Case Information

*1 To The Abel Acosta Cleik, Court of Criminal Apears Supreme Court Helds 201 W. 14th St., RM. 1016 P.O.Box 12308

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

From: Rafael Vasquez, 4738214 Ranset 1 Unit 1100 FM 1055 Rosharon, Texas 77583

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MAR 162015

Date: March 11, 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk

RE: EX.PARTE. Rafael Vasquez, 1995-CR-01083-W2; 1995-CR-01085-W2, Objections to Trial Court's Order Ref. Tex. R. App. Proc., Rule 73.4 (6X6)(2X4).

Dear The Acosta,

Greerings, Sir. Please find enclosed one Copy, each, of my Objections to The Trial Court's Order dated February 23, 2015, Received by Auflcant at his Prison Unit on 3/10/2015, Refraining to The (2) Wrrs of Application on file.

Please be so kind as To (wswe These Wr.tren)

*2 Objections are Timely filed. See The Rules, The original documents were mailed to the appropriate Court Cleck of Exase County; Copy to The San Antonio office of The District Attorney.

Unfortunately, The Reison Maikeman Labee I am located, has Recently Mishandled my maik Meccessitating a written Complaint. The issues contained herein have a ten day (lo) Limitation, So I Thanght it well and Reasonable to do all I possibly can to be sure your office knows of This Timely Submissioan.

Beyond This, please allow me To Thank You in advance to your Kind Consid eation.

Respectfully Submitted, Rafael Vazquez, Appliant

*3 No. 1995-CR-0685-W2

EX PARTE RAFAEL VASQUEZ

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MOSTIN, TEXAS

§

APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER DISMISSING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAIEDCOURT: Greentings.

Comas now, Rafael Vasquez, Applicant herein, to timely file this, his objections to the Trial Court's Order dated February 23, 2015. Said Order is postmarked 3/5/2015, and was received by the Applicant on 3/10/2015. Thus, he has ten £100 days to timely file his objections per Tex. R. App. Proc., Rule 73.4 (b)(2)(West 2014). See also, Houston v. Lack 487 US$, 266, 101 L.Ed. 2d 245, 108 S.Ct. 2379(1988)(Prison Mailbox Rule).

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On November 30, 1995, the Applicant was sentenced to life in the TDCJ-I and fined $10,000 following a verdict of guilty to the charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child after a jury trial. Applicant's appeal was filed on May 6, 1996. The Judgment was addressed. See 04-95-0052-CR 04-95-0053-CR. Applicant's first writ application sought an out-of-tis supportunity to file a Petition for Discretionary Review, only, and was denied without written order on July, 28, 2004 (WR-32,180-06). The instant application is his second request.

allogations of the applicant

1.

*4 ALLEGATIONS OF THE APPLICANT

1. In Ground One, Applicant alleges he was denied effective a assistance of counsel on appeal.
2. In Ground Two, Applicant alleges he was denied the right of self-representation on appeal.
3. In Ground Three, Applicant alleges the Trial Court's failure to remain fair and impartial denied Applicant's due process rights. on appeal.

THE TRIAL COURT'S FENDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Applicant's first writ application was denied withoate written order on the Trial Court's findings with a hearing [on affidavits] on July 28, 2004 (WR-32,180-06).
2. This court does not have jurisdiction to consider the merits of a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus "unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that the current claims and issues babeenot been and could not have been presented previously in an original application. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07, §44a+41) (Wa+ba+014).
3. This court finds that Applicant is precluded from bringing this second writ application based upon the subsequent writ provision in Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07, §4, (a)(1). The current claims and issues either were or could have been presented in Applicant's first writ application.
4. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that this application be dismissed.

*5

APPLICANT'S OBJECTIONS

1. The Trial Court has informed this Honorable Court that the Applicant's first writ application was denied, and thus, said Trial Court lacks jurisdicattonover the instant application. However, the first writ application sought only an out-of-time- opportunity to file for Petition for Discretionaty Review. Thus, neither the first nor the instant applications sought to challenge the underlying convictions or sentence. Accordingly, the trial Court's dismissal was improvident.

In Ex Parte Evans 964 S.W.2d 643 (Tae.Crim.App. 1998), this Honorable Court held that: "Both the definition of 'conviction;' and this Court's casedlaw regarding writ applications leads us to the conclusion that the procedural bar of 84 [Tax. C.C.P. art. 11.07] is limited to instances inwhich the initial application raises claims regarding the falidity of the prosecution or 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 or fact-filedag...As a result, [Evans's] application is not barred by Section 4 because Applicant's prior application did not involve a claim which challenges the conviction or sentence within the meaning of Article 11.07, 84."

See also, Ex Parte Rawlinson 958 S.W.2d 198 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997)(The term "cenniction," encompasses judgment and sentence only).

Page 1 of the instant application clearly defines that: "Applicant has filed a writ of Habeas Corpus seeking an out-of-time appeal opportunity before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Portley v. State 89 S.W.3d 188, 189(Tex.App.--Texarkana 2002, no pet)); Reyes v. State 89 S.W.3d 291, 293, n.2(Ten. App. --El Paso, 1994, no pet.) See, In re Cain 137 F.3d 234, 235(5th

*6

Cir.1998..."). Accordingly, Applicant Objects to the Trial Court"s

having improvidently dismissed the instant application without due process of the instrument.

Prayer

Applicantprays this Honorable Court REMAND the instant application back to the Trial Court for full consideration of the merits of his allegations.

Respectfully submitted,

Rafael Vasquez APPLIDENT

UNSWORN DECLARATION

I, Rafael Vasquez, TDC#-ID 738214, an inmate confined in the Ramsey 1 Unit located in Brazoria County, Texas, swear ander penalty of perjury that the foregoing instrumlhatio true and correct insofar as I undedrtend the applicable law to require. Executed on this, the 11th day of March, 2015.

Rafael Vasquez APPLLICANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Rafael Vasquez, TDCJ $\$738214$ , aqwer and affirm that a true and complete copy of the foregoing 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, 101 W. Nueva, San Antonio, Texas 78205, on this, the 11th day of March, 2015. Executed on the 11th of March, 2015.