Case Information
*0 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/22/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK *1 WR-83,072-01 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 4/22/2015 11:04:50 AM Accepted 4/22/2015 1:09:39 PM ABEL ACOSTA IN THE CLERK COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
EX PARTE §
§ WRIT NO. WR-83,072-01
JORGE GUTIERREZ §
APPLICANT’S MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS
UNTIL THE COURT RECEIVES HIS OBJECTIONS TO
THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Jorge Gutierrez files Applicant’s Motion To Stay The Proceedings Until The
Court Receives His Objections To The Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law
and would show as follows:
I.
The district clerk transmitted the habeas record to this Court on March 26,
2015. The trial court signed an order adopting the State’s proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law on April 9. [1] The district clerk mailed a copy of the order to
habeas counsel on April 16, and he received it on April 18. He will send
objections to the district clerk on April 22. Thus, he requests that this Court stay
*2 the proceedings until it receives his objections from the district clerk.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Randy Schaffer
Randy Schaffer
State Bar No. 17724500
1301 McKinney, Suite 3100
Houston, Texas 77010
(713) 951-9555
(713) 951-9854 (facsimile)
noguilt@swbell.net
Attorney for Applicant
JORGE GUTIERREZ
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I served a copy of this document on Lisa Stewart, assistant district attorney for
Travis County, P.O. Box 1748, Austin, Texas 78767, by United States mail, postage
prepaid, on April 22, 2015.
/s/ Randy Schaffer
Randy Schaffer
2
[1] The State filed an answer and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 25 but did not serve copies on counsel. Indeed, he would not have received the documents had he not called the Travis County District Attorney’s Office on April 3 and asked about the case. He did not know that the State filed these documents until that day and did not know until April 18 that the trial court had signed an order on April 9 adopting the State’s proposed findings and conclusions. This case demonstrates why this Court needs to adopt standard rules for habeas proceedings that apply throughout the state. Otherwise, it is “two against one” in the trial court in virtually every habeas case.