1 No. 03

- 14 -00673- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

******** 

# CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY GEORGE

VS.


# THE STATE OF TEXAS

********

ON APPEAL FROM THE 264 th DISTRICT COURT

OF BELL COUNTY, TEXAS Cause No. 72,519

****** 

# STATE’S BRIEF

******

HENRY GARZA DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BOB D. ODOM ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY P.O. Box 540 Belton, Tx 76513 (254) 933-5215 FAX (254) 933-5704 DistrictAttorney@co.bell.tx.us SBA No. 15200000



### Oral Argument Not Requested ACCEPTED 03-14-00673-CR 4142604 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/13/2015 11:33:02 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Index of Authorities

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 3
Statement Regarding Oral Argument

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

Statement of the Case

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

Statemen t of Facts

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5
Summary of State’s Argument

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 7
Argument and Authorities

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 7
Issue on Appeal

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 7

SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE APPELLANT IN POSSESSION OF FIREARM BEFORE 5 TH ANNIVERSARY OF RELEASE FROM INCARCERATION OR PAROLE?

Standard of Rev iew

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 7
Application and Analysis

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 8

Prayer

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 13
Certificate of Compliance with Rule 9

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 14

Certificate of Service

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 143 

## INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Brooks v. State , 323 S.W. 3d 89 3 (Tx. Cr. App. 2011)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 7
Clayton v. State , 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tx. Cr. App. 2007)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 8

Fagan v. State , 362 S.W.3d 796

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 11 (Tx. App. Texarkana 6 th Dist. 2012 no pet.)

Gill v. State , 57 S.W.3d 540

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 10 (Tx. App. Waco 10 th Dist. 2001 no pet.)

Saldana v. State , 418 S.W.3d 722

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 11 (Tx. App. Amarillo 7 th Dist. 2013 no pet.)

Tawater v. State , No. 06

- 14

- 00075

- CR,

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 12 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13176, (Tx. App. Texarkana 6 th Dist. 2014 no pet.), not designated for publication.

O THER

Texas Penal Code
Section 46.04(a ) ( 1)

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 84



## STA TEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The State does not request oral argument.



## STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Appellant, Christopher Anthony George, was charged by

indictment with the offense of U nlawful P ossession of a F irearm by a

F elon. (CR

- 5). He was tried before a jury upon his plea of “not guilty”
(RR6

- 6).
The Appellant was found guilty by the jury (CR

- 52; RR7

- 94). The
Appellant then entered a plea of true to the allegations in the second
paragraph of the indictment alleging a nother prior felony convictio n for

the offense of B urglary of a H abitation for the purpose of enhancement

. (CR

- 5; RR7

- 95).

The trial court considered the issue as to punishment, without a

jury

. The court sentenced the Appellant to 18 years in the Texas
Department of Corrections Inst itutional Division. (CR

- 53; RR8

- 11).
The Appellant gave timely notice of appeal (CR

- 58) and the trial
court certified his right to do so. (CR

- 47).5



## STATEMENT OF FACTS

On appeal the Appellant raises a single issue as to the sufficiency

of the evidence to prove that he was found in possession of the firearm
within 5 years of the date of his release from confinement or parole
following his felony conviction. For that reason the State would offer
only a very brief summary of the evidence as to the possess ion of the

firearm.
On February 10, 2014
, t he Appellant was arrested by the police
alone in a vehicle that was stopped moments after shots had been fired
at a home from that vehicle. (RR 6

- 27

- 33, 46). He had no valid driver’s
license. (RR6

- 53). The officer observed the Appellant partially open the
driver’s door and make furtive movements under the seat. (RR6

- 46, 47).
The officer observed a spent shell casing on the driver’s side front
floorboard of the car. (RR6

- 51). As the officer was patting him down,

th e Appellant told him that he could not have a weapon because he was
on parole. (RR6

- 51). The officer did not locate a firearm in the vehicle.
(RR6

- 52). The Appellant was arrested and his car was impounded.
(RR6

- 53, 54).6

Subsequently a loaded magazine (RR 6

- 88, 89) and a .40 caliber
handgun were found in the vehicle by the tow truck operator. (RR 6

- 90).

