Armstrong, Tristan Omarr ( 2015 )

/S75-fK
ORIGINAL NO. PD-1575-15
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS
OF TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
DEC 112015
TRISTAN OMARR ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner
AbelAcosta,Clerk
THE STATE OF TEXAS
FILED
Petition in Cause No. 2013-CR-5695 from theC0URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
District Court ofBexar County, Texas and "tC 11 2015
The Court of Appeals for the
Abel Acosta, Clerk
First District of Texas
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Tristan Omarr Armstrong
P.O. Box 2354
Universal City, Texas 78148-1354
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
INDIGENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Authorities ii
Statement Regarding Oral Argument 2
Statement of the Case 3
Statement of Procedural History of the Case 3
Grounds for Review 3-4
I. Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel, Oscar Cantu Jr. intentionally deceived the
Court of Appeals by submitting misleading correspondence.
II. Oscar Cantu Jr. confirmed his self, along with Patrolman Grey, all officers who
swore under oath on May 29, 2014, and Universal City Police Department are part
of an exceptional question that requires an extensive review by the Court of
Appeals.
Argument in Support of Reason for Review 4-5
Prayer for Relief 5
Appendix 6
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAW:
Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) (Anders Brief)
CONSTITUTIONS:
U.S. Const, amend. I § 3.
U.S. Const, amend. IV %2.
U.S. Const, amend. V § 2.
U.S. Const, amend. VI § 3.
U.S. Const, amend. VIII § 2.
STATUES:
26 U.S.C. § 7206(c)
TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.01.2 (b)
TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.01. (b)
TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.02. (a)
TEX. PENAL CODE § 28.04
RULES:
Rule 44.2(a), TEX R. APP. PROC.
Rule 44.2(b), TEX R. APP. PROC.
Rule 44.2(c), TEX R. APP. PROC.
NO. PD-1575-15
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS
OF TEXAS
TRISTAN OMARR ARMSTRONG
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Petition in Cause No. 2013-CR-5695 from the
District Court of Bexar County, Texas and
The Court of Appeals for the First
Supreme Judicial District of Texas
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
The grounds for review set forth in this petition concerns the Court of Appeals, how
Appellant's Counsel Oscar Cantu Jr., concluded Patrolman Grey's testimony was consistent
describing his probable cause of action detaining the Appellant '(R.R. v5 pg.9). Cross
examination by defense, proved Patrolman Grey was inconclusive and inconsistent in his
testimony. An act of Perjury under 26 U.S.C. §7206 fraud and false statements. Additionally,
Patrolman Grey swore under oath, he discovered a marijuana "roach" in the Appellant's vehicle
(R.R. V5 pg. 11). However, Appellant's Fourth Amendment has been violated, ambiguous of a
valid search warrant initially obtained. Neglecting his Eighth Amendment of cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted under false pretenses.
Moreover, Oscar Cantu Jr. failed to disclose to the Court of Appeals, testimony of
Patrolman Grey's Criminal background, regarding Universal City Police Department's Incident
No. 1300011013 occurring on 06/01/2013. Oscar Cantu Jr.'s court transcript pertains to
incriminating evidence recognizing Universal City Police Department as the perpetrator.
Exhibits submitted by the Appellant, identifying negligent officers on duty violating Penal Code
§28.04 Reckless Damage or Destruction via use of a blunt object. All Officers having
propinquity of Incident No. 1300011013 were present during trial May 29, 2014, and swore
under oath all accusations against Appellant were true beyond a reasonable doubt. Ironically,
every officer that swore under oath, did not have common knowledge of the alleged Evading
1As used in this petition, the record citation R.R. V5 refers to the clerk record, Oscar Cantu Jr. used to retrieve his
information. Petitioner did not accompany Court Appointed Counsel Oscar Cantu Jr. prior, during, nor after the
duration of Anders Brief.
Arrest occurring January 13, 2013. A violation of Appellant's Fourteenth Amendment, no state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The petitioner was convicted by a jury of the offense Evading Arrest Detention with
Vehicle after a plea of not guilty; the punishment was assessed by the jury at two (2) years
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. This conviction
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First District on October 27, 2015.
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming petitioner's conviction on October
27, 2015, no motion for rehearing was filed by petitioner and the decision of the Court of
Appeals became its final ruling on November 12, 2015. This petition was then filed with the
clerk of The Court of Appeals within thirty (30) days after such final ruling to wit on
December 4, 2015.
GROUND FOR REVIEW
I. The Court of Appeals Erred in holding that Appellant's Counsel violated Penal Code
§39.02.a. with intent to harm or defraud another. Oscar Cantu Jr. knowingly submitted misleading
correspondence to The Court of Appeals. Appellant's Counsel infringed on Appellant's First
Amendment, denying his freedom of speech striking at his appeal.
