ND . 06-15-DDD56-CR

RECEIVED IN

The Court of Appeals Sixth District

MAY 1 8 2015

COLLINS

Pro-Se

V. Texarkana, Texas *

Debra Autrey, Clerk

STATE DF TEXAS

FILED IN

The Court ofAp'peate

§ IN THE 6TM DISTRICT CDUR^ DiStH<*

f «AY 18 2015

§ OF APPEAL5 T § Texarkana, Texas

§ texarkanna, Texas Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

MOTION TD ADD 5TATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

TO CURRENTLY FILED APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF CDURT;

Comes Now ,Defendant Pro-5e ,(Collins) who humbly requests

that in review of above styled and numbered Appeal NO. 06-15-00056

CR, that a Statement from Defendant (Collins) be considered along

uith currently filed Brief.

Brief was mailed nut on April 16, 2015 by hand delivery to

mailroom personnel at C.T. Terrell Unit after sufficient U.S.

Postage was insured. Brief was dated April 17, 2015.

Pro-Se Defendant (Collins) would ask this Court to consider

Copy of Bill of Cast in Cause NO. 5629-C as additional' evidence

to above mentioned voidable conviction.

I, Billy Max Collins, Applicant would accert the simple

fact that Total Fine and Courtroom Costs could not have been

paid through three days in jail, as stated on Criminal Dockett

Sheet.

In closing of Statement, I would also accert notice to

signature of Tracy Smith, Deputy to Debbie Shirley, Hopkins

1
County Clerk, ha vingii bden duly signed and authenticated. Alleged

Waivers and File Stamps of Mary Attesley are NOT signed by anyone

of proper authority.

This amendment of evidence to be incorporated with Applicant's

Brief as EXHIBIT F_

IN GOD I TRUST,

Billy Max Collins #1BB4B<f9

1300 F.M. 655

Rosharon, TX 775B3
j^k^t: ^

THE STATE OF TEXAS

VS

BILLY MAX COLLINS

BILL OF COST

NO. 5629-C

IN THE COUNTY COURT

OF

HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

TO OFFICERS OF COURT, DR.

FINE • $500.00

COURT COSTS $127.50

TOTAL FINE & COURT COSTS - PAID TROUGH JAIL TIME $627.50

TRANSCRIPT $69.00

TRANSCRIPT (COPY-IF DESIRED) $34.50

TOTAL COURT COSTS FOR TRANSCRIPT & COPY $103.50

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY COURT OF HOPKINS

COUNTY: COUNTY CLERK OF

HOPKINS COUNTY, do hereby certify the aboveto be a true andcorrect copy of the

original bill of cost, now on file in my office.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL of saidCourt affixed at the office intheCity of

Sulphur Springs, Texas this l/^ day of (ll/M D\0\6 •

DEBBIE SHIRLEY, COUNTY CLERK

HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

BY DEPUTY

TrkcV Smith
22 C. J:iL_

, g ratiniv^f| in favor of the liberty of defendant.

'-rffirr iliaT' tTTe' exercise ot"'what would be| an '_

•jnnifniteti. uncertain, arid arbitrary judiciafdiscre-_

Lion.jU ___ ~ i

"'"''Tne'Irialjudge must give counsel a fuH_opj2or-... tunity"Tone heard and he ""must give careful

cb'nsiHeration to alternatives to a mistrial^

TherTTs authority that manifest necessity for

decfaring^ mistrial cannot exisTTfThe trial court"

has~an""aIEernative to declaring a mistrial which""

protects thej*ights ot both" d'efendanfTand the

smt.fl."*"~Tfoweyer, there is also authority "that

manifest neeessfty for a mistrial can exist alongsidiTless" drastic allernatives, so long as ihe rec-

(Tfinnscloses that tne triaTcourt considered alterTJa^iv^T'before declarmg_Ji_.mistrial^ In any'

event, the court has the duty to obtain enough

information so that it is clear that a mistrial is

actually necessary."

Retrial for lesser offense.

When a trial on a higher charge ends in a

mistrial so that defendant can be retried on thi

higher charge, it is not fundamentally unfair for

the state to charge and try him for a much lesser

offense; -4 this is true whether the lesser offense

is or is not a lesser included offense.*5

§ 231. Discharge of Jury without Verdict

A (riul court may, in ihc exercise of its sound discretion,

dbcharge 11 jury without the consent of accused when there

19, Me.—State v. Flick. 495 A.2d 339.

20. Maw.—Commonwealth v. Steward, 483 N.E.2d 1091, 396 Mass.

7b.

N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502

N.Y.S.2cl l'"2.

21. Ml ••S.UU r'riel. 5Ui A.2d oil.

22. U.S.—Abdi v. Slule of Georgia. C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500,rehearing

denied 749 F 2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871,471 U.S. 1006,

85 L.Ed.2d 164.

23. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 38J, 502

N.Y.S.2il 972.

24. S.C.—Stale v. Mills. 314 S.E.Id 324. 28 1 S.C. 60. oerlinrart denied

Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324, 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261.

25. S.C—State v. Mills, 114 S.E.2d 324, 281 S.C. 60, certiorari denied

Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324. 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261.

Applicability of double jeopardy to prosecution for lesser included

offense see infra § 251.

26. U.S.—Green v. U.S., App.D.C, 78 S.Cl. 22!. 355 U.S. 184, 2

L.Ed.2d 199.

27. U.S.—U.S. v. Crosley, E.D.Pa.. 634 F.Supp. 28, affirmed 787 F.2d

584.

Conn.—State v. Van Sam, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369.

111.—People v, Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16, 15 Ill.2d 344, certiorari denied

Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Ct. Ii43, 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034.

22CJ.S-13

CRIMINAL LAW § 231

exists u manifest necessity therefor, unii such discharge will not

~ .support it pleu uf former jeopardy.

__ Library References

Criminal Law «=18l, 182, 184.

LiiFave & Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. :i § 2-\.2{b).

An accused isjjlaced in jeopardy once he is put

on" trial before a jury so that if the jury is_

'discharged without his consent he, generallyj

cannot be triecTagain.26 However, the"discharge"

"ot a jury" prior to a verdict of conviction or

"acquittal is nofnecessarily", or in all cases, a bar

"to a subsequent "trial of an" accused" under the

'"Same indictment.27 Generally, there must be a"

manifest, imperious, urgent, real, or "absolute ne

cessity for the dischafgeTSf tnTjury" without it"

"having rendered a ver3ict72H ariflfwhen such necessity exists, a plea of former jeopardy will not

^prevail on a subseqjjent trial,29 even" though a<>

"cusedToes not consent to the^ischarge of the

jury.80 '""

On the other hand, if the jury is discharged

without verdict and without accused's consent .

for a reason legally insufficient and without an ' . Absolute, imperious, overriding, or overruling ne- f^s- ' cessity for iCTHe" discharge is equivalent tp_an-s^ ^cquittal^nH"lnay~Be pleaded as a"bar to a x

Subsequent indictment,31 as where the case is

taken from "the jury for mere matter of conveMass.—Commonwealth v. Steward. 483 N.E.2d 1091. 390 Mass. 76.

Ohio—State v. Palmieri. App.. 46 N.E.2d 318. 28 O.L.A. 398. 13 0.0.

517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 OhioSi. 30, 13O.O. 526.

28. U.S.—Oregon v. Kennedy. Or.. 102 S.Cl. 2083, 456 U.S. 667, 72

L.Ed.2d 4it), on lemaiid Slate v. Kennedy, ti57 P.2d 717, 61 Or.App

469, affirmed 060 P.2d 1316, 295 Dr. 2o0—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69

S.Cl. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. 974. rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152,

337 U.S. 921, 93 L.Ed. 1730.

U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied 107 S.Cl.

182. 479 U.S. 852, 93 L.Ed.2d 116.

Ill —People v. Thomas. 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 ill.2d 344, certiorari denied

Thomas v, Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005. 3 L.Ed.2d 1034.

NY.—McCabe v. County Court of Bronx County, 199 N.Y.S.2d 247,

24 Misc.2d 477.

29 US —Wade v. Hunter. Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684. 93 L.Ed.

974, rehearing 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730.

Blair v. White. C.C.A.Kan.. 24 F.2d 323.

HI.—People v. Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 lll.2d 344. certiorari denied

Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034.

Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295.

