Burgess, Nathan Earl

CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 12, 2015
DocketPD-1214-15
StatusPublished

This text of Burgess, Nathan Earl (Burgess, Nathan Earl) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burgess, Nathan Earl, (Tex. 2015).

Opinion

Dn t oi A 1 C PD-1214-15 PD -±Z±4__Lb COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 11/9/2015 2:09:02 PM Accepted 11/10/2015 4:22:45 PM ABELACOSTA CI FRK THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS; AUSTIN, TEXAS

FILED IN NATHAN BURGESS, Appellant COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS

v- November 10, 2015

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ARF| ArncTA r, pRk" ON APPEAL IN CAUSE NO. 05-14-00216-CR AbtLAOU^IA, OLtKK_^ FROM COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS TX 4Y^*~*"*^ APPELLANT'S SECOND MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE HIS BRIEF 1-1*-"' l>l PC TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS: (( - I^ "*. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P., 10.1,10.5(b], and 38.6(d), Indigent Appellant, NATHAN

BURGESS files his Second Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant's Brief, and in

support of his motion he shows the following:

Appellant's appeal brief is currently due on NOVEMBER 17th, 2015.

Appellant now requests a sixty (60) day extension of time to file Appellant's brief,

making the brief due on or about January 17th, 2015, or a time permitted by the

court based on the following criteria beyond the control of appellant:

Appellant relies on thefollowing reasons to explain the need for the extension:

- Appellant's Counsel, Attorney Alan Kramer Taggart, withdrew July 16th-2014 from

the case. It has been determined that Attorney Taggart had been improperly

appointed. Attorney Taggart never filed an application in 2013 or 2014 to be added

to the master list of attorneys from which court appointments are lawfully made in

Collin County per the Fairness Act. Appellant therefore believes that Attorney NO. 05-14-00216-CR NATHAN E BURGESS VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS Taggart was professionally and legally unqualified to represent, as Collin County

places certain requirements on appointed attorneys (e.g., continuing education).

Appellant is very concerned that court staff conspired to his detriment.

Unfortunately, Judge Corinne Mason refused to consider this any kind of violation of

Appellant’s rights and no mention was made of new trial, she then recused herself

on July 18th, 2014 after appointing Mr. Schultz on July 16th, 2014 from the bench.

The clerk’s office shows the court officially appointed Attorney William Schultz on

July 22nd, 2014, to represent Appellant on appeal in the place of Attorney Taggart.

Appellant began immediately on July 16th, 2014 to attempt contact with his new

counsel. Again, Appellant’s brief was due in the Dallas COA approximately the next

week. After many unsuccessful attempts to reach Attorney Schultz at his own

number, Appellant contacted the Office of Indigent Defense in Collin County. The

secretary was able to locate Attorney Schultz. Appellant and Attorney Schultz

communicated very briefly on the phone, for a period of approximately two minutes.

Attorney Schultz immediately told Appellant that he was busy, he had no time, and

there would be no physical meeting to discuss the case. Appellant was professional

and courteous. When Appellant objected, Attorney Schultz informed Appellant that

he had no options. Appellant would have no say at all in the matter and hung up the

telephone. Plaintiff never had a physical meeting with Mr. Schultz. During a hearing,

while in the courtroom, Attorney Taggart had suggested that he had spoken prior

with Attorney Schultz. Attorney Schultz’ unprofessional behavior made this

apparent. Appellant is very concerned for his liberty. Appellant has maintained his

NO. 05-­‐14-­‐00216-­‐CR

NATHAN E BURGESS VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS

innocence and has remained fully convinced that – if not for an improper conspiracy

and corruption in the courtroom and others – his case would have been thrown out

even before it began. Appellant understood that his brief was due promptly and the

appointed attorney needed to give attention to the case so that he could understand

the case from appellant’s viewpoint, not only from the ambiguously written stories

on the record. Appellant got into communication with the State Bar of Texas, the

Office of Indigent Defense, and the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. Appellant

also attempted to work with Judge Mason and Judge Barnett walker to force

communication between his appointed counsel and himself. Otherwise, Appellant

wanted to have another attorney who would properly advocate for him, as required

by the State Bar of Texas and the Office of Indigent Defense in Collin County via the

Fairness Act. Appellant believed that he was and still is due a new trial, due to the

misconduct among the court staff and legal representation by an attorney

unqualified for appointment in 2012, 2013 and 2014, by the Office of Indigent

Defense according to the indigent coordinator. However, Appellant does not know

how to effect this outcome. At this point, Attorney Schultz has manifested his

unwillingness and inability to be of any great help, so Appellant is now busy

concerning himself with his own pursuit of justice.

Appellant sought to recuse the Appellant Counsel on several occasions, both by

submitting DISMISS AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL requests to the Collin County

Court at Law and The COA in Dallas, without success; he was told he could not have

hybrid representation and would have to keep the court appointed attorney.

Consequently, Appellant had to keep Mr. Schultz until now.

Currently, Appellant has sought since September 21st, 2015 to dismiss the attorney,

Mr. Schultz. He has had to even threaten a lawsuit to inspire Mr. Schultz to send him

the file from which he wrote the Appellant brief, but to date, Appellant has only

received approximately 18 pages from the attorney. The 18 pages include the COA

Memorandum, and a larger quantity of pages from a random site with some print

out of rules and regulations of sorts. Appellant believes he has a right to use he

complete file to write his Appeal Brief and it appears to Appellant that his ex court

appointed attorney is seeking to do damage to Appellant’s chances of writing a

successful and winning appeal brief. He has been contacted repeatedly requesting

these files and has said he has no files to transfer. Appellant wants to know which

files he used to write the appeal brief; and can not imagine how the attorney could

have known the extents of law that might be applicable as relating to the

constitutional issues involved in his case, as well as details that occurred that are of

major importance to the truth of the testimony given during testimony and cross

examination without a record to work.

Appellant will not delve into the labyrinth of personal injuries that this attorney has

caused Appellant, however, he will simply say, he has not been represented in a

professional manner worthy of a career attorney.

For example, the case involves

Mens Rea, Intentionally, Willingly, Knowingly, which was not, required elements of

the prosecution, however, it was added, yet not proven by the prosecution during

trial, nor considered in the COA opinion, unless that is the reason for the lack of

evidence to convict in the Conclusions of law in the next to last paragraph of the

memorandum opinion, however, the appointed attorney did not challenge mens rea

in his appeal brief. He attorney now will not turn over the file so Appellant can have

a fair chance at writing his appeal brief to challenge the prosecution on this issue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Burgess, Nathan Earl, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgess-nathan-earl-tex-2015.