No. 01-15-00042-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT

OF TEXAS, AT HOUSTON *********************************** MICHAEL BRENT BROWN , Appellant , V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee ,
*********************************** FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY 260 AND 163 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS, CAUSE NO. B-140,443-R TH RD HONORABLE BUDDIE J. HAHN AND DENNIS POWELL, JUDGES PRESIDING

*********************************** 

### A P P E L L A N T ' S B R I E F

***********************************

Submitted by: 

### CHRISTINE R. BROWN-ZETO

Attorney at Law 1107 Green Avenue Orange, Texas 77630 Telephone: (409) 886-8558 Telecopier: (409) 883-6523 State Bar # 03102200 Attorney for Appellant crbrownzeto@sbcglobal.net 

### ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 01-15-00042-cr FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/22/2015 1:51:02 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKNo
. 0 1 - 1 5 - 0 0 0 4 2 - CR I N T H E C O U R T O F A PP EA LS F OR T HE F I RS T S UP RE M E J UDI CI A L DI ST RI CT

OF T E X A S , A T HO US TO N *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** MI C H A E L B R E N T B R O WN , Appellant , V. T H E S T AT E O F T E X AS , Appellee ,
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** F ROM TH E DI STR I CT COUR T OF ORA NGE COUNTY 2 6 0 A N D 1 6 3 JU D IC IA L D IS T R IC T S , C A U S E N O
. B -1 4 0 ,44 3 -R T H RD HONORA BL E BU DDI E J
. HA HN A ND D EN NI S POW EL L , J UDGE S PR ES I DI NG

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

### AP P E L L AN T' S B R I E F

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** **

S u b m i tt e d b y: 

### C H R I S TI N E R . B R O W N -ZE TO

At t or neyatLaw 1107 G r een Av enue O r ange, T ex as 77630 T el ephone: ( 409) 886- 8558 T el ecopi er : ( 409) 883- 6523 St at e Bar# 03 102200 At t or neyforAppel l ant cr brownzet o@ sbc gl obal
. net 

### ORA L A RGUMENT REQUEST EDi 

### CERT I F I CAT E OF PA RT I ES I n or dert hatm em bers o f t he Courtm aydet er m i ne di squal i f i cat i on orr ecus al pursuantt o T EX AS R U LES O F A PP E L L A T E PR O C ED U R E 131( a) , Appel l ee c e rt ifie s th a t th e fo llo w in g is a c o m p le te lis t o f th e p a rt ie s a n d p e rs o n s in te re s te d in t he out com e: (a ) M IC H A E L B R E N T B R O W N , A p p e ll a n t; (b ) C h ris tin e R . B ro w n -Z e to , c o u n s e l fo r A p p e lla n t o n a p p e a l; (c ) W IL L IA M M A R C U S W IL K E R S O N , c o u n s e l fo r A p p e ll a n t a t t ria l; ( d) Kr i spi n W al ker , co unsel forAppel l ee att r i al ; and ( d) T he St at e of

T ex as, Appel l ee. SI G N ED t hi s 2 2 dayof Ju ne, 2015. ND
/ S/C hr i st i ne R. Br own- Zet o



### C H R I S TI N E R . B R O W N -ZE TO At t or neyforAppel l antii 

### TA B LE O F C O N TE N TS Page CERTI FI CATE OF PARTI ES i T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ii L IS T O F A U T H O R IT IE S iii RE QUES T F OR ORA L A RGUME NT 2 S T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E 2 -5 S U M M A R Y O F T H E P R O C E E D IN G S 5 -9 POI NTS OF A RGUME NT 9 SU M M AR Y O F T H E A R G U M EN T 9- 10 ARGU MENTS AND AUTH OR I TI ES P OI NT 1 : THE APPEL L ANT W AS N OT GR A NT E D E F F ECTI VE ASS I ST AN CE OF COU NSEL AS PROVI DED FOR I N THE 6 TH AM EN DME NT OF THE U. S. CONS TI TUTI ON. 10- 15 PR AYE R 16 C ER T I FI C AT E O F D ELI VE R Y 17 C ER T I FI C AT E O F C O M PLI AN C E 18iii 

### L I STOF A UT HORI T I ES C ases C e le s ti n e v. B la c kb u rn , 750 F. 2d 353, 356 ( 5 C i r . 1984) 13 th M o o n e y v. S ta te , 817 S. W
. 2d 693, 697 ( T ex . C r i m . App. 1991) 10, 11 S m ith v. S ta te , 894 S. W
. 2d 876 ( T ex . C t
. App. - Am ar i l l o [ 1995] )
. 13, 14 Str ickland v
. Washi

ngton , 466 U
. S. 668 ( 1984) 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 Wilke rs o n v. C o ll

in s , 950 F. 2d 1054 , 1065 ( 5 C i r . 1992) 13 th Wi lliam s v. State, 798 S. W
. 2d 368, 370 ( T ex . App. - - Beaum ont1990) 13 Win n v. S ta te , 871 S. W
. 2d 7 56 ( T ex . App. - C or pus C hr i st i [ 1993] ) 12 R ul es and St at ut es1 No
. 0 1 - 1 5 - 0 0 0 4 2 - CR I N T H E C O U R T O F A PP EA LS F OR T HE F I RS T S UP RE M E J UDI CI A L DI ST RI CT

