Moore, Michael Anthony

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 10, 2015·No. WR-20,206-24·Published

Opinion

Michael Anthony Moore#487939 George w. Beto One Unit Southwest Career Institue Certified Paralegal Assistance #Z-70-9986-M 1391 FM 3328

Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880 Juhe 1,2015

Hon. Abel Acosta,Clerk Court Of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308,Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711

RE: THE State ·oF Texas VS. Michael Anthony .Moore Cause No. 17.,957-272 CCA No.WR-20,206-22

Dear Hon. Abel Acosta,Clerk Enclosed Pleade find the Original of Moore Applicant For Writ Of Mandamus in the above .Named and numbered Cause. I would be Grateful if you would file these doctimentsamong the papers of the Cause and bring them to the attention of the Court. By copy of this letter,i .an Notifying the Hon.Judge Travis B.Bryan Office.

I

Thank You for Your Considerationiin this matter. Copy File Very Truly Yours,

M/A/M/ Original Signed by Michael Anthony Moore#487939

("Notice Of Cover Pag one")

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 10 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Case No.

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FQR THE STATE OF TEXAS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE,.

Relator

vs.

Hon. Travis B. Bryan,!!!

JUDGE BRAZOS COUNTY 272ND DISTRICT COURT

RESPONDENT

AND

JARVIS J. PARSON

BRAZOS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RESPONDENT

AND

SHARON KELLER PRESIDING JUDGE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

AND

LAWRENC E. MEYERS

JUDGE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

Original Proceeding From The 272ND Judicial District Court Of Brazos County,Texas Applicant For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Cause No. 17,957-272 CCA ~o.WR-20,206-22

Petition For Writ Of Mandamus

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Now Comes the Pro se MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE,by and through and files this his Petition For Writ of Mandamus,Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P.52.1:

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This cause was heard in the 272nd Judicial District Court Of Brazos County Texas Under Trial Court Cause No.l7,957-272,Styled The State Of Texas V.- Michael Anthony Moore.

l.

Relator was Conviction of the offense of Burglary Of a Building (Enhanced) and Sentenced to Sixty(60) Yraer in the (then) Texas Department Of Corrections

Page 1.

~-

Trial Court

Relator Moore Next Allege that he have.Fi;Led .the Following Motd:ons On April 13,2015 With the District Clerk Office of Marc Hamlin; 1. Mition for Leave. Of Court And 2. First Motion for Supplemental Application For Writ Of Habeas corpus Under Article 11.07 § 4 is limited to instances in Which the initial Applicantion raises Claim regerding the validity of the prosection or the Judgment of guilt,Pursuant to article 11.07 of Texas Code Of. Criminal Procedure in Trial Court cause No.l7,957-272, and CCA No.WJR-20:6-22,and the trial court has failed to Rule on the Pending Motions within a reasonable time.

3.

Court of Appeals have the Power to compel a trial Court to rule on pending Motions. In re Ramirez, 994 s.w. 2d 682,684(Tex.App~San Antonio 1998,0rig.Proceeding); Before Mandamus may issue to require a trial court to rule on a Motion,the Relator. must Establish that. the Court. was asked to perform the act and failed or refused to do so within a reasonable time.See Safety-Kleen Corp. V.Garcia, 945 s.w. 2d 268,269(Tex.App.San Antonio 1997,0rig.Proceeding). Relater Moore have called the Motions to the. trial court's Attention and Therefore Provided this. Court with Documentation showing what Motions he Filedwhen he filed them and have Called the Motions to the trial Court's Attention. Trial Court has had a reasonable.time within which to rule on Relator Moore such pending Motions,but has failed or.refused to do so. Therefore,Relator Moore have shown abues of discretion by the trial Court.

4.

Relator Moore further allege that a reasonable time has Passed. A. Tex.Code of Crim.Proc Art.ll.07 § 4.

Here Relator has Complied with Art.ll.07 § 4. in his Motion For Leave Of court And his First Motion For Supplemental Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Under Article 11.07 § 4,is limited to instances in which the inital Applicantion raises. raises·-claim regerding the Validity of the Prosection or the Judgment of guilt,Pursuant to Article 11.07 Of Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure in triai Court Cause No. 17,957-272 And CCA No.WR-20-22,And the Trial Court has failed to Rule on the Pending Motions

r

Within a reasonable Time.

