Gary Eugene Sims v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Gary Eugene Sims v. State

DecidedJune 22, 2015

Docket05-15-00665-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Gary Eugene Sims v. State (Gary Eugene Sims v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gary Eugene Sims v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

CI1SE No. 05-15-00bbS-Cif. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH DISTRICT OF TE.XAS AT OALLI\S RECEIVED Court of Appeals t=>AR'I EU(g~N£. !5I.m~ APPe/IC111f JUN 2 2 2015 v. Lisa Matz C erk, 5th District . TilE ST~TE OF TEXA.S ,flfPeJJee. ON Af'PEAL ~ADJYl TH£ dBd. nd r:JUDICLAL O.ISTRICT COURT,OALLAS COLJNTY,TEXAS TRIAL CDUY

PURSLAANT TO ART.ICLE., 5d.Od, APPELLEE AFF.LOAVIT Th i"s is ccncern i'n TJ-JJ4T THIS LllNbU}'}~E /::>E. 9FF OF tnY DOCUmENTS FROm Tf/Zs cou~-r'\ANt:J ou-r oF m£ COntPLJTE..R, J4JV!J L ffm HESUE.ST VER .I J=ICATIONTH14 r 71-IIS IS OFF OF mY [JtJC,U111ENT:S ~ Thrank Vou ";Ju:s-h"e:e. EVan -.s, 1-of-~ CERTIF..ICATP OP ..SE.r?VX~£ 1.. k-er-~ lov cerh'f ·Hrot-1 -a true a~ ce;mp)9~ COPY oP t-he fore B0/h9 n1bf-lon flo/ A#idavff- was V i-CJ re~ulrC¥r /Y/CI/1 served uPot1 the O(str,fc,-f cre,;rk of' The P/P.fh £;(0~1- o/ 14 PPec:J I s a f 60b'. co;n/11e,;rue >-h ,OoJ/Q...> ~ '- 7520~- r3 Y ~J41RY EUBEA/E 5;J:J11.!!5) IIPPe//G'I ?f ;/7 fh f5 c;as,e_. • ~ }O'JC196t3,h.-LS-C}.tJLS

UNSWORN 0E.CLARJ:1TI.ON I uVle'Jen +he P6Y1e::1/t-Y oP Perjury DeC/Cire:s -I+Yct-t- all F='a"'C-f-5 PreSenf-ed ln OOCLIIY!~ ore frue a~ c.orr'€/CI- ~ S/9J1~ fh /5 dotv by tDt-rliV 5U~ENF-3Ihf_!S 0 Yl +hi~ +he .' /5 ,day of g'uMe a.o 15 ..

~ <:2ftR't EU&E.IVE .§J7YJ~ I.,o~ t:J.,JDd. '!f'9i8 Ct::Jnna//y vnil J.<.~i1eciY ~ 78//~ Exhtbi+ of case His-tor'/ WRIT NO. W00-45450-S(A)

EX PARTE § IN THE 282nd illDICIAL

§ . DISTRICT COURT

GARY EUGENE SIMS § DALLASCOUNTY,TEXAS

STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The State, having considered the allegations contained in Applicant's Application for

Writ of Habeas Corpus in the above numbered and entitl~d cause, makes the following

response:

I. HISTORY OF THE CASE

A jury convicted Applicant of the offense of aggravated sexual assault and assessed

punishment at confmement for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional

Division. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. (See

Sims v. State, Nos. 08-01-00121-CR, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1).

This is his first Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

To · fYJ~ <9YJ Y-Z-03 1

.- "" .... .

• 't~ CASE NO, 05-15-DObb5-CR IN TI-lE COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH OISTAICT OF ICXAS AT tJIILLAS (;,ARY EUISENE SI!YJS, AJOPe/Jan-r v. 'THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPellee

CJJJ APPEAL FRom TfJE ;l~~nd 7f"UDICIAL DISTRICT GALLAS COUNT'/) leXAS\TfiiJ4L COURT NO.FD0-45'iSD-.S

PURSUANT TO TC:Xf\.5 RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE, 6'7, moTION FO~ REHEf41UNt3 E./'1 P:ANC · APPELLANT REGUE ST AN EN J3ANC 'REI-IEARINB

EXHIBIT ATTACH fi).CoPY at- orderitla+ the cour+ dtdnot-en+ered. (;;n. Re tOue-s·t- .Por se·+·h n'9, 0

{3.), ObJec.+loY11 Ur1der TeJvo-s f?uJe. of lf.pp, Proc., LJI.{.'-l~ ('-4 1.. coPY of motion Por EvTden Harv fle<::J tin~ aYLCJ orscover't ~ {S) . Tl1i:s couri-Jrave. n1Y Case /1/.s;fory Wron 9 Se.-e E~J1ibi+ of c.ase J-1/:sforv. (b).__ Afftdovit conrwer-n(n9 cose-IIJ'.sft:X't ~

