Court Opinion

ID: 3219640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-04 07:48:08.786037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:04:54.632903
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                         06-16-00078-CR
                                                              SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                                                    6/29/2016 2:22:46 PM
                                                                        DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                                                  CLERK

                      NO. 06-16-00078-CR

                                                        FILED IN
                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS       6th COURT OF APPEALS
                                                   TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                                 6/29/2016 2:22:46 PM
                SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS   DISTRICT
                                                     DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                         Clerk

                      TEXARKANA, TEXAS

                     JACK HAN DLEY MEYER
                           Appellant

                              V.

                        STATE OF TEXAS
                           Appellee

                      BRIEF OF APPELLANT,
                     JACK HANDLEY MEYER

                                   CRAIG A. FLETCHER
                                   ATTORNEY AT LAW
                                   109 West Austin St.
                                   Marshall, Texas 75670
                                   TELEPHONE: (903) 503.7676
                                   TELEFAX: (903) 503.7680
ORAL ARGUMENT
NOT REQUESTED

                                   State Bar(No. D0792506
                                   ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

NAMES OF ALL PARTIES                                                                                                            .1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................... iii
INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................. iii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE....................................3
STATEMENT OF POINTS OF ERROR..................................................................................4
STATEMENTOF FACTS........................................................................................................... 4
BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT.................................................................................................... 5
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY........................................................................................... 5
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.............................................................................................................. 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................................................... 13
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT...................................................................................... 14
                          NAMES OF ALL PARTIES

The parties to this action are:

Appellant
MR. JACK HAN DLEY MEYER
403 Houston St.
Jefferson, Texas 75657

Appellant's Counsel
HON. CRAIG A. FLETCHER
Attorney at Law
109 W. Austin St.
Marshall, Texas 75670

State of Texas
HON. COKE SOLOMAN
Harrison County District Attorney
200 West Houston, Suite 206
Marshall, Texas 75670

Page ±
The parties' counsel before the Trial Court:

Appellant
JACK HAN DLEY MEYER, Pro Se
403 Houston St.
Jefferson, Texas 75657

State of Texas
HON. COKE SOLOMAN
Harrison County District Attorney
200 West Houston, Suite 206
Marshall, Texas 75670

HON. MICHAEL NORTHCUTT
Harrison County Asst. District Attorney
200 West Houston, Suite 206
Marshall, Texas 75670

The Trial Court Judge:

HON. JOE BLACK
County Court at Law
Harrison County, Texas
200 West Houston, Suite 263
Marshall, Texas 75670

Page ii
                                                INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738.......................................................................................4
Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref'd).............10
Curry v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)...................................................... 9
Flores v. State, 936 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1996, pet. ref'd).................10
Gerhardt v. State, 935 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1996, no pet.)...........10
Harris v. State, 164 S.W.3d 775 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd.
                .................................................................................................................9
Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 254,257 (Tex.Crim.App1998) ................................... 8
Kanouse v. State, 958 S.W.2d, 509-510 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1998, no pet.)
               ................................................................................................................9
King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556 (Tex.Crim.App.2000)........................................................9
Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, (Tex.Crim.App.1986)................................................9
t'4uniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) ..................................................9
Salinas v. State, 163 S.W.3d 734 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) ................................................8
Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) ................................................... 9
Statutes
Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art 21.21 ........................................................................................5
Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 42.01......................................................................................11

                                            INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

Clerk's Record............................................................................................................................CR
Supplemental Clerk's Record...............................................................................SCR
Reporter's Record .....................................................................................................................RR

Page iii
                             NO. 06-16-00078-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                    SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                             TEXARKANA, TEXAS

                           JACK HAN DLEY MEYER
                                 Appellant

                                       V.

