Vasquez, Rafael ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • . I`O WK ,AlQ£L A(`f/&`\'C ' ' - `
    ()|UZK Qau/m*¢£C/?/\M1~AL~A;€@;ML§
    310(&0/1& COu/LT' {SL_AQ
    -`610111114"`# sr"\Z/m»
    ', 10 0 éq)< 1330% k
    `Au&“\`1w .' T'Q.M\S 7%'711»- 9308’
    E_______@M'. (?Q;(:<)\~QL$[G\§[D\).QZ» 1573%;111»!
    1100 1_:/1/1 msc '. REcE_\_vED_\N
    “ < YAUEQAMQL \/01§@113; 19 9§»€12»0¢383-¢051'.
    . qu§' C/l- ULQYS§~`l/JQ` OlolTQC/`\"'lfA/U§ 10 \(&LAL CQ1MF§ GQCI~€/E
    P€@ T:@< 14 1139 1@/¢‘111, /11113 73 <1 (3)<1>(31§01\
    :DFJ+Q `/I/W£ /ArC/_")R 1a j
    @Q~€-C"lA/Q§ S;{; \HI-€A§Q_ `p\A/`¢\ -Q/L/(`lmS-Q,) O/\)€
    _Cop_ §L,_£A¢;,qu_ga_/\,A_\{__Q;bf)"€_u M_ 10_ Th»L:`/.>. mng/gaz§_QLQ/¢_ww
    ama %331331_7 31 guns QQQF.VM{ ev AWQMM- n 1113
    QP/l\\§m) w…r o/u &/10/020/61 1516/cm 1101/113 10 we (Q)wrcrr:“>
    0JCAO~QL1CAT10/o O\AJ file
    . . ?|~mse 103 311 1<1~1! 143 n was/233 Th@se we…w
    . @BU'QCITUN§ A~/l&""` iiM~eL\// ~Qc\~<>.¢l. vD€@ T|/\.Q \@u|<§ _
    `W\~€ UZ¢c/UAL dlocwa~@~‘S howe MQ,¢_L§L¢IU_£ M_ 0 Q£QQ{_@¢,QIQ
    C()ufM Q\€l/LI(, oil w ®u~`r\/' '» Q;M/ `I`c) ilw §A'\J AA/`l?/Nlc) -
    O:H;c§e <§'_l'ka FDoBT\Qcc/T A°FOH/u£\l. \
    U/U‘Q)DTJJUOCPCL>/ `F\w `FQ_\SOA) MLuL./Z,oom l,\)'/m>/ze l`, AM
    laura 1/\0;& {Z€Qzun:/ M\\\MA~A\J M\z mci MCQ§§§§)Q¢,AJ|&_`TQQOALI_L{LSS»LL);CA/_Qlo_ oy\[¢_Q££gc_Q__
    AQH_;L¢J_§___§£_M i\M-€k'\/ SULe/\/\a &QtQ/U
    €>&va,\¢l._k\; /[QA§_.Q collm,\) M~Q \o T`l/v<\~l( Y@L) ¢/\J'_
    dAu/WC~§L won \/m)/L \<<~A Ca~g)de/ov) 1010
    QQ.S?QC’~(:Q n v Sul:m .`/-r-e d
    _QV/¢UJ M//?‘@,;¢,~;SD
    '?cr@:w.c \[Q,§owz ‘ Ap,vh¢;~r"
    $.1995“§1~06834¢2
    la was cover 06
    cnxmx§nc AP¥§§LS,
    wynn ' §
    §
    § ' Ausrxm, TEXAS
    §
    RAFAEL vasquez
    APPLIGABT° 8 BBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL CGURT’S GRBER
    DISMISSING TRE HRIT OF HABEAS CCRBUUB
    16 THE HBNQRABLE JBUT!CES'OF SAIB COURT¢ Greee£ngs.
    Gom§s now,'RaEa§l Vasque§, App11cant hereim, to timely 611§
    chi§, his 6b3e§aion§ to the 861§1 Cout£ia Ord§r dateddl?§bru§uyv
    23, 2015; Said order 1§ postmarked 3/5/2015, and was te§eived
    d by eve Appn¢§ne on 3/10/2015. rm, §§ am can (10) days co
    tionly £11§ his objections per T§K.R§App; Pro§., Rule 73.4(b).2)
    (Idse, 2616). Se§ al§o, Hogattn v. §§§§gés? 6.5.266, 161 L.Edl
    21 245, ms ',s.c .237§ (1933)(;»¢1@°§ munoz wl§>.
    .=.~,,§l ` ` `" l my ms cASE l 5 h W§&::r j
    §§ elowovember 36, 1995, eha A\§li§ant was §§nt§n§ed t§ life “"H'"“
    in TDCJ-ID and E1n§d §16, 666 §§11§§1§3 a verdict §§ guilty to
    the charg§ of aggravaeed annuailaaedulu of a §h11d after § jury
    tr1a1. Appl1§§nt's app§al was filed on May 6, 1996» 661 judgm§nt
    was affirmad.i¢¢§ 64-95‘0652¢06&& OA»QSUODSS*CR» Applioan¥ s
    £1rsc wr1¢ ¢ppll»a&£lonsought an ouc»§£-t1m§ §ppor£uni&y to 1116
    § Pec£eion for viscr§tiona!y 8661§§, only, §nd was denied w1ehouc
    written order on Ju1y 26, 6666 (WR»32,180~06). 6h§ 1n§t§nt §ppli§§§ion
    1a h1§ a§§on§ zequ§st»4 _ , , ~ 2» :»~ v
    ' " " ' " ALLBGATLQNS,QF *rs fUAPPLICMT ,~. § ~
    of counsel on ipp¢ll~ ¢§i`§ 4 6
    ' _;1.'~ *`
    2» In-Ground ¢wo, Applicanc alleges he was denied the right oE
    ee¢!lrepreseneatiou on appeal. n
    3. fn quund Three, Applicanz alleges the Trial Cou:t'e failure
    co remain fair and impartial denied Applic¢it’s_due process righ¢a.
    THE TRIAL CQURT'S FlHDINGS OF FACT AND CONGLUSIONS QF Lth
    1. Appl&eant‘s-£isae writ applial&on was denied without a written
    order on the Trial Court'a §ind&ngs with iaiu. ](uithduc) a hearing
    an July 28, 2004(WR»32,180-06)(heacing, if any, on affidavit
    only)¢ '
    2. Th&s Courc dogs non have jurisdiction.to consider the merits
    4of a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus “unless
    the application coniline sui£ioieu& speei£tc faces establishing
    that the current claims and taaues have nat bean and could nut
    have been presently previously in an original applicaztou." Tex¢
    Code Grim. proe. art. 11.0?, §h(a)(i)($esc 2016)»
    3. Thia Coucc finds than Applicane is pra¢ludad from bringing
    this aeuond wriz.applicalion based upon the subsequent writ pgoviaton
    in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07, §é(a)(l)(Veunon 2014)» Thé' l
    ` current claims and issues edilhltwete or could have been presented
    in Appl£aanz's first urie application. _
    6. Baaed on the foregoing findings of face and conclusions of
    law, 1a is hereby recommended that this alplicattou be diemissed.
    APPLICANT'$ OBJE§IICNS
    1. The T:£ald€€ure has informed this Honurable Cour; that eha
    Applieant's first writ application was deniel¢ and nhus, said
    2.
    ¢ninl enunt looks juzlodlotlon over hhs instant opplloonlon.
    The Seaco has made anononoucrlng allogoelon.
    As looloatod abovo, one "£lron nolo apolloatlon,“ sought
    only on ouoso£~zlmo opportunity to file ?DR. Tnus, neither eha fl
    £lrst nor cho instant opplloatlono sought no challenge the do
    underlying oonvlotlono or oonoonoo. Aoooodlngly, cho Tolaldcouot‘s
    sua sponte dismissal was improvident. _
    fn En¥?areo Evnnn 966 S¢U.Zé 663(?6$¢€¢1@.&99. 1998), bhlo.
    Honorablo Gourt held!
    "Boch the di£lnlolon of ’oonvlcelon' and_€hlo dwuuo’o
    case low negandi' wrlt applications le a us to cho
    oonoluoion that ¢~e ptooedurnl bow o£ §o Ton. G.G.P¢
    arn. ll.O?] lo llmlt¢d lo l\stonnea la which the initial
    ‘ application raises-claims regarding one validity of the
    proseouelon or judgment of guilt. lt does not appl to
    ololmo regarding other matters {wblon have nothing; top
    do wien the oonvlotlon ochor than shaving she noon fouum
    on £aoc~flndlng.»¢As o nooult, [Evons'o] application la
    nol¢barred by aeonlln 4 because Appllcant‘s pilot
    o pllnoelon did noe involve a claim ovl¢h¢hhollengee the
    '1$ 67 \ggn“az ¢.l|¢o¢e within the meaning of Acelolo
    ’»¢»»
    See also, E§l§§te¢nlwlinnon 958 S.W.Zd 198(Tex.€nim,hpp¢
    1997)(Tho norm "oonvlonlon,? encompasses judgmono and nonsense
    only).
    Hore, one instant application clearly essence shots
    "Applloane-hoo filed a W:ls of Habooo Conpuo smoking on
    out-o£vclmo appeal opportunity bulova eha loans court of Cnlminal
    Appeaw._ warsaw seem 39 s.u.aa` xae, xao(Mpp.~--re;uwnn
    2002, no penn wages mussz aaa s.w.zo 291, 293, n.`z('rm‘pp.-»
    ~El Paso, 1996, no peo). ?hlo’l¢tnoe an attack upon eha und¢o»
    lying oonvloslon. Seo, tn no coin 13? F»Bd 234, 235(5oh clr.
    ` 1998)..." _
    3»
    !'."
    Ancnxdingly, Applinann'objensn nn ann Tzial Cnurt's having
    'ggg agente and improvidently dismissing the instant application
    wichu!ltnnnsidering the merits 06 she_clains limdi!n.
    ?RAYEH
    Applicanc prays this Bonorabln Court REHAND the instant
    application bank to the Trial Couct Eor full consideratinn o€
    the merits o£ his nllegntions.
    :".) /. »~
    ""_ .¢' cgl/f ~l"
    .¢
    ii
    14 »` 7“
    aggpe¢z£ul; snbmseced
    fm ij 51 f F': ',»f:»»*"""""`°""'°"“'~\.’ ` ‘,,.\-
    *"»~ / ' r’-P':é'c;'.`."‘/ ff 4- ~
    UNSWOBN DECLARATIQH
    ...f'A }j/f‘_"» g
    uez, TDCJ 9 738216, an inmate confined in the Rameey`
    in:Brazoria Countm. Texns, event under penalty
    of perjury, chen the zone oing inns¢nmenn is anne and contend
    insofar as I understand t e applicable law to require.
    I, Rn£ael vnn§
    1 unit lennen
    szeegeee chip x;cn day as nar¢n, 2015.
    l; .f' ' ;'b _,. "~"`;
    . < 4 / .
    _, 1 ,.....,...,.....~..).,.4
    ¢/f Aw,.@¢»§f,,w,» ,-\
    :, ., ,» y » _ .» v 1 -,'
    I, Ra£eei Vasquen, TDCJ &?38216» mar and i££irm chen a true
    and nomplete nopy o£ this instrument was delivered by £i:nt class
    nnil, posenge prepaid, nn the nffien of the Bana: Gnunty Dinnrio¢
    A¢uo:nny, Er. Ninholas "Bicn" Launnd, at the Paul Eiizonlo’¥bner
    ~ .»San g“nin, Texas 78295£¥€€\1€€5 on the im
    !? ~@ v N\.EGZ
    `P §4@:°¥!’, aj “'F. _z'/` l
    K.¢V{; xi »' 5”1?%{,@ ¢AH.` ,.f§
    ' n an* "' J . T
    a ,¢” _, '¢',‘L,»;',,,¢
    4.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WR-32,180-08

Filed Date: 3/16/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016