WR-83,402-01 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 6/5/2015 10:12:42 AM Accepted 6/8/2015 8:14:11 AM ABEL ACOSTA No. CLERK
RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 6/8/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
In Re
Noe Adame and Gilbert M. Zamora,
Relators, et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Concerning the Prompt and Efficient Administration of Criminal Justice for 144 Persons Entitled to Bond Hearings
KEITH S. HAMPTON WALTER M. ‘SKIP’ REAVES JR. Attorney at Law Attorney at Law 1103 Nueces Street 100 N. 6th St., Suite 802 Austin, Texas 78701 Waco, Texas 76701 (512) 476-8484 (o) 254-296-0020 (o) (512) 477-3580 (f) 877-726-4411 (f) (512) 762-6170 (c) walterreaves@att.net keithshampton@gmail.com State Bar No. 16644200 State Bar No. 08873230
PETITIONERS AND ATTORNEYS FOR RELATORS IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 52.2, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
a complete list of the names of all parties to this original appellate action seeking
extraordinary relief and counsel are as follows:
Relators and Real Parties in Interest: Noe Adame — Dallas1; William Chance Aikin — Talco; Ray Arnold Allen — Krum; John O. Arnold — Bruceville; Ronald Noel Atterbury — Gatesville; Colter Bajovich — Gatesville; Owen Matthew Bartlett — Waco; Michael Don Baxley — Cisco; Timothy Todd Bayless — Mexia; Richard Benavides — San Antonio; Burton George Bergman — Balch Springs; Ronnie Carl Bishop — Cisco; Mitchell W. Bradford — Gordon; Brian Joseph Brincks — Lewisville; Robert Clinton Bucy — Midlothian; Salvador Berber Campos — Rowlett; Richard Cantu Jr. — San Antonio; Kenneth Robert Carlisle — Schertz; Aaron Baker Carpenter — Gatesville; Christopher Jacob Carrizal — Dallas; Jason L. Cavazos — Arp; Rene Cavazos — Carrollton; Nathan Champeau — McKinney; Michael E. Chaney — Fort Worth; Lindell Floyd Copeland — San Antonio; Roy James Covey — Clifton; Ryan William Craft — Austin; Richard Dauley — San Antonio; James Albert David Jr. — Mansfield; Dalton R. Davis — Bowie; Marco J. Dejong — Marion; James Michael Devoll — Fort Worth; Jason Alan Dillard — Winona; Richard Rudy Donias — San Antonio; Christopher Daniel Eaton — Seagoville; Brian Clark Eickenhorst — Hewitt; James Brent Ensey — Fort Worth; Nate Christian Anders Farish — Bedford; Matthew Ryan Folse — Dallas; Don Edward Fowler — Maypearl; Lawrence Garcia — San Antonio; Lance Alan Geneva — Cedar Hill; Mario Alberto Gonzalez Jr. — San Antonio; James Laray Gray — Tyler; Nathan Clark Grindstaff — Blum; Valdemar Guajardo Jr. — Red Oak; John Guerrero — San Antonio; Bryan Tackitt Harper — Waco; Raymond Clifton Hawes III — Waco; Michael Scott Herring — Dallas; Tommy Keith Jennings — North Richland Hills; Daniel Carol Johnson — Bellmead; Edgar E. Kelleher — Gordon; Laurence Wayne Kemp — Bogata; Michael Ray Kenes — Fort Worth; Richard Martin Kreder — Waco; Thomas Paul Landers — Georgetown; Cody Keith Ledbetter
1 Petitioner notes the hometowns of relators to underscore why this petition is of statewide concern.
ii — Waco; Jarrod D. Lehman — Midlothian; Martin DC Lewis — San Antonio; Brian Dwight Logan — Midlothian; Narciso Luna Jr. — New Braunfels; Richard Olen Luther — Garland; Noble C. Mallard — Mesqie; Josh Logan Martin — Pittsburg; Terry Scott Martin — Princeton; John Anthony Martinez — San Antonio; Joseph P. Matthews — Mingus; Wesley A. Mcalister — Gilmer; Dustin James McCann — Haltom City; Billy Jason Mcree — Seagoville; Tom Modesto Mendez — San Antonio; Rudy T. Mercado — Fort Worth; Marshall Mitchell — Longview; Juventino Hernandez Montellano — San Antonio; Michael Doyle Moore — Fort Worth; Jason Jesse Moreno — San Antonio; John David Moya — Gatesville; Eliodoro Munguia Jr. — Del Valle; Doss Barron Murphy — Cedar Hill; Robert Leon Nichols — Hewitt; Dusty Alan Oehlert — Hudson Oaks; Jeremy Conn Ojeda — Waco; Joseph Ortiz — San Antonio; Anthony Shane Palmer — Longview; Melvin Michael Pattenaude — Eastland; Julie Elaine Perkins — Somerville; Daniel Pesina — San Antonio; Ares Ryan Phoinix — Austin; Marcus Ryan Pilkington — Mexia; Larry E. Pina — San Antonio; Jerry Lee Pollard — New Braunfels; Jimmy Lee Pond — Austin; Andres Richard Ramirez — San Antonio; Kevin Gene Rash — Waco; David Stephen Rasor — Justin; William Brent Redding — Austin; Clayton Dewayne Reed — Burleson; Jacob C. Reese — Mount Pleasant; Owen Lee Reeves — Bruceville; Rolando Reyes — Killeen; Sergio Reyes — Dallas; Kristoffer Lance Rhyne — Axtell; Robert Liewellyn Robertson — Fort Worth; Craig E. Rodahl — Waco; Christopher Ryan Rogers — Longview; George Earl Rogers — Longview; James Rosas — Selma; Gregory Salazar — San Antonio; Jorge Daniel Salinas — Lometa; Bobby Joe Samford — Rockdale; Phillip Sampson — Longview; Andrew M. Sandoval — San Antonio; Timothy Shayne Satterwhite — Gordon; Trey Alston Short — Temple; Kyle Smith — Kilgore; Phillip Mason Smith — Manchaca; Seth A. Smith — Waco; Seth Tyler Smith — Round Rock; James Edward Stallings — Corsicana; Andrew Raymond Stroer — San Antonio; Blake Scott Taylor — Lewisville; Michael Glenn Thomas — Mesquite; Christian A. Valencia — Midlothian; Royce R. Vanvleck — San Antonio; James Albert Venable Jr. — Mat; John Phillip Vensel — Wylie; Glenn Allen Walker — Copperas Cove; Steven Walker — Dime Box; Ronald Warren — Sand Springs, Okla.; Reginald Weathers — Forney; Ester Sandy Weaver — Killeen; Walter Thomas Weaver — Killeen; Mark Allen White — Hewitt; John Samuel Wiley — Whitney; Jacob Ryan Wilson — Hewitt; John Robert Wilson — Waco; Gregory Wayne Wingo — Irving; Michael Garrett Woods — Nolanville; Ricky Wayne Wycough — Richardson; Lawerence Raymond Yager — Buda; Gage Andrew Yarborough — Waco; Matthew Yocum — Kyle; Gilbert M. Zamora — Leander
iii Respondent: Honorable Billy Ray Stubblefield Presiding Judge of the Third Administrative Region 405 Martin Luther King, Box 9 Georgetown, Texas 78626
Petitioners: Keith S. Hampton 1103 Nueces Street Austin, Texas 78701
Walter M. ‘Skip’ Reaves Jr. 100 N. 6th St., Suite 802 Waco, Texas 76701
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Names of All Parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii-iv
List of Authorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Restraint.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Statement of Jurisdiction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Issue Presented: Respondent should be compelled to provide the “prompt and efficient administration of justice” as required by the Government Code for 144 prisoners in the McLennan County Jail by assigning judges to conduct bond hearings “without delay,” as guaranteed by chapter 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.. 2
Statement of Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Prayer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Certification of Factual Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Certificate of Service and Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Sample Complaint
Sample Bond
v LIST OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE
Ex parte Mathews, 151 Tex.Crim. 60, 204 S.W.2d 992 (1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Ex parte Sellers, 516 S.W.2d 665 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Rosales v. State, 841 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
U.S. Const. amend VIII. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Tex. Const. art. I § 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Tex. Const. art. V, Sec. 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tex. Const. art. V, Sec. 5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 4.04.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.15.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 Tex. Gov’t Code §74.021. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Tex. Gov’t Code §74.056. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tex. Gov’t Code §74.057. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tex. R. App. Proc. 25.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tex. R. App. Proc. 52. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tex. R. App. Proc. 72. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
vi TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Comes now Noe Adame and Gilbert M. Zamora, Relators, et al., and pursuant
to Rules 52 and 72 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, files this Petition for
Writ of Mandamus to compel Honorable Presiding Judge Billy Ray Stubblefield to
fulfill his duty to ensure the prompt and efficient administration of justice by
assigning judges to conduct bond hearings for the scores of people imprisoned on fill-
in-the-blank complaints and million dollar bonds.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 17, 2015, 144 Relators became the subjects of mass arrests following
a shooting in Waco, charged with engaging in organized criminal activity. Justice of
the Peace Walter H. “Pete” Peterson set each Relator’s bond at one million dollars.
To date, only 25 people have been released and even fewer have been afforded bond
hearings. 144 people remain in the McClennan County Jail.
McClennan County has five district courts. Respondent is the presiding judge
of the administrative region with authority to assign judges. The administrative
region has 26 counties, each with at least one district court, and includes Bell, Hays,
Comal, Williamson and Travis counties.
1 RESTRAINT
Relators are incarcerated in the McClennan County Jail and therefore restrained
in their liberty.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and habeas corpus in
this cause under Article 5, § 5(c) of the Texas Constitution, Article 4.04 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, and Rule 72 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Respondent is the presiding judge of an administrative region which includes
McClennan County, which is within the jurisdiction of the Tenth Court of Appeals.
However, Respondent resides in Williamson County, which is within the jurisdiction
of the Third Court of Appeals. Consequently, only this Court has the jurisdiction to
issue writs of mandamus and habeas corpus.
ISSUE PRESENTED
Respondent should be compelled to provide the “prompt and efficient
administration of justice” as required by the Government Code for 144 prisoners in
the McClennan County Jail by assigning judges to conduct bond hearings “without
delay,” as guaranteed by chapter 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 ARGUMENT
Article I, §11 of the Texas Constitution declares, “All prisoners shall be
bailable[.]” See also U.S. Const. amend VIII; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 1.07. Bond
is not to be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression. Ex parte Mathews, 151
Tex.Crim. 60, 204 S.W.2d 992 (1947). Each Relator in this petition is entitled to a
hearing on the issue of bond and release. Ex parte Sellers, 516 S.W.2d 665
(Tex.Crim.App. 1974).
The Supreme Court of the United States has stressed the importance of bond:
This traditional right to freedom before conviction permits the unhampered preparation of a defense, and serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to conviction. Unless this right to bail before trial is preserved, the presumption of innocence, secured only after centuries of struggle, would lose its meaning.
*** The practice of admission to bail, as it has evolved in Anglo-American law, is not a device for keeping persons in jail upon mere accusation until it is found convenient to give them a trial. On the contrary, the spirit of the procedure is to enable them to stay out of jail until a trial has found them guilty. Without this conditional privilege, even those wrongly accused are punished by a period of imprisonment while awaiting trial and are handicapped in consulting counsel, searching for evidence and witnesses, and preparing a defense.
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4-5, 7-8 (1951)(citations omitted).
The writ of habeas corpus is the central legal mechanism through which the
right to bail is enforced. See generally Tex. Code Crim. Pro. chapter 11. Article
3 11.15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure declares that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus
shall be granted without delay [.]” Anyone may petition for a writ, and judges appear
to be statutorily encouraged to determine the legality of a prisoner’s confinement. Id.
This Court has recognized the “prompt and efficient administration of justice”
as a valued interest of the judicial branch of government. See, e.g., Rosales v. State,
841 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)(interest in promptness and efficiency may
even overcome constitutional rights). This general interest is aided by provisions in
the Government Code intended to ensure promptness and efficiency. Specifically,
Section 74.056 of the Government Code provides that the presiding judge “shall
assign the judges of the administrative region” to “dispose of accumulated business”
and “furnish judges to aid in the disposition of litigation.” This duty is in service to
the judiciary’s broad goal of ensuring the prompt and efficient administration of
justice. Tex. Gov’t Code, § 74.057. Here, this duty also fulfills the promise that writs
be issued “without delay.” Tex. Code Crim. Pro. Art. 11.15.
