Pegues, Jason Tyrone
Opinion
/’?R. 33me 956 1153 #W/?co , awng W”//@ barr ’M ,"M? OLI
575 /,;sz. §z¢@d /WW ‘ 1 NECEWEDQN 751@@»;:: o#C,zzm/m/, /Zp,@@j/LS MAR 16 3015 605 /5250§ Aw Acosia,@rerk wm §Mw
@§77@'7@?
651 594 Zfzz?/ ,:)H§@~ Tfegb@ #v.;zz/%/&MQ /M@, 674 »D:/e» 0¢%/§5 f/ce/ (zd/<» 763 '7¢.5?»@47
;LH#L /)Z’<¢{Wq%§//;; 1 y 77/@/;§€ F/i]p ’ di " 755 /??FP//'€% : gsa /\/@., 614 M» @Qz@/g:§ /7@6/ (w/;_w, vea 6 ;F//€,; l OF.Z 7"/»,'1@'2 - 01_/ WR-7h,762-04 \ ' cAUsE No.9a-DcR-026185 JASON T.’PEGUES #728196 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS APPLICANT AT THE STATE OF TEXAS RESPONDENT AUSTIN, TEXAS § § § § § § § § § § § § § APPLIcANT's sUGGEsTIoN PURSUANT To RULES oF APPELLATE PRocEDURE, RULE 79.2(d) UNDER ARTICLE 11.07 oF THE coDE oF cRIMINAL Pnog§pg§§ T0 THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW,JASON T. PEGUES #728196, APPLICANT, Pro-Se, IN THE ABOVE STYLED AND NUMBERED CAUSE OF ACTION RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS SUGGESTION PURSUANT TO RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 79.2(d) UNDER ART.11.07 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, SUGGESTING AND REQUESTING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL LEGITAMACY OF THE APPLICANT'S CONVICTION, AS THE APPLICANT CHALLENGES THE JUDGEMENT OF SENTENCE IN CAUSE NO.26185. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THIS HONORABLE COURT THE FOLLOWING: APPLICANT FILED A HABEAS CORPUS 11.07 APPLICATION ON FEBRUARY 19,2014 BASED ON THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS COMPLETELY ovERRULING THE Decarmo DocTRINE. THIS HoNoRABLE coURT REcEIvED THE APPLICATIoN(wR-74,762-03) oN Aggg§g_éigglg AND DENIED IT wlTHoUT WRITTEN ORDER ON AH§H§I_ZZLZQLZ- AROUND B§E§M§§B_lgilglé» THE APPLICANT FILED A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION IN WHICH THIS HONORABLE -1_ COURT RECEIVED IT ON JANUARY 30,201§. ON MARCH 4, 2015, THIS HONORABLE COURT DISMISSED THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER DUE TO TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICiE 11.07, Sec.A(a)-(C). NATURE 0F PROCEEDING IN PURSUANT TO RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 79.2(d), THE APPLICANT IS SUGGESTING AND REQUESTING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION AS HE SPECIFY AND ASSERT SECTION 4 (a)(l)(Z) IN PETAIL. THE APPLICANT ALSO SUGGEST THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT REVIEW IN HIGHLIGHT: THE FAMILY CBDE REQUIREHENT SECTION 52.02 VIOLATION, and THE PARENTAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT VIOLATION LISTED IV. and V. UNDER: VIOLATION OF APPLICANT' S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT OF THE_U.S. CONSTITUTION: \ . (WHICH STARTS ON PAGE (10) OF APPLICANT'S SUBSEQUENT MEMORANDUM). , STATEHENT OF FACTS APPLICANT FILEb A SUBSEQUENT APPLICATIoN wHIcH DID NoT sPEcIFY wHAT SUBSECTIoN oF ARTICLE 11.07 THE sUBsEQUENT APPLICATIoN wAs FIyED PURSUANT To. THE APPLICANT ls Now IN PURSUANT To RULES oF APPELLATE~ cobRT, oN IT's owN INITATIVE, Rtvl;w THE APPLICANT's sUBsEQUENT APPLICATIoN (wR-74,762-04) wHIcH ls FILED PURSUANT To THE PvaIsIoNs oF ARTICLE 11.07‘sec.4(a0(1)(2) oF THE coDE oF cRIMINAL PRocEDURE, MEMoRANDUM wHIcH PRESENTS NEw cREDIABLE, cRITIcAL, cLEAR and CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN BECAUSE IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT BEFORE HIS INITIAL WRIT WAS JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION INFORMING THE APPLICANT THAT € _2_ Hls JUVENILE FILE wAs sEALED BY THE coURT, ESTABLISHING sec.a(a)(l)§ HAD THIS EvIDENcE BEEN AvAILABLE 0N THE DATE THAT THE APPLICANT'$ INITIAL APPL:cATIoN wAs FILED, THE APPpIcANT on;D HAVE PRESENTED IT DUE To IT BEING THE g§§g §y;g§§g§ THAT cAN PRovE THE cLAIMs AND IssUEs BEYdND A REASoNABLE DoUBT.-THE APPLICANT ALso HAS A cLAIM oF INEFFECTIVE AssIsTANcE oF coUNsEL, BECAUSE HAD THIS EVIDENCE BEEN~PRE- sENTED AND ARGUED IN TRIAL, THIS cASE g§l§§ onpD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT- RESULT DUE To THE 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, NoR onLD HAVE A f*: RATIoNAL JURoR sENTENcED THE APPLICANT THE sENTENcE THAT wAs GIVEN, ESTABLISHING Sec.&(a)(z).(Exparte Brooks,219 S.W.3d396(TEX.CRIM.AP§L ZQQZ). THE NEW CREDIABLE, CRITICAL, CLEAR and CONVINCING EVIDENCE IS THE APPLICANT'S INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD, IN WHICH APPLICANT HAD BEEN DILIGENT IN ATTEMPTING TO ACQUIRE. SEE AjTACHMENT "C" OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBSEQUENT MEMORANDUM(WR-74,762-04) WHERE APPLICANT WAS DILIGENT IN ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN THE JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS OF THIS CASE IN WHICH THE APPLICANT AND HIS FAMILY WAS TOLD THAT HIS JUVENILE FILE WAS SEALED BY THE COURT. NEVFRTHELESS, THE APPLICANT AND HIS FAMILY NEVER STOPPED BEING DILIGENT IN ATTEMPTING TO ACQUIRE THE APPLICANT'S JUVENILE_FILE/RECORD. II. THE APPLICANT'S FAMILY HAD TO GO THROUGH MULTIPLE (UN-KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT) CHANNELS TO GET THIS PARTICULAR RECORD IN THEIR POSSESSION. FORTUNATELY, BY WAY OF THE FORT BEND CQUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION (SEE ATTACHMENT "D" OF A§PLICANT'S SUBSEQUENT MEMORANDUM) THE APPLICANT FAMILY WERE FINALLY ABLE TO GAIN POSSESSION OF WHAT PERTAINS TO THE CLAIMS AND ISSUES PRESENTED IN THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATIONS (INITIALLY AND SUBSEQUENTAL). THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY THE AFOREMENTIONED THE`SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS THAT IS REQUIRED, MEETING BOTH OF THE EXCEPTIONS SET OUT IN THE STATUTE,(EXQarte WHITESIDE, 12 S.W.3d 819 (TEX.CRIM.APP.ZOOO)). THIS NEW EVIDENCE WILL PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPLICANT'S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE §gggl wERE AFFECTED AND HIS coNsTITUTIoNAL RIGHTS wERE vloLATED. PURSUING RULES oF APPELLATE PRocEDURE, ggL§_Zg;ggg; sUGGfsTING THAT THIS HoNoRABLE codRT, oN IT's owN INITATIVE, REVIEw THE coNsTITUTIoNAL LEGITAMACY oF THE APPLICANT's coNvIcTIoN, As THE APPLICANT cHALLENGés THE JUDGEMENT OF SENTENCE IN CAUSE N0.26185. THE APPLICANT CAN ASSURE THAT REVIEWING AND ADJUDICATING THE MERITS OF THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS AND ISSUES IN THIS CASE WILL NOT BE A WASTE OF THIS HONORABLE COURT'S TIME. FULLY RESPECTING AND IN PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 79.2(d), UNDER ARTICLE 11.07 Sec. é(a)(l)(Z).(E§Qarte MORENO,ZAS S.W.3d é19 (TEX.CRIM.APP.2008)). REQUEST FOR RELIEF PRAYER THE APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT , ON IT'S OWN INITATIVE, REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT ASK FOR MERCY FRGM THIS HONORABLE COURT, ESTABLISHING THE MEANS IN PURSUING RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 79.2(d). AS A LAYMAN OF THE LAW, AND PrO-Se, THE APPLICANT PERCEIVED HIS SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION BEING PLACED UNDER THE SAME PROVISIONS AS HIS INITIAL WRIT SINCE IT WAS PERTAINING TO THE SAME CLAIMS, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. THE APPLICANT'S ONLY REQUEST FOR RELIEF IS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT, ON IT'S OWN INITATIVE, REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION, AS IT WAS FILED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 11.07 Sec.&(a)(l)(Z), HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT DID NOT SPECIFY. PRAYERFULLY, THIS HONORABLE COURT WILL NOT ONLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE APPLICANT RESPECTFULLY FILED THIS PURSUANT TO RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 79.2(d), BUT ON IT'S OWN INITATIVE, REVIEW THE APPLICANT'S SUBSEQUEPROCEDURAL HISTORY
III.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pegues, Jason Tyrone (Pegues, Jason Tyrone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.