Powell, George Robert, Iii ( 2014 )

Cause No . PD-D667-14
EX PARTE § IN THE
§
§ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
§
GEORGE ROBERT POWELL, III § AUSTIN, TEXAS HfrOBV^D M
r ''•'•'OFCRiiW
MOTION FOR REHEARING
DEC 31 2014
NOW COMES George Robert Powell, III, Petitioner, pro se, and
files this Motion for Rehearing, requesting this Honorable Cflurt
to reconsider the denial of his Petition for Discretionary Review,
denied on November 19, 2014. In support of this Motion, Petitioner
would show the following:
The case at bar focuses on the mechanics and implimentation
of Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 614, commonly called the "Witness
Rule" or "the Rule", the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article
36.03 (Invocation of Rule) and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 36.06 (Instructed by the Court).
Petitioner has asserted that proper implimentation of these
procedures, and for a witness to be placed under the Rule, three
separate and distinct actions have to occur:
1) Invocation of the Rule (Tx.C.C.P. §36.03(a))
2) Admonishment of each witness by the court (Tx.C.C.P. §36.03;('. e))
3) Instruction by the court (Tx.C.C.P. §36.06)
Page 1 of 3
Petitioner contends that two vital functions must be performed
solely by the Trial Court: admonishment and instruction. Without
proper admonishment, a witness is not subject to the contempt
power of the court. Tx.C.C.P. §36.03(e), §36.06. Similarly,
it is only the Trial Court that can instruct a witness as to
who the witness can converse with, and about what. Id.
In the case at bar, the State claimed at trial that a violation
of the Rule had occured. The first reaction of the Trial Court
was that a violation did not occur, because the witnesses were
not instructed and admonished by the Court. The State persisted,
despite clear laws, and after an off-record, in chambers discussion
(which now cannot be reviewed, violating Petitioner's right to
due process), the Trial Court issues an "instruction" to the
jury, claiming the defenses only two witnesses violated the Rule,
when according to the Trial Court's own admission, they had not.
Petitioner contends that this was an erroneous impression
by the Trial Court of impropriety on the part of the Defense is
witness, and amounted to an impermissible comment on the credibility
of the Defense's witnesses by the Trial Court.
This Honorable Court has not given clear directions to the
lower courts regarding this issue. When is a witness properly
placed under the Rule? If a trialcourt indicates that a witness
has violated a rule of court, when they had not, is that an
impermissible comment on the credibility of that witness? Is
Page 2 of 3
the three step process argued by Petitioner as a matter of law,
formalized by an opinion from this Honorable Court? Petitioner
asserts that no such clear direction exists.
, Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner respectfully prays
that this Honorable Court GRANT this Motion for Rehearing and
reconsider his Petition for Discretionary Review.
Respectfully submitted,
George Robert Powell, III
Petitioner, pro se
Inmate's Unsworn Declaration
I, George Robert Powell, III, TDCJ #161266B, being presently
incarcerated in the Huntsville Unit of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Institutional Division in Walker County, Texas
verify and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
statements are true and correct.
Executed this, the '?*" day of h^CJ^h" 201^-
George Robert Powell, III
TDC3 #1612668
George Robert Powell, III, TDC3 #1612668
Huntsville Unit
815 T2th Street
Huntsville, TX 77342
Page 3 of 3
Certificate of Service
I certify that a true and correct copy of Petitioner's Motion
for Rehearing was mailed to:
Mr. & Mrs. Paul McWilliams,
Assistant District Attorneys
Bell County District Attorneys 'Office
P . 0 . Box 540
Belton, TX 76513
via U.S.P.S. First Class Mail.
Executed this, the '' day of lc)l£t»-KUsS^ , 2014.
George Robert Powell, III
Petitioner, pro se
Page 1 of 1
:£$*•
"35 ^j
4
-J 7 ,aOJ <^
W
n x; ?
§
n
0
0(1 5 •t
to hi
'a
la