g@,%§'” Frnm: 30§@§§@§@§@§"§;§%%§$§§@§ 1 ';"
b 'ngfoné Un t wa Bo$ton, Texas ?5§ 0
Hcsice €¢ The Actesney gen@rak of th@ stage of §@xas P¢G RQH 125£@ ` &U$tin TQH&B 7£?11“25$$
§lea$@ be a€vi§e@ of the following gl@adingstb§€ av@ now befax@ tha £onrw o§ criminal app&al$a tha $§plicant £iiiwg seeka to giv@ hh@ highest agent in the stéte ¢£ W@xas she final oppcrumniuy am r$aelv@ ail the i@§u@a of h§@ Gis§ut@ b&fore moving few $Qlieftwcugh at£.§ EZSE.
Eh@ ag§iicant yzeswnt$s two additen$l §rmunée pointing mut jusiséic€ial §@f®ct& tv@v rmn@@x& %h@ ¢onwi¢§ion Vaié»
§ copy HH@ vw@n’a@ww@é my cautifiwé ma§$ an the Qlazk of eva con@icti&@ womvt and the cl@zk af tva GQHHQ vi czimin& appeal$ of ?exaa
aeapct£ully Submict@d
»*abw\umww»wqh»~awwwu
53 JOEAYBRH BAREEE
RECENED m CouRT 0\= cR\.\)\\NAr APPEAL.*
' w 022$:§§
Abe\Acosta,G\ew
)01@?~
wary mo. W&»*Zl/ 028 -£)I‘
§§_..PAR'PE 274 m ammch couRT
JONATHAN BARNB$
w¢$!k$bm@
Applicant ‘CALBNELL CGUNTY¢TEXAS
woman aba name emma summers To arms 52(1»)
mow comes the Applicant Janathan Barnea filling this motion for Plain Error pursuant tm_rwle SZ(b) of the F@§» rule$ of Criminal Proceéure. 52(b) points out errdre so obvious and clear th&t his trial Couns@lor»&p§ellant Counselor¢Tri§l Juége and that the Prosecutors were detelicf in countenancing them,even abs@n§ the defenéant'e timely as$i£tance in detecting them.And if the court so permits the Applicant wiil show how he is actua~ lly'innocent.And due to a devia§@ from a legal Rule 3&.17 of the T.C.C.P» Ré$ulting in his unlawful~arrest,detention,and violation of 513 constitutional Righta* (B@G)Calvwrley 37 F 36 160(1994).
THE INDICTMEHT 13 FUNDAMENTALLY DBFBCTIVE
The conviction is VIOD because the inéictm@nt did not provide adequate notice of the acta¢ahe Applicant M%M chatq@d for nor 61& it qivm the Applicate auf£icient notice or the opportuni@y to pr@pare a proper defen$e.Under the Constitution of the United Statea,the Sixth amendment provides that the accusaé has the ri~ ght to hav@»compuaulsory process to obtain witnesses in his fav~ or,a right which was denied the petitioner due to the fe¢t th&t l the indictmenh failed?to previée adequate notice of the day that the alleged act was Said to have been performed¢?&er@fore the Ap~ plicant could not aeaert an affirmitiv@ éefence nor could he pro~ vida an alibi éefence of his where abouts at the time of the @v» ents in guestion;cauaing a prejudice to his ability to cell wit~ neases in his favor a Federally protected right.
30¥?
A charging instrument must convey sufficient notice to allow the accused t§ pr§§§r§ hi§ §§fon§§»?§x. Qod§ Crim.?~§nn.§ 21¢03. Simil§rlyein Col§ v. Arkansas,th§ Court §xplained:
No§rinciple of prc§dur§l due process 1§ mo§§ clearly §s§ablis§§d. than that notice of the §§§ci£io charq§¢§n§ a chance to §§ board in § tri§l of hh§ isou§§ raised by th§§§ch§rg§,if deair§§¢§re
among th§ constitutional rights of §vory acou§§§ in § criminal prooo§§inq in 311 cpurt§»§t§t§ of f§§§r§l...lt 1§§§ much § vio~
`T§tion of the §o§ process to §§nd an occu€ §§ to gri§on following
conviot1o§ of § charge on wh1ch §§ §§§ n§vor tried §§ 11 woul§
§§ to convict him upon § charge that wao never m§§§.1i,¢333 3 S. at 201,6& §. ct. §§ 517 (cit§t1on§ om1tto§) (§mpha§i§ §§§§d).
