AT AUST1N, TEXAS
APPLICANTlS.PRO SE OBJECTIONS TO CONVICTING COURT'S`ORDER LEINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS) RECOMMENDING THAT_RELIEF`BE DENIEDv
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT: Applicant, Samuel Wade Dooley, OBJECTS to the convicting
court's Order (Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation) entered On Febraury 5, 2015, for the following reasons:
1) The convicting court's finding that the writ record "indicates" that Applicant knew when the PDR was due
is not supported by the record; because, the denial ‘
of the PRO SE motion for rehearing restarted the deadline to file a PDR to a date after the date set by the extension of timez See, Text.R. App. P., 68.2(a); _ EXHIBIT "AAA" - Applicant's Exhibit "K" (lnteral Court Docket Sheet from Court of Criminal APpeals -- 11/14/2002 "Remarks").
2) The convicting court's finding that laches should be applied to prevent relief is not supported by the record; because, at the time the PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied:
a) appellate counsel did not have a duty to notify Applicant of that denial, and b) Applicant was not incarcerated in TDCJ;
therefore, what appellate counsel (or TDCJ) remembers
about the case is immaterial to its resolution. See,
Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.2d 935, 944 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), as modified by Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim.App.1997)(both cases determining that counsel's
duty is completed when he provides notice about appellate opinion); EXHIBIT "BBB" - Applicant's`Exhibit "D" (Rule
4.5 Motion - Motion Exhibit "2"), EXHBIT "CCC" -_Applicant's Exhibit "Q" (Bench Warrant & Job Change Slip).
The State, and thus the convicting court, appears to have misunderstood Applicant's postion. Applicant does`not complain about the conduct of appelate counsel and does not rely directly on Ex parte Jarrett
and Ex parte Wilson that follow the Sixth Amendment. Rahterygq¥he%
Applicant's ground for relief is that the court of appeals denied Applicant of DUE PROCESS by its actions, or incations, when that court failed to NOTIFY Applicant when his PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied (and other actions). See, State's Response pg. 2.
This was a denial of DUE PROCESS under the Fourteeth Amendment because the failure to NOTIFY prevented "meaningful access and
an adequate opportunity" for Applicant to timely file a PDR.
See, Ross v. Moffitt, 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2444, 2447 (1974), Reese v. §tate, 877 S.W.2d 328, 331, 333 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). l
STANDARD OF REVIEW
§he convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law must be §upported by the writ record (including aimplied findings). See, Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 6983 727 (Tex.Crim. App.2008), Ex parte Wheeler, 203 S.Wl3d 317, 325-326 (Tex.Crim. App.2006)(implied findigs). This Court of Criminal Appeals has a statutory duty to review the convicting court's factual findings and legal conclusions and to reject them when they are not supported by the record. See, Ex parte Simpson, 136 S.W.3d 660, 668-669 (Tex.Crim.App.ZOOh).
BACKGROUND
Applicant presented one ground for relief in his writ application which was that he was denied DUE PROCESS when the court of appeals failed to NOTIFY him that his PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied.A Applicant also addressed why laches should not prevent the granting of relief; to include,because it was the State of
_ 41\<>_ Tean that refused to disclose material evidence,~that Tarrant
County Jail legal mail logs, that would demonstrate that no one notified Applicant when his PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied. See, Writ application - Ground Two. And, Applicant also explained that he had just recently discovered internal court documents
from the court of appeals and this Court of Criminal Appeals. These internal court documents\disclose.that the court of appeals did not NOTIFY Applicant and the deadline for when this Court considered the PDR was due. EXHIBIT "AAA" - Applicant's Exhibit "K"; Applicantls Exhibit "G".
