ACCEPTED
06-14-00216-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
2/26/2015 9:42:37 AM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
NO. 06-14-00216-CR
FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS
2/26/2015 9:42:37 AM
FOR THE
DEBBIE AUTREY
Clerk
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
PHYLLIS GWEN PRUITT
Appellant
v.
STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
APPEALED FROM THE 124th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF GREGG COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL COURT NO. 43975-B
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
KYLE DANSBY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 1914
MARSHALL, TX 75671
(903) 738-6162
(888) 410-1583 (FAX)
kdmlsbylaw@gmail.com
STATE BARNO: 24059180
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... .2
INDEX OF AUTHORlTIES ................................................................................. 3
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES ......................................................................... .3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. .................................................................................. 5
ISSUE PRESENTED .......................................................................................... 5
Appellant's sentence is not grossly disproportional to the crime committed in violation of
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is assuming arguendo that trial
counsel preserved this argument for appeal, as trial counsel did not obj ect to the sentence and did
not file a motion for new trial or motion to arrest judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................. .5
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 6
PRESERVATION OF ERROR .............................................................................. 7
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 8
PRAYER ............................................................................................................ 9
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. ........................................................................... .10
2
INDEX OF ACTHORITIES
CASES:
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) ............................................................... 9
Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 291-92 (1983) .............................................................. 9
McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313,316 (5th Cir.), cert. denied ....................................... 9
Curriev. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ................................................ 7
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) ............................................ 7
Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) ......................................... 8
Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719,723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet) ........................... 7
Escochea v. State, 139 S.W.3d 67,80 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.) ..................... 8
Jacoby v. State, 227 S.W.3d 128,130 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) ............. 7
Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.) ......................... 9
Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925,928 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref'd) .................. 8
Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App. - Waco 1997, order), disp. on merits, 3 S.W.3d 223
(Tex. App. - Waco, 1999, pet. ref d) ............................................................... 7
Winchester v. State, 246 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, pet. l'ef'd) .................... 9
STATUTES:
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.115(a) (West 2013) ................................. 8
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.115 (b) (West 2013) ................................ 8
TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §12.34(a) (West 2013) ......................................................... 8
TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §12.35(a) (West 2013) ......................................................... 8
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.l(a)(l) .................................................................................. 7
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
Phyllis Gwen Pruitt: Appellant
Gregg County Jail
3
101 E. Methvin, Suite 635
Longview, TX 75601
Kyle Dansby: Trial counsel for Appellant
P.O. Box 1914
Marshall, TX 75671
kdansby1aw@gmail.com
Kyle Dansby: Appellate counsel for Appellant
P.O. Box 1914
Marshall, TX 75671
kdansbylaw@gmail.com
Chris Botto: Assistant District Attorney at open plea & sentencing
Gregg County District Attorney's Office
101 E. Methvin, Suite 333
Longview, TX 75601
chris.botto@co.gregg.tx.us
Zan Brown: Assistant District Attorney on appeal
Gregg County District Attorney's Office
101 E. Methvin, Suite 333
Longview, TX 75601
zan.brown@co.gregg.tx.us
Alfonso Charles: trial judge, l24th District Court, Gregg County, Texas
101 E. Methvin, Suite 447
Longview, TX 75601
Terri.Shepherd@co.gregg.tx.us (court coordinator)
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Phyllis Gwen Pruitt (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") entered an open plea of guilty to two
counts of Possession of a Controlled Substance in the 1241h District Court on November 24,
2014. C.R. 18 (43975-B);C.R, 8 (44139-B); R.R. Vol. 1,5. After receiving all exhibits into
evidence, and after hearing all the evidence, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 7 years in the
penitentiary and 15 months state jail, sentences to nm concurrently. R.R. Vol. 1,41. Appellant
filed an appeal of this sentence.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Appellant's sentence is not grossly disproportional to the crime committed in violation of the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is assuming arguendo that trial
counsel preserved this argument for appeal, as trial counsel did not object to the sentence and did
not file a motion for new trial or motion to arrest judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Appellant was first indicted for Possession of a Controlled Substance >= 1 gram < 4 grams in
cause number 43975-B. C.R. 4 (43975-B). The offense was alleged to have occurred on January
20, 2014. ld. Appellant was subsequently indicted for Possession of a Controlled Substance less
than one gram for an offense alleged to have occurred on June 19, 2014. C.R. 4 (44139-B).
Appellant pled guilty to both indictments in an open plea to the trial court on November 27,
2014. R.R. Vo!' 1, 5. Appellmlt testified. She testified she was 56 years old and primarily
cleaned houses for a living. R.R. Vo!' I, 14. Appellant testified she had two felony convictions.
ld. at 14-5. The first felony conviction was in 1994 from the Lonisimla; Appellant received md
successfully completed probation. ld. The second felony conviction was in 2005 from Sarasota
5
County, Florida for the offense of possession with intent to sell; Appellant received probation
and that probation was ultimately revoked. ld. at 15. Appellant testified that she hoped the trial
court would place her on probation with drug rehabilitation as a condition of probation. ld. at 20.
Appellant testified that her drug use could stem from being molested as a child. ld. at 22-3.
Appellant stated that she felt probation with drug rehabilitation would better assist her than being
sentenced to the penitentiary. ld. at 25.
On cross examination, Appellant testified that in the first offense she was caught in a motel room
with 3.4-3.5 grams of methamphetamine. Id. at 25-6. She further admitted that the drugs were
located by police in her bra. Id. at 27. She testified that, in both instances, she was in the wrong
place at the wrong time. Id. at 28. She stated she does not use drugs intravenously. Id. at 29.
