MR. HICKS TRACY 

2661 FM 2054 

Tenn. Colony,Tx 75884 

August1 I'L. 2015 

HON. JOHN E. NEILL,RESPONDENT 

18th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

GUINN JUSTICE CENTER 

204 s. Buffalo Ave 

Cleburne Tx 76033 

HON. DALE HANNA,PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 

GUINN JUSTICE CENTER 

204 s. Buffalo Ave,Ste 209 

Cleburne Tx 76033 

Dear Clerk 

RECEIVED 

IN SUPREME COURT 

OF TEXAS 

AUG 1 8.2015 

BLAKE HAWTHORNE, Clerk 

BY Deputy 

This document contains some 

pages that are of poor quality 

at the time of imaging. 

Enclosed for filing with.the court is Relator's petitionfor writ 

of mandamus;Upon the filing of this petition please return a file 

marked copy for my records;A copy of this petition has been previously 

mailed to all interested parties. 

SINCERELY 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

AUG 18 2015 
• IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 

AT AUSTIN FILED 

IN SUPREME COURT 

OF TEXAS 

AUG 18 2015 

IN RE TRACY HICKS BlAKE HAWTHORNE, Clerk 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY PATRICK D. PASSMORE, Deputy 

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBER 29450 

FROM THE 18th DISTRICT COURT OF 

JOHNSON COUNTY,CLEBURNE TEXAS 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

TRACY HICKS,RELATOR 

PRO-SE#673001 

H.H. COFFIELD 

2661 FM 2054 

Tenn Colony~Tx 75884 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED AUG 18 2015 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 

AT AUSTIN 

IN RE TRACY HICKS 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER 29450 

FROM THE 18th DISTRICT COURT OF 

JOHNSON COUNTY,CLEBURNE TEXAS 

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS NO.l0-15-00224-CR 

RELATOR'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

Relator,•rracy Hicks,Pro-Setfiles this his Motion Asking the court to Take Judicial 

Notice of the following facts in this case; 

· 1. Relator originally filed this suit in the Tenth Court of Appeals;That Court 

has misconstrued the petition as a request for a writ of habeas corpus,whereas 

Relator complains of respondents denial of right to speedy trial,and the Abuse 

Discretion on Trial Motions where the court could act only one way on said issue 

raised by the motion;Complains that respondents. failed completely to Analyze or 

Correctly Apply the laws as they apply to the facts of this case;Further,Relator 

ask this court to take judicial notice of the fact that relator has not been accorded 

the requested discovery in this matter,and respondents has clearly failed without 

cause,to turn over the requested trial records,and documents which are relevant 

toti1ese proceedings. Relator ask the court to take judicial notice of the fact 

that relator is greatly being prejudiced by the constitutional violations and 

the abuse of discretion committed by respondents during trial;See Issues 2-5 in 

this petition. 

Relator Pray that the court will;Conditionally grant' the petition,and accord 

relator discovery in this matter.,and thereafter Grant a Hearing where these issues 

can be resolve according to law. 
·- IN THE· SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 

AT AUSTIN 

IN RE TRACY HICKS 

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBER 29450 

FROM THE 18th DISTRICT'COURT OF 

JOHNSON COUNTY,CLEBURNE TEXAS 

RELATOR'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF LEVEL 

TWo)\ DISCOVERY PLAN 

Relator,ask the tourt to Order that Discovery be conducted accord~bg 

to a level Two Discovery Control Plan~tailored to the circumstances 

of this suit,as permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures ,190.4; 

INTRODUCTION 

Relator is Tracy Hicks,acting Pro-Se.,The Respondents are; Han. John 

E. Neill.,and Dale Hanna Prosecuting Attorney of Johnson County. 

Relator filed this civil action,complaining of the respondents Abuse 

of Discretion on trial motions,and the failure to Am:llyze ur: correctly 

Apply the laws as they apply to the facts of the case. 

Relator, ask this court,to allow discovery under Level Two control 

plan because; 

A. There are r.elevant documents, and testimony within Respondents 

filesthat is important to the current claims final outcome,which 

would include BRADY Material; The Issues regarding this suit are 

Complex,and discovery,and a hearing at which both parties could 

argu€ their positions would be helpful to the court in any decision 

rendered by this court. 

Relator,during any discovery allowed, would conduct all discovery 

according to ~he Texas Rules of Civil procedures,and the Rules of 

this court.,Texas Rules of Civil Procedures Rules 190-198. 

SO MOVED AND PRAYED THAT RELATOR'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY BE GRANTED. 
NO. 

IN RE 

TRACY HICKS 

RELATOR 

RELATOR"S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

Relator, Tracy Hicks,Submits this petition for a writ of mandamus 

complaining of the Honorable John E. Neill,Presiding,Judge of the 

18th District court of Johnson County,Texas.,Jud~e Neill,has a duty 

under the law to provide relator with a speedy trial and resoluti~nn 

of these issues as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment 

of the United States Constitution,and Article !.,section 10 of the 

Texas Constitution. 

The Issues presented in this petition are complex,and would require 

discovery,therefore relator request that discovery be allowed to better I 

assist the court in it's decision,and to clerify relator's contentions. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS MANDAMUS 1 
p • l I 

~Ott. • •·• • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • •" • • • • • .. • • • • • • •.• • • • .... • • • • • • • • • • • ••·• • •PAGit1 

tllble Of ·COntents ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• · •••••••••••••• tAG&:, 11 

lOINTITY Or PARTIES & COUNSBt••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••p&ge,l 

INO~ Olf Atrl'HORI~·••,••••·•~··••••••••••••••••••••••:····•••••••••PAGE~2,3,A,B,C 

·STA~. OP 'lHB CASE ••••••• • • •••.• • •• • •., •• •. • •• • ~ • ••• • • ••• • • •• •••• PAG8,4 .. 

STA~ OF JURISDIC1'ION. •• • •• •••• ••• • ••••.• ••• • ••• ••• •• ••. • • ••• •• PAG8,5 

IS$U!tS ~· • .. ~ ••••••••••• • •• • •• • •·• ••. •. • •• ••. •••. •• •• • • •• • • .pAQB,6,7 

STA~ Ot.FAC'J.'S ............................. .-.................... pAQS,7,8 

~· .~ ~IBS•· • • • •. • • • ••.• • • •••••••• • • •·•. • ••• •. •. • •. • •• PAGE 9-25 

. . ' . 

the Unit~ ~t.atea Conetitutton,to move the prosecution 

f()rvard, ·ana br:i"9 the def&ndant to trial. 

PR.i\YD~ •• ~ .. -: •.•• ·• ~ • .......... ~ • ••••••••• • ••••••• • • •. ~ ••••••• • • • • • ••• PACIS ,25 

CBR'.t'Ii'lCATS. Ci1! SIRVICi:. • ......... • ..... • • •• • ••• • •••• • •• • •••• • .......... PAOEr.26 

ii 

··: ~ I • .:~ • 
' l 

1, .. 

l. I 

TRACY HICKS, 

. . . .. . ' 

·Reiat~ 'certif~u that tM following ia a complete list . ' ' . . . 

of the pal-ties; the attorneY'• •and any other person Who hu . . . : .· . . ··. -· ' . 

any interest in the outcome of this petition. 

·' ·.; 

. . : ·:·>. ·.:.:· 

H .i. doftoiBLo UNIT 

I 

2661 FM 2054 

Tennesaee CoJony, 1'X ·· 75884 

(903)9,28-2211 J 

REJspondent 

18th Diatriet COUrt 

Guinn JWJtice Center 

204 s. Buffalo Ave 

ClebUme Tx 760331 

Q.linn Juat1ce. Center: 

204 s. Buffalo AVe Ste 209 

Clebume Tx 76033 

:.\.<-_._ 

XN ItS TRACY. HI~·, PAGI 1 
:~.· 

•• > 

l •· ·;," 

0 ! 

INDEX o'F AUTHORITIES 

" 

Barker v. Wingo, 

~07 u.s~ 514 (l972).; ••••••••••••••••••• ~····•·••••••••Pagei9,10,ll 

Cantu v State, 

253 s . .'w~~ 3d 273(1'ex.Crim.App. 2008) •••••••••••••••••••• page:lO 

~Pillingham v State, 

·'4a3 -u.s· •. 64 (1975) ~ ••••• • ••••••• •·· •••••••• ~ ·•··• ••••••• Page, to 

Bai.·ril! v State, 

· 489 s.w. 2q ·303 (Tex. Crim. App .. 1973) ......... ~ •· ... • ..... Pag&,l.i 

. Hull v State, 

699 s.w. 2d 220 (Tex.Crbi. App. 1985) .................. Page,9 

Moreau v···faa .. lx ref i 

271 S.W.t_379 (Tex. l925)••••••••••••••••••••·····••••••••Page,9_ •... ·· 

Perkin~-~ -State, 

504 s.·w·· 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ............ • •••••••• •»age,lO 

Smith v Hooey, . . ' . . . 

393· u.-s. 374 (1969) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Pa:_ge,9-,ll,l2 

Taylor,Bx Part,e, 

522 s.w. ~d479 (Tex.Crim. App. 1975) •••••••••••••••••• Pagel0 

Turner v State, 

· 545 s.w. 2d 133(Te-x .. Crim.App.1976) ...................... Page9,ll,l2 

u.s. v Mari~n~ 

404 u.s. 307 (197l) •••••••••••••••••• ~··········~··•·••Pag~,l0 

Wilson v BOwman, 

381 s.w. 2d 320 (Tex.1.64)•••••••••••••••••~•••••••••••Page,11 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS Page 2 
l l . l- l 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

tallirts y State, 

7~0 s.w. 2d 176 (Tex.Crim. App. 1986) ••••••• ~····•••••••Page,l3,14 

Cro~~lin ~ State, 

90 Tex ~r.R.467,235 s.W.905,906(192l) ..................... Pagel4 

In R8Gonzale1J, 

115 5•W•. 3d 36(Tex.App.san Antonio 200:3) •••• •. :~ •••••••• • Page,i4 

· Prudenti~1:Ins,Co•Of.Am, 

148 s~.w: 3d l24,135-36('l'ex •• 2004) ••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,l4 

Walkez: v Paeke.r, 

.. 827 s~w. 2d833,839 (Tex. l992) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,l4 

Repu6lic:an Party .v Dietz, 

940 s.w. ad 86,94(Tex~l997)••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••age,l4 

Dobec~a . v . State, . 

. (App.S' Dist, 2003) 2003WL 194711 ,~ ...................... Page,l6 

JohnsOn v State, 

629 s.w.- 2d l37('1'ex.At>P·Dallas)~ ................. ~ ....................... Page,l6 

Lanum v State, ·.1 

952 s.w. 2d 36 {Tex.erim.App. 19 ) ••••••••• •.•. • •••••••••••••••••••• Page,l4 · 

liughes v st~te, . · .. . . . 

~ s.w. ·24· 248,PDR.,833 s.w. 2d 137(Tex. Crim. App. 19 ) •••••••••• Page116 

Martinez v State, 

;53 s~w. 24 804,~ ~-Qmbsd;z:ev,981 s.w.~cras 1973,631:cJ · le:a •. ,z;.€83,~~1· • ~ " •• • ••• • · •.• · ••••••••••••••• · •••• ~ ••••. ;~ -~~~ •••• ., ...... ~ .l;lage, 16 .. . \ 

IN RE tU' ProduCts North America, Inc, . . IAlJO . 244 s.w.3d l.ii('lex• •) ••.••••• •.• ...................................... Page,l6· 

-v-, 

Gas s.w. 2d 47(1'ex.erim. App· 19 ) •••••••••••••••••.•• , ••••.. • ••••• o ••• Pase,l6 

! 

'' 
I 'a· 

' ~ ). l 

"l',, 

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

French v B.stelle, 

692 F.2(S1021,(5th Cir. 1982)•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Page,18,21 

175 s.w. 3ds0o(Tex. App. Beaumont 200S) •••• ~ •••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••• Page 18. 

Strickland v waBhington, 

466 u.s •. 668,104 s.ct. 2052,2064,80 t.Ed.2d.674(198~U ................. •Pa<.;~e,l8,19,20 

Mitchelle.V State, 

68 s.w. 3d 640,647(1'ex. Crim•AtlP• 2002) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,l8,2l 

Bone V State, 

77 s.w. Jd 8.28,833(Tex. Crim~ App. 2002) •••••••• •• •· •• • ~~ ••••••••••••• •Page~lf 

FlCMtra VState, 

133 s.w. 3d 853,856 (Tex. App .. Beaumont,2004 No pet,citing Hernandes v sta.t«t' 

988 s.w.· 2d 770,772(Tex. Crim. App. 1999)•••••••·•~··••••••••••••••••••••Page,l9 

Andrews v State,. 

159 s.;;w., 2d 981,982(Tex.Crim. App. 2005) •••••••••• • •••••••••• •• •• · ••••• P~Age,19 

Glorieo V S~te, 

(Cr .. App. 1988)637 s.w. 2d 483 s.w. 2CI 454 .................. ~ ••••••••••• Page,l9, 

Diremigo v State, 

(Cr. App. 1982·)~37 s.w. 2d 926 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• llage,l9: 

Smith v state, 

lS8 s.w. 3d 463,465(Tex. erim. App. 200) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,20 

Bx Parte J<>rdan• 

(er. App• 1994)879 s.w. 2d 6l ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,20 

Bill V ·r.o¢ctwt, 

106 S•Ct . 366(19 ) ••• :. •• ••• • • • • • •. •. • • • •• • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .Page,21 . 

Bullard v iatelle ~ . . . . . ·. 

708 F •. 2d 1021(1980)· •• • ••• • •• •• .~ •• • • •• • • ••• •• • • • • •. • • • • • • •·••• • • • • • • • .,Pag~21~ 

Jackson v Virginia, . 

u.s. s.ct.99,2781,443 u.s. 307,61 t.r.a.2d. 56Q,r~.a.n-looet. 19S,444,u.s.s90, 

62 ·t.F.d. Jd. 126 ••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••.• _ ••••••••••••.•.••••••••••• •l?l!l9~ .. ·'21 

IN RE TRACY ·SICKS-MANDAMIJS· Page 3A 
~; -~' ··: 

.. :·:'.1, ..... ' .. ;.;.·:.;:.:: · ... .::, . {~ 

j l------------~----·~"----------~'----------------------~------------------ ___ v_,695 s.w. 2d 479 (Tex. Crim. Aw• ~9. I ) ••••••• ~ ......... 4 ••••• •· ...... -P~g~ 

_v_,244 s.w. 3d .840 Tex.· App. 200 ) .................. • ••••••••••••••••• Page,22 

:IN Re Chevron,u.s.A.,Inc c!A,l 

,109 F •. 3d l016(CA.,Tex. 1997) ........... ~ •••••••••••••• ~···················Page2.2 

EX Parte Fortune, · , 

797 s.w •. 2d 929 (Ter. .. Crim. App. 198 ) .................................... Pa9e·,22 

Elder V State, 

132 s.w. 34 ;20 .:(TeX. App.Fort Worth 2004) ••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••••• Page,2~ 

United States V Dixon, 

509 u.$. §88,689,113 s.ct. 2849,2855,125 t. EQ. 2d 556 (1993) ........... Page,23 . 

Brown V Ohio, 

432 u .. s .. l61,169,97 s.ct. 2221, 53 t.Ed. 2d 187 (1977) ................... Pa9e /23,24 

Parish V State, 

~9 s .. w .. 2d 352,354 (TeX. Crim. App.l999) .............................. page,2l,25 

Ochoa V State,. 

982 s.w .. 2d 9041 908 (Tex Crim. App• 1988) •••••••••••••••••••••• ., •••••• Page.~3-:24 

Cunningham V St~te, 

726 s.w A 2d 151 ,('l'ex .. Crim. App. 1987) ............................ •. •• • • • .Pag.e; 24 

Demoss V State, 

12 s.w. 3d 533,561 (Te~ .. Aw• san Antonio,1999 pet rrafused .............. page,24 

Blocllburger, 

284 u.s •. at 304,. 52 s·,ct •. 180 ............................................. ·Pfl9e,:~ 

STA'l'OTES 

Chapter 3.04(-)Tex •. Penal Code.Vernon's Ann· Tex.Code Crim.Proc.,Article 21.24 

-rex. Code Crim. Pr:oc.,Article 22.011,21.11 

'l'ex. COde :c;rim.Proc· ,Art.26.13(a) . . 

Tex. Penal COde Ann. ·l2.42(b)(c)vernon•s .1974); 

'.rex· Conat.Articles,l§lO,l§l3,1§14;Art.S§67Tex .. Gov,t Code 22.222(a) 

u.s .. ConStitutional Amei1dments lst,Sth,8thl6th,l4th 

PA<:;B 3B 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus from this .court compelling Judge John E.Neill 

of the 18th District Court of Johnson County texas,to bring relator to a speedy 

trial;Relator further seeks a mandamus compelling.the respondents to correct the 

Abuse of discretion ,and constitutional violationscommitted at trial ,as shown 

in this mandamus;Relator does not seek a writ of habeas corpus,or,any relief accorded 

by a writ of habeas corpus;relator seeks an order from this court,compelling the 

respondents to;(l)Accord relator a mini trial inwhich issues regarding the Abuse of 

discretion committed at trial,and other Constitutional violation can be addressed, 

and then,accord relator the relief as Equality and Justicedemands.See Issues 2-5' 

in this writ. 

Relator,has presented these issues to the Tenth Court of Appeuls ut Waco Texua; 

That Court Denied relator's contention of right to speedy trial.,and misconstrued 

this writ as requesting for habeas corpus relief; The relator does not seek a writ 

of habeas corpus. Relator seeks an Order from this court.,Conditionally Granting 

this writ of mandamus,and compelling the trial court Judqe,and state prosecutor to 

addr0ss issues Two-Fiv0 of this writ application; Alternatively,Relator request that 

discovery under Level Two be allowed,so that relator can better assist the court in 

understanding relator's claims •• 

The Respondents,Judge John E. Neill,and the State Prosecutor Dale Hanna,has a 

legal duty under the laws of this state,and the Constitutional Amendments to the 

United States Constitution,to perform their duties as demanded according to Law; 

See Issues 2-5 of this writ.,it is clear that respondents Abused their discretion 

and failed to analyze,or apply the laws and Statutes correctly on Issues 2-5 9f this 

.writ. Respondents has a duty under the provisions of the 6th Amendment of the 

United States Constitution as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment of the 

United States,and Texas Constitution Article l§lO.,to provide relator with a 

speedy trial,and a fair resolution of the issues of this writ. 

Relator has no other clear,adequate remedy at law or €Quity,and it is necessary 

that a writ of mandamus be conditionally Granted Ordering Respondent to dispose 

of Issues 2-5 as Equality of.law demands. 

IN RE TRACY. HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE ,4 
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 

This court has Jurisdiction to issue a writ of Mandamus under Texas 

constitution article 5 paragraph 3.,Tex. Gov't Code §22.002(a) (b) 

IN RE TRACY HICKS PAGE § 
• J ·J ~ 

ISSUES. PRESENTED 

Denial at Speec'¥ Trial 

. Once a Speedy Trial has been requested, the Trial Court has a legal duty, 

under the Texas Constitution and United States Constitution,to move the 

prosecution forward and bring the defendant to trial. 

ISSUE NUMBER TWO 

The Respondent Abused it's idscretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary 

and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of lawRespondent 

fail to analyze or apply the Severance law to an indictment containing multiple 

Non-Property offenses,Resulting in a deprivation of relator's Fundamental Con 

stitutional rights;Tex .const.art 1§10,1 §13,1§14, u.s.c~.A. ,Amend, 1st ,5th,6th,l4th 

WHEN IT FAIL TO FORCE THE STATE TO MAKE AN ELECTION ON WHICH CHARGE IT WAS PRO 

CEEDING UPON,RESULTING IN A SENTENCE THAT IS BOTH ULTRA LICITUM AND ULTRA PETITA. 

ISSUE NUMBER THREE 

Respondent Abused it's discretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary and 

unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law;Respondent 

clearly fail to analyze or apply the law correctly when it fail to undertake 

to Admonish l:'e.l.atc±Lto correct range of punishment on each charge of the indict 

ment prior to accepting a plea of guilty in violation of Texas Code Criminal 

Procedure Art 26.13.,Tex.Const art.l§lO,l§l3;U.s.c.A.lst,5th,l4th 

ISSUE NUMBER FOUR 

Respondent Abused it's discretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary and 

unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law.Respondent fail 

to Analyze or apply law correctly where the state used an infirm prior convict 

ion for enhancement purposes.The evidence demonstrated a Predicate violation 

required for sentencing l;~lator as a career or habitual offender.Tex.Penal Code 

Ann.l2.42(b)Vernon's(l974);Violated Realtor's Fundamental Constitutional right 

as promised by Texas Constitution,art.l§l3,1§14;U.S.Const Amend6th,14th. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS 
I I 

ISSUES PRESENTED 

ISSUE NUMBER FIVE 

The respondent Abused it's discretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary 

and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law.,Respondent 

fail to accord relator Equality and Justice under the law of this state,and the 

United States;Fail to analyze and apply correct law ,and sentenced r:e.iator in 

violation of the Double jeopardy Clause;Tex Const.,artl§l4;u.s. Const.Amend.Sth, 

and 14th,Depriving realtor of his Fundamental Constitutional Rights. 

STATEMENT ·OF FACTS 

On or about,May 1993,f@1.~tPr while reporting ·to his parole officer in Tarrant 

County,was arrested ana charged in a Multi-count indictment with the offense of 

sexual· assault of a person; 22 .011; 21.11. , ;r@latot"was denied bond. 

and was convicted by Respondent,and sentenced to a term of fortyyears at 

TDCJ-ID. Thus far,no direct appeal was allowed;however,r~J?tor,imrnediately 

after the guilty plea,~lp.~or wrote the respondent and requested appointment 

of counsel for an appeal;and requested some form of~resolution of the indictment 

and charges as written,and resolution of the other known fundarnentai- constitutional violations in the trial; Reiator submitted numerous writ applications, 

with supporting case law in an attempt to have these constitutional violations 

corrected; Prior to triaLrelator filed between l,and 23, motions~·iFl:··particular, 

a motion requesting the state to make an election upon which charge of the indictment it was proceeding upon; The Respondent fail to respond to any motion; 

thereby allowing the prosecutor-to convict relator on all charges of the indictment.,preventing relator from knowing the actual charge inwhich he was 

being on trial for. The charges are currently serving as active unadjudicated 

offenses;causing prejudice to relator,and has restricted his ability to receive 

any sentence at least partially concurrent with any sentence he is presently 

serving;-

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS ·PAGE 7 
I t I I 

has caused the duration of the present imprisonment to be increased and conditions under which he must serve the sentence greatly worsened beyond the 

terms of any plea agreement; has prejudiced relator's opportunity for any 

fair consideration for parole,and caused anxiety and concern,as well as 

Oppressive incarceration. R~~ator,after trial filed with respondent numerous 

times,a request to correct the hereinafter fundamental constitutional 

violations as justice requires; As the Respondent has never responded to these 

particular reguest,reaator recently filed a formal motion for Speedy trial. 

Thereby invoking his rights under the Texas and Federal Constitutions. His 

Speedy Trial motion duly filed on March 29, 2015. 

Since filing .. the motion for speedy trial, the 18th District Court has done 

nothing to move the prosecution of the Multi-count indictment, or attempt to 

correct fundamental constitutional violations inwhich r.elator complains of; 

further, over the past 22 years,despite several letters,motions,and phone 

calls to the court requesting copies of the indictment,oftense or police 

reports,or records or other information filed in this case,to intlude a copy 

of Court's docket sheet related to the case, the court has failed to reply 

in any manner;and the prosecutors office has engauged in unethical conduct 

when :relator submits any motion,writ,demonstrating the fundamental constitutional violations that have prejudiced 1?elator's ability to enjby any term 

of the plea agreement,and creating an unfair plea bargain • 

. I)..RGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE ,8 
' .. ' ' 

ARGUMENT· AND AUTHORITIES 

This reLator has expressly invoked his right to a speedy trial under both 

.the State and Federal Constitutions. The right to speedy trial is guaranteed 

by the Sixth Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment 

of the United States Constitution. See Barker v. Wingo, 407.u.s. 514 (1972). In 

addition,Article 1 §10 of the Texas constitution guarantees the accused in all 

criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy public trial. Although the Texas 

and Federal rights to a speedy trial are separate and distinct, the inter-

; pretation and application of the Sixth Amendment right. to speedy trial by the 

Federal Courts serve as a useful guide to the interpretation of the Texas 

Constitutional right to speedy trial. 

In Barker v. Wingo, id.,the United States Supreme Court established a 

balancing test and suggested four factors to consider in determining whether 

an accused has been denied a speedy trial. The factors: (1) length of delay, 

(2) reason for delay, (3) assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the . '·'·· 

accused. While the State has the burden of justifying the length of delay, 

the defendant has the burden of proving the assertion of the right and proving 

prejudice. 

Importantly, it is well established that a defendant incarcerated on another 

charge is entitled to the same speedy trial rights as a defendant on bail. 

Smith v. Hooey,393 u.s. 374(;J-969); Ex rei Moreau v. Bond,271 s.w. 379 {1925). 

As a result, the r~•s status as a prisoner can neither prejudice his 

speedy trial rights or serve as justification for the delay on the part of the 

State. 

In the case at bar, r·ela.t:Or~~- was arrested and charged with sexual assanl t •' 

on May 1993, • More than 22 years has passed; a time more 

than sufficient to require a further examination of relator's speedy right 

claim. Hu11 v. State,699 s.w. 2d 220 {Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Turner v. State, 

545 s.w. 2d 133 {Tex. Crim. App. 1976}. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 9 
. 

' . 

LENGTH OF THE DELAY 

There is no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy 

trial right can be quantified into a specific number of days br 

months, Barker v. Wingo,supra; Perkins v. State 504 s.w. 2d 458 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1974),overld on other grounds; Ex Parte Taylor, 

522 s.w. 2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). The right to. a speedy··· 

trial arises from the time the defendant is formally accused or 

arrested. Dillingham v United States~423 u.s. 64(1975); United 

States v Marion,404 u.s. 307(1971). "The Barker test is triggered 

by a delay that is unreasonable enough to be presumptively 

prejudicial. • •.• we have held a delay of four months is not 

sufficient while a 17-month delay is." Cantu v State,253 s.w. 3d 

273, 280-81 (Tex.Crim. App. 2008). 

Here ;-ela"'tt>r:.r was charged more than 22 years ago (22).,And the 

Multi-Count indictment was also filed at that time,and fundamental 

constitutional violations weretcommitted by respondent,together 

with an abuse of discretion in this case; considering this delay 

together with r~l~tor's motion for speedy trial;consequently this 

delay is more than sufficient to require a further examination of 

the speedy trial claim as well as the claims of fundamental constitutional violations committed in this case. 

REASON FOR DELAY 

As pr~viously stated this re~~tor filed his formal speedy 

trial mot;foo approximately 60 days ago, he filed informal requests 

(in the form of letters,motions,pho~e calls to the court) mqre 

than 22 years ago.,Nbne of his request,or his motion have been acted 

upon by the Court,or responded to by the prosecutor in an ethical 

respectful manner. 

IN RE-TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,lO 
I < 

Despite reJator's attempts to resolve the Multi-Count charges of the indictment and Fundamental constitutional violations in this case, there is nothing 

to indicate that the state has even made an attempt to secure a trial date, or 

relator's appearance at a hearing. The primary burden is on the prosecution 

and the courts to insure that defendants are speedily brought to trial. 

Turner v. State, 504 s.w. 2d 843,845 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Both the trial 

Court and prosecution are under a positive duty to prevent unreasonable delay. 

Wilson v. Bowmant381 s.w. 2d 320 (Tex.l964). Here, the reJ.·ator has done nothing 

to prevent or delay a trial in this case. 

REAL'IDR 'S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHTS 

Relator for the past(22)twenty two years has wrote the court numerous times, 

starting in 1993 immediately after trial.,it wasn't until March 29, 2015 that 

he made n formal motion for speedy trial, more than 60 days ago. As the u.s. 

Supreme Court stated in Barker v. Wingo,supra,"the defendant's assertion of his 

speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determining whether the defendant is being deprived of the right. We emphasize that failure 

to assert the right will make it difficult to prove that he was denied a speedy I 

trial." Barker v. Wingo,407 u.s. at 533. Again, here the ~·itor wrote letters, 

and filed numerous motions,and wirt applications requesting the court resolve 

the Multi-count indictment and other fundamental constitutional violations in this 

case more than 22 years ago,and filed a speedy trial motion approximately 60 days 

ago. Relator has clearly asserted his speedy trial rights. 

PR&JUDICE .ro THE REALUDR':. 

The right to speedy trial is designed to protect three general interest: (1) 

to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) to minimize anxiety and concern 

of the accused; and (3) to limit the possibility that the defense will be ffimpaired. Barker v. Wingo,supra. The defendant invoking his right to speedy trial 

must make some showing of prejudice resulting from the delay. Barris v State 489 

s.w. 2d 303,308 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). r 

The interest 9f a defendant incarcerated on another charge are entitled to the 

same protections afforded the defendant who is either incarcerated or out on bail 

on a pending charge. In Smith v. Hooey,supra,the United States Supreme Court noted 

IN RE TRACY HICKS -MANDAMUS PAGE 11 
' ' 

that the defendant incarcerated on another charge may (1) lose the possibility 

that he might receive a sentence at least partially concurrent with the one he I 

is presently serving; (2) have the duration of the present imprisonment increased 

and conditions under which he must serve the sentence greatly worsened; and 

(3) suffer from the same anxiety and depression of the defendant at large,under 

a pending charge. Smith v. Hooey,393 u.s. at 378 • 

Whis ~iator is losing the possibility of a partially concurrent sentence with 

every day that passes,where·the Multi-Count indictment operates as a detainer on 

the additional charges of the indictment. In addition, the charges as filed in 

the indictment, is:~ resulting in the loss of certain educational and vocational 

programs; (2) he is not permitted off-unit or outside prison compound priviliges 

; and (3) he is inelig·i_able for S2 trusty classification,and fair consideration 

for parole possibilities because parole board members a~re\•,considering the additional 

charges as unudjudicated,unresolved chargeo·against relator. Each of these limitations restricts rei~tor's efforts at rehabilitation. And as the Court of Criminal 

Appeals recognized "the detainer may well have prejudiced his opportunity for 

clemency, pardon ••• [ o:r l parole. " Turnersupra at 139. These allegations alone 

constitute a sufficient showing of prejudice, even without considering the dimming memories of all involved in the incident. 

Re-lator, in particular ,further complains of the Respondents Abused its discretion during trial b¥::r:eaching a d!?cision so arbitrary and unreasonable amounting 

to a clear and prejudicial error of law,by failing to analyze or apply the law 

of severance to the Multi-Count indictment containing Multiple Non-Property 

offenses:;resulting in the deprivation of relator's fundamental constitutional 

rights as guaranteed by the Texas Constitution article 1§10,1§13,1§14;U.s., 

Constitutional Amendments lst,5th,6th,and l4th,when it fail to force state to 

make an election on which charge of the indictment it was proceeding upon, 

resulting in a sentence that is both Ultra Liciturn,and Ultra Petita; Respondent, 

has fail to correct this violation of relator's fundamental constitutional 

rights,even after r~ator's mnny request in the form of letter,rnotions,and phone 

calls to the court over the past ( 22·) t\lenty two years. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS -MANDAMUS PAGE 12 
I ' I ' 

Prior to triaLltelator filed.with respcindent between one(l) and (23)motions; 

amoung those motions were,A motion to quash the indictment,and a motion 

requesting state to elect which charge of the indictment it was proceeding on. 

See respondents docket sheet,and counsels files on this case. 

respondent fail to analyze and apply the law correctly. the indictment contained Multiple Non-property offenses,the offense of sexual assault,Tex. Penal 

CQde sec.22.0ll;and the offense of Indecency,Tex. penal Code 21-ll.,and other 

charges.Texas Constitution Article 1§10 Provides iri part;"Rights of accused in 

criminal prosecutions; He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause 

of the accusations against him; 

United States.Constitutional Amendment 6th provides in relevant part; That 

the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; 14th 

Const.Amend. "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty,or property 

without due process of law;Nor deny to ahy person within its jurisdiction the 

equal protection of the laws.· 

Chapter 3.,3.04(a) Tex~s penal Code provides;Whenever two or more offenses 

have been consolidated or joined for trial under section 3.02 of this code, 

the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses. ! 

Under well established law of this state,A defendant's timely motion to force 

state to elect must be granted if the state has misjoined Non-Property offenses 

in a single indictment; trial court has discretion to delay state's election c 

due to misjoinder of non property offenses in a single indictment,once request 

ed, until submission of charge to jury; however,if trial court uncessarily 

delays election and thereby prejudices defendant,trial court may be found to ' have abused its discretion,Vernon's Ann.Tex.Code.Crim.Proc.,art21.24;If trial 

court fails altogether to require state to cure misjoinder of nonproperty offenses, 

whether by denying motion to quash indictment or denying mot~on to force election,appellate court must reverse conviction-Vernon's Ann. Texas code. Crim.Proc., 

art. 21.24.,See Callins v. State 780 s.w. 2d 176 (Tex. Crim_.App. 1986). 

·Relatormade a timely motion to quash.,and motion to force state to elect; 

Respondent denied the rnotions,and delayed forcing the state to elect due to 

misjoinder of Non-Property offenses in a single indictment. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS -MANDAMUS PAGE 13 
· . . . 

Respondents total failure to srant. relator's timely motion to quash,and 

m::;.:J.on for state to elect. which count it was proceeding upon,"at all". ,has dent~ 

violence to relator's fundamental constitutional rights; respondents·further 

abused it's discretion; respondent had a duty imposed by law to force state to 

elect; the law of severance,provides in part;"A defendant shall have a right 

to a severance of the offenses". ,Ch. 3. ,3.04(a) Tex.Penal Code;see also Callins 

Supra. Under well settled law of this state,a defendant's timely motion to 

force state to elect must be granted if the state has misjoined Non-property 

offenses in a single indictment.,Crosslin v State 90 Tex.Cr.R.467,235 s.w.905, 

906. (1921). relator ask the court to Conditionally grant a Mandamus. The Courts 

of Appeals has held; Because mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse 

of discretion,or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other 

remedy by law,the relator's must demonstrate that either; (l)the trial court 

could reasonable have reached only one decision concerning the resolution of 

certain factual issues or.matters committed to the trial court's discretion: 

or (2)the trial court fail to analyze or apply the law correctly.,In Re Gonzales 

115 s.w.3d 36(Tex.App.San.Antonio 2003). Iri the case at bar ,_the trial court 

could reasonably have r~ached' only one decision concerning the resolution of 

the Mis-Joined Non-Property Offenses in the single indictme~t committed to 

respondents discretion;the respondent fail to analyze or apply the law of 

severance,at all, in this case ·as d~monstrated above,and abused it's discretion 

warranting Mandamus relief.Walker v Packer 827 S.W 833,839 Tex ( ) I.d. 

at 840. Moreover ,Mandamtis relief is available to correct a trial court's ·· 

deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights.,Republican Party v Dietz 

940 S.W.2d. 86,94(Tex. 1997) Relator ask the court to conditionally grant 

a mandamus compelling respondents to correct the issues regarding the Misjoined non property offenses of the single,-: indictment,·"'or~ -in'-tAe"'a1ternative, 

exercise this courts power to reverse and remand the conviction as Equality and 

Justice demands.,Callins supra. 

Complaining further,relator says that respondents abused it's discretion when 

it reached a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable,amounting to a clear and 

prejudicial error of law affecting relator's ability to plea knowingly and intelligently. Respondent fail to analyze or apply the law correctly when it fail to 

undertake to admonish relator to the correct range or punishment r.~t.tached to each 

charge of the MultiCount indictment prior to accepting the plea of guilty:violating 

Tex.Code.Crim.Proc.,art.26.13,and relator's constitutional rights asguaranteed by 

Texas Constitution art.l§IO,l§l3;U.S. Const Amend.l4. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 14 
' . ' . 

Over the past twenty two(22) past years,reiator has wrote respondent in the 

form of letters,motions,writ application,and phone calls requesting resolution 

of this issue as justice requires. ,Respondent has fail without cause to accord 

re<l~tor Equality and Justice on this issue,and prosecutor has enguaged in unethical conduct,failing to uphold the duties of it's office and the constitution 

of the State of texas,aswell as the Constitutional. Amendments of the United 

States Constitution. it is the duty of Respondents to see to it that defendants 

constitutional rights are observed;according a defendant the Equality and Justice 

in every case at trial. 

Respondent clearly fail to analyze or apply Article 26 .. 13 correctly· by failing 

to undertake to admonish re~tor to correct range of punishment attached to the 

offenses in the indictment. The S.O.F. P.,l-35.,demonstrate that during trial, 

Respondent only gave admonishment to range of punishment for a second degree 

offense; Respondent stated "these offenses are what we call second degree felonies 

punishable from 2-20 years". The indictmenti29450, containedMultiple charges; 

Sexual Assault,a second degree felony,punishable from 2-20 years confinement,and 

the Charge o~ Indecency,a Third degree felony punishable from 2-10 years,or 

probation.Article 22.0ll.,aadoart21.11 Tex.Code Crim.proc~,Re;lator received a 

sentence of forty years confinement,thirty years more than allowed for third 

degree offense. Article 26.13 Code Crim.Proc.,Provides; (a) 

Prior to accepting a. plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere, 

the court shall admonish the defendant of: 

( 1) the range of punishment attached to the offense; 

Relator was sentenced to a term of forty(40) years confinement;however,Respondent fail to undertake to admonish relator the the correct range-of punishment 

attached to the third degree offense in the indictment,and punishment was not 

within that proscribed by for a third degree offense;Respondents total failure 

to analyze and correctly apply law on admonishmentsbArticle 26.13,affected , ~ ·, ~ =" 

reJ.ator's ability to knowingly btl 'lntelligently to the punishemnt.,Relator 

would not have plead gulity had he been properly admonished to correct range of 

punishment attached to the offense,but. would have insisted upon trial. 

Under well established law of this state;A trial court may substantially comply 

with plea statute even though it incorrectly told defendant that the indecency 

counts were were third degree feloniesIN RE TRACY HICKS-,MANDAMUS PAGE 15 
.. '·· 

carrying a range of. imprisonment::.of two to ten years, when offenses were actually 

second degree felonies carrying a range of punishment from two to twenty years, 

where eight year sentence fell within both correct range and the range mentioned 

by the court.Dobecka v. State(App. 5 Dist 2bo3)2003 WL 1947ll,Unreported. 

In the case at bar,the forty year sentencecdoes not fall within both correct 

range and the range mentioned by the Respondent;respondent fail to Undertake 

to admonish rel·ator to range of punishment attached to the third degree offense, 

and clearly demonstrates Respondent fail to admonish relator in compliance 

with guilty plea statute,affecting relator's ability to knowingly and intelligently plea in this case;had relator know of proper range of punishment attached 

to the offenses,he would not have entered a plea of guilty,but would have exercised 

his right to trial by jury. Texas law is consistent;Requirement of Admonishment 

as to range of punishment is Mandatory and failure to admonish constitutes reversable 

error.,Tex. App. Dallas.,Vernon's Ann. c.c.P.,art 26.13 Johnson v state 629 s.w. 

2d.l37. If qefendant is able to demonstrate that trial court failed to admonish him 

in substantial compliance with guilty plea statute and the error was harmful, 

judgment must be reversed,and case remanded to trial court for new trial.V.A.,Tex. 

C.C.P.,art 26.13.,Lanum v. State 952 S.W. 2d 36~ Hughes v State,806 S.W. 2d 248, 

pdr 833 s.w. 2d 137.;Martinez v State 953 s.w. 2d. 804 rehearing overruled,PDR 

granted ,rev.,981 S.W.l95.(Acts 1973,63rd 1eg .. ,p.883.ch.399§1. 

!;;L·!t:H.is clear Reepondent fail totally to analyze or apply Article 26.13 by failing 

to undertake to admonish relator to correct range of punishment attached to all 

offenses in the indictment;A clear failure by the trial court to apply the law 

correctly constitutes an"abuse of discretion",as element for Mandamus relief,. 

in re Rp Products North America 1 Inc.,244 S.W. 3d m (20 ) ;_V __ 685 S.W. 2d. 

479, (19 ) • Relator ask this court to issue a Mandamus compelling Respondent 

to correct the above fundamental constitutional violation,and thereafter accord 

Reiator a trial like hearing on this issue resolving this issue as Justice and 

Equality demands. relator pray the court grant this mandamus,and any other rell:ief 

deemed just and appropriate in this case. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE ,16 
' ' 

Respondent further Abused it's discretion when it rea~hed a decision so Arbitrary and unreasonable amount~ng to a clear and prejudicial error of law. 

Respondent fail to analyze or apply law correctly where the state used an infirm 

prior conviction for enhancement purposes,where there was clearly a predicate 

violation required for sentencing relator as a career or habitual offender as 

required by statute.Tex. Penal Code 12.42(b)vernon's l974).further violating 

re~ator's Fundamental Constitutional rights as promised by Texas Constitution 

art.l§l3,1§14.,anp the Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States.u.s~ Const.,Amends.,6th,l4th. 

As with other claims,relator has over the past twenty two (22) years wrote 

Respondent by letters,motions,writ application;requesting to be brought to 

trial on this issue;Respondent has fail to respond in any manner to request 

written,and the prosecution has done nothing to resolve this issue. 

Reaator was charged with'a second degree offense of sexual assault,with one 

enhancement paragraph for a 1985,robbery conviction;now expired as of Dec.5,2001. 

During the sentencing phase of trial,the state attempted to punish reiator 

as an habitual offender under section 12.42 (b) Tex. penal Code Ann.Vernon's 

1.974). The Respondent was the sole trier of fact,hearing all testimony and 

evidence.,Relator during trial,plead 'true' to the enhancement paragraph on 

the advice·of his counsel,before counsel investigated the disposition of the 

prior conviction. While the indictment Exhibit "A• showed the respective date 

on which the prior conviction had been .obtained, the indictment fail to specify 

the 'date' of commission of the 1985 Robbery conviction,and the prosecutor put 

on no Gther evidence to the trier of fact showing the 'date',:or:::.whether the prior 

was indeed a final conviction:the trier of fact found the allegat~ons concerning 

the enhancement to be 'true' based on reilator's own admission" and·sentenced 

relator to a term of forty (40) years confinement.,Trial counsel did not complain to the court of the predicate violation,where the state put on NO evidence 

to prove the date of commission of the 1985 Robbery conviction used for enhancement purposes;similarily, counsel did not raise the issue on appeal to this court, 

and re1ator lest ability to raise the claim on appeal. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE ,17 
~lator contends,and the evidence show,relator is "actually" innocent of the 

Habitual offender status; there exist a predicate violation required for sentencing rel~tor as a career,habitual offender under 12.42(b) Tex_. Penal Code 

Ann. Vernons 1974). During the sentencing phase of the trial,the state's own 

evidence demonstrated that relator had been convicted on 1985 for robbery; 

however,there was NO evidence .submitted to the trier of fact demonstrating 

the date of commission of that offense,or whether it was indeed a final conviction available for enhancement purposes as required by statute. In French 

v Estelle 692 F.2d 1021 5th Cir.(l982) The Chronology of the commission of 

prior felonies is.an essential element of Tex. Penal Code Ann.,§ 12.42{b). 

In the case at bar,the trier of fact allowed the state to convict relator 

upon NO evidence supporting the prior convictions disposilion as required 

by law;A defendant is presumed Innocent until proven guilty;however,the state 

was allowed to convict relator: without putting on any evidence to support its 

contention of the 1985 robbery conviction used for enhancement purposes. 

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel; 

In Menefee v State 175 s.w. 3d. SOO{Tex •. App. Beaumont 2005) the legal ... , standari:1 applicable to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is set out in 

Strickland v was~ington 466 U.S. 668,104 S.ct.2052,2064,80 L.Ed.2d.674 (1984). 

An applicant under the Strickland standard,Must first show counsel's performance was deficient.,Id.at 687,104 s.ct.2052; Mitchell v State,68 s.w. 3d· 

640,647{Tex. Crim. App~2002)Specifically,applicant must prove by preponderance 

of the. evidence that trial counsel's representation fell below the objective 

standard of professional norms. Mitchell 68 s.w.3d. at 642. Second,the applicant must show that this deficient performance prejudiced his defense.Strickland,466 u.s. at 687,104 s.ct.2052. This means that the applicant must show 

a;lreasonable probability that,but for his counsel's unprofessional error's, 

the results of the proceedings would have bef?n different. "A reasonable 

probability,is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome~ 

Mitchelle,68 s.w.3d.at642. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,l8 
Appellate review of defense counsel's represenattion is highly deferential 

and presumes that counsel's actions fell within the wide range of reasonable 

andprofessional assistance. Bonev.State 77 s.w. 3d. 828,833,Tex. Crim~App. 

2002). This deferential standard applies to ineffective assistance of counsel 

that occurs during the punishment phase of trial.F1owers v State 133 s.w.3d 

853,856(Tex.App.Beaumont.,2004 m (EI:.) citing Hernandez v State 988 s.w. 2d. 

770,772(Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 

It is well settled that any claim of ineffective assistance must be firmly 

founded in the record. Thompson ·Y· State 9 s.w. 3d 808,813 (Tex. Crim. App.l999). 

Under normal circumstances,the record on direct appeal will not be sufficient 

to show that counsel's representation was so deficient and so lacking in tactial 

or strategic decision making,as to ·overcome the presumption that counsel's 

conduct was reasonable and professional-Bone 77 s.w. 3d at833. 

However,when no reasonable trial strategy [can]justify trial counsel's 

conduct,counsel's performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness as a matter of.law, regardless of whether the record adequately reflects 

the trial counsel's subjectivereason for acting as [he] did" Andrews v State 

159 s.w. 3d 981,982(Tex. Crim. App. 2005) When the record contains all the inforlnation needed to make a decision,a court may find trial counsel's performance 

to be deficient even when the record is silent as to counsel's trial strategy 

and tactics.See Id.at 102,03. 

Under the first prong of Strickland, it must. be decided whether this .-~efenda:~ 

has shown trial counsel's performance was deficient. Strickland,466 u.s. at 687 

104 S. Ct. 2052. The record indicates counsel allowed defendant, to plP.nn 'true' 

and stipulate to the P.nhancement allegations; NO OTHER EVIDENCE was offered by 

prosecutor on the enhancement. For enhancement purposes,prior convictions must 

be final. An avernment in an indictment that an accused person has been convicted is sufficient to charge finality of prior conviction for purpose of sen~ence 

enhancement,but the burden is on the state to show that conviction became final 

before the commission of. the offense defendant is being sentenced for.Glorioso 

v State(Cr. App. 1988)746 s.w. 2d 483;753 s.w. 2d 454;the burden is on the state 

to. make a:prima facie showing that any prior conviction alleged for enhancement, 

or for punishing an accused as a repeate offender·,became final before commission 

of primary offense,and once such a showing is made,burden shifts to defendant to 

prove otherwise. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,l9 
-' 

Diremigo v State (Cr. App. 1982)637 s.w. 2d. 926. In the case at bar,the state 

fail to offer a single piece of evidence to establish the 'date' of commission 

of the 1985 conviction used for enhancement;fail to offer any evidence of finality 

as required by lDy-,:Due process Clatilse of Fourteenth Amendment; fail to offer a 

Mandate from this court demonstrating that re;'J.ator had indeed appealed the 1985 

conviction.,and after the indictment was presented to Respondent,Respondent 

sentenced re~fttor to a term of forty years confinement under 12.42(b)Tex.Pena1 

Code., Vernons.,1974., 

Defendant during trial plead !true' to the enhancement paragraph and stipulated that he had been conv:i.c:tf!O on the 1985 robbery; however,as mentioned,the 1985 

conviction had been appealed .to this court on 1986;and the state failed in the 

primary case,to prove the 'date' of commission of the 1985 robbery,or whether 

it was a final conviction available for enhancement purposes. Because counsel 

advised defendant to plead .!true·~ ,and stipulate to the infirm prior,defendant 

lost the ability to appeal his sentence based on sufficiency of the evidence 

used to enhance his sentence to a first degree offense. See Smith v State 158 

s.w. 3d 463,465(Tex. Crim.App-2005). 

Trial counsel had a duty to reasearch Texas enhancement 1aws;investigate 

defendant's case,and prevent the defendant from pleading true to the enhancement,and a duty to have state make a prima facie showing that any prior convict;ion alleged for enhancement,or for punishing defendant as a repeat offender, 

became final before the commission of the primary offense.This duty derives 

from counsel's function 'to make the adverserial testing process work in the 

particular case' I.d~,(citing Strickland,466 u.s. at 690,104 s.ct. 2052) . ' 

There can be no reasonable trial strategy for allowing the defendant to plead 

'true' to an enhancement allegation where there· existed a predicate violation~and the.state had not made a orima facie showinq,whehher the conviction \r_;a~:: .~.:-! ....... ._~:.: ·· a l.ll~2.J. ccr· · ~ .... .l.c::-i ,:.· Jc:f _~_l c.nL':'- · ·

7 ~~_:·-

was indeed a fin:1l conviction available for enhancement purposes,or proved 

the date of commission of that offense. 

Defendant believes, that under the Strickland standard,trial counsel's per~ 

formance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness as a matter of law. 

I.d. 1The first prong of the Strickland test has been met und catisficd.,See 

Ex Parte Jordan(Cr.App. 1994)879 s.w. 2d.61. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 20 
., 

The second prong of the Strickland test,is to determine~whether trial counsel's 

deficient performance prejudiced the petitioner's defense.Strickland 466 U.S.at 

687,104 s.ct.2052. There is a reasonable probability,that but for trial counsel's 

error in allowing defendant to plead 'true' and not challenge the validity of. 

the prior conviction,the results of the proceeding would have been different.Hill 

v Lockhart,106 S.ct.366.,Mitche11e,68 s.w. 3d at 642. The defendant's punishment was enhanced from a second degree offense,carrying a punishment range of 

2-20 years confinement,to a first degree felony~carrying a punishment range of· 

life,or five(S) to ninty nine(5-99)years confinement.Tex.Pena1 Code Ann.§ 12.42. 

(b)&(c).Realtor was sentenced to a term of forty years,which is twenty years 

more than the maximum allowed for a second degree felony; and thirty(30)years· 

more than the maximum ·allowed for the third degree felony alleged in the same 

indictment. 

There is a reasonable probability,that had trial counsel filed the appropriate 

motions challenging the prior convictions validity,i.e.,filed motion to suppress 

prior,and advised relator to plead 'not true' ~:l.:i.tor would have plead not guilty, 

and proceeded to trial,or received a sentence within the punishment range allowed 

for a third degree offense,and would have been able to challenge any sentence 

outside the punishment range based on insufficiency, or No evidence to this court. 

Relator has demonstrated a clear violation of his Fundamental Constitutional 

rights w1der Lhe slxth ctuu Fou~:·teenth Amendments to the constitution of the United 

States; Counsel's deficient performance prejudiced relator's defense in the 

Punishment phase of of the trial.,the second prong of the Strickland test is. satisfied 

Relator ask this court to conclude;that reLator has demonstrated a clear violation 

of his Fundamental Constitutional Rights ;Issue a writ of Mandamus compelling the 

respondent to correct this issue as Justice demands; and conclude that Respondent, 

and state, would be barred by law in a second proceeding from using th~ infirm 

prior not proven in the first trial. In French Supra,where a petitioner was once 

subjected to an enhancement proceeding where the state failed to produce sufficient 

evidence of habitual offender status to support a life sentence,the double jeopardy 

Clause bars a second trial like.enhancement proceeding on the basis of the one 

prior felony insufficiently proven at the earlier trial.Bullard v~ Estelle 708 

F.2d 102l.,Jackson v Virginia U.S. S.ct.99,2781,443 U.S.307,61 L.Ed.2d. 560.reh. 

den.,100 Ct. 195,444,U.S.890,62 L.Ed.2d. 126. No rational jury could have tound 

beyond a reasonable doubt the elements necessary to prove the prior enhancementIN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,21 
used for enhancement in the primary case based on the states own evidence presented 

to the Resf>ondent during the sentencing phase of Re:J:.ator's trial. Relator ask ti\~~ 

- court to issue this Mandamus compelling the Respondent to correct the fundamental 

constitutional violation that took place during trial, as :.;.. \! i_.il.nstfilce i C') demands. 

Relator further ask the court to. strongly consider that Relator is being Restrainec 

of his liberty by virtue of the infirm prior conviction insufficiently proven 

at trial; said prior conviction expired on December 5,2001. Relator ask the court 

to grant any other relief the court deems just and appropriate in this matter. 

It is clear that Respondent fail to hold state to its burden of proof;that there 

was no evidence submitted by state to prove up the one prior used for enhancement 

purposes; Had Respondent eorrectly applied the law,and requirements of Tex. Penal 

Code 12.42. (b) together with the Texas CJ'n:stiitiJtfun article l§lO,l§l3;U.S. Constitutior 

Amendments Sixth 6th,Fourteenth ,and the Due Process Clause ••,Relator would have 

either plead not guilty,or received a sentence within the range of third d~ree 

felony. v. ,69s·s.w. 2d479; ____ v 244 s.w.3d 840.,( ).In re Chevron 

U.S.A.,Inc.C.A. ,.l.Ci)9xF.ld'n016(C.A. (Tex)l997 .. 

Relator complains further that the Respondent Abused it's discretion when it 

reached a decision so Arbitrary and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudical 

error of law.,Respondent fail to accord relator Equality and Justice under the law 

of this state,aswell as the United States; Fail to analyze and Apply correct law, 

and sentenced relator in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.'l'ex. Const.art. 

l§l4;U.S. Const.Amend.Sth,and 14th.Depriving re.lator of his Fundamental Constiutional Rights. As with other claims.rrelator has wrote.the Respondent numerous 

times over the past 22,years,by letters,motiohs,and writ application,requesting 

f~fffpti~n gf ~HlrdgppJ.e j~ggq.;-?Y ir~~K::due to the prejudicial treatment rela~or 

is being subjected to; The Respondent has fai 1. to n:-::~ponc'l in r~ny mnnm~r t.o the 

request,and has done nothing to move the prosecution forward to resolve this 

issue. Relator was charged by Multi-count indictment containing three offenses 

alleged to have taken place in a common incident.,Exhibit.•A"· :i.ncHctment#29450. 

The laws of this state are clear. In Ex Parte Fortune 797 s.w.2d929(Tex.Crim. 

App• (19 )>Entering plea of guilty does not preclude defendant from raising. 

double jeopardy contention in application for writ of habeas corpus.,u.s.c.A. 

