Gonzales, Jose Iii ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                            / VHS
    IN   THE
    COURT   OF    CRIMINAL        APPEALS
    OF   TEXAS
    JOSE   GONZALES      III,
    Petitioner/                                                      COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    APR 2 2 2015
    v.
    Abel Acosta. Clerk
    THE    STATE   OF   TEXAS,
    Appellee.
    FILED \H
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    APR 2 2 2015
    Abel Acosta, Clerk
    PETITION      FOR   DISCRETIONARY        REVIEW
    FROM    THE   COURT      OF   APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH      DISTRICT OF       TEXAS
    CAUSE NO-      13-13-00011-CR.
    ORAL   ARGUMENT     REQUESTED
    TABLE   OF   CONTENTS
    PAGE   NO.
    TABLE   OF   CONTENTS      .                               .     I.
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..                                           II-V,
    STATEMENT REGARDING       jORAL   ARGUMENT                      VI.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE                                           VII.
    STATEMENT REGARDING PROCEDURAL HISTORY. .                       VIII-IX .
    GROUNDS FOR REVIEW.                                             X-XI.
    ARGUMENTS                                              •       1-37.
    CONCLUSION          ...                                        37-38.
    PRAYER FOR RELIEF                                              38.
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE                                         39 -
    APPENDIX.......                               ,                  End *
    INDEX    OF    AUTHORITIES
    PAGE NO.
    TEXAS    CASES:
    Ball    v.    Roa,          
    48 S.W.3d 322
                                                             37.
    Bell    v.    State,          938 S-W.2-2-d.35             .     -                   ...       .         20.
    Bell    v.    State,          
    356 S.W.3d 528
                        .                                       1-2.
    Campbell v. State, 163 Tex,Cr-R.545,284 123 S.W.597,600                                                  13.
    Cardenas          v.    State,          960 S.W.2d 941,947.                                        .     34.
    Crawford v.             State,          
    685 S.W.2d 343
    ,349..                               . ...         20.
    Devaughn v. State, 
    749 S.W.2d 749
    S.W.2d 62,65..                                                        8.
    Drake    v.       State,       686 S.W-2d 935,944                             . ..                       12-13.
    Ervin v.State,                
    991 S.W.2d 804
    ,856=...               ..                              1.
    Ex parte Castillo, 
    432 S.W.3d 457
                                       .                                 ..5,9.
    Ex parte Cavazos, 
    203 S.W.3d 373
    . ./                                                  .    „             5-9.
    Ex parte Duffy, 607 S-W-2d 507                                                                           33.
    Ex parte Ellison,609, S.W-2d 218                                                                         13.
    Ex parte Hawkins, 
    6 S.W.3d 544
    ,556                                                                       7-8.
    Ex parte Johnson, 697 S.W-2d 605,612.                                                                    13.
    Ex parte Rathnell,                      717 S.W.2d 33,36...                                              8.
    Ex parte Siller, 686 S.W-2d 617,618........                                                              13.
    Grayson v. State, 192 -S.W-.3d 790..                                                                     2.
    Hill    v.    State,          
    750 S.W.2d 213
                                                       16.
    Holly v. State, 
    460 S.W.2d 136
    ,                          137,                                           15.
    Lacy v. State, 160 Tex.Crim,299 207 S.W.2d 413,414                                                       15.
    Landers v.             State,       957 S.w.2d 558,559-60                                                8.
    LaSsiter v.             Shavon,          824 S.W-2d 667                                                  37.
    Mendoza       v.       State,       
    1 S.W.3d 829
                                                         2.
    Morey v. State, 744 S.W. 2d 688,670..                                                                    16.
    Overton v.             State,       
    552 S.W.2d 849
                                                          12.
    Richardson             v.    State,       
    888 S.W.2d 822
    ,824                                       ,8.
    Riley v. State, 
    658 S.W.2d 818
                                                                              14.
    Russel       v.    State,       
    146 S.W.3d 705
    ,714                                                       22.
    Shackelford v.                State,       516 S.W.2d .180                                               16.
    Shaw v.       State,          728 S-W-2d 889,890^                                                        16.
    Smith v.          State,       101 Tex .Cr-R. 220,             123 S.W.597.600                           ,13.
    Stone v.          State,       
    751 S.W.2d 579
                                                         34.
    Valancia v. State, 
    891 S.W.2d 652
                                                                            36.
    Vaughn v. State, 
    239 S.W.3d 351
    ..                                                                         5>
    II.
    Page No.
    AUTHORITIES   CONT:
    Waythe v. State, 
    553 S.W.2d 802
                                                            -•- 12-
    Wooton v. State, 11 Tex -Cr-R. 524, 
    15 S.W.2d 635
                                                13.
    Williams v. State, 
    897 S.W.2d 351
                                                                20.
    Yglesias v. State, 
    252 S.W.3d 737
    ..                                         -               - 2.
    Zrolkowski v. State, 
    233 S.W.3d 640
                ...                                           2.
    FEDERAL   CASES:
    Blake v. Kemp; 
    758 F.2d 523
    ,533                                                               25.
    Burney,756 F.2d. 790                              -                             -             12,16,24.
    Coleman, 
    802 F.2d 1233
    ...                                      *                              25.
    Dyer v. Crisp, 
    613 F.2d 275
    .                                                                  12.
    United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 
    915 F.2d 956
    . =......                                          35.
    United States v. Durham, 
    287 F.3d 1297
    ,1304....                                     .......3.
    United States v. Willis, 
    6 F.3d 257
    ...                             -.                         35.
    Moyola v. Alabama, 
    623 F.2d 992
    ,998..                                                         22.
    Osborn v.Schillinger, 861 F.2d 626,627                     .                                  24.
    Osborn, F.Supp.616-617 .                                                                      25.
    SUPREME COURT CASES:
    Anders v. California, 422 U.S.738                                                             30.
    Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S.7784^-                                                            5.
    Blockburger v. U.S. 
    284 U.S. 299
                  ....                     •-••                  5.
    Brown v. Ohio, 
    432 U.S. 161
    .                          -                                       5,8,-11.
    Bulger v. Kemp, 
    107 S. Ct. 1326
                                   •                         •     25.
    Douglas v. California, 372 U.S.353...                       ...                               30.
    Evitts v. Lucey, 
    469 U.S. 387
                 -                                •       •       -.11.
    Faretta v. California, 422 U.S.806                        .. ..                               27.
    grady v. Corbin, 
    495 U.S. 508
    .                                                          •     5.
    Illinios v. Vitale, 
    477 U.S. 410
                                                                 5.
    McMann v. Richardson, 
    397 U.S. 759
    .....                                 -                     10,11,12.
    Nix v. Whiteside, 
    475 U.S. 157
    ..                                                              26.
    North Carolina v. P395 U.S.711,717                                                            7.
    Sanabria v. United States, 
    437 U.S. 54
                                                           8.
    Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.688                                                         10-34.
    United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S.656...                                                       27-28.
    U.S. v. Dixon, 
    509 U.S. 688
                                                                      5.
    Von Molkev. Gillies, 
    332 U.S. 708
                                                                11-/
    TEXAS   CONSTITUTION:
    Tex? .--Const, art .1§10                                                                      14.
    Tex . Const, art-1§14                                                                         4,5.
    III*..
    AUTHORITIES CONT:                                                               D
    Page No-
    Tex. Const- art- V§21(b)                                                                16.
    UNITED           STATES            CONSTITUTION:
    U.S.CA.              5                                                          4-35 .
    U.S.CiA.             6                                                 -        3-17 .
    U.S-C.A.             14                                                         2-35.
    TEXAS           STATUES:
    V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 19.03 (a)(2)                                              5-6.
    V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 30.02                                                     5-7.
    V.T.C.A. Family Code ,71.003 ,7 .005 ,-71.0021                                  7.
    " "                 Penal Code §83.04 (a)                                      12-14.
    Penal Code § 8.01                                          34.
    Title           7,   Penal              Code.                                   12.
    Title 5,             Penal Code                       --                        12.
    Penal Code § 3.01                                          12.
    Vi'T.C.0;>P.                  art. 1.10 (1)                                     4.
    21.21        (a)                       15.
    21.24 (a)                              9-14.
    21122 •<(£.).!.;•.                 16.
    1.14 (b).                 .        17.
    1.13 (b)                           17.
    "         31.03        .                     19,22.
    "         42.112           Sec4(d) (8) (c)   23,24,
    "         "                  "         46-03                              30.
    GriminallLaw keynote-1167 (J.)                                              10.
    II   It                II        II      II     A Q O                     o   O   O
    "    "                 "         "       "      637.2                     1-2.
    "    "                 "         "       "      641.12(2).                3,15.
    "    "                 "         "       "      773(1)                    32.
    "    n                 "         "       "      127                       9,10-
    . "" "                  "         "       " '    620(3)                    .9,10.
    "    "                 "         "       "      773..........             30.
    "    "                 "         "       "      493.                      30.
    Double jeopardy Keynote-4                                                   5.
    "    "                 "         "       "      "       134               5-6.
    144...            .6.
    132.1             .6.
    IV
    AUTHORITIES    CONT:
    Indictment and Information Keynote-127........                 ...9.
    ii   ii   ••   ii   ii   ii   ii   ii    1 o Q                    Q
    ii   ii   ii   ii   ii   ••   f<   n     19 6                     9
    ii   ii   ii   ii   ii   ii   ii   ii    13 2...........   .      9
    V-
    STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL     ARGUMENT
    Petitioner urges the Court to allow Oral argument for the follow
    ing reasons;   To Wit:
    Petitioner'SAClaim:      of double jeopardy     is based on the Cavazos            '
    case 
    203 S.W.3d 333
    (Tex.Crim.App.2006) and the Castillo case that
    the State cited in their brief: Ex parte Castillo,432 S.W.3d 443
    (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014, no pet.h.)-
    Furthermore,   this error is an error whether objected to or not.
    Petitioner briefed said error in his Pro/se brief which the 13th
    Court of appeals failed to adjudicate on its merits.
    Because their is a misjoinder issue in multiple count indictment
    Petiitoner needs     further   redress   from the   Court   to address      said
    grounds.   Also because the record was fully developed before the
    Court   Petitioner   claimed   ineffective   assistance     of   counsels    on
    direct appeal as well as trial attorney's. Petitioner should have
    been given the full adjudication of ineffective assistance claim
    as oulined in Trevino v. Thaler,569 U.S.            (2013). Furthermore,
    Petitioner urges the Court for oral argument that Petitioner's
    attorney on direct appeal filed Anders brief and motion to withdraw,
    the court granted motion and Court assigned Stephen Wv Byrne as
    attorney whom filed a motion to withdraw based on ill-health and
    no Anders brief.     Because he was the attorney of record 13th Court
    of Appeals was in error and abused their discretion by ruling on
    Anders brief filed by attorney Fred Jiminez whom was no longer
    Petitioner's attorney and such Anders brief was moot by operation
    of law. Because the remainder of the grounds are based on ineffective
    assistance of counsel Petitioner urges the Court to allow oral argument
    VI.
    STATEMENT   OF    THE   CASE
    On December 12,   2011 Jose Gonzales III,        Hereinsty.led ;PeLta:tl,©n'er was
    chargedc with Capital Murder in the course of committing a Burglary
    of a Habitation of one Leslie Morin,        by shooting Leslie Morin with
    a Firearm.   In Count II,   Appellant was charged with Burglary of a
    Habitation on or about December 12,        2011 in Nueces County,        Texas.
    There and then Intentionally and Knowingly enter a habitation with
    out .the effective consent of Vidal Rodriguez who had greater right
    to said property,   and attempted tor commit or committed the felony
    offense of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon.
    Appellant was employed as a police officer in the City of Alice,
    Texas on the day*of the offense.    In a high profile trial Appellant
    was convicted on both counts by a biased and prejudicial jury.
    The court sentenced Pe'frktion&r to life with out parole on Count I,
    and life with parole on Count II.        Wherein said convictions;,       are
    constiutionally infirm. The trial was overwhelmed by the media and
    public pressure. Change of venue was warranted.
    VII.
    STATEMENT   OF   PROCEDURAL   HISTORY
    Petitioner was chargedcby. indictment with one count of capital
    murder during. the.:cburse Mof committing a burglary of a habitation,
    and one count of burglary of a habitation with the intent to
    commit aggravated assault or a felony. A jury convicted him of
    both offenses as alleged in the indictment on December 6,     2012.
    The Court assessed punishment at life without the possibilty of
    parole for the capital murder charge and life in the Institutional
    Division of the Texas Department of Criminal justice-CID for the
    burglary of a habitation charge. The Petitioner filed notice of
    appeal on December 10,2012. Petitioner's attorney of record Fred
    Jimenez filed an Anders brief on July 18,2013. on July 24,2013
    Attorney Fred ^inenez filed a motion to withdraw as attorney.
    On August 16,2013, the trial court appointed Stephen W.     Byrne to
    represent Petitioner. On September 8,2013, Stephen W. Byrne filed
    motion to withdraw citing ill-health -and requested the court to
    appoint new counsel. Nio Anders brief was filed and no attorney was
    appointed. Petitioner filed motion for trial record.-Petitioner
    filed his Pro/se brief on May 23,2014, along with request for oral
    argument. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a motion in the 13th Court
    of appeals for his trial attorney to produce the psychological
    report generated from his court ordered evaluation. Such report was
    never made part of the record. The State was ordered to file their
    brief. The caseuwas" duesfbr^.submission on August 13,2014. The State
    filed thier brief on August 12,     2014 with a motion for extension of
    time. Petitioner filed a motion to hold said appeal in abeyance in
    order to respond to State's brief.      On August 14,2014 the Court aI
    affirmed in an unpublished opinion by Justice Dori Contreras Garza
    VIII.
    STATEMENT OF    PROC.   HIST.    CONT.
    whomaordered a contradictory order for Motion to withdraw for
    attorney Fred Jimenez's Anders brief which should have been moot.
    Petitioner filed motion for rehearing on August 30,2014. The State
    filed brief agreeing with Petitioner's claim of double jeopardy
    wherein   the   San   Antonio   Court    rendered   relief   for   the   exact   same
    issue.- Rehearing was denied on January 21, 2015.
    IX.
    GROUNDS      FOR    REVIEW
    GROUND ONE:                                                                                  PAGES.
    TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PETITIONER TO BE TRIED                               IN SHACKLES
    IN VIOLATION OF U.S.C.A.               CONST.    AMENDS.       6TH   AND   14TH.    TRIAL
    COURT INFRINGED UPON PETITIONER'S PERSUMPTION OF INNOCENCE,                                 AND
    HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.             INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL                   FOR NOT
    OBJECTING TO PETITIONER BEING SHACKLED AND PROCEDURALLY DEFAULTING                                    1-4.
    PETITIONER'S       CLAIM.
    GROUND    TWO:
    THE STATE COMMITTED DOUBLE JEOPARDY WHEN IT PROSECUTED PETITIONER
    FOR MULTIPLE BURGLARIOUS ENTRIES WHERE THERE WAS ONLY ONE UNLAWFUL
    ENTRY, IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I,§14 AND U.S.C.-
    A. CONST. AMEND. 5, ,ALSO V-T-C-C-P. ART. 1.10.                                                       4_9
    GROUND    THREE:
    INEFFECTIVE ASSISITANCE OF COUNSEL FOR NOT OBJECTING TO MISJOINDER
    OF TWO DISTINCT OFFENSES               IN THE SAME INDICTMENT.              COUNSEL    DID NOT
    FILE PRETRIALMMOTI'ONS            NOR OBJECT         DURING TRIAL      TO MISJOINDER OF
    OFFENSES       THEREBY EFFECTING THE OUTCOME OF TRIAL,                      SUCH OBJECTIONS
    WOBiLDi HAVE RESULTED IN A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.                                                         9-lS.
    GROUND    FOUR:
    INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL                     : COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO FILE MOTION
    TO QUASH       AFFIDAVIT AND       INFORMATION THAT WAS              UNSIGNED,      HENCE   PROSE
    CUTION WAS COMMENCED UPON THE STRENGTH OF AN UNSIGNED INFORMATION.
    3>5-19.
    GROUND    FIVE:
    INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR NOT FILING MOTION FOR CHANGE
    OF   VENUE     IN HIGHLY    CHARGED      CRIMINAL       PROSECUTION        IN    ACCORDANCE WITH
    V.T.C.CP.        ART.    31.03,   WAIVER       BY ATTORNEY DEFAULTED             PETITIONER'S
    RIGHT    TO RAISE       CLAIM   FOR    APPELLATE       REVIEW.                                        19-21.
    GROUND    SIX:
    TRIAL JUDGE       ABUSED    HER   DISCRETION BY             NOT ORDERING CHANGE        OF   VENUE
    AFTER    ITT   BECAME     IMPOSSIBLE      TO    SEAT    A   JURY   THAT    WAS   UNBIASED    IN
    HIGH PROFILE CASE.                                                                                    21-27.
    GROUND    SEVEN:
    INEFFECTIVE       ASSISTANCE      OF   COUNSEL       FOR     COUNSEL   ABANDONING      PETITIONER,
    X.
    GROUNDS    FOR   REVIEW     CONT:
    PAGES.
    AND ACTING AS NO COUNSEL AT ALL,                     MERELY FRIEND OF THE COURT.                           23=27.
    GROUND    EIGHT:
    PETITIONER'S COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR APPEAL                           FRED JIMENEZ            WHS    INEFFEC
    TIVE    AND    COMMITTED      A    FRAUD    BEFORE    THE    COURT    BY    FILING      FRIVILOUS
    ANDERS    BRIEF,       FOR   SUCH ACTIONS       WERE       MOTIVATED       BY POLITICAL            ASPIRA
    TIONS    AND    CONFLICT     OF     INTEREST    FRED JIMENEZ          WIFE       WAS   THE    D.A.    AT
    THE TIME,       AND THE HIGH         PROFILE NATURE OF THE                CASE    FORCING PETITIONER
    WHO IS NOT EDUCATED IN THE LAW TO FILE PRO/SE BRIEF.                                                         28-30.
    GROUND    NINE:
    PETITIONER'S COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR
    NOT RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE                  DEFENSE OF TEMPORARY INSANITY,                        AFTER
    ATTORNEY MADE REMARK REGARDING PETITIONER'S MENTAL                                 STATE AT THE TIME
    OF OFFENSE.                                                                                                   33-34.
    GROUND    TEN:
    PRSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT:               ASSISITANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMITTED
    PROSECUTORIAL          MISCONDUCT WHEN QUESTIONING OFFICER ON STAND ABOUT
    THE    CHARGE THAT RELIES ON A.LEGAL                 CONCLUSION 1.THAT THE JURY               DECIDES
    FOR ITSELF.                                                                                                   35-36.
    GROUND    ELEVEN:
    TRIAL JUDGE       ABUSED     HER DISCRETION           BY NOT       ISSUING CURATIVE               INSTRUCTIONS
    AFTER STATE'S WITNESS TESTIFIED TO PREJUDICIAL EXTRANEOUS                                         ISSUE THAT
    WAS NOT RELATED TO THE OFFENSE.                                                                               36-38,
    SPECIAL    STATEMENT       OF    HARM
    13TH COURT OF APPEAL'S OPINION GOES                   AGAINST THE          SISTER COURT OF            APPEALS
    BY    DECIDING    ON    ANDERS      BRIEF    THAT WAS       MOOT    BASED    ON THE         TRIALCCOURT'S
    PLACING ATTORNEY STEPHEN W.                  BRYNE    AS    ATTORNEY WHO SUBSEQUENTLY FILED
    MOTION    TO   WITHDRAW       BASED    ON    ILL-HEALTH.
    FURTHERMORE,       BRIEFS WERE         SCHEDULED FOR SUBMISSION ON AUGUST                           13,    2014.
    THE COURT RENDERED OPINION WAS RENDERED THE VERY NEXT DAY AUGUST 1%4
    2014. WHICH WAS A BOILER PLATE RESPONSE NOT CONSISTANT WITH ANY MESNfGEUL
    REVIEW.       STATE'S REPLY         BRIEF    ADDRESS       THE MERITS       OF    PETITIONER'S CLAIM
    AM) CONCEDES       THAT      PETITIONER       CLAIMCOFrDOUBLE JEOPARDY                 IS    CONSISITANT
    WITH THE SAN ANTONIO'S OPINION RENDERED IN EX PARTE CASTILLIO,                                            
    432 S.W. 3D
    +4§7/f'466(fEX. crim. app. San Antonio 2014, no pet.h).
    XI.
    ARGUMENT
    GROUND ONE:
    TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING PETITIONER TO BE TRIED                    IN SHACKLES
    IN VIOLATION OF U-S-G-A-               CONST-   AMENDS.    6TH AND 14TH. TRIAL
    COURT INFRINGED UPON PETITIONERS PERSUMPTION OF INNOCENCE,                       AND
    HIS RIGHTTO COUNSEL.                INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR NOT
    OBJECTING TO PETITIONER BEING SHACKLED AND PROCEDURALLY DEFAULT-
    PETITIONER'S           CLAIM.
    COMES NOW,           JOSE GONZALES III.      HEREINSTYEED,     PETITIONER,   FILES
    THIS PETITIONER OF DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITHTTEXAS
    RULES OF           APPELLATE    PROCEDURE   RULE     68.
    Petitioner contends the trial court abused its discretion in requi
    ring Petitioner to wear shackles during trial, and the wearing of
    shackles was not harmless.                (RR.Vol.3, Pg.126). The Following occured:
    Line 3. The baliff: he has on leg irons,
    Line 4. The Court: Okay, I'm just going to ask
    Line 5. that you be real cognizant of the fact that when you
    Line 6. Stand or sit,               if you move too much the jurors
    Line 7. are going to hear the leg irons, and the goal is to
    Line 8. make sure that they dont realize you are incustody. So
    Line 9. please make sure that you're just--you know,
    Line 10. kind of aware as you stand and sit that it will
    Line 11. make noise. Okay?
    Line 12. All right, other than that, are we ready
    Line 13.           to bring them in?r
    From this colloquy between the court and the Petitioner the for
    restriants as articulated by the court line8, does not justify
    shackling of Petitioner. The Court of Criminal Appeals has repeated
    ly critized Nueces County Courts for routinely shackling Defendants
    without articulating a need for such restriants.
    C "'•:-!!. na."1   Law Icc^yi-obo
    Criminal Law Keynote-637.2:
    Grounds and circumstances affecting the use of rcdstriants in genral.
    Essential State -interest justifying shackling a defendant is found
    where there is a danger of escape or injury to the jury, counsel, or
    other trial participants. U.S. v. Banegas, 
    600 F.3d 342
    .
    Criminal Law keynote-637.2:
    Right to appear without restriants;
    Routine shackling of criminal defendants is prohibited. Bell v. State,
    