Nev.—State v. Helm. 209 P.2d 187, 66 Nev. 286. certiorari denied Helm

v. Slate of Nevada. 70 S.Cl. 794, 339 U.S. 942, 94 L.Ed. 1358.

30. Ky.—Baker v. Commonwealth, 132 S.W.2d 766, 280 Ky. 165.

31. U.S.—Comcro v. U.S.. C.C.A.Cal., 48 F.2d 69.

277

•^

VW_. UulaJ / ?•

1

fir

'till

•Ml
§231 CRIMINAL LAW Pr<^^5^^cL- /

r&-r

nience.32 fX*? dence to an impartial jury,-" and where a trial

The cojixts are to determinejii the|r__discretjpn

whether under alljhe circumstances of_each case

imperious "or urgent necessity exists.3;t The <Je~

termination by the trial court "to abort a^cfiminal

proceeding where jeopardy has attached is not

one to be ligfitTy-undertakenT^inceJEhe interest of"

defendant fn"haying his fate determined by the

1ury"first_impaneled "is'"itself...a' weighty one.^

Although the trial court's" view as to the necessi

ty for. discharging the jury js^entitled to deference,^5 its discretion is not unlimited; m the court

"cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously.?7 No ab

stract forihuja,.should be mechanically applied,38

arid all circumstances should be taken into ac

count^

Right to have trial completed by a particular

tribunal.

As discussed supra § 208, the constitutional

protection against double jeopardy embraces de

fendant's valued right to have his trial completed

by a particular tribunal; such right means that

he has a significant interest in the decision

whether to take the case from the jury.*0 How

ever, the right to have the trial concluded by a

particular tribunal is sometimes subordinate to

the public interest in affording the prosecutor

one full and fair opportunity to present his eviU.S. v. Harriman, D.C.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 198.

Cal.—People v. Valenti, 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199.

Ky.—Lillard v. Commonwealth, 267 S.W.2d 712.

N.J.—State v. Locklear, 108 A.2d 436, 16 N.J. 232.

32. U.S.—U.S. v. Harriman, D.C.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 198.

N.Y.—People v. Colon, 184 N.Y.S.2d 537, 16 Misc.2d 1061.

33. U.S.—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed

974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730.

N.M.—State v. Brooks, 279 P.2d 1048, 59 N.M. 130.

N.Y.—People ex rel. Epling v. De Voe, 136 N.Y.S.2d 650, 284 A.D.

1092, affirmed 130 N.E.2d 616, 309 N.Y. 818.

34. U.S.—Illinois v. Somerville, III., 93 S.Ct. 1066, 410 US. 458. 35

L.Ed.2d 425.

35. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502

N.Y.S.2d 972.

36. NY.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77, 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502

N.Y.S.2d 972.

37. N.Y.—People v. Colon. 184 N,Y.S.2d 537, 18 Misc.2d 1061.

Okl—Yarbrough v. Slate, 210 P.2d 375. 90 Okl.Cr. 74.

38. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed.

974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730.

39. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed.

974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921, 93 L.Ed. 1730.

Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295.

40. Me.—State v. Flick, 495 A.2d 339.

court properly declares a mistrial, the criminal

trial may be terminated before the issue of defen

dant's guilt has been resolved by that particular

tribunal.42

§ 232. Grounds

The manifest necessity permitting Ihe disclim-jre of u jury

without rendering u verdict and without involving double jeop

ardy may result from various circumstances, such us a defective

indictment, the absence of witnesses for the prosecution, prose

cutorial misconduct, und the disqualification of jurors.

Library References

Criminal Law «=182, 184.

LaFave & Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. 3 $ 24.2(b, c).

The manifest necessity permitting the dis

charge of a jury without rendering a verdict and

without justifying a plea of double jeopardy may

arise from various causes or circumstances.*3

Such circumstances must be in the nature of a

cause or emergency over which neither court nor

attorney has control,4* or which could not have

been averted by diligence and care.JS The power

to declare a mistrial and subject defendant to

retrial ought to be used with the greatest cau

tion, under urgent circumstances and for very

plain and obvious causes.46

The court may discharge the jury without

41. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington, Ariz., 98 S.Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497,

54 L.Ed.2d 717.

42. Colo.—People v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000.

43. Iowa—State v. Critclli, 24 N.W.2d 113. 237 Iowa 1271.

44. Cal.—People v. Valenti. 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199.

Ohio—State v. Palmicri, App., 46 N.E.2d 318, 28 O.L.A. 398, 13 0.0.

