Temika Charnette Owens v. State

ACCEPTED
06-15-00069-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
8/17/2015 10:03:39 AM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK

FILED IN
I$ The Sj.xth Court of A1>peal's
6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
Texarkana, Texas
8/17/2015 10:03:39 AM
DEBBIE AUTREY
Clerk
Tqika Charnette Owetts,
Ap'pe77ant,
v.
THE STAW OF TE){AS,

Ay>pellee.

Ay:,peal-s from the Ath Distri<:t Court,
Rusk Courtty, Texas
Trial Court No. G.74-,305

Anders Brief

ATTORNEY FOR .APPELI,ANT:

ileff T. J'ackson
SBOT No. 2406997 6
736-A Hwy' 259 N.
KilEone, TX 75662
Phonr:: -654-3362
1903
Fax: 8L7 -887-4333

ORAL ARGTTMENT NOT REQUESTED
 LIST OF" PARSTES AI{D COUNSIIL

APPELLAIiIT: Ternika Charnette Owens
TDCJ No. 019991628
SrD No. 060614L0
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
San Saba Unit
206 S. Wallace Creek Rd.
San Saba, TX 1 6817
Represented at appeal by:
SBOT No. 24069916
136-A Hwy 259 N.
Kilgore, TX 15662
Phone : 903-65 4-3362
Fax: BIl - BB7-4333
Represented at trial_ by:
ffi
SBOT No. 00785248
P.O" Box 1108
Henderson, TX 75653
Phone: 903-657-0561

APPELLEE: State of Texas
Renrescn1-od
vUvIIuvV af
sU
.l_r'i
U!rq! al hrz.
py.

PrrqJr f-nrrnfrz
vvurr9J DiStflCt
UJUUI.| AtfOrneV
nuuvltruy

SBOT: 00189406
115 N. Main St.
Hencl6rrson - TX 15652
Phone: 903-651-2265
Fax: 903- 651 -0329
 TABLES OE' CONTENTS

List of Parties and Counsel_
Tabl-e of Content.s
Index of Authorities-
Statemen +'U aF
VI 1_l.r^
(-II.g t.\--^
UClDC

Tq.qrraq P resent.ed
Statemen t of Facts
St tmma rr; of the Arguments
7\ rnr rmn n I
nr v LrllrgLr L-

I. WHETHER THE IND]CTMENT WAS SUFF-TC]ENT......3
II. WHETHER THE TR]AL COURT ERRED IN RULING ON
PRETRIAL MATTERS OR APPELLANT' S OBJECTIONS
DUR]NG TRIAL, OR WHETHER THERE WAS
FUNDAMENTAL ERROR ......6
ITT. WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS SI]FF-TCIENT TO
SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE OF
HARASSMENT OF A PUBLIC SERVANT ....13
rV. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSJEL IS NOT A
VIABLE CLA]M BASED ON THE RECOF|D ]SEFORE THE
COURT .....15
Statement of Attorney to the Court . . .18
Conclusion and Prayer... .....19
Certificate of Compliance ....20
Certificate of Service.. .....2I
 rNDEX OF AUTHORTTTES
vsVV !UVY.

Anders v. CaLifornia,
385 u.s. 138, '744, (1961) 2,LB
Brooks v. State,
951 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.Crim.App. L99j). .6,L3
Currie v. State,
516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.I914). .18

Duff-Snith v. State,
685 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. L9B5). B

Frausto v. State,
642 S.W.2d 505 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). 11

Fttr"rafa \r _ql_ate /
200 S.W.3d 7BI (Tex. App.-Fort Worrh 200G) .6
Hawkins v. State,
605 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. I9B0). L2

Hernandez v. State,
126 S.W.2d53,51 (Tex.Crim.App.19B6). 15

Jackson v " State,
811 S.W.2d '768, 11I (Tex.Crim.App. 1994) . 13,15
Jeffery v" St.ate,
903 S. W. 11 6 (Tex.App. -Dallas 1995 ) . 1B