    356 S.W.3d 528
    , rehearing overruled. (Tex.App.Houston[14th Dist.]
    1.
    Argument Cont:
    2008). Generally, a defendant has a right to be tried without being
    shackled,    whether or not the shackles are visible to the jury;
    however,    the   trial   courts has   discretion   to   order   restriants   if   there
    is showing of a manifest need or exceptional circumstances, such as
    when a defendant poses a threat to himself or others. Yglesias v. State,
    
    252 S.W.3d 773
    , PDR rev. ref'd (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.]                  2007).
    The harm an accused suffers when the jury sees him in shackles is that
    his constitutional persumption of            innocence is infringed; and thus,
    all efforts should be made to prevent a jury from seeing a defendant in
    shackles unless there be a showing that there are exceptional circum
    stances or a manifest need for such retriants- Grayson v- State, 192
    S-W-3d 790. The fact that a defendant is charged with a serious felony
    does not provide .a basis for shackling that deendant during trial; like
    wise, a general concern for security is not sufficient to justify such
    restriant in a murder trial, court stated out of concern for courtroom
    security and because he        was on trial for murder. -Zrolkowski v. State,
    
    233 S.W.3d 640
    , PDR rev. ref'd Petition stricken 20078wiL-2403690(Tex. App.
    -Texarkana 2011. Requiring a defendant to be tried in shackles without
    adequate reason is repugnant to the spirit of law and ideas of justice
    whether those restriants visible or unseen. Grayson v. State, 
    192 S.W. 3d
    790, also see, Mendoza v. State, 
    1 S.W.3d 829
    (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi
    1999)(Reversed Aug.31,1999). The Courtof Criminal Appeals admonished
    Nueces County Courts for routine Shackling of defendants.
    The only reason articulated by the trial court was^that: make sure they
    in reference to the jury didn't realize Petitioner was in custody, (rr.
    Vol.3,pg.126 Line 3-13 - Furthermore Petitioner was required to stand
    every time the jury exited or..-entered the courtroom as well as move
    to a different courtroom shackled to            further voir dire jurors. Said
    restraints were visible to the jurors. See Vol.              3,pg.l26-.
    The Petitioner was denied the persumption of innocence and basically all
    aspects of the due process under the U.S. Const. 14th Amend, and the
    6th Amends, Equal Protection Clause. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel:
    Because Petitioner's counsel did not formally object to Petitioner being
    shackled, said counsel Procedurally defaulted said claim for purpose of
    direct appellate review and such deficient performance prejudiced the
    out come and would have resulted in a different out come.
    Criminal Law keynote-637:
    A:deferidant who is visibly shackled does not have the benefit of the
    bedrock persumption that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty
    2.
    GROUND   ONE    CONT:
    and thus his right to a trial is fundametally compromised. U.S.C.A.
    Const.Amend.        14.
    Criminal Law keynote-641.1:
    The Constitution,             in order to help the accused secure a meaningful
    defense,      provides him with a right .to counsel. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend.
    6th,    14th.
    Criminal Law keynote-637, 641.12 (2;).:
    The use of shackles on a defendant during trial may undermine a defen
    dant 's ability to effectively communicate with his attorney. U.S.C.A.
    Const.    Amend 6th       &    14th.
    Criminal Law keynote-637:
    The routine use of shackles on a criminal defendant in the presence of
    juries compromises the courtroomls formal dignity, which includes the
    respectful treatment of defendants, reflects the importance of the
    matter at issue, guilt or innocence, and the gravity with which Ameri
    cans consider any deprivation of an individuals'                 liberty through
    criminal punishment. U.S.C.A.              Amend.    14th.
    Criminal Law keynote-637:
    Prior    to   the   use   of shackles    on   a   criminal-defendant,   a   trial   court
    must make a specific finding that they are necessary for reasons
    particular to a given case. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14.
    Because this was not done and petitioner's attorney failed to object as
    to the needs of restraints,             and appellate attorney failed to see ths
    error in said disparte treatment of petitioner being paraded in front
    of jurors shackled said case should be reversed and remanded with
    instructions based on the              ineffective assistance-:of counsel       claim,      or
    in1lieu remand back to the trial court and take attorneys as well as
    the Hon. Angelica Hernandez on vior dire.
    Shackling of Petitioner without a demonstrated need compromised the
    formal dignity of the court and judicial proceedings and lead to harm
    ful collateral effects. Such effects cheifly included curtailing
    Petitioner's ability to communicate freely with counsel because of the
    physical limitations imposed by shackles and simply the distraction
    and embarresment they caused the Petitioner. See, Unites States v. Dur
    ham, 
    287 F.3d 1297
    , 1304 (11th Cir.2002) ("Even if the[shackles] placed
    the defendant are not visible to the jury, they still may... confuse
    the defendant, impaired his ability to confer with counsel, and signi
    ficantly affected the trial strategy he choose to follow.")
    3.:; ,
    GROUND    ONE   CONT:
    Petitioner's attorney made the following statement to the prospective
    jurors, that tainted the whole trial process : I frankly,                  probaly will
    not be spending any time questioning that type of evidence because as
    I told you right from the get go, Jose gonzales is guilty of criminal
    homocide, the question is, what sort of criminal homocide is he in fact
    guilty of? See, (Vol.3,pg. 147,4-9). Because Petitioner was shackled he
    did not approve of such trial strategy, which made the trial process
    unfair,    confused the Petitioner,       impaired his ability to communicate,
    and significantly effected the trial strategy, wherein Petitioner was
    not informed of such defense to be promugated,                but believed that tempo
    rary insanity would be the trial strategy and course his counsel would
    take. It appears that attorney's error for not objecting to shackling,
    along with attorney's unprofessional error's believing that petitioner
    was guilty from the start severly infringed on Petitioner's persumption
    of innocence, was deficient performance that reasonable:;effected the
    outcome of the case.        Petitioner was made to stand for the jury on numer
    ous occassions,         notronly where the shackles visible but because of the
    movement,       the chains were heard by the jurors. In such a high profile
    trial, here the errors originated from the trial court's sua sponte orf
    der,   and trial court's reasons for shackling the Petitioner are insuffi
    cient as a matter of law. See, Garcia v. State, 919 S.W.2d 370,381 (Tex.
    Crim.App.1994). Because of th errors appearing in the record PDR should
    be granted.
    Ground     Two:
    THE    STATE    COMMITTED DOUBLE JEOPARDY WHEN         IT   PROSECUTED   PETITIONER
    FOR    MULTIPLE    BURGLARIOUS   ENTRIES WHERE THERE        WAS   ONLY ONE UNLAWFULL
    ENTRY IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS CONSTRITUTION ARTICLE 1§14, AND U.S.C.A.
    Const.    AMEND.    5,AND V.T.CCP.       ART.   1.   10.
    Petitioner was convicted in a single trial and given multiple punish^-::-
    ments for the same conduct, thereby invoking the jeopardy clause in
    the U.S. Const,         and the Tex.   Const. Petitioner was charged by indict
    ment in Count I with committing Murder in the course of Burglary of a
    Habitation, and in Count II, Burglary of a Habitation with intent to
    commit Aggravated Assault or a felony. In Article 1.10 V.A.T.T.C.P.
    states: No person for the-sawe offense shall be twice put in"jeopardy
    of life or liberty; nor shall a person be again put upon for trial for
    the same offense; after verdict of not guilty in a court of competent
    jurisdiction.
    The rule is a State may not place a defendant in double jeopardy;
    GROUND   TWO   CONT:
    U.S. Const. Amend-V; Tex. Const. Art. I§14; Benton v. Maryland, 
    395 U.S. 784
    (1969). This means that the State may not:                (1) prosecute a defendant
    for the same offense after an acquittal; and (2) prosecute a defendant
    for the same offense after a conviction; or (3) obtain multiple punish
    ments in a-single trial for the same offense.                Illinios v. Vitale, 
    477 U.S. 410
    (1980); Brown v. Ohio, 
    432 U.S. 161
    (1977).
    What we are concerned here is         that Count I for Capital Murder,             was
    predicated on a burglarious entry in order for it to be upgraded from
    felony murder to Capital murder.         See, Tex.     Penal Code 19.03. Count II,
    under Penal Code 30.02 Burglary of a Habitation to commit a,felony
    (Aggravated Assault). The "same elements" test found in Blockburger v.
    U.S. 
    284 U.S. 299
    (1932) questions whether the State is attempting to
    punish the defendant twice for the same offense. This test asks the
    Court to exmine each statute to determine              whether each requires a
    proof of .an additional element the other does not. The Court abandoned
    a !'same conduct" test by overruling Grady v. Corbin, 
    495 U.S. 508
    (1990) ,
    in UiStfiiv. Dixon, 
    509 U.S. 688
    (1993).            But in double jeopardy/multiple
    punishment claims, Blockburger is not the solo focus, Ervin v. State,
    
