Arthur James Williams v. State ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
12-15-00017-CR
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
TYLER, TEXAS
10/5/2015 10:00:26 PM
Pam Estes
CLERK
CAUSE NUMBER 12-15-00017-CR
RECEIVED IN
12th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TYLER, TEXAS
10/5/2015 10:00:26 PM
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS PAM ESTES
Clerk
AT TYLER
10/5/2015
ARTHUR JAMES WILLIAMS
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
CAUSE NUMBER 31,592
IN THE 3RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
Colin D. McFall
Attorney at Law
513 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801-2962
Telephone: 903-723-1923
Facsimile: 903-723-0269
Email: cmcfall@mcfall-law-office.com
Counsel for Appellant
SIOZ-S0-0I
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Pursuant to Rule 38.1 (a), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appelhnt
provides a complete list ofall parties and the names and addresses of Counsel:
Defendant: Arthur James Williams
1200 East Lacy Street
Palestine, Texas 75801
Defendant's Trial Counsel: Colin D. McFall
Attorney at Law
513 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801-2962
Telephone: 903-723-1923
Facsimile: 903-723-0269
State's Trial Counsel: Stanley Sokolowski
First Assistant Criminal District Attorney
Anderson County Courthouse
500 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801
Telephone: 903-723-7400
Facsimile: 903-723-7818
SIOZ-S0-0I
Appellant: Arthur James Williams
Estelle Unit
264 F.M. 3478
Huntsville, Texas 77320-3320
Appellant's Counsel: Colin D. McFall
Attorney at Law
513 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801-2962
Telephone: 903-723-1923
Facsimile: 903-723-0269
Appellee's Counsel: Allyson Mitchell
Criminal District Attorney
Anderson County Courthouse
500 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801
Telephone: 903-723-7400
Facsimile: 903-723-7818
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 5
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 7
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT .8
IS SUES PRESENTED
I. THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A
CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY OF A HABITATION... 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 12
ARGUMENT 14
PRAYER 19
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 21
SIOZ-S0-0I
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
FEDERAL
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560
(1979) ..14
TEXAS
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) 14
Cirul v. State, 863 TexoCrim. 8, 200 S.W. 1088, 1089 (1918) 17
De Vaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62 (Tex.CrimApp.1988) 17
Dovalina v. State, 564 S.W.2d 378, 380 (TexCrim.App.1978) ..17
Gibbons v. State, 643 S.W.2d 700, 707 (Tex.Crim.App.1982). ..... ..17
Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App.2007) 14
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) 15
Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) 15
SIOZ-S0-0I
RULES AND STATUTES PAGE
TEXAS PENAL CODE
Section 15.01(a), Texas Penal Code 17
Section 30.02(a), Texas Penal Code 15
Section 30.02(a) (1), Texas Penal Code 15
Section 30.02(a) (3), Texas Penal Code 16
TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Rule 9.4(i) (3), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 20
Rule 3 8.1(a), Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure 2
Rule 38.1(e), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 8
ze
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On the 16th day of January 2014, an Anderson County Grand Juryreturned a
single count Indictment, charging Appellant, in two alternative means, with
Burglary of a Habitation (C.R., Vol. 1, Pg. 6).
On the 4th day of November 2014, Appellant plead not guilty to a single
count of Burglary of a Habitation (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 13, L. 21). Later that same
day, the jury found Appellant guilty of the single count of Forgery. (R.R., Vol. 3,
Pg. 140, L. 24).
On the 19th day of December 2014, the Court sentencedAppellant to thirty
(30) years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional
Division. (R.R., Vol. 4, Pg. 39, L. 6).
7
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to Rule 38.1 (e), Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant
provides the following Statement Regarding Oral Argument
Appellant does not request Oral Argument
SIOZ-S0-0I
ISSUE PRESENTED
THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY OF A
HABITATION.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
JoAnn Morris (R.R., Vol. 3, F'g. 20, L. 12) and her husband (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg.
20, L. 24), Phillip Morris (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 21, L. 1), lived at 901 North Sycamore
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 20, L. 17), Anderson County (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 21, L. 24), Texas.
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 22, L. 1).
On the 28th day of June 2013 (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 41, L. 3) Officer Heavner
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 40, L. 11) responded to an alarm at 901 North Sycamore (R.R.,
Vol. 3, Pg. 41, L. 10). Officer Heavner approached the garage(R.R. Vol. 3, Pg.
41, L. 25), opened the garage door and saw Appellant inside the garage with tools
in his hands. (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 42, L. 2) (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 43, L. 4). Officer
Heavner pushed the door open, Appellant pushed back, and Officer:Heavner kicked
the door. (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 43, L. 4). Appellant and the tools fell to the ground
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 43, L. 6). Officer Heavner placed Appellant under arrest (R.R.,
Vol. 3, F'g. 44, L. 14).
At trial, Ms. Morris testified thatMr. Morris told her (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 27, L.
17) the scratches on the door(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 27, L. 14) were "pry marks." (R.R.,
Vol. 3, F'g. 32, L. 2). Ms. Morris also testified that the sVratches on the door (R.R.,
Vol. 3, F'g. 27, L. 14) had not been on the door before(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 27, L. 20)
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 38, L. 7), although Ms. Morris admitted that she had never
actually looked for marks on the door before. (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 38, L. 9). State's
Exhibit 6 (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 31, L. 14), demonstrates the location of the "pry marks"
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 32, L. 2) (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 37, L. 21), below the color (R.R., Vol.
3, Pg. 32, L. 2), (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 32, L. 5), (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 32, L. 7), below the
green marks. (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 37, L. 16), (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 37, L. 18). Much like
the "pry marks," Ms. Morris had never noticed the green markson the door before.
(R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 38, L. 14).
In contrast, Officer Heavner testified the "pry marks" were exhibited by
State's Exhibit 4, belowwhere the doorknob connects to thedoorframe, where the
paint is scuffed (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 47, L. 23) (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 57, L. 22), (R.R.,
Vol. 3, Pg. 58, L. 3) and were not pictured in State's Exhibit 6. (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg.
48, L. 5). Officer Heavner later testified that there was in fact "pry marks" in
State's Exhibit 6 (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 55, L. 3), below the green marks (R.R., Vol. 3,
Pg. 55, L. 6). Officer Heavner also testified there were "pry marks" in State's
Exhibit :5. (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 57, L. 24) (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 28, L. 9).
Appellant testified that he entered the garage of Ms. Morris to hide from a
group of individual who had just robbed and assaulted him (R.R., Vol. 3, Pg. 77, L.
12).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY OF A
HABITATION.
The legal sufficiency standard is the only standard a reviewing Court should
apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a guilty vaict.
The critical inquiry is, in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution after a verdict of guilt, whether any rational jury could have found the
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonabledoubt.
Each fact does not need to directly and independently point to the guilt of the
Appellant as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is
ultimately sufficient to support theconviction.
When performing a legal sufficiency review,Courts may riot reevaluate the
weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute their own judgment for that of
the jury. When faced with record supporting contradictory inferences we presume
the jury resolved conflicts in favor of the verdict.
A person commits the offense ofBurglary of a Habitation if, without the
effective consent of the owner, the person enters a habitation, or a building (or any
portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit theft or
SIOZ-S0-0I
enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit theft.
ARGUMENT
THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO
SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR BURGLARY OF A
HABITATION.
The legal sufficiency standard is the only standard a reviewingCourt should
apply in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict
Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). Thecritical inquiry is,
in viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution after verdict
of guilt, whether any rational jury could have found the essential elements of the
crime beyond a reasonabledoubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct.
2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979);Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 912
(Tex.Crim.App.2010) (Holding that all Texas criminal cases are only to be
reviewed under the standard announced inJackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319,
99 S.Cto 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979)
Each fact does not need to directly and independently point to the guilt of the
Appellant as long as the cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances is
ultimately sufficient to support theconviction. Circumstantial evidenceis equally
as probative as direct evidence in establishing guilt, and circumstantial evidence
alone can be sufficient to support aconviction. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13
(Tex.Cri m.App.20 0 7).
When performing a legal sufficiency review, Courts may not reevaluate the
weight and credibility of the evidence and substitute their own judgment for that of
the jury. Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex.Crim.App.2012); see also
Isassi v. State, 330 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) ("[O]ur role is not to
become a thirteenth juror."). When facedwith record supporting contradictory
inferences, we presume the jury resolved conflicts in favor of the verdict.
Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex.Crim.App.2012)
A person commits the offense of Burglary of a Habitation if, without the
effective consent of the owner, the person enters a habitation,or a building (or any
portion of a building) not then open to the public, with intent to commit theft or
enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to ommit theft. See Section
30.02(a), Texas Penal Code.