'T§x,€on§; §§g¢v,§ §2(§). §§ instrom§nt th§t does not oh§rq§ the oommi§§ion of §§ o££on§o 1§ not §'oharging instrument un§§r the T§xae Con§titution §n§ do§§ n§t inv§§t acourt with juris§iction.
Suoh § §§Eect may b§ r§i§§§ at any tim§»an§ the fail§r to object i§ not fatal to §§ appeal» - ~ '~
§ §§f§ot in the charg§ng instrument relating to jurisdiction§l r§ouir§mont§ cannot §§ "cut§§”by §nb§§qu§nt proo§§éing§ an§ c§n~' not §§ waived J§§icial action without juri§di§tion is voi§. §§§e) Mu§z< v. som‘§;?')§§ §.w §§ 415 1989 §§x.§pp.
An in§ict ment §§rv§§ two functiona,?ir§t¢it giv§§ the court jur~ ieéicfion over the oas§.§§con§,it satisfies due proc§§§ requir- ements by provi§ing notice to § §§f§ndant of that off§§§§ with which he is charg§§. Tho state 1§ bound §y the §ll§g§tiono it eot§ out 1a th§ indictment it must prove tho§§ allogationo¢b§~ c§u§§ of due proc§§§ roquir§§§nt§¢§§yo§§ § re§§o§§blo §oubt. BENSON V. STATE,SGl S.W»Bd ?68:1933 T§x,€rim.§pp» 3§§.Con§t.art.V,S§ 5.6 confer appellate jurisdiction upon the court§ of app§al§ that inolu§§§ the power to roviow qu§§tion§ 01 fact in criminal ca§§§. '
Wh§n th§§r'juri§§icton to revoiw fact question§ is properly in» vok§d,th§ court of appeals cannot ignore constitutional and §t§- tutory man§at§§.(§ee) CLEWIS v. STATE 922 S.w.zd 12611396 T§x. Ctim.hpp.
:S@£?
lI. THE¢COURT LACKED
IN VICLATICN OF T,C.C.P. ART. 38.17
'ttlout providing cor1aboratioii the court has deviated gal rules/ policie as of t e statute were as Art.38.l7
s that," In All cases where byy law two witnesses or
1 corraborating circumstances are required to authorize 1 1ion, if the requirement be not fullfilled the court shall ilst ruct the Ju1y to enter a judgement of acquittal and they are bound yy the instruct ions ,
??he procf needed to the vital elem t o case~in-main thus, did not meet the requiremen' or art,3 1he credibility of the testimony of the wi" ‘o w not present nor could they give a first ne d account to t event in question based their statemen ts solely of the "mentsof the main witness who om by being one witness provr No Proof to corraborate with the alleged malicious state which ;!efamec' the charaater of the accused. 3 rr 103-06
5 d i
gc f`| (D \I ."_=1 ¢'i' (» l
...4 -' {/J 1
,... \- 1._
FC` "€ C|-'(D <211\ i-(T>rt' Ql` (D C`
156, l' 0 198,, 4RR 17-13. Yet No physical evidence wa that demonstrated cor`aborating circumstances reguire‘ authorize the court's jurisdictual power to convict t Neverthelsss the court has deviated from tne legal s1 Dhi.as.1/, and lacked the legal juris diction to cor v` whom by law is -nnocent till proven gui1'ty with eithe 1 witnesses or Dne withess with co1rabor ating circunm ‘ ancesa
Lawmakers wilere aware J'hat the court co"ld no”
L¢l on the testimony 01 one witness due to the previou ~use of the criminal justic proces" `y thos rith honorable ends. Iherefor e by being aware that ther: whom would lieunde1 the oath, Lawwakers fo1mu1ated the court las barred by the rules 0 law from devi
under Art. 38.17.
` Art. 381 7 institutes limits 011 the courts juris?”ctual power to convict, firmly identifying eviderce whmch c=uld not be given to legal effect Because the law dose not permit it The testirnony 01 one without corraboration is not sufficient because the court cannot prove the truth of the allegaticns 'and under tt 14th amendment of twa ‘nite. states the a“"use
me is entitled to equal protection cf the law.
to tne testimony o or e witness without corraborating facts
Thus, in effect th; testimony cf one witness along is "DCv‘l EN“E see; the absence o the Vitat fact, Bennet; v. Reynolds, 242
S.Wu 3d 866 2007.
The court is Barred by the rules cf law from given wieght f a
J_
'~i@-(l";?
&-,j
PRAYER
Appllicant prays that this court grant him an Acquital of all
harge S which now holds him confined and any other relief this
§ ha y-K.»- `\`; `\. _~
court deems is necessary. Respectfuully Submittedr
MW
JONATHAN BARNE PrQ"
§@i ‘+
‘)" 4
Certificate of Service
§ certify that a true copy of the above was served on ther
clerk of CaldwellCounty Texasron this“_:§jL___day of l;§€*j ,201§,
' >
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
g@,%§'” Frnm: 30§@§§@§@§@§"§;§%%§$§§@§ 1 ';"
b 'ngfoné Un t wa Bo$ton, Texas ?5§ 0
Hcsice €¢ The Actesney gen@rak of th@ stage of §@xas P¢G RQH 125£@ ` &U$tin TQH&B 7£?11“25$$
§lea$@ be a€vi§e@ of the following gl@adingstb§€ av@ now befax@ tha £onrw o§ criminal app&al$a tha $§plicant £iiiwg seeka to giv@ hh@ highest agent in the stéte ¢£ W@xas she final oppcrumniuy am r$aelv@ ail the i@§u@a of h§@ Gis§ut@ b&fore moving few $Qlieftwcugh at£.§ EZSE.
Eh@ ag§iicant yzeswnt$s two additen$l §rmunée pointing mut jusiséic€ial §@f®ct& tv@v rmn@@x& %h@ ¢onwi¢§ion Vaié»
§ copy HH@ vw@n’a@ww@é my cautifiwé ma§$ an the Qlazk of eva con@icti&@ womvt and the cl@zk af tva GQHHQ vi czimin& appeal$ of ?exaa
aeapct£ully Submict@d
»*abw\umww»wqh»~awwwu
53 JOEAYBRH BAREEE
RECENED m CouRT 0\= cR\.\)\\NAr APPEAL.*
' w 022$:§§
Abe\Acosta,G\ew
)01@?~
wary mo. W&»*Zl/ 028 -£)I‘
§§_..PAR'PE 274 m ammch couRT
JONATHAN BARNB$
w¢$!k$bm@
Applicant ‘CALBNELL CGUNTY¢TEXAS
woman aba name emma summers To arms 52(1»)
mow comes the Applicant Janathan Barnea filling this motion for Plain Error pursuant tm_rwle SZ(b) of the F@§» rule$ of Criminal Proceéure. 52(b) points out errdre so obvious and clear th&t his trial Couns@lor»&p§ellant Counselor¢Tri§l Juége and that the Prosecutors were detelicf in countenancing them,even abs@n§ the defenéant'e timely as$i£tance in detecting them.And if the court so permits the Applicant wiil show how he is actua~ lly'innocent.And due to a devia§@ from a legal Rule 3&.17 of the T.C.C.P» Ré$ulting in his unlawful~arrest,detention,and violation of 513 constitutional Righta* (B@G)Calvwrley 37 F 36 160(1994).
THE INDICTMEHT 13 FUNDAMENTALLY DBFBCTIVE
The conviction is VIOD because the inéictm@nt did not provide adequate notice of the acta¢ahe Applicant M%M chatq@d for nor 61& it qivm the Applicate auf£icient notice or the opportuni@y to pr@pare a proper defen$e.Under the Constitution of the United Statea,the Sixth amendment provides that the accusaé has the ri~ ght to hav@»compuaulsory process to obtain witnesses in his fav~ or,a right which was denied the petitioner due to the fe¢t th&t l the indictmenh failed?to previée adequate notice of the day that the alleged act was Said to have been performed¢?&er@fore the Ap~ plicant could not aeaert an affirmitiv@ éefence nor could he pro~ vida an alibi éefence of his where abouts at the time of the @v» ents in guestion;cauaing a prejudice to his ability to cell wit~ neases in his favor a Federally protected right.
