Stanley, David Earl, WR-79,299-02

Stanley, David Earl

WR-79,299-02

| Tex. App. | Nov 19, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

$791^{209 - 03}$
In The Supreme Court for the State of Texas

Re:

Court of Criminal Appeals Number, Wr 79-299-02 Truel Court Number: 191978, in The 911th District Court, in and for the 80th County, Livingston, Texas

Ex Parte David Earl Stanley, Applicant/ movent Motion To Proced In forma Pauperes Comes new DavidEarl Stanley with his Motion for Leane to proced in forma pauperes with his attechable fotition for writ of Manclamus, That this Court recognize him as an inaligent Litigant and weive any costs, fitiay fees, etc that may be required in this Matter

In support of this Motion, movent has attached his sworn offidavit of ineli gary.

Respectfully Subnitted on this 16th day of Novembe, 2015. DavidEarlStonlay DavidEarl Stanley, Prose RECEIVEDIN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 1400 FMs Rcoal 3452 peace of apperent your formative, 20175523 Adel Acosta, Clerk

*2 AFFidavit in Support of Matias to Proceed in Forma Puppens

I DovidEarl Starley, dectare, depose and stade; I am the movent in the attachad Motion to Proceed In forma Puppens, and in support there of make the following declarations: 1. I am an incercerated inmate within the TACI, Pwitedge Unit, at Palestine, Texas; 2. Thent I have no funds with which to pay this court any costs associated with the Fitu, hearing of the attachad Motion: 3. My Inmate Trust Fund account has abstance of 03 and has not received any deposits for the past Si(6) months; 4. I receive no funds from any business, profession or employment, Hent, interests, dividends, annuities of life insurance. 5. I receive no gifts, interitances or money from family or friends in over 60 motths. 6. I have no other Source of income, checking or savings accounts, andown no real estate, Steak, bonds, Notes, automobiles or other valuable property. 7. Pursuent to Texas Law (UCLA) (Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 132.001-132.003, I Dovid Eorl Starley, TACI. $^{P}$ 1805303, being presently incercerated do havely dockare undue penalty of perjury that the foregoing steutemals are true and correct.

Respectfully Submitted on this 16th day of November, by: Dovid Eorl Starley

*3 In The Supreme Court In And For The State of Texas

Re:
Court of Criminal Appeals Number: WXR-29-299-02
Trial Court Number: 19197B, in The 411th District Court, in and for PolK County, Livingston, Texas

Ex Parte David Earl Stanley, Petitioner

Petition For Writ of Mandamus

Petitioner
David Earl Stanley, Pro Se
1822563, Beulodge Unit 1
1400 F.M. Road 3452
Palestine, Texas 75803

Respondant Court of Criminal Appeals For The State of Texas PO. Box 12308, Capital Station Austin, TX. 76711

Oral Argument Requested

Retitism for Writ of Mandamus

Genes the Retitioner, I s a wille of Stanley, Prose, with this Retition for this Honorable Car + to issve a writ of Mandamus to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

In support of this petition, Retitioner would show this Court the following:

Statement of Case and Grands for Writ of Mandamus

Retitioner Subnittal an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, purswant to Tr. Cade of Criminal Procedure to the Court of Criminal Appeals via the Trial Court's Clerk on October 6, 2014. The Polk County Nistrict Attorney Nor the Trial court made any Comment to the Grounds raised for Habeas Corpus Reliof.
On Nov. 26, 2014, The Court of Criminal Appeals (hoce of the C.CA.) per Curiam, eviteed an Order to the Trial Court to perform Certain acts, including Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law. The C.CA, held that pertinences Application For Habeas Corpus would be held in abeyance until the Trial Court resolved the fact issves, but stips hold that the Trial Court "Shall resolve the issves within 70 days of its Order. The C.CA, further, or edeed that a Supponential transCript Containing affidavits and inbeegabies, or the transcription of the Court Reporters notes From any neering of deposition, along with the Trial Court's Supponential Findings of fact and Conctusions of Law Shall be for wold to the C.CA, within 120 days of the date of its Order.

