FILED IN x JAN0 82Q15
JRT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS pd-1050-14 AW
o_,„ IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
JAN 23 2-'«J09-13-00180-CR,09-13-00181-CR,09-13-00182-CR,09-13-00183-CR
PETER .JAMES MARTIN, Appellant, §
Abel AcOSta, UerK § From the 221st Judicial District
v. § Court of Montgomery County,TX.,
§ Cause 12-03-02604-CR
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, §
$••
PRO-SE MOTION TO RELAX PDR BRIEFING RULES IN THE INTEREST: OF JUSTICE
The pro-se PDR appellant's last time extension to file was for January
2,2014. On or about December 24,2014 Appellant served to the Court and State
a 14 page PDR Brief, a 2 page Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief,
a 34 page Supplemental Brief: The Pro-Se Identified Reversible Errors, and
57 pages of Appendix exhibits.The PDR and Supplemental Brief are single'spaced
in their respective "Arguments" sections, and the PDR contains an extensive
"Procedural History" section which was unnecessarily repeated in the arguments
sections. Appellant is not deliberately trying to evade the Court's rules on
space and form limitations by this presentation in this form, but has only
tried to conform to the Court's "Misc.Docket No.12-001" November 30,2012 Order
regarding Rule 9.4(e) Typeface which states "A typewritten document must be
printed in standard 10 character-per-inch (cpi) monospaced typeface." The copy
of the rules Appellant has is from 2011, and he obtained a copy of the "Order
Adopting Amendments to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9,38,49,52,53,55,
64,68,70 AND 71" from this Court's Clerk in a good faith attempt to follow
the rules. Appellant is pro-se and has never before filed any document in any
court, using the assistance of his fellow inmates to proceed in this PDR case.
If the form of Appellant's presentation to the Court does not confrom to the
rules of brieing and form, Appellant requests this Court suspend the rules
-1-
PDR briefing and form rules in the interests of justice. See Tex.R.App.P.,
Rule 2 ("On a party's motion or on its own initiative an appellate court may-
to expediate a decision or for other good cause—suspend a rule's operation
in a particular case and order a different procedure;...") and Rule 9.4 ("Form.
Except for the record, a document filed with an appellate court must—unless
the court accepts another form in the interest of justice—be in the following
form:..."). See Walker v. Thornton,67 S.W.3d 475(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002 no.pet)
(allowing relaxing the briefing rules).
These currently filed comprehensive documents demonstrate amongst other
arguments that Appellant was subjected to ineffective assistance of counsel
on this record in trial and on direct appeal, and several other constitutional
errors that demonstrate prima facie cases of reversible error in all four
convictions from the trial court below. See PDR Brief,ii,xii(listing "Arguments"
and "Grounds for Review"); Supp.Brief•..,ii,vii-ix(listing "Arguments" and
"Issues Presented"). Most significantly, Appellant has proven in his case
that sheriff's deputys and prosecutor acted in concert to present false testi
mony and suppress critical exonerating State's evidence to wrongfully convict
Appellant, in order to cover-up the arresting deputy's use of unconstitutional
and illegal excessive force to arrest Appellant by shooting him while he was
fleeing arrest by vehicle. See PDR Brief,9-11; Supp.Brief,20-31. These argument
are very difficult even for experienced counsel to properly present to this
Court, never mind this pro-se Appellant outrageously subjected to ineffective
assistance of trial counsel (who failed to employ Appx.31's "front-view" laser
test photo State's evidence to reveal the false testimony and suppressed bullet
trajectory evidence) and appeal counsel (who refused to argue anything at all
from the major trial defenses presented to the jury). Thus, Appellant's points
on appeal should be liberally construed in an effort to decide this case on
-2-
on it's legal merits and not on technical or even substantive defects i^in the
briefs. See Hanby's, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ann.,158,169(West's
2011 ed.)[citing, Rules 38.1, 38.9, Armstrong v. State,845 S.W.2d 909(Tex.Crim.
App.1993) AND OTHER AUTHORITIES). Because Appellant has demonstrated extreme
abuse of the judicial process below in his case, this Court should disregard
Appellant's pro-se briefing errors. Please note that Appellant has presented
this Court with 10 copies of his PDR Brief, Supplemental Brief, Motion for
Leave to file Supplemental Brief, and 57 pages of relevant appendix exhibits,
in what surely must be one of the most adequate, effective and meaningful PDR
presentations to this Court by a pro-se prisoner appellant in years.
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Appellant respectfully requests this
Court relax the briefing rules in his case in order to expedite a decision
for the above state good causes and accept Appellant's currently filed briefs
and exhibits in their present form in the interests of justice. Tex.R.App.P.,
Rules 2,9.4; Walker,67 S.W.3d 475.
I certify and affirm placing a true and correct copy of the foregoing
instrument into the prison mailbox with proper first class postage affixed,
addressed to the State Prosecutor in Austin and the Montgomery County DA in
Conroe on this date January 1,2015.
