Court Opinion

ID: 4049020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 00:50:11.003146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:22.854481
License: Public Domain

. I`O WK ,AlQ£L A(`f/&`\'C ' ' - `
()|UZK Qau/m*¢£C/?/\M1~AL~A;€@;ML§
310(&0/1& COu/LT' {SL_AQ

-`610111114"`# sr"\Z/m»
', 10 0 éq)< 1330% k
`Au&“\`1w .' T'Q.M\S 7%'711»- 9308’

 

E_______@M'. (?Q;(:<)\~QL$[G\§[D\).QZ» 1573%;111»!

 

 

 

1100 1_:/1/1 msc '. REcE_\_vED_\N
“ < YAUEQAMQL \/01§@113; 19 9§»€12»0¢383-¢051'.
. qu§' C/l- ULQYS§~`l/JQ` OlolTQC/`\"'lfA/U§ 10 \(&LAL CQ1MF§ GQCI~€/E
P€@ T:@< 14 1139 1@/¢‘111, /11113 73 <1 (3)<1>(31§01\

 

:DFJ+Q `/I/W£ /ArC/_")R 1a j

 

@Q~€-C"lA/Q§ S;{; \HI-€A§Q_ `p\A/`¢\ -Q/L/(`lmS-Q,) O/\)€

_Cop_ §L,_£A¢;,qu_ga_/\,A_\{__Q;bf)"€_u M_ 10_ Th»L:`/.>. mng/gaz§_QLQ/¢_ww
ama %331331_7 31 guns QQQF.VM{ ev AWQMM- n 1113

QP/l\\§m) w…r o/u &/10/020/61 1516/cm 1101/113 10 we (Q)wrcrr:“>
0JCAO~QL1CAT10/o O\AJ file

. . ?|~mse 103 311 1<1~1! 143 n was/233 Th@se we…w

 

. @BU'QCITUN§ A~/l&""` iiM~eL\// ~Qc\~<>.¢l. vD€@ T|/\.Q \@u|<§ _
`W\~€ UZ¢c/UAL dlocwa~@~‘S howe MQ,¢_L§L¢IU_£ M_ 0 Q£QQ{_@¢,QIQ
C()ufM Q\€l/LI(, oil w ®u~`r\/' '» Q;M/ `I`c) ilw §A'\J AA/`l?/Nlc) -
O:H;c§e <§'_l'ka FDoBT\Qcc/T A°FOH/u£\l. \
U/U‘Q)DTJJUOCPCL>/ `F\w `FQ_\SOA) MLuL./Z,oom l,\)'/m>/ze l`, AM
laura 1/\0;& {Z€Qzun:/ M\\\MA~A\J M\z mci MCQ§§§§)Q¢,AJ

& LJ(/,\TT»€/\J CaMFLa¢A/T' TL~L_\§S¢B¢§ Q;LICCLW£_A__ 17€/2£4¢0_1\£,;)~{_

 

 

(,g `(`~€/U CLC\~/ 609 L\M\lc/J`\_UJU) 80 :I: l//Lcucl,.,`_ 17_ l~LQ.(l AA/)
KMAAL>|&_`TQQOALI_L{LSS»LL);CA/_Qlo_ oy\[¢_Q££gc_Q__

AQH_;L¢J_§___§£_M i\M-€k'\/ SULe/\/\a &QtQ/U
€>&va,\¢l._k\; /[QA§_.Q collm,\) M~Q \o T`l/v<\~l( Y@L) ¢/\J'_
dAu/WC~§L won \/m)/L \<<~A Ca~g)de/ov) 1010

 

 

QQ.S?QC’~(:Q n v Sul:m .`/-r-e d

_QV/¢UJ M//?‘@,;¢,~;SD

'?cr@:w.c \[Q,§owz ‘ Ap,vh¢;~r"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$.1995“§1~06834¢2

la was cover 06
cnxmx§nc AP¥§§LS,

wynn ' §
§
§ ' Ausrxm, TEXAS
§

RAFAEL vasquez

APPLIGABT° 8 BBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL CGURT’S GRBER
DISMISSING TRE HRIT OF HABEAS CCRBUUB

16 THE HBNQRABLE JBUT!CES'OF SAIB COURT¢ Greee£ngs.
Gom§s now,'RaEa§l Vasque§, App11cant hereim, to timely 611§

chi§, his 6b3e§aion§ to the 861§1 Cout£ia Ord§r dateddl?§bru§uyv
23, 2015; Said order 1§ postmarked 3/5/2015, and was te§eived
d by eve Appn¢§ne on 3/10/2015. rm, §§ am can (10) days co
tionly £11§ his objections per T§K.R§App; Pro§., Rule 73.4(b).2)
(Idse, 2616). Se§ al§o, Hogattn v. §§§§gés? 6.5.266, 161 L.Edl
21 245, ms ',s.c .237§ (1933)(;»¢1@°§ munoz wl§>.
.=.~,,§l ` ` `" l my ms cASE l 5 h W§&::r j

§§ elowovember 36, 1995, eha A\§li§ant was §§nt§n§ed t§ life “"H'"“
in TDCJ-ID and E1n§d §16, 666 §§11§§1§3 a verdict §§ guilty to
the charg§ of aggravaeed annuailaaedulu of a §h11d after § jury
tr1a1. Appl1§§nt's app§al was filed on May 6, 1996» 661 judgm§nt
was affirmad.i¢¢§ 64-95‘0652¢06&& OA»QSUODSS*CR» Applioan¥ s
£1rsc wr1¢ ¢ppll»a&£lonsought an ouc»§£-t1m§ §ppor£uni&y to 1116

 

   

§ Pec£eion for viscr§tiona!y 8661§§, only, §nd was denied w1ehouc
written order on Ju1y 26, 6666 (WR»32,180~06). 6h§ 1n§t§nt §ppli§§§ion

1a h1§ a§§on§ zequ§st»4 _ , , ~ 2» :»~ v
' " " ' " ALLBGATLQNS,QF *rs fUAPPLICMT ,~. § ~

 

 

of counsel on ipp¢ll~ ¢§i`§ 4 6

 

' _;1.'~ *`

   

2» In-Ground ¢wo, Applicanc alleges he was denied the right oE
ee¢!lrepreseneatiou on appeal. n

3. fn quund Three, Applicanz alleges the Trial Cou:t'e failure

co remain fair and impartial denied Applic¢it’s_due process righ¢a.

THE TRIAL CQURT'S FlHDINGS OF FACT AND CONGLUSIONS QF Lth
1. Appl&eant‘s-£isae writ applial&on was denied without a written
order on the Trial Court'a §ind&ngs with iaiu. ](uithduc) a hearing
an July 28, 2004(WR»32,180-06)(heacing, if any, on affidavit
only)¢ '
2. Th&s Courc dogs non have jurisdiction.to consider the merits
4of a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus “unless
the application coniline sui£ioieu& speei£tc faces establishing
that the current claims and taaues have nat bean and could nut
have been presently previously in an original applicaztou." Tex¢
Code Grim. proe. art. 11.0?, §h(a)(i)($esc 2016)»
3. Thia Coucc finds than Applicane is pra¢ludad from bringing
this aeuond wriz.applicalion based upon the subsequent writ pgoviaton
in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07, §é(a)(l)(Veunon 2014)» Thé' l
` current claims and issues edilhltwete or could have been presented
in Appl£aanz's first urie application. _
6. Baaed on the foregoing findings of face and conclusions of
law, 1a is hereby recommended that this alplicattou be diemissed.

APPLICANT'$ OBJE§IICNS
1. The T:£ald€€ure has informed this Honurable Cour; that eha

Applieant's first writ application was deniel¢ and nhus, said

2.

¢ninl enunt looks juzlodlotlon over hhs instant opplloonlon.

The Seaco has made anononoucrlng allogoelon.

As looloatod abovo, one "£lron nolo apolloatlon,“ sought
only on ouoso£~zlmo opportunity to file ?DR. Tnus, neither eha fl
£lrst nor cho instant opplloatlono sought no challenge the do
underlying oonvlotlono or oonoonoo. Aoooodlngly, cho Tolaldcouot‘s
sua sponte dismissal was improvident. _

fn En¥?areo Evnnn 966 S¢U.Zé 663(?6$¢€¢1@.&99. 1998), bhlo.
Honorablo Gourt held!

"Boch the di£lnlolon of ’oonvlcelon' and_€hlo dwuuo’o
case low negandi' wrlt applications le a us to cho
oonoluoion that ¢~e ptooedurnl bow o£ §o Ton. G.G.P¢
arn. ll.O?] lo llmlt¢d lo l\stonnea la which the initial
‘ application raises-claims regarding one validity of the
proseouelon or judgment of guilt. lt does not appl to
ololmo regarding other matters {wblon have nothing; top
do wien the oonvlotlon ochor than shaving she noon fouum
on £aoc~flndlng.»¢As o nooult, [Evons'o] application la
nol¢barred by aeonlln 4 because Appllcant‘s pilot
o pllnoelon did noe involve a claim ovl¢h¢hhollengee the
'1$ 67 \ggn“az ¢.l|¢o¢e within the meaning of Acelolo
’»¢»»

See also, E§l§§te¢nlwlinnon 958 S.W.Zd 198(Tex.€nim,hpp¢
1997)(Tho norm "oonvlonlon,? encompasses judgmono and nonsense
only).

Hore, one instant application clearly essence shots
"Applloane-hoo filed a W:ls of Habooo Conpuo smoking on
out-o£vclmo appeal opportunity bulova eha loans court of Cnlminal
Appeaw._ warsaw seem 39 s.u.aa` xae, xao(Mpp.~--re;uwnn
2002, no penn wages mussz aaa s.w.zo 291, 293, n.`z('rm‘pp.-»
~El Paso, 1996, no peo). ?hlo’l¢tnoe an attack upon eha und¢o»
lying oonvloslon. Seo, tn no coin 13? F»Bd 234, 235(5oh clr.

` 1998)..." _

 

3»

!'."

Ancnxdingly, Applinann'objensn nn ann Tzial Cnurt's having
'ggg agente and improvidently dismissing the instant application
wichu!ltnnnsidering the merits 06 she_clains limdi!n.

?RAYEH
Applicanc prays this Bonorabln Court REHAND the instant
application bank to the Trial Couct Eor full consideratinn o€

the merits o£ his nllegntions.

:".) /. »~
""_ .¢' cgl/f ~l"

.¢
ii
14 »` 7“

aggpe¢z£ul; snbmseced
fm ij 51 f F': ',»f:»»*"""""`°""'°"“'~\.’ ` ‘,,.\-
*"»~ / ' r’-P':é'c;'.`."‘/ ff 4- ~

   

   
 

   

UNSWOBN DECLARATIQH

...f'A }j/f‘_"» g

uez, TDCJ 9 738216, an inmate confined in the Rameey`
in:Brazoria Countm. Texns, event under penalty

of perjury, chen the zone oing inns¢nmenn is anne and contend
insofar as I understand t e applicable law to require.

I, Rn£ael vnn§
1 unit lennen

szeegeee chip x;cn day as nar¢n, 2015.
l; .f' ' ;'b _,. "~"`;

. < 4 / .
_, 1 ,.....,...,.....~..).,.4
¢/f Aw,.@¢»§f,,w,» ,-\
:, ., ,» y » _ .» v 1 -,'

  
  

     

I, Ra£eei Vasquen, TDCJ &?38216» mar and i££irm chen a true

and nomplete nopy o£ this instrument was delivered by £i:nt class

nnil, posenge prepaid, nn the nffien of the Bana: Gnunty Dinnrio¢

A¢uo:nny, Er. Ninholas "Bicn" Launnd, at the Paul Eiizonlo’¥bner
~ .»San g“nin, Texas 78295£¥€€\1€€5 on the im

   
  
 
  

  

 

 

!? ~@ v N\.EGZ
`P §4@:°¥!’, aj “'F. _z'/` l
K.¢V{; xi »' 5”1?%{,@ ¢AH.` ,.f§
' n an* "' J . T
a ,¢” _, '¢',‘L,»;',,,¢

4.