Case Information
*1 March 16, 2015 77,138-25,20,27, 28,29 Court of Criminal Appeals RO. Box 12308 Capital Station Hustin, Texas 78711 RE: Filings of Malpractice Civil Suite against defense counsel Calvin D. Johnson Dear Court of Criminal Appeals, I have filed three(s) different Pro Se Original Refitions for civil lawsuits for Legal Malpractice against Calvin D Johnson in the Civil Part Cunts of Dulles County, addressed at: Pelicia Atree District Clerk, George L. Allen Sr. Cunts Building, 600 Commerce St., Suite 103, Dulles, Texas 75202, Reese see attachment Exhibit A, which is proof that I have been filing my petition with such court, and I am constantly ignored when it comes to my petition going forward. I am requesting that this Hizquer Court to Orpok the Dulles County District Clerk to File my Refition for Civil suit against Calvin D. Johnson. Thanks in advance for yourtore.
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRININAL APPEALS WAR 192015 Abel Acosta, Clork
*2 January 19,2015 GEORGE L. ALLEN, SR.COMATS BULDRUG 600 Commerce Street, Suite 103 Dallas, TX 75202-4606 RE: ProSe Original Retition for Legal Malpractice, Iow suit Plaintiff Sennick Wilkerson Co. Defendant Calvin D. Johnson Deer Civil Courts, Endosed is a copy of the ProSe Original Retition for Civil Lawsuit for Legal Malpractice, and a copy of the Affichurit of Indigony, for the Retition. Since this court has recently claimed that the first Retition was not enclosed in the first envelope maited to you in regards to this suit, I have forwarded a new Retition to this court, and one to the United States Supreme Courts I received your letter where you claimed that my Retition was not in the envelope. The letter that I mailed along with my first Retition dated December 23,2014; I noticed that this Court filed my first letter with a stamped, saying filed on Dec. 29, 2014. But someone in the court whited out the stamp and wrote me a message on a deallow sticky note.
F. 3
Please file the the enclosed Retition, and mail a copy book to me which should include the case number.
Sincerely, SERIRICK WILKERSON ROBERT Ramsey I Unit 1100 FM 655 TE-2-17T Rosbaron, TX 77583
*3 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS SENAICK WALKERSON APPLICANT
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ALERTROFERENDED IN THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SHID COURT: Greetings.
CONES NO. 1, Sennick Wilkerson, the Applicant herein, and Files this pro se Motion for Evidentiary Hearing to the above instant applications, and for good cause would show the Courts as follows:
Applicant has filed a wilt of Habeas Corpus seeking an out-of-time appeal opportunity and for wilt No. w10-0183-3(F), a subsequent wilt based on newly discussed evidence challenging the conviction, the sentence and an out-oftime appeal before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Airtley V. State, 89 S.W. 2d 188, 189 (ex.App.-Texanham, 2002, no pet.); Reves V. State 883 S.W. 2d 211, 283, n. 2 (ex. App.-El Asso, 1994 no pet.) This is not attack on the underlying conviction for wilt Nos. 4008-60213 W10-0189-3(E) and W10-0185-3(A). See In re Cain 137F, 2d 231, 235 (5th Cir. 1998).
The State will appeal by and through its District Attorney, and is expected to generally and specifically deny each and every allegation of fact made by the Applicant, while demanding strict proof of the same. She will likely recommend relief be denied. See V.A.C.C.P. Ann.ort. 11.67, 83(b).
In seeking his out-of-time appeal opportunity, Applicant has alleged, inter alia, that he suffered a denial of his full right to be heard on appeal, and that the same resulted by and through a variety of acts and omissions knowingly undertaken by a biased Trial Court and her malphaticed and ineffective defense counselor, Mr. Calvin D. Johnson. Counsel's misfidwiler secreted (cultural predicates) from the records at the first direct appeal, the subject of the instant application. However, it is well settled that the inadequacy of an appellate record is often due to the inherent nature of most ineffective assistance of counsel claims and direct appeal. Ex. Partie Ground 1583W, 2d 182 (ex. Crim.App. 2005), thus, faumes to all parties requires a party to advance his complaints at a time when there is an opportunity, as here I to respond or cure them. Yung V. State, 826 S.W. 2 d 111, 199 (ex. Crim.App.1991); Levels V. State 159 S.W. 2d 920 (ex. Crim. 2003). In any event, Applicant will state that the District Clerk of Dallas County will confirm that the files are missing from cause Nos. F10-0182, F10-0183, F10-0184, F10-0185, and that the District Clerk, and Dallas Police Department can not produce the Arrest Records, the atence reports, the arraignment documents, the suom arrest Page 1 of 3.
*4 affiduity, the Information, the complaint affiduits and the prosecution naier once presented cause nos. FIO-0182, FIO-0183, FIO-0184 &; FIO-0185 before any Maqistrate sidge or grandjuy. The State can not produce any of the documents mentioned to set forth evidence of record to support the illegal prosecutions which totally denied Applicant of his due process, See U.S. Const. Amends, VI,XV; Tex.St. Const.At. 18819,8.
However, the Honorable Fourth Court of Appests District, San Antonio has previously indicated that in the absence of a clear shaving to the contrary, it would presume the Trial Court was neutral and detached. Addyapparous V. State 213 S10, 2d FILIex, App-San Antonio, 2007) (citing Steadman V. State 315 SLa 2d 789, 791 (ex, App-Houston U. St. 2200 , pet. redi).
The foet that the files are missing shows evidence that Applicant was denied due process, See U.S. Const. Amends, VI,XIV; Tex.St. Constant. 18810,19. Thus, the need for an evidentiary hearing appears from the face of the Trial Court record. Secondly, the issues to be considered and the and the evidence to be taken are directly relevant to legitimate points of error, the development of which will be necessary in order for this Honorable Court to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the appellate process, see, generally, Harris V. State 818 S10, 2d 231 (ex, App-San Antonio, 1991, no pet.) (good cause, shown to suspend state 827 S10, 2d 942 (ex, App-San Antonio, 1992, no pet.) (good cause, shown to suspend Tex.R, App.P, 3 K (d) and of time motion for a neuntrial). Relief must be granted.
MURREFORE, PREMSES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this Honorable Court GARNt his Mision for Eighbility Hearing and, in the interest thereof, ORDER (1)a Wrilt of Habers Comps "A Testification" is simply a judicial order directing the wanden and TOCF ID to release to Dulbs County, for the purpose of testifying and (2) the subpoena of Defense counsel Calvin B. Selhson, 3131 Mekinner, Ahe, such 600, Dulbs, Texas 75204; Prosecutor Brooke B. Gross-Robb, Frank Graubly Counts Building, 133 N. Auerfurd Blud, 1819, Dulbs, TX 75207 and Telick, Fltre' District Clerk, 133 N. Auerfurd Blud, 1812, Dulbs, Texas 75207 &; Dulbs Police Department, Open Records Agent, Jack Evans Headquarters, 1100 S. Lamar Street, Dulbs, Texas 75215, in order that they may be cross-examined in the presence of Dulbs County, District Court, in Dulbs County, Texas, and for their much-needed assistance in developing the reasons why the files are missing, why there are no complaint affiduits, why the arrangement documents don't exist, why there are no arrest records, why there are no offence reports, why there is no information, why there was never any investigations executed, why there was never any physical or DNA evidence presented, why the prosecution naier presented these cases to any Maqistrate Tidge or grandjuy, why Dulbs County is showing four (1) differentariest dates (for FIO-0188, FIO-0189), and why Applicant was Page 2 of 3
*5
never once ever arrested and never amnioned for 100182 sexual performance by a child, 100183 sexual performance by a child, 100184 sexual assault on a child, 8 FID-2185 compelling prostitution, Shlob-Beyant U. Director, TOCI-10, supra; Shickland U. U.S. U.S. 608,104 S. 612052.
