Hamilton, Walter Aaron ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • ' .
    IN THE .
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    FILED IN
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    OF TEXAS
    MAY 05 2015
    Abel Acosta, Clerk
    No. WR-80,458-01              RECEIVED IN
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    MAY 0 12015
    Abe~ Acosta, Clerk
    EX PARTE WALTER AARON HAMILTON, Applicant
    MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
    TO: THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE
    TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    COMES NOW, Walter Aaron Hamilton, Movant/Petitioner, ('Hamilton'),
    proceeding in propria persona, and pursuant to the provisions and authority
    of Texas Rule Of Appellate Procedure 79.2(d), in conlunction with the due
    proces and due course of law protections and guarantees of the United States
    and Texas Constitutions, and respectfully request that this Honorable Court
    on its own Reconsider it's Opinion rendered on March 18, 2015, whereas, this
    Court GRANTED relief and set aside Count Two but subsequently denied all other
    relief. See Ex Parte Lemke, 13 s.W.3d 791 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000): also Lookinobill
    v. Cockrell, 
    293 F.3d 256
     (5th Cir. 2002). Ih support, Hamilton respectfully
    shows this Honorable Court as follows.
    This case does NOT require the breakinq of new ground. whereas, the State,
    The Honorable Fourth Court of Appeals, The Honorable Texas Court of Criminal
    Appeals, and the United States. Supreme Court ALL AGREE on this issue.
    · 1.) Reconsideration should be GRANTED in this case because this Honorable
    Court has held that in all cases where issues under consideration.have been
    previously addressed in an Opinion, that Opinion should be followed unless
    there are urgent and compelling reasons to overrule. that precedent, See
    Me Glothlin v. State, 
    896 S.W.2d 183
     (Tex.Crim.App. 1995).
    2.) This Honorable Court has also made it clear that Aopellate            Jud~es
    should achieve uniformity in the interpretation of similar laws. See Eaves v.
    State, 
    353 S.W.2d 231
     (Tex.Crim.App. 1961).
    HISTORY OF THE CASE
    On or about February 29, 2008, Applicant was ,found guilty by a jury on
    Four Counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault, Aggravated Robbery, and Aqqravated
    Kidnapping. On March 3, 2008, the jury sentenced Applicant to sixtv (60) years
    on Count One,. Thirty (30) years on Count Two. 'T'hree .,   ;mil   F'onr .. rren ( 10) years
    on Count Five, anrl Sixty (60) years on Count Six. Applicant's Petition For
    Discretionary Review was refused on september 22, 2010. Applicant's conviction
    was affirmed on appeal.and a Mandate was issued on November 19, 2010. On
    October 8, 2010, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted an extension of time to
    file for rehearing. Rehearing Motion was.filed on Ovtober 18, 2010 and was
    subsequently rejected for non-compliance of rule 79.2(c) on October 21, 2010.
    On december 16, 2010, Applicant filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States
    Supreme Court. Certiorari.was denied on May 23, 2011 (Cause No. 10-9586. On
    February 6, 2012, Applicant filed a Chapter 64 Motion. for Post-Conviction
    forensic DNA Testing. The Trial Court appointed Counsel on february 13, 2012.
    On February 19,2013, an Order was signed denying Applicant's Motion. An
    Application.for Writ of Habeas Corpus (11.07) wq.s filed on March 1'3, 2013.
    This Honorable Court of.Criminal Appeals received Applicant's Application·on
    October 29, 2013. On March 18, 2015 thisHonorable Court handed down its Opinion.
    The Court found that Applicant received multiple ·punishments in violation of the
    Double Jeopardy Clause and GRANTED relief, thereby,. setting aside Count II in
    Cause No. 2006-CR-3927, and denying all other relief. Applicant filed for an
    (2)
    Extension of Time to file Motion for Rehearing on March 28, 2015, which this
    Honorable Court GRANTED on April 9, 2015. The Motion for Rehearing is due on
    May 1, 2015.
    ,ARGUMENT
    A. ) OOUBLE JEOPARDY
    This Honorable Court, in relying on the Trial Court's Recommendation, held
    that Hamilton received multiple punishments· in violation of the Double Jeopardy
    Clause. In GRANTING relief, this Honorable Court set aside Count II. Hamilton
    contends that by setting aside Count II ONLY that he received only partial
    relief of what should have been Granted. The Double Jeopardy violation in
    Hamilton's case runs much deeper than the Trial Court's recommendation. The
    Court is correct in setting aside Countii, however, based on this Honorable
    Court's precedent, the relief granted, as far as the double jeopardy violation
    is concerned, should have been the setting aside of Counts II - VI.
    It is clear on the Face of the Charging Instrument that Counts II - VI
    are in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The decision that this Court
    reached in it's Opinion with Hamilton is in Direct Conflict with this Honorable
    Court's Precedent.
    The Texas Constitution in Art. 1, § 14 plainly states, "No person for the
    same offense shall twice be put in jeopardy of Life or Liberty." This Honorable
    Court has held that, "IN TEXAS, the     'AL~ABLE   UNIT OF PROSECUTION' for an
    "ASSAULTIVE" offense is "EACH VICTIM". See Ex Parte Hawkins, 
    6 S.W.3d 554
    ,560
    (Tex.Crim.App.l999); Ex Parte Rathmel, 717     s.w. 2d 33,36 (Tex.Crim.App.l986).
    This is dir.ectly on point with the claims in Hamilton's case where there was
    ONE VICTIM during ONE continuous "ASSAULTIVE" offense.
    As stated previously, this issue with Hamilton does NOT require breaking
    new ground. Furthermore, the State, the Honorable Fourth Court of Appeals, and
    the Honorable   Te~as   Court Of Criminal Appeals, ALL AGREE on this issue, however,
    refuse to apply the same_precedent to Hamilton's case-
    (3)
    1.) The STATE argues1 the 'Allowable Unit of Prosecution' should be "EACH VICTIM".
    See Miles v. State, 259 S.W.3d at 248.
    2.) The Honorable Fourth Court Of Appeals- AGREES- See Haight v. State. 103 s.w.
    3d 498,503 (Tex.App-SAN ANTONIO 2003).
    1.) The Honorable Texas Court Of Criminal      Appeals~   AGREES. See Ex Parte Cavazos.
    
    203 S.W.3d 333
     1 337   (Tex.Crim.APP-2006)~   Ex Parte Hawkins, 
    6 S.W.3d 554
    ,560
    (Tex.Crim-App- 1999) · r=lnd Ex Parte Rathmel, 717 S.'W.2d '33,36 (Tex.Crim.App.
    1986).
    This Honorable Court hascontinued with this reasoning on 'ASSAULTIVE'
    type offenses. "Robbery,,is .. an· -'ASSAULTIVE' offense. See .YGung v. State, 283 s.w.
    3d 854, 862 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). "The 'Unit ofProsecution' of the offense of
    Robbery is THE VICTIM." See Byrd v. State, 
    336 S.W.3d 242
    ~251   n.43 (Tex.Crim.
    App. 2011). "Therefore, the gravaman of Robbery [Assaultive Offense] offenses,
    including Aggravated Robbery, is the defendant's Assaultive.conduct against 'EACH
    VICTIM'. Id at 251. ·
    This is where the distinction must be made and the Trial Court's Recommendation
    is in err. This IS NOT. a case where the 'Unit Gf Prosecution' is the NATURE of
    the prohibited conduct, such as an Indecency with a Child case where the gravaman
    of that statute (Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 21.11) is the nature of the prohibited.
    conduct .••. "The commission of each prGhibited act determines now many convictions
    may be had for a particular course of conduct." See Austin Loving v. State,
    
    401 S.W.3d 642
    ; 2013 Tex.Crim.App. LEXIS 950. However, This does not apply in
    an 'ASSAULTIVE' offense as this Honorable COurt continues to hold.
    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of The United States also agrees. "To
    determine whether· offenses are the same for Double Jeopardy purposes, ·an appellate
    Court MUST construe the statutory provisions .in question to discern the 'Allowable
    Unit of Prosecution' ••• ". Quoting Sanabria v. United States, 437 u.s. 54, 69-70,
    98 s.ct. 2170, 2181-82, 
    57 L.Ed.2d 43
    ,57 (1978). The High Court went on to say,
    "A single offense should normally be charged in ONE COUNT rather than severaL
    even IF DIFFERENT MEANS OF COMMITTING THE OFFENSE ARE ALLEGED. Id at 69-70,
    emphasis added. So, the question remains, Why is this precedent not being foilowed
    in the instant case with Hamilton,. who was charged, convicted and sentenced on
    Four (4) Counts of Aggravated Sexual Assault, One (l) Count of Aggravated Robbery,
    and One (l) Count of Aggravated Kidnappinq, where the "UNIT OF PROSECUTION" was
    One Victim? Were this not an ASSAULTIVE offense this wouldn't be an issue.
    Furthermore, Agqravated Robbery and Aggravated Kidnappinq are both ASSAULTIVE
    ( 4)
    offenses. Again, there was only ONE VICTIM and "IN TEXAS", the 'Unit of
    ?rosecution in an ASSAULTIVE offense is EACH VICTIM and in the case with
    Hamilton, there was only ONE VICTIM.
    Aggravated Kidnapping is also by statute an "ASSAULTIVE" offense. In
    the case with Hamilton; ALL Six Counts stem from the same Criminal Episode, i.e.,
    an unbroken sequence. The Court in Roberts stated, "Though to convict him of
    assault the State need not have proved an abduction, in proving the abduction
    for purposes of kidnapping, the State satisfied the elements for Aggravated
    "ASSAULT". See Roberts v. State, 
    795 S.W.2d 842
    ,882 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1990).
    This is on point with the instant case.
    Hamilton has clearly shown in the case against him that Counts 2-6, in
    an unbroken sequence, are ALL "ASSAULTIVE" offenses and that the 'Unit of
    Prosecution' for such offenses is EACH VICTIM, wherein, the case with Hamilton
    there was ONE VICTIM.
    For the foregoing reasons, Rehearing should be granted as the Trial Court's
    Recommendations directly conflict with this Honorable Courts precedent on this
    issue.
    B. ) ACTUAL INNOCENtE.
    This Honorable Court denied relief on this claim without any reasons in
    its.Opinion, which only addressed the previous Double Jeopardy claim. Hamilton
    maintains his    innocen~e   in this crime! The Trial Court's double-talk in its
    Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law is fascinatinq. They should read it.
    First, the Trial Court found both, Trial and Appellate Counsel affidavits
    .    .~ q                              .
    to be "Truthful and Credible: (Paragraph 5, pg.l4- Courts Conclusion of. Law).
    However, BOTH attorney's have lost the Appellant's .record. This in itself, is
    "INCREDIBLE". It is rare that an Attorney loses his client's file. So, what a
    ·rarity this is that both of Hamilton's Attorney's have lost his record.
    Appellate CounseL edward Shaughnessy III, in his affidavit {pq.21- attached to
    Court's Conc;;lusion of Law) plainly states that he is ••• "unable to locate the
    file .•• " "consequently the Affiant's ability to respond to the Applicant's
    (Hamilton) complaint is limited." Four years later I would imagine so. Trial
    (5)
    Counsell Jeffrey J. Scott at a hearing held in the 226th District Court before
    the Honorable Sid L. Harle has admitted that he lost Hamilton's record in a
    recent flood at his storage facility. On what evidence did the Trial Court base
    its decision to find the Attorney's affidavits to be "Truthful and Credible"?
    The   ob~ious   answer is HEARSAY. Noteworthy here is the fact that trial counsel
    Jeffrey J. Scott was SANCTIONED,by the State Bar for his actions prior to the
    Trial in this case. This was over a grievance that Hamilton had filed on Counsel
    which obviously created a Conflict of Interest and the reason that Counsel
    claims to have lost Hamilton's file.
    Nevertheless/ the Court after finding the Attorney's affidavits to be
    truthful and credible found BOTH attorneys to be DEFICIENT and INEFFECTIVE in
    its findino of Fact and Conclusion of Law. (See pg. 14 - Courts Conclusion of
    Law).
    In this case Hamilton brouqht up claims under both1 a Herrera-type claim
    and a Schlup-type. The Trial court correctly notes (#10, pq. 16) that a Schlup-
    type claim is a procedural claim in which the Applicant's claim of innocence
    " 'does not by itself provide a basis for relief', but is INTERTWINED with
    OONSTITUTIONAL    ERROR   that renders .a persons conviction Constitutionally invalid."
    SCHLUP, 513 U.S. at 315, 
    115 S.Ct. 851
    .
    The Trial Court in its findinqs found that Hamilton failed to establish
    a "Constitutional error" and therefore.-recornrnended that the claim be denied.
    Hence, the double-talk. Did not the Court "iust find that BOTH attorneys were
    INEFECTIVE. thereby, violating Hamilton's ·constiturional Sixth Amendment Rioht
    to Effective Counsel? This IS Constitutional Error, or does that only apply          when
    in favor of the State?
    The Court goes on to say( #12) •. ·. Applicant's 1.\ctual Innocence. Claim must
    be treated as a Herrera-type claim ••. A Herculean task. Of course a Herrera-type
    claim is a Herculean task, hence1 why the Court disputes the Schlup claim that
    Hamilton has proved in the first .place. Actually. the Trial Court in it's
    recommendation verified Hamilton's claim with it's own argument. All this Honorable
    Court has to do is look at Hamilton's actual Innocence Claim alonq with the
    evidence provided (attached to Hamilton's Memorandum accompanying his 11.07) and
    it will see1 as the Trial Court states, no REASONABLE juror would have [could
    have] convicted Hamilton in light of the new evidence. Yes, the "Trial Court"
    finds thqt Hamilton's claim of Actual Innocence are not "newly discovered" (see
    pg. l7t #13). HOWEVER, as Hamilton states in his claim of Actual Innocence (Pg.
    (6)
    12 -Memorandum attached to 11.07 Writ) "The Supreme Court in Schluo CLARIFIED
    that "the emphasis on 'Actual Innocence' allows the reviewing tribunal ALSO to
    consider the probative force of RELEVANT EVIDENCE that was either EXCLUDED or
    UNAVAILABLE at trial." The Court went on to say, "Indeed. with respect to this
    aspect of the CARRIER standard, (Murray v. Carrier, 106 s.ct. 2635, 477 u.s.
    478) We believe that Judge Friendly's description of the inquiry is appropriate:
    The Habeas Court MUST make its determination concernin9 the Petitioner's Tnnocence
    in liqht of all the evidence, fNot -iust the cat and mouse fChessl game played
    between the Prosecutor and the Defense Attorney] including the alleged to have
    been illegally admitted and evidence tenably claimed to have been "WRONC::LY
    EXCLUDED" or to have been available only after trial. Schlup v. Delo, ll5 s.ct.
    851,865 (1995).
    Furthermore, this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals held in BROWN, that
    the applicant must prove that he relies upon "Newly Discovered" or "Newly Available"
    evidence. The term "Newly Discovered Evidence" refers to the evidence that was
    not known to the Applicant at the time of trial and could not be known to him
    even with.the exercise of due diligence. He cannot rely upon evidence or facts
    that were available at the time of his trial. plea, or Post-trial Motions. such
    as Motions for New Trial in claims that have already been raised and relected
    are not cognizable •.. " HOWEVER, this Honc;rable Court went on to say. "but an
    exception·to this rule is when Direct Appeal cannot be ex\)ected to provide an
    adeguate record to evaluate the claim in question and the claim might be sub-
    stantiated throuoh additional evidence 9athering in a habeas corpus proceeding.
    Ex Parte Brown, 
    205 S.W.3d 538
    ,545 (Tex.Crim.Apo.2006). This is precisely the
    point with Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims on an 11.07 State Writ of
    Habeas Corpus; which is the CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION claimed in this ground by
    Hamilton and admitted to by the Trial Courtl
    It is for these reasons that Hamilton contends that the Trial Court erred
    in it's Recommendation to this Honorable Court. Rehearing o?hould be GRANTED on
    this issue as the Trial Courts Recommendation is in conflict with this Honorable
    Court's precedent.
    ***NOTE*** It is worth reminding the Court that the Honorable Fourth Court of
    Appeals found error in this case.(See Court's Ooinion). The Trial Court now finds
    error in Hamilton's habeas application. ALL CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR. Trial Counsel
    and Appellate Counsel BOTH lost Hamilton's record.
    (7)
    .'
    '
    C. )   lAC - APPELLATE COUNSEL
    With no comments this Honorable Court also denied relief on this claim.
    The Habeas Courts .Recommendation is contrary to its Finding of Fact and
    Conclusion of Law• In its Recommendation (Pq.l2, #9) "Applicant complains
    in his Third Groud for relief that Counsel did not raise the issue of Prosecutorial
    Misconduct contrary to Applicant's wishes.". "Said comolaint clearlv indicates
    that alleged misconduct was known to Applicant at time of trial." The Court
    further stated in its Recommendation (Po.l7, #14), "Generally, Prosecutorial
    Misconduct is a type of claim that should be raised up on appeal if a review of
    the record shows that at trial a defendant had knowledge of the factual    ba~is
    for which he supports his Prosecutorial Misconduct .. " See ExParte·Webb, 
    270 S.W.3d 108
    ,111 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). The Court went on to sav. " ••• this Court
    concludes that Applicant had knowledqe at the time of trial of the factual basis
    for which he supports his Prosecutorial Misconduct Claim and said Claim should
    have been raised on appeal." (See Pq. 18, #14).
    When the Habeas Court plainlv admits that the Claim of Prosecutorial
    Misconduct should have been raised on appeal. How can the same Court in the same
    argument not find Counsel to be Ineffective in not doino so? Furthermore, How
    can this Honorable Court not even acknowledqe such CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR?
    CONCLUSION
    Hamilton has clearly shown that he was convicted on a Multiplicitous
    Indictment. That the Double Jeopardv Claim is clearly on the face of. the charqinq
    Instrument. The relief GRANTED should have been extended to include Counts 2-6.
    Furthermore, Hamilton has shown that his Actual Innocence claim should
    fall under a Schlup-Type claim as his claim IS Intertwined with CONSTITUTIONAL
    ERROR. The Habeas Court found that Hamilton's Trial Counsel and Appellate
    Counsel were BOTH DEFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE.
    Finally, Hamilton has clearly shown. and the Habeas Court's own words
    show that Counsel on appeal was also Ineffective in not bringinq forth a Prosecutorial
    Misconduct claim on Direct appeal. A claim that permeated the entire trial.
    Counsel was also requested to bring forth other Exculoatorv Evidence which he
    neqlected to do. (See Ground IIL Applicant's 11.07 Writ and attached Memorandum)
    (8)
    '
    •
    .
    Counsel's deficient performance directed affected the later decision of the
    Honorable Fourth Court of Appeals in affirming Hamilton's conviction. All of
    these Claims have merit and it is for this reason that Rehearinq should be
    GRANTED.
    This Motion is grounded in this Honorable Court's precedent and is made
    in good faith and not for delay.
    PRAYER
    WHERE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Hamilton prays that this Honorable Court GRANT
    his Motion For Rehearing and that relief be GRANTED in his habeas writ. Hamilton
    prays that his conviction be set aside due to Actual Innocence. Hamilton further
    prays that in the alternative, Counts 3-6 also be set aside as they clearly
    violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that relief also be GRANTED on Ground
    III finding Counsel on Appeal to be Ineffective, thereby GRANTING Hamilton a
    new appeal so that these claims can be properlv put before the Appellate Court,
    and any other relief that may be due Applicant.
    (9)
    .. .
    '
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I, Walter Aaron Hamilton, TDCJ-CID #1493992, Applicant/Movant, being
    presently incarcerated at the O.B. Ellis Unit of the Texas Prison system, here
    in Walker County, texas, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
    above and foreaoing Motion For Reconsideration was mailed to: District Attorney,
    Bexar County, 300 Dolorosa St. No. 5072, San Antonio, Texas, 78205, on this
    the 2fnd day of April, A.D. 2015, by depositing the same into the Internal
    Prison Mail System, with first class postage pre-oaid.
    Yl£,~         L&JLL
    ~alter     Aaron Hamilton, Pro-se
    Applicant I Movant
    INMATE DECLARATION
    I, Walter Aaron Hamilton, TDCJ-CID #1493992, Applicant, being presently
    incarcerated at the O.B. Ellis Unit of the Texas Prison System, here in Walker
    County, Texas, declare under the penalty of perlury that the above and foreaoing
    is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    EXECUTED on this ·the ~d day of April, A.D. 2015.·
    '=Walter Aaron Hamilton, Pro-se
    Applicant I Movant
    TDCJ-CID #1493992
    D.o.B. 11/07/65
    Ellis Unit
    1697 FM 980
    Huntsville, Texas 77343
    (10)