Grayson, Alonzo Jr.

1602-IH NO. PD-1603-14 IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ALONZO GRAYSON, JR., Petitioner, „ DECEIVED IN COm ^ CRIMINALAPPEALS THE STATE OF TEXAS, FEB 13 2015 Respondent. ^MAOOB^QtBI From the Fifth District Court of Appeals No: 05-13-00832-CR PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FEB 13 20^5 Abel Acosta, Clerk Alonzo Grayson, Jr. Clements Unit - 1867695 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Pro-se TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Table of Contents i Index of Authorities ii Statement Regarding Oral Argument. . 1. Statement of the Case 1. Statement of Procedural History ... 1. Grounds For Review 2. Argument 2-6, Prayer For Relief 7. Certificate of Service 7. Appendix INDEX OF AUTHORITIES PAGE Brown v. State, 955 S.W.2d 724 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1998) 2 Chavez v, Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003) 4 U.S. v. Collins, 40 F.3d 95 (5th Cir. 19940 5 Hayes v. Wash, 373 U.S. 503 (1963) 4 Henderson v. State, 962 S.W.2d 544 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) 5 U.S. v. Hughes, 640 F.3d 428 (5th Cir. 2011) 5 U.S. Michael C, 442 U.S. 707 (1979) 5 Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978) 5 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 5 U.S. v. Reynolds, 367 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2004) 5 Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) 3 U.S. v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2002) 5 U.S. v. Thongsophorn, 503 F.3d. 51 (2007) 5 Tidmore v. State, 976 S.W. 2d 724 (tex.App.-Tyler 1998) 2 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) 4, 6 Woodfox v. State, 742 S.W.2d 408 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987) 3 Texas Penal Code § 9.31(a) 2, 3 Texas Penal Code § 2.03(d) 3 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure § 38.21 5 li STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Petitioner is a state prisoner and the issues presented herein are not complex requiring oral argument. Therefore, the need for oral argument is not needed and Petitioner waives oral argument. STATEMENT OF THE CASE After nearly thirty years, the Collin County Sheriff's Office investigate Petitioner for a murder. Two Deputies take and question Petitioner, an MHMR patient with mental disabilities. The interview was intense and conducted in a hospital police interview room that resulted in Petitioner nearly having to have medical attention. Under extreme pressure Petitioner gave a confession to the Deputies and an arrest warrant immediately followed with subsequent conviction. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HTSTORY In May of 2013 and after a plea of not guilty, a jury convicted Petitioner of murder and sentenced him to fifty (50) years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000.00. Petitioenr gave timely notice of appeal and on November 17, 2014, the Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a non published opinion in case number 05-13-00832-CR from the 296th District Court of Collin County, Texas in cause number 296-81500- 2012. Petitioner now seeks Discretionary Review. Page 1, GROUNDS FOR REVIEW GROUND ONE: THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY ON SELF-DEFENSE WAS NOT REQUIRED BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE OF THE CASE. GROUND TWO: THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SUPRESS HIS CONFESSION. ARGUMENT GROUND ONE RESTATED: THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY ON SELF-DEFENSE WAS NOT REQUIRED BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE OF THE CASE. "The defendant has the initial burden of producing some evidence to justify submission of a self-defense instruction." Tidmore v. State, 976 S.W. 2d 724, 729 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1998). Evidence of Petitioner's belief that force was immediately necessary to protect himself against Bobby Ray Taylor was clearly evident in the case and justified the use of force as allowed under Texas law. Texas Penal Code §9.31(a). If the evidence raises the issue of self-defense, the trial court must submit a jury instruction on the defensive theory, regardless of whether such evidence is strong, feeble, impeached, or contradicted, and even if in the trial court's opinion the testimony is not entitled to belief. Brown v. State, 955 S.W. 2d 276, 279 (Tex. Crim.App. 1997(. Such instruction must be submitted to the jury even if the trial court does not believe the evidence, because the jury, not the judge, must decide the Page 2, the credibility of. the evidence. Woodfox v. State, 742 S.W. 2d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim.App. 1987). If a defense is raised by the evidence, the trial court must charge the jury that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires the jury to aquit the defendant. Texas penal Code §2.03(d); Shaw v. State, 243 S.W. 3d 647, 657-58 (Tex.Crim.App. (2007). The evidence presented at trial was clearly presented to raise the self-defense theory as required by law. The victim, Bobby Ray Taylor had commited an attempted aggravated assault with a deadly weapon by trying to run over the Petitioner with a car. (RR v. 4 pp. 157-158). Further, the victim did in fact assault Petition with a weapon by hitting him with a pool cue or other . unknown weapon., (RR v.4 pp. 159-160). The victim also told Petitioner in the presence of many witnesses that "mother fucker, I'm going to get a gun" in which minutes later a group of people returned with the victim and surrounded Petitioner and came at him. (State's Ex. 89C @ 31:25). Petitioner, as anyone else, would have believed that force was necessary in the present sitution to avoid further attack, assault or death at the hands of the victim. This clearly establishes and raises the issue of self-defnse in accordance with Texas law. Texas Penal Code § 9.31. Petitioner requested the court to give jury instruction on self-defense but ws denied. (RR v.6 p. 14). Page 3, A trial court has no "discretion" in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a clear failure by the trial court to annalyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion, and may result in appellate reversal by extraordinary writ. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W. 2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). The law of jury instruction on self- defense is clear and the evidence presented in the case was legally sufficient to give the jury an instruction on self- defense but the trial court abused it's discretion and refused the request for the instruction! GROUND TWO RESTATED: THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE PETITIONER'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS CONFESSION. Petitioner is a mentally disabled person and at the time of the intense interrogation by Collin County Sheriff's Deputies Petitioner was heavely medicated and confussed. The tactics used by the Deputies were of such an intense mesure upon the Petitioner that he was asked if he needed medical attention. (State's Ex. 89C @ 44:40). Confessions and other coerced evidence from a defendant are not admissible at trial. Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 770 (2003). To determine if a defendant's statements were involuntary, a court must ask whether, under the totality of the circumstances, law enforcement officials obtained the evidence by overbearing the will of the accused. Haves v. Wash, 373 U.S. 503, 513-14 (1963) This inquiry centers upon: (1) the conduct of law enforcement officials in creating pressure, Page 4. and (2) the suspect's capacity to resist that pressure. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 399-401 (1978). More specifically, to determine whether a defendant's state ment is the product of coercion and therefore involuntary, courts commonly consider: (1) the location of the questioning(Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 457-58 (1966)), (2) whether Miranda warnings were given (U.S. v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2002)), (3)and whether the accused initiated contact with law enforcement officials ( U.S. v. Thonqsophaprn, 503 F.3d 51, 56 (5th Cir. 2007)), An accused's personal characteristics, such as youth (U.S. v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725-26 (1979)), drug problem:- (U.S. v. Reynolds, 367 F.3d 294, 299 (5th Cir. 2004)), physicial condition (U.S. v. Huahes, 640 F.ed 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2011)), and experience with the criminal justice system (U.S. v. Collins, 40 F. 3d 95, 98 (5th Cir. 1994)) are also factors used to determine voluntariness of a confession. Due to the strategy of the Sheriff's Deputies the confession by the Petitioner was involuntary as it was based on deceit and coercion in violation of the U.S. Constitution and Article 38.21 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Henderson v. State, 962 S.W. 2d 544, 564 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). Petitioenr being an MHMR patient was under heavy medical treatment and under extreme emotional and physical pressure as his wife was in the hospital where the interrogtion was conducted. As clearly outlined in the appellate brief on pages 17-19, the Deputies Page 5. continuously pressured Petitioner by coercion in telling him they would have done the same thing and what the victim had done was unacceptable. Further, tellinq Petitioner that after all was said and done they would all go their separate ways which clearly made Petitioner believe that no further action would be taken against him after the interrogation. The totality of illegal tactics used by the Sherif's Deputies and the mental disability of Petitioner and that his being under psychiatric medication, the confession was untruthful and involuntary and should have been suppressed by the trial court. Even the Deputies claimed that they were putting "words in [Petitioner's] mouth." (State's Ex. 89C @ 26:45) However, the illegal interrogation continued and clearly resulted in ?>n involuntary confession that the trial court should have suppressed. it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to allow the illegal confession to be heard and presented to the jury as it resulted in Petitioner being convicted of a murder he never committed! Id. Walker @ 840. T'he fifth District Court of Appeals has committed a grave error in making a rulinq that affirms the murder conviction in this case based on an involuntary confession and this Court should revers with instructions to suppress the confession and order a new trial. Page 6. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Petitioner prays that this Court will give review of this case and after said review: (1) enter an Order reversing the Appeals Court's opinion; (2) enter an Order that the trial court abused it's discretion and erred in not including a jury instruction on self-defense, (3) enter an Order that the trial court abused it's discretion in not suppressing the involuntary confession, and (4) enter an Order granting Petitioner any and all further relief to which he is justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Alonaft Gi Clements Unit-1867695 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Jan'aury 20, 2015 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have on this .day of January, 2015, served a true and exact copy of this document on the Respondent by placing the same in the prison mail system, postage paid, addressed to: Wes Wynn, Assistant District Attorney 2100 Bloomdale Rd., Suite 20004 McKinney, TX 75071 Alonz