1986 September Docket Call

8/11/2019 1986 September Docket Call

1/36

eptember

986

DOCI(ET CALL

A MONTHLY PUBLIC TION Of H RRIS COUNTY CRIMIN L L WYERS ASSOCIATION

"VERITA5))


2/36

(ditor

A ~ l e 7 C. IsbeU

Production

DOCKET

CALL

Is published

monthly by

the Harris

County

Criminal Lawyers

A s s o ~ t a t l o n a non-profit

tax exempt professional

A s s o ~ l . t l o n

of ~ r l m l n a l

defense lawyers.

ADVERTISING RATES:

Full Page. $200.

i

Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

100.

t P.ge 50.

DISTRIBUTION: 500 ~ o p l e s

per

month.

All a r t J ~ J . s

and other editorIal ~ o n -

trlbutlons should be sent

to HCCLA, P.O.

Box

22773.

Houston 77027 or brought

to the

A s s ~ J a t l o n

o f f l ~ e

l o ~ . t e d at

705 Haln

St

Suite 400, Houston. Texes.

TELEPHONE:

(713)227-2404.

DEADLINE FOR

MATERIAL

TO

BE PUBLISHED IN OCTOBER

IS SEPTEMBER 30, 1986.

Hoard

of Directors

1986-87

Preli'e.t

candel.ario El.izondo

'sid

t [Im

AZZen C IsbeZZ

Vice

PHside.t

Fel.ix

Cantu

Secreta

G. Mac Seerest

THIS.,er

Mary

Moore

Claair.a.

Randy MeDonal d

Roger Bridgwat4r

WaUer

Boyd

Mary

E Conn

Benjamin Durant

M i o h a e ~

Essrnyel'

an

WoodJ.Ja;rd

Fo:J:

Ruben

Gue1'Z"i l1'O

"im

La }ine

Harry

Loftus,

1.'.

Ga:r>1 and McInnis

Dal)id Mitcham

Will.

Outl,Q1J

Robert Pel,ton

Richard Trevathan

Gary Trichter

Kristine C.

Wo U1y

Septemher

1986

CONTNTS

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK

BY CANDELARIO

ELIZONDO

. . . . . .

3-4

LETTERS . . . . . . . .

, . . , , , , . . , , 5

HEARSAY

BY ALLEN C. ISBELL,

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

ON

GETTING

CLIENTS

BY

JIM

SKELTON. . I 7-8

BECOMING THE

TRUSTED LAWYER

BY ELIZABETH

B.

KNIGHT.....

9

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS

BY HENRY L.

BURKHOLDER

III

&

CATHERINE

GREENE

BURNETT .

SD

1-13

MEMBERSHIP

DIRECTORy

. . . . .

SD14-16

INFORMATION

ON GRAND JURIES

BY RONN

I E

HARR

I

SON. . .

,

. . .

, , , , 12

CRIME CONTROL BAIL AGENT/

JAIL REDUCTION

PROGRAM

BY GERALD MONKS,. . I

13

THE CHAIRMAN SPEAKS

BY RANDY MC

DONALD"

. . . . . .

,

16

UARRI8

COUNTY CRIMINAL LAWYRS

ASSOCIATION

Past Presidents

1971-1985

J.

Anthony Fz>i:Z ou :c 1972-1973

Stuart

Kinard

1973-1974

George

Luquette

1974-1975

Marvin

O.

Teague

1975-1976

Diok DeGue1'in

1976-1977

W.B. Bennis

H o u s e ~

Jr.

1977-1978

David Bires

1978-1979

Woody Densen

1979-1980

will Gray

1980-1981

EilMJard Mallett

1981-1982

Carolyn Ga1'aia

1982-1983

Jaak B. Zimmermann

1983-1984

CZyde wil

Harne

1984-1985

Robert

PeZton

1985-1986


3/36

From the President s esk

y candeZario Zizondo

Our new Adminis t ra t ion of f i c i a l l y began July I I ,

1986.

The

monthly Directors meeting was held

and several i ssues

were

discu-

ssed.

One of

these i ssues was

Impact Courts . Impact

Court is

another name for Annex Court . Our Board voted to s tudy

whether

we

could offe r any

input

concerning

Impact Courts . The Board of

Directors

voted

unanimously

to

i s sue

a

s ta tement

tha t

we

are

s t rongly against

Impact

Courts , as

they

ex i s ted

in

the pas t .

Impact

or Annex

Courts

have,

in

the

pas t ,

t r i e d the

o ldes t j a i l

cases on one par t i cu la r Cour t s docket . The

Judges

hearing these

lawsui ts

are

r e t i r ed Judges (any person who was a Judge four or

more years) from any county

in Texas. Complaints

made agains t

Annex

Courts in the pas t , were t ha t the Defendant was depr ived o f

due process

of

law and

t h a t Judges (who

are

not

accountable to

the c i t izens of

Harr is County,

Texas) were an extension

of

the

Prosecut ion .

We

were

advised

t ha t

Harr is

County wi l l have Annex

Courts one way or the othe r , the only i ssue

i s

do we as an

organizat ion

want

to

condemn

them (and hope Commissioner 's

Court

wil l not fund them), or do we want to have some

input

on the

guidel ines

creat ing

Impact

Courts ,

i . e .

defendant

being al lowed

peremptory

s t r ikes

on a

Visi t ing Judge.

I t

appears as i we wi l l

have a t l eas t

one

impact

court

t ha t wi l l cease to

ex i s t

March 31,

1986. At tha t t ime Commissioners Court

wi l l

s tudy the proposal

and

see

i f it

in fac t i s making

an Impact

on

the Harr is

County

Ja i l .

Another i s sue discussed a t the

meeting

was the Fee Schedule

for Court Appointed Lawyers. As you know

the Board

of Judges

passed mandatory guidel ines for fees to be paid Court

Appointed

Lawyers. There have been many complaints t h a t the fees paid

under

the

present schedule

are too low,

when,

of

course , the

fees

paid to

Fulbr ight

Jaworski , e tc .

for

doing t o l l road work

are

$150.00+ an hour.

However,

we

are

threatened with a Publ ic

Defender System s ince

fees

paid to Court

Appointed

Lawyers

in

1985

to ta l led nine

mil l ion

dol l a r s

( the D.A. s annual budget i s

twelve

mill ion do l l a rs ) .

Some Judges say

we can have

a Publ ic

Defender System for l e s s than nine

mil l ion

do l la r s .

Saving

Harris

County money i s

the

j u s t i f i ca t ion

for the

low t r i a l and

appel la te

fees paid to Court Appointed counsel .

One must

keep

in

mind other

factors

in evaluat ing mandatory fees - a Publ ic

Defen

der System

could not poss ib ly

handle a l l

ind igen t

cases . Co

defendants and cap i ta l murder cases would requ i re Court Appoin

ted

counsel .

The same

would apply

in co n f l i c t

of

i n t e r e s t

pro-

blems, such

as Co-defendants.

Also

the cos t

of

of f ice space to

house

a Publ ic Defender System

must be

evaluated and s tud ied .

Only af te r studying a l l the pros and cons of the present

system

of

Appointing

Lawyers compared

with

the

f e a s i b i l i t y

of

a

Publ ic

Defender System

can

a t rue

and

correc t

evaluat ion be conducted.

There

are

many arguments pro

and

con Annex

Court

and the Fee

Schedule. Please l e t me know how you feel about e i t h e r

of

these

two (2) proposals .

QU RY

Ostens ibly the

reasons

for

the

mandatory

fee

schedule

i s

to

save

money

for

the c i t i z en s

of Harr is

County

- How much wil l

an

Impact

Court

System cost

the c i t i z en of Harr is

County?

3


4/36

At

the

l as t meeting I also assigned committee

chairperson

to

the

various

standing committees of

Harris County

Criminal

Lawyers

Association, they are:

G.

Luncheon

A. Audit &

Budget

~

1 o Q r e Chairperson

g ~ j . 1 l i a m s Chairperson

Mary Conn

Ben

Durant

H. Membership

b ~ - 1 s b e l l Chairperson

B.

CLE

Mike Essmyer

Ken Sparks

Chairperson

Walter Boyd

Mac

Secrest

Rick

Trevathan

I Public

Relations &Speakers

Mike

Charlton

B Q s ~ j Q g ~ ~ a t e r Chairperson

Dav id Mitcham

C.

Judicial

Liason

Harry

Loftus

Rick Trevathan, Chairperson

Garland McGinnis

J .

public Responsibi li ty - Amicus

Harry

Loftus

Jim Lsvine, Chairperson

Mac

Secrest

D.

Law

Enforcement

Liason

Krist ine

Woldy

G a r ~ i ~ b t e r Chairperson

Harry Burkholder

Dav

id

Mitcham

Ben

Durant

K. Newsletter &

Pub. Editor

Allen Isbel l ,

Editor

E. Lawyer

Referral

Robert

Pelton,

General

Manager

Mike Essmyer,

Chairperson

Garland McGinnis

Mary Conn

Harry Burkholder

Garland

McGinnis

Cathy Burnett

Gary Trichter

Gary Trichter

walter

M. Boyd

F.

Legislative

Carolyn Garcia

~ n Fox,

Chairperson

Will Outlaw

L Br ief Bank

Kristine Woldy

~ ~ ~ ~

Chairperson

Mike Charlton

Jim Dougherty

Jan Fox

I f any

of you want

to

participate in

any of

the committees

please feel

free

to

contact the chairperson, I am sure that

he

or

she

will

appreciate your help.

I would also l ike

to

inform you that

we

had an

excel lent

DWI

Seminar in July. I t was a

record turnout,

over 150 Lawyers

attended. I t s good

to

know that our organization has tha t many

Lawyers

who want to be t te r themselves.

4


5/36

I

Letters

Dear

Edi tor :

disagree with your posi t ion tha t "Impact

Courts"

would not be of any

grea t

benef i t in

reducing the

overcrowded j a i l populat ion in

Harris

County.

In

your

ed i to r ia l ,

you

s ta ted

tha t

i f

an Impact Court t r ies

two

cases a

week,

the j a i l

popula t ion

may

be

reduced

by one

hundred

people

over

a

y ea r ' s t ime". That i s

simply

not

correc t because

the ava i l ab i l i t y of

a jury t r i a l

to

l i t igan ts

causes

a subs tan t i a l

number of

cases to plead-out

or

be

dismissed.

Dur ing par t of the t ime I

served

as a

Vis i t ing Sta te Dist r ic t Judge,

I

was ass igned

to

one

of

the Old

annex cour t s for

approx

imately s ix months.

I

a l so had the opportuni ty

to

preside

over

most

of

the

other

c r

iminal

d i s t r i c t cour t s

in Harr i s

County,

and had t he

exper ience of deal ing with each

cour t ' s

dockect.

Because of

the ava i l ab i l i t y

of

t he

annex courts to hear jury t r i a l s ,

a

l a rge

number

of cases were disposed of by

the

regular

d i s t r i c t

cour ts because

the

annex

cour t s

were

avai lable for assignment

of cases

to

t r i a l .

The same thing

i s

t rue

on

the c iv i l docket

in Harris County. Most c iv i l cases are not

se t t l ed un t i l they are se t for t r i a l . Because

of

the

tremendous

volume

of cases

each

d i s t r i c t

court

in

Harris county

must handle,

d i s t r i c t

judges probably spend more t ime deal ing

with

the i r

dockets

and motion

hear ings

than

they do

t rying jury

t r i a l s .

In

my

opinion ,

when

new

courts are created,

the

d i s t r i c t judges

of

Harris County, under

the leadership of

our

Administrat ive Judge, should crea te some

t r i a l

courts tha t

would

be set-up so le ly to hear jury

t r i a l s . Again,

i t s the ava i l ab i l i t y of

a

jury

t r i a l

se t t ing

tha t has the grea tes t "impact" on

moving

cases ,

r a ther

than

j us t

looking

a t

the

number of jury

t r i a l s

tha t a cour t hears .

Van

Stoval l

Dear Edi tor :

Please note the Profess iona l Bai l Agents

oppose

the

impact cour ts

as we have

opposed the

publ ic defender system and appointed magis t ra te

cour t s .

We

oppose.

a l l

inef fec t ive

criminal

jus t ice systems tha t are detr imenta l to the

publ ic in te res t .

Enclosed i s

a

copy of the j a i l reduct ion

plan which

we have

proposed, which

I bel ieve

should

be endorsed

en thus ias t i ca l ly by your

associa t ion and taxpayers ' organizat ions.

Our

.7

fug i t ive r a t e

wil l

make it

work.

I t i s an

a l t r u i s t i c

at tempt

on our

par t tha t o f fe rs

littl

chance of

f inancia l ga in . This

plan

wil l

reduce the j a i l populat ion by 500, with

a

savings

of

$6

mil l ion

per

year

to

the

county.

Empirical re sea rch shows only

1,843

people

are

in

j a i l

who can be bonded out , not 2,900 as

indicated

by

the county

computer.

1,100 are on

bonds from $2,000

to

$29,000.

These

could be

reduced and

cont ro l led

properly

by

our

people.

I f the

defer red payment of f ine appearance

bond

was used,

at torneys

could get t he i r

fees

and the

defendant could more

eas i ly

pay

the

f ine . Please recognize our

plan i s

designed to

guarantee no one i s in j a i l over 24 hours on

a

f ine

only .

The use

of

parole

bonds and

probation

bonds could

fu r ther reduce

j a i l

populat ion

and

cos t

to

the taxpayer .

I have supported your organizat ion as

evidenced by

my two

sons '

membership,

and

one

to

join shor t ly .

y suppport

has

not

been

j us t

rhe to r ic .

You

can depend upon me.

Gerald

P. Monks

Professional

Bai l Agents of

Houston

LBt'S HBar

From You

We want

to hear

from you

Please

send us your

ideas

or comments regard

ing i ssues of in teres t to the criminal

defense

pract ioner

and please l e t us

know changes

in

address

and telephone.

We

welcome

your par t ic ipa t ionl

5


6/36

e rs y

y

l len

C

Isbell

HCCLA

members featured

a t

the

1986

Advanced

Criminal

Law Seminar

included, Edward

Hallet

Course

Director) ,

Cather ine G Burnet t

Enhancements), Gary Tr ich ter D.W.I . ) , David

Bires Child Abuse), and Jack Zimmermann

Juveni le

Law).

Jay

Burnett was a worthy

subs t i tu te

for

Jan

Fox. Her

paper i s excel lent ;

maybe

next

year, Jan ' s

t r i a l

schedule wil l

allow her

to present the

paper

personal ly .

Fur ther

evidence tha t

HCCLA

has the

most

outs tanding and knowledgeable

cr iminal

defense

lawyers

in the en t i re s ta te . Membership in

HCCLA

gives

a lawyer the opportuni ty to know

and

learn from these people.

A few

very

few) of

the

loca l cr iminal

judges

were

seen

at tending the

Advanced

Criminal Law Seminao

cont ras t t ha t

with

the

Family Courts where almost every

judge ( i f

not

ev e ry o n e ) attended the

Advanced

Family Law

Seminar.

With

th i s issue, a new regular column wil l

appear in

Docket

Call writ ten by

Randall

A

McDonald, Chairman of

the

Board of

Directors .

Randy and I were co-counsel

for

s ix weeks

you

get

to know another lawyer pret ty

well

in tha t

time)

I t

was

a

rea l

pleasure , and I

look

forward

to hi s monthly

musings. His wife, J i l l ,

is doing a credible job ref ining his

personal i ty , but Prez

Candy

says she

st ll

has

her

work

cut

out

for her . Also, Mary Conn is

s ta r t ing

a new fea ture for

Docket

Cal l . She

wil l be spotl ight ing a lawyer whose resu l t

during

the month

i s t ru ly

outstanding.

Contact

her with your

nominations.

State

Representat ive

and HCCLA

member

Debra Danburg does

not

keep her bi r thdays a

se c r e t . . . .

her annual

bir thday

party/cam ?aign

fundra iser i s September 25, 1986. For

more

information, ca l l Barbara Parro t t 528-6719.

The

expected

crowd

can

best

be

descr ibed

as

ec lec t i c

Bob Wicoff got a r ever sa l out

of

the 1s t

Court of Appeals

Mike

Char l ton and Charles F.

Baird

got another one reversed

out

of the

14th

Court

of

Appeals.

Dayna

did

not even help

Charles on th i s onel

According to Houston Post , Randy McDonald

has a t t a ined

a

high l evel

of competence

as

a

t r a f f i c t i cke t spec i a l i s t . Congratula t ions.

Big

deal planned

for

Judge Bi l l

Ragan a t

the

Cat t l e

Guard, 2800 Miliam) Saturday,

October

4th

from

6:00

P.M.

Music

by

Texas

Throw

Down

Band.

Everyone inv i ted . Admission free

but donat ions not

refused) .

Walter

Boyd

has been

qui te i l l .

Hearsay

hopes he

gets bet te r

soon,

so

t can

repor t his

fea t s

and

foibles .

I t

is not r ight to poke fun

a t an ll person.

Get well soon, Walter.

-

f rn

U

IF

Y UR

CHECK

IS

IN THE

M I L ~

PLEASE DISREGARD

THIS

NOTICE


7/36

y im

k lton

ETTINC CLIENTS

Years ago

there

was a cowboy

movie

s t a r

named

Lash

LaRue.

He

was

famous

for

having

a Brooklyn accent and using a bul lwhi t

agains t the bad

guys.

When people

began

to develop be t te r

tas te ,

Lash LaRue went

by the

wayside or a t

l e a s t

his movies

went

by

the

wayside.

LaRue a l so

developed

the

love

of

booze

and to support hi s habi t

he h i t

the road, going

from one

small

town

to the other giving demonstrations with his

t rus ty bullwhip.

Lash

LaRue

came to

t h i s

small town

in

West Texas to do

his

show. I t

was

in

an old movie thea te r . LaRue got

up

on the

stage with the

help of

a f i f t h

and put

on hi s

show. The

power

of

the

bo t t l e , however,

was

grea te r

than

hi s aim and

he

ended up tear ing a

big s lash in

the

movie

screen. The

enraged manager demanded t ha t

LaRue

pay for the damage and

LaRue's response was c las s ic : I ' ve got the gun and

l ive

got

the

whip and I a in t paying.

I

I t l s hard to

beat

tha t so r t of

logic .

cr iminal lawyer can be j u s t t ha t independent i f he has got

the c l i en t s

and

the a b i l i t y to t ry cases . In

r e a l i t y ,

having

the

c l i en t s

is

the

most important par t

because you

can buy

legal

t a len t

but you

can ' t

buy c l i en t s ,

unless ,

of course ,

you

prac t i ce personal in ju ry law. The PI lawyers have been

buying c l ien t s fo r years here in Houston. Their system of

runners s so vas t tha t

t he i r runners , a /k /a inves t iga tors ,

cause t r a f f i c jams a t

car

wrecks. But

t h a t ' s another s to ry .

This s tory s a cont inuat ion of-

the

quest for c l i en t s .

search for the unholy gra i l .

One th ing

t ha t

we

shoUld

a l l

remember.

People

form

imediate

and quick

impressions

t ha t

of ten

l a s t a

l i f e t ime . It s

not

tha t people

are

t ha t percep t ive , it s j u s t tha t

t h e i r

a t tent ion

span i s very shor t

unless

it involves the s

games of sex

and spor t s .

People a lso

have

images and

preconcieved not ions

of

cer ta in th ings . Think of a

Cal i fo rn ia

g i r l

and

what does your mind 's eye

see?

I t

cer ta in ly i sn l t a fa t overweight woman

with

her h a i r

up in

cur le rs pushing a shopping car t down an a i s l e

with

a

portable TV

s e t

on,

watching

the soaps. No.

It i s

usual ly of

a beach with a heal thy blond splashing

through

the sur f

showing a row of per fec t t e e th . When people

th ink

of judges ,

they th ink of white h a i r and black robes and have vis ions of

wise old men taking notes and l i s t en ing very

ca re fu l ly

to

every word

a

witness

has

to say .

This

j u s t goes

to show

you

how dumb most

people are ,

but

none- the- Iess ,

they have

these visua l ideas of the way th ings

are

or

ought

to

be.

Think of

lawyers

for a minute. Or

b e t t e r

yet ,

th ink

of

cr iminal t r i a l lawyers and what dO you see? What image

forms

in

your

mind? Now go look in a

mirror and

what

do

you see?

o

you look

l ike a cr iminal

t r i a l lawyer?

Remember, t h i s

i s

what your

c l i en t

sees when

he f i r s t meets you. I f

you

don ' t

look

and

dress l ike a lawyer, then you ' re simply making l i f e


8/36

much more

d i f f i c u l t for yourse l f and

your

business wil l

sUffer for it

Let ' s

s t a r t with

women I agreed

to teach

a course

in law

school

because I was

convinced

tha t

they

had a butch

course for

female

law s tuden ts . My plan was to

f ind the

ins t ruc to r and knock her in the head.

I

f igured tha t

she

wouldn' t

be too

hard to f ind e i t h e r , a l l

I

had to

do was look

for the

woman

with the l a t e s t

in sa lva t ion

army

fashions,

no

makeup, sawed-off

ha i r , a

shape

resembling a

wet

bean bag,

clomping around

in

boat - l ike

div ises

on

her

fee t tha t

looked l ike poorly

designed l ea ther t enn is shoes .

I planned

to

be carefu l when I approached her

because

I knew she

was

probably

over here

from

West

Germany

on

a

t rack sco larsh ip

or e lse re t i r ed

from

HPD

Such

a

dainty

thing

was

probably

capable of

woman-handling a

crazed g o r i l l a and

I knew

tha t

I

would be

no

match.

I never

found

her but I have seen a lo t

of

her

clones.

Most

of them,

thankful ly ,

work

for

the Sta te and very few of them

have

made

it in pr iva te p rac t i ce . The reason

i s

simple.

A

person

who

looks

l i ke

an under nourished Walter Boyd in drag

i s not

going

to

a t t rack

and

keep

c l i en t s . People

wont

ren t

wrecked

cars

and

they

wont

h i r e

wrecked

looking lawyers .

People iden t i fy with

the i r

lawyers ,

they not i ce

how

they

look,

they

not ice

how

other lawyers

t r e a t them,

they not ice

how

they do a t docket c a l l , they

not ice

a l l

of

these th ings

and they fee l good or bad about

you

in

the way you come

across to them and others .

Dress

and appearance i s very important and so

is

t ime.

Lawyers

sometimes have the hab i t

of

being

in

the

wrong t ime

zone. They

are never

on

t ime.

To many

people it i s

9:00

A.M.,

to

N S

people it i s

0900

hours ,

to judges, the big hand i s

on 12 and the little hand i s on 9, to

lawyers

it i s Friday.

Don' t leave c l ien t s s t randed a t docket ca l l not

knowing

where

you

are

or

when

you wil l

be

back.

Don' t

have

c l ien t s

wandering around

the

Court House

lOOking for

the memorial

not ice

announcing your unexplained disapperance.

I f

you have

more

than one cour t

to at tend, or another p lace you have to

be, t e l l them so they wil l know what

to

expect .

Take

t ime

to expla in

the Court House

procedure

to a l l your

c l ien t s . Give them a little run down on how the system

works,

what a

PIA hear ing means, what

a

re - se t means, what

docket

ca l l means.

A

small f ive minute explanat ion i s

a

great

too l for

making and

keeping

a

s a t i s f i ed customer.

To

often we forget tha t

t h i s i s

our st range little world, to

our

c l ien t s it i s

a

s t range and fore ign land and we should

help them

fee l

more a t ease by

t e l l i n g them

what

i s

going

on

and

what

to

expect .

I remember once

tha t

Robert Pel ton and I were picking a

jury

in

a

cap i t a l

case in

Woody

Densen's

Court . We had

gone

through severa l weeks of jury

se lec t ion

with

Sid

Crowley

working for

the

Sta te and we

a l l got to

t a lk ing

about the

horr ib le impression

that

we were leav ing

with

the

prospect ive ju ro rs . We'd br ing these

stangers

one by

one

in to

a

small room

with

no windows, they would have to get up

on the s tand a

face

a

row of lawyers and

a

stack of

l ega l

pads. Judge

Densen would

s t a r t

them

off by t a lk ing

about

the

death penal ty and using

such

phrases as pul l ing

the

plug

on

a

loving

husband

or wife . Sid

would

fol low up by

examples

8


9/36

of

horr ib le people committing mass murders, kiLl ing

babies ,

accident ly shooting people off the roofs of s to re s during

robber ies to

see i f they could

consider the

death penal ty .

Then w would corne

along and

throw

in

more

gore about

candy-cane

k i l l e r s

and examples of robbers who made t he i r

vict ims

drink

l iquid drano while shoving wooden penci l s

in to

the i r

ears to see i f th i s pa r t i cu la r ju ro r

could

k i l l

the person s i t t i n g next to

us.

I m

sure

people

l e f t

tha t

small windowless

room fu l l of death and

dest ruct ion

wondering

i f

perhaps evolut ion might

have

gone

too far . To

us t h i s was everyday s t u f f but to t he i r world of c iv i c

clubs and

car

pools

t

was a t o t a l shock. Very of ten I th ink

tha t

w may corne

across

to our c l i en t s in much

the

same

manner. They

are

paying

us to

guide

them

through our

s t range

and

fas ina t ing l i t t l e world

and

i f we

would take more t ime

and

be more

sens i t i ve we could make

th i s

t r i p l e s s

t ramat ic

and i s so doing

keep

c l i en t s

who

wil l

c a l l again


10/36


11/36

...

FIRST

COURT

OF APP ALS

By Henry n

B u ~ k h o t a e ~

June

4,

1986

to

August 13, 1986.

Gelabert

v.

Sta te ,

No. 01-84-617-Cr, Hoyt,

J .

OPEN

QUESTION

ON WHETHER

STANDBY COUNSEL MUST BE PROVIDED TO

INDIGENT

ON

PRO SE APPEAL WHEN REQUESTED.

In Fare t t a v. Cal i fornia , 422 U.S. 806 (1975)

the

Supreme Court

held tha t a

tri l court

may

appoint

standby counsel to

a s s i s t

a

pro

se defendant a t

t r i a l .

Appel lan t in

t h i s

case reques t ed

s tandby

counse l

fo r he r pro se appeal . The

Court

o f Appeals

r e j e c t e d

t he ap p e l l an t

s

r eques t , but

co n s i d e red

both

t he

appe l l ana t ' s pro

se

b r i e f , and

the

b r i e f by appo in ted counse l .

The Court e f f e c t i v e l y

gran ted

the a p p e l l a n t ' s r eques t , but

expre ss ly

he ld t h a t such

ac t i o n by t h i s Court shou ld no t be

cons t rued

as

to

sugges t t h a t an

a p p e l l a n t

i s

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y

en t i t l ed to

hybrid representat ion

or standby counsel .

Johnson

v.

State ,

No. 01-85-655-Cr, Dunn, J .

WHO MAKES THE

A F F I R ~ A T I V E FINDING

OF DEADLY WEAPON WHEN JURY

DETERMINES GUILT AND JUDGE

PUNISHMENT

Answer: I f jury

did not

make the f inding , the judge may.

See Fann

.:..

State ,

702

S.W.2d

602

(Tex.

Crim.

App.

1985).

Latson v. Sta te , No. 01-85-812-Cr, Duggan, J .

YOU MUST REQUEST A

CHARGE

ON IDEM SONENS IN ORDER

TO PRESERVE

THE

VARIANCE ON APPEAL.

Defendant

i s

charged

with

robbery.

Indic tment

names complainant

as

Tai

Thanh Nuynh. At t r i a l , complainant

t e s t i f i e s t h a t

hi s

name

i s

Tai Thanh

Huynh.

Basic

law:

(1) the

Sta te

must prove tha t the

person

named in the indictment

was

the

person

robbed

and

(2)

the

va r i ance

between

the

person a l leged and t he v ic t im proven a t

tri l r e n d e r s

t he

ev id en ce i n s u f f i c i e n t to su p p o r t t h e

convict ion. However, because

the

English language is

so

imprec ise

as to

the

sound

o f

names,

the law

o f

idem sonans

provides t ha t

where

the

a t tent ive

ear

cannot dis t inquish the

name

as

a l leged

in

the i nd ic tment with t he name of the

v ic t im

t e s t i f y i n g a t

t r i a l ,

then

there

i s

no variance.

Here,

the Court of Appeals

holds

tha t

where

the name a l leged in

the indictment sounds very

s imi l a r t o

the name o f the complainant

t e s t i fy ing a

t r i a l ,

a jury charge

on

the law

o f

idem sonans must

be reques ted a t tri l or the i s sue of va r i ance wi l l not be

cons idered on appea l . See

~ a r i n

S t a t e , 541 S.W.2d 605 (Tex.

Crim. App.

1970).

September 19S6/Docket Call

SDl


12/36

Topkins

v.

Sta te , No. 01-85-634-Cr, Cohen,

J .

CANNOT JOIN ROBBERY AND

AGGRAVATED

ROBBERY UNDER

THE

SAME

CRIMINAL EPISODE JOINDER PROVISION

TPC

3.01 prov ides t h a t

s ep a r a t e

o f fenses may be jo ined in

a

s in g l e

i nd ic tment ,

if

t he

o f f en f s e s

a r i s e out of the

r ep ea t

commission o f an y o n e property offense

l i s t e d

in the penal code.

I n

t h i s case ,

- - - t hecour t o f

Appeals

found t ha t robbery and

aggravated robbery were two d i f fe ren t property cr imes.

Therefore

the

joinder

in to

a

s ing le

indictment

was

improper.

In

th i s

case,

the

appel lant was convicted for both

robbery

and

aggravated

robbery, each

agains t

a d i f fe ren t vict im. The

t r i a l

cour t

en te red

two s ep a r a t e judgments , one fo r each of the two

paragraphs in the s ing le indictmtent .

Now

fo r the

r e l i e f :

The

Court

o f Appeals cons t rues

Drake

v.

Sta te , 686

S W 2d

935 Tex. Crim.

App

1985) and

Ex

par te

i l l e ~

686 S.W.2d 617

Tex.

Crim. App. 1985) to

p ro v i d e - t h e

fo l lowing

remedies: I f

the

two mis joinded

offenses

ar i se out o f the same

t ransac t ion ,

then

t he mis jo inde r

may be

objec t ed to fo r t he

f i r s t t ime on appea l , o r pos t conv ic t ion w r i t . I f the two

misjoinded offenses occurred

in separa te

t ransact ions , then

the

fa i lu re

to

objec t

to

the misjo inder a t t r i a l by

motion

to

quash,

or motion to e l e c t a t

any t ime

be fore

ju ry

charge)

waives t he

error .

Here,

appel lant objects

to

the mis jo inder

on

appeal. The Court

f inds

mis jo inde r , s in ce

the

of fenses occur red dur ing t he

same

t ransact ion . The r e l i e f granted was to

reverse

and

dismiss the

convic t ion on the second

paragraph.

Casares v . Sta te , No. 01-85-829-Cr, Duggan,

J .

YOU

MUST

PUT

IN

THE

APPELLATE

RECORD

WHAT

THE

TRIAL

JUDGE

WOULD

NOT LET

YOU

GET BEFORE THE JURY

IN

ORDER TO PRESERVE THE ERROR.

At t r i a l defense counsel wanted

to

ex tens ive ly

cross

examine the

complainant in a t h e f t

case

on how the complainant a r r ive a t the

astronomical value of

the

auto s to len . The Court of

Appeals

held

tha t

the

t r i a l cour t should

have l e t

counsel

have

more room for

cross examination.

Even

though appel lant ' s valuable

Sixth Amendment

r igh t to

cross

examinat ion was v io la t ed ,

no

r ev e r s ab l e e r ro r .

The

Court o f

Appeals

found

t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s counse l did

not

make a ill o f

exception

showing

what

tes t imony

he would have

developed, nor

did

the

record

show t ha t

counsel

was

denied

the

opportuni ty

to make

one.

The

less ion to

learn: When the t r i a l cour t w i l l not l e t you get

evidence

before the jury, you must

somehow

get it in the record

for

purposes of an appeal. You may do t h i s through

Q and

A.

of

the wi tness out o f

the hea r ing

o f

the j u ry

A.K.A.

b i l l o f

exception) or through a verbal

of fe r

of

proof to

the t r i a l court ,

t e l l ing the court in

your

own

words

what your cross examinat ion

of the w i tness

would revea l

A.K.A.

l i c e n se to

s t r e t c h t he

t ru th) ,

or

make the

record

very

c lear

t h a t you were not given

the

opportuni ty to do e i ther .

September 1986/Docket

Call

2


13/36

Kraf t Sta te

No.

01-85-685-Cr,

Dunn,

J .

REQUESTING INFORMATION

ABOUT

~ I L

BONDSMAN HELD

NOT INITIATION

OF

INTERROGATION

UNDER

Em 1ARDS.

U.S.

477 (1981)

t he

Supreme Cour t

reques t s

co u n se l

a f t e r [ .1 i r an d a

must

cease

unle ss

and un

e

defendant

i n i t i a t e s fu r ther

communicat ion

with

the pol ice. In

ro

n

v.

Bra

d s

h1a

w ,

46

2 U S 1 0 3 9 1

98

3) the Suprem

e

Co

u r t

once a

w rn ings

a l l

i n t e r ro g a t i o n

r

ref ined

Miranda

and

Edwards by

holding

tha t

the

defendant

must

in tend

to resume the a t i

b e fo re

the i n i t i a t i n g

conversa t ion

can

be cons

ide

Here,

the defendant

had

inv

h is

lked

r igh t to

counsel ,

but l a t e r

inquired to the pol ice of f i ce r s as to whether

a

bondsman could

g e t him out

o f j a i l . The

Court o f Appeals

found t h a t

t h i s

ques t ion was

not

the so r t of

i n i t i a t ed

communication su f f ic ien t

to waive Miranda under Edwards

and

Bradshaw.

FOURT((NT"

COURT

O

APP(ALS

June

4,

1986

to August 13, 1986.

Jamial v.

Sta te

No. 14-85-019-Cr, Sears , J .

This case

was

taken

up

on

appeal

by Gary

Trich te r who

f resh

from

his

defea t

a t the

HCCLA pol l s nevertheless

shows us t h a t

he has

the r igh t s tu f f where

it counts- in the appel l a te

cour ts .

ONCE

A DEFENDANT

HAS

BEEN GIVEN HIS

RANDA

WARNINGS

HE

HAS A

FIFTH

AMENDMENT

RIGHT

TO

COUNSEL

TO

DECIDE

WHETHER

TO

SUBMIT

TO

A

BLOOD OR

CHEMICAL

BREATH

TEST

WHEN

ARRESTED FOR

DWI.

In the famous cases of

Forte

707 S.W.2d

89 (Tex.

Crim.

App. 1986), and McCambridge v. a e, No. 1086-85 (Tex.

Crim.

App. 1986), the

Court

of Criminal

Appeals held t h a t

there

was no

Fi f th

Amendment

(Miranda) o r

Sixth

Amendment ( the kind you get

paid

for

under CCP 26.05) r igh t

to counsel

for

a DWI

accused

to

decide whether

to

submit to

a

brea th o r

chemical

t e s t .

You

would

th ink

these

two

cases

would

be

the end of the i ssue. Not so for

Trich ter l

In

t h i s

case

t he

Cour t o f

Appeals held

t h a t once

Miranda

warnings

a re given

a F i f t h

Amendment r i g h t a t t a ch es t o

t he

decis ion as to

whether

to

take

the

t e s t .

The Court dis t inquishes

For te and McCambridge

on

the

b as i s

t h a t in those

cases

t h e

consent was-grven before the ~ i r a n d a warnings.

NOTE: There i s a BIG

d i f f e r en ce

between t he

F i f t h and

Six th

r i g h t s to counse l . Under the Six th Amendment, once the r i g h t

at taches

the

defendant

must a f f i rma t i v e l y

waive

the r igh t . Under

the

Fi f th

a s s e r t the

occurs .

Amendment,

r i g h t to

once

c o u

Hiranda

n s e l o r

i s

no

given, the

defendant must

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l v i o l a t i o n

September 1986/Docket Cal l

SD3


14/36

In

t h i s case, once

Miranda warnings were

given, the

a p p e l l a n t

consis tent ly requested

counsel . The Court o f Appeals

found t ha t

the appel lant ' s

eventual

consent to a chemical t e s t

was

given

in

vio la t ion of Miranda, and

the

subsequent t e s t

r esu l t s were

f ru i t s

of the unlawful in te r roga t ion .

Another in te r s t ing

point

about t h i s case .

THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON

GROUNDS

NOT RAISED IN

YOUR

BRIEF.

The Court

of

Appeals

ru l ing

noted

above

was made

as unassigned

er ro r . Leaving as ide a p p e l l a t e

counse l ' s

embarrassmen t

on

g e t t i n g a r e v e r sa l

on

an argument he

never

thought of , t he

Court 's procedure

i s

worth

noting.

Under

the

or ig ina l

1965 Code of

Criminal

Procedure, the Court of

Crimina l Appeals had expre ss

s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o dec ide

appea l s

on unass igned

e r ro r .

The Court would o ccas io n a l l y

reve rse

on

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l

mat t e r s

( fundamenta l ly d e fe c t i v e

charging ins t ruments)

or

on

law

which developed

s ince the br ie f s

were submit ted (of tens years

ear l i e r ) .

When the

Court

o f

Appeals

were

given

c r imin a l

j u r i s d i c t i o n

in

1981, the

s t a tu to ry

provis ion

for unassigned

error

myster ious ly

disappeared . Many a p p e l l a t e persons thought t h a t

the

Court o f

Appeals did not

have

t h i s authori ty .

In Perry

v.

Sta te , 703 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)

t he

Court

of CrIminal Appeals

found

tha t a l l the appel l a te cour t s did

have the inheren t a u t h o r i t y t o r ever se on unass igned e r ro r .

PRACTICE

NOTE:

Don't count

on

t happening to you very of ten .

September

19B5 Docket

Call

SD


15/36

OURT OF

CRIMIN L PP[ LS y atherine Greene

urnett

NOTE: SUMMER

RECESS BEGAN JULY 9,

1986

Seyed

Ramezan

MOOSAVI

No.

715-84 Opinion

on

Appe l l an t s

PDR: Court ~ Appeals

Reversed;

Remand ~ r Review ~ Ground ~

Error

Judge W.

C. Davis

6/11/86

OFFER

OF PROOF

- -

READING

iNTO

TRIAL RECORD ONLY

THE

EXPECTED

TESTIMONY OF WITNESS EXCLUDED BY COURT IS OFFER OF PROOF

AND

PRESERVES ERROR

FOR APPEAL WITHOUT

INCLUDING QUESTION

SOUGHT

TO

BE ASKED:

During

punishment

phase o ~ t r i a l D e ~ e n d a n t t r i ed to

e l fc f t

tes t imony o ~

psychia t r f s t

about

D e ~ e n d a n t s s t a t e o ~

mfnd

a t tfme

o ~ o ~ ~ e n s e ~ o r

mitfgat fon

o ~

punfshment. B e ~ o r e

the

bench,

outs Ide

Jury s presence,

D's

a t torney s t a t ed on record what he

believed

answer

would

be.

This

was

enough

to

be

o ~ ~ e r

o ~

p r o o ~

under

Art .

40.09, Sec. 6(d) (1) ,

V.A.C.C.P. ,

wfthout quest ion

asked.

Nothing in

s t a tu t e

requi res o ~ ~ e r o ~

p r o o ~

to

be

in ques t fon and

answer

~ o r m , Jus t a

concise

s ta tement

o ~

what

the

evidence

would

show . Here

i t fs c lea r ~ r o m record tha t the t r i a l judge

knew precfse ly what he was exlcudfng. Where the subjec t matter

o ~ the questfon was evident ,

no purpose

would be served by

requfr ing

an o ~ ~ e r o ~

p r o o ~

to

conta in

the

questfons t ha t

would

have

been

asked.

Jerome_Edward DEGRATE No. 989-85

Appe l l an t s PDR

R e ~ u s e d

- - Per Curfam Opfnion, 7/9/86

PETITIONS

FOR

DISCRETIONARY

REVIEW

GUIDELINES

FOR

DRAFTING:

The Court r e ~ u s e d Appel lan t s

PDR

because he presented no

reasons as to why t h i s Court should review

the

opinfon of the

cour t

o ~

appeals .

Here the 0

only

presented 12

grounds

~ o r

revfew which were

an

exact dupl ica t ion o ~ the

grounds

o ~

er ror

presented to the CIA; he

presented

no reasons ~ o r review .

Tex.Cr.App.R.

304(d)

provides t ha t a PDR s h ~

conta in

Reasons

~ o r

Review.

A

d i r ec t

and concise argument, wfth support ing

author i t fes ,

a m p l i ~ y i n g

the reasons r e l i ed on

for the

grant ing

o ~ review.

Tex.Cr.App.R. 3 0 ~ ( c ) has a non-exhaust ive l i s t o ~ s ix reasons

to be considered in dec iding whether

to

grant

review

on

PDR.

Court

suggests

t ha t they be incorpora ted

in to t he

reasons for

review por t ion

o ~ the PDR and provides t h i s

gufdelfne

and

warning:


Call

SD5


16/36

" the por t ion of the pe t i t i on

designated

"Reasons for Review" should

spec i f i ca l l y address the court o f appeals

opInIon and

I t s

e f fec t

on

our

Jur isprudence. This

presen ta t ion

should

not go Into a

de ta I led ana lys i s . but

should

br i e f ly s e t out

re levant cases

and

s t a tu t e s .

and note any a l l eged miss ta te

ments or

omissIon

o f re levant f ac t s . A

discuss ion

o f

prInc Ip les

o f

law.

without

reference to the holding

o f

the cour t o f

appeals , wil l usual ly be Insuf f Ic ien t to

persuade t h i s Court to exercIse i t s

d i sc re t Ionary

Ju r i sd i c t i on . "

The Court a l so warns

t ha t

an asse r t fon

t ha t t he cour t

o f appeals

was

in

e r ror as to some poin t o f law, s tanding a lone , may

a l so be

Insuf f ic ien t

to requi re fur the r review.

NOTE: On t he

same day

t h a t

Degrate was handed

down,

approxfmately

30

othe r

Appel lan t ' s PDRs

were refused w' th the

nota t ion

("See Degrate") whereas an addi t ional 30 were merely

re fused .

The

new

appe l la te ru le s

e f fec t i ve

September

1, 1986.

Incorporate Rules 304(d)

and 302(c) so Degrate wil l

have

continued va l idI ty .

Paul_Tommy_OJEDA, No.

966-82

Op'nlon on Appel lan t ' s PDR:

Court

o f

Appeals and Tria l

Court

Affirmed Judge W. C. Dav's ,

7/2/86

[See a lso

Gonzales discussed next . ]

LESSER

INCLUDED

OFFENSES

- -

WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE SUFFICIENT

TO

RAISE "SUDDEN PASSION"? TESTIMONY FROM THIRD PERSON THAT 0 WAS

HIT

AND

HE

RESPONDED WAS

INSUFFICIENT

TO

RAISE.

o

complained o f tic s

f a i l u re

to give requested charge on

voluntary

manslaughter

based

on tes t imony

o f

his g i r l f r i end tha t

she and 0 were

a t tempt ing to

avoid

the conf l i c t [which the

Court

descr ibes

as an "ambush" by 15

people In

The SummIt parkIng

garage] when

they were

s t ruck by the

deceased 's

be l t . Court

acknowledges t ha t I f

evidence

from any source r a i se s

Issue, a

defensive theory

or lesser Included charge should be

given.

Here, however. the evIdence only presen ted

an

objec t ive

rec i t a t ion

o f

ac t s

the re

was

no evidence about D's

apparent

frame

o f

mind, I . e . ,

angry,

scared ,

e tc .

Is idro Sanchez GONZALES, No.

1148-84

Opinion on

S t a t e ' s

PDR: Court of

Appeals

Reversed,

Remand for

Considerat ion

o f Other

Grounds

Judge

White. 7/2 /86 .

Dissen t ing

Opinion

by

Judge

Clinton

[Joined by Judges MIl ler

and

Teauge]

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WHAT EVIDENCE WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO

RAISE "SUDDEN PASSION"? TESTIMONY FROM DEFENDANT THAT HE WAS

SCARED WAS INSUFFICIENT

TO

RAISE; NO

AUTOMATIC

RIGHT TO

INSTRUCTION

ON VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER WHENEVER

SELF-DEFENSE

IS

RAISED BY THE EVIDENCE: Facts : In a bar 0 witnessed

confronta

t i on between

his f r iend and vlct fm. D

l e f t bar

f i r s t , and went

t o f r i end ' s

car

and

waited. Victim exi ted club , and 0 saw him


Call

SD6


17/36

wa'lk

to

hIs car

and

ge t somethIng out o f hIs

t runk.

WIthout

beIng

ce r t a In

t ha t

vIct im had re t r feyed a

gun,

D got

hIs f r I e n d ' s

automatIc

pIs t o l , l e f t car

and walked

away.

D t e s t I f I e d

tha t

vIct im came

U

behind hIm

and f I r e d a shot . D

t u rned

and f I r e d .

Court

found t ha t evIdence

c l e a r ly

raIsed t he Issue

t ha t

D had

ac ted ih se l f -de fense . ~ o w e v e r majorI ty

dId

not f Ind t ha t

evidence Indica ted 0 acted

under

the ImmedIate Inf luence

o f

sudden passIon

a r I s ing

from adequate cause. In t he ma jo r I ty ' s

view,

D IndIca ted a t most

t ha t

he

was scared of the

vIctIm.

In

the context

o f

a l l

o f

D's

te s t Imony,

t h I s

fea r of

vIctIm dId

not

amount t.o t e r ro r

whIch would

qual Ify as sudden passIon .

The

Court

held I t

was

Incorrect

to assume

t h a t a D

f ee l s

sudden

passIon whenever a soon- to-be

decesaed

vIctIm provokes hIm

wIth a gun and spec I f Ica l ly dIsavowed language

by

t he Court o f

Appeals

holdIng t h a t ,

I t

would be

d I f f I c u l t

to

ImagIne a

spec I f i c

event

more l Ike ly to cause anger,

rage , resentment

o r

t e r ro r In a

person

o f ordInary temper

than

to have someone aim a

gun a t

you

and f I r e .

Ins tead , the majorI ty ru led t ha t a mere claIm o f

f ea r

does not

es tab l i sh

sudden

passIon

and

noted

t ha t

D

dId

not

IndIcate

through his

te s t imony t ha t he was emotional ly aroused a t the t ime

o f

the shootIng.

