ALBERT, VERLEE Jr. — freecase.ai

Full text

ALBERT, VERLEE Jr.

In Re: Verlee, Albert § Civil No. ----------------

V. §

2llth District Court § Presiding Judge RECEIVED IN ' Dee Shipman :C. § ~dU~T OF CR!MIN.Al APPEALS

JUL 16 2~15

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Abe!Acosta,Gierk Comes Now, Relator, Verlee, Albert. Will show just cause and

a last adequate remedy at law. And a clear abuse of discretion by trial court:

Jurisdiction

This court ha~ jurisdiction, pursuant to Tex. Const. Article 5:~sec. 5,6 Crimin~l Court of Appeals have concurrent, original jurisdiction of this petition for Writ of Mandamus against the judge of the 2llth District Court of Denton County, Texas. see: Padilla v McDaniel 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003).

Statement of Fact's

On Marchr 2007 relator::filed a motion to quash indictment F-2007-0838-C on Agg. Robbery. see: (Docket Sheet). Relator was charged by information with the information claiming lack of notice due to the use of the conjunctive "and" as opposed to the use of disconjunctive "or" in the state's allegations of Agg. Robbery. The trial court then

(l) granted, relator's motion to quash Agg. Robbery. The docket sheet reflects the notation: That indictment was quashed on August 24, 2007. Relator has "strick proof"; see: (Register of Action).

Relator claims that this is a structu~al error and cannot be procedurally defaulted. see: Rodriquez v State 42 S.W.3d 181 (Tex. ap¢. Corpus Christi 2001), Whan a court has no jurisdi~tion, it has no power to act, and any acti6n,taken in the absence of jurisdiction is void. see: Henry v State 2011 Tex. App. Lexis 1344) once information is quashed and stricken, the tr-ial court no longer has jurisdction over the c~_se and thus has no :authority to conduct further proceeding's. It is well settled,·that when a trial court empowered with jurisdiction over a criminal case sustains a motion to quash indictment or informatiori, the person accused thereunder is, in law. discharged from the accusation against him.

Furthermore; it is likewise axiomatic that ..... any ...... order ent.ered by a court having .no iur-:· · .:·~;_,"--

,_ , _ _ .. i : ; 1i sa i c t ion i s v o :i. d .

In Rodriquez the court reaching this holding., to adhere to a long standing rule that jurisdiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived.

The trial court argues that, even if Albert has a claim on jurisdiction that he's barred by section 4 § T.C.C.P . . . . . . see: Albert's (Docket sheet) it's clear that the trial court quashed indictment on Agg. Robbery. a showing that the court lacks jurisdiction.

Case's of Authority

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. that will issue only to correct a clear ab~se of discretion or a violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. V .. T.C.A. Gov't

( /. )

.... Code §22? In re: Sheppard 1993 s.w~ '181.

see: Padilla v McDaniel 122 S.W.3d 805 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). The Criminal Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction of a petition for Writ of Mandamus when there is a clear abuse of discretion, by a trial court. Denton County District Court abused their .discretion. when ruling on relator's last Writ of Habeas Corpus, by denying him juri~diction claim, by barring it. With 11.07 se6~ 4: when in fact -jurisdiction can not be waived. Respondent: L. Dee Shipman the presiding Judge in the 2llth District Court of Denton County, Texas has violated relator's rights to a fair Habeas Corpus hearing! by_ denying his Habeas Corpus, knowing that Albert's claim cannot be barred by (section §4).

The re~ords show, see: (Register of Actions) that the proceedings contin~ed through a trial and ~ final judgment of fOnviction; at no point during the proceedings in the trial court did anyon~ urge that the case:had been quashed.

Article I section 10 of the Texas Constitution states that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense unless on an indictment of a grand jury. Tex. Canst. art I sec. 10. To invest a court with jurisdiction over a criminal case, a charging ins~rument must be filed with the trial court. Tex. Canst .. art. V §12(b) see: McAfee v State 363 S.W.2d 941 (Tex.Crim.App. 1963). Thomas v State 751 S.W.2d 601,602 (Tex.A:pp,:.' -=-Texarkana 1988). Once_ trial court quashes an indi~tment, it lacks authority to reinstate it, even if the order quashing the indictment was bas~d on an erroneous inter-

pretation of law. see: Prochazka v State 878 S.W.2d 230,232 (Te~. App. -Corpus Christi 1994).

(3)

Statutory Provision

When/ we,, in terpi:et 'i /I '/ - ·-'~- : statutes such as Article ( 28.05, Tex. Code Cr im. ) , . . T . the court ~eeks~b6 1'!' effectuate the 'collective' intent or purpose of

the legisla.tor 's who - 'e'n,gcted f the legislation, . They do this ber.ause

our state Constit0tion assigns the law making function to the legislature while assigning the law interpreting function to the Judiciary. see: Tex. Const. Art. II §1. Where the statue is clear and unambiguous, the legislature must be understood to mean what it has expressed, and it is not for the courts to add or subtract from such a statue. When a cause of action derives from a statue, statutory provisions are mandatory and exclusive and must be complied with. 28.05 T.C.C.P., if the notionntoset aside or the exception to the indictment in cases of felony be sustained, the defendant shall not therefore be discharged, but may be immediately recommitted by order of the court, upon motion of the state's attorney or without motion; and proceedings may afterward be had against him if no prosecution had ever been commenced.

Praver for Relief Wherefore Relator=prays that:~this :court forces their jurisdiction in this Writ of Mandamus, for a hearing. If it is determined that the case was quashed, to prove that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to convict relator of Agq. Robbery. In reaching this holding the court has held that jurisdiction can be raised at any time and cannot be waived.

Unsworn Declaration I, relator Verlee. Albert Jr. a Texas Department of Criminal Justice

( 4) ldentifyinq number #1464905 on this day of 2015 declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and cor.rect.

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above foregoing relator's Writ of Mandamus has been forwarded by United States mail, postage prepaid to the Criminal Court of Appeals of TexaA, P.O.Box 12308, Capitoal Station, Austin, Texas 78711, on this jJ-ry day

2015. Resre:>ctfuJly S1.1bmit.ted:

Albert Verlee Jr. TDCJ Jj:l464905 Pi'\c"k Unit 2400 Wallace Pack Rd. Navasota, TX. 77868

(5 )

~~:mal Case Kecord Detail Pag~ 2 of 2: !''" ' .

08/13/2007 COURT SETTING INFORMATION SHEET 08/15/2007 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE(S) FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT TO THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT 08/16/2007 RETURN CAPIAS/PRECEPT 08/17/2007 STATE'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, WRONG OT BAD ACT PURSUANT TO CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLES 37.07 AND 38.37 AND EVIDENCE RULES 404(b) AND 609(f) 08/20/2007 STATE'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO USE DEFENDCANT STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 38.22 08/24/2007 MOTION TO QUASH TM

MtJ-h oA{ to !J.-sttt.J~!.?·- - - - c - . .0/13/2008 LETTER ' FROM DEFENDANT REQUESTING /it elf ft1./t"l. Lot COPY OF DISMISSAL ft/'6r;li.J All records displayed are subject to limitations of data entry. Details of judgments can only be verified by actual court records on file.

http://www.justice.dentoncounty .cornlisapi!UVLink.isa/dentonco/WEBS~RV/CriminalSe... 10/14/2008