William Jason Pugh v. The State of Texas Appeal from 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-14-00067-CR WILLIAM JASON PUGH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 22,042-2013 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 12, 2013, in Wood County, Texas, William Jason Pugh was charged, by separate indictments, with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of S.C., a child. During the trial, evidence that Pugh committed separate extraneous offenses was admitted under Article 38.37 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 38.37 (West Supp. 2014). After a jury trial, Pugh was found guilty of both counts and sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment to run concurrently. Pugh has filed a single brief in which he raises issues common to both of his appeals. Here, Pugh appeals from his conviction in trial court cause number 22,042-2013 for aggravated sexual assault of a child by penetration of the sexual organ of a child younger than fourteen years of age by his sexual organ and argues (1) that the State’s notice of intent to introduce extraneous offenses during the guilt/innocence phase pursuant to Article 38.37 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure was deficient; (2) that the trial court erred by finding the State’s extraneous-offense evidence was “enough to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the extraneous offenses occurred”; and (3) that the jury instructions failed to instruct the jury how to apply the beyond-a-reasonabledoubt standard to the extraneous offenses. We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Pugh’s appeal in cause number 06-14-00066-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not been shown in this case. 2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: February 13, 2015 April 15, 2015 Do Not Publish 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.