Criminal Post Conviction Releif from a Void Judgment

[lawteda]

@Omar_Little

Hmmm.

3 judges
3 prosecutors
2 defense attorneys
1 district clerk
12 jurors
various members of local media

…all in cahoots to convict you or your friend.

Must have been a murder case or sexual assault of a minor child to get 99 years. Lucky they didn’t get the death penalty in Texas.

OP give us some details on your case.

Yes Omar Little, it is all true. Cahoots (interesting word)

More details as you suggested.

The defendant’s BEST FRIEND was killed by gang members.
The members intended to kill the defendant as well, however defendant was
not with his friend the night the murder took place. 4 gang members took DEALS
they each got 5 years for pleading guilty and testifying against the defendant and the co defendant who both plead NOT GUILTY and demanded a jury trial. The co defendant was pointed out as the shooter. The defendant was named by the STATE as a “party to the crime”. The gang members testified that the defendant set the murder up. They said that he (the defendant was a gang member as well) and that he called then down to the small town in Texas to either get money from the deceased or beat him up. The gang members stated that the defendant wasn’t there but that he called them to do the JOB. That is how the STATE was able to charge the defendant as a “party to the crime”. The defendant was not a party to the crime. He was best friend of the deceased. He (the defendant had found out that his friend was selling drugs and that these gang members had threatened the deceased because the deceased owed money to the gang members for the drugs. Deceased and defendant met with the gang members a month before murder, and defendant convinced gang members to give deceased at least a month to come up with the money. The gang agreed but told them that the money better be ready at the end of that month or they would both be in trouble.

There is much more but hopefully you get the gist. So obviously the defendant Plead NOT Guilty… The State knew that they had no witness that would put the defendant at the scene of the murder, they could not prove their case that defendant was a party to the murder unless the gang members testified that defendant was involved. It is not easy to try a total of 6 people for a murder and so the state picks and chooses, and they chose the one’s that would take a deal and plead guilty for a deal to testify against the 2 that plead NOT Guilty.

The defendant was offered a DEAL but refused to take a deal He is Innocent. He filed a pre trial motion for severance from the co defendant who also plead not guilty.

A severance would have forced separate trials for the defendant and co defendant. By law the severance should have been granted as the Defendant had NO RECORD of gang crimes or association with any gangs but all the others did thus by law he should have gotten the severance and had his own separate trial. If he had had his own trial, there would be NO EVIDENCE against him His name could not even be mentioned at the trial of the co defendant had he had a severance.

The court by law must rule on the Motion for Severance before the jury trial. They did not, and the defense attorney lied to defendant and stated that the court denied the motion, thus the defendant was tried with co defendant and they were both found guilty and sentenced to 99 years. The defendant BY law is also suppose to be brought before the trial judge before the Jury trial , the defendant the defense attorney and the state prosecutor are all suppose to be there and by law the trial judge must call the defendant’s name, his cause number and ask both the defendant and the State if they are “ready for trial” THIS NEVER happened. This is part of “due Process” However the co defendant did get this announcement and he was present and he and the State announced ready for trial on his case. 2 days later they brought the defendant to be tried with the co defendant.

All of this and much more was discovered after the family finally pulled the trial court transcripts and all of the supporting paperwork and saw what really happened. The Appeals Court was presented with a “false record” by the trial court. so of course they could not see the Fraud, they only look at what the appeal states, and the Appeals attorney did no investigation of the case. The habeas attorney was incompetent. She should have figured all this out but it took the family to pull the records and discover the fraud. I know I have not answered all of your questions, but as you can see the case is very complicated. Unlike what was suggested by another responder, the family is not so stupid to believe that because the Judge did not find in their favor that because now they are filing PRO SE that somehow they are not smart enough to know the truth.

I appreciate your interest in my post.

[lawteda]

@seal_cleaner

Try Findlaw Forums, but prepared to be browbeaten mercilessly.

Thanks Seal Cleaner,

Very good suggestion. I have used that site for many of the cases that we have cited in the Motion to Vacate the Void Judgment. Don’t know why I did not think of it.
Thanks so much.

[Shodan]

@lawteda

All of this and much more was discovered after the family finally pulled the trial court transcripts and all of the supporting paperwork and saw what really happened. The Appeals Court was presented with a “false record” by the trial court. so of course they could not see the Fraud, they only look at what the appeal states, and the Appeals attorney did no investigation of the case. The habeas attorney was incompetent. She should have figured all this out but it took the family to pull the records and discover the fraud.

What evidence did the family see in the court transcripts and other documents that the appeals court did not?

The defendant was named by the STATE as a “party to the crime”. The gang members testified that the defendant set the murder up. They said that he (the defendant was a gang member as well) and that he called then down to the small town in Texas to either get money from the deceased or beat him up. The gang members stated that the defendant wasn’t there but that he called them to do the JOB. That is how the STATE was able to charge the defendant as a “party to the crime”. The defendant was not a party to the crime.

If the circumstances are as you have described them, then yes, he was a party to the crime.

Regards,
Shodan

[Omar_Little]

Is this the next season of Serial?

[Bricker]

@lawteda

He filed a pre trial motion for severance from the co defendant who also plead not guilty.

A severance would have forced separate trials for the defendant and co defendant. By law the severance should have been granted as the Defendant had NO RECORD of gang crimes or association with any gangs but all the others did thus by law he should have gotten the severance and had his own separate trial. If he had had his own trial, there would be NO EVIDENCE against him His name could not even be mentioned at the trial of the co defendant had he had a severance.

The court by law must rule on the Motion for Severance before the jury trial. They did not, and the defense attorney lied to defendant and stated that the court denied the motion, thus the defendant was tried with co defendant and they were both found guilty and sentenced to 99 years.

I’m not licensed to practice law in Texas, but a quick look at Texas Criminal Procedure 36.09 suggests that your understanding of severance requirements is not complete. It looks to me as though the rule is that severance must be granted either at the discretion of trial court, or if there is a previous admissible conviction against one defendant. You seem to be hanging your hat on the latter, when you say that the other defendants had a record of gang crimes. But the question is not whether the other defendants had such a record, but rather whether that record was admissible against them. As a general rule, prior bad acts are not admissible as evidence that the accused acted in conformity therewith.

Prior convictions are sometimes admissible as relevant to the credibility of a defendant who testifies in his own defense, but are often limited to bare facts such as “having a previous felony conviction,” as opposed to revealing details about the specific prior crimes.

[Shodan]

If he had had his own trial, there would be NO EVIDENCE against him

I don’t understand why this might be true. Wouldn’t the gang members who pleaded testify against him?

The court by law must rule on the Motion for Severance before the jury trial. They did not, and the defense attorney lied to defendant and stated that the court denied the motion.

Why would the defense attorney do this? And how do you know the court did not rule on the motion?

Regards,
Shodan

[Leaper]

And all this seems like a lot of trouble for one defendant, especially when you’re getting twelve basically random civilians involved. Why?

[April_R]

@April_R

I’m just curious as to what crime will get you 99 years? How is said convicted person related to you? Why is it worth it to you to pursue an overturn of his conviction? Why do you have such a personal stake in this case?

Still wondering about the last 3 questions

[Bricker]

@Shodan

I don’t understand why this might be true. Wouldn’t the gang members who pleaded testify against him?

I’m guessing the OP is talking about the problems inherent in joint trials when evidence inculpates one defendant but not others.

You and I are arrested for mopery. The prosecution wants a joint trial, and at that trial, they want to introduce evidence to the jury that after I was arrested and Mirandized, I told the officer, “Yes, we both did it, but it was all Shodan’s idea.” The prosecution also wants to introduce evidence of my prior felony convictions for mopery, which they claim shows a lack of mistake or a common plan with respect to this current crime.

You seek severance of the trial. You did not confess to the police and have no prior convictions. Your argument is, in effect, “Look, if the jury hears about Bricker’s confession and his prior convictions, they’re much more likely to think he’s guilty, and since I’m being tried with him, that means they’re much more like to think I’m guilty, too. In effect, his confession and prior convictions will work against me.”

If the trials were separate, sure, the prosecution could call me to testify against you. But then my prior convictions work in your favor, since you’ll be trying to discredit me.

[Shodan]

Thanks for the information, as usual.

I am still wondering how this -

The court by law must rule on the Motion for Severance before the jury trial. They did not, and the defense attorney lied to defendant and stated that the court denied the motion.

is possible, and how the appellate court failed to notice that no ruling had been made.

I suspect this -

The defendant BY law is also suppose to be brought before the trial judge before the Jury trial , the defendant the defense attorney and the state prosecutor are all suppose to be there and by law the trial judge must call the defendant’s name, his cause number and ask both the defendant and the State if they are “ready for trial” THIS NEVER happened. This is part of “due Process”

is based on the sort of legal reasoning running coach mentions.

Still not clear on how so many people committed fraud, and the appellate court did not notice.

Regards,
Shodan

[Leaper]

And come to think of it, if the court and defense lawyer wanted the defendant convicted, why refuse to rule on severence and have the lawyer lie? Why not just straight out deny the motion and be done with it?

[Bricker]

@Shodan

Thanks for the information, as usual.

I am still wondering how this -

The court by law must rule on the Motion for Severance before the jury trial. They did not, and the defense attorney lied to defendant and stated that the court denied the motion.

is possible, and how the appellate court failed to notice that no ruling had been made.

If I had to guess, and if my guessing excludes options such as the story is fabricated or that the OP lacks the understanding of the legal system necessary to accurately report events as they happened, I’d opine that sometimes trial courts do not generate a written ruling in response to every single motion. While it’s true that “a court speaks through its orders,” in this instance the fact that a joint trial was held means that the trial court did deny the motion for severance, even if it failed to memorialize its decision in written form.

Still not clear on how so many people committed fraud, and the appellate court did not notice.

Some people just have really really really bad luck.

Or, much more likely, the OP lacks the understanding of the legal system necessary to accurately report events as they happened.

[Shodan]

@Bricker

I’d opine that sometimes trial courts do not generate a written ruling in response to every single motion. While it’s true that “a court speaks through its orders,” in this instance the fact that a joint trial was held means that the trial court did deny the motion for severance, even if it failed to memorialize its decision in written form.

That makes sense, thanks.

I also wonder about this part -

The defendant BY law is also suppose to be brought before the trial judge before the Jury trial , the defendant the defense attorney and the state prosecutor are all suppose to be there and by law the trial judge must call the defendant’s name, his cause number and ask both the defendant and the State if they are “ready for trial” THIS NEVER happened. This is part of “due Process” However the co defendant did get this announcement and he was present and he and the State announced ready for trial on his case. 2 days later they brought the defendant to be tried with the co defendant.

While I agree that this may be sort of the “why I don’t have to pay taxes” school of legal thought, I wonder if a defendent could be brought into a trial two days after it started.

Of course it might be that the judge said something in response to the motion to sever like “Apart from this, are you ready for trial” to the defense attorney. To which the defense said “Yes, we are, apart from that” and so the judge said “Motion denied. We have already started the trial - have the jail bring your client in and we will proceed.” Or maybe they were still in voir dire or some part of the trial considered preliminary.

Or, much more likely, the OP lacks the understanding of the legal system necessary to accurately report events as they happened.

Most likely of all.

I could never be a defense lawyer. Every time I lost a case, I would be afraid the defendent’s mother/girlfriend would react like this.

Thanks again for your expertise.

Regards,
Shodan

[Loach]

Part of the problem is the OP keeps throwing around the word fraud. It has a specific legal meaning. I don’t think the OP understands it and seems to be using it for everything from mistakes to official misconduct.

[Shodan]

My impression is that she meant official and deceptive misconduct. But I suppose we will never know.

Regards,
Shodan

[Saint_Cad]

I think the fraud on the court was that the Judge did not recognize the defendant as a Freeman of the Soil or Sovereign Citizen or mistakenly convicted the person D. Fendant and not the entity D. Fendant.