# 0!si THt C&XU" Df APP Bftta

__ 

# NWCife T^MUrfVlMe feft(\£& ^received\ LAfMWi¥2920U



# PfPtlWl Ifto- St /\fPBRL ftfLAEf N r , xTH!RDCOUrarOFAPPEALS> \J Qd \ JEFFREYP. KYLE /



### 0^ foe.\JL cajoTY TifX/'b

N^ 

### NWOSr QtikiK/uE foM&£*

# S \ATe /ASvlT OT FacTs-*>*> -»---».«,„„.. I 

# ?^^SiiOMALE\iAlofIFo^ Of The ftalO

- .--._„UJ ^ Sufv-\c«u^/ Di l He jaoitfMoaT „ ^ «*<TM^ & -X , .A \ , t s i \ I . *" **" * "«- «r a" «- <S- », 63-7

A f\ , ^T> ^ /-. ffi ° ** «*" «» <or Qs Q / Q)


### 16 s 

# <a\^c*icfL Of The Bii^o_
.... a a ffl

- • . <, «J|H3-

V\(lsT R3ikST Of SICaD^ „ ff u ,c



# ElV^t (j\ } fe^O too LfflTifvCaTt or ^M,ce_ , _ o 'to ©»

## \AfolE Of CrtSfc 

# LhapKQA S us ^fe£ W L5^.cr-vW.
... it 

# EoilXs \i Luce! VJ^ i^Th ioS Sc-b to (.1985) It, &jfenL DulvtK. L.53£wad &a^Tft«\^/W° l?62fr U 

# ,fckPACfg~7^^ail_ (p52 S^ISo LTkou,^ i9ft£)
. _Jy £>&«*- Koftfe. S^\ H^ qatlTBicn^/w i960-

_ U 

# ^W life ^USw^b^^lkaw WiA7a

_ ,r •601. 'fiokof WA?|[/h Pftoa^^. \
.. /Q

# 1U*\Yfe to& Stllfcjfc- AA M^Kk^L C/$e_files -tiuslfto- se_ AW.1CUT 

# fofueir t\)^ft>M To lite T^/V ftota OV fW^\\ftV?»OGeA*£v M. jft sofSM^TW Af^Wcuot ftftie$ a£ niaiffiotC" lfee.of 

# ^HATmafT of rags Tk\^ ^ a^ *Pp£M Fi^k. a "SiW T&tAL \m herein


# fA Yl^tafn;^ ~Tk_APP^llOuIT Al^ &&*£ a /%dl_

vWso\W ha kk ViejiSr fouk£. -to faL a. P^Pe/H £$£«&. Cosct T^cb^ S^^&xeji -Bk_ AfPdtadT To Tif-K&J 7ea^ 

# (OtALOTuk^ A^ O^ Dft. Ateol Tfe 3- Six hxr <tfW 

# 9b\A Tte./vppelW T\\fc.L A botfif^ NitfTice_«9T M%a.l

~o ftffesLl, 

# CDPROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE RECORD 

### On April 15, 2014, Braggs was adjudged guilty of the Second Degree 

### Felony offense ofBurglary ofaHabitation.7 That same day, Braggs pled true to the second paragraph of the indictment which alleged a prior felony conviction. On 

## May 28, 2014, the trial court sentenced Braggs to fifteen years in prison.9 The following is counsel for Appellant's professional evaluation of the record in this

case: Factual Background 

### This appeal follows Braggs' conviction for burglary of a habitation.10 The evidence adduced at trial by the State was as follows: Margie Carlton testified that on the date ofthe offense, she lived in a duplex 

### apartment near her daughter.11 Inthe early morning hours ofthat day, Carlton had visited with her daughter, who lived six apartments down from her apartment, and she had begun walking back towards her own apartment. As she neared her home, she noticed her next-door neighbors' windows to be broken and the back door appeared to have been left open. Carlton also identified Braggs as another

7C.R. 52-54; 6 R.R. 166-167 86R.R. 168 97 R.R. 28-29; C.R. 52-54 10 C.R. 52-54 "5R.R. 14-15 12 Id. 13 Id. at 15-18

### one ofher neighbors, and she also identified him in-court as the defendant. Patrol Officer Debreah Chism testified that she responded to the call which led to this case, and that when she arrived at the duplex she could see that the windows were broken and that the back door was open, at which time she called 

### for another officer.15 Chism and the other officer "cleared" the duplex and confirmed that no one was inside.16 Chism testified that the residence was located in Killeen, Bell County, Texas. Chism also took fingerprints. Chism also spoke with the owner of the residence, and he identified items which had been taken. 

### Among those items were approximately 95 DVDs and a 52-inch television. Edward Barfield, Evidence Manager and fingerprint examiner for the 

### Killeen Police Department, testified that a palm print taken from the scene matched 

### aknown print belonging toBraggs.21 Patrol Officer Albert Haas, Jr. testified that his work duties are with the Burglary Unit of Killeen Police Department, and this led to him working on this 

### case.22 Haas began investigating this case with the knowledge that Braggs' palm

14 Id. at 19.

Id. at 20-22 16 Id. at 23 17 Id. 18 Id. at 27-31 19 Id. at 27 20 Mat 27, 43-44 21 6R.R.6, 13-25 11 Id. at 31-32

### print had matched a palm print taken from the scene ofthe burglary. Haas did a search on Braggs' name in an online database which tracks pawned items. As a result ofhis search, Haas learned that Braggs had pawned eighteen movies and one 

### video game on the same day as this burglary. Haas contacted the victim of the burglary, and he stated that the pawned items were items which belonged to him. On cross-examination, Haas admitted that the date of birth shown on the pawn ticket was not the same as Braggs', and further that the signature on the ticket is 

### not similar to Braggs' signature found elsewhere.27 Kyle Kelley testified that on the date of the offense he was working at a business known as Game Exchange, and at that business he had engaged in a transaction with Braggs. On cross-examination, Kelley admitted that he did not 

### recall the specific transaction with Braggs and that the date of birth discrepancy had not been noticed, and was likely an error made by another employee. 

### Elizabeth Estrada testified that she is the area manager for Game 

### Exchange.30 She described part ofherjob duties as being the custodian ofrecords

23 Id. at 35-36 24 Id. 25 Id. at 36 26 Id. at 37 27 Id. at 50 28 Id. at 53-54 29 Id. at 63-64, 69-70 30 Id. at 78

### for Game Exchange.31 She was the one who provided the receipt to Detective Haas.32 Estrada also testified that ifno date ofbirth is entered into an account when 

### it is setup in their system, the default is January 1, 1950 (the date shown as the date ofbirth for Braggs; indicating that no date ofbirth was actually entered for him at 

### the time the account was created).33 She also testified that the receipt reflected one video game and eighteen movies had been pawned to them on the date in 

### question.34 Finally, Nicolas Koonce, testified that on the date ofthis incident, he lived at

if the residence the subject of this case. Koonce testified that a television, some 

### movies and at least one video game had been taken in the burglary.36 Koonce reviewed the list of pawned items with Detective Haas and he believed the items 

### were his items which had been taken during the burglary.37 Koonce did not know Braggs at the time, and did not give him permission to be inside his residence or to take the items which had been stolen. 

### Braggs, during opening argument, indicated that the evidence regarding the palm print (found on the outside of the residence) and the pawning of the items

31 Id. at 80 32 Id. at 87-88 33 Id. at 90-91 34 Id. at 95-96 35 Id. at 116-118 36 Id. at 123 37 Mat 125-126, 130-131 38 Id. at 126

### was going to be contested (the items pawned were not identifiable as the specific items stolen from the residence, and that the identity of the person who sold the 

### items to the third party was uncertain).39 Braggs' presentation ofevidence in this regard was through cross-examination ofthe State's witnesses. Sufficiency ofthe Indictment The indictment filed against Braggs alleged that on June 26, 2012, Braggs 

### "did then and there intentionally or knowingly enter a habitation, without the effective consent ofNicolas Koonce, the owner thereof, and attempted to commit
or committed theft of property, to-wit: dvd's and video game, owned by Nicolas Koonce."40 The offense of Burglary of a Habitation, as alleged in the indictment, is 

### found inTexas Penal Code Section 30.02(a)(3).41 That section states, inpart, that a person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person... enters a building or habitation and commits or attempts to commit a 

### felony, theft, or anassault."42 The general rule is that an indictment which tracks the statutory language 

### proscribing certain conduct is sufficient to charge a criminal offense.43 Here, the
395R.R. 11-12 40 C.R. 4-5 

### 41 (West 2012) 42 Id. 

### 43 State v. Edmond, 933 S.W.2d 120, 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (en banc); See also, Hatch v. State, 174 S.W. 1062, 1064 (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)indictment does so. Further, there were no objections filed or made against the indictment in this case by Braggs. The Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure requires that any objection to a defect, error, or irregularity of form or substance in an indictment must be made before the date on which the trial on the merits commences; otherwise the defendant waives and forfeits the right to object to the defect, error, or irregularity and he may not raise the objection on appeal. Thus, the indictment is sufficient. Jurisdiction. Venue & Limitations This case was indicted by the Grand Jury of Bell County, Texas and filed in 

### the 426th Judicial District Court on April 10, 2013.4D The presentment of an indictment to a court invests the court with jurisdiction of the cause.46 The judgment in this case was entered by the 27th Judicial District Court of Bell 

### County, Texas, on May 28, 2014.47 The 27th Judicial District Court and the 426th Judicial District Court have concurrent jurisdiction in Bell County.48 Thus, jurisdiction was proper in the trial court below. The indictment did allege that the offense was committed in the county 

