&,%A-\\%o
JANUARY Oil. 2015
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK LAWRENCE GENE QUINTON P.O. BOX 12 308 # 915236 WYNNE UNIT CAPITOL STATION 810 FM 2821 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77349
RECEIVED IN RflOTAQN DENIED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DATE:_UsQi6£l JAN 12 2015 BY: g<^ ' Abet Acosta, Clerk DEAR CLERK:
Please find enclosed for filling in your court the original
PETITION FOR REHEARING ENBANC, of the Applications for Writ
of Habeas Corpus. Also, enclosed is the original of this cover
letter. Please, stamp the filing date on the original cover
letter; and send it back to me within the self^addressed postage
pre-paid envelope that I have provided for you!
Accordingly, I want to thank You for your kind assistance in
this very important matter herein! Again, I Thank You!!!
Sincerely,
rAWRENCE G.N2UINTON
LGQ/rm NO.
IN RE LAWRENCE GENE QUINTON § IN THE COURT OF
# 915236 WYNNE UNIT § CRIMINAL APPEALS
HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS § FOR THE
VS. § STATE OF TEXAS
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS
PETITION FOR REHEARING ENBANC
OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Lawrence Gene Quinton, Petitioner hereafter;
and files this Petition For Rehearing Enbanc. Petitioner is
requesting this Honorable Court to review and address his • .Plea
within his Applications For Writ of Habeas Corpus styled , ..under
[WRit Nos. 53,564-19 and 53,564-20]. Petitioner is also asking
this Honorable Court not to hold the previous writ ffilings
against him for the lack of legal knowledge, and his short-coming
of the required legal process.
Wherefore, Petitioner do here and now does apologize for
any harm that he may have caused this Honorable Court. Whereas,
Petitioner is not an attorney; and should not be held to the
stringent legal process as required of lawyers. Therefore, in
support of this Petition For Rehearing Enbanc, Petitioner shows
this Honorable Court the following:
l-OF-8 Wherefore, the trial court's judge [Matt Johnson] ordered
Petitioner to file these Applications For writ of Habeas Corpus
at bar, of both causes within an order signed on July 14, 2014.
Thereafter, the trial court could adjudicate Petitioner's newly
discovered evidence pursuant to the guide-lines of article
11.07. Please see, the trial court judge's order filed with
the clerk's office on July 18, 2014. Wherefore, this Honorable
Court has accused Petitioner with the filing of 7 previous
applications for writ of habeas corpus whereas, 2 of Petitioner's
previous filings were that of applications for writ of mandamus;
and therefore, those 2 filings should not be counted against
Petitioner for an abuse of writ.
Therefore, in accordance with due diligence or reasonable
diligence there's no way that Petitioner could have presented
His newly discovered evidence within exhibits 1 and 2 attached
to His memorandum. Whereas, the clerk was unaware of these
constitutional errors; to which she [Karen Matkin] researched
and filed her findings in November", 2008, which are the results
of Petitioner's newly discovered evidence within exhibits 1,
and 2. Petitioner asserts that, the newly discovered evidence
was found only through a diligent search by his investigator
hired by his family. Therefore, Petitioner should not be held
to such a stringent diligent legal process whereas, . Petitioner
is not a lawyer or a private investigator!
2-OF-8 i 1:1.
Petitioner contends that, he has a constitutional right
to be heard through the legal process upon presenting new or
newly discovered evidence pursuant to article 1.08 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides: "The writ of Habeas
Corpus is a writ of right and shall never be suspended." Article
1.08 Acts. 1965 59th Leg., vol 2, p. 317, ch. 722 eff. 1/1/1966:
Wherefore, Petitioner has no other remedy before him to use
to address the legal matters of his wrongful incarceration.
Whereas, article 11.01 provides: "The writ of Habeas Corpus
is the remedy to be used when any person is restrained in his
liberty. It is an order issued by a court or judge of competent
jurisdiction, o directed to any one having a person in his
custody, or under his restraint, commanding him to .produce
such person, at a time and place named in the writ, and to show
why he is held in custody or under restraint." Article 11.01
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
III.
Petitioner asserts that, the newly discovered evidence
has never been reviewed or adjudicated upon the merit. And if
reviewed and adjudicated this Honorable Court would agree with
Petitioner as to being restrained of his liberty in direct
violation of his 4th amendment of the United States Constitution.
Petitioner contends that, he had no way of knowing about this
evidence in question prior but, through his trial counsel of
3-OF-8 which refused to perform any type of independant investigation
into Petitioner's cases which brought egregious harm to these
causes. "Error which results in egregious harm are those which
affects the basis of the case, :.deprives ..^thef fdefendant; :-: of
'valuable rights' or 'vitally affects' a defensive theory."
MARSHALL v. -STATE, 2014 Tex. Add. LX 3553.
Petitioner contends further that, this Honorable court
should hold the trial court and the prosecutors to the full
extent of the ' State and Federal Constitutions; as : well as
the governing laws of this state, just as it did within the
cases of GREEN v. STATE, 872 S.W. 2d 717 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994),
and WEEMS v. STATE, 167 S.W. 3d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);
and therefore, require the prosecutors to produce the warrants
and supporting affidavits of which it relied upon for probable
eause'-tQigusti'fyiPetiti6ners :"arrest;-pursuant to the 4th amendment
of the United States Constitution to ensure that Petitioner's
rights were fully protected.
IV.
Petitioner asserts that, he does not take lightly the
legal process required by this Honorable court and never will
intentionally abuse this process! Wherefore, this Honorable
court is the only avenue Petitioner has to seek justice within
his cases. Therefore, Petitioner is requesting this Honorable
court tooGrant.i thishRehea"ring:i.Enbanc;:.:so that-justice can prevail,
4-OF-8 Petitioner's newly discovered evidence can be reviewed. Whereas,
Petitioner's evidence can be found for review in the exhibits
attached to his memorandum which are persuasive and prevalent
in proving his claims of constitutional violations.
Wherefore, Petitioner has been continuously deprived
of his liberty, and fundamental rights, as well as, his equal
rights protection. Here in this country of the United States
of . America to which has the wisest and freest of any government
but, still allows constitutional violations to go senselessly
unchecked. Yes, Petitioner's situation is unfortunate but;
that only means that our constitutions has significent flaws,
or the legal system that we possess for sure. Therefore, this
Honorable court has a duty to uphold the validity of both
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
&,%A-\\%o
JANUARY Oil. 2015
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK LAWRENCE GENE QUINTON P.O. BOX 12 308 # 915236 WYNNE UNIT CAPITOL STATION 810 FM 2821 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77349
RECEIVED IN RflOTAQN DENIED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DATE:_UsQi6£l JAN 12 2015 BY: g<^ ' Abet Acosta, Clerk DEAR CLERK:
Please find enclosed for filling in your court the original
PETITION FOR REHEARING ENBANC, of the Applications for Writ
of Habeas Corpus. Also, enclosed is the original of this cover
letter. Please, stamp the filing date on the original cover
letter; and send it back to me within the self^addressed postage
pre-paid envelope that I have provided for you!
Accordingly, I want to thank You for your kind assistance in
this very important matter herein! Again, I Thank You!!!
Sincerely,
rAWRENCE G.N2UINTON
LGQ/rm NO.
IN RE LAWRENCE GENE QUINTON § IN THE COURT OF
# 915236 WYNNE UNIT § CRIMINAL APPEALS
HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS § FOR THE
VS. § STATE OF TEXAS
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS
PETITION FOR REHEARING ENBANC
OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Lawrence Gene Quinton, Petitioner hereafter;
and files this Petition For Rehearing Enbanc. Petitioner is
requesting this Honorable Court to review and address his • .Plea
within his Applications For Writ of Habeas Corpus styled , ..under
[WRit Nos. 53,564-19 and 53,564-20]. Petitioner is also asking
this Honorable Court not to hold the previous writ ffilings
against him for the lack of legal knowledge, and his short-coming
of the required legal process.
Wherefore, Petitioner do here and now does apologize for
any harm that he may have caused this Honorable Court. Whereas,
Petitioner is not an attorney; and should not be held to the
stringent legal process as required of lawyers. Therefore, in
support of this Petition For Rehearing Enbanc, Petitioner shows
this Honorable Court the following:
l-OF-8 Wherefore, the trial court's judge [Matt Johnson] ordered
Petitioner to file these Applications For writ of Habeas Corpus
at bar, of both causes within an order signed on July 14, 2014.
Thereafter, the trial court could adjudicate Petitioner's newly
discovered evidence pursuant to the guide-lines of article
11.07. Please see, the trial court judge's order filed with
the clerk's office on July 18, 2014. Wherefore, this Honorable
Court has accused Petitioner with the filing of 7 previous
applications for writ of habeas corpus whereas, 2 of Petitioner's
previous filings were that of applications for writ of mandamus;
and therefore, those 2 filings should not be counted against
Petitioner for an abuse of writ.
Therefore, in accordance with due diligence or reasonable
diligence there's no way that Petitioner could have presented
His newly discovered evidence within exhibits 1 and 2 attached
to His memorandum. Whereas, the clerk was unaware of these
constitutional errors; to which she [Karen Matkin] researched
and filed her findings in November", 2008, which are the results
of Petitioner's newly discovered evidence within exhibits 1,
and 2. Petitioner asserts that, the newly discovered evidence
was found only through a diligent search by his investigator
hired by his family. Therefore, Petitioner should not be held
to such a stringent diligent legal process whereas, . Petitioner
is not a lawyer or a private investigator!
2-OF-8 i 1:1.
Petitioner contends that, he has a constitutional right
to be heard through the legal process upon presenting new or
newly discovered evidence pursuant to article 1.08 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides: "The writ of Habeas
Corpus is a writ of right and shall never be suspended." Article
1.08 Acts. 1965 59th Leg., vol 2, p. 317, ch. 722 eff. 1/1/1966:
Wherefore, Petitioner has no other remedy before him to use
to address the legal matters of his wrongful incarceration.
