9/WS

ORIGINAL July 16, 2015

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

RONNIE HOYT ROYSTON Petitioner

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Respondent

Petition in Cause No. 1354573

RECEIVED

COURT OF CRfflffiMAL APPEALS

JUL 2 2 2015

/*.. i-v^u?

,th From the 178 Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas FILED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS And in the

Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas

JUL 22 23:5

Abel Acosta, Clerk

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Ronnie Hoyt Royston

A Pro Se

18432 Lake Iris Ave

Baton Rouge, LA 70817-7581

(504) 616-2105

rhrovston(5)gmail.com
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 38.2(a)(1)(A), a complete list of the names of all

interested parties is provided below.

Appellant:

Ronnie Hoyt Royston

18432 Lake Iris Ave

Baton Rouge, LA 70817-7581

Telephone: (504) 616-2105

Counsel for Appellant at Trial and on Appeal:

Kyle R. Sampson

State Bar No.: 00795634

917 Franklin, Suite 420

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: (713) 337-1420

Megan E. Smith

State Bar No: 24076196

770 S. Post Oak Lane, Suite 620

Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 552-0300
Counsel for the State:

Devon Anderson, District Attorney of Harris County

Bridget Holloway, Assistant District Attorney on appeal

Hank Altmiller, Assistant District Attorney at plea

Harris County District Attorney's Office

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: (713) 755-5800

Trial Judge:

Honorable David L. Mendoza, Presiding Judge

Harris County Criminal Justice Center

1201 Franklin, 19th Floor

Houston, Texas 77002
Appellant Judge:

Honorable Justice John Donovan

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, TX 77002

(713) 274-2800
Table of Contents

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 6

CASE LAW: 6

STATUTES: 6

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 7

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY 8

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW 9

GROUND FOR REVIEW NO. 1 THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT

THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY REGARDING THE

CONTENTS OF AN ABANDONED PASSWORD PROTECTED IPHONE 9

GROUND FOR REVIEW NO. 2 THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT

APPELLANT'S IPHONE WAS NOT STOLEN 9

ARGUMENT 10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 13

APPENDIX 14
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAW:

Anderson v. State, 322 S.W.3d 401 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet.

refd) 13

Barnes v. State, 824 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) 13

Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840, 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) 13

STATUTES:

Tex. Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.01 14

Tex. Code of Criminal Procedure Article 38.23(1) 11

Tex. Penal Code § 21.15(b)(2) 7,10

Tex. Penal Code § 21.15(b)(3) 11

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

In the event this petition is granted, the Petitioner requests oral argument.

Oral argument would providethis Court with an opportunity to question the

parties regarding their positions.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant, Ronnie Royston, was charged by indictment with the felony

offense of improper visual recording (CR at 10)12. Mr. Royston alleged that the

iPhone was seized in violation of Article 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure, to wit-theft. (CR at 60-63). Mr. Royston submitted a special

requested jury instruction under article 38.23. (RR Vol. 5 at 173). (RR Vol. 8 at DE

if. The trial court refused to submit a 38.23 instruction to the jury. (RR Vol. 6 at

11-15). Mr. Royston was found guilty by a jury. (CR at 139). (RR Vol. 6 at 22).

Punishment was assessed by the trial court at two years confinement in a state

jail facility, to be suspended for a period of four years, placing the appellant on

community supervision after a mandatory 45 days confinement in Harris County

Jail. (CR at 140). (RR Vol. 6 at 46).

Mr. Royston timely filed a Notice of Appeal. (CR at 148-150). The court of

appeals affirmed the conviction holding that there is no reasonable expectation of

privacy with regards to an abandoned iPhone. This petition challenges that

holding.

1CR refers to Clerk's Record; RR refers to Reporter's Record; SCR refers to Supplemental

2The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals hasfound section 21.15(b)(1) of the Penal Code

to be unconstitutional but that holding does not yet affect section 21.15(b)(2). See Ex Parte

Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

3SE refers to State's Exhibit; DE refers to Defendant's Exhibit.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The judgement of Petitioner's conviction was entered on October 9th, 2013.

Petitioner's notice of appeal was timely filed. On June 18th, 2015, the Fourteenth

Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion by Justice John Donovan

affirming Petitioner's conviction. Motion for rehearing was not filed.

8
GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

GROUND FOR REVIEW NO. 1

THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED

IN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO

REASONABLE EXPECTATION

OF PRIVACY REGARDING THE

CONTENTS OF AN

ABANDONED PASSWORD

PROTECTED IPHONE.

GROUND FOR REVIEW NO. 2

THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED

IN FINDING THAT

APPELLANT'S IPHONE WAS

NOT STOLEN.
ARGUMENT

GROUND FOR REVIEW NO. 1 RESTATED

THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT

THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF

PRIVACY OF THE CONTENTS OF AN ABANDONED

PASSWORD PROTECTED IPHONE.

This holding will have broad application. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

summarized that appellant's iPhone was abandoned therefore a subsequent theft

of the iPhone was impossible. Appellant does not contest this with regards to the

hardware - the phone device itself. However, with regards to the contents as

stored in onboard memory, appellant argues that without the iPhones password

the contents are inaccessible and private. There is a reasonable expectation of

privacy regarding the contents of a password protected iPhone - whether the

iPhone is stolen, sold, or abandoned.

Therefore, State's theory necessary to prove any element of the charged

offense cannot be met, namely appellants intent at invasion of privacy or

gratifying the sexual desire of any person. SeeTex. Penal Code § 21.15(b)(2).

Tomball Police Department was able to get a search warrant for the phone. (RR

10
Vol. 5 at 93-94). However, without the passcode, it was not possible for them to

access the contents of the iPhone. (RR Vol. 5 at 95). Abandoning his iPhone with

the intent to invade another's privacy or gratify the sexual desire of another

requires that appellant disable password protection on the iPhone so that

another could later access its contents.

Only after getting the passcode was the State of Texas able to access the

iPhones contents and then within hours create a snapshot of appellants face and

maliciously disseminate and promote it to mainstream media - ABC, NBC, CBS,

and Houston Chronicle - a market of over 6,000,000 people {see Appendix A

image; google "Ronnie Royston"). Note that the State of Texas' actions violate

the same statute that appellant was charged with violating, namely, "knowing

the character and content of the recording, promotes a photograph, recording,

broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2)". See Tex. Penal

Code § 21.15(b)(3). The Harris County District Attorney refused to pursue charges

based on appellants timely complaint against the State of Texas and ABC News. If

appellant did not abandon his iPhone then the issue of theft presents itself and

the appellate court erred in affirming refusal to submit a 38.23 instruction to the

jury. (RR Vol. 6 at 11-15).

11
GROUND FOR REVIEW NO. 2 RESTATED

THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN FINDING

THAT APPELLANT'S IPHONE WAS NOT STOLEN.

"Atheft is complete when all the elements have occurred." Anderson v. State, 322

S.W.3d 401, 408 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd)(citing Barnes v.

State, 824 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), overruled on other grounds by

Proctor v. State, 967 S.W.2d 840, 842 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)). Complainant

exercised control over the iPhone when, as the video recording clearly shows, she

picked it up and announced, "I just got an iPhone" and "it's mine." The theft was

complete in that moment and is preserved on video (State's Exhibits 4 and

25A).

LM: Ijust got an iPhone.

LM & MM: It's mine, it's mine, no, it's mine.

LM: The screen is broken.

MM: Who cares?

12
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the reasons stated, the Petitioner was denied a fair trial in Cause No.

1354573. Therefore, Appellant prays that this Court grant his petition for

discretionary review and upon reviewingthe judgement entered below, reverse

this Cause and dismiss the prosecution or remand it for a new trial.

Respectfully submitted,

Ronnie Hoyt Royston, Pro Se

18432 Lake Iris Ave

Baton Rouge, LA 70817-7581

(504) 616-2105

rhrovston(5)gmail.com

13
APPENDIX

A copy of the opinion of the court of appeals is attached.

Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure Article 2.01

"It shall be the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any

special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done."

45 days connnement/\T*,*~v and 2yrs probation^ | / ^Humiliate in front of &JA;6,000,000 people

local S

Man accused of improper photography in store dressing room !•„ i5.i. J-»V «,J0!2

wos jomJaB !2£2l. tea.MiI)

a ft a s J! Q

TOM8ALL. TX-• WeVe heard of cases erf hidden cameras before but not the way

one Tombatlman allegedly spied inside a dressing room at a Kohl's store, tt was

3 16-yeai-oid girl whodiscovered the hidden cell phoneat the KohfsoffFM2920

in Tombatl

Related Content

Col a stonr t^azjjiitainaaad

them he plans soon to surrender.

That suspect has not yet been

afrested. He is charged with

improperphotography and visual

recording here. Police say he told

Share this Story

IT»i»¥lTMilTMii« m«what your fre«J* recommend.

: $ *3 Utz<?vmm?nd ihs$pflGoo$*

null News Links

* $e*o vow mc% m y««« B>rawtftatsllifis

According toTomballpolice,surveillance video shows RonnieHoytRoyston. 3?,

entering the Kohrs on FM 2920 in Tomball on June 4.Once inside, according toa Most Popular

14
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 18, 2015.

In The

iffmtrtentlj Court ni Appeals

NO. 14-13-00920-CR

RONNIE HOYT ROYSTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1354573

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ronnie Hoyt Royston, appeals his conviction for improper

photography or visual recording. In two issues, he contends the trial court erred by

(1) refusing to submit a requested jury instruction, and (2) denying appellant's

motion to suppress. We affirm.
I. Background

On June 4, 2012, the sixteen-year-old female complainant, her thirteen-yearold sister, her brother, and their mother were shopping at a department store. The

women noticed that a man, later identified as appellant, followed them while they

looked at clothes. Unbeknownst to the women at the time, appellant used his

iPhone to take numerous photographs focusing on the complainant's buttocks

while she shopped. Appellant then placed the phone, set in the video-recording

mode, under a bench in a dressing room, partially concealed by some clothing.

The three women then entered that dressing room, and the teenagers began

to try on clothes. When the sister dropped an item, she saw the hidden phone. She

picked it up and said, "I just got an iPhone" and "it's mine, it's mine," while the

complainant replied, "no, it's mine"—remarks which the complainant and her

mother characterized at trial as joking rather than indicating intent to keep the

phone.1 The mother immediately took the phone to determine the owner's identity,

and the women noticed it was recording. While looking at the contents, they

recognizedthe phone as belonging to the man who had followed them and saw the

photographs of the complainant's backside. The mother immediately locked the

phone so that it would stop recording. An employee knocked on the dressing-room

door, asking ifthe women had found a phone because someone had called looking

for it. The mother responded that they had not because she was concerned

appellant might be nearby and she wantedto take the phone to store security. She

approached a manager and called the police after learning there was no store

security officer. She gave the phone to the responding police officer and reported

that it showed the teenagers "half-dressed."

The sister did not testify at trial.
> The police obtained a search warrant to access the contents of the locked

phone, based on the information provided by the women. The police found the

photographs ofthe complainant and the video which recorded appellant hiding the

phone in the dressing room and the women discovering it. The police determined

from accessing the phone that it belonged to appellant. They contacted him, and

he voluntarily went to the station for an interview. The police also learned that the

man who called the store inquiring about the phone did not leave his name or

contact information. Additionally, appellant did not return to the store, contact the

officers, or go to the police station in an attempt to retrieve the phone, and he never

reported it as stolen. Finally, the police obtained store surveillance videos showing

appellant enter the store while holding a cell phone and displaying an erection

through his gym shorts.

Appellant was charged with the felony offense of improper photography or

visual recording under section 21.15(b)(2) of the Texas Penal Code.2 See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 21.15(b)(2) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.) (providing that

a person commits an offense if he "photographs or by videotape or other electronic

means records ... a visual image of another at a location that is a . . . private

dressing room . . . without the other person's consent; and . . . with intent to: (i)

invade the privacy ofthe other person; or (ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of

any person").

Appellant moved to suppress all evidence regarding the phone and its

contents, or otherwise obtained from accessing the contents, on the ground this

evidence was obtained via an illegal search and seizure. After hearing testimony

and viewing the video recording contained on the phone, the trial court denied the

2The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has found section 21.15(b)(1) ofthe Penal Code

to be unconstitutional but that holding does not affect section 21.15(b)(2). See Ex Parte

Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

3
motion. Subsequently, the trial court denied appellant's request for an instruction

in the charge that the jury may not consider evidence it believed was obtained via

an illegal search and seizure.

The jury found appellant guilty of the offense. The trial court assessed

punishment at two years' confinement in state jail, probated for four years.

II. Analysis

We will address together appellant's two issues because we dispose of both

on the same basis. Appellant contends the trial court erred by (1) denying

appellant's motion to suppress, and (2) refusing to submit his requested jury

instruction.

A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

To support both issues, appellant relies on Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure Article 38.23(1), which provides:

(a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of

any provisions ofthe Constitution or laws ofthe State of Texas, or of

the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be

admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal

case.

