S2,WT05,OZjOl March 13, 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals Supreme Court Building P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station Austin, TX 78711
Re: Motion For Rehearing COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Ex parte Hansley WR-82,887-03 19 2015 Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed for filing the origiifar-'arfd' one un bound copy of my pro se MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION'FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Please indicate the date of filing on the enclosed copy of this cover letter and return the same to me in the postage paid envelope provided for your use.
Respectfully,
0lJcKoJ O^rJL Michael S. isley Hansley (/ Clements Unit - 1815497 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
cc .
file encls. March 13, 2015
Abel Acosts, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals Supreme Court Building P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station Austin, TX 78711
Re: Motion For Rehearing Ex parte Hansley WR-82,887-03
Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed for filing the original and one un bound copy of my pro se MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Please indicate the date of filing on the enclosed copy of this cover letter and return the same to me in the postage paid envelope provided for your use.
Michael S. Hansley Clements Unit - 1815497 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
cc.
file ends. NO: WR-82,887-03
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
MICHAEL SHAYNE HANSLEY,
Petitioner,
v. MOTION DEWED) ) THE STATE OF TEXAS, ^ Respondent.
MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner/Applicant, Michael Shayne Hansley, submits this
motion for rehearing/reinstatement asking the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals to reconsider its dismissal of the pro se
application for writ of habeas corpus and with respect thereto,
will show the following:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Applicant filed his pro se application for writ of
habeas corpus seeking relief from the judgment in the 212Th
Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas in cause numbers ll-CR-1177, ll-CR-1'178, and ll-CR-1179.
2. On February 10, 2015, the trial court entered an order
with a general denial of all relief sought and the same was
Page 1 forwarded to this court on or about the 13th day of February,
2015.
3. On March 4, 2015 this Court dismissed without written
order the application for writ of habeas corpus for a rule 73.1
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure procedural violation for
exceeding the 50-page limit of a non-computer generated memorandum
of law in support of the application.
B. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
4. The Court of Criminal Appeals should grant a rehearing
and reinstate the application for writ of habeas corpus for an adequate review of the unconstitutional claims presented therein.
5. Dismissal of the application for writ of habeas corpus for non-compliance with rule 73.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (TRAP) is not the appropriate method in accordance
with handling a pro se application when the trial court refused to rule on the pro se filed Motion To Exceed the Page Limit as indicated by the transcript presented to this Court.. The
Applicant cannot force the trial court to rule on filed motions before it. The trial court does not have the discretion to refuse to rule. In rs Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.- El paso 2006, orig. proceeding.).
6. Applicant complied with all requirements by filing the appropriate motions with the convicting court. Rule 73.1(d). The trial court refused to rule and prevented Applicant from correcting the page limit requirement prior to the clerk filing the same with this Court.
Page 2, 7. In the two filed Motions requesting to exceed the
page limits (See trnscript pgs.. 386, 393) and established "good
cause" to exceed the page limit. However, the court refused
to rule on any filings. Id. Shredder.-
8. A total miscarriage of justice is established in the
unconstitutional conviction of applicant which is clearly pre
sented in the application. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722
(1991); Murray v. Carrier, 47 7 U.S. 478 (1986). The trial court
has refused to correct a clear error of law and process and
the same has been presented to this Court of which Applicant
is respectfully requesting to be reinstated and ruling on the merits be given.
C. PRAYER.
9. Wherefore, for these reasons stated in this motion,
Applicant respectfully asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant this motion and reinstate the Application for writ of habeas corpus and issue a ruling on the merits.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael S. Hansley," Clements Unit-18154^7 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Pro se March 13, 2015
Page 3, VERIFICATION
My name is Michael S. Hansley and I have read the. above
motion for rehearing/reinstatement. -Pursuant to Rule 79 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.the court has not denied
the Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus under 79.2(d) and
a rehearing is appropriate. All stated facts therein are true
and correct and this motion is filed within the 15-day alowance
for filing •by placing the same in the Bill Clements Unit prison
mail system on this 13th day of March 2015.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service was accomplished by placing a true and exact copy
of this instrument in the Bill Clements unit prison mail system, postage paid on this 13th day of March, 2015, addressed to:
Rebecca Klaren Assistant District' Attorney 600 59th Street, Suite"1001 Galveston, TX 77551
emu 4LA,. lichael Shayne Hansley Micnaei snayne HansJ^y Clements Unit-1815497 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Pro se
Page 4. NO: WR-82,887-03
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Respondent.
