McClendon, Andrew

December 21, 2017
NO: PD-1301-17
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
__________________________________________________________________
ANDREW MCCLENDON, APPELLANT
VS
THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE
__________________________________________________________________
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ANDREW MCCLENDON
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from Cause No:15-CR-4391-B
In the 117THh Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas
And from Cause No: 13-16-00230-CR
In the Thirteenth Court of Appeals, Corpus Christi-Edinberg, Texas
__________________________
Allen C. Lee
810 Oriole Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78418
Ph: 361-353-4884
Fax: 361-353-4482
SBN: 12110000
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
ANDREW MCCLENDON
1
IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Allen C. Lee
810 Oriole Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78418
Ph: 361-353-4482
Fax: 361-353-4482
SBN: 12110000
Appellate Attorney for
Armando Torralva
Douglas K. Norman
State Bar No> 15078900
Assistant District Attorney
105th Judicial District of Texas
901 Leopard, Room 206
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
(361) 888-0410
(363)888-0399 (fax)
Douglas.norman @ nuecesco.com
Attorney for Appellee
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................... ........p. 3.
IDENTIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ......................................................p..2
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .................................................................pp.4-5.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ......................................................................... .p.5
STATEMENT OF THE JURISDICTION ..................................................pp. 5,6
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………………………………..............… p.4
ISSUES PRESENTED ……………………….............… pp. 6,7
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS............................………………….......…........p 7-9
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT....................................................................9-13
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES COMBINED ON
ISSUES ONE, TWO, AND THREE AND FOUR...............................................pp13-18
PRAYER ……………………………………………………………...................p.18-19
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE…….............................................................pp 19,20
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE..............................................................................pp.19,20
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 US 436,90 Set. 1189,1189,
25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) ..............................................................................................p.8
Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784) ............................................................................ p.8
Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360,370 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) .....................................p.12
Brown V. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161,165,97 S.Ct. 2221,531 L. Ed. 187 ............................ p.8
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304,
52 S.Ct. 180,76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ............................................................................. p.12
Ex Parte Amador, 326 S W 3d 202, 205 (Tex. Crim. Appeal2010) ................... p.8
Ex parte Williams Charles Denton, 399 S W 3rd 540
(Tex. Crim. App. (2013) ........................................................................................p.10,11
ExParte Vega 510 S.W. 3. 544,548 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi, no pet).................. .p..12
Langs v. State, 183, S.W. 3d 680,687 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) ................................. p.12
LaPointe v. State 225 S.W. 3d 513,522 (Tex Crim. App. 2007).............................. .p.10
Rogers v. State, The Court of Appeals, 13th Dist. 2017.........................................p.12
STATUTES
Texas Penal Code Sec. 22.021 (A) ...................................................................... p.16
Tex. Penal Code Sec. 22.011; ................................................................................p.16
Tex. Penal Code Sec. 22.04.....................................................................................P. 1
Tex. Penal Code Sec 22.02.....................................................................................p.1
Tex. CODE OF CRIM PROC CHAPTER 55.01(a)(1)(A) .... p.1, 12
Tex. CODE OF CRIM PROC CHAPTER 55.03(1)........................................... p 13
Tex. Gov. Code Sec. 22.01 (a)(6)..........................................................................p.1.
Tex. Gov. Code Sec. 22.001(a)(3).........................................................................p.2....
Tex. Rules of Evidence Sec. 404(B).....................................................................p.10
4
CONSTITUTION
United States
U.S. Const. amend. V, applicable to the States through
the Fourteenth Amendment ...................................................................................... p 12
State of Texas
Texas Constitution Section 14 of the Texas Bill of Rights which says,
"No person, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy oflife or liberty." ......... p.12
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This appeal stems from a conviction in the 117th Judicial Court, Nueces
County, Texas Case No:15-CR-4391-B for Aggravated Kidnapping Count l; and
Aggravated Assault Count 2 under Texas Penal Code Section 22.04 & Section
22.02. After a jury trial the Appellant was found guilty and the Trial Court
sentenced Appellant to thirty years for each Count with the sentences to run
concurrently. Judge Sandra L. Watts signed the Judgment of Conviction by Jury.
The parties in the Court of Appeals were Andrew McClendon, Appellant and the
State of Texas. The Memorandum opinion was decided by Justices Contreas,
Benavides, and Longoria. The opinion was written by Justice Nora Longoria.
Citation for the Case was found in Tex: Court of Appeals, 13th Dist., 2017 - Google
Scholar. No motions for rehearing or en banc consideration were filed and none are
pending.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
1. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction under the Texas Government Code Section
22.001 (a)(6) in that it appears that an error of law has been committed by the 13th Court
5
of Appeals, and that error is of such importance to the jurisprudence of the State, that in
the opinion of the supreme court that it requires correction. This is not a case in which the
jurisdiction of the court of appeals is made final by statute. This case is important because
it concerns both State and Federal Constitutional issues involving the double jeopardy
clause and its application
2. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction over this appeal under Government Code
Section 22.001(a)(3) because this case involves the construction or [or validity] of a
statute necessary to the determination of the case..
ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Did the Court of Appeals err when it refused to find that the reporter’s
record of the trial in cause number 14-CR-2634-B nor the expunction order
were part of the record before it so that it could consider the double jeopardy
provisions of both the U.S. and Texas Constitutions?
2. Did the Court of Appeals err when it affirmed the trial court’s judgment
instead of finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and order the
case abated to the trial court for a habeas corpus hearing in order to produce
a record of the first trial to be used in the second trial so that justice could be
done?
6
3. Did the Court of Appeals err when it found it could not consider the issue of
double jeopardy because it did not have a sufficient appellate record to
review the issue?
4. Should the Court of Appeals sua sponte have found that Appellant’s trial
counsel as a matter of law provided ineffective counsel to Appellant because
he failed to request the trial court to take judicial notice of the record in
cause number 14-CR-2634-B or the terms of the Expunction Order it signed
after the trial so that there would be a sufficient record for the Court of
Appeals to render a decision on the issue of double jeopardy?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellant was charged with the offense of Aggravated Kidnapping Count 1,
and Aggravated Assault Count 2. in this case. In a separate trial in the case of State
vs. Andrew McClendon, Case No: 14-CR-2634-B 117th Judicial Court, the
Appellant was found NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Sexual Assault on December
9, 2015. The “Aggravated” aspects of both cases is the fact that a KNIFE was used
during the commission of all of the offenses charged.
After the first trial, Appellant applied for and was granted by the trial court
an ORDER OF EXPUNCTION under the provisions of Article 55.01(a)(1)(A) of
the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure which was signed by the Court on
7
December 17, 2015. During the trial in case number 15-CR-4391-B, Appellant’s
defense counsel generally objected to any evidence that was ordered expunged
which related to aggravated sexual assault. (Reporter’s Record Vol .4 of 8, p7 lines
8-13). The Court required him to make specific objections which he did. However,
the court admitted evidence of testimony under the hearsay exceptions; motive,
identity, medical history, etc. which allowed the State to retry the aggravated
sexual assault case under the Aggravated Kidnapping Indictment and Aggravated
Assault indictment. The common thread in both cases related to Aggravated
Sexual Assault in that the State offered the testimony of the investigator, who took
pictures of the automobile and took swaps of the spots of semen on the back seat;
(See Index to Exhibits Vol.8 of 8, Cause No: 15-CR-4391-B, pp. 3-4 State’s
Exhibits 1-48) Essentially, the exhibits though numbered differently in both trials
were the same, i.e. photos of the automobile; photos of the swabs taken; photos of
the defendant’s clothes and shoes; i.d. lineup photos; statements of the defendant;
affidavits by the officer who took appellants statement during the first trial and
second trial. The testimony regarding the medical testimony was given by a
supervisor during the first trial because the nurse who actually interviewed the
alleged victim was ill and did not testify in the lst trial but did in the second trial,
with one important exception. During the first trial, the court discussed its Findings
(Reporters Record Vol. 3 of 4 Volumes, Trial Court Cause No: 14-CR-2634-B, pp.
8
87, lines 1-25 and p.88 1-25.) where the court referred to a video of the alleged
victim in which she waved to the appellant after he exited her automobile that
among other things led the court to have a reasonable doubt as to whether the
sexual encounter was consensual or not. The new witness, Brenda Olson was
brought in during the case at bar by the State to try to explain to the jury why a
victim who has been sexually assaulted would “wave” to her accuser after she has
been supposedly kidnapped and sexually assaulted.
