ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

NO. 12-15-00007-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 12 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

CHRISTOPHER THURMAN, APPELLANT

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NUMBER 007-1224-14 FROM THE 7 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS HONORABLE KERRY RUSSELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

JAMES W. HUGGLER, JR. 100 E. FERGUSON, SUITE 805 TYLER, TEXAS 75702 903-593-2400 STATE BAR NUMBER 00795437

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ACCEPTED 12-15-00007-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 6/10/2015 10:20:10 PM

CATHY LUSK CLERKI D E N T I T Y O F P A R T I E S A N D C O U N S E L

APPELL ANT: Christ op her T hurman

APPELL ANT’S T RIAL COUNS EL: Jo hn Jar vis 326 So uth Fannin Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 592- 6576

APPELL ANT’S APP ELLATE COUNS EL Jam es Huggl er 100 E. Fe rguso n, Suit e 805 Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 593- 2400 903- 593- 3830 (f

ax)

APPELL EE The S ta te o f T ex as

APPELL EE’S TRIAL CO UNSEL Bryan Jira l Je ff Wo od Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 t h F lo or Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 590- 1720 903- 590- 1719 (f

ax)

APPELL EE’S APPELL ATE CO UNSEL Michae l We st Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 t h F lo or Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 590- 1720 903- 590- 1719 (f

ax)

iiT A B L E O F C O N T E N T S P A G E

ID ENTIT Y O F PARTI ES AND COUNS EL

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

TABLE OF AUTHORI TI ES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

ST ATEMENT OF THE CAS E

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

IS SUES P RESENTED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

I s s ue O ne : T he e v i d e nc e r e g a r d i ng i nt e nt i o na l o r k no w i ng p o s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e a r m w a s l e g a l l y i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s up p o r t t he

v e r d i c t

.

I s s ue T w o : B y e nt e r i ng a f i nd i ng o f g ui l t , p r i o r t o r e c e i v i ng a ny

e v i d e nc e a s t o p un i s hm e nt , t he t r i a l c o ur t f o r e c l o s e d d e f

e r r e d

a d j ud i c a t i o n a s a p o s s i b l e s e nt e nc e v i o l a t i ng hi s r i g ht t o d ue p r o c e s s o f l a w un d e r t he U ni t e d S t a t e s C o ns t i t ut i o n.

I s s ue T hr e e : B y e nt e r i ng a f i nd i ng o f g ui l t , p r i o r t o r e c e i v i ng a ny

e v i d e nc e a s t o p un i s hm e nt , t he t r i a l c o ur t f o r e c l o s e d d e f

e r r e d

a d j ud i c a t i o n a s a p o s s i b l e s e nt e nc e v i o l a t i ng hi s r i g ht t o d ue

c o ur s e o f l a w un d e r t he T e x a s C o ns t i t ut i o n.

ST ATEMENT OF THE F ACTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ARGUMENT

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

IS SUE ONE, RES TATED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

A. St andard of

Re vie w on Suff

ici enc y

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

iiiB. Law Re gar ding Po sse ssio n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

C. Applic at io n t o The se Fact s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 D. Co nclusio n

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

IS SUE TW O, RES TATED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

IS SUE THREE, RESTAT ED

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A. The L aw Req uire s a Ne utra l Tri bunal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 B. Applic at io n t o The se Fact s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C. St ruct ural Erro r Analysi s

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 D. Re me dy and Re lie f Re ques te d

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

PRAYER FO R RELI EF

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CERTIF ICATE OF SERVI CE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CERTIF ICATE OF COMPL IANCE

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ivT A B L E O F A U T H O R I T I E S

C O N S T I T U T I O N S
U.S

. C O N S T

. Ame nd. XIV

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
T E X

. C O N S T

. art

. I, § 19

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

S T A T U T E S
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 2. 01 (W est 2 012)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. § 12. 42(a ) ( We st 2012 )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Te x. P enal Co de Ann. §4 6. 04(a )(1) (W est 2 012)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

C A S E S
Arizo na v

. Fulm inant e , 4449 U. S. 2 79, 1 11 S. Ct

. 1246
, 1 13 L. Ed.2 d 3 02 (199 1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Bol ling er v

. St at e , 224 S. W. 3d 768 (Te x. App. – East land 2007
, pe t. r ef ’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Bro oks v. S ta te , 323 S. W. 3d 893 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 010)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Ex part e Bro wn , 158 S. W. 3d 449 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 005)

. . . . . . . . 14, 1 5
Bro wn v

. St at e , 911 S. W. 2d 744 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 995)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Brumit v

. St at e , 206 S. W. 3d 639 (Te x. Cri m. App. 2 006)

. . . . . . . . 14, 1 5
Cor pus v

. St at e , 30 S. W. 3d 35 (Te x. App. – Ho usto n [1 4 t h D ist .] 2000
, pe t. r ef ’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 1 2
Dav is v. S ta te , 93 S. W. 3d 664 (Te x. App. – T ex arkana 2002
, pe t. r ef ’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Gag non v. S carp el li
, 411 U.S

. 778, 9 3 S. Ct

. 1756
, 36 L. Ed.2 d ( 1973 )

. 14
Gil be rt v

. St at e , 874 S. W. 2d 290, 2 98 (Te x. App. – Ho usto n [1 s t D ist .] 1994
, pe t. r ef ’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 1 2, 1 3
Jackso n v

. Virg inia
, 443 U.S

. 307, 9 9 S. Ct

. 2781
,

v61 L. Ed.2 d 5 60 (197 9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8

Jo hnson v. S ta te , 871 S. W. 2d 183 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 993)

. . . . . . . . . 7, 8
Jo nes v. S ta te , 963 S. W. 2d 826 (Te x. App. – T ex arkana

1 998, pe t. r ef

’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Lag ro ne v. S ta te , 84 Te x. Cri m. 6 09, 2 09 S. W. 4 11 (191 9)

. . . . . . . . . . 15
McCle nan v

. St at e , 661 S. W. 2d 108 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 983)

. . . . . . . . . 15
Po rt er v

. St at e , 873 S. W. 2d 729 (Te x. App. – D alla s 1 994, pe t. r ef ’d)

. . . 9
Te xe ira v. S ta te , 89 S. W. 3d 190 (Te x. App. – T ex arkana

2 002, pe t. r ef

’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Tibb s v

. Flo rida
, 457 U.S

. 31, 4 1-42
, 102 S. Ct

. 2211
, 2217 -218
, 7 2 L. Ed. 2 d 6 52 (198 2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Wa llac e v. S ta te , 932 S. W. 2d 519 (Te x. App. – T yle r 1995
, pe t. r ef ’d)

. . 9

R U L E S
T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 9 .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 3 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

viNO. 1 2-15 -000 07-CR

CHRIS TOP HER THURMAN
, § IN THE CO URT OF APPEALS APPELL ANT § § VS. § 12 T H J UDI CIAL DI ST RICT § THE S TATE OF TEXAS, § APPELL EE § TYLER, T EXAS

A P P E L L A N T ’ S B R I E F

T O T H E H O N O R A B L E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S A N D T H E J U S T I C E S T H E R E O F :

Christ op her Thurma n (“ Appe llant ”)

, by and thro ugh his at to rne y of

re co rd, Jam es Huggl er , and pursuant to the pro visi ons o f T E X

. R. A P P

.

P R O C .3 8, et se q. , re spe ct fully subm it s t his b rie f o n app ea l.

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E C A S E

Appe llant was indict ed fo r the fe lo ny of fe nse of unlawful po sse ssio n

o f a f i r e arm by a fe lo n. I CR 4. 1 T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §4 6. 04(a ) ( 1 )

1 Refer ence s to the Clerk’s Recor d are desig nated “ CR” with a roman numer al pre ceding CR specify ing the corr ect volume a

nd an ar abic numer al following “CR” spec ify ing the corr ect pa g e in the rec ord.

1(W est 2012 ). The punishme nt range fo r this of fe nse wa s e nh a nc e d to a

sec ond de gre e fe lo ny range wit h the inclusi on of one prio r fe lo ny of fe nses.

I CR 4. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §1 2. 42(a ) ( We st 2012 ).

On June 27, 2012 , the tr ial court be gan a be nch tri al in the case on

the issue of guil t. V RR 48. 2 Fo llo wing the c o nc l us i o n of ev ide nce , the

co urt fo und Mr. T hurman guil ty o f t he of fe nse. V RR 130.

Afte r hear ing the punishme nt phase te sti mo ny, the co urt fo und the

enhance me nt para gra phs to be tr ue, and sent enc ed Appe llant to 15 ye ars’

co nfine me nt in the Te xa s D e p a r tm ent of Crim inal Justi ce , Inst it utio nal

Div isio n. I CR 74-7 5; VI RR 39.

Not ice of appe al was ti me l y f i l e d o n January 12, 2015

. I CR 57.

This brie f i s t ime ly file d o n o r be fo re J une 10, 2 015.

2 Refer ence s to the Reporter’ s Record a re ma de with the notation “RR” with a r oman numera l
prec eding RR indi cating

the cor rec t volume and an a

rabic numera l following spe cify ing the

corr ect pa g e. 2I S S U E S P R E S E N T E D

I s s ue O ne : T he e v i d e nc e r e g a r d i ng i nt e nt i o na l o r k no w i ng p o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m w a s l e g a l l y i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s up p o r t t he v e r d i c t

.

