Waguespack, John David
Waguespack, John David
Opinion
PD-1364-15
iM TttECCOfcT 6^^-^H^AL AP^AV-S OF Tb^A6 AJo. \b-\Z-0oHi(?-C$\
JoKn OaMiJ Waai£iP<l^k A ppe IWaARECEIVED IN zr^r rr COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DEC 18 2015 V Abel Acosfa, Clerk ~XY)C S+oAe of Te*a6 AppeU ee
CouM^, TC'^ Via! Mo. ^fi^-%'^1 cia^ t-V.e T«?mVv dourer o? Apf>£CUi) ApptUciM'5 Trial A+Aor^c^ \\0b Wooded A^frS, 601H &bO W^o,Tx. 767 ID AffelUM'i ApptaA Attorney
S^A Tr»a\ A^orofuS /A$, Afna^cJ^ O\\\on /v\5, 6rabnel Ma3$«»j ^a-Ve't) Kppeal A-Woca€lj5 Abel'.Ao ^acl Sterling Har/vsoO Wa«>, Tjc 767£l TABLE OF C0MTE-MT5"' ORAL ARGrUMENl ^ thbt summary i PROdfc'DUkAL HISTORY^ Index or- authorities ^ GrfcOOMOS FDR REVIEW M - Does HoMCb^ re^u'-re afpfUarv* to pe0ue Wsn • f.c\r«Qartoc<i) harm , AR(rOn£N)TS r3 PRAMEA FOR REtief 1 ORAL AtUrU/AfcMT' The -<LppeU«A4 doe6 Oo-V wi6h ^or aOZl ar^u/^eoV urA«£
CA6£ Sl>W\A«Of: Appellant pled no+^uil*^ bwf wai iufeSequert+U^ -^oond <^utl^-, o* 6ey.ucLl As6<2<jW. The v/'klUa^ W^ a •V-w^nVu-f^g ^car o\d ^lr\ w»Vh whom A.pp£lla<v4 had ptcv/ioui)^ W <LorL5c05t>^ ^ex ^'^ before, Appe^onV W<^ be^^ceo ku^e sain* oyr^ T-W-f £ooac* hiAo Quil+k +0 Li^re in pclSOA, TV cba^e wcis C.aW^() ba 0, prior ArsoA £ase in ^6£)&- PROdtOURAl HiSTD^Y: Apellate SeMeA^di ^ /*,0u«& +0 app*^" \t-tVd0l3 *U$<r>t^ ov Tr.a\ dvor* Af?ir^i &/> ~\%- ^? l^ forage Wo-V.w -fix- tribal &^on5<cWV.or. 0°»-0%-^6\S ?co i>€ A\o+'>oa for £v*eni>"on o£ Tine foe ?0R \& '^ "^£>Vb Cou>p4 o4- Appfai/i
^ WPFY OP Authorities' Abclftor v 6Me &71 5,W.^di 7^^> lT*>dn/n App Wl^ 5
AImar. to. v.-Slate Mb stite.Wl het.CM.fiiftAW'fi 7
Cab'iO V. itttte BbB» ^A-0,Bd ~?U [lev .£0*. Aff- ^lU 7 Hernandez v,£t<ite 176 6,U.3ci e^i (lex.^M. App. ^00$) b OacK^on v. £>4aic 3^6 6.W3<i S75(T^.App,-Te^ka^Qs ^I0p^^<i")5 U ctnaaS V- State U 5»W.3tA 471 / Wo rale* v. 5 Kate "2>^ S.W3d (^ "7 (W.Uc v, £>We *3 6.U3i 17H (.Tc* ^. App. &&0(^ b Wheeler ^' We &7 i.U.3J H^ ~ 5 TdCP T?,07 3^ *, t, 5
(tMUNJDS F£>& REVitW'.
\) D'.ci *V»t ^.oort o^ App-enAs e<T iA ^(7oJu(iiA^ tto €uideAc<f o£ an €\+raftCous ofte*^ <A;<J Aot cq»6£ enough V\aw v-o LuaccaaV action wjh<?n appelant 're£>ueA ^ V<£e 6eAt^/\d€ tor rL 66dc(v«i (kafee Selon^ <u^ 5<i»<* e\)i^<?^ ^ efctraf><rot# o^ense violates Te*aa U&e <£ UrK>rA Pro^<W 37-67 3& a^ e>a5 Ry»c& 9? EuicW Ho3 and HoH^? \r
^) feii rcqu»r'in« cm cfpei^M +o 6V\o*J Kow he or $he, ii Surprised \>y Ho^b} A.oto requirement, l& t-h<e ^-ourt o$ cUPpeoSb counferpw^'irf^ nu/*-.(?rou6 £oi*t of £nrAinal Appeal hav/e tW buc<k^ to pcaue har^o tcoM d?rfor, 3) boes the ^-oor\ oS' appeals or -^Ke ^oort o\ £rth*r\o\ Appra^ toe Hid responsibility when £gnd<xKAj a. hcic^ul tcror <ma|y,ii> wK'«^ /*ust £onA5t of reviewin^ euerothir^ in tW 'colore^ to atV on \/vf>tsn'<\5 c£ eafeyxioui haa* £ou^ with.A the Cc^orA,feuV not $Vatei ^ any UieC in tV/e \nVeCe5V of ^051*6??
n
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.