Bullet fr ag ments found at the house that had been fired at were

consistent with a .40 caliber bullet and the shell casing found in the car
had been fired by the weapon that was recovered. (RR6

- 0, 21, 25).
The indictment alleged that the Appellant had possessed the
firearm before the fifth anniversary of his release from confinement or
parole with respect to his conviction on January 29, 2009 for the offense

of R obbery in Cause No. 63,584 in the 264 th District Court of Bell County,
Texas. (CR

- 5). In order to prove this allegation the State offered a
certified copy of the Judgment of Conviction in Cause No. 63,584 for the

offense of R obbery entered on January 2 9, 2010 and wherein the
Appellant was sentenced to three years in prison as State’s Exhibit 1.
(RR8). After testimony by fingerprint expert Karl Ortiz that the
fingerprints taken in that conviction were those of the Appellant, the

exhibit was admitted wit hout objection. (RR6

- 24, 24).
Also admitted without objection (RR6

- 24) was State’s Exhibit 2, a
certified copy of records showing that the Appellant was transferred to
the Texas Department of Corrections in Cause Number 63,584 on
February 18, 2009. (CR8).7



## SUMMARY OF STATE’S ARGUMENT

The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the Appellant possessed the firearm before the fifth anniversary of
his release from incarceration or from parole as alleged in the

indictment in that it clea rly showed that he was incarcerated in the
State prison for that offense less than five years from the date of the
offense and he admitted that he was on parole and could not possess a

firearm when he was arrested.



## ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

First Issue on A ppeal

Was the evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the Appellant possessed the firearm before the fifth anniversary of
his conviction or parole as alleged in the indictment?
Standard of Review
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evi dence the court must
consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and
determine whether, based upon all the evidence and reasonable
inferences therefrom, a rational jury could have found the essential
elements of the offense beyo nd a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State , 3238

S.W.3d 893, 912 (Tx.Cr.App. 2011); Clayton v. State , 235 S.W.3d 772, 778
(Tx.Cr.App. 2007).
Application and Analysis
A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if
he possesses a firearm afte r conviction and before the fifth anniversary
of the person’s release from confinement following conviction for a
felony or the person’s release from supervision under community
supervision, parole or mandatory supervision. Section 46.04(a ) ( 1),

Texas Pena l Code

. The indictment in this case charged that the Appellant
possessed a firearm before the fifth anniversary of his release from

confinement or parole for his conviction for robbery in Cause No.

63,584 in the 264 th District Court of Bell County, Texas. That conviction
occurred on January 29, 2009. (CR

- 5).
The Appellant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to
prove that he was in possession of a firearm nor that he was convicted
of the felony alleged in the indictment. Instead, he claims tha t the
evidence was insufficient to prove that he possessed the firearm before
the fifth anniversary or his release from confinement or parole. The
evidence, however, clearly is sufficient to do so. It consists of the
following:9

 The Appellant was convicted of the felony offense of robbery on
January 29, 2009 and sentenced to serve three years in the

penitentiary.

 He was transferred to prison to serve his sentence in that case on
February 18, 2009 and was incarcerated on that date . (State’s
Exhibit 2 CR8).

 H e was arrested in possession of the firearm on February 10,

2014 , eight days short of five years after the date his incarceration
in the penitentiary began

.

 When he was questioned about the firearm on February 10, 2014
, the Appellant stated that he could no t have a firearm because he
was on parole

. The Appellant was arrested for possession of a firearm 5 years

and 11 days after the date of his conviction

. The statute requires,
however that he be found in possession of the firearm within 5 years of

his relea se from confinement or parole.
While the Appellant is correct that the State did not prove the
exact date of his release from confinement or parole, it did, however,
prove that his confinement in the penitentiary began on February 18,

2009. Therefore he could not have been released from confinement by10

that time

. E ven in the very unlikely event that he was released the same
day he arrived, he was still incarcerated within the 5 year period from
that day when he was arrested for felon in possession of a fir earm on
February 10, 2014, or 8 day s short of the expiration of that 5 year
period. Moreover, he readily told the officer that he was on parole when

he was arrested.

