Gonzales, Alejandro Farias, WR-77,198-06

Background

Alejandro Faris Gonzales petitions the Texas Supreme Court for a Writ of Mandamus under Tex. Govt. Code §22.221 seeking to compel court clerks and judges to file and adjudicate his habeas corpus/mandamus filings.
Relator accuses Abel Acosta (TCCA Clerk) and trial court personnel of refusing to file, docket, or properly process Relator's documents and arguments.
Relator alleges trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that indictments are void, asserting violations of the U.S. and Texas constitutions.
Relator argues the appellate clerks’ advisements (including a so-called white card) are improper, unsigned, or non-authenticated, and thus void for purposes of mandamus review.
Relator asserts procedural deficiencies in lower courts prevented access to relief, violating his First, Fourth/Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment rights and due process.
Relator seeks extraordinary relief to force the trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals to consider his grounds and to provide access to relevant records and remedies.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether clerks/judges improperly denied access to relief	Gonzales argues denial violated rights to petition and due process.	Acosta and respondents contend proper procedures were followed or untimely filings preclude relief.	Mandamus relief available only if clear legal right shown; court determines procedural posture governs relief
Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction due to void indictments	Relator claims void true bills and fraudulent indictments void the judgment.	Respondents dispute voidness or argue jurisdiction was properly invoked by the record.	Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be presumed; void indictments render jurisdiction void
Whether Texas Rule and statutory mandamus standards authorize relief here	Relator contends rules and statutes support mandamus to compel filing and consideration.	Respondents argue discretionary/supervisory relief limitations apply and relief may be improper.	Relief depends on clear legal right and mandatory duties; discretionary relief requires proper basis
Whether the white card advisement and related process void the denial	White card advisement lacks signatures and fails to show merits; improper denial cannot bind outcome.	Respondents maintain advisement serves as notice of denial; merits not necessary for mandamus review.	A judgment or denial must be properly issued with reasons; unsigned card undermines validity
Whether lower courts’ handling violated constitutional due process and access to courts	Relator asserts denial of access to courts for constitutional rights claims and redress.	Respondents contend adequate process and compliance with procedures occurred or that issues are non-justiciable at this stage.	Due process requires meaningful access to courts; impediments to filing may warrant supervisory relief

Key Cases Cited

DeLeon v. District Clerk, Lynn County, 187 S.W.3d 473 (Tex.Cr.App.2006) (clear legal right requires explicit duty described on record)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex.1992) (jurisdiction and authority must be shown; lack of it voids proceedings)
Dennis v. State, 647 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (instrument must state necessary elements of offense; jurisdictional defects cannot be waived)
Miller v. Davis, 150 S.W.2d 973 (Tex.1942) (unconstitutional acts cannot be treated as law)