### NO. PD-0794-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

**************************
ESSIE D. HOPKINS Appellant/Petitioner
vs. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee/Respondent
*********************************

On Appeal from the 291 st District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-13-55764-U

and The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Appellate Cause No. 05-14-00146-CR
***********************************

B RIEF OF A PPELLANT U PON G RANT OF P ETITION F OR D ISCRETIONARY R EVIEW

Lawrence B. Mitchell SBN 14217500 P.O. Box 797632 Dallas, Texas 75379 Tel. No. 214.870.3440 E-mail: judge.mitchell@gmail.com Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant PD-0794-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/15/2015 4:54:18 PM Accepted 10/16/2015 7:08:53 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

### IDENTITY O F J UDG E, PARTIES, AND CO UNSEL

PRESIDING J UDGE: Th e Ho n o rab l e J en n i fer Bal i d o , 2 9 1 s t Di s t ri ct Co u rt Dal l as Co u n t y , Tex as
PARTIES: Es s i e D. Ho p k in s , Ap p el l an t / Pet i t i o n er
Th e St at e o f Tex as , Ap p el l ee/ Res p o n d en t
Co u n s el : Tri a l co uns el fo r a ppel l a nt : Larry Barak a, 1 2 1 5 E. M cKi n ney St reet , St e. 2 0 3 Den t on , Tex as 7 6 20 9 Appel l a te Co uns el fo r a ppel l ant : Lo ri Ord i way (n ow em

pl o y ed b y t he Dal las Co u n t y Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey ’ s Offi ce) 1 33 N. Ri v erfro n t Bl v d ., Dal las , Tex as 7 5 2 07
Peti ti o n fo r Di s creti o na ry Rev i ew Co uns el : Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l , P.O. Bo x 7 9 7 6 3 2, Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 3 7 9
Tri a l co uns el fo r the Sta te : As s i st an t Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey s : J eff M at o v i ch an d Ro b in Pi t t m an 1 33 N. Ri v erfro n t Bl v d ., Dal las , Tex as 7 5 2 07 Appel l a te a nd Peti ti o n co uns el fo r the Sta te : As s i st an t Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey Pat ri ci a No b l e; Su s an Hawk , Cri m i n al Di s t ri ct At to rn ey , Dal l as Co u n t y , Tex as o r h er d es i g nat ed rep res en t at i v e, 1 33 N. Ri v erfro n t Bl v d ., Dal las , Tex as 7 5 2 07

i

### TABLE O F CO NTENTS

Id en t i t y o f J ud g e, Part ies , an d Co u n s el ......................................................................i
Tab l e o f Co n t en t s ......................................................................................................i i

In dex o f Au t ho ri t ies

. .................................................................................................i i i
St at em en t o f t he Cas e ..............................................................................................2
Is s u e Pres en ted ...........................................................................................................2
I.

THE EVI

DENCE IS LEGALLY INS UFFICIENT TO PROVE THE ENHANCEMENT ALLEGATIONS AND TO ENHANCE APPELLANT’S PENALTY RANGE TO THAT OF AN HABITUAL OFFENDER

St at em en t o f Fact s......................................................................................................3
Su m m ary o f t h e Arg u m en t .........................................................................................4 Arg um en t ....................................................................................................................5 Pray er fo r Rel i ef.........................................................................................................9
Cert i fi cat e o f W o rd -Co u n t Co m p l ian ce..................................................................1 0
Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce...............................................................................................1 0

iiINDEX OF AUTHORI TI ES
Ca s es :
Der ich swei l er

v. S t a t e , 3 5 9 S.W .3 d 3 4 2 (Tex . Ap p . - Ft . W ort h 2 0 12 )..................5

Ex Pa r t e Ri ch , 1 9 4 S.W .3 d 5 0 8 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 )..........................................8

Jo r d an v. S t at e , 2 56 S.W .3 d 2 8 6 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 00 8 )........................................6

Mi kel v. S t a t e , 1 6 7 S.W

. 3 d 5 56 (Tex . Ap p
. - Ho u s t o n [1 4 t h Di st .] 2 0 0 5 )............... 

