Court Opinion

ID: 4067147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 23:05:17.412134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:03:05.665700
License: Public Domain

pq_,j:c> 2 03

. `S"

naca§ 8-19~15

To:.Lisa David _ - 4 _
District Clerk 4 "
P»O. BCX 24 1' ‘ii
§éorgetown Téx§s 78627

Eromz Mr. Saotos Loa ¢438869
String fellow 1
112OO_FM 6§5 §§
Rosharon Tex§s_77583`
2 Re;_Reqdest for EY§§gn§iary heatihg”@m@bj§§giona to Court’s Otder.
71D'ear Clérk, _ `;. - ; ;, v 22

Pleaae file this motion with thé 277th Distriet edourt.
_ Thank you for your time.

…'"'.-'{.. . "`§‘,.~ »;E_l~¢.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVI€E

~,I hereby certify that a copy of this document has been forwarded

h"§j¥°‘

2:;:2Court lof Criminal Appeals

_P O. BOX 12308 * j , § , if
`Austin Texas 78711 ` 112

on 8-19-15
c l' 9 . uNSwORN DEGLARATION

I hereby declare und§r penalty of perjury that th§efor§goan
and §ttachéd documemta are true and correct.

2 éig§h§ed;!@l1?;15[::;_ ,§?W,§n: f meespeetfql y submitted,

2_ j5214¢___7325 lez
Mir. S§ntos Loa #53885§

REcEi'\`iED m
COURT OF CR|MINAL APPEALS

f - l
1\‘, ` .
,~\MQ§§,UW¢Y.¢NJ¢,W,:_~MWM,!»MMQ4NHWV….T
a `. ' l
1 1
) ( ‘

 

 

Abe:Acosta,Clen<

 

 

NQ_.' oe--zsz-ke" x

Ex PARTE¢ ' _ ", § IN THE 277ch Joo;cIAL
SANTOS BOA § DISTRICT GOU§T-OF
` 2 § wlLLIAMsoN couNTY, TEXAS
REQUEST E`OR EVIDENTIARY HEARING § GBJECTIONS §O COURT"SS ORBER
To= The\Honorable Court now comes Petiomanersin this cause, and
_would show the Court the following in support o§ Petitioner' s
motion_being granteda 4 2
1. Defense/Appeal Counse1 has never responded to Court' s order.
Petitooncr filed moti.on seeking contempt order against said

Appeal attornay. Gourt has yet to rule on that motion, or
force Appcal attorney to onswer:

'§_ 2. Ihe ludiciary (Coutt of Criminal Appeals) does not maké law

in Texas. Law is made by the §`exas legislature, Unde1 the
Texas Code of Crimina! Procedure art. 11. 07 there is no timeS
limit set on filing an 11.07 Haboas Gorpus. There the SLate
4argument about laches applying to an 11. 07 is a frivolous '
argument. Had the Texas legislature wanted laches to apply
it woulé habwoenactod suEh ocction under article 11. 07 TCCP.
For this reason movant objects to the Court' s order.

3. For the judiciary to encroach on the '£exas Legiklatute' s
law making dutio.s, by applying the doctrine of laches with
statutory authority is itsclf a constitutional violation,

4. For the Court to refuse to make Appeal Attuoonp answer the
' allegations set forth, is to cnsure that petitioner does
not develops evidence to support his olaim.

-5. The art 11. 07 requires the Petit¢loer to only to file for an

' an out of time appeal if appeal h§as been den:led. All othot
criteria the Court is attempting to force an applicant is a
encroakhment on the §Hgislature.

CONCLUSIGN
For the above reasons Potitionor objects to the Court' s order.

/ » Rcs poctful}.y submittod;
l
. §m”f“w” /;M
Mr. §antos Loa #438869
Strjngfollow
; ' y 1200 FM 655
voo,£ile 2 __ 4 _ Rosharon Texas 77583`M

!,".

¢¢/>{=5.:`1`.!;`. Y: -
, l o

 

\_\~_ .¢
, \