( ' ·. No.
______________________ _ IN THE,, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

IN RE CANDY HILL HUGHES MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS (PRO SE) TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes now Candy Hill Hughes, who files this motion and will show the following: (1) That Mr.Hughes request to file a writ of mandamus in this court. (2) That this court**~rant** Mr.Hughes motion for leave in order for him to file his**wr~t** of**mandum~s.** Wherefore Mr.Hughes prays that this Honorable Court Grants his motion for**l~ave** of court to file a writ of mandamus. Respectfully· submitted: Candy Hill Hughes#1596685 Hughes Unit RT.2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597 U.S.A·

# c~~Lu~\b DATE: 12-i-2015 \L-'15- 2-0\S 

### t .\\.\\

RECEIVED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS 

## DEC 102015

. ; AbelAcosta, ClerkCAUSE NO. 1169973-B Candy Hill Hughes IN THE 230TH JUDICIAL TDCJ-ID# 1596685 RELATOR v. DISTRICT COURT OF Chris Daniel COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK: IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, RESPONDENT HARRIS COUNTY ,TEXAS
A. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes now,Candy Hill Hughes ,Relator, pro se in the abovestyled and numbered cause of action and files this Original Application For Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to Article 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and would show the Court the following: 1. B. RELATOR 1.01 Candy Hill Hughes ,TDCJ# 1596685 is an offender incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and is appearing pro se, who can be located at Hughes Unit Rt.2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597. 1.02 Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other :::;: ,:; adequate**rem~dy** at law. 1.03 The act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not discretionary in nature. TCCP Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) requires Respondent to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made, if the convicting court decides that there are no issues to be resolved. No copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and

1a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made have been transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Had such documents been transmitted to the Court of Criminal Appeals by Respondent as required by statute, Relator would have received notice from the Court of Criminal Appeals. 2. C. RESPONDENT 2.01

D. 3.01

3.02**Respond~nt,Chris** Daniel ,in his capacity as District Clerk of Harris County,Texas has a ministerial duty to receive and file all papers in a criminal proceeding, and perform all other duties imposed on the clerk by law pursuant to TCCP Art.2.21, and is responsible under TCCP 11.07 Sec. 3(c) to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made if the convicting court decides that there are no issues to be resolved.Chris Daniel District Clerk, Harris County may be served at his place of business at1201 Franklin Street (77210) Houston,TX.:_:_:__:_ 3. VIOLATION OF ART. 11.07 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The Respondent violated Article 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by failing to provide a copy of the**2DD1~2D** application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals within the time prescribed by law and within a reasonable time from the date on which the documents
were requested to be transmitted. Requests for the transmittal of the application for writ of**~E~~s** habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made by Relator to-Chris Daniel District Clerk, Harris County, by mailed letters dated 11-13-2015

2

### . ' 11-21-15 ;pursuant to Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Code of Criminal

3.04

:3.05 Procedure. True and accurate copies of the above letters are attached hereto as Exhibit"A" through "B" and are also incorporated by reference herein for all purposes. To date, Relator has**recei~ed** no response from Respondent regarding Relator's request for transmittal of a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals. As is clear from Relator's letters, Relator has repeatedly put Respondent on notice that Relator seeks the transmittal of a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that findin
was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals and that such records
are required by the Court of Criminal Appeals to act on Relators writ of habeas corpus. Relator has gone well beyond any**~~Cii re~uirement**  or obligations imposed upon him by the Texas Code of Criminal**Procedure~ lnt~ofulri~tSto.Rilahor's**  efforts, Respondent has wholly failed to comply with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c), is acting in bad faith, and has also failed to afford Relator the professional and common**~0** courtesy of any written responses to his correspondence**and~~~--** requests. Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) clearly states that "UiJf the convicting court decides that there are no such issues, the clerk shall immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application, any answers filed, and a certicate reciting the date upon which that finding was made. Failure of the court to act within the allowed 20 days shall constitute such a finding

3T Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c). 

### a Respondent is in violation of this procedure, ministerial duties, and thus the laws of this state. 4. D. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator,Candy Hill Hughes pro se, respectfully requests a finding that the Respondent , did not transmit documents to the Court of Criminal Appeals within a reasonable time after the date they were requested and that Relator brought this litigation in good faith and has substantially prevailed. Relator prays for an Order directing Respondent to transmit copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals as directed in Art. 11.07 Sec. 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and as requested in Relators letters( Exhibit A-B). Respectfully Submitted, By: Candy Hill Hughes RELATOR UNSWORN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE I swear under the United States Constitution that the foregoing is true and correct: Executed on**this~12-j-2015**

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE \'L-<"6- ZD\S"" c..\t-HCandy Hill Hughes Hughes Unit Rt.2 Box 4400 Gatesville,Texas.76597 

## u.s.A

I hereby certify that a true copy of the above Application For Writ Of Mandamus was served on the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals by placing a copy in the U.S.mail on this the**~d** day ofDecember 2015. 

# (M.)t'!**ft~ll ~**  RELATOR

4HARRIS.COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 1201 FRANKLIN St. P.O.BOX 4651**HOUSTON,TEXAS~77210-4651** HUGHES UNiT RT.2 BOX 4400**GATESVILLE,TEX~S.76597**

NOVEMBER**~3,2015** RE: CAUSE No.1l69973-B (ErParte Candy Hill Hughes) Dear,Clerk**·.~'.**

This is to place you under· notice that I have filed· an application for writ of habeas corpus in.the· above enti-tled ' - ' and numbered cause. It has been over (2) years since the date in which I**fiU~athe** application. Please forward my**appli~a**tion for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. My information is**~s** follows. Thank you for your time in advance to tpis matter. Best Regards**:_*·~tlQb**

# **CJ*tNtt\\\~ (PRO SE)

. Exhibit ACANDY H. HUGHES HUGHES UNIT RT.2 BOX 4400 GATESVILLE,TEXAS.76597 HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 1201 FRANKLIN St. P.O.BOX 4651 HOUSTON,TEXAS.77210-4651 NOVEMBER 21,2015 RE: CAUSE No.1169973-B (Ex Parte Candy gfll Hughes) Dear,Clerk This letter is being written to inform you that this is my second request in having you forward my application for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals please. My information is as follows. Thank you for your time in advance to this matter. Best Regards:**:::t:\Sl~**

### CAuWtt~\l~ (PRO SE)

Exhibit BEX PARTE

CANDY HILL HUGHES, Applicant Cause No. 1:169973-8 

### § IN THE 2301 h DISTRICT COURT 

### § OF


### .• § ' HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
STATE'S ORIGINALANSWER The $tate ofTexas, by and through its Assistant District Attorney for i'
........ - ·'
. ,'I, Harris County, files this, its original answer in the above-captioned cause, having been serve·d with the original application for writ of habeas corpus, pursuanttoTEx. CoDE CRIM. PRoc. art. '11.07 (West2013), and would show the following: I. 

### @applicant is confined pursuant to the judgment and sentence of the 2301 h District Court of Harris County, Texas, in cause number 1169973 (the primary case), where a jury convicted the applicant on August 17, 

### 2009 ofthe felony offense of murder.@applicant also pled true to two enhancement paragraphs, which the jury found true. The court assessed punishment at confinement for sixty (60) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice- Institutional Division (TDCJ- ID).• 

### " The First Court ofAppeals issued an opinion affirming the applicant's conviction on October 11, 2012: Wall v. State, No. 01-11-00600-CR, 2012 WL 4857360 (Tex. App. -Houston [1st Dist.] October 11, 2012, pet. ref'd.). II. The State denies the fc;ctual allegations made in the instant application, exceptthose supported by official court records, and offers the following additional reply: Reply totheApplicant's First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Grounds for Relief In his first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grounds for relief, the applicant claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Specifically, the applicant claims trial counsel: 1. did not givethe applicant acopy ofhis case file; 2. created a conflict of interest by agreeing to not give the applicant a copy ofthe offense report; 3. failed to subpoena Wesley Brown as awitness; 4. failed to make an opening statement; 5. failed to subpoena an expert to refute the medical examiner's testimony regarding the complainant's autopsy; 6. failed to invokeTEX. R. EVID. 614 ("the Rule") attrial; and

2.