Page 2.

Relator Petition Should be grant because he have no adequate remedy to address any errors. To be entitled to Mandamus Relief in a Criminal case,a relator must show, amony other things,that he has no adequate remedy at law redress the alleged harm. Ex Rel.Young V. Sixth Judicial Dist Court Of appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W. 3d 207,20l(Tex.Crim.App.(2007); "A Court with Mandamus authority will grant Mandamus relief if relator can demonstrate that. the act sought to be compelled is purely Ministerial and that relator has no other adequate legal remedy~ In re Piper,l05 S.W. 3d - 107,109(Tex.App.Waco (2003),0rig.Proceeding)(quoting State ex rel.Rosenthal- V. Poe,98 S.W. 3d l94,197-99(Tex.Crim.App.2003)(0rig.Proceeding)). But Consideration of a Motion Property filed and before the Court is Ministerial .State ex rel. Hill V. Ct.of Apps.for the 5th Dist,34 s.w. 3d 924,927(Tex.Crim.App.(200l) (Orig.Proceeding).

Mandamus may issue to compel a trial Court to rule on a Motion which has been pending before the court for a reasonable period of time. See In re Hearm,l37 S.W. 3d 681,685(Tex.App •. -San Antonio (2004,0rig.Proceeding In re Keeter,l34 S.W. 3d 250,252-53(Tex.App ..-:Waco(2003,0rig.Proceeding); In re Chavez,62 s.w. 3d 225,228(Tex.App.-Amarillo 200l,Orig.Proceeding); Barnes V. State,832 S.W. 2d 424,426(Tex.App.-Houston[lst Dist~] 1992,0rig.- Proceeding);See also In re Shredder Co,225 S.W.3d 676,679 (Tex.App-El Paso- 2006,0rig.Proceeding) .. To. abtain Mandamus relief for such refusal,a relator must establish:(l) The Motion was Properly filed and has been Pending for a reasonable time;(2) the relator requested a ruling on .the Motion;and(3) The trial court refused to rule.See Hearn,l37 S.W. 3d at 685;Keeter,l34 S.W.- 3d at 252;Chavez,62 S.W. 3d at 228;Barnes,832 S.W. 2d at 426;See also Shredder Co,225 S.W. 3d at 679. I

In re Sarkissian,243 s.w. 3d 860,86l(Tex.App.-Waco 2008,0rig.Proceeding) (emphasis added). "A trial judge has a.reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a motion properly filed and before the judge. Chavez,62 s.w. 3d at 228. ·Moore bears the burden.of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See In re Mullins,l0-09-00143-CV,2009 WL 2959716,at *l,n.l(Tex.App.-Waco Sept.l6,2009,0rig .Proceeding) (mem.Op.);

Page 3.

Blakeney,254 s.w. 3d at 661.

Points Of Law In General· 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) an adjudication Properly on the Merits occure when the state court resolves the case on substantive grounds rather than on procedural grounds held Mercadel V. Cani,l79 F.3d 271,273(5th Cir.(l999) Quoting Fisher V. Texas,l69 F.3d 295,300(5th Cir.l999) Finding that where a State Habeas Court decided the Habeas Applicant Claim on Procedural grounds,there has not been an adjuication on the merits Valdez v. Cockrell,274 F. 3d 941 (5th Cir.2001). 5th,l4th amend Due Process.

This Court should Grant Relator's Petition For Writ Of Mandamus For the Following reasons: 1. The trial court failed or refused to rule within a reasonable time on the following:

2. Motion For Leave OF Court And 3. First Motion For Supplemental Application For Writ OF Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

Moore, Michael Anthony, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Moore, Michael Anthony (Moore, Michael Anthony) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Bain
121 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1887)
Ward v. State
829 S.W.2d 787 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1992)
In Re Shredder Co., LLC
225 S.W.3d 676 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Ex Parte Evans
964 S.W.2d 643 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Barnes v. State
832 S.W.2d 424 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1992)
Dickens v. Court of Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of Texas
727 S.W.2d 542 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1987)
State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Appeals at Texarkana
236 S.W.3d 207 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Valdez v. Cockrell
274 F.3d 941 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)