N O . 03-15-00127-C R I NTH ECOUR T O FAPPEAL S O FTH ETHIR D DISTRIC T O FTEXA S AARO NJOSEP H HOES , Appellan t V . T H ESTAT EO FTEXA S Appelle e Appea l i nCaus e No . CR0116 7 i nth e 33r dJudicia l Distric t

Cour t o f Blanc o County , Texa s



### Brief For Appellee OFFIC EO FDISTRIC T ATTORNE Y 33^ ^ an d424' ^ JUDICIA LDISTRICT S Wile y B . McAfee , Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 725 , Llano , Texa s 7864 3 Telephon e Telecopie r (325 ) 247-575 5 (325 ) 247-527 4 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u s By : Gar y W . Bunyar d Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y State Ba r

No . 0335350 0 ATTORNE Y FO RAPPELLE E

Jun e 11 , 201 5 

### Oval Argument

Waived ACCEPTED 03-15-00127-CR 5646314 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/11/2015 4:42:28 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

### Identity Of The Parties Tria l Cour t Honorabl e J . Alla nGarret t 33r dJudicia l Distric t Burne t Count y Courthous e Anne x (North ) 170 1 Eas t

Pol k St. , Suit e 7 4 Burnet , T X 7861 1 State/Appelle e Perr y Thoma s (Tria l Counsel ) Firs t Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 State Ba r

No . 1984912 0 Anthon y J . Dodso n(Tria l Counsel ) Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 State Ba r

No . 0592720 0 Gar y W . Bunyar d(Appellat e Counsel ) Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 State Ba r

No . 0335350 0 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u s iiAppellan t

Thoma s M . Felp s (Tria l Counsel ) Attorne y a

t La w P.O . Bo x 44 2 Johnso n City , T X 7863 6 (830 ) 868-710 6 State Ba r

No . 0688970 0 Alic e E . Pric e (Appellat e Counsel ) Attorne y a

t La w 40 8 Sout hLiveoa k Lampasas , T X 7655 0 (512 ) 556-477 7 State Ba r

No . 0078617 7 apgregg50@hotmail.co m

Aaro nJosep hHoe s (Appellant ) TDC J #0198782 4 SI D #0627067 2 Garz aEast/Chasefiel dWildernes s Uni t 430 4 Highwa y 20 2 Beeville,T X 78102-898 1

iii

### Table Of Contents Pag e Inde x o f Authoritie s V I Statemen t

o f th e Cas e 1 Statemen t

o nOra l Argument , 1 Respons e t o Issue s Presente d 2 Statemen t

o f th e Fact s 3 Summar y o f

th e Argumen t

- Respons e t o Issu e No . 1 6 l.a . Bobb y Humphre y ha dsufficien t us e an dcontac t

wit h th e tracto r

t o b e abl e t o rende r

a nopinio na

s t o value . l.b . Bobb y Humphre y ha dagreate r righ t o f possessio n t o th e tracto r tha ntha t

o f Appellan t

an da s suc hwoul db e a n owne r o f th e tractor . I.e . A rationa l jur y coul dhav e foun dbeyon dareasonabl e doub t tha t th e valu e o f

th e tracto r

wa s $1,50 0 o r

mor e bu t

les s tha n$20,00 0 base do nth e testimon y o f Bobb y Humphrey . Argumen t

o nRespons e t o Issu e No . 1 1. 1 Standar do f

Revie w 8 1. 2 Applicabl e Fact s 9 1. 3 Discussio nan dConclusio n1 1

i vPraye r

fo r Relief . Certificat e o f

Wor dCoun t Certificat e o f

Servic e

### Index Of Authorities Cas e La w Pag e Brooks V. State, 32 3 S.W.3 d89 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 2010 ) 8 Brown v. State, 33 3 S.W.3 d60 6 (Tex . App. — Dalla s 2009 , n o pet. ) 8 Griffith V. State, 97 6 S.W.2 d68 6 (Tex . App.- - Tyle r 1997 , pet . re f

d ) 9 Hooper v. State, 21 4 S.W.3 d9 (Tex . Crim . App . 2007 ) 8 Jackson V. Virginia, 443 U.S . 307 , 9 9 S . Ct . 2781 , 6 1 L . Ed . 2 d56 0 (1979) ) 8 Keeton v. State, 80 3 S.W.2 d30 4 (Tex . Crim . App . 1991 ) 8 Penagraph v. State, 62 3 S.W.2 d34 1 (Tex . Crim . App . 1981 ) 9 Sharp V. State, 70 7 S.W.2 d61 1 (Tex . Crim . App . 1986 ) 9 Constitution s Non e Cited . Statutes/Rule s Tex . Pena l Cod e Sec . 1.0 7 (a)(35 ) 9

v i

### statement Of TIte Case Appellan t

ha s adequatel y describe dth e Statemen t o f th e Case .



