N O ORA L ARGUMEN TREQUESTE D CAUS E NO . 12-15-00186-C R

I N TH E COUR TO F APPEAL S TWELFT H DISTRIC TO F TEXA S

TYLER , TEXA S LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N

Appellan t v s . T H E STAT E O F TEXAS , Appelle e Appea l i n Caus e No . 3167 5 O n Appea l fro m th e Thir d Judicia l Distric tCour t

o fAnderso n County , Texa s BRIE F FO R APPELLAN T

Phili p C . Fletche r Texa s Ba rNo . 0078747 8 8 0 0 Nort h Mallar d Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 Telephon e No. : (903 ) 731-444 0 Facsimil e No. : (903)731-447 4 Email : fletchlaw@yahoo.co m ATTORNE YFO R APPELLAN T ACCEPTED 12-15-00186-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 12/1/2015 10:57:34 AM

Pam Estes CLERKTABL E O F CONTENT S PAG E NO .

Tabl e o fContent s 2 Lis to fAuthoritie s 3 Appearance s 4 Addres s t o th e Cour t5 Statemen to fth e Cas e 6 Issue s Presente d 7 Statemen to fFact s 8 Summar yo fth e Argument , Poin to fErro rNumbe rOn e 2 0 Summar yo fth e Argument , Poin to fErro rNumbe rTw o 2 1 Argument , Poin to fErro rNumbe rOn e 2 2 Argument , Poin to fErro rNumbe rTw o 2 6 Praye r2 8 Certificat e o fComplianc e - Texa s Rule s o fAppellat e Procedur e 9. 4 (i ) (3 ) 1 4 2 9 Certificat e o fServic e 3 0LIS TO F AUTHORITIE S

CASES : PAG E NO . Amador V. State, 22 1 S.W.S d 66 6 (Tex.Crim.App . 2007 ) 2 2 Guitierrez

v. State, 22 1 S.W.3 d 68 0 (Tex.Crim.App . 2007 ) 2 2 Levi V. State, 14 7 S.W.S d 54 1 (Tex . App.-Wac o 2004 , pet . re fd ) 2 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 38 4 U.S . 436,8 6 S.Ct . 160 2 (1966 ) 2 6 Rhode Island v. fnnis, 44 6 U.S . 291 , 10 0 S.Ct . 168 2 (1980.) . 2 7 Rodriguez

v. United

States, 57 5 U.S . , 13 5 S.Ct . 160 9 (2015 ) 23, 24 Saldivar v. State, 20 9 S.W.S d 27 5 (Tex . App-For tWort h 2006 , n o pet. ) (mem . op. ) 23 WolfV. State, 91 7 S.W.2 d 27 0 (Tex.Crim.App . 1996 ) 2 6 STATUTES : PAG E NO . Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 15.2 1 2 6 Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 15.2 2 2 6 Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 38.2 1 2 6 Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 38.2 2 2 6 Texa s Constitution , Articl e I Sec . 19 , Texa s Du e Proces s Claus e 2 6 Unite d State s Constitution , Fift h Amendmen t2 6 Unite d State s Constitution , Fourt h Amendmen t2 2APPEARANCE S

Pursuan tt o Rule

38.1 (a), Texa s Rule s o fAppellat e Procedure , Appellat e provide s a complet e lis to f al l partie s an d name s an d addresse s o f Counsel : Tria l Defendant : LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N Tria l Defendant' s Counsel :

Tria l State' s Counsel :

Appellant : Appellant' s Counsel :

Appellee' s Counsel : JEF F HERRINGTO N Attorne ya t La w 6 1 7 Eas tLac yStreet , Suit e 10 6 Palestine , Texa s 75801-296 5 Telephone : (903)723-192 3 Facsimile : (903 ) 723-026 9 STEV E EVAN S Attorne ya t La w 6 1 7 Eas tLac yStreet , Suit e 10 6 Palestine , Texa s 75801-296 5 Telephone : (903)723-192 3 Facsimile : (903 ) 723-026 9 ALLYSO N MITCHEL L& SCOT THOLDE N Anderso n Count yDistric tAttorne y 5 0 0 Nort h Churc h Stree t Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 Telephone:(903 ) 723-740 0 Facsimile : (903)723-781 8 LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N PHILI P C . FLETCHE R Attorne ya t La w 8 0 0 Nort h Mallar d Stree t Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 Telephone : (903 ) 731-444 0 Facsimile : (903)731-447 4 ALLYSO N MITCHEL L& SCOT THOLDE N Anderso n Count yDistric tAttorney' s Offic e 5 0 0 Nort h Churc h Stree t Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 Telephone:(903 ) 723-740 0 Facsimile : (903 ) 723-781 8CAUS E NO . 12-15-00186-C R I N TH E COUR TO F APPEAL S TWELFT H DISTRIC TO F TEXA S

TYLER , TEXA S

LONNI E LYN N JOHNSO N

Appellan t v s . T H E STAT E O F TEXAS , Appelle e Appea l i n Caus e No . 3167 5 O n Appea l fro m th e Thir d Judicia l Distric tCour t

o fAnderso n County , Texa s

BRIE F FO R APPELLAN T

T O TH E HONORABL E JUSTICE S O F TH E COUR TO F APPEALS : COME S NOW , LONNI E LYN N JOHNSON , hereinafte rreferre d t o a s Appellant , an d submit s thi s Brie fi n suppor t o fth e Appellant' s reques ttha tjudgmen trendere d i n Caus e Numbe r3167 5 b e reversed .

5STATEMEN TO F TH E CAS E

Appellan twa s indicte d i n Caus e Numbe r3167 5 wit h th e offense s o fFelo n i n Possessio n o fa Firearm , Felo n i n Possessio n o fBod yArmo ran d Impersonatin g a Publi c Servant . Thi s offens e wa s allege d t o hav e occurre d o n Januar y12 , 2014 , i n Anderso n County , Texas . Appellan tple d no tguilt yt o thes e charges . O n Jun e 29 , 2015 , Appellan t change d hi s ple a t o guilt yan d wa s sentence d t o thirt y(30 ) year s i n th e Texa s Departmen t o fCrimina l Justic e - Institutiona l Division . Th e Cour tcertifie d Appellant' s righ tt o appea l a n ypre-tria l motions . O n Jul y21 , 2015 , Appellan ttimel ygav e hi s Notic e o fAppea l t o thi s Honorabl e Court . Appellan tno wtimel yfile s thi s Brie fi n suppor to fth e Appellant' s reques t tha tth e judgmen trendere d i n Caus e Numbe r3167 5 b e reversed .

6ISSUE S PRESENTE D

Poin t o f Erro r Numbe r One ; Th e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains t unreasonabl e searche s an d seizures . Poin t o f Erro r Numbe r Two : Th e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f certai n statement s o f Appellan ttha twer e mad e whil e Appellan twa s i n custod yi n violatio n o f hi s Fift h Amendmen trigh tagains tself-incrimination .

7STATEMEN TO F FACT S

O n Octobe r3 , 201 4 th e Cour thear d Appellant' s Motio n t o Suppress . Thi s wa s reporte d b yBrand i Ra yi n Volum e 1 . Th e Stat e calle d it s firs twitness , Ro b Sadowski , a Texa s Gam e Warden s an d Texa s Park s an d Wildlif e Departmen tofficer . Office rSadowsk i h a d receive d a cal l fro m th e Anderso n Count ySheriff s Offic e tha ta vehicl e wa s stuc k i n t h e san d a tGu s Engelin g Wildlif e Managemen tArea , a publi carea . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 5-6 ) Office rSadowsk i explaine d tha tyo u ar e allowe d t o ente rth e propert ywit h a vali d permit . Ther e ar e tw o entr ypoint s tha tar e gated . Apave d roa d allow s throug h traffi cwhe n i ti s opened . Office rSadowsk i wa s dispatche d t o Lonni e Johnson , wh o wa s a tth e en d o fa dir t roa d tha tende d a tth e catfis h cree k bottom . Office rSadowsk i arrive d wit h Office rDann y Kesse l wh o wa s i n hi s ow n patro l vehicle . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 6-8 ) Upo n arrivin g an d meetin g Mr . Lonni e Johnson , Office rSadowsk i aske d fo r Appellanf s driver' s licens e an d ra n i tthroug h th e Anderso n Count ySheriff s Office . I t cam e bac k

tha tAppellan twa s a convicte d felon . Office rSadowsk i the n aske d Appellan t f o rhi s entr ypermit . Appellan twa s unabl e t o produc e a vali d permit . A ttha ttime . Office r Sadowsk i aske d t o searc h Appellant' s vehicl e an d wa s give n consent . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 9 ) Office rSadowsk i bega n searchin g Appellanf s vehicl e an d foun d camouflag e clothing , a blac k duffl e bag , a fishin g pole , an d othe rmiscellaneou s outdoo requipment ; Office r Kesse l foun d prescriptio n medication . Office rSadowsk i aske d wha twa s i n th e duffl e ba g a n d coul d h e searc h it . Appellan tstate d i twa s hi s wor k stuf fan d gav e Office rSadowsk i permissio n t o searc h th e bag . Office rSadowsk i locate d a M4-typ e assaul trifle , a typ e 3 A poin tblan k

bod yarmor , a militar ystyl e figh tjacket , on e long-sleeve d cotto n T-shir ttha t sai d "Police " o n it , on e short-sleeve d T-shir ttha tsai d "Police " o n it , a 2 2 Ne wEnglan d 8firearm s revolver , an d a 3 8 Ross i revolver , alon g wit h miscellaneou s othe rtactica l polic e

equipment . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 10-12 ) Office rSadowsk i the n place d Appellan ti n handcuffs . A ttha ttime , Appellan tstate d tha th e wa s a n undercove roffice rfo rth e Tarran tCount ySheriff' s Office . Office rSadowsk i continue d t o searc h th e vehicl e an d foun d 9-millimete rhidde n i n th e compartmen ti n th e trunk , a whit e chemica l typ e sui talon g wit h rubbe rgloves , an d sharpenin g ston e fo ra knife . Appellan tcontinue d t o stat e tha th e worke d undercove rfo rth e Tarran tCount y Sheriff' s Offic e an d tha th e worke d unde rCaptai n Bailey . Office rSadowsk i ha d Anderso n Count ySheriff' s Offic e contac tTarran tCount ySheriff' s Offic e an d wa s advise d tha tther e w a s no ta Captai n Baile ytha tworke d fo rthem . Th e nex tmornin g Office rSadowsk i receive d a cal l fro m hi s gam e warde n lieutenan twh o i s i n Tarran tCounty , an d hi s brothe r wok s fo rTarran tCount ySheriff' s Office , an d h e wa s unabl e t o confir m tha tther e wa s a Captai n Baile ytha teve rwa s employe d b yth e Tarran tCount ySheriff' s Office . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 12-13 ) Appellan tstate d tha th e receive d th e equipmen tfro m th e Tarran tCount y SherifT s Offic e t o assis ti n raids . Office rSadowsk i aske d Appellan tfo rhi s PI D number , a numbe rtha ti s give n t o al l peac e officers , an d Appellan tstate d h e di d no thav e one . A t tha ttim e Office rKesse l place d Appellan tunde rarres tan d rea d hi m hi s Mirand a right s i n t h e patro l car . Appellant' s cel l phon e wa s seize d an d a searc h warran twa s issue d t o nex t mornin g t o searc h hi s cel l phone . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 13-14 ) Durin g cros s examination , Office rSadowsk i state d tha tth e entr ygat e wa s unmanne d an d th e rule s an d regulation s wer e poste d a tth e entr ystation . H e wa s aske d i fth e permit s tha tar e require d wer e availabl e a tth e entr ypoint . Office rSadowsk i state d 9tha tthe yar e availabl e wher e yo u purchas e huntin g an d fishin g licenses . H e furthe rstate d

