07-07-00436-CR
ROBERT BACK #1465630
POWLEDGE UNIT
1400 FM 3452
PALESTINE TX. 75803
~ ~UL~72~ ~
SEVENTH COURT OF APPEAl.S VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE
THE ABOVE ADDRESS IS MY NEW ADDRESS.
DEAR CLERK OF THE COURT, PLEASE ADVISE ME OF THE FILE DATE UPON FILING.
THANKYOU
~d~
SINCERELY
ROBERT BACK #1465630
~ ~UL ~72~ ~
SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
VIVIAN bONG. CLERK
IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR AMARILLO
CAUSE NO. 07-07-00436-CR
IN RE ROBERT BACK,
MOVANT.
IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ~ ~UL~?2~ ~
SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
OF APPEALS FOR AMARILLO VIVIAN J.ONG, CLERK
§
IN RE ROBERT BACK1 § APPELLATE COURT NO.
§
MOVANT. 07-07-00 436-CR §
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ISSUES FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW1 ROBERT BACK1 PRE SE MOVANT1 IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED AND NUMEBERED CAUSE1 AND WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THIS COURT'S PERMISSION TO PRESENT "MOST EGREGIOUS ISSUES OF COURT ERROR AND APPELLATE COUNSEL ERROR THAT WOULD FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINE THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE INTEGRITY AND REPUTATION OF THE COURT1 THAT WOULD RENDER THE COURT'S JUDGMENT NULL AND VOID1 AS A 'MATTER OF LAW AND IN EQUITY1 ' AND IF LEFT UNCORRECTED WOULD RESULT IN A 'MANIFEST MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE .'"
WHEREFORE/ MOVANT PRAYS THIS COURT GRANT HIM PERMISSION TO PRESENT HIS ISSUES1 SOLELY IN THE INTEREST THAT JUSTICE BE PROPER-
LY SERVED.
/V&L
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
ROBERT BACK #1465630
POWLEDGE UNIT/TDC J
1400 FM 3452
PALESTINE TX. 75803
2
IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ~ ~UL~72~ ~
SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS
VIVIAN I.,.QNQ, CLERK
OF APPEALS FOR AMARILLO
§
IN RE ROBERT BACK, § APPELLATE COURT NO.
MOVANT. § 07-07-0043 6-CR §
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT ISSUES FOR RELIEF FROM THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT WITH MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I.
JURISDICTI ON
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THIS COURT CAN INVOKE JURISDICTI ON TO HEAR AND CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING SUBJECT-MATTER PRESENTED, THE COURT SHOULD BE PERSUADED BY THE SCHOLARLY AND COGENT OPI:N.ION OF THE FOLLOWING COURT'S:
THIS COURT HAS INHERENT JURISDICTI ONAL POWER AND DUTY TO VA-
CATE ITS OWN VOID JUDGMENT, WHEN A MANIFEST INJUSTICE CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE RESULTED. SEE METROPOLITAIN TRANSIT AUTHORITY
v. JACKSON, 212 S.W.3d 797 (TEX. APP. -HOUSTON [1 DIST.] 2006) .•. AND A VOID JUDGMENT CAN BE ATTACKED AT ANY PLACE AND AT ANY
TIME DIRECTLY OR COLLATERALLY. SEE RAMSEY v. RAMSEY, 19 S.W.3d 548 (~EX. APP. -AUSTIN 2000). A JUDGMENT IS VOID FOR "ILLEGAL- ITY." EX PARTE SEIDEL, 39 S.W.3d 221,225 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 2001). (QUOTING EXPARTE SPAULDING, 687 S.W.2d AT 745, "A VOID JUDGMENT IS A NULLITY FROM THE BEGINNING, INTENDED BY NONE OF THE CONSE- QUENCES OF A VALID JUDGMENT, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT IMPAIR, EFFECT
3
OR CREAT LEGAL RIGHTS .")
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR TEXAS HAS HELD THAT, "DISTRI CT COURT'S CANNOT ABUSE THEIR DISCRETIONS BY NOT GRANTING A MOTION FOR REKIEF FROM A JUDGMENT, WHICH IS CLEARLY AT VARIANCE WITH FEDERAL STATUT E." SEE MEADOWS v. GOBEN, 409 F.2d AT 753 (5th Cir. 1969); AMES v. MILLER, 184 F.SUPP .2d 566,578 (N.D. TEX. 2002). THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT PREVENT THIS COURT FROM GRANTING RELIEF . ~HE FACT THAT THE JUDGMENT SOUGHT TO BE SET ASIDE HAD BEEN AFFORMED ON DIRECT APPEAL DOES NOT IMPAIR THE COURT'S ABILITY TO GRANT RELIEF . STANDARD OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES , 429 U.S. 17,97 S.Ct. 31,50 L.Ed.2d 21 (1976).
TaiS COURT IS A COURT OF EOUITY AND LAW, AND COURT'S OF EQUITY (WHICH COMPELS FAIR DEALINGS) MAY SET ASIDE JUDGMENTS PROCURED THROUGH "FRAUD ON THE COURT," WHERE THERE IS NO REfviEDY AT LAW. SEE METCALF v. WILLIAMS, 104 S.Ct. 93,26 L.Ed. 665 (1881). THE MOVANT WOULD RESPECTFULLY PLEAD THAT, "JUSTIC E MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED HERE IN HIS CASE, UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF THIS COURT'S "PUBLIC SERVICE DUTY AND OATH," IN MAINTAINING THE INTEG- RITY OF THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION. SEE CANON 3228 (ii), "PRESU MPTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE DUTY, OATH AND IMMUN ITY" THERULE 60 (b)(6) OF THE FED.R. CIV.P., IS A GRAND RESEVOIR OF "EQUITABLE POWER." HERRELL v. DCS EQUIP. LEASING CORP., 951 F.2d 1435,14 38 (5th Cir. 1992)(A FFORDI NG THE COURT THE POWER TO VACATE JUDGMENTS WHENEVER SUCH IS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH JUSTIC E. GONZALEZ, 545 u.s. AT 542,125 s.ct. 2641(2 005).
4
II.
STATEMENT OF CASE
THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE MOVAl~T SOUGHT AN APPEAL FROM A CONVICTION IN THIS APPELLATE COURT, OUT OF THE 320th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, IN CASE NO. 54,960-D, THE STATE OF TEXAS v. ROBERT JAMES BACK. AN APPELLANT 1 S BRIEF WAS FILED WITH THIS COURT BY AN APPOINTED COUNSEL "ARl\IOLD MILLER II I [\lARCH 4, 2008 I IN WHICH WAS AFFIR['.1ED JUNE 16 I 2008. IN THE BRIEF I "TW0"(2) ISSUES WERE PRESENTED:
1) SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, Al~D
2) INEFFECTIVE ASSISTfu~CE OF COUNSEL.
THE MOVAl~T BRINGS THIS MOTION BEFORE THIS COURT WITH THE CONCESSION THAT THE IN'I'EGRITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE JUDGMENTS MERITS WAS NOT REACHED IN THE I"lANNER PROSCRIBED BY LA~iJ, ; FROM HIS APPELLATE COUNSEL 1 S
FILING OF A , "FRIVOLOUS OR OTHERWISE FRAUDULENT APPELLfu~T
1
S BRIEF~ IN REFER--
ENCE TO THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED BY HIS APPELLATE ATTORNEY.
III.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE MEMORANDUM (MEMO) OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DELIVERED JUNE 16,2008, IDENTIFIES AT [ISSUE 2-INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL], THAT, "APPELLATE CONTENDES THAT HIS COUI\ISEL WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE "ADMISSIONS INTO EVIDENCE', OF SEVERAL PRIOR CONVICTIONS." [Ia. AT p.2, PARA 1]. THE MEMO OPINION, THEN IDENTIFIES THAT THE APPELLATE COURT "TURNED TO THE TRIAL RECORD BEFORE THEi.\1." [Id. AT p.2, PARA. 21. THE RECORD SHO~V'S THAT THE COURT THEN ~VENT 'I'HROUGH A THEORY <Id AT, MEMO AT pp. 2-3> OF
5
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE ••• i.e. AS IF THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS WERE SHOvm IN THE TRIAL RECORD "TO HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS HAVING BEEN ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, DURING THE GUILT/INNOCENCE PHASE OF THE PROCEEEDINGS •• ~ (i.e. AS A COURT OF COMPETENTS, "ALLEGEDLY REVIEWING THE TRIAL RECORDS").
