# RIGINAL 

# <M'l5 W3-I5

No.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

David Blaine McKinley, Appellant/Petitioner;

vs. The State of Texas, Appellee/Respondent. 

# COURTOFCRIWALAPPEALS SEP 18 2015 

### Abel Acosia, Clerk 

## FILED IN 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS SEP 18 2G15 

### Abel Acosta, Clerk

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review

In Appeals Nos. 10-14-00202-CR and 10-14-00203-CR Court of Appeals for the Tenth Judicial District Waco, Texas

David Blaine McKinley Petitioner, Pro Se TDCJ-CID #01926782 Stiles Unit 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, Texas 77705

Oral Argument. Not RequestedLIST OF PARTIES Appellant David Blaine McKinley, Pro Se Appellee The State of Texas Defense Attorney at Trial Original Plea and Adjudication Kent McGuire Attorney at Law 109 E. Franklin St. Waxahachie, Texas 75165 State's Attorneys at Trial On the Original Plea.: Mr. Patrick Wilson (or his designated representative) Ellis County District Attorney's Office 109 South Jackson Street Waxahachie, Texas 75165 Appellant's Attorney at 10th Court of Appeals John M. Perkins III Attorney at Law 201 E. Main St. Waxahachie, Texas 75165 State's Attorney on Appeal Patrick Wilson (or his designated representative) Ellis County District Attorney's Office 109 South Jackson Street Waxahachie, Texas 75165 State's Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 12405 Austiny Texas 78711

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review - Page iiTABLE OF CONTENTS List of Parties ii Index of Authorities -iv Statement Regarding Oral Argument 1 Statement of the Case 1-2 Statement of Procedural History 2 Question for Review 3 Question for Review One: Does Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.01, § 1(25) allow for a judgment to demand that Restitution be paid to a person or agency when no Restitution has been imposed? Argument for Question One ....... ..'.;:.• 4-6 Prayer for Relief 7 Certificate of Service 7 Verification or Inmate Declaration 8 Appendix A: Opinion of the Tenth COurt of Appeals 9-13 Appendix B: Written Judgments for 37611CR and 37612CR 14-20

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review

- Page iiiINDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Gases Weir v. State, 252 S.W.3d 85 (App. 3 Dist. 2008), pet. granted, pet. ref'd;. aff'd in part, reversed in part 278 S.W.3d 384 4

Statutes Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.01, § 1 4, 5, 6

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review - Page ivNo.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

David Blaine McKinley, Appellant/Petitioner;

vs. The State of Texas, Appellee/Respondent.

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS: Appellant/Petitioner respectfully submits this Petition for Discretionary Review and moves that this Honorable Court grant review of these causes and offers the following in support thereof: STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellant/Petitioner waives oral argument at this time. It is suggested that the gacts in this case are sufficient enough for the Court to determine the issues from the record.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of Indecency with a C Child by sexual contact. CR-1. The indictment, as amended, also alleged two prior felony convictions. CR-1. Appellant was also charged in cause number 37611CR with Continuous Sexual Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review

- Page 1Abuse,of a Child. Ill RR-9. Appellant entered pleas of not guilty, was found guilty by a jury, and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment in each
cause. CR 61; V RR-57-60|-=The sentence is cause number137612CR was ordered to be served after, the sentence in cause number 37611CR ceases to operate. CR 60- 61. The judgments entere.d in Appellant's causes stated that Restitution be paid to Ellis County Community Supervision and Corrections but did not impose any Restitution or Reparation to be paid.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY In Cause Number?37611CR the Appellant was charged with the offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. In Cause Number 37612CR the Appellant was charged with the offense of Indecency with a Child by Sexual Contact. The Appellant was convicted of such offenses on April 11, 2014,and appealdd the convictions. On July 2, 2015, the Waco Court of Appeals affirmed the convic tions. No motionofor rehearing was filed. On September 10, 2015, this Petition for Discretionary Review was timely forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Appellant's;:Petition for Discretionary Review - Page 2QUESTION FOR REVIEW Question One: Does Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art.. 42.01, § 1(25) allow for a judgment to demand that Restitution be paid to a person or agency when no Restitution has been imposed?

