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