Marlo Donta Persons v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               ACCEPTED
    06-14-00109-CR
    SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    6/17/2015 4:16:36 PM
    DEBBIE AUTREY
    CLERK
    NO. 06-14-00109-CR
    RECEIVED IN
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS             6th COURT OF APPEALS
    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS             6/17/2015 4:16:36 PM
    AT TEXARKANA                       DEBBIE AUTREY
    Clerk
    MARLO DONTA PERSONS,
    APPELLANT
    V.
    06/23/15
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    APPELLEE
    On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court
    Of Hunt County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause NO. 29,371
    Honorable Richard A. Beacom, Judge Presiding
    APPELLANT’S TIMELY REQUEST FOR PANEL REHEARING
    OF THE COURT’S JUNE 2, 2015 JUDGMENT
    JUNE 17, 2015
    TARA N. LONG (SBN 24032680)
    2656 S. LOOP W., SUITE 255
    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77054
    Tel. (713) 349-8896
    Fax (713) 713-349-8863
    E-mail: longlawfirm@gmail.com
    1
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Table of Contents..…….……………………………..……………………………2
    Introduction….…………………………………………………………………….3
    Argument……………………………………………………………….…….....3-4
    Conclusion and Prayer.……………………………………………………………5
    Certificate of Service…….……………………………………………………… 6
    2
    TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
    NOW COMES counsel for appellant and respectfully submits this request
    for a panel rehearing of the Court’s June 2, 2015 judgment pursuant to the rules of
    the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    INTRODUCTION
    This is a request for a rehearing on the Court’s judgment by the panel of
    judges that issued the opinion of the court on June 2, 2015.    The court has the
    complete record of the proceedings in the criminal case in the 354th District Court
    in Hunt County, Texas. Counsel for Appellant filed a motion for leave to file a
    supplemental brief on the hearing of the Motion to Suppress filed by the trial
    attorney. The district court held the hearing on the 18th day of February, 2014,
    wherein the Court denied the Motion to Suppress. Counsel for appellant failed to
    timely file the supplemental brief because of commitments of trial and other court
    procedures. The failure to raise the issues argued and complain of the acts of the
    arresting officer will be unjust to the appellant.
    ARGUMENT
    Appellant submits that the Court’s findings are erroneous in one distinct
    respect that develops into a threefold issue:
    3
    The Court’s Findings did not take into account the Motion to Suppress
    and critical argument of new case law in regards to the issue as viewed
    from the Supreme Court decision, Rodriguez vs. United States decided
    on April 21, 2015.
    The trial court improperly denied the Appellant’s Motion To Suppress because
    there were no articulable facts or outside information, apart from the courtier
    profile elements that Trooper Zane Rhone, the officer that made the traffic stop and
    the arresting officer in this case, testified to at the hearing that he stated observed
    conduct of the driver of the vehicle that was indicative of a person taking part in
    drug related activities.
    Trooper Zane Rhone when testifying and the dash cam video shows that
    Appellant was not told that he could leave the Texas Department of Public Safety
    Trooper’s patrol vehicle and was being detained, although he had properly
    identified himself, and there was no law violation witnessed by Trooper Zane that
    would indicate that criminal activity was occurring and the traffic stop went
    beyond the scope of the traffic stop by the officer. Thus, the search was beyond
    the scope of the stop and the evidence should have been suppressed by the court at
    the hearing. Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13-9972, decided on April 21, 2015
    and printed on April 22, 2015.
    4
    The panel was not made aware of the ruling by the United States Supreme
    Court and the outcome of their analysis of the evidence when making their ruling
    or judgment might have been materially affected.
    CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully prays
    that the court panel rehear the matters and reconsider the evidence as pronounced
    in Rodriguez v United States, NO. 13-9972 of the United States Supreme Court on
    April 21, 2015. Appellant further prays for all other lawful relief to which he may
    be entitled, at law or equity.
    Respectfully submitted,
    By: /s/ Tara N. Long
    Tara N. Long
    Long Law Firm, PLLC
    5626 S. Loop W., Suite 255
    Houston, Texas 77054
    713-349-8896 (ph.)
    713-349-8863 (fax)
    longlawfirm@gmail.com
    5
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I certify that a true and correct copy of the Appellant’s Motion for
    Rehearing, was sent by First Class U. S. Mail, certified mail, requested to the
    following on this the 17th day of June, 2015:
    MARLO DONTA PERSONS
    TDJC#1939454                           VIA CMRRR# 7011 2970 0000 5132 6707
    Eastham Unit, 2665 Prison Rd. #1
    Lovelady, Texas 75851
    Ms. Lauren Hudgeons
    Assistant District Attorney            VIA CMRRR# 7011 2970 0000 5133 6714
    Hunt County District Attorney
    2507 Lee Street, 4th Floor
    Greenville, TX 75401
    /s/ Tara N. Long
    Tara N. Long
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-14-00109-CR

Filed Date: 6/23/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016