                                                                       ACCEPTED
                                                                  07-14-00339-CR
                                                     SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                               AMARILLO, TEXAS
                                                            6/19/2015 11:58:16 PM
                                                                 Vivian Long, Clerk




                                                 FILED IN
                                          7th COURT OF APPEALS
              NO. 07-14-00339-CR              AMARILLO, TEXAS
                                          6/19/2015 11:58:16 PM
            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS             VIVIAN LONG
                                                   CLERK
       FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                AMARILLO, TEXAS


CURTIS WOODRUFF v. THE STATE OF TEXAS


          BRIEF OF APPELLANT


     ON APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 2014-403,191
          IN THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT
             LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
     HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE PRESIDING



                         JULIE GOEN PANGER
                         Counsel for Appellant
                         The Kiechler Law Firm
                         619 Broadway Street
                         Lubbock, Texas 79401
                         Telephone (806) 712-2889
                         Facsimile (808) 712-2529
                         State Bar Number 24069793
                         Email: julie@thelubbocklawyer.com


          ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED
                            IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

CURTIS WOODRUFF ........................................................................... Defendant/Appellant

JESSE MENDEZ, MARLISE HERNANDEZ BOYLES ................... Trial Counsel for Appellant
Attorney at Law
2833 74th Street
Lubbock, Texas 79423

JULIE GOEN PANGER ....................................................... Appellate Counsel for Appellant
The Kiechler Law Firm, PLLC
619 Broadway Street
Lubbock, Texas 79401

THE STATE OF TEXAS ...................................................................... Prosecution/Appellee

TRACI BOWMAN, COURTNEY GRAFFT ..................................... Trial Counsel for Appellee
Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office
904 Broadway Street, 2nd Floor
Post Office Box 10536
Lubbock, Texas 79408

JEFFREY S. FORD ................................................................. Appellate Counsel for Appellee
Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office
904 Broadway Street, 2nd Floor
Post Office Box 10536
Lubbock, Texas 79408




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                                             i
                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel...............................................................................................i

Index of Authorities ...............................................................................................................iii

Statement of the Case ........................................................................................................... iv

Issues Presented...................................................................................................................... v

Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of the Argument .................................................................................................... 4

Argument ................................................................................................................................. 5

          Issue One.................................................................................................................... 5
          The trial court erred in overruling Woodruff’s objection to Officer Sims’
          testimony regarding Woodruff’s questioning and arrest, because the
          statements and evidence discussed by the officer were obtained without
          Woodruff being read his Miranda warning.

          Issue Two ................................................................................................................ 11
          The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that Woodruff
          committed the acts for which he was charged and convicted.

Prayer ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Certificate of Service ............................................................................................................ 15

Certificate of Compliance .................................................................................................... 15




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                                                                           ii
                                            INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Clayton v. State,
   235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) ........................................................................ 12

Conner v. State,
   67 S.W.3d 192 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) .......................................................................... 12

Creager v. State,
   952 S.W.2d 852 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) .......................................................................... 7

Dickerson v. United States,
   530 U.S. 428 (2000) .......................................................................................................... 7

Guzman v. State,
  955 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) ............................................................................ 6

Gear v. State,
   340 S.W.3d 743 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) ........................................................................ 11

Hooper v. State,
  214 S.W.3d 9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) ............................................................................ 12

Jackson v. Virginia,
    443 U.S. 307 (1979) .................................................................................................. 11, 12

Miranda v. Arizona,
   384 U.S. 436 (1966) ...................................................................................................passim

Missouri v. Seibert,
   542 U.S. 600 (2004) .......................................................................................................... 7

Roquemore v. State,
   60 S.W.3d 862 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) ........................................................................ 8, 9

STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Tex. Code Crim. P. art. 32.51.............................................................................................. 13



BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                                                              iii
                            STATEMENT OF THE CASE

      The entire record consists of the Clerk’s Record (one volume), and the

Reporter’s Record of the trial (seven volumes). The Clerk’s Record will be referenced

as “C.R.” with the page number following. The Reporter’s Record will be referenced

as “R.R.” with the volume number preceding and the page number following.

      On August 26, 2014, a jury convicted Curtis Woodruff of the offense of

fraudulent use or possession of identifying information. 5 R.R. 29; C.R. 74, 82-84; see

TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 32.51(c)(1). After pleading true to certain enhancements, the

trial court assessed Woodruff’s punishment at confinement in the Texas Department

of Corrections for eighteen (18) years. 6 R.R. 12, 14-15; C.R. 82-84. Woodruff timely

filed a Notice of Appeal on August 27, 2014. C.R. 76. On September 23, 2014,

Woodruff filed a Motion for New Trial and Motion in Arrest of Judgment, both of

which were denied by operation of law. C.R. 86-87.




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                   iv
                              ISSUES PRESENTED

      1.    The trial court erred in overruling Woodruff’s objection to Officer Sims’
            testimony regarding Woodruff’s questioning and arrest, because the
            statements and evidence discussed by the officer were obtained without
            Woodruff being read his Miranda warning.

      2.    The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that Woodruff
            committed the acts for which he was charged and convicted.




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                  v
TO THE HONORABLE SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

                                   STATEMENT OF FACTS

       Curtis Woodruff was indicted for possessing identifying information (a

checkbook) of someone else, without that person’s consent and with the intent to

harm or defraud that person. See C.R. 7.

       Early in the morning hours of October 1, 2013, Lubbock police officer Brad

Sims was dispatched to a location in Lubbock, Texas, regarding a possible vehicle

burglary in progress. 4 R.R. 16. Officer Sims drove to the area and located someone

matching Dispatch’s description of the suspect. 4 R.R. 17-19.

       Curtis Woodruff, the person identified by Officer Sims, stopped, turned

around, and complied with the officer’s requests.1 4 R.R. 19-20. Woodruff placed his

hands on the hood of the patrol car, and Officer Sims performed a pat-down search,

because Woodruff was in the area of a possible vehicle burglary, matched the

description of the alleged burglar, and had multiple items in his hands that might have

concealed a weapon. 4 R.R. 21-22. During the pat-down, Officer Sims did not feel

anything unusual that gave him cause to further investigate. 4 R.R. 22-23.

       The officer asked Woodruff for consent to search his pockets, which Woodruff

granted. 4 R.R. 23. Woodruff’s pockets contained two debit cards with names on

1
 Although Officer Sims’ patrol vehicle was equipped with recording equipment on the night in
question, the recording was not available at trial, because Officer Sims failed to mark the recording
as evidence. Consequently, the recording was purged from the storage system. 4 R.R. 20-21. Later in
the encounter, at least two other officers arrived on scene with working recording equipment, but
none of the recordings were maintained for trial. 4 R.R. 44.


BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                                  1
them other than Woodruff. 4 R.R. 23. Woodruff’s answers to questions about the

card caused the officer to place Woodruff in handcuffs and detain him for additional

investigation. 4 R.R. 25-26.

       Woodruff gave consent for Officer Sims to search his bags after Woodruff was

handcuffed and placed in the patrol car. 4 R.R. 26. The bag contained, among other

items, a knife, a checkbook with the names of people other than Woodruff, and a

Chase Bank envelope with $25.00 in cash inside the envelope. 4 R.R. 26-29, 36. The

briefcase contained a portable grill. 4 R.R. 37.

       After the extensive investigation and interrogation, Officer Sims read Woodruff

his Miranda warning. 4 R.R. 37. According to Officer Sims, Woodruff waived his

Miranda rights and chose to speak with the officer. 4 R.R. 37. Woodruff provided

Officer Sims an explanation of how he came into possession of the items and denied

having been in the area of the vehicle burglaries. 4 R.R. 37-38. The officer did not

believe Woodruff’s stories. 4 R.R. 38. After failing to locate the debit card and

checkbook owners, Officer Sims placed Woodruff under arrest and transported him

to jail. 4 R.R. 39-40.

       Woodruff objected to the State entering into evidence the events and

conversations that occurred prior to and after Officer Sims’ reading Woodruff his

Miranda rights. 3 R.R. 113-115. At a hearing on the matter, Officer Sims testified that

he made contact with Woodruff because he matched the description from Dispatch

of a person who had possibly burglarized vehicles. 3 R.R. 116, 119, 121. He provided

BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                   2
the timeline of his interrogation and arrest of Woodruff, as set forth above. 3 R.R.

122-130. The officer testified that he suspected a crime had occurred, and Woodruff

was a suspect in the crime. 3 R.R. 125. But, a lengthy investigation occurred prior to

Woodruff being read his Miranda rights. 3 R.R. 127.

      Officer Sims acknowledged that when Woodruff was asked to place his hands

on the patrol vehicle, at the very onset of the officer’s interaction with Woodruff,

Woodruff was not free to leave. 3 R.R. 135-136. In fact, Woodruff could have been

charged with evading arrest or detention had he left the scene. 3 R.R. 135-136. This

occurred prior to any search of Woodruff’s person or his belongings and prior to any

specific questions about the possible vehicle burglaries. 3 R.R. 136. Woodruff was not

Mirandized at this point.

      The investigation continued while Woodruff was searched and questioned

about his possible involvement in the alleged burglaries, which may have taken thirty

(30) minutes. 3 R.R. 136-143, 145. Officer Sims admitted that, before making contact

with Woodruff, he advised Dispatch that he was with someone he believed was a

suspect in the possible vehicle burglaries. 3 R.R. 143. The officer also disclosed that,

to his knowledge, no eyewitnesses were able to say that Woodruff was the person

who allegedly burglarized vehicles. 3 R.R. 147-148.

      The trial court overruled Woodruff’s objection to the admission of evidence

and statements obtained before Officer Sims read Woodruff his Miranda rights. 3 R.R.




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                    3
158. The trial court, however, sustained the objection as to any statements made by

Woodruff after he was Mirandized. 3 R.R. 158.

       Officer Sims testified in front of the jury as to the events set forth above, and

at the close of the guilt/innocence portion of Woodruff’s trial, the jury found

Woodruff guilty of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information. 5 R.R. 29.

After electing for the trial court to assess punishment, Woodruff pleaded true to

certain enhancements, which increased his possible range of punishment. 6 R.R. 10-

14. The trial court sentenced Woodruff to a term of eighteen (18) years in prison. 6

R.R. 14-15.

                           SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

       Woodruff’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was questioned

extensively by police about alleged vehicle burglaries before he was read his Miranda

rights. The investigating officer testified that he located Woodruff due to his close

proximity to the alleged burglaries and the fact that his description was consistent

with the description he received from Dispatch. Prior to any interaction with

Woodruff, the officer informed Dispatch that he was with a suspect in the alleged

burglaries. The officer also testified that almost immediately after his initial interaction

with Woodruff, Woodruff was no longer free to leave the scene. Woodruff was

searched and questioned extensively about his possible involvement in the alleged

burglaries, almost all of which occurred prior to being read his Miranda rights. Any

testimony regarding statements and evidence obtained by the officer after Woodruff

BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                        4
was detained and had his freedom to leave deprived should have been suppressed by

the trial court.

       Without the testimony of Officer Sims regarding Woodruff, the evidence at

trial was not sufficient to prove that Woodruff committed fraudulent use or

possession of identifying information. Officer Sims testified that no witnesses were

able to identify Woodruff as the person who allegedly burglarized vehicles.

                                     ARGUMENT

Issue One: The trial court erred in overruling Woodruff’s objection to Officer
Sims’ testimony regarding Woodruff’s questioning and arrest, because the
statements and evidence discussed by the officer were obtained without
Woodruff being read his Miranda warning.

