WR-83,783-0 1



## I N TH E COUR T O F CRIMINA L APPEAL S

O F TEXA S

I NR ETHOMA S ALLE NSIMON , Relato r O NAPPLICATIO NFO RAWRI T O FMANDAMU S I NCAUS ENO . 4290 8 I NTH E424 TM DISTRIC T COUR T

FRO M BURNE T COUNT Y RESPONSEOF Hon. Wiley B. ^^Sonny" McAfee, District Attorney Rea l Part y i nInteres t OFFIC EO FDISTRIC T ATTORNE Y 33^' ' an d424' ^ JUDICL ^ DISTRICT S Wile y B . McAfee , Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 725 , Llano , Texa s 7864 3 Telephon e Telecopie r (325 ) 247-575 5 (325 ) 247-527 4 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx,u s By : GaryW.Bunyar d Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y State Ba r

No . 0335350 0 ATTORNE Y FO RREA LPART Y I NINTERES T WILE Y B . "SONNY " McAFEE , DISTRIC T ATTORNE Y

Septembe r

3 , 201 5 Oral Argument

is Waived WR-83,783-01 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/3/2015 1:36:05 PM Accepted 9/3/2015 1:44:55 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKIdentity Of The Parties Tria l Court/Responden t Honorabl e Eva nStubb s 424' ^ Judicia l Distric t Burne t Count y Courthous e Anne x (North ) 170 1 Eas t

Pol k St. , Suit e 7 4 Burnet , T X 7861 1 424coordinator@dcourttexas.or g

Counse l fo r

Rea l Part y i nInteres t - Wile y B . "Sonny " McAfee , Distric t Attorne y Gar y W . Bunyar d Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 (325 ) 247-575 5 State Ba r

No . 0335350 0 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u s Rea l Part y i nInteres t

- Gar y E . Prus t Gar y E . Prus t Attorne y at

La w 160 7 Nuece s St . Austin , T X 7870 1 (512 ) 469-009 2 gary@prustlaw.co m

i iCounse l fo r Relato r Trac y D . Cluc k Attorne y at

La w 1260 0 Hil l Countr y Blvd. , Suit e R-27 5 Austin , T K

7873 8 (513 ) 329-261 5 State Ba r

No . 0078725 4 tracy@tracyclucklawyer.co m

O f Counse l fo r

Relato r L . T . "Butch " Brad t Attorne y at

La w 1401 5 Southwes t

Freeway , Suit e 4 Sugar Land , T X 77478-350 0 (281 ) 201-070 0 State Ba r

No . 0284160 0 ltbradt@flash.ne t Relato r Thoma s Alle nSimo n S O #2654 6 Burne t Count y Jai l 90 0 Count y Lan e Burnet , T X 7861 1

i i i

### Table Of Contents Pag e Inde x o f Authoritie s v i Statemen t

o f th e Cas e 1 Statemen t

o nOra l Argumen t

1 Statemen t

o nJurisdictio n1 Respons e t o Issue s Presente d2 Statemen t

o f th e Fact s 3 Summar y o f

th e Argumen t

- Respons e t o Issu e No . 1 . l.a . Th e Responden t ha s th e authorit y t o remov e appointe d counse l whe nth e Responden t ha s mad e afinding o f goo dcaus e tha t

i s entere do nth e recor d5 l.b . Wher e th e Responden t ha s authorit y t o remov e appointe dcounse l fo r goo dcaus e tha t

i s entere d o nth e recor dMandamu s wil l no t li e 5 Argumen t

o nRespons e t o Issu e No . 1 . 1.1 . Principal s o f

La w 7 1.2 . Applicabl e Fact s 8 1.3 . Discussio nan dConclusio n8

i vSummar y o f th e Argumen t

- Respons e t o Issu e No . 2 . 2.a . Th e Rea l Part y i nInteres t neithe r join s no r

oppose s Issu e No . 2 becaus e th e Court' s orde r entere do n Augus t 26 , 2015 , t o sta

y furthe r

proceeding s i nth e underlyin g caus e unti l thi s applicatio nfo r wri t o f mandamu s i s resolve deffectivel y render s thi s Issu e moo t

1 0 Argumen t

o nRespons e t o Issu e No . 2 . 2.1 . Non e Presente db y Rea l Part y i nInteres t 1 0 Praye r fo r Relie f 1 1 Certificat e o f

Wor dCoun t

1 1 Certificat e o f

Servic e 1 2

V

### Index Of Authorities Cas e La w Pag e Braxton v. Dunn, 80 3 S.W.2c l 318 , 32 0 (Tex.Crim.App . 1991) . 7 Ex parte Billy Burl

Clayton, 17 1 Tex . Crim . 398 ; 35 0 S.W.2 d92 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 1961 ) 8 Stotts V. Wisser, 89 4 S.W.2 d36 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 1995 ) 9 Texas Dept. of

Corrections v. Dalehite, 62 3 S.W.2 d420 , 42 4 (Tex.Crim.App . 1981 ) 7 , 9 TPwmas v. State, 55 0 S.W.2 d64 , 6 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 1977 ) 7

Constitution s U.S . Const , amend . V I7 U.S . Const , amend . XI V 7 Statutes/Rule s Tex . Cod e Crim . Proc . Art . 26.0 4 7 Tex . Cod e Crim . Proc . Art . 26.0 4 (j ) (2 ) 7 , 8 Tex . Disc . R . o f

Prof . Cond . Rul e 30 3 (a) (1 ) 8

v i

### statement Of The Case Counse l fo r

th e Relato r

ha s adequatel y set

fort hth e Statemen t

o f th e Cas e excep t tha t Relato r wa s arreste dan dlate r indicte dfo r

th e offense s o f

Sexua l Assaul t

an d Aggravate dAssaul t

Causin g Seriou s Bodil y Injury . Relato r wa s neve r

charge dno r indicte dfo r

Aggravate dSexua l Assault . Thes e charge s are pendin g an dawaitin g tria l subjec t

t o th e resolutio no f

thi s applicatio nfo r

wri t o f mandamus .



### Statement on Oral Argument Th e undersigne dwaive s Ora l Argument . Th e undersigne ddoe s no t believ e tha t Ora l Argumen t

wil lb e beneficia l fo r

thi s cas e fo r

th e reaso ntha t

th e issue s ar

e straigh t forwar dan dlac k

an y nove l o r

comple x nuances . Shoul dth e Cour t believ e tha t Ora l Argumen t

wil lassis t

th e Cour t

i nan y way , th e undersigne dwil lgladl y accommodat e th e Court .



### Statement on Jurisdiction Whil e no t

concedin g th e righ t

t o relief . Rea l Part y I nInteres t acknowledge s th e jurisdictio no f

thi s Cour t

a s set fort hb y Counse l fo r Relator .

1

### Respons e To Issues Presented

Respons e T o Issu e No . 1 : l.a . Th e Responden t ha s th e authorit y t o remov e appointe dcounse l whe nth e tria l cour t

ha s mad e afinding o f goo dcaus e tha t

i s entere do nth e record . 1 . b . Wher e th e Responden t ha s authorit y t o remov e appointe dcounse l fo r goo dcaus e tha t

i s entere do nth e recor dMandamu s wil l no t lie . Respons e t o Issu e No . 2 : 2 . a . Th e Rea l Part y i nInteres t neithe r join s no r

oppose s Issu e No . 2 becaus e th e Court' s orde r

entere do nAugus t

26 , 2015 , t o sta

y furthe r

proceeding s i nth e underlyin g caus e unti l thi s applicatio nfo r wri t o f mandamu s i s resolve deffectivel y render s thi s Issu e moot .

2

### statement Of TIte Facts Th e Relato r

wa s arreste do nMarc h24 , 2014 , fo r tw o count s o f

Sexua l Assaul t an don e coun t

o f Aggravate dAssaul t

Causin g Seriou s Bodil y Injury . Th e Relate r i s no t no w an dhas neve r

bee ncharge dwit hAggravate dSexua l Assaul t i nregar dt o thi s cas e a

s i s allege di nth e Petitio nfo r Mandamus . Th e Responden t appointe d Trac y D . Cluc k

o nApri l 8,2014 , t o represen t th e Relato r

o nthes e charges . Adul y empanele dGran dJur y the nreturne da nIndictmen t o nJun e 3 , 2014 , chargin g th e Relato r wit htw o count s o f