The State responded with affidavits from appellate counsel
and TDCJ. Appellate counsel did not review the writ application in order to make his affidavit; ratheg counsel relied upon an unnamed person's (false) representation that the writ application complained that counsel had failed to notify Applicant of the right to file a PRO SE motion for rehearing or PRO SE PDR. See, State's Exhibit "A" - Affidavit of Appellate Counsel. Appellate counsel further stated that he could not recall for certain if he notified Applicant "about these things" (the right to file PRO SE pleadings). Nevertheless, the writ record does demonstrate that appellate counsel did indeed notify Applicant about his right to file a PRO SE motion for rehearing or PRO SE PDR on July 3, 2002 and "closed" his file in this case on that date. EXHIBIT "BBB" - Applicant's Exhibit "D" (Rule 4.5 Motion e Motion Exhibit "2"). Thus, appellate counsel's affidavit does not-address whether counsel notified,:or.had a practice to.notify, Appllicant, after he closed his file in the case, when the court of appeals
denied the PRO SE motion for rehearing; Moreover, the-affidavit
from TDCJ is immaterial to this case because the writ record
demonstrates that at the time the PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied, Applicant was not incarcerated in TDCJ but'was incarcerated in the Tarrant County Jail. EXHIBIT "CCC" - Applicant's Exhibit "Q" (Bench Warrant & TDCJ Job Change Slip). Therefore, in its response the State calimed prejudice in its ability to respond to the writ application. See, State's Responcejpg,2-3. The State seemed to believe that the PDR was due on Septemeber 2, 2002 pursuant to a moot extension of time granted by this Court of Criminal Appeals. Thus, the State totally ignored Applicant's ground that the court of appeals failed to NOTIFY Applicant when his PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied. Yet, this Court of Criminal Appeals considered the PDR due 30 days after the court of appeals failed to NOTIFY Applicant that the PRO SE motion for rehearing had been deniedz EXHIBIT "AAA" - Applicant's Exhibit "K"_(lnternal Court Docket Sheet - 11/14/2002)l The convicting court signed and entered the proposed Order provided by the State. The convicting court signed this Order On February 5, 2015, just 5_working days after the State filed its Response. Applicant learned of the convicting court's Order when Applican€$Dad looked it up on the lnternet. (At the time of writing these OBJETIONS Applicant has not received a copy of the Order from the Collin County District Clerk nor the 401$t
District Court.) These OBJECTIONS follow. See, Tex. R. App. P., 73.%{€”§) RULES RESTART DEADLINE TO FILE PDR (WHEN REHEARING lS DENIED)
ln its Response the State claimed that:
"[T]he Court of Criminal Appeals Docket Sheet, [notes] that Court granted Applicant's pro se motion for extension of time to file his Petition for
Discretionary Review on July 19, ZOQL, with the note
"NFE", which means no further extensions would be
permitted by the Court, thus indicating that Applicant
knew when his PDR was due." '
See, State's Respons, pg. 3. This led to the convicting court's finding that: "Applicant's writ materials indicate he knew from the Court of Criminal Appeals when his Petition for Discretionary Review was due." This finding is not supported by the record.
lt is not in dispute that Applicant knew this Court granted him an extension until Spetember 2, 2002 to file a PDR. Howeverz after that extension was granted, the 5th District Court of Appeals legally allowed Applicant to file a PRO SE motion for rehearing.1 Applicant's Exhibit FD" (COA Order -- 08/05/2002). When the court of appeals denied the motion for rehearing, Rule 68.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure operated to restart the time limit, or deadline, to file a PDR. Thus, the prior deadline set by the extension, that Applicant was aware of, was moot (and did not matter anymore).
Rather, as the writ record demonstrates, this Court of Criminal Appeals considered the PDR due 30 days after the court of appeals failed to NOTIFY Applicant that his PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied. ExH1B11 "AAA" - Applicant'§_sxhibit "K" (Internal Court Docket Sheet - 11/14/2002 "Remarks"). The PDR was due on October 7, 2002. This is the deadline for which Applicant was unaware as a result of the actions, or inactions, of the ,
5th District Court of Appeals. Nothing in the_record even tends
to support the finding that Applicant knew when his PDR was due.
l. See, Tex. R. App. P., 4.5. This rules allows the court of appeals to
grant a litigant additonal time to file a motion for rehearing when the litlgant was not timely notifed of the court of appeals Opinon.
DUTY OF APPELLATE COUNSEL ENDED WHEN HE CLOSED HIS FILE IN THE CASE
C~ _"\5 :m~
_`;g_its Response the State claimed prejudice in its ability
to respond to the writ applicant because appellate counsel had disposed of his files.2 See, State's Response, pg; 2-3. Further, the State misrepresented appellate counsel's affidavit, claiming that the affidavit addressed the ground for relief about nomtification of the denial of_the PRO SE motion for rehearing. Appellate counsel's affidaivt only addressed whether counsel notified Applicant about the right to file a PRO SE motion for rehearing or PRO SE PDR. See, State's Exhibit "A" - Affidavit of Appelate Counsel. Nevertheless, the_convicting court accepted the State's arguement and found that, "the State has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the writ." This finding is not supported by the record. writ Primarly, as just mentioned, appellate counsel does NOT address in his affidavit whether he remembers if he did, or would have, notified Applicant of the denial of the PRO SE motion for rehearing. .Rather, while admitting that he did not review the writ applicationj counselistates that someone told him the writ application complained that counsel did not notify Applicant of the right to file a PRO SE motion for rehearing or a PRO SE PDR. esee, state'$ Exhibit "A"'= Affidaivt of Appellate counsel. Thus, the record does not support that the State proved prejudice in its\ability to respond to the writ application.
ln fact, the record demonstartes that appellate counsel
did notify Applicant of the right to file a PRO SE motion for
2. lt appears the State has agreed¢§ with Applicant that because Ex parte Perea should not be applied retroactively to this case that the old Standards from Ex parte Carrio apply.’ Applicant will use the old standard
here wh§re the tate %se it and later on Applicant will address the new standar s from x par e erez. ) _ )
92 rehearing or PROAPDR. lndeed, on July 3, 2002 appellate counsel
notfied Applicant that "there is no room for any,.. motions for re-hearing or petitions for discretionary review" and that counsel was "closing [his] file in your case." EXHIBlT/"BBB" - Applicant's Exhibit "D" (Rule 4.5 Motion - Motion Exhibit "2").` Appellate counsel provided Applicant with a copy of the court of appeals Opinion and made the decision not to help Applicant file a PDR. Once appellate counsel did that, the "attorney-client relationship Conclude[d]" and "the duty of counsel end[ed]».." See, Ex parte Jarrett, 891 S.W.Zd at 944, Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d at 27. Appellate counsel's duti§$towards-Applicant ended on July 3,2002' and counsel had no duty to notify Applicant when the court of … appeals denied the PRO SE motion for rehearing on September 6, 2002. _Surely, given the opportunity, appellate counsel would remember wheder he took the extraordinary step to notify Applicant of the denial of the PRO SE motion for rehearing after his duties in the case had ceased and when it was the appellate`courtis duty to notify Applicant. v
Yet, whether or not counsel can specially remember what he did -- that fact, in and of itself, is insufficent to invoke the doctrine of laches. When this Court expanded its use of the doctrine of laches in post-convction habeas corpus applications, this Court adopted Texas' common law approach to laches.3 See, Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d 206, 215 (Tex.Crim.App;2013). Texas'
common law standards for laches requires the State to prove by
3. By addressing the new standards Applicant does not waive his arguemnt ' that because Ex parte Perez can not be applied retroactively to this case that the old standards from Ex parte Carrio must be applied. lndeed, under Ex parte Carrio the State must prove a particlularized showing of prejudice, which could include that "'there are no other sources from which the state can obtain the requisite information.'" See, Perez, 398 S.W.3d 5 at 212 n.6. Such as,in this case,the Tarrant County Jail_legal mail logs
that would also prove whether appellate counsel notified Applicant of the denial of the PRO SE motion for rehearing.
a preponderance of the evidence both unreasonable delay and prejudice resulting from that delay. ld. at 210 n.3. Nothing in the record proves any prejudice whatsoever. However, even if a minimal
` amount of prejudice were evident, that claimed prejudice still does not outweigh the justifiable excuses for the passage of time presented by Applicant. See, ld. at 217. Moreover, that minimal prejudice is not the type of "material prejudice" necessary to invoke the doctrine of laches to prevent relief. See, ld. at 218.
Applicant's reasons for the passage of time included that
the State has refused to disclose the Tarrant County Jail legal mail logs. These legal mail logs would disclose; not only that the court of appeals failed to NOTIFY Applicant about the denial d§ his PRO SE motion for rehearing, but also that appellate counsel did not notify Applicant of that action. Thus, for the same- reason that the State's refusal to disclose this material evidence is a justifiable excuse for the passage of time as related to the actions of the appellate court -- whether appellate counsel can remember if he took the extraordinary step of notifing Applicant can not be heldagainst Applicant.' See, State v. Munoz, 991 S.W.Zd 818, 822, 825 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); See also, Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at 217 (following speedy trial analysis).h- lnteresting, despite Applicant's complaints in the writ application about the State's refusal to disclose the Tarrant County Jail legal mail logs -- the State has continued to fail to disclose them (or even that they, like the TDCJ logs, no longer exist). One must wonder
why the State has never disclosed these records?
NOT lNCARCERATED_lN TDCJ AT TIME REHEARING WAS DENlED,
ln its response the State also claimed prejudice because
TDCJ did not retain mail logs from 2002 to show whether, "Applicant
received requiste notice in 2002." Yet, Applicant was incarcerated in the Tarrant County Jail when the court of appeals failed to NOTIFY Applicant that his PRO SE motion for rehearing had been deni€d~ See, EXHIBIT "CCC" - Applicant's Exhibit "Q" (Bench Warrant & TDCJ Job Change Slip). The TDCJ records are wholly immaterial to the resolution of this case. Yet, the convicting court accepted the State's arguement and found that "the State
has been prejudiced in its ability to respond to the writ."
This finding is not supported by the record.
On July 3, 20023 appellate counsel wrote Applicant in TDCJ. EXHIBIT "BBB" - Applicant's Exhibit "D" (Rule 4.5 Motion - Motion Exhibit "2"). However, on August 21, 2002, the TarranthOunty Sheriff executed a Bench Warrant and took custody of Applicant in the Tarrant County Jail. EXHIBIT "CCC" - Applicant's Exhibit "Q" (Bench Warrant). On August 28, 2002, the court of appeals was
.notified of Applicant's change of address to the Tarrant Cdunty
Jail. Applicantds Exhibit "F" (Notice of Change of Address). Thereafter, on September 6, 2001the 5th District Court of Appeals denied Applicant's PRO SE motion for rehearing. Applicant's
Exhibit "E" (COA Order - 09/06/2002). On September 19, 2002
the court of appeals received pleadings from Applicant from the Tarrant County Jail and on October 4, 2002 the court of appeals
mailed an Order to Applicant at the Tarrant Coun§§ljail (that Applicant received). Applicant's Exhibit "H" (COA Order - 10/04/2002 & AMENDED PRO SE motion for rehearing). Finally, on-December 18, 2002 TDCJ completed "processing" Applicant back into TDCJ and assigned
him to a regular prison job. EXHIBIT`"CGC" - Applicant's Exhibit "Q" -
(TDCJ Job Change Slip).
4. Remembering that in speedy trial claims it was the State's passage of -time that had to be explained and reasons for the State's passage of time would necessary correspnd to the Applicant's reasons for the passage of time,
Thus, the record is clear that at the time the 5th District' Court of Appeals denied the PRO SE motion for rehearing (and
when the PDR was due) Applicant was incarcerated in :§§t Tarrant_ County Jail. Therefore, the record does not support the convicting
court's finding that TDCJ's failure to retain mail logs from
2002 prejudiced the State's ability to respond to the writ application. CONCLUSION
Neither the.State nor the convicting court have actually addressed the specfic ground for relief in the writ application. Applicant's ground relies upon the DUE PROCESS Clause of the Fourteeth Amendment to the U.S. Consitution. Nothing in the€ writ application makes any reference to the Sixth Amendment or any complaints against appellate counsel. Thus, the convicting court was incorrect to focusa on the conduct of appellate counsel. Indeed, at the time_when the court of appeals failed to NOTIFY Applicant of the denial of the PRO SE motion for rehearing, appellate counsel's duties in the case had ceased. The inability to`confimm any facts about the conduct of counsel could never prejudice the State in this case. And, certainly, it would not be material prejudice that would outweigh the State§s refusal to disclose the very evidence that is needed to demonstrate that no one notified Applicant when his PRO SE motion for rehearing was denied. ln fact, the State has still refused to disclose this material evidence -- the Tarrant County Jail legal mail logs.
