Green, Johnny Jr. ( 2015 )

_ C()_t}~.t _`` ~r_imim1l App``~s _of_ I``ca~----- .
··------b-~-~5'7tf-=-~-
. - --RE-CEIVEDit\f .... -·· · -. -
P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station
COURT OF CRIMINft.L APPEALS
Austin, Texas 78711
JWG 03 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
RE: Tr. ·ct. No. C-372-010189-1199474A; WR-62, 574-04; No. 08-15-00192-CR
Dear Clerk,
Wherefore premise being considered Pro-se Applicant hearby asks the
clerk of said court to filed his writ of Mandamus to obtain record. Also to file
the aboved styled and numerated causes and cases in the approiate manner. The App-
licant also requests that notice of orders, instructions and any other notices
concerning his writ of Mandamus be mailed to the address listed below. Ancl-::.ariy ·.
other type of relief that applicant is entitled to be sent to the same address.
Respectfully Submitted,
~;n``4
TDCJ-ID # 1738876
Mark W. Stiles Unit
. ·3060 F. M. 3514
Beaumont, Tx. 77705
Applicant
Pro-se
---,-----~----~------·-··---- ----~---------------·-·---···------------------·-···------------------ ----------------------·- -----·-
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
§
JOHNNY GREEN JR. § WR-62, 574-04
§
RELA1DR § No. 08-15-00192
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS § Tr. No. 1199474-A
§
RELA1DR'S PETITION FOR WRIT
OF MANDAMUS 1D OBTAIN RECORD
To The Honorable Judges of Said Court:
Comes now Johnny Green Jr. Relator, Pro-se. In the above numbered cause and
respectfully requests this Honorable court grant his writ of Mandamus and issue
an order: to the 372nd District Court of Texas to provide Volume 3 of the reporter's
record pages 5 thru 14 and pages 88 thru 232. And will show in support thereof the
following:
I.
This relator filed an original Petition for Mandamus, which this court denied,
citing Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W. 3d. 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Directing the
relator to file his Mandamus in the Appellant Court due to jurisdiction. The Relator
has alleged from the beginning of his appellate process through motions and notices
to the trial court, that there exists Constitutional error in Volume three of the
Reporter's record. Specifically, that two biased jurrors were present on the re-
later's petite jury and the jury selection process itself was unconstitutional.
See: Franklin v. Anderson, 434 F.3d 412, (6th Cir. 2006); Martinez-Salazar v.
United States, 528 U.S 304, 316, 120 S.CT. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d. 792 (2000).
11
The prensence of a biased juror on a defendant's jury
violates his right to due process and requires immediate
reversal. 11
(1)
- -·-·--··------·---·------~--------------------------···------~------------------------------------------·---
The trial court sealed volume three of the Reporter's Record and has repeatedly
denied the relator's motions, claiming the Relator is seeking the jurors personal
information. The relator has always and only requested the Voir Dire Examination,
Challenges, objections, and the trial court's comments and instructions contained
in Volume three of the Reporter's record. Arid not the jtiror'''s personal information.
This is a deliberate obstruction by the trial court that violates the relator's
right to equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment. See: Bracey v.
Gramely, 520 U.S. 899, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 138 L.Ed.2d. 97 (1997).
" A trial judge that deliberately denies a defendant eviden.~e
essential to his defense, intentionally violates that defen-
dant's substantial rights."
The relator is entitled under the law and pursuant to the United States Constitution
to the transcripts of the trial process which include the record of the pre~trial
and trial process. It has been long established by the Supreme Court of the United
States, that transcripts are neccessary in the preparation of an adquate appeal, or
post-conviction_ collateral review, where the right to counsel does not exist. See:
Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227, 30 L.Ed.2d. 400 92 S. Ct. 431 (1971);
Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 87 S. Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed.2d. 601 (1969).
" A transcript is a source of factual information specific to
the defendant's case and neccessary in the preparation of an
appeal. In fact, this court recognizes the right to a trial
transcript in proceedings where no right to counsel exists."
II.
Pursuant to this Honorable Court's ruling, the relator filed a petition for Mandamus
in the Eight Court of Appeals, El Paso, Texas, Which held dual jurisdiction, on
May 5, 2015. The appellate court did not issue an opinion until July 8, 2015.
Forcing the relator to file his PDR wothout being able to cite the record pursuant
to; Tex. R. App. Proc. 52.3 (g)(h), 68.4 (f).
" The Petitioner must refer to the page of the record where
the matter complained of is found."
In the appellate court's opinion See: (Exhibit Appendix) the court gives it's
(2)
opinion that this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals refused the relator's PDR on
June 17, 2015. However, the Clerk· of the Court of Criminal Appeals has never noti_-
fied the relator of such a decision. The Mark W. Stiles Unit's Legal Mail log will
reflect the lack of such notification. As a result, the Eight Court of appeals
opinions that the relator cannot show the Respondent interfered with that court's
appellate jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
The relator again Petitions this Honorable Court for Mandamus since (1) This is
the only Court with jurisdiction (2) The relator is unable to compel the Respondent
to provide the transcript of the Voir dire proceedimgs, to which he is entitled.
