Ca us e No . _
__ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ TO THE COURT OF CRI MI NAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

------------------------------------------------------------------

MARK J OSEPH SHUMSKI

Pet it ioner VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Res p o nd ent .

------------------------------------------------------------------ Peti ti o n Fo r Di s creti o na ry Rev iew i n Ca us e C R- 1 62 4 7 fro m the 2 71 s t J udi ci al Di s tri ct Co urt of W i s e Co unty , Tex a s and Ca us e N o . 0 2 -1 3 -0 0 5 6 5 -CR fro m the Co urt o f Appea l s fo r the El ev en Suprem e J udi ci a lDi stri ct o f Tex a s.

------------------------------------------------------------------ P ETI TI ON FOR DI SCRETI ONARY REVI EW

------------------------------------------------------------------ La wOffi ce o f Pa ulBel ew , PLLC. / s /Pa ulBel ew S.B.N.: 0 0 7 9 4 92 6 P.O. Bo x1 0 26 Deca tur, Tex a s 7 6 23 4 (9 4 0 ) 6 27- 6 4 0 0 (9 4 0 ) 6 27- 6 4 0 8 (fa cs i m i l e) ATTORNEY FOR PETI TI ONER, MARK J OSEPH SHUMSKI iI DENTI TY OF THE PARTI ES

The fo l l o w i ng i s aco m pl ete l i s t o f the na m es a nd a ddres s es o f a l l pa rti es to the tri a l co urt' s fi na l judg m ent a nd the na m es a nd a ddres ses o f tri a lco uns el : APPELLANT /DEFENDANT MARK J OSEPH SHUMSKI TRI AL COURT Tex as Depa rtm ent o f Cri m i na lJ us ti ce Appea lfro mthe 2 7 1 s t H. H. Co ffi el d Uni t Di s tri ct Co urt 2 6 6 1 FM 2 0 5 4 W i s e Co unty , Tex a s Tennes s ee Co l o ny ,TX 7 5 8 8 4 Ho n. J o hn Fo stel pres i di ng Pa ulBel ew S.B.N.: 0 0 7 94 9 2 6 LAWOFFI CES OF PAUL BELEW , PLLC P.O. Bo x1 0 2 6 Deca tur, Tex a s 7 6 2 3 4 (9 4 0 ) 6 2 7 -6 40 0 (9 4 0 ) 6 2 7 -6 40 8 (fa cs i m i l e) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT /PETI TI ONER Sta te Of Tex a s /Appel lee Pres to n Greg o ryLo w ery ,Wi s e Co untyDi s tri ct Atto rney S.B.N: 0 0 7 8 7 9 2 6 J o hn J . "J ay" La pha m , Wis e Co unty Di s tri ct Atto rney S.B.N: 0 0 7 8 4 4 4 8 W i s e Co untyCo urtho us e, Seco nd fl o or Deca tur, Tex a s 7 6 2 3 4

- I -TABLE OF CONTENTS

I denti tyo f Pa rti es a nd Co uns el i Ta bl e o f Co ntents i i I ndexo f Autho ri ti es ` ii i Sta tem ent Reg a rdi ngOra l Arg um ent iv Sta nda rd o f Rev i ew iv Sta tem ent o f the Ca se v I s s ue Pres ented fo r Rev i ew vi Arg um ent vi ,v i i, v ii , 1 I . THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED I NFAI LI NG TO FI ND THAT SECTI ON 2 1 .0 2 WA S UNCONSTI TUTI ONAL FOR NUMEROUS REASONS AS SET FORTH BELOW : Prayer fo r Rel i ef 2 Certi fi ca te o f Serv i ce 2 ,3 Appendi x 4

