In Re: Verlee, Albert 

V. 

2llth District Court 

Presiding Judge 

' :C. Dee Shipman 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil No. ----------------

RECEIVED IN ~dU~T OF CR!MIN.Al APPEALS 

JUL 16 2~15 

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Abe!Acosta,Gierk 

Comes Now, Relator, Verlee, Albert. Will show just cause and 

a last adequate remedy at law. And a clear abuse of discretion by 

trial court: 

Jurisdiction 

This court ha~ jurisdiction, pursuant to Tex. Const. Article 

5:~sec. 5,6 Crimin~l Court of Appeals have concurrent, original jurisdiction of this petition for Writ of Mandamus against the judge 

of the 2llth District Court of Denton County, Texas. see: Padilla v 

McDaniel 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). 

Statement of Fact's 

On Marchr 2007 relator::filed a motion to quash indictment F-2007-

0838-C on Agg. Robbery. see: (Docket Sheet). Relator was charged by 

information with the information claiming lack of notice due to the 

use of the conjunctive "and" as opposed to the use of disconjunctive 

"or" in the state's allegations of Agg. Robbery. The trial court then 

(l) 
granted, relator's motion to quash Agg. Robbery. The docket sheet 

reflects the notation: That indictment was quashed on August 24, 

2007. Relator has "strick proof"; see: (Register of Action). 

Relator claims that this is a structu~al error and cannot be 

procedurally defaulted. see: Rodriquez v State 42 S.W.3d 181 (Tex. 

ap¢. Corpus Christi 2001), Whan a court has no jurisdi~tion, it has 

no power to act, and any acti6n,taken in the absence of jurisdiction 

is void. see: Henry v State 2011 Tex. App. Lexis 1344) once information is quashed and stricken, the tr-ial court no longer has jurisdction 

over the c~_se and thus has no :authority to conduct further proceeding's. 

It is well settled,·that when a trial court empowered with jurisdiction over a criminal case sustains a motion to quash indictment or informatiori, the person accused thereunder is, in law. discharged from 

the accusation against him. 

Furthermore; it is likewise axiomatic that ..... 

any ...... order ent.ered by a court having .no iur-:· · .:·~;_,"--

,_ , _ _ .. i : ; 1 i sa i c t ion i s v o :i. d . 

In Rodriquez the court reaching this holding., to adhere to a 

long standing rule that jurisdiction can be raised at any time and 

cannot be waived. 

The trial court argues that, even if Albert has a claim on 

jurisdiction that he's barred by section 4 § T.C.C.P ...... see: 

Albert's (Docket sheet) it's clear that the trial court quashed indictment on Agg. Robbery. a showing that the court lacks jurisdiction. 

Case's of Authority 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. that will issue only to 

correct a clear ab~se of discretion or a violation of a duty imposed 

by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. V .. T.C.A. Gov't 

( /. ) 
.... 

Code §22? In re: Sheppard 1993 s.w~ '181. 

see: Padilla v McDaniel 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). 

The Criminal Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction of a petition 

for Writ of Mandamus when there is a clear abuse of discretion, by a 

trial court. Denton County District Court abused their .discretion. 

when ruling on relator's last Writ of Habeas Corpus, by denying him 

juri~diction claim, by barring it. With 11.07 se6~ 4: when in fact 

-jurisdiction can not be waived. 

Respondent: 

L. Dee Shipman the presiding Judge in the 2llth District Court of 

Denton County, Texas has violated relator's rights to a fair Habeas 

Corpus hearing! by_ denying his Habeas Corpus, knowing that Albert's 

claim cannot be barred by (section §4). 

The re~ords show, see: (Register of Actions) that the proceedings 

contin~ed through a trial and ~ final judgment of fOnviction; at no 

point during the proceedings in the trial court did anyon~ urge that 

the case:had been quashed. 

