Court Opinion

ID: 4042079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-28 22:59:28.492367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:27.121212
License: Public Domain

I3H~(S
                      t^O .PD-0m~l5

                                                             ORIGINAL
                   COURT     OV^ CR.IHIN*\L

                        APPEAL

                      OF Tex*\^

            PHlLUP LfcO To q0jE.9> TR .

                        V

                                                           *be,Acosta,clerk

   Perm^M \^ CAv\se. wo, 3(g\u> ^oh me
lOOAWtMSTtt\CT COURT OE Uft\.V- CQU,nAtm , Te*^ q, AnJI^
    TY\E COURT OF AOPLACS POR. Tv\£                     mi/D-r^J" ^ W
          - - .                                         2^.

IPD^X Q* ^UTUOR.\t^s ....                                         3^

STftT*Mfc^T ?£G^RJD\*lOv G&AL ^RCiUM^T ....                       i .

ST«tua£.^T of Cfv^e ...                                            ^,

ST^Te^^T Dif1 P«icctbUR^\L w*>tq(V/. . ..                          5,

GRDUMb tOR, R£UIC.W7 ...                                           b .

       G^vv^Tvotvi Tvjo »^&Kt\C> . .. .                             lo ,

RtAS3Ni FOR. REV i£w , ...                                  Ip 7 ft ^ |0

                                            U
                       Tbi^iTmj ot P^ku^

 iWS^DisttUCT Court 3uoc\€
 MftVJL COUWVf C,a MAW ST.
 Suited ms^pvus ,TexHS ~m4 6

$GO VJtST AVENUE, fcOK I

sieves R, &ir,d
TRML LOUKl^et-
 fip. fcox a«si

3ew\ ^, COURTS L~V/

3\3 SOUTH ^ULCV ST.
CXARJEvlfc^ fTEXAS* 1^'lX(*

|0I1 WEST 10lh
ftHAVUU£ TtWb 1 n 101

Counts of APPeaLS
£ AUTHQfc\TTL<=>                       P^Ge

                               STATE OF- Te*t\S

EXPWifc ftbAK^^tft 5.w. 14 *8(T».CR\n^pp. wa^y                                ^
BxPQRTfc OftRMCM*, 18$ ^H 3d HiXCTek.CXih. ft PP. ioofe },                    7'
ExDarxe OMtJOT, 3oo S.w, 3d 7lo8 (Tex. CtClM, AOP. 100<0 .                    7i
 CLtvjtsv.srrvre^^ s,w,2j liu (tex,c«c\m, upp, look)                         ^ i0<
feX PRRTE DWKilELS, u stote:, 25 SVJ, 3cJ 8^3 (TfX, Cftl*v iH+*W, 206o} .     ('o ,
bOUhiER lflquAMARllO€3MC.10\ $Vm, id 138.1iKtL(TEX . 1^85^ ,                  3,

                            UkJITieD States ^utho^it\£.s
U.S.V.1&GuiLAR.,lp4'& P.3d 3I%33C7 (*fr D*. 3,011) .
US. V. ftLVMRAoo-vnLDLX,5Xi ^34 337^41 (^CiR. .^ooft).
Cook v. He Kuhe( 313 F.3d 3a& Ao%R. loo^) •
CRAWFORD V.WASHINGTON,SMI \\% 30? 
Tex .K. tvvb. ftoHto ,(*} %                                                   (fl
Tex. R. ^pp- P. 44.1(<0                                                       q'
te^ *.*p0-p« i*^3'&UftE 0^ b^ieetlOKJ
    RtVlEW \t\ THVS CASE, PER TUE- TlVibN^CVb ^

