ACCEPTED
03-15-00028-CR
4790088
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
4/7/2015 2:04:28 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-15-00028-CR
(Trial Court No. A110418SB) FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN THE
4/7/2015 2:04:28 PM
COURT OF APPEALS
JEFFREY D. KYLE
FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXASClerk
NAKIA DESHAWN LEWIS,
Appellant.
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee.
From the 51ST Judicial District Court
ofTom Green County, Texas
Honorable Barbara Walther, Judge Presiding
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
KIRK HAWKINS
17 South Chadbourne, Suite 401
P.O. Box 3645
San Angelo, Texas 76902
325-658-5585
State Bar No. 09250400
E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................... ... ............................... 2
LIST OF AUTHORITIES....................................... ........ ........ 3
NAMES OF ALL PARTIES..................................... .. ......... .... 5
STATEMENTOFTHECASE................................................. 5
STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE.............................. ............ 7
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE........ ................................. 14
OBJECTIONS......... ... ................ ......................................... 14
EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL....... ...................................... 14
PUNISIIMENT.......... ........................................................ .. 15
CONCLUSION............................................. ..... .................. 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.................................................. 15
2
LIST OF AUTHORITIES
CASES Page
Anders v. California 386 US 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed 2nd 493
(1963) 6
Crawford v. Washington 541 US 36 (2004) 10
Delacruz v. State 167 SW3d 905 at 906 (Tx.App.-Texarkana
2005) 15
High v. State 573 SW2d 807 (Tx.Crim.App. 1978 6
Stafford v. State 813 SW2d 503 (Tx.Crim.App. 1991) 6,14
Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,
80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) 14
Winchester v. State 246 SW3d 386 at 388 (Tx.App.-Amarillo 2008) 15
STATUTES
Texas Penal Code, Section 71.02(c) 5
3
NO. 03-15-00028-CR
(Trial Court No. A110418SB)
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD SUPREME ruDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS,
Appellant.
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee.
From the 51ST Judicial District Court
of Tom Green County, Texas
Honorable Barbara Walther, Judge Presiding
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME
ruDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
COMES NOW, NAKIA DESHAWN LEWIS, by and through her court-
appointed attorney, the Appellant in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and
4
files this Brief of Appellant, and in support thereof would show this Honorable
Court as follows:
NAMESOFALLPARTIES
In order that the members of the Court may determine disqualifications or
refusal pursuant to Rule 74(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Appellant certifies that the following is a complete list of all parties interested in
the outcome and their attorneys of record:
1. Appellant, NAKIA DESHAWN LEWIS #1964121, 1210 Coryell Road,
Gatesville, Texas 76528.
2. Defense and trial attorney, CHRISTIANSON HARTMAN, State Bar No.
24056682, One West Broadway, Sweetwater, Texas 79556.
3. Attorney of record on appeal for Appellant, KIRK HAWKINS, State Bar
No. 09250400, P.O. Box 3645, San Angelo, Texas 76902.
4. The Honorable Barbara Walther, Trial Judge, Tom Green County
Courthouse, 112 West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903.
5. Appellee, STATE OF TEXAS, represented by Ms. Meagan White, Assistant
District Attorney, Tom Green County Courthouse, Court Street Annex, 124
West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant, NAKIA DESHA WN LEWIS, was indicted on June 7, 2011
(CR p. 11 ). On January 31, 2012, Appellant pled guilty to the offense of engaging
in organized criminal activity, a 1st degree felony (Texas Penal Code Section
71.02(c)) (RR 2, p. 6). Based on a plea agreement, Appellant was placed on a ten-
5
year deferred adjudication probation (CR p. 23) on July 9, 2013. The State filed a
Motion to Revoke Deferred Adjudication and to Proceed to Adjudicate Motion to
Revoke on April 10, 2014 (CR p. 53-55). The State's motion was heard on
October 15, 2014. The State abandoned allegations paragraph III, 4 and 11, and
the Appellant pled "not true" to the remaining ten (10) allegations (RR 3, p. 8, 1. 8-
14). After hearing testimony, the Court found all of the remaining allegations true
and revoked Appellant's probation (RR 3, p. 66, 1. 7-18). After hearing evidence
as to punishment, the Court sentenced Appellant to twenty (20) years confmement
in the Texas Department of Corrections (RR 3, p. 90, 1. 7) (CR p. 49).
Although not reflected in the Clerk's record submitted to this Court, a
Motion for New Trial was filed on November 13, 2014. Appellant filed a Notice
of Appeal on January 7, 2015 (CR p. 65).