(Reporter’s Record, Trial Court cause no: 15-CR-4391-B, Appellate Cause No: 13-
16-00230-CR, pp.159, line10-25-p.166 line1- 20).
There were two videos which were missing from the Reporter’s record and
have not been obtained. An order for such videos was requested when Appellant’s
motion to supplement was granted by this court but have not been made available
to counsel yet. Additionally, the clerk of the court refused to provide Appellant’s
counsel with a copy of the expunction order because the clerk contended that it
would be a violation of the expunction order to do so. Appellant’s appellate
attorney then secured a copy of the expunction order from Appellant’s trial
attorney and attached it to the appendix to brief for the appellant in section (8).
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
9
Appellant contends that trial court’s approval of Appellant’s attorney’s
request that the record of the first trial be produced
The 13th Court of Appeals in its opinion refused to consider the record of the first
trial which was offered to supplement the record stating that “The supplementation
rules ‘exist to allow appellate courts to supplement the appellate record with
matters that were part of the trial record with matters that were part of the trial
record but, for whatever reason, have not been forwarded to the appellate court.”
The Appellate court further ruled that because it could not consider the record of
the first trial that “a double jeopardy violation is not apparent on the face of the
record.” The Court of Appeals quoted that the supplementation rules “exist to
allow appellate court to supplement the appellate record with matters that were part
of the trial record, but, for whatever reason, have not been forwarded to the
appellate court.” These rules cannot be used to create a new record.” Citing
LaPointe v State, 225 S.W.3d 513, 522 (ex. Crim. App. 2007). Appellant contends
that the trial court in granting his request to produce a copy of the record of the
first trial was not to create a new record but to provide the Court of Appeals with
the reason why it admitted the same evidence as was introduced in evidence in the
first trial i.e. “for the jury to have the full picture of events.”
Appellant further asserts that instead of affirming the trial court’s judgment
because the trial court’s attorney did not ask the court to take judicial knowledge of
10
the record of the first trial or even take judicial knowledge of the contents of the its
contents “sua sponte,” the Court of Appeals should have held that it had no
jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the case should have been abated until a
habeas corpus hearing has been held to make a record sufficient for the Appellate
court to determine whether there was an issue of double jeopardy. In the
alternative, the Court of Appeals should have found that the trial court’s granting
of his appeal counsel’s request to order the record of the first trial during a period
when it had jurisdiction over the case was in effect at least an implied judicial
acknowledgment of the fact that it had considered the record and facts of the first
case during the second trial. Appellant further contends that the fact that it even
granted an Expunction Order after the acquittal in cause number 14-CR-2634 is
proof that it took judicial knowledge of the record in the original case where
Appellant was acquitted. Additionally Appellant contends that the purpose for the
trial court to modify the terms of the Expunction Order was to be able to admit the
same evidence in the case at bar as was introduced in the first case i.e. “ for the
jury to have the full picture” Further the purpose was to be able to explain to the
jury the reason why the trial judge in the first trial had a reasonable doubt as to
appellant’s guilt because the complainant waved to Appellant after she drove him
to the Stripes location and let him out of the car.
11
Additionally, appellant contends the Court of Appeal’s finding that it had an
insufficient record in order to make a determination of whether an issue of double
jeopardy was apparent on the face of the record so that Appellant could raise the
issue of double jeopardy for the first time on appeal would mean that as a matter of
law, Appellant’s trial counsel did not provide him effective legal counsel because
he did not state an objection to the trial of the case as being in violation of
appellants double jeopardy right even though he did object to any evidence being
introduced that violated the terms of the expunction order which appellant
contends was in fact a violation of appellant’s double jeopardy protections.
Appellant further contends that his acquittal of the offenses of aggravated
sexual assault where the operative facts were that he forced at knife point the
alleged victim to allow him in her car; direct her to drive to another location
against her will where they had consensual or nonconsensual sex are the same
facts that had to be proved in an offense for aggravated kidnapping. Appellant
contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not finding that acquittal of
aggravated sexual assault was a violation of Appellant’s constitutional
protection against double jeopardy under both the Texas and United States
Constitutions providing that an accused cannot be tried twice for the same
offense. Texas Constitution Section 14 of the Texas Bill of Rights which says, "No
person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty...." Fifth
12
Amendment Double Jeopardy clause “U.S. Const. amend. V, applicable to the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment ( Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S.