          OOWMER V.?\qUAMa\\\^eO^V^TORS l^C.TOl S.W^d A38,^U-S1

         ug>. v. bicks>oM k3^ p. §4 i$f\RM ren/vevj inj Response to th^ ^eve^tvi
LM5TR\CTS OPv^Hoa At^O "3uD6E»AE^T WHICH UpHE.Lt> TUE ftbTub\CK=mOKJ
 OF PET\TVOK&>R K.G"UOtv) TO REVOKE U\«S PROfcflfUON Ort TWe ORA^iKiAL
 Ct*^RQv.E ^f1 ^C-»GV?jc\\;aT^D ASSAULT UMTH DEiADL\{ V^e^PoM . POR U5VUCH
 PeTnrlO^ER, V\«V?> ^>Gevi PUACGO O^ PEFSRR.£D ^t>3uCumTlONi ANiQ Pk^SE-SStb
A SEN* TERCEL b^ TVjeKJT <<( MEARS t^ TUG TeYf\<=» \}£P<\&TKG.Wyr OF CRvn^KlV^U
3^ST\CE
          For co*jl>£«s\ie*kx petluo^er, phu_lip llo to^cestsl. iou_\_ &e
     Referred to v\s PeTvTvovieR,AK>Ci the states ^^ Te.x*\s P^oseavuoN wiel.
     BR DEFERRED TO ASTUE STATE ALL OTHER PARUES A<^ tMT«4ESSES VOU-L
   &E KiA«Ae^ AST^THE RECORDS, AL^O^OTE PETITIONER DOES KSOT HlWeTUE
 Records inthc case he has ksot ea/e*i a,gen (Kweu a copm q*-the kst^o^
 TO REVOKE, A^b tviOW RETeRRCO TO A KT.R,,

                         ST^TE\Ke^T ^r-THE Case.
  PETITIONER W>¥\S CHARGED 6M GOHPlAVNt Mb INFORMATION VM HALL COUMt^/ TX .
 £0R A FELoN^/ OFFENSE OP A(aC-xRAVATEb ASSAULT WITH A bt*DLV Uo^Potvi
  PETmO^ER- FILED &N RA TUE "STATE, ^El\TvOM£R PL^A^ GUILW/ T0 Th£
 offense io^ft ms placed on btFtRReb HtfruovoruoKi p«o^t\o^ for eight
 \fE«\RS. THE STATE BLED A KT,R,f\LLRC\^NCWTAAT ^ETITVOKJER HAb Vlut-IVtek
 TWO CGlSlbrUOM'b OF HIS PROBATION" (AND HVS PKQBATlO^ VOAS REVOKED ,
  Petitioner Filed a^ appuoatvo^ for a^Outo^tvhe appeal qn the Ktjr..
 AtOD APPEAL WAS C\RANTEL\ PETITIONER VSl\ WONORA^Ui. COURT
 For a Review of v-us case: .

                       ^STATEMENT b.F PPOCEDURKU RVSTARy

   ON DECE«AGER \«S, ^Ol4 TlAG COURT UP APPEALS OPlNioN AFFvRnED THE. KT.R,
TUDQEHENT CAUSE Blclip. 0«^ ffcfcRMARV b, ^016 TAVS COURT GRANTED
 pETmotvigRs   PRO se M^yuo^i Vmdr an exTe^slo-m or-TvnR in k>h\cV\ to ^n_e
VUOES NOT
 Cjb^TmN ENHANCE PROVING. THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED The CoNd\-H0NS OF
 HAS PROPjAT^Otsi ^MTHe PREPQNOERA^CE OF THE EVIDENCE A^iD
 QUESTIONS AS FOLLOWS,
6)UEST\ON QUE! bECAUSE PETITIONERS KT.R^WASHaseO ON A^ ALLEGATION 0^
 SlHPLE ASSmuT.HE WAS PoR^ALLV/CHARGED fcVIwFORnAT\0^ K^G WORSTED.
WAS PETLUONERS RvuHTS To ATURVf Te\AL,\H0UVTEtf WHEN Tt\E STATE
CWQSE TO fclSHlSS THE ^SDG^AEANORs ASSAUCT ALLEGQlvON AND PROCEED
LOlTA THE tAT.R. WHQUT THE ^LLCGeO VlCTtn KiOR THE C&VAPLA\nA^T
 AS W^T^ESS^ AT THE HT.R >UEAR^G , (\LrtDER STATE LAW \ ?