tha ti ti s a clas s C misdemeano rfin e onl yoffense . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 14-15 ) Office rSadowsk i wa s unabl e t o giv e a n exac ttim e o fth e cal l becaus e h e wa s ou t o fservic e whe n h e receive d th e call . H e wa s awar e tha tAppellan tcontacte d Anderso n Count ySheriff s Offic e himsel ffo rassistance . Office rKesse l spok e wit h Appellan to n hi s phon e t o ge thi s exac tlocation . Accordin g t o th e 91 1 cal l made , Appellan tcalle d a t approximatel y5:0 0 p.m. . Office rSadowsk i state d tha th e an d hi s partner . Office rKessel , h a d t o g o t o Moun tPleasan tt o pic k u p a truck . H e state d h e receive d th e cal l o n th e wa y back . Office rSadowsk i di d no tkno wexactl ywha ttim e the yarrive d a tth e wildlif e area , however , h e agree d wit h hi s partner' s repor ttha ti twa s approximatel y6:0 0 p.m. . Office r Sadowsk i arrive d wit h Office rKesse l an d mad e contactwit h Appellan tan d hi s wife . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 15-17 ) Office rSadowsk i state d tha ti twa s dar k whe n the yarrived . H e fel tlik e i twa s suspiciou s tha ta newe rmode l Mercede s Ben z wa s stuc k i n th e san d i n a n ou to freac h place . H e state d tha tth e propert yi s use d primaril yt o hunt , however , a perso n coul d ge t a limite d us e permi tt o jus tenjo ynatur e o rbir d watch . Office rSadowsk i state d tha tth e reaso n h e fel tAppellan taction s wer e suspiciou s wa s becaus e h e mad e a statemen tabou t thi s bein g th e secon d tim e h e ha d gotte n stuc k i n th e pas tfe wdays . Thi s statemen twa s t h e reaso n Office rSadowsk i though tth e situatio n wa s suspicious . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 18 - 2 0 ) Onc e again . Office rSadowsk i testifie d tha th e aske d Appellan tfo rhi s driver' s licens e upo n arrivin g a tth e wildlif e area . H e als o state d tha tAppellant , a tthi s time , wa s no tunde r arres tan d Office rSadowsk i di d no thav e a searc h warrant . H e ra n hi s licens e wit h th e Anderso n Count ySheriff s Offic e an d wa s notifie d tha tAppellan twa s a convicte d felon . 1 0Office rSadowsk i admitte d tha ti twa s no tagains tth e la wfo rAppellan tt o b e i n th e wildlif e

area , bu ti twa s suspiciou s t o Office rSadowsk i tha th e wa s a convicte d felon . Tha ti s wh y h e aske d t o searc h th e vehicle . Office rSadowsk i aske d wh ythe ywer e i n th e wildlif e are a a n d Appellan tstate d the ywer e jus tdrivin g through , however , h e wa s o n a dea d en d road . T h e office rdi d no tas k Appellan ti fthi s wa s hi s firs ttim e i n th e wildlif e area . Durin g th e approximatel ythirt yminute s prio rt o Office rSadowsk i askin g t o searc h Appellant' s vehicle , bot h officer s ha d pushe d th e ca rou to fth e san d an d i twa s n o longe rstuck . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 20-21 ) Office rSadowsk i testifie d tha th e di d no tissu e Appellan ta citatio n fo rbein g i n th e wildlif e are a withou ta permit . Awarnin g wa s issue d t o Appellan tprio rt o Office rSadowsk i askin g t o searc h hi s vehicle . H e admitte d t o doin g a visua l searc h o fth e vehicl e bu tther e wer e severa l thing s i n th e bac k sea tan d h e wante d t o loo k closer . Office rSadowsk i aske d Appellant , "Woul d yo u min d i fI looke d i n you rcar? " Accordin g t o Office rSadowski , Appellan tsaid , "G o ahead. " Office rSadowsk i testifie d tha tthe ybega n th e searc h i n th e vehicl e an d Office rKesse l locate d prescriptio n medication . The n the ymove d t o th e trun k o fth e vehicle . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 22-23 ) Onc e i n th e trunk . Office rSadowsk i foun d som e camouflag e clothin g tha th e though twa s suspiciou s an d a blac k duffl e bag . H e aske d t o loo k i n th e duffl e ba g an d accordin g t o Office rSadowski , Appellan tsaid , "G o ahead. " Onc e Office rSadowsk i opene d th e duffe l bag , h e foun d a M 4 typ e assaul trifle , late rt o b e identifie d a s a n Airsof trifle , a plasti cto ygun . H e als o locate d som e bod yarmo ran d place d Appellan ti n handcuffs , detainin g him . Onc e Office rSadowsk i detaine d Appellant , h e state d h e wa s a n undercove rpeac e office rs o Office rSadowsk i starte d askin g questions . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 24-26 ) 1 1Office rSadowsk i testifie d tha thi s vehicl e doe s no thav e an yvide o o raudi o

recording . H e di d no thav e a persona l recordin g devic e either . Onc e detained , Office r Sadowsk i state d tha th e bega n questionin g Appellan tabou tth e guns . Office rSadowsk i admitte d tha th e ha s no trea d Appellan thi s Mirand a right s a tthi s time . A tapproximatel y 8:0 0 p.m. , onc e Appellan twa s place d i n th e patro l car , Office rKesse l place d Appellan t unde rarres tan d read s hi m hi s Mirand a rights . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 26-27 ) Office rSadowsk i reviewe d a n exhibi tan d testifie d tha ti ti s a book-i n shee tfro m th e Anderso n Count y Sheriff' s Office . I tshowe d contac tmad e a t8:0 0 p.m . an d Office rSadowsk i believe s tha t i s th e tim e Appellan twa s place d unde rarrest . Additionally , Office rSadowsk i testifie d tha t h e searche d th e passenge rcompartmen tfirs tan d the n th e trunk . However , afte rreviewin g h i s report , h e believe d hi s memor yha d mistake n hi m an d i n fac th e searche d th e trun k firs t a n d th e passenge rportio n second , (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 27-28 ) Office rSadowsk i state d tha tanythin g sai d betwee n Appellan tan d himsel fwa s no t recorded , th e onl yevidenc e o fanythin g sai d wa s i n Office rSadowski' s report . Appellan t d i d no twrit e a statement . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 29 ) T h e stat e aske d Office rSadowsk i i fi twa s unusua l fo rpeopl e t o illegall yhun ti n tha t area , an d h e replied , "I thappen s o n a regula rbasis. " H e als o state d tha ti ti s no tunusua l t o catc h peopl e ou tther e fishin g withou tth e limite d us e permit . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 30 ) O n re-cros s examination . Office rSadowsk i clarifie d tha th e di d no tge twritte n consen tfro m Appellan tt o searc h hi s vehicle , onl yverbal . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 31 ) T h e defens e calle d Ms . Sharmi n Jaham , Appellant' s ex-wife . Ms . Jaha m testifie d tha tsh e ha s a master' s degre e i n busines s managemen tfro m th e Universit yo f Bangladesh . Sh e state d sh e ha s live d her e fo rman yyears , ha s famil yhere , an d a so n 1 2tha tattend s th e Universit yo fTexas . Ms . Jaha m advise d tha ta tth e tim e o fth e arres tsh e

w a s wit h Lonni e Johnso n a tth e wildlif e area . Ms . Jaha m testifie s tha to n th e da yAppellan t w a s arrested , the ywer e o n thei rwa ybac k t o Dalla s fro m Lufki n an d ha d jus tstoppe d a t a pai d par k

t o enjo yth e da yan d tak e som e pictures . Sh e an d Appellan twer e bac k o n th e roa d t o Dallas ; sh e sa wth e wildlif e are a an d wante d t o stop , s o h e too k he rthere . Ms . Jaha m state d tha tthe yd o thi s often , almos tever yweekend . Sh e wante d t o se e a n alligato rs o the ypulle d int o th e wildlif e area . Sh e sai d the ythough ti twa s a pai d par k to o b u tcoul d no tfin d anyon e t o pay . Ther e wa s n o on e a tth e entr ygate . The ycoul d no tfin d anyon e t o pa yo rinstruction s fo ra permit . The ydi d fin d a registratio n card , fille d i tout , an d place d on e hal fi n th e bo xan d th e othe rhal fi n th e dash , an d continue d t o th e cree k area . M s . Jaha m state d the yarrive d a taroun d 4:15-4:3 0 p.m . an d too k som e pictures . Onc e the ywer e read yt o leave , the yrealize d th e ca rwa s stuck . Sh e state d tha the rhusband . Appellant , calle d 9-1- 1 a tapproximatel y4:40-4:4 5 p.m . an d the ywaite d ove ra n hou rfo r assistance . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 32-37 ) M s . Jaha m state d tha tonc e th e officer s arrived , the yaske d fo rAppellant' s driver' s licens e an d insuranc e an d he rdriver' s license . Sh e state d tha tOffice rSadowsk i too k th e informatio n t o hi s patro l ca ran d cam e bac k wit h a flashligh tan d wa s searchin g th e car . S h e testifie d tha ta ttha ttim e Office rKesse l pulle d Appellant' s vehicl e ou twit h hi s truc k a n d state d the yneede d a permi tt o b e i n tha tarea . Ms . Jaha m clarifie d tha tth e tw o officer s di d no tpus h th e vehicl e ou to fth e sand , bu ttha tOffice rKesse l pulle d i tou twit h h i s patro l truc k

an d som e rop e o rcabl e attache d t o th e vehicle . Sh e state d tha tonc e th e c a rwa s unstuc k

Office rSadowsk i startin g searchin g th e vehicl e wit h hi s flashligh tthroug h t h e windows . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 37-38 ) Ms . Jaha m state d tha tOffice rSadowsk i sa wa 1 3bottl e an d aske d wha twa s i n i tan d the ytol d hi m i twa s a protei n drink . H e aske d t o se e

it . So , Appellan thande d i tt o him , an d h e smelle d i tan d hande d i tback . Ms . Jaha m the n state d tha th e starte d askin g question s abou tthei rclothe s an d persona l hygien e products . S h e sai d h e wa s ver ysuspiciou s fro m th e beginning . Sh e the n testifie d tha tOffice r Sadowsk i too k

he rt o th e sid e an d aske d he rho wlon g sh e ha s know n Appellant . Sh e state d tha ta ttha ttim e sh e an d Appellan tha d bee n marrie d fro m thre e an d hal fmonths . M s . Jaha m state d tha tOffice rSadowsk i turn s t o Appellan tan d aske d hi m questions . Sh e hear d hi m as k

Appellan ti fh e ha d an yfirearm s wit h him . Th e nex tthin g sh e hear d Office r Sadowsk i sa yis , "Ope n you rtrunk. " (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 39 ) M s . Jaha m state d tha tOffice rKesse l explaine d t o the m the yneede d a permit ; bu t sinc e the ydi d no tkno wabou tth e requirement , h e woul d giv e the m a warning . However , i fthe ywante d t o com e back , the ywoul d nee d a permit . Sh e an d Appellan taske d hi m wher e t o ge tone , an d h e advise d Wal-Mar to rsom e plac e lik e that . Ms . Jaha m testifie d tha tOffice rSadowsk i neve raske d Appellan to rhersel fpermissio n t o searc h thei rvehicle , instea d h e ordere d Appellan tt o ope n th e trunk . Ms . Jaha m furthe rtestifie d tha tonc e Office rSadowsk i starte d searchin g th e vehicle . Office rKesse l too k he rawa yfro m th e vehicl e an d ha d he rstan d b yth e patro l car . Sh e wa s no tabl e t o reall yse e wha twa s takin g place , however , sh e sa wOffice rSadowsk i pres s Appellan tu p agains tth e vehicl e a n d believe d tha ti s whe n h e wa s place d i n handcuffs . A ttha ttime , the ysearche d he rto o b u tfoun d nothing . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 40-41 ) O n cros s examination , Ms . Jaha m state d tha tsh e i s n o longe rmarrie d t o Appellant . However , a tth e time , sh e wa s marrie d t o him . Sh e late rfile d fo ra n annulmen tfo r citizenshi p purposes . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 42 ) Ms . Jaha m state d tha tonc e Office rSadowsk i 1 4ordere d he rhusban d t o ope n th e trunk , Office rKesse l aske d he rt o com e stan d b yhi s

patro l vehicle . Ms . Jaha m testifie s tha tAppellan tha d tol d he rtha th e worke d fo rTarran t Count ySheriff' s Offic e a s a n undercove rinformant . Sh e state d tha tsh e kne wh e wa s a convicte d felon . Whe n aske d abou tthei rmarriage , Ms . Jaha m advise d the ywer e tryin g t o bu ya hous e an d star tthei rne wlif e together . Th e Stat e aske d Ms . Jaha m i fth e onl y thin g Office rSadowsk i didn' t tel l th e trut h abou twa s orderin g Appellan tt o ope n th e trunk , a n d sh e answere d h e als o di d no ttel l th e trut h abou tth e sign s regardin g th e permit . Sh e continue d t o sa ytha tmayb e h e wa s confused , bu tsh e wa s not . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 44-47 )