30¥?
A charging instrument must convey sufficient notice to allow the accused t§ pr§§§r§ hi§ §§fon§§»?§x. Qod§ Crim.?~§nn.§ 21¢03. Simil§rlyein Col§ v. Arkansas,th§ Court §xplained:
No§rinciple of prc§dur§l due process 1§ mo§§ clearly §s§ablis§§d. than that notice of the §§§ci£io charq§¢§n§ a chance to §§ board in § tri§l of hh§ isou§§ raised by th§§§ch§rg§,if deair§§¢§re
among th§ constitutional rights of §vory acou§§§ in § criminal prooo§§inq in 311 cpurt§»§t§t§ of f§§§r§l...lt 1§§§ much § vio~
`T§tion of the §o§ process to §§nd an occu€ §§ to gri§on following
conviot1o§ of § charge on wh1ch §§ §§§ n§vor tried §§ 11 woul§
§§ to convict him upon § charge that wao never m§§§.1i,¢333 3 S. at 201,6& §. ct. §§ 517 (cit§t1on§ om1tto§) (§mpha§i§ §§§§d).
'T§x,€on§; §§g¢v,§ §2(§). §§ instrom§nt th§t does not oh§rq§ the oommi§§ion of §§ o££on§o 1§ not §'oharging instrument un§§r the T§xae Con§titution §n§ do§§ n§t inv§§t acourt with juris§iction.
Suoh § §§Eect may b§ r§i§§§ at any tim§»an§ the fail§r to object i§ not fatal to §§ appeal» - ~ '~
§ §§f§ot in the charg§ng instrument relating to jurisdiction§l r§ouir§mont§ cannot §§ "cut§§”by §nb§§qu§nt proo§§éing§ an§ c§n~' not §§ waived J§§icial action without juri§di§tion is voi§. §§§e) Mu§z< v. som‘§;?')§§ §.w §§ 415 1989 §§x.§pp.
An in§ict ment §§rv§§ two functiona,?ir§t¢it giv§§ the court jur~ ieéicfion over the oas§.§§con§,it satisfies due proc§§§ requir- ements by provi§ing notice to § §§f§ndant of that off§§§§ with which he is charg§§. Tho state 1§ bound §y the §ll§g§tiono it eot§ out 1a th§ indictment it must prove tho§§ allogationo¢b§~ c§u§§ of due proc§§§ roquir§§§nt§¢§§yo§§ § re§§o§§blo §oubt. BENSON V. STATE,SGl S.W»Bd ?68:1933 T§x,€rim.§pp» 3§§.Con§t.art.V,S§ 5.6 confer appellate jurisdiction upon the court§ of app§al§ that inolu§§§ the power to roviow qu§§tion§ 01 fact in criminal ca§§§. '
Wh§n th§§r'juri§§icton to revoiw fact question§ is properly in» vok§d,th§ court of appeals cannot ignore constitutional and §t§- tutory man§at§§.(§ee) CLEWIS v. STATE 922 S.w.zd 12611396 T§x. Ctim.hpp.
:S@£?
