ACCEPTED
04-14-00644-CR
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
2/6/2015 8:41:37 AM
KEITH HOTTLE
CLERK
No. 04-14-00644-CR
FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
******************************************************************************
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
2/6/2015 8:41:37 AM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
KEITH E. HOTTLE
Clerk
FOR THE
FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
******************************************************************************
ELTON ANTHONY BRANCH
APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
******************************************************************************
APPEALED FROM
CAUSE NO. 2013-CR-7555
IN THE 399TH DISTRICT COURT
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
******************************************************************************
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
******************************************************************************
JAMES C. OLTERSDORF
410 South Main St., Suite 205
San Antonio, Texas 78204
(210) 270-8588
SBN: 15278630
Attorney for Appellant
STATEMENT OF PARTIES
In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 72 (a), for the purpose of
disqualification and/or recusal of members of this Honorable Court, the following is a complete
list of those parties involved in the instant action.
Mr. James C. Oltersdorf
SBN: 15278630
410 South Main St., Suite 205
San Antonio, TX 78204
(210) 270-8588
Attorney for Appellant
Mr. Steven Spier
SBN: 24047533
Mr. Daniel Walker
SBN: 24070810
Bexar County District Attorney’s Office
101 W Nueva, Fourth Floor
San Antonio, TX 78205-2260
(210) 335-2311
Appearing for the State
Mr. Sean M. Henricksen
SBN: 24084820
111 Soledad Suite 116
San Antonio, TX 78205
(210) 900-2806
Attorney for Defendant
i
No. 04-14-00644-CR
******************************************************************************
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE
FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
******************************************************************************
ELTON ANTHONY BRANCH,
APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
******************************************************************************
APPEALED FROM
CAUSE NO. 2013-CR-7555
IN THE 399TH DISTRICT COURT
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
******************************************************************************
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
******************************************************************************
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
COMES NOW ELTON ANTHONY BRANCH, Appellant, by and through his attorney of
record, and submits this Brief pursuant to the provisions of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
in support of his appeal from a conviction for the offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon in the
3996th District Court of Bexar County, Texas, in Cause No. 2013-CR-7555.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an Appeal from a trial for the offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The jury
found the Appellant guilty on August 22, 2014. Punishment was assessed at 25 years in the Texas
Department of Corrections by the jury on August 23, 2014.
This case was called to trial on August 20, 2014
Appellant timely filed Notice of Appeal.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .....................................................................................................1
POINT OF ERROR 1 ......................................................................................................................3
Sufficiency of evidence
POINT OF ERROR 2 ......................................................................................................................5
Prejudicial photographs were admitted at trial
POINT OF ERROR 3 ......................................................................................................................6
Hearsay statements were admitted at trial
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................6
PRAYER ..........................................................................................................................................7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................7
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Page
Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) ...................................................... 4
Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) ......................................................4
Ates v. State, 21 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex.App.- Tyler 2000; no pet.) ................................................4
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979) ................................................................4
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010). .......................................................4
Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) .................................................5
Powell v. State, 194, S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) ........................................................5
Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 903 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012) ............................................................5
Mayberry v. State, 351 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 2011; pet. ref’d) ....................5
Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2nd 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988) ..............................................................5
Long v. State, 823 S.W.2nd 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991 p. 272) ........................................................6
iv
No. 04-14-00644-CR
******************************************************************************
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE
FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
******************************************************************************
ELTON ANTHONY BRANCH,
APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
******************************************************************************
APPEALED FROM
CAUSE NO. 2013-CR-7555
IN THE 399TH DISTRICT COURT
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
******************************************************************************
BRIEF OF APPELLANT
******************************************************************************
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
On June 6, 2013, at the Kiolbassa Provision Company on South Brazos Street in San
Antonio, Texas, Clifton Wallace, a security guard, was making his rounds at 11:00 p.m. In the
parking lot he observed a man inside a vehicle. Mr. Wallace had shortly before observed the
same man enter into a maintenance area at the company. The car Mr. Wallace observed the man
in had most probably not been broken into because keys belonging to the car were found later on
the ground outside the car.
Mr. Wallace approached the man inside the vehicle and asked him what he was doing. The
man said the car was his, and Mr. Wallace asked for identification. Mr. Wallace did not notice
what was in the man’s hands when he exited the car, but they began wrestling as the man tried to
leave. Two other employees heard Mr. Wallace yell for help, and the employees, Saul Monsivais
and Steve Moreno, observed part of the confrontation as they exited the company building. Both
employees gave chase, but lost sight of the man they had seen with Mr. Wallace.
The police and EMS were called, and a quadrant was set up by the police around the area.
Appellant was arrested a few blocks away and returned to the scene, where a one-on-one
identification procedure was done by Mr. Monsivais and Mr. Moreno. Appellant’s finger prints
were found on the vehicle.
Mr. Wallace had it pointed out to him by Mr. Moreno that he was bleeding on his lower
side. Mr. Wallace had not noticed a weapon or felt being stabbed.
−2−
APPELLANT’S POINT OF ERROR NO. 1
Law and Argument
The evidence is not legally sufficient to support Appellant’s Aggravated Assault with a
Deadly Weapon conviction. When Appellant was arrested, there was no blood on him from the
complainant. There were only minor scrapes on his back as shown by the pictures admitted into
evidence and the arresting officer’s testimony. (RR Vol. 3, p. 39-41)
Mr. Monsivais saw part of the scuffle from 10 to 15 feet away, and his description was “a
tall, dark man.” He could not give the man’s age, and could only say he was taller than 5’6”, Mr.
Monsivais’ own height. (RR Vol. 3, p. 180) Mr. Monsivais said the man wore short hair, a white
shirt with straps and white basketball shorts. He remembered tattoos. (RR Vol. 3, p. 181-182)
When Mr. Monsivais approached the scuffle, the man ran away. Mr. Monsivais gave chase in his
truck, but lost the man. (RR Vol. 3, p 182, 186)
A knife was found in the parking lot; however, it belonged to another employee of the
company. (RR Vol. 4, p. 42-43) There was no blood on the knife, which was admitted as State’s
#7.0 (RR Vol. 4, p. 42) There was testimony from the owner of the knife that you would need
two hands to open it, use it. (RR Vol. 4, p. 93)
Appellant was arrested as the intersection of Saltillo and South Brazos, several blocks
away. He immediately surrendered without incident. Appellant is an African American, and he
was wearing white short when arrested. (RR Vol. 4, p. 62) He was carrying sunglasses and a car
stereo remote. (RR Vol. 4, p. 63)
Steve Moreno, the other employee who observed the scuffle, was 25 to 30 feet away. (RR
Vol. 3, p. 146) He ran toward Mr. Wallace and saw no actual cut or stab wound, but saw blood.
−3−
(RR Vol. 3, p. 158)
The finger prints found on the car do not prove that the Appellant was with the victim
during the stabbing. (RR Vol. 4, p. 159) They are not evidence that Appellant stabbed the victim
except by an inference that the Appellant was the perpetrator of the car burglary and then working
backwards. The evidence does not prove that the Appellant had an opportunity to stab the victim.
Instead, the finger prints only prove that Appellant was present at the scene, but mere presence is
not enough to prove guilt. Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001); Medina
v. State, 7 S.W.3d 641 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)
For example, courts have upheld murder convictions based solely on circumstantial
evidence, such as in this case, for cases that have involved proof of motive in addition to other
incriminating circumstances. Ates v. State, 21 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex.App.- Tyler 2000; no pet.)
Law and Argument
The State must prove at trial Elton Branch used and exhibited a deadly weapon, a knife,
that was capable of causing death or serious bodily injury and that he intentionally caused bodily
injury to Clifton Wallace, complainant, by cutting and stabbing the complainant with such deadly
weapon.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, we apply the Supreme
Court’s legal sufficiency standard as set out in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781
(1979). See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.Crim.App. 2010). Applying the Jackson
standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a
reasonable doubt. Carrizales v. State, 414 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013). We are
−4−
permitted to consider all of the evidence in the record, whether admissible or inadmissible, when
making our determination. Powell v. State, 194, S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
Appellate Courts must consider all of the evidence presented, and presume the factfinder resolved
any conflicts in favor of the verdict and defer to that determination. Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d
900, 903 (Tex.Crim.App. 2012). This presumption includes conflicting inferences from
circumstantial evidence. Mayberry v. State, 351 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 2011;
pet. ref’d)
The role of the Appellate Court is that of a due process safeguard ensuring the rationality of
the trier of fact’s findings of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2nd 866 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988)
APPELLANT’S POINT OF ERROR NO. 2
Law and Argument
Appellant was denied a fair trial by the admission of gruesome photographs which were
also cumulative and whose probative value was greatly outweighed by their prejudicial effect.
Appellant’s attorney properly objected to the photographs. (RR Vol. 3, p. 79-80)
The State responded to the objection by stating that the photographs depicted different
angles as well as different stages of treatment that the victim received. (RR Vol. 3, p. 80)
In order for photographs to be relevant under a Rule 403 analysis, they must relate to
identification and cause of injury. Factors cited are the number offered, gruesomeness, detail,
size, black and white or color. Long v. State, 823 S.W.2nd 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991 p. 272)
APPELLANT’S POINT OF ERROR NO. 3
−5−
Law and Argument
The State offered hearsay statement from the complainant that were properly objected to
by Appellant. (RR Vol. 3, p. 71-73)
Mr. Wallace was allowed to recount, over objection, statements made outside the
courtroom to Steve Moreno. (RR Vol. 3, p. 72) Appellant’s attorney objected that such
statement was offered for its truth and was a prior out-of-court statement. (RR Vol. 3, p. 72)
CONCLUSION
The evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict of guilty because there is no evidence
of a weapon used by Appellant to harm complainant. No weapon was found with blood or prints
on it, and complainant and witnesses never saw or felt any injuries until later. Appellant’s arrest
was based on circumstantial evidence and an almost non-existent description of assailant,
including no race given. Photographs of a prejudicial nature were admitted, along with hearsay
statements.
−6−
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Honorable Court
will remand his case to the Court below for a new trial.
_______________________________________
/S/JAMES C. OLTERSDORF
Heritage Plaza Building
410 South Main, Suite 205
San Antonio, Texas 78204
(210) 270-8588
Bar No. 15278630
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Certificate of Service
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Brief for
Appellant has been hand-delivered to the Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate
Section, 300 Dolorosa St., 4th Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205, on this 5th day of February, 2015.
__________________________________________
/S/JAMES C. OLTERSDORF
Attorney for Appellant
−7−
Elton Anthony Branch v. State
Combined Opinion