Case Information
*0 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/28/2015 6:02:02 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 01-14-00240-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/28/2015 6:02:02 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK
NO. 01-14-00240-CR
SEAN MICHAEL MCGUIRE § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
VS. § FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF TEXAS § HOUSTON, TEXAS
STATE’S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellant filed his amended brief on February 5, 2015, which was originally due on September 4, 2014. On March 9, 2015, the State filed its first motion for
extension of time of fifty-three days to file its brief, concurrent with the companion
case in Cause No. 01-14-00240-CR. This Court granted the State’s motion to May
1, 2015, “WITH NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS.” The State’s brief in companion
case for failure to stop and render aid is being readied for filing and will be timely
filed on May 1, 2015.
At the time of the request for the first extension, the State asked for only 53 days to correspond with the deadline in the companion case; the undersigned had not
yet read record of the trial and was not cognizant of the complexity of the record and
the several issues that affected the presentation of the State’s case; the undersigned
did not anticipate her assignment to a de novo contempt of court hearing requested
by an attorney; the undersigned did not anticipate a death that caused the undersigned
to schedule a trip out of town for May 1-12, 2015. The undersigned respectfully
requests the Court for a response to this motion for extension of time as soon as
possible and before May 1, 2015.
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b), the State provides the following information:
Current Deadline: May 1, 2015
Length of Extension Sought: 45 days to June 15, 2015
Number of Previous Extensions: One
Facts compelling this request for an extension:
In the last 80 days, the undersigned assistant district attorney completed the State’s petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition in Ex rel State of Texas, John
Healey, District Attorney v. Brady G. Elliott, Judge 268th District Court, Nos. WR-
82,875-01 & WR-82,875-02 (response requested to motion for leave to file, March
4, 2015); the State’s brief in Ex parte Okonkwo , No. 14-14-000835-CR; the State’s
brief in Gamez v. State , No. 14-14-00203-CR; the States’s response and supplemental
response to the original proceeding in In re Carter , Nos. 01-15-00216-CR & 01-15-
00217-CR; the State’s response to a motion to correct and allegedly inaccurate court
reporter’s record in State v. Damon Dove , Cause No. 12-DCR-0611814; the State’s
response to a time credit mandamus in State v. Derrick Thomas , Cause No. 12-DCR-
061680; the State’s supplemental answer in Ex parte Sandbloom , WR-79,922-02, on
remand by the Court of Criminal Appeals. The undersigned also prepared three State
responses to motions filed in the de novo contempt hearing, In re David Christopher
Hesse , in State v. Carter, 12-DCR-061186.
The record in this case is voluminous--Clerk’s Record is three volumes, the Reporter’s Record of the suppression hearing, pre-trial motions hearing, and jury trial
is approximately 2,471 pages. The undersigned has spent the majority of the last four
weekends and week reading this difficult record, which is filled with typographical
errors, vociferous arguments, and took considerably more time to read than
anticipated.
More importantly, the evidence in this case includes a test result from a warrantless blood draw made under Section 724.012, Texas Transportation Code.
The constitutionality of this statute was addressed in State v. Villarreal , No. PD-
0306-14, 2014 WL 6734178 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 26, 2014). Rehearing was
granted on February 25, 2015, in part on the basis of the State’s request for the Court
of Criminal Appeals to consider Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S.Ct. 530 (U.S. Dec.
15, 2014), in its decision. The State hopes to summarize the existing arguments and
contribute new arguments on this weighty constitutional issue.
Further, contrary to law, the trial court required redactions in the in-car video recordings of Appellant’s statements and failed to instruct the jury to return a verdict
on each count of the indictment. The State anticipates bringing cross-points of error
that must be carefully culled from the record.
The undersigned will be out of town May 1-12, 2015, and has a brief on the merits due on May 22, 2015, in Moore v. State , PD-1634-14.
The State asks for an extension of time not for delay only, but to see that justice is done. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the State will not seek any further
extension of time.
Respectfully submitted, John F. Healey, Jr. SBOT # 09328300 District Attorney, 268th Judicial District Fort Bend County, Texas /s/ Gail Kikawa McConnell Gail Kikawa McConnell SBOT # 11395400 Assistant District Attorney 301 Jackson Street, Room 101 Richmond, Texas 77469 (281) 238-3205/(281) 238-3340 (fax) Gail.McConnell@fortbendcountytx.gov CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing State's motion for extension of time was served on May 28, 2015, on Ms. Kristen Jernigan, Attorney for Appellant
through the electronic filing manager or by email.
/s/ Gail Kikawa McConnell Gail Kikawa McConnell