Court Opinion

ID: 4057438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 08:37:19.91505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:05:52.137222
License: Public Domain

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
                               grOberlaw@sbcglobal.net
                               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. 2781,2788-89,61L.Ed.2d560 (1979). As chargedin the indictment

and the jury charge, a person can commit murder if he (1) intentionally or

knowingly causesthe death of an individual or (2) intends to causeserious

bodily ittjuty and commits an act clearly dangerousto human life that causes

the deathof an individual.Tex. Pen.Code g 19.02(bX1),(2). An intentional

killing occurswhen the person's consciousdesireor objective is to causethe
deathof another. A knowing kilting occurswhen the personknows that death

is reasonablycertain. Tex. Pen. Code $ 6.03(a), (b). Thus a knowing killing

contemplatesthe commissionof an act that is objectively dangerousto human

rife.Lugo-Lugov. state,650s.w.2d72,81 (Tex.crim. App. 1983).To prove

murder under this theory, the statemust prove that the defendantintentionally

or knowingly engagedin an actthat causedthe death and intendedor knew

that deathwould resultfrom that act.Leal v. State,800s.w.2d346,34g (Tex.

App., Corpus Christi 1990, pet ref.). Intentional and knowing murder under

$19.02(b)(l),(2) is a result-of-conduct
                                     offense.Cookv.State,884S.W.2d485

(Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Thus, the culpable mental state is focused on the

defendant'sintent to achievethe result, ratherthan the defendant'sknowledge

regardingthe conduct.Lugo-Lugov. State,650S.W.2dat 81.

      In this case,at the close of the State's case-in-chief appellantmade a

motion for an instructedverdict of not guilty. The motion was deniedby the

trial judge. (RR IV 80). The trial judge erred by not granting appellant's

motion for an instructedverdict of not guilty sincethe state'scase-in-chiefdid

not prove the essentialelementsof murder. The stateonly proved that (1) the

complainant died from blunt force trauma to his head erndneck area, (2)

appellanttold his fatherthat the complainant"wasn't going to make it to work

the next day becausehe was dead in a blanket in the motel room," and (3)
appellant
       waslocatedandarrested
                           outsideat a nearbyhotel.(RRIII 49,236,

IV 13-14,34).Therewasnoevidence
                              directlyor indirectlylinkingthedeathof

the complainantto appellant.The fact that appellantand the complainantwere

sharinga motel room is not any evidencethat appellantwas the actualperson

who causedthe death.Furthermore,there was no evidencepresentedthrough

appellant'sfather that appellantadmittedto the killing. Thus, the evidenceis

legally insufficient to support a finding that appellant either intentionally or

knowingly causedthe death of the complainantor intendedto causeserious

bodily inj,rry to the complainant,ffid the trial judge erred by not granting

appellant's motion for an instructedverdict of not guilty at the close of the

stateoscase-in-chief.Thus, the Court of Appeals erredin fitndingthe evidence

sufficientto supportthe verdict. Appellant shouldbe acquitrtedby this Court.

Ground for Review Number Two:

      The evidenceis legally insufficient since no rational trier of fact could

have found beyond a reasonabledoubt that appellant did not act in self-

defense.There is no evidencein this caseto disprovethat appellantdid not act

in self-defense.Self-defenseis the only logical explanationfor what happened.

      Appellant assertsthere was insufficient evidence to disprove self-

defensebeyonda reasonabledoubt.The jury was instructedlto acquit appellant

                                      10
unlessit believedbeyonda reasonabledoubtthat he did not act in self-defense.

(CR 89-93). In reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence,courtsconsiderall

of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verid. Finding
sufficient evidencethat appellantintentionallycommittedan act clearly dangerous
to humanlife, we overruleappellant'sfirst issue.

