# in Re Mark Eugene Engle

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · July 6, 2015

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4050943

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** July 6, 2015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4050943

## Opinion text

FILID IN
Court of Appeals
The 6§Uft§f Appeals
RECEIVED IN 5ixth Court of Appeals Sixth Distriet
The Court of Artpeala
Sixth Diptrict
Bi-5tate Justice Bldg.
'JUL 0 6 2015
JUL 0 i 2015 100 N. State Line Ave. #20

Texarkana, Texas 75501 Texarkafrtei, Texas
Texarkana, Texas v * Debra^\>
^>
Vv: fM.
v \'-
"v.v
2. Probable cause docs not exist to .procccd^furthcr with matters against MARK

ENGLE and it is therefore ordered,that MARK. ENGLE is discharged from custody of the

county.

Signed on /tJyojj 6, Q\0/3

MAGISTRAT

vi'jai...: • "% .. „YH
NO. 07259(MAN DEL C/S

MAGISTRATE

YqOOa3H!TH=iyA

1Z3T!A
m^V •dipt stnTiuaatfAj Y3'jA"r

no h
Exhibit "I"

Proof

of

Mailing
Exhibit "A" Attachment

(1> Green Card Certified uith Certified Receipt.

SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECT/ON COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
A. Stg
jtem AtfRestricted Delivery isdesired
! P*it your name and address on thereverse O Agent
so thatwecan return thecard to you t QAddressea
Attach this card tothe back of the maltoiece, ' j^hred fay (hmtacM^me)
oronthefront if space permits '^ • *
1. ArtteteAddressed to:

> x
sr-

tf*& toad*, d*WX&<_ 3-^eiyteaTypa .£ .
D Registered ) *'
• insured Mag ,- D Q.O.D.
4- Restricted Ddfvery? (Ertra feej
2. Article Number ^T 77^ ^ -^- • ^
; PSFbrm3811.February20M " Tw^ll^.„•
Domestic Return Receipt. '• ' ^ ^°° '•
iOZ5S5<e4«.15«) |

U.S. Postal Servicer,,
m
n~ CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT

«-=l CwWtedFee
o . .
O __R»hffnF»ece&tFee Postmark
n Icnooremert Raqubod) Hero

*-J (En*»wxnent Roquired)

*«»»ft-lS/g.;t^

(7)
Exhibit "3"

Motion far

Order to Show Cause

Syorn Copy
Cause Nd. 29110

Mark Eugene Engle § 354th District Court
v. § Hunt County
State of Texas § Greenville, Texas

Motion for Order to Shou Cause

Now comes Defendant Mark Eugene Engle seeking this Court to issue an Order to Shou

Cause to Assistant District Attorney Steve Lilley in his official capacity to answer

the following questions:

(10 Did the District Attorney's office, namely Steve Lilley, uithhold exculpatory

n evidence by not producing the facially invalid search warrant prior to asking

the defendant to plead guilty.

(2) Does the District Attorney's office, namely 5teve Lilley have any reasoning to

not Dismiss uith prejudice, the case against Mr.Engle for a 4th Amendment

Violation of the particularity clause for a facially invalid search warrant?

It is a simple case of Steve Lilley acting under
under the
the disguise
disguise of pr9pegtyA while he
prop estyA while

argues the irrelevant, trying to look brillant, in the eyes of the officers he is enabling

to commit wrongful acts, and promoting grave miscarriages of justice by those uho are

suppose to protect us.

CD
P.ra-y-eT

The i.defendant -prays this court uill Grant this order and do finding of fact and con

clusion of lau, to correct the errors of it's way.

Mark Eugene Engle Pro-Se

Certificate of Service

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document

was served on the «»** day of ^bwi 2015, and deliverednby U.S. Postal Service to Donna M

Meeks, Court Administrator, 354th Judicial Court, Hunt County Greenville, Texas 75401.

Mark Eugene Engle Pro-Se.

(2)
Cause No. 29110

Mark Eugene Engle § 354th District Court
v. § Hunt, County
5tate of Texas § Greenville, Texas

Order to Show Cause

On the day of 2015 came on tg:;be considered Maek Eugene Engle's request

for Order to Show Cause, and said motion is hereby:

[] Granted

or

Denied

Judge Presiding

(3)
Exhibit "K"

Motion.]

to

Dismiss uith Prejudice

Sworn Copy
Cause No. 29110

Mark Eugene Engle § 354th District Court
V. § Hunt County
State of Texas § Greenville, Texas

Motion to Dismiss uith Prejudice

Now comes Mark Eugene Engle, defendant in the above styled and numbered cause, and

moves this Court to Dismiss this cause with prejudice. That no further allegations for

prosecution be brought forth and place this action in the District Attorney File Number

13040B1 .

In support of the Defendant would show by way o.f Order to Shou Cause that the District

Attorney's office- namely Steve Lilley withheld exculpatory evidence that nou constitutes

an Actual Innocence Claim.

