ACCEPTED
06-14-00138-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
12/31/2014 12:18:13 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
NO. 06-14-00138-CR CLERK
**************
FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 1/8/2015 1:13:00 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Clerk
TEXARKANA TEXAS
**********
JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE,
Appellant
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
**********
Appealed from the 71st District Court
Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 12-0374-X
__________________________________________________________________
ANDERS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
__________________________________________________________________
EBB B. MOBLEY
State Bar # 14238000
Attorney at Law
422 North Center St.-Lower Level
P. O. Box 2309
Longview, TX 75606
Telephone: (903) 757-3331
Facsimile: (903) 753-8289
ebbmob@aol.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
NO.06-14-00138-CR
JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE,
Appellant
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to T.R.A.P. 38.1(a)
__________________________________________________________________
Appellant: JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE Wynne Unit TDCJ-ID
Inmate #1945574 Huntsville, Texas 77320
Appellant's CHERYL COOPER-SAMMONS 8907 State Highway 149
standby Attorney at Law Longview, Texas 75605
trial counsel:
State's trial SHAWN ERIC CONNALLY P. O. Box 776
counsel: Assistant District Attorney Marshall, Texas 75670
Trial Judge: BRAD MORIN 200 West Houston, Ste 219
District Judge Marshall, Texas 75670
Appellant's EBB B. MOBLEY P. O. Box 2309
counsel on Attorney at law Longview, TX 75606
appeal:
State's counsel TIMOTHY J. CARIKER P.O. Box 776
on appeal: Assistant District Attorney Marshall, Texas 75670
Page 1 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
POSSIBLE ISSUE NO. ONE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Did the defendant receive an adequate warning about the dangers
of self-representation?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-13
POSSIBLE ISSUE NO. TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress
evidence received from his motel room?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14-15
POSSIBLE ISSUE NO. THREE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Is appellant’s current sentence void because the State improperly
used two prior convictions to enhance his possible punishment?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16-17
PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Page 2 of 18
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738; 87 S.Ct. 1396; 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1967) . . . . . . . .4
Burgess v. State, 816 S.W.2d 424, 428 (Tex.App.Crim. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 327 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Dolph v. State, 440 S.W.3d 898 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2013, pet. ref’d) . . . . . . . . . .13
Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483, 489 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2010, pet. ref’d) . . . . .14
Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810-811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Hutchings v. State, 333 S.W.3d 917 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d) . . . . . . .16
Rogers v. State, 291 S.W.3d 148, 151 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2009, pet. ref’d) . . . . . 14
Ross v. State, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856-57 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Tawater v. State, No. 06-14-00075-CR, slip op. December 10, 2014,
2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 13176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Villarreall v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Waits v. State, 56 S.W.3d 56 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth, 2001, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Webb v. State, 12 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
White v. State, 959 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth, 1998, pet. ref’d) . . . . . . . . .16
Young v. State, 420 S.W.3d 139, 141 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2012, no pet) . . . . . . . .14
Statutes
Penal Code §12.425(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Penal Code §12.35(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Page 3 of 18
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary of a building, enhanced by two
prior felony convictions. The jury found JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE guilty and assessed
his punishment at 20 years confinement and a $10,000.00 fine. CR-224.
For clarity, THE STATE OF TEXAS will be referred to as "the State", and
JAMIE LEE BLEDSOE will be referred to as "Defendant" or "Appellant."
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
The attorney’s role as an advocate on appeal for his client requires that the
attorney support the client’s appeal to the best of the attorney’s ability; however, no
attorney is required to pursue on appeal any matter which is frivolous, without merit,
or not supported by law or the introduced evidence as shown within the Clerk’s Record
and Reporter’s Record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738; 87 S. Ct. 1396; 18 L.
Ed. 2d 493 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) and High
v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810-811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978).
