§|.%H'C‘i
Abel Acosta, Clerk P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
To Abel Acosta,-Clerk:
Please enclosed find the following documents to be filed in this Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Cause No. ll,707B. These documents shall be executed upon this court's discretion to determine the next course of action. This will be at your earli- est convenience and as time permitted for as the docket calls. The following documents are: ` (l)-Applicant's Reply and Rebuttal to the Trial Court's denial of relief sought in the ll§th Judicial District Court of Upshur County, Texas-total of seventeen (17) pages; ` (l)- -Applicant' s Request for Judicial Notice_ total of one (l) page; (l)- -Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum- total of one (l) page; (l)-Copy of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 81 pg. 69)-total of one (l) page; (l)-Copy of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 8, pg. 82)-total of one (l) page. Applicant's Reply to the Trial Court's denial presented to the court shall be executed by the clerk, applicant's Reguest for Judicial Notice, Motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testifican~ dum, copies of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 8, pgs. 69-82) presented to the court shall be executed by the Clerk. Applicant, Billy G. Colvin, thanks you for your time in this
matter before the court.
Executed on thisj,
Respectfully Submitted
RECElvED lN "B/{j@//€V MW
coue=¢'r oF cRH\/nNAL APPEALS §§,§§YI/§ #§§é§§ri
L.C. Powledge Unit ,_ 1400 FM 3452 ?'~ .ECZS 2015 Palestine, Texas 75803
Abel Acosta, C|erk
5\ ,8ۤ ~ovl'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. WR-5l,885-O4 TR. CT. NO. ll,707B
EX PARTE BILLY GORDON COLVIN, APPLICANT
APPLICANT'S REPLY AND REBUTTAL TO THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL,OF RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE ll§TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF UPSHUR COUNTY, TEXAS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Billy G. Colvin, Applicant Pro Se TDCJ~ID #760687
L.C. Powledge Unit
1400 FM 3452
Palestine, Texas 75803
Natalie A. Miller, Asst. District Attorney
. RECEI
Upshur County, Texas VTH]
405 N. Titus st. COURTGFCF\'IM|NAZN
Gilmer, Texas 75644 ApPEALS Honorable Lauren Parish, Judge Presiding
Justice Center DEC 28 2015
405 N. Titus St.
Gilmer, Texas 75644-1052
Applicant's Reply-i Colvin, Cause No. ll,707B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l
INDENTITY oF PARTIES AND coUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE oF CoNTENTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii HABEAS JURISDICTIONi § . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . iii REVIEW . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iv INDEX oF AUTHORITIES . . .». . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ~NATURE oF THE cASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vII APPLICANT'S REPLY To STATE's PLEADING. l . . . . . . . . . . 1
PRAYERVFOR§RELIEF... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Applicant's Reply-ii Colvin, Cause No. ll,707B
HABEAS JURISDICTIoN
"The purpose of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is simple-it is a process utilized to determine the lawfulness of confinement." Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989); Ex Parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983).
Applicant contends this concluded and held:
"The Texas Constitution confers appellate juris- diction upon courts of appeals. Tex. Constitution art. V. §§ 5 and 67 that includes the power to review questions of fact in criminal cases."
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. l996)(quoting Bishop v. State, 43 Tex. 390, 400 (1875).
This Court has jurisdiction over this claim of actual inno- cence as the applicant contends that it is common knowledge that the constitution must be regarded as fundamental law, it therefore belongs to the courts to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular statute proceeding from legislative body/in furtherance of the constitution.
Further, applicant contends that "[this Court] will not reverse unless we conclude the error affected a substantial right of the appellant." Gay v. State, 981 S.W.2d 864, 867 (Tex.App.-
Houston 1998); citing Tex. R. App. P.49 §Q(b). See also Barshaw v.
State, 320 S.W.BG 620 & 342 S.W.3d 91.
Applicant's Reply-iii Colvin, Cause No._ll,707B
REVIEW
"It is fundamental principles of our habeas corpus law-..that under the procedure authorized by Art. 11.07, if the trial court convenes a hearing, elicits testimony, and thereby develops facts, the Court of Criminal Appeals is not bound by the trial court's findings and conclusions of law."; Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 288 (Tex.Crim.App. l989)(emphasis added).
"Fundamental Due Process requires that criminal responsibil- ity for an offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." U.S. Const. XIV; Alvarado v.PState, 912 S.W.2d 199, 206-07 (Tex.Crim. App. l995)(citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct.
1068, 1072-73 (1990)).
"The standard of review [criminal] is more stringent than the 'no evidence' standard applicable in civil cases."
"...in reviewing the factual sufficiency of evidence to support_a conviction, we are to view all the evidence in a nuetral light, favoring neither party." Johnson v.HState, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Clewis v.State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim.App. 1996), "Evidence is factually insufficient if it is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence available." Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11.
"Proof by preponderance of the evidence which is defined as that degree of proof that, when taken as a whole, shows that a 51 fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Lackey v~ State, 819 S.W.2d lll, 117 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989).
Applicant's Reply-IV Colvin, Cause No. 11,707B
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Abnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731 (Tex.Crim.App; 1994). -Arevalo v. Statej 970 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), convic- tion aff'd on remand, 987 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.App.~Houston 1999, pet. ref'd) 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . Bailey v. Haddy, Dallam 376, 378 (Tex. 1841). . . . . . . . Clewis v. State, 922 S.W-2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). . . . . . Daniels v. State, 632 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) . Doyle v. State, 631 S.W.2d 732,.738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). . . Haii v. state, 225 s.w.3d 525, 535-36 (Tex.crim.App. 2007). . Koah v. State, 609 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Crim.App; 1980). . . . . . Lopez v. Statel 315 S.W.3d 90, 98 (Tex.App.~Houston 2010, pet. granted, 9-22-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
§|.%H'C‘i
Abel Acosta, Clerk P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711
To Abel Acosta,-Clerk:
Please enclosed find the following documents to be filed in this Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Cause No. ll,707B. These documents shall be executed upon this court's discretion to determine the next course of action. This will be at your earli- est convenience and as time permitted for as the docket calls. The following documents are: ` (l)-Applicant's Reply and Rebuttal to the Trial Court's denial of relief sought in the ll§th Judicial District Court of Upshur County, Texas-total of seventeen (17) pages; ` (l)- -Applicant' s Request for Judicial Notice_ total of one (l) page; (l)- -Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum- total of one (l) page; (l)-Copy of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 81 pg. 69)-total of one (l) page; (l)-Copy of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 8, pg. 82)-total of one (l) page. Applicant's Reply to the Trial Court's denial presented to the court shall be executed by the clerk, applicant's Reguest for Judicial Notice, Motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testifican~ dum, copies of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 8, pgs. 69-82) presented to the court shall be executed by the Clerk. Applicant, Billy G. Colvin, thanks you for your time in this
matter before the court.
Executed on thisj,
Respectfully Submitted
RECElvED lN "B/{j@//€V MW
coue=¢'r oF cRH\/nNAL APPEALS §§,§§YI/§ #§§é§§ri
L.C. Powledge Unit ,_ 1400 FM 3452 ?'~ .ECZS 2015 Palestine, Texas 75803
Abel Acosta, C|erk
5\ ,8ۤ ~ovl'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
NO. WR-5l,885-O4 TR. CT. NO. ll,707B
EX PARTE BILLY GORDON COLVIN, APPLICANT
APPLICANT'S REPLY AND REBUTTAL TO THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL,OF RELIEF SOUGHT IN THE ll§TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF UPSHUR COUNTY, TEXAS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Billy G. Colvin, Applicant Pro Se TDCJ~ID #760687
L.C. Powledge Unit
1400 FM 3452
Palestine, Texas 75803
Natalie A. Miller, Asst. District Attorney
. RECEI
Upshur County, Texas VTH]
405 N. Titus st. COURTGFCF\'IM|NAZN
Gilmer, Texas 75644 ApPEALS Honorable Lauren Parish, Judge Presiding
Justice Center DEC 28 2015
405 N. Titus St.
Gilmer, Texas 75644-1052
Applicant's Reply-i Colvin, Cause No. ll,707B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
l
INDENTITY oF PARTIES AND coUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE oF CoNTENTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii HABEAS JURISDICTIONi § . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . iii REVIEW . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iv INDEX oF AUTHORITIES . . .». . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v ~NATURE oF THE cASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vII APPLICANT'S REPLY To STATE's PLEADING. l . . . . . . . . . . 1
PRAYERVFOR§RELIEF... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Applicant's Reply-ii Colvin, Cause No. ll,707B
HABEAS JURISDICTIoN
"The purpose of the Writ of Habeas Corpus is simple-it is a process utilized to determine the lawfulness of confinement." Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989); Ex Parte McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983).
Applicant contends this concluded and held:
"The Texas Constitution confers appellate juris- diction upon courts of appeals. Tex. Constitution art. V. §§ 5 and 67 that includes the power to review questions of fact in criminal cases."
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App. l996)(quoting Bishop v. State, 43 Tex. 390, 400 (1875).
This Court has jurisdiction over this claim of actual inno- cence as the applicant contends that it is common knowledge that the constitution must be regarded as fundamental law, it therefore belongs to the courts to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular statute proceeding from legislative body/in furtherance of the constitution.
Further, applicant contends that "[this Court] will not reverse unless we conclude the error affected a substantial right of the appellant." Gay v. State, 981 S.W.2d 864, 867 (Tex.App.-
Houston 1998); citing Tex. R. App. P.49 §Q(b). See also Barshaw v.
State, 320 S.W.BG 620 & 342 S.W.3d 91.