    991 S.W.2d 804
    , 814 (Tex-Crim.App.1999). If the Court has actual legis
    lative   intent of     the   two statutes,   that   intent    is   the critical    factor.
    If not then look at Girdy v. State, 213 S.W.3d 315,319 t^ex.Crim.App.-
    2006)(if the prosecution, in proving one element of one offense, also
    necessarily proves another charged offense, the other offense is a lesse.-
    er included offense;         if so, there must be clear legislative intent to
    punish the offense seperately or multiple punishments are barred.)
    DOUBLE JEOPARDY QUESTIONS!;
    The allowable unit of prosecution for burglary is the indiviual entry,
    not   the number of     indentifiable crimes committed once the defendant
    makes the unlawful entry. Ex parte Cavazos,             
    203 S.W.3d 333
    (Tex.Crim.
    App.2006). Vauhgn V. State, 
    239 S.W.3d 351
    (Tex*App.-San Antonio 2007).
    Here we have Petitioner sentenced to multiple punishments for one
    unlawful entry. See, Ex parte Castillo, 
    432 S.W.3d 457
    (Tex.App.-San
    Antonio 2014, no pet.h.).
    Double ijgopardy Keynote-4:
    Double jeopardy clause impose few, if any, limitations on the legis
    lative power to establish and define the offense. U.S.C.A. Const. 5.
    Double Jeopardy keynote-134:
    5.
    GROUND     TWO   CONT:
    The legislature determine whether offenses are the same for double
    jeopardy purposes by defining the allowable unit of prosecution;                          the
    legislature also decides whether a particular course of conduct invol^-.y
    ves one or more distinct offenses under a given statute. U.S.C.A.
    Const.     Amend.    5.
    Double Jeopardy Keynote-144:
    Convictions for Capital Murder during the course of committting Burglary
    of a Habitation, and Burglary of a Habitation intent to commit a Felony
    (Aggravated Assault) violated double jeopardy clause; even though there
    werer. two victims,             the allowables prosecution was the unlawful entry.
    Not the complainant, and the defendant was punished multiple times
    for a single         unlawful entry. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5; V.T.C.A.                   Pen. C
    § 30.02 (a).
    Double Jeopardy Keynote-132.1:
    When   a   defendant       is   conviction   of    two or more     offenses   thatcare   the
    same for double-jeopardy purposes,                     the conviction for the most serious
    offense     is    retained,      and   the other conviction        is set   aside.   U.S.C.A.
    Const.     Amend.    5.
    Double Jeopardy keynote-132.1:
    The    "most     serious    offense"    which     is   retained   when   convictions   violate
    double jeopardy clause is the offense of conviction for which the
    greatest sentence was assessed;                 other factors such as the degree of
    thefelony, range of punishment, and rules governing parole eligiblity
    and awarding of good-conduct time, are not considerations; overruling
    Landers v.        State,    
    957 S.W.2d 588
    ,        U.S.C.A.    Amend 5.
    The issues before us is whether convicting Petitioner of two burglarious
    entries each with a different complianant but arising from a single
    unlawful entry of a habitation constitues double jeopardy? The prose
    cution theory in the charging instrument that Petitioner committed
    Capital Murder in the cousre of committing Burglary of a Habitation in C:
    Count I. Thecjprerequisite of felony murder upgraded to capital murder
    is outlined in V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 19.03. 490 U.S. 109 
    S.Ct. 2201,             
    104 L. Ed. 2d 865
    (1989)); Lopez v. State, 
    108 S.W.3d 293
    , 295-98 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).
    The court has pointed that "[a] defendant suffers multiple punishments
    in violation of double;jeopa-rdy clause when he is convicted of more .offen
    ses than the the legislature intended. Ervin v. State, 
    991 S.W.2d 804
    ,
    807 (Tex.Crim.App\ili999) (Siting Ball v.SState, v. United Sfcafees',470 U.S.
    856, 
    105 S. Ct. 1668
    , 
    84 L. Ed. 2d 740
    (1985)).. However the double jeopar
    dy clause imposes few, if any, limitations on legislati'veppower to
    establish and define offenses. Ex parte Hawkins, 
    6 S.W.3d 544
    , 556 (Tex.
    GROUND      TWO   CONT:
    -Crim.App.1999), (citing Brown v. Ohio, 
    432 U.S. 161
    , 
    97 S. Ct. 221
    ,
    
    53 L. Ed. 2d 187
    (1997)). The legislative therefore determines whether
    offenses are the same for double-jeopardy purposes by defining the
    "allowable unit of prosecution." 
    Id. (citing Sanabria
    v. United States,
    
    437 U.S. 54
    , 
    98 S. Ct. 2170
    57 L.Ed.@d 43 (1978)). The legislature also
    decides whether               a particular ..course of;:conduct involves one or more
    distinct offenses under a givemcstatute. Id.,consequently, :;the scope of
    Double Jeoprdy Clause protection against multiple punishments under the
    burglary statute depends on ascertaining the allowable unit of prosecu
    tion .-Petitioner urges the Court that:                      "the gravamen of a burglary is the-...!
    entry itself, without effective consent of owner and with the requisite
    mental state. Devaughn v. State, 
    749 S.W.2d 62
    , 65 (Tex.Cgim.App.1998).
    This Court has found that, when a burglary is committed,                             the harm results
    from the entry itself. Richardson v. State, 
    888 S.W.2d 822
    ,                             824 (Tex.Crim.
    -App.1994). The offense is complete once the unlawful entry is made,
    without regard to whether the intended theft or felony is also completed.
    
    Id. The allowable
    unit of prosecution for an assaultive offense is each
    complainant. See, Phillips v. State, 
    787 S.W.2d 391
    ,                             394-95 (Tex..Crim.-
    App.1990)(Assault); Ex parte Rathnell, 717 S.W.2d 33,36 (Tex.Crim.App.
    1986)(Voluntary Manslaughter). Burglary, however is not an assaultive
    offense; rather,              its placement within Title 7 indicates that the legisla^.j-.-
    ture determined burglary to be a crime against property. Thus the complain
    ant is not the appropriateaallowable~unif\of prosecution in burglary,
    rather,      the allowable unit of prosecution is the unlawful entry. Petition
    er's conviction violates double jeopardy, because he was punished multi
    ple time for a single entry. When a defendant is convicted of two or
    more offenses that are the                "same"      for double-jeopardy purposes,              our case
    law    tells      us   that    the   conviction      for   the most    serious    offense   is    retain
    ed    and   the    other conviction        is   set    aside.   See,    Landers v.    State,      
    957 S.W. 2d
    558,559-60 (Tex.Crim. App. 1997)'. Landersssteates;that the "most serious"
    offense is determinedr-by r.theodegreecof itheof elsny? trangei-:Of punishment
    and sentence imposed. Landers is overruled by Ex parte Cavazos'.
    Third reason applies some what differently to the double —jeopardy context
    than the misjoinder context, we fashioned a rule designed to best as
    certain what offense the State would have elected to proceed upon at
    trial. We did i.so because,              in the misjoinder context the State is not
    permitted to prosecute both offenses at the same time. Hence our evalu
    ation of the seriousness of the offence, with the sentence coming into
    8.
    GROUND   TWO   CONT:
    playi only when the range of punishment and the degree of the offense
    being the same. It is this very reason why petitioner need competent
    counsel,   for the complexity of such issue, Petitioner's counsel acted as                         .•
    no counsel at all. We shall visit the masjionder doctrine in our next
    point of error. For inasmuch the record reflects that double jeopardy
    has appeared from the record, to the the degree that both sentences aree
    equallin respect that Petitioner was sentence to life on both counts, and
    the Court has ruled in Cavazos, 
    203 S.W.3d 333
    (Tex.C£im.App.2006)                         (Tex.
    Crim.App.2006). The most serious retained. In this case both sentences
    are equal. There being jeopardy appearing from the record said convictions
    should be reversed and remanded with instructions.                    See,    also Ex parte
    Castillio, 
    432 S.W.3d 457
    (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2014, no pet. h.).
    Ground   Three:
    INEFFECTIVE      ASSISTANCE OF      COUNSEL      FOR NOT OBJECTING TO MISJOINDER
    OF    TWO    DISTINCT OFFENSES        IN THE   SAME   INDICTMENT
    COUNSEL   DID NOT      FILE    PRETRIAL   MOTION tNOR OBJECT         DURING TRIAL    TO    MISJOINDER
    OF   OFFENSES   THEREBY       EFFECTING THE     OUTCOME      OF   THE TRIAL,   SUCH     OBJECTION
    WOULD    HAVE   RESULTED   IN    A   DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
    Criminal Law Keynote-620(3):
    Mandatory right to severance of offenses only applies to joinder of
    property offenses. V.T.C .A'.PPenal Code § 3.04£a).
    Indictment and Information Keynote-127:
    State is prevented in the prsence of objection, from alleging more than
    one non-property offense in a single indictment, regardless of number of
    transactions involved.           V.T.C.C.P.      art.   21.24.
    Indictment and Information Keynote-127, 129(1):
    For State to avoid joinder problems,                  indictment for non-property offenses,
    whether arising from one transaction or sepera.te transactions, should
    contain only, one count in as many paragraphs are asnecessaryoto allege
    various manner and means of committing the one alleged offense. V.C.C.P.
    art.   21.24 (a).
    Indictment and Information Keynote-196(7):
    To avail himself of pleading limatations with respect to nonproperty
    offenses, defendant should file pretrial motion to quash indictment or
    urge.y sometime during trial, that State make an election; failure to
    object will result in waiver of pleading reqirements. v.A.T.CCP. art.
    21.24.
    Indictment and Information Keynote-132(2):
    Trial court has discretion to delay State's election due to misjoinder
    9.
    GROUND      THREE   CONT:
    of nonproperty offense in a single indictment, once requested, until
    submission of charge to jury; however, if trial court unecessarily
    delay's election and thereby prejudices defendant, trial court may be
    found to abused its'discretion. Vernon's Ann. Texas C.C.P. art 21.24(a).
    Criminal Law Keynote-1167(1):
    If trial court fails altogether to require State to cure misjoinder of
    nonproperty offenses, whether by denying motion to quash indictment or
    denying motion to force election, appellate court must reverse convictions.
    Vernon's Ann. Texas C.C.P. art.21.24(a).
    Indictment and Information Keynote-127:
    Indictment was invalid on basis of misjoinder where indictment alleged
    more than one nonproperty offense and alleged nonproperty offenses and
    property offense.
    Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
    Petitioner's counsel not filing motion to sever offenses, nor motion
    to Elect, nor objecting to misjoinder, resulted in Petitioner's claims
    to be procedurally defaulted for purposes of appellate review. Prejudiced
    the outcome of the trial,, resulted              in the convitions of two offenses
    for the same transaction and resulted in seperate sentences for life.
    Because of counsels deficient performance there is reasonable probability
    that the outcome would had been different. Such action by Petitioner's
    counsel gave the State a tactical advantage over Petitioner, which result
    ed in the trial being unfair and jury biased. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 6th
    &   14th.
    Counsel's failure to file pretrial motion to quash,               nor object was far
    "'below the range expected of reasonable,             professional competent assistance
    of counsel." Counsel's performance thus "did not measure up to the stan-
    dared requried under the holding in Strickland, 
    466 U.S. 688
    (1984), and
    [if it had)] there is a reasonable probability that the results would
    have been different in the sentencing phase." Under the applicable State
    procedures there would have been an election,              and the Petitioner would
    not have to face two offenses under the same jury.
    Turning to the prejudice issue,            that there was a "reasonable probability
    that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the results of the pro
    ceedings would have been different." 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694
    .
    Counsel   Abandoned His   Client
    The Supreme Court has long "recognized that 'the right to counsel' "Under
    the the Sixth Amendment. Strickland v. Washington, 66 U.S. 688,686, 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 2063, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984); Qubuting McMann v. Richarson,
    
    397 U.S. 759
    , 771 n.14, 
    90 S. Ct. 1441
    , 1449 
    25 L. Ed. 2d 763
    (1970)),
    10-
    GROUND   THREE   CONT:
    United States 
    v.Cronic, 466 U.S. at 656
    ,   104 S.Ct.    at 2045;   Anders v.
    California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    ,         743, 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    ,      1399,    18 L.ed.2d 493(1976).
    "The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffective assistance of coun
    sel must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper function
    ing of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as
    having produced a just result." Strickland, 2064. An effective attorney
    "must play the role of an active advocate,              rather than a mere friend
    of the.court. Evitts v. Lucey, 
    469 U.S. 387
    , 394, 
    105 S. Ct. 830
    , 835,
    83 L.Ed.2d. 821 (1985) . Over ..forty years ago,           justice Black articulated
    the Sixth Amendment right to counsel as follows:                "The right to counsel
    guaranteed by the Constitution contemplate the service of an attorney
    devoted soley to the interest of his client are the prized traditions
    of tho American lawyer.         It is this kind of service for which the.ssixth
    Amendment makes provisions. And nowhere is this service deemed more
    honorable than in a case of appointment to represent an accused too poor
    to Kirte a lawyer, even though the accused may be a member of an unpopular
    or hated group, ©>r.may be charged with an offense which is perculiary
    abhorrent,"      Von Molke v.    Gillies,    
    332 U.S. 708
    ,   725-26,68 S.Ct-    316,
    342.. 92 L.Ed.2d. 309 (1948) . >Similarily, an attorney who adopts and acts
    upon a belief that his client should be convicted "failfs] to function
    in any meaningful sense as the Government's adversary." Cronic ,v466 U.S.-
    
    666- 104 S. Ct. at 2051
    . Whether the attorney is influenced by loyalties
    toother defendants, third parties, orrgoverment,                  "if [he] entirely
    fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful advesarial testing,
    then, there, has been a denial of Sixth Admendment, rights." 
    Id., 659 104
    S.Ct. a€ 2047. The State's duty to ensure effective assistance of counsel
    goes further than the actual breakdowns in the adversary process.                   In
    Strickland, the Court, considered when a defense attorney may be Consti
    tutionally ineffective "simply by failing to render 'adequate legal assis
    tance." 
    466 U.S. 344
    , 100 S.Ct- at 1716 (Quoting Culyer)- When the trial
    or sentencing process is rendered unreliable because it has clearly lost
    its-   adversary character, the Sixth Admendment               violation is clear.
    When an ineffective assistance claim rests exclusively on the inadequacy
    of an attorney's strategic legal decision, however, the process retains
    its formal adversary nature. In this situation, the defense attorney may
    have advocated his client's interest to best of his ability. Nevertheless,
    the Court has held that if the attoney's inadequacies fall below that of
    a reasonable competent attorney and his errors may have effected the
    outcome of the proceeding, through formally adversarial, is deemed
    11.
    GROUND      THREE   CONT:
    inadequate          to satisfy the Sixth Amendment. See, Strickland, 466 U.S--
    
    686 104 S. Ct. at 2063
    . The Court in Strickland adopted a two-prong
    test to help lower corts determine when errors in legal decision-making
    alone effectively render the guilt process nonadversarial. First, an^
    attorney should be judged by an objective standared focusing on the
    defense attorney's knowledge at the time of the relevant proceeding.                             
    Id. at 687-88,
    104 S.Ct. at 2064-65. Reveiwing courts should avoid hindsight
    and second-guessing, and extend deference to counsel's tactical judgments.
    at 
    689, 104 S. Ct. at 2065
    . Courts must however, determine reasonably that
    such investigations were not necessary. 
    Id. at 691,
    104 S. Ct. 2066
    . We
    defined the reasonableness standard as "the                    'excersie [of]     the skill,
    and judgment and diligence of a reasonable competent defense attorney.'"
    See, 
    Burney, 756 F.2d at 790
    (qouting Dyer v. Crisp, 
    613 F.2d 275
    ,278
    (10th Cir.)(enbanc), cert, denied, 
    455 U.S. 945
    , 
    100 S. Ct. 1342
    63 L. Ed.
    2d 
    779 (1980)). Though the Court intended the prejudice standard to be
    flexible,       See Strickland, 
    466 U.S. 696
    , 104 S.Ct. at 2069,                  it emphasized
    that    a    "defendant     need   not   show    that   counsel's   deficient   conduct   more     r."••;•:•-<
    likely than not altered the outcome in the case." 
    Id. at 693,
    104 S. Ct.
    2069
    .
    WHERE       ATTORNEY'S    DEFICIENT      PERFORMANCE      PREJUDICED THE   PETITIONER.
    The mandatory serverance under § 3.04(a), only applies to joinder of
    property offenses, [property offenses are tttors^erOffesnses listed under
    Title 7 of the Penal Code.] Overton v. State,                       
    552 S.W.2d 849
    (Tex.Crim.-
    App.1977), nonproperty offenses all offenses other than listed under
    Title 7 of the Penal Code. See, Waythe v. State, 
    533 S.W.2d 802
    (Tex.App.-
    1976). Capital Murder, is not a property offense. It is listed as an
    offense against the person under Title 5 of the Penal Code. V.T.C.A. Penal
    Code 19.03. However, the right to force an election, which follows from
    implicit statutory ".restrictions-relating to the manner in which non-
    property offenses may be joined in an indictment, is supported by pre
    cedent, it holds that the legislature, by its admendment of article 21.24,
    V.A.C.C.P.,         has implicitly prevented the State from alleging,                in single
    indictment,         two or more nonproperty offenses if those offenses arose out
    of the same criminal "incident,                  act or transaction." Generally,          "trans
    action" has come to mean a criminal event and the various particular
    offenses,       committed within that event. See, 
    Drake, supra
    , at pp.945-49
    (petitioner's original brief Appendix & pg.16). The starting and the
    ending point of the event depends upon the definition thios Court applies
    to the facts. 
    Id., at least
    five such definitions has been applied
    constantly. See, Practice Commentary, V.T.C.A., Penal Code, §3.01, See
    12.
    GROUND   THREE   CONT:
    also Ex parte Ellison, 
    699 S.W.2d 218
    (fex.Cr.App.1985)(presence of one
    transaction is ^obvious"); Ex parteiSiiUIker,, 
    686 S.W.2d 617
    , 618(Tex.Cr.-
    App.1985). (Transaction=Whatever parties agree it means);               
    Drake, supra
    at 940, n.3,(Transaction=all conduct directed at accompolishment of'-
    single criminal objective); 
    id., at 947
    (Transation=all•conduct result
    ing faro-m; single guilty impulse); Mclntire v. State, 
    698 S.W.2d 652
    ,           656
    (Tex.Cr.App.1985)(Transaction=all conduct occurring within close time
    frame and single guilty intentrrunning through acts); Fortune v. State,
    
    699 S.W.2d 706
    , 707 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1985, pet-pending)(Transaction=
    conduct directed at a particular victim). Drake v. State, 
    686 S.W.2d 935
    ,
    944 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). From our reasoning in 
    Drake, supra
    , we must con
    clude that article 
    21.24, supra
    ,        implicitly prevents the State from
    alleging both property and nonproperty offenses together in the same
    indictment.      Inaddition,   our common law has long prevented the State from
    alleging,   in ar.single indictment, more than one nonproperty offense
    arising outcof seperate transactions. Campbell v. State, 163 Tex.Cr. 545,
    
    294 S.W.2d 125
    , 128 (1956)("an indictment chargingfseperate and distinct
    offenses in different counts is subject to the objection of misjoinder...")
    See also,   Smith v. State,      
    101 Tex. Crim. 220
    ,   
    123 S.W. 597
    , 600 (1909).
    Taken together, these pleading :limitations prevent the State,              in the
    presence of an objection, from alleging more than one nonproperty offen
    se in a single indictment, regardless of the number of transactions invol
    ved, Consequently, distinctions based upon the "number of transctions"
    present have been rendered meaningless for misjoinder purposes. "Trans
    actions" are still relevant for the purposes of limiting convictions
    resulting from a single jury verdict, see 37.07 V.A.C.C.P. and Ex parte
    Siller, 
    686 S.W.2d 617
    (Tex.Cr-App.1985)(one two convictions in same tri
    al reversed,      in absence of objection,   because both nonproperty offenses          : "
    arose but of thie same transaction) with Drake,supra,              (both^convictions
    in the same trial affirmed,        in absence of objection,        because each non-
    property offense arose from seperate transaction); Cf. also 
    Ellison, supra
    (one of two convictions in same trial reversed, in absence of
    objection, because both nonproperty offenses arose from the same trans
    action); but See and cf- arts. 37.10 and 44.24 (repealed); Wooten v.
    State, 11 Tex.Cr.r. 524, 
    15 S.W.2d 635
    , 636 (1929)(Appellate Court lacks
    authority, even in the absence of objection, to reform jury verdict to
    reflect single conviction; reversal of each conviction is required;
    number of transactions irrelevant).         See also and cf.       Ex parte .Johnson,
    
    697 S.W.2d 605
    , 612 (Tex.er.App.1985)(Clinton, J. dissenting).
    13.
    GROUND   THREE   CONT:
    Moreover, these differences continue despite the absence of any use of
    the term "transqction" in article 
    37.07 supra
    . However, we have no
    opertunity presently to resovle: these ambiguties because Petitioner seeks
    reversal on Ineffective assistance of counsel. For the State to avoid
    joinder problems, an indictment for a nonproperty offense, whether arising
    one transaction or seperate transactions should contain only one count an
    as many paragraphs as necessary to allege the varoius manner and means of
    committing the alleged offense. A "Count" is the portion of ran indictment
    that charges a distinct statutory offense. 22 Tex. Jur. 3d 655, Criminal
    taw, §52370. The presence of more than one count in an indictment therefore,
    would necessarily mean that more than one offense had been charged.
    A "paragraph" is a sunset of a count and is used to charge alternative
    methods of committing the same statutory offense. Art.21.24(b0, V.A.C.C.P.,
    Riley v. State, 
    658 S.W.2d 818
    (Tex. App.-FortisWorth 1983 no pet.). The
    presence of seperate paragraphs within a single count, therefore, would
    not signfy the charging of more than one statutory offense, but rather
    signfy the alternative manner-and means of committing the "same -statutory
    offense. 
    Riley, supra
    (alternative manner or means of committing Murder
    may be charged in seperate paragraphs of same indictment). We donot
    decide whether the implicit pleading requirements of article 
    21.24, supra
    allow the State to join nonproperty offenses through seperate indictments.
    However, even if the State could successfully join nonproperty offenses for
    a single trial through seperate indictments, it would still face at least
    two (2) remaining procedural hurdels that might prevent it from obtaining
    more than one conviction in a single trial. First, a defendant might still
    have a constitutional right to request serverance of offenses into sepe
    rate trials. Art. I § 10 Tex. Const., Ex parte Quintanilla, 
    151 Tex. Crim. 328
    207 S.W.2d 377
    , 378 (1948) ("...[T]he trial of all four seperate
    cases before the jury at the same time over [defendant's] objection depriv
    ed him of the valuable right of trial before an impartial jury in con
    travention of art. 1, Sec. 10, of the State Constitution      ") Second,
    even in absence of an objection, it would seem that a trial court only
    has authority to accept a general verdict from the jury in a trial for
    nonproperty offenses. Art- 
    37.07 supra
    ; See n.10, ante, at p.182. We
    believe that, following our abandonment of the Carving Doctrine, the State
    effectively will have to obtain multiple convictions for nonproperty
    offenses through multiple convictions for nonproperty offenses through
    multiple trials until the legislature alters pleadings and verdict
    instructions. Given the mandatory serverance under § 
    3.04, supra
    ,
    14.
    GROUND    THREE    CONT:
    the same practical result is likely to follow whenm the State attempts
    to obtain multiple convictions for property offenses.                      Counsel has a
    duty to bring to bear such skill and knowledge as will render the trial
    a reliable adversarial.testing process. Here,                    the counsel should have
    filed a pre-trial motion to sever, as well as objected during trial.
    For there is a strong probability that the outcome would have been
    different. Such deficient performance prejudiced the outcome of the trial
    and resulted in two convictions for the same transaction,                      in one burg
    larious entry, also, overwhelmed the Petitioner, by forcing him to be
    tried by the same jury for multiple offenses,                    said deficient performace
    by Petitioner's attorney, resulted in Petitioner being tried by a bias
    jury. It has appeared from the record that reversible error has appeared
    and such   cause should be        reversed     and   remanded     to the trial     court,   or   in
    lieu, dismissed with prejudice.
    GROUND    FOUR:
    INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL:              COUNSEL'S       FAILURE   TO FILE   MOTION
    TO QUASH AFFIDAVIT AND INFORMATION THAT WAS UNSIGNED,                      HHENCE PROSE
    CUTION    WAS   COMMENCED   UPON   THE   STRENGTH     OF   AN   UNSIGNED   INFORMATION.
    Petitioner's attorney failed to file a motion to quash the Information
    that does not have a signature on it.                We are left with the proposition
    that the case proceeded to a conclusion with no documentation in the
    file to reflect that Mark Skurka or anyone else signed the Informtion
    charging Petitioner with an offense a futher jurisdictional defect of
    itself. Holly v. State, 
    460 S.W.2d 136
    , 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1970).(See
    Exhibit "A" in Petitoner's appellate brief). T.C.C.P. Ann. art. 21.21(a)
    Lacy V. State, 
    160 Tex. Crim. 95
    , 
    267 S.W.2d 139
    , 141 (1948).
    Because Petitioner is in need of an attorney at every step of the pro
    ceeding it is ephasized here that attorney's skill and knowledge of the
    laws and practices of a criminal trial and proceedings.
    Criminal Law Keynote-641.13(2):
    Performance of defense counsel was not only contitutionally unreasonable
    and ineffective,      but counsel abandoned required duty of loyalty to his
    client; counsel did not simply make poor strategic choices; he acted
    with reckless disregard for his client's best interest and, at times,
    apperantly with the intention to weaken his client's case. U.S.C.A.
    Const.   Amend«    6th.
    15.
    GROUND   FOUR   CONT:
    Because the Information and the Affidavit are not signed,     it was
    attorney's duty to file motion to quash the information and indictment.
    Such an Information and Indictment has held to be void. See, Holly v.
    State, 
    460 S.W.2d 136
    , 137 (Tex-Cr-m.App.1970); also See, Shackelford v.
    State, 
    516 S.W.2d 180
    (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Thomas v. State, 474 S-W-2d
    236, 237 (Tex-Crim.App.1971)(fundamental error requiring reversal without
    point of error on appeal); See also, Morey v. State, 
    744 S.W.2d 688
    , 670
    (Tex.App.-San      Antonio 1988\ no pet.)(granting relief based on trial
    court objection and point of error on appeal). The Information fails to
    meet the requirements of Tex.Code of Crim. Proc- Ann. art-21.22(Vernon's}
    1989). Decisions like Holly, Thomas, and Shackelford, which apparently
    granted relief without objection, predate the enactment of T*G.CP. art-
    1.14(b)(Vernon's Suppil990), which requires a pretrial objection to defect
    of form or substance in an information in order to obtain appeallate re
    view. Hill v. State, 
    750 S.W.2d 2
    , 3, (Tex.App.-Forth Worth 1988, pet.ref-
    d); Shaw v. State, 
    728 S.W.2d 889
    , 890 (Tex.App.-Houston[lst Dist.] 1987,
    no-pet.); See Tex.Const. art. V § 21(b). They also predate enactment of
    Tex.R.App. 52(a), which requires a trial court objection, motion, or
    request as a predicate of appeallate review. We conclude that these sta
    tutes,   rules,   and constitutional developments change the result that would
    otherwise be required by decisions like Holly. It is because of attorney's
    errors in allowing a trial to proceed to an conclusion without any one
    signing an Information or Indictment, that rendered the process fundamen
    tally defective. It is here that Petitioner's attorney's knowledge, and
    skill comes to bear.     (Remember Petitioner had Three(3) attorneys at trial)
    the Supreme Court in Strickland adopted a two-prong test to help lower
    courts determine when errors in legal decision-making alone effectively
    render the guilt determination process nonadversarial• First an attorney
    should be judged by an objective reasonableness standard focusing on the
    defense attorney's knowledge at the time of the relevant proceedings.
    We defined the reasonableness standard as     "the 'excerise [of]   the skill,
    judgment and diligence of a reasnable competent defense attorney.'"
    Citing, 
    Burney, 756 F.2d at 790
    ; Criminal Law Keynote-641.13(14):
    Constitutional standard for attorney performance is that of reasonable
    effective assistance,     which is defined as excersie of the skill,   judgment
    and diligence of a reasonable competent defense attorney. U.S.C.A. Const.
    Amend. 6. The Court intended the prejudice standard to be flexible, See
    
    Strickland, 104 S. Ct. at 2068
    . T.C.C.P. art. 1.14 Waiver of Rights:
    16 .
    GROUND      FOUR   CONT:
    it emphasized that a "defendant need not show that counsel's deficient
    conduct more likelely than not altered outcome of the case." Instead
    the defendant bears the burden of showing              "that there is reasonable
    probability         that,   but for counsel's unprofessional errors,       the results
    of the proceedings would have come but different, a reasonable probabili
    ty is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome."
    
