Case Information
*1
Unit of CERIJORARI
Texps, Retitioner, Tyrene Richard V. William Stephens, Director
Texes Department of Criminal Justice-Correction InSTUDERREF CRIMINAL APPEALS No. 415-CV-00286. Supreme Court of The United State
DEC 172015
Pendeent Jurisdiction
Tyrene Richard Retitioner's seek review of a judgment AfoiAcoposticOtern, Notwithstanding the limitations of federal question jurisdiction, however he relyes upon both federal and nonfederal grounds for the relief sought in this complaint and/or petition. Thus, where he joins a federal claim with a state claim based on closely related or identical conduct of his action, the federal courts has jurisdiction to hear and determine the State law claims as well as those arising under federal law. See black law dictionary. "Jurisdiction is proper in this court."
I Claims and Allegations
Tyrene is undentully detained in the Texrs Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division ("TUCI-Id") serving a 30 -year term for possession of a controlled substance, crack-cocaine. State V. Richard, no 1336434 1336435; 1357776; CASP No. 133643501010, Incident no 1 TEN: 967423272A001 (180th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex. Oct. 16,2012), 8E8'd., Richard v State, No. 01-12-00995-CR, 2013 WL 3155957 (Tex.App.-Houston List Dist.) June 20, 2013, pet. ref'd). He submits three federal and/or State question's and alleges that the indictment or information is "vold for vagueness," (a) the prosecution prepared October 16,2012, was banred by principles of double jeopardy and should not of been formed for senteniring or punishment, and; (b) Houston Police Officer's conducted undentul searches of Tyrones, a automobile he was not operating, and
*2
A occupant in such automobile which resulted in a forfeiture of four thousand eight hundred and eighty seven dollars ( ) Ccomplaint, Doctor Entry No. 1, p.4). Likewise, see Issue Record No. 44410-2013.
II. Analysis or Rension for Review or Same-
Tyroné believes that Flows in the indictment, information, and or complaint were supposingly objected to prior to trial and the "attorney of record" was liable for not motioning the trial court to'quash" the charging instrument. "Tyroné does not argue that he did not object to the irregularity(s) and/or substance of the inedictment or information, he was merely contends that the attorney of record was obligated to move the trial court to'quash" the charging instrument being that it was totally defective whereas it did not provide a engraved five-pointed star-seal's (2) did not name or describe "Tyroné" or convicted a image and not" Tyroné" Flesh and Blood, it (3) it allege an impossible date (the date of the complaint superseded the date of the indictment or information); (4) the offense for which" Tyroné" was charge with was barred by statute of limitation(and (5) the requirements of art. 21.02 was not met because the judgment and conviction Exess was not set forth in plain and intelligible language and it was not signed by legal authority nor did it identify any Penal Statue for which" Tyroné" status offense were characterized. See Duron V, State, 456 s.m. 2 d 547 (Tex. (rim App. 1477); Art. V, section 12 of the Texas Constitution; Texas Conventionat Code Title 2.51 .301 (d). Nolurithstanding those facts." Tyroné should not of been judged or convicted of such offense under chapter 481, Health and Safety code, upon the Iestimony or confession of any individual who is acting covertly on behalf of Law Enforcement Agency or under the Color of Law, Art. 38.141."
*3
Issues to be discussed
In "Tyron" first objection, he assests that "All state crimes are not Federal crimes", "A sin that violates a federal law is a federal sin"; and Technically and/or Legally, the U.S. government is a corporation.
There is no clause of the Federal Constitution that requires the State to begin any of its criminal prosecution by grandjury indictment, but there is no doubt that the due process clause of the fourteenth Amendment does require a person to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/her for such is fundamental to a fair hearing. Hurtado V. People of California 4 S.C.111, 292,110 U.S 516128 L.Ed. 252 (1984).
The indictment, information, complaint and judgment form are "Stnucturally" "Eccumulated" and its image creates a substantial output to the landulness of "Trone" endless confinement. Texts Constitution, Article 1 section 10 States that a judgment of conviction for a evil is void unless the conviction was obtained by the due course of law of the land. Denity V. Texts Department of Public Safety 1964. Some case at 386 S.w. ad 758 ; cited in dissenting Opinion at 249 S.w. ad 180; 413 s.w. ad 801; 462 s.w. ad 276 (Mendnote 9). A person should not be compelled to incur the lost of liberty for an sin within nature without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend him or herself. (Sutlerret V. State (App. 3 Dist 1989) 8 S.W. ad 739 Constitutional Law, However perverse; "Trone" understanding, believes he were not suppose to be tried for any collateral infringement or for being sinful generally. (Sery V. State (cR. App. 1979) 588 S.w. ad 932; Thompson V. State (cR. App.1981) 612 s.w. ad 925; Rubio V. State (cR. App.1980) 607 S.w. ad 498.
Nevertheless, our State Constitution cannot subtract from a right guaranteed
*4
from the Federal Constitution, but it can provide additional rights to their people and/or citizens. See Houston Chronicle Public Company V. Grapitto (App. 14 Dist 1995) 901 s.w. 2d 99; regardless of these ordinance, the Federal constitution sets a floor for a persons or individual right while a State Constitution establishes a ceiling for such person privilege or interest or same. Constitutional Law 22(1); Houston Chronicle Pub. Co. V. Cravatto (App. 14 Dist. 1995) 901 s.w. 2d 99.
Although "Tyrané" was uninformed of the State misapplication of Eiduciacy properly, he did however, attach to his state writ application a copy of his indictment with the printed words: "Defendant Exhibit A 'void Indictment.'" Likewise, he alarmingly associated his importance and or interest with Court of Criminal Appetts, Clerk Abel Acosto. (August 02, 2001)
Issue Eeclusion
Despite of "Tyrane" preposition and plea of former jeopardy, to inform our State Court that his second prosecution (1357776/1356435) was inaccurate; a controlling agency domination arises when a court or Justice has done some act that the United States Constitution will forbid it to deny or where circumstances are such that a common law will not permit a certain argument because it would lead to an unjust result. In this context of contract Law, for example, the trial court is barred from denying existence of a binding contract where it has donde some something inlerding that "Tyrane" counted upon its conduct, and the result of the dependency were detrimental to his livelihood. Looking at it from a pure window-standpoint: "A trial court convinces an accomplice to sign what appears to be a valid contract which gives the accomplice the privilege to wive Felony information. When the
*5 CONTENT turns out to damage the trial court more than the accomplice, the trial court tries to deny the validity of the instrument. 'This court must find that at the time of "Tyrane" trial, October 10, 2012, the trial court was estopped (i.e., prevented) from raising its claim since it was the trial court who initiated the office."
Under article 27.05, "Tyrane's" special plea that he had already been prosecuted for the same or different offense arising out of the same criminal episode which was or should have been consolidated into one trial, and that the former prosecution, 'Uresulted in acquittal los as in Texas dismissal', (2) resulted in conviction', (3) was improperly terminated, or (4) was terminated by a final order or judgment for such person and that necessarily required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established to secure conviction. This is collateral estoppel.
A plea must be verified by affidavit of a defendant, and all issues of fact can be presented to the trier of fact. Article 27.06 and 27.07. These are specifically listed in article 28.01 as must be filed with pretrial motions. (not to mention "Tyrane" was denied due process of law in the course of pretrial discovery where he was denied to attend). (See Kentucky V.Stincer 107 5.CT 2658 (1981)]. If the dudge does not grant on legal grounds, may Federal dispute can then be submitted to the jury. "No facts were disputed in this case."
Double jeopardy is prohibited in the U.S. Constitution, Amendment V. and XIV. and in Texas Constitution, Article I, section 14. Because this involves constitutional issues, a violation of a State Statute that requires such motion be filed at a certain time, should not prevent subsequent consideration of these subjective issues.
Jeopardy attacked in Tyrane" trial when the juvors were ingenteled and such and when the State First witness was suecm. (First U.bertz, 131 U.S.28, 18 5.CT, 2156 (1918).
