ACCEPTED
12-14-00303-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
2/19/2015 8:17:14 PM
CATHY LUSK
CLERK
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
NO. 12-14-00303-CR FILED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 2/19/2015 8:17:14 PM
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CATHY S. LUSK
Clerk
TYLER, TEXAS
CRAIG PRUITT,
APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 007-0996-14
FROM THE 7th DISTRICT COURT
OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
HONORABLE KERRY RUSSELL, 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:
Craig Pruitt
APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL:
John Jarvis
326 S. Fannin
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-592-6576
APPELLANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL
James Huggler
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-593-2400
APPELLEE
The State of Texas
APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL
Jeff Wood
Bryan Jiral
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
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)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ISSUES PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 4.05 (West 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §12.42(a) (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 6
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §46.04(a)(2) (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5, 6
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §46.04(e) (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3, 5
CASES
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 4
Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.– Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). . 6
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781,
61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Martin v. State, 200 S.W.3d 635, 640 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).. . . . . . . . .
Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). 4
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).. . . . . . . . . . . 8
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052,
80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . 7
RULES
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 9.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
TEX. R. APP. PROC. 38. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 4
iv
NO. 12-14-00303-CR
CRAIG PRUITT, § 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 Craig Pruitt, (“Appellant”), by and through his 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 indictment with the felony offense of
Unlawful Possession of a Firearm by a Felon in Smith County occurring
1
on June 18, 2014. CR 4;1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §46.04(a)(2) (West 2013).
This third degree felony offense was enhanced to a second degree
punishment range with a previous felony conviction not alleged in the
jurisdictional paragraph. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 46.04(e) and 12.42(a)
(West 2013).
Mr. Pruitt entered a plea of guilty without an agreement. CR 36; I
RR 30.2 Following evidence and argument, the trial court sentenced Mr.
Pruitt to eight years confinement. CR 44-45; II RR 20. Timely notice of
appeal was filed. CR 49. This brief is timely filed on or before February
19, 2015.
ISSUES PRESENTED
None
1
References to the Clerk’s Record are designated “CR” with an arabic numeral following “CR”
specifying the correct page in the record.
2
References to the Reporter’s Record are designated “RR” with a roman numeral preceding
“RR” specifying the correct volume, and an arabic numeral following designating the correct
page.
2
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellant was charged by indictment with the third felony offense
of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. CR 4; TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. §§46.04(a)(2) and (e) (West 2013). The punishment range was
enhanced to a second degree by the allegation that Mr. Pruitt had been
convicted of a different felony offense. CR 4; TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§12.42 (a)(West 2013).
Mr. Pruitt entered a plea of guilty to the indictment, and a plea of
true to the enhancement paragraph without an agreement as to
punishment. CR 36-40; I RR 30. Following evidence and argument of
counsel, the court assessed an eight year sentence. CR 44-45; II RR 20.
Further discussion of the facts in the case is included below.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Counsel has reviewed the record and has concluded that, in his
professional opinion, the record contains no reversible error or
jurisdictional defects. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct.
3
1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Thus, counsel must move for leave
to withdraw from the case.
ARGUMENT
There is no argument to present to this Court; however, Counsel has
included this section to strictly comply with Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 38. Counsel has reviewed the record and has concluded that,
in his professional opinion, the record contains no reversible error or
jurisdictional defects. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Therefore, counsel is including the
following explanatory section.
PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD
When counsel contends that there are no arguable grounds for
reversal on appeal, counsel is required to present a professional
evaluation of the record supporting this assertion. See Mays v. State, 904
S.W.2d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Counsel has
4
conducted a review of the record, and has concluded that it presents no
arguable error.
Counsel first reviewed the record for jurisdictional defects, and has
found none. The offense is classified as a third degree felony. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. §46.04(a)(2) and (e) (West 2013). The State must allege and
prove that Mr. Pruitt had previously been convicted of a felony offense.
Id. The State alleged a previous conviction from Henderson County,
Texas. CR 4. As charged in the indictment, the base offense was a third
degree felony; thus, the trial court has jurisdiction over the case. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.05 (West 2013) (stating that district courts
shall have original jurisdiction in all felony cases). The indictment filed
conferred jurisdiction on the trial court and provided Appellant with
sufficient notice of the charged offense.
Counsel has examined the totality of evidence as well, and has
determined that there are no arguable grounds for review of the
sufficiency of the evidence. For legal sufficiency purposes, the question is
whether, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
5
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560, 99 S. Ct. 2781 (1979).
A person commits an offense if he possesses a firearm after the fifth
anniversary of his release from parole at any location other than the
premises at which the person lives. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §46.04(a)
(West 2013). The punishment range was enhanced with the allegation
that Mr. Pruitt had also previously been convicted of a different felony
possession of a controlled substance in Van Zandt County, Texas. CR 4;
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §12.42(a) (West 2013).
The sentence assessed by the court was within the punishment
range provided for by law, and is therefore not subject to challenge. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (West 2013) (punishment range for
third degree felony offense enhanced to a second degree). Moreover, the
judgment does not contain any improper assessment of fees. CR 44, 47;
See Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
Thus, there is no arguably reversible error during the punishment phase.
Finally, the undersigned has reviewed the record and found no
6
arguable ground for ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel is strongly
presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant
decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674
(1984).
Counsel had received a seven year plea agreement offer from the
state, Mr. Ardry declined to accept that offer. II RR 5. Mr. Ardry entered
an open plea of guilty. I RR 30. The State sought a ten year sentence at
this punishment hearing. II RR 16, 20. Mr. Jarvis was familiar with the
facts, advised his client regarding testimony, and made an effective
argument resulting in the trial court sentencing Mr. Priutt two years
below the State’s requested sentence. Considering the totality of the
representation of Appellant's trial counsel, the record contains nothing
that would indicate that counsel's performance was deficient. See
Strickland 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S. Ct. at 2064; Thompson v. State, 9
S.W.3d 808, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
7
CONCLUSION
Since counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal, he
is required to move for leave to withdraw. See Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel respectfully
prays that this Court permit him to withdraw after this Court’s own
examination of the record in this cause and to afford Appellant his right
to file any pro se brief that he may wish to file.
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
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of the Appellant has been
forwarded to counsel for the State by regular mail or through the State of
Texas Electronic Filing System on this the 19th day of February 2015 and
to the Appellant at the address listed below by regular mail.
Attorney for the State:
Mr. Mike West
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
Craig Pruitt
TDCJ #01960665
Hamilton Unit
200 Lee Morrison Lane
Bryan, Texas 77807
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this Brief complies with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, specifically
using 14 point Century font and contains 1,732 words as counted by
Corel WordPerfect version x5.
/s/ James Huggler
James W. Huggler, Jr.
9