OF T E X A S , A T HO US TO N *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** MI C H A E L B R E N T B R O WN , Appellant , V. T H E S T AT E O F T E X AS , Appellee ,
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** F ROM TH E DI STR I CT COUR T OF ORA NGE COUNTY 2 6 0 A N D 1 6 3 JU D IC IA L D IS T R IC T S , C A U S E N O
. B -1 4 0 ,44 3 -R T H RD HONORA BL E BU DDI E J
. HA HN A ND D EN NI S POW EL L , J UDGE S PR ES I DI NG

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** 

### AP P E L L AN T' S B R I E F

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** TO THE HO NO RABL E J UDG ES OF THE FI RST CO URT OF AP PEAL S: Ap p e l l a n t , MI CHAEL BRENT BRO W N, De fe n d a n ti n Ca u s e Nu m b e rB1 4 0 ,44 3 -R i n t h e 2 6 0 D i s tr i c t C o u rta n d 1 6 3 D i s tr i c t C o u rto f O ra n g e C o u n ty, T H RD T exas d oe s r es pe c tf ul l ys ub m i tt hi s b r i ef t o ap pe al t he c on v i c t i on a nd s en t ence ent er ed agai nsthi m i n t hi s m at t erby t he A ppel l ee, T H E S T AT E O F T EX AS
. Fort he2

pur pose of

j udi ci al econom yAppel l antpr esent s t hi s c om bi ned br i ef forbot h c auses of ac t i on. F o r th e C o n ve n ie n c e o f t h e C o u rt, re fe re n c e to th e P a rtie s i s b y "A p p e ll a n t" a n d "A p p e ll e e ." 

### RE QUE STF OR ORA L A RGU MEN T A p p e lla n t re q u e s ts o ra l a rg u m e n t in t h e e v e n t th a t th is C o u rto f A p p e a ls fe e ls t hatoral argum entwoul d f urt herai d t hem i n t hei rdet er m i nat i on.



### STAT EMENT OF T HE CASE Ap p e l l a n t , MI CH A E L B RE NT B RO W N, w a s c h a r g e d i n Ca u s e n u mb e rB140, 443- R w i t h t he offense of P oss ess i on of

a C ont r ol l ed Subst ance i n t hat , on o r a b o u t M a rc h 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 , a n d b e fo re th e p re s e n tm e n t o f t h is in d ictm e n t, in th e C o u n ty and St at e afores ai d, di d t he n an d t he r e i nt en t i on al l y an d k no wi ng l y posse ss a cont r ol l ed s ubst ance, t o wi t : Am phet am i ne, i n an a m o u n tby aggregat e wei ght i n c l u d i n g a d u l t e r a n t s a n d d i l u t a n t s , o f o n e g r a m o rmo r e b u tl e s s t h a n fo u rg r a ms And t he G r and J ur ors afor esai d, upon t hei roat hs afor esai d, do f urt herpr esent t h a tp r i o rt o t h e c o mm i s s i o n o f t h e afor es a i d o f

fe n s e b yt h e MI CHA EL B RE NT B R O W N , to w i t: o n M a rc h 1 3 , 1 9 8 6 , i n t h e 1 6 3 D i s tr i c t C o u rto f O ra n g e C o u n ty, RD Tex a s , i n c a u s e n u m b e rB- 8 5 0 2 4 5 o n t h e d o c k e to f s a i d Cou rt , t h e s a i d MI CHAEL B R E N T B R O W N , u n d e r th e n a m e o f M ic h a e l B re n t B ro w n , w a s d u ly a n d le g a lly conv i ct ed i n s ai d l astnam ed c ourtof a fel ony , t o wi t : D e l i v eryof a Cont r ol l ed3

Subst ance, upon an i ndi ct m ent t hen l egal l y pendi ng i n s ai d l astnam ed c ourtand of whi ch sai d c ourt had j ur i sdi ct i on; and sai d c onv i ct i on was a f i nal co nv i ct i on and was a c onv i ct i on foran o f

fense com m i t t ed byt he sai d M I C H AE L BR EN T BR O W N , pr i or t o t he com m i ss i on of t he of fense her ei nbefor e charged agai nst hi m as setfort h i n t he fi rs t p a ra g ra p h h e re o f; And t he G r and J ur ors a for esai d do f urt herpr esentt hatpr i ort o t he c om m i ss i on of t he afor esai d offense byt he s ai d MI C H AE L BR EN T BR O W N , t o wi t : Sept em ber 1 , 1 9 7 7 , i n t h e 1 2 8 Di s t r i c t Co u rt o f Ora n g e Co u n ty , Te x a s , i n c a u s e n u mb e rA- TH 9 0 9 5 on t he doc ketof sa i d c ourt , t he s ai d MI C H AE L BR EN T BR O W N , undert he n a m e o f M i c h a e l B
. B ro w n , w a s d u l y a n d l e g a l l y co n vi c ted i n t h e sa m e n a m e d co u rt of a fel ony , t o wi t : Aggr av at ed R ape, upon an i ndi ct m entt hen l egal l ypendi ng i n t he l astnam ed co u rta n d of whi ch sai d c ourthad j ur i sdi ct i on; and sai d c onv i ct i on was a f i n a l c o n v i c t i o n a n d w a s a c o n v i c t i o n fo r a n o f fe n s e b y t h e s a i d MI CHA EL B RE NT BR O W N pr i ort o t he c om m i ss i on and c onv i ct i on of t he of fense her ei nbefor e c harged a g a in s t h im in th e s e c o n d p a ra g ra p h h e re o f, a n d s a id c o n v ic tio n s e t fo r th e in th is par agr aph was pr i ort o t he c om m i ss i on of t he of fense setfort h i n t he f i rstparagr aph her eof agai nstt he peac e and di gni t yof t he St at e. O n S e p te m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 , t h e re w a s a n a n n o u n c e m e n t fo r th e A p p e ll a n t t o announc e w h a th e w ant ed t o do i n t he present ence. ( Supp. R
. R
. I ) T he c ase was r eseti n orderforso m e i nv est i gat i on t o be done on an a f f i dav i tf r om a t hi r d partywho4

was cl ai m i ng poss ess i on of t he dr ugs i nv ol v ed i n t he cas e. ( Supp. R
. R
. I , pp . 4- 5) T he part i es wer e r econv ened on O ct ober10, 2014 wher e i twas di sc uss ed t hatt he charge wi t houtenhancem ent s car r i ed a puni shm entof 2- 10 y ears i n pr i son. ( Supp. I I , pp. 4- 6) W i t h enhan cem ent s, t he Appel l antfaced a puni shm entr ange o f 25- 99 y ears o rl i fe i n pr i son fort he offense charged. ( Supp. I I , pp 6- 8)
. T her e was a pl ea bargai n of

ferof 5 y ears i m pr i sonm enti n T D C offer ed t o t he Appel l antwhi ch he reje c te d . (S u p p . R .R . I I, p p . 8 -9 ). O n O ct ober31, 2014, t he 260 D i st r i ctC ourtheard t he Appel l ant ' s p l ea of TH gui l ty t o t he of

fense of Posses si on of a C ont r ol l ed Subst ance. ( R
. R
. I I , pp. 4)
. T he C ourtadd i t i ona l l yt ook t he Ap pel l ant s pl eas of t r ue t o t he e nha ncem entparagr aph s. ( R
. R
. I I , pp. 4- 5)
. The C ourtt hen adm oni shed t he Appel l a n tof t he range of puni shm entbei ng a t er m of 25 t o 99 orl i fe i m pr i sonm ent
. ( R
. R
. I I , pp. 6, 8)
. I twas an open pl ea and resetfora c ont est ed s ent enci ng. ( R
. R
. I I , pp. 6- 7) T he c ourtfound th e A p p e ll a n t g u il ty o n O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 a n d re c e s s e d th e m a tte r to g e t a P re s e n ten c e I n ve s ti g a ti o n R e p o rtf ro m the p ro b a ti o n d e p a rt m e n t. ( R .R I II , p p .8-9 ). T he puni shm entphas e of t he t r i al t hen wentforwar d on D ecem ber11, 2014. ( R
. R
. I I I )
. T he Courta ss e ss ed puni shm entatl i fe i m pr i sonm enti n t he T ex as De p a rt me n tof

C r i mi n a l J u s t i c e - I n s t i t u t i o n a l D i v i s i o n . ( R. R. I I I , p p . 6 3 - 6 4 )
. On D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 , t h e C o u rt s ig n e d th e ju d g m e n t s e n te n c in g th e A p p e ll a n t to l ife I m pr i sonm enti n t he T ex as D epart m entof C r i m i nal Ju st i ce- I nst i t ut i onal D i v i si on. (C .R . I , p p . 2 6 -2 8 ).5

A M o ti o n fo r N e w T ri a l w a s f i l e d o n D e c e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 1 4
. (C .R
. I, p p .29 -3 1 ). A h e a ri n g w a s h e l d o n t h e M o ti o n fo r N e w T ri a l o n F e b ru a ry 10 , 2 0 1 5
. (S u p p . II I)
. Th e Co u rtd e n i e d t h e Ap p e l l a n t ’ s Mo t i o n fo rNe w Tr i a l o n F e b r u a ry1 0 , 2 0 1 5
. ( C. R. I, p p . 4 9 ).
. O n D e c e m b e r 16 , 2 0 1 4 a N o ti c e o f A p p e a l w a s fi l e d
. (C .R
. I, p p . 3 2 -3 3 ). I ti s f r om t hi s di sposi t i on t hatA ppe l l antA ppe al s.



### SU MMA RYOF T HE PR OCE ED I NGS Ap p e l l a n t , MI CH A E L B RE NT B RO W N, w a s c h a r g e d i n Ca u s e n u mb e rB140, 443- R wi t h t he of fense of P oss ess i on of

a C ont r ol l ed S ubst ance i n t hat , on o r a b o u t M a rc h 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 , a n d b e fo re th e p re s e n tm e n t o f th is in d ictm e n t, in th e C o u n ty and S t at e afor esai d, di d t hen and t here i nt ent i ona l l y a n d k n ow i ngl yposse ss a cont r ol l ed s ubst a n ce , to wi t : Am phet am i ne, i n an am ountbyaggregat e wei ght i ncl udi ng a dul t er ant s and di l ut ant s, of one gr am orm or e bu tl ess t han four gr am s. And t he G r and J ur ors afor esai d, upon t hei r oat hs afor esai d, do furt herpr esent t h a tp r i o rt o t h e c o mmi s s i o n o f t h e a fo r e s a i d o f

fe n s e b yt h e M I C H A E L B R EN T B R O W N , to w i t: o n M a rch 1 3 , 1 9 8 6 , i n t h e 1 6 3 D i s tr i c t C o u rto f O ra n g e C o u n ty, RD Tex a s , i n c a u s e nu m b e rB- 8 5 0 2 4 5 on t h e do c k e tof sa i d C o u rt , t h e s a i d MI CHAEL B R E N T B R O W N , u n d e r th e n a m e o f M ic h a e l B re n t B ro w n , w a s d u ly a n d le g a lly conv i ct ed i n s ai d l astnam ed c ourtof a fel ony , t o wi t : D e l i veryof a Cont r ol l ed Subst ance, upon an i ndi ct m ent t hen l egal l y pendi ng i n s ai d l astnam ed c ourtand of whi ch sai d c ourt had j ur i sdi ct i on; and sai d c onv i ct i on was a f i nal co nv i ct i on and was a c onv i ct i on foran o f

fense com m i t t ed byt he sai d M I C H AE L BR EN T BR O W N , pr i or6

t o t he c om m i ss i on of

t he of fense her ei nbefor e c harged aga i nsthi m as setfort h i n t he fi rs t p a ra g ra p h h e re o f; And t he G r and J ur ors a for esai d do f urt herpr esentt hatpr i ort o t he c om m i ss i on of t he afor esai d offense byt he s ai d MI C H AE L BR EN T BR O W N , t o wi t : Sept em ber 1 , 1 9 7 7 , i n t h e 1 2 8 Di s t r i c tCo u rto f Or a n g e Co u n ty , T ex as , i n c a u s e n u m b e rA- TH 9095 on t he doc ketof sa i d c ourt , t he s ai d MI C H AE L BR EN T BR O W N , undert he n a m e o f M i c h a e l B
. B ro w n , w a s d u l y a n d l e g a l l y co n vi c ted i n t h e sa m e n a m e d co u rt of a fel ony , t o wi t : Aggr av at ed R ape, upon an i ndi ct m entt hen l egal l ypendi ng i n t he l astna m e d c o urtand of whi ch sai d c ourthad j ur i sdi ct i on; and sai d c onv i ct i on was a f i n a l c o n v i c t i o n a n d w a s a c o n v i c t i o n fo r a n o f fe n s e b yt h e s a i d MI CHA EL B RE NT BR O W N pr i ort o t he c om m i ss i on and conv i ct i on of t he of fense her ei nbefor e c harged a g a in s t h im in th e s e c o n d p a ra g ra p h h e re o f, a n d s a id c o n v ic tio n s e t fo r th e in th is par agr aph was pr i ort o t he c om m i ss i on of t he of fense setfort h i n t he f i rstparagr aph her eof agai nstt he peac e and di gni t yof t he St at e. O n S e p te m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 , t h e re w a s a n a n n o u n c e m e n t fo r th e A p p e ll a n t t o announc e whathe want ed t o do i n t h e p rese n t ence. ( Supp. R
. R
. I ) T he c ase was r eseti n orderforso m e i nv est i gat i on t o be done on an a f f i dav i tf r om a t hi r d partywho was c l ai m i ng pos ses si on of the d r ugs i nv ol v ed i n t he c ase. ( Supp. R
. R
. I , pp. 4- 5) T he part i es wer e r econv ened on O ct ober10, 2014 wher e i twas di sc uss ed t hatt he charge wi t houtenhanc em ent s car r i ed a puni shm ent of 2- 10 y ears i n pr i son. ( Supp.7

I I , pp. 4- 6) W i t h enhan cem ent s, t he Ap p e l l antfaced a puni shm entr ange of 25- 99 y ears o rl i fe i n pr i son for t he of fense charged. ( Supp. I I , pp 6- 8)
. T her e was a pl ea barg a i n of

ferof 5 y ears i m pr i sonm enti n T D C of fer ed t o t he Appel l antwhi ch he reje c te d . (S u p p . R .R . I I, p p . 8 -9 ). O n O ct ober31, 2014, t he 260 D i st r i ctC ourtheard t he Appel l ant ' s p l ea of TH gui l tyt o t he offense of P oss ess i on of

a Cont r ol l ed Subst ance. ( R
. R
. I I , pp. 4)
. T he C ourtadd i t i ona l l yt ook t he A ppe l l ant s p l eas of t r ue t o t he e nha ncem entparagr aph s. ( R. R. I I , p p . 4 - 5 )
. The Cou rt t h e n a d m o n i s h e d t h e Ap p e l l a n t o f t h e r a n g e of puni shm entbei ng a t er m of 25 t o 99 orl i fe i m pr i sonm ent
. ( R
. R
. I I , pp. 6, 8)
. I twas an open pl ea and r esetfora c ont est ed s ent enci ng. ( R
. R
. I I , pp. 6- 7) T he c ourtfound th e A p p e lla n t g u il ty o n O c to b e r 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 l a n d re c e s s e d th e m a tte r to g e t a P re s e n ten c e In ve s ti g a ti o n R e p o rtfro m th e p ro b a ti o n d e p a rt m e n t. (R .R II I, p p .8-9 ). T he puni shm entphas e of t he t r i al t hen wentforwar d on D ecem ber11, 2014. (R .R . III) . A fte r m u c h d is c u s s io n , th e A p p e lla n t tu rn e d d o w n a c a p o f 6 0 y e a r s in o rd e r t o b e a b le t o h a ve t h e ri g h t to a p p e a l h i s se n ten c e . (R .R
. II I, p p . 4 -7 ). T h e re w e re s im p ly th re e w it n e s s e s to te s ti fy a t t h e s e n te n c in g p h a s e o f t h e tri a l. T h e s ta te i nt r oduce d di f

fer entr ecordi ngs f r om t he j ai l of phone cal l s a nd v i si t s wi t h t he Appel l antdi sc uss i ng t he dr ugs he was charged wi t h and get t i ng peop l e t o t ake t he c h a rg e s . (R .R
. IV , E xh i b i t 3 ). M i chael Br entBr own had b een on parol e for 19 y ears befor e t hi s charge had ar i sen. ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 16)
. D ur i ng hi s t i m e o n p arol e, M r . Br own had n otfai l ed any8

