Case Information

*1 TO: Abel Acosta, Court Cleek Texas Court of Criminal Appests P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Stratton Austin, Texas 78711

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FRANCET 1 MAR 232015

PRoM: Rafael Vasquez, 738214 RANSET 1 1100 FM 1055 Rosbaron, Texas 77583

DATE: 3/18/2015

RE: EX PARTE: Rafael Vasquez, No. 1995-CR-0088-412

DEAR MR. ACOSTA,

Please find enclosed, one copy of my timely filed Applicant's Supplemental Objections to the Trial Court's order of Dismissal, And one Copy of the Applicant's Supplemental Objections to the Trial Court's Order of Dismissal II, dated 3/17/15, both filed before the 175th District Court of Bevse County, per T.R.AP. Rule 73. 4(b)(2)(west 2014). Because some part of the latter document is illegible, Please Refer to the Similar document mailed to Evve office, under Separate Cover, for No. 1995-CR-0085-42.

*2 Again, These documents were previously filed before the Trial Court per act. 811.07.

Unfortunately, The Nature of the allegations as well as The documentary evidence This Applicant possesses, Suggest That it would be well and reasonable to forward additional copies directly to Yours office in a Timely fashion so That They are insured to be part of the babes forced. Please place These document copies as well as This letter in The appropriate file.

Thank you for Yours Kind Consideration.

Respectfully Submitted, Applicant you se.

*3 No. 1995-CR-0683-W2

EX PARTE RAFAEL VAsques

APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAQL OBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER OF DISMISSAL

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Greetings. Comes now, Rafael Vasquez, ABPLICANT HREein, to file these, his supplemental OBJECTIONS tothbe Trial Court's ddiathsal of Eda Writ of Habeas Corpus. Said Order was dated 23 February, 2015, postmarked 3/5/2015, and received by Applicant on 3/10/2015. Then, he has till 3/20/2015 to timely file his objecdions. See Houston v. Lack 487 U.S. 266, 101 L.Ed. 2d 245, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988)(Court documents timely filed if placed in a prison unit mailbox on or before the last ddy of filing).

HISTORY For the sake of judicial economy, Applicant respectfully reminds this Honorable Court that a more complete background is contained within the Applicant's first objecdions filed on March 11, 2015. Here, Applicant simply attaabhe two additional objections.

OBJECTION 2 a. The Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to make Biscrctionary findings of fact and conclusions of law in her dismissal of 2/23/2015. Any discretiomal act performed by a disqualified judge

*4

is void. Burkett v. State 196 S.W.3d 892 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 2006). Here, the Trial Court failed or refused to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law as to whether or not she should be recused. When faced with a Motion for Recusal, a Trial Court is faced with two opalions; GRANT the motion, or, in the alternative, pass the motion on to another judee for disposition. The Trial Court's limited findings of fact and conclusions of law operated as their own error, indeed, as a structural error further denying Applicant his right to a trial court without partiality. See Abdygapparova v. State 243 S.W.3d 191 (Tex.App.--San Antonio, 2007)(finding this same Trial Court to have bnan biased and prejudiced in a capital murder case requiring reversal); Cain v. State 947 S.W.2d 262, 264 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Blue v. 58 ate 41 S.W.3d 41 S.W.3d 129, 138 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Tex.Const. Art. V, §1-a(6)A. Easily, the Trial Court's limited findings of fact and conclusions of law, if any, purposefully circumvented the "reasonable member of the public at large," analysis required per Cain, supra. iAbegapparova v. 8 rate, supra., and Arizona v. Fulminante 499 U.S. 279 (1991).

OBJECTION 3 3

a. In East v. Scott 55 &;.3d 996 (5th Cir. 1995), the court held that "the opportunity for an evidentiary Hearing is a federal habeas corpus proceeding is mandatory only where there is a factual dispute which, if resolved in the petitioner's favor, would entitle thefpetitioner to relief and the petitioner has not received a full and fair evidentiary hearing in state court." (citing Townsend v. 58 in 372 DIS. 293 (1963)). Here, the Trial

*5 Court has exercised limited jurisdetion that operates to deny Applicant the opportunity to envoke the appropriate standard of evidence used in answering the question of whether or not the Trial Court should have recused herself. An enddentiary hearing is required to ascertain the meritorious facts where the state trier of fact has rested upon an error of law in making her decision, bapodifically, that she lacks jurisdicotion over a writ of habeq corpus seeking only an out-of-time appeal opportunity. Townsend, supra., 372 U.S. 293, 315 (1963).

