PD-0478-16 PD-0478-18
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 6/17/2016 5:35:53 PM
Accepted 6/21/2016 2:38:46 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
SHAREN WILSON
Criminal District Attorney
Tarrant County
June 17, 2016
Hon. Abel Acosta, Clerk June 21, 2016
Court of Criminal Appeals
P.O. Box 12308
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Gulledge v. State, No. PD-0478-16
Greetings:
This letter is in response to Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary
Review filed in this Court, on June 7, 2016, in Gulledge v. State, No. 02-
15-00196-CR, 2016 WL 551957, at *1 (Tex.App. -- Fort Worth Feb. 11,
2016, pet. filed) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Appellant’s petition presents two grounds for review that each attack
the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress. Pet. at 3.
As an initial matter, Appellant’s attacks on the trial court’s order
should be overruled because they constitute a mere rehash of the
complaints that Appellant presented to the court of appeals rather than
an attempt to demonstrate where the unpublished court of appeals’
memorandum decision violates precedent. Degrate v. State, 712 S.W.2d
755, 756 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (per curiam) (discretionary review
petition should specifically address court of appeals' decision, and “[a]ny
petition which fails to set forth adequate reasons for this Court to
exercise its discretion to review a court of appeals' opinion is subject to .
. . summary refusal”); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 66.1 & 68.1; Bradley v.
State, 235 S.W.3d 808, 808-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (Cochran, J.,
concurring in denial of review).
401 West Belknap • Fort Worth, Texas 76196 • 817.884.1400
Second, Appellant was clocked on radar going 54 m.p.h. in a 40 m.p.h.
zone. RR. II-9. To the extent that Appellant now seeks to complain
about the admission of radar evidence, see Pet. at 4-5, such a complaint
was not preserved in the trial court and was not presented as an issue
to the court of appeals. Gulledge, 2016 WL 551957, at *1 n.2 (“Gulledge
did not object to the radar testimony at the suppression hearing . . . .”).
Third, much of Appellant’s complaint seems to be that regardless of the
trial court’s finding under TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 545.351, reversal is
required because the trial court mistakenly had a finding under TEX.
TRANSP. CODE § 545.353. Pet. at 7-8. Appellant’s petition provides
no response to the well-established precedent – which the court of
appeals followed – holding that a judgment must be upheld if it is
correct under any theory applicable to the case. Gulledge, 2016 WL
551957, at *3.
Appellant’s petition should be refused. Thank you.
Respectfully submitted,
SHAREN WILSON /s/ David M. Curl _____
Criminal District Attorney DAVID M. CURL, Assistant
Tarrant County, Texas State Bar No. 05254950
401 W. Belknap Street
DEBRA WINDSOR, Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0201
Assistant Criminal (817) 884-1687
District Attorney FAX (817) 884-1672
Chief, Post-Conviction ccaappellatealerts@tarrantcountytx.gov
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The number of words computed in accordance with TEX. R. APP. P.
9.4(i)(1) are 363.
/s/ David M. Curl____
DAVID M. CURL, Assistant
Criminal District Attorney
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
One copy of the State's letter reply to Appellant's petition for
discretionary review has been sent to (1) counsel for Appellant Ashley
Gulledge, Mr. Jerry D. Kelly at jerryd_kelly@yahoo.com, and (2) Ms.
Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney at
information@spa.texas.gov, on this the 17th day of June 2016.
/s/ David M. Curl__________
DAVID M. CURL, Assistant
Criminal District Attorney
3