Court Opinion

ID: 4053174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 03:08:18.679881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:22.322970
License: Public Domain

In The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals
                                               And for It's Juatices,At A0stin T0x&~

          Ma vi n Fr.::. n !: ShE. r man
          Complainant/RElator                                                         Trial Cuase#810774/810774-C
            Versus,
                                                                                       Texas Court of Crina~ A~peals
         John/Jane Doe,Actin~ Trial
                                                                                       C a s e Wr i t ti:
         Court's Judge,for the 339th                                                                      -~-----·--·-----

       District Court of Harris -
       County,Tex&s,et al:Lin6a Garcia,
       As ~"'UD'l""'Hi
                ~.1.1..:J
                          "'1·:-··lc
                          .~.  --'-~
                                      of.""'"':"'·--·!.-,·;-
                                               i~.._~.-.i. .... LGo- .
                                                  .1·-
                                                                       D~ct--
                                                                        .1.-.~
                                                                                                          ·tLte~~e.·n\\n~n   R~fi
                                                                                                           \Jlltb~bUWlbJ.YI UU~
       r j_ c t 1'. l: torr. e. y ( T .:o ;; • Be. r I . D • it 0 0 7 8 7 1 f~f~ fRO . 6        •            .      ·  .   a~llft Q
       tor- Horris county Texas ; L e s 1 i 2 He r.n.-:. . . umenL contams so_m®COURT Of CIPliMINAl Rrrgt\Y9
       dez,Assuming Deputy to Criminal p~~~-~ atar~ofp~orqualnilf                                              . UAR 09 2015
       Tria 1 , uno E:: r c h r i .s Da n i e: 1 , e t a 1 . . . &Uue ~~ 1tbe of tmagmg.                         ra
              Resj?ondsr.t ( s).

                    R~lator's Ori~inal Applicantion For A-Writ of Mandamus,Pursuc.nt
                    To S~ction 22.22l(b) of th~ T~xas Government Cod~~ ..

       Let There be un~erstandin~!as Relator com~s before                                                th~    T2xc.s Court of Crimin&l
       App£als jUstices,Res2on~2rit·(s) 6£ interst :
       R~l&tor      ic in 2ursue of his requests for a Writ of Mandamus in his in6ividual -
       Persona propria capacity statue or.Pro Se standinge,pursuant to                                                                Articl~         r,§l2-
       of the Texa~ Constitution and Article ll.07(3)(b) of the T~xa~ Code of Criruir1~l
       Procedure.DeLeon V.Districk Clerk,Lynn                                 County~l87,473,474-475(Tcx.Cr.App.2006).

       However,Mt~vi~           Frank Sh~r~an1Relator h~reir. after,brin~s                                               hi~        wai1t of the appli-
       cation for a Writ of                Man~amus        as~inst          tri~l         Court's Officers mentioned abov2,as   I

       a whole or in6ivi6ually seperatsd in intentionally using the wrong                                                                         proce6ural
       6DC suspending the the Writ of habeas                                cor~us           under      colorab~e              Constitutionbl vio-
       lation claims raisc6 within Relstor'e hsbeas                                          cor~us       p2tition-Applicaticn,along -
     w~t~ his merucrBr1dum of law c.ttach~d                          therewi~h~Inparticular with Relator's Ground-
       On€ Error of law that Presents the issue of the Trial Court art6 it's presidipg-
       jtidge's lack of           subject~~.atter              jUrisdiction over the cause number 810774 and                                               P~r-

       ti~s    of interGst.But that cause of action is founded on a fraudulent and forged
 --~    indic~me~t.Thus,the                trial judge acts fell clearly out side of it's subject-ruat-
 ~~er         ~urisdiction,-which are acts beyond th2 scope of law or } udicial authoritj-
7(and without anJkind of lawful                            ~u~gm~nt           ,commercial               pa~er~work,contra~ts,nor                          pro-
       of of ~laims,and those OtTRA VIRES ACTS cann6t ·be recojrriz~d as Vblid j~dicial~
                                                                     "
     ·act._ ;f I2.w.Hence,l:his             i~..suE:     2ub    ~uci.cc.·    _is not betona the 'I'exa.s .. Cour<:: oZ CriiLliEc.l
                                       I

~"~~AJ?fJE::ol-s    justices rE:oach ano C:ocs have oriyjill'llal                              ~lQJ(".iS~ie:'t:l«:llfi       over i.:he said cauSE:·           &

-,.~ .. RartiE.s of      int~fE;st'$0 c.s .to- cor,siaer·Relc.tor's application lor                                                   issuirt'::j oi the:.
 ~Writ of Mandc.rnus~in· [~]hiQ trim~n&l legal rnc.tte:.r,pursuant ~o Article:. S,§SA o f -
       the Texas Constitution,w:1ich ma.l<;:e thf: justices part of the .Juoicia;:-y Act,a.s too
       disputes wh i c h h a vt-.' a r i .sed o v e.~.: -. t h Eo · en f o ·-~ c "'"n-,
                                                                                 ~ '"                    · · t es ~over~Eo d b i ti12 Texas
                                                                                        ~ n ·L·- .o f. scacu

        Code of Crimin~l Prc~edure:,~an.-o~-L,hl'ch          •          .~.-rl'sc
                                                                         -          ~ -
                                                                                          ~s -~ r.~sulLL
                                                                                                       ~
                                                                                                                         r
                                                                                                               o~-or-1nc1ocnt    to a ~
                                                                                                                                     •.   '   '

~-                                                                  1 • fleaain~s-­

fo~    ]Urisdiction,there is no other provision to compell said                           Cou~t's    officer(s)
to execute its duty in               ac~bcd~nce     with the laws of the State of Texas,and ther-
byJCourt's Officers are denying Relator's clear and absolute riyhts to his rel--
ief sought.Inwhich the merits of his Constitutional violations claims are bey -
ond dispute-a clear right of-his that necessitates that .which the law plainly -
establisehes in that 6uty sworn to .by the Clerk(s) OR AND JUDGE to be perform -
ed .. Such that there is no room for the[ir] exercise of discretion,but a mandato-
ry    duty~Id.at      174-75; New York Life Ins.Co.V.Brown,B4                   F~3d    137,142,n.l0-12(5th
Cir.l996);Cf.Ruiz         V.Quat~rman,S04           F.3d 523,527(5th Cir.2007)(same),and Cf.Ex-
Parte Clear,573 S.W.2d 224,suor~(Tex.Cr.App.l978),~n ~art:
                "A di~trict Court [judge] without having jurisdiction
                iinvoked ,can-not asume another JUd~e's properly exerc-
               . ised Jurisdiction over the Case.~to: conduct a hearing-"Id.
                                                     I
Thus,it is the trial Court's JUc)ge who possess sol1e  authority/jurisdiction over-·
                                                   3.mandamus.
   this Relator/Complairiant ... Thus,in this Case at bar,the trial Court has not
   acted upbn the Relator's habeas coruus petition,and instead,has had its clee-
   r·k ( s k. or and Ms. Hernandez deviate from the correct procedure of due course of
   law,and have served the wrong and illegitimate Person-''a Linda Garcia,actiny-
   on the stationary of the District Aoorney to Harris County,of Texa6,as an ass-
   istant's capacity and said illegal           intru~er,implies       her submitted   bas~less       &
   improper-unlawful motion-brief,-was the STATE'S ORGINAL ANSWER on 2/12/15 and
   was pret}are6 by a Joshua Redelman-Intern.who neither had·prior trial Court's
   and its   ~u69e's    authorization to submit such         bo~us    and unfound   distortion~      •.
   Then those illegal invited third uarty interveQers submitted another fraudul-
   ent proposal of facts and conclusions           ~o    law.Entitled:
                    "STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLSUIONS nF LAW"-
   Signed by Linda Garica on 2/16/15 ... The fact that the legal Respondent of in-
   terest has not even been served means this is andther case of fraud upon the -
   Courts.As in reality cited in         U~s.V.Winestock,34d F~3d 200,207,& n.7(4th Cir.-
   2003),citing DUNNS         V.Cockrelli302 F.3d 491,492 &.~~1(5th Cir.2002)(Per Curiam),
   cert. denid,        u.s.        ,~23   s.ct.l208,154 L.Ed.2d 1013(2003):Boonie V.Elrod,
   706 F.Supp.6j6,638~39(N~D.rll 1989)(same points in baseless motion practice);-
   Kn6~   V.Johnson,667 F.Supp.512,515-22(W.D.Mich.l987)(same),aff'd in partinbnt-
  ~art,977    F.2d 996,104(6th Cir.l992),cert.denied,ll3 s.ct.l4,15(1993),and see-
  for realistic accurances are nation wide in,Goka V.Babbitt,862 F.2d 646 1 650-52
  (7th Cir-1998) ,Appellate Court seeking direct considerations o·f sanctions aga-
  nst Prison Officials lawyers,for such perpetrated              fraud-upbn~the      Courts[as in -
  this Case at bar]during the collateral review proceedings'~Id.And at Winestock,-
340 F.3d at 207,& n.7,supia .... Hence,this Relator states for the record that-
  he has no adequate remedy at or· in the law to             ~ursue   his re4uested relief he
  seeks-other than with [t]his application to appeal the Clerk(s) or                   JUd~e's       or-
  Hernandez's a=tions or inactions ,this vunue or             ~ihcle     satisfys his showing-
  of his lack of habeas corpus relief is grounds for man~amus to issue against -
  the Responent(s) at fault for such unconstitutional deprivation of rights to-
  be enforced.Furthermore,only the Texas Legislature has the right to suspend -
  statutory laws.i.e.Texas        Constitution~Article       I,§28.DeLeon,supra.l87 S.W.3d at
  475,& 1-:2 ..
B) The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals justices have original juirsdiction to is-
 ·sue the[ir] Writ of Mandamus in this cause under Article 5,§5A of the Texas Con-
sitution and Article 4.04 of the Texas           Co~e.   of Criminal Procedure.In this perso-
  nal   proce~ure   may comtemplate the the trial         judge,an~    it's Court's employees -
 will.have knowledge of the specific changes to be made .and the correct process
 of service to order,and in the manner of making them,which is evidently legal-
 and proper under the law.Becuase the proper and              le~al   procedures under Article-
 11.07,§ 3(b)(TCCP)-that requires services by the trial Court on the Warden of-
 the Mark Wavne Michael Prison Unit,in Anderson County Texas,as a                   man~atorv    -
                                           4.mannamus.
 command of law.and arty bther procedure applied was1as is1the result of purpor-
 ted illegal irregularities1thus.is v6id ab irtitio ... Also1the fact that ihe tri-
 al ·cour_t and its Officer ( s) HAD CHANGED ·the writ of habeas corpus to an Apt)ell-
 eartt's direct'appeal brief1with out JUrisdiction it/they exceeded his/her autho-
 rity(·s) by unilaterally deciding to change         Rel~tor's    want of habeas     corp~s    stat-
 us~and    thus1codifed the unnecessary result of suspending.the writ of haheas cor-:
 pus. GUERRA .Wl;ARZA 1987 S .W. 2d 593 1 SUf.Jra·( Tex. Cr. ApJ? .1999 );Cf. The Texas Fair Defe-
 nse:   act~eff.l/l/2002(SB   11§8)1§1 of SB 71id.
C) Linda Garcia.as assuming to be the STATEiAND throuqh Joshua Redelman,has comffi-
 tted constructive misstatement of ~acts and law in her/th~ir b~seless brief.In-
 that Relatoe claimed more thari just a void sentence1but void trial Court's and
 it's Judge's Judgment is void1for ruling upon a fraudulent indictment                 un~er    cau-
 se nu:8107741and Relator is not merely allegi~g ineffective assitance of counsel
but Constructive. breach of fiduciary duty-by         hi~    State Trial Court Appointed def-
 sel Counsel.In fact Garcia has falsified facts that Relator has not                 raised1an~

has   intercept~d~conficated~and     is holding hostaged Relator's actual          plea~ings     of
 the trial Court's and it's jtidge's judgment is void ab initio1for factually pro-
ceeding to trial when its jurisdictional defect prbhibited that              Court/jud~e       from-
 entering any type of judgment.Muchless give authority to falsely imprison an in-
nocent Man.as this Relator sub       JUdice.Plus~these       issues stated by Relator have -
never been brought in an appeal J?reviously.Apart from Relator's issues out forth-
in his .application and memorandum haviny claims that are not             waivabl~    of forfiet-
ed bv procedure errors.As they       ar~   JUrisdiction and Constitutional issues prese-
ed in   ~cod   faith.Consequently1Article ll.071§41does not bar Relator/Applicant                ~

from presenting his ApJ?lication for a Writ of habeas corpus1ad teStificandum1and
 having it heard and acted on by both trial Court1]udge and this Appellate Court-
's    Justices1because those issues are ~hallenges to the trial. Court's JUtidiction.
 AS such1it falls within the exceptions for          subs~quent    application of a writ of -
habeas corpus .'rherefore 1 all the false statements of Ms ~Garcia, need to be .• s,trickeil
from the record1hecause her amicus curiae intervention is illegal1and Relator's
application for a writ of ·habeas cbrpus        submitte~     four weeks ago1it's memorandum
attache~    therEwith.be incoroorated by reference as set. out entirelv herein conn-
ection with this mandamus application1aaainst          an~    upon the trial Court's Judge -
or an~ its clerk(s) OR AND M~.H~rnandez1for constructively denyinq Relator his
riahts to have his 0rit of habeas carouse acted uuon the true issues he uresented.
And thus.a clear abuse· of authoritv1which is a manifestly 'a manistrial'act in-
nature.State ex.rel.Eidson V.Edwards,793 S.W.7d 117 &             n.6-7infra(~ex.Ct.App.l990).

Wher~fore  premises duly considere~,this Relator prays that this Appellate Court
JUstices arartt this application and issue a writ of m~ndamus directing the said
trial Cburt's ]udqe or its Clerk or and Leslie Hernandez1the respondent(s) in -
this Case sub judice to serve the leqal Rescondent,Holding Relator under unlawful
 and illegal imprisonment.according to their correct Court procedures within 20-
aa,•s of en~rv of this sai6 Cout'R Or~er,as to confirm the trial Court's judge's
                                           S.manaamus.
 oral ruling, 'if not documented on paperJand as to have establish~d Service up··
 on Eddie D. Baker (or his dis iy ee/ suce(:;;sor) , a no thus, serv i c~::: of ·process executed-
 on th~· &ctual Pbrson,individual R86~odent of int~r8st,as t~~ Stat~'s ~ovenment's
 Official or Ayent· in .the rnanntr proscribeCi by afroementioned State of Texas law
 for se~vin0 s summons and or iik~ process on that Respondent(s)~And any othe~

m::l ~:f e~::~l::i:o ::~d t~:p:~~:::. ~o~:t ~:s ~~::~cos de om· anD in which ~~~l;: J
                                                                           fit,

   Executec on...,.   ;3d:: his Ci~~ / o~: /l&..""Tch   2.015, R":::S_t?e:ctfull1'" SubmiL:t0o   ~~~~~~ifN
             ,Relator under a           TDCJ~s   account numb0r00876556,dn inhabitant ofthe Mark
 Wayne Michael Unit,2664           F.M.2054,Tennesse~       Colony Texas 75886-Located in AndErson
  County of the State of Texas- ...
                          Affidavit of Certificate of SERVICE
   L/ia..li/1£;/       >}c//)lc.t/L Mavin Frank Sherman,do certify and affirm under penalty
 of oer)urv that all I have stated is True,correct,accurate and complete in the
  above and entitled,and cause.numb~~[810774],and these same st~ted tacts were
  sent too the trial Conr s R.o~odents, on
                                   t'                  'll~ da7 of11W<12~l5,                nursuan!!:
  Texas Civil Practice & Remedy             Code,§l~2.001-132.0n3 . . . . .~~ ~~~
                                                                             Relator-PrVo Se caoacitv
                                                                                   . 3/3         ;;Je /   ~~-

                                                    6.mandamus.