                               STATE OF TEXAS
                                    State

                            BRIEF OF APPELLANT,
                           JACK HAN DLEY MEYER

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

         NOW COMES JACK HANDLEY MEYER, Appellant in the above-styled and

numbered cause and Defendant in the trial court, and by and through

appointed Counsel, files this his Brief of Appellant and respectfully reports to

the Sixth Court of Appeals that no errors were found to have been committed

Page 1
by the Trial Court relating to pretrial and evidentiary rulings during trial in

Cause Number 2014-0801 in the County Court at Law of Harrison County,

Texas, before the Honorable Judge Joe Black, Judge Presiding.

         Following a review of the pre-trial proceedings, trial and judgment, no

error, that was more than harmless error, was found that could be presented

for review to the appellate court, and therefore, appointed counsel seeks to

withdraw here-from and has invited response hereto from the Appellant.

Page 2
           PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE

         The following dates are applicable to the case history in this matter:

 Event Date        Nature of Event                             CR        RR(1)
      Oct. 8, 2014 JP Verdict                                  Pg. 44

     Oct. 15, 2014 JP Notice of Appeal                         Pg. 45
A.K. Marsh. 30, 2016 State's Information (seat belt)            Pg. 122
A.K. Marsh. 30, 2016 State's Information (exp. DL)              Pg. 123

         Apr. 4, 2016 Jury Selection                                      Pg. 10

         Apr. 4, 2016 Guilt/Innocence phase begins                        Pg. 39

         Apr. 4, 2016 Closing argument                                    Pg. 71

         Apr. 4, 2016 Jury Verdict                            Pg. 155     Pg. 77

         Apr. 4, 2016   Punishment Phase (Judge)                          Pg. 80

         Apr. 4, 2016 Appellant Sentenced by Court                        P9. 80

         Apr. 6, 2016   Notice of Appeal filed                Pg. 156

         June 1, 2016 Cert. of Appeal                        (SCR.) 4

Page 3
                     STATEMENT OF POINTS OF ERROR

         No points of error were identified following review of the record, and this

Brief is submitted in compliance with the tenants of      Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967).

                              STATEMENT OF FACTS

         On or about July 1, 2013, Trooper Jimmy Benton was on routine patrol

in Harrison County, Texas in his capacity as a DPS trooper. During said patrol,

he observed Appellant driving his vehicle while not wearing his seatbelt. The

Trooper initiated a traffic stop and subsequently learned Appellant's driver's

license was expired. The trooper issued citations to Appellant for those

violations and sent him on his way. Appellant appealed convictions out of the

Justice Court for those traffic offenses to the County Court at Law of Harrison

County, Texas. Appellant was tried before a jury in the Court at Law, and the

jury rejected his argument he was a "sovereign citizen" and not subject to these

laws, and found him guilty in both cases. The Court found Appellant guilty,

and assessed fines of $50.00, with costs of court for failure to wear a seat belt

and $150.00, without costs of court, for the no driver's license ticket.

Page 4
                            BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT

         Following a review of the pre-trial proceedings, trial and judgment, no

error, that was more than harmless error, was found that could be presented

for review to the appellate court, and therefore, appointed counsel seeks to

withdraw here-from and has invited response hereto from the Appellant.

                         ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY

         It is the responsibility of Appellant's counsel to thoroughly review and

analyze the record for not only preserved error but also fundamental error.

Information:

         Appellant was charged by information for committing the offenses of

failing to wear his seatbelt and for having an expired driver's license on

January 22, 2014 (CR: Pg. 122,123). The information appears to be valid on

its face and carries the signature of the purported complainant. Tex. Code

Crim. Proc., Art 21.21. The language of the information is consistent with

Sections 545.413(a) and 521.021 of the Texas Transportation Code. The

record is silent as to any legitimate challenge to the sufficiency of the

information, leaving nothing as to the information for review.

Page 5
Pre-Trial Motions:

         A myriad of pretrial motions and other "affidavits of fact" were filed by

Appellant in this cause, who represented himself Pro Se, despite inquiry

concerning the right to appointed counsel by the Court. All pretrial motions

proffered by the Appellant appear to have been either denied in their entirety

or a compromised agreement was entered into by the Appellant and the

State. No legitimate issue is preserved for appellate review.

Voir Dire:

         Thejury panel in this cause was qualified, and a very brief voir dire was

conducted by the state and the Appellant. Appellant did lodge an objection

to not being able to question the panel concerning their status as "sovereign

citizens", which was overruled by the court. As well, he objected to not being

able to record the proceedings with his tape recorder. There were no

objections to any of the jurors' qualifications, no Batson challenges, and no

challenges for cause overruled. Indeed, Appellant specifically stated to the

panel and the Court he had no objection to any potential jurors serving on

his case as jurors. (RR., Vol. 1, Pg. 14) No legitimate issue was preserved for

Page 6
appeal with respect to the qualifications of any potential jurors, voire dire, or

actual selection of the jury.

Guilt/Innocence Trial:

         On April 4, 2016, a trial was conduct before a jury on the issue of

guilt/innocence. The State of Texas called one (1) witness:

 Witness              Summary of Testimony                          R.R. (VoI/Pg)
 Jimmy Benton         The State Trooper who cited the                Vol. 1/Pg. 39
                      Appellant for the traffic violations. He
                      testified as to the factual events of July.
                      1,2013.

         The Appellant only called himself as a witness.

Witness               Summary of Testimony                          R.R. (Vol/PM
Jack Meyer            Appellant. Testified as to the factual         Vol. 1/Pg. 52
                      events of July 1, 2013 and his beliefs
                      held concerning his status as a
                      sovereign citizen.

Charge of the Court -- Punishment

         No objections were lodged by Appellant to the Charge of the Court.

(RR: Vol 1, page 67). No written requests were made by Appellant for

instructions or definitions. No issues were preserved for appeal.

Page 7
         The sentence imposed by the trial court after the jury verdict of guilty

was returned is within the range allowed by law and was supported by the

evidence. There is no error available to the Court for review.

Judgment

         The review of the judgment in this cause (CR. Pg. 1 55) reveals that the

judgment appears to be facially valid. Texas Code of Criminal Proc. Art. 42.01.

Factual/Legal Sufficiency General Analysis

         In a sufficiency review, [the appellate court] shall view all evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict and determine whether any rational trier of

fact could have found the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable

doubt. Salinas    V.   State, 163 S.W.3d 734, 737 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).

         The jury, as the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, is free to

believe or disbelieve all or part of a witness' testimony. Jones v. State, 984

S.W.2d 254,257 (Tex.Crim.App.1 998).

         The jury may reasonably infer facts from the evidence presented, credit

the witnesses it chooses to, disbelieve any or all of the evidence or testimony

Page 8
proffered, and weigh the evidence as it sees fit. Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611,

614 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).

           Reconciliation of conflicts in the evidence is within the jury's discretion

and such conflicts alone will not call for reversal if there is enough credible

evidence to support a conviction. Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 309

(Tex.Crim.App.1 986).

           An appellate court may not reevaluate the weight and credibility of the

evidence produced at trial and in so doing substitute its judgment for that of

the fact finder. King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

           Inconsistencies in the evidence are resolved in favor of the verdict. Curry

v. State, 30 S.W.3d 394, 406 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).

           [The appellate court does] not engage in a second evaluation of the

weight and credibility of the evidence, but only ensure the jury reached a

rational decision. frluniz v. State, 851 S.W.2d 238, 246 (Tex.Crim.App.1993);

Harris v. State, 164 S.W.3d 775, 784 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet.

ref'd.).

Page 9
      The Appellant, on cross examination by the state, admitted under oath

he was in fact operating his pickup on a public roadway, while over the age of

15, on the occasion in question. He further admitted at the time of the stop

he did not have a valid driver's license (RR, Vol. 1, Pg. 64,65). The other

statutory elements required to convict for these offenses were provided in

evidence through the Trooper's testimony (RR, Vol. 1, Pg. 40-44). There are no

issues for appeal concerning legal or factual sufficiency.

Factual/Legal Sufficiency As Applied to Punishment

      There is no ground upon which to appeal on the issue of punishment. A

review of the evidence for factual sufficiency is inappropriate with respect to

the assessment of punishment. See Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350, 351 (Tex.

App.—Eastland 2001, pet. ref'd); Kanouse v. State, 958 S.W.2d 509, 510 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 1998, no pet.); Flores v. State, 936 S.W.2d 478, 479 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 1996, pet. ref'd).

      The general rule is that as long as a sentence is within the statutory range,

it will not be disturbed on appeal. Gerhardt v. State, 935 S.W.2d 192, 196 (Tex.

App.—Beaumont 1996, no pet.). In this case, the punishment assessed by the

Page 10
court was within the range provided by statute. Thus, there is no issue for

appeal (RR., Vol. 1, Pg. 80).

Assistance of Counsel:

      Appellant represented himself pro se, even after admonishment by the

Court. (RR, Vol. 1, p. 50) As previously stated, the information appears valid

on its face, therefore, no cause existed to file a Motion to Quash. The stop and

all which transpired thereafter appears to be based upon probable cause and

a reasonable suspicion; therefore, no cause existed to file a Motion to Suppress.

      All searches, if any, appear to be based upon either consent, subject to

detention or arrest or based upon a lawfully obtained warrant; therefore, no

cause existed to file a Motion to Suppress.

      Appellant participated in all aspects of the trial from pretrial hearings to

jury selection, to opening and closing statements and bench conferences. The

Appellant was allowed to conducting cross examination of witnesses, was

allowed by the Court to testify in narrative form during his case in chief, and

was allowed to proffer objections. Appellant also participated in closing

argument. There were no objections lodged by Appellant to the charge (RR:

Page 11
Vol. 1, Pg. 67) As Appellant waived his right to counsel and represented

himself, there are no grounds for review for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Joinder of Multiple Citations

      Appellant was tried simultaneously for two separate traffic-related

offenses (CR 1, Pg. 122,123). The trial of two or more offenses may be joined

in a single information if the offenses arise out of the same criminal episode.

Texas Code of Criminal Proc. Art. 42.01. In this case, rather than allege separate

offenses in the same information, the state filed two separate informations

under the same cause number. No objection was lodged by Appellant, nor

was there a Motion to Quash filed. No error is preserved for appeal, and even

if there were, any such error would constitute harmless error.

Summary:

      Following review and consideration of pre-trial and trial activities

before the Trial Court, there are no points of reversible error found.

                                PRAYER FOR RELIEF

      WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel for Appellant, JACK

HANDLEY MEYER, respectfully requests and prays that this matter be

Page 12
considered by the Court and that appointed counsel be allowed to withdraw

here-from and that this appeal be dismissed following the Appellant's

opportunity to respond hereto; and further, Counsel respectfully requests and

prays for any and all other relief, at law or in equity, to which he may show

himself justly entitled.

                                          Respectfully suLmitte

                                          Attorney fbrpellant
                                          109W. Austin St.
                                          Marshall, Texas 75670
                                          TELEPHONE: (903) 503.7676
                                          TELEFAX: (903) 503.7680
                                          Email: craig@craigfletcherlaw.com
                                          TBA # 00792506

                           CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was delivered by

hand-delivery to the District Attorney, Harrison County, Texas, and to the

Appellant, on

Page 13
                       CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT

      I, CRAIG A. FLETCHER, do hereby certify that the foregoing Appellant's

Brief for JACK HANDLEY MEYER does comply with the requirements for a brief

preparation, to-wit:

FONT & Size:       SEGOE UI, 14 pt
COUNT:             2479 words

Page 14