Court Opinion

ID: 4098599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-16 04:29:00.001272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:40.666753
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                            02-16-00199-CR
                                                                SECOND COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      FORT WORTH, TEXAS
                                                                      11/14/2016 2:59:03 PM
                                                                             DEBRA SPISAK
                                                                                     CLERK

                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
           SECOND COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                            FILED IN
                                                     2nd COURT OF APPEALS
JIM HARVEY OPRY,                 §                     FORT WORTH, TEXAS
     APPELLANT                   §                   11/14/2016 2:59:03 PM
                                 §                       DEBRA SPISAK
V.                               §              02-16-00199-CRClerk
                                 §
THE STATE OF TEXAS,              §
    APPELLEE                     §

     APPEALED FROM CAUSE NUMBER 1399102D IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; THE HONORABLE
ROBB CATALANO, PRESIDING.
                             §§§
                        STATE'S BRIEF
                             §§§

                              SHAREN WILSON
                              Criminal District Attorney
                              Tarrant County, Texas

                              DEBRA WINDSOR, Assistant
                              Criminal District Attorney
                              Chief, Post-Conviction

                              LANDON A. WADE
                              Assistant Criminal District Attorney
                              Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
Oral Argument is requested,   401 W. Belknap
but only if Appellant is      Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0201
also requesting argument.     (817) 884-1687; FAX (817) 884-1672
                              State Bar No. 24098560
                              COAAppellateAlerts@tarrantcounty.com

                              DAVID ALEX and
                              ALLENNA BANGS, Assistant
                              Criminal District Attorneys
                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                                                     PAGE

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iii

THE CASE IN BRIEF ...............................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................2

SUMMARY OF STATE’S RESPONSES ................................................................ 5

STATE’S REPLY TO APPELLANT’S FIRST POINT OF ERROR....................... 6

Appellant’s Contention ..............................................................................................6

State’s Reply ..............................................................................................................6

Argument and Authorities..........................................................................................6

         I.        The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Appellant’s
                   extraneous bad acts because the evidence Appellant claims should
                   not have been admitted was not introduced during the State’s
                   case-in-chief. .........................................................................................6

                   A.       Standard of Review and Applicable Law ................................... 7

                   B.       The evidence of extraneous acts Appellant claims should not
                            have been admitted were not introduced in the State’s case-in-
                            chief. ............................................................................................8

                   C.       Assuming without conceding there was error, any such error
                            was harmless. ............................................................................10

STATE’S REPLY TO APPELLANT’S SECOND POINT OF ERROR ............... 12

Appellant’s Contention ............................................................................................12

                                                              i
State’s Reply ............................................................................................................12

Argument and Authorities........................................................................................12

         I.        The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for new
                   trial because conflicting evidence was presented during the hearing
                   on Appellant’s motion. ........................................................................12

                   A.       Standard of Review and Applicable Law .................................13

                   B.       Conflicting evidence was presented during the hearing on
                            Appellant’s motion; therefore, the trial court did not err.......... 14

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER .............................................................................17

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................18

                                                             ii
                                     INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES                                                                                                  PAGES

Avila v. State,
   18 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no pet.) ..................................10

Blackwelder v. State,
   No. 2-05-042-CR, 2006 WL 3525383
   (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 7, 2006, pet. ref’d) ...........................................8, 9

Hernandez v. State,
  176 S.W.3d 821 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ............................................................. 8

Herring v. State,
  147 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) .....................................................10, 11
Jaubert v. State,
   74 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ...............................................................8, 9
Lewis v. State,
  911 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) ...................................................13, 15, 16

Magee v. State,
  994 S.W.2d 878 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, pet. ref’d) .......................................10
Mart. v. State,
  176 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.)...................................10
Patrick v. State,
   906 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied,
   517 U.S. 1106 (1996) ....................................................................................14, 16
Quinn v. State,
  958 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) ...........................................................13
Rich v. State,
   160 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ...........................................................10

Russell v. State,
  155 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ...........................................................10

                                                       iii
Salazar v. State,
   38 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) .............................................................13

Sanders v. State,
   422 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d) ................................. 7

Sandone v. State,
   394 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.)..................................... 7

Rules, Codes and Statutes
TEX. CODE CRIM PROC. art. 36.22 ............................................................................13
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art 37.07 § 3, § 3(a)(1), § 3(g) ....................................7, 8, 9

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b) .............................................................................................10
TEX. R. EVID. 404(b) ..............................................................................................8, 9

