Cooper, Johnathan ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • ZfS-IS         NO.             PD-0895-15
    COURT    OF   CRIMINAL     APPEALS   OF    TEXAS
    TEX." R.    APP.    P.   68.2(a)
    ORIGINAL
    RECEIVED ?R
    "RTOFCRIiI'MALA"-ALS
    JOHNATHAN COOPER,
    Appellant
    SEP 23 2015
    VS.
    FILED IN
    COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    SEP 23 IZ'.j
    Appellee
    Abel Acosta, Cierk
    Oh Petition for Discretionary Review
    from the Second Court of            Appeals
    in No.    02-15-00145-CR Affirming the Conviction
    in No.     1031532D from     the
    297th District         Court
    Tarrant County,          Texas
    APPELLANT'S       PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
    Johnathan Cooper
    TDCJ No. 1862306
    F.M. Robertson Unit
    12071    FM   3522
    Abilene, TX 79601
    Appellant,       pro se
    IDENTITIES    OF   PARTIES
    APPELLANT                              Johnathan Eugene Cooper
    STATE'S    ATTORNEY
    ON    APPEAL                         Debra   Windsor
    Assistant District Attorney
    401 W. Belknap St.
    Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201
    TRIAL    JUDGE                         Honorable Everret Young
    297th   Judicial   District   Court
    Tarrant County,     Texas
    HABEAS    TRIAL   JUDGE                Honorable David C.     Hagerman
    297th   Judicial   District   Court
    Tarrant County,    Texas
    li
    TABLE   OF   CONTENTS
    IDENTITIES OF      PARTIES                                             ii
    TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                     iii
    INDEX OF    AUTHORITIES                                              iv-v
    STATEMENT   REGARDING       ORAL    ARGUMENT                            1
    STATEMENT    OF   THE    CASE                                           2
    STATEMENT    OF   PROCEDURAL       HISTORY                              3
    GROUNDS FOR REVIEW                                                          4
    1.     Does     the     court    of  appeals  have any jurisdiction to
    review     the    slower    court's  denial of Appellant's motion
    requesting appointment of counsel for purposes of invest
    igating, preparing and presenting his ineffective assist
    ance  of  counsel  claim(s)  in  a postconviction Article
    11.07 application for writ of habeas corpus?
    2.     Did the court of appeals err in concluding that it
    does  not  have  jurisdiction to review the lower court's
    decision without conducting proper inquiry?
    3.     What    court would have proper jurisdiction to review
    denial    of  a request for appointment of counsel made pur
    suant to article 11.074, Tex. Code Crim. Proc?
    REASONS FOR REVIEW                                                           5
    ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES                                              6-10
    Ground 1                                                           6-8
    Ground 2                                                          8"10
    qround 3                                                            10
    PRAYER                                                                  11
    UNSWORN DECLARATION                                                     11
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE                                                  12
    APPENDIX                                                             13-19
    ill
    INDEX   OF   AUTHORITIES
    CASES
    Bright v.       State,
    
    296 S.W.3d 329
     (Tex.App. - Amarillo 2009)                          7, 8
    Martinez       v.   Ryan,
    
    132 S. Ct. 1309
     (2012)                                                 6
    McKown v.       State,
    
    915 S.W.2d 160
     (Tex.App. - Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).                 7
    Pitts   v.     State,
    
    113 S.W.3d 393
     (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2003)               7, 8
    Trevino v.          Thaler,
    
    133 S. Ct. 1911
     (2013)                                                 6
    STATUTES
    Tex.    Code Crim.          Proc.
    Article 1.051(d)                                                   6
    Article 11.07                                                       4
    Article 11.074                                              c   4# 10
    Chapter 64                                                       ' 7
    Tex.    Gov't.       Code
    Section 24.016                                                   6» 7
    Tex.    Pen.    Code
    Section 22.011(a)(2)                                                2
    iv
    STATEMENT     OF   THE   CASE
    After    agreeing   to plead no contest in exchange for a recom
    mended     punishment of two years confinement (time-served), Appel
    lant     was    convicted of the offense of sexual assault of           a minor,
    Tex.     Pen.   Code   Ann.,   sec.   22.011(a)(2),        in the 297th District
    Court     of Tarrant County,    Texas.   Punishment was thereafter asses
    sed at the recommended two years confinement.
