Jack Handley Meyer v. State ( 2016 )

ACCEPTED
06-16-00078-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
6/29/2016 2:22:46 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
NO. 06-16-00078-CR
FILED IN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 6th COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
6/29/2016 2:22:46 PM
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
DEBBIE AUTREY
Clerk
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
JACK HAN DLEY MEYER
Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS
Appellee
BRIEF OF APPELLANT,
JACK HANDLEY MEYER
CRAIG A. FLETCHER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
109 West Austin St.
Marshall, Texas 75670
TELEPHONE: (903) 503.7676
TELEFAX: (903) 503.7680
ORAL ARGUMENT
NOT REQUESTED
State Bar(No. D0792506
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NAMES OF ALL PARTIES .1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................... iii
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................. iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE....................................3
STATEMENT OF POINTS OF ERROR..................................................................................4
STATEMENTOF FACTS........................................................................................................... 4
BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT.................................................................................................... 5
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY........................................................................................... 5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.............................................................................................................. 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................................... 13
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT...................................................................................... 14
NAMES OF ALL PARTIES
The parties to this action are:
Appellant
MR. JACK HAN DLEY MEYER
403 Houston St.
Jefferson, Texas 75657
Appellant's Counsel
HON. CRAIG A. FLETCHER
Attorney at Law
109 W. Austin St.
Marshall, Texas 75670
State of Texas
HON. COKE SOLOMAN
Harrison County District Attorney
200 West Houston, Suite 206
Marshall, Texas 75670
Page ±
The parties' counsel before the Trial Court:
Appellant
JACK HAN DLEY MEYER, Pro Se
403 Houston St.
Jefferson, Texas 75657
State of Texas
HON. COKE SOLOMAN
Harrison County District Attorney
200 West Houston, Suite 206
Marshall, Texas 75670
HON. MICHAEL NORTHCUTT
Harrison County Asst. District Attorney
200 West Houston, Suite 206
Marshall, Texas 75670
The Trial Court Judge:
HON. JOE BLACK
County Court at Law
Harrison County, Texas
200 West Houston, Suite 263
Marshall, Texas 75670
Page ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738.......................................................................................4
Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref'd).............10
Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)...................................................... 9
Flores v. State, 936 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1996, pet. ref'd).................10
Gerhardt v. State, 935 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996, no pet.)...........10
Harris v. State, 164 S.W.3d 775 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd.
.................................................................................................................9
Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254,257 (Tex.Crim.App1998) ................................... 8
Kanouse v. State, 958 S.W.2d, 509-510 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1998, no pet.)
................................................................................................................9
King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)........................................................9
Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, (Tex.Crim.App.1986)................................................9
t'4uniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) ..................................................9
Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) ................................................8
Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) ................................................... 9
Statutes
Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art 21.21 ........................................................................................5
Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 42.01......................................................................................11
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
Clerk's Record............................................................................................................................CR
Supplemental Clerk's Record...............................................................................SCR
Reporter's Record .....................................................................................................................RR
Page iii
NO. 06-16-00078-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
JACK HAN DLEY MEYER
Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS
State
BRIEF OF APPELLANT,
JACK HAN DLEY MEYER
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES JACK HANDLEY MEYER, Appellant in the above-styled and
numbered cause and Defendant in the trial court, and by and through
appointed Counsel, files this his Brief of Appellant and respectfully reports to
the Sixth Court of Appeals that no errors were found to have been committed
Page 1
by the Trial Court relating to pretrial and evidentiary rulings during trial in
Cause Number 2014-0801 in the County Court at Law of Harrison County,
Texas, before the Honorable Judge Joe Black, Judge Presiding.
Following a review of the pre-trial proceedings, trial and judgment, no
error, that was more than harmless error, was found that could be presented
for review to the appellate court, and therefore, appointed counsel seeks to
withdraw here-from and has invited response hereto from the Appellant.