In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the

jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt,

that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this

Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such

evidence so obtained.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23(a) (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).

We review a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress under a bifurcated

standard of review. Amador v. State, 221 S.W.3d 666, 673 (Tex. Crim. App.

2007). We give almost total deference to the trial court's findings of historical fact

that are supported by the record and its application of the law to facts if the
resolution of those questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor.

Id. We review de novo the trial court's application ofthe law to the facts when the

issue does not turn on credibility and demeanor. Id.

Even when a trial court has resolved a factual conflict relative to a motion to

suppress against the defendant and admitted the evidence at issue, the defendant

may still be entitled to a jury instruction under the second paragraph of Article

38.23(a). See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23(a); Holmes v. State, 248

S.W.3d 194, 199-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A defendant's right to submission

of a jury instruction under article 38.23(a) is "limited to disputed issues of fact that

are material to his claim of a constitutional or statutory violation that would render

evidence inadmissible." Madden v. State, 242 S.W.3d 504, 509-10 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2007). Ifthere is no dispute regarding a material fact issue, the legality ofthe

conduct is determined by the court alone, as a matter of law. Id. at 510. We

review a trial court's refusal to submit an instruction in the jury charge for abuse of

discretion. See Wesbrookv. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000).

B. Analysis

Appellant's complaint regarding the search and seizure of the iPhone

focuses on the actions of the complainant's sister. Appellant cites authority

discussing application of the exclusionary rule to an improper search and seizure

by a private citizen: "if an officer violates a person's privacy rights by his illegal

conduct making the fruits of his search or seizure inadmissible in a criminal

proceeding under Article 38.23, that same illegal conduct undertaken by an 'other

person' is also subject to the Texas exclusionary rule." Miles v. State, 241 S.W.3d

28, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Appellantcontendsthe sister had effectivelystolen

the phone when the women viewed the contents in the dressing room because (1)

the sister's statements while picking up the phone—"I just got an iPhone" and "it's
mine, it's mine"—demonstrate her intent to commit theft, and (2) the theft was

complete when she briefly held the phone, although the women decided to give it

to the police once they saw the contents.

As we construe appellant's position, he therefore maintains (1) the women's

actions in obtaining the phone and viewing the contents constituted an illegal

search and seizure; (2) in turn, the search warrant based on the information they

provided was invalid; and (3) thus, the phone, evidence regarding its contents, and

any other evidence obtained via the search warrant, including appellant's

statement, should have been suppressed as fruits of an illegal search and seizure.

Alternatively, appellant argues the sister's statements at least raised a question of

fact before the jury on whether she committed theft, thereby entitling appellant to a

jury instruction. See Holmes, 248 S.W.3d at 200 (recognizing State's own

witnesses or evidence might affirmatively raise a factual dispute entitling

defendant to anArticle 38.23(a) instruction).3

The trial court issued numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law

which, in summary, reflect it denied the motion to suppress for three separate

reasons: (1) there was no theft; (2) appellant abandoned his interest in the phone

before the women discovered it; and (3) the complainant had an ownership interest

in the contents because they depicted her partially undressed body without her

consent. We agree with the trial court's conclusion that appellant abandoned the

phone before the women discovered it and thus he lacks standing to challenge thenactions. Consequently, we need not decide whether the trial court erred by

3Appellant requested an instruction defining the elements of theft and stating, "if you

believebeyonda reasonable doubtthat the cell phonein question was obtainedin violation of the

law of the State of Texas, namely theft by [the complainantor her sister], then in such event, you

will wholly disregard such evidence and all other evidence that was derived from the theft, and

not consider it as any evidence whatsoever."
determining there was no theft or whether a disputed fact issue existed regarding a

theft, entitling appellant to a jury instruction.

A person has standing to contend a search or seizure was unreasonable if (1)

he has a subjective expectation of privacy in the place or object searched, and (2)

society is prepared to recognize that expectation as "reasonable" or "legitimate."

State v. Granville, 423 S.W.3d 399, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Courts have held

that (1) a person has a subjective expectation of privacy in the contents of his cell

phone, and (2) this expectation of privacy is one society recognizes as reasonable

and legitimate. Id. at 405-06. However, a person may lose a reasonable and

legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of his cell phone under some

circumstances, including if he abandons the phone. Id. at 409.

When the police take possession of property that has been abandoned

independent of police misconduct, no seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment.

Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Further, no

person can reasonably expect privacy in property he abandons. Matthews v. State,

431 S.W.3d 596, 608 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Thus, when a defendant voluntarily

abandons property, he lacks standing to contest the reasonableness ofthe search of

the property. Id.; Swearingen, 101 S.W.3d at 101. The defendant must intend to

abandon the property, which may be inferred from words, acts, and other objective

facts—the question being whether the defendant has voluntarily discarded or

relinquished his interest in the property. See Matthews, 431 S.W.3d at 609. The

issue is not whether he intended to discard the property permanently, but instead

whether he abandoned the property in such a way "that he could no longer retain a

reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at the time of the search." Id.

(quoting McDuffv. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
In this case, there were no disputed facts on whether appellant abandoned

the phone, and therefore that inquiry is solely a legal issue. See Madden, 242

S.W.3d at 510; Amador, 221 S.W.3d at 673.4 The trial court made the following

conclusions with respect to the abandonment issue:

The Court further finds that neither [the sister] who had fleeting

temporary possession ofthe iPhone, nor [the mother], took the iPhone

from the defendant's person, home or vehicle, but rather found it

where the defendant had no right to be and where the defendant left it

to commit the offense alleged in the indictment. As such, since the

defendant did not report it stolen or lost to the police or inquire about

it in person at the store or at the police station, he abandoned it.

The Court further finds that the Defendant did not have a reasonable

expectation of privacy in his iPhone when his iPhone and the contents

therein were retained by the complainant's mother and handed over to

the police, where he had abandoned said iPhone in the women's

dressing room by entering said dressing room and surreptitiously

placing it in a "record" mode and later made no attempt to reclaim it

in person. . . .

We agree that before the sister discovered the phone, appellant abandoned it by

"surreptitiously" placing it in a public dressing room on record mode and then

walking away from not only the phone but also the store.

Appellant argues that conclusion is inconsistent with the State's theory

necessary to prove an element of the offense. Appellant emphasizes he could not

have intended to abandon the phone if he also intended to "arouse or gratify [his]

sexual desire." In other words, appellant suggests proving that element would

entail intent to later retrieve the phone so that he could view any recording of the

4The evidence presented at both the motion-to-suppress hearing and at trial (as setforth

above) was substantially similar in pertinent respects.

5It is a reasonable inference appellant left the store before the women found the phone

because he hadcalled the store inquiring about thephone only minutes afterthewomen found it.

8
complainant. In this regard, appellant cites the fact that he called the store

inquiring about the phone.

However, the jury was correctly instructed that appellant must have made

the recording with intent to "invade the privacy of the other person; or . . . arouse

or gratify the sexual desire of any person." (emphasis added). See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 21.15(b)(2). Thus, the State was not required to establish appellant

intended to "arouse or gratify [his] sexual desire." See id. The jury could have

concluded that appellant intended "to invade [the complainant's] privacy" even if

he had no intent to retrieve the phone because he placed it where any other person

could find it and view the recording. Further, appellant does not challenge

sufficiency ofthe evidence, so we need not decide whether the State proved all of

the elements.

Nonetheless, as set forth above, the inquiry is not whether appellant intended

to discard the phone permanently but whether he abandoned it in such a way "that

he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at

the time of the search." See Matthews, 431 S.W.3d at 609 (emphasis added). We

note appellant's subsequent attempt to retrieve the phone was tepid because he

failed to leave any contact information when he called the store, did not return in

person, and made no further efforts to retrieve it. Regardless, any intent, or actual

attempt, to later try to retrieve the phone does not negate that appellant

relinquished any "reasonable expectation of privacy" when he hid the phone in a

public dressing roomin recordmode and left the store. See id.

In summary, because appellant abandoned the phone, he had no standing to

challenge the subsequent circumstances under which the women and then the

police accessed the contents. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying
appellant's motion to suppress and refusing to submit an Article 38.23(a) jury

instruction. We overrule both of appellant's issues.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

/s/ John Donovan

Justice

Panel consists ofJustices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

10
i

9002.(I?,BW tfr?0ij?5?2

jsn'isojwivisautNn

1IJ/IAI

Ai'ldOllId

78711

?90oz wjcw v^on^j^i uioo'sosriw/wviUNH

PRIORITY m posm

* MA I L •

\^1^ Uht Iris A*

TO: A^)A:osU,Chk^

<o

TAlt^

iVICB

FROM:

530a a^4D.,- 0DDD OllM M53S

VISIT US AT U. _, ORDER FREE SUPPLIES ONLINE

UI

FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL USE