Appellant's Petition For Discretionary Review - Page 3ARGUMENT FOR QUESTION ONE Does the Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.01, § 1(25) allow for a judgment to demand that Restitution be paid to a person or agency when no Restitution has been imposed? This issue specifically raises ;the question of what a judgment should reflect when no restitution has been ordered to be paid to a victim in accord ances! th Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.01, § 1(25). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Judicial District has determined that the statute does not specify a remedy in this situation. A. The Judgments at Issue The Appellant was indicted and convicted under cause numbers 37611CR and 37612CR. The 40th Judicial District Court of Ellis County, Texas, rendered judgments in both causes on April 24, 2014. When the judgments were imposed in open court, no restitution was ordered to be paid to the victim. The written judgments reflect that no restitution was imposed. However; the written judg ments go on to reflect that "Restitution [] Be Paid To: ELLIS COUNTY COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS." See Judgments;: attached as Appendix B (Written Judgments for 37611CR and 37612CR). B. Statutory Authority Dealing With Restitution Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a trial court may impose judg ment of restitution to be paid to the victim of a crime. Because restitution is punishment, it must be included in the oral pronouncementyof sentence in order to be properly included in the written judgment. Weir v. State, 252 S.W.3d 85 (App. 3 Dist. 2008), pet. granted, pet. ref'd, aff'd in part, rever sed in part 278 S,W.3d 364. As set out in Art. 42.01, § 1, "[a] judgment is the written declaration of the court signed by the trial judge and entered of record showing the convicAppellant's Petition for Discretionary Review - Page 4tion or aquittal of the defendant." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.01, § 1. The sentence-served shall be based on the information contained in the judgment. Id. The statute further sets out what the written judgment shall reflect. In the event that the trial court orders restitution to be paid to the victim, a statement of the amount of restitution shall be reflected in the judgment. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.01, § 1(25). The requirements of the restitution amount statement are completed with an additional statement indi cating whether the trial court elected a person or agency to forward payments to the victim or whether the trial court elected to have payments made direct ly to the victim. Id, at § 1(25)(A-B). C. The Court of Appeals Determination is Flawed The Appellant argued to the court of appeals that since no restitution was ordered toibe paid by the trial court and because the written judgment reflects that that the amount of restitution to be paid is not applicable, then the written judgment should also reflect that the person or agency that the resti tution is to be paid to should also be indicated as not applicable. See Appel lant's Brief at 17. The State argued to the court of appeals that Applicant had not shown any harm in the error, but did not oppose the change to the judgment. See State's Brief at 6-7. In rendering its opinion to this issue, the court of appeals determined that "[Art. 42.01, § 1] does not speciffically address the situation in these cases where the trial court ordered no restitution be paid to the victim." 

### Opinion at 4. The court of appeals further stated that '.'[Appellant}-also cites to nothing to support the proposition that-the judgments in these cases need to be modified for this reason." Id. 

### The court of appeals has misread the statute. A plaini: reading of the 

### Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review

- Page 5
-statute indicated that "in the event" that^restitution is ordered, the judgment shall reflect a statement of the amount to be paid and to whom it is to be paid to. Because the "event"—the imposition of restitution—did not occur in Appel lant's case, the written judgment should haveireflected that the amount of restitution to be paid and whom it was to be paid to was not applicable. Moreover, a plain reading of the statute would not allow for a statement of "not applicable" to be reflected in the written judgment regarding resti tution when no restitution has been imposed. Because no restitution was imposed in Appellant's cases, Art. 42.01, § 1(25) was never triggered to take affect. As such, all statements and text regarding restitution should be removed from Appellant's judgments. D. Conclusion to the Argument Appellant was not ordered to pay restitution to the victim. The written judgments reflected this. However, the written judgments reflected that Resti tution be paid to a .county agency. The statute governing written judgments does not allow for the designation of whom restitution is to be paid when no restitution has been ordered. The statute specifically addresses this situ ation. The court of appeals' determinationto the contrary was a misunderstand ing of the statute. Appellant's written judgments should be modified to remove all statements and text concerning restitution. In the alternative, Appel lant's written judgments should be modified to reflect that the person or agency that the restitution is to be paid to is "not applicable."

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review - Page 6PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully submitted that the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas should grant this Petition for Discretionary Review. Respectfully submitted, 

# •J felu^LI David Blaine McKinley Petitioner, Pro Se TDCJ-CID #01926785 Stiles Unit 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, Texas 77705 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned Appellant/Petitioner hereby certifies that a true and cor rect copy of the foregoing Petition for Discretionary Review has been mailed, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the District Attorney, Appellate Division, Ellis. County Courthouse, 109 South Jackson Street, Waxahachie, Texas 75165, and to the State Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 12405, Austin, Texas 78711,
on this the 10th day of September,22015. David Blaine McKinley

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review - Page 7VERIFICATION OR INMATE DECLARATION 

## I, David Blaine McKinley, TDCJ-CID #01926785, DOB X*- jj£ K^bS, being presently incarcerated at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas, declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that Iihave read the above and foregoing Petition for Discretionary Review, that the facts contained herein are true and correct, and that this petition is made in good faith. EXECUTED, this the 10th day of September, 2015 

### David Blaine McKinley /

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review - Page 8Appendix A Opinion of the Tenth Court of Appeals

Appellant'soPetition for Discretionary Review - Page 9IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-14-00202-CR No. 10-14-00203-CR 

### DAVID BLAINE MCKINLEY, 

### Appellant
v. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

### Appellee
From the 40th District Court 

### Ellis County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 37611CR and 37612CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

### A jury found Appellant David Blaine McKinley guilty of continuous sexual abuse 

### ofachild andindecency withachild andassessed his punishment attwenty-five years' imprisonment for eachoffense, tobe served consecutively. These appealsensued. 

### In hisfirst issuein eachappeal, McKinley contends that thejudgments should be 

### modified to correctly reflect the attorneys for the State. McKinley argues that the 

### judgments improperly show Patrick M. Wilson, the elected county anddistrict attorney 

### for Ellis County, as the State's attorney even though the record reflects that the attorneys

### who appeared for the State in this case were Amy Nguyen and Ricky Sipes, assistant county and district attorneys for Ellis County. McKinley, however, cites to nothing to show that the elected State's attorney cannot be named in thejudgment if he did not participate in the proceedingresultingin thejudgment. TheCodeofCriminal Procedure 

### states that ajudgment shall reflect "[tjhatthecase was called and theparties appeared, naming the attorney for the state, the defendant, and the attorney for the defendant." 

### Tex. Code Crim. PROC. Ann.art. 42.01, § 1(2) (West Supp. 2014). The elected county and district attorney for Ellis County isthe attorney for theState inthis case. McKinley's first issue in each appeal is therefore overruled. 

### In his secondissue in CauseNo. 10-14-00202-CR, McKinley contends that thereis insufficientevidence to support the trialcourt'sorder forhim to pay $3,133 in courtcosts. 

### McKinley argues that theclerk's record inCause No. 10-14-00202-CR contains only abill of estimated court costs in the amount of $413; therefore, the clerk's record should be 

### supplemented by a bill ofcosts or thejudgment should be reformed to reflect the court costs contained in the record. The State responds that after McKinley filed his brief in this case, a supplemental clerk's record was filed containing the final bill of costs. The State concedes that the judgment should be modified, however, because the $3,133 

### includes attorney's fees in the amount of$2,720. The clerk's record in Cause No. 10-14-00202-CRreflects that, before trial, the trial 

### courtfound that McKinley was indigent and appointed an attorney to represent him. Once McKinley was initially found to beindigent, he was presumed to remainindigent for the remainder of the proceedings unless it was shown that a materialchange in his McKinley v.State Page 2

### financial resources had occurred. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.04(p) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court did not make any findings or otherwise address McKinley's 

### financial condition again before signing the judgment. Furthermore, the trial court appointed an attorney for appeal, stating that "the Defendant is too poor to employ counsel." Therefore, we sustain McKinley's second issue in Cause No. 10-14-00202-CR 

### and modify the judgment to delete the assessment ofattorney's fees. See Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552,555-56 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Thejudgment is modified to reflect court costs in the amount of $413. 

### In his second issue in Cause No. 10-14-00203-CR, McKinley contends that the 

### judgment in the case should be modified to accurately reflect all sections of the Penal Code that he was found to have violated. McKinley complains that the judgment does 

### not reflect the statute giving rise to the enhanced punishment—section 12.42(d) of the Penal Code. 

### Article 42.01 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure requires that thejudgment reflect "[t]he offense or offenses for which the defendant was convicted" and the "degree of offense for which the defendant was convicted." Tex. CODE Crim. PrOC ANN. art. 42.01, 

### § 1(13), (14). The judgment in Cause No. 10-14-00203-CR states that McKinley was convicted under section 21.11 of the Penal Code of the offense of indecency with a child, 

### a seconddegree felony enhanced to first degree felony- habitual offender. We conclude 

### that thiscomplies with article 42.01. We therefore overrule McKinley's second issuein Cause No. 10-14-00203-CR. 

### Finally, in his third issue in each appeal, McKinley contends that the judgment McKinley v. State Page 3

## incorrectlydemands thatrestitutionbepaidtoEllisCountyCommunitySupervisionand Corrections. McKinley argues that this section ofthejudgments should be modified to reflect that itis not applicable (N/A) because no restitution was assessed. The Code of CriminalProcedure states thatajudgmentshallreflect: "In the eventthatthe courtorders restitution to be paid to the victim, a statement of the amount of restitution ordered and



## ... the name and address ofaperson or agency that will accept and forward restitution payments tothe victim." Tex. CodeCrim. Proc.Ann. art. 42.01, § 1(25). The statute does notspecifically address thesituation inthese cases where thetrial courtordered that no 

## restitution be paid to the victim. McKinley also cites to nothing to support the proposition that the judgments in these cases need to be modified for this reason. We 

## therefore overrule McKinley's third issueineach appeal. We affirm the trial court'sjudgments as modified herein.

Before ChiefJustice Gray, Justice Davis, and 

### Justice Scoggins Affirmed 

### Opinion delivered and filed July2,2015 Do not publish [CRPM]

McKinley v. State REX D.DAVIS Justice

Page4Appendix B Written judgments for 37611CR and 37612CR

Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review

- Page 14

### r8TM1^ 

## o .^aga^g^.'g.i^-rj-j&^;^y»y»^^gJsajaa^isaaa 6 

# I 1 IS •iff



## I !!! CAUSE NO. 37611 CR THE STATE OF TEXAS ?' VS DAVID BLAINE MCKINLEY IN THE 40TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS JUDGMENT JURY VERDICT PUNISHMENT FIXED BY COURT OR JURY-NO PROBATION GRANTED Date ofJudgment: APRIL 11, 2014 Judge Presiding: BOB CARROLL Attorney for State: PATRICK M. WILSON Attorney for Defendant: KENT MCGUIRE Offense Convicted of: CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD 

### Date Offense Committed: OCTOBER 1, 2009 THROUGH AUGUST 1, 2010 Degree: FIRST T.P.C. orH.S.C: 21.02 Charging Instrument: INDICTMENT Plea: NOT GUILTY Jury Verdict: GUILTY Presiding Juror: BRANDON MCKENZIE Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s): NONE Findings on Enhancement Paragraph (s): NONE Findings on Use ofDeadly Weapon: NONE Punishment Assessed by: JURY Date Sentence Imposed: APRIL 11, 2014 Fine: $ NONE Costs:$ 3,133.00 Punishment and Place ofConfinement: 25 YEARS TDCJID Date to Commence: APRIL 11, 2014 Total Amount ofRestitution/Reparation : NONE Time Credited: 146 DAYS Restitution To Be Paid To: ELLIS COUNTY COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS THIS SENTENCE IS TO BE SERVED CONCURRENT OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

PAGE ONE OF FIVE WITH ANY OTHER SENTENCE UNLESS

'"turn! k

m 

### S I 

## I SI! t «i: ¥'• iara^as^iTji^E.-^^pasSSasiHaiQm ^siiSM2KS».iaKssfciajsBS3aSS^SSa; r^ES^ai^jaigaog^yjj!;^

is 

# 1 its



### IS

lis 5} CAUSE NO. 37611 CR THE STATE OF TEXAS VS DAVID BLAINE MCKINI.r.V 

## On this day set forth above, the cause was called tor trial, and the State appeared bv the above named 

## attorney, and the Defendant appeared in person in open court, the above-named counsel for Defendantalso being 

## present, and saidDefendanthaving beenduly arraignedand in appearingtotheCourt thatDefendantwas mentally competent, andhavingpleadedas shownabove to the indictment herein, bothparties announcedreadv fortrial and 

## hereupon a jury, to-wit, the abovenamedforeman andeleven others was duly selected, impaneled and sworn who 

# •j. having heard the indictmentread and the Defendant's pleathereto, and having heard the evidence submitted, and j| havingbeendulychargedbytheCourt, retiredinchargeofthe properofficertoconsidertheverdict, andafterward |j| were brought into Court by the properofficer, the Defendantand Defendant's counsel being present and returned into open Court the verdict set forth above, which was received by the Court and is here now entered upon the minutes of the Court as shown above. 

