Case Information
*1
PD-1497-15. 1988. Cifone. CONF. Conft of Appeals (50.30 HUY 69 UNIT) Bemumpt, CX. 77705 Mai 13, 2015 affairion CEEK, ABOF Peasta COURT DE CRIMINAL APPEALS RE: 19.15.00358 -CR NOV 182015
Letter of Requesting Acosta Clerk
Do the Creek of the void coript: Respoctfully phone Respoctfully phone Discretionary Review, in the Numbeng conue, 19.15.00358-CR. Respoctfully, if on new requesting that you please file the enclosed document, and string date its received, and Afecl, and please explain a copy of date Afecl and recieing to the address above. Dissertorated Review: be put on this tonorable Criminal Dost of Appeals dookst the review and determination by the Stidge or Clutges (OT) of void coript. If thank you directly the your assistance and types. Respoctfully Submitted. Rigbt. K. CifoneCR.
*2 In the Coast of Criminal Appeals State of Okans No. 09-15-00356-CR
Joseph K. Cefone Jr., Bettower,
V. Efferson County District Check, Cairnchill, and the 252nd District Court of Efferson County, State Recquif West, Respondents.
"Bettow the Discretionary Review" to the Court of Criminal Appeals State of Okans
[Bettower] Joseph K. Cefone Jr. [Gonseffre]: address: 7025 * 188962 20.30 Hwy 69 Unit
Robert K. Lopez Bennant, Or. 77705.
11 U. 15th Street Hounion, Tx. 77008 Hw (713) 869-9912 1(A)
*3 (a). (Mode of Contents
Scientitiy of Poeties ............................................. spuick of Anthocities ........................................ pages. 1-3 Utationent of Deul Regument .......................................... page 4 Utationent of the Cose ............................................. page 4-5 Utationent of Preceducel thistoy ............................................. page 6 Occurits the Reuies ............................................. page 6 Regument ............................................................. page 7 * point I ............................................................. pages * point II ............................................................. pages * point III ............................................................. pages Reagere the Relet ............................................................. pages 15 (h) Appenick - Ceng. of Spuision Coat of Appeals ............................................. (two pages) attachad.
*4
(C.) Shetler of Antherthes
Cases:
Boerter v. Lhuge, 407 U.S. 514 (1472) puige 10,12,13 Beuf v. Woltis, 441 U.S. 500,537 N/4 (1979) . 9 Centtu v. Otafe, 253 J.L. 3d 273, 280-81 (Tex. Caim. App. 2008) . 12 Chapmen v. Eisms, 744 J.L. 2d 133, 136-137 (Caim. App. 1988) . 13 Click v. Otafe, 118 Tex. Caim. 404, 407-408, 39 J.L. 2d 39, 41 (1931) . 14.11 Ex Paete Haseget, 819 J.L. 2d 864 (Tex. Caim. App. 1991) . 15.11 Ex Paete V./Javueva, 252 J.L. 3d 391, 397 (Tex.Caim. App. 2008) . 16 Otaetta v. Cafithcwing, 422 U.S. 806, 95 J.C. 2532 - 33, 45 L.Ed 2d. 562 (1975) . 6 (3) Taine v. Otafe, 81 J.L. 3d. 920, 924-25 (Tex. App. El Reo 2002) . 7. 7 Kolpke v. Neeth Cuerfivin, 386 U.S. 213, 222, 87 J.C. 988, 18 L.Ed (1967) . 9 Kozacki v. Krize, 883 J.L. 2d. 760 (1994) . 11 Lapointe v. Otafe, 225 J.L. 3d 513, 522 (Tex. Caim. App. 2007) . 12.11 Mureany v. Garaerano, 492 U.S. 1, 11n.6, 109 J.C. 2765, 2771n.6, 106 L.Ed. 2d 1, 12 n. 6 (1989) . 16 Padilla v. Mc Daniel, 122 J.L. 3d 805, 808 (Tex. Caim. App. 2008) . 17 Descouve v. Muerfinez, 416 U.S. 396, 419, 94 J.C. 188, 1814, 40 L.Ed. 2d. 224, 243 (1974) . 18 page*/
*5 Rebuiven v. Utefe, 240 U.U. 3d. 919,920 (Tex.Cem. App.2007) Pg. 7 Robinson v. Wirtley, 2F. 3d. 562,568 (54.Cre) Pg. 12 Utefe Ex Ref Cueag v. Dows, 689 U.U. 2d 214, 215 (Tex.Cem. App.1984) Pg. 11 UteLnet v. Utefe, 767 U.U. 2d 455, 457 (Tex. App. Duftes. 1988, pt. 227) Pg. 13 United Charles v. Hrenumetere, 203 F. 3d, 614, 621 (94.Cre. 2000) Pg. 8 United Charles v. Lucien, 61 F. 3d 366, 371 (54.Cre. Tex.1985) Pg. 13 United Charles v. Myeien, 404 U.S. 307, 324, 92 U.C. 455,30 L.Ed. 2d 466 (1971) Pg. 13 United Charles v. Mye Dovetle, 456 U.S. 1, 8, 102 U.C. 1497, 71 L.Ed 2d 696 (1982) Pg. 14
