Into 'The United st·ates Co"~stitutionAL'CciurtOf The ~exas Couit Of Criminal. Appeals And 

Its Justicesr.Supreme Court Building,20l -

W~st 14th Street,room l06,Austin Texas 78711 

Delivence,Andre Sims,Pro Se, § ~Appl~~ant-Relator 

Ed~~:s~~~aker;Intryd~~s: I 

Joshua V~nc~nt-Intern,~Hkon~n FOR what) 

A~dre~ J. Sm1 th (or co-s1gner-), as Assist, 

D1str1ct Attorney to Harris County,Texaa, 

J<?hn/Jane Do.e judge pr~siding,35lst Dis~};: r1ct Court to/for Harr1s County,Texas, .~ 

Respondent(s)/Intruder(~) 

. ,; . 

RECEIVED IN 

C 1 

.. v 

1

. 1 A . COURT OF CRIIIIIINAL APPEALS ct1on Nu: 

Inre: Tr. Ct. Rd. #~Y~slJ9 ~015 

Pleading for a writ of mandamus 

And Compl uso~~~..Ql~rkm 

Applicant's Pleading F~r A Writ Of Mandamus,and His Complusory 

Counter-Claim Against Illegal Third Party Intervener(s) With Its 

OR Their Illegal-Improper Motion Practice In said Case Sub Judice 

TO The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals and its Justices,Respondent(s) and 

Illegal Party Interveners; 

Let there be Unders cand ing, comes now I One I Sims Andre Deli v'ence I Appl ±cant/Relator. '· 

herein after in Pro S~ capacity,and in the above styled,Caption,and Numbered Cause of action,Case,~nd i~ this proceedings,brings [t]his Application.for a ~ritof Mandamus,along w1th h1s 1 necessary Complusory Counter Cla1m(s) mot1on aga1nst~ 

third Party interveners,and ~~ll herein too invoke this Texas Court of CriminalAppeals Jurisdiction to proscribed Stat~(as well as federal)law,and compel'said 

laws to be applied against ~n intrudei judge,with an yndecipherable and unidentifiable name,acting clearly outside if its jyrisdiction over this sai~ above case and cause of actio~,pursuant to Texas Government _Code,~ 22.22l(b),along withRule 72.l,and 72.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Prdcedure~for said intruding 

judge,not appeariHg for verified authenticated judgementship in compliance with 

the Texas Constitution and Statutory law,aHd thereafter,abusing its judicial authority,by failing to correct it~ usurpation of authority. over the ~ubject-matter cause under number 765557,and then to make matters moie wrose,intentionally -

failed to perform its ministerial duties to hav~ ackonledged its basis of its -

pwn original competent jurisdist±on over ~ai~ c~use,and on its own motion of necessity~as obligat6ry·dutites empl~ced bt State of .Texas law,and for such otherreasons i~ this proceedings sub judice~and thus;R~lator files [t]his application 

for the issuance of a writ of mandamys di~eciing the intruding(john/jane.doe)judge to recuse its self .from said cause of action under number 765557,and recall·-

its illegal adoption of Joshua Vincentrs and Andr~w J.Smiths illegal proposed motion practice,and baseless prop~sed brief,as "STATE'S ORGINAL ANSWER'' -signed by 

And:::-ew J.Smith 0::1 June l7th,2015,.''in for this case at bar ..• Tnwhich 'relator was 

convicted unlawfull~ in said trail Court for muider.Inmore emphasis of this want 

of mandamus appli6atio~,Relator·will state to this said Court the tollowing: 

A1 On an unkn~wn data the Prosecuting Atforney for ca~se number 765557,forged andfraudulently issued an indictment, hile nev~r impaneling a.grand jury panel toha~e returned a legitimate and valid indictment,or True Bills of Indictm~nt,as a 

matter of l.aw and justice performed in Harr.is County .Texas. Hence ,no Harr1s County ~as empaneled to conveye and investigate the surrounding circums~ances of said Cause indispute sub judice;and thereby,no.grand jury under the laws of Texas 

charged this Relator wit~ the ~ffense ·of some imprecise and unspecific murder,as 

a non-Capital offense(as cited in Relator's ~emorandum petition/a~plication for 

a writ of habeas corpus).Relator states not only were there other defendants co~ 

nvicted for that same offense,as the principal culprit(s),but it was there inthat trial Court that the judge had a duty to read the alleged indictment's contents for obtaining legal jurisdiction.e.g.,State ·V.Chatman,67l .F.2d 531,538(KAN.l983);Garcia V.Dial,596 S.W.2d 524,528(Tex.Cr.App.l980);Cook V.State,902 S.W.~ 

