Court Opinion

ID: 4066529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 22:39:51.636988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:31.318357
License: Public Domain

S/0 -t5
                                                                ORIGINAL
                      CASE NO. 12-14-00189-CR
                                 In The
                           Court of Appeals
                                For The
               Twelfth Supreme Judicial District of Texas

                           Tracy Ray Hass
                                   V.                                    i   ^

                                                       •y !£)*»" ne
                         The State of Texas                                       .8
                                                                       1 7 2015
                    Appeal in Case No. 061728

                        Bring Forth This Petition

S5^SSS
 CourtolAPE petition for Discretionary Review
                                                                      FILED \U
                                                       COURT OF criminal APPEALS
                                                                 AUS 19 2015

                                                             Abel Acosta, Clerk

                   Petition for Discretionary Review
Shipman V. State 604 S.W. 2d. 182,185 Tex.Crim.App 1980 stating
that state may not rely on its own questioning to get collateral
matters, extraneous offenses, and bad acts that would otherwise
be inadmissible...
(Prejudicial effect was the only proof the District Attorney relied
on.)

Texas Rules of Evidence Rule 404 (b) 403
Generally, evidence of an extraneous offense is not admissible
during the guilt, innocence phase of trial. See Abnor v. State 871
s.w.2d-726, 738Texcrim. app 1994...
For extraneous offense evidence to be admissible under 404, the
evidence must be relevant to a fact of consequence in the case
apart from its tendency to prove conduct in formity with
character. See Santellan v. State 939 s.w. 2d 155,167 Tex. Crim.
App. 1997 holding that rule 404b objection entails a Relevancy
analysis even when not clearly articulated...

5th Amendment to U.S. Const.
Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy...Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be
a witness against himself. Nor be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.

4th Search and Seizures...No warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause. Section 1 of 14th amendment, declares him a
citizen of the U.S. and promises that no state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States of America.

Furthermore the Appellant will show the court did error in not
suppressing evidence seized as a result of an illegal arrest.
/k£/r*$i

           On January 15, 2012 at 2:13 pm a call was received to Grayson
           County Dispatch, (Check dispatch log) about a white truck pulling
           a trailer and a car on an abandoned property. When the officer
           went to that address the officer found nothing out of place. After
           driving around, the officer found a damaged gate at a different
           location and address. He entered the property and investigated
           the premises, walked about 400 yards up the road and searched
           finding about 30 vehicles, 2 houses and a shed...nothing more.
           That's unlawful entry. The officer took control of that property 14
           hours after any call to the area was made. The officer went back;
           found a car stuck on the side of the road. The car that was stuck
           on the side of the road did not fit the description of one of the
           vehicles of earlier reported. 14 hours later still no confirmation of
           any wrong doing on this property. The officer in court testified he
           had no knowledge of any wrong doing or proof. He just knew a
           feeling. That does not constitute probable cause.

           The officer put appellant in the cop car and searches the car that
           is stuck on the side of the road. There were no warrants.

           Appellant goes to jail charge of theft and gets out on bond.
           Several weeks' later court put burglary of a building charge on
           appellant with $2000.00 bond. There was no proof that a burglary
           of a building took place. Also no proof of any physical evidence -
           no finger prints, foot prints, no witnesses, no DNA, and no finger
           prints on the property itself (by the gate). All evidence points
           more to possession of second hand stolen property than anything

           else' Vlf)oA+b A-C^c An^^t i ^ •TWin
J£ 6t,m«** e^or3\>2                MR.    SMITH:        The State is ready,            Y aoiz
           A.      Yes,    I chose to testify.

           Q.      And people marched out and told you that you weren't

    subpoenaed and you didn't have to testify but you were

    insistent because you told them you knew information about

    this   offense;       correct?

           A.      Correct.

           Q.      When you got in there and you got done testifying

    the Grand Jury decided to indict you;               fair enough?

           A.      Correct.

           Q.      So they indicted you?

                   THE COURT:        We all make mistakes.

           Q.      They indicted you on this case based on the

    information for which you testified to in the Grand Jury; fair

                             CERTIFIED    SHORTHAND   REPORTER
                                cx-mj&r                                                                       11

 i   enough?

 2          A.          Fair enough.

 3                      (State's Ex.            No.   2   marked. )

 4                      MR.    SMITH:       I    will     move    to    offer     State's   two       which

     is   the     o   ffense report.            Basically my understanding                  that       you

     want    to       accept responsibility for th is by entering                           a    no

     contest          plea today because you want                     to   take   the   benefit        of    the

 8   plea agreement that the State is off ering you?

 9          A.          Yes.

10          Q.          That is basically that we have agreed to                            cap       your

11   deal with probation an d the judge could decide whether you get

12   deferred          or   not?                            .

13          A.          Yes.

14          Q.          Fair enough?

15          A.          Yes.

16          Q-          Do you want         to    take     advant age         of that deal and also

17   you would agree based on the testimony that you present ed and

18   based      on     what    Mr.   Hass   might say and               what    the    offense    r eport

19   shows      is     there    is   a   li kelihood that              a jury could come back anc

20   find you guilty anyway                       So you want to basically ~_               ust       dispose

21   of   it wi th          a plea of no contest;                is    that    fair?

22          A.          Yes.

23          Q.          Do you have any questions about anything                            we    are

24   doing?

25          A.          No.

                                     CERTIFIED        SHORTHAND         REPORTER
   JjIu^M

    /-Cxi
 ^fc__^^4r__^j                                          ~$AfWp   f£

  J/ ^/ ViL pl&'       /     /             It".!,   I.   /'V"
^~^tm&>^
                             _,„

    /ftsiA- Qja d-AtflVT ^

                                                                      K^t-L.