Honorable Sharon Keller

Presiding Judge

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

201 W. 14th, Room 106

Austin, TX 78701

m tex-d

Samuel Wade Dooley

TDCJ No. 1075237

Hughes Unit

Rt. 2, Box 4400

Gatesville, TX 76597

ilea i

APRWllfi

April 21, .2015 ^b

AD6MC0stt,Cferk

RE: ADMINISTRATIVE CONCERN/ MISFILED DOCUMENTS

Dear_. Pxesiding J.udge Keller: . ,

Thank you for taking a moment 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, I mailed this

Court a Motion to Hold Writ Application in Abeyance for Applicant

to Respond to New Allegations of Laches, along with 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,

leaving one with the impression that the Court inadvertently

failed to consider the motion (and objections) prior to denying

relief in my case. Could you please review the Court's internal

file in my case and determine if the Court (ex. staff attorney)

considered all the documents (motion & objections) that were

filed as a single miscellaneous document on Feburary 24, 2015.

If the Court did consider all the documents, than at this

time I guess there is nothing else for me to do. However, if

the Court inadvertently failed to consider all those documents,
could you please take corrective action.

With your leave, I will try and offer you a little further

explanation; however, because relief was denied without a written

order I'm left with speculations. 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 PDR being

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 a ruling 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 PDR was 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, would entitle me to relief. Yet, if the Court

stood by the due date in its internal docket sheet for when my

PDR was due, then I had a right to file my PRO SE motion for rehearing

ands;the court of appeals had a duty to notify me when that court

denied the motion for reheharing. Not to mention all the other

actions I plead in my writ application that the court of appeals

did to mislead me about the deadline to file my PDR. Could it
seriously not be a denial of due process if the court of appeals

failed to notify me when that court denied my motion for rehearing

(and if I did not otherwise learn of thatfdenial in a timely

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 was defied because of laches. And,

if the motion for a hearing 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 my part, this is why I have

asked for a moment of your time to review the Court's internal

file in my case. If there was a problem, 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