Parker, William Robert, WR-15,583-12

Parker, William Robert

WR-15,583-12

| Tex. App. | Apr 9, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

*1 Out of June Appeal WR-15, 583-12 William Robert Sarkew of the six font of appeal The Court of Appell State of Texas TSSOI Q4use F131122 Q4use F131122 Tandakozah The International William Robert Sarkew, Yates from the Yanotai County, Sail on Yonited Supply of Jugal Woriting Hattoryals that the attached Documented are true and Correct or all pages is to report of that of June Appeal on this the 39 day of March 2015 by my

*2 RECEIVED IN The Court of Apposls Sixin District APR 0.02015 Tekarkana, Texas Dabra Autrey, Clerk

But of the appeal, Candee 13122 Sanda County William Schut Saber, U.S. Sanitye County Sexaa 4

TABLE OF CONTENIS

(1) Out of Time Appeal........................... \$ pgs. 15-168 (2) Unsworn Declaration........................................................ 4 pg. 1 page (3) Inability to Pay.......................................................... \$pgs. 1 page (4) Appendis 1 page

CAUSE NO. 13,122

| WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER | 9 | 123nd Judicial District Court | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Petitioner, Pro Se | 9 | | | | 9 | of | | v. | 9 | | | THE STATE OF TERAS | 9 | Panola County, Texas 75633 |

Petitioner* Separate Menorandum Of Legal Citation's to Support Petitioner's State Application For Out of Tine Appeal

To The Honorable Judge of said Court: Cone Now, Willian Sobert Parner, Petitioner, Pro Se, TICJ-ID 20. 00325353 hereinoftor refered to as "Petitioner" and file this his "Applicatós Seperate Menorandum of Legal Citation's to Support Petitioner's Application for Out Of Tine Appeal The Petitioner is

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER

will show this Honorable Court the following: The 123nd Judicial Court of Panola County, Texas did not have Legal Jurisdiction in the above-otyled cause and that Petitioner is Actually Innocent.

$Σ$

STATEMENT OF FACIS FOR GROUML ONE

The Ponole County Sheriff Deportnent did not have Legal Jurisdiction to investigate this crime.

FACIS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:

The Panola County Sheriff's Department was apparently called to investigate this murder case and even though this arine had happened in Shelby County the Panola County Sheriff's Dêportnent continued their investigation, which was outside of their legal barméries and their Legal Jurisdiction and then arrested and charged the Petitioner with Murder in Panola County, Texas. The Petitioner has included a hand drawn map of where this murder was, infoct, comited (accoruling to $Paq (t) 3 - 27 - 9015$ Pg. 1.

police records), showing that the murder was comnited in Shelby County, Texas and not in Panola County, Texas as indicated in the infictment handed down by the Panola County Grand Juryt which had no legal jurisdiction in this case. The law plelniy states "Judicial action without jurisdiction is void. Fontenot v. State (App. 2 Dist. 1966) 932 S.W.2d 185. Criminal Law: Key Code 83." Tex. Crim App. 1996. "In criminal cases, as opposed to civil cases, jurisdiction cannot be substontilly invoked, it either attaches or it does not. Olyo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519." END OF GROUED ONE:

II. STATEMENT OF FACIS FOR GROUND TWO

The Panola County Grand Jury, that hended down this Indictment for murder against Petitioner, did not have Legal Jurisdiction to do so.

FACIS SUPPORT GROUED TWO:

The District Attorney of Panola County, Texas presented an indictment for murder, against the Petitioner, to the Panola County Grand Jury. At this point, the District Attorney failed to inform the Grand Jury that this crime had happened in Shelby County, Texas not in Panola County, Texas making it illegal for the Panola County Grand Jury to even consider this case for indictment. With the Panola County Grand Jury's decision to indict Petitioner for murder, outside of Panola County's legal jurisdiction, making this indictment null and void. For Panola County had no legal jurisdiction to either investigate or hand down any indictment in this case, for the murder had been comnited in Shelby County, Texas approrimently 1 mile south of the Panola County Line. The law plainly states, "The charging county m,ust have jurisdiction to procede with chargingformaty crime, which with the address provided, at the time of this crime, was infact in Shelby County making this indictment against Petitioner null and void as well as an illegal and felounisis indictment and must be voided. The Panola County Grand Jury did not have legal jurisdiction to procede with any charges against Petitioner. Tex. 2049.34099999999 . 'Sixth Amendment grants criminal defenclants a right to trial by jurors from the $P a - 8 - 5 2 - 13 - 20 / 5$ Pg. 2.

'Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants a right to trial by jurors from the locality where the crime was comitedg" LND OF GROUND THO.

III. STATEMENT OF FACIS FOR GROUND THREE

The District Attorney of Panola County, Texas failed to follow state law concerning areas of jurisdiction in which he could bring charges.

FACIS SUPPORTING GREGUND THREE:

The District Attorney of Panola County, Texas failed to follow state law of legal jurisdiction, in this case, he proceeded to file murder charged on the Petitioner even though the murder had happened in Shelby County, Texas and was not in the legal jurisdiction of Panola County, Texas. With the District Attorney's o over zealous attitude he failed to follow state law, of jurisdiction and venue, a and proceeded with murder charges even though he did not have legal jurisdiction nor did he bother to have a change of venue. The law, again, plainly states that the charging county must have legal jurisdiction to proceed in any case. This makes the District Attorney's charge of murder in Panola County, Texas an illegal charge since the murder, according to record, had been comited in Shelby County, Texas and out of the legal jurisdiction of the Panola County, Texas District, making any charge in this cause illegal and void. "When Trial Court renders judgment but lacks jurisdiction to do so, judgment is void. State v. Roberts. (App. 12 Dist. 1996) 932 S.W.2d 700. Criminal Law: Key Code 990.1 (4). "Tex. Cria. App. 1981. "If jurisdiction of Trial Court is never invoked, any conviction that may result is $\nabla$ void." Palm v. State. 656 S.W.2d 429.

The District Attorney failed to follow criminal procedures, in this cause, a and without filling the charge of murder, on the Petitioner, in Shelby County, Texas as would have been the correct county with jurisdiction, he proceeded with what was an illegal action against the Petitoiner.

$Day 4 339.2015$

Pg. 3.

The District Court of Panola County, Texas that handed down the conviction in this case did not have legal jurisdiction nor did the court have the proper venue to proceed.

FACIS IN SUPPORT OF GROUND FOUR:

The 123rd Judicial District Court of Panola County, Texas handed down a verdict of murder against the Petitioner. The Petitioner can show, with proper maps, that infart this court had no legal jurisdiction in this case and could not legally do so. In order to sustain a conviction, the court must have jurisdiction to render the particular judgenent. If trial court is without jurisdiction, for any reason, judgenent rendered therein is void. (4). Criminal Law: Key Code 990.1. 'When Trial Court renders judgment but lacks jurisdiction to do so, judgenent is void. Tex. Crim. App. 1996. 'In criminal cases, as apposed to civil cases, jurisdiction cannot be substantially invoked; it either attaches or it does not." Glive v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519. Tex. Crim. App. 1981. 'If jurisdiction of trial court is never invoked, any conviction that may result is void." The District Attorney of Panola County, Texas was in such of a hurry to convict the Petitioner that he failed to follow state law and have charges brought in the county of which the crime was actisily comited and then again failed to file for a change of venue. C.A. 5 (Tex. 2001. 'Venue is an element of any offence, and prosicution always bears burden of proving that trial in in the same district as crime's comission." U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, 52, cl. 3; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 6; Fed. Rules Cr. Proc. Rule 18, 18 U.S.C.A. / U.S. v. Carreon- Palacio, 267 F.3d 381. Tex.Crim. App. 2003. 'Venue" means the county or district in which a court with jurisdiction may hear and determine a case. Soliz v. State, 97 S.W.3d 137, on remend 2003 WL 22433813."

Pag. 4.

Test. App. - Houston [1 Dist.] 1994. "Failure to prove venue in county of

prosioution is reversible error." The Petitioner has shown that the convicting cointneither had jurisdiction or proper venue to procede in this case and the conviction should be voided, in accordance with law.

END OF GROUND FOUR.

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FIVE

The Prosicator, John Walker, and the District Judge, Bennie Boles conspired together to withhold evidence from the Defendent.

FACTS IN SUPPORT OF GROUND FIVE:

The District Attorney, John Walker, and the District Judge, Bennie Boles conspired together to withhold evidence that would have cleared the Petitioner of this crime. Any evidence that is favorable to the defence must be turned over to the defence by the Prosioution or there is a Brady Violation. The Prosioution had another person that had stated that it was then that had shot and killed the victim in this case, not the Petitioner. This seems to follow a pattern by the Officer's of the court by not following state laws and proceeding without proper jurisdiction nor proper venue, just to convict someone, guilty or not, of this crime.

In the Indictment handed down by the Panola County, Grand Jury states: "did t then and there intentionally and knowingly cause the death of an individual, towit, Shane Boyd Caskey, by shooting him with a gun." The Prosioution never said, what kind of gun was used nor did the Prosicutun ever produce a gun that the Petitioner was suppost to have comnited this crime with.

The two witnesses for the state that testified at trial wam, Tommy Nolen and Elbert Ray Thappers. Thapson Testified that he let Petitioner out at Crime Geane. Tommy Nolen testified that Petitioner told him he had shot deciensed. Both Nolen and Tmpson had criminal charges against themselves which were later droped for their testinoney's, asking their testinoney's questionable at most not reliable.

*9 At trial, District Attorney John Walker, alledged that Petitioner had a 'SHOT GUN', one that he could not produce nor could he prove that Petitioner ever had a shot gun. In the Indictment there was never a statement to the Grand Jury that a gun had never been produced. Both the Gun or Weapon that was alledged to have been used, in this murder case, by the prosicution were never produced. Yes, someone did shot and kill Petitioner's brother-in-law, but it was not the Petitioner. This whole case, a against Petitioner, was a Fabrication by the Prosicution. Just as both state witnesses against Petitioner fghricated their testimoney for the prosicution in Exchange for the Criminal Charges against themselves to be dropped for such testimoney's. SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT'S

END OF GROUND FIVE.

VI.

CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has shown that their were never a proper venue or proper court jurisdiction to proceda against the Petitioner in this cause. There was never a wepon of any kind ever produced to tye Petitioner to this case. There were two witnesses at trial, that without their testimoney at the trial, there would have been no evidence against the Petitioner, both witnesses had criminal charges that were later dropod fro testifying against the Petitioner, making their testimoney questionable at best not reliable.

VII.

PETITIONER'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Petitioner Prays that this Honorable Court will Grant this Application for an "Out of Time Appeal" and Grant the Petitioner an Acquital in the above-styled and numbered cause.

*10

CAUSE NO. 13,122

Petitioner's Continued Seperate Menorandum to Support Petitioner's State Application For Out of Tine Appoal

To The Honoreble Jutge of said Court: COME NON, WIILien Soivert Parker, Petitioner, Pro Se, TOCJ-TO NO. (U)325353 hereincfter refored to an "Petitioner" and files this his "Continued Seperate Menorandum in Support of Petitioner's Application for Out of Tine Appeal

The Petitioner will show this Honornote Court the following:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The 1255 Judicial Court of Panola County, Texas did not allow Petitioner's Physicist, Inowas Merk, to testify during the "Guilt/ Innocence Phase of the trial".

The District Judge, Lennie Bolea, and the Prosicuting Attorney, Jona Walker, would not allow Petitioner's Physiciat to testify to Petitioner's mental state and Inersfore denyad Petitioner a fair trial.

As Petitioner previously cited the recent over-turning of the conviction of Dernhardt Tide. Mr. Tide was aiso convicted in Panola County, Texas and his trial was overtumed because his Physiciat was not allowed to testify about his mental conadition at the time of the mender he was accused of consiting.

The Petitioner is claiming that his right to a fair trial was denical therefore violating inu "SINIG AIRCIDENT HUINT" to a fair trial.

Pag. 1.

*11

During Petitioner's trial his physicist was not allowed to testify to the reason Petitioner was not testifying on his own behalf during the trial. Mr. Mark wanted to rate his presentation, of my the Petitioner was not going to testify in his own behalf, but the Judge and the District Attorney would not allow me to do so. This gave cause to the jury that the Petitioner had something to make and denied Petitioner that some of reasonable doubt.

Petitioner was not awo the actual rolling from the TILLETH CULK or ASSURE on the Permanent Tide case, because the unit law library is not up-to-date. Mr. Tide's cause number, misfulted, was overturned in just the last month and without an outside source he cannot give this nonorable Court the exact rollings in this case.

II. CONCLUSION

The Petitioner has shown this nonorable Court that his obtain Annonment might so a fair trial was violated during the 'Unit / Innocence Phase of his trial. The Petitioner was already shown this Court that the 120st Judicial District Court of female society, Years did not have jurisdiction to try Petitioner in the first place, and are this nonorable Court to overturn this conviction, with prejudice, and find the Petitioner innocent of this crime.

III. PETITIONER'S PRAVER FOR BELIEF

The Petitioner Prays that this nonorable Court will Grant this Application for an 'Out of line Appeal" and Grant the Petitioner an Asquital in the Aovo-vayled and numbered cause.

*12 CAUSE NO. 13, 122

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER Petitioner, Pro Se v. STATE OF TEXAS § 123rd Judicial District Court § of of Panola County, Texas 75633

RE: Sworn statement of Petitioner with Eshebit's in support of GROUND'S FIVE. Mr. John Walker, when County Attorney for Shelby County in 1979, knew of the issues of Compensety in that, I William Robert Parker, was in the Houston International Hospital for an extended period of time and was Under Indictment for a Misternenor Assuft of Cam Black of which John Walker represented the state.

Enclosed is a notorized letter of my father at the hearing of Persey Forman showing Dich DeGuerin had this knowledge.

At mid trial for the first time I saw the picture's of the deceased and told counsel that "I did not Comit the crime. The issue of Compendency was brought up for the first time.

The Prosicution never produced the firearm nor did the Prosicution find a firearm that belonged to the Petitcomer. The Prosicution only had heresay evidence to convict Petitioner of this crime and then the Petitioner was not allowed to testify in his own behalf and defend himself of the charge. The Judge, District Attorney and Defence Counsel finally raised the issue of Compency at Mid-Trial and this was after getting a conviction.

UNSWORN DECLARATION

I, William Robert Parker, Petitioner, Pro SE, TDCJ-ID NO. 00325353, being presently incarcerated at the L.C. Powledge Unit of the Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division in Anderson County, Texas, does hereby certify that this document is true and correct. Pursuant to Title 28 Executed on this the 29 day of 2014.

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER Petitioner, Pro Se v. STATE OF TEXAS § 123rd Judicial District Court § of of Panola County, Texas 75633

Enclosed is a notorized letter of my father at the hearing of Persey Forman showing Dich DeGuerin had this knowledge.

At mid trial for the first time I saw the picture's of the deceased and told counsel that "I did not Comit the crime. The issue of Compendency was brought up for the first time.

UNSWORN DECLARATION

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER Petitioner, Pro Se v. STATE OF TEXAS § 123rd Judicial District Court § of Patric Pg. 1

*13 VII.

UNISMORN DECLARATION

I, William Robert Parker, TDCJ-ID NO. 00325353, presently incarcerated at the L.C. Powledge Unit/ TDCJ-CID, do hereby declare and certify, that this Memorandum is true and correct, Pursuant to Practice and Remedies, Code 132.001- 132.003.

Executed on this day of March 2018.

W. William Robert Parker, Petitioner, Pro Se TDCJ-ID NO. 00325353

L.C. Powledge Unit / TDCJ-CID 1400 FM 3452

Palestine, Texas 75803

Page 13

*14

CASE NUMBER 13,122

William Robert Parker v.

STATE OF TEXAS $§$ $§$ $§$ $§$ $§$

3

CAUSE NO.

DECLARATION OF INABILITY TO PAY COST

NOW. respectfully comes William Robert Parker TDCJ-ID NO. 00325353 and declare that I am unable to pay court cost in this action and request leave of the court to procede in forma pauperas in this accompanying action and would show the court the following:

I william Robert Parker state by declaration, that I do not have sufficiant funds in my account to pay for the filling of this out of time appeal and ask the Court to wave the filling fee and declare the Petitioner a pauper and allow the Petitioner to proceed in forma pauperas. (1) I, William Robert Parker TDCJ-ID NO. 00325353 being presently incarcerated in the L.C. Powledge Unit of the TDCJ-CID in Anderson County, Texas verify and declare under penalty of per jury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

Executed on this 34 day of $\frac{March}{100}$ 2014

William Robert Parker, Petitioner, Pro Se TDCJ-ID NO. 00325353 L.C. Powledge Unit / TDCJ-CID 1400 FM 3452

Palestine, Texas 75803

*15 A f fidavid in support of Facts Cause #_13,122

I am Franklin Parker I retained Persey Foreman to represente my son William Robert Parker in June of 1980 at this time my son was in Houston International Hospital Mr. Foreman sent his representative Dick DeGuerin to Houston International Hospital to interview my son this was some five monts before I retained Mr. Foreman again to represente my son on a murder case which is the subject of this affidavid. I discussed the facts of my son being in Houston International Hospital with both Persey Foreman and Dick Deguerin and both had information relating to the issue of compendecy some five monts prior to the murder trial where the issue of compendecy was not brought to the courts attention prior to the trial.

I Franklin Parker certify under pentaly of pergery that the foregoing is true and correct.

Franklin Parkers Signature

3-19-2015 $10, 8.5$

*16

DEGUERIN &; DICKSON

ATTORNEYS AT LAW SEVENTH FLOOR, THE REPUBLIC BUILDING IOIS PRESTON AVENUE HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002

October 3, 1984

Mr. William Robert Parker No. 325353 P. O. Box 32

Huntsville, Texas 77340 Dear Billy Bob: The United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on our Petition for Certiorari and thus you should not file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus you sent me until our direct appeal is over. If the Supreme Court denies us any relief, I will be happy to talk with you or your father and mother about filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. It should be done. However, once the Supreme Court has ruled, my obligation is at an end. When your father made the fee arrangements with Percy for your representation I was an employee of Percy's. I did not receive any of the fee. Mr. Foreman agreed that you would be represented on appeal and as far as the United States Supreme Court. He obligated his estate to pay for your appeal. Nonetheless, I have not received a penny for the work I have done since I started my own law firm. That is, I have represented you without any fee whatsoever, all of the fee paid by your father having gone to Mr. Foreman.

I am willing to represent you in a writ, if that is your desire and your father's desire, but I'm not willing to do so unless we can agree upon a fee. In other words, I'm not willing to do anymore work without a fee.

Your friend,

DD/ejd cc: Mr. and Mrs. Franklin Parker Rt. I, Box 47 Tenaha, Texas 75974 3.19.2015 ${15.4}_{1}$

*17

Gppenday

b Coner theet 2. Buty time appaid tite to the limit (3) Dapes $1 - 2 - 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22$ , $13, 14, 15$ , Appal and support with Gaupers Dath