Case Information

*1 No. 891984-02 Ex parte Shnathan Ruffin, TOCJ No. 1914680

S

In the court of CRIMINAL APPEALS OF RECEIVED!AF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS S APR 172015

Applicants original objection to Unfair state habeas action'; pursuant to V.A.C.C.R, art. II.07, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1, 14; Denial of Access to Cunts and Equal Protection to the Honorable Justices of court of criminal aryens of Texas: Comes Nov, Johnathan Ruffin, #1914680; whom is Not an Attorney; yet, wishes this court to view this motion liberally, construed in petitioner prosess Favor-See, Haines V. Kerres, 404 U.S. 519,92 S.CL.594, 30 L.Ed. 2 d 652 - habeas court action This Applicant, Johnathan Ruffin, #1914680; comes to the 248 th Judicial District Court of Harris co., Texas with this Instant habeas action, cause no. 1378326-A-filed to March 2015, with the Harris co. District Clerk-Chris Daniel/1eol Franklin-P.o. Box 4651/Houston, Texas 77210-4651-

*2

The 'STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER'; of 17 MARCH 2015 has misconstrued claims of Applicants; without chance to correct. Within these papers/documents; the state includes controverted issues and facts, which is claimed to be documanted 'evidence' for the state. There are Controverted facts, that are unresolved Federal basis for the 'legality of the applicationfinement'; which is reason for a 'full and fair evidentiary hearing' need.

APLICANTS DEJECTION

Applicants 'Objection to states proposed Findings of fact.'; executed on 24 March 2015, deposited in prison mail box; with first-class postage prepaid on same day; has not even had a judgement rendered upon it, before the couRTS ORDER to forward to: CWT of CRUMINAL APPLYSs of TEXAS-TAHs, causing unfair/prejudicial treatment toward this Applicant. - state of texas' habeas corpus proceedings, v.A.C.P., art 11.07, demand a fair, unbiased, or prejudicial proceedings; when examining the landillness and the legality of the application's confinement. This applicant

*3 is trying to get his one 'bite of the apple' Fairly; without a 'sour or rotten apple'. No ruling has been rendered on 'Applicants Original Objection... and OROER'; unless one would eunt the automatic forwerding of habees proceedings, as in Answer. Within this Applicants Objection; he requests the following: 1) evidentiary hearing 2) Discovery process 3) Production and Inspection of various reports and notes of/ount minutes. 4) Trial Court Transcript, and other court records-memo's Obscmentary evidence and Verification of Authority, etc. Nothing has been properly observed in this habeas action; ONLY, that being how this applicant has shown (by the STMES own evidence) the illegality of his confinement; when the 249th J.D.C. has caused, in 25 March 2015, his habeas action to be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Assets of TEXAS, without applicants 'objection to STMES FINDINGS' being ruled upon. Applicant describes the "Conteovered FACS", that justice demands a full and fair evidentiary hearing and Discovery process; within this OB SECTION, that remains without judgment rendered or opinion thereto.

*4 TRIAL COURT FINDINGS

Pursuant to V.A.C.C.A, Article II.07; All habeas corpus issues must be resolved in the Trial Court, before findings of Fact can be resolved with recommendations being forwarded in the record to the COURT of CRIMNAL AFFEMS of TEXAS. In the Applicants instent, no. 1378326-A (24848 District Court of Harris co., Texas), habeas action; there are many previously unresolved facts material to the legality of Applicants confinement. In which, these controverted issues need to be resolved in the Trial Court via affidavits, depositions, interrogatories, and an evidentiary hearing; for a full and fair right to petition the courts. U.S.C.A. CONST. ANDONS. 1, 14.

STATES ORIGINAL ANSWER

The state would have everyone believe; by its mere conclusion, without Federal evidence-of any kind; that CROVES was effective for the Applicant/Defendant. However, in the STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER, where the STATE provided EXHIBITS, for the COURT. THESE EXHIBITS STOW

*5 Illagel-procedures: STATES EXHIBIT A L'STATES ORIGINAL ANSWER]-WAIVER of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, AGREEMENT TO STIRLATE, AND JUDICIAL CONFESSION' No. 02455303 - THIS WAIVER is ILLEGAL; for, *Absolute rights cannot be waived, even with consent; implementation of those rights is not optional and cannot be waived of forfeited Kieschnick v. state, 911 swwzd 1516 - therefore; this fraud-— ulently signed waiver, is void on its face - whereas; the ONLY evidence in the trial court records, is this [Exhibit A, 'staRes ANSWER'] 'judicial confession'-Please see, haflore v. state, 595 swwzd 862 , at 864 [1] 'If this 'judicial confession' was the only evidence in the record, we would have to conclude that the evidence was in--sufficient to sustain a conviction-. Exhibit A; of the 'staRes orIGINAL ANSWER', is a fraudulently created govern mental document - As; 'staRes exhibit D' will showEntry No. II, on this I. Heris County Criminal District Docket sheet] 'staRes exhibit D', clearly shows that 'defendant Ruffin, Johnathan appeared without counsel-' This is a forged govern mental record; created to harm this defendant, by claiming the defendant was the one