HOWEVER, THE FACE OF THE TRIAL RECORD INCONTROVERTIVBLY IDENTIFIES THAT, "NOT ONE SINGLE PRIOR CONVICTION OF THE MOVANT'S WAS EITHER OFFERED AS EVIDEN- CE OR ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE." (EMPHASIS ADDED) •.• SO MUCH SO, THAT THE TRIAL COURT TOOK TIME TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER, ON THE FACE OF THE TRIAL RECORD ON ITS MERITS. [SEE VOLUME 3]; THE COURT STATING:
THE COURT: ANYBODY THINK THAT FIVE MINUTES IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR PUNISHNENT'?
MR. YONTZ:(PROSECUTOR) NO. THE ONLY THING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, YOUR HONOR IS, I'M GOING TO TENDER THE COPIES OF THE JUDGNENTS AND THAT'S IT.
THE COURT: OKAY. YOU DID NOT ENTER--YOU DID NOT REQUEST ADMISSION OF THOSE AT THE TIME OF CROSS-EXAMINATION?
MR. YONTZ: I'M SORRY?
THE COURT: WHEN YOU WENT OVER THEM EARLIER, YOU DID NOT OFFER THEM ?
MR. YONTZ: NO ID DIDN'T REQUEST ADfJIISSION [Id AT p. l3l,RR];
;SEE ALSO RR, AT p. 5; REVEALS, "NOT ONE PRIOR CONVICTION (JUDGMENT) OF THE MOVANT'S WAS OFFERED OR ADMITTED."
IV.
ARGUfvlENTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN A DEfvlOCRATIC SOCIETY, TWO PROPOSITIONS ARE CLEAR. TRUTH IS PROVINCE OF THE JUDICIARY, AND COURT'S STAFFED WITH FALLIBLE HUMANS INEVITABLY ERR.
6
EXPARTE ELIZONDO,
AS A CONSEQUENCE, SOME MEANS MUST EXIST TO CORRECT SUCH. SEE Y, GOVERNMENT
947 S.W.2d 202 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 1996). IN A CIVILIZED SOCIET NMENT: IF THAT
MUST ALWAYS BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE JUDICIARY FOR A MAN'S IMPRISO REQUIREMENTS OF
IMPRISONMENT CANNOT BE SHOWN ~0 CONFOR}1 WITH THE RULES AND
THE LAW AND CONSTITUTION. SEE EX PARTE TULEY, 109 S.W.3d 388 (TEX. CRIM.
2002).
APP. 2002); EX PARTE GRAVES, 70 S.W.3d 103,10 9 (TEX. CRIM. APP.
A DEFENDANT HAS A GUARANTEED, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER THE SIXTH AMENDMENT AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AS WELL-ESTABLISHED RULES OF LAW, TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON APPEAL, EVEN THOUGH THAT CANNOT BE DEEMED IN ANYWAY AS PART OF THE TRIAL. SEE HALBERT v. MICHIGAN, 545 U.S. 605 (2005) ; EVITTS
v. LUCEY, 469 U.S. 387 (1985)(CITED IN LAFLER v. COOPER, 566 U.S. - -( 2012).
"HE IS NOT
AS SUCH, THE MOVANT WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST TO THIS COURT, APPELLATE COURT'
ATTACKING THE CONVICTION AT THIS POINT, HE SIMPLY ATTACKS THE MOVANT'S COUNSEL
S JUDGMENTS INTEGRITY, AS NOT REACHING THE MERITS DUE TO THE ANCE
AT APPEAL BEING INEFFECTIVE OR RATHER HAVING NO COUNSEL AT ALL, IN ACCORD SE , WITH THE
WITH THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY OF THE TEXAS CIRCUIT COURT, LIKEWI OR IGNORANCE IN FACT," WHEN FRAUDULENTLY APPEALATE COURT'S , "INCOMPETENCE
INDUCED BY MOVANT'S ATTORNEY, INTO RULING ON THE ISSUE, "WHEN THE COURT HAD ES COMPLETE-
THE TRIAL RECORD BEFORE THEM, AND NOT ONE, BUT RATHER THREE JUSTIC CONVICTIONS WERE
LY OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT, "NOT ONE OF THE MOVANT'S PRIOR
ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE."
THE INCONTROVERTIBLENESS OF THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE BEING CLEAR AS IT
IS UPON THE FACE OF THE RECORD, THAT, "NONE OF THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS HAD T'S APPEL-
BEEN ADMITTED," WOULD STAND FOR A PRINCIPLE AND FACT THAT THE MOVAN A FRIVOLOUS
LATE ATTORNEY, DID AS A MATTER OF FACT AND A MATTER OF LAW, "FILE WHICH INDUCED A FRAUDULENT RULING AND/OR FRAUDULENT APPELLANT'S BRIEF,"
7
FROM THIS COURT. ("A MANIFEST INJUSTICE, AND FRAUD ON THE COURT, THAT THIS COURT IS BOUND IN ITS DUTY OF MAINTAINING JUSTICE, TO CORRECT") .. BECAUSE HAD THEY KNOWN OF THE FACT, THE MOVANT REMAINS CONFIDENT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RENDERED A JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS OF FACT, NOT FOUND AT ANYPLACE WITHIN THE TRIAL RECORD AS ALLEGED. THE MOVANT WOULD MERELY SUGGEST THAT THIS COURT, IN ITS PUBLIC SERVICE DUTY AND OATH OF MAINTAINING THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION <SEE CANON 3228 (ii) "PRESUMPTION OF PUBLIC SERVICE DUTY AND OATH">, HAS THE POWER AND DUTY TO RECALL THEIR JUDGMENT AND CORRCT THE EGREGIOUS ERROR BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION AND CONSERN IN MAINTAINING THE CONSTITUTION IN VIOLATE, AND TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER ON GOING MANIFEST, "MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICES" FROM RESULTING. AND LIKEWISE TO SAVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT.
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CASE OF LOMBARD, "WOULD SET PRECEDENTS IN TEXAS, AND HIS CASE HERE, WHEN THE APPELLATE COUNSEL FILES A FRIVOLOUS APPELLANT'S BRIEF, IT CONSTITUTES 'NO COUNSEL AT ALL', WHICH ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY DENIED THE DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AT APPEAL, AND THE PREJUDICE PRONG OF THE STRICKLAND TEST IS NOT REQUIRED." SEE LOMABARD v. LYNAUGH, 868 F.2d 1475 (5th Cir. 1989).
THIS COURT SHOULD REASONABLY CONSTRUE AND HOLD THIS CASE AS A , "CLASSIC CASE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL COMPUNDED BY INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL." BECAUSE HAD HIS TRIAL COUNSEL MERELY PRESERVED THE PREJUDICE OF THE STATES PROSECUTOR'S DIRECTLY REFERRING TO OR ELLUDING TO EVIDENCE DURING SUMMATION, NOT IN RECORD, BASICALLY CALLING THE MOVANT A LIER BASED ON EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE RECORD, OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS, PRESERVING SUCH FOR AP- PEAL, BY MOVING THE COURT FOR A MISTRIAL, IN WHICH THE COURT IN ITS DUTY WOULD HAVE OBLIGED OR BEEN IN ERROR HIMSELF, THE RESULTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS
8
WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME ••• HOWEVER, BECAUSE HIS COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST A SPECIAL INSTRUCTION FROM THE COURT, "TO ORDER THE JURORS THAT THEY COULD NOT CONSIDER THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR ANY PURPOSES, TO INCLUDE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, AND MOVING FOR A MISTRIAL TO PRESERVE THE ERROR ON THE RECORD 1 CAUSED THE NOVANT TO LOSE OR FORFEIT VALUABLE PROTECTIONS (RIGHTS) HE WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF, BUT FOR HIS COUNSEL' S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE," IN WHICH HAS NO RATIONAL OR REASONABLE TRIAL STRAT- EGY vlliATSOEVER. DUE TO THE FACT THAT ANY COMPETENT ATTORNEY WHO WAS OBJECTIVE- LY, ADVERSARIALLY TESTING THE STATES CASE IN CRIMINAL LAW, WOULD KNOW THAT A JURY WOULD FINED THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MOVANT WORTHLESS BASED ON BEING EXPOSED TO FIVE PRIOR CONVICTIONS, AND WOULD AUTOMATICALLY FIND HIM GUILTY BASED ON THOSE FACTS.
THE MOVANT WOULD THEREFORE APPLY THE PERFORMANCE PRONG OF THE STRICHLAND TEST , TO BOTH OF HIS COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATIONS FALLING WELL BELOW A COMPETENT OR REASONABLY ACCEPTABLE STANDARD, GUARANTEED THROUGH THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDM,ENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. i.e. IN THEIR MERE FAILURES TO PERFORM EVEN BASIC RESEARCH THAT WOULD HAVE EXPOSED THE DEAD-BANG WINNING ISSUES (i.e. LEGITIMATE ISSUES THAT WOULD HAVE GUARANTEED A REVERSAL, AS A MATTER OF LAW) THAT WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN AN AUTOMATIC MISTRIAL AND REVER- SAL HAD HIS COUNSEL'S BROUGHT SUCH PREJUDICIAL ISSUE TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION. (APPELLATE AND TRIAL, BASED ON THE CONTOLLING AUTHORITY WHICH PROHIBITS SUCH PREJUDICE. CERTAINLY RESULTING IN A DIFFERENT OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS. SEE STRICKLAND 466 U.S. AT 687-688 (1984).
THE STANDARD OF REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER A DEFENDANT WAS CONSTRUCTIVELY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, IS A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW, REVIEWED DENOVOREVIEW. SEE CHILDRESS v. JOHNSON, 103 F.3d 1221 (5th Cir. 1997). A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IS GUARANTEED THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, TO A TRIAL
9
FREE FROM FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS, ENEN UNFAIRNESS WHICH STEMS FROM BLATANTLY INCOMPETENT COUNSEL. CLARK v. BLACKBURN, 619 F.2d 431 (5th Cir. lgRO); HEALY v. CABANA, 764 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1985).
BOTH COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCES IN FAILING TO DO THE BASIC RESEARCH AND KNOW THE LAWS THAT HE IS EXPECTED TO KNOW TO DICLOSE AND PRESENT TO THE COURT'S THE FOLLOWING PREJUDICE CAUSED FROM THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS NOT BEING ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, AS LEGITIMATE NON-FRIVOLOUS ISSUE THAT WOULD HAVF. PRODUCED DIFFERENT RESIJLTS IN THE OUTCOME OF THE JUDGMENTS. C~LL'S HIS COUNSEL'S PERFOR- MANCES INTO SERIOUS QUESTION. NELSON v. HARGETT, 989 F.2d 847 (5th Cir. 1993)
HAD HIS COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATED ANJ APPLIED THE FOLLOWING LAW TO THE FACTS, CERTAINLY THIS COURT WOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY IN CONCLUDING THAT THE OUTCOMg OF THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. HAD THEY INVESTIGATED, TnEY WOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE FACT THAT THE PRIOR CO~ICriONS HAD NOT BEEN OFFERED AS EVIDENCE OR ADMITTED FOR ~t PURPOSES, EVEN TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANT, CAUSING A SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO THE MOVANT WHEN H[S COUN-
SEL ALLOWED THE STATE TO USE EVIDENCE IN HIS SUMMATION THA WAS NOT PART '
OF THE RECORD , AND THAT NOTHING COULD CURE ONCE THE JUROR'S WERE EXPOSED
TO THE FACTS. HAD HIS COUNSEL AT TRIAL MERELY REQUESTED A SPECIAL INSTRUCriON TO THE JURY THAT IT MUST DISREGARD THE PRIOR CONVICTIONS FOR ANY PURPOSES IN THE STATES ATTACKING OF THE MOVANT'S CREDIBILITY OR OTHERWISE, MAY HAVE RE- ASONABLY LED THE JURY TO BELIEVE THE MOVANT'S VERSION OF WHAT TRANSPIRED AND NOTED TO ACQUIT HIM. HOWEVER, BEING THE JURY WAS EXPOSED TO SU2H HARMFUL EVIDENCE DURING SUMMATION OF THE STATES, WOULD BE MOST EGREGIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL , AND CAUSE THE JURY TO VATE TO FIND GUILT, AT SUCH PIVITOL MOMENTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS, MUST NOT BE DEEMED AS A REASONABLE TRIAL STRATEGY.
