Case Information
*1
83. 40144
August 20, 2015
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK TEXAS COURT OF'CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O. BOX 12308 Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
IN re: Ex parte Johansson, Writ No. WR-83,619-0?
To Abel Acosta, Clerk: Enclosed for filing with my Art. 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus recently received by the Court from Tyler Courty, Texas, their Réference No. 23,645 (why I do not know as your office sets the Writ number and my Cause Number at Court was 10,205) you will find my "Applicant's Notice to the Court and Objection to Denial of Default Judgment" for review by the Court in this matter. I thank you for notifying Tyler County of their deficiency in holding my Writ illegally.
I would request Notice that this document has been received and filed. Thank youo.
Respectfully submitted, /s/20venn Eith Johansson Sven Erik Johansson 1465256 C.T. Terrell Unit
1300 FM 655 Rosharon, Texas 77583
RECEIVED IN
nnIOT OF CRIMINAL APPEALC SEP 022015
Dated &; documented ADBI ACOSta, CIE:
*2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
EX PARTE
SUGEN ERIK JOHANSSON, Applicant
APPLICANT'S NOTICE TO THE COURT AND OBJECTION TO DENIAL OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW SUGEN ERIK JOHANSSON, Applicant pro se, and files this his "Applicant's Notice to the Court and Objection to Denial of Defauit Judgment" in the above numbered Writ. Applicant holds that he cannot file his rebuttal to the "State's Answer" as he was never served a copy of same. As it has been now over the 35 day time limit for filing set[BY STATUTE] of 35 days then the Writ sould be reviewed unchallenged, although Applicant is well aware that the grounds cannot be defeated.
Applicant further serves Notice to the Court that the trial court has "intentionally and willfully", with malicous intent, attempt to mislead and inflame the mind of the Court by stipulating issues on Applicant's "1st Motion to Revoke" that Applicant took to jury trials and won. U.S. v. Cartwright, 6 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993). Such outragious conduct violates due process of law. U.S. v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir. (Tex.) 1992).
Applicant is sure that the Court will side with the State and attempt to argue that the Rules of Appellate Procedure allows for 180 days to forward the Writ, a RULE that runs afoul of the LAW and STATUTE of V.A.C.C.P. Art. 11.07. Said action also runs counter to Texas Const. Art. 1 $12 as to the Writ being "speedy".
*3 By DENYING Applicant's Motion for Default Judgment in this instance is denying him justice. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. (MLK). As Applicant has a Right under Common Law and the 9th Amendment to enter Default Judgment where the State has intentionally delayed his Writ knowing full well they have broken the Law and that suit is imminent. Applicant serves Notice that he is entitled to restitution under Tx. Govt. Code , and, Tx.Cv.Prac. < Rem. Code for ALL time wrongfully imprisoned.
Last, Applicant points out that, although the State, e.g., Clerk of his trial court, served him with a copy of Motion To Revoke, and, the Capias Warrant for his arrest, NO certified copy was stipulated in the documents sent to the Court. These 2 documents are the only documents sent to Applicant.
Applicant's Writ of Habeas Corpus has only been sent to the Court of Criminal Appeals AFTER Applicant's filing of Writ of Mandamus, yet Applicant avers he requires a copy of the "State's Answer and Order" in order to file proper rebuttal if required. Denial of a copy of the State's Answer is a denial of Due Process of Law.
Applicant hereby serves NOTICE of all issues herein set out.
Respectfully submitted, Is/30ver Edit. Whatsvishon Sven Erick JohaHsson 1465256 C.T. Terrell Unit
1300 FM 655 Rosharon, Texas 77583