MOTION FOR UEHEAKIMG/REINSTATEMESiT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR S?RIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
application for writ of habeas corpus and with respaefcfc thereto,
habeas corpus seeking relief from the judgment"in the 212Th
Judicial District Cocnt of Galveston County, Texas in cause
numbers ll-CR-1177, ll-CR-1178, and ll-CR-1179.
2. On February 10, 2015, the trial court *entered an order
Page 1. forwarded to this court on or about the 13th day of February,
order the application for writ of habeas corpus for a rule 73.1
exceeding the 50-page limit of a non-computer generated memorandum
of lav/ in support of the application.
4»- The Court of Criminal Appeals should grant a rehearing
and reinstate the application for writ of habeas corpus for
an adequate review of the unconstitutional claims presented
therein.
5. Dismissal of the application for writ of habeas corpus
for non-compliance with rule 73-1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure (TRAP) is not the appropriate method in accordance
with handling a pro se application when the trial court refused
to rule on the pro se filed Motion To Exceed the Page Limit
as indicated by the transcript presented to this Court.. The
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
S2,WT05,OZjOl March 13, 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals Supreme Court Building P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station Austin, TX 78711
Re: Motion For Rehearing COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Ex parte Hansley WR-82,887-03 19 2015 Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed for filing the origiifar-'arfd' one un bound copy of my pro se MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION'FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Please indicate the date of filing on the enclosed copy of this cover letter and return the same to me in the postage paid envelope provided for your use.
Respectfully,
0lJcKoJ O^rJL Michael S. isley Hansley (/ Clements Unit - 1815497 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
cc .
file encls. March 13, 2015
Abel Acosts, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals Supreme Court Building P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station Austin, TX 78711
Re: Motion For Rehearing Ex parte Hansley WR-82,887-03
Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed for filing the original and one un bound copy of my pro se MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Please indicate the date of filing on the enclosed copy of this cover letter and return the same to me in the postage paid envelope provided for your use.
Michael S. Hansley Clements Unit - 1815497 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
cc.
file ends. NO: WR-82,887-03
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
MICHAEL SHAYNE HANSLEY,
Petitioner,
v. MOTION DEWED) ) THE STATE OF TEXAS, ^ Respondent.
MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner/Applicant, Michael Shayne Hansley, submits this
motion for rehearing/reinstatement asking the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals to reconsider its dismissal of the pro se
application for writ of habeas corpus and with respect thereto,
will show the following:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Applicant filed his pro se application for writ of
habeas corpus seeking relief from the judgment in the 212Th
Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas in cause numbers ll-CR-1177, ll-CR-1'178, and ll-CR-1179.
2. On February 10, 2015, the trial court entered an order
with a general denial of all relief sought and the same was
Page 1 forwarded to this court on or about the 13th day of February,
2015.
3. On March 4, 2015 this Court dismissed without written
order the application for writ of habeas corpus for a rule 73.1
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure procedural violation for
exceeding the 50-page limit of a non-computer generated memorandum
of law in support of the application.
B. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
4. The Court of Criminal Appeals should grant a rehearing
and reinstate the application for writ of habeas corpus for an adequate review of the unconstitutional claims presented therein.
5. Dismissal of the application for writ of habeas corpus for non-compliance with rule 73.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (TRAP) is not the appropriate method in accordance
with handling a pro se application when the trial court refused to rule on the pro se filed Motion To Exceed the Page Limit as indicated by the transcript presented to this Court.. The
Applicant cannot force the trial court to rule on filed motions before it. The trial court does not have the discretion to refuse to rule. In rs Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.- El paso 2006, orig. proceeding.).
6. Applicant complied with all requirements by filing the appropriate motions with the convicting court. Rule 73.1(d). The trial court refused to rule and prevented Applicant from correcting the page limit requirement prior to the clerk filing the same with this Court.
