/ZZ f-/&
CASE NO. PD-1221-15
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
'RiGINAL
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
RECEIVED
PETER PHUC HONG TRAN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Appellant
VS.
DEC 07 2015
THE STATE OF TEXAS
State
Abel Acosta, Clerk
eh m
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
In Appeal No. 05-13-01199-CR
from the CE: 07 2S'.5
Court of Appeals of Texas
for the Fifth Judical District Abel Acosta, Clerk
Dallas, Texas
APPELLANT'S PRO SE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Peter Phuc Hong Tran
TDCJ No. 1868964
Hughes Unit
Rt. 2, Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597
APPELLANT PRO SE
IDENTITY OF JUDGE, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL
JUDGE:
Honorable John R. Roach, Jr.
296th Judical District Court of Collin County, Texas
STATE:
Represented by:
Greg Willis
Collin County District Attorney
2100 Bloomdale Rd., Suite 100
McKinney, Texas 75071
At Trail:
Bill Dobiyanski, ADA
Randy Goodwin, ADA
On Appeal:
Andrea L. Westerfeld, ADA
APPELLANT:
Peter Phuc Hong Tran
TDCJ No. 1868964
Hughes Unit
Rt. 2, Box 4400
Gatesville, TX 76597
Represented by:
At Trail:
Christopher Knox
900 Jackson St., Suite 650
Dallas, TX 75202
Bill Wirskye
2001 Bryan St., Suite 410 (LB 92)
Dallas, TX 75201
On Appeal:
Lori L. Ordiway
P.O. Box 793991
Dallas, TX 753991
(Brief Only)
Brett Ordiway
2311 Ceader Springs Rd., Suite 250
Dallas, TX 75201
(Notification Only)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IDENTITY OF JUDGE, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORTIES
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
STATEMENT"' OF THE CASE
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
AGRUMENT
Ground One: Lack of sufficient linking evidence
Summary of Facts 1-3
Affirmative Link to the Crime Required 3-4
Conclusion 5
Ground Two: Exculpatory evidence in sufficiency review 5-11
Brooks/Hooper Hypotheticals 5-6
COA Opinion 6-7
Justice McCally Addresses This Concern 7-8
CCA Considers Exculpatory Evidence 8-9
The Correct Standard 9-10
Conclusion . 10-11
Ground Three: Deference to Jury's Rejection of Motive 11-16
COA Opinion 11_1?
Jurys Follow Instructions 12-:;.3
Aquittal of Robbery Element 13
Inconsistent Verdict Theory Not Applicable 13-14
Texas Cases are Inopposite 14-15
Issue in Other Context 15-16
Conclusion 16
PRAYER ix
Cetificate of Service ix
Verification / Date of Mailing to Court ix
APPENDIX (COA Opinion - suspended by Court)
"A" - Additional Facts to Support Ground Three
INDEX OF AUTHORTIES
PAGE
Benavides v. State, 992 S.W.2d 511
(Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist] 1999) 14
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) 5,6,13-14
Dunn v. U.S., 52 S.Ct. 189 ( ) 13
Evans v. Michigan, 133 S.Ct. 1069 (2013) 16
Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) 10
Green v. U.S., 78 S.Ct. 221 (1957) 13
Grey v. State, 298 S.W.3d 644 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) 13,15
Gross v. State, 380 S.W.3d 181 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) 4
Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) 16
Harris v. Rivera, 102 S.Ct. 471 (1981) 13
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) 5,6
Jackson v. State, 3 S.W3d 58
(Tex.App. - Dallas 1999) 14
Jackson v. Virgina, 443 U.S. 301 (1979) vi,5,14,15,16
Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) 8,10
Merritt v. State, 368 S.W.3d 516 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) 8
Middleton v. State, 187 S.W3d 134
(Tex.App. - Texarkana 2006) 12
Moreno v. State, 294 S.W.3d 594 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) 13
U.S. v. Powell, 105 S.Ct. 471 (1984) 13
Price v. Georgia, 90 S.Ct. 1757 (1970) 13
Redwine v. State, 305 S.W.3d 360
(Tex.App. Houston [14th Dist] 2010) 7
Richardson v. Marsh, 107 S.Ct. 1702 (1987) 12
Solis v. State, 589 S.W.2d 444 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) 4
Stobaugh v. State, 455 S.W.3d 165 (Tex.Crim.App.2015) 4
Stobaugh v. State, 421 S.W.3d 787
(Tex.App. - Fort Worth 2014) 4
i i
Temple v. State, 390 S.W.3d 341 (Tex;Crim.App.2013)v; 3,8
Temple v. State, 342 S.W.3d 572
(Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist] 2011) 3,7,11
Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) vi,4,9,10,11
Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) 8
Wooten v. State, 400 S.W.3d 606 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) 12
Zuniga v. State, 144 S.W.3d 477 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) 14
STATUE
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 15
V
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellant, Peter Tran, believes oral argument will
be benfical in this case. This case involves the correct
standards an appellate court must follow when evalutaing sufficiency
of the evidence under Jackson v. Virgina and whether the circumstantial
evidence was sufficient to link Tran to the murder. Tran argued
to the 5th District Court of Appeals that his case was similar
to Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) and the
COA distinguished Tran's case from Winfrey. Oral argument would
allow this Court to explore the signficance of the differences
between Tran's case and Winfrey. Additionally, oral argu®s»-t
is appropriate to address the conflicting theories^ of duble jeopary iA.cVv
causes the verdict on the lesser-inclcuded offense operating
as an aquittal to the charged offense AND the rejected inconsistent
verdict theories.in light of Jackson v. Virgina standards that
require deference to the Jury's verdict. Moreover, oral argument
would allow this Court to look closely at the effects of whether
or not appellate courts are required to consider exclupatory
evidence, or evidence favorable to the defendant, in sufficiency
of the evidence reviews, which dispite this Court's hypotheticals
the appellate court's have continue
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peter Phuc Hong Tran, the Appellant, was charged with capital
murder, a murder in the course of a robbery. Tran plead not
guilty. At his Jury trial, the contested issues were the identity
of Tran as the killer and whether the murder was committed in
the course of a robbery. The Jury returned a verdict of guilty
on the lesser-incldued offense of murder and sentenced Tran to
25 years in TDCJ. The COA acknowledged that the sole issue:
on the appeal was "whether the circumstantial evidence linking
Eeter Phuc Hong Tranche murder is sufficient to support the
conviction." COA Op., p. 1 and n. 1.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTROY
The 5th District Court of Appeals issued its Opinion in
this case, COA No. 05-13-01199-CR, on August 12, 2015. There
was no motion for rehearing filed in the court of appeals. This
Court of Crminal Appeals of Texas GRANTED an extension of time
until Novemeber 10, 2015 for Mr. Tran to file his PRO SE PDR.
As .explained in his motion.ifor leave for an addititonal extension,
Tran misread the Court's notice of the deadline and believed the
due date for his PRO SE PDR was November 30, 2015. This date,
November 30, 2015, is the date on which Mr. Tran has verified
that he has placed this PDR into the prison mailing system for
mailing to this Court.
i/\a
O O O
?d pd Pd
O O O
a C c
z S3 25
rt Z ^ O rt O ft O O U H T t O O o O O rt fD O O O rt 3 H- 3 H-T) ^n fD r t ^ 3 4 3 03 >co 1—' rt 03 O
3" O 03 t-h O i-h 3" t-h i-h C 3 3" l-h O t-h li 3" < i-h rt 3JO3O3O<<3403OO3fC4CH-34
fD H 3 l-hfD »-! It H 3 fD H- H 3" fD rt rt O T3^ H- fD 3 C rt ClXJ T3 3 H- ii O
CL rt CL fD n 3"< rt m fD t-h rt Cl Cl rt S4 fD rt^TOOfDCL CLii H-- nCO JVM fD Z
l-j 3" 3" fD 3 i-i 03 C -3" co pd < h-1 3d O li fD 3" O ii fDrt3JH-3fDlifDH- < M O H- » M
03 03 H- (D l"h CO 03 T3 i-i co fD C W H- H- fD fD fD 3 (D •• < O fD- 3 CO (DSflttSlniSlHUSOtil"
rt < 3 fD fD rt H- Cl i-h M CL O CO 03 O -a H* OOH-03 fi ffrtH' 3"03rt0O03O
W- (D i-h O l-i H- rt fD < HHi» fD r t <| CO fD fD o CL33 co33JfDOrt3'-^fD3co W3M
O (D 3" H- O 03 i-i fD H- H- 3 H- fD 03 O - < S3 COtD tD O 3 rt a(D- 3fDCLSl3<-t >(D03W
03 cT l-i 03 rt 3 Si-1 i-i 0Q O O 3 ii 3 H- 3" CO333(DfD fD3034 03fd-a4
3 fD fD l-i O 03 O Cl 3" H- > fD 00 Cl O 03 O Cl fD H-O r t r t s : 3 £ 3 4 3 v-"rj s; H- 03 O T3 h-1 rt
H(D 3(N H- t—' 3 Tt H- rt fD CO H- O cf ii fD 3 CTfDH-34 rt y o O- CflwOh-'OCLfD£fD3"
H- 3 O fD rt co
H- C fD O 3 l-h H- act-' s h-1 -OCOCL fDCL< - ? H 3 (C (-"IT fD
rt fD CL a4 O rt ii i-i rt 3 O X) 03 3 rt ii fD fD O 03 fD 3 fD co 3 H-^O rt 3 Cl I-1 fD Cl
^< O fD l-1^ Cl 03 O ^< 03 < i-h rt 3 < fD 3 H-~ CT