### Statement on Oral Argument Th e undersigne dwaive s Ora l Argument . Appellan t ha s waive dOra l Argumen t an dth e undersigne ddoe s no t believ e tha t

Ora l Argumen t

wil l b e beneficia l fo r

thi s cas e fo r th e reaso n tha t

th e issue s are straigh t forwar dan dlac k

an y nove l o r

comple x nuances . Shoul dth e Cour t believ e tha t

Ora l Argumen t

wil l assis t

th e Cour t

i nan y way , th e undersigne dwil l gladl y accommodat e th e Court .

1

### Respons e To Issue s Presented

Respons e T o Issu e 1 : 1 .a . Bobb y Humphre y ha dsufficien t us e an dcontac t

wit hth e tracto r t o b e abl e t o rende r

a nopinio na

s t o value . 1 .b . Bobb y Humphre y ha dagreate r righ t o f possessio n t o th e tracto r tha ntha t

o f Appellan t

an da s suc hwoul db e a nowne r o f th e tractor . I.e . A rationa l jur y coul dhav e foun dbeyon dareasonabl e doub t tha t th e valu e o f

th e tracto r

wa s $1,50 0 o r

mor e bu t

les s tha n$20,00 0 base do nth e testimon y o f Bobb y Humphre y .

2

### statement Of The Facts Appellan t

ha s no t full y describe dth e fact s o f thi s cas e unde r

th e requirement s o f Texa s Rule s o f

Appellat e Procedur e 38. 1 (g) .

I nApri l 201 3 Mr . Erwi nSultemeie r wa s th e owne r

o f a197 9 Masse y Ferguso n Mode l 24 5 tractor . R RVol . 2 Page s 75 , 77 , 11 9 - 120 . Mr . Sultemeier' s son-in law , Bobb y Humphrey , helpe dMr . Sultemeie r i nperformin g task s o nth e Sultemeie r

far man dranch . R RVol . 2 Page s 7 4 - 75 . O nApri l 3 , 2013 , Mr . Humphre y las t

use dth e tracto r

an dthe nstore dth e tracto r b y th e bar nb y th e ol d house . R RVol . 2 Pag e 75 . O nApri l 5,2013 , Mr . Humphre y observe dth e gate a t th e roa dt o th e ol dhous e t o b e ope nwhe ni t shoul dno t

hav e bee n an dheav y rut s i nth e road . R RVol . 2 Pag e 76 . Checkin g th e propert y further , Mr . Humphre y discovere dtha t

th e tracto r

an dalowbo y traile r

t o b e missing . R RVol . 2 Page s 7 6 - 77 . Mr . Humphrey , wh o ha dpersonall y operate dth e tracto r a t th e Sultemeie r

far m an dranc hfo r

man y years , testifie da t Appellant' s tria l tha t th e tracto r

wa s wort h approximatel y $7,500 . R RVol . 2 Page s 75 , 77 . Mr . Humphre y furthe r testifie d tha t th e valu e o f

Mr . Sultemeier' s tracto r wa s mor e tha n$1,50 0 bu t wa s les s tha n $20,000 . R RVol . 2 Page s 7 7 - 78 . 3I nJul y 201 3 Hay s Count y Sheriff s Deput y Tro y Maye s conducte datraffi c sto p

o f aheav y dut y picku p bein g drive nb y Appellan t pullin g atraile r

wit hatracto r

o n th e trailer . R RVol . 2 Page s 9 1 - 93 . Th e passenger o f th e picku p wa s identifie da s Lauri e Chase . R RVol . 2 Pag e 93 . Furthe r investigatio nshowe dtha t th e VI N numbe r o nth e tracto r

i nAppellant' s possessio n matche dth e VI Nnumbe r o f th e tracto r stole nfro mMr . Sultemeier . R RVol . 2 Pag e 97 . Whe nquestione dabou t th e tractor , Appellan t tol dDeput y Maye s tha t Appellan t

ha dpurchase dth e tracto r an dproduce daBil l o f Sale . R RVol . 2 Pag e 96 .

Durin g th e investigatio nHay s Count y Detectiv e Bra dDorin g arrived . A t tha t tim e Detectiv e Dorin g wa s par t o f amulticount y aut o thef t task force . R RVol . 2 Pag e 102 . Detectiv e Dorin g inspecte dth e tracto r an dfoun di t

od dtha t

ther e wer e n o sticker s o nth e tractor , tha t th e tracto r

wa s to o clea nfo r

it s age , an di t

appeare d tha t th e tracto r

wa s recentl y painte di na"homemade " fashion . R RVol . 2 Page s 10 3 - 104 . Detectiv e Dorin g notice dtha t th e Bil l o f

Sal e presente db y Appellan t wa s date dJanuar y 2 , 2013 , whic hwa s adat e prio r t o th e dat e tha t

th e tracto r

wa s stole n fro mMr . Sultemeier . R RVol . 2 Pag e 11 4 - 115 . Detectiv e Dorin g wa s unabl e t o locat e th e selle r

name do nth e Bil l o f Sale . R RVol . 2 Pag e 11 3 - 114 . Detectiv e Dorin g testifie dtha t

h e wa s personall y familia r wit hth e handwritin g o f bot h 4Appellan t an dhi s passenger , Ms . Chase . R RVol . 2 Page s 11 6 - 117 . I t wa s th e opinio no f

Detectiv e Dorin g tha t Ms . Chas e wa s th e autho r o f th e Bil l o f

Sale . R R Vol . 2 Pag e 117 . Appellan t

too k th e stan di n th e defens e case-in-chief . Appellan t denie dtha t

h e wa s guilt y o f

th e offens e charged . R RVol . 2 Pag e 128 . Appellan t testifie dtha t

h e purchase dth e tracto r of f o f Craigslis t

sometim e i n March/Apri l 201 3 fo r $4,000 . RRVol.2Pag e 133 .

5

### Summary Of The Argument on Respons e to issu e No. 1 

### l.a . Bobb y Humphre y ha d sufficien tuse an d contac twit h th e tracto rt o b e abl e t

o rende ra n opinio n a

s t o value . l.b . Bobb y Humphre y ha d agreate rrigh to f possessio n t

o th e tracto rtha n tha to f

Appellan tan d a

s suc h woul d be a n owne ro f th e tractor . I.e . A rationa l jur y coul d have found beyond areasonabl e doub tthatthe valu e o f th e tracto rwas $1,50

0 o rmore bu t les s tha n $20,00

0 based o n th e testimony o f Bobb y Humphrey . Appellan t

complain s tha t

ther e i s n o evidenc e tha t th e tracto r

wa s wort h$1,50 0 o r mor e bu t

les s tha n $20,00 0 an da s suc hther e i s insufficien t evidenc e t o suppor t th e State Jai l Felon y offens e o f Theft . I n particular . Appellan t complain s tha t

a "non-owner " o f

propert y ca n no t

testif y abou t th e valu e o f

propert y owne db y anothe r unles s th e basi s fo r

th e opinio no f

th e "non-owner " ha s bee n established . However , ther e wa s evidenc e relate dt o valuatio n o f th e propert y fro mawitnes s wh o ha dsubstantial , lon g ter mus e o f th e propert y an dwh o ha dactua l care , custody , 6an dcontro l ove r th e propert y prio r

t o i t bein g stolen . Th e evidenc e describe dwa s no t challenge do r

impeache dt o an y degree . Bein g th e ultimat e trie r o f fact , th e jur y coul drationall y fm dbeyon dareasonabl e doub t tha t th e valu e o f

th e propert y stole n wa s $1,50 0 o r

mor e bu t

les s tha n$20,000 .

