Research from Dissertation:
Paul Lee Simmons
Statement of Facts
The customer in this subject has already confronted charges in the trial courtroom where he was convicted of possession of a controlled material, and had his conviction affirmed by the Court of Appeals. At the present time, a conclusion must be made as to whether there is certainly any basis for going after further appeal. If it is determined that a further more appeal can be justified, another action that needs to be taken should be to file a petition pertaining to discretionary appeal with the The state of texas Supreme Courtroom.
Simmons was stopped and subsequently imprisoned for littering on the Houston public streets. Pursuant to his criminal arrest, a routine protective search was executed by the arresting officer when a small bottle of wine was seen in the defendant’s shirt pocket or purse. As a result of the search, the defendant was also busted for possession of a managed substance which is why he sooner or later stood trial and was convicted. Prior to the trial, the defendant submitted a Action to Control based on what the defendant thought was an illegal detention and detain. A ability to hear was held within the Motion but the trial court denied the defendant’s motion.
At trial Mr. Simmons was not represented by advice. He displayed himself during trial and it is apparent from the transcript that Mr. Simmons made a number of procedural evidentiary errors which may have significantly jeopardized his case. Because time can be running relative to the filing of a request with the great court, a decision must be manufactured in short order.
There are essentially two legal issues available for assessment based on the important points in this case. The first issue is relative to the initial end and arrest of the defendant. It is arguable whether the arresting office had a reasonable suspicion of legal activity to justify his stopping the defendant, arresting him, and then conducting a search of the accused. Arguably, in the event the stop and detention had been unlawful, then your subsequent search would not had been performed plus the cocaine would not have been found out and the accused would not have been convicted of your felony.
The 2nd issue tackles the participation of forensic analysis of the contents in the bottle found on Mr. Simmons at the time of his arrest. The defendant in representing himself at trial objected for the chain of custody about the bottle but he failed to properly object to the research laboratory being correctly certified under applicable The state of texas statutes. The trial court overruled the defendant’s string of custody of the children objection. On appeal, the defendant, through appointed advice, raised the void of the lab’s being uncertified but the Appeals Court ruled that the Appellant waived his objection by not elevating said concern at the appropriate time possibly at or before trial.
What must be determined at this time is actually or no further actions is sensible given what has already took place in this case and based upon the legal issues present in this case. The customer has already exhausted all of his direct charm rights and his only alternative is to consider filing a petition intended for discretionary assessment by the Best Court. In order to invoke the jurisdiction in the Supreme Court the appellant must be in a position to demonstrate the Court of Appeals dedicated an error in rendering its decision. Underneath normal instances this is not an easy task but , offered the facts in this case, this will be particularly difficult.
As to the preliminary stop, detention, and arrest the Defendant’s chances of persuasive the Courtroom that the Area and Appeals Court had been in error relative to the law on this matter are little. Although there can be a pragmatic issue as to whether or not the arresting expert actually possessed a reasonable suspicion sufficient to stop the accused is a question of fact plus the testimony made available from the expert provides the required information to justify the stop. The defendant’s refusal or failure to provide recognition placed the officer in a difficult position and forced him to detain the accused. The legal courts have peaceful the requirements as to when an officer may search a defendant and limited search after an police arrest has been recognized as acceptable in order to protect the safety of the arresting officers. Regrettably for Mister. Simmons, this kind of limited search uncovered highly incriminating proof. There is very likely not much which can be done on this issue and, consequently, filing an extra appeal on this issue will not be validated.
As to the second issue there is certainly some limited hope. Even though the Appeals Court docket denied the Appellant alleviation on this subject its refusal addressed the chain of custody disagreement and did not fully addresses the possibility that the Appellant may have elevated a proper argument at trial on the participation of the lab report. The Appeals Courtroom simply rejected that the Appellant failed to correctly object and did not addresses the possibility that his having cross-examined the associated with the lab regarding the lab’s certification was satisfactory to preserve his objection within this issue. This may represent the client’s best line of strike on virtually any appeal towards the Supreme Court docket and, presented the fact that the client is usually facing a potential 55 years in prison, we have a strong enough legal argument to justify looking at a further charm.
The client’s decision to represent him self at trial was a risky and high-risk one. Not unexpectedly, selection several mistakes that cannot be undone. These types of errors were detrimental and contributed to his conviction.
Interests the Best Court happen to be difficult and usually unsuccessful in light of the sanctions getting imposed plus the uniqueness from the legal issues offered the submitting of a request for assessment should be recorded with the Great Court forthwith.
Memorandum on Law
The first concern presented in such a case addresses whether the arresting police officer properly stopped and held the accused and, eventually, whether the criminal prosecution of the accused should have proceeded based on evidence that was obtained by using a stop and detention that was illegitimate. The difference among an investigatory detention and an detain is a matter of the degree between your intrusion engaged and the different legal aides for each actions and differentiating between the two is never easy. The moment case, nevertheless , does not really address this distinction; rather, the instant case goes beyond this question and raises the void of when a warrantless search may be conducted when the arrest involves neither a felony neither serious misdemeanor. The accused in this case was stopped to get a minor misdemeanor for which normally no arrest would have been made. The matter, nevertheless , becomes difficult by the fact that the defendant denied possessing any type of identification. This moved the matter into one other area of concern pertaining to the arresting officer and caused him to forego the option of basically issuing a citation and forced him to arrest the defendant. Further complicating the matter, further more, is the fact which the defendant’s id was available at the same time which the officer identified the alleged bottle of cocaine. At this time the question has to be asked, “which was located first, the bottle or the identification? inch If the recognition documents were found 1st should the search have ended or acquired the criminal arrest already been built and the search be allowed pursuant to such arrest? Unfortunately, the reality of this circumstance do not allow this matter to be decided.
Historically, yet , the chance in the likelihood of the defendant having the capacity to prevail within the argument which the officer lacked probable trigger to do the search is not just a strong 1. The trend inside the courts for several years has been an expansion from the government’s arrest and search powers and the facts in this instance are not supportive of the defendant’s argument regardless if he may overcome the procedural challenges in the way that he fashioned his arguments.
The stronger argument for Mr. Simmons is the fact that through his cross-examination with the representative through the forensic clinical that carried out the testing for the contents of the bottle on the defendant during the time of the arrest Mr. Simmons was able to advise the Court that the lab was uncertified. The Appeals Court in ruling upon Mr. Simmons’ appeal concern that the record should not have already been admitted basically argued that Mr. Simmons did not properly object, nevertheless , there is an argument to be made that throughout the testimony of the laboratory rep the objection has been delivered to the attention with the Court effectively to define as an objection. This kind of issue has not been addressed by trial courtroom.
As scientific information is becoming more widely approved the tennis courts have taken treatment to ensure that such evidence is both trustworthy and relevant
. The convincing effect of such evidence can be very compelling and, therefore , the admission have been carefully guarded. In the instant case, the very fact that the Court docket was made conscious of the uncertified nature of the lab effects