Motion to Extend Time 1 NO. 03-14-00270-CV

IN RE ) IN THE 3 rd COURT OF APPEALS ) ) ) CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM ) 

### MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO THE HONORABLE JU DGE OF SAID COURT : NOW COMES CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, and request the Court to grant his Motion to Extend Time pursuant to Tex. R. App. Proc. 10.5(b), and shows the following:

I. Tex. R. App. Proc. 10.5(b) stat es the requirements for motions to extend time. Furthermore, with regards to motions to extend time to file a brief, such motions may be filed before or after the deadline, Tex. R. App. Proc. 38.6(d). The deadline for filing appellant’s brief was on or around 4/27/2015. Appellant has fi led an Application for Hab eas Corpus in the trial court on 3/19/2015 which is still pending and which has not been decided in this case. Movant has had phone co mmunication with the Court requesting that the motion be set for hearing all to no avail. On 4/22/2015, Movant sent another request for a hearing or that decision to the made on the Application for Habeas Corpus, a copy of the letter and application for habeas corpus are ACCEPTED 03-14-00270-CV 5054620 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/27/2015 10:47:14 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKMotion to Extend Time 2 

### attached to this motion. The appli cation for habeas corpus will have a bearing on the Court’s review of this case on appeal. Appellant requests an extension of 30 days to file the appellant’s brief in this case or at least until

the trial court decides the motion fo r habeas corpus. Additionally, the

failure to file the brief before the d eadline was not deliberate or intentional but resulted from inadvertence, mistak e or mischance: Christopher Graham has been waiting for the trial court to decide the application for habeas corpus which Movant thought would ha ve been heard or decided before

4/27/2015 and said motion has a direct b earing on this court’s ability to hear the present case. As a result a reasona ble explanation has been provided for this motion for extension of time, a nd Counsel will be able to file the appellate brief immediately after the trial court decides Movant’s Application for Habeas Corpus. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant has shown a reasonable explanation for the extensio n request. Appellant requests an extension of filing the appe llant brief until the appli cation for habeas corpus

has been determined and for such ot her and further relief that may be awarded at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted,

Lauren Graham & Associates PLLCMotion to Extend Time 3 

### By: CHRISTOPHER L. GRAHAM Texas Bar No. 24047549 700 N. St. Mary’s Street, San Antonio, Texas Tel. and Fax: 210-787-3430

UNSWORN DECLARATION "My name is CHRISTOPHER L. GR AHAM; and my address is P.O. Box 226256. I declare under penalty of perj ury that the foregoing information contained in the Motion to Extend Ti me is true and correct. Executed in Dallas County, State of Texas, on the 27th day of April, 2015.

Declarant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of Motion to Extend time was served on the Comal County District attorney via facsimile 830-608-2008 on 4/27/2015.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE Counsel for movant attempted to cont act the assistant district attorney regarding the merits of this motion to no avail. The attorney handling this appeal could not be located.Motion to Extend Time 4 

### Declarant4.22.2015 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL:7014 2870 0000 9003 4166 Comal County Di strict Clerk 150 N. Seguin, Suite #304 New Braunfels, Texas 78130

RE: In Re Christopher Graham, Case N o. CR2013-366; Application for Habeas Corpus To Whom It May Concern: I filed a request for habeas corpus in the a bove captioned case on 3/19/2015, almost a month has gone by without any hearing being set or any action taken by the c ourt on the application. I have called several times to request a hearing date onl y to be rebuffed or given the run around. I am requesting a hearing date on my ap plication for Habeas corpus or I am requesting that the court make a decision as soon as possible on the application.

You can reach me anytime via cell phone at 469-605-6846 should you have any questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. Regards,

Christopher L. Graham, Esq. LGI PLLC Lauren Graham & Associates PLLC State Bar Number: 24047549Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 NO. CR2013-366

IN RE ) IN THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM ) COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now comes accused, CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM, and makes his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking release from confinemen t and release from the contempt order entered on 4/8/2014, and for good cause shows the following:

1. CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM is illegally confined and restrained of his liberty by the Sheriff of Comal County, Texas; CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM has been released pending appeal of the contempt order on a $5,000 cash bond.

2. CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM confinement a nd restraint is illegal because bond is excessive, oppressive and beyond the fi nancial means of CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM , in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to th e United States Constitution, Article I, §§ 11, 13 and 19 of the Texas Constitution, and Articles 1.09 and 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore the contempt order entered on 4/8/2014 is illegal 3. CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM respectfully reque sts the Court to c onduct an evidentiary hearing and, after receiving evidence, to reduce the amount of bond to a reasonable amount or a personal recognizance bond in order that CHRIST OPHER GRAHAM will have an opportunity toApplication for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 obtain release on a personal recognizance bond pending the appeal of the erroneous contempt order and that the Court grant the habeas corpus a pplication and vacate the 4/8/2014 contempt order because of due process violations due to the following reasons:

1. Movant committed no acts intentionally disrespectful to the court, or that actually obstructed the administration of justice. The cases at issue were in no way delayed except for by actions of the Court that were independent of the actions of M ovant, therefore a finding of contempt in this case was improper.

2. The Court allowed for the admission of the cour t transcript of all docket activities taking place on 2/25/2014. The recording of the Court transcript from the docket call of 2/25/2014 contained matters from other cases that was irrelevant to the contempt proceeding. Furthermore, it contained inadmissible hearsay. The State was unable to prove any hearsay exception calling for the admissibility of the transcript. The ad mission of the transcript was improper.

3. The Court did not specify that counsel would be subjected to criminal contempt for failure to announce ready at precisely 9 am at the 2/25/2014 docket call. Additionally, the Court did not state that Movant would be held in contempt by a rriving at court shortly after 1:15 pm when it had

announced other contested matters to be heard during the afternoon session on 2/25/2014. Furthermore, the court did not indicate in its notice of trial documentation in the State v. Cynthia Browne case that a failure to appear by counsel on 3/27/2013 would result in criminal contempt when Movant had spoken to the court coordinator and was told that the case was not going to trial on 3/31/2014. Therefore, criminal contempt was improper.

4. Movant was not afforded counsel nor informed about a right to counsel in the criminal contempt procedure. Therefore the contempt ruling is in error.Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 3 5. Court documentation does not reflect that Movant was properly personally served with the show

cause order in either case.

6. Movant was entitled to a jury trial in this contempt action since the punishment that could have been

assessed could have been more than 6 months.

7. Punishment of 15 days assessed in this case was draconi an, considering that Movant is an officer of the court and has other obligations in other courts. The Court could have and should ha ve considered other alternatives to confinement, such as a fine , community service, house arrest or reporting to confinement on weekends, or work release to name a few.

8. There was no evidence in the record to suppor t a $5,000 cash bond that was assessed in this case. Movant is not a flight risk, dangerous, there are no victims at risk as a result of Movant’s actions,

there was no evidence that Movant was not dutifu lly going to pursue appeal in this case or neglect any court appearances. Officers of the court ar e typically entitled to personal recognizance bonds in contempt matters pending the appointment of an ad ministrative judge. It should be no different on appeal. Movant requests that the cash bond be c onverted to a personal recognizance bond and that all

bond monies be refunded to Movant.. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED , CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM prays that the Court grant this application and discharge CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM from such illegal confinement;

and/or that CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM be allowed a personal recognizance appeal bond.

Respectfully submitted,

Lauren Graham & Associates PLLC

700 N. St. Mary’s Street #1400 San Antonio, Texas Tel. (210) 787-3430Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 4 By: CHRISTOPHER L. GRAHAM State Bar No. 24047549

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ther is to certify that on 3/19/2015 a true and co rrect copy of the above and foregoing document was served on the District Attorney's Office, Comal County, Texas via facsimile 830-608-2008

.

UNSWORN DECLARATION "My name is CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM. I declar e under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information contained in the Application for Habeas Corpus is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed in County, State of Texas, on the 18 th day March, 2015

DeclarantApplication for Writ of Habeas Corpus 5 NO. CR2013-366

IN RE ) IN THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM ) COMAL COUNTY, TEXAS

O R D E R

On , 2015, came on to be considered the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the above styled and numbered cause, and said Application is hereby (GRANTED) (DENIED). Accordingly, the contempt order of 4/8/2014 is vacated.

Signed on

.

JUDGE PRESIDING