Gray, John Robert

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 17, 2015
• Docket: WR-5,358-21
• Status: Published

Opinion

November 13th, 2015

CLERK OF Court of Criminal Appeals From: John Gray '' P.O. Box 12308; Capitol Station Boyd Unit - 475245 Austin, Texas 78711 200 Spur 113 Teague,Tx 75860

Re: APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, In re John Robert Gray from the 230th District Court of Harris County,Texas, of postconviction writ application number 481656-E.

Dear Clerk,

Enclosed please find and file 1-original APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(4 pages including the certificate of service to Hon. Judge Brad Hart, ex-

eluding this cover letter), and bring it to the immediate attention of one

of the latest elected judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Thank you.

cc: file

Hon. Brad Hard, District Judge

This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging.

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

NOV 1 7 2015 Abel Acosta, Cieri<: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN RE §

JOHN ROBERT GRAY § NO. ------------------------ APPLICATION, FOR· A· ·WRIT OF· MANDAMUS I. JURISDICTION

The Court of Criminal Appeals and each j~dge thereof has

proper jurisdiction, power and authorization to grant and issue

a writ of mandamus to a criminal district court judge ih crimi-

nal law matters pursuant to Article 4.04, Section l, Code of

Criminal Procedure. II. FACTS

1. Under postconviction writ number 481656-E in the 230th

District Court of Harris County,Texas, there-are three appl~ca­

tions: (l) original (first); (2) "Amended Application ... " (sec-

ond), and (3) "Second· Amended. Application ..• " filed during the

year 2015 and after August 25th, 2014 and after Applicant com-

pleted the Jury sentence of trial court Cause 481656 on August

09, 2014.

2. On July 06th, 2015, Judge Brad Hart of the 230th Dis-

trict Court signed an order adopting the State's proposed order

for filing an affidavit and ordered the General Counsel for TDCJ

to file an affidavit in response to each and every· five grounds

raised by applicant [within THIRTY'DAYS of the signing of the

order], but the TOCJ General Counsel has faVled or refused to

comply with the Court's order as of the below date of 11-13-15.

3. On 9-21-2015 Applicant wrote a letter to Jud~e Hart

1 to voice his co~plaint of be~ng denied due process and access

to courts based on the claim by one of the district courtcclerks

that Postconviction Writ Application Number 481656-E does not

exist in the court's computer system or files, but the judge

has thus far ~failed to·take any corrective action to comply

with Art.ll07, Section 3 (c) or (d), Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Applicant is entitled·to a recommendation by the trial

court to grant habeas corpus relief as a matter of cl~arly es-

tablished state and·federal law, where it was·not until after

August 9th, 2014, when he lawfully completed serving'the Jury

Sentence of Cause No. 481656·and discovered the factual and

legal basis of the pending 5-Grounds which were previously un-

available on or before August 25th,2015, when the BPP extended

its jurisdiction of Cause 481656 by charging-and convicting him

of a new felony and sentenced him to prison to the date of

10-25-2025 w·ithout the· possibility. of eligibility for actual

release to Mandatory Supervision from prison (the first ground).

III. ARGUMENT

For purposes of Art.1107, Sec.4(a)(c), January 28,2015,

is the documented date in which the Board of Pardons & Paroles

(BPP) made its final decision to rev6ke Appl~cant•s release to

Mandatory Supervision based on the blue-warrant of arrest on

August 25th, 2014,[which was after the Jury Sentence maximum

expiration date of August 9th, 2014, governed by Texas Gov•t

Code Section 508.143 (a)(b)]. Therefore, postconviction writ

applications under No. 481656-E squarely· focuses on the 'admi~

nistr~tion of the sentence of Cause 481656' by the BPP is not

2 a second or successive writ application. In re Cain, 137 F.3d

234 (5th Cir.l998). Applicant has no oth~r adequate remedy at

law under Article 11.07 to enfor~e Section 3(c} wh~ch appears

to be a mandatory duty to be performed by the trial court and

owed to Applicant. In re Wells, 252 S.W.3d 439 (Tex.App.-[l4th

Dist.] 2008. Without findings of fact and conclus~ons of law by the district court the Court of Criminal Appeals will norm-

ally ignore the unlaw£ull'and unconstitutional restraint of Applicant by denying the application without wr~tten order.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Applicant respectfully

requests for the Court of· Criminal Appeals to grant the appli-

cation for a wr~t of mandamus·with an order or instructions to

the presiding judge of the district court to immediately con-

duct findings of fact and conclusions of law on the Grounds

and memorandum of law presented by Applicant in the Second

Amended postc;:onviction writ application and any other relief

the Court deems proper and just in the public interest and in

the interest of justice.

November 13, 2015.

(Applic~nt pro se)

Boyd Unit - #475245

200 Spur 113

Teague, Texas 75860

3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above [APPLICATION

FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS] has been served to Honorable BRAD HART, District

Judge, 230th District· Court, 16th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002, by placing' same in a sealed postage pre:paid envelope and mailing same on this the

13th day of November, 2015.

't!llA-e ~Robert 7 Gray (Applicant pro se) Boyd Unit - 475245 200 Spur 113 Teague, Texas 75860