Sweed, James Lee AKA Sweed, Jimmy Lee AKA Sweed, Jimmy

Case Information

$15,251-19$

Relator Application of Inability To Pay Court Costs.

I have no money on property of any kind and I ask to the allow me to paveed without cost to life my visit of mandamus. And I sulear under penalty of perishy that my statement are true and correct to the best of my knowledge

bkelenbear 1,4015

This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging.

Regional Copy

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FEC 092015 4bel Acosta, Clerk

Selember 7, 2015.

Jimmy Lee Sucked Tahuis State Jail $101\mathrm{J}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{K}\mathrm{K}\mathrm{K}\mathrm{K}$ Austin, Texas, 78724

Clerk Court of Criminal Appetals of Texas Supreme Court (SIdg) 201 W. 14th St. 78701, RD. Box 12303 Austin, Texas, 78711

Original Copy

AC Appéal no. TE no. 20140502846

Dear Llerk Dear Enclosed please find the original copy of Relation first petition for visit of mandamus to be filed in the court of criminal appetals of Texas in the abour reference trial number that is before the court in the town of a visit of habers, who thus under article 11.01 of the Varanis Annotated Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that was on should had been filed in this court back in the month of July, 2015 from the trial. In the mandamus visit, Relation inform the court as to how it could construe the mandamus visit. See page 4 at volume 16-29 and on page 5 through 6 of the mandamus visit. Also Enclosed is a true and correct copy of Relation letter to the trial judge Honorable Bunnie Rangel. By copy of this letter, Relation is outstanding a true and correct copy of the same to the attorney benter of Texas except a copy of the letter to the trial judge.

Thank you sincerely Also Enclosed is the original copy of Relation application to proceed in China Pauperis of necessary

Respectfully Submitted

In The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 3. Jimmy Lee Suked - Relator 3.45 . 4. Hinnurable Bonnie Rangel 5. Budge, 111st District Court of 6. El Paso County, Texas - Respondent

Relator First Petition For Whit of Mandamus

7. To the Hinnurable Judge of, said court: 8. James now Jimmy Lee Suked - Relator and mine 9. The Court to issue the Whit of mandamus against Re- 10. Spandent for Abusies to have abusing her discection by 12 failure to analyze or apply the law of subdivision 13 (4) (5) and (6) of section 13 (h) of article 42.12 of the 14. Neman's Annotated Texas Code of Criminal Proce dure, 16 (2011 edition) resulted in denying Relator procedural due 10 proces, due proces and of law and equal protection of 17. the law proximately cause of relator being restrained 18 and deprived of his liberty by confinement in a state 19. jail facility own by the state of Texas in violation of the 2014th amendment to the United States Constitution and 21. as such relator would respectfully show the court following: 22. It has been established in fact of law that a state 24. creates liberty interest through words such as "shall" 25. used in its state laws and regulations and that such 26. Wond "shall" has been considered and held to be a 27. mandatory language. See Board of Randon us. Allen, 107 28.5.ct. 2415 at 2420 - 2421 (4421), Kentucky Sept. CQAR. US. page 1 of 1

1. Thompson, 109 S.C. 1904 (1949). In dozens of cases 2. the court have held the word "May" "May" to be 5 y 5. nongmous with "Shall" or "must" in an eftord to effect: 4. uate legislative intent. See Black Law Dictionary (5th edition) 5. page 1068 at "May". Also see Code of Judicial Conduct Can. 6.9 on 4 at Terminology (3) of the "May" providing that "May" 7. denotes permissible discretion on, depending on the 8. context, refers to action that is not covered by passmi. proescription. Id. In the case at bar, respondent actions to the refer subject matter is clearly covered by 11 proescription and actions of according diligent part 11.9 12.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

1. Subdivision (4) and (6), I.d. correctly which should a. constitute abuse of discretion, In me el faso Health-
2. case System, 969 3. 4. 2d 68 (Tex. App. E.1. Pa 50 1998).
3. which is maximatcly cause of relation being restrained
4. and deprived of his liberty by confinement as stated
5. on page 1 in the introduction of this wait because it the
6. respondent had of analyze on apply subdivision (4)
7. and (6), I.d. correctly, and awarded relation his
8. entitlement of one fifth time credit toward his 20
9. months sentence for diligent participating in a legal
10. educational program on his own after the Texas
11. since the Texas Department of Lniminal Justice abpoint
12. around about the year of 1993 interrupted with offend-
13. years such as relation house in the prison Administrant-
14. for several ion Segregation housing area opportunity to
15. participate in educational program provided by the
16. prison Windham School bistrict thats outside the control
17. of the relation in compliance with subdivision (4)(6), I.d.
18. relation discharge (relates) date would had moveder
19. 20, 2015 instead of of March 8, 2016 because there was 20 disciplinary action filed against relation in the month
20. of December, 2014 than he was not entitle to be awarded
21. and a eddition of participating
22. and the diligent participation credit for that month
23. only in compliance with subdivision (6), I.d. which
24. in 12 days would be substaated from the
25. in 12 days would be substaated from the
26. in 12 days will be filled toward his 20 months sentence
27. which would put his release date at moveder 20,2015
28. as stated above at volume 19-20.