The relator asserts that no reviewing court has ever examined Volume three of the
Reporter's record pages 88· thru 232 to determine the accuracy of the respondent's
claim for sealing such a record. Nor has any court issued an order to re-dact any
personal information of a juror in those portions the relator requests, if in fact
that information exists. The relator only requests the transcripts that contain the
Voir Dire Examination and subsequent challenges, objections and selection of the
jury at his trial. The State has never shown that the relator did not need this
transcript and as a result, this has caused the applicant substantial harm. See:
White v. State, 823 S.W. 2d. 296, 300 (Tex. CRim. App. 1992).
" Defendant was harmed in the absence of a showing by the
State that the defendant did not need the transcription
from an earlier proceeding."
(3)
-------;-------------~---------·-------~---------------------------------- ---- -- ------------------·-- --------- -----------------·- ·--------------------------- --------- ------
FRAY-ER-FOR RELIEF ..
Wherefore, All premise having been considered the relator humbly prays that this
Honorable Court grant him relief and issue an order to the trial court to provide
the relator with the transcript from the Voir Dire proceedings. And if neccessary
redact any personal information of a juror from that record.
Respectfully Submitted,
TDCJ-ID # 1738876
Mark W. Stiles Unit
3060 F.M. 3514
Beaumont, Tx. 77705
DECLARATION
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true and coorect. Executed
on July ___ , 2015.
Duly Sworn,
``.-CJ-ID # 1738876
Mark W. Stiles Unit
3060 F.M. 3514
Beaumont, Tx. 77705
Pro-se
(4)
----·--------------------
APPENDIX
1. Motions & Notes refused by the trial court
2. Court of Criminal Appeals decision on relator's
original writ of Mandamus
3. Eight Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion and
order from relator's writ of Mandamus
(5)
----------.------------~--.-------·------------------------``l````EN :.L!.0:'.V" LW______________________________________ -·
--------------------------- -~ ---------- ------------ -.aGtoG-tM--.0§\Y- ------- -_ - --- ----------- - ---
&Ruml\...n-; \c~ 11t?05
1-blJoR~\e. ~Ll~E. -3cc\\ \lt~h
~'72.P!JO a'~l\LI C..\ c,U"--T
qo \ \J. &lk``&-. tolJ! fllll\(2_
~Q..T lJoltTHTt.xnj 7~ lcllk
Re ~ 1Q.i A.l CAl.Cj( ~ lt9cP-l7 4 o , ~rtl\ l C1l..Qc" oB · It ·(.>0-31 'l · et2.
Rcquc~n. l6 \HA..T VLilumc ,) trr\Q\1\\ 112:AtJ.S(!Q.I{)T be L\whl~
--3=rJh·-!'c~JA~I-'-"/--~k~t~-B:-;.._--/-J/?---n-------------2_·__ It::L 7h _r;_~ _j__z~=ccli], __') T/2_~-c~_/_ ·' _____________ _
----------\73 ____ -- · -- -· ----:----- ·-------- ---------,-:fs---- -------- -----t::. o-t-1R.:1~•-- -o-l- -------- --- . -- --- -
-rn/ _<;. 77i ``.~- ,)r·-71:- YA..:J .s 7/iR.e/JAI'i' t_~.:)J/.1-I/J -rex/l..:s
y0 iIL -/J //(___ e__
cj)l'-{{~ IJD,'d; ,JGhN'JJY GLc'C'j,jJ£ ~ JfiPlL/11-i··r ;;._l 77-li_' /Jh::·vE c.l J
- I[[;· 1/ AIC.;· A}/.1/V/J:·)
__5Tj . ' J CEcr; ~
_ - t--~c
-- . ;· C/-J , fJ:;o~ c··,e; 7;,,
rk 1" I G
' f.Jpo
- --5£ A 1-1cl J <: /.) £, ...- ,
--<---.c.. _
r
c.
A LLOt>J/;;-,./6 7?~: M~: J~/ .2: ;/ 5-e J~, c .ft c_~-j /) c/ _:J~ ·- -5e c -lt r::: ;..../ JJc/ t::_jr;),__;,.q / f.JK.o-/cc-1 /C);....!).
/:{' tS)c! /P.He..A-1/ A
APP!tcA,fl '-'> RIGdtc_s~,,./(7 UeA! be k'eMovcc/ f6R !fir RPA:OON-:,
' r·
_,,
<:.. C> _£} I '
'-JL.. L. /'--1
I L.
u
l~i /"\
I 1{./1/..1
. ;- .'- ].;,__ t•r...IJV .....') I'IA~..J V.lt...Kc.:L
J? ,..._ _...-, c· " . I c· • f c n /7 / r\ ' I£' "' __} ' F' I / . I
/J..:J.!Uc-._) lit.-~"- II\
...--
L.7
r,
L/A(
I • I j /) - -r· / ..-- /.?
VI rlt:.'/1 ,r7/t__ /C_
7-lt/ ··m:t '-.TIJ/2C£-.:'J C'culc/ d:Je --f};/.e· AA!c/ J/\.4~/I;LtiAI Af...fc/717/17 7?/c
::;1/o,~.tu../6
'J
a'oct__//lit:'AI-/:.5 /JAtcl volt..I/L,JC-.5 be IJ.!c.:.IL!ck.c/ /1-..J P/J..er
-=~
('! .-rr-te • l!..ecr:.'JJ2rl -{(_)/2. /he.
· L....A llL5e ..
HAheA~ Co,.-~;:::,..r__') heA,e,J"'I6 lA! /r//...5
0,_, 12 oR :S A !Le_ A /:,c IL:, fLed /NJ I'OtL /AN/ Que:s/;c"LJ /, ke ,'
U £b -ihN kuc,/e.e 77/e '/ fl//./t -n c:_' ~ /.1n1 r AI/,},RCe rte"4-
U A/:v Duce C/1-X- - JPe c' Gi u e:'Ji, /, e_ --nlCJ"' £,c c~/J l Alllad€~
rB,ttM:/ -rF!Ls
m 1-5 T/y:,Jc_ o(' C.A~Se. ...
Jc~Ak:::/
of C'A:SC A ud 7/'/e,-<: e:.CPE:/2/e .-.ICe CDJJCE£/\I;/J6
~J APP/icF,_f7" r::> AI.Y? tt-!Qu,:s;/-,ve. of' lr!e del0J5e Mid
fli20-5ecuf i.or-(5 Chfl/leMc<.e:::, of +'cr/c,__;-{,A I IJU'/ZoJ2.5 •
·ii:
Jle_ch£A -/;oAf
_I Joh_NAJ-1 ~tLeLAt'-:Jit ·,, Jx;;__tG f'Re5e~ll_'-/ IAI(.i/l.t:..Cc:IZfi-l--cc_/ ~-".J
Tt:=_XA_:> ·DePIJL7f]!,e.~.lf ol ·. [p, fvJJ tJA / (1._,~-f t c e 1 /t1 ALk \;i~ ~ 1 le-.5
t) 10 ~+-I /;.J ·----;:( w_; p___;__X:J/-J Co~_,,~-..rl·-/ / Te.;r A_s , c-/c..' c I11~e ;___; ;-..fcle./2'_ .
Pe;JAlr-/ ol {Je!ZJUL'/ IRA/ /fle FO~te..Gr:_---:oj;.../6 J.S 7*£,./e__,AJ...td
(>::.>RJ2ecf -fo fk ~-/ of N/ Ah/l/'-/.
b(t'CLrlc'd OA..I-1-he. z,:tcl dAy or 1
Uh!2.tl/lt2 '-/ ZD/5 9
Abel Acosta, Clerk
JOHNNY GREEN JR.
STILES UNIT- TDC #1738876
3060 FM 3514
BEAUMONT, TX 77705
'N38 77705 •I •111r 11''I •·•1' I•' •lltr' 'J I·I· lr' •1••lr'r' ••r. •lrr •r•r' •l''rl••
..
..·
/
COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
§
No. 08-15-00192-CR
§
IN RE: JOHNNY GREEN, JR., AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
§
Relator. IN MANDAMUS
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Johnny Green, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable
Scott Wisch, Judge ofthe 372nd District Court of Tarrant County, Texas. Relator seeks an order
compelling Respondent to unseal one volume of the reporter's record which contains the jurors'
confidential information. We dismiss the mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction.
To obtain mandamus relief, Relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy
at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act not
involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rei. Young v. Sixth Judicial District Court
of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). A court of appeals has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against certain ju.dges within its geographic district.
TEx.Gov'T CODE ANN.§ 22.221(b)(West 2004). A court of appeals also has authority to issue a
writ of mandamus if it is necessary to enforce its jurisdiction. ld. § 22.221 (a). Thus, we may
issue a writ of mandamus to a district judge outside of our cjistrict if he or she interferes with the
court's jurisdiction. See id. at§ 22.221(a); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex.App.--
Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding).
The underlying appeal, cause number 08-11-00317 -CR, was transferred from the Second
Court of Appeals to the Eighth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued
by the Texas Supreme Court. We affirmed Relator's direct appeal from his murder conviction
by opinion and judgment issued on November 22; 2013, and we issued our mandate on February
26,2014. See Johnny Green v. State, 08-11-00317-CR, 2013 WL 6175127 (Tex.App.--EI Paso
Nov. 22, 2013, pet. ref' d). On January 28, 2015, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted habeas
corpus relief and ordered that Reiator would be permitted to file an out-of-time petition for
discretionary review. See Ex parte Johnny Green, No. WR-62,574-03 (Tex.Crim.App: Jan. 28,
2015). Relator filed his petition and the Court of Criminal Appeals refused it on June 17, 2015.
Given that Relator's appeal is no longer pending before .us, Relator cannot show th~t Respondent
has interfered with our appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to grant
the requested relief. The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
July 8, 2015
ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-