Zavala, John

·, \'·

Into and For the Texas Court of Criminal ·his document c;:A·pp~a!&Gm&nd Its Justices, Supreme Court Building, ·Jages that are of 2§\}.r ~~it)/ 14th Street, Room#l06, Austin, Texas 78701 )t Llie time of imaging. ·In Re John Zavala(aka~JOE ZAVALA) § I nre: Cause# Is t y 1 e~~ra~owqs~w- Applicant-Relator-Pra Se, § 0943395-D . · ·Versus, § Judge(John/Jane Doe),for the 396th Judicail District Court of Tarrant § §§ SLOZ 61 smt County of the State Of Texas;Aridra- S1~dd~ 1~1\HIJ\ll~~ jQ ll:lnoo Jacobs,Asst,Attorney to C~iminal - § District At~orny to Fort Worth Texas,· . § .Mot1on f · . .· N~ (iJ31A~31~³~ or sanct1ons & stric~ing Sharen Wilson,Fried McMillin,Cri~.D.A, § illegal thiid Part~'s Brief-under & Litigation Spe~iali~t-Post Conviction,: Writ of Mandamus AndRBddie D.Baker,Cu~todian of Record,et § al,for TDCJ-CID,et al ••.•. §

'·'···Relator's Application For An.Original Application FOR A Writ Of Mandamus Pursuant to; § 22.221 (b) of the Texas Government Code·, & Rule ·72 .1 f& ·2 ·oe ·: ~ The Texas Rules 'Of Appellate P~ocedure

To The Texas Court of. Criminal Appeals-Justices: Comes now before your said Appell~te Court,John Zavala,under .number as 01310 _ 27l(aka,but real name is Joe Zavala),and seeks for judicial Notice,and to l e t - there be understanding in this cause· of action sub judice and thus,has submitt- ed,and filed [t]his Application for a writ of mandamus against abo~e said Resp- ondent;,(s),and thus,~rivo~ing the jurisdiction of this Court bf Appial~ of ,.-· Texas, pu~suant to Texas Government Code,§ 22.22l(b),and Rule 72.1 arid 2 of the Texas- Rule of Appellate Procedure,as implemented with Article v,§5A of the Texas Cont- itution,but that mandamus is sought against the presiding judge over the habeas corpus proceeidings under number case,cause C-396-010512-0943395-D,and in CoUrt- for the judicial District of Tarrant County,Texas;for committing abuse of Autho- rity,and arbitrary acts in her/his judicial capacity,and discretion,in errorne-~

nously failing to perform its/her/his ministerial duties empaneled by State law, and for suspending procedures for implementing the writ of habeas corpus,and de- viating from the normal proceedings under article 11.07,§§ 1,2 & 3(a),& (b) of- the Texaa Code of Criminal Procedures,and application of the law and facts th- at is cited within this Relator's writ of habeas corpus,and it's findings of - facts and conclusions of law-attached to this Relator's Application for a writ- of habeas corpus,ad testificandum,and thus,these submitted petitions for Relate or's writ of habeas corpus were not heard or suppressed and not determined upon- the law and.facts shown by the trial Court's record,and reintroduced by Relator .as his exhibits(42 items in all).Inwhich Relator's main issue presented is that the trial COURT and it's judge,render~d a void judgment,based on the ProsecUtor- -'(s) f~lse and fake indictment~and that srtipped the trial Court of any ~urisd­ . ic.::tico over the subject-matter, cause of action and all Parties of interest -:- .. Wrose yet, said Respondent :has not acknowledged Relator's actual claims raised-• · !.Coat.·

before it's Court 1 and intentionally failed to serve the correct and legal Per- son(s)-Party(s) of interest:Which would have been Eddie D.Baker1-who is the - Senior Warden and Custodian who the trial Court's habeas co~pus judge was to - issue service of process upon.Such as the summons and complaint1and thereafter [ ]auld have been compelled to appear and enter an ~ppearance with the body of this R~lator 1 and then and there ~how cause why Relator[Applicant]should not be- releasbd from false. imprisonment ! ?-h·e. 1 Bounmedine V. Bush 1 553 U.S. 7 23 ( 2008) (in- part~"~hether Betitjoner's legal due process of law was dehied1for not affordi~ ng Pet~tioner the right to a fair opportuhity.in State Court to discover and pr- i . . esent 1 potentially exculpat6ry e~idence that was not contained in the record- on appeal ?'");Dist~ict Attorney's Office V.Osbornel557 U~S.52(2009)(same);U.s.­

V.Moussaoui,365 F.:fd 29213.00-3021n.4-5(4th Cir.2004)1citing Padilla V.Rumsfeld, 352 F.pd 6951709(2nc] Cir•2003) 1CE[rt.Grantedi _ _ U.S. ,124 S.Ct.l353,1358- . I .

(2004):;Rumsfeld V.Padillal542 U-~-4261124 S.Ct.271Ul59 L.Ed.2d 513(2004) 1 8:.:-;_.; I . . . . . . I· .

Ha~di ¥-Rumsfeld,542. u.s.S071124;s.ct.2633,159 L.~d.2d 578(2004),81272;RK I . . , . I . .· . . BUSH1S42 U.S.466,124 S.Ct.26861159 L.Ed.2d 548(2004);9.~-HENCE,the legal-prop- er Respondent with respect to the writ of habeas corpus petition is the Person who hap custody over'the Petitio9er/Applicant1and jurisdidtion of the issaunce of th~ writ lies with the State dF Texas Co~rt of Criminal Appeals, and each ju- dge thereof-given-the-power-.and-Authority to grant and issue the issuance of - writs of habeas corpus1and i~ Criminal matt~rs[as herein.:sub judiee],the writ- of mandamus~etc.i.e.,Article 4.041§ 1 & § 2(TCCP);Articl~ S1§· SA Of the Texas- Constitution,and thus1over the Respondent~Eddie D.Baker-named in Relator's Me- morandum of law,attached to his Application for a writ of habeas corpU.§·1along- with his exhibation of itemized instruments material to RELATOR'S unconstituti- onal and illegal conviction(s) for Ar~on and Burgarly.Insupport of this want of- mandamus Application1Relator will further show this Said Appellate Court's Jus- tices the following: I. A) Relator's plea for jurisdiction involves the validity of the judgment pronou- nced upon his imposed duplicitious Count indictment or.the Prosecutor'(s) own- version of an unauthorization of a grand jury panel.Whicb judgment is void ab- initio1because the alleged defendant1John Zavala1was never legally before the- trial Court and it's presiding trial judge.In fact1the indictment is so fatally- defective that it deprived the trial Court of subject-matter jurisdiction-Had - defense Court appointed defense counsel(s) NOT elected too commit-breach of his- her/their fiduciary duty and legal obligations1he/she/they would have objected- ~nd complained about deceptive trade P~actice acts by the prosecutor(s) and that there was no actual returned True Bills of Indictment(s).These issues are well pleaded in Relator's memorandum of law1as well as supported with his exh~bi~~t­ ion of 42 items.Moreover 1Relator can never waive his United States Const~tutlon­ al rights guaranteed under the Fburteenth1and Fifth1Sixth1Eighth~Ninth Amendme- nts.Therefo~e1Relator has not·waive~ any absolute rights1and has reserved the - ese said rights even prior to his Coerced and induced plea of quilty1and will ~- 2. Coat.

reserve his right to amend this designation so as to not have waived any err- ors of law preserved in the trial COURT.Since his main issue of claims raised is a challenge to the trial Court's/judg~'s jurisdiction,over the[ir]~subject~ matter and Parties of interest.In the interest of justice,may this Texas Court of Criciinal Appeal~ taie judicial; notice,pursaunt to Rule 20l(a),(b),(c),(c),(d)T ie),(f),(g)-of the Texas Rules ofl Evidence,that the fraudulent indictment issued under ca~se . number . C~39~-010512-0943395-D,is riot a criminal complaint under the laws oLTexas,and the trial Cour~'s judge never acquired exclusive,nor competent jUrsidi2t.iO(l. OVer the SUbject-mat rer SUb . JUdice •"'rhUS 1 lack Of SUbject-matter jUr- isdiction over a[ny] _Case.cause of action or citation renders a trial court's - judgment void~Ex Parte Seidel,39 s.W.3d 221,224-25,n.4(Te·x.cr.App.200l);Hoang v. STATE,872 s.w •. 2d 694 ,supra(Tex.~r.App.l993)."A defect which renders a sentence t . . ·. . void may . . be -·. . .. raised -. . C).t·' any . time ori . . . i stage,and . for. the first. . time_ oL.appeaV'Id., . . =-·--' . . ' ·B) Relator states that the correct; procedures· for ·entertaining· a writ. of habeas.:-... copus has not been· taied in this \case at. bar. Nor has the· correct legal and p{o- per person been serv~d service of process.Because the trial Court's judge has- deviated from the no~mal habeas c6rptis procudures.And in ~tead-has arbitrarily- allow~d-an illegal third party in~ervener(s) to file or and submittillegal imp- roper baseless motions in opposition,but as third party _under an Amicus Curiae's Response to Relator's [Applicant's] Applica_tion for a writ of habeas corpus.Thus, · · Service of process has not been exec~ted on the Custodian of record;Respondent- ·Eddie·D~B~k~ri(or a successor if reassigned,etc),pursunat to Articles ll.Ol,ll.- '02,1L03,.1'1··04,ll.OS,ll.07,§ 3(a) & (b).ll.ll,ll.l2dl.l4(l)·to (S),*ll.l5,*11.- 16(TCCP) & 11.23,11.26,11.27,11.28,11.29,11.30(1) to (5),11~31.11.32,& 11.36-" The Applicant may be Brought before the trial Court~ •• These rule of law allows- or permits ~ervice on the legal person having custody of the prisoner/Applicant or service on the legal government Official or Agency in the manner proscribed- by these said State's laws(inaccord~with aforementioned federal-Supreme Court's precedent)for serving a summons or the like process on the correct legal Respon- dent(s)~Id •.•• These said provisions are to be applied with the service of 'sum- mons or like process'-under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106 or/and 2la-but - rule 106 provides that the initial citation(summons~ may be served by deliveri- ng a copy of the citation and petetion(complaint),in person,to RESPONDENT(s),or- by mailing a copy of the citation and petition to the Responden~ of interest~via certified mail,returned receipt requested-The trial Court's judge,or and a Sha- ren Wilson,with Frieda McMillin have us~d illegal and unlawful motion practice to cause the dismissal of Your Relator's Application for a.writ of habeas corpus, along with his memorandum of law's pleadings,and have departed from guidanc~ of State law ,and have erroneously failed to act with reference to any guiding~·pri­

n~tples of law,failed to analy~e and apply th~ law correctly,and by such1. ion of the correct procedures,has acted in an arbitrarily and unreasonalbe mar~­

er so inconsistent with legal and substantial due process of law~ as to render~ ..., ,..., -·- ~

the trial Court's/judge's judgment void •.. The unidentifiable habeas corpus- judgment may be an intruder,if not an elected or appointed judge under the - provisions of the Texas Constitution1so as to express Respondent(s) handling- -court is the 396th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County,Texas-where S/he- is duly acting in an judicial capacity1as a duly elected oi appointed District ~udgeJwhatever its capacity for ~he trial Court1Relator seeks mandamus relief _upon ~im/her or they,as a whole '!tor both failing to act upon the contents wri- tten ln the memorandum of law1and hampering,otherwise hindering1Relator's fed- eral Jnd State of Texas-Constitu~i6nal rights,in~luding State and federal law- requirements of [Equitable]access bt inmate' ( s) 1 to avail himself to the Courts - for hearings unde~~this civil action sub judice.Thus1said. judge.h~s committed· abuse of power and authority when S/he f~ils to perform her/his ministerail du- ties Jmployeed by State law .•. Relator has provided Eddie D.Baker,as Custodian- ! - - - . l i . 1 . . .... •"" -.ove~ him, a copy of his separate, Ibut attached_ memoranoum of: -law-l,s_o_-.-Baker. -will _-: . - ! - - -- have. ~repared his ,trial Court Is rupl ic_ated copied documentation I and produce· it in the sa~ trial Court-in showi~g whether Baker has any actual legal papers- to justify Relator's.imprisonment .•. However1thus far,Resp~nent(s) has not took legal~proper procudres to delive~ your Relator to ~aid-,Responent,who ~houl~ hav~i1 Relator under illegal and unlawful restraint f~6m-.B~ker•s Custody1and said trial Court'~ judge mu~t view the original exhibit~tion,"but·only if dema- nded" •.. and commanded t~at his[Baker] to produce and have you~ Applicant/Rela- tor before said Court instanter.Article 11.27(TCCP)-& 11.31 states to WHOM the writ of habeas corpus is to be served 1 and [Shall] bring before said habeas tiudge Who shall examine the writ'-Application/petition and the papers attached to it; and then and there if no legal cause has been shown for the false imprisonment- and restraint ,or 'if it appears that the imprisonment or restraint1though as- if first legal,cannot for any cause be lawfully prolonged,the Applicant/Relat- or [Shall] be discharged.i.e.1Aricle 11.40(TCCP).And aforementioned federal pr- ecedent insupport ••• of trying to comprehend why the habeas said judge did not - chose to file the correct laws for procedures in habeas c6rpu~ proceedings sub- judicelrather than allowing a paper brief as the "STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANT- 'S APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ?'"and erroneously failed to com- pel .an appearance of Eddie B.Baker;,but permitting Sharen Wilson and Andrea Ja- bobs(ADA) to submit documents for improper,illegal and unlawful purposes 1and - cause unnecessary delay~,and needless increase in the cost of litigation.see Ryland v.shapiro,708 F.2d 9671972,n.5(5th Cir.l983)(citation omitted);Cf.Ball- V.Mackeryl720 F.Supp.261,262(SSNY.l989)(Prison officiais sanctioned for causing delays in proceedings);Boonie V.Elrodl706 F.Supp.6361638-39(ND.Ill 1989)(Sanc- tions imposed against jail Captains lawyers for baseless motions);Knop V.J6hn- son1667 F.Supp.5121515-22(W.D~Mich.l989)( ·sancttions imposed for abusive moti- on practice),aff'd in partinent patt,977 F.2d 996,104(6th Cir.l992~,cert,deni­

ed,ll3 s.ct.l4,15(1993);Goka V.Bubbitt,862 F.2d 646,650-52(7th Cir.l988)("- .- 4.Coat.

Appellate Court directs consideration of sanctions imposed against prison- Officials lawyers);Cf.u.s.v.winestock,340 F.3d 200,207,n.7(4th Cir.2003),cit~ ing Dunn V.Cockrell,302 F.3d 491-92,n.l(Sth Cir.20g2),per curiam),c~rt.denied, U.S. rl23 S.Ct.l208,154. L.Ed.2d 1013(2003),in part: 1 An example of a proper Rule 60(b).(FRCP) ~laim(equi~alent to Art.27.08- ' . (4)(TCCP)) is an allegation that jthe government agents perpetrated a fraud-upon- the-Cci~rts during the collateral 'review proce~dings~Id,at Winestock,340 .3d ~ee- ' 207,n.7;Ryland,at 708 F.2d at 97~,n.5:"In relevant part: 0£ what avail is it to- the indivdual rights to ·arm him \with a panoply-of Constitutional rights if,'~ wheri he seeks to vindicate them,the Court-room can be hermetically sealed agai- nst him by .a funct~oriary,Who,by refusal or neglect, impede_s· the f.iling of his - papers";and "that a State Clerk of the Corirt's has negligently delayed the fil-- ing of:; [this] Peti tio~er' s peti t~on L on appeal,. and that_ the_ delay .. is inteffer:' .... ~·.l-ing-with this Relator.' s [ Indi vidu~l' s] ~rights of_ acc·ess.:: ~t~o: the' 'Cou·r"ts ~I d ~ ~, _ .c.:.,_,.,;:~ C)The Respondent(s)_are ~learly and constructively denying Relatb~ any means·~~~=~ equitably; availing 'himself to the comma·~- law or and Constitutional Court I as said I Respondent~vs) erroneous failures to perform it's ministerial function,under the facts of this case,means Repond~nf(s) has personally edit-~d and censored Appl- icant's/Relator's do~uments and has refused to perform his/her duties under its sworn Oath, 'unless·it's an intruder who is interfering',or a recalcitrant Clerk- (s) is participating in refusing to file Relato~'s properly-executed legal docu- ments, then mandamus will . draw-out the culpr,i t or violator of rights, and make - Relator's legal matt.ers a public record ~f -existance. Even though Relator's sw- orn statements herein are in good faith ,and attempting to affirm the truth.Brit intruder(s) and said judge are impeding the progress of any thing Relator has want[ed] to file,process and have docketed within the trial Court's record ... This relator±±s-in a position as in Deleen V.District Clerk,l87 S.W.3d 473,474- 475,n.l,2,3,4,-5(Tex.Cr.App.2006).Hence,Relator is also seeking an Order instru- cting the District Clerk of Tarrant County to accepy his petition as is,file it, docket it and have it processed and then presented to the said Court's justices- for due consideration upon the relief Rel~tor seeks.Rather than harboring the - darker motivation of keeping the tri~l judge's docket clear of R~latot's petit- ions~Id.,citing Winters V.Presidihg Judge of the Crim.Dist.Ct.Nu.3,118 S.W3d 773- 775(Tex.Cr.App.2003).AS expressed through-out [t]his mandamus petition,~his Re- lator has shown he has no other ad~quate remedy at law to pursue his requested- relief other than with this Application.Even though the law established expres- ses he has a clear right to the relief .sought,and the merits of this Relator's claims for relief are beyond dispute;as a legal right that necessitates that the law plainly describes the duty to be p~rformed.Such that there is no room for - the exercise of discretion:rd. D) Andrea Jacobs and Sharen Wilsbn are allegedly of the Criminal District Attor- ney'(s) Office of Tarrant COU~T~,T~X~s,and together submitted and flied S&~ baseless and unlawful brie:e-ee motion inopposition,with the Tarrant County_- ,.. ,., __ ~

District Clerk's Office ,supposely on or about 7/23/2015,and joindly have misrepr-esented facts and misstated laws in this case at bar~First this issue <:>f fraudulent indictment,and void Judgment to Relator's conviction/sentence does not fall under the abuse of the writ act.So Relator never had to over come the (alsely implie~6- subsequent bar ,to the writ.s filed or writ bar.See .~precedent I

cited i~ RELATOR"S memorandum of /law.Hamilton V.McCotter,l72 F.2d 171,183-84(5- th Cirrl985)(citation in original);Cf.State v.johnson,821 S.W.2d 609.612,& n.2- (Tex.Cr.App.l99l)(four criteria in original),and State V.Terrazas,962 S.W.2d 38- supra(~~x:cr.App.l998),"even tho4gh this Court did not expressly decide at that time whether the defendant/Applicant is entitled to a dismissal for said Canst~ itutional violatiort;,ii re~anded~the case to. the trial Cotirt/Appeals Courtjfor- it to consider : (1) " Wether th~ defendant was in fact denied her/his right to due pr~cess _of law"; and ( 2) "Whetiher dismissaL _w_as (j.s, ..!J. ttl~; approp;ria.t~ means ..

1 =· to neutr~li,~e- the taint~ o~C the y~'~sti t~tio~al _yi~l-~t~on o_f: _l;w~-I-~. ~~·:~ ~-·- ... -- ._.,,, ~ A)' RESPONDENT ( s) has adopted base~ess and unfounded Responses by Sharen.· Wilson, Frieda McMillin,and Andrtea Jacobs,"as if for Eddie D~Baker,failed to Comply- with the requirem~nts • certificatidn I for this . Relator's . appeal and- there . proced- ures t~ken are with a substantial defect~tbat deprived the habeas corpus Court and its judge or intruder of_jurisdiction over this case sub judice,and jurisd- iction can not be retroactiv~ly obtained~State V.Riewe,l3 S.W.3d 408,supra(Tex. Cr.App.2000)(this Court did not allow the PROSECUTOR to amend-its appeal):State V.Muller,829 S.W.2d 805,supra(Tex.Cr.App.l992)(the STATE'S notice of Appeal mu~ st be filed within 15-days in order to invoke the juti~dictiori~ot thefAppellate Court).However,whether the illegal third party interveners or the habeas judge, ARTICLES 27.08(4),or & 44.01 does not preclude this Relator from filing a peti- tion for a writ of mandamus to correct judicial action that is clearly contrary to well-settled law,whether that law is derived from a statute,rule, or Opinion of a Court.e.g.,State ex rel.Healey V.McMeans,884 S.W.2d 772,supra(Tex.Cr.App.- 1994).Relator's notice to with draw his unlawful and illegal guilty plea,as in- coerced and induced is an appeal for jurisdictional defects,and Article 44.39- (TCCP) can be applied too,because the Relator in this habeas corpus case is de- tained by a person other than an Officer,and thus,the Sheriff of Anderson County of the State of Texa~that must recieve the mandate of this Appellate Court,who commands that an immediate cause of action be to the person so held to be dis- charged sand-that[sic]L~ the mandate Shall be sufficient authority therefro~Id.

