This document contains some 

pages that are of poor quality 

at the time of imaging. 

EXPARTE' 

Isaias Palacios 

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Cause Nos. 

§ 

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

To The Honorable Judge of Said Court: 

I RECE~VED ~N OOURT OF CRIMINAl APPEALS 

I FEB 09 2015 

I Abd Aeom1, Clerk 

I 

CR36475 & CR36477 

I 

I 

I 

Comes now, Isaias Palacios, petitioner ·±n the above styled and numbered cause 

I 

of action and files this original Application For Writ of Man<;Jamus, pursuant to 

Art. 11.07 Section 3(c) of the Texas Code of 

show the court the following: 

I 

Criminal Procedure 

i 

I. I 

I 

and would respectfully 

There i~ no known practice of barring non-capital state writ applicant's from 

I 

filing a supplemental application. As indicated above nothing I in art. 11.0 7 res ticts 

an applicant from filing a supplemental argument. Tex. Rules of Appellate procedures, . I . . 

Rule 73 applies to "postconviction r3pplications for writ of h~abeas corpus" and 

I 

I does not address supplemental applications. Therefore, pursuant to T.~C.C.P. art. 

I 

11.07 §3(c) petitioner moves this Honorable Court of CriminaljAppeals to grant his 

mandamus because there is substantial controversy· as m3terial lfacts which wiil 

I 

entitle petitioner to relief as a matter of law. 

II. 

Petitioner filed his original writ of habeas corpus 11.07 in the 142nd 

I 

Judicial District Court, Midland County, Texas.on oc about the 8/11/2014. Petitioner, 

I 

Page 1 
I 

filed a .supolemental argument in support; thereof, supplementing the original 

argument found in ~round (4) four, which the prosecution wit~he1d exculpatory as t·'" .. /. 

well as impeachment evidence on or about the 8/22/2014. See exhibit (a) supplemental 

argument, which the trial court.had 

expired as of this date. Therefore, 

a :)uty to rule 'on within 135 _days which has 

pursuant to art._ 1!.07 §3(c), failure of the - -- i 

I 

court to act within the allowed 35 days shall constitute a forwarding of the 

. I. l l I 

Cr~~~na Appea s. ~~weyer, 

I 

petitioner's supplemental argument to the Texas Court of 

petitioner's case has been before the court for 1 

~ months and s- days and he 1'---

has no other adequate remedy available. 

III. 

The act sought to tx:{~~ompelled is ministerial , not discretionary in nature. 

T.C.C.P. art. 11.07 §3(c) requires respondent to i'inmediately transmit to the Court 

of Criminal Aopeals a copy of the 11.07 habeas corous "supplemental argument," any 

I 

answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon #hicB that filing was made, 

if the convicting court decides that there are no issues to Je resolved. At this 

I 

time there has been no cooy of the supplemental l_L 0 7 · arqumeqt, answers filed, nor 

f .l. I · d h ~ ~ng was tr.ansm1tte to t e Court 

I 

a certificate reciting the date upon which that 

i 

of Criminal Aopeals. However, had such documents been transmitted to the Court 

of Criminal Appeals by Respondent as required by statute, peJitioner 

I -

would have 

received notice from the court. 

I 

IV . 

. In order to obtain mandamus relief in a criminal matter, .a petitioner must I 

I 

meet a two-prong test. First, petitioner must show that he has no other: adequate - I 

remedy to seek redress for the alleged error by the trial court. See Board of Pardons 

I ---------

and Parole:3 v .• Court of A£Peals,· 910 s.w. -· 2d 481, 483 (Tex. Grim. 

I 

App_. 1995). There 

is no other remedies in petitioner's case for his suppl em en ta11 argument to be heard 

I 

I 

Page 2 
I 

I 

I 

I 

by the Court of Crinia l Appeals ,. or federal court 1 s because the trial court · is . - . I 

holding oe_. ti tioner 1 s supp.lemental 11.07, argument and has not made a ruling. Secondly, I - . . 

the act petitioner seeks to compel must be ministerial in nature under art. 11.07, 

it is ministerial for the trial court to rule on the 11.07 sJpplemental argument, 

so that the Court of Criminal Appeals can consider his claimJ. See Hilbig v. 

ld 877 2d 469 h . ,, ~- · t .I . th 1 McDona , _s. W. __ . __ . Moreover. ·a t eoret1.ca.L .... y c.u...:;;cre ~onary act my non e ess 

become ministerial in application if the facts and circum.3tances of given case lead 

! 

to, but one rational course of action. See Braxton v. Dunn, 803 s.w. 2d 318, 320. The 

- I 

Court of Criminal Appeals also recog:1izes a clear right to tHe relief sought as 

1- being functional equivaleni: of. a mini.steral rJCt. Holmes v. THird Court of Appeals, No. 

71, 764 N. 4 slip. op at 5, 1994 WL 135476, Tex. Crim. App. ~pirl 20, 1994; _Whitsitt 

v. Ramsay, 719 s.w. 2d 333. 

v. 

