COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

P.O.~QX 12308,CAPITOL STATION ~ ; . 

AUSTIN,TEXAS 78711 

IN THE SOVERELGNITY OF. THE COURT OF JUSTICE 

******* 

THE TEXAS COVRT OF CR~MINAL APPEALS . 

. ---¥ 

IN RE THE STRAWMAN JAMES REBECTOR iSS P 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

RECE~VED ~f~ COURT 0~ CRIMINAl APPEALS 

APR 07 2015 

~b®l Acosta, Clerk 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTJCES OF THE tOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ENBANC: 

1. 

\ 

. The Re1ator seeks leave of This Honorable Cour,t o.f Justice To file Writ . ~ . ' 

''··-

of Mandamus,and have such Mandamus Issue This Court of Justice's Jur1idict~on 

.. ~· 

has been invoked by The Proper filing of The Article 11.0~,Writ of Habeas ,. 

Corpus,with a Motion: To Vacate And Set Aside Entry Of Void Juagment properly 

;attached ~n The 144th 5udicial District Court of Bexar County,and ~nder The "'· . .:.. 

Aut~oriti of Metropolitain ~iansit Aut~ority v.Jackson 2L2 S.W:3d 797(Tex .. 

·App-Hou~ton ( lstDIST.) 2006). MTAv .Jackson is controlling in t:h'i;ii rna tterbeca~se -· .. ~ 

the Judgment of conviction and. sentence is Yoid under ·Te'xas Law:. ,,· r 

The Writ of Habeas Corpus form serv_es as the VEHICLE by which the Motfon ·To 

Vacate and set Aside Entry of Void Judgment receives Proper Cognizance b~fore 

The Trial Court,which Retains Its Plenary Power Over It~· Vo~d Judgment(s). 

\ Id. MTA v.Jackson 212 S.W.3d 797. For This reason the Habeas Corpus Proceeding 

., 

is essentially transformed into a proceeding where1ri the Trial Cd'urt exercises !Jf!J 

exclusive PLENARY POWER TO VACATE THE ENTRY OF ITS:VOID JUDGMENT. 

An impromptu or arbitrary refusal to address the issue(s) as set forth is not 

a discretionary matter,but a miriist~r~ duty as so established and settled 

\' under Texas Law.~It is w~ll settled that a Trial ~ourt has not only Power, 

but a Duty To Vacate Entry of a Void Judgment anytime,either during term,or 

after term,with or without motion;(And)Trial Court has no discretion to refuse 

to set aside Void Judgment,but has a duty to do so at anytime that ~uchmatter 

is brought to its· attention." Id Metropolitain Transit Authority v.Jackson 

212 S.W.3d 797 , 

1· 
.•. 

This Honorable Court of Justice has · cons1stently held. that Void Judgments 

may always be collaterally attacked at anytime, Hoang v. State,872 S.W.2d 

694~698~tex.Crim.App.l993; ExParte Spaulding 687 S.W.2d at 745and for the 

reason of a Void Judgment being made known To the Trial Court,Relator seeks 

Leave to f~le Writ of Mandamus,and for Mandamus To Issue in this Matter due 

To Trial Courts failure and refusal to respond. 

EXECUTED ON THIS 3rd DAY OF APRIL 2015. 

Sincerely 

2. 
COUR":f OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

P.o:BOX 12308 CAPI~OL STATION 

AUSTIN 1TEXAS 78711 . ''r-.: 

IN THE SOVEREIGNITY OF-THE COURT OF JUSTICE 

******* J. 

THE TEXAS COl]RT OF.>t.RIMINAL APPEALS 

IN RE THE STRAWMAN JAMES REBECTOR relj' tWI 

·' .·. MOTION~~OR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

RECElVEDU~ tOURT OF CBlMI~~.tAPPEALS ·~~·-' 

1ft (j j l!}h 

A~ Acosta, Clerk 

~; 

The Re~~tor was convicted in the l44th Judicial District Cburt of Bexar County 

Puri~~nt Texas He~l~h and Safety Code §481.112. prior to Trja~~the TrialCourt ·I~ • ~ J ; 

.::·;._.,, .. _ 

Judge ·ordered A _Psychiatric evaluation to determine the Inc<:)mpetency of the 

Relat6r1Pursuant Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,Article.46.02§2(a) (Prior 

To Its REPEAL in2004). As the Law applies to the FACTS ·of thiS:. ·case 1 The Trial 

Cou,rtPos'sessed a· ministerial duty to co.pduc;t, the ~ncompen~ency_ hearingLP_ ri~r 