Const.Amend.S; Double Jeopardy Prohibits state from obtaining convictions in 

successive prosecutions where common incidents exist.U.S;.C.A. Const. s.,Ver:non 

Ann. Tex. Const.Art 1§14; 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,22 
Where the intent of the legislature is ambiguous as to allowing individuals 

to simultaniously punished for commission of multiple offenses under separate 

and distinct statutes,test to be applied for double jeopardy purposes to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision 

requires proof of fact that the other does not.,u.s.c.A.,Oonst.Amend.5. 

The Fifth Amendment provides in revelant part;"[Nor shall any person be subjected 

to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". 

The Double Jeopardy Clause serves three primary purposes; 

(1) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; 

(2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; 

(3)it protects against multiple punishments for same offense. 

In the present case,the Respondent,and the state has fail to adhere to the 

laws and Texas Constitution,aswell as the constitution of the United States 

regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause;and has fail to correct this ~· 

viulatiuiJ uf Re\l,:ator's Fundamental Constitutional Right. R~lator waB convi'cted 

by single indictrnent,containing Multtple offenses a~leged to have taken place 

. in a common incident. In Elder v State,l32 s.w.3d 20 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2004) 

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant in a 

criminal proceeding against both successive punishments and successive prosecutions for the same offense.United States v Dixon 509 u.s.688,689,696,113 s.c.t 

2849,2855,125 L.Ed .. 2d556(1993).The double jeopardy clause provides that No person 

shall "be subjected for the same . offense to be twice put in . jeopardy of life 

· or lint>" u.s.const.amend v. 

Greater inclusive and lesser included offenses can be the same offense for 

jeopardy pruposes,Bro~ v Ohio,432 U.S.l61,169,97 S.ct:. 2221,.2227,53 L.Ed.2d.l87 

(1977); Parish. v State.· 869 s.w. 2d 352,354(Tex.erim.Api>.l999). Thus, where the 

evidence shows that the defendant committed only one act that could be used to 

prove both a greater inclusive anH lesser included offense,the defendant cannot 

be convicted of both offenses. Ochoa v State 982 S.W.2d 904,908 (Tex.erim.App. 

1988) Relator in the case at bar,was charged on May 1993,in a three count indictment 

with having committed sexual assault in count one.,22.0ll.by Intentionally and 

Knowingly causing the penetration of the sexual organ of Sandi Burton by the male 

sexual organ of ~ator(then defendant) ;and Sandi Burton was a child under 17 

who was not the spouse of defendantTex.Penal Code Ann.§22.0ll(c)(l)(l994,Vernon., 

(a)(l)(A)(2)(c). 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,23 
Count '1\ro·eOf the same indictment alleged that during the same incident;that 

defendant;caused the mouth of defendant to contact the sexual organ of sandi 

Burton ; ( 2) ( c) ; 

Count Three;with intent to arouse or gratifY the sexual desire of defendant, 

and sandi Burton was a child under 17 and not defendants spouse;Tex. Penal 

Code Ann. §2l.ll(a) 1994(Vernon 's(2l.ll(a) (1) (2) (A) (B). 

The sexual assault required proof of the following facts; 

* Defendant·· Intentionally or Knowingly; 

*Caused the penetration of Sandi Burtons sexual organ by defendants' sexual 

organ; 

· * and sandi Burton was a child under 17 and not defendant's spouse. 22.0ll(a)(l)(A)(2)(c). 

The Indecency count required proof of the following facts; 

* Defendant enguaged in sexual contact with sandi Burton by causing the mouth of 

defendant to contact the sexu·al organ of Sandi Burton; 

* with intent to arquse or gratify the sexual desire of defendant;and Sandi 

Burton was a child under 17 and not defendant's spouse.Tex. Penal Code Ann.§2l.ll(a) 

(1) (2) (A) (B). 

Under Texas law,it is well settled that touching the female sexual organ with 

the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire is a lesser includes:. species of 

conduct of the intentional or knowing penetration of the female sexual organ. 

Ochoa 982 s.w. 2d at 910(Kel.1Er.Jea:n::m:rirg)acx::nrd <1Jnin:ton v state 726 S.W.dj l51,155('1Bc. 

~.l$7)(rd::irg that, while aggravated sexual assault statute does not require 

specific intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire,the legislature has recognized 

that penetration may show such intent)Therefore,the two offenses were the same 

offenses for double jeopardy purposes,and the state was not entitled to seek convictions for both. Brawn,432 U.S.atl69,97 S.ct.at 2227;0choa982 S.W.2d at 908; 

Parish,869 s.w.2d at 354. 

In Demoss v State 12 S.W.3d 553,561 (Tex.App.san Antonio 1999,p:!t refi.B3j) A 

pe!7$0rrxcoinmits:·aggnivateatsexual assault Of a chlrl:ld:by ~b:ati.n3 t:re ferrale sexwl 

organ by any means or by penetrating the mouth of a chi 1 n. by the sexun] 

organ of the actor .'l'ex.Penal Code 1\nn.§22.0ll(a)(2)(A), (B)vernon 1999. 

A person commits indecency with a child b(ysexual contact if he enguages in 

sexual contact with a child or exposes his anus or any part of his genitals 

knowing the child is present,with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire 

of any person.Tex Penal Code A~nn.§2l•ll(a)(Vernon's 1994) with regard to bothIN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,24 
.. 

-offenses in relator's case,"Child" is defined as a person younger than 17 who 

is not the spouse of the actor,i.d.Tex.Penal Code Ann.®22.0ll(c)(l)vernon's 1994) 

"Sexual contact"under section 21.11 is defined as any touching of the anus,breast, 

or any part of the genitals of a person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual 

desire of any person.Tex •. Penal Code Ann.§2l.Ol,vernon's 1994) .In the case at bar, 

because the greater inclusive and lesser included offenses arose from the same 

conduct, they were the same for double jeopardy purposes.,Blockburger 284 u.s.at 304, 

52 s.ct.l80; Parish Supra. In absence of a clear indication that the legislature 

intended to inflict multiple punishment,conviction for both offenses constituted 

double jeopardy,and respondent,and state abused it's discretion when it reached 

a decision so arbituary and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial 

error of law,by failing to accord relator Equality and Justice under the laws of 

this state,and the constitution of the United States;further respondent fail to 

analyze and apply Double. Jeopardy law,and sentenced relator in violation thereof 

' Tex. Const.Art 1§14;U.S.Const.Amend,5th.,l4th 

CONCLUSION 

While no one factor is either a necessary of sufficient condition to the finding 

of a deprivation of the speedy trial;instead,the four factors are related and 

must be considered together along with other revelant circumstances demonstrating 

willful violation of relator's Fundamental Constitutional rights. 

However,this relator who has waited over (22)years since being charged,clearly 

has shown the denial of his.rights. I 

Rell?ait.et:cis::: not requesting, at this time, the dismissal of the charges altogether ( 

only that the court conditionally issue a Mandamus in order to enforce relator's 

constitutional rights to a speedy trial,and to compell the respondents below to 

accord relator the Equality and justice he deserves on the issues presented in 

this petition.;Relator request this court conditionally Grant this petition ,and 

Grant relator a Mini trial in which these issues ca'i1 be addressed. 

PRAYER 

For all the reasons above,Relator Pray that this Court Conditionally Grant a Writ 

of Mandamus,Compelling the Respondents to bring Relator to a Speedy Mini Trial 

as guaranteed by the Texas Constitution,and the United States constitution;Compell 

respondents to correct the abuse of discretion and violations of law and duty imposed 

upon it at trial as set forth in this petition;Relator pray for any other relief this 

court deem just and appropriate. 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 25 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I Certify that I have previously mailed a true and correct copy t 

to the Judge,Hon. John E. Neillat his addres at Guinn Justice Center 

204 s. Buffalo Ave, Cleburne Tx 76033;along with Hen. Dale Hanna, 

Johnson County District Att6rney's office at Guinn Justice center 

204 s. Buffalo Ave.,.Ste 209 Cl~burne Tx 76033 By placing the same 

in the Mail on.the 12th day of june 2015 

I Further Certify that a true copy of the foregoing petition for 

writ of mandamus was mailed to the Supreme Court Clerk on this th 

I& DAY of August 2015 by placing the same in the u.s.Mail 

postage afixed on this the J1,..4 day of August 2015 

~~OR,PRO SE 

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 26 
..... :•·. 

( 

1. Verification-'l'RAP 52.3 ( j) 

2. Verification'!"()btain recorda 

3. Verification-Tr:ue copies 

. 4. Moticn ·tor Speedy Tr'ial-Q::der Ccmplained of 

s. O&:'der on ~· Trial 

6. Order of Dtsm.tesal--want of prosecution 

7. O.rtificate of service 

a. ~rtifiea Hail ReceiPt-Proof of Delivery=#=. )o t/ ~970 ~Of!J -2. S"i;,J 0 q/6 Z .. 

i.Texaa. ~t of Cz:'iminal Justice's Time Sheet XnfOJ:maticn, 

provi.deCJ by the Depar:baent ee Evidence Relator ~ c:cepleted 

over 45 yean· ec:cumulat~ titne towards 40 year eentcmce no 

good conduct t.lma is llfling awarded due_ to charge M\llti-count 

!ndietment.see DoeuDmta lufttben 12,13,14.5o.l4 show all charges 

an· ~ing ueec5 to prejudiee Relator's ability to ~ivo fair 

Consideration ~ing parole; heui~s. 

10• Doculne!lt shewing mo:r:e prejudice from Multi-count IOO!~tment 

· pr.venting fair canaideration of perole.fl5 

11. Doc:uiDent dated Nov 3,2014 ftom family shoving prejudice at 

puoltt ~!deration fran Multi-count Indictment.tl6 

12. Trail Court . Docket Sheet. 

13. Indictmantt29450. 

14. Statement of Fact$ St&te of hxaa v. 'lUcy licJc$ #29450 

1s. J'UC59eaaent and Sentencetmso . 

16. lol$.ce Offense Report( Narrative) 

17 • .Relator•• ·fiiotion Requesting ~ial a~. 

ALL RECORDS 12-17 ARE WITHIN ~ FIW AND ARE R£QU2S11ID AS PMf OF 

!HIS MANDAMOS 
I STATE Oi' 'f£XAS 

COONTJ or ANDERSON 

VBRIFICATION or TRACY HICICS . 

This verification is made pursuant 'texas Civil Practice and Remedies CcXIe 

§l32.00,and Texas Rules of Appellate Pro®du.re 52.J(j). 

the facts contained in this affidavit are true ei\d. correct. 

2. I'am the relator in this cause,l have read the petition 

.tor writ· of mandlunus,and t.tt. facts stated ia thls petition . . ~~~-. 

are within air personal knc:Nledge,and are t&'Ue aa.ld-~~t.* 

~ OSOLARA'1'%0N 

I.Traey Bicks,beinfl p,.-esently inca"*ettid Ul'lder the. number TDCJ•lDf67300l •. . . . . 

in the u.a. Coffield Unit of the ~ Oepartment of Criminal Justice,loca~ 

in .And9rs0n COUnty,Te~,Verify and Declare under ~lty of perjury the 

·· foregoing at.ateflienta are true,~ eottect• 

&xe:cuted 4~/ J:J, c:Jt~!S ' 

IN U TRACY Ul~ ' .; 

I 

I 
I ' 

' STATE OF TEXAS 

OOONTY OF ANOBRSON 

An'IOAVIT OF 'l9ACY HICKS 

This affidavit is made pursuant to Texas Ci vtl· Practice and 

aemecUea Code,§l32. 