Lonni e Johnso n i s calle d nex tt o testify . Appellan tstate d tha th e an d hi s wif e ha d bee n o n a weeken d getawa yan d the ystoppe d a tGu s Engeling . Appellan tsai d tha tthe y jus twen ti n mayb e a mil e an d a half , an d too k som e pictures . H e state d the ystoppe d a t t h e entr ygate , fille d ou ta registratio n card , an d wrot e the ywer e ther e fo rbir d an d wildlif e watching . The ydroppe d th e perforate d car d i n th e box , kep tth e othe rhalf , an d place d i t i n th e dashboar d are a o fthei rvehicle . Appellan tstate d the ylooke d fo rsign s regardin g fees , etc . becaus e the yha d jus tvisite d Ratclif fPark , wher e a fe e i s charged . H e state d the ydi d no tse e anythin g indicatin g a fee , s o the ycontinue d int o th e par k t o th e Catfis h Cree k are a t o tak e com e pictures . Appellan tsai d h e notice d th e loos e san d an d h e wa s afrai d tha tth e gat e woul d clos e a tdus k s o the yturne d aroun d an d go tstuck . Onc e h e notice d the ywer e stuck , h e calle d 9-1- 1 t o ge tassistanc e wit h a wrecke rservice . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 48-49 ) Appellan ttestifie d tha th e calle d 9-1- 1 a tapproximatel y4:45-5:0 0 p.m. . H e state d tha th e gav e the m hi s cel l phon e numbe ra s a contac tan d th e coordinate s o fthei rlocation . 1 5Appellan tsai d tha tth e office rcalle d an d aske d wha tsid e o fth e roa d the ywer e on . H e

state d tha ttw o officer s showe d u p i n tw o separat e vehicles , Gam e Warde n Ro b Sadowsk i a n d Gam e Warde n Dann yKessel . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pg . 50 ) Whe n th e officer s arrived , Appellan tstate d tha th e walke d u p t o them , introduce d himself , an d kin d o flaughe d abou t t h e situatio n h e go thimsel finto . Appellan tstate d tha twhil e h e an d Office rKesse l wer e evaluatin g th e situation . Office rSadowsk i aske d fo rhi s driver' s licens e an d proo fo f insuranc e an d Ms . Jaham' s identification . Appellan tan d Office rKesse l wen tbac k t o workin g o n gettin g th e chai n hooke d int o th e fron to fth e vehicle . Office rSadowsk i approache d an d aske d Appellan twha tthe ywer e doin g there . Appellan ttestifie d tha t Office rKesse l ha d no tpulle d th e ca rou twit h a chai n ye twhe n Office rSadowsk i aske d w h ythe ywer e there . Appellan tadvise d hi m tha tthe ywer e ther e t o tak e picture s an d enjo yth e scenery . Appellan tstate d tha th e neve rreceive d a citatio n fo rno thavin g a permit . H e sai d tha tonc e Office rKesse l sai d anythin g t o the m abou tit , the yexplaine d tha t the ydi d no tse e anythin g abou thavin g a permi tan d ha d fille d ou tth e registratio n car d a t t h e entr ygate . Appellan tstate d tha ta s Office rKesse l wa s heade d bac k t o hi s vehicl e t o pul l th e ca rout . Office rSadowsk i bega n shinin g hi s flashligh ti n thei rvehicl e lookin g around . Office rSadowsk i aske d Appellan tabou tth e protei n drin k mi xi n th e bac k

sea to f t h e floorboar d o fth e vehicle . Appellan ttestifie d tha tthe n h e go ti n hi s vehicl e t o assis t Office rKesse l i n pullin g hi s vehicl e ou to fth e sand . Appellan tstate s tha tonc e h e go tou t o fhi s vehicle , Office rSadowsk i aske d hi m i fh e ha d an yfirearm s i n th e ca ran d ordere d h i m t o ope n hi s trunk , statin g h e wante d t o mak e sur e h e di d no thav e a dea d dee ro r turke yi n th e trunk . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 50-53 )

1 6Appellan ttestifie d tha th e wa s neve raske d t o searc h hi s vehicl e an d tha th e

interprete d wha tOffice rSadowsk i sai d a s a direc t order . Appellan tfurthe rexplaine d tha t h e fel tlik e h e ha d t o compl ybecaus e i twa s a la wenforcemen tofficer . A ttha ttime , Appellan topene d th e trunk . H e sai d tha tOffice rSadowsk i starte d rummagin g throug h thei rweeken d belonging s i n th e trunk . Appellan tstate d a ttha ttim e Office rKesse l shine d h i s flashligh ti n th e trun k an d aske d wha twa s i n th e duffl e bag . Appellan tsai d tha th e wa s aske d wha twa s i n th e duffl e ba g an d h e replied , "Clothes. " Office rSadowsk i too k th e ba g o u to fth e vehicl e an d opene d it . Appellan tstate d h e wa s no taske d permissio n t o loo k i n t h e duffl e bag , an d h e di d no tgiv e permission . Appellan ttestifie d tha tonc e Office r Sadowsk i looke d a tth e content s o fth e ba g h e tol d Appellan th e wa s unde rarrest . Appellan tstate d tha th e wa s place d i n handcuff s bu twa s no trea d hi s Mirand a rights . However , h e di d no tfee l lik e h e coul d leave . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 54-56 ) Appellan ttestifie d tha th e wa s no tawar e o fan yaudi o o rvide o recording s an d h e h a d no tsee n anythin g i n writin g tha tlea d hi m t o believ e ther e wer e an yrecordings . A ttha t time , Appellan tstate d tha tOffice rSadowsk i bega n hi s questioning . Appellan tclarifie d tha t h e neve rgav e consen tfo rth e officer s t o searc h hi s vehicl e an d wa s neve rpresente d wit h a searc h o rarres twarrant . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 56-57 ) Durin g cross-examination . Appellan tadmitte d tha th e ha s a felon yrecor d an d i s o n parol e unti l 2039 . Appellan tadmitte d tha tt o a n office ri tma yloo k suspiciou s tha ta Mercede s stuc k

i n th e sand s o fa rive rbottom , however , ther e wa s nothin g suspiciou s an d the ywer e no tactin g suspicious . Appellan tstate d tha twhe n th e office raske d abou tth e dea d dee ro rturke yi n th e trunk , h e though tthe ywer e kin d o fjoking . The ywer e no t dresse d fo rhunting , an d the ylooke d lik e a coupl e o rfamil you tenjoyin g th e wildlif e area . 1 7Appellan tstate d agai n tha th e wa s aske d i fther e wer e an yfirearm s i n th e vehicle , an d tha t

h e wa s no taske d fo rconsen tt o searc h th e vehicle . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 57-58 ) Appellan tclarifie d tha twhe n Office rSadowsk i aske d hi m abou tth e camouflag e clothes , h e di d no treply . Appellan tconfirme d tha tther e wa s a fishin g pol e i n th e car , an d tha tthe yha d gotte n stuc k a mont h prio ri n Trinit yCount ysightseeing . Appellan tstate d tha th e neve rtol d th e officer s h e wa s a n undercove rofficer . H e sai d h e tol d the m h e wa s a cover tconfidentia l informant . Appellan tclarifie d tha th e woul d no tclai m t o b e employe d b yTarran tCount ySheriff' s Departmen twhe n h e kne wtha tcoul d b e verified . Appellan t state d the yaske d hi m wh o hi s handle rwas , an d h e replie d Captai n Ja yBailey . (R.R . Vol . 1 , Pgs . 59-61 ) A tth e conclusio n o fth e hearing , th e Cour tdenie d Appellant' s motio n t o suppres s a n d signe d a n orde rindicatin g th e same . (C.R . Pag e 47 ) O n Marc h 2 , 2015 , a jur ywa s selecte d i n thi s matter . Appellan twa s proceedin g pr o s e i n thi s matter . Afte rjur yselection , th e tria l cour tallowe d Appellan tt o revisi tth e portio n o fhi s motio n t o suppres s relatin g t o hi s ora l statement s mad e whil e Appellan twa s bein g detained . Appellan tfel ttha tth e cour tha d neve rrule d o n tha tportio n o fth e motion . Office rSadowsk i testifie d a tthi s hearin g an d basicall yreiterate d hi s testimon yfro m th e previou s hearing . A tth e conclusio n o fhi s testimony , Appellan tfile d a motio n t o hav e counse l appointed . Th e Cour tdi d no tactuall yrul e o n th e motio n t o suppress , bu tstate d tha tth e onl yreaso n Appellan twante d counse l agai n wa s becaus e h e ha d rule d agains t Appellant . A tth e conclusio n o fthi s hearin g th e cour trecesse d unti l th e followin g day . (Nanc yAdam' s R.R . Vol . 9 ) 1 8O n Marc h 3 , 2015 , th e cour treconvened . Th e cour tdeclare d a mistria l an d

appointe d Appellan tcounse l afte rAppellan taske d t o hav e counse l appointe d again . Th e cour tdi d no trul e o n th e motio n t o suppres s a tthi s time , bu tstate d tha th e woul d allo w appointe d counse l t o reargu e it . (Nanc yAdam' s R.R . Vol . 11 )

1 9SUMMAR YO F TH E ARGUMEN T- POIN TO F ERRO R ON E

T h e Tria l Cour tabuse d It s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains tunreasonabl e searche s an d seizures . T h e Suprem e Cour to f th e Unite d State s o f Americ a ha s recentl yrule d withou t reasonabl e suspicio n th e extensio n o fa traffi csto p beyon d th e tim e neede d t o complet e t h e sto p violate s th e Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains tunreasonabl e seizures . I n th e cas e a tbar , th e Cour tshoul d fin d tha tn o consen twa s given . Th e Cour tcoul d choos e t o believ e th e testimon yo f th e tw o witnesse s tha tcontradicte d th e officer' s testimon yconcernin g th e allege d consent . Therefor e th e searc h wa s illega l becaus e th e office rlacke d probabl e caus e t o conduc t a search . I fth e Cour tbelieve s tha tconsen twa s given , i t shoul d fin d tha tconsen twa s give n i n violatio n o fth e Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains tunreasonabl e searc h an d seizur e i n tha t consen twa s obtaine d afte rth e tim e neede d t o complet e th e Initia l sto p o rInterventio n withou treasonabl e suspicion . T h e searc h o fAppellant' s vehicl e reveale d th e gun s an d bod yarmo rwhic h wer e th e basi s o fth e charge s o fpossessio n o fa firear m an d bod yarmo rb ya felon . A s a resul to f t h e court' s erroneou s ruling . Appellan twa s force d t o ple a whe n face d wit h th e overwhelmin g fea ro fa lif e sentence . T h e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n b yallowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n violatio n o fAppellant' s Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains tillega l searche s an d seizures . A s a result , thi s Cour tmus trevers e th e judgment . 2 0SUMMAR YO F TH E ARGUMEN T- POIN TO F ERRO R TW O

T h e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o fcertai n statement s o fAppellan ttha twer e mad e whil e Appellan twa s i n custod yi n violatio n o f hi s Fift h Amendmen trigh tagains tself-incrimination . A n admissio n o ra statemen tinculpatin g a declaran tbu t no t on e whic h acknowledge s guil tmad e unde rcustodia l interrogatio n b ya n agen to f th e Stat e i s presume d t o b e coerce d an d involuntar yan d i n violatio n o f a person' s Fift h Amendmen t righ tagains tself-incriminatio n unles s Miranda warning s ar e given . I n th e presen tcase , Appellan twa s i n custod yan d wa s th e subjec to finterrogation . T h e warning s require d b yMirand a an d Th e Texa s Cod e o fCrimina l Procedur e wer e neve r given . Ever ystatemen tmad e b yAppellan ta tth e scen e afte rh e wa s place d i n restraint s i n respons e t o th e interrogatorie s o f th e office rar e inadmissibl e an d shoul d hav e bee n exclude d b yth e Tria l Court . Th e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n b yallowin g th e admissio n o fevidenc e i n violatio n o fAppellant' s Fift h Amendmen trigh tagains tself-incrimination . A s a resul to fth e denia l o fhi s motio n t o suppress , Appellan twa s face d wit h th e introductio n o fthi s evidenc e whic h wa s th e onl yevidenc e th e Stat e ha d i n suppor to fth e Impersonatin g a Publi cServan tcharge . Face d wit h th e prospec to fa possibl e lif e sentence . Appellan t chos e t o plea . A s a result , thi s Cour tmus trevers e th e judgment .

2 1ARGUMEN T POIN TO F ERRO R NUMBE R ON E T h e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n violatio n o f Appellant' s Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains tunreasonabl e searche s an d seizures . Arulin g o n a tria l court' s motio n t o suppres s evidenc e base d upo n a n unreasonabl e searc h an d seizur e i n violatio n o fth e Fourt h Amendmen to fth e Unite d State s Constitutio n i s reviewe d unde ra bifurcate d standar d o f review . Amador v. State, 22 1 S.W.S d 666,67 3 (Tex.Crim.App . 2007) . Almos ttota l deferenc e i s give n t o a tria l court' s rulin g o n question s o ffac ttha tinvolv e a n evaluatio n o f th e credibilit yan d demeano ro f th e witnesses , bu ta tria l court' s rulin g o n question s o ffac ttha td o no tinvolv e a n evaluatio n o fth e credibilit yan d demeano ro f th e witnesse s ar e reviewe d d e novo . Id. a t 673 . Th e Fourt h Amendmen to f t h e Unite d State s Constitutio n protect s agains tunreasonabl e searche s an d seizure s b y governmen tofficials . T o suppres s evidenc e obtaine d i n a n allege d violatio n o fth e Fourt h Amendment , a defendan tbear s th e initia l burde n o f producin g evidenc e tha trebut s th e presumptio n o f prope rpolic e conduct . Id. a t 672 . Thi s burde n i s satisfie d whe n i t i s establishe d tha ta searc h o rseizur e occurre d withou ta warrant . Id. a t672 . I f a defendan t establishe s thi s fact , th e burde n shift s t o th e Stat e t o prov e tha tth e searc h o rseizur e wa s reasonable , /d . a t 672-673 . Awarrantles s searc h o rseizur e ma yb e foun d t o b e reasonabl e i f a defendan t voluntaril yconsent s t o th e search . Guitierrez v. State, 22 1 S.W.S d 680 , 686-8 8 (Tex.Crim.App . 2007) . Som e Texa s court s hav e hel d tha ta n office rma yas k fo rconsen t 2 2t o searc h a defendan to rth e defendant' s vehicl e afte rfinishin g a traffi cstop , withou thavin g

a n yreasonabl e suspicio n t o d o so , jus ta s lon g a s th e office rdoe s no tconve ya messag e tha tcomplianc e i s required . See Levi v. State, 14 7 S.W.3 d 541 , 54 4 (Tex . App.-Wac o 2004 , pet . re fd ) an d Saldivar v. State, 20 9 S.W.S d 275 , 278-27 9 (Tex . App-For tWort h 2006 , n o pet. ) (mem . op.) . T h e Suprem e Cour to fth e Unite d State s o fAmeric a ha s recentl yrule d i n Rodriguez V. United States, 57 5 U.S . , 1S5S.Ct . 160 9 (2015) , tha tabsen treasonabl e suspicion , a polic e extensio n o f a traffi csto p beyon d th e tim e neede d t o complet e th e inquirie s tha t wer e necessitate d b yth e interventio n violate s th e Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains t unreasonabl e seizures . I n Rodriguez, th e Cour tfoun d tha tprolongin g a traffi csto p beyon d th e tim e reasonabl yrequire d t o complet e th e traffi csto p t o conduc t a do g snif f require d reasonabl e suspicio n t o suppor tfurthe rdetention . I n th e cas e a tbar , th e Cour tshoul d fin d tha tn o consen twa s given . I t i s incredulou s t o believ e tha tAppellan twoul d consen tt o a searc h o f hi s vehicl e whe n tha tsearc h woul d lea d t o evidenc e o f possibl e illega l activity . A s state d earlier , grea tdeferenc e i s give n t o t h e tria l court' s rulin g concernin g th e demeano ran d credibilit yo fwitnesses . Th e tria l cour t hear d conflictin g testimon yfro m th e office rwh o allegedl yaske d fo rconsen tt o search . Appellant , an d Appellanf s wife . I t strain s belie ftha tAppellan twoul d initiat e contac twit h l a wenforcemen tan d the n consen tt o a searc h o f hi s vehicle . Thi s Cour tshoul d fin d tha t n o consen twa s given . Therefor e th e searc h wa s illega l becaus e th e office rlacke d probabl e caus e t o conduc t a search . I fth e Cour tbelieve s tha tconsen twa s given , i t shoul d fin d tha tconsen twa s give n i n violatio n o fth e Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains tunreasonabl e searc h an d seizur e i n tha t 

### 2 Sconsen twa s obtaine d afte rth e tim e neede d t o complet e th e initia l sto p o rintervention . I n

t h e presen tcas e Appellan tha d initiate d th e contac twit h la wbecaus e hi s vehicl e wa s stuck . Afte rarrivin g t o help , la wenforcemen tofficer s determine d tha tAppellan tdi d no t hav e a permi tt o b e o n th e wildlif e managemen tarea . Afte rextricatin g Appellant' s vehicl e fro m th e sand , a warnin g fo rbein g o n th e wildlif e managemen tare a withou ta permi twa s issue d t o Appellant . I twa s afte rth e tim e necessar yt o complet e th e missio n o fth e initia l traffi csto p o rinterventio n tha tla wenforcemen tallegedl yaske d fo rconsen tt o searc h th e vehicle . Asth e Suprem e Cour tha s rule d \n Rodriguez, reasonabl e suspicio n tha tevidenc e o fillega l activit ywil l b e foun d i s necessar yt o prolon g a sto p beyon d th e tim e reasonabl y require d t o complet e th e origina l mission . Ther e wa s n o testimon yelicite d i n th e Motio n t o Suppres s hearing s tha tindicate d tha tth e office rha d a reasonabl e suspicio n t o as k fo r consen tt o search . Th e onl yreason s give n fo rth e reques twer e tha ti twa s a lat e mode l Mercedes , i twa s o n a bac k road . Appellan twa s a convicte d felon , an d Appellan tsai d h e h a d gotte n stuc k

before . Non e o fthes e reason s giv e ris e t o reasonabl e suspicio n t o exten d th e sto p pas tth e origina l missio n an d th e issuanc e o fth e warnin g an d as k fo r consen tt o searc h Appellant' s vehicle . T h e searc h o fAppellant' s vehicl e reveale d th e gun s an d bod yarmo rwhic h wer e th e basi s o fth e charge s o fpossessio n o fa firear m an d bod yarmo rb ya felon . Withou tth e fruit s o fthi s illega l searc h an d seizure , th e Stat e woul d hav e bee n unabl e t o prov e th e allegation s fo rth e offense s o fPossessio n o fa Firear m b ya Felo n an d Possessio n o fBod y Armo rb ya Felon . A s a resul to fth e court' s erroneou s ruling , Appellan twa s force d t o ple a whe n face d wit h th e overwhelmin g fea ro fa lif e sentence . 2 4T h e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n b yallowin g th e admissio n o fevidenc e i n

violatio n o fAppellant' s Fourt h Amendmen trigh tagains tillega l searche s an d seizures . A s a result , thi s Cour tmus trevers e th e judgment .

