# NO. PD

-

______

IN THE

COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS



# RICARDO SOTO

Appellant

v. 

# STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee



# APPELLANT’S PETITION

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Petition from the 66 th Judicial District Court of Hill County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Number 38,173 and

Cause Number 10

- 15

- 00029

- CR in the Tenth Court of Appeals of Texas

Chelsea Tijerina

State Bar No. 24076733

E

- mail: attorneychelsea@gmail.com

L AW 

### O FFICE OF 

### S IMER 

### &T ETENS


### 3706 Bellmead Drive
Waco, Texas 76705 (254) 412

- 2300 (888 ) 317

- 7610

— FacsimileSoto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 1 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant, pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(a), provides the following list of all parties t o the trial court's judgment and the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel.

Appellant : Ricardo Soto

21040 West Lincoln Avenue New Berlin, Wisconsin 53146

Trial Court Judge : Hon. F.B. (Bob) McGregor Jr.

66th Judici al District Court Judge

Post Office Box 284 Hillsboro, Texas 76645 Telephone: 254

- 582

- 4045

Trial Counsel for Appellant : Josh Tetens

Simer & Tetens

3706 Bellmead Drive Waco, Texas 76705 Telephone: 254

- 412

- 2300

Appellate Counsel for Appellant : Chelsea Tijerina

Simer & Tetens

3706 Bellmead Drive Waco, Texas 76705 Telephone: 254

- 412

- 2300

Trial and Appellate Counsel for State : Mark Pratt Hill County District Attorney’s Office

P.O. Box 400 Hillsboro, Texas 76645 Telephone: 254

- 582

- 4070Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

......................................................... ..... 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

.............................................................................. ... 4

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

................................................ ... .. 6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE/

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

...................................................... ..... 6

ISSUE

The Tenth Court of Appeals erred in finding the search of Appellant valid

under Terry v. Ohio ......................................................................... 7

REASON FOR REVIEW

The Tenth Court o f Appeals disregarded established case law from the United States Supreme Court, this Honorable Court, and sisters courts of appeal to find the search of Appellant’s person constitutionally justified and within the scope of Terry v. Ohio

......................................................... ........................ 9

ARGUMENT............ ...................................................................................... 9

I. Factual Basis................................. ................................................ 9

II. Case Law

A Terry search is appropriate where the officer has reasonable, articulable facts that a person is armed and dangerous, and the

officer strictly tailors his search to a pat down for weapons.

......... ... .... 10

III. Conclusion..................

................................................... ............ 17

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

................................. ................................................ ... 17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.......................................... .................................. 18

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

.................. .................................... ............... 19Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 3

APPENDIX: Soto v. State

, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524 (Tex. App.

— Waco August 13 , 2015, no pet. h.).Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Texas Case s: Page No.

Carmouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)

... ............... ........... 9, 11, 12, 16

Griffin v. State , 215 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)......... .................................... 12

Lippert v. State , 664 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

.............................. ............... 12

Del Carmen Moreno v. State , 797 S.W.2d 228 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.)

.......................................... ............... 12, 16

Guevara v. State , 6 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999)

..................... .. 11 , 16

O’Hara v. State , 27 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).................. ........................... 11

Ramirez v. State , 672 S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

................................. .......... 16

State v. Phillips, 752 S.W.2d 194 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1988, no writ.)

......... .............. 12 , 16

State v. Williams , 312 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.)

... ...... 13, 1 6

Wood v. State

, 515 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) .............................................. 13

Worthey v. State , 805 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

......... ................................... 16Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 5

F ederal Case s : Page No.

Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 (1971)

... .................................................. 16

K atz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

........................... ..................... .............. 11

Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325 (1990).................................

................................ . . 11

Minnesota v. Carter , 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998)

................................. ........................... 11

Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40 ( 1968)

... ...................................... .... 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 , 16

Terry v. Ohio . 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

............... .................. ...... ... 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16

Ybarra v. Illinois , 444 U.S. 85 (1979)..............................

............................. .. ... 11, 16

Federal Statutes:

U.S. C ONST . Amend

. IV

................................................... .......................... 8, 10, 11

State Statutes: Page No.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 66.3............

.......................................................................... 8, 17Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 6 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

O ral argument would not benefit this Honorable Court as the issues in this

case are quite straightforward.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE /

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This is a criminal case in which R icardo Soto was convicted of possessing

less than one gram of cocaine. 1 In Cause Number 38

, 173 , Mr. Soto was indicted

as follows:

“ RICARDO SOTO hereinafter styled Defendant, on or about the 27 TH day of FEBRUARY, 2014 and before the presentment of this indictment, in the County of Hill and State aforesaid, did then and there intentionally or knowingly possess a controlled substa nce, namely, cocaine of less than 1 gram, including any adulterants or dilutants.” 2

Appellant moved to suppress evidence obtained during law enforcement’s

illegal search of his person. 3 The district c ourt denied Appellant’s Motion to

Suppress. 4

The case was tried to the bench on December 5, 2014 in the 6 6th Judicial

1 (I C.R. at 20

– 21).

2 (I C.R. at 4).

3 (I C.R. 5

– 6).

4 (I C.R. at 7).Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 7

District Court before the Honorable Judge F.B. (Bob) McGregor

. 5 During the

bench trial, Appellant re

- urged his motion to suppress evidence and the district

court again denied said motion. 6 The district c ourt found Appellant guilty of

possession of a controlled substance in penalty group one in the amount of one

gram or less and assessed punishment as follows: 20 months state jail probated for

4. 5 years and a fine of $2,000.00. 7

Appellant timely filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2014. 8 On

appeal, the Tenth Court of Appeals upheld the legality of the search and denied

Appellant’s sole issue

. 9 Thereafter, the Tenth Court deni ed Appellant’s Motion for

Rehearing on September 3, 2015. Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review is

due on or before October 19, 2015

.

ISSUE

The Tenth Court of Appeals erred in upholding the unconstitutional search

of Appellant.

REASONS FOR REVIEW

The Tenth Court of Appeals has blatantly disregarded the Fourth

5 (I C.R. at 20)

. 6 (1 R.R. at 17).

7 (I C.R. at 20

– 21).

8 (I C.R. at 27).

9 Soto v. State , 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524 at *10 (Tex. App.

— Waco August 13, 2015) (mem.Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 8

Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches. In Mr. Soto’s case, the

Tenth Court of Appeals held that the reasonable suspicion necessary to warrant a

Terry frisk need not be particula rized to the person searched. 10 The Tenth Court of

Appeals further held that Terry v. Ohio permits an officer to remov e a person’s

outer clothing during a search for weapons if the person’s outer clothing is “not

transparent

. ” 11

The Tenth Court of Appeals’ decision in this case conflicts with decisions

from the United States Supreme Court and this Honorable Court 12 as well as with

decisions from sister courts of appeal. 13 Additionally, the Tenth Court of Appeals

“has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings...

as to call for an exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals’ power of

supervision.” 14 Left unchecked by this Honorable Court, the Tenth Court of

Appeals’ holding in Mr. Soto’s case will exponentially expand the justification s

for and t he breadth of a Terry search.

op., not designated for publication).

10 Soto v. State , 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Waco August 13, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

11 Id

., at *5

. 12 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 66.3( c).

13 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 66.3( a).

14 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 66.3( f).Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 9 ARGUMENT

An officer may frisk a person for weapons under Terry v. Ohio only when

the officer has reasonable, articulable facts directed to the person searched that the

person is armed and dangerous. 15 Despite the particularity requirement

, the Tenth

Court of Appeals found the officer’s search of Appellant valid under Terry v. Ohio

based solely on the officer’s knowledge that Appellant’s companion had a criminal

history. 16

Although t he search approved by Terry v. Ohio consists solely of a “limited

patting of the outer clothing of the suspect for concealed objects which might be

used as instruments of assault, 17 the Tenth Court of Appeals found the o fficer ’s

removal of Appellant’s outer clothing constitutionally sound based on the fact that

Appellant’s outer clothing was “not transparent

. ” 18

I. Factual Basis

The Tenth Court of Appeals set forth the following facts in its opinion:

Soto was travelling in a vehicle with four other pe o ple which was stopped for vehicle equipment violations by Joe Abreu who, at the time, was working for the Hillsboro Police Department. The driver of

15 Terry v. Ohio . 392 U.S. 1, 25 (1968); Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968) ; Carmouche

v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000 ).