DISSENT: Judge

ClInton

s e t s out D's t es t imony

on

dI r e c t

examInatIon and

disagrees

wIth

major i ty ' s

In te rpre ta t ion

t h a t D's

t .est

I mony I

nd

I ca tes he acted coo

y I n sp t e o f his fea r . He

argues t ha t

the

majorI ty

does

not specIfy in what

r espec t

t he

evidence was

found

lackIng

and

posI t s

t ha t

major i ty seems

to have

es tab l i shed t ha t a t l eas t

when the evIdence

ra I ses

s e l f

defense ,

before I t may be sa Id t ha t I t a l so r a I s e s volunta ry manslaughter ,

there

must be

some

addi t Ional

showIng, apar t

from t he

cIrcumstances themse lves , t ha t appe l l an t

was in f ac t

enraged,

resentfu l o r

t e r r I f i e d . In

c on t r a s t ,

Dissent

c I t e s

cases

under

the former penal

codes

for

proposI t Ion

t h a t evidence

o f

some

pa r t i c u l a r ly gr ievous provoca t Ion by the deceased,

besIdes

tending

s t rongly

t o e s t a b l i s h adequate cause , can

a l so

se rve as

evIdence t ha t

D

was In fac t provoked.

Arturo

CASILLAS ~ t ~ No. 304-84 OpinIon

on Appel lan t ' s

PDR:

Court o f Appeals

and T/C

AffIrmed

- -

Judge MIl le r , 7 /2 /86

JURY CHARGE INSTRUCTION LIMITING

USE OF

CO-CONSPRIATOR

STATEMENT NOT REQUIRED; TEXAS WILL ADOPT FEDERAL JAMES TEST

UNDER TEXAS RULE OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE 104(a) :

Fac ts : The

complIcated

fac tual scenarIo Is

bes t

summarIzed

In

the opinIon; however, grea t ly

s impl i f I ed , the evidence

showed

t ha t 5 Ds

agreed

to se t up a

c o ~ p o r a t i o n

c a pI t a l i z e I t wIth

funds

from a

MinorIty Enterpr Ise

Sma 1 1 Business

Investment

Corporat ion (ca l l ed TeJas J

o f

which they were dI r e c to r s , and

then d I v I

de U

the

funds ~ a p p r o x

I

mate

1 y

equa

1 I y among

themse

Ives

In

the

form

o f

loans t o bus inesses they would own. That course

o f conduct was prohIbi ted

by the Smal I

Business

AdmIssIon

regu la

t i on on c o n f l i c t s ' o f

In te res t .

Each D t e s t i f i e d a t t r I a l and

lengthy

segments o f each D's grand

ju ry te s t Imony

was

read

before

t.he ju ry .

September 1986/Docket Cal l

SD7


18/36

On appeal

Os

complafned

o f

t I c ' s refusal

to

gfve

a l fmftfng

fns t ruct fon

to

ju ry concernfng

admfssfbfl

f ty

o f

co-conspf ra to rs '

hearsay.

Relying on Lewfs

[237 S.W. 293

(1951)] Court

noted

t ha t

a l l of the Os'

own

tes t imony was su f f i c i en t to author ize t he f r

convic t ions . There

was

no

val

id

j u s t i f i c a t i o n

for the charge here

because

each o f

the hearsay dec la ran t s

was

a t t r i a l and t e s t i f i e d

t o v i r t ua l l y the same

decis ion

to make t he loans shown

by

t he

grand ju ry tes t imony.

Court

notes

t ha t same r e su l t

fs

fndfcated

by

Texas Rule

of

Criminal Evidence 104(a) e f fec t i ve 9/1 /86 .

Court

sfgnals i t s

des i re to adopt the James

(590

F.2d 575 (5th Cfr . 1979)] ru le

ra the r

than

the

p r fo r Texas

prac t ice

of

shared

re sponsfb f l f ty

between

judge

and ju ry in determining

whether

conspfracy exfs ted

and

Os

were

a

pa r t o f i t . Under James those a re th resho ld

consfdera t ions

for t / J and

NOT

Jury

ques t ions

.

TERM

SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF LOSS DEFINED

FOR

PURPOSES OF REVIEWING

SUFFICIENCY: Os

were prosecu ted for mfssappl i ca t ion o f f fduc ia ry

proper ty under Sect ion

32.45, an element

o f

whfch fs t h a t t he

mfsapplfcat ion

occurs

fn

a

manner t h a t fnvolves subs tan t i a l r i sk

o f

loss

to

the

owner

o f the

proper ty or

to

a

person

for

whose

beneff t

the

proper ty fs held . The term

subs tan t i a l

r i sk o f

loss fs not

deffned

in

the penal

code. Court adopts

t e s t

t h a t

the

r f sk

must

be, a t l eas t ,

more l fke ly than

not .

SBA

REGULATION

IS

A

LAW

UNDER

THIS

SECTION:

Sectfon 32.45,

P.C. , fncludes fn f t s

def in i t ion

of misapply

any dealfng

with

the proper ty t ha t

fs con t ra ry

to

(B)

a law

prescr lbfng

the

custody or d i spos i t ion o f the proper ty .

For

purposes o f t h i s

sect fon Court

held

t ha t

SBA

regugla t ion fs such

a

law.

To do

so

Court reI

fed

on

Sect ion 1.07

def in t ion

o f law

as

fncluding

a

ru l e author ized by and lawful ly adopted under a s t a tu te and on

Plas te r

[567 S.W.2d

500

(1978)] fn which jud ic ia l not ice was

taken o f

two

sec t ions o f the Code

o f Federal

Regulat ions.

Robert

Amaya

e t a I , No.

304-84

Opinion on Appel lan t ' s

PDR:

Reversed and Acqui t ta l

Entered

Judge

Mfl le r

7/2/86

PARTIES

HIGHER

LEVEL OF COMPLICITY

REQUIRED FROM THOSE

DENOTED

PARTIES THAN THOSE DENOTED PRIMARY ACTORS: (Note:

This

fs

the

companfon

case to Casf l l a s , Supra.]

Holding-:---When

a

defendant

is being prosecuted as

a

party , he cannot

be held

cr imfnal ly accountable wi thout some ind ica t ion t ha t he knew he

was a s s f s t i ng

in

the

commission

o f

an

offense .

The Court recognizes t ha t the d i s t i nc t i on

between

t he degree

o f

compl ic i ty

requi red

for par t i es

as

cont ras ted

with pr imary

ac to rs Is one t ha t had

not

been

d i rec t l y

made by t he Court

before ,

and uses the te rm

primary ac to r

to

denote

one who

would

have been ca l l ed

a

pr inc ipa l a t

corrrnon

law

and a

par ty to

denote one who

would have been

an accomplice a t corrrnon

law.

Although the

two

defendants

In

t h i s

case

[who were not shown

by

the evidence

to

be in

a

f iduc ia ry capac i ty

to

the

small

business

a t

the

t ime they took pa r t

in

the t r ansac t ion] would be held

1

fable as prfmary ac to rs whether or

not they rea l ized

they were

breaking the law,

in a prosecut ion

as

a party , the re

would

have

September 19S6/Docket

Call

SDS


19/36

to be

a

showfng

t ha t

they knew the conduct [d f spe rs fng funds to

t he f fducfa r fes ] was

crfmfna l .

Judge

Mfl

l e r noted

t h a t typfca l ly , a defense t o c u l p a b f l f t y

under t he

law

o f p a r t f e s tends to focus on fgnorance

o f

the

conduct sought

to be

afded. He sugges ts t h a t fs

because most

Penal

Code of fenses fnvolve conduct t ha t

fs

fnhe ren t ly

"crfmfnal"

fn nature conduct t ha t

by

f t s

very

na tu re suppl fes proof o f

the pa r t f e s ' knowledge

t h a t

the conduct fs

"cr fmfna l"

[f.e.

murder , kfdnappfng,

sexual assau l t ,

per ju ry , b r fbery ,

robbery] .

Jimmy Rex WHALEY No. 365-84

Opfnfon

on Appel lan t ' s

and

S t a t e ' s PDR: Convfctfon Afffrmed,

Court

o f Appeals

Reversed

Judge White, 7/2/86

[NOTE: This fs a good example

o f what can happen

on PDR. 0

won In Court

o f

Appeals and

cause

was reversed and

remanded.

0

FI led

for

rehear Ing

and

Court o f Appeals wfthdrew I t s or Ig Ina l

opInIon

and once aga in reversed . 0, a l though v ic to r Ious ,

sought

PDR

on

Speedy

TrIal

ground.

RevIew

was

gran ted .

