Court Opinion

ID: 4054756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 05:49:17.338171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:27.213079
License: Public Domain

\@,MO*W

Aprii 20, 2015

Abel Acosta,.Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals

Post Office Box 12308/ Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-2308 -

Ref: _Ex §arte Moncier, WRIT NO. WR-l9-590-O4
Sub: Filing of Pleadings
Dear Mr. Acosta:

Please Find enclosed herewith the original copies of my -

l) MOTION FOR TOLLING OF THE RULES

2) "OBJECTIONS" TO NON-SERVICE OF TRIAL COURT'S "RECQMMENDATION"

3) `TRAVERSE TO RESPONSE TO SUBSEQUENT HABEAS APPLICATION

Please File the same in the Papers of the aforesaid WRIT.

vPlease Forward the same to the Court's Attention.

Please Note my MOTION FOR TOLLING, as I have NO way to Serve
you with other "originals" of my said Pleadings.

Thank youa

Sincerely yours,

Daniel Dewayne Moncier
#388080 Allred Unit
2101 FM 369 N -
Iowa Park, TX 76367-6568

PostscriEt:

_ l Please also Find enclosed herewith the original copy of my
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to the Collin County district Attorney's
Office; I Apologize for forgetting to Enter that hereonabove.

Ab@§§§w§:a€:¢§§w

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

at-Austin, Texas

HABEAS CORPUS CASE
NO. WR-l9,590#O4

EX PARTE

DANIEL DEWAYNE MONCIER,v

TRIAL COURT CASE
NO. Wl99-O92R-84-HC4

¢0»¢0)¢0-)<0)¢0>'

APPLICANT.

APPLICANT'S "OBJECTIONS" ,
TO NON-SERVICE BY TRIAL COURT'S CLERK'S
NON-SERVICE OF JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
IN TRIAL COURT HABEAS "HEARING"
UPON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF`THE SAID COURT:

COMES NOW laniel Dewavne Moncier, Aoolicant for the Writ of
Habeas Corpus, pro se, in the above~Styled and numbered Habeas Ac-
tion, who Presents this Instrument as his "OBJECTIONSf upon the'
NON-SERVICE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION/ETC. in the ACtiOn-
below upon Applicant's APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUSl Moves
this Honorable Court to ORDER the Said Court Clerk to SERVE him a
copy of such RECOMMENDATION/ETC., and Shows this Court`as follows:

l

l. When Applicant first Forwarded his APPLICATION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS to the Clerk Of the Trial,COurt, THAT CLERK "lOSt"
his said Application.

2. Upon Applicant's Letter of Inquiry, that Clerk Responded
by Informing him that his APPLICATION could N®T be Found, and Gave

him a Separate Name (Moncica) FOR HER SEARCH FOR THE APPLICATION.

4 Paqe l
"Obiections" to Non-Service of Trial Court's "Recommendation"

34 Subsequentlyi Applicant“Wrote to the Trial Judge-and Re-
quested that she ORDER the Clerk to Search for his APPLICATION:
that Clerk Made NO Response to his Request/the Judqe's ORDER/ETC.

4.' Howeverg on February 24, 2015, the Collin¥County,$Texas;

 

District Attorney's Office Mailed Applicant a copy ct its RESPONSE
TO SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

5. Thereafter, on March 31, 2015, THIS COURT'§ Cler¥ Mailed
,Applicant a Postcard} Advising him that his APPLICATION'was FIbED
OF RECORD on March 26, 2015a

3 II=

‘ \

 

6§ Since Rebruary 24, 2015;`Applicant has Received NO Cor-
respondence from the Trialbbourtls"blerki-).H
T7.‘ In particular,»she?has NOT SEUED Applicant with a copy
of the-Trial Judge s Recommendaqtion/ORDER,‘NOR has she/anyone '
else Informed,him:ofrWHAT WAS DECIDED at the Trial Court Level up-
On his Said APPLICATION.
'°III
8.,~»Accordingly¢ Applicant "GBJECTS" to his NOT Being.Served
with or otherwise Being Notified of that Decision/Recommendation.
9. :.WHEREFORE¢'ALL PREMISES\§QNSIDERED,`Applicant PRAYS that
this Honorable Court will ORDER that he BE so SERVED/Notified of
her Said Decision/ORDER/Recommendation.
10;, SIGNED on this the¢ QSIH-, Day of April, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

i~;zu; iv ' é*JzLM~P/{ fla?<¢~¢#\
Daniel Dewayne Moncier
‘#388080 . hAllred.u.nit'
2101 FM 369 N
Iowa Park,'TX. 76367¢6568