·"' -.:e.:. TD THE 'HoNORABLE 'Jl.JObE OF SAID CIJUI\T: Now comes EXPARTE . . ~ARY E.Ut5ENE~Im~, APPellcrVJt ·IYJ me above stYled and numberecl case.. makefn'9 +his said mo-hD~n flo·r £n 13anc Re.ClJYlSfdera+fon o-PRi~hs ·to J4PPeol saidorcler. Thts Hon&J(IabJe. court, Sbie}s we.. .f'trs+ nlJ-Ie- -fhar .o l-1-hou9l1 oPPe.JioY1+- s.J-ot-e.s the 1ric;,/ courf- dented ~is mofton on J4Prt/, ahaD/Sl We have no rec..ard oP a wrtff-en ord-er hovfng Joee.n en-tered. $ee. EXHIBIT OF OROER flTTACH To 111EJTrO;Vn Cllbe.. Trl'ol courl- ts Plavtn~ DirtY fbet\ Th~f- /s se ~rre3udl'ce_ the subs+anfit:AI !fJ9ht-_ tof +he APPellant loY "V lolafed o clufy I.n1Pe:sed b'Y law I / BY no+ • .' \ i;,-V ·.rY· so En+ertn-<.:J 1i1e DRTJER on Record • 1

~. -: .~~\-/;: '.,:'' ;:TURISDI.C.IDN OVER PBST-CDNVICT." LDN WRITS OF HABEAS eDRPUS ~e. .. e.., Ex Parte, Viii anueva, a.5a, sw..3d"3GJtux,cr/tY1.AfPJooB) Bock.9rovncl: APPI icont soush+- wrlt- oP hohea..s ,,~or Pus .. The "' 398--H-1 ors+rtc+ ceurf,H/da/Af!lo counfY~" Aido soJlflas Flores ,~tJ summ/f:lrtlv denied !fie s~ld CIPPircoHoY1 -, as Joelrr9 Prfvolou.s, APPitcan-tDPPealed~ -me-co~PU:S chrts+l'-Edimburg courf oP J4pp-eo/:s,o,{)ob wL a3'2a 'tb 1 -\ dlsmlssed the OPP-ea/,based on lack o-P Suri.sdl'ct-ion ~ Dfscretiol1arY revte w was G f'.oYJ+ed • Hotdnll5~ The cour-t-lJ.P crtmtMai!JPPea/s,/'(eosler" ~ Yield tha-t- an order of a d/.st-rlc.f cour-1- summari/Y denvlnd) as ft-tvolou.s, an aPPilocriTon -Por wrlt oP Habeas carPus seeKtn<:t relt~.P ..Prom an . set:tforhB, t-o the- Te.xta5 cor1sffturiDYI conler.s dfstrict cour-f..s wlrh(( e.x~lustve., aPPel/ale ai1d ortstrt~ L Jurisdic-Jfon oP all ac-t-lons, Prot:- e.,ecl i'n tr?.J s , an.rd t-erYJ.ecl/fJ./5 • AI so s. e e EX Parte Hor~e++ el'9, swad 0bb (T-+ZX~Crfm,14PP~I<=t91) APPeal cOH he had -Prom dtst-rlc+ courf order d-envtn9 aPPitCaHt- -Por Ha/Jea:s corPus re/le..P or1 merits oP J.-.ts cla/m, V-ernon's 14nrk 7it>

3-of-LJ CERTIFICATF DF SERVICE I V\e~e.. loY cer-ho-P fOO-l- Cl true orvd C!JrrJP/e-~e. c.oPY &fJ t-he. .Pore, 90tn9 motloYJ .flor Kehe.arins was vta re_9ular m4;/ st!!rved LIPDI'l fhe Dfstrit::t C/eY'k Of The... Fl'-A-h Ct::>urfof' IIP~/.s at- boo . . commerce. s+-, OC/Jias -r-exos,75;J,OJ.. B'J ~1'1KY EUfbENE 3I/11~, APPe/Jan-J- /n th/:S tC "GG s -e . 01?~ 1=1 ·~ · ~6S) "iiune-1 15iJ.00'-5

UNSWORN OE.CLAR,A TIO./V f'LI~Sil14NT TO u, s i -c, 17'i ~:::, APPelletn-1- und&r fhe {?e,J1CJitY oP PerjurY oe.c/Cir-e..-s +-hctt- otl Facf.s Fr-es-enl-ed 1n ooc.ume-nf are -/rue orJe:l correct- • .Si~ned fhf's day by ~J4RY Eli~£11/ESI/11~ bn fh,:s fhe 15 d'CAY of! "Zfune ~o 15 ..

~~"i ELl ft>EN E ·~J..n1 ~ -ro.~~ :r~n}4JIJ~t:fq6!iJ Conn ·e ;IIY LIJ11-r KeY\ eel'! TeX. 7~1 I 9 Cause Number: W00-45450-S(D)

EX PARTE § IN THE 282ND JUDICIAL

GARY EUGENE SIMS, § DISTRICT COURT Applicant § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDER

Applicant, Gary Eugene Sims, has filed a prose objection to the trial court's ruling recommending denial of Applicant's application for writ of habeas corpus without holding an evidentiary hearing. Applicant contends he is entitled to an evidentiary hea-ing and discovery.

The Court finds that Applicant's writ application was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeals January 18, 2014 and is no longer pending

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Applicant'srequest for an evidentiary hearing and discovery is DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI