Case Information

*1

*2

SOUUUUT Y AO ASKENE THE COUUT TO DO IS TO CONSERVE AL THIS UNDER 206b-49 ANA DISDIES 206b-492697-C.

I MORE YOU ARE AGE TO EYEURE AL THIS OUT SO THAT IT DOES NOT TIE UP THE COURT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME SNTHES MATTER AND A COPY OF THIS LETTER WILL BE OUUT TO DISTEREST CLUCK.

THANK YOU. David SURH. 1356115.

COSPHAD UNIT-12-5

2665-495504 AL 1 LONELARY, TEXAS, PRESS

$$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$

*3

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CLERK

FROM 105, COURTHOUSE

P O BOX 10536 LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79408-3536 (806) $775-1317$

FAX (806) 775-7992

BARBARA SUCsY

DISTRICT CLERK JUDY BORDER CHIEF DEPUTY

September 3, 2015

Daniel Villa #1386118 Eastham Unit 12-5 2665 Prison Road #1 Lovelady, TX 75851

LEGAL MAIL

Re: Application for Post-Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus Cause No. 2006-412,699 - State of Texas v. Daniel Villa in the ${137}^{\text{th}}$ District Court of Lubbock County Mr. Villa: I am in receipt of the following motions which have been filed of record:

1. Motion for Discovery to Compel the State to Show Reporter's Record that a 2001 DWI Was Introduced During Case-in-Chief
2. Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

Copies of both motions and your cover letters were delivered to the Criminal District Attorney's Office. I could not accept for filing your Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and am returning those to you. The law requires that you submit the application on the enclosed form. They will not accept what you have submitted. Please remit the application for writ of habeas corpus on the form enclosed. I have enclosed two separate forms for your use.

Barbara Sucsy Lubbock County District Clerk

*4 CALSE NO. 2006-412699 DISTRICT CLME BARBARA SULSY Room 105 COURTHOUS P.O. Box 10536

LUBBACK, TEXAS 79401

AELAPPIICATIAN FOR WRIT OF HARPAS CORPUS ARTICLE ILO? BASE ON NEULY DISCOVER RUZDENCE ON SENTENCE, NO YNTHRUENTNE. CONUICITON NEULY DISCOVER RUZDENCE. DISM HYDORN, DATE 8-24-15 ENICLOSE IS THE ORIGINAL AOPIICRITON FOR WRIT OF HARPAS CORPUS ARTICLE IIO?, INTHE ABOVE STYLLD CALSE, PLBASE FILE THIS AND BRUNG IT TO THE ATTEUTON OF THE COURT, PLBASE SINGLE A COPY OF YHUS APRICOTTON FOR WRIT OF HARPAS CORPUS ARTICLE IIO? TO THE CRITONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY. ENCLOSID IS A EXTRA COPY OF THIS LETTER TO HAVE STAMPID ORTHO AND MORO BACK TO THE INTHE FACLOSE SEE FADRESS ENUELOPE FOR MY RECOROS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS ARTICL. EXHIBITS HAVE ONLY BEEN SUPPLY TO THE COURT. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED DANIH HUKE 41386118. EASYMAM UNIT 12-5 266.5 ARISON A4.41

LOUELARY, TEXAS 158.51

*5 CAUSE No. 2086-412699

RE:NOTION FOR JUOICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUOICATIVE FACTS

DEAR CLEAR, DATE 8-29:15 ENCLOSÉ BLEASÉ. FENE. ABELICANTS. NOTION FOR TME. COURT TO TAKE.TUOICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUOICATIVE FACTS, IN THE ABOVE STYLED AND NUMBER CAUSE, PLEASÉ FILÉ. THIS NOTION AND BRTNE IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT, A EXTRA COPY OF THIS NOTION HHS BEEN SEST AND BLEASÉ. SEENE A COPY TO THE DISTRICT ATTANNEY, ENCLOSÉ ALSO. IS A EXTRA COPY OF THIS LETTER TO HAVE STAMPED DATA AND MAIL BACK TO ME IN THE ENCLOSÉ SELE ADDRESS. ENVELOPÉ FOR DY RECOROS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS NOTTE.

RESPETTEWIV SUBJEITER Danie WIES 8.1386118 EASTHAM UNIT 12-5 2665 PRISON Rd. ${}^{\text{1}}$ LOVELDAY, TEXAS 7.5851

*6 C. AUSE 110, 2006-412699

DISTRICT CLERK BAR BARA SUCSV Room 105, COURTHOUSE P.O, BOX 10.536

LUBBACK, TEXAS 79401

RE: MOTION FOR DISCOVERYTO CODPELL THE STATE TO SHOW REPORTERS BECOAD THAT A 2001 DUI WAS INTRDQUCE DURING CASE IN CHIEF.

DEAR CLERK, DATE $X-24-15$

ENCLASE PLEASE FING AARICANTS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY TO COMPEN THE STATE TO SHOW REPORTERS BECOAD THAT A 2001 DUI WAS INTRDQUCE DURING CASE IN CHIEF, IN THE ABOVE STYLED AND NUMBER CAUSE, PLEASE FILE THIS MOTION AND BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT.

ENCLASE IS A EXTRA COPY OF THIS LETTER TO HAVE STANDED DATED AND DARI BACK TO THE IN THE ENCLASE SELF ADORESS. ENVELOPE FOR MY RECORD'S, PLEASE SERVICE A COPY OF THIS MOTION TO THE CRIDINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER.

RESPECTRALLY SUMMUTED DANING WILL ${}^{1/356}4/8$

EASTHAM UNIT 12-5 2665 ARISON R4"1 LOUBIARY, TEXAS 18851

*7

CAGE NO. 80M-42677-A DESTRICT CLEAR BARBARA SUCST ROOM 105 COWT HOUSE P.O. BOX 10526

LUDACCK, TEXAS 2340 E RE: PLEASE THAT TO COURT OF CRIMINAN ARPORAS. WHAT YOU COULD NOT ACCEPT FOR FELING MY ARPULCATION FOR WEST OF MAKERS CURING THAT I HAVE RETURN TO YOUDN 9-11-1E.

DEAR CLEAR.

IN MY LAST LEETER TO YOUDNTS 9-11-15. I THOULD YOU THE FARMS YOU SEAT TO ME ALONG WITH WANT I CONSTAUX MY DEADCRANEUM WITH LEGAL CITATION AND ARGUINSUS, MY QUESTION TO YOU IS DID YOU MAKE A COPY OF THAT FOR THE JUGGE AND DISTRICT ATTARNED TO SEE. EVEN IF YOU DIDY? CAN YOU STILL BRING MY DEADCRANEUM TO THOUS ATTENTIONS HNO ALSO MAKE IT ARRTOF MY 11.07 TO SEND TO COURT OF CRIMINAN ARPORAS. I ASK YOU THIS BECAUSE I HAVE AL- READY GOY AUGUER FROM ARPOR LAWYON OR DISTRICT ATTARNED BUTI HAD DANE THAN WHAT YOU CONSEQUENE OUY ASSOCIATES. OF WASTE F HOWERS CIRDUEN. S-34-15 BE I CONSECOND THAT MY DEADCRANEUM WITH LEGAL CITATION AND ARGUINSUS. I WALD ALSO ASK THAT YOU GOUE ME REASONIOUS AUGUST OF TONE. TO RESEAND TO STATES ANSWERSOTWGEE CAN READD IT AND ALSO TO HAVE RESEONSE MAIL WITH LLOYTO COURT OF CIRDANEY APPEND. $◻$

THANK YOU FOR YOULDON THIS MATTLE.

*8 CAUSE NO. 3001-412699-A

DISTRICT CLVKK BARBARA SUCST ROOM 105; COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 10536

LWAGOCK, TEXAS 79408

RE: HERE ARE FORMS FOR 11.0? You SEST ME AND MY MEMORANDUM WITH LEGAL CITATION AND ARGUMENTS.

DEAR CLVKK, DATE 9-11-15 ENCLUSE ARE THE FORMS FOR 11.0? YOU SEST ME AND MY MEMORANDUM WITH LEGAL CITATION AND ARGUMENTS IN CASE YOU DID NOT MAKE A COPY, I HAD SEND YOU THE FORMS ON 8-28-15 IN A SEPARATE ENUELLOF BE- TUEY WOULD NOT FIT WITH OTHER ENUELLOF ALSO I HAD TO WAY TO GET FORMS BECAUSE WE WENT ON JOCK OOUN, ANYWAY BY THE POSTMARK OF WHEN YOU MAIL ME THESE FORM IS DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 AND I DID NOT RE- THEN TILL SEPTEMBER 10, 2015; THE SAME OAK YOU MAIL THE FORM TO DIE SEPTEMBER 3, 2015 I LEFT THE NEXT DAY ON MEDICAL CHAIN AND DID NOT GET BACK TILL SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 AND GET FORM SEPTEMBER 10,2015; 5D PLEASE FILE THESE AND ORING THEM TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT FOISTRICT ATTENUY, THANK YOU FOR YOU TIME ON THIS MATTER! RESPECTFULLY SUMMARY DONed UEDD 138618

*9 CAUSE NO. 3006-412,699

BE $=$ - $=$ ADELICATION FOK WATTOE HABGAS CORPUS ARTICIE U.O?, BASE ON MEGLY DISCOVER EUZONCE ON SENTENCE, NO DYMENEMING CONVETTAN MEWY DISCOVER EUZONCE, DEAR DIAGNOL, DATE-8-24-15 089-1115 ENCLASE IS THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONFOKWATTOE HABEAS CORPUS ARTICIE U.O?, IN THE ABOUE SYLED CANE, PLEASE EIEE THIS, AND ORINE IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT, PLEASE SERVE A COPY OF THIS APPLICATION FOK WATTOE HABEAS CORPUS ARTICIE U.O? TO THE CRIMENAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

ENCLASE IS A EXTRA COPY OF THIS LETTER TO HAVE STAMPED ORIGO AND DRAY BACK TO ME IN THE ENCLOSE SELE ADDRESS ENVELOPE FOK MY RECORDS.

THANK YOU EOR YOUR ASSESSANCE IN THIS MATTED. EXHIBERS HAVE ONLY ABOV SUPPLY TO THE COURT.

RESPECTFALLY SUMMITTED. Etaner NIVEL 41386118 EASTHAM UNIT, 12-5 2665 PRISON Rd. "1 LOVELADY, TEXAS 75951

*10 STATE OF TEXAS V.

• 1370 TUDTCTAL DISTRICT

DANIEL VIJIA : &; LUABOCK, TEXAS

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BASE ON NEWLY DISCOVER EUROENCE ON SENTENCE U.S. CONSTARLY SECIGL S E LAL, OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION; AND ARTICLES LOS, U.S. U.S. U.S. 3 LO3, 3 LO4, 3 LO3, 3 LO4, 3 LIL, TEX, CODE: C870-880

T.

RESTRATIVI APPLICANT DANIEL VIJIA, WHO IS THE DEFEGANT NAMISD IN THIS CASE, WAS ALSO THE DEFEGANT NAMISD IN CAUSE NO. 32-490328 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMASE OF LUABOCK COUNTY, TEXAS AND CAUSE NO. 32-490392 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW ON 3 OF LUABOCK COUNTY TEXAS. APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY BEING HELO IN CONFIDEMENT BY WILLIAM STEPHENS; ACTING IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF "TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL TUS TICE INSTITUTIONAL DIITSTAN,"AT THE EASTHAM UNIT.

IT

FACTS ON AUGUST 27, 2005, APPLICANT WAS ARRESTED AND CHARGE WITH THE OFFENSE OF DRIUING WHILE IN TOXICATED, A FELONY. APPLICANT WAS INDICATED IN THIS COURT IN CAUSE NUMASE. 2006-412699, FOR THIS OFFENSE, THE INDICTMENT BEASY EN RELEVANT PART.

AND IT IS FURTHER PRESENTED IN AND TO SAID COURT, THAT BRIDR TO THE COMMISSION OF THE AFORE SAID OFFENSE,

*11 HEDEINSETER CAN EDDETRARY OFFENSE, BY THE SAID DEEEENOANT ON THE 13th DAY OF NOUCEMBER, A.D. 1992 IN COUNTE COURT AT LAW NUMBER 2, LUBBACK COUNTY, TEXAS IN CAUSE NO. 92-490333, THE SAID DEFENDANT WAS CONUCCIED OF THE OFFENSE OF DETUING WHITE INTHATCARDED

AND IT IS EWTHER INESENTER IN AND SAID COURT, THAT DETOR TO THE CONDITION OF THE AFORESATO

OFFENSE HAPPIN CAUSEEEDOASY OFFENSE, BY THE SAID DEFENDANT ON THE 13th DAY OF NOUCEMBER, A.D. 1992 IN COUNTY COURT AT LAW NUMBER 2, LUBBACK COUNTY, TEXAS

IN CAUSE NO. 92-490333, THE SAID DEFENDANT WAS CONUCCIED OF THE OFFENSE OF DETUING WHITE DUTORICATED

ON ITS EACE THE INDITTOENT ALLEGES TWO REPORTE CONUCCIED

CONUCCIED OR CAUSE NO. 92-490333 AND 92-490333, FOR PURPOSE OF CREATING A FELONY CHARGE INTHIS CASE, THESE WAS DIFUE A INTERVENING CONUCTION ENTAIN COURT.

THE ULITIMATE IS SUE CONCEANS THE REPORTEMES OF UILAS 1992 ONI CONUCTIONS. IN DEFERMINTNG WHETHER THE CONUCTIONS ARE TWO REPORTE, THE

COURT MUST ADORESS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE 10 -VERN RULE CONTAINED IN SAY, BY (E) OF THE TEXAS

RENAL CASE, AS PURPOSED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2001, TEX. RENAL CASE 349.03 (E), STNCE UILAS CURRENT ONI OFFENSE WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CONDITION ON

AUGUST 31, 9005 THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE

SEPTEMBER 1, 3001, ADOENDMENTS AAPLY TO DEFERMING

WHTCH DETOR CONUCCIEDUS DPAY BE USED TO ELEUATE THE DETRARY OFFENSE TO A FELONY, SEE TEX. RENAL CASE 349.09 HISTORICAL NOTE (ACT OF TIME 13, 2001, 12 H. LEG, RS. 6 H. 649.52, 2001 TEX. GEN. LAWS 1213).

*12 HOWEVER AT THE TIME VILLA ENTERED HIS PLED TO THE EARLYER OFFENSE AND PRIOR TO THE STATUTORY AMENDMENT ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2001, SUSSECTION (E) OF SECTION 49.09 OF THE TE VAS PENAL CODE PROVIDED:

A CONUICI TON MAY NOT BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF ENHANCEMENTLWIDER THIS SECTION IT: (1).THE CONUICI TION WAS A FINAL CONUICI TION UNDER SUSSECTION (2) AND WAS FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTEE MORE THAN 10 YEARS BEFORE THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE PERSON IS BEING TRIED WAS COMMITTEE AND (2). THE PERSON HAS NOT BEEN CONUICIED OF AN OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 49.04, 49.05, 49.06, 49.07, OR 49.08, OR ANY OFFENSE RELATING TO OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE INTOXICATED, COMMITTEE WITHIN 10 YEARS BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE PERSON IS BEING TRIED WAS COMMITTEE. (EmPASSS SUPPLIED) ACT OF MAY 30, 1999, 76TH LEG., R.S., CH.1369, $12,1999 TEX, GEN, LAWS 4606,4610 (AMENDED 2001) (CURRENT VERSION AT TEX, PENAL CODE $49.09(E).

AETER ITS AMENDMENT ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2001, SUSSECTION (E) OF SECTION 49.09 NOW AROUTDES:

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION (E), A CONUICI TON MAY NOT BE USED FOR PURPOSES OF ENHANCEMENT UNDER THIS SECTION IT: (1).THE CONUICI TION WAS A FINAL CONUICI TION UNDER SUSSECI TION: (2). THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE PERSON IS BEING TRIED WAS COMMITTEE MORE THAN 10 YEARS AFTER THE LATEST OF: (A). THE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED FOR THE PREVIOUS CONUICI TION: (B). THE DATE ON WHICH THE PERSON WAS DISCHARGEO FROM

*13 ANY PERIOD OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISEON ON WHICH THE PERSON WAS PLACED FOR THE PREVIOUS CONUICITON. (C) THE DATE ON WHICH THE PERSON SUCCESSFULY COMPL STED ANY PERIOD OF PAROLE ON WHICH THE PERSON WAS RELEASE AFTER SERVING A PORTION OF THE TERM TO WHICH THE PERSON WAS SENTENCED FOR THE PREVIOUS CONUICITON, OR (D) THE DATE ON WHICH THE PERSON COMPLETE SERVING ANY TERM FOR WHICH THE PERSON WAS CONFINEO OR IMPRESONED FOR THE PREVIOUS CONUICITON, AND (3) THE PERSON HAS NOT BEEN CONUICITED OF AN OFFENSE UNDER SECTION 49.04, 49.05, 49.06, 49.065,49.07, OR 49.08 OR ANY OFFENSE RELATED TO OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE INTOXICATED WITHIN 10 YEARS OF THE LATEST DATE UNDER SUBDIVISION (2). (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED): TEX. PENAL CODE 8-49.09 (E), THUS, THE TWO VERSIONS OF THE STATURE DEFINE "REMOTENESS" AS IT AMEXES TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF A DWI OFFENSE FOR PURPOSE OF CHARGING THE OFFENSE AS EETHER A FELONY OR A MISDEMEANOR.

VILLA'S CONUICITON FOR THE EARLYER OFFENSE WAS FINAL MORE THAN 10 YEARS PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE THIS COURT. THEREFORE, THE PRIOR CONUICITONS WERE TOO REMOTE EOR USE UNDER THE STATURE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF HIS PLEA AND SENTENCING IN THE EARLYER CASES, WHEREAS THE CONUICITONS ARE TOO REMOTE EOR USE UNDER THE STATURE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE ALL EGEO COMMISSION OF THE CURRGNY OFFENSE SINCE VIUA WAS RELEASEO FROM A 90 DAY SENTENCE ON BOTH CHARGES NO LATER THAN 7EBUARY 13, 1933 ON HIS PRIOR CONUICITON MORE THAN 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ALL EGEO COMMISSION OF THE CURRGNY OFFENSE.

*14

III

GROUNAS EOR RELTEE

(A) AV INGICITNG UILA EOR EELONY DUI USTNG THE ADENGE. STATUTE (IEY'RENA) CORE 849.09(E) THE STATE HAS EN- CAGEO INAN EY EOST EACIO ABOICATIAN OE THE NEW STATE INSULHAWAYAS ID CHARGE HIMAS A EELON RATHOE THAN A DISDEAEADANI (B) AV INDICITNG VEUA EOR FELONY DUI USTNG THE AMENGEO. STATUTE (IEY. RENA) CORE 849.09 (E) THE STATE HAS ENGAGEO. TII A REIROACTIVE ABOICATIAN OE THE NEWSTATUTE IN SULA A WAY AS ID CHARGE HIMAS A EELON RATHOE THAN DISDEAEANIANE IV ARGLUDENI AND AUTHORITIES EY EOST EACIO

ALAN WHICH CHANGES THE DUNISHMENT EOR A CRIOE AFTER THE CRIOE HAS BEEN CONSISTITED IS ANEY AGE EACIO LAMAS PROHIBITED AVTEY CONSI ART L SECLL AUG U.S. CONST. ART L SEC. IO. IF IT INFLICIS A GREATER DUNISHMENT THAN OID THE PREVIOUS LANE EY PARIE TATE 47 U.S.U 24 YOY 40 U. (IEY. (CRIM. AAP. 1971). THE IYRES OE LEG ISLRTONI THAT IAN PLICATE THE EY EOST EACIO. BROVISTONS OE THE CONSTITUTING PKE (1). EUERY LAW THAT MAKES AN ACTIAN DANE BEFORE. PASSING OE THE LANE AND WHICH WAS INNGCENT WHEN DANE. (2). EUERY LAW THAT AGERAVATES A CRIOE AND MAKES IT GREATER THAN IT WAS WHEN CONSISTITED. (3). EUERY LAW THAT CHANGES THE DUNISHDENT, AND INFL ICIS A GREATER AUNISH. MENI THAN THE LAW ANNEXEATD THE CRIOE WHEN CONSISTITED. (4). EUERY LAW THAT ALTERS THE LEGAL RULES OE ENTOENGE. PVO. BECEEWES LESSOR DIEEERENT TESTDANE THAN THE LAW RE-

*15 QUIRED AT THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, TN ORDER TO CANUITT THE OFFENOPA. COLLINS V. YOHN GENOPA, 497 U.S. 37,42, U.S.C. 2715 , U.L. ED. 34, 70 (1990), GRIDES V. STATE, 507 S.W. 34, 582, 586 (TEX CRIDA, AAP. 1991), WESTON V. STATE, 570 S.W. 34, 197, 198 (TEX AAP. EORT. LUGETH 1994, NO PET).

AS STATE TN SCOIT V. STATE 55 S.W. 34, 593, 597-598 (TEX CRIDA, AAP. 2001).

THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR IN THIS CASE IS THE EXISTENEE. IN THE PRIOR STATUE OF AN EXPLICIT LIGHTATION ON THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF DEFERRED AOTUDICATION, THE RE-SOVUIION OF CRIDINAL CHARGES WILL ALWAYS CARRY THE POSSIBILITY OF COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES AND ASLONG AS THESE CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT STATUTORILY RESTRICTED, DISABILITES AND DISQUALIFICATIONS WHICH THE DEFENDANT DICHT NOT HAVE ANTICIRATED MAY PROCEED FROM THE PRIOR CAUSE. BUT WHEN A STATUTE EXPLICITLY RESTRICTS THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF AND DEFENSE, THE DEFENDANT IS EWITTLED TO RELY ON THAT RESTRICTION, PHWISHMENT FOR THE OFFENSE IS TINCREASED BY THE REAODUAL OF THE STATUTORY RESTRICTION, AND SUCHAN TINCREASE IN PHNISHMENT CONSTITUTES AN EX POST FACTO LAW. (EDPHASIS SUPPLIED).

THE STATUTE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME VILLA ENTERED HIS PLLA IN THE EARLIER DWI CASES SPECIFICALLY RE-STRICTED THE USE OF THOSE CONUIICTIONS AS REPORTE LE ANOTHER OFFENSE WAS CONSTITED MORE THAN 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE THE CONUIICTIONS WERE EINAL THE CONUUIICTIONS WERE EINAL ON OOVERAGE 13, 1992. WHICH WAS THE DATE OF HIS TUBGEMENT AND SENTENCE, THE ADIENDED STATE EXTENDED THE REPORTEMESS RULE TO THE TIME WHEN VILLA HAD COMPLETED HIS 9D DAY TATL TO BUN CONCUARENT.

*16 THIS EXTENSION OF THE REMARKNESS DATE OCCURREN AFTER UILA HAD BLEA GUITYANO WAS. GENTENCED IN THE DREUIOUS CASES. UILA HAD A RIGMTID RELY UPONI THE TIMILTCII AND EXPLICIIL LIMIIATION OF THE EARLIER UERGION OF IHE STATUE, APEL VING THE NEW STATUTE TO HIM AND EXTEMDING THE AÉ MOTE NESS DATE CONSTITUTES AN EX ROST FACID APELICATIOUS OF THE STATUTE AS TO UILIA AND JUGE, SHEWANHNEE GRANTED EX ROTD FACID ILY EAR RULE IT

APELICANT ARGUES IN GROUND 2 THAT TRIAL COUNSE WAS INEFFECTIVE WHEN HE FAIL TO ARGUE THAT THERE WAS NO INTERUENING CONUICIION SUBMITED TO THE TRIAL COURT DURING CASE IN CHIEFTHAS NONVOLSCANE UNDER THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN STRICKLAND U, WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) WHICH:HAS BEEN ADDATED BY THE COURT OF CRITINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS IN HERNANDEZ U. STATE, 126 S.W. 24, 53 (TEX, CRIT, APE. 1986), A HABEAS APFLICATION NEED TO SHOYTHAT THE COMPLATNED OF ACY AND OMISSIONS ON THE ART OF HIS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS OBJECTIUELY UNREASON ADE UNDER PREVAILING PROFESSIOUSL NORMS AND THAT HE WAS SUFFICIENTLY AREFUQZCE BY HIS CONSERS MISIAKES.

APELICANT INFORMS THE COURT THAT IT IS IN WEAVER V. STATE, 56 S.W. 34, 896, 899 (TEX, APPE. TEXARKANA 2001) AND WEAVER V. STATE, 87 S.W. 34, 559, COURT OF CRITINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS, EN BANC, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 THAT I LEARN THAT WHEN THIS ISSUE IS BROUGHT UP DEFERE THE COURT THE STATE MUST BE READY TO CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY ARGUE THE LAW, BE CAUSE, NOT ONLY DOES THE STATUTE REGUINE THAT THE CONUZCTIOUS FOR PRIOR MISDEMIRANORS AE OUER

*17 "TEN YEARS OLD OUT THAT THOSE MIS DEMEANORS BE PROVEN AS AN "OFFER OF PROOF" THIS PROOF CAN BE MADE BY HAUING AN EXPERT COMPARE EINGERPRINTS WHICH IS HOW THE STATE PROVED THE PRIOR MISDEMEANORS INI THE GUILT/INNOCENACE PHASE OF UILLAS TRIAL, OUT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OUUST ALSO PRUVE THE EXISTENES OF AN"INTERUENING CONUICTION... WHICH DID NOT HAPOEN DURING GUILT/INNOCENACE AND THEREFORE THE INTERVENING CONUICTION WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE SURY OR TO THE JUDGE DURING GUILT/INNOCENACE. A C RITIAL STEP SINCE UILLA DLEA NOT TRUE TO ALL ENHANCEMENTS AND PRIORS.

FOR WEAUER, IDID, "REQUIREMENT, IN PROSECUTION FOR FELONY DRIUING WHILE INTOXICATED (OWI) THAT WHERE PRIOR CONUICTIONS FOR INTOXICATED RELATED OFFENSE WAS NOT ELEMENT OF FELONY OWI, AND THUS STATE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ALL EGE INTERVENING OFFENSE IN INDICTMENT OR SUBMIT IT TO THE JURY, STATE IS MERELY REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AT SOME POINT IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF, PROOF OF INTERVENING CONUICTION TO TRIAL COURT."VtCA P.C. $3343.09,49.09$ (A).

THEREFORE THE JUDGE WAS NEVER OR JUEY NEUER INSTRUCTO TO CONSIDER IF THE 2001 OWI WAS AN INTERVENING CONUICTION AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO FACT ONIT, SO THE FACT THAT UILLAS TRIAL CONNAEL ADUANCEO HIS CAUSE BY ARGUING THE 1992 OWIS WERE TO BE EXCLUDED AS UN-ENHANCEABLE IS CONTROLLING, BECAUSE ONLY THE FIRST TWO PRONES OF THE 349.09 STATUTE HAVE BEEN MELT THERE IN SUN UILLA ASKS THE HONORABLE COURT TO REFORD THE JUDGMENT AND REVERSE THE CASE TO A MISDEMEANOR COURT.

*18 ANG, ACATN UILLA BOINTS OUY THAT THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY RENGER THE TUBGMENT INLIGHT OF THE DECISTANS BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIATINAL APPEEUS WILL RESUY IN UIOIATIONS OF OUE AROCEES ANVEQUOI PROTECTION CLAUSES OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT COUNSEL DENY HYM RESECTIVE ASSISTANCE DURING THE GUYLY (INNOCEUCE STAGE) OF THE TEIAI FOR NDI OATECTING THAT THE STATE DIO NDI INTRODUCE A INTEXUENTNG CONUICTION ALGNEUNITH HIS. EY POST FACTO CLAYM, WHICH WAS A REQUIREMENTTO STOP US YOON AME.

APPLICANT ARINGS THIS ISSUE AGAIN OUE TO NEVLY DISCOVER EUROENCE WHEN AAPLICANI RECEIVE HIS RESAUNEE TO HIS 3250 FROM THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL COMPITYED PERTURY OR FRAUD AS YOU WELL SEE ONLY TO STOP THE EY POST FACTO, CLAYM, ETRST APPLICANI WOULD ASK THE COURT TO SEE EYHTATI A INGICITENT, LOOK RIGHT UNITER FEIQNY EINHANCETMENT WHERE IT SAYS AND IT IS EURTHER PRESENTED. IN OWATO SAYS COURT, THAT DRTOR TO THE COMPOSSEENGE THE AFORESAIO DEFENSE BY THE SAIO DANIEL UILLA ON THE 21st DAY OF APRTI, A. O. 3001 IN THE 1901 DISTRICT COURT, OF EL. BASO COUNTY, TEYAS IN CAUSE, NUMBER 200100004178 THE SAYS DANIEL UILLA, WAS CONUZCTED OF A EE LONY TO WIT DRIVING WHITE INTOXICATED, ANXI SAIO CONUZCTON DECAUSE EINAL DRTOR TO THE COMPOSSEION OF THE AFORESAIO OFFENSE, SOADALICANI KWENITI WAS ASTRG USE YD GYUFHIM 85 TO LITE YEARS IN ARISON.

WHAT AOPLICANI DIO NDI KNOW ANGITIS NIA WHERE IN THE REPORTER'S AECORD THAT IT HAD BEEN USE DURTIVE THE GUITY! INNOCEUCE STAGE OF THE TEIAI UNITLL HE COY THE ASSISTANT

*19 ATTORNEY GENEERAL'S RESPONSE ON HIS 29.54, THAT THE APRII 37, 3001 TN THE 1909 DISTRTCY COURT OF EL ASSO COMIT, TEXAS TN CAUSE NUOIAN 30210000678 WAS ALSO GETHIE USE TO ELEUATE HIS CASE TO A TYLPA DECELE EELONY BY THE STAYE WITHUGGYNG THIS EVIDENCE HAS ALSO VIDLATED TEXAS RENAL CODE H9.09 (E) THAT WAS STILI TMEEEECT TN AUGUST 37, 3005. ANO IT IS STILI TMEEEECT UNDER PENAL CODE 49.09 (E). EXHYGITS A AND WILI CLEADY SHOULTME STATE HAS VIDLATED PENAL CODE 49.09(E) THAT WAS TMEEEECTON AUGUST 37, 3005 THE MAYSE APRIICANT'S CRIDGE ALEASE SEE ADAPTOUCE U, STATE 31 S. W. 24, 359 (TEXAS ARE SEN BNTONED 3000), PHILIPES U, STATE 398 S.W. 34,499 (TEXAS CRIDGE 1999), IT IS ALSO HERE AME LICENT HAS STUDYED PENAL CODE 49.09 (E) WHERE IT'S STATES A CONVITCTION DRAVSE USE EAR PUREASE OF ENHANCESAPENT UNDER THIS SECTION OF ENHANCESAPENT UNDER SUGCHAPTED (D) CHAPTER 18, OUT NOT UNDER BOTH THIS SECTION AND SUBCHAPTED D THIS WAS REREN ON SEEYEMED 1, 3005 OUT WAS DONE NOUITD PENAL CODE 49.09 (E) WHYCHIS STILI TN EEEECT BY THE ASSTSTANT ATTORNEY GENEERAL AND DISTRTCY ATTORNEYS CONDISTITING EARUP OF PARTIEV ON THE EX POST FACTS CLATO BY UTOLATING ALI THESE STATILES STILL RESULTS IN A UTOLATION OFTHE EX POST FACTSCLATO BY CONDISTITING EARUP OF PARTIEV AND STILL EVIDVAS THE TIME ON HOU THE 10 YEARS ARE DEASURE STILL RESUIT IN UITOLATION OF AMPICANTS DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, EX POSTAFRATO LAM PHNO PENAL CODE 49.09 (E). APRIICANT WOULD ASK THIS COURT TO SEE (DISTON FOR HIS CLOSURE OF THEEACHING INFORMATION UNDER KYLES U WHITEY,

*20

RACES 82, 23,84, OE CLEARRECORA, WIEN ARRUCAVY RE-

CETUED RESPONSE ON HIS S3SY THESE WAS A GRAOY U. MARVLAND, 373 U.S.S 3 (1945), AND KYLES UWHITEY, 13 L.ED. 490 (1995) UIDLATION DECAUSE THE GUITON FRE. DISCLOSURE OF IMPERACHING INFORMATION LWNER KYLES V. WHITEY, THERE WAS AN OORER GRANTO OIRECTING THE STATE TO EORTHWITH DRAKE INQUIRY AND DISCLOSF ALL THE SOLLONING WITHIN THE DOSSESSION, CUSTERY OR CONTROL OF THE STATE, OR THE EXTSEEENCE OF WHEEN IS KNOUNGLE, WITH THE EXERCISE OF THE DISSEENCE, COULO BECOME KNOWN TO THE STATE, ON PAGE 83 THEREY ITS CLEAR THE DEFENDENT SUMDITS THAT ANY SUCH IN. FORTATION WOULD BE DISCOVERABLE AND DETERIAN TO THE DEFENSE INTHIS CASE AT GOIN THE GUITTINNOCENCE STAGE AND IF A EDVING OF GUITT IS BEYWEE, THE DUNISH. MENY STAGE, THE DEFENDENT SUBDATS THAT SUCH ENFEK. TATION IS COMPELLEO UNDER KYLES UWHITLEY, SEE EXHIBIT C. 50 AWLTCANT WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE THE FEDENY DUE FROM 2001 WAS INTEOUCED URING THE GUITY' INNOCENCE OF THE TRIAL SINCE THE ATTENNEY GEORGAN. NIS REFER TO THAT TO STOY THE EY DOST FACTO CLEAR AND TENYONOULE. WHEN THE FEDENY DUT FREO, 2001 WAS ALSO AETYG UEE TO ELEVATE HIS CASE TO A THYOD DEGREE FEDENY THIS IS. HYSEE THE GRAOY U. DRAKEENO, 373 U.S. 83 (1943) AUR KYLES U. WHITLEY, 131 L.ED. 490 (1995) UTOLATEDN) TISOK PLACE BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER TOLO TO DEFENDANT THAT IT WAS ALSO AEDUG USE TO ELEVATE HIS CASE TO A THYOD DEGREE FEDENY AND USED TO GENE HID THIS LIFE SEDYENCE, BY THE STATE WITHHOLOING THIS EUTOEENCE HIS UIDLATEE TENES FENAL CODE 49.09 (F) THAT WAS STYL INEFFECT IN AUGUST 29, 2009,

*21 APRLYCAVY ARGUES TMAY ABSEVY SUGG DISGONVON THE DEFENDAVIG AYGUIS UNGEX APTEGLE 39.14, G.G.A. ARTICLE I; SECTION 10 OF THE CONGTTTNTGON OF THE STATE OF PEXAS; AND THE FOURTH; FEETH; STEPP; AND FOW TEENTY APRENDMENTS TO THE CONGTTTNTGON OF THE UNGED STATES OF AMERICA NAS BEEN UIDIAIEG, TO HIS TREEDA A DLE-THQHAY AND THUS AFAEYVE THE DEFENDAVIGE A FAIR TRTAL HERETH. SEVERAL CASES HAVE GONE INTO SOME DETAIL RE- GARDING THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OEE 49.09 ANUITS VARIOUS INCAENVATION INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF SUBPART (2), ONE OF UNICH IS GETTEN STAYE, I DID IT IS OURING THIS DYSCUSSIONI LEARNTHE IMMANIANCE OF THIS SUBPART. . . THE CORRECTSTATECIIENT OF THE ISSUE IS THAY THE 1984 CONVICIION WAS TO REMORE BECAUSE THE CONVICIION ACCURREN TEN YEARS, PRIOR TO THE 2002 DILY OEEENVE. . ANDTHERE WAS NO INTEKUENTING INTOXECATE RELAPPE CONVICIION. . ."SEE GATIS USTATE, 1865 N. 34593. AMRITENV WOULD ALSO ASK. THE COURY TO SEE EXHIBITP AVE 404 (6) ARGUEST FOR NOYICE OF INTEVY TO SEEEY EXTRAVEDUS CAMOUCT SEE I, PACE 20. AULE 404 (5) ARGUYDES YN PART, AS FOLONS: "(A) OTHER CRYMES, WROUGS OR ACTS. PROVIDED, UPON TIMELY REGUESY BY THE ACCUSEO, APASSOMAOLE NOTICE IS GYUENIN ADVANCE OF TOTAL OF INTEVY TO INTEOUCEN THE STAMES GASE IN CHIEF SUCH EUZOPHCE OTHER THAN THAY ANTEING IN THE SAME TRANSACTION. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED). ANOIHVE DOUTIGU AND ICENV WOULA ASK. THE COUCT TO SEE IS PROVIDE FOR HISCOVERY, EHWYE E WHEE CULVEYE ASYED THE REVERS ATECUNGY FOR THE TTEMS ANIYNJEHWHTEN

*22 THAT AGE MATERTA TO THIS CAUSE AND THE ISSUES OF GLUY OF INVOCENCE AND EUNISHMENT TO BE DETERLINED TO THIS CAUSE APPLICANT DID NOT SAFELY COID TOTAL THEY EOEE THE DISTRICT ATTACHETY HOM TAKES CHANGES TO DISCLASE THAT THEY INTEMPED TO USE THE 3000 OUT CONUCTION TO EUEUATE TO THEIR DEGREE FELLOW AND FAIER TO DISCLASE IT APPLICANT CODIDELS THE DISTRICT ATTACHETS TO SHOW HIM REPORTERS RECORD THAT IT WAS INTEKOLCE.

ADDITIONALLY, IN ORDER TO REVORR REASONABLY EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE A TEXAS DEFENSE AITORNEY THAT HAVE A FIRM COMMAND OF THE LAW AND FACES AS APPLIED TO THE PARTICULAR CASE IN WHICH HE OR SHE IS INVOLVED, EX PARTE LILLY, 6.56 S.W. 2d. 990 (TEX, CRIm, APE, 1993), COUNSEI TS RRESUMED TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES THAT ARE WITHER NOVEL OR UNSETTLED, EX PARTE WELCH, 991 S.W. 2d. 193,195 (TEX, CRIm, APE, 1999), A REASONABLY EFFECTIVE COUNSEL HAD A DUTY TO PRESENT ALL AUAIL AGE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EUIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLTENTS DEFENSE, EX PARTE YBARRA, 629 S.W. 2d. 943,944 (TEX, CRIm, APE, 1992), AND TO CONTEST ALL EUIDENCE WHICH IS ADVERSE TO HIS CLIENT, THOMAS U, STATE, 550 S.W. 2d. 69 (TEX, CRIm, APE, 1979), EVER A SINGLE EFROR CAN CAUSE, AN AITORNEYS REPRESENTATION TO FALL BELOW THE STATH ADVENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD, THOMPSON U, STATE, 9 S.W. 3d. 808,913 (TEX, CRIm, APE, 1990).

II APPLICANT CLATMS THE ACTUAL INVOCENCE UIGLATION: APPLICANT ASKS THE COURT TO APPLY THE DREIKE U. HALEY, 124 S.C. 1849 APPLICATION.

*23

*24 GENERAL OF THE DISTANCE ATTENNEWS WAS COMPETED FANC OF DISTANCE OF PERTUEY WHAT THE ASSISTANT ATTENNEY GENERAL DRDE THIS STREETANT IN BESENSE TO BEACH ON BY HFAEY &; PAGES IS, U, U, DUF DURES O PAGE U, IT SAYS. (1). THE ASSISTANT ATTENNEY GENERAL BESENSE TO BECH TO (CIAFD 18) AND, HIS CURRENT OFFENSE, CONDUTED ALSOUS 27, 3065, WAS COMMENTED DRDE THAN THAN WEAR FANC EVER OF THE NOVEMANE 13, 1993. THE EONALS AS GEOGRYNG IN 4909 (E) (2) (A), ANY VILLS'S BENA CONDUTEDNS DID NOT DEEF THE REQUIREMENT OF 49,09 (E) (3) BECEUCE HE WAS CONDUTED OF ANOTHER DUE OFFENSE ON AARIL 27, 306! (WEFHEN TEV YEARS (10) OF THE 1992 CONDUTEDNS BEE, STATE EXHIBIT 7, THE REASON THE ASSISTANT ATTENNEY GENERAL DRDE THIS STREETANT IS BECAUSE THATS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE EX POST FACTO CIAFD AND TOI (IM YEAR RULE BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER BRANCHY LIE DURING CASE IN CHIEF AS IT WAS A REGUEREMENT. (4), DUF WHEN SHE MADE THAT STREETANT THERE IS NO REPORTAS BECORE TO SHOUL IT WAS INTRODUCEDUEDUS CASE IN CHIEF, WHICH WAS AISO A REGUEREMENT UNDER WEALS V. STATE, E6.5IM, 2d 276, 899. CELL, APRTEURKANN 2001) AND WANN U.S. STATE, 675 M, 2d 659 (E) (D) (F) OF CRYNENAL AYEARS OF FANCS. EN BANC SAY H, 2002), THAT S WHY THIS IS FANC OF DISTANCE OR ANGYHAN THAT TO STOP THE EX POST FACTO CLECTING STOP. THIS IS YEAR RULE, EOTHEOE WOULD NOT GRANT THE EX POST FACTO OR UP YON RULE. (5), ARRICHNT WOULD ASKTHE COURT TO SEE INDICTION OUT EXHIBIT A YEAR ATEXHY WHY OR EELENY ENHANCEMENT WHERE IT SAYS ANSTETES EWTHYE PRESENTED IN ANGTDS SAY COURT THAT REFER TO THE CONDUTESTAN OF THE AEDRESED OFFENSE. AY THE EWTHY GANTS WHA ON THE 279 DAY OF AARIL, A.D. 2001

*25 IN THE 13014 DISTRICT COURT OF EL RAND COUNTY, TEXAS IN CAUSE NUMBER 20010000678 THE SAID OANIEL ULLA, WAS CONUICIED OF A FELANY TO:WIT DRIUING WHILE INTOY GATED, AND SAID CONUICIYON AECAPE FINAL PRIOR TO THE COMPTSSION OFIHE AFORESATO OFFENSE, SOMMILICANT ANDM IT WAS BEING USE TO GIVE HIM 25 TO LIFE YEARS IN MISON, WHAT AMPIICANT DID NOT KNOW AND IT IS NO WHERE IN THE RESORTERS AECORD THAT IT HAD BEANUSE DURING THE GUIT/TNNDCANCE STAGE OF THE TOTAL UNITIL HE GOT THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENEAR'S RESPONSE ON HIS 2354 THAT THE 2001 OWY WAS BEINGUSE TO ELEUATE HIS CASE TO A THIRD DEGREE AND ALSO AS A HABITLAL OFFENSE, BY THE STATE WITHROIDING THIS EUIDENCE HAS ALSO UIDLATED YEARS PENIAL CODE 49.09(E), THAT WAS STIL INEFFECT IN AUGUST 27, 2005 WHEN AMPIICANT GOT HIS CASE, RUSSE SEE BOOKIQUE2 U. STATE, 215 W. 34, 359 (TEX, APR. SAWANTONIO 2000), AND PHILIPS U. STATE, 992 S.W. 24,498 (TEX, CRTM, APR. 1999), IT IS ALSO HERE AMPIICANT HAS STUDYED PENIAL CODE 49.09 (E) WHERE IT STATES A CONUICIION MAY AE USE FOR PURPOSE OF ENHANCEMENT UNDER THIS SECTION OR ENHANCEMENT UNDER SURCHAPTER(D) CHAPTER 12, BUT NOT UNDER AOTH THIS SECTION AND SURCHAPTER D. THIS WAS REPEN ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 BUT WAS DIAUE NOW TO PENIAL CODE 49.09 (G), WHICH IS STIL INEFFECT. (4). AMPIICANT WOULD ALSO ASK THE COURT TO SEE CURKES AECOROS ADDION FOR DISCLOSURE OR IMPERCHING INFORMATION UNDER KYLES U. WHITLEY, ROSES 82, 83, AND 84 AND ARADY U. ODAKYLALW, 313 U.S. 83 (1963) AND KYLES U. WHITLEY, 131 L. 20,49D (PAS) AND TO SEE IN CLICK SECOROS RULE 404 (A) REQUEST FOR NOTICE OFINTAIL TO OFFER EATENNEOUS CONDUC

*26 SEE I PAGE 20 ANI TO SEE DISTING FOR DISCOUNSEL HINDS CONSEL ASK THE DISTANT ATTUNGY FOR THE ITGDS AND INFORMATION THAT AGE ORIGING TO THE CAUSE AND THE ISSUES OF GUIT ON TINOGENCE AND DUNISHING TO BE DETERMINED IN THY C AUSE, DISTICENT DISNATEAFFLY 20 TO TRIAL.

THEREFORE THE DISTANT ATTUNGYS HAD THERE CHANGES TO DISCLUST THAT THEY INTEUTED TO USE THE 2AM DUE CONVICITN TO ELEVATE TO THEO DEGREE FEDENY AND FATHD TO DISCOUNE IT AFFICANT CONCELLE THE DISTANT ATTUNGYS OR ASSISTANT ATTUNGY CelineAL TO SAVING AEPORTS'S RECORD.

THAT IT WAS INTEGNACE DISTING GASS TIN EHAT ON HINDS

THE EX ROST FACTA, LA YEAR RULE, AND AENZL COOPENY AND CO TNAY WAS TNEFFECT AUGUST 22, 2GAE THE DAY OF AFFICANTS CERGE.

BY IT NOT BEING DISCOUNSEL HAS PRODUETED ANALYSIS OF ACAUSE HYE CASE, WOULD HAVE A CON A MYSED DIGNER AS CAPOSE TO B FEDENY, ALSO HAS BEON AFFICATE BY HES SENTENCE TO BE SENTENCE TO A MYSED DIGNER.

GE A LIFE SENTENCE (S) BY THE ASSISTANT ATTUNGY AND DISTANT ATTUNGYS

COMPETITING EXALOOR DISTING AUGUST 22, 2GAE THE DAY OF AFFICANTS IN INVIOUSSEL OF THE EVERY FACITY OF THE EXTENDS THE TIME ON HANTHER US HICOES AUGUST 22 THEREY FACITY AND STILL RESULTS INVIOUSSEL OF ANALYSIS OF THE TROCESS EQUAL PROTECTION AND RENAL CODE 49.09(P). (6) THIS COURT ANOTHE COURT OF CRITICAL APPEND IES ASKED OUE TO THIS N EW DISCOUNE EUIDENCE IS ASK THAT ASSENT SUCH DISCOVERY IF THE DEFENDANTS RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 39.14 C.C.P. ARTICLE / SECTION 10 OF THE

*27 GENSTETUTION OF THE STATE OF TENAS AND THE FOURTH, FIXTH, STXTH, AND FOURTEETH ADENOORENTS TO THE CONSISTU. TION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS ASSUITOENT TO HIS IRREPARABLE TNTARY AND THUS DEPRDIE THE DE. FENOANY OF A FAIR TRIAL HEREIN. (9) THE COURT OF CRITONAL ARPANSS IS ASK TO RELIEV WHETHER THE HONORABLE TUGGE BROUEY UNORWOOD OF CECIL PUR VIAR ABUSCO IT'S DISCRETION TWOENVING THESY MAY FACIO CLAIY, AND DENVING MOTION TO SET ASTOE TWITTENY, APAUCCANT WOULD ALSO ASK THE COURT DID THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENIRAL OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS USLATE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 60 (A) (U) (W) (W) (W) THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT THEY WERE USING THE 3001 OWII TO ELEVATE TO THIRD DEGREE FEDING AND ALSO TO GET APPLICANT AS A HABITUAL OFFEVER? PLUS TO STOP THE 10 YEAR RULE AND EX POST FACIO CLAIY, AS THEY KNEW IT WAS A REGUTREMENT IT BE INTEOULCE OURTW. CASE IN CHEEF, AND DIDTHIS OUT EFFERENCE.

THI DREKE U. HALEY, 124 S.C. 1849 IT STATES THAN ORALYN BY O'CONWOR, T., TOTWED BY REHNQUIST, CH.T., AND SCALTA THOPASS, CTNSBURG, AND BREYER, J.T., IT WAS HED TARY, (1) WITH RESPECT TO A STATE RATSONVE'S ATTEOJES TO EXCUSE A PRIOR STATE COURT PROCEDURAL DEFINIT ER A FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIY, WHEY A FEDERAL CONET IN A HABERS CORAUS CASE IS FACED WITH AN EGETENDS BY THE ARESONER OF "ACTUAL INWOCENCE" UNEITHER OF THE SENTENACE OR OF THE CRITHE GUANCE, THE FEDERAL COURT, and FEBST ADPRESSAL NONOEE FANLITED GUANDS FOR COMPARANCE RELIEVANGED IN GROUWAS FOR GUANES TO EXCUSE THE AROESSUARA DEFINITY.

*28 (23) ACCORDINGH-INTHE CASE AT HAND OF DRETKE U. HAVEY, 124 S.C.T.1849, THE SURRICHE COURT DECLINED TO DECIDE. HUHETHER-THE-ACFUAL-ENWOCENE-EYCERTIEN WAS ANAICABLE TO-NON CAPITAL-SENTENCING. (3), IN-STEAD-THE-CASE-WOULD BE-REMAND FOR CONSIDERA: TEN-OF-THE-ACCUSED'S-RELATED-INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE CIARD, WHICH-A-STATE-OFFICIAL-HAD.CONCEDED WAS. UTAWE. AND-SEGNIFICANT.

STEVENS, T., TOINED BY KENNEDY AND SOUTER, IT, OISSENTING, EXARESSED.THE. UTEW.THAT EWORATENTAL FATHNESS CUGHT. TO DICTARE.THE. OUT-COKE OF.THE.CASE ATE ${}^{\text{PAG.}}$ (4) $\>$ HAND FOR OUTHE ACCUSED HAD BEEW. DEVIED OUE AROCESS. BECHUSE, AS ALL MARTIES. AGREED, THERE HAD BEEN NO FACTUAL GASTS FOR THE ACCUSED'S CONUCTION AS A HABITUAL OFFENDR, (2) THE ACCUSED HAD ALREADY SERVED A.SENTENCE. FAR IN EXCESS OF THE &; YEAR. DIAXIMUD, THAT TEXAS LAW.HAD OTHERWISE. AUTH= ORTEED-FOR-THE-ACCUSED'S.CRINE, AND (3), THE SURRENE COURTS-AULINS (4) NEEDLESSLY POSTENUD. FIHAL ADJUOTCHIN OF.THE.ACCUSED'S.CLATD, AND (A) PERVERSELY AROLOVCED.THE. UERY. INJUSTICE.THAT.THE.CEUSE. AND: BRE. THRICE. STANDRRO WAS-DESIGNED TO PREVENT.

KEWICDY, O, OISSENTING, EXARESSED.THE. UTEW.THAT (1) WHILE THE.CASE.AT. HAND. MIGHT. PROVIDE A.CONVENIENT. MECHANISM. TO WENHIEATE-AN-IZAAPETANT-LEGAL. PRINCIPLE, THE. ACCUSED. HAD A. GREATER. INTERESTIN KNOWING. THAT. HE-WOULD NOT-BE REINCARDERATED. FOR A.CRIME. WHICH HE. DID. NOT.CONUNIT, AND (2) IT-WAS-NOT-CLEAR-WHY.THE. STATE HAD. NOT. EXERCISED IT'S-POVER-ANV-PERFORMED. IT'S. OUTY. TO. UINOICATE. THAT. INTERESTIN-THE-FIRST-ALACE.;

OPINION

*29 JUSTICE O'CONNOR DEI THOUGH THE ORTHOUGE THE COURT, [18] 28] 28] QUICK RESPECT FOR FINANTS, COURT, AND THE ORDONLY ADAPHISTRATYON OF JUSTICE, A TEOREAL COURT WELL NOT ENTERTAIN A PROCEDURALY DEEALITED, CAN! STITUTINGAL CLAZON IN A RETIYTION FOR HABERS CORRUS ASSAY A SHOULDGE OF CAUSE AND PRETUDICE TO EXCUSE THE DEEALY, WE MAVE RECOGNIZED A NARRON EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE WING THE HABERS APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ALLEGED CONSTITUTINGL ERROR HAS DESIGNING IN THE CONVICITING OF ONE WHOES, VING, OEEENGE OR, IN THE CARTYAL SERIES, CING CONVOLVING, OEEENGE OR, IN THE CARTYAL SERIES, CING TEX, OF THE ASSERAURING CTRC, LOSTANCES, REINDEKING THE THOUGH, FITSTALE FOR THE DEATH PENZITY, OUARYULCORTE, 400 U.S. $405,911,20,24,390,126,5,7,26,39(1986)$ , SAWYER U. WILLIAM BEFORE, US, IS WHEYNER THIS EXCEPTION APPLIES, WHERE AN APPLICANT ASSERTS' 'ACTUAL TANOCCENCE OF A MONCARTYAL SERIES, OEECANCE THE DISTRICT COURT FALIO ETEST TO CONSTONE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS FOR RELIGE URGED, JUSTICE KENNEGY, DISSENTING.

FOR THE DERSANS JUSTICE, STEULASS SET EARTH, THE RESPONDENT SHOULDGE ENITTLEN TO TOMBEDTATE DEI TEE, AND TOTN HIS DISSENTING ORINION, THE CASE ALSO MORITS THIS FURTHM COMPONDENT CONCEENING THE LARGE OALIGATION OF STATE OR FEODING OFFICIALS WHEN THEY KNOW AN TWOYUUGUML HAS BEEN SEALTANCE FOR A CRIDE HE DID NOT COMOIIT.

TU1999, MICHAEL HAYEY WAS SEALTANCED TO SERUE 16 YEARS, AND LOMNTHS IN BEISAN FOR UZOLATING THE TEXAS HABITUAN OFFEINGER LAM, TEXAS OFFICICTALS CONCEDE, HAYEY DID NOT

*30 UYOLATE THIS LAW, THEY AGREE THAT HALEY TS GUZUY ONLY OF THEET A CRIDE WITH A 9 YEAR DIAVYMUM SEALENCE. YET DESKETE THE FACT THAT HALEY SEALED DOME THAN TWO YEARS IN BEYOND FOR HIS CRIDE, TOYAS DEFICIALS COME BEFORE OUIC CHUET OBESYME. HALEVS PEYITON FOR BEYIEE THEY WISH TO SEAD HALEY AACY TO BEYOND FOR A CRIME THEY AGREE HE DIO NOT COMDITY.

THE BIGGES OF THE REYAL SYSTEM ARE THOUGHT TO BE DITTIGATED TO SOME DEGREE BY THE DISCRETION OF THASE WHO EVERCE THE LAW. SEE, E.G.TACKSON, THE FEDEYAL PROSECUTOR, 31, T.AA: INST. CRID. L. SC. 3,6 (1940-1941) THE CLEMENTY BOWHE TS DESTENAD TO SAME THE SAME FUNCTTON, AMENIS YES BENICAITE TOO OF TEN TEAMBED ORTEES, THE CLEMENTY BOWHE CAN CORRECT TMTUETTCEE THAT THE ORDIDINEY CRITITUAL PROCESS SPEEOS UNADE OK UNWILLIWG TO CONSTER.