Counsel has reviewed the record and correspondence from the Appellant.
Counsel can find no arguable grounds on which to appeal. Counsel will attempt to
comply with the guidelines regarding such appeals as set forth in High v. State 573
SW2d 807 (Tx.Crim.App. 1978), Anders v. California 386 US 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed 2nd 493 (1963), and Stafford v. State 813 SW2d 503 (Tx.Crim.App. 1991).
The record consists of the Clerk's record in one (1) volume of 98 pages
which will be referred to as "CR", and the reporter's record which consist of four
(4) volumes, which will be referred to as "RR". Volume one contains the master
6
index; Volume two is the transcription of Appellant's initial plea of guilty; Volume
three is the record on the motion to adjudicate; and Volume four contains the
exhibits.
STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE
The State called Angelica Maria Robertson, an officer with the Concho
Valley Community Supervisions and Corrections Department. She testified
generally that Appellant had failed to make some payments on her probation, had
not been submitting inability to pay statements, and didn't report for a month, and
had not reported since April 23, 2014. She specifically testified that Appellant had
not paid for March through August 2012, November 2012, January through June
2013, and January 2014 through March 2014 (RR 3, p. 11, 1. 4-20). Specifically,
she testified that she had not submitted her inability to pay forms for November
2012 and January through August 2013, and that further she had not reported in
April2013 and had not reported since April2014 (RR 3, p. 12, 1. 8-22). Appellant
had also not completed her community service for the months of April through
December 2012, January through December 2013, nor from January through
March 2014. Appellant had complained of knee injury and needing surgery, but
never provided a doctor's excuse (RR 3, p. 14, 1. 3 through p. 15, 1. 2). Appellant
had also failed to pay numerous urinalysis fees (RR 3, p. 15, 1. 11 ). Appellant had
also failed to report an arrest on or about March 8, 2013 (RR 3, p. 15, 1. 20), and
7
she failed to provide proof of attendance to Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics
Anonymous for April and May 2013, and had not provided any proof since
February 2014 (RR 3, p. 16, 1. 6-15). When asked for the Departments'
recommendation, Ms. Robertson recommended revocation because of the new
offense she had committed which was the same kind of offense for which she was
on probation (RR 3, p. 17, 1. 3-8). She also testified that Charles Mitchell was on a
misdemeanor marijuana probation (RR 3, p. 16, 1. 18 through p. 17, 1. 2).
On cross-examination, Ms. Robertson admitted that she was testifying from
the probation records and that the Appellant's three (3) previous officers were no
longer with the department (RR 3, p. 18, 1. 3). When questioned about her ability
to work, she testified that the Appellant had been working at Goodfellow Air Force
Base since May 2012, and that she knew that she had had a hysterectomy in
January 2014 (RR 3, p. 19, 1. 7-21). When asked about Charles Mitchell, she
testified that the Appellant had been arrested with Charles Mitchell (RR 3, p. 21, 1.
19). She also testified that Appellant had a SASE evaluation which indicated a low
probability of having a substance abuse problem (RR 3, p. 23, 1. 4).
The State then called Kimberly Blanco, a police officer with the San Angelo
Police Department, who testified concerning the arrest on March 8, 2013. She had
been called to a domestic disturbance at 226 North Magdalen, and when she
approached, there was a car backing out of the driveway. It was driven by the
8
Appellant with her son, Charles Mitchell, as the passenger (RR 3, p. 27, 1. 19 top.
28, 1.6). She arrested Charles Mitchell on city warrants (RR 3, p. 29, 1. 21 ), and
found marijuana in his pocket. Based on that, she conducted a probable cause
search of the vehicle. She testified that the Appellant seemed nervous and wanted
to get back in the vehicle (RR 3, p. 29, 1. 4-24). The officer discovered a plastic
comer bag on the driver's side floor which contained residue and an orange pill
bottle with a while crystal-like substance under the driver's seat (RR 3. P. 30, 1. 2-
24). The State introduced their Exhibits 1-6 which were photographs taken of the
items at the scene and these were admitted without objection (RR 3, p. 31 ). The
officer also found a female's wallet containing over one thousand dollars cash and
a lot of the denominations were twenties (RR 3, p. 33, 1. 1-16). She further
testified that the incident had occurred at 10:00 p.m. (which is a violation of the
Appellant's curfew to be home by 10:00 p.m.) (RR 3, p. 34, 1. 3-7).
On cross-examination, she explained that she and her superior officers
decided that the cash was not contraband and the Appellant could keep it (RR 3, p.
38, 1. 12). When defense counsel asked Appellant whether Charles Mitchell had
admitted to driving the vehicle that night, the State objected as hearsay. Counsel
eventually withdrew the question (RR 3, p. 38, 1. 25 to 39, 1. 2, p. 40, 1. 6). She
further testified that she found a rental agreement in the vehicle where the
Appellant had rented the vehicle (RR 3, p. 41, 1. 16).
9
The State also called Marissa Silva Gomez who is a forensic scientist with
the Texas Department of Public Safety Lab in Midland, Texas. The State then
introduced Exhibits 7 and 8 which were admitted without objection (RR 3, p. 47, 1.
10). The witness testified that the State's Exhibit #8 contained 1.29 grams of
cocaine (RR 3, p. 47, 1. 18-20). The State then rested their case.
Appellant called Justin Yarborough, a Narcotics Detective with the San
Angelo Police Department. He testified that at the scene it was not clear who the
controlled substance belonged to (RR 3, p. 53, 1. 11). When asked whether Charles
Mitchell had admitted that the drugs were his, the State objected. The Court and
counsel had a discussion regarding Crawford v. Washington 541 US 36 (2004),
and eventually defense counsel was able to rephrase the question and the officer
admitted that Charles Mitchell had made such an admission (RR 3, p. 56, 1. 15-19).
On cross-examination by the State's attorney, the officer testified that
Mitchell later withdrew the admission (RR 3, p. 57, 1. 1).
On re-direct examination he stated that Mitchell's retraction was after
approximately a five (5) minute conversation he had with him. When asked if
Mitchell knew the location of the pill bottle, once again the State objected as to
hearsay. After discussion the Court allowed defense counsel to continue (RR 3, p.
59,1.21).
10
On re-cross examination the State was able to elicit that at some point in the
evening the pill bottle was moved and that Mitchell had not moved it (RR 3, p. 61,
1. 2).
After hearing the testimony, the Court revoked the Appellant's probation
and proceeded with the adjudication and punishment (RR 3, p. 66, 1. 7-18).
In this phase the State first introduced their Exhibit #8 which was a
penitentiary packet containing two (2) prior felony convictions. This was admitted
into evidence with no objection.
The State also presented testimony from Rodney Black, an officer with the
San Angelo Police Department with twenty-one (21) years' experience. He
testified as to the drug investigation which began in 20 10 regarding cocaine
trafficking. The State introduced State's Exhibit #11 which was an organizational
scheme, without objection (RR 3, p. 68 through p. 69). When asked about the
statements of co-defendant, Fred Lewis, defense counsel objected as to hearsay and
the State more or less reviewed the question (RR 3, p. 70, 1. 8). According to
Detective Black, the organization had been operating for approximately a year and
they were moving a kilo of cocaine every three (3) weeks with a value of about
$200,000.00 changing hands (RR 3, p. 70, 1. 15-25). He further described
Appellant as a middleman who distributed the cocaine and allowed her son to cook
it in the microwave (RR 3, p. 71). On cross-examination Black testified that
11
Appellant had admitted to delivering multiple ounces to multiple people (RR 3, p.
72, 1. 16). Black testified Tyrell Lewis was her son and that Fred Lewis was her
brother (RR 3, p. 73, 1. 12).
The Appellant testified on her own behalf, stating that she had a five-year-
old son that she had gotten when he was three days old, although he was not
related to her (RR 3, p. 75, 1. 2 to p. 76, 1. 4). Appellant's counsel introduced the
defense's Exhibit #1, without objection, which was a copy of the Court order
granting the Appellant custody of the child (RR 3, p. 77). Appellant also testified
as to her medical problems and that she was supposed to have surgery on her right
knee and about her hysterectomy in January 2014. She testified that after the
surgery, she had been in the hospital for eight (8) days with blood clots. She had
chest pains which were related to possible blood clots in her lung (RR 3, p. 78-79).
Appellant's counsel also introduced Exhibits #2 and #3 which were medical
records from Shannon Hospital and from Dr. Lind who is the Coumadin Clinic
director (RR 3, p. 79-80). Appellant testified that she went to the clinic once a
week (RR 3, p. 81, 1. 10), and that she had been hospitalized twice (RR 3, p. 83).
Appellant asked that she be sent to CRTC (Community Rehabilitation and
Treatment Center), but she also denied having a problem with drugs and alcohol
(RR 3, p. 84, 1. 2-11). On cross-examination, Appellant admitted she told Tracy
12
Connolly, her probation officer, that she did not have a substance abuse problem
(RR 3, p. 86, 1. 1-6).