## r

hereupon, theDefendantelectedto havepunishment:assessedbytheaboveshownassessorofpunishment andwhen shownabovethattheindictmentcontainsenhancement:paragraph(s), whichwerenotwaived,andalleges Defendant to have been convicted previously of any felony or offenses for the purpose ofenhancement of punishment, thentheCourtaskedDefendantif suchallegationsweretrueorfalseand Defendantansweredas shown 

## above And when Defendant is shown above to have elected to have thejury assess punishment, suchjury was called back into the box mid heard evidence related to the question ofpunishment and having been duly charged by the Court, they retired to consider such questions, and alter having deliberated, they returned into Court the 

## verdict shown underpunishment above; and when Defendant is shown above to have electedto have punishment 

## fixed by the Court, in due form oflaw further evidence was heard by the Court relative to the question of punishment: and the Court fixed the punishment ofthe Defendant as shown above.

PAGE 'WO OF FIVE 

### \, °F EL\A*j m ¥• m 

## 1 I 1

I 

### i •if ?( 

### t 

# I t 

## I ¥ Ijj^SaHBaQraaSBHKSi^^ 

## •* asssiBESssssuaasaHEaES^^ 

### $ CAUSE NO. 37611CR

!<9

•Is THE STATE OF TEXAS VS DAVID BLAINE MCKINLEY 

### IT IS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERED and ORDERED by the Court, in the Court, in presence ofthe Defendant, that the said judgment be, and the said is hereby in all things approved and confirmed, and that the 

### Defendant is adjudged guilty ofthe offense set forth above as found by the verdict ofthejury, as set forth above, and said Defendant be punished in accordance with the Jury Verdict or the Court's Findings, as shown above and that the Defendant is sentenced to aterm ofimprisonmentorline orboth, as set forth above, and that said Defendant be delivered by the Sheriffto the Director ofthe Department ofCriminal Justice. Institutional Division ofthe State 

### ofTexas, or other person legally authorized to receive such convicts for the punishment assessed herein, and the 

### said Defendantshall be confined for the above named term in accordance with the provisions of lawgoverning such punishments and execution may issue as necessary. 

### And the said Defendant is remanded tojail until said Sheriffcan obey the directions ofthis judgment.

SIGNED THIS 

# 4L

Notice ofAppeal: NONE

PAGE THREE OF FIVE DAY OF 

# 4^

BOB CARROL] Judge Presiding

:N

WBasssKSMHrs^^fjpsaraSssMS^ BSgJSSJgBB^

'4 IB

its



### 1 13 it*



### i 

# 1

•I :S :*) THE STATE OF TEXAS VS DAVID BLAINE MCKINLEY CAUSE NOs376I2£r
im ''••' fv» IN THE 40TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF ELLIS COUNTY, TEXAS JUDGMENT JURY VERDICT 

### PUNISHMENT FIXED BYCOURT OR JURY-NO PROBATION GRANTED Date ofJudgment: APRIL 11,2014 Judge Presiding: BOB CARROLL Attorney for State: PATRICK ML WILSON Attorney for Defendant: KENT MCGUIRE Offense Convicted of: INDECENCY WITH A CHILD 

### Date Offense Committed: MAY 1, 2012 

## Degree. SECOND DEGREE FELONY ENHANCED TO FIRST DEGREE FELONY
- HABITUAL T.P.C. orll.S.C: 21.1.1 Charging Instrument: INDICTMENT Plea: NOT GUILTY Jury Verdict: GUILTY Presiding Juror: BRANDON MCKENZIE 

### Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s): NOT TRUE 

### Findings on Enhancement Paragraph (s): TRUE Findings onUse ofDeadly Weapon: NONE Punishment Assessed by: JURY DateSentence Imposed: APRIL 11, 2014 Fine: $ NONE Costs:$ 413.00 Punishment and PlaceofConfinement: 25 YEARS TDCJID Date to Commence: APRIL 11, 2014 Total Amount of Restitution/Reparation : NONE Time Credited: 146 DAYS 

