Case Information
*1
Count of Criminal Appests P. Q. Box 12308, Capital Station Mestris, Texas 78711.
As Wk-29,770-03
RECEIVED IN RECETYED IN LE: To place letter to Head D.A. COUNTRY COURING ANGEALS Sept 26 June Court to Review.
Dear Chief
AbalAcosta,Clark
Would you whose scatt these relatives and letters to the Court and Head D.A. of Harris County, and District Court 180. in life to received by this Henricable Court. The District Court Clerk is choking with me vely harshly. Iin receiving all action from the Court and state today or more later, with to tine to rebuttal. Therefore in left to choice last to ask this Court to please consider that this Presiding Judge is totally disgusted from judging as attribuat or disregarding the trial. Judges ruling and order that was set in place in 2012. Hokmber, The Judge presiding over this hobsess matter is but the trial Judge. And He has already above his disertion and went along with the state after The state first represented that the issue be disguetted as both Cause No. to be resolved. "whether the Appbeant was denied the effective existence of Cause" as November 8, 2012. And now on August 29and 28, 2015 the state proposed another order to the Court and the presiding Judge has acowed it knowing that in entitled to a Live Heresy Endertiary herring.
Please make a copy of this letter and place into the 260.
So very grateful, Respectfully submitted
*2
Deval Hudson District Attorney 1201 Franklin, Suite 400 Hearson, Texas 77002 - 1423
Ke: Investigations with Executors' misconduct.
Writs/1292632-A Miss. Hudson. Creetings! My Name is Mr. Healey. As i An attempting to resale some issues that you have the power to address and resolve, although these occurrences did not happen under your watch. I am currently Urigating My past convictions in (2) does. (causes 1292632-A and 1292633-A. I realize that being the head of operations expands your duties a great deal and you have to put trust in them that you have put into position or others before you. And you cannot be a part of every case that happens in Harris County. Use lots of mistakes are made and that to be uncerested. Hounive. It canot be said that when a processor withholds execipatory evidence from the Grand Jury and presents incriminating these evidence to the Grand Jury to obtain an indictment to maliciously prescate is the mistake! I will provide you with this evidence against (2) Executors that provide in Criminal Judicial District Court 190. Be it hold that these processors Was the head and Asid Executors at the time of 2010 and 2011. Ine Court 180, where Judge More Wesley Brown presided at that time. The (2) Executors in particular Moves are and Bill Houtuis. "Correction: Angels within whom i behave was head DA. of that Court during the dates above.
*3 This the history of this case which you should find highly interesting, as October 22, 2010, it was arrested for Burglary of a habitation and Reading arrest. "I did not do either of these issues," that it was arrested for. As October 25, 2010. The Home owner of the Stedard Burglary gave a statement to the prosecution, stating that "didn't enter her home and that it was caught knocking on the windows of her home. No issues was taken, and he changes was did to home." As November 18, 2010, the 338 rd Grand Sury indicated the on Burglary of a habitation and within that indictment it states that "extend" Lie Schlunberger home.
Miss Puckman. I am in find and in sure year at either. However, it is evident that one of these prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence from the Grand Sury. It is to why possible giving light to the statement made by hereowner Luc Schlunberger the Grand Sury could have come back with an indictment!!
I phacked with my counsel that those could it have said that, it entered that house, when it was not even in the yard. I was urinating outside the fence.
Miss Puckman. The police officer hasifind that police report and it shall prove this also to you if you just follow simple instructions because it cannot afford to send you my print because it has to other visible avenue to replace it. All family have deceased since incarceration.
