ND . 06-15-DDD56-CR FILED IN RECEIVED IN The Court ofAp'peate The Court of Appeals COLLINS Sixth District § IN THE 6™ DISTRICT CDUR^ DiStH<* Pro-Se MAY 1 8 2015 f «AY 18 2015 V. Texarkana, Texas * § OF APPEAL5 T Debra Autrey, Clerk § Texarkana, Texas STATE DF TEXAS § texarkanna, Texas Debra K. Autrey, Clerk MOTION TD ADD 5TATEMENT OF DEFENDANT TO CURRENTLY FILED APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF CDURT; Comes Now ,Defendant Pro-5e ,(Collins) who humbly requests that in review of above styled and numbered Appeal NO. 06-15-00056 CR, that a Statement from Defendant (Collins) be considered along uith currently filed Brief. Brief was mailed nut on April 16, 2015 by hand delivery to mailroom personnel at C.T. Terrell Unit after sufficient U.S. Postage was insured. Brief was dated April 17, 2015. Pro-Se Defendant (Collins) would ask this Court to consider Copy of Bill of Cast in Cause NO. 5629-C as additional' evidence to above mentioned voidable conviction. I, Billy Max Collins, Applicant would accert the simple fact that Total Fine and Courtroom Costs could not have been paid through three days in jail, as stated on Criminal Dockett Sheet. In closing of Statement, I would also accert notice to signature of Tracy Smith, Deputy to Debbie Shirley, Hopkins 1 County Clerk, ha vingii bden duly signed and authenticated. Alleged Waivers and File Stamps of Mary Attesley are NOT signed by anyone of proper authority. This amendment of evidence to be incorporated with Applicant's Brief as EXHIBIT F_ IN GOD I TRUST, Billy Max Collins #1BB4B Retrial for lesser offense. "cusedToes not consent to the^ischarge of the When a trial on a higher charge ends in a jury.80 '"" mistrial so that defendant can be retried on thi higher charge, it is not fundamentally unfair for On the other hand, if the jury is discharged the state to charge and try him for a much lesser without verdict and without accused's consent offense; -4 this is true whether the lesser offense for a reason legally insufficient and without an •^ . ' . is or is not a lesser included offense.*5 Absolute, imperious, overriding, or overruling ne- f^s- ' cessity for iCTHe" discharge is equivalent tp_an-s^ § 231. Discharge of Jury without Verdict ^cquittal^nH"lnay~Be pleaded as a"bar to a x A (riul court may, in ihc exercise of its sound discretion, Subsequent indictment,31 as where the case is dbcharge 11 jury without the consent of accused when there taken from "the jury for mere matter of conve- 19, Me.—State v. Flick. 495 A.2d 339. Mass.—Commonwealth v. Steward. 483 N.E.2d 1091. 390 Mass. 76. 20. Maw.—Commonwealth v. Steward, 483 N.E.2d 1091, 396 Mass. Ohio—State v. Palmieri. App.. 46 N.E.2d 318. 28 O.L.A. 398. 13 0.0. 7b. 517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 Ohio Si. 30, 13 O.O. 526. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502 28. U.S.—Oregon v. Kennedy. Or.. 102 S.Cl. 2083, 456 U.S. 667, 72 N.Y.S.2cl l'"2. L.Ed.2d 4it), on lemaiid Slate v. Kennedy, ti57 P.2d 717, 61 Or.App 469, affirmed 060 P.2d 1316, 295 Dr. 2o0—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69 21. Ml ••S.UU r'riel. 5Ui A.2d oil. S.Cl. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. 974. rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 22. U.S.—Abdi v. Slule of Georgia. C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500, rehearing 337 U.S. 921, 93 L.Ed. 1730. denied 749 F 2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871,471 U.S. 1006, U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied 107 S.Cl. 85 L.Ed.2d 164. 182. 479 U.S. 852, 93 L.Ed.2d 116. 23. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 38J, 502 Ill —People v. Thomas. 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 ill.2d 344, certiorari denied N.Y.S.2il 972. Thomas v, Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005. 3 L.Ed.2d 1034. 24. S.C.—Stale v. Mills. 314 S.E.Id 324. 28 1 S.C. 60. oerlinrart denied NY.—McCabe v. County Court of Bronx County, 199 N.Y.S.2d 247, Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324, 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261. 24 Misc.2d 477. 25. S.C—State v. Mills, 114 S.E.2d 324, 281 S.C. 60, certiorari denied 29 US —Wade v. Hunter. Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684. 93 L.Ed. Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324. 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261. 974, rehearing 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730. Applicability of double jeopardy to prosecution for lesser included Blair v. White. C.C.A.Kan.. 24 F.2d 323. offense see infra § 251. HI.—People v. Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 lll.2d 344. certiorari denied 26. U.S.—Green v. U.S., App.D.C, 78 S.Cl. 22!. 355 U.S. 184, 2 Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034. L.Ed.2d 199. Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295. 27. U.S.—U.S. v. Crosley, E.D.Pa.. 634 F.Supp. 28, affirmed 787 F.2d 584. Nev.—State v. Helm. 209 P.2d 187, 66 Nev. 286. certiorari denied Helm v. Slate of Nevada. 70 S.Cl. 794, 339 U.S. 942, 94 L.Ed. 1358. Conn.—State v. Van Sam, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369. 30. Ky.—Baker v. Commonwealth, 132 S.W.2d 766, 280 Ky. 165. 111.