inbicTment. Cause. NO: 4077.

The State of Texas vs. _ Armando Madrid -
Cause No._ HO", Date Indicted __ lp - 94 - O29 Bond Amount _3,000:.00

Felony Charge:

lin the 109 Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas

|

IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

The duly organized GRAND JURY of Andrews County, Texas, resents i the Distt Courtof Andsows Coun
day of C October, Jetaber, 1998] did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place while the Defendant was intoxicated,
namely by not having the normal use of the Defendant’ ‘3 mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction inta
{the Defendant’s body of alcohol a controlled substance, a acme, ad dangerous drug, a and a' combination of eee 0!

And the Grand furor aforesaid do further present thet prior o commiting the offense allege ig; the said
Defendant had been convicted two or more times in this State for driving while intoxicated: in a public place, namely,
Cause No. 2641, in a District Court of Ochiltree County, Texas, on the 9" day of January, 1991, andin a County Court
lof Ochiltree County, Texas, on the 13" day of January, 1987, in Cause No. 12299, | i

ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH
And it is further presented in and to said court that, prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense, on the 234

lday of June, 1996, in Cause No. 3744, in the]109* Judicial District Court of Andrews Cov Fes he defeat weg

convicted of the felony offense of Driving While Intoxicated;

NA 20.

lagainst the peace and dignity of the State;

OMA 1e



IThe State of Texas vs. _Armando Madrid

Cause No. S745 Date Indicted Zraasas Bond Amount 32GLO0

Sexual Contact_§21.11(a)(1) PC_36010001_F* Habitual Offender

\Felony Charge:_Indecency with Child-

lin the 109" Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas

IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

The duly organized GRAND JURY of Andrews County, Texas, presents in the District Court of

Andrews County, Texas, that in Andrews County, Texas, Armando Madrid, hereinafter styled Defendant,

heretofore on or about the 2" day of July, 2005, did then and there with the intent to arouse or gratify the|
\exual desire of said defendant, intentionally or knowingly engage in sexual contact with ME89 by touching]
the genitals of ME89, a child younger than 17 years and not the spouse of the defendant;
COUNT TWO

And the Grand Jurors aforesaid do further present in said Court that in said County and State,
lheretofore on or about the 2" day of July, 2005, did then and there with the intent to arouse or gratify the
isexual desire of said defendant, intentionally or knowingly engage in sexual contact with MEB9 by touching}
ithe breast of ME89, a child younger than 17 years and not the spouse of the defendant; And the Grand Juror
laforesaid do further present that all the offenses alleged above arose out of the same criminal episode;

[ANCEMENT PARAG!

And it is further presented in and to said Court that, prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense}

\(hereafter styled the primary offense)(on the 25" day of June, 1996, in cause number 3264 in the 09" Judicial]

District Court of Andrews County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Driving While}

Intoxicated third or inore. '

after the convictior{ in cause number 3264 was

109" Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas.

against the peace and dignity of the State.

qad



§, APPlicant on Done.AS.199L,L\S0% Convichd in
Cavse NO.2264 inthe loath Wudicial District Court of
Avidvewss Count . Texas af the offense of Deivina While

Tntaxicated: APRicant An AttDpmed For Defunse Was
Dan Sullivarr. APPlicant it Was sentenced to a form
of C34eavs) in the Fexas LePartmont of Criminal Joshce

Fav Caus@.NO: 2ab4, Jone,.Ad, /9%.

Since. SS vhatkd.
BEF Nant F0se..

Armando WVackrid.
T.0.¢ SED AIS 800

Names A. 2 unvah Unit ,
1098 :S.W42037.

Fart. Stockton Texas, -
179135

Q.0F-A. Page.



12. The State has until October 24, 2001 to convict Applicant of
the crime for which he was arrested and charged, or even if going
by the indictment date, November 11, 2001, or Applicant could law-
fully invoke the affirmative defense of statute of limitations bar.
13. Trial counsel, the Honorable Michael McLeaish, should have
had a full command of the facts and the law to know that advising
his client, the Applicant, to enter into a 5-year plea bargain,
over 2 years after the statute of limitations in this case had run
out is just ludicrous and cannot be deemed as sound trial strategy.
There:is no reasonable explanation that trial counsel can come up
with to explain away his selling out of the Applicant to the State
or “attorning" of the Applicant to the State when Applicant could
have simply walked due to the State's failure to proseaute'the case
before October 24, 2001 or even November 11, 2001.

14. To add insult to injury, trial counsel didn't even catch the
gross error of allowing Applicant to enter a plea of guilty to an
Indictment that contained a void enhancement, .as Cause No. 3744,
had been dismissed by the prosecution on or about July 1, 2002.

15. The State may claim that Applicant "voluntarily" entered a
plea of guilty in Cause No. 4079, but the fact remains that trial
counsel should not have even allowed for Applicant to enter any
plea of guilt when he knew or should have known the statute of
limitations had run out on Cause No. 4079. But for trial counsel's
unprofessional errors, there is a reasonable probability the out-
come of the proceeding would have been different.

