Case Information

*1

14
THE
13300 - 18
LOURD OF ORTHOMAL APPERL'S
ALVSTIN
TEXAS

RE: Art. 11.073Writ of Habers Loops Tr. E. No. 1072414 - H WR-78, 300 - 11

RECEIVED IN COURT OF ORTHMAL APPERL'S JUL 082015

ADOIADURS, Clark

Michael Wayne Parnes, Relator vs. Harris Lovely Resist and District Attorney Andrew J. Smith

ORTHOMAL PETITON FOR WRIT OF MADORANAS

Michael W. Parnes T.O.C. - 1704 H3R082 0.8. Elks One Dut

1647 FMI 980 Hord ointe TY T1342 ( PPD - 85 )

*2

PARTIES

RELITIVE:

Michael Wayne Barnes TDCs.ID. $\$132082$ Dr. Ellis One Unit 1697 FN 980 Hundraille TX 71313

RESPONDENT:

Harris LandyDrotrial Attorney Devon Anderson et, al. Criminal Justice Lenter 120 Franklin St. Ste 600 Hovston TX 71002 - 1980 RE: Andrew S. Smith

*3 TRAVE OF CONTENTS

TRACTURE

TRAVE OF CONTENTS

TRAVE OF AUTONOCITIES

SATTERMENT OF THE RICE

SATTERMENT OF DUKESDICITIES

ISSUE LES PRESENTED.

SATTERMENT OF FACES.

ARGUENT AND AUTONOCITIES.

PRAVEF FOR RELVEF.

LEET IF IMPLE OF SERVIVE.

APPENDIX.

TRAVE OF AUTONOCITIES

U.S.E.A. Bonsf. Amend. NH.

Tev. Code Eirm. Proc. Art. 11.073

Tev. Code Eirm. Proc. Art. 11.073 (4)

Tev. Bonsf. Art. 1883, 3a, 14, and 12

TRAVE OF RICES

Brady v. Maryland, 83 set 194 U.S.A.

Niv v. State, 65 S.W. 2d 655 at 667 (Tev. Eirm. App. 2001)

Ev. Parte Seidel, 24 S.W. 2d 221 at 286-21 (Tev. Eirm. App. 2001)

Lewelling v. Rossworth, 940 SW2d 640-43 (Tev. Eirm. App. 1992)

Martin v. Hamlin, 25 swed 718-20 (Tev. Eirm. App. 2000).

*4

The relator has diligently "attempted" to appeal his "Void conviction" only to have a all 2 of his writs of habeas lorgus dismissed or denied as subsequent by the Respondents.

In the instant ease the respondent Andrew Smith (Mr. Smith) requests that the relators Yes. Lode him: Free. Art II. 873 writ of habeas lorgus ake Jonk Science writ be dismissed as frivolous for failure to comply with the statutory provisions set forth in Art.11. 878 (4) (as (1) or (2).

This is the relators third attempt at filling the Art.11.018 writ of habeas lorgus and fall of them have been dismissed or denied because there is no application specifically made for the Art. 11.013 writ and the respondents are taking advantage of that and are purposely failing to recognize the writ.

The Relator has never been reviewed on the merits of his claim due to a state created impediment.

*5

ISSUELLS PRESENTER

ISSUE DIIE:

The States Driajnal Answer prepared by the respondent Mr. Smith is past the 15 days allowed by stative for the state to respond.

STETTENENT OF FACTS

The relator's Drt. II. 8735 wirt of habeas corpos was filled on 5-29-15.

The States Driajnal Answer is dated 6-18-15, thata twerdlyone dajs, 54 daju past whats authorized by stative.

APEWHEIT AND AUTHORIITIES

According to the Tex. lodes of Lrim. Proe. Drt. 11.87. 83 (b) the representative of the state only has 15 dajs in which to respond to the relators Art. II. 078 wirt of habeas corpos.

The stadyte does not state that the weekends are to be excluded from the 15 day count down and the respondend has no authority to alter the clear and understandable language of the stadyte for his beniFit. Martin v. Hamlin, 25 siv2d-118-20 (Tex. Lrim.Prog. 2000).

*6

Mr. Smiths' states Original Answer is void for failure to comply with station.

ISSUE TWO:

The Art. II. 0735 Unit of Habers Forgas in conjunction with the relactors Void conviction due to fundamental error supersedes subsequent ruling.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Board legislative implemented senate Bill Mill which amended the 7ex. Index of Firm. Pre. Art. II. 07 by adding Art. II. 073 as a work science unit which took effect on September 1st 2013 allowing an appellant to challenge the scientific evidence used to convict him / her.

DIAGNOSTAT AND OUTCOMESTIES

The Art. II. 073 Unit of Habers forgas supersedes Art. 11.073 (v111) and (a) because the leaflet remedy was not available until September 12013 which actually applies to Art. 11.073 (v111). "Furthermore the relators conviction is void due to a fundamental error." In the instant case the affront to the Felony Complaint Lie, initial charging instrument) made false material statements under Bath in

*7 reference to the scientific examination of two L21 latent prints (what don't exist) that allegedly identified the relator as the perpetrador of the alleged offence. Brady v. Maryland, 82, set 1194 (1962) The Felony Complaint does not satisfy constitutional regulates of a charging instrument due to the affiart making false material statements thus the trial court has no jurisdiction over the relator. N.N. v. State, 655 W. 2d lobs at 682 headnotes L-2 (Tex. crim. App. 2001) U.S.R.A. Amend. 14, 4.

Furthermore there is no, absolutely no evidence to sustainable the statements made in the Felony Complaint or testimony of trial which is called a No Evidence Void Judgement. Ev Parte Seidel, 295 W2d 221 at 2216 - 87 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).

A fundamental error as well as a void conviction can be attacked at any time and cannot be waived. and failure to correct it would infringe on the relator's due process rights and damage the integrity of the judicial process. U.S.R.A. Const. Amend. 14.

The respondent Mr. A. Smith is intentionally suspending the writ in violation of the U.S.R.A. 14 in conjunction with the Tex. Const. Art 18833, 32, 12 and 19 because the relator's memorandum has Act 11.013 on the cover which is proof that he knows its not an Act. U.O., 4 of 8

*8

ISSUE THREE:

The Respondents have createdan impediment that has continuosly deprived the relator of his clearly established constitutional right to the wirt of habeas corpos.

STRIPPHENT OF FARTS

The Fourteenth Laxt of Appeals affirmed the trial costs decision on July 8, 2008, and the mandate was 1500 ed on January 9, 2009.

The Relators first Art. II. 01 wirt of habeas corpos was filed on December 27, 2009.

The Respondents and this Honorable Laxt both agreed that no mandate had been issued and the relators direct appeal was pending review.

The direct appeal became final when the mandate issued on January 9, 2009. Lewelling v. Rosworth, B40 5W. 2d 1040-43 L. Tex. App. 1942.

The Fourteenth Laxt of Appeals to date has never mailed the relator a copy of the mandate.

The Relator's second Art. II. 01 was accepted by the Respondents and the issue of whether or not I was afford the effective assistance of counsel was designated.

*9

After the issue was designated the Respondents waited one hundred and eleven days to issue a states original answer stating that my direct appeal was still pending review and that no mandate had been issued. This Honorable Court denied the witt without written order and my $\$2.251$ was denied as time barred all because of the state created impediment by the Respondents.

ARevent the Honoratices

The Respondents have deprived the Relator of an effective appellate process by suspending the witt of habeas corpos in violation of the U.S.E.R. Court Amend. 14 in con- junction with the Tex Court. Art. 1812. The Respondents actions were deliberate because even though the has commonly raised the ground that his conviction is void due to fundamental error black of Personal or subject. Malgor Sinsdiction's the Respondents continue to suspend the witt. This Honorable Court is the only law that has the authority to overturn my void conviction. Furthermore the Relators write have never been reviewed for the merits even though they were not entirely.

*10

PRALK FOR RELIEF

WheReftore Presirises boreshers, the Relator respectivily request and prays for the following: 1.) In reference to Issee One the Relator request that this Honorable leart remand the relators Art. 11.073 wirt of Habers Serpos back to the 1850 s District leart in accordanle with stadyte so they can designate isswe or forward the entire wirt, merorandun and any other relevant documents to this leart for review. 2.) In reference to Issee Two the Relator request that this Honorable leart remand the Art. 11.073 wirt of Habers Serpos back to the Respondents and compe them to produce the following documents to prove that the statements made under Doth by Diane will in the colony formpland are not False: 1.) Photograph of the broken bedroom window with the two L2) lattent prints on the inside portion there 6 , 12 ) The finger print card with the two lattent prints on it, (6) the lab results of the A.F.I.S. Examination of the two Ls) latent prints, and (4) the arrest warrant. 3.) In Reference to Issee Three the Relator request that this Honorable leart ayent him an out of time appeal due to the state created impediment and/or accept his Art. 11.073 wirt of Habers Serpos and order an Eviden. thary Hearing, simply the Relator request to be relared

*11 Elevated on this 50th day of June — 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

NUD Michael Wayne Barnes

CONCLUSION

I have read the foregoing Win of Mandamus and hereby verify that the matters alleged are true and correct.

Respectfully submitted,

NUD Michael Wayne Barnes

DEPETITABLE OF SERVICE

I, Michael W. Barnes hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this Mandamus was mailed to the respondents via United States Mail.

CC: File

Horn's hereby District Attorique office.

Sincerely M Michael Wayne Barnes T.O.C. 170th H38082

02: Ellis One Unit 1691 Fm 990 Hundisville TV 11343

888