;0URTOF^,Rl^">^'6' aPPEAU

MAR 27 20"

AbeiAcosta, Clerk

/

2'^3'-

2' ^'j y^eQic"- 2>

=^3Z3Z'^i

2' ^eAZPoO,:7^

i-AQasS'^ ""{P yzes$

.42)yc/. JZ3^ Zo/?

' >72^' 3 3-/4

2i3^ J^yjTyycZ

//dry^H T.-?^

cZ^e/dyeyi.^

rJ Ji^

/y Mdy^c^^cy.

/^-? ^OyyQi i? ■Sa 2 Sh^yyyyT^ /Td^'O^ 2>

(2>d^ 2zi3'^ ^ Aou)e;^^y / d^/t^2-

■.^y
CAUSE NO. 33DG63-A

EX PARTE ' § the 263RD DISTRICT COURT

§ OF

OOHN DANIEL BROOKS § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION FDR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Comes new the applicant, JOHN DANIEL BROOKS, in the above

styled cause of aetion end files this MOTION FDR SUMMARY JUDGE

MENT and would offer the COURT THE FOLLDliJING:

A

I.

The APPLICANT FILED THE APPLICATION FDR URIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS ON DECEMBER 15, 2011_. The State did not, aceording to

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OCCrP) Art 11 .07, seo'VCa-'), answer

in the 180 day period. The State's answer was filed on FEBRUARY

10, 2017, more than four (A) J YEARS after their deadline.,

and waF"dnly filed then because the applicant- filed a MANDAMUS

with the COURT OF CIRMIANL APPEALS. The issues were NEVER

DESIGNATED, therefore in denying the allegations the STATE

admitted there was no dispute in issues.

Uhen compelled -to respond to the writ,, by the COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEALS, the State decided to answer ALL THE ALLEGAtions set forth in the application, four and ■% yearsCfeb ID,

2D17)after the deadline (12 June 2012) for such answer was due

in the-.court of criminal appeals.

If the State Court did not assess the merits of a claim

properly raised in a habeas petition, the deference due under

AEDPA does not apply: MAPLES, U STEGALL, 340, F3d, 433, 436

(6th Cir 2008). THIS IS A PROCEDURAL DEFAULT.

II.

NO OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A COMPLETE DEFENSE

Please see LUNBERRY v HQRNBECK, 605 F3d 754 (CA 9 2010).

DUE PROCESS included a right to "A meaningful opportunity to

present a complete defense". CRANE V KENTUCKY, 476, US 683

690 [IDS St Ct 2142 [1984] . The State, in it's VIOLATION OF

CCrP ar.t 11.07 Sec 7(a) denies the paplicant an' opportunity

to present his .complete defense, and in light that his DIS

COVERY 'MOTION was stamped by the clerk but not answered,by

the court, denied the opportunity for the applicant to pre

sent a complete defense.

THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS VIOLATED by the exclusion

of probative admissible Evidence(s) that another person may

have committed the crime (THE CRIMINQLOGIST REPORT DETAILED

THAT TYPE B BLOOD liJAS ON THE KNIFE USED TO SECURE THE CONVIC

TION AND THE COMPLAINANT AND APPLICANT HAVE TYPE A BLOOD) .

- 1 -
III.

In the exact same meaning of FDQTMAN U SINGLETARY, 978,

F 2d 1207 (CA1 1992) pg 1212, the DISTRICT COURT should not

Jplace the burden of a habeas petitioner to prove what he

alleges in his STATE COURT MOTION for postconviction relief

ujhen the STATE (INTETIDNALLY DELAYS AND VIOLATES CCrP art 11 .07

Sec 7(a))CDURT LOSES THE MOTION THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE PETITIO

NER. THIS application for URIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WAS DULY

AND TIMELY FILED (AFTER THE STATE REOPENED THE CASE IN 2007)

AND LAY LOST, OR ON THE DESK AND UNPROCESSED FOR FIVE YEARS AND

2 MONTHS.

IV.

VIOLATION OF CCrP ART 11.60- REFUSING TO EXECUTE WRIT

On May 11, 2016, in the 263RD DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS

COUNTY TEXAS, WITH JUDGE 'DIM WALLACE ON THE BENCH, THE APPLI

CANTS (DNA) ATTORNEY (CHERI DUNCAN, PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE)

AND THE APPLICANT,WITH A COURT REPORTER, THE APPLICANT ASKED

JUDGE WALLACE THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGE WALLACE: "that concludes this..."

APPLICANT: sir what about my writ of habeas corpus?"

JUDGE WALLACE: I-don'.t knoiu nothin bout no WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS"

APPLICANT: sir i filed it over YEARS AGO

JUDGE WALLACE: i aiht seen no habeas corpus in this case.

This ARROGANT, UNINTELLEGENT REMARK exemplifies the nature

of resentment the applicant has met-': in this habeas procedding.

THIS IS A VIOLATION OF CCrP ART 11.60 REFUSING TO EXE

CUTE WRIT...THIS IS A " WANTON ( SJYEAR)DELAY .

JUDGE WALLACE SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR A FINE AS FDR CONTEMPT

OV COURT". JUDGE WALLACE AlJSO VIOLATED CCrP ART 11 .62 REFUSAl

TO GIVE A COPY OF PROCESS, BY HAVING THE APPLICANT IN "his

custody and refusing upon demand, to furnish a copy of the

process under which he holds the person, (and) is guilty of

an offense, and should be dealt with as provided by art t

11 .34 CCrP for refus3.tv to return the writ'therin required.

V.

In light of the fact(s) that the STATE:

1. FAILED TO AN5ER IN 120 days

2. NEVER DESIGNATED THE ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

3. (WHEN compelled BY MANDAMUS) ANSWERED'AND DENIED ALL

ALLEGATIONS

THIS COURT SHOULD ENTER SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE AP

PLICANT.

- 2 -
PRAYER

AND ORDER HI5 RElJEASE FROM PRISON.

O —f r,K_ _| „ 47 iAt*. -U 2017

SIGNED THIS_ 2^3 day of -VWvgIv

EE_&R13DK5

WAiXACE PACK UNIT

2400 WACLACE PACK ROAD

NAUA50TA, TEXAS 77868

INMATE DECLARATION

T inUN DANEIL BROOKS, DO DECLARE UNDER ■PENALTV OF PEROURY THAT rSREriNG IB TRUe'aHD CDRRECT TGTHE BEST OF HY KHO.-

LEDGE.

SIGNED THIS

12^

□-p 201 7.

Q

ODH.NyD\^NX£X bSSSks

WALLACE PACK UNIT

2400 lilAliLlACE PACK ROAD

NAVASOTA, TEXAS 77868

certificate of service

the foregoing instrument was PAli.CED IN THE US MAIL ADDRESSED

TO .THE FOLLOIUQNG:

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

PC BSX '12308

CAPITOL STATION",

AUSTIN, TEXAS 7B711

SIGNED THIS Z3

CHRIS DANIEL

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

PO BOX 4651

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651

day of 2017

HN EL K5

•: /'\ - 3 -
CAUSE NO 33DD63-.A

EX PARTE

JOHN DANIEL BROOKS,

APPLICANT

§ IN THE 263RD DISTRICT COURT

§ OF

§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS'^

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS THAT THE APPLICANT'S MOTION FDR SUM.

MARY JUDGEMENT BE GRANTED.

SIGNED THIS DAY OF 20

JUDGE PRESIDING

- 4 -