McIntosh, William Arthur

• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Decided: February 23, 2015
• Docket: WR-26,858-06
• Status: Published

Opinion

William Mcintosh TDCJ-Id No. 688254 Robertson Unit 12071 F.M. 3522 Abilene, Texas 79601

Clerk/ Abel Acosta Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. BOX 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711

February 18, 2015

Mr. Acosta,

Sir, please find enclosed my motin for re-hearing if you would be so kind as to file same with the court I would really appreciate it. thank you in advance for your assistance.

Sincerely,

William Mcintosh

FEB 2 3 201! WR-26,858-06

Tr. Ct. No. 20,084-CR

William Arthur Mcintosh In the Court of § VS. § Criminal Appeals § State of Texas § Of Texas §

MOTION FOR REHEARING

Comes Now/ William Arthur Mcintosh, Defendant, In the above styled and

nyumbered cause and would respectfully ask this to court ot rehear his Motion To Compel for the following reasons:

I.

This Court in In RE Bonilla, 424 S.W. 3d 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

decided that athe District Clerk could not block a pro se litigant from

accessing the courts. . This case is similiar to the case in InRE Bonilla as Mcintosh wrote to the District Attorney and requested the ooportunity

to purchase copies of part of the record. Namely some medical records and copies of his interview with the police as well the victims interview. The District Attorney denied that quoting from 552.028. Mcintosh then wrote to the judge of the court and asked him to inform the District Attorney to comply with the request. Nothing happened. Then tMcIntosh filed a Motin to Compel with this court which then denied without written order on2-ll-2015..

II.

This court has went against what it decided in In Re Bonilla when it declined to hear Mcintosh's Writ of Mandamus (Motion To Compel)By doing so this court is not blocking Mcintosh from access to the ocurts which the Supreme Court has stated in is "a Denial of [his] access to court which is a fundamental right under the constitution." see Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed. 2d 72 (1977); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485, 89 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed. 2d 718 (1969). We Agree. In Re Bonilla424 W. 3d 528

So this court agrees with Bonilla but then when another person comes before

this court asking for the same assistance you no longer agree. I Mcintosh

has found no evidence that In Re Bonilla, has beenii overturneds o it should

still stand. The only differnece is that Bonilla asked for his paperwork

from the District Clerk whereas Mcintosh has asked for paperwork from the

District Attorney. This paperwork is vital especially since the new Habeas

Statute 11.073 has come into being. To be able to contest the medical evidence

at the time one would need to be able to access the said medical evidence

and present it to the proper experts. Barring that this court should appoint

an attorney so that Mcintosh may have the evidenc accessed and presented

to an expert for review and get an expert report that way.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMIESES CONSIDERED, Mcintosh woudl ask this court to

reconsider his Writ of Mandamus and grant him said Writ so that in the interest

of justice he may access said records and present them to his set of experts

and see if the findings will hold up to the test of time. He would also

ask the court to grant any other findings they deem fit.

William Arthur Mcintosh MovantPro Se Robertson Unit 12071 F.M. 3522 Abilene, Texas 79601

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I William A. Mcintosh do hereby cerityf and verify that a true and correct copy has been served upon Patrick Wilson District / Attorney of Ellis Courty Texas via First Class Mail.

William MCjnoths February 18, 2015