PRAYER 

I WHEREFORE, PREMISES mNSIDERED, petitioner respectfully r,equest a findino that 

I 

I 

the Respondent did not transmit docu1nents to the Co'.lrt of Criminal I App:=als within 

I 

a r-easonable time after th·~ date they were requested and that petitioner brought 

this litigation in good faith and has substantially prevailed. Petitioner prays 

for an order directinq Respondent to transmi tt a copy of the ln. 07 supplemental 

argument of habeas corpus, ~ny answers filed, and a certific:ate reciting the date 

upon which that ftndinq was made to the 

Article 11.07 Section 3(c) of the Texas 

Court of Criminal App~als as directed in 

Code of C:Limiiial -Procldures and all relief 

as requested, which is set out in exhibit (a). 

Page 3 

l 

I 

~ 

Respectfully 

~ 

Submitted 

2/:J/2o/Srsaias Palacio~ 

1675 South FM 8525 

Colorado City,l1 Texas 

79512 

I 

I 
- l 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I Isaias Palacios, hereby certify that a true copy of the!above Application 

For Writ of Mandamus was served on the Clerk of the Texas Coutt of Criminal Appeals . I 

in Austin, Texas on J day of Febcuacy 

the u.s. Mail at the Wallace Unit. 

page 4 

,2015, by placinq a ::::opy in 

I 

I I 

~~ I . 

I 

I 

I 

I 
f ":"-

EX parte 

(EXHIBIT 1-a) 

/ FIL.ED 

CAUSE NOS • CR 36-4 75 & CR 36-4 77 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Ct:ARISSA GRANADO, ; ;: :: I ... ' 

IN THE DISTR:i:CT·T:·o!JRT··-FOR .. . 

Isaias Palacios 

Pro'Se Applicant 

§ 

I 

l42ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

§ MIDLAND !COUNTY, TEXAS . 

§ 

I 

SUPPLEMNETAL 11.07 APPLICATION WITH BRIEF IN SUPI!ORT 

Applicant, Isaias Palacios.asks this Honorable Court to gJant his 

I 

I 

"original 

application" challenging his conviction in CR 36-475 and CR 36-477, or in the 

! 

alternative grant relief based on his "supplemental applicatidn" by finding tl":le 

prosecution withheld favorable evidence that was material to Jpplicant's defense. I 

I 

Applicant requests a hearing on said matter. Applicant stands ion the arguments 

presented in his "supplemental application" as well as all prJvious arguments 

I made in his "original application." 

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATIO~ 

! 

USE OF SUPPLEMml'AL APPLICATION. 

There is no known practice of barring Non-capital state 

from filing a supplemental application. As ·:indicated above 

11.07 restricts an applicant from filing a supplement. Rule 

I. l. . wrll.t app 1.cat1ons 

ndthing in Article 

I • I 

73 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure applies to "Postconviction Applications' for the Writ of 

Habeas Corpus" and does not address supplemental applications.

1 

Rule 68.10 of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allows a party to file a supplemental petition 

for discretionary review '!at any time when justice requires." 

Page 1 I ' .,.;.; 
STATEMENT OF THE FACI'S I 

I 

The indictment forming the basis of the prosecution of the applicant was centered 

I 

on a series of events, which occurred in and around an satablfshment in Midland I 

known as Riley's Bar and Grill. (RR-Vol. 3, PP. 39-40, 101, 144-145, 196). On May I 

I 

. ' 

25, 2009, Palacios was a customer at Riley's Bar, enjoying some drinks with his . I 

common-law wife and her mother. ( RR-Vol. 5, PP .. 83, 8 7-89) . I 

According to the testimony by Detective Bill Anderson, thJre was a video I 

showing several male subjects scuffling with Palacios. He states, (someone)-he I 

viewed the video, and knew of its existence, did not try to djwn load it, nor 

contact someone who could, or retrieve it. Next he did the unthinkable, he did 

I 

not mention this video and its viewing·in his investigation relport. (RR-Vol. 5, 

·I 

PP. 6-14). I 

Palacios' mother-in-law testified that Palacios, Indian Joe, and herself were 

I at a table; Palacios and she were playing around when Jamie Mejndez.BLIND SIDED 

I 

[emphasis added] Palacios from the back, Palacios never saw it coming. Mendez 

and two other guys pulled Palacios around the end of the pool !table, and just kicking 

and whooping him. They beat Palacios in· two different points iln the bar before 

I 

I taking him outside. (RR-Vol. 5, PP. 31-42). I 

I 

I 

Jamie Mendez stated, "I remember putting him down." (RR-Vol. I 5, p. 14-25). 

. I Steven Taft, another patron in the bar, helped assault applicant or restrain him 

being a former Marine and being trained in Police Apprehension! restraining techigues. 

Taft stated, "After applicant got up, and·he went to the SlN 

on his face, like not emotional at all, it was a blank look. 

clear as day in my mind." (RR-Vol. 3 pp. 228-230). 

I II remember the 

And I remember I 

I 

I 

Cristina Franco described the incident as more of a b . I eat~ng than someone 

look 

that 

escorting Palacios out of the bar. She states they held Palacios down while kicking him 

Pabe 2 
I 

I 

beating like that (RR-Vol. 3, pp. 156, 157 1-3). 

and when they let him up; he walked away. He was. just weird, if 

I 

I 

I had gotten a 

When Palacios entered his SUV, the testimony showed that 1he drove his SUV in 

such a manner that he ran into other motorcycles and vehicles 1

, subsequently 

pinning a woman between a truck and a motorcycle. She was able to run away after 

Palacios backed up (RR-Vol. 4, PP. 14-126, 78-84). ! 

*Pete Payan testified that, somebody hit Palacios, he fell to the ground, so 

i 

many "PEDPLE" [emphasis added] involved in it. ( RR-Vol. 4, ·p. i 11; 8-12) ; there was 

I 

a bunch of "PEOPLE" on top of him, kicking him, just hitting !;im. (RR-Vol. 4, P. 

I 

12; 18-20) ~ There was a bunch of "PEOPLE" around this guy. (RR-Vol. 4, P. 13; 1-4). A· 

I 

woman pushed me out of the way??? (RR-Vol. 4, P. 15; 1-5, 18-25). NO WOMAN was 

I 

struck we both got out the way (RR-Vol. 4, P. 16; 9-17) . He ran into one motorcycle ! 

then another truck, or another motorcycle BUT DIDN'T hit any woman. (RR-Vol. 4, P. 

16; 1-4). 

Palacios' wife entered the SUV by diving through a windowland the two left 

Riley's in their vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed. (RR-Vol. 3, P. 122; I 

Vol. 4, P. 33). As applicant was leaving Riley's Bar, Midland!Police Officer, Richard 

Lewis was arriving in response to a report of a disturbance at Riley's Bar. (RR1 

Vol. 4, PP. 178-179) Officer Lewis instructed applicant to stop his vehicle in 

the bar's parking lot, while at the same time observing numertus people pointing 

at Palacios' vehicle (RR-Vol. 4, PP. 179-180). Instead of sto¢ping, Palacios I 

proceeded away from Riley's where upon officer Lewis activate~ his emergency equipment, 

I 

hitting his siren a couple of times. (RR-Vol. 4, PP. 181-182)~ Applicant continued to 

! 

drive from Officer Lewis traveling some ten to fifteen miles ~ver the posted speed 

limit, finally stopping in the front yard of a residence. (RRtVol. 4, PP. 182-183). 

I 

I 

Page 3 
i 

At the time of applicant's arrest, Officer Lewis also testifi~ that he observed 

I 

several marks on applicant's face and chest, that applicant repeatedly stated, 

"They beat me up, they beat me up." (RR-Vol. 4, P. 184). At that time Officer Lewis 

I 

I 

arrested Palacios for evading arrest and ag-gravated assault. (1RR-Vol. 4, P. 191) • 

I 

At trial applicant presented evidence from various witness1es to the effect 

I 

that he was ·injured during the altercation at Riley's Bar befdre he entered his 

I 

vehicle and drove it. Applicant's wife, Shanna Parker, testifi1ed that she had left 

I 

Riley's to get some money, and upon her return saw three men swinging applicant 

I 

and throwing him out of the bar. (RR-Vol. 5, PP. 97-101). According to Ms. Parker, 

I 

these men appeared to be trying to hurt applicant. (RR-Vol. s,: P. 101). More I 

specifically, Ms. Parker testified that she saw these men hitting, kicking, and 

shoving applicant to the ground. (RR-Vol. 5, PP. 105-114). I 

I 

I 

SUPPLEMENTAL GROUND FOR RELIEF: The prosecution withheld exculbatory as well as 

I 

impeachment evidence that was material to the applicant's defehse theory, and 

I therefore, violated applicant's 5th and 14th Amendment Rights to the United States 

I 

Constitution. I 

I 

ARGUMENTS AND AlJI'HORITIES 

When an applicant claims that the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence I 

I 

and thereby, violated his right to due process, the applicant ~st satisfy a threepronged test: First, applicant must show that the state failedjto disclose eviden~e, 

I 

regardless of the prosecution's good or bad faith. Second, appticant must show 

that the withheld evidence is favorable to him. And finally, abplicant must show I. 

that the evidence is material that is, there is a reasonable probability that had 

I the evidence been diclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different. 

I 

I 

See Exparte Richardson, 70 s.w. 3d at 870. I 

The UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has consistently held that 1a suppression or 

negligence of a prosecutor to learn of any evidence known to o~hers acting ~n the 

Page 4 
government·' s behalf is a due process violation under Brady standard. Standard 

i 

for review: .In Strickler y. C"..reene 119 s.ct. 1936 1948 (1999). In Bradv, this I -

court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an 

I 

accused upon request violated due process where the evidence is material either to 

I 

guilt or punishment, irrespective of good faith or bad faith of prosecution." 

i 

Id. at 87, 83 s.ct. 1194. The court has since held that the dDty to disclose such 

I evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, United 

I 

States v. Agurs, 96 s.ct. 2392 (1976). And that duty encompas~es impeachment evidence 

I 

I 

as well as exculpatory evidence. United States v. Brady, 105 s.ct. 3375 (1985) 

I 

Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable proba~ility that, had the 

evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the prooeedings would have 

I 

been differenL" Id. at 682, 105 s.ct. 3375; see also Kyles v. Whitley, ll5 s.ct. 

I 

1555 (1995). Moreover, the rule encompasses evidence "known only to police investigators 

I 

and not the prosecutor." Id. at 438, 115 s .ct. 1555. In order I to comply with Brady, 

therefore, "the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence 

I 

known to the others acting on the government·'s behalf in this !case, including the 

police." Kyles at 437, 115 S.Ct. 1555. 

Ms. Thurmond, the prosecutor for the state, requested a hearing outside the 

presence of the jury on March 10, 2011, to preface her remarkS about Detective 

Bill Anderson, who was the lead detective on this case. Ms. J,urmond, states that 

' 

a week or two before trial that Detective Anderson, made her aware that Riley's 

had a camera system inside the bar, and that at one point the1e was a recording of 

the incident in the· bar of May 25, 2009. Anderson, told her th:at he wasn't able 

to download the recording of the incident, but was able to vie~ the video one 

I 

time. Ms. Thurmond stated that Anderson told her that he didn •:t seize the system. 

(RR-Vol. 5, P. 6, 1-8). Ms. Thurmond, admitted that she failed: to disclose to the 

l 

Page 5 I 
.e 

I 

I 

defense that at one time a video existed. However, she statedl, that she never saw I 

! 

the video because it was never downloaded, or put into eviden~e by MPD, she admitted 

i 

that she failed to disclose to the defense prior to trial the.existence of the 

video, or that at one time a video of ·the evidence existed. M~. Thurmond, stated I 

I 

on record that she just made the defense aware of the evidenc~ this morning, and 

I 

further stated, that she's making the court aware of it as weil on the 3rd day 

I 

of trial and 2 years after the incident. ( RR-Vol. 5, PP. 6, 7, ! 19-25) . 

I 

Therefore, if Detective Bill Anderson, had retrieved the ~ideo tape of the 

i 

fight, then the jury and not the detective would have had thelchance to determine 

who the·actual victim was in this case. Therefore, by refusinq to· try and retrieve 

the video, Detective Anderson not only deprived applicant of a fair trial; he 

placed an undue burden on the prosecution in this case. What's on the video is 

i 

anyone's guess, but we do know for a fact that Detective Andetson saw someone 

I scuffling with some men (RR-Vol. 5, P. 9, 18-25) However, he Ghose not to take I, 

the video equipment because he did not want to leave the bar without it in case 

something happended:-~: ( RR-Vol. 5, P. 13, 7-l 7) • It seems th~,t 

had failed -co realize that something had already happenea:? Lat~r 

I Detective Anderson was asked; "If there was a murder, would yol 

video?" He stated yes! (RR-Vol. 6, PP. 25, 26/23-25/1-3). I 

I 

Detective Anderson, 

during questioning 

have taken the 

Why would Detective Anderson, take the video from one crime' scene, but not 

! 

take it from another crime scene? However, then intentionally keep it out of his 

I 

report, but 2 years later· at the last possible minute for him,ifindsit important 

. I 

to disclose his information to the D.A. (RR-Vol. 5, P. 13, 18-25). Anderson's actions 

I 

could fX>SSibly indicate fraud ,because the· :facts ·of· the ~matter.is· ~that.the. thoroughness of 

his·investigation;·depended·upon his actions·while looking - I ~nto 

I 

the evidence and 

I 

I 

?age 6 
statements in this case. Even though, Anderson says the video'from Riley's Bar I 

I . 

was of low quality, it was still evidence and did exist and could have been shown 

at the trial in chief had Anderson correctly done his job and seized the equipment 

(RR-Vol. 6, 25, 13-15). Detective Anderson, admitted that he knew the video was 

I 

evidence in applicant's case, but yet, relied only on witness!statements rather 

than to disclose it in his report;therefore, ·denying the pros1cution, applicant, 

I 

and his defense team access to the exculpatory evidence (RR-Vol. 6, P. 26, 15-25). I 

I 

Thereby, applicant has met the first prong of Brady, by clearly showing that the 

i 

state failed to disclose evidence in his case. I 

However, this was evidence that~ should have been immediately disclosed 

by Anderson because of its probative value, it could have posJibly been used as I 

I 

impeachment evidence due to conflicting testimony at trial, such as Jamie Mendez, I 

(RR-Vol. 3, PP. 198, 199) and applicant's mother-in-law, Ms. Parker, (RR-Vol. 5, I 

I 

PP. 32-40). Therefore, when probative force of evidence depend.s on circumstances 

I 

under which it was obtained, and those circumstances raise possibility of fraud, 

! 

which was an indication of conscientious police work will enhance probative force, 

but slovenly police work will diminish it for purposes :_of deterlining whether nondisclosed evidence of sloppiness of police investigation is ma!terial issue as reqU.ired 

I 

for Brady violation. See Kyles v. Whitley, 115 S.Ct. 1555 (199S); also see Brady I 

v. Maryland, 83 s.ct. 1994 supra. 

