FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS December 29, 2014 ABELACOSTA, CLERK NO. AP-77,030
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
MATTHEWLEE 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 supportofthis motion, the State would show the following:
I. 

### Appellant is confined pursuant tothejudgment and sentence ofthe 363rd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, convicting him ofthe capital murder of 

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

### support the imposition ofa 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 briefwas 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 ofcontents, index ofauthority, statementregarding oral argument, statement of the case, summary of the argument, signature, certificate ofcompliance, and certificate ofservice).
II. Rule 9.4(i)(2)(A) provides that a briefon direct appeal in a death penalty
case is limited to 37,500 words ifcomputer-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 briefcontains 65 issues and is 148 pages long. Nearly halfof the issues pertain to jury selection, all ofwhich required an in-depth analysis of each of the specified jurors' responses on their questionnaires and during 

### individual voir dire. Additionally, several ofthe issues contained in Appellant's briefcontain 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 threeissues, 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 attemptedto briefly address each ofthe issues.
III. The State responded with brevity where possible. That said, given the 

### serious nature ofthe case and the issues presented, a factual and legal analysis of
some depth was required.
IV. For all ofthe 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 Courtgrantthe State's request for leaveto file abriefexceeding the word limit.

Craig Watkins Criminal DistrictAttorney Dallas County Respectfully submitted, 

## ^r/otJL— 

## cmL Christine Womble AssistantDistrictAttorney

State Bar No. 24035991 FrankCrowley Courts Bldg 133 N. RiverfrontBlvd., LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 

### (214) 653-3625phone (214) 653-3643fax CWomble(a>dallascounty.orgCertificate ofService I certify that a true copy ofthis motion was served on John Tatum, counsel for Appellant, 990 South Sherman Street, Richardson, Texas, 75081, via email on December 30, 2014. 

## /otulk 

# (ibtLcHi* Christine Womble