vm-is
N0>QS-H-oot7a.'i-Ct • RECEIVEC
n rl P\ N t\ L C0URT 0F CRIMiNAL APPEALS
UK itin ,rwr//£ AUG182015
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Abel Acosta, Clerk
AUSTIN, TEXAS
FILED IN
KObEkTIOE /3)^ -*1<
Lane v* State, 151S,U3dot• irt(Jex.Crin.App,W>H)- a
Rivera w State, X7I S,£J,3d 361,306, at307l7exJoO,X008) X
Turner v. State,£>6H SdJtXd ot ) &<
Tex, Penal Code Ann, 1,67(a) (17) . ^
V,TiC-
Tex,Penal Code Ann* /tO7C*)07)(3H), — %
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A grand jury Indicted Appellant For aggravated assault
001tin a deadly CJeapanXCR: %), The indictment alle-g&d
that Appellant1 and iAe complaining ojltness had ex
dating relationship, (CRf.%}>7he Ind/cArvtenA alleged
one. prior felony conviction as on &nAance*yient*Cctf:3%'> £/<%-:&), The- court- found tAe enkancemenE
pargaroph Erue. Qnd assessed punishn hereinafter
called complalnat, by STRIKING C0r1ELhIK\(\TCdlTH A
HAND A TlZEE 8lV\l\ICH AMD A PIPE, and said defendant
did use and exhibit a deadly oseaponj io-cj/i '* a band,
a tree (branch j and pipe >during the commission of
the assault*
Z.
Reason for Granting KevlecJ
Petitioner / request f>r revlecJ under Tex.R,App*Pr
Rulle &>&,31 In reference Ab ,'
(AhuJkether a cootrt of appeals decision conflicts
a)1th another court of appeals decision on the. sarno
Issue;
(ChCohethcr a court of appeals has decided on
Important question of State or federal \(\io in a ajay
that Conflicts cJ/'tb Abe. applicable decisions of the-
court of Criminal Appeal's or +t,e Supreme Court of
the, UnlAed SiatesJ
CFlL)Pie-Hi£r a Court of appeal's has so far deported
•rromi the accepted Qnd usual course of judicial
proceedings j Or so far sanctioned suchi a departure
by a Jocjer court j as A> call for Qn exercise of the.
court of Cri/ninaA Appeal's pooer of supervision.
GROUND FOX flEVXED NUMBER 0N£
The court of Appeals erred in holding that rational
jurors could ha ve concluded PetlAionerj hand ojo s
used us deadly cjeapon i and AAe courA of Appeals
conclude AAe evidence supports a finding AAaA
PetlAionerj use of Als Aond in this case cjasfcapable
of CQuslnq serious bodily Injury,
' kftthL(f\ILNT°
Th& Court of Appeals failed A& prove beyond a reason
able doubt tkaf Petitioner used or exhibited a deadly
OJeaporx during the. alleged assaultJ/Moug tAt sAaAe
SnAroduced evidence AAaf a AandjAree branch j or pipe
could kypotheticed he a deadly uJeapon, It did not
fneet lis burden of pros/Inq AAaA Petitioner i/setcl any
of ttiese objects in a('inanner capable"of causetn^
Serious bodily Injury or death.
The. deadly coeapon
alteration cjas an essential element of Ike, aqqravaied
assault charge,Serious bodily injury is defined as
bodily Injury that creafes a substantial risK of
death or tkat causes deatk >Serious permanent
disfigurement, or protracted loss or Impair/riant of
the function of any bodily Member or oryandex,Penal
Code Ann. ho? (o.)(h&). The Court of Appeals failure to
prove the deadly cJeapon element beyond a 'Seaso
nable, doubt In Akls case renders iU evidence
insufficient Ao support PetiA/ener's convicAAon.
GROUND FOR REUEOd AlUMbtt TOO
The Court of Appeals erred In koldina that evidence
Supports a finding tkat petitioner, use of a branch
or pipe in AAls case could haue caused Serious bodily
Injury *and ikaA the evidence ajas sufficient.
'ARGUMENT*
aJ&sleyj testified titat Petitioner tfait her coltA his Aond
and tkat he "way haut used a tree branch or pipe fc
hit her arm.Neither a handi nor a free hrancA* nor a*
pipe is a flrearmTTfierefore >these. objecAs are not
deadly aJeapons per se , Tex.Pencil Code kOt7(U)0'7),
FurAkerrnere j these lAe/ris are not manifestly designed,
made, i or adapted for purpose of InfliefIna death &r
Serious bodily byury tConsequently / /Ae. Court of
Appeals ojos obllqated to prove that PeAAAlonen, used
these object in a manner"Capable of causing serious
bodily Injury or death according to the fact or AAls
Cast.lht Court of Appeals Cdkolly failed Ao meet lAk
burden , VT,C.A> Penal Code , hOT (ai)GtiCMd.
6.
GROUND FOR KEVIEO) NUMBER THREE
The Court of Appeals erred In revleojing and
examining only ajkaf aJas said ai trial Ay AAe
complaintnq colAness.