Each and every allegation previously advanced in the instant Writ of Habeas Corpus and the first submitted objesion are herein reasserted.

Respectfully submitted.

RafaelVasquez APPLICANT

UNSWORN DECLARATION

81 Rafael Vasquez, TDCJ $₫738214$ , an inmate confined in the Ramsey 1 Unit located in Brazoria County, Texas, swear ander penalty of perjury, that the foregoing instrument is true and correct insofar as I understand the applicable law to require.

Executed this 15 th day of March, 2015.

Rafael Vasquez APPLICANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Rafael Vasquez TDCJ $₫738216$ aqutr and affirm that a true and complete copy of this instrument was delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the office of the Bexar County District Attorney, Mr. Nicholas "Nico" LaHood at the Paul Elizondo Tower, San Antonio, Texas 78205, on this, the 15th day of March, 2015.

Delivered at: Cadena-Reeves gfstice Center, 300 Dolorosa, 5th floor San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030

Rafael Vasquez APPLICANT

*6

No. 1995-CR-0683-CR-W2

he has, to date, filed an written objection to the Courtiessua sponte dismissal on $3/11/2015$ . See also, his Supplemental objections #2 3 filed $3/15/2015$ . This is his second supplemental objection

To THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Greetings. Comes now, Rafael Vasquez, Applicant herein, to file before the Court, thes, his supplemenalobjections to the Trine Court's Order of Dismissal, dated 23 February, 2015, postmarked 3/5/15, and received by Applicant on 2/10/2015. Thus, he has until 3/20/15 to timely file his objections. See, Tex.R.App.Proc., Rule 73.4 (b)(2)(West 2014); Houston v. Lack 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988)(Prison "mailbox rule").

HISTORY

For the sake of judicial economy, Applicant respectfully points to a more complete history of this writ of Habeas Corpus filed with the instant application. Here, Applicant notes that he has, to date, filed an written objection to the Coustessua sponte dismissal on $3/11/2015$ . See also, his Supplemental objections #2 3 filed $3/15/2015$ . This is his second supplemental objection timely filed in accordance with TRAP R. 73.4 (b)(2).

*7 fact-finder would [not] have found the Applicant guilty of the underlying affense." See $\$2244$ (2)(2)(A)(B), nor that his claim Aphlicanthis s0becting by t0noftitit 0nntt' a dismissal of 4: Cain v. State 847P8102241262the6Trts459H1A. 44A9899599999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

*8 2002, pet. filed); Rivera v. State 940 S.W.2d 148,149 (Tex.App. --San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Oivo v. State 918 S.W.2d 519, 525, n.8 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)("denial of a meaningful appeal due oo ineffective assistance of counsel is proper grounds for habeas relief."); Thus, the prior application, seeking only an out-of-timeropportunity of file a PDR is "another matter," neither of which have anything to do with the underlying conviction other than "sharing the same forum or fact-finding" that do not reach the definition of a challenge to the conviction. Addarte Evans Because seeking an out-of-time PDR involved other considerations, the instant application cannot be considered successive or abusive. Applicant prays this HonorablexCourt REMAND the issues back to the Trial Court 66 further proceedings.

Respectfullyunbmitted, Respectvalycez AAPPLICANT Rafa UNSWORN DECLARATION I, Rafael Vasquez, TDCJ $\varphi 738214$ aR Ihmate confined in the Ramsey 1 Unit located in Brzoria County, Texas, swear under pbenalty of perjury, that the foregoing instrument is trumand corret insofar as I understand the applicable law oo require.

Executed this 17 th day of March, 2015.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rafael Vasquez, TDCJ $\varphi$ 738214, swear and affirm that a true and compleatocopy of thes instrument was delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the Bexar Coungy District Attorney, Mr. Nicholas LaHood, at Cadena-Reeves Justice Center, 300 Dolorosa, 5th Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205-3030 on this, the 17 th day of March, 2015.