### 8

Ro b er s o n v. S t a t e , 4 2 0 S.W .3 d 8 3 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p
. 2 0 1 3)....................................7
S a n d er s v. S ta t e , 7 8 5 S.W . 2 d 4 4 5 (Tex . Ap p. - San An t o n io 1 9 90 )........................8

To ml i n v. S t a t e , 7 2 2 S.W .2 d 7 0 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 7 )........................................5

W i l s o n v. S t a t e , 6 7 1 S.W .2 d 52 4 (Tex . Cri m
. Ap p . 1 9 84 )........................................6
S T A T U T E S :
T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 1 2 .4 2 (d) ..................................................................................5

T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 2 9.0 3 (a ) (2 ) & (b)

................................................................ 

### ..2

Tex a s Rul es o f Appel l a te Pro cedure:

T E X . R
. A P P . P
. 9 .4 (i ) (3 ) ......................................................................................1 0

T E X . R. A P P . P. 9 .4 (i ) (1 )

. ......................................................................................1 0

T E X . R. A P P . P. 9.4 (i ) (2 ) (B)

....................................................................... . . . ......1 0

iii

### NO. PD-0 79 4 -1 5

IN TH E CO URT O F CRIM INAL APPEALS

O F TEX AS

* * * * * ** * * * * ** * ** * ** * * * * * * *
ESSIE D. H O PK INS Ap p el l an t/ Pet i ti o n er v s. 

### TH E STATE O F TEX AS , Ap p el l ee/ Res p o n d en t * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * *

On Ap p eal fro m t h e 2 9 1 s t Di s t ri ct Co u rt Dal l as Co u n t y , Tex as Tri al Co u rt Cau s e No

. F-1 3 -5 5 7 6 4 -U

an d Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s fo r t h e Fi ft h Di s t ri ct o f Tex as at Dal l as

Ap p el lat e Cau s e No . 0 5 -1 4-0 0 1 4 6 -CR * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *

T O T H E H O N O R A B L E J U D G E S O F T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S :
COMES NOW Es s i e D. Ho p k i n s, ap p el l an t herei n, an d res pect fu l ly s u b m i t s

t h i s h i s b ri ef o n ap peal an d p et it i o n fro m h i s co n v i ct io n fo r th e o ffen s e o f Ag g rav at ed

Ro b b ery
. J u d g em en t was ren dered i n t h e 2 9 1 s t Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Dal las Co u n t y , J u d g e
J en n ifer Bal id o p res i d in g
.

1

### STATEM ENT O F TH E CASE

In Cau s e No

. F1 3 -5 5 7 6 4 -U at t ri al an d Cau s e No

. 0 5 -1 4-0 0 1 4 6-CR o n ap p eal ,
ap p el l an t was ch arg ed b y i n d i ct m en t ret u rn ed b y t h e Dal l as Co u n t y Gran d J u ry wi th

t h e fi rs t d eg ree fel on y o ffen s e of Ag g rav at ed Ro b b ery
. Th e cas e was as s i g n ed t o t h e
2 9 1 s t Ju d i ci al Di s t ri ct Co urt fo r d i s p o s i ti o n
. Th e in d i ct m en t al l eg ed an o ffen s e

p ro h ib i t ed b y T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 2 9 .0 3 (a ) (2 ) & (b). Th e p e n a l t y ran g e was

en h an ced wi t h al l eg at i o n s of t wo p r e v i o u s fel on y co n v ict i o n s
. [CR: 1 4 , 1 7 ]

. Ap p el l an t en t ered a p l ea o f “ No t Gu i l t y ” b e f o r e t h e j u ry
. [RR 3 : 9 , 1 2 -1 3]

. Bas ed

u p o n ap p el l an t ’ s pl ea an d t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed , th e ju ry fo un d ap p el l an t g u i l ty o f

t h e o ffen s e o f Ag g rav at ed Ro b b ery
. [CR: 3 6 : RR 4 : 5 3 ]

. Pu n i s h m en t i s s u e s w e r e s u b m i t t ed t o t he d i s t ri ct co u rt

. A p p el l an t en t ered a p l ea

o f “ Tru e” t o b o t h en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n s
. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt en t ered a “ Tru e” v erd i ct

t o each o f t h e en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n s an d p u n is h m en t was s et at co n fi n em en t i n t h e
p en it en t i ary

fo r l i fe. No ti ce o f ap p eal was t i m el y g i ven . [CR: 4 3 ]

.



### ISSUE PRESENTED

I.

THE EVIDENCE IS LEGALLY INS UFFICIENT TO PROVE THE ENHANCEMENT ALLEGATIONS AND TO ENHANCE APPELLANT’S PENALTY RANGE TO THAT OF AN HABITUAL OFFENDER

2

### S TATEM ENT O F FACTS

Ap p el l an t was in d i ct e d f o r t h e fi rs t d eg ree fel o n y o ffen s e o f Ag g rav at ed

Ro b b ery
. Th e in di ct m en t al l eg ed a s i n g l e en h an ci n g p arag rap h co nt ai n i n g o n e fel o ny

c o n v i c ti o n
. [CR: 14 ]

. In a s ep arat e pl ead i n g th e St at e al l eg ed an o t h er fe l o n y

co n vi ct i o n
. [CR: 1 7 ]

. At t ri al ap p el l an t en t ered a p l ea o f “ Tru e” t o b o t h en h an cem en t
al l eg at i o n s
. [RR 5 : 7 -8 ]

. Th e St at e d id n o t o ffer p en it en t i ary pack et s t o p ro v i d e p ro o f

o f t h e p ri o r co nv i ct i o n s
. Th e en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n i n t h e in d i ct m en t al l eg ed t h at th e p ri o r co n v i ct i o n,
fo r ag g rav at ed as s au l t , o ccu rred pr i o r t o t h e co m m i s s i o n o f t h e o ffen s e “ ...s et o ut
ab o ve...” cl earl y referri n g t o t h e i n d i ct ed o ffen s e. [CR: 14 ]. T h e d at e al l eg ed was
Au g u s t 2 9 , 20 0 3 an d t h e co nv i ct i n g co u rt was t h e 1 9 5 t h Di s t ri ct Co u rt o f Dal l as
Co u n t y , Tex as
. Th e n o t i ce p l ead i n g i s n o t s o cl ear as t o t h e d at e of co n v i ct i o n o r th e s eq u en ce

o f t h e co n v i ct i on as rel at ed t o t h e i n d i ct ed o ffen s e o r t h e in d i ct m en t ’ s en h an cem en t
al l eg at i o n
. [CR: 1 7 ]. Th at p l ead i n g al leg es t h at “ ...p ri o r to t h e co m m is s i o n o f t h e

“ afo res ai d offen s e” ap pel l an t was co n v i ct ed o f t h e o ffen s e of ag g rav at ed as s au l t o n

“ J an u ary 4 t h ” i n Cri m i n al Di s t ri ct Co u rt No

. 3 i n D al l as Co un t y , T ex as
. W h et h er t h e

“ afo res ai d o ffen se” i s t h e o ffen s e fo r wh i ch ap p el l an t was i n d i ct ed o r t h e o ffen s e fo r
wh i ch h e was p rev i o u s l y c o n vi ct ed i s n o t s p eci fi cal l y p l ed

. Bey o nd q u es t i o n,

3t h o u g h , th e pl ead i ng fai l s t o s t at e t h e d at e o f t h e p r i o r c o n v i ct i o n o t h er t h an t h e

referen ce t o a m o n t h an d a d ay wi t h ou t a referen ce t o t h e y ear o f t h e co n v i ct i o n
. 

### SUM M ARY O F TH E ARG UM ENT

Ev en th o u g h ap p el l an t pl ead “ T ru e” t o th e two p ri or co nv i ct i o n s al l eg ed fo r

en h an cem en t o f t h e pen al t y ran g e, t he e v i d e n c e i s l eg al l y i n su ffi ci en t to pro v e t h e
p ro p er s eq u en ci n g o f t h e t wo fel o n y co n v i ct i o n s as leg al ly req ui red s in ce t h e s eco n d

en h an cem en t al leg at i o n p ro v i ded a d at e co n s i s t i ng o nl y o f a m o n t h (J an u ary ) an d a
d ay (t h e 4 t h ). Th e St at e’ s ev i d en ce d i d n o t p ro ve t h at o n e p ri o r co n v i ct i o n was fi n al
b efo re t h e o t h er p ri o r co n vi ct i o n o r b efo re t h e p ri m ary ch arg ed o ffen s e.

4

### ARG UM ENT

Th e l aw co n cern in g s u ffi ci en cy of t he ev i d en ce t o pro v e en han cem en t fo r
h ab it u al fel o n y o ffen d ers i s wel l s et t l ed

. T E X . P E N A L C O D E § 1 2.4 2 (d) p ro v i d es , in

p ert i nen t p art :

[I] f i t i s s ho wn on t h e t ri al o f a fel o n y o ffen s e o t h er t h an a s t at e jai l fel o n y
... t h at t h e d efen d an t h as p rev i o u s l y b een fi n al l y co n v i ct ed o f t w o f el o n y o ffen s es , an d t h e s eco n d p rev io us fel o n y co n v i ct i o n i s fo r an o ffen s e t h at occu rred
s u b s eq u en t t o t h e fi rs t prev i o u s co n vi ct i o n hav in g b eco m e fi n al , o n co n v i ct i o n h e s hal l b e p u n i sh ed b y i m p ri so n m en t i n t h e T ex as Dep art m en t o f Cri m i n al J u st i ce fo r l i fe, o r fo r an y t erm o f n o t m o re t h an 9 9 y ears n or les s t h an 25 y ears
. Th u s, t he s t at u t e req u i res t h e St at e t o p ro v e t h i s ch ro n o lo g i cal s eq u en ce o f ev en t s :

(1 ) t h e fi rs t co nv i ct i o n b eco m es fi n al ; (2 ) t h e o ffen s e l ead i ng t o a l at er co n v i ct io n i s co m m i t t ed ; (3 ) t h e l at er co n v i ct i o n b eco m es fi nal ; (4 ) t h e o ffen s e fo r wh ich t h e d efen d an t p res en t l y st an d s accu s ed i s co m

m i t t ed

. See To m l i n v. S t a t e , 7 2 2 S.W .2 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 8 7 ). Th i s p ro o f i s
req u i red ev en t h o ug h th e St at e n eed n o t al l eg e s eq u en t i al i t y i n th e p l ead i n g
d o cu m en t s
. See Der i ch s wei l er v. S ta t e , 3 5 9 S.W

. 3 d 3 42 , 3 4 9 (Tex

. Ap p
. - Ft

. W o rt h
2 0 1 2 ).

In t he i n s t an t cau s e, t h e i n d i ct m en t p ro p erl y al leg ed th a t ap p el l an t h ad

5co m

m i t t ed an d b een co n v i ct ed o f a fel o ny o ffen s e pri o r t o th e co m m i s s i on o f t h e
p ri m ary o ffen s e al l eg ed i n t h e i n d i ct m en t. Ho wev er, t h e s eco nd en h an cem en t

p l ead i n g d i d n o t al l eg e t hat a s eco nd co n v i c t i o n w as co m m i tt ed an d fi n al b efo re
ei t h er t h e p ri m ary o ffen s e o r t h e o t her en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n
. Th e p l ea t o t h e s eco n d

en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n d i d n o t p ro v e t h at i t was fi n al b efo re t h e p ri m ary o ffen s e o r

t h e o th er en h an c e m e n t al l eg at i o n
. Ap p el l an t ’ s p l ea o f “ Tru e” to t h e s eco n d

en h an cem en t o ffen s e ad m it t ed t h e co n v i ct i on b u t n o t wh en t h e co n v i ct i o n was

o b t ai n ed o r b ecam e fi n al

. Ap p el l an t ’ s p l eas o f “ Tru e,” wi t h o u t ot h er ev i den ce, d id

n o t p ro v e t h at t h e t wo en h an ci n g al l eg at i o n s were s eq u en t ial [i .e, co n v i c t i o n,

co m m i s s io n , co n v i ct io n ]

. See Jo r da n v. S t a t e , 2 5 6 S.W .3 d 2 8 6 , 29 0 -9 1 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p . 2 0 0 8 ).

In res ol vi n g t h e is s u e b el o w, t h e co u rt of ap p ea l s c i t e d t o on l y t wo p ri o r
d eci s i o n s b y t h i s Ho n orab l e Co u rt

. Th e fi rs t i s i rrel ev an t t o t h e i s s u e p res en t ed an d

t h e s eco n d , i n fact , i s fav o rab l e t o ap p el l an t ’ s co m p l ai n t

. Th e fi rs t cas e ci t ed b y

t he co u rt o f ap peal s was W il so n v. S t a t e , 6 7 1 S

. W. 2 d

5 2 4 , 5 26 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 8 4 ). W h i l e t h e co u rt o f ap p eal s co rrect l y no t es t h at t h e

cas e s t an d s fo r t he p ro p o s i t i o n t h at a p l ea o f “ Tru e” i s ev id en t i ary i n n at u re an d

s u ffi ci en t t o p ro v e an en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n , it d o es n o t res o l v e t h e i s s u e p res en t ed
b y ap p e l l an t o r ev en ad d res s i t

. W i l s o n ’ s i n fo rm at i o n (h e was ch arg ed wi t h a

6m i s d em ean o r o ffen se) co n t ai n ed o n l y a s i n g l e en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n
. Th e q u es t i o n

as t o w h e t h e r a pl ea of “ Tru e” t o t wo s eq u en t ial en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n was

s u ffi ci en t t o p ro v e t h e s eq u en ce o f t h e co n v i ct io n s was no t p res en t ed n o r res o l v ed in

t h e W i l s o n ap p eal

. Th e co u rt o f ap peal s ci t ed t o a s eco n d cas e fo r t h e p ro p o s i t i on th at an ap p el l an t
wh o pl ead s t ru e t o en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n s an d a n d th e s eq u en ce o f t h e co n vi ct i o n s , rel i ev es th e St at e fro m th e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g t h e p ri or co n v i ct i o n s
. See Ro b er so n

v. S ta t e , 4 2 0 S.W .3 d 8 3 2 , 83 8 ( Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 20 1 3 ). By i m p l i cat i o n Ro b er

so n
h o l d s th at a p l e a o f t r u e , s t an d i n g al o n e, i s no t s u ffi ci en t ev i d en ce t o p ro v e t h e

s eq u en ce o f t h e en h an cem en t al l eg at i on s
. In Ro b er s o n t h e d efen d an t was accu s ed by an i n d i ct m en t w i t h a fel o n y o ffen s e
wh i ch al s o co n t ai n ed t wo al l eg at i o n s o f p ri o r fel o n y co n v i c t i o n s
. H owev er, t h e

en ch an t m en t al l eg at i o n s were t ran s p o s ed : t h e o l d er co n v i ct io n was al l eg ed fi rs t an d

t h e n ewer co n v i ct i o n was al leg ed s eco nd

. W h en t h e i n d i ct m en t al leg at i on s w ere read

t o t h e ju ry , t h e p ro s e c u t o r read t h em i n rev ers e o rd er s o t h at t he n ewer co n v i ct i o n

was read fi rs t fo ll owed b y t he ol d er co n vi ct io n
. Th e d efen d an t p l ed “ Tru e” t o b o th
al l eg at i o n s as read b y

t h e p ro s ecu t o r.
Ro b ers o n arg u ed o n d i rect ap p eal , an d t h en b y way o f P e t i t i o n fo r
Di s c r e t i o n a ry Rev i ew, th at t he ev i d en ce d id n o t p ro v e t h e p ro p er seq u en ce o f t h e

7co n vi ct i o n s becau s e o f t h e o rd er i n wh i ch t h ey w ere p l ed i n t h e in d i ct m en t

. T h e co u rt

o f ap p eal s , as d i d th i s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt , fo un d ag ai n s t Ro b ers o n. Ho wev er, t h e b as i s

o f t h e ru li n g s w as n ot t h at t he p ro p er s e q u e n c e o f c o n v ict i o n was p ro v en b y t h e

“ T r u e ” p l eas
. Rat her t he co u rt o f ap peal s an d t h i s Co u rt l o o k ed t o t h e ev i d en ti ary

reco rd t o d et erm in e i f t h e p ro p er s eq u en ce h ad b een p ro v en
. Bo t h co u rt s h el d t h at t h e

reco rd affi rm at i v el y es t ab li s h ed t h at Ro b ers o n ’ s p ri o r co nv i ct i o n s m et t h e st at u t o ry
ch ro n o l o g y req u i rem en t fo r th e h ab i t u al o ffen d er p u n is h m en t ran g e. R o b e r s o n ’ s

reco rd ev i d en ce co n t ai n ed p en i t en t i ary p ack et s th at es t ab li s hed t h at t h e t wo

co n vi ct i o n s d i d in fact o ccu r i n t h e req ui red o rd er. “ Th u s t h e s t at e m et i t s b u rd en as

t h e ev i d en ce i s s u ffi ci en t to p ro v e t h e s t at u t o ri l y req u ired s eq u en ce o f co n v i ct i o n in

o rd er fo r (Ro b ers o n ’ s ) p u n i s h m e n t ran g e t o be en h an ced to t hat of a h ab i t u al

o ffen d er.” Ro ber

so n , 4 2 0 S.W .3 d at 8 4 0

. Th e p l eas o f “ Tru e” s t an d i n g al o ne d i d n o t , i n t hat cas e, p ro v e t h e p ro p er ch ro n o l o g y
. In Ex Pa rt e R i ch , 1 9 4 S.W .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 3 (Tex

