S/0 -t5
ORIGINAL
CASE NO. 12-14-00189-CR
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
Twelfth Supreme Judicial District of Texas
Tracy Ray Hass
V. i ^
•y !£)*»" ne
The State of Texas .8
1 7 2015
Appeal in Case No. 061728
Bring Forth This Petition
S5^SSS
CourtolAPE petition for Discretionary Review
FILED \U
COURT OF criminal APPEALS
AUS 19 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
Petition for Discretionary Review
Shipman V. State 604 SW 2d. 182,185 Tex.Crim.App 1980 stating
that state may not rely on its own questioning to get collateral
matters, extraneous offenses, and bad acts that would otherwise
be inadmissible...
(Prejudicial effect was the only proof the District Attorney relied
on.)
Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 404 (b) 403
Generally, evidence of an extraneous offense is not admissible
during the guilt, innocence phase of trial. See Abnor v. State 871
s.w.2d-726, 738Texcrim. app 1994...
For extraneous offense evidence to be admissible under 404, the
evidence must be relevant to a fact of consequence in the case
apart from its tendency to prove conduct in formity with
character. See Santellan v. State 939 s.w. 2d 155,167 Tex. Crim.
App. 1997 holding that rule 404b objection entails a Relevancy
analysis even when not clearly articulated...
5th Amendment to U.S. Const.
Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy...Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself. Nor be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.
4th Search and Seizures...No warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause. Section 1 of 14th amendment, declares him a
citizen of the U.S. and promises that no state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States of America.
Furthermore the Appellant will show the court did error in not
suppressing evidence seized as a result of an illegal arrest.
/k£/r*$i
On January 15, 2012 at 2:13 pm a call was received to Grayson
County Dispatch, (Check dispatch log) about a white truck pulling
a trailer and a car on an abandoned property. When the officer
went to that address the officer found nothing out of place. After
driving around, the officer found a damaged gate at a different
location and address. He entered the property and investigated
the premises, walked about 400 yards up the road and searched
finding about 30 vehicles, 2 houses and a shed...nothing more.
That's unlawful entry. The officer took control of that property 14
hours after any call to the area was made. The officer went back;
found a car stuck on the side of the road. The car that was stuck
on the side of the road did not fit the description of one of the
vehicles of earlier reported. 14 hours later still no confirmation of
any wrong doing on this property. The officer in court testified he
had no knowledge of any wrong doing or proof. He just knew a
feeling. That does not constitute probable cause.
The officer put appellant in the cop car and searches the car that
is stuck on the side of the road. There were no warrants.
Appellant goes to jail charge of theft and gets out on bond.
Several weeks' later court put burglary of a building charge on
appellant with $2000.00 bond. There was no proof that a burglary
of a building took place. Also no proof of any physical evidence -
no finger prints, foot prints, no witnesses, no DNA, and no finger
prints on the property itself (by the gate). All evidence points
more to possession of second hand stolen property than anything
else' Vlf)oA+b A-C^c An^^t i ^ •TWin
J£ 6t,m«** e^or3\>2 MR. SMITH: The State is ready, Y aoiz
A. Yes, I chose to testify.
Q. And people marched out and told you that you weren't
subpoenaed and you didn't have to testify but you were
insistent because you told them you knew information about
this offense; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. When you got in there and you got done testifying
the Grand Jury decided to indict you; fair enough?
A. Correct.
Q. So they indicted you?
THE COURT: We all make mistakes.
Q. They indicted you on this case based on the
information for which you testified to in the Grand Jury; fair
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
cx-mj&r 11
i enough?
2 A. Fair enough.
3 (State's Ex. No. 2 marked. )
4 MR. SMITH: I will move to offer State's two which
is the o ffense report. Basically my understanding that you
want to accept responsibility for th is by entering a no
contest plea today because you want to take the benefit of the
8 plea agreement that the State is off ering you?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. That is basically that we have agreed to cap your
11 deal with probation an d the judge could decide whether you get
12 deferred or not? .
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Fair enough?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q- Do you want to take advant age of that deal and also
17 you would agree based on the testimony that you present ed and
18 based on what Mr. Hass might say and what the offense r eport
19 shows is there is a li kelihood that a jury could come back anc
20 find you guilty anyway So you want to basically ~_ ust dispose
21 of it wi th a plea of no contest; is that fair?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you have any questions about anything we are
24 doing?
25 A. No.
CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER
JjIu^M
/-Cxi
^fc__^^4r__^j ~$AfWp f£
J/ ^/ ViL pl&' / / It".!, I. /'V"
^~^tm&>^
_,„
/ftsiA- Qja d-AtflVT ^
K^t-L.