Volume I of I SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT
Trial Court No. D-l-DC-14-100139 COURTOFSSauPP^ In the 390TH Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, StP Q49niA Honorable BERT RICHARDSON, Judge Presiding. Abel Acosta, Clerk Ex Parte: JAMES RICHARD "RICK" PERRY, Applicant
APPEALED to the Court of Appeals transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas, at Austin, Texas.
Attorney for Applicant DAVID BOTSFORD 1307 WEST AVENUE RcCEiVED IN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Telephone No.; (512) 479-8030 Fax No.: (512) 479-8040 SEP 02 2015 State Bar No.: 02687950
Attorney for State: Abel Acosta,Clerk MR. MICHAEL MCCRUM, District Attorney Pro Tem Travis County, Texas 700 N. Mary's St., Suite 1900 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone No.: (210) 225-2285 Fax No.: (210) 225-7045
DELIVERED to the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas, at Austin, Texas, on the I day of P ,2.0IS- VELVA L. PRICE District Clerk, Travis County,
HOLLI SILER, Deputy io »;>'•" "WuenaliW""
Court of Criminal Appeals No. FILED in the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas, at Austin, Texas, this day of , .
ABEL ACOSTA, Clerk
By: , Deputy Index
CAPTION 1
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL 2
AMENDED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL 10
CLERK'S RECORD CERTIFICATE 18 CAPTION
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
In the 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of Travis County, Texas, the Honorable BERT RICHARDSON, Judge Presiding, the following proceedings were held and the following instruments and other papers were filed in this cause, to-wit:
Trial Court Cause Number: D-i-DC-14-100139
THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VS. OF
JAMES RICHARD"RICK" PERRY TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
e=». NO. D-l-DC-14-100139
STATE OF TEXAS § ^ THE DISTRICT COURT § S 390th DISTRICT COURT vs ®
§
JAMES RICHARD "RICK" PERRY § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PFNniNG APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARDSON:
Now COMES THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through Michael McCrum, District Attorney Pro Tern, Travis County, Texas, and pursuant to TEX. CODE CRM. PROC. article 44.01(e) and TEX. R.App. P 25.2(g) presents this Motion.
I. OVERVIEW
The Grand Jury indicted Defendant ontwo counts; (1) Abuse ofOfficial Capacity Statute, orTBf. Penal Code §39.02(a)(2), wUch makes it m offense for a"public servant," "with intent to harm... another," to intentionally or knowingly "misuse government property... that has come into the pubic servant s custody or possession by virtue ofthe public servant's office or employment; (2) Coercion ofPublic Servant, or Tex. PenalCode §36.03(a)(1) which makes it moffense for aperson, "by means ofcoercion," to "influence" or attempt to' influence a public servant" to a specific end.
To date, the prosecution ofboth ofthese counts has proceeded under one indictment with one cause number and forresolution byonetrial. On July 24,2014 the Third Court ofAppeal issued an opinion effectively dividing the ^ Filed in The District Court case intotwo separate actions. Travis County, Texas
AU6 31 M15 At ^ M- V(}lva L Price, District^ierk
C3 rv> (1) The Court ofAppeals affirmed this Court's rulings that Defendant's "as-apphed" challenges may not be considered in pretrial habeas; and (2) The appellate court decided that the statute the Texas Legislature passed to combat public corruption isoverbroad and unenforceable. Although the Third Court ofAppeals rejected Defendant's legal arguments to dismiss Count I, he is seeking apetition for discretionary review with the Court ofCriminal Appeals. And because the Third Court ofAppeals invalidated apublic law that protects all citizens from public corruption, the State Prosecutor's Office is seeking discretionary review regarding the statute at issue in Count Two.
It is unknown whether the Court ofCriminal Appeals will grant review on either or both groimds.
11. THE STATE'S POSITION
The State's interests are threefold: 1) to resolve this case in the most fair, expeditious and prompt manner possible; 2) to avoid duplicitous legal proceedings, thereby saving time and expense to the taxpayers ofTravis County and the State ofTexas; and 3) to defend astatute that was passed by the Texas Legislature specifically to protect the public from abuse ofpower by public officials. The issue before this Court is whether to address pending motions to dismiss the remaining count and/or proceed to trial on the remaining count The State is concerned, however, that proceeding forward in the district court could give rise to an umiecessary, significant expenditure ofresources, given the fact that the Court ofCriminal Appeals has pending before it live pleadings affecting each ofthe counts ofthe indictment. As this Court is aware, the opinion ofthe Third Court ofAppeals in the instant case entitles both parties to seek fiirther review in the Court ofCriminal Appeals for afinal determination ofdisputed legal issues as to each count ofthe indictment. From the State's
G9 C3 r.n perspective, the court ofappeals' decision affects Count II ofthe indictment, triggering the right ofthe State to appeal pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. §44.01(a) and 44.01(h). 5e«. e.g.. State V. Richardson, 383 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. §44.01(e), the State may request astay ofall district court proceedings so that afinal determination by the Court of Criminal Appeals may be made on the constitutionahty ofthe public corruption statute in Count II.
The State is mindful that it could seek to proceed to trial on Count Iand await the Court ofCriminal Appeals' decision on Count II. But because the Court ofCriminal Appeals has before it requested relieffiled by both parties relative to both ofthe indictment counts, it does not appear prudent for the district court to make decisions relative to either ofthese counts and/or proceed to trial, where the Court ofCriminal Appeals may make such moot or otherwise umiecessary. The State believes the more prudent path is to await direction firom the Court of Criminal Appeals on the pending petitions for discretionary review.
III. LEGAL SUPPORT
A Arrirlt.44 ni of the T^xas Codeof Criminal Procedure
The State is entitled to astay ofall trial court proceedings pending resolution ofthe appeals concerning the S"* Court's dismissal ofportions ofDefendant's indictment.' Through its petition for discretionary review, the State is appealing the 3"> Court's dismissal ofaportion ofthe
' See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 44.01(a) and (e).
as cs indictment against Defendant. As this is plainly considered an appeal, the State is entitled to a stay ofall lower proceedings "pending the disposition ofthe appeal." Under Article 44.01, the State is only allowed to appeal certain orders and judgments. One of the limited instances in which the State is allowed an appeal is when an order orjudgment "dismisses an indictment, information, or complaint or any portion ofan indictment, information, or complaint."'
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Volume I of I SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSCRIPT
Trial Court No. D-l-DC-14-100139 COURTOFSSauPP^ In the 390TH Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, StP Q49niA Honorable BERT RICHARDSON, Judge Presiding. Abel Acosta, Clerk Ex Parte: JAMES RICHARD "RICK" PERRY, Applicant
APPEALED to the Court of Appeals transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas, at Austin, Texas.
Attorney for Applicant DAVID BOTSFORD 1307 WEST AVENUE RcCEiVED IN AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS Telephone No.; (512) 479-8030 Fax No.: (512) 479-8040 SEP 02 2015 State Bar No.: 02687950
Attorney for State: Abel Acosta,Clerk MR. MICHAEL MCCRUM, District Attorney Pro Tem Travis County, Texas 700 N. Mary's St., Suite 1900 San Antonio, Texas 78205 Telephone No.: (210) 225-2285 Fax No.: (210) 225-7045
DELIVERED to the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas, at Austin, Texas, on the I day of P ,2.0IS- VELVA L. PRICE District Clerk, Travis County,
HOLLI SILER, Deputy io »;>'•" "WuenaliW""
Court of Criminal Appeals No. FILED in the Court of Criminal Appeals for the State of Texas, at Austin, Texas, this day of , .
ABEL ACOSTA, Clerk
By: , Deputy Index
CAPTION 1
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL 2
AMENDED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL 10
CLERK'S RECORD CERTIFICATE 18 CAPTION
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
In the 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of Travis County, Texas, the Honorable BERT RICHARDSON, Judge Presiding, the following proceedings were held and the following instruments and other papers were filed in this cause, to-wit:
Trial Court Cause Number: D-i-DC-14-100139
THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT VS. OF
JAMES RICHARD"RICK" PERRY TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
e=». NO. D-l-DC-14-100139
STATE OF TEXAS § ^ THE DISTRICT COURT § S 390th DISTRICT COURT vs ®
§
JAMES RICHARD "RICK" PERRY § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PFNniNG APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARDSON:
Now COMES THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through Michael McCrum, District Attorney Pro Tern, Travis County, Texas, and pursuant to TEX. CODE CRM. PROC. article 44.01(e) and TEX. R.App. P 25.2(g) presents this Motion.
I. OVERVIEW
The Grand Jury indicted Defendant ontwo counts; (1) Abuse ofOfficial Capacity Statute, orTBf. Penal Code §39.02(a)(2), wUch makes it m offense for a"public servant," "with intent to harm... another," to intentionally or knowingly "misuse government property... that has come into the pubic servant s custody or possession by virtue ofthe public servant's office or employment; (2) Coercion ofPublic Servant, or Tex. PenalCode §36.03(a)(1) which makes it moffense for aperson, "by means ofcoercion," to "influence" or attempt to' influence a public servant" to a specific end.
To date, the prosecution ofboth ofthese counts has proceeded under one indictment with one cause number and forresolution byonetrial. On July 24,2014 the Third Court ofAppeal issued an opinion effectively dividing the ^ Filed in The District Court case intotwo separate actions. Travis County, Texas
AU6 31 M15 At ^ M- V(}lva L Price, District^ierk
C3 rv> (1) The Court ofAppeals affirmed this Court's rulings that Defendant's "as-apphed" challenges may not be considered in pretrial habeas; and (2) The appellate court decided that the statute the Texas Legislature passed to combat public corruption isoverbroad and unenforceable. Although the Third Court ofAppeals rejected Defendant's legal arguments to dismiss Count I, he is seeking apetition for discretionary review with the Court ofCriminal Appeals. And because the Third Court ofAppeals invalidated apublic law that protects all citizens from public corruption, the State Prosecutor's Office is seeking discretionary review regarding the statute at issue in Count Two.
It is unknown whether the Court ofCriminal Appeals will grant review on either or both groimds.
11. THE STATE'S POSITION
The State's interests are threefold: 1) to resolve this case in the most fair, expeditious and prompt manner possible; 2) to avoid duplicitous legal proceedings, thereby saving time and expense to the taxpayers ofTravis County and the State ofTexas; and 3) to defend astatute that was passed by the Texas Legislature specifically to protect the public from abuse ofpower by public officials. The issue before this Court is whether to address pending motions to dismiss the remaining count and/or proceed to trial on the remaining count The State is concerned, however, that proceeding forward in the district court could give rise to an umiecessary, significant expenditure ofresources, given the fact that the Court ofCriminal Appeals has pending before it live pleadings affecting each ofthe counts ofthe indictment. As this Court is aware, the opinion ofthe Third Court ofAppeals in the instant case entitles both parties to seek fiirther review in the Court ofCriminal Appeals for afinal determination ofdisputed legal issues as to each count ofthe indictment. From the State's
G9 C3 r.n perspective, the court ofappeals' decision affects Count II ofthe indictment, triggering the right ofthe State to appeal pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. §44.01(a) and 44.01(h). 5e«. e.g.. State V. Richardson, 383 S.W.3d 544, 545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. §44.01(e), the State may request astay ofall district court proceedings so that afinal determination by the Court of Criminal Appeals may be made on the constitutionahty ofthe public corruption statute in Count II.
The State is mindful that it could seek to proceed to trial on Count Iand await the Court ofCriminal Appeals' decision on Count II. But because the Court ofCriminal Appeals has before it requested relieffiled by both parties relative to both ofthe indictment counts, it does not appear prudent for the district court to make decisions relative to either ofthese counts and/or proceed to trial, where the Court ofCriminal Appeals may make such moot or otherwise umiecessary. The State believes the more prudent path is to await direction firom the Court of Criminal Appeals on the pending petitions for discretionary review.
III. LEGAL SUPPORT
A Arrirlt.44 ni of the T^xas Codeof Criminal Procedure
The State is entitled to astay ofall trial court proceedings pending resolution ofthe appeals concerning the S"* Court's dismissal ofportions ofDefendant's indictment.' Through its petition for discretionary review, the State is appealing the 3"> Court's dismissal ofaportion ofthe
' See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 44.01(a) and (e).
as cs indictment against Defendant. As this is plainly considered an appeal, the State is entitled to a stay ofall lower proceedings "pending the disposition ofthe appeal." Under Article 44.01, the State is only allowed to appeal certain orders and judgments. One of the limited instances in which the State is allowed an appeal is when an order orjudgment "dismisses an indictment, information, or complaint or any portion ofan indictment, information, or complaint."'
