• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Texas prisoner

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the name of your state?TEXAS: My brother is a TDCJ inmate who is severely mentally handicapped.. Out in the free world he was diagnosed with Turrets, bipolar, ADHD, and intellectual disabilities.. inside they have his diagnosis as Conduct disorder and epilepsy... After tons of research and numerous visits with him I have concerns that he may have Intermittent Explosive disorder as well.. I was wondering what my legal rights would be in getting him checked by an outside therapist.. I am also including a pasted version of his appeal in court which includes the full story.. can someone review this and advise if they even had grounds to charge him.. looks like it should have been considered hearsay to me.. all the witnesses were related..

Appellant (name withheld) appeals his conviction for burglary of a
habitation by challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence underlying it. He argues
that the evidence was insufficient to prove he entered a habitation, had the intent to
commit theft, or committed a theft or attempted to commit a theft. We overrule the issue
and affirm the judgment.
GXX testified that on January 31, 2013, he awoke around 7:00 in the
morning, opened the door to his bedroom, and saw appellant, a man he did not know,
dressed in black walking in his house and towards the back door. The man was
wearing blue latex gloves.
Upon being seen by GXX, appellant ran out the back door but was stopped
by GXX in the yard by the fence. GXX’ cousins came out to lend assistance,
and his sister called the police. Other evidence indicated that appellant carried a
backpack in which was found more blue gloves, a large flashlight, a wrench, and
outdoor black and yellow gloves. On the ground near appellant lay another flashlight, a
blue razor-blade style knife, and a pair of blue latex gloves. Appellant also had a bat in
his coat or overalls.
Later, it was discovered that two cars in the driveway had their doors open and
had been ransacked. In one, the stereo had been disturbed and left in a manner
indicative of someone having tried to remove it. A power saw had also been moved in a
shed and placed by the door.
Appellant testified that he 1) was homeless and a methamphetamine addict, 2)
had bought drugs at the house several days earlier, 3) had returned to the house on
January 31 to purchase more drugs, 4) knocked on the door and asked for “Pancho,” 5)
was told that Pancho was not there, and 6) was attacked and had his money stolen
when he tried to leave. Appellant also attempted to explain why he possessed the
aforementioned items appearing in his backpack and denied being in the home that day
or having any intent to break into the house.
The applicable standard of review is discussed in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In applying it, we must determine whether the State
proved that appellant, without the effective consent of the owner, entered a habitation
with the intent to commit theft or committed or attempted to commit a theft. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1)&(3) (West 2011). Next, intent to commit theft may be inferred
from circumstantial evidence. Moreno v. State, 702 S.W.2d 636, 741 (Tex. Crim. App.
1986), overruled in part on other grounds by Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Furthermore, property need not be taken to support conviction. See
Ortega v. State, 626 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see also Ex parte
Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (stating that the offense is
complete once unlawful entry is made, without regard to whether the intended theft is
also completed). Finally, evidence of intent may be sufficient when the defendant is
found in the home and immediately flees even though nothing in the home is disturbed.
Stearn v. State, 571 S.W.2d 177, 177-78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Here, there was testimony that appellant was discovered without permission in
the home of GXX and his parents and that he ran when he was seen by
GXX. That, coupled with the evidence of 1) the items discovered on appellant and
in his backpack and 2) the cars and shed having been disturbed is some circumstantial
evidence from which a rational jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant
entered the habitation with intent to commit theft or in an attempt to commit theft.1
That appellant offered another possible explanation for his presence on the
property and denied having entered the house or having any intent to commit theft does
not render the evidence insufficient. Conflicts in the evidence are for the resolution of
the jurors, Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), and we defer to
their decision if it is rational. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d at 902. It is rational
here.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
 


PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
Well, of course, they had grounds to charge him. This is shown by the fact that they not only tried and convicted him the conviction was upheld on appeal.

Where do you think the hearsay is? THE WITNESS/Victim saw him in the house and testified to that.

It isn't unusual that all of the witnesses are related he was in a private home.

I doubt you have any rights regarding his medical issues at all.
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
What is the name of your state?TEXAS: My brother is a TDCJ inmate who is severely mentally handicapped.. Out in the free world he was diagnosed with Turrets, bipolar, ADHD, and intellectual disabilities.. inside they have his diagnosis as Conduct disorder and epilepsy... After tons of research and numerous visits with him I have concerns that he may have Intermittent Explosive disorder as well.. I was wondering what my legal rights would be in getting him checked by an outside therapist.. I am also including a pasted version of his appeal in court which includes the full story.. can someone review this and advise if they even had grounds to charge him.. looks like it should have been considered hearsay to me.. all the witnesses were related..

Appellant (name withheld) appeals his conviction for burglary of a
habitation by challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence underlying it. He argues
that the evidence was insufficient to prove he entered a habitation, had the intent to
commit theft, or committed a theft or attempted to commit a theft. We overrule the issue
and affirm the judgment.
VICTIM testified that on January 31, 2013, he awoke around 7:00 in the
morning, opened the door to his bedroom, and saw appellant, a man he did not know,
dressed in black walking in his house and towards the back door. The man was
wearing blue latex gloves.
Upon being seen by VICTIM, appellant ran out the back door but was stopped
by VICTIM in the yard by the fence. VICTIMS cousins came out to lend assistance,
and his sister called the police. Other evidence indicated that appellant carried a
backpack in which was found more blue gloves, a large flashlight, a wrench, and
outdoor black and yellow gloves. On the ground near appellant lay another flashlight, a
blue razor-blade style knife, and a pair of blue latex gloves. Appellant also had a bat in
his coat or overalls.
Later, it was discovered that two cars in the driveway had their doors open and
had been ransacked. In one, the stereo had been disturbed and left in a manner
indicative of someone having tried to remove it. A power saw had also been moved in a
shed and placed by the door.
Appellant testified that he 1) was homeless and a methamphetamine addict, 2)
had bought drugs at the house several days earlier, 3) had returned to the house on
January 31 to purchase more drugs, 4) knocked on the door and asked for “Pancho,” 5)
was told that Pancho was not there, and 6) was attacked and had his money stolen
when he tried to leave. Appellant also attempted to explain why he possessed the
aforementioned items appearing in his backpack and denied being in the home that day
or having any intent to break into the house.
The applicable standard of review is discussed in Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d
893, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). In applying it, we must determine whether the State
proved that appellant, without the effective consent of the owner, entered a habitation
with the intent to commit theft or committed or attempted to commit a theft. TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1)&(3) (West 2011). Next, intent to commit theft may be inferred
from circumstantial evidence. Moreno v. State, 702 S.W.2d 636, 741 (Tex. Crim. App.
1986), overruled in part on other grounds by Hall v. State, 225 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2007). Furthermore, property need not be taken to support conviction. See
Ortega v. State, 626 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see also Ex parte
Cavazos, 203 S.W.3d 333, 337 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (stating that the offense is
complete once unlawful entry is made, without regard to whether the intended theft is
also completed). Finally, evidence of intent may be sufficient when the defendant is
found in the home and immediately flees even though nothing in the home is disturbed.
Stearn v. State, 571 S.W.2d 177, 177-78 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Here, there was testimony that appellant was discovered without permission in
the home of VICTIM and his parents and that he ran when he was seen by
VICTIM. That, coupled with the evidence of 1) the items discovered on appellant and
in his backpack and 2) the cars and shed having been disturbed is some circumstantial
evidence from which a rational jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant
entered the habitation with intent to commit theft or in an attempt to commit theft.1
That appellant offered another possible explanation for his presence on the
property and denied having entered the house or having any intent to commit theft does
not render the evidence insufficient. Conflicts in the evidence are for the resolution of
the jurors, Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000), and we defer to
their decision if it is rational. See Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d at 902. It is rational
here.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Sounds proper to me. I've redacted the VICTIM'S name, just as you redacted your brother's.
 
Wow.. the way people view anyone accused of a crime now days is sickening.. so regardless of him saying he was there to purchase drugs and was attacked and robbed (which is also wrong I understand) they automatically take the homeowners side... so hypothetically if someone knocks on my door for any reason I can rob them and accuse them of breaking and entering because I am the home owner and my word means more? I just dont understand.. my brother got 25 years for this crap.. child molesters and rapists dont get sentences like that..
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
Wow.. the way people view anyone accused of a crime now days is sickening.. so regardless of him saying he was there to purchase drugs and was attacked and robbed (which is also wrong I understand) they automatically take the homeowners side... so hypothetically if someone knocks on my door for any reason I can rob them and accuse them of breaking and entering because I am the home owner and my word means more? I just dont understand.. my brother got 25 years for this crap.. child molesters and rapists dont get sentences like that..
You can hire an attorney to review your brothers case....as you were told in your other thread.
 

PayrollHRGuy

Senior Member
Wow.. the way people view anyone accused of a crime now days is sickening.. so regardless of him saying he was there to purchase drugs and was attacked and robbed (which is also wrong I understand) they automatically take the homeowners side... so hypothetically if someone knocks on my door for any reason I can rob them and accuse them of breaking and entering because I am the home owner and my word means more? I just dont understand.. my brother got 25 years for this crap.. child molesters and rapists dont get sentences like that..
Your brother was just accused of a crime he was convicted of a crime. There was a trial where the prosecution had to prove that your brother committed the crime. That jury decided beyond a reasonable doubt that your brother was guilty of the crime. An Appeals court then upheld that conviction.

Were you there when the crime took place? How do you KNOW it didn't happen exactly as the court ruled?
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
FYI: OP doesn't like any of the advice/comments made to this or her other thread. Called all advisers a filthy name.
 

not2cleverRed

Obvious Observer
Wow.. the way people view anyone accused of a crime now days is sickening.. so regardless of him saying he was there to purchase drugs and was attacked and robbed (which is also wrong I understand) they automatically take the homeowners side... so hypothetically if someone knocks on my door for any reason I can rob them and accuse them of breaking and entering because I am the home owner and my word means more? I just dont understand.. my brother got 25 years for this crap.. child molesters and rapists dont get sentences like that..
No. The Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are unarmed when they knock on your door; they do not come armed with baseball bats and switch blades. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to meet them with force.

Your brother, however, is a self-professed meth head who goes around with things that can plausible be used as weapons, and gloves to hide his finger prints. That seems sinister. His claims of being there only to score drugs, not steal, are not credible in light of the evidence.

If you believe the person trespassing is up to no good, you call the police. If you believe that they pose a danger, you can defend yourself (this is TX, not NY).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top