_ Page 2
YObjections" to Non-Service of Trial Court's "Recommendation"

'JIN`THE=coURTLoF`cRIMINAr-APPEALS`

'at‘Austinf Texas`

HABEAS CORPUS CASE
No. wR-19,590-04

EX PARTE

DANIEL”DEWAYNE~MoNciER,

TRIAL COURT CASE
NO Wl99 O92R- 84- HC4

wz pa we 69 62

APPLICANT.

APPLICANT'S TRAVERSE
OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYfS
RESPONSE TO SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE-SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Daniel Dewayne Moncier/ Applicant for the Writ of
Habeas'Corpus/'pro se, in the above-Styled and numbered Habeas Ac-
tion, who Presents this Instrument as his TRAVERSE OF THE STATE‘S'
RESPONSE TO SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, and
Moves this Honorable Court to REVIEW his said TRAVERSE and GRANT
him Relief thereupon; and Shows this Court the following:

1

li On"December 8,`2014,_Applicant'Forwarded his APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to the Clerk of-Collin County, Texasa

~2. On January 21, 2015, after Receiving that Clerk's Notifi-
cation that she could N®T Find his said APPLICATION; AND Gave him
the Search Name of Daniel Dewayne MONCICA, Applicant Forwarded his
COMPLAINT and MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF to the Presiding Judge
of the Convicting Court: neither that Judge nor the blerh of Col-

lin County/ Texas, Responded to THAT Pleading.

- l Page l
Traverse of Response to Subsequent Habeas Application

.II.'

3. However, on February 24, 20154 the Collin County District
Attorney's Office Mailed Applicant a copy of its/the State's RE-
SPONSE TO SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;

4. Essentially, that Office/the State is Arguing that Applir
cant SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE to Present ALL of the "new"/new ISSUES
Of THIS Said APPLICATION in his 1999 APPLICATION FOR`WRIT'OF HA-
BEAS CORPUS. n n v iv

`55 That Office/the State also Noted that Applicant has Filed
subsequent APPLICATIONS in 1995 and again in 1999: unfortunately,
he has no Memory of Filing such APPLICATIONS; furthermore, he has
NO Copies of ANY of the APPLICATIONS he is said to have FILEd,.al-
though his FIRST such APPLICATION is NOT'Relevant-here, anyway.

-1-11»-”
be ' Despite the Language of Article ll.O7(3)(b), Texas_Code
of Criminal Procedurel NO ACTUAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, §§e'Arti-
CleS lliOl and 11102 Of that.COde, WAS ISSUED BY THE TRIAL COURT,
_AS RETURNABLE TO'THIS COURT,thich Fact is Proven by the simp1y
Point that Applicant was NOT Returned to Collin County for a Hear-
ing upon his present APPLICATION for THAT Writ.

71' HAD he been so Returned to Collin County upon a WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS (an ORDER of the Trial Court to-PRODUCE Applicant's'
Body in that Court for a Hearing upon his APPLICATION), he would;
|have HAD the full Opportunity to Open AND.CLOSE_his`Arguments in
that Hearing per Article 11149 of that Code: v_i_.§;~, he would have
’had_the:©pportunity to ORALLY,TRAVERSE the District Attorneyfs/the
State's said Argument(s) against-THIS said APPLICATION.

Page 2
Traverse of Response to Subsequent Habeas Application

8i Consequently} Applicant Relies upon his Right to ANSWER
any Opponent*s/Part’y's`defensive Pleadings, as Protected by the:‘
Due Process of Law and-Equal:Protection of the Law Clauses of the
U. S- Constitution and the Constitution of the State of 'I‘exass
IV.* BRIEF STATEMENT-IN TRAVERSE
9a ' NOT Knowing of his said second and third APPLICATIONS,&

neither Applicant nor his Legal Assistant, John.Rod Thomas, Raised
any Arguments/Presented any Facts to Support WHY several Issues of
his present APPLICATION could NOT have been Raised in those prior
Said‘APPLICATIONS¢

