PD-1465-15 PD-1465-15
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 11/11/2015 11:56:45 AM
Accepted 11/12/2015 2:17:01 PM
ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
IN THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINA,L APPEALS
No. 14-14-00M4-CR
In the FourteenthCourtof Appeals
of Texas
Justin RossAllen, Appellant
V.
The Stateof Texas,,Afuellee
Appollant'sPetitionfor Discre{ionarT
Review
JefatdK. Crrabe,r
T$B # 08240320
917Franklin,Suite510
H$rston,Texas77A02
Tdl.713-22+232
grOberlaw@sbcglobal.net
A4omey for Appellant
November 12, 2015
StatementRegardingOral Argument
Appellantwaivesoral argument.
Identitv of Judge.Parties.and Counsel
Pursuantto TEX. R. APP.P. 38.1(a),the followingpersonsareinterested
parties:
Appellant
Mr. JustinRossAllen
TDCJ# 0r960t4s
HollidayUnit
295lH-45 North
Huntsville,TX 77320
Trial Judee
TheHonorableBrad Han
230tr,
DistrictCourr
1201Franklin
Houston,Texas77002
Attomeysfor State
Ms. SarahRobertsandMs. Lisa Calligan(in trial)
Mr. Alan Curry(on appeal)
HarrisCountyDA's Office
1201Franklin,6ftFloor
Houston,Texas77002
Attomey for Appellant
Mr. GordonDeesand Mr. William Denham(in fial)
Mr. JeraldK. Graber (on appeal)
917 Franklin,Suite510
Houston.Texas77002
Table of Contenti
Page
STATEMENTREGARDINGORAL ARGIII\{bNT 2
IDENTITYOFJUDGE,PARTIES,AND CoI.Ii\tSEL 3
TAtsLEOFCONTENTS 4
INDEXOFAUTI{ORITIES 5
STATEMENTOFTT{ECASE 6
STATEMENTOFPROCEDURAL
HISTORY 6
APPELLANT'S GROUNDSFORREVIEW 7
REASONFOR REVIEWING GROUNDSFOR REVIEW 7
ARGUMENT 8
CONCLUSIONandPRAYERFOR RELIEF 1,4
CERTIFICA]E OF COMPLIA}TCE T4
CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE 15
Index of Authorities
Cases Pase
Cookv.State, 9,lr
884S.W.2d485(Tex.Crim.App. 1994)
Jaclrsonv.Virginia, 8 ,1 l
443U.S.307,318-19,99
S.Ct.2781,278F-99,
6LL.Bd.zds60(re7e)
Leal v. State, 9 ,1 1
800s.w.2d346,348
(Tex.App.,CorpusChristi lgg},pet ref.)
Lugo-Lugov. State, 9, LI-12
650S.W.2d72,81(Tex.Crim.App. 1983)
Saxtonv. State, t2
804S.W.2d910,911(Tex.Crim.App. tq91)
Thomosv. State, 13
578S.W.2d691,698
(Tex.Crim.App. Ig79)
Statutes.
CodesandRules
Tex.Pen.Codeg 6.03(a),
(b) 9 ,T T
Tex.Pen.Codeg 9.32 13
Tex.Pen.Code$ 19.02(bX1),
(2) 8,9,11
Tex.R.App.Proc.
66.3(c)and(D 8
To the HonorableCourt of Criminal Appeals:
Statementof the Case
Appellantwaschargedby indictmentwith the felonyoffenseof murder.
(CR 10).Appellantentereda pleaof 'onotguilty" andthe casewastried before
a iury. GR III 23). The jury found appellantguilty as chargedin the
indictment.(CR 97). Thereafter,the jrry assessed
a sentenceof 13 yearsin
prison.(RR IV 12). Appellanttimely filed a written notice of appeal.(CR
128). Thetrial courtcertifiedthe defendant's
right of appeal.(cR 130).
Statementof ProceduralHistory
on November10, 2015 a panel of the FourteenthCourt of Appeals
opinionaffirmingthetrial court'sjudgmentin this case.
issuedan unpublished
Appellantfilesthis first petitionfor discretionary
reviewwith this Court.
Appellant'sGroundsfor Review
r) The court of Appealserredin holding the evidencesufficientto
supportthejury's verdictof guilt for murder.No trier of fact could
have found that appellanteither intentionallyor knowingly caused
the deathof the complainantor intendedto causeseriousbodily
injuy to the complainant.
2) The Court of Appealserredin holding the evidencesufficientto
supportthejury's verdictof guilt for murdersinceno rationaltrier of
fact could havefound beyonda reasonabledoubtthat appellantdid
not actin self-defense.
Reasonfor ReviewinsAppellant'sQround for Review
ThelowerCourt'sruling shouldbe reviewedpursuantto Tex.R. App.
