PD-0921-15
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 8/26/2015 5:07:07 PM
Accepted 8/28/2015 11:54:35 AM
PD-0921-15 ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
STEVEN JAMES SEBRING
Defendant - Appellant
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Plaintiff - Appellee
Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review
On Petition for Discretionary Review from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals
No: 14-13-01046-CR
337th District Court
Cause Number: 1323534
... .
THOMAS M. HENDERSON
Texas Bar No: 09432000
4615 Southwest Freeway, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77027
Tel: (713) 552-1940 Fax: (713) 626-0182
th end 12 83 (a),aol. com
Oral argument is not requested
August 28, 2015
'..
,1;(
'' IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
4I
Steven James Sebring - Defendant/Appellant
Attorneys for the State at Trial
Sarah Mickelson
SBOT: 24064244
Adam Muldrow
SBOT: 24060307
1201 Franklin, Ste. 600
Houston, Texas 77002
Attorneys for Appellant at Trial
Te' Iva Bell
SBOT: 24048575
Tanya L. Terry
SBOT: 24073249
Harris County Public Defender's Office
1201 Franklin, 13th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
Appellate Attorneys
Harris County District Attorney's Office
Appellate Division
1201 Franklin, Suite 600 ·
Houston, Texas 77002
Thomas M. Henderson
4615 Southwest Freeway, Suite 600
Houston, Texas 77027
Attorney for Appellant
Trial Judge
Honorable Renee Magee
337th District Court
Harris County Criminal Justice Center
1201 Franklin Street, 17th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel I
Table of Contents 11
Index of Authorities Ill
Statement Regarding Oral Argument IV
Statement of the Case IV
Statement of Procedural History IV
Reasons for Granting Review v
Appellant's First Proposed Issue for Review 1
Appellant's Secon~ Proposed Issue for Review 9
Prayer for Relief 12
Certificate of Service 13
Word Count Compliance 13
Appendix - Opinion from Fourteenth Court of Appeals
11
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Fourth Amendment 7,8
Texas Penal Code 19.02(2)(d) 10
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 14.05 4,6
Becknell v. State 4,5
Brigham City v. Stuaii 7
Cleveland v. State 11
Correa v. State 8
Davis v. State 11
Gutierrez v. State 4
Hernandez v. State 10
llinois v. Rodriguez 3
Illinois v. Wardlow 8
Kentucky v. Ki:µg_,
; U
,I,. i. ~
6
McGee v. State 6
McKinney v. State 10,12
McNairy v. State 4
Metaz v. State 11
Tunubiate v. State 4
United States v. Munoz-Guerra 7
Zuniga v. State 11
::..>'
J j
111
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument is not requested.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant was tried for murder in the shooting death of Joshua Durrance during
a drug (marijuana) transaction. Several hours after having Appellant's home under
surveillance (after the shooting) police entered Appellant's home without a warrant,
broke through Appellant's locked bedroom door, and arrested him. A handgun was
recovered under Appellant's pillow. The trial court ovenuled Appellant's pre-trial
motion to suppress this evidence. The jury found Appellant guilty of murder as
alleged in the indictment. The jury found Appellant guilty of murder and set his
punishment at sixty (60) years in prison.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant appealed to the Fomieenth Court of Appeals. On June 25, 2015,
the Fourteenth Court of Appeals issued its Opinion affirming Appellant's conviction
A copy ofthe Opinion is attached as Appendix "A"
This Court granted Appellant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition
for Discretionary Review until August 26, 2015.
IV
REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW
1. The court of appeals decision conflicts with the decision of another court
of appeals on ,the, ,same issue.
2. The court of appeals has decided an important question of state or federal
law in a way that conflicts with the applicable decisions of the Court of Criminal
Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States.
3. The court of appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by a lower
.r:=i •..,.
court, as to call for an exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals' power of
supervision.
In affirming Appellant's conviction, the Fourteenth Comi ofAppeals conceded
that even if an officer is justified in making a waITantless aITest, he may not enter a
residence to make an arrest unless:
(1) a person who resides in the residence consents to the entry; or
(2) exigent circumstances require that the officer making the aITest enter the
residence without the consent of a resident or without a warrant. (Opinion@ 10)
In affirming Appellant's conviction, the Fomieenth Comi of Appeals rejected
Appellant's Point of Error regarding "Sudden Passion" finding that the jury's finding
was not so agalnst the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be
manifestly unjust. (Opinion @ 19)
v
APPELLANT'S FIRST PROPOSED ISSUE FOR REVIEW
Was law enforcement officer's warrantless entry into a private residence,
followed by .tlu~;n