I, Ebb B. Mobley, the court appointed attorney on appeal for Appellant Jamie
Lee Bledsoe, do hereby state that I have diligently searched both the Clerk’s Record
and the Reporter’s Record and the exhibits in cause number 12-0374X of the 71st
Judicial District Court of Harrison County, Texas. I have thoroughly reviewed and
examined the facts and researched the applicable law of Texas and the United States,
and I have painstakingly searched for any arguable issue. It is my professional opinion
that, except as indicated within the Appellant’s Brief prepared by me, no preserved
error, no fundamental error, no harmful error and no reversible error occurred in this
case. In conformity with the law applicable to appeals like this, I shall set forth written
argument, authorities, and record references, in support of my legal opinion on the
issues which could arguable sustain an appeal in this case.
Page 4 of 18
STATEMENT OF FACTS
TRIAL ON THE MERITS
The State called seven witnesses in its case in chief.
Bradley Horn
Brad Horn testified for the State. He was the manager of Fish & Still
Equipment. 3 RR 99. He stated that when he got to work on July 16, 2012, he could
tell that the building had been broken into in the back of the shop. He said that the
door knob was busted through and the door and deadbolt were damaged. He said
that he could tell that some property and the Stihl display had been taken. 3 RR 100.
He said those items included chain saws, concrete saws and weed eaters. Mr. Horn
testified that he reviewed the business’s video surveillance system and was able to
see a man coming through the shop up to the front and then walking out with weed
eaters through the shop. He said the called the police both before and after he
reviewed the video. 3 RR 101.
Randy Pritchard
Randy Pritchard testified for the State. Mr. Pritchard stated that he worked for
the City of Marshall in the IT Department. He said that he managed the network for
the city and assisted the police department in matters like videos and things. He said
that he was asked to assist in a burglary investigation in July of 2012. He said he was
asked to get the video from the Fish & Still and the Valero across the street. 3 RR
117.
Page 5 of 18
Daryl Griffin
Daryl Griffin testified for the State. He stated that he was a sergeant with the
Marshall Police Department. 3 RR 124. Sergeant Griffin testified that he received
a call for a burglary at Fish & Still on July 16, 2012. He said that he and Sergeant
Smith went together and they met with Officer Beck. He stated that Officer Beck
walked them around the outside of the building showing them the surveillance
cameras. They then went inside to see what had been taken. Sergeant Griffin
testified that they then met Officer Killeen inside by the video camera. He confirmed
that several items had been taken. 3 RR 125. He said that they reviewed the
surveillance footage and saw a black male walk up to a camera with a ladder and put
it up against the building and climb up towards the camera. He said that the person
climbed back down and laid at the bottom of the ladder, then climbed back up. He
stated that he was able to see the man’s face and recognized the man. 3 RR 126.
Sergeant Griffin identified the man on the surveillance video as Jamie Bledsoe. He
said that he had known Mr. Bledsoe and spoken with Mr. Bledsoe previously. 3 RR
127.
Sergeant Griffin testified that he and Sergeant Smith next went to the La Quinta
motel because they had outside cameras facing the Fish & Still parking lot. They did
not recover any video at that time. 3 RR 132. He stated that on the Valero’s video
surveillance, they saw Mr. Bledsoe come into the gas station. 3 RR 133.
Sergeant Griffin testified that he went to all of the hotels in the area to see if
Mr. Bledsoe had been staying or was staying at any of them the night of the burglary.
3 RR 134. He said that Mr. Baker, the manager of the Motel 6, informed him that Mr.
Bledsoe had been renting room 108 out in the afternoons. Sergeant Griffin testified
Page 6 of 18
that he then went to the office and was able to get a warrant for Mr. Bledsoe’s arrest.
He said that a day or two later he got a call from Mr. Baker letting him know that Mr.
Bledsoe was in room 108 at that time. 3 RR 135.
Griffin testified that he went to the motel and knocked on the door to room
108. Sergeant Griffin said that Mr. Bledsoe looked out the window for a second and
then opened the door and came outside. Sergeant Griffin testified that Officers
Phillips and McGuire placed Mr. Bledsoe under arrest at that time.
Sergeant Griffin testified that he and Sergeant Smith went in and secured the
room. He said that there was a shirt that was worn in the burglary laying on the floor.
He said he left the room, shut the door and went to get a search warrant. 3 RR 136.
The trial recessed for the day. 3 RR 142.
The next trial day Griffin repeated testimony that he received a call about a
burglary that happened in Harrison County on July 5th. He said that he went to the
location to investigate and reviewed the surveillance footage. He identified the man
on the surveillance footage as Jamie Bledsoe. Mr. Griffin stated that he then got an
arrest warrant and went to the Motel 6, Room 108. He said that he saw a shirt laying
on the floor that fit the description of the shirt he saw in the surveillance footage. 4
RR 8. Sergeant Griffin stated that he then interviewed Mr. Bledsoe to get a search
warrant for the room. 4 RR 9. He then went back to the room and collected the shirt
and other evidence needed from the room. 4 RR 10. Sergeant Griffin testified that
he obtained a second search warrant for Mr. Bledsoe’s DNA to send with the shirt to
the lab to compare to the DNA on the shirt. 4 RR 11. Sergeant Griffin stated that he
and Sergeant Boyd interviewed Mr. Bledsoe at the station and videoed the interview.
4 RR 12.
Page 7 of 18
Larry Smith
Sergeant Larry Smith testified for the State. He was employed with the
Marshall Police Department 4 RR 58. Sergeant Smith testified that on July 15, 2012
he received a call about a burglary at the Marshall Fish & Still. He stated that he and
Sergeant Griffin drove out to the location. 4 RR 59. He said that they met Officer
Beck at the crime scene and toured the perimeter and saw that a breech was made
into the building. They then went inside the building to review the video camera
footage. He identified Jamie Bledsoe as the man on the video footage. 4 RR 60.
Sergeant Smith stated that he also identified Mr. Bleadsoe on footage from a Valero
video camera. 4 RR 61.
Sarah Hodges
Sarah Hodges testified for the State. She was a crime scene officer at the
Marshall Police Department. 4 RR 75. She testified that she was asked to take
possession of a shirt that had been swabbed for DNA evidence. She stated that she
transported the shirt to the lab and picked it up from the lab. 4 RR 76. She also
testified that she took a swab for DNA from Mr. Bledsoe. 4 RR 85.
David Brake
Mr. Brake testified for the State. He said that he was self-employed and did
contract work and occasionally did expert witness testimony. He said that he worked
in the field of dentistry. On August 27, 2013, Mr. Brake was employed with Texas
DPS as a serologist in the forensic DNA section as a forensic scientist. 4 RR 87. Mr.
Brake testified that he received a shirt and some buccal swabs from the suspect and
performed a screen for biological DNA. 4 RR 88. He collected trace evidence and
Page 8 of 18
tested to indicate whether there was any blood on the shirt. He stated that from his
presumptive testing there was no indication of blood on the shirt. 4 RR 90.
Chau Nguyen
Chau Nguyen testified for the State. She was a DNA analyst for the Texas
Department of Public Safety in Garland, Texas. 4 RR 97. She testified that she
analyzed a buccal swab from Jamie Bledsoe and a swabbing from a shirt from the
suspect’s hotel room. 4 RR 98. She stated that the DNA for the swabbing of the shirt
was consistent with the mixture of the suspect, an unknown female individual, and
another unknown individual. She testified that her conclusion was that Mr. Bledsoe
could not be excluded as being a contributor to the swabbing of the shirt. 4 RR 100.
DEFENSE EVIDENCE
The Defendant called six witnesses after the State rested. 4 RR 110.
Armarie Smith
Armarie Smith testified for the defense. Ms. Smith testified that Mr. Bledsoe
was incarcerated with her son and she met him after her son got out of jail. 4 RR 112.
She stated that she came out to Motel 6 to pay for a room for Mr. Bledsoe and went
inside room 108 once or twice. She said that she never saw anything like weed eaters
or saws in that room. She stated that she received a call from Mr. Bledsoe on July 23,
2012 asking her to go to Motel 6 and retrieve the rest of his property. 4 RR 113. She
said that the police were in the room at the time so she went back to her car. 4 RR
114.
Page 9 of 18
David Snow
Davis Snow testified for the defense. Mr. Snow testified that he and his wife
operated My Friend’s House, a homeless shelter in Marshall. He stated that he met
Mr. Bledsoe in early 2013 and saw him once or twice a day. He said that Mr. Bledsoe
worked for him at one time. 4 RR 120. When shown the surveillance footage from
the Fish & Still, Mr. Snow could not identify the man in the video. 4 RR 121.
Caroline Snow
Caroline Snow testified for the defense. Ms. Snow stated that she was part
owner of the My Friend’s House. 4 RR 132. She stated that she met Mr. Bledsoe
when she was working at ETBU and he was taking classes there. She said that she
met him again around February 12, 2012 when he came to the My Friend’s House and
needed a place to stay. She estimated that she saw Mr. Bledsoe every day or two for
four or five months. She said that they had a thrift store and Mr. Bledsoe worked
there with her several times. 4 RR 133. She was shown the surveillance footage from
the Fish & Still and could not identify the man in the footage. 4 RR 134.
Scott Beck
Officer Scott Beck testified for the defense. He stated that he worked for the
Marshall Police Department. He said that he processed crime scenes. 4 RR 142. He
said when processing a crime scene he first tries to document everything as it is when
he arrives by using digital photography. After that he does a walk through to see if
he sees anything he missed the first time. Then he goes back through a third time
and actually collects the evidence to be processed. 4 RR 143. Officer Beck testified
that on July 23, 2012 he received a call from Sergeant Griffin in reference to the hotel
Page 10 of 18
room they were getting a warrant to search. 4 RR 148. He stated that when he
arrived at the room, Detective Larry Smith, Detective Griffin, and Sergeant Scott
Smith were present. He said that Detective Larry Smith and Detective Griffin left and
only he and Sergeant Scott Smith remained in the front of the room. He said that the
door was shut and no one went into the room until Officer Griffin got back with the
search warrant. 4 RR 149.
Eddy Lacy
Eddy Lacy testified for the defense. Ms. Lacy testified that she had known Mr.
Bledsoe for 25 or 30 years. Ms. Lacy could not identify the man in the Fish & Still
surveillance video footage. 4 RR 176.
Scott Smith
Scott Smith testified for the defense. Officer Smith worked for the Marshall
Police Department. 4 RR 184. He testified that on July 23, 2012 he was called to the
Motel 6 to serve an arrest warrant. 4 RR 184-185. He stated that he was not the
arresting officer. He said that once Mr. Bledsoe was in custody, he and a couple of
other officers went into the room to secure it and make sure that no one was hiding
inside. He said they then came back out and closed the door. 4 RR 185. Sergeant
Smith stated that he and another officer stood outside the room to make sure that no
one entered while they waited on the search warrant. 4 RR 186. He said that he
stood outside while Officer Beck processed the scene. 4 RR 187.
Thereafter both sides rested and closed. 4 RR 188.
Page 11 of 18
POSSIBLE ISSUE NUMBER ONE
Did the defendant receive an adequate warning about the dangers of self-
representation?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The trial court’s warning about the dangers of self-representation did not meet
the requirements of due process.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
SUMMARY OF THE TRIAL EVIDENCE
HEARING ON SELF REPRESENTATION 3 RR 7-12
Prior to voir dire Mr. Bledsoe advised the Court that he wished to represent
himself. 3 RR 7. The Judge advised Mr. Bledsoe that he would not get any leeway
because he was representing himself, and instructed him that he was responsible for
voicing any objects he might have himself. 3 RR 8. The Court asked Mr. Bledsoe
if he understood that he had the right to counsel. Mr. Bledsoe answered in the
affirmative. The Court also asked Mr. Bledsoe if he understood that he was bearing
all of the responsibility for representing himself. He again answered affirmatively.
