OBJECTION Td RESPONSE TIL.
OOTE'sS ORIGINAL ANSWER ab 2,

Applicant objects because a wrongly offemed convichin such ax presenied
in tnis case cannot ecape the isswes the Stale complains of: Applicant
points oul that iP the Stale Irad wrongly aothrned his third degree
Polony conviction by aftenning a. stote jail Pelony convchon ~by law it
lacked Subject matter joréckehin 4p adjudicate the Sade jail Lele,
Low could it have subject matter Jacudiehon when oupplicant convichéw
is Br aw Third denice felony? Also, Ths wronaly aired convichon
actrmoitically trygors the Sth Jemord, and due process Fie prslecton,
The State wants to mabe o gome of Fhis Single issite of a wrongly
affrwod convicton. Ail wo have ty doin oder 4p Selle the ontice
inodter (5 to Compare two documents © l\Tho Judgment ound Sentence scanned
February IT, 2005 aind (5 located in chev’ offize im Volume (444 ot Pose AY.
vith this document in hand,2) Bunton v.Stab, e5w/3d 356 Cra tp Austin ca),
This Second document is whore the wrongly oemed convichon ts proven,
Then, and only then wil the Court sees this & no gowe, Apphcants thivel
dey ree Polony Convictod was Wwronsly oPirmal as a stale jail low,
Ar this junctuce the applcaat ib entitled to a new direct appeal with
new omppellate brief on remand.
Lust because The Stale and the Cou -appourted a.ppellal @ counsel agreed
+y apes a stale jaa conuichoy does viet confer jacesdichon on Thee
co ae ay) because the Judgment ond Soutence i6 Poca third dy

Lavec

felony —this is why applicant is enttled to relief on this Sole &oue,

Hoes


the birth of the Wssne Pasented the Sole usue presented in this application
£7, This ne has never leon \ctgoed yon. $42 Applicants Mew, of Law af 3-5, Cty
Bunion, \0 Suiitd af 355, as The Stole bas Suygerled in tS ResPonse T,
yyplcart ob oc to “for thw Foteoping Reasons His apolicahion Showld be
dismissed purswaait to Article .07 5ec:4(a)becanse the State’ reasoning {¢
Floaved ond out of harmony with the Sacks of tn case which cal be

proven by JUDEMENT AND SENTENCE v. OPINION, Bunton, (Sle W.3d B66! The
Jidgonont aw Gentone is for a third dente Felony conviction v, the OFINION ,

in Burt, (Blas.w.2d $58, which affms a state jail felony conviction. Applicant
conviction was wrongly of Frmed by the Thicd Conurt of Appeals —sgle and plain

For the Porosity objecions this application should mect the Hreshold
Fajuiceonents oof out under Arhcle t\.07,Sec4 (@)(1) and Arhele i107, Sec,
4(c),

OBVECTION Th RESPonse Tl.
STATE'S ORLGINALANSWER of 3,

Nplcanl obyecks because opplicant has not ever raised +ho 1950 f
a. wrongly aftirnted conviction, Haw could he do thet on divect appeal,
When the issite presentted wowld not beavaileble unt| oPter mandate
had tsned on divect appeal? The Stales reliance on Ex pote Acostn is
misplaced and shold be rejected and ColieP should be granted ty
o-pplicant as requested in the daypl cations Mem. low a7

Z0FS


OBJECTION TH PRAYER
STATE'S OLGMAt ANSWER ot 4,

Applcasit objec ty Stode's prayer ty the extent that tf Seeks ty uphold

a wrongly afhrmed conviction that the law of voidnoss does not respect,

Apphcant only Seeks what the law requires and the low reguaves the

rele requested wy this case ofa wrongly armed Convichon Oo” direct
ep peoks

Applicant recommends that the Couct of Criminal Appeals grant the rele
requosted in this pending W.07 lipplcation, see Mem.of Law ot 1.

Respecthidy Culonictted )
Charles Brstow, Alia

Dilved Unit eH Uy37y
Lol Eon Bie4 North
Tows Pork Texas We

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

T chavies Bunton certify and Smear under pevalty of pwrywcy
tint a correct copy oF-+this APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS Tb Star e's
ORIGINAL ANEUER was mauled to District Attorney i Trawis County,
P.0 Box THB Austin TX 131 on FW [eth Day oPApel 2015,

Copy Tb Valve. Pics Didnict Cleck, Count of Travis Stade of Texas, 0-0: B0K
519063, Avstinn (Texas 187(¢1-4003

S0ES”


(0652 - Of

Crom 7 Chawles D. Bunn
; Alved Wot, Too# il u377]

LIO| EM 3 04 Nott, RECEIVED IN
Toro fol K17W3N COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
APR 1.0 2015
ho) Los Abel Acosta, Clerk

Th ¢ Court of Crumina) Prypeods ot Teas
0.0. Box 11408, Capits | Stahon
Ausha Jexas 79

RE: EX PARTE CHALES BUNTON No D-I-D C-01- FolH142-g

Deat Cheyle

Crelosed for Pving is pphcant’s Ob echon To Stnte's Orig'nal
Duswec.! A Copy was Leewarded Ww applicant do both Velval. Price,
Dishrict Chel Trowss County and + Dutt Attorney Troms Comunty

Please Sile the enclosed Objections in the above styled applical ray

Sor post conuichon weit of \\abeas corpus whic’ is shill ponding

in you Courto€ Criminal Prperts of Texas,

Thawk you br your lind assuctimce in this vootier,

Swcerely,
Char les Bub
Spglicant,


No. D-|-DC-02-Q01Y2H47 -G

EX PMRTE $ IN THE Cour OF CRIMWNAL

8
CARLES DOUGLAS BUNTON sg, APPEALS OF TEXAS

DPPUCANTS OBJECTIONS TO STATES ORIGINAL ANSWER

To THE HoONORAeLE JUDEES OF SAID Court:
Comes Now the Applicant iv the above numbered and chyled
couse and cespectfully Files the fellouing ebyections:

OBJECTION TO BACCARoUND
STATES ORIAINAL ANSWER of I.

oe Keant objects 4, Background because the Stote does ust menhon
the fact thot applicant was found gy of a third degree Lelong f
evading arrest. tt is vor important ty vote that this ebyection is only
To Come fp algnonent with, Tex. Code Crim, Proc: CHAPTER UL . JUDGMENT

OND SENTENCE , Art U2-01 Sec! Subsec. IU which ctatos"
Chall veFlect:..the date of Phone. -and lege of tons a ie
defendount was Convi cled the degree of olkense of convichon is Dien veer.
_ CBSO ies Pessenre

Applicant objects To GUE PRESENTED because the Statels ainswor ts
adtemphiny tr aved the sue, which is the agphcout aranos that the
Third Court of Appeals wrongly affirmed his third degiee felony cowichin
when it affirmed a Stade jail Felony convichon.!

\oFS


OBJECTION TD RESPONSE T.
CTETES ORIGINAL ANSWER of 2.

Applicant obects to REeSfonse I, | because the applicant has Never
Clavned in any of the prior Le applicahons Hat “She Thiel Court of
Appeals wrongly Ermed is third dey felony convichon when it
affimed a state jail Felony convichon..

Applicant ako objects because the Sate mentioned (acovrectly that the applicant
ig Fecycliny inforwucton and isenes that he raed in his previous wrt
applications." Applicat assures the Court thet the State cannot pout out
one time Guy one of the past applications where applicant preserted
the isene Hhat is being presented in this Wh applcahon.

Applicat also objects tr the Stake Saying that he wisuiterprets the documents,
namely ond specifically the Juremenr on! Uvey VERDICT oF GuLTY- the ame
IVPEMENT AND SENTENCE, Which is for a third degree Felony convichon. Seo
Tex. Code Crim: Proc. Art 4101, Sec.| Svebsec. (4,

Applicant objects +> the States confusion with Lack contained in the |
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE V5. Court oP Appeals decision in his case.
Apflicant objects ona powis out that the State is ecortect when it says
that “the opinion recites the very formation thatthe applica wows claims
+y have just discovered by way oF obtaming copies of the indictinent
and oF the judgonont and Sentence! ayplicuit hows exacly the opposcty,
that the Jedgmet and Sentence is for a third doytee Felony, on the
contliching Sie the CowrtoF bppeals opinion affirms a state, jail felony
Convicttoy. How? The jury commcted ape lcout ira third degree felony, hence

LeFS