1. "'Mf name is. Tracy Hicks,and I am capable of making this 

affida\fit,and the .facta in this afti&lvit 4re true end• correct. 

2• I em the ~lator in this cause. Prior to filing of~ thi& 

petition for writ of ~~~ wrote the court in which this 

c.ue is ~i11.9 and nq\.~Uted copies of tho 1ndict::ment or Wormaticn,c:ow:t trial rec:Qt't!es,along vith a cop;- of the CIOUt'te docket 

she&t· All of Ill¥ requeet have been &man&wered &nd. no documents 

sent tome. 

I,Tracy Hicks;TOCJ-~Df67300l,bs!nw presently incarC*rated 

in the a.-a .. Coffield Unit of the 'reus Depertment of cr-iminal 

Justice,located L-. Anderson Ooura:.y,T~xas,vuify &ml declare 

under peraalty of p«!rjur-J t;he foregoi~ ·statements are true M~Jl 

conect. . 

Exec\lt-': -~~ 12:, 2_,0 /5 
STATE or !IXAs 

cam'lY or ANDDSON 

This vedtic:4t1cn of documents is made pursuant Texas Civil 

Praotiee end Remedies cede il32. 

l•. "My r.ame is 'fra.c:y Hicks,ana l am capa.ple ot making thia 

. .( 

. aff14avit,a,nd the facts in this affidavit Are· trUe ana. COrJ"e<:t• 

2. I • the ~lator in···tbie ClAuse. All of the dcc:tmlente included 

fa!'ld nferr~ to in this t»t.i tion for: writ of ~. are t.rWt 

Oc)piea~ 

ONSt«>RN. ~LAAA1'ION· 

x Traey Rick8,tDCJ_IDt673001,being presently incarcerated 1n th4\!. 

a.a. Cpffield Unit of tbo 'l'GJC~ Department of Crilhi-.1 Juatlce, 

located in An<let:son Count.y,Texas,verify and &<.:lue under pQnalt~ 

of perjutY,~the for-egoirllt a~t:-~ta '&~ tr'Uli# ~1 corre:t. 

Executed ; ~~ (£7 - W /$. · ·, - · I ' I ' ! 

·; w.v~.o~*" v--vn-y~ 
I " 

' 

T. D. C. J. INS T I T U T 1 0 N A L 

DATE 10/03/11 RECORDS OFFICE 

TDCJID: 00673001 NAME: HICKS,TRACY 

OOCUMENT# ~2 L 

D I V I S I 0 N 

TIME 09:.28:15 

UNIT COFFIELD 

SENT. BEGIN DATE OS/OG/1993 TDC RECEIVE DATE 07/08/1994 

INMATE STATUS STATE APPROVED TRUSTY CLASS 111 W LAST PCR REQUEST 10/03/1j 

SENT. OF RECORD 000+0 YRS 00 MOS 00 DAYS MAND 

lo,LAT TIME SERVED 

GOOD TIME EARNED 

WORK TIME EARNED 

MAND SUPV TIME CREDITS 

PAROLE TIME CREDITS 

MINIMUM EXPIRATION DTE: 

MAXIMUM EXPIRATION DTE: 

00018 YRS 04 MOS .29 DAYS 0+6 

00014 Y'RS 10 MOS 15 DAYS 000 

00008 YRS 06 MOS 11 DAYS 000 

00018 YRS 04 MOS .29 DAYS 046 

000+1 Y'RS 09 MOS .25 DAYS 

05/06/2033 

OS/06/.2033 

NUMBER OF DETAINERS 00 

WORK TIME LOST 00000 DAYS 

SUPV PAROLE 

% 04-6 % 

% 03'7 % 

% 0.21 % 

% 

104 % 

JAIL GOOD TIME RECD NO 

GOOD TIME LOST 00120 DAY'S 

PAROLE STATUS BPP DATE TDC CALC DATE 10/10/1~ 

*NOT ELIGIBLE FOR MAND SUPV RELE 

REQUEST -------- . CONDUCT RECORD: 

~ 

...... .-.. 

--~--~'----·-·-·------------------_r· ~~~·--------------~-·--~--~-
THE STA~E 0.~ TEXAS 

vs .. 

TRACV HICKS 

.. ·... . .'" 

IN TUB 16th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT 

.IN AND ·FOR JOHNSON COUNTY, 

. CLEBURl~B 'l'EXAS 

MOTION FOR SPEEDY TRIAL 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

TRACY HICI<S,Def~&.n(lant, Moves thEt- Court to order c. epeeoy tr; ial,and ln SUpport 

of this ~D~ion sh~s; 

An indictment in .this action we.s presented on May 1993 .Defendant is eurtently an - . ·. 

inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice .. The Multi-count indictment 

acts as a detainer as vritten. 

II. 

Defendant has previously Wl"itten to the Court seeking a .speeeJy resouloution·of 

I 

the charges as : ¥ri tten in the indictment ae Justice requires. To date 1 the Defendant 

has not ··heard anythir19 from the Court concerning his prior request o."'ue to pr~ 

dural issues. 

III. 

Defendant seeks a speedy trial in order that Justice may be done and that he 

be accorded dUe proceiiS and au& com;se of law as respectively guaranteed by the 

United States and .Texu Consti.tutione. Barker v. Wingo,92 s.ct.2182 (1972). 

Defenaant -asserts that any further delay would result in irrepar1able har:m due. to 

loss of_ Vitneeaes neceuary to hie &tfense. 

WHEREFORE; the Defendant prays thet Court 9rant this motion and order a Hearing, 

and trial in this matter be .set for a date on or before April 24th 201S,cr,if 

trial is,not set on or before said date,that the Multi-count indictment be diflmisaed on the ground that the defenetant ps been denied his eonstitutiOna.l 

right to a speedy trial. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Tracy 

::r~ Bie}te,Pro se 

2661 FM 2054 ,. 

CC:F!le 

Page (1) 

.·;.;: 
, .... ., .. 

. .. 5~\ . .. :.'' .. ·· .. .,, . 

. . ; ':. ?; . ..~ 

OAuss no•29:~:~.o •;i; 

~ ·. ;u/~i,ri:iE 18th .. niDIClAt. ·DISTRICt' CCORT: 

' . IN ; AND FO!t ;;'J'OBNSON COUt~'rY, 

§ · Ct.EllORllS 'l'BXAS 

v.s. 

•t:·~ACY UXCKS 

ORDER' 

On thie dat.e t·ha day of,· \ i015 .. c~a1~ on to .be heat"d Defendant •a 

Motion for: Speedy Trtal#&*ld it· appoai-• to the Court that this matter eboul· -: ~ '. . ' \,. ~ ·. : ·,_ -. 

\ 

_:'. 'be set for trial~ 

I ,;· 

tor xs.. TBBRStoru~, ORDERED ~h4lt . ~riai.:·~n, ~his' matte., be se·t for th• .·· .:. \: .. · ': DAY OF. ,201$. ~ i' ' I I ---- ------- ' : - ' 

\ '· \ 

; \ 

\ ;\ 

. ' . \• 

., \ ., ·' ' 

I 

.i 

,i_ ( ·V 

! : 

\: '. \' 

' ;'\ 

(: ·.\ 

.. :·' \ ., ' 

··r ... . ·,: ': ·: 

... ·;: 

! . . . . ' 

d'; \' ,·; 

CC:f'ile 
I I 

.TBB S'l'ATI or-~EXAS 

vs. 

TRACY HICRS 

CAUSg NO. 29450 

ORDS:R 

IN fHE 18th JUDICIAL OlS~RlCT COURT 

llt AND FOR 30HNSOH COUNTY 1 

CLEBtnun: TIXAS 

On this the _day of..._2015,came on to be beard Defendant'• 

Motion for Speedy l'l'ial,and it appear;a to t.ne Court.,that Defendant 

hae be~~ denied hie ~onetitutional ri;ht t~ a •peedy trial In 

thie cause and til~ indictment sho11.ld b~ diem!aeed .. 

IT IS, TH£R8PORR, ORDSaBD that the Multi-Count indictment in cause 

number 29450 be dismissed •. 

30DGS PR!SIDUlG 

CCaFile 
·~, .. 

. I. 

I I 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVlCB 

· l,~,raoJ~ Bic:ke,do hereby ee"tity that·'a tr\le and correct copy of 

the foregoing Defendant • a MotJ.on fo;:o speed:; Trial and Orders 

. have betln fol:'wardcd by 11f!ite<!t B>f!.G\tes Mail,Poatag• Pl"epaid,to 

Dale a&nna,PrCIS\lCU,t:ing Attorney foa Johnson Count,t.'l'exas at; 

David R • t'loyd f? .. 0. Box 495 Cleburne '.J:x 76033 

on t.his the~C:ya ofj1~~ , ~015 

'· 

·~6.v;; ~U-••. 

2661 Pil 2054 

'l'enn. Colony, T~ 75864-

·····\ 

.. :~ 

--~ 
. DOCUMENT d 3 

T. D. C. J. I N S T I T U T I 0 N A L D I V I S I 0 N 

DATE 09/27/12 RECORD~ OFFICE TIME 09:53:49 

TDCJID: 00673001 NAME: HICKS,TRACY UNIT COFFIELD 

SENT. BEGIN DATE 05/0b/1993 TDC RECEIVE DATE 07/08/1994 

INMATE STATUS STATE APPROVED.TRUSTY CLASS III W LAST PCR REQUEST 09/27/1c 

SENT. OF RECORD 

FLAT T I lYlE SERVED 

GOOD TIME EARNED 

WORK TIME EARNED 

00040 

00019 

00015 

00009 

YRS 

YRS 

YRS 

YRS 

YRS 

YRS 

MAND SUPV TIME CREDITS 00019 

PAROLE TIME CREDITS 00044 

MINIMUM EXPIRATION DTE: 05/06/2033 

MAXIMUM EXPIRATION DTE: 05/06/2033 

' 

00 MOS 

04 MOS 

1e1 MOS 

00 MOS 

04 MOS 

03 MOS 

00 DAYS MAND 

24 DAYS 048 

10 DAYS 000 

09 DAYS 000 

24· DAYS 048 

13 DAYS 

NUMBER OF DETAINERS 00 

WORK TIME LOST 00000 DAYS 

SUPV PAROLE 

1- 048 1-

1- 039 1-

1- 022 ':/. 

':/. 

109 ':/. 

JAIL GOOD TIME RECD NO 

GOOD TIME LOST 00120 DAYS 

PAROLE STATUS BPP DATE TDC CALC DATE 10/10/1S 

REQUEST 

CONDUCT RECORD: 
I ' 

NAME: HICKS,TRACY 

SID NUMBLR: 02526014 

'TDC:,J-ID UNIT OE, r.~s~~3IGNivJt.:N'f': c:::_;r: .. E'IE:.LD 

HC>USTNG 1\SSIG!.-JfvJE:NT: DOEt-1 P6lB 

DOCUMENT# 14 

TDCJ-ID NUMBER: GOG"/3001. 

BED: 07.1 

,, ··, •, i-l·i '. 7 !, b\:: f:~ .!"i d(~- n i (!d :f:·;:J r·o J E-~ :( 0.1:' t: h~::· r f:;a.E3 0 r.: ( S) .l i .'3 ( O.:~Ci bt:.l O'i-Y : 

()nc o!· rn.or~a conlpOn(·~rlt:S ind:i.ca~:c~d .i.n ~::-3c:h r;araqr·r:Jph J.:i.:·~ted l.Jf~:.lO\·'-' ma.y 

ay:.1p .. ly, but on.Ly Oi"l~:-? i~.~ ·ceq·u:\._y(::d. 

? [~!. '!'HE J\EC()f_;(D IN U IC/-~'f E:S Tl·iAT 'l'Ht:, I NI'-1AT E C{)f-if·J.T ~1 11TE;D CNE OJ.<. i~:JUH.i:~ 

V.'f()'l: .. [NT CUii"11.'NAL .. 't\(.:TS TND.ICl\T.T.NC A CONSCIC>U~3 DT.~:;I{EGl\RD ('OF< .. '1\HE 

r.T-·JF::~, :·;f.\l~'i~~:.}·:f, on PROPEHT~x~ UF' OTHf~RS; CR 'fH.E Tt·1ST.Z.\l'lT C•_F'F~E!~-i(~~E ()!\ 

Tr;~-~ T n ~:; t .i. ·:~ u t J. ·:: ~-t.-.:j j t:~_;_ ·.: .-L :.::-: :i. crl \.,..! 1 .l. -~ m".:1r·1.~. ~-- .::•1:." ycu r t.r~: ... :~ titlcnt r.> 1 ,::j n r,:c~::q C(.!S ~~ 

~nd wj.l} ~~port Y0UL 0rogr~~s ~0 the Board of Pardons and r~r0l.8S. 

~~ h~_)U .1 ..,j y<Jt .. i have a.rJ~:/ q1..:e s t: i=~)nS J::e-~1-:t.rj_:i. nq Lh is ~ot :i.ce· ~-/C.'t} -~-J re t C; 

ccn 1:.r_; 1::1:: y.-::-1.! t· u.n .i .. t: ·.rn.:.:.~ t l t· ,.J ~- i c;n~ 1 Far. o ].<--.' \)f f.i. c::;;. 

tion jS your written detJlJea 

.st-3tein~:~nt. as !:c~qul.reo by Tezas c;o~Ir.:;:r:-nrnent C(>de St::::::L .. L.on ~)()~:. ~~-4-'J (b) 

~-~ !:~ y T R !::: \l .T E~ Tt~' 

CC: INMATE - TDCJ-ID 
I 

' PDKAR008.r,_;:,,PLCO STP~TE OF TEXAS 08/22/2014 

BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES PAGE 1.. 

NOTICE OF P?.RCLE P:n.NEL DECISION 

N.l.l.ME: HICKS, TRACY 

SID NUMBER: 02526074 

TDCJ-ID UNIT OF ASSIGNMENT: COFFIELD 

HOUSING ASSIGNMENT: DORM P62C 

TDCJ-ID NUMBER: 00673001 

BED: 095 

SUBJECT: Decision Not to Grant Parole - NEXT REVIEW 

After a review of your case, the Board of Pardons and Paroles 

decision is not to grant you parole and has set your next parole review 

date as 08/2016 .. 

You have been denied parole for the reas~n(s) listed below: 

One or more components indicated in each paragraph listed below may 

apply, but bnly one is required. 

lD. THE RECORD INDICATES TH?.T THE INMATE HAS REPEATEDLY COMMITTED 

CRii:'IINAL EPISODES OR HAS A PATTERN OF SHULAR OFFENSES THAT 

INDICATES A PREDISPOSITION TO COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS WHEN RELEASED; 

OR THE RECORD INDICATES TH?.T THE INtJ'Jll.TE IS A LEP. .. DER OR ACTIVE 

INDICATES A JUVEN~LE OR AN ADULT ARREST OR INVESTIGATION FOR 

FELONY J\ND t-1ISDEMEANOR OFFENSES. 

THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE INI:-1ATE C0t-1f'1ITTED ONE OR MORE 

VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTS INDICATING A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD FOR THE 

LIVES, SAFETY, OR PROPERTY OF OTHERS; OR THE INSTANT OFFENSE OR 

PATTERN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAS ELEMENTS OF BRUTALITY, VIOLENCE, 

01\ C0t·1SCIOUS ::a:.:LECTIOt-: OF VICTI.W S IJULNSJ:-:J\B .. LLl.'l'Y :::>UC:H 'l'HA'!' 'T'HF: 

INI'-ll".TE P03E:3 A CONTINUING THREAT TO PUDLIC SAFETY; OR THE RECORD 

INDICATES USE OF A WEAPON. 

DOCUMENT 15 

The Institutional Division will monitor your treatment plan progress 

and WlJl repnrt your progress to tne Beard of Pardons and Paroles. 

Should you have any questions regarding this notice you are to 

contact your Lnit Institutional Parole Office. 

This Notice of the Parole Panel Action is your written detailed 

statement as required by Texas Government Code SECTION 508.1411. 

NEXT REVIEW 

CC: INl"ATE - TDCJ- ID 
~ ( 

. . 

\ 

\ 

.. 

DOCUMENT 16 

.·~ 

Novemb~r 3, 2014 

Tracy, 

My oldest daughter is 21 today. Her name is Kylie. She is in school at Texas State University in San 

Marcos, below Austin. My youngest, Kyndall is a senior and has a volleyball playoff game tonight. She 

has been first team all-district the past two years. My son Tyler and I went deer hunting near your home 

place in Board bottom this weekend. I just wanted to share some Darrell news with you. 

I was very disappointed in the results ofthe hearing. I had a long talk with Ms. Peden's paralegal, Grace 

Edwards. She claims that the charges being grouped together are problematic, and possibly some other 

things. Regardless, Ms. Peden is still hired to represent you. I only went on what you told me that 

everyone Ms. Peden represented got out. I hope she can do the same for you, as I can only imagine how 

beyond ready you are to get out. Not sure when I can make a trip to see you, but I will make a point to 

on a Saturday, sometime soon I hope. 

Friends, 

Darrell 
. ( MOTION NUMBERil7 r'---.·-~r-•t:_-:..-==-..::..~:•-----------,...---------------------------------; 

I 

I 

! 

I 

i 

! 

I 

I. 

i 

I· ! 

i 

I 

l 

I 

EX PARTE HICKS TRACY 

#29450 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE 

th 

§ TEXAS ··n 

c.n ··~·~-­ ;;.;r-

·~::;b ~ .._·;:t·""-' ';]: s 

ORIGINAL ~IOO TO REVIEW TRIAL/APPELLATE RECaiDS 

FOR PURPOSE OF PREPARING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

RETURNABLE TO THE TEXAS CXXJRT OF CRIMINAL . APPEALS · 

TO 'l'HE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

Now Comes the Petitioner Ex Parte Hicks Tracv in the above cause of action 

Pursuant to and in accordance with the Rules of the Court:Tex. Crim. Proc. 

Code § 11.07 (Vernon's Suoo.2000) and files this Oriaina1 Motion To Review 

Tria1/Aooellate Records For Puroose Of preoarina A Writ Of Habeas Corous 

Returnable To The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals. 

Petitioner in the above case number was convicted in the above Court of 

the offense of sexual assault of a person by guiltv plea on Auqust 1993: and 

desires to submit a properlv filed Writ of Habeas Corpus returnable to the 

Texas Court of criminal Appeals. 

.,._ 

-4 

Pursuant to and in accordance with the Texas Public Information Act, (V .T.C.A., 

Government Code § 552.000 et. Seq.) and Tex. Crim. Proc. Code § 11.07(Ve:rnon's 

2000):and the Due process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 

the United States. petitioner request opP0rtunitv to review the above recorns. 

In re Christensen(App. 7 Dist.2000)39 s.w. 3d. 250 •• Petitioner was entitled 

to have hearina on Motion f0r·loan of trial and appellate record reaarning 

aqqravated sexual assault conviction for purpose of preparina aoolication·for 

writ of habeas corous. which would be returnable to Court of criminal AooeaJs., 

Vernon's Ann. Texas Code of Criminal procedure art. 11.07 (Supp.2000). 

Petitioner Pray that the Court will set this matter down for a hearina:and 

accord the petitioner opoortunitv to review Trial/Aooellate Records for the 

Puroose of Prennrina a Writ of ~abeas Corous returnable to the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. SO MOVED AND PW\n:D TW\T ROOUESTED RSLIEF BE GRANTED AND .. 

PE'l'ITIOOER BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE CCXJRT TO REVIEW THE RECORDS IN ENTIRETY. 

SIJBIIU'l'IID ON THIS THE _qM_ DAY OF OC'roBER 2012 B'i:-b~ ' . Pet1. er Pro Se 
i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

\ 

. .. ... --Jt·----;~:--·~··~-~ ' ' -:-·)\-- :~ 

District Clerk: 

P.O. Box 495 

Cleburne TX 76033 

TRACY HICKS 

2661 FM ~2X}(5;4 

Tenn. Cly,TX 75884 

Oct 9 2012 

RE:MOTION TO REVIEW TRIAL/APPELLATE RECORDS 

Dear Clerk: 

Enclosed for filinq with the Court is Petitioner's motion arid 

Proposed order for the Court: Upon the filinq of the motion 

please Provide me a filed marked copy for my records. 

Sincerely, 

CD ~ 

-< c::::J 

~ 

0 

n 

-4 

Ul 

> 

:X 

CP. 

•','c:.,} 

.. z:-. 

j ""T1 ·,-

. .::1 

CJI'l 

·-=-o c: 

:z 

-i 

··< 
'l'RACY HICKS MOTION NUMBER il7 

November 24, 2012 

2661 FM 2054 

Tenn- Colony, Tx 75884 

Office Of The District Clerk 

Research Cow~lience ~t 

Johnson County Guinn Justice center 

P .. e. Box 495 

Cleburne, i'X 76033 

Re; case i 29450 State of t;exas V. Tracy flicks 

Dear Clerk; 

I r-E.:centl}' wrote ym.a.:- office regard:ing tt·ia1/<'~ppe11ate record.::: in the above case. 

'l.'h<:tnk ;rou fot: your: l.:·ep.l y in reference these records. I' arn nc·~;;!ding one corq of the 

indictment, and one ( 1) covr of th'= Police O:Cfen:se n2pm:t in the above ca::Je number, 

.so that I may properly prepare and file a vrit of habeas.Areturnable ~ to the ~xas 

Court of criminal Appeals; I am not certa:l.n of how many pa.ges these documents l'lla.Y 

be; would you please tell me the cost of these requested documents? I'm assuming 

that these documents consist of only 2-3 pages,and therefore in the alterna.ti.ve I 

will try and send your office a $3;00 Money order to cover cost of these records. 

Thank You for your assistance in this rr~tter 

·Sincerely, 
' 

':' ·' ' 4... ' , -\ •' -.r ilJ 

-" SBRYIC£