QUESTION, TWO t &\0 THE STATE VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AA| FRTL\N6
IN AVG^0D FAITH EFFORT To PRODUCE EVIDENCE K)HM TUE ALLEGE \MCTm
UORENHO ANiD THE COMPLAINANT (oFRCER POWELL \ bib MOT APPEAL FOR
the h.t.r. ?roceed\nc\ , a^d

Question Three : was The evidence \n tvus cas&
c^. ^0 weak asto he cuea^l^ loronq, or manifestly un3ust? or

QhX ViAS TUt FlNblNE OF VITAL FACT So CONTRARY To THE GfcEAT WEAGiHT AND
 preponderance of the evidence to re clearly/ v^ro^gi?

                        Reason por     Review

   pLAWi ERROR", ARRVVEWXNCt COURT H^M GRANT REUEF- fWpLA\N e.«.ROR''
   RNJEVi Vf THE "ERROR VO*S NOT \RA^SEO A^b PRESERVED . IF THE ERRoRv ^
   CEEAR ANOOG>NMOUC>.^Ee»
           PUEKETT V>U.S. SSL? ^>. W\ , 133 (ZQQ^ ) ,ALSO SEE,

                                     (p.
     U.SV,t>tcKS^N^32.F.^ lfr»,m(6*Wi/MlV:us VMCC4KJN U3 E -U
  H8U S03fe^QRAOIOV AM b IP TUE PlAHi ERROR. AFFECTED THE PlAW ERROR
 To &E Assessed &4 CotiSMLTirtO, the uhole record. See
US.V, AGUILAR^S F.34 31^,3X1 fe*hUR,aou\
  L^DCR TEXAS RULES OF APP. P. HU A(*\ IF U F\ViDS THAT PET L\VOMERS
Substantial Raghts wwe been) violated \f The errors'seriouslv
 affects The fairness,Ik)Tegr.\tv. OR PutiucRCPutatvom of judicial
PROCEEDIHQ^.TH^ COURT KUST K£VERSt THE 3i\bC\t¥CNT uF ADJUDICATION
Back to progatio^, Id.Auvula^.uh^ f,3ci, aisq sfx , U5S v. harchs ,no

Ttus Court umll Find Plain error uuere the KTR-- Proceeds Ci
AFFECTED P£TYT\oV)eRS CO^TVTUTlOWAL. RVGuTS To A FAIR Pact TlNDvNQ
process, That the swe ad^htted thpkoper hearsay EvibeNEE
Ui^bEK The" CRAVORORD STANDARD, SEE iRAWFoR£> v RlAgatK\rnTON'f5q[ us.
3>u Cc^faoK )tTms court has adopted this standard itf cuewis v, ^Tme
5111 S,w,Xc\ igip (tex.cw.APP. 1^4^,stating
                   THE STATE ACVkIAMG CARRIES The RURbEt^
             OF PKOOF" To FSTASUSR THE ElEHENT uT A CRlKE
         AT TtiAL.AMD &PPEUantS POVnTS OT ERROR CRAUENQ1NG7
       The SuPFtciENCv of the evidence useo to estahush the
       element (opthe cuapGeb CFPense could cla\h vjas so
       ViEAK TO BE FACTUAL \NSUFF\CtEt4T Id . CUENISJ t 1A, S.W JLc/
       AT UB .

TUts Court w^lefind puun error \«^ prosecutorial hiscowduct,
£4 blSMlSSlNG THE HVSDE^ANOR PAnvc^l VIOLENCE CHARCc TO GO TO
TWE M.TR, PROC^EDVnG UNCfcP. AUESSER EuRDEN ^F PROOF UHTHOUT
 A-75UR4 .

                                    1