Whether the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause bars a retrial on one pending count since manifest necessity was not shown for the grant of a mistrial on that one count

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW There are three reasons petitioner contends that this Court should grant certiorari of this federal constitutional issue regarding whether the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause bars a retrial on one pending count since manifest necessity was not shown for the grant of a mistrial on that one count, which is now pending in a multi-count prosecution awaiting retrial. First, the San Antonio, Texas Fourth Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the trial court’s denial of the pretrial writ of habeas corpus, erroneously held that the State proved manifest necessity for granting of a mistrial, when in fact, lesser alternatives to a mistrial were available. Second, petitioner was unrepresented by counsel at the in camera hearing which resulted in the mistrial, since his appointed attorney had abandoned him at this hearing. Finally, the San Antonio Fourth Court’s opinion conflicts with an opinion of the Houston Fourteenth Court in Ex parte Perez, 525 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App. — Houston [14" Dist.] 2017, no pet.), with the Houston appellate court reversing a trial court’s denial of a pretrial writ of habeas corpus arising out of a mistrial, because in that case, lesser alternatives to a mistrial were available, thus barring a retrial after the mistrial was declared. Based on the foregoing premises, should this Court grant certiorari to review this important federal constitutional issue that is likely to recur in future criminal prosecutions, in which intermediate appellate courts in the two largest cities in Texas have made conflicting holdings? 1