Roland Moore, Appellate Attorney

The brief filed by Moore was the product of "one buddies coverage of the other"--and consistant in conjunction of each representative of the judicial systems of Harris County--witnessed and documented in this case.

This initial letter written to Shaun, Moore asks for Shaun's input and information regarding his case. Once he begins to receive that information he rejects wanting Shaun's input.

I have been appointed to represent you in appealing your conviction at trial in Judge Mark Ellis’s 351^{st Distric Court. If there was anything at trial that you might think was Questionable, anything at all that might be used to get your conviction overturned, please Notify me immediately. You may call me collect at the above number.
Here is a rough timetable: The Court Reporter might take as much as 9 months to Complete the record of your case. After she’s through and I get a copy, it will take me at Least from six weeks to three months to prepare your appellate brief and submit it to the Court of Appeals here in Houston. It may take another 6 months to 2 years for the Appellate court to review our brief, and the state’s brief, and then make a decision. I Will try to keep you informed along the way as to what steps we are taking. As soon as The brief is completed, I will send you a copy. I will also inform you as soon as the Court reaches a decision.
If the Court of Appeals does not decide in your favor, I will be appealing the case Up to the Court of last resort, insofar as my appointment is concerned, to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin. If that fails, the Petition for Discretionary Review, you may Still take the case up on your own after that point, if we reach it, to the U. S. Supreme Court.}

Sincerely,
Roland B. Moore III

Roland B. Moore III

This site has documented innumerable lies, discrepancies and issues of ineffective assistance of counsel; yet, Moore used NOTHING to warrant a New Trial.

NO. 758050

STATE OF TEXAS -  IN DISTRICT COURT

VS. -               OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

SHAUN SANDERS - 351^ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Comes now the defendant, Shaun Sanders by and through

His attorney Roland B. Moore III, and files this Motion for a New Trial, pursuant to Rule 21 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and in support of this motion shows:

I.

That defendant’s conviction is against the law and the evidence.

Wherefore, premises considerer, the defendant prays that the court will grant him a new trial.

Respectfully submitted

Roland B. Moore III

ROLAND BRICE MOORE III

ATTORNEY FOR DEFANDANT

Roland B. Moore, III, P.C.

Sincerely,
^{Roland B. Moore III}

Roland B. Moore III

His appeals brief was not based upon credible facts or viable argument. This site takes the case facts and proves the accused not guilty by definition of the offense. Moore does not argue relevant issues that pertains to the law of parties. The brief in body was 12 pages long.

Excerpts from appeals brief:

His statement of the facts were erroneous as follows:

• Page one: Appellant’s co-conspirator Windeon Sanders had heard that a drug dealer’s house contained 75 pounds of marijuana and $18,000 in cash. Windeon Sanders recruited one of his brothers, Shaun Sanders, the Appellant, to go burgle the residence of a supposed drug dealer, Kedran “Kiki” Shelby. (Windeon did not recruit his brother to steal drugs and money)
• Page two: Through a window, the two brothers broke into the victim’s house while the occupants were away. (R 8, 47; appellants confession page 2) (They did not break in, the window was open)
• Page three: For another five minutes or so thereafter, the two Sanders brothers continued to ransack the house, before departing back through the window that had provided their entrance (R. 5,111.) (Shaun left his brother before the murder)
• Page four: The appellant then volunteered to come in and talk to police. (R. 5, 384) During his discussion, he confessed to being present at the invasion of the home. (R6, 14.) He was arrested immediately. (Shaun made a statement the following day after he had been offered a side deal and held without being arrested.)
• Page four: Appellant stated in his written statement that the gun went off while Windeon was holding it when the victim grabbed his wrist. (Exhibit 1) (This is not a part of Shaun's written statement.)

Excerpts of Shaun's written statement:

He told me about going to Kiki's house and confronting him about kidnapping my brother Vincent. I didn't know really what was going to happen at Kiki's house, I just thought we was going to confront him. I told Windeon I didn't really want to go and confront Kiki because I knew what type of person Kiki was. They said that Kiki was a dope dealer and he had kidnapped my brother and beat him up and all that. I told Windeon I'm not going to go with him and went back inside the apartment.

We got to the house and I was checking the area out and Windeon said, "Let's go to the back...", and I was like let's go to the front door and see if Kiki is at home so that we can confront him.

He says that the back window was open. So now he says "Come on...Come on", and he goes on in the house through the window and I just stood outside. Windeon comes back to the window and tells me "come on...come on." So I followed his lead and I climb through the window into the house.

I was in the process of leaving and I was in the hallway heading to the window to leave, when I heard a struggle from the bedroom where the people were and I heard two pops...like gunshots. Then I was leaving out the window and I'm gone cause I didn't want to be there.

I left and just walked.

Moore made four points:

Points 1 and 2: The evidence brought to trial by the state was legally insufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Points 3 and 4: The trial court committed reversible error when it admitted the oral and written confession at trial.

 Summary of the arguments:

Appellant should not have been convicted of capital murder because each state's theory of culpability lacks an important element. The theory of capital murder in the course of committing a burglary cannot be sustained because the crime of burglary was completed before the shots were fired. No property was taken from the dwelling. The theories relying on either robbery or aggravated robbery cannot be sustained because the property sought to be stolen did not belong to the complainant.

This argument is absurd, antiquated and weak. It does not even begin to argue the basis of the law of parties.

Dear Mr. Sanders,
The Court of Criminal Appeals has informed me that your Petition for Discretionary Review, the attempt to overturn the Court of Appeals decision against you, has been Rejected. I regret that this is a far as I can take the process of appeal. You may appeal The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals to the U. S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. However, that would be an effort that you alone or you and retained counsel would have to undertake. Unfortunately, the U. S. Supreme Court only reviews a very small number of these cases where defendants ask for the review.
This means we have exhausted the means of reviewing your conviction and sentence in the State Court system, for which you may be furnished a free lawyer. You may still fill a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on your own behalf or through retained counsel with the U. S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. This must be filed within 90 days of the day Of the Court of Criminal Appeal’s refusal to hear your case was December 12, 2001. It is extremely difficult to get the Supreme Court to reconsider a case such as yours, but you might succeed. I regret that there is nothing further I can do for you.

Sincerely,
Roland B. Moore III

Moore's tape transcript: