# ORIGINAL 

# /S75-fK

NO. PD-1575-15 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
TRISTAN OMARR ARMSTRONG, Petitioner

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

## COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS DEC 112015 

## AbelAcosta,Clerk



## FILED 

# PetitioninCauseNo.2013-CR-5695fromtheC0URTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS

DistrictCourtof BexarCounty, Texas and "tC 11 2015 The Court ofAppeals for the First District ofTexas 

## Abel Acosta, Clerk

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW Tristan Omarr Armstrong P.O. Box 2354 Universal City, Texas 78148-1354
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER INDIGENTTABLE OF CONTENTS
Index ofAuthorities ii Statement Regarding Oral Argument 2 Statement ofthe Case 3 Statement ofProcedural History ofthe Case 3 Grounds for Review 3-4 I. Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel, Oscar Cantu Jr. intentionally deceived the Court ofAppeals by submitting misleading correspondence. II. Oscar Cantu Jr. confirmed his self, along with Patrolman Grey, all officers who swore under oath on May 29, 2014, and Universal City Police Department are part of an exceptional question that requires an extensive review by the Court of Appeals. Argument in Support ofReason for Review 4-5 Prayer for Relief 5 Appendix 6INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASE LAW: Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) (Anders Brief)

CONSTITUTIONS: U.S. Const, amend. I § 3. U.S. Const, amend. IV % 2. U.S. Const, amend. V § 2. U.S. Const, amend. VI § 3. U.S. Const, amend. VIII § 2.

STATUES: 26 U.S.C. § 7206(c) TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.01.2 (b) TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.01. (b) TEX. PENAL CODE § 39.02. (a) TEX. PENAL CODE § 28.04
RULES: Rule 44.2(a), TEX R. APP. PROC. Rule 44.2(b), TEX R. APP. PROC. Rule 44.2(c), TEX R. APP. PROC.NO. PD-1575-15 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

TRISTAN OMARR ARMSTRONG

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Petition in Cause No. 2013-CR-5695 from the

District Court ofBexar County, Texas and The Court ofAppeals for the First Supreme Judicial District ofTexasSTATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT The grounds for review set forth in this petition concerns the Court ofAppeals, how Appellant's Counsel Oscar Cantu Jr., concluded Patrolman Grey's testimony was consistent 

### describing hisprobable causeofaction detaining theAppellant '(R.R. v5pg.9). Cross examination by defense, proved Patrolman Grey was inconclusive and inconsistent in his testimony. An act ofPerjury under 26 U.S.C. §7206 fraud and false statements. Additionally, Patrolman Grey swore under oath, he discovered a marijuana "roach" in the Appellant's vehicle 

### (R.R. V5 pg. 11). However, Appellant's Fourth Amendment has been violated, ambiguous ofa valid search warrant initially obtained. Neglecting his Eighth Amendment ofcruel and unusual punishment inflicted under false pretenses. Moreover, Oscar Cantu Jr. failed to disclose to the Court ofAppeals, testimony of Patrolman Grey's Criminal background, regarding Universal City Police Department's Incident No. 1300011013 occurring on 06/01/2013. Oscar Cantu Jr.'s court transcript pertains to incriminating evidence recognizing Universal City Police Department as the perpetrator. Exhibits submittedby the Appellant, identifying negligent officers on duty violating Penal Code §28.04 Reckless Damage or Destruction via use ofa blunt object. All Officers having propinquity ofIncident No. 1300011013 were present during trial May 29, 2014, and swore under oath all accusations against Appellant were true beyond a reasonable doubt. Ironically, 

### every officer that swore under oath, did not have common knowledge of the alleged Evading

1As used in this petition, the record citation R.R. V5 refers to the clerk record, Oscar Cantu Jr. used to retrieve his information. Petitioner did not accompany Court Appointed Counsel Oscar Cantu Jr. prior, during, nor after the duration ofAnders Brief.Arrest occurring January 13, 2013. A violation ofAppellant's Fourteenth Amendment, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities ofcitizens ofthe United States.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE The petitioner was convicted by ajury ofthe offense Evading Arrest Detention with Vehicle after a plea ofnot guilty; the punishment was assessed by thejury at two (2) years confinement in the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice Institutional Division. This conviction was affirmed by the Court ofAppeals for the First District on October 27, 2015. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Court ofAppeals rendered its decision affirming petitioner's conviction on October 27, 2015, no motion for rehearing was filed by petitioner and the decision ofthe Court of 

### Appeals became its final ruling on November 12, 2015. This petition was then filed with the clerk of The Court ofAppeals within thirty (30) days after such final ruling to wit on December 4, 2015. GROUND FOR REVIEW 

### I. The Court of Appeals Erred in holding that Appellant's Counsel violated Penal Code §39.02.a. with intent to harmor defraud another. OscarCantu Jr. knowingly submitted misleading 

### correspondence to The Court of Appeals. Appellant's Counsel infringed on Appellant's First Amendment, denying his freedom of speech striking at his appeal.II. The Court ofAppeals Erred in holding that Appellant's Sixth Amendment was ignored in regards to an alleged second evasion. Overruling his right to interview all witnesses against him. Consequentially, striping him of his First and Fifth Amendments. Rejecting his right to freedom ofspeech and repudiating his right to an indictment by Grand Jury.

ARGUMENTIN SUPPORT OF REASON FOR REVIEW 

### I. Appellant's Counsel, Oscar Cantu Jr. opted in labeling Appellant's Appeal with predetermined opinions within his Anders Brief. Oscar Cantu Jr. insisted Appellant's appeal was "wholly frivolous", "without merit", and provides "no reversible error". Sarcastically expressing 

### hisinhumane motion towithdraw asCounsel, ongrounds of2Anders v. California. Oscar Cantu Jr. violated Appellant's Sixth Amendment, on grounds of due process. Oscar Cantu Jr. hoaxed the Court of Appeals with inaccurate correspondence between himselfand the Appellant. 

### Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel knowingly breaches his agreement as legal Counsel defiling Penal Code §39.01.2.b. In addition to his 39.0l.b violation governing the conduct of a public servant.



### II. Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel deceived the Court of Appeals trusting his information was accurate. However, Oscar Cantu Jr. deluded the Court ofAppeals into believing 

### an alleged second Evading Arrest marathon ensued. Oscar Cantu Jr. neglected to acknowledge

2Asused in thispetition, the recordcitation Anders v.California refersto theexplanation Oscar CantuJr. exhumes to theCourt ofAppeals as to why hedescribes hefulfilled his CourtAppointed obligation. Information recovered bypetitionerfrom OscarCantuJr.'s Anders Brief, analyzing case number01-14-00560-CR in theFirstCourtof Appeals.Appellant's Sixth Amendment was thoroughly violated. Appellant has been denied due process and his Civil Rights violated on an indictable scale. Oscar Cantu Jr. cannot provide evidence to the Court of Appeals an alleged second Evading Arrest episode transpired. Oscar Cantu Jr. 

### deliberately defames the Appellant's character and urges the Court of Appeals to uphold the trial court decision. Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel, calculatedly withheld vital information through Court of Appeals correspondence. Oscar Cantu Jr., knowingly overlooked deviant behavior in connection to an abnormal circumstance. PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the reason herein alleged, the petitioner was denied a fair trial in Cause No. 2013- CR-5695. Therefore, petitionerprays this Court grant this petition, set this case for oral 

### argument, and upon reviewing thejudgemententered below, quash sentencing to include all alleged Warrants, and reinstate Appellant's Concealed Handgun License. Furthermore, all 

### wrong doings by St. Mary's University reconciled, and granted admission into the University of Houston Law Center effective immediately. Heavenly Father, Appellant prays you bless him 

### with an opportunity to deliverjustice through the Courts to Susan D. Reed Et al. and every perpetratorinvolved within Universal City Police Department. Respectfully submitted,
Sworn to and 

### onthis_4_dayof. re mi 20.

# Is
NOTARTPUBLIC 

# MyCommissionBcphwAftU^l]^ 

# f S&.r&fc, LISA CARREON =

*>.V'*^ No'arv Public, State ofTexas \>.f\J?£ My Commission Expires

''''•••':£^ June 26, 2019 3P Tristan Omarr Armstrong P.O. Box 2354 Universal City, Texas 78148-1354 (210)284-9844

### APPENDIXA

### Opinion issued October 27, 2015

In The 

## Courtofgppeate For The 

## JftrsftBtrtrtctofCexa*

NO. 01-14-00560-CR 

### TRISTAN OMARRARMSTRONG, Appellant V.
- 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appealfrom the 226th District Court Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2013-CR-5695

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

### Ajury found appellant, Tristan Omarr Armstrong, guilty ofthe third-degree felony offense of evading arrest and assessed his punishment at two years'

## confinement.' The trial court certified that thecase is not aplea-bargain case and that appellanthas the rightto appeal. Appellanttimely filed a notice ofappeal. Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a briefstating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. SeeAnders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396(1967). 

### Counsel's briefmeets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation ofthe record and supplying us with references to the record and legal 

### authority. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds oferror that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 

### S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] 2006, no pet.). 

### Counsel has also informed us that he delivered a copy ofthe appellate record and the briefto appellant and informed him ofhis right to file a response. See In re 

### Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); see also Kelly v. State,
See Tex. PenalCodeAnn. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2014). 

### The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court ofAppeals for the Fourth District of Texas to this Court pursuant to its docket equalization 

### powers. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2013) ("The supreme court may order cases transferred from one court of appeals to another at any time that, inthe opinion of the supremecourt, there is good cause for the transfer.").

### 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (holding that appellate counsel who 

### files Andersbriefmust "take concrete measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client's right to review the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes"). Appellant has not filed apro se response. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds 

### for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination ofproceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine 

### whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by examining entire record). We 

### note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. SeeBledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. 

### We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to 

## withdraw.3 Attorney Oscar Luis Cantu, Jr. must immediately send appellant the
3 Appointed counsel still has a duty toinform appellant ofthe result ofthis appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court ofCriminal

### required notice and file a copy ofthe notice with the Clerk ofthis Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM 

### Panel consists ofJustices Keyes, Massengale, andLloyd. Do notpublish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (per curiam).<-—4-~ 

## \*P

', .* "?' v^ CJJ C °1 ~r -C

•^ 

### « £

f 7s, ex?

o

7~

-3=.



# 6

o x c ni .0_ 

## «>g^ Soo<»—-b CD CT ""O CO

x m