    Id., 694, 104
    S.Ct- at 2068. T.CC.P. art- 1.14 Waiver of Rights:
    (a) the defendant in criminal prosecution for any offense may waive any
    rights secured to him by Taw except that a defendant in a capital felony
    case may waive the right of trial by jury only in the manner permitted
    by art.1.13(b) of this code. See also, sec.(b) of this Code.
    Punishing a lawyer's intentional and unintentional errors by closing the
    courthouse door to his          his   client   is both senseless and   misdirected method
    of deterring the slight of State rules. It is senseless because unplanned
    and unintentional action of any kind generally is not subject to deter-
    rance;      and,   to the extent that it       is hoped that a threatened sanction ad^.v-
    dressed to the defense will induce greater care and caution ©n: tke"-"part
    of the trial lawyers, thereby forestalling negligent conduct and error,
    the potential loss of valuable State remedies would be sufficient to this
    end. And it is misdirected sanction because even if penalization of in
    competence or carelessness will encourage more through legal training and
    trial preparation, the Petitioner, as-opposed to his lawyer,                hardly is
    the proper recipent of such a penalty. Espicially with fundamental consti
    tutional rights at stake, no fictional relationship of principal-agent or
    the like can justify holding the criminal defendant accountable for the
    naked errors of his attorney. This espicially true when so many indigent
    defendants are without any realistic choice in selecting who ultimately
    represents them=ai trial. Indeed, if responsibility for error must be
    apportioned between the parties, it is the State, through its attorney's
    admissions and certification policies,              that is more fairly held to blame
    for !-:•:    the fact that practicing lawyers too often are ill-equipped to
    act carefully and knowledgeably when faced with decisions goverened by
    State procedural requirements. Hence, Petitioner agrees with the proper
    functioning our system of criminal justice, necessarily places heavy
    reliance on the professionlism and the judgment of trial attorneys.
    Petitioner was denied his rights of effective assistance of counsel
    guaranteed by U.S.C.A. 6, Amend., U.S. Const. A system that ascribes the
    absolute forfeiture of Petitioner's               constitutional claims where his
    17.
    GROUND    FOUR   CONT:
    lawyer manifestly excersies no professional judgment at ail-where care
    lessness, mistakes,      or ignorance is the explantion of the procedural
    defaults. It is regrettable that certain errors that might have been
    cured earlier had trial counsel acted expenditiously must be corrected
    collaterally and belatedly. Hence, Petitioner's attorneys was deficient
    and such deficient conduct prejudiced the trial,      to such an extent that
    there is a reasonable probability that the outcome wouls have been diff
    erent, this is just one of the litanies of errors made by counsel. When
    Petitioner's "counsel addressed the venire,      see Vol.5.,pp.99:
    Line 20:    Mr. Woerner:   May it please the court,
    Line 21: Counsel for the State,      ladies and gentleman:" of the jury.
    Line 22:    Now,   This is a kind of interesting case for me,   I've
    Line 23: been doing this for over 30 years. I've probably tried
    Line 24: way more than 30 felony cases. I've tried over
    Line 25:    a dozen murder casese.   I've found myself in
    Pg.100:
    Line 1: front of a jury telling them that my client is guilty of
    Line 2: murder. That's never happened. I guess it's because we
    line 3: have sorts of a unique set'of facts and circumstances.
    Here the attorney shows his disenchantment with the case and virtually
    gift wrapped his client. Here we have an experienced attorney with over
    30 years of experience, over 12 murder trials, (he does not say how many
    he has actually won), See RR. Vol-4,pg.99,20-25. How in the name of Justice
    he does not file the requsite pre-trial motions that would have changed
    the outcome of the proceedings? There is a probability that the outcome
    of the trial would have been different! We have one or two things in
    operation here; either the attorneys' virtually sabotaged the Petitioner's
    defense, or was an ingenious trial strategy knowing that, because of the
    high profile nature of the case, and the particular judge presiding over
    the:trial would guarantee this case would not survive Appellate review
    in a meaningful scrutiny. Such actions negated Petitioner's persumption of
    innocence. Because of the aforementioned acts and ommissions of Petition
    er's attorney which did not subject the State's case to the adversarial
    testing process. It has appeared from the record see, (Exhibit "A") that
    said indictment, information, and affidavit does not have the required
    signature, thereby not conferring jurisdiction and such procedural default
    by attorney of record rendered ineffective assistance of counsel and
    said cause should be reversed and remanded with instructions.
    18.
    GROUND   FIVE:
    INEFFECTIVE        ASSISTANCE OF      TRIAL    COUNSEL    FOR NOT    FILING
    MOTION   TO   CHANGE    VENUE   IN    HIGHLY   CHARGED   CRIMINAL
    PROSECUTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH               V.T.A.CCP.       ART.   31..03,
    SAID WAIVER    BY   ATTORNEY DEFAULTED          PETITIONER'S RIGHTS
    TO   RAISE    GROUND   FOR    APPELLATE    REVIEW.
    Petitioner complains that attorney's deficient performance prejudiced
    the outcome of the trial.          Petitioner an Alice police officer was the
    subject of extensive media coverage in the county and surronding counties
    wherein the instance offense took place. Furthermore,                     the internet and
    the social media followed said case.               Petitioner was the subject of a
    documentray,     wherein a series of local television stations broadcast
    the events and circumstances surrounding the instant offense. See App.
    Brief (Exhibit "G"). Under art. 31.03 (a) a change of venue may be granted
    in a felony or a misdemeanor case punishable by confinement on the writ
    ten motion of the defendant,          supported by his own affidavit and the affi
    davit of at least two credible persons,                  residents of the county where the
    prosecution is instituted,          for either of the following causes*,               the truth
    and sufficiency of the court shall determine:
    1. That there exists in the county where the prosecution is commenced so
    great a prejudice against him that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial
    trial;   and
    2. That there is a dangerous combination against him instigated by influ
    ential persons, by reason of which he cannot expect a fair trial.
    Said publicity was pervasive,             prejudicial,      and inflammatory. Here we are
    concerned with the attorney not filing the pre-trial motion for change of
    venue and whether said attorney by his deficient performance prejudiced
    the Petitioner? We must go to the record to ascertain if in                         fact attorney's
    deficient performance prejudiced the Petitioner. The court asked the poten
    tial jurors (Vol.2,pg.30, line:6-23). Anyone who knows about the case
    through the media? 2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,16,17,18,19,21,22,24,25,26,27,
    29,30,31,33,34,35,37,41,42,43,44,45,46,48,49,53,54,55,56,58,59,61,62,63,
    64,67,68,69,70,71,7 2,74,77,78,80,83,84,86,87,90,93,94,96,99,100.                        Who has
    personal knowledge, 17- Thos e who have already made up their minds who
    cannot be fair and impartial (Vol.2,pg.30,line:23-25.) 2,5,13,25,26,27,29,
    30,31,34,35,41,44,45,58,59,63,68,71,80,84,87,88,90,94,96. In (Vol.2.,pg.
    58,1-25,pg.59, 1-25, pg.60, 1-25),, juror no. 2 explians in detail about the
    Ixtensive coverage in the CaJler Times-She describes the kidnapping of
    Petitioner's son, wherein she has has formed an opinion as to the vio
    lence in the case,       also defense attorney Mr.            Woerner Stated:        "he never
    19.
    GROUND   FIVE   CONT:
    seen so many people who have their minds made up in a case,            even cases
    that had more publicity. (Vol.2,pg.56, 23-24.) Defense attorney should
    have immeadiately filed motion for change of venue,            knowing from the
    percentage of potential jurors that had already formed a strong opinion
    about the guilt of the Petitioner,          that his client could not recieve a
    fair and impartial trial.       "A defendant must show an ability to obtain an
    impartial and fair trial. Coupled with counsels' disenchanmentTPetitioner
    could not recieve a fair and impartial trial because defense counsel had
    already given up. See, Williams v. State, 
    897 S.W.2d 351
    (Tex.Crim.App.),
    cert, denied,     
    516 U.S. 946
    ,    
    116 S. Ct. 385
    ,   133 L.Edi2d 307 (1995). To
    justify a change of venue based on media attention, a defendant must show
    that the publicity about the case was purvasive, prejudicial, and inflam
    matory. Bell v. State, 
    938 S.W.2d 35
    (Tex.Crim.App.1996), cert, denied,
    522 U.S.827, 
    118 S. Ct. 90
    ,          
    139 L. Ed. 2d 46
    (1997). -Petitioner's attorney
    did not move for change of venue based on recent and significant amounts
    of media coverage and that publicity regarding similar cases had the eff
    ect of creating greater prejudice, bringing "some afore-thought to people"
    and making it "very hard" to find a fair and impartial jury. Petitioner
    could have called a number of witnesses that were listed on the prosecu
    tions witness list for this eventuality. The prosecution was prepared tor
    fight a change of venue motion, witnessess from several television statio
    ns, newspapers, etc., were prepared to testify to the number of potential
    jurors exposed to these stories. See, (Appellant's brief Exhibit"C").
    Petitioner's attorney could have produced the requisite affidavits needed
    to bloster his client's need for change of venue. See,            (Clerk's Record,
    pgs.30,32,and 43). Said media coverage was inflammatory, pervasive, and
    prejudicial,     in as much that the panel that appeared a great percentage
    of the array.who had already made up their minds abut Petitioner's guilt,
    who could not be fair and impartial. More than \            70% of the panel members.
    See, (RR. Vol.2,pg.31). Here you have 77 members of the array who have
    followed the case in the media who have extensive knowledge of the case
    and as such including an alleged kidnapping of Petitioner's son ( a crime
    he was not on trial for),       which futher exceberrated the coverage and the
    amount of times this coverage was repeated in a course of a year was
    astronomical.     Therefore,   even after trial court conducted vior dire,         it
    is clear from the record that the trial court tried to rehabilitate the
    remainder of this poisoned panel. We must also bear in mind that the
    trial court was in a unique position of hearing the testimony of the po
    tential jurors and gauging the sincerity of their responses in light of
    the publicity about the case. But the successful qualification of a jury
    20.
    GROUND    FIVE   CONT:
    panel is not the sole criterion in determining whether a defendant is
    entitled to a change of venue,         since concious or subconcious juror
    prejudice can effect answers obtained on vior dire. Although it was
    possible to select a jury whose members were not subject to a challenge
    for cause, Petitioner was entitiled to a change of venue if he could
    show that there were influences in the community which could affect the
    answers on vior dire. There are two things that distinguish this case
    from others in which a majority of the venire is familiar with the case,
    "first, the nature of the publicity is quite different because, Petitioner
    was a police officer,         there was a Burglary, a Murder, Kidnapping, an Amber
    Alert went out, there was a SWAT-standoff/ Hostage situation, News Stati
    ons reported widely and did extensive coverage on the day and fora year
    after until the date of trial,         potential jurors had the oppertuinty to
    watch it unfold. Second, a large number of potential jurors could not
    set aside their opinion. This strongly indicates that pretrial publicity
    resulted in actual identifiable prejudice to petitioner." Also the media
    coverage was not accurate and objective, because it reported an actual
    kidnapp when there was none. Because Petitioner's attorney not filing the
    motion for change of venue,         it rendered him deficient in his performance
    and because of the ommission it is a probability that the outcome of said
    trial    would have      been different.   It must be remembered     that   the   trial
    judge ordered a gag order on the case. See, (CR.pg.30). Here we have the
    acts and ommissions of said attorney, who effectively abandoned his client.
    Given the two prongs of Strickland, said deficient performance, coupled
    with the extreme prejudice that Petitioner was tried in a hostile envi-
    roment,    under media bias,      Petitioner's attorney should have moved for
    change of venue. Wherefore,         said counsels deficient performance resulted
    in Petitioner not recieving a fair and impartial trial, based on jurors
    being biased. For said procedural default appearing in the record, said
    cause should be reversed and remanded and said counsels should be sanction
    ed for thier derilict performances.
    GROUND    SIX:
    TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY NOT ORDERING
    CHANGE OF VENUE      AFTER IT BECAME   IMPOSSIBLE- TO
    SEAT A JURY THAT WAS UNBIASED        IN HIGH PROFILE   CASE.
    In change of venue cases art.31'J01 the judge should filed upon her own
    21.
    GROUND   SIX   CONT:
    motion to change venue after the vior dire revealed that Petitioner
    could not recieve a and impartial trial. Because the jury that was
    actually seated was tainted by the rest of the jury pool,              along with
    the fact that this case was tried in the media way before the actual
    jury was       pooled. Because the Sixth Amendment gives the Petitioner the
    right to a fair and impartial trial it is the presiding judge who conducts
    the vior dire of the prospective jurors, that said motion by court should
    have been rendered. Because the judge sees and hears the answers to the
    questions promulgated by attorneys, as well as her individual vior dire
    of prospective jurors. t:It was .impossible to:seat a jury in this high pro
    file, media driven trial. Trial judge abused her discretion in Capital
    Murder trial was prjudicial and imflammatory, and thus change of venue
    was warranted after a large number of venire panelist were disqualified
    for cause because they were unable to set aside their opinions of defen
    dant's guilt. See, (RR. Vol.2,pg.30,9,22, pg.31,13-25). These circumstances
    required a conclusion by the trial judge that publicity was inflammatory -:
    and prejudicial, and media broadcasts and newspaper reports of the case
    were not objective in their coverage, along with internet blogs, coupled
    with defense attorney telling venire panelist that Petitioner was guilty,
    not only infringed on Petitioner's persumption of innocence, but denied
    Petitioner his Sixth Amendment right to be tried by a fair and impartial
    jury. Such actions tainted the jury to such an extent that Petitioner
    could not      recieve a   fair trial.   See,   14th Amend. U.S.   Const.   Also,   V.T.C.
    C.P. art.31.03(a), Mayola v. Alabama, 
    623 F.2d 992
    , 998 (5th Cir.1980),
    Von Byrd v. State,'5569 S.W.2d 883, 890-891, Russel v. State, 
    146 S.W.3d 705
    , 714 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, pet.ref'd), Crawford v. State, 
    685 S.W.2d 343
    ,      349-350. The number of jurors that were unable to serve on
    the jury in this case demonstrates the extent of the pretrial publicity
    had permeated the community. Here out of 100 a large percentage more than
    \ could not be impartial and already formed their opinion.=See, (RR. V&1.
    2,pg.31,22-25-)• These panelist could not but aside their opinions is
    reason enough to consider the entire community "*!infected" by the pre
    trial publicity and prejudice, and inflammatory atmosphere and those act-:.~.
    ually seated were poisioned by the others. For this reason said cause
    should be reversed and remanded, and said former trial judge should be
    taken on vior dire as for her acts and ommissions.
    22.
    GROUND    SEVEN:
    INEFFECTIVE      ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL           FOR    ABANDONING PETITIONER
    AND   ACTED   AS   NO   COUNSEL     AT   ALL,   ACTING   AS   MERE   FREIND   OF   COURT.
    Said   counsel abandoned his client and acted as no counsel                         at all,
    only mere friend of court.            In the totality of representation by
    defense    counsels,     Mr.   Mark Woerner,       Mr.    Steve Schiwetz,      and    Mr.
    Mark A.    Gonzales,     abandoned        their client.     Mr.   woerner at    the onset        of
    trial was not concerned about Petitioner being shackled, nor did any
    of the defense attorneys complain,                 nor object. Furthermore,           Mr.   M.
    Woerner told the jury that his Client was guilty,                      which nullified any
    any defense,       in regard to Count II,           and resulted in the jury being biased.
    A strategy that petitioner did not approve of nor was able to communicate
    his disbelief to attorneys about such remaks that infringed upon his
    persumption of innocence.
    Ineffective    Assistance       of   Counsel:
    The Supreme Court has long "recognized that 'the right to counsel is the
    right to effective assistance of counsel'" under the Sixth Amendment.
    Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 688
    , 
    104 S. Ct. 2052
    , 2063, 80 L.Ed.2d.
    674 (1984); In this case, we find that the defense counsel did not put up
    any meaningful defense during the punishment phase,                      nor file pretrial
    motion that Petitioner wasnever convicted of anyrfelony in this State or
    any other State, See V.T.C.C.P. art.42.12, Sec.4(d<)( 8) (c) states: A
    defendant is eligible for community supervision under this section only
    if before the trial begins the defendant files a -tswq£9" motion to the
    judge that the defendant has not previously been convicted of a felony in
    this or any other state, and the jury enter in the verdict a finding that
    the information is true. See (RR.Vol.2,pgs.9, 1-17). Because of the force
    ful argument by the State's attorney Mr. McCaig that Petitoner was not
    eligible for probation,Petitioner's attorney should have researched fur
    ther in the same code to ascertain that Petitioner was eligible for pro
    bation/community supervision. If counsel would have filed the pre-requi-
    site motion with the trial judge. Furthermore, said counsel did not rea