Lawrence v. State,
240 S.W.3d 9I2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). .3,5
Lindley v" State,
535 S.W.2d 54I, (Tex. Crim. App. 7982) .B

111
PoLk v. State,
337 S.W.3d 286 (Tex. App. -Eastland ,1010 ) . .13

Riney v" State,
28 S.W.3d 56I, (Tex.Crim.App.200O)
Smith v " State,
309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 3

State v" Moff,
I54 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). .3,5
Strickfand v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668 (1984). .]-5,16

Stoker v. State,
7BB S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Crim.App.l9B9). -B

Thompson v. State,
9 S.W.3d BOB, BL2 (Tex.Crim.App.7999) . -15,L6

United States v" Johnson,
521 F .2d I32B , 1329 (5th Cir " I91 6) ,' 2

Vil-f escas v. State ,
189 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) 6

SLatutes:
Tex. Pen. Code sec. B .04 (a) . 12

Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 12.42 10

Tex. Pen. Code Sec. 22.II

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art 36.01(a) 11

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 39.14(b) B

1V
 STATEIVIENT OE' THIE CA$E

By a single count indictment relurned by the Rusk

County grand jury at the Sanl-aml'-rar
VVI/UVILLJJU! fUV!ILL,
arm )n1
LVLA A
I

AppelIant was charged with Harassment of a Publ-ic
Qarrr.anf f-P
vr\ n A
v| r^rhi nl
"",.--i) rs a l-h
urrf!ui rrl rlanr^aa
\aEYIq:\, fo I nnrz rrnrlo-
!vtvrrj urt\-lcI

m^-'^^
r g2!d.D n^^^'r
relIct_L Code Sec. 22.LI . The trial- court granted
the State's moti-on to amend and interlineate the
indictment. CR p. 30.
Appellant was represented at trial by .Brent Wil-der.
On April 21, 2015| a jury was empaneLed to hear the
case. RR2, pp. 191-L94. Appellant pleaded "not
guilt.y" to both counts on the indictment. fd p. 195.
A trial- was held on t.he issue of gu-11t, RR3, and on

April 29, 2015, the jury returned a verdict of
"guilLy." RRS1, pp. I51 p. 5. The pun:Lshment phase of
the trial was held on the same dav t-he verdict was

rafrrrnad
rrvv/ .nj
srrv fhe
erfv irrrrz:qqaqqod
)v-J quuvJUvv nUnishment
I/urr!9rrrrlvrru Of
vr 2 vears
- Jgq!o

incarceration. RR4 p. 39.
On April 29, 2015, the Trial Cortrt sentenced
Appellant j-n accordance with t-he j ury' s
recommendations. RR4, p. 47-42. Jeff T" Jackson was

appointed to represent Appellant on appeal. CR p.98.
Appellant timely perfected appeal by f iling wri-tten
Notice of Appeal on May 1 , 2075. CR p. 94.

vi
 ISST'ES PRESENTED

I. Whether the indict.ment was suffidierLt?

rr. whether the trlal court erred j-n ruling on

Appellant.' s ob j ections during trial , o.c whether there
was fundamental error?

rrr. whether the evidence was suffiqient Lo support a

conviction f or t.he of f ense of hara s.smenf of a publ-ic
servant ?

vll
TO THE HONORABLE STXTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now l^++ rll
I. ,T: r'lz
vsvJ\uvrrt < nn attorney for Temika
Charnette Owens, Appellant in the ablove styled and
numbered cause, and respectfully submits thi-s Brief on

such cause.
STATEI\4ENT OF THE FAcEq
On June 1"., 2014, dt about 3:00 a.m., .Appellant. was

stopped by officer Goodson, a public servant of
Henderson Police Department, f or drlvinq without
headlights. she was arrested f,or d::ivinq whil-e
intoxicated. The arresting officer accused her of
intending to assaul-t him by causing her sar-iva to
contact his person while struggllng with him in the
back of hi s ne I rn I rzoh i cle . RR3 pp . 2I-28 .

NOTE:
The record is referred to as:
"CR": cferk's record in Cause No. CR14-305.
*RR 7-4": reporter's record in Cause No. CR14-305.
"RR S1": reporter's supplemental record in Cause No. CRl4-305.
 ST,MI4ARY OF THE ARGIJI\4NTSI

Under Anders v. Cal-if ornia , 385 U. S . 7 3B , 7 44 ,

(7967), a court-appointed attorney may not raise an

issue in an appeal i f he makes i1 conscientious
examj-nation of the case and finds the crppeal is wholly
f rivolous. To comply with Andersl counrsel- must isol-at.e
"possibly important issues" and "furnistr the court with
ref erences to the record and l-eqal- author:i-ties to aid

it in itS ^nnal I af a functiOn " " Un.tted States v.
Johnson, 52'7 E .2d I32B , i-329 ( 5th Cir . I91 6) . Af t er
rne
fll^ apperra--,
-h^n1I16l- iq ryirran an
^n opporru
a\nna\rJ-rrnil-rz J-n raqrrn6rl .l-ha

court makes a full- examination of the r:ecord to detect
whether the case is f rivolous . Andez:s, 3B 6 U. S. at
144. As set forth by his Brief , counsel for Appel-l-ant
has determined that there are no non-fri-volous issues
to appeal-.
 ARGUMENTS AI{D AUTHORTETETS

ARGI'MENT I.
THE TNDICTMENT !{AS SUFFICIENT.

The sufficiency of the indictment is reviewed de

novo because that issue is a question of l-aw. Smith v.
State, 309 S.W.3d 10, 13-14 (Tex. Crj-m. App. 2010);
State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 501 (Tex. Crim. App.
2004) . A criminal defendant has a constitutional rlqht
to not j-ce . Lawrence v. State, 240 lS . W. 3d 9I2 , 9L6

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007). To satisfy this notice
radrr i ramant- , an
!VYUT!VIILVIIU' gII indictment
IITVIVUILIVIIU must be
lIIUJ U Vg .qne,r-.i f=i
O}/E;Uf,T-IU r: enorroh f o
EAIUUYIl L-\J

inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation
against him so he may prepare a defense. Id.; Moff, L54

S . W. 3d at 601 . "An indictment is gene-raIly suf f icient
as long as it tracks the language of a penal statute
that itself satisfies the constitut.ional requirement of
notice." Lawrence, 240 S.W.3d at 9t6; see Snith, 309

S.W.3d at L4.
 7\nnn'l'l
nl1-yE r _L -^l- L
o.Lr was indicted for the offense of
Harassment of Public Servant. Tex Pon f-nrlo Qon
uvv

22. 11 reads:
A person commits an of f ense rf , with. tLre intent
to assault, harass, or alarm, the p,3rson
causes Snnfhor n^rson the actor knows to be a

public servant to contact the blood, seminal_

f luid, vaginal f l_uid, sal_iva, uriner , or f eces

of the actor, ofly other person I or a.n anj_mal

while t.he public servant is lawf uf l_y

discharging an of f icial- duty or in retal_iation
or on account of an exercise of the pub]ic
servant's official power or performance of an

official dutv. Id.
The indictment in the instant case was amended bv order
of the trial court to read:
. that TEMIKA CHARNETTE OWENS hereinafter
styled Defendant, on or about the 1" day of
June , 2014, and before the presentment of this
'i ncli cf ment - in the
urrv Qgrrnf
vvurru rz
)/ of
v! Rrisk -
r\uol\f Slf a1-
r) uqug e of
\
 Texas, did then with the intent to assault,
harass, or al-arm, the person cause i1 person the
defendant knew to be a publrc servant, namely;
Chris Goodson, to contact the salLiva of the
defendant whil-e sai-d Chris Goodson \/vas lawfullv
di scharging hi s o ff icial duty as a police
of f j-cer f or the City of Hender:son Pol-ice
Department . RR p. 6, 29 .

The indictment tracks the Ianguage of the appfi-cable
penal statute sufficient to give the r,=quisite notice,
as rerriri rccl under Lawrence and Moff - I
stt":,ra
uvJvLu.
 ARGI'MENT TT .

THE TRTAL COURT DID NOT ERR ]:N RIULING ON

PRETR.IAI, MATTERS, NOR WERE AP]PELI,ANT / S

OB.]]ECTIONS ERRONEOUSLY O\ZERRULED .DTJIRINIG TRIAL,

NOR If,AS THERE FUNDAI\4ENTAL ERTi.OR OTHEIRW]ISE.

The Brooks Notice.
The trial court rul-ed on several pl:e-Lrial matters
in the instant case. Included amonq tliem was "state's
Notice of Intent to Seek Hiqher Pun j-shm,ent Based on

Prj-or Conviction Pursuant to Brooks ." CR p. 18-
L9 . Appellant did not ob; ect to thLis Notice, and

Appellant stipulated to the admisslon of the court/ s

judgment of the prior conviction during trial. RR4 pp.

The Brooks Notice was timely qj-ven under Brooks
v. State, 95'7 S.W.2d 30, 33-34 (Tex. Cr:im,, App. \991);
See al-so Vill-escas v. State , LBg S.W" 3it 290 , 294 (Tex .

Crim. App. 2006) and Fugate v. State, 20Ct S.W.3d'lBL,
783 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2006).
 The Amendment of the fndictment.

The state a-l-so moved to amend the :Lndictment twice
without objection by Appellant" An amendment of a

charging instrument shalf be made with Lhe leave of the
court and under its dlrecti-on . Tex. cod.e crim. proc .
art. 28.r0. Here, the writt.en amendment \,vas submitted
to t.he trial- court and included in th.e record in
compliance with Riney v. State, 28 St.W.3d 56I, 566
(Tex . Crim. App .2000 ) .

-Ob-iection to State/ s Ca].].ing Expert !{itness
The other objection Appelrant made before trial was

an ob j ection to the State' s calling chiad Tayror as an
expert witness, citing j_nsuf f icient notice. CR p. 33 .

Chad Taylor was allowed to testify as StaLte, s witness
wiLhout an nh-i ar-l- i nn t^ry Appellant at trizrl " RR3 pp.
65 " Appellant neither requested pre-t-riiel notice of
designation of an expert witness, nor reguested a

continuance f or the st.ate' s f a j-lure to give timely
not.ice of its intent to use an expert witnerss.
 The state must disclose the witnesses who wilf be

used at any stage of the trial upon request by the
defendant in a pre-trial motion and oriler of the triat
court . Stoker v. State , l BB S . W., 2d L, 15

(Tex . crim. App . 198 9 ) . rn the conte><. Crim. App.
1985) .

Statels Voir Dire on Enhancement olf Punishment
n-^^-t^-f
rr1-,lPe-L-Lcrllu al.so
qrr\J ohreCted
vrJJsULeLf tO VO_L.J. cl ire
LO vOir cruesf inn'i nr-r l-rrz
pJ

the State regarding the law relating tr: punishment if
it were to prove a previous felony convictj_on. RR2 pp.

B 5-168 . Appell-ant. had a prior f elony' conviction on
which the punj_shment range could be enhanced. CR pp.
R.-1 q Qrran'i f i ^r'l 'l ,, the
1
-pecl_rl_ca_Lty, State asked individual
panelists:
rn a case where a person is convicted of a

third-de.rrAA for nnr4, if the state can prove a

prior f elony conviction that resr-rlted in a

neni fLEIrL
yErrr onf i:rrz qani_ a can you consi-der
--..-vflCeT the
upper end of 20 years? you donrt have to commit
to the increased sentence, but just can you
wait and hear all the evidence i-n the
punishment phase bef ore you cons j_der your
sentence, and are you at least open to the
possibility that it could be a 2O-year
sentence? RR2 p. 86.
Over Appef lant' s running obj ection, RR2 pp. j 5-l j , t.his
l-ine of questioning was permitted by the triar court on

