|
MEMBERS ONLY AREA
In order to read these files, members must have a copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Members may submit motions or briefs to be uploaded to this area for public use. Only email submissions to the administrator will be accepted, and must be in electronic form in either Microsoft Word or WordPerfect format. In order to protect the integrity of the original author, submitted documents will be scanned/converted to Acrobat format so they may not be altered from the original form. However, they may be downloaded, used and freely modified after download.
By submitting material for upload to this page our members acknowledge they are giving permission for other members to download and use the material on this page. However, PCDLA does not make any representations about the veracity or currency of any citation contained in any brief or motion.
Briefs
Bonner Appeal Brief Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN FAILING TO SUSTAIN APPELLANT'S MOTION TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE INDICTMENT AS THE INDICTMENT IN QUESTION DOES NOT ALLEGE FACTS WHICH SERVE TO TOLL THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND THUS, THE PROSECUTION OF THE OFFENSE IS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS AND THE TRIAL COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CAUSE.
Brackens Appeal Brief Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005
ISSUE ONE: Was the inclusion of the general instruction on extraneous offense, permitting the jury to consider the extraneous offenses for any purpose whatsoever if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, error and if so, was it so egregious so as to deprive Appellant of a fair and impartial trial?
ISSUE TWO: Was the prosecutor’s argument outside the record and if so, did this error deprive Appellant of his substantial right to a fair and impartial trial?
ISSUE THREE: Since the error was not objected to by Appellant, did the erroneous charge result in such egregious harm which deprived Appellant of a fair and impartial trial?
Carbajal Appeal Brief Submitted by Maxwell Peck, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT DENIED APPELLANT HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DURING VOIR DIRE BY REFUSING TO COMPEL THE STATE TO DISCLOSE THE RESULTS OF THE VENIRE PANEL’S CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECK (CCH)?
Cartier Petition For Discretionary Review Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005
ISSUE ONE: Was the petitioner denied due process of law under the federal constitution when the trial court refused to include his mitigation instruction within the punishment charge?
ISSUE TWO: Is a defendant denied due process of law under the federal constitution when his request for a mitigation instruction applicable to a special issue, on which he carries a burden of proof, is disallowed while current law permits the jury to consider other evidence for purposes of aggravating punishment?
Castillo Appeal Brief Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005
ISSUES PRESENTED: Is the evidence legally or factually sufficient under Tex. Fam. Code § 161.001(1)(D) ["Environmental Endangerment"] and § 161.001(1)(E) ["Endangerment Through Course of Conduct"] to support the judgment terminating Appellant’s parental rights?
Chacon Appeal Brief Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: Was Appellant's guilty plea rendered involuntary as a result of the trial court's failure to admonish completely on the correct punishment range?
Davis Writ of Cert Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
ISSUE PRESENTED: In affirming Petitioner’s conviction for capital murder and resulting sentence of death on direct appeal, did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals unconstitutionally substitute an improper "beyond a reasonable doubt" harmless error rule, derived from the seminal case of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 19 (1967), when it utilized the standard of review found in Anderson v. Nelson, 390 U.S. 523 (1968) which suggests that before concluding whether federal constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the reviewing court must, inter alia, find evidence in the record which supports an acquittal?
Dickson Brief Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: Did the trial court commit reversible error in failing to grant Appellant’s Motion For New Trial based on Juror Henderson’s withholding material, probative information during he voir dire process, thus depriving Appellant of his right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections 10 and 19 of Article I of the Texas Constitution?
ISSUE TWO: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to grant Appellant’s Motion For New Trial based on ex-juror Carpenter’s contact with jurors during Appellant’s trial, thus depriving Appellant of his right to a fair trial under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Sections 10 and 19 of the Texas Constitution?
ISSUE THREE: Does Art. 37.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure fail to provide a method by which the State of Texas determines the deathworthiness of a capital defendant, thereby eliminating consistency in the decision to seek death and weakening the degree of accuracy required in imposing death, in contravention of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?
ISSUE FOUR: Did the trial court commit reversible error in sustaining the State’s objection to Appellant’s question to venireperson Robinson regarding his ability to consider mitigating evidence in that the prosecutor’s objection and the trial court’s sustaining of the objection served to limit impermissibly the venireperson’s discretion in evaluating what he might consider to be mitigating evidence?
ISSUE FIVE: Was Appellant denied effective assistance of counsel during the voir dire stage of his trial through his lawyers’ total failure to object and prevent this improper commitment of jurors to egregious misstatements of the law and forbidden topics of the law?
Gonzales Preface Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
Gonzales Brief
ISSUE ONE: Is the evidence factually insufficient to support the jury’s implied finding that Appellant’s use of deadly force against the complainant was not justified?
Maxwell Appeal Brief Submitted by Maxwell Peck, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURTS FAILURE TO ADMONISH APPELLANT OF THE RANGE OF PUNISHMENT CAUSED APPELLANTS PLEA TO BE ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANTS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE TWO: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED NON-CONSTITUTIONAL HARMFUL ERROR BY FAILING TO ADMONISH APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 26.13?
ISSUE THREE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURTS FAILURE TO ADMONISH APPELLANT OF THE POSSIBLE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA CAUSED APPELLANTS PLEA TO BE ENTERED IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANTS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE FOUR: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED NON-CONSTITUTIONAL HARMFUL ERROR BY FAILING TO ADMONISH APPELLANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 26.13?
ISSUE FIVE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CAUSED EGREGIOUS HARM BY FAILING TO DEFINE "DEADLY WEAPON" IN THE CHARGE TO THE JURY IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 36.14?
ISSUE SIX: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED EGREGIOUS HARM BY FAILING TO CHARGE THE JURY ON THE BASIS OF APPELLANTS USE OF A KNIFE?
May Brief Part One Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
May Brief Part Two
ISSUE ONE: Did the trial court error in admitting proof of Appellants statements during plea negotiations affect his substantial rights, thus necessitating reversal and remand for new sentencing?
May PDR Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: The court of appeals erred in concluding that Texas Rule of Evidence 410(4), rendering inadmissible statements made by the defendant in the course of plea discussions, only applies in cases in which those discussions did not result in a consummated plea bargain.
McDonald Appeal Brief Submitted by Maxwell Peck, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: Whether the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to support Appellant's conviction?
ISSUE TWO: Whether the evidence is factually insufficient to support Appellant's conviction?
McKenzie Appeal Brief Submitted by Maxwell Peck, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED CONSTITUTIONAL HARMFUL ERROR BY ADMITTING THE DRUG LAB REPORT IN VIOLATION OF THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE?
ISSUE ONE: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY ADMITTING THE DRUG LAB REPORT AS A BUSINESS RECORD OVER DEFENSE COUNSEL'S HEARSAY OBJECTION?
ISSUE TWO: WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT APPELLANT'S PROBATION REVOCATION?
Stevens Appeal Brief (5th Cir.) Submitted by Warren Clark, September 2005.
ISSUE ONE
Relevant Conduct
The trial court erred in sustaining the prosecutors objection to the pre-sentence report, originally filed in co-defendant Jacksons case and ordered adopted and made part pf the record in Appellants pre-sentence report, on relevant conduct under U.S.C.G. Sec. 1B1.3(a)(2).
A. The trial courts recognition and use of Appellants relevant conduct as an alternative method of sentencing is not permitted under existing law.
B. The trial courts finding that the dollar loss pertaining to the count of conviction did not fully capture the harm and seriousness of Appellants conduct necessarily involved the trial courts consideration of relevant conduct in order to enhance the sentence and thus the trial court did indirectly what it stated on the record it was prohibited from doing directly, to wit: calculating relevant conduct to engage in an upward departure,
ISSUE TWO
Upward Departure
The trial court abused its discretion in assessing an upward departure from the guideline level as an alternative basis for the sentence imposed on Appellant.
A. The district court failed to identify aggravating factors not adequately taken into account by the guidelines.
B. The district court failed to identify adequately on the record those aggravating factor which it took into account to trigger the upward departure.
C. The upward departure itself was unreasonable.
Motions
| 