The convicting court's Order (Findings, Conclusion, and'
guwpo¥el _ _ Recommendations) is not support@eé by the record. Thls Court of
Criminal Appeals should hold that Applicant is entitled to RELIEF
based upon the present record. Alternatively, this Court should
hold the case in abeyance and require the convicting court to hold an evidentary hearing (and enter appropriate findings).
Respectfully Submitted,
XY,",§ /wo»\/
SSamhel Wade Dooley
Hughes Unit
VERIFICATION BY INMATE DECLARATFON
l, Samuel Wade Dooley, TDCJ No. 1075237, being presently incarcerated in the Hughes Unit of TDCJ-CID in Coryell County, Texas, do declare under the penalty of perjury that the facts in these OBJECTIONS are true and correct to the best of my belief.
, h ' EXECUTED oh this the \S` day sf l;€a¢w»ci , 2015.
edU&/
Samuel Wade Dooley .Applicant PRO SE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (TO STATE AND COURT)
I, Samuel Wade Dooley, certify that l have caused a copy 1 of these OBJECTIONS to be mailed by lst Class USPS to the Collin County District Attorney and the CLerk of the COurt of Criminal Appeals, by placing it in the prison mail system, on this the
- §S‘“ day of. Feq,¢wm ,2015.
xhdih/ `
Samuel Wade Dooley Applicant PRO SE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLAINCE WlTH RULE 73
l, Samuel Wade Dooley, certify that these PRO SE OBJECTIONS are 10 pages in length, for a total of 45 pages in arguemnt presented to support this 11.07 writ applcation, and otherwise complaies with the rules to the best of my ability; See, Tex. R. App.P.,
73.3; Tex. R. A .`P. 73.1. v ' pp shirt /M&¢Z
Samhel Wade DooIey Applicant PRO SE
CCA WRIT NO. TR. CT. WRIT NO. W401-81397-00-HC TRIAL CAUSE NO. 401-81397-00
lN THE COURT OF 'EX PARTE
CRIMINAL`APPEALS OF TEXAS SAMUEL WADE DOOLEY
(/.`/>¢/.`/J(/J>f/.`/>f/.`/>
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS EXHIBIT "AAA"
Excert from:
Applicant's Exhibit "K"
lnternal Court Docket Sheet from Court of Criminal Appeals
%%"Remarks" on 11/14/2002 show due date for PDR%*
Court of Criminal Appeals Docket Sheet Report Printed On:
CCA Version 2.4.8,1 . . case Numbsr: PD-1250-02 5/22'2014 126-30 P'V' 5l1l2014 To 5l22l2014 Petitloner: Appellant Reeord Filed: 11/14/2002 Style: DOOLEY. SAMUEL WADE Motlon Fl|ed: vs: Origlnal Proceeding: No . Case Type: PDR Case Priority: Regu|ar Locatlon: CCA Locations - COA Defendant in Jail: Yes Bond: Punishment: 45 YRS Of'fense: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT Enhancement: Offense Code: 22.021 Offense Type: Aggravated Sexual Assau|t
Remarks: COA Opinion - AFF 06-04-02
Trial Court lD: 320430401 County: Collin Trlal Court Name: 401ST D|STRICT COURT Trlal Court Case Number: 401-81397-00 Trial Court Judge: MARK JOSEPH RUSCH Trial Court Reporter: Court of Appeals Case: 05-01-01172-CR COA Oplnlon: AFF 06~04-02 Contents: EXT PDR. CR, RR (5 VOLS), BR, S BR, PSMFREH Remarks: Pre-conversion Trial Court Judge: MARK JOSEPH RUSCH
m 4 ~ v
Pagy Tyge Par_ty Name APP DOOLEY. SAMUEL WADE
Regresentative Type Regresentative Name Bar Number Date On Date 0 lNM Samuel W. Dooley 01/01/1980
Pagy Tyge Pagy Name
sTA ' sTATE oF TExAs
.,~ ‘, ’1'/:‘
Representatlve Tyge Regresentatlve Name Bar Number Date On Date Off DAT John Roach 01/01/1980
. 'n¢¢reéifé?l.€vi*f" .;' Ass°¢'afd
lnterested
lnterested Entity Name E_l'\¢_iy_TY.L€ Bar Number Notlce? Date On Date Off Remarks
Samuel W. Dooley lNM Yes 01/01/1980
Tom O'Conne|| \' DAT Yes 01/01/1980
Lisa Matz CLK Yes 01/01/1980
EF¢">'ée'
. w l Event Date Event Descrigt|on DisgositlonTyge Ora| EnBanc Subm|ssionTyge Submlssion Process 7/19/2002 EXT PDR FlLED PRO SE No *'"’ Remarks: 7/19/2002 EXT PDR DISP/NF|PRO SE GRANTED No
**" Remarks:
Page 1
""* Remarks:
` Court of Criminal Appeals Docket Sheet Report Printed On: `_ CCA Version 2.4.6.1 - - l case Number: PD-1250-02 5/22/2°14 126-30 PN' 5l1/2014 To 5l22l2014 Petitioner= Appellanf Record Flled: 11/14/2002 sryle: DOOLEY. SAMuEL WADE Motlon Flled: VS: 8/29/2002 MoTloN FlLED PRo sE No w Remarks: Location: CLK MOTION FOR cCA To TAKE JuchlAL NoTlcE oF PRocEEDlNGS lN coA 9/5/2002 MOTION D|SP PRo sE DEN|ED No *~* Remarks: Location: HPB MoTloN FoR ccA To TAKE JUchlAL NoTlcE oF PRocEEDlNGS lN coA 11/14/2002 PDR FlLED PRo sE No
Location: CLK UNT|MELY FlLED (COA OP 6-4-02; PSMFREH DEN 9~6-02; PDR DUE 10~7-02; PDR CERT OF SERV 11-1-02; FlLED lN COA 11-4-02; PSTMRK 11-1-02; 2ND PSMFREH DEN 10-4-02 `_'
11/14/2002 PDR FlLED PRO SE No "'* Remarks: `
11/20/2002 PDR D|SP PRO SE UNT|MEL¥ No
*"' Remarks:
11/20/2002 PDR D|SP PRO SE UNT|MELY No
*** Remarks:
12/6/2002 F|NAL DlSP/UNT|MPRO SE UNT|MELY No
*"" Remarks:
112/2003 REH RECD/UNT|M|PRO SE No
"** Remarks: Location: CLK MFREH DUE 12-05-02; MFREH POSTMARKED 12-28-02; UNT|MELY FORWARDED TO COA TO BE PLACED |N RECORD 1/21/2003 MOT|ON RECE|VE|PRO SE RECE|VED No
'*' Remarks:
Location: CLK MOT|ON TO TAKE ACT|ON ON PRO SE MOTION FOR REHEAR|NG SENT TO COA
1/21/2003 MOT RECONS|DEFPRO SE RECE|VED No ""’" Remarks: 1/27/2003 MOT|ON FlLED PRO SE No
Location: CLK MOT TO RE|NSTATE APPEAL/DlSCRET|ONARY REVIEW W|TH PET|T|ON DUE TO NO OFF|ClAL ORDER |SSUED ON D|SM|SSAL AND/ORLATE |SSUANCE NOT|C_E OF ORDER OF D|SM|SSAL
1/27/2003 _MOT|ON D|SP PRO SE DEN|ED No *"* Remarks: 2/6/2003 REHEAR EXT MOT PRO SE NOACTION No **" Remarks:‘ 2/14/2003 MOT|ON RECE|VE|PRO SE No
**"’ Remarks:
Location!;CLK APP'S PRO SE PET|TION FOR EN BANC RECONS|DERAT|ON OF H|S MOT|ON TO RE|NSTATE APPEAL/PDR AND RELATED RELIEF - FORWARDED TO COA
3/7/2003
STAY MANDAT MC PRO SE No
Page 2
\ Docket Sheet Report Printed On: `
Case Number: PD-1250-02 522/2014 1:26:30 PM 5I1l2014 To 5l22l2014 Petltloner: Appel|ant Record Filed: 11/14/2002 Style: DOOLEY. SAMUEL WADE Motlon F|led: vs:
3/28/2003 STAY MANDAT MC PRO SE DEN|ED ~ No
*** Ren‘larks:' /
Calendar Date Seg Reason Set En Banc Ogin|onComments STORED 12/12/2002 RETURNED COA
Page 3
CCA WRIT NO. TR. CT. WRIT NO. W401-81397-00-HC TRIAL CAUSE NO. 401481397-00
1N‘1HE coUR1 oF ii;§; Ex PARTE .:::cRLM1NAL APPEALS oF'TExAs
C/.`/J¢/.`/>C/.`/>¢/"/Jf/.`/>
SAMUEL WADE DOOLEY » AT AUSTIN; TEXAS
EXHlBlT`"BBB"
Applicantls Exhibit "D"
Letter DATED July 3, 2002 from Appellate Counsel to Applicant
%%Date when appellate counsel’s duty in case ceased%%
ZXH\&` \r "a\"
David K. Haynes Attorney At Law 201 South McDonald Street, Suite A McKinney, Texas 75069-5624 (972) 542-1793/ (972) 562-6600 (Metro line)
l
July 3, 2002 -
Mr. Samuel W. Dooley TDCJ ID No. 1075237 Ferguson Unit
12120 Savage Drive Midway, Texas 75852
Re: Dooley v. State _ Cause No_ 05-01-01172-CR Our file No. 6545
Dear Mr. Dooley: `
I was surprised to receive your faxed letter of June 28, since the Court of Appeals decided your case on June 4. My records show that we sent you copies of the Opinion and the Judgment on June 6.