    sonably argue on his client's behalf during punishment phase. See, (Vol.
    5.pg.126,3).
    Line 4:    The Court:       Okay.
    Line 5: does the defense have any additional evidence for puposes of
    punishment?
    Line 6:    Mr. Woerner:        No,   your Honor.
    Line 7: The Court: All right. Argument?
    Line 8: Ms. Dorsey: Judge, the State is going to ask for life on that
    Count,    too.
    23.
    GROUND    SEVEN     CONT:
    Line 10: Mr. Woerner: Your Honor, we're just
    Line 11: going to simply ask the Court to consider a lesser
    Line 12:     sentence,       based   on all       the   facts   and   circumstances   in
    Line   13:   this    case.    That's   all    I    have,   Your   Honor.
    Said counsel's performance was so deficient through counsel's disenchant
    ment that he totally abandoned his client. Petitioner's second count
    was a sentence range 5-99 or life. Because Petitioner was never convicted
    of a crime nor was there mitigating factors that constituted a life sen
    tence. Counsel did not present any evidence of~futaee -dangerousness,                      nor
    whether rehabilitation would help his client such ommissions rendered
    counsel's performance deficient and prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
    Because the court did not consider the full range of punishment based on
    counsel's deficient performance. Because counsel did not present any
    mitigating factors in rebuttal to the State's recommendation of a life
    sentence,     there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have
    been different. This is the purposes of serverance for filing such a
    motion    , so that the Petitioner would not be overwhelmed by the count I.
    For this reason the State had gained a tactical advantage over Petitioner,
    and count II was overwhelmed by count I. See, Osborn v. 
    Schillinger, 861 F.2d at 626-627
    . The Court in Strickland adopted a two-prong test to help
    lower courts determine when errors in legal decision-making alone effect
    ively render the guilt determination process nonadversarial. Whether the
    attorney fufilled his duty to make reasonable investigation was not
    necessary. 
    Id. at 691,
    104 S.Ct- at 2066. We defined reasonaleness stan
    dard as      "the 'excercise [of]        the skill,         judgment and diligence of a rea
    sonable competent defense attorney•'" 
    Burney, 756 F.2d at 790
    (quoting
    Dyer v. Crisp, 
    613 F.2d 275
    , 278 (10th Cir.)(enbanc), cert.denied, 
    455 U.S. 945
    , 
    100 S. Ct. 1342
    , 
    63 L. Ed. 2d 770
    (1980)). A reasonable probability
    is a probability that absent, the errors, the sentencer-including appel
    late court,       to the extent that it independently reweighs the evidence-
    would have concluded the balance of the aggravating factors and mitiga
    ting circumstances would have resulted in a life sentence on count two.
    Now the additional question is; could this also be applied to count one
    in relation to V.A.CCP. art .42.12(8) (c)? wherefore said counsel should
    have filed pretrial motion and affidavit that his client was never convic
    ted of a felony in this state or other. Because of the acts and ommissi
    ons of counsel, such ommission counsel breached his loyalty to his client-
    Defense counsel completely failed to investigate other lines of pluasible
    defense and was inadequately prepared to effectively present the tactical
    defense he chose. "[I]n a capital case the attorney's duty to investigate
    24.
    GROUND   SEVEN   CONT:
    all possible lines of defense is strictly observed." 
    Coleman, 802 F.2d at 1233
    ; cf. 
    Burger, 107 S. Ct. at 3126
    (less than complete investigation
    justifiable only "to the extent that reasonable professional judgments
    support the limitations on investigations")(qouting 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91
    , 104 S.Ct- at 2066)). Counsel's responsibility was to argue the
    sentencing question, he did little in preperation- See Osborn, F.Supp. at
    616-617.   "It should be beyound cavil that an attorney who fails altogether
    to make any preparations for the penalty phase of a capital murder trial
    deprives his client of reasonable effective assistance of counsel by an
    objective standard of reasonableness." Blake v. Kemp,            
    758 F.2d 523
    , 533
    (11th Cir.1985), cert.denied, 
    474 U.S. 998
    , 
    106 S. Ct. 374
    , 
    88 L. Ed. 2d 367
    (1985). Here counsel failed to defendant being shackled,            failed to investi
    gate the extensive media coverage,           television documentrary which featured
    Petitioner in family violence, failed to bring forth witnesses' from the
    media outlets and internet blogs who gave commentaries on case. Failed to
    to adequately prepare a defense, nor subject the state's case to the
    adversarial testing process by having fellow police officers who were
    having illicit relations with his wife there to testify. Nor did he inter-
    veiw them nor have them appear before the court,           officers,   Buzz Esparza,
    Luis rene Ozuna,     Noe Roel,    Emede Reyes,    and Frank Estrada. Defense attorney
    did produce phone records, see(Petitoner's appeal brief Exhibit 14-16).
    That was the extent of defense preparation for capital murder trial.
    Counsel did not include any investigation of these individuals who was
    having illict affairs with deceased. Although court ordered physcological
    testing    of the Petitioner, there was no report by the physcologist includ
    ed in the record,        nor was he called to testify to Petitioner's mental
    condition at the time of offense-           These were just some of the failures of
    defense counsel in prepartion for trial- Once counsel telling jury that
    his client was guilty of murder, he was wholly unprepared to make a plata-
    ble defense of his theory and effectively undermined Petitioner's per
    sumption of innocence in Count I and Count II- said was ho defense at all
    but a tactical retreat, and pure abandonment of his client- Even granting
    deference to counsel's choices,        we cannot conclude that he need not under
    take further investigation," before proceeding with an argument he was
    wholly unprepared to make. 
    Burger, 107 S. Ct. at 3126
    . Counsels performances
    did not meet constitutional standards.           In addition,   the Court should find
    clearly established that Petitioner's attorneys so abandoned their "over
    arching duty to advocate the defendant's cause, Strickland, 
    466 U.S. 688
    ,
    104 S.Ct- at 2064, that the state proceedings were almost totally non-
    adversarial- Informing the jury panelist that his client was guilty
    25.
    GROUND   SEVEN CONT:
    permeated that guilt thru both counts and destroyed any persuption of
    innocence, counsel's actions in regard to sentencing even more clearly
    indicate the abandonment of his duty of loyalty. Nix v. Whiteside, 
    475 U.S. 157
    , 106 Gt- 988, 1006, 89 L.Ed .-2d 123,(1986) (Blackmail-, J., (Concurring
    in judgment)("except in the rarest of cases, attorneys who 'adopt the role
    of judge or jury to determine the facts,' pose a danger of depriving their
    clients of the zealous and loyal advocacy required by the Sixth Amend.")
    (qouting United States ex rel. Wilcox v. Johnson, 
    555 F.2d 115
    , 112 ;(3d Cir.
    1977)    (citation omitted);). The most striking indication of counsel's per
    formance and failure to fufill his duty of loyalty to his client is from
    his behavior at the trial         itself.    "Counsel at the summation of the trial,
    counsel referred to the difficulty his client had presented to him. See
    (RR. Vol.5.pg.99):
    Line 20:    Mr.    Woerner:   May it please the court,
    Line 21: Counsel for the State, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
    Line 22:    Now,    this kind of an interesting case for me.      I've
    Line 23: been doing this for over 30 years. I've probably tried over
    Line 24: way more than 30 felony cases. I've probably tried over
    Line 25:    a dozen murder cases.      And I've never found myself in
    (RR.Vol-5,pg.100,1-3,12-20):
    Line 1: front of a jury telling them that my client is guilty of
    Line 2: murder- That's never happened. I guess it's because we
    Line 3: have sort of a unique set of facts and circumstances.
    Line 12: Now, why did this happen? why would
    Line 13: someone who is a respected member of his community, a
    Line 14: hardworking , law-abiding, law-enforcing individual
    Line 15: commit this terrible act? why would he murder his wife
    Line 16: an destroy his family? I'm not sure that can totally
    Line 17:    be answered, sometimes people snap. Something sets
    Line 18:    them off and thay do something totally out of character
    Line 19: for them. Because, really, there was obiviously nothing
    Line 20: good that was going to come out of this.
    Counsel is in fact telling the jury he could not present any mitigating
    circumstances when evidence against his client is so overwhelming.
    In closing counsel lamented; (RR.Vol.5,pg.102,13-16): 13: If:yccircatmit"a tianocide
    Line 14:    under these circumstances,         no matter what your reason
    Line 15: is you're guility of murder- So Joey is not walking out
    Line 16: out of here today no matter what.
    Petitioner's attorney did not simply make poor choices; he acted with
    reckless disregard regard for his client's case.
    26.
    GROUND    SEVEN   CONT:
    Whatever the reason the record supports that counsel turned against
    his client. There is no apperrant reason for counsels behavior,
    altough he repeated many times that his client was guilty and how
    difficult this case was. This conflict in loyalty unquestionably
    affected his representation. A defense attorney who abandons his duty
    of loyalty to his client and effectively helps-the State in                   an effort to
    attain a    conviction suffers      from an obivious conflict of      interest,        such
    an attorney, like unwanted counsel,          "'represents' the defendant only
    through a legal fiction." Faretta VI. California, 
    422 U.S. 806
    , 821, 
    95 S. Ct. 2525
    , 2534, 
    45 L. Ed. 2d 562
    (1975). In fact an attorney is burdened
    by a conflict between       his client's interest and his own sympathies to
    the prosecution's position is considerably worse than an attorney with
    loyalty to other defendants; because the interests of the state and the
    defendant and the state are necessarily in oppostion. As              the Supreme Court
    has asserted:      "The right to effective assistance of counsel is thus the
    right of the accused to require the prosecution's case to survive the
    crucible of meaningful adversarial testing... [i]f the process loses its
    character as confrontation between adversaries,              the constitutional gua
    rantee is violated."      
    Cronic, 466 U.S. at 656-57
    ,   104 S.Ct.   at    2045.    It    is
    the Petitioner's conclusion that his counsels of record did provide him
    with effective assistance of counsel. The performaneecol counsels was
    constitutionally unresonable, more importantly, the evidence presented at
    punishment hearing overwhemingly established that his attorney abandoned
    the required duty of loyalty to his client. Petitioner's attorneys did
    not just simply make poor choices; he acted with reckless disregard for
    his client's' best interests and,        at times, apparently with intention to
    weaken his client's case,      it must be remebred that Petitioner was never
    convicted of a crime or any felony and was eligible for probation, also                        •
    for purposes of Count II, there was no argument by counsel on his client's
    behalf.    Trier of fact abused her discretion a-..d was biased in her senten
    cing of Petitioner. Petitioner's counsel advising his client to let the
    judge sentence him in regard to Count II was designed to facilitate ano
    ther life sentence without counsel having to argue before the jury. See,
    (CR.pg.146.) Because of the Amended Election for Punishment Motion filed
    was filed on the date of conviction,            further proves that counsel abandon
    ed his client and sided with the State, against, his client. Petitioner
    urges the Court that reversable error has appeared in the record and
    such cause    should be   reversed and      remanded.
    27.
    GROUND     EIGHT:
    PETITIONER'S        COUNSEL   OF    RECORD FOR    DIRECT APPEAL      FRED JIMINEZ      AND
    STEPHEN W.     BYRNE WAS       INEFFECTIVE   ASSISTANCE OF         COUNSEL    AND   COMMITTED
    FRUAD BEFORE THE COURT BY FILING FRIVOLOUS BRIEFS,                        FOR SUCH ACTIONS.[
    WERE   MOTIVATED      BY   POLITICAL    ASPIRATIONS    AND   THE    HIGH    PROFILE   NATURE
    OF   THE   CASE.   FORCING     INDIGENT   PETITIONER WHO      IS    NOT    EDUCATED   IN THE
    LAW TO FILE PRO/SE BRIEF.
    Prejudice, whether necessary or not,                is established under any applicable
    standard. Petitioner was charged with several crimes,                        the State assigned
    counsel Fred Jiminez to represent him in his direct state review of
    convictions-        Fred Jiminez's wife was the District Attorney for Nueces
    County,     (Anna Jiminez)         whose office prosecuted the Petitioner. Because
    of the conflict of interest and the high profile nature of the case-.
    said attorney filed a frivolous brief, knowing well that Petitioner's
    case was filled with meritorious claims. Such insidivious intent by said
    attorney because of the high profile nature of the cause, and the political
    aspirations of Fred Jiminez and his wife Anna Jiminez, who is now imbat-
    tled with the State over corruption charges while she was in office. If                           ~:.
    said attorney would have brought his legal skills and knowledge to bear,
    Petitoner would succeed in a successful review of his direct appeal.
    Any attorney from the county who have any political aspirations along with
    their spouses' would be faced this type of case hanging over their head.
    The motivation factor in a pro-conviction enviroment, who appear to be
    soft on crime, would be the object of political ostrcism. The Court in turn
    appointed Stephen W= Byrne to represent Petitioner on direct appeal, said
    counsel filed motion to withdraw citing ill-health in which' he claims
    when the court appointed him to represent Petitioner- He still filed a
    frivilous brief. Such actions by counselors forcing Petitioner who is
    uneducated in the law and the speciality of appellate review to have no
    choice but to a pro/se brief.. The court was not satisfied with the brief
    that Fred Jiminez          filed.    Because the actions of these attorney's does
    not subject the state's case to the "adversarial process. "The right to
    effective assistance of counsel is the right of the accused to require
    the prosecution's case to survive the crucible of meaningful adversarial
    testing... [l]f the process losses its character as a confrontation be
    tween adversaries, the constitutional guarantee is violated," 
    Cronic,^. 466 U.S. at 656
    -57, 104 S. Ct. at 2045
    . Petitioner bases his conclusions
    that he did not recieve effective assistance of counsel on the clear
    Sv'ta'ehce in the proceeding grounds postulated in grounds one -seven.
    28.
    GROUND EIGHT CONT:
    this is the evil intent of attorneys to circuvent their client's basic
    and fundamental rights as embodied in the Sixth Amend. Moreover, the
    purpose of the effective assistance of counsel guarantee of the Sixth
    Amend, is to insure that defendants are represented by counsel and not
    have to face the lybrinth of the criminal justice system unawares.
    Judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance, must be highly defferential.
    The Court must determine in light of all circumstances,- the identified
    acts and ommissions were outside of the wide range of professional
    competent assistance.. In making that determination, the Court should keeo
    in mind that counsel's function, as elaborated in prevailing professional
    normsf is to make the adversarial testing process work in the particular
    case-The Court relies on the legal profession's maintenance of standards
    sufficient to justify the law's persumption that counsel will fufill the
    role of in the adversary process that the Amendment envisions- The proper
    measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness under pre
    vailing professional norms- The constitutional requirement of substantial
    equality and fair process can only be attained where counsel acts in the
    role of an advocate on behalf of his client as opposed to amicus curiae.
    The no-merit letter and the procedure it triggers do not reach that dig
    nity. Counsel should, and can with honor and without conflict,- be of more
    assistance to his client and to the court- His role as.advocate requires
    that he support his client's, appeal to the best of his ability- Of course.,
    if counsel finds case to be wholly frivolous,- after a conscientious exami
    nation of it-, he should so advise the court and request permission to
    withdraw, that request must be accompanied by a briefing referring to.
    anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal- Stephen
    W- Byrne did not provide this- Petitioner urges the Court that because
    the record was fully developed Petitioner should be allowed to proceed with
    ineffective assistance of counsel claims as. promulgated by the opinion
    in Trevino v. Thaler,.569 U.S._(2013)(citation ommitted). Because of con
    flicts of interest ((See Exhibit "D" appellate Brief), and attorneys
    abandoning Petitioner there is a probability that the outcome of appeal
    would have been different- After a full examination of all proceedings,
    to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. It so finds it may grant
    grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Petitioner contends that there is no
    way possible for the court to hear the case on 13 of August, then render
    an opinion based on Fred Jiminez's brief on the 14 of August the very next
    day, when Stephen W- Byrne was appointed by the court- Such opinion is
    without any merit and does not reach to adjudication on the merits-
    29.
    GROUND    EIGHT   CONT:
    It must,    prior to to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of
    counsel to argue the appeal. 13th Court of appeals denied oral argument-
    See.    Anders v.   California,   
    386 U.S. 738
    ,   
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    ,   
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    (167). Also See,Douglas v- California, 372 U.S.3353, 
    83 S. Ct. 814
    , L.Ed.
    2d 811 (1963). Because Petitioner has requested oral argument,              and the
    issues are complexed, Petitioner needs counsel appointed just for oral
    argument of the merits on the issues- Furthermore, the Court in Strick
    land draws a distinction between "actual or constructive denial of assis
    tance of counsel altogether," and denial through "actual ineffectiveness."
    The difference is between not having a lawyer at all (or having one that
    the State has disabled insignificant way),            and having one that is free to
    provide assistance of counsel but fails to do so- because of the manichi-
    ati.ons of the attorneys on direct appeal and the boilerplate opinion of
    the court delivered on the following day after required submission? cou
    pled with the State's brief that concedes Petitioner's claim, of double
    jeopardy appeared from the record. Petitioner should have been afforded the
    full play of ineffective assistance of counsel., taking said attorney's
    on Vior Dire,       Affidavits etc   Petitioner,     urges the Court to reverse said
    cause and remand with instructions, as well as grant oral argument in
    said    cause.
    GROUND NINE:
    PETITIONER'S COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OFF COUNSEL
    FOR NOT RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF TEMPORARY INSANITY,
    AFTER ATTORNEY MADE QUESTION REGARDING PETITIONER'S MENTAL
    STATE   AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE.
    Criminal Law Keynote-773;
    If evidence from any source raises the issue of insanity,              the trial court
    must include an instruction on insanity defense in jury charge. V.A.C.C.P.
    art.46.03; V-T-CA. , Penal Code. § 8.0.1 .-
    Criminal Law Keynote-493:
    When considered with the facts and circumstances concerning an accused
    and the defense,, lay opinion testimony may be sufficient to raise the
    defense of insanity. V-T-C-A..., Penal Code §8.01. During the trial oh the
    merits,    Petitioner's counsel raised the issue of Petitioner's mental state
    that lead up to the commission of the offense. See, (RR.Vol.5,-pg .99,pg.100,
    1-20):
    25. I've never fouund myself in
    pg.100;
    30.
    GROUND   NINE   CONT:
    1. front of a jury telling them that my client is guilty of
    2. murder, that's never happened. I guess it's because we
    3- have a sort of unique set of circumstacnes.
    4. Now the State has basically been telling
    5. You- look,     I want you to ignore everything that led up
    6- to this ignore all the facts and circumstances don't
    7. consider them because they're not relevant what the
    8. State forgets that intent is an element- It's right
    9. there in your charge.        And when you're determining
    10. whether somebody did something intentionally, you have
    11.   to look at why did it happen.
    12. Now,   why did this happen? Why would
    13. someone who is a respected member of his community,        a
    14. hard-working, law-abiding, law-enforcing individual
    15.   commit this terrible act? Why would he murder his wife
    16.   and destroy his family? I'm not sure that can totally
    17. be answered.        Sometimes people snap.
    18. something set them off and they do something totally out of character
    19-   for them, because,      really there was obviously nothing
    20. good that was going to come of out of this-
    The above colloquy by Petitioner's counsel demonstrates that the counsel
    was of the opinion "that his client snapped." Which is an off-color remark
    of insanity. Such reasons promoting petitioner's guilt destroyed his
    persumption of innocence and rendered the jury incapable of reaching a
    fair and impartial decision-        Furthermore counsel abandoned his client's
    defense of insanity. The Sixth Amend, requirement of effective assistance
    counsel reasonably likely to render reasonable effective assistance. It
    is a violation of that.standard for defense counsel to deprive a criminal
    defendant of a substantial deferese by his own incompetence. Defense coun
    sel must perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and
    skill    in the criminal law and must conscientiously protect his client's
    interest; undefelcted by conflicting considerations. Defense counsel must
    investigate all apparently substantial defenses available to the defendant
    and must assert them in a proper and timely manner.- It is a denial of the
    right to effective assistance of counsel for an attorney to advise his
    client errorneously on a clear point of law if that advice leads to a
    deprivation of his client's right to a fair trial. Defense strategy and
    tactics which lawyers of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law
    would not consider competent deny a criminal defendant the effective
    assistance of counsel, if other action would have better protected a
    31,
    GROUND NINE    CONT:
    a defendant and was reasonably foreseeable as such before trial.                  If,
    however, action that appears erroneous from hindsight was taken for
    reasons that would appear sound to a competent"criminal attorney,                    the
    assistance of counsel has not been constitutionally defective. Harmless
    error tests do not apply in regard to the deprivation of a procedural
    right so fundamentally as the effective assistance of counsel. Petitioner's
    attorney filed motion for psychological evaluation which was granted by
    the court- See,      CCR.pg.48)-. it appears from the record that defense counsel
    was headed towards this defense, then abandoned this defense. Knowing that
    his client was a former Border Patrol Agent, suffering from Post Traumatic
    Stress Syndrome from this assigment, as well,                  as his job as an Alice Police
    Officer, which greatly effected his physcological well being coupled with
    the fact that Petitioner's wife was having multiple affairs with fellow
    co-workers who were Police Officers- Also, amount of stress that police
    offers experience on a day to day level,               such amount of stress of officers'
    on a    national   level    is well    documented,    and the amount   of domestic   violence
    involving police officers'            and members of the armed forces is well docu
    mented- Petitioner's attorney was derilict in his. duty for not preparing
    the case for this type of defense. There was no psychological reports
    tendered as defense exhibits from any of the law enforcement agencys
    Petitioner was deployed with.            So,    if by moral insanity it be understood
    only a disorder or perverted state of affections or moral powers of the
    mind,    it cannot be too soon discarded as affording any sheild from punish
    ment for crime:      if it can be truly said that one who indulges in violent
    emotions,    such as remorse,         anger,    shame, grief    , and the like is afflicted
    with homocidal insanity, it will be difficult, yes, impossible, to say
    where sanity ends,         and insanity begins...We say to you,         as a result of
    our reflections on this branch of the subject,                 that if the prisoner was
    actuated by an irresistible inclination to kill,                 and was unable to control
    or subjugate his intellect-•- he               is entitled to an acquittal.    (Mr. Justice
    Paxson,   88 PA.    291, Jan.    20,1879).      What then is that form of disease,
    Denominted Homocidal Mania, which will excuse one for having committed a
    murder? Cheif justice Gipson calls it that unseen ligament pressing on the
    mind and drawing it to consequences which it under coercion which, while its
    results are clearly percieved,            is incapable of resistance-an invisible
    inclination to kill.
    Criminal Law Keynote-773(1) :
    Tex. app.-Houston[14th Dist.]2001. If evidence from any source raises the
    32-
    GROUND    NINE   CONT:
    issues of insanity, the trial court must include an instruction on
    insanity defense in the jury charge. V.A-T.C.CP. art-.46.03; Penal Code §
    8.01,    Nutter v.    State,    
    93 S.W. 3d
    130.
    Criminal Law Keynote-493:
    When considering with facts and circumstances concerning an accused and
    the offense, lay opinion testimony may be sufficient to raise the defense
    of insanity. V-T-CA., Penal Code §8.01.
    The affirmative defense of insanity applies if                "at the time of the conduct
    charged,    the actor,      as a result of severe mental diease or defect,        did not
    know his conduct was wrong." defense counsel made an Ex parte request for
    Petitioner to be examined as to his state of mind,                when such an evaluation
    has been performed pursuant to court order,                a written report of the exam
    ination must be submitted to the court and copies of the report must be
    furnished to the defense counsel and prosecuting attorney. V.T.C.C.P.                art.
    46.02 § 3(d)(Verono's Supp.1998). No report of this examination has been
    included in the record, so we are unable to determine how any such report
    may have influenced counsel's decision. However, since the record shows
    that Petitioner's attorney did file a motion for evaluation, and did bring
    up Petitioner's mental state, that he was considering this defense,                and
    abandoning such defense after telling jury that his client snapped, was
    a clear comment on the mental state of the Petition. ;See, (RR.Vol .5,pg .100,
    1-20)1 Petitioner concludes that this constitutes evidence from any source,
    and raises the issue of insanity no matter how remote.
    Criminal Law Keynote-641.13(7):
    Ineffective assitance of counsel at punishment stage is not governed by
    the the Strickland standard,             but by the Duffy standard which requires that
    the Court determine first, whether counsel was reasonaly likely to render
    effective assistance,          second,    whether counsel    reasonably rendered effec
    tive    assistance.      U.S.C.A.   Const.   Amend-   6.
    Criminal Law Keynote-641.13(7):
    Duffy standard for evaluating a claim of               ineffective assistance of counsel
    at punishment stage of trial requires a showing of harm due to the ineffec
    tive assistance.         U.S.C.A.   Const-   Amend.   6.
    It was error for trial counsel not request an instruction at punishment
    of trial due to insanity,, but,            furthermore, Petitoner's attorney and
    State's attorney Ms. Dorsey put the court charge together, so it was
    ineffective assistance of counsel that his attorney subjected his client
    to such eregrious harm both great and apperant. Ex parte Duffy, 
    607 S.W.2d 507
    (Tex. Crim.App-1980). This standard requires that the court evaluate
    a complaint of ineffective assistance at the punishment stage 'determinig
    33.
    GROUND NINE     CONT;
    first, whether counsel was reasonably likely to render ineffective
    assistance of counsel,        and second,    whether counsel reasonably rendered
    ineffective assistance.        Cardenas v.    State,    960 S.W,2d 941,   947 (Tex.Crim.
    App.-Texarkana 1998, no.pet). This standard also requires a showing of
    harm due to the ineffective assistance.           Stone v.    State,   751 S.W-2d 579> ;582
    (Tex.-App ..-Houston [1st. Dist] 1988,pet.ref'd). 742 S.W,2d atl6, Penal Code §
    8.04. Petitioner's claim of ineffectiveness prove that counsel's representa
    tion so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that
    the trial cannot be relied on having produced a just result." Petitioner
    claim does not stand alone,        the record is replete with the litanies of the
    grave and fatal errors committed by counsel in this case. These errors
    judged by the totality of the representation, denied him a fair trial.
    Merely showing that they had some conceivable effect on the proceedings is
    inadequate. 
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 693
    , 104 S.Ct. at 2067-68; McFarland v.
    State, 
    928 S.W.2d 482
    (Tex .Crim. App. 1996)... In this cause the errors had a
    profound effect on the proceedings. Petitonsr urges the court to reverse                   "
    said case and remand with instructions,           reversible errors appearing in the
    record.
    GROUND TEN:
    PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT:        ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY COMMITTED
    PROSECUTORIAL    MISCONDUCT WHEN QUESTIONING OFFICER ON THE             STAND ABOUT
    THE CHARGE THAT RELIES ON A        LEGAL CONCLUSION THAT THE JURY DECIDES
    FOR   ITSELF.
    The following questions was promulgated by Ms. Dorsey: (RR.Vol- 4,pg.l31,
    8-21):
    8= and if he shots and kills somebody during
    9.    the course of that--
    10.   Mr.   Woerner:    your Honor, we're going to r:-?
    11- object to any legal conclusions being drawn here.
    12. Ms- Dorsey: I'am asking this officer what
    13.   he would charge and arrest someone for.
    14. The witness:        Capital Offense.
    15.   The Court:   hold on,    hold on,    I am going
    16. sustain the objection because it in your hypothetical it
    17. goes to t,he issue that this jury needs to determine.
    18. Mr.     Woerner: we'd ask the jury to
    19.    instructed to disregard.
    20. the Court: The jury will disregard the
    21. officer's last answer to the question.
    GROUND   TEN   CONT:
    This was a direct comment on the exact nature of the charge the jury
    determines for itself, the prejudice that incurred from the prosecu
    tor's soliciting such question was designed to undermine the legal
    conclusion     from fact   to ultimate       fact,   that   this could have   been
    rendered an non-capital case. The prosecutor subplanted in the minds
    of the jury that this is a capital case, and such injury infringes on
    on Petitioner's due Process safeguards                as afforded by the 14th and
    6th Amends. U.S. Const. Wherefore such responses elicited by the pro
    secutor was designed to impermissibly shift the burden of proof, and
    such cure by the court did not cure the substantial harm but, instead
    rendered the trial process unfair
    and unreliable resulting in the jury being tainted.                  Petitoner contends
    that his conviction should be reversed because of prosecutorial miscon
    duct. A criminal defendant bears a substantial burden when attemping to
    show prosecutorial improprieties constitutes reversible error. United
    States, v. Diaz-Carreon, 
    915 F.2d 951
    , 956 (5th Cir.1990). Improper
    prosecutorial comments require reversal only if the comments substanti
    ally affected the defendants right to a fair trial. In evaluating any
    effect on the right to a fair trial, consider three factors: the magni
    tude of the prejudicial effect of the remarks, the efficacy of any
    cautionary instruction, and the strength of the evidence of defendant's
    guilt. The      misconduct complained of the remarks, the efficacy of any
    cautionary instruction, and the strength of the evidence of defendant's
    guilt. The misconduct complained of must be examined in the context of
    the trial      in which   it occured     - See,   United States v.    Willis,   
    6 F.3d 257
    ,
    264 (5th Cir.1993). After careful review of the conduct complained of,
    it is apperrant because of the divergent theories, the question by the
    prosecutor was designed to draw out a legal conclusion from the officer
    that the jury was deeide^andevaluatev.for themselves. Such overwhelming
    prosecutorial misconduct was not cured by instruction from the court. And •:
    such impermissbly shifted the burden of proof to the Petitioner. Taken
    the trial as a whole,          after, defense attorney already planted in the jury's
    mind that his client was guilty, which took away Petitioner's persumption
    of innocence. Petitioner concludes that the prosecutor's question coupled
    with all the litanies of the trial attorney cast ?"serious doubt" upon
    the correctness of the jury verdict and the fairness of-the trial.
    Petitioner urges the court, that reversible error has appeared in the
    record   and    such   cause   should   be   reversed   and   .remanded.
    3/.
    GROUND      ELEVEN:
    TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY NOT ISSUING INSTRUCTIONS TO
    CURE AFTER STATE'S WITNESS TESTIFIED TO PREJUDICIAL EXTRANEOUS EVENT
    THAT WAS   RELATED TO THE   INSTANTOOFFENSE:
    During the testimony of Diana Rodriguez the victims mother, Ms. Rodriguez
    testified: See, (RR.Vol.3,pg.212,16-24:
    16. Q. Okay. Did Leslie ask you to leave?
    17. A. Leslie said she was going to stay,             and that's
    18. when the police officer escorted me to my car because I
    19.    started getting angry and I started telling him—
    20. because Joey was saying that Leslie was cheating. I
    21. said, okay, now, why didn't you tell me all the things
    22. that you did to her? why didn't you tell me what your
    23. dad did to Amber? I started getting angry and that's
    24.    the police--
    25. Mr. Woerner: your Honor, I am going to
    (RR.Vol.3,pg213>;
    1. make an objection at this point- May. we approach?
    2.    The   Court:    Yes.
    3.    (Bench conference.)
    The court had ruled on a motion in limine to not allow any of the State's
    witnesses' to infer or mention the alleged allegations concrning petition
    er's step-daughter and his father who shares the same name as Petitioner.
    By State's witness violating that order and said trial judge Angelica
    Hernandez not issuing instruction for cure,            said violation further tainted
    the minds of the jury who were already tainted by trial attorney's actions
    and ommissions on persumption of innocence. Such blurting out by the State's
    witness was calculated by said witness, after already being instructed by
    by State's attorney not to mention of the above stated allegations. Said
    blurting out by the State's witness was calculated by said witness,                 after
    alrady being instructed not to mention it in the presence of the 'jury.
    Such prejudice outweighed the probative vaule, insomuch, that nonruling
    by the court allowed the Petitioner to be further prejudiced by said vi
    olation.      Motion in limine is to     prevent admission of,      irrelevent,   inad
    missible or prejudicial evidence into trial, but it is not a final ruling
    on the evidence. See, Valencia v.          State, 891 S.W',4'2dd652,   Betitionn for
    Discretionary Review granted, Vacated, 
    946 S.W.2d 81
    , on remand 966 S.W.-
    2d 188 PDR ref'd. Said prejudice from inference to Petitioner's father
    3*.
    GROUND   ELEVEN   CONT:
    was calculated to inflame the minds of the jury as to child abuse
    allegations of a sexual nature.
    Pretrial Procedure Keynote-3:
    The purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent opposing parties from
    asking prejudicial questions and introducing prejudicial evidence in
    front of the jury. Ball v, Rao, 
    48 S.W.3d 322
    , rehaering overruled,
    and review denied. The imposition of sanctions for violation of orders
    in limine is left to thesound discretion of the court,               and the court
    of appeals will not reverse such sanctions absent a clear abuse of
    discretion.    Ball v. Rao, 
    48 S.W.3d 322
    . Repeated violations of limine
    orders may result in mistrials or reversals. 
    Ball, supra
    ., Said witness
    for the State, acted in flagrant bad faithraTfd callous disregard for
    trial court's order.        U.S.C.A.   Const.   Amend.Ll4th,    Lassiter v.   Shavor,
    
