Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals abused its discretion in not reviewing a petition for discretionary review and writ of habeas corpus for motion for new trial

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. WHEN PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IS DISCRETIONARY BY THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, DID THE COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT REVIEWING A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WHERE MORE THAT 300 POINTS OF ERROR HAD ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED INCLUDING NO INDIGENT RECORD PROVIDED IN WHICH THE PETITIOER /DEFENDANT AND HER ATTORNEY HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT AT ANY PORTION THREE OF THE JURY TRIALS? 2, AFTER 1981, WHEN VERNON’S WAS AMENDED ANN. TEXAS CCP ART. 42.03 WAS AMENDED WHICH STATED THAT “EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE ‘ 42.14 SENTENCE SHALL BE PRONOUNCED IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE. PETITIONER WAS NEVER SERVED WITH THE INDICTMENT, MAGISTRATED, PARTICIPATE IN ANY PORTION OF THE TRIAL INCLUDING BEING PRESENT AT THE SENTENCING; WAS THIS STATUTE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND PRIOR RULINGS OF THIS COURT? DID THE ABSENCE OF THE ATTORNEY AND THE DEFENDANT AT ALL PORTIONS OF THE TRIAL VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND SIXTH AMENDMENT OF RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? 3. DID THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF SENTENCE BASED ON FOUR INDICTMENTS WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT DEPRIVE THE 10" COURT OF APPEALS OF JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT’S APPEALS AS WELL AS VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION AD DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14" AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION? 2 j &7 J | In Small v State, 38 $.W. 798, 799 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1897 where there was a two count judgment but no written judgment or oral rendition of the , punishment. The court ruled that there was nothing to appeal. In 1981, the statute was amended. The trial court can correct the error below and abate for a new trial on sentencing. The problem is that with trials in abstentia, there is no trial to correct. 4, DOES THE TRIAL, CONVICTION AND SENTENCING OF THE DEFENDANT IN ABSTENTIA BASED ON FOUR INDICTMENTS WITHOUT INFORMING THE | DEFENDANT; DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS GUARANTEED BY THE 14™ AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES | CONSTITUTION AND VIOLATE HER FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND TO EARN A LIVING? In Norbert and Pape v the State of Texas, 626 S.W. 2d 30 (1981), the court held that under Article 36.01, V.A.C.C.P. prescribes the order of things in a jury trial. Items 1 and 2 in pertinent part: 1. The indictment ...shall be read to the jury by the attorney prosecuting... 2. ... if the plea of not guilty is not relied upon it shall also be stated. Moreover, “the pleading in a criminal action on the part of the State is the indictment...” Article 27.01, V.A.C.C.P. and included in pleading and motions available to the accused is a plea of not guilty, Article 27.02 ( 4). V.A.C.C.P. The essential point is that until the indictment is read and a plea 3 ¥7 ee is entered the issue is not joined between the State and the accused before the jury. Johnson v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 291, 42 $.W.2d 782 (1931). In Castillo v. State, 530 S.W.2d 952 ( Tex. Cr. App. 1976}, the court after some examination concluded that “the order of proceeding s set out in Art. 36.01, V.A.C.C.P. is and must be followed by the trial court. In the case in question with jury trials in abstentia the issue is never joined because the defendant is never served with the indictment and has no knowledge of it. The plaintiff was deprived of a law license and did not have notice and hearing and a Sixth Amendment right of confrontation guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 5. DID THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERR IN DENYING THE PETITIONER AN OUT OF TIME HEARING ON HER PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE/ WRIT OF HABEAS FOR MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF HER 5™ AMENDMENT RIGHT NOT TO BE DEPRIVED OF HER RIGHT AND OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A LIVING? 6. DID THE 10" COURT OF APPEALS ERR IN DENYING APPLICANT’S