ND . 06-15-DDD56-CR FILED IN RECEIVED IN The Court ofAp'peate The Court of Appeals COLLINS Sixth District § IN THE 6™ DISTRICT CDUR^ DiStH<* Pro-Se MAY 1 8 2015 f «AY 18 2015 V. Texarkana, Texas * § OF APPEAL5 T Debra Autrey, Clerk § Texarkana, Texas STATE DF TEXAS § texarkanna, Texas Debra K. Autrey, Clerk

MOTION TD ADD 5TATEMENT OF DEFENDANT TO CURRENTLY FILED APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF CDURT; Comes Now ,Defendant Pro-5e ,(Collins) who humbly requests that in review of above styled and numbered Appeal NO. 06-15-00056 CR, that a Statement from Defendant (Collins) be considered along uith currently filed Brief.

Brief was mailed nut on April 16, 2015 by hand delivery to mailroom personnel at C.T. Terrell Unit after sufficient U.S. Postage was insured. Brief was dated April 17, 2015.

Pro-Se Defendant (Collins) would ask this Court to consider Copy of Bill of Cast in Cause NO. 5629-C as additional' evidence to above mentioned voidable conviction.

I, Billy Max Collins, Applicant would accert the simple fact that Total Fine and Courtroom Costs could not have been paid through three days in jail, as stated on Criminal Dockett Sheet.

In closing of Statement, I would also accert notice to signature of Tracy Smith, Deputy to Debbie Shirley, Hopkins County Clerk, ha vingii bden duly signed and authenticated. Alleged Waivers and File Stamps of Mary Attesley are NOT signed by anyone of proper authority.

This amendment of evidence to be incorporated with Applicant's Brief as EXHIBIT F_

IN GOD I TRUST,

Billy Max Collins #1BB4B<f9 1300 F.M. 655 Rosharon, TX 775B3 j^k^t: ^ BILL OF COST

NO. 5629-C

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY COURT VS OF

BILLY MAX COLLINS HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

TO OFFICERS OF COURT, DR. FINE • $500.00 COURT COSTS $127.50 TOTAL FINE & COURT COSTS - PAID TROUGH JAIL TIME $627.50 TRANSCRIPT $69.00 TRANSCRIPT (COPY-IF DESIRED) $34.50 TOTAL COURT COSTS FOR TRANSCRIPT & COPY $103.50

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE COUNTY COURT OF HOPKINS COUNTY: COUNTY CLERK OF HOPKINS COUNTY, do hereby certify the aboveto be a true and correct copy of the original bill of cost, now on file in my office.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL of said Court affixed at the office in the City of Sulphur Springs, Texas this l/^ day of (ll/M D\0\6 • DEBBIE SHIRLEY, COUNTY CLERK HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS BY DEPUTY TrkcV Smith CRIMINAL LAW § 231 C. J:iL_ exists u manifest necessity therefor, unii such discharge will not , g ratiniv^f| in favor of the liberty of defendant. ~ .support it pleu uf former jeopardy. '-rffirr iliaT' tTTe' exercise ot"'what would be| an '_ •jnnifniteti. uncertain, arid arbitrary judiciafdiscre-_ __ Library References Lion.jU ___ ~ i Criminal Law «=18l, 182, 184. "'"''Tne'Irialjudge must give counsel a fuH_opj2or-... tunity"Tone heard and he ""must give careful LiiFave & Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. :i § 2-\.2{b). cb'nsiHeration to alternatives to a mistrial^ TherTTs authority that manifest necessity for An accused isjjlaced in jeopardy once he is put decfaring^ mistrial cannot exisTTfThe trial court" on" trial before a jury so that if the jury is_ has~an""aIEernative to declaring a mistrial which"" 'discharged without his consent he, generallyj protects thej*ights ot both" d'efendanfTand the cannot be triecTagain.26 However, the"discharge" smt.fl."*"~Tfoweyer, there is also authority "that "ot a jury" prior to a verdict of conviction or manifest neeessfty for a mistrial can exist along- "acquittal is nofnecessarily", or in all cases, a bar sidiTless" drastic allernatives, so long as ihe rec- "to a subsequent "trial of an" accused" under the (Tfinnscloses that tne triaTcourt considered alter- '"Same indictment.27 Generally, there must be a" 1 TJa^iv^T'before declarmg_Ji_.mistrial^ In any' manifest, imperious, urgent, real, or "absolute ne event, the court has the duty to obtain enough cessity for the dischafgeTSf tnTjury" without it" information so that it is clear that a mistrial is "having rendered a ver3ict72H ariflfwhen such ne- actually necessary." cessity exists, a plea of former jeopardy will not ^prevail on a subseqjjent trial,29 even" though a<> Retrial for lesser offense. "cusedToes not consent to the^ischarge of the When a trial on a higher charge ends in a jury.80 '"" mistrial so that defendant can be retried on thi higher charge, it is not fundamentally unfair for On the other hand, if the jury is discharged the state to charge and try him for a much lesser without verdict and without accused's consent offense; -4 this is true whether the lesser offense for a reason legally insufficient and without an •^ . ' . is or is not a lesser included offense.*5 Absolute, imperious, overriding, or overruling ne- f^s- ' cessity for iCTHe" discharge is equivalent tp_an-s^ § 231. Discharge of Jury without Verdict ^cquittal^nH"lnay~Be pleaded as a"bar to a x A (riul court may, in ihc exercise of its sound discretion, Subsequent indictment,31 as where the case is dbcharge 11 jury without the consent of accused when there taken from "the jury for mere matter of conve-

