mws (tn-ts ORIGINAL APPEAL NO- 02-15-00193-CR 02-15-00194-CR

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCT 23 2015 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS Abel Acosta, Clerk

FILED IN STANLEY DALE SELF, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS APPELLANT

OCT 23 2015 VS. Abel Acosta, Cierk THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

ON APPEAL FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT

OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS

CAUSE NO'S. F-90-478-E & F-90-572-E

SUBMITTED BY: STANLEY DALE SELF POLUNSKY UNIT 3872 Fm 350 South Livingston, Texas 77351 INTERESTED PARTIES

Stanley Dale Self, Appearing Pro Se Polunsky Unit 3872 Fm 350 South Livingston, Texas 77351

Honorable Margaret Barnes District Judge 367th District Court Denton County Courthouse 1450 E. McKinny Denton, Texas 76201

Catherine Luft, Assistant District Attorney Assistant District Attorney 1450 East McKinney Denton, Texas 76209

State Prosecuting Attorney State Prosecutor Post Office Box 13046 Austin, Texas 78711-3046

-1-- TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interested Parties i Index of Authorities ii Constitutional and Statutory Provisions- ii Statement Regarding Oral Argument 1 Statement of the Case ....... X Statement of the Procedural History 2 Question(s) Presented for Review 2 Argument • , 2,3 Prayer 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Martinez v Ryan, U.S. , 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2013) ,,,,,,,,,/,////////// 2 Mo ore v Beard, 42 F.Supp. 3d 624 (Middle Dist. Penn. 2014) 3 Self v State, 860 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App. 2nd Dist. 1991 P.ref'd) 2 Trevino v Thaleg, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013),,,,,,,,,,,,//////<///// 3 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Sixth Amendment, United states Constitution,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,//////'//'/'''''''''' z'^

-ii- IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

STANLEY DALE SELF, § APPELLANT § APPEAL NO. 02-15—00193-CR VS. § 02-15-..00194-CR § THE STATE OF TEXAS § APPELLEE §

APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

COMES NOW, Stanley Dale Self, the Appellant herein, and pursuant to Rule 68.3, of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, timely and properly flies this Petition for Discretionary Review seeking review of the Opinion in the Court below. In support there of, Appellant would show: STATEMENT. REFARDING ORAL ARGUMENT Appellant believes that the single issue presented is already settled law and that Oral Argument will not necessarily aid the Court. The Opinion from the Second Court of Appeals is appe nded hereto as APPENDIX A.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Upon a plea of not guilty, a jury in the 367th Judicial Court of Denton County, Yexas, found Appellant guilty to the off ense of Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. Punishment by the jury was assessed at 99 years imprisonment.

STATEM'ENT OF THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY

-1- In a published opinion styled; Self v State, 860 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. App. 2nd Dist. 1993 - pet. ref'd.), the Second Court of App eals affirmed the judgement of the trial court. (02-91-00317-CR).

No Petition for Writ of Certiorari was prosecuted.

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

WHETHER THE SECOND COURT OF APPEALS TOTALLY MIS CONSTRUED THE SUBJECT OF THE APPELLATE ISSUES IN HIS REQUEST FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR POSTCONVICTION HABEAS CORPUS LITIGATION.

The second court of appeals has erroneously decided an im portant jurisdictional issue concerning the appointment of counsel in postconviction challenges to the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when counsel concedes his client's

guilt.

ARGUMENT

The appellate court's jurisdictional claim that they have no jurisdiction over postconviction habeas corpus matters is flaw ed because the request for the appointment of counsel was directed at the trial court under Martinez v Ryan, 566 U.S. , 13 2 S.Ct. 1309, 162 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), which provides for counsel when a defendant is challenging the effectiveness of his trial counsel.?

In Appellant's case, his trial counsel conceded his guilt without first obtaining his permission. And th e wisdom of such a strategic concession is called into question under the Sixth Amend ment because there was a complete absence of any lesser-included

-2- offenses to warrant such a concession in light of Appellant's plea of not g uilty.

Additionally, in Trevino v Thaler, 569 U.S. , 133 S.Ct. 1911, 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013), the Supreme Court, announced that the rule in Martinez applied to Texas cases.

Nor does the doctrine of latches play a part in Appellant's case. Just last year in Moore v Beard, 42 F.Supp. 3d 624 (Middle Dist. Penn. 2014), that court decided an ineffective assistance of counsel case that was 30 years old. Accordingly/ Appellant's is ripe for review and should be remand back to the Second Court of Appeals for a determination on his request for counsel.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant now prays that this Honorable Court will remand this case for further proceed ings .

Respectfully Submitted

Stanle^Dale S%lf, #618511 Polunsky Unit 3872 Fm 350 South Livingston, Texas 77351

Executed: October /p , 2015

-3- COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

'NO. .02-15-00193-CR NO. 02-15-00194-CR

STANLEY DALE SELF APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NOS. F-90-478-E, F-90-572-E

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In both cause numbers, appellant Stanley Dale Self attempts to appeal from the trial court's orders denying his motion for appointment of counsel to prepare and prosecute a postconviction application for writ of habeas corpus.

On July 15, 2015, we sent appellant a letter expressing our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over the appeals because, under code of criminal 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

APPENDIX A •»»«.«*««ss*a»> «hw ^^-"

procedure article 11.07, we have no jurisdiction over matters relating to postconviction applications, including requests for appointment of counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Cooper v. State, No. 02-15- 00145-CR, 2015 WL 3799069, at *1 & nn.2, 4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 18, 2015, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (disposing of attempted appeal of trial court's order denying motion for appointment of postconviction habeas counsel).

We informed appellant that unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeals filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeals, we would dismiss-the appeals for want of jurisdiction. Appellant filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeals. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

50NNIE SUDDERTH JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT AND SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: July 23, 2015 CAUSE NO'S. F-90-478-E F-90-572-E

STANLEY DALE SELF § IN THE 367TH DISTRIC ^ ^ § § % V VS. § OF § THE STATE OF TEXAS § DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER

Came to be hear'd Petitioner/ Stanley Dale Self's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel for habeas corpus purposes, after reviewing the Motion, the law, and the citations of authority, the Court is of the opinion that the same should be ( ) GRANTED ( •) DENIED Done this '&*) day of Ap*a<£ 2ois PreaiSUficf/J'S^S,' 367 district Court, Denton County, Texas

ATTORNEY APPOINTED

APPENDIX A (2)