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

RECEIVED IH

OaURT ofCRIMINAL APPEALS

NOV 02 2015

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:

Comes Now |ose Gonzales III, Hereinstyled Petitoner, 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

procedurally defaulting Petitioner's claim.

ART. II.,

The State committed double jeopardy when it prosecuted Petitioner for

multiple burglarious entries where there was only one unlawful entry

and the the gravamen for burglary is the unlawful entry not the complain

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 of counsel on direct appeal

in opposition of Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. (-2013). Because of the

deep entrenched culture of not entertaining ineffective assistance of

counsel
Motion 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 of ttte plain errors of trial counsels.

Ineffective assistance of counsel: Counsel's failure to object to mis

jionder of two distinct 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

to quash affidavit and information that was unsigned, hence prosecution

commenced upon 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 high profile prosecution after it became apperrant that Peti

tioner could not recieve a fair trial in said County.

ART. VI.,

Trial ijudge abused her discretion by not ordering a change of venue

after it became impossible to seat an unbiased jury in high profile

case.

ART. VII. /

Counsel abandoned Petitioner, acting as no counsel at all, merely

friend of court, giving testimony that his client was guilty and that

afixed in the jury minds 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 Fred Jiminez committed fraud by 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 Stephen W. Byrne as Appeal Attorney

rendering Fred Jiminez's Ander's brief Moot by opertion of law, and

court was in error for not rulingcQ/n this point of law.
Motion Cont:

ART. IX.,

Petitioner's counsel of record rendered ineffective assistance of

counsel for not raising the defense .of temporary insanity after

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 jeopardy and 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 justice and 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:"s that 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

JAMES

#1832029

-V. ALLRED UNIT

2101 FM 369 N.

IOWA PARK, TEXAS 76367

I nwL

^3

C'A!.. LAS "IX /bU

2.9 OCT' 2015 F'Ki 3.0 I...

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308,i CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

h,,^

t"'C! :•' X 1 —ai^iUcaUe '^•|'-»»l»./il'/'»l»i»'f»l'i'»M»li'jll//'