In Gill v. State , 57 S.W.3d 540 (Tx. App. Waco 10 th Dist. no pet.)
,
the defendant challe nged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he
possessed the firearm within the 5 year period after his release from

confinement. The Court of Appeals noted that documentary evidence
had been admitted showing the date in which he was received into

cust ody at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and affirmed the
judgment of conviction because he committed the offense less than 5
years after he went to prison and thus, “...he necessarily committed it
within 5 years after he was released from prison”. Th e Court observed
that, although it would have been useful to have proven the release date,
it was not necessary under the circumstances. Gill at 546.

Gill is precisely in point. Because the Appellant was received in
prison less than 5 years before he was arrested for possession of a
firearm he necessarily committed that offense within 5 years after his11

release from prison. In this case the Appellant was arrested for
possession of the firearm 8 days short of the fifth anniversary of his
confinement in the p enitentiary.
The Appellant’s reliance on Fagan v. State , 362 S.W.3d 796 (Tx.
App. Texarkana 6 th Dist. 2012, rev. ref.) is misplaced because in that case
the defendant was convicted on October 28, 2004 and given a four year
sentence with 238 days credit a nd the offense occurred more than 5
years later. Thus it was possible that the defendant could have been
released from confinement or parole after the expiration of the 5 year
period. Fagan at 800. Unlike this case, there was no evidence showing

that the d efendant was still incarcerated and had not been released at a
time less than 5 years afterwards.

Likewise in Saldana v. State , 418 S.W.3d 722 , 726 (Tx. App.

Amarillo 7 th Dist. 2013 no pet. ), there was no evidence as to the date of

release from confineme nt but only as to the date of the conviction and
the date of the felon in possession offense 5 years and 5 months later.

The Court observed that there was no other evidence in the record to
establish the date of release and that merely asking the jury to “ do the

math ” based on that evidence was not sufficient. In the present case,
however, there was other evidence that showed that the Appellant had12

not been released from confinement more than 5 years before his arrest
for felon in possession of a firearm. H e was still incarcerated, having
just been transferred to prison less than 5 years before that arrest.
The Appellant also said that he was on parole at the time of this

arrest. In Tawater v. State , No. 06

- 14

- 00075

- CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS
13176 (Tx. A pp. Texarkana 6 th Dist. 2014, no pet.), not designated for
publication
, the evidence was held sufficient to support a conviction for
felon in possession of a firearm where the judgment of conviction was

introduced into evidence and the evidence showed that the defendant
had told the investigating officer that he was a felon. The only
difference here is that the Appellant clearly said he was on parole and
could not possess a firearm when he was arrested with the firearm

rather than simply that he was a felon

. The Appellant counters that he might have been on parole for
some offense other than that alleged in the indictment, however, that
admission when coupled with all of the other evidence and viewed from
the stand point most favorable to the verdict certai nly is probative on

the issue.
The evidence in this case clearly showed that the Appellant was
still incarcerated less than 5 years before he was arrested with a firearm13

in this case. Therefore, he was necessarily not outside of the 5 year
statutory limit ation for felon in possession of a firearm. He also told the

officer that he was on parole when he was arrested. When all of the
evidence is viewed from the standpoint most favorable to the verdict,
the jury could clearly have reasonably found that the App ellant
possessed the firearm before the fifth anniversary of his release from
confinement or parole.



## PRAYER

T he State of Texas respectfully prays that the judgment of
conviction herein be, in all things, be affirmed.
Respectfully Submitted,

HENRY GARZA District Attorney

/s/ 

# Bob D. Odom

BOB D. ODOM Assistant District Attorney P.O. Box 540 Belton, Tx 76513 (254) 933

- 5215 FAX (254) 933

- 5704 DistrictAttorney@co.bell.tx.us SBA No. 1520000014



## CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9

This is to certify that the State’s Brief is in compliance with Rule 9

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and that portion which must be
included under Rule 9.4(i)(1) contains 1780 word s

.

/s/ 

# Bob D. Odom

BOB D. ODOM Assistant District Attorney



## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this brief has been

served u pon, Erica Copeland
, Counsel for Appell ant, by electronic

transfer via Emil , addressed to h er at ecopeland63@yahoo.com on this

13 th day of February
, 201 5

.

/s/ 

# Bob D. Odom

BOB D. ODOM Assistant District Attorney