Page 2
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE
The following dates are applicable to the case history in this matter:
Event Date Nature of Event CR RR(1)
Oct. 8, 2014 JP Verdict Pg. 44
Oct. 15, 2014 JP Notice of Appeal Pg. 45
A.K. Marsh. 30, 2016 State's Information (seat belt) Pg. 122
A.K. Marsh. 30, 2016 State's Information (exp. DL) Pg. 123
Apr. 4, 2016 Jury Selection Pg. 10
Apr. 4, 2016 Guilt/Innocence phase begins Pg. 39
Apr. 4, 2016 Closing argument Pg. 71
Apr. 4, 2016 Jury Verdict Pg. 155 Pg. 77
Apr. 4, 2016 Punishment Phase (Judge) Pg. 80
Apr. 4, 2016 Appellant Sentenced by Court P9. 80
Apr. 6, 2016 Notice of Appeal filed Pg. 156
June 1, 2016 Cert. of Appeal (SCR.) 4
Page 3
STATEMENT OF POINTS OF ERROR
No points of error were identified following review of the record, and this
Brief is submitted in compliance with the tenants of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On or about July 1, 2013, Trooper Jimmy Benton was on routine patrol
in Harrison County, Texas in his capacity as a DPS trooper. During said patrol,
he observed Appellant driving his vehicle while not wearing his seatbelt. The
Trooper initiated a traffic stop and subsequently learned Appellant's driver's
license was expired. The trooper issued citations to Appellant for those
violations and sent him on his way. Appellant appealed convictions out of the
Justice Court for those traffic offenses to the County Court at Law of Harrison
County, Texas. Appellant was tried before a jury in the Court at Law, and the
jury rejected his argument he was a "sovereign citizen" and not subject to these
laws, and found him guilty in both cases. The Court found Appellant guilty,
and assessed fines of $50.00, with costs of court for failure to wear a seat belt
and $150.00, without costs of court, for the no driver's license ticket.
Page 4
BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT
Following a review of the pre-trial proceedings, trial and judgment, no
error, that was more than harmless error, was found that could be presented
for review to the appellate court, and therefore, appointed counsel seeks to
withdraw here-from and has invited response hereto from the Appellant.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
It is the responsibility of Appellant's counsel to thoroughly review and
analyze the record for not only preserved error but also fundamental error.
Information:
Appellant was charged by information for committing the offenses of
failing to wear his seatbelt and for having an expired driver's license on
January 22, 2014 (CR: Pg. 122,123). The information appears to be valid on
its face and carries the signature of the purported complainant. Tex. Code
Crim. Proc., Art 21.21. The language of the information is consistent with
Sections 545.413(a) and 521.021 of the Texas Transportation Code. The
record is silent as to any legitimate challenge to the sufficiency of the
information, leaving nothing as to the information for review.
Page 5
Pre-Trial Motions:
A myriad of pretrial motions and other "affidavits of fact" were filed by
Appellant in this cause, who represented himself Pro Se, despite inquiry
concerning the right to appointed counsel by the Court. All pretrial motions
proffered by the Appellant appear to have been either denied in their entirety
or a compromised agreement was entered into by the Appellant and the
State. No legitimate issue is preserved for appellate review.
Voir Dire:
Thejury panel in this cause was qualified, and a very brief voir dire was
conducted by the state and the Appellant. Appellant did lodge an objection
to not being able to question the panel concerning their status as "sovereign
citizens", which was overruled by the court. As well, he objected to not being
able to record the proceedings with his tape recorder. There were no
objections to any of the jurors' qualifications, no Batson challenges, and no
challenges for cause overruled. Indeed, Appellant specifically stated to the
panel and the Court he had no objection to any potential jurors serving on
his case as jurors. (RR., Vol. 1, Pg. 14) No legitimate issue was preserved for
Page 6
appeal with respect to the qualifications of any potential jurors, voire dire, or
actual selection of the jury.
Guilt/Innocence Trial:
On April 4, 2016, a trial was conduct before a jury on the issue of
guilt/innocence. The State of Texas called one (1) witness:
Witness Summary of Testimony R.R. (VoI/Pg)
Jimmy Benton The State Trooper who cited the Vol. 1/Pg. 39
Appellant for the traffic violations. He
testified as to the factual events of July.
1,2013.
The Appellant only called himself as a witness.
Witness Summary of Testimony R.R. (Vol/PM
Jack Meyer Appellant. Testified as to the factual Vol. 1/Pg. 52
events of July 1, 2013 and his beliefs
held concerning his status as a
sovereign citizen.
Charge of the Court -- Punishment
No objections were lodged by Appellant to the Charge of the Court.
(RR: Vol 1, page 67). No written requests were made by Appellant for
instructions or definitions. No issues were preserved for appeal.
Page 7
The sentence imposed by the trial court after the jury verdict of guilty
was returned is within the range allowed by law and was supported by the
evidence. There is no error available to the Court for review.
Judgment
The review of the judgment in this cause (CR. Pg. 1 55) reveals that the
judgment appears to be facially valid. Texas Code of Criminal Proc. Art. 42.01.
Factual/Legal Sufficiency General Analysis
In a sufficiency review, [the appellate court] shall view all evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. Salinas V. State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).
The jury, as the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, is free to
believe or disbelieve all or part of a witness' testimony. Jones v. State, 984
S.W.2d 254,257 (Tex.Crim.App.1 998).