16. How the Court can stand in the midst of such clear and con-
vincing evidence of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and
even defend said attorney shows the lack of respect to the Oath..of
Affirmation taken by trial officials as they have sworn to God!

17. As for the claim that trial counsel is an attorney with many
years of experience in criminal law, this, in and of itself, ought
to be sufficient to damn said attorney for failing or refusing to
protect the rights of his client and present every viable defense
under the law to ensure his client gets the best defense possible.
18. To simply raise:the claim that attorney McLeaish has no re-
collection of this case and has no records that may refresh his

memory, a simple calendar would suffice. Surely this attorney can

4-Objections



‘on Bi iain? of Facts.and Conclusions. of Lalo.Frem 109 1H Disk Louck of Apdews
“1 Count4, Texas,

oun

IN The Honorable lo Court of Criminal APBals of
TEXAS. NO.WR.16,668.03. Cause. Nb: ¥077-A.

1. KostocttollY Z vreau | FY mn)
RestocHfulld Z reaugsl, MpPicon? Hod on Movember

Eevand Turd in Cause VO. 3744, adie ale Taciced
2. And the Enhancement PoradvaPh4 (Hie ipons ase aie Soe
ON the AS Th dak of Sunes |9I6./N Cause. No. 3144
iN the loath Avdicial Dietrick Court of Knaas f Could
of Texas, ih Delorslant as Can ices af-the Fel amet
Fense. en ns We KiCaterd. Ud Ve.been
Soni. \o Beet aie “\exaS ‘Diener mak ek - Cawmivial lustice.

TSE Koto,  Duisiat. Sewenc e W..O,
Imprisonment & fears on D.C. Th FO SS 12.

on the AdTth cat of § Tune, 1916 Caused; oN eae
aS Nou

a, Tl do Not understand, Cause Mo
Please Oe Wicict Atte Atomed dissmiss OND 34K.

lot o£ axvors of Proseculed of miscondu f
+ Mosges ot AiScOnd Auc cf, Sora \ordic. SUSCONASC’ 5

‘Twoltactie assistance of Counsel: ott. oft.

5, ‘rexare a lot of evors on fhe § Findin& ol

Facts and Gonclosions ok
EE “ont e447 WeududicialD Dishrek. Cane all. false.

issues Or Statments of the. Cases. MOS.
Waid “tudltiments Noid Enhancement: Fals

Aa onvicled wittons Cuase.Nombers @ indicted wi ey rang months
ANONE daurrord doar’ss Convicted with bond Cause Nd wot 2Ven exists,
Ga) Enhancement WHtVou’ Cause NO-Mofoven exists Violation

Double dopPard4 adinsted AePlicant Mabrid, use multiple Times Saves
Causes Ns whe Ind dictod ea Cause. NOBASY TheIndichnents 13 Fals@. Cause
NO.B244 indicted as a thin Deaveeand Same Cause no 3944 Was [ndicked a

nswien
Socond Dedvwe is the much the Same. Devble. clepfarald, Vil ions hy

$s. 1 oft,
the Cause Nb Neh euen eXishs. aft, 2h. are OI At Mi ye



The fact that the Defendant woy

ld be permitted to withdraw said plea of

guilty should the Court reject such agrdement, in which event neither the fact that

the Defendant had entered a plea of
Defendant at the hearing on the plea of
on the issue of guilt or punishment in al

The fact that if the punishment ag
punishment recommended by the pros
the Defendant's attorney, the trial Cour!
before the Defendant may prosecute an
matters raised by written motion filed y

The fact that if the Defendant is ni

a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for th¢

guilty nor any statements made by the

puilty could be used against the Defendant
hy subsequent criminal proceedings;
sessed by the Court should not exceed the

ecutor and agreed to by the Defendant and

must give its permission to the Defendant

appeal on any matter in the case except for

rior to trial; and

pt a citizen of the United States of America,

offense charged may result in deportation,

the exclusion from admission to this country, or the denial of naturalization under

federal law.
And before accepting said plea, it|
so found and does now so find:
That the Defendant at the time of
consult with Defendant's attorney

understanding, and had a rational as we

appeared to the Court, and the Court then

the trial had a sufficient present ability to

ith a reasonable degree of rational

{I as factual understanding of the proceed-


- An the Finding of facks and Conclusions AF Law!
Doav Honorable Cauvt o€ Crimmal APPeals of Zexas.
; ~ AO.WR_19,062-08.
CAUSE AID: 4079-A.
ql a L “bebe
APP li canton Movamber 21998, L Never Las Indic
ee Lcaahcat in CavseNo S144.itis a Fals/@ the
Tncdictmont.

a. Tt
CavseNo. 3144 \nNas Never Proseculod. The District AHorned

Tan Pool, diamissed Cause ND. 2144. Lilo wot King
ons thing big ent ich Evan te
Cause_NO.A 144, DW Noh Pool He never inForm We Or
Yn Abtornesds Don Sullivan the Cavse NO.3744, Was or
hoon Aismissec, thes ave a False shiemonh BY the
Prosecuted Distict Atforne’ Sohn eel. 27. ofc.

g. TI

AClicant raises a Meribriots clouble elooPeal4 Vislkkon
because. Fhe Dishit Afbrnod useing Vor4 much the Samo

Cavs@Nb 3144, mulhPe Times, APPhicant da

Claim ina Sukseduent arPlication For a Soe lta
Corus, Filed Povsuant To Article ILO, of He Code oF
Ceyamal Procecluve..Lill be Avant habeas CarPus
Yeliet CSeé Ex Farle. AfPP ARL-SW.2d_ Qld
T2Xas Court of Criminal APPoals C2007),

.(4) Void Zndichmont, (2 Void ludament (3) Void Enhancement |

att, ote.

Sincere Submitted.

Cluaniando ttladsdb Please over the Pus.
ARP hant Pro Se. 41 of-2.



pices ure scien oa

No. 4079
, 372 BEAR GRAPHICS, NC.
Number of Case STYLE OF CASE ATTORNEYS OFFENSE DATE OF FILING
Month | Day | Yar
4079 THE STATE OF TEXAS jOK POOL Soe [DRIVING WELLE teroxrcaren | 6 | 24 {2092
in eee rs aa a TM 3RD OFFERSE — ay IANCED F2 | information, Index or ~
_ _. [ndicment | ee
FEE BOOK os
— WT Ti _
ARMANDO MADRID _ ee . _
~ _ ~ ee Defendant
Was
DATE OF ORDERS - Minute Book
Mati] Dar] Yor rv ORDERS OF COURT Val. | Pre WITNESSES
[BOXD FET: | $3,000.00 d
BOD FILED: 8/7/2002
| PRIN REALS MADRID
a 15_BW AVE F
2 TH 79714
SURETY:
PO 577
— 3X-79714,
CAPIAB &
_ ISSUED: 6/25/2002
FILED} 8/7/2002
— ae _ a 6/24/2002 IRiting Indictment.- Copy Tol John
Pool,|Aduly Probation, Sheriff's Offic. » Cie
— on To-Sherifey ffice-For-Defendant-——_ me
6/27/Q2 Fillng Judge James 1 Rex Letter] Referenc- |
ae _ 846/02- BC
7/5/0P Fils Judge James L Rex Letter Referenc-
—— _. ing Jhry Trial-July 16,2009 __|
7/11/92" Filling Application For Subpoeng
—_ 7/11/92 Tasbing (3) Subpoenas
TM 7/12/02 Fitfng Subpoena-Cheryl Ochoa-
a _ 7/16/)2 Filing Subpoena-7/11/02-Barry lughes-
SERVED
| g/lTIt 2 Filling Judge James L Rex Trial|Docket for |
— es ns et ee eee ee lOetobkr 17 4002
9/24/2002 Piling Application For 3 Sujpoena's
_ = 9/25/02 Filfing Subpoena-Cheryl Ochoa-SERVED
_ 1/27/02 Fildng Subpoena/Barry Hughes-SERVED
-———— can nies a ~ 073/02 Fitine Marctac was eT



APPENDIX

ITEM : PAGE(S)

1. Affidavit of Fact of Armando Madrid ........ 1-3
Indictments in Case Nos. 4715 and 4716. ...... 1-2

. Criminal Docket of Case No. 4709 (DWI, 3rd En, F2). 1 - 2

e

2
3
4. Indictment in Case No. 4709 (DWI, 3rd, Enhanced,F2)
5

. Judgment on Plea of Guilty, Case No. 4709 ..... 1-6

Appendix

X-Objections



IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all sums of money paid by or for the

Defendant on account of the money assessments hereinabove imposed upon the

Defendant, regardless of to whom su¢h sums are delivered, shall be paid and

applied first to payment of the Court cofts until paid in full, then to the fine, if any,

until paid in full, and then to restitution, if any.

SIGNED this the _7th day of January, 2003 .

Fingerprint from
Right thumb
of Defendant

7

(h2 fe

Ju yee Presiding/

Gs ils



22. First of all, Ex parte Carrio, 992 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tex.Crim.
App. 1999) does not exist! Secondly, laches is an equitable doc-
trine and cannot be used to reward inequitable conduct nor to de-
feat justice. Hooks v. Brown, 348 S.W.2d 104, ref. n.r.e. (Tex.
Civ.App.-Austin 1961). "Defense of laches may be invoked only when
enforcement of right asserted would work injustice." Magnolia Pe-
troleum Co. v. Railroad Commission.of Texas, 90 S.W.2d 659, mod-
ified 96 S.W.2d 273, 128 Tex. 189 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1936).
23. The burden is on the party raising the defense of laches to
show that Applicant's delay works disadvantage to another which
changes the original position and creates a condition which cannot
be returned to its former state. This case has nothing to do with
witnesses, testimony, evidence, tangible or otherwise, transcripts,
or any other thing other than "TIME".to support Applicant's con-
tention that trial counsel was ineffective in allowing for him to
plea guilty to an offense which was: “dead" and could have been
dismissed through invocation of the affirmative defense.of statute
of limitations bar. Any claim that the State suffered or is going
to suffer prejudice for Applicant's delay in filing this writ app-
lication cannot be sustained when nothing has been lost due to the
time delay. Trial counsel's selective Alzheimer's does in no way
affect "TIME" as a continuum and therefore any claim by the State
that Applicant should be barred from presenting his claims before
this Court or the Court of Criminal Appeals is unpersuasive.
Iv.
CONCLUSION

24. Applicant alleges facts which if true, would entitle him to
habeas corpus relief, he should have been provided with an opport-
unity to prove his allegations and an affidavit from trial coun-
sel, in the very least, explaining his trial strategy in advising
Applicant to take a 5-year plea deal over 2 years after the statute
of limitations in the case had run out. The habeas court's findings
of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by facts or law,
and only serve to demonstrate the need for an evidentiary hearing.
25. Applicant feels the issue of the statute of limitations bar

and trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to preserve it is

6-Objections



count to 5! Once the statute of limitations of three (3) years
passed and the case became ripe for affirmative defense of stat-
ute of limitations bar, trial counsel had no business making any
deal with the prosecutor concerning Applicant's case. The fact
that allegedly no transcripts exist in this matter and no other
records, other than court filed documents, the ONLY document the
Court needs is the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or the
Indictment/Judgment on Plea of Guilty, which both show Date of
Judgment January. 7; 2003 and Date: Offense. Gommitted.October 25,
1998. A 25¢ Calendar is all one needs to see that trial counsel
‘ Michael McLeaish needs to have his license suspended if not re-
voked! See Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at IV and VII.
19. On January 7, 2003, the State did confer upon the Applicant
the benefits of a plea bargain, which the State knew. was being
made to someone who is not well-versed in law, and the,;State re-
lied on trial counsel to attern the Applicant despite the statute
of limitations in this case had expired some 2 years and 2 months
before Applicant stood before the trial:court to accept this plea
bargain.of five (5) Years being promised to have his truck return-
ed to him, which the City had impounded in 1998, and a promise to
give him 297 days of jail-time credits toward that 5-year plea deal.
20. At.IX, the State tries to justify the unjust act of making a
plea deal with the Applicant despite the expiration of the statute
of limitations by claiming that once a defendant accepts an agree-
ment, he can not:then complain when the court complies with his
request, citing State v. Yount, 854 S.W.2d 6, 9 (Tex.Crim.App.
1991); Ex parte Shoe, 137 S.W.3d 100 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004). No agree-
ment can be binding when fraud and/or violations of constitutional
rights occur. The State's silence regarding the statute of limit-
ations bar is acquiescence to fraud upon the Court. Whatever hap-
pened to Art. 2.01 TCCP, which commands prosecutors not to secrete
witnesses or other evidence by suppressing facts capable of esta-
blishing the innocence of the accused?
21. Finally, at X, the State attempts to invoke:the affirmative
defense of the Doctrine of Laches, stating that the State will be
prejudiced by petitioner's twelve year delay in filing the petition,

and petitioner has not acted with reasonable diligence.

5-Objections



a EEE Cem AL DOCKET.

Dste of Orders

x)

ORDERS OF couRT

Minute Book
Vol. | Page

WITNESSES

10/4/02 Filing Attorney Michael McLea:

h Letter to Judge

Copy to Attorney McLeaish

12/7/03 Filing Defendant's Written St
Copy to Jdhn Pool

~——tamds-E- PRE 9B af
10/10/02 Fling Subpoena~9/24/02-Paul — UR-
2 i 12/9/02 Filing State's List of Witnesdes ——
12/4/02 Filing Application for Subpoer
12/9/02 Tshuing 3 Subpoena's
2/14/2002 || Filing Subpoena - SERVED -|[Barry Hughes
. 2/11 7200 Filing Subpoena = SERVED —| Cheryl Ochoa ”
1/7/D3 Pil, ng Judgment on Plea of Guill y-Copy to John Pool,
nee ~~phdtlf- Prob tion,-ShentEtls-offtee,-c/d to-Gheriffly Offiee—-
for Pefendint, C/c to Sheriff's Of fica for TC Facility,

pulations and Waivers—

12/7/03 ing Waiver of Right to App
@ Moi

Fils on For New Trial, Waiver o

irrest

hr fJudgment=



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Armando Madrid, certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Objections was sent to the Honorable Martin B. Muncy,
109th Judicial Court Judge by placing the same in a postage prepaid
envelope and putting it in the U.S. Mail addressed as follows:

Honerable Martin B. Muncy, District Court Judge

109th Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas
Andrews County Courthouse

201 N. Main Street, Room 201

Andrews, Texas 79714

(432) 524-1419 FAX (432) 524-2272

Lenard» Mabel

Armando Madrid
Applicant Pro Se

8-Objections



vo. 2

~ ~
No. |_4079_
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 109TM JUDICIAL
_ VS. . § DISTRICT COURT OF
A DO M § ANDREWS COUNTY, TEXAS
JUDGMENT ON PLEA OF GUILTY

JUDGE PRESIDING: James L. Rex DATE OF JUDGMENT January 7, 2003.