Sta te

In

tu rn

sought and was gran ted

PDR

on t he two

grounds t ha t

were sus t a fned

by

Cour t o f Appeals In reve rs fng . End r e s u l t was

t ha t

S t a t e ' s

posI t ion prevaI led

on PDR

and

or ig fna l

convfc t fon was

af f I rmed . ]

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

WHAT

HAPPENS

WHEN

SAME OFFENSES

ALLEGED

AS

VIOLATION IN ORGANIZED CRIME

ACT COUNT

AND IN SEPARATE COUNT AND

THREE

INDICTMENTS

ARE

FILED

- - EACH

REFINING INITIAL INDICTMENT

BY ADDING

AMOUNTS

OF

SUBSTANCE

OR MANNER

OF

TRANSFER? SHOULD

ANNOUNCEMENT

UNDER 1ST INDICTMENT

CARRY

FORWARD? 0 was

Indic ted

t h ree

t fmes

and

argued

on appeal t h a t

the o f fenses

a l l eged In t he 1st

and

2nd

fndlctments were

d i f fe ren t

of fenses

than those a l l eged fn t he 3rd (and f fn a l )

fndfctment :

5/21/82

a r r e s t fo r de l fve ry o f hydromorphone

and

marfjuana

6/18/82

1s t

fndfctment

a l l e ge s unlawful d e -

l Ivery

o f

hydromorphone and

marfjuana

under

both

Organfzed

Crfme Act and

Con

t r o l l ed

Substances Act

6/22/82

S t a t e ' s wrI t t en announcement

o f

ready

8/24/82

2nd

fndfctment - -

l i ke 1s t

but

se t s out

amount

o f contro l

led

SUbstance and t h a t

del fvery made by ac tua l

t r ans fe r .

Also a l l eges 2 add l t fona l counts

o f

possessfon.

8/24/82

S t a t e ' s wrf t t en announcement o f ready

11/8/82

o

granted

M/Contfnunace

11/12/82

3rd fndlctment

fn

addf t lon to 1s t

fndictment a l l e g a t fo n o f de l fvery and

2nd

fndlctment a l l e g a t fo n o f

amounts,

t h f s f Ina l

Indfctment a l l eg ed manner and


Call

SD9


20/36

means

o f

de l ive ry by

actual

and

cons t ruc t ive t r ans fe r .

Old not conta in 2nd

Indic tment ' s

a l l ega

t ions

o f possessIon.

S ta t e ' s

wrIt ten announcement o f ready

12/6/82

Tria l on 3rd Indfc tment.

Sta te

drops

OCE

charge.

o

convfcted

on

unlawfuly

de l ive ry

under

TCSA.

Noting t ha t

t he offenses

of unlawful de l ive rx of hydromorphone

and marfhu ana

a re

subjec t to exact ly the

same

pr rof

whether

Included In the same count

as

an Organized Crime Act v io l a t i on or

a l leged In a separa te

count ,

Court

found t ha t

t he

unlawful

de l ive ry

cha rges in

1st

indictment were the same cases

as

In 2nd

and 3rd Indfc tments ; the re fore , Rosebury [659 S.W.2d

655

(1983)]

Inappl icable . F i r s t announcement o f

ready ca r r ied compl

fance

Wfth STA forward to 3rd Indi ctment .

NO

DEFJNTION OF CONSTRUCTIVE TRANSFER - - NOT ERROR UNDER FACTS

AND

CHARGE

GIVEN:

The

term

"const ruc t Ive

t ransfer"

has

no

s t a tu tory def in i t ion

but

has

acqui red a caselaw

meaning

[Rasmussen.

608

S.W.2d

205 (1980). T/C

did no t g fve

j u ry

a

spec i f ic

def in i t ion

o f cons t ruc t ive t r ans fe r

but

e r ror

was

harmless because ju ry was charged on law of pa r t i e s and evidence

showed 0 delfvered the cont ro l led

substances and received the

money

through t he

act fons of a 3rd person .

Robert_Roy

ROBBINS,

No. 513-84

Opinion

on Appel lan t ' s

Motfon

for Rehearfng on PDR: Convict ion

Reversed.

Remanded to Court o f

Appeals - - Judge

W.C.

Davis 7/2/86

JURY CHARGE INTERPLAY BETWEEN CAUSATION [Sect ion 6.04(a)] AND

INVOLUNTARY

MANSLAUGHTER

[Sect ion 19.05(a)(2)=

Facts :

S t

offe red

evidence

to prove t ha t 0

was

fn toxlcated a t t ime

o f

acc ident and t ha t such In toxica t ion caused the co l l i s i on and

death of the

vIct im.

D's de fense

was

t ha t accident

was

due to

hfs exhaust ion and not due to his consumption

of

several beers .

al though

he

admit ted dr inking

them.

The ju ry

charge

as a whole

a l te rna ted

between s ta t ing

tha t the jury

must f ind tha t

"by

reason of such

In toxfcat lon" D

caused the

death .

and

then

allowf.ng convfc t lon

ff'

fn toxlcat fon "contr fbuted to cause t he

same"

wfthout explafnfng the I fmfts o f the cont r ibut Ion

required

by Sectfon 6.04(a}. 0

objected

a t t r f a l

t ha t

the

charge

lessened

S t ' s

burden

on

proof

on

causat ion .

Held: Charge

improper

because ju ry

could have found

0 gu i l t y

even though they concluded t ha t

t he

concurrent cause [exhaus t ion]

was c lear ly

su f f i c i en t

to have

produced t he death

and tha t

t he

other cause [ In toxfca t fon] whfle I t cont r ibuted .

was

c l ea r ly

i nsuf f i c i en t by f t s e l f to have

produced death .

Case remanded to

Court

of

Appeals for harm

ana lys i s

under Almanza.

Identical Issue

In

Gary Bf lI CRABB No. 391-85 decided on

same date and a l s o remanded to Court

of

Appeals for

Almanza

harm

ana lys fs .


Cal l

SD10
http:///reader/full/allowf.nghttp:///reader/full/allowf.ng


21/36

*

C 0 U R T S

OF

A P P E A L S

Samuel ErvIn OLIVER, No. 02-85-132-CR Aggravated Assaul t

ConvIctIon

Reversed and Remanded - -

Tarrant County,

6/26/86

FAILURE

OF STATE

TO PRODUCE

WARRANT WHEN DEFENDANT CHALLENGES

ADMISSION

OF

EVIDENCE

WHICH IS

FRUIT

OF ARREST UNDER WARRANT IS

ERROR:

C/A recognIzes

t ha t where accused ob jec t s to in t roduct ion o

evIdence, claImIng

I t

Is unlawFully seIzed , and Sta te r e l f e s

on

search or a r re s t warrant to

Jus t iFy

in t roduct ion , Sta te

must

produce

the warrant . C/A

holds t ha t same

ru le

applfes

when

accused objec ts

to

the Form o the warrant s Ince the purpose For

the productfon o

the warrant

is

For the t r I a l

cour t to

asce r ta fn

t ha t i t

i s regular on

i t s Face

meetIng a l l

necessary

requirements .

Samuel R. GERSH,

NO. 05-85-635-CR Criminal MischieF

ConvictIon Reversed

and Remanded Dallas

County, 6/30/86

PRESUMPTIONS: TAMPERING WITH UTILITY METER PRESUMPTIONS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

AS

APPLIED:

Sect ion 28.03,

V.T.C.A .

Penal Code,

dea l ing with tamper ing with

a u t i l i t y

meter,

Includes a presumption tha t :

I t shall be presumed t ha t a

person

in whose

name [ the

u t i l i t y ]

was l a s t b i l l e d

and

who

was receiv ing

economIc

beneFit

o sa id

[u t i l I t y ] .

has

knowIngly

tampered wIth the

[meter]

IF

the communication

or supply has

been: (1) diver ted From passIng through a

metering device; or

(2)

prevented From being

cor rec t ly reg i s te red by a metering device .

C/A notes

tha t evident iary devices , such as presumptions . must

not

shiFt

the burden o prooF

to the

accused or re l i eve the

Fact

Finder ' s

re spons ibI l I ty

to

FInd

the u l t imate Facts beyond a

reasonable doubt . Such presumptions are unconst i tu t ional unless

I t can a t leas t be

sa id

with subs tant ia l assurance

t ha t

the

presumed

Fact

Is

more

l Ike ly

than not

to

Flow

From

the

proved

Fact

on

whIch I t

Is

made

to depend ,

c i t i ng Leary

v.Unl ted

Sta tes ,

395

U.S.

6 (1969) AnalyzIng presumption in Sec.

28.03.

C/A determines t ha t

Fact consumer

l a s t got the

b i l l

does not

support presumptIon t ha t consumer tampered with meter . The use

o f

presumption was

uncqnst i tu t lonal

as appl led.


Call

SDl1


22/36

County

Court t Law

No 13

Hon Bonnie Fitch

TELEPHONE NUMBER

221 7950

LOCATION:

403

Carol ine

COORDINATOR S

NAME

Joann Delgado

COORDINATOR S PHONE

221 7950

CLERK S

NAME

Cathy

Perry

COURT

REPORTER:

Lavearn Ivey

BAILIFF S

NAME

Glenn Dubois

PROCESS

SERVER S NAME Scot t Blakenburg

PROBATION OFFICER S

NAME

Robert Dean

PROBATION

OFFICER S

PHONE 221 7688

PROSECUTOR S

EXTENSION:

8321

COURT

APPOINTMENTS

Appointments are made Monday through

Fr iday around

10:30 am

Attorneys

need t o f ami l i a r i ze the Judge with t h e i r

exper ience .

The

defendan t s indigency

i s

determined through

ques t ioning

by

the Judge and the

ques t ionna i re .

The Judge i s undecided regarding

payment

for a Pe t i t i o n

fo r

Disc re t iona ry Review to the

Court

of

Criminal

Appeals There i s no

pol i cy

regarding

pay vouchers

or

i nves t iga to ry fees .

BOND CONSIDERATIONS

The Court se t s bond

on

the

b as i s

of r e l i a b i l i t y

to appear in

Court .

The Court

w i l l grant a PTR bond

based

on

the

defendan t s

c red ib i l i t y .

A

MRP

bond

w i l l

be

granted

depending

on

the

circum-

s t ances .