3 RR 12.
ANALYSIS
In this case Mr. Bledsoe has repeatedly filed pro se motions in the trial court,
(CR-174) in this court, and in federal court. Mr. Bledsoe has previousely filed
numerous petitions for mandamus in this court and several civil actions in the
Marshall Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas.
It cannot be denied that Jamie Lee Bledsoe has unequivocally and
repeatedly expressed his desire to represent himself in this case. The trial appointed
stand-by counsel who conducted voir dire and periodically thereafter assisted Mr.
Page 12 of 18
Bledsoe. See 4 RR 57, and 4 RR 182.
Thereafter the trial court appointed different counsel to represent Mr. Bledsoe
for a hearing on a motion for new trial and a subsequent appeal. CR 227, 6 RR .
This court laid out the parameters of self-representation and hybrid
representation in Dolph v. State, 440 S.W.3d 898 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2013, pet.
ref’d). There is no “formulaic questioning” on “particular script “ for a trial court to
assure himself that an accused who has asserted his right to self-representation does
so with his eyes wide open. Burgess v. State, 816 S.W.2d 424, 428 (Tex.App.Crim.
1991). But the colloquy between the accused and judge must be more than a
perfunctory “you’ll be sorry you did this.”
The trial court at bar failed to admonish Jamie Bledsoe of the nature of the
charge and the enhancement counts, the range of allowable punishment, the possible
defenses to the charges, and any mitigating circumstances. Appointment of hybrid,
or stand-by counsel, does not relieve the trial court from a probing, on the record
evaluation of the defendant’s competency, literacy, and complete understanding of
the risks of embarking into the legal minefield of trial where even grizzled, gray-
haired veteran criminal defense lawyers are oft found to have fallen short of effective
representation.
Page 13 of 18
POSSIBLE ISSUE NUMBER TWO
Did the trial court err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence
recovered from his motel room?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The defendant consented to the search of motel room 108, thus rendering any
defects in the search warrant procedure interesting but harmless.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
“A trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence is reviewed by
applying a bifurcated standard of review”. Graves v. State, 307 S.W.3d 483, 489
(Tex.App. - Texarkana 2010, pet. ref’d) (citing Rogers v. State, 291 S.W.3d 148, 151
(Tex.App. - Texarkana 2009, pet. ref’d). “Because the trial court is the exclusive trier
of fact and judge of witness credibility at a suppression hearing, almost total
deference is afforded to its determination of facts supported by the record.” Young
v. State, 420 S.W.3d 139, 141 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2012, no pet.) (Citing State v.
Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 856-57 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d
323, 327 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Guzman v. State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App.
1997). The same deference to a trial court’s rulings on mixed questions of law and
fact is afforded if the resolution of those questions turns on an evaluation of
credibility and/or demeanor. Villarreal v. State, 935 S.W.2d 134, 138
(Tex.Crim.App. 1996). The trial court’s application of the law and determination of
questions not turning on credibility and/or demeanor is review de novo. Carmouche,
10 S.W.3d at 327; Guzman, 955 S.W.2d at 89. Since all the evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the denial of Bledsoe’s motion to
suppress will be upheld if it was supported by the record and was correct under any
theory of law applicable to the case. See Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 328; State v.
Ballard, 987 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).
Page 14 of 18
Mr. Bledsoe questioned Officer Daryl Griffin closely about the mention of
motel room 120 in the affidavit for a search warrant, whereas the warrant was later
executed on room 108. 4 RR 48, 51.
Officer Griffin said the difference was a typographical error. Such an error
might yield fruitful argument for questioning the legality of the search warrant and
the affidavit in support.
But Mr. Bledsoe consented to the search of motel room 108 at the time of his
arrest. See 2 RR 8, specifically State’s Exhibit No. 2 as signed by Bledsoe and
Armarie Smith, the person who had rented the room.
“Consent” trumps irregularity in the warrant procedure. The question of what
exactly Mr. Bledsoe consented to (search for a colored shirt, or a briefcase full of
important papers) would have been an excellent source of questioning for a record
for appeal.
Page 15 of 18
POSSIBLE ISSUE NUMBER THREE
Is appellant’s current sentence void because the State improperly used two
prior convictions to enhance his possible punishment?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Appellant attempted a voluminous, multifarious attack on his prior convictions,
but he did not object to the introduction of these convictions into evidence before the
jury.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITES
Mr. Bledsoe has persistently objected to the State’s use two of his many prior
convictions to enhance punishment range in this case. But he did not object to the
exhibits (SX 50 and 51) when they were introduced by the State. Cf. Tawater v. State,
No. 06-14-00075-CR, slip op. December 10, 2014, 2014 Tex.App. LEXIS 13176 and
Hutchings v. State, 333 S.W.3d 917 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 2011, pet. ref’d).
The record from the hearing on the motion for a new trial pin points Bledsoe’s
attack on two prior convictions. But his questions/testimony/argument about these
convictions reveals more issues that are not developed or on which the record is
simply silent. What happened in the course of pleas in cases No. 99-0124-X and 08-
0177-X? 6 RR 9, 16. That would perhaps be a fertile topic for a post conviction
application for a writ of habeas corpus. But the record at bar is incomplete at best and
mostly silent about the strategy and action of effective counsel.
Mr. Bledsoe has provided a number of cases in support of his argument that his
sentence is void because of improper pleading of his prior state jail felony
convictions1. But those cases predate Penal Code §12.425(b) which provides as
1
State v. White, 959 S.W.2d 375 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth,
1998, pet. ref’d); Webb v. State, 12 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App.
2000); Waits v. State, 56 S.W.3d 56 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth, 2001,
no pet.).
Page 16 of 18
follows:
If it is shown on the trial of a state jail felony punishable under Section
12.35(a) that the defendant has previously been finally convicted of two felonies
other than a state jail felony punishable under Section 12.35(a), and the second
previous felony conviction is for an offense that occurred subsequent to the first
previous conviction having become final, on conviction the defendant shall be
punished for a felony of the second degree.
There does not yet appear to be any in depth discussion of this new statute in
light of legislative history and prior decisions on prior similar statutes for repeat
offenders.
On the face of the record in this case such consideration will be yet in the
future.
Mr. Bledsoe should have taken the plea bargain offer of 8 years. With credit
for time served thus far he would perhaps be on parole again on this Harrison County
conviction.
Page 17 of 18
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant counsel respectfully requests that
his motion to withdraw be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
EBB B. MOBLEY
Attorney at Law
422 North Center St - Lower Level.
P. O. Box 2309
Longview, TX 75606
Telephone: (903) 757-3331
Facsimile: (903) 753-8289
/s/ Ebb B. Mobley
EBB B. MOBLEY
State Bar # 14238000
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief contains 3818 words according to the computer
program used to prepare the document.
/s/ Ebb B. Mobley
EBB B. MOBLEY
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of this brief was provided to Timothy J. Cariker, Assistant District
Attorney, P.O. Box 776, Marshall, Texas 75670, on the 31 day of December, 2014,
by e-file and to Jamie Lee Bledsoe, Inmate#1945574, Wynne Unit, 810 FM 2821,
Huntsville, Texas 77349, by U.S. Mail return receipt requested.
/s/ Ebb B. Mobley
EBB B. MOBLEY
Page 18 of 18