Case Information
*1
PD-1566-14 1566-44
ORIGINAL IN THE TEARS Count OF CRIGINAL Appetus AUSTIN, TEXAS
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIIIINAL APPEALS JAN 272015 Abel Acosta, Clerk
EX PARTE TYmmy R. wILuTAMS,
PETITZONER,
.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, RESPONDENT
FILLED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 1303235 Abel Acosta, Clerk
PETITZON FOR DISCRETOMARY REVIEN FRAN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS, HOUSTON, TEXAS NUMBER #O1-13-01054-CR
PETITZON FOR DISCRETOMARY REVIEN
TImmy R. WILLIAMS-REO SE BLLL CLEMENTS UNIT-1899010 9601 SpUR 591 Amarzulo, IX, 79107-9606
*2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (1)
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
(2)
STATEMENT REEMERGING ORAL ARGUMENT (3)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE (3)
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY (4)
ErgumOS FOR REVIEW (4)
ARGUMENT (5)
PRAVE (9)
ApJENOIX
*3
Index of Authorities
ALVREADO V. STATE, 912 S.W 2d 199, 206-7. (1995) BONE V. STATE, 77 S.W 3d 828, 833. FORIEGLE V. STATE, 608 S.W. 2d 65, 70. ROCHA V. STATE, 16 S.W. 3d 1,4. (2000). STREICAND V. WRUHNTON, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96. TRUPISON V. STATE, 9 S.W. 3d 828, 812 (1999). IN RE WINSHIP, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970)
*4
A. STATEMENT REEARING ORAL ARGUMENT
PETITIONER IS A PRO SE PRISONER OF WYOM IS NOT TRAINED IN LAW OR SKILL IN ORAL ARGUMENT. FURTHER, THE ISSUES PRESENTED HEREN ARE NOT OF A COMPLEX SORT WHICH REQUIRES THE ORAL ARguMENT AND PETITIONER THEREFORE WAVES ORAL ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE.
B. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
THIS CASE IS THE RESULT OF A ABGRAVATED ASSAWET TO A EAMLY MEMBER CONVICTION FOR ALLEGEDLY STABING AND OR CUTING PETITIONER'S WIFE. PETITIONER PLED "NOT GUILTY" AND APTER (14) FOURTEEN MONTHS OF CONFINEMENT IN COUNTY TARL. PETITIONER'S TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY COEVERSED (COACHED) PETITIONER INTO ACCEPTING A GUILTY PLEA WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF A P.S.I. (PRE-SENTENSING INVESTIGATION) REPORT. TRIAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY DURING TRIAL AND POWISHMENT HEARINGS FAILED TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY OBJECTIONS IN FAVOR FOR THE PETITIONER. TRIAL ATTORNEY ALSO FAI L ED ASK QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THE COMPLANTANT'S ALLEGATIONS, NOR DID TRIAL ATTORNEY CROSSEMMINE WITNESS INCLUDING COMPLANTANT AND DID NOT CALL SUPPORTING WITNESSES WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER'S DEFENSE.
*5 C. STATEMENT DE PROCEDURAL History
ON DECEMBER 4, 2013 FROM THE 182th DISTRICT COURT OF HARRES COURT, TEXAS IN TREAL COURT NUMBER #1362277, THE PETITONER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF ALGRAVATED ASSAULT TO A FAMILY MEMBER ( , ) AND SENTENCED TO 45 YEARS IN PRISON, PETITONER SAVE TIMEY NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ON THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014, THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS IN HOUSTON, TEXAS AFTERMED THE CONVICTION IN CASE No. #01-13-01054-CR. THE PETITONER NOW SEEKS DISCRESTIGNAY REVIEW.
D. LEROUNDS FOR REVIEW (1) TEIR DEPENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED "INSPECTIVE ASTSTANCE OF COUNSEL" BY NOT CROSS-EXAMING THE COMPLAINTING WITHESS. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO ASK QUESTIONS OR MAKE ANY OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINTANT's RECATED TESTIMONY AND ACCUSATIONS TOWARDS PETITONER'S ALLEGED ACTIONS DURING CONFICITING INCIDENT. TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CALE SUPPORTING WITHESSES IN FAVOR OF THE (DEPENDANT) PETITONER DURING THE PRE-SENTENSING INVESTIGATION HEARING. (2) THE COMPLAINTANT'S TYDED AND SENED AFFIDAVIT CONFICIS WITH THE COURT RECATED TESTIMONY OF OF THE SAME COMPLAINTING WITHESS'S IN OPEN COURT STATEMENTS. (4)
*6
(3) Tral Court and Tral Defons Attorney Both failed to REVien Compensatants Medical Records, which show Conflicting Evidence that the Compensins witness not only Lled about what went on During the Confirnation, But she Also committed Fraud In open Court with false Testimony.
E. ARGUMENT
Efther being wreated and exspicited from the state of Corbanana to Yarkes County, Qall en Houston, Texas, Pettitower on September 8,2012 yield "Not Eoacty" on the comeses of Abderavated Research with a family member 2" DEGREE FELANY (Clerk's RECORD P. H. ADOWA INDICAMENT OF STATE CHARGES) Pettitower was not appointed Counsel for His Defense Unit Sept. 14th 2012 (CR. p.18) TEGRENCE LEAVING With No proper Defense REPRESENTATION from Aug 24th to Sept. 14th 2012 which were critical PHASES OF His ARREST AND INCARCEARATION. ON SEPET 6 TH2013 TRIME DEFENSE Attorney (ON YEAR LATER) COEMESESED AND CONVINCED PEtitower to Accept A PLEA OF Sourty with the Appication of a Agreement on a P.S.I., PRESENTENSES INVESTIGATION REPORT. (CR.p.21) ON DEEMBER 4, 2013 PEtitower WAS Convicted of Abderated Assail (S.B.I.) 10 DEGREE FELANY AND SENTENSED TO 45 year IN PERSON. WITHOUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF A P.S.I. AGREEMENT.
*7 Reporter Record Volume 2, p. 6, BMES 20-22; Count - And For the Record, I have received a micket of INFORMATION THAT THE DEFENSE PRESENTED, COURSET?" TREAR ATTANNGY SAEINAS AT CLOSING ARGUMENT ASKED FOR CONSIDERATION WITH P.S.I. REPAST By STATING, "THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL WUDS NEVER BEEN IN ROUBLE BEFORE" (Reporter's Report, Volume 2, p. 39, WHE 5)
THIS ATTANNGY SAEINAS DID NOT ALERT THE COURS OF WITHDRANING GUILLY PLEA WHEN IT WAS KNOWN THAT THE TUDGE WOULD NOT HONOR THE P.S.I. RECOMMENDATION (CLERES' RECORD p. 838-39) "A TUDICIAL CONFESSOR OF WRONG DONE, STANDING ALONE, IS NOT ENOUEH TO SUMMAT A CONVICTION; TREAR MUST EASY STHER EVIDENCE STOUNG THAT A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED." ROCHA vs STATE, 16 S.W 3d 1,4 (TEA CRIM. App 2000).
DORING AND THEOUGHOUT BENCH THIKE AND PHIUSMIMENT HEXPANGS THIKE DEFENSE ATTANNGY FALLED TO MAKE ANY CERECTOUS OR ASK ANY DIRECT QUESTIONS THAT WOULD HELP THE DEFENSE BY NOT CROSS-EAMMINING
ANY WITHESSES INCLUDING THE COMPLAINING WITHESS HERSELF. OVER THE DOE PROCES CLAUSE OF THE STH AND HYTE AMENDMENTS TO THE CHATED STATES CONSTITUTIONS THE STATE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE BEYOND A REPOSURELE DOUBT EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME WITH WHEN A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED. IN RE WINSHIP, 392 U.S. 358,361 (1970); U.S. VA O'BRIEN, 130 S. CT 2169, 2174 (2010).
*8 Reporter's Record, Volume 2, p. 35, Lines 11, 12 "I have No Questions," RR, Vol.2, p.36, Lines 4,5, "I have No Questions, your House."
Compusittants typed and signed Affidabitt contracts with statements and calculations made in open court by Compusittors Witness. Dutters Both pumtsment and trial meetings differ Grgatty with Compensittors All邑ins Mectures Strabings and cuttings Court Record #2012-53530/ count 280; Reposures Record, Vol.2, p.30,31-Lines 25, 1, 2.
Trial Deffers Attornoy Squires failed to REVIEN and Compare Notes on Compusittors Medical Records for Actual Evidence of AllcGed InTuries that would have Proven Petitioner's Deffers of Not Performing Criminal Actions of All EDED ClAimed InTuries. (Clerk's Record, p. 146, 148, 179.) "No Person may be convicted of a criminal offense and denied His liberty unless His criminal responsibility for the offense Is Proved Beyond a Reaernalic Dourt." ALVARADO V. STRE, 812 S.W. 2d 199, 206-7. See Also Article 38.03, Tens Cans of Criminal Records.
Because of Ineffective Assistance of Counseling the Pro-Sentence Investigaton Hearins, It Has been Proven that By REEPONDERANCE OF THE EVdENCE The Trial Attornoy's REPRESENTATION WAS DEFICIENT IN
*9 THAT HE FOLL BELOW THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF ADOPESSIONAL NARMS. A REASONABLE PROBABILITY DOES EPISTS THAT FOR THE CONVSEL'S DEFICIENCY THE OUTCAME OF THE TRIAL WOULD HAVE DIFFERED. STRICKLAND VA. WASHINGTON, 466 U. S. 668, 687-96, 105 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 675); BONE V. STATE, 77 S.W 3d 828, 833; THOMSON V. STATE, 9 S.W. 3d 808, 812 (TEN Cami App. 1999).
According to Complementary ACTUAL PROBABL RECARDS SNOV THAT THE WEBON INVALVED IN INCIDENT WAS A BUTCHER KNFL, (CLokk's RECORD, p122-25 HUUSTON FINE Department, p. 808, 809 CHILD PROTECTION AGENCY, p. 179 HOSPITAL RECARD) BUT THAT WEBON IS NOT THE SAME WEBON IN EVIDENCE. "ANY EXTRA-TODICAL CONFESSION By THE ACcUSED IS INSUFFICIENT TO SYMPOT A CONVITION ONLESS CORROBORATED By EVIDENCE TO SUPPET THE CRINE," EARIABLE VA. STATE 808 S.W. 2d 65.70 .
*10 PRAYER
WHEESFORG, PESTITTIONER PRAYS THAT: (1) THIS COURT WILL BRANT A DISCRETONAGY REVIEW AND AFTER SAID REVIEW; (2) DEtErming THAT the REVIEN OF the first COURT OF AppBALS WAS NOT AppLICABLE AND IN EROOR; (3) EIYE AN EN BANC REVIEN OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE BASED UPON THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEN AND AFTER THE REVIEN; (4) REVERSE THE COURT OF ADEBALS OPENION WITH REMAND BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT WITH INSTECTIONS OF ENTRY OF AQUITTAL FOR INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE ALTERAVATED ASSAULT (2° NOR 1°) DEGREE BY PESTITIONER; AND (5) ANY AND ALL OTHER RELIEF TO WHICH PESTITIONER IS TESTY ENTITLED, "A NEW TRIAL"
RESPECTively SUBMITTED, TIMMY R. WILLIAMS BILL CLEMENTS UNIT-1899010 9601 SPUR 591 Amarillo, TENAS 29107-9606 (9) 920 S6
*11
Appentix
Memorandum
*12
Opinion issued October 21, 2014
In The Court of Appeals For The first Bistrict of Texas
NO. 01-13-01054-CR
JIMMY R. WILLIAMS, Appellant V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1362277
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jimmy R. Williams, pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated assault - family member with serious bodily injury - with no agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment. See TEX. PeNAL Code Ann. § 22.02(b)(1) (Vernon 2011). Following a punishment hearing, the
*13 trial court assessed appellant's punishment at 45 years of confinement. The trial court certified that this is not a plea-bargain case and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders . California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying the court with references to the record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, a copy of the record has been sent to appellant for review. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant filed a pro se response, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel allegedly failed to cross-
*14 examine the complainant and failed to call any supporting witnesses during his punishment hearing. Appellant also argues that the complainant's affidavit fails to mention anything about multiple wounds and appellant denies causing the "additional wounds." Finally appellant argues that both the trial judge and appellant's trial attorney failed to review the complainant's medical records or psychological background prior to sentencing.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744,87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. [1] Attorney Thomas Martin must immediately send the notice required by
*15
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Sharp. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.
*16
NOTES
1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal