Demanding Written Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Memoranda Rationale for the Denial of New Trial

Case Style: The State of Texas v. Karmelo Sincere Anthony
Cause Number: 296-83565-2025
Court: 296th District Court of Collin County, Texas
Judicial Officer: Judge B. Michael Chitty, Senior District Judge (Sitting by Assignment)
Subject Order: Order Denying New Trial (Signed August 22, 2026)

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE B. MICHAEL CHITTY:
We, the undersigned citizens, legal advocates, and members of the public concerned with the integrity of the judicial system, petition this Court to issue a formal, comprehensive written opinion accompanied by detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the August 22, 2026 denial of the Defendant's Motion for New Trial.

I. The Constitutional Necessity of a Reasoned Record on Post-Trial Review
Following evidentiary hearings conducted on August 20–21, 2026, this Court entered a standard pre-printed, boilerplate order checking off a denial without articulating any legal framework, evidentiary evaluation, or statutory interpretation. Under Texas criminal jurisprudence and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution, litigants facing severe deprivations of liberty are entitled to more than administrative fiat.

Without a reasoned judicial opinion, appellate review is hampered, and the bedrock principle that courts must state the essential findings upon resolving substantial factual and legal disputes is undermined. A bare checklist order eviscerates transparency, leaving the public and appellate courts to speculate on whether constitutional errors raised in the motion were properly considered under governing Texas law.

II. Direct Parallel to Prior Procedural Secrecy and Grounds for Recusal
This demand for transparency directly implicates and mirrors the core arguments raised in the underlying motions for recusal and judicial disqualification in these proceedings. The structural defects and procedural secrecy that characterized the earlier phases of this litigation—where critical decisions were shielded from public accountability and open judicial scrutiny—created the appearance of impropriety and institutional bias that necessitated judicial recusal challenges in the first instance.

A boilerplate, unreasoned denial order perpetuates this exact culture of opacity. When profound questions regarding fundamental fairness, evidentiary weight, and constitutional protections are dispatched behind closed doors via check-box orders, it reinforces public perception that justice is administered without accountability, directly echoing the systemic secrecy that triggered prior judicial recusals.

III. Prayer and Public Demand
Public confidence in the independence and integrity of the Collin County judiciary requires that rulings affecting constitutional freedoms be transparent, verifiable, and legally supported.

THEREFORE, WE DEMAND: That Judge B. Michael Chitty vacate the bare order or promptly supplement the record with a formal, written memorandum of decision setting forth specific Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law explaining the legal and factual basis for denying the Motion for New Trial in State v. Karmelo Sincere Anthony.