784) providing that an accused can not be subjected to a 1) prosecution for the
same offense after acquittal and 3) multiple punishments for the same offense.
Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161,165,97 S.Ct 2221, 531 L. Ed.2d 187 (177); Ex
Parte Amador, 326 S.W. 3d. 202, 205 (Tex. Crim. Appeal. 2010). Ashe v.
Swenson, 397 US 436,90 Set. 1189,1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)
Appellant further asserts that the aggravated kidnapping charge under the
facts of this case is in fact a lesser included offense of the charge of aggravated
sexual assault because the charges arose out of only one transaction and the
witnesses and evidence adduced in both trials is the same except for the social
worker who gave an opinion as to why the complaint in the first trial would wave
to the appellant after he executed her automobile.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES COMBINED ON ISSUES ONE
THROUGH FOUR
Appellant’s trial attorney did not raise the issue of double jeopardy during
the trial of the case but did object to evidence related to the sexual assault being
admitted before the jury in violation of the court’s expunction order.
Appellant contends that counsel’s objections to the same evidence regarding
aggravated sexual assault admitted in cause number 14-CR-2634-B in which
13
appellant was acquitted and which violated the terms of the order of expunction in
effect raised the double jeopardy constitutional protections by implication. The
expunction order signed by the trial judge could not have been signed under the
provisions of Article 55.01(a)(1)(A) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure)
unless there was an acquittal (emphasis mine).
Defendant’s appellate attorney applied to the trial court who granted his
motion to secure the Court Reporters record of the first trial in which the court
found the defendant not guilty of aggravated sexual assault. The Appellant asserts
the court’s dual purpose was to show that the trial court in the case at bar adopted
and considered the record in the first trial in order to reach its judgment to order an
expunction of the records of arrest and to have a record for the court to justify its
ruling that evidence adduced in the first trial could come in under Texas Rules of
Evidence section 404(B) to show motive, bias, intent or hearsay objection in order
to “fill in the holes of what happened” (Reporters Record, Vol. 308, pp5-6 line 9):
Consequently, the court of appeals could have and should have ruled that a double
jeopardy violation was apparent on the face of the record and did not need a further
proceeding to introduce evidence from the first trial in support of Appellant’s
claim that a double jeopardy claim was apparent on the face of the record. By
signing the expunction order after defendant’s acquittal the trial court had to have
taken judicial knowledge at least by implication or even “sua sponte” of the record
14
of the first trial. It went on to admit under objection all of the testimony and
exhibits that were introduced in the trial in this case through the same witnesses
who testified in the first trial. The supplementation of the record in this case was
not a violation of the supplementation rules but were in fact” matters that were part
of the trial record to illustrate that the judge by granting the expunction order and
admitting evidence of the first trial to give the jury a clear picture of what
happened so they could reach a verdict in the second trial. The effect of its ruling
was a retrial of the first trial which Appellant contends is a double jeopardy
violation and is apparent on the face of the record. See Ex parte Denton, 399 S.W.
3rd at 544. Consequently, Appellant contends that a clear abuse of discretion
occurred. In the alternative, the Appellate should have abated the proceeding and
remanded the case to the trial court in order to find that its approval of Appellant’s
request to supplement the record by having the record of the first trial produced
was done to support its decision to sign the order of expunction and admit all of the
pertinent evidence it needed to “fill in the holes” The only new evidence
introduced in the second trial was the testimony of the social worker who gave an
opinion to explain why the complainant would wave to the appellant when he
exited her automobile. The complainant had already been kidnapped by the use of
a knife and the testimony of Appellant introduced in the first trial was enough to
support a conviction for aggravated assault and aggravated kidnapping.
15
Again, the court of appeals held that the issue of double jeopardy could not
be determined because the court had no record to consider. Appellant asserts that
the testimony of the social worker was introduced to answer the dilemma discussed
by Judge Banales in the first trial which led him to have a reasonable doubt in the
case. The social worker gave an opinion as to why a complainant would wave to
her kidnapper when she let him off at the Stripes store. The effect of such evidence
related to the aggravated sexual assault where Appellant was acquitted and further
illustrates that the second trial was but a retrial of the first trial.
One thing the appeals court did not do was to rule that the trial court’s record
reflected on the face of the record without consideration of the record of the first
trial that the conviction of Appellant for aggravated kidnapping and aggravated
assault that Appellant contends is a violation of the multiple punishment
protections of double jeopardy. Under a Blockburger analysis the aggravated
kidnapping and aggravated assault were the same as they subjected Appellant to
two punishments for the same alleged assaultive conduct during the same
transaction. The aggravated aspect of the case was the use of a knife under both
statutes. Duran v State. 492 S.W. 3d 741,745 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016; see Langs v.
State, 183 S.W. 3d 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Bigon v. State, 252 WW. 3d 360,
369 (Tex.Crim. App.2008), Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299.304
(1932).Consequently, the punishment of thirty years punishment for the aggravated
16
assault should be vacated. See also, Rogers v. State, The Court of Appeals, 13th
Dist. 2017).
Appellant alleges that there is a conflict regarding the application of the
Expunction Statute. The Court of Appeals stated in its opinion that “Even though
the expunction statute is codified in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. “an
expunction proceeding is civil in nature.”Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art 55.01,
citing its own opinion in Ex Parte Vega, 510 S.W. 3d 544, 548(Tex.App-Corpus
Christ 2016 ,no pet.p.7 Opinion McClendon v. State supra. The Court goes on to
say in its opinion that “Once the expunction order becomes final, the release,
maintainence, dissemination of use of the expunged records and files for any
purpose is prohibited.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art 55.03(1) West, Westlaw
through 2017 R.S.). Appellant’s attorney from law school through 47 years of law
practice in the State of Texas has been under the impression is that when a
defendant’s record for expunction after an acquittal in a criminal case has been
ordered, that it means that person does not have to admit that he/she was even
arrested for the offense that was expunged even under of penalty of committing
perjury. The Texas Legislature even codified this understanding in Tex. Code.
Crim. Proc. Ann. 55.03 sections 1-3. To illustrate the seriousness in which an
expunction order is to be held, the legislature even made the violation of an
expunction order a criminal violation under the provisions of Tex. Crim. Proc.
17
Ann.. 55.04 for anyone “who acquires knowledge while an officer or employee of
the state or of any agency or other entity of the state or any political subdivision of
the state and who knows of an order expunging the records and files relating to that
arrest commits an offense if he knowingly releases, disseminates, or otherwise uses
the records and files. The Clerk of the trial court cited the expunction order when
Appellate counsel was trying to obtain a copy of the expunction order to prepare
the brief for the appeal. The Court of Appeals in its opinion held that it could not
consider the expunction order because it was provided in an index to the brief and
the court was not requested to take judicial knowledge of it for record purposes.
How could the trial court make rulings overruling Appellant’s trial attorney’s
objections to the entry of evidence and testimony in violation of the expunction if
the trial Court had not as a matter of law taken judicial knowledge of the fact that
she signed it then modified it for the purposes of this trial? Further, Appellant re-
urges this court to find that the Court of Appeals should have considered the record
of the first trial as part of the record of the second trial when the trial court
admitted the testimony and evidence admitted in the first trial “to file in the holes”
for the jury. Additionally, since she tried both cases, the prosecutor for the State
certainly knew of the existence of the expunction order and requested a
modification to which she was not entitled in order to introduce the same evidence
in the second trial as she did in the first. The plain truth is that the prosecution
18
failed to allege the offense of aggravated kidnapping in the first case as at least a
second count. Appellant admitted that he used a knife to force the complainant into
her car and drive her against her will to a place of his choosing so the Judge in the
first trial without having to consider the aggravated sexual assault circumstances of
which it had a doubt could have found Appellant guilty of aggravated kidnapping
as it was certainly a lesser included offense of the aggravated sexual assault charge
of which he was found not guilty.
Prayer
Appellant prays that the Court of Appeals set aside the convictions as to
Counts One of Aggravated Kidnapping, and Count Two, Aggravated Assault and
render judgement that the case should be dismissed or find that the Appellant
court did not have jurisdiction over the double jeopardy issues, order the case
abated and have a habeas corpus hearing to develop a sufficient record to allow the
Court of Appeals to determine whether a double jeopardy issue is apparent on the
fact of the record so that it can rule based on applicable law as set out herein.