After hearing fmal arguments, the Court sentenced the Appellant to twenty
(20) days in the Texas Department of Corrections (RR 3, p. 90, 1. 7).
SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
The evidence was sufficient to prove to the Court that Appellant failed to
make some of her payments as ordered by the Court and alleged in allegation 1;
that Appellant had failed to provide statements of her inability to pay as per
allegation 2; and that Appellant had possessed cocaine on or about March 8, 2013
as alleged in allegation 3. Appellant had also had contact with Charles Mitchell as
per allegation 5, and failed to report in person for April 2013, allegation 6.
Appellant had failed to do her community service hours as alleged in allegation 7,
and had not paid for urinalysis examination as alleged in allegation 8. Appellant
also failed to report her arrest on March 8, 2013, as alleged in allegation 9, and she
had also violated her curfew on that same day, as alleged in allegation 10. The
Court also found that Appellant failed to attend Alcoholics Anonymous or
Narcotics Anonymous meetings twice weekly and return the signed attendance
receipts as alleged for the months of April and May 2013, and February 2014, as
per the allegation number 12 in the State's Motion to Revoke (CR p. 52-55).
13
OBJECTIONS
The objections have been addressed in the State of the Evidence. The
State's objections to Appellant's counsel's examination of the witnesses were
based on hearsay. It appears that counsel was able to get the testimony he desired
by rephrasing his questions. The Court sustained Appellant's hearsay objection to
the State's examination ofDetective Justin Yarborough regarding the statements of
Fred Lewis (RR 3, p. 70, 1. 8). There were no real adverse rulings against the
Appellant on any of the objections.
EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNSEL
Appellant's counsel cross-examined Angelica Robertson extensively as well
as the arresting officer Kimberly Blanco. He attempted, although apparently
unsuccessful, to try to steer the ownership of the drugs to Charles Mitchell and
away from the Appellant. He also presented mitigation evidence concerning the
five-year-old boy that Appellant cared for and the need for her to be able to raise
him as well as her medical conditions and issues. The Trial Counsel's
performance far exceeded the standards for effective assistance of counsel based
on the definition of ineffective assistance as per Stafford v. State 813 SW2d 503
(Tx.Crim.App. 1991) and Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,
80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
14
PUNISHMENT
The Courts have traditionally held that punishment assessed within the range
of punishment set by the Legislature in a valid statute is not excessive, cruel or
unusual. Winchester v. State (petition for discretionary review refused) and
Delacruz v. State. The Court assessed punishment within the statutory range for a
1st degree felony.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the record of the case, Appellant counsel can find no
reversible error.
Respectfully submitted,
I sf Kirk Hawkins
KIRK HAWKINS
P.O. BOX 3645
SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 76902
325/658-5585
STATE BAR NO. 09250400
E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on Ms. Meagan
White, Assistant District Attorney, Tom Green County Courthouse, Court Street
Annex, 124 West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903; and on Appellant, Ms.
Nakia DeShawn Lewis # 1964121, 1210 Coryell Road, Gatesville, Texas 76528, on
this if ~ day of April, 2015. ·
15
I further certify that I have mailed a notice to the Appellant at the above-
referenced address on April '7 ~ , 2015, informing of my intention of filing a
frivolous appeal and advising her of her rights to file her own brief and to review
the record.
/s/ Kirk Hawkins
Kirk Hawkins
NOTICE TO APPELLANT, NAKIA DESHAWN LEWIS
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE YOUR OWN BRIEF IN THIS
CAUSE. YOU ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVIEW THE COURT
RECORD AND THE COURT REPORTER'S RECORD. YOU HAVE
TIDRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE FILING OF TIDS BRIEF
IN WHICH TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT YOUR OWN BRIEF.
/s/ Kirk Hawkins
Kirk Hawkins
16
NO. 03-15-00028-CR
(Trial Court No. A110418SB)
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
NAKIA DESHAWN LEWIS,
Appellant.
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee.
From the 51ST Judicial District Court
of Tom Green County, Texas
Honorable Barbara Walther, Judge Presiding
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COMPLIANCE
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS:
COMES NOW, KIRK HAWKINS, court-appointed attorney for Appellant
NAKIA DESHAWN LEWIS, and files this Certificate of Word Compliance, and
would submit the following:
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I hereby certify that
this brief contains 2,567 words (excluding the caption, table of contents, table of
authorities, signature, proof of service, certification, and certificate of compliance).
This is a computer-generated document created in Microsoft Word, using 14-point
typeface for all text, except for footnotes which are in 12-point typeface. In making
this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count provided by the
software used to prepare the document.
_._. . . .__._,. . . ,_ HAWKINS
P.O. BOX 3645
SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 76902
325/658-5585
STATE BAR NO. 09250400
E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on Ms. Meagan
White, Assistant District Attorney, Tom Green County Courthouse, Court Street
Annex, 124 West Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903; and on Appellant, Nakia
Deshawn Lewis #1964121, 1210 Coryell Road, Gatesville, Texas 76528 on this
7 day of April, 2015. ~ ---'
Kirk Hawkills
ACCEPTED
03-15-00028-CR
4790088
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
4/7/2015 2:04:28 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-15-00028-CR
NAKIA DESHAWN LEWIS, ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appellant )
)
v. ) THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
)
THE STATE OF TEXAS, )
Appellee ) SITTING AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
In compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 378
(1967), I, Kirk Hawkins, court-appointed counsel for Appellant, NAKIA
DESHAWN LEWIS, in the above-referenced appeal, do hereby certify, in writing,
to the Court that I have:
1. Notified Appellant that I filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with an
accompanying Anders brief, and provided a copy of each to Appellant;
2. Informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response identifying what she
believes to be meritorious grounds to be raised in her appeal, should she so
desire;
3. Advised Appellant of her right to review the appellate record, should she
wish to do so, preparatory to filing that response;
4. Explained the process for obtaining the appellate record, provided a Motion
for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only appellant's signature
and the date, and provided the mailing address for this Court; and
5. Informed appellant of her right to seek discretionary review pro se should
this Court declare her appeal frivolous.
~~
P.O. BOX 3645
SAN ANGELO, TEXAS 76902
325-658-5585
STATE BAR NO. 09250400
E-Mail: kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
ACCEPTED
03-15-00028-CR
4790088
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1(ir~
4/7/2015 2:04:28 PM
j{awkjns JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Continental Building 325 / 658-5585
17 South Chadbourne FAX 325 / 657-0896
Suite 401
San Angelo, Texas 76903 Email : kirkhawkinslaw@gmail.com
Please reply to:
Post Office Box 3645
San Angelo, Texas 76902
April 7, 2015
Nakia Deshawn Lewis #1964121
121 0 Coryell Road
Gatesville, Texas 76528
RE: Case No. 03-15-00028-CR; Nakia Deshawn Lewis, Appellant v. The State of
Texas, Appellee
Dear Ms. Lewis:
Enclosed please find a copy of the motion to withdraw as counsel and brief pursuant to Anders v.
California that I have prepared and filed in your case. After a diligent search of both the clerk's
record and reporter's record in your case and a review ofthe applicable law, it is my opinion that
no reversible error occurred at your adjudication proceeding.
Whenever appellant counsel files a motion such as this, the law provides the appellant the right
to review the record and file a response identifying to the appellate court any grounds he thinks
are non-frivolous issues to be raised on his behalf that the appellate court should consider in
deciding whether the case presents any meritorious grounds for appeal. Because I have filed this
motion and brief, you now have the right to review the record and file a response or brief if you
so choose. To assist you in obtaining the record if you wish to review it, I have enclosed a
Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record for you to file. In order to obtain the appellate
record, you must sign and date the motion and mail it to the Third Court of Appeals within ten
days of the date of this letter at the following address:
Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk
Third Court of Appeals
Post Office Box 12547
Austin, Texas 78711
The Court of Appeals will then direct the clerk of the trial court to provide you with a copy of the
appellate record. Your response will be due to be filed in the Third Court of Appeals within 30
days of the date the clerk provides the record to you.
Whether or not you file a response, the law requires the Court of Appeals to review the record to
determine if the Court agrees with my assessment that no meritorious grounds for appeal exist,
i.e., that no reversible error exists. If the Court does not agree, but instead believes there are
non-frivolous issues to be raised on your behalf, the Court must abate the appeal to have another
attorney appointed to review the record on your behalf.
Should the Court of Appeals ultimately determine that there are no meritorious grounds to be
raised and that your appeal is frivolous, the Court will affirm your adjudication. You may then
file a prose petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Such
petition must be filed within 30 days of the date the Court of Appeals renders its judgment.
Feel free to write me if you have any questions about the procedure utilized in your appeal. I
will do my best to answer any questions you may have.
Kirk Hawkins
KH/ahe
Enclosures