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 CR-1 6 2 4 7 f r o m t h e 2 71 s t J udi ci al Di s tri ct Co urt o f W i s e Co unty , Tex a s and Ca us e N o . 1 1 -1 3 -0 0 0 5 4 -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 w Offi ce o f Pa ulBel ew , PLLC. / s /Pa ulBel ew S.B.N.: 0 0 7 9 4 92 6 P.O. Bo x 1 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 a co 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 x 1 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 , W i 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 a y" La pha m , W is 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 ndex o f Autho ri ti es ii i Sta tem ent Reg a rdi ng Ora l Arg um ent iv Sta nda rd o f Rev i ew iv Sta tem ent o f the Ca se iv , v I s s ue Pres ented fo r Rev i ew v i Arg um ent vi , v i i , v i i , i x , 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 : Pra yer fo r Rel i ef 1 Certi fi ca te o f Serv i ce 2 , 3 Certi fi ca te o f Co m pl ia nce 3 Appendi x 4

- I I -INDEX OF AUTHORI TI ES

Ca s es : Shum s ki 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 ndum Opi ni on) v , 4 U.S. Suprem e Co urt: Andres v . Uni ted Sta tes , 3 3 3 U.S. 7 4 0 (1 9 4 8 ) v i i Dunca n v . Lo ui s i a na , 3 9 1 U. S. 1 4 5 (1 9 6 8 ) v i i i I n re W i ns hi p, 3 97 U. 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 ) v i 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 ) i v 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.) i v 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) i v 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 ) v i , 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 hl y

co ntro vers i a la nd ca n bes t a rg ued a nd pres ented befo re a l i v e a nd i ntera cti v e pa neltha t ca nno t be do ne jus ti ce v i a pa 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 ti tuti o na li tyo f a cri m i na ls ta tute i s a ques ti o n o f l a w w 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 ina s , 98 2 S.W .2 d 9 , 1 0
- 1 1 (Tex . App.--Ho us to n[1 s t D i s t .] 1 9 9 7 , pet. ref' d); Sta te v . Mo ff, 1 54 S.W .3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 1 (Tex . Cri m . App.)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE On J une 22 , 2 0 1 1 a W i s e Co unty Gra nd J ury i ndi cted M a rk Shum s k i o n the cha rg e o f "Sex ua l Abus e o f a Chi ld, C o nti nuo us : Vi cti m Under 1 4 " a l l eg i ng tha t o n Februa ry 1 6 , 20 0 8 a nd co nti nui ng thro ug h and i ncl udi ng Ma y 1 6 , 2 0 1 1, "co m m i t tw o o r m o re a cts o f sex ua l a bus e a g ai ns t A.G., a chi l d y o ung er tha n 1 4
y ea rs o f a g e, s a i d a cts o f s ex ua la bus e ha v i ng been v i o l a ti o ns o f o ne o r m o re o f the fo l l o w i ng pena l l a w , na m el y : 1 . i ndecency w i th a chi l d . . .; [a nd] a g gra v ated

- I V -s ex ua l a s s a ul t o f a chi l d . . ." CR 7 . On Decem be r 1 1 , 2 0 1 2 t h i s ca se w a s tri ed

befo re a jury i n the 27 1 s t J udi ci a l Di stri ct Co urt fo r Wi se Co unty , Tex a s , J udg e J o hn Fo s telPres i di ng (Tri a l Ca us e Num ber C R 1 6 2 4 7 ). See, e.g ., R.R. 2 :1 . On Decem ber 1 2 , 2 0 1 3 a judg m ent w a s entered a ga i ns t Mr. Shum s k i s entenci ng hi m t o s i x t y (6 0) y ea rs i nca rcera ti o n i n the Tex as Depa rtm ent o f Cri m i na l J us ti ce . C.R. 1 2 1 . Mr. Shum s k

i rem a i ns i nca rcera ted. On J a nua ry 1 1 , 2 0 1 3 De f enda nt fi led hi s no ti ce o f a ppea l to the Seco nd C o 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 0 0 1 1 -CR. C.R. 1 23 . On Februa ry 11 , 2 0 1 3 thi s

ca s e w a s tra ns ferred to 1 1 t h C o urt o f Appea l s purs ua nt to Order a nd a s s i g ned Num ber 1 1-1 3-0 0 0 5 4 -CR. Se e , S h u m s k i v. St

a te , N o . 0 2
- 1 3
- 0 0 5 6 5
- C R (Decem ber 4 , 2 0 14 ) (Mem o ra ndum Opi ni o n). Ma rch 5 , 2 1 0 5 , the 1 1 t h Co urt

a ffi rm ed.

- V -I SSUES PRESENTED FOR REVI EW

I . THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED I N FAI LI NG TO FI N D THAT

SECTI ON 2 1.0 2 WAS 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 ti tuti o na l i ty of Secti on 2 1 .0 2 . The 11 T H Co urt o f A ppea l s erro neo us l y rul ed

a g a i ns t Peti ti o n e r ' s co ns ti tuti o na l cha l l eng e i n a n unpubl i s hed opi ni o n da ted Ma rch 5 , 2 0 1 5 . See Ap

p end i x . Thi s Peti ti o n fo r Di screti o na ry Rev iew i s fi l ed 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 y a ffects s o m a ny defenda nts , i t i s cri ti ca l to 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 r e s a l l jury v erdi cts i n a fel o ny ca s es 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 a rea so na bl e do ubt o f ev ery fa ct

neces s a ry t o c o ns ti tute the cri m e w i th w hi ch a defenda nt i s cha rg ed. The requi rem ent of a una ni mo u s v erdi ct i s s acro sa nct. Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 o f the Tex a s Pena l Co de (Co nti nuo us Sex ua l Abus e o f Yo ung Chi ld o r Chi l d r e n ) do es no t

re q u ir e u n an im ity w it h r e sp e c t t o t h e requi red predi ca te co nduct. Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 ' s fa i l ure to requi re a una ni m ous fi ndi ng o f the predi ca te co nduct i ndi ca tes tha t a

co nv i cti o n i s po s s i bl e w here the juro rs a re no t ag 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 C o urts addres s ing thi s cl a i m

- V I -i s tha t una ni m i ty i 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 ng i s fl a w ed a t bes t. Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 perm its the jury to nev er be co m pel l ed
to ca reful l y s cruti ni ze – a s a w ho l e jury

– the ev i dence fo r a ny s peci fi c s ex ua l a ct. I t m ea ns the jury i s free to a ct a s tw el v e auto no m o us "m i ni -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 on v . Uni ted Sta tes . 5 2 6 U .S. 8 1 3 ( 1 9 9 9 ). Appl y ing i ts a na ly s i s to Secti o n 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 of s ex ua l a bus e a re the fo cus o f the Secti o n a nd therefo re pro perl y a re the o bject o f the un a n i mi ty requi rem ent. The Si xth Am endm ent to the Uni ted Sta tes Co ns ti tuti o n requi res una ni m ous jury v erdi cts i n federa l cri m ina l tri al s. 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 ); see Sa nchez v . Sta te, 2 3 S.W . 3 d 3 0 , 3 9 (Tex . C ri m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) . Under the Tex as Co ns ti tuti o n, a jury v erdi ct i n a fel o ny ca s e i s requi red to be

una ni m o us , and Tex a s s ta tutes requi re una ni m i ty in a l l cri m i na l ca ses . Stuhl er

v . Sta te, 2 1 8 S.W .3 d, 7 06 , 7 1 6 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 7 ); J effers o n v . Sta te, 1 8 9 S.W .3 d 3 0 5, 3 11 (Tex . Cri m . App. 20 0 6 ); Ng o v . Sta te, 1 7 5 S.W .3 d 7 3 8 , 7 4 5 (Tex . Cri m . A pp. 2 0 0 5); TEX. CONST. ART . V , § 1 3 ; TEX.CODE CRI M. PROC. ANN. a rt. 3 6 .2 9 (2 0 1 3 ). Under Tex a s l a w , una ni m i ty m ea ns tha t ea ch a nd ev ery juro r a g rees tha t the defenda nt co m m i tted the sa m e, si ng l e, s peci fi c cri m i na l a ct.

- V I I -Ng o v. Sta te, 1 7 5 S.W . 3 d 7 38 , 7 4 5 (Tex . Cri m . App. 2 0 0 5 ), ho w ev er, inex pl i ca bl y

Secti o n 2 1 .0 2 do es no t requi re una ni m i ty a s to predi ca te a cts . See , Secti o n 2 1 .0 2

o f the Tex a s Pena l Co de. The 1 1 t h Co urt o f A ppea l s , erred w hen a ppl y i ng the l a w of the referri ng juri sdi cti o n, w hen they hel d tha t the co nti nuo u s s e x u a l s ta tute di d no t v i o l a te due pro ces s , ev en w i tho ut a una ni mo u s v e r d i ct a s to m a nner and m ea ns .

“ Al tho ug h v i rtua l l y una ni m o us a dherence to the rea s o na bl e-do ubt s ta nda rd i n

co m m o n-l a w juri s di cti ons m a y no t co ncl us i vel y es ta bl i s h i t a s a requi rem ent o f due pro ces s , s uch a dherence do es "refl ect a pro fo und judg m ent a bo ut the w a y i n w h ic h law sh ou ld b e e n f or ced 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. 14 5 , 15 5 (1 96 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 ) . T h e Co urt co ncl uded tha t due pro ces s m a nda tes "pro o f bey o nd a rea so na bl e do ubt

o f ev e r y f

a c t neces s a ry to co ns ti tute 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 7 U. S. 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 (1 9 7 0 ). S e c ti o n 2 1 . 0 2 ha s been prev i o us l y a nd uns ucces sful l y cha l l eng ed o n t h e g ro unds o f l a ck o f a una ni m i ty requi rem ent. The Sa n Anto ni o Co urt of Appea l s ’

res po ns e i s fa i rl y i ndi ca ti ve, al t ho ugh m i

s p l a ced , o f the res po ns e o f the v a ri o us Co urt s o f Appea l s tha t ha v e co ns i dered the cha l l eng e: “ As di s cus s ed herei n, Tex as l aw i s cl ea r tha t "[t]he i ndi v idua l a cts o f s ex ua l a bus e . . . a re no t

- V I I I -them s el v es el em ents o f the o ffens e, but a re m erel y ev i denti ary fa cts , the m a nner

a nd m ea ns by w hi ch the a ctus reus e l e m ent is co m m i tted." See Ja co bs en, 3 2 5 S.W .3 d a t 7 3 7 ; s ee a l s o 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 ls ettl ed tha t "s ecti o n 2 1 .0 2 do es no t v io l a te due pro ces s by perm i tti ng a co nv i cti o n ba sed

o n a jury ' s una ni m o us fi ndi ng tha t the defenda nt eng a g ed i n a co urs e o f co nduct

co ns is ti ng o f repea t e d a cts o f s ex ua l a bus e, but w i tho ut requi ri ng jury una ni m i ty

a s to the i ndi v i dua l a cts tha t m a de up tha t co urs e of co nduct." See Ma rti n, 3 3 5 S.W .3 d a t 8 7 2 (di s cu s s i n g J a co bs en, 3 2 5 S.W .3 d at 73 9 ). Thi s rea so ni ng i s fl aw ed a nd o ppres s i v e. I n a ddi ti o n to a b o v e c o mp e l l i ng rea s o ns to g ra nt PDR i n thi s ca s e, the

s ta t u t e i n ques ti o n i s a ls o v i o l ati v e o f the VI I I Am endm ent to the Federa l Co ns ti tuti on, int

er al ia , “ F ED, CONST., a rt. VI I I ” ci ti ng a pro hi bi ti o n o f cruel

a nd unus ua l puni shm ent. The trem endo u s a ppel la te ques ti o ns a ri s i ng o ut o f cri m i na l c o n v i c t i 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 l y a ttra cti v e to thi s Co u r t to a ddres s . Thes e i s s ues i ncl ude, but are

c e r ta inl y no t li m i ted to , due pro ces s i s s ues , jury una ni m i ty i ss ues a nd i s s u e s rel a ti ng to cruel a nd unus ua l puni s hm ent, a l l v i o l a ti v e o f a defenda nt’s

co ns ti tuti o na lri g hts a ffo rded o ne byl a w a nds co m m o n s ens e.

-1
-PRAYER FOR RELI EF

W H E RE F O R

E , P R E MI S E S C O N S I D E R

E D , MARK JO S E P H S H U M S KI

res pectful l y re q ues ts tha t the Co urt o f Cri m i na l A ppea l s g ra nt Appel l a nt' s Peti ti o n fo r Di s creti ona ry Rev i ew a nd fo r s uch o ther a nd further rel i ef to w hi ch he m a ys ho w hi 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 x 1 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 T h i s i s to certi fy tha t o n thi s , the 22 nd da y o f Apri l , 2 0 1 5 a true a n d

co rrect co py o f the a bo v e a nd fo reg o i ng do cum ent ha s been fo rw a rded by m ea ns

o f el ectro ni c fi l i ng a s fo l lo w s :

-2
-Greg Lo w ery , W i se Co unty Di s tri ct Atto rney ' s Offi ce

W i s e Co unty Co urtho us e Deca tur, Tex a s 7 6 2 34

/ s/Pa ul Bel ew Pa ulBel ew

CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE W I TH RULE 9 . 4 (i )(3 ) W o rdPerfect X6 w a s us ed to prepa re thi s do cum ent i n 1 4 Po i nt Ti m es New R o m an. Us ing W o rdPerfect X6 I certi fytha t the to ta lnum ber o f w o rds

co nta i ned herei n, i ncl udi ng the i denti tyo f pa rti es a nd co uns el , ta bl e o f

co ntents , i ndex o f a utho ri ti es , s ta tem ent o f the ca s e, s ta tem ent o f i s s ues pres ented, s i g na ture, a nd certi fi ca te o f co m pl ia nce i s 1 9 4 4 .

_ / s /_

__ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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
-