This document contains some pages**~hat** are of poor quality at the time of imaging. ·

## ~samuel Medrano. niaz. 763621 

### _C:::... )
.. 

## F
. .n,

## ~'l -.

## _O~_ 

# - .. ·899 'FM '632 Connal1y Url"it ·**~** ..._) 

### U(_t7>CT"**~** kenedy Texas 78119 1
. . · ·· Sq.preme Court· of The

### Jun~ 11 2015 

## RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINft.L APPEALS -< United stateoffl:tet of Clerk Was'hi.:ngton 1 DC 20543"tl001**De~r** ·clerk Re: Diaz 

## v. Stephens, Dir., TX DCJ_- (USCA5 <!ase No. 14-20384 

## .:JUN, 08 

## 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk

Encl·osed you will find the stamped- origitud:**Pefitiq~-** for

. ::·;; :::_:· Wri·t. of·**~Cert~c:n;~ri ~riginal**  recieveq· 

### b.y**--~-~1-s eo~r.t;:**  dn.**F~}:)ruary** 27, 2015. Che Petitioner has corrected the Affidavit or Declaration. sent to him by:this court. He has corrected it to the best of his

-. . . ·knowlege. And.· 

### is**r~turning** the Petition to this, court for fil!ling witin the 60_day permitted from the_date of this courts letter dated· May 11; 2015 for**th~** above case-. ·"the Petitioner has provided the 

### ,Attorney-General for the state of. Texas vitb·a copy as**reque~t h~-** 

### d~,..

### ,by-_th·i~-~ourts ietter. Petiti,()ner woulq'

### ftir.t·h·~I'**<S;~bmit.f·-~~-fh~;t** :

## (h~ beliese this

## co~·~.t returned his Writ of Certiorari with.

## ~he~: · ·>··::?

## -~pplittation affida;.tt provide by this c'ourt,

## ~or nothing

## mo~~ 'them to aviod the filing, of the original deadling for which Petioner .·had sent timely. and fqr nothing more then to**llav~** pe'titioner sign affidav't this. cour.t: ·sent him, and for the filillg of somthing other ' by a.ttorney ·general and .this**cou~t** ,_,**who~** continue
.to**misle~d** Petitioner with the cause of action**he~has** been in prison for amost 20**~ear&** now.

Please file. My Petition along with this le.t-ter and bring to the attension of this court. the Attorney General has be¢n

. r-, {
. '
.. PFOVide a copy of the Otttiginal ·writ of· certiorari. '' '

### NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

-------------- TERM 2015



### vs. WILLIAM**S~BPBBNS,** 

### DIRECTOR OP TBB YBXAS DBPARYl'mtn OF 

### CRIINAL JUS'fiCB ·CORRECTIONAL IRST.ITD'IIOMS DIVISION, Respondant


### ON PHITIOB FOR WRIT OP CBRTIORARI .TO

·THE UNITED**S~ATES** 

### COURT OP APPEALS POR YBE PIFTH 

### CIRCUIT
PBTITIOR POR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

·/ RBS.PSCTPULLY SOBIUT'lBD

: I. 

### SAMOBL MEDRANO DIAZ I 763621 899 P.M. 632 connally unit

1 

### KBNSDY, TEXAS 78119 . ;

··... /

'··**~** l . '

### Question One.Petitioner's Defense· COUrisel was ineffective and 

### aided the Pelle

### ectuion, Defense Counsel coerced Peritioner to plead guilty by misleading information, that if he did the Judge would give him 

# a small sentence for

. .. 

### a guilty plead and waiver·of 'frial by jury. Question 

### TVo. Petitioner recieved ineffective assistance of Appellate Counsel. Counsel was**~sisting** 

### the .Govecnment filing appeal in alias 'named 

### caused numooc ·. for assi.sting the Government in affirming an illegal Life Sentence of the Judge in cause #714137. Appeal counsel further failed to provide Petitioner with notice or opinions of the Courts affirming his alleged conviction. Question Three. Outrageous Government Misconduct. The Government got Petitioner to plead guilty to wildly charged indictment of a Prosecutor;in #714137, sentencing him 

### to LIFE, alleg(.-dly granting appeal in i714137, and carrying the**ap~al** 

### through the court Sistem 

### in alias State cause :number 806078 with appeal counsel misleading Petitioner with cause of action to deprive him to challenge the Judges Life sentence affirtnea 

### in**~714137.** 

### Question Four. Prosecutor Hisconduct aJ."ld Abuse of Authority. !?rosecutor failed to protect Petitioner from a wrongful conviction and illegal life sentence of the ,Judge. Question 

### Fiveo Abuse of Discretion by the Trial Judge. Trial Judge abused his discretion excepting Applicant's guilty plead in violation of Rule 11. Not pro.perly admoniuhing Petitioner. And w"hen he read 

### an illegal life sentence in**~714137** by 

### Judge**f~r** 

### affirming an illegal conviction adopted and carried into State alias #806078 

### it would be 

### affirmed in through the Courts, to mislead Petitioner , .. lith the cause of action. The lower Courts erred in granting RespO-
_ ndents Motion for Summary 

### Judgment where Petitioner clearly**pres~nted** 

### a genuine issue of material facts as to the Inefectiveness of the Trial Counsel and erred by 

### failing to**~rant** 

### issue Petitioners request for c.O.A. 

### when Petitioner clearly met the requirentent for appellate review pursuant to 28 

## u.s.c. 2254(c)(2).
i

### ftiJBRAL 

## aa· u;.s.c. 1254 (l) 

## 28 u.s.c. 1746 28 

## o.s.c. 2253 (c) (2) 28 

## u;.s.c. 2254 (d) (1} (2) 28 

## o.s.c.__ 2254 .(c)· (l) - _F.a.c.P.,RULB 11

. $D'f8 B.f.llfU'fBS
. 

### V.A.C.C.P.-ART. 11.07 

### (3) (d) 

## v.A.c.c.P. ART. 11.16

·.**V.T.tC•A~** 

### ·12;33 

## v.:r.c.A:**~~~~** 

# v

•

..r.c.·A.**21~i1** 

### 5th. Amendment to· 

### the u.s.- COnstitution· 6th.**~t** to 

## the**o~s~** 

### ·Constitmn1:on 14th. Amendment to the 

## u.s. Cbnstitutiem

(

ii Pg. 8
. Pg. 19 Pg. 15 Pg. 7-8 Pg. 7 Pg. 14 Pg •

Pg. 12 Pg. 1-19 

### Pg.l9 Pg. 1-19 Pgo 1-19' Pg. 3 Pg. 3 Pg. 3.:·._ ••• 1**-~' ~i** 
··.. :;:_



### .. _ :.-

:· . ' ::**~.:-.** .

'-'! ' J**-~'·** 

## ON PETITION FOR WRIT.

### OF:-~CERTIORARI 'I'O THE UNITED STATES**-~:ri,-.\'** 

### -, . • COURT OF APPEALS FOR
I. OPINION BELOW II.**JURISDI~TION 'I'HE~~··F\l•F'I'H**  ,CIRCUI'I'**~**

...:.: ;: .;,:,;:..:_\'.**-~** ',_. ' ··' l. }-··· '!'"-

i r i '. ·i" ... ,...._ _.·)_: .._.
III. CONS'fTTU'I'-lONAL 

## 'ANb'

## STA~U~ORY ·!**PRIVIOt~S** INVOL'VED

. ' ' 

## ,, .iV. STATEME:NT 

### oif CASE 

## '\ _v..' REASONS FOR
,,

. ... ·} ,· !**:_·:~:~:xi.** CONCLUSION ::

__**-'~II.** OATH

. .,.,·· i·, i: ';f'f_.;·> 'p 

### -<"//}'
. '

b:o.'**·~** •; :···: ., ::..? ' :i**r~** '

.-·**~** ; ' '

;.· :·

·:' '

... ,

...r·.

: :

### ..

. ;

'' 

## '' ·,; '.,;\ 'l

.**~** '\ 'I·},**I~DEX** TO APPENDICES

··:.- 1.**A~pendix** A. 

## u.s. Couct:of**A~peals** 5th Circuit 

### beniel**~£** QO.O.A. Issued on Decewbac 10,**2014~** 2. App-endix B. 

## u.s.**Cu~:ct.a** Notice CouaJ?laint 

### tiled Afld Oi:det" Graating Forrua Pauperis to**P~oceed~** 3. A!.'>f>endix 

## ... 

# ·-.**~..** f''" \.J•V• Dh•trict Coucts**D~?niel** uf**c.o.A~** I ;_**~-** ( .<j. 4. AjJpEH'td i X D. 

### u.s. District Court Memorandum and Opinioi1 Granting**Res~ondant** Motion foe summacy Judyment ·on First**fil~ng** Civil Action H-02-2162 of Oct. 22, 2002.



### iv.l CATALAN 

## v. OOCdllt.L 315 F. 3d. 491, 493 (it.h. Cir. ,2002) CLARK V.**JOHN~** 202 P. 3d. 760, 764 (5th. Cir .2000)' ORtNlCARD 97 F. 3d. at. 767-68 

### BILL 

## Ill F.**3d~** 

### at 

### 485 .Quoting 

### 28 U.s.c. 2254 (d) (2) """' SILL 

## V.':\·=;JOONSoN el<D F. 3d. 481, 485 (5th. Cir. 2000)
;·, /**~-** .

-:**-~·.** ·--...

## MittER::~i£.·v. JOHNSON 261 F. 3d. 445, 449 (Stb. Cir 2001) .NEAL 

### v•.**~~** 286 P. ld:· 230,. 246 (5th.· Cir. 2002) OOAN 

# v.:**:CocK~** 297 

## r. 3d. 249, 355 (5th. Cir. 2002)

. . _:-}: . . . . ... PBNmr

### V~ JOBNsoo 

### '2l5**F~ ~·**  504, 508 (5th. Cb:. 2000) SMITH**V:~** COCRREtt 311 F. 3d. 661, 668 (5th. Cir. 2002) 1::·**~::(---~'** .· 

## u.s. DI;S.fttlC'f CODR'I 

### CUBS:

### ~i'v. tiBBR'lY

### ~y,**~c**

# .. 477 

## u.s. 242, 24S (1986) ' )_;t_ • . (
. .. •**~** 

### coLBMr.N;;v. 

### 'rBOMPsoN so1 

## u.s. 122, 

## 1so-st (1991)**;~**.. MalGI V.;**CALLI~A** . · U. So 721 ( 1998) · MURRAY 

## V•' CARRIER 477 

## u.s. 478 (1986) SLACK 

## v. MCDANIEL 120 

## s. :ct. 1595 (2000) STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTCN 466 

## u.s. 668, 686-692 (1984) WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR 120 

## s•. Ct. 1495 (2000)



# v.'I - -**~.·.** ..· .. 

### NO.



# -------------------- IN THE**SUPRE~1E** 

### COURT
.OF THE UNITED STATES 

### :. TERM, 2015**~----.-** ..**--~.** SAMUEL 

### MEDRANO DIAZ,**PETITIONER~** 

## vs. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR OF THE. TEXAS DEPARTMENT**0~** 

### CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

### CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL DIVts;oN, RESPONDENT
ON PETITION iOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI·TO


### FOR THE 

### FIFTli CIRCUIT

''**~** . ; . . ; . TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF 

### SAID COURT: 

### COMtS NOW, s•muel Medrano Diaz, Petitioner in the above styled ;!' •. 

### cause presentinQ this his Petition For Writ of Certiorari seeking a Review of the lower Court's Denial to issue a Writ of· Habeas Corpus to his Unconstitutional confinement and restraint from the 262nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, in the State of Texas 

## v. Sameul Medrano Diaz Cause Number 714137 for the Offense of Murcier. And where the lower Couret:s hold that the Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional Right. In support thereof Petitioner would respectfully show this Court the following;

1. ·,\ · 

### ..\'**~** :· ..

,· '<_. '·' ·:, ··,l•,



### OPINION BELOW ' . ' . . 

### 'The unpublished written opinion denying Petitioner's Motion ·for**~ehearing** 

### For C.O.A. in the Court of·Appeals for the 5th

Circuit,**~ppears** 

### in 

### Appendix 

### A.**~_.** -,.. - 

### ·The**u~pu.blished** 

### :written opinion denying to issue a c.o.A. by ·the U.'S•· 

### Court of Appeals For the 5th**C~rcuit** 

### Appears in AppencU.a 

# a.

, .. _ 

### The unpublished written opinion**~enying t~:issue**  

### a c.o.A.

. . 

### in the 

# u.s. District.'Court·appeas in 

### Appendix 

# c.

·-' 1 

### The**U~S.** 

### Distric,t Court's Final Judgment**Deny~ng** 

### Petitioner's Writ 

# o£ Habeas Corpus appeas in 

### Appoa41x D. and

. . .. 

### The:'.**·unp~bli~hed** 

### written Memorandum 

## ·and Opinion of the 

## u.s. District Court granting Respondants Motion 

### For Summary 

### Judgment · .appeas in 

### ,AppeD41• B. 

### JURISDICTION The 

## u.s. court of Appeals for the 5th**Circu~t_'a** 

### opinion in

.. 

### this matter was 

### filed on December 10, .2014. A 

### timely Petition for Rehearing was ·filed. The 

## u.s.· Court of A.ppeals .Denial of .Motion·



### . . {(.**f~nJc...:H·e~** 

### . for**~ehearing.** 

### was issued onJh.ue.r**~** 

### 2015, Set t·orth in appendix A. Thul this UoS. 

### Supreme Court's Jurisdiction 

### is**Inv~ed** 

### under Title 28 

## u.s.c. 1254 (1).

_.. ,. ·:·.-. , .

.**~** .-;'

.
,1· ··.' '\. _:f-'_ .• '· '.' i ;. .·: 

### CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS**~NVOLVED**

• 1 1 •. Stb. AMENDMENT**~0** THE U.• S. CONSTITUTION, ·

l\ •,'... ;.,,' ··;>'•:. 

### 2. 6th AMENDMENT TO THE**U~S.** 

### CONSTITUTION,_ 3. 14th AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION,

: ••. \' •'.**~·** . • ! ' '
. 4. 28·**u.s.c-~A;.** 2253 (c) 

### (1) tbru (3), 

### 5. 28 

# p.s•.

# c..A. 2254· (d) (1) 

### and (2).

''· STATBIIBMT 

### OP CASB·



### .Petitioner- 

### was allegea to. have been Indicted for the 

### offense of 

### ch.lraer of his 

### Common l..aw 

### wife 

# in cause 

### number 714137 

### in the 262m1 

### ··-Judicial District 

### Court of _Harris 

### county, Texas. 

### The Petiti_oner: ,. pleaded ·. quilty on 

### September 12, 19·9·6 to 

### the felony '] 

### offense 

# as·· .charged in the Prosecutors Indictment.

## ;.~he Trial· Court Judge assessed punishment at Life confinement in the Texas·**Depart~** 

### '**~~nt ~f**  

### Criminal Justice Division TOCJ. And the Petitioner 

### was

. • '**~** • • : • '
. ,I'. • . 

### alleged to have been given a Direct Appeal, and Appeal counsel Blanca Lopez to file a Direct Appeal in 714137. On June 25, 1998 

### the Judgment was affirmec::l 

### on Appeal by the ' 

### Fourteenth court of· 

### Appeals, D1az 

## v. State; 14-96-01167-CR, 2011 WL 350594 Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1998. The Mandate was issed·on October 23, 1998.

The Petitioner's Direct Appeal ·Counsel filed a PDR in the Texas court of Criminal Appeals, and Petitioner never ·heaar:a anything from the Court 

### of. Appeals Counsel reg_arding his PDR. No. 98-1244 

### Refused Sept. 23, _1998.

3.

I ',• •'
. . · ,· .. .''

l.**~.** ; ' . ·On

### ~~ovember 18, 2001.

### Petiti~ner**~ben'** n6w 

### pro 

## se filed his first
.

. •· 

### Writ_of·Habeas_Corpus State 

### Application 

### and it was denied on '•.;>'
. ' 

## _/ l.S, 2002 No.**51,622;01~**



### · Petitioner then filed his**fi~at** 

### Application for Federal**~r~t** 

### of Habeas ·**Cor~us** 

### · ·-2254 

### •' Civil Action Number. H.:o:-02-2162 It was t
../'**~-;'**

. ' 

### sign·ed on June 1. And 

### docketed 

# on June 

### 6, 2002.

on·**Qc~6~er•a~,** 

### 2002 the 

### United States District Court issued

## Memor~naum · and 

### Order Granting Respondants Motion for Summary

·> 

### Judgm'erit dismissing 

### Petitioner•s Writ 

### of Habeas Corpus 

### stating

### ~**Certif~c~te** of Appealability 

### will not be

### issued~**~** 

## ..**~·** 

### The- Petitioner did 

### not 

### pursue his case 

### to the fifth 

### circuit due to 

### his lack of legal knowledge, lack of .the.English writing and**r~ad~ng~** 

### Petitioner is a Mexican Nationalit,y.and don•t read

. ....·· or speak 

### ·the english lan.guage
..

. . ;• .. 

### liow$:ver',,· :with' the 

### assistance of 

### ariother·,··fell.ow"'trimate Petitioner
.--- ·. . ·. ,. ' ·. flle'd ' 

## et ·.second State 

### Writ of Habeas Co.rpus on January 

### of 2014

presenting new claims he 

### could have had 

## no knowledge of when he
.. 

### filed his first Application. 

### Because he didn't learn 

### of the 

### claims or 

### other 

### related cause nubers that 

### were·used and enter-- 

### twined with 

### his murder 

### conviction 

### such as 

### ea_se number 606078**~ Sta~es**  

### alias related**~o** 714137 

### his life**sent~nce** 

### conviction, or ·**ho~,** 'his · ..**~rior** DWI's ·of 1998 in case 47608.2 

### and 511430 

### were .further 

### entertwined 

### with.· hi.a**~** 

### ille9al .life**sentence.~** ,·,**~-.'** -

### Tbe·~respQndent 

### filed**a·l!econ<i_r~sp~nse** 

# to Application 71,137- 

## a on :· February 

### 11,,**201~·**

### •. ·.**A~gueing** a 

### .s·ubsequent Writ and 

### that 

### the 

### App+ication should be denied. .' ·:·

' ( '**-~**

, .. 

### 4. \

.• \**-~-** • - ·. $!.'.·**:~.** ·',

### Ori**Febr~ary** 

### .27, 2014. 

### The texas**C~urt** 

### of Criminal Appeals receieved 

### and presented the Application to the Court. Writ Number



### ·**WR~,l,622~2** Trial**Cour~** number 714137-B. 

### bn March. 12, 2014. The 

### Texas Court 

### of**Criminal~~ppeals** dismissed without writ.ten order this S\19sequent application for Writ of 

## Habeas corpus, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. ll.Oi,.Sec. 

## 4(a.)-'ct> •

. ;

### .

.- .·. The. t, ?eti

### tioner then filed a 

### aecond Applicatyion 2254 Federal 

### Application in hope that th!s 

### Court would 

### Order**~~spondant** to 

### at least address 

### his claims raised in State Court, or waive the**claim~** 

### so**~hat** 

### he could get 

### a proper review of all 

### claims. raised from feder,l 

### District, not just review 

### of**t~me-barred** 

### issues which. limitted the Federal Courts jurisdiction due 

### to respondants failure to aad.ress all claims of 

### Constitutional vi·olation I 

### thereby

.- preserving: the claims by it • 

### s failure to**address~** 

### denying Petit-

'•·,.·.**ion~r** 

### ieview of all 

### claims by 

### the Federal District, 

### on for which a COA 

### could be Granted, not just on 

### tirne-barrrad issued for 

### which the 

### Federal jurisdiction 

### was limitted to. The 

### United States Court dismissed 

### Petitioners 2254 

### Application with 

### Prejudice as time 

### barred oenied to 

### issue COA, or Order respondent to address the claims. 

### Petitionei then timely appealed to 

### the United 

### States Court 

### of Appeals Fifth Circuit. His 

### Motion to 

### Proceed In 

### Forma Pauperis was 

### Gr.antea. and Petitioner timely filed his Petition for Certificate of Appealability COA, in the Court of Appeals. And on 

### December 10,**·20~4.** No. 14-20384 

### the Court Denied 

### to c.o.A. 

### And there

### f.ore Petitioner 

### filed for a Writ of Certiorari 

### to the United Statessupreme Court. 

# s.'**~** - ... ' /
........ The 

## u.s. court**~,f** Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has entered a**d~:ecision** that has sg. far departed from the accepted an<3 usual !

. I
.. .**~** course of judicial proCeedings, or sanctioned such a**de~rture** by a lower court as to call for an :exercise of this court's supervisory power, vherL the Court I of**~s** for the 5th Circuit granted Respondent.s Motion 

### tor 

### summary

- •'**·:,;·::1~\;:;:_\:;·.'·"** . . ··f<"")··**Ju~~~~/or** denied to. issue Petitioner's request fo.r·**Certifi~te** of Appealibility after. Petitioner preSented the court(s) with

### th~ following

### issw~r

... ' , . .··
. for**rel~ef** • · ;: . /

• < -..,**.~**..·· ,. t.:'; I,

·AND**~~.,into** 

### one**factual:·~** legal 

# argument for ·this 

### COUrt's convience. ;**>~:'-**

.

### PetitiOn~ a.Sserts that his State 'l'rlal Counsel's actions fell below an

### objectiVEn!~~d Of

### .~leness**~** petitioner

### ~fered**~j\id~ee** 

# as a

, .I
. ' ·.:f:.I ·t: :-_- '-
. ' '**~** .. _ , -. -z .. 

### <',"(A):

## :Peti'~eJ:-.•s. · defense 

### was ineffictive and aid the prosection, Defense ·

, !:" •· •.**·if::r~~··.;;** ; "_' • • '> " " ; • • " •'
. 

## .r· :._

# eounsel·;:~rce**petit~oner** to

# pl~d gullty' 

## by

# mtsleadl~ informaticn·,that

# ,i~.**o~** .... • • - ( • f • r <',•

### ~~d the.

### j~ge would give him a small Rntenc:e for a guilty plead 

## .Snd waiver of 

### Trial by 

## jurY. (B) · 

### Petitioner received· ineffective assistance of Appellate COunsel
.. COunsel 

### was assisting 

### the government filing**appe~l.** in 

### alias 

### mimed caused ntll'llber for assistiilg**~** goverl'lm'imt · in affirming an illegal·· Life 'Sentence of the Judge in**ca~** 1714137. Appeal COunsel further failed to provide petitioner with 

### notice or opJ.nions of the court's affirming his alleged 

### conviction.

6...• :. ,/'

.. ' /


### . r· J .r ,!
'·) (C) OUtrageous Government Misconduct. '!'he government get petitioner to plead guilty to wild charged indictment of a prosecutor in 1714137, sentencing him to Life, allegely granting appeal 

### in 1714137, and carrying the appeal through the court system in alias state cause number 806079 with appeal counsel misleading petitioner with cause of action to deprive him to challenge the judgeS life sentence affirmed in 1714137. (D) 

## PrOsecutor MiscOnduct and Abuse of Authority. Prosecutor 

### failea to protect**petiti~r** fxom a WI'CI'Jl9full
.. conviction and illegal life sentence of the judqe. (E)· Abuse of**Di~tion** by the ''trial Judge. 'l'he trial judge abuse his i· discretion excepting applicant's guilty plead 

### in violation of Rule 11. not properly -admonishifl9 petitioner. And when he read an illegal life sentence

• ' ' I 

### 1n 1714137 -by
__ jUdge for affirming 'an - illegal conviction adopt., 

# am carried. 

### into state.alias 1806078 it would 

### b9 affirmed in throt:lth 

### the courts, to

- mislead petitioner with the cauSe 

# of action.

- Petitioner further asserts that the lover COurts erred in granting



### . respondant's Motion for SUmary 

### Judgment where petitioner clearly presented a

,. .,.



# -**genu~ne.** _isSue 

# of material facts- as 

### to the ineffectl veness of the trial counsel and 

### erred by 

### failing to 

### grant issue petitioner's reQuest 

### for
__ ·**c~o~_&.** 

### wtum**petiti~ cl~rly**  met the requirement for appellate review pursuant**to·~** C 2 "tc-A ( ) ·(2) 1

# .i see.Dvt"d

### ~~tJ·.AJ,'e.c;l..

## 1 'o, -. U•S• • .**~** C • irt I) 1 r -In ruling on a Motion for SUmmary Judgment, the lower CDurts**vie~** the evidence through 0 the prism of the substantive evidentfary burden
.. 0 A1!IIJIRSlll V. 

### LIB'BRft LOBBI', 

## 111!., 471 U.S. 242, 254 (1986). Under the AEOPA, the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden differs depending upon whether the 

### issue is one of 

### law, fact of both. See, !lRtNDBD 97 F. 3d. at 767-68.

7.

