ACCEPTED
03-14-00656-CR
6486674
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/13/2015 2:41:38 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-14-00656-CR
………………………………………………………………………………………
FILED IN
……………… 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/18/2015 3:06:38 PM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
JEFFREY D. KYLE
Clerk
AUSTIN, TEXAS
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
RON EVERITT FUSONVS. STATE OF TEXAS
On appeal from the 119st Judicial District of Tom Green County, Texas
Cause No. B-12-0998-SB
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
AMENDED ANDERS BRIEF FOR APPELLANT, RON EVERITT FUSON
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appellant, Ron Everitt Fuson, submits this Brief on appeal by the through his Appellate Counsel,
Nathan Butler. After “Conscientious Examination” of the case, including diligent review of the
Record and applicable authorities, Counsel finds an absence of meritorious grounds for appeal,
and further submits the basis of any appeal in this case would be frivolous in nature.
Nathan Butler
SBN 24006935
LAW OFFICE OF NATHAN BUTLER
123 S. Washington
San Angelo, Tx 76901
Telephone (325) 6598929
Facsimile (325) 482-8064
Attorney for Appellant,
Ron Everitt Fuson
nathanbutlerattorney@gmail.com
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
i
IDENTITY OF PARTIES
Appellant: Ron Everitt Fuson
Trial Counsel: Nathan Butler
Appellate Counsel: Nathan Butler
123 S. Washington
San Angelo, Texas 76901
Appellee: State of Texas
Counsel: George McCrea
119th District Attorney
124 W. Beaurgard
San Angelo, Tx 76903
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND
COUNSEL………………………………………………………….…………..ii
INDEX OF
ATHORITIES…………………………………………………………………....v,
v
STATEMENT OF THE
CASE……………………………………..………………………………………vii
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL
ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………..viii
ISSUES
PRESENTED……………………………………………………………….….vii
ISSUE NUMBER ONE
Based on diligent review of the record and applicable authorities, legally
sufficient evidence was presented at the time of trial to establish by
preponderance of the evidence that Appellant Violated the terms of his
Community Supervision, and the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Appellant’s Community Supervision
ISSUE NUMBER TWO
Based on diligent review of the record and applicable authorities the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in the sentence imposed or violate the
prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in accessing the sentence
in this matter.
STATEMENT OF
FACTS………………………………………….…………………………………1
SUMMARY OF ISSUE ONE………………….. …………………….………...5
ARGUMENT ON ISSUE
ONE…………..……………………………………………………………….....6
iii
SUMMARY OF ISSUE TWO……..… …………………………….…………8
ARGUMENT ON ISSUE
TWO..………..……………………………………..………………………......8
MOTION TO
WITHDRAW……………………………………………………………………11
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………..12
iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
FEDERAL
Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)………………………………………11
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991); ………………8
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 309 (1979)…………………………………………………..….5,6
McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.), cert. den'd,
506 U.S. 849, 113 S.Ct. 146, 121 L.Ed.2d 98 (1992)…..……………………………………..…6
STATE
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W. 2d 871 (Tex. Cr. App. 1993)….………………………………………..7
Cole v. State, 578 S.W. 2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979 [Panel Op.])……………………………..7
Griffin v. State, 614 S.W. 2d. 155, 158-59 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)…………………………….6
Guevara v. State, 152 S.W. 3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004)…………………………………..6
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W. 3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)………………………………………6
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1984)………………………………..…7
Johnson v. State, 23 S.W. 3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)…………………………………….6
Letterman v. State, 171 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Cr.App.1943) ……………………………………..…8
Mason v. State, 905 S.W. 2d 570, 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert denied……………….….6,7
Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Cr.App.1978)……………………………………………..7
Orteaga v. State, 860 S.W. 2d 561 (Tex. App. – Austin 1993, no pet.)……………………….…7
Powell v. State, 194 S.W. 3d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)…………………………………6
Sanders v. State, 119 S.W. 3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); ………………………………6
Dunn v. State, 997 S.W.2d 885 (Tex.App.--Waco 1999, pet'n ref'd);………………………..…9
Hicks v. State, 15 S.W.3d 626 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet'n ref'd)……………..8
Hernandez v. State, 10 S.W.3d 812 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 2000, pet'n filed)…………………7
v
Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1999, no pet'n)………………………7
Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd)………………………7
Skillern v. State, 890 S.W. 2d 849, 879 (Tex. App. – Austin 1994, pet. ref’d)…………………..6
CONSTITUTION, STATUTES, AND RULES
Constitutions
U.S. Const. Amend. IIX…………………………………………………………………………10
Tex. Const. Art. I Sec. 13……………………………………………………………………….10
State
Tex. Pen. Code 12.34……………………………………………………………………10
Tex. Rule App. Proc 45…………………………………………………………………..9
Tex. Penal Code………………………………………………………………………….7
Tex. Penal Code 62.102(b)(2)…………………………………………………………10
vi
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 3, 2012 Appellant was indicted for Failure to Register as a Sex
Offender. CR. VOL 1 p 5. On January 15, 2013 Appellant, Ron Everitt Fuson
plead guilty to Failure to register as a sex offender, a third degree felony Cr. Vol. 1
P. 17 Appellant executed a stipulation of evidence admitting to committing the
offense, which was filed with the court. CR Vol. 1 P. 15. Appellant was sentenced
to 5 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
but that sentence was probated for a period of 2 years for said offense. On
July 3, 2014 the State of Texas filed a Motion to Revoke Probation. CR. Vol 1 P.