Section 30.02(a) (1), Texas Penal Code
A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner,
the person enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then
open to the public, with intent to commit theft Section 30.02(a) (1), Texas Penal
Code.
The only evidence presented at trial thatarguably addressed Appellant's
intent to commit theft as he entered the habitation of Phillip Morris., on the 2g
night of June 2013, is the conflicting testimony egarding the scratches a- "pry
marks". Ms. Morris identified different marks on the door than Officer Heavner
identified as "pry marks". In fact, Ms. Morris did not recognize anything on the
door as "pry marks", until her late husband informed her fiat there were "pry
marks" on the door. However, Officer Heavner identified completely different
marks on the door as "pry marks." Officer Heavner even denied some marks were
"pry marks" until he was informed, that Ms. Morris had identified a completely
different mark as a "pry mark." Even after reviewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution no rational jury could have found the essential
elements ofBurglary of a Habitationbeyond a reasonable doubt. The conflicting
and dubious testimony regarding the timing, origin and causation of the marks on
the door, fail to evidence that Appellant possessed an intent to commit theft, when
he entered the garage of Mr. Morris. As a result, norational jury could have found
the essential elements ofBurglary of a Habitation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Section 30.02(a) (3), Texas Penal Code
A person commits the offense if, without the effective consent of the owner,
the person, enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit theft
Section 30.02(a) (3), Texas Penal Code.
(z(
It is undisputed that no theft actually occurred. Therefore,Appellee must
prove Appellant attempted to commit theft.
Criminal attempt is defined as follows: "A person commits an offense if, with
specific intent to commit an offense, he does an act amouting to more than mere
preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended."
Section 15.01(a), Texas Penal Code. An attempt implies both an intent and an
active effort to carry out and consummate the intent or purposeDovalina v. State,
564 S.W.2d 378, 380 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). "Attempt" is more comprehensive than
"intent,' implying both a purpose and actual effort to carry that purpose into
execution. Cirul v. State, 83 Tex. Crim. 8, 200 S.W. 1088, 1089 (1918). In any
attempted criminal offense, the sufficiency of the evidence must be determined on a
case-by-case basis. Gibbons v. State, 634 S.W.2d 700, 707 (Tex.Crim.App.1982).
Conviction for an attempted criminal offense does not require accomplishment of
every act short of actual commission of the offense.Id. at 706. However,
Appellant must prove that after appellant's burglarious entry he attempted to steal
property. Therefore, under the holding inDe Vaughn v. State, 749 S.W.2d 62
(Tex.Crim.App.1988), in proving the element of attempted theft, the State must
prove that appellant had a specific intent to steal a particular article of property
SIOZ-S0-0I
and that the accused engaged in anact that amounted to more than merepreparation
that tended to accomplishhis intent to steal that particular article of property.
Appellant's possession of two tools in Appellants arms,while still inside the
garage, amounts to nothing more thanmere preparation, and does not tend to
accomplish an intent to steal Mere preparation falls short ofattempt. Failing to
prove attempt beyond a reasonable doubt, meansno rational jury could have found
the essential elements ofBurglary of a Habitation.
1 s).
SIOZ-S0-0I
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays the Appellate
Court find the evidence is legally insufficient to supportBurglary of a Habitation,
reverse Appellant's conviction and render a judgment acquitting him ofsaid
Burglary of a Habitation
SIOZ-S0-0I
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Colin D. McFall, Attorney of Record for the above styled Appellant,
pursuant to Rule 9.400, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, hereby certify the
number of words within Appellant's Brief attwo thousand, four hundred, thirty
seven (2,437).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
513 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801-2962
COLIN D. FALL Telephone: 903-723-1923
Attorney at Law Facsimile: 903-723-0269
Texas Bar Number: 24027498 Email: cmcfall@mcfall-law-office.com
aCt
SIOZ-S0-0I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Colin D. McFall, Attorney of Record for the above styled Appellant,
hereby certify service of a true and correct copy of the above and foreging
document upon Anderson County Assistant Criminal District AttorneyScott
Holden, at sholden@co.anderson.tx.u4 by email transmission, on the5th day of
October 2015.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
513 North Church Street
Palestine, Texas 75801-2962
COLIN D. FALL Telephone: 903-723-1923
Attorney at Law Facsimile: 903-723-0269
Texas Bar Number: 24027498 Email: cmcfall@mcfall-law.-office.com