       Woodruff’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated when he was questioned

extensively by police about alleged vehicle burglaries before he was read his Miranda

rights. The investigating officer testified that he located Woodruff due to his location

and the fact that his description was consistent with that of the suspect in the alleged

burglaries. Prior to any interaction with Woodruff, the officer informed Dispatch that

he was with a suspect in the alleged burglaries. The officer also testified that almost

immediately after his initial interaction with Woodruff, Woodruff was no longer free

to leave the scene. Woodruff was searched and questioned extensively about his

possible involvement in the alleged burglaries, almost all of which occurred prior to

being read his Miranda rights. Any testimony regarding statements and evidence




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                     5
obtained by the officer after Woodruff was not free to leave should have been

suppressed.

Argument and Authorities

      In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a Miranda violation claim, an appellate

court conducts a bifurcated review: it affords almost total deference to the trial court’s

rulings on questions of historical fact and on application of law to fact questions that

turn upon credibility and demeanor, and it reviews de novo the trial court’s rulings on

application of law to fact questions that do not turn upon credibility and demeanor.

Ripkowski v. State, 61 S.W.3d 378, 381-382 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) (citing Guzman v.

State, 955 S.W.2d 85, 89 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).

      In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that

              the prosecution may not use statements, whether
              exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
              interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the
              use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the
              privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial
              interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law
              enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
              custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
              any significant way. . . Prior to any questioning, the person
              must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that
              any statement he does make may be used as evidence
              against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
              attorney, either retained or appointed. . .

Miranda, 384 U.S. 436, 444-445 (1966). The requirements of warning and waiver of

rights set forth in Miranda serve to protect the Fifth Amendment right against




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                      6
compelled self-incrimination. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 440 n. 4 (2000);

see Miranda, at 384 U.S. 436.

      In Missouri v. Seibert, a plurality of the United States Supreme Court stated that

“the threshold issue when interrogators question first and warn later is thus whether it

would be reasonable to find that in these circumstances the warnings could function

“effectively” as Miranda requires.” Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 611-12 (2004). As

such, the Court noted certain relevant facts that bear on whether Miranda warnings

delivered midstream could be effective enough to accomplish their object: the

completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of

interrogation; the overlapping content of the two statements; the timing and setting of

the first and the second; the continuity of police personnel; and the degree to which

the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first.” Id.

at 615-616.

      The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has long held that the State bears the

burden of proving admissibility when a Miranda violation is found. See, e.g., Creager v.

State, 952 S.W.2d 852, 860 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).

Woodruff was in a custodial interrogation when he was questioned.

      The requirement that police advise a person of rights prior to interrogation

applies if the person is “in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in

any significant way.” Miranda, at 445. A custodial interrogation occurs when a

defendant is in custody and is exposed to any words or actions on the part of the

BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                     7
police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating

response. Roquemore v. State, 60 S.W.3d 862, 868 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001).

       When the officer first confronted Woodruff on the side of the street, he told

Woodruff to put all his belongings on the ground and place his hands on the patrol

vehicle. At this point, Officer Sims expressly acknowledged that Woodruff was not

free to leave. In fact, the officer testified that Woodruff could have been charged with

evading arrest or detention if he had left the scene at that time.

       Based upon Officer Sims’ testimony, Woodruff was in a custodial interrogation

as defined by Miranda. Woodruff was deprived of his freedom of action in a very

significant way – he was not free to leave when he was ordered to place his hands on

the patrol vehicle. This level of deprivation only increased over the course of the

interrogation, as Woodruff was later arrested, placed in the patrol car, and then

formally arrested and taken to jail.

Woodruff’s questioning was initiated by law enforcement.

       Officer Sims determined that Woodruff was a suspect before making contact

with him, due to his physical appearance and close proximity to the alleged burglaries.

