Wilson, Charles Clay ( 2015 )

;~.
< •
Charles Clay Wilson, Pro Se
Wynne Unit, T.D.C.J.-I.D.# 521150
810 F.M. 2821 W.
Huntsville, Texas 77349
Charles Clay Wilson
Acts in Pro Se as counsel and criminal law in Pro Se on his own
behalf.
In the office of the Clerk
Abel Acosta, Clerk
P.O. BOX 12308, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711
Sir/or Madam,
Please be advised this Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas is hereby
given time within 15 days as required by Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 44.01
. '
(a) e.g. Appellant acknowledges the courts notice from the Court of Criminal
Appeal in cause No. Tr. Ct. No. 02f0236-102; WR-14,884-11, on 9/30/2015.
On this date or day, the Original Application for Writ of Mandamus has been received
and presented to the court on 10/21/2015. Appellant received notice from the
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas in Tr. Ct. No. 02f0236-102; WR-14,884-11
on 10/21/2015 has this day advise that the court has denied without written
order, Motion for Leave to file the criminal application for Writ of Mandamus.
-.
·~
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Charles Clay Wilson §
Relator Pro Se § WR-14,884-11
§ Tr. Ct. No. 02f0236-102
vs §
§
The Court of Criminal Appeals §
of Texas §
§
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO PUB(ISH
To the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas:
Now comes Chatles Clay Wilson, Appellant, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
and files this Motion to Publish, and move this Honorable court to publish the
opinion issued in the above~styled and number ·cause, for the following good
and sufficient reason, to wit:
On It>;).// :t.o lf." this court denied Appellant 1 s without written order motion
for leave to file the original application for Writ of Mandamus. And in doing
so, failed to considet importa~t issues regarding the application of due process
of law to constitutional right to address Notice of not filing a criminal.
complaint and a criminal proceeding, that is illustrated by our Motion for Leave
to file Original Application for Writ of Mandamus filed that date.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.4 sets forth standards for publication of appellate
opinion. Rule 47.4(b) provides that an opinion should be published if.it,
"invovles issues of constitutional lCIW or other legal issues important to the
jurisprudence of Texas."
1.
Appellant contends the order denying without written order, Motion for Leave
to File the Original Application for Writ of Mandamus, the opinion in this
case, fits squarely within 47.4(b). See WILSON V STATE, 139 S.W.3d 104 (Tex.
App~Texarkana, 2004). As shown by our motion, Motion for Leave to File the
Original Application for Writ of Mandamus filed herewith, our arguement, the
full panoply of rights afforded an accused in a criminal prosecution under our
system of jurisprudence should equally apply to a wrongful unconstitutional
conviction that deprived Appellant of his U.S. Constitutional right to due
process of law and his due course of law under the Texas Constitution. The trial
court lacked the jurisdiction to hear and try and convict Appellant upon an
indictment in Tr. Ct. No. 02f0236-102. That was illegally returned without a
criminal complaint being filed. The conviction is null and void since no
complaint was embraced in the transcript orr appeal, see COMPOSE V STATE, 141
S.W.2d 344, 139 Tex. crim. 411; HUMPHREYV STATE,99 S.W.2d 600; PETERSON V
STATE, 732 S.W.2d 22; DILTZ V STATE, 119 S.W. 92, 52 Tex. Crim. 127(Cr. App. 1909);
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION key 41(2); ROBINSON V STATE, 7 S.W. 531 (Tex. App. 1888);
STATE V BISHOP, 921 S.W.2d 765, see also .WILSON V STATE, 139 S.W. 3d (Tex. Crim.
App. Texarkana, 2004).
Appellant seeks to have this Honorable court to issue a recall order to ·vacate
the original opinion and mandate, in Wilson V State, 139 S.W.3d 104, supra, since
it comes to the attention of this Honorable court that Appellant was cited for
writ abuse and (11 .07 Sect. 4 V.A.C.C.P.). The trial court and the 5th court
of appeals, both_lacked jurisdiction to hear or try the case. The judgement and
sentence of 50 years, is null and void. Since no complaint was filed in this case,
no complaint in court record exists, and no complaint was embraced in the
transcript on appeal, the judgement and sentence and opinion and mandate
2.
must be recalled and vacated and a new opinion and mandate be issued to show a
dismissal of this case and cause No. 02f0236-102, and appeal No. 06-03-0172-CR,
which resulted in illegally being thy incarceration is an important issue of
Constitutional law.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Appellant prays this Honorable court for all above and foregoing
reasons, GRANT this Motion to Publish, and ORDER the opinion in this cause to
be published.
