Date: l~:il.-bJ 2.,y, 'Lo\5" 

\ 

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 

P.o. Box 12308, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: Filing of Petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition 

Dear Clerk, .1is document contains some 

1ages that are of poor quality 

Enclosed, please find the Original and el¥tt'~i~q~f)i~~s 

of the "Relator's Petition for vJrit of Mandamus·& Prohibition." 

Please file this document and bring it to the Court's 

immediate attention for any proceedings to be had thereon. 

By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copy of this 

instrument to the Fourth Court of Appeals a~d Susan D. Reed, 

the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney. 

Thank you in advance for your time and kind assistance 

in this very important matter. 

1r;;::~L (r/i'ram Miles 

TDCJ-CID No. 785448 

W-P- Clements Unit 

9601 Spur 591 

Amarillo, Texas 79107-9606 

c/file 

RECEIVED!N 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

MAR 12 2015 

Abe1 Acosta, Clerk 
No. 

IN THE 

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL OF TEXAS 

AT AUSTIN 

HIRAM MILES, 

-Relator, -. 

v. 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS, 

Respondent. 

RELATOR'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS & PROHIBITION 

Hiram Miles 

TDCJ-CID No. 785448 

William P. Clements Unit 

9601 Spur 591 

Amarillo, Texas 79107-9606 

RELATOR, PRO SE 
No. 

HIRAM MILES, 

Relator, 

v. 

20 15 MAR -5 AH II : I 5 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT 

OF TEXAS, 

Respondent. 

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 

The following is a complete list of the parties, the 

attorneys, and any other person who has an interest in the outcome of this suit: 

Susan D. Reed 

Bexar County Criminal District Attorney 

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Fifth Floor 

San An toni o,. Texas 78205-3030 

Fourth Court of Appeals District 

Cadena~Reeves Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037 

1· 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Identity of Parties & Counsel i 

Table of Contents ii 

Index of Authorities iii 

Statement of the Case iv 

Statement of Jurisdiction •...••.••.••..•.••.••....•••.•••. v 

Issue Presented • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • $ 0 - • • • • • ~ • • ~ ~ • • ~ • ~ • • • • - • • • ~ • vi 

1 

Summary of the Argument •••••...•.•....•••....•.•.. ~ ...••.. 3 

Argument •.•••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••.•••..•••••.••••••.•. 4 

Issue One: 

The Fourth Court of Appeals Judgment/Opinion Is Outside 

Of The Anders/Stafford Procedure Established By The u.s. 

Supreme Court and Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas, 

Rendering It Void 

Prayer •.•.•••.••.••••••.•••..•••••.•••••.•••••••....•••.•. 8 

Unsworn Declaration .•••.•••••••.••••.••.•.•••.•.••.••••.•• 9 

Certificate of Service •..•••••.••.....•••.••..•..••.••.... 9 

Appendix • ., ... c-.-. .. •~·•••••••_..,.,.,,..,.,.,.,_ • ..,.,.,. ........... -. .. ., ... _. ...... .. 10 

ii. 
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

Federal Cases: 

Anders v. California,386 U.S.738,87 S.Ct.l396,18 L.Ed. 

493 ( 1967) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 I 6 I 8 

Fay v. Noia,372 u.s.391,83 s.ct.822,9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963) ... 7 

States Cases: 

Chester,In Re, 309 S.W.3d @ 718(Tex.App.-Houston[l4th Dist~] 

2 0 1 0 ) • • . • • • . • • • • . • • • • • . • • . . • .. . • . • • - -• • . . • • - . • . . • •' • . . - - • . . • . . 8 

Choice ! Energy,L.P.,325 S.W.3d 810(Tex.App.-Houston[l4th 

Dist-]2010) .....•......••....••........................•.... 8 

Rodriguez v. Marquez, 4 S.W.3d 227(Tex.Crim.App.l999) ...... 4 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 5ll(Tex.Crim.App.l991) ....... 5,6,8 

Texas Dept. of Corrections v. Dalehite, 623 S.W.2d 420, 

4 2 4 ( T ex . C rim . A p p • 19 81 ) ....................•... _ . . . . . . • . . . • . 4 

Wade v. Mays, 689 S.W.2d 893,899 (Tex.Crim.App.l985) ..••. :. 4 

Statutes: 

Article 11.07, Section 4, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure .. 7 

iii 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Relator was indicted on January 4,1996, for the offense 

of murder alleged to have been committed on or about October 

10,1995. (C.R- Vol.I,p.7) 

Jury trial commenced on March 31,1997 (C.R. Vol.I,p-8), 

after a plea of not guilty, a verdict of guilty was returned 

on April 3,1997 and the jury assessed punishment on that same 

day at life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. (C.R. Vol.II, 

p.l76) 

A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled on April 

21,1997. (C.R. Vol.II,p-184) 

Relator timely filed a notice of appeal on April 17,1997. 

(C.R. Vol.II,p.l93) 

After Anders proceeding the Fourth Court of Appeals in 

Appeal No. 04-97-00313-CR was initiated,the Court Affirmed the 

trial court's judgment on March 3,1999. 

iv 
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 

This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus 

and prohibition. Article 4.04, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 

and Article 5, Section 5, Texas Constitution. 

v -
Issue One: 

ISSUE PRESENTED 

The Fourth Court Of Appeals Judgment/Opinion 

Is Outside Of The Anders/Stafford Procedure 

Established By The u.s. Supreme Court And Court 

Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas, Rendering It Void. 

vi. 
STATEMENT OF FACTS 

On May 18,1998, court-appointed appellate counsel, Raymond 

Fuchs, filed a "Anders Brief In Support Of Motion To Withdraw 

As Counsel" with the Fourth Court of Appeals in Appeal No. 04-

97-00313-CR. 

Mr. Fuchs provided Relato_E_~_!:_b_~ ___ <::_~J?X ___ t::>__f ___ t:_~e Anders Brief 

and advised him of his right to review the record and file a 

Pro Se Brief. 

Mr. Fuchs, also, sent the 290th District Court's address 

to contact for the trial record to be sent to him; notifying 

him also of the time limitations to file the brief suggesting 

that Relator request for an extension of time, giving him the 

Fourth Court of Appeals address. see Appendix Tab-A, Attachment-

!: Order of the Fourth Court of Appeals, dated July 20,1998: 

[Affidavit of Hiram Miles] 

On May 26,1998, Relator, as instructed wrote the trial 

court judge Sharon s. MacRae requesting for the record. 

On Julyl,l998, in response to the letter, Judge MacRae 

stated "I have no proprietary interest in the records that you 

request, contact the Court of appeals." 

On July 5,1998, Relator wrote the Fourth Court of Appeals 

asking for his records ~y motion, to file his brief. 

On July 20,1998, the Fourth Court of Appeals ackowledged 

in a Order that Relator asserted his right to file a pro se 

brief. 

This Order directed the Bexar County District Clerk to 

prepare and send a full and complete duplicate copy of the 

1 
Clerk's and Reporter's Records for Cause Number 1996-CR-0010 

to Relator. See (Appemdix, Tab-A,[Affidavit of Hiram Miles] 

Attachment-1) 

In this Order, it stated that "the Pro Se Brief is due 

on or before the 18th day of September 1998." Id. 

On September 18, 1998, Fourth Court of Appeals Clerk, 

Mr. Herb Schaefer,·acknowledged receipt and filing of the "Pro 

Se Appellant Brief" for the Fourth Court of Appeals. See 

(Appeodix, Tab-A,[Affidavit of Hiram Miles] Attachment-2) 

Relator provided Mr. Fuch with a copy and also forwarded 

a copy to Enrico B. Valdez, the attorney representing the State. 

See (Appendix, Tab-A) 

The State's attorney filed three (3) motions for extensions 

of time and filed its reply brief on January 19,1999. 

On February 4,1999, Relator was notified by Clerk Schaef~r 

that the Court set a formal submission on "Briefs" on the 2nd 

day of March, A.D. 1999. 

On March 3,1999, Justice Karen Angelini delivered the 

Opinion for the Court affirming Relator's conviction by review 

of the brief filed by Mr. Fuchs and the record, agreeing that 

the appeal was frivolous and without merit granting counsel's 

motion to withdraw. See (Appendix, Tab-A,[Affidavit of Hiram 

Miles], Attachment-3: Opinion, Fourth Court of Appeals) 

Justice Angelini in her Opinion further noted that "Miles 

has not filed a brief." Id. 