    824 S.W.2d 667
    . It was imperative that the trial court poll the jury
    as to what they had gleaned from such statement by witness.               Because of
    thelack of questioning and no cure by the court,               Petitioner believes1
    that the court abused its discretion for not issuing curative instructions
    to disregard.     Because the record is silent on thismatter,            it is assumed
    by the Petitioner that the jury was further tainted by such violation,
    coupled with the litany of failures by his attorneys'               to not request
    curative instructions,        not have a running objection,        and requesting a
    mistrial.    Petitioner's counsel only appeared as a mere friend of the
    court,    and aquicence to the State's violation,         as well as abuse of dis
    cretion by the trial court. Taken as a whole the compounded errors of the
    case,    Petitioner urges the Court to'reverse and remand said conviction,
    for prejudice has appeared in the record and Petitioner did not recieve
    a fair and impartial trial.
    CONCLUSION
    Petitioner would urge the Court that he falls under the narrow ruling
    of Trevino v.     Thaler,     wherein the record was full developed and the
    errors of his attorneys were plain and apperrant.              When Attorneys'    operated
    in such an insidious fashion;          Hear no evil,   see no evil,-and speak no evil!
    Said trial was overwhelmed by medai and public pressure > whi^ch resulted in
    the impossibility to seat a fair and impartial jury- Petitioner was forced
    to wear leg shackles during the entire trial, with no demonstrative rea
    sons by the' trial judge- Counsel, rendered ineffective assistance on
    numerous occassins, destroying Petitioner's persumption of innocence.
    31.
    CONCLUSION       CONT:
    The Court is well settled that when a jury is seated and the atmosphere
    is   set   in   motion   to    insure   that   Petitioner    would   not    recieve   a   fair
    trial,     he    is entitled to at least a hearing on change of venue,                     on his
    attorney's motion,            or in leiu from the trial court-             Because there was
    neither,        the court should have taken upon her self such change of venue-
    Whan the trial was dominated by the media and public pressure.                            Further
    more, double jeopardy was committed when Petitioner was prosecute for
    more than one burglarious entry,                 wherein there was only one unlawful
    entry. Said prosecution commenced upon an unsigned affidavit and infor
    mation,     wherein said attorney failed to take notice of. Wherein                         the
    State was without jurisdiction to proceed upon. Petitioner'sjcouhsell.i _-.-:;
    frivolous brief, -was intentional because of nepotism, and high profile
    nature of the case,            Such actions by trial attorney's to insure that
    Peititoner was convicted, and appeallate attorneys'                        to circumvent any
    meaningful appellate review and force Petitioner to prosecute his own
    appeal without any formal legal training, was calculated to injure the
    rights of Petitioner. Such actions are denounced in both the State and
    Federal Constitution, because petitioner could not communicate with his
    attorney during course of trial, attorney put on a defense that was
    inconsistant with 'his original strategy, than abandoned the temporary
    insanity defense, thereby abandoning                    his client and went on to become
    a friend of the court,            and infact was in reality giving testimony for
    the State when he testified that his client was guilty, and that guilt
    was inferred thorough Count II*-Also, abandoned his client during punish
    ment stage of the trial. Because of the litanies of errors from the bench,
    as well as the attorneys in this case, the PDR should be granted, and
    the trial judge as well as the attornys should be taken on vior dire,
    for their acts and ommissions. Petitioner,                   urges the Court to appoint
    attorney for oral argument in said case. Also, reverse and remand the
    case with instructions for ..acquittal in regard to the double jeopardy
    claims.
    PRAYER
    Petitioner prays that the Court grant him all requested herein, and
    any and all relief that the Court deems just and necessary that
    justice will allow.
    39'i *
    CERTIFICATE    OF   SERVICE
    Petitoner certifies under penalty of perjury that a true and correct
    copy of this Petition for Discretionary Review was delivered by hand
    to the Nueces County District Attorney,       the Hon. Mark Shukra 4/ /15.
    At the Nueces County Courthouse, 901 Leopard St. Corpus Christi, Texas
    78401. Also +o /VHvGeA/«-ie*( PoBot Mor, A«%lv %„?$ 7V9/J.
    Signed this 8/13/15
    Respectfully submitted,
    By:
    Pro/t
    Jose    Gonzales          III    #1832029
    James    V.    Allred Unit
    2101    FM    369    N.
    Iowa Park,          Texas       76367
    3$.
    APPENDIX
    NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE
    CHIEF JUSTICE
    901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR
    ROGELIO VALDEZ
    CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401
    JUSTICES
    361-888-0416 (TEL)
    NELDA V.RODRIGUEZ
    361-888-0794 (FAX)
    DORI CONTRERAS GARZA
    HIDALGO COUNTY
    GINA M. BENAVIDES
    ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
    GREGORY T. PERKES
    NORA L. LONGORIA                      Court of appeals?                       100E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR
    EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539
    CLERK
    956-318-2405 (TEL)
    DORIAN E. RAMIREZ                   Wrteenty JBtatrtct of Cexaa               956-318-2403 (FAX)
    August 14, 2014
    Hon. Adolfo Aguilo Jr.                          Hon. Fred Jimenez
    Assistant District Attorney                     Attorney At Law
    Nueces County Courthouse                        509 Lawrence, Suite 301
    SOi Leopard - Room 206                          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
    Corpus Christi, TX 78401                        * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
    * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
    Mr. Jose Gonzales III
    Hon. Mark Skurka                                TDCJ #1832029
    District Attorney                               James V. Allred Unit
    901 Leopard Street, Room 205                    2101 FM 369 North
    Corpus Christi, TX 78401                        Iowa Park, TX 76367
    * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
    Re:          Cause No. 13-13-00.011 -CR
    Tr.Ct.No. 11-CR-4141-D
    Style:       JOSE GONZALES III v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
    Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.
    Very truly yours,
    Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk
    DER:dsr
    Enc.
    cc:       State Prosecuting Attorney (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
    105th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
    Hon. Patsy Perez, District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
    Hon. J. Rolando Olvera Jr., Presiding Judge, 5th Administrative Judicial Region,
    .   (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) ...
    THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    13-13-00011-CR
    JOSE GONZALES III
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS
    On Appeal from the
    105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 11-CR-4141-D
    JUDGMENT
    THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
    appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court
    orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.
    We further order this decision certified below for observance.
    August 14, 2014
    NUMBER 13-13-00011-CR
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    JOSE GONZALES III,                                                           Appellant,
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                          Appellee.
    On appeal from the 105th District Court of
    Nueces County, Texas.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Benavides
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
    A jury found appellant Jose Gonzales III guilty of capital murder, a capital felony
    offense, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2), (b) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d
    C.S.), and burglary of a habitation to commit a felony (aggravated assault), a first-degree
    felony offense. See 
    id. § 30.02(a)(3),
    (d)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.). The
    triarcourt assessed appellant's punishment for the capital murder offense at life without
    parole, see 
    id. § 12.31(a)(2)
    (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.), and assessed
    punishment for the burglary of a habitation offense at life imprisonment, with the
    sentences ordered to run concurrently. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed an
    Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744 (1967). We affirm.
    I. Anders Brief
    Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel
    has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the
    record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See 
    id. Counsel's brief
    meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
    demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.                        See In re
    Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief
    need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must
    provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal
    authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 
    112 S.W.3d 340
    , 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus
    Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
    In compliance with High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
    Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, PD-0702-13, 
    2014 WL 2865901
    , at *3 (Tex. Crim. App.
    June 25, 2014), appellant's counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority,
    there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court,
    in writing, that counsel has: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief
    and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided the appellant with copies of both pleadings; and
    (3) informed the appellant of appellant's rights to file a pro se response,1 and review the
    1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "the pro se response need not comply with
    the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
    court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
    2
    record preparatory to filing that response. See 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; Kelly, 
    2014 WL 2865901
    , at *3, 
    Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510
    n.3; see also In re 
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409
    n.23.
    The record shows that appellant was provided a copy of the record on October 21,
    2013. After this Court granted several motions for extension of time in which to file his
    pro se response, appellant filed his pro se response on May 23, 2014.
    II. Independent Review
    Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
    proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80 (1988). When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed, a court
    of appeals reviews the entire record, and:           (1) determines that the appeal is wholly
    frivolous and issues an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2)
    determines that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remands the case to the trial
    court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-
    27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not
    review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed those issues on appeal. 
    Id. We have
    reviewed the entire record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se
    response, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See 
    id. at 827-28
    ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered
    the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none,
    the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.");
    case presents any meritorious issues." Inre Schulman, 
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
    (quoting Wilson v. State, 
    955 S.W.2d 693
    , 696-97 (Tex. App—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
    3
    
    Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509
    . There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the
    judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    III. Motion to Withdraw
    In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked this Court for
    permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; see also
    In re 
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
    n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 
    903 S.W.2d 776
    , 779-80
    (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he
    must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
    appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
    appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's
    motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered
    to send a copy of this opinion and this Court's judgment to appellant and to advise him of
    his right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In
    re 
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412
    n.35; Ex parte Owens, 
    206 S.W.3d 670
    , 673 (Tex. Crim.
    App. 2006).
    DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,
    Justice
    Do not publish.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Delivered and filed the
    14th day of August, 2014.
    2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case
    by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
    review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
    within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion
    for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for
    discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.3,
    and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See Tex. R. App. P.
    68.4.
    4
    U.S. POSTAGE
    PAID
    CORPUS CHRISTI.TX
    78411.
    m
    inin-fPimTES
    APR 18,14
    AMOUNT
    $27.69
    EAii        1007       00104038-07
    JESS FIRMLY TO SEAL