Respectfully submitted
Charles Clay Wilson
T.D.C.J.-I.D.# 521150
Wynne unit
810 F.M. 2821 W.
Huntsville, Texas 77349
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify on this~ day of November, 2015, a true and correct
copy of the above and foregoing Appellant NOTICE OF APPEAL, was mailed, First
Class, to the Clerk of the Court of Appeal of Texas, P.O. Box 12308 Capitol
Station, Austin, Texas 78711.
Is! tJ.,Mklu~Aa~4;;)
Eharles Clay Wilson
T.D.C.J.-I.D.# 521150
Appellant, Pro Se
Charles Clay Wilson §
Relator §
§ WR-14,884:...11
Vs § Tr. Ct. No. 02f0236-102
§
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals §
Respondant §
NOTICE OF APPEAL
THE COURT DENIED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
To the Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals:
Comes now, Charles Clay Wilson, Relator Pro Se in this above action on
this (0/~{ /2015 date and within 15 days of this court denied without written
order motion for leave to file the Original Application for Writ of Mandamus, -·
having been pronounced against Relator, files this written NOTICE OF APPEAL,
the court written order denied without written order motion for leave to
file the Original Application for Writ of Mandamus, from the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals, Respondant.
Relator gives his NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Supreme Court of Texas.
WHEREFORE, promises considered, Relator prays this NOTICE OF APPEALb~esntsr~d
entered of record with this date, ___/ ___/2015. And that further proceedings
be stayed pending the disposition of this appeal.
Signature of Attorney or
Pro Se counsel for Relator
Charles Clay Wilson §
Relator § WR-14,884-11
Vs. § Tr: Ct. No. 02f0236-102
§
The Texas Court of Criminal §
Appeals, §
Respondant §
§
NOTICE OF APPEAL
To the Honorable Judge of said court:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by and through the Justices of the above
Court of Criminal Appeals, advised that the court has denied the Without
Written Order Motion For Leave to File the Original Application for Writ of
Mandamus, and within 15 days of the Court of Criminal Appeals' court order,
filed this NOTICE OF APPEAL to the Supreme Court of Texas.
-;.The order appealed from is an order described order listed in Tex. Code of
Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 44.01 (a) e.g. dismissing the case since the trial court
lacked jurisdiction .to hear or try the cause t 02f0236-102, and appeal cause
No. 06-03-00172-CR. Since the Court of Appeals for the 5th District of Dallas
was required by law to reverse and dismiss the above cause for lack of jurisdiction,
neither court has obtained jurisdiction to try nor to hear nor to render any
judgement, sentence or appeal opinion. Mandate .and judgement should be vacated
and dismissed since there exists evidence on the face of the trial court record
/
on direct appeal that clearly shows that there is NO "CRIMINAL COMPLAINT"
which must be embraced in th etranscript on appeal in cause No. 06-03-0172-CR,
and Tr. Ct. No. 02f0236-102.
1.
See ~OMPOSE V STATE, 141 S.W.2d 344, 139 Tex. Crim. 411; HUMPHREY V STATE,
99 S.W.2d 600; PETERSON V STAT~,_732 S.W. ~d 22; DILTZ V STATE, 119 S.W. 92,
56 Tex. Crim. 1 27 (cr. App. 1 909); INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION key 41 ( 2);
ROBINSON V STATE, 7 S.W. 531 (Tex. App. 1888); STATE V BISHOP, 921 S.W.2d 765.
See, WILSON V STATE, 139 S.W.3d 104(Tex. App. Texarkana 2004) Relator is entitled
to have the order denying him the constitutional right to redress this Honorable
court since he has no other remedy available to him, since the state court cited
abuse of the Writ of Habeas Corpus against hi"m in the state and Federal courts
vJ 'dY -f(~gf I ·IJ. C.E) ~~- 1 ~' v;
:o:;a. CB.~
in cause No.s vJ'67-912'iJ?/-(l.~IJ.); Wf!..R~t#,f ;.3~ts--cv-()/~f-&,st~)
"f!Jo
3: lffo·-Cy.-~1-1(~~; ;a~o3-tv-3DL~ ~,Zf.J&I:;-wl lo~7~'J..l( ~~ £t4d:>,·T~ y~Jt.f.2.~~;
(j'{' 0. T.€l!•) IJ'JoPk~l by .)De~ wt, tlfl!"33ltf Nd/ .,-q; lliA1f lte,z.oo"T"Pff+Zt C'tt- w,&/Q~ tdrtl~~
Relator seeks this Honorable court permission to overrule the Court of Criminal
Appeals' order denying Relator the right to be "Granted" his motion for leave
to file original petition for Writ of Mandamus since the court of criminal appeal
rendered an unconstitutional order denying Relator to be granted his DUE PROCESS
OF LAW nad DUE COURSE OF LAW RIGHTS by the U.S. Constitution and Texas DUE PROCESS
OF LAW and DUE COURSE OF LAW to request the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to
grant him the permission to prosecute his Writ of Mandamus since.he has that
constitutional right to redress the court, or any higher court that has proper
jurisdiction to hear his claim by way of Writ of Mandamus; Since the trial court
th
and the 5 Court of Appeals of Dallas acted without jurisdiction to hear or·to
try and convict him without jurisdiction, and the Appellate court abused its
authority to grant a dismissal of the case: Since the trial court records clearly
show their is no criminal complaint embraced in the transcript on appeal,
neither court had jurisdiction to hear or render any judgement and sentence
and opinion and mandate in this case, in Tr. Ct. No. 02f0236-102, and appeal
\
2.
