1 NO. 01-13-00851-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS ERIK SANTANA GUANCHE § APPELLANT § V. § § STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 HOUSTON, TEXAS TRIAL COURT NO. 1869024

________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Rick Soliz Attorney at Law Texas Bar Number 00785013 P.O. Box 4051 Houston, Texas 77210 713-228-1900 Counsel Pro Bono

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 01-13-00851-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/17/2015 11:39:22 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 NO. 01-13-00851-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON, TEXAS ERIK SANTANA GUANCHE § APPELLANT § V. § § STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 7 HOUSTON, TEXAS TRIAL COURT NO. 1869024

APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Now comes, Erik Santana Guanche , Appellant in the above entitled and numbered cause, by and through his pro bono attorne y of record, Rick Soliz, and

submits this First Motion for Reconsideration En Ba nc. For good cause, Appellant shows as follows.3

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR RECONSIDERATION EN BANC

Appellant submits this response to the opinion issu ed by the court on December 16, 2014, the ruling issued by the court o n January 15, 2015 denying appellant’s motion for rehearing, and requests that the court reconsider en banc the following issues:

Issue 1: The Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the County Court Judge’s conduct was blatantly illegal pursuant to T exas Criminal law.

Issue 2: The Court of Appeals erred in finding tha t the Judge’s impartiality might not reasonably be questioned.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

ISSUE 1 Sufficient law has been stated in Appellant’s brief to respectfully explain

Texas law as it relates to this issue over the last decade and a half in the Court4

below. A Class A misdemeanor has occurred in every instance and on every occasion that an unlicensed interpreter has been ut ilized before the bench on

items of substance. Such occurrences number in the thousands and occur in open court daily as evidenced by documentation, inc luding the name and signature of those interpreting, filed in these cas es. The applicable Government Code section, supported by two earlier referenced a ttorney general opinions, among other things, supports Appellant’s position. Appellant’s motion to recuse did not lack any procedural requirements regarding this issue either. Per Appellant’s brief, the Texas Law of Parties directl y implicates the presiding judge of the court below as if she acted herself by criminally, illegally interpreting. Additionally, Appellant’s brief prov ides other specific laws violated stemming from this criminally illegal cond uct. Moreover, under the extreme, rampant lawlessness in the court below, there is no scenario that will allow Appellant to p roceed defending a prosecution without a violation of his due process rights. The illegal conduct is so commonplace that the Judge was taken aback and visi bly and loudly upset that the undersigned Counsel had the audacity to refuse to illegally interpret, without a license, for a client in open court. Appellant c omplained in the Court below and was ignored. Allowing, and in fact promoting, the illegal interpreting in5

open court proceedings, speaks volumes for what the Judge below thinks of minorities, and Spanish dominant defendants general ly. They are considered second class citizens not worthy of due process. A ppellant fits both categories. It is of no consequence that a different County Jud ge was available and in fact administered the plea below since the same issues a re prevalent in that court as well and all other Harris County Criminal Courts at Law. Also, it is common practice for any “visiting” judge to accommodate on ly procedures, rules and punishments of the presiding judge of the particula r court visited. In this case, the temporary judge came in from down the hall or d own the elevator for a few minutes to substitute in for the vacationing presid ing judge of Court 7. Additionally, the daily law violations are witnesse d, and in fact welcomed, by the assistant district attorneys and c ourt police and most other staff members, since it helps “clear the docket” wi th the resulting pleas of guilty without the bother of due process. So in essence, we have unprosecuted criminal law violations occurring en mass in front of the Judge of Court 7, the district Attorney, and the court’s police. And aga in, once this ongoing scenario is apparent in the court, there is absolute disrega rd for Appellant’s civil rights, due process and justice generally. Appellant canno t have a fair trial in this court, nor be fairly monitored pretrial by the court nor c an the court monitor defendant6

post trial (probation) nor fairly rule on any post plea items during the remainder of the court’s jurisdiction post plea. Defendant w as hindered and stifled from complaining or filing motions post plea since to do so would be useless except for procedural purposes such as extending time peri ods for appeal.

ISSUE 2

Presumable to a high extent, minorities and Hispani c citizens believe the Judge’s partiality is crystal clear under the circu mstances. Further, no reasonable person observing or knowing the court’s massive illegal activity would reasonably refuse to recognize the judge’s pa rtiality to an entire class, language, entire national origin, or an entire peop le. The judge’s impartiality could not be questionable to a higher degree. Appe llant is in this class, national origin, and people and is Spanish dominant. Appell ant believes any reasonable person would reasonably question this judge’s impar tiality.

PRAYER Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant prays tha t this motion for reconsideration en banc be unconditionally granted, that this Court grant the7

relief sought or set the matter for oral argument a nd after argument, reverse the judgment of the courts below and remand the case fo r trial on the merits.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the attached and foregoing document will be served on the Harris County Distri ct Attorney's Office.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The undersigned does hereby certify the word count in the body of this

brief to be well under the maximum limit and about 1019 words.

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Rick Soliz, Rick Soliz T.B.N. 00785013 P.O. Box 4051 Houston, Texas 77210 713-228-1900 Pro Bono Attorney for Appellant