of the "STREETS." The "STREETS" are better characterized as a person standing in a ,;BOOT." (See, NINTH STREET / MARGARET DRIVE / MUNOZ POSITION, DIAGRAM ATTACHED; see also, CITY MAP, introduced by DEFENSE ATTORNEY, :REPORTER 1 S RECORD, VOLUME 5, EXHIBIT DX - 1) • The MENTAL PICTURE is to illustrate the "CURVE / MERGE" of NINTH STREET'S "END INTO" MARGARET STREET'S "BEGINNING." SPECIFICALLY, as with a "BOOT" starting NINTH STREET at YOUR TOES coming across the top of your foot to the ankle, there being the end of NINTH STREET, curving up your leg, there being the beginning of MARGARET DRIVE, and this continues to your crotch, as MARGARET DRIVE. -of course, at your ankle you could turn, thereby, going into the heal of the "BOOT," or a DEAD END PORTION OF MARGARET DRIVE. /()
II
RELEVANT FACTS REVISITED
CONFUSIVE TESTIMONY FROM HISTORICAL STANDPOINT (CONTINUED)
[MISCHARACTERIZATION OF INTERSECTION DEFINITION]
Second, keeping the MENTAL PICTURE IN MIND, NINTH STREET and MARGARET DRIVE are a two way street, two lanes, one lane going one direction, the other lane going the opposite direction. Clearly, with RELATOR coming down NINTH STREET, from the "TOE OF THE BOOT ACROSS THE TOP OF THE FOOT TOWARD THE ANKLE," in the single lane that.as you make ?'THE CURVE TURNING," as does the ankle heading up the leg toward the crotch, "INTO MARGARET DRIVE WHERE THERE IS 'NO INTENTION TO TURN THE VEHICLE FROM THE DIRECT COURSE OF THE STREET, CHANGE LANES, START FROM A PARKED POSITION (TEX. TRANSP. CODE(S) §§ 545.104(a), 545.106; MAHAFFEY v STATE, 316 SW 3d 633, 639 (TEX CRIM APP 2010)), NOR, IS THERE ANY OTHER TRAFFIC BEING AFFECTED BY SUCH MOVEMENT, OR CONFLICT WITH ANY OTHER VEHICLES TRAVELING UPON DIFFERENT STREETS JOINING AT ANY OTHER ANGLE (CITY OF MOUNT PLEASANT, TEXAS, CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 70.01, at "INTERSECTION;" 71.030, at "STOPPING AND TURNING SIGNALS;" attached hereto, APPENDIX, TAB A).'" Finally, in 'MUNOZ'S OPINION" a traffic infraction had occurred when RELATOR/ traveling from NINTH STREET to MARGARET DRIVE, "CONTINUED TO THE RIGHT WITHOUT TURNING HIS TURN SIGNAL ON[,]" WHICH THE RELATOR HAD "A DUTY" TO DO AT THE "INTERSECTION." EVEN THOUGH, "MUNOZ ACKNCl'H.EDGED" THAT THERE ARE "NO TRAFFIC SIGNALS OR SIGNS AT 'THIS INTERSECTION; '" however, MUNOZ did not waver from his position that, "ALTHOUGH THE Fta'J OF TR.AFFIC AT THIS JUNCTURE 'COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS SIMPLY FOLI.a'JING' THE ROADWAY AROUND ONTO MARGARET DRIVE I TO I TURN I OR I CONTINUE I ONTO MARGARET DRIVE FRcx-1 NINTH STREET WITHOUT A SIGNAL 'IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.'" (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS/ Slip. ' Op., PD-0238-11; see also, CITY OF MOUNT PLEASANT, TEXAS, CODE OF ORDINANCES§§ 70.01/ at INTERSECTION; and 71.030, at STOPPING and TURNI~G SIGNALS, APPENDIX TAB A). MUNOZ, AS AN OFFICER OF THE MOUNT PLEASANT, TEXAS1 POLICE DEPARTMENT, "WAS OF THE OPINION 'mAT A TRAFFIC INFRACTION HAD OCCURRED IT WAS HIS DUTY AND/OR OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY VIOLATION, EITHER ·BY THE IsSuANCE OF A CITATION AND/OR TRAFFIC TICKET,