ACCEPTED
06-14-00143-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
2/19/2015 9:30:48 AM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
CAUSE NO. 06-14-00143-CR
IN THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
2/19/2015 9:30:48 AM
DEBBIE AUTREY
________________________________________________________________
Clerk
CHRISTOPHER VUJOVICH
Appellant
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from Cause No. 2013F00484 in the
5th Judicial District Court of Cass County, Texas
________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLEE
________________________________________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Courtney H. Shelton
Cass Co. Asst. Criminal District Attorney
Texas Bar No. 24043354
Post Office Box 839
Linden, Texas 75563
Telephone: 903.756.7541
Facsimile: 903.756.3210
Attorney for Appellee,
The State of Texas
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 38.1(a), the
following list is a complete list of all parties to the trial court’s judgment and the
names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel:
1. Hon. Donald Dowd - Judge, County Court at Law, Sitting for the 5th
Judicial District Court, Cass County, Texas
2. Christopher Vujovich - Appellant
3. Mr. Edwin E. Buckner - Appellant’s trial & appellate counsel
P.O. Box 629
Linden, Texas 75563
4. Mrs. Courtney H. Shelton - Appellee’s trial & appellate counsel
Cass County Assistant District Attorney
Post Office Box 839
Linden, Texas 75563
-2-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Index of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Statement of the Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-9
Statement of Oral Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Issues Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Statement of the Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12-22
Summary of the Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23-25
Argument and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-36
Issue 1: The evidence introduced at trial was legally sufficient to
establish that Appellant was intoxicated at the time he
operated a motor vehicle, thereby supporting the jury’s guilty
verdict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Issue 2: Appellant expressly consented to a blood draw, therefore, the
Court was proper in denying Appellant’s Motion to Suppress
the blood draw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Issue 3: The jury may be informed of an Appellant’s stipulations to two
prior DWI convictions, as proof of those priors is a
jurisdictional element of the offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Issue 4: Appellant failed to argue any basis for the admissibility of the
excluded “interpretation of diagnosis,” therefore, he has not
preserved this issue for review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Prayer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
-3-
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
Acosta v. State,
429 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 26
Adames v. State,
353 S.W.3d 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Barfield v. State,
63 S.W.3d 446 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 34
Basham v. State,
608 S.W.2d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 34-35
Brooks v. State,
323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 26
Carmouche v. State,
10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Farmer v. State,
411 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-27
Frierson v. State,
839 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet ref’d.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Fuller v. State,
827 S.W.2d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Hollen v. State,
117 S.W.3d 798 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 33-34
Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 26
Johnson v. State,
68 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 29-30
Johnson v. State,
414 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 30
-4-
Lackey v. State,
638 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. Crim. App 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Malik v. State,
953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Martinez v. State,
348 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 29-30
Maxwell v. State,
73 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Ray v. State,
178 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Reasor v. State,
12 S.W.3d 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 30
Reyna v. State,
168 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 35
Rodriguez v. State,
749 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1988, pet ref’d) . . . . . . . . . 35
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte,
412 U.S.218 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
State v. Ross,
32 S.W.3d 853 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
State v. $ 217,590.00 in United States Currency,
18 S.W.3d 631 (Tex. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23-24, 30
Tamez v. State,
11 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 34
Willover v. State,
70 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
-5-
STATUTES
TEX. PEN. CODE § 49.04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 34-35
TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34-35
TEX R. EVID. 103 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 34-35
-6-
CAUSE NO. 06-14-00143-CR
IN THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER VUJOVICH
Appellant
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from Cause No. 2013F00484 in the
5th Judicial District Court of Cass County, Texas
________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLEE
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS:
COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee in the above-entitled and
numbered cause, and submits this brief of authorities and arguments, and in
support thereof Appellee would respectfully show the Court as follows:
-7-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, Christopher Vujovich, was charged by Indictment with the third
degree felony offense of Driving While Intoxicated – Subsequent Offense that
occurred on or about August 14, 2012. (C.R. pg. 5).
Prior to trial on the merits, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress the Blood
Analysis, arguing that any consent provided by Appellant “was ineffective and
invalid due to the intoxication of Defendant at the time of said alleged consent.”
(C.R. pgs. 31-35). A hearing was held on Appellant’s Motion to Suppress on July
28, 2014. (R.R. Vol. 2, pgs. 15-46). The Court found by clear and convincing
evidence based on a totality of the circumstances that “there was actual consent
to the blood draw,” and subsequently denied Appellant’s Motion to Suppress.
(R.R. Vol. 2, pg.46).
A trial on the merits commenced on or about July 29, 2014, in the 5th
Judicial District Court of Cass County, Texas. A jury was selected, empaneled
and sworn. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 9-91). Appellant was arraigned in the presence of
the jury and entered a plea of “not guilty.” (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 95-96). The State
presented its case-in-chief and rested on July 29, 2014. (R.R. Vol.3. pgs. 100-
192). The defense presented its case-in-chief and rested and closed on July 30,
2014. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 6-53). The Court’s charge was read to the jury on July
30, 2014. (R.R. Vol.4, pgs. 56-63). Closing arguments were presented by both
the State and the defense, after which the jury retired to deliberate. (R.R. Vol. 4,
-8-
pgs. 63-76). The jury returned after 38 minutes of deliberation with a “guilty”
verdict. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 77).
Appellant had previously elected for the judge to assess punishment in the
event of conviction. (C.R. pg. 40). On July 30, 2014, the State and the defense
both presented punishment evidence and arguments to the Court. (R.R. Vol. 4,
pgs. 80-180). After presentation of all the evidence and closing arguments,
Judge Donald Dowd pronounced sentence at four (4) years confinement in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (R.R. Vol. 4,
pgs. 180-185).
-9-
STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT
Oral argument may assist the Court in determining why the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in admitting the blood analysis and excluding Dr. Gregory
Atchison’s report.
-10-
ISSUES PRESENTED
Issue 1: The evidence introduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish
that Appellant was intoxicated at the time he operated a motor
vehicle, thereby supporting the jury’s guilty verdict.
Issue 2: Appellant expressly consented to a blood draw, therefore, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s Motion to
Suppress Blood Analysis.
Issue 3: The jury may be informed of an Appellant’s stipulations to two prior
DWI convictions, as proof of those priors is a jurisdictional element
of the offense.
Issue 4: Appellant failed to argue any basis for the admissibility of the
excluded “interpretation of diagnosis,” therefore, he has not
preserved this issue for review.
-11-
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
In December 2013, a Cass County grand jury returned an indictment
charging Appellant with Driving While Intoxicated – Subsequent Offense. (C.R.
pg. 5). See TEX. PEN. CODE § 49.04.
At a pretrial hearing on Appellant’s Motion to Suppress, Trooper Wayne
Johnson testified that he was called to assist Trooper Eric White with a possible
intoxication investigation. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 19). Johnson responded to Atlanta
Memorial Hospital and met with the subject, later identified as Appellant, involved
in the crash. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 19). Johnson and Appellant conversed about
where Appellant was travelling, how the crash occurred, and what medications
he had taken. (R.R. Vol. 2, pgs. 22-23). Johnson then commenced field sobriety
testing. (R.R. Vol. 2, pgs. 23-29). Appellant was again questioned about any
medications he had taken, and Appellant admitted to taking Ambien, Wellbutrin,
and Lexapro. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 29). Johnson explained to Appellant that
medications could cause a person to become intoxicated, to which Appellant
agreed. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 29-30). At that point, Johnson advised Appellant of his
DIC-24 Statutory Warning and requested a sample of his blood. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg.
30). Initially, Appellant stated he would give a urine sample. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg.
31). Johnson advised he was asking for a blood sample, and Appellant stated he
would give a blood sample. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 31). Furthermore, Appellant was
given a consent form, which was explained to him, and which he signed,
-12-
consenting to give a blood sample. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 31, State’s Exhibit 1). At no
point did Appellant withdraw consent, and there was no resistance from
Appellant. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 32). Appellant testified that he remembered taking a
blood test, but he did not remember signing for anything. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 42).
The Court found by clear and convincing evidence based on a totality of the
circumstances that “there was actual consent to the blood draw in this case, that
was positive and unequivocal and obtained without duress or collusion, actual or
implied,” and subsequently denied Appellant’s Motion to Suppress. (R.R. Vol. 2,
pg.46).
On July 29, 2014, the State arraigned Appellant in the presence of the jury,
which included reading that Appellant had been previously convicted on two
occasions of offenses relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while
intoxicated. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 95-96).
Joseph Melder testified that on August 14, 2012, between 6:00 and 6:20
a.m., he was headed to International Paper, via FM 3129 from Highway 77
South. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs 102-103). A two-door, dark colored car turned onto FM
3129 in front of Melder, heading northbound towards Bloomburg. (R.R. Vol. 3,
pgs. 103-104). The car swerved a couple of times, and then veered off the road
to the left down into a creek. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 104). Melder called 911. (R.R.
Vol. 3, pg. 105). Another motorist arrived who agreed to stay with Appellant, and
Melder went on to work. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 105).
-13-
Trooper Eric White testified that on August 14, 2012, he was employed as
a trooper with the Texas Department of Public Safety. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 110). At
6:04 a.m., he was dispatched to a car crash on FM 3129, near County Road
4795, south of Bloomburg. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 110-111). Upon arrival,
Christopher Alexander Vujovich, Appellant, identified himself as the driver of the
vehicle. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 114). Appellant first advised Trooper White that he was
headed to school at Texas A&M University in Texarkana. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 112).
He later told Trooper White that he was headed to Caver Construction, which
was located just south of the Butler’s Inn on Highway 59 in Atlanta. (R.R. Vol. 3,
pg. 113). Either way, Trooper White testified, based on the fact that Appellant
lived on Highway 43 in Atlanta, there was no reason for Appellant to be on FM
3129. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 112-113). It was not on either route. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs.
112-113). When questioned about the events leading to the crash, Appellant
stated there was a lot of traffic and “cars were jockeying for position.” (R.R. Vol.
3, pg. 115). Trooper White noted there was not much traffic on the road at this
time. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 115). Appellant then stated he veered off the road and
had the wreck. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 116). Trooper White observed that Appellant
tended to lean or sit on the guardrail, as he was having trouble maintaining his
balance. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 116). Appellant had a small burn on the bottom of his
chin, an injury common from airbag deployment. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 116). On
cross examination, Trooper White testified that Appellant was not wearing his
-14-
seatbelt and, upon impact, his head imprinted the windshield above the steering
wheel. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 131). Appellant advised Trooper White he had not been
drinking, but he had taken Lithium and an antidepressant. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 117).
Due to his lack of coordination and slurred speech, Trooper White was
concerned Appellant may have been intoxicated on something other than
alcohol. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 117). Lifenet EMS arrived and carried Appellant to the
hospital. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 117). Trooper White requested Trooper Wayne
Johnson to report to the hospital to observe the driver, perform field sobriety
tests, and make sure the driver did not leave the hospital prior to their arrival.
(R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 121-122). Trooper White arrived at the conclusion of the
reading of Appellant’s statutory warnings, in time to hear Appellant consent to a
blood draw. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 122). After Appellant’s blood was drawn, Trooper
White transported Appellant to the Cass County jail and read him the Miranda
warnings. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 126-127). Trooper White then interviewed
Appellant. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 127-128). Appellant admitted to operating a
vehicle. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 127). Appellant stated he was taking Wellbutrin and “a
little pink pill for sleep.” (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 128). He stated the last time he took
those medicines was last night. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 128).
Michelle Melo testified that she is a forensic scientist with the DPS Crime
Lab in Austin. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 141). Melo was certified to testify as an expert
on the effects of drugs and alcohol on the body and as to the presence of drugs
-15-
in blood. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 141). Melo testified that she received a blood kit from
Trooper White on September 11, 2012. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 141). She testified that
Sarah Martin did the initial analysis of the blood, which all of the samples go
through upon receipt at the laboratory. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 145). The initial
screening process helps narrow down what confirmations they will do, by
analyzing for seven drug classes. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 145). The initial screening
came back negative. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 147). The blood was then given to Melo
for further testing, based on the officer’s suspected drugs. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 147).
That analysis is performed using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry.
(R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 147). The test detected citalopram, hydroxyzine, and zolpidem
in the blood sample, with no quantitation performed. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 149). Melo
testified that all of these drugs are of the type that could potentially affect a
person within therapeutic levels. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 150). Citalopram is an
antidepressant with side effects such as drowsiness and sleepiness, but also
insomnia. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 150). Hydroxyzine can be used to treat anxiety,
which can cause drowsiness. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 150). Zolpidem is prescribed
solely to make a person fall asleep and stay asleep. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 150-151).
Melo testified that taking all three of these pills together can enhance each drug’s
cumulative effect. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 151).
On cross examination, Appellant clarified that Zolpidem is Ambien, which
is a prescription medication that physicians use for insomnia in a patient. (R.R.
-16-
Vol. 3, pg. 152). Melo explained the difference between immediate release,
when all the contents in a pill are released at once, versus controlled release,
when the pill dissolves slower so the chemicals will stay in your system longer.
(R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 152-153). Melo testified that indications on the controlled
release label say you should not do anything that requires use of your normal
faculties the next day. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 153). Controlled release Ambien can
impair a person’s mental alertness the following day. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 154).
Melo described “sleepwalking,” with regards to people using Ambien, when
people will do things throughout the night that they have no recollection of the
next morning, such as walking, eating, and talking. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 156). She
said there have been reported cases of sleep driving as well, among a small
percentage of Ambien takers. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 157).
Trooper Wayne Johnson testified that on August 14, 2012 he was
employed as a trooper with the Texas Department of Public Safety. (R.R. Vol. 3,
pg. 168). Johnson received a request from Trooper Eric White to respond to
Atlanta Memorial Hospital to visit with the driver from the crash and investigate
for possible intoxication. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 168-169). Johnson arrived at the
hospital and began to question Appellant about events leading up to the crash.