Relator's "Pro Se Appellant Brief" has not been reviewed 

nor considered as mandated by the u.s. Supreme Court's holding 

on the Anders procedure. 

2 
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT 

Court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders' Brief 

In Support of Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, triggering the 

Anders'/Stafford three (3) step mandate by the u.s. Supreme 

Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Intermediate State 

Appellate Courts must follow this procedure to the conclusion 

of its appellate review. 

In this case at bar, where the Fourth Court of Appeals 

abandined review of "Appellant's ProSe Brief" required by 

Anders/Stafford judgments, it went beyond its jurisdiction to 

enter any judgment, thereby rendering the Order of affirmation 

of the conviction and sentence void. 

Relator pursues Writ of Mandamus in order for this 

Honorable Court shall have the power to issue the writ and 

enforce its judgment as decided in St~fford v. State which was 

determined in accord with Anders v. California. 

3 
ARGUMENT 

The Fourth Court Of Appeals Judgment/Opinion Is Outside 

Of The Anders/Stafford Procedure Established By The u.s. Supreme 

Court And Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas, Rendering It Void. 

Standard of Review 

To obtain mandamus relief with respect to judicial conduct, 

a Relator must show: 

1) a clear right to relief usually when the judicial conduct in question violates a ministerial duty, and 

2) no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. 

See State ex. rel. Rodriguez:'\!;~ :Marquez;.,,4,s.w.3d 227 (Tex.crim. 

App. 1999) 

* * * 

The Wade Court determined that "under the ministerial 

act/clear legal right requirement, the law must "Clearly spell 

[] out the duty to be performed ••• with ouch certainty that 

nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment." See 

Wade v. Mays, 689 S.W.2d at 899 (Tex.Crim.App.l985)(Quoting 

Texas Department of Corrections v. Dalehite, 623 S.W.2d 420,424 

(Tex.Crim.App.l98l)) 

The governing law in this case is spelled out in steps 

by the u.s. Supreme Court and Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

in a way that cannot be interpreted in no other way. 

Therefore, Relator will demonstrate that the judicial 

conduct of the Justices of the Fourth Court of Appeals violates 

a ministerial duty to review the "Pro Se Appellant's Crief." 

4 
This Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas in 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.Crim.App.l991) adopted 

the u.s. Supreme Court's three (3) step procedure to determine 

if an indigent's appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 u.s. 738, 87 s.ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.493 (1967) 

Counsel's Role -Appointed counsel must make a conscientious 

review of the record to decide if it presents any nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. If this review convinces appointed 

counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous, he must ask the 

court for permission to withdraw. But he must file "a 

brief referring to anything in the record that might 

arguably support the appeal" and provide the appellant 

with a copy of th is brief. Anders, 386 u.s. at 744 

Appointed counsel thus has the responsibility to file 

an Anders brief that will help the court correctly dispose 

of the appellant's appeal. 

Appellant's Role - If appointed counsel files a motion 

to withdraw and a brief complying with Anders/Stafford, 

the court must provide the appellant with time to file 

a prose brief "to raise any pointes he chooses .... " Id. 

This pro se brief is thus the appellant's opportunity 

to help the court decide if the record on appeal raises 

any nonfrivolous ground for an appeal. 

The Court's Role - After the appellant has been given 

an opportunity to file a pro se brief., the court must 

conduct a "full examination of all of the proceedings,to 

determine whether the case is wholly frivolou~~" To make 

this determination, the court reviews the Anders brief 

filed by appointed counsel, the record on appeal,and any 

pro se brief filed by the appellant. If the court establishes 

the appeal is wholly frivolous, it affirms the judgment. 

But, if the review reveals an arguable ground for appeal, 

the court must appoint another attorney to assist the 

5 
appellant in arguing the appeal. Id. 

The above procedures are a ministerial duty mandated by 

the Court of Criminal Appeals and is not left to discretion 

by any lower court. See Anders v. California, 87 s.ct.l396(1967); 

Stafford,supra. 

Appointed counsel's filing of an Anders Brief and motion 

to withdraw triggered the Anders/Stafford procedure mandated by 

the u.s. Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. 

Relator did not agree with appointed counsel's finding 

that the appeal was frivolous and asserted his right und~r~ 

Anders/Stafford. 

Relator fulfilled his role as required pursuant to the 

Anders/Stafford procedure by filing his "Pro Se Appellant's 

Brief" on September 18,1998. See (Appendix, Tab-A, [Affidavit 

Of Hiram Miles] Attachment - 2: Notice of Receipt By Clerk,dated 

September 18,1999) 

The Fourth Court of Appeals did not fulfill its role 

prior to rendering judgment by stating in its Opinion "Miles 

has not filed a brief." See (Appendix, Tab-A [Affidavit of Hiram 

Miles] Attachment - 3: Opinion/Judgment of the Fourth Court 

of Appeals,dated March 3,1999) 

The Court ignored its ministerial duty to review the pro 

se brief by simply stating that ''Miles has not filed a brief" 

when court records and notice of receipt from the court's 

clerk certifying otherwise. 

Therefore, Relator is entitled to the review governed 

by the And~rs/Staf(ord proc~dure. 

6 
The aforementioned steps must be followed in reaching 

the decision to affirm or appoint new counsel to argue the 

appeal. The review of any pro se brief filed by the Relator 

is required in this determination. Therefore, without the review 

of this brief on file with the Fourth Court of Appeals, it does 

not have jurisdiction to enter judgment of affirmation, and 

is void. 

NO ADEQUATE REMDEY AT LAW 

Relator will demonstrate that he has no adequate remedy 

at law to redress the Fourth Court of Appeals failure to review 

the pro se brief as required by Anders/Stafford. 

The only remedy from judgment/order by a court of appeals 

on direct appeal is the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to Article 11.07, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 

Your Relator does not meet the requirements in pursuing 

the state application due to his previous filings of State 

applications, whereby, Section 4, Article 11.07 does not redress 

the hram done to Relator by the Fourth Court of Appeals. See 

(Appendix, Tab-A, [Affidavit of Hiram Miles] Attachment - 4: 

Order of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,dated: March 12, 

2014) 

In addition, the Fourth Court of Appeals judgment is 

obtained in violation of the Anders/Stafford procedure [DUE 

Process] and void for want of jurisiction of the court to render 

such judgment. See Fay v. Noia, 372 u.s. 391, 83 s.ct. 822, 

9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), and requires no need for Relator to 

7 
demonstrate the No Adequate Remedy at Law standard. 

Albeit, lower court's have determined that the "No Adequate 

Remedy at Law" is not necessary when the order being challenged 

is void. See In Re Chester, 309 s.w.3d @ 718 (Tex.App.-Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2010); See also In Re Choice! Energy,L.P., 325 

S.W.3d 810 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) 

In conclusion, Relator has attempted every avenue to obtain 

relief from the Fourth Court of Appeals arbitrary act to ignore 

the brief timely filed by Relator on September 18,1998. See 

(Appendix, Tab-A [Affidavit of Hiram Miles] Attachment - 2) 

Relator contends that the Fourth Court of Appeals refusal 

to review the brief is due to the grounds raised in the brief 

being meritorious requiring abatement of the appeal, and remand 

to the trial court for appointment of new counsel to assist 

him in arguing those grounds. 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE,PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator prays that this 

Honorable Court issues this Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition 

directing the Fourth Court of Appeals to review the "Pro Se 

Appellant's Brief" as required by Anders v. California, 87 s.ct. 

1396 (1967) and Stafford v. State, 813 s.w.2d 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 

1991) Also, issue Prohibition to the Fourth Court of Appeals 

to prohibit any attempted decision without first revewing the 

"Pro Se Appellant's Brief." 

EXECUTED on this the Z~}b day of ~~~~~ 2015. 

~~~J 8 
UNSWORN DECLARATION 

I, Hiram Miles TDCJ-CID No. 785448, being presently 

confined on the TDCJ-CID William P. Clements Unit in Potter 

County, Texas verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct pursuant to V.T.C.A. Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code 132.001 - 132.003. 

EXECUTED on this the ~ day of t~~JYL~ 2015. 

E ATOR, PRO SE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Hiram Miles, Relator, pro se, do hereby certify that 

a copy of the "Petition for a Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition" 

has been served on the parties to this suit by placing same 

in the u.s. Mail System through the prison mailing system, on 

the ~ day of '\~1.\K?.'Sl.\A 2015, addressed to: 

' 

Susan D. Reed 

Bexar County Criminal District Attorney 

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Fifth Floor 

Sari Antonio, Texas 78205-3030 

Fourth Court of Appeals District 

Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 

San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037 

~~~Jw 

9 
WRIT NO. WR-46,247-12 

HIRAM MILES, 

Relator, 

vs. 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

Respondent. 