4~1~476,n.6-7(T~i.cr.~pp.l995),{d.at 415,& at n.4-5 .... 

l.law. 
Fat~lly Defective Process of Servica: 

B)" ~h~ 'underlying proceeding involves action out side of the Scope of law and 

inaction by the trial Court,judgeJ~s it also fails to iSsue the writ of habeas-

'• ·, 

corpus to the proper and legal person holdihg your Relator unlawfully and illegagainst his will and restrained of his .liberty,pursuant.. to Articles 1l.OLll.02,ll.Q3,ll.04,ll.05ill~lO,ll.ll,ll.~2,11.13,11.14(l) to (5),11.15,ll .. l6(Te~­

as Code of criminal Procedure)[£or the purpose of invoking Art.ll.07,§§ 1,& 3(a)-

(b);4(a)(l),(2),& (b),& (c); § 5 et seq(TCCP)]~Texas.Rules of Civil Procedure,-

Rules 106 & .2la;Hamdi V~Rums£eld~542 U.S.507,124 S.Ct.2633,,159 L.Ed.2d 578(2004): 

Rumsfeld.V.Padi1laJ524 U.S.426,l24 .. S.Ct.27ll,l59 L.Ed.2d 513(2004) 8;Rasual V.-

Bush,542 U.S.466,124 S.Ct.2686,159 L.Ed.2d 548(2004),9;U.S.V.Moussaoui,365 F.3d 

292,30o~o2,n.4-5(4th Cir.2004)(case law cited);Cf.Baker V.Monsanto,lll S.Y!V.3d158,16l(Tex~2003)(citation in original).This civil action ~as filed against the 

.warden of the.Michael:Prison Unit,as indicated in Relator's memorandum of law,-

attached to his application for writ of habeas corpus.Eddie D.Baker(or. successor in place) is the warden and the proper legal Responde:n.t .t.o · have· been served. 

_,with respect to the writ of habeas corpus petit ion, and thus, was sup;?osed to be -

the Person who has custody over this Relator-Applicant,and j~risdiction of the 

issuance of writ thus lie~ with this Texas Court of Criminal Appeals justicesover this case,and·~ause of a~~ion,and parties of intereBt,as Respondent Baker-

. nan1ed ·in .. th~- -habeas co.~pus i?~-ti ':io~1 :'·ibid. 

C) "The ·thir2 part·y.interVeher(s'J"''never give Relator notice they were intervening 

with or without State Court authority-in t~is case.at bar1aqaihst hirn,fbr what 

ever unfounded reasons alleged in their baseless and illegal motion j)ractice,& -

thus,Relator never got his opportunity to contend against such unlawful intervention,and that includes,Relator being deprived to timely file any motions for 

otice to Include and Augment the record for his motion to quash [void] indictment,with his challenge to the ·trail Court's intruding judge'B adoption of illeg a 11 y o b t a i ned ext r i n s i c, t h i r d Part ' s e v ide n c e , " as i f T IT LED.: " . . . P R 0 P 0 SED F IN DINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.Id.See Page 1 of 4 and.i)aqe 2 to 4.Hence,those 

proposed falBe fjndinqs·_are conclusionary a~legati~ns,because the trial Court's 

[habeas] judqe or intruder never cond~cted proceedinqs as under ll.07,3(c),nor 

as would have been held under3(d)(TCCP),and totally disregarded Relator's claim-

(s) that fall under Art.ll.07j§ 4(a)(l) ans (2),& (b),& (c)-these are provision-

(s) Relator relied on in support of his-submitted and enumerated exhibitationsubmit~ed with his habeas writ .in chief.In plain langauge,Relator's claim h~rein too,involves th~ State Court's Prosecutor/~Government's agents perpetratinga fraud upon the Courts-during the collateral review proceed:i:ngs.u.s.V.Win~st-:- ~ 

ock,.340 ·F.3d 200,207,n.7(4th Cir~2004),citing Dunn Y-Cockrell,302 F.3d 491,492:-

rr~l(5th Cir.2003)(other cases);Ry1and V.Shapiro;708 F.2d 967,972,n.5(·5th Cir.l9-