i-ndividual voir dire. Id.
Appellant's objection to the mention of enhanced
punishment range during individual- voir dlre was three-
pronged: first, that the issue should have been taken
up as a pretrial matter so that Appel_Iant wor-ll_d have

suf f icient time to respond to the Statr:' s argument;
sor-oncl - f hat the State had alreaclrz r:l o.secl its voir
dire, and that it could only go into .issues raised
drr ri nn rrrri r dire
9U.!!rrY vvr! s!!v of
v! the
urlv nane I
ygrrv! clrr
vq!JrrYri nr-i i nd'i rri dual
rrrva v J voir

dire; and third, that rts hiqhly pre j udir:ial and used
as
q'D A nl
q nrz hrz
-L1JUy tJJ fultshe JLaL-s
sf af e to
U\J Secure Aa rrrrv
DV\-LrIC )uLJ where;
vvr--uruIl-I
1--^^
^ O- -Lo.I9tj
portJ-on of the panel had stated that they woul-d not be

able to follow the l-aw as to punishment for this type
of case. RR2 pp. '7
5-11 .

Harassment of a public servant j-s a third degree

felony. If the State follows the proper p,rocedures and
nrn\/es
yr\JVgD fLIIghc Defendant
L-lgICIIL,IO-IIL has
fIC-!) nrerri orrsl 'iz l-reen
IJTSVI\-,rLrJr_y I-/EErI
.tr-i *^'r I "
I-LlIO.-L-Ly

convicted for an offense other than a state iail
felonrz- fhe nrrnishmenf ranne for this oJ:fense Can be

enhanced from 2 10 years conflnement to 2 20 years
conf inement and probation is no't avai.ltrbl,e . Tex. Pen.

Code Sec. 12.42. During the trial, the State did not
disclose to the jury that the defend.rnt had previously
been convicted of a felonv.

10
 vfhile the state may question the jury panel on the
applicable range of punishment, it mav noL. disclose to
the veni-re that it bel-ieves that the clef endant has
previously been convicted of a f elony " ljee Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Art 36.01 (a) . This restrj_ction is desiqned
to prevent the pre j udice that woul-d inev_Ltably result
from an announcement at the outset of the proceedings
that the state believes the defendant was previousry
convicted 9f .a n:rj- i nrrl41 of fense at a pa:rticular time
and in a particular court . See Frau,sto \r. State, 642

s.i,{.2d 506 (Tex.crim.App. r9B2). This:restriction does

not, however, prevent the trial court or: the prosecutor
from informing the jury panel in hypothLetj_cal terms of
the applicabre range of punishment if the state proves
any prior convj-ctions for enhancement pllrposes. rd. rn
the instant case, the state was careful- to stav within
the legal constraints set forth in Fraus;o, id.
Charglof the Court
Apperlant obj ected to an j-nstructio.n in the charqe
of the court. that voruntary intoxicati-on i s nor a

t1
defense to a criminal_ of fense. RR 3 p. 19 . Rel_iance

on invol-untary intoxication to negate an intent element
is prohibited by Tex. pen. Code sec. B .04 (a) ; see aLso
Hawkins v. State, 605 S.W.2d 586, 589 ( Tex . Crim. App .

1980) . Therefore, the Charge of the Court correctly
stated that law applicabl_e in this case

t2
 ARGUMENT III
IHE EVTDENCE I{AS SUFFTCIENT T(3 SIJPPORT A
CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE CIF HAITASSMENT OF A

]PT'BLIC SERVA}IT.