B) In this instant cause of action,this.Court of criminal Appeals can hold that Relator has shown that he has no adequate remedy in law to compel the habeas - Court's judge or intruder,to issue ari Order and issue the writ of habeas c9rp- us to the right legal person holding Relator unlawfully against his will,and to issue an ORDER that all o;r _any amicus or illegal third party's briefing fil- ed in this Case at bar,b~ STRICKEN frdm the record.M~inly because ~0 authori- zation has been n ~ed for: permitting Third Party's illegal motions or brief-

Response-as-an answer on the stationary of -A-"STATE in opposition and is - holding herself or their s~lves out as an attorney under Amicus Curiae,as if for Eddie D.Baker,and his business with the Texas Department of Criminal Just- ice.This intervener'(s) briefing is not iegal,and it should be beyond the sco- pe of. any reasonable interpretation of the role of amicus curiae and is nothing . I

more ~han an advocacy by unatho~ized attorneys on behalf of their/her alleged Clien~s· .•. which are responses being presented for improper,illegal purposes,su~. ch as to cause impediments and ~bstruct the due course of justice ... This said - impediment is contrary to Artic~e I,§ 16 of the Texas Constitution,and is app- lica~le to this case at bar,as {t precludes the interfering with contracting rights,and precludes the hinderance of liberty interest~vested rights under - lega~ and substantive(rights ) due process of law and the Equal protection of- - the· r!aw.Any__ Predep~sitive. Courtforder. would be. a.: nullity.~ and~ v_oid_,_as~. Lt_.impair.:._ I - . ·. jo-. .·. . . -s- . and 'i interfers with. Rel-ator . -~ . I$;- .obsolute . .. right·s~- . to:-- obligations:_ . of-:_contracts.c. ,: _ . and ilegotiations.SeeEHarkins V.*tate em Behalf of .Texas,773 S.W.2d 401,403-_0.4i- -·n.l-3,4~5(1ex.App-Houston [14th Dist.] 1993),citing Alford V.City of Dallas,- 738 S.W.2d 312,318,ante III & N.7: , I"Texas Constitution,Articl~ I,§ !~,expresses-that there shall be no law~­ . passed of Bills of Attainder.Ex post Facto, [n] or retroactive laws~Id. -See also the Fourteenth Am~ndment,§ l's ClauseCcitation omitted)~ . Then indeed,in the· American Judiciiary systems,the Executive Branch,and the Con- gress are alike and the[ir] totality of power is denied to either the National or the State governments- or and to any component part of .[Ourl federalism.Also see Articl I,§ 9,subsection 2 & 3,can be found to be in~c~ord with Arti~le I,§ 12 of the Texas Constitution and Article 11.07,§ 3{b)(TCCP).Thus,the State of Texas People do have a Statutory and Constitutional rights to the privileges - of the Writ of habeas corpus-issuance against procedural of arbitrary judicial directives,for the[ir]purpose· of Bills of Attainder,but prohibited by the laws of the Land.Ibid •.• And see u.s.v,Frady,456 u.S.l52,163,n.l4(1982)(citation omi~ tted).Mandamus against the Respondent(s) is to cure deviation from the legal - rule -that- is error of law and in this Case sub judice,said noted errors have not been waived by Relator.And his Court appointed State defense Counsel had - no legal authority to waive such plain errors of law.Not even with Relator's - or Counsel~s Consent.As they are errors of none~waivable,nor can they be forf- eited.e.g.,Keeter V.State,lOS S.W.3d 137,142,n.8-9,& n.l0-12(Tex.App.-Waco 20- 03),citing Marin V.State,851 S.W.2d 275,279,280,281-82(Tex.Cr.App.l993). It follows,that "this is not a question of evidence but of subject-matter jur- , ' isdiction.Coleman V.State,918 S.W.2d 37-38,43(Tex.Cr,App.l996);State V.Moff,- 154 S.W.3d 599,60l,n.l-2(Tex.Cr.App.2004).This Case will always be uncorrected and void untill corrected in the interest of justice,and whether illegal or inl- proper jurisdiction,the tolling of statute of limitation will be authomatically applied,so there is no statute of limitation for frauJupon-the-Courts.Parter v. ·,

·cumming,216 S.W~3d 905,908,n.2(Tex.App.-Eastland 2207)(same);Davis V.St~t~ 1 ~27- S.W.3d 733,736,n.l-3(Tex.cr.App.2007),"lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,as Court' document[indictment]not ·purp~rting to be a charging instrument~Id: See also Brown V.Edwards,721 F.2d 1442,1448(5th Cir.l984),"probable Cuase-- 7. coat.

issue in civil action not barred by Prisoner,'s prior guilty plea when not - •· .. ! actually litigated in prior proceedings;since illegal arrest & no valid warr- ant- existed~and thus,m~ndamus was available)~Rooding V.Peters,92 F.3d 57~-80- - (7th Cir'.l996) ~" Action to recover damages for UNCONSTITUTIONAL incarceration- ·did not accuie tirttill Prisoner prevailed in mandamus action and,thus,Writ of ·manda~us not res judicata,where ~iolations accured in prior litigation~Id. HowevJrithese cited· and invoked cases all hold that the present issue can be '! raised -at any time,or any stage pf a civil action proceeding,ahd those said ~

cases :simply cite to their antecFdents with established Constitional and stat- propos~tion that a jurisdictional defect can never - 1 utory authorities for the be cured by procedure default,or abuse of the Writ act.Hamilton,supra,l72 F.2d I ,

at 183-84~Garcia V.Diali596 S.W.2d 524,52528,n.6,9,19,20 & 530(Tex.Cr.App.l980). This ~exas Court of Criminal Appbals has jurisdiction to issue a Writ.of_Manda- . ··- ..:... . : - ...... ·--.. ·!-. "' )Til!_~ in this_ cause. _sub judice, pur~_uant to Article %§, 5Aof ·the: Texas__ Constituion ... -; ...... ... ·- . . I . . .......· - . . ·- - .: . ~ . ~: . . . .. ' and pursuant to Article 4.04(TCCf). _ --- _ . _· . --- ... ·_ .· ~her~fdre Pemi~es .. Dbly consider~d the relief soug~h\:b~ R~lator to prohibit ille- gal third Prty's brief from being adopted,nor acted upon,arid instruct the trial Court's habeas judge to strick,and stricken Sharen Wi1son•s,Andrea Jacobs and or Frieda McMillin's brief-ed motion,and it's attached 0rder,but stricken from the ie~ord as unlawful,illegal mo~ion practice,and to then and there sua sponte its Order to serve the correct and legal habeas corpus RESPONENT(Eddie D.Baker)- according to Texas rule of Civil Procedure,& Texas Rule Of Appella~e Procedure aforementioned-within (14)days of entry of its Order;and any other relief this Court'of Appeals justices find deem and necessary.To meet· the ends of justice. may said Court's justices keep consideration Relator's motion for sanctions under bot~ f7oeral and State la~s-~isement.JLl:lring th~ pedency of this civil action - sub JUdJ.ce. Executed ThJ.s day of}];'/.,t,201S.-Ci?'o/'~~- ~~· ~: · Respect"'£?illy Submitted,_:.:.._ -;fJ!____;__ _ _ ~aJ-" .n02 II - An inhabitant of the Mark Wayne Michael;Unit,2664 F.M.2054,Teh essee Colony,Tex- _ as-located In Anderson County,of the State of Texas.75886.And as a Relator,! have submitted My--negal Affidavit of Truth--And Certificate of Service •... I,John(actually Joe !!)Zavala,am herein declaring and stating under statutory laws,and Civil laws of Texas,otherwise I affirm under penalty of perjury,that I have read these statements of mine for a writ of mandamus,and that b~cause of My poverty,! can not pay or prepay the docket fee,costs for said mandamus.! believe I am entilted to redress of My petitions in the above styled,captiori and numbered cause,case or and civil action.Inwhere,I have read My o~n attached petition for a Writ of mandamus,and swear that the above allegations/accusations of fact contain- ed therein are true,accurate,torrect,and complete to the best of my knowledge, and resourses.My affidavit hereintoo,sould also be considered as specifically in- corporating by reference as the facts stated in My writ of habeas corpus applica- tio~and its attached memorandum of law,along with all my exhibits,insuppott of - the facts asserted in this writ of mandamus petition,that are not specifically - addressed herein,and are such facts being reported to the appellate Court,as those facts in the habeas petitio~may not appear from the District Clerk's record. This Affidavit of Truth is made on inform~tion discovered in my trial records,and thus,I swear under penalty of perjury,pursuant o Te .c·v.Pract.& Rem.Code,§§ 132.· -001-132.003;18 u.s.c.§ 1621;29 u.s.c~§ 1746. · .I have also provided- the t_riaJ Court~' p esiding judge a copy of the • Pos · al Seuvi es, p_.n- _ the 31/4 day of cl , 2015. · ;//~s- - pplica -Pro Se

8. Coat. -

., FILED TH~~A~n8o~Y?~~1~f.§RK JUL 23 2015 NO. C-396-010512-0943395-D TIM _ _ _ _ _ __ BY_ _ _ _ _ _ DEPUTY

EX PARTE § IN THE 396th JUDICIAL § § DISTRICT COURT OF § JOHN ZAVALA § TARRANT COUNTY, TX

STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its Tarrant County

Criminal District Attorney, and in opposition of the Application for Writ of Habeas

Corpus respectfully states the following to the Court based on its information and

belief:

I. HISTORY OF THE CASE

The applicant, JOHN ZAVALA ("Applicant"), pled guilty, pursuant to an

open plea, to the offenses of first degree felony arson and first degree felony burglary

of a habitation on June 7, 2005. See Judgment, No. 0943395D; Written Plea

Admonishments ("Admonishments"), No. 0943395D, p. 1. The court assessed

punishment at two concurrent terms of confinement for forty-five years in the Texa~

Department of Criminal Justice- Institutional Division. See Judgment. *2 .r'

The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed Applicant's conviction on December

2, 2005. See Zavala v. State, No. 07-05-0250-CR, 2005 WL 3272364 (Tex. App.-

Amarillo, Dec. 2 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

On January 10, 2006, Applicant's first and second applications for writ of

habeas corpus were dismissed as premature as Applicant's direct appeal was

pending. See Ex parte John Zavala, Nos. WR-63,888-01-02, Nos. C-396-007542-

0943395-A, C-396-007453-0943395-B (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 10, 2006) (White

Card).

On August 30, 2006, Applicant's third application for writ of habeas corpus

was denied without written order on trial court's findings without a hearing. See Ex

parte John Zavala, No. WR-63,888-02, No. C-396-007765-0943395-C (Tex. Crim.

App. Aug. 30, 2006) (White Card).

IT. APPLICANT'S ALLEGATIONS

Applicant alleges his confinement is illegal because (1) the trial court lacked

subject-matter jurisdiction. See Application, p. 6-7.

lli. NECESSITY FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING & EXPANSION OF THE RECORD

There is no need for an expansion of the record. The State submits that the

record before the trial court is sufficient to resolve Applicant's grounds for relief.

Applicant need NOT be brought back to Tarrant County for a hearing. *3 •'

IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Applicable Writ Law

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Ex

parte Rains, 555 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). An applicant "must

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the error contributed to his conviction

or punishment." Ex parte Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In

order to prevail, the applicant must present facts that, if true, would entitle him to the

relief requested. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 114 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

Relief may be denied if the applicant states only conclusions, and not specific facts.

Ex parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In addition, an

applicant's sworn allegations alone are not sufficient to prove his claims. Ex parte

Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771,775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

B. Applicant's application should be DISMISSED because the application fails to allege sufficient specific facts to overcome the subsequent writ bar.

Applicant argues he can file this subsequent application because he did not

discover the issues until he received the trial transcripts. See Application, p. 3.

However, that is not a permissible exception. The Code of Criminal Procedure

provides that:

(a) If a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus is filed after fmal disposition of an initial application challenging the same conviction, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based

_,

on the subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that:

(1) the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in an original application or in a previously considered application filed under this article because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application; or

(2) by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(l), a legal basis of a claim is unavailable on or before a date described by Subsection (a)(1) if the legal basis was not recognized by and could not have been reasonably formulated from a final decision of the United States Supreme Court, a court of appeals of the United States, or a court of appellate jurisdiction of this state on or before that date.

(c) For purposes of Subsection (a)(l), a factual basis of a claim is unavailable on or before a date described by Subsection (a)(1) if the factual basis was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before that date.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 §4.

The purpose of this statute is to limit a convicted person to "one bite at the

apple". Ex parte Whiteside, 12 S.W.3d 819, 821 (Tex. Crim. App .. 2000). This

statutory provision also bars the litigation of claims which could have been

formulated at the time of the original application for writ of habeas corpus. See Ex

Fontenot, 3 S.W.3d 32, 34 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Because Applicant's claims are based on the trial record, the factual basis for

his claim was available on or before the date he filed his first application. Likewise, *5 ··'

Applicant's claims are based on well-founded legal principles which existed at the

time he filed his first application. See Application; Memorandum. Finally,

Applicant presents no evidence that he is actually innocent. See Application;

Memorandum. In order to prevail on the exception that no rational juror would have

found him guilty, an applicant must make a prima facie showing that he is actually

innocent. Ex parte Brooks, 219 S.W.3d 396, 401 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).

Therefore, Applicant has failed to present sufficient specific facts to overcome the

subsequent writ bar. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 §4.

Thus, this application should be DISMISSED AS A SUBSEQUENT.

APPLICATION.

V. CONCLUSION

Wherefore, premises considered, the State prays that this Court recommend that Applicant's application be DISMISSED AS A SUBSEQUENT

APPLICATION.

Respectfully submitted,

SHAREN WILSON Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County

Andrea Jacobs, Asst. Criminal District Attorney State Bar No. 24037596 40 1 West Belknap Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201 Phone: 817/884-1687 Facsimile: 817/884-1672

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the above has been mailed to Applicant, Mr. John Zavala, TDCJ-ID# 01310271, Mark Wayne Michael Prison Facility, 2664 FM 2054, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75886 on the~y ofJuly, 2015. l3 :~·- - - - · Andrea Jacobs

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the total number of words in this State's Response is 1235 words as determined by Microsoft Office Word 2010.

Andrea Jacobs

,. . ·~·

NO. C-396-010512-0943395-D

EX PARTE § IN THE 396th JUDICIAL § § DISTRICT COURT OF § JOHN ZAVALA § TARRANT COUNTY, TX ORDER The Court finds that the application of JOHN ZAVALA ("Applicant") does not meet the· requirements for consideration as a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus and recommends that it be DISMISSED AS A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION pursuant to article 11.07§4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court further orders and directs: 1. The Clerk of this Court to file this Order and transmit it along with the Writ Transcript to the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals as required by law. 2. . The Clerk of this Court to furnish a copy of the these findings to Applicant, Mr. John Zavala, TDCJ-ID# 01310271, Mark Wayne Michael Prison Facility, 2664 FM 2054, Tennessee Colony, Texas 75886 and to the post-conviction section of the Criminal District Attorney's Office.

SIGNEDANDENTEREDthis _ _ dayof _ _ _ _ _ _ _.,2015.

JUDGE PRESIDING

. . .

· . ~ -3%-D/o5l2·0<J'¥~~s FILED Case No. . . . .· . .. . TARRA~\yV'b85~~~~HkERK RECEIVED (The Clerk of the convtctmg court Wtll fill thts hne m.) ' S . . JUL 09 2015 BY:JUL:2 ~:· = IN THE COURT OF €RIMINAL APPEALS OF TE~fJD§~·----- trr______ -- DEPUlY APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07

Joe'Zavala(aka~John Zayala} NAME: ----~~~~-

:DATE OF ·BmTH: ~. --- ------- --- ---·-

.:PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: M~i=k .Wayne Mj cbael ---· ------------·

1 · . ··.· .... ·. ·. . . .. 1· · ;TDCJ-CID : .. .... . - NUMBER:Oi_310271. .: . . j . -- ------..,,'-------- . SID NUMBER: ···--· -..,.- - - - - - - · - - .-

1(1) .~bii/plication concems(4eck all that apply):: · · · - --}:0: · •.. - -- L •• - '-- ·---~' • .___ ·:.._._:_. . -: _____ .-__ .___ ·.- - ---~ ' .... -·~-..... .;.-~ .:. - ---

!~ o/' ., a conviction ·! . · o . · · parole '!''f [i]./ '· ·. ~\:,. a sentence 0 mandatory supervision

.0 time~redit out-of-time appeal or petition for discretionary revjew

(2) What district court entered the judgmept of the conviction you want relief from? · (Include the court nnmb_er and county.)

396th Distric~. Court . Tarrant Coun tzy. ~exas. ·:':, ---~~-- - (3) What was the case number in the trial court?

0943395D(for C-996~007542-0943395-A:C-396-007543-B) --· (4) What was the name of the trial judge? Georg~ Gallaqher

Revised: September 1, 2011· · ATC-11.07 .... .··- ··-' \

\

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

(6) What was the date that the judgment was entered? June 7th,2005

(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence? alleg·edlv Arson (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 . _/ t?• __ __ ____ - coon : --- ,,' _ . . -- -.i

J - -~- --~·-- -~c--- "7N/A \, - ~ -

¥ ··.··:! 'l! ----- ---- - !;- -;_~ ~- ~ -:;;-;~-~-=--:-·--::.:·-::_- z -.r· ! hat w e plea you entere~? (Check one.)- _ · · · -- - --- -·--- ·-· --~~-~ --~-~-

- - . I. . guilty-open plea · ·~: guilty-plea bargain .l o not guilty o'- nolo contendere/no contest -· i I If you entered different pleas to counts in _a multi-count indictmen~- please explain:·

(10) What kind of trial did you have? ~--. o jury for guilt and punishment

o jury for guilt, judge for punishment

(11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at .what phase of the tri did you testify?

(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? J / o yes · ~ /lowY::. lfl.e.

Revised: Septe!fl~er l, 2011 ATC-11.07

If you did appeal, answer the following questions:

(A)

(B) What was the case number?

(C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's name: LIL/,d . (i>) What was the decision and the date of the decision? . - W,Ld ). (13) . D_i~ you file a petition for d~cretion eVie'! in the _Court of Criminal Appeals? ~ . ~ ., l; o_ yes :·n .:.. . ... - _ _ _;,__ __ ;..:...___.·_ ·--- ·--' --~.:-. . . ~-7'lfil'~:~~--- .. •• 7~7-.,•\"""! ~.::::;;~~:,;~--: ·- _,·--.:: :;...:J T --:- ,. -_If yoli(ficf file a petition for discretionary review, answer 'the followin}fquestion·s: ·-- -~·,--~---- ---" ' ........... .. ..,-.. ·

t;---::: --:::::::::::~fa::~.dateorthed::::ar, ~ ~ -- - ;: (14) Hav~ you pr~viously filed anl application for a writ ofhabeas corpus under Articl~ 11.07 oft exas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this co_nviction?

o no

If you answered yes, answer the following questions: . Jj (A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number? ~6-­ (B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? {. R/} ti 14-t ;/);/sz_ (C) Please identify the reason that the current claims were not presented and could not have been presented on your previous application.

As I proclaim Rav Hall Jr,as Counsel su pressed these issues I rra1se ere1n as construct1ve reac of f1dtJc1arv uty annlegal malpractice bv said State Of Texas Court~~ppointed coun~el.Rut once I rec1eved Mv trial transcripts.T was blessed to have a sui JUris inmate discover such fraudulent induced mentment was used to coerced Me into beinq I could be tried on such void indictment I depended o~ counsel f6r his legal training to file a motion to ~uash the indictment or and challeye the trial ~curt's subJect- matter JUrisdiction over said cause of action aaainst Me.

Revised: September I, 2011 . · ATC-11.07

So ~ay Hall Jr and the prosecutor intentionally failed to disclose sue exclupatory fa~ts of Pvi~en~e.Ree Mv attached but separate memorandumof law and facts in support of this application •

.: (15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal court? ~ . oyes ~·- ·.

If you answered. yes, please provide the name of the court and the case number:

--~-: .· .. - ' "i.· ~- -... . - ·- -- ---- ..... . .; . - . _.,. ._ ·, ;: (16) . If you are presenting a clainffor time credit, have you exhausted your· administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time' credit resolution -\ :,- system of the Texas Departr~ent of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to ~. ,·· <-- - _:~_:' :; -·c-.' >-.~DY:cfif!~! f~~~~y__co.~_IVi~tion, ipcluding S jail felonies) ' ='-~·:.;: ~;,::;-~C;e}' t{;A'''·· '- .,,-, · ·.;;:+, ' ':: · : ---~·-::.:':

--o-_-·--yes·-. " .--------- . l no- . . . - If yo11 answered yes, answer ~llle following questions: -- . . (" : . .

(A) What date did you present the claim? --~~~~¥-7'--------

(B) Did you_ receive a decision and, 'if yes, what w~s th

(17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your claim that you are being unlawfully restr~ined, 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.. lfyour grounds and briefsummary ofthefacts have not been presented on the form application, the Court will not consider your grounds.

4 Revised: Se.pt~mber I, 2011 ATC-11.07

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 sequente. ·- · ·

You may atta~h _a memorandum of law to the form application .if you want to present- legal auth~rities, 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 th~. validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts . pertaining to your offense a~d trial in your memorandum. · I ,as ~n __ Applicant App~llant have preserved Mv obsolute .rights_ to . ' rai~ethe issues I prpc)~imed within Mv~~eparate but attached Me- i morandum of findinos pf facts and ConclUsions- of law, as. none-_wai v- ~·t able.nor can_thev be ~oifeited bvCounsel-Rav - ·Hall Jr,as fr~ud vit~= ~- .. iat~s .aT~ cont:act~/i_rdi?tments/judgment~ al!d thus, I. _b,ri~g • ~~-n~ent~~-- \· -· ~ · io~s to ·challenge the: tr~a] C"!ourt 's ann ~ t 's judge' s_ ·J:ur:~,SqH:t~on- "" j,. ·- ·over ~ause#0943395-D(1ntertwined with cases-#C~3-96·.:.oo7-542"-0943.395..:..A:- -" [j. C;-:-396::-007543-9943395~~)_ • I state that I -r-eserve: _the- _r:_i'ght- tO amend:::<.= W· this· designati:on so a·r to. not have waive? any errors ·of "law, _preset_:-:..~ f ved in thetrial Court~ftherefore,I incorpoEate by refeience My sep- _ ~p arate but attached me~6randum of law(fin~ings of facts and'con~lus~ J_. io~s of law,and ~t's pr~er;),alo~f:J with~ll ~upportirig ?oc~tn~n~:s,i~cl- 1 ud~ng My support~ng exh~b$ts~Po~tB~a~guments,anduaetncr~t~es ra~sed within my ground oen error of law.as if set out entirely herein,for the pu'rpose_ of this Application for issuance of the writ of· habeas- corpus.ad testificandum.and on further basis of testimonv,evidence- to be adduced~on a dernovo or/and evidentiary hearing in connect~on and anticipation to be heard' with thia Application for a writ of hab· eas corpus,herebv moving this Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to set aside·the judgment as void ab initio,that ~as illegally ren~~red aga· inst me for Arson.But that incorporated bv reference me~orandum is - made for the purpose of this appeal of mine,submitted contemporaneou: ly herein.

R~vi~ed: September I, 2011 ATC-1 1.07

GROUND ONE: Error of Law: There Is NO-Extant True Bills of. Indictment, Judgment Is Void for TrialCourt tacked Sub:ject-MatterJurisdiction.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE: 'fl1e Court· Appointed, State defense Counsel Mr.Ray Hall Junior,Committed intentional constructive breach of his f~d- ucia rv duty, andobliqations and· thus, his representation was malpractice 1

of law,when he abandoned his duty to file any kind of meaningful motionE to chall~ge the trial Court's accepted void indictm~nt.Such as notice t include arid Au~~ent the record with a motion to quash indictmentpto set- 1nd~ctment as1de:d1scove~v.and d1sclosure:w1th Bray V.Maryland(Law)in- i:ij suport.Amonq . . .: - other tvoes g5=>fmotions . to compel, the Prosecutor to disclose ·~ ~ ~ ,# ---· · - - - •• _ ___,_;__ _ _ _ --

~all favorable evidence. Sirf<:.~ the indictment used bv the Prosecutor is -not ;ia Grand jJU7-y·Panel' s true· E(ills of indictment. It .i~----~_,_f_r::_~udulent and fo.rg- Jt-- . . . • •. . . . . .. . . . . - ·. - ' .. . . .

fe d- d1d1ctmeilt issue.a by tlhe Prosecutors and_- their Of~1ce of Busa.ness:. Off-- 1'.·; icials. to investi'q'aote''-'t.'n"e'C::C-;-a:u_'_f[~ ~'·ot;'a'ct'i6n' - U:nde'ri,... •. ·- • - • • • !'"""

' .; . -~-- -. ,.. ~-- . . . However. .•- Hall - -- had. .. a]·. dutv . -----·- -: - - - - ~ -.---4--- .· --------------~ -- -· · - - · . '!!" · ·0943395· D(·intertwined with;; cases#C-396_-0_09542-0943395-A: c..,..396~0.07543-09.43-. · )395..,..R,) ~counsel"'d i ::l: not do'.jhis job and· h:ls per:fbrmance__'_was. an ~fn:ien't,io·n~af; -~ !abandonment ot his.legal ~bligations .to protect My civil rights un~r our @nit~d States·constitution4and that of the Texas Coristitution as well.Sine ~he trial'. Court's .. "]judge ne;er actually acquired- com~et-e~1t ·or. -~xclu~i-ve. nor ~riginal jurisdiction over! said cause/cases or citations.jurisdictional - Provisions alsO ~emoval jurisdiction over i"~ ~attli~_from said t~ia1 Cour in fact.it must- also remove any appointed ~otions fot ~ourt appointed Coun sel and h1s alleged f1led motions. 1 if any-?'.~or Mv de£ense.Thus.Mv inducec and uoerce~ ~uiltv olea was notknowingly.intellig,ntlv~and voltintarily gi- ven~and therefore~void ab initio.! never actual recieved real notice of - the nature of the charged bffense sought against Me-by the Prosecutors.- judge and defense counsel. Hall knew, as a ·trained lawver, I ~as unlawful! v 1

illegally ch:rrge-e. But he refused to challenge the warrantless arrest & ahd th~ l~ck nf prohahle cause.These statements of Mine are to be incorpori ted liD,y ~eferen~e t.to My attched meorandum of law.Along with Mv exhibits and anv or all pertinent documentatioWid n .conn~ot;;;@it.h __ My ~trail Court's case inchief.As part of Mv want of jurisdiction ot Mv plea for juri~diction rna~ herein insupport ~my 17-page brfuf submitted as mv memorandum o~:law. I reserve Mv riQ ~iqht to' amend this designation so as to not waive any pertinent colorable claims/issues on appeal sub judice.

.' ,·, Revised: September 1, 201_1 • ATC-11.07

GRO. UND TWO: & <:'e.r ~ y;, J .

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO: .. -, -, ···-~·

;~\~ •, -- ~ ·-.::-1-_

~ii··-~--:---:-:------~----t-~------....-----'-....;;...==..:...;.:..~.::.::;:.::=::=::::.:=.:..:::....::.::..:::.:..._....:.:...___;;_;_ i~':~' ·'j -.~ t ------~----~----------------------------~--------~-

Revised: September 1, 2011 ATC-1 1.07 - \

GROUND THREE:

. . FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:

·.iF-:-:-- ·- . --~.-·~-. -,. ----·-·-- ---- ___ __,._if.-:.,. _ i~ -~- ·1 -- - =, __ ...:.. --- • -- - ........ :;--~--~--"-----:--:----,,-;---"""':r·,---_.;...----:-=:::::::::=::::::.::====:::.:.....::...:..==:._-==·~=-~=·-- ,~-- · - - ' - - · :.....C.C.:.· l: . - -- ~- -- - f.:' ;l .- / '..!. -· ----··· ·- ---- ----·-· [ '. t>

. ' t. ------- .. __ ..__-;" --- .......;:.,.--;..· _______ ·.- .- ....

Revised: Septem~er, I, 201 t ATC-11.07 GROUND FOUR: FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:

-~

. ;~ ~-- -· -·-· ..... ·. -~-.- ...... --·· .. ~ -------- .t ·.ri

.· --:----:----___;.___;...:;;.:=:~====·:::::'--;;::-".:::::--==--==-:.: : : ---=-===-=== - - -- .- - --- -· ;·

-;_;_,_..;__;;;,............----'-----:------:--+-1 -7~-- . "_'- ~

f

Revised: Septemb~r 1, 2011 ··- \

\

·:. GROUND: FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND:

.. - ·--- .,;. . ·--~ -~- . ___ _. ·-- ----- __ __,_,__ -----

. . -- . ..... . _._,~ .. . - · . --· . . I I I· -~ ----- ---------·------~- ---

WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT RJi:LIEF TO ~CH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING.

10 Revised: September 1, 201_1 , · ATC-11.07

''\ . ---.·...

VERIFICATION This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for non-compliance. For verification purposes, an applicant is a person filing the ~pplication on his or her own behalf. A petitioner is a person filing the application on behalf of an applicant, for example, an applicant's attorney. An inmate is a person who is in custody;

The inmate applicant must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public or the "Inmate's Declaration" without a notary public. If the inmate is represented by a licensed attorney, the attorney may sign the "OathBefore a Notary ~ublic" as petitioner and then complete "Petitioner's Information.," A non-inmate applicant must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed attorney, in which case the attorney may sign the verification as petitioner. ·

A non-inmate non-attorney petitioner must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Publico; before a notary public · and must also complete "Petitioner's Informatipn." An inmate petitioner must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before ii notary public or the "lnmate:.s Declaration" without a notary public and must also complete the ~ppropriate"J>.etitione~~!I!'.fo~tion;•purs~~nt_.to Texas Civil--Practice &_· Remedy ·Code's. ~ §§,132.-001-132~003 .. .· ~-~- .. ··-.-· ~ :i ~ ... -~,- . F •, -~. rr.~ -.--· --- --- -- ~-·--.. . •, - ~-

\ ·J J I -- ., -------:--....-; t--

i -~ ___~_: m .,...-'~ oC1'11 urFefte "N6'1AR I Fti BLKi '!._.._:._.

:~TATE OF TEXAS ~- toUNTY oF;A~-d~-;~~~-- v ',,-\· 1

_,:::3~..,.o~Z..'-__,Z.~,_,'tq,....c.l/ie.,~_.""£1"--4'-"9r----'-, being duly sworn, ui)der oath says: "I am the ~pplicant I petitioner (circle one) in this actipn and ~now the contents of the above application for a writ of habeas corpus and, according

to my belief, the facts stated in the application are true.'~ pursuant tto Texas· Rmi:es of Ci vi 1 Practice ~Remedy Code.§§ 132.001-132.003.- ·

Sign ure o _ Affia_--=-_ capacity.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 1L_ DAY OF :<_ / ,20J.>

·- 11

Revised: September I, 2011 ATC-11.07

PETITIONER'S INFORMATION

Petitioner's printed name: Joe Zavala (John Zavala-aka) ~ . . . . State bar number, if applicable: T DCJ # 0131 0 2 71

Addre~?rk Wavne Michael Prison Facility 2664 F.M.2054,Tennessee Colonv.Texas75886 (Anderson Countv Texas)

':..;_-_.:...=__ ·..:.._·. --

·Jrr- .. ;>-:

.~ . . . ' ' ' INM~TE'S DECLARATION . - - . Pursuant To Title 6.Chapqer.l32:§§132.001-1.32.003 of 'the Texas Civil (Rule)Practice.& ~emedv Code{,,_l --~' "'?-c8i«"<~. . ._ . ~r . n. I

I; :Su .Z 2 't ,La l~ . , am the applicant I petitioner (circle one) and being presently

i1_1earcerated in tv{GA tZ I< t• J · \1111 I c l, '-!:e f. declare undei penalty of perjury th~t, a~cording to my belief, the facts stated in the above application are true and correct~

s;gned on A-~ / ·. ·. 20___12.

' - ;J I - -<_ Cl/ ,S

Signature of~~/ Petitioner (circle one) Affidavit eip~pplicant-Affiant-Pro Se

Revised: September 1, 2011 ATC-11.07 - ··- . \

PETITIONER'S INFORMATION

Petitio.ner'5 printed name: Joe Zavala (aka John Zavala} Addre~s:Mark WavneMicaelUnit.2664F.M.2054, Tenness~e Colonv,Texas:75886 TDCJ#Ol310271 .

Telephone:------------------'-

F~:~---~------~-------- 1. ."'' .·J;-- Signed on "1 . [1 r ··,. ·r

'l " . ' ~.:

·= .·,. ~-

I . ·= + . . -

J!k 'I. -- r~; L

l L!.

I

· Revised: September 1, 2011 ATC-11.07 ··- \. ...... \

Into The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,And its Justices Supreme Court Building,201 West 14th Street,Room 106- Austin Tex~s 78701 •• ~ •• Joe · Zavala ·Pro se, Appeellant 1 s trial Court is from the Petition~r/Applicant, Versus, 396th Distric~ Court c~ Tarrant. ~ddie D.Baker(sucessor).J Senior Warden over·the~ County to th~ St~te of ~exas,tried Mark Wayne Micael Unit, unde~.~itatiqni0943395D;0943395D Miles Brissette(ADA)&- Nicole· Nickols ( ADAjeCal}.··'~ · Tim curry,Chief DA,ei:~i: · Appeallees/Respondence(s) i . ii -~ . . h~. . AppliC:ant' s .Memorandum Of Law· Irik: Support Of Applic~.!lt 1 s Proposed E'indings of Facts,Concl"usions of Law· And ~Order,Attached,As A ·separate Documentation· ; ·To Applicant 1 's Applica.tcion For A ·iWrit-·~of Habeas· co'rpus:P-laa· For Jurisdiction= ·- ' . tl _,. .-: .--., .· .· : . ·- . ., ll'. : . . . ·. :·. '. . : .. . ··=

l To. The 'I'exas :co~rt· of .Cri~~n~l: ~ppe~l:s ,_an_d:__i~ts_ ::cru_st'ic_es·, T~~a~:'C:~bu~r~ I s·:;:j'~d~~~ ~O:q Respondents, Please'-,;..~ake__J)lc:llc~all'Not~ce, and ·Let-there· be Unaerstand~ng: : , · ·- · - ·- :; .-- --:--~:.':":'!_ . .. • . t'<.· -.·.,. -:· -~. . i···-~--- ·-· •' -.------ • ~-~1-~ - ... .:. -..---- . ·:_ •.. - : . --- ---·· ; Now Comes ,Johnc Zavala,Pe:t.i tJ:oner-'(Applicant· ·hereJ:·na'fter- ;·a:rid- 'in· Pro· Se Capacity; in the· abgve, styled ,caption and numo,erea Cause, Case and Civl Action, :~i11119s · [ t] his- . Application for a writ of habeas. ~corpus, ad test ifi.-:andum, with [t ]his attached~ b 1J . separate submitted and filed Memcfranaum. of fin_dings of ~acts and _conc_l\,Isions of Law, an9 thei7 attached Order for lthe covemience. of the Courts ~forementioned ,.pur suant to Art1cle ll.07i§§ 1 2 & j(a),(b) & 4{a)ll),(2),(c) of the Texas Code of- Criminal PROSECEDURE ,and Your Applicant pleads for. this said_ CoJJrts to take jud ··icial notice,pursuant to. to· Rule 201{~), {b), (c), {*d), (®e), (f). of the Texas .. Rule- of evidence I that exercise o.f jUdicial Alithori ty can be held und~r Article II I§ 1 And Atricle· v,§SA of the Texas Con~titutioni~S ~ell as Article I,§ 9,Clause 2 of the United StatesConstitution ofA.merica,"that the 396th·District Trial Court- and its presiding trial judg~ aid not have legal proper,nor exclusive jtirisoict- ion over the subject-rnatter,and Partv{s) of .ilJterest,and thus,can not have had- authority to render any judgment other than one of dismissal,Garcia V.Dial,596 S W.2d 524,528(Tex.Cr.Apo.l980);Curry V.Wilson;853 S.w.2d 40,,43,n.l,& 45(Tex.Cr.- 7\PP.l993):Jones V.STAT£,979 S.W.2d 662,656-57,n.2-59{Tex.cr.App.l998)~And Insup- port of [t]his Memorandum brief,Appellant would Respectfully show the said Court (s) the following reasons for Judici~l relief: . I.A. Unlawfully-And-Illegally-Confined and Restrained of His Liberty Appellant is presently unlawfully and- illegally confind and restrained of his Li- berty by-Eddie D.Bker,acting in. his Official 6apacity as senior warden,under the Texas Department of·Criminal Justice,under Brad Livingston,exective Director,over all Correctional Institutional Divisions,as the Mark Wayne Michael Unit,where Your Appellant is unlawfully held against:.his will~pursuant ~o an alleged Conviction - of Arson (allegedly)involving a habitation ~nd burglary with intent to commit Ar- son.But as no indication that ~ Te~cii ~encil t9de was referenced in the alleged - indictment ,-next to the· implied charge, the, indictment or information therefrom,.:.. is legally insufficient with the [un]specific intent to com~it A~son and or burg- arly with the intent to comite Arson,as there is no pleading that states that Ap- pellant also,attempted,in the same criminal[alleged] transaction,to unlawfully &~ intenentiorially and knowing!~ st~rted a fire,which atts ~mounted to more than - mere prepar~tion that tended but fa~led to ~ffect the ~ommission of the offense - intended.·. However, Ray Ball Junior, a • State· Cout .appointed counsel for Appellant,- intentionally ·cocered and induced, Appel ant.' s. c.~nse.nt t.o plead. gu.il ty to ·thos.e defective', and void notices. in the., informatJ.on J:mplJ.ed .J.n the J.ndJ.c:tments or J.nst- rument& c~lled indictments presented to ~h~ 396th District Court.~f or to Tarran County·, of the state of .Texas. Then, as the indictments are. presumpt~ously f~tall~ ~eiecti ve, the trial Court 1 s judge •._Georg_e,. Ga:ll~agher, ~ - could f!O,~ have ':lff~r!fl~t~ v Ji found that there exi~t~d One or ~wo enhancement Count(s)· not~ce(s) ~n the -- .~~fz.). l.Case.

in~ictmen~are not true to whatever those Counts or actually,paragraphs to- have Pleaded to~But nonetheless the judge proceeded to sentence Applicant to a substantial amount of 45-years[on each paragraphs] i~carceration with the Texas DEPARTMENT of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutional Division •••. Hence, - Eddie D~Baker is.the Custodian(unless successor took place) of recOrd-Whom the- Writ of h~bea~ corpus is t6 be served to,as pr6cess of service upon the Pers~n ~ho .holds [your] Custody[illeg~lly & unlawfully]of the Prisoner-Applicant Res~r~ . . ·. . ·. ·. ained of his liberty.e.g.,Padilla V.Remsfeld,352 F.3d 695,709(2nd Cir.2003),cert Granted, _ _u.s. ,124 s.ct.l353,1358(2004) :Rumsfeld v.Padilla,542 u.S.426,124 s .ct. 2711 (2004) (same); Bamdi V.Ruo!sfeld. 542 u.s. 507 ·124 s- Ct. 2633 ( 2004): Rasul V.- Bush.~42 u.s.46.6,124 s.Ct-2686(2~004) ;Texas. Rules of ,CiViL' Procedure~I06 & 2ia:~. ·s 28 u ... .J~. § § f82l, 2254 ( !5 )(c) ~Thus ,f,tihe writ- of habeas -·Eor.pus does not- act _upcn the _ Prisori'er .but upon .t_he_.Rfficer--Cu,7etodi~in Who holds the prisoner~:Id~ ·· :~- ·- ll _II.A • . _ · . . . . - 7 .,, • '·

. ·:_.~--_-_-,-- :_---f~ -~~---:--_~. ··---::::=-:. . ·---·------ . _:_ • STATEMENT OF APPEILLATE JURISDICTION AND" 1 ':::r~].:l. -:... .:: ·-~··-·"··;,,.. :·.:.. ,;,_,. ___ ,,~ _,_,,_ ~-;~,:; ;:,.] ~"- ~·--suBJECT - . ~ l ~. ~ ~- ~ 0 0 "1 ;'"•r-! • ..,. • .... • •..,,•, ...... ,, .: .... ..:.;MATTER:.:AND P-ARTIES -OF INTEREST'Urid(n:·suit:.-:.·.: .:..:~:: .::.:., _. ___ ,-_ ··-- ·· 0 0 ,._.., ..... M - O O -· 'o 000 0 -\ •o, ,, - 00

. This T'exas. Court·- of--Criminal Ap~eals h-a's .,.original ·o·:r--arid excl_tis'i ve :jurisciic£:ion·· lJver. tn~e subjec_t~matter~ cause of i~ction·, c·us~- and. pii:t'!'"i-es~· of'~iiiteie'sfa'nd· cari ·:thus~ - ·determtne the quilt/innocence and\ the sente-ncing of this ·former- defendant ,-turned ._ PetitiO,:ner-Applicant on appeal,welre such due· consideration and det~rmination 'are· entrus~;ed exclusively to this· sait<J Appellate Court' s-:..justices,as members of the...; _ • Texas J.;udiciary ,·pursuar:t to Artidj1e V, §.SA c:>f ·the Tex~~ Constitution: A-rticle_!·-_ § 9,Cl~use 2 of the Un1ted State~ Const1tut1on of Amer1ca~so·as too 1rnplement- Article 11.07,§§ 1.2 & 30a),(b) & 4(a)(l),(2),& § 5;Att~4.01(1).(3).(4).4.04&1- & 2'of the ·Texas Code of Criminal Appeals;:. also Ex Parte Young,418 s.W.2d Bi4. 826 (Tex. Cr. App-.1967); Cf .Jones v.state,979 s. W. 2d 652,656-657. n. 2-5 (Tex. Cr. App.l9 98);Mendian Resourses Inc.V~Colley Gin Co.,430 .S.W.2d 37~.supra(Tex.l968).Beca­ use both transcripts and stai~ment of facts must be timeiy filed to confer the- Jurisdiction on the Appellate Courts.it should Order its Chief Clerk torprepar~­ the[ir]Repprter~~ecord,transcripts and statement of facts under cause nu~ber c 396-007543-0943395-B 7/C-396-007542-094335-A & number 0943395D(both charges are in a single Count for alleged offenses,in the void indictment,as duplicitous)- as causes for preparation of the Clerk's Records in designation specifying the- ( s) legal ·matters to be included as thee entire Clerk's record on appeaL once tra- nsmitted,'a• written materials, '-made in questions and answer forms too,pursuant to Rule 20.0l(a) &_(g),& 20.2:Rules 34.5(a)(2)-(10) & (12)...;(13) & -34.5(b),of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.So that all transcripts. 'pertinent to said -- trial Court's Causes shall be included as cetified,Yerified.and authenticated materials in evidence/items.Inciuding the.entir·. Grand jur~ Panel's Transcripts~ of the witnesses statements of facts.evidence and anv other materials submitted to the Grand jury.'if any?' .but that the trial Court be Ordered to dis6lose all- exclupatory evidence and or information regarding the alleged charges.Which App- licant invokes· these designation.pursuant too the Authority of Brady V.Maryland, 373 u.S.83.87.83 s.ct.ll94,ll96.10 L.Ed.~2d 215(1963)_:Bollovay v.state.525 R-~"J 2d 165,supra(Tex.Cr.App.l975).and the Texas Code of Professional Respbnsibility DR- 7-103:Zanghetti V.State,582 S.VJ.2d46l(Tex.Cr.App.l979).Indigency "is a matter- of the Appellant's [DEFENDANT •s] financiaT status at the time of appeal. not at - tim~ of trial~Id:Rule 20.l(~)(TRAP). _ · R )_ At Issue Is Applicant 1 s Induced and Involuntary plea· and ·the_ trial Court and- . Acting trial judge· had NO-subject-matter jurise\4-ction ·tn" t·he :_primary Case of - Cases sub judice :as the alleged indictments or and information therefrom were- not validlv returned by: a CONSTtTUTI6NAL composed Grand Jury Pariel and were rnor . l_:i,~ely ·:than not.,..forged'~.QY .the --~a~nt ( sl -.of-- or fot;" the distridt- Attornev' s _.Office- Hence.these issues presented on appeal involve the validitY of the trial Court's judgment to the: Convictions and their sentences,as yPid ab initio.For want of ju risdictio and-~~ fatally_~efective indictment(s).Fo~.the fact_~hat the instrumen Cs) called indiqtment(s) ~re lackinq most if not all therirlessential and ~~Jr~~ 2.Case.

Constituent elements of the offense sought to be charged by.the Prosecuting-~

·Team.As in the case of Hamilton V.McCotter.l72 F-2d 171.183~84(5th Cir.1985)(""' cases cited therein) :Cf.Garcia V.Dial.S96 S.W.2d 524,S28(Tex.cr.App.l980) .Thus,, . . . Applicant has reserved.these . none waivab;Le error . of law;ncr . can these error o£ ., '

. -law be forfeited not. even with Ccmsent. And in fact. may be raised at any time - I

or. a~, any stage of any appeal.Moreover,t~ese errors of law have .. no statute of·- Limitation barriers.No procedure penaltys apply to this tyoe of case.Not even - the abuse of ~he. Writ applv t6 this ki~d of plain errors_qf law pre~ented ~ere- ·iri-and which are com~lex and intertwined witb ~any oth~r ~onsiit~tional errors - ot law~and are just a few .of the~!Jlyriad of factors .the said Courts -and judges -:- . must cqnsider as. 'a matter of la·w {~nd j~stice .in determininq i f vour Applicant -, ~ill. b't -~1·1-~~-~~~~-t__~.. rep~esent hi~,-~lf ~n · apf>~al of _his _iss1:1~s .stated q.bove and. ~i l l resEirve his right.to amend [t]}~is ·'l:s~~~a7~.o~}~.o,::oO:~,-~-.o,..!J-9:~:~~aY:*::· \lq_~:~-~~'2~-~~g.--_ 7_ e~r~rs ~~[or .-a~y~:_p~~~n .. errors of law';- preserved in. th~. tr.ial ,Court. e. q. ,_Keet~r v.sta •. t~.lOS ::s.~l~3·dc:l37:·l42;·N~-a~9 & n.ih~l-2(T.ex:~P~·-"'"~aco.-:io_o3)'/~·j_"'ti-~~, M~~in V.cst~t;~~·-· -~- :' . . ~- ...... = ~-: ... :· ~~·· ·-;·~ . -- -· .. -· .~...:...... . . _-·. . . .- . t .: . . . .- . -·. . =-- - • - . . 0:. -.- -

· ·851-S~W~2d. 275i27~-80(Tex.cr.App.a993)(among tither cases);Sicklea v.state~l70 S.· .. w.-3d'.~glh,30lCTex.\i'laco·200510rderlk G~ay,C.J• ~dissenting--opinion -in·.ori-~na.l)·~· '· .. ·._ .. .':. ~ . • . • . . " ; ~;: .t-' ' ·' -~ . :.... . - . .. •• - - ... .:. ·- ·-- • • ~ ' • . - •

Applica1'tt subml.ts' his exhibit 1-A\~ and 1-B as th_~ void indictments used to induce. I

or Appl kcant 's Conviction ( s) · obtaln~d by a c,oerced quilty ~le~-wtiich 1 was 'unlawfu· •..... " ' ··. ,lly induced 1 made involuntarily 1 and with out unde:rstantinq of the nature of the al eged offense(s)~as well as not understanding of the consequences of the plea-!"Ray Hall Jbnior was ~oercing A~plic~nt to corifess to.In fact~your Applicant had mere- ly a third grade edu~atien back grou~d~Thus,def~nse counsel committed breach of - his fiduciary duty owed to his client.and refused te conduct any type of meaning- ful investigation.Wrose yet,intentionally failed to see ~hat the trial Court's le gal notices were in~ompliance with the correct Pre-Trail hearinq settinGs that - must comly with Article 28.01,§ 1(1) (4) 1 1 (8),to comport with knowledgeable law' .a. ART.27 •• 03(1),& (3):27.05(2):27.06:*27.08(3) & (4):29.09(1),{3) & (3):27.11 et seq of the Texas ~ode of Criminal Procedure~on June 3rd,2005.Where and then Appl icant was cocered into Pleading quiltv to the jud9e ,"as Applicant was- led to- believe"-he was acce~ting a 2 to 25-Years senten~e~for civil damages done to[hi~ his Own house,although regisitered in his common-law Wife's name.Ball insisted ir going in fornt ot a judgeiSUp~osely for a civil and.aornestic dispute proceedings. THE JUDGE,GEOR~E GALLAGBER,acting·in his official capacity,was ready to commence with hearing a'guily plea for arson and alleged burgarly,of inhibation-where App licant lived too.So Applicant did not attempt to burlarize his own home~Applican

was intoxicated,and inadverdently ~ause a fire in his own:horne,but as a resultco his and his wife's disputes for t,ha t day's incident in c;,uestion. 'rhese are pert in ent fact~ 1 but may ~e extrineic.s~nce Ba11's ccnsiructive bre~h of duty played a major role.~n.not obtaing.prior statements from the compelled ~ife-to testify as to who cau§e,d the fire. Had, the judge took care of· this case that day, ( 6/3/05) th 1

·ou~ come and; results would: have been diffinitely ~ifferent1and most mitigating i .

.. [/(.;:{'z~)' ·3.Case. ·.

nature ••• But,in a bizzar turn of events,the Prosecutor,Andrea Jacobs,an assul'n ing Assistant District Attorney(whether criminal '?r Civil. unknown) for Tim cu- rry, the .( fromer l criminal district attorney for Tarrant County, in the State of Texas.,. ...... requested an unsuspected recess.This was inspite that Applicant had : ·,. j ·- .,_ ·._ -. .,, . ' •,

be~n informed.that the judge would accept his quilty plea without hearing any- kind Of adversal Or incriminatin·g eVidence-tO damageS tO h'iS and hiS Wife IS dO- main or inhabi t·antation •• ~,Then, on 6/7/2005 ~an unexpected heariri·g ~as held .wi ttl- Jacobs. self serving adversal introduction of uncharged evidence ••• Evidence that ··is sup.pose to be on 'SUPi:!>Q.e:nas.J ar~ to be issued ten-:-days b~fore ~ny preliminary · or. trial hearing_,as _under Art.24~0l(a) (1), (2) (A), (C),(E), (b) & (d) ;24.02;24.03-. . j . ;. . ·c: . ... . ._.tc; . . . . . ·. . . . . . . .. . . · (-a) et1.seq;24_.Q4::<~TLL}, (2), (4)(B~':~ (b). & (C) ;24.15 et-'~eq;24.17;24.18(TCCP)_7"the,...· - _.. - . -f: . . - .. ~ ·- . . . .. . .. .· . -:;J . . - . - -.. -· ... - - .- .. -· . ··. se a:rel provisions . that were. not · h..ad, but should . have been im-plemented· for proce- · dtire ·-pbrposes. rn\ihich. the: procee~ings. f~r which [a l ·wi tne~s .;is- being -subpoenaed .,,.,~- ::'wit.hin-tf~n:_~r··--~-~~~~~~~-t;sev~~ day~ after- the· dat'e 'the--'-suo'p'dena;;wotild;:•be; niafld.Idf 1 · • . ·:.. --.:: o. o · . . .. . _ .. . • • _.. .... . • . .: • .. . . c.>,·: at ~Ar~f2~.04.~~)J4H~):_~:Thus,Apptic_a?t'was surprice? to be in front-of arie>ther- - -:. indivifiual-Person pending charge~ of· her Own~Ms.Lilly Ltictimnri('who was: in ·a sepa·- · .- rate. hbling cellibUt .. in the samettrial Court's holding cell areas) ,and Applica~ -'7---· ht~'s ~~tran~e•'w{fe:('Co~fficin...:faw)-M~:Keri,Lovedav •• ~Henc~,there was no n6tiecs 'bv--· ttie· -t~-~al court's Clerk, ]udge, Prbsecuto.rs ,nor by Ball hfmself ·to' l I . I [Me] Applicant., What's even more bizarr-~ Hall had asked Applica-nt, "wh~ was that witness in· the - . . other cell?"-rather than had asked the judge or and Prosecutor(s) when Hall dis- ' . covered it vas ,going·. to ·be a different ·set of proceedinqs-than that that vas ori· . ginally planed-out.·~.which was only thre~ days late~ fro~ the date Applicant wa: to plead in open-Court on 6/3/2005 ••• The illeglly obtain~d evi6~nce was to boos1 and enhance an.inflamatory ·comments and remarks of made up ·te'{oristic threats by Applicant,or actually as falsely stated by Jacobs,as the Prosecutor ••• Thus,- . without any prior notice of injecting adverse witnesses, is a legal due process v ;. ·:dl.:ati:'id:n·1 vhich ·requires prior notice of any· type of litigation, as ~ right to pre- pare a defense i~ needed before_ any sort of judgment ~gainst an individual-"that he has[had]the opportunity to defend hi~self of any accusation or claimithat he has . an oppor.tuni ty to state his. claim, or if the trial Conrt 's judge knows anvboc .

that does ?-prior to any-adverse evidence being proffered !-and that he has h~ a proper and_ lawful judgment by a jury of his peers or by an intelligent,Volunt- , • • , I

ary and knowl~dgeable waivei of obsolute.and Constitutional rights-riot to answe By these Applicant's statemerit of factual Truth in these unpreced~nted set of c: rcumstances.it i3 evidently,that Hall,and Jacobs conspired,as trial Court's Off icials= flawyersl,iri acting out against Applicant's due procPss riqhts;and thus to defraud this. Ap~licant, . t.ht) trial . Court '.s judges ,and the . p·1.1blic in .general.· But to obtain an ~nlawful convicition and imposed an i11e~el sentence{s) Ree Be~ son v.state.224 ' . S,W.3d 485,489-90CT·~x.App.--Hou~;ton[lst .,: Dist-~1,'2007) ;Oldham v.st : \ ·, . ' . ·, . .

ate, 977 ::; .. w. 2d ."'354,.361L"rex. App .19981{!, s-ao&fiea,~ i~:vc;>=lV.ed:.c.\t"£ fail~r.es to file claim:: . ..- \ . ..-.. I . . . . .

of riqhts y1olat·ed:'on'2a_pp·aal: intentional cover-'l:JP of trail def~nse lawyer's . (/ ). t:zz) . .. . . 4 .• ~a.s'~ ~

fraud · •mgagements and intentional, failure by [Ronald G.Couch appointe::~ on 6/7- I

,~~ /2007-~aset07-0S-00250-CRiin the 7th C~.App.Tex~J. Appellate Court Appointed - Counsel to expose sue~ ft~ud,and he himself d~liberatel~ failed to investigate- or con~uct some kind df minimal investigation into this case sub judice,actual- -lv exa~ine the en~i~e tecord,with ~is own extrinsic fa~ts of evidence oi would- b-e evidence upon appeals investiqation and then, research of the law and marsha 1

ling of. arguments on' -this. Applicant. Is behalf •. Instead. Appellate Counsel . too abon I

doned his Client's colorable claims on appeal riqht now before this Texas Court 6f . Criminal .. . Appeals;and . . thus,Couch ! intentionally failed·t~ file a .moti~n . . for a new tr-ial,at.the very least-if.Jiot to arrest of judqment or to_ vacate the Convi .- ~ - . . . 7 . . • . .

ction ~s) f~r ~})e: trial . court's ~i)d it's judqe ,lacki_ng- subject-matter )urisdict:-: . , ion"". oier._ the_ Case, and .Person-Ap~iicant ,Joe· Zavala (aka-:John Zaval.}. A.· new trial- ·-.. . " . .. . :· . . .·. ' F' . . . · · ..~ was._w&r.ranted~ Id •. at.: B~nson1 2~24 s ~w. at489:-:90.: Oldham,.977 s ~w. at 361 ~ .. ,.Bv .both inc · -~ ~ompe"tEin_t_ _and _br~achers of their [fiduciary duty- ··rawy·ers·;·:or.-~1ie.ra:·:at:."law~As C::the- · - ::::o:::.: [Yif~Jl·p·~~~tic~ _·ei~~t"~d'- ~-~-{-t:o. ~~pose ;these. said· ·cleri-cal·-:-e~rors of 1-aw::in-:the- · ~ .::::~~~;::~·-·- ..... -~:. ·._- ·-,.,~;--·,=...= --:··· -·--· --·- .•~~-- _.· ·__ ~ . ·. , ..-·· . . . -·-- ---- . [ir] qhar.9ing documents that om]\tted nof· onlv·the·"precise .. and spe·ciffc".innumer;.:·:: . - .. :. :._ .. -~ . .. .. . ! . . . . . .. . . . ated·~eference \allegedly applied,-"th~~ .must be group~~ of the correct s~atute :ed -fot· a defi~i te t~~mol~gy but~no criminal· Distr.ict; •'Attorne~_,. endorsed "'.its. Off-. I

icial ~capaci tv authori tv;..of con~erit and·.· applied non~ ::.. of ·:·its· ,-a:11eged .:i\;li tnesses .- 1

nam~s 'on the void indic_tment. In fact the _omission go' further-lby faciall~ not s_h I

owing anv alleged grand· jurors names .WHICH ARE TO.· BE AT least nine grand juro.:.. · rs to have concurred in the return of a real TRUE. 8I1L OF·. INDICTMENT ••• Tnus·~And­ rea~as PROSECUTOR,~for judge Gallagher~failed to prove_the essential and Consti-

tuent elements of the[ir]offense(S) sought to b~ charqed-of this c~se.Inwhich - jeopardy had attached while these: plain errors of law were visually discoverabl had either trial or an~ Appellate Couns~ls not turned a blind eve to such false . pretense [on the hiqh seas] under inexcusable injustice. Ex Parte Kirbv, 626 S .w. 2d 533~supra(Tex.ct.App.l982),- "Jurisdiction cannot be substantially inviked;- it eithe~ attaches or it does riot:ie . encomoas~e~ th~ power and authority . of the . . [trial] Court to determine all essential questi6ns in the case:it must b~ invok ed by legal-proper and completely stating an offense again~t the laws of the St ate of Texas and the test is not to be applied by hindsight:a defect in the Ch- arging .. instrument relating to jurisdict_ional requirements cannot be cured bv - subsequerit proceedings in the Court and cannot be waived:judicial' action with- out.jurisdiction is VOID~Id~Garcia V~Dial,596:S.W.2d 524,528(Tex.Cr.App.l980}- .Turisdiction may be . concisely stated to be the right to adjudicate ccacern-'-:-""'" inq the subject-matter in a qiven· case.Unless-the p~wer or authority of a Court to perform aco_ntemplated act can be·found in the Co~stitution or laws enacted- ~here under.i~ is ~ithou jurisdi~tion and its acts\without validit Id;Cf.Davis · V.State,227 S.W.2d 733~736~n.l-3(Tex.Cr.App.2007)(same). c) Ground One- >Error of Law: : . . · . . Issue PRESENTED:. There I"s NO-Extant True Bills Indictment.Judqment Is Void I of : Per Trlal Court Lacked Subject-matte Jurisdiction: :U~- //,z) · s.case.

Applicant :relies on the facts within the alleged indictment.as argued - above,with Statutory and case authority citatipns.As well as Constitutional violations of thi~ i~plicant's Ri9hts.Since the Prosecritor{s) used decepti~e ~ trade Practice acts to ille9all Y and unlawfully obtain an unnec.essary convict- ~- i~n.S~ch as Mile~ .Brissette.Niclt'Pls.imd Brian BOUFFARD's abuse of the. Gra~d Ju- ~Y Panel; s independent powers.1 in: the Texas Judiciary system_; and;; then used said Andrea Jacobs(with TIM, CORRY'S Title am. ·a party) to deny all ·that is raisea in 'ar abandone~appeal,by Hall a~d Couch( Ronald Gordon Hall),to ~it: "Applicant st~te .. his confinement is illegal(& tinlawful) because the convi- ction impo~ed . was obtainedj~y ·I :. . use of coerced confession"~and the void ind- -~

...• . ict.me~t . . :.: or its fat~lly defectiv~· information therEdn;speaks for itself.And the . -·- . . . ··-·· . .. .. . . .· . . ~'·· " . . .·· . . . . s~couild_ poi~t -·;c;;~ JIAL: was. inef{ective. That is a one-hund~red ·.percent· .truth ..! ·;, .• .._ ,.-·be~,~~~fe_._H~l~ ··~~~r~f·~~a~;-~~ _con~~fj1: ·_em~ ... type~~~a~~ng~ul_. in_ve~t-~q·.at~~-n .i~~c ,: t~~e'_,-_·. ,:_~:~-, ,;;;.: ~I?P.J~f=ant s .c9s.e ·~o:r"_cl.a~_ms_ aga~'ilst h~m. for- ..unfounded---charjles-,..and -no --p:r::obable ... Gc· _::,,,_~ •.~ :: use•. fbund. by a: gr.a1nd .jury .As Ap~licant asserted · above';~there' ·•a:r·e ~-extriris.ic ·fact~·· .. ··· . ::r . . . ..... . . . ..,_ .... · . . .. - . •. .·• • .. ·, . ..· . . . _· _ tha_t. •:fould: ·-:ha've mitigated his Pfriishment ,if" the· jud9e ·would have.: considered'alJ .. tha_t ;¥as ).eft. out .At least to. h~ve had implemented a ·grand jury, as a: matter· of· ... , Law ,_p~rsuant- .to· Art.~l9• 01 to 19~-10 :·19 .lL 19.13; 19 .14; 19 ~ 18, 19.-19- thur. 19'.26 {•a) --· ·· .... :·i · · · · · . I· ·· . · ·. · · ·· . .- ... '·. c. (b >~· r~ o29, 19 o33 o*19 o 34.119 • 35 19 f 39 i for-• Verifying' procedures .:under ·'*19 o40 ol9. 4~ I

(a) &. (b) ;20.01:20.07:?0.09:*20~l7'(a), (b) ~Jc) (1) to (6)-all ~.these provisions - are of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure,and Art.20.17 is for how the Susp- ect or Accused 'is·questioned before a· real live grand jury panel.They,as oile'f Community's pee~s,will determine if such probable Cuase exist to warrant a cri· min~l or Civil trial,and it is then,~heir decisions ori what kind of punish~ent

or dama.9es need resolutions.But,theS'e statutory laws are in placed to conform- to the Sixth Amendm~nt to the United States Constitution ~f America ••• And this fact is sustained u~der .the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Which states: ·"That state i~dges are bound bsy:the 2oit~d S~ates ConstitutiQn notwithst· and~ng contrary state law.-.. ~nee tu~s uas ueen react to center upon- State Court judges the·power of judicial·review even over federal laws~. See Martin V~Huntre•s Lesseeil4 U.S.304 L.Ed.97(1816),9( in part: It is the- Case,and not the Court,that gives the juirsdiction~Id ••• This contention was re· jected by Mr.Justice Story,as bespoke for.the Court ••• Since the State Court- has decided .the Constitutional queS.·~ion originally.Ibid.e.g·.,Lott v.state,l8 ... Tex.Civ.App.627(1885);Rainey V.Sta~~,l9 Tex.Civ.App.479{1885)icitedin King V.- State,473 S.W.2d 43,46,•4S(Tex.Cr.App.l97l),citinq Hollingsworth ·v~statei87~eJ Cr.399,22l S.W.978-79(1920) ,cited in Hamilton,supra,l72 F.2d at l83-84:King V,· State,cited in Ex Parte McCain,67 S.W.3d 204,210--2ll,fn.2{Te~.Cr.App.2002),- "as in this cas~ at bar.'if the defendant has not effectively waived his absol- ute rights to ; valid indictment in full accordance ~itb the {above]S~atutory law/felony in~o~mation,then sucn quilty plea: is void~Id ••• Applicant's exhibit 1-A,and 1-B,are the Prosecuting TEAM's instrument called indictment,which it - visual~~,legally insufficient and void ••• Th~ ~act that Artcl~s-19~01 thr 21.0~ ··- \. ...... \ ··- '· ..... \

are provisions designed for the s~curity of .the personal rights of the-· 6.Case.

individual and were aptly placed under the proper heading.Id.at King.supra,473- s.W.2d at 51-52 & fn.**25;Cf.Lacky v.state,⁵⁷⁴ S.W.2d 97,100,fn.**8(Tex.cr.App. 1978),in PART,AS IT IS RELEVANT,in pertinent part,"PRECEDENT" .•. "Has held that in the abence of a showing that the defendant upon entering a plea of quilty ~

··pERSONALLY ag;reed.'·to punishment .recommended by. the. Prosecutor and agreed by the d-efendant's Attorney, the defendant could not be denied an appeal pursuant to - - Art_.44.02(V.T.c .• c·~r.-supra~provides that_. a defendant who has pleaded quilty may only 'appeal with permission· of the·. tr . ial Court if the punishment assessed by - the Court does not,exceed the ~unishment assessed by the ~rosecutor and 'agreed to by'the defendant . . -~ ~~ . and ·.. are factshis.attdrney~Id ... . . . . •.. There that should . ~· . ~- reflect- - . from the· trial Court' s~ record fdr ·this case at bar 1 "_that· applicant_ did not sig· ·. . any oifered -·db.~umentatiori . ..:.of. tJ~ PJ:osecutor' s, because he 'did "not. -~~derstarid ···-·.·. · •. . 'the. n~ttire of- 'the ~harqes and- t~~ I actual·. cause of action •.In\ihich. the·· Prosecutor. ' . . ... I . ... .. . . . . . . .";:-,::; t'h adc;o ~f-er·ea·,: ·a·~: ~2:s..:veaE' s·; ·se·n't'enc e -~So con.t r a ry. :~t:oo:':R ..-G ,,cou·cli1A"pp;I=icC1ii€' '';cO'ti'l d' 'riot ~"..:. ~. ···· ~- have"< ~nderst.oold ·the ·nature -of ~he. Char_;fes. brought"'"''fn on-e~ void -i'nd tctnient .. and~'··. theJ oJlv -thing· Applicant· acknow~edged -=wa·s -lie ·would ·be -pieading··to ·a possible·-;. - ~~ . . . . ' .' . l . ·. . ' . ··· 25-years. sentence, because Hall ~h:r.·eatened Applicant with· a trial on the merits· -·~ . ' ' • . . • . l. . . . • • '; . ·and·~-- J.}ppl icant-·-would •be· facing ~ife or 99--year<_ ..• -.-The Tact -t-hat· ·all 'couch :did..:....;,· · _w'35 . ..:h~lk .f to Ball. about whatever !'Applicant· might- of sa-id;:cha·t ·was ~it:~!·· hears~v- I - . ~ • I ; . 1

was Couch's only invest-igati-on. Couch :.:: acknowledges that in--his f.:tlse represe- . . ntation in his Preferred brief that is LABLED: "APPEALANT'S OPENING BRIEF"-CAU- se No. 07-05~0025-Q--C·R-Appeal ing cau·sf~ nut1be:c 0943395D...;One. cause for two convict- ions ! •.• Wrose yet1Couch falsely implies that Applicant's Opening brief is who- lly FrivQlous •. Inspite that all that Applicant has truthfully presented herein- this case sub judice. Applicant further points to his induced plea bargin void instruments.One thur Six~do not contain Applicant's affixed mark/initials,nor~

his siqnature.The only indicator i£ an-X in the box in page 2(of 11)-right next to "FIRST-DEGREE Ft!:LONY":and on page 6(of ll),the judqe,George Gallagher's sig- nature is th·~ only agreed to tht1 last words fEXBIBITS 1-C to 1-L incorporated) : These admonishments w~re given to this·A~cused:~ on the aboven~noted date And another bizarr incount~r,ie ·On thi~ same page 6,a ecribeled name that W~5 a person named Joe Za~alas,but below wher~ the judge had already closed off his- Authority for those stipulations from page . l.to 6~and then We see page Ten and- . . . That page ia an expositiOn for PROBATION~A~PLICATION ••• There is no'CAPTION for a A-waiver of a jurv triaLbut 'its mentioned pursuant to Art.l:-13(cc'p -no Texas iE cited for such initials~'mavbe one must assume ?),but even that assumed code is imprecised ~nd unspecific as Art.l.l3 has three •ubsections for an a~tqal term. i.e. 1 (a);(b) & (c)--This injustice was held undei the three trail Court's Off- icers. -"RaV Pall Jr ,Miles Brissette,and Georqe ~alla9her-but no defend;arit is - endoresin!J 'such waiver of trial.See r!Je 10 !.:an·d in paje 9- the Judicial Conf- essi6~ is indicatinq about ~uiltv of each ~n~ everv act as all~g~d ~he~ein-buf not stating that the confessor, is quil fv··'of each and everv esse'ntial· and I

7. Cas.e.

Constituent elements of the offense or offenses sought to be char9ed bv the Prosecutors ••• The fact that th.e jud~• relied on the Defense lawver' s hearsay for his Client,is a ~ross abuse of power and Usurpation of authority.Becuase it was the·lawver,Hall,who evaluated defendant ~sa doctor1and assured the jud- -ge that hiS Client I WaS COmpetent. Or legally COmpetent . tO haVe freely:; ineJl.J.~ n-tly[a 3rd grade level IQ,'] ,kriowinqlv and voluntary[while 9 months of false ar- re~t]waived his tights .•• However not one·page of Eleven .state ~hat are the leg- al clai~s inreference what ~Texas pen~l Cod~ violation,if any a~tually exist - :ed ? • See paqe 9 _of :11, und_er the. • words :JUDICIAL CONFESSii.ON ••• It serves no purp- _-ose w~atsbever-to have a la~ve~~o ~tand bv as a staw-Man himself ! ! ! -~All wh- il~ . · h:i!s .i . Client . . - .is _in a: ·sea :.; . . .. -~~... . of ld~s-overcriminal . .l . :~. .. izing. . -.- upon. th~ - · incredib-lv .. - _.. _ broad- . - ~- yet obssure crimes fabricated ~Y- Brissette.Nickols and Bouffard •• ~ Such as the - >:-Cha~_g~ that does: not: e~ist- unde4f any chapter ·-~"burglary :wi th-~'intent ·to comini t- -::::.::.:.:::: -~r~on::! ( a:lth-ouqh-,,30-'•0_2:: i:s:. not-- ci t:;~d in- the"· void; i-rid-·ictme'nt:·;I ts' impl ied.-""out ,-·again··: --- , : -i~predise/unspecific, -- ..· ---- ---- -- ..--- . !- . . . - - / . as- '30-. ·_ 02 h~s ,·; 12-subse_ctio~s- _- . . t·o;'- _;identi-fy~ a•:·pait icular ,· . de fin- -~ ;_ ;_. - i tion .r~~There"fore, the- Prosecuting Team's charging fnstrumeil t, t·n· '~the -duplicf-ci ty, .. - _ does ~ot state,nor allege all t~e essential and Constituent elements :of the[·ir]'- .. - _imp)i.ta:pff_en.~_(s) -~ou_ght-: ~0 be i,h·e charged cla:i.in _of claims,and··:t:hus·lthe void in - _.dictm~nt presented :to_ the trial J Court.· and i t·s acting judge was n·ot by· a· r·eal· gr: ;. -a~~~ j~ry panel~ and co~"i_~ not h9Je .charge<? Applicant [person] w;L th the. com~issio~- of an offense(s),e.g.,State V.Martinez,829 S.W.2d 3651366(Te~.App.-Corpus Chri~

sti 1992,aff'd 879.;S.W.2d 54(Tex.Cr.App.l994);McElr·oy V.State~720 S.W.2d 490,- 492(Tex.Cr.App.l986)(same):Fisher V.State,887 S.W.2~ 49,56(Tex C~.App.l994);Co­

ok V.State,902 S.W~2d 471,477~& n.8,& ante III.infra(Tex.Cr.App.l995);King,sup- ra,at 473 s.W.2d at 51-52,& fn.26:~ holds that Art.l.l4l(TCCP)[as well as 26~13 (a)(l) to (4),(b) to {i): 1.14(a) & (b):l.l3(a) to (c):l-15 et seq],supra-'impl ies · that this said Authority confers the trial Court to have jurisdiction to hear the Cause,'if' there is a valid waiver of a real[Grand jury's] True Bills of Indictment~ .. Then it would merely mean that a valid"complaint's information would act in lieu of or as a;.sub~titute for an indictment and it 1 s ~alidity is essential to the Court's jurisdict.ion!!Id.at 473 S.W.2d at 51-52 & n.5,& fn.26-: Lackey v.state,574 S.W.2d 97,99-100,& ~**n.5 (Tex.cr.App.l978).In this case at bar,the Applicant could not possibly have waived to be indicted by a Grand jury of his p~ers, because the sai.d Prosecutors supposely already had an indictment 1 - and the :record for this case sub judice should reflect that there is abesence - of shb~ing that def~ndant ~ntered a plea of quilty person~lly agreed to the pur ishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed by the defendant's Atto~ney(- . \ ·. ' '·

consent).Ther~ is however a waiver of a jury trial betw~en the prosecutor and- · the alleded :defense counsel , cited iri page 10 of :the voi·d plea barg in. But not - any consent i al agreement by the 'defendant [Appl icaht]. Ba11 fa1sified v'~gu,e I and-. 1

ambiguous language wi th~n that lengthy t~n-::page-pretyped-pre~ared wr1. t ten ple.: ' . . . Admon.ishment •• That actu~l,ly does. not state, what is waived as_ a, right ? •• :It was_ an abuse of judicial pow~r to assume it ha~ subject-matter,and then accepted - (O?;I.Zi) a.case. ·

~pplic~ntis [induced] plea of quilty,without making sure Applicant affirmative!~ waived: a trial,while already [fraudulemtly]indicted,but that it be made-to-look. as if.waiving indictment to induce such void contractual agreement by Prosecut- o~s ari~ defense Counsel,as well as the_judge,applying his own incorrect legal- authority ·or misapplying the law inchief,as herein this case at bar,"inwhich no· . . . -· ' . .. . .

Court officer required that defendant or his Wife(estrange) establish(·the Truth of the allegatibns against- Applicant,o~ as his Wife,~etting party,as a condit16r 1

.. '· ; ' .

for Applicant's consent •.• Since trials are primary about the Truth,and judges- endors~d·c:ronsent de~rees [none-in-~his case is revealed]are primarily a'bout prag- matism!••. "-Rethinking Presumed Kn~wledge of· the law~Neitheri ·of the three bench- . ~ ;;: . . . . ~~ . . . - ; . . ; . . . . .

trial-. ,Officers 1 - -- ~<::knowledged--- :the char•Jed l'-i indictment or· - informa-tion· . -. were- invalid-. - - _even though-_· no criminal-_ statute ( ~) was cited in· plead_ings wr_i tten ·by__ the prosecl- - - \i -- • - -------------- -,

- tor--and. t judge, - . for -su;.:h .. . harsh . . bac~ed ~~ criminal p•:mali . ty -of- which· presum~bly . -· - . :inclli-- _;-._" ,. ded.:.. th~ "two\,:45-y.ea·rs c "':'--' under-:theYpresurned -itr'cane' pe'nal"~Codecs iu·di/ltpplic·ttri~·t'cwa'S'i2n;ef' l . : ~ . . . .

_~_:.: ~ __ er .-a.d~:~ce:a· by_ the judg-e· , nor by ~ritten' instru~ents ·of· waiving :·his -·obsolut:e---rfg-~ : ,· • ,. :'1 ' .,.

.. htS_ ,);0~ a~val id COmplaint I a:n admi~::) ion that, th:is' "[ falsely]aCC.Ut-Jed haS· been -verb_;;; •.. :~ - - . .- . ~- - . • . I. - -ally :e;~plained about his rights -~o an a·c~aual informed ·adVisement of. his legal.- dut:i ('si) ··3.nd IDOrai- Obl:i:ga. ti•:>n~ I a~ for the nature Of the "charge (a ~erSQn I~ CUlpa~· bilifyt ) I ~nd :._t'tiat" th"e instrumentl(pl;Ha b~rgin st,fp'!utions) ~mc)ULD £INCLUDE ~·.it- ~~s .:.• filed amoung the papers --of the cause (which cause# is· not cited·_ within the ·plea - agreement between M:Brissette,e~ al~and B~ll~s_goal ..• Ba~l's constructive breacl w~s the fatal'blow to Applicant's legal innocence,~fid factual innocence to t~e- void cha~ge~,as Ball knev the pre~umption of law is useful"If one is tiained - the l~w,but intentionally failedlto provid~ legal advice to his client,this App· licant,so that that useful legal advse incentive would not benefit Applicant,a: a Citizen to become inform -d of his rightful legal duties,and thus, a complet1 elimination of that-presumption of ihe law-is so that goal of Hall~s an~ ADAs - would become the[ir] pecverse incentive to have Applicant remain in an ignoranc1 that w_ould not immund:ze Applicant from mens_ rea link in Culpability establishm- ent( ignorantia legis neminem excusat ).,,Hence,Applicant was,and is still not· schooled-and-trained in the law,as a presumed lawyer would be-to know every cri· minal law,as morality of lav .• ~That requires laws to be among other things publ· ished ,understandable and not subject not.. constant charges ••. Otherwise ' Applican ;

(as. every one should) ccould have been talented as a lawyer, but that result hard ly would have been feasible and· desirable by the Prosecutors.Jones Y.Barnes,463 u~s.753,756,103 s.ct.3308,3316-17(1983),id.at 463- su.s.756,& 3314;citifi~ Farett v.california,422 u.s.B06,834,848,95 s.ct.2525,~2540,2547,45 L.Ed.2d 562(1983)·.-- " INDICATIVE that the Attorney's usurpation of _certian fund<::1mental deeis~ons can •Jiolat~e the Constitution"Id~--Thus,whether -~civil complaint was wartanted or overcriminalization - has deepen that. danger of a dynamic in ~T~ich. Applica~t '.Ja I ·, • • •

charqed ,Ji th alleged cr_i~es of a lo.t, more punishment, while t_h9s'~ who wer,~. doin :the charging knew they had little skin in the outcome which to .loss.Ibid. ;.(,;}~.~) 9.Case.

D) The:trial judge found it unnecessary to rule on the validity of the Indi- ctment. or its fnformation or whatever information for examining it 1 s own juris diction on it's own necessity.Mosely V .. Cozby~813 F.2d659,660{5th~Cir.l987); - ·state V.Moff,l54 S.W.3d 599,60l,ri.l-2{Tex.cr.App.2004).~.An True Bills of Ind- _ictment or valid co;r.plaint in ~ criminal· cas~.! is the main means by:· which th~ - Accused defendant starida.trial and the only means by which a COURT obiains sub ject-.m.:ttter jurisdiction,.and i.s the jurisdictional instrument upon which the ·-· Accused can be forced to a trial on th'~ merits. State V .Chatman, 671 F. 2d 531 153E ( KAN. -~ 983 ~; Co1:em~n V.Sta~~~ 918 ~~;· W. 2d 38, 391 ~3 (Tex. Cr.•App .1996) ~Therefore 1 the _que~t..1.on 1s not ._abou~ _e1111dence il?ut about subJect-matter jurisdiction~Id· .• ·

. HThe__ -~. .• ~ :. ~;ompl;~lnt --~n?c_i!~~~~-~-- :;:. • . - ·. . -. ,t5. .• .•. ' -- ·:l:f.ld . ···. ' . . . . ·...... ":. u~thawful .;:.1. . ple~ bargi'n . ~mpoi::ed -. . - . . upon .. Appli~ant -_.. . were .. __ _:-_th_e --~fo~~c:'!a t:i9_l1_=. _~o~~--~1}-~_.A.rbi trari~c:>r ·or'· an intruder -and its acts tha t"-fell clear :_ ~ _· __-_·J.Y_ ~R~tsi.d~:· .tl~~~--j;u"cige·~:;--·~,~bj~c~::~-a.t ter -j~r isdicti ~n ;;Th~s _,_si.ace- ~hese ~Ja ici ·c:harg·· .. .., ~.ir)_g; . .i;Jn=!r-l.,J_men,ts. -~r~ i_n~~·altc::3 1 th·~r!~ i-~ a J.a~cicc·of=·, subject..;.m.:~. t t··ar;·; j_JJ'l; isdfct.lon ~'Orice : ---- -- -A-. j 0 ... ' '•'••'' • h ' ci,; '.. ·;;;:::.:; _,tq~, •. [jv_aJ~_dl _in~dic:t~en!:-.Js prese\rtted-jur isdicti_on is:.ex<.:lusi ve -dl'l' the·:· reci-eving-:' _Cour~J:u~~es~ legally tr.ansfe:tre4 to. anoth•:r Court' having concurient Jurisdict:~- ·. ----·ion;Tex.Cod·~ -· • !,.. . . Crim.Proc·~·Ann.Arth2•0l . -.· . . . . . . . & or . -=Art.4.16.:.·; ."Tr'fe . ·or1ly· . me~ha'ni-i3m • . ·for:- ,~

tr~n~~ferring jur.isdictlori[Art.•f.Ol(l) ·to. (11);4.02,_4·.os~·4.07l 'ove'r-the'ciise.~In . ' .-.. ~; . .; . .. .. i· . 1 • •

whe~~ the secoun~ accep~s the e~se by issuing ·a foimal O:tde~of·receiving~§!24 ' I \ I r I.

d:l.screctionary rnatter1but is rnandatocy~Id. (citing Rule 60(b) (4) (FRCP)-RulE~ _ allowing a district Court to relief a Party of interest .•• ~from afinal judgmen because the judgment is void1and that is why.no Appellate co~rt ot trial Court m~st not heitate to vacate a void judgment against [Applicant] him ,otherwise _it would. be a pl.~~n ~rror ,: of law to n~fuse to v~cate and set-a~ i.de the judgmen under rule~ Article 27.08(4)(TCCP).Dennis V.State 1 647 S.W.2d 2j5 1supra(Tex.cr. App .. l983) 1"l'n Oder-to invoke jurisdiction of the trial Court it is madatory th- at the instrum·ent st,::tte the necessary es.s;~ntial and Constituerit>elem•ent.s of the offense -sought to, b·= charged ~Td . i. In makin•3 a· determ.in':i t ion t.,hethe'r the charg ·• _ 1 in~ i~?;strument states [ as oppo~~d •to allE~ged ! ] an- ::,ffen·se 1 it must .be read· as ,,. . -·~~ :. . . .a whoi;.~ an.o_th~_r·wise an_~indictm~:*t or information t;hat- d()es;..n"ot allege/statt-;_ ·all~ o+[ tJ!e ~-l~m~!'l_:t:s _c;>-f ;_a. __f·e!lo_ny Hharg·=d does _not invoke rjurisdict i~n of _ -a dist.:.- "ric~gourt~Ex Pa~te ~ldridge;57~jS.W.2d 7~6~~upr~l~ex~Cr~App.l9~8~~Thus,a couit· . - -. !" . - . : . - ... 'i . . . . . . . .· ·>.:~c.·.:.·:: may.: h~ve· aut~hori'ty-:-:•undet A·r·t~-1.1!411 et ,-.:q·: to ·.hea-r, ;a"'~ca.s.~-~ bu.t:~only:;::i"f.: ~IIh~e.r;e-~ be JJ~ t·: . ! . : ; :·. .

· ' -c::; 'val-id )\iai ver 1 and pr·~cedent · hc\S ~t:-troughly- expressed.-: tha ~·~··':-I'l', ,_is ~w·~.lL to,bear :in . . · -min·dBhat ,. a f~Iony ·inf~rmation --Jets I in lie~ of .or . a ·subst.:,i·tute .··for .. a·n indict· -a:s " m•:!nt- Sns ·"Its· vai id i ty 1 is thereifore essen tl.al to the Court 1 s jurisdiction~ If - · ~s =infh:his. case ~ub · judic.e 1 the {~c•ised...;.Appl_icant has ~ot. effe.c~ti vely ·waiVed --his 1 --right !to an indir::trnent in full dccordance with t.he. r.>ta tute [P.rt-.19. 01 _:to .19 .10 ;_- • jl ~ I I I

and the trial Court,with it's acting trial judge~lacked subject-matter jurisd- iction to have accepted such void indic~ment or information therefrom~as well as. the judge u~ed tinconstitutional guidelines,th~t depriv~d Applicant· of his- tonstitutional guaranteed rights to a jury tri~l •. Therefore,Applicant has shown ·how his United St~t~~ Constitutional rig~ts wereViolat~dwith th~ aid of Court appointed counseL Mr·. Hall, as Hall stold by while Applicant was being illegally and -~nlawfully sentence to two lengthy te·rined sentences of 45-years, in one sig- ned judgment based upon information that had not been pro~~n beyound a reasona- ble do~bth that :~_very essential ?Pd Constituent elemen_t'·s of ; l::he offense ( s) :soug· ' • , I .

incompete~t and irresponsinsible,and deceptive Court appointed CounselA,as - Ray Ball Jr,and his acquaint~tice~Ronald G.Couch,who as an appeal ~ppointed law- yer, lied ~nd breache~ his duty' to caise colorable cl~ims of Constitutional err· ors of l~w,as illgstrat~d above i? Ground One error of~la~.Thus~these $aid cou- rts and t.heir' judges are. respectfully t·::l consider said myriad of t'actor-s inter- tw~ned,in determining if Applic~nt will be entitl~d to re-present himself upon thi~ i•sue of iss~~s pres~nted to be theti~] ~ecisive an~ operative ·facts upo~ which are' the·_ issues of Appicant' s ·_ Consti tution.ll claimes raised hereto ~Rath­ er ti·\an than.· re1~;terate the abov~ polnt ( s) as gro\.uid ·.:,~e error of 1a~111, the error . ; . . . . .. . ,.... ~~ ' . one' s:i point(s) r.=tised ·are the s~me issues of. fact, law, arg'umEmts ~ 1 egal' ar··3tiin~·nt: and 'f~cfual rec'i ~a tiori~-:-made ihftlt)nis _ground Two ertof cbf la'<TI as· ·potnts: .. m:ade ih . errch:J oii'·~- for~- 't'll'E:{~~p\)rpose·-- of po~nt ~lv'O i and'. wi·l-i :.~ther~efore:J be· ·a·rgiJ.ed ~t=ogether I~--:' ' ·:-. . . ;,, . ... .. .... . . ·. . . . _, ... d .. ·.· .- -- .. ·.' . .. ·. . . - . -·--· __ ~-= ·alon:g~ with all the supporting'·aqciJmEmts pertirient·-'-to thie·.:cause sub:_.;;udite~inc-~- . -~!: : . , .· . : . . . . ·. · . I-1 . · ~ ~c-::·:.: •,:;rudiri~ .~pplica.ilt •·s sup()ort:ing ·. e~h ibi ts; points··and -:-authp~it,f-e·s· ··coupled;~'i1·~·retor-+-~ ''-' '''--" "=e·xp'~~~.S-ly=:a-~d; •~~Th'olty::- ~in:cop·::~rate~ by ref e-re·i1ce ,~:intcf :gro1J~d· one/~rror' one;;.an'di:i'n~-::: · · -- To::::t~~-a ii.OT,ATC-form,as the wrkt of habeas corpu~,as if- s..=:.t·out ·antirely here-~­ -in~an~d - _; on the bqsis of the trai~ c~urt' s e~isting· rec.ord· for this ca~e on app· . - - [, . . - . . eaLci[nd oh the· further basis· ofj testimony/extrinsic.' or-:and :intrinsic'·evid~nce ·· . I· - • . . I . . - . . . . antic:ipated • tO be adduced ·On a ~e nOVO/evidentiary, ho~aring I i ,;· ·one neecied. in .·CO· nnecti on with thia Appl-icant ,·s inemorancfum of :findings of fac-ts and. conclusions· of . law,and thus,on=.e ·. -the said Cour~' (s). judge (s) .hears ·. all the evidence. and. - sees the facts,~o~ld sua sponte move,pursuant to Articie 27.08(4)(TCCP)~ickles V.State,l70 'S.W.3d 298,30l(Tex.App.-Waco 2005,0i.-der) (Gray,C.J ,diss,~nting) :'l'hom pson v.~tate~697 S.W.2d 413,supra(Te~.Cr.A~p.l987):Jones V.State,98 S~W.3d 700 702-703(Tex.Cr-App.2003),and Boykin V.Alabama ,395 U.S.238,242-43,89 S.Ct.l709 1711-12,23 L.Ed.2d 274{1969),as Boykin applies to this case sub judice,in that pecvasive breach of defense counsels is a constructive breach of their fidciar legal duty(S) IS A - denial of counsel all togetherjand thus,after the plea ha been entered in reliance upon co~rcion, and fraudulent inducameht,the plea - bargln must not be honored,for the fact that. "Ignorance,incomprehension,coerc- ion,terror,inducements,subtie or blatant threats oan mask unconstitutionality, thus,the question of an effective waiver of su6h federal Constitutional rights- is go~erned by f~deral standards.Therefore,the record can not possibly show th- ~t Appiicant's legal due process of law was ~pplied,as satificati~n i~ ~ ~ plei bargin induced,rather than have knowingly,i~telligently,and voluntarily made~!< See also Roberson.V.State,2001 Tex.App.Lexis 507o(Beaumont 200l)(not designatec for ~ublicat~on but cited orily fot this point One:er~or of.law); . • "Provi~ed that the Court shall inquire as to the ex1stance of ~ny plea b~r ihg ~greoments ••• and~in the event th~~:su~h an agreement ~~1~t:the 9 Coutt-- shall inform the d~fendant ~hether •1t W1ll follow or re]eC~ aUCh ~greement in open Court and before at·fililiftincgfiOitlc;the plea Should the - ,, . -~ourt reject any ~u~h agreehlent. the- defen::lant shall be: perm:i. tted to - : · ~I~hdra~ his plea of q~1lty~Id;Tex.Cod€ Of Crim.Proc.Art.26.13(a)(2)(Vern.sup~ 13.Case.