*6

who executed this document, "warver of constructional Rights, agreement to stipulate, and judicial confession" - This is a criminal act: "Texas Penal Code 837.10.78" "Tampering with Governmental Record" (d)(3) - This Fraudulent Government document demonstrates the Collusion used to deny the defendant his Absolute right. United States Constitution, Article III - "the trial of all crimes, - shall be by Jury; - ] to trial by Jury; and, Counsel's failure to secure and protect that "Absolute right," is to be Ineffective - See, Kegler v. state, 16 sW3d 908, at 911 I 3,4 ] To prove a plea was involuntary because of ineffective assistance of counsel, - - by causing him to give up his right to a trial - This demonstrates Counsel's Ineffectiveness as defendent's Constitutionally protected right to counsel-Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688-92, 104 S.Cf. 2052 - This Conviction cannot legally be enforced; and, must be overturned -

CONCLUSION

Due to these instances of: no evidence to sustain a conviction, Collusion to cause Harm to defendant, by

*7 llegally confining the defendant using freudulantly created governmental records; and, Insuffective assistance of cwnsell See, Ex parte Steadows, 418 sived 6666 - Denial of accused's right to counsel or effective aid of counsel renders conviction void....] must be provided to the defendant, by law and protected by the Texas Constitution, U.S. Constitutional Amends. Le, 14 - See, Lee U. U.S., 322 F. 2d 770-A defendant has an absolute right to counsel, ...., and such right to counsel is so fundamental to due process that it is obligatory upon the states by the Furteenth Amendment - AND; This is the Reason why the 248th District Court of Harris, county, Texas denied this Applicant a fair and unbiased I.V.A.C.C.P., Article II. 07] Texas state hebees corpus proceeding, in for mending everything to the Court of criminal aryals of Texas, without the full and fair process of Evidentiary Hearings with its discover due a habeas proceeding - Applicant Knew the trial court would not want all the illegal actions;

*8 with the reversal of conviction and sentence; exposed in the 248th District Court of Harris candy, Texas - So; the Applicant went forward, before his time ran out, and filed his Federal (28 U.S.C. $22.54) habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, at Houston, Texas - Cause No. 4115-cV-00531 - True to its Form; the 248th District Court tries to circumvent the full and Fair habeas process of the State of Texas - PRAFER Applicant, Johnathan Ruffin, TDES No. 1914680, PRATS this COURT take NOTICE of this Judicial error; and, GRANT this Applicant his full and fair state habeas orpus proceeding with romand back to trial court with INSTRUCTIONS. these INSTRUCTIONS SHALLOHOLIDGE, but not limited to: Full and Fair Evidentiary mearing with Appointment of Counsel; Discovery process with no limitations upon the Applicants requests; ORDERING the 248th District COURT, upon completion of hearings, depositions, affidavits,

*9 and interrogatories, that CONVICTION SHALL BE MADE NULL AND VOID; releasing Applicant thereafter. As this Applicant has demonstrated controverted facts that are listed herein this motion; with ceselaw provided demonstra- treating his CONVCTION AND SENTENCE is VOID ON ITS FACE. Applicant PRANS this COURT will take notice of this fundamental miscarriage of Justice AND Cause All ORDERS. SULA SPONTE, FROM THIS COURT TO REMEDY THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR STATE OF TEXAS' 248th District COURT's ERRORS OF FEDERAL LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL ANEWS.

Executed this 13th day of April 2015—

Respectfully Submitted, of TEXAS CO. 248th District COURT of HARRIS CO. TEXAS/We HOTIVs CO. District C. LERK.

BEC: file-federal notice

*10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Johnsthen Ruth, TEX No. 1914680 do hereby CERTIF that a TRLE AND COKERT copy of "Applicants Origine! "Objection to Unfor state habeas action" has been, this day, sent to: 248th District Court of Harris county, Texas via Harris county District Clerk-Chis Daniel/Po. Box 4651/ Houston, Texas 77210-4651; U.S. first-class prepaid postage via prison mail box deposited.

Executed this 13th day of April 2015 - Signsthenrth RUGB. Johnsthen Ruth, #1914680 Petitioner:pro se