Constitutional Revisions, Obstures, and Rules Tx. Cem. Code. Proc. at. 1.05 Pg. 7 Tx. Cem. Code. Proc. at. 1.08 Pg. 8 Tx. Cem. Code. Proc. at. 11.05 Pg. 10 Tx. Cem. Code. Proc. at. 11.08 Pg. 9 Tx. Cem. Code. Proc. at. 11.15 Pg. 9 Tx. Comest. at. 1110 Pg. 7 Tx. Comest. at. 1112 Pg. 8 Tx. Comest. at. 1119 Pg. 14,7 Tx. Comest. at. 518 Pg. 10 page* 2
*6 Tex. Gov't. Code. Ann. *24.011 pg. 10 U.S. Constitution. Amend. 5 pg. 14 U.S. Constitution. Amend. 6 pg. 7,14 U.S. Constitution. Amend. 14 pg. 7,14
*7
(C). (Statement Requesting) Deaf Argument
Appellate Chiefs are there to review many, if not most types of peace that would prompt our uponte appellate attention. The peace involved in this case constitutes an obvious vilaftion of Established elites, startules, constitutional provisions, and poetient decisions of the Supreme Court of the U.S., and of this Court of Criminal Appeals. A Counsell's failure to make a deaf argument is a factor that may be considered when this Court decides whether to exercise 's discretion to grant review. However, does not lose this Court than genotype review to address issues of the Court, in 's discretion, decides that review is wheezed. Othertheswe, an inalignt, petitioner is entitled to assistance of Counsell, and with deaf argument the Counsell and Estabbish his assistance in this matter, and when the petitioner's entitlement to Constitutional Right the Hypeist-Representation. (d). (Statement of the Case)
This is a case where the petitioner's Constitutional Right to have a fine and speedy Deaf, and Due Process and Equal Protection of Law has been intentionally and abeecly viftated. The petitioner has been illegally concemed in the Tetherson County Constitutional Quantity, and restrained of his liberty by the State through the vieties of indisposes in teaf court course No. 10-9880, 10-9481, 10-10213, and has been held by the State's agont Tetherson County, page 14
*8 Menthol Hight Deals, the approximately oue (5) yeces being cluited right to tein, and is presontly still being held of the Tethesow County Creeceftional Conalty Nealed (c) 5030 thitg 69 Dath, Tethesow County, Bemmont, Ox. 77705. Athe (5) yeces wasting tein with No exphication then the State prececection of the Tethesow County tein ethodg.... the Petitione (3) Uef of thabeus Copies in the 252 District Cenat. Tethesow County the tein cmnf couce, No.4(0) 10-9680, 10-9681, 10-10213. (3) What the Uef, issues by operation of this, and the (respondents) are of affaid the dsection to retuse to issue the Veits) ... the (respondents) taited to preteen + ministein atcicty. Eming wo other adequate legat remedy thet of thandonus, the Petitione cuntt, retint from the North Distein of Cenat of Appetts (then) the Uef of thandonus reguesting the Cenat of Appetts to compel the (respondents) of the 252 District Cenat. Tethesow County, to issue Uef of thabers Copies on of (3) tein cmnf couce, No.4(0) 10-9680, 10-9681, 10-10213. The Nnsth District Cenat of Appetts cluited the Petitione retint, and stated in thee Memorandion opinion, that the Petitione was of entitled to thybend. Repeseatation. The Petitione mated to show the Nnsth District Cenat of Appetts that (he) is entitled to thybend. Repeseatation, and that the Cenat of Appetts that exced in the dsection, and tited the pag. 5
*9 Agetion the Refusivity and Exbous Reconsideration. The Cnuf. of Appeals overcuffed this motion. (6). UHationent of Reocedueof History. (1). On the aing of Uoplanbee, 205, the Ninthe Disteuf. Coudt of Appetts, handeuf doun-foie epinkou and Judgment in the Petition the Unit of Maratonus. (2). On the aing of Betobee, 205, the Petitionee fited the Pation the Rehearsing and Exbous Reconsideration. (3). On the aing of Betobee, 205, the Ninthe Disteuf. Cout of Appetts, overcuffed, the Petitionee's - Pation the Rehearing and Ex bous Reconsideration. (4). Crenungh the Reuieu (1). Whither the Petitionee is Entitled to and too the Constitutional Refft. the thibed Reppesertition contlicft with decisions of other confts. (2). Whither the Disteuf. Caut tafted to peeteen a musteengl dirty by the extusof to issue Unit of Hubens Deepus. (3). Whither the Petitionee's claims Due Process viffations and Speedy Tatif viffations existe a materief issue undue the Custh and Cbueckenth mouniont(s) of the U.S. Constitution.
*10 (9). Requerent
Point I. The Cunet of Appeals should not bower devied relief on the Reptions the West of Mandamus based on the petitioner constitutional eight the Hybeid Reparatation. The Court of Appeals appears to bower micronestined athemather vateate and euphis of Tebs two puemant the Te Cem Code. The eof 1.05 , and the Te. Cunet eof 1110 and eof 1119 .... As weif, as the 6th eud 14th towardness of the U.S. Constitution. The petitioner has the Constitutory Right of being heand by himself, or then his counsel, or by both. see Robinson v. State, 240 S.U. 3d 919, 920 (Tea Cem App. 2007) the Cunet, will have "peo-se" motion made by detubant who has counsel. also see: Stimer v. State, 81 S.U. 3d 920, 924-25 (Tea App. El Paso 2002, pet e 12 ) petitioner has a clew eight to exire yoe tead West of Habers claims.... because if he were not agraved to do so, these petitions would be undemined if review were not permitted unfit ottee tead..... therefore, petitioner must establish his entitlement to Habers Comps relief. In addition, to the decision of the Cunet of Appeals that a detubant with counsel has no eight to hybeid-reparatation is directly contened to the infitued of (A) Supreme Cunet decisions. the Supreme Cunet has held that a biteage, compertait, and undestauthed detubant has the 6th eud 14th Constitutory Right
*11 to bingate on his behalf. The Catech v. Cephalenia, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2532 -33, 45 L.Ed. 2d. 562 (1975). We. Revenue v. Sheehing. 416 U.S. 396, 419, 94 S.Ct. 186, 1814, 40 L.Ed. 2d. 224, 243 (1974).... the eight to address the events as part of Constitutional Due Process of law requirements. Sheeeng v. Gawesrow, 492 U.S. 1, 11n.6, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 2771 n.6, 106 L.Ed. 2d. 1, 12 n. 6 (1989).... the eight of access to events under Chee Process and Equal Protection Clauses. United States v. Heavardex, 203 F. 3d, 614, 621 (9th. De 2000).... the dekodont has the clear eight to raise pre-se claims, and these prodections cannot be undermined. We see. Hation the Constitutional Right hee Hybeed. Represortation Hectow caif of inpeats ecced.
Dint II. He let issues by the question of law, and the 252nd District Court heflect to prefoem a ministerial duty by the rethial to move wief of Habenes Compass in tead coof some No. #6) 10-9680, 10-9681, 10-10213. the duty of the District Court upon the prepee motion is to qenat the wief undue states as preceeded by law. He wief of Habenes Compass is + wief of eight, and shall never be vargended. We. Te. Ckinn. Code. Rec. of 1.08, and Te. Const. of 1912. By the governing Statutes, the wief of Habenes Compass shall be previed page # 6
*12 without doing by the Under we can't existinty the position. we" Tex. Cenn. Code. Pec. 207.11.15. On all cemined precessions the accused have a right to Upeedy hable teaf, and when depened of this Constitutional Right to a teuf by [juef, and this right has otherwise been heenef... the accused changed with a felony may position to the [judge of canf where he is included... yowswant Tx. Cenn. Code. Pec. 207.11.08. A (5)peue contriment the a per teuf detainee tainty, teuf is itleff, without, unduly hees, Excessive, and vidges the detendents Due Recess Clause of the 18th Amoutheit of the U.S. Constitution. We" Kelpke v. Neeth Coefinn, 386 U.S. 213, 222, 87 J.Ct. 986, 16 L.Ed. (1967). Constitutioning wotegueeds against post-accusation deling wade the Cist. Amouthef of U.S. Const. provides the fundanentaf right to Upeedy teuf ceaves to (i) minimize anxiety and canceas accompanying public accusation (2) peusint wedu and appassive incerceation betwe teuf (3) and limit the passibility that a buef deling will impide the ability of an accused to peusint a detense; and restive cemined chaeges. A (43) morth dueation of detarion, avortive/teuf ceaves the theesfated, provides the pre-teuf detaine, and vidges due Recess. We" BeIf v. Usthed, 141 U.S. 500, 537 n/s (1979)... due peaces requires that per teuf detainees not be provided. pos*9
*13 Where a (63) month teal doing has continued long enough to be considered punishment, if has been determined that the court must make for determination precoctant, someone can reguiement we* Baelie v. Winde, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 533, 92 J.C. 2162, 331. Ed. 101 (1972). When motion bans been made to a dialogue under circumstances, of death, the issuance of the We dent must be permitted without asking and all issues must be considered. The teal judge of the District Council do not know the periodicity to simply trying the right to ignore this. The legal duty to preteen is non-discretionary, and, Iones nothing to dececim. All imperative and the demand the performance is a man quity must. The District Council of Texas know the Constitutional and Statisties as the District as the West.
*14 to the defendent, two of becomes a Constitutional eight. Neither can if be desired where the quantity of it is made, but imperialism doing bag
*15 Mont. III. The Fettiouser's factual claims of Zae Pecess and Speedy hemf uffapions) eases a material issue under the Cricfie and Choucteritk muncunants) of the U.S. Constitution. A material fact is over that might effect the expense of the teaf wade the spoxising law. Cnoth v. Othe, 253 U.U. 3d 273, 280-81 (Tex. Cen. App. 2008) the eight [to specify teaf] afaches over a passon becomes in devised- that is, over he is accested be chooped and incided. Opposite chut precedait egowies white cauffs to analyze federal consttutionaf speedy teaf claims on in ad hee basis' big weighti and then bafavering the true fuctres: (i) tuxth of deling, (2) reason the deling, (3) asserion of the eight, and (4) perjudice to the accubed we. Bueke v. Winge, 107 Uu. 514 (1972). Whan a teaf chut is presented with the people mopton adaying) unconstitutional per teaf claims that we in direct violation of the Tx. med U.S. Constitution, the teaf incise of the Dichty Court tins the legal duty to bimmines claims and must act to the fact fude with regard to the issues presented. A 17 -month teaf cablg is unenowable enough to be presumptively perjudicial, and in the Fettiouses case (103)-month teaf cablg ceases the thestodited chutf erguecting to presumptively perjudicial we. Robincow v. Whotly, 2 F 3d. 542,548 (5*0e) page#12
*16 But the teaf canet, and the State precession are under a positive duty to prevent unceasurable delays). Wee Chapman v. Eams, 744 S.U. 2d 133, 136-137 (Cem. App 1988). Here the delays of the petitioner's teaf rest ultimately with the Government, and not with the Petitioner. The State precession has intentionally caused the lasstity (5)yece delay in eedoe to obtain a tiaficef advantage, and the petitioner has peaiented claims- that the delay is so perjudicial that has impaiced his detrus, and injured his right to a tine teaf, and claims Due fences viffations. Wee wited States v. Mawion, 464 U.S. 307, 324, 42 S.C. 455, 30 L.Ed. 2d. 468 (1971). The 5th Crecut geweally requires one-year to teagge a speedy teaf mityors. Wee United States v. Luciow, 61 F. 3d 366,371 (5th Cte. Tex. 1965). It has been determined that the teaf canet must make determination on a case by case basis. Wee Exercise v. Unige, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 533, 92 S.C. 2182, 33 L.Ed. 101 (1972). Speedy teaf eight satches under precessory of nictitment. Wee Neuset v. State, 767 S.U. 2d 455, 457 (Tex. App. Dallas 1988, pet.ed). The Pettinuee hethee claims that the Probable Cause wed by the State's atbering to incitef the petitioner in cause No. #(s) 10-9680, 10-9681, 10-10213.... is nquestion, and that the identification procedure was co unnesively suggestive and coniducive to reepreable mistaken identification, that he has been denied Due fences of law. page #13
*17 The State premention has not moved in (5) years in the once no. 2 (5) 10-9680, 10-9681, 10-10213.... because the information supported the premention of the States alligations are inasistantic, inaccuable, unethable, and lacking credibility. The State eminert justif the weest of the Rettrance, now the length of the (5) yewe teiaf cating. Impremissible i.d. procedures were used in the weest of the Rettrance, and the State has atempted to support these facts and then weecek withesses capable of estabitsting the Rettrance's innocece. In the light of the prementies failure to earef out obligated daries to officials of the State whice with to uptoted bm, the prettrance's Constitutionl Dight to a Stive and leendig teiaf, has been viftated, and the (5) yeurs the prettrance has beus depreied this benefit and protection gumented by bm. see» Tex. Const. of 1919, and the 5th, 6th, 14th Enwstments of the U.S. Const. the extoriality the the Constitutionl Dight to leendig teiaf is desiged to (1) minimize the possibility of leagting incoceation betwe teiaf, (2) reduce the impuiment of liberty imposed by bend, (3) theetern the diseuption of the cmised by an weest, and (4) extance of unceded criminal charges. see» United States v. McDonald, 156 U.S. 1, 8, 102 S.Ct. 1497, 71 L.Ed. 2d 696 (1982).
Due to the responsis) act foetle, the Rettrance has meind the District, Caret to hifd a having) on meis, and wheee actind page 414
*18 bans and inseparable prejudice exists, the Pettinave has sought внимание relief. The Pettinave does not know any true assurance that these constitutional vitations will not influence the jewg, even if only slightly or once a injurious effect in the face of trial. The nature of these Constitutional vitations the attempts may preduzive value of the (state) biestess claims in cause No. 25) 10-9960, 10-9961, 10-10213.... and directly chists the Pettinave's eight to a close speech trial and the Due Pecess and Equal Penetration of Loss. Whether, the Pettinave's constitutional scripts were violated under the CIVIL and Characteristic mandments of the U.S. Constitution must be analyzed under the speech trial claims. The Emma-Chaic has been made, and evidence closely does the great weight of the CIVIL's bad faith and official negligence too (5) years. On peace Entitlement to maximuss effect on this gerund, the Pettinave should not have had to peace that a (5) year trial demy vidades his constitutional eight to a close and speech trial... where the thawing that his secret was so sexually
*19 (h). Dengue the Relief Wheeler, Prenises Conidend, Joseph K. Cifnerite, the Pettiname in gend-both weeks relief, and pergs that this Honeable Court of Criminal Appials and Jack Crabe, theeof excecies the prove of impression and authority were the same court of the 252 District Court of Oettlesi County, TEXPs.... and in perge, humbly pergs that this Honeable Court grants this Retitual for Divertionery Rethes, and on the issuance of the list of Hobbens Corpus in the (3) teaf court on the (3) teaf court on the (3) 10-9680, 10-9681, 10-10213... we dismissal of persecution of prejudice. Repactfully Submitted, "Wereau Declaration" (9) Joseph K. Cifnerite, being personally incercented in the Oettlesi County Government (reality in Oettlesi, TEXPs, disobes under penalty of perjueg that the foecipu, is teue and correct: executed this date: November 18, 105. "Cestification" Chicel K. Cifnerite. , Jacep K. Cifnerite, do hecby certify that a teue and correct copy of the foecipu, Retitual for Divertionery Rethes, this been seened by the plisconof of the same in the U.S. may, certified, notion receipt. dequester, perjueg perpaid, on this date December 13, 205, addressed to: Chick, Abel, Reasta 201 Cest 14th Jecet, exm 106 Chicel K. Cifnerite. Augustus, TX, 78701 com# 7001 2510 000101247018 page # 15 (h)
*20 In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-15-00358-CR
IN RE JOSEPH K. COLONE JR.
Original Proceeding 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 10-9680, 10-9681, 10-10213
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Joseph K. Colone Jr. filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, in which he alleges that he has been confined awaiting trial for approximately five years, and that after he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in each case, the trial court refused to issue the writs. In his prayer, Colone asks this Court to compel the trial judge to issue a writ of habeas corpus as to all three cases. In response, the State points out that Colone is represented by counsel in each case, and, therefore, the trial court was not obligated to rule on Colone’s pro se petitions for writ of habeas corpus because Colone is not entitled to hybrid representation.
*21 Colone has not demonstrated that he is clearly entitled to mandamus relief from this Court. See State ex rel. Hill v. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist., 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (To demonstrate entitlement to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that the trial court failed to perform a ministerial duty, and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy.). Accordingly, we deny relief on the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on September 16, 2015 Opinion Delivered September 30, 2015 Do not publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.