517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 Ohio St. 30, 13 0.0. 526.

Ulah—Siaie v. Whitman, 74 P.2d 096. 93 Utah 557.

45. U.S.—Himmelfarb v. U.S., C.A.Cal.. 175 F.2d 924. certiorari

denied 70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L.Ed. 527, and Ormoni v. U.S.,

70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L.Ed. 527.

46. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa.. 95 S.Ct. 1013, 420 U.S. 332. 43 LEd.2d

232—Downum v. U.S.. Tex.. 83 S.Cl. 1033, 372 U.S. 734, 10 LEd.2d

100.

Mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with

attorneys

Trial judge, who, on his own motion, declared mistrial to enable

government's witnesses lo consult with their own attorneys abused his

discretion in discharging jury and reprosecution of defendant would

violate double jeopardy provision of Fifth Amendment.

U.S.—U.S. v. Jom, Utah. 91 S.Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27 L.Ed.2d 543

(per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring and two justices

concurring in judgment).

Prior relationship of judge with victim

Disqualification of trial judge based on his prior relationship with

robbery victim clearly necessitated declaration of mistrial, and subse278

•K

':m

:*. *

•\,:.

•::a-
§ 229 CRIMINAL LAW 22 C. J. S.

after the -jury have been impaneled, there is former jeopardy.7

E. MISTRIAL; DISCHARGE OK JURY WITHOUT VERDICT

istrial in General

When a mistrial is declared over defendant's objection, the

government has the right to retry the defendant only where

there i.4 manifest necessity for the net, or (he ends of public

justice would otherwise be defeated.

Library References

Criminal Ijaw ©=!&>, 1B4.

LaFave &• Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. 3 § 24.2(b).

Generally, the double jeopardy clause does not

prevent the government from forcing defendant

to submit to a second trial where the first trial

ended in a mistrial.8 The practical justification

for the exception to the "one trial" rule so as to

permit a retrial of defendant after a mistrial is

simply that it is fairer to both defendant and the

government.9 However, when a mistrial is de

clared over defendant's objection, the govern

ment has the right to retry defendant only where

there is manifest necessity for the act,10 or the

7. Kan.—Slate v. Rush, 26 P.2d 581, 138 Kan. 465.

N.Y.—People ex rel. Sabatina v. Jennings. 177 N.Y.S. 210, 108 Misc.

93, 37 N.Y.Cr. 550. affirmed 185 N.Y.S. 949, 194 A.D. 950.

Tex.—Garza v. State, Cr.App.. 658 S.W.2d 152, certiorari denied Texas

v. Garza, 104 S.Cl. 194, 464 U.S. 863, 78 L.Ed.2d 171.

8. U.S.—U.S. v. Scotl, Mich., 98 S.Cl. 2187, 437 U.S. 82. 57 L.Ed.2d

65. on remand 579 F.2d 1013, ceniorari denied 99 S.Cl. 1266, 440

U.S. 929. 59 L.Ed.2d 486. rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 226, 439 U.S.

883, 58 L.Ed.2d 197—Jcffers v. U.S., Ind., 97 S.Ct. 2207. 432 U.S.

137. 53 L.Ed.2d 168, rehearing denied 98 S.Ct. 241, 434 U.S. 880, 54

L.Ed.2d 164—Lee v. U.S., Ind.. 97 S.Cl. 2141, 432 U.S. 23, 53 L.Ed.

2d 80—U.S. v. Taleo, N.Y.. 84 S.Ct. 1587, 377 U.S. 463, 12 L.Ed.2d

448.

U.S v Si.^cr. C.A 8(Miiin.j. 785 F.;d 22S. ceniorari Jenioj !U7

S.Ct. 273, 479 U.S. 883, 93 L.Ed.2d 249—U.S. v. Borokinui, C.A.Va.,

748 F.2d 2J6.

Mass.—A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 465 N.£.2d 240, 392 Muss. 52.

9. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Ct. 1013. 420 U.S. 332, 43 L.Ed.2d

232.

10. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington. Ariz.. 98 S.Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497. 54 L.Ed.2d 717—U.S. v. Sanfoid. Mont.. 97 S.Cl. 20. 429 U.S. 14, 50

L.Ed.2d 17, on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v. Diilitz, Fta.. 96 S.Ct.

1075, 424 U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267. on remand 538 F.2d 1214,

rehearing denied 542 F.2<i 1174, ceniorari denied 97 S.Cl 1133 429

U.S. 1104. 51 L.Ed.2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Ct. 1013. 420 U.S. 332. 43 L.Ed.2d 232.

U.S. v. Perez. 22 U.S. 579. 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165.

•U.S. v. Weils, C.A.IO(Cola). 790 F.2d 73.

Conn.—State v. Van Sant, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369.

D.C.—U.S. v. Glover. 731 F.2d 41. 235 U.S.App.D.C. 194.

Me.—State v. Frtel, 500 A.2d 631.

Nev.—State v. Comicry. 679 P.2d 1266. 100 Nev. 256.

ends of public justice would otherwise be defeat

ed. >• In effect, the manifest necessity test pro

tects defendant against bad faith conduct by the

judge or prosecutor which results in a mistrial

being declared and gives the prosecution a more

favorable opportunity to convict defendant.12

Manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial ad

mits of no precise formulation I3 or mechanical

application," for the high degree of necessity. mandated by the phrase can be found in a variety

of circumstances;15 accordingly, the degree of

deference to be accorded the trial judge's deter

mination of manifest necessity varies with the

circumstances of each case.16 The strictest scru

tiny is applied to the court's determination where

accused claims that the mistrial wasintentionally

caused by the prosecution.17 At the other end of

the spectrum, great deference is accorded the

triaTjudge's conclusion trTaTajnistrial is required rJecause of a deadlocked jiiry> Any doubt must.

11. U.S.—U.S. v. Sanford, Mont., 97 S.Ct. 20, 429 U.S. 14, 50 L.Ed.2d

17. on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v, Dinitz, Fla., 96 S.Cl. 1075,

424 U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267, on remand 538 F.2d 1214, rehearing

denied 542 F.2d 1174, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1133, 429 U.S. 1104,

51 L.Ed.2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Cl. 1013, 420 U.S. 332, 43

L.Ed.2d 232—U.S. v. Jorn, Utah, 91 S.Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27

L.Ed.2d 543 (per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring in

judgment)—Gori v. U.S.. N.Y.. 81 S.Ct. 1523, 367 U.S. 364, 6 L.Ed.

2d 901, rehearing denied 82 S.Ct. 25. 368 U.S. 870. 7 L.Ed.2d 70.

U.S. v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165.

U.S. v. Salvador, C.A.Ariz., 740 F.2d 752, certiorari denied 105

S.Cl. 978, 469 U.S. 1196, 83 L.Ed.2d 980.

Mo.—State v. Fiizpatrick, 676 S.W.2d 831.

N.J.—Siaio •„. Abbaii, 493 A.2d 513, 99 N.J. 416.

12. Colo.—People v. Schwarlz. 678 P.2d 1000.

13. U.S.—Abdi v. Stale ofGeorgia,C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500, rehearing

denied 749 F.2d 733. certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006,

85 L.Ed.2d 164.

14. U.S.—Abdi v. Slate of Georgia. C.A.Ga., 744F.2d 1500, rehearing

denied 749 F.2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006,

85 L.Ed.2d 164.

15. U.S.—Abdi v. SlateofGeorgia, C.A.Ga., 744 F.2d 1500. rehearing

ilcnied 749 F.2d 733, ceniorari denied 105 S.Ct. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006,

85 L.Ed.2d 164.

16. U.S.—U.S. v. Jurvis, C.A.9(Cal.j, 792 F.2d 767. certiorari denied

107 S.Ct. 182, 479 U.S. 852, 93 L.Ed.2d 116—U.S. v. Jaramillo, C.A.

Nev., 745 F.2d 1245, certiorari denied 105 S.Ct. 2142, 471 U.S. 1066,

85 L.Ed.2d 499.

17. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.). 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied

107 S.Ct. 182. 479 U.S..852. 93 L.Ed.2d 116.

18. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied

107 S.Cl. 182, 479 U.S. 852. 93 L.£d.2d 116.

276

%