ATTORNEY FOR STATE: JOHN L.
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: Mich:
OFFENSE CONVICTED OF: Driving
PENAL CODE $49.09
DEGREE: Second
CHARGING INSTRUMENT: Indictment
PLEA: Guilty

DATE OFFENSE COMMITTED: _October 25, 1998

TERMS OF PLEA BARGAIN (IN DETAIL): _five (5) years TDC and Court Costs

FINDINGS ON ENHANCEMENT: true

FINDINGS ON DEADLY WEAPON: none.
L

PUNISHMENT & PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: five (5) years TDC], ID

DATE SENTENCE IMPOSED: lanuary|7, 2003

COSTS: §.

AER
DATE TO COMMENCE: January 72003 TIME CREDITED: Days
Tanuary ites at S00} m Zi
CONCURRENT UNLES$ OTHERWISE SPECIFIED

Re ee

PAGE SO

Pe a ee ke



+ ( : TU 0a -03

July 9, 2015 . Armando Madrid 1425800
James A. Lynaugh Unit
1098 S. Highway 2037
Fort Stockton, Texas 79735

Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
P. O. Box 12508, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2508

Re: Objections to Habeas Court's Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pursuant
to Tex. R. App. Proc. 73.4(b)(2).
Dear Clerk:

Enclosed please find Applicant's Objections as stated above
as well as the following items which the trial court may not have
forwarded you or may not forward you. Please put these items in
the habeas record for the Court's consideration.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,

Armando Madrid
Applicant Pro Se

ee: file

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
JUL 13 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk


give me a breathilizer test, but the machine was broken. I was never
administered a breathilizer test. The next morning I was taken be-
fore a magistrate by a jailer and bond was. set at $3,000.00. I was
allowed to call Dan Sullivan, a bailbondsman and he came to the jail
to bond me out. After speaking with him I found out he was a lawyer
also. He said if no one took my case he was willing to represent me
on this DWI charge, but that I needed to come up with $2,000.00 up
front, so he could get my file(s) from the D.A., John Poole.

7. After about 3 years, I was contacted by Dan Sullivan, my at-
torney, telling me I had to be in court, and 2 weeks passed by and
when I showed up in court they postponed the trial for six months.
8. After six months, my attorney Dan Sullivan sent me another
letter telling me I had to be in court. Dan Sullivan wanted me to
take a plea bargain of six (6) years. I told him I was not going
to plead guilty and I fired him from my case.

9. The Honorable Judge James L. Rex, called me to the bench and
told me that I had two weeks to find another attorney to defend me
on the DWI case.

10. When I fired Dan Sullivan as my attorney he also got off my bond
and about two months later I was arrested for bail-jumping. A new
bond was set of $5,000.00 and I called my mother to help me pay for
another lawyer, Michael McLeish, to represent me on the DWI charge.
11. Three days before we get ready to go to court he calls me and
tells me to come to his office as he needs to speak to me about my
case, and to be “sure to bring the rest of the attorney's fees due."
12. He told me we were going to jury trial so to.go out and buy a
good-looking suit because we were going to attack and establish a
statute of limitations bar in this case, as 3 years had passed since
the date of the offense and the time in which to file indictment and
prosecute the case. He asked what I thought about that and I told
him I was okay with that, since he was my lawyer and knew what he
was doing.

13. On January 7, 2003, at about 9:00 a.m., we were getting ready
to select a jury when I guess my attorney sold me out to D.A. John
Poole, as I was called to speak with my attorney in a single visiting
room and he told me that after speaking to the D.A. John Poole, and
Judge James L. Rex, that they would give me 297 days credit jail-time

Affidavit of Fact page 2



STATE OF TEXAS §

COUNTY OF PECOS §

AFFIDAVIT OF FACT OF ARMANDO MADRID

My name is Armando Madrid, SS* last 4 digits 4393; I am over
18 years of age and able to make this affidavit of fact based on
personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.
1. I am currently incarcerated at the James A. Lynaugh Unit of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, TDCJ-ID, located at 1098 Ss. Highway 2037, Fort Stockton,
Pecos County, Texas 79735.
2. I attest that on or about October 25, 1998, at approximately
10:00 p.m., I was called on the phone by my cousin, Jorge, telling
me to come pick him up at the Collision Bodyshop on Broadway Ave.
in Andrews, Texas.
3. I was parked on private property at that parking lot of the
Collision Bodyshop near the back door. I was out of my truck wait-
ing for my cousin to show up and suddenly a police officer arrived
and asked me what I was doing and I told him I was waiting for my
cousin. He then asked me if I had been drinking. I replied, "No."
4. I did tell the officer that I had taken some Nyquil because I
had been sick with a cold. He made me do a field sobriety test by
making me walk toe-to-toe and then. he ‘had me count from 1 to 100
and then count from 1 to 100 backwards. I have an injury on my left
knee which makes it difficult for me to walk.
5. After I started counting from 100 to 1, I told him I couldn't
do it and doubted if he could. He told me to place my hands behind
my back and I was arrested for driving while intoxicated. This
officer, nor anyone else saw me operateza motor vehicle in a public
place and there was no evidence I was intoxicated to warrant my
arrest for driving while intoxicated.
6. My truck was inventoried and impounded and I was taken to the
police station. I was held there about 2 hours and they prepared to

Affidavit of Fact : page 1



trial counsel's ineffectiveness in failing to preserve it is clearly
founded in the habeas record, despite trial counsel's lack of affi-
davit in support of his trial strategy.

