Soto, Ricardo

PD-1356-15 NO. PD-______ IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS RICARDO SOTO Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS Appellee APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW Petition from the 66th Judicial District Court of Hill County, Texas Trial Court Cause Number 38,173 and Cause Number 10-15-00029-CR in the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas Chelsea Tijerina State Bar No. 24076733 E-mail: attorneychelsea@gmail.com LAW OFFICE OF SIMER &TETENS 3706 Bellmead Drive Waco, Texas 76705 (254) 412-2300 (888) 317-7610—Facsimile October 19, 2015 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Appellant, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(a), provides the following list of all parties to the trial court's judgment and the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel. Appellant: Ricardo Soto 21040 West Lincoln Avenue New Berlin, Wisconsin 53146 Trial Court Judge: Hon. F.B. (Bob) McGregor Jr. 66th Judicial District Court Judge Post Office Box 284 Hillsboro, Texas 76645 Telephone: 254-582-4045 Trial Counsel for Appellant: Josh Tetens Simer & Tetens 3706 Bellmead Drive Waco, Texas 76705 Telephone: 254-412-2300 Appellate Counsel for Appellant: Chelsea Tijerina Simer & Tetens 3706 Bellmead Drive Waco, Texas 76705 Telephone: 254-412-2300 Trial and Appellate Counsel for State: Mark Pratt Hill County District Attorney’s Office P.O. Box 400 Hillsboro, Texas 76645 Telephone: 254-582-4070 Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL…………………………………………………….. 1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………... 4 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT…………………………………………..... 6 STATEMENT OF THE CASE/ STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY………………………………………………..... 6 ISSUE The Tenth Court of Appeals erred in finding the search of Appellant valid under Terry v. Ohio………………………………………………………………. 7 REASON FOR REVIEW The Tenth Court of Appeals disregarded established case law from the United States Supreme Court, this Honorable Court, and sisters courts of appeal to find the search of Appellant’s person constitutionally justified and within the scope of Terry v. Ohio……………………………………………………………………... 9 ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 I. Factual Basis……………………………………………………………………... 9 II. Case Law A Terry search is appropriate where the officer has reasonable, articulable facts that a person is armed and dangerous, and the officer strictly tailors his search to a pat down for weapons.………...…. 10 III. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………… 17 PRAYER FOR RELIEF………………………………………………………………………… 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE…………………………………………………………………. 18 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…………………………………………………………… 19 Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 2 APPENDIX: Soto v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524 (Tex. App.—Waco August 13, 2015, no pet. h.). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Texas Cases: Page No. Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)……………………….. 9, 11, 12, 16 Griffin v. State, 215 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)……………………………………… 12 Lippert v. State, 664 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)……………………………………... 12 Del Carmen Moreno v. State, 797 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.)………………………………………………… 12, 16 Guevara v. State, 6 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999)………………….. 11, 16 O’Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)……………………………………… 11 Ramirez v. State, 672 S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)……………………………………. 16 State v. Phillips, 752 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988, no writ.)………………….. 12, 16 State v. Williams, 312 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.)……... 13, 16 Wood v. State, 515 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)………………………………………. 13 Worthey v. State, 805 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)………………………………...….. 16 Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 4 Federal Cases: Page No. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)…………………………………………….. 16 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)…………………………………………………….. 11 Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325 (1990)……………………………………………………….... 11 Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998)…………………………………………………... 11 Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)…………………………………...… 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S. 1 (1968)…………………………………… 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979)…………………………………………………....… 11, 16 Federal Statutes: U.S. CONST. Amend. IV………………………………………………………………….. 8, 10, 11 State Statutes: Page No. TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3………………………………………………………………………….. 8, 17 Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 5 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: Oral argument would not benefit this Honorable Court as the issues in this case are quite straightforward. STATEMENT OF THE CASE/ STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is a criminal case in which Ricardo Soto was convicted of possessing less than one gram of cocaine.1 In Cause Number 38,173, Mr. Soto was indicted as follows: “RICARDO SOTO hereinafter styled Defendant, on or about the 27TH day of FEBRUARY, 2014 and before the presentment of this indictment, in the County of Hill and State aforesaid, did then and there intentionally or knowingly possess a controlled substance, namely, cocaine of less than 1 gram, including any adulterants or dilutants.”2 Appellant moved to suppress evidence obtained during law enforcement’s illegal search of his person. 3 The district court denied Appellant’s Motion to Suppress.4 The case was tried to the bench on December 5, 2014 in the 66th Judicial 1 (I C.R. at 20–21). 2 (I C.R. at 4). 3 (I C.R. 5–6). 4 (I C.R. at 7). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 6 District Court before the Honorable Judge F.B. (Bob) McGregor. 5 During the bench trial, Appellant re-urged his motion to suppress evidence and the district court again denied said motion. 6 The district court found Appellant guilty of possession of a controlled substance in penalty group one in the amount of one gram or less and assessed punishment as follows: 20 months state jail probated for 4.5 years and a fine of $2,000.00.7 Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2014. 8 On appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals upheld the legality of the search and denied Appellant’s sole issue.9 Thereafter, the Tenth Court denied Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing on September 3, 2015. Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review is due on or before October 19, 2015. ISSUE The Tenth Court of Appeals erred in upholding the unconstitutional search of Appellant. REASONS FOR REVIEW The Tenth Court of Appeals has blatantly disregarded the Fourth 5 (I C.R. at 20). 6 (1 R.R. at 17). 7 (I C.R. at 20–21). 8 (I C.R. at 27). 9 Soto v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524 at *10 (Tex. App.—Waco August 13, 2015) (mem. Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 7 Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches. In Mr. Soto’s case, the Tenth Court of Appeals held that the reasonable suspicion necessary to warrant a Terry frisk need not be particularized to the person searched.10 The Tenth Court of Appeals further held that Terry v. Ohio permits an officer to remove a person’s outer clothing during a search for weapons if the person’s outer clothing is “not transparent.”11 The Tenth Court of Appeals’ decision in this case conflicts with decisions from the United States Supreme Court and this Honorable Court12 as well as with decisions from sister courts of appeal.13 Additionally, the Tenth Court of Appeals “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings… as to call for an exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ power of supervision.” 14 Left unchecked by this Honorable Court, the Tenth Court of Appeals’ holding in Mr. Soto’s case will exponentially expand the justifications for and the breadth of a Terry search. op., not designated for publication). 10 Soto v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco August 13, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 11 Id., at *5. 12 TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(c). 13 TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(a). 14 TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(f). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 8 ARGUMENT An officer may frisk a person for weapons under Terry v. Ohio only when the officer has reasonable, articulable facts directed to the person searched that the person is armed and dangerous.15 Despite the particularity requirement, the Tenth Court of Appeals found the officer’s search of Appellant valid under Terry v. Ohio based solely on the officer’s knowledge that Appellant’s companion had a criminal history.16 Although the search approved by Terry v. Ohio consists solely of a “limited patting of the outer clothing of the suspect for concealed objects which might be used as instruments of assault,17 the Tenth Court of Appeals found the officer’s removal of Appellant’s outer clothing constitutionally sound based on the fact that Appellant’s outer clothing was “not transparent.”18 I. Factual Basis The Tenth Court of Appeals set forth the following facts in its opinion: Soto was travelling in a vehicle with four other people which was stopped for vehicle equipment violations by Joe Abreu who, at the time, was working for the Hillsboro Police Department. The driver of 15 Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S. 1, 25 (1968); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 16 Soto v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco August 13, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 17 Sibron, 392 U.S. at 65. 18 Soto, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *5. Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 9 the vehicle gave his consent for Abreu to search the vehicle. After getting everyone out of the vehicle, Abreu decided to pat-down all the occupants for weapons. Soto was wearing a cap. Abreu attempted to pat-down the cap and removed it from Soto's head. When he removed the cap, a folded dollar bill fell out. The dollar bill contained under an ounce of cocaine…19 Abreu removed five individuals, including Soto, from the vehicle. He had information that at least one of the other individuals had a criminal history of possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute and was known to traffic large amounts of cocaine… Abreu testified that Soto was wearing a cap and that the cap was not transparent to be able to see whether there was a weapon in it. Further, Abreu testified that a bladed weapon like a razorblade inside a cap would not necessarily be felt when a cap is patted against someone's head. Through training at the police academy and experience, Abreu had learned that the only proper way to search a cap for bladed weapons is to remove the cap from the person's head.20 II. Case Law a. To conduct a frisk for weapons, an officer must have reasonable, articulable facts particularized to the person to be searched that the person is armed and dangerous. Law enforcement may not place hands on a citizen “in search of anything” without “constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so.” 21 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable 19 Soto, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *1. 20 Id., at *4. 21 Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64 (1968). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 10 searches and seizures.22 “Searches conducted without a warrant are unreasonable per se under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few and well-delineated exceptions.”23 In the interest of officer safety, the United States Supreme Court created an exception to the general rule prohibiting warrantless searches which allows officers to frisk or “pat down” a person to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon.24 “Terry does not authorize a frisk for weapons in all confrontational encounters.”25 A “weapons frisk” is justified only where the officer can point to specific, articulable facts which reasonably lead him to conclude that the suspect 26 might possess a weapon. Because every individual is “clothed with constitutional protection against an unreasonable search,” 27 a Terry search for weapons must be based on a reasonable suspicion particularized to the person searched.28 A person’s mere proximity to others independently suspected of criminal 22 U.S. CONST. Amend IV; Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). 23 O’Hara v. State, 27 S.W.3d 548, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)). 24 Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968). 25 Guevara v. State, 6 S.W.3d at 764 (citing Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 333–334 (1990)). 26 Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). 27 Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 94 (1979). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 11 activity does not, without more, justify a search of that person. 29 An officer may not search a person in a vehicle merely because another occupant of the vehicle is suspected of criminal activity.30 The nature of the suspected criminal activity is a relevant consideration in determining whether a frisk is warranted.31 However, an officer may not “base a determination that his safety is in danger solely upon the basis that ‘the suspect is a drug dealer.’”32 b. The scope of a Terry search must be carefully limited. Under Terry v. Ohio, the frisk must be “confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.”33 The search for weapons approved in Terry consists solely of a limited patting of the outer clothing of the suspect for concealed objects which might be used as instruments of assault. 34 A search for narcotics, rather than weapons, during the frisk is not allowed. 35 28 Lippert v. State, 664 S.W.2d 712, 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 29 Del Carmen Moreno v. State, 797 S.W.2d 228, 230–231 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)). 30 State v. Phillips, 752 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988, no writ.). 31 Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 330. 32 Griffin v. State, 215 S.W.3d 403, 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 33)). 33 392 U.S. at 29. 34 Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968) 35 Id. at 64. Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 12 “The purpose of a limited search after investigatory stop is not to discover evidence of crime but to allow the peace officer to pursue investigation without fear of violence. So long as the officer… has reason to believe that the suspect is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a weapons search limited in scope to the purpose of enabling the officer to pursue investigation without fear of violence.”36 When conducting a pat-down search, an officer may not employ a more intrusive means of searching the suspect without first patting down the suspect and feeling potential weapons.37 c. The officer lacked reasonable suspicion directed to Appellant that Appellant was armed and dangerous. In Mr. Soto’s case, the officer not only testified that he did not fear for his safety when he detained Mr. Soto and his companions on the side of the highway 38 but also that Appellant and his companions “seemed to be very cooperative.” 39 The officer further stated that neither Appellant nor any of the other occupants of 36 Wood v. State, 515 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (holding the search appropriate where “limited to a ‘pat down’”). 37 State v. Williams, 312 S.W.3d 276, 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (an officer’s requesting the suspect to move her bra strap due to fear she might have a knife in her bra went beyond the bounds of a Terry frisk); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968) (holding that the officer exceeded the permissible scope of a pat down search for weapons by making “no attempt at an initial limited exploration for arms” and instead “thrust[ing] his hand into [Appellant’s] pocket”). 38 (1 R.R. at 20). 39 (1 R.R. at 18); (1 R.R. at 21). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 13 the vehicle made “any threatening gestures or comments.”40 The officer stated that at the time of the detention, he had no knowledge that Appellant had any criminal history.41 Despite Appellant’s compliance during his encounter with the officer, the officer decided to frisk Appellant for weapons. The Tenth Court of Appeals held that the officer was justified in searching Appellant because the officer had “removed five individuals [from the vehicle], including Appellant,” one of whom “had a criminal history of possessing a controlled substance with intent to distribute and was known to traffic large amounts of cocaine.” 42 By holding that the search of Appellant’s person was justified under Terry v. Ohio based solely on law enforcement’s knowledge that Appellant’s associate had a criminal history, the Tenth Court of Appeals stands in gross contravention of this Court’s and the Supreme Court’s rulings. As such, this Court should grant the Petition for Review. d. The officer exceeded the scope of Terry by removing Appellant’s outer garment. In this case, the officer’s frisk of Appellant was not confined in scope to a 40 (1 R.R. at 20–21). 41 (1 R.R. at 24). 42 Soto v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco August 13, 2015, no pet. Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 14 “limited patting of the outer clothing” as authorized by Terry v. Ohio.43 Rather than patting down Appellant’s outer clothing, the officer opted to remove it. 44 By removing Appellant’s outer clothing, the officer employed a more intrusive means of searching the suspect without first patting down the suspect and feeling potential weapons.45 The officer testified to the following regarding his search of Appellant: Defense Counsel: “You didn’t pat down [Appellant]’s hat prior to removing it, did you?” Officer: “No, sir.” Defense Counsel: “And once you did pat down the hat after you removed it, there wasn’t anything that you felt by touch or contraband that you felt by touch in the hat, was there?” Officer: “No, sir.”46 The Tenth Court of Appeals’ bizarre reasoning for why the officer did not exceed the scope of Terry by removing Appellant’s cap was as follows: “the cap was part of his outer clothing, like a jacket or overcoat” and “was not transparent to be able to see whether there was a weapon in it… [A] bladed weapon like a razorblade inside a cap would not necessarily be felt when a cap is h.). 43 Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968). 44 Soto, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *5. Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 15 patted against someone’s head.”47 e. The Tenth Court of Appeals’ ruling conflicts with decisions from the United States Supreme Court, this Honorable Court and Sister Courts of Appeal The Tenth Court of Appeals’ decision in this case conflicts with decisions from the United States Supreme Court,48 this Honorable Court,49 and sister courts of appeal. 50 With the exception of Mr. Soto’s case, there is no court-created exception to the general rule that a warrantless search is unreasonable per se51 enabling law enforcement to remove a suspect’s outer cloth in order to conduct a weapons search. By finding that removing a person’s cap falls within the purview of Terry due to the opaqueness of the cap, the Tenth Court of Appeals has created an appalling precedent whereby law enforcement may strip a person of his outer 45 See State v. Williams, 312 S.W.3d 276, 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). 46 (1 R.R. at 21). 47 Id. 48 Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968); Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 94 (1979). 49 Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763, 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Worthey v. State, 805 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ramirez v. State, 672 S.W.2d 480, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). 50 Del Carmen Moreno v. State, 797 S.W.2d 228, 230–231 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.); State v. Phillips, 752 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988, no writ.); Guevara v. State, 6 S.W.3d 759,764 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999). 51 See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 16 garments based on the officer’s inability “to be able to see” 52 through a person’s clothing to determine whether a person possesses a weapon. III. Conclusion Upholding the illegal search of Appellant required the Tenth Court of Appeals to wholly disregard law from this Honorable Court and the Supreme Court 53 and to so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, as to demand an exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals' power of supervision.54 Therefore, this Honorable Court should grant review. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Mr. Soto prays that this Court grant his Petition for Discretionary Review. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF SIMER & TETENS /s/ Chelsea Tijerina Chelsea Tijerina 3706 Bellmead Drive Waco, Texas 76705 (254) 412-2300 (888) 317-7610—Facsimile E-mail: attorneychelsea@gmail.com State Bar No. 24076733 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 52 Id. 53 TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(c). 54 TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(f). Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On October 19, 2015, a copy of this Petition for Discretionary Review was delivered to the Hill County District Attorney by email. /s/ Chelsea Tijerina Chelsea Tijerina Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 18 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4 Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitation, Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(D) because this brief contains 2,299 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1) or, 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements and the type style requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) because this brief has been produced on a computer in conventional typeface using Microsoft Word in Times New Roman 14 point font in the body of the brief and Times New Roman 12 point font in the footnotes. /s/ Chelsea Tijerina Chelsea Tijerina Attorney for Appellant Soto v. State—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 19 Envelope Details Print this page Envelope 7426874 Case Information Location Court Of Criminal Appeals Date Filed 10/19/2015 09:57:42 AM Case Number Case Description Assigned to Judge Attorney Chelsea Tijerina Firm Name Law Offices of Michel Simer Filed By Michel Simer Filer Type Not Applicable Fees Convenience Fee $0.09 Total Court Case Fees $0.00 Total Court Filing Fees $0.00 Total Court Service Fees $0.00 Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00 Total Service Tax Fees $0.00 Total Provider Service Fees $3.00 Total Provider Tax Fees $0.25 Grand Total $3.34 Payment Account Name Chase Transaction Amount $3.34 Transaction Response Transaction ID 12132644 Order # 007426874-0 Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Type EFile Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Description Petition for Discretionary Review Reference Number 101915 Comments Status Rejected Fees Court Fee $0.00 Service Fee $0.00 Rejection Information Rejection Time Rejection Comment Reason 10/19/2015 The petition for discretionary review does not contain a copy of the court of appeals Other 03:48:40 opinion [Rule 68.4(j)]. Your petition was due to be filed October 5, 2015; it is https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=ec477c47-b5f2-43f5-b41f-890cc72aca2b[10/19/2015 3:52:32 PM] Envelope Details PM untimely. Documents Lead Document Soto v. State - Petition for Discretionary .pdf [Original] https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=ec477c47-b5f2-43f5-b41f-890cc72aca2b[10/19/2015 3:52:32 PM]