No. 03-15-00096-CR 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

OF THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

____________________________________________ 

WALTER LEE SCOTT, JR., 

Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF TEXAS 

____________________________________________ 

Appeal in Cause No. 73759 

in the 264th District Court of 

Bell County, Texas 

_____________________________________________ 

REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANT WALTER LEE SCOTT, JR. 

____________________________________________ 

 

JOHN A. KUCHERA 

 210 N. 6th St. 

 Waco, Texas 76701 

 (254) 754-3075 

 (254) 756-2193 (facsimile) 

 SBN 00792137 

 johnkuchera@210law.com 

 Attorney for Appellant 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00096-CR

4973299

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/21/2015 2:47:36 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/21/2015 2:47:36 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
ii 

Table of Contents 

 Page 

Table of Contents ii 

Table of Authorities iii 

Argument 

The trial court’s order of restitution was improper because it ordered 2-3 

restitution for conduct that was not a part of Scott’s offense of 

conviction 

Certificate of Service 4 

Certificate of Compliance 5 

 
iii 

Table of Authorities 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Campbell v. State, 

5 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) ................................................................. 2 

Hanna v. State, 

426 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ............................................................... 2

Reasor v. State, 

281 S.W.3d 129 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d) ................................ 3 

Statutes 

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 42.037(b)(1)(B) ..................................................... 3 

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 42.037(b)(2)(A) ..................................................... 3 

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 42.037(k) ............................................................... 2 

 
1 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

OF THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

_____________________________________________________________ 

WALTER LEE SCOTT, JR., 

 Appellant, 

v. No. 03-15-00096-CR 

STATE OF TEXAS 

____________________________________________________________ 

Appeal in Cause No. 73759 

in the 264th District Court of 

Bell County, Texas 

____________________________________________________________ 

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT WALTER LEE SCOTT, JR. 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS: 

 NOW COMES WALTER LEE SCOTT, JR., Appellant, by and through 

undersigned counsel, and submits this reply brief pursuant to the provisions of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant raises four issues in his principal 

brief. The State has now filed its brief. Appellant responds herein to the State’s 

arguments regarding his third issue. Appellant otherwise rests on his principal brief. 
2 

Regarding Scott’s third issue: Whether the record contains a factual basis to 

support the trial court’s order of restitution. 

1. The State has moved to supplement the record with the presentence report. The 

State argues that statements in the presentence report provide a sufficient basis for 

the trial court’s restitution order: 

In this case the presentence report included a victim impact statement. 

In that statement the victim, Kasandra Holt, described how the 

Appellant threw a phone at her during the assault. She also stated that 

her cell phone had been damaged and her loss was $50.00. 

State Br., pg. 18. 

Appellant’s reply 

The State is arguing that Scott should make restitution for conduct that is not 

part of his offense of conviction. Restitution can be properly ordered for a loss 

sustained by the victim only if the loss is a result of the offense of conviction. Tex. 

Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 42.037(k); Hanna v. State, 426 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). “The trial court may not order restitution for an offense for which 

the defendant is not criminally responsible.” Campbell v. State, 5 S.W.3d 693, 697 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Article 42.037 provides: 

If the offense results in damage to or loss or destruction of property of a

victim of the offense, the court may order the defendant . . . to pay an 

amount equal to the greater of: 
3 

(i) the value of the property on the date of the damage, loss, or destruction; 

or 

(ii) the value of the property on the date of sentencing, less the value of any 

part of the property that is returned on the date the property is returned. 

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 42.037(b)(1)(B). 

If the offense results in personal injury to a victim, the court may order the 

defendant to make restitution to . . . the victim for any expenses incurred by 

the victim as a result of the offense[.] 

Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 42.037(b)(2)(A). 

 Scott was charged with causing bodily injury to Kassandra Holt by applying 

pressure to her throat or neck. CR 4. The Victim Impact Statement in the 

presentence report (the basis for the trial court’s restitution order) states on page 1: 

6. Describe Property Damage or Loss: The defendant damaged the 

victim’s cell phone - $50.00. 

TOTAL RESTITUTION: $50.00 

Payable To: Kasandra Holt 

Scott was not charged with damaging or stealing Holt’s cell phone. It was therefore 

improper for the trial court to order Scott to make restitution for a damaged cell 

phone when the cell phone had nothing to do with the Scott’s alleged “applying 

pressure to Holt’s throat or neck.” See Reasor v. State, 281 S.W.3d 129, 135 

(Tex.App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d) (improper for trial court to order 

restitution for damage done to rental home and writing hot checks where offense of 

conviction was possession of cocaine). 
4 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ John A. Kuchera 

 John A. Kuchera 

 210 N. 6th St. 

 Waco, Texas 76701 

 (254) 754-3075 

 (254) 756-2193 (facsimile) 

 SBN 00792137 

 johnkuchera@210law.com 

 Attorney for Appellant 

Certificate of Service 

 This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

Appellant’s Brief has this day been mailed to the office of Mr. Bob D. Odom, 

Assistant District Attorney, P.O. Box 540, Belton, Texas 76513. 

 SIGNED this 21st day of April, 2015. 

 /s/ John A. Kuchera 

 John A. Kuchera, 

 Attorney for Walter Lee Scott, Jr. 
5 

Certificate of Compliance with Rule 9.4 

1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) 

because the brief contains 599 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by 

Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1). 

2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) and 

the type style requirements of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(e) because the brief has been 

prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013 in Times 

New Roman, size 14 font. 

 /s/ John A. Kuchera 

 John A. Kuchera, 

 Attorney for Walter Lee Scott, Jr. 

Dated: April 21, 2015