Additionally, Appellant requests that the conviction for aggravated assault be
dismissed on the basis that it is a violation of Appellant’s due process rights under
the Texas and U.S. constitutions providing protections against a second
prosecution for the same offense after a conviction.
19
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Allen C. Lee
Attorney for Appellant
SBN: 12110000
810 Oriole Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78418
Ph: 361-353-4884
Fax: 361-353-4482
Email: allen@allencleelawfirm.com
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Allen C. Lee certify that my computer program indicates that are 25 pages
containing a word count of 3733 in this brief.
__________________________
Allen C. Lee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Allen C. Lee certify that on October 28, 2016, a true and correct copy of
Appellant’s Brief was served by email, efile, fax, mailed or Hand Delivered to
Douglas Norman, Assistant District Attorney at the District Attorney’s Office, 901
Leopard, Rm 206 ph: 361-888-0410 and fax. 361-888-0700.
_________________________
Allen C. Lee
20
21
Envelope Details
Print this page
Envelope 21422745
Case Information
Location Court Of Criminal Appeals
Date Filed 12/20/2017 11:55:29 PM
Case Number
Case Description
Assigned to Judge
Attorney Allen Lee
Firm Name Allen Curtis Lee
Filed By Allen Lee
Filer Type Not Applicable
Fees
Convenience Fee $0.00
Total Court Case Fees $0.00
Total Court Party Fees $0.00
Total Court Filing Fees $0.00
Total Court Service Fees $0.00
Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00
Total Service Tax Fees $0.00
Total Provider Service Fees $0.00
Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00
Grand Total $0.00
Payment
Account Name ALLEN C. LEE
Transaction Amount $0.00
Transaction Response
Transaction ID 33162925
Order #
Petition for Discretionary Review
Filing Type EFile
Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review
Filing Description Petition for Discretionary Review
Reference Number State for Appointed Cr. Appeal
Comments Please file the petition in cause no: PD-1301-17
Courtesy Copies allen@allencleelawfirm.com
Status Rejected
Fees
Court Fee $0.00
Service Fee $0.00
Rejection Information
Rejection Time Rejection Comment
Reason
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=34dc139c-8933-44e1-9e21-2777810b1795[12/21/2017 1:48:49 PM]
Envelope Details
Your petition does contain the signature of the party’s representative [Rule
9.1(a)&(c)(1)or(2)]. The petition for discretionary review does not contain the
12/21/2017
identity of Judge, Parties and Counsel in compliance with[Rule 68.4(a)]; it lacks the
Other 01:43:13
identity of the trial court judge. The petition for discretionary review does not contain
PM
a copy of the court of appeals opinion [Rule 68.4(j)]. You have ten days to tender a
corrected petition for discretionary review.
Documents
McClendon, Andrew Application for Review Ct Crim. App. texas
Lead Document [Original]
FINAL SIGNED.pdf
Appendix
Filing Type EFile
Filing Code Appendix
Appendix to Petition for Review of Andrew Mc
Filing Description
Clendon
Reference Number Nueces County appeal from judgmen of 13th cca
Please attach to Petition for Review case no: PD-
Comments
1301-17
Courtesy Copies allen @ allencleelawfirm.com
Status Rejected
Fees
Court Fee $0.00
Service Fee $0.00
Rejection Information
Rejection Time Rejection Comment
Reason
12/21/2017 No rejection comment was provided. Please contact the court into which
Other
01:43:13 PM you are filing for more information.
Documents
Lead Document McClendon. pdf Petition for Review Appendix Final signed.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon Index to appendix ex. 2.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon Judgment of conviction Index to appendix ex.3.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon Jury Charge Index to appendix ex 4.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon exhibits secnd case appendix Index ex. 5.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon exhibits secnd case appendix Index ex. 6.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon. judgement in lst case appendix Index ex. 7.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon.Expunction order lst case appendix Index ex.8.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon. Constitutional statutes appendix Index ex.9.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon. statutes appendix Index ex.10.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon. Expuncton statutes appendix Index ex.11.pdf [Original]
Attachments McClendon. 13th ct judgmt and opinion Appendix ex. 12.pdf [Original]
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=34dc139c-8933-44e1-9e21-2777810b1795[12/21/2017 1:48:49 PM]
Envelope Details
https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=34dc139c-8933-44e1-9e21-2777810b1795[12/21/2017 1:48:49 PM]