16 Soto v. State , 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Waco August 13, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

17 Sibron , 392 U.S. at 65.

18 Soto , 2 015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *5.Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 10

the vehicle gave his consent for Abreu to search the vehicle. After getting everyone out of the vehicle, Ab reu decided to pat

- down all the occupants for weapons. Soto was wearing a cap. Abreu attempted to
pat

- down the cap and r e moved it from Soto's head. When he removed the cap, a folded dollar bill fell out. The dollar bill contained under an

ounce of cocaine

... 19

Abreu removed five individuals, including Soto, from the vehicle. He

had information that at least one of the other individuals had a criminal history of posse ssing a controlled substance with intent to distribute and was known to traffic large amounts of cocaine

...

Abreu testified that Soto was wearing a cap and that the cap was not transparent to be able to see whether there was a weapon in it. Further, Abreu t estified that a bladed weapon like a razorblade inside a cap would not necessarily be felt when a cap is patted against someone's head. Through training at the police academy and

exp e rience, Abreu had learned that the only proper way to search a cap for bl aded weapons is to remove the cap from the person's head. 20

II. Case Law

a. To conduct a frisk for weapons, a n officer must
have reasonable, articulable facts particularized to the person to be searched that the person is
armed and dangerous.

Law enforcement may not place hands on a citizen “in search of anything”

without “constitutionally adequate, r easonable grounds for doing so. ” 21 The

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable

19 Soto , 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at * 1.

20 Id ., at *4.

21 Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40, 64 (1968)

.Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 11

searches and seizures. 22 “ Searches conducted without a warrant are unreasonable

per se under the Fourth Amendment

, subject only to a few and well

- delineated

exceptions. ” 23

In the interest of officer safety, the United States Supreme Court created an

exception to the general rule prohibiting warrantless searches which allows

officers to frisk or “pat down” a person to determine whether the person is

carrying a weapon

. 24

“ Terry does not authorize a frisk for weapons in all confrontational

encounters.” 25 A “weapons frisk” is justified only where the officer can point to

specific, articulable facts which reasonably lead him to conclude that the suspect

might possess a weapon. 26 Because ev ery individual is “clothed with

const itutional protection against an unreasonable search

, ” 27 a Terry search for

weapons must be based on a reasonable suspicion particularized to the person

searched

. 28

A person’ s mere proximity to others independently suspected of criminal

22 U.S. C ONST . Amend IV; Minnesota v. Carter , 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998).

23 O’Hara v. State , 27 S.W.3d 548, 550 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Katz v. United States

, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967)).

24 Terry v. Ohio . 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968).

25 Guevara v. State , 6 S.W.3d at 764 (citing Maryland v. Buie , 494 U.S. 325, 333

– 334 (1990)).

26 Carm ouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

27 Ybarra v. Illinois , 444 U.S. 85, 94 (1979).Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 12

activity does not, without more, justify a search of that person. 29 An officer may

not search a person in a vehicle merely because another occupant of the vehicle is

suspected of criminal activity. 30

The nature of the suspected criminal activity is a relevant consideration in

determining whether a frisk is warranted. 31 However, an officer may not “ base a

determination that his safety is in danger solely upon the basis that ‘the suspect is

a drug dealer.’” 32

b. The scope of a Terry search must be carefully limited.

Under Terry v. Ohio , the frisk must be “confined in scope to an intrusion

reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments

for the assault of the police officer.” 33 The search for weapons approved in Terry

consists solely of a limited patting of the outer clothing of the suspect for

concealed objects which might be used as instruments of assault. 34 A search for

narcotics, rather than weapons, during the frisk is not allowed. 35

28 Lippert v. State , 664 S.W.2d 712, 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

29 Del Carmen Moreno v. State , 797 S.W.2d 228, 230

– 231 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 1990, no pet.) (citing Terry v. Ohio

, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) )

. 30 State v. Phillips, 752 S.W.2d 194, 196 (T ex. App.

— Amarillo 1988, no writ.)

. 31 Carmouche , 10 S.W.3d at 330.

32 Griffin v. State , 215 S.W.3d 403, 411 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Terry , 392 U.S. at 33)).

33 392 U.S. at 29.