Respectfully submitted, www.fidh.com SENPICK U. U.K. ERSON 188546 Pawsey T.U.N. 1100 F.M. 655 F. 7 E-2-177 Rosharon, 72 T7583
CERTIFICATTE OF SPECICE
I hereby certify that on March 16, 2015, the foregoing Motion for Evidentiary Hearing has been U.S. mailed to: Court of Criminal Apends, R.O. Box 2808, Capital Station, Austin, Texas 78711.
SENPICK U. U.K. ERSON
PawPICK U. U.K. ERSON
*6
APPLICANTS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUDING OF LAW, AND ORDER
- Page 2 of the State's Response alleges a Section 4, article 11.07 bar to the instant application, No such bar exists.
In Ex forte Evans 964 310, 2d 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988), this Honorable Court held that: "Both the definition of 'conviction', and this courts case law regarding wnit applications leads us to the conclusion that the procedural bar of 84 (Tex.CC.6art.1107) is limited to instances in which the initial application raises claims regarding the uslidity of the prosecution on judgment of guilt. It does not apply to claims regarding other matters (which have nothing to do with the conviction other than sharing the same forum of fact-finding... As a result, [Evans's application is not barred by section 4 because Applicants' prior application did not inudue a claim which challenges the conviction or sentence within the meaning of Article 1107, 84." See also, Ex forte Rawlinson 958 310, 2d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (other term "conviction", encompasses judgment and sentence only).
Page 1 of the instant application clearly defines that: "Applicant has fitted a wnit of Habers Corpus seeking an out-of-time appeal opportunity betore the Texas Court of Criminal Apeels, Jattley V. State 89 310, 2d 188, 199 (Tex. App. Texarkong 2002, no pet.), Ropes V. State 89 310, 2d 291, 293, n. 2 (Tex. App. El (sso, 1994, no pet.). See In re Cain 137 F, 2d 234, 235 (5TH Cir. 1998..."). Also, on Rape 1 of the instant application, Applicant specifically, underlined 'out-of-time' appeal, and handwrote the same notation to indicate that Applicant is challenging an out-of-time appeal only, and not the conviction. Accordingly, Applicant Objects to the Trial Court's having imprudently dismissed the instant application without due process of the instrument. 2. Applicant takes this opportunity to re-ossent his prior request for an evidentiary hearing at State level. Specifically, the Srdical Grant of the New Trial, evidenced by the Record, creates a factual dispute which, if resolved in The Applicant's Favor, would entitle him to relief. See East V. Seff 55F, 2d 996 (5TH Cir. 1993).
Page 1 of 2
*7
The State's characterisation of the Grant notation as "Elegible Markings" will require a closer examination of the original documents, absent the effect of photocopying.
Further, the States allegation that the Court's "Clarification" by noting that he had not ruled on said motion is not subject to being deemed a denial by operation of law, As argued before, the Court's untimely response, if any, is statuitonily barred by the applicable 75 daytime limit.
Indeed, where a different judge reviews a habeas application, a paper hearing may not be sufficient. In Netheng V. Collins 933 F. 2d 1157 (511 Cir. N93) cent. denied 114 S.C. N16 (1991). The court noted that a different judge has no basis for making credibility choices between conflicting clamants, establish(1) that the finding was not correct, and (2) that a full and fair hearing was not conducted.
Thus, an evidentiary hearing is required to determine Applicant's right to his NeuTrial as originally Granted. Netheng V. Collins 933 F. 2d 1157 (511 Cir. N93) cent. denied 114 S.C. N16 (1991).
PRAYER Applicant prays this Honorable Count REMAND the instant application back to the Trial Court for full consideration of the merits of his allegations.
Respectfully submitted, SENACT. WILKERSON 1885146 RANeEy I. UMP. HCO 19M 6567 E-2177 Rostearon, TX 77583
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on March 15, 2015, the foregoing Motion has been (1.), mailed to: Felicia Nire District Clerk, 133 N. Riverfront end., L012, Dallas, Texas 75257 D. Court of Criminal Appents, RQ Box 12208, Austin, TX 78711.
SENACK, GILKERSON
ORbER The dose Motion is hereby! (spranted) (avernated)
SUDGE
Page 2 of 2