MR. JOSE GONZALES III #1832029 JAMES V. ALLRED UNIT 2101 FM 369 N. IOWA PARK, TEXAS 76367 10/27/15

TO: Abel Acosta Clerk, RE: Motion For Rehearing CA: PD-0179-15 

# RECEIVEDIH OaURTofCRIMINALAPPEALS NOV022015

Dear sir, enclosed is my motion for rehearing in.the above-mentioned cause. Please file with the Court. Thank you.

Sincerly, Mr./jc/se Gc/izales III

1.JOSE GONZALES III, Petitioner,

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. PD-0179-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REHEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH T.R.A.P. RULE 64.
TO WIT: 

### ComesNow |oseGonzales III, HereinstyledPetitoner, files this motion for rehearing in the above-mentioned and entitiled cause.

:ART. I., 

### Petitioner urges the Court that: Trial court erred in allowing Petitioner to shackled in violation of U.S. Const. Amends 6th and 14th. Trial court 

### infringed upon Petitioner's persumption of innocence, and counsel was ineffective for not objecting to Petitioner being shackled thereby 

### procedurallydefaulting Petitioner's claim. ART. II., 

### The State committed double jeopardywhen it prosecuted Petitioner for 

### multiple burglarious entries where there was only one unlawful entry 

### and the thegravamen forburglary is the unlawful entry not thecomplain ant. Where for Petitioner was sentenced twice for one unlawful entry. ART. III., Ineffective assisitance of counsel: The court of appeals erred in not 

### adjudicating the ineffective assistance ofcounsel on direct appeal 

### inoppositionofTrevinov. Thaler, 569U.S. (-2013). Because of the deep entrenched culture of not entertaining ineffective assistance of
counselMotion Cont: t. ~ • on direct appeal by the Texas Appellate Courts, said opinion by the 

### 'Supreme Court is still alien to the mindset of justices, and Court of Criminal Appeals should mandate such claims be given the full penolopy of ineffective assistance claims as required by trial courts on colla teral review i.e, 11.07. Furthermore, since the record was fully devel 

### oped said counsels on direct appeal were ineffective for filing Anders Brief in contradiction ofttteplain errors of trial counsels. Ineffective assistance of counsel: Counsel's failure to object to mis 

### jionderof twodistinct offenses in the same indictment. Counsel did not file pretrial motion, nor object during trial when misjionder became apperrant. ART. IV., Ineffective assistance of counsel: Counsel's failure to file motion 

### toquash affidavit and information that was unsigned, hence prosecution 

### commencedupon the strength of: unsigned information, that did not confer jurisdiction upon the trial court. ART.V., Ineffective assistance of counsel for not filing motion for change of 

### venue in highprofile prosecutionafter itbecameapperrant that Peti tioner could not recieve a fair trial in said County. ART. VI., 

### Trial ijudgeabusedher discretionby not ordering a change of venue after itbecame impossible to seat anunbiased jury inhigh profile

case. ART. VII. / Counsel abandoned Petitioner, acting as no counsel at all, merely 

### friend of court, giving testimonythat his client was guiltyand that afixed in the juryminds that Petitioner was guilty of Count I and 

### Count II, thereby infringed upon Petitoner's persumption of Innocence, and his right to counsel. ART. VIII./ 

### Petitioner's counsel on appeal FredJiminez committed fraudby filing Anders brief when such errors were plain and apperrant. such reasons that Fred Jiminez's wife was District Attorney and because of the 

### nepotism and political aspirations were the motivating reasons for such fraud. The court appointed StephenW. Byrne as Appeal Attorney 

### rendering FredJiminez'sAnder'sbrief Moot by opertion oflaw, and court was in error for not rulingcQ/nthis point of law.Motion Cont: ART. IX., Petitioner's counsel of record rendered ineffective assistance of 

### counsel for not raising the defense.of temporary insanityafter defense counsel made Petitioner's mental state at the time of offen 

### se an issue during trial. :\-;--: CONCLUSION 

### Petitioner urges the Court sue sponte to grant motion for rehearing and order Petition for Discretionary Review, for the State in their 11th hour brief conceded the fact that the Petitioner was correct in error 

### of double jeopardyand that alone should give the Court reason to 

### grant review. The 13th court of.appeals refusing oralrargument, as well as this Court after such issues that amount to a fundamental miscarriage of justiceand built on the foundations of the American Judicial system, 

### have become plain and apperrant, and such, issues require further inquiry from'the Court. It is cases like:thi:"sthat the Court should scrutinize 

### for- ^effectiveness of competent counsel and that Petitioner has recieved his fair day in court. Because Petitioner has not recieved his fundamental fairness as embodied by the Texas Const, and the U.S. Const. Such review by this Court is mandatory and fundamental. For the Court 

### allow such miscarriage of justice is to co-sign tyranny and insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.

PRAYER Petitoner prays that the Court grant sue sponte this Motion and all requested therein and any and all relief that the Court deems just and necessary.. () Granted (.) Denied 

### Signed this 27 Day of October, 2015 Presiding Judge 

### Pro/se| Jose Qovfizales#1832029 James V. Allred Unit 2101 FM 369 N. Iowa Park, Texas 76367

### MR. JOSE GONZALES III #1832029 

### JAMES-V. ALLREDUNIT 2101 FM 369 N. 

### IOWA PARK, TEXAS 76367



# InwL ^3 C'A!..LAS"IX/bU 2.9OCT'2015F'Ki3.0I...

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308,iCAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 h,,^.">"»>.„,ii.

t"'C!:•'X 1—ai^iUcaUe 

### '^•|'-»»l»./il'/'»l»i»'f»l'i'»M»li'jll//'-'»'»ili»liiil»H