DEFENZOR: A NEWSPAPER FROM THE HEART & SOUL OF AZTLAN 608 Indiana Street, Robstown, Texas 78380 (361) 387-6216 email: staff@defenzor.net ... Note: The posting here do not reflect the position of El Defenzor newspaper nor its staff. This board was created to encourage a mutual dialogue on improving matters in our community.
[ Defenzor's Message Board | Edit Post | Defenzor ]
Re(3): Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.
Posted on June 23, 2007 at 04:11:40 AM by 4 ringo......you know watt.......
Jules: Wanna know what I'm buyin' Ringo?
Pumpkin: What?
Jules: Your life. I'm givin' you that money so I don't hafta kill your ass. You read the Bible?
Pumpkin: Not regularly.
Jules: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.
Replies:
There have been no replies.
Post a reply:
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message:
Password To Edit Post:
Check this box if you want to be notified via email when someone replies to your post.
Create Your Own Message Board, FREE!
Hosted By Boards2Go Copyright ©2000-2005
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
republic of texas: According to the Sentence Ramsey is to be Confined in Texas
republic of texas: According to the Sentence Ramsey is to be Confined in Texas
Former Raza Unida gubernatorial candidate Ramsey Muñiz has been transferred from a federal corrections institute in Three Rivers six months after arriving at the facility.
Former Raza Unida gubernatorial candidate Ramsey Muñiz has been transferred from a federal corrections institute in Three Rivers six months after arriving at the facility. Muñiz, who ran for governor of Texas in 1974 and 1975 under the Raza Unida Party, was transferred from Three Rivers on Tuesday.
Mike Truman, spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, said Muñiz is being housed in the Federal Transfer Facility in Oklahoma City until he can be transferred to another facility.
Truman said he could not release where Muñiz would be transferred or when, citing security concerns. He also said he did not know why Muñiz was transferred.
Muñiz, 64, is serving a life sentence for three felony drug convictions.
The Three Rivers Federal Correctional Institute, 77 miles northwest of Corpus Christi, has been the closest the former Miller High School football star and local defense attorney has been to home since his 1994 conviction.
Under the banner of Raza Unida, a political party shaped and led by Hispanic activists seeking a political voice, Muñiz earned support from 6 percent the state's registered voters.
Muñiz's wife, Irma Muñiz, said she was surprised to learn of the transfer especially because senators, congressmen and civic groups have written letters to the Federal Bureau of Prisons on her husband's behalf.
Irma Muñiz said her husband had hoped to be housed at the Three Rivers facility because of its proximity to his family in South Texas.
Since he was transferred there in December from an institute in Colorado, Irma Muñiz has made frequent trips to visit her husband.
She likened Muñiz's transfer out of Three Rivers to the treatment of Hispanic Civil Rights figure Felix Longoria.
Longoria, a U.S. Army private killed on-duty in the Philippines in 1945, was refused a proper funeral in his hometown of Three Rivers because the only funeral home in town didn't allow Hispanics to use its funeral chapel.
Civil Rights hero Dr. Hector P. Garcia interceded and U.S. Sen. Lyndon Johnson arranged for Longoria to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery.
Joe Ortiz, League of United Latin American Citizens district director and national and state civil rights director of the American GI Forum, helped organize letter-writing campaigns when Muñiz was in Colorado asking for his transfer to Texas.
Ortiz didn't know about the transfer out of Three Rivers but said both LULAC and the American GI Forum will work toward getting Muñiz returned to Texas.
"We are going to petition our legislators to see if they can do anything to bring him back," Ortiz said.
Contact Adriana Garza at 886-3618 or garzaa@caller.com
Posted by geomatica on June 21, 2007 at 9:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am certain that Ramsey Muniz was falsely imprisoned, but no matter what you believe, he was and is a model prisoner, and it is a complete waste of taxpayer money to be moving him all over, when it makes the most sense for him to be here near his family. He didn't kill anybody, and his treatment has been nothing but inhumane. Something has to be done about the inequities in our prison system. His punishment certainly does not fit his supposed crime. When is his mistreatment and that of his family going to end?
Posted by colorderosa on June 22, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Only in America does a convicted murderer, chlld rapist, or other harden criminal walk free, while a supposed drug dealer gets life in prison.
colorderosa
Posted by sosiouxme13 on June 22, 2007 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In my opinion, someone convicted of dealing drugs, can be likened to a murderer...
Posted by dannoynted1 on June 23, 2007 at 5:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is retaliation for the "scared status quo". They are afraid if he is in Texas he just might get out.
Only in Texas can this happen.
Eureka~ perhaps Jurisdiction resides in Oklahoma?
or is it Louisiana, where i hear Hayden Head is sending our Federally convicted non white americans as of late?.
Is that legal?
Why would you send a texan to another state unless you want to keep them from their family.
Posted by gmikedear1954 on June 23, 2007 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As a career Federal Agent living in Detroit, Michigan, I find it silly to deny this man the opportunity of being close to his family. As one person stated earlier that far worse criminals are given the option to be close to their family. Also, The whole war on drugs is nothing more than a farce to make contractors rich.
Posted by chuco11 on June 23, 2007 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ram, you were the impetus for the movement that slowly is gaining speed. Maybe not in our lifetimes but down the road there will be Spanish spoken along with English in the schools, businesses and professional sports, to name a few, all across America not just Texas. "The Man" sees this and doesn't like it! But he can't stop the ineviteable. What was that old adage...."GOD grant me the serenity....... Irma, you are a model of a loving wife. All men should be this fortunate!
Friday, June 1, 2007
In light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, we believe the proper remedy is to abate the appeal and remand the cause to recommence the time..
Send this document to a colleague Close This Window
sotseal6.gif
NUMBER 13-02-033-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
LEEANN HALEY, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Baird Footnote
Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant was charged by indictment with the state jail felony offense of tampering with a governmental record. A jury convicted appellant of a lesser included offense and assessed punishment at 180 days confinement in the Kleberg County jail, probated for a period of two years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.10(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004). We abate this appeal and remand this matter to the trial court for futher proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Procedural History.
Appellant raises two points of error, both of which deal with the status of her legal representation in the thirty days following sentencing. Specifically, the first point of error contends she was abandoned by trial counsel. The second point contends the trial judge erred in not appointing counsel to represent appellant during the thirty-day time period for filing a motion for new trial. A brief procedural history is necessary to put the points in context.
On December 4, 2001, the jury returned its punishment verdict and the trial judge placed appellant on community supervision. On December 21, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Appellant wrote a letter to the judge seeking appointment of counsel on appeal and a free reporter’s record. On January 10, 2002, the trial judge entered an order finding appellant indigent, and appointed counsel to prosecute appellant’s appeal.
What is clear to us from the reading of the affidavits involved in this appeal is the following:
1.trial counsel discussed with appellant her right to appeal; Footnote
2.trial counsel told appellant that he “represented her only for her trial, [and not] on her appeal;”
3.appellant wanted to appeal;
4.trial counsel prepared a pro se notice of appeal for appellant and instructed her to file the notice and request appointed counsel;
5.trial counsel did not pursue a motion for new trial;
6.appellant filed the notice of appeal and requested appointed counsel, “[believing] she was doing everything necessary to protect [her] rights of appeal;”
7. appellant did not file a pro se motion for new trial; and
8. appointed counsel would have filed a motion for new trial alleging jury misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.
This case presents a comedy of errors. First, trial counsel believed he did not represent appellant during the critical time period for the filing of a motion for new trial. This belief was erroneous because counsel had the duty to continue his representation of the defendant until other counsel was secured to prosecute the appeal. Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Footnote This mistaken belief caused appellant to be abandoned during this critical stage of the proceedings.
Second, even though appellant filed her notice of appeal and request for the appointment of counsel within the thirty-day time period, counsel was not appointed until after the motion for new trial time limit had expired. Therefore, appointed appellate counsel was unable to file the motion for new trial both she and appellant desired. Finally, appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that she is now employed by the District Attorney’s office. Appellant’s appellate counsel has recently furnished this Court with the trial court’s order granting her motion to withdraw.
In light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, we believe the proper remedy is to abate the appeal and remand the cause to recommence the time period for filing a new trial motion. See Radcliff v. State, No. 01-02-00419-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5365, *4 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] June 26, 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication); Garcia v. State, 97 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Tex. App.–Austin 2003, no pet.); Prudhomme v. State, 28 S.W.3d 114, 121 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2000, no pet.); Massingill v. State, 8 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Tex. App.–Austin 1999, pet. ref'd). We do so without disturbing the trial court’s judgment and without relying on rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (governing the suspension of the appellate rules).
On remand, the appellate timetables are to begin anew, starting from the date this order issues. Prudhomme, 28 S.W.3d at 121; see Tex. R. App. P. 43.6. Further, upon remand the trial court shall appoint new counsel. New counsel shall then consult with appellant and determine whether she desires to file a motion for new trial.
If no motion for new trial is filed, we will presume that option was considered by appellant and rejected. Smith v. State, 17 S.W.3d 660, 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If appellant elects to file a motion for new trial, and the trial judge grants that motion, the appellate record shall be supplemented with that order, and appellant's appeal will be dismissed. If the trial judge overrules the new trial motion, the record shall be supplemented with that order and the record of any hearing held on such motion, and the parties will be permitted to brief any issues related to the overruled motion. Footnote Prudhomme, 28 S.W.3d at 121; Massingill, 8 S.W.3d at 738-39.
Accordingly, this appeal is abated and remanded for further proceedings as directed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Order delivered and filed this
the 26th day of February, 2004.
sotseal6.gif
NUMBER 13-02-033-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
LEEANN HALEY, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 105th District Court
of Kleberg County, Texas.
OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Baird Footnote
Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant was charged by indictment with the state jail felony offense of tampering with a governmental record. A jury convicted appellant of a lesser included offense and assessed punishment at 180 days confinement in the Kleberg County jail, probated for a period of two years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 37.10(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004). We abate this appeal and remand this matter to the trial court for futher proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Procedural History.
Appellant raises two points of error, both of which deal with the status of her legal representation in the thirty days following sentencing. Specifically, the first point of error contends she was abandoned by trial counsel. The second point contends the trial judge erred in not appointing counsel to represent appellant during the thirty-day time period for filing a motion for new trial. A brief procedural history is necessary to put the points in context.
On December 4, 2001, the jury returned its punishment verdict and the trial judge placed appellant on community supervision. On December 21, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. Appellant wrote a letter to the judge seeking appointment of counsel on appeal and a free reporter’s record. On January 10, 2002, the trial judge entered an order finding appellant indigent, and appointed counsel to prosecute appellant’s appeal.
What is clear to us from the reading of the affidavits involved in this appeal is the following:
1.trial counsel discussed with appellant her right to appeal; Footnote
2.trial counsel told appellant that he “represented her only for her trial, [and not] on her appeal;”
3.appellant wanted to appeal;
4.trial counsel prepared a pro se notice of appeal for appellant and instructed her to file the notice and request appointed counsel;
5.trial counsel did not pursue a motion for new trial;
6.appellant filed the notice of appeal and requested appointed counsel, “[believing] she was doing everything necessary to protect [her] rights of appeal;”
7. appellant did not file a pro se motion for new trial; and
8. appointed counsel would have filed a motion for new trial alleging jury misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel.
This case presents a comedy of errors. First, trial counsel believed he did not represent appellant during the critical time period for the filing of a motion for new trial. This belief was erroneous because counsel had the duty to continue his representation of the defendant until other counsel was secured to prosecute the appeal. Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). Footnote This mistaken belief caused appellant to be abandoned during this critical stage of the proceedings.
Second, even though appellant filed her notice of appeal and request for the appointment of counsel within the thirty-day time period, counsel was not appointed until after the motion for new trial time limit had expired. Therefore, appointed appellate counsel was unable to file the motion for new trial both she and appellant desired. Finally, appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw on grounds that she is now employed by the District Attorney’s office. Appellant’s appellate counsel has recently furnished this Court with the trial court’s order granting her motion to withdraw.
In light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, we believe the proper remedy is to abate the appeal and remand the cause to recommence the time period for filing a new trial motion. See Radcliff v. State, No. 01-02-00419-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5365, *4 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] June 26, 2003, no pet.) (designated for publication); Garcia v. State, 97 S.W.3d 343, 349 (Tex. App.–Austin 2003, no pet.); Prudhomme v. State, 28 S.W.3d 114, 121 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2000, no pet.); Massingill v. State, 8 S.W.3d 733, 738 (Tex. App.–Austin 1999, pet. ref'd). We do so without disturbing the trial court’s judgment and without relying on rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (governing the suspension of the appellate rules).
On remand, the appellate timetables are to begin anew, starting from the date this order issues. Prudhomme, 28 S.W.3d at 121; see Tex. R. App. P. 43.6. Further, upon remand the trial court shall appoint new counsel. New counsel shall then consult with appellant and determine whether she desires to file a motion for new trial.
If no motion for new trial is filed, we will presume that option was considered by appellant and rejected. Smith v. State, 17 S.W.3d 660, 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). If appellant elects to file a motion for new trial, and the trial judge grants that motion, the appellate record shall be supplemented with that order, and appellant's appeal will be dismissed. If the trial judge overrules the new trial motion, the record shall be supplemented with that order and the record of any hearing held on such motion, and the parties will be permitted to brief any issues related to the overruled motion. Footnote Prudhomme, 28 S.W.3d at 121; Massingill, 8 S.W.3d at 738-39.
Accordingly, this appeal is abated and remanded for further proceedings as directed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Order delivered and filed this
the 26th day of February, 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)