Opinion filed February 5, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00268-CR

__________

SCOTTY MURL CASSELMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 132nd District Court

Scurry County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 8983

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Scotty Murl Casselman entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of 

possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine in a drug-free zone. 

Appellant pleaded true to four enhancement paragraphs. The trial court convicted 

Appellant of the offense, found the enhancement paragraphs to be true, and

assessed Appellant’s punishment at confinement for forty years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On appeal, Appellant 

contends that his guilty plea resulted from ineffective assistance of his trial counsel 

and that, therefore, his plea was involuntary. We affirm.
2

Procedural History

The trial court entered Appellant’s judgment of conviction on February 7, 

2006. Appellant did not immediately appeal his conviction. Appellant filed a pro 

se application for writ of habeas corpus based on allegations that his trial counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. On August 22, 2012, the Court of 

Criminal Appeals issued an opinion in which it concluded that Appellant had been 

prejudiced by his trial counsel’s incorrect advice that Appellant would waive his 

right to appeal the conviction if he entered an open plea of guilty. The Court of 

Criminal Appeals granted Appellant permission to file an out-of-time appeal.

Appellant’s Motion for New Trial

Appellant filed a motion for new trial, a first amended motion for new trial, 

and a second amended motion for new trial in the trial court after the Court of 

Criminal Appeals granted him permission to file an out-of-time appeal. Appellant 

asserted in the motion that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of 

counsel (1) by failing to properly investigate the law and facts regarding the police 

officer’s stop of Appellant’s vehicle that ultimately led to Appellant’s arrest for 

possession of methamphetamine and (2) by failing to request a hearing on a motion 

to suppress the evidence. Appellant’s ineffective-assistance claims rested on the 

premise that the police found the methamphetamine as the result of an illegal stop 

of his vehicle. Appellant contended that, although the stop was illegal, his counsel 

erroneously concluded and advised him that the stop was legal. Appellant 

attributed counsel’s erroneous advice on counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate 

investigation. Appellant asserted that his guilty plea was based on his counsel’s 

erroneous advice that the stop was legal. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion 

for new trial without a hearing.
3

Background Facts

At Appellant’s sentencing hearing, the State presented evidence related to 

the stop of Appellant’s vehicle. Snyder Police Officer Travis Alan Griffith 

testified that, on April 3, 2005, at about 11:30 p.m., he was working as a patrol 

officer. At that time, Officer Griffith was dispatched in response to a caller’s 

report that an unconscious person was in a white pickup that was stopped at a red 

light at the intersection of 30th Street and College Avenue. As Officer Griffith 

traveled to the scene, he was advised by the dispatcher that the calling party had 

reported that the person in the pickup had regained consciousness and was 

traveling southbound on College Avenue. Officer Griffith located the pickup as it 

traveled southbound in the 3500 block of College Avenue. Officer Griffith 

activated his in-car camera and followed the pickup.

The driver of the pickup, whom Officer Griffith later determined was 

Appellant, stopped at a red light at the intersection of 37th Street and College 

Avenue and then continued to travel southbound on College Avenue. Appellant 

drove the pickup well under the speed limit. Appellant made a very wide turn into 

the Wal-Mart parking lot in the 4500 block of College Avenue. Based on the 

caller’s report that the person in the pickup had been unconscious and the lateness 

of the hour, Officer Griffith decided to initiate a welfare-concern stop of the pickup

out of concern for the driver. Officer Griffith activated his emergency lights and 

made the stop.

Officer Griffith approached the pickup and talked with Appellant. 

Officer Griffith asked Appellant what had happened at the red light. In response, 

Appellant said that he had fallen asleep. Officer Griffith testified that he detected 

an odor of alcohol on Appellant’s person. Officer Griffith questioned Appellant 

about the alcohol. In response, Appellant claimed that the odor of alcohol was 
4

coming from rubbing alcohol that he had put on his arm to treat an injury.

Officer Griffith did not believe Appellant’s story because Appellant’s arm did not 

appear to be wet and because the odor of rubbing alcohol is considerably different 

from the odor of alcoholic beverages that are consumed.

Officer Griffith initiated a driving-while-intoxicated investigation. 

Officer Griffith administered standardized field sobriety tests to Appellant. During 

the field sobriety tests, Appellant exhibited a number of clues of intoxication. 

Based on Officer Griffith’s observations of Appellant and Appellant’s performance 

on the field sobriety tests, Officer Griffith concluded that Appellant was 

intoxicated. Officer Griffith placed Appellant under arrest for driving while 

intoxicated.

Officer Griffith searched Appellant and found two pieces of foil that 

contained methamphetamine in one of Appellant’s pockets. Officers searched the 

pickup and found another piece of foil that contained methamphetamine. 

Officer Griffith also placed Appellant under arrest for possession of a controlled 

substance.

Following his arrest, Appellant was charged with the offense of possession 

of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone. The indictment alleged that, on or 

about April 3, 2005, Appellant intentionally and knowingly possessed less than one 

gram of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of Stanfield Elementary in Snyder, 

Texas. As stated above, Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the offense, 

and ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to confinement for forty years.

After Appellant obtained permission to file an out-of-time appeal in this 

cause, he filed a motion in the trial court seeking to incorporate copies of numerous 

documents that had been filed in his habeas proceeding (Cause No. 8983-A) into 

the record in this cause. The trial court granted Appellant’s motion. The 

incorporated habeas documents included incident reports prepared by 
5

Officer Griffith in connection with the stop of Appellant’s pickup and affidavits of 

Appellant and his trial counsel that related to trial counsel’s representation of 

Appellant in the trial court.

The incorporated documents showed that, in his habeas proceeding, 

Appellant sought a new trial in this cause. Appellant stated in his habeas filings 

that his application was “centered on ineffective assistance of counsel and the 

voluntariness of applicant’s entered plea.” He also stated that “[t]he writ record . . . 

reasonably establishes that defense counsel’s advice that the stop was justified and 

that an open plea of guilty should be entered, was not reasonably competent 

advice, where the stop was not justified and a suppression defense should have 

been pursued before entering a plea of guilty to the charge.” The trial court 

entered an order recommending that habeas relief be denied.

In this cause, Appellant raised the same ineffective-assistance-of-counsel 

claims in his motion for new trial that he had earlier raised in the habeas 

proceeding. Appellant requested a hearing on his motion. However, the trial court 

denied the motion without a hearing.

Issues on Appeal

Appellant presents four issues for review. In his first issue, he contends that 

the trial court abused its discretion by not granting him a hearing on his motion for 

new trial. In his second issue, he contends that the trial court erred by not granting 

his motion for new trial. In his third and fourth issues, Appellant contends that his 

trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to thoroughly investigate the 

facts of the stop that led to Appellant’s arrest and by failing to seek suppression of 

the methamphetamine and that his counsel’s ineffective assistance caused him to 

involuntarily enter a plea of guilty to the offense.
6

Applicable Law and Standard of Review

To determine whether Appellant’s trial counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance, we must first determine whether Appellant has shown that his counsel’s 

representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and, if so, then 

determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the result of the 

proceeding would have been different but for his counsel’s errors. Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 55–57 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986). A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to 

undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; 

Hernandez, 726 S.W.2d at 55. We must indulge a strong presumption that 

counsel’s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, 

and Appellant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the 

challenged action could be considered sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 

689; Tong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). An allegation of 

ineffective assistance of counsel must be firmly founded in the record, and the 

record must affirmatively demonstrate the alleged ineffectiveness. Thompson v. 

State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 

Appellant contends that he entered his plea of guilty based on erroneous 

advice from counsel that the stop was legal. A guilty plea must be knowingly and 

voluntarily entered to be constitutionally valid. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 

614, 618 (1998); Grabowski v. State, 27 S.W.3d 594, 598 (Tex. App.—Eastland

2000, no pet.). A guilty plea that is made as the result of ineffective assistance of 

counsel is not knowingly or voluntarily made and is, therefore, invalid. Ex parte 

Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Courtney v. State, 39 

S.W.3d 732, 734 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, no pet.). If an attorney conveys

erroneous advice to his client and the client enters a guilty plea based on that 
7

advice, the plea is involuntary. Moussazadeh, 361 S.W.3d at 689; Rivera v. State,

952 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). When a defendant 

pleads guilty on the advice of counsel and later challenges the voluntariness of his 

plea based on allegedly ineffective assistance of counsel, the voluntariness of the 

plea depends on (1) whether counsel’s advice is within the range of competence 

demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and, if not, (2) whether there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded 

guilty and instead would have insisted on going to trial. Ex parte Harrington, 310 

S.W.3d 452, 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); De La Garza v. State, 296 S.W.3d 200, 

203 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). 

A trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress is not per se ineffective 

assistance of counsel. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 (1986); 

Hollis v. State, 219 S.W.3d 446, 456 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, no pet.). Counsel 

is not required to engage in the filing of futile motions. Mooney v. State, 817 

S.W.2d 693, 698 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hollis, 219 S.W.3d at 456. To satisfy 

the Strickland test and prevail on an ineffective-assistance claim premised on 

counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress, an appellant must show that a motion 

to suppress would have been granted. Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d 954, 956–57 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998).

Denial of Hearing

We review a trial court’s denial of a hearing on a motion for new trial for an 

abuse of discretion; we reverse only if the decision to deny a hearing was so clearly 

wrong as to lie outside the zone within which reasonable persons might disagree. 

Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The purposes of a 

hearing on a motion for new trial are (1) to determine whether the case should be 

retried and (2) to prepare a record for presenting issues on appeal if the motion is 

denied. Id. at 338. A hearing on a motion for new trial is not an absolute right. Id. 
8

A hearing is not required when the matters raised in the motion for new trial are 

subject to being determined from the record. Id. However, a trial court abuses its 

discretion in failing to hold a hearing if the motion and accompanying affidavits 

(1) raise matters that are not determinable from the record and (2) establish

reasonable grounds showing that the defendant could potentially be entitled to 

relief. Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

Appellant’s ineffective-assistance claims were based on allegations that the 

stop of his pickup was illegal but that his counsel erroneously advised him that the 

stop was legal. Appellant asserted as follows in his motion for new trial:

The Defendant should be granted a new trial in this cause 

because the Defendant’s trial attorney provided ineffective assistance 

of counsel by failing to properly investigate the law and the facts 

regarding the traffic stop that led to Defendant’s arrest, by conveying 

erroneous information to the Defendant regarding the validity of the 

traffic stop, [and] failing to properly investigate the 911 call that led to 

the traffic stop. It was due to this ineffective assistance of counsel 

that caused Defendant’s plea of guilty to be involuntary.

In his motion, Appellant referred to documents that had been filed in his habeas 

proceeding (Cause No. 8983-A). Appellant requested the trial court to consider the 

documents as evidence in support of his motion. Appellant stated that, “[i]n 

particular, the documents contain affidavits of both the Defendant and Defendant’s 

trial counsel which support the Defendant’s argument that the traffic stop of 

Defendant was unlawful and that advice of trial counsel was erroneous therefore 

making the plea of Defendant involuntary.” Officer Griffith’s incident reports 

were included in the habeas documents. As stated above, the trial court granted 

Appellant’s motion to incorporate the habeas documents into the record in this 

cause, and those documents are included in the appellate record.

Appellant offered his own affidavit in support of his motion for new trial. In 

his affidavit, Appellant stated that he did not discover that Officer Griffith’s 
9

incident reports existed until about nine months after his conviction in this cause. 

Appellant asserted in his affidavit that one of the incident reports contained 

material evidence that the person who made the 911 calls used a false name 

because he did not want to get involved in the case. As claimed by Appellant, 

Officer Griffith stated in his supplemental incident report that “[t]he calling party 

to this offense was identified as Bradley Scott George” and that “George stated 

when he called the police he stated his name was Jim because he did not want to 

get involved.” Officer Griffith also stated that “George apologized and stated he 

would help in any way possible.” Appellant asserted in his motion for new trial 

that, because the 911 calls were not “face-to-face encounter[s],” the information 

that George provided to police was “insufficient to justify the stop.” Therefore, 

Appellant asserted that “the stop [was] not reasonable or lawful under Texas Law 

and the constitutions of Texas and the United States.” 

We have previously summarized Officer Griffith’s testimony about the stop 

of Appellant’s pickup. The record contains numerous documents from Appellant’s 

habeas proceeding relating to the stop and to trial counsel’s representation of 

Appellant, including Officer Griffith’s police reports, a DVD of the stop, and 

affidavits of Appellant and his trial counsel. The facts and circumstances related to 

Appellant’s ineffective-assistance claims were fully developed and determinable 

from the written record presented to the trial court. Accordingly, a hearing on 

Appellant’s motion for new trial was not required. See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 338. 

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to grant 

Appellant a hearing on his motion for new trial. Appellant’s first issue is 

overruled.

Analysis of Appellant’s Ineffective-Assistance Claims 

Appellant contends that George’s use of a false name constituted material 

evidence. Because George used a false name, Appellant argues that the 
10

information George provided to the police was unreliable and insufficient to 

establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop Appellant’s pickup and 

that, therefore, the stop was unlawful. In his brief, Appellant asserts that, if his 

trial counsel had properly investigated the facts surrounding Appellant’s arrest, 

counsel would have discovered that George used a false name. Appellant further 

asserts that, upon discovering the information, the proper procedure for counsel 

would have been to request a hearing on a motion to suppress that he had 

previously filed.

Appellant’s counsel filed an affidavit and a supplemental affidavit in 

Appellant’s habeas proceeding. In the affidavits, counsel described in detail the 

investigation he performed in his defense of Appellant. Counsel stated that he had 

numerous conferences with Appellant, the district attorney, and the assistant 

district attorney about the case; that he investigated the facts of the case, including 

the facts surrounding the stop of Appellant’s vehicle; that he viewed the video of 

the stop; that he reviewed discovery materials, including Officer Griffith’s account 

of the events leading up to the stop; and that he researched relevant case law 

regarding stops, detentions, and arrests following 911 calls by citizens. 

Appellant’s counsel did not obtain copies of Officer Griffith’s incident report and 

supplemental incident report. Counsel stated in his initial affidavit that “[he] was 

not given a copy of the police report, as such is unfortunately not required by the 

Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the report is not given to defense attorneys 

by the Scurry County D.A.’s office.”

Counsel stated in his affidavit that he concluded the stop was justified as a 

“community caretaking” stop. He explained to Appellant that, in some 

circumstances, police are allowed to stop a vehicle to check on the welfare of the 

driver and that those circumstances appeared to be present in this case. Counsel 

also concluded and explained to Appellant that Appellant’s DWI arrest resulted 
11

from a lawful stop of Appellant’s vehicle and that the subsequent search of 

Appellant’s vehicle resulted from the DWI arrest and from Appellant’s consent as 

demonstrated in the video.

Appellant’s counsel also stated in his affidavit that he recommended for 

Appellant to plead guilty to the offense and to go to the trial court for punishment. 

Counsel stated that Appellant agreed with his recommendations. Counsel had filed 

a motion to suppress before Appellant decided to plead guilty to the offense. 

Counsel stated in his affidavit that, after the decision was made to enter a guilty 

plea, he decided not to pursue the motion to suppress, “both as a matter of trial 

strategy, and due to the facts developed during discovery as to the nature of the 

stop leading to the arrest of [Appellant].” Counsel stated in his supplemental 

affidavit that he informed Appellant that he thought “a Motion to Suppress would 

be deemed frivolous by the trial court” and that “to demand a hearing on the 

Motion prior to entering an open plea of guilty would have a negative effect on the 

court’s sentencing of [Appellant]: that is, it was part of trial strategy to present 

[Appellant] as a life-long drug addict who deserved treatment and drug 

rehabilitation rather than a long prison sentence.”

Appellant contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to discover 

the information in Officer Griffith’s supplemental incident report that George used 

a false name. Police reports and offense reports generally are not discoverable 

because they are the work product of the police and are exempt from pretrial 

discovery. Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d 647, 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Brem v. 

State, 571 S.W.2d 314, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). However, the 

privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute, and the duty to 

reveal material exculpatory evidence as dictated by Brady v. Maryland1 overrides 

the work-product privilege. Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d at 670. Thus, the State 

 1

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 
12

has a duty to disclose police reports that contain material exculpatory information. 

Id. 

If Officer Griffith’s incident reports did not contain Brady material, they 

were exempt from pretrial discovery, and as such, Appellant’s trial counsel cannot 

be found ineffective for failing to discover them. Abbott v. State, 726 S.W.2d 644, 

650 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1987, pet. ref’d). On the other hand, if the reports 

contained Brady material, the State had a duty to disclose them to Appellant’s 

counsel. Ex parte Miles, 359 S.W.3d at 670. Appellant’s counsel cannot be 

faulted for being ineffective if the State had a duty to disclose the reports to 

Appellant but failed to disclose them. Appellant has not shown that his counsel 

provided ineffective assistance in connection with his investigation of the facts 

surrounding the stop of Appellant’s pickup. 

Appellant asserted in his motion for new trial that the State violated Brady

by failing to disclose Officer Griffith’s reports. However, Appellant has not raised 

his Brady claim on appeal. We note that, to establish a Brady violation, a 

defendant must show (1) that the State failed to disclose evidence, regardless of the 

prosecution’s good or bad faith; (2) that the evidence is favorable to him; and 

(3) that the evidence is material, that is, there is a reasonable probability that, had 

the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different. 

Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); Hampton v. State, 86 

S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). A “reasonable probability” is a 

probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial. United 

States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Higginbotham v. State, 416 S.W.3d 

921, 924 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). 

Appellant contends that George’s use of a false name constituted material 

evidence. We disagree. Officer Griffith’s observation of the white pickup 

corroborated George’s report that a white pickup was traveling southbound on 
13

College Avenue and showed that George had provided accurate and credible 

information to the police. Officer Griffith did not stop Appellant’s pickup solely 

based on the information that George reported to police. Instead, Officer Griffith’s 

decision to make the stop was also based on his personal observation of the pickup

for several blocks and the lateness of the hour. Under these circumstances, we 

conclude that evidence that George used a false name when he called the police 

was not material under Brady.

Even without reasonable suspicion or probable cause that an offense has 

been committed, a police officer may reasonably seize an individual through the 

exercise of his community-caretaking function. Corbin v. State, 85 S.W.3d 272, 

276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Wright v. State, 7 S.W.3d 148, 151–52 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1999); see Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433, 441 (1973). “As part of an 

officer’s duty to ‘serve and protect,’ an officer ‘may stop and assist an individual 

whom a reasonable person, given the totality of the circumstances, would believe 

is in need of help.’” Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 276 (quoting Wright, 7 S.W.3d at 151). 

This exception to the warrant requirement is narrow, and a police officer may not 

properly invoke the community-caretaking function if he is primarily motivated by 

a non-community-caretaking purpose. Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277; Wright, 7 

S.W.3d at 152.

Whether an officer properly invoked his community-caretaking function 

requires a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the officer was primarily motivated by a 

community-caretaking purpose and (2) whether the officer’s belief that the 

individual needed help was reasonable. Gonzales v. State, 369 S.W.3d 851, 854–

55 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). To determine the reasonableness of the police 

officer’s belief that an individual needs assistance, courts are to consider the 

following nonexclusive factors: (1) the nature and level of the distress exhibited by 

the individual; (2) the location of the individual; (3) whether or not the individual 
14

was alone or had access to assistance other than that offered by the officer; and 

(4) to what extent the individual, if not assisted, presented a danger to himself or 

others. Id. at 855; Corbin, 85 S.W.3d at 277.

Late at night, Officer Griffith received information from his dispatcher that 

an unconscious person was in a white pickup that was stopped at a red light at 30th 

Street and College Avenue. As Officer Griffith drove to the scene, the dispatcher 

informed him that the person in the pickup had regained consciousness and was 

traveling southbound on College Avenue. Officer Griffith located the pickup as it 

traveled on College Avenue and then followed the pickup for several blocks. The

driver of the pickup drove well under the speed limit and then made a very wide 

turn into the Wal-Mart parking lot. The driver was alone in his pickup. If not 

assisted, he presented a danger to himself or others, especially if he were to again 

lose consciousness or fall asleep while driving. Officer Griffith testified that he 

decided to make a welfare-concern stop of the pickup out of concern for the driver. 

Nothing in the record suggests that Officer Griffith’s motive to make the stop was 

something other than to check on the welfare of the driver. Officer Griffith did not 

begin his DWI investigation until after he smelled the odor of alcohol emanating 

from Appellant.

The evidence supports conclusions (1) that Officer Griffith was primarily 

motivated by a community-caretaking purpose when he made the stop and (2) that 

Officer Griffith’s belief that Appellant needed help was reasonable. Considering 

the evidence, we conclude that the stop was justified and lawful under the 

community-caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. Accordingly, 

Appellant cannot meet his burden to show that a motion to suppress had merit and 

would have been granted, and his trial counsel cannot be found deficient for failing 

to request a hearing on the motion to suppress. See Jackson, 973 S.W.2d at 956–

57. 
15

Appellant has not shown that his trial counsel’s advice regarding the legality 

of the stop was erroneous. Therefore, Appellant cannot prevail on his claim that he 

pleaded guilty as a result of receiving erroneous advice from his counsel. We 

conclude that Appellant has not satisfied the first prong of Strickland. 

Additionally, even if we were to find that trial counsel’s representation fell below 

an objective standard of reasonableness, Appellant has not established a reasonable 

probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different but for his 

counsel’s alleged errors. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

denying Appellant’s motion for new trial. Appellant’s second, third, and fourth 

issues are overruled.

This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY

JUSTICE 

February 5, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.