—People v, Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16, 15 Ill.2d 344, certiorari denied Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Ct. Ii43, 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034. 31. U.S.—Comcro v. U.S.. C.C.A.Cal., 48 F.2d 69. 22CJ.S-13 277 fir 'till •Ml VW_. UulaJ / ?• §231 CRIMINAL LAW Pr<^^5^^ cL- /r&-r nience.32 fX*? dence to an impartial jury,-" and where a trial court properly declares a mistrial, the criminal The cojixts are to determinejii the|r__discretjpn whether under alljhe circumstances of_each case trial may be terminated before the issue of defen imperious "or urgent necessity exists.3;t The • In effect, the manifest necessity test pro government has the right to retry the defendant only where tects defendant against bad faith conduct by the there i.4 manifest necessity for the net, or (he ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. judge or prosecutor which results in a mistrial being declared and gives the prosecution a more Library References favorable opportunity to convict defendant.12 Criminal Ijaw ©=!&>, 1B4. Manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial ad LaFave &• Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. 3 § 24.2(b). mits of no precise formulation I3 or mechanical application," for the high degree of necessity. Generally, the double jeopardy clause does not mandated by the phrase can be found in a variety prevent the government from forcing defendant of circumstances;15 accordingly, the degree of to submit to a second trial where the first trial deference to be accorded the trial judge's deter ended in a mistrial.8 The practical justification mination of manifest necessity varies with the for the exception to the "one trial" rule so as to circumstances of each case.16 The strictest scru permit a retrial of defendant after a mistrial is tiny is applied to the court's determination where simply that it is fairer to both defendant and the accused claims that the mistrial was intentionally government.9 However, when a mistrial is de caused by the prosecution.17 At the other end of clared over defendant's objection, the govern the spectrum, great deference is accorded the ment has the right to retry defendant only where triaTjudge's conclusion trTaTajnistrial is required there is manifest necessity for the act,10 or the rJecause of a deadlocked jiiry> Any doubt must. 7. Kan.—Slate v. Rush, 26 P.2d 581, 138 Kan. 465. 11. U.S.—U.S. v. Sanford, Mont., 97 S.Ct. 20, 429 U.S. 14, 50 L.Ed.2d N.Y.—People ex rel. Sabatina v. Jennings. 177 N.Y.S. 210, 108 Misc. 17. on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v, Dinitz, Fla., 96 S.Cl. 1075, 93, 37 N.Y.Cr. 550. affirmed 185 N.Y.S. 949, 194 A.D. 950. 424 U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267, on remand 538 F.2d 1214, rehearing denied 542 F.2d 1174, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1133, 429 U.S. 1104, Tex.—Garza v. State, Cr.App.. 658 S.W.2d 152, certiorari denied Texas 51 L.Ed.2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Cl. 1013, 420 U.S. 332, 43 v. Garza, 104 S.Cl. 194, 464 U.S. 863, 78 L.Ed.2d 171. L.Ed.2d 232—U.S. v. Jorn, Utah, 91 S.Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27 8. U.S.—U.S. v. Scotl, Mich., 98 S.Cl. 2187, 437 U.S. 82. 57 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 543 (per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring in 65. on remand 579 F.2d 1013, ceniorari denied 99 S.Cl. 1266, 440 judgment)—Gori v. U.S.. N.Y.. 81 S.Ct. 1523, 367 U.S. 364, 6 L.Ed. U.S. 929. 59 L.Ed.2d 486. rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 226, 439 U.S. 2d 901, rehearing denied 82 S.Ct. 25. 368 U.S. 870. 7 L.Ed.2d 70. 883, 58 L.Ed.2d 197—Jcffers v. U.S., Ind., 97 S.Ct. 2207. 432 U.S. U.S. v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165. 137. 53 L.Ed.2d 168, rehearing denied 98 S.Ct. 241, 434 U.S. 880, 54 L.Ed.2d 164—Lee v. U.S., Ind.. 97 S.Cl. 2141, 432 U.S. 23, 53 L.Ed. U.S. v. Salvador, C.A.Ariz., 740 F.2d 752, certiorari denied 105 2d 80—U.S. v. Taleo, N.Y.. 84 S.Ct. 1587, 377 U.S. 463, 12 L.Ed.2d S.Cl. 978, 469 U.S. 1196, 83 L.Ed.2d 980. 448. Mo.—State v. Fiizpatrick, 676 S.W.2d 831. U.S v Si.^cr. C.A 8(Miiin.j. 785 F.;d 22S. ceniorari Jenioj !U7 N.J.—Siaio •„. Abbaii, 493 A.2d 513, 99 N.J. 416. S.Ct. 273, 479 U.S. 883, 93 L.Ed.2d 249—U.S. v. Borokinui, C.A.Va., 748 F.2d 2J6. 12. Colo.—People v. Schwarlz. 678 P.2d 1000. Mass.—A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 465 N.£.2d 240, 392 Muss. 52. 13. U.S.—Abdi v. Stale of Georgia, C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500, rehearing denied 749 F.2d 733. certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, 9. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Ct. 1013. 420 U.S. 332, 43 L.Ed.2d 85 L.Ed.2d 164. 232. 10. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington. Ariz.. 98 S.Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497. 14. U.S.—Abdi v. Slate of Georgia. C.A.Ga., 744F.2d 1500, rehearing 54 L.Ed.2d 717—U.S. v. Sanfoid. Mont.. 97 S.Cl. 20. 429 U.S. 14, 50 denied 749 F.2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, 85 L.Ed.2d 164. L.Ed.2d 17, on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v. Diilitz, Fta.. 96 S.Ct. 1075, 424 U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267. on remand 538 F.2d 1214, 15. U.S.—Abdi v. Slateof Georgia, C.A.Ga., 744 F.2d 1500. rehearing rehearing denied 542 F.2