custom search

Custom Search

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Of course this act is a a Joke and don't forget "the issue of his actual innocence" claim WILL B ReJECTED~

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS




WR-27,818-05


EX PARTE DAROYCE LAMONT MOSLEY


ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

IN CAUSE NO. 21,932-B FROM THE

124TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY


Per Curiam. keasler, j., not participating.

ORDER



This is a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.071, Section 5. Applicant asserts he is actually innocent of the capital murder for which he was convicted and sentenced to death.

Applicant was convicted of capital murder on October 17, 1995. We affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). On October 9, 1997, applicant filed his initial application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.071. While that application was pending in the convicting court he filed an untimely supplement on December 14, 1998. We denied relief on his initial application and dismissed the untimely supplement as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Mosley WR-27,818-02 & 27,818-03 (Tex. Crim. App. June 30, 1999). On August 20, 2007, applicant filed a second subsequent application, we again dismissed as an abuse of the writ. Ex parte Mosley, WR-27,818-04 (Tex. Crim. App. August 21, 2007).

  1. At trial, on appeal, in his initial application and in his subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus, applicant raised the issue of his actual innocence; the claim was rejected each time. Applicant again raises the same issue, that he did not shoot any of the four victims who died or the fifth victim who survived. We have reviewed this application and find that it does not meet the requirements for consideration of subsequent claims under Article 11.071, Section 5(a). This application is dismissed as an abuse of the writ; the motion for stay of execution is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2007.

Do Not Publish

Monday, August 27, 2007

Vendido~disservice to our citizens, harmful to clients, and demeaning to our profession.

The Texas Lawyer's Creed
A Mandate for Professionalism


PROMULGATED BY
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
NOVEMBER 7, 1989


ORDER OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
AND
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS


The conduct of a lawyer should be characterized at all times by honesty, candor, and fairness. In fulfilling his or her primary duty to a client, a lawyer must be ever mindful of the profession's broader duty to the legal system.

The Supreme Court of Texas and the Court of Criminal Appeals are committed to eliminating a practice in our State by a minority of lawyers of abusive tactics which have surfaced in many parts of our country. We believe such tactics are a disservice to our citizens, harmful to clients, and demeaning to our profession.

The abusive tactics range from lack of civility to outright hostility and obstructionism. Such behavior does not serve justice but tends to delay and often deny justice. The lawyers who use abusive tactics instead of being part of the solution have become part of the problem.

The desire for respect and confidence by lawyers from the public should provide the members of our profession with the necessary incentive to attain the highest degree of ethical and professional conduct. These rules are primarily aspirational. Compliance with the rules depends primarily upon understanding and voluntary compliance, secondarily upon re-enforcement by peer pressure and public opinion, and finally when necessary by enforcement by the courts through their inherent powers and rules already in existence.

These standards are not a set of rules that lawyers can use and abuse to incite ancillary litigation or arguments over whether or not they have been observed.

We must always be mindful that the practice of law is a profession. As members of a learned art we pursue a common calling in the spirit of public service. We have a proud tradition. Throughout the history of our nation, the members of our citizenry have looked to the ranks of our profession for leadership and guidance. Let us now as a profession each rededicate ourselves to practice law so we can restore public confidence in our profession, faithfully serve our clients, and fulfill our responsibility to the legal system.


The Supreme Court of Texas and the Court of Criminal Appeals hereby promulgate and adopt "The Texas Lawyer's Creed - A Mandate for Professionalism" as attached hereto and made a part hereof.

In Chambers, this 7th day of November, 1989.



The Supreme Court of Texas The Court of Criminal Appeals

Thomas. R. Phillips, Chief Justice Michael J. McCormick, Presiding Judge
Franklin S. Spears, Justice W. C. Davis, Judge
C. L. Ray, Justice Sam Houston Clinton, Judge
Raul A. Gonzales, Justice Marvin O. Teague, Judge
Oscar H. Mauzy, Justice Chuck Miller, Judge
Eugene A. Cook, Justice Charles F. (Chuck) Campbell, Judge
Jack Hightower, Justice Bill White, Judge
Nathan L. Hecht, Justice M. P. Duncan, III, Judge
Lloyd A. Doggett, Justice David A. Berchelmann, Jr., Judge

THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

AND

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

THE TEXAS LAWYER'S CREED -- A MANDATE FOR PROFESSIONALISM


I am a lawyer. I am entrusted by the People of Texas to preserve and improve our legal system. I am licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. I must therefore abide by the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, but I know that professionalism requires more than merely avoiding the violation of laws and rules. I am committed to this creed for no other reason than it is right.


I. OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

A lawyer owes to the administration of justice personal dignity, integrity, and independence. A lawyer should always adhere to the highest principles of professionalism.

l. I am passionately proud of my profession. Therefore, "My word is my bond."

2. I am responsible to assure that all persons have access to competent representation regardless of wealth or position in life.

3. I commit myself to an adequate and effective pro bono program.

4. I am obligated to educate my clients, the public, and other lawyers regarding the spirit and letter of this Creed.

5. I will always be conscious of my duty to the judicial system.

II. LAWYER TO CLIENT

A lawyer owes to a client allegiance, learning, skill, and industry. A lawyer shall employ all appropriate means to protect and advance the client's legitimate rights, claims, and objectives. A lawyer shall not be deterred by any real or imagined fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity, nor be influenced by mere self-interest.

l. I will advise my client of the contents of this creed when undertaking representation.

2. I will endeavor to achieve my client's lawful objectives in legal transactions and in litigation as quickly and economically as possible.

3. I will be loyal and committed to my client's lawful objectives, but I will not permit that loyalty and commitment to interfere with my duty to provide objective and independent advice.

4. I will advise my client that civility and courtesy are expected and are not a sign of weakness.

5. I will advise my client of proper and expected behavior.

6. I will treat adverse parties and witnesses with fairness and due consideration. A client has no right to demand that I abuse anyone or indulge in any offensive conduct.

7. I will advise my client that we will not pursue conduct which is intended primarily to harass or drain the financial resources of the opposing party.

8. I will advise my client that we will not pursue tactics which are intended primarily for delay.

9. I will advise my client that we will not pursue any course of action which is without merit.

10. I will advise my client that I reserve the right to determine whether to grant accommodations to opposing counsel in all matters that do not adversely affect my client's lawful objectives. A client has no right to instruct me to refuse reasonable requests made by other counsel.

11. I will advise my client regarding the availability of mediation, arbitration, and other alternative methods of resolving and settling disputes.

III. LAWYER TO LAWYER

A lawyer owes to opposing counsel, in the conduct of legal transactions and the pursuit of litigation, courtesy, candor, cooperation, and scrupulous observance of all agreements and mutual understandings. Ill feelings between clients shall not influence a lawyer's conduct, attitude, or demeanor toward opposing counsel. A lawyer shall not engage in unprofessional conduct in retaliation against other unprofessional conduct.

1. I will be courteous, civil, and prompt in oral and written communications.

2. I will not quarrel over matters of form or style, but I will concentrate on matters of substance.

3. I will identify for other counsel or parties all changes I have made in documents submitted for review.

4. I will attempt to prepare documents which correctly reflect the agreement of the parties. I will not include provisions which have not been agreed upon or omit provisions which are necessary to reflect the agreement of the parties.

5. I will notify opposing counsel, and, if appropriate, the Court or other persons, as soon as practicable, when hearings, depositions, meetings, conferences or closings are canceled.

6. I will agree to reasonable requests for extensions of time and for waiver of procedural formalities, provided legitimate objectives of my client will not be adversely affected.

7. I will not serve motions or pleadings in any manner that unfairly limits another party's opportunity to respond.

8. I will attempt to resolve by agreement my objections to matters contained in pleadings and discovery requests and responses.

9. I can disagree without being disagreeable. I recognize that effective representation does not require antagonistic or obnoxious behavior. I will neither encourage nor knowingly permit my client or anyone under my control to do anything which would be unethical or improper if done by me.

10. I will not, without good cause, attribute bad motives or unethical conduct to opposing counsel nor bring the profession into disrepute by unfounded accusations of impropriety. I will avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony towards opposing counsel, parties and witnesses. I will not be influenced by any ill feeling between clients. I will abstain from any allusion to personal peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of opposing counsel.

11. I will not take advantage, by causing any default or dismissal to be rendered, when I know the identity of an opposing counsel, without first inquiring about that counsel's intention to proceed.