- I I -INDEX OF AUTHORI TI ES

Ca s es : Shum ski v. St at e , No . 0 2 -1 3 -0 0 5 6 5-CR (Decem ber 4 , 2 0 1 4 ) (Mem o ra ndumOpi ni on) iv U.S. Suprem e Co urt: Andres v . Uni ted Sta tes ,3 3 3 U.S. 7 4 0 (1 9 4 8 ) vi i Dunca n v . Lo ui s i a na , 3 9 1 U. S. 1 4 5 (1 9 6 8 ) vi i i I n re W i ns hi p, 3 97U. S. 3 5 8 (1 9 7 0 ) v i i i Ri cha rds o n v . Uni ted Sta tes , 5 2 6 U.S. 8 13 (1 9 99 ) vi i Tex as Co urt o f Cri m i na lAppea l s : J effers on v . Sta te, 1 8 9 S.W .3 d 3 0 5 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) v i i Ng o v . Sta te, 1 7 5 S.W .3 d 7 3 8 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 00 5 ) v i i Sta te v . Mo ff, 1 5 4 S.W .3 d 5 9 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 4 ) iv Stuhl er v . Sta te, 2 1 8 S.W .3 d 7 0 6 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 7) v i i Tex as Co urts o f Appea l s: Ca s eyv . Sta te, 3 4 9 S.W .3 d 8 2 5 (Tex . App.--ElPa s o 2 0 11 , pet. ref' d) 1 J a co bs en v . Sta te, 3 2 5 S.W . 3 d 7 3 3 (Tex . App.--Aus ti n 2 0 1 0 , no pet.) v i i i , 1 Ow ens v . Sta te, 1 9 S.W .3 d 4 8 0 (Tex . App.--Am ari l l o 2 00 0 , no pet.) iv Sta te v . Sa l i na s , 9 82 S.W .2 d 9 (Tex . App.--Ho us to n [1 s t Di s t.] 1 9 9 7 , pet. ref' d) iv Co ns ti tuti ons : FED, CONST., a rt. VI I I 1 TEX. CONST., a rt. V, § 1 3 v i i Tex as Sta tutes : TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.,, § 2 1 .0 2 (W es t 2 0 1 3 ) i n pa s s i m i , v i i , v i i , 1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN., § 2 1 .0 2 (c), (d), (e), (f) (W es t 2 0 1 3) v i , v i i , v i i , 1 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN., § 2 1 .0 2 (d) (W es t 2 0 13 ) vi , v i i , v i i , 1

- I II -PETI TI ONER REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT

Peti ti o ner reques ts o ra l a rg um ent fo r the rea s o n tha t the i ss ue i s hi g hly
co ntro vers i a la nd ca n bes t a rg ued a nd pres ented befo re a l iv e a nd i ntera ctiv e pa neltha t ca nno t be do ne jus ti ce v i apa per no r el ectro ni c m ea ns a s the Tex a s Co urt o f Cri m i na l Appea ls ha s no t y et w ri tten o n the co ns ti tuti o na l i tyo f Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 . STANDARD OF REVI EW The co ns tituti o na li tyo f acri m i na ls ta tute i s aques ti o n o f l aww hi ch i s
rev i ew ed de no v o. See, e.g ., Ow ens v . Sta te, 1 9 S.W .3 d 4 80 , 4 8 3 (Tex . App.-- Am a ri l l o 2 0 0 0 , no pet.); Sta te v . Sa l i na s , 9 8 2 S.W .2 d 9 , 1 0 -1 1 (Tex . App.--Ho us to n[1 s t Di s t.] 1 99 7, pet. ref' d); Sta te v . Mo ff, 1 5 4 S.W .3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 1 (Tex . Cri m . App.)

- I V -STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On J une 2 2, 2 01 1 aWi s e Co untyGra nd J uryi ndi cted Ma rk Shum s k i
o n the cha rg e o f "Sex ua lAbus e o f aChi l d, Co nti nuo us : Vi cti mUnder 1 4 "
a l l eg i ngtha t o n Februa ry1 6 ,2 0 08 a nd co nti nui ng thro ug h a nd i ncl udi ng May1 6 , 2 0 1 1 ,"co m m i t tw o o r m o re a cts o f s ex ua la bus e a g a i ns t A.G., achi l d y o ung er tha n 1 4 y ea rs o f a ge, s a i d a cts o f s ex ua la bus e ha v i ngbeen v i o l a ti ons
o f o ne o r m o re o f the fo l lo w i ngpena ll aw , na m ely : 1 . i ndecencyw i th achi l d . . .; [a nd] a g g ra v a ted s ex ua la s s a ul t o f achi ld . . ." CR 7 . On Decem ber 1 1 , 2 0 12 thi s ca s e w a s tri ed befo re ajuryi n the 2 7 1 s t J udi ci a lDi s tri ct Co urt fo r W i s e Co unty , Tex a s , J udg e J o hn Fo s telPres i di ng(Tri a lCa us e Num ber CR1 6 2 4 7 ). See, e.g . , R.R. 2 :1 . On Decem ber 1 2 , 2 0 13 ajudg m ent w a s entered a g a i ns t Mr. Shum s k

is entenci nghi m to s i x ty(6 0) y ea rs i nca rcera ti o n i n the Tex a s Depa rtm ent o f Cri m i na lJ us ti ce. C.R. 1 2 1 . Mr. Shum s k irem a i ns i nca rcera ted. On J a nua ry1 1 ,2 0 1 3 Defenda nt fi l ed hi s no ti ce o f a ppea lto the Seco nd Co urt o f Appea l s a nd the ca s e w a s a s s i g ned Ca us e Num ber 0 2 -1 3-0 00 1 1 -CR. C.R. 1 2 3 . On Februa ry1 1 , 2 0 1 3 thi s ca s e w as tra ns ferred to 1 1 t hCo urt o f Appea l s purs ua nt to Order a nd a s si gned Num ber 1 1 -1 3-0 00 5 4 -CR. See , Shum ski v. St a t e , No . 0 2 -1 3 -0 0 5 6 5 -CR (Decem ber 4 , 2 0 1 4 ) (Mem ora ndumOpi ni o n). Ma rch 5 ,2 1 0 5, the 1 1 t hCo urt a ffi rm ed.

- V -I SSUES PRESENTED FOR REVI EW

I . THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED I N FAI LI N G TO FI ND THAT SECTI ON 2 1 .0 2

WA S UNCONSTI TUTI ONAL. The Tex a s Co urt o f Cri m i na lAppea l s ha s no t y et w ri tten o n the
co ns tituti o na l i tyo f Secti o n 2 1.0 2 . The 1 1 T HCo urt o f Appea l s erro neo us ly rul ed a g ai ns t Peti ti oner' s co ns ti tuti o na lcha l l eng e i n a n unpubl i s hed o pi ni on da ted Ma rch 5 , 2 0 1 5 . See Ap p end i x . Thi s Peti ti on fo r Di s creti ona ryRev i ewi s fi led i n res po ns e to tha t deci s i o n. The i s s ue i n co ntro v ers ya ffects s o m a ny defenda nts , it i s cri ti ca lto due pro ces s a nd o ther co ncerns tha t thi s Ho no ra bl e Co urt ta ke up the m a tter.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES Tex a s requi res a ll juryv erdi cts i n afel o ny ca ses to be una ni m o us . I n
a ddi ti o n due pro ces s m a nda tes pro o f bey o nd area s o na bl e do ubt o f ev eryfa ct
neces s a ryto co ns ti tute the cri m e w ith w hi ch adefenda nt i s cha rg ed. The requi rem ent o f auna ni m o us v erdi ct i s s a cro s anct. Secti o n 2 1.0 2 o f the Tex a s Pena lCo de (Co nti nuo us Sex ua lAbus e o f Yo ungChi l d o r Chi l dren) do es no t requi re una ni m i tyw i th res pect to the requi red predi ca te co nduct. Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 's fa il ure to requi re auna ni m o us fi ndi ngo f the predi ca te
co nduct i ndi ca tes tha t a co nv i cti o n i s po s si bl e w here the juro rs a re no t a g reed tha t tw o s peci fi c predi ca te a cts to o k pl a ce. The erro neo us res po ns e o f Tex a s

- V I -Co urts a ddres s i ngthi s cl a i mi s tha t una ni m ityi s requi red a s to el em ent, no t

m a nners a nd m ea ns . Thi s rea s o ni ngi s fl aw ed a t bes t. Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 perm i ts the juryto nev er be co m pel l ed to ca reful lys cruti nize –a s aw ho l e jury– the
ev i dence fo r a ny s peci fi c s ex ua la ct. I t m ea ns the juryi s free to a ct a s tw elv e
a uto no m o us "m ini -juri es " w i th res pect to the v eryhea rt o f the cri m e -- the
o ccurrence o f s ex ua l m i s co nduct. The Suprem e Co urt' s a ddres s ed thi s i s s ue i n Ri cha rds o n v . Uni ted Sta tes . 5 2 6 U.S. 8 1 3 (1 9 9 9 ). Apply i ngi ts a na ly s i s to Secti on 2 1 .0 2 the g ra m m a r o f Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 m a kes i t cl ea r a cts o f s ex ua l a bus e a re the fo cus o f the Secti o n a nd therefo re pro perlya re the o bject o f the una ni m i ty requi rem ent. The Si xth Am endm ent to the Uni ted Sta tes Co ns ti tuti on requi res una ni m o us juryv erdi cts i n federa lcri m i na l tri a ls . Andres v . Uni ted Sta tes , 3 3 3 U.S. 7 4 0 , 7 4 8 , 6 8 S.Ct. 8 8 0 b (1 9 4 8 ); s ee Sa nchez v . Sta te, 2 3 S.W .3 d 3 0 , 3 9 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 0 ). Under the Tex a s Co ns tituti o n, ajury
v erdi ct i n afel o ny ca s e i s requi red to be una ni m o us , a nd Tex a s s ta tutes requi re una ni m i tyi n a l lcri m i na lca s es . Stuhl er v . Sta te, 2 1 8 S.W .3 d, 7 0 6 , 7 1 6 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 00 7); J effers o n v . Sta te, 1 89 S.W .3 d 3 0 5 , 3 1 1 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 6 ); Ng o v . Sta te, 1 7 5 S.W .3 d 7 38 , 7 45 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 5 ); TEX. CONST. ART. V, § 1 3; TEX.CODE CRI M . PROC. ANN. a rt. 3 6 .2 9

-V I I -(2 0 1 3). Under Tex as l aw , una ni m i tym ea ns tha t ea ch a nd ev eryjuro r a g rees

tha t the defenda nt co m m i tted the s a m e, s i ng le, s peci fi c cri m i na la ct. Ng o v . Sta te, 1 7 5 S.W .3 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 5 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 5 ), ho w ev er, i nex pl i ca bly Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 do es no t requi re una ni m itya s to predi ca te a cts . See , Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 o f the Tex a s Pena lCo de. The 1 1 t h Co urt o f Appea l s ,erred w hen a pply i ngthe l awo f the referri ng juri sdi cti o n, w hen theyhel d tha t the co nti nuo us s ex ua ls ta tute di d no t v i o l a te due pro ces s , ev en w i tho ut auna ni m o us v erdi ct a s to m a nner a nd m ea ns .
“ Altho ug h v i rtua l lyuna ni m o us a dherence to the rea s ona bl e-do ubt s ta nda rd i n co m m o n-l awjuri s di cti ons m ayno t co ncl us iv elyes ta bl i sh i t a s a requi rem ent o f due pro ces s , s uch a dherence do es "refl ect apro fo und judg m ent a bo ut the w ayi n w hi ch l aws ho ul d be enfo rced a nd jus ti ce
a dm i ni s tered." Dunca n v . Lo ui s i a na , 3 9 1 U. S. 1 4 5 , 1 5 5 (1 9 6 8 ). I n re W i ns hi p, 3 9 7 U. S. 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 -3 6 2 (1 9 7 0 ). The Co urt co ncl uded tha t due pro ces s
m a nda tes "pro of bey o nd area s o na bl e do ubt o f ev ery fa ct neces s a ryto
co ns titute the cri m e w i th w hi ch [the defenda nt] i s cha rg ed." I n re W i ns hi p, 3 9 7U. S. 3 5 8 , 3 64 (1 9 7 0). Secti o n 2 1.0 2 ha s been prev i o us lya nd uns ucces s ful ly cha l l eng ed o n the g ro unds o f l a ck

o f auna ni m i tyrequi rem ent. The Sa n Anto ni o Co urt o f

- V I I I -Appea l s ’ res po ns e i s fa i rlyi ndi ca tiv e, a l t ho ugh m i

s pl aced,o f the res po ns e o f the v a ri o us Co urts o f Appea l s tha t ha v e co ns idered the cha l l eng e: “ As di s cus s ed herei n, Tex as l awi s cl ea r tha t "[t]he i ndiv i dua la cts o f s ex ua la bus e
. . . a re no t them s elv es el em ents o f the o ffens e, but a re m erely ev i denti a ry fa cts , the m a nner a nd m ea ns byw hi ch the a ctus reus el em ent i s co m m i tted." See J aco bs en, 3 2 5 S.W .3 d a t 7 3 7 ; s ee a l so Ca s ey , 3 4 9 S.W .3 d a t 8 2 9 . I n
a ddi ti o n, i t i s w el l s ettl ed tha t "s ecti o n 2 1.0 2 do es no t vi o l a te due pro ces s by perm i tti ngaco nv i cti o n ba s ed o n ajury ' s una ni m o us fi ndi ng tha t the defenda nt eng a ged i n aco urs e o f co nduct co ns i s ti ngo f repea ted a cts o f s ex ua l
a bus e, but w i tho ut requi ri ngjuryuna ni m i tya s to the i ndiv i dua la cts tha t
m a de up tha t co urs e o f co nduct." See M a rti n, 3 3 5 S.W .3 d a t 8 7 2 (di s cus s i ng J a co bs en, 3 2 5 S.W .3 d a t 7 3 9 ). Thi s rea s o ni ngi s fl aw ed a nd o ppres s iv e. I n a ddi ti on to a bo v e co m pel l i ngrea s o ns to g ra nt PDR i n thi s ca s e, the
s ta tute i n ques ti o n i s a l s o v i o la tiv e o f the VI I IAm endm ent to the Federa l Co ns ti tuti on, int

er a l ia ,“ FED, CONST., a rt. VI I I ” ci ti ngapro hi biti o n o f cruela nd unus ua lpuni s hm ent. The trem endo us a ppel l a te ques ti o ns a ri s i ng
o ut o f cri m i na lco nv i cti o ns rel a ti ng to Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 m a ke thi s peti ti o n fo r PDR es peci a l lya ttra ctiv e to thi s Co urt to a ddres s . Thes e i s s ues i ncl ude, but
a re certa i nly no t l i m i ted to , due pro ces s i s s ues ,jury una ni m ityi s sues a nd

-1 -i s sues rel a ti ngto cruel a nd unus ua lpuni s hm ent, a l lv io l ativ e o f adefenda nt’s

co ns tituti o na lri g hts a ffo rded o ne byl awa nds co m m o n s ens e. PRAYER FOR RELI EF W HEREFORE, PREMI SES CONSI DERED, MARK J OSEPH SHUMSKI res pectful ly reques ts tha t the Co urt o f Cri m i na lAppea l s g ra nt Appel l ant' s Peti ti o n fo r Di s creti o na ryRev i ewa nd fo r s uch o ther a nd further rel i ef to w hi ch he m ay s ho whi m s el f to be enti tl ed. Res pectful lys ubm i tted, / s/Pa ul Bel ew Pa ulBel ew S.B.N.: 0 0 7 9 4 92 6 L A W O F F I C E S O F P A U L B E L E W , P L L C . P.O. Bo x1 0 26 Deca tur, Tex a s 7 6 23 4 (9 4 0 ) 6 27 -6 4 0 0 (9 4 0 ) 6 27 -6 4 0 8 (fa cs i m i l e) FOR APPELLANT/P ETI TI ONER MARK J OSEPH SHUMSKI

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE Thi s i s to certi fytha t o n thi s , the 1 2 T Hdayo f Apri l , 2 0 1 5 atrue a nd
co rrect co pyo f the a bo v e a nd fo reg o i ngdo cum ent ha s been fo rw arded by
m ea ns o f el ectro ni c fi l i nga s fo l l o w s : -2 -GregLo w ery

W i s e Co untyDi s tri ct Atto rney ' s Offi ce W i s e Co untyCo urtho us e Seco nd fl o o r Deca tur, Tex a s 7 6 2 34

/ s/Pa ul Bel ew Pa ulBel ew

-3 -Appendi x

See a tt a ched , Shum ski

v. St at e , No . 0 2 -1 3 -0 0 56 5 -CR (Decem ber 4 , 2 01 4 ) (Mem ora ndum Opi ni o n)

-4 -