(R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 169-170). Johnson inquired about any medications Appellant
had taken, and Appellant advised he had not had any. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 170).
Later in their conversation, Appellant stated he had taken Ambien 24 hours prior
-17-
and Wellbutrin two days prior. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 171). Johnson initiated field
sobriety testing on Appellant, beginning with the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus
test. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 172). Johnson first checked to make sure that Appellant
was a good candidate, meaning he did not have any sort of head trauma or brain
injury, by checking for equal pupil size and equal tracking. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 173-
174). Johnson did determine Appellant was a good candidate. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg.
174). Johnson observed six out of six clues on the HGN test. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg.
176). Johnson again questioned Appellant about any medications he may have
taken. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 176). Appellant advised Johnson he took Wellbutrin and
Lexapro that morning. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 176). Johnson then chose to perform
alternate field sobriety tests on Appellant due to the fact that he was in the
emergency room being treated for possible injuries. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 176-177).
Johnson asked Appellant to recite the alphabet, starting with the letter M and
ending with the letter W. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 177). Appellant appeared confused,
and performed poorly on the test. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 177). He started with W,
went back to M, skipped multiple letters and ended with Z. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 177).
After that test, Johnson and Appellant discussed how Appellant was in college at
Texas A&M getting his undergraduate degree. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 177-178).
Johnson next asked Appellant to count backwards from 55 to 32. (R.R. Vol. 3,
pg. 178). Appellant appeared to understand what he was being asked to do, but
performed very poorly on the test, skipping around to different numbers and
-18-
pausing several times. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 178-179). The next test Johnson had
him perform was the finger count test. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 179). Johnson showed
Appellant how to do this test multiple times, but Appellant was unable to
complete the test correctly. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 179). Johnson and Appellant
continued to converse, and at some point, Appellant advised Johnson that he
took the Ambien at 9:00 p.m. the night before. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 180). He had
taken two Wellbutrin and a Lexapro that morning. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 180).
Johnson explained to Appellant that medications can cause you to be intoxicated
or impaired, and Appellant agreed. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 181). Johnson then read
the statutory warning form to Appellant, requesting a blood sample. (R.R. Vol. 3,
pg. 181). Appellant consented to give a blood sample, without any resistance.
(R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 181-182). Appellant also signed a consent form. (R.R. Vol. 3,
pg. 182).
The State then offered State’s Exhibit 13, a written stipulation of evidence,
entered into between the prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant, which
stated that the two prior convictions alleged in the indictment were true and final
convictions. There was no objection from the defense. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 191)
The State then rested its case-in-chief. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 192).
Appellant called Dr. Karen Reinersten, a psychiatrist employed with
Riverview Clinic, to testify on his behalf. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 7). Reinsten testified
that she treated Appellant for about fifteen minutes on March 19, 2014 for
-19-
purposes of a medication evaluation. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 8). She renewed his
prescriptions for Wellbutrin, Lexapro, and Lithium. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 8).
Reinersten also testified that she reviewed a medication sheet which is
maintained by Riverview, and Appellant was prescribed Ambien on January 24,
2012 and May 24, 2012. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 9). On July 23, 2012, the Ambien was
discontinued, and Ambien CR was prescribed. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 9). As
Reinersten continued to testify about further notations in the record, State’s
counsel objected that the proper predicate had not been laid and as to hearsay.
(R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 11). The court ruled that the “progress notes” and “medication
log order” could be admissible if the proper business records predicate were laid.
(R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 11-12). There was a document entitled “interpretation of
diagnosis” which was a report of Dr. Gregory Atchison. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 12).
The Court sustained the objection as to the report due to the report being
hearsay within hearsay, containing an expert opinion of an expert who did not
appear before the Court, and he was not tendered as an expert witness by
defense counsel. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 12-13). The report was excluded. (R.R. Vol.
4, pg. 13). Defense counsel proceeded to lay the proper business records
predicate for the “progress notes” and “medication log order,” and those
documents were admitted without objection. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 13-14).
Appellant testified in his own defense. Appellant testified that he is
disabled, as he suffers from mood disorders, bipolar, and panic attacks. (R.R.
-20-
Vol. 4, pg. 19). Appellant stated in the past he suffered from alcoholism, but he
consumed his last alcoholic beverage in December of 2009, when he received
his second DUI. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 20-21). Appellant testified that he takes
Lithium for mood stabilization and Wellbutrin and Lexapro as antidepressants.
(R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 23-24). He was prescribed Ambien controlled release in July
2012 and took it up until the accident on August 14, 2012. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 24-
25). Appellant stated he typically took the Ambien around 10:00 p.m. (R.R. Vol.
