Case Information
*1 CAUSE No. CR-2609-09-F(A)
MOTION DENIED DATE: 7-11-15 BY: P.C.
EXPARTE FRANCISCO CARRIES
IN THE TENS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
MOTION FOR LEAVE FOR A FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW ON THE DISMSSAL OF APPLICANTS HARFAS CORPUS, PUSUANITO TRAP 73.1(C).
COME NOW, Francisco Carrales, Applicant pro se and request The Texas Court of Criminal Appetts VACTe The 332nd District Courtis order To dismiss Applicants Habens Corpus Arl, 11,07. pursuant To Tex.R.APP. Proc. 73.1(C).
Applicant Filed A motion of objection To the dismissal of his habens Corpus Feb. 2, 2015. This Applicant did not receive notice of his application's dismissal unit? January 27. The envelope was post mort Jan 22,2015. The order of dismissal was signed Jan 9, 2015. This Applicant was prejudiced by The Court giving This Applicant notice 17 days later. (Please see The extibit attached hereto)
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS I.
*2 II.
This, Applicant, Filed his writ of habens Corpus under. The directions of Chapter II Habens Corpus Stitute of The Texts Code of Criminal procedure, ArT, 11.03, wait of Form" States, "The writ of habens Corpus is not invalid, nor shall it be disobeyed for any want of Form, if it Substantially Appen That it is issued by Competent Authority, and The writ sufficiently show the object of its, Issuance," ArT, 11.04 States, "Every provision relating To The writ of habens Corpus shall be most favorably Construed in order to give effect to The remedy, and protect The rights of The person seeking relief under it" See also ArT, 11.14 which States The requisites of The petition, This Applicant Complied with The requirements of Chapter II habens Statute.
Applicant Contends, The Judge in This habens Corpus proceeding in The Aboved Cause Violited ArT, 11.29 of The habens Corpus Stitute, which holds, The person on whom The writ of habens Corpus is served shall immediately obey The same, and make The return required by law upon The Copy of The original writ served on him, and
*3 This, whether The writ be directed to him or not? Applicant Contends, for The 332 nd District Court To dismiss Applicants writ of habers Corpus under The Rules of Appellate procedure R. 73.10, denys This Applicant of A Fundamental and Constitutional right granted by The Tex. Constitution Ar1, 1312; The Fourteenth Amendment of The United States Constitution, Further, Tex. R. of APP. Proc. R. 2 States, ... , "A Court must not Construe This rule (R2) To Suspend any provision in The Code of Criminal procedure, , , The Judge of the 332 nd District Court Suspended The procedures of Chapter II habens Corpus Statute by dismissing This Applicants writ.
Applicant request A finding of facts and Conclusion of law on The rersoning of dismissing This Applicant's habers Corpus pursuant To Tex. Rule of Appellate procedure R. 73.10, Further, According To Articles II.01, II.03, II.04, II.05, II.07(1), II.08, II.10, II.14, II.15, II.23 and II.36, See ExParte Clore, 690 S.W. 2 d 899,900 (Tex. crim. APP. 1982) (Habens Corpus Should not be used as a substitute for an Appent). A finding of Fact and Conclusion of law is warmited in This Cause, see State V. Cullen, 195 s.w.3d 696 (Tex. crim. APP. 2006); State V. Ross, 32 S.w.3d 853, 858 (Tex. crim. APP. 2000).
*4
CONCLUSION
The 332nd District Courizs dismissing Applicants writ of habers Corpus Jenuary 9, 2015 is Conlrary 70 The Supreme Court of The United States precedents Haines V. Kerrier, 404 us.519,92 s.cT. 594 (1972); quoting Conley V. Gibson, 355 us.41,45-46,98 s.cT. 99 (1952) holding a pro se Complaint however innitrally plend." must be held 70 less Stringent Standard Than Formal pleadings drafited by lawyers And Can only be dismissed for failure To state a cluim if it Appears "beyond doubt That The plinitiff can prove no set of facts in support of his clnim which would entitle him To relief." Id at 320-521, 92 s.cT. at 596, quoting Conley V. Gibson, "The handurition pro se documentis To be liberally Conslrued." The 332 nd Districl Couit has not Complied with The supreme Court precedents, see also Brook V. state, 132 s.w.3d 702, 705 (ix.AP. Dnlins 2004) ( Because of The Constitutional nature of this inquiry, we are guided and bound by The decisions and rensoring of The United States Supreme Court). Guzman V. state, 85 swast 242,258 N, 24 (ex. crim. APR 2002) (we are required To follow The decisions and rensoring of The United States Supreme Court on Federal Constitutional issues). See also
*5 EXPANTE Torres, 943 S.W. 2 d AT 474 (Tex. crim. APP. 1997). We decide whether a Trial Court Abused its discretion by determining whether The Court Acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles, or in other words, whether The court Acted arbitrarily or unreasonably." Lyles V. ST. 850 S.W. 2 d 497,502 (Tr. crim.AP. 1993). This motion is in reference To Tr. C. No. CR-2609-09-F (2), and Tex. crim. APP. No. WR-76,488-02.
Respectfully Submitted. Tranceco Carables) Francisco Carables Applicant Prose TACJ 3060 FM 3514 STiles Berumont, IX. 77705 Feb. 5, 2015
Justice of The Court 5.
*6
LAURA HINOJOSA
Applicintis exhibi
Via CMRRR#: 7014-1200-0002-0936-5075
Mr. Francisco Rios Carrales
TDCJ#:1618988
Stiles Unit- TDCJ 3060 FM 3514
Beaumont, TX 77705
RE: CR-2609-09-F(2), EX PARTE FRANCISCO CARRALES#1618988 APPLICANT
Dear Sir/Madam: Please be advised that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Signed SIGNED BY JUDGE MARIO RAMIREZ in the above and entitled and numbered cause was signed on 01/09/2015 by the Honorable Mario E. Ramirez, Jr., Judge for the 332nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned:
SINCERELY, Laura Hinojosa District Clerk Hidalgo County Edinburg, Texas 78540 Amestoy deliniz BY: Angelica Garcia cc: Court's File Court of Criminal Appeals, Luis Alberto Gonzalez, STATE OF TEXAS