.,.**--~---:** ·-·' (

. !**~;**...**~** : 

### A· state 

### court determination of questions of law. and. mixed 

### questions of**~- ~** 

.**~** and fact iS reviewed under 28 

## u.s.c. 2254 (d) (1) arid 

### receives deferenee 

### unless 

### it •was 

### contray to, or involved. an unreasonable. application 

### of 

### clearly

. established .Federal law as determined by the 

## u.s. SUpr:ememe Court. 

### fJIIr.L 

## v•

. Jal';lS(If, 210 F. 3d. 481, 485 (5th. Cir, 2000). A State 

## COUrt decJsion is

, fr' 

### •contrary •to" ·SUpreme 

### COurt precedent if 

### (1) the 

### state .court's**conclusi~** is**•oppo13,}~~::** 

### to that 

### reached by 

### the SUpreme 

### court on a- question**of_,1~v•** 

### or (2)
.

. ' ' ...,,. the 

### .tate court 

### confronts facts that 

### are materially indistiJ19Ulshable from 

### a relevant: SUpreme 

## ·eourt precedent and arrives at opposite**resq~t.** 

### 1ftl.I.IMB 

## v.**'l'A'!t.OR,~::i20** 

## s. Ct. 1495 (2000). A 

### state eourt 

### unreasonable 

### applies 

### SUpreme court**~t** if: (1) 

### it unreasonable applies the correct; legal 

### rule 

### to the

. 

# . facts 

### of a particular case of (2) 

### it unre&sonably exterids ·a legaf. principle

. . . . .. 

### from suPr-eme 

### COur.t
.,prece:dent
. to 

### a new context 

### ·were ·it should not apply 

## or:.

·

### ~r~ly**re~** to extend that 

### principle to a new_

### ~text'**wh~** "lt
__ should

: ''"'...:--
... "!'**~**

. - . t In decldirig the lover court consider whether 

### the ·application' 

### was "objectively unJ:.easonab1e.• Id at 1495, I¥H.U 

### V. J'C&ECN 

### 215 F. 3d. 504, 5&8

r ''•

- '

. . . (5th. 

### Cir.·. 2000). Questions of facts 

### found by 

### the state 

### court are "presumed 

### to

. . be 

### c:o_rrect and 

### reci ves deference unless 

### it was based 

### on an unreasOnable
-; . 

### determination 

### of the 

### facts in light of the evidence 

### presented 

### in the**~tate** ·:·· 

### coU;t proceeding." BILL 210 F. 3d. at 485, quoting 28 

## u.s.c. 2254 (d) (2). iibile 

### as a general principle, Rule 

### 56 of the 

### Federal Rules 

### of Civil 

### Procedurs, relating to summary judgment, applies -with equial 

### force in the context of habeas 

### corpus cases. cr..ARK**v~** JO'INSOR.- 202 F. 3d. 760, 764 (5th. 

### Cir. 2000). 'fhe rule applies 

### only to the extent 

### -that it does not conflict 

### vith the**ha~** rules. Section 2254 (e) (1) which mandates that findings of facts made



## a. '.)

;·by a state court are presumed to be correct, overrides the ordinary rule 

### tbat, in a suimlary. judgment proceeding all disputed facts must be coilstru!!d in

I ' \ ; 'the light 

### at favorable to. the nonmoving 

### party: unless the petitioner can rebut the presumption of correctness by clear and

### co~vfcing evidence· as

### to·~the . state court's findings of fact, those findings must be accepted as correct. · SM1ft 

### v. 'oeo.mt& 311 

### F. 3d. 661, 668 (5th. Cir.**2002)~**

•**~-C'·** ·.• \ 

### In regards to obtaining a Oertifieate 

### of Appealibility, 

### such qeruires a ,.

Additionally

### c;!q}lbts·-regarding~'~**ptopriety.:of:~,i:SSueirig~,a ·c~o~i·:sho~d**  be >resolved in**·f~Vor** 

# ot the pet·itioner. (')GlllN V.**~~** 297**F~** 

### .3d. · 249, 355

- 

### - ·. . - . ' . . (5th. Cir. 2002).·**Pet:i'tione~** 

### asserts that;**~e** state 

### habeas. court'a application of ·sruCittAND '· .**-~··** .. • . . . . . . 

### . .. " ' 

### · v. WASB&itJN, 466 

## u.s. 668**(~984·)_** is 

### a.Ji unreasenable application of 

### clearly

established SUpreme Court**-p~edent** where the state court correctly it;entified ·the goveming 1egcll 

### .rule but applied it umeasonable to the facts of petitioner's case, therefore summary'· judgment should had**.~en** granted a.rtfl/or a**c.o~A·** should**~** bE;en**.i~ f~**  the folloving reaso,1(s):.



### 9. · ..·**Petitioner~s** Trial counsel**~as** deficient**wh~n** he failed to file a':Pmotion to dismiss a Prosecutor • s wildly charged Indictment. And

### told_}~Pplicant that if he just plead guilty before the judge to the. ,I!id.ictment of the Prosecutor the judge

### woul~ give. him a**.~** •. ' ,r: '
.. 'small s.entence for a guilty plead. The Tria1

### J~udge sentenced Petitioner to a Life**s~ntence,** of the Prosecutors charged Indic-
: tment. Petitioner's Trial**coun~els** actions ·-.-·i was a strategy to aid the Prosecut·ion with a Illegal Murder conviction, of a Prosecutor's'wildly**ch~rged** Indictment. The fact**~as .~hat**  after defense counsel got Peti.tioner to plead guilty t.o the wildly charged ilia**dictme~t** of the Prosecutor the Trial judge was able to read a**N~ll** and Voi'd Life sentence against Petitioner in 714i37, and alleged

' . . - to have given Petitioner a Appeal in 714137 of
.. the Prosecutors wildly.charged Indictment. The fact was that after the Trial judge ' 

## .

. . reads·the Null ·and Void Life sentence in 714137, based on Petiti-

. - - .**~** .


### .. oner guilty**pl~ad** he.entered by**misl~ading** information, and sets Petitioner to waive**App~al~** when pleading guilty. Petitioners counsel was aiding the Prosecution the Prosection was then able to get an actual Indictment in an State alias numbered cause such as 806078,**a~** if a**a~tual** trial by jury was had in the case. And the case number that would be carried through the court system 

### to affirm an illegal conviction. of**M~rder** and**Lif~** sentence of a Trial Judge. Trial counsel action aided the State, the Prosecution, and deprived Petitioner of a fair Trial**an~** Sent**encin~** Trial of the True-bill Indictment, after Petitioner plead guilty excepting responsibility. However, he is sentenced on the Prosecutors wildly charged indictment by the trial judge to a life ·sentence in 714137, and held in a Texas Prison foi: any period o6

time the State wishes. Counsels action further**aid~d** the State in :· ';;'

### lagetting a ·.lif.e sentence affirmed on Petitioner, counsel was aware that Petitioner bad prior PWI convict.ions of 1988 in cau.se number 476082 and 511430 that Petitioner bad**~lead** 

### suiltt in, and. tbat

### tb~ffe:**t~o** 'cau.ae

### nu~Aber& would be cc:u::ried

### an4;-ado~ted into his alleged murder indictment of the proaecutor in 7141371 for iJUrpo·ses of alJ_owing the Judge to impose a sentence of life in .714137. aad 

### then 

# on record showing the State dropped the tvoiOWI cause numbers '.-**~** -' ." . ·:,

. ·.. . 

### instead of shoving that Null and Void life sentence of the judge**~-** :': . ;:.. .. ..**:::;:'.~** .}; ·. 

### in 71.4137
. of a prosecutor indictment was the**c:~~e.** 

### dropped after· Petitioner plead guilty. 'frial counsels actfbn. in· this case c:lea.;-1,:1 aicted the prosecution. And allRed the State to af.firm
. a illegal conviction in 714137 life sentrence, and jilislead Petitioner

. •.··.· 

### with the ac.tual cause. of action a app-eal was being. taken in. Counsel :act-ion clearly have caused harm to**Pet~tioner.** 

### Aad such claims
.. raised in hia State and Federal Applicant, the lower courts have failed to even· address· the claims. Depriving Petitioner to fairly challenge his illegal conviction in violation of his rights through Ineffective assistance of counsel, Ineffective assistance- of appeal coe.:msel, Abuse of Discretion of the Trial,**·:)·;-~~** ·.. 