u ri n a l ys i s t e s ts a n d w o rke d m a i n l y i n the p l a n ts d o i n g co n s tr u c ti o n . (R .R
. II I, p p . 1 6 ). Th e Ap p e l l a n ta d mi t t e d h e w a s s e l l i n g s y n t h e t i c ma r ij u a n a . ( R. R. I I I , p p . 2 4 - 2 5 )
. He s up po rt ed h i s g i r l f r i en d’ s d r ug ha bi t bys el l i ng d r ug s . ( R. R. I I I , p p. 3 2- 33 )
. Mr
. Br own was t ry i ng t o getso m eone el se t o adm i twhose dr ugs t he dr ugs wer e bec ause t hey we r e no thi s dr ugs a nd t he who l e t hi ng backf i r ed on hi m . ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 43-44)
. H e j ust knew he needed st at em ent s t hatt he dr ugs wer e s om eone el se’ s d r ugs. ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 4 7 ). Essi e Bel l f i el d had known Mr
. Br own s i n ce he was a l i t t l e boy
. ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 49)
. H e was hel pi ng h e r aro u n d t he hous e pi ck i ng up t hi ngs and wi t h her decorat i ons. ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 49- 50)
. T her e wer e t hi ngs forM i chael Br own t o do att he c h u rc h . (R .R
. III, p p . 5 0 ). M r. B ro w n c o u ld h a v e b e e n a n a s s e t to th e c o m m u n ityif h e w a s g i ve n a n o p p o rt u n i ty to b e p l a c e d o n p ro b a ti o n . (R .R
. II I, p p . 5 1 -5 2 ). Th e s t a t e a r g u e d fo ra h a rs h s e n t e n c e o n t h e u p p e rr a n g e o f t h e s c a l e . ( R. R. I I I , pp. 56)
. T he Appel l ant ’ s c ounse l i ncor r ect l yargued t hatt he adul t e r ant s a nd d il u ta n ts i n th e d ru g s s h o u ld b rin g th e o ffe n s e d o w n to a s ta te j a il o ffe n s e . (R .R . I II, p p . 5 6 -5 7 ). T h e C o u rt l e t c o u n s e l k n o w th a t t h is a rg u m e n t m a d e n o s e n s e . (R .R . I II, p p . 5 8 ). T he Courtas ses sed puni shm entatl i fe i m pr i s o n m e n ti n t h e T ex as D epart m ent of C r i m i nal Ju st i ce- I nst i t ut i onal D i v i si on. ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 63- 64)
. O n D ecem ber16, 2014, t he Courtsi gned t he j udgm entsent enci ng t he Appel l antt o l i fe I m pr i sonm ent9

i n t he T ex as D epart m ent of C r i m i nal Jus t i ce- I nst i t ut i onal D i v i si on. ( C
. R
. I , pp. 26- 2 8 ). A M o ti o n fo r N e w T ri a l w a s fi l e d o n D e c e m b e r 16 , 2 0 1 4
. (C .R
. I, p p .29 -3 1 ). A h e a ri n g w a s h e l d o n t h e M o ti o n fo r N e w T ri a l o n F e b ru a ry 10 , 2 0 1 5
. (S u p p . II I)
. T h e A p p e lla n t h a d b e e n g ive n th e a d v ic e b yc o u n s e l p rio r to h is p le a th a t h e c o u ld argu e ad ul t eran t s a nd di l ut an t s atse nt en c i ng t o br i ng t he r an ge o f p un i s hm en td own to a s ta te ja il. (S u p p . R .R
. III, p p . 6 -8 ). If h e h a d n o t b e lie v e d h e c o u ld m a k e th is a rg u m e n t, h e w o u l d n o t h a ve p l e d g u i l ty. (S u p p . R .R
. II I, p p . 8 ). T he Courtdeni ed t he Appel l ant ’ s Mot i on forN ew T r i al on Febr uary10, 2015. ( C
. R
. I , pp. 49)
. . O n D ecem ber 16, 2014 a N ot i ce of Appeal was f i l ed. ( C
. R
. I , pp. 32-33)
. I ti s f r om t hi s di sposi t i on t hatA ppe l l antA ppe al s.



### PO I NT S O F A RGU MEN T PO I N T 1: THE A PPEL LA N T W A S N O T G R A N TE D EFF ECTI VE A SSI STA NCE OF CO U N SEL A S PROVI DED FOR I N THE 6 TH A M EN DM EN T OF T HE U. S. CONS T I T UT I ON.



### SU MMA RYOF T HE A RGU MEN T Appel l antco m pl ai ns of one t hi ng upon appeal
. T h e A p p el l antwas gr ant ed in e ffe c ti ve a s s ista n c e o f c o u n s e l. I n th is c a s e tria l c o u n s e l h a d h is c li e n t to p le a to a c ase i nv ol v i ng a r ange of puni shm entof

25 t o 99 orl i fe. Butt h e A p p e l l a n twas gi v en t he i dea i f

he d i d t hat hi s l awy er coul d gett he range of puni shm entch anged byargui ng t he i ss ue of adul t er ant s and di l ut ant s. I t was obv i ous f r om t he r ecord t hat10

Co u n s e l t h o u g h th e c o u l d d o t h i s a n d t h a tt h e Ap p e l l a n tt h o u g h th e c o u l d d o t h i s . He woul d nothav e pl ed i f he had not t hought t hi s was a poss i bi l i ty . H e was gi v en bad adv i ce pl ai n and si m pl e. H e had a r i ghtt o ef fect i v e as si st ance of

co unsel and di d not g e t i t i n t h i s m a tt e r. 

### A RGUMENT A ND A UT HORI T I ES PO I N T 1: THE A PPEL LA NT WA S N OT GR A NT E D EFF ECTI VE A SSI STA NC E O F CO UNSEL A S PROVI DED FOR I N THE 6 TH A M EN DM EN T OF T HE U. S. CONS T I T UT I ON. A p p e l l a n t w o u l d sh o w t h e C o u rtt h a t A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t h a ve e ffe c ti ve a s s i s t a n c e o f c o u n s e l a t t r i a l a s i s p r o v i d e d fo r i n t h e 6 A me n d me n t o f t h e U. S. th C onst i t ut i on. Appel l antr et ai ned W i l l i am M ar cus W i l kerson C am pbel l as hi s a t t or ney i n Sept em berof

2014. ( C
. R
. I , pp. 8)
. M r . W i l l i am M ar cus W i l kerson r epr esent ed M r . Br own t hroughoutt he t r i al
. ( R R
. I I - I I I )
. I twas on appe al t hatpr esentco unsel too ko ve r. ( C .R
. p . 4 ; R .R
. II I, p p . 6 5 ; R .R
. S u p p . R .R
. II I)
. T he s t andard for r ev i ewi ng a cl ai m of i nef fect i v eness of couns el was s etout byt he Uni t ed St at es Supr em e C ourti n St r ic kla n d v. W a s h in g ton , 4 6 6 U
. S. 668 ( 198 4)
. T he C ourtst at ed t he A ppe l l antm ustpr ove: (1) t hatco unse l ' s perfor m ance was def i ci ent ; and ( 2) t hatt hi s def i ci entperfor m ance pr ej udi ced hi s d efense. ( 466 U .S . a t 6 8 7 [1 9 8 4 ]). T o m eett he f i rstpr ong of t he t esti n Str

ickland , t he Appel l antm ustsh ow t hat t her e was a def i ci ency i n t he c ounse l ' s p erfor m ance. I n M o o n e y v. S ta te , the C o u rt of C r i m i nal Appeal s r equi r ed t he appel l ant ' s al l egat i on t o dem onst r at e how c ounse l11

er r ed. 817 S. W
. 2d 693, 697 ( T ex . C r i m . App. 1991)
. I n M oon ey , t he Courtfound t he appe l l anthad notdem onst r at ed i n w hatw ay s c ounse l had er r ed i n pr epar at i on, p re s e n ta ti o n , a n d i n ve s ti g a ti o n . id
. at697. O n O ct ober31, 2014, t he Courtheard t he Appel l ant ' s p l ea of g u i l t y t o t he of fense of Posses si on of

a Cont r ol l ed Subst ance and t r ue t o t he two enhanc em ent a l l e g a ti o n s b e fore rec e s s i n g t h e m a tt e r fo r a c o n tes ted s e n ten c i n g . (R .R
. II , p p . 4 -6 ). T h e se n ten c i n g p h a s e o f the t ri a l co m m e n c e d o n D e c e m b e r 11 , 2 0 1 4
. (R .R
. II I)
. T o m eet t he f i rstprong of t he t esti n Str

ickland , t he A ppel l antm ustshow t hat t her e w as a def i ci encyi n t he c ounse l ' s p erfor m ance. I n M o o n e y v. S ta te , the C o u rt of C r i m i nal Appeal s requi r ed t he appel l ant ' s al l egat i on t o dem onst r at e how c ounse l er r ed. 817 S. W
. 2d 693, 697 ( T ex . C r i m . App. 1991)
. I n M oon ey , t he C ourtfound th e a p p e lla n t's a lle g a tio n h a d n 't d e m o n s tr a te d in w h a t w a y s c o u n s e l h a d e rr e d in p re p a ra ti o n , p re s e n ta ti o n , a n d i n ve s ti g a ti o n . id . a t 6 9 7
. A r eason abl y pr udent at t or neywoul d hav e l ear ned t he range of puni shm ent and t he l aw on how t o ar gue t hatr ange of puni shm ent
. O bv i ousl y , W i l l i am M ar cus W i l k e rs o n t h o u g h th e c o u l d a r g u e fo ra s t a t e j a i l p u n i s hm enton a 25 t o 9 9 o rl i fe i m pr i sonm entca se. ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 56- 58)
. Ev en t he c ourtt ol d c ounse l i f t hatw as t r ue t hen he i s n otgui l t yof whathe p l ed t o. ( R
. R
. I I I , pp. 57)
. T hi s i s whatt he Appel l ant ex pect e d tha th e c oul d do i f he p l ed gui l ty . ( Supp. R
. R
. I I I , pp. 6- 7)
. T hi s was t he adv i ce he obt ai ned f r om co unsel
. I ti s u ndi sput abl e. H e w as t ol d t heyco ul d argue th a t t h e w e ig h t o f t h e d ru g s w a s fro m fi ll e rs w h ich c o u ld b rin g th e o ffe n s e d o w n to12

a st at e j ai l of

fense . ( S upp . R
. R
. I I I , pp. 6- 7)
. I f he had not t hou ght he had a chance to try a n d red u c e th e s e n ten c e h e w o u l d n o t h a ve p l e d g u i l ty. (S u p p . R .R
. II I, p p . 8 ). T hi s i s d ef i ni t el yhar m f ul er r orand shoul d be r ev ersi bl e. M r . W i l l i am M ar cus W i l kerson shoul d hav e proper l ypr epar ed and known t he l aw on t he i ss ue of s e n te n c in g d u rin g th is c a s e . M r. B ro w n w o u ld h a ve b e e n e n ti tl e d to a n e w tri a l w it h som eone who i s pr oper l ypr epar ed t o adv i se hi m on t he l aw i n t hi s t he m at t erso he can m ake a knowi ng and v ol unt ary ent er i ng of anydec i si on he m akes
. I n W inn v. S ta te , t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls d e te rm in e d th a t c o u n s e l w a s i n e ffe c ti ve fo r fa il in g to pr ocure ex pertm edi cal t est i m onyt hatwas cons i st entwi t h t h e defense t heoryof s u i c i d e . 8 7 1 S .W .2d 75 6 (T e x. A p p .- C o rp u s C h ri s ti [ 1 9 9 3 ])
. T he fact s a r e s i m pl e here. Al l defendant s ar e ent i t l ed t o be gi v en c om pet ent adv i ce byco unsel who k now t he l aw on a subj ectthe y hav e i nv est i gat ed and pr epar ed t hei rca se fort r i al
. T hi s d i dn’ toc curi n t hi s c ase. C ounse l was notpr epar ed on t he i ss ue of sent enci ng and i n factgav e t he Appel l anti nacc ur at e adv i ce on t he l aw t o gethi m t o pl ead gui l t y . T he case was setfora j uryt r i al and t he Appel l anthad wa nt ed a j ury t r i al up unt i l t hi s poi nt
. Bu tt hi nki ng h e cou l d ge ta chan ce t o r edu ce h is s e n ten c e b y a rg u i n g a d u l tera n ts a n d d i l u tan ts a t s e n ten c i n g , h e p l e d g u i l ty. ( Supp. R
. R
. I I I , pp. 6- 8)
. He was i nfor m ed t hat i f t hi s occ ur r ed, he woul d be l ooki ng a t a sta te j a i l fe l o n y. (S u p p . R .R
. II I, p p . 8 -9 ). W hen he r eal i zed he adv i sed t he Appel l ant i ncor r ect l y , t her e i s n ot hi ng i n t he re c o rd t h a t s h o w s t h a t h e a tt e m p te d t o s to p t h e p ro c e e d i n g s a n d m a k e t h e co u rt13

awar e of

t he s i t uat i on. ( Supp. R
. R
. I I I )
. I f t he Appel l anthad been al l owed t he o p p o rt u n ityto w ith d ra w h is p le a a t th is tim e d u e to th e in c o rr e c t a d v ic e , th is c o u ld hav e been av oi ded. Butt hatdi dn’ t occ ur . I ti s c l eart hatt he Courtt houghtC ounse l w a s m a k in g a n a b s u rd a rg u m e n t. (R .R
. II I, p p . 5 6 -5 8 ). C o u n s e l sh o u l d h a ve a tte m p te d to fi x h is e rro r. In s te a d i t j u s t g o t w o rs e a n d th e A p p e ll a n t e n d e d u p w it h a l i fe s ent ence. I tco ul dn’ tgetm uch wor se. C ounse l ' s fai l ur e t o proper l yadv i se t he Appel l anton t hi s m a t t e r gr eat l yhi nder ed t he Appel l antt aki ng awayt he real v ol unt arynat ur e of

hi s pl ea i n t hi s m at t erand t hi s l ed t o ha r m f ul er r or and wa s such def i ci entperfor m ance as t o m eett he f i rstprong s etfort h i n Str ickland
. I n t he y ears s i nce t he Str ickland dec i si o n, T ex as court s h av e def i ned t he sc ope of t he def i ni t i on i n Str

ickland
. Thi s Courti n W illia m s v. S ta test at ed t hatt he A p p e lla n t is re q u ire d to s h o w t h a tb u t fo r c o u n s e l's p e rfo rm a n c e , th e re s u lt w o u ld hav e been di f

fer ent
. 7 98 S. W
. 2d 368, 370 ( T ex . App. - - Beaum ont1990) ci t i ng Str ickland , 466 U
. S. at687 ( 1984)
. I n addi t i on t he Fi ft h C i r cui t st at ed an appe l l ant c a n n o t "s im p ly a ll e g e b u t m u s t ' a ffi rm a ti v e ly p ro ve ' p reju d ice ." W ilker son v. C o llins , 950 F. 2d 1054 , 1065 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) ci t i ng C e le s tin e v. B la c kb u rn , 750 F .2d 3 5 3 , 3 5 6 (5th C i r. 1 9 8 4 ). Any defendanti s ent i t l ed t o a defense puton t hati s a dequat el yi nv est i gat ed a n d p re s e n te d . T h is n o tio n is b a s ic to th e n o tio n th a t d e fe n d a n t is e n title d to a fa ir tr i a l
. M o re a n d m o re co u rt s a re f i n d i n g i n e ffe c ti ve a s s i s tan c e o f c o u n s e l w h e re t her e i s a cl earl ackof pr epar at i on ori nv est i gat i on. The C ourti n S m ith v. S ta te ,14

found i nef

fect i v e as si st ance of couns el wher e couns el fai l ed t o i nt erv i ew orpr esent w it n e s s e s to th e e ve n ts re s u lt in g in th e c h a rg e s . 8 9 4 S .W .2 d 8 7 6 (T e x. C t. A p p . - Am a r i l l o [ 1 9 9 5 ] )
. T he A ppel l ant ' s cas e w as notp r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d
. Mr
. W i l l i am M ar cus W i l ker son d i d no tpr ope r l y advi se t he Ap pel l ant of t he l aw on sen t enci ng so th a t h e c o u ld m a k e h is d e c is io n o n w h ic h w a yto p ro c e e d k n o w in g ly. T h is m a d e h is pl ea i nv ol unt a ry . T he St at e s houl d notbenef i tf r om t he i nef fect i v e c ounse l t he Appel l antwas gi v en. T h e s e n te n c in g fa c in g th e A p p e ll a n t i n th is m a tte r w a s 2 5 -9 9 o r li fe im p ris o n m e n t. T h e re w a s n o w a y a ro u n d th a t. F o r c o u n s e l to l e a d th e A p p e ll a n t i n to t hi nki ng he coul d gett he puni shm entr ange do wn f r om t hi s range i s j usti nef fect i v e. I tr i ses t o t he l ev el of

m aki ng t he Appel l ant ’ s p l ea i nv ol unt ary . H e wenti nt o t he pl ea th in k in g th a t e v e n th o u g h th e C o u rtto ld h im th e ra n g e o f p u n is h m e n t, h is c o u n s e l, wh o i s supp osed t o be abl e t o r el yon, i s t el l i ng h i m , we can argue forl esser t i m e so pl ea. And t hati s wrong adv i ce. I ti s o bv i ous b y t h e ton gue l ashi ng gi v en t o t he defense couns el byt he C o u rtdur i ng s ent enci ng. T hi s i s whatC ounse l was at t em p t i ng t o do. H e c oul dn’ thav e been m or e wr ong and adv i sed t he Appel l ant m or e i ncor r ect l y. Because of t hi s, t he Appel l antdi d notunderst and t he c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h i s p l e a . A n d t h e re is n o d o u b t tha t the A p p e l l a n t h a d i n e ffe c ti ve r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . The Ap p e l l a n t h a s m a d e h i s p r i m a fa c i e s h o wi n g t h a t h e di d not underst and t he c onseq uence s o f hi s p l ea.15

T h e re is a re a s o n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t, b u t fo r th is o m is s io n , th e re s u lt w o u ld hav e been di f

fer ent as prov i ded fori n Str ickland . 4 4 6 U .S . 6 6 8 , 6 8 7 (1 9 8 4 ). T h is o m iss io n p reju d ice d th e A p p e ll a n t. T h is m a tte r s h o u ld b e s e n t b a c k fo r a c o m p le te n e w tria l.16 

### PRAYER W H ER EF O R E, PR EM I SE S C O N SI D ER ED , Appel l antr espec tf ul l ypr ay s t hat t he Honor abl e Fi rst C ourtof Appeal s rev erse t he dec i si on of t he 260 and 163

T H RD Judi ci al D i st r i ctC ourt s of O ran g e C ountyand or dert hatt he s ent ence be v acat ed and a new t r i al be g r ant ed. R espec tf ul l ysu bm i tt ed,
/ s/ C h ri st i ne R. Br own- Zet o 

### C H R I S TI N E R . B R O W N -ZE TO At t or neyatLaw 1107 G r een Av enue O r ange, T ex as 77630 T el ephone: ( 409) 886- 8558 T el ecopi er : ( 409) 883- 6523 St at e Bar# 03 102200 At t or neyforAppel l ant cr brownzet o@ sbc gl obal
. net17 

### CE RT I F I CAT E O F DE L I VE RY T hi s i s t o cert i fy t hat a t r ue and cor r ect copy of t he a b o ve a n d fo r egoi ng

" Appel l ant ' s Br i ef" was t hi s d ayhand del i v er ed, m ai l ed postage pr e- pai d or t r ansm i t t ed v i a t el ecopi er( fax ) t o Kr i spi n W al ker , O r ange Di st r i ctAt t or ney ' s O f f i ce, O r ange Cou n t y Cou rt h o u s e , 8 0 1 Di v i s i o n St
. , Or a n g e , Tex a s 7 7 6 3 0 , At t o r n e yof r ecord forAppel l ee. SI G N ED t hi s 2 2 dayof Ju ne, 2015. ND
/ s/C hr i st i ne R. Br own- Zet o



### C H R I S TI N E R . B R O W N -ZE TO CE RT I F I CAT E O F DE L I VE RY T hi s i s t o c ert i fy t h a ta tr ue and cor r ectco pyof t he abov e and for egoi ng

" Appel l ant ' s Br i ef" was t hi s d ayhand del i v er ed, m ai l ed post a g e pr e- pai d or t r ansm i t t ed v i a t el ecopi er ( fax ) t o M I C H AE L BR EN T BR O W N
. , # 19780 80, H ospi t al G a l ve s ton , P .O
. B o x 4 8 , S u b s tati o n # 1 , G a l ve s ton , T X 7 7 5 5 5 , A p p e l l a n t i n t he a b o ve r efer enced ca use. SI G N ED t hi s 2 2 dayof Ju ne, 2015. ND
/ s/C hr i st i ne R. Br own- Zet o



### C H R I S TI N E R . B R O W N -ZE TO18 

### CE RT I F I CAT E O F CO MPL I A NCE I herebyce rt i fyt hatt hi s Br i ef i s i n com pl i ance wi t h A ppel l at e R ul e 9. 4 i n t hat i ti s d oes notex ceed t he m ax i m um a l l o w a n ce of wor ds al l owed. The num berof wor ds i n t hi s d ocum entar e 4333. SI G N ED t hi s 2 2 dayof Ju ne, 2015. ND
/ s/C hr i st i ne R. Br own- Zet o



### C H R I S TI N E R . B R O W N -ZE TO