Approximately 175 people were arrested on May 17th. 144 people remain
incarcerated. The “business” of the local judiciary instantly “accumulated” on that
date. The earliest bond hearing is scheduled for June 16th. In light of the fact that
McClennan County has only five district courts, more judges are needed to afford the
accused persons their bond hearings promptly and without delay.
4 Relators are entitled to mandamus relief if they seek to compel a ministerial act
and have no adequate remedy at law to do so. In re Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528, 533
(Tex.Crim.App. 2014). “[T]he ministerial-act requirement, is satisfied if the relator
can show a clear right to the relief sought. A clear right to relief is shown when the
facts and circumstances dictate but one rational decision under unequivocal, well-
settled (i.e., from extant statutory, constitutional, or case law sources), and clearly
controlling legal principles.” In re State ex rel. Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122
(Tex.Crim.App. 2013)(citations omitted).
Respondent has a duty to assign the judges of his administrative region to the
task of conducting bond hearings. Under the circumstances, the interests of
promptness and efficiency cannot be achieved unless this duty is enforced. At the
current speed of bond hearings, scores of people will never even be reached for
potentially weeks or months. Without enforcement, one of the central promises of the
criminal justice system will fail, the glittering statutory guarantees made false, and
a fundamental constitutional right will be rendered meaningless.
Relators have no remedy at all except for a mandamus action in this Court.
The Texas Supreme Court “is responsible for the orderly and efficient administration
of justice.” Tex. Gov’t Code §74.021. However, this Court has exclusive jurisdiction
of criminal law matters. Tex. Const. art. V, § 3. Bond hearings for persons arrested
5 on criminal accusation plainly constitute “criminal law matters.” Thus, mandamus
through this Court is the only available recourse for the 144 people still languishing
in the McClennan County Jail.
It is a matter of general history that authoritarian regimes routinely round up
masses of people and imprison them, the fate of each prisoner determined according
to the convenience and whim of a governmental functionary. In sharp contrast, our
system of laws provides for the swift relief for bondable prisoners. Expeditious
attention to this urgent petition will demonstrate the superiority of our judicial system
and its promise to provide prompt and fair administration of justice.
The Texas judiciary stands faced with the reality that 144 presumably innocent
people are imprisoned with little or no hope of individual hearings any time in the
near future regarding their release. This situation should be regarded as intolerable
and a remedy ought to issue speedily. This petition is filed out of frustration with the
glacial response to this unusual event and the failure of the judiciary to meet its
fundamental duty of administrating justice promptly, efficiently and fairly.
Petitioners hope that this Court will exercise its jurisdiction, order the presiding judge
to assign judges to these cases, and thereby accord each Relator the prompt hearing
our laws entitle him.
6 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Relators pray this Court grant this petition and issue a writ of
mandamus ordering Respondent to immediately assign judges within the third
administrative region to conduct bond hearings for Relators without delay and with
the sort of promptness and efficiency the judicial branch of government prides itself.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________ KEITH HAMPTON Attorney at Law 1103 Nueces Street Austin, Texas 78701 512-476-8484 (o) 512-762-6170 (c) 512-477-3580 (f) keithshampton@gmail.com State Bar No. 08873230
WALTER M. ‘SKIP’ REAVES JR. 100 N. 6th St., Suite 802 Waco, Texas 76701 254-296-0020 (o) 877-726-4411 (f) walterreaves@att.net State Bar No. 16644200
PETITIONERS AND ATTORNEYS FOR RELATORS
7 CERTIFICATION OF FACTUAL STATEMENTS
I, Keith S. Hampton, hereby certify that every factual statement contained within this petition is supported by competent evidence included in the record or appendix.
Keith S. Hampton
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has. been delivered to the following parties and interested persons: electronically to presidingjudge3@wilco.org.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I hereby certify that this petition contains 969 words and complies with Rule 9.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
8 APPENDIX