Applicant's Reply-iii Colvin, Cause No._ll,707B
REVIEW
"It is fundamental principles of our habeas corpus law-..that under the procedure authorized by Art. 11.07, if the trial court convenes a hearing, elicits testimony, and thereby develops facts, the Court of Criminal Appeals is not bound by the trial court's findings and conclusions of law."; Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281, 288 (Tex.Crim.App. l989)(emphasis added).
"Fundamental Due Process requires that criminal responsibil- ity for an offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." U.S. Const. XIV; Alvarado v.PState, 912 S.W.2d 199, 206-07 (Tex.Crim. App. l995)(citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct.
1068, 1072-73 (1990)).
"The standard of review [criminal] is more stringent than the 'no evidence' standard applicable in civil cases."
"...in reviewing the factual sufficiency of evidence to support_a conviction, we are to view all the evidence in a nuetral light, favoring neither party." Johnson v.HState, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Clewis v.State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 134 (Tex. Crim.App. 1996), "Evidence is factually insufficient if it is so weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence available." Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11.
"Proof by preponderance of the evidence which is defined as that degree of proof that, when taken as a whole, shows that a 51 fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Lackey v~ State, 819 S.W.2d lll, 117 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989).
Applicant's Reply-IV Colvin, Cause No. 11,707B
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Abnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731 (Tex.Crim.App; 1994). -Arevalo v. Statej 970 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), convic- tion aff'd on remand, 987 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.App.~Houston 1999, pet. ref'd) 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . Bailey v. Haddy, Dallam 376, 378 (Tex. 1841). . . . . . . . Clewis v. State, 922 S.W-2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). . . . . . Daniels v. State, 632 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) . Doyle v. State, 631 S.W.2d 732,.738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). . . Haii v. state, 225 s.w.3d 525, 535-36 (Tex.crim.App. 2007). . Koah v. State, 609 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Crim.App; 1980). . . . . . Lopez v. Statel 315 S.W.3d 90, 98 (Tex.App.~Houston 2010, pet. granted, 9-22-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Murray v. State¢ 302 S.W.3d 874, 876_(Tex.Crim.App. 2009) . Rider v. state, 567 s.w.2a 192, 195 (Tex.crim.App. 1978). . ._. Williams v. State, 547 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) . . . Ex Parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) . . . . . Ex Parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d 860 (Tex;Crim.App. 2000). . . . . Ex Parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 703~04 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) . Ex Parte Thomas, 953 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). . . . Ex Parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Tex.Crim.App‘ 1997) Ex Parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 2594 262-63 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009). . TEXAS STATUTES - Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.01. . . . . . . 1 . . Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 11.07 § 4 . . . .". . . . Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 21.15 . . . . . . . . .
Applicant's Reply-V Colvin, Cause No. 11,707B
.Texas
Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure Art.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (COnt'd)
Government Code § 51.901
Penal Code § 21.11.
Penal Code.§ 32.48,
Penal Code § 37.01.
37.10
Attorney General DO;JM%266.
Applicant's Reply-VI
Colvin,
Cause No.
11,707B
37.09 (1) . .
38.072. . . .
NATURE OF THE CASE
Applicant, Billy G. Colvin was indicted on June 28, 1996 for Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. Applicant pled not guilty z and proceeded to a jury trial. Applicant was found guilty by the jury and they assessed punishment at fifty (50) years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on August 21st, 1996.
At trial, applicant was represented by Dwight A. Brannon. The State was represented by Tim Cone; applicant filed an appeal and Brannon represented applicant on appeal. On March 28th, 19977 the Sixth Court of Appeals found no error in the judgment, and ordered the judgment of the court to be affirmed in all things.
Applicant filed his first writ of habeas corpus, 11,707A/ on August lst, 2008. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeals in No. AP-76,009, found that applicant was "entitled to the opportun- ity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of if the judgment of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Cause no. 06-96- 00057-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 11,707A from the 115th Judicial District Court of Upshur County."
`Applicant filed a pro se petition for discretionary review, PD-l486-08. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed all of appli- cant's remaining claims-contained within his writ of habeas corpus 11,707A; Ex Parte Torres clearly relates to dispositions of such writs of Habeas Corpus:
"Dispositions relating to the merits should be labled 'denials' while dispositions unrelated, to the merits should be labled as 'dismissals'..."
Ex Parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Tex.Crim.?;j. App. 1997).
Applicant's Reply*VII Colvin, Cause No. 11/707B
Applicant filed his second writ of habeas corpus, 11,707B, on September 23rd, 2015. The State filed an answer in opposition to applicant's writ on October 29, 2015 and on the same date the 115th District Court filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in agreement with prosecution and recommended that this Court deny relief requested by Applicant.
Applicant executed his Reply on December; J`/ , 2015.
Applicant's Reply-VIII Colvini Cause No. 11,707B