Case Information
*1
Retaber 25,2015
24, He 5-05-05
To: Mr. Abel Decata, Clark Court of Criminal Appeals of Joyce P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station
Anatins, Joyce 78711
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPERLS OCT 292015 Abel Acosta, Clark This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging.
Fundamental for Jelling with the Court, Relator's United Moresomus Chants for your attention."
Sincerely,
*2
CAGENO,18-22
AKALYNNEARLWRCHT TDCJ-ID RELATOR,
IN HEA OFFICIAL CAPACITY RESPONDENT,
WAIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF CAZMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW, LENN.EARL, RELATOR, IN the above styled cause, files. His Wrft of Mandamus pursuant to the provision of the Texas Constitution and Texas Government Code. The RELATOR seeks an act to be compelled, He has no other adequate remedy at law. The RELATOR therefore moves this Honorable Court to Show the following:
I. The RELATOR resides at the Estelle Unit, 264 PM3478, Huntsville, Texas 77820, He was convicted as a result of a State Coun's Judgment. The RELATOR has ministerial duty, opposed
*3
to Discretionary, and this Honorable Court is Vested with the Constitutional Authority to Issue a Writhhandamus, an Injuction, or other Compulsory Writ of process, against officers of the Executive Department of this State, to order, or compel the performance of a judicial act by law, Art. 5, Sections 3-b, 3-c, 5, Tex. Const.
II.
The Respondent has Violated a Ministerial duty, which is not Discretionary in Nature, as a result Respondent's acts constitutes a abuse of discretion, and the RELATOR has no other adequate remedy at law. Celem V. District Clerk, 187 S.W. Ad 473, and Menth V. Homiln, 25 S.W. Ad 713.
III.
The RELATOR asserts that on 9-9-15, He Piled His "Applicotion for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Brief in Support" with the 25th Judielal District Court of Colorado County, Texas, alleging one (1) ground of error that "The Trial Court Did Not Correctly Advise The Applicant of His Right To Appeal. From The Final Judgment In Break of Tex. Code Crim. P., Art. 44.02. "And on 9-11-15, the Attorney for the State Piled the State's Answer in Opposition to the Applicant's Writ with the Trial Court, and on approximately 9-28-15, the Applicant Piled a "Motion for Extension of Time To Respond to State's Answer." The RELATOR contends that He has a Constitutional Right for His "Motion for Extension of Time" to be heard by the Trial Court of Jurisdiction.
*4
and the Respondent abuse her discretion by not presenting said "Morton" to the Trial Court to be heard, which is prohibited by the Tes. Const. 3 and Tes. Gov't Code Sections 22, 001, 22, 003.
PRAVER FOR RILTAR
WHEREFORE, PREMISES, CONSIDERED, RELATOR; LENN EARL WATCH Pro-56, urges the Honorable Court to GRANT His Writ of Mandamus, to find that Respondent's acts constitutes an abuse of discretion, and Compa! Respondent to present Mr. Morton for Extension of Time! back to the Trial Court of Jurisdiction to be heard. It is so prayed for:
Respectfully submitted Lenn Earl Wrlght
CERTIFICATE OF SURVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the abuse and Poregating, RELATOR'S Writ of Mandamus has been served by placing same in the United States mall on this 25 -olay of 8933022222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222