29
A hearing was held on September 12, 2014. After the close of testimony and after
hearing arguments of counsel, the court found the allegations in the Motion to
Revoke were true, and revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced
Appellant to five years in the Institutional Division of The Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. CR. Vol 1 P. 40-46.
Notice of Appeal was given on October 14, 2014. Cr. Vol 1 P. 47-48.
vii
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument not requested
ISSUES PRESENTED
ISSUE NUMBER ONE
Based on diligent review of the record and applicable authorities, legally sufficient
evidence was presented at the time of trial to establish by preponderance of the
evidence that Appellant Violated the terms of his Community Supervision, and the
Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s Community
Supervision.
ISSUE NUMBER TWO
Based on diligent review of the record and applicable authorities the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in the sentence imposed or violate the prohibitions against
cruel and unusual punishment in accessing the sentence in this matter.
viii
ix
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF
APPEALS,
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Counsel for Ron Everitt Fuson would submit this “Anders Brief’ on behalf
of Appellant.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On December 3, 2012 Appellant was indicted for Failure to Register as a Sex
Offender. CR. VOL 1 p 5. On January 15, 2013 Appellant, Ron Everitt Fuson
plead guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, a third degree felony Cr. Vol. 1
P. 17 Appellant executed a stipulation of evidence admitting to committing the
offense, which was filed with the court. CR Vol. 1 P. 15. Appellant was sentenced
to 5 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, but that sentence was probated for a period of 2 years for said offense. CR
Vol 1 P. 17-18. On July 3, 2014 the State of Texas filed a Motion to Revoke
Probation. CR. Vol 1 P. 29 The Motion to Revoke contained 9 allegations
including; 1. Failure to make payments; 2. Failure to complete and submit inability
to pay statements; 3. Failure to complete community service; 4. Failing to pay
urinalysis fees; 5. Failing to submit a written job earnings statement; 6. Failing to
report to the supervisor of the sex offenders case load; 7. Failure to make payments
as ordered by the court; 8, Failure to surrender himself to the Tom Green County
Jail on June 19, 2014 for transport to an Intermediate Sanction Facility, as ordered
1
by the court; and 9. Failure to participate in the Concho Valley Community
Service Departments ISF after care program as ordered by the court. CR. Vol 1 P.
29-31. On September 12, 2014 Appellant pled true to violating the terms of his
community supervision, as alleged in the Motion to Revoke Community
Supervision . RR. Vol. 1 PP. 6-8. . The State then offered a sworn stipulation of
evidence wherein Appellant admitted violating his terms of community supervision
as set out in the States Motion to Revoke Probation. RR.Vol 1 P. 7.
The State then called Marla Rich to Testify. RR. Vol 1 P. 8. Ms. Rich
testified that she was the Probation officer for Appellant. RR. Vol. 1 P. 9. Ms.
Rich testified regarding what Appellant was on Probation for. RR. Vol. 1 P. 9. Ms.
Rich testified that Appellant had missed his very first two meetings with the
probation department and did not get off to a good start. RR. Vol. 1 P. 10. She
testified that he also had an issue with Alcohol in May of 2013. RR. Vol. 1 P. 10.
She testified that Appellant was eventually referred to a supportive ou patient
program, but that he was eventually unsuccessfully discharged do to absences. RR.
Vol. 1 P. 11. She then stated that his probation was amended at that point for him
to attend 15 days of Community Housing Extended Curfew Program. RR. Vol. 1
P. 11. She testified that in October of 2013 Appellant’s Community Supervision
was again amended for him to attend the Intermediate Sanctions Facility. RR. Vol.
