COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SHIRLEY PERSONS PIGOTT Applicant, Appellant V.

STATE OF TEXAS Appellee

Case No. PD-1619-11 Trial Court Case No. 16263 COA # 13-10-00234-CR

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

JERRY S. PAYNE ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT SBN 1565800 11505 MEMORIAL DR. PINEY POINT VILLAGE, TEXAS 77024 713-785-0677 FAX-713-781-8547 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
  i  

TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………iii APPELLANT  REQUESTS  ORAL  ARGUMENT………………………………………iv   STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE...................................................................v  
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY...................................vi

GROUNDS  FOR  REVIEW……………………………………………………………..1  
ARGUMENT………………………………………………………..2 BASIS FOR APPEAL………………………………………………2 APPELLANT’S BRIEFS…………………………………………...3 First Brief…………………………………………………………….3 Reply Brief…………………………………………………………...4

COURT OF APPEALS OPINION…………………………5
II. DEADLY WEAPON FINDINGS………………………………..5 III. DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS……………5 Prosecutor’s  Improper  Jury  Argument………………………………………………5   Vindictiveness and Improper Cross-Examination………………….9 IV. DENIAL OF MOTION FOR MISTRIAL……………………...13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF……………………………………………...14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................................14
ii  

 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES

Bufkin v. State, 179 S.W.3d 166, 173-74, 14th C.A. (2005), affirm. 207 S.W.3d 779, Tx.Ct.Cr.App. (2006)…………………………….10 Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)……… 9, 11, 13 Holliman  v  State,  879  S.W.2d  85,  88,  14th  C.A,  1994)……………………………………2   Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)………………..6 Republic Underwriters v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427, Tex (2004)..10 Rougeau v. State, 783 SW2d 651, 657 (Tx. Cr. App, En Banc, 1987)……….2 (Salazar v. Estelle, 547 F2d 1226, (C.A.5 1977)……………………………...3 Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826, Tx Cr Ap, (1988)............................................2 Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 670 (Tex.Crim. App., 2004)…………..6 Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17, Tex (1997)………………11,14 Young v. State, 137 SW3d 65 (Tex. Crim. App., En Banc, 2004)……………6
STATUES

TRAP 33.1(a)....................................................................................1,6, 7, 9, 10 TRAP 38.1…………………………………………………………1, 10, 13, 14 TRAP 38.9……………………………………………………………………10 TRAP 44.2(a)…………………………………………………………………2

 

iii  

  APPELLANT  REQUESTS  ORAL  ARGUMENT   This  case  represents  a  significant  departure  from  the  usual  quality  of  justice   administered  by  the  Texas  criminal  justice  system.  The  court  of  appeals’  response   to  the  briefs  is  confused.  Most  of  the  court  of  appeals’  opinion  focuses  on   “sufficiency  of  evidence”  issues  which  have  been  conceded  by  Appellant  in  her   briefs.  The  opinion  ignores  the  constitutional  issues  which  are  the  basis  for  this   appeal.  Oral  argument  would  assist  the  Court  in  focusing  on  the  errors  which  form   the  basis  for  this  appeal.                        
iv  

 

  STATEMENT  OF  THE  CASE   Appellant, a 61 year old lady, is sentenced to 2 years in TDC for attempting to drive to a safer place after being stopped on a dark highway for speeding 9 miles per hour over the speed limit. After stopping, Appellant asked the officer for identification, for another officer to be present, or to be allowed to drive to a public place. The officer rejected all three requests. Appellant told the officer that she was afraid and needed to drive to a public place. Appellant drove off slowly, looking for a safer place, with the officer following.

The extraordinary circumstances of this case indicate that the prosecutor intentionally inflamed and prejudiced the jury during final argument; that the prosecutor’s misconduct was retaliation for Appellant’s accusations, made while she was defending herself pro se, that the prosecutor and the officers were illegally keeping her car.

The court of appeals refused to review the claim of constitutional error, concluding that Appellant waived her right to appeal due to failure to object in the trial court to the prosecutor’s final argument and due to inadequate argument in the “Argument and Authorities” section of her brief.
v  

 

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. The court of appeals opinion was handed down on June 2, 2011. 2.  Appellant  filed  her  Motion  for  Rehearing  on  July  25,  2011.   3.  The  court  of  appeals  denied  Appellant’s  Motion  for  Rehearing  on  September  9,   2011.   4.  Appellant’s  motion  for  a  7  day  extension  of  time  to  file  motion  for  en  banc   reconsideration  was  filed  on  September  23,  2011;  the  motion  for  en  banc   reconsideration  was  filed  on  September  30,  2011.   5.  The  court  of  appeals  denied  Appellant’s  motion  for  extension  of  time  to  file   motion    for  en  banc  reconsideration  and  Appellant’s  motion  for  en  banc   reconsideration  on  October  13,  2011.    

 

vi  

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful