Case Information
*1
MAIR ANTHEW HOTTOLL 81020578
(559 ROTRIGVE RD., GANE CENTE ENIN AICLETE, TEXAC 77215-6616
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Hon. Chris Daniel, Clerk P. G. Box 4651
Houston, Texas 77210-4651
Abel Acosta, Clerk
RE: EX PARTE MARE ANTHONY RODRIGULE, Cause Nos. 1349278-A &; 1349279-A, 182rd District Court, Harris County, Texas ODJECTIONS
Dear Clerk: Inclosed please find the Crijinal of ny OBIECTION to the State's Crijinal Answer, Habeas Court's Adoption of state's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law &; Trial Juge's Failure to Recuse. Please file them and bring thet to the Court's attention in its first say of business after receipt hereof and also, please forward, per Tex.R.AgP.P. 73.4(h)(2) &; (4), these OBIECTION to the Texas Court of Criminal Apeals as part of the Habeas Record previously forwarded to that court.
Also, please note that a copy of this instrument has been served on the attorney representing the State of Texas in this matter as named below on same date.
Finally, a courtesy copy of this document has also been forwarded to the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Apeals on this same date.
Thank you for your time and attention in this matter. I will await your reply regarding this matter.
MAIR ANTHEW HOTTOLL
C: hon. Pamela E. Peabo, Assistant District Attorney, Harris County, Texas; CC: hon. Abel Acosta, Clerk, Texas Court of Criminal appeals, Austin, Texas.
*2 CAUSE FIC. 134927-2 E 1349279-2
EX PARTE MARE ANIMONY RCORIGUEZ, APPLICATE
3
CIPARRIE COUNTE, VEXAC
35.260 JULICIAE DISTRICT
ORJECTIONS TO STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, HABEAS COURT'S ADOPTION OF STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACES &; CONCLUSIONS OF LAM &; TRIAL JUDGE'S FAILURE TO RECUSE
TO THE HOMERPREF JUNCE OF SAIE COURT:
NOW COMES, MAY' Anthony Joursyue, Applicant nerein, ane respectfully oubrite these ORJECTIONS TO the HYSTE'S ANSWER, the hasue coutr' EENDINGS AGE FAILERS 'E RECUEL. In support of these ORJECTIONS, Applicant will know the following, to-wit:
- CURREN: PRICEENINGS
- The state, in its original answer ("Answer"), posits that "applicant's allegation of trial court error is a 'recent claim' that enoulo have been raised in the trial court and en effect appeal. Consequently, the applicant is now 1recentially outog Eros raising this issue by way of balance." Answer at 2: see also Trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law ("Finning") at 2 $1.
ORJECTION(S): Applicant contented, on the trial recerd supports, the fact
*3 this claim was not raised on direct appeal; however, the state, conveniently, omits the fact that at the commencement of the guilt/innocence phase of trial, defense counsel, again, objected to the trial court's comments regarding the prior convictions. see Memorandum of law at 3 $1. Thus, while this issue may not have been raised on direct appeal, it surely was timely preserved, and the habeas court's adoption, without more, of the state's proposals was yet aneother error that requires that this issue be returned to the trial court for a hearing.
In adopting the State's proposals (the findings of fact &; conclusions of law), the habeas court and the state, effectively misleg Applicant to his detriment during the plea bargaining process, possibly even rendering the whole process violative of Applicant's Due Process rights under the 6th and 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution---the trial court was aware of Applicant's desire and intent to appeal this issue and so acknowledged. see 4 RR 4 ("... all issues raised on voir dire, the case-inchief, are still on the table ..."$ SEE &; cf. SEALIHORN V. STATE, 232 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Tes.Crim.App.1967)(where it is obvious from the record that the trial court, defense counsel and the appellant are laboring under the false impression on appeal is in order, the plea was not entered voluntary and knowing). 2. In its Reply to Applicant's Second Ground for Relief, the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, Applicant's Writ at 8, Memorandum of Law In Support at 12, the state attempts to obfuscate the issue by concentrating solely on the voir dire
*4 portion to support ita clain that "s. Miller zailcd to object, however, as abovementioned, is. Miller timely objectod to the trial court's comnenting on the evidence of the prior convictions at the comnencment of the guilt/innocence phace of trial and this matter is preserved and ripe to determination. 10. at 1-2; 3 RR 7.
OBJECTION(S):
Applicant objects to the State's position as inuicated above and to the habeas court's adoption of the State's proposals, and for denying an evidentiary hearing on the issue of inefiective assiatance of appellate counsel, and specifically regulate that an evidentiary hearing as held to resolve this issue because the issue of the trial court comititing error by displaying and comnenting on the evidence was/is a viable appellate issue and appellate counsel made no effort to raise it on direct appeal, causing Applicant prejudice by depriving him of an opportunity to have his conviction and/or sentence overturned on appeal. 3. The Habeas court, without holding any type of hearing, sumarily adoptod the State'sproposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (findings), without even reviewing the trial record in order to be in a position to "recall" the events in question. Adnitionally, Applicant also objects to the trial court's failure to requee=itself because it had an interest in the outcosie of these proceedings--questioning its judgment on comionting on the evidence of the prior convictions in the jurg's presence.
*5
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDGRED, AYylicent prays this honorable court will return this case to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issues raised in his habeas application; to forward Ayylicant's Recusal Notion to the Regional Judge for determination; and grant any other and further ralleL, at law or in eruity, and conglotent with the ralief requested hereinabove.
PARK AYHONY FORRIGUE 61620976 6909 RITRIEVE AD., WAYNE 50017 UNIT AVELENCE, TEXAS 77915-6618 Ayylicant Pro-36
CERTIFICATE OF BERVIC:
I heresy certify that a true and correct copy of this instrument has been served by placing same in the prison's legal receptacle for outgins leval mail, U.S. First Class postage prepaid, on this the 26, 2015, addressed to:
No. Pamela S. Paseo Assistant District Attorney 1201 Franklin, Lth floor Rubston, Texas 77002 APRIL 26, 2015 Attorney for the State of Texas