Whether the trial court and criminal court of appeals of Texas violated established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED TRIAL EWTER | WEAPON ? rat CoutT. NOT ‘et FINDING OF A DEADLY AGREEMENT? ULATED IW THE PLEA @) DID THE TRIAL CourT AND CRIMIZMAL CoukT OF AAPEALS OF TEXAS ULOLATE ESTABLESHED FEDERAL LAW AS DETERMINED By THE UETED STATES SUPREME CoukT B) ARE INTOXECATION MANSLAUGHTER AMD ZATONE CATED ~ ASSpuLT THE SAME CHARGE ? ME CHTIOW ® Caw & STATE Counr REFUSE 7O HONOR A unieD orpres SUPREME COURT AulINe? @ WAS TRIAL Commset “WEPFECIIVE? FoR FALLZWG 70 frie A MOoczONy FO SUPPRESS THE EULDENCE FROM A IJARRANTLESS BLOOD Dpaul? @ Does THE RETRO ACTEVE AAPLLCATLON OF BIRCHEZELD ys, NORTH DAKOTA 736 U,S,2%260 £30261 APPLY To WY CASE? A L/ARRANTLESS Blood DRAL? ge LsA$EN LEERECT APPEAL ONIN 7 THE RULING FIRST ~ Came Our, JUDGEMENT ENTERED HS CRSE-LIAS-Gh— TRNUARY ASjAOLE (aN ut oF PARTIES | VY an parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of velltion fe to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this RELATED CASES TRIAL CT MO, 24~CR2877 STATE OF TEXAS VS, SOSEPH BOURGEOLS TN THE DISTRICT CouRT OF GALWESTON CouNTY, TEXAS 56 TuOrCna. Me STC JUDGEMENT ENTERED SANUARYAS 2026 L PLEA A VT On SEPTEMBER 22,2026, OR n, DinteD THe AILCLE 22:01 T CouRT GALVESTON DEULSION Le eed hi BouRGEOLS VS, C RESPONDENTS 4 DAULS JUDGEMENT ENTERED MARCH 39 or REQUEST LOE ed 21) -CUoo722 PETITION WAS prs MLss Fah COA, Lis ALS0 DESY anrunl. CoukT _= OyRTE oF TEXAS vs, JOSEPH Sa caen _Ch-28779-4: WK. / ‘ WAS DISMISSED, ma