NO. 10-15-00235-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE TENTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT WACO
In Re Matthew Alan Clendennen,
Relator
TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
Cause No. 2015-1955-254
th
District Court, McLennan County, Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding
KEITH S. HAMPTONANGELA MOOREAttorney at LawAttorney At LawState Bar No. 08873230State Bar No. 14320110 1103 Nueces Street310 South St. Mary’s StreetAustin, Texas 78701Suite 1830512-576-8484 (office)San Antonio, Texas 78205512-762-6170 (cell)210.227.4450 (office)512-477-3580 (fax)210.364.0013 (cell)keithshampton@gmail.com210.855.1040 (fax)amoorelaw2014@gmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE
ACCEPTED
10-15-00235-CR
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
WACO, TEXAS
8/6/2015 8:31:39 PM
SHARRI ROESSLER
CLERK
IDENTITIES OF ALL PARTIES
Pursuant to the provisions of Rules 38.1(a), Texas Rules of AppellateProcedure, a complete list of the names of all parties to this action are as follows:
Relator:
Matthew Alan Clendennen
Respondent:
Honorable Matt Johnson54
th
District Court501 Washington Avenue, Suite 305Waco, Texas 76701
Real Party in Interest:
State of Texas
Trial Counsel for Relator:
F. Clinton BrodenBroden, Mickelsen, Helms & Snipes, LLP2600 State StreetDallas, Texas 75204
Appellate Counsel for Relator:
F. Clinton BrodenBroden, Mickelsen, Helms & Snipes, LLP2600 State StreetDallas, Texas 75204
Counsel for Real Party in Interest:
Abelino ReynaMcLennan County District AttorneySterling Haron, Assistant District Attorney219 N. 6
th
StreetWaco, Texas 76701
DISCLOSURE REGARDING FEES
Pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, counsel for amicus curiae represents that no fee has been or will be paid to counsel for preparation of this brief.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITIES OF ALL PARTIES.......................................iiDISCLOSURE REGARDING FEES....................................iiINDEX OF AUTHORITIES.......................................... ivSTATEMENT OF THE CASE.........................................1ISSUES PRESENTED...............................................2SUMMARY OF FACTS..............................................1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.........................................2ARGUMENT.....................................................3-6
I. The district court had no jurisdiction to issue the gag order.
............3
II. The gag order defeats Relator’s right to the effective assistance of counseland endangers his right to a fair trial.
..................................4PRAYER FOR RELIEF..............................................7CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.....................................7CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.........................................7
iii
|