2 5ARGUMEN T POIN TO F ERRO R NUMBE R TW O T h e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n i n allowin g th e admissio n o fcertai n statement s a n d response s o f Appellan ti n violatio n o f hi s Fift h Amendmen trigh tagains tself - incrimination . A n admissio n o ra statemen tinculpatin g a declaran tbu t no t on e whic h acknowledge s guil tmad e unde rcustodia l interrogatio n b ya n agen to f th e Stat e i s presume d t o b e coerce d an d involuntar yan d i n violatio n o f a person' s Fift h Amendmen t righ tagains tself-incriminatio n unles s /W/rand a warning s ar e given . Miranda v. Arizona, 38 4 U.S . 436 , 8 6 S.Ct . 160 2 (1966) . Miranda warning s fin d constitutiona l suppor ti n th e Texa s Constitution . Articl e I Sec . 19 , Texa s Du e Proces s Claus e state s that " N o citize n o f thi s Stat e shal l b e deprive d o flife , liberty , property , privilege s o rimmunities , o ri n an ymanne r disenfranchised , excep tb yth e du e cours e o fth e la wo fth e land. " See WolfV. State, 91 7 S.W.2 d 27 0 (Tex.Crim.App . 1996) . Furthermor e th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e Articl e 38.2 1 state s tha ta statemen to f a n accuse d canno tb e admitte d unles s i t ca n b e show n "tha tth e sam e wa s freel yan d voluntaril ymad e withou tcompulsio n o rpersuasion , unde rth e rule s hereafte rprescribed. " Thes e rule s mentione d ar e foun d i n Articl e 15.1 7 a n d Articl e 38.2 2 o f th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedure . The ybasicall yrequir e th e sam e warning s foun d i n Miranda. Befor e thes e warning s ar e required , a n individua l mus tb e i n custod yan d th e subjec to f interrogation . Articl e 15.2 2 o f th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e say s tha t 2 6a n individua l "i s arreste d whe n h e a s bee n actuall yplace d unde rrestrain to rtake n int o

custod yb ya n office ro rperso n executin g a warran to f arrest , o rb ya n office ro rperso n arrestin g withou ta warrant. " Interrogatio n i s expres s questionin g o raction s intende d t o elici ta response . Rhode Island v. Innis, 446

U.S. 2Q^, 10 0 S.Ct . 168 2 (1980) . I n th e presen tcase . Appellan twa s i n custody . H e ha d bee n place d i n restraints . Appellan twa s als o th e subjec to f interrogation . H e wa s subjecte d t o a "fiel d interview " b y t h e office rwh o ha d restraine d him . Th e warning s require d b yMirand a an d Th e Texa s Cod e o f Crimina l Procedur e wer e neve rgiven . Ever ystatemen to rrespons e give n b y Appellan ta t th e scen e afte rbein g place d i n restraint s ar e inadmissibl e an d shoul d hav e bee n exclude d b yth e Tria l Court . Appellant' s statement s an d response s t o th e fiel d intervie wwer e th e basi s fo rth e charg e o fImpersonatin g a Publi cServant . Withou tthi s improperl yadmitte d evidence , th e Stat e woul d no thav e bee n abl e t o mee tthei rburde n o fproo fi n thi s matter . A s a resul to f t h e denia l o f hi s motio n t o suppress . Appellan twa s face d wit h th e introductio n o f thi s evidenc e whic h wa s th e onl yevidenc e th e Stat e ha d i n suppor to f th e Impersonatin g a Publi cServan tcharge . Face d wit h th e prospec to f a possibl e lif e sentence , Appellan t chos e t o plea . T h e Tria l Cour tabuse d it s discretio n b yallowin g th e admissio n o f evidenc e i n violatio n o fAppellant' s Fift h Amendmen trigh tagains tself-incrimination . A s a result , thi s Cour tmus trevers e th e judgment .

2 7PRAYE R F o rth e abov e an d foregoin g reasons , Appellan tpray s tha tAppellant' s convictio n i n Caus e No . 12-15-00186-CR , appeale d i n Caus e No . 3167 5 fro m th e Thir d Judicia l Distric tCour to fAnderso n County , Texas , b e reversed . Respectfull ysubmitted .

Attorne yfo rAppellan t

2 8CERTIFICAT E O F COMPLIANC E TEXA S RULE S O F APPELLAT E PROCEDUR E 9.4(iU3 ) I certif ytha taccordin g t o th e Microsof tWor d program' s word-coun tfunction , th e brie ffile d i n thi s matte rcontain s 5,55 0 word s excludin g th e caption , identit yo f partie s an d counsel , tabl e o f contents , inde xo f authorities , statemen to fth e case , statemen to f issue s presented , signature , proo fo f service , certificatio n an d certificat e o f compliance . Respectfull ysubmitted , PHILI P C . FLETCHE R 8 0 0 Nort h Mallar d Palestine , Texa s 7580 1 Tel : (903 ) 731-444 0

Stat e Ba rNo . 0078747 8 Attorne yfo rAppellan t

2 9CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb ycertif ytha ta tru e an d correc t cop yo f th e abov e an d foregoin g Brie fha s bee n Han d Delivere d t o Allyso n Mitchel l an d Scot tHolden , Anderso n Count yCrimina l Distric tAttorney' s Office , Attorne yfo rAppellee , Anderso n Count yCourthouse , 50 0 Nort h Churc h Street , Palestine , Texa s 758Q;h'oriT?ri s th^O^ ^ da yo f November , 2015 .

3 0