The cour t

w i l l

re t a in the

o r i g i n a l bond

pending a

motion

for

a

new t r i a l ,

as

wel l as pending

sen tenc ing .

An indigent

out

on a PTR bond can

cont inue

to be represented by an appointed a t -

torney. The same i s t r u e

fo r

cash

o r

sure ty bond. The cour t i s

undecided

on pol i cy

regarding appeal bonds.

September

1986/Docket Call SD12


23/36

SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS

Probation

wil l be considered

in

a l l cases

provided for

by the

Penal Code.

There

is no typical

recommendation for

a

f i r s t offense, each

i s

determined

on a

case by

case

bas is .

A written

motion

is

necessary

for

appl icat ion

for

probation.

Oral proof is

not required

in a plea.

The

Judge wil l

follow

the

recommendations of

the prose

cutor

unless

extenuating circumstances

dic ta te otherwise.

Prosecutor s do not ta lk di rec t ly to the defendant unt i l

the Judge arraigns them

and they

waive the r ight to

an a t tor

ney and

request to

t a lk

to the

D.A.

The decision

is made by

the Judge

af te r arraignment.

The

at torney is required to

in

form the defendant

of

the range

of

punishment and

the

conse

quences

of

a

plea

independently of and prior to the time when

the prosecutor

speaks

to the defendant.

The court wil l fol low the

prosecutor s

recommendation on

a

motion to

revoke

probation

and

wil l

determine

policy in tech

nical violat ions on a

case by

case

bas is .

t i s

customary for

the court to add

special

conditions for probation.

An undocumented person can receive probation. Fines can be

paid in

ins tal lments .

DOCKET ND

TRIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Resets must be

se t for

one of

the

following: hire

a t tor

ney,

video viewing, motions,

t r i a l

plea or J

S.

The same

policy

for non-issue se t t ings .

I f a case is se t for

t r i a l

i t

wil l be

se t off a t convenience

of

defense at torneys and

the

State,

probably

four to s ix weeks. Hopefully, a reasonable

number will be se t each time to assure actual t r i a l on date

se t . There

i s no

policy regarding speedy

t r i a l waiver. Pre

t r i a l

disposi t ive

motion se t t ings are se t on non-trial day.

The

time

l imit

on

Voir Dire is determined

on

a case by case

basis , as is the time l m ~

on

f ina l

argument.


Call

SD 3


24/36

embership

irectory

Roy Lee

ABNER

8866

Gulf Fwy 250

Houston

77017

943-9607

Steven ABRAMOWITZ

2915 San

Jacinto

Houston 77004

529-3131

John ACKERMAN

320 Main

St

100

Houston 77002

237-9100

Geraldo G

ACOSTA

102 So. Lockwood

Houston 77011

926-4606

Tony

ANINAO

411 Fannin 302

Houston

77002

222-2660

Mack ARNOLD

1001

Texas

Ave. 500

Houston 77002

237-1332

Paula Gavrel ASHER

1900

W Loop

So. 900

Houston

77027

961-9457

Mark

ATKINSON

1818

Memorial

Houston

77007

868-3967

B

Charles

F.

BAIRD

4606 F.M.

1960

W

315

Houston

77069

580-8077

James N BARKLEY

4038 Heathersage

Dr. Houston

77084

468-7618

James L.

BARR

4656 Texas Commerce

Twr.

Houston

77002

229-9292

Ray

BARR

2038

Lexington

Houston 77098

524-5007

Nickolas

S.

BARRERA 3603 Telephone

Rd. Houston

77023

644-0538

Perry

N BASS

P.O.

Box

52163 Houston

77052

222-0858

W

Randolph BATES 4101 San

Jacinto

222

Houston

77004

523-6034

Ralph BEHRENS 7500

Bel la i re

Blvd. 803

Houston

77036

772-5800

Robert BENNETT 1001 Texas

Ave.

1010 Houston 77002

222-1434

David

H

BERG

3702

Travis

Houston

77002

529-5622

David BIRES 2510 Montrose Houston 77006 529-8500

Gerald BIRNBERG 6671 Southwest Fwy 303

Houston

77074

981-9595

David

A BISHOP

P.O.

Box

800028 Houston

77280

477-5980

Walter BOYD 4654

Ingersol l

Houston

77027

526-4528

D.Channing

Bradshaw

3322

S.

Shaver

Pasadena 77504 946-2182

Harold

BRELSFORD 723

Main 400

Houston 77002 228-0225

Roger BRIDGWATER 502

Caroline

200

Houston

77002

224-4233

James

BROOKS

8733 Tol l i s

Houston 77055 229-0099

Michael

J BROWN 2100

Travis

1200

Houston

77002

650-3737

Pat

BROWN

7333 Harwin

Dr.

101

Houston 77036 952-8013

Veryl E.

BROWN

216

Stra t ford

5

Houston

77006

224-6719

Alexander

BUNIN 2016

Main 2013

Houston

77002

651-1031

William

W

BURGE 333

Clay 2540 Houston

77002

224-4343

Henry

L. BURKHOLDER

216

Stra t ford

5

Houston

77006

224-6719

Cather ine BURNETT 502 Caroline, 2nd f l

Houston

77002 222-2940

Marvin G BYERLY 7403 Pecan Vil las

Houston 77061 645-9442

Mark S.

BYRNE

600 Travis 3610

Houston

77002

266-1263

September

1986/Docket

Ca11

SD14


25/36

c

Fel ix

CANTU

723 Main 231 Houston 77002

225-9774

Jose

CANTU

JR. 209 W.

Shaw

200

Pasadena 77506

Cheryl

GRIFFIN CASH 1331

Lamar

1459 Houston 77010 655-7242

J C CASTILLO Two Houston Ctr .

1515

Houston 77010

655-8085

Charels

C

CATE

810

S.

Mason

Rd.

335

Katy

77450

392-9090

Ramon CAVAZOS JR.

1610

Richmond

Houston

77006

526-0011

Michael

B.

CHARLTON

4606 FM

1960

W. 315 Houston

77069

Hector A. CHAVANA 4111 North Fwy

Houston 77022

236-9900

I ra CHENKIN 5444

Westheimer 1500

Houston 77056

963-9888

Randall CLARK

Five

Post

Oak Park

1130 Houston

77027

552-0300

Dan

Lamar

COGDELL

4300

Scot land

Houston 77007 868-1111

Frank T. COLEMAN 202 Travis 408

Houston

77002

225-3100

Will ie H COLEMAN 4101

San

Jacinto

101 Houston 77004

523-6034

Terry

COLLINS

1018

Preston

100

Houston

77002

869-1105

Denise COLLINS

723

Main 214

Houston

77002

234-9613

Mary E. CONN

1900

North

Loop W. 500 Houston 77018 957-1342

Juan M.

CONTRERAS

102 So. Lockwood

Houston

77011

926-4604

R.P.

Skip

CORNELIUS 1300 Texas

Ave.

101 Houston

77002

237-8380

W. Michael COULSON 7721 Park

Place

Blvd. Houston 77087

644-1783

Cather ine

COULTER 1225

Heights

Blvd.

Houston

77008

864-8798

Dennis CRAGGS

1940 W. Bell

Houston

77019

526-5600

John E. CROW

209

W. Shaw 200 Pasadena 77506 472-3647

Linda

G

CRYER

3000

Post

Oak Blvd. 1400 Houston 77056 621-5957

David CUNNINGHAM 1927

Norfolk

Houston

77098

520-7701

o

Edward

A.

DAVIS I I I 2701 Fannin

Houston 77002 655-1616

Sam DEANE

5424 Katy Fwy

Houston 77007 864-7916

Dick DE GUERIN

1018 Preston 2nd

f l

Houston 77002 223-5959

John

L.

DENNINGER

628 Pecore

Houston

77009

864-0258

Glenn

H DEVLIN

1101 Heights

Blvd.

Houston

77008

869-9909

Andrea DIAMOND

P.O. Box 2751

Houston

77001 869-2240

C Logan DIETZ P.O. Box 271665

Houston

77277

James

DOUGHERTY

909 Kipling Houston 77006 521-9551

Larry

DOWELL

9225 Katy Freeway 405

Houston 77024 461-2369

Thomas DUNN

3210

Smith Houston 77006 523-8006

Benjamin

DURANT

4810

Caroline Houston

77004

529-3803

Albert M. DWORKIN

Five

Post

Oak

Park

1130 Houston 77027

552-0300

September 1986/Docket Call

SD15


26/36

E

Danny

EASTERLING

Candelar io

ELIZONDO

Steven ELLINGER

Jose A. ESQUIVEL

Michael

ESSMYER

Larry

Q. EVANS

F

Kerry

G.

FELLOWS

Robert

FICKMAN

Raymond

L. FISHER

Mike

FOSHER

Jan

FOX

Stanley

C. FRANK

Richard FRANKOFF

Floyd

W FREED I I I

Charles

FREEMAN

Larry

FRITH

Gerald FRY

a

Carolyn

GARCIA

Esmeralda

GARCIA

Rogelio GARCIA

Edward

F.

GARZA

Kathryn GEIGER

Mary Ann GEORGE

Dan

B.

GERSON

Johnny

M GILL

Greg

GLADDEN

James Greg

GLASS

Alan H.

GOLDSMITH

Marilyn GOLUB

W K. GOODE

Lana

GORDON

Nathan

GORDON

Deborah GOTTLIEB

Bj l l GREEN

228-4441

655-8085

960-0330

520-1516

868-1111

659-9090

862-4116

526-3121

675-7477

Documents

1986 September Docket Call