Hines, Joseph Barnard

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided April 20, 2015·No. WR-55,762-10·Published

Opinion

'~. ;.\ ` . '(r.. ','~ » '» " \_

r-,`

55,7152»¢©

CLERK OF THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O. BOX 12308,CAPITOL S'I'ATION AUSTIN,TEXAS_ 78711

RECE|VED lN 16,15 APRIL couRT oF cR\MlNAL APPEALs RE: wRIT oF HABEAS coRPUS‘IN¢ TRIAL CAUSE N0.776435-B ` ` APR 20 2015 cLERK, - Abe|Acosta,Clerk

Can you please file this rebuttal with writ of habeas corpus application in the above cause number for the court's review. Further can you please

inform me if your office has recieved the application and exhibits from the

trial court.

Thank you. ' . f / \' c.c.f. x ~ ` 7 l ;; n ' l ' OSEPH B. HINES#90l768 CONNALLY UNIT

899 FM 632 KENEDY,TX.78ll9

EX PARTE , § JOSEPH BARNARD HINES, § TRIAL cAUSE N0.776435-B APPLICANT § WR-

APPLICANT'S REBUTTAL TOTHE .S'-I‘ATE"S' ORIGINAL ANSWER AND THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACT..CONCLUSION` OF LAW,AND ORDER.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE(S) OF THE COUR'l‘ OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW,JOSEPH BARNARD HINES,Applicant,in pro se,and files his rebuttal to the State's original answer and the trial court's findings of fact,conclusions of law,and~order; Applicant`willl show the court the following:

I`.

Applicant filed his second writ of habeas corpus with the lBOth district court of Harris COunty,on 3-23-14,as and attact on the’ courts jurisdiction and juvenile court's order waiving jurisdict- iOn.See, EX-O[ ORDER WAIVING JURISDICTION~]THIS"ORDER IS ALSO ON FILE WITH THIS COURT IN APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL. APPLICATION IN"WR-55,.762-.02,AS A STATE EX- HIBFL Applicant recieved the State's original answer on 4-14<15, and recieved the trial court's:finding of fact,conclusions of law and order on 4-16-15. Applicant never recieved an opportunity to rebut the State's answer.

II.

Applicant contends that the State's request for dismissal and the trial court's order is improperly requested,where Applicant has satified Tex‘Crim;Proc.Code art.ll.07§`4(a)(l)(b) &(a)(2).

11.07 section 4(a)(1)(b) &(a)(z) (a) If a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus is filed after final disposition of an initial application challenging the same conviction,a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the application contains sufficient specific facts establishing that: ' l; the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in an original application or in;a priviously considered application filed under this article be-

l

cause the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on

the date the applicant filed the previous application;g£

2. by a preponderance of the evidence/but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

(b) vfor purpose of subsection (a)(l)ja legal basis of a claim is unavailable on or before a date decribed by subsection(a)(l)if the legal basis was not recognized by and could not have been reasonably formulated from a final decision of the United Stad$”\ Supreme COurt,a court of appeals of the United States for ama COurt of Appellate jurisdiction of this state on or before that date. TEX;PROC. CODE ANN.ll¢O7§4(a)(l)(b)&(a)(2).

THE BREAK DowN oF 11.07§ 4(.a)(1)(b) & (a)(2) To APPLICANT'S wRIT oF HABEAS cORPUS ' `

The Case MOON v.STATE,4lO S.W.3d 366/2013 TEX.APP;LEXIS 9345 (TEX.APP.HOUSTON lst.dist.2013) was not ruled on by the lst COurt of Appeals until 2013 and affirmed by the COurt of Criminal App- ealS until 2014.See,MOON v. STATE)___S.W.3d___,2014 TEX.CRIM.APP. LEXIS 1918r2014 WL 6997366.

But for almost forty yearsbthe'tendency among the Court of App: eals has been to hold that a juvenile transfer order need not‘ specify in detail the facts supporting the order.see,MOON v}STATE 2014 TEX.CRIM.APP.LEXIS 1918 at dissent.

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that,"What is lacking in our statutory scheme-as is lacking in Kent-is any express statement of the applicable standard of appellate review of the juvenile court's transfer order. In the absence on an explicit statutory standard of appellate review,the court of appeals have filled the void with decisional law spelling out how they will go about pro-

viding the "meaningful review" contemplated by KENT.see,id. at 454

In the instant case, Applicant filed his original writ of ha- beas corpus 8-25-04 WR-55,762-02,but even if Applicant would have raised the current issue on appeal or his first application/it

would have been fruitless where the courts' tendencies for al- most forty years lacked a applicable statutory standard of reviewl

So any review of the claim would have violated Applicant's due process right,so he has satified TEX.CRIM.PROC.CODE ANN. art. ll.07 § 4(a)(l)(b) & (a)(2),where:

WHERE THE LEGAL BASIS WAS NOT RECOGNIZED'BYFand COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REASCNABLY FORMULATED FROM.A`FINAL`DECISION OF A COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THIS STATE ON OR BEFORE THE FILING OF 8-25-04 of HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

III.

Applicant further contends that this conviction is causing col- lateral consequences/because due to the unlawful arrest of-Appli-‘ cant as a juvenile,evidence was collected from him. Such_as:TWO PHOTOGRAPHS,FINGER-PRINTS,and DNA,which was use to convict him in trial cause numbers' 776436,800590,80059lyand 809892.see,EX-P [COUNSEL'S 2nd MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN`EXPERT/WHICH LIST ALL CAUSE NUMBERS. CAUSE NO.803298 On THE MOTION LATER» BECAME -809892]?6€€ alSO, EX-Q [oFFENSE. PoLIcE R__EPORT OF cAUs/El N0.809892,800590,800591 at pg.19 and 21.] .

CONCLUSION

Applicant contends that the State's and trial court has impro- perly requested for the dismissal of his writ of habeas corpus. When he has in fact satisifed the standards set out in TEX.CRIM. PRoc.coDE art.11.07 § 4

Additionally by a preponderance of the evidence,but for a vio- lation of.Applicant's constitutional rights[due process & lack of jurisdiction] no rational juror could have found him guilty be-

yond a reasonable doubt.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Applicant respectfully prays that this honorable Court of Crim-

inal Appeals grants this rebuttal and reaches the merits of his

claim. j md m~f/ 01 1 !` l l l ‘\./

Ex PARTE, ’ ' ' § JOSEPH BARNARD HINES; § TRIAL cASE N0.776435-B

APPLICANT § WR_

PROPOSE ORDER

On this day of ' came to be heard on Applicant's rebuttal to the State!s original answer and the trial court's findings of fact,conclusions of law,and ORDER,and it is this

COurt determination that Applicant's rebuttal is:

GRANTED,

The court clerk is ordered to inform all parties of the courts

ruling.

executed on

JUDGE(S) OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Applicant,JOSEPH BARNARD HINES,#901768,hereby certify that this » rebuttal to the State's original answer and the trial courts' findings of fact,conclusions and order was mailed by U.S.P.S. to: THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,at P.O. BOX 123081 CAPITOL STATION,AUSTIN,TX.787ll,on April 16,2015. Applicant is

unable to provide the State with a copy due to his indigence.

executex on 4-16-15. /;2:14: /// v v

s;.:’ il nj :" "_ 4:' f \') j %gqézfp . ' GWQM§`” - %/C ée/ '

THE sTATE oF TExAs ` ; ` IN THE 313TH DISTRICT coURT

NO.98-OO755J

COUNTY OF HARRIS § OF HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S ORDER WAIVING JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH BARNARD HINES.

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

Hines, Joseph Barnard, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Hines, Joseph Barnard (Hines, Joseph Barnard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.