Woodruff’s questioning was initiated by law enforcement – he was confronted by

Officer Sims while walking along the street. He did not voluntarily meet with the

officer.




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                     8
Woodruff was exposed to words on the part of Officer Sims that the officer should
have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from Woodruff.

      As set forth above, a custodial interrogation occurs when a defendant is in

custody and is exposed to any words or actions on the part of the police that the

police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Roquemore,

60 S.W.3d at 868.

      Officer Sims did not randomly stop Woodruff on the side of the street – he did

so because Woodruff matched the description of the alleged vehicle burglar and was

in close proximity to the location of the burglaries. When Officer Sims searched

Woodruff’s pockets and located the debit cards with identifying information from

someone else, the officer should have known that any questions about the cards were

reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses from Woodruff. Yet, Officer Sims

questioned Woodruff about the debit cards without Mirandizing him.

      Woodruff’s responses to the officer’s questions caused him to place Woodruff

in handcuffs and detain him in the back seat of the patrol vehicle. His freedom was

deprived in the most literal manner, yet Officer Sims continued to interrogate

Woodruff without Mirandizing him. The officer searched Woodruff’s bag and

briefcase and only then decided to provide Woodruff with a Miranda warning.

      The checkbook upon which Woodruff’s indictment was based was not located

by Officer Sims until well after Woodruff should have been read his Miranda rights.




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                    9
      From the time Woodruff placed his hands on the patrol vehicle, he was in a

custodial interrogation, and he should have been read his Miranda rights. Prior to

Woodruff being Mirandized, Officer Sims obtained all the evidence and almost all the

statements used to prosecute Woodruff at trial. As such, the trial court erred in

overruling Woodruff’s objection to Officer Sims’ testimony about the statements and

evidence obtained prior to Woodruff being Mirandized.

Conclusion

      Because Woodruff was deprived of his freedom in a significant way during the

entirety of Officer Sims’ investigation, any statements or evidence obtained during

that interrogation should have been suppressed, because Woodruff was not read his

Miranda rights. Officer Sims knew that the answers to the questions he asked would

likely incriminate Woodruff in the alleged vehicle burglaries, yet he continued with the

interrogation without notifying Woodruff of his constitutional rights. Once he did

notify Woodruff of his Miranda rights, the evidence and statements were obtained as a

result of the improper pre-Miranda interrogation.

      Moreover, the Miranda warnings delivered midstream were not effective

enough to accomplish their object, as set forth in Seibert. Specifically, the officer

questioned first and obtained all the necessary statements and evidence needed for

Woodruff’s prosecution before Mirandizing Woodruff. The entire interrogation took

place in one setting, but the warning was not delivered until the necessary evidence




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                   10
was obtained. All statements and evidence obtained after Woodruff was ordered to

place his hands on the patrol car should have been suppressed.

      The trial court’s failure to sustain Woodruff’s objection violated Woodruff’s

federal and state constitutional rights and Texas statutory rights. This Court should

reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this case for a new trial in which the

State cannot adduce improperly-obtained evidence and statements to prosecute

Woodruff.

Issue Two: The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that
Woodruff committed the acts for which he was charged and convicted.

      Without the testimony of Officer Sims regarding Woodruff, which should have

been suppressed, the evidence at trial was not sufficient to prove that Woodruff

committed fraudulent use or possession of identifying information. Officer Sims

testified that no witnesses were able to identify Woodruff as the person who allegedly

burglarized vehicles.

Argument and Authorities

      In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court

examines all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determines

whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense

beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789

(1979); Gear v. State, 340 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex.Crim.App.2011). This standard

accounts for the factfinder’s duty “to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the


BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                  11
evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic facts to ultimate facts.”

Jackson, at 319. Therefore, in analyzing legal sufficiency, an appellate court must

“determine whether the necessary inferences are reasonable based upon the

cumulative force of all the evidence when viewed in light most favorable to the

verdict.” Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772, 778 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) (citing Hooper v.