>ARG(JMEMT<
The Court of Appeals, Mnccjs of no otAen medical
Areatnnen f for Cdes/ey j oiker- than the parannedlc
report compieAed nineAy nninuAes after AAt, alleged
offense,Xt coou/d be clearly ajrong and manifestly
Unjust Ao conclude serious bodily injury resulted
from this tact alone under" a factual scuffleleney
reviecu,1 there is no evidence that HJes/ey^ souqht
or recelued any additional tmedlcal treatment for
her injuries /Therefore , the finding J> of a deadly
coeapon cannot rest on proof AAaA Lesleyj actually
suffered any Serious bodily Injury from AAe
alleged assault. SBC. Johnston V, STATEl /IS S,aj.3d7£h
763j ot 7&H. (TeyL-App* ZU03),
The Court of Appeals failed to
produce sufflc evidence In this case about the
Inherent nature or deadly capabitltly of AAe weapon
used Ao assault Desley*&TE>Rivera v. £TATErXl7l
S*CJ< *d 301j30&j at SOT, CTexJpp, Wos), The photographs
of LOe&iey >injuries reflect surface skin Injuries. .The,
Scratch on /desley
a reasonable Anferehce that Petitioner j used any
of these objects in a manner capable, of dousing
deaik or serious bodily injury.
udes/ey-i as/o stated to
officer Tbvar» -tkat -ike only ojeapan used coas
Petitioner's ?hands !(RR3) l&l ).Tn officer Tovarj report
there cuas^no'1 reference to ex tree branch nor pipe*
(/?R3j 10.1).Officer Tovarj testified thai cohen ke met
Coiik uJesley* AAat nlcfht> S>ht could not tell him hoU)
iAe morACs on her arm AiappendXRR^J 119 )>AIthocACfk
uJe&ley, refused transport ro AAe hospifoi 6uAthe Aesiimony of a nurse j
paramedic , and Acoo police officer's as cJeli as
tkrouaU the victim's hospital records sko^u AAe Acts,
and proof that 'Ms,Lane f actually uJent Ao AAe
hospitalj but In Petitioner's, case j there Is no proof
or medical records shousinQ AAoA uJesAeyjever
Dentjjusi her testimony that she &ienA* There Is 'no
Medical report ^sboLolng that TJesley^ suffered froM
her Ihjuriiojs life *ske, Aesiifi^d Ao in Atrial/Ms. Land
. CJCXS examlnd at the hospital as ojefl by the paramedics
and nur.se/Atsj hone, suffered Trow nauseajvotnltlng,
dizziness j on of a concussion to the brain f
Linlife Uesley i Ais, Lane i actually coeni to the
hospital the day of AAe assaultJlic evidence Is Aegal
and factuu/y Insufficient to support ike conviction,
because the Appeal's court failed Ao prc?ve beyond
a reasonable douAA AhaA PeAiAlonerj used or exhibited
a deadly cseapon.
Ike State , and AAe Court of Appeal's
must provid tie trier of fact cjlih some evidence >
nornnally through expert testimony, that the ueapon
CO as ''used' or Intended to be used In suck a coay ihai
it coas ''capable"of causing death or seriouse bodily
injury. Tex, PenalCode Ann, k07 (a) Or) &*/).
din ddan z Ig >CJounds
Inflicted on the Injured party are factors to be
considered In determining cohether o oJeapon Is a
deadly cseaponf'SEEA Danzig v. State ,SV6 S
30 fdfex.CrlmJpp, 1977), Ordinarily use merely of hands,
fist or olker Member's of He, body oJl/A not constitute on
aggravated assaultJSEE'i Turner v. Siotej ££Lf SdJr**1at
90, (Te K, Crlm Jpp M 83X
Petitioner , coouid life, to otfeynpte to explain
hou* Desley
could not have been beaten cjilk a pipe or tree branck,
because if this Court cooald please examen the.
photograph's of Liesley's injury on her armytkls Court
colli see that ike Icjo Marf* are scratch's* the maet&
9.
Icjo nnarfs Ore also Identical In shape and siz.ei
there Is no bruising shots In% that Ike marfs ojas
caused by betrig beaten, odes leyj Aofd half of the
truth to officer Tovar, about coho/happend AAiof
night Xt coould he. hard Ao heat somane, and Ieve,
identical marAls only centimeter's apart fram
Ike olker one* The hoo marks on Des/eyss arm
are curved at the end, a tree brunch nor a pipe
coould hai/e A, testified that she sacj Ah& pipe
being used on her *(l?P3;2J?)l7hese arejust three of
the different inconsistent circumstanes of fetlt/oner
case,
10*
• PKMEK •
LdHEfEFDfE, fAEAIJSES CONSIDERED, Petitioner*
prays Ahat AA?Is Court grant Als PeAAtAori-for
DlscreAAonary AfeuAeod, and reverse AAls cause
and enter an order of acquittal.
Respectfully Submitted
^"ffjaotiA /foe /cf/n/AJ-
Robert doe Afimble.
pro sefPetitioner,
McConnet! Unit
30OI SXnnlty driuc
l&eevillejTx 72/0 Z-
u
SERTIFICA TEOrSEMJCE
I certify that a true and' corre>cf copy off the
above foregoing Petition Az>r Discretionary
feviecjj has Aeen torcjarded by d,S, Ula!I,postage
prepaid, first class / Ac? AAe Attorney for AAie
?fde fCralgDoJKlns , at Dallas CountyDistrict
Attorney's office, FranKCrooj/ey CourtBuilding)
133 A/, Riverfront3J\/dXBd?j Dallas ,7x9T5X07*1311,
and Ao the ssfaife ProsecuAAng AtfoheA/',Pd,8oxlZ.H
osi Austin iTx 7%7ll on Anls fhe^-JA^^day of
& ,2/3 ISs-.
fobeet Joe Kimble
Petitionerj Pro se
Xj #oherAJo~eAKimble, Robert Joe
Combined Opinion