Jaworski Lynn Adkins v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
12-14-00130-cr
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
1/11/2015 9:20:52 PM
CATHY LUSK
CLERK
ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
NO. 12-14-00130-CR FILED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 1/11/2015 9:20:52 PM
12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CATHY S. LUSK
Clerk
TYLER, TEXAS
JAWORSKI ADKINS,
APPELLANT
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 114-1676-13
FROM THE 114TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
HONORABLE CHRISTI KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR.
100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805
TYLER, TEXAS 75702
903-593-2400
STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
APPELLANT:
Jaworski Adkins
APPELLANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL
A. Melvin Thompson
2108 South Wall Street
Tyler, Texas 75701
903-596-7856
APPELLANT’S APPELLATE COUNSEL
James Huggler
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-593-2400
903-593-3830 (fax)
APPELLEE
The State of Texas
APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL
Jacob Putman
Chris Gatewood
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-590-1720
903-590-1719 (fax)
APPELLEE’S APPELLATE COUNSEL
Michael West
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-590-1720
903-590-1719 (fax)
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ISSUES PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ISSUE ONE: THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO FIND APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE
OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
ISSUE TWO: THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO FIND THE USE OR EXHIBITION OF A
DEADLY WEAPON.
ISSUE THREE: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS A CLERICAL
ERROR WHICH DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE
TRIAL PROCEEDINGS.
STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ISSUE ONE, RESTATED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ISSUE TWO, RESTATED.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
A. Standard of Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
iii
B. Law Requiring Display of Weapon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C. Application to These Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
D. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
ISSUE THREE, RESTATED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
PRAYER FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 42.01 §1 (Vernon 2013). . . . . . . . . 9
TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art. 42.12§3g(a)(1)(F) (Vernon 2013). . 9
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §1.07(a)(17)(A) (Vernon 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §29.02(a)(2) (Vernon 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 8
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2013). . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 5, 8, 9
CASES
Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 461-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).. . . 9, 10
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). . . . . . . . . . . 9
Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735, 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).. . . . . . . . . 6
Forcey v. State, 265 S.W.3d 921, 925 (Tex. App. – Austin 2008,
no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315-16, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2786-787
61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5
Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). . . . . 4, 5
McCray v. State, 876 S.W.2d 214, 217 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1994,
no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). . . . . . 6
Pitte v. State, 102 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2003, no
pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 41-42, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 2217-218,
72 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). . . . . . 9
Will. v. State, 827 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tex. App. – Houston
[1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
v
RULES
TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Tex. R. App. Proc. 43.2(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10
vi
NO. 12-14-00130-CR
JAWORSKI ADKINS, § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
APPELLANT §
§
VS. § 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, §
APPELLEE § TYLER, TEXAS
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE JUSTICES
THEREOF:
Comes now Jaworski Adkins (“Appellant”), by and through his
attorney of record, James Huggler, and pursuant to the provisions of TEX.
R. APP. PROC.38, et seq., respectfully submits this brief on appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant was indicted in cause number 114-1676-13 for the felony
offense of Aggravated Robbery, a first degree felonies as alleged. I CR 1.1
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2013). A jury was selected,
1
The Clerk’s Record is designated “CR” with an arabic numeral following “CR” specifying the correct page in the record.
The record for trial cause number 114-0329-09 is designated “CR-A”; the record in trial cause number 114-0330-09 is
designated “CR-B”; and the trial cause number in 114-0331-09 is designated “CR-C”.
1
and following evidence and argument of counsel found Mr. Adkins guilty
of the aggravated robbery as charged in the indictment. I CR 95; XI RR
55.2 Following the punishment phase of trial, the jury assessed a sentence
of twenty-two years with no fine. I CR 119; XII RR 62. Notice of appeal
was timely filed. I CR 131. This brief is timely filed on or before January
12, 2015 following proper extension by this Court.
ISSUE PRESENTED
ISSUE ONE: THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO
FIND APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED
ROBBERY.
ISSUE TWO: THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE
TO FIND THE USE OR EXHIBITION OF A DEADLY WEAPON.
ISSUE THREE: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS A CLERICAL ERROR
WHICH DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellant was indicted in cause number 114-1676-13 and charged
with the first degree felony offense of Aggravated Robbery. I CR 1. TEX.
