CAUSE NO, 2015-2288-CI ‘THE STATE OF TEXAS: § IN THE 19" DISTRICT v ; coutror MARCUS PLKINGTON ; MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS mon1oN 10 oussttand OBJECTION TO AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENT UNDER TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ART. 28.106) ‘TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES Marcus Pilkington, by and through his atorneys Paul C. Looney and Mark ‘Thiessen, and files this Motion to Quash and Objection to Amendment ofthe indictment in this ‘ase, As grounds therefore, the Defendant will show the following ‘Texas does not allow for superseding indictments ‘A felony case in Texas must proceed by indictment, but cannot proceed by TWO indictments. Yet thet is what the State has apparently attempted to do herein, although itis not entirely clear whether the State intends the new indictment to supplant orto merely supplement the prior indictment, which has not formally been dismissed. The State issued a new indictment carrying the same eause number as the original indictment in this case, yet charging a different offense. An indictment cannot be ‘supplemented’ or superseded by way ofa new indictment, There jis nothing in statute, rule or law that allows the State to do what they have attempted to do herein, [New charges require « new indictment, proceeding under a new eause number. Once a ease has been initiated by indictment, the indictment can be amended, but such amendments can only be ‘made pursuant to Tex.Code Crim.Proe, Ans, 28.10 and 28.11. These procedures were wholly ‘ignored by the State, and therefore the indictment issued on May 9, 2018 inthis ease is improper 8 a matter of law and must be quashed and dismissed.Leave of Court Al amendments oan inditment or nformation shall be made with eave ofthe cour and under its dretion. Tex Coe Crim. Proe, Ar. 28.11. At no point did he State seek eave of court ‘o amend the indictment in this cause, At no point di this Honorable Court ever det the State ‘o amend the indictment inthis cause. The State had no authorization to alter the prior indictment in this mater in any way, and the re-indietmen, supplemental indictment, andlor supeseing indictment purporting to amend the indictment in this cause is invalid as matter of law and must be quashed, Moreover, by not making it lear if this new indictment iso supplement or supplant the prior indictment, the State has unnecessarily thrown the case into Himbo: unless the new indictment is quashed, the Defendant cannot know what allegations he isto defend against Notice to Defendant A mutter of form or substance in an indictment or information may be amended at anytime before the date the Wal on the merits commences afer notice to the defendant, Tex.Code (im. Proe, Art 28.10(. No such note was ever provided to Mr Pilkington or his couse. It is ‘beyond cavl thatthe indictment rtured on May 9, 2018 purported to make substansive changes tothe charges Mr. Pilkington is facing, because i alleged an entirely new and distinct cause of action involving new factual issues that were not so much as mentioned inthe orignal ndexment. Because no such notice wes given othe Defendant or his counsel, any purported amendment to {he indictment in this case is necessarily improper as a matter of law and must be quashed. Quashed on Objection ‘Moreover, an indictment may not be amended over the defendant's objection as to form oF substancs the amended indictment or information charges the defendant with an additional or different offense or ifthe substantial rights of the defendant are prejudiced. Tex.Code Crim.Proc. Art. 28.10(e). The second indictment charges the Defendant with an entirely diferent offense, involving certain different facts than the original indictment alleged. This clearly prejudices theDefendant's substantial rights. Thus, the re-indietment must be quashed on objection by the Defendant. The Defendant hereby formally objects fo these changes of substance and form and requests thatthe new indictment in this ease, returned May 9, 2018, be quashed and dismissed. Respectflly submitted: Mark Thiessen LOONEY & CONRAD PC ‘THIESSEN LAW FIRM Email: info@looneveonrad.com Email: mark@hetexastialattorney.com, 11767 Katy Freeway, Ste. 740 733 E. 12% Street Houston, Texas 77079 Houston, TX 77008 Tel: (281) 597-8818, Tel: 713-864-9000 Fax: 281) 597-8284 SBOT#: 24042025 SBOT#: 12555900 Certificate of Service |eestify that a true copy of the above was served on the MeLennan County District, é Paul C. Looney ‘Attorney by United States Mail on June 4, 2018.CAUSE NO. 2015-2288-C1 ‘THE STATE OF TEXAS 5 IN THE 19% DISTRICT § v. § court oF § MARCUS PILKINGTON 5 MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER (On this day, » 2018, comes the Defendant and moves thatthe indictment issued on May 9, 2018 against him be quashed, as an improper amendment tothe original indictment in his case, He also has formally objected to this amendient to the charges against him under Tex.Code Crim Proc. At. 28,10(¢) Having considered the law and the fet and the arguments of counsel, this motion is GRANTED and the May 9, 2018 indictment alleging the offense of RIOT is quashed, dismissed, and stricken from this case. Judge Presiding