Case Information
*1
1116-15
1117-15 ORIGINAL
APPEAL NO. 02-15-00193-CR 02-15-00194-CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
OCT 232015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
FILED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
APPELLANT
OCT 232015
vS.
Abel Acosta, Clerk THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRATIONARY REVIEW
ON APPEAL FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO'S. F-90-478-E & F-90-572-E
SUBMITTED BY: STANLEY DALE SELF POLUNSKY UNIT 3872 Fm 350 South Livingston, Texas 77351
*2 Stanley Dale Self, Polunsky Unit 3872 Fm 350 South Livingston, Texas 77351
Honorable Margaret Barnes 367th District Court Denton County Courthouse 1450 E. McKinny Denton, Texas 76201
Catherine Luft, Assistant District Attorney 1450 East McKinney Denton, Texas 76209
State Frosecuting Attorney Post Office Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711-3046
Appearing Pro Se
District Judge
Assistant District Attorney
State Prosecutor
*3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
| | | | :--: | :--: | | Interested Parties | i | | Index of Authorities | ii | | Constitutional and Statutory Provisions | ii | | Statement Regarding Oral Argument | 1 | | Statement of the Case | 1 | | Statement of the Procedural History | 2 | | Question(s) Presented for Review | 2 | | Argument | 2,3 | | Prayer | 3 |
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Martinez v Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2013) 2 Moore v Beard, 42 F.Supp. 3d 624 (Middle Dist. Penn. 2014) 3 Self v State, 860 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App. 2nd Dist. 1991 P.ref'd) 2 Trevino v Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013), 3
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Sixth Amendment, United States Constitution, 2,3
*4 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
STANLEY DALE SELF, APPELLANT VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE
APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
COMES NOW, Stanley Dale Self, the Appellant herein, and pursuant to Rule 68.3, of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, timely and properly files this Petition for Discretionary Review seeking review of the Opinion in the Court below. In support thereof, Appellant would show:
STATEMENT REFARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellant believes that the single issue presented is already settled law and that Oral Argument will not necessarily aid the Court. The Opinion from the Second Court of Appeals is appe nded hereto as APPENDIX A.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a plea of not guilty, a jury in the 367th Judicial Court of Denton County, Texas, found Appellant guilty to the offense of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. Punishment by the jury was assessed at 99 years imprisonment.
STATEMENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY
*5
In a published opinion styled; Self v State, 860 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App. 2nd Dist. 1993 - pet. ref'd.), the Second Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the trial court. (02-91-00317-CR). No Petition for Writ of Certiorari was prosecuted.
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS TOTALLY MISCONSTRUED THE SUBJECT OF THE APPELLATE ISSUES IN HIS REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR POSTCONV ICTION HABEAS CORPUS LITIGATION.
The second court of appeals has erroneously decided an important jurisdictional issue concerning the appointment of counsel in postconviction challenges to the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when counsel concedes his client's guilt.
ARGUMENT
The appellate court's jurisdictional claim that they have no jurisdiction over postconviction habeas corpus matters is flawed because the request for the appointment of counsel was directed at the trial court under Martinez v Ryan, 566 U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 1309, 162 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), which provides for counsel when a defendant is challenging the effectiveness of his trial counsel.
In Appellant's case, his trial counsel conceded his guilt without first obtaining his permission. And th e wisdom of such a strategic concession is called into question under the Sixth Amendment because there was a complete absence of any lesser-included
*6 offenses to warrant such a concession in light of Appellant's plea of not guilty.
Additionally, in Trevino v Thaler, 569 U.S. ..., 133 S.Ct. 1911, 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013), the supreme Court announced that the rule in Nartinez applied to Texas cases.
Nor does the doctrine of latches play a part in Appellant's case. Just last year in Moore v Beard, 42 F.Supp. 3d 624 (Middle Dist. Penn. 2014), that court decided an ineffective assistance of counsel case that was 30 years old. Accordingly, Appellant's is ripe for review and should be remand back to the second court of Appeals for a determination on his request for counsel.
PRAYER
WHEREFURE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant now prays that this Honorable Court will remand this case for further proceedings.
Respectfully Submitted
Stanley Selly Stanley Gale Self, #618511 Polunsky Unit 3872 Fm 350 South Livingston, Texas 77351
Executed: October 16, 2015
*7
COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-15-00193-CR NO. 02-15-00194-CR
STANLEY DALE SELF APPELLANT V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. F-90-478-E, F-90-572-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION [1]
In both cause numbers, appellant Stanley Dale Self attempts to appeal from the trial court's orders denying his motion for appointment of counsel to prepare and prosecute a postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus.
On July 15, 2015, we sent appellant a letter expressing our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeals because, under code of criminal
*8 procedure article 11.07, we have no jurisdiction over matters relating to postconviction applications, including requests for appointment of counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Cooper v. State, No. 02-15-00145-CR, 2015 WL 3799069, at *1 &; nn.2, 4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (disposing of attempted appeal of trial court's order denying motion for appointment of postconviction habeas counsel).
We informed appellant that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals, we would dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeals. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT AND SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 23, 2015
*9 CAUSE NO'S. F-90-478-E F-90-572-E
STANLEY DALE SELF
VS.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
IN THE 367TH DISTRICT COVAT OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
O R D E R
Came to be heard Petitioner, Stanley Dale Self's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel for habeas corpus purposes, after reviewing the Motion, the law, and the citations of authority, the Court is of the opinion that the same should be
( ) GRANTED ( 1 DENIED
Done this day of 2015.
Presiding Trades, 367 District Court, Denton County, Texas
ATTORNEY APPOINTED
NOTES
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.