CAUSE NO.PD-0150-15 

### RECEIVED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS

IN THE TEXAS GOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 

## AUG 03 2015 

## Ab®!Acosla,GteJfc I

FILEDIN 

# DANNYRAYRAJS^ER,APPELLANTPRDSE, COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS

Tl CHE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

## AbelAcOSla,Clerk

PRO SE MOTION FOR EN BANC RECONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT'S PRO SE MOTION TO EXCEED THE -15- PAGE LIMIT AS DENIED WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE RELIEF TO REDRAW STRICKEN "PDR"

TO THE HONORABLE JU0GES OF SAID COURTS 

### NOW <20ME3,DANNY RAY RANCHER, Appellant/Pro se and pursuant to USCA.CONST. 

### vAMENDS.ist/5th,14th;Tex*Const.Arts.5§4,5§5,l§13(Open Courts);TRAP.Rules 49.7,



### 49-*-$?,2(c), and files Motion for En Banc Reconsideration of Appellant's Pro seMotion to Exceed the -15- page Limit As Denied Without any Further Consider 

### ation of Requested Alternative Relief to Redraw Stricken "PDR". And in support there of would respectfully show as follows!
I. 

### OnJuly 14,2015, Post Card Notice was entered in absence of any OUurt of 

### Criminal Appeals' Signature or Action Taken Sheet signatured by any Panel of Judges to constitute a Quorom's Denial of Appellant's Pro seMotion to Exceed the page Limit regarding the stricken Pro se "PDR". 

### Only onJuly 27,2015, was Appellant Pro semade aware of this Court of Crim 

### inal Appeals' Notice denying his Motion to exceed the page limit when prison mail room officials deliverd such Notice. Which entailed a-13- day delay wherein the 

### Post Card Notice was/is Postdated JULY 22,2015, which was/is another -8- full days after such denial was entered onJuly 14,2015.
II. 

### TEX.CONST.ART.5§4(a)(b),pertinent here provides: "COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS;JUDGES." 

## (a) The Court of Criminal Appeals Shall consist of Bight Judges and One Presiding 1Judge." (fc# "For the purpose of hearing acses, the Court of Criminal Appeals may sit in panels of Three Judge, the designation thereof to be under Rules established by the court. In a panel of Three Judges, Two Judges Shall const itute a Qugurom and the concurrence of two judges Shall be Necessary for a de^- cision. The presiding Judge,under the rules established by the court,shall convene the court en banc for the purpose of hearing cases. . . When convened en banc, five judges shall constitute a quorom and the concurrence of five judges shall be necessary for a decision." 8 "The question of the number of judges necessary to authorize the transact ion of business by a cm'rt is as a general rule to be determined from the Con 

### stitution or statutory provisions creating and regulating courts,and as a general rule a majority of the members of a court is a "quorom" for the transaction of business and the decision of cases and in the absence of a "quorom",or the number required by law to hold court, a judgement rendered by the remaining judges is a nullity." See LONG V. STATE, (GR.APP. 1910) 59 TEX, GRIM... 103,127 SW. 551, AM.ANN. 

### CAS.ill2h,1244. TRAP. RULE 67.1, provides: "FOUR JUDGE VOTE." "By at least FourJudges,the Court 

### oi Criminal Appeals may grant review of a court of appeals' decision in a criminal case at any time before the mandate of the court of appeals issued," TRAP.RULE 69.1, provides: "GRANTING OR REFUSAL." "If Four Judges do not vote to grant a Petition for Discretionary Review* the Court will enter a docket not ation that the Petition is Refused. "If Four Judges Vote to Grant the Petition the Court will enter a docket notation that the Discretionary Review is Granted." 

### TEX.CONST.ART.5§5, pertinent here provides: "JURISDICTION OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS*" (a) "The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have final appellate juris diction coextensive with the limits of the State, and its determinations shall 

### be final, inall criminal cases of whatever grade, with such exceptions and un der such regulations as may be provided in this Constitution or as prescribed by law." 

### (b) "The appeal of all other criminal cases shall be to the Courts of Appeals* as prescribed by law. In addition,the Court of Criminal Appeals may,on its own 

### motion review a decision of a Court of Appeals in a criminal case as provided by law. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW BY THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT, BUT OP SOUND JUDICIAL DISCRETION." "THE FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT OF DUE PROCESS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY WHICH MUST BE GRANTED M A MEANINGFUL TIME AND IN A MEAN INGFUL MANNER."ARMSTRONG V. MANZO, 85 S.CT. 1187 (1965). "WHETHER A STATE: LAW *S PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS FALLING UNDER THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE IS A FEDERAL QUESTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT DETERMINES FOR ITSELF." USCA.CONST. ART.l§10,CL.l. CARMBLL V. TEXAS, 120 S.CT. 1620 (2000). "IN BEAZELL V. OHIO, 46 S.CT. 68 (1925). THE S!P?®!K COURT SUMMARIZED THE CHARACTERISTICS OF AN EX POST FACTO LAW: IT IS SETTLED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT SO WELL KNOWN THAT THIS CITATION MAY BE DISPENSED WITH THAT ANY STATUTE WHICH PUNISHES AS A CRIME ANY ACT PREVIOUSLY COMMITTED WHICH WAS INNOCENT WHEN DONE, WHICH MAKES MORE BURDENSOME THE PUNISHMENT FOR A GRIME, AFTER ITS COMMISSION, OR DEPRIVES ONE CHARGED WITH CRIME OF ANY DEFENSE AVAILABLE ACCORDING TO LAW AT THE TIME WHEN THE ACT WAS COMMITTED IS PROHIBITED AS EX .POST FACTO." "Defendant's claim that his convictions were barred by EX POST FACTO CLAUSES OF TEXAS AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS BECAUSE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THEY WERE PROSECUTED HAD NOT YET BEEN K3ACTED AT TIME OF HIS ALLEGEDLY CRIMINAL CONDUCT WAS NOT FORFEITABLE IRREGULARITY OF TRIAL PROCESS AND COULD BE RAISED FOR FIRST 2.

# TIMEONAPPEAL;DEFENDANTWASNOTOBJECTINGTOSUFFICIENCYOPCHARGING

-f<9nmY orJ,,^S «oio;*292(a). See NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES, 123 S CT 31*n



# op£SZ££S^ST^Bro*£"?•* '""*-* waw rauus&s.snasB-V. N.L.R.B., 130 S*CT. 2535 (2010). 

## "BECAUSETHEEXHAUSTIONDOCTRINEFORFEDERALHABEAS RELIPp re; ruKTrtn* 

# SL22LTM8S!BMBC0URTS*TM-'ANDFAIROPP^TuSto%£»£fSS^ 

# SS51S2!Mi(XAIMS«*• ^^<*AIMSARE^iaSToS^eSr?? 

# S=SS55sSMb5Bs?.^

*<» »w«LthatCOURT. Id..Qf. StPARTEJARBgTT. 891 SWi2tf.935 (TX.0R.1995). 

# iveright,Ofalltl^nt^Sc^og^gf^^S6^ "^^ ***•*- 

# SB.'ES.^nSApS.T^r1 "*is"*Trt*t. see^pahtespst^

S.CT. 2098 (1974). ACCESSTOTHECOURTS." BLACKLEDGEV. PERRY, 94 

# orjs.'gs"^^SoS^s^Lj^rr1r1T^°^ ; GONZALEZV. THALER, 132S.CT. 641 (2012) SUP.CT.RULE13>1^ Seealso

•'**** !'•' FURTHER ISSUES PRESENTED r''*Y' 

## Whether Strict Application of theJudfemade TRAP.Rule 9a(U(o\tn\ i«_

e iS xn "ittuct with and Repugnant to USCA.CONST.ARTS. 3