PD-1465-15 PD-1465-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 11/11/2015 11:56:45 AM Accepted 11/12/2015 2:17:01 PM ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
IN THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINA,L APPEALS
No. 14-14-00M4-CR In the FourteenthCourtof Appeals of Texas
Justin RossAllen, Appellant
V.
The Stateof Texas,,Afuellee
Appollant'sPetitionfor Discre{ionarT Review
JefatdK. Crrabe,r T$B # 08240320 917Franklin,Suite510 H$rston,Texas77A02 Tdl.713-22+232  A4omey for Appellant November 12, 2015 StatementRegardingOral Argument
Appellantwaivesoral argument. Identitv of Judge.Parties.and Counsel
Pursuantto TEX. R. APP.P. 38.1(a),the followingpersonsareinterested
parties:
Appellant
Mr. JustinRossAllen TDCJ# 0r960t4s HollidayUnit 295lH-45 North Huntsville,TX 77320
Trial Judee
TheHonorableBrad Han 230tr, DistrictCourr 1201Franklin Houston,Texas77002
Attomeysfor State
Ms. SarahRobertsandMs. Lisa Calligan(in trial) Mr. Alan Curry(on appeal) HarrisCountyDA's Office 1201Franklin,6ftFloor Houston,Texas77002
Attomey for Appellant
Mr. GordonDeesand Mr. William Denham(in fial)
Mr. JeraldK. Graber (on appeal) 917 Franklin,Suite510 Houston.Texas77002 Table of Contenti
Page
STATEMENTREGARDINGORAL ARGIII\{bNT 2
IDENTITYOFJUDGE,PARTIES,AND CoI.Ii\tSEL 3
TAtsLEOFCONTENTS 4
INDEXOFAUTI{ORITIES 5
STATEMENTOFTT{ECASE 6
STATEMENTOFPROCEDURAL HISTORY 6
APPELLANT'S GROUNDSFORREVIEW 7
REASONFOR REVIEWING GROUNDSFOR REVIEW 7
ARGUMENT 8
CONCLUSIONandPRAYERFOR RELIEF 1,4
CERTIFICA]E OF COMPLIA}TCE T4
CERTIFICATEOF SERVICE 15 Index of Authorities
Cases Pase Cookv.State, 9,lr 884S.W.2d485(Tex.Crim.App. 1994)
Jaclrsonv.Virginia, 8 ,1 l 443U.S.307,318-19,99 S.Ct.2781,278F-99, 6LL.Bd.zds60(re7e)
Leal v. State, 9 ,1 1 800s.w.2d346,348 (Tex.App.,CorpusChristi lgg},pet ref.)
Lugo-Lugov. State, 9, LI-12 650S.W.2d72,81(Tex.Crim.App. 1983)
Saxtonv. State, t2 804S.W.2d910,911(Tex.Crim.App. tq91)
Thomosv. State, 13 578S.W.2d691,698 (Tex.Crim.App. Ig79)
Statutes. CodesandRules
Tex.Pen.Codeg 6.03(a), (b) 9 ,T T
Tex.Pen.Codeg 9.32 13
Tex.Pen.Code$ 19.02(bX1), (2) 8,9,11
Tex.R.App.Proc. 66.3(c)and(D 8 To the HonorableCourt of Criminal Appeals:
Statementof the Case
Appellantwaschargedby indictmentwith the felonyoffenseof murder.
(CR 10).Appellantentereda pleaof 'onotguilty" andthe casewastried before
a iury. GR III 23). The jury found appellantguilty as chargedin the
indictment.(CR 97). Thereafter,the jrry assessed a sentenceof 13 yearsin
prison.(RR IV 12). Appellanttimely filed a written notice of appeal.(CR
128). Thetrial courtcertifiedthe defendant's right of appeal.(cR 130).
Statementof ProceduralHistory
on November10, 2015 a panel of the FourteenthCourt of Appeals
opinionaffirmingthetrial court'sjudgmentin this case. issuedan unpublished
Appellantfilesthis first petitionfor discretionary reviewwith this Court. Appellant'sGroundsfor Review
r) The court of Appealserredin holding the evidencesufficientto supportthejury's verdictof guilt for murder.No trier of fact could have found that appellanteither intentionallyor knowingly caused the deathof the complainantor intendedto causeseriousbodily injuy to the complainant.
2) The Court of Appealserredin holding the evidencesufficientto supportthejury's verdictof guilt for murdersinceno rationaltrier of fact could havefound beyonda reasonabledoubtthat appellantdid not actin self-defense.
Reasonfor ReviewinsAppellant'sQround for Review
ThelowerCourt'sruling shouldbe reviewedpursuantto Tex.R. App.
P. 66.3(c)and(f). Argument
Ground for Review Number One:
The evidenceis legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that
appellant intentionally or knowingly causedthe death of the complainant,
JamesTaylor. In this case,the evidencedoes not prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that appellant either intentionally or knowingly causedthe death of the
complainant or intended to cause serious bodily injury to the complainant.
Thus, the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict on
murder. The trial judge erred by not granted appellant's motion for an
instructedverdict of not guilty.
In reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence,courtsconsiderall of the
evidencein the light most favorableto the verdict and determinewhetherany
rational trier of fact could have found the essentialelementsof the crime
beyonda reasonabledoubt.Jacksonv. Virginia,443 U.S. 307,318-19,99
S.Ct.