                                                          iv
                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
                SECOND COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JIM HARVEY OPRY,                                      §
     APPELLANT                                        §
V.                                                    §       NO.          02-16-00199-CR
                                                      §
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                   §
    APPELLEE                                          §

     APPEALED FROM CAUSE NUMBER 1399102D IN THE CRIMINAL
DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; THE HONORABLE
ROBB CATALANO, PRESIDING.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

                                      THE CASE IN BRIEF

THE CHARGE ............................................. MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER;
                                                                          (CR 1: 6-7)

THE PLEA ........................................................... GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER
                                                                                     (RR 2: 5)

THE VERDICT (Jury) .................................................................................. GUILTY
                                                                                                   (CR 1: 81)

THE PUNISHMENT (Jury) .......................................................85 YEARS IDTDCJ
                                                                                    (CR 1: 81)

                                                     1
                            STATEMENT OF FACTS

      On January 1, 2015, Brittany Eylar (“Eylar”), the victim in this case, called

and texted her friend Brandon Peterson (“Peterson”) and asked him for a ride. RR

5: 166-167. Peterson agreed and arrived at the location provided by Eylar. RR 5:

168. Based on Peterson’s conversation with Eylar, Peterson believed Eylar wanted

to leave before someone returned to her location. RR 5: 170, When Peterson

arrived, however, he realized someone was already there. Id. Peterson heard

arguing, and saw Eylar come out to meet him. RR 5: 171. Eylar told Peterson to

“hold on”, briefly exited Peterson’s vehicle, and then returned to his vehicle with

her bags. RR 5: 171, 175.

      As Peterson helped Eylar load her bags into his car, Peterson heard Eylar

and another person yelling at each other. RR 5: 174. Peterson identified the other

person as Jim Opry (“Appellant”). RR 5: 175. The yelling between Eylar and

Appellant continued to escalate as Peterson helped Eylar. RR 5: 176. After

Peterson helped Eylar load two bags into his car, he turned around and saw Eylar

lying on the ground. RR 5: 177. Peterson knew immediately that Eylar had been

badly injured. RR 5: 180. Unbeknownst to Peterson, Appellant had struck Eylar’s

head from behind with a caulk gun. RR 6: 143-144. Peterson told Appellant that

                                        2
they needed to call 911, but Appellant told Peterson not to call the police. RR 5:

180-181. Peterson then left the scene and called 911 anonymously. RR 5: 189.

      When the responding officers arrived at the scene, they believed Eylar had

been shot in the head due to the appearance of her injury. RR 5: 70. Eylar was

found lying on a staircase, unresponsive, with blood leaking from hear head

wound. RR 4: 140. Eylar was then transported by ambulance to John Peter Smith

Hospital (“JPS”) for treatment. RR 4: 141. Eylar died eight days later. RR 5: 91.

The cause of death as determined by the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s

Office was penetrating blunt trauma of the head. RR 6: 12. Law enforcement

eventually located and arrested Appellant in Parker County on January 12, 2015.

RR 5: 260, 269.

      Appellant was subsequently charged with the murder of Brittany Eylar. CR

1: 6. In count two of the indictment, Appellant was charged with manslaughter. Id.

Appellant pled guilty to manslaughter, waived his right to a jury on the

guilt/innocence portion of the trial, and elected to have a jury assess his

punishment. CR 1: 4-5. The punishment evidence presented by the State included

but was not limited to evidence showing that: (1) Appellant committed the crime to

which he pled guilty—the manslaughter of Brittany Eylar; (2) Appellant killed a

14-year old girl when he was a juvenile and subsequently hid her body; (3)

                                        3
Appellant was a member of the Aryan Circle, a violent white-supremacist gang; (4)

Appellant had previously committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

against his ex-girlfriend; and (5) Appellant had additional prior convictions for

prohibited weapons, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and evading

arrest/detention by vehicle. RR 4: 46-74, 80-133; RR 5: 237-238; RR 8: 263. At

the conclusion of the punishment phase of trial, the jury assessed Appellant’s

punishment at 85 years’ confinement. CR 1: 81.

                                       4
                   SUMMARY OF STATE’S RESPONSES

State’s Reply to Appellant’s First Point of Error

      The trial court did not err in admitting extraneous bad acts because the

extraneous acts Appellant claims were erroneously admitted were not introduced

during the State’s case-in-chief. Alternatively, assuming without conceding there

was error, any such error was harmless.

State’s Reply to Appellant’s Second Point of Error

      The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for new trial

because conflicting evidence was presented during the hearing on Appellant’s

motion.

