Case Number: 14-15-00300-CR 

Case Number: 14-15-00301-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

14th DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT HOUSTON 

LASHONDA DEON JONES 

Appellant, 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee 

Appealed from the 221stJudicial District Court 

Montgomery County, Texas 

Cause 15-01-00219-CR ct. 1 and 2 

LASHONDA DEON JONES'S APPELLANT'S BRIEF 

ACCEPTED

14-15-00300-CR

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

9/28/2015 10:44:49 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 9/28/2015 10:44:49 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

JUDGE: 

PROSECUTORS: 

Honorable Lisa Michalk 

Montgomery County Courthouse 

301 North Main Street 

Conroe, Texas 77301 

Phone: 936-538-8133 

Mrs. Monica A. Cooper 

Assistant District Attorney 

SBOT No. 24071344 -andMrs. Sheri B. Culberson 

Assistant District Attorney 

SBOT No. 24012288 

Montgomery County District 

Attorney's Office 

207 West Phillips, Second Floor 

Conroe, Texas 77301 

Phone: 936-539-7800 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Mr. Joseph W. Krippel 

SBOT No. 24007515 

2442o FM 1314, Suite 9 

Porter, Texas 77365 

Phone: 936-232-0073 

APPELLANT: Mr. LASHONDA DEON JONES 

#1999529 

Plane State Jail 

904 FM 686 

Dayton, Texas 77535 

APPELLANT'S ATTORNEY: Mr. Austin D. Black 

Law Office of Austin D. Black 

SBOT No. 24050018 

215 Simonton Street 

Conroe, Texas 77301 

Phone: 936-242-7601 

2 
APPELLEE'S ATTORNEY: Mr. Brett Ligon 

District Attorney 

Montgomery County District 

Attorney's Office 

SBOT No. 00795966 

207 West Phillips 

Conroe, Texas 77301 

Phone: 936-539-7800 
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 5, 6, 10 

McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429 (1988) 7 

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) 10 

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 1832, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 

(1966); Tea v. State, 453 S. W. 2d 179, 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970) 9 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) 6, 10 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) 5, 6 

Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) 9 

Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7 

Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). .............................. 7 

Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 112 

L. Ed. 2d 333, 111 S. Ct. 371 (1990) 8 

Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.-Waco 1994, pet. Ref d) (quoting 

McCoy, 486 U.S. at 436.). 7 

Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 7 

Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 695 n. 2 (Tex. App.-Waco 1997, no pet.) (quoting High, 

573 S.W.2d at 813). 6 

Statutes and Treatises 

Texas Rules of Evidence §901 8 

DIX & DAWSON §38.148 10 

4 
ISSUES PRESENTED 

After a careful review of the record, Counsel for Appellant has identified no 

appellate issues that would persuade a court of appeals. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Appellant was charged by indictment for one count of the felony offense of 

Possession of a Controlled Substance, alleged to have been committed on or about May 

14, 2014 pursuant to Texas Penal Code §481.115. 1In the second count Appellant was 

charged by indictment for Tampering with Physical Evidence, alleged to have been 

committed on or about May 14, 2014 pursuant to Texas Penal Code §37.09. 2 

On January 28, 2015, a jury found the Appellant guilty of both offenses. 3 

On January 29, 2015, the judge sentenced the Appellant to forty-five (45) years 

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division in each 

case to run concurrently.` 

Written Notice of Appeal was timely entered of record, and the Appellant files his 

brief on the merits. 5 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

In May of 2014 a couple of women kept renting out rooms and then a few days 

later asking to switch rooms at the Econo Lodge in Conroe, Texas. 6The owner contacted 

a Narcotics Officer that he had regular contact with when reporting issues he notices at 

'Clerk's Rec. Vol. I, at 43. 

2Clerk's Rec. Vol. I, at 43. 

3Clerk's Rec. Vol. 1. at 123-25. 

4Clerk's Rec. Vol. I. at 122. 

5Clerk's Rec. Vol. I. at 128. 

6Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 35. 

5 
his hotel.' Officer Foxworth was informed of an inordinate amount of foot traffic 

occurring in the rooms and he ran the names of the individuals that had rented the room 

and discovered they had narcotics history. 8Officer Foxworth then ran his narcotics dog 

on Room 136 that was rented to Lashonda Jones and the dog alerted to the presence of 

narcotics at that location. 9Officer Foxworth then requested and received a warrant from 

a Montgomery County Judge and took it to the location to execute it. 10Officer Foxworth 

uses the key card he received from the owner to open the door to the room and Appellant 

was on the other side of the door trying to force it back closed." At this same time 

Officer Foxworth sees Appellant stuffing something into her shirt. 12After everyone in 

the room was subdued a female officer was called to search Appellant, at which time a 

Scope bottle containing PCP was discovered in the bra area of Appellant. 13 

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 

Counsel for Appellant has reviewed the appellate record and has found that there 

are no arguable grounds for advancing an appea1. 14There is no reversible error upon 

which an appeal can be predicated 15 . Under controlling authority, there are no errors in 

the trial court's judgment. 16 

Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 34. 

8 Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 36. 

9Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 46. 

10Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 48-51. 

I I Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 56-57. 

12Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 59. 

13Reporter's Rec. Vol. IV, at 74. 

14See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n. 3. 

15 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45. 

16 High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). 

6 
Possible grounds for appeal in this case are limited to a possible abuse of 

discretion in admitting evidence as well as error in allowing the State, over Appellants 

objection, to take her fingerprints in open court during the punishment phase in order to 

establish the admissibility of pen packets showing prior convictions. The only theories 

that Appellant's attorney can discover after a conscientious review of the record and the 

law are arguments that cannot conceivably persuade the appellate court. Further, counsel 

can identify no potentially arguable issues. 

ARGUMENT 

When appointed counsel files an Anders brief, a Court of Appeals is to conduct an 

independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for 

appeal." If an Anders brief raises potentially arguable issues, the reviewing court's "duty 

is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds and if there are, to remand to the 

trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." I8A Court of 

Appeals is not required to review the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief. 

Any issue that is "arguable on [the] merits" is, by definition, not frivolous. 19 The 

United States Supreme Court has defined a "wholly frivolous" appeal as one that "lacks 

any basis in law or fact." 2°"An appeal is 'frivolous' when 'the trial court's ruling[s 

were] correct' or 'the appellant was not harmed by the ruling[s].'" 21Once counsel has 

determined that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything in 

17See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 

18 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

19See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 

20 McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n. 10 (1988). 

21 Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 695 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.) (quoting High, 573 S.W.2d at 813). 

7 
the record that might arguably support the appeal and discussing either why the trial 

court's rulings were correct or why the appellant was not harmed by the rulings. 22"If the 

only theories that the attorney can discover after [a] conscientious review of the record 

and the law are 'arguments that cannot conceivably persuade the court,' then the appeal 

should be considered frivolous." 23 

I. A Claim That the Chain of Custody of the Narcotics Was Not Established 

Would Not Succeed on Direct Appeal 

A. Standard of Review 

A trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for abuse of 

discretion. 24"[Ms long as the trial court's ruling was at least within the zone of 

reasonable disagreement, the appellate court will not intercede." 25Trial courts are 

afforded wide latitude in their decisions to admit or exclude evidence. 26 

B. Under Court of Criminal Appeals Precedent, the Court Did Not Err in 

Admitting the Narcotics 

Appellant's attorney objected to the introduction of exhibit 90 and 90A, which 

were a 12 by 15 yellow envelope along with the scope bottle containing the narcotics. 27 

The exhibits were admitted during the testimony of Laurie Raesz, a Forensic Chemist at 

the Texas Department of Public Safety in Houston. 28Appellant's Counsel argued that the 

22 Id. 

23 Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. Ref d) (quoting McCoy, 486 U.S. at 436). 

24 See Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 151 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). 

25 Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). 

26 Theus v. State, 845 S.W.2d 874, 881 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). 

27 Reporter's Rec. Vol. V, at 142. 

28 Reporter's Rec. Vol. V, at 143. 

8 
exhibits were inadmissible because the State did not prove the first step in the chain of 

custody by bringing whoever secured the evidence and initialed it securing it within the 

chain of custody. 29 

Texas Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides that the requirement of authentication or 

identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient 

to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims."30It is well 

settled that minor theoretical breaches in the chain of custody go to the weight rather than 

the admissibility of the evidence. 31Proof of the beginning and end of the chain will 

support admission of the evidence barring any showing of tampering or alteration. 32 

Officer Melchor admitted that she did not mark the narcotics or place them in an 

evidence bag. 33 Those facts would not render the exhibits inadmissible absent a showing 

by appellant or tampering or alteration. 34Officer Melchor testified that she was able to 

identify the Scope bottle and its contents as those recovered from Appellant on the day in 

question. 35Thus, the Court acted correctly in admitting the evidence over the objection 

of counsel. 

29Reporter's Rec. Vol. V, at 129. 

30See Tex R. Evid. 901(a). 

31 DeLeon V. State, 505 S.W.2d 288, 289 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). 

32 Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 112 L. Ed. 2d 333, 111 S. 

Ct. 371 (1990). 

33Reporter's Rec. Vol. V, at 117. 

34See Stoker, 788 S.W.2d 1, 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 951, 112 L. Ed. 2d 333, 111 S. Ct. 

371 (1990). 

35 Reporter's Rec. Vol. V, at 115. 

9 
II. There Was No Error in the Trial Court Ordering the Appellant to Provide 

Fingerprints in Open Court 

The Court instructed the State to have their investigator fingerprint the Appellant 

in open court in order to have comparisons for penitentiary packets. 36Appellant's 

attorney objected due to lack of notice being given by the State. 37The Court on its own 

motion ordered that the investigator proceed with the fingerprinting and overruled the 

objection of counsel. 38 

To establish that a defendant has been convicted of a prior offense, the State must 

provide beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) a prior conviction exists, and (2) the 

defendant is linked to that conviction. 39The State may prove both of these elements in 

several ways, including (1) the defendant's admission or stipulation, (2) testimony by a 

person who was present when the person was convicted of the specified crime and can 

identify the defendant as that person, or (3) documentary proof (such as a judgment) that 

contains sufficient information to establish both the existence of a prior conviction and 

the defendant's identity as the person convicted. 40 

The taking of fingerprints for identification purposes is not a violation of the 

accused's rights under the Fifth Amendment. 41"[T]he most common method of proving 

36Reporter's Rec. Vol. VI, at 64. 

37Reporter's Rec. Vol. V, at 64. 

38Reporter's Rec. Vol. VI, at 65. 

39 Flowers v. State, 220 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). 

49 Id. at 921-22. 

41 Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 1832, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966); Tea v. State, 453 S. 

W. 2d 179, 181 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). 

10 
identity is by fingerprint comparison. This method usually entails taking the fingerprints 

of the defendant during the trial." 42 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 

Appellant prays that this Court conduct a "full examination of all the proceedings 

to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." 43Should the Court find that the case is 

wholly frivolous, Appellant's counsel prays that he be allowed to withdraw as counse1. 44 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Law Office of Austin D. Black 

215 Simonton Street 

Conroe, Texas 77301 

(936) 524-3124 Telephone 

(936) 756-3539 Facsimile 

Email: adb@yourconroeattorney.com 

Austin D. Black 

State Bar No. 24050018 

Attorney for Appellant 

LASHONDA DEON JONES 

42DIX & DAWSON, §38.148. 

43 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28. 

44 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. 

11 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing Appellant's Brief was 

delivered vis e-file to the Montgomery County District Attorney's Office, at 207 W. 

Phillips, Conroe, Texas 77301, on the September 28, 2015. 

0,e---73-6,71 

Austin D. Black 

12