FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

December 29, 2014

ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK

NO. AP-77,030

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

MATTHEW LEE JOHNSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

AP-77,030

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 12/29/2014 9:11:55 PM

Accepted 12/30/2014 8:06:43 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

STATE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF

EXCEEDING WORD LIMIT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through the Criminal District Attorney of

Dallas County, respectfully requests leave to file a brief exceeding the 37,500-

word limit. In support ofthis motion, the State would show the following:

I.

Appellant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the 363rd

Judicial District Court of Dallas County, convicting him of the capital murder of

Nancy Harris. On November 8, 2013, the jury answered the special issues so as to

support the imposition of a death sentence, and the trial court sentenced him to

death. Appeal to this Court is automatic. After requesting two extensions,
Appellant filed his brief on August 1, 2014. An amended brief was filed on

August 21, 2014. The State's brief was originally due on September 2, 2014, but

the deadline was extended until tomorrow, December 31, 2014. The State timely

tenders its brief along with this motion. The State's brief is 42,769 words in

length (excluding caption, table of contents, index of authority, statement regarding

oral argument, statement of the case, summary of the argument, signature,

certificate of compliance, and certificate ofservice).

II.

Rule 9.4(i)(2)(A) provides that a brief on direct appeal in a death penalty

case is limited to 37,500 words if computer-generated. Rule 9.4(i)(4), however,

provides that this Court may, on motion, permit a longer brief. The State

respectfully requests permission to exceed the word limit by 5,269 words for the

following reasons:

Appellant's brief contains 65 issues and is 148 pages long. Nearly half of

the issues pertain to jury selection, all of which required an in-depth analysis of

each of the specified jurors' responses on their questionnaires and during

individual voir dire. Additionally, several of the issues contained in Appellant's

brief contain conclusory statements but not a full application ofthe law to the facts.

The State has attempted to fully address the merits of Appellant's claims in

addition to its arguments regarding preservation and harm. Finally, in three
issues, Appellant challenged the trial court's charge to the jury during the

punishment phase. These three issues contain 76 sub-issues. As above, the State

attempted to briefly address each ofthe issues.

III.

The State responded with brevity where possible. That said, given the

serious nature of the case and the issues presented, a factual and legal analysis of

some depth was required.

IV.

For all of the foregoing reasons, counsel respectfully requests leave to file a

briefthat exceeds the word limit provided in Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(2)(A).

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests

the Court grant the State's request for leave to file a brief exceeding the word limit.

Craig Watkins

Criminal District Attorney

Dallas County

Respectfully submitted,

cmL^r/otJL—

Christine Womble

Assistant District Attorney

State Bar No. 24035991

Frank Crowley Courts Bldg

133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19

Dallas, Texas 75207-4399

(214) 653-3625 phone

(214) 653-3643 fax

CWomble(a>dallascounty.org
Certificate of Service

I certify that a true copy of this motion was served on John Tatum, counsel

for Appellant, 990 South Sherman Street, Richardson, Texas, 75081, via email on

December 30, 2014.

(ibtLcHi*/otulk

Christine Womble