P. 66.3(c)and(f).
Argument
Ground for Review Number One:
The evidenceis legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that
appellant intentionally or knowingly causedthe death of the complainant,
JamesTaylor. In this case,the evidencedoes not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that appellant either intentionally or knowingly causedthe death of the
complainant or intended to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant.
Thus, the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict on
murder. The trial judge erred by not granted appellant's motion for an
instructedverdict of not guilty.
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence,courtsconsiderall of the
evidencein the light most favorableto the verdict and determinewhetherany
rational trier of fact could have found the essentialelementsof the crime
beyonda reasonabledoubt.Jacksonv. Virginia,443 U.S. 307,318-19,99
S.Ct. 2781,2788-89,61L.Ed.2d560 (1979). As chargedin the indictment
and the jury charge, a person can commit murder if he (1) intentionally or
knowingly causesthe death of an individual or (2) intends to causeserious
bodily ittjuty and commits an act clearly dangerousto human life that causes
the deathof an individual.Tex. Pen.Code g 19.02(bX1),(2). An intentional
killing occurswhen the person's consciousdesireor objective is to causethe
deathof another. A knowing kilting occurswhen the personknows that death
is reasonablycertain. Tex. Pen. Code $ 6.03(a), (b). Thus a knowing killing
contemplatesthe commissionof an act that is objectively dangerousto human
rife.Lugo-Lugov. state,650s.w.2d72,81 (Tex.crim. App. 1983).To prove
murder under this theory, the statemust prove that the defendantintentionally
or knowingly engagedin an actthat causedthe death and intendedor knew
that deathwould resultfrom that act.Leal v. State,800s.w.2d346,34g (Tex.
App., Corpus Christi 1990, pet ref.). Intentional and knowing murder under
$19.02(b)(l),(2) is a result-of-conduct
offense.Cookv.State,884S.W.2d485
(Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Thus, the culpable mental state is focused on the
defendant'sintent to achievethe result, ratherthan the defendant'sknowledge
regardingthe conduct.Lugo-Lugov. State,650S.W.2dat 81.
In this case,at the close of the State's case-in-chief appellantmade a
motion for an instructedverdict of not guilty. The motion was deniedby the
trial judge. (RR IV 80). The trial judge erred by not granting appellant's
motion for an instructedverdict of not guilty sincethe state'scase-in-chiefdid
not prove the essentialelementsof murder. The stateonly proved that (1) the
complainant died from blunt force trauma to his head erndneck area, (2)
appellanttold his fatherthat the complainant"wasn't going to make it to work
the next day becausehe was dead in a blanket in the motel room," and (3)
appellant
waslocatedandarrested
outsideat a nearbyhotel.(RRIII 49,236,
IV 13-14,34).Therewasnoevidence
directlyor indirectlylinkingthedeathof
the complainantto appellant.The fact that appellantand the complainantwere
sharinga motel room is not any evidencethat appellantwas the actualperson
who causedthe death.Furthermore,there was no evidencepresentedthrough
appellant'sfather that appellantadmittedto the killing. Thus, the evidenceis
legally insufficient to support a finding that appellant either intentionally or
knowingly causedthe death of the complainantor intendedto causeserious
bodily inj,rry to the complainant,ffid the trial judge erred by not granting
appellant's motion for an instructedverdict of not guilty at the close of the
stateoscase-in-chief.Thus, the Court of Appeals erredin fitndingthe evidence
sufficientto supportthe verdict. Appellant shouldbe acquitrtedby this Court.
Ground for Review Number Two:
The evidenceis legally insufficient since no rational trier of fact could
have found beyond a reasonabledoubt that appellant did not act in self-
defense.There is no evidencein this caseto disprovethat appellantdid not act
in self-defense.Self-defenseis the only logical explanationfor what happened.
Appellant assertsthere was insufficient evidence to disprove self-
defensebeyonda reasonabledoubt.The jury was instructedlto acquit appellant
10
unlessit believedbeyonda reasonabledoubtthat he did not act in self-defense.
(CR 89-93). In reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence,courtsconsiderall
of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verr.
App.-Houston
[14thDist.] 2}tl,pet. refld).
Consideringall of the evidencein the light rrlostfavorableto the verdict, we
conclude the evidence is sufficient to support rtlrejury's implicit rejection of,
appellant'sclaim of self-defenr..Wr ovemrleappellant'ssecondissue.
Having overruledall of appellant'schallengeson appeal,we affirm the trial
court'sjudgment.
lsl KemfihompsonFrost
ChiefJlustice
Panelconsistsof Chief JusticeFrost and JusticesC[ristopher andDonovan.
Do Not Publish- Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
10