McIntosh, William Arthur ( 2015 )

William Mcintosh
TDCJ-Id No. 688254
Robertson Unit
12071 F.M. 3522
Abilene, Texas 79601
Clerk/ Abel Acosta
Court of Criminal Appeals
P.O. BOX 12308,
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
February 18, 2015
Mr. Acosta,
Sir, please find enclosed my motin for re-hearing if you would be so
kind as to file same with the court I would really appreciate it. thank you
in advance for your assistance.
Sincerely,
William Mcintosh
FEB 2 3 201!
WR-26,858-06
Tr. Ct. No. 20,084-CR
William Arthur Mcintosh In the Court of
§
VS. § Criminal Appeals
§
State of Texas § Of Texas
§
MOTION FOR REHEARING
Comes Now/ William Arthur Mcintosh, Defendant, In the above styled and
nyumbered cause and would respectfully ask this to court ot rehear his Motion
To Compel for the following reasons:
I.
This Court in In RE Bonilla, 424 S.W.3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)
decided that athe District Clerk could not block a pro se litigant from
accessing the courts. . This case is similiar to the case in InRE Bonilla
as Mcintosh wrote to the District Attorney and requested the ooportunity
to purchase copies of part of the record. Namely some medical records and
copies of his interview with the police as well the victims interview. The
District Attorney denied that quoting from 552.028. Mcintosh then wrote to
the judge of the court and asked him to inform the District Attorney to comply
with the request. Nothing happened. Then tMcIntosh filed a Motin to Compel
with this court which then denied without written order on2-ll-2015..
II.
This court has went against what it decided in In Re Bonilla when it
declined to hear Mcintosh's Writ of Mandamus (Motion To Compel)By doing so
this court is not blocking Mcintosh from access to the ocurts which the Supreme
Court has stated in is "a Denial of [his] access to court which is a fundamental
right under the constitution." see Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97
S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1977); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485, 89
89 S. Ct. 747, 21 L. Ed. 2d 718 (1969). We Agree. In Re Bonilla424 W. 3d 528
So this court agrees with Bonilla but then when another person comes before
this court asking for the same assistance you no longer agree. I Mcintosh
has found no evidence that In Re Bonilla, has beenii overturneds o it should
still stand. The only differnece is that Bonilla asked for his paperwork
from the District Clerk whereas Mcintosh has asked for paperwork from the
District Attorney. This paperwork is vital especially since the new Habeas
Statute 11.073 has come into being. To be able to contest the medical evidence
at the time one would need to be able to access the said medical evidence
and present it to the proper experts. Barring that this court should appoint
an attorney so that Mcintosh may have the evidenc accessed and presented
to an expert for review and get an expert report that way.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMIESES CONSIDERED, Mcintosh woudl ask this court to
reconsider his Writ of Mandamus and grant him said Writ so that in the interest
of justice he may access said records and present them to his set of experts
and see if the findings will hold up to the test of time. He would also
ask the court to grant any other findings they deem fit.
William Arthur Mcintosh
MovantPro Se
Robertson Unit
12071 F.M. 3522
Abilene, Texas 79601
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I William A. Mcintosh do hereby cerityf and verify that a true and correct
copy has been served upon Patrick Wilson District / Attorney of Ellis Courty
Texas via First Class Mail.
William MCjnoths
February 18, 2015