Honorable Sharon Keller Presiding Judge Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 201 W. 14th, Room 106 Austin, TX 78701 

# mtex-d

Samuel Wade Dooley TDCJ No. 1075237 Hughes Unit Rt. 2, Box 4400 Gatesville, TX 76597
ileai 

### APRWllfi April 21, .2015 ^b 

### AD6MC0stt,Cferk RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERN/ MISFILED DOCUMENTS Dear_.Pxesiding J.udge Keller:
. , 

### Thankyou for taking amoment of your time to consider an administrative issue. My concern is that the Clerk improperly filed some documents. In my case, WR-82,958-01, Imailed this Court aMotion to Hold Writ Application in Abeyance for Applicant 

### toRespond toNewAllegations of Laches, alongwith some objections to the trial court's Order (Findings)which recommended that relief be denied. However, the Clerk filed those documents all as one miscellaneous document on Feburary 24, 2015. Because those documents were not individually filed, the 

### Court never Issued an independent ruling on the motion. Thus, 

### leavingonewith the impression that the Court inadvertently failed to consider the motion (andobjections) prior to denying 

### relief inmycase. Couldyouplease review the Court's internal 

### file inmycaseanddetermine if theCourt (ex. staff attorney) considered all the documents (motion & objections) that were 

### filed as asinglemiscellaneous document onFeburary 24, 2015. If the Court did consider all thedocuments, than at this 

### time Iguess there is nothing else forme todo. However, if the Court inadvertently failed to consider all those documents,could you please take corrective action. 

### With your leave, Iwill try and offer you a little further 

### explanation; however, because relief was deniedwithout awritten order I'm left withspeculations. Nevertheless, because the Court's notice did not mention the trial court's findings, it would appear that the Court rejected those findings. And, by implication, the Court held to the due date for my PDRbeing 

### October 7, 2002, as established by this Court's internal docket sheet in No. PD-1250-02. See, Applicant's Exibit "K" (11/14/2002

- Remarks). That conclusion served to enhance my concern about the apparent inadvertent failure for there to be aruling on the motion to abate for. an opportunity to present evidence-on the new allegations of laches. It enhanced my concerns because when this Court altered and expanded its laches doctrine, it was pretty clear that applicants 

### would be provided an opportunity to present evidence on new allegations raised about laches. Yet, that did not happen in my case. Leading to a" conclusion that the Court did NOT deny relief because of laches in my case. And, if the Court had also rejected the trial court's finding about when my PDRwas due

-- it would really only leave one reason why relief could have been denied. 

### The only reason left could be that I failed to state/'ai.claim, that'.vdf true, wouldentitle me to relief. Yet, if the Court stood by the due date in its internal docket sheet for when my 

### PDR was due, then Ihad aright to file my PRO SE motion for rehearing ands;the court of appeals had aduty to notify me when that court denied the motion for reheharing. Not to mention all the other actions Iplead inmy writ application that the court of appeals did to mislead me about the deadline to file myPDR. Could itseriously not be a denial of due process if the court of appeals failed to notify mewhen that court denied my motion for rehearing 

### (and if Ididnot otherwise learn of thatfdenial in atimely manner).AND if the court of appeals otherwise misled me about the true deadline to file my PDR? So, if that is a claim that, if true, would entitle me to relief, it leaves me wondering about the apparant Inadvertent failure for there to be a separate ruling on the motion for a 

### hearing on laches because that motion was not individually filed by the Clerk. Because if I plead an acceptable claim then the implication is that relief wasdefiedbecause of laches. And, if the motion for ahearing on laches was inadvertently overlooked, it is also possible that the objections filed on February 24, 2015

were also overlooked. 7:.:.:- :.: While it is some speculation on mypart, this is why Ihave asked for a moment of your time to review the Court's internal 

### file inmy case. If there was aproblem,due to the Clerk'safiling everything as one miscellaneous document please, please take

corrective action. Again, thank YOU for your time and consideration. Respectfully,

espectruily, / / Samuel Wade Dooley Applicant PRO SE SWD/swd cc: FILE