If you would take a look into Mr. Teller*1282632, you will find that there is no written statement from the eye witness "Isaac Ceccaretti" to was collaborate with the police report, and not to mention the police report, did report damages done to window, but Homeowner gave statement otherwise. Also this officer gave (2) reports differently within 5 days of the incident. No report stated the that it push the windows in and fitted it up, then spark my head on the inside and looked both ways. which it might add, makes the sense! (2) soundly In the Hostess Council dated October 27, 2010, "Moschose Burglary" In this statement to the public he said that "measured glass from windows"
*4 Miss Hederson, Once you request The Picker is 1282632. You will find that this statement is in there from homeowner Lee Sithanberger. you will also advise the date the statement was recorded. You will notice date of indictment which is 26 days after statement was given to the prosecution. After conducting your usual investigation in optimistic that you will cancer that is have been sufficiently proceeded. I do understand that my attorney should have represented me correctly. And let let this happen, but also the states prosecution should have performed what they took action to do, under this the acthe that they took which is to deceive, and deprive one of their liberty unjustly? I have raised in the true counsel on 11.075. However this is a excited in contract. Because Counsel those revisited this statement to me during this process, only once i pleaded not unwillingly and reported to Counsel from TBCJ. a copy of my files that he gather as discovery. Counsel sent me each stand of evidence that i now have, including e-mails from Him to Hugele Wellis. Hugele Wellis admits as e-mails that police have used phate spread, only my mussthat to compliments, which is clearly sugestive I am My Counsel had researched all this but coerced me to take pho deal. According to Counsels the, he had all that was mad to present a helieve defense.
Neverthe less. This is the attempt to resolve this matter without any further action. In sure you will find my claims evident and do what is in your power to do. In also sending a copy of this letter to Hwarasee Judge Hull of the Lord District Court, that it may be Tiled and listed. In also seeking a Live Heresy Evidentiary meaning that these facts may be made part of the record that the Court of Criminal Appeals may be able to have a complete record.
4-24-2015 122 exhibits excluded
*5 Mr Bobby Healey TAC:3-10# 179612 Whose SEt Lant Sobly Refrive Rated Heglistan, Texas 77515 1282633-A
September 18, 19015
District Clerk Harris County Courthouse 1201 Franklin St Hobstay, Texas 77862 R. Motton to the wite Court.
Dear Clerk Daniel, When I had ericked applicants Noton heauching to seeter original Cramer and Dijarion who request to Lise Elicdinitary hearling. Please tife it with your office and present it to District Court 180 for consideration at your earliest conrumbance, Also Please stevep, doet find the this conrelotter and retural it back to me for why tife. I have pruuded a SAsSE. to retum my comtance your dissidence in this very important sector is most appreciated.
Sequently hejusted Soby 10 Soby Henry 179615 Applenut.
*6 Causa Ma's. 682622-A + 082633-A Exhale In The 196th Oidrict Coart of Rubby. Henry Applirant Innstis County, Teats Applicants Reouted to States original Crouver To The Honorable Judge of said Court: Caves Dow. Bobby John Healey. The Applicant is the Mone entitled and Numbered Caves of Action and Files this His Hention to Rebuted statis original Crouver, and would respectfully know with the courts as followed:
Applicant Fited two Manees Carpas Appilatials Chollanging his convictions on or about October 19, 2012. The State of Texas by and through the Assistant Adviet Attorney for Hnees County, requests that this Court portant to Tex. Code. Cnni, Pree. Act. 11.0783 (d), designate the following issue which needs to be resolved: 1) Whether the Applicant was denied the effective assistance of Counsel.
The state, which haguesting obligation of issues in both above cause this, was signed on November 8, 2012. The presiding Judge at that time was Judge where Brown who adopted the states recommended it, designatios of issues on November 9, 2012.
II on August 28, 2015 almost 3 years of state roonnernding the desigatation of issues and the Court adoptive that recommended. The states this what it said to be its original Crouver, which cannot be true for considered because the state had 28 days to discover said Appilatials from the date of October 19, 2012 and did by roonnernding the issues be designated in both Hnees Carpas
*7 Applications. It would be a clear also process withthat under the Hrenak bannendment to allow the state to have 33 mouth to the its original mesuor when the law perceived to Tew. Code.izin. Prac. at 1607, only allows days or report for extation. Hovhge in the record is there a request where by the state for any extension of time. For the 5 part gresting case. The state has already tried its original Answer as November 8, 2012 in a timely fashion as the law reports. This New States original Answer is without merit because it was not bad in the timeliness of Lord and its also said good to me that the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the Court to reade the issues that had already been designated, but to redesignate issues or allow the state 2 bites at the Appe and get a second chance to answer.
II.
In the instant Cases there a highly probable need for a live
*8 Cause No. 1282633-A + 1282632-A Ex Parte Bobbly Hency Applieant
130 m. Sudiciss/ District of Harris County. Teus
Repairs and Orpction to states Drignical Auswai United August 30, 2015 and Regust for a Lio Pewary to The Havorable Sudge of said Court: Comes New, Bobbly Hency. Applicant in the Numbered Cause of detial abave and files this His Regpense and ofjection to states Driginal Answer dated August 27, 2015. Would respectfully show with the Court as follows: Applieant Tiled two (2) Habeas Corpus Applicatians Chattaging to's consistents on or aboat October 16, 2012. The state of Tress, by and through its Assistant District Attartoy for Harris County requested that this Court, pursuant to The Code, Crim. Proc. Art.1107, §3(d), designates the following issue which lends to be resolved: 1) "Whether the applicant was denied the effective assistance of General." The Assistant District Attartoy for the state who requested to the court to designate said Abave issue. Mane is 'Sharon Y. Chie Tress bar 10.4 24051950. whom also signed and dated such request as November 8, 2012 The Court having received said Applicator's land request of the state The court adopts the states recommendation and therefore designats the abave issue which this court shall resolve: Signed and dated on December 2, 2012 by presiding Sudie Marc W. Brown. It is so ordered!
*9 Aptimant diant to states what they could their original answer. Let the record reflect that our November 8, 2014. The state by and through there Assistant District Attorney Shirazl Y. Chu presented to this court their Unipiral answer in these causes to designate the bebee said isee. Which the Court by the Residing Suche over Applicants trial and hebas precands adopted the states recommendation. And ordered that the issue be designated in both hobas causes. 1282632-A and 1282633-A.
Pursuant to the Tew Code. Com. Proc. art. 11.07 se 3 (B) The Clerk of that court shall make appropriate notation thereof, ossign to the case of the number, and forfeend a copy of the application by certified mail, retired receipt requested, or by personal service to the attoraty representing the state in that Court, who shall cussiver the application not later than the "15th clap" other the date the copy of the Applicative is recirund.
Let the record reflect that our August 27, and 28 of 2015, the state files another states cussiver disregarding the process trial Sudges order to designate issues our both Applicants Habeas Corpus and ask the Court to deny Applicant the right under the U.S. Cund. Hrenth Amendment if Due Pracers to resure the issues set out in the order of desigestion and resolution and for this court to just forward the record to the Court of Criminal Appeals incomplete.
Applicant understand the state to need for this court to disregard the trial Suche Wave Bremers order. The state have liked for this Court to Puer it, because if the Tracts that will sear appear before this Court of their illegal activities before this Honerable Suche Hull provided our Court 180. Applicant have liked of a live Evidentiary hearing to put our witnesses that could prove Applicants inmeceence beyond a reasonable doubt.
*10 The state has lixed and is understandably recognized to stand up for trial Counseels behavior and clean it effective. Howone, the record once established at a Liee Healey Ennstantiary hearying will shay this N'Trial the state. Moliciously presented Appletent. Kickingly that Apphicant did Not commit any burality of Nabitation. 2) That the state took a statement from Compilating withess Lie, Schumpberger stating to the prosecution that Apphicant Heale entered her house. In clean was taken, and he distranges was done to home. Also that Apphecant was sent kocking on Winedows of C.W. home. 3) The state took statement on 10-25-10 from Lie Schimberger but yet somehow came up with indictment of Burglary at Hils, stating "enticed." 4) Answer to anrall that Appheant bave in his possession from prosecutor Anagis Welting admitting that only Apphicant phate was shous shouke to Victims. 5) Presector lixed to Answer why they continue to prosecute Apphicant. Kraining that they have evidence that prove the police report tassified. 6) Why did Presectoris conspire with labee ciffger to prosecute Appheant. Kraining that officer talsified police report and report in the Heaistad Cravirle dated 10-27-10. "Monticase Bugebrs" 7) Why. didn't Ktatingy present this state ment to Apphicant Kraining that apphicant had told hin that he was innocent, and the statement proved it. These are just a few questions that lixed be addressed and answered by the prosecutor. Apphicant bave widence with hin that was sent to him by his trial Catering "Gov." that lixed be placed on the record. Clenio at 133, accoedingly a rellining, nant must yorate a conviction based on tactically insufficient evidence and reorand the cause for liew trial. Tabes U. Heade 457. L. 5.31107 sect 2211. 72 LE 2d 652 (1982)