Case Information

*1

1. 15.00122.00

Cumne Mack Lewis TOLS IT DOOMINGS 1300 EM 655 Resharon, Texas 71583

FRENCH FELT FOLL FOLL FOLL FOLL FOLL FOLL FOLL FOLL February 2, 2015

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 1307 San Jacinto Street Houston, Texas 71582

Dear Clerk:

Please find enclosed Relator's Retition for of Mandamus. Please file the same with the Count as soon as possible, and notify me of the File Number at the above Mailing Location. Thank you for your assistance in this Matter.

Lours truly ustas my Pawis

*2 In the Fourteenth COURT of APPEAls

INRE: CURTIS MACK LEWIS, RElator

On Appeal from the 351st Judicial District Clerk

Harcis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 599582

ON RElition For Writ of Mondamus

To the Henerable Judge, de Sill Court:

Comes Now, Curtis Mack Lewis, Relator herein, and files this his RElition for Writ of Mondamus, and in support here of SNews the following:

In the past Levets have held that he-se litigants untrained in the law shell be held to a lesser standing. So as Relator is a pre-se litigant in this Mondamus proceeding and not trained in the law, Relator would ask this Court to attend him the difference of liberal construction in his pleadings and not restrict him to legal theories expressly raised in Relator’s

(1)

*3 petition, but to instead, view the overall grounds and merits of law where relater has remiss or is wrong, with an eye toward the attainment of substantial justice. Ex parte Stoves 946 S.W. 2d 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Miller v. Stanmore, 636 E. 2d 986,999 (5th Cir. 1981); Haves v. Kecher, 404 U.S. 519,92 S. Ct 594,30 L. Ed 2d 652 (1972).

II.

IDENTITY OF PARTIES

Pursuant to Tex.R.App. P. 52.3 (2), the Relator presents the following list of all parties and the names and the addresses:

1. Relater (Petitioner in the underlying Action), Custs Mark Lewis TOCT # DO646507, 1300 EM 655, Resharon, Texas 74583.

2. Respendent Trial Court Judge

The Haucrable Kent Ellis, Homs County Courthouse, 1201 Franklin Street, (351st District Court) Houston Texas 74002.

*4

1. Real Parties In Interest

Planities In the underlying Action The State of Texas, Represented by: Deven Andersson, Hacris County District Attorney Horns County Courthouse, 1201 Franklin, Houston, Texas 71002

III.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Count has justisdiction to grant television for 1001 of Man damus pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the Texas Constitution and Texas Government Code § 281, 002 (2005).

IV.

ISSUES HAES KITED FOR RELIGE

1. In an action that under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting DNA testing of evidence, is the total Count bound by the Standards of Procedures in Chapter 64.

*5

V.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
(State Cases)

Ex parte Stover, 946 S.W. 2d 343 Ince: Jobnson, 79 S.W. 3d 195 Redgers v. State, 78 S.W. 3d 616 Clark v. State, 89 S.W. 3d 313 Ince Cash, 99 S.W. 3d 286 Johnson, Bill S.W. 2d at 745

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cenif
(State Constitution, Statutes and Codes)

Tex. Const. Art. V. Section 8 Tex. Code of Chim. Ave. Articles, Ln.vi-64.05 (U.S. Const. Fed. Cases + S. Ct. Cases)

Fifth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment; Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F. 2d 986, 999 Haines v. Keener, 404 U.S. 519,92 S. Ch. 594. (4)

*6 Brady v. Maryland, 323 U.S. 63, 63 S. 661194 State Bar Rules

Rule 3.02— Rule 3.04— Rule 3.05. 3.09

VI.

Statement of facts (Reecedural History)

In 1992, Relator was convicted in the Horos County District Court, 361st Judicial District, for the offence of (Rape). Relator-pied not guilty, and the case was tried to a jury. Relator was found guilty and the jury assessed punishment at Litle in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID).

The case was appealed to the East Court of Appents, The conviction was affirmed on November 18, 1993, Lewis v. State, 01-92-00 745-CR (Tex. App.-Houston List Oct. 7, no. pet). The Mondate was issued on March 7, 1994.

(5).

*7

Relater has tiled several weirs of habers coopurs in the state counts unsuscessfully; A Federal habers coopurs was fitted in the U.S. District Court, that was disonised as a suscessive petition. A motion seeking authorizations to proceed on a successive petition was Aled in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-20409. The 5th Circuit mooted the motion for auttractiation due to an order entered by the 301st district court [trial count]appointing counsel to represent Relator in pursuing DNA testing of evidence. The trial count has never aatified Relator that counsel has been appointed, and counsel has never contacted Relator. It is appacent that the state dees not intend to address Relator's DNA motion pending before the 301st district court

VII.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Relator argues that Chapter 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a legal vehicle back into the trial court to test DNA evidence, and Articles 44. 41, 44.42, 44.63, 44.44 and 44.65 sets out the procedure to be followed by the trial court (4).

*8 The TRIAL COWAT Committee Reversible Erar by Fating to Rule on the DNA Motion Pending Before IT.

The trial court is required to enter in writing an order on a notion for DNA testing, about of such an order effectively precludes Relator from appealing, Relator has the right to appeal from any findings of the trial court. Ince Tönson, 29 S.W. 3d 195 (Tex. App. - Texachano 2002) Relator is also denied due process of law under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Court.

The TRIAL Court Committed Reversible ERror By Fating to Rule on the DNA Motion Pending Before IT AND To MPOINT EFFECTIVE COUNSEL.

The trial judge has an ministerial duty to appoint "effective counsel to represent Relator in his proceedings for DNA testing once Relator has requested counsel. Ince Rodriguez, 27 S.W. 3d 459 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2002). Relator is also denied due process of law under the (1)

*9 Sth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Const.

THE TRIAL COURT COMMIMED REVERSIBLE ERROR ISY FALLING TO GRANT A HEARING BEFORE THE COURT ON STATUS AS INDICENT AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEE.

Relator filed a pro-se Motion for forensic DNA testing of biological evidence, and appointment of counsel, and the trial count has "ACTTLY" denied Relator Counsel and a hearing. Relator is entitled to "abatement" of his appeal from the trial count's denial of his pro-se request Rogers v. State, 7B S.W. 3d 6th (Tex. App. - Waco 2eed). Relator is also denied due process of law under the 5th, 14th, and 14th. Amendments to the U.S. Const.

RELATOR IS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN COLUMSEL FALLS TO CONTACT RELATOR FOR SEVEN MENTHS AFTER BEING APPOINTED ISY THE COURT.

(8)

*10 The trial court is required to appoinct counsel to represent Relator, inetPestive counsel is the same as baving No counsel. Trial courts error of tailing to appount counsel is reversible error. Cank W State 84 S.W. 301 313 (Tex. App= Beaumont 2003) Relator is also denied due process of law under the 5th, 6th, and 10th Anondments to the U.S. Const.

Counsel appointed by the tualcourt on August 14, 2014 to represent Relator in DNA proceedings has failed to meet his/her responsibility to prounde Relator with his then professional advice and judgment regarding DNA proceedings. Axel 757 S.W. 2d at 374. I P such advice is not given, Relator has Su theced astopcication of the right to effective assistance of counsel. 757 S.W. 2d at 375.

The right to counsel as recognized in the Texas Constitution (Vernon's Ann. Tex. Const. Act. 1, 310) includes the right to consult with and be advised by counsel in the preparation of the eace. (Vernon's Ann. C. C. P. Boble 1051 (a). The Supreme Court held that due process guarantees a defendant the right

$$(9)$$

*11 to the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceeding against the defendant. Eecquzon v. Georgio, 365 U.S. 570, 81 S.Ct. 754, 5 L.Ed 21783 (1941).

The Trial Court committed Reversible ERROR by FALLING TO RULE ON DNA MOTOR FOR FOUR YEARS.

The trial judge's failure to rule on Relatec's DNA Motion for Four Years, violate Relatec's due process rights. The Court of Appeals held that, the trial court's failure to act on a DNA Motion, entitled the prisoner to retist, where the act is misitterist, and required the Court to act within a reasonable time. Iace Cash, 99 S.vi. 3d. 284 (Tov. App.Texackana 2003). A unit will issue only if the Respondent fails to comply with this opinion. Iace Cash, at 288.

CONCLUSION

Relator argues and concludes that his due process (10)

*12

rights are wholly violated by the 351st district Court judge, who has endeavored to intentionally and arbitrarily violated Relation's Constitutional rights by not requiring the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence. [S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Beady V. Maryland, 373 U.S. at 87, 23 S. Ct. at $1196-97$ .

VIOLATION OF BAR RULES

The 351st district court judge, i.e., Kent Ellis, and Hancis County District Attorney, i.e., Devon Anderson, and in Violation of State Ban Rules: 3.02-Minimaling the Buccens and Delays of Litigation 3.04- Fairness in Adjudicatory Proceedings 3.05-Mointaining Impact/ality of Technical 3.09-Special Responsibilities of a Researcher (II.)

*13 Aroof of these allegations is self evident on the face of the entire DNA probe eadings in Cause No. 599502 . . . .

*14 The underesugined heceby certitiy that I have Seaved a copy of the tecogony Petition for Mait of Mandamus by placing some in the U.S. Maid on the 2nd Day of February 2015 A.D., Addressed To: The Clock of the Furteenth Count of Appeals

$$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$

(13)

*15