2
1 P. 12. She Testified that on that Occasion he did attend and complete the
program but was unsuccessfully discharged from the aftercare program. RR. Vol 1
P. 12. As a result of violations of the aftercare Program he was again amended to
attend ISF again. RR. Vol. 1 P. 14. She testified that he then failed to turn himself
in to go to that program. RR. Vol. 1 P. 15. She then testified about inconsistent
statements Appellant allegedly gave her regarding failure to attend AA meetings,
and that he basically told the program director he was a pathological liar.. RR. Vol.
1 P. 17-18. She went on to recommend revocation of his community supervision,
stating that they have no further programs that can assist him. RR. Vol. 1 P. 18.
On Cross examination from defense counsel, Ms. Rich admitted that
Appellant had reported to a mass intake in January of 2013, and that at that point,
he had been told to report in March, and he did report March 21, 2013. RR. Vol. 1
P. 20. She went on to testify that he was sanctioned for not bringing a report in
April, but that he had actually reported April 11, 2013, and was required to report
daily for ten days following that. RR. Vol. 1 P. 20. She testified that he then
produced the required report in May, 2015. Counsel continued to cross examine
Ms. Rich, wherein she admitted Appellant actually reporting also in June through
August of 2013, when he reported for the supportive outpatient program. RR. Vol
1 P. 21. She Also admitted him reporting for the Check intake program in
September 2013. RR. Vol. 1 P. 21. Ms. Rich then testified that Appellant did
3
report in October, 2013 to sign the amendments to go to ISF, and that he did,
infact, on that occasion attend and successfully complete the ISF program, but had
problems in aftercare. RR. Vol 1 P. 23-24. She went on to acknowledge that
Appellant, even after failing to go back to ISF as ordered, did continue to report to
Probation when directed. RR. Vol. 1 P. 25. Ms. Rich went on to admit that
Appellant despite not paying the amount of fees required was making partial
payments on his probation. RR. Vol 1 P. 26 The State then rested their case. RR.
Vol. 1 P. 28.
Next to testify was Appellant. RR. Vol. 1 P. 28. Appellant testified that he
was 17 at the time he was placed on probation for the underlying offense for
which he was required to register, and he is 32 now. RR. Vol. 1 P. 29. Appellant
testified that he has been registering regularly since being placed on probation in
this matter. RR. Vol. 1 P. 29. Appellant admitted to messing up his probation by
being behind on payments and failing to turn himself in for the ISF program on
June 19 as directed, but testified that he actually did attempt to turn himself in on
June 23 but was not allowed to due to being late. RR. Vol. 1 P. 30. Appellant
testified that if allowed to remain on probation, his former employer would allow
him to return to work. RR. Vol. 1 P. 30. Appellant testified he was having
problems with probation due to a girl he was seeing, and the fact he was still
drinking, and stated that he felt like if he was given treatment he could do better.
4
RR. Vol. 1 P. 33-34. Appellant testified that his problems began in January or
February of 2013 when his father passed away. RR. Vol 1 P. 35. Appellant
testified that he believed he could change because being in jail had a significant
impact on him, and he was scared to death. RR. Vol. 1 P. 36. Appellant testified
that if reinstated he would not be around the bad influences he was before. That he
had a plan to get a place from his former employer RR. Vol. 1 P. 37.
After the close of testimony and after hearing arguments of counsel, the court
found the allegations in the Motion to Revoke were true, revoked Appellant’s
community supervision, and sentenced Appellant to five years in the Institutional
Division of The Texas Department of Criminal Justice. RR. Vol 1 P.46 .
SUMMARY OF ISSUE NUMBER ONE
Based on diligent review of the record and applicable authorities, legally
sufficient evidence was presented at the time of trial to establish by preponderance
of the evidence that Appellant Violated the terms of his Community Supervision,
and the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant’s
Community.
5
ARGUMENT ON ISSUE ONE
The Court of Criminal Appeals has addressed the appropriate standard of
review to be applied by appellate courts when those courts conduct legal sufficiency
reviews. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W. 3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); Johnson v.