Vv.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant, by and through Petitioner,
David Lightfoot Herndndez, respectfully prays that the habeas court
will withdraw its findings of fact, and instead find that Applicant
has alleged facts and provided evidentiary support for those alleged
facts and allegations, and that there exists no unresolved facts mate-
vial the legality of applicant's confinement which need to be resolved,
as Applicant has shown he is unlawfully restrained of his liberty due
to trial counsel's ineffective assistance, and that Applicant is entit-
led to the habeas corpus relief he seeks.

Respectfully Submitted,

Leanaudy lobed.

Armando Madrid #1425800
James. A. Lynaugh Unit
1098, South Hwy 2037
Ft. Stockton, Tx 79735

DECLARATION

I, David Lightfoot Herndndez, Petitioner, being presently incar-
cerated at the James A. Lynaugh Unit and preparer or this foregoing
Objections on behalf of Armando Madrid, Applicant, do hereby declare
under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct.

Weklernk fageteds, ucc /-207

7-Objections



ger” AML False. Sthkmants acts .j5sves
~ Einelind of Facts ond. Lenclusions. of Law.

4. APPcant on Nevembar 14,1993 dos Indicha

bu. the Andrews Cavite Texas branch Sud si Layee
; NO:3 7449. Mhirel degree. FeJond Sack Pounishable_by
lw fo fe) oars Texas Dotavtmout Criminal Sosfice:

To. Aro 199G"

a. y ancl Zhe nepment Farad By IEESLEN
en the. Adth det affine, IGI%in Cause Md: 3744.
rales tot C aur: af tdalen Cout4 Tevas Z Nas
Convicted AF the Felend offonse Driving, While.
Zn taxtcatos :

3 AgeericaTah

mclustongct-taus

Aqe as Vover Prosocuhed . The Dishi-t
toned Disnnissed Cause A037 4.
YW. VWo:8)4U The indictments ave. Verse Wuch He.Sane.

\vith the excePtion that Cavse M0: 3744 Was \ndicted
ASA Third Degree Felon and Cavse Ald’ 3744 Wes ind icted

a Second DeSree Felond ConcornQouble leabrrd4 Violation.

S. Ess Cowvichal.on Case Mo: 4019 Punishmen |
Dace. oF CenFinement. Texastefarfrient o€ Criminal

SJusnee For Five (8) Koos wed, ED HMSOGHO
APP hicast Clam shitue.of limitations RecE Fu rH 5) -

Nobico.: EN Te Covrt of Lviminal APLeals ake TAA. NK
about: Finding of facks and Conclusions, Lalas.

Fem: /07 Th. aludicial Dishict Court ar Clerk. ab Andows
— Coonth, TEXAS, Lourthovse.LI Les. LXOSDIDG.

Li) mnclusion. ck Zaw all Falsé Ssfhments
Fe oe eR Ae ie Cane lostod oF lal).
Zrgn_ Prove \with all mg Reval Malorial yp Ho's | Au



ings against the Defendant, who was in all respects mentally competent to stand
trial;

That the Defendant was fully awate of the consequences of said plea of guilty;

That the Defendant was fully awate of the Defendant's right to a jury trial, the
right to confront and cross-examine the State's witnesses, the right to subpoena
witnesses, the right against self-incrimiration, and the right to require that the State
prove the Defendant's guilt beyond a jreasonable doubt as a prerequisite to the
Defendant's conviction, all of which rights the Defendant voluntarily, knowingly
and intelligently waived; and

That the Defendant's plea of guilfy was and is free and voluntary.

After hearing all the evidence submitted by the parties, the Court is of the
opinion, and so finds, that the Defendant is guilty as confessed in the Defendant's _
plea of guilty. ,

IT IS THEREFORE CONSIDERED), ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED
by the Court that the said Defendant ib guilty of the offense of Driving While
Intoxicated , and that said Defendant cqmmitted the said offense on 25th day of
October, 1998, as confessed in the Defenfiant's plea of guilty herein made, and that
punishment be fixed, as now determined by the Court, at a fine of $

‘and confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division



IIl.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS
Findings Related to the Court's Contentions

7. Applicant objects to Findings of Fact at III of the State's
Findings of Fact.and Conclusions of Law, where the State contends
that "Cause No. 3744, was indicted as a Third Degree Felony and
Cause::No. 3744, was indicted as a Second Degree Felony." It was
either one or the other, but not both.

8. Applicant agrees with the State that Cause No. 3744 was never
prosecuted and that the District Attorney dismissed Cause No. 3744
on or about July 1, 2002. Dismissal was filed into record on July
3, 2002 and there are no court records to indicate any activity in
this matter until it was dismissed on or about July 1, 2002.