2002) (emphasis added) ••.• Because .n.rt.26.13(a) (20 ...uses the i.vord "Shall'' ,.its terms are ~andatory.~nd must be construed accocdingly.Tex.Gov't Code,§ 311.016- (2)(Vernon 1998).~~e In re S.L.P.,l23 S.W.3d 685(Tex.A~p.-Fort Worfh 2003),no- Pet.);Lafler v.cooper,566 u.s • . , (2012),no.l0-209: If. defendant has been off· . -.~. ,, '

~red a pl€a b~igin~he has th~ right to effective a~~i~t~nce cif Cotinsel in 6onsi< ering to acc9pt it,•i~• -~hat right is denied[as illustrated i~ point one],prej~ .udi~e can be ~hown in loss~of the plea-opportunity ~h~t led to ~ trail,resultin! in a more serv~ sentence: and ~ef~ndant do have a Sixth Amendment right un6er - the United . State~- . Cortstit~~ion,~o . ·.I; effective-assistance" . . of Counsel,a ~onstitutio· 'nal GU-ARANTEE or~ it .is breachec:J>[as such ri·3hts o~: extend to plea bargining pro~ : . '~ - •• - : . . - c . -_ ... - • -. •. - - ----- "Ct • .. . :. . . • .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . cess:.' Id ~at· ante, at 9; U., S. V:Be'nde-~son, 72 . F ~3d 463 ,465_(.5th . Clr .1Q95 )( isame) -;See al· --~ .. - . .::· . :·...l[f' . --·. __ -;_ -:·-- _.:_ . . ,. . . . . :____ :_:. -.. -._ . -- ~ ,: . ---- ~ ·. . . ·. .-·. . ~ : . . . .. .. so · The Wallstreet Journal, 9/27--28/2014, '-A..:.4-"U-.S.Mo_ves To' Cur.b USE o'"f Waivers ~ 7

-:-.-::in _:-~~iJ~~ ::;~t~;~~~~;;~: --:~~~'Ki_~~n~· ~Jlvoid .plea. :hag in- sti_piila t ions~,:a_r_s~--~~-nta~~-~~- . --~~-~-- :-- . .: : _ oaa·-· l~ns i g ried] waivers: that· encot_n:pa's .Sed;'''fn t e!hf'i-8ii.:~a:; :roTs 1 aadi ng' ~"ad ~;i'Ce'l''f)y''~l'e"g·a 1 ·:.: . ~--:~:,~:~~-~-f~-_e',f.~_fv~:;f~~~~--~~~~~ ·:~~ ~~;: _.RayrHall :Jun'ior,at --tria~! . a_nd_ '_on .:a~pe·~r,·~t)y·'·''-~aon~ld;:~~- - ·-: --·G.Couc:h and their their pervasive breach· of duties not to object to the Prosec- . · · . ·utbr·~-~s) void lndi~tment(~) ,BRElcH of ptea ·a·3reement -~1n 6/3/2005,and: failure tc _-_-obj.:ec} to the: tr;ial court~~ andli t 's ·judge ··s j'udgment. ·and sen-fer;~e ···a-s ·illegal.-..·. · Ex PaFte_Becit,922 .s-.w.2d ·l:n-a2'~Tex,.cr.-App~l9~6-) :Ex Part'e· Mciver/586 s·.w .• 2d ssf· 854.(Tex.cr.App.l979) _(same), "it is -a void sHntence when the punishment hi: unaut- horized;such punishment renders the judgment void becaus~ it is ill~gal ,i.e.,- unatho~\.zed··by law~Id •••• And the Supr~me law of the Land has clai:ified this sa .. me isstte in that a plea of quilty is only Coristitutionally valid,to the extent (Tr,Ct.RR. l,pp.l0-19,based on the void indictment)tah it is violuntary,and inte lldgent ,and knowing-what is the actual,·: criminal offense he is faced with ?-th Nature and Cause of the Claim against him.T~e notice re~eived,and if he recggi- zes the requirement of legal due process of law ?.e.g.,Bousely v.u.s.,523 u.s.- 614,618,118 s.ct.l604,n.l-2,& 4-5(1998),id.at . .· 523 u.S.619,11R . S.ct~at 1609;hold ing t~at the Trial court's judg~ must explain the charge td the defendant,and - mtist cnnsider both the compixity of the ~harge and the sophistica~~dn of the de fendant ? such as aasure[e] he has at least a Junior high-school edu6ation[~hic he does not even h.:.ve a 3rd degard education]; check for mental imp.airments when admitting quilt;if anvilittle familiarity with the American_ legal ~ystem and ,mo os_t cr~..lcially important,' did ·he [Accused rechwe a~ explanation of complicated - l ju~isdiction issue ?' as well as d~fendant reading and discussing,with his Atto rney the previous[6/3/2005] plea agreement cbntaing fa~ts relevant to 6nly one- Count ag·:ainst him?- or if the judge explained~ to him,and review the incident re port wi~h hi~ participation in the_trial ptior-to-pleading quilty,-'while iece- ivinq ~ ~op~ of the alleged indi6tment and ~e~ealing the elements of ~he offens cha~ged ·. ' to which he suppdselv . ·- pleade~ ·. ~uilty to? ~nd as n~ne of.the ·. above had\

taken place, the tridl Court's ··- . .judge_ qls" erroneously failed . to: ,describe . the re·<:J\ .

. isite of the mena rea ele~ent·of the :charge ..-:which should have,.'bt:t didn't:,'- - . c~or.-z.) . . 14. Case •.

' ',

include knowlledge that the over-all length of the defendant's alleg~d offense was two offenses in one Count indictment which woml~ not have b~en-in~fact-a cr- ime(S)~WITHOUT Deferidant affirmatively havi1g informed cl~rification o£ ~he law that c~uld have revealed that the ~onduct to which the defendant plead quilty - .was in .\fact n~t 'a crime but a ci v\il violation against hi~ own house hold. Thus I - a~ter so mu~h ~bus~ of authority,this defendant[Applicant]was affirmatively mis- inforin-by·,·the trial Court's judge about the elements of the offenS~~s Applicant - pleaded qui 1 ty to, and thus, could not have possibly have been a ~rol un ta:ry and in~ telligent plea,a~ reqblred by th~ Constitution of the ~nited States.Botialey,sup- ,.., . ' . ·j, '. ·, . . . . - . . r~ ,_~23 ~u_..s. 619 ~s .ct .• at 1609: Cf-~f!S- V .suarez, 15 5 F. 3d 521·, 524-25 ( 5t:h_ c.lr-.1·396) ( sc:: me reiterat ion .. a_po.:.Je) :Ya.1encia V~:OS./92.3 F ~2d 917 ,92-l-,.....:22 ( Lst Cir .1991) (same-): He; - ~ _; .. :: i·IT -- ~ -~- -- -_ __ .. _ ___ .:._ - · - -~/- - - - · . - - . --- '" . - . ~- -. - . .. arez-Diaz v.u.s. ~ 870 F'. 2d Al7 ,422:·( 7th· Cir .1989) (same) : U.;.S. V .Odedo, 154~T- 3d 937,- ... ·· ~4o{ ~t-~,~~-i~~l.99i>.Cs-~~~)~~~-~.;:~-~~ .G~got;I47 F. Jd 1193,1'198 <lOth :cir .;1998)( ;same) ;u. f ·. · -·: -v~B~~~~,ll.7. F .na: 4 71, 47.6.( 11th .. cth.l9.97 >(sameJ ;:.u :s~:v~~neva1t;J92' CF.~3'di r~ao·9 ;.r:&.:i?2(:o;~;( ~>~.1 .:.t:::.;_~:'"~-!,. - tJ ----__ -.--.---· --:--:~ ---:.,.-~~_,,_...,.,:.··· .. . . ~~- . . ~ . ·. . ·. :· . .. .- ~ -.. :· . ~·· .-.·. . ·:.:::· --~-- Cir .19:96) (same.) ·,and-· U--~Jo~Y~Reyna, li30 · F-:3d·:l04; 106(5th 'Ci'r.l997}(.sarrie}'iEx'·' Parfe ..:....: ...-rL:-.;.C"i ~ ~~~ . ·. · ,-,· ··· -· ··.· ·· ·· ·-.---- · t.: - .· · .' ,- · · . - ,· _ . _ · . Thoma~;~ 545. s .w. 2d- 469, 470('!lex. cr\l App.l977) :Talbott v.state, 93 ··s :W ~3d ·s21 ;523~:24 · · · - -· 'r . · I . . . . · {Tex~~~~THouston [14t~ Dist.] 20q2.no pet-).Becatise Applicant could n6~ have kno1 ~- _t~e:. :.j~ldgeould ."alte.r the pl~a ba~~in. ~henafter ·certain ~~ges. o-r: th~ plea· barg in:--·· , , ~er.~, l.induced with cr:ms'ent of hi~ al+~ged w.a.i. vers ,·"as Applic·a:'nt :w·as aXleged.ly ch;: r·3ed ~h th a mu1tiple Coun·t incHc'tment on 11/3/200·· arid on 6/3/290 , he was cocer· ced into conaenting to be sentenced by the judge,but that was charged without- pri6r' notice that th~· open plea deal. was-~hanged to 6/6/2~~5 •••• All these ill~­ gal irregularities were done with ri~ pretrial motioris filed and no hearin~s wer• held prior to the plea on 6/6/2005.At least accordin··3 to Hall and Couch. See a-- Appellant's Op~ning Brief,Cause#07~o5~00250-CRpage iv--"Th~n Couch speaks a con· fused ·statement by implying,' that there w:;,s no agreement as to punishment and - Appellant plead :)pen;... as to punishment~ This is illogical· 1 --~ ... Couch implies "The Written Plea Admonishment !appear'-to be in order and signed by the Appe- llant"-(CRl,pp 10-19)-But page 6 _and 9 are the only pages that saem affixed witl name df Joe(rather John)-Zavala,and only after the judge signed above his own - name and above Applic'"lnt.or JOE t.AVALA ••• For the record,"there is no statement- that Hall adivse Applicant of any of the ab6ve illstrations.Not even if counse. Hall conducted some kind of pr~or investigation or and in preparati~n of resear• for Applicant's sentence:as ~-PSI investigation and then a recommendation withi sentencing guidelines in-ran.9e 2 to 10-years or what would the Court judge imp- osed after applying the correct guidelines in an advisory fashion and oniy afte: ' heightened scrullliny of the[ir] appii'cability •• The breach of duty by Cou~h·· invol· ves not obtaing relief by raising ~ specific Booker-Type argument,of wh~ch d~pe nclecl or clepend upon a cornprehenaibh .ana technical reading of applicabl~~l~w.At least if not am issue bf ~o~d judgrnent,then coming to be in the fOrefornt of ar guing against senteneing~e~tors~ •• Inwhich Hal1 abandoned too.Bu~ ·its ~vidently that n~ither Hall'or Couch: teali~~es that the trial process,f~o~ :indictment to- -~~trf.z) ; ;. · . ·15. Case. ·

posj-cpnviction reli~f,~ust be conducted via an approach that protetts the - Constitutional rights of their Clinent(s) or all Cit~zens in general.Thus,Among the other isSUf..!S that could have been raised on appeal:~ 'had Couch acted profes- ciional~y,are arguments th~t there was no ~redible evidence to support the sent-

~ncinti\ en6~ncemenis that were il~egally appli•~;Whi~h i~ its~lf is Uncon~titut~ ional.But the bigger picture i~ the omission ot elements of a crime or offense was not correct ~t the plea bargin hearirig,as th~. judge relied upon t~e defici~ ent statements I . in. the factuaL or none-factual re~ume.Mr-C~uch did not w~nt t6 raise :~the issue :of Hall_'s brea·=ry\ of fiduciary dutv or.'· arithmetic errrors of law invo~·i~_d _against th_e .trial Cotlr~!-juoge·.. Since it was t~:te jl~d,ge_·who erroneously-· - - ·- -.~.::;; · . · · . ';r.f . · ' fidleclf .·· c. . . "·-,:: "''c'.• tc>- inform· . - . ApplJcant ""··'"·--· _... , .._ ·. of the_ r; actual nat~.rre -· of. .the ch.3.rge(s) ·to··. which. he __- ..- .. >·was cQ:¢rced t.p. plea~ ~q~_iJ_tcY..~ to cihd _fa;.led -~-<>:_ensure- th~l t. thei'e >was· an· ad~qu~te - - · ·- --~- ~-r:;, - - -- --- · · · - · -· r · ~ . · - __fa~t:u_~l--':lnd ·l·~gal basis foe -~is (ple_a,and 'thus, that .cesultirig-=:.auilty··plea was [t:' ~ ~~ }'~.! --_·- h~~~t~he ~invo],unar:y. ·-! --· .!. -t : . . ;.. . :. _!,,._- .. . :-:-~.- ·.- -· ... - See-- U.s .v.J6tmson/38T ~.P- ~3d •: -. . .. . :.·~ ' iS<i6'/508'f5'ti1;,1G'i ~".-2'004-y{}d-ei;fa't -~=-- . £:)·£1. . ~ ---- ·: · 6~i t t~d) ;~~tar.shal,l:--V:~LpnbeE:ger, 4~9- u~s ~ 422, 431' ( 1983) (quotin<Y' Heiiderson -~'v :-Mcu;~ari-~" ~" ", ~. ~~ J·i . - . ·. . ,- -- :· - - - . .. : .. ... . .. [ ' - ' ' .. . . . ·. . .. .426 . U~S ._63.7 I 645 I n.l3 ( 1:376) ~· Appl :ilcant in making these' arguments-,'! t". sho'uld -be ~est . ;. :. . . --'- 'i~ . . . - . . . l . .. . . . .. . . . _tabli§hed thclt the trial Court'~ j~dge's errors of law,and defense Counsel'(s) ~-~on,s~~uc'tive brea-ch of duty I af Eicted Applicant Is ~substantial rf~ihts /as. du~. pro~ . • - cess f:equires j· . a quilty plea '"'; • . . to be voluntary and "a·"quilty •p'J:·ea ·.~~"-canrfot be-t'l:ue~ I .' '\ I : . . I " • ' 1

ly voluntary if<:the defendant. has such an incomplete ·understa-nding of the charg that his plea . cannot stand as intelli~ent admission . . of quilt~Id.- , . ,

B) The pervasive denial of effective assi~tance of Counse is actual an· intentiona breach 1 of[fiduciary]duty and oblig~tions by Ball and or Couch.Of whom,a~ malpra cticioners,alleged in their st~tement of the case,that" By indictment filed nov 3rd,2004"-but left-out that "b~ a Grand jury indictment or defendant was indict ed on such-and-such date~ ..• Then Couch states on for. the record, "the Court [J::-ath er than the·judge] advice the Appellant that the range of punishment for the Of fenses for which he proposed to plead quilty was a minimum of,etc •. but not upo~ an Attorney's preparati9n for his sentencing on the cases being heard ! or and- upon [inspite]of the provisions in the plea agreement that .supoosely blocked Ap plicant from filing an appeal.However,there are no proce~ure barriers that bloc challenges to the trial Court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Thus,reseac by Applicant has deminstrated that the trial Court'a judge erroneo~sly failed t make sure Applicant ~nderstold the nat~re of the charges and that plain error e law was due to the judge accepting his plea when there was no sufficient fact~a basis reqardino a critical element of the offense or offenses in one[void]indic tment ••• The Texas Court of~ Criminal Appeals can agree these ill~strated:errors by the trial Court's judgejcoupled_with Hall's constructive breachiare clearan• they not only orejudiced\Applica~t,but affected_hia substanti~l and l~gal due - process of law rights~Therefore,as for this eror Two,a~ ~r6undii~ reason for ~

the said Courts j~dges to ·vacate the conviction and ri~and thi~ matter for ~-

(f}?,J.z) · 16, case.

~ntry cif a new trial,so as to proceed forward with his ability to make an inf- ormed decision regarding his olea options,if there are some in this type of- void judgment case sub judice.Dailey v.o.s .. ,CASE#4:13-~r-00169-2(reduction of "20-years,withi, guidelines):Alb~rty V.O.S.,Casei3:14-cr-00007(U$DC,NDTX)(range of 180-188. reduced-to 90 months) Hence~ not onl v has Applicant not blessed with I , the most effective defense counsel,but because of Ball's badfaith co~rcion had on .direct cons~quences ·of. continuing with his induced' quil ty plea, and thus,-· wa~ not provided,although ~r.Ba~l was all~~edley standing next to Applicant,it . must"a~so be ~onced~d that ~n ~~~act on App~icant's.·abilftv to volunt~rily ple ··was inevi<flable=Ruffin . ~-:; : . . V'!State,4ls~W.3d . . ·. : i\· f 140,143(Tex.App.Houston r:t4thDl§tJ·19·.: . . . ~ 99 1 pet. ref' d). T,herefore, the vo~.l:m.tariness of a plec3::r prompted' bu ;·such· bogus ·in ._, du~e~ent: i~ :.~~-~~r~~~ by th:~·- FoJ.keEmth Amendment ··to the United· s~ates coristi~ut ·--~:~--~~ : __ ~_on,. ~f-~m~rica ,·~·"·1~.9~.!.· .9u~i pro~~ss standar:]s. Bo~kiri, supr~ ,·at 242 I 89 395'·u s ~ -~ t ·,. :: .~ 5,.ciiat.-1711.-:-l2.Judgment '--.. ·-::-.r1 ·: .i. . .::....··-··-· ·-;.·_.-··: ·. _:;..·.;. =-·- f·_·r.:~:;:_··T·-~:·_-~- :--..;.-~ ~, .basedl:C:m ;3uch·. <an . . . :· ·iriv6lurit-cir:y,;p~l·~·a;~v;fota.;t:~:§: . .... - - ~...:. . . .. ---:~-- ·_:. .. .. t:ne·:;cp;6tirt.;; . . ~t.. -~ ~-

: ·. eenth Amend~~ent,.Clause ,1 [infra l.\..' S· due pl~ocess-,_:.prbvfsiorr:::a-nd<i.s ::void• Eif Parte.::= -··:-:~;._-:,·.,·,._. ":'""J; ..:.,, . . .; ··· .·. . -:_-~_!c·.~·.···:··'"'""·-~;'·::,·- o·-~:"-·-'"··.·.:.._··C....:".o:.-.-~-·, • . · .f~·· 1 • • • • ,· •• , ·_ . . . . . . ._ ' . ' _ . _ •

. .· Young . 1 4l8. S.W .. 2d 824,826(Tex.Ci:tlApo.l967}-.-· . J . --' :::. . ·· .. ·. --,·_. _- -. . :: ·. .::' .·.-:::: ·.:... _' ·.· ;,~ Prayer For . Rel~ef· In The Interest of Justice ~ _ Wher:~fore I fore all- the above' aforementioned reasons a:nd for any other 'reason stat~d _he rei~ ,·anp I on?: the exist~'ng. record Or that may ·be 'shown on a .h:ea-rf'rig· :ci{- ~, this·:i Wri"t ;of habeas c'o~_pus. Is mJmoraf!_dUm of law I and. facts I tha.~ . Appl ic'an t' h?lS sh own egregious harm by Ball and the ttial Court's judge,and it is respectfully submitted.that,upon Appellate review,the Courtrs justice~ reverse the· judgment ,set-aside the convictinn,and dismiss the cas~ .or cAuse(s) or in the al~ernat­ ive,reform the judgment,as modified to reflect an alleged crime of passion and remand that cause for a new trial on punishment,to meet the ends of justice. ~ , ~~ecuted on 6 :; ... ; .'· • .. i this day of ~) 2015, . ~ Respectfully Submitted, -~~f';f £ ·. Joe· z;va 6 .~ (aka JOHN-Z~ ALA) Inhabitant of Mark Wayne Michael ~664 F.M~~054,Tennessee Colony,Texa 75886 Cettificate of Service and Dclaration of Truth I, am the Applicant Petitioner,who hereby certifys and duly will declare under pen~lty of perju~y,that all !_stated in thei,writ of habeas cor- pus's memorandum of law and facts is true,correct,accurate,and complete for - this memorandum, and I am .unlawfully and illegally restrained and confind of My ~y liberty at the P~ison c~lled·the Mark "ayne Michael Unit,at 2664 F.M.2054, Ten~essee Colony,Texas-located in Anders~n County,in the State of at I have also provided t~e wa:rden,Eddie D.Baker,a copy of t~e s Michael Unit's mail room department , on this_(_day of~2015,,_~ita::.;;;;_,~~"r.;~e;~ Pursuant to Tex.R~Ci~.Proc.& Rem~Code,§l32,001-132.003. Ap

'17,Case.

...i ' :~ .

- ~----~-.... ·.·

NAME JOHN ZAVALA OFFENSE . . ARSON-HABITJWORSH A . ADDRESS 3400 CLINTON DATE 7/28/2004 ~

FORT WORTH TX 76106 -. .· . RACE W SEX M AGE 36 DOB. 12/18/1967 CASE NO. 0943395 DATE FILED sn12o04 -_ AGENCY Fprt Worth PO HABITUAL OFFENDER._ ·em NO. . 02J.7565 i OFFENSE NO. 040891 Os . .,.' .1- . .. ~1 . - · , F,:. , COURT 396th District Court :-;. . ~-~- :. .·.: .. ·.-·:. -·.. -.· .. _.. . . - :

-----~---- _-_N_o_._o_9_43_3;._95. .: J: :;._)_. . .;.,.:.o. ;o.; ·- -o. ;.; ·~;. ;.-. . ;-._- -= =;.;.-,; .;-·-; ,;i·:-; ; ; .'~-:;.;:- ~; ; ,- ~-;._·~- ' ..

_;.;....._·---_-.-;;;,....- - - - · _____ IND_....·r...:;."f_,TMENT_· ______ -, ' ... _ . .: ':u. :, :.;,- ' . ·i: '1· ·- -- ... --,iiNTHENAMEAND BY.AUTHORITYOF.fim STATE OF TEXAs:-:-··:~-----_:-::;.-·.:_-~~·:-. -~~_;:::~~::::::~:;--=,-.-_.-;: ,.,...,._. :-----. ~- .. --~-- --.. - -..,....,:--;;"'7' ,;:1{·. ~ -

:_·:!~: -z.:~~:r~·~-:--· :~.--- · ·- . - .- · --_; · ·· ':.... -.. :. · _ ~ :· ______ _ ~-:~THE G~, JmlORS OFT~ CQtJNTY·, '_I'EXAS,- -- -~ .. ~ ... ·. .-- -~ ·< ·:: ._._:·: .. ·.~·.:r··· - . ..:---==..-?':;-~::.. ·:~ · • ·· · ,_----·-·-~-- , i~ ~ .· - -- ·-~- ·--- ' · , ·jduly elected, tried, emp~eled, sworn, and ~ed to inquire of offenses committed ~ Tarrant Co~ty; in ~e - :~State of Texas, ~pon ~err oaths do presentlm! ~d to the th DISTRICT COURT -· 297 .·: __-H-. . . . . ~ - .: ...: ·-· .._· .. .: : .' --~- ;i -. . ·. . I • - . - ~ .•• •. _· • • - . -~·;·· •• ' ~ . :

. . :tof said County that JOHN ZAVALA, herejrul.fter called Defendant, in the County of Tarrant and State ·aroiesaid, . -- : ·· ::onoraboutthe28thday'ofJuly2004,did!; · .- .- - - -- ~ _,:. --~ c,r -·- .;_ ---- ~- - ~- ·- ·- '! I.· ·. . . \' -~. .I I

I ' •

THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY START A FIRE OR CAUSE AN EXPLOSION BY IGNITING A . COMBUSTIBLE OR FLAMMABLE MATERIAL WITH AN OPEN FLAME WITH THE INTENT TO DAMAGE OR DESTROY A HABITATION, KNOWING SAID HABITATION WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AN INCORPORATED CITY OR TOwN, . . .- · ... PARAGRAPH TWO: AND IT IS FURTHER PRESENTED IN AND TO SAID COURT THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTY OF TARRANT AND STATE AFORESAID ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2004, DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY START A FIRE OR CAUSE AN.· EXPLOSION BY IGNITING A COMBUSTIBLE OR FLAMMABLE MATERIAL WITH AN OBJECT UNKNOWN TO THE GRAND JURY, WITH THE INTENT TO DAMAGE OR DESTROY A HABITATION, KNOWING SAID HABITATION WAS WITillN THE LIMITS OF .:AN INCORPORATED CITY OR TOWN, PARAGRAPH THREE: AND IT IS FURTHER PRESENTED IN AND TO SAID COURT THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTY OF TARRANT AND STATE AFORESAID ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH DAY OF JULY,2004,DIDTHEN ANDTHEREINTENTIONALLYSTARTAFIREORCAUSEAN EXPLOSION BY IGNITING A COMBUSTIBLE OR FL&\fMABLE LIQUID WITH AN OPEN FLA.\ffi WITH THE INTENT TO DAMAGE OR DESTROY A HABITATION. KNOWING SAID HABITATION WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AN INCORPORATED CITY OR TOWN, . PARAGRAPH FOUR: AND IT IS FURTHER PRESENTED IN AND TO SAID COURT THAT THE DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTY OF TARRANT AND STATE AFORESAID ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2004, DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY START A FIRE OR CAUSE AN EXPLOSION BY IGNITING A COMBUSTIBLE OR FLAMMABLE LIQUID WITH AN OBJECT uNKNOWN TO THE GRAND JURY, WITH THE INTENT TO DAMAGE OR DESTROY A HABITATION, KNOWING SAID HABITATION . WAS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF AN INCORPORATED . CITY OR TOWN, COUNT TWO: AND IT IS FURTHER PRESENTED IN AND TO SAID COURT THAT THE DEFENDANT .I IN THE COUNTY OF TARRANT AND STATE AFORESAID ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2004, DID INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY, WITHOUT.THE EFFECTIVE CONSENT OF KERI LOVEDA,Y~THE OWNER THEREOF, ENTER A HABITATION WI,TH INTENT TO COMMIT ARSQN, 'z ·.~ .! . . • •

I PARAGRAPH TWO: AND IT IS FURTHER PRESENTED IN AND TO SAID COURT THAT THE . DEFENDANT IN THE .COUNTY .' OF ·. TARRANT AND STATE . AFORESAID . ON OR ABOUT . . ·. THE 28TH

~!RED COPy ·~A 'WLDER • r~iier ga;( CCIUNjy~Aj:! .. · JUN 08 ~.-:-·-~ NAME JOHN ZAVALA . ~:. ...J "ll'Ear . . CASE NO. 0943395 .______-;;;;~;,__-- PAGE 2of 2 . -181uiY - DAY OF JULY, 2004t DID INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY, WITHOUT THE EFFECTIVE CONSENT OF KERI LOVEDAY', THE OWNER THEREOF, ENTER A HABITATION AND DID ATI'EMPT TO . .COMMIT OR COMMIT ARSON, · . .

1 PARAGRAPij THREE: AND IT IS FUR1lffiR PRESENTED.IN AND TQ ~AID COURT THAT THE ,;DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTY OFT~ AND STATE AFORESAID ON OR ABOUT THE 28TH :;DAYOF JULY, 2004, DID ,INTENTION,M.LY OR KNOWINGLy, WITHOUT THE EFFECTIVE CONSENT f!OF ULLY LAUCHMANN,~THE OWNERTHEREOF, ENTER A HABITATION WITH INTENT TO · . tCOMMIT ARSON, · - ·._f" .< . · ~j . . - e· : . - : . . . -- .. . -- :·[PARAGRAPJIFOUR: AND IT IS FUR.~R PRESENTED IN AND TO SAID COURT THAT THE' ····.--~!DEFENDANT IN THE COUNTY OF TA(RRA.NT AND STATE AFORESAID ON ORABOUT:THE 2sm··-~ . :JDAY OF JULY, 2004, DID INTENTION},LLLY _OR KNOWINGLY,-WITHQUT;THE EFFEGTIVE CONSENr{~-~::,~ . 'IOF.LILLY LAUCHMANN, THE OWNERTHEREOF ENTER A HABITATION-AND DIDATIEMPT TO: ., •. · . · - dCOMMIT OR COMMIT ARSON . . t\ . ' . · .. · ' · - · -·--·· · .. - ' . -· - . ' . . ~~HABITU~ OFFENDER NOTI;E: ~it~ FUirrHERPRES~D-TO SAID couil--11IA~ PRIOR TO.· - 7 ~-- :ITHE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE ~R OFFENSES SET OUT ABOVE, THE DEFENDANT viAs . - ... ;tFINALLY CONVICTED OF THE FELONY OFFENSE O:F DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATEDAND·FELONY ·: . ;~REPETITION, IN THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT:OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, IN CAUSE NUMBER · .· . · (t0676489D, ON THE 18TH DAY OF AUd,UST, 1998, AND, THAT PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION OF THE - - t[OFFENSE OR OFFENSES FOR WlllCH\THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED AS SET OUT ABOVE, THE \DEFENDANT WAS FIN~Y CONVIOI'ED OF THE FELONY OFFENSE OF DRIVING WHILE 'INTOXICATED AND TWO PRIOR MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS FOR DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED, IN THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, IN CAUSE NUMBER 0430067W, ON THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1991, .

File4 (Clerk's use only)

FILED . OMAS A. WILDER. OIST. CLERK TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS

NOV 0 3 ZOo4 AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE. ' IME y ~~DEPUTY

-:=':!,-; &.;:r Criminal District Atto Tarrant County, Texas · , Foreman of the Grand Iwy INDIC'IMENT- ORIGINAL

• • - .· ,PwLID 1HoMAa AWILDER, Dll'f. CLERK TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS· STAJli'S EXHIBIT NO~ 1 . . . .. · . JUN~·a~~ . · · CAUSBNO. 09tj3]Z5f~· .. ~oEPlrTY . · THE.STA~ OF TEXAs . . . § ·. · § ' ·. IN rim N6"• 1UDI~nucr . ' . . .·. vs. § § . . ·cOURT OF . . . ::' Jobo 2tA.v~k · 1. § T~IWIT COUNTY, TEXAS

",, :J: H I .

..... '

---.:

··e· • 3. If convicted, you face the following range of punishment checked below: ·

' ·~~==~:[~lf~=~=o~;~~;ree!ri::~ -: . · Criminal Justice. In addition. ._fine not to exceed $10,000 may also be assessed. . . ; .. . . . .. ' . . . . ·. i'' SECOND DEGREE-FELONY: . A term of~t more than 20_-}'CIUB. ·il'*J~ ~-·. ·, .•. ; :I( -·· _/ [ ] tM,n ~ years .confinem~ in the Institutional J)ivision of.tbe. T~ ~~~~ o~ .. •.· · ', ~ L~ ..· . . Criminal J~ce. In adi1tion, a fine notto exceed $10,000 may also be assessed. • . .. ·· ;~. --------- ---- ~- -- ------~._:::_ --~~:. .--·- [~--- ]:. TimmnEGRtE FELONY: Aterm-ofno~lnorethati-ioYearsnorleSS~tfum :_ · ·: 7"·---~--~- ··· ~~ •· 2 years confiil.emerit.in the Institutional Division-ofthe;Texas,Department of Criminal . ~-··· ··.·:_··. . _- ._ ... .. :·~- .. - - · Justice. In' additi~ ~fine ncit to exceed•$10,000 may·also be•,&Ssessect·'·(lf the · · offense was committt#: before September. 1, 1994, a. temr of·c:Onjinement in a:: . ·~ >c: ·" ,. , ... ~ r:. -_.. :·.: community cc'lrrecti~ facility for a term of not more than. one (1) yeat~may be~~;-::c:;~.c~' · --: ,;,-, ···-;::o assessed mlieu of confinement in the Institutional Division). _,: ..;> .• ::', .. :: -.. ::~. .. .. ~- .. ... . . ...[ ·-] ~T DEGJE E~CED: Lif~'~r ~y term of not ~ore than ?9,years ..... : ..... . · nor less than lS yeaJs' confinement in the Institutional Division of the. Texas ... · · · · .· · Depaitmeii( ~ ¢rmiiruil. Justice. ·In addition. afine ilot to ~eel SlQ,OOO mayll\So be _: . assesSed. · · .~' . ·· · · · ._· .. · ·· ·.. .. . . I· . . ·. . . .. . . . . . . . .. · . [ ]. SECONP DEGREE ENHANCED:. Life or any term of.not more than 99 c. .. . . . .. ·. years n~r less thaJi s 1~ Confinement in thC InstitutionaJ. Division of theJ'exa8 - ' Department of Criminal Ju5tice. In addition. a finC not to exceed S10,000 niay alSo be assessed. .

. .. . ..L ].[.THIRD DEGREE ENiiANCED: _.,.. teml.of.nobn,oJ.e:thap~2Q:year8,nor less than 2 .years ~ement in the Institutional :Division of the 'l'exu .Dep.rtment of·, Crimirial Justice. In addition. a fine not to exCeed $10~000 may also be.assessecl:. · . . . [ · ] STATE JAIL FELONY: A telJD of not less than i80 days nor more than 2 years_ confinement iJi a state jail•. In i.dditioo,;~ fine not to ·excecid, $10,000 may be assessed. ·· . · . ·· .· · · '· · · · Upon conviction. the period of confinement my be suspend~ and then _yOu·. will be placed Wlder superVision of the CQurt for a period of not leas than 2 years nor. . · more than S years. The Court may also suspend all or part of any fine aSsessed. .· Aa a condition. of supervision. the Comt may order that you be confined for up . . to 90 days in the county jail, or not less than 90 dayS nor more than 180 days in a State . jail. . . If your conviction if for ~ delivery, or poS$cssion with intent to deliver a controlled substance in PCJialty GnnJp& 1 or 2 of' Chapter 481 of' tho Health and Safety Code, or for Delivery ' . .of . Marihuana, the CoUJ1 may order your confiil.ement ·. . .

•• ••• · jn a State Jail for not les5 ._than 90 days nor more than 1 year as e; ~ndition of ' supervision. . .. .

l .] ,_STATE JAIII'FELONY ENHANCED TO 'THIRD DEGREJ.rW.LON'Y~ ..•. · ·.· .... ..:.:: · . A ~emi of.imprisonment.for not·lJloi:e than 10.year8 nor less than 2 years ~ent . ·: · · bi the Institutional Division. of the TeXas .Department of Criminal Justice, ·and in · addition, a fine not to exCeed S10;000 may be imposed. · · A person adjudged guilty. of a· state jail felony shall be pUnished for a-third· ;.\ degree felony if it is shoWn on the trial of the offense that · · · ~ __ _ (I) · a deadly -~eapon as defined by SeCtion 1.07 of the Texas Penal Code .. L ._,_- .. - ·.was u5edi0r exln'bited during the comniissfoJi of the- offense or during l• ' . ·. ' the ~ate flight following the commiSsion of the offense, and that . " '~ . ...::;_. ~-- · -:< --- ·· ..,•.:. ·_ c.::,--'~ the indivi~ual used or exhibited the deadly weapon or was a party tO . _ ...._.:_

1l -- -- -'•--c-- - _... · · -- • the off¥! and _knew-- that· a· deadly weapon .. woUld . be. Used or, 1 . eXhibitedior . _ •-- . __ .•• · . · _·

..·:....:~u:: . ii .. · .: ..·· .. .. . ·:_.~; ·:~ ·. ·(2)'::·; ·the indivfdual bas previously been finally .convicted.ofa:felony: J~:n • -. - ~ ••• - •• . ·•· •. -. '.! . . . ~ . . . . . - -- + --- · - ------~ . - --

:r-:' ~--; . .·. '-.) !.··· :. i:!;r;:;:l~ j~: - · --·-- ··· · .. ·- - · Sectidn ~g{1){2), Article 42.12, Code of Criminal PrOcedure; or j; _ _; c. the ~Yidual is convicted for a sta~e jail felony punishable under · 'T' · · · · ·· · PCnal~ Code Section 12.35{a) and the individ~ has. previouslY · :J-_· · · . ·been Fallyconvicted of two statejai1 feloi:lies. . : _· . . .. -•. J j· ... _._-· - _ :_;~_i; '· ·A[ .] · STfAT LO ..E CEDTOSECO~DEGREE _-. LO _ 'I' term o not more Jh 20 years nor less than 2 years confinQuent in·the Institutional Division 'Or the Texas . epartment of Criminal Justice. ·In addition, a fine not· to . exceed $10,000 may be assessecL . · A person adjudged guilty of a state jail felony shall be punished for a ~econd . ·· · · degree felony if it iS shown on the trial of the offense.that: ·· ·,, ,,.,. __.:,~,-:·,v·: =c.-:.:: •• · {1). · the defendant lias been previously convicted .oftwo feloi:lies,:·.and the second previous. felony· conviction is for. an offense that oCcurred · subsequent to the _first previo'Lijl conviction having become fin81. ··•..

[ ] . STATE JAIL FELONY PUNISHED UNPER ll.44Cal PENAL CODE; A . of term up to 1 year confinement in the County Jail arid/or a fine not io c»tceed $4,000. may.be.imposed.

[ ] STATE JAIL FELONY REDUCED TO CLASS A MISDEMEANOR JlNDER ll,44tbl PENAL CODE: .A term. of up to 1-year confinement in the . County Jail and/or a fuie not to exceed $4,000 may be imposed. · ·

[ ] onmR:~----~--------------~--~--~

IVrlllaPia~·l'tlpJt~fll

- .. \.

.•

• • . . . e: . . -~·

. . 4; JURY TRiAL: You are -entitled to have a jury determine whether you are guilty or nbt guilty; and if guilty, to assess your-punishment: ·Should you bave·more than one;. case pending, you may have them tried separately. ·

, . . s: · ·You niaY iequest. that .. the .indictment=be..iead and expl~·to ::You .in Qpen :. · ·· court. You arc· not obligated ·to give evidence against ·yourself:- You may require thC State to· ·· · · ·· · · . prove.the elements ofthe offense· illleged in the indictment .by.legal and competent evid~ beyond a; reasonable doubt. ·:)iou ··and your. attorney may . confront and cross-exmnine • . witness~. You have the powqr of subpoena to bring witne&ses irito court to testify iri yolir · . .behalf. . ._f;_. . . :.-~---

. ·~ . . ,_.~. · 6. OPEN PLEA fflO PLEA BARGAIN); This is your tri~; . Should the Court . . : find you guilty, yc,ur -punishment may be assessed anywhere witJlin the range prescn'bed b)r · . . .: :"-:..._lawfor th~ offense. H-you ~'e9g1b~e, you may receive probatio~-or:.def~judication; ., .- --~·-··· .! but there 18 no assurance that you will Oncc.:the Court has-~-ved your.gwlty pl~ you .. .· .::.• .. , ·.. maynotwithckawthatpleawithoutpermissionoftheCourt.: . · ::~~r. ·,·.,._. ·.•d ·•·'·'·.·-'·'·· :, . a.L. ·-~-----~::..:.2•-'-~~ . . . J ·· ~ -~--•. ~ :;· -~~~T. .-=;:·:~: . . · (· - ·.·! . · . ·. .. . 7 •..· ·. PLEA BARGAINING: A plea bargain or recommendation ofpunishmeD.ris~~-:: ...:>·::,;;;_·~. ,· NOT BINDING on. the Court. The ·eourt may set punishiiient anywhere-Within the·rarige.~::~: i(;;::;~·----- ~ded by law for this ~ff~. j If there ~ a plea bargain agreemenl: the Court inform·,. . . . t-'ill _you m open Court whether the •~ent wlll be followed before making any finding OJ?. your plea;. Should the·eourt reject~.ihe a8reeJnent, you will be pemuttect to wit)ldraw yo~ plea ,. . . . - sliould you desire. .There. sli811 .not be any· bindin8. agreements .regarding conditions. of - -... . . community supervision. The GQnditioiui of community supervision are ~t by the Co~ . Any .. . .. . waiver of specific C:onditions df C:ommunity supervision muSt be approved by.the C9urt-prior ~: :~· , ·. ·-. · ·.,: . : -~.-,-. :.,. -· .. ·... · to the ples. . '-.. . . . . r ~- , . . ... :.· . ·. _. . __ · . . : .. .. ._ .· .__ 8. PERMISSION TO APPEAL: · When the CoUrt follows .a plea bargain agreement, permission of the Court must be given before you can prosecute an appeal on any matter in: the case,· except for a matter raised by.written motioniiled prior to trail.·.This.Court ·. seldom consents to an appeal where a conviction is based upori a guilty plea. .Where there is no plea bargain agreement, any appeal of your conviction upon a plea of nolo contendere or . plea of guilty is limited to jurisdictional issues only. ·

a . ._9:. cmzENSmP: If you are NOT citizen of the Utrlted States of Amerl~ a plea of guilty or nolo contendere for this offense· may result in depOrtation, the exclusion from admission to this.country, or the denial of naturalization under federal law.

10. DEFERRED APJUDICATION: Should the CoUrt defer adjudicatiJ:lg your guilt and place you on probation, upon violation of any imposed condition, you may. be arrested and detained as provided by law. You will than be entitled to a hearing limited tO the determination. by the Court, without a jwy, whether to proceed with an Bdjudication of your guilt upon the original charge. No appeal may be taken from tbis detenniilation. Upon adjudiQation or )'0\11' plt, tho Court may assess your pUDisbmcnt llll)'Wbme within 1be range provided by law for this offense. ·

·N' b . ~· v '\~ l .

'. •• ••• · .. · ..

After adjudication· of guilt, all proceedings including assessment :of. .punishnient, pronolm.~ent .of sentence; pting of probation and ,olit right t,o appeal:continue 8s ·if adjudication of guilt bad not been deferred, except that a.Court assessing pUDisboient ·liD. .after adjUdication of.:guilt.of.::a .. defendant.charged ~with ~a :state ;iailielony·may~silspend -·~-- the _.. imposition or the sentence and plaCe. the detendan,t ·on cOminunity:supciviSion or may o~et-", .·, · ..... . the sentence be executed, regardless of whether the defendant has previoUsly beeil conVicted. ·. . . ofafe1ony. . · ·

. 11. . PROBATION:\ If.the Court grants ,ou straigbtprobation a5 opposed to ; deferred adjudication.- upon ·vi9lation .ohri.y; imposed condition; ,ou may be arrested an!1 · · _.·detained as provi~ by laW:'- .You.will then :be entitled tO a hearing limited to the c · . · ...._. li~on bY. the oourt, wi,thout a jury, whether to revoke ,our pro~ation and ~Cntence .. . 7:: '-:-:--- .:.·jou to a term of confinement ~otto exceed that orig~nally.assessed by-ihe.Court bf.the.time ·· .-] ~E - -~ .. .. ~~-w~::~ s:rb; ~titlJ~~ ~ g~od ti~~~t-~n .. state:jhll s~t~~: Th~~~ :";< may, but is llOtreqUired, to give you credit on asentence for any time you.were required to:i.,-, •. · l serve in a state jail as a condition of the supervision. ·· :, i~: '':'":~,yt:,;~ ~.;;;c.;. ::;~L;;iHi;,;; -~-' r. f· : . .. . tz; ·... TERMs OF SUPERVISION: If ihe Court Brants you deferred B;dj~dici\tjon;:.,; . ._ probation or straight probatiap, jthe Court n:Servcs the right to amend the conditioJUI of:.··· probation. The Court may~~~ the term ofprob~~n not to_ exCeed ten years. -· .. · - .. · -·:· ~~ .. · .. ·,: ...... - .:·." . ··... . ·. t,._ -~ . . . . . . . ·. . . . . .·: ·. -~·!:: ·. . . . . .· 13 •. ··PAROLE:. ·N~ither ·the Court nor your attorney .make 'any. jmmlises or .· . tepresentations about the amo~t of acitual time YoU will serve on a: sentence of incarcenition:,'. :. · :.~.· ' ;: . - -- . . ~~ I' - ·,"- iil the lnstitutionalDivisiQn of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.· · . • • .· -··' . ·, '· ·. · ·· >.n. · I l Neither_ the Court nor your auprney n'u~kes anytepresentations.about the-disposition. of any. ·. •· ..... _, ..

·i :. parolerevocationhearings~·: I _ ·. · · -- : ·- . ·.

1.4. SEX OFFENPER REGISTRATION: If.yc)u- are convicted of ~taced ~ ·. ' . oi ···: · deferred adjudication for an, offense listed in Chapter 62;.Code.of.Crilninal Procedure, you will be required to meet the registration requirements of Chapter 62. You will alsp be subject to the driver's license applicatiOn procedures ·listed in Article· 42.016, Code of. Criminal Procedure. . .. . ~·. .

. . ·1s. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE: Articie 38.39 of the CodeofGririlinill. . Procedure requires the proseeutor representing the State in this matter· to preserve evidence known to contain biological material ttiat if subject to scientific testing could cstablisb or exclude a person as the perpetrator of the offense. Thi,s evidence mUst usually be preserved in a non-capital felony until either the defendant dies; completes his sentence, or it! released on parole or mandatory supervision. .Such evidence may be destroyed if the State ·cOmplies . with the provisions of Article 38;39(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the_ defendant. does not interpose a written objection. In addition, pursuant to Article 64.01 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a convicted person~ be entitled to forensic DN,f\ testi.Jig. ·

r;} . ~'! l~

. ~- ..

'~)

.. '. •• . 16.. FUTURE USE OF CONVICI'ION FOR ENHANCEMENT: ...Sho'lild -you . be found guilty of a felony offense, such conviction may be u8ccl'to enhance odncrease the punishment ran.Se for any futUre felony or misdemeanor convictiOn. · · · ··

.. ·-J7;(: ··:BANJ(RUPTCX:·~·Ir:tlie.Court:pts·.p~batjon·or:·defers.adjudicanng:~ur~~:~::·!;.~~~~:: . . gUilt and ·places you on.probation,:..:&nd a-condition, of probation inciudes paymeilt.of . . ·· :....~.:~ .restitution to ·a victim of the offense,·payment of restitution shall not be discharged through: · · · .:.. ··· :! subsequen~ bankruptcy.~· --.. Th~ Court ~ :cOnsider ·any alt!mpt~to discharge · · _ ;~ payment Qfrestitution through ~ankniptcy a violation of the pJ,ea a~ent. · ;~ . ._ ·" . -··: -. ;- _- . . ..f;.- :- . . ·. . .. -. .. . ·:. ~~ -- . _ · 18: : If n0 indicbn.cri._t has been returned by a· grand jury charging you with this \~ --- 9ffense, you do not have to st&P.d ·trial until such an indicbnent has been returned.· You then ::! -will be given ample time (at l,eaBt 10 da-ys) to consult with your attorney-before tqal. By . . ·· -. :t , signing thii document, you.&p-to.waive your.right.to . wait.lO days-in the....event .an _·· _.. ·_ ,___ · ·· -· .i[ is information fil~ on today'~ 4ate· Yo~ also-waive your right to. wait 10 days:for your·".- · --.- - .;f .- ·· attorney to prepare if the ~eywas appomted more recently than 10 dayngo;_ -,.:._-.:::~ . .- . :_._!.~. __ . .· - 19... If a vic~ statement has b~ returned to the p~s:~;-~~.M.. imJadt - , __,. ,, ~c,~ .. . ~- · · --.. ·--. ::-:· 26.13, Code ofCriminal Proc#ure, the Judge bas rCvic:Wed_a copy o(thiltrep~rt. . . · · %· .. -·:c. . · ... , .. • . ·':· ·:·f-<\ . . . . . . : •. ~-~:.·<->>:~• i! ·~~ Thes~ adrn~niShm~ /wfe given to this Defendant ori the abovC:.noted elate. : ..· . -~-i ·•::·~ . , . .. . ________ ····-······ -··-~--::.::

f. ·r'· u·· ~- . ·. ·.·'.·.·.·.· ;;: ·.- 1 -~- . ~-~- --~ ·~ . . >:M l)_ ,r: ir. .- :r I. . GEORGE ·. GHJtR,JUD . ·:·~ ..

··- \

• • • •

. NOTICE PIJRSUMJ TO ART.38.39Cdl.TX. CODE.OF CRIM ·PROC. ~ ·

. The Crimin8I District Attorney of Tarrant.County, Texas, p~t to-Article 38.39(d) . of,the Texas.. Code qf Criminal.Procedure bereby.notifi~ .the,.defendant, •. bis~attOIDeY of .. : .. ·-· . .. ·. ·-~ and .the. convicting~:eourt:.in:tllis'.eause. 'that it :will dc&troy~~y;and'.all:ievidence~:: ;·:~ :,·. ·: ·:. required to be preserved·in:.campliti.nce ·with Article 38.39(b) within 91.dayii-fiom -the d.ate· ;::'·.· · ... defendant receives this. notice. ··Moreover, it is hereby acknowledged by.·dCfendant. and his •. attorney oheconi. that-this noti~ was received in compliance with Article.38.39{d) of the · - · Texas Code of Criminal ProcedUre. . · . · .. · - ' ·· _·. --- · - · - ·· h , ·------- ' ,_ · WRITTEN' WAIVER OF DEFENDANT-JOINED BY ATTOBNEY · , ' . '· ·- - -- ~; .

. ·coMES NOW, the Deferutm~ ~~pen Court, joined by my attol1ley and~~tes is foli~i.s: .. ·< · : · , ·; - OM .:.· . . .. -. . . f. i . . .. ... . . ---~-- -----~ ···: -- . . j:; -: (1 )' . • I am able to ~ tl\e English language (or !.have ·bad benefit of an'interpreter) . ;:; ,• ·and fully underStaild ·the allegatio~. in :the :Indictment·: or~ Information· and, · ., : : ·! . i,_ .. · . · ·.waive . arraigmdent . arid formal . reading of ·the . Indictment· or felony ;;, .... ;;;-.,.~:f.~ · ~-,•' ·-~ "" ·· ·-~- · ·:: Iniorination; [ ; · ·· . .: _ · ·

ilm.;~~Y -~~etent and aware of ~e ~ssibl~ punishment and ~-· ;, : • -.J -

{2) ' ·• l ·-~ conseqUence:s of o)y plea, which is knowingly, freely, arid voluntarUy entered andiwaiveany_bdalldefenseslmighthave; . ,.- . ,••'· . .· · . · . . '· · • .... ..'..' · ·

{3) I ~~e ~ :d ;~~~ any righ~ I may have .for furtb~ tUne tb ~repari: for tri~i; ·. . . . ,. L . . . . . . . . •. ... - .: (4) If I _-m ?roceedjng on ~~felony Information, I'w~ve mr right to Indictmel!:t~y .· a gl'BildJury; I : . , · . . -~ (S) Should I be tri~ on more than one case, I agree that .all may ~ beard and determined at one time; ·

{6) l waive all pretrial motions that may have been filed iil connection With my case(s); · ·

(7) : My attorney provid~ irie fully et'fective. and .c:OmpetCnt representation ~d I am totally satisfied with the representation given to me by my attOrney. . ·

(8) I also waive and give up~ in accordance with Art. 1.14~ Code of~ · ProCedure, all rights given to me by law, whether of form,_ substance, or procedure; . - .. - - - . . . ·.' .

(9) Joined by my attorney and in ~ordance with Art. 1.13 and 1.15 of the Code .. of Criminal PrOcedure, I waive and give up- my right to a jury, both es to ll}-Y guilt and assessment· of my p11nisbment: Under Art. 1.1 s. Code of CrimiDa1 . Procedure, I waive and give up the right to appearance, confrOntation. and·.·

..

•• . ·: ·:

• • ' .... ·

cross-examination of the witnesses, and l consent to 'oral and written .. stipulations of evidence; . .

·~ -(10) •lwai\'emy.right.not:to incriminate myself and agreeto,testify;\mder..oath and~. -: ........ -~- judici8lly confe5s_ ~Y gUilt if req~ed by ~Y attorney or the State•s attomCy;::. ·; .:..~ -~:' ·_;,_ -... _ . . ' '. . .' ' . . : . . . . .. .· ·. . .!

(11) ·. I waive and ~ve up. my right to have the co~ reportcir·maice a rec()ril·c>filie·;. :· -';.tt.:;~;> . . proceedings when my case(s) are beard and I enter my plea; · · -..-.; . . I . , .. . . 1- . . . :. . . (12) a I waive prcparatibn of presentence inv!ltltigation repoiti · -. .-L. . . ·_ - - . - - (13} · No one bas ~ed. coerced, forced. persuaded. nor pt'OIIlised me anything · _ .. to enter' my plea[otber than the plea recommendation contained in Pam&rapb,. _· · . .·: __ Two, Page One~f~ Written Plea Admonishments. !:request. the Court.to. _. \. . _ · approve that plea rpcommenciation.and dispose-of my case(s)<in'·.accOtdance .! . therewith; -~ ·' .

.. ·.: (i4) ·· · M; ~~mey ~; fuliy ~plained waiver -~d- foregoifig ~~~"·.___ c:_ ---- ----- ims ------·-- ,.,· admonishment!! given me b~ the Judge. I understand an, <?f. my rightS and~eaCb. i\-.,:... ;;~ · . _admonishment ~d~bavenotquestions ofthe Judgeormyattomey; . · --~-<-. : ,.,. · - .--· l I .- - . -_ . - cts> .. I wai~e and give[up any and all rights o.fappeat ' , . ! . i~ - . ; ,· . . (16) - WAIVER OF J?fESERVATION OF EVID~NCE: .I have been advised by ....... the_ Judge ofthe 1above named court of the reqwrements under the TeXas Code .· . .. -ot Criminal ~ure, Article 38.39 that any -eviderice in possessif)n the . ot ' ,_

. attorney ~~~t~g the Sta!e .or a cl~ or ~y o~er .officer, ~ic~ is lm~ · .. to contain btolog1cal matenal and which tf subJected to sctentific testing · would more likely than not establish the identity of the person ~tting the.. · offense for which l am presently ·charged in _the above-captioned and numbered cause or wbjcJi ·would exclude a person. from a gro'ilp of persons~- ·. · ·who could have conimitted .the offense for which I am presently charged iri the · · . above-captioned and numbered cause, sball-be preserved.. I further have. been·. ·· · advised that such evidence may_not b~ destroyed by the attorn~ rqn:esenting·· · . the state or a clCrk or any other. officer possessing s~d evidence if either my . attorney, the above-Iiamed court, or I object within. ninety (90)' days· after: having received notice of the planned destruction of that evidence: · · Joined by my att<nney, and fully Understanding my rights to (1) the- preservation of the above-described evidence, (2) notice o( any pianned . destruction of the above-descnbed evidence. and (3) an objection to any, destruction of the above-described evidence, I wish to waive those rights and do not object to. the deStruction of the &hove-described evid~; ·-I further wish to waive those rights and do not object to the destruction of that evicleqce · · at such time as either the attorney for the State or a clerk or any officer •-· curiently in possession of that evidence shall deem proper. I .agree_ tM.t tc!sting

.•

ON

.·-' .

.H

- "\- - ·:-: . .::_ ;.·.

. ~-C- ~c-· ' ; ):j . ·. . ·. . ..· ..·. . ..· ' . , _·. . In .open eourt we join ~c;l :approve defendant's waiver of jwy trial pursul!ntt() Art; 1.13, Code ·of ~inill Procedure, and the stipulations' of cvidCJ~ce pursuant to Art. l:._lS, Co~e of~ Procedure. ~iprovided m_ Section.12.4S of ~e )'exas Penal Coiie; we .· · . 11' .further agree and consent to the ~ssion of guilt of any unadjudicated offense designated in · ·- ..!~ . Paragraph 2, Page One of the Wrltten Plea Admoziishments: In additioit, the Court finds as a · ' , . .···'

. . fact that the Defendant is inen~ally competent ·and that his plea is intelligently, neely; ·~~ · -·. ·., ·· knowin:gly and voltintiuily entere11. It is ilgreed that the Court may take judicial noti~ of this ' document an the CoUrt takes judicial notice of same. · . , ·.. , · .

~Jz···. . . . . . - .. . .

~ID!~ GEORGALLAGHE~ . ·. GE . . ..

. ,._ ~

Footnotes

[003] (Tex. Gov 't Codc~). Hence·; the 396th.District Court 1 Judge 1 George Gallagher purf: orted to receive jurisdiction from an unkonwn selected forum or tribunai,as- a Texas Tarrant District Couri,and w~ther th~re exist an Order ·of t~ansfe:t,it is not r·eflecting in the trial Court 1 s record1so as if to determine jurisdict-- ion of that unknown selected f6rum's authority1if ever veste~ ?-on some parti- cular date of entry1anJ when was an order of transfer signed ? by any acting - competent judge for or to the 396th District Ccuert .•. Regardless1Judge Gallag- her an~ his Court never acquired jurisdiction over cause#0943395D[or as #C-39€ 007543-0943395;c~396-007542-0943395-both citation entered as one case under - one j~dgment under#0943395D1 from whatever transfer Court or from M.Brissette 1 hands ?-these said Courts/judges must prove on the record,all jurisdiction~~ fa~ts related to the jurisdiction asserted~ .. Applicant is assisted by a ~ui Jl ris inmate paralegal,and make~ an emphasis that once,as herein1jurisdiction i: challengE!d 1 jur"isdict ion 1 cannot be a,ssumed; it must be proven to exist.. In fact 1 • ju~isd i ction, once challenged. cannot be ~ssumedj it must be dc~cided. Mainly 1 the ~ rule of law re:,juires proof of jurisdictl.on to appear. on the recor·d of the adm· instrative acency and all administr.ative proceedinqs.There is no disrection tc · 1gnore 1'ac k OL "' ..c JUr1s • • d' 1c t'oA 1 •t' Joyce V.U.S. 1 474 2d . 215:Lantana V.Bopperll05 . F.2c'l· l~H3;Chicago v.Nev Yorkl37 F.Supp•l50;Stuck V.Medical .Examiners,94 Ca.2d 751,:.. .. ··) .. . . •. . ·.

[211] P2~·• .j89:Maine V.Thiboutot,lOb . :. S.Ct.250;0rrier l V.Scholala,30 . f.3d~l307TG8(1 .', . . th cir.l994):Bev York Life Ins.V.Brovnl84 F.3d 1371142-43(5th Cir.l996)(same) Rui~ V.Quarterman 1 51)4 F'.3"d 5231527(5:tti. CJ.r.2007)(sa::ne)."Wht-~re ther·a is a Rule . providing for relief L~om ·a void Judgm•:mt, and is applicable; relief· is not a lO.Case. *19.40;20.19;20.20;20.21;20.22;21.01;21.02(1) to (9);21.03;2L.04{TCCP)]the fel- ony i~f·~rmcltion is vol.d.King~supra,473-:;S.W.2d at ."il-521& n.**26;Lackey~supra 1 -.

[574] S.W.2~'at 99-1061& n.**n~4;Ex Parte McCain16? S.WV3d.20412lO-ilO,fn.2(T~x. Cr.2002)(s~me )lid.at?214 & fn.7115j "~he trail Court[Judge acting]~erformed an Action clearly out-side of any legal o~ judicial authori~y~which acts are bey- ond tht~ Scope of Law and 1 that 1 ULTRA VIRES ACT canno~ be recognizec1 as a ·val ia judicial act .• The Law will not Validate its existance or performance ... It i s - in Hoary Terms a void act~ Id ...• "In order t·:> have char·3ed-the comrnissi on of an- offense-the indictment not only had to be by a G~and jury,but have··stated eno- ugh so that the offense alleged-could have been legally identified .•. Thia woul have vested the t~ial Court with subject-matter jurisdiction.How9ver:not only- did the ct1arging instcument lacked most,if not all the essential and Constit- uent elements of the offense(s) implied1but Articles 1.14(b) & 27.08 do not - permit waiver of subject-matter jurisdiction,e,g.,Cook V.State,902 S.W.2d?.at - .·483. L1 fra & 480 1ante v.infra': Opion b'y Mansfied,J; I join the maj.brity;I am tr~ .oubled 1 howver~by the fallure~gf trial[defense]counsel to object to the error ~ the tnarging iristrumertt prior to trial1given that the error was obvious .• :Had· [Hal~:objecte~] this been done:a substanti~l-amount of time and resourtes(both state. and Appt-)llant 1 s) Wt)Uld have • been sav~d·>and justice would have been bette serted:Id •.. Thus,Applicant has ~hown egr~giou~ harm by Trial Counsel~Hall's b~ each of his fiduciary d~~y and ob~i9ations[legal],and is enti~led to h~v~ the~ trial court and it 1 s ac_t~ng JUdg_e 1 to., reverse and- vacate it s_ ~onvict~~n ( s) anc 1 - \ sentence(s)because the plea bargi~ consent[irnplied]was fraudulently 1nduced - ll.Case. ·.. th to},be. charged _were proven.Asj~n State V.Booker,l25 S .• Ct.738,supra(2005) ~-- · . Hot,.~e_ye~_, tl!~ _tri~J: ...¢ourt '~- judge -Jltroneously. failed·· too __ .c·arefully~' advis~ thLs App :licarit:_;,lof . "' _'the -nat.ure. ····-·- --- -· . th-e real~~bh?rges of- -------·- ... , . ~lleg'ed· against_ him_ and: of. his :absolute . . . , . right.s~ incl~ding his ·ri'Qht of a· freal Grand jury Panel" s<tr.uJ,·-sTlh~ of~ indictment :::-:: :.:S.inc.e ~- va,l:id . waiver.- is a:·~cfmdi ti(~n. to_'.t·h-~' tri:a,].idoirr:t,•r&[r.lcghfl t'O'·!''.i'cqdi;:e '~j:,uifs:-! -"' <·'·diction, it·_, is a, matter that . cannot be-·waived.-~~-whi'l~ mo·st:";-right-'s· ~tndrcp··:roce:d-ui'al''~ I ,. . -- ~ . , - . . mattefs may be·. wai ved·;jurisdictilonai -~ . I matte·r·s .. nl'ay- not be ~-.-;;TJie . ··abs-ence: . of . =a val~· id waf,Y·er of triali1by indictment[by the- :,Applicant as required· by.'aforementionec ··! ,_ • - . '; . ' • . provis-~ons tmandates reversal. of -thi~ ca·use ·'number C-396-;.;:_007543.;.0943395::.. [ Jf & -- B]'·- f - - or and~~ number 09433950-for · the _lrli ~- tten Pl-ea Admonishments- (\il:ife<:fed] ;·an:d the. tria . I j ' f Court's judgment under nu~ber 0943395D~~as it was riot,on the~facts,and law,bef- ore the trial Court's jurisdiction and could not have be~n a free-wilring~volun t~ri plea bargin,and thus,once granting review upon the said void indictment(~) or information therefrom,the said c6urt(s) and their ·judges would be able to ad dress and correct such plain errors of law committed by the trial Cou~t,and jud ge George Gallagher,and to settal Texas juisprudence concerning this said plea- bargin case at bar.Hence,Applicant respectfully PRAYS that this Texas Court of- Criminal Appeals grant to issue his Writ of hab~as corpu~,and upon its de novo- review of the trial Court'. s judgment to the conviction and sentence ( s), reverse the tri~l Court's/judge's judgmentand remand to the trial Court with i~struct­ ions to acquit,or inthe alternative,reverse and remand this cause for resenten- ing or modify the. trial Court's judgment and affirm it as modified for time ser ved or a 2-to-10-years sentence on punishment,as in the interest of justice.Art 43.2(b)(TRCP).State V.Gonzales,855 S.W.2d 692,su~ 1 a(Tex.Cr.App.l993);Ex Parte- • "/ ; I J Young,418 S.W.2d 824,826(Tex.Cr.App.l967). . . III.A. Ground Two Error of Law: Ray Hall Junior,AS Defense COUNSEL committed Constructive Breach of Fiduciary- ·Duty,and legal Obligation/Legal Malpractice: ·. Issue Presented: Ray Hall Jr,intentionally breached his fiduciary duty,et'c; And Ronald G.Couch,COVER-UP Hall's Constructive Breach of Duty;Malpractiv_e too: Applicant asserts that these/his\ issue of issues pres,~nted herein in Gr?und onE Erroe of law is Just One of Two of his[the] myriad of fact-ors th.a~- are complex· ' •! and intertwined with such unsafety procedure for Civil libert}e~ . ,.- under Texas 51 ·~ \ ate Courts,with intrudin3. j~dges or usurpation of auth6rity,as:i~ appoints 12_. c~se.