Here, the 3"" Court's July 24,2015 Order dismissed aportion ofthe indictment returned against Defendant, namely Count nofthe Indictment,by finding oneofthe statutesunder which Defendant was mdicted was unconstitutional. Thus, the Stale's petition for discrettonary review is apermitted appeal ofthe3rd Court's orderunder Art. 44.01(a) ofthe Texas CodeofCriminal Procedure.
once the State appeals an orierorjudgmentunder Article 44.01(a), it is "enttUedto astay in the proceedings pendingthe disposition of[the] appeal" under Article44.01(e). Upon request by tfie State, we respectfully submit the district court has no discretion.
Pursuant to that Article, and in the interest ofjustice, the State requests this Stay. R Rnlft 75.2 of file Texas "f Appellate Procedure
In fact, astay in the trial proceedings in this Court should be mUomatic upon the Defendant's TOrd Court appeal and petition for discretionary review to the Court ofCrimtaal Appeals (andnow the State's PDR), due to Rule 25.2 oftheTexas RulesofAppellateProcedure. =&.Tex.CodeCrim.Proc.a;r44.0Ue) ('The stateisentitled toastayintheproceedtagspe^iingthe disposUion ofanappeal under Subsection(a) or (b) ofthis article ). ^See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 44.01(a)
CTJ zn SubsecHon (a)(1) ofthat rule recognizes the State's right to appeal acourt's order under § 44.01 the Code ofCriminal Procedure* When such an appeal is undertakenbythe State, rule 25.2(g) mandates that "all fcrther proceedings in the trial court.,. wiU be suspendeduntil the trial court receives the appellate-court mandate."
As this Court has yet to receive the Court ofCriminal Appeal's mandate related to the Third Court's order, all proceedings in this Court are suspended until that mandate is passed-down.
Thus, this motion only asks this Court to recognize astay that is automatic under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IV. RELIEF SOUGHT
Pursuant to the above, the State requests astay ofall trial court proceedings mthis Court pendmgresolntion ofthe current appeals ofthe Third Court's July 25,2015 orderintheCourtof Criminal Appeals, Respectfully Submitted:
Michael McCrum State Bar No. 13493200 District Attorney Pro Tem Travis County, Texas 700 N. St. Mary's St., Suite1900 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone; (210) 225-2285 Facsimile; (210)225-7045 michael@mccrumlegal.com
Court'sJuly24,2015order. ®Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(g) (emphasis added). (S
cr: rYtA^ DavIid M.Gonzalez State Bar No. 24012711 Assistant District Attorney Pro Tern Travis County, Texas 206 East9'*' Street, Suite 1511 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 381-9955 Facsimile; (512)485-3121 david@sg-llp.com
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
cs TFRTIFICA'TF. of service
This is to certify that on August 2015, atrue and correct copy of this the State's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal has been emailed to.
David L. Botsford Botsford & Roark 1307 West Ave. Austin, TX 78701 (512) 479-8040 Facsimile dbotsford@aol.com
Thomas R. Phillips Baker Botts,L.L.P. 98 SanJacinto Blvd., Ste. 1500 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 322-8363 Facsimile Tom.phillipgf^^alferhotts.com
Anthony G, Buzbee The Buzbee Law Firm 600 Travis St., Ste. 7300 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 223-5909 Facsimile tbuzbee@txattomeys.com
David M. Gonzalez
C3 CO NO. D-l-DC-14-100139
STATE OFTEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § 390th DISTRICT COURT § JAMES RICHARD PERRY § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER
On this day came on to be considered the State's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all trial court proceedings shall be stayed until all legal matters areresolved in theCourt of Criminal Appeals.