II. The Court of Appeals Erred in holding that Appellant's Sixth Amendment was ignored in
regards to an alleged second evasion. Overruling his right to interview all witnesses against him.
Consequentially, striping him of his First and Fifth Amendments. Rejecting his right to freedom
of speech and repudiating his right to an indictment by Grand Jury.
ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF REASON FOR REVIEW
I. Appellant's Counsel, Oscar Cantu Jr. opted in labeling Appellant's Appeal with
predetermined opinions within his Anders Brief. Oscar Cantu Jr. insisted Appellant's appeal was
"wholly frivolous", "without merit", and provides "no reversible error". Sarcastically expressing
his inhumane motion to withdraw as Counsel, on grounds of 2Anders v. California. Oscar Cantu
Jr. violated Appellant's Sixth Amendment, on grounds of due process. Oscar Cantu Jr. hoaxed
the Court of Appeals with inaccurate correspondence between himself and the Appellant.
Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel knowingly breaches his agreement as legal Counsel
defiling Penal Code §39.01.2.b. In addition to his 39.0l.b violation governing the conduct of a
public servant.
II. Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel deceived the Court of Appeals trusting his
information was accurate. However, Oscar Cantu Jr. deluded the Court of Appeals into believing
an alleged second Evading Arrest marathon ensued. Oscar Cantu Jr. neglected to acknowledge
2As used in this petition, the recordcitation Anders v. California refers to the explanation Oscar Cantu Jr. exhumes
to the Court of Appeals as to why he describes he fulfilled his Court Appointed obligation. Information recovered
by petitioner from Oscar Cantu Jr.'s Anders Brief, analyzing case number 01-14-00560-CR in the First Court of
Appeals.
Appellant's Sixth Amendment was thoroughly violated. Appellant has been denied due process
and his Civil Rights violated on an indictable scale. Oscar Cantu Jr. cannot provide evidence to
the Court of Appeals an alleged second Evading Arrest episode transpired. Oscar Cantu Jr.
deliberately defames the Appellant's character and urges the Court of Appeals to uphold the trial
court decision. Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel, calculatedly withheld vital information
through Court of Appeals correspondence. Oscar Cantu Jr., knowingly overlooked deviant
behavior in connection to an abnormal circumstance.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the reason herein alleged, the petitioner was denied a fair trial in Cause No. 2013-
CR-5695. Therefore, petitioner prays this Court grant this petition, set this case for oral
argument, and upon reviewing the judgement entered below, quash sentencing to include all
alleged Warrants, and reinstate Appellant's Concealed Handgun License. Furthermore, all
wrong doings by St. Mary's University reconciled, and granted admission into the University of
Houston Law Center effective immediately. Heavenly Father, Appellant prays you bless him
with an opportunity to deliver justice through the Courts to Susan D. Reed Et al. and every
perpetrator involved within Universal City Police Department.
Respectfully submitted,
Sworn to and re mi
onthis_4_dayof. 20.Is
Tristan Omarr Armstrong
NOTARTPUBLIC P.O. Box 2354
MyCommission BcphwAftU^ l]^ Universal City, Texas 78148-1354
(210)284-9844
3P
S&.r&fc, LISA CARREON
f=*>.V'*^ No'arv Public, State of Texas
\>.f\J?£
''''•••':£^
My Commission Expires
June 26, 2019
APPENDIX A
Opinion issued October 27, 2015
In The
Court of gppeate
For The
Jftrsft Btrtrtct of Cexa*
NO. 01-14-00560-CR
TRISTAN OMARR ARMSTRONG, Appellant
V. -
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 226th District Court
Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2013-CR-5695
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Tristan Omarr Armstrong, guilty of the third-degree
felony offense of evading arrest and assessed his punishment at two years'
confinement.' The trial court certified that the case is not a plea-bargain case and
that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal
is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396(1967).
Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly
reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant
reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193
S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel has also informed us that he delivered a copy of the appellate record
and the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a response. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Kelly v. State,
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2014).
The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals for
the Fourth District of Texas to this Court pursuant to its docket equalization
powers. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2013) ("The supreme
court may order cases transferred from one court of appeals to another at any time
that, in the opinion of the supreme court, there is good cause for the transfer.").
436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that appellate counsel who
files Anders brief must "take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process
of actuating his client's right to review the appellate record, if that is what his
client wishes"). Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing
court determines whether arguable grounds exist by examining entire record). We
note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to
withdraw.3 Attorney Oscar Luis Cantu, Jr. must immediately send appellant the
3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal
required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See Tex.
R. App. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per
curiam).
<-—4-~
\*P
7s,
v^
CJJ
ex?
C °1
-C
~r
', .* "?' •^ o
«
£
7~
-3=.
f
6
o x c
ni .0_
«>g^
Soo<»—-b
CT "O CO
x m
CD