The standard of revlew for sufficiencv of the
evldence is whether any rationaf jury could have found
Appel-lant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (I919); Brooks v,, State, 323

S.W.3d 893, 9I2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); pc>J_k v. State,
331 S.W.3d 286,2BB-89 (Tex. App.-Eas;tland 2010, tr€t.
ref 'd) . Under t.he Jackson st.andard, an examination is
made of al-f of the evidence in the liqht. most favorable
to the verdict and determine whether:, based on that
evi-dence and reasonable inf erences f rom it, any
rational- trier of fact could have founrl t.he essential-
elements of the of fense bevond a reaso:nabl-e doubt.
Jackson, 443 U . S . at 319 . The standarcl giv'es f ull ptay
to the responsibility of the trier of fact to resolve
conf l-icts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and

IJ
to draw reasonabl-e inf erences f rom basic facts to
uftimate facts. Jackson,443 U.S. at 379; Winfrey v.
State, 393 S.W.3d'/63, 168 (Tex. Crim. Apil . 2013). The

st.andard of review is the same f or direct and

circumstanti-al evidence cases.
In the instant case, the State's wit.nesses included
fhe
(-l.Ig (lomnlninant
\/\-'ITLIJ.LCTIIIO.IlU and anofher
o.Il\,T
o.I]\-/UIIgI resn^^,{-i ^'*
Tg'JT../\J.TI\,|'III,\J "F+:r-cr-
L,'II-L\-gI hnfh
L/\JLII
'

who testif ied to the of fense. F.R3 pp. 19-52.
Appell-ant cal-l-ed no witnesses and rested wit.hout
presenting any evidence. Here, it cannot be argued
that a rational j ury could not have f or.rnd Appellant
guilty beyond a reasonabl-e doubt f or the charged
oI Iense "

t4
 ARGUMENT VI.
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTAI{CE OF TRIAI COUNSEIL IS NOT

A VIABLE CI,AIM BASED UPON THE IIEICORD BEE'ORE
TIIIS COURT.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are
analyzed under the two-prong test set out by the United
.Sf af es .Sttnreme Court. in Strickl-and v. Wa:;hinrtf on - vvspttLttY uv!t l' 466
= v v

U.S. 668 (1984), and adopted by Texas in Hernandez v.
State, 126 S.W.2d 53, 51 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).
Appelf ant must show that trial coun,sel-'s performance
was deficient, that is, counsel's representation fell
below an obj ective standard of reasoniableness. Thompson

v. State, 9 S.W.3d B0B, BL2 (Tex.Crim.App.L999).
Ap'oellant must also show that courLsel-f s def icient
performance prejudiced his defense. StrickJand, 466

U.S. at 681 ; Jackson v. State, B-l'7 S.W.2d 168, 11L

/\f Tow Cri m Ann
ez\.vrlrLL.,r-y-y.LJr .
.1 gg4Jt ) . Th'i
rrrlu s recltr i res Annel lant ShOw

there j-s a reasonable probability thert, but f or
couLnsel-' s unprof essional errors, the result of the

15
 proceeding woul_d have been di_f ferenc. StrickLand,466
U. S. at 694; Jackson, 811 S.W.2d at 'j jI. A reasonabl_e
probability is a probability sufficient T-ar unde rmi ne

confidence in the outcome. Strickl_and, tI66 rf d
. at 694;
Jackson, B'7'/ S . W. 2d at 117 .

In reviewing an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, there is a strong presumpt j-on that counsel .
s

conduct falls within the wlde ranqe o:f reasonabl_e
professi-onal- assistance and the appei_lant musr overcome
the presumption that the challenged conduct might be

considered sound trial s1-rafacrrz Thomps<>n, 9 S.W.3d at
813; strickland, 466 u.s. at 689. Any allegation of
ineffectiveness must be fi_rmlv founded and
af f j-rmatively demonstrated in the record to ove rcome

fhiq. nraqlrmnfinn
I/!vuufrryurvrr. 'Thrlmntte Owens

20
 CERTTFTCATE OF SERVTCE

r, the undersigned attorney, do hereby certify that
a true and correct copy of the above Motion was served
on the state of Texas by mailing same to the District
Attorney of Rusk County on August Il , 2015.
I further certify that I have mail_ed a copv of the
above Brief and accompanying Motj-on by First cl-ass
Mail-, postage paid, to Appel_l_ant, Temi.ka Charnette
owens at the address fisted above on the same date.

ar:kson
2,406997 6

2l