, 'fht /(ec~fl/l t5 c(~i/t)ld trf ~AJiA/t!.0/1-1/)e,/-efi/C~ n:4n~/' to the commen~ement of the tria1. The Tr1al Court's fa1lur~ to substant1ally . 

c?·mply with Article 46. 02 § 2 (a) Whereby the ministerial duty is duly. noted by 

the mand~tory language-SHALL:Government Code § 3ll.bl6(2)- renders all Ytoceedin 

gs thereafter unequivoc'ally Void1rather than merely Voidable. 'For the foregoing 

Proprosition1The Relafor contends that the final Judgment and it~ .. ensuing 

.. mandate sets forth that the Proceedings and ORDERS bF THE COURT COMPLY with 

0 

REGULARITY and satisfy ·The Presump~ion Of' Correctness. As such there is an 

inferenc~ that the trial Court" rendered Judgment against a incompetent 

indi v idual1 when .such de'termina t ion had not been made. Therefore 1 because the 

Trial Court failed t6.substantially comply with Article 46.02§2(a),Tex.C.Crim. 

' -:.~. 

proc. Aft~r ordering the requisite Psychiatric evaluation1the final Judgment 

is effected and Void. As expressed1and Verified in Southern Insurance Company 

v.Brewster 249,S.W.3d 6,(Tex.App.-Houston[lst.DIST.] 200e7) 

-., () 

"Wh.en a Trial Court renders judgment without Compliance with Section 410.258(a) 

.fo_CAwtclh e.. ~ttat~-terA 16 ct {e_·!jal 1111.{./ll-kj~ _ ' 

the Trial Court retains. its~€lenary Power to set it aside.'' The same principle 

is applic;4f,le in this matter1and must be stated as follows:"When a Trial Court 

renders judgment without Compliance with Article 46.02§2(a) the judgment is 

a legal null~~y." 1. 

' .. ··--·~- _· ___ ..:~, ·-
' .. 

'Th~ Relator has . ; . 

2. 

Presented-t~~ Tri~l Cburt with the foregoing .. ;lf.·il1· . issue of Void 

':':{,!!,"' 

c~niza'q~:e, in Judgment made The motion TSS:,vacate and Set Aside Entry of Void 

:t'· 

judgment,by The VEHICL~ Pre~9ribed as Writ of Habeas Corpus-Article 11 1 07. 

The t r i a 1 court has fa i l.e d , or r e fused • · .• i •!;.~ ....... to respond in any manner even 

1tle #rrufkal · 

after being 

presented with two notf6~s requesting Proc~§~9,8~0~-s~~ethed copy of the letter r• '• 

to the trial Court clerk ce~tl/ies the Relator's Du.e Diligence to obtain a ruling "'~'/{ ' ' -'· ,-:~r.·~· ' 'I'''' 

from the Tria~.Court. i.r.b,'i~~ timely fashion.The Trial Court has abused it~ discretion 

_in failingto consider and rule the Properly cognizable motion. In Re E@ 3'7 Eli 

Hearn 137 S.W.3d)681 (Tex.App.San-Antonio 2004) it was held that: ;'When a Motion 

is prf~i{¥ filed and Pending before a Trial Court, The act of giving consideration 

to,.and ruling upon that motion is a ~inisterial,and Mandamus may issue to compel 

the Trial judg~ ·to act rd at 683-684,(Citing Safety-Kleen Corp v.Cearcia 945 · 

S.W.2d 268,269 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997 original Proceeding). 

I'he Relator has made the requisite showing of bringing the matter to the Tria.l 

Court and the Trial Court's failure to respond or rule Barnes v.State 832 S.W.2d 

424,426-427 (Tex.App.-Houston[lst DIST.]l992,original proceeding). 

3. 

For the reasons set forth above,The Relator requests this Honorable Court of Justic 

e to Issue Mandamus Compelling the Trial Court to rule in accordance with 

Met'ropolitain . .f'ransit Auth'ority v.Jackson 212 S.W.3d,797 specifically inlight 

of the Trial 'court's Plenary Power and to take cognizance of The Void Judgment 

Presented thereto. 

EXECUTED ON THIS 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2015 

Respectfully requesting, 

~~~f!U933 ~TOR#896933 

ALFRED D.HUGHES UNIT,4Dll-04B 

ROUTE 2,BOX 4400 

GATESVILLE,TEXAS 76597 

(254)865-6663,UNIT WARDEN 
• • • ' ,., • ' ,; "!/ ~-~ ,j\<J.",• ~\. • . ..... 

' . 

. ,. 

!/{171-C-ll tdJ OJ/ v 

·- . / 

. '. ( /