Ex Parte Billy Max Collins

ND . 06-15-DDD56-CR
FILED IN
RECEIVED IN The Court ofAp'peate
The Court of Appeals
COLLINS
Sixth District
§ IN THE 6™ DISTRICT CDUR^ DiStH<*
Pro-Se MAY 1 8 2015
f «AY 18 2015
V. Texarkana, Texas * § OF APPEAL5 T
Debra Autrey, Clerk § Texarkana, Texas
STATE DF TEXAS § texarkanna, Texas Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
MOTION TD ADD 5TATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
TO CURRENTLY FILED APPEAL
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF CDURT;
Comes Now ,Defendant Pro-5e ,(Collins) who humbly requests
that in review of above styled and numbered Appeal NO. 06-15-00056
CR, that a Statement from Defendant (Collins) be considered along
uith currently filed Brief.
Brief was mailed nut on April 16, 2015 by hand delivery to
mailroom personnel at C.T. Terrell Unit after sufficient U.S.
Postage was insured. Brief was dated April 17, 2015.
Pro-Se Defendant (Collins) would ask this Court to consider
Copy of Bill of Cast in Cause NO. 5629-C as additional' evidence
to above mentioned voidable conviction.
I, Billy Max Collins, Applicant would accert the simple
fact that Total Fine and Courtroom Costs could not have been
paid through three days in jail, as stated on Criminal Dockett
Sheet.
In closing of Statement, I would also accert notice to
signature of Tracy Smith, Deputy to Debbie Shirley, Hopkins
1
County Clerk, ha vingii bden duly signed and authenticated. Alleged
Waivers and File Stamps of Mary Attesley are NOT signed by anyone
of proper authority.
This amendment of evidence to be incorporated with Applicant's
Brief as EXHIBIT F_
IN GOD I TRUST,
Billy Max Collins #1BB4B
Retrial for lesser offense. "cusedToes not consent to the^ischarge of the
When a trial on a higher charge ends in a jury.80 '"
mistrial so that defendant can be retried on thi
higher charge, it is not fundamentally unfair for On the other hand, if the jury is discharged
the state to charge and try him for a much lesser without verdict and without accused's consent
offense; -4 this is true whether the lesser offense for a reason legally insufficient and without an
•^
.
' .
is or is not a lesser included offense.*5 Absolute, imperious, overriding, or overruling ne- f^s-
' cessity for iCTHe" discharge is equivalent tp_an-s^
§ 231. Discharge of Jury without Verdict ^cquittal^nH"lnay~Be pleaded as a"bar to a x
A (riul court may, in ihc exercise of its sound discretion,
Subsequent indictment,31 as where the case is
dbcharge 11 jury without the consent of accused when there taken from "the jury for mere matter of conve-
19, Me.—State v. Flick. 495 A.2d 339. Mass.—Commonwealth v. Steward. 483 N.E.2d 1091. 390 Mass. 76.
20. Maw.—Commonwealth v. Steward, 483 N.E.2d 1091, 396 Mass. Ohio—State v. Palmieri. App.. 46 N.E.2d 318. 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 398. 13 0.0.
7b. 517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 Ohio Si. 30, 13 Ohio Op. 526.
N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502 28. U.S.—Oregon v. Kennedy. Or.. 102 S.Cl. 2083, 456 U.S. 667, 72
N.Y.S.2cl l'"2. L.Ed.2d 4it), on lemaiid Slate v. Kennedy, ti57 P.2d 717, 61 Or.App
469, affirmed 060 P.2d 1316, 295 Dr. 2o0—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69
21. Ml ••S.UU r'riel. 5Ui A.2d oil.
S.Cl. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L. Ed. 974. rehearing denied 69 S. Ct. 1152,
22. U.S.—Abdi v. Slule of Georgia. C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500, rehearing 337 U.S. 921, 93 L. Ed. 1730.
denied 749 F 2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871,471 U.S. 1006, U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied 107 S.Cl.
85 L. Ed. 2d 164.
182. 479 U.S. 852, 93 L. Ed. 2d 116.
23. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 38J, 502 Ill —People v. Thomas. 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 ill.2d 344, certiorari denied
N.Y.S.2il 972. Thomas v, Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005. 3 L. Ed. 2d 1034.
24. S.C.—Stale v. Mills. 314 S.E.Id 324. 28 1 S.C. 60. oerlinrart denied NY.—McCabe v. County Court of Bronx County, 199 N.Y.S.2d 247,
Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324, 469 U.S. 930, 83 L. Ed. 2d 261.
24 Misc. 2d 477.
25. S.C—State v. Mills, 114 S.E.2d 324, 281 S.C. 60, certiorari denied 29 US —Wade v. Hunter. Kan., 69 S. Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684. 93 L.Ed.
Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324. 469 U.S. 930, 83 L. Ed. 2d 261. 974, rehearing 69 S. Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L. Ed. 1730.
Applicability of double jeopardy to prosecution for lesser included Blair v. White. C.C.A.Kan.. 24 F.2d 323.
offense see infra § 251.
HI.—People v. Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 lll.2d 344. certiorari denied
26. U.S.—Green v. U.S., App.D.C, 78 S.Cl. 22!. 355 U.S. 184, 2 Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1034.
L.Ed.2d 199.
Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295.
27. U.S.—U.S. v. Crosley, E.D.Pa.. 634 F. Supp. 28, affirmed 787 F.2d
584. Nev.—State v. Helm. 209 P.2d 187, 66 Nev. 286. certiorari denied Helm
v. Slate of Nevada. 70 S.Cl. 794, 339 U.S. 942, 94 L. Ed. 1358.
Conn.—State v. Van Sam, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369.
30. Ky.—Baker v. Commonwealth, 132 S.W.2d 766, 280 Ky. 165.
111.—People v, Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16, 15 Ill. 2d 344, certiorari denied
Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Ct. Ii43, 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1034. 31. U.S.—Comcro v. U.S.. C.C.A.Cal., 48 F.2d 69.
22CJ.S-13
277
fir
'till
•Ml
VW_. UulaJ / ?•
§231 CRIMINAL LAW Pr<"5"
cL- /r&-r
nience.32 fX*? dence to an impartial jury,-" and where a trial
court properly declares a mistrial, the criminal
The cojixts are to determinejii the|r__discretjpn
whether under alljhe circumstances of_each case trial may be terminated before the issue of defen
imperious "or urgent necessity exists.3;t The 130 F. Supp. 198. 41. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington, Ariz., 98 S. Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497,
54 L. Ed. 2d 717.
Cal.—People v. Valenti, 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199.
Ky.—Lillard v. Commonwealth, 267 S.W.2d 712. 42. Colo.—People v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000.
N.J.—State v. Locklear, 108 A.2d 436, 16 N.J. 232. 43. Iowa—State v. Critclli, 24 N.W.2d 113. 237 Iowa 1271.
32. U.S.—U.S. v. Harriman, D.C.N.Y., 130 F. Supp. 198. 44. Cal.—People v. Valenti. 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199.
N.Y.—People v. Colon, 184 N.Y.S.2d 537, 16 Misc. 2d 1061. Ohio—State v. Palmicri, App., 46 N.E.2d 318, 28 Ohio Law. Abs. 398, 13 0.0.
517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 Ohio St. 30, 13 0.0. 526.
33. U.S.—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69 S. Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed
974, rehearing denied 69 S. Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L. Ed. 1730. Ulah—Siaie v. Whitman, 74 P.2d 096. 93 Utah 557.
N.M.—State v. Brooks, 279 P.2d 1048, 59 N.M. 130. 45. U.S.—Himmelfarb v. U.S., C.A.Cal.. 175 F.2d 924. certiorari
denied 70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L. Ed. 527, and Ormoni v. U.S.,
N.Y.—People ex rel. Epling v. De Voe, 136 N.Y.S.2d 650, 284 A.D.
70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L. Ed. 527.
1092, affirmed 130 N.E.2d 616, 309 N.Y. 818.
34. U.S.—Illinois v. Somerville, III., 93 S. Ct. 1066, 410 US. 458. 35 46. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa.. 95 S. Ct. 1013, 420 U.S. 332. 43 LEd.2d
L.Ed.2d 425.
232—Downum v. U.S.. Tex.. 83 S.Cl. 1033, 372 U.S. 734, 10 LEd.2d
100.
35. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502
N.Y.S.2d 972. Mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with
attorneys
36. NY.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77, 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502
N.Y.S.2d 972. Trial judge, who, on his own motion, declared mistrial to enable
government's witnesses lo consult with their own attorneys abused his
37. N.Y.—People v. Colon. 184 N,Y.S.2d 537, 18 Misc. 2d 1061.
discretion in discharging jury and reprosecution of defendant would
Okl—Yarbrough v. Slate, 210 P.2d 375. 90 Okla. Crim. 74. violate double jeopardy provision of Fifth Amendment.
38. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S. Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. U.S.—U.S. v. Jom, Utah. 91 S. Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27 L. Ed. 2d 543
974, rehearing denied 69 S. Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L. Ed. 1730. (per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring and two justices
39. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S. Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. concurring in judgment).
974, rehearing denied 69 S. Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921, 93 L. Ed. 1730.
Prior relationship of judge with victim
Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295.
Disqualification of trial judge based on his prior relationship with
•::a-
40. Me.—State v. Flick, 495 A.2d 339. robbery victim clearly necessitated declaration of mistrial, and subse-
278
§ 229 CRIMINAL LAW 22 C. J. S. %
after the - jury have been impaneled, there is former jeopardy.7
E. MISTRIAL; DISCHARGE OK JURY WITHOUT VERDICT
istrial in General ends of public justice would otherwise be defeat
When a mistrial is declared over defendant's objection, the ed. >• In effect, the manifest necessity test pro
government has the right to retry the defendant only where tects defendant against bad faith conduct by the
there i.4 manifest necessity for the net, or (he ends of public
justice would otherwise be defeated.
judge or prosecutor which results in a mistrial
being declared and gives the prosecution a more
Library References favorable opportunity to convict defendant.12
Criminal Ijaw ©=!&>, 1B4. Manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial ad
LaFave &• Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. 3 § 24.2(b). mits of no precise formulation I3 or mechanical
application," for the high degree of necessity.
Generally, the double jeopardy clause does not mandated by the phrase can be found in a variety
prevent the government from forcing defendant of circumstances;15 accordingly, the degree of
to submit to a second trial where the first trial deference to be accorded the trial judge's deter
ended in a mistrial.8 The practical justification mination of manifest necessity varies with the
for the exception to the "one trial" rule so as to circumstances of each case.16 The strictest scru
permit a retrial of defendant after a mistrial is tiny is applied to the court's determination where
simply that it is fairer to both defendant and the accused claims that the mistrial was intentionally
government.9 However, when a mistrial is de caused by the prosecution.17 At the other end of
clared over defendant's objection, the govern the spectrum, great deference is accorded the
ment has the right to retry defendant only where triaTjudge's conclusion trTaTajnistrial is required
there is manifest necessity for the act,10 or the rJecause of a deadlocked jiiry> Any doubt must.
7. Kan.—Slate v. Rush, 26 P.2d 581, 138 Kan. 465. 11. U.S.—U.S. v. Sanford, Mont., 97 S. Ct. 20, 429 U.S. 14, 50 L.Ed.2d
N.Y.—People ex rel. Sabatina v. Jennings. 177 N.Y.S. 210, 108 Misc. 17. on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v, Dinitz, Fla., 96 S.Cl. 1075,
93, 37 N.Y.Cr. 550. affirmed 185 N.Y.S. 949, 194 A.D. 950. 424 U.S. 600, 47 L. Ed. 2d 267, on remand 538 F.2d 1214, rehearing
denied 542 F.2d 1174, certiorari denied 97 S. Ct. 1133, 429 U.S. 1104,
Tex.—Garza v. State, Cr.App.. 658 S.W.2d 152, certiorari denied Texas 51 L. Ed. 2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Cl. 1013, 420 U.S. 332, 43
v. Garza, 104 S.Cl. 194, 464 U.S. 863, 78 L. Ed. 2d 171. L.Ed.2d 232—U.S. v. Jorn, Utah, 91 S. Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27
8. U.S.—U.S. v. Scotl, Mich., 98 S.Cl. 2187, 437 U.S. 82. 57 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 543 (per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring in
65. on remand 579 F.2d 1013, ceniorari denied 99 S.Cl. 1266, 440 judgment)—Gori v. U.S.. N.Y.. 81 S. Ct. 1523, 367 U.S. 364, 6 L.Ed.
U.S. 929. 59 L. Ed. 2d 486. rehearing denied 99 S. Ct. 226, 439 U.S. 2d 901, rehearing denied 82 S. Ct. 25. 368 U.S. 870. 7 L. Ed. 2d 70.
883, 58 L. Ed. 2d 197—Jcffers v. U.S., Ind., 97 S. Ct. 2207. 432 U.S.
U.S. v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L. Ed. 165.
137. 53 L. Ed. 2d 168, rehearing denied 98 S. Ct. 241, 434 U.S. 880, 54
L. Ed. 2d 164—Lee v. U.S., Ind.. 97 S.Cl. 2141, 432 U.S. 23, 53 L.Ed. U.S. v. Salvador, C.A.Ariz., 740 F.2d 752, certiorari denied 105
2d 80—U.S. v. Taleo, N.Y.. 84 S. Ct. 1587, 377 U.S. 463, 12 L.Ed.2d S.Cl. 978, 469 U.S. 1196, 83 L. Ed. 2d 980.
448.
Mo.—State v. Fiizpatrick, 676 S.W.2d 831.
U.S v Si.^cr. C.A 8(Miiin.j. 785 F.;d 22S. ceniorari Jenioj !U7 N.J.—Siaio •„. Abbaii, 493 A.2d 513, 99 N.J. 416.
S.Ct. 273, 479 U.S. 883, 93 L. Ed. 2d 249—U.S. v. Borokinui, C.A.Va.,
748 F.2d 2J6. 12. Colo.—People v. Schwarlz. 678 P.2d 1000.
Mass.—A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 465 N.£.2d 240, 392 Muss. 52. 13. U.S.—Abdi v. Stale of Georgia, C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500, rehearing
denied 749 F.2d 733. certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006,
9. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S. Ct. 1013. 420 U.S. 332, 43 L.Ed.2d
85 L. Ed. 2d 164.
232.
10. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington. Ariz.. 98 S. Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497. 14. U.S.—Abdi v. Slate of Georgia. C.A.Ga., 744F.2d 1500, rehearing
54 L. Ed. 2d 717—U.S. v. Sanfoid. Mont.. 97 S.Cl. 20. 429 U.S. 14, 50 denied 749 F.2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006,
85 L. Ed. 2d 164.
L.Ed.2d 17, on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v. Diilitz, Fta.. 96 S. Ct.
1075, 424 U.S. 600, 47 L. Ed. 2d 267. on remand 538 F.2d 1214, 15. U.S.—Abdi v. Slateof Georgia, C.A.Ga., 744 F.2d 1500. rehearing
rehearing denied 542 F.2749 F.2d 733, ceniorari denied 105 S. Ct. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006,
U.S. 1104. 51 L. Ed. 2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S. Ct. 1013. 420 85 L. Ed. 2d 164.
U.S. 332. 43 L. Ed. 2d 232.
16. U.S.—U.S. v. Jurvis, C.A.9(Cal.j, 792 F.2d 767. certiorari denied
U.S. v. Perez. 22 U.S. 579. 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L. Ed. 165. 107 S. Ct. 182, 479 U.S. 852, 93 L. Ed. 2d 116—U.S. v. Jaramillo, C.A.
•U.S. v. Weils, C.A.IO(Cola). 790 F.2d 73. Nev., 745 F.2d 1245, certiorari denied 105 S. Ct. 2142, 471 U.S. 1066,
85 L. Ed. 2d 499.
Conn.—State v. Van Sant, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369.
17. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.). 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied
D.C.—U.S. v. Glover. 731 F.2d 41. 235 U.S.App.D.C. 194. 107 S. Ct. 182. 479 U.S..852. 93 L. Ed. 2d 116.
Me.—State v. Frtel, 500 A.2d 631.
18. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied
Nev.—State v. Comicry. 679 P.2d 1266. 100 Nev. 256. 107 S.Cl. 182, 479 U.S. 852. 93 L.£d.2d 116.
276