I s s ue T w o : B y e nt e r i ng a f i nd i ng o f g ui l t , p r i o r t o r e c e i v i ng a ny e v i d e nc e

a s t o p un i s hm e nt , t he t r i a l c o ur t f o r e c l o s e d d e f

e r r e d a d j ud i c a t i o n a s a p o s s i b l e s e nt e nc e v i o l a t i ng hi s r i g h t t o d ue p r o c e s s o f l a w un d e r t he U ni t e d S t a t e s C o ns t i t ut i o n.

I s s ue T hr e e : B y e nt e r i ng a f i nd i ng o f g ui l t , p r i o r t o r e c e i v i ng a ny

e v i d e nc e a s t o p u n i s hm e nt , t he t r i a l c o ur t f o r e c l o s e d d e f

e r r e d

a d j ud i c a t i o n a s a p o s s i b l e s e nt e nc e v i o l a t i ng hi s r i g ht t o d u e c o ur s e o f l a w un d e r t he T e x a s C o ns t i t ut i o n.

S T A T E M E N T O F T H E F A C T S

This case in vol ved a be n ch tr ial fo r an indict me nt alle ging po sse ssio n

of a fire arm by a co nvic t e d f e l o n. I CR 4. Wi tne sse s we re call ed who

est abli shed that Mr. Thurma n had a prev io us felo ny co nvic ti on and that

he was on paro le on the dat e alle ge d in the indict me nt. V RR 53, 56. The

p o s s ess io n was alle ge d to have oc curre d in Tyl er , Sm it h Count y at the

To wn Ho use Mot el

. V RR 59 -60.

Fo r the prim ary el em ent , inte n t i o nal or know ing po sse ssio n, the

St at e call ed fo ur Tyl er po lic e of fice rs. Adam Col by re spo nded as a back- up

of fice r and knew that he was di s p a t c he d t o a the ft co mpl aint

. V RR 59.

3The p r i m a r y suspec t was Brit ta ni St one who had sto le n cre dit card s,

che ckbo oks and pre scri pti on dr ug s a nd that she was in a ro om at the

To wn House Mot el

. V RR 59-6 0. Offi ce r Col by de te rmi ned that Ms. St one

was wante d for fel ony charge s in bot h Smit h and Greg g Count ie s. V RR

60. W hile O ffic er Col by was spe aking wit h the co mpl ainant in the the ft

case , Ms. St one cam e out of a hot el ro om , made ey e co ntac t wit h and was

re co gnize d by the of

fice r fro m pre vio us bo ok- i n phot og raphs and we nt

b a c k i ns i de the ro om

. V RR 60-6 1. Col by and Offi ce r Hill
, who di d no t

te sti fy, knocke d on the do or a nd Mr. Thurma n answe re d and gav e

pe rmi ssio n for the offi ce rs to “go and get her. ” V RR 62. Ms. S to ne gave

a false name , and Col by saw a cre dit card wit h the co mpl ainant ’s name on

it i n t he ro om

. V RR 63

.

Col by co ntac te d a de te ct ive to see k a se arch war rant w as ob ta ine d

fo r the sto le n pro pe rt y. V RR 64. During that pro ce ss, Mr. Thurma n gav e

wri tt en and ve rbal co nsent fo r the of fice rs to sea rch the ro om and his car

fo r sto le n pro pe rt y. V RR 64-6 6. During the sea rch fo r st o l e n p r o p e r t y,

Offi ce Co l b y and at le ast one ot her of fice r sea rche d the ro om and Col by

saw bulle ts and was co nce rne d abo ut a fire arm be ing invo l v e d t ha t had

4no t y e t be en fo und. V RR 71. Bot h Mr. Thurma n and Ms. St one w e r e

sea rche d aga in and no fire arm was lo cat ed

. V R R 72. No fire arm was

fo und in Mr. T hurman’s car. V RR 72.

Two ot her of

f i ce rs the n sea rche d the ro om aga in and fo und a

fire arm , spe cifi call y a .3 8 cali be r re vo lve r wit h pink gri ps. V RR 73. Mr.

Thurma n de nie d ow ner ship, and Ms. S t o ne i nvo ked her rig ht to re mai n

sile nt. V RR 73. Now of fice rs soug ht a diff

er ent war rant using a narco ti cs

de te ct ive

. V RR 74. Mr. Thurma n was allo we d to le ave

. V RR 74. Ms.

