ORIGINAL

/S75-fK

NO. PD-1575-15

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS

OF TEXAS

TRISTAN OMARR ARMSTRONG,

Petitioner

THE STATE OF TEXAS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

DEC 112015

AbelAcosta,Clerk

FILED

Petition in Cause No. 2013-CR-5695 from theC0URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

District Court ofBexar County, Texas and "tC 11 2015

The Court of Appeals for the

First District of Texas

Abel Acosta, Clerk

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Tristan Omarr Armstrong

P.O. Box 2354

Universal City, Texas 78148-1354

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

INDIGENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Index of Authorities ii

Statement Regarding Oral Argument 2

Statement of the Case 3

Statement of Procedural History of the Case 3

Grounds for Review 3-4

I. Appellant's Court Appointed Counsel, Oscar Cantu Jr. intentionally deceived the

Court of Appeals 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 of Reason for Review 4-5

Prayer for Relief 5

Appendix 6
INDEX 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 of Bexar County, Texas and

The Court of Appeals for the First

Supreme Judicial District of Texas
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

The grounds for review set forth in this petition concerns the Court of Appeals, how

Appellant's Counsel Oscar Cantu Jr., concluded Patrolman Grey's testimony was consistent

describing his probable causeof action detaining the Appellant '(R.R. v5 pg.9). Cross

examination by defense, proved Patrolman Grey was inconclusive and inconsistent in his

testimony. An act of Perjury 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 of a

valid search warrant initially obtained. Neglecting his Eighth Amendment of cruel and unusual

punishment inflicted under false pretenses.

Moreover, Oscar Cantu Jr. failed to disclose to the Court of Appeals, 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 submitted by the Appellant, identifying negligent officers on duty violating Penal Code

§28.04 Reckless Damage or Destruction via use of a blunt object. All Officers having

propinquity of Incident 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 of Anders Brief.
Arrest occurring January 13, 2013. A violation of Appellant's Fourteenth Amendment, no state

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the

United States.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The petitioner was convicted by a jury of the offense Evading Arrest Detention with

Vehicle after a plea of not guilty; the punishment was assessed by the jury at two (2) years

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. This conviction

was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the First District on October 27, 2015.

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Court of Appeals rendered its decision affirming petitioner's conviction on October

27, 2015, no motion for rehearing was filed by petitioner and the decision of the Court of

Appeals became its final ruling on November 12, 2015. This petition was then filed with the

clerk of The Court of Appeals 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 harm or defraud another. Oscar Cantu 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 of Appeals 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

of speech and repudiating his right to an indictment by Grand Jury.

ARGUMENT IN 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 to withdraw as Counsel, on grounds of 2Anders 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 himself and 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 of Appeals into believing

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

2As used in this petition, the recordcitation Anders v.California refersto the explanation Oscar CantuJr. exhumes

to theCourt of Appeals as to why he describes he fulfilled his CourtAppointed obligation. Information recovered

bypetitioner from Oscar Cantu Jr.'s Anders Brief, analyzing case number 01-14-00560-CR in theFirst Court of

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, petitioner prays this Court grant this petition, set this case for oral

argument, and upon reviewing the judgement entered 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 deliver justice through the Courts to Susan D. Reed Et al. and every

perpetrator involved within Universal City Police Department.

Respectfully submitted,

Sworn to and

onthis_4_dayof. re mi

20.Is

NOTARTPUBLIC

MyCommission BcphwAftU^ l]^

f

S&.r&fc, LISA CARREON =*>.V'*^ No'arv Public, State of Texas

\>.f\J?£ My Commission Expires

''''•••':£^ June 26, 2019

3P

Tristan Omarr Armstrong

P.O. Box 2354

Universal City, Texas 78148-1354

(210)284-9844
APPENDIX A
Opinion issued October 27, 2015

In The

Court of gppeate

For The

Jftrsft Btrtrtct of Cexa*

NO. 01-14-00560-CR

TRISTAN OMARR ARMSTRONG, Appellant

V. -

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 226th District Court

Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2013-CR-5695

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Tristan Omarr Armstrong, guilty of the third-degree

felony offense of evading arrest and assessed his punishment at two years'
confinement.' The trial court certified that the case is not a plea-bargain case and

that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

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. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.

1396(1967).

Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the 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 of error 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 of his 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. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2014).

The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals 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, in the 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 Anders briefmust "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 a pro 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 of proceedings, 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. See Bledsoe, 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 to inform appellant of the result of this appeal

and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal
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, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. 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