9. What Applicant would like this Court and the Court of Criminal
Appeals to take Judicial Notice of is Indictment in Cause No. 4079
which was generated from the same arrest and/or "events" .as were
originally cited in the indicted Cause No. 3744. (See State's Find-
ings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at III), contains an Enhance-
Ment Paragraph which clearly states: "And it further presented in
and to said court that, prior to the commission of the aforesaid

offense, on the 25th day of June, 1996, in Cause No. 3744, in the
109th Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas the defend-
ant was convicted of the felony offense of Driving While Intoxicated;
against the peace and dignity of the State;"

10. Surely the Court can see the problem here! The Cause No. 3744,
which the District Attorney dismissed on or about July 1, 2002, was
used to enhance Applicant's charge(s) in Cause No. 4079. This is

a fundamental defect, as Applicant was convicted of a Second Degree
Felony Driving While Intoxicated charge relying on a void dismiss-
ed charge to enhance Applicant's charge(s). (See Indictment in
Cause No. 4079, attached).

11. The State correctly cites that Applicant was originally in-
dicted under Cause No. 3744, for an alleged crime committed on or
about October 25, 1998. Driving While Intoxicated as a crime has

a three (3) year statute of limitations. See Art. 12.01 TCCP.

3-Objections



The State of Texas vs. _Armando Madrid

Cause No. _ 3 Date Indicted Lares Bond Amount LOI o

Felony Charge:_Sexual Assault - Child §22.011(a)(2)_11990002_ F* Habitual Offender

In the 109" Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas

IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

The duly organized GRAND JURY of Andrews County, Texas, presents in the District Court|
lof Andrews County, Texas, that in Andrews County, Texas, Armando Madrid, hereinafter styled
Defendant, heretofore on or about the 2TM day of July, 2005, did then and there intentionally or
knowingly cause the penetration of the sexual organ of ME89, a child who was then and there|
lyounger than 17 years of age and not the spouse of the defendant, by defendant's sexual organ;

ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS

And it is further presented in and to said Court that, prior to the commission of the aforesaid offense!

(hereafter styled the primary offense),(on the 25" day of. June, 1996, in cause number 32 6 1@ 109" Judicial

District Court of Andrews County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of Driving While

Intoxicated third or more.

And it is further presented i in and to said Court that, prior to the commission of the primary offense, and

after the convictionfin cause nu number 3264 w was $final, the defendant committed the felony offense of Driving}

a

While Intoxicated third or more and was convicted on the 7" day of January, 2003, i in cg

109" Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas.

against the peace and dignity of the State.

Forednan of the Grand Tony



Same base. 1b _-\alume 2-of- a-\lolomes
Liaw ll. True.
Line 12. BY Me Mankid: anthe DW.L.
Line 1&2. THE CourT: Yes the Enhancements.
Line I4 WRMRDRID: Thels True, Sir,

Pase.17_-\lolume 2-oF- 3 \lolumes . .
Line. 1 CStale's Casein CHicf on PonisHment )
Lined BY DAM Pool! Your Honor, af this hme. LT,

{l
Line 3 Tender State's, and thet, voCortiFied audament.
Ling 4 Gnd Sentences af the Defendants Tuo Prior
GS al\eded inthe

Live S Enhancement .
Linele Delonse Attorne’ We Kabat Leahed: NO Dblection
Line 7 THE Court: OkaL Adwaithod,

\ AAR. Pool: Stole Rests.
Lee 3 Sone Cas0._iN Chief an Punishment:

Sincvel4. Submitted -
hamande Madwuid.
DePendint FPro se.



Law on July 3, 2015, from the Lynaugh Unit Mailroom personnel.
Pursuant to Rule 73.4(b)(2), Tex. R. App. Proc., these objections
are timely if mailed or filed with the District Clerk of the 109th
Judicial District Court of Andrews County, Texas by July 13, 2015.
Il.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS

4. Applicant's habeas corpus application states facts which, if
true, would entitle him to relief. Applicant.would show that the
habeas court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not based
on live testimony taken at an evidentiary hearing, despite disputed
fact issues which were more appropriately resolved through such a
forum, especially given the time under consideration.

5. Any findings made without a live evidentiary hearing necessar-
ily requires credibility determinations made upon evidence taken
without confrontation and/or cross examination and without judicial
observation attendant to that choice. Credibility choices made with-
out live examination but, instead upon prior judicial or legal re-
lationships, acts to insulate those, who routinely practice before
the trial court and create a non-level playing field. It is for
this reason that the credibility choices, and all findings and con-
clusions which rest, even in part, upon such flawed credibility
choices, must be re-examined. In that the entirety of the findings
entered by this Court, except for those factual findings supported
by the record, rest upon the credibility choices made without resort
to live evidence, or even an affidavit from trial counsel, and Appli-
cant objects generally to all.

6. All findings of fact and conclusions of law rely on facts which
elude the main issue, that being trial counsel's failure to invoke
the affirmative defense of statute of limitations in a case which
obviously was over two years beyond said statute of limitations.

No affidavit from trial counsel was produced because trial counsel
is suddenly a victim of selective Alzheimer's and allegedly the
transcripts of the case can't be found. This is a case involving

an issue of time not testimony or other evidence contained in any
record of the Court save the charging instrument and arrest record.
These records, the Court alleges are available from the Court.