2015. SIGNED this day of.
Judge Richardson
STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § vs § 390th DISTRICT COURT § JAMES RICHARD "RICK" PERRY § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
AMENDED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE RICHARDSON:
Now COMES THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through Michael McCrum, District Attorney
Pro Tem, Travis County, Texas, and pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. article 44.01(e) and
Tex. R. App. P 25.2(g) presents this Motion,
The Grand Jury indicted Defendant on two counts:
(1) Abuse of Official Capacity Statute, orTex.Penal Code § 39.02(a)(2), which makes it an offense fora "public servant," "with intent toharm ... another," to intentionally or knowingly "misuse government property... thathascome into the pubic servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment; (2) Coercion ofPublic Servant, orTex. Penal Code § 36.03(a)(1) which makes it anoffense fora person, "bymeans of coercion," to "influence" or attempt to "influence" a "public servant" to a specific end.
Todate, theprosecution ofboth ofthese counts has proceeded under one indictment with one cause number and for resolution by one trial.
OnJuly 24,2015 the Third Court ofAppeal issued anopinion effectively dividing the
case into two separate actions: Filed in Tlie District Court of Travis County, Texas
SEP0120I5 A' M. V^^iva L. Price, District Clerk
cri (1) The Court ofAppeals affirmed this Court's rulings that Defendant's "as-applied" challenges may not be considered in pretrial habeas; and (2) The appellate court decided that the statute the Texas Legislature passed to combat public corruption is overbroad and unenforceable. Although the Third Court ofAppeals rejected Defendant's legal arguments todismiss Count I, heisseeking a petition for discretionary review with the Court ofCriminal Appeals. And because the Third Court ofAppeals invalidated a public law that protects all citizens from public corruption, the State Prosecutor's Office is seeking discretionary review regarding the statute at issue in Count Two.
It is unknown whether the Court of Criminal Appeals willgrantreview on either or both
groimds.
II. THE STATE'S POSITION
The State's interests are threefold: 1) to resolve this case in the most fair, expeditious and prompt manner possible; 2) to avoid duplicitous legal proceedings, thereby saving time and expense to the taxpayers ofTravis County and the State ofTexas; and 3) to defend astatute that was passed by the Texas Legislature specifically to protect the public from abuse ofpower by public officials. The issue before this Court is whether to address pending motions to dismiss the remaining count and/or proceed to trial on the remaining count. The State is concerned, however, that proceeding forward in the district court could give rise to an unnecessary, sigmficant expenditure ofresources, given the fact that the Court ofCriminal Appeals has pending before it live pleadings affecting each ofthe counts ofthe indictment. As this Court is aware, the opinion ofthe Third Court ofAppeals inthe instant case entitles both parties to seek further review in the Court ofCriminal Appeals for afinal determination ofdisputed legal issues as to each count ofthe indictment. From the State's
)—>• perspective, the court ofappeals' decision affects Count II ofthe indictment, triggering the right of the State to appeal pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. § 44.01(a) and44.01(h). See, e.g.. State
V. Richardson, 383 S.W.3d544,545 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine, 330
S.W.3d 904(Tex. Crim. App. 2011). Pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. § 44.01(e), the State
may request a stay ofall district court proceedings so that a final determination bythe Court of Criminal Appeals may be made ontheconstitutionality of the public corruption statute in
Count II.
The State is mindfulthat it couldseek to proceed to trial on Count I and await the Court
of Criminal Appeals' decision onCoimt II. But because the Court ofCriminal Appeals has before it requested relief filed byboth parties relative toboth ofthe indictment counts, it does not appear prudent for the district court to make decisions relative to either ofthese counts and/or proceed to trial, where the Court ofCriminal Appeals may make such moot orothrawise unnecessary. The State believes the more prudent path isto await direction firom the Court of Criminal Appeals on the pending petitions fordiscretionary review.
ni. LEGAL SUPPORT
A. Article 44.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
The State isentitled toa stay ofall trial court proceedings pending resolution ofthe appeals concerning the 3"* Court's dismissal ofportions ofDefendant's indictment.' Through its petition for discretionary review, the State is appealing the 3"® Court's dismissal ofaportion ofthe
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 44.01(a) and (e). indictment against Defendant. As this isplainly considered an appeal, the State isentitled to a stay ofall lower proceedings "pending the disposition ofthe appeal."^
Under Article 44.01, the State isonly allowed to appeal certain orders and judgments. One of the limited instances in which the State is allowed an appeal is when an orderor judgment
"dismisses anindictment, information, orcomplaint orany portion ofanindictment, information, orcomplaint."'