When she was asked why, in one of the cases, her credit card was found near drugs, used
syringes, and used spoons, Appellant denied that any of the materials, except her credit card,
were hers. Id. She later denied purchasing the 3.5 grams of methamphetamine, and testified the
drugs were handed to her. Id. at 31. Appellant also later denied selling drugs. Id. at 32.
The trial court noted that he did not think Appellant was being ['ully truthful in her testimony. Id.
at 41. He then sentenced Appellant to 7 years and 15 months state jail, sentences to run
concurrently. Id.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Appellate counsel cmllocate no arguable grounds for appeal, and as a result, files the Anders
brief with a corresponding Appellant's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw. A copy of the Briefin
Support of Motion to Withdraw mld the corresponding motion has been forwarded to Appellant
with a letter explaining what has been done. See Exhibit A to Appellant's Counsel's Motion to
6
Withdraw. Appellant has been advised she has thirty days to file a pro se response or a motion
requesting an extension of time in which to file the response, pursuant to Wilson v. State, 955
S.W.2d 693 (Tex. App. - Waco 1997, order), disp. on merits, 3 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. - Waco,
1999, pet. rerd). See Appellant's Counsel's Motion to Withdraw.
Appellate counsel has thoroughly read and reviewed the entire appellate record in search of any
arguable grounds of error to raise that would support either a reversal of Appellant's sentence or
some other fOl'm of relief. After reviewing the record and researching the potential grounds for
appeal, appellate counsel is unable to find any error for which he, in good faith, can urge a
reversal of her sentence or any other relief.
Appellate counsel is aware that he has a duty to advance all arguable grounds of error that would
Appellant a reversal of sentence or any other relief. Counsel must demonstrate why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced. High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);
Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Therefore, counsel presents to the
Court the following major issue reviewed:
PRESERVATION OF ERROR
Trial cOlU1sel appears to have waived this issue for appeal. Trial cOlU1sel did not object to the
sentence when it was pronounced, and trial counsel did not file a motion for new trial or arrest of
judgment. Failure to do either of these results in a waiver. See Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a)(1); Jacoby
v. State, 227 S.W.3d 128,130 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. rei'd); Castaneda v.
State, 135 S.W.3d 719,723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet).
7
ARGUMENT
Appellant's sentence is not grossly disproportional to the crime committed. While the sentences
are on the higher end of the punishment range, the sentences do not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This assumes arguendo that trial counsel properly
preserved this issue for appeal, as trial counsel did not object to the sentence nor did he file a
motion for new trial or motion to arrest judgment.
As long as the sentence falls within the punishment range of the statute, then courts have long
held that the punishment is not grossly disproportional. See Jordan v. State, 495 S.W.2d 949,
952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d 925,928 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi
2005, pet. refd); see also Escochea v. State, 139 S.W.3d 67,80 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2004,
no pet.). Appellant pled guilty to two indictments for Possession of a Controlled Substance. The
first indictment alleged possession of less than foUl' grams, but more than one gram. C.R. 4
(43975-B). This offense is a third degree felony. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§48I.l15(c) (West 2013). A third degree felony is punishable by no less than two years and no
more than 10 years in a penitentiary. TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. §12.34(a). For this charge,
Appellant was sentenced to seven years in the penitentiary. RR. Vol. 1, 41. The second
indictment alleged possession ofless than one gram. C.R. 4 (44139-B). This offense is a state
jail felony. TEX, HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §481.115(b) (West 2013). A state jail
felony is punishable by no less than 180 days and no more than two years in a state jail facility.
TEX, PEN. CODE ANN. §12.35(a). For this charge, Appellant was sentenced to fifteen months
in a state jail facility. R.R. Vol. 1,41. These sentences were ordered to nm concurrently. Id.
Even though a sentence falls within the statutory punishment range, appellate courts must
determine whether the sentence is grossly disproportional under the Appellant's federal
8
constitutional rights. Winchester v. State, 246 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, pet.
rei'd); Mullins v. State, 208 S.W.3d 469, 470 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.). First, courts
look at the gravity of the offense compared to the severity of the sentence. Solem v. Helm, 463
U.S. 277, 291-92 (1983); McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313, 316 (5th Cir.), cert. denied.
Appellate courts then consider sentences for similar crimes in the same jurisdiction, and
sentences for the same crime in other jurisdictions. See Solem, 463 U.S. at 292. In light of
Harmelin v. Michigan, courts do not address the second and third issue unless the initial
comparison of the gravity and severity create an inference that the sentence is grossly
disproportional. Harmelin v. Michigan, SOl U.S. 957 (1991); McGruder, 954 F.2d at 316.
The initial comparison does create an inference that the sentence is grossly disproportional.
Based on the testimony of Appellant, her criminal history, and the fact that she cOlmnitted a
second felony while out of bond for the first felony, there is no inference that the sentence is
grossly disproportional. Since no inference is created, the other two elements are not considered,
and no evidence was placed in the record for the Court to review sentences for the same crime in
this jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, appellate counsel respectfully requests that Appellant's
Counsel's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel be granted or for such other and further relief to
which Appellant may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Kyle Dansby
Attomey at Law
P.O. 1914
9
Marshall. TX 75671
(903) 738-6162
(888) 410-1583 (fax)
kdansbylaw@gmail.com
/s/ Kyle Dansby
Kyle Dansby
State BarNo: 24059180
Attorney for Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this brief contains 1,562 words according to the computer program used to prepare
this document.
/s/ Kyle Dansby
Kyle Dansby
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of this brief was sent via email to Zan Brown, attorney for Appellee, on the 24th day of
Febmary, 2015.
/s/ Kyle Dansby
Kyle Dansby
10