Alicia Midkiff v. State

ACCEPTED 03-14-00445-CR 5179055 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/6/2015 3:20:46 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03­14­00445­CR In the FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS For the 5/6/2015 3:20:46 PM THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk at Austin ______________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law Number 3 Williamson County, Texas Cause Number 14­02154­2 ______________________________________ Alicia Marie Midkiff, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITH ​ANDERS​ BRIEF IN SUPPORT _____________________________________ Counsel​ ​ for Appellant Crystal D. Murray Alicia Marie Midkiff ATTORNEY AT LAW SBN No. 24029611 1001 Cypress Creek Rd, Ste. 405 Cedar Park, Texas 78613 (512) 257­1010 (512) 257­0005 (FAX) Crystal@cedarparklaw.com — 2 — IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, a complete list of the names of all interested parties is provided below so the members of this Honorable Court may at once determine whether they are disqualified to serve or should recuse themselves from participating in the decision of this case. Appellant: Alicia Marie Midkiff Counsel for Appellant​ : Todd Ver Weire 1000 Heritage Center Circle Round Rock, Texas 78664 Crystal D. Murray (on appeal) 1001 Cypress Creek Rd, Ste. 405 Cedar Park, Texas 78613 Counsel for Appellee, The State of Texas: Doyle “Dee” Hobbs, Jr. Williamson County Attorney Stephanie Maugham (at trial) James LaMarca (on appeal) Assistant County Attorneys 405 Martin Luther King Blvd. Georgetown, Texas 78626 Trial Court Judge: — 3 — The Honorable Doug Arnold Presiding Judge County Court at Law Number Three — 4 — TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF PARTI​ ES​…………………………………………....2 TABLE OF CONTENTS​ ……………………………………………………...4 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES​ …………………………………………………..5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE​ ………………………………………………..7 STATEMENT OF FACTS​ …………………………………………………....8 ISSUE PRESENTED​ ………………………………………………………...11 Whether the instant appeal is frivolous and without merit, such that the undersigned should withdraw as counsel. PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION​ ………………………………………….13 POTENTIAL ERRORS CONSIDERED BY COUNSEL​ …………………...15 CONCLUSION​ ……………………………………………………………....17 NOTICE TO APPELLANT​ ………………………………………………….17 PRAYER​ ……………………………………………………………………..17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE​ ……………………………………………....18 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT​ ………………………………………..19 — 5 — INDEX OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Anders v. California​ , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12 McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I​ , 486 U.S. 429 (1988). . 11, 13 TEXAS CASES Brooks v. State​ , 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010)....................................15 Gaines v. State​ , 479 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15, 16 Hawkins v. State​ , 112 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. App. ­ Corpus Christi 2003) . . . . . . . . 13 Jordan v. State, ​495 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15, 16 Montgomery v. State, ​ 810 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).....................14, 16 Samuel v. State​, 477 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16 Wilson v. State​ , 40 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 STATUTES AND RULES TEX. PENAL CODE §12.21..​ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TEX. PENAL CODE §22.01..​ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 — 6 — STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Pursuant  to  Texas  Rule  of  Appellate  Procedure  39.1,  Oral  argument  is  not applicable in the present case. — 7 — No. 03­14­00445­CR In the COURT OF APPEALS For the THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT at Austin ______________________________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law Number Three Williamson County, Texas Cause Number 14­02154­2 ______________________________________ ALICIA MARIE MIDKIFF, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________ MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL WITH ​ANDERS​ BRIEF IN SUPPORT _____________________________________ STATEMENT OF THE CASE On  July  9,  2014,  Appellant  pleaded  not  guilty  to  the  misdemeanor  offense of  assault with bodily injury­family violence.  (2 R.R. at 5).  On the same day, the jury  trial  commenced.  (2  R.R.  at  18).  On  July  10,  2014,  a  jury  found  the Appellant  guilty  of  the  charged  offense.  (1  C.R.  at  67).  The  Appellant  waived *8 jury  sentencing  and  elected  for  the  Court  to  assess  punishment.  (1  C.R.  at  68) On  the  same  day,  the  Appellant  and  the  State  agreed  to  a  plea  bargain  for  225 days  confinement  in  the  Williamson  County  Jail.  (3  R.R.  at  63).  After  a sentencing  hearing, the Court sentenced Appellant to 225 days confinement in the county jail. (1 C.R. at 71).​ . Appellant timely filed Notice of Appeal on July 15, 2014.  (1 C.R. at 72).  This appeal results. STATEMENT OF FACTS On  March  14,  2014,  Cole  Smith,  Brooke  Reiman, several of Ms. Reiman’s friends  from  College  Station, and the Appellant drove to Maggiore’s restaurant in Cedar  Park,  Texas  to  watch  the  a  college  basketball  game.  (2  R.R.  at  112­113). At  the  time,  the  Appellant,  Cole  Smith,  Brooke  Reiman,  and  another  young  man named  Preston  were  roommates  in  an apartment located in Cedar Park. (2 R.R. at 155).  While  at  Maggiore’s,  the  Appellant  began  drinking  margaritas.  (2  R.R. at 113).  While  Mr.  Smith  stayed  inside  the  restaurant,  the Appellant, Ms. Reiman, and  the  other  guests,  stepped  outside  to  smoke.  (2  R.R.  at  114).  While  outside smoking,  the  Appellant  urinated  on  herself.  (2  R.R.  at  136).  The group abruptly *9 paid  their  checks,  and  began  walking  out,  laughing  about  an  unrelated  incident. (2  R.R.  at  137).  Appellant,  assuming  the  laughter  was  directed  at  her,  became belligerent with the group.  (2 R.R. at 115). While  driving  back  to  the  shared  apartment,  the  Appellant  continued  to confront  Ms.  Reiman  about  whether  or  not  Ms.  Reiman  had  a  problem  with Appellant’s  behavior.  (2  R.R.  at  140).  Ms.  Reiman  confirmed  that  she  was embarrassed by Appellant’s behavior in public. ​ Id. ​ After arriving at the apartment, and while Mr. Smith was outside with the dogs, Ms. Reiman requested that  the  Appellant  pack her belongings and move out of the apartment.  Appellant walked  to  the  hallway  towards  her  room,  and  Ms.  Reiman  attempted  to  let another  dog  out  of its kennel.  Appellant approached Ms. Reiman, struck her with her  palm,  and  grabbed  her  shirt.  Ms.  Reiman  struck  the  Appellant  back  2­4 times.  Ms. Reiman testified that the first strike landed under her right cheekbone, causing  redness  and  swelling.  (2  R.R.  at  142­144).  When  Mr.  Smith  arrived back  inside  the  apartment,  he  did  not  observe  who  started  the  fight,  but  did  see Ms.  Reiman  punch  the  Appellant.  (2  R.R.  at  130).  Mr.  Smith  separated  the women,  and  while  Ms.  Reiman  stayed  in  her  bedroom,  the  Appellant  left  the *10 apartment  in  her  car.  (2  R.R.  at  151).  When officers from the Cedar Park Police Department  arrived,  Officer  Kitchens  observed  Ms.  Reiman’s  torn  shirt  and swollen cheek.  (2 R.R. at 165). Another  CPPD  officer,  Sergeant  Mauer  saw  the  Appellant’s  car  a  short distance  from  the  apartment  and  pulled  her  over.  (3  R.R.  at  30).  Prior  to  Sgt. Mauer’s  testimony,  defense  counsel  requested  several  redactions  to  Sgt.  Mauer’s patrol  video,  and  the  court  granted defense counsel’s request.  Several sections of superfluous  background  discussions,  any  allegations  to driving while intoxicated, references  to  attending  court,  and  criminal  history  checks  on  witnesses  were redacted.  After  the  court  granted  defense  counsel’s  redaction  requests,  counsel objected  to  the  patrol  video  in  its  redacted  entirety  as  more  prejudicial  than probative  to  the  Appellant  in  its  redacted  state.  The court denied the Appellant’s motion  to  exclude  the  video,  stating  that  the  redacted  version  was  at  the  defense counsel’s request.  (3 R.R. at 6­14). While  speaking  with  Sgt.  Mauer,  the  Appellant  alternated  between  crying and  remaining  calm.  (3  R.R.  at  35).  Before  Sgt.  Mauer  explained  to  the Appellant  the  reason  for the stop, the Appellant repeatedly stated that “everybody *11 was  lying”  and  to  “take  her  to  jail.”  (3  R.R  at  35­36).  