State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 16-17 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). This review of “all of the evidence”

includes evidence that was properly and improperly admitted. Clayton, at 778 (citing

Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Evidence is insufficient to

support a conviction in two circumstances: (1) the record contains no evidence, or

merely a “modicum” of evidence, probative of an element of the offense, or (2) the

evidence conclusively establishes a reasonable doubt. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 314, 318

n. 11.

Without Officer Sims’ testimony regarding Woodruff, the record contains no
evidence to establish that Woodruff committed the offense for which he was charged.

         The evidence is legally insufficient to support Woodruff’s conviction. The jury

had to find that Woodruff fraudulently used or possessed identifying information of

someone else, without consent and with the intent to harm or defraud that person.

However, without the testimony of Officer Sims that should have been suppressed, as

set forth in Issue One, the record contains no evidence to show that Woodruff

fraudulently used or possessed identifying information as set forth in Woodruff’s

indictment.


BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                   12
      Pursuant to the Texas Penal Code, in relevant part, a person commits the

offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information if he, with the

intent to harm or defraud another, obtains, possesses, transfers, or uses an item of . . .

identifying information of another person without the other person’s consent . . .” See

TEX. PEN. CODE § 32.51.

      All evidence tending to show that Woodruff fraudulently used or possessed

identifying information of someone else was obtained while Woodruff was subjected

to a custodial interrogation without having been read a Miranda warning. See Issue

One. As such, the evidence offered by the State to prove Woodruff’s guilt was

improperly admitted. Additionally, Officer Sims testified that no eyewitnesses to the

alleged vehicle burglaries were able to identify Woodruff as the person who allegedly

burglarized vehicles.

      Without Officer Sims’ improperly admitted evidence, and without any

eyewitnesses to testify regarding Woodruff, the State failed to meet its burden to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Woodruff fraudulently used or possessed the

identifying information indicated in the indictment, one of the elements of the crime

for which he was charged and convicted by the jury.

Conclusion

      Because the only evidence admitted to show Woodruff’s guilt was improperly

admitted, the State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                     13
doubt that Woodruff committed the offense for which he was charged. Therefore,

this Court should reverse Woodruff’s conviction and render a judgment of acquittal.

                                      PRAYER

      Appellant Curtis Woodruff asks this Court to: (1) reverse the trial court’s

decision to admit statements and evidence obtained by the State as a result of a

Miranda violation, and (2) render a judgment of acquittal for Woodruff, because the

State failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that Woodruff was guilty of the

offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Woodruff further requests that this Court grant

any such other and further relief to which Woodruff may show himself justly entitled.

                                              Respectfully submitted,


                                              __/s/ Julie Goen Panger_______
                                              Julie Goen Panger
                                              Attorney for Appellant
                                              The Kiechler Law Firm, PLLC
                                              619 Broadway Street
                                              Lubbock, Texas 79401
                                              Telephone (806) 712-2889
                                              Facsimile (806) 712-2529
                                              Email: julie@thelubbocklawyer.com
                                              State Bar Number 24069793




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                    14
                            CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document was served upon the following parties by electronic service on June 19,
2015:

      JEFF FORD
      Lubbock County District Attorney’s Office
      Appellate Division, Chief
      904 Broadway
      P.O. Box 10536
      Lubbock, Texas 79408
      Counsel for Appellee
      jford@co.lubbock.tx.us



                                               __/s/ Julie Goen Panger_______
                                               Julie Goen Panger


                         CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
      In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i), the undersigned

attorney of record certifies that the Brief of Appellant contains 3,263 words, excluding

those words identified as not being counted in TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1), and was

prepared on Microsoft Word 2013®.

                                               __/s/ Julie Goen Panger____       ____
                                               Julie Goen Panger




BRIEF OF APPELLANT                                                                   15
