JULY 16, 2015

K&L Acosta CLERK RECClVcU IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS COURT ^p 0RIMINA1 APPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308 CAPITOL STATION 1 *fi4E

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 JUL £1 *«'»

FROM:

LORD H.OSBY

1430910

264 FM 3478

HUNTSVILLE,TEXAS

2S32Q-3322

AbelAeoslaCterk

GREETINGS:

Herein, you will the complete Petition for Discretionary Review Pursuant

to the applicable rules of Appellate Procedure-66,67,68,69.

I cannot make copies here and am asking for the COURT to waive that

requirement, if it so will. Please present to the Court. At issue are the

following records of decisions of the Court of Criminal appeals:

1>.38,597-A(received by the Court on May 16,2001) WR-48,960-02

2>.38,597 B September 26,2007 WR-48,960-03

3>.38,597-C May 27,2015, WR-48,960-06

I am very grateful for your assistance.

J[
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

LORD HARLECH OSBY

Petitioner,

§

§

§

§

§

27th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

BELL COUNTY, TEXAS

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure - 68, files this his petition

for the COURT to excercise its' Supervisory Power as the Caretaker of TEXAS Law.

Petitioner, LORD H. OSBY,TDCJ-CID No.1430910, W.J.Estelle Unit,Huntsville,Texas,

77320-3322. Herein, seeks the Court review of the Habeas Corpus proceeding held

in the 27th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,of Cause No.38,597-C, WR-48,960-06, on May 22,

2015.

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure - 66.3, Petitioner urges the

Court to Grant review in regards to the 27- District Court and the Article -

11.07 and subsections Mandatory procedures. Petitioner avers he is seeking

Discretionary concerning the Discretion excercised by the 27th Disttrict Court

in the Hearing held on May 27th 2015 Cause No.38,597-C, Bell County Texas, in,,

which the District Dismissed the Application based on:ll:.07e 4(1),(2), and it

is believed that the threshhold bar of 11.07 Section-4(a) was not met to proceed

to the 1,2 subsections.

Petitioner beleives the Court may find that he has been denied a full and fair

hearing, and Due Course of Law atad Due Process ensured by Texas and United States

Constitutions in (the Writ of Habeas Corpus Procedures.

<1>
XI- TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Note to Court Clerk

1 Petition

2. . STATEMENT OF THE CASE

2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2 GROUND FOR REVIEW

3 QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

4 AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT

5 AUTHROITIES AND ARGUMENT

XII- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Ex Parte Evans 964 s.W.2d 643

Ex Parte Torres 943 s.w.2d 469

Ex Parte Whiteside 12 s.w.3d 819

Ex Parte Mcpherson 32 s.w.3d 860

Tesas Code Criminal Procedure Article-11.07 Section 4(a)(1),(2).

I.
IV. PETITIONER STATES THAT ORAL ARGUMENT IS WAIVED UNLESS THE COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In May 2015, Petitioner filed his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,

38,597-C, seeking relief from the conviction of Aggravated Robbery in June 6,

1990, wherein, he received a 22-year sentence. Petitioner discharged the

sentence in April 2013 according to TDCJ-CID records, and as a collateral

consequence is being held in Cause no.2005-CR-8108, that the complained of

Cause No.38,597-C was used to enhance to a 60-year sentence from 2nd-degree

to lst-degree as a repeater under 12.42. _ . .. . , . ,, - -,. ., ^ c Petitioner has never cnallenged .the

conviction as alledged by the District Court in its Dismissal Opinion.

Petitioner states in May 16,2001,38,597-A,was denied(WR-48,960-02), as it was

a challenge to a Parole violation on October 26,1999, Petitioner filed his

38,597-B, in September 26, wherein the 27-District Court dismissed under Sec.4.

Petitioner filed 38,597-C, and on May 27, the District Court again Dismissed

under Sec.4. (38,597-B - WR-48,960-03, 38,597-C - 48,960-06).

VI. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Petitioner states that he has never been allowed to challenge the conviction

of Cause no.38,597. In 1999 Petitioner's parole was violated and petitioner

filed 38,597-A-decided on May 16,WR-48,960-02, After 38,597 was used to enhance

the 2nd-degree felony in 2005-CR-8108, to lst-degree as a repeater, petitioner

filed 38,597-B, as his first challenge to the conviction, in September 26, 2007,

WR-48,960-03, Again, the 27th District Court dismissed under Sec.4., In May of

2015, petitioner filed 38,597-C, on May 27,2015 the District Court dismissed

under Sec.4.

VII. GROUNDS FOR REVIEW

1. Whether Petitioner was afforded a full and fair review in the District Court

Habeas proceeding.

2. Whether the District Court has misconstrued the Article 11.07 Sec.4 (a),(l),

(2), in this case.

3- Whether the District Court has decided an important question of State Law

in a way that Conflicts with Applicable decisions of the COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS, and the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES.

4. Whether the District Court's decision to dismiss 38>597-C under 11.07..Sec.4

<2>
conflicts with the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS decisions on the same issue.

5. Whether the 27th District Court has so far departed from the accepted

and usual course of Judicial proceedings, as to call for an excercise

of the COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS' power of supervision

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

1. Article 11.07 Sec.6, contains mandatory language for notification,

Does that include self represented Applicant?

