### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 061 -CR

Bar r y D e an G ar r e tt , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6320 8 , HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ur y c onvic te d a

pp e lla nt B arr y De a n G arr e tt o f t

he of fe ns e of a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult on a public ser

vant with a dea dly

wea pon. See Tex. Penal C ode Ann. § 22.02 (West Supp. 2008). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt , a ft e r f ind ingtr ue fo ur e nh anc e me nt p ara g ra

ph s a lle g ing

pr ior c on vic tio ns , a sse sse d p un ish me nt at li fe imp ri so nme nt.

The jury hear d evidenc e that, on t h e n i gh t of May 10, 2008, Gar

rett attac ked Ga ry Smith, a po lic e se rg e ant w iththe City of Te mpl e Pol ic e De pa rtme nt. Smit

h te sti fi e d th a t w hil e he wa s on patrol he e ncounter ed a pe rson walkingin the middle of the roa d. The pe rso n , later ide nti fi e d a s Ga

rr e tt, wa s we ari ng a pa ir of sh or ts and no sh ir

t. Smit h ini tiate d c on ta c t w ithGa rr e tt, wh o a pp e are d a g itate d a

nd pr oc e e de d to y e ll a

nd sc re a m a t Smi th. Smit

h e ve ntu a lly

su c c e e de d in g etting G arr ett to calm down and had him sit on the curb while S mith called dispatch a nd reque sted2

a ba c kg ro un d c he c k. Smith the n dis c ov e re d that Ga rr e tt ha d a n ou tst and ing wa

rr ant. At thi s p oin t, Smit h testified, he c alled for backup. Whil e Smith w a s d oin g so , G arr e tt a g a in b e c a me agit ate d a nd be g an a sk ingSmith if he c ould leave. Smit h, who now believed that Gar rett wa s either intoxi cate d or under the influenc e of a c ontrolled substance , ref used t o let Gar

rett l eave and tried to g rab his ar m. Accor ding to Smith, Gar r e tt r e s p o n d e d b y s w in g in g an d f la il in g h is ar

ms . Sm it h te s ti f ie d th a t h e b a c k e d away

from Gar rett and w alked towa

rd his patrol ca

r to reques t t h at backup arr ive quickly . Gar rett followed Smit h to the car , “balled up his fist” a nd “starte d to char g e” at S m i t h

. S m i t h “took that as a fig ht stance ,” so he r esponded by using hi s pepper

spray on Gar rett. Smith ex plained that Ga rre tt then “put his head dow n, put his hand up, and starte d char g ing at me with his fists clinched.”

A strug g le betwe en Ga

rre tt and Smit h ensued. A t some point during the strug g le, Gar rett “took off

running ,” and Smith sta

rted running afte r him. During the cha se, Smith t estified, Garrett ap p r o a c h e d

a w o o d p il e , p ic k e d

u p a b o ar d o f w o o d , tu r n e d ar o u n d , an d

s w u n g th e b o ard at Smith. The board hit Smit h in his left arm, ca u s i n g Smit h to lose his balance and fa ll to the g round, dislocating his shoulder in the proce ss. Gar rett then approa ched Smit h with another, la rg er board of wood and be g an swing ing it at Smith, hitt ing him “se vera l times” in his upper body and on the top of his head. While Gar rett continued to be at Smith wit h the board, Smi th was on the g round

on his ba c k. Un a

ble to u se his arm s to de fe nd him se lf , h e tr ie d to fe nd

of f Ga rr e tt b y kic kin g him , to n o ava il. Event u al l y , a car pulled up and the dr iver be g an honking his horn. This cause d Gar rett to stop hitti ng Smit h and wa lk away . Smit h g ot up, ag ain ca lled for ba ckup, and the n3

at t em p t edt o fo l l o w G arre t to n fo o ts o t h at h e w o u l d n o tes cap e. Ga rr et tev en tu al l y s t o p p edwa l k i n g, turned a round, and r aised the boa rd as i f t o s t rike Smith ag ain. B efor e he c ould do so, however , oth e r p oli c e of

fi c e rs arr ive d a

nd arr e ste d G arr e tt. After Smit h testified, the State ca lled other witnesse s t o the assault who testified consistent with the fore g oing r ecitati on of fa cts. Other police office rs who re sponded to Smit h’s call for backup a lso testified, as did the detec tive who investig ated the a ssault. This detective char acte rized the board use d by Gar rett in the assa

ult as a dea dly

wea pon. I n his de fe ns e , G arr e tt c a lle d th e po lic e of fi c e r w ho tr ans po rt e d G arr e tt t o ja il. Th is office r testified that Gar

rett was transporte d to ja il “without incident.” Fina lly , Gar rett testified. He claimed that it was not his intention to hurt Sm ith an d t h at he was only defe nding himself f

rom S m i t h ’ s “ a g g r e s s i v e t a c t i c ” i n“ a t t a c k i n g ” h i m w i t h t h e p e p p e r s p r ay. G ar r e t t ’ s c o u rt

- a

p p o i n t e d a t t o r n e y h a s f i l e d a m o t i o nt o w i t h dr aw s u

p p o rt e d b y a brief c oncluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The br ief mee ts the require ments of An der s v. Califo rn ia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o P e ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 75 , 1 09 S. Ct . 3 46 (1 98 8) ; Hi gh v . S tat e , 57 3 S. W.2 d 8 07 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tat e , 51 6 S.W.2 d 684 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); J ac k so n v . S tat e , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Ga ino us v . S

tat e , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Garr ett was mailed a copy of counse l’sThe re cord r efle cts that, on three separ ate oc casions, Ga rre tt refuse d to rec eive a

copy 1 of c ouns e l’ s An de rs b ri ef

. C o u n s el h as s en tt h i s C o u rt d o cu m en t at i o n v e ri fy i n g t h at t h e p ac k age in w hic h h e ma ile d h is An de rs brief to Ga rr et t was “ returne d to sender, r efuse d.” This Court has also sent cor

responde nce to Ga

rre tt informing him that his co u n s el h as filed an An de rs brief, but our l e tte r w a s “ re tur

ne d to se nd e r, re fu se d, un a ble to fo rw ard .” We wi ll no t de lay dis po sit ion

of thi s appea l simpl y

beca use Ga rre tt refuse s to acc ept cor

responde nce f

rom his counsel or this Court. See Te x. R. A

pp . P. 40 .2 (p ro vid ingthat a pp e a ls court s mu st de c ide c ri min a l c a se s “ a t th e e arl ie st po ssi ble tim e ” ); W

e dd le v . S tat e , 5 22 S.W. 2d

47 5, 47 6 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 75 ) ( dis po sin g of c a se e ve n th ou g h r e c or d r e fl e c te d th a t a pp e lla nt r e fu se d to a c c e pt de liv e ry of c ouns e l’ s An de rs br ie f) ; see als o M oo re v . S tat e , N o. 03 -0 5- 00 69 0- CR, 20 07 Te x. Ap p . L E X I S 77 81 , at *1 -2 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin Sept. 26, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated f or publication) ( citing Su th erl an d v . S tat e , 65 8 S.W. 2d 16 9, 17 0 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 )) (d isp os ingof c a se e ve n th ou g h c ouns e l w a s una ble to deliver An de rs brief to a ppellant). 4 brief a nd a letter advising him of his r ight to examine the appe llate re cord a nd to file a pro se brief. No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. 1 We have r eviewe d the re co r d a n d counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the r ecor d that might arguably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Nove mber 10, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh