Court Opinion

ID: 4052021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 01:52:57.7615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:08.571076
License: Public Domain

Into The Texas Supreme‘Court,and for It's JUsticesB . """'
t ,‘ .Supreme Court Building,ZOl West 14th Street,Room#lOé »f

lo' `
.. b marin i»exa$` 73'/01 ' 65[ q£\,g(o
§>~Iane; aims Andre Delivenee-Pro Se l

4§policant-Relator in Pro se capacity §

§ mandamus to enforce the
' 4,@~= VEFSUS' _ § law on Case#765557~Tr.Ct. & Case$
Abel Acosta,et la,as Chief CLERK for \_,53_692_04_&_6 the Tex,Ct_Cr.app.
the 'l‘exas Court of Cr~iminal Apppals, § ll ER§&EIVED|N

Sharon Keller,et al,as presidin' ' '“ - .»
(S) of the Texas Court O_f Crimin:lj%?§&°°§|ment(;omamsWITQFQR'M‘NALAPPEALS
Appeals,Trial Court"s .Officials-, et pg §sth§tare° p°°rqualty SE 09 m_`

"A§'pli'~§@lmt”§ /U‘Slléa!t©lr"$ @Qtition for z§'§-\§.--Wr'it of Mandamus %Q§gélgqslghglargxas
Court of Criminal Appeals Clerk(s),or/and Justices,pursuanttto § 22.221(b)l
of the Texas Government Code§Articles 51.1,52.2,53(a)(l),(3).(*4),§5)[(A)5;
f(&)Z(f),(g),(h)¢(J)(l)¢(d))52.7(l)/(2),(b),(53)1,57.2,57.4;72.1 & (Tex,R}@
App.P):?B@F(a) & (b),& 44.43(TCCP);lst Amendment(U.S.Const§t§$F;n),Among~

4 other Texas and/Federal laws that Abply for Absolute Rights_

To The Justices of this TYxas Supreme Courthouse,its Clerk(s),Rspondent(s),

Let there be understanding.NOW appearing in writing,before this said Court-
One,Sims Andre Delivence,the Applicant-Relator in Pro se capacity,and in the
above ;aid casejand cause of action,sub judice.brings [t]his request-ed app-
lication for a Writ of mandamus against Abel Acosta,an assumed Chief_Clerk of
the.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas or and the gustices,of that COUERT_of~/
Criminal Appeals,as recalcitrant Respondent(s) who have unlawfully and Uncono-
titutionally suspended the 'Living Constitution of»both the State of Texas and
of the United States of America'S,by suspending Applicant's/Relator’s[herein]€
obsolute rights to petition these said Couets and their judges.of reddress offll
~his Constitutional rights violations,Civil rights violations & violations of -
the Laws by said Respondent(e) and will show further the following insu§port:

' I.£. l '
on or about 7/6/2015,Y0ur Relator.sub judice,had filed his Application for a -
writ of.habeas corpus to be issued v@on Relator's Claims of void judgment re-
ganrustification in -
dismissing Relator' s Constitutional violationsclaims argued in his writ of habe,
eas corpus petition and carried unto his subsequent writ of mandamss to compel ~
the trial Court's habeas corpus Judge a'a act and perform its ministerial duties-
as required by law,and thereby,are claims the trial Court' s judge intentionally
failed to do its duty in pro"essing Relator' s actual petition' s factual and legal
basis that was not ascertainable through the execise of reasonable diligence on -
or befosa 5/2015 or 7/27/]5 or 8/5/15,untill Relator' s paralegal[inmate' s] assist-
ant discovered said ground of error of law- -based on the defective and fraudulent
indictment...ln turn.any prior submitted or assumed presented issues were not thm
is Relator's main issues of claims presented herein and previuosly,as the void z
Judgment claims not recognized by thus Texas Court of Appeals 3ustices,and thus,no
prior decisions could have been reasonably been formulated from anyjfinal decision
one by said Appellate Court's gus tices~yurisdiction of the State of Texaslbddae&-

11~97)§~4(3)(1)'(2)'\&'W@W 3 ¢C)(TCCP)'This misapplication of lau by an unsiqned~
remark or comment in the said white card die =missal is evidence that Respondent (s)
inactions,erroneous actions,,and failure and refusual to act upon Relator' s set-
of petitions entitled,"Application for a writ of habeas corpus,and separate but~
attched findings o§ facts and conclusions of law,with an ORDER ",is what cause-d»
the improper,and irregularity of Relator's case sub judice,eoubshse inLropwvety~
prevented the proper,and actual correct presentation of Relator's case inchief to
this Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.ln misapplication cf the law,the.€ourt of -
Criminal Appeals has rendered ,‘due to ita derelicition of dutyl,a decision that
conflicts with its own precedent.with this Texas Supreme Court' s prc cceoent,and ~
with yhrs the Unstates Supreme Court' s precedent,including precedent of the Fifth»
Circiut Court of Appeals on the same issue e g.,Garcia V Dial 556 S.W.Zd 524,523-
(Tex.CR.App.lSSO);Dsnnis V.SEate,Sd? S.W.Zd 275,supra(tex.€r.npp.lee);Cook VSSt-
ate.§OZ S.W.Zd 471,478,N.13-16,(Tex.Cr.App.l§QB),id.at 476,& N.6,7;Carrillo V.St-
ate.Z S.W.Bd 275{277,$.5(Tex.£r.app.1999):Davis V.Stete,227 S.W.Zd 733.736,N.l»3-
(Tex;CR.App,2OGV):State V.Moff,l§é S.w.Bd 599,601,N.l~£(Tex.Cr.App»ZOOe);Cf wam§l*
ton V.Mccotter,172 B.Zd laS~Se(§th §ir~l$§$),citing nollingworth V.State{&? S.W.*`
TGX_CF_R,ggg,Zgl 5_W,g73-79(1920);Cf.U-S.V.Henderson,?£ F.Bd 463.465(5th Cir.1995
95)(citation omitted);U.S.V.Henry,Z&B F.Bd 657,661(5th Cir.App.2002);U.S.V.Elores
,404.F.3d 320,324(5th Cir.(§th Cir 2005).id at 324,& N. ms nzalez V. Crosby,545 U.
Z!‘S.524-535~536,126 S.Ct.264l,s urpra(2005) U S.V Ruis.§£ 6 U,S.GZZ¢BZB(ZOOZ);U.S.v,*%
sgi.civii.

 

§‘Cottonc§$$ U.S.GZS,SHO(ZODZ).Thus,the Tsxas Suprema Court's gusbiccs should»'@

“- no doubt find that the Taxas Court of Criminal Appcals ayoears to have miscon¥`
'strued a statute,rule of law.aa it has so tar departed from the acceptsd.and us#“
ual course of gu@icial proceedings,and so far sanctioneo such a departure by ~
`the lower Court of hopeals,aa to call for an axcciae of this Texaa Supremo Cou-
rt's Justicec~pover of supervision.$ee Continental Co£fee Products Co.V.Cazarcz,
937 S.w.Zd 44@,44§,& n»Z(Tax.lSQG)."As this legal matter sub Judice is concern-'
ec,whsn a particcsac Statutc[Atx.l,§lO,& lE,Tex~Const.];Art lch?¢§B(b)(ctc),Tex.
C.C.P)craates a cause of action.the Court's Juriséiction oapands on that incich@'
ted statute;sub)ect-matter gurisdiction cannot be prosumeo and cannot be uaiveo¥
“Since lack of Jurisdiction makes a Jucgment void not lust voidable?ld;&s§co V.B
Forrsst,?§§ S,W.Zd 700¢703(Tex.2990)§smae);€f»&eebe V.j$alps,&§® F.Zd 774,776(~

Sth Cir.lSSl)(auyrema Court precedent cited therein).
C) This Texas Suprcma Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Taxas Court,of~

Criminal Appeals,pursuant to Articlo 5,§ SA of the Texaa Constitution.and»hrt.
é.lG(TCCP);Taxaa Government Coéc.§@i§nzzi(b);Texas Supreme Court's Rule 52.1,52£;
SS.B(b)(l),(Z .(3),& (c).57.3¢57.4,53.5,60.2(&)(o):(e),& (1)160.3,60.6,7241,72.~
Q:and 52.7(5),(1),(2),(b),and ic.at 52.3(e);§4.3 & 44.4&3){1),(2).All these gro~
vioicns apply when an hypellats Court dismisses an apyeal,with out correcting ~
the trial Court’s inaction or improper~illegal actions to adopt ann allow an ill-
egal third Parti'(s) intervention,and thus its{cr.€t.‘a] erroneous failure to Q@g
act as requested by this RELATOR ~ is a failure to yeriorm it's ministerial outy
ana tunction under thc facts and law of this Relator's habeas corpus case.Henoce,
the Court of Criminal Appeals/Resyondcnt(s) inactions prevented the oropcb ore~
sentation of this Rclator‘s case at bar,ano could not have §uly considered Rel»
ator's petition based upon his ground One error of lawiRegarding the trial Court
and it‘s presiding judge lacking subBeCt-matter gurisdiction.n none waivable is~
sus.nor right,nor can such Juriscictional defactibs forfietec,not even with con4
sent os~all,or any Party(s) of intesest...wrose yet,the trial Court’s habeas co-
rpus judge or intrudsr.re£uscd to accept Relator'a Compulsory Countpr~ciaim au-.
ainst those third Party interveners.Thus,&he trial Court failed to act in ruling_
on both habeas cor§us yetitione,and,cf the said counter-claimwInwhich,prior to-
the trial Court‘s judge or and its Clerk(s),dacision to torward some application
for a writ al habeas copua to the Texas Court of Criminal hoyeala,nslator tima&;
ly sent,and submitted his iG-yage npplication for a writ of mandamus to said Apj
pellate Court¢lnwhich an ina§&d ntcuncs stamp-mark ss AB€L hCOSTA,CLERK»Who_did

not sign such a remark or comment implying it received and presented to the[not-
this ?~]Court.Dated 7/13/15'& then subposely denied-without'anj written rcer~
on 8/5/15...And although this remark of stirowt a written order is implied)thsrc
it no indication the white card is in afact an GRDER OR JUDGMENT.This in fact is
an error of law.an§ evidently is defects in proceéuros applied or used by said -
4chooncient(a).ir`uth'ering this argument,hbel acosta,and or a single Jssticc does
¢ot havé power to dismiss either-writ of haboas corpua_or urituoé mandamus-Sei
` iigcivii." <"""' "

i" . ` ..\.~ 1

1

Rul§ l0.0Q(a§(l),(2)(T§x{R.App.P.)~ “in part‘r' Buh in § Civil cas§.a.§ipgl§#
justice §houl§ not ~[§ic} act on a paticion icc an extraordinary writr;in]or-

dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion tc br rehaarinc¥ld.
D) Thi§.white card di§uribution brings tha same results in a maverity of att§my“,

ted appeals by falsely imgri§on§d inmat§§§ k Your R§lator §ub Ju§lc¢.§ud §uch

§ result iSfa]perman@ntly g§§§§ §§x> unpr§c§d§nted aec of circumstances under a-
commcn»practice cf a QaLtern of dec i§ion"making found d upon § pref§r§nce §§ §p~
po§§d to reason and fact§~which is an arbi§r§ry act,'th§t can not be of §~Judi-
'ci§l daci§icn.Mu§hle§§ a §§cisicn en the merits cf any partic§§ar ca§§.ArbiCr§~`
ry prccedur§ acts are factor§ that run§ afoul of the L§gal Due Cour§§,and Proc~-
§s§ of law .3§@ alSG_Rule 15 l(§)..?A writ or process must bc §ig ned and be§r~
the Amp§ liat@’€ourt'§ sea “16...Thu§,§uch waive card is proc@s §§d §0 def§ctiv§ ~
that 10 Cl§rk chose to sign such void comments of remark*of deni§d ‘ithouu a wr~
itt§n &§@). § . § 1
.AS we have Snown in Lhu p:evious L@v¢e,Mon§@omery Amusement Co»auyru,lB$ Fwd.B$Sv

355’1905) Aff' 140 F.QSB,&`HBDC V.State 3 W 233,2M ,22 T@x Ayp.(l&&€i."aa pwr~

.enactinq Cl&us;$ and tneir precis@ wcrding as p- cast Mocd byaa St&te C@n$ti1@_1ti0n~

ace mandatory ana not GLreLLor~"ID Cf. Alford § City of Dallas,? h,B S.W ZcS 312 K}B~

.& §§ ante llf.n.7 in pa.§£ "No statute or lax.* pas sed say lmyglr[rzghtsjtran i§§ of

Title ns impa@@lcignns under concrect;$;and 38 in this case at bar,“the Apgellant»
r Appiic an s uleading 3 must shaw that the mya1rmentl1r§3c lent indictmentj~

S.Civ il~

   
     

~C§ntracc;as cir cumotances  d§ocr1oed abo¢e~are in exietanc§.said uncosci
cutional provis sional¢violated Relator State of Texas and Fed§ral Cohs€it§tio~'
“`nal righ t§;and is justificati§n

   
 

§ or [L}his Cau§e of action to §§ forward Espe»
cially aince it involves the jgr1od1ct1on of the trial Court,and it‘ s trial Ju~
Qge committing arbitrary acts to by pa§s the Grand Jury panel oy§t@m,ac requi~

red by law Thus,using Lhe Judiciary authority to sua aponte a Billa of Attaind§

§t.in violation of Articl§ I § 16 of cho Texas Constitution"ld.
\ '.' ,\ II- A~
Thc Supremc Court of Texas direction if error of law iv remediable i.e.,Rulo 61.
4(T§1.R. App P ). id at 61 4(3)(l) (2) & (b) This Supremé Court can direct the ~
‘VRasyondont(s) to correct its error cf law in aepriving Relator his Constitution»
;el. rights of access to the COURTW or it' 2 Courthous.and correct such dani§l of“
"his Conctitutional rights Which are enforceable under th@ United Stat@s Cohsti&/
”j tution,as it providee: "The Privil§ge of the Wric of habea§ Corpus shall not be'
§§ suapcm§od,unleos when in Caaes of Rebellion¢or Invasion of the Public SaEQty

'may roqu1r§§§’"ld et Art,l § 9 Clause 2; inaccord with Art ll 04 ll. 05,11 23 ll~
31 ll 32 ll 36 & ll GO(TCCP): Art ll 0723(§); Art l § l2(Téx Const ) And See also

Wr1ght V West,$ U 8 375¢&85*96(1992)(c1tat1on in or1g1nal) Preisér V. Rodrig~
uez.éll U 5 474 485- 86(£97§)(hebeao corpus appropriate method to challéhgcd unl-
j§wfull Conv1ct1on,ecc) Hence.R§§pond§nt(s) errpneous failur§ to file Relacor' s

  
 
  

n§in contesting his (the] legality or illegality cf his Gétention,not me-

Wls‘qu1lt or innocence,1u the Rc§pondent (a) acts of failure to perfcr§ §

1t s légal duty,and owes such a legal duty to §elator,rather than w1llfully br~

oaching it s duty and that breach is th§ proximately the cause of violatiug th-

15 is Relator’ s Constitucional rights to petition the Govcrnmcnt of redress of his

l cjr1evances comp§d1nt of herein above Th@refore.mandamus may be qrant§d becaus§~
the act sought to be ccmp@lled.is puroly a ministerial act and as the Rcapono-'
§nt(s) 15 the last 5tate resort of addressin§ Relator*a unlawful incarcération,\
there is no other a&quate remedy avaiable at law Additionally,Relacoz does ha§w`
§ clear right to the relief he seék§~ma1nly bécau§e the merits of Relator‘ § ca$e
.ar§ beyond_diepute,inpprevailin@but only if the trial Court's Cl@rk or and iLc

z habeas judge,fil@§ all Relacor’s actual a§plication for writ of habeas co§§ue,*

n `it§ memorandum of law,and its atfachod exhibitaticn therewith said documentation
Inwhich the trial Court’ s clerk héa not been Grdered to forwaré Such necessaryv_
said documentation co the Res §ondent(s) and it' o A§pellate forum,i.@.,hrc.ll.o?.

§ 3(5)(chP).in pacc:‘ -
§When the Appli oation is received by that [ttial]
Court,a Writ of habeas corpus.returnaole to the Court
of Criminal Appeals,$hall issue by operation of law. The
Clérk of that Court Shall make appropriate notations th-
. Treof,a§sign to the case a file number(ancillarg to that~;

\*: o§ the conviction being challengod),and forward a copy of the appliuation by jo
certifiécd mail,retirned recei §§ roqueateo,or by personal services but to thé
hperson »Custooian - having thé Prisoner/Party under lillogal] restrainc;in ~»r§

ls/hec custody,as it ia charge 96 with auch authority,and it is to exhibit cuba

     

9.'civi‘l.“ x

 
 
  
  

 

” Original.if demancad; aa there ia no lawful righ§ in the parson[€uatoélan]~ 4
exercising tha powor or wh§ra§ though tha power in fact cxiats,it ia '§xarcis§
sad in a manner or degree not §anctionod by law; but that §ha peraon~@ustodian
on whom the Writ ia served shall bring before tha Judge tha parson[Relator]-
4in his/her Custody§§1 under its restraint and thus,tha lagal Cu3t9 iandba dir~
ectad.@e. said Custodian,cemman§ing it tp produce such parson,at a time amd ~
place named in the Writ,and show why [?] he is held uné&wfully in it' a Cuatody;
and rastraint"id at Art ll Ol ll 92 11.93 ll 27.*11 31 ll 323 and ll i§¢l) (2)-4

 

(§},QQ) §§§&P- id at ll 14(2)~" Whan thc PARTY ia confind ana ra$traint of his “
liberty,by viture of any writ, 0rdar.ot process or §§dar color ox: aithar.a copy~
Shall be annexed to tha petition[R@lator' a memorandum ot laa]or it shall be st~
ated that a copy cannot be obtainad¥ld..."ia wordaé-aa a pleading§§§§uir§mant~'
and dcaa not contain words of prohibition such aa language‘found in section 451
of Article ll.O?Ye-g;,Bx Parte Golden,QSl S W. 2d 859.at .862(Tox. Cr App 1999)
To furxher omphaaiza these fatally dafectig§§yroceoures under the trail Court' a
,§§baaa corpus proca§dinga,thara ia no Order for tha preparation of tha trial -~

§-Court' a records/transcription of all partianmt legal paper documantation in ca-

 
  

uae#?$§$§?,and to have said transcripts transmitted to tha Raapondeht' (a) App~w
allata Court tribunal,pursuaht to Art ll 07 § 3(b) & (c) or (d)~for datarmin-

§ ing whether there were controverted.provioualy unresolved facto material to th§»
L§gality or illegality of'thi[ ]' oonfinwmant;’for the [void]oiienaa of murder-`

‘reaultihg from the Ivoid] conviction that is the basic of this instant writ of~
mandamua.-and the pravoua writ of habeas corpua~~~but§aa tha§ trial Court r§co 1
ord raflecta,a\€lé§§@&a§&;?§l&g@§c¢ctot knows,thero ia nornotice of any trail~ §
Court'a[h§boas 3u699' s]daciaiona that theré ware or wore no iaauea of controv~
varta ,, , . ' " ' , ' ' » ‘ ' “""’f;:§§,;§{;‘¢»\,-

q \` " ~~',..

grant {t]his Application énéfiosue a Writ of Mandamus oirecting.kbel`hcostar

   
    

ona or whicn.evor or whoever was,ao is, the Rooponéent~recalcitrant~Clerk(oY»

 

'or the Juoi®@€€o) who refuses to file and réooro Relator's §roperly~oxecuted-i
documents/paper sent to its;Appéllate Court or if not sont,said Rospondont(o)_
`-refused to file his mandamus application,but that instructions would include an
Ordor for issuing an Order for filing énd setting thone present matters for é~
#submission and an evidentiary hearing,i£ neodod,to afford Rolator a full and *'

m;pomplete nearing'upon these factual and legal dispute,which,if resolved in his
vfavor.would entitle him to relie£,§ursnunt to Rolator‘o Claims of Conotitution»
jnl`errors of law,by trial and Respondont@o)lindiviouals in this Caae;but that-
~that Respondent(s) set aeide the implied or decisive order rendered supportly-
on August §§uZOlS,and this said notice was roceivod$§&§@@§g®@§§ZOl§(both habee~'
&?mandamua writs bear;éame date)-in canon 765557~Tr.€t¢& & WE»53.692~64405,and»
Roqu§ot that Reopondent(s) or ita Clerk($)send the_reoord to this SupremS Court
__pu¢§ua@g”£ocnule 20.1(§),& 20.2 en seq(rnap>.As this Relacor is[falsel inpris¢~
' nodj§£o?présently incércerated,and to poor to pay the Court’s feeo/costs tot ~.
lony or oll the original transcripts/récords of tne trial Court,and that of the
"RESPONDENT'(o)-rocords.But the indictment(s),Judgment(s),sontenco(s),Qountor~
olaims,énnibité by Relator and some unknown Roepondent’($) are available to th~
is Supreme Court through both trial and Appollate Courts files of their Clerks,
Rule.54,2(a) to (b)(TRAP):BQ.Q(a) & (o) aro invoked for briefing to be Conotr-
god Liborally,as required in Hains V.Kerner,92 S.Ct.SQALSHHl),id»at 404 U@@.BIQ~
SZD.Méinly because-Relator and his legal inmate aesistant ore not trained lawy~
oro in the law,and should be entitled to loss otringontbstandards than formal¥
`pleadings drafted by a traind lawyer?lé; A declaratory judgment ttnat this cau#:
se of action ia of Such importance to tho jurisprudence of this State of Toxas~
that mandamus appeal shoulé bn allowod:incorporate AppealeO Reason.uago$ 20 to~
24¢cited in Texas Monthy,July ZOlS~Article,by Mini Swartz}~affirming Seventfféi¥

   

root death penalty appealseof inmates casnS.All hoard botwoen 2009 & 2013-b
that Article's point is this Supremo Court can make things Right¥§§§oorrectin§);
the Reopondont'(o) Gefective and unconstitutional proceéureo and make sure ghati
x .the judiciary system doosn't go awary ané excute an innooent Pernon§&§»reforénoé
IVP$& 5th Cir.Ct.App.[fed],case#OG-lZBO;OB-ZOSlV-regarding related issues novor ad~
, dreosod for lack of a competent lawyer or paralmgal,butzoppeal had merit before

  

dismissed for failure to prosecuto;dismios the trial cuaoo§?o§$§?ao void in»all
chorged offense alloged.And grant any oth¢r relief this Court doomg“§§§$§@w&oot~
@no-ends of justice.£x Parté`¥oung.él@ S.W.Bd 824,826(Tex.€r.A§p.l967).'

` so movod.and prayed for this Writ of mand@mus to be grante@. »'
4 _ .Bnpgooifully eubmitteé, 31”1%5
TDCJ§OOB3BlOO,being presently unlawfully incarcerated,in the mark Wayne Michael
Unit,at 2264 F.M,@®&§¢Tennessee Colony Texaa,?$$&€.do hereby`éeclare and certify
under penalty of.porjury»that I have read these foregionngmn%§@%@ information,&
lvor£§y-that these stated matter are true,a¢ourate,corroo ,on my'ooli@f,and l s
`unnvo provided the Respondent(s) a copy of the samo.pursuant to Tox,Civ.Pract,
-~'a R@m.coa@,§§ 132.001-132.003, . ' -‘

l 3

ia.civil.