Case Information
*1
801129-02
proposed memorandum findings of fact and codification of law.
Please file stamp marting copies and Return the same for 770 - 55 Records
for your cooperation in this matter executed
*2 NO. C-3-010381-1285104-A
EX PARTE $ IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT $ COUNT NO. 3 OF $ TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER
Having carefully reviewed the State's proposed memorandum, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, the Court hereby orders, adjudges and decrees that they be adopted as its own, and further orders and directs the Clerk of this Court to:
-
File these findings and transmit them along with the Writ Transcripts to the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals as required by law.
-
Furnish a copy of the Court's findings to the applicant, Mr. Deon A. Davis, TDCJ-ID #01837352, Polunsky Unit, 3872 FM 350 South, Livingston, Texas 77351; and to the post-conviction unit of the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney's Office.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this the _ day of _ _
JUDGE PRESIDING
*3 NO C. 52 - 212331 - 1285104 - F.
ET YAPTE
IN THE CENTRIVA DISTECT COURT NO. 5 OF MEDIALE CENTRIVA MEDIALE CENTRIVA DISTECT COURT NO. 5 OF MEDIALE CENTRIVA DISTECT TO: THE COURT OF CENTRIVA REPORTS. as specified by law.
OBSERVED
OBSERVED
The applicant was period code of criminal procedures 968.004 (6). Held guilty to appravated robbery with no indirals of a weapon. Study charged with a deadly antagon, "Sensibility"
The trial court found the habitual offender paragraph in error when obtain through by a plan of guilty only in violation of code of criminal procedures 26.13.25 (1) as the same. The trial court completely fails to admonish defendant error to entry of guilty plan, Such failure constitutes reversible error without regard to whether defendant was harmed. SomeE Vs. STATE (APP. 13 DIST. 1996) 921 S.W. 2d 329 criminal law (ExQ 273.1(4) criminal law (ExQ 162.15) same ElLIOT Vs. STATE (APP. 8 DIST. 1999) 874 S.W. 2d 238 criminal law (ExQ 273.1(4) criminal law (ExQ 162.15) 944
We assert Plan of guilty made by defendant will be raided with the raided and correction reversed if requirements of act prescribing reguistre admonishments are not met, matter of trial APP. 13 DIST. 1993) 848 S.W. 2d 769 criminal law. We maintain the
*4 The inmates were obtained prior medical files which would have revealed history of mental health problems, and he had no idea that significant had psychotropic problems at the time of the Pha and Seldom. He found indeed the inquiry into a publican's Psychiatric background when appiteast started that he had no such history and denied code of criminal Procedure 160,004 (e) apis V. Singelbury 12 East 1012 (C&;I 1994) C. 5 160,004 EJ astrocytic Law etrectice date 2005. He EMPRE 10 DOTING RECORD of ELECTRITECTIVE. He called, a guilty plea, if induced by promises or threats which depile it of the character of a Columary act is said a contictio based upon such a plea is about to collateral attack "omitted" a plea of guilty defects in purpose and effect from a more admissioy or an extrapudicial confession, it is itself a conviction. The a verdict of a guy it is conclusive: there is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and impose the Seldom "kerchival" is united. State, 254 his 220,47 is of 382 583, 71 E. 221990.
LONDLEE PLEA WHERE ACTY BEEVLES ROBINES COLLINS As in his V. quarter, 54 E. 3d 1248 (CA 21995) like wise without argues that counsels action demonstrated a contict of interest which predicted the attorney from representing with misdided qualities, the assist court said to conduct a happy and determinst the impact of the contict of interest... The prescription that the assist erscudied without who a possibility of equal invocative exist... no specifictate exercise.
DON SICERD TO FLOORLY OF BLACKED TACES. We contend, not to trade with beach attorney at Law fortermanke. We maintain when he fail to informal inquiry into American compenstody was ineffective, pursuant to code of criminal procedure 160,004 (e) was ineffective assistence of counsel.
2 We deny each and every all patients that can't be supported by the records see (R.E) Revctress Records/ REthescents stated in DEECH COLLINS 1-29.
3 This actual inlecesive claim, plea of guilty by consement.
*5 Lodder Durrow, n/Pork... Exemptions, e.cous in Pof. buvis w Schut V. Delo, 515 U.S. 299, 130 k. Ed. Id R08, 115 (s.ct. 831 (1893) Some bueing Reptioant sites consestitutional error depriated critical evidence that would have established his insbensive. The asstere conor Bevico Peruson without a Heaerive "Necessary RoR" Sethups claim of insbensive ... is as bueing proceducal, rather that substantiee. his constitutional claims are based not on his insbensive, but rather on his contention that the inerrecticeat ess of his counsel "Stretitual" " and the probibation of evidence by the prosecution, see GRAVIOV V. MORAL RAND, omitted devied him the fuft posibply of preceptioity absceded to criminal defendants by the constitution. Sebbues, howecter, faces proceduto distacles that he must overcome before a federal court may address the mecits of those constitutional claims, because Sebbue has been unable to establish cause and prejudice" Sufficient to excuse his failure to present his evidence in support of his first petition, see Moseley V. Zand 499, 615 V67... Sebbue may obtain evilu of his constitutional claims only if the falls within the "Narcous class of cases" explicatins a fundamental miscacriage of justice" is at 499,115 Sebbues, claim of insbensive is offered only to briop him within this "Narcow class of cases" ... Sebabies claim of insbensive does not by itself provide a basis for relief. instead, his plajor for relief defend critically on the validity of his strictlond and Grade claims. Sebbues claim of insbensive is thus "not itself a constitutional claim but instead a tortibility through which a habess petitioner must pass to have his other wise bared constitutional claim considered as the maids" Pervera, 306 U.S., 409 see House V 848, 347 U.S. 518, 165 k. ed. Id. S. 126, S.ct. 2064 (2006) Some is reficants case bueing this is not a case of conclusive exoneration Some aspect of the static evidence may inbecause deanit. Hence has vebseled the patewng stibidated set forth in schuio as bueing the instant case may proved as remand with proceducally detailed constitutional claims. as conted to rasewably puy could consiet repeliant in the right of evidence and decontentacy having in Records. Abdiant
*6
has shown that he would have rationally proceeded to trial and for the stated facts he said acts of misconduct, the result of his prosecution and senten- ing would have been detecent See Washington W. S. (SPN) (SAPE) " see contract with SHEELland V Washington who was at 6.94 kylos V whither 5.14 was. 4.19, 4.30 (1995) This court NEEO not reduce him to show that he would have been eccentred but for these effects he would efeceted a LESSER SEWERNE SERVage W. State 8.93 S.W. 2d 219, 222 (TEY. 4ED ROUSION 157 District 1995 per week
PRAYER *** WHERE FORE PRESIDENTE, PERCICULT PRAYS THAT THE CONT MOORT ITS DEVELOPM TO THE STRIES PROPOSED MEASURED HUM FUNDDIES OF FIRLS, AND CONCLUSION OF LEN. Respectfully Dedpitted DEAD R. DRUGS PRO SE* 1837352 PRIMARY HIIT 3872 Fm 350 South (Winston) Texas 2231
EXERCICATE OF SERVICE ***
A TRUE COPY OF THE BROKES CONSECTION OF PROPOSED FUNDDIES OF FIRLS AND CONCLUSION OF LEN WAS SEEN MAGICED TO THE CLORE OF SANS COND TOR CONSIDCCATION CONT OF CRUNGING APPRESS OF TRIVAS PRO. BOX 12308 ORPITAL SERVING, ALSOY TRIVAS 787 II ON THIS THE 19th OF SULF 2015 PENNINS PENN R. DRUGS PRO. SE* 1837352 Voluntary HIIT 3872 Fm. 350 S. (Winston) Texas 2231