Case Information
*1 To The Houseable Justices of The Court of Appeal First District of Texas
Cones Nair, Appellant, and Dies this Motion for an Reheating and or the Extension for the of Retitance for Discretionary Review (RDR) In support of this Motion, Appellant shows the Court the following
I.
To my understanding, Appellants Appetite Case Bungling of habitación 41404673 N177 District Courtroom, thee's Lunch, Hooton, Texas was Affirmed, The Appellant is Requesting for a Reheating because of reason listed below, and Also Corresponding with the Opinion Appellant Request for Reheating is confirmed by strict supporting fact as well as Incidence of the Law
II.
The Appellant, If Devied, is Also Requesting for a time Extension made to the A Retitance for Disc Retional Review, because Nothing Allow to Fawt thee properly recalling to policy of Texas Department Opinion Al Justice (TDCJ) Handled For Dese Depoited since Earning (Lunch Unit) 89194622, Fawtly Texas 7819 04-22-15.
III. (Southeast)
A. As space on in (part I) Reason for Ading for Reheating is clear, Nocoed to (social) Juntake Men of case Hearing, Bueling of habitación Appeal produce from panel of Justices, Reyes, Huddle, and Laud, that was Affirmed, The Appellant Request, I stand interest was raised properly and on time (see Social Underwent)
B. The Judgement Also stated that there were no Reversible case (which under Blanke 1910,673 S.W. 2d at 385. We Appellant unexprimarily limited my desire to Represent myself at the outset of the proceedings and distinct wellate from that Request. It was timely as it was made prior to the July' Expansion, And was Not Done in order to Delay or Disrupt the proceedings.
*2 C) The appellant named is a repetta heretica where the appellants ability to represent myself was assessed. Judge Rian Bihill (Toll Court) who also presided over the appellants told us the present case-made written traditions of fact that the Defendant has sufficient age, background, education, and competency to understand the implications and daneers of self-Representation, whether, the trial Court granted the appellants within to proceed those at the Bueghapofa Habitation trial and www.case. D) Selective The trial court shared its Discretion in Desection the Appellants timely and uniequivocal request to present himself, as the Fear of potential Disruption or Secured Conscious. This is not a recognized basis for the denial of that Constitutional Right. Note 305 Trial court explained to the appellant that his right to self-representation had been decided because a shock was found in the Hallourel cell by one of the trial courts baitiffs. The trial Court also commented that the appellant had admitted to the bailiff that he had comed the shock into the Controom during a previous trial and decided the appellants stand by counsel to Complete the trial. E) The denial of Defendant | appellant right to self-Representation is received for an abuse of Discretion and is not subject to bameless. Cette Ration, unappellate receive a trial Court's following Defendant's Decision to while assistance of counsel is examined for an abuse of Discretion (Council, u.state, 304 S.W. 30558 (Te. Cenn. App. 200) under this standard, A trialcourt's Ration is affected. Allent trial Defensate, evidence is viewed in the right most favorable to the trial Court's Ration, And an appellate Court must imply and findings of that supported by the evidence and necessary to the support the trial courts' Ration when no explicit findings have been made. F) The right to self-representation is in a applied class of constitutional rights which can not be subject to bameless. Ecce andalsis. See Nicaske U. Wiggins, U.S.U.S.18, 177 N. 8 (1999) Since the right of self-representation is a right that when exercised usually increases the title, I need of a trial court come unknowable to the defendant, its denial is not amenable to bameless. Ecce" analysis. See The right is either respected or Deated, see also Birdwell U. state, U.S. W. 30479 , 78 (Tev. App. Trustow [u'Dust] 1999), yet, Refd (Recealing the Appellants' Cons-
Action and is not subject to bameless. Ecce analysis). Therefore, any celcences depilatation of a defendant's right to self-representation equitifies as grounds for an automatic reversal. See United State U. Counter-Lepor, 548 U.S. 140, 150 (2006) (breaking the efcoveous depilatation of a
*3 Determinants Right to Counselor choice qualities as "functional forms" Last 9 9). Sixth Amendment 9 (saviores ans indépendant constitutionel right for a person accused of a crime to conduct the cunt Deferase and proceed those through Criminal Propertyes Pheretia V. (Affronia, 122 U.S. 806,319 (1975). The Court Eepolved that "the sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused, it gawits to the accused personally the right tomake his Defense." Id. As might be expected this Federal Constitutionel right has been extended to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. (Meee so) 9
There are two restrictions on the right to self-Representation that a teal Court may invoke to Deary adderdants request to proceed those (Second) the right to self-Repre sentation may be restricted by the teal Court for "A Defendant who Deliberately expresses serious and dossentialist misconduct which was seemingly reason worked by the teal Court to presentase to Deary the Appellants Request for self-Representation. While Texas Courts have Recognized this as a theoretical basis on which the right to self-Representation could be Devied, there are to be no decisions where this Revision has been relied upon by an appellate Court to affirm the David of the right to self-Representation. See, E. G. , Exprete wibston, 837 S.W. 2d 134, 135-36 (Tex. Cohn App. 1992) (Bieduell, 10 S.W. 3dAt 77-78 ("The Record Does not suppet the conclusion that Appellants Request to Repeseat himself would have disopted Court preceding to adogee that would have affected the administration of Justice) (Just merely affirming that was Dissipis 992 16 H). Devising a Defendant his right to self-Representation Does not demuist Rably increase Cunttons sity, as the Defendant will have to be presentat teal to the same manner as he would if he appeared those, the California Supreme Court Received the death possibly con- viction of adderdant who had sought to Repeseat himself at teal, but had the right to set Repre- sentation Revied after it had been initially allowed by the teal Court. When thederodants right to Self-Repesentation was Revied, the teal Court Eepolved that its decision was due to the Defeat- nats misconduct while in custody. Id. At 825-26. The behavior of the defendant is Butier is highly analogous to the Appellants behavior to present case that the teal Court relied on to Deary the self-Representation Request. The California Supreme Court highlighted that the defendant was
*4 Repentedly discover with weaps. People v
*5
A) Indfective assistance Euvice Furetha U. California, U22 U.S. 804 (1975)Sith and Feteteenth Amendment (also)Ceminal (an) (46.3 Right to Comsell 1). The Sith and Feteteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee that a person brought to trial inany state or Federal Court mustbe Aftoeded the right to the assistance ofcoms. el before hecan be valtily convicted and punished by Impeisonment Ceminal (an) (46.4) defendants right to set Representation 8-2A, 2b, 2C adfendant to state Ceminal toial has a constitutional right to proceed withad counsel whenheulultably and intellig entry eects todo So, and such right of set-Representation is suppoted by the structure of the Sith Amendment which Necessaty implies, apiont of set-Representationand by the English and Colonial Judits peudence report which Sith Amendment foreyed Ceminal (an) (46.5) Sith Amendment Ronts Necessary tomate defense (overall) If Appellant was Defied that right and court appointed Counsel uponme (who) never peoped, called the Jueyingunishment face objected to hate motion, fiting on postocedbaha of and of Admissionlthy of Eudient/willenesses (last) If peosecutor hadchance to File motion late then why wasn't I Appellant allow to suppeession as spoke on Exyuee. Ready 4 Maryland 373 U.S. 83,183 S.Ct.1194(1963). Ioeffective assistance as well as the recorded ietfecting allef the above.
T1.
A) Indiment, while spoke on in Memorandum opinion (Judgement) the of ease of Durging of initiation with intent to commit assault as stated Tex. Rev. Code Ann. 8. 30 that a suspected who ingges in due. of two. Trial Court Quand Juey has to show did ext that elthed infitation was oun more gecente posesión that Defendant or Elthed by keus, clottes, if He, Etcoo that poran is shown that right is specified in the indient yt have of these applied to secess that fithis of tivis, but as stated UUCere lex Code3.Cem. Pacc. Aft 20,20 to 20.22,210 to 2019 theref a these peaces of aganad (3) Juey an 14th of Eudient (conagesting office behind) # 2 deliberation and of discussion as to the peopetedy of Siddie, Indictment and the peaces of voting where 90112 juade wote toe a bill the idepepess is directed to peepare. A
*6 MENORANDUM of the wote (whichy If Check tenns pifted was never founded) which exable the posecutor to wote the Real Teuc bill wotttment Tex. 000 Caim. Post. Annant 209 The failure of a grand boy foreperson to death amem orandum after the wote to peesent the fudictment diclust Reader the indittment is Bill. (Oreall) Eoer the Record (trensc pit) ReTented. Thoee were no memorandum providing Rext true Bill.
Whertores, Premises Consibereb, the Appellant perys that this CanotitApical Fift Dited grants mpting for Rehearing and or time Extensions to File Retitibwee Ee Discechising Revew (RD. 8) under the undertandion that there were an Eeror in pnact set on Aug 18, 2015 And Thereare appuads for Reterest that wassithound in Judgement peedue Aug 25, 2015 Date I have on Opinion.
Respectfully submitted this the day of September, 2015 WexhikwMifed Appellant "I WeylikwMifed spongang (counllyllust) TOC, being presontly fixarete ented in Conallyllust 399 FABs2 kenedy Texas, 2119 , declare under paxhity of perjury that the fore- going is teue and correct. executedow SEtrember 9, 2015 Date Wusl On this the 9th day of September 2015 came on to be bened the foregoing petitioner's mations and it appears to this Canet that is should be 8
Cranded Dewled Anditits so ceder Justices Justices
*7