003, pet. dism’d). When reviewing legal sufficiency of the
evidence, a court must look at all of the evidence in the light most favorable
to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the offense were proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319; Vodochodsky v.
State, 158 S.W.3d 502, (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). While giving the proper
deference to the factfinder’s role this court must safeguard against the rare
occurrence when a factfinder does not act rationally. Laster v. State, 275
S.W.3d 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
In this case Appellant was charged with Resisting Arrest. (CR Vol.
1pps 16, & 17). To support a conviction of the appellant, the State must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant intentionally prevented or
obstructed a person he knows is a peace officer or person acting in a
peace officers’ presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest,
search or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the
11
peace officer or another. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §38.03(a) (Casemaker
2014).
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, courts should look at
“events occurring before, during and after the commission of the offense
and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding
and common design to do the prohibited act.” Cordova v. State, 698
S.W.2d 107, 111 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Each fact need not point directly
and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative
force of all the incriminating circumstances is sufficient to support the
conviction. See Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993) (“[i]t is not necessary that every fact point directly and independently
to the defendant’s guilt; it is enough if the conclusion is warranted by the
combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances.”);
Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994).; Alexander
v. State, 740 S.W.2d 749, 758 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).
[C]ourts of appeal should adhere to the Jackson standard and
determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon
the combined and cumulative force of all the evidence when viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13, 15-
17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
12
This Court examined sufficiency of the evidence in resisting
arrest in Pumphrey v. State. Pumphrey v. State, 245 S.W.3d 85 (Tex.
App. Texarkana 2008). Yet, the facts in this case do not demonstrate near
the same level of conduct by the defendant in Pumphrey or the cases cited
and rejected therein.
In Pumphrey, evidence brought at trial demonstrated that the
defendant Pumphrey, while waiting to enter a dance at her university, got
into a verbal confrontation with a campus police officer Id. at 87. The
officer in that case then grasped the defendant and attempted to take
Pumphrey into custody for disorderly conduct. Pumphery jerked, squirmed,
twisted, turned and struggled all against the efforts of the campus police
officer’s efforts to physically restrain her in the process of making the
arrest. Id. at 92. This Court found that those actions sufficiently supported
Pumphery’s conviction. Id.
The video in this case depicts officer Pehl approaching Appellant and
then using his Taser within seconds. The video further depicts Appellant
submitting to the direction of the officer without any clear display of force in
any direction opposite to the Officer. (State’s Exhibit 3). Applying Cardova
cited above, courts must look at events occurring before, during and after
the commission of the offence. When Cardova is applied, Curry did not
13
resist the arrest. In the context of these earlier actions of Curry contrasted
against cases such as Pumphery, this case does not elevate to resisting
arrest.
This Court rejected reasoning by other Courts that made a distinction
force or lack of force directed at the arresting officer. Id. at 91. However,
this case is more like the facts in Sheehan v. State, 201 S.W.3d 820 (Tex.
App. Waco 2006, no pet.) which is not overtly rejected but cited in a
footnote of Pumphery. Pumphery at n.4. In Sheehan, the officers
approached the defendant in that case and informed him he needed to go
with them. When the officer in that case went to reach for the defendant’s
left arm, the defendant stood up and pulled his hands into his chest and
leaned away. The officers then grabbed him, brought him to the ground,
then got his hands behind his back, handcuffed him and walked him
outside. Id. at 821.
Just like here, the physical contact in Pehl was so brief and limited
that it cannot sustain a conviction from resisting arrest. At no point before
Officer Pehl Tased Appellant and removed him from the car does Pehl or
other officer definitively indicate that Appellant is under arrest.
Even giving full play to the responsibility of the fact finder to fairly
resolve conflicts in testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw
14
reasonable differences from basic facts to ultimate fact no rational fact
finder could have found that Curry effected resistance to the arrest.
Here, the officer already had the Appellant in his grasp with no clear
opposing movement and in seconds the officer had brought to the
Appellant to the exterior of the vehicle and handcuffed him. Evidence
shows that at the end of the encounter Curry was moved off camera. There
is no other indication from the evidence at trial that after Curry was
handcuffed there was need for further restraint to prevent flight. (State’s
Exhibit 3). Again looking to the actions or events before, during and after
the commission of the offence the facts do not amount to resisting arrest.
Therefore the evidence brought at trial was insufficient and Curry’s
conviction should be overturned.
Appellant Lacked The Necessary Intent
Additionally, the state must prove that Appellant acted with a
conscious objective or desire to cause the result, or that he was aware that
his conduct was reasonably certain to cause the result. Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 6.03(a) & (b) (West 2011).
It is just as rational, if not more rational, that Appellants physical
actions were the result of the electrocution he suffered at the hands of
Officer Pehl’s Taser when he grabbed the steering wheel of the car.
15
Proof that amounts to only a strong suspicion of guilt or a mere
probability of guilt is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Urbano v. State,
837 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992); Navarro v.State, 810 S.W.2d
432, 435 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, pet. refd).
It is the function of appellate courts to ensure that no one is convicted
of a crime except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Shelton v. State,
795 S.W.2d 162, 167 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). Due process requires no less.
Reedy v. State, 214 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006).
In this case the trial court could only form a suspicion that Appellant
intended resist arrest when there was no clear indication to Appellant at the
time just before he was Tased, the officers were about to arrest him.
The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellant
acted with a conscious objective or desire to resist arrest, or that he was
aware that his conduct was reasonably certain to cause the result in this
case.
16
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant respectfully prays that his
conviction in the above entitled and numbered cause be reversed and
acquit him. Appellant further prays for all other lawful relief to which he
may be entitled, at law or in equity.
Respectfully submitted,
_____/s/ Jason A. Duff____
Jason A. Duff
State Bar No. 24059696
2615 Lee Street
P.O. Box 11
Greenville, TX 75403-0011
jasonaduff@hotmail.com
Attorney for the Appellant
17
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE OF TYPEFACE AND WORD COUNT
In accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 (e) and
(i), the undersigned attorney or record certifies that Appellants Brief
contains 14-point typeface of the body of the brief, 12-point typeface for
footnotes in the brief and contains 1,661words, excluding those words
identified as not being counted in appellate rule of procedure 9.4(i)(1), and
was prepared on Microsoft Word 2010.
_____/s/ Jason A. Duff____
Jason A. Duff
Attorney for the Appellant
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and
foregoing instrument was forwarded to Collin County District Attorney’s
Office, on this the 20th day of January, 2015 and to the Court of Appeals in
Texarkana via , by electronic delivery.
_____/s/ Jason A. Duff____
Jason A. Duff
Attorney for the Appellant
19