No. 06-03-017~-CR, other than to dismisi the case for lack of jurisdiction.
See WILSON y STATE, 139 S.W.3d 104(Tex. App. Texarkana, 2004).
Relator contends since the state D.A. and the Grand Jury returned an
indictment without a criminal complaint, deprived trial court of lack of ·:1
jurisdiction since noone swore out any criminal complaint in this case, and
they cited Relator for abuse of Writ of 11 .07, sec. 4, V.A.C.C.P., he has no
other remedy s~~ce he has been cited for writ abuse. Tex. Const. Art. V §
5 and 28; Art. 44.01, R~lator requests to vacate order denying him the Motion
for Leave to file Original Application for Writ of Mandamus, and grant him
his NOTICE OF APPEAL, and to vacate order denying the Relator Motion for
Leave to File original Application for Writ of Mandamus, see STATE OF TEXAS
EX REL JOHN B. HOLMES, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, APPLICANT V. HON. WOODY R. DENSON,
248 DISTRICT COURT, RESPONDANT, CITED AS 671 S.W.2d 896, 1984, Tex. Crim.
App. Lexis 690 No. 69,257, debided June 27, 1984. See also IN RE FUENTES, (~)
S.W. 2d 261; IN RE ROLLINS LEASING INC., 987 S.W.2d 633. See also, the
Authority of Texas Constitution, Art. 5 sect. 5; Art. 4;04 V.A.C.C.P.
Relator alleges that Respondant exceeded his (or) her authority by issuing
an order denying Relator Motion for Leave to file origin~l Application for
Writ of Mandamus. Mandamus is appropriate if " A Judge acts beyond his statutry
authority WHITE V REITER, 640 S.W.2d 586 (1982) ... 11 held in blanc.
The state D.A. and the Grand Jury both, violated Articles 2.03, 2.04, 2.05,
15.04, 16, 16.1v, 21.22, and 27.01 of Tex. Code of Crim; Proc.
By returning the indictment in 02f0236-102 without a criminal complaint being
\
filed by any creditable person the state, and the D.A., and the Grand Jury
3.
violated V.A.C.C.P. 20.19 and 21 .20. Thus conspiring and viblating the Relator's
constitutional rights to return a illegal null and void indictment without a
criminal complaint, which deprived the trial court of its jurisdiction in
this case.
Relator is entitled to have the cause reversed and vacated and dismissed with
prejudice and the opinion and mandate be recalled and vacated and a new
opinion and mandate granting Relator a Judgement of dismissal.
The Appellate court need not render for entry of judgement of acquital or
dismissal, but may itself remder that judgement, e.g. BETV V STATE, 734 S.W.
2d 62-65 (Tex. App. Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd).
WHEREFORE promises considered, Relator respectfully requests and asks if
this Honorable Justices find that the Respondant, the Court of Criminal
Appeals, has overlooked the lack of the court jurisdiction cited above whether
there is no court record of a criminal complaint embraced in th etranscript
on appeal. The state D.A. and the trial court prosecuted Relator without a
criminal complaint being filed by a creditable person who does not exist, nor
is there any court record exist harging Relator with a crime, since noone filed
a criminal complaint under Art. 2.03, 2.04, 2.05; also V.A.C.C.P. art. 21.22
and 27,01'.
4.
WHEREFORE, promises considered, the Relator prays that this NOTICE OF
APPEAL be entered of record. And that further proceedings be stayed pending
the disposition of this appeal.
@toJ~D C~~t.J.iLOQl
Signature of Relator acting
as Pro Se counsel for
'Relator
5.