Goosby, Richard

CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 3, 2015
DocketWR-79,522-02
StatusPublished

This text of Goosby, Richard (Goosby, Richard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Goosby, Richard, (Tex. 2015).

Opinion

~ ";IQ 15 363 `Q§

October 25, 2015 PRICHARD?GQOSBY] Clements Unit ,9601 SPUR 591 Amarillo, Texas 79107-9606

\ RE i/‘{e”\./ _.7\-'1‘0: Abel Acosi;a, Court; Cle\_ck` . _ CSURT OF%§%§RLN;PEALS gm §;;’aii"‘x.r;§§§$z£§§m . ' Nov 03 2015 Re: [RICHARD GoosBY] Tr. Ct. No. 1315052-13 ` n Ab€lACDSm’CE@Fk

Wr-79,522-02 Dear Mr. Agosta;

Enclosed please find a copy of the above named applicant'S Response and And Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be filed in the above Styled and Numbered cause. Thank you for your time in advance.

/(RICHARO `e,@@®

Richard Goosby

oc: Harris County 230th Dist. Court District Attorney'S Office

encl... RG/AA

Cause No. lBlSO§Z-B Ex Parte § IN THE 230t'n DISTRICT § coURI or [RICHARD GoosBY] 4 § HARRIS coUNTY, 'rExAs APPLICANT'S RE:SPONSE AND PRoPosED FINDINGS oF FACT AND coNcL'UsIoNSv oF‘ 'LAw

The Applicant [RICHARD GOOSBY] files this Applicant's Response and Pro- posed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in the above-captioned cause, having been served with the State’s'Original Answer and Proposed Findings of

Fact and Conclusions Law, and will show the following:

As to Applicant‘s First and Second Grounds

Breach of Plea Agreement: ` n

There is some oversight as to the record. In State*s Writ Exhibit E is the Applicant's NOTICE OF APPEAL signed by the Judge and filed by the District' Clark and signed by counsel for the Applicant. On Page 2 of 2 entitled the Order, ' the Court Orders that the Defendant‘s motion has been granted. _

Futhermore, the Reporter's record holds, "you would be able to appeal the case once it's completed, yes, sir;" (II R.R. at 13). With this language, the court lead the §pplicant to believe that once the case was l‘completed", whether plea bargain or jury trial, that he would have a right to appeal. It is a common act to enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving the right to appeal. By the oral record and by the Notice of Appeal, and finding Applicant indigent, and ordering a record be prepared free of charge, and granting Applicant*s request for appointment of appellate counsel on behalf of Applicant, shows that the court intended on granting Applicant an Appeal. The Applicant asserts in his 11.07 Application that the Appeal was a condition of his plea. And it is clear in te record that Applicant was very adamant about an appeal. He had repeated his and maintained his wish to appeal (II R.R. at 5). Breach of the Agreement.- The determination of whether a party breached a plea agreement is governed by the law of contracts. (Q;§;' v¢ Harper, 643 F.Bd 135, 143 (5th Cir. ZOll). The Applicant is "entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the government breached oral promise", Apparent on the.record. (U S. v. Hernandez, 17 F.3d 78, 81-33 (Bth Cir. 1999) -. Please be advised, Applicaht has rescinded all signatures due to breach of agreement (See Notice of Recission and Cancellation attached and herein incorporated by reference). Applicant requests an evidentiary hearing to

l.

develop the record. Mental Health History and Competency Hearing

The State claims there was an additional compentency hearing on record. The Docket Sheet shows on 9/15/2011 an exam for competency and an exam for sanity was ordered by the court. The second motion by the new trial counsel for Examination end Compentency and sanity on 5/17/2012 was filed. Yet, there is no record on the docket sheet that the court ordered the Exams.

The State claims that the second Examination was the same result as the first. Yet, there is no record of a second examination or even a hearing of such. the Reporter's Record reflects that the court ordered an examination on June ll, 2012. There is no Doctor's records of such showing that the Applicant was competent to stand trial. The only evaluations the State provides are dated October 6, ZOll. Applicant requests an evidentiary hearing to develop the record.

As to Applicant:s Third Ground

l Wilford Anderson, Court appointed trial counsel, did not inform Applicant correctly and honestly. Appiicant maintains that trial equniel was not effective in his representation and violated Applicant*s right to“counsel. There is no evidence by affidavit or otherwise that applicant was effectively represented by Wilford Anderson. Applicant request an evidentiary hearing to develop the

record.

The Applicant raises questions of law and fact-that Cannot be resolved by the Court of Criminal Appeals upon review of the official court records without an evidentiary hearing and one should be held to resolve these issues.

The Applicant has met his burden of proof and ask for the relief requested be granted in this matter. q

Certificate of Service

I, Richard Goosby, do declare under penalty of perjury that the above copy

of this instrument was sent by first class U.S.F.S. mail, postage prejpaid to

the below following addresses on Octoberibd, 2015 to the following addresses:

Chris Daniel, Harris County Dist. Clerk »Abel Acosta, Court Clerk P'.o. Box 4651 ‘ P.o. Box 12308, cAPIToL sTATIoN

Houston, Texas 77210-4651 Austin, Texas %3711

Devon Anderson

District Atorney

1201 Franklin St~, Suite 600 Houston/ Texas 77002-1923

CEBV Richard Goosby

111 1 ;‘z`

illi,1111111<13 60051313 116 1161 zlz:li» 511,11111,1111115` 111111

5001 519111'<5'§11 . , pim&"(\\\@ 1T6110§ YCCcQ11\0\1C

1:1~1_1073 . ' ' 1101'0116 06 RPSCE£S:L@M 11111301110;161111311 `OF 110; 5'161\11\1111<65 310 6151~ 1\11111/15116 151506\23 .

.;`§1,

7 _1 1310/1010 6005\13*1 01 111/1113 5601-1601 10101/1 00 1116 1,£111111 1011 1

P10\161\ 01`\06r11\113€.1 6\0 1161'6;\')‘1 1656§10(3 §0( 61111,56_. 0§ 1111§011( 1156 1;§

/1)6`11_\6,1’ 011310‘5 0111.§ C)§ 1\(16 1906§165 116\1;11`1\16 9651§101113 000 <65111 1+`1\113

*_ 111 010 111001115611,110\1116 115166111611§ 011111 §111\1116 10 0151,\1,56 115165-, -_ ' 1761/115 13151\_1651>6115115`1111~165 1 61151:11’101»\1165 6116111'1611 1110/111 00111110\_

-'611110 160165111§1;'1§116 1‘0190161`1163 111 6056 11_111111:)6r 15156>5?.1 6\110 101\

101111@_1 0§§615 11\06111'11611151 1051111111111611151 111/111 121130155_65 155116~61 §o_ 1116

01 '1116~ 1; 1?‘16111§20 6)0513§1:_1 1101 1116 waller 6§ 6115'6 1001 151505?.

’W\c 5666'1§16 6001106§ 111/111116 111 111\1'5 6056» 1005 -1111611 1 191611 1\510;1116111.

’“11\15 60111106§ 11§‘1131661`116111111)0~5 10611)06€1\ 1_;1<3”,11116_0 6`313(`336`1_31‘1'106; ' v 0150211;‘1 113101'\1\1€\1 §13( 1111$11615 61)111\11`11'1’1>1111310110 1116 350'111 1315123(`1 61111§ 10 1111/16 §06 harr\$_. 66“11\51\11'1'€)103

1\31§_\001§§ (d):)§@“.l 1003 Prow\(3&6\ 25 \1£013 611136-\ C\_\(\ 0131901(111101§\1 +Q\ 090613\ /1'\013 `1§ 6’,\116\6.\066:0 \5\1 1106 §61.\1§§3 166011€.\3 051§\1\-\\1\6 6131111' 116001§&< §c<' i\nC 230§`1/\ 015\11'16_’\` 061\\§ 0106\ ‘1\1`16 1'101r\“1`3_ Coiiv\§‘l

_ D\§§\ 165 C_\€(Y~S 0§§1630___ %611\‘.’3 l\(\ct§ €6`\11.:\1 31061/1§ 1¥\ ct 616 1mmct\ Ce\n\ht§\o\l\ 15 010 06§1_0\{`11¥\ rewh 366¥11311@0§ _\111_116_1011§1 /-11,1,-.

1"10113, 5101.72 116 1105€51'31111_1?1+1w 1311 (13516111_, 1111 6011§1016§ §611~/15.61160 111 1116 605'6 60011011661 1.+5-6)161_:1.11-1010..

-[ 1016 6¢'

`\ . f _1

I§, 1\116 /19__1111{9056 0§_- -.1,\1\6 600§101,§1_'_01,1.)00.£1@\01111~11»§§__ 11111_\ 1\6£<1'11\01/1+

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

Related

United States v. Hernandez
17 F.3d 78 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Goosby, Richard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goosby-richard-tex-2015.