A~ STATES SUMMATION OF EVIDENCE [REFERRING TO PRIOR CONVICTIONSl NOT IN RECORD:
10
·----~-~---~-~------~·------ ----·------------ -· ------------- ~----------- ·-
(PROSECUTOR'S CLOSING): "BUT LOJK AT IT FURTHER LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
LOOK WHO HAS THE MOST TO LOSE IN THIS CASE AND CONSIDER IN LIGHT OF THEIR TESTIMONY BEFORE YOU, AND THAT'S THE DEFENDANT. CONSIDER EVERYTHING HE SAID AND HIS CREDIBILITY IN 'LIGHT OF HIS FIVE PRIOR CONVICTIONS', AND YOU'LL FIND OUT HOW HE MADE UP THIS STORY AND WHY HE MADE UP THIS STORY." [Id. AT VOL. 3, p. 110, AT 20-25,RR].
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR TEXAS, IN THE NERO CASE, MUST SET A PRECEDENTS HERE, AS BEING IDENTICAL IN FACTS, TO THE MOVANTS CASE. THE COURT CONCLUDED: "IT CAN HARDLY BE IMAGINED ANYTHING MORE PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFEND-
ANT THAN ALLOWING THE JURY IN AN ARMED ROBBERY CASE (MOVANT BACK'S CASE IS A ROBBERY) TO HEAR THE PROSECUTOR'S COMMENTS DURING CLOSING (SUMMATION OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT WAS NOT ADMITTED INTO THE RECORD. i.e. THE PRIOR CONVICTI-
ONS), THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN CONVICTED FOR BURGLARY AN~ DRUG CHARGP.S-
(i.e. AS WAS MOVANT "BACK" CONVICTED OF BURGLARY AND DRUG CHARGES). THE JURY MAY WELL HAVE CONVICTED THE DEFENDANT OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE BECAUSE OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS." SEE NERO v. BLACKBURN, 597 F.2d AT 994 (5th Cir. 1979).
HERE IN THE MOVANT'S CASE, HIS COUNSEL'S (APPELLATE AND TRIAL) PERFORMANCES WERE MOR THAN INCORRECT, THEY WERE UNREASONABLE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT'S FOUL BLOW TACTICS WERE UNFAIR AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE MOVANT .•.• YET, COUNSEL'
S SAT SILENT AT THE MOST PIVITOL MOMENTS, AND SUCH PREJUDICE IS NOT SOUND STRIAL STRATEGY OR COMPETENT. THE MOVANT MAY AS WELL OF HAD NO COUNSEL AT ALL. BECAUSE HIS COUNSEL'S LIKE NEROS' COUNSEL ALLOWED THE STATE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS DURING SUMMATION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT IN THE RE02RD, NOT ADMITTED BY ANY COURT .•. THIS ERROR BY HIS COUNSEL'S IS CRUCIAL SINCE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS, EVEN WHEN USED FOR CEDIBILITY PURPOSES, IS SO HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL, IT RENDERS THE WHOLE TRIAL FUNDAMENTALLY
11
UNFAIR. NERO, AT 994.
AS SUCH, MOVANT'S COUNSEL'S MISAPPREHENSIONS OF FACT AND LAW IN THIS CASE, IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF DEFICIENCY OF COUNSEL'S. SEE SMITH v. DRETKE. 417 F.3d AT 442 (5th Cir. 2005)(CITING WILLIAMS v. 'T'AYT.OR, 529 U.S. 362,120 S.Ct. 1495 ( 2000 )).. THIS MISUNDERSTANDING COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED OR CORRECTED WITH MNIMAL RESEARCH OF FACT AND LAW. IT CAN HARDLY BE DOUBTED THAT THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COUNSEL'S HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION (DUTY) TO INVESTIGATE AND UNDERSTAND THE LAW SURROUNDING THE CASE. WILLIAMS , 529 u.s. 395,120
s.ct. 1495).
CONVERSELY, "STRUCTURAL ERRORS" HAVE RESULTED IN THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS
AND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THAT FUNDAMENTALLY UNDERMINED THE INTEGRITY, RELIABILITY AND FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEEDINGS- AND AS A MATTER OF WELL ESTAB- LISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW, REQUIRE AND AUTOMATIC REVERSAL AND REMAND BACK TO THE APPELLATE COURT AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS. SEE ARIZONA v. FULMINANTE, 499 U.S. 279.303-10 (1991); SATTERWHITE v- TEXAS, 486 u.s. 249,256-57 (1988).
