Martin, Peter James
Opinion
FILED IN x JAN0 82Q15 JRT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS pd-1050-14 AW o_,„ IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JAN 23 2-'«J09-13-00180-CR,09-13-00181-CR,09-13-00182-CR,09-13-00183-CR PETER .JAMES MARTIN, Appellant, § Abel AcOSta, UerK § From the 221st Judicial District v. § Court of Montgomery County,TX., § Cause 12-03-02604-CR STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, §
$•• PRO-SE MOTION TO RELAX PDR BRIEFING RULES IN THE INTEREST: OF JUSTICE
The pro-se PDR appellant's last time extension to file was for January 2,2014. On or about December 24,2014 Appellant served to the Court and State a 14 page PDR Brief, a 2 page Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief, a 34 page Supplemental Brief: The Pro-Se Identified Reversible Errors, and 57 pages of Appendix exhibits.The PDR and Supplemental Brief are single'spaced in their respective "Arguments" sections, and the PDR contains an extensive "Procedural History" section which was unnecessarily repeated in the arguments sections. Appellant is not deliberately trying to evade the Court's rules on space and form limitations by this presentation in this form, but has only tried to conform to the Court's "Misc.Docket No.12-001" November 30,2012 Order regarding Rule 9.4(e) Typeface which states "A typewritten document must be printed in standard 10 character-per-inch (cpi) monospaced typeface." The copy of the rules Appellant has is from 2011, and he obtained a copy of the "Order Adopting Amendments to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9,38,49,52,53,55, 64,68,70 AND 71" from this Court's Clerk in a good faith attempt to follow the rules. Appellant is pro-se and has never before filed any document in any court, using the assistance of his fellow inmates to proceed in this PDR case.
If the form of Appellant's presentation to the Court does not confrom to the rules of brieing and form, Appellant requests this Court suspend the rules
PDR briefing and form rules in the interests of justice. See Tex.R.App.P., Rule 2 ("On a party's motion or on its own initiative an appellate court may- to expediate a decision or for other good cause—suspend a rule's operation in a particular case and order a different procedure;...") and Rule 9.4 ("Form. Except for the record, a document filed with an appellate court must—unless the court accepts another form in the interest of justice—be in the following form:..."). See Walker v. Thornton,67 S.W.3d 475(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002 no.pet) (allowing relaxing the briefing rules).
These currently filed comprehensive documents demonstrate amongst other arguments that Appellant was subjected to ineffective assistance of counsel on this record in trial and on direct appeal, and several other constitutional errors that demonstrate prima facie cases of reversible error in all four convictions from the trial court below. See PDR Brief,ii,xii(listing "Arguments" and "Grounds for Review"); Supp.Brief•..,ii,vii-ix(listing "Arguments" and "Issues Presented"). Most significantly, Appellant has proven in his case that sheriff's deputys and prosecutor acted in concert to present false testi mony and suppress critical exonerating State's evidence to wrongfully convict Appellant, in order to cover-up the arresting deputy's use of unconstitutional and illegal excessive force to arrest Appellant by shooting him while he was fleeing arrest by vehicle. See PDR Brief,9-11; Supp.Brief,20-31. These argument are very difficult even for experienced counsel to properly present to this Court, never mind this pro-se Appellant outrageously subjected to ineffective assistance of trial counsel (who failed to employ Appx.31's "front-view" laser test photo State's evidence to reveal the false testimony and suppressed bullet trajectory evidence) and appeal counsel (who refused to argue anything at all from the major trial defenses presented to the jury). Thus, Appellant's points on appeal should be liberally construed in an effort to decide this case on
on it's legal merits and not on technical or even substantive defects i^in the briefs. See Hanby's, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ann.,158,169(West's 2011 ed.)[citing, Rules 38.1, 38.9, Armstrong v. State,845 S.W.2d 909(Tex.Crim. App.1993) AND OTHER AUTHORITIES). Because Appellant has demonstrated extreme abuse of the judicial process below in his case, this Court should disregard Appellant's pro-se briefing errors. Please note that Appellant has presented this Court with 10 copies of his PDR Brief, Supplemental Brief, Motion for Leave to file Supplemental Brief, and 57 pages of relevant appendix exhibits, in what surely must be one of the most adequate, effective and meaningful PDR presentations to this Court by a pro-se prisoner appellant in years.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Appellant respectfully requests this Court relax the briefing rules in his case in order to expedite a decision for the above state good causes and accept Appellant's currently filed briefs and exhibits in their present form in the interests of justice. Tex.R.App.P., Rules 2,9.4; Walker,67 S.W.3d 475.
I certify and affirm placing a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument into the prison mailbox with proper first class postage affixed, addressed to the State Prosecutor in Austin and the Montgomery County DA in Conroe on this date January 1,2015.
I PETER JAMES MARTIN declare under penalty of perjury that the above facts are true and correct and the attached amended rules are what this Court's clerk provided to me. EXECUTED ON JANUARY 1,2015.
Respecfully Submitted,
Peter James Martin, #1846003, pro-se, Stiles Unit, 3060 FM 3514 Beaumont, Texas 77705 > ^ - fJlpAtrd^^kF'S'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Misc. Docket No. 12-001
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDMENTSTO THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 938,49,52,53,55,64,68,70 AND 71
ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Section 22.108 of theTexas Government Code, the Court of Cnminal Appeals adopts the amendments to Rules 9, 38, 49, 52, 53, 55, 64, 68, 70 and 71 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, as follows, effective December 1,2012,
2. The Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals is directed to:
a. file a copy of this Order with theSecretary of State;
b. cause a copy of this Order to bepublished in the Texas Bar Journal;
c. submit a copy of the Order for publication in the Texas Register.
Dated: November 30, 2012.
Rule 9. Papers Generally
9.4.Form
Except for the record, adocument filed with an appellate court must —unless the court accepts another form in the interest ofjustice —be in the following form:
{Q)Typeface. Adocument inu&t be printed in siandaid 10-charactci pci-inch (cpi)
^nonpiopuiliuuallji spaced Courier typeface ui in 13 point ui larger piupuiliuiially spaced typeface. Dm if the document hprinted in apiuportioiullj spaced typeface, footnotes may be printed in typeface no Miiallu than lfrpuiiu. A document produced on a computer m,,*t h, pnnted in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-noint except for footnotes which must he no smaller than 12-point. A tvpewrittendocument must he printed in standard 10-character-per-inch (cpTftmonospacedjtvpeface.
(i)Len?th.
(l)Contents Included and Excluded. In calculatinp the length ofa document, every word and every part oftfa^documenUncluding headings, footnotes, and^uotations. must he counted ;&epttriefotlrjwing: caption. iQ^nttt^oTparTieTrann^oTm oral argument^ table ofcontents, index ofauthorities, statement ofthe case, statement of issues presented statement ofjurisdiction, statement ofprocedural history, signature, proofofservice.
certification, certificate ofcompliance, and apppnHiv| ^ _
(2)Maximum Length. The documents listed below must not exceed the following limits-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Martin, Peter James (Martin, Peter James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.