THESE MECHANISMS HNO OUY THE PROMISE THAT DIAECTS NOT FOREICAITO OUR SYSTEM, THE LAW DIAST SAEUE THE CAUSE OF TUSICE. THESE INSTIGATING ELEMENTS SEEH TO HAUE DLAYOD NU ROLE IN DICHAEL HALEY CASE, EXECUTIVE DISERETTAM ANGCLERENCY CAN ENSPYE LITTLE CONDIDENCE YE OFFICIALS EWOM TO FICAY TMTUETTCE CHOOSE TO YENADE IT. BEHAES SAME WALLO SAY THAY HALEVS TANOCANCE TS A MAKE TECHAICAITY, BUT THAT WOULD OTSS THE [541 U.S. 400 ].

PAINT. IN SOCIETY DEUATED TO THE DUE OF LAW, THE DIFFICANCE BEYUEEN UYOLATING OKNOT UYOLATING A CRITITUAL STATUS CHAWET BE SHRUGGED ASTRG AS A DITNOR DETATL.

IT MAY GE THAT HALEVS CASE AROUZOES A CONVRAIENT MECHANISM TO VENOICATE AN TRODETANT LEGAL ARTINCINE, BEYOND THAT HOWEVER, DITCHAEL HAI EY HAS A GREATER TUTREEST IN KANUITUS THAT HE WILL NOT BE BEYACARCERITED FOR A CRIME HE DIO NOT COMDITY, IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHY THE STATE DIANAT EXERCISE YYE POWHE AND DEREOAD YYS GUZYTOUYANICATE THAT DITERESTIN THE FIRST DIACE.

*31

*32

INSTRUCTIONS

1. You must use the complete form, which begins on the following page, to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from a final felony conviction under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (This form is not for deathpenalty cases, probated sentences which have not been revoked, or misdemeanors.)
2. The clerk of the trial court in which you were convicted will make this form available to you, on request, without charge.
3. You must file the entire writ application form, including those sections that do not apply to you. If any pages are missing from the form, or if the form has been downloaded and the questions have been renumbered or omitted, your entire application will be dismissed and returned as non-compliant. If your application is returned as non-compliant, the clerk of the trial court will write a note of the defect on your application and return the form to you without filing it.
4. You must make a separate application on a separate form for each judgment of conviction you seek relief from. Even if the judgments were entered in the same court on the same day, you must make a separate application for each one.
5. Answer every item that applies to you on the form. You may use additional pages only if you need them for item 17, the facts supporting your ground for relief. Do not attach any additional pages for any other item 17.
6. You must include all grounds for relief on the application form as provided by the instructions under item 17. You must also briefly summarize the facts of your claim on the application form as provided by the instructions under item 17.
7. Do not cite cases or other law in this application form. Do not make legal arguments in this form. Legal citations and arguments may be made in a separate memorandum.
8. You must verify the application by signing either the Oath Before Notary Public or the Inmate's Declaration, which are at the end of this form on pages 11 and 12. You may be prosecuted and convicted for aggravated perjury if you make any false statement of a material fact in this application.
9. When the application is fully completed, mail the original to the clerk of the convicting district court. Keep a copy of the application for your records.
10. You must notify the clerk of the convicting district court of any change in address after you have filed your application.

*33

Case No.

(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.)

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07

NAME: $\underset{―}{OAUDEI}$ UTLLA DATE OF BIRTH: $\underset{―}{N-8-59}$ PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: ENSTHRO UNIT, LOUEDROV, TEXAS YERSI TDCJ-CID NUMBER: $\frac{11}{35618}$ SID NUMBER: (1) This application concerns (check all that apply): $◻$ a conviction $◻$ parole $◻$ a sentence $◻$ mandatory supervision $◻$ time credit $◻$ out-of-time appeal or petition for discretionary review (2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you want relief from? (Include the court number and county.)

137 DISTRICT COURT, LUBBOCY COUNTY

(3) What was the case number in the trial court?

$$\frac{3006-412699}{800}$$

(4) What was the name of the trial judge?

CECIEII DURYLOR BUT AT.TURY BRROUT UNDERWOOD

Revised: March 5, 2007

*34

(5) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide the attorney's name:

CHARLES CHAMBERS

(6) What was the date that the judgment was entered?

JUNE 6, 2006

(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence?

D WY - LIFE IN PRISON

(8) If you were sentenced on more than one count of an indictment in the same court at the same time, what counts were you convicted of and what was the sentence in each count? (9) What was the plea you entered? (Check one.)

$◻$ guilty-open plea
$◻$ not guilty

$◻$ guilty-plea bargain $◻$ nolo contendere/no contest If you entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please explain: (10) What kind of trial did you have? $◻$ no jury $◻$ Jury for guilt and punishment $◻$ jury for guilt, judge for punishment (11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase of the trial did you testify? $$

N D

(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? $◻$ yes $◻$ no

*35 If you did appeal, answer the following questions: (A) What court of appeals did you appeal to? 7th Court of ABPMS (B) What was the case number? NO. 0 ?-OL-6220 (C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's name:

KEZLY CLAOK (D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? AFFIRM, ANGUST 10,2008 (13) Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals?

区 yes $◻$ no If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions: (A) What was the case number? $$ ADE. NO 963-09 (B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? AEFUSOD ITAL13, 2010 (14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Atricle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction?

区yes $◻$ no If you answered yes, answer the following questions: (A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number? AOU? KENNANAN (B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? AENTHO, ANGUST 10,2011 (C) Please identify the reason that the current claims were not presented and could not have been presented on your previous application.

AECANSE TT WAS NOT UNITU IT GOTAG RESPONSE FROM MY 1254 THAT I FOUM OUTSTARE WAS USING A 2001 DUI FEDUY CONVICITING TO ELEVATE MY CASE TO A TRIAD BEEASE FEDUY AND TO ASSOUSET TO GET ME AS A HNOTTUAL OFFRUOR ALUS IT WAS PARTUAY OR FROM TOUSE IT BECAUSE THERE IS NO REPORTERS RECOMB TO SMOY IT WAS USE BURING CULTY' IANOCENCE ALUS THIS STREETENT WAS GUY MADE TO STOP JUBGE FROM GRANTING EX POST FACIO CLADM AND IO YEAR RULE,

*36

(15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal court?

$◻$ yes

$◻$ no If you answered yes, please provide the name of the court and the case number:

SLHRRERG COURT NO.14-10445, FIFH CRRUIT H-11257, 11.09 TW COURT CAUSEAN. 92 -440328 $72-440372$ (16) If you are presenting a claim for time credit, have you exhausted your administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time credit resolution system of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to any final felony conviction, including state jail felonies) $◻$ yes $◻$ no If you answered yes, answer the following questions: (A) What date did you present the claim? (B) Did you receive a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the decision?

N/A

If you answered no, please explain why you have not submitted your claim: $N/A$ $$ $$ $$ $$ (17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your claim that you are being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the facts supporting each ground. you must present each ground on the form application and a brief summary of the facts. If your grounds and brief summary of the facts have not been presented on the form application, the Court will not consider your grounds.

*37 If you have more than four grounds, use page 10 of the form, which you may copy as many times as needed to give you a separate page for each ground, with each ground numbered in sequence.

You may attach a memorandum of law to the form application if you want to present legal authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief in a memorandum of law that were not stated on the form application. If you are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts pertaining to your offense and trial in your memorandum.

*38 GROUND ONE: APPIICANT RATSES THE EXPOST FACILCIRDD AGRDD BASE ON NEWY AFSCOUR EUROENCE. FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE: FIRST OF ALL THOSE WAS NEVER A DUTER VENING COALUSTRY. SUBMITTED TO THE TREAL COURT DURING CASE IN CHIEF WHICH WAS A REQUIVEREMENT, IN AITORNIAY GENUPAH RESPONSETO 22.54 ON PAGE 15,16,17 TO (CHRON 18)SHE STATES AND HES CURRENT OFFICE COMMENT ALBUSY 27,2865 WAS COMMITED MOORE THAN TEN YORK FROM PAPRY OF THE NOVEMBAB 13,1992 THOSEMENT AS DESCRIBE IN 49,64 (E) (2)(A), BUT UTIA'S DEIOR CONVICITING DID ROT THEYT THE REQUIVEREMENT OF 49,64(E) (2) BECAUSE HE WAS COMMITED OF AMOTHE ONY OFFICE ON APRIT 27,2864 WITHIN TEN YORKS (16) OFTHE 1992 CONVICITING, Y A. A. STATES DUPANT 7. THE PERSON THE ASSESTANT AITORNIAY GENUPAH MORETHES STRENENT IS BECAUSE THIS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE EXPOST FACILCIRDD AND TEN YORK RME OR PUSE TREYUDEE HAD TO GANITY FA POST FACID AND A YORK RME. BUT IT WAS NEVER BRUGHT UP DURING CASE IN CHIEF AS A TURINGING COALUSTRY AND IT WAS A REQUIVEREMENT, BUT WHEN SHE MADE THAT STATESONT THERE IS NO REPORTS AFTERD TO SHOY IT WAS TUTEDDUCED, THAT WHY THIS IS NEGLY OBSCORDEUDENCE, THAT IS WHY THIS IS FROUD, DISTANCE OR PERCURY, THAT GO THE FROUND THOSE WOULD NOT GANITY THE EXPOST FACID AND A YORK RME.

*39

GROUND ORAL TWO:

APPLICANT ARGUES HE WAS DEUTED EFFECTDIE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL WHEN HE FAIL TO AREGUE THAT THERE WAS NEVER A ENTERVENING CONUCTIN SUMMETED TO COURT DURING CASE INCHIEE.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE: APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THIS IS NEGLY DISCOVER EVERENCE BECAUSE WHEN THE ASSISTANT ATTACKLY GEARAAL RESPONDED TO 22.54 ON PAGE 17, IT SAYS BUT, UTILA'S ARIDER CONUETTINU OID NOT THEET THE RESUGREEMENT (NOTE SHE EVER SAYS ITS A RESUGEREMENU) OF 49.69 (EXCEL BECAUSE HE WAS CONUETTED OF ANOTHER BUT OFFENCE ON AARIL 27,2001 (UITHDV (ID) 49985 OF THE 1992 CONUETTIONS, RAR, STATE EXHIBIT 7, THIS IS A TUBSEMENT AND SENTENCE THAT WAS USE TO CHANGE. APAIICANT AS A HARTTINU OFFENDR, ONLY DITHS CASE IICEND NOT BE USE TO STOP THE EXPOSI FACID OR ID 499R RULE BECAUSE BY USING ITNOW THE STATE HAS COMMENTED PRAUD, MISTARE, OR PERCUEY TO THE COURT BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER INTRODUCED TO TRIAL COURT AND THERE IS NO REPORTING RECORD, ALSO BY MAKING THAT STATE HAS UITOATED PRAUICONE 49.69 (F) 1997 was INEFFECT ON AUGUST 27,2005, BY TRIAL COUNSEL NOT OXYECTING THAT THERE WAS NO DUTRUENTING CONUETTION WAS A CRITIAL STOP SENCE UTILA RUB NOT TRUE TO AN EXHAVEEHENTS, AND IF HE WOULD HAVE GREECTED THAT THERE WAS NO DUTRUENTING CONUETTION THE STATE USING HAVE HADTO HOWOR THE ID 499R RULE AND EXPOST FACID CLAID, BY ATTORNEY NOT ARGUEING THE DUTRUENTING CONUETTION NOTBEDING

*40

GROUND TWO:

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:

SUBMITED OR DISCLOSE HAS AREDUDICE AMPIONY BECAUSE HIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISDEMEWAR AS CMPOSETD A FELDAY, ALSO HAS BEEN AREDUDICE AY HIS SENTANCE TO BE SENTANCE TO A MISDEMEWAR TWSTEND OF A LIFE SENTANCE, ALL BECAUSE COURSE FAIL TO CAPECT,

Misc. Docket No. 06-103 Page 8 of 13 ATC 11.07 (Rev. 03-05-07)

*41

GROUND THREE:

APPIICANT CIATAS TME ACTUAL INVOCENCE UIDLATION! APIICANT ASKS THE COURT TO APPLY THE DIETKE U. HALEY 1245.CI.1947 APPIICATION. FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE: APPIICANT IS AN EEDING THAT EVIDANCE WAS AND IS INSUFFECTANT TO SUPPORT HIS HARTTUAL OFFENSE CONVITTION AND THAT HIS COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, APPLICANT ANACCUSED WAS FENGO GUITY ON A TEXAS CHARGE OF FEDWY ONT, WHILE THIS OFFENSE OTHERD ISE UOULD HAVE BEVOO PUNISHABLE ASA DISDEPENDENCE ON 3-20 YEARS IN ARISON, THE ACCUSED ALSO WAS CONVICIDO TMA SEPARATE PENNITY AYEMENG ON A HARTTUAL FEDWY OFFENSE CHANGE, AS A RESULT, THE ACCUSE ASCETUE AN ENHANCED SEUDANCE TO LIFE IN ARISON, THIS HARTTUAL-FEDWY-OFFEASE FUHANCEDING OCCURRAD FUEN THOUGHTHE ASSISTANT ATTEXNEY GENEON OR DISTOCT ATTEXNEYS HAS CONVIITED FREN OOR DISTANCE OR DISTUCE WHEA THE ASSISTANT ATTEXNEY GENEON MADE THIS STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO 3254 ON PAGE 17 IT SAKS AND, HIS CURRENT OFFENSE CONVIITED AUGUST 27, 2005, WAS CONVIITED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM PARTY OF THE NOUEDNBER 13,1992 JUOGETHENT AS DESCRIBED IN 49.09 (E)(2) (A), AUT, UTLA'S PRIOR CONVIICTING DIDNSTMENT THE REPLICEDING OF 49.09 (E)(3) AECONSIE HE WAS CONVIICTED OF ANOTHER OUT OFFENSE ON ANTL 27, 2004 WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS OF THE 1992 CONVIICTING S.AR.

*42

GROUND

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:

THE ONLY REBESN THE ATTERNSY GENMFAM ANDE THIS SIGNEDINGT IS BECAUSE THAT THE ONLY WAY TO STOP TUDGE FROM GRAVING THE EW EST FACIO CLARK AND ID YORK RULE, BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER GROUNDD UPP DURING CASE IN CHIEF, AND, ICAST DID NOT KING IT WAS ABING USE Th ELEUATE Td THIRD DÉGREE FEDWY AND Td GET ATm AS HABITUM AFFAUDOR WHICH MAKES THIS SENTENCE NOT AUTHORITHD BY LAW UNHUR RENAL CODE 49.09 (E) THAT WAS INEFFECT IN AUGUST 27, 2005 THE DAY OF AMPICAUS'S CRIME, A DEFFECT THAT REGONES A SENTENCE UNDDAY AE RRISE AT ANY TIME,

*43

GROUND:

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND:

WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT RELIEF TO WHICH HEY MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING.

10

Misc. Docket No. 06-103 Page 11 of 13 ATC 11.07 (Rev. 03-05-07)

*44

VERIFICATION

(Complete EITHER the "oath before a notary public" OR the "inmate's declaration.")

OATH BEFORE NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF TEXAS, COUNTY OF $$ .

, BEING FIRST DULY SWORN, UNDER OATH, SAYS: THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT IN THIS ACTION AND KNOWS THE CONTENT OF THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND ACCORDING TO APPLICANT'S BELIEF, THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATION ARE TRUE.

Signature of Applicant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS $$ DAY OF $$ .

Signature of Notary Public

INMATE'S DECLARATION

I, $\frac{\text{IAMTEL USLIA}}{}$ 138418 , BEING PRESENTLY INCARCERATED IN WASTHAM UNIT, LENZIAG, NY $$ DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT, ACCORDING TO MY BELIEF, THE FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.

SIGNED ON $𝒮=26-15$ $$ .

${𝒮}_{\text{anid tield}}$

Signature of Applicant

*45 Signature of Attorney Attorney Name: $$ SBOT Number: $$ Address: $$ $$

Telephone: $$

*46

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CLERK

ROOM 105, COURTHOUSE P.O. BOX 10536

LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79408-3536 (806) $775-1317$

BARBARA SUCSY District Clerk JUDY BORDER CHIEF DEPUTY

September 24, 2015 TO: Daniel Villa, TDCJ #1386118 Trial Court Writ No. 2006-412,699-C The Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Relief from Final Felony Conviction Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07 was filed in the above referenced case on September 24, 2015. Pursuant to Texas Government Code $\S 81.101$ , the District Clerk's Office shall not give legal advice. This prohibits our staff from recommending (1) whether to file a certain pleading; (2) wording or content for a pleading; (3) specific people against whom to file pleadings; and (4) whether or not parties should attempt to settle a dispute prior to trial; it further prohibits staff from (5) interpreting statutes and (6) performing legal research for a party by researching case law, statutes, opinions, etc. All public records in this office are available for inspection by you or your agent at this office during regular business hours. To locate any one cause when the person requesting same does not furnish the docket number of said cause, a $\$5.00$ fee is charged in advance. To ascertain the existence or nonexistence of any instrument or record in this office, a $\$5.00$ fee is charged in advance. Our regular fee for copying is $\$1.00$ for each page. A Pauper's Affidavit provides for filing and service of process. It does not provide for free copies. If you are a defendant in a criminal action, copies of all official documents are routinely provided to your attorney. We do not provide additional free copies. We recommend that you contact your attorney. The Texas Open Records Act does not apply to judicial records. You must provide your own forms for motions and orders. The District Clerk's Office files and maintains official records for the District Courts. We do not bring matters before the Court or distribute copies to other persons or entities unless ordered to do so by the Court. It is the litigant's responsibility to see that motions, etc. are presented to the Court. If a hearing is necessary, you should contact the District Courts Administrative Office and request a hearing. If you cannot pay court costs, the petition must be accompanied by : (1) an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs; (2) a separate affidavit identifying any suit (except family law suits) brought by you in which you were not represented by an attorney as set forth in Section 14.004, Civil Practice &; Remedies Code; and (3) a CERTIFIED copy of trust account statement required by $\S 14.006$ (f), Civil Practice &; Remedies Code. Illegible document. Document not signed. Not original signature (copy)