Haynes, Andrew Demond

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 1, 2015
• Docket: PD-1130-15
• Status: Published

Opinion

PD-1130-15 PD-1130-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 8/31/2015 12:05:03 PM Accepted 9/1/2015 11:58:42 AM ABEL ACOSTA NO. CLERK

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

AT AUST IN -----------------------------------------------------------------

NO. 14-14-00353-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

-----------------------------------------------------------------

AND REW DEM OND HAY NES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STA TE OF T EXAS, APPELLEE

------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW -----------------------------------------------------------------

Winston E. Cochran, Jr. Attorney at Law Texas Bar No. 04457300 P.O. Box 2945 League City, TX 77574 Tel. (713) 228-0264 E-mail:winstoncochran@comcast.net September 1, 2015 Counse l for Appellant TO THE COURT OF CRIM INAL AP PEALS O F TEXA S:

COMES NOW the appellant, Andrew Demond H aynes (hereinafter “Ha ynes”),

through the undersigned counsel, and respectfully requests that this Court exte nd the

time to file a petition for discretionary review of the decision in this cause by the Court

of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas, for reasons set forth as follows.

1. Haynes was indicted for Poss ess ion of a Controlled Substance, namely

cocaine in an amount between four and 200 grams, w ith the intent to deliver it. A jury

found the appellant guilty of the lesser offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance

in such an amount, w ithout an intent to deliver. D ue to enhanc ement allegations,

punishment was assessed at confinement for thirty years in the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice, C orrectional Institutions Division. Haynes gave timely notice of

app eal.

2. On appeal Haynes challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to show that

Haynes knew that the amount of the c ontrolled subs tance w as such a s to place it in a

higher category for p unishment. The Court of App eals rejected that claim and affirmed

the judgment of the district court on July 30, 2015.

3. A petition for discretionary review is due on Mond ay, August 31, 2015.

Haynes requests an extension of time for filing a petition until September 30, 2015.

4. The reasons for the requested extension are as follows:

Since the date of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in this cause, Haynes’ counsel has been unab le to complete a petition in this cause due to co mpeting obligatio ns in

trial, appellate, a nd habea s case s, including the following:

(1) Jose Pablo Lopez v. State, No. 01-15-00055-CR in the Court of App eals for the Firs t Dis trict of Te xas. This appea l from a Capital Murder conviction in Galveston County required a 53-page brief, filed on August 3, 2015.

(2) United States v. Clarence Buck, No. 4:13-c r-00491-1 in the United States District Co urt for the Southern D istrict of Texas. This case is a Hobbs Act prosecution for store robberies, and the undersigned attorney has assisted the trial attorneys in pre paring pretrial motions, including a challenge to the use of the Hobbs Act in such cases. The undersigned attorney also had to he lp trial counsel with the unanticipated problem of spo liation of evidence, which e merged in the middle of tria l.

(3) Ex parte Michael Ramirez, No. 1334211-A in the 182nd District Court of Harris Co unty. This state postco nviction writ application ha d to be file d in early August, 201 5 in order to toll the running of the AEDPA statute of limitations.

(4) Pete Russell, Jr. v. William Stephens, Director, Texas Department of Crim inal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Counsel has been working on an amended petition (the equivalent of a memorandum of law in state habeas proceedings) in a death-penalty case.

5. The issue which Haynes intends to present in his petition will be the

following question, o r a similarly worded question:

Did the Court o f Appeals e rr in holding that the State was not required to prove that the defendant knew that the quantity of contra band w as large enough to result in an increased punishment range?

This is essentially a que stion of statutory interp retation rather than a que stion of the

2 state of the evidence in the particular case.

Wherefore Haynes prays that the time for filing a petition for discretionary

review in this cause be extended to September 30, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Winston E. Cochran, Jr. Winston E. C ochran, Jr. Attorney at Law Texas Bar No. 04457300 P.O. Box 2945 League City, TX 77574 Tel. (713) 228-0264 E-mail:winstoncochran@comcast.net Counse l for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that copies of this petition have be en served on counse l for the State

electronically or by mail at the following addresses on August 31, 2015:

Harris County District Attorney’s Office Hon. Lisa C . Mc Minn Appellate Division State Prosecuting Attorney Attention: Jessica Ca ird P.O. Box 13046 1201 Franklin, Suite 600 Austin, TX 78711-3046 Houston, TX 77002

/s/ Winston E. C ochran, Jr. Winston E. C ochran, Jr.