I PETER JAMES MARTIN declare under penalty of perjury that the above facts
are true and correct and the attached amended rules are what this Court's clerk
provided to me. EXECUTED ON JANUARY 1,2015.
Respecfully Submitted,
Peter James Martin, #1846003, pro-se,
Stiles Unit, 3060 FM 3514
Beaumont, Texas 77705
-3-
> ^ - fJlpAtrd^^kF'S'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Misc. Docket No. 12-001
ORDER ADOPTING AMENDMENTSTO THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 938,49,52,53,55,64,68,70 AND 71
ORDERED that:
1. Pursuant to Section 22.108 of theTexas Government Code, the Court of Cnminal
Appeals adopts the amendments to Rules 9, 38, 49, 52, 53, 55, 64, 68, 70 and 71 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure, as follows, effective December 1,2012,
2. The Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals is directed to:
a. file a copy of this Order with theSecretary of State;
b. cause a copy of this Order to bepublished in the Texas Bar Journal;
c. submit a copy of the Order for publication in the Texas Register.
Dated: November 30, 2012.
Rule 9. Papers Generally
9.4.Form
Except for the record, adocument filed with an appellate court must —unless the court accepts
another form in the interest ofjustice —be in the following form:
{Q)Typeface. Adocument inu&t be printed in siandaid 10-charactci pci-inch (cpi)
^nonpiopuiliuuallji spaced Courier typeface ui in 13 point ui larger piupuiliuiially spaced
typeface. Dm if the document hprinted in apiuportioiullj spaced typeface, footnotes may be
printed in typeface no Miiallu than lfrpuiiu. A document produced on a computer m,,*t h,
pnnted in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-noint except for footnotes which must he
no smaller than 12-point. A tvpewrittendocument must he printed in standard
10-character-per-inch (cpTftmonospacedjtvpeface.
(i)Len?th.
(l)Contents Included and Excluded. In calculatinp the length ofa document, every word and
every part oftfa^documenUncluding headings, footnotes, and^uotations. must he counted
;&epttriefotlrjwing: caption. iQ^nttt^oTparTieTrann^oTm oral argument^
table ofcontents, index ofauthorities, statement ofthe case, statement of issues presented
statement ofjurisdiction, statement ofprocedural history, signature, proofofservice.
certification, certificate ofcompliance, and apppnHiv| ^ _
(2)Maximum Length. The documents listed below must not exceed the following limits-
(A)A briefand response in adirect appeal to the Court ofCriminal Appeals in acase in which
the death penalty has been assessed: 37.500 words ifcomputer-generated, and 125 pages ifnot.
(B)A brief and response inan appellate court (other than a briefunder subparagraph flffr and a
petition and response in an original proceeding in the court ofappeals: 15.000 words if
computer^generated, and 50 pages if not. In a civil case in the court of appeals, the aggregate of
all briefs filed by aparty must not exceed 27.000 words ifcomputer-generated, and 90 pages if
not.
- (C)A ^ply briefin an appellate court and areply t0 aresponse to apetition in an original
proceeding in the court ofappeals: 7.500 words ifcomnuter-penerated. and 7S PagPg ifnnt
(D)A petition and response in an original proceeding in the Supreme Court, apetition for review
and response in the Supreme Court, apetition for discretionary reyjew and response in the rw
or Cnminal Appeals, and amotion for rehearing and response.in an appellate court: 4.500 words
if computer-generated. and"l5 pages if nrn^v
^-1 •liilain .,-i,..i«.iiM.ri..i, m,, |B|,.,>M^
(E)A reply to aresponse to apetition for review in the Supreme Court, areply to aresponse to a
petition in an original proceeding in the Supreme Court, and a reply to a response to apetition for
discretionary review in the Court ofCriminal Appeals: 2.400 words ifcomnuter-penerated anH «
pages if not.
(3)Certificate ofCompliance. Acomputer-generated document must include acertificate hy
counsel or an unrepresented party statinp the number ofwords in the document. The person
certifying may rely on the word count ofthe computer program used to prepare the document
(4)Extensions. Acourt may, on motion, permit adocument that exceeds the prescribed limit^)
^Nonconforming Documents. Unless every copy ofadocument conforms to these rules, the
court may strike the document and return all nonconforming copies to the filing party. The court
must identify the error to be corrected and state adeadline for the party to resubmit the document
in aconforming format. Ifanother nonconforming document is filed, the court may strike the
document and prohibit the party from filing further documents ofthe same kind. The use of
footnotes, Muallcr oi cuudensed typeface, or compacted or coinpiesscd printing features tu avoid
the limits of these mlcs arc grounds for the court tu strike a document.
Comment to 2012 Change: Rule 9 is revised to consolidate all length limits andestablish word
limits for documents produced on acomputer. All documents produced on acomputer must
comply with the word limits. Page limits are retained for documents that are typewritten or
otherwise not produced on a computer.