### Judge ·Prosecutor tUsconduct. And the outrageous Misconduct of the**S~ate** 

### and Federal Govetnment, to deprive one of his rights, Petitioner would have to assume that because he i.s a Mexican Nat

### ionality, the laws of the State don't apply to him because he is' not a 

## u.s. Citizen of the United States. And for. this reason Petitioner Petitions this Court for a review of the lower courts opinion denying relief Petitioner has demonstrated an entitlement to, of his illegal life sentence in 714137.

;·\ 

### 11. :··...

. ;·:·.

'·0, "· .··-;{**~** ..:.··
No Trial stiategy can exist whren a defense counsel**~ids** the State in it•.s J?rosecution. See·Boherty V'"! State 7781**~.W.2d~** 439**T~x.** App. Rouston [l•t. Dist.] 1989. · The

### P~titioner had flkther demostra.ted how his appointed appeal counsel further aided the State, where appeal counsel was filing a Appeal in. ,the State· Alias number cause, and**fa~led** to -inform Petitioner when ·**~~~-** Courts had affrimed the cil:se and made its
., . ···.· rulibngs**~~iling** to. provided Petitioner**with~&urts** opinions, of**th~-** cause number shd was filing appeal in. Appeal**courise~** further· provided affidavit, stating she had'fnfact failed to infora:Petitioner his case 

### was afftimed, and**his~riR Refus~d.**  In Coriclusion the lower court can only review the States Con- ";-': elusion that Petitioners counsel provided effective**a~sis~ance,** ··':not··· ·its·

- reaso'ning '···in : determioning**wheth.~r:** i't' is contrary to

. ·'**.~** -.**-~** .· or "in.volved · in . a Mi.s'appl'ica.tion of clearly

### estapl£sh~d**Feder~!** Law •.**~leal.** V. Puckett, 286 F.3d. 230**246·~** (5th Cir. 2002). In the**contex~** 

### of claims f · ff · · · or 1ne ect1ve assistance 6f counsel, that means ·a Federal · court m'ust presume, v · f th e en 1 · . e State court renders its· , decisicn without**~~inion,** The court**ap~lied** the weel known STRICKLAND analysis. Catalan V. Cockrell, 315 F.2d. 491, 493 (5th Cir. 2002).
In this case, the State Habeas Court did not hold an evidentary**~ .~**  nearing pursuant to V.A.C.C.P. Art. 11.07 '(3)(d:)., However, they**~pplied,** .STRICKLAND to its factual findings and have**conc~uded** ,Petitioners counsel was not Constitutionally ineffective, never**o~~ering** counsel to .address the claims .raised. Thus, the question is whether the**Stat~** court's application of STRICKLAND ij contrary

## '~ .12l. _·,;-1\ to, or ir1volved ·a'" misapplicat-ion of clearl-y established Federal taw. Under**~TRIC~LAND,** to**~rove** an**~ttorney's asaistan~e** **lneffec~** tive, Petitioner must show tl) that counsel's performance was defici•nt; ·and (2) The deficient performance. prejudiced the



### - - defense· ST-RICKLAND, 466 U.S. 668, 686-:-692 (1984)**·~** Due to

### r~asons, facts that Petitioner has s'hownr\hat his counsels actions and/or inactions were unreasonabl::r

### defici~nt, a-nd that his counsel's :action_··. i·n- coercing Petitioner to plea·d .guilty by misleading

### in~o.rmiition,' that for his guilty

### plead-~:th~ Judge would

,. _:;., .-: ',-· give him a small**:se_rit~ence,** -were action for aiding _the.**Prose~ution** with it's

### ~.conviction, whereas after&: ptietition.er plead guilty the Tr:)\1-l.·;gudge could read a Null and Void Life

### se~i-tence, .actuaily disposing of the prosecutors wildly charged indictmenL And for these**fac~i** the**~rial** judge was influenced in**re~dering** a guilty verdict ·excepting Petitioner.s guilty plead to 

# .·a-" Wil-dly

### c·harg·e~- _'.;. >· . indictment of the Prosecutors by this deficient conduct he would be pertJcipating in· rendering a guiltt verdict for-obtaining**-~** .. l
. • a conviction for the. State by all.counsels deficient conduct, the**St~tes** Habeas Court's application of STRICKLAND is an**unrea~** sonable application of clearly established Supreme Court**preced~nt,** where the State Court correctly identified the governing legal rule but applied it unreasonable to the facts of Petitioners
case. The lowerr courts have granted respondant summary Judgment pursuant to the AEDPA one year time-limitation, never ordering respondant 

### to even address the claims raised..court • s erred by·**gran.ting~-.-Respondant'** s

- ;c. . ': :· . ·• .**~;** •·. . . . .

## mo~lo-~' · for

## ~u~~~;y_ . 'judgment in his. first

## -applid~'tion stampe'd

### fi~:e'd**d~t,:e** ;.O,ct·t,ber 22, 2002. acivil Action

### H-02--2,f~-2-~" A'nd ··has. /;.. _:..**·.:-~**

,_.. .-":·where he ·:..:·**~learl~** ·**d~~6ns~rated** an entitlemellt ··t6 relief of ,h·is· '·

. . ' -·**~** . . .**~** .-

### ilieg~l 

## 'iife**-s~nt~enc~,** in hts s·econd state and

### feder:~lapplicat'iqn~, '-:

.. . . .. . . . .. 

### ·his ·

# wr:i.t
.._**~-~---** to ·review the

## Judgm~·fli~ and opinfbns . : . . . Certiorari ··,·v· ·of

### tht{:·~,f.F.i:s-:~-;.~our,t, ·of. Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this caEfe.

.. .

:.....**-~.** : QUESTIONS THREE, FOUR AND FIVE**-~**

# P~J;i~t;~iW~~:, .will _·incorporate

··_,**~** ·.: ::;:

...**·-~** ' his arguement:e··a:ll_d·_ autho_rities
. ;**~** . . . . . . for·

### qu~stio~s three, four and five into one

### -~:~<::t·u~l- arid legal

..**,.,~·-** _.. ·.· arguement

### f~~~this court's convenience •

. ·'**~--** .. :: . •··.

. . ·'., _,. .. ;;-· ••**~** •••. :· <'**~-** ·;,,;,. .:**--~** ... _._...**.::~;:~~-** .: • •**~** The

## ~:~i'#~qriE>r**:~~'tS'~**

# tnat iii !;his cas<i<the·

## -T~i.~l court;{;>Qused,
. it• s :dis'c·retion when excepting Petitioners gui:lty**pl~ad.·f·or** ' .
. ..**';;\~~--~:_. :<\:~** **·-~····.** ' .·. ·,. '.**~** . . .**~.** a

### wil:~-i:y:f-charged**indictm~nt** of the

### prosecuto~; ._·for which· was



## ..**/~f~f- ~;·._··** 

## .·· .'
..·**~ ~** **~** 

## ·, .·**ol:)tained~,:** ,.b.y ·.'

### misle~dlng. information
.of defensEf counsel,

### a~d (ll-.

# viol.a~~~~~>:: :of ,.federa.l Rule 11. And Misconduct of'.:;the

# prosecuto~l >-..- . where**:'·~>p~t~it.ioner** has clearly demonstrated an: entitlemerit ·to "':'-'····· .. filed**ap~lication. An~**  that the lower**-~-** .. courtfi' ·_.

### ·Jl'~v~,.: er.red·:·-'.fin granting respondants

### Mh~ion of october

.**-~** . . 22, 2002

# :fn.it'''a··.M~in,~randum· and Order in·civil

# ~~-'~:~on H-02-2162:.
·•: The

### P.~~t..

### ~~i~ner**-h~s** clearly presented genuine

### i~sues of material

·

## facts--'~~4'.if_~ ·his second

## Hal?~~s· Corpus State .and FE§lderal_ as ·to t.he
I,,; Trial :court ''s abus.e· of.:.' 'discretion and has err.ed by failing to

14..**~··** : '·
·':· ,. i' '(.now issue**Petitioner~** request for c.o.A.**~h~n** he clearly met the**tequir~ments** for**Ap~~llant** Review pursuani to 28 

## u.s.c. 2253( c) ( 2) • Within Petitioner's State and Federal Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner presented the above stated points of**~rrors,** However, "the 

## u.s. District Court concluded that issues**w~~e** procedurally

.. · .·.. . .. '· ·· .·_·.barred due t.o such ·issues not being raised on Direct Appeal, and that the claims Pf.:..esen_ted are**barr~d** 9-Y the AEDPA one year :J ,..**.-,~·** time limitation. When-
. 

## a State Court denies a Petitioner's Claim based on an

. . . ;._. independant and adequate State Procedural**Rul~'j;~~** Federal Habeas ( Review of _the claim is barred unless the Petitioner can demon**strat~** {1) cause for default and prejudice as a result of the alleged violation ·· 'o·f :Fedt:ral Law or ( 2)
.a**result~ng** fundamental amiscarriage· of. Justice. Coleman**V~** Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750-51.- ( 1991). In order to establish'cause, a Petitioner must show some objective factor EXTERNAL TO THE DEFENSE which impeded Petitioner's ability to comply with a State procedural Rule. Interference by officials or the unavailability of a factual or legal basis for a ·claim may constitli.te

### cause~ Additionally, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel may also constitute cause. Murray 

## v. Carrier 477 

## u.s. 478 (1986).

15. ··---:_:__ .**-~** .. ·,: ..... '.

'.:·· .. .'

.· ;..;,,_.__ : ·.;;

.**-~** . ·,- The ·Petitioner ha'd cl.early
. dem6nstra.ted 

### ir{ 1 ,his applicatio'n .\

.. _ .··· that he 

### was**-~bei~~~J' ini"sl~ad:_':with··'**  the**C~·use** of action I n1tentiona11y

. .. .. . . . . ·'· ·· .. , . .

....**~ -~** **~** • >**~h~ough.** the**misc6rid~d~·~f** his own· defense ¢ounsel, 

### by the**pros~-**

• 't_ i ·i ;. .. cutors 

### wiiafy ch.atged

## in;d~.r":ctnn!nt.**A~1d** .the Judge abuse of

## discret~ ·.

. . . .. . -!'**~**

### . . ion exc'epting

. . J.**l?etiti~H'fers** guilty. plead in violatioh.' 

### d,f ·Rul.e. ;,·

. . . ; ..... _ ... :.!; : l •

. 11 for the;,.'Murder**Indictni,~nt** \1hen·· the f·act was ti!:e. pei"1ding**in~~Uc;- ~**  .· 

### :j**.,·_,.-~'.tments** vv,er:e Petitioner¥ j!rior DtH•·.s of· 1988• T\VO DWI'is·that·

# ·<~-i:\.t~re**a~i~.ed** t.o ·have/ been a.bdanded by the State after getting •!

.Petitioner to plead**g~~~ty** to prosecutors wildly. 9harged indict-
.**~ ·.~.**  ment, 

## .in· 714137,

' ' '' ,,, I 0 !**~ ~,**  ..::

## a~£~ally abandoning '' 714137**aft~r** ·getting**P~t~** reading a Null and

### vJl~**~ife** sentence

. . ''
...**-::·:~** .... ' . Trial 

## ·Judge granta**a~·.** alleged appeal which 'was au'tomatic, and for purposes ;, of

### affirming:\~_,a**P.1u_r~~r** conviction in "806078":, .the Government ;,.,**-~J.<"'~~~~~-'**...· ...**~**..**';0~~·** •• •**t.~·**. .......**~ ~**  j ':
.. J**.>-~··-·** ......**,~·~·** ...**~, ·~**  

### \ I



## ..

• t**~ ~**  . woul'::.f' i.!1isfead ,.. 

### ·Pe'tit.iipner · 1:Hth the cause 

## of acti'bt1. a a!).!?eal 

### 'vJas. · . ..**~~-. ~~**  ta:ken in and 

### hisr c!o,nviction

:**~** . ··-··-··--. ·:· be**afficm~d** in,**R!llv~ersed** · 

### .i·:;!

. ·;.'- .1: would

: i sentencing trial Petitioner**wou~d** and remanded in. : for; a ·new**~** • 'J of ha¢1 a 'right to al.fter dir-ect appeal, had he not been mislead 

### with ttte_,cause of

# act.i~n. : ;**~~**

... :.

·: .·· ...·

,: 

### . Petitioners**subseq~ent ~pplication**  clearly demonstrated 

### an

.. enti tlernent. t.o relief, t and today Petit i.on.er ··is.
..

### -~·at ill

_·; I**~ n~w·**  sentencing**~rial.** Whereas of se:cving a**~entence,** a questionable

· sentence of
.. a act,ua.J, conviction under ·the trial judges NULL
·• '1,· and**VO~P** Life sentence;in 714137, that his conviciion was affirmed

. l \

' ' in. And Petitioner**h~~·be~n** mislead with. And from fairly chailenging·; ,.')

.. -**.~** ' . 16.

'·.·**·~,· ~1.**  ..; ·'. · ... ·.

# -

. ·, ·: :**~.** •. It is**uriqri~jfionable** that jUrist would'£ind it debatable that**··.~'the** Trial Court I 5 have e.t:r;ed in failing to order a new. sent'encing**t~:ial** in this case,-·· iilid that based on his second application · .-Pet. i tioner has infact. ,**'d'~:rt<Jilstra** ted A Constitutional Violation,



### . : •!' ., . ·.. . And a entitlement to relief.' A,n'd that .the Lower Court have ipfact erred in failing to**~rant ~~lief;**  or issue a-COA in this case.
Due to**~11** facts of en#itlement to relief Petitioner**ha~** shown in his**ap~Iication th~**  Lower**Stat~** and**Fede~al** Habeas Court have all erred and ha/\/·e allowed the State Trid.l ·Court to abuse 

### .it's discreti6ri, with abts of**~isconduct,** 

### A miscarriage of 

### justice fot obtaining an**ili~~al** 

### Life sentence conviction, failing 

### to

. ' to Order a New seritencing. ··trial**in~his·case~** An entitlement**~etitioner** has**demon~tra~ed~**
J ,. ·'. Petitioners State ana·: Federal Application clearly demonstrc.ted Constitutional errors,**~his** Petition for Ceitificate of AppeaL-**~bilitt** COA clearly**d~monstrated** he was entitled to grantiny 

### bf a COA and**the~efor~,** all the 

### lower state and federal courts

.. .. ; have in this case. And Petitioner prays that this court reverse, and remand his**c~se** on this his Writ of Certiorari. '**',-:~**

•.r' ·,' '·\**~** ,.. .. ...... :**.~** ....,.., -- ·- ·---:--

For the above Stated reasons, Petitioner asserts that the SSta.te Court's Application of etONGBV. 

### CALll?ORNIA 547 

## u.s. 721 (1998). 

### is an unreasonable application of clearly established .J.· Supreme Court precedent where the State Court correctly identified the governing legal Rule, but applied it**unr~~sonable** to the facts of Petitioners case •. Therefore, the lower courts erred by gr-anting summary judgment in Petitioners first application 

### ' filed ·in 2002, 

### and then erred in dismissing his applic£tion in 2014

which clearly dewonstrated an entitlement to relief, and or failing to issue Petitioners request for 

## c.o.A. "thus, Petitioner pra1s that this Ronoraole Court Grant his Writ of Certiorari to reviuw the Judgemnts and**O~inions** of the 

## u.s. Court of**Appeal~** for**th~** Fifth 

### Circuit in this case.


### COMCLGSlON -For the reasons set forth above a 'writ of

## J:"~rtiorari should issue to review the Judgment and Opinions of the 

## u.s. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in this**ma~ter.**
Executed on this

## ~0±1 day of

## r~**~.**

18. 2015.

Samual Medrano**Dia~** i7636221 

### connallf; Unit 899 F.i-4. 632 Kenedy, Texas 78119 ' .. -·-**.~·-.**I**Sa~uel** Medrano Diaz, do 

### declare under.tbe penalty of Perjury pursuant to 26 

## u.s.c. 1746, that the contents stated within this 

### Writ of Certiorari 

### is True and Correct to the 

### pest of my 

### :r..now- :ledge.

Execut_ed on this 

# .lo day of ·

# J7'e-p, 2015. 

# s I 

## M 

# 'Dto.--z_ SaKuel Medrano Diaz 763621**CER~IPICAT&** OP SBRVICE I Samuel i-ledrano ,Oiaz, Do 

### certif)' that a 

### 'l'rue and 

### Correct c·opy of 

### thi$ Writ of .Certiorari and Motion 

### to Proceed**~n** 

### Forma Pauperia**~** · ..... 

### was served 

## by u.s. Mailt Postage Prepaid 

### to Respondant address to**th~** Attorney General for the State of Teaxs 

## P.o. Box 12548, 

### Austin, Texas 78711-2548 on -..:··.·

··,

19. 2015.