### wherein the prosecution was carried on.49 To sustain an allegation of venue, it is
44 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.14 (West 2014) 45 C.R. 4-5 

### 46 Tex. Const. Art. V, § 12 47 C.R. 52-54 

### 48 Tex. Gov't Code § 24.129(b) (West 2014) 49 C.R. 4-5only necessary to prove by a preponderance ofthe evidence that by reason ofthe 

### facts in the case, the county where such prosecution was carried on had venue.50 The testimony at trial was that the acts which led to this case being brought against 

### Braggs all occurred within Bell County, Texas.51 Thus, venue was proper in the
trial court below. The statute of limitations for the offense of burglary of a habitation is five

^9

_ S^ 

### years. The offense was alleged to have occurred on June 26, 2012. The 

### indictment was filed April 10, 2013.54 Thus, the five year limitations period was satisfied in this case. Adverse Pretrial Rulings Affecting the Course ofTrial The trial court's docket reflects that there were no adverse pretrial rulings in this case.55 Jury Selection 

### The voir dire transcript reflects that there were no adverse rulings made.56 Adverse Rulings During Trial on Objections or Motions 1. Admission of a Leading Question on Direct ofa Witness by the State Braggs objected to the State's leading of a State's witness. Specifically,

50 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 13.17 5l5R.R.23 52 53 C.R. 4-5 54 C.R. 4-5 55 C.R. 61 564R.R. 1-105 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 12.01(4)S7 Braggs objected to a question by the State ofOfficer Debreah Chism. During the first day oftrial, the following exchange occurred: State: "So you would have checked it anyway, but certainly once you saw those prints that could be partially seen— 

### Braggs: "Your honor, I've been pretty lenient here, you know, but I think counsel is leading the witness a little excessively." The Court: "Overruled." The objection was that the question was leading. Texas Rule of Evidence 

### 611(c) generally prohibits leading questions on direct examination of witnesses

CO "except as may be necessary to develop the testimony ofthe witness." It is not clear why the trial court overruled the objection. It certainly appears that the question was headed in the direction of being a leading question, but Braggs objected prior to the conclusion ofthe question. Perhaps the trial court felt that it was necessary to develop the testimony of the witness. After being 

### overruled, the State asked one more question and passed the witness.59 The bottom line is that it is not clear what harm resulted from the overruling ofhis objection, as Braggs clearly stated that he had been "pretty lenient" in allowing many leading questions prior that one objection. 2. Admission of numberof transactions made by Appellant Braggs objected to the State asking the Game Exchange area manager,

57 5 R.R. 37 

### 58 Tex. R. Evid. 611 (West 2014) 59 5 R.R. 37Elizabeth Estrada, how many transactions Braggs engaged with Game Exchange 

### during part of2012.60 Braggs objected to relevancy, the State responded that the defense brought up the issue, and the trial judge agreed that "It's in issue" and 

### overruled the objection.61 The State then repeated the question and Braggs made no objection that time. It is a general rule that "almost every right, constitutional and statutory, may 

### be waived by the failure to object." Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1 requires an appellant to show a complaint before the trial court. 

### Here, Braggs objected once, but not the second time. Thus, the error, ifany,

was waived. 3. OtherAdverse Rulings During Trial on Objections or Motions There were no other adverse rulings during the course ofthe trial on either 

### objections or motions by Braggs. To be certain, both the State and Braggs made other objections, but the record does not demonstrate that any of those preserved anything for appellate review. Jury Instructions At the conclusion ofthe charge conference, both the State and Braggs stated

60 6 R.R. 92 61 Id. 

### 62 Smith v. State, 721 S.W.2d 844, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)

10that they had no objections with the charge as prepared. 

### In this case, the jury charge tracks the language of the indictment and correctly includes the statutory elements of the offense. Further, the definitions, instructions and application ofthe law to the facts ofthis case was done properly. 

### Regardless, as there was no objection to the charge, the general rule is still that "almost every right, constitutional and statutory, may be waived by the failure to 

### object."64 Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 33.1 requires an appellant to show a complaint before the trial court. Adverse Rulings on Post-Trial Motions The trial court's docket reflects that there were no post-trial rulings in this

65 case. Sufficiency ofthe Evidence As stated above, the offense for which Braggs was convicted was burglary ofa Habitation as a repeat offender, and that offense is found in Texas Penal Code 

### Section 30.02(a)(3).66 The relevant elements ofthat offense are: 1) a person, 2) without the effective consent of the owner, 3) enters, 4) a habitation, and 5) 

### commits theft.67 The indictment further alleged that the offense occurred on or

63 6 R.R. 143-144 64 Smith, 721 S.W.2d at855 65 C.R. 65 

### 66 (West 2012) 67 Id.

11

### about June 26, 2012; and that itoccurred inBell County, Texas.68 The testimony admitted during this trial showed that Braggs was the person 

### alleged to have committed the offense. Nicolas Koonce testified that on the date of this incident, he was the owner of a residence in Bell County, Texas. Koonce testified that a television, some movies and at least one video game had been taken from the inside of his residence. Kyle Kelley testified that on the date of the offense, he was working at the Game Exchange and engaged in a transaction ofthe

7 1 items with Braggs, who pawned them to the Game Exchange. Koonce reviewed the list of pawned items with Detective Haas and he believed the items were his

79 items which had been taken during the burglary. Koonce did not know Braggs at the time, and did not give him permission to be inside his residence or to take the items which had been stolen. Having found some evidence for each of the elements of the offense, it appears that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings in this

case. Review ofSentence Imposed The trial court sentenced Braggs to fifteen years in the Institutional Division
68 C.R. 4-5 69 5 R.R. 23; 6 R.R. 116-118 706R.R. 123 71 6 R.R. 53-54 72 Id. at 125-126, 130-131 73 Mat 126

12

### of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.74 The offense of burglary of a Habitation is normally a second degree felony offense.7:) However, Braggs pled true to a prior felony conviction. The punishment range on a repeat second degree felony offense is that ofa first degree felony offense. The trial court found the prior felony convictions to be true. Therefore, the punishment range was elevated to a minimum of5 years to a maximum of99 years, or life, in prison. Braggs was sentenced to fifteen years, which is within the punishment range 

### available to the court upon a finding ofguilt in this case. Because fifteen years is a sentence which is within the punishment range available to the court upon a finding ofguilt in this case, there is no error regarding the sentence imposed. 

### <*Y QtherJ.Errors Rising to-ItefltefaafffttaftttAjtar T*

74 C.R. 52-54 75 Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(c)(2) (West 2012) 766R.R. 168 77 Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(b) (West 2014) 786R.R. 168; 7 R.R. 28-29 79 Tex. Penal Code §§ 12.42(b), 12.32 (West 2014)

13

# XT \s^ta_w\Y^> O)KrT^^0KilV\ftt\\vbA^(z*je/0f S*A_ fAsm^_ /w~TfuM_^e>&&e£_Wrvrf xMerRc"Tiue_ A^si34A>o_

^ki2_-nf\iAL (WDrtiis CWeoa Urn- ^W^auIl E\n&xaL-tkR 7)-v



# f^W- taiva- t^aVvsweA. tor Lt^Si <W ~T^ODc4&i^Tcuo^iku

MOV A^V\aJ7W-Tte_i^&rTM CXlfAb.l/tY Ad kvouA wertte^ Vm^ Acn^s ^^.^l. ^WiTT beAo€oA fi_&Wv m^. UjvomS- 

# ^>r 9viTLWtfrn\ic tiAnuoffTcoA C^eO AHQckA b^U* MA
^Nid ***>_ tkh^.-t-QiO. '


# A T^-^CU^ tAaUT/ for PS^YchvrtTTLic fc\M//»7T^ \A

## t_d\^ ,^Ck wailAn uD', fou^To be_ iD^p&rretsT T} 

# ^ACLtk. TfAiAL AH*v "Wjiksr- —nfW&h.- AA ~The_/^LDiJT,3D/«^7/

L&mi ^^<liJT(^ U>eii.\K. "Trea-i »««jr ftlcdi-fc/ for A Pe&ocL 

# X\ \s cAear tr/ TkLl^iouL UU AA o^ ft) i^rHsjlM_The.

<vp<^v\f»rt \mo^ njOA tOKP^ntvrr id bki^ ~T7i<al_ j> l-bu&^~



## -mctHmk-w AkI ~AK£ Recoil ik>t6urT52> -Ua* iA uOv Fo/^TkH
# Xk \^ 1MPv«.\\mJT>- TEfcH-SlIaA -\tov k^TfttAL At+OfUifrf Ld%-

XTa<> Yto Tte_ /Wellftrfo co^^Ak^ A^a-vWis yw^ai MtorweY

WK a\sd ±iAeSWrn^A^isAoucjL a com^u-W mh ftAis^altajIiAj ftdbONalT AAA AOlTOfcT/ 

## 3ki y-t? ftfTTr ~l^iiH3 4l(p ^m^A (p&9 CTen at* iw Rift

\5

## 0\k o\ -;vm_ ftffecd ^v^Ae^. uiVcvL. 1K_ ^Q&^UT AAft.il/Vfc A-ftO^ 

# AUlv 3^ <Q§fecTtoL. for fov.W_TD TimlW Rla. CL kflvdr
. i^i £\\i\As m Licjii U^ *&i 3ids Sc-t &^ LR8b)^^^ur 

# 9aV^ «\ttlii* a m^ lARpetl o^ AKim- OT rltaVvV
Ml/ rv^jbe. "LVi^JT Qii Atftea.1 Ko^ar'a 

# ftuo.i£f KulelTS T\l(L AWfDr fflestJT OfinL rtftuNiJT

^ O^ Of VMWaL flXcJW* tXH Co0& W TO KAteQV

lt>

## ^peco^Q foviST CfrError 

# XV wlk /Weitos Co&MVioA tot Wivb AhenJav cA"TV€_ folocL

VA^xv ^Ltfuus- INl MvOr &vre_ "3\)fU &_\£c-Hod •aeue.ai VAo<_L bj&tfshnck_ (Xt "AKq. 3ofLi f\£.TVC6e_ sTra<_k_ ui£ve_ ft_ADAl\7 ko\M4eA. iu \l.oma} 