lI. THE¢COURT LACKED
IN VICLATICN OF T,C.C.P. ART. 38.17
'ttlout providing cor1aboratioii the court has deviated gal rules/ policie as of t e statute were as Art.38.l7
s that," In All cases where byy law two witnesses or
1 corraborating circumstances are required to authorize 1 1ion, if the requirement be not fullfilled the court shall ilst ruct the Ju1y to enter a judgement of acquittal and they are bound yy the instruct ions ,
??he procf needed to the vital elem t o case~in-main thus, did not meet the requiremen' or art,3 1he credibility of the testimony of the wi" ‘o w not present nor could they give a first ne d account to t event in question based their statemen ts solely of the "mentsof the main witness who om by being one witness provr No Proof to corraborate with the alleged malicious state which ;!efamec' the charaater of the accused. 3 rr 103-06
5 d i
gc f`| (D \I ."_=1 ¢'i' (» l
...4 -' {/J 1
,... \- 1._
FC` "€ C|-'(D <211\ i-(T>rt' Ql` (D C`
156, l' 0 198,, 4RR 17-13. Yet No physical evidence wa that demonstrated cor`aborating circumstances reguire‘ authorize the court's jurisdictual power to convict t Neverthelsss the court has deviated from tne legal s1 Dhi.as.1/, and lacked the legal juris diction to cor v` whom by law is -nnocent till proven gui1'ty with eithe 1 witnesses or Dne withess with co1rabor ating circunm ‘ ancesa
Lawmakers wilere aware J'hat the court co"ld no”
L¢l on the testimony 01 one witness due to the previou ~use of the criminal justic proces" `y thos rith honorable ends. Iherefor e by being aware that ther: whom would lieunde1 the oath, Lawwakers fo1mu1ated the court las barred by the rules 0 law from devi
under Art. 38.17.
` Art. 381 7 institutes limits 011 the courts juris?”ctual power to convict, firmly identifying eviderce whmch c=uld not be given to legal effect Because the law dose not permit it The testirnony 01 one without corraboration is not sufficient because the court cannot prove the truth of the allegaticns 'and under tt 14th amendment of twa ‘nite. states the a“"use
me is entitled to equal protection cf the law.
to tne testimony o or e witness without corraborating facts
Thus, in effect th; testimony cf one witness along is "DCv‘l EN“E see; the absence o the Vitat fact, Bennet; v. Reynolds, 242
S.Wu 3d 866 2007.
The court is Barred by the rules cf law from given wieght f a
J_
'~i@-(l";?
&-,j
PRAYER
Appllicant prays that this court grant him an Acquital of all
harge S which now holds him confined and any other relief this
§ ha y-K.»- `\`; `\. _~
court deems is necessary. Respectfuully Submittedr
MW
JONATHAN BARNE PrQ"
§@i ‘+
‘)" 4
Certificate of Service
§ certify that a true copy of the above was served on ther
clerk of CaldwellCounty Texasron this“_:§jL___day of l;§€*j ,201§,
' > . . `_r . / "- ., - ,;.:- /
, _. .\i,¢;¢“ Pro'$e`
f _ 3 -_ ~`g_MR JoNATHAN BARNES
.'\.;,
'6` O +>
cir
Unsworn Declaration (Texas Civi/ Practice and Remedies Code, Section 1 32. 001 )
JONATHAN BARNES
My name is: s am U. ' - 2 2 1936 my date of birth is: 05 / 1 / l and Monlh Day year my address is' 3999 State HIGH WAY 98 NEi-‘~l BGSTON TEXA.S 75570
Streat Address _ y C/'ty Slate Zip Coda and '
Country
(/f you are incarcerated you must also include the following infomiation.)
’ 39 ,. le inmate identifying number, if any, is: hle i,
TELFORD UNIT Corrections Unit Name NEW BOSTON BOWIE TE_XAS &%%&) Cily County Stata Zip Cods .
| am presently incarcerated in:
in:
l declare under penalty of perjury that all information in the attached document titled,
MOTION OF PLAIN ERROR y l is true and correct- Name of Document ' E Signed in US A BOWI County' TEXAS l ' County . State onthisdate: q /079 /2015 MOnth Day Yaa[
Your l nature
l Mr. JONATHAN BAREES PRO_)éE
Pursuant to Texas Civi| Pra`ctice and Remedies Code Section 132.001, an unsworn declaration may be used in lieu of a written sworn declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit required by statute or required by a rule, orderl or requirement adopted as provided by law. This provision does not apply to an oath of office or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public. An unsworn declaration made under this section must be 1) in writing, 2) signed by the person making the declaration as true under penalty of perjury and 3) in substantially the form used above.
© TexasLawHe|p.org - Unsworn Dec/arat/‘on, August 2012 BageH-el»+ v
?o\@ § .