4, pg. 25). On a typical night in July or August of 2012, Appellant testified he
would normally sleep six hours. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 27). Appellant acknowledged
there were warnings about the Ambien either on the bottle or given to him with
his prescription and that he read the warnings when he picked up his
prescription. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 28-29). Appellant claimed he did not remember
anything that occurred on August 14, 2012 until he landed in the creek. (R.R.
Vol. 4, pg. 30). Appellant did not remember speaking to Trooper White or EMS
personnel at the scene. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 32). He did not remember being
transported to the hospital. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 32). Appellant did not remember
performing the tests for Trooper Johnson, but he does remember his blood being
drawn. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 32-33).
On cross-examination, State’s counsel impeached Appellant’s testimony
that he had not consumed any alcoholic beverages since his second DWI arrest,
which actually occurred in February 2010. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 39-42). Appellant
-21-
admitted to being arrested in Marion County, after being placed on probation for
his second DWI, for evading arrest with a vehicle, DWI, and other charges. (R.R.
Vol. 4, pg. 40). Appellant testified he did not recall drinking that night, but he was
not taking anything like Ambien. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 40-41). Subsequent to that
arrest, Appellant also admitted to pleading guilty in Miller County, Arkansas to
public intoxication, disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental operations, and
loitering. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 41). Appellant testified that on two separate occasions
after he pled to the DWI second, he was drinking and driving. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg.
42).
Appellant further testified on cross-examination that the reason he only
remembers bits and pieces of the crash is solely attributed to the Ambien, and
not his mental capabilities. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 43). He testified that what made him
drowsy was the Ambien, that he was sleep driving. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 51).
Both sides rested and closed on July 30, 2014. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 53). The
Court’s charge was read to the jury. (R.R. Vol.4, pgs. 56-63). Closing
arguments were presented by both the State and the defense, after which the
jury retired to deliberate. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 63-76). The jury returned after 38
minutes of deliberation with a “guilty” verdict. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 77).
-22-
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
Issue 1: The evidence introduced at trial was legally sufficient to
establish that Appellant was intoxicated at the time he operated
a motor vehicle, thereby supporting the jury’s guilty verdict.
The Court shall utilize the legal sufficiency standard set out in Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2010). Under that standard, all evidence is to be viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have
found the elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson at 318-19; Acosta v.
State, 429 S.W.3d 621, 624-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). In viewing all the
evidence introduced at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict, it is clear
that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Issue 2: Appellant expressly consented to a blood draw, therefore, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s
Motion to Suppress Blood Analysis.
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion and should only be overturned if it is outside the zone of reasonable
disagreement. Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013);
Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Whether a
person’s consent was voluntarily given shall be judged by the trial court based on
the totality of the circumstances. Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 653 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2002); Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813, 818 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).
In applying the factors identified in State v. $ 217,590.00 in United States
-23-
Currency, 18 S.W.3d 631, 634 (Tex. 2000), to the evidence presented at the
suppression hearing, it is clear that the State met its burden to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that Appellant’s consent to give blood was freely and
voluntarily given.
Issue 3: The jury may be informed of an Appellant’s stipulations to two
prior DWI convictions, as proof of those priors is a
jurisdictional element of the offense.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held in numerous cases that proof of
the two prior convictions is a jurisdictional element of the offense that must be
proven in order to obtain a conviction for the offense of felony DWI. Hollen v.
State, 117 S.W.3d 798, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d
446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Tamez v. State, 11 S.W.3d 198, 202-03 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2000). Additionally, the Court has held that the jury may be informed
of that stipulation and any written stipulation may be offered into evidence.
Hollen at 801.
Issue 4: Appellant failed to argue any basis for the admissibility of the
excluded “interpretation of diagnosis,” therefore, he has not
preserved this issue for review.
In order to preserve an argument regarding the exclusion of evidence, the
proponent of the evidence must have attempted to introduce the evidence at trial,
and the trial court must have excluded the evidence. See TEX. R. APP. P.
33.1(a), TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(2), Basham v. State, 608 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1980). Additionally, the proponent must have presented to the judge
-24-
an argument as to why the evidence was admissible. Reyna v. State, 168
S.W.3d 173, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Failure to present an argument to the
trial court in support of admission of the excluded evidence waives the argument
on appeal. Id. at 176-179. Appellant failed to present any argument as to why
the excluded “interpretation of diagnosis” was admissible, and further failed to
make an offer of proof. Therefore, he has failed to preserve this error for appeal.
-25-
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
Issue 1: The evidence introduced at trial was legally sufficient to
establish that Appellant was intoxicated at the time he operated
a motor vehicle, thereby supporting the jury’s guilty verdict.
I. Standard of Review
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that in evaluating whether
there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict, the Court shall utilize the
legal sufficiency standard set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319
(1979). Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Under that
standard, all evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict to
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson at 318-19; Acosta
v. State, 429 S.W.3d 621, 624-25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Adames v. State, 353
S.W.3d 854, 859-60 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 912.
Evidentiary sufficiency is measured by the elements of the offense as
defined by a hypothetically correct jury charge. Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234,
240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Under a hypothetically correct jury charge,
Appellant is guilty of Driving While Intoxicated – Subsequent Offense if he (1)
operated (2) a motor vehicle (3) in a public place (4) while intoxicated, and (5)
has been previously convicted two times of an offense relating to the operating of
a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Driving While Intoxicated is a strict liability
crime. Farmer v. State, 411 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) Therefore,
-26-
there is no requirement to prove a specific mental state (e.g., intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly intending to operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated).
Id.
II. Law & Applicability
There is sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Appellant
operated a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated, and that he had
been previously convicted two times of an offense relating to the operating of a
motor vehicle while intoxicated.
It is undisputed that Appellant was driving the car. Both Trooper Eric
White and Appellant, himself, identified Appellant as the driver of the vehicle
which crashed FM 3129 in Cass County, Texas on August 14, 2012. (R.R. Vol.
3, pgs. 110, 114). It is also undisputed that Appellant was previously convicted
two times of an offense relating to the operating of a motor vehicle while
intoxicated, as Appellant stipulated to this fact. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 191, State’s
Exhibit 13).
There is more than sufficient evidence that Appellant was intoxicated at the
time of driving. Joseph Melder testified that he observed Appellant’s car swerve
a couple of times, and then veer off the road into the creek. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg.
104). Trooper White observed Appellant supporting himself on the guardrail due
to having balance issues. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 116). He also noted Appellant to
have slurred speech and coordination issues. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 117). Appellant
-27-
admitted he had taken Lithium, Wellbutrin, and “a little pink pill for sleep.” (R.R.
Vol. 3, pg. 117, 128). Michelle Melo testified that a blood analysis of Appellant’s
blood tested positive for citalopram, hydroxyzine, and zolpidem. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg.
149). All three of these pills can cause drowsiness, and zolpidem’s sole purpose
is to make a person fall asleep. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 150-151). Trooper Wayne
Johnson testified that he performed field sobriety tests on Appellant, and
Appellant performed poorly on all tests. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 176-179). Appellant
told Johnson that he had taken Wellbutrin, Lexapro, and Ambien. (R.R. Vol. 3,
pg. 176, 180). Appellant testified that he did not remember anything that
occurred on August 14, 2012 until he landed in the creek. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 30).
He attributed his lack of memory to the Ambien, and claimed that he was sleep
driving. (R.R. Vol. 4, pgs. 43, 51).
Viewing all this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it is
clear that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
offense of Driving While Intoxicated – Subsequent Offense beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Issue 2: Appellant expressly consented to a blood draw, therefore, the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s
Motion to Suppress Blood Analysis.
I. Standard of Review
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion, and is to be overturned only if it is outside the zone of reasonable
-28-
disagreement. Johnson v. State, 414 S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013);
Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). The appellate
court shall apply a bifurcated standard of review, giving almost complete
deference to the trial court’s determination of historical facts and mixed questions
of law and fact and that rely upon an assessment of the credibility and demeanor
of a witness, but applying a de novo standard of review to pure questions of law
and mixed questions that do not depend on credibility determinations. Johnson,
414 S.W.3d at 192; Martinez, 348 S.W.3d at 923.
II. Law & Applicability
Consent to search is one of the well-established exceptions to the
constitutional requirements of both a warrant and probable cause. Maxwell v.
State, 73 S.W.3d 278, 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)(citing Schneckloth v.
Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)); Carmouche v. State, 10 S.W.3d 323,
331 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In order to be valid, consent must “not be coerced,
by explicit or implicit means, by implied threat or coerced force.” Schneckloth,
412 U.S. at 228. “Although the federal constitution only requires the State to
prove the voluntariness of consent by a preponderance of the evidence, the
Texas Constitution requires the State to show by clear and convincing evidence
that the consent was freely given.” Carmouche, 10 S.W.3d at 331. The trial
court shall look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the consent in
determining whether that consent was given voluntarily. Johnson v. State, 68
-29-
S.W.3d 644, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Reasor v. State, 12 S.W.3d 813, 818
(Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Again, almost total deference shall be given to a trial
court’s findings of fact, especially when those findings are based on an
evaluation of credibility and demeanor of a witness. Johnson v. State, 414
S.W.3d 184, 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Martinez v. State, 348 S.W.3d 919, 923
(Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
Factors to be examined in determining whether an accused freely and
voluntarily consented include, but are not limited to the following:
(1) whether, and to what extent, officers exhibited a show of force,
including a display of weapons or other intimidating tactics; (2)
whether the arresting officers engaged in flagrant misconduct; (3)
whether the police threatened to obtain a search warrant, or whether
the police claimed a right to search; (4) whether the police
administered Miranda warnings; (5) whether the arrest was made in
order to obtain consent; 6) whether the accused knew that he could
refuse to allow a search; (7) whether consent was first offered by the
accused or was in response to a police request; and (8) the
accused’s age, education, intelligence, and physical condition.