Here, the 3*^ Court's July 24,2015 Order dismissed aportion ofthe indictment returned against Defendant, namely Count II ofthe Indictment, by finding one ofthe statutes under which Defendant was indicted was unconstitutional. Thus, theState's petition for discretionary review
is apermitted appeal ofthe 3rd Court's order under Art. 44.01(a) ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Once the State appeals an order or judgment under Article 44.01(a), itis "entitled to astay in the proceedings pending the disposition of[the] appeal" under Article 44.01(e). Upon request by the State, we respectfully submit the district court has no discretion.
Pursuant to that Article, and inthe interest ofjustice, the State requests this Stay.
R. Rule 25.2 of the Texas Rules of Apnellate Procedure
In fact, astay in the trial proceedings in this Court should be automatic upon the Defendant's Third Court appeal and petition for discretionary review in the Court ofCrimmal Appeals (and now the State's PDR), due to Rule 25.2 ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure.
2See Tex. Code Crim. Free. art. 44.01(e) ("The state is entitled to astay in the proceedings pending the disposition ofan appeal under Subsection (a) or (b) ofthis article"). ' See Tex. Code Ciim. Proc. arts. 44.01(a)
CD
r Subsection (a)(1) ofthat rule recognizes the State's right to appeal acourt's order under § 44.01 the Code ofCriminal Procedure." When such an appeal is undertaken by the State, rule 25.2(g) mandates that "all ftulher proceedings in the trial court... will be suspendeduntil the trial court receives the appellate-court mandate."^
As this Court has yet to receive the Court ofCriminal Appeal's mandate related to the Third Court's order, all proceedings in this Court are suspended xintil that mandate is passed-down.
Thus, this motion only asks this Court to recognize astay that is automatic under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Pursuant to the above, the State requests astay ofall trial court proceedings in this Court paiding resolution ofthe cunwit appeals oftheThird Comt's My25,2015 order in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Respectfully Submitted;
Michael McCRUM State Bar No. 13493200 District Attorney Pro Tem Travis Coimty, Texas 700N. St. Mary's St., Suite 1900 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210)225-2285 Facsimile: (210) 225-7045 michael@mccrumlegal.com
^Tex RApp. P. 25.2(a)(1). As discussed above, Tex. Code Grim. Proc. §44.01(a) allows State to aJpSl a orderJiJ.heffectively dismisses aportion ofthe indictment-as is the casemtheTbrd Court's July 24,2015 order. ®Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(g) (emphasis added). cs [—ft David M. Gonzalez State Bar No. 24012711 Assistant District Attorney Pro Tern Travis County, Texas 206 East9*^ Street, Suite 1511 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 381-9955 Facsimile; (512)485-3121 david@sg-llp.com
ATTORNEYSFOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
cs
' rv rKRTlFlCATF. OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on September 1, 2015 atroe and comct copy of this the State's Amended Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal has been emailed to:
David L. Botsford Botsford & Roark 1307 West Ave. Austin, TX 78701 (512) 479-8040 Facsimile dbotsford@aol.com
Thomas R. Phillips Baker Botts, L.L.P. 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste. 1500 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 322-8363 Facsimile Tom.phillips(5^bakerbotts.com
Anthony G. Buzbee The Buzbee Law Firm 600 Travis St., Ste. 7300 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 223-5909 Facsimile tbuzbee@txattomeys.com
David M. Gonzalez NO. D-l-DC-14-100139
STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § 390th DISTRICT COURT § JAMES RICHARD PERRY § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
On this day came on to be considered the State's Amended Motion to Stay Proceedmgs Pending Appeal.
rr IS HEREBY ORDERED that all trial court proceedings shall be stayed until all legal matters are resolved in theCourt ofCriminal Appeals.
SIGNED this day of 2015.
Judge Richardson CLERK'S RECORD CERTIFICATE
THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS
I, VELVA L. PRICE, Clerk of the District Courts of Travis County,Texas, do hereby certify that the documents contained in this record to which this certifications is attached are al of the documents specified by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5 (a) and all other documents timely requested by a party to this proceeding under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5 (b).
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL of said Court at Office in Austin, Travis County, Texas, this the ^ day of , Qoi^ .
VELVA L. PRICE District Clerk, Travis County, Texas
Deputy
C3