.lO. Now the DA's ®ffice/the State Stated in its RESPONSE} at
2, at U 5, that NO Court may Gonsider the Merits of or GRANT Relief
upon a subsequent ABPLICATION unless Sufficient, specific Facts
are Set forth which Establish that the current Claims/Issues have
not been/COULD NOT HAVE BEEN previously Presehted in the original
'or a previously considered.APPLICATION;v 9

,lll Then, that OffiCe/the State Went on to State, at 3, that
the FACTUAL¢BASIS OF AzCLA£M IS.UNAVAILABLE l§'THAT BASIS WAS §QE
ASCERTAINABLE THROUQH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE On Or
before a previous ABPLICATION'was_Filed,”AND it/the State further
Statedi Z§;/ that the LEGAL BASIS OF A CLAIM IS UNAVAILABLE`IF THE
LEGAL BASIS HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED BY/C®ULD NOT HAVE BEEN REASON-
ABLY FORMULATED FROM A FINAL DECISION of certain Courts on or be-
fore such previous APPLICATION was Filed.

12¢4” Then, that Office/the State Went on to State, i§;, the
current Claims/Issues COULD all have been Raised in Applicant”s
L999 A§PLlCATION, AND-they should therefore be DISMISSED.

v . . Page 3
Traverse of Response to Subseguent Habeas Application

_13. In TRAVERSE of the DA's Office/the State's Position, Ap-
plicant Points Out that this Court has HELD, numerous Times, that
a VOID Sentence MAY BE CHALLENGED at ANY Time, in ANY Court.

14‘ Essentially Speaking, Applicant's FIRST ISSUE Concer ns
a VOID Sentence, Regardless of the "language" Involved therewitha

15a In TRAVERSE of the said Position, Applicant Points Out
that WHEREAS the State of Texas/its Prison System was ORDERED to
Provide its Prisoners with an ADEQUATE Law Library OR Legal Assist-
ance, THEN, AND ONBY`THEN, Could the Said §osition be Said to Hold
"SOme" Merit: WHERE) AS HERE, THE STATE'S PRISON`SYSTEM HAS STRIP-
PED ITS LAW LIBRARY`SHELVES OF §L£ PERTINENT LEGAL BOOKS/MATERIALS
§§Q REFUSES TO PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE 93 MCRE THAN Q§E SHEPARD'S
CITATION AT A TIME (ALL of which the Allred Unit Law Library Staff
IS GUILTY of), the District Attorney/his_Office and the State CAN
NOT STAND upon the Point that Applicant SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED REA-
SONABLE DILIGENCE) because THE PRISON SYSTEM HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE
FOR "LEGALBY ILLITERATE" PRISONERS, SUCH AS APPLICANT, TO, IN ANY
WAY, EXERCISE ANY DILIGENCE AT ALL$.

16. In other Words, Prisoners such as Applicant MUST RELY on
the Legal Knowledge and Expertise of so¢called "Jailhouse Lawyers'
to KNOW about the NEED for DUE DILIGENCE, and BE ABLE TO AFFORD him
the DUE OPPORTUNITY tO EXERCISE that Diligence WHEN IT IS_POSSIBLE
for him to be TOLD, and therefore KNOW/"KNOW“ (just because a Pri-
soner has been TOLD Legal Principles/Arquments DOES NOT MEAN that
HE COMPREHENDS/UNDERSTANDS the same: essentiallv, such Prisoners
QB§E FIRST §22§ fellow PriSOnerS WHO ARE SUFFICIENTLY KNOWEDGEABLE
AND PROFICIENT "AT THE LAW" SO AS TO BE ABLE TO.ADEQUATELY EXPLAlN

Page 4
Traverse of Response to Subseguent Habeas Application

H§§E THE PRISONER'S LEGAL CLAIMS §B§, AND §§é§ HE CAN/CAN NOT DO
ABOUT HIS UNDERLYINC GRIEVANCES.

17. Hena Applicant Lucked-put and Found THE ONE Prisoner
who KNOWS THE LAW, and Could Put Toqether Applicant's current AP-
PLICATION1 and SET FORTH his ISSUE NUMBER ONE, whiCh, aS Said, is
Essentially a Challenge to a VOID Sentence. y

.18. In TRAVERSE of the said Position, Applicant Points Out
that as Concerns his second and third ISSUES, THEY, too, HAVE THE‘
SAME Underlyinq Reality as Set forth hereinabove at UH 16 and l7.

19. . As he has NO Remembrance of Filinq the said 1995 and 1999
APPLICATIONS, as ALLEGED by the DA's Office/the State, Applicant
IS without the Ability to Say whether or not his ISSUES FIVE and *
SIX SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRIORLY RAISED, or May now be Prosecuted to
their Conclusions: he so Says, because he has NO-Paperwork`that~
Pertains to such "prior" APPLICATIONS, so he has NO WAY TO KNOW
what he SHOULD/SHOULD NOT have RaiSed in THIS APLICATION.

V; .TRAVERSE

20. IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR APPLICANT - or ANY other Prisoner
- TO HAVE DILIGENTLY ASCERTAINED the Existence of the Underlyingv
Premise of his FIRST ISSUE, because ONLY a "Jailhouse Lawyer" who“
READ, and who later UNDERSTOOD, House Bill No. 2335, the GTDCJ"
Act of 1989, could EVEB eventually PERCEIVE that WHEN THE TEXAS
LEGISLATURE OF 1989 ENACTED H.B. No. 2335, after Telling the People
Of TeXaS that THEY WERE ¢VALIDLY TRANSFERRING THE CUSTODY OF §Q§

INMATES TO THE NEW TDCJ: THOSE LEGISLATORS C®MMITTED A FATAL ERROR:

THEY DID NOT SO TRANSFER THE CUSTODY OF TDC INMATES TO THE TDCJ -

. x 1
COnSeguentlZl ALL TDC PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RELEASE/COMPENSATON!

_ Page 5
Traverse of Response to Subsequent Application

21. No, GENERAL Prisoners such as Applicant HAD_NO INKLING
93 SUSPICION THAT AS 222 PRISONERS, THEIR CUSTODY THEREIN HAD §QE
BEEN VALIDLY TRANSFERRED TO'THE TDCJ: after all, THE LEGISLATORS
SAID that such CuStOdy HAD BEEN SO TRANSFERRED.

22. Thereforei IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE for ANY Prisoner, EXCEPT a
"Jailhouse Lawyer", to have EXERCISED reasonable Due Diligence in
Finding Out that the Premises Set forth in his FIRST ISSUE Exists;
and it was Applicant's Good Fortune to have his Legal Assistanti
John Rod Thomas/ Move into his Dorm just over a Year ago, AND his
.Good Fortune to have a Friend Point Thomas-Out as a "Jailhouse Law-
yer" ("Writ Writer", per Prison Colloquialism) who could PROBABLY
Help}im Out about his Legal Questions/Issues (1magine his Surprise
when their Discussion of those Problems Turned to WHEN he was Con-
victed (1984) and Thomas Informed him that it was now Possible (he
had, some 12- 18 Months priorly, Received a written "Print Outt of
certain Language of H.B. No. 2335 which SHOWED that THE ONLY POSS#
IBILITY FOR 222 PRISONERS HAVING BEEN "TRANSFERRED" TO'EQ§£'CUSTODY
was the Provision thereof which Stated that ALL PROPERTY OF THE EQQV
was TRANSFERRED TO THE TEXAS.BOARD OF'GRIMINAL JUSTICE - an Entity
who has NO AUTHORITY to then "Transfer" such "TDC Custody" to the
"TDCJ"), to SUE for False Imprisonment, thank;to the Opinion of §§-

ang v. Johnson, 251 F.3d 65, 74 (2nd Cir. 2001), citing Spencer v.

 

§§m£a, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S. Ct. 978 (1998), beginning September 1, 19-
89} BUT as it was an ISSUE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, having NEVER been
Raised, priorly, he OUGHT to first Submit that ISSUE here, in this
Court, so as to Allow this Court to properly REVIEW the Matter, AND
to Allow his to EXHAUST his sole remaining available State REMEDY.

. Page 6
Traverse of Response to Subsequent_Application

23. Quite simply, Applicant's FIRST THREE ISSUES are FIRST
IMPRESSlON "Grounds of Error“, having NEVER been Raised before,

AND NOT Being Raisable before, so his so-called 1999 and 9999 prior
APPLICATIONS; BOTH Of WhiCh, even THIS APPLICATIQN, WERE FILED AFTER
September l, 1989; A'DATE UPON WHICH'APPLI`CANT'S SENTENCE|OF RECORD
WAS VOIDED, thrOugh NO Fault Of his Own‘i BY ACT OF THE TEXAS LEGIS-
LATURE; a Matter which this Court surely Needs to Consider and Give
its Opinion upon the same (not that Thomas Expects any Resolution
other than what he Set forth in the currect APPLICATION at Ba§.

24. ONLY a "Jailhouse Lawyer" who has Observed and Follows
-this/other Court Rules of Judicial Construction could have Found
the Premises which underlie Applicant's FIRST THREE ISSUES; so fari
Thomas is the only one who has so Followed those'Precepts, as De¢
monstrated by his able Discussion of the same in Applicant's Sup-
po rting MEMORANDUM, as well as here, IF Briefly.

25. In the End Result, there are other Prisoners who Want
Thomas to Prepare for Filing the same ISSUE as Applicant's FIRST
ISSUE of THIS Habeas Proceeding; however, he is extremely Ill; as
he Suffers from Ischemic Heart Disease'(his Heart Beats too slow-
lyi Causing Deprivation of Oxygen to his Heart and Brain), and ALL-
RED UNIT MEDICAL PERSONNEL7 as Joseph Michael Eastridge and Nefer-
titi Weaver-Borton, NPsti are REFUSING to Prescribe him the appro-
priate Hypotension/etc. Medication for his Heart Condition, thereby

}»”
CONSP_IRING against him,`w

926. 'Therefore, the histrict Attorney's Officefs/the State's

POSitiOn that Applicant SHOULD HAVE FILED/SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO

the First Impression Issues, which may all essentially be Raised

 

ytg§Page 7
Traverse of Response to Subsequent Application

 

herein at ANY Time (just as VOID Sentences may likewise be Raised)L
is Shown to be utterly Ill-founded, and MOOT - particularly as Con-
cerns Applicant's FIRST ISSUE.
N_Ote
As Stated in ISSUES TWO and THREE, the Premises thereof,
though quite Correct and Unimpeachable, Pale in the Light of
his FIRST ISSUE, as Applicant's obvious False Imprisonment du-
ly MOOTS the Premises of those latter.ISSUESy as HE SHOULD NOT
HAVE BEEN INCARCERATED after September l, 1989, SO HE SHOULD
NOT HAVE BEEN PAROLED OR SUBJECTED TO LOSSES OF GOOD TIME.

27. _As the State can NOT Challenge its own Laws, a Legal Pre-
cedent Laid down by this Court, IT WAS TO BE ASSUMED that the Leg-
islature had PROPERLY Transferred the Custody of 299 Inmates to the
TDCJ:_ WHO COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED that in the Legislature's Assump-
tig§ that Inmates ARE THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE, their FAILED At-

tempt to Transfer those Inmates Custody WOULD END IN VOIDING THEIR

 

SENTENCES OF RECORD - NOBODY! (SO, WHO COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED that
HE HAD A "DUTY" TO DILIGENTLY INQUIRE INTO WHETHER OR NOT HIS CUS-
TODY WAS §§E SO LAWFULLY TRANSFERRED, or THAT HIS SENTENCE WAS XQLQ
after August 311 1989, WHEN THE LEGISLATORS of the 1989 TeXaS Leg-

islature HAD ASSURED THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS that THEY HAD LAWEULLY SO

 

TRANSFERRED THE CUSTODY OF TDC PRISONERS TO THE NEW TDCJ - NOBODY!
28. Therefore, the District Attorney Office's/the State said
POsitiQn that APPLICANT SHOULD ALREADY HAD EXERCISED REASONABLE DIL-

IGENCE in DISCOVERING THE UNDISCOVERABLE (except by a Diligent Pri-

 

sone/"Jailhouse Lawyer" who KNOWS and USES Judicial Interpretation
Precepts) is UNTENABLE, ILL-FOUND, and MOOT.

_ Page 8
Traverse of Response to Subsequent Application

VI. TRAVERSE OF FACTUAL/LEGAL BASES
29. THE FACTUAL BASIS Of Applicant!s FIRST ISSUE/CLAIM is

that HIS.SENTENCE OF RECORD WAS RENDERED VOID, through no Fault of

 

his own, BY INTERVENING LAW (just as Intervening Law can DECREASE
the Range of Punishment Attached to a Penal Statute, or just as the
1987 HeLaw Decreased the Time TO Parole (just as the Attorney Gen-
eral of Texas Stated in an "unp ublished" AG Opinion)), AND, there-
fore, HE HAS BEEN FALSELY.IMPRISONED since on and after September
l,_1989, and is Entitled to instanter Release from his said "Custody"!

30. That is to Say, as Based upon the foregoing Arguments/-
Presentments, at TU 9-28/ at 3-8, THE FACTUAL`BASIS OF HIS CLAIM/-
FIRST ISSUE, WAS UNAVAILABLE prior to the Filing of this current
APPLICATION, because THE BASES WERE`N@?COMMON KNOWLEDGE and; there-
fore, WERE NOT ASCERTAINABLE TH§OUGH ANY EXERCISE OF DUE DILIGENCE.

3l. THE LEGAL BASIS Of Applicant's FIRST ISSUE/CLAIM is that
where HIS SENTENCE oF RECORD wAS so RENDERED'voID, and 13 yglg, BY
INTE RVENING LAW, then the Question is whether or not SOME JUDICIAL
DECISION Recognizes OR Reasonably Formulates the Recognition that
his SENTENCE 18 VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW:y well, l) H.B. NO. 2335,
Acts 1989, if Implicitlyi and sub silentio,_ACTED to VOID his Sent-
ence of Record because HE IS 999 THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE, as HELD
by the U. S. Supreme Court, and Unimpeachable, therefore, AND HE

WAS NOT, in ACtuality, SUBJECT TO HAVING HIS TDC CUSTODY TRANSFERRED

 

TO THE new TDCJ, OR the TBCJ, in the first Place; 2) the Opinions
of Huang v. Johnson, 251 F.3d 65, 74 (2nd Cir. ZOOl)L and Spencer
v. Kemra, 523 U.S. 1, 118 S. Ct. 978 (1998)(cited by Huang) HOLD,

then¢hat a Prisoner MAY SUE for False Imprisonment where his Sent-

)
Page 9

Traverse of Response to Subsequent Habeas Application

is NO LONGER OPERATIVE, where it has been Completed, OR where it
has been Rendered VOID by Intervening @ircumstances.
32. That is to Say, as Based upon the foregoing Arguments/-
Presentments, at 3v8, at UU~9-28, THE LEGAL BHIS of Applicant's
\
CLAIM/FIRST ISSUE, IS AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE LEGAL BASIS COULD HAVE
BEEN REASONABLY`FORMULATED BY A FINAL DECISION Of this Gourt F-:lg

THAT LEGAL BASIS HAD EVER BEEN SUBMITTED TO THIS éOURT BEFOREr and

 

 

THAT.COULD ONLY §§ A POSSIBILITY ii other "Jailhouse Lawyers" had
ever Figured the Basis Out by Using this Court's Rules of Judicial
Interpretation and Application!: i;§;, SUCH WAS §QI COMMON KNOW-
LEDGE, sO, therefore, WAS EQLASCERTAINABLE THROUGH DUE DILIGENCE.

33. 'The Factual/Legal Bases of Applicant's ISSUES TWO AND
THREE have exactly the same Premise as Argued/Presented above, at
3-10, TH 9-32; so the same are hereby Incorporated by Reference,
Adoptedi and re-Averred as though originally appearing hereat.

34. CONSEQUENTLY, Applicantts FIRST THREE ISSUES/CLAIMS WERE
-§QE AVAILABLE'PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION¢ NOR COULD
§§ SO AVAILABLE, BECAUSE Applicant COULD NOT KNOW Of them/OTHERS
could not Know of them because HE/THEY HAD NOT YET TALKED TO LEGAL
ASSISTANT John Rod Thomas prior to 15 Months or so ago - certain-
ly, NO ATTORNEY OR JUDGE, who are usually the ones to Raise such
First Impression Issues/Claim, has Raised the Bases for these IS-
SUES/CLAIMS in any (un)published Brief/Opinion!; therefore, the
DA'S Cffice's/the Stat€s RESPONSE TO SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION SHOULD
BE DISMISSED, as MOOT; accordingly, Applicant's current APPLICATION
should be fully considered, with the Factual and Legal Bases fully
Reviewed, and and he should be instantly R§ leased from Custody.

;, Page lO
Traverse to Response to Subsequent Habeas Application

Side Bar Commentary

 

35. Although Applicant can not See how it could come to pass/
but THERE IS THE ISSUE that this Court may, after all, DEEM the
Bases underlying his said ISSUES/eLAIMS TO BE UNAVAILABLE, here,
because they ER_E ASCERTAINABLE THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE
DILIGENCE, Meaning DIsMISSAL of this current APPLICATION.

36. ` Should such Circumstances come to pass, or this Court
Choose not to Consider/Review the APPLICATION at Bar, the Appli-
cant HAS Exhausted the sole State Remedy Available, and he my di-
rectly RAISE the same in a proper Federal Court, as Based upon.
Huang and Spencer,‘supra.

VII

37. WHEREFORE,' ALL EXPRESS AND IMPLIED PRE-MISES CONSIDERED,
Applicant PRAYS that this Honorable Court will Review and Consider
his said APPLICATION, .MEMORANDUM IN SUPPOR'T, and this TRAVERSE OF
THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO HIS SUBSEQUENT HABEAS Al°PLICATION, and will
GRANT him RELIEF thereupon.by Instructing the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice to instantly RELEASE him from his "Custody".

38. Additionally, he PRAYS that this Honorablke Court will
GRANT him such other and further RELIEF to which he is Entitled.

VIII

39. I, Daniel Dewayne Moncier, under penalty of perjury, Do
hereby Confirm that my foregoing Averments/Statements are TRUE and
CORRECT, and freely and voluntarily Made. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

40. EXECUTED on this the ZQC#Q Day of April, 2015.

Respectfully submitted
unto the Judges of the

Judges of the said Court,

_ Page 11
Travers to Response to Subsequent Heabeas Application

¢QM;¢// mm/~
Daniel Dewayne Moncier
#388080 Allred Unit
2101 FM 369 N

Iowa Park, TX 76367-6568

~k~k~k~k~k~k~k

THE STATE oF TEXAS §
§ AFFIDAVIT
coUNTY oF wICHITA §

BE IT KNOWN UNTO ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That -

I, Daniel Dewayne Moncier, Being of sound Mind and fully Cap-
able of Making this Affidavit, and Being personally Acquainted with
that Facts Set for herein, Do hereby solemnly Say and Depose:

It was approximately January 1, 2014, when I first Spoke to my
Legal Assistant, John Rod Thomas, about beginning Work on my cur-
rent (Filed December 2014) APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

It was then that I first Heaniof the Possibility that my Sent-
ence TO THE TX DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS might be_VOID, as Render-
ed so by Act of the Texas Legislature in 1989, effective September
ll 1989/ because that Entity DID NOT VALIDLY TRANSFER MY CUSTODY
- nor COULD HAVE VALIDLY TRANSFERRED IT - TO THE "CUSTODY" OF
the new TX DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. `

Likewise, it was also then that I Learned that my two Paroles
and the Taking of my Good Time Credits (prior to.September l, 1995)
were also Challengeable, as NOT actually by the Law of Texas.

The Filing of my said APPLICATION was Delayed because of Thomas'
work load for other Inmates, and finally by his INCREASING Illness.

I further Aver that the TDCJ Allred Unit Law Library has been
Stripped of ALL of the pertinent Law Books/Materials/Citations that
l/OTHERS would NEED to even begin to Find the governing Information
that Thomas has Put together for me in my APPLICATION.

I Believe that no other "Jailhouse Lawyer" has Stumbled across
the Bases/Facts underlying my APPLlCATIONS Issues/claims, because
of the "Destruction" of the said Legal Materials/etc.

I Confirm under penalty of perjury that my foregoing Averments
are True and Correct. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Daniel Dewayne MonEier

Page'12
Traverse to Response to Subsequent Habeas Application

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

at Austin, Texas

EX PARTE HABEAS CORPUS CASE

NO. WR-l9-590-O4
DANIEL DEWAYNE MONCIER,

TRIAL COURT CASE
NO. Wl99-O92R-84-HC4

CO?&O'JC&¢¢O'J&O?

APPLICANT.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE'

 

I, Daniel Dewayne Moncier, Do hereby Certify that I have For-
warded a copy of my foregoing Pleadings (MOTION FOR TOLLING, “OB-
JECTIONSH and TRAVERSE TO RESPONSE) tO the State's Attorney, Mr.
John R. Rolater, Jr., Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Chief
of the Appellate Division, Collin County District Attorney's Officei
2100 Bloomdale Road, Suite 200, McKinney, TX 75071, by U. S. Maili

'first class postage prepaidi on this the BCHQ Day of April, 2015/

t x

Daniel Dewayne Moncier