You are on page 1of 6

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 AUTHORITIESiii APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENTiv STATEMENT OF THE CASE...................................................................v
STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY...................................vi

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW..1


ARGUMENT..2 BASIS FOR APPEAL2 APPELLANTS BRIEFS...3 First Brief.3 Reply Brief...4

COURT OF APPEALS OPINION5


II. DEADLY WEAPON FINDINGS..5 III. DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS5 Prosecutors Improper Jury Argument5 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 38.11, 10, 13, 14 TRAP 38.910 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 prosecutors misconduct was retaliation for Appellants 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 prosecutors 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 Appellants Motion for Rehearing on September 9, 2011. 4. Appellants 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 Appellants motion for extension of time to file motion for en banc reconsideration and Appellants motion for en banc reconsideration on October 13, 2011.

vi