)
This is the reason I didn’t reply to your lengthy correspondence about the proposed reply brief; by the time I received it, there was no point in filing a reply brief, since the case was already decided. The reply brief would have added nothing to your appeal; the court already knows that you disagree with the state’s point of view.
As l read the opinion, there is no room for any additional post-conviction proceedings in the form of motions for re-hearing or petitions for discretionary review. As I have told you since the beginning, anyone who is trying to overturn the result of a voluntary open plea of guilty has an impossible task on his _or her hands. I am closing my file in your case. Good luck in the future. I enclose additional copies of the opinion and judgment of the court of appeals
Very truly yours,
is has
David K. Haynes
DKH:id
CCA WRIT NO. TR. CT. WRIT NO. W401-81397-00-HC TRIAL CAUSE NO. 401-81397-00
lN THE COURT OF EX PARTE CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS SAMUEL WADE DOOLEY `
c/./) w)c/./: c/:_/)
AT AUSTlN, TEXAS ExH1BlT "ccc"
Applicant's Exhibit "Q"
Bench Warrant and TDCJ Job Change Slip
%%Applicant incarcerated in Tarrant C6unty Jail when rehearing denied%%
REZC lifle == ' 20000.00’ 4 »- 07 79974
CRIMINAL DISTF!ICTF{:LE)§FB\;U NU. 3 maxim coumh® To ANY PEAcE ol=l=lcEa ol= THE m 10: l. sTATE ol= rExAs, GREETlNesZ.tm mg 28 `
You are hereby commanddd`lo§(§:§€§b§%n§dzdy of
and him safely
THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTV OF TARRANT
SAMUEL UADE DOUL.EY
keep. so that you have hlm before the Honorab|e
cRIMl:Nm_ DISTF
Tarrant County, at the Court House thereof, in the C|ty of Fort Worth, |nstanter, to answer the State of Texas on a charge by lndlctment of
]Al¥\|'_`r"‘l`_"\l{"\¢" L‘.'l"\k|hl Th|l° .\.nu..- ._.“... . »"\~-....\\..
warsaw fe'°nv-
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
issued under m_y hand and seal of office ln the City of ,_F'_ort Worth, `Texas
) /
this e'vrlidav'é¢>f' sEr‘TEMBER-:_j;>ooo-
FORM C. C. 265
No.
07'?98'?41)
TARRANT couer
WARRANT
THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. SAMUEL WADE DUGLEY 09186 FUREST LANE
DAL.|-AS T`X 0826
8 U M lSSUGd the 291'}.\ day O
' SEF'TEMBER ' "'3¢')':)0
Ceme to hand on the a?f'/£
day Of`§` F¢\~v:-v'" ,¢?LE)O
and exec ted on the ,.?/JF_
day of ,¢)yw/é" , 2001
A. D.
by'Q¢/gg¢`»v§ ¢'d §ZQFL Tarrant County, Texas,:
By L$__%:}?Deputy.
Arrest ....... $_______
Ml|eage ......
M|scellaneous . .
Oc'r 02 m Total ....... ,
_,