. C r i m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 6 ) t hi s Co u rt

s t at es t he g en eral ru l e t h at a p l ea o f “ Tru e” t o an en ch an t m en t al leg at io n rel i ev es t h e
St at e o f i t s b u rd en of p ro v i n g th e p ri o r co n v ict i o n
. Ho wev er, t h e Co u rt reco g n i zed

t h at t here was an ex cep t i o n t o t h at g en eral ru l e “ ...wh en t h e reco rd affi rm at i v el y
refl e c t s t h a t t h e en han cem en t i t s el f was im pro p er.” Id ; al s o s ee Mi kel v. S t a t e , 1 6 7
S.W

. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 5 8 -5 9 (Tex

. Ap p
. - Ho u s to n [1 4 t h Di s t .] 20 0 5 ) an d Sa n d er s v. S t a t e ,

87 8 5 S.W . 2 d 4 4 5, 4 48 (Tex

. Ap p . - San An t o ni o 1 99 0 ).

In th e i n st an t cau s e, t h e en h an ci n g p lead i n g fai l ed t o co n t ai n a referen ce t o t h e

y ear d at e o f th e seco n d en h an ci n g co n v i ct i o n. Th e St at e di d n o t o ffer an y ev i d en ce
i n t o t h e reco rd t hat p ro v ed t he p ro p er ch ro n o l og y o f t he t wo co n v i ct i o ns . Si n ce t h e

reco rd affi rm at i v el y es t ab l i s h es t h at t h e St at e d i d n o t pro v e t h e ap p ro p ri at e
ch ro n o l o g y o f th e en h an ci n g o ffen s es , ap p el l an t arg u es t h at t h e ev i d en ce i s
i n s u ffi ci en t t o pro ve t h e s eco n d al l eg at i o n
. Th erefo re, ap p el lan t i s en t i t l ed t o a n ew
p u n i s h m en t h eari n g
.



### P RAYER FO R RELIEF
Ap p el l an t p ray s t hat t hi s Ho n o rab l e Co u rt fi n d t h e ev i d en ce i n s u ffi ci en t to

p ro v e t h e s eco n d en h an cem en t al l eg at i o n an d t h at t h e cas e b e rev ers ed an d rem an d ed

t o t he d i s t ri ct co u rt fo r a n ew p u n i s h m en t h eari ng
. Res p ect fu l ly

s u b m i t t ed , / s / Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l

Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l SBN 1 4 2 1 7 5 0 0 P.O. Bo x 7 9 7 6 3 2 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 3 7 9 2 1 4.8 7 0 .3 4 40 ju dg e.m i t ch el l @ g m ai l .co m
Co u n sel fo r Pet i t i on er/ Ap p el l an t

9CERTI FI CATE OF W ORD-COUNT COMPLI ANCE

I hereb y cert i fy , i n co m

p l i an ce wi t h Ru l e 9 .4 (i ) (3 ) o f t h e T e x as Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced u re, t h at t h i s do cu m en t co n tai n s 1 ,6 04 wo rd s , in cl ud i ng al l co n t en t s

ex cep t fo r th e s ect i on s o f th e Pet i t i o n t o be ex cl u d ed b y Ru l e 9

. 4 (i ) (1 ) o f t h e Tex as
Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced u re, an d i n co m pl i an ce wi t h Ru l e 9

. 4 (i ) (2 )(B) o f t h e Tex as
Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced u re.
/ s / Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE

I h ereb y cert i fy th at a t ru e an d co rrect co p y o f t h i s Bri ef is b ei n g s erv ed o f t h i s

t h e 1 5 t h d ay o f Oct o b er, 2 0 1 5 v i a t h e s erv i ce fu n ct i o n i n eFi l e T e x a s , o n t h e

at t o rn ey s fo r t h e St at e: (1 ) Pat ri ci a No bl e, As s i st an t Di s t ri ct A t t orn ey , Dal l as Co u n t y , Tex as t o p no b l e@ d al l as co un ty .o rg an d (2 ) t h e St at e Pro s ecu t i n g At to rn ey at
i n fo rm at i o n @ s p a.t ex as
. go v
.

/ s / Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l

10