2
References to the Reporter’s Record are made using “RR” with a roman numeral preceding
“RR” indicating the volume and an arabic numeral following “RR” specifying the correct page.
2
PENAL CODE ANN. §29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2013).
Mr. Adkins had a jury trial on both the issue of guilt and
punishment. This indictment occurred on October 11, 2013 and involved
an incident at the Conoco Crews ‘n Buy Mart in Lindale, Texas. X RR 16.
Claudette Phelps and Darthia Murray were clerks at the store. Mr.
Adkins came in, and after speaking with one of the clerks, reached into
the register and grabbed money. X RR 32.
Following evidence, the jury found Mr. Adkins guilty of the offense
of aggravated robbery. I CR 95; XI RR 55. Following punishment
evidence presented by both the State and Mr. Adkins, the jury assessed
a sentence of 22 years confinement. I CR 119; XII RR 62.
A further discussion of the facts is included in the argument
section of this brief.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The major issue in this case are the use or exhibition of a deadly
weapon. In the first two issues, Appellant states that the evidence is
legally insufficient to establish the element of use or exhibition of a deadly
3
weapon. The judgment for aggravated robbery in that case should be
reversed.
The final issue raised by Appellant relates to the incorrect finding
of the use of a deadly weapon in the judgment, when there was no finding
by the jury to support that finding.
ARGUMENT
ISSUE ONE, RESTATED: THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO FIND APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF
AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
ISSUE TWO, RESTATED: THERE WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO FIND THE USE OR EXHIBITION OF A DEADLY
WEAPON.
A. Standard of Review
Appellant contends that the evidence is legally insufficient to
support the verdict. The standard for reviewing a legal sufficiency
challenge is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315-16, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2786-787, 61 L. Ed. 2d
560 (1979); see also Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim.
4
Ohio App. 1993). The evidence is examined in the light most favorable to the
verdict. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789; Johnson, 871
S.W.2d at 186. A successful legal sufficiency challenge will result in
rendition of an acquittal by the reviewing court. See Tibbs v. Florida, 457
U.S. 31, 41-42, 102 S. Ct. 2211, 2217-218, 72 L. Ed. 2d 652 (1982).
B. Law Requiring Display of Weapon
A person commits robbery if, “in the course of committing theft . . .
and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property,” he
“intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of
imminent bodily injury or death.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §29.02(a)(2)
(Vernon 2013). A person commits aggravated robbery if he commits
robbery and “uses or exhibits a deadly weapon.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2013). A firearm, which was alleged to have been
used, is a deadly weapon per se. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §1.07(a)(17)(A)
(Vernon 2013).
C. Application to These Facts
The accused need not expressly threaten another or display a
5
weapon to commit robbery. It is sufficient to constitute robbery if the
accused places the complainant in fear of bodily injury to the degree that
‘reason and common experience’ will likely induce the complainant to part
with the property against his will. Pitte v. State, 102 S.W.3d 786, 792
(Tex. App. – Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Under the ‘placed in fear’ language
in §29.02 . . ., the factfinder may conclude that an individual perceived
fear or was ‘placed in fear,’ in circumstances where no actual threats were
conveyed by the accused. Williams v. State, 827 S.W.2d 614, 616 (Tex.
App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).
The State alleged that Mr. Adkins used and or exhibited a deadly
weapon in the case. I CR 1; TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §29.03(a)(2) (Vernon
2013). The evidence must demonstrate that the deadly weapon was used
or exhibited “during the transaction from which” the felony conviction is
obtained. Cates v. State, 102 S.W.3d 735, 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
The use of a deadly weapon during the commission of an offense means
that a deadly weapon was employed or utilized in order to achieve its
purpose. Patterson v. State, 769 S.W.2d 938, 941 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989).
Exhibition of a deadly weapon means the weapon was consciously shown
or displayed during the commission of the offense. Id.