The 120 days expired on March 26, 2015, with the trial court failing to request any extension of time or making any response to the Courts Ordows or Complying with the CCAS Order.
On Feb. 27, 2015, this Petitionse Submitted a Motion to the C.C.A. Seeking the Court to Grant the relief requested in his Habers Corpus Petition, this Motion was Summarily denied by the CCAS. is on March 6,2015, without Slating any reason.
On July 30, 2015, the CC.A. via its Clerk, Sontadeetber to the Trial Court "Reminding" than that Petitionse Cause had been Remanded to them on Nov. 26, 2015, $\infty$ The Clork requested that the trial Court "immediately" forwared to the Court the Syplenental Records it was Ordued bycrocde. Why the Clerk thought that a Syple mated Record had been made is unknown as Petitionse Pointed out in his Motion of Feb. 27,2015, that the Trial court had not obeyed the CCAS. Ordbe. Petitionse would point out to What a Copy of his Motion was sent to the Peth County District Attorney, and we ithedooe the Trial Court responded to the Motion to deny or dispute the facts in the Motions. However,
On June 26, 2015, Petitionse Submitted a Second Motion to the CC.A. Seeking a Contempt of Court order against the Trial Court for its wastow refusal to comply with the CCAS. Order This Motion too was Served on the Peth County District Attorney, weitherhe or the Trial Court responded to deny or dispute the grounds raised war tasting a Contempt Order. This Motion too was devied by the CCAS. on July

*6 7,2015, without written reason. 7. On Sept. 18, 2015, the CCAS' Clerk again sent the trial court and the District Attorney a "slack eminidor notice" which the the firstrominded them that this Cause had been remandably again requesting that the trial Court have its Clerk" immediately"fromed the 5 upphemated record that was Ordbed. This letter too has gone deliberately ignored in every way. 8. On Oct. 12, 2015, Petitioner again Submitted a Motion Seating the CCAS's to Grant Petitioner the relief requested in his Habas Application or in the Alternative Ordber the Trial Court in Contempt and rendors sanctions against the Contemptable polities. This Motion was also sent to the Trial Court and the District Attorney's Office, and there chose to object or respond in any manner and the CCAS, again showed the Motion on Nov. 6, 2015, without reasons. 9. This Petitioner now seeks This Honorable Supreme Court to intervene and issue a writ of Mandamus directing the CCAS to Grant Petitioner HabensCorpus belief as requested. 10. The Trial Court has had more than ample time and Reminders Notices to comply with the CCAS Ordres and apparently has no intention of Complying, and the CCAS failure to accept this fact and Grant Petitioner Habens thave for Relief Compounds the miscarriage of Justice already perpetrated in this Matter. 11. This Petitioner believes that unless this Supreme Court intervenes, the CCAS will continue to deny this

Politicowe his Right to Nive Carse of Law as guaranteed by the Constitution of Texas, Art I, Section 13, Seeats 0, TV, Code of Criminal Procedure, Art 1,04. In Baluch V, Miller, 774 S W2d 299, 301-302, the Court of Criminal Appeals (recognises that "a refusal to rule within a reasonable time frustrates that process and, moreover Constitutes denial of due course of law". 12. Politicowe assists that the CCAS must accept the facts stated within the Habers petition as true as they are stated. The Trial Court and the District Attorney tes had more than a ypile opportunity to deny or dispute these facts and has it? Further delays will on compound the gross misconcege of Justice that has already been perpetrated on this Petitioner, who is actually innocent and, wrongly Convicted of the Crime charged against him, and by the deficient actions of Trial Council.

Conv. lusion and may e wheeftore, Politicuse. Ways for this Supreme Court intervention and invanee of a writ of Mandamus to the Court of Criminal A peads to Grant Petitioner. Hay or for belief as requested in his Habers petition without further unecess any delay, and such other and further relief as this court deems just and equitable.

Verification

Arsivant to Texas Law (V.T.c.XX Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 132.00-132.003) I David Earl

*8 Stavley, T 150341805803 , being presently incarcerated do hereby deceive under porsity of perjury that the foregone, Statements are true and Direct except as to those Statements based on belief and as to those I believe thom to be true.

Respectfully Submitted on this 16th day of November, 2015, by:

Daviesport Stavley, Prose 1805803, Rovledge Unit 1100 F.M. Road 5452 Palestine, N. 75803

Certificate of Service I DaindEarl Stavley have placed a true corbov Copy of the Eeging Fetition for wirtet Mardamus addresd to Abel Heust, Cerk, Court of Criminal Appoach, P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station, Austin, N. 76711, by pkcring same in a postage prepaid evvelgee and pkcogel into the cotyping US, mail box located within the Poutedge Unit on this 16th day of November, 2015.

Daviesport Stavley,