83),among other precedent cases upon shepperdizing these citions.But the factthat due process affords a habeas corpus Petitioner the[hi~]right to a fair o~portunity in State Cou~t to discover and present potential exclupatory evidencethat was not contained in the record on direct apppe~l.e.g.,District Attorney2.Law. 
'!-

. , .... . .., ' 

Office V.Osbo~n~557 U.S.52(2009)(citation in original).Thus1Andrew Smith's . ' 

int~rference with Applicant's/R~lator's want of habeas corpus ~roceedings is 

an unlawful impediment1and Baker has not yet been served the writ to deliverRelator's body in Court and address this qu~stion of a liberty interest 1under 

clai~~ of fraudulent indictment.But these issues involve a State fact dev~lppement that has not taken place yet1combined with practically non-exist~nt factdevelopement procedure on the habeas corpus. proposed~ .. which automatically,~mounts to an unconstitutional ~Su~perision" of--the Writ.e .. g.IBoumedine V.Bush833 

U.S.723(2008}.Therefore~Relator has no other adquate re~edy at law1to correct ~ 

this issue of fraud-upon-the-Courts by said intruders and inactions bythe trial 

Court and it's habeas corpus judge assigned to this Case sub judice.Which means 

the act sought to be compeLled is purely ministerial in nature.The Law guarantees that every Petitioner/PrisonerRelator has a clear right to the relief sought by him.And ~s .his memorandum of law shows1his claim' (s_) merits are grounded and rooted on United States Constitutional Voilations,of his Civil Rights -

amoung many Texas State laws violated by. the Prosecution team.Hence1the merits 

of relief are be.yoll:d _disp_~:te.Which meal'ls .Rel,ator meets the requirements. of legal right that nec~~ssitates t~at the law plainly decribe·the duty to be performed 1 such that ther.e is. flO .room .for .discretion. e.g. 1 Deleon V. District Clerk 1 

187 s.w~3d 4i3j474~75,n.l,j~~~5(T~~.cr.App.2006). Wherefore Premises Du'ly considered 1 for all t_he above. reasons and ·for any other 

reasons shown ~n the t~ial Court's record or ol'l hear1ng under de novo1ahd -

on the further testimony1evidence anticipated to be adduced on said evid~ntiary 

evid~ntiary inc6nnection with Relator's want of writ of mandamus1with his-CompGi~ary Counter-Claim insupport of relief from su~h unlawful-intervention bysaid interveners.This Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas1has jurisdiction to issue the Writ of mandamus in this cause1pursuant to Article 51§5A of the Texas -

Constitution 1and Article 4.04(TCCP)~directing·the trial Court and tts .J~d~~~to 

file all additional attached documentation td'the application for a writ.of h~­

beas corpus1as contemporaneously submitted by Relator1as well as all his exhibits entered1and must be part of the habeas corpus record in chief.Then1this said Court's justices can strike the illegal third Party's ilegal motion-brief -

filed1as baseless al'ld illegal extrinsic facts or misstatement of fact.In the Interest of justice;may this Court's justices declear Relator is entitled .to the -

writ of mandamus directing the trial judge or and intruder1to set aside· its Order of June 22ndl20151in cause number 7655571and to dismiss the cause for non~Valid charging instrument1and any other relief th~s Court's justices find deemed~ 

Executed on 8 this day of JulY 20151 , .. Repectfully submitted _f)~~ 

Anrew Delivence Sims 

(00833100;2664 F.M.2054 

Mark Wayne Michael Unit 

Tennessee Colony 1 Texas 7 5886 

}* Affidavit Prosed Above/Certificate of Service 

I 1 j)~&n-l]. -~ _1 TDCJ# 833100 · 1 am precesently illegally 1 

and unlawfully incarcerated1restrained and confind of My liberty at the Mark w. 

Michael Prison Unit1located. in Anderson Cou~ty1Texas1at 2664 F.M.20541Tennessee 

Colony1Texas.75886 and I declare under penalty of perjry~~h~~ I h~~r sent the 

trial Court ( 1ntruders) a copy of my mandamus and co~~e:.r~~~llm~f] -mw~s :_~8_d~y of 

Jv IY . 1 2015 1 pursuant to 1 § § 13 2. 001-13 2. 0031 of Tlll!-ll~~jJ\'JFex'¥as~Leftf~~U~ractlce & 

Remed1es ·Code 1 '"©OOR1'0fCR\\\ft\NR 

Affiant/Relator Pro Se · JUL 13 2015 

3.Law.