6
There is no dispute that the offense involving Ms. Phelps was a
theft. However, Ms. Phelps only saw the gun after the theft was
committed and Mr. Adkins had left the store. X RR 45-46. She reviewed
the store’s security video and saw no gun. X RR 45-46. The other clerk,
Ms. Darthia Muray did not see a gun. X RR 61. Mr. Adkins did not
display a weapon during the theft, and not make a statement that
indicated he had a weapon. X RR 78. At best, he intimidated her by
committing the theft. X RR 79. He did not point a gun at her, did not
threaten to shoot her, and did not use a gun during the theft. X RR 79.
Other witnesses who testified also did not see a gun in the store
during the theft. Ms. Brittany Murray reviewed the statement she gave
officers and testified that she did not see a gun in the store. X RR 100-
101. Ms. Tawni Spencer did not see a gun when Mr. Adkins was inside at
the register. X RR 119.
D. Conclusion
Unless a weapon is actually displayed to an individual, a conviction
for aggravated robbery cannot stand. While the elements of robbery can
be met if during the course of a theft, a person is placed in fear of
7
imminent bodily injury, the elements of aggravated robbery require the
use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§29.02(a)(2)
and 29.03(a)(2) (Vernon 2013). The threat of a firearm is not enough. The
conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery should be reversed and an
acquittal rendered on that charge of aggravated robbery.
ISSUE THREE: THE JUDGMENT CONTAINS A CLERICAL ERROR
WHICH DOES NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS.
In this case, the final judgment reflects that an affirmative finding
was made on the use of a deadly weapon. I CR 101. However, that issue
was not submitted ot the jury in this case. This error should be corrected
through modification of the judgments.
The jury found Appellant guilty of the offense of aggravated
robbery, but the State included a separate paragraph in the indictment
alleging the use of a deadly weapon. I CR 1. That issue was not
submitted to the jury. I CR 80-95 and 109-119. The jury made no finding
of a deadly weapon in either of those two cases. However, §29.03 is an
aggravated felony specifically listed in the code of criminal procedure.
8
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 §3g(a)(1)(F) (Vernon 2013).
A trial court’s pronouncement of a sentence is oral, while the
judgment, including the sentence assessed, is merely the written
declaration of the pronouncement. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01
§1 (Vernon 2009); Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 461-62 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1986). When there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of
sentence and the sentence in the written judgment, the oral
pronouncement controls. Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2003). The trial court pronounced sentence at 22 years
confinement and no fine. XII RR 62. Later in the proceedings, after the
jury had been discharged, the court stated the sentence again and
included language regarding a deadly weapon. XII RR 65. However, that
was in error because of the lack of an affirmative finding by the jury.
The Court of Appeals may modify a trial court’s judgment. TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(b) (Vernon 2014). The courts of appeals have the authority
to reform judgments, with said reformations not limited to merely clerical
mistakes. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
When the court has the necessary data and evidence before it for
reformation, the judgment and sentence may be reformed on appeal.
9
Banks, 708 S.W.2d at 462.
A court of appeals modified a judgment to reflect the actual third
degree offense of kidnaping rather than a higher offense. McCray v.
State, 876 S.W.2d 214, 217 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1994, no pet.) See also
Forcey v. State, 265 S.W.3d 921, 925 (Tex. App. – Austin 2008, no pet.)
(Judgment modified to reflect fine amount of $2,000 pursuant to plea
agreement rather than $10,000 fine imposed). Because the jury did not
consider the issue of use of a deadly weapon,, this Court can modify the
judgments to comport with the record. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).
10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully
prays that the trial court’s decision be reversed and judgment of acquittal
rendered; or in the alternative, if this Court only sustains issue one or
two, that the judgment be modified, and for other such relief as allowed
by law.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James Huggler
James W. Huggler, Jr.
State Bar Number
00795437
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805
Tyler, Texas 75702
903-593-2400
903-593-3830 fax
ATTORNEY FOR
APPELLANT
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief of the Appellant has been
forwarded to counsel for the State by regular mail on this the 11th day of
January, 2015.
/s/ James Huggler
James W. Huggler, Jr.
Attorney for the State:
Mr. Michael West
Smith County Criminal District Attorney’s Office
100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor
Tyler, Texas 75702
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this Brief complies with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, specifically
using 14 point Century font and contains 2,538 words as counted by
Corel WordPerfect version x5.
/s/ James Huggler
James Huggler
12