Court Opinion

ID: 4049942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 01:07:30.634224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:50.039618
License: Public Domain

JLlofUAcdzlk, clerk         -Og.lin?^

                                 RECEIVED IN
                            COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

                                  FEB 06 2015

               '                AtoeS Acosfta, Cteirk •

as.stW* Ur«YMas*/^^t^^r^Pe***'** *W

                      I'MUMlUyXr
HOW . Joe/g^ToAA £U\lj&- ^*i
                                    C -«-

               UNDER ART.11.05 T.C.C.P.,ANY JUDGE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
           APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;AS UNDER
           ART.11.07 §5,THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS "MAY DIRECT THAT THE
           CAUSE BE CHECKED AND HEARD AS THOUGH CRIMINALLY PRESENTED TO SAID
           COURT OR    AS   AN   APPEAL".
               YOUR HONOR HOLDS EXCLUSIVE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO REVIEW
           MATTERS RELATIVE TO VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS.           IN
           EFFECT,ART.11.04 STATES THAT "EVERY PROVISION RELATING TO THE WRIT            .
           OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL BE MOST FAVORABLY CONSTRUED IN ORDER TO GIVE
           EFFECT TO THE REMEDY,AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON SEEKING
           RELIEF UNDER IT". WITH THIS SAID, I RESPECTFULLY IMPLORE YOUR DISERe
           ETIONAL AUTHORITY TO REVIEW,AND INTERVINE AS APPROPRIATE TO THE FOL
           LOWING: (QUOTING RULE 79.2(a) A MOTION FOR REHEARING AN ORDER THAT
           DEiSJIES HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ,ART,
           11=07 OR 11.071,MAY NOT BE FILED. THE COURT ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE
           RECONSIDER THE CASE .-AMENDED JULY 12 ,2011 ,EFF. SEPT. 11 ,2011-T .2010 WL 546676 (Tex. App.—El Paso, Feb. 17, 2010, pet. dism'd).
          2See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holdingprose pleadings to less stringent
   standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers); see also Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir.
   1985) (explaining that liberal construction allows for active interpretation of&pro se pleading to
   encompass any allegation which may raise aclaim for federal relief).
                                              ATTACHMENT (A)