St one was charg ed wit h be ing a fe lo n in po sse ssio n of a fire arm

. V RR 76-

77, 7 9.

Co un s e l ha s r e v i e w e d t he r e c o r d i n t he c a s e t h or oug hly, a nd

pre sent s thre e issue s. A dis c us s io n of re le vant fact s fo r tho se issue s is

include d i n t he arg ume nt sec ti on of t his b rie f.

5S U M M A R Y O F A R G U M E N T

The issue s fo r this Court to co nside r are firs t, whe the r the ev ide nce

was le gal ly suffic ie nt to est abli sh that Mr. Thurma n inte ntio nally or

know ingl y posse sse d the fire arm and se co nd, whe the r the c our t vio lat ed

his rig hts to due pro ce ss and due co urs e o f l a w by imm ed iat el y finding

him gui l t y o f t he o ffe nse. The ev ide nce is cle ar that an of fice r lo cat ed a

pink handle d re vo lve r in a hot el ro om share d by Mr. Thurma n by an

indict ed co -de fe ndant Ms. Brit ta ni St on e. H ow eve r , the re co rd est abli shes

that Mr. Thurma n was re le ase d by of fice rs that ev eni ng be c a us e t h ey

we re lo oki ng fo r Ms. St o ne o n f e l o ny war rant s and had not lo cat ed the

fire arm by that ti me

. The re vo lve r was fo und under a mat tr ess in a hot el

ro om onl y aft er repe at ed sear che s of t he ro om

. The St at e faile d to pro ve

inte ntio nal or kno wing po sse ssio n.

The se co nd and thir d i ssue rais ed re lat e to t he tr ial co urt’ s f inding

Mr. Thurma n g ui l t y of the of fe nse alm ost imm ed iat el y fo llo wing the

co nclusio n of ev ide nce , thus maki ng Mr. Thurma n ine lig ible t o r e c ei ve

de fe r r e d a d

judic at io n. De fe rre d adj udicat io n ex ist s as a po ssibl e

punishme nt fo r this of fe nse, by el imi nat i ng that as an op ti on, the tr ial

6co urt vio lat ed Mr. Thurma n’s rig ht to due proce ss and due co urse of law

.

A R G U M E N T

I s s ue O ne , R e s t a t e d : T he e v i d e nc e r e g a r d i ng i nt e nt i o na l o r k no w i ng p o s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e a r m w a s l e g a l l y i ns uf f i c i e nt t o s up p o r t t he v e r d i c t

.
This was a case abo ut po sse ssio n. Whi le it was u n disput ed that a

fire arm was lo cat ed in the ro om oc cupie d by Mr. Thurma n and Ms. St one ,
the St at e fail ed to p r o v e t h at Mr. Thurma n inte ntio nally or know ingl y

po sse sse d t he fire arm

.

A

. S t a nd a r d o f R e v i e w o n S uf f i c i e nc y
Appe llant co nte nds that the ev ide nce is le gal l y i ns uffici ent to

suppo rt the ve rdic t. The sta ndard fo r re vie wi n g a le gal suffic ie ncy

chall eng e is whe the r any rat io nal tr ie r of fact c o ul d have fo und the

ess ent ial el em ent s of the of fe nse be yo nd a re aso nable do ubt. Se e Jackso n

v. Virg inia
, 44 3 U .S

. 307, 315- 16, 99 S. Ct. 2781
, 2786 -787
, 61 L. Ed. 2d

560 (197 9); see also Jo hnson v. St at e , 8 7 1 S

. W

. 2 d 183, 186 (Te x. Crim

. App. 1993 ); and Bro oks v. St at e , 323 S. W. 3d 893, 894 (Te x. Crim

. App.

72010 )(pl urali ty op .). The ev ide nce is ex ami ned in the lig ht mo st fav or able

to the ve rdic t. Se e Jackso n , 443 U.S . at 320, 99 S. Ct. at 2789 ; Jo hnson
,

871 S. W. 2d at 186. A succe ssful le gal suffic ie ncy chall eng e wil l re sult in

re ndit io n of an acqui tt al by the re vie wing co urt. Se e Tibb s v. Flo rida
, 457

U.S

. 31, 4 1-42
, 102 S. Ct

. 2211
, 2217 -218
, 72 L. Ed. 2 d 6 52 (198 2).