State, 23 S.W. 3d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The Court of Criminal Appeals has
adopted the legal sufficiency standard established by the United States Supreme
Court in Jackson v. Virginia. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W. 3d 9, 15; Sanders v. State,
119 S.W. 3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 309
(1979). When conducting a legal sufficiency review, the evidence contained in the
Record must be considered in "the light most favorable to the verdict" of the trial
court. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W. 3d 9, 13; Johnson v. State, 23 S.W. 3d 1, 7 citing
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), Mason v. State, 905 S.W. 2d 570, 574
(Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert denied; Griffin v. State, 614 S.W. 2d. 155, 158-59
(Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Skillern v. State, 890 S.W. 2d 849, 879 (Tex. App. –
Austin 1994, pet. ref’d). Upon considering the evidence from this perspective and
“reasonable inferences there from,” the reviewing court must ask whether a
“rational juror” or “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt?” Hooper v. State, 214 S.W. 3d
9, 13; Johnson v. State, 23 S.W. 3d 1, 7; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-
19; Powell v. State, 194 S.W. 3d 503, 506 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Guevara v.
6
State, 152 S.W. 3d 45, 49 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Mason v. State, 905 S.W. 2d
570, 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In this case the question would be whether a
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the alleged
violation by preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof in a revocation
hearing is on the state to prove the allegations in the motion to revoke by a
preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W. 2d 871 (Tex. Cr. App.
1993). The state’s burden of proof is satisfied and the evidence to revoke is
sufficient where the defendant enters a plea of “true” to any of the allegations in a
petition to revoke. Cole v. State, 578 S.W. 2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979 [Panel
Op.]). Where the state has sustained its burden of proof; the decision whether to
revoke the community supervision is within the sound discretion of the trial court.
Orteaga v. State, 860 S.W. 2d 561 (Tex. App. – Austin 1993, no pet.).
In the present, case Appellant pled true to all of the alleged violations of his
deferred adjudication community supervision. RR. Vol 1 P. 6. This alone was
legally sufficient to satisfy the State’s burden in proving Appellant violated the
terms of his community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W. 2d 127
(Tex.Cr.App. 1979 [Panel Op.]). The State also offered, and the court admitted, a
sworn stipulation of evidence wherein the Appellant admitted violating the terms
of his Community Supervision as alleged in the States Motion to Revoke. CR. Vol
1` P. 36-38. RR. Vol. 1 P. 7. Appellate counsel, therefore, in the exercise of his
7
best professional judgment cannot say, viewed in the light most favorable to the
judgment, that no rational trier of fact could have found the allegations true by
preponderance of the evidence. Appellant’s plea of true alone was sufficient to
revoke his community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W. 2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.
1979 [Panel Op.])
SUMMARY OF ISSUE TWO
Based on diligent review of the record and applicable authorities the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in the sentence imposed or violate the
prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in accessing the sentence in this
matter.
ARGUMENT ON ISSUE TWO
The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishments that are "grossly
disproportionate" to the offense for which the defendant has been convicted.
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991);
McGruder v. Puckett, 954 F.2d 313 (5th Cir.), cert. den'd, 506 U.S. 849, 113
S.Ct. 146, 121 L.Ed.2d 98 (1992); Hicks v. State, 15 S.W.3d 626 (Tex.App.--
Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet'n ref'd); Hernandez v. State, 10 S.W.3d 812
8
(Tex.App.--Beaumont 2000, pet'n filed); Dunn v. State, 997 S.W.2d 885
(Tex.App.--Waco 1999, pet'n ref'd); Jackson v. State, 989 S.W.2d 842 (Tex.App.-
-Texarkana 1999, no pet'n).
Appellate courts will not overturn a trial judge's decision on punishment absent an
abuse of discretion. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).
Article 1, section 13 of the Texas Constitution provides that, “Excessive bail shall
not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishment
inflicted. All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his
lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law”. Tex.
Cont. Art. I Sec. 13
Punishment that is assessed within the statutory range for the offense is not
excessive or unconstitutionally cruel or unusual. Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769,
772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd)
It is also the general rule that as long as a sentence is within the proper range of
punishment it will not be disturbed on appeal and is not an abuse of discretion. See
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) Nunez v. State,
565 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Letterman v. State, 171 S.W.2d 349
(Tex.Cr.App.1943)
9
In the present case Appellant was originally indicted for Failure to Register as a
Sex Offender, Cr. Vol 1 P. 7 Tex. Penal Code 62.102.(b)(2). Failure to Register
as a Sex Offender is a third degree felony.
The punishment range for a third degree felony is a sentence of not more than 10
years and not less than 2 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice and a fine not to exceed $10,000.00. Tex. Pen.
Code 12.34.
Appellant in his original plea received a sentence of 5 years in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Probated for
two years. CR. Vol 1 P. 17-28. Appellant’s original sentence was well within the
range of punishment allowed for a third degree felony.
In the present case Appellant was sentenced by the trial court to 5 years in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The court
simply imposed the sentence originally imposed by the court that was suspended
RR. Vol.1. P 46.
Further, after conscientious review of the record and applicable authorities
counsel would, in his best professional judgment, submit based on the facts set out
above, the sentence was not grossly disproportionate to the offense in violation of
the U.S. Con. Amend. IIX or Tex. Const. Art 1 Sec. 13. The offense in this matter
was a Third degree felony with a range of punishment of not less than 2 years or
10
more than 10 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, and a potential fine not to exceed $10,000.00. Appellant was
originally sentenced sentenced to 5 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, well below the potential sentence Appellant could
have received. The Court in the motion to revoke hearing simply imposed that
sentence.
MOTION TO WITH DRAW
The United States Supreme Court does not obligate counsel representing a client
on appeal to argue in support of grounds for reversal of the lower court’s judgment
when after a “conscientious examination” of the case, appellate counsel determines
appeal to be “wholly frivolous.” Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 744
(1967). In such , situations, the United States Supreme Court has outlined
appropriate procedural steps taken by appellate counsel: 1) counsel is required to
submit a brief examining the record for any point arguably in support of proper
grounds of reversal on appeal; 2) counsel must furnish this brief to an indigent
client enabling the client the right to file a pro-se brief on points of appeal this
individual maintains present proper grounds for appeal; and 3) counsel may request
the appellate court grant counsel’s request to withdraw from the obligation of
providing further legal representation to the client on appeal. Id. Counsel pursuing
11
a frivolous appeal places himself at risk being assessed a monetary sanction under
Rule 45 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in addition to finding himself in
violation of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Id.;Tex. R. App. P. 45;
Counsel for Appellant would submit the above “Anders Brief” on behalf of the
Appellant. After a “conscientious examination” of the case, including a diligent
review of the Record and applicable authorities, Counsel finds an absence of
meritorious grounds of appeal and further submits the basis of any appeal in this
case would be frivolous in nature. Therefore NATHAN BUTLER, Counsel for
Appellant, respectfully requests this Court acknowledge and approve his request to
withdraw from his court appointed duty of providing further legal representation to
Appellant on an original appeal.
PRAYER
NATHAN BUTLER, Counsel for Appellant, Ron Everitt Fuson, prays this
Court acknowledge and approve his request to withdraw from his court appointed
duty of providing further legal representation to Appellant RON EVERITT
FUSON on original appeal.
12
Appellant, RON EVERITT FUSON prays for additional time to review the
Anders Brief submitted on behalf of Appellant and the opportunity to file a pro se
Appellant’s Brief on Original Appeal on his own behalf.
Respectfully Submitted,
/S/Nathan Butler/S/
Nathan Butler
Attorney for Appellant
123 S.Washington
San Angelo, Tx 76901
SBN 24006935
(325) 653-2373 Phone
(325) 482-8064 Fax
nathanbutlerattorney@gmail.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Appellant’s Anders
Brief was served by regular hand deliver or United States Mail in accordance with
the Rule 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on August 13, 2015, on
each party’s counsel as listed below:
George McCrea
District Attorney
119th Judicial District
124 W. Beauregard
San Angelo, Tx 76903
Ron Everitt Fuson
C/O Tom Green County Jail
122 W. Harris Ave.
San Angelo, Tx 76903
/S/ Nathan Butler /S/__________
Nathan Butler
13
Certificate of compliance
Relying on the word count of the computer program used to prepare the forgoing
brief, the total number of words in this document, including footnotes, but
excluding the sections not counted under Tex. R. App. Proc. , is 3153.
/s/NATHAN BUTLER
NATHAN BUTLER
14
NO. 03-14-00656-CR
RON EVERITT FUSON § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
§
v. § THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS § SITTING AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL
In compliance with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 378
(1967), I, NATHAN BUTLER, court-appointed counsel for appellant, RON
EVERITT FUSON, in the above-referenced appeal, do hereby verify, 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 his right to file a pro se response identifying what he
believes to be meritorious grounds to be raised in his appeal, should he so
desire;
15
3. advised appellant of his right to review the appellate record, should he 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 his right to seek discretionary review pro se should
this Court declare his appeal frivolous.
Respectfully submitted,
/S/NATHAN BUTLER
NATHAN BUTLER
Attorney for Appellant
16