Cisneros, Felix Hernandez AKA Cisneros, Felix ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                           CAUSE NO. F11-60536-U
    ~J81Q 'BlSOOV   1aqv
    IN RE
    FELIX CISNEROS                        §                IN THE TEXAS COURT
    v.                                                    OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
    THE STATE OF TEXAS                                         AUSTIN, TEXAS
    Sl'v'3dd\!JHI'~I~fti~~:k~fi1P8
    Nl Q3l\13Q3U
    TO THE HONORABLE UUSTICES OF SAID COURT:
    COMES NOW, FELIX H. CISNEROS, Petitioner herein; and would
    respectful1y show this Court the following:
    Petitioner (Cisneros) was convicted in the 291st Judicial District
    Court fo~ Aggravated Sexual Assualt with ~ Deadly Weap6n and          .
    sentenced to serve a Life sentence in the Texas Department of Cri~inal
    Justice-Institutional Division on October 25, 2012. Cisneros' direct
    appeal was mandated on June 25, 2014. He then filed his Writ of
    Habeas corpus, Art. 11.07 (TEX. CODE CRIM. P.) on April 7, 2015. He
    subsequently filed a petition 4nto that Court to order the State
    to answer his writ pursuant to TEX. CODE .CRIM. P. ·Art. 11.07 §3(b);
    however this was met with silence.                      ·
    Traditionally, a writ of mandamus is issued only to compel the
    performance of a ministerial act or duty, but the writ is also
    available to correct a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court.
    Further, a trial court abuses its discretion for mandamus purposes
    if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount
    to a clear and prejudicial error of law. In RE H.E.Butt Grocery Co.,
    
    17 S.W.3d 360
    (Tex. 2000), 366-67; Walker v. Packer, 82/ S.W.2d 833,
    839·:'(Tex. 1992). ·                                .
    Mandamus may be available upon: 1) a showing that a trial court
    clearly abused its discretion. b~ failing to correctly apply the law,
    and 2) the benefits and detriments of mandamus render appeal
    inadequate. In RE, Pi~er, 
    105 S.W.3d 107
    (Tex. 2003); In RE Schmitz,
    
    285 S.W.3d 451
    (Tex.  009)     ..   .                         ·
    For mandamus purposes, a ministerial act requirement is requirement
    that Relator has "a clear right to the relief sought," meaning that
    the relief sought must be "clear and indisputable" such that its
    merits are "beyond dispute" with "nothing left to the exercise of
    discrection or judgement.'" 
    Id. Piper, at
    108[4].
    Furthermore, a trial court      has no discretion in de~ermining what
    the law is or in applying the      law to facts, thus, said failure by
    the trial court to analyze or      apply the law correctly will ~onstitute
    an abus~ of discretion. In RE      Paso Del Norte Surg. Ctr., 281 S~W. 3d
    521 (Tex. 2008).
    Texas Code of··eriminal Procedure, Art. 11.07 §3(b) reads in
    ·pertinent part that the attorney representing the State "shall
    answer the application not later than the 15th day after the date
    the copy of the application is recieved." This statute is clear.
    Cisneros filed his post conviction writ of habeas corpus into the
    291st Judicial District Court on April 7, 2015 and to date, the
    State has failed to answer said writ.
    §3 (b) ~lso states that the court clerk is· responsible for
    insuring the application is assinged to that court. For this purpose,
    right or wrong, Cisneros is presuming the clerk of the court has
    complied with her mini~terial duty.
    §3 (c) ord~rs the convicting court to decid~ whether there are
    controverted; previously unresolved facts material to the legality
    of applicant s confinement. With or without findings, the clerk
    is suppose to file all of the documents into the Court of Criminal
    Appeals.: Tb aate, Cisneros has not recieved no'tice from any court
    pertaining to his writ of habeas corpus.         ·
    The law is clear and indisputable. The court recieved notice from
    Cisneros that the State's ministerial duty had been abandoned, and
    given the court's knowledge of this fact atid its failuie to rectify
    the problem, renders its decisions here arbitrary and unreasonable-
    a clear abuse of discretion-leaving only mandamus as the viable
    remedy.
    Cisneros would ask the Honorable Court by way of relief, to order
    the 291st Judicial Court to fulfill its ~inisterial duty and demand
    the State to properly answer his writ of habeas corpus as the law
    prescribes.                                  ·
    Petitioner prays this Honorable Court will grant the appropriate
    relief as requested.
    Under penalty of perjury, Petitioner, Felix Cisneros, avers
    to all .of · the facts and statements herein. He also swears that
    a copy of this mandamus was forwarded to the convicting court .
    . )-   .
    Signed this JS-.-:day of· De~_ember, 2015.
    Mr. Felix H. Cisneros
    # /Fc:!~9 7t.     .
    TDCJ-ID-Bilr Clements Unit
    9601 Spur 591
    Amarillo, TX 79107
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WR-84,290-01

Filed Date: 12/7/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016