# "\te_ ftfRlU^n sUiw&~Tta\ WibTfivAL CaxwJi vj^jwdWrtoLrtaiTLiOL. EK CCGKMA fo^ fAU\ii^ AD \jD^ge_ ClTinlIv fifeTOd 0 blecHl^l To



# XI \S Ife. wfeVWr* eo^ta^ ikL\^M W^_ WktfW Gj(W_



# ^a , 1 ^ ^vi^1Kj ^f| coATryTew,. He.



# WS\e. WAW T^T^ Ato ouTHl. ^ wThe. tfk^t_

V\*-\A)^ UfltW ft^KL. &Ane_ tAck^r^ ^^^ ^A 

# ~TMU EATTVOA 0* n^ \mTh_ ~fNL wmUiT u^ PAmoeA

## W\a>iCJ& fteMteujoA. "TVe_ UrT eft fftuiKseA XIQ-Kb. uj \11o_VA/eTflerf(ire_ 

## V\ ftyc> j Ato<L ta_ WUeue^ Ata-XT^s botPe_ Vms ioYuch_'kaA Wa i£\&A 

# Wr\ p&h. forK3ST X^ ©toe, fe.\Ii(ZJuA A^lSTiKxif /H-T£i/)LTTR_ "? oUce_ oir\cav~"Xesr\^«A. Xoa- oa Ai^ &ly o? "Th^iiACiAjLn -tkH

## hc VvftL NiOA ftk. TKl ft\\e£^i \[\cTikx_ V-Or CLLivb 0VT^.h(SM<G& P'OopfilT! j' «o V^^v\>oe_ Wqul vs Tl^_ /Olna_ OffK&K^liiWXML 

# AA\eAtA XUcAir^ u^WAXT&nb TNl Aff^i\AJT PfluAMeAikH cW

~VJOH_ 

# AVAA^ ?^^ ^ ^ mm_ ^ ^ ^^^ 

# XK>^ ^ mo ^olW^ SA a^_xt^ ^ ^x^flAiito_

****** ^Ti^_ n^v * -Affu^w LMfc_XV^ ^^-^ Xu_Jaisaa£f 

# -hD Vw^Ttfer Or ^ -tk, AMIClTT ^TkJfc*^ ^ K& Uto

Ato 

# \%

# XT iS Tie. ArRil^Ts- tcriTodTia^ iktb ^k. S^i-tes /Wcavf cW&-ik. slior Dive. jaaL' A^uA ha Tf^ Closeu^ ftmirw. OF ftatx>Ntota_ O&ibt^fo-t lo^ad -\k_ SteuiW: Eft fictf1 N&css&ry 

# •to \ujl &Jfa«^ Gdvit/ tefajtOL feoua^to_&>iibV



# cote imL^RikJto-\k_ MKWmft- ousd\Jj^^^ftit^^uULa_.

0? Goosel W KTA f^*-~fte_:Bw^foa«*A, W] Tv^ &(li& Tk^



# bueil is- AWKAi ft\ W OU full W «5tffc- ^ f^or^ ConfW TWa Bl_ PKfe^Dkai_ Artt&fcM SuklIY coaL (^e_RXij^ 0ml. Tk_



# Of)

# IXNWfik ftfifths- Qd *&e£Y Sta^im^- OiXTkfcfA 

# Ife MA_ cmoACofH Of The. flfeflojn $zo ^ M^i) Afaef 

# UQ^ KXuL Ok} ti^_!)%?, AftV rOF lk& Q,(M4-holpN0_

X\,nL CCUBT of WPHffe fca foLi^W Al&Ul^K187(( 

# _/V£ ix ux^ afe feoiie^L byit /wtiiaJT ik>+ du^^ 

# X^Ak^A- k_\s AA :n^nejr ^cartel. AmtKoJTTAiL OTTfe. ^XX X^ /Sell couTT/' /O/sw TM^

XpmIqljiTHE STATE OF TEXAS VS. MARCUS BRAGGS 

# e*.\\A

# fe.*Cf°>

CAUSE NO. 70294; m.112/

S IN THE 27th DISTR § COURT OF § BELL COUNTY, TEXAS 'eteefc 

# MAYO2 2013 MOTIOM gQR PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION ^ *s"

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES MARCUS BRAGGS, the Defendant herein, by and through counsel, and would show unto the Court as follows:
I. The Defendant herein does not, in the opinion of counsel, have sufficient present ability to consult with counsel to a reasonable degree of rational understanding, and does not have a rational or factual understanding of the proceedings against Defendant.
II. The facts and circumstances of the alleged offense give rise to the possibility that the Defendant was not competent at the time of the alleged commission of said offense.
III. In order to determine the present mental status of the 

