in Re Overille Denton Thompson

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided November 5, 2015·No. 14-15-00939-CR·Published

Opinion

IH THE COURT OF APPEALS FORTH? FIRST Jjl Itf//T) Q^M-fiP.

c^t No. m$qv\ mww MMSJ W 05 2015 \%U£3 chhistopHbr

Xn rey Overt Ik Anton Thompson, Relator, V,

Susan &roWh ± Respondent,

ES0085-01-07 IVENJ3TY'OF ftfcTXES

Pi'ttrict C»ur1~ of Appalsi 30! Fani'n 5frertjHcusibh.TeXA<> 7700£

l> Juclai Susan Sn^n.fkrris Ccu/fty Criminal Jad-jr? Center. 1201 Frankllh,l7+h titeryttcusten. Hx&s lioo^i

?, 5farfe proSecutcr(s) maimtj) Adi/g been r^^sieJ hy Re^ter^ou/ever Jue to lie 'ateifectiVe dfiJi insumutfit counsel a~f court-appoinfeJ aHerney^Toflimy UFom. Relator has been ttnavk -to obtain tkU information .hutsuch jS &y&rtcf rzeerd/

a, PUttrgrille fa-hn llompsoy^ A/ft OtHtS3U. thrrk C^tsiy Sheriff's Orffre Jg/L IZOO hhr Street. Houston Jkxu 71001, J/Jgy of Authorities fAjeS—l "£

1, 5+

3, Statement of Jurisdiction JWe _L Xssues Presented

1 State/writ of Facfs - Pages 5 ~8 Point-i- ' Tneffkcti'ye and Tnsujflatent Counsel

Si Statement of Facts " fy<- 4"/3 Point 1L', Respondeat Sus

L Arjumznf- •fly* PR£ Point' J ' ineffective and TnsatPlzierit

2l hrjwent- %sJZWi Point 1L ' Resporujeht Susan brown's Refusal to Answer Relator's Properly Filed Remedies

i fa f ec % UO

_ i Verification Paje. t\ ..

/I. Ztrtlficott of Compliance hf- 33

/£, Certificate of Service fije ^ 15. MEidw.lt.to Ame.na -2fl:Forma Pauperis AiflaAVft P4je 55

n Account Activity LeJapr ft

-

i

i i

,

:

'•

•i

>

]

, -

i 1 i ! I INDEX OF fiUTttORXUES

Artlrle£§3 tFdeTeniLudMJM FfijeS 15, l{*f17, ll^,tt Article l§34afiUTeu,G*tihrf-;M' ftjf5 •/$/ ty, fjf Hf ^ 3i Articlel§t aiikeTiX&s Catfhitiw PqjtS 15/lb 17/12/2Z- 1.\ArHrie Iff? »f-Hie lex* Constitution FaytS 15/ 17f tL s. Article i SlOoftUTeas CnsiMm fyes 15/ If,/ 17/ l2, it ArflcletdlZoftheTeXtsConstlfatm fojeS II/I7/I8/1& 1A Art-:citl$V0f+UT*Y«c,»fHhHt* fyes iBjIL/ff/lti/lt A.+lrk mi of-tie T*»s Cm&UhHm ; . fiyS /5/%/ 17/%L V ArticleSMrfiteTexMConttutcn . _&qt$ ll*/fl/2$ IDA ArfckSM JjUTms restitution UfS tlf/fyli/fl/ZS JL Article 11,01 J+k Teas CrJe aPCrUlul ProrJaK . FtfS %/ 17/18/^3 J2J Article llOBif-tkTms CJeafCnWW Procure : ?*fS !(>//7/18/^3 m Article HMir-HieTcHS Ue ofCrWml PmJan FafS lQ/l7jl8/23 m. Article IUI cfineTevKGJt ofCrinbtl ProceLnt . f*fS !(>/17/It/^3 15, Article (USof+ke Tws 0>k ACrlmlJ PrveJum F&J& ll°/ 17/(1/£3 M M\r\e HHOtF-heT,,« tokACn'vU PrcCeljrt : pAjeS fa/17/1$/ 23 JZi Attlrfe M3oMeTeM Ue cit-UJ tnceL* hjes 16/17/1$/ &l. A Artilck ML *MeTn« Cje ofCrl^IfhJure hjtS $/J7/li,&t A Mirk WJfi *fii*Tem Ck efCnnlJ fhcJim fajt$ Ify 17/JJf^ m Article ILOl oMe Tern GkofQrlmlJ Pmce^ F<\f> /$/#/#/ 1L /MJe nM§\(\)«f^T™

?

B3dilm^mht_efJkAnlkL%i^^ndltMtm^ Fa^eS_IS/Jl/18^1S. in re Cahiil (app, is piit. totfhrtw, ?4 lot fyesJiftS Mandamus key ISI 7- 30, KUmelman v, Morrisonf(1,5,1iS; U5,Ct, 2571/ f^S5_l3./15_ $UMM3QS(L%X _ _ _ ^m^li/J^Mll^dkMMt)M31Midjmi _^e5_Jl/H_ B_a_t_j_y ££ __, IAorsu/,JakM^k^lAf.fAUdJl%)323_ %# )&yu__ SM^AS^J^imisA^il}. 33, M,flW „, MuolkrjISC F.li /flJfrftC (ftA tir,lM3) _%__Jl/i__ 3J\ 15/wf Ar**b*d'*fit* ^ **& C^H-hHon : ^S_J5/J^/J7/18/£k- 35,: \Tex4s Pm\ Cje §31,0<\ _p_Ji/J2/___ ^i.fe/WCJgff37,/<7 : _^__y_7/____

./ke_iL srmmiT of casf

I l_/__£/j2i/ec/l_^^^

d.hssesslcn tiitn Ittet&to M\lera Cc*trelle

L>.Fe(m-iJi-^se^oji_o£jFi'cm:^

C.tea*,'™ ofaControlled Suksjurt-Wftii Zrfentto Deliver- Penalty Gr,>«f 7. „r l4 _ HOP Gnrt1-

aj____

_,. l_/Wc/)i^_*4/L_^^ PTKidl* inttmse feurCv rises. Her office is hcahd attint Hum's County Criminal Just-let Ce/ikr, IZo\ Franklin/1't7tt\ floor. Houston T**Al 7700£, -_

_ _ ksfondent/Susan Srou/n/In contemptofcourtand tampering with apenJlnj official proceeding^ is mJjftiyJkl. fu/fi'llmj lr\tr ministerial iutyh ansytr Relator'* properly submitted notionsjparticularly l\ls petitions and applications for writof habeas corpus -filed individually ii\ these ioar (M) rases, ,. I l . l i l , . - . M . --

-Pm/l3- STATEMENT OF JUKTStZCTZOI

/Zpl/Thr.fi/enllt PentoA Thomson^invokes' thejurisdiction of the first Court of Appeals kpcatisr Ae has no other plain/SpitdyJni adtau<&t re.mp.dy Perform its ministerial dufj/ r Al\k n/rh lta\/e void ielaforb properly filed documents,-fkerehy enaUinj Relaford freedom of speech,

fluffs msEtfTEf)

Relator Owrlile Denton Thompson's necessary lejal rijlnfiv he heard, gnd gnd that of UU due process of law 'have effectively been denied hitn hccausc of' Faint I ' Ineffective and Xnsa-fficienf Counself*4nd

feint3E' fotMfiderifSatan Bran's Refusal to Arp\jer ^elatir]s Properly Filed Remedies.

%_1 STfrrmerfF of facts

Feint H Ineffective and Insufficient CnunseI

Ccurt-appoiriwi attorney/Tomy UFon^ from the onset did knowingly and purposefully nlsrtppzseit falator/Querlllt fiprifon~Fko*p

JR that I

a, fry and through Uls actions or lack -thereof/Tn*>y Ufon helped to keep Relator unfairly TtmM to custody whlk the 5tate conducts an w-jolna investigation oftie neyj allegation, •It. \ lil. J I, i . ,. r\ I ../.

of tihich tz> t^/s day exist no physical evidence or material facts just mere accusation su^pportid by confllctlnj circumstantial/^ur^ay testimony,

h.Tommy UPon jid attempt to mai\lpudatt klator Jntt unlawfully comparing evidence against klm<>eff, t . , \ t . • . . . ' i . i i .1

which Is evidenced ly hy the numberjf paragraph enhancement tron the ortjlnal cent/olided Conplaintpmented on AW ft/toS to that ^hlch was presented mAugust ft/VOlS after the i uly£7,26lS Consalfaton appearance Supposedly for all foarCLi) cases.

C, Hatvr u/as ralobed nfdue process from the onset atthe new allegation; of dnlck Tommy UFw possessing clear full kmaikdge helped ficlUfdZ/M^du^sJ.

(t) Relator was never accorded aprobahle ctqse hearing at the commencepetit of'tht Dew allegation brought M*y l^/ZOl^^cr was he e\Jtr formally arraigned', to Qlgrlfy/ no presinftion of the new charge wa.s ever r^ak before <3 magistrate hy electronic broadcastsystem or in-person f

_J_ _ . i.ulklato.r-W-4S^fieV-e-(l^-Ca^

dLr\a,rch iA.ljDfr atPn>.-Tr^l Hearing In open Court.Tn^^y Uhn \ld acknowledge without xedr3SsJiespj>AttitJiixsAn-&a.w — ** the time hem offered ihitddy/then at Suppression Hearing fclatcr would have to enter into aplea /jpauift Jth fie PA LPistrlct Money! f Respondent were to side h/lth State at~ Said Suppression Hearing,

e>,June 1/1Q& at scheduled Suppression Hearing and subsequentJury TrUI,

ll)Jx>.fainV-LTAFoA-didi^uspsna^iihfjjt^ustcAUS^ Relater's right toJuie process of Ui^u.nJiotk oF these necessary proceedings shnJoa Insufficient overriding necessity for such as being jtke^eh/J^S£_b,rMgbt^usJcJ^^ with no indlctment/-

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

in Re Overille Denton Thompson, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

in Re Overille Denton Thompson (in Re Overille Denton Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.