Therefore, base on on the above second evidence page 3 of 1

1. Allegations and Authorities Relator move the to issue 2. the wait of mandamus against ReSpondent, after 3 finding She has Abuse here disceRtion by failure to 4 Analyze on apply to the law of article 42.12 , section 515 (h), Subdivision (4) (5) and (6) (1)(8)(5) and (6) of 6 the Vennon's Annotated Texas Code of Criminal Record-11 urE (2011 Edition and that Relator is entitled to be 8 awarded the said one fifth time credit toward this 9.20 months sentence for diligent participating and 10 earge orיהם on his own toward a successful 11. Successful completion legal educational program as 12 required by Subdivision (1)(8) and (6), I2., which makes 12 his discharged to be November 20, 2015 and that he 13 shall be released from contintment at the Travis State 1512al Facility, in Austin, Texas it is 50 under by this court. 16 Further, if Relator habers corpus application pursuant to article 11.07 of the Vennon's Annotated Texas 16 Code of Criminal RecordurE filed in the Abuse trial account number 20140802846 has been denied by this 2100 upad of Criminal Reports than Relator, 210 the court 21 to a Longer than that around for ReLict 22 count of Criminal Repents on even if it hasn't been 23 denied this court should construe this wait of 24 mandamus as the second amended petition to the 25 Original Article 11.07 Application on construe this 26 Mandamus wait as Relator Second Article 11.07 Appli-33ication since Relator is 25 challenging the execu-223tion of sentence. See and compare Davis vs. Fechtel, 28/150f.32444. 28 (5th cIR 1994) citing Russell vs. Knipage 4 of 7

Whht, $488f\mathrm{.22}\mathrm{d}916,97(6$ th Cn. 1973). Especially when this 2 this resolution would automatically entitle relator 3 to recelerated relerse. SEE In RE: Cain 137 f. 3 d 234 4 (6th Cn 1998) holding that a qrisoner should seelk RE 5 dAe 55 for 1055 of good conduct credit through a hab-b/ers pAdceding), cited from Davis, 160 f. 3 d $488\mathrm{d}\mathrm{d}-$ 7 And Eserceth the current claim should be accepted 8 by this court pursuant to Article section (4)(a)(a) of Art. 9/cle 11.07, Id. when the current claims and issues 10 have not been and could not have been presented 11 in the original application under Article 11.07, Id., becau12 Se the claim was unavaliable on the date the relator 131 Relator filed the previous application in the month of 14 April, 2016. And the current did not come into existing 15 until after RE5 accident reviewed the report sent 16 to hear by the years Department of Criminal Justice 17 in the month of October, 2016 30 day before the date 18 in which relator will have secued 20 percent of his 1920 months sentence in the month of November, 2016 20 in compliance with Subdivision(5) of Section 16(h), Id. 21 Further, Relator also asls this court to construe this 22. Wait of mandamus as one of an application under 23. Article 11.01, Id. as well since he is unlawhully being 24. Rectorain of his liberty by confinement is in violation 25. of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitut26. ion after his 20 months sentence expired in the pass 27. month of April on May, 2016 may before November 20, 282016 as alleged on page 3 at volume 19 - 29 of this 29. And on page 4 at volume 13 - 15 of this wait because 30 he is eentitled to be credit for the 10 to 11 months page 5 of 7

1. He Servied at tiberty on the streets of El Paso County, 2. Texas toward the discharged of his 20 months sentence 3. Of since he he was erroneous released from Custody, 4. did so, the date the crime was committed, without 5. Any fault on relation. part. see Bouncy, 7. 9715 W. 2d 57b (LA. App. 1870. Substruct the 11 months from 8. the 20 months sentence relation discharge date is the month of May, 2016 instead of March 8, 2016, and all of 10 the above was brought to the attention of the trial court 11. but the courts refuse to test release relation from 12. Custody on see attached sheet page 13 at the conclusion 13. of his third ground for relief of a alleged in his origin. 14. At article 11.07, makes corpus application altered before 15. Already before this court, also see relation. - letter to 16. trial yulge honorable Bonnie Russell attached here to 17. trial judge honorable Bonnie Russell attached here to. 18. And relation move this court to issue the wait, quashant to article 11.01, 22. ordering relation release from 20. Custody after this court has passed the EAK of 21. Credit relation for the 10 to 11 months he servied at 22. liberty toward the discharge of his 20 months sentence. 23. in compliance with its holding in Ex parte by Bouncy, 24. 9715 W. 2d 57b (LA. App. 1871) as alleged above. 25. Wherefore, promises considered relation, or, this court grant his wait at mandamus and other and turn 27. there relied by which he is just and rightful entitled to 38. in Equity.

Respectfully Submitted

Case Details

Case Name: Sweed, James Lee AKA Sweed, Jimmy Lee AKA Sweed, Jimmy

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 9, 2015

Docket Number: WR-15,251-19

Court Abbreviation: Tex.