7

### Argument On Respons e to Issue No. 1

1,1 Standard

of Review I nevaluatin g lega l sufficienc y o f th e evidence , reviewin g court s loo k at al l evidenc e i nth e ligh t

mos t favorabl e t o th e verdic t t o determin e whethe r an y rationa l fact-finde r

coul dhav e foun dguil t beyon dareasonabl e doubt . Brooks v. State, 32 3 S.W.3 d893 , 91 2 (Tex . Crim . App . 2010 ) {ciimg Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S . 307 , 319 , 9 9 S . Ct . 2781 , 6 1 L . Ed . 2 d56 0 (1979)) ; Brown v. State, 333 S.W.3 d606 , 60 8 (Tex . App.—Dalla s 2009 , n o pet.) . Lega l sufficienc y i s examine dunde r th e directio no f

th e Brooks opinion , whil e givin g deferenc e t o th e responsibilit y o f th e jur y "t o fairl y resolv e conflict s i n testimony , t o weig hth e evidence , an dt o dra w reasonabl e inference s fro mbasi c fact s t o ultimat e facts. " Hooper v. State, 21 4 S.W.3 d9 , 1 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 2007 ) (citin g Jackson, 443 U.S . a

t 318-19) .

Fai r marke t valu e o f

propert y ma y b e prove ni navariet y o f ways , includin g th e opinio no f

th e owne r

an dth e opinio no f

anon-owne r

exper t opinion . Keeton v. State, 80 3 S.W.2 d30 4 (Tex . Crim . App . 1991) . 8"Owner " i s define da s aperso nwh o (A ) ha s titl e t o th e property , possessio n o f th e property , whethe r lawfu l o r

not , o r agreate r

righ t t o possessio n o f

th e propert y tha nth e actor ; o r

(B ) i s aholde r

i ndu e cours e o f

anegotiabl e instrument . Tex . Pena l Cod e Sec . 1.0

7 (a)(35) .

I naddition , whe ni t

come s t o witnes s credibilit y an dth e weigh t t o b e give na witness' s testimony , th e jur y i s th e exclusiv e judge . Penagraph v. State, 62 3 S.W.2 d 341 , 34 3 (Tex . Crim . App . 1981) . Th e jur y ma y believ e all , some , o r non e o f an y witness' s testimony . Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2 d611 , 61 4 (Tex . Crim . App . 1986) . Th e jur y ma y us e commo nsens e an dappl y commo nknowledge , observation , an d experienc e gaine di nth e ordinar y affair s o f life whe ngivin g effec t t o th e inference s tha t ma y reasonabl y b e draw nfro mth e evidence . Griffith v. State, 97 6 S.W.2 d686 , 69 0 (Tex . App.--Tyle r 1997 , pet . re f

d) . 

### 1.2 Applicable Facts I nthi s case , Bobb y Humphre y i s th e son-in-la w o f Erwi nSultemeier , th e owne r o f th e stole ntractor . R RVol . 2 Page s 7 4 - 75 , 77 , 11 9 - 120 . Bobb y Humphre y wa s familia r

wit hth e histor y o f

th e tracto r

beginnin g fro mwhe nMr . Sultemeier' s 9brothe r

bough t th e tracto r

ne w i n1979 . R RVol . 2 Pag e 77 . Bobb y Humphre y personall y use dth e tracto r o naregula r

basi s fo r

man y years . R RVol . 2 Pag e 75 . Aroun dth e tim e tha t

th e tracto r

wa s stole nBobb y Humphre y wa s i nfac t exercisin g care , custody , an dcontro l ove r th e tracto r

i ntha t h e use dth e tracto r

o naregula r basi s and , i nthi s particula r instance , store dth e tracto r i nashe dnex t

t o th e ol dhous e onc e h e wa s finishedwit hth e tracto r fo r tha t day . R RVol . 2 Page s 75 , 77 . I t wa s Bobb y Humphre y an dhi s so nwh o late r discovere dtha t

th e tracto r

wa s missing . R RVol . 2 Page s 76-77 .

A t tria l Bobb y Humphre y testifie dtha t i nhi s opinio nth e tracto r wa s wort h $7,500 . R RVol . 2 Pag e 77 . Additionally , Bobb y Humphre y testifie dtha t th e valu e o f th e tracto r

wa s mor e tha n$1,50 0 bu t les s tha n$20,000 . R RVol . 2 Page s 7 7 - 78 .

I nhi s defense , Appellan t too k th e stan dan dtestifie dtha t h e bough t

th e tracto r sometim e i nMarch/Apri l fo r $4,00 0 an dpresente daBil l o f Sal e t o Det . Dorin g tha t containe dth e tractor' s VI Nnumbe r an dwa s date dJanuar y 2 , 2013 . R RVol . 2 Page s 114 , 133 .

1 0Prio r

t o deliberation , th e tria l cour t instructe dth e jur y a

s t o th e definitio no f

th e wor d"value" . C RVol . 1 Page s 9 1 - 95 . Th e tria l cour t instructe dth e jur y that : 'Value " mean s th e fai r marke t valu e o f

th e propert y a

t th e tim e an dplac e o f th e offense , o r

i f th e fai r marke t valu e o f

th e propert y canno t

b e ascertained , th e cos t o f replacin g th e propert y withi nareasonabl e tim e afte r th e theft . Id. Th e tria l cour t

als o instructe dth e jur y a s t o th e definitio no f

th e ter m"owner " a s follows : "Owner " mean s aperso nwh o ha s titl e t o th e property , possessio n o f th e property , whethe r

lawfu l o r

not , o r agreate r

righ t t o possessio n o f

th e propert y tha nth e defendant . CRVol . lPages91-95 . 

### IJ Discussion and

Conclusion Th e valu e opinio ngive nb y Bobb y Humphre y wa s legall y sufficien t t o justif y th e verdic t o f th e jury . Whil e no t

name da

s th e owne r

o f th e tracto r

i nth e Indictment , Bobb y Humphre y me t th e definitio no f

"owner " i ntha t

h e ha dagreate r

righ t o f possessio n t o th e tracto r tha ntha t

o f Appellant . Bobb y Humphre y ha dsubstantia l knowledg e o f

th e histor y an dconditio no f th e tractor . Appellant' s tria l counse l neve r objecte dt o th e qualification s o f Bobb y Humphre y t o giv e a nopinio na s t o th e valu e o f th e tracto r

no r di dcounse l mak e an y attemp t t o cross-examin e Bobb y 1 1Humphre y o nho w Mr . Humphre y arrive da t thi s opinion . No t

onl y di dBobb y Humphre y giv e a nopinio na s t o aspecifi c valu e bu t h e als o gav e a nopinio ntha t th e valu e o f th e tracto r

wa s greate r

tha n$1,50 0 bu t

no t a s muc ha

s $20,000 . Th e onl y othe r testimon y give na

s t o valu e wa s th e Appellant' s ow ntestimony , tha t h e bough t th e tracto r

fo r $4,000 . Ther e wa s n o mentio no f th e issu e o f

valu e b y Appellant' s tria l counse l at

closin g arguments . A rationa l jur y coul dver y wel l conclud e fro m thi s evidence , beyon dareasonabl e doubt , usin g thei r commo nsens e an dapplicatio n o f commo nknowledge , observation , an dexperienc e gaine di nth e ordinar y affair s o f life , tha t

th e valu e o f

th e tractor , a

s th e ter m"value " wa s define di nth e Court' s Charge , wa s $1,50 0 o r mor e bu t

les s tha n$20,000 . I na s muc ha

s Appellan t

doe s no t

challeng e o nappea l an y othe r issu e th e judgmen t

an dsentenc e entere db y th e tria l cour t shoul db e affirmed .

1 2

### Prayer For Relief

Wherefore , Appelle e pray s th e Cour t den y th e relie f

requeste db y Appellan t an d affir mth e judgmen t

an dsentenc e o f

th e tria l court . Respectfull y submitted , OFFIC EO FDISTRIC T ATTORNE Y 33^ ^ an d424^

^ JUDICIA LDISTRICT S Wile y B . McAfee , Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 Telephon e Telecopie r (325 ) 247-575 5 (325 ) 247-527 4

Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y State Ba r

No . 0335350 0 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u s ATTORNE Y FO RAPPELLE E 

### CERTIFICAT E O F WOR D COUN T Thi s i s t o certif

y tha t th e pertinen t

portio no f

thi s brie f

contain s 1,77 8 word s printe di nAldine40 1 B T 1 4 font . unyara / Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y

1 3

### CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

Thi s i s t o certif

y tha t atru e cop y o f

th e abov e an dforegoin g instrument , togethe r wit hthi s proo f

o f servic e hereof , ha s bee n forwarde db y EServ e an db y emai l o nth e I f ^ da y o f

Jun e 2015 , t o Ms . Alic e E . Price , Attorne y fo r Appellant , a

t apgregg50@hotmail.com .

Assistan t Distric t Attorne y

1 4