BELL, ROBERT EARL Jr.

?§M @/ maestas m @§,§¢RWGWMWEAL ms '“"cl§_;k, _ _ _ k 0 ' SEP w M% lc>°.)§`i't£§ §§§[él§nal ,Appeals Of Texas 4 AY@@%A©@§R@,©U@W< 'Capitol Station Austin§eTexas 78711 September 30, 2015 Dear Clerk, FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,MALONG WITH THE Petitioner'S 'PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. Would you please file these documents and present them to the Honorable‘Judges of this said Court. Trial Court No. 1165059D. and C.O.A. No. 02-12-00354-CR. Respectfully Submittted, §Q`UQ(X v(1§<',\\ d obert Ear Bell Jr. #1835192 McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. `Beeville, Texas 78102 TRIAL'GOURT No. 1165059D COURT oF APPEALS No. 02-12-00354-€R l S_/ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT.WORTH, TEXAS In re., Robert Earl Bell Jr.~ § Petitioner § g v. § < Hon. Robb Catalano, Judge 5 Respondent APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO,FILE _PETITION,FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 10 THE Honorable Judges of said Court: Comes now,_Robert Earl Bell Jr., Petitioner herein, Respectfully moves this Honorable Court for leave to file the attached Petition For Wtit of Mandamus. / S/@Q)O 0/(.>( 6€/\\ Robert Earl Bell Jr. *`#1835192 ` McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS z FOR THE STAFE OF TEXAS ln re Robert Earl Bell Jr; Petitioner _'cAsE No. TRIAL cAUsE No= 11650590 cRIMINAL.DISTRICT couRT No. 3 TARRANT coUNTY,-TEXAS VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS JUDGE, Robb Catalano Respondent C[/JC/"/J </.`/>(/.`/J</`./J</.`/)(/`./>(/_`/) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS To THEFHONORABLE JUDGES oF sAID coURT; j Now.comes, Robert Earl Bell Jr., hereinafter known as the Petitioner/ Relator in the above styled and numbered cause, and complaining of the Honorable Judge Robb Catalano; hereinafter Respondent. Requesting this Honorable Court to grant this Petition For Writ Of Mandamus, and would, in support thereof wouhd show the court the following: ` l. A. Respondent, Judge Robb Catalano, is the Presiding Judge in the convicting Court, Criminal District Court No. 3., Tarrant County, Texas who is duly qualified to rule on the Motion/Pleading filed in this cause that was timely filed. B. Petitioner/Relator has attempted to exhaust all State remedies before petitioning for issuance of a Writ Of Mandamus and meet the three prerequisites for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus by this Honorable Court for the following reasons: L1]. The Trial Court has a leg al dut% to perform this nondiscretionary act within a reasona le time period. Kissam v. Williams, 545 S. W. 2d. 265 ,267(Tex. App. -Tyler- y 1976 orig. pro eeding); Barnes v. State, S. W. 2d. 424, 426- (Tex.App.-Houston[lst.Dist:11992§. [2]. Petitioner/Relator has made the proper request and demand for performance in the following respect: (1) (REQUEST) a. By filing a timely ~MorloN 10 QBTAIN DOCUW_NTS AND TRIAL RECORDS., ON 8;17+20151 see Exhibit Llj attached. As of the filing of this Mandamus, no action has been taken within the (35) days pending of the Motion and Notice. Thus, the Trial Courts' refusal to make a ruling, clearly demonstrates an intential disregard for Petitioner's/Relator's right to Access to Court. seeBounds v. Smith, 430 U.S.817,824(1977). (Prisoners have a fundamental`Constitutional right to adequate, effective, and meaningful access to Court to challenge violationsof Constitutional'rights). C. (FACTS OF THE CASE) Petitioner/Relator was sentenced to Life in Prison ' bf"'*"for the offense of AGGRAVATED ROBBERY WITH A DEADLY WEAPON. Notice of Appeal ws given, and after both sides submitted briefs the Court of - Appeals for the Second district 0f Texas, Fort Worth, Texas affirmed the conviction on 5-29-2014. a subsequent Petition For Discretionary Review was also denied. Thereafter, Petitioner/Relator has diligently made attempts to obtain Trial` and Appellate records to assist his right to file an 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus attacking his convicting and sentence. D. Petitioner's/Relator's Constitutional right to Due Process, and Access to Court are being violated with regularity, by the Criminal District Court No.- 3. Refusal to rule on his Motions and Pleadings without a reasonable explanation. The Court's refusal is an impediment of access to Court, that forces Petitioner-( /Relator to proceed with inadequate access to Court to challenge the violation of his Constitutional rights. E.' Petitioner/Relator has no adequate remedy at Law other than a Writ Of Mandamus as prayed for, and has no right of Appeal from the refusal of the Trial Court to rule on the Motion/Pleading unless Writ Of dandamus as Prayed for Herein is granted. Otherwise, Petitioner/Relator will be subjected to denial of due process of his right to have a ruling on his Motions/Pleadings pursuant to the right established in: In re Christensen,39 S.W.3d.250(Tex.App.