Sexua l Assaul t

an don e coun t

o f Aggravate dAssaul t Causin g Seriou s Bodil y Injury . A s describe db y Counse l fo r th e Relator , Trac y D . Cluc k file dex parte motion s seekin g fund s fo r

th e employmen t

o f amedica l exper t

an dfo r additiona l fund s fo r investigativ e services . Th e Responden t calle dfo r

a nex parte hearin g o nthes e motions . R RVol . 1 Pag e 4 . Presen t at thi s hearin g wa s Trac y D . Cluc k an dth e Relator . R RVol . 1 Pag e 4 . I npresentin g th e reason s fo r th e fund s bein g requeste d Trac y D . Cluc k

informe dth e Responden t tha t h e woul dno t

b e abl e t o provid e th e Relato r effectiv e assistanc e o f counse l withou t

th e funds . R RVol . 1 Page s 4-8 . I nmakin g th e decisio nt o remov e Trac y D . Cluc k a s counse l fo r

th e Relator , th e

3Responden t state dtha t

th e Responden t

wa s no t goin g t o pu t

Mr . Cluc k

i napositio n wher e h e woul dfee l lik e h e wa s bein g ineffective . R RVol . 1 Page s 1 1 - 12 . Specificall y th e tria l cour t held : "TH ECOURT : I' mno t removin g yo u becaus e you'v e requeste dth e additiona l funds . Wha t

you'r e statin g t o th e Cour t i s tha t withou t

thos e fund s yo u don' t believ e yo u ca n- yo u ca nprovid e effectiv e assistanc e o f counsel . That' s specificall y ~ "MR . CLUCK : Well , wha t - "TH ECOURT : Han g on . "MR . CLUCK : G o ahead . I' msorry . "TH ECOURT : That' s specificall y wha t yo u sai dan dI wan t

someon e els e t o loo k a t thi s case. " RRVollPagel2 . Late r i nth e da y th e Responden t appointe dGar y Prus t a s ne w counse l fo r

th e Relator .

4

### Summary Of The Argument on Respons e to Issue No. i l.a . Th e Responden tha s th e authorit y t o remov e appointe d counse l whe n th e Responden tha s mad e afindin g o f goo d caus e tha ti s entere d o n th e record , l.b . Wher e th e Responden tha s authorit y t o remov e appointe d counse l fo rgoo d caus e tha ti s entere d o n th e recor d Mandamu s wil l no tlie . Relato r complain s tha t

th e Responden t

di dno t

hav e goo dcaus e t o remov e Trac y D . Cluc k

a s Relator' s appointe dcounsel . However , Mr . Cluc k ha dexpresse d t o th e Responden t

hi s belie f

tha t h e wa s unabl e t o provid e effectiv e assistanc e o f

counse l unles s th e Responden t grante dth e fund s requested . Th e Responden t (a) wa s no t i nth e positio no f

grantin g th e fund s requeste ddu e t o th e excessiv e natur e o f th e request , (b ) wa s aware tha t non e o f th e othe r

thre e attorney s representin g th e thre e co-defendant s ha dexpresse dsuc ha nexcessiv e request , ( c ) ha dextensiv e persona l experienc e i nrepresentin g client s actin g i nth e rol e o f acrimina l defens e attorne y fo r

cour t appointe dclient s prio r t o bein g electe dt o th e bench , an d(d ) wa s sufficientl y awar e o f

th e fact s o f

th e instan t

cas e t o believ e tha t

th e leve l o f

fund s requeste dwa s excessive . Fo r thes e reason s th e Responden t ha dconcer ntha t

i f th eexcessiv e request s wer e no t granted , Mr . Cluc k

woul dmov e forwar dt o tria l o f th e cas e unde r

condition s tha t

woul dcreat e a nappellat e argumen t fo r ineffectiv e assistanc e o f

counse l an dthus , potentiall y requir e asecon dtria l a t th e expens e o f judicia l econom y an dth e taxpayer s o f Burne t County .