           B. Is the evidencesufficient to support the jury's rejection of
      appellant'sself-defense
                            theory?
      In his second issue appellantarguesthere was insufficient evidenceto
"disprove" self-defensebeyonda reasonabledoubt.The State,however,was not
requiredto "disprove" self-defense.Becauseappellantraisedthe issue of self-
defense,the Statehad to prove the elementsof the offensebeyond a reasonable
doubt, and the State had to persuadethe jury that appellantdid not kill the
                         SeeZuliani v. State,97 S.W.3d589, 594 (Tex. Crim.
complainantin self-defense.
App. 2003).A defendanthasthe burdenof producingsomeevidenceto supporta
                    Zuliani, gT S.W.3dat 594.Oncethe defendantproducesthat
claim of self-defense.
evidence,the Statethen bearsthe burden of persuasionto disprovethe raised
defense.Id. The burden of persuasiondoes not require the State to produce
evidence;it requiresonly that the Stateprove its casebeyonda reasonable
                                                                      doubt.
Id. A determination of guilt by the factfinder implies a finding against the
defensivetheory.Id.

      A personis justified in using deadlyforce againstanotherwhen and to the
                                                                        to
degreethe personreasonablybelievesthe deadlyforce is immediatelynecessary
prevent the other's imminent commissionof sexual assault.Tex. Penal Code
g 9.32(a)(2XB)(West 2011).In resolvingthe sufficiency-of-the-evidence
                                                                   issue,we
look not to whetherthe Statepresentedevidencethat refuted appellant'sself-
defensetestimony,but ratherwe determinewhetherafter viewing all the evidence
in the light most favorableto the prosecutioo,ffiy rational trier of fact would have
found the essentialelementsof murder beyonda reasonabledoubt and also would
have found againstappellanton the self-defenseissuebeyon.da reasonabledoubt.
SeeSaxtonv. State,804 S.W.2d 910,914 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991);Hernandezv.
State,309S.W.3d661, 665 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Diist.]2010,pet. ref d).
                                        with the physicalevidenceat the
Defensiveevidencethat is merelyconsistent
scene will not render the State's evidence insufficient rsincethe credibility
determinationof suchevidenceis solelywithin the jury's provinceandthe jury is
freeto acceptor rejectthe defensiveevidence.Saxton,804 S.'W.2dat914.

      Appellant arguesit was unreasonablefor the jury to have rejectedhis claim
of self-defensebecausehe had no motive to kill the cormplainant.
                                                              Appellant
contendsthat the only reasonhe struck the complainantwitlh the hammerwas in
self-defense.The jury also heard evidencethat appellantretrievedthe hammer
from his co-worker'struck and placed it on the bed in the motel room. The
complainantwas struck in the back of the head, which is inconsistentwith
appellant's testimony that the complainant approachedhim from behind.
Moreover, the physical evidencerevealedblood spatteron the complainant's
headboard,but not on the bed in which appellanthad beensleeping.The bedding
was still on appellant'sbed,but had beenremovedfrom the complainant'sbed and
placedin the bathtub.

                               in the evidenceandthe witnesses'testimony
      Any allegedinconsistencies
                                                         SeeLanconv. State,
concernthe credibilityandweightto be giventheir testimony,,
253 S.W.3d 699,705-07(Tex.Crim. App. 2008).To the extentthe testimonyis
inconsistent,thejury, asthe trier of fact, had the ultimateauthLority
                                                                    to determine
the credibilityof witnessesandthe weightto be givento their testimony.SeeTex.
                                                        (Tex.Crim.
CodeCrim.Proc.art.38.04;Garciav.State,919S.W.2d370,,382n.6
                             in the evidenceshouldbe resolvedin favor of the
App. 1996).Any inconsistencies
jury's verdictin a sufficiencyreview.Morenov. State,755S.W.2d866,867 (Tex.
Crim.App. 1988);Draperv. State,335S.W.3d 412,415(Te>r.
                                                    App.-Houston
      [14thDist.] 2}tl,pet. refld).

      Consideringall of the evidencein the light rrlostfavorableto the verdict, we
conclude the evidence is sufficient to support rtlrejury's implicit rejection of,
appellant'sclaim of self-defenr..Wr ovemrleappellant'ssecondissue.

      Having overruledall of appellant'schallengeson appeal,we affirm the trial
court'sjudgment.

                                      lsl    KemfihompsonFrost
                                             ChiefJlustice

Panelconsistsof Chief JusticeFrost and JusticesC[ristopher andDonovan.
Do Not Publish- Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

                                        10