Page 5
*6
To determine whether the State (trial Court) attempted to punish Tyrane multiple or twice for the same offense, this court must examine each of the statutes to dictate whether each requires proof of an additional element that the other does not. This is known as the Blockburger test. Blockburger V, U.S. 284 U.S.299,52 S.CT.180 (1932), readopted in U.S. V. Dixon,509 U.S.688,113 S.CT.2849 (1993)-Shepard's Federal Citations, 1993 U.S. App Lexis 38 484 followed by 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 39234,1994 U.S. App. Lexis 41159 followed by 1994 U.S. App. Lexis 41612, followed by 1995 U.S. App Lexis 43264,1995 U.S. App Lexis 43482 734 F.3d 677,555 Fed Appx 318 followed by 559 Fed Appx 269.
111. Illegal Search and Seizure
"Tyrane was not allowed instruction on probable cause where the facts pertaining to existence of probable cause were not indispute. Tyrane wanted to contest only facts pertaining to reasonable of his arrest and/or office's certitude that he had violated the rules of the road, not heresy information conveyed in his circumstance".
For several reasons, he reject the state's argument. First, the state seriously undervalues the privacy interest at state. Although she lit have recognized that a motorist's privacy interest in his/her vehicle is lest substantial than in his/her home. See New York v. Glass, 415 U.S. 106,112-113,106 S.CT.460, 89 L.Ed. 2d 81 (1986), the former interest is nevertheless important and deserving of constitutional protection, see Knoudes, 525 U.S. at 111-119 S.CT.484, 142. Ed 2d 412. It is particular significant that Becton Searches authorice police officers to search not just the passenger compartment but every "quse", "body" or other belonging or container within that space. A cute that gives police ultimate power to conduct such a search whenever there is no basis
*7 For belicning evidence of the offense might be found in the vehicle, creates a serious and recurling threat to the privacy of countless individuals. Indeed, the characte of that threat implicates the central concern underlying the forth amendment - the conCern about giving police officers unbridled discretion to cummage of will among a person's private effect. See Maryland V, Garrison, 180 U.S.19,81 107 S.CT.1013, 94L. Ed. ad 12 (1981); Chined 395 U.S., at 760-761, 89 S.CT.2034, 23 L. Ed. ad 685; Stanford V. Texas, 379 U.S. 476,480-484,85 S.CT.5061, 13 L.Ed. ad 421 (1969); Weeks V. United States, 232 U.S. 383,389-392,34 S.CT.524,29 L.Ed. 746 (1886); See also 10 C. Adams, the work of John Adams 217-248 (1956). 'many have observed that a broad reading of betton gives police limitless discretion to conduct exploratory senches. See 3 L.ahave 371 (C), at 521 Lobserving that Becton creates the risk" That police will make custodiol arrest which ethey they otherwise would not make as a cover for a search which the fourth amendment otherwise bans"')see also United States V, Melaughtin, 120 F. 3 d 889, 894 (c. 9 1994) Troll, J., concurring Lobserving that Becton has been applied to condone" purely exploratory senches of vehicles during which officers with no definite objective or reason for the search are allowed to rummage around in a automobile to see what they might find'? State V. Pallowe, 2000 WV 11, 88 89-90, 236 W15, 2d, 162,203-204,613 N.W. 2 d 568; $E^{ } 24 4,9,2000$ WV 11,236 W15, 2d, 162,613 N.W, 2 d 568,588 and 4,9 (2000) (Abrahamson, C. J., dissenting) (sAmei, State V, Pierce, 136 N. 3, 184, 21,642 A. 2d. 947,961 (1994), See Grant, 129 S.CT.110, 113 L.Ed. ad 485; 2004 U.S. Lexis 3120
In Grant cartoon, Arissna authority arrested him and placed him in the back of putred vehicle, while searching the vehicle, Grant was driving, officers recovered narcotics) discovered, between the seats
*8 underneath a jacket detected inside a car. No drugs were found on Rodney front and he was secured in police ported car at the time of officers search of his vehicle. The Supreme Court in Arizona determined that since Grant did not have any way to retrieve any weapon, officers search was not reasonable within the context of the fourth amendment protection.
Tyrone contention depends on those findings) before the Supreme Court in Arizona. Just as in Grant situation, Tyrone was in under arrest inside a ported vehicle, with no possible way of retaining any weapon which he may had camouflaged. No narcotics were found on his person nor in his immediate area upon officers conducted their vigorous search without consent.
Extrajudically, an officer may briefly detain and question a driver or passenger of a vehicle if he has a reasonable suspicion that the occupants are involved in criminal activity following a lawful stop and a officer may as "a mother of course" order a driver and any passenger to step out of a vehicle even without any particularised suspicion that such automobile or occupants are armed or may otherwise pose a threat to those officers.
The question of law in this aspect, was at that time? During the "course" of officers traffic or Investigatory stop? Did they request Identification and/or proof of registration?" This is decisive to the instant case since, the vehicle in question could of belong to a well known drug King pin, who was at that time incorporated and who may have connected narcotics in that vehicle before it was connected to Tyrone. Notwithstanding that the automobile on the reporter records (Coreen 2001 Ford Taurus with a VIN#: 1FRFPS3U3INH4631), is not matching The Coreen 46 Mercury Corand Marquis with a VIN #: 1FRFPS3U3INH4631) and registered on Texas Houston (TMV) database and forensically supports Tyrone ownership.
*9 Conclusively, a search made by an unauthorized individual upon no source of consent constitute an unreasonable search and seizure however; a record that contains false information and desks does not illustrate accurate issues is deliberately annul. "Barton's Dictionary of Legal Terms Fourth Edition. The State never did provide exculpatory or inculpatory evidence [police dash camers] in order to fairly challenge the validity of the search and seizure. IED. Furthermore, it avoided plausible issues [Incident no. o1661112-2] which would of supported or contradicted its burden of proof. No canine unit appear on the scene and Miranda Warnings are absent on any documentation before you." Therefore, inclusion of these determinations in the State case, the probative facts of its dynamic awareness does not substantiate the weight given to the opposition or opinions and the judgment of conviction should be rendered vacant.
Respect for Belief
Tyrone respectfully prays that the Supreme Court of Criminal Apperts review his case and after careful re-examination reverse his judgment of conviction demanding his case back to its proper venue and render an order for acquittal or in the alternative removal his case back to local jurisdiction for a new trial on the facts of his case and/or punishment-sentence. Tyrone further request consideration of any and all such other relief to which he may be legally and justly allowed.
Lectificate of Service
- Tyrone Richard hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Section was served upon the State Clerk of Travis County, Tours, on this 11 day of December, 2015, by mailing a copy to the Page 9
*10
Supreme Court of Error Bldg. 201 W HH Street, room 106, Austin, Texas 78701-1445
Certificate of Filing
I further hereby certify that the original copy of the Foregoing Refrion and Appendix were sent by U.S. Postal to the Supreme Court on December 11,2015.
Unssum Declaration
"I draw this announcement in accordance of V.T.G.A. Civil Practice and Remedies code, 3 1321001-132,003.
My name is Tyrose Dwynne Richard, my date of birth is November 08,1970 and my State Identification Number is 234961262. I am presently pretenised in George John belo I Facility in Tennessee Colony, Texas or Anderson County, Texas (903-928-2219). I declare under penalty of perjury that the information contained in this chronicle is true and correct and were not subject of disclosure at trial October 08-16, 2012. I likewise confirm that the foregoing indicator is true and correct pursurns with 28 U.S.C. 1446.
Erecuted on this HH day of December 2015
(Dynene Richard)
*11 MO. PH-O988-13
TO THE SURREME COURT OF CRIMINAL APPENS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
TYRONE DWYANNE RICHARD
Petitioner / PlinitifF RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
V.
DEC 172015
STATE OF TEXAS
Respondent
ABel Acosta, Clerk
DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CURRECITIONAL INSTITUTIONS
DWISSON
PETITIONERS PRO SE PETITION FOR DISCRETION REVIEW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
Tyronne A. Richard
SID: 034764862
Pro So Litigent
George John Beto Unit 1
1341 FM 3338 Route 0438
Tennessee Cldnill Texas 75880