B

. L a w R e g a r d i ng P o s s e s s i o n

In or de r to co nvic t a pe rso n an of of fe nse, the St at e must pro ve ev er y

el em ent of the of

fe nse be yo nd a re aso nable do ubt. T E X

. P E N A L C O D E A N N

. §2 .0 1 (W est 2011 ). To pro ve that a de fe ndant co mm it te d t he o f f e n se of

po sse ssio n of a fire arm , the St at e is re quire d to pro ve that the de fe ndant

(1) e x e r c i s e d act ual care , co ntro l or cust od y of the fire arm , (2) he was

co nscio us of his co nnect io n wit h it
, and (3) that he know ing l y or

inte ntio nally posse sse d the fire arm

. Dav is v. S ta te , 93 S. W. 3d 664, 667

(Te x. App. – T ex arkana 2002
, pe t. r ef ’d).

Bec ause an accuse d must n o t onl y have ex er cise d act ual care ,

co ntro l, or cust od y of the fire arm , but must also have be en co nscio us of his

co nnect io n wit h it and have know n wh a t i t was, ev ide nce which

affi rma t ive ly links him to it suffic es fo r pro of that he po sse sse d it

8know ingl y. Mr. Thurma n re co gnize s this can be me t by the St at e thro ugh

ei the r dire ct or cir cumst anti al e vid enc e, but it must be mo re than a

fo rt uito us co nnect io n. Bol ling er v. St at e , 224 S. W. 3d 768, 774 (Te x. App.

– East land 2007
, pe t. re f’d), cit ing Bro wn v. St at e , 911 S. W. 2d 744
, 7 4 7

(Te x. Cri m. App. 1 995)

.
Whe n the fire arm is not fo und on the accuse d’s pe rso n or is not in his

ex clusiv e po sse ssio n, addit io nal fact s must affi rma ti ve ly link the accuse d

to the fire arm

. Jo nes v. St at e , 963 S. W. 2d 826, 830 (Te x. App.

–

Te xar kana 1998
, pe t. re f’d). Whi le no set fo rmula of fact s ex ist that wo uld

dict at e a finding o f affir mat ive links sufficie nt to suppo rt an infe re nce of

know ing po sse ssio n of co ntra band. Po rt er v. S ta te , 8 73 S. W. 2d 729, 7 32

(Te x. App. – Dal las 1994
, pe t. re f’d). The numbe r of links if le ss imp or ta nt

than the “l og ical fo rce ” or de gre e to which the links, a l o ne o r in

co mbi nati on, te nd to affi rma ti ve ly link the accuse d to t he c ont raba nd.

Wa llac e v. St at e , 932 S. W. 2d 519, 524 (Te x. App.

– Tyl er 1995
, pe t. re f’d).

Fact or s that spe cifi call y link a de fe ndant to a fire arm include : (1) whe the r

the fi re arm w as in a c ar driv en by the a ccuse d; (2) whet her t he fire arm s

we re in a plac e ow ned by the accuse d; (3) whe t he r the fire arm s we re

co nve ni e nt ly acce ssibl e to the accuse d; (4) whe the r the fire arm s we re

9fo und in an enc lo sed space ; and (5) w he t her the accuse d made any

affi rma ti ve sta te me nt co nnect ing him to the fire arm

. Cor pus v. St at e , 30

S. W. 3d 35, 3 8 (Te x. App. – Ho usto n [1 4 t h D ist .] 2000
, pe t. r ef ’d).

The analy sis is simi lar to pro ving po sse ssio n o f na r c o t i cs. Fact or s

that may est abli sh an affi rma ti ve link fo r narco ti cs includ e whe the r (1)

the co ntra band was in pl a i n vie w; (2) the co ntra band was co nve nie ntly

acce ssibl e to the accuse d; (3) the accuse d was the ow ner of the plac e whe re

t he c o ntra band was fo und; (4) the accuse d was the driv er of th e

auto mo bile in which t he c o ntra band was fo und; (5) the co ntra band was

fo und o n t he same si de o f t he car sea t as the accuse d was sit ti ng; (6) the

plac e whe re the co ntra band was fo und was enc lo sed ; (7) t he o d o r of the

co ntra band was pr ese nt; (8 ) p arap her nalia t o use the cont raba nd was in

vie w of or fo und on the accuse d; (9) co nduct by the accuse d i nd i cat ed a

co nscio usness of guil t; (10) the accuse d has a spe cial co nn e c t i o n to the

co ntra band; (11) oc cupant s of the auto mo bile gav e co nflic ti ng sta te me nts

abo ut re le vant mat te rs; (12) the phys i c a l co ndit io n of the accuse d

indica te d re ce nt co nsumpt io n of the co ntra band fo und in the car; and (13)

affi rma ti ve sta te me nts co nnect ing the accuse d to the co ntra band. Gil be rt

v. S t a te , 874 S. W. 2d 290, 298 (Te x. App. – Houst on [1 s t Dist .] 1994
, pe t.

10re f’d).

