Court Opinion

ID: 4053371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 03:37:01.715807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:33.639005
License: Public Domain

This document contains some
                        pages ~hat ar~ of poor quality
                        at the t1me of 1maging.

                                                                                 RECEIVED IN
                                                                        COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

                                                                             MAR 13 2015
                                                                        vJ"':t-   C)~.
                                                                               Absl Acosta~ Clerk

                                                                \J u_.. t ;   1/\ , . Q__
                        This document contains some
                        pages ~hat ar~ of poor quality
                        at the t1me of 1maging.

                                                                                 RECEIVED IN
                                                                        COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

                                                                             MAR 13 2015
                                                                        vJ"':t-   C)~.
                                                                               Absl Acosta~ Clerk

                                                                \J u_.. t ;   1/\ , . Q__
                                                2.
          On   or about the date of March 2, 2015,Relator File The Foilowing:
 1. Applicant Moore Applicant For A Writ Of Heabeas Corpus,Article 11.07;
 2. Applicant Moore Motion For Evidentiary Hearing;
 3. Applicant Moore Preliminary Motion Request for Notice and Request For
      Leave to File Motion For Evidentiary Hearing and
 4. Applicant Moore Appliction And Memorandum Law Brief In Support Of Texas
      Code Criminal Procedure ll.07,Pursuant To T.C.C.,P. Article 11.073.
                                                3.
      Response have Refusal to Act On Relator's Motion For }Widentiary Hearing;
 A) Because the court of Criminal Appeals does not hear evidence only the trial
 court may condvct an evidence hearing.
 If there are controverted and Previously Unresolved issues at fact the Court
 must conduct a hearing •••
 Ex   Part Chamber,612 S.W. 2d 573,574(Tex.Crim.App.(l981);
 Only if the Application raises issues of law may the court dispense with a
·hearing) ••
 if the trial court denies a hearing to the applicant said Procedure Violates
'Art.ll.07 and Further Violates Due Procedure by Deying the Applicant to Sust=i
 ain his Burden·of Proof.
Ex    Parte Campos,613 S.W.2d 745,746(Tex.Crim.App.(l98l);
                                 STA"rl<'....MENT OF   THE CASE

Tuesday,July l9,1988,Moring Session:B:30 A.M. The Court:I Now Call 17,957-272
The State of Texas VS. riJichael Anthony Moore on a "Felony Information" Filed
Today.
Is the state     ready~

Mr.Turner: State is ready Your Honor.The Court:Mr.Moore,Your Case,as it Now
Stands Charges you with Burglary Of a Building by the Paper that we call a
"Felony Information.",Which is Just a Charging instrument.
In this Petition,Relator Moore alleged that the Trial Brief on State's failure
to amend the Indictment Under Cause No.l7,957-272,File on February 3,2015,
By Deputy Clerk Office of Tracy Knighton.
l. Argument:The State Failed to Amend The Indictment Under Texas Law-,The
      State has not Amended the Indictment."Neither the Mo•tion (To Amend)Itself
      nor the trial Judge's Granting therof is an Amendment;rather the Two
Comprise the Authorization for the eventual A..'llendrnent of the Charging Inst-
rument Pursuant to article 28.10".
                                           Page 2.
Rine V. State,28 S.W.3d 56l(Tex.Crim.App.(2000) Quoting Ward V.State 1829 S.W.-
2d 7871 793(Tex.Crim.App. (1992)( "Emphasis Added").
In order for the Court to deternine the merits of this claim· within the time
allotted by the Texas Code Of C.rl.minal Procedure 1 it is necessary For the Court
to desigate These Issues For future Resolution.See McCree V.Hampton 1824 S.W.-
2d 579);
(A Trial court must desisate all issues reqiring future resolution within
Thirty-Five Days after the Filing of a Petition For Habeas Corpus in order to
retain its Jurisdiction over the Case);
Cause No. 17,957-2721THE STATE OF TEXAS V. MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE,Petition
For Writ Of Hadeas-Corpus;
See Also Tex.Code.Crim.P. Art. 11.07 § 3 (c)l(d);

                                           Arguments
Mandamus is   an      extraord.inary.remedy,available_only in limited Circumstances.
Canadian Helicopters .Ltd. V.Wittingl879         s.w.   2d 3041305(Tex.l994);
it is the burden of the relator to show entitlement to the relief being requee
sted.
See Generally Johnson        v.   Fourth Court Of Appealsi700_S.W. 2d 916.917(Tex.-
l985) Orig.Proceeding).In Order to be entitled to relief,the,relator must
show the Following:(l) a legal duty to perform;(20 a demand for performance
and (3) a refusal to act.
See Stoner   V~   Massey1S86 S.W. 2d     843~846(Tex.l979).

A. Relator's Petition For Writ Of Mandamus should be Grant because the Trial "
   Court has not Rule on his Motion For Evidentiart Hearinq,Pursuant to
Art.ll-07 and further violates Due Procedure by Deying the Applicant to Suste:.:
a in his burden of proof.
Ex Parte Campos,613 S.W.2d 7451746(Tex.Crim.App.(l981);
Relator asserts that the trial court has not Rule on his Pending Motion For           s~

Evidentiary Hearing.
Relator Requested that the trial Court Set a Evidentiary Hearing •.
                  .
B. Relator's Petition for Writ Of Mandamus Should be Grant Because Relator
has no adequate remedy at iaw to resolve any errors.
Though Relator's Petition For Writ Of Mandmus Appears to take issue with the
failure of the trial court to grant his Motion For Evidentiary Hearing that
is now Pending in the Court.
To the extent that Relator's Petition For Writ Of Mandamus is to Compel the
trial court to set a Evidentiart Hearing1Relator's Petition should be Grant

                                            Page 3.
 because he have no adequate remedy to address any errors.
 To be entitled to Mandamus relief in a Criminal case,a Relator must show,
 among other things,that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress that
 alleged harm.
 state Ex Rel.Young V. Sixth Judicial Dist.Court of Appeals at Texarkana,-
 236 S.W. 3d 207,210(Tex.Crim.App.(2007);

                              CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
     The issuance of a Mandamus is never a Matter of Right,but rests in the
 Court.
 Dickens V. Second Court of Appeals,729 S.W •. 2d 542,549(Tex.Crim.App.(l987);
 Here,Rel.ator's Petition For Writ Of 1-tandamus Should be Grant because Relator   r;_

 has demonstrate that the trial court has not Rule or denying his Motion For
' Evidentiary Hearing.
 Further,to the extent that Relater's Petition For Writ Of Maundamus is att-
 acking the 1988,The State Failed to Amend the Indictment,Pursuant to Article
 28.10 and because he have no adequate remedied to address any errors.
 Relator's Petition for Writ Of Mandamus should be Grant.

 Wherefore,Premises Considered,the Relator Prays the Court Grant Relator
 Petition for Writ Of Mandamus.

                                      Respectfully Submitted,

                                   ·l!JVJ.nd~h~
                                    By: Michael Anthony Moorei481939
                                        Beto bne Unit
                                        1391 FM 3328
                                        Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880

                                     P.aqe   4~
                             CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true copy of the above relator has been mailed to Respondent the Followinq:

1. JAVIS J. PARSON
   BRAZOS COUNTY DISTRICT ATI'ORNEY OFFICE
   300 E. 26th Street,Suite#310
   Bryan, Texas 77803,
On this The 9th Day of March,2015.

                         ~~~A~
                         By: Michael A~thony Moo e#4a7939

                                      I
                                          .,
                                     Page 5.
          Cause No.

                            IN THE
             COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                      AUSTIN, TEXAS

            IN Re MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE

                           Relator
                             vs ..
                    JARVIS J.    PA..~PON

          ·BRAZOS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
                       Respondent

    Original Proceeding From The 272nd Judicial
       DistrictCourt Of Brazos Countv Te"'Ii'IS
        Aoolicant    ~or   Writ n+    u~beas   Corpus
                Cause No. 17,957-272

· BRIEF IN SUPPORT. OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDUMUS

           M~CHAEL    ANTHONY MOORE#487939'
                     BETO ONE illUT
                      1391 FM 3328
           TENNESSEE COLONY, TEXAS 75880

                 PRO Se OF RECORD: .
                           COUNSEL.

                           Page 1.
                          INDEX OF     PARTIES AND OJUNSEL

1 • JARVIS J. PARSON
   BRAZOS COUNTY DISTRICT ATI'ORNEY

   300 E. 26th Street,Suitei310
  BRYAN I TEXAS 77803
   AND
2. MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE#487939
  BETO ONE UNIT
  1391 FM 3328
  TENNESSEE COLONY I   T~XAS   75880

                                       Page 2.
                                                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of parties.and Counsel. ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••• 2
Argument .••••••.••••••••• ~ •••••••••••..•• ·•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
The Trial Court's Failre'to Compy With Article 28.10 •••••••••••••• , •. 5
Pra~r .... ·.. ~   ...... -. - :". - ....... --.   a •••   11 • • • •   -   •••••••   -   ••••••••••   0.:   ••   ,.   a   <9   ..........   •   10
Certificate of Service •.••••••••••••.••..•.•••••••••.••••••••••••.•••• l2

                                                              .Page 3.
                                          Index Of     Autho~ities

Cases
Ex Parte, Chamber-,
        612 S.W •. 2d 573,574(Tex.Crirn.App.(l98l} •••••••.••••••••.••• ~ •••••• p-. 4
J!:lC   Parte Campos
        613 S.W.2d 74.5,746(Tex.Crim.App.(l981) .••••••••••••.••••.••••.•••.••• 4
Rine V. State,
        28 S.W. 3d 56l(Tex.Crirn.App.(2000} •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••. 5
Ward V. State,
        829S.W. 2d 787,793(Tex.Crim.App .. (l992) .•••.••••••••••••.•.....••••.••• 5
Mccree        V.   Hampton·'
        824   s. w. 2d 579 ••••••••••.••....•••••••••••••.• .;. •••.·- ••••••••.•••••••••• 6
Canadian Heliopters Ltd.V. Witting,
        879 :3.W. 2d 304;305(Tex. (1994} ••••••••••••• • ••• • ••••••••••...•••••••• 7
Johnson        V •.   Fouri::h Court Of appeals 1
        700 S.W.2d 9161917(Tex.(l985) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
        Orig.Proceeding).
Stoner        v.   Massey,
        5H6 S.W. 2d 8431846(Tex.(1979j •••• _________ ~···················                      7
State ex rel. Young V. Sixth Judicial Dist.Court Of Appeals at
Tex:ackana;
        236 S.W. 3d 207,2lO(Tex.Crim.App.(2007) ••••••••••••••••••• 9·
Dickens V. Second Court Of Appeals,
        7~9   S.W. 2d 5421549(Tex.Crim.App.(l987 .•••••••••••••••••• 10
Texas Statutes
Tex.Code crim.Proc.Ann.art.ll.07 § 4 ...................... 3
Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann.art.ll.073, ,_,, ·,.;,, 1 -, 1         , 1 1 1 t.l, 1 1, , ,   , ,   3

                                                    Page 4.