Page 2, 7. In the two filed Motions requesting to exceed the
page limits (See trnscript pgs.. 386, 393) and established "good
cause" to exceed the page limit. However, the court refused
to rule on any filings. Id. Shredder.-
8. A total miscarriage of justice is established in the
unconstitutional conviction of applicant which is clearly pre
sented in the application. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722
(1991); Murray v. Carrier, 47 7 U.S. 478 (1986). The trial court
has refused to correct a clear error of law and process and
the same has been presented to this Court of which Applicant
is respectfully requesting to be reinstated and ruling on the merits be given.
C. PRAYER.
9. Wherefore, for these reasons stated in this motion,
Applicant respectfully asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to grant this motion and reinstate the Application for writ of habeas corpus and issue a ruling on the merits.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael S. Hansley," Clements Unit-18154^7 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Pro se March 13, 2015
Page 3, VERIFICATION
My name is Michael S. Hansley and I have read the. above
motion for rehearing/reinstatement. -Pursuant to Rule 79 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.the court has not denied
the Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus under 79.2(d) and
a rehearing is appropriate. All stated facts therein are true
and correct and this motion is filed within the 15-day alowance
for filing •by placing the same in the Bill Clements Unit prison
mail system on this 13th day of March 2015.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service was accomplished by placing a true and exact copy
of this instrument in the Bill Clements unit prison mail system, postage paid on this 13th day of March, 2015, addressed to:
Rebecca Klaren Assistant District' Attorney 600 59th Street, Suite"1001 Galveston, TX 77551
emu 4LA,. lichael Shayne Hansley Micnaei snayne HansJ^y Clements Unit-1815497 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Pro se
Page 4. NO: WR-82,887-03
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Respondent.
MOTION FOR UEHEAKIMG/REINSTATEMESiT FROM THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR S?RIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
application for writ of habeas corpus and with respaefcfc thereto,
habeas corpus seeking relief from the judgment"in the 212Th
Judicial District Cocnt of Galveston County, Texas in cause
numbers ll-CR-1177, ll-CR-1178, and ll-CR-1179.
2. On February 10, 2015, the trial court *entered an order
Page 1. forwarded to this court on or about the 13th day of February,
order the application for writ of habeas corpus for a rule 73.1
exceeding the 50-page limit of a non-computer generated memorandum
of lav/ in support of the application.
4»- The Court of Criminal Appeals should grant a rehearing
and reinstate the application for writ of habeas corpus for
an adequate review of the unconstitutional claims presented
therein.
5. Dismissal of the application for writ of habeas corpus
for non-compliance with rule 73-1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure (TRAP) is not the appropriate method in accordance
with handling a pro se application when the trial court refused
to rule on the pro se filed Motion To Exceed the Page Limit
as indicated by the transcript presented to this Court.. The
Applicant cannot force the trial court to rule on fi&ld motions
before it. The trial court does not have the discretion to
refuse to rule. In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.33 676, 679 (Tex.App.- El paso 2006, orig. proceeding.).
6. Applicant complied with all requirements by filing the appropriate motions withtlshe convicting court. Rule 73.1(d).
The trial court refused to rule and prevented Applicant from correcting the page limit requirement prior to the clerk filing the same with this Court.
Page 2. 7. In the two filed Motions requesting to exceed the
page limits (See trnscript pgs. 386, 393) and established "good
cause" to exceed the page limit.. However, the court refused
to rule on any filings. Id. Shredder.
unconstitutional conviction of applicant which is clearly pre
(1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986). The trial court
is respectfully requesting to be reinstated and ruling on the
merits be given.
Applicant respectfully asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to
grant this motion and reinstate the Application for v/rit of
habeas corpus and issue a ruling on the merits.
Micha&fc S. Hansley, Clements Unit-1815497 9601 Spur 591. Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Pro se March 13, 2015
Page 3. VERIFICATION
My name is Michael S. Hansley and I have read the above
motion for rehearing/reinstatement. Pursuant to Rule, 79 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure the court has not denied
a rehearing is appropriate. All stated facts therein are true
and correct and this motion is filed within the 15-day alowance
for filing by placing the same in the Bill Clements Unit prison
of this instrument in the Bill Clements unit prison mail system,
postage paid on this 13th day of March, 2015, addressed to:
Rebecca Klaren Assistant District Attorney 600 59th Street, Suite 1001 Galveston, TX 77551
Michael Shayne Hansley Clements Unit-1815497 9601 Spur 59.1. Amarillo, TX 79107-9606 Pro se
Page 4.