12. I will promptly submit orders to the Court. I will deliver copies to opposing counsel before or contemporaneously with submission to the Court. I will promptly approve the form of orders which accurately reflect the substance of the rulings of the Court.

13. I will not attempt to gain an unfair advantage by sending the Court or its staff correspondence or copies of correspondence.

14. I will not arbitrarily schedule a deposition, court appearance, or hearing until a good faith effort has been made to schedule it by agreement.

15. I will readily stipulate to undisputed facts in order to avoid needless costs or inconvenience for any party.

16. I will refrain from excessive and abusive discovery.

17. I will comply with all reasonable discovery requests. I will not resist discovery requests which are not objectionable. I will not make objections nor give instructions to a witness for the purpose of delaying or obstructing the discovery process. I will encourage witnesses to respond to all deposition questions which are reasonably understandable. I will neither encourage nor permit my witness to quibble about words where their meaning is reasonably clear.

18. I will not seek Court intervention to obtain discovery which is clearly improper and not discoverable.

19. I will not seek sanctions or disqualification unless it is necessary for protection of my client's lawful objectives or is fully justified by the circumstances.

IV. LAWYER AND JUDGE

Lawyers and judges owe each other respect, diligence, candor, punctuality, and protection against unjust and improper criticism and attack. Lawyers and judges are equally responsible to protect the dignity and independence of the Court and the profession.

l. I will always recognize that the position of judge is the symbol of both the judicial system and administration of justice. I will refrain from conduct that degrades this symbol.

2. I will conduct myself in Court in a professional manner and demonstrate my respect for the Court and the law.

3. I will treat counsel, opposing parties, the Court, and members of the Court staff with courtesy and civility.

4. I will be punctual.

5. I will not engage in any conduct which offends the dignity and decorum of proceedings.

6. I will not knowingly misrepresent, mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or authorities to gain an advantage.

7. I will respect the rulings of the Court.

8. I will give the issues in controversy deliberate, impartial and studied analysis and consideration.

9. I will be considerate of the time constraints and pressures imposed upon the Court, Court staff and counsel in efforts to administer justice and resolve disputes.


Back to Codes of Professional Ethics

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Acquiesce or confess error.........unless you got "brass in your pocket".........

Monday, June 5, 2000

US SUPREME COURT GRANTS STATE'S MOTION IN CAPITAL CASE

Case Remanded for New Sentencing Hearing

AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General John Cornyn today said the United States Supreme Court has granted a request by the State of Texas that the death sentence imposed in the capital murder case against Victor Hugo Saldano be vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The new trial will concern only the issue of punishment, not the judgment of guilt, which remains intact.

Saldano was convicted in 1996 of capital murder in Collin County for the murder of Paul King. Evidence presented at the trial showed that Saldano and an accomplice used a handgun to kidnap King from a grocery store parking lot. He was taken to a secluded spot on a country road where Saldano fatally shot King five times, including once in the head at point-blank range. Saldano stole King's wallet and watch.

"There is no doubt of Mr. Saldano's guilt. A jury properly convicted him of capital murder and that conviction remains in place. During the sentencing phase of the trial, there was sufficient evidence submitted to the jury of Mr. Saldano's 'future dangerousness,' justifying the imposition of the death penalty," Cornyn stated. "Unfortunately, however, evidence of the defendant's race was also introduced before the jury by a district attorney as a factor for the jury to weigh in making its determination. This violated Mr. Saldano's constitutional right to be sentenced without regard to the color of his skin."

Cornyn also said, "We've been conducting an audit over the past couple of months. We've identified eight other cases that may be similar. We will release our findings by the end of the week. We will continue to vigilantly monitor all death penalty cases. Our goal is to assure the people of Texas that our criminal justice system is fairly administered."

- Texas Attorney General John Cornyn today said the United States Supreme Court has granted a request by the State of Texas that the death sentence imposed in the capital murder case against Victor Hugo Saldano be vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The new trial will concern only the issue of punishment, not the judgment of guilt, which remains intact.

Saldano was convicted in 1996 of capital murder in Collin County for the murder of Paul King. Evidence presented at the trial showed that Saldano and an accomplice used a handgun to kidnap King from a grocery store parking lot. He was taken to a secluded spot on a country road where Saldano fatally shot King five times, including once in the head at point-blank range. Saldano stole King's wallet and watch.

"There is no doubt of Mr. Saldano's guilt. A jury properly convicted him of capital murder and that conviction remains in place. During the sentencing phase of the trial, there was sufficient evidence submitted to the jury of Mr. Saldano's 'future dangerousness,' justifying the imposition of the death penalty," Cornyn stated. "Unfortunately, however, evidence of the defendant's race was also introduced before the jury by a district attorney as a factor for the jury to weigh in making its determination. This violated Mr. Saldano's constitutional right to be sentenced without regard to the color of his skin."

Cornyn also said, "We've been conducting an audit over the past couple of months. We've identified eight other cases that may be similar. We will release our findings by the end of the week. We will continue to vigilantly monitor all death penalty cases. Our goal is to assure the people of Texas that our criminal justice system is fairly administered."

AUSTIN - Texas Attorney General John Cornyn today said the United States Supreme Court has granted a request by the State of Texas that the death sentence imposed in the capital murder case against Victor Hugo Saldano be vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. The new trial will concern only the issue of punishment, not the judgment of guilt, which remains intact.

Saldano was convicted in 1996 of capital murder in Collin County for the murder of Paul King. Evidence presented at the trial showed that Saldano and an accomplice used a handgun to kidnap King from a grocery store parking lot. He was taken to a secluded spot on a country road where Saldano fatally shot King five times, including once in the head at point-blank range. Saldano stole King's wallet and watch.

"There is no doubt of Mr. Saldano's guilt. A jury properly convicted him of capital murder and that conviction remains in place. During the sentencing phase of the trial, there was sufficient evidence submitted to the jury of Mr. Saldano's 'future dangerousness,' justifying the imposition of the death penalty," Cornyn stated. "Unfortunately, however, evidence of the defendant's race was also introduced before the jury by a district attorney as a factor for the jury to weigh in making its determination. This violated Mr. Saldano's constitutional right to be sentenced without regard to the color of his skin."

Cornyn also said, "We've been conducting an audit over the past couple of months. We've identified eight other cases that may be similar. We will release our findings by the end of the week. We will continue to vigilantly monitor all death penalty cases. Our goal is to assure the people of Texas that our criminal justice system is fairly administered."


Contact Mark Heckmann, Heather Browne, or Andrea Horton at (512) 463-2050.

Rod ellis and Perry pretend they are going to provide you a Colleen McHugh, no, no, no,....poor , now then there is a system for you

Press Release from State Senator Rodney Ellis

For Immediate Release
Thursday, June 14, 2001
Contact: Jeremy Warren, (512) 463-0113

Perry Signs Landmark Texas Fair Defense Act

New Law Overhauls Texas' Indigent Criminal Defense System

(Austin)//Governor Rick Perry today signed into law the Texas Fair Defense Act, landmark legislation to overhaul Texas' indigent criminal defense system. Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston), author of the legislation, praised Governor Perry's action.

"I am extremely pleased by Governor Perry's decision to sign the Texas Fair Defense Act into law," said Senator Ellis. "With today's signature, Texas has taken an historic stand for fairness. The Texas Fair Defense Act balances the scales of justice to ensure that poor Texans are not sentenced to a poor defense."

Texas' criminal justice system has been the focus of national and international criticism, particularly the lack of standards and state oversight of attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants. The Texas Fair Defense Act addresses this criticism by focusing on four critical issues -- timely appointment of counsel, method of counsel appointment by the courts, reporting of information about indigent representation services, and minimum standards for counsel. The legislation also creates a task force within the Judicial Council to recommend further improvements and direct funding to assist counties in the improvements.

Senate Bill 7 ensures prompt appointment of an attorney for indigent criminal defendants in Texas. The legislation gives courts three options of appointment - a rotation or "wheel" system, a locally-controlled public defender system, or an alternate fair system designed by the judges in the county and approved by a regional presiding administrative judge. The legislation ensures ultimate decision making remains with judges and counties while providing necessary state input and oversight. Senate Bill 7 also requires counties and judges to collect and report information to the state on indigent criminal defense procedures and expenditures.

Senator Ellis has led the fight to reform Texas' indigent criminal defense system. The Texas Fair Defense Act is the product of nearly two years of bipartisan collaboration between legislators, the State Bar, district judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and reform groups to provide indigent Texans with timely, adequate counsel at trial.

"A lot of Texans were embarrassed by the problems in our criminal justice system revealed over the past two years," said Ellis. "The Texas Fair Defense act is not a magic potion that will cure all of those ills, but it is a significant first step toward creating a criminal justice system that Texans can be proud of."

###

Monday, August 06, 2007

"The right of one charged with [a] crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours"

Cheapskate Justice May Come Back to Bite Collin County

"The right of one charged with [a] crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours"

-Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

Here's an example of a growing county that would really benefit from establishing a public defender office, but instead chooses to curb the constitutional rights of low-income defendants. Reported the Dallas Morning News ("Collin cuts court costs, but at what price?," Aug. 4):

Collin County, fed up with soaring court costs, has become the toughest county in Texas for criminal defendants seeking court-appointed lawyers to defend them.

Some legal experts say the new county-imposed limits on a defendant's income and assets raise questions about the quality of justice in Collin County, one of the state's wealthiest suburban enclaves.

The new rules also set Collin apart from Dallas and other Texas counties whose judges routinely grant court-appointed attorneys to criminal defendants with no financial background check.

Collin County Commissioner Joe Jaynes, who originally approved the new guidelines, says he is having second thoughts.

"I hate to see us starting to chip away at constitutional rights in the name of trying to save money," Mr. Jaynes said. "It's a very slippery slope we're starting to tread."

More than 1,000 defendants in Collin County who applied for a court-appointed lawyer last year failed to receive one because they didn't meet new strict financial guidelines, records show. That figure represents about a third of those who sought free counsel.

Consequently, Collin County's indigent-defense costs fell more than 20 percent in the year ending last September, the first full year under the new crackdown.

Officials defend the policy based on savings, but isn't that penny wise and pound foolish? If the county later endures civil litigation, for example, over failing to ensure defendants' constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel, the savings will appear minimal. If defendants later begin getting new trials because Collin County prosecutors inappropriately bullied them into pleas without a lawyer, will these savings really have been worth it?

Malia Brink of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers said Collin's definitions of indigency are now among the most stringent in the nation, posing significant risks:

"If the system isn't balanced, it doesn't work," Ms. Brink said. "Defenses aren't presented appropriately, the wrong people go to jail, the real criminal remains at large.

"The whole process becomes more expensive because there are more appeals – more valid appeals – and then you have to try the case all over again."

Bottom line, Collin commissioners and judges want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to keep the current system of appointing private counsel for indigent defendants but don't want to pay the attorney's fees.

Every county in Texas has seen its indigent defense costs increase after the Texas Fair Defense Act in 2001 strengthened requirements that counties appoint counsel in all adversarial proceedings against defendants from B misdemeanors up. But there are smarter ways to handle the problem than Collin officials have chosen.

In Dallas, a county public defender office has kept their costs from rising nearly so quickly. Neighboring Kaufman County just opened a public defender office to reduce costs, move cases more quickly through the system, reduce jail overcrowding and provide defendants a more consistent quality of counsel. Hiring staff counsel for indigent defense makes economic sense for the same reason it would be impractical to contract out prosecuting every criminal case.

Simply telling people who can't afford an attorney you won't get them one won't fly - if defendants denied attorneys are winding up defending themselves "pro se" in significant numbers, I wouldn't be surprised to see Collin County become the target of successful civil litigation. (See comments for discussion of correction.)

The News reports that "in every case file The News reviewed, original paperwork revealed that one of two things happened to a defendant who was denied court-appointed counsel: the accused hired his own attorney or the judge reversed county government staffers and appointed one."

That tells me that judges are consistently finding many defendants indigent who the county said were not. Collin County's indigency rules by that standard are wrong on their face, since the judges are routinely finding many cases where people really couldn't afford counsel. In the meantime, taxpayers must house these folks in the jail at $40+ per day until a judge overrules the county, or until people sell off assets or find some relative to pay for a private lawyer. That's not a cost-effective or sustainable system in the long haul.

Labels: County jails, Indigent defense

posted by Gritsforbreakfast at 7:50 AM 4 comments