I 

I By clear and convincing evidence it has been shown that a tape did exist; it 

was kept from the defense by a member of the prosection's teamJ, and that the 

I 

prosection had knowledge of it (RR-Vol. 5, P. 6, 1-20). The exbulpatory evidence, 

I 

the video in question had some value as mitigating and impeach~~nt evidence.had 

I 

it been disclosed to the defense due to multiple conflicting witnesses::testimonies I . 

Page 7 
d·uring applicant's trial about what took place at Riley's Bar. I Therefore, Detective 

. I Anderson's assumption to rely on the truth and accuracy of w1tness statements was 

I 

error and;therefore, not to disclose thisexculpatory. favorable, and material 

I 

evidence denied applicant of a fair trial and that within its~lf w<~ harm (RR-Vol. I 

6, P. 26, 15-25). Thereby, meeting the second prong of Brady, las applicant has 

I 

shown that the withheld evidence was favorable to him for mitigating and impeachment I 

purposes. 

In conclusion: Evidence which the government has failed tl disclose to a I 

d~.!fendant will satisfy the "materiality" test of Brady. Therefore, the question is 

I 

not whether a defendant would more than not have received a different verdictwi'.tn: 

the evidence, but whether in its absence the defendant receiv1 a "fair trial." 

I 

However, what should be understood here is, that a trial resulting in a verdict . . 

I 

worthy of confidence, "reasonable probability" of a different•result is accordingly 

h h h s own wen ·d · d · I f'd · h t e government's ev1 ence suppress1on un erm1nes con 1 ence 1n t e I 

outcome of the trial. See Kyles v. Whitly 115 s.ct. 1556 (1995); United States v. 

I 

Bagly 473 u.s. 667, 680 (1985); United States v. Aqurs 1 427 I 

u.s. 97 I 107 (1976); 

I 

Brad:;t v. Mar~land 1 373 u.s. 83 1963); and Exr2arte Mowbra:;t 1 943 s.w. 2d 461, 466 

(Tex. Cr. App. 1996). I 

I 

However, it is clear from the record that Detective Bill Anderson's actions 

I 

completely undermined confidence in the outcome of applicant's trial in chief, 

when he failed to disclose and make available for inspection ~aterial, exculpatory I 

I evidence, (video tape) to the prosecution and to applicant and his defense team. This 

! 

disclosure would; therefore, have raised an opportunity for applicant to attack the 

I 

thoroughness and good faith of the investigation, and would a+so have allowed 

I 

. I 

Page 8 
.. 

I 

I applicant the oppurtunity to question the probative value of the video tape, which I 

I 

should·have been.crucial physical evidence in the trial in chief because Detective· 

! 

Anderson,:failed to disclose the video, but was allowed to te~tify to its contents I 

I 

at trial ( RR-Vol. 5, PP. 6-14) . See Kyles v. Whitley, ll5 s .ct. 1555 ( 1995 );. where 

the defendant was not given the opportunity to question the ptobative value of I 

physical evidence in his case. 

Therefore, however long the prosecution knew about the tape was irrelevent, 

I 

I the fact that the prosecution, and members of their team knewlaffected applicant's 

trial and the outcome of his trial was tainted by this failure of disclosure. Thereby, I 

I 

applicant has clearly met the third and final prong of Brady, 1by showing that the 

i suppression of evidence in his case undermined confidence in the outcome of his 

I 

I trial. Exparte Richardson, 70 S.W. 3d at 870; also see Brady v. Maryland, 373 u.s. 

.§1 (1963). I 

PRAYER I 

I WHERE~RE. PREMIS CONSIDERED, applicant respectfully request that this Most 

Honorable Court consider the ground in this supplemental applJcation in relation 

to ground 4 and the other grounds detailed in his origin3l apdlication filed on 

August 11, 2014, and applicant prays that this court grant hij relie± requested I 

here and in his original prayer. 

I 

! 

Page ~L 
f~ ... ·-·--- 1:'· . .!:·.\. 

h ..... -~·. -·· ,<;.: 

.. ·.:· 

.... , ... , .. ,, 

«< ..... 1 ............. ~~· .. ···-·~--·- ........... . 

I. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5 . 

(EXHIBIT 1-b) I 

I 

I 

COURT OF CRIMJNAL APPEALS OF TEXAS ·~ 

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPqs 

SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION . I 

UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 . I . I 

INSTRUCTIONS I 

I 

' 

You must use the compJete form, which begins on the following page, to file an 

application for- a writ of habeas corpus seeking relieHrom a t1naffelony conviction 

under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (This fo~m is not for dt~athpenalty cases, probated sentences which have not been revoked, or misdemeanors.) 

The district clerk of the county in which you were convicted will ~ake this form 

available to you, on request, without charge. \ 

I 

i ' ·. 

You must file the entire writ application form, including those sections that do not. · 

· apply to you. If any pages are missing from the form, or if the qu~stions have been ... 

renumbered or omitted, your entire application may be dismisscJ as non-compliant: 

You must make a separate application on a separate form for each judgment of 

conviction you seck relief froln. Even if the judgments were enteted in the same 

court on the same day, you must make a separate application for bach one. ·· • 

..... 

Answer every item that applies to you on the form. Do not attach; any additional 

pages for any item. 

6. You must include aU grounds for relief on the appl~cation form as providt~d by the 

instructions under item 17. You must also briefly summarize the \facts of your claim 

on the application form as provided by the instruction~ under item 17. Each ground 

shall begin on a new page, and the recitation of t.he facts supporti~g the ground shall 

be no longer tban the two pages provided for the claim in the fonr. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

I 

Legal citations and arguments may be made in a separate memor~ndum that 

complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73 and does notlexcecd 15,000 

... w~_r:_<ts Jf. ~-41-'~P.!It.~r~gen~r.~~~d Qf. .. S .. Q.p3gesJf.not.... . ....... -

You must verify the application by signing either the Oath Before Notary Public or 

the Inmate's Declaration, which are at the end oftbis form on pages ll and 12. You 

may be prosecuted and convicted for aggravated perjury if you m~ke any false 

statement of a material fact in this application. \ 

I 

When the application is fully completed, ,mail the original to the district clerk of the 

county of com'iction. Keep a copy .of the application for your reco·rds. 

You m~st notify the district clerk M the county of conviction of an~ change in 

address after you have filed your application. ·I . 

Rev. 01/14/14 
it 

[ 

I

. ' 

' 

' 

' 

L 

" t' 

' r·· 

: 

I 

Case No. I 

(The Clerk of the convicting court will till tillS hne m. ) 1 

I 

! 

I I I 

lN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXt\S 

I 

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPlfS 

SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION 

UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ARTICLE t 1.07 ' - i 

I 

NAME: Isaias L. Palacios I 

DATE OF Bl RTH: ....:2::.!/....:0:..:6:.!./-=1:.:9...:.7....:4 ____________ ;--------

PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: TDCJ- ID Wallace Unit 

TDC.J-CID NUMBER: #1709341 I 

Sl D NUMBER: ___;;..U=n=k=n;...;;;o"""'w'""'n'------

(I) This application concerns (check all that apply): 

iXI a conviction 0 

0 a sentence 0 

parole 

mandatory supervision 

I 

0 time credit 0 f . I I • • &' out-o -ttme appea or petltton .or 

discretionary review I 

. I 

I 

(2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you w~nt relief from'! 

(Include the court number and county.) i 

I 142nd Judicial District, Midland County, Te~as 

(3) What-was-th'e case number in the trial court? I 

CR-36,477 and CR-36,475 I· 

(4) What was the name of the trial judge'! 

Honorable George D. "Jody" Gilles 

Effective: Januarv 1, 2014 

Rev. 01!14/14 
i 

(5) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide the attorney's ~a me: 

I 

Jeffrey T. Robnett, Attorney At Law 

' , ....... . (6) What was the date that the judgment was entered'? '))~""· ,·. : .. ·:·!' 

March 24-·· ·201-1- · · 4--· • 

(7) For what offense \\'·ere you convicted and what was the sentence? I 

Two Counts of Aggravated Assault, 20yrs. 

I 

(8) If you were sentenced on more than one count of an indictment iJ the same court at . I 

the same time, what counts were you convicted of and what was the sentence in each 

count'? ' · 

Aggravated Assault CR-36,477 20yrs. ," •-.;.·· 

·Aggravated Assault CR-36,475 20yrs. 

(9) What was the plea you entered'? (Check one.) 

0 guilty-open plea 0 guilty-plea bargain 

~ not guiltv 0 nolo contendere/no contest 

If you entered di.fferent pleas to counts in a multi-count indictmcL, please explain: 

. N A . I 

··~ . 

------- r ---·· . .. ____ ...,..,,.._.._.,._.. .. -

(10) What kind of trial did you have? 

0 no jury 0 _jury for guilt and punishmJnt 

~ jury for guilt, judge for purhshmcnt 

1 

2 

Rev. 0L'14/J4 
(: 

,:.'\ 

.. , 

~-· ----

(ll) Did you testify at trial? If ) es, at what phase of the trial did j·o u ltesti fy '! 

I 

No 

(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction'? 

