pigott- petiton for review-statement of the case

8/3/2019 Pigott- Petiton for Review-statement of the Case

1/6

i

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHIRLEY PERSONS PIGOTT

Applicant, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

Case No. PD-1619-11

Trial Court Case No. 16263

COA # 13-10-00234-CR

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

JERRY S. PAYNE

ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT

SBN 1565800

11505 MEMORIAL DR.PINEY POINT VILLAGE,

TEXAS 77024

713-785-0677

FAX-713-781-8547

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED


2/6

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIESiii

APPELLANTREQUESTSORALARGUMENTiv

STATEMENTOFTHECASE...................................................................v

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY...................................vi

GROUNDSFORREVIEW..1

ARGUMENT..2

BASIS FOR APPEAL2

APPELLANTS BRIEFS...3

First Brief.3

Reply Brief...4

COURT OF APPEALS OPINION5

II. DEADLY WEAPON FINDINGS..5

III. DENIAL OF FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS5

ProsecutorsImproperJuryArgument5

Vindictiveness and Improper Cross-Examination.9

IV. DENIAL OF MOTION FOR MISTRIAL...13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF...14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE............................................................14


3/6

iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bufkin v. State, 179 S.W.3d 166, 173-74, 14th

C.A. (2005),

affirm. 207 S.W.3d 779, Tx.Ct.Cr.App. (2006).10

Busby v. State, 253 S.W.3d 661, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) 9, 11, 13

HollimanvState,879S.W.2d85,88,14thC.A,1994)2

Mathis v. State, 67 S.W.3d 918, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)..6

Republic Underwriters v. Mex-Tex, Inc., 150 S.W.3d 423, 427, Tex (2004)..10

Rougeau v. State, 783 SW2d 651, 657 (Tx. Cr. App, En Banc, 1987).2

(Salazar v. Estelle, 547 F2d 1226, (C.A.5 1977)...3

Stahl v. State, 749 S.W.2d 826, Tx Cr Ap, (1988)............................................2

Threadgill v. State, 146 S.W.3d 654, 670 (Tex.Crim. App., 2004)..6

Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 616-17, Tex (1997)11,14

Young v. State, 137 SW3d 65 (Tex. Crim. App., En Banc, 2004)6

STATUES

TRAP 33.1(a)....................................................................................1,6, 7, 9, 10

TRAP 38.11, 10, 13, 14

TRAP 38.910

TRAP 44.2(a)2


4/6

iv

APPELLANTREQUESTSORALARGUMENT

Thiscaserepresentsasignificantdeparturefromtheusualqualityofjustice

administeredbytheTexascriminaljusticesystem.Thecourtofappealsresponse

tothebriefsisconfused.Mostofthecourtofappealsopinionfocuseson

sufficiencyofevidenceissueswhichhavebeenconcededbyAppellantinher

briefs.Theopinionignorestheconstitutionalissueswhicharethebasisforthis

appeal.OralargumentwouldassisttheCourtinfocusingontheerrorswhichform

thebasisforthisappeal.


5/6

v

STATEMENTOFTHECASE

Appellant, a 61 year old lady, is sentenced to 2 years in TDC for attempting to

drive to a safer place after being stopped on a dark highway for speeding 9 miles

per hour over the speed limit. After stopping, Appellant asked the officer for

identification, for another officer to be present, or to be allowed to drive to a public

place. The officer rejected all three requests. Appellant told the officer that she was

afraid and needed to drive to a public place. Appellant drove off slowly, looking

for a safer place, with the officer following.

The extraordinary circumstances of this case indicate that the prosecutor

intentionally inflamed and prejudiced the jury during final argument; that the

prosecutors misconduct was retaliation for Appellants accusations, made while

she was defending herself pro se, that the prosecutor and the officers were illegally

keeping her car.

The court of appeals refused to review the claim of constitutional error, concluding

that Appellant waived her right to appeal due to failure to object in the trial court to

the prosecutors final argument and due to inadequate argument in the Argument

and Authorities section of her brief.


6/6

vi

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The court of appeals opinion was handed down on June 2, 2011.

2.AppellantfiledherMotionforRehearingonJuly25,2011.

3.ThecourtofappealsdeniedAppellantsMotionforRehearingonSeptember9,

2011.

4.Appellantsmotionfora7dayextensionoftimetofilemotionforenbanc

reconsiderationwasfiledonSeptember23,2011;themotionforenbanc

reconsiderationwasfiledonSeptember30,2011.

5.ThecourtofappealsdeniedAppellantsmotionforextensionoftimetofile

motionforenbancreconsiderationandAppellantsmotionforenbanc

reconsiderationonOctober13,2011.

pigott- petiton for review-statement of the case

Documents