&eunt!l:el il'ledrano Diaz /63621 Connally Oni( fJ99 P.M. 632 · ·•: Kenedy,**~axas** 78119**·~·** . APPENDIX A.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DENIEL TO ISSUE C.O.A.'_} Case: 14-20384 Document: 00512865129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2014



## IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-20384 USDC No. 4:14-CV-1388
SAMUEL MEDRANO DIAZ, Petitioner-Appellant
v. 

### WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

ORDER: Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

Samuel Medrano Diaz, Texas prisoner 

### # 763621, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2254 application challenging his murder conviction, which resulted in a life sentence. To obtain a 

### COA, Medra.no Dia7. must 

### makP. "a substantial showjng of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2253(c)(2). The district court determined that Medrano Diaz's 

### § 2254 application was untimely. However, Medrano Diaz has filed a prior § 

### 2254 application, and his instant application raises claims that were or could have been raised in his first § 

### 2254 application. 

### See In re Flowers, 595 F.3d 204, 205 (5th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2244(b). He has failed to show that the issues presented deserve \

### ., 

### Case: 14-20384 

### Document: 00512865129 

### Page: 2 

### Date Filed: 12/10/2014 

### No: 

### 14-20384 encouragement to proceed further, and he does not meet the requirements for a COA. 

### See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); 

### Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, his motion for a COA is DENIED.

Is/Edith H. Jones EDITH H. JONES UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

A True Copy

.Certified order issued Dec 10, 2014

## d~ 

# w.**l1~c....** Clerk,

### tP.s~ Court of Jtf>peals, Fifth Circuit

2API?ENDIX 8

US illORUT NOTICE CONPLAINT FILED Ji.ND ORDER GRAN'l'fNG
FORMA PAUPERIS TO PROCEED**~** .l'.'

### ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SAMUEL MEDRANO DIAZ , TDCJ No. 763621, § § § § § § § § Petitioner, V. 

### CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-1388 WILLIAM STEPHENS, Respondent
.. ORDER
The Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

### on Appeal [Docket Entry No
.

. 8] is GRANTED.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on August ( 

# '1, 2014.

DAVID lllTTNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

NOTICE THAT YOUR COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED It was filed on 

### May 16, 2014 TheJstyle of the case is 

### Samuel MedranoDiaz v. William Stephens The case number is 

### 4:14-cv-01388 The District Judge assigned to your case is 

### Judge David Hittner The nature of the claim is 

### Habeas Corpus NOS: 530 Please write or type the civil action number on the front of all letters and documents. Please address all mail to:

Date: May 19, 2014 

### United States District Clerk's Office P. 0. Box 61010 Houston, Texas 77208-1010

David J. Bradley, Clerk



# BA PPSNDIX (:.**U~S.** DISTRICT COURTS DENIAL OF C.O.A. FINAL JUDGMENT

i .,

### IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS I 

### HOUSTON DIVISION SAMUEL MEDRANO DIAZ, TDCJNo. 763621, § § 

### § 

### § Petitioner, 

## v. § 

### CIVIL ACTION 14-CV-1388 

### § WILLIAM STEPHENS, Respondent. · § 

### § .**'-:'~-'.··~:;:;,,.:~l~.~~:~:.~{-~~+** 

### MEMORANDUM ON DISMISSAL Petitioner brings this habeas corpus application under:28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is incarcerated in the Texas Department ofCriminal**Ju~ti.9.e.** 

### F()r the reasons below,

. ·,_,.., (•',. . . .-·::.:.:;y,. ·- ..· .....

.. .

··- ........ · ..-. 

### this Court 

### DISMISSES the application as time barred under

### 2~LU.S.C. § 2244(d). 

### I. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 

# "·:,f.

. ·

...**~;,.** : ..**~~** 

### The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

# ol·1.9;§~:(AEDPA) amended

. .**~.** '; ... ·.. ' .
. -;·.: 

### the 1 

### habeas corpus, statutes. The AEDPA states in part: .. I ;-·;· .-'' 

### i\,\ 

### (d)(l) A 1-year period of limitation shall apply to a ...writ ofhabeas corpus

,by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The

limitation period shall run from the latest of-- (A) the date on which thejudgment became final by the conclusion of direct review ()r the expiration

### o£th~ time for;seek1n:g such review;

• J • - • 

### (2) The time during which a properly filed _:·application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim is pending shall not be counted toward any period of limitation under this subsection. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (West 1996).! i(. - ----------------**---~--~**

.**~!**



### II. PETITIONER'S PLEADINGS Petitioner submits the following information in his Original Petition. The state court convicted him on September 12; 1996. He appealed his conviction. The Texas Fourteenth Court ofAppeals issued an opinion deciding Petitioner's appeal on June 25, 1998. Petitioner states he filed a petition for discretionary review (PDR). The Texas Court ofCriminal Appeals refused the PDR on September 23, 1998. Petitioner states he filed two petitions under article 11.07 ofthe Texas Code ofCriminal Procedure. He filed his first state petition on February 4, 2002. He states he does not know the date on which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its final decision in his first state writ. He also says he filed a second writ**applic~tion** 

### which the Court of Criminal Appeals received on February 27, 2014. 

### See .Original Petition, p. 4,**~** 

### 11. He states that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its final decision in his second state application on March 12, 2014. The Supreme Court has instructed that before 

### sua sponte dismissing a habeas corpus under the statute oflimitations, the district court should provide notice and an opportunity to allow a party to present its position on the limitations issue. 

### Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006). In the form petition submitted by Petitioner, he
was provided the opportunity to address the statute of limitations by responding to paragraph number twenty-six on the timeliness ofhis petition. 

### See Original Petition, 2

/,: i. I
.



### p. 9. [Docket Entry No. 1,**~** 

### 26]. The text ofthe statute oflimitations under section 2244(d) is set forth in a footnote in the form petition. 

### !d., p. 9,**~** 

### 26, fn. 1. In paragraph twenty-six ofthe petition used by Petitioner, he was instructed as follows: If your judgment of conviction, parole revocation or disciplinary proceeding became final over one year ago, you must explain why the one-year statute oflimitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) does not bar your petition. 

### !d., p. 9,**~** 

### 26. Petitioner submitted an explanation in response to the paragraph ' 

### twenty-six, as follows. The [statute of] limitations should not apply. [Petitioner] has
... demonstrated his conviction
... is not final. [H]e has been mislead
... by the state, ... preventing him from
... challenging
... [his] sentence. He
... demonstrated his
... sentence is null and void. [He] was entitled to further proceedings, [including] a new senten9ing trial. "Thereby making" his life sentence a [non-final] sentence and conviction
.... Respondent's failure to address all ofhis claims
... preserves his claims for review by the state court. Petitioner's first application was dismissed under an AEDPA limitation. This dismissal is "an affirmative defense, of conviction." Petitioner needs a response to all claims for a proper review ofall claims
..... 

### !d. Petitioner incorrectly maintains the statute oflimitations does not apply here. In any event, Petitioner's garbledresponse on limitations does not show thatthis habeas petition is timely under the statute of limitations, as discussed below. III. ANALYSIS l 

### Petitioner's conviction became final on December 22, 1998, when the time to
3(, \


### petition for certiorari 

### in the Supreme Court expired, ninety days after the Court .of Criminal Appeals denied Petitioner's PDR. SUP.CT.R. 13.1 (West 1995). There is
no showing that subsections (B), (C), and (D) of§ 2244(d)(1) apply to his claims.

## ~~ The limitation period expired a year later, on December 22, 1999, absent tolling.

## ·~~ Petitioner filed his first state writ application on February 4, 2002, which is
more than two years after the limitation period ended on December 22, 1999. Therefore, the p!endency of his "state habeas application did not toll the limitation s12vf 

### period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) because he did not file it until after 

### the period**~.:·c·** I 

### of limitation had expired." Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 263 (5th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). Petitioner's second state writ application also did not toll the limitation period because he filed it more than a decade after the running of the limitation period. Petitioner is not entitled to statutory tolling under section 2244(d)(2). The statute of limitations expired on December 22, 1999, absent equitable tolling. Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to equitable tolling. "The petitioner bears the burden of proof concerning equitable tolling, and must show rare and exceptional circumstances warranting application of the doctrine." Alexander 

### v. Cockrell, 

### 294 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, the Court should only apply equitable tolling ifthe applicant diligently pursues section 2254 relief. Scott 4

J '

### v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2000). Petitioner constructively filed this federal writ application on May 14, 2014. He filed this application more than fourteen years after the statute of limitations expired in 1999. Petitioner's federal habeas corpus application is time barred. 