2-Objections





No. WR-79,062-03
Cause No. 4079-A

EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§ 109TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ARMANDO MADRID § ANDREWS COUNTY, TEXAS
; COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE HABEAS COURT'S
; JUL 18 2015

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Abel Acosta, Clerk
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Armando Madrid, Applicant, pro se, by and through
Petitioner, David Lightfoot Hernandez, pro se, hereinafter styled:
and respectfully files these objections to the habeas

"Petitioner,'
court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and would respect-
fully show the Honorable Court the following:
I.
BACKGROUND

1. On March 24, 2015, Applicant, Armando Madrid, hereinafter
styled: "Applicant," mail-filed his Art. 11.07 writ application

to the Clerk of the 109th Judicial District Court of Andrews Coun-
ty, Texas, along with Memorandum of Law in Support and Affidavit

of Fact in support, to include Criminal Docket of Cause No. 4079;
Indictment in Cause No. 4709; and Judgment of Plea of Guilty in
Cause No. 4079.

2. The 109th District Court forwarded Applicant's writ applica-
tion to the Court of Criminal Appeals without making any findings
of fact nor conclusions of law and the Court of Criminal Appeals
pursuant to an Order filed on June 8, 2015, ordered the trial court
to make findings of fact and conclusions of law, hold an evident-
iary hearing, obtain affidavit(s) from trial counsel explaining his
trial strategy, or do whatever else is necessary to resolve all
controverted facts at issue in this habeas action.

3. Applicant received the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

1-Objections



flight therefrom. The Court further finds there was in existence a plea bargaining
agreement between the State and the Defendant and that the punishment assessed
does not exceed the punishment recommended.
The Court asked the Defendant and attorney if there was any reason why
sentence should not be pronounced, andj the Court received no reply in bar thereof;
whereupon the Court pronounced sentence, in the Defendant's presence, as follows:
IT IS ORDERED by the Court that the said Defendant be delivered by the
Sheriff of Andrews County, Texas immediately to the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division where the Defendant shall be confined for a period of
five (5) years , in accordance with the lav governing such department and that the
Defendant pay the Clerk of this Court tht amount of any fine hereinabove assessed
against the Defendant, and in addition thereto, all Court costs of this Prosecution.
ITIS FURTHER AQRDERED that the Defendant be credited on this sentence
with E§ 6% ? days, which is the actual amount of time spent in custody
since the Defendant's arrest as a result pf this charge, until the date hereof. The

Defendant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Andrews County until Sheriff

can obey the directions hereof.



which I had spent in the county jail and also return my truck which
had now been at the City Impound Lot for nearly 5 years.
14. Attorney McLeish told me I only had ten (10) minutes to make
up my mind. I decided, that since he was not going to help me get
the case dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on
statute of limitations bar, that I would take my losses and handle
this matter later. At the time I had no idea I was waiving any type
of affirmative defense to statute of limitations bar. Trial coun-
sel should never have allowed such a defense to be waived or for-
feited. I took the five (5) year plea deal offered mez

Further affiant sayeth not.

Executed this 2Y day of March, 2015 in Fort Stockton, Pecos

County, Texas.
Leuonarde Madird

Armando Madrid - Affiant Pro Se

DECLARATION

Pursuant to Title 6 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code, §132.001, I, Armando Madrid, TDCJ-CID #1425800, being pre-
sently incarcerated at the James A. Lynaugh Unit of TDCJ-CID, de-
clare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true

Lonandy lloduid

Armando Madrid

and correct.

Affidavit of Fact page 3 of 3



On thal th dak af Aol 2007.

Reorler’s Record
\lolome_3.of 2 Volumes.

Jord Wiad Co ov TVreancr \PVion.

Page: TS_\oulme-3-0F-3.Valomes .

Liner 4. nhancement Counts of the Tuclictmerts

Line? & Cause NO: FS .
Liner Prvimard offense, onthe aSth dad of lune, (AV

\w Cause ND.
Liwe: IO Zack in tho toath eludicial Court of GndvedsS

: C Bonk, TexeS> the ; , 7
Liner Hl Defendant Las Coaniched of a Felon’ offense

Deivind While,

Lawet 1a Tutoxi chor,

Line iS Cpwwiction of Cause AO: 3ab4 Was Final.

Liwet tT awd Wes Comvicles on the Th dad of danvarX

40038, 1N Case no-, i. ia

Liner tQ Gola vin theloath Judicial Dishict Court oF
Hoare Cov.

Liwezal C:avse NO, 47/6 .

Leer Safe Briar offense onthe ath das of
Sond WAAL. 1 Cause ND _ =.

linet AS Cavs. NO Sabvt, wrthe (04 th Judicial Dichvic Covrt
OF Andros Covnts

Paae: Ib. Novlme 2.07 aloes i
we: BAY Aad Tivlal p
nen cae te exc due Wn yd of aanuara » 3,003
_ Pause NO. F077: 7
Line: Q.- crauN ihe Fove Person. OF the, f vand dura.
Liner Tho. Court: Te the Alledahions in oeack Whe Wadi”
iinet /O Enhancemenr Cows 1D Ow 2 Pla AO os

ca atnck Page.