APPENDIX TO RELATOR'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

AND PROHIBITION 

List Of Documents 

1. Affidavit Of Hiram Miles 

Dated December 14,2014 ······-----··-··········-·-··---Tab A 

10 
T A B A 

{Affidavit Of Hiram Miles) 
WRIT NO. WR-46,247-12 

HIRAM MILES, 

Relator, 

§ IN THE CRIMINAL 

vs. § COURT OF APPEALS 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, 

Respondent. § OF TEXAS, AT AUSTIN 

STATE OF TEXAS 

COUNTY OF POTTER 

AFFIDAVIT OF HIRAM MILES 

§ 

§ 

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared 

HiramMiles, who being by me duly sworn, did state on his Oath 

the following: 

My·name is Hiram Miles, I am over twenty-one (21) years 

of age, of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and 

personally acquainted with the facts herein stated. 

1) My court-appointed appellate counsel, Raymond Fuchs, 

filed an "Anders Brief In Support of Motion to Withdraw 

as Counsel" in the Fourth Court of Appeals on May 18,1998. 

See Miles v. State, Appeal No. 04-97-00313-CR. 

2) I obtained the trial court record upon Order of the 

Fourth Court of Appeals to the district clerk to prepare 

a complete copy of the record to be sent to me. see 

(Attachment-1: Order of the Fourth Court of Appeals) 

3) After review of the trial record, I timely filed my 

"ProSe Appeallant's Brief as required by the Anders 

Page 1 of 2 
procedure on September 18,1998. See (Attachment-2: Notice 

of Receipt By Clerk) 

4) The Fourth Court of Appeals, after the State's response 

reviewed appointed counsel's brief, allegedly the record 

and affirmed my Judgment of Conviction and Sentence on 

March 3,1999, granting counsel's motion to withdraw and 

stating "Miles has not filed a brief." See (Attachment3: Opinion/Judgment of the Fourth Court of Appeals) 

5) After filing eight (8) State Application For Writ of 

Habeas Corpus' under Article 11.07, TEX.CODE CRIM PROC., 

that avenue for remedying the harm is not available. see 

(Attachment-4: Order of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 

Dated: March 12,2014) 

The above and foregoing statements are true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and presented under the penalty 

of perjury. 

I will testify in any court of law on the fac ts presented 

in this affidavit. 

UNSWORN DECLARATION 

I, Hiram Miles TDCJ-CID No.785448, being presently confined on the TDCJ-CID William P. Clements Unit in Potter County, 

Texas verify under penalty of perJury that the foregoing is 

true and correct pursuant to V.T.C.A. Civil Practice and 

Remedies Code 132.001 - 132.003. 

EXECUTED on this the ~ day of Dece~be£ 2014. 

F IANT, PRO SE 

Page 2 of 2 
A T T A C H M E N T 1 

Order Of The Fourth Court Of Appeals 

Dated: July 20,1998 
July 20, 1998 

No. 04-97-00313-CR 

Hiram MILES, 

Appellant 

V. 

The STATE ofTexas, 

Appellee 

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 96-CR-0010 

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding 

ORDER 

Appellant's attorney ftled an Anders brief in this appeal. Anders v. California, 386 S.W.2d 

738 (1967). Appellant has asserted his right to file a prose brief and on July 9, 1998, filed a motion 

to obtain a copy of the record. · -

We therefore ORDER the District Clerk of Bexar County to prepare and send a full and 

complete duplicate copy of the clerk's and reporter's records for cause number 96-CR-00 10 to 

appellant at Hiram Miles, TDCJ-ID No. 785448, Route 2, Box 4400, Gatesville, TX 76597. 

Appellant's prose brief is due on or before the 18th day of September, 1998. The State's brief is 

due 30 days after appellant's brief is filed. · 

It is so ORDERED on July 20, 1998. 

* 
A T T A C H M E N T 2 

Notice Of Receipt By Clerk, Dated: September 18,1998 
COURT OF APPEALS 

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS .DISTRICT 

300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200 

BEXAR COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER 

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037 

HE~ SCHAEFER, CLERK 

Raymond E. Fuchs 

ATTORNEY ATLAW 

Washington Square Bldg., Suite 101 

800 Dolorosa Street 

San Antonio, TX 78207 

Hiram Miles 

TDCJ-ID No. 785448 

Hughes Unit 

Rt. 2, Box 4400 

Gatesville, TX 76597 

Edward F. Shaughnessy, TII 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County Justice Center 

300 Dolorosa, Suite 4025 

San Antonio, TX' 78205-3030 

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 

Trial Court Case Number: 

Style: Hiram Miles 

v. 

The State ofTexas 

Dear Counsel and Mr. :Miles: 

September 18, 1998 

04-97-00313-CR 

96-CR-0010 

The Pro Se Brief has this date been received and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. 

Very truly yours, 

HERB SCHAEFER, CLERK 

~::r-~~ 

Apryl Stirling, Deputy Clerk 
A T T A C H M E N T 3 

Judgment/Opinion Of The Fourth Court Of Appeals 

Dated: March 3,1999 
* * 

OPINION 

No. 04-97-00313-CR 

Hiram MILES, 

Appellant 

v. 

The STATE of Texas, 

Appellee 

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

·.·Trial Court No. 96-CR-0010 

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding 

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice 

Paul W. Green, Justice 

Karen Angelini, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: March 3, 1999 

AFFIRMED 

 , .. ., 

* 

Hiram Miles was convicted by jury of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Miles' 

court-appointed attorney has filed a brief in which he raises two arguable points of error, but 

nonetheless concludes that this appeal is fiivolous and without merit. Anders v .. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967); High v. State, 573. S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the 

requirements of Anders .. Counsel has provided Miles with a copy of the brief and advised him of his 

* 
04-97-00313-CR 

right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. 

App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Miles has not filed a brief. 

After reviewing the record ~nd counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and 

'\Nithout merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and counsel's motion to withdraw is 

granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86. 

Karen Angeiini, Jusil.ce 

JDO NOT PUBLISH. 

-2-
* * 

JUDGMENT 

No. 04-97-00313-CR 

Hiram MILES, 

Appellant 

V. 

The STATE ofTexas, 

Appellee 

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 96-CR-0010 

Honorable Sharon Macrae, Judge Presiding 

BEFORE JUSTICE RICKHOFF, JUSTICE GREEN, AND JUSTICE ANGELINI 

* 

In accordance with this court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED, and the motion to withdraw as counsel is GRANTED. 

SIGNED March 3, 1999. 

t/ ~~~ 

/)~~--.--· .. 0 . .. 

KAREN ANGELINI 

JUSTICE 

* 
A T T A C H M E N T 4 

Order Of The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals 

Dated: March 12,2014 
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

OF TEXAS 

NO. WR-46,247-11 

EX PARTE HIRAM MILES, Applicant 

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

CAUSE NO. 1996CR0010-W9 

IN THE 290TH DISTRICT COURT FROM BEXAR COUNTY 

Per curiam. 

ORDER 

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the 

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Courl this application for a writ ofhabeas corpus. Ex parte 

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted ofri).urder and was 

sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Applicant alleges that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him of his 

right to file a prose petition for discretionary review. The trial courtrecommended that relief be 

granted based on appellate counsel's affidavit. However, Applicant has filed eight previous 11.07 

habeas applications regarding this conviction. After a writ challenging a conviction is decided on 
the merits, every subsequent application must meet an exception to Section 4 of Code of Criminal 

Procedure Article 11.07 to be addressed on the merits. Ex parte Whiteside, 12 S.W.3d 819 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2000). Applicant relies on a revision to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which 

did not take effect until January 1, 2007 as "new law" to meet an exception under Section 4. TEX. 

R. APP. P. 25.2(d). The alleged new law does not apply to Applicant's case; therefore he has not 

shown that he meets an exception to the bar on subsequent writ applications. Therefore, this 

application is dismissed pursuant to Section 4 of Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07. 

Filed: March 12, 2014 

Do n:ot publish