34 Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968)

35 Id . at 64.Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 13

“The purpose of a limited search after investigatory stop is not to discover

evidence of crime but to allow the peace officer to pursue investigation without

fear of violence. So long as the officer... has reason to believe that the suspect is

ar med and dangerous, the officer may conduct a weapons search limited in scope

to the purpose of enabling the officer to pursue investigation without fear of

violence.” 36 When conducting a pat

- down search, an officer may not employ a

more intrusive means of searching the suspect without first patting down the

suspect and feeling potential weapons. 37

c. The officer lacked reasonable suspicion d irected to Appellant that Appellant was armed and dangerous.

In Mr. Soto’s case, the officer not only testified that he did not fear for his

safety when he detained Mr. Soto and his companions on the side of the highway 38

but also that A ppellant and his companions “seemed to be very cooperative.” 39

The officer further stated that neither Appellant nor any of the other occupants of

36 Wood v. State

, 515 S.W.2d 300, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (holding the search appropria te
where “ limited to a ‘pat down’”).

37 State v. Williams , 312 S.W.3d 276, 283 (T ex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (an officer’s requesting the suspect to move her bra strap due to fear she might have a knife in her bra went beyond the bounds of a Terry frisk); Sibron v. New York

, 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968) (holding that the officer exceeded the permissible scope of a pat down search for weapons by making “no attempt at an initial limited exploration for arms” and instead “thrust[ing] his hand into [Appellant’s] pocket”).

38 (1 R.R. at 20).

39 (1 R.R. at 18); (1 R.R. at 21).Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 14

the vehicle made “any threatening gestures or comments .” 40 The officer stated that

at the time of the detention, he had no knowledge that Appellant had any criminal

history. 41

Despite Appellant’s compliance during his encounter with the officer , the

officer decided to frisk Appellant for wea pons. T he Tenth Court of Appeals held

that the officer was justified in searching Appellant because the officer had

“removed five individuals [from the vehicle] , including Appellant,” one of whom

“had a criminal history of possessing a controlled substance with intent to

distribute and was known to traffic large amounts of cocaine.” 42

By holding that the search of Appellant’s person was justified under Terry

v. Ohio based solely on law enforcement’s knowledge that Appellant’s associate

had a criminal history, the Tenth Court of Appeals stands in gross contravention of

this Court’s and the Supreme Court’s rulings. As such, this Court should grant the

Peti tion for Review.

d. The officer exceeded the scope of Terry by removing Appellant’s outer garment.

In this case, the officer’s frisk of Appellant was not confined in scope to a

40 (1 R.R. at 20

– 21).

41 (1 R.R. at 24).

42 Soto v. State , 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Waco August 13, 2015, no pet.Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 15

“ limited patting of the outer clothing ” as authorized by Terry v. Ohio

. 43 Rather

than patting down Appellant’s outer clothing, the officer opted to remove it. 44 By

removing Appellant’s outer clothing, the officer employed a more intrusive means

of searching the suspect without first patting down the suspect and feeling

potential weapons. 45

The officer testified to the following regarding his search of Appellant:

Defense Counsel: “ You didn’t pat down [Appellant]’s hat prior to

removing it, did you? ”

Officer: “ No, sir. ”

Defense Counsel : “ And once you did pat down the hat after you removed

it, there wasn’t anything that you felt by touch or contraband that you felt by touch in th e hat, was there?”

Officer: “ No, sir. ” 46

The Tenth Court of Appeals ’ bizarre reasoning for why the officer did not

exceed the scope of Terry by removing Appellant’s cap was as follows: “the cap

was part of his outer clothing, like a jacket or overcoat” and “was not

transparent to be able to see whether there was a weapon in it

... [A] bladed

weapon like a razorblade inside a cap would not necessarily be felt when a cap is

h.).

43 Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968)

. 44 Soto

, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 8524

, at *5

.Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 16

patted against someone’s he ad. ” 47

e. The Tenth Court of Appeals’ ruling conflicts with decisions from the United States Supreme Court

, this Honorable Court and Sister Courts of Appeal

The Tenth Court of Appeals’ decision in this case conflicts with decisions

from the United States Supreme Court, 48 this Honorable Court, 49 and sister courts

of appeal. 50 With the exception of Mr. Soto’s case, there is no court

- created

exception to the general rule that a warrantless se arch is unreasonable per se 51

enabling law enforcement to remove a su spect’s outer cloth in order to conduct a

weapons search

.

By finding that removing a person’s cap falls within the purview of Terry

due to the opaqueness of the cap , the Tenth Court of Appeals has created an

appalling precedent whereby law enforcement may strip a person of his outer

45 See State v. Williams , 312 S.W.3d 276, 283 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.).

46 (1 R.R. at 21).

47 Id

. 48 Terry v. Ohio . 392 U.S. 1 (1968); Sibron v. New York , 392 U.S. 40, 65 (1968) ; Ybarra v.

Illinois , 444 U.S. 85, 94 (1979).

49 Carmouche v. State , 10 S.W.3d 323, 329 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Balentine v. State , 71 S.W.3d 763, 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Worthey v. State , 805 S.W.2d 435, 438 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Ramirez v. State , 672 S.W.2d 480, 482 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)).

50 Del Carmen Moreno v. State , 797 S.W.2d 228, 230

– 231 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 1990, no
pet. ) ; State v. Phil lips, 752 S.W.2d 194, 196 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 1988, no writ.); Guevara v.

State , 6 S.W.3d 759,764 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999).

51 See Coolidge v. New Hampshire , 403 U.S. 443 (1971)

.Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 17

garments based on the officer’s inability “to be able to see” 52 throug h a person’s

clothing to determine whether a person possesses a weapon.

III. Conclusion

Upholding the illegal search of Appellant required the Tenth Court of

Appeals to wholly disregard law from this Honora ble Court and the Supreme

Court 53 and to so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial

proceedings, as to demand an exercise of the Court of Criminal Appeals' power of

supervision. 54 Therefore, this Honorable Court should grant revi ew.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Mr. Soto prays that this Court grant his Petition for Discretionary Review.

Respectfully submitted,

L AW O FFICE OF S IMER & T ETENS

/s/ Chelsea Tijerina Chelsea Tijerina

3706 Bellmead Drive Waco, Texas 7670 5 (254) 412

- 2300 (888 ) 317

- 7610

— Facsimile

E

- mail: attorneychelsea@gmail.com

State Bar No. 24076733

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

52 Id

. 53 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 66.3( c ).

54 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 66.3( f).Soto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On October 19 , 2015, a copy of this Petition for Discretionary Review was

delivered to the Hill County District Attorney by email

.

/s/ Chelsea Tijerina Chelsea TijerinaSoto v. State

—Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review Page 19

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4 Certificate of Compliance with Type

- Volume Limitation, Typeface Requirements, and Type Style Requirements

1. This brief complies with the type

- volume limitation of T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 9.4(i)(2)(D) because this brief contains 2,299 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.4(i)(1) or,

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements and the type style requirements of T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.4(e ) because this brief has been produced on a computer in conventional typeface using Microsoft Word in Times New Roman 14 point font in the body of th e brief and Times New Roman 12 point font in the footnotes.

/s/ Chelsea Tijerina Chelsea Tijerina Attorney for AppellantEnvelope Details

https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=ec477c47-b5f2-43f5-b41f-890cc72aca2b [10/19/2015 3:52:32 PM] Print this page



## Envelope 7426874

Case Information

Location Court Of Criminal Appeals

Date Filed 10/19/2015 09:57:42 AM

Case Number Case Description Assigned to Judge Attorney Chelsea Tijerina

Firm Name Law Offices of Michel Simer Filed By Michel Simer Filer Type Not Applicable

Fees

Convenience Fee $0.09

Total Court Case Fees $0.00 Total Court Filing Fees $0.00

Total Court Service Fees $0.00 Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00

Total Service Tax Fees $0.00

Total Provider Service Fees $3.00

Total Provider Tax Fees $0.25

Grand Total $3.34 Payment

Account Name Chase

Transaction Amount $3.34 Transaction Response

Transaction ID 12132644

Order # 007426874-0

Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Type EFile Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Description Petition for Discretionary Review

Reference Number 101915

Comments

Status Rejected

Fees

Court Fee $0.00

Service Fee $0.00
Rejection Information Rejection
Reason Time Rejection Comment

Other 10/19/2015
03:48:40 The petition for discretionary review does not contain a copy of the court of appeals opinion [Rule 68.4(j)]. Your petition was due to be filed October 5, 2015; it isEnvelope Details

https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=ec477c47-b5f2-43f5-b41f-890cc72aca2b [10/19/2015 3:52:32 PM] PM untimely.

Documents

Lead Document Soto v. State - Petition for Discretionary .pdf [Original]