Munoz, Juan Ricardo

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 6, 2015
• Docket: WR-78,478-01
• Status: Published

Opinion

10%O\ X,

rehear y ±}qo/s~- RECEIVED \H COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FEB 06 2015

is!

'rJ

l> ' x7 MOSTiMpbtTAdTmfrtfar.

Pe^&ty&l^fa^

Uapklitiscoe-ijm-f h6n. cki&f 'Saslfct,) f-te/e+J k&((er

RE: QUESTION OF LAW/DISCRETIONAL AUTHORITY

DEAR (\KSACe,U

IT IS WITH THIS SUSTENANCE THAT THE APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY .REQUESTS .TH.A.T._Y.O.UR_ HONOR TAKE APPRPRIATE-DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO REVIEW WRIT. APPLICANT SEEKS TO EXHAUST HIS RIGHTFUL REMEDY OF LAW AND SEEK RELIEF FOR A VIOLATION AGAINST HIS RIGHT OF DUE PROC ESS. ALL IS WANTED IS THAT THE STATE ANSWER MY WRIT,AND GIVE SUPPO RTING REASONS TO THEIR DENIED OF MY GROUNDS SO THAT I MAY SEEK REL IEF IN A HIGHER COURT. IN A PROPER EXAMINATION OF MY GROUNDS THIS HONORABLE COURT SHALL DETERMINE THAT THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DIS CRETION IN DECLARING A MISTRIAL AS TO ITS ENTIRETY,WHEREAREAS,UNDER RULE 21.9 ADOPTED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT,RESENTENCING WAS THE APP ROPRIATE RECOURSE AT LAW. APPLICANT PRAYS THAT YOUR HONOR CONSIDER THIS REQUEST.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

MUNOZ )5 DOLPH BRISCOE UNIT 1459 WEST HWY.85 DILLEY,TEXAS 78017

J

(2) Case 3:13-cv-00015 Document 4 Filed 01/29/2013LPage 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

JUANMUNOZ, § TDCJ # 1467005, § Petitioner, §

v. § EP-13-CV-15-PRM § BRAD LIVINGSTON, § Executive Director, Texas Department of § CriminaUustice, § Respondent. §

ORDER FOR RESPONDENT TO ANSWER

In apro se petition for awrit of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254, Petitioner Juan Munoz ("Petitioner") challenges his convictions for three counts of aggravated sexual assault by ajury in an El Paso County state court/ Mindful ofPetitioner'spro se status,2 the Court understands him to assert.that (1) the trial court erred when it declared amistrial during the punishment phase of the trial and ordered are-trial ofthe entire case, and (2) his appellate counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance when he failed to raise the trial court's error in declaring amistrial during the punishment phase and ordering are-trial ofthe entire case. Upon review, the Court concludes that summary dismissal ofthe petition is not appropriate. Accordingly, the Court enters the following orders and advisories: 1. . Service on Respondent: The Court ORDERS the Clerk ofthis Court to serve a copy ofthe petition and this order upon counsel for Respondent, the Texas Attorney General. All documents shall be sent to the attention ofthe Chief, Postconviction Litigation Division.

1State v Munoz, Cause Number 20060D04737(210th Dist. Ct., El Paso Cnty. Tex., Sept. 25, 2007), aff'd, No. 08-07-00304-CR, 2010 WL 546676 (Tex. App.—El Paso, Feb. 17, 2010, pet. dtsm'd). 2See Haines v. Kerner, 404U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding/^ se pleadings to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers); see also Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir. 1985) (explaining that liberal construction allows for active interpretation ofapro se pleading to encompass any allegation which may raise aclaim for federal relief). ATTACHMENT (A)