(13) 

(14) 

KJ yes 0 no 

If you did appeal, answer the following questions: 

(A) 

(B) 

(C) 

I 

I 

What court of appeals did you appeal to'? Eleventh Distr~ct of Texas 

Eastland Texas 

What was the case number'? 11-11-00084-CR, 11-il-00085-CR, 11-11-00086-CR 

I 

Were you rcpre.scnted by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide 1the attorney's 

I 

name: 

Mark H. Dettman, Attorney at Law I 

i 

(D) What was the decision and the date of the decision'! Af f irm~d April 11,2013 

I 

Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Cr1iminal Appeals'? 

I 

Kl yes 0 no I 

I 

If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the foll1wing questions: 

(A) What was the case number? ...;:P-=D:...-_;0::..:5::..:2=-=..2_-..=.1..:::;3 ___________ _ I 

I 

(B) What was the decision and the date Ofthe dccision'?Refuse1

d August 21,2013 

I 

Ha,·e you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 

11.07 ofthe-T-exas€ode·of€riminaf·Procedurc challenging this dmvh:tion'! . . I 

10 yes 0 no I 

I 

I 

lf you answered yes, answer the following questions: 1 

I 

(A) \Vhat was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number'? N/ ~ Still Pending 

I 

I 

3 

Rev. 01/14/14 

-~··. 1' . ' 

{· .·· 

..... "" --....:;.;..-o!-- -----.... ·~-

(17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your c.laim that you arc 

being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the fact~ supporting each 

ground. Y()U must present each ground on the form application and a brief 

summary of the facts. If your graund.~ attd brief summary of the j~cts lra•~e ttot been 

presemed on the form applicatio11. the Court wi1111ot cmtsitler your grouml.!ii. 

If you have more than four grounds, use pages .14 and 15 of the form, which you 

may copy as many times as needed to give you a separate page fo~ each ground, with 

each ground numbered in sequence. The recitation of the facts supporting each 

ground must be no longer than the two pages provided for the gr~und in the form. 

I 

You may include with the form a memorandum of law if you wan~ to present legal 

authorities, but the Court wiU not consider grounds for relief set out in a 

memorandum of law that were not raised on the form. The citati~ns and argument 

must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of AppJUate Proc~dure 73 

and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not. If you 

are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a su'mmary of the facts 

pertaining to your offense and trial in your memorandum. J 

I 

I 

5 

ReY. 01/14/14 

·~ .. : . 
,,~ ...... . 

-~ ... - -· .. --~~'" 

~.-~ ,: 

t~ ~ .• ~~ .I·. 

!':j~ •.. 

: .• ! 

'···· 

GROUND ONE: .\Applicant's 5th and 14th Amendment I 

Constitional 

Rights to the United States were Violated. I 

I 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE: The prosecution wi th:held exculpatory 

as well as impeachment evidence that was material! t~ the applicant';:--

defense theory, and therefore, violated applicant!'s 5th and 14th 

Amendment Rights to the United States Constitutio!n. 

I , 

(See Supplemental 11.07 Application with Brie~ In Support) I 

( Pages 1-9,.) 

6 

/ j 

I 

I 

I . 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Rev. 01/14!14 
~-., 

~.!:'0' • • ., . 

''! 

,.;._., ... ~-· ~. "'-'". 

~ ... 

·.·/' 

7 

Rev. 0 lil4/l4 
'._<' 

-.•.\,., ,. 

GROUND TWO: 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROljNO TWO: I ···r -

.- , .. ·-~ "~·. 

'' 

' j 

~-~--~----=·----~-----------=--=-------~--. ---~-----===· .... ~---·--·=--·---~- .. ----·"'""=--'-~--~:~~----...::.:;.;;;_;.;._: ___ 

8 

I 

I 

Rev. 0 !i 14/ 14 
.. > <· 

'":'!.·•-~ .. \>~...:' ~--.• · 

~-------· ... 

~' .... ~·-· 

·--

I 

9 

• >!.i."' 

-~-

I .... .'"!.~ , ....... 

Rev. Ol/14iJ4 
L" '{ 

::=I 

','' 

; ~ J ' 

J'." 

-··.' 

.. ,_ .. 

-, _·:;;.·_ 

~~..--.--

GROUND THREE: 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE: 

.. ,, .. .-.., ... 

10 

Rev. 0 l: 14!14 
~ ··. ,, 

--~----.. 

r·./"·.i,,,' 

_.,·. 

- . : 

' 

... -;: 

: __ :<',. •· 

•·· ~-~:,I' • 

.. ,:,.· •-;-.· 

• ·t , I• 

·' :.~ 

--....--,---------,..._--------------:-------- ---~ .. --~-----........ 

II 

Rev. Oli14:l4 
: .. ' 

:··.,· 

~: ··~.~ ... :· ... 1,,,) 

. ·. :~:· 

·.· .. :;-:· 

.:~~. ·• ' . 

GROUND FOUR: 

_, . 

