Case Information
*1 ...
March 5, 2015 Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk
Court of Criminal Appeals
Post Office Box 12308
Austin, Texas 78711-2308
Re: ?ending Habeas Corpus A~plication Trial No. Wll-52654-Y(A) Dear ~1r. Acosta;
Enclosed for timely and proper fileind is AP?LICANT'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT'S JANUARY 22, 2015 FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BASED ON NEW CASE L~W DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED s·rATES. \
Thank you for presenting this to the Court. Yours Sincerely, MOTIO~.M~SSE[D) -/;5 DATE: £..t2fll?rA b a fl E rfl Ah(iY IJ E-=z~· ;-;:::-;-"""" laY: J? ·u·
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS § EX PARTE
§ § § TRIAL NO. Wll-52654-Y(A) § § GONZALO HERNANDEZ §
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT'S JANUARY 22, 2015 FINDING OF FACT AND-CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BASED ON NEW CASE LAW DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
COMES NOW, Gonzalo Hernandez, the Ap.p-licant·herein, and timely requests an Extension of Time in which to prepare and file object- ions to the trial court's finding of fact and conclusions of law. In support thereof, Applicant would show:
I Upon a plea of not guilty, a Dallas Countyj Texas jury found Applicant guilty to the offense of Continuous Sexual Abuse of a Child. The offense was. alleged to have occurred on or about Aug~ ust 7, 2010. The same jury sentenced Applicant to 40 years im- prisonment. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the trial court on March 21, 2014 in an unpublished opinion. No .Petition for Discretionary Review was prosecuted.
II Applicant has never been previously convicted of a felony *3 and is proceeding pro se in the above styled habeas corpus app- lication.
III At the time of Applicant's appeal he·w~s unaware of the u.s. Supreme Court decision announced in Martinez v Ryan, 132 s.ct. 1309, 162 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012), providing for the assist- ance of counsel in collateral ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are no longer available on direct appeal.
IV The follow-up case, announced one year later in Trevino v u.s. 133 s.ct. 1911, 185 L.Ed.2d 1044 (2013), Thaler, determined that Martinez applied to Texas cases.
v Accordingly, Applicant would like the opport~1ity to re- guest the appointment of counsel in the trial cou~t so that counsel can review the entire trial proceedings (Applicant had to file his habeas corpus without benefit of reviewing the record) in su~port of Applicant's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims.
Wherefor, for these reasons Applicant prays the Honorable Court of Criminal•Appeals will grant Applicant 30 days in which to submit his objections.
Respectfully Submitted. ~N?.I}tc /IE/l!V/[JYIJEZ -2-