Donovan Dwight Simms v. State
01-15-00763-CR
| Tex. App. | Sep 25, 2015Background
- Pro se appellant Donovan Dwight Simms (incarcerated) submitted correspondence to the First Court of Appeals and a petition seeking production of grand jury proceedings and witness testimony related to Trial Court No. 1056045.
- The First Court of Appeals clerk acknowledged receipt of a notice of appeal filed August 21, 2015, and noted the court’s records do not reflect a post-judgment motion; the clerk letter contained an erroneous fallback date (August 7, 2006) for the record.
- Simms filed a Petition for Production/Inspection under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 20.02(d),(e), seeking disclosure of grand jury testimony and recordings for numerous named witnesses to identify impeachment, prior inconsistent statements, and Brady/exculpatory material.
- Simms also asserts ineffective assistance of counsel and challenges to the indictment and grand jury process (including alleged defects in grand juror vote counts, foreman signature, and improper impaneling), arguing subject-matter jurisdiction may be defective.
- The petition invokes federal and state authority (e.g., rights to confrontation, disclosure, equal protection) and requests the district court to hold a hearing with parties permitted to appear; relief sought is production of grand jury transcripts/recordings or partial disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grand jury testimony/recordings must be produced | Simms: particularized need for impeachment, prior inconsistent statements, Brady material; disclosure warranted under art. 20.02(e) | State: (not in record) likely to assert grand jury secrecy and no particularized need shown | Not decided in provided record / pending |
| Whether indictment/grand jury process was defective so as to deprive court of jurisdiction | Simms: alleges fewer than required grand jurors, missing foreman signature, illegal impanelment, racial-discrimination concerns | State: (not in record) would assert indictment is sufficient and defects are unproven or waived | Not decided in provided record / pending |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective such that habeas-type relief (gateway claim) is available | Simms: counsel failed to challenge grand jury/indictment and neglected required pretrial motions; ineffective assistance prevented proper challenges | State: (not in record) would likely argue counsel’s performance was reasonable or any errors harmless | Not decided in provided record / pending |
| Whether clerk’s procedural statement about record deadline was erroneous or creates prejudice | Simms: clerk’s letter contained an impossible alternate date (2006) and unclear record status; requests table of contents of any record on file | Clerk/State: administrative clerical error likely; full record still required per rules | Not an adjudicated legal issue in record; administrative clarification requested |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints held to less stringent pleading standards)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (confrontation and compulsory process principles)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- In re Grand Jury, 490 F.3d 978 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (particularized need may overcome grand jury secrecy)
- Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986) (racial discrimination in grand jury selection undermines structural protections)
- Neal v. State, 150 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (timing and grounds for motions to set aside indictment)
- Aguilar v. State, 810 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (fundamental defects in charging instruments may vitiate jurisdiction)
- Fairfield v. State, 610 S.W.2d 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (effects of filing a sufficient indictment on court jurisdiction)
- U.S. v. Cotton, 335 U.S. 625 (2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction and consequences of defective indictments)