Court Opinion

ID: 9382235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 10:09:33.173635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.924610
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00108-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                        TYLER, TEXAS

JESSIE DWAYNE RAY,                                   §      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                   §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                             §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         PER CURIAM
       Jessie Dwayne Ray appeals his conviction for manufacture or delivery of a controlled
substance in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. Appellant’s counsel filed
a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

                                             BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with the first-degree felony offense of manufacture
or delivery of a controlled substance, namely, cocaine, in an amount of four grams or more but
less than 200 grams. 1 The indictment further alleged that Appellant had a prior 2017 felony
conviction for manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant made an open plea
of “guilty” and pleaded “true” to the enhancement. As part of Appellant’s plea, he executed an
acknowledgement of admonishments, a waiver of jury trial, a stipulation of evidence establishing
the elements of the charged offense and enhancement paragraph, and an agreement to stipulate
testimony. The trial court ordered that a presentence investigation (PSI) report be prepared.

       1
           See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (West 2017).
       The State also requested that several unadjudicated offenses be considered in assessing
Appellant’s punishment, including unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, manufacture or
delivery of a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and possession of a controlled
substance. 2 Appellant acknowledged his guilt to these unadjudicated offenses.
       At the ensuing punishment hearing, the State also presented evidence that during its
investigation for the underlying offense, it discovered that Appellant committed violent
aggravated sexual assaults. Tyler Police Department Detective Dennis Matthews testified that he
conducted an extraction of Appellant’s cell phone and discovered videos of sexual assaults.
Those videos were saved to a flash drive and admitted into evidence. Matthews described the
conduct depicted in the videos among “the most horrible things” that he has seen in a video.
       Arlington Police Department Detective Becky Szatkowski testified that she responded to
a reported sexual assault on September 21, 2019, at 1000 Brown Boulevard in Arlington.
Matthews testified that this date and address correspond to one of the videos he extracted from
Appellant’s phone. Szatkowski interviewed the victim and testified that she watched the videos
after receiving a phone call from a Tyler police officer asking about whether they received a
report of a sexual assault that happened in the woods in Arlington. Szatkowski testified that the
video’s depiction was consistent with what she had previously been told by the victim.
Szatkowski ultimately prepared a warrant for Appellant’s arrest for the sexual assault and
testified that the video was “very difficult” to watch and commented that she could “never
unsee” it.
       Oklahoma City Police Department Detective Jason Schneider testified that he worked on
a report of a sexual assault that took place on October 13, 2019, at 101 Northeast 53rd Street, in
Oklahoma City, which was also consistent with the date and location of another video extracted
from Appellant’s phone depicting a sexual assault. Upon learning of the video in the Tyler
Police Department’s possession, Schneider confirmed the identity of the victim who had reported
the assault and confirmed that it happened just as she described. Schneider filed charges of
forcible assault, rape, and burglary against Appellant and related that the video was so bad, that
the District Attorney did not finish watching the video.
       Tyler Police Department Detective Jim Holt testified that he responded to a “Violent
Criminal Apprehension Program” (ViCAP) request from the Federal Bureau of Investigation

       2
           See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.45 (West 2019).

                                                     2
once the videos were discovered on Appellant’s phone. Holt related that Appellant’s cell phone
contained several photographs and videos of Appellant exposing himself in San Antonio and
Colorado, and that there was another video of Appellant following a woman around town. Holt
testified that Appellant engaged in the same kind of conduct with the Arlington and Oklahoma
City victims and recalled that Appellant’s conduct was similar to a 2017 sexual assault of a
woman in Tyler.
        In each of the three assaults, Holt testified that Appellant told his victims that he “wanted
to take them from behind, demanded oral sex, use of [a] condom, and then asked for alcohol
afterwards to help clean up the scene[,]” and that Appellant was believed to have taken a towel
from both the Arlington and Oklahoma City victims.                      When Holt searched the location
information for the 2017 assault, he confirmed that the victim worked at a business three blocks
away from where Appellant lived at the time and that his cell phone location was consistent with
being the perpetrator of the 2017 sexual assault.
        Due to the sensitive nature of the videos, the trial court watched the videos in chambers
pursuant to the parties’ agreement.
         After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as
charged in the indictment, found the State’s enhancement paragraph “true,” and assessed
Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life. This appeal followed.

                            ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
        Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. She further relates that she is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal. 3 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

        3
          In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d

                                                        3
                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. As a result of our disposition of this case,
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the
opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant
wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an
attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for
discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from the date of either this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered March 22, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                          4
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                           MARCH 22, 2023

                                         NO. 12-22-00108-CR

                                      JESSIE DWAYNE RAY,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                             Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1209-20)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                        It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.