    STATEMENT    OF    PROCEDURAL   HISTORY
    Proceeding        pro   se, Appellant filed motion in the convicting
    court     seeking        appointment        of   habeas   counsel. That motion was
    denied.        Appellant       thereafter        sought motion for reconsideration
    of     the court's perfunctory denial. That motion too was perfunct
    orily     denied     by the convicting court on July 7, 2015. Appellant
    took     timely     appeal.       In   a written per curiam opinion issued.on
    June     18,     2015,    the Second Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal
    for want of jurisdiction. No motion for rehearing was sought.
    GROUND   FOR REVIEW    1
    Does     the     court     of     appeals have any jurisdiction to review
    the    lower district court's denial of Appellant's motion request
    ing    appointment        of     counsel for purposes of investigating, pre
    paring       and     presenting       his    ineffective       assistance   of counsel
    claim(s)       in     a postconviction Article 11.07 application for writ
    of habeas corpus?
    GROUND FOR REVIEW      2          *
    Did     the    court     of      appeals   err   in concluding that it does
    not    have jurisdiction to review the lower court's decision with
    out conducting proper inquiry?
    GROUND   FOR REVIEW    3
    What     court     would        have proper jurisdiction to review denial
    of    a request for appointment of counsel made pursuant to article
    11.074, Tex. Code Crim. Proc?
    REASONS     FOR   REVIEW
    1.        The     court        of     appeals'    decision conflicts with another
    court     of     appeals'           decision       on the same issue. TEX. R.       APP.   P.
    66.3(a)
    2.        The     court        of appeals has decided an important question
    of   state       law        that     has not been,         but should be,    settled by the
    Court of Criminal Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 66.3(b).
    3.        The     court        of     appeals has so far departed from the ac
    cepted     and       usual         course of judicial proceedings as to call for
    an   exercise          of     the        Court of Criminal Appeals'         power of super
    vision.    TEX.      R.     APP.    P.    66.3(f).
    GROUND       FOR- REVIEW     1
    Statement             of    Facts
    Appellant              filed in the 297th District Court of Tarrant Coun
    ty,     Texas,              his     motion        seeking        appointment      of habeas counsel
    pursuant              to     the United States Supreme Court's decisions in Mar
    tinez        v.        Ryan,        
    132 S. Ct. 1309
         (2012)     and Trevino v. Thaler,
    
    133 S. Ct. 1911
         (2013),           as well as article 1.051(d), Tex. Code
    Crim.       Proc,           and section 24.016,               Tex.    Gov't. Code,      for the speci
    fic     purpose of                investigating,            preparing and presenting his claim
    of ineffective assistance of counsel in an article 11.07 applica
    tion        for        writ       of      habeas corpus. That motion was perfunctorily
    denied           by        the district court. Appellant thereafter filed motion
    for     reconsideration                    in     the       district    court   which   was   denied   on
    July        7,        2015.        Appellant          timely noticed appealed to the Second
    Court of Appeals sitting at Fort Worth, Texas.
    On        May        13,    2015, concerned that it lacked jurisdiction over
    the     appeal because it "has no jurisdiction over matters relating
    to     postconviction                   applications            under    article 11.07,       including
    requests              for     appointment of counsel," the court of appeals not
    ified        the parties that if either desired to continue the appeal,
    they        must           file    with         the     court,       on or before May 26, 2015, a
    response              showing          grounds        for    continuing the appeal (Cooper v.
    State,           COA No. 02-15-00145-CR j) K'Appendlat li7vl.8).. Appellant filed
    a pro se response to the court's May 13,                                 2015 letter.
    In        a     written          per      curiam       opinion issued on June 18, 2015,
    the     court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdict
    ion,     explaining              that       it generally has jurisdiction to consider
    an     appeal       by a criminal defendant only from a judgement of con
    viction, citing McKown v. State, 
    915 S.W.2d 160
    , 161 (Tex.App. -
    Fort     Worth 1996, no pet.). The court of appeals went on to opine
    that     it     does not have jurisdiction over a postconviction appli
    cation        for    writ         of    habeas         corpus in a felony case,    including
    a     related       motion for appointment of counsel (citations omitted)
    (Memo. Op.,         Appendix at
    Argument and Authorities
    The     court        of     appeals'        disposition of the appeal conflicts
    with     the Amarillo court of appeals' decision in Bright v. State,
    
    296 S.W.3d 329
            (Tex.App.         -    Amarillo    2009) (court of appeals
    possessed           limited        jurisdiction to review the denial of appoint
    ment     of     counsel),              as    well as conflicts with the Houston court
    of     appeals' decision in Pitts v. State, 
    113 S.W.3d 393
     (Tex.App.
    -     Houston        [1st        Dist.] 2003) (requiring trial courts to appoint
    counsel        in     exceptional              cases under section 24.016, Tex. Gov't.
    Code,        and     that order denying such appointment reviewed by court
    of appeals for abuse of discretion).
    Appellant        argues              that   court    of     appeals in this case had,
    at     the     very least, "limited" jurisdiction to consider the lower
    court's        denial of his motion seeking appointment of habeas coun
    sel,     similar to that of a denied motion for appointment of coun
    sel     in     a     DNA testing request under Chapter 64, Tex. Code Crim.
    Proc,         Bright           v. State, supra, or that of denial of appointment
    of counsel in an expunction proceeding, Pitts v. State, supra.
    GROUND    FOR   REVIEW   2
    Statement       of       Facts
    Having        been           unexpectedly       notified       by the court of appeals
    that     he was required to show how the court may have jurisdiction
    to     review        the        lower        court's   denial     of his motion for habeas
    counsel,        Appellant              moved     the court of appeals for an extension
    of     time     in        which to research and prepare a showing to continue
    the     appeal           because        Appellant was at that time being housed ac
    cording        to        the institutional "in-transit" protocol after return
    to     TDCJ-CID           following benchwarrant to his county of conviction.
    Design        and operation of access to courts applicable to pris
    oners     housed in the "in-transit" protocol is such that the pris
    oner     has        only        limited        access to legal materials from the unit
    law     library.           That is, the prisoner may request only three items
    of     reference           per        day.    Rather     than   have the benefit of being
    permitted           to     attend        the unit law library where legal reference
    materials        are           kept     and    maintained,      the "in-transit" prisoner
    can only request three legal references per day, and those refer
    ence     Items           are        delivered to him the day following his request,
    and     retrieved              by     unit    law library personnel twenty-four hours
    later.
    These circumstances                       make it particularly difficult and time-
    consuming           for the pro se appellant to adequately research appli
    cable        statutory              and     decisional             law        -        especially in a matter
    such    as    this       one where          the    issue       at hand            is   new and rather   unset
    tled     or        otherwise              unclear.       In other words,                  if the court of ap
    peals,        in        its     vast        knowledge and resources, is unsure whether
    it     has        jurisdiction              to     review          a    given lower court decision,
    how     much           moreso        for the layman appellant who is proceeding pro
    se     with        very        limited           access        to legal reference materials due
    to     the        circumstances                 of his being temporarily housed under the
    more restrictive "in-transit" protocol.
    Argument and Authorities
    Appellant              argues        that        it    was        improper           and erroneous for
    the     court           of     appeals           to dismiss the appeal for want of juris
    diction without reviewing the case and itself conducting adequate
    inquiry           into        the     matter of jurisdiction, given that the matter
    appears           unsettled,              and/or        without         granting Appellant adequate
    time     to        further           research           the matter where,                  at the time of the
    court        of        appeals'           May     13, 2015, notice to the parties through
    the     May        26,        2015        deadline set by the court of appeals for the
    parties           to     show grounds for continuiing the appeal, Appellant's
    institutional                 housing           status       was        that           of "in-transit," which
    provides           Appellant              limited access to law books and legal refer
    ence    materials.
    Moreover,              because           there        has       been        recent     drastic changes
    in    state        and federal law relevant to the appointment of counsel
    .in   criminal           habeas        cases        which      are       sure to make request for
    habeas       counsel        in        such     cases      as   this      one    a   common   and   routine
    matter,          the     court        of appeals should have taken the opportunity
    presented by this case to sua sponte determine whether it posses
    ses       jurisdiction           to     review        a lower court's denial of requests
    for       appointment           of habeas counsel made pursuant to those recent
    changes in relevant state and federal law.
    GROUND      FOR     REVIEW       3
    Statement         of    Facts
    Article           11.074,        Tex.     Code        Crim.        Proc.      is newly added to
    the       code.        Statutory        law,    at least that available for Appellant
    to    review           within     the institutional setting, does not expressly
    indicate exactly what court has jurisdiction to review the denial
    of    a     of     a     request for appointment of counsel made pursuant to
    Article      11.074.
    Argument and Authorities
    Appellant           argues        that,       similar         to       denials of appointment
    of counsel requests                   made     during       DNA        testing         proceedings    and
    expunction             proceedings,           the    court        of         appeals     should possess
    at    least a limited jurisdiction to review denials of appointment
    of    counsel           in a proceeding related to a postconviction applica
    tion for writ of habeas corpus.
    10                '
    PRAYER
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays the Honorable
    Court        grants       discretionary review of the court of appeals'                    dis
    position        dismissing           the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appel
    lant prays for general relief.
    Respectfully submitted,
    L
    Johnathan Cooper
    TDCJ   No.   1862306
    French M. Robertson        Unit
    12071 FM 3522
    Abilene,     TX 79601
    Appellant,     pro se
    UNSWORN    DECLARATION
    I, Johnathan Cooper, TDCJ No. 1862306, being presently incar
    cerated        within the French M.            Robertson Unit of the Texas Depart
    ment     of     Criminal        Justice-Correctional            Institutions       Division,
    located        in     Jones     County,     Texas,       hereby declare under penalty
    of     perjury        that     the    foregoing is true and correct, and placed
    in     the     outgoing institutional mailbox on this                   RSu^ day of Sept
    ember, 2015, to be mailed U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid,
    addressed           to:      Court    of   Criminal       Appeals      of Texas,    P.O.    Box
    12308, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711-2308. Executed on
    this the        fg£*vday of September,           2015.
    johnathan Cooper
    11
    CERTIFICATE     OF    SERVICE
    I    hereby     certify      that a true and correct copy of the fore
    going       pleading     has     been   duly        served upon opposing counsel by
    mailing       same     U.S. Mail, firest-class postage prepaid, addressed
    to:        Debra     Windsor, Assistant District Attorney, 401 W. Belknap
    St.,       Fort    Worth,      TX   76102-1913. Executed on this the (Off-?, day
    of September,         2015.
    johnathan Cooper
    12
    CAUSE NO. 1031532D
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                        IN THE 297TH
    VS                                          DISTRICT COURT OF
    JOHNATHAN COOPER                                  TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
    ORDER ON DEFENDANTS PRO SE MOTION
    On this the 7th day ofJuly, 2015, Defendant's Pro Se Motion for RECONSIDERATION OF
    DEFENDANT MOTION REQUESTING APPOINTMENT OF HABEAS CORPUS COUNSEL
    was presented to the court.
    The motion has been considered and said motion is hereby;
    (GRANTED)                                      (NO ACTION)
    OR           Set for hearing beforethis court on the
    o'clock       .m.
    _Copy sent to Defendant, Defense attorney and Attorney for the State
    on                                    .by
    FILED
    THOMAS A WlUDEapiST. CLERK
    TARRANT COUNTY. TEXAS
    JUL 0 8 2015
    BY.         sail     .DEPUTY
    Appendix -         14
    Court of Appeals
    Second District of Texas
    CHIEF JUSTICE                                                                         CLERK
    TERRIE LIVINGSTON                      TIM CURRY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER
    DEBRA SPISAK
    401 W. BELKNAP, SUITE 9000
    JUSTICES                                   FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76196-0211               CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY
    LEEANNDAUPHINOT                                                                       LISA M. WEST
    ANNE GARDNER                                    TEL: (817) 884-1900
    SUE WALKER                                                                           GENERAL COUNSEL
    BILL MEIER                                     FAX: (817) 884-1932                    CLARISSA HODGES
    LEE GABRIEL
    BONNIE SUDDERTH                               www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa
    May 13, 2015
    Johnathan Cooper
    Byrd Unit #1862306
    21 FM 247
    Huntsville, TX 77320
    RE:           Court of Appeals Number:        02-15-00145-CR
    Trial Court Case Number:        1031532D
    Style:        Johnathan Cooper
    v.
    The State of Texas
    The court has received a copy of the notice of appeal in this case.                     See
    Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c).
    The court is concerned that it lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because
    this court has no jurisdiction over matters relating to postconviction applications
    under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure, including requests for
    appointment of counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp.
    2014).
    Unless the appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal files with
    the court, on or before Tuesday, May 26, 2015, a response showing grounds for
    continuing the appeal, this appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See
    Tex. R. App. P. 44.3.
    Respectfully yours,                    i
    DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK
    By: Bonnie Alexander, Deputy Clerk
    Appendix -                15
    02-15-00145-CR
    May 15, 2015
    Page 2
    cc:    Criminal District Clerk, Tarrant County
    Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
    401 W. Belknap, 3rd Floor
    Fort Worth, TX 76196
    Court Reporter, 297th District Court
    Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
    401 W. Belknap St.
    Fort Worth, TX 76196-0229
    David C. Hagerman
    Judge, 297th District Court
    Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
    401 W. Belknap, 5th Floor
    Fort Worth, TX 76196
    Debra A. Windsor
    Assistant District Attorney
    401 W. Belknap St.
    Fort Worth, TX 76102-1913
    Appendix -   16
    COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-15-00145-CR
    JOHNATHAN COOPER                                                     APPELLANT
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                                         STATE
    FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
    TRIAL COURT NO. 1031532D
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    On April 30, 2015, Appellant Johnathan Cooper filed a notice of appeal
    challenging the trial court's January 28, 2015 order denying his motion for
    appointment of postconviction habeas counsel.        We sent Appellant a letter
    notifying him of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because
    this court has no jurisdiction over matters relating to postconviction applications
    1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
    Appendix -   17
    under article 11.07 of the code of criminal procedure.2 We indicated that .this
    appeal could be dismissed absent the filing of a response showing grounds for
    continuing the appeal.    Although we received a response, it does not show
    grounds for continuing the appeal.
    We generally have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal
    defendant only from a judgment of conviction.3 We do not have jurisdiction over
    a postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus in a felony case, including
    a related motion for appointment of counsel.4
    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    PER CURIAM
    PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, J J.
    DO NOT PUBLISH
    Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
    DELIVERED: June 18, 2015
    2Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5 (West 2015).
    3See McKown v. State, 
    915 S.W.2d 160
    , 161 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
    1996, no pet.).
    4Taylor v. State, No. 14-13-00614-CR, 2013 W.L 4816409, at *1 (Tex.
    App—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 10, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for
    publication); Ex parte Wall, No. 02-11-00326-CR, No. 02-11-00517-CR, 
    2012 WL 5869595
    , at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not
    designated for publication); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 5; Ater
    v. Eighth \Court of Appeals, 
    802 S.W.2d 241
    , 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig.
    proceeding) (stating that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the "only court
    with jurisdiction in final post-conviction felony proceedings").
    2
    Appendix -      18
    COURT OF APPEALS
    SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    FORT WORTH
    NO. 02-15-00145-CR
    Johnathan Cooper                       §     From the 297th District Court
    §     of Tarrant County (1031532D)
    v.                                     §     June 18,2015
    §    Per Curiam
    The State of Texas                      §    (nfp)
    JUDGMENT
    This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
    the appeal should be dismissed.    It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for
    want of jurisdiction.
    SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    PER CURIAM
    Appendix -    19
    Court of Appeals
    Second D i s t r i c t o f Texas
    CHIEF JUSTICE                                                                              CLERK
    TERRIE LIVINGSTON                        tim curry criminal justice center                 DEBRA SPISAK
    401 w. belknap, suite 9000
    JUSTICES                                     fort worth, texas 76196-0211                  CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY
    LEE ANN DAUPHINOT                                                                          LISA M. WEST
    ANNE GARDNER                                      TEL: (817) 884-1900
    SUE WALKER                                                                                GENERAL COUNSEL
    BILL MEIER                                        FAX: (817) 884-1932                      CLARISSA HODGES
    LEE GABRIEL
    BONNIE SUDDERTH                                 www.txcourts.gov/2ndcoa
    June 1,2015
    Johnathan Cooper—                                         Debra A. Windsor
    Byrd Unit #1862306                                      Assistant District Attorney
    21 FM 247                                               401 W. Belknap St.
    Huntsville, TX 77320                                     Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201
    * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *
    RE:             Court of Appeals Number:        02-15-00145-CR"
    Trial Court Case Number:          1031532D
    Style:          Johnathan Cooper
    v.
    The State of Texas
    The pro se's response to our letter dated May 15, 2015, has been filed
    under the date of Thursday, May 28, 2015, in the above referenced cause.
    Respectfully yours,
    DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK
    By: Karen Brown, Deputy Clerk
    Appendix -                20
    NO.                 PD-0895-15
    JOHNATHAN COOPER                                      §                 IN THE COURT OF
    §
    vs.                                                   §                 CRIMINAL APPEALS
    §
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                    §                 AUSTIN, TEXAS
    MOTION TO SUSPEND RULE                 68.11
    TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
    COMES       NOW, Johnathan Cooper, Appellant, pro se, and respect
    fully       moves    the Court to exercise its authority granted by Rule
    2,    Tex.     R. App. Proc, to suspend operation of Rule 68.11, Tex.
    R.    App.     P.,       in this case. In support of this motion, Appellant
    would show the following:
    I.        .
    1.     Appellant           is        petitioning       the   Court for discretionary
    review       of     the    court            of    appeals'     order dismissing the appeal
    in Johnathan Cooper v. State of Texas, COA No. 02-15-00145-CR.
    2.     Rule        68.11        of        the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
    requires          that     Appellant             serve     a copy of the petition upon the
    State       Prosecuting           Attorney           in addition to the service required
    by Rule 9.5 of said rules.
    3.     Appellant,           as        a     prisoner    confined     within   the Texas
    Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division
    does        not have access to photocopying equipment capable of making
    multiple          copies     of        the        petition for service upon both State's
    attorneys..
    PRAYER
    WHEREFORE,       PREMISES CONSIDERED,          Appellant prays the Honorable
    Court     grants        this motion and suspends              operation of Rule 68.11,
    Tex. R. App. P.,            in this case. Appellant prays for general relief.
    Respectfully submitted,
    ^Johnathan Cooper
    TDCJ    No.    1862306
    French    M.    Robertson   Unit
    12071    FM    3522
    Abilene, TX 79601
    Appellant,       pro se
    UNSWORN   DECLARATION
    I, Johnathan Cooper, TDCJ No. 1862306, being presently incar
    cerated        at     the French M.        Robertson Unit of the Texas Department
    of     Criminal        Justice-Correctional Institutions Division,                  located
    in     Jones        County, Texas, hereby declare under penalty of perjury
    that     the        foregoing     is true and correct, and placed in the out
    going     prison        mailbox       on    this   \^P-t day of September, 2015, to
    be     mailed        U.S.    Mail,     first-class      postage        prepaid, addressed
    to:      Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, P.O. Box 12308, Austin,
    Texas     78711-2308.           Executed on        this the I$Pq day of September,
    2015.
    6sLo-- Cj-•^au>
    ohnathan Cooper
    CERTIFICATE        OF    SERVICE
    I hereby   certify that a true and correct copy of the fore
    going     document     has        been   duly    served     upon opposing counsel
    via     U.S.   Mail,    first-class         postage       prepaid,   addressed to:
    Debra     A.   Windsor,      Assistant District Attorney,            401 W. Belknap
    St.,     Fort Worth,         TX     76196-0201.        Executed on this the /S^-
    day of September,       2015.
    \Johnathan Cooper
    Birs*S1Tvv,7   . *r #-i-v" ^ **fx,   ^*"*^s» IT ™T- "   *Jn.   •*> i-^t" Tj* <5^E*—>y$. ' - "V^*^!
    ttf
    a • -Ki
    $
    o
    P
    —   <
    o
    ro'
    7^
    n
    3
    'DO
    I
    >
    •"0
    D •-
    it
    i>0
    O