Thomas Richie McBride v. Texas
DueProcess Securities
Whether the trial court proceedings constituted a mistrial that voided the 1984 judgment and sentence
questions presented here for the possibly of first impression upon judicial proceedings brought to the Court's attention on appeal of the state's conviction[:] [1]. Does it constitute [ a mistrial ] on the trial of punishment— where jury fail to deliver a verdict of either true or not true to State's special pleas of a repeat-offender alleged and prosecuted pursuant to Sec.12.42(c) of the Texas Penal Code Vernon's Ann., (West Supp.1984); and the trial judge fail to call the informal and: incomplete verdict to jury's attention, executed the judgment and sentence according to the informal verdict delivered by jury, and dismissed the jury without requiring jury to deliver a verdict” resolving the State's special pleas of a repeat-offender[?] ; [2]. Does such unusual and unaccepted course of judicial proceedings, described supra under paragraph [1], offend petitioner's federal/ state constitutional right to have thé. jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all the facts legally essential to determine his 1984 sentence; thus, offended the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury[7] [3]. If thus the trial court proceedings described supra under paragraph [1] constitutes [ a mistrial ], does such mistrial— ® void the 1984 trial court jurisdiction to execute the judgment and sentence in Cause No.32729[?] 6. question(s) presented continued ' @ void the 1984 jury's sentence upon its inception in Cause ' No.32729[?] * constitutionally require the Court to dismiss the indictment in Cause No.32729 for want of Due Process of Law[?] * call on the Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to determine the just and legal redress duly in the Court's oversight of the Due Process of Uauw[?7] [4]. Did the lack of a jury verdict of either true or not true to the State's special pleas of a repeat-offender alleged and prosecuted in Cause No.32729—thus: * void jury's assessment of the punishment in Cause No.32729[?] e void the trial court execution of the judgment and sentence in Cause No.32729[7] , ° offend the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and/or the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process[?] [5]. Does it offend the Due Process Clause and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State's Constitution—where it is impossible for the court. to legally,duly, and justly determine whether petitioner's sentence,[operating in effect of substantial collateral consequences in real time suffered by petitioner], is either valid for] invalid pursuant to the State's remote-laws applicable to the sentence and judgment[?] 7. question(s) presented continued { Sequential Finality Charge-Error ] The questions presented here for the Court,respectfully, are[:] [1]. Does the judgment of the Austin intermediate court, delivered in [03-19-00775-CR], offend the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[?] [2]. Does the judgment of the Austin intermediate court, delivered in [03-19-00775-CR], offend the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—where it is viewed by the Court that: e the Texas Amarillo intermediate court's judgment and opinion delivered in the case of Vidales v. State legally rendered Petitioner's sentence of [99] years illegal in Cause No.76454[.] e an illegal sentence violates Due Process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[.] *® an illegal sentence is unenforceable as a matter of federal and state constitutional laws[.] e an illegal sentence rendered the judgment af conviction void in Cause No.76454 and thus Petitioner is illegally confined under the terms of the judgment Cause No.76454[.] [3]. Did the Austin intermediate court judgment and opinion, delivered under the [sequential finality charge-error] ground, so far depart from the usual and accepted course of judicial proceedings, or has sanctioned such a departure by another court, as to call 8. question(s) presented continued for an exercise of the Court's