6

### Argument On Respons e to issu e No. 1

1.1 Principals of

Law Wher e aperso naccuse do f acrim e i s indigen t

th e tria l cour t

i s obligate dt o appoin t competen t

counse l t o represen t th e person . Tex . Cod e Crim . Proc . Art . 26.04 ; U.S . Const , amend , V I an dXIV ; Thomas v. State, 55 0 S.W.2 d64 , 6 8 (Tex . Crim . App . 1977) . Wher e counse l ha s bee nappointe dt o represen t aperson , th e cour t

has th e authorit y t o remov e an dreplace sai dappointe dcounse l i f th e cour t

make s afmdin g o f goo dcaus e tha t

i s entere do nth e record . Tex . Cod e Crim . Proc . Art . 26.0 4 0 (2) . Mandamu s relie f

i s availabl e onl y whe nth e relato r ca nestablis htw o things : first , tha t n o othe r

adequat e remed y at

la w i s available ; an dsecond , tha t th e ac t h e seek s t o compe l i s ministerial . Braxton v. Dunn, 80 3 S.W.2 d318 , 32 0 (Tex.CrimApp . 1991) . A nac t

i s ministeria l "whe nth e la w clearl y spell s ou t th e dut y t o b e performe d.. . wit hsuc hcertaint y tha t nothin g i s lef

t t o th e exercis e o f

discretio no r judgment. " Texas Dept. of Corrections v. Dalehite, 62 3 S.W.2 d420,42 4 (Tex.Cri mApp . 1981) .

7A nattorne y shal l no t knowingl y mak e amisrepresentatio no f fac t t o th e court . Ex parte Billy Burl

Clayton, 17 1 Tex . Crim . 398 ; 35 0 S.W.2 d92 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 1961) ; Tex . Disc . R . o f Pro f Cond . Rul e 30 3 (a) (1) . 1,2 Applicable Facts I nthi s case , Mr . Cluc k sough t approva l o f

th e Responden t

fo r additiona l fund s i na nunusuall y larg e amoun t fo r amedica l exper t

an dfo r additiona l investigation . R RVol . 1 Pag e 4 . I npresentin g hi s argumen t t o th e Respondent , Mr . Cluc k state d tha t h e woul dno t

b e abl e t o provid e effectiv e assistanc e o f counsel , o r

at leas t wa s concerne dabou t

hi s abilit y t o d o so , withou t th e requeste dfunds . R RVol . 1 Page s 4-8 . Expressin g concer nabou t Mr . Cluck' s apparen t inabilit y t o provid e th e Relato r wit hth e standar do f representatio nrequire db y la w unles s th e reques t fo r excessiv e fund s wa s granted , th e Responden t determine di t

necessar

y t o remov e Mr . Cluc k a s counse l fo r

Relato r an dappoin t

othe r counsel . R RVol . 1 Page s 11-12 . IJ Discussion and

Conclusion Whethe r

mandamu s shoul dli e i nthi s matte r i s determine do nwhethe r th e Responden t

di do r di dno t hav e goo dcaus e t o remov e Trac y D . Cluc k a s counse l fo r th e Relato r

i naccordanc e wit hTex . Cod e Crim . Proc . Art . 26.0 4 (j ) (2) . I f th e reasonin g o f

th e Responden t

di dno t

ris e t o th e leve l o f goo dcaus e the nth e 8Responden t wa s withou t

authorit y t o remov e Mr . Cluc k a s Relator' s counsel . Stotts V. Wisser, 89 4 S.W.2 d36 6 (Tex . Crim . App . 1995) . Ye t i f th e Respondent' s reasonin g doe s constitut e goo dcaus e the nth e relie f o f mandamu s i s no t

available . Texas Dept. of

Corrections v. Dalehite, supra . Th e Responden t

i nthi s cas e ha dbefor e i t aclear statemen t

o f fac t fro mMr . Cluc k tha t h e woul dno t

b e abl e t o perfor mhi s dutie s t o th e standard s require db y la w unles s th e Responden t approve dhi s reques t fo r funds . Wit hthis , th e Responden t

ha dt o choos e on e o f tw o conclusions . Eithe r Mr . Cluc k

wa s knowingl y makin g afals e statemen t o f fac t t o th e Responden t

i norde r

t o coerc e fund s fro mth e Respondent , a nactio nwhic hwoul db e i nviolatio no f Rul e 30 3 (a) (1 ) o f th e Rule s o f

Disciplinar y Conduct , o r Mr . Cluck' s statemen t wa s true . Considerin g tha t

th e Responden t

di dno t tak e disciplinar y actio nagains t Mr . Cluc k fo r makin g afals e statemen t t o th e court , i t

ca nb e presume dtha t th e Responden t determine dtha t

Mr . Cluck' s statemen t abou t bein g unabl e t o perfor mhi s dutie s t o th e standard s require db y la w unles s th e Responden t approve dhi s reques t

fo r fund s wa s true . Th e findings o f

th e Responden t

o nth e recor di nthi s regar dwer e mad e no t onl y fro mth e direc t

statemen t

o f Mr . Cluc k

bu t als o fro mth e fac t

tha t non e o f

th e attorney s fro mth e thre e co-defendant s ha dinforme dth e Responden t o f simila rexcessiv e need s i norde r t o perfor mthei r

job s (R RVol . 1 Page s 1 2 - 13 ) an dfro m th e Respondent' s ow npersona l experience s i nrepresentin g crimina l client s i nthi s jurisdictio n(R RVol . 1 Pag e 13 ) an dfro mwha t th e Responden t

the nkne w o f

th e fact s o f th e cas e (R RVol . 1 Pag e 13) . Base do nthes e findings th e Responden t di d i nfac t ac t unde r th e authorit y o f

Art . 26.0 4 (j ) (2 ) i nremovin g Mr . Cluc k fo r goo d

caus e show no nth e recor dfo r th e protectio no f

th e right s o f

th e Relato r

an da s suc h th e relie f

o f Mandamu s i s no t

availabl e unde r

thes e circumstances . 

### Summary Of

The Argument on Respons e to issu e No. 2 2,a, Th e Rea l Part y i n Interes tneithe rjoin s no roppose s Issu e No . 2 . N o argumen t

i s presente di nfavo r

o r i noppositio no f

Issu e No . 2 . 

### Argument On Respons e to issue No. 2 N o argumen t

i s presente di nfavo r

o r i noppositio no f

Issu e No . 2 . I na

s muc h

a s thi s Cour t

has entere da norde r temporaril y stayin g th e proceeding s pendin g resoludo no f

thi s complaint , th e Rea l Part y i nInteres t believe s tha t

aWri t o f Prohibitio ni s duplicitous , unnecessary , an dmoot . 1 0

### Prayer For Relief

Wherefore , Rea l Part y i nInterest , Wile y B . "Sonny " McAfee , Distric t Attorney , pray s th e Cour t

den y th e relie f

requeste db y Relato r

an dset asid e th e Court' s orde r stayin g furthe r

proceeding s i nth e underlyin g cause .

Respectfull y submitted , OFFIC EO FDISTRIC T ATTORNE Y 33^ ° an d424^

^ JUDICIA LDISTRICT S Wile y B . McAfee , Distric t Attorne y P . O . Bo x 72 5 Llano , Texa s 7864 3 Telephon e Telecopie r (325 ) 247-575 5 (325 ) 247-527 4

Assistan t

Distric t Attorne y State Ba r

No . 0335350 0 g.bunyard@co.llano.tx.u s ATTORNE Y FO RREA LPART Y I NINTERES T WILE Y B . "SONNY " McAFE E CERTIFICAT E O F WOR D COUN T Thi s i s t o certif

y tha t th e pertinen t

portio no f

thi s brie f

contain s 1,58 2 word s printe di nAldine40 1 B T 1 4 fon t a s determine db y th e WordPerfec t X7 © wor d coun t tool .

Assistan t Distric t Attorne y 1 1CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

Thi s i s t o certif

y tha t atru e cop y o f

th e abov e an dforegoin g instrument , togethe r v^it hthi s proo f

o f servic e hereof , has bee nforwarde db y EServ e an db y emai l o nth e 3r dda y o f

Septembe r

2015 , t o Mr . Trac y D . Cluck , Attorne y fo r Relator , a

t tracy@tracyclucklaw.com , an db y EServe . uary^ . Bunyar d Assistan t Distric t

Attorne y

1 2