### IV. CONCLUSION

. 

# {) {

.

### ~ ·r:;l'\

### b--~7**Hr~/** 

# '{
.. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2243 authorizes the federal courts to 

### sua sponte dismiss habeas petitions where it plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Accordingly, it is 

### ORDERED thatthis action be 

### DISMISSED with prejudice as time barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing that reasonablejurists would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. 

### Beasley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248,263 (5th Cir.). This Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on

## ~ 

# h

# r '2014.

DA ID HITTNER l 

### UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

### -- l

Supreme court of The United States

, - 

### Office of The Clerk Samuel Medrano Diaz 763621 899 

### FM 632 Connally Unit Kenedy Texas 78119 Feb. 19, 

### 2015 washington DC 20543-0001

Dear 

### Clerk; ) Ii,_ ) •._! I.



### Enclosed you ypl find my 

### Motion For Leave To Proceed 

### Informa Pauperis in this Court. And my 

### Petition for A writ of Certiorari, aiong with the

. . '**~** 

### Lower dotirts**orde~** 

### and and judgments Appendix A thru D. Please· file all

. _, 

### . .**~** .· ..**~** .



### these**d9~umen~s ~d**  

### bring to the attension of the Court. Petitioner is**~. ~**  .. ' . . 

### requesting the gr;anting of a Writ of certiorari to review. the t.ower Courts**~** . : . ' . 

### deniel ;to**iey3u~ ~~,itioner** **~ certif~cate**  

### of**Appeala~ility** 

### for his illiigal conviction in violation <;>f his p 

## .a Coftsti_tu1;ional rights. You will find one originai_ and one copy of all above. 

### c 

## .M·**~~-** 

### ..:z r . t 

### SJ I 0- 

### 'Z..,;;c
.

. .J.· \ .:-:-o• '·;,
.. ,.. •**·;~,·:** . '**S~el Medr~o**  

### Diaz ''763621

. '.

### NO.**------~~------**
IN THE**SUPRE~~** 

## COURT OF THE**Ut~ITED** STATES

> • ' •



### . Samuel 

## Medrano oiaz 1 PETITIONER



### . JS
.. WILLIAM, 'STEPHENS, DIRECTOR'= RESPONDlliV'.r .**~** '
-
l"10TION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS . ·--..·- ..

The 

### Petitioner· asks leave to file the attached Pet,li:ion for a vJ.dt of

.:- ,-« ·' """ 

### Certiorari l-Jithout prepayment of costs and 

### to**proce~** 

### In Forma Pauperis•

. . 

### [ X ]**P~titioner** 

### has previously been 

### granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the following cotirt(s):

......... ' ·, ' .**~** STATE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF HOUSTON**D~VISION** .**:~·.·.** 

### [ ] Petitioner has not been 

### granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in any 

### othpr court. ' •. 

### Petitionee's Affidavit or declaration in support of this motion is attached hereto.,

"'.

.·'" . -\__, .. ·.**~-:**
...**~.·**

. :: APPIDAVIT OR DECLARATION IN. SUPPORT OP MOliOilLPOR LEAVE '1'0 PROCEED. IN FOOMA PAUPERIS I samuel 

### 811ddaaii0Diaz, am the Petitioner in the above entitled case. In support of my Motion to Proqeed in Forma Pauperis, I state that of this ·case am**entitled~** to because or to redr:ess. of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs give security therefore, and I believe I
I_**~m.** the Petitioner in this case, Samuel. Medrano Diaz, Texas Prisoner !d. Number 763621. I have**·bee~** in the Texas Department of ·Criminal· Justice since my conviction. I do not work and earn money here in prison. The only money I recieve is from Family and**Friend~,** which is mailed to Texas Department**~riminal** Justice Inmate Trust Fund.
. And therefore, I cannot pay the full amount in one some to ·proceed in this court. And ask'that the Court order a pec.cent.age .deposited, fmora l"atpilfmabd Pl'teadsFund Account be withdrawp as deposited, from Family and Friends. I ··have no sn

.**~OUSe** Or OWn any _prOf)erty Of**_I)~Sieve** aH:{ other
.. '· income ·from any .

### q~_her sources. I have

### prov.id~d:·'tfiis cou;-t with a Six Monfrh pr_1_·n_ t**d~~·_,·** f o my Inmate Trust Fund**De~5~;s.its.** I ·**underst~nd** a false statement in answer 'fci any questio?s in this·· Affidavit ·.will subject me to penalties for Perjury. I declare**(Cer~ify,** Verify, or State) under**pe~~lty·** of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct 

### (28**u.s.c~§i746).**
SIGNED THIS THE 

# 10 1-h DAY OF ·

### _Fe,.~ 

# S r- 

## M, 

# b i 

# o.- '- 

# tt oo 1-636').. I**Si~nature** of Plaintiff Id No. ,.·•.:,\ .. ".:'**)~** '·l**~** · .. .:

.

·i 

### IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

### DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON 

### DIVISION**Samue};~edrano** 

### Diaz 763621 Plaintiff's Ii(lme and ID Number**~oh~~~~** 

### Connally Unit

### RiHe~~~-~~~is 78119
·**P~.ate** of Confinement



## v.**~-l** • ; CASE NO
....,..-;-::::--:----:-::-:---:--:----:--:- "•' ·(Clerk will assign the number) WILLIA!\1**STEi?I:IID~S,** DIRECTOR, TEXJ.:...S DEPAR'.rr1E£'i"T OF CRIMINAL**.-~~** .'
...



### .. ,., ·· APPLICATION TO PROCEED JUSTICE COAA.ECTIONAL INSTI'rUl'IONAL 

### DIVISION,**I~** 

### FORMA PAUPERIS

Defendant's (lame and. address
·I,
.. 

### samuel Medrano Diaz , declare, depose, and say I am the Plainti£f,in the above entitled case. In support of my motion to proceed without being required to prepay fees, costs, or give security therefor, I state because of mypoverty, I am unable to pay in advance the filing**~ee** for said proceedings or to give security for the filing fee. I believe l am entitled to i:elief.
. .

. . -**-~-'"'** ...· . ·I, further declare**th~** responses which I have made to the questions and instructions below are true. 1. Have you received, within the last 12 months, any money from any of the following sources?
a. Business, profession or from self-employment? 

## ¥es·-o NoB b. Rent payments, interest or dividends? Yes 

### 0 No 

# 0 c. .Pensions, annuities or life insurance payments? Yes 

### 0**No~** ·d. Gifts or inheritances? Yes 

# Ef No Family or friends? Yes ·

### No~ e. f. Any other sources? Yes 

### 0 No If**yo~** answered YES to any of the questions above, describe each source of money and**st~!~** . the amount received from each during the past 12 months. · 

## / w

## ~ 

# hi., tube.-d 

# £1>-"h 

# -£A 1

# ya,J**..£.~a~·** 2. Do you own cash, or do you have money in a checking or savings account, including any funds in prison accounts? Yes 

### OC No 

### 0 If you answered YES to any of the questions above, state the total value of the items owned. 

### $

# SCJ**.1~c.~·e-7'Y-~v~r6· T~ar/** 

1 -A-ATCIFP (REV. 9/02) ···'· .tL.' t • '"' 

## ' " ;,,./ . . ; . ... :· .. . ·. . .; .

# >·!i~:-~:' . . .· .. Do you**~wn** real estate, stocks, bonds, note; automobiles, or othetvaluable property, excluding

... -!._,,: ordina_ry**hous~hol~** furnishings and**cloth~ng?** . .. · l ;', "•\ .• : ••. !·:;.• ·.·Yes 

# 0. No Kl

.**~** .. i

· ..... · If you answered**YE~**•. describe the property and state its**approx~~ate** value.

r· .. 

### . I understand a false statement in answer to any question in this affidavit will subject me to penalties for ' perjury. I declare (certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct

(28 

## u.s.c. §1746).
Signed this the

### ~-() 

# tl; dayof

# E~!J '20

## _IS_. 

# S**~** 

# M {. 

# b i a..L-**ftOD?636~l** signature of Plaintiff ID Number


### YOU MUST ATTACH A CURRENT SIX (6) MONTH HISTORY OF YOUR INMATE TRUST ACCOUNT. YOU CAN ACQUIRE THE APPROPRIATE INMATE ACCOUNT CERTIFICATE FROM THE LAW LIBRARY AT YOUR PRISON UNIT.

2 -t:rATCIFP (REV. 9/02) . .**'·~**

'., • ..