HAS ANY REASON
TO BELIEVE PERRET VARIED FROM THAT PRACTICE IN THIS PARTICUs
LAR CASE.
4. PLEASE STATE WHETHER PERRET BELIEVES THE APPLICANT'S PLEA
WAS KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY ENTERED.
5. PLEASE STATE WHETHER PERRET BELIEVED THE APPLICANT'S GUILTY
PLEA TO BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE.
6. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE STATE NEVER RECOVERED THE
DEADLY WEAPON IN THE: INSTANT CAUSE. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE
ABSENCE OF THE DEADLY WEAPON WOULD HAVE AFFECTED TRIAL AND
WHETHER PERRET DISCUSSED THAT INFORMATION WITH APPLICANT.
PLEASE ALSO EXPLAIN WHETHER PERRET BELIEVED THE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE DEADLY WEAPON COULD BE EXCLUDED, IN LIGHT OF NO
DEADLY WEAPON BEING RECOVERED.
FURTHERMORE, THE COURT DID ADOPT THE STATE'S PROPOSED ORDER
FOR FILING AFFIDAVIT IN CAUSE NUMBER 1087158sB. SUSAN JACOBSEN
PERRET WAS ORDERED TO FILE HER AFFIDAVIT WITH THE POSTsCONVICTs
ION WRITS DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE, 1201 FRANKLIN
THIRD FLOOR, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002, WITHIN SIXTY(60) DAYS OF
THE SIGNING OF THIS ORDER, WHICH WAS SIGNED AT 12:20 P.M.
ON JUNE 19, 2013 BY JUDGE FRANK C. PRICE, PRESIDING JUDGE AT
THAT TIME.
HEREBY THE COURT IS DAYS DELINQUENT IN NOT
ANSWERING THE ORDER IT ISSUED, FROM THE SIGNING OF THIS DOCUMs
ENT. MOREOVER RELATOR HAS A CLEAR RIGHT TO HAVE ISSUES HEARD
AND STAND BEFORE A MAGISTRATE TO RESOLVE SAID ISSUES PURSUANT
TO ARTICLE 11.07 3 (b) (c) (d) OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE. THUS RELATOR HAS A CLEAR RIGHT TO HAVE ISSUES RESOLs
VED.
THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS HAS HELD THAT MANDAMUS RELIEF
MAY BE GRANTED IF THE RELATOR SHOWS: (1) THAT THE ACT SOUGHT
TO BE COMEELLED IS PURELY MINSTERAL, AND (2) THAT THERE IS NO
ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW. WINTERS V. PRESIDING JUDGE, 118 S.W.
3d 14 7 ;:(rEX. CRIM. APP. 2003), EX PARTE YBARRAY 149 S.W. 3d
147 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 2004).
IN CONCLUSION RELATOR HAS SHOWN s(1) TffAT IT IS THE MINSTERAL
DUTY OF THE JUDGE OF THE 179~, DISTRICT COURT, HARRIS COUNTY,
TEXAS TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OR SEEK ANOTHER REMEDY, AND (2) THAT
THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY~ AT LAW TO APPEAL. RELATOR HAS FURs
THER SHOWN THAT IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMNINE THE RELATOR'S
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE CLAIM AND INVOLUNTARY PLEA CLAIM, PURSUs
ANT TO ARTICLE 11.07 3(b) (c) (d) OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE.
THUS RELATOR HAS MET ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF.
IN CONCLUSION RELATOR RESPECTFULY REQUEST THAT THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS GRANTS HIS APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,
AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT, JUDGE KRISTIN M. GULNEY, TO UPHOLD
HIS ADOPTED ORDER OF STATES AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER ISSUES AND
FOR,i~ FILING AFFIDAVIT, OR .. :LET RELATOR APPEAR BEFORE MAGISTRATE
AS REQUIRED BY'. LAW UNDER ARTICLE 11.07 TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISE CONSIDERED, RELATOR RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT
THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS GRANTS THIS FOREGOING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS::.AND THERE AFTER DIRECT THE RESPONs
DENT JUDGE KRISTIN M. GULNEY TO UPHOLD HIS ORDER OF STATES AMEs