The jury may reasonably infer facts from the evidence presented, credit
the witnesses it chooses to, disbelieve any or all of the evidence or testimony
Page 8
proffered, and weigh the evidence as it sees fit. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611,
614 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).
Reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence is within the jury's discretion
and such conflicts alone will not call for reversal if there is enough credible
evidence to support a conviction. Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 309
(Tex.Crim.App.1 986).
An appellate court may not reevaluate the weight and credibility of the
evidence produced at trial and in so doing substitute its judgment for that of
the fact finder. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
Inconsistencies in the evidence are resolved in favor of the verdict. Curry
v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
[The appellate court does] not engage in a second evaluation of the
weight and credibility of the evidence, but only ensure the jury reached a
rational decision. frluniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 246 (Tex.Crim.App.1993);
Harris v. State, 164 S.W.3d 775, 784 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet.
ref'd.).
Page 9
The Appellant, on cross examination by the state, admitted under oath
he was in fact operating his pickup on a public roadway, while over the age of
15, on the occasion in question. He further admitted at the time of the stop
he did not have a valid driver's license (RR, Vol. 1, Pg. 64,65). The other
statutory elements required to convict for these offenses were provided in
evidence through the Trooper's testimony (RR, Vol. 1, Pg. 40-44). There are no
issues for appeal concerning legal or factual sufficiency.
Factual/Legal Sufficiency As Applied to Punishment
There is no ground upon which to appeal on the issue of punishment. A
review of the evidence for factual sufficiency is inappropriate with respect to
the assessment of punishment. See Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350, 351 (Tex.
App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref'd); Kanouse v. State, 958 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont 1998, no pet.); Flores v. State, 936 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex. App.—
Eastland 1996, pet. ref'd).
The general rule is that as long as a sentence is within the statutory range,
it will not be disturbed on appeal. Gerhardt v. State, 935 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont 1996, no pet.). In this case, the punishment assessed by the
Page 10
court was within the range provided by statute. Thus, there is no issue for
appeal (RR., Vol. 1, Pg. 80).
Assistance of Counsel:
Appellant represented himself pro se, even after admonishment by the
Court. (RR, Vol. 1, p. 50) As previously stated, the information appears valid
on its face, therefore, no cause existed to file a Motion to Quash. The stop and
all which transpired thereafter appears to be based upon probable cause and
a reasonable suspicion; therefore, no cause existed to file a Motion to Suppress.
All searches, if any, appear to be based upon either consent, subject to
detention or arrest or based upon a lawfully obtained warrant; therefore, no
cause existed to file a Motion to Suppress.
Appellant participated in all aspects of the trial from pretrial hearings to
jury selection, to opening and closing statements and bench conferences. The
Appellant was allowed to conducting cross examination of witnesses, was
allowed by the Court to testify in narrative form during his case in chief, and
was allowed to proffer objections. Appellant also participated in closing
argument. There were no objections lodged by Appellant to the charge (RR:
Page 11
Vol. 1, Pg. 67) As Appellant waived his right to counsel and represented
himself, there are no grounds for review for ineffective assistance of counsel.
Joinder of Multiple Citations
Appellant was tried simultaneously for two separate traffic-related
offenses (CR 1, Pg. 122,123). The trial of two or more offenses may be joined
in a single information if the offenses arise out of the same criminal episode.
Texas Code of Criminal Proc. Art. 42.01. In this case, rather than allege separate
offenses in the same information, the state filed two separate informations
under the same cause number. No objection was lodged by Appellant, nor
was there a Motion to Quash filed. No error is preserved for appeal, and even
if there were, any such error would constitute harmless error.
Summary:
Following review and consideration of pre-trial and trial activities
before the Trial Court, there are no points of reversible error found.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel for Appellant, JACK
HANDLEY MEYER, respectfully requests and prays that this matter be
Page 12
considered by the Court and that appointed counsel be allowed to withdraw
here-from and that this appeal be dismissed following the Appellant's
opportunity to respond hereto; and further, Counsel respectfully requests and
prays for any and all other relief, at law or in equity, to which he may show
himself justly entitled.
Respectfully suLmitte
Attorney fbrpellant
109W. Austin St.
Marshall, Texas 75670
TELEPHONE: (903) 503.7676
TELEFAX: (903) 503.7680
Email: craig@craigfletcherlaw.com
TBA # 00792506
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered by
hand-delivery to the District Attorney, Harrison County, Texas, and to the
Appellant, on
Page 13
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
I, CRAIG A. FLETCHER, do hereby certify that the foregoing Appellant's
Brief for JACK HANDLEY MEYER does comply with the requirements for a brief
preparation, to-wit:
FONT & Size: SEGOE UI, 14 pt
COUNT: 2479 words
Page 14