                                          5
      STATE’S REPLY TO APPELLANT’S FIRST POINT OF ERROR

Appellant’s Contention

      The trial court erred in admitting evidence of extraneous bad acts without

giving proper notice to Appellant in violation of Rule 404(b) of the Texas Rules of

Evidence and in violation of due process.

State’s Reply

      The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Appellant’s extraneous

bad acts because the evidence Appellant claims should not have been admitted was

not introduced during the State’s case-in-chief. Alternatively, assuming without

conceding there was error, any such error was harmless.

Argument and Authorities

I.    The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Appellant’s
      extraneous bad acts because the evidence Appellant claims should not
      have been admitted was not introduced during the State’s case-in-chief.

      In his first point of error, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in

admitting evidence of certain extraneous bad acts alleged to have been committed

by Appellant because the State did not provide Appellant notice of its intent to use

them at trial. See Appellant’s Brief at 7. Specifically, Appellant complains of

testimony elicited during Appellant’s cross examination regarding: (1) Appellant’s

killing of his neighbor’s family pet with a compound bow; and (2) Appellant’s

                                         6
attempts to set a girl’s hair on fire when he rode the school bus as a child. See

Appellant’s Brief at 11-12.

A.           Standard of Review and Applicable Law

      A trial court’s admission of evidence over a defendant’s objection is

reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Sanders v. State, 422 S.W.3d 809,

812 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d); Sandone v. State, 394 S.W.3d 788,

791 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013, no pet.). An abuse of discretion occurs when a

trial court’s decision is so clearly wrong as to lie outside the zone of reasonable

disagreement. Sanders, 422 S.W.3d at 812–13; Sandone, 394 S.W.3d at 791.

      Article 37.07, section 3 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure governs

the admissibility of evidence presented by the State during the punishment phase

of a criminal trial. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art 37.07 § 3(a)(1). Regarding the

introduction of extraneous crimes or bad acts during punishment, Article 37.07,

section 3(g) provides that: “[o]n timely request of the defendant, notice of intent to

introduce evidence under this article shall be given in the same manner required by

Rule 404(b), Texas Rules of Evidence.” Id. § 3(g). Rule 404(b) provides in

pertinent part as follows:

             Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible
             to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a
             particular occasion the person acted in accordance with
             the character . . . . On timely request by a defendant in a

                                          7
             criminal case, the prosecutor must provide reasonable
             notice before trial that the prosecution intends to
             introduce such evidence—other than that arising in the
             same transaction—in its case-in-chief.

TEX. R. EVID. 404(b) (emphasis added). Therefore, both article 37.07, section 3(g)

and rule 404(b) condition the admissibility of extraneous offense evidence on the

State’s compliance with rule 404(b)’s notice provision. Id.; Hernandez v. State,

176 S.W.3d 821, 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). This notice provision, however,

applies only to evidence introduced in the State’s case-in-chief. Jaubert v. State, 74
S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). When the State introduces extraneous offense

evidence in rebuttal or during cross examination, the defendant is not entitled to

notice of the State’s intent to present evidence of those extraneous offenses. Id. at

4; Blackwelder v. State, No. 2-05-042-CR, 2006 WL 3525383, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth Dec. 7, 2006, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

B.           The evidence of extraneous acts Appellant claims should not have
             been admitted were not introduced in the State’s case-in-chief.

      Appellant complains that he was not provided notice of the State’s intent to

introduce evidence related to two separate extraneous acts—Appellant’s killing of

his neighbor’s family pet and Appellant’s attempts to light a girl’s hair on fire. See

Appellant’s Brief at 10-11.

                                          8
      During the State’s cross examination of Appellant, the prosecutor asked

Appellant if he recalled stealing his neighbors’ compound bow and killing their

family pet when Appellant was growing up. RR 6: 227. The prosecutor then asked

Appellant if he remembered trying to light a girl’s hair on fire when Appellant rode

the school bus as a child. RR 6: 228. Appellant’s trial counsel then objected on

grounds that the State did not provide extraneous notices related to those inquiries.

Id. The trial court overruled Appellant’s objection. Id.