She  was  subsequently arrested for Assault with Bodily Injury­Family Violence. ISSUE PRESENTED Whether the Instant Appeal Is Frivolous and Without Merit, Such That the Undersigned Should Withdraw as Counsel. A  criminal  defense  attorney’s  duty  is  to  zealously represent the interests of his or her client on appeal. ​ Anders v. California​ , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). If the  appointed  attorney  finds  the  “case  to  be  wholly  frivolous,  after  a conscientious  examination  of  it,  he  should  so  advise  the  court  and  request permission to withdraw.” ​ Anders​ , 386 U.S. at 744. Both  retained  and  appointed  appellate  attorneys  have  a  “duty to withdraw” as  counsel  when  they  conclude  that  an  appeal  would  be  frivolous,  but  appointed counsel  “is  presented  with  a  dilemma  because  withdrawal  is not possible without leave  of  court,  and  advising  the  court  of  counsel’s  opinion  that  the  appeal  is frivolous would appear to conflict with the advocate’s duty to the client.” ​ McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District I​ , 486 U.S. 429, 437 (1988). “It is well — 12 — settled,  however,  that  this  dilemma  must  be  resolved  by  informing  the  court  of counsel’s conclusion.” ​ Id. “Under ​ Anders and its progeny, if an appointed attorney  concludes  that  his  client’s  appeal  is  without  merit,  he  or  she  must (1) so inform  the court, (2) seek permission to withdraw, and (3) file a brief ‘referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.’” ​ Wilson v. State​ , 40 S.W.3d 192, 196 (Tex. App. ­ Texarkana 2001). As  the  Supreme  Court  explained,  the  attorney’s  motion  to  withdraw  must, however,  be  accompanied  by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. ​ Anders​ , 386 U.S. at 744. A copy of counsel’s brief should  be  provided  to  the  Appellant  and  time  should  be  allowed  for  him  to  raise any points that he chooses. ​ Id​ . Then, the Court, and not counsel, decides, after a full examination of all the proceedings, whether the case is wholly frivolous. ​ Id. If  it  so  finds,  it  may  grant  counsel’s  request  to  withdraw  and  dismiss  the  appeal insofar  as  federal  requirements  are  concerned,  or  proceed  to  a  decision  on  the merits, if state law so requires. ​ Anders​ , 386 U.S. at 744. In Texas, an ​ Anders brief  need  not  specifically  advance  “arguable”  points  of  error  if  counsel  finds none,  but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and — 13 — set out pertinent legal authorities. ​ See Hawkins v. State​ , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343­344 (Tex.  App.–Corpus  Christi  2003).  The attorney’s duty to withdraw is based upon his  or  her  professional  and  ethical  responsibilities  as an officer of the court not to burden  the  judicial  system  with  false  claims,  frivolous  pleadings,  or  burdensome time demands. ​ McCoy​ , 486 U.S. at 436. The Supreme Court instructs: “Neither paid  nor  appointed  counsel  may  deliberately  mislead  the  court  with  respect  to either  the  facts  or  the  law,  or  consume  the  time  and  the  energies  of  the  court  or the  opposing  party  by  advancing  frivolous  arguments.  An  attorney,  whether appointed  or  paid,  is  therefore  under  an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal.” ​ Id. PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION Counsel  would  respectfully  show  the  Court  of  Appeals  that  the  instant appeal is frivolous and without merit, for the following reasons: The  trial  court  had  jurisdiction  over  the  present  misdemeanor  case  and venue  was  proper  in  Williamson  County,  where  the  offense  was  alleged  to  have occurred.  The  records  reflects  ample  testimony  supporting  the  Appellant’s *14 conviction  for  Assault  with  Bodily  Injury­­Family  Violence.  There  was  no contradictory  testimony  that  Appellant  became  belligerent  with  Ms.  Reiman  and intentionally struck Ms. Reiman in the face, causing bodily injury ​ TEX. PENAL CODE​ §22.01. Defense  counsel  successfully  argued  for  a  large number of redactions from Sgt.  Mauer’s  patrol video.  All references to anything that would have been more prejudicial  than  probative  to  the  Appellant,  or  bolstering  of  the  State’s  witnesses were  removed  from  the  audio  portion  of  the  video  prior  to  publishing  the  jury. There  are  no  allegations  that  the  State  failed  to  redacted  any  of  the  requested redactions.  (3  R.R.).  A  trial  court  does  not  abuse  its  discretion  by  admitting evidence if its decision to do so is reasonable. ​ Montgomery v. State​ , 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The  punishment  for  that  offense,  as  alleged  in  the  information,  is  that  of  a class A misdemeanor. ​ TEX. PENAL CODE §22.01(b). After pleading not guilty, hearing  witness  testimony,  and  reviewing  photographic  and  video  testimony,  the trial  court  assessed  punishment  at  225 days in the county jail, within the statutory range of punishment for the offense. ​ TEX. PENAL CODE §12.21. A punishment — 15 — which  falls  within  the  statutory  range  is  not  excessive,  cruel,  or  unusual punishment. ​ Gaines v. State​ , 479 S.W.2d 678, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). ​ See also ​ Jordan v. State 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 Tex. Crim. App. 1973; ​ Samuel v. State​ , 477 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). POTENTIAL ERRORS CONSIDERED BY COUNSE​ L Counsel considered the following point of errors on appeal: (1) Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. It  is  counsel’s  opinion  that  the  evidence  in  this  case  was  sufficient  to support  Appellant’s  conviction  because  Appellant  witnesses  testified  that  the Appellant  argued  and confronted Ms. Reiman, Mr. Smith observed Appellant in a fight  with  Ms.  Reiman,  and  three  witnesses  testified  that  Ms.  Reiman  had  a swollen  cheekbone  and  torn  shirt.  Furthermore,  Appellant  requested  to  be  taken to  jail,  and  accused  the others of lying before Sgt. Mauer explained the reason for the  stop.  In  reviewing  legal  sufficiency,  the  court  shall  review  “in the light most favorable to the verdict.” ​ Brooks v. State​ , 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).  There is ample evidence to support the Appellant’s verdict. — 16 — (2) Whether the trial court erred by admitted the patrol video of Sgt. Mauer with the redactions requested by the defense. It  is  counsel’s  opinion  that  the  trial  court  did  not  err  in  admitting  Sgt. Mauer’s  redacted  patrol  video.  The  trial  court  granted all of the defense requests for  redactions  and  there  were  no  allegations  that  the  State  failed  to  comply  with those  requests.  A  trial  court does not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence if its decision to do so is reasonable. ​ Montgomery v. State​ , 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). (3) Whether Appellant’s punishment was excessive. It  is  counsel’s  opinion  that  the  punishment  assessed  by  the  trial  court  was not  excessive  because  Appellant’s  punishment  fell  within  the  statutory punishment  range  for  a  Class  A  misdemeanor offense.  A punishment which falls within the statutory range is not excessive, cruel, or unusual. ​ Gaines v. State​ , 479 S.W.2d 678, 679 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). ​ See also ​ Jordan v. State 495 S.W.2d 949, 952 Tex. Crim. App. 1973; ​ Samuel v. State​ , 477 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). — 17 — CONCLUSION There  are  no  points  of  error  which,  in  good  conscience,  could  be  raised  in this appeal. NOTICE TO APPELLANT The  undersigned  has  forwarded  a  copy  of  this  motion  to  withdraw  and  a letter  explaining  Appellant’s  rights,  as  well  as  the  procedures  to  be  followed when  a  brief  is filed by counsel indicating that the appeal is frivolous and without merit, to Appellant. The letter also informs Appellant of his right to file a ​ pro se petition  for  discretionary  review.  In  addition  to  the  letter,  the  undersigned  has also forwarded to Appellant a Motion for ​ Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record so  that  Appellant  can  obtain  the  necessary  records  to  file  a  brief,  should  he choose to do so.  A true and correct copy of such letter is attached hereto. PRAYER WHEREFORE,  PREMISES  CONSIDERED,  Crystal  D.  Murray, *18 court­appointed  counsel  for  Appellant  in  the  above  styled  and  numbered  cause respectfully prays that, after providing Appellant an opportunity to submit a ​ pro se  brief,  this  Honorable  Court  of  Appeals  will  review  the  appellate  record  to make  an  independent  determination  of  whether  there  are  grounds  upon  which  to appeal.  The  undersigned  also  prays  that  the  Court  will  grant  this  motion  to withdraw. Respectfully submitted, ____​/s/Crystal D. Murray​ _______ Crystal D. Murray State Bar Number 24029611 1001 Cypress Creek Rd. Ste. 405 Cedar Park, Texas 78641 (512) 257­1010 (512) 257­0005 (fax) crystal@cedarparklaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The  undersigned  hereby  certifies  that  a  true  and  correct  copy  of  the foregoing Motion to Withdraw as Counsel with ​ Anders Brief in Support has been emailed  to  the  Williamson  County  Attorney’s  Office,  via  James  LaMarca, *19 jlamarca@wilco.org on May 6, 2015. ______​/s/ Crystal D. Murray​ ____ Crystal D. Murray CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT The  undersigned  hereby  certifies  that  the  foregoing  document  consists  of 2,685 words in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4. ______​/s/ Crystal D. Murray​ ___ Crystal D. Murray