AP-76936
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
December 31, 2014 Transmitted 12/31/2014 9:30:38 AM
Accepted 12/31/2014 9:42:17 AM
ABEL ACOSTA
APPEAL NO. 76,936 CLERK
___________________________________
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
___________________________________
TERENCE TRAMAINE ANDRUS, Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
___________________________________
On Appellant’s Direct Appeal from the
240th Judicial District Court, of Fort Bend County, Texas
Cause Number 09-DCR-051034.
The Honorable Thomas R. Culver, III, Judge Presiding
___________________________________
APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
___________________________________
Cary M. Faden
77 Sugar Creek Center Blvd., Suite 230
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Telephone: (281) 491-6182
Facsimile: (281) 491-0049
Texas Bar No. 06768725
E-MAIL: caryfaden@aol.com
Attorney for Appellant
NOW COMES APPELLANT in the above-styled matter, and pursuant to this
Court’s Order of December 22, 2014, do hereby show the Court the following:
1. Appellant by and through his Attorney On Direct Appeal, CARY M.
FADEN, will appear at oral argument, set by the Court for February 5,
2015, at the University of Texas-El Paso Campus, at 9:00 a.m.
2. Time permitting, Appellant will be arguing these points:
POINT OF ERROR ONE
THE TRIAL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED AND ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS.
POINT OF ERROR THREE
THE TRIAL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY ALLOWING THE
STATE TO STRIKE JUROR NUMBER TWO (2) IN VIOLATION OF
BATSON V. KENTUCKY.
POINT OF ERROR FOUR
THE TRIAL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY ALLOWING THE
STATE TO STRIKE JUROR NUMBER EIGHTEEN (18) IN
VIOLATION OF BATSON V. KENTUCKY.
POINT OF ERROR FIVE
THE TRIAL COURT REVERSIBLY ERRED BY ALLOWING THE
STATE TO STRIKE JUROR NUMBER TWENTY-FIVE (25) IN
VIOLATION OF BATSON V. KENTUCKY.
POINT OF ERROR TWELVE
APPELLANT’S CONTENDS HIS TRIAL COUNSEL WAS
INEFFECTIVE DEPRIVING HIM OF HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
TRIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION OF A POTENTIAL
MITIGATION DEFENSE WAS DEFICIENT; ALTHOUGH A
MITIGATION EXPERT WAS RETAINED SAID MITIGATION
EXPERT WITHDREW PRIOR TO TRIAL AND NO OTHER WAS
RETAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE ABA GUIDELINES,
ESSENTIALLY THERE WAS NO INVESTIGATION OF THE
MITIGATION ISSUE.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/CARY M. FADEN
Cary M. Faden
SBN 06768725
Counsel for Appellant
77 Sugar Creek Center Blvd., Suite 230
Sugar Land, Texas 77478
Telephone: (281) 491-6182
Facsimile: (281) 491-0049
E-MAIL: caryfaden@aol.com
Attorney For Appellant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
In accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 9.5, I Cary M. Faden, certify that a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Motion has been served, by hand delivery, and/or
by U.S. Mail, and/or by facsimile transmittal, to Terence Tramaine Andrus; to the
attorney for the State Of Texas, John F. Healey, Jr., District Attorney, Appellate
Division, 301 Jackson Street, Room 101, Richmond, Texas 77469 on this 31st day
of December, 2014.
/s/ CARY M. FADEN
Cary M. Faden