Whereas, article 11.01 provides: "The writ of Habeas Corpus
is the remedy to be used when any person is restrained in his
liberty. It is an order issued by a court or judge of competent
jurisdiction, o directed to any one having a person in his
custody, or under his restraint, commanding him to .produce
such person, at a time and place named in the writ, and to show
why he is held in custody or under restraint." Article 11.01
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
III.
Petitioner asserts that, the newly discovered evidence
has never been reviewed or adjudicated upon the merit. And if
reviewed and adjudicated this Honorable Court would agree with
Petitioner as to being restrained of his liberty in direct
violation of his 4th amendment of the United States Constitution.
Petitioner contends that, he had no way of knowing about this
evidence in question prior but, through his trial counsel of
3-OF-8 which refused to perform any type of independant investigation
into Petitioner's cases which brought egregious harm to these
causes. "Error which results in egregious harm are those which
affects the basis of the case, :.deprives ..^thef fdefendant; :-: of
'valuable rights' or 'vitally affects' a defensive theory."
MARSHALL v. -STATE, 2014 Tex. Add. LX 3553.
Petitioner contends further that, this Honorable court
should hold the trial court and the prosecutors to the full
extent of the ' State and Federal Constitutions; as : well as
the governing laws of this state, just as it did within the
cases of GREEN v. STATE, 872 S.W. 2d 717 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994),
and WEEMS v. STATE, 167 S.W. 3d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005);
and therefore, require the prosecutors to produce the warrants
and supporting affidavits of which it relied upon for probable
eause'-tQigusti'fyiPetiti6ners :"arrest;-pursuant to the 4th amendment
of the United States Constitution to ensure that Petitioner's
rights were fully protected.
IV.
Petitioner asserts that, he does not take lightly the
legal process required by this Honorable court and never will
intentionally abuse this process! Wherefore, this Honorable
court is the only avenue Petitioner has to seek justice within
his cases. Therefore, Petitioner is requesting this Honorable
court tooGrant.i thishRehea"ring:i.Enbanc;:.:so that-justice can prevail,
4-OF-8 Petitioner's newly discovered evidence can be reviewed. Whereas,
Petitioner's evidence can be found for review in the exhibits
attached to his memorandum which are persuasive and prevalent
in proving his claims of constitutional violations.
Wherefore, Petitioner has been continuously deprived
of his liberty, and fundamental rights, as well as, his equal
rights protection. Here in this country of the United States
of . America to which has the wisest and freest of any government
but, still allows constitutional violations to go senselessly
unchecked. Yes, Petitioner's situation is unfortunate but;
that only means that our constitutions has significent flaws,
or the legal system that we possess for sure. Therefore, this
Honorable court has a duty to uphold the validity of both
constitutions against all violations regardless of who presents
the violations to be heard. Wherefore, the trial court's records
raises many questions as to their subjest-matter jurisdiction
please see, SANCHEZ v. STATE, 120 S.W. 3d 359 (Tex. Crim. App.
2003).
Petition contends to this end that, he has here an
extraordinary situation that which calls for an extraordinary
writ. Whereas, in such extreme circumstances this Honorable
court does have the constitutional authority to forsgo an order
of Writs of Habeas Corpus! Petitioner would also assert that,
5-OF-8 He must emphasize the risks of public passions about our
constitution, and the endangering of what is seen as the
fundamental rights of the people of this state and the stability
of the constitution! Wherefore, the Legislature has set forth
our constitution to be followed word for word as its language
specially expresses. Therefore, if Petitioner's constitutional
violations are allowed to stand in direct violation of both
said constitutions; then our constitutions are of no avail!
Therefore, this Honorable Court has the duty authority
regardless of what seems to be more popular to any others;
and the jurisdiction and which also possesses the requisite
stability and remedy to correct these errors of constitutional
violations within Petitioner's causes at bar. Wherefore, ends
of justice requires this Honorable Court to do so in Granting
the relief in which Petitioner seeks herein.
6-OF-8 PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PRIMISSES CONSIDERED. Petitioner prays that,
this Honorable Court shall in all respect Grant this Petition
For Rehearing Enbanc, thereby moving to review Petitioner's
Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus with the memorandum in
support and all the.exhibits attached therewith. Whereas, ends
of justice would require such review!
Respectfully submitted,
LAWRENCE G. QtJINTO Pro se
7-OF-8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that, a true and correct copy of
this Petition For Rehearing Enbanc was sent to the Clerk listed
below: Therefore, I Lawrence Gene Quinton, do hereby certify
that, same in the above styled and numbered cause of action
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge; and under
the penalty of perjury, I do here and now certify that, same
was placed within the prison mail box system. This being duly
done on the vfT-frU DAY OF l3ft)M(J A^JU . 2015 J
Vu-^W/I^ Lawrence G. Quinton Pro se
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308 CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
8-OF-8