Henry, Bobby

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 13, 2015
DocketWR-29,870-03
StatusPublished

This text of Henry, Bobby (Henry, Bobby) 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
Henry, Bobby, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

j ... ' j.

July,9, 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals Clerk of Court P.O. Box 12308 Austin, TX 78711

RE: Original Application for Writ of M~ndamus District Clerk, Harris County•; Non-compliance/T.C.C.P. 11.07

Dear Honorable Clerk of Court:

P 1 ease ·find e nc l o sed : ( 1 ) 0 r i g in a L Ap p 1 i cation for Writ of Mandamus, and (2) Exhibits "A" through "C".

Pleas~ forward the Mandamus with attached exhibits to the Court for considerat·ion and ruLing. Thank you for your kind assist- ance with this matter.

Respectfully Submitted, i'flis documant contains some ~ages that are of poor quality at tfi§ lima of imaging. ·· Wayne Scott Unit 6999 Retrieve Rd. Angleton, TX 77515 IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEA(S

AUSTIN, TEXAS

BOBBY JOHN HENRY TDCJ-ID #1719613 RELATOR

v•

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK CHRIS DANIEL ..: IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY RESPONDENT

CAUSE NOS. 1282632-A & 128263~-A

180th JUDICIA~ COURT OF

HARRIS COUNT.Y, TEXAS

ORIGINAL APPLI~ATION.FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NBW, BOBBY JOHN HENRY, Relator, pro ~e in the above styled and numbered cause(s) of action and files this Original App- lication for Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to Article 11.07 Section 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (T~C.C.P.), and would show the Court the following: I. Bobby John Henry, T0CJ-ID #1719613, is an offender incarcB- rated in the Texas Department of Crim.inal Justice· and is appearing pro se, who can be located ·a.t the Wayne Scott Unit, Brazoria County, Texas 77515. Relator has exhausted his remed~es and has no other adequate remedy at law. The act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not disc~e~ • tionary in nature. T.C.C.P. Art. 11.07, §3(c) requires Respondent

-1- to immediately transmit to the Court of Cr~minal Appeals a copy of the a p p 1 i cation for .writ of habeas corpus , 'any answers, f i 1 e d , and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made, if the convicting court decides" that· there. were no issues to be resolved. No copy of the application•for writ of habeas cor-- pus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that fi~ding was m~de has been transmitted to the Court of \ Criminal Appeals. by Respondent as required by statute. Relator would have received notice~ f~om the Court of Criminal Appeals had Respondent done so. II. Responde.nt, ~hris Daniel~, in his official capacity as Dis- trict Clerk of Harris County, Texas, has a ministerial duty to re- ceive and file all papers in a crim1nal proceeding, and perform all other duties imposed on· the clerk by law pursuant to T.C.C.P. Art. 2.21, and is responsible under T.C.C.P. Art. 11.07, §3(c) to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which the· finding was made if the convicting court decides th~~ there are. no issues to be resolved. Chris Daniel~, District Clerk, Harris County, ~ay be served at his place of business at 1201 Franklin St., Houston, Texas 77002. III. VI 0 LA THIN · 0 F ARTICLE 11 ~ 0 7 0 F THE T EX A5 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The Res pond e nt v·i o 1 ate d 11 . 0 7 , § 3 ( c ) of the T • C . C . P • by fa i l- ing to provide a copy of the application ·for writ of habeas cor- pus, any answers filed, and a cerificate reciting the date upon· which that fin ding wa·s made to the Court of Criminal Appeals with- in the time prescribed· by law. and· within' a reasonable time from the date on which the documents were required·to be transmitted. Requests for· the transmittal of the application for writ of habeas corpus, and any answers filed, and a certificate rec~ting

the date upon hlhich that finding was made were made td Chris

-2- Daniel~·, District Clerk, Harris County, in the following ways: letters of inquiry and motions sent to the court between December 26, 2012 and May 05, 2014. (see· Exhibit "A"). The letters of inquiry consisted of r~quests from the Relator for the Clerk of Court to. send information regarding the reasons why i t was tak- ing so long for the ttial court to resolve the designated issues and reasons for the untimely remittance of Relator's 11.07 appli- cation to the Court of Criminal Appeals. The motions submitted by the Relator varied, but all sought to compel the Clerk and the trial court to comp'ly with Art.·11.07, §3(c). Exhibit 11 8 11 , dated June 1s; 2015, is a letter of inquiry to the Clerk of Court and a Notice that Relator would be fi1ing this Mandamus~ This letter ' served as Relator's final attempt at requesting Chris Daniels to comply with Art. 11.07, §3(c) by transmitting to the Court of Cri- minal Appeal~ a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date ·upon which that filing was made. Relator fu~ther requested that any attach- ments filed with or after the filing of the application, and a reason for the untimely delay for the transmission to the Court of Criminal Appeals be sent to the Court as well. To date, the Relator has received·no response from Respondent regarding Re1Btor 1 s request for transmittal of a copy of the appl- ication· for writ of habeas· corpus, any answers filed, and a cert- ificate reciting the date upon which that finding was made to the· Court of Criminal Appeals·. Nor has Relator been notified of any resolutions to the trial court's designated issues. Relator has even sought out infrirmation from the Court of Criminal Appeals. In a response to an inquiry from the Relator, Deputy Clerk Abel Acosta responded the· after searching records he ''found no post conviction writ of habeas corpus under trial court cause numbers 1282632 & 1282633, in the name of Bobby John Henry." (see Exhibit 11 c 11) •

As is clear from all of the Relator's motions and letters of inquiries, Relator has repeatedly put Respondent on notice

-3- that Relator seeks the res8lving of the designated issues and the transmittal of a copy of the application for wiit of habeas corpus, any answers fiied, and a certificate reciting the date upon which the finding was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals and that s u c h r e c o r d s a r e r e q u i r. e d by t h e Co u r t o f Cr i min a 1 Ap p e a 1 s t o a c t on Relator's writ of habeas corpus. Relator has gone well beyond any requirement or obligatiOn imposed upon him by the T.C.C.P. In contrast to the Relator's efforts, Respondent has wholly failed to comply with the T.C.C.P~ Art·. 11~07, §3(c), is acting in bad faith, and has also failed·to afford Relator the professional and common courtesy of any written response to his correspondence and motions. Article 11.07, §3(c) clearly states that "[i]f the C8nvicting court decides that there are no such issue·s, the clerk shall imm,..: ediate.ly transmit; [emphasis added] to the Court of Criminal. App- eals a copy of the application, any answers fil~d, and a certifi- cate ieciting the date upo~ which th~t finding was made. Failure of the court to act within the allowed 20 day~ shall constitute such a finding." T.C.C.P. Art. 11.07, §3(c). In this particular case, the court did make a finding of fact. However, it has/.> been just over two and a half years since Relator has filed his appli- cation. Ce~tainly enough time h~s passed for allowing the trial court to resolve Relator's issues, and Respondent is well past due in complying with Art. 11.07, §3(c). Respondent is in viola- tion of this procedure, ministeri~l duties~ and thus the laws of the State, IV.

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

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
James William Smith v. State of Kansas
356 F.2d 654 (Tenth Circuit, 1966)
Willie Gray Dixon, Jr. v. State of Florida
388 F.2d 424 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Henry, Bobby, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-bobby-texapp-2015.