19, Me.—State v. Flick. 495 A.2d 339. Mass.—Commonwealth v. Steward. 483 N.E.2d 1091. 390 Mass. 76.

20. Maw.—Commonwealth v. Steward, 483 N.E.2d 1091, 396 Mass. Ohio—State v. Palmieri. App.. 46 N.E.2d 318. 28 O.L.A. 398. 13 0.0.

7b. 517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 Ohio Si. 30, 13 O.O. 526.

N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502 28. U.S.—Oregon v. Kennedy. Or.. 102 S.Cl. 2083, 456 U.S. 667, 72 N.Y.S.2cl l'"2. L.Ed.2d 4it), on lemaiid Slate v. Kennedy, ti57 P.2d 717, 61 Or.App 469, affirmed 060 P.2d 1316, 295 Dr. 2o0—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69 21. Ml ••S.UU r'riel. 5Ui A.2d oil.

S.Cl. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. 974. rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 22. U.S.—Abdi v. Slule of Georgia. C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500, rehearing 337 U.S. 921, 93 L.Ed. 1730. denied 749 F 2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871,471 U.S. 1006, U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied 107 S.Cl. 85 L.Ed.2d 164.

182. 479 U.S. 852, 93 L.Ed.2d 116.

23. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 38J, 502 Ill —People v. Thomas. 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 ill.2d 344, certiorari denied N.Y.S.2il 972. Thomas v, Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005. 3 L.Ed.2d 1034.

24. S.C.—Stale v. Mills. 314 S.E.Id 324. 28 1 S.C. 60. oerlinrart denied NY.—McCabe v. County Court of Bronx County, 199 N.Y.S.2d 247, Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324, 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261. 24 Misc.2d 477.

25. S.C—State v. Mills, 114 S.E.2d 324, 281 S.C. 60, certiorari denied 29 US —Wade v. Hunter. Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684. 93 L.Ed. Mills v. South Carolina, 105 S.Cl. 324. 469 U.S. 930, 83 L.Ed.2d 261. 974, rehearing 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730.

Applicability of double jeopardy to prosecution for lesser included Blair v. White. C.C.A.Kan.. 24 F.2d 323. offense see infra § 251.

HI.—People v. Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16. 15 lll.2d 344. certiorari denied 26. U.S.—Green v. U.S., App.D.C, 78 S.Cl. 22!. 355 U.S. 184, 2 Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Cl. 1143. 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034.

L.Ed.2d 199.

Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295.

27. U.S.—U.S. v. Crosley, E.D.Pa.. 634 F.Supp. 28, affirmed 787 F.2d 584. Nev.—State v. Helm. 209 P.2d 187, 66 Nev. 286. certiorari denied Helm v. Slate of Nevada. 70 S.Cl. 794, 339 U.S. 942, 94 L.Ed. 1358.

Conn.—State v. Van Sam, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369.

30. Ky.—Baker v. Commonwealth, 132 S.W.2d 766, 280 Ky. 165.

111.—People v, Thomas, 155 N.E.2d 16, 15 Ill.2d 344, certiorari denied Thomas v. Illinois. 79 S.Ct. Ii43, 359 U.S. 1005, 3 L.Ed.2d 1034. 31. U.S.—Comcro v. U.S.. C.C.A.Cal., 48 F.2d 69.

22CJ.S-13 fir 'till •Ml

VW_. UulaJ / ?• §231 CRIMINAL LAW Pr<^^5^^ cL- /r&-r nience.32 fX*? dence to an impartial jury,-" and where a trial court properly declares a mistrial, the criminal The cojixts are to determinejii the|r__discretjpn whether under alljhe circumstances of_each case trial may be terminated before the issue of defen imperious "or urgent necessity exists.3;t The <Je~ dant's guilt has been resolved by that particular tribunal.42 termination by the trial court "to abort a^cfiminal •K proceeding where jeopardy has attached is not one to be ligfitTy-undertakenT^inceJEhe interest of" § 232. Grounds defendant fn"haying his fate determined by the The manifest necessity permitting Ihe disclim-jre of u jury 1ury"first_impaneled "is'"itself...a' weighty one.^ without rendering u verdict and without involving double jeop ':m ardy may result from various circumstances, such us a defective Although the trial court's" view as to the necessi indictment, the absence of witnesses for the prosecution, prose ty for. discharging the jury js^entitled to defer- cutorial misconduct, und the disqualification of jurors. ence,^5 its discretion is not unlimited; m the court Library References "cannot act arbitrarily or capriciously.?7 No ab Criminal Law «=182, 184. stract forihuja,.should be mechanically applied,38 arid all circumstances should be taken into ac LaFave & Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. 3 $ 24.2(b, c). count^ The manifest necessity permitting the dis Right to have trial completed by a particular charge of a jury without rendering a verdict and tribunal. without justifying a plea of double jeopardy may As discussed supra § 208, the constitutional arise from various causes or circumstances.*3 protection against double jeopardy embraces de Such circumstances must be in the nature of a :*. * fendant's valued right to have his trial completed cause or emergency over which neither court nor by a particular tribunal; such right means that attorney has control,4* or which could not have he has a significant interest in the decision been averted by diligence and care.JS The power whether to take the case from the jury.*0 How to declare a mistrial and subject defendant to •\,:. ever, the right to have the trial concluded by a retrial ought to be used with the greatest cau particular tribunal is sometimes subordinate to tion, under urgent circumstances and for very the public interest in affording the prosecutor plain and obvious causes.46 one full and fair opportunity to present his evi- The court may discharge the jury without

U.S. v. Harriman, D.C.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 198. 41. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington, Ariz., 98 S.Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497, 54 L.Ed.2d 717.

Cal.—People v. Valenti, 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199.

Ky.—Lillard v. Commonwealth, 267 S.W.2d 712. 42. Colo.—People v. Schwartz, 678 P.2d 1000.

N.J.—State v. Locklear, 108 A.2d 436, 16 N.J. 232. 43. Iowa—State v. Critclli, 24 N.W.2d 113. 237 Iowa 1271.

32. U.S.—U.S. v. Harriman, D.C.N.Y., 130 F.Supp. 198. 44. Cal.—People v. Valenti. 316 P.2d 633, 49 C.2d 199.

N.Y.—People v. Colon, 184 N.Y.S.2d 537, 16 Misc.2d 1061. Ohio—State v. Palmicri, App., 46 N.E.2d 318, 28 O.L.A. 398, 13 0.0.

517, appeal dismissed 18 N.E.2d 985, 135 Ohio St. 30, 13 0.0. 526.

33. U.S.—Wade v. Hunler. Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed 974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730. Ulah—Siaie v. Whitman, 74 P.2d 096. 93 Utah 557.

N.M.—State v. Brooks, 279 P.2d 1048, 59 N.M. 130. 45. U.S.—Himmelfarb v. U.S., C.A.Cal.. 175 F.2d 924. certiorari denied 70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L.Ed. 527, and Ormoni v. U.S., N.Y.—People ex rel. Epling v. De Voe, 136 N.Y.S.2d 650, 284 A.D. 70 S.Cl. 103, 338 U.S. 860, 94 L.Ed. 527.

1092, affirmed 130 N.E.2d 616, 309 N.Y. 818.

34. U.S.—Illinois v. Somerville, III., 93 S.Ct. 1066, 410 US. 458. 35 46. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa.. 95 S.Ct. 1013, 420 U.S. 332. 43 LEd.2d L.Ed.2d 425.

232—Downum v. U.S.. Tex.. 83 S.Cl. 1033, 372 U.S. 734, 10 LEd.2d 100.

35. N.Y.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77. 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502 N.Y.S.2d 972. Mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with attorneys 36. NY.—People v. Ferguson, 494 N.E.2d 77, 67 N.Y.2d 383. 502 N.Y.S.2d 972. Trial judge, who, on his own motion, declared mistrial to enable government's witnesses lo consult with their own attorneys abused his 37. N.Y.—People v. Colon. 184 N,Y.S.2d 537, 18 Misc.2d 1061. discretion in discharging jury and reprosecution of defendant would Okl—Yarbrough v. Slate, 210 P.2d 375. 90 Okl.Cr. 74. violate double jeopardy provision of Fifth Amendment.

38. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834. 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. U.S.—U.S. v. Jom, Utah. 91 S.Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27 L.Ed.2d 543 974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921. 93 L.Ed. 1730. (per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring and two justices 39. U.S.—Wade v. Hunter, Kan., 69 S.Ct. 834, 336 U.S. 684, 93 L.Ed. concurring in judgment).

974, rehearing denied 69 S.Ct. 1152, 337 U.S. 921, 93 L.Ed. 1730.

Prior relationship of judge with victim Mich.—Ex parte Earle, 25 N.W.2d 202, 316 Mich. 295.

Disqualification of trial judge based on his prior relationship with •::a- 40. Me.—State v. Flick, 495 A.2d 339. robbery victim clearly necessitated declaration of mistrial, and subse- § 229 CRIMINAL LAW 22 C. J. S. % after the - jury have been impaneled, there is former jeopardy.7

E. MISTRIAL; DISCHARGE OK JURY WITHOUT VERDICT istrial in General ends of public justice would otherwise be defeat When a mistrial is declared over defendant's objection, the ed. >• In effect, the manifest necessity test pro government has the right to retry the defendant only where tects defendant against bad faith conduct by the there i.4 manifest necessity for the net, or (he ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. judge or prosecutor which results in a mistrial being declared and gives the prosecution a more Library References favorable opportunity to convict defendant.12 Criminal Ijaw ©=!&>, 1B4. Manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial ad LaFave &• Israel Criminal Procedure Vol. 3 § 24.2(b). mits of no precise formulation I3 or mechanical application," for the high degree of necessity.

Generally, the double jeopardy clause does not mandated by the phrase can be found in a variety prevent the government from forcing defendant of circumstances;15 accordingly, the degree of to submit to a second trial where the first trial deference to be accorded the trial judge's deter ended in a mistrial.8 The practical justification mination of manifest necessity varies with the for the exception to the "one trial" rule so as to circumstances of each case.16 The strictest scru permit a retrial of defendant after a mistrial is tiny is applied to the court's determination where simply that it is fairer to both defendant and the accused claims that the mistrial was intentionally government.9 However, when a mistrial is de caused by the prosecution.17 At the other end of clared over defendant's objection, the govern the spectrum, great deference is accorded the ment has the right to retry defendant only where triaTjudge's conclusion trTaTajnistrial is required there is manifest necessity for the act,10 or the rJecause of a deadlocked jiiry> Any doubt must.

7. Kan.—Slate v. Rush, 26 P.2d 581, 138 Kan. 465. 11. U.S.—U.S. v. Sanford, Mont., 97 S.Ct. 20, 429 U.S. 14, 50 L.Ed.2d N.Y.—People ex rel. Sabatina v. Jennings. 177 N.Y.S. 210, 108 Misc. 17. on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v, Dinitz, Fla., 96 S.Cl. 1075, 93, 37 N.Y.Cr. 550. affirmed 185 N.Y.S. 949, 194 A.D. 950. 424 U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267, on remand 538 F.2d 1214, rehearing denied 542 F.2d 1174, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 1133, 429 U.S. 1104, Tex.—Garza v. State, Cr.App.. 658 S.W.2d 152, certiorari denied Texas 51 L.Ed.2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Cl. 1013, 420 U.S. 332, 43 v. Garza, 104 S.Cl. 194, 464 U.S. 863, 78 L.Ed.2d 171. L.Ed.2d 232—U.S. v. Jorn, Utah, 91 S.Ct. 547, 400 U.S. 470, 27 8. U.S.—U.S. v. Scotl, Mich., 98 S.Cl. 2187, 437 U.S. 82. 57 L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d 543 (per Mr. Justice Harlan, three justices concurring in 65. on remand 579 F.2d 1013, ceniorari denied 99 S.Cl. 1266, 440 judgment)—Gori v. U.S.. N.Y.. 81 S.Ct. 1523, 367 U.S. 364, 6 L.Ed. U.S. 929. 59 L.Ed.2d 486. rehearing denied 99 S.Ct. 226, 439 U.S. 2d 901, rehearing denied 82 S.Ct. 25. 368 U.S. 870. 7 L.Ed.2d 70.

883, 58 L.Ed.2d 197—Jcffers v. U.S., Ind., 97 S.Ct. 2207. 432 U.S. U.S. v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165.

137. 53 L.Ed.2d 168, rehearing denied 98 S.Ct. 241, 434 U.S. 880, 54 L.Ed.2d 164—Lee v. U.S., Ind.. 97 S.Cl. 2141, 432 U.S. 23, 53 L.Ed. U.S. v. Salvador, C.A.Ariz., 740 F.2d 752, certiorari denied 105 2d 80—U.S. v. Taleo, N.Y.. 84 S.Ct. 1587, 377 U.S. 463, 12 L.Ed.2d S.Cl. 978, 469 U.S. 1196, 83 L.Ed.2d 980.

448.

Mo.—State v. Fiizpatrick, 676 S.W.2d 831.

U.S v Si.^cr. C.A 8(Miiin.j. 785 F.;d 22S. ceniorari Jenioj !U7 N.J.—Siaio •„. Abbaii, 493 A.2d 513, 99 N.J. 416.

S.Ct. 273, 479 U.S. 883, 93 L.Ed.2d 249—U.S. v. Borokinui, C.A.Va., F.2d 2J6. 12. Colo.—People v. Schwarlz. 678 P.2d 1000.

Mass.—A Juvenile v. Commonwealth, 465 N.£.2d 240, 392 Muss. 52. 13. U.S.—Abdi v. Stale of Georgia, C.A.Ga.. 744 F.2d 1500, rehearing denied 749 F.2d 733. certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, 9. U.S.—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Ct. 1013. 420 U.S. 332, 43 L.Ed.2d 85 L.Ed.2d 164.

232.

10. U.S.—Arizona v. Washington. Ariz.. 98 S.Ct. 824, 434 U.S. 497. 14. U.S.—Abdi v. Slate of Georgia. C.A.Ga., 744F.2d 1500, rehearing 54 L.Ed.2d 717—U.S. v. Sanfoid. Mont.. 97 S.Cl. 20. 429 U.S. 14, 50 denied 749 F.2d 733, certiorari denied 105 S.Cl. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, 85 L.Ed.2d 164.

L.Ed.2d 17, on remand 547 F.2d 1085—U.S. v. Diilitz, Fta.. 96 S.Ct. 1075, 424 U.S. 600, 47 L.Ed.2d 267. on remand 538 F.2d 1214, 15. U.S.—Abdi v. Slateof Georgia, C.A.Ga., 744 F.2d 1500. rehearing rehearing denied 542 F.2<i 1174, ceniorari denied 97 S.Cl 1133 429 ilcnied 749 F.2d 733, ceniorari denied 105 S.Ct. 1871, 471 U.S. 1006, U.S. 1104. 51 L.Ed.2d 556—U.S. v. Wilson, Pa., 95 S.Ct. 1013. 420 85 L.Ed.2d 164.

U.S. 332. 43 L.Ed.2d 232.

16. U.S.—U.S. v. Jurvis, C.A.9(Cal.j, 792 F.2d 767. certiorari denied U.S. v. Perez. 22 U.S. 579. 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165. 107 S.Ct. 182, 479 U.S. 852, 93 L.Ed.2d 116—U.S. v. Jaramillo, C.A. •U.S. v. Weils, C.A.IO(Cola). 790 F.2d 73. Nev., 745 F.2d 1245, certiorari denied 105 S.Ct. 2142, 471 U.S. 1066, 85 L.Ed.2d 499.

Conn.—State v. Van Sant, 503 A.2d 557, 198 Conn. 369.

17. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.). 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied D.C.—U.S. v. Glover. 731 F.2d 41. 235 U.S.App.D.C. 194. 107 S.Ct. 182. 479 U.S..852. 93 L.Ed.2d 116.

Me.—State v. Frtel, 500 A.2d 631.

18. U.S.—U.S. v. Jarvis, C.A.9(Cal.), 792 F.2d 767, certiorari denied Nev.—State v. Comicry. 679 P.2d 1266. 100 Nev. 256. 107 S.Cl. 182, 479 U.S. 852. 93 L.£d.2d 116.