"A Facially Invalid Search Warrant that can not be cured by an incorporated Affadavit.

Especially when the Affidavit was sealed." GROH v Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).

Article 32.D2 Dismissal By State's Attorney

The attorney representing the State may, by permission of the Court, dismiss a

criminal action at any time upon filing a uritten statement uith the papers in the case

setting out his reasons for such dismissal, which shall be incorpated in the judgement of

dismissal. No case shall be dismissed uithout the counsel of the presiding judge.

I.

Statutory interpation requires Court to seek to effectuate the collective intent or

purpose of the legislators who enacted the legislation, by focusing it's attention on the
(1)
staute's text and attemping to discern the fair , objective meaning of that text at the
time Df it's enactment.

If a statute is clear and unambiguous the Legislature must be understood to mean

what it has expressed, and it is not for the Courts to add or subtract from such a :ri;;.i

statute." Fryer v. State, 993 S.U.2d.385 (Tex.App.Ft.Worth 1999).

Code of Criminal Procedure's express statutory provision and clear unambiguous
language contained in Article 16.17, is arguably a critical stage for sixth and foun±-i
teenth Amaendment analysis.

Statute providing that the Judge make and enter orders within 4B hours after the

Examining Trial has been had and failure to do so operates as a finding of No Probable
Cause and the accused shall be discharged is very concise. The Court was under the veil
of a Writ of Habeas Corpus at the time of this hearing.

Once this statute has been ignored it creates a storm of wrongful acts against the

accused. Nothing the Court can da will stop the storm under the Statute of Due Course of
Lau.

To support the Due Course of Lau the accused was to be dischargeed. Operation of
Law is by the Due Course of Lau. No Probable Cause is enough to stop the Court from
even entertaining a bond hearing. Let alone a Speedy Trial Complaint in a motion to
dismiss.

The Court uas clearly on a fishing expedition to gain a conviction.

This Honorable Court can review the proceeding had under Writ 07259.

(2)
II.

A complete miscarriage of justice was had uhen the Court continued to seek a

conviction by uay of a facially invalid search warrant. The particularity requirement

states the warrant should describe "as near as may be" the person's or things to be

seized. This facially invalid Search Warrant does not even allege a crime-let alone a

criminal.

In Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004), The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held

that;

(1) Search Warrant that utterly failed to describe the persons or things to be

seized was invalid on it's face not withstanding that requisite particularized

description was provided in search warrant application;

(2) residental search thatjwas conducted pursuant to this facially invalid warrant
could not be regarded as "reasonable" though items to be seized exercised

restraint in limiting scope of search to that indicted in application; and

(3) Bureau of Alchol, Tabacco abd Firearms (BATF) agents who had prepared and

executed warrant werernot entitled to qualified immunuty from liability."

Search warrant that utterly failed to describe the persons or things to be seized

was invalid on it's face, not withstanding that requisite particularized description

was provided in search warrant application, where the description was not incorporated

by reference in search warrant itself, and where application, having been sealed, did

not accompany warrant. U.S.C.A Const.Amend.4.

j^r'._•-_•_ Thus j^absent exigent circumstances a uarrantless entry to search for ueapDns or

contraband is unconstitutional even uhen a felony has been committed and there is probable
Cause to believe that incriminating evidence will be found within," at 587-586, 100 S.Ct.
(3)
1371 (footnote omitted).

Ill

Now look at the search warrant signed by Ex-Judge Tittle labeled Exhibit "A",

It is alclear case of 4th Amendment Violation. On top of the fact the District Attorney's

office namely, Steve Lilley has a duty to insure everything is on the level in all pro

ceedings had under his supervision in the Court room.

Wherefore, Premises Considered, Defendant prays that this Honorable Court consider

the totality of the circumstances, along with the history of the case which lacks Due

Course of Law, and know that but for a facially invalid search warrant a conviction

would never have been obtained. Defendant further prays that this Court will Dismiss this

case with prejudice as it is the only relief that is proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

Mark Eugene Engle
Pro-Se

Certificate of Service

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document
&& April
was served on the 32n& day of -Jtirro 2D15 and delivered by U.S. Postal Service to Donna

Meeks Court Administrator, 354th Judicial District Court, Hunt County, Greenville,Texas.

Mark EugentEngle Pro-Se

(4)
Cause No. 29110

Mark Eugene Engle § 354th District Court

v. § Hunt Country
State of Texas § Greenville, Texas

Order=—=

On the -'•"• • day of 2015 came on to be considered Mark Eugene Engle's

Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice.

Said Motion is hereby;

[] Granted

Or

[] Denied

Judge Presiding

(5)
Exhibit "L"

Unsworn

Declaration

alrTiiiLii^;---i<jniiiitf!^a „._•.,• i**Li
Unsworn Declaration

I swear under penalty of perjury that everything in the foregoing documents are true an

correct copies to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Mark Eugene Engle

Connally Unit

899 F.M. 632

Kenedy, Tx 78119

JuneX^ 2015
3&

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4050943. Public record. Not legal advice.