2. The current Article 11.07 procedure does not allow for self represented

Applicants' to submit Motions,present evidence or proofs to support their

grounds for relief.

Does that make mandatory for the District Court to perform Direct and

Collateral Consequence Inquiries during fact-finding and Conclusions of Law?

3.Does Article 11.07 sec.4 bar fact-finding and conclusions of Law on grounds

for relief such as: l>Trial Court lacked Jurisdiction,2>Ineffective Assistance

of Counsel, 3>Prosecutorial Misconduct?

4.Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleged that he was denied

a guaranteed United States Constitutional right which cannot be deemed from

the record of the Cause: Does the Habeas Court violate the 14th United States

Constitutional Amendment applicable via the 5th Amendments Due Process Clause?

5.The 27th District Court has stated in its' Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law- I. Findings of Fact,#3"The Applicant did not Appeal his Conviction,

but this is his third application for post-conviction Writ Habeas Corpus

relief in this case, his first and second having been denied without written

order'.' : In ground five of Petitioner's Application he assested that he was

effectively denied a state created right of Appeal and the Attorney failed

to withdraw properly.,: Does the this amount to a denial of a full and fair

review, and Due Course of Law, and Due Process of the Texas and United States

Constitutional Provisions, and amount to Egregious action on the part of the

Habeas Court as it has literally answered for the Attorney, and completely

overlooking the Docket sheet in the record of Cause No.38,597 wherein the

Advisement of an Appeal was documented by the Presiding Judge Joe Carrol on

June 6, 1990?
k

IX. ARGUMENT and AUTHORITIES

Petitioner avers that 11.07 Section - 4(a) states:"If a subsequent

application for writ of'habes corpus is filed after final disposition of

an initial application challenging the same conviction, a court may not

consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application

unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that"

Petitioner stps there because that is in petitioner's Laymen opinion where

The District Court has abused its' discretion. District Court has stated it

is dismissed Petitioner's application based a failure to comply with sections

(l),and (2).see Pg.2-Findings of Fact and Conclusions of. Law(38,597-C-May 27,

2015).,,,The applicable case-law deemed well settled on the issue of "challenge

to the conviction", would suggest the District Court has:

1.Misconstrued the Article 11.07 Section-4(a), which is the threshhold before

on can be held to (1), or (2) sections.

2.Decided an important question of State Law in a Way that Conflicts with Applicable

decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United

States.

3.Conflict with the Court of Crimial Appeals decisions on the same issue.

4.Departed from the usual course of proceedings, as to call for an excercise

of the Court of Criminal Appeals' power of Supervision.

5.Denied Petitioner a full and fair review in the Habeas Proceedings.

Based on the following core case law: Ex Parte Evans 964 s.w.2d 645, Ex Parte

Torres 943 s.w.2d 469, Ex Parte Whiteside 12 s.w.3d 819,.and Ex Parte Mc Pherson

32 s.w.3d 860; Petitioner in Cause No.38,597-A, sought a writ of Habes Corpus

for what he believed was a due process violation when his parole was violated

only-decided by Court of Criminal Appeals on May 16,2001-WR-48,950-02-Tex.Crim.

App. Boththe previous 38,597-B WR-960-03-Tex.Crim.App.September 26,2007, and

'"- the n»« 38,597-C hayejseen decided as barred under Sec.4(D /(2), without any

consideration or fact finding of 38,597-A, while it possess the record in its'

own file history. It appears that the District Court has abused its' discretion

in the Habeas Corpus Procedure dismissing Petioner's Application by choosing

<4>
to overlook the threshhold bar of 11.07 sec.4(a), Arbitrarily dismissing

on (1), and (2). both this Application 38,597-C, and the previous 38,597-B,

for the same reasons. Petitioner has already reaped on collateral Consequence

in that 38,597 was used to enhance his current holding case beyond the maximum

the Legislature intended for a 2nd-degree felony, to 60-years as a lst-degree

repeater in Cause NO.2005-CR-8108 2007-Bexar County,Tx.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Petitioner prays for the following relief :

1>. The Court Grant Review of this his laymens Petition for Discretionary

Review.

2>. Upon granting review remand back to the District Court for proper

Article-11.07 procedures that comport with existing case law, and

Due Course of Law and Due Process Provisions of the Texas and United

States Constitutions.

3>. In the alternative, the Court grant relief it deems appropriate,or

Allow Petitioner to seek Mandamus relief.

Petitioner seeks any relief the Court deems appropriate.

Executed on this the 16th dayof July 2015.

LORD HARLECH OSBY

TDCJ-CID No.1430910

264 FM 3478

Huntsville, Texas

77320-3322

<5>
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

Petitioner Lord Harlech Osby, TDCJ-CID No.1430910, W.J.Estelle unit,

Huntsville, Tx.,.Declares under penalty of perjury that he placed this his

Petition for Discretionary Review in the Units' internal Mailing system on

this the 16 of July 2015.

Executed on this the 16th day of July 2015.^

•:.::: . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Petitioner Lord Harlech Osby declares under the penalty of perjury that he is

unable to make copies recomended by the statutes governing the Petition for

Discretionary Review. As such he has asked the Clerk to provide the necessary

copies to the State' Attorney.

Executed on this 16th day of July 2015

AH

<end>