### Defendant, a psychiatric examination is requested by Counsel for the Defense, pursuant to Article 46.02, Section 3, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to permit the undersigned attorney 

### to properly and adequately represent said Defendant, it is necessary that the stated attorney be notified of the date, time 

### and place of any examination, so as to allow such attorney for SCAtf 

# PJ'IW 13 r'\Defendant to attend said examination, and in this regard, Counsel for the Defendant expressly objects to any mental examination conducted outside of the presence of Counsel for the Defense. Further, such appointment is required to preserve Defendant's rights under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 1, Sections 10 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, and Articles 1.04, 1.05 and 1.051, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

IV. Defendant requests that any expert appointed to conduct the necessary examination be directed to reduce all medical/psychiatric findings pertaining to the Defendant's 

### competence to stand trial to written form, and to include within 

### such written report the methods, tests or procedures utilized in the examination, any observations and/or findings, recommended treatment, and whether or not there is a substantial probability that the Defendant will attain competency to stand trial in the foreseeable future. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant herein, by and 

### through counsel, prays that the Court order the appropriate authorities to conduct a psychiatric examination, in the presence of Defense counsel, to determine the competency of the Defendant to stand trial, in conformity with the law and the relief sought herein.

14RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

[M MAHLER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT P.O. BOX 266 200 E. CENTRAL AVENUE BELTON, TEXAS 76513 PHONE: 254-939-5845 FAX: 254-939-5147 STATE BAR #: 12836700

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE As Attorney of Record for Defendant, I do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was this date provided to the Attorney for the State. 

## Date: S~ "& "V 3

Attorney for Defendant

15CAUSE NO. 70294; 71112
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 27th DISTRICT VS. § COURT OF MARCUS BRAGGS § BELL COUNTY, TEXAS ORDBR FOR PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION 

### BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the *> day of JhA *i / 20JJ> came on to be heard the above and foregoing matter, wherein Defendant, by and through counsel, seeks psychiatric examination to determine the competency of the Defendant to stand trial. After careful consideration, the Court is of the opinion that such should be: ( !^fGRANTED. ( ) DENIED, to which ruling the Defendant excepts. ( ) SET FOR HEARING ON THE day of , 20 , at o'clock . SIGNED:

rn o

16

# e!LhiW-Q^

Number70294and^lljT)
THE STATE OF TEXAS INTHEDIS VS. MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS BELL COU ORDER APPOINTING DISINTERESTED EXPERT TO EXAMINE DEFEND COMPETENCY UNDER ART. 46B. C.C.P. On thisday, came to beheard theMotion of Tim Mahler, attorney, for appointment of a disinterested expert toexamine (he defendant, and after considering the Motion, the Court isof the opinion that the Motion shouldbe granted. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDEREDTHAT DR. CHARLES PIERCE, DR. FRANK PUGLTESE, OR OTHER QUALIFIED PERSONbe appointed to examine thedefendant asto his competency tostand trial andfor such expert toreport in writing tothis Court his findings and to testify at any trial orhearing inconnection with the accusation against the defendant. In connection with the examination, the expert is instructed as follows: (1) A person is incompetent to stand trial if he does nothave: 

### (a) Sufficient present ability toconsult with his lawyer with areasonable degree of rational understanding; or (b) A rational as well asfactual understanding of theproceedings against him/her. (2)The charge alleged against thedefendant is attached to this Order. (3) No statement made by thedefendant during theexamination orhearing on his competency tostand trial may beadmitted inevidence against the defendant onthe issue ofguilt in any criminal proceeding. (4) The appointedexpert shall submit awritten report tothe Court as tothecompetency in ofthe defendant to standtrial, v-i SCAN
""."" 17 V \\i\Fom/T MH Form 2

% 

### COURTOlCJ^lh 5 ^ a

### (5) The written report of the examination shall be submitted tothe Court within thirty (30) days ofthe orderof examination, and the Court shallfurnish copies ofthe report to thedefense counsel and theprosecuting attorney. The report shall include a description ofthe procedures used inthe examination, the examiner's observations and recommendations for treatment. (6) If theexaminer concludes that thedefendant is incompetent to stand trial, the report shall include the examiner's observations and findings about whether there is a 

### substantialprobability that the defendant will attain the competency tostand trial in the foreseeable future. 

### (7) The examinershall also submit aseparate report settingforth his observations and findings concerning: (a) Whether thedefendant ismentally illand requires observation and/or treatment or hospitalization in amental hospitalfor his own welfare andprotection ofothers;

or (b) Whether the defendant isamentally retardedperson as defined in the Mentally Retarded Persons Act (Article 5547-300 V.A.C.S.) and requires commitment to a mental retardation facility. 

### (c) A mentally retardedperson means aperson determined by acomprehensive 

### diagnosis andevaluation to be of subaverage general intellectualfunctioning with deficits in adaptivebehavior. 

### (8) If the examiner is aphysician and concludes that the defendant is mentally ill he shall 

### complete and submit to the Court acertificate of medical examinationfor mental illness which is attached to this order. 

### (9) Ifthe examination is conductedby aUnit of the Texas Departmentof Mental Health and Mental Retardation and the examinerconcludes that the defendant is amentally 

### retardedperson, the examinershall submitto the Courtan affidavitsettingforth the conclusionsreached as a result of the diagnostic examination. 

### (10) The appointed expert shall bepaidareasonablefee forhis services and he shall submit a reasonable estimate ofbis services to the Court. Signed and entered this the2nd day ofMay, 2013.

cc: Sheriffs Office

- District Attorney's Office - LeslieMcWilliams Defense Attorney

- Tim Mahler 18

# ti-WbiV c

NOS. 70,2< 

### Cm, 

# ORIGINAL

THE STATE OFTEXAS § IN THE 27TH DISTRICT VS. § COURT OF MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS § BELL COUNTY, TEXAS
AGREED ORDER OP COMMITMENT

- NON

- SECURE FACILITY DEFENDANTINCOMPETENT WITH A PROBABILITY OF RECOVERY 

### On May 13, 2013, this mattercame before the Court inconnection with the issue ofthe competency ofMARCUS DEWAYNEBRAGGS, Defendant, tostand trial herein. Endings tfthfC9Mrt; Afterhearing thetestimony ofwitnesses and considering the evidencepresented, the Court 

### found asfollows: p I I FR MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS isnot competent tostand trial. «\U?i« nmo'clock Finding of the Court: MAY 16 2013 

## The Defendanthas beendetermined incompetent. Di8lrict^^gTM Texas By: Susan Montgomery. Deputy Clark 

## CommitmentforRestorationto Competency under Chanter46B a^ffiYYX-/ The Courtfurther finds that MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS is a danger to others and public safety. The Court, therefore, MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS, Defendant, COMMITTED to and confined to the appropriatefacility designated bythe Forensic Admissions Clearing House for the DepartmentofState Health Services. The Courtfurther ORDERS thatDefendant beconfined at saidfacility for aperiod not toexceed 120 days forfurther examination and treatment toward the specific objective ofattaining competency to stand trial. It is further ORDERED that the Sheriff ofBell County take the person of Defendant, MARCUS DEWAYNEBRAGGS. and transport Defendant to saidfacility. It isfurther ORDERED thatacopyof this orderbesenttothefacility towhichthedefendant is committed. It is further ORDERED thatsaid facility shall befurnished copies ofthefollowing
. made available to the Court during the incompetency hearing: H .'~r fjDp^4°.:.. SCAN 

## \yi^\\\^> 19(1) reportsofeachexpert; (2) psychiatric, psychological, orsocial workreports thatrelate to the mental condition ofthe defendant; (3) documents provided by the attorney representing the State or the attorney representing the Defendant that relate to the Defendant's current orpast mental condition; (4) copies ofthe indictment or information and any supporting documents used to establishprobable causein the case; (5) the Defendant's criminal history record; and (6) the addresses of the attorney representing the State andthe attorney representing the Defendant. Itisfurther ORDERED that thecourt reporterforthwith prepare atranscript ofall medical 

### testimony receivedby thejury or Court, and that such transcriptbeforwarded to saidfacility.
Treatment Program: It isfurther ORDERED thatthefacility to whichtheDefendant iscommitted shall: (1) develop an individualprogram oftreatment; 

### (2) assessandevaluatewhethertheDefendantwillobtaincompetency intheforeseeable future; and 

### (3) report to the Court and to the local mental health authority or to the local mental retardation authority onthe Defendant's progress toward achieving competency. It isfurther ORDERED that if theDefendant is committed to an impatient mental health 

### facility or to aresidential carefacility, thefacility shall reportto the Courtat least once during the commitmentperiod. If theDefendantisreleasedto atreatmentprogramnotprovidedbyan inpatient mental healthfacility oraresidential carefacility, the treatmentprogram shall report tothe Court: 

### (1) not laterthan the 14th day afterthe date on which the Defendant's treatmentbegins; and 

### (2) until the Defendant is no longer released to the treatment program, at least once 

### during each 30-dayperiodfollowing thedate the aforementionedreport is required.

20PpH.m tn ^ommlttino Court: It is further ORDERED thatMARCUS DEWAYNEBRAGGS, Defendant, shall be returned to this Court assoonas practicable afterthe earliest of thefollowing dates: (1) thedate onwhichthe facilitydetermines thattheDefendanthasattainedcompetency; (2) the date on which the facility determines that the Defendant will not attain competency in theforeseeable future; or (3) the date on which the term ofcommitment expires. Notice to Co"imJft|ff)gfrflllt It is further ORDERED that the head of a facility to which MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS. Defendant, has been committedunderthis subchapter, notlaterthan the 14th day before the date on which a commitment order is to expire, shall notify this Court that the term ofthe commitment is about to expire. The Court further finds that the head of the facility to which the Defendant has been 

### committed under this subchaptershallpromptly notify the committing Court when the headof the facility is ofthe opinion that: (1) the Defendant hasattained competency to stand trial; or (2) theDefendant willnotattain competency intheforeseeable future. 

### If

the headof thefacility to whichthe Defendanthas beencommittednotifies the Courtthat the commitment order isabout toexpire, the notice may contain arequestfor an extension ofthe commitmentorderfor aperiod of 60 days and an explanationfor the basis of the request. RennrtBv Facility Head: It isfurther ORDERED that when the head of afacility to which MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS, Defendant, iscommitted, discharges the Defendantand the Defendant is returned tothe 

### committingcourt, the headof thefacility shallfile a final reportwiththe courtstating the reasonfor the discharge. The Courtshallfurnish copiesof thereporttothedefense counselandtheprosecuting attorney. Itisfurther ORDERED thatif theheadof thefacility believes that theDefendant is aperson with mental illness and meets thecriteriafor court-ordered inpatient mental health services under Subtitle C, Tide 7, Health and Safety Code, the head ofthe facility shall submit to the court a certificate ofmedical examinationfor mental illness. The headofthefacility shall include inthe 

### final reportalistof the types anddosages of medications wityh whichthe defendant was treatedfor mental illness while in the facility.

21Furthermore, if thehead of thefacility isof theopinion that theDefendant isaperson with mental retardation, the head ofthe facility shall submit to the Court an affidavit stating the conclusions reached as a result ofthe examination. Return of Deffrfttiftn' tofftyrf 1ft JfrtfrffliPE Competency: It is furtherORDERED thaton the returnof MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS, Defendant, to the committing court, the court shall make a detennination with regard to the Defendant's competency tostand trial. The Court may make the determination basedsolely onthereportfiled underArticle46B.080(b), unless anyparty objects inwriting or inopen courtto thefindings ofthe report not later than the 15th day after the date onwhich the report isserved onthe parties. Subsequent Determination ofCompetency: It is further ORDERED that ifMARCUS DEWAYNEBRAGGS, the Defendant, is found competent to stand trial, criminal proceedings against the Defendant may beresumed. It is further ORDERED that ifMARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS, the Defendant, is found 

### incompetent to stand trial and ifall charges pending against the Defendantare not dismissed, the Court shall proceed underSubchapterEof Article46B ofthe Texas Rules ofCriminal Procedure. It isfurther ORDERED that ifMARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS, the Defendant, is found 

### incompetentto standtrial andif allchargespending againstthe Defendantare dismissed, the Court shall proceedunder SubchapterFof Article46B of the Texas Rules ofCriminal Procedure.

It is further ORDERED that a Defendantcommitted under this subchapter may not be recommitted in connection with thesame offenseunder SubchapterD of Article46B of theTexas Rules ofCriminal Procedure. SIGNED on 

# mfyiu. .,2013.

APPRO 

# M*«- ASSISTANTDISTRICTATTORNEY

22THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS 

# Wtb^ CcD

NO. 70,294 § IN THE 27TH DISTR 

## ILED 

# COURTOF tt^1* Pm0'C,°* BELLCOUNTY, TEXjSP* 26 2013 SHELIA NORMAN DistriclCfiurt. Bell Counly. Texas 

### JUDGMENTRESTORING COMPETENCY * s^5rr^t^^ Do(»"> Cle" By: Sytfan Signal The defendant, MARCUS DEWAYNE iBRAGGS, having been found tobementally 

### incompetent to stand trial on the 6th day ofMay, A.D. 2013; and the defendant having been committed for treatment toMontgomery County Mental HealthTreatment Facility and the head of 

### that facility having informed this Court on the 3rd day ofSeptember, A.D. 2013; that said defendant isnow competent to stand trial; and acopy ofthe report from the head ofthe facility 

### having been served on the District Attorney and the attorney for the defendant; and thefifteen day periodhaving expiredwith no objections tothe reporthavingbeenpresented, in writing orin 

### open court, by theDistrictAttorney or the attorney for thedefendant and this Court having examined the medical report which states that the defendant has now attained competency to stand trial and itappearing to this Court that thedefendant is presently competent; It is ADJUDGED andDECREED that the Defendant, MARCUS DEWAYNE BRAGGS, is now competent to stand trial. 

# tfLp&w
JUDGE PRESIDING



# i:*b*

### c



### 4)


# 4 6