-amarillo)2000). "Fundamental requirement of due process mandates an opportunity to be heard. District Court is compelled to consider and rule on a- (2) pending Motionjpresented to the Court." Creel v; District Attorney, For Medina Count , 818 S.W.2d.45,46(Tex,1991). PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner/Relator Prays that LEAVE to file this Petition be GRANTED; That same be set for submission and that Writ Of Mandamus be issued by this Honorable Court, ORDERING and DIRECTING respondent Honorable Judge Robb Catalano to rule on Petitioner/Relator‘s MOTION TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS AND TRIAL RECORDS. And Said duty be done within a reasonable time frame, which thirty (30) days would be reasonable on the time ` the Motion/Pleadings has been pending since 8-17-2015. R spectfully Submitted, X@oa,f_:‘ Q,\‘- Robert :rfcbell\Jr. #1835192 1 McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr.' Beeville, Texas 78102 DECLARATION l Robert Earl Bell Jr., do declare under penalty of perjury that the above foregoing stated information is true and correct. x ilwka TSQ \\‘- Robert Earl Bell Jr. #1835192 . CERTIFICATE OF'SERVICE l certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, has been placed in the U.S. Mail and addressed to: District Clerk, Criminal District Court No. 3 401 W. Belknap _ Fort Worth, Texas 76196 EXHIBI'I` I. »\ `_ _ \:§‘“ »x .»_,_ ' ‘ ausa uo. 41165<{)591) {>\L\(\\ \5< ' '-. m ina annum nis'mqr collar umwa 3 ` y ' noaa'rI-:ARL.BELL .m'.f 10 THE I‘DNORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: donee nw hobart Ear1 Bell, J_r, Movan__t ?ro-Se herein, who respei~,t_:E ry cno~ vea this Honor_able court to allow Movant to procwd with this actioii' " ' Under aijttmrity of the "Open Courts" mandate of Texa`s £Authority Cons titution Art § 1 Sec13, a_n_d the 14th Anend of the U S. Const"., 'lhis Court has power to grant the req\ested relief herein. o ` ` \. ’ 111. _ , u_o'vo`nc mo good oauoo choi no was denies his 666 mem righ'£ roof active assisteme of Co\msel.` merefora, Movai\t is in the process of prep- /srir@ an Application for Writ_ of habeas Corpus, so that this Honorablelcourt c , ooo roviav ooio denial mo order vioioiioos of castiwcioooi Righio. (soo. Ex Pa`rte Banks, 769 S.W.Zc_l. 539, 540 (Tex.Crim App. ) "habeas Corpua is " iiobio only w m......noniol of immoral or ooosuiwcionoi ‘rign _.-, <s@ ai poro uoidono, 686 s.w.zd. 44, 46 (Tox.crim. App. ) "_lo a poocj_j". 6 iction attack, the burden is on the Applicent to allege and prove facts_which if trus, entitle him to relief ,". (See also §ex Parte wmataonl 32 S.W " 36_0, 361 (Tex.(d:im ~App ) '.’Rel_ief may be denied only when Applicant states conclusions and not specific facts. " .'1"" hence, wyatt shows that doctunents, trial transcripts, and Clerk’s rec 9rda aremst needed by Movant soh_e can showand_ prove his facts andl itutional violations instead of only stating mere conclusions within his Habeas Corpus Applicatio;n. l - <1,’) " 166-,.-=‘\6§' ' /: _/-' Howevet Applicant is indigent and unable to pay or purchase said documents criol 66666661666 666 01666'6 nooo666. (666 MW._, _83 s._¢6 at 781); "ln terms of trial recorda'... the State must afford the indigent record of completeness to pennit proper considltation of (His)_.clafims." § nl. ) mm 6666666 666 neigm 666`666666 vi66 6 6666 oopy 66 666 6661616666`"5" ssa.ry for the purpose of Dlrect _Appeal. However, The Gri£____£___en principle _ equality was __not limited to transcripts for moses for Direct Appeal‘r` 'Ihe Supth Court later :in lane held that "Smith makes clear 5666616 66i6 nocion, 6666 would 66 donyn'»g 666 uovoni; 666 6ig6`6 66 silo won come po6i6ion. sold 666i61 voum 661 6 violovion of 666 1466 5to the Uniteci_ Sta'te_s Constitution. wteover, to impose any financial conditi ns betvesn an indigent prisoner of the State to exercise a State right 5 § f remedy by due course of law for an injury done to Him is to deny that the equal protections of law _as provided throqu.the Dnited States Constitution. _<2)l "J`~;..' 5 _ ` .; 4 ; . ~ '~ ~~\ .; . l . ' ‘ , \"?‘,e "." ` v »' ' ' ‘ _ - _ ., .,~, § » ..\_»,. _ ‘_ ;' _ . - 1 /;\ _ ., . ‘. .. . . ~ . - . ' - v . ', ' , " ,=" "~.,,. . ' 1 l ' ‘..- ‘ v "=.:,1 ~ - . . ' 3 C v _ . ' _ . In Gardener v. Cali£ornia, the Suprene Court held that "A layman inHisowndefenseorhisownbehalfneeds theCourtreoords evenmore Attorney acting in his behalf would._" (Gardned v. Cal.if;.’ol:nia1 89 S:.Ct. ,~58 §';§1969) ~ » 1 .'lherefore, .Mova'nt avers that the doounents requested are essential ",uiz:‘es to present Movant' _s case in the most favorite light and that said documents rust be obtained to prove Movant’ s allegations to the trial " as tell as the Higher Court... ' Beevi'lle,' Texas 78102 ” mrs oecmm!oN " _ fLRoBmEARLar-:LLJR., mammals uepmmryo£perj\my, rha the above is true to the best of my knowledge. App].ioant is indigent and has been through his entire criminal proceedidge,l with doomedtati_ona hiready oh fi_l 1 § with this said Court of law. _GR]M_INAL DIS'IRICI’ C(_)URI` NUMBER 3 TARRANT CDUNIY, EConnell Unit _ 3001 S mily Dr. " Beeville, Texae 78102