### . ' 7. was generally ineffective. ·WritApplication at 6-10, 6. 1 The United States Supreme Court held in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), that the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning ofthe adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. The Court in Stricklandsetforth atwo-part standard, which has been adopted byTexas. See Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). First, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex.· Crim. App. 2002); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at

### 688)~ Reasonably

### eff~ctive assistance of counsel does not require error-free counsel, or counsel whose competency is judged by hindsight. Mercado v. State, 615 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Second, there must be a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the

1The pages in the writapplication appearto be duplicates, in no particularorder, after pages 6-10. The State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, the second page 6 is the second page 6 as one proceedsthrough the pages ofthewrit application.
3·'

# . proceeding would have been different. 

### /d. A "reasonable probability" is "a probability sufficientto undermine confidence in the outcome." 

### /d. Article I, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution also requires that a criminal defendant receive effective assistance of counsel. However, the Texas constitutional provision does not create a standard that is more protective of a defendant's rights than that established in Strickland. Black
v. State, 816 S.W.2d 350, 357 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). Therefore, an analysis of the effectiveness of the applicant's trial counsel in the primary case pursuant to the Strickland standard satisfies both the federal and state constitutional requirements. The court will not use hindsight to second-guess a tactical decision made by trial counsel, nor will the fact that another attorney might have pursued a different course support a finding of ineffectiveness. Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Blatt v. State, 588 S.W.2d 588, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). When evaluating an ineffective assistance claim, the reviewing court looks at the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of the case. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In reviewing counsel's performance, the court indulges a strong presumption

4' ' that he acted within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. 

### /d. Failure to Make an Opening Statement In his third ground for relief, the applicant alleges ineffectiveness for trial counsel's failure to make an opening statement" at trial. Writ Application at 8. The record is clear that trial counsel declined to make an opening statement. (3 R.R. 7). However, few matters during a criminal trial could be more imbued with strategic implications than the exercise ofthis option.

. !
. Calderon v. State, 950 S.W.2d 121, 127 {Tex. App.
- El Paso, 1997): An opening statement can give the State a preview of the defense strategy; therefore, trial counsel may make atactical decision not to present on, and such adecisiondoes not amountto ineffective assistance. Forthis reason, the applicant'sthird ground for relief is without merit, and should be denied. AllegedFailure to Subpoena Witnesses The applicant alleges in his second ground for relief that counsel failed to subpoena defense witnesses in the instant case. WritApplication at 7. Specifically, the applicant alleges that trial counsel failed to call witness Wesley Brown to testify at trial. 

### /d. The applicant also alleges

5counsel failed to subpoena an expert witness to refute the medical examiner'stestimony. 

### /d. When challenging trial counsel's failure to call a witness, "the applicant must showthat [thewitness] had been available totestify and that his testimony would have been of some benefit to the defense." Exparte White, 160 S.W.3d 46, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). The applicant fails to show that either of his proposed witnesses would have been available, or that either would have provided testimony that would have been of some benefitto his defense. The applicant merely makes aconclusory statement
as to what testimony Wesley Brown would have given, and does not offer
even a conclusory statement as to what, ifany, testimony an expert would offerthatwould have helped his defense. WritApplication at 7. Therefore, the applicant fails to meet his burden, and his second ground for relief should be denied. Failure to Invoke tfthe Rule" The applicant alleges, in his fifth ground for relief, that counsel failed

. to invoke Texas Rule of Evidence 614 (also known as "the Rule") before

trial testimony began, resulting in defense witnesses being present in the courtroom during testimony. WritApplication at 10. The applicant goes on

6to allege that this resulted in defense witnesses hearing each others' testimony, thereby bolstering theirown testimony. 