,:~. 

~ .. ,. ··~· .. :. tf.?. 

I 

I 

-· ---------- ·- -·---------r----------· ····- ---· I 

12 

RcY. 0 I 114/14 

; , ... 

I 
' ' - t: ' ~ : 

i: ., 

··:·. .'::..<,) 

I 

·I 

'·· 

,. ,..,.._, __ ... ___ ,,.. ............. 

·~-~-· 

. ' .. .( ·~· 

·~: .· 

l3 

Rc\. 01/14/14 
r·•:. :· ._,,~··. '-'' 

t , •• 

;t:. ~.·~· 

GROlJND: 

·r._,' 

'·· 

-? ·-~ ·. 

'\' 

·r" .,.·. 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: 

•''· . 

.t·-. 

14 

Rev. 0 l ! 14/ 1 4 
·~.~ ;,_.··· . ; . ~ --~~ . . .. ",..,...··. ·~· ., 

',. 

~IP-• .._. __ _ 

·, 

.;. 

···---~---· . -----~--------~--~~~~--~------~-+---------- .. .,. I . -- --·------

I 

I, 

15 

Rev. 01114/!4 
' ..... 

:·,'', 

~ .. ~ •. ~.·· ~·~ .... :& ,_..,.~:· . o..t 

' .... ~- -

' ·~ ~.. ..~~: '- •"'. 

... ~~~.,_.....__ 

I 

\VfiERF.FORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT 

RELIEF TO \VHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING. 

VERIFICATION I 

I 

This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for non~compliancc. For 

verification purposes, an applicant is a person filing the application on his o~ her own behalf. A 

pcti ticmer is ~ per~t~n fi I i ng. th.c .~pptication on behalf. of an applicant, foLcxa~ple, an applicant's 

attorney. An inmate is a person who is in custody. 1 

I 

The inmate applicant must sign either the ''Oath Before a Notary Public'' before a 

notary public or the "Inmate's Declaration" without a notary public. If the it~mate is represented 

by a licensed attorney. the attorney may sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public'' as petitioner and 

then complete ''Petitioner's Tnfom1ation.'' A non-inmate applicant must sign' the "Oath Before a 

Notary Public" before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed dttorney, in which 

case the attorney may sign the verification as petitioner. ! 

A non-inmate non-attorney petitioner must sign the "Oath Bcforb a Notary Public" 

before a notary public and must also complete "Petitioner's Information." A~ inmate petitioner 

must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public or :he "Inmate's 

Declaration'' without a notary public and must also complete the appropriate ,"Petitioner's 

lnfonnation.'' I 

I 

OATH BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC 

I 

STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF 

-------·---·---- ____ .being duly sworn. under oath says: "I am 

the applicant I petitioner (circle one) in this action and know the contents of the above 

application for a writ of habeas corpus and, according to my bcliet: the facts s'tatcd in the 

application are tme." I 

I 

I 

Signature of Applicant /J)dtili<;lCr (circl~ one) I 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 

Signatur~ of Notary Public 

I 

I 

I 

16 1 

20 

.. ,.,,. 

··-... ~-· 

l{ev. 0 l !14/14 
• > ~"-'::"· ... ~;_......._ _____ ..... _._. 

PETITIONER'S INFORMATION 

n . I 

Petitioner's printed name:Tsc;l./'o. s L IO.Ia c. /0 s ,_I'? 0 cr "l,t-( ( 

State bar number, if applicable: Pro-Se I 

Address: Wa I I a ee thi f- _J 

__ jb_7) !5;uf~- {;At 1S2£ 

Co!«a:uk.Liir-r Lx. ?c;sn 

Tclephonc:---L.~--'<-,_/...L.A+----------------

Fax: Ili/A ----·-----·-·-----

INMATE'S DECLARATION 

l,_]5."-Ll<a""r""""q'"-"~s'--'=L"-"a'-Lf6~c::;.ufo.~c-Ll/a..t.__.).S' ____ , am the plicaJ1t! petitioner (circle one) and 

being presently incarcerated in ltt;;Z::X-12. \.Vq 1/a. cR. ~L.~i::_, declaJe under penalty of 

I 

Pe~jury that, according to my bc.licf. the facts stated in the above application clrc true and correct . I 

SignedonMc.£.~b'lr- cr _.20 !.tf_. 

~~-u. Signature of Applicant I Petitioner (circle one) 

17 

Rev. 0!/14!14 
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION 

Petitioner's printed nanlt:;-T$ala. S L. fdlac.I& S" 

Address: Wall({ ce ih;r'tlb7) 5oufh Fflt j15?sClarada Ctfv. If. r;qs-tz - T' 

Telephone: NL..d 

Fax: --.L-JV~L-"--~A~------

_,., ' 

Signed on Qe_c_e_~_:ec_i_. 20J!/__. 

' . -~:·' 

~},f~.·~········--- Signaturc of Petitioner 

18 

Rev. ()J!f4!14