Anderson, Travis Edward v. State

PD-0026-15 PD-0026-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/9/2015 2:38:22 PM Accepted 4/15/2015 3:19:14 PM ABEL ACOSTA MICHEAL B. MURRAY CLERK DISTRICT ATTORNEY 35TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWN AND MILLS COUNTIES

CHRIS BROWN 200 S. BROADWAY, COURTHOUSE FIRST ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY BROWNWOOD, TEXAS 76801 (325) 646-0444 FAX: (325) 643-4053 ELISHA BIRD ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

J. CHRISTINA NELSON ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

April 9, 2015

The Court of Criminal Appeals Supreme Court Building April 15, 2015 201 West 14th Street, Room 106 Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Travis Edward Anderson, PD-0026-15

To the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals:

The State has received Travis Edward Anderson’s Pro Se Petition for Discretionary Review. In lieu of filing a formal response, the State would simply ask this Court to refuse to review this case because Petitioner has failed to provide an appropriate reason for review under Rule 66.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although Petitioner has filed pro se, he is still required to present an adequate basis for review.

The State would point out in support of its claim that the petition does not state an adequate basis for review that all of the argument under Ground I of the petition is simply a restatement, sometimes a direct copy, of Petitioner’s brief filed in the Eleventh Court of Appeals.1 A petition for discretionary review must do more than simply copy the original brief filed in the court below. It must articulate some ground for review under Rule 66.3 or at a minimum make some representation as to how the lower court erred in its analysis.

Furthermore, although Ground II of the petition is not a direct copy of the brief from the lower court, Ground II asserts a new basis for review that was not raised on appeal. Discretionary review is not available for grounds or issues not decided by the lower court of appeals. See Tex. R. App. Proc. §66.1 & 66.3.

1 “Ground I” of the petition is virtually a literal restatement of “Issue One” of the Brief for Appellant filed in the Eleventh Court of Appeals. Although there are some differences, most are minor punctuation differences and none of the differences assert any substance that differs from the argument in the Brief for Appellant.

As this Court is aware, refusal of a petition for discretionary review does not constitute endorsement or adoption of the reasoning employed by the court of appeals. Aguilar v. State, 830 S.W.2d 612, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc). Should this Court choose to grant review, the State requests notice and time to respond to the merits of the claims presented by Petitioner.

Sincerely yours,

/S/ Elisha Bird Elisha Bird Assistant District Attorney

cc: Travis Edward Anderson, TDCJ #1812491, Wallace Pack 1 Unit, 2400 Wallace Pack Road, Navsota, Texas 77868