Case Information
*1 INR-10,359-35 EX PARTE JERRY WAYNE RUMPH DATE: FILE IN WRIT FILE BY: REXAS COURT AF TEGED CAUSE FOR REVILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR WRIT AF HABEAS CEREALS PLACUMNT TO ARTICLE 11.07
TO TEXAS COURT OF CROMSUM APPERLS:
COPRES, WHILL THE APPLICATIONS, JEING WAVING PUMPS, Fles this his Allegation of Good Cause for, refiling of the application, for first of habeas Cropus pursuant to Article 11.07. In support thereof, Applicant 5 hours the following:
Recount to the provisions of Article 11.07 (A.C.C. 21 post, Conjication applications for wort of habeas corpus must be filed, with the first Court. Ex parte Young, 418 S. 25. of GAY Cex. Cr. App. 1967). Further more, all post-Conjication applications to wort of habeas corpus are Musitatingly inviolable, after the first Court enters its order in the case pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07. Supg, Ex parte Mapes, S. 38 S. 45.22 G57 Cex.Cr. App. 1967). In Case 1, where this Court has declared that the petitioner has abused the wort of habeas corpus process, Certain Charges in the first Counts responsibility under Article 11.07, Supg, are required, thus, this Court explanted to the members of the bench and bar the applicability of the hear procedures in such situation. Where, a petitioner has been personally cited by an above of the birst Court, the first Court should not there after, Consider the merits of any application to wort of habeas, compes filed by that petitioner. The first Court should, however, revivar the application and make findings that this petitioner has abused the wort, in the past, then, making the revivar procedure at this court more efficient. The, inyscient should, be forested to, they, Ccurt, just as in other cases, be forested to this Court within them, days of the first Counts order. Article, 11.07, section 2 (6), supra. upon receipt of the wort transcript from the first Court, this court shall, revivar, the petitioners 21lepting of "Good Cause" by offering a re-kiting of the application, and if the petitioner has stated that, which, if true wrepll entitles him to felice, then this Ccull will order the petition filed and considered on the merits.
*2 Applicant had drawn a shotgun on a man, applicant didn't know, out- side Applicants house. A by stranger observed the incident, cell the police. The, police responded to the Cell driving a man's police vehicle, applicant observing the police vehicle coming to a step, applicant, then on around his house and, three and three people, the police were their vehicle. The police officers, when exiting their vehicle, both were always in full, police uniform. These applicant, after had step, banging and hadَي, the Syptom was the house. The officers approached applicant, and started, byrestoring applicant while the other officers, searched the step and, beyond the Syptom applicant, had the house with the house. The officer then handcuffed applicant and, until the police vehicle were back and the man applicant, again the Syptom was the other, after standing.
The police officers, questing, the Coller and, who applicant had, drawn the Syptom, on and, detected them, applicant was, directed and charged with the many others of, approach, assault.
Applicant was, infected by the charge of, approach, assault. Applicants passed through, an attempt to represent applicant to the officer charged. The attempt was, after, referred to, represent applicant, met, and, to the applicant only, once before preceding, the, until, they wearing, were, the police.
The applicant was, when, to other applicant, the police officer, when, while, the police officer, the applicant, was, by, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the
*3 Applicant's Counsel dellicient performance, Prince to Consult all 39 Applicant, and inquire as to any, dectare, Q3 and to give advice to, Applicant, did not attempt to deffernine is Applicant who quictly did, net Conduct in investigation of the facts, of the case, pre-induced, Applicant became Counsels, efficient performance lesarted in Applicant, pleading quictly to an offage Applicant did not commit, as well, pleading quictly to an office, unintentionly, and unnumeringly.
The Sink, Condomel of the United States Constitution quorumters Applicant the right to be represented by Counsel presumably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance." Herring V. Estelle, 419 F. 22 (25, 127 (5th Cir. 1976), quoting Mackenns v. Ellis, 280 F. 22 (592, 599 (5th Cir.), Cert. denied 368 165. 877, 82 S.C. 121, 7 L. Ed. 22 78 (1960). Since investigation and preparation are the keys to effective representation." ABA projects on standards for criminal justice, standards relating to the prosecution function and the defense function 224 (App. Drosd. 1971).
Applicant, stresses that no Counsel, not a date to integretess potential witnesses and make an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleading and laws involved." Von multhe v. Eiville, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S.C. 316, 322, 92 L. Ed. 309, 319 (1948). See Tenington, v. Betto, 437 F. 22 (28 (5th Cir. 1976); United States V. Decester, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 326 F. 22 (1976); Opinion Vocabed and re-hearing on ban, qup. D.C. 22 --(1970); mo bberon v. Saliensny 498 F. 22 (207, 217 (8th (2n. 1974). Applicant's allegations are, Solicited to raise the issue whether Applicant's Counsel discharged from responsibility.
As the Court noted in Key v. Betto, 439 F. 22 (221, 222, 16 ( (6th Cir. 1962), Cert. denied, 401 (45.936, 91 S.C. 921, 28 L. Ed. 22 216 (1971), each Case involving the Constitutional issue of effectiveness of Counsel, depends on the facts, the Specific Conduct of the parties involved."
Here the special development, necessary for a just determination of, the parents of Applicant, petition is lacking. An examination of the record will indicate that, among others, the question whether Applicant's Counsel conducted a pre-trial investigation has never been ansuited. Under circumstances, to deny Applicant's request to a hearing, is erroneous. Since Applicant's petition is legally sufficient and forses issues of material facts that have not been resolved after a will, hearing by the Tens Court tries of fact, 9 federal Eeidentiare Hearing is required. See Tounsend v. Sath, 372 U.S. 293, 312-313, 83 S.C. 945, 757, 9 L. Ed. 22 770 (1963). Thus, Applicant, respect to a Eeidentiare Hearing in this Case.
*4 PRAVER
MHEETDRE, PREMISES CANSTERED, the Applicant, Jerry edyne Rough Drugs that the Court affixed him to settle his Application to what of Ashes Carpas pursuant to which He 67. V. A.C.C.A. and consad Applicant en Evidutiary Worry to other proct.
Respectfully submitted, By: Jerry edyne Rough Jerry wayne Rough Applicant
CENTRENCE OF SERVICE
I. The undersigned, de, family certify that 2 have and, respect copy of Applicants Allegation of Lord Genese for Re-living of the Application to: what of Ashes Carpas pursuant to which He 67. V.A.C.C.A., was maried to Henry 2002, Distinct Memory, 2th Indical Subtait of Tons Bell Cramby Distinct. Genef. of Hons. P. P. Box 546, Boston, TX. 76513-0546 on this 18th day of verse, 2015, by place, the San in Mind presun man box.
Jerry edyne Rough Jerry wayne Rough