Misc. Docket No. 12-001 Page 2
Lawrence E. Meyers, Judge
V
Tom Price* Judge
$OuJ<&J&*~~^
Paul Womack, Judge
Cheryl Johnson, Judge
Michael E. Keasler, Judge
Barbara Parker Hervey, Judge
b> J2QiJ
Cathy Cochran, Judge
Elsa Alcala, Judge
Page 2
Misc. Docket No. 12-001
Rule 38. Requisites of Briefs
* * *
38.4.LcugtliufDiiefs
Misc. Docket No. 12-001 Page 3
An apptlldJU'i biu.ru. ji,.,.ll.,.M,>i,r„ ,l ••.,,,. ||.... ^iiiiii . uuluiii r.l
cc-lum U,, ,„uU „f li„,iUJ,iu^ Uk, .uuu^iufUu uZ: U.TL £ I , X ' Lll,
•I .|»uuf uf,u „u, a.. , ..uuu.ui., AmJTl^f^ Uuu Lm.*L M . ""Z ,'.
•f.kauu.,,UUuUuu, nu.u.auMl^.U.^^M.uu.Lu^uZ ^^n ^u
»partj mu,! .,„. ulLu.q 90, ^Uu>i ,t ufMULui, *Uul abuvc. Tl,w cuui. ,„a7, u££foT
permit a longei brief:
Rule 49. Motion and Further Motion for Rehearing
49.10. Length of Motion and Response
Amotion ui lespunsc must be iiu lunger than 15 pages.
Rule52. Original Proceedings
* * *
52.6.Lcugtli ufPetition, Response, and Reply
Excluding those pages containing the identity ofparties and counsel, the table ufcontents the
index ufauthuiUic, the statement of the ca,c, Uic statement ufjurisdiction, the issues picscnlcd
the signatuic, the piouf uf su vice, the cutificatiun, and the appendix, the petition and icspunsc'
must not exceed 50 pages each iffiled in the court ufappeals, or 15 pages each iffiled in the
SupicmcCuurt. Aicplj may be nu lungu than 25 pages iffiled in the cumt ufappeals ui 8
pages iffiled in the Oupiuiic Cuurt, exclusive of the items stated above. The court may, on
motion, permit a lunger petitiun, icspuiisc, orreply.
Rule 53. Petition for Review
53.6.Length ofPetitiun, Response, and Reply
The petition and any icsponsc must be no longei than 15 pages each, exclusive ufpages
containing the identity ufparties and euunscl, the table ufcuntcnta, the index ufauthorities the
statement uf the case, the statement ufjurisdiction, the issues presented, the signature, the piuuf
Misc. Docket No. 12-001 Page 4
of service, and thcappcndix. Aicply ina> be nu lungu than 0page, exclusive uf the items
stated abuvc. The Cuurt may, un mutiun, permit alungu petitiun, icspunsc, ui icply.
Rule 55. Brief on the Merits
* * *
55.6.LuigtuofDiiefs
Abrief un the muits ui brief in icspunsc must nut exceed 50 pages, exclusive uf pages
C°"!aUimg JlC ld61lUlJI uf paUiti md cuumt1'[llc tablc uf"J»Umta, the index uf authorities the
statement uf the case, the statement ufjurisdiction, the issues picsentcd the signalmc and 'the
proof of suv ice. Abiicfnucply may be no lunger than 25 pages, exclusive uf the items stated
above. The Cuurt may, un motion, pciniit aluiigci brief.
Rule64. Motion for Rehearing
64.6.Length of Motion and Response
Amotion ui iespouse must be nu lunger than 15 pages.
Rule 68. Discretionary Review With Petition
* • *
68.5.Lengtli of Petition and Reply
^•i^1.11,1011 "mt bc UU luugu Uuui l5 pdgC5' cxUuAivi ofpages cuntaining the table ofcontents,
thf-l"dCX °fduthoiitic&'thu statement legarding oial argument, the statement of the case, the
statement ufpioecduial histoiy, and the appendix. Aicply may be nu lungu than 0pages,
exclusive uf the items stated abuvc. The Court may, on mutiun, pumit alongei petition ui icply
Misc. Docket No. 12-001 Page 5
Rule 70. Brief on the Merits
70.3.Brief Contents and Form
Briefs must comply with the requirements ofRules_9and 38, except that they need not contain
the appendix (Rule 38.1 (k)). Copies must be served as required by Rule 68.11.
Rule 71. Direct Appeals
71.3.Briefs
Briefs in adirect appeal should be prepared and filed in accordance with Rules 9and 38 except
that the briefneed not contain an appendix (Rule 38.1(k)), and the briefin aca,c in which the
death penalty has been assessed may nut exceed 125 pages. All briefs must be filed in the Court
ofCnminal Appeals. The briefmust include ashort statement of why oral argument would be
helpful, ora statement that oral argument is waived.
Misc. Docket No. 12-001 Page 6
Martin, Peter James
Combined Opinion