Article I section 10 of the Texas Constitution states that no 

person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense unless on an 

indictment of a grand jury. Tex. Canst. art I sec. 10. To invest a 

court with jurisdiction over a criminal case, a charging ins~rument 

must be filed with the trial court. Tex. Canst .. art. V §12(b) see: 

McAfee v State 363 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Crim.App. 1963). Thomas v State 

751 S.W.2d 601,602 (Tex.A:pp,:.' -=-Texarkana 1988). Once_ trial court 

quashes an indi~tment, it lacks authority to reinstate it, even if 

the order quashing the indictment was bas~d on an erroneous interpretation of law. see: Prochazka v State 878 S.W.2d 230,232 (Te~. 

App. -Corpus Christi 1994). 

( 3 ) 
Statutory Provision 

When/ we,, in terpi:et statutes such as Article ( 28.05, Tex. Code Cr im. ) , 'i /I '/ - ·-'~- : 

. . T . 

the court ~eeks~b6 effectuate the 'collective' intent or purpose of 1'!' 

the legisla.tor 's who 'e'n,gcted the legislation, They do this ber.ause - f . 

our state Constit0tion assigns the law making function to the legislature while assigning the law interpreting function to the Judiciary. 

see: Tex. Const. Art. II §1. 

Where the statue is clear and unambiguous, the legislature must be 

understood to mean what it has expressed, and it is not for the courts 

to add or subtract from such a statue. 

When a cause of action derives from a statue, statutory provisions are 

mandatory and exclusive and must be complied with. 

28.05 T.C.C.P., if the notionntoset aside or the exception to the 

indictment in cases of felony be sustained, the defendant shall not 

therefore be discharged, but may be immediately recommitted by order 

of the court, upon motion of the state's attorney or without motion; 

and proceedings may afterward be had against him if no prosecution 

had ever been commenced. 

Praver for Relief 

Wherefore Relator=prays that:~this :court forces their jurisdiction 

in this Writ of Mandamus, for a hearing. If it is determined that 

the case was quashed, to prove that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict relator of Agq. Robbery. In reaching this holding 

the court has held that jurisdiction can be raised at any time and 

cannot be waived. 

Unsworn Declaration 

I, relator Verlee. Albert Jr. a Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

( 4) 
ldentifyinq number #1464905 on this day of 

2015 declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true 

and cor.rect. 

Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above foregoing 

relator's Writ of Mandamus has been forwarded by United States mail, 

postage prepaid to the Criminal Court of Appeals of TexaA, P.O.Box 

12308, Capitoal Station, Austin, Texas 78711, on this jJ-ry day 

2015. 

Resre:>ctfuJly S1.1bmit.ted: 

Albert Verlee Jr. 

TDCJ Jj:l464905 

Pi'\c"k Unit 

2400 Wallace Pack Rd. 

Navasota, TX. 77868 

( 5 ) 
~~:mal Case Kecord Detail 

MtJ-h oA{ to !J.-sttt.J~!.?· ----c-

/it elf ft 1./t"l. Lot 

ft/'6r;li.J 

Pag~ 2 of 2: !''" 

' . 

08/13/2007 COURT SETTING INFORMATION 

SHEET 

08/15/2007 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE(S) 

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT 

TO THE 

211TH DISTRICT COURT 

08/16/2007 RETURN CAPIAS/PRECEPT 

08/17/2007 STATE'S NOTICE OF INTENT 

TO USE EVIDENCE OF OTHER 

CRIMES, WRONG OT BAD ACT 

PURSUANT TO CODE OF CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURE ARTICLES 37.07 AND 

38.37 AND EVIDENCE RULES 404(b) 

AND 609(f) 

08/20/2007 STATE'S NOTICE OF INTENT 

TO USE DEFENDCANT 

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO CODE 

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 

38.22 

08/24/2007 MOTION TO QUASH 

TM 

.0/13/2008 LETTER 

. ' FROM DEFENDANT REQUESTING 

COPY OF DISMISSAL 

All records displayed are subject to limitations of data entry. Details of 

judgments can only be verified by actual court records on file. 

Copyright© 2000 The Software Group (http://www.tsgweb.com). All rights reserved. 

http:/ /www.justice.dentoncounty .cornlisapi!UVLink.isa/dentonco/WEBS~RV /CriminalSe... 10/14/2008