### /d. The applicant is mistaken. After the applicant was arraigned, but before testimony began, the trial court asked whether either side wished to invoke the Rule. (3 R.R. 4). Immediately, counsel repiied, "Yes, Your Honor." (3 R.R. 4). Thereafter, the trial court admonished witnesses, as they were sworn in, that the Rule had been invoked, and explained how that affected the witnesses. (3 R.R. 4; 5 R.R. 3). The applicantfails to allege sufficientfacts which, iftrue, would entitle him to relief. Exparte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Therefore, the applicant's fifth ground is without merit and should be denied. Genera/Ineffectiveness In his sixth ground for relief, the applicant alleges that trial counsel
was generally ineffective overall. WritApplication at6.2 First and foremost, in habeas proceedings, the applicant must allege sufficient facts, which if true, would entitle him "to relief. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Even if sworn to, an applicant's allegations are insufficient to overcome the State's

2The pages in thewritapplication appearto be duplicates, in no particularorder, after pages 6-10. The State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, this page 6 is the second page 6 as one proceeds through the pages ofthe writ application 7denials. Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The burden of proof is on the applicant, and the standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Grim. App. 1988). The applicant fails to clearly articulate any legal basis for relief in his sixth ground for relief, and therefore fails to allege sufficient facts, which, if true, would entitle him to relief. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d at 116. The applicant merely expresses his feeling that his attorney's "representation as a whole fell below and accepted standard of reasonableness" without providing any factual or legal support for his allegations. WritApplication at 6. Therefore, the applicant's sixth ground for relief is without merit, and should be denied. ConflictofInterest The applicant alleges in his first and seventh grounds for relief that counsel faced a conflict of interest which rendered counsel ineffective at trial and on appeal. Writ Application at 6. Specifically, the applicant alleges in his first ground for relief that trial counsel's agreement with the State to not release copies of the offense report to the applicant was a conflict ofinterest. 

### /d.

8Ineffective assistance of counsel may result from an attorney's conflict of interest. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692. "An actual conflict of interest exists if counsel is required to make a choice between advancing his client's interest in a fair trial or advancing other interests (perhaps his own) to the detriment ofhis client's interest." Exparte Morrow, 952 S.W.2d 530, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (citing James v. State, 763 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989)). However, in order for an applicant to demonstrate a violation of his right to reasonably effective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest, the applicant "must show (1) that defense counsel was actively representing conflicting interests, and (2) that the conflict had an adverse effect on specific instances of counsel's performance." /d. (citing Cuylerv. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980)). Furthermore,_in a case where counsel is appointed (as in this case), a defendant has the responsibility to bring to the court's attention any basis
on which he believes an appointed counsel should be replaced. Malcom v. State, 628 S.W.2d 790, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)(citing Webb v. State, 533 S.W.2d 780, 784 n. 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)). In that manner, the trial court can be afforded the opportunity to decide ifthe defendant can carry the burden ofproving that he is entitled to achange ofcounsel. 

### /d.

9The applicant fails to show, nor can the State find any evidence that the applicant brought the matter to the court's attention. Furthermore, the applicantfails to demonstrate any actual conflict ofinterest existed between the applicant and counsel. Finally, the applicant fails to demonstrate that any alleged conflict in the primary case had any adverse effect on specific instances of counsel's performance. The applicant cannot show that he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel due to any conflict of interest. Therefore, this aspect ofthe applicant's first and seventh grounds for reliefarewithout merit and should be denied. IneffectiveAssistance ofCounselonAppeal At the conclusion of the applicant's trial, trial counsel 

### J
.. Sidney Crowley continued to represent the applicant on appeal. See State's Writ Exhibit A, Notice ofAppeal in cause number 1169973. The applicant's seventh ground for relief alleges that Crowley's appointment as both trial and appellate attorney rendered him ineffective, as evidenced by Crowley's failure to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims against himself. Writ Application at 10. Therefore, it appears the applicant's true claim is ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise ineffective assistance oftrial counsel as a point oferroron appeal.

10It is established thatto support an applicant's allegation that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to assign a particular point ofappeal, the applicant must meet the standard set out in Strickland. Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 (1986); Ex parte Butler, 884 S.W.2d 782, 783-784 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals employsthe same analysisfor ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal as it applies to trial counsel: (1) "determine whether counsel's performance was deficient," and (2), ifthe performance
was deficient, "determine whether there is a reasonable probability the results would have been different but for counsel's deficient performance." Exparte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), overruledon othergrounds; Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Therefore, a showing of both deficient performance and prejudice is required. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687. An attorney "need not advance everyargument, regardless of merit, urged by the appellant" and to do so would disserve the very goal of vigorous and effective appellate advocacy. Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985) (emphasis in original). An applicant must demonstrate that counsel's decision not to raise a particular point of error was objectively unreasonable and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for

11

## I

. . ' counsel's failure to raise that issue, the applicant would have prevailed on appeal. Robbins, 528 U.S. at 285-86 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-91, 694). "A reasonable probability·is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome" ofthe proceeding. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. Nevertheless, and without waiving any ofthe foregoing arguments or authorities, the resolution ofthe claims requires information concerning trial counsel's strategic decisions, and confidential communications with the applicant. Therefore, the State believes that further factual investigation is necessary to determine the merit, if any, to the applicant's ineffective assistance claim. Reply to theApplicant's Eighth Ground for Relief In his eighth ground for relief, the applicant claims the trial court erred by appointing trial counsel as appellate counseL WritApplication at 7.3 The applicant filed notice of appeal on August 17, 2009, in which he also notified the court that he was indigent, and wished the trial court to appoint appellate counsel. See State's Writ ExhibitA, Notice ofAppealin
cause number 1169973. In this same notice, counsel noted that he would continue to represent the applicant on appeal. 

### /d. The applicant signed this notice, although he had the option to ask counsel to withdraw from his

3 The pages in the writapplication appearto be duplicates, in no particularorder, afterpages 6-10. The State is listing the pages as they are numbered in the application; hence, this page 7 is the second page 7as one proceeds through the pages ofthe writapplication. 12

### .

# . case, and accept a different appellate attorney from the trial court. The applicant's signature on a form requesting trial counsel to remain on as appellate counsel is prima facie·evidence that the trial court did not err in allowing the applicant his choice in appellate counsel. Moreover, the purpose of habeas corpus is to ·determine the lawfulness ofconfinement and not to serve as the substitute for an appeal. Ex parte Clore, 690 S.W.2d 899, 900 {Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Habeas corpus will lie only to review jurisdictional defects or denials of fundamental or constitutional rights. Ex parte Watson, 601 S.W.2d 350 {Tex Crim App 1980). The applicant's claims are not of ajurisdictional defect nature, nor arethese claims regarding afundamental orconstitutional right. It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus should not be used to litigate matters which should have been raised on direct appeal. Exparte Banks, 769 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Exparte Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). Generally, factual and evidentiary challenges are "record claims" and should be litigated on direct appeal. Ex parte Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 198-200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (op. reh'g). There is no reason why the applicant could not have made these complaints in the trial court, and on direct appeal. However, hefailed to do

13·so. They are therefore waived, and he is now procedurally barred from further litigation ofthese issues. See id. Therefore, applicant has failed in his burden of proof at habeas, and
even assuming he meets that burden, applicant's claim is not cognizable because he should have raised it on direct appeal. The applicant's eighth groundfor relief is without merit and should be denied. 

### Ill. The State respectfully requests thatthetrial court designatethe issue of ineffective assistance of counsel as an issue that still needs to be addressed. The State respectfully requests that the trial court order J. Sidney Crowley to file an affidavit addressing the instant allegations of ineffective assistance ofcounsel attrial.

14

# .**~**



## .' ..... IV. Service has been accomplished by sending a copy ofthis instrumentto the following address: Candy Hill Hughes #1596685 -Telford Unit 3899 State Highway 98 New Boston, TX 75570 SIGNEDthis 25th dayofNovember, 2013.
Respectfully submitted,

. Flores Assistant DistrictAttorney Harris County, Texas 1201 Franklin,·6th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 755-6657 (713) 755-5240 (fax) Texas Bar ID#24059760

15CauseNo. 

### J/{eqct7

### 3 THESTATEOFTEXAS 

### {),170)1)/;(/

## 1-fu~**~** AooA/

_____ _ Z-3rfn+ DistrictCourtI CountyCriminal CourtatLalvNo.
___ _ HarrisCounty,Texas
NOTICEOFAPPEAL TOTHEHONORABLEJUDGE OFSAID COUKf: On 

# aeiu5T 12, 'ZCO0 (date), the defendantinthe above numbered and styled causegives NOTICE. APPEALofhis conviction. Theundersigned attorney(checkappropriatebox): o MOVES to withdraw.**~VISES** the courtthathe will CONTINUEto representthe defendan
Date

AUG 1 72009 Time: ----:-:---c-:-;:;--.,....-;:------**H~rris c0:..m~.y.** **Tr~Y,i::lS** By Deputy Thedefendant(checkallthatapply): Attorney (Printefllame) I 05{70200 StateBarNumber 

### f 

### 40 1-.pU{SJana... Address '"],2:,- Z:?S- 59ff)1 TelephoneNumber
.o---R:E"PRESENTSto the courtthathe is presently INDIGENT and ASKS the courtto immediately APPOINT appellatecounselto representhim.**~s** the Courtto ORDERthata free record be provided to him. o ASKS the courtto set BAIL. Accordingly, AppellantASKS theCourtto conductahearing, make findings, and enter an Order Grantingtherequestedrelief.

Defendant·(Signature) Defendant' rinted name SWORNTOAND SUBSCRIBEDBEFOREME ON

## ---r1~rA~U"""G"T--1-r7~2_0_09 _______ _ ByDeputyDistrictClerkofHarrisCounty,Texas

# ----rt-=-rtl-
....... 

# ----cYf--------------

Page Iof2 STATE'S EXHIBIT



### A lORDER



### ··

### o~**·~It?!**o9 r 1 theCourtconducted ahearingandFINDS thatdefendantIappellant 0 IS NOT indigentatthis time.**~** IS indigentforthe purposeof**~employing**counsel 0 payingfora clerk'sand courtreporter'srecord.**~mploying** counselorpaying for a clerk'sandcourtreporter'srecord. TheCourtORDERSthat o Counsel'smotionto withdrawis GRANTED/DENIED. o DefendantI appellant's motion (tobefound indigent) is DENIED. o Defendant'sIappellant'smotion is GRANTED and 0 (attorney'sname&barcardnumber) is APPOINTED torepresentdefendantIappellantonappeal. 0 TheCOURT REPORTER is ORDERED to prepareandfile thereporter'srecord withoutcharge to defendantI appellant. BAILIS:

o ToCONTINUE as presentlyset. o DENIED and is SET atNO BOND. (Felony,Only)
DATESIGNED:

## ----'6~/_.,J.....:.'D+/_C)_a.r....J___ _ I I

. '

! • '·

Page 2of2•



# ..**_;~~**

I**·~** 

# f**IWMeo~~RI&** ............ \ld'U

..."' ;•.... .· '*ftw, ,.....**~.** "'p;.RR!s
........ l A...

### c ......**~"-·······**

### .0.
.. .....

### I~ .l"
. ...,

### 0~..

### ~ I ::J / {:{.\ ':A. E.0 ! \**·~** ! u l \ ...(. : \

. I

. \Y,:\ ;"-f:

.. . ' a

### \~ ··.. . 'f:rns

\

### Q,~'·· ,... I

.,.,.. "'· .,J>

. - .... &'!.

.....__........· c::)/,:0

..... 0 "

"'·· {.r #

...,f'.**,.,.~** ..,·
...................., 

### !tChrteDa"lal,Dl&trlolClerkofHarriseeun)y,**l'exsa.~**certifythat mlelaa trueandcorrectcopyoft11eoMglnalrocordnledandorreoordod Inmyomce,elec!tonlcallyorhardcopy,a ellappeal'&onIIIIadata. Wltn888myofficialhal)don«Ue9fofofDD04hle /

/