      The State filed its State’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to

Articles 37.07 and Articles 609(F) and 404(B) T.R.C.E. on March 24, 2016. CR 1:

32. That document did not give notice of the State’s intention to introduce

evidence related to the extraneous acts Appellant claims should not have been

admitted. CR 1: 32-33. Evidence of those particular extraneous acts, however, was

presented during the State’s cross examination of Appellant—not the State’s case-

in-chief. RR 6: 153, 227-228. Thus, because the evidence related to those

extraneous acts was not presented during the State’s case-in-chief, Appellant was

not entitled to notice under 37.07, section 3(g) with respect to those particular

extraneous acts. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 37.07 § 3(g); TEX. R. EVID. 404(b);

Jaubert, 74 S.W.3d at 3; Blackwelder, 2006 WL 3525383 at *2. Accordingly, the

                                          9
trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s objection. Appellant’s first point of

error should be overruled.

C.    Assuming without conceding there was error, any such error was
      harmless.

      The erroneous admission of extraneous offense evidence is nonconstitutional

error. Martin v. State, 176 S.W.3d 887, 888 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no

pet.); Avila v. State, 18 S.W.3d 736, 741–42 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000, no

pet.). Any nonconstitutional error, defect, irregularity, or variance that does not

affect substantial rights must be disregarded. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b). A substantial

right is affected when the error has a substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the jury’s verdict. Rich v. State, 160 S.W.3d 575, 577 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); Russell v. State, 155 S.W.3d 176, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Thus, a

criminal conviction should not be overturned for nonconstitutional error if the

reviewing court, after examining the record as a whole, has fair assurance that the

error did not influence the jury or had but a slight effect. Herring v. State, 147
S.W.3d 390, 396 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).

      Assuming without conceding the trial court erred in overruling Appellant’s

objection, any such error was harmless because it could not have reasonably had

any effect on the jury’s decision. Id.; Magee v. State, 994 S.W.2d 878, 888 (Tex.

App.—Waco 1999, pet. ref’d). In addition to facts substantiating appellant’s guilt

                                          10
of committing the manslaughter of Eylar, the State presented voluminous evidence

relevant to Appellant’s violent tendencies. That evidence included, but was not

limited to evidence showing that: (1) Appellant killed a fourteen-year-old girl

when he was a juvenile and subsequently hid her body; (2) Appellant was a

member of a violent white-supremacist gang; and (3) Appellant had anger

problems and that he had committed other acts of violence against women,

including aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against his ex-girlfriend. RR 4:

46-74, 80-133; RR 5: 237-238.

      In light of all the punishment evidence introduced by the State, the brief

mention of the extraneous acts Appellant claims should not have been admitted—

killing a pet and attempting to set a girl’s hair on fire—would not have had any

effect on the jury’s decision. Herring, 147 S.W.3d at 396. At best, it had but slight

effect. Id. Accordingly, assuming without conceding there was error, any such

error was harmless. Id. Appellant’s first point of error should be overruled.

                                         11
     STATE’S REPLY TO APPELLANT’S SECOND POINT OF ERROR

Appellant’s Contention

      The trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant Appellant’s motion for

new trial based on alleged impermissible communications between jurors and

persons interested in the outcome of the trial.

State’s Reply

      The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for new trial

because conflicting evidence was presented during the hearing on Appellant’s

motion.

Argument and Authorities

I.    The trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for new
      trial because conflicting evidence was presented during the hearing on
      Appellant’s motion.

      Appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling Appellant’s motion

for new trial because the jury had improper communications with persons

interested in the outcome of the trial at some point during the trial. See Appellant’s

Brief at 14. Appellant argues that the jury members may have overheard improper

hearsay and may have been improperly influenced, and that they may have already

formed opinions as to Appellant’s proper punishment. Id. at 15. Appellant

                                          12
contends that, in overruling his motion for new trial, the trial court limited his right

to receive a fair trial. Id. at 15-16.

A.     Standard of Review and Applicable Law

       A trial court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for new trial is reviewed under

an abuse of discretion standard. Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 148 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2001). A reviewing court does not substitute its own judgment for that of the

trial court; rather, it determines whether the trial court’s analysis was arbitrary or

unreasonable. Lewis v. State, 911 S.W.2d 1, 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). The trial

court is the trier of fact and the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses at a

hearing on a motion for new trial. Id. Where there is conflicting evidence on an

issue of fact as to jury misconduct, the trial judge determines the issue, and there is

no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. Id. (quoting Thomas

v. State, 699 S.W.2d 845, 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)).

       Article 36.22 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides that: “[n]o

person shall be permitted to converse with a juror about the case on trial except in

the presence and by the permission of the court.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.

36.22. When a juror converses with an unauthorized person about the case, injury

to the accused is presumed, and a new trial may be warranted. Quinn v. State, 958
S.W.2d 395, 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). However, the appellant has the burden

                                          13
of proving the allegation of juror misconduct. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481,

498 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1106 (1996).

B.       Conflicting evidence was presented during the hearing on Appellant’s
         motion; therefore, the trial court did not err.

         At the hearing on Appellant’s motion for new trial, Amber Floyd, one of

Appellant’s friends, testified that she observed jury members in Appellant’s case

commingling with members of Brittany Eylar’s family before the trial began. RR

7: 6, 13. Floyd testified that she saw members of the jury and Eylar’s family

members sitting in close proximity to one another outside the courtroom. RR 7: 15.

She also testified that she saw a group of jurors and Eylar’s family members

walking laps around the hallway prior to the commencement of voir dire. RR 7:

15-16. Floyd testified that she observed the jurors speaking with Eylar’s family

members, but that she could not hear their conversations because Floyd was

situated at the other end of the hallway at the time of the alleged conversations. RR

7: 30.

         Stephen Opry, Appellant’s brother, also testified at the hearing. RR 7: 44.

He testified that before the trial began, he also observed jury members and

members of Eylar’s family sitting closely together outside the courtroom and

speaking to one another. RR 7: 45-46. Opry testified that he could not hear what

the conversation was about. RR 7: 47. He further testified that Deputy Estrada, one

                                          14
of the court’s bailiffs, eventually came out to the area where the jurors and family

members were sitting and escorted the jury back through the secured area of the

courtroom. RR 7: 49. Opry testified that Estrada later came out of the hallway once

again and guided Eylar’s family members into the courtroom. RR 7: 50.

      Deputy Estrada was the third and final witness at the hearing on Appellant’s

motion for new trial. RR 7: 65. He testified that he never went outside the

courtroom and saw jurors commingling with members of Eylar’s family. RR 7: 70.

Estrada testified that on the particular date at issue, there were no family members

in the hallway at all. RR 7: 71. Estrada testified that he did not bring Eylar’s family

members into the courtroom; rather, they were escorted by victim assistance. Id.

      The testimony of Amber Floyd and Stephen Opry clearly conflicts with the

testimony of Deputy Estrada. Floyd and Opry testified that they observed jurors

and Eylar’s family members sitting together in the hallway outside the courtroom

and speaking with one another. RR 7: 13-16, 44-47. Deputy Estrada, on the other

hand, testified that Eylar’s family members were never in the hallway outside the

courtroom at all, and that he never observed the jurors commingling with Eylar’s

family members on the date at issue. RR 7: 70. The trial court was the trier of fact

and sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Lewis, 911 S.W.2d at 7. It

resolved the conflicting testimony in favor of the prosecution and this Court should

                                          15
defer to that resolution. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

overruling Appellant’s motion. Id. Appellant’s second point of error should be

overruled.1

1
  Alternatively, the State would argue that even if there was no conflicting testimony as to the
alleged jury misconduct, Appellant did not meet his burden to show that jury misconduct
occurred. Patrick, 906 S.W.2d at 498. Neither witness for Appellant could testify as to the
content of the alleged conversations between the jurors and members of Eylar’s family. RR 7:
30, 47. In the absence of any affirmative evidence showing that the jury members spoke to
unauthorized persons about the case, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in
overruling Appellant’s motion for new trial. Id. (no abuse of discretion in overruling Appellant’s
motion for new trial when Appellant presented no affirmative evidence of jury misconduct).

                                                16
                            CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

      Appellant suffered no reversible error. Therefore, the State prays that this

Court will affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                       SHAREN WILSON
                                       Criminal District Attorney
                                       Tarrant County, Texas

                                       DEBRA WINDSOR
                                       Chief, Post-Conviction
                                       Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s
                                       Office—Post-Conviction

                                       /s/ Landon A. Wade
                                       LANDON A. WADE
                                       Assistant Criminal District Attorney
                                       Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
                                       401 W. Belknap
                                       Fort Worth, Texas 76196-0201
                                       (817) 884-1687
                                       FAX (817) 884-1672
                                       State Bar No. 24098560
                                       COAAppellateAlerts@tarrantcounty.com

                      CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

      I hereby certify that this document contains 3,018 words per The Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(e).

                                        /s/ Landon A. Wade
                                       LANDON A. WADE

                                          17
                        CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      A true copy of the State's brief has been e-served to opposing counsel, the

Hon. Barry Alford, 1319 Ballinger Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102, on this, the

14th day of November, 2016.

                                      /s/ Landon A. Wade
                                     LANDON A. WADE

H:\WADE.W42\BRIEFS\Opry, Jim Harvey.BR.docx

                                       18