### Restitution To Be Paid To: ELLIS COUNTY COMMUNITY SUPERVISIONAND CORRECTIONS IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BYTHE COURT THAT THE PUNISHMENT UNDER THE JUDGMENT HERE IMPOSED SHALL BEGIN WHEN THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN CAUSE NO. 3761 ICR IN THE 40TH DISTRICT COURT OF ELLIS COUNTY 

### TEXAS, WHEREIN THE DEFENDANT WAS ON THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014, DULY AND LEGALLY SENTENCED TO A TERM OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FORTHE OFFENSE OF 

## CONTINUOUS SEXUAL ABUSE OFACHILD IN CAUSE NO. 3761 ICR SHALlAiAV^EMED TO OPERATE. •/^^Zi-^A*

PAGE ONE OF FIVE

*1?»^^?KS^S^J^^S^-Ssskk^^

!S

m IS

;i» ft II? 1*5 CAUSE NO. 37612CR THE STATE OF TEXAS VS DAVID BLAINE MCKINLEY 

## On this day. set forth above, the cause was called for trial, and the State appeared bv the above named 

## attorney, and the Defendant appeared in person in open court, the above-named counsel forDefendant also being present, and said Defendanthaving been dulyarraigned andin appearing to theCourt that Defendant wasmentally 

## competent, and having pleadedas shownaboveto the indictmentherein, both parties announcedready fortrial and thereupon a jury, to-wit, the abovenamed foreman andelevenothers was duly selected, impaneled andsworn who having heard the indictment read and the Defendant's plea thereto, and having heard the evidence submitted and having beendulychargedby the Court, retired in chargeofthe properofficerto considerthe verdict, andafterward 

## were brought into Court by the properofficer, the Defendant and Defendant's counsel being present and returned into open Court the verdict set forth above, which was received by the Court and is here now entered upon the minutes of the Court as shown above. 

## Thereupon, theDefendantelected tohavepunishmentassessedbytheaboveshownassessorofpunishment 

## andwhenshownabovethattheindictmentcontainsenhancementparagraph(s), whichwerenotwaived, andalleges Defendant to have been convicted previously ofany felony or offenses for the purpose ofenhancement of punishment, thenthe Courtasked Defendantif suchallegations weretrueorfalse and Defendantansweredas shown 

## above And when Defendant is shown above to have elected to have thejury assess punishment, such jury was called back into the box and heard evidence related to the question ofpunishment and having been duly char«ed by the Court, they retired to consider such questions, and after having deliberated, they returned into Court the 

## verdict shownunderpunishmentabove; and when Defendantis shown above to have electedto have punishment fixed by the Court, in due form of law further evidence was heard by the Court relative to the question of punishment and the Court fixed the punishment ofthe Defendant as shown above. r

i

k

PAGE TWO OF FIVE

:!5!?SSS£^^S*^ HBHBjKraregaggKKSgBasaS^^ s.vssssassswsssgsssssassx^i SSSSaaSaSOSBOSasi



## I 

# s I

w :^ i 

## 1 CAUSE NO. 376! 2CR THE STATE OF TEXAS VS DAVID BLAINE MCKINI FY 

## '"S, II EREFORE. CONSIDERED and ORDERED by the Court, in the Court, in presence ofthe Defendant that the saidjudgment be, and the said is hereby in all things approved and confirmed, and that the Defendant ,s adjudged guilty ofthe offense set forth above as found by the verdictofthejurv. as set forth above and said Defendant be punished in accordance with the Jury Verdict or the Court's Findings/as shownabove and thattheDefendantissentencedtoa termofimprisonmentorfineorboth, assetforth above, andthatsaidDefendant 

## bedeliveredbythe Sheriffto the Directorofthe DepartmentofCriminal Justice, Institutional Division ofthe State ofTexas, or otherperson legally authorized to receive such convicts for the punishment assessed herein, and the saidDefendantshallbeconfined fortheabovenamedterminaccordancewiththeprovisionsoflaw«ovemin« such punishments and execution may issue as necessary, w " 

## And the said Defendant is remanded tojail until said Sheriffcan obey the directions ofthisjudgment.

SIGNED THIS DAY OF

Notice ofAppeal: NONE

PAGE THREE OF FIVE 

## %

BOB CARROLL Judge Presiding 2014. 

## I 

# I
I ¥ 

### I

•*®S»»^5^OT^«OTE^^