BECAUSE THE RAISING OF THE LEGITIMATE ISSUE HERE IN THE APPELLATE COURT WOULD ONLY HELP 'rHE MOVANT. ANY ATTORNEY WITH AN ORDINARY COMPETENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW WOULD KNOW AND RAISE SUCH A SUBSTANTALLY HARMFUL ISSUE IN THIS SITUATION, HOWEVER, THE FAILURE OF HIS COUNSEL'S TO EVEN PRESERVE AND RAISE 'l'HE ISSUE IS PREJUDICIAL WITHIN ITSELF, AMOUNT i:NG TO "NO COUNSEL AT ALL , " BECAUSE HIS APPE•:..LATE COUNSEL FAILED TO RAISE THIS LEGITIMATE ISSUE, BUT RATHER RAISED FRIVOLOUS AND FRAUDULENT ISSUE£.
CONCLUSION
WITH THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE BEING SECURED ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD
12
AUTHOR-
AS DISCLOSED HEREIN HIS MOTION, ALONG WITH THE CONTROLLING PRECEDENTED
ITY, BEING CONSIDERABLY IN FAVOR OF THE MOVANT'S PLEADINGS, THIS COURT SHOULD
GRANT HIS MOTION AND VACATE JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE COURT AND RETURN HIM ISSUES,
TO THIS COURT FOR AN OUT OF TIME APPEAL SO HE MAY RAISE HIS LEGITIMATE
THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF. AND TO PREVENT A FUNDAMENTAL
MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE FROM RESULTING.
11 11
RELIEF SOUGHT
1) ACCEPT JURSDICTION OVER THIS CAUSE;
2) HOLD SUCH EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AS THIS COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY;
3) ISSUE ORDER THAT THIS COURT WILL GRANT THIS MOTION AND VACATE ITS JUDGMENT AND ISSUE ORDER FOR AN OUT OF TIME APPEAL, BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANT HAVING NO COUNSEL ON APPEAL; AND 4) ISSUE ORDER THAT THE STATE IS TO HOLD A NEW TRIAL OR OFFER HIM THE ORIGINAL PLEA OFFER OF THE 8 YEARS WITH TIME SERVED, BEING HE HAS OVER THAT AMOUNT OF FLAT TIME ACCRUED AS OF JANUARY OF 2007-JANUARY OF 2015. 1
OR 5) WHATEVER ELSE THAT LAW AND EQUITY ENTITLE HIM TOO.
SO-
WHEREFORE, THE MOVANT PRAYS THIS COURT GRANT HIS MOTION AND ALL RELIEF
UGHT.
/1 /L J-
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
ROBERT BACK #1465630
POWLEDGE UNIT/TDCJ
1400 FM 3452
PALESTINE TX. 75803
13
.DECLARATION
I, ROBERT BACK #1465630, DO HEREBY DECLARE THAT THE FOREGFOING INFORMA-
TION IS TRUE AND CORRECT UNDER PELALTY OF PERJURY. 29 U.S.C. §1746
JULY ~,2015
#~
DECLARANT
ROBERT BACK #1465630
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I, HEREBY DECLARE THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE FOREGOING INFORMATION HAS BEEN SENT TO ON:
SEVENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR AMARILLO P.O. BOX 9540 AMARILLO TX 79105-954 0
JULY .2tJ I 2015
DECLARANT
ROBERT BACK #1465630
CC FILE
._.,_,,~,,.~,·'"'«f'~"'"'"1"'~~~-""'7;""'!;<1'1>1"'!"'{'"-~~'>'~l"'?'~,~-<:',.-~~\"'!>.,.,...,~-·'...,...'""~'~"••'''''~<:'-'.,..'
~~'"'·~"1'.1!R1"l'!~'"'i1V.!<>,,..._.,• .'~·'>''"
·,_
. ROBERT BACK #1<±65630 "'
POWLEDGE UNIT "'
1400 FM 3452 ""'
c:
PALESTINE TX. 75803 "'
>
THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT P.O. BOX 9540
AMARILLO TX. 79105-9540