C

. A p p l i c a t i o n t o T he s e F a c t s

The fire arm in this case was l oc at ed dur ing the thir d sea rch of the

ro om b y of

fice rs. V

RR 92. It w as lo cat ed unde r the m at tr ess o f t he be d

in the ro om

. V RR 95. M s

. S t o n e clai me d ow ner ship of the safe which

co ntai ned the same amm uniti on as the fire arm

. V RR 82, 98. It appe are d

to t he of fice r that t he ro om w as oc cupie d b y a wo man. V RR 102.

Ms. St one was charg ed that ev eni ng wit h be ing a fe lo n in po sse ssio n

of the fire arm , po sse ssio n of narco ti cs and of fe nses re lat ed to the the ft
, as

we ll as to the tw o init ial war rant s. Tho se charg es we re all pe nding whe n

she invo ked her rig ht to re ma i n s i l ent during the firs t phase of tr ial. V

RR 118- 120. During the sent enc ing phase
, Ms. St one a l s o i nv oke d her

rig ht to re mai n sile nt. VI RR 8-9. By that ti me , the charg es re lat ed to her

co nduct on July 13, 2014 had be en re sol ve d, but the re was sti ll an unfile d

misd em ea nor charg e of fail ure to ide ntif y that the St at e wo uld not gra nt

imm unity

. VI RR 8, 17. The tr ial co urt to ok judic ial not ice of Ms. St one ’s

fe lo ny charg es in Sm it h Count y which include d an unlawful po sse ssio n of

a fire arm which was dism isse d u nd e r §1 2. 45; a fe lo ny po sse ssio n of a

11co ntro lle d subst ance and a fe lo ny the ft bo th of which we re neg ot iat ed fo r

12 mo nth sent enc es.

Of the Cor pus fa ct or s, thre e do not apply in t his c ase

. T he fire arm

was not found in a car; was not found in a place owne d by Mr. Thursto n;

and he made no sta te me nt linking him to the fire arm

. Cor pus , 30 S. W. 3d

at 38. The fire arm was fo und in an enc lo sed space , b ut t ha t i s t he onl y

fact or fre e fro m de bat e. Whe the r the fire arm was co nve nie ntly acce ssibl e

is de bat able since it to ok mult iple of fice rs mult iple sea rche s to lo cat e the

fire arm

.
Si mil arly
, many o f t he Gil be rt fact or s do not apply to the se fact s.

This co ntac t oc curre d out side an auto mo bile
, so the fo urth and fift h fact or s

do no t a pply

. This was a po sse ssio n of a fire arm , not mar ijua na case so

the sev ent h fact or do es not apply

. The co ntra band was no t fo und in an

enc lo sed a re a, so t he sixt h fa ct or do es not a pply

.
Se ve ral of the fact or s we igh aga inst Appe llant

. The co ntra band was

fo und in a lo cat io n acce ssibl e to Mr. Thurma n, alt hough a s not ed abo ve

not nec ess aril y co nve nie nt (Fac to r 2). In t his c ase , it i s undisp ute d that

the fire arm was under a mat tr ess not in plai n vie w and not fo und during

the fi rst o r sec ond sea rch of t he hot el r oo m.

12S e v e ral of the Gil be rt fact or s are cle arly in Mr. Thurma n’s f a v o r

.
The re wa s no co nduct ev ide ncing co nscio usness of guil t. The re was no

spe cial co nnect io n t o the fire arm , in fact it mig ht be see n as unusual fo r

a man to po sse ss a pink fire arm

. Ms. St one had as many , if not mo re links

to the fire arm and was also charg ed fo r po sse ssio n of a fire arm by a fe lo n.

The re we r e no a ffir mat ive sta te me nts co nnect ing Mr. Thurma n to the

co ntra band. Gil be rt v

. St at e , 874 S. W. 2d 290, 298 (Te x. App. – Ho usto n
[1 s t D ist .] 1994
, pe t. r ef ’d).

D

. C o nc l us i o n

The onl y co nnect io n be tw ee n Mr. Thurma n and the fire arm was that

he was one of tw o oc cupant s of the ro om

. The fire arm w a s no t f o u nd on

the f i r s t o r ev en sec ond sea rch of the ro om , and Mr. Thurma n was

co op er at ive abo ut le tt ing of fice rs inside the ro om to appre hend Ms. St one

and the n sea rch fo r sto le n pro pe rt y in the po sse ssi o n o f Ms. St one

. The

co nnect io n be tw ee n Mr. Thurma n and th e f ire arm was fo rt uito us, and

le gal ly insuffic ie nt. Whe n v i e w e d in to ta lit y, the ev ide nce was le gal ly

insuffic ie nt to pro ve that Mr. Thurma n inte ntio nally or know ingl y

po sse sse d the fire arm in this case

. The pro pe r re me dy is fo r this Court to

13re ve rse a nd r ende r on this i ssue.

I s s ue T w o , R e s t a t e d : B y e nt e r i ng a f i nd i ng o f g ui l t , p r i o r t o r e c e i v i ng a ny

e v i d e nc e a s t o p un i s hm e nt , t he t r i a l c o ur t f o r e c l o s e d d e f

e r r e d

a d j ud i c a t i o n a s a p o s s i b l e s e nt e nc e v i o l a t i ng hi s r i g ht t o d ue p r o c e s s o f l a w un d e r t he U ni t e d S t a t e s C o ns t i t ut i o n.

I s s ue T hr e e , R e s t a t e d : B y e nt e r i ng a f i nd i ng o f g ui l t , p r i o r t o r e c e i v i ng

a ny e v i d e nc e a s t o p un i s hm e nt , t he t r i a l c o ur t f o r e c l o s e d d e f

e r r e d

a d j ud i c a t i o n a s a p o s s i b l e s e nt e nc e v i o l a t i ng h i s r i g ht t o d ue c o ur s e o f l a w un d e r t he T e x a s C o ns t i t ut i o n.

A

. T he L a w R e q ui r e s a N e ut r a l T r i b un a l The Fo urte ent h Ame ndme nt pr o v i d e s that the sta te may not

“de priv e any pe rso n of life
, libe rt y, or pro pe rt y, wit hout due pro ce ss of law

.
U.S

. C O N S T

. Ame nd. XIV. No cit ize n of this St at e shall be de priv ed of life
,

lib e r t y , pro pe rt y, priv ile ge s or imm uniti es, or in any manne r

dise nfranchise d, ex ce pt by the due co urse of the law of the land. T E X

.
C O N S T

. art

. I, §1 9. Due pro ce ss re quire s that the tr ial co urt co nduct it sel f

in a neut ral and de ta che d manne r. Gag non v. Sc arpe lli
, 411 U

. S

. 778,

786, 93 S. Ct. 1756
, 1762
, 36 L. Ed. 2d (197 3); Brumit v. St at e , 206 S. W. 3d

639, 645 (Te x. Crim

. App. 2006 ). A tr ial co urt’ s arbi t r a r y r ef usal to

co nside r the ent ire range of punishme nt in a part icula r case vio lat es due

pro ce ss

. E x part e Bro wn , 158 S. W. 3d 449, 456 (Te x. Crim

. App. 2005 );

14Brumit a t 645.

The law co nte mpl at es that the tr ial judg e shall mai ntai n an at ti tude

of imp art iali ty thro ughout the tr ial. Lag ro ne v. St at e , 84 Te x. Crim

. 609,

209 S. W. 411, 415 (191 9). A co urt de nie s due pro ce ss and due co urse of

law if it arbi tr aril y re fuse s to co nside r the ent ire range of punishme nt fo r

an of fe nse or r e f

us es to co nside r the ev ide nce and imp ose s a

pre de te rmi ned punishme nt. Te ixe ira v. S ta te , 89 S. W. 3d 190, 192 (Te x.
App. – Te xar kana 2 002, pe t. r ef ’d).

A c our t de nie s due pro ce ss and due co urse of law if it ar b i t r a r i l y

re fuse s to co nside r the ent i r e range of punishme nt fo r an of fe nse or

re fuse s to co nside r the ev ide nce an d i m po ses a pre de te rmi ned

punishme nt. Ex part e Bro wn , 158 S. W. 3d 4 4 9, 454 (Te x. Crim

. App.

2005 ); McCle nan v

. St at e , 661 S. W. 2d 108, 1 10 (Te x. Cri m. App. 1 983)

.

B

. A p p l i c a t i o n t o T he s e F a c t s

Giv en the ev ide nce of fe re d at the sent enc ing phase of tr ial, the re

ex ist ed the po ssibi lit y tha t M r

. Thurma n mig ht have be en a suit able

candid at e fo r de fe rre d adj udicat io n. This include d the fact that since his

re le ase fr om priso n, he car ed for his un cle fo llo wing a st ro ke; (VI RR 24-

1525) that he is now mar rie d (VI RR 2 5
, 2 9 ) ; that he had be en co mpl iant

wit h par ol e (VI RR 29 -30) ; that he w as due to b e dischar ge d fro m paro le

on July 3, 2015 (VI RR 56). Agai nst tho se fact s we re his cri minal hist or y,

which was not insig nific ant. It is ent ire ly po ssibl e that a de ta che d and

neut ral mag ist rat e , w ho had not fo und a de fe ndant guil ty imm ed iat el y

aft er the ev ide nc e w o u ld have be en able to co nside r that as a po ssibl e

alt er nati ve to co nfine me nt. How ev er , because of the finding of guil t, the

co urt was not abl e to co nside r de fe rri ng guil t and plac ing Mr. Thurma n

under te rms and c ondi ti ons of supe rvi sio n.

This er ro r was em phasize d w hen the t rial c our t sta te d:

“I used to giv e a lo t of announce me nt as t o h ow I make my ruling s, but the appe llat e co urts have to ld me that it should be just

a mat te r of like a jury

. You make a rulin g a nd g o o n, s o I’m not go ing to g ive m uch.” V RR 128, l ine 2 2 - 1 29, l ine 1

.

The tr ial co urt appe ars to be re fe rri ng to c a s e s w her e this Court

ques ti one d the tr ial c o ur t ’ s c om me nts as to act ing as a jury wo uld in

asse ssing punishme nt in ei the r an op e n p l e a or re vo cat io n sit uati on.

Whi le the co mm ent in this re co rd in and of it sel f appe ars innoc uous, giv en

the hist or y of the prio r case s, it can be co nclude d that the tr ial co urt do es

not unders ta nd the pre vio us ruling s of this Court or it s ow n r o l e in

16sent enc ing pro ce ed ings.

C. S t r uc t ur a l E r r o r A na l y s i s

The se er ro rs in co njunct io n co nsti tut e str uctur al er ro r and nee d not

be pre ser ve d by co nte mpo rane ous ob je ct io n and re quire a re ve rsal of the se
judg me nts. St ruct ural er ro r affe ct s the co nduct of the tr ial and is not

subje ct to a harm analy sis. Arizo na v. Fulm inant e , 449 U.S

. 279, 309- 310,

111 S. Ct. 1246
, 113 L. Ed.2 d 302 (199 1). St ruct ural erro r has be en fo und

in the de priv at io n of the rig ht to an imp art ial judg e. Id

. This is str uctur al

er ro r be cause the co urt imm ed iat el y fo und Mr. T hurman guil ty of the

of fe nse alm ost imm ed iat el y aft er the co nclusio n of the ev ide nce

. V RR

130.

It is anti cipa te d that the St at e wil l ob je ct to the se tw o po ints of er ro r
by arg uing that the re w e re no ti me ly ob je ct io ns to the tr ial co urt’ s

co mm ent s. How ev er , that analy sis side -st ep s the issue of whe the r or not

this is str uctur al er ro r. If it is str uctur al er ro r as Appe llant co nte nds, no

co nte mpo rane ous ob je ct io n is nec ess ary

.

17D

. R e m e d y a nd R e l i e f R e q ue s t e d

The judg me nt of co nvic ti on should be re ve rse d and t he c a s e

re mande d t o the t rial c our t.

P R A Y E R F O R R E L I E F

WHEREFO RE, PREMIS ES CONS ID ERED
, Appe llant re spe ct fully

pays that the tr ial co urt’ s judg me nt be re ve rse d and re nder ed in

acco rdance wit h the fi rst i ssue, o r that
, in t he alt er nati ve , the judg me nt

of the tr ial co urt be re ve rse d and re mande d in acco rdance wit h the sec ond

and t hird issue s.

Respe ct fully subm it te d,

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es W. Hugg le r, J r. St at e Bar Numbe r 0079 5437 100 E. Fe rguso n, Suit e 805 Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2 903- 593- 2400 903- 593- 3830 fa x

ATTO RNEY FO R APP ELLANT

18C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E

A tr ue and co rre ct co py of the fo re go ing B r i e f of the Appe llant has be en

fo rwa rde d to counse l fo r the St at e by reg ular ma il o n this the 10 t h day of

June, 2 015.

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es W. Hugg le r, J r.

Att or ney fo r the S ta te : Mr. Mi ke We st Sm it h Co unty Crim inal Dist ric t Att or ney ’s Offi ce 100 N. Bro adwa y, 4 t h F lo or Tyl er , Te xas 7570 2

C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O M P L I A N C E

I ce rt ify that in co mpl ianc e w i t h T E X

. R. A P P

. P. 9. 4, this do cume nt

co ntai ns 4, 194 wo rds as calc ulat ed by Cor el Wo rdPe rfe ct ve rsio n X5 using

14 po int Cent ury fo nt an d c o m p l ie s wit h the ot her re quire me nt of Rule

9. 4.

/ s/ Jam es Huggl er Jam es W. Hugg le r, J r.

19