See Frierson v. State, 839 S.W.2d 841, 851 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, pet.
ref’d); see also State v. $ 217,590.00 in United States Currency, 18 S.W.3d 631,
634 (Tex. 2000) (compiling list of factors from various cases).
In applying these factors to the evidence presented at the suppression
hearing, it is clear that the State met its burden to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that Appellant’s consent to give blood was freely and voluntarily given.
There was no evidence presented at the hearing that either Trooper Wayne
-30-
Johnson or Trooper Eric White exhibited a show of force or displayed any
weapons. To the contrary, Johnson engaged in conversation with Appellant
regarding the events leading up to the crash, where he was travelling, and what
medications he had been taking. (R.R. Vol. 2, pgs. 22-23). They also discussed
that Appellant was an undergraduate student at Texas A&M. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg.
27). There was no indication that Appellant was physically abused or threatened
into giving consent or evidence of violence or physical coercion of any kind. See
Lackey v. State, 638 S.W.2d 439, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)(stating that
absence of violence and physical coercion is indicative that consent was given
voluntarily). There was no evidence of flagrant misconduct by Trooper Johnson
or Trooper White. There was no testimony that Trooper Johnson or Trooper
White threatened to obtain a search warrant if Appellant did not consent to the
blood draw. While Trooper Johnson did not read Appellant his Miranda warnings
at this time, he did read the DIC-24 statutory warning form to Appellant which
advised Appellant of his right to refuse consent but admonished Appellant of the
consequences of that refusal. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 30). Additionally, after
consenting to the blood draw, Trooper Johnson had Appellant sign a consent
form acknowledging that he was giving his consent to the blood draw. (R.R. Vol.
2, pg. 31, State’s Exhibit 1). At no time did Appellant ever resist the nurse’s
attempt to draw his blood, tending to show that Appellant freely and voluntarily
acquiesced to the blood draw. (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 32).
-31-
Viewing all of this evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling that there was “clear and convincing evidence by a totality of the
circumstances that there was actual consent to the blood draw,” and assuming
that the trial court made implicit findings of fact that support that ruling, see State
v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), this Court should find that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s Motion to
Suppress the Blood Analysis.
Issue 3: The jury may be informed of an Appellant’s stipulations to two
prior DWI convictions, as proof of those priors is a
jurisdictional element of the offense.
I. Preservation of Error
Three steps are necessary to preserve error regarding evidence admitted
or placed before the jury: a specific and timely objection, a request for an
instruction to disregard, and a motion for mistrial. See Fuller v. State, 827
S.W.2d 919, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). To preserve error, counsel must obtain
an adverse ruling, either on the objection, the request that the jury be instructed
to disregard, or the motion for mistrial. Id. Courts hold the sequence of those
steps is not so critical as is the fact that the movant persists in seeking all
available relief from the trial court, until the trial court effectively denies relief to
which the movant is entitled. Id.
In this case, Appellant never objected to the admissibility of the stipulations
in trial. The only mention Appellant ever made was at the pretrial hearing on
-32-
Appellant’s Motion in Limine, with regards to the request that the State not be
able to mention “any evidence the defendant committed an offense other than
the offense currently being tried.” (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 10. The State responded that
they were required to prove up the two prior DWI convictions for jurisdictional
purposes, to which Appellant responded, “Your Honor, we’ll stipulate to those two
prior DWI convictions, so there’s no necessity to bring that up in front of the jury.”
(R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 10). The trial court disagreed, stating that “the stipulation itself
has to be offered in order for the State to have sufficient evidence to prove its
case…they have to present to the jury the fact of the two prior convictions, even
with the stipulation.” (R.R. Vol. 2, pg. 10). When Appellant was arraigned in the
presence of the jury, the two jurisdictional priors were read, and there was no
objection from Appellant. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg. 95). After all State’s witnesses
testified, the State offered Exhibit 13, the written stipulation that Appellant had
been previously convicted two times of an offense relating to the operating of a
motor vehicle while intoxicated, which was signed by all parties. (R.R. Vol. 3, pg.
191). Appellant did not object to the Exhibit, and Appellant further failed to object
when the State read the stipulation into the record. (R.R. Vol. 3, pgs. 191-192).
Due to Appellant’s failure to object, this issue has not been preserved for review.
II. Law & Applicability
Even if this issue were preserved for review, the law is clear in Hollen v.
State, 117 S.W.3d 798, 801 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003), that the jury may be
-33-
informed of a stipulation and any written stipulation may be offered into evidence
before the jury. The Court in Hollen, citing its prior holdings in Tamez v. State,
11 S.W.3d 198, 202-03 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) and Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d
446, 448 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001), states “we have reiterated that the two prior
convictions are jurisdictional elements that must be proven to obtain a conviction
for the offense of felony DWI.” In this case, proof of Appellant’s two prior
convictions was necessary to prove the jurisdictional elements for the offense of
felony DWI, and it was not error for the trial court to permit the State to admit the
stipulation into evidence before the jury.
Issue 4: Appellant failed to argue any basis for the admissibility of the
excluded “interpretation of diagnosis,” therefore, he has not
preserved this issue for review.
I. Preservation of Error
A trial court’s order excluding evidence is to be reviewed under an abuse
of discretion standard. Willover v. State, 70 S.W.3d 841, 845 (Tex. Crim. App.
2002). In order to successfully argue on appeal that the trial court erred in
excluding certain evidence, an appellant must demonstrate that (1) he preserved
the argument by offering the evidence during the trial and by making the trial
court aware of the substance of the evidence and the basis for its admission, see
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(2), Basham v. State, 608 S.W.2d
677, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); the trial court erred in ruling the evidence
inadmissible, see Willover 70 S.W.3d at 845; and (3) the trial court’s exclusion of
-34-
the evidence was harmful to appellant’s case, see TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2; Ray v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 833, 835-36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In order to preserve an argument regarding the exclusion of evidence, the
proponent of the evidence must have actually attempted to introduce the
evidence during trial, and the trial court must have excluded the evidence. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a), TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(2), Basham, 608 S.W.2d at 679.
The proponent of the evidence must also have made the substance of the
offered evidence known to the court through either a bill of exception or offer of
proof, unless the substance is apparent from the context in which the evidence
was offered. See TEX. R. EVID. 103(a)(2). Failure to present a particular
argument to the trial court in support of the admission of excluded evidence
waives the argument on appeal. Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 176-179 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005); Rodriguez v. State, 749 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 1988, pet. ref’d). It is not enough to tell the judge that evidence is
admissible. Reyna, 168 S.W.3d at 177. The proponent of the evidence must
have told the judge why the evidence was admissible. Id. (emphasis added).
In this case, Appellant sought to admit a document entitled “interpretation
of diagnosis,” which was a report made by a Dr. Gregory Atchison dated
December 20, 2012. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 12). The State objected on the grounds
that neither the proper business records predicate had been laid and as to
hearsay. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 11). Appellant did not present an argument to the trial
-35-
court as to why the document was admissible, and further failed to make an offer
of proof. (R.R. Vol. 4, pg. 13). Because Appellant failed to include any specificity
as to the substance of the offered evidence, there is no way to know from the
record whether the exclusion was harmful to Appellant’s case. Appellant has
failed to preserve this error for appellate review.
-36-
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Appellee respectfully requests that
the adjudication of Appellant and corresponding sentence imposed by the trial
court be in all things AFFIRMED.
Respectfully submitted,
Courtney Shelton
_____________________________
Courtney H. Shelton
Cass Co. Asst. Criminal District Attorney
Texas Bar No. 24043354
Post Office Box 839
Linden, Texas 75563
Telephone: 903.756.7541
Facsimile: 903.756.3210
cholland.assistantda@casscountytx.org
Attorney for Appellee,
The State of Texas
-37-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Brief of Appellee was forwarded via First Class mail on February 19, 2015, to the
following attorneys of record and interested parties:
Appellant Appellant’s Attorney
Christopher Vujovich Edwin Buckner
TDC # 01944642 P.O. Box 629
East Texas Treatment Facility Linden, Texas 75563
900 Industrial Drive
Henderson, Texas 75652
Trial Court Judge
Hon. Donald Dowd
County Court at Law Judge,
Sitting for the 5th Judicial District Court
P.O. Box 510
Linden, Texas 75563
Courtney Shelton
_____________________________
Courtney H. Shelton
-38-
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Relying on the word count function in the word processing software used
to produce this document, I certify that the number of words in this reply
(excluding any caption, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral
argument, table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case,
statement of issues presented, statement of jurisdiction, statement of procedural
history, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and
appendix) is 6,193.
Courtney Shelton
________________________________
Courtney H. Shelton
-39-