` EX PARTE
53 , LMZ ~ULF
CAUSE NO. l6/547-A 'IN`THE`HONORABLE"
MICHEAL RALSTON "COURT'OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
_z»x»z%z»z»
"`AUSTIN) TEXAS`
APPLICANT'S REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT'S`APPLICATION FOR"WRIT'OF HABEAAS CORPUS COMES NOW) MICHEAL RALSTON, "Applicant"i Pro-se and files this his REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS¢ Applicant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to take these facts into consideration, as well as the other merits in Applicant's application for habeas corpus. In support of this request Applicant shows the following:
-I. CONDITION OF CONFINEMENT
l. Applicant was arrested by Brown countv, made bond then later rearrested by Brown county. the conditions of these two arrests, such as the open denial 'of Miranda and illegal search and seizure effectv both the Brown county and tarrant County convictions. This shows that the issues addressed have a direct bearing on Applicant' s condition of confinement due to Brown county making this illegal arrest and volunterally surrendering Applicant to Tarrant County under this illegal arrest.
2. Applicant has never been released from state custody at any point in time as a result of this illegal arrest.
3; At no `time has Applicant recieved any notice from Brown County showing successfulv completion of the 5 year sentence, formal or otherwise, showing that Brown county has never formally discharged the conviction as completed. 4. The `reason` for`restraint or confinement is not limited to the conviction at and' or 'even a conviction to began`with; Habeas relief is available for anyone' in anyway restrained of his liberty. See, Gibson v. State, 921 S.W.Zd 747) 753 (Tex.app.#El Paso, 1996, writ denied)(Holding: article ll.Ol descr- ribes “the 'writ as"a remedy to be used when 'any person', not just a person accused or convicted of a crime, is restrained in his liberty").
5. Applicant now shows he has clearly shown his burden of proof of his restr- 'aint with verification of conviction and confinement with the "Offender Info- ltmation Details" exhibit €H§ &E§IE d :YM the state in their reply.
6. this shows 1aqu ‘q‘=l'éaf_- C§WF'P§E.;A M;EZIE§ment regarding Applicant' s condition
FEB 05 2015
ADSBACOSYQ, Cl@m Page l tARR]
of confinement’ is moot due to his confinement is not required to come from the conviction lchallenged. Just the fact he has never left confinement since this arrest and conviction are enough to overrule this point.
II. INNEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
7. This matter will be addressed in response to affidavit and response filed filed by defense attorney Ken Gordon.
III. MIRANDA
8. Applicant now argues that the states shows that Miranda should not be considered for first time on habeas corpus. Instead the_state claims Applicant' should have addressed this issue on appeal. n
9. Applicant now shows that Applicant was not permitted to file an appeal in this case 'due to plea deal. In addition record will show applicant was onlyv informed he could not appeal. At no time was he notified this could not be addressed ata later time, even after Defense attorney was made aware of the ldenial of Miranda. compound this with the fact that Brown county has no 'law dlibrary' for' inamtes shows -that Applicant had no means to research this matter on his own. Then neither the trial judge nor trial counsel advised applicant of this‘ or _any other rights beyond right to appeal being lost as a result of plea.deal. n
lO. Applicant shows state claim that Miranda shoulanot`be addressed. Appli- cant now¢ assert that the law does not say it can not be addressed. Factor in again Brown county's lack of law library for research and lack of notifi- cation of this denial by both trial counsel and trial judge should show cause to qualify as` substantial reason to allow the matters of denail of miranda
to be addressed, expecially since it was openly admitted by the arresting 'officers on record.
ll. denail of any constitutionally protected rights, such as miranda, speedy trial, double jeopardy and suffient evidence, without proper notification and understanding of the consequences is an absolute miscarriage of justice. Had applicant be informed of all of the rights that would be lost beyond solely the right to appeal, applicant never would have agreed to the deal.
IV. PROTECTION FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH AD SEIZURE
ll. The state did not contest this claim.
Page 2 [ARR]
V. PROTECTION FROM DOUBLE JEOPARDY 12. The state did not contest this claim.
VI. RULES OF EVIDENCE' RULE 901
13. the State did not contest this claim.
VII. SPEEDY TRIAL
14. The state did not contest this claim. Conclusion
15. When one takes the time to look and see that the states claims here truly
havev no bearing on Applicant's confinement and their request to deny the
issue of miranda that Applicant was not advised he should not be able to
vhear later would amount lto complete disregard of justice. This would mean
that people's constitutionally~ protected rights mean nothing because they
are being manipulated into signing away rights they were never made aware that they were signing ,away. If this is allowed to happen then it is the
same as telling the people that both the U.S. constitution and state constit-
ution mean nothing and the state_can ignore each of those as they see fit.
Respectfully Submitted/
Micheal Rals on\“\\
l vERIFIcATIoN I, MICHEAL RALSTON, TDCJ #1219556., being currently incarcerated at the French M. Robertson Unit, in Jones county, located at 12071 F.M. 3522, Abilene Texas, '79601, declare under penalty of perjury that the above and forgoing APPLICANT'S REPLY TO StATE'S RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT'S aPPLIC- ATION ID TRUE AND CORRECT.
ExEcUTED THIS THE' g day of"% mg 4 , 2015. CERTIFICATE oF ‘sERvICE"
I, MICHEAL 'RALSTON/ TDCJ#1219556, do hereby certify that a true and cor-, rect copy of the forgoing and above reply has been served on Elisha Bird,
assistant District Attorney, 200 South Broadway, suite 323, 3rd floor, Brown- wood, Texas 76801, via first class mail, postage prepaid on this the
g day of EZZQQQ 72015. <:::?`~"d:;;;§:::§§$
Micheal Rals on
__`
Page 3 [ARR]
cAUSE No. 16,547-A
EX'PARTE § IN THE HoNoRABLE'W § ` . MIcHEAL'RALsToN ' ' ,§ coURT'oF“cRIMINALMAPPEALS"' . _ `. d ~- . § § AUSTIN, TEXAS
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL UNDER TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ll;O7
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT OF APPEALS;
COMES NOW, MICHEAL RALSTON, APPLICANT" Pro Se and requests THE APPOINTMENT` OF COUNSEL to assist in hearings performed pertaining to applicants writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to texas code of criminal Procedure Article ll. 07 and would further show the Court:
I. JURISDICTION
This Honorable court has both exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in controversy in the above-styled and numbered cause, pursuant to Texas Code of Crimal Procedures Article ll.O7.
II. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION
Applicant .filed his habeas corpus into the trial court challangeing his
5 year conviction obtained through plea deal in 2004.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
` EX PARTE
53 , LMZ ~ULF
CAUSE NO. l6/547-A 'IN`THE`HONORABLE"
MICHEAL RALSTON "COURT'OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
_z»x»z%z»z»
"`AUSTIN) TEXAS`
APPLICANT'S REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT'S`APPLICATION FOR"WRIT'OF HABEAAS CORPUS COMES NOW) MICHEAL RALSTON, "Applicant"i Pro-se and files this his REPLY TO STATE'S RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS¢ Applicant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to take these facts into consideration, as well as the other merits in Applicant's application for habeas corpus. In support of this request Applicant shows the following:
-I. CONDITION OF CONFINEMENT
l. Applicant was arrested by Brown countv, made bond then later rearrested by Brown county. the conditions of these two arrests, such as the open denial 'of Miranda and illegal search and seizure effectv both the Brown county and tarrant County convictions. This shows that the issues addressed have a direct bearing on Applicant' s condition of confinement due to Brown county making this illegal arrest and volunterally surrendering Applicant to Tarrant County under this illegal arrest.
2. Applicant has never been released from state custody at any point in time as a result of this illegal arrest.
3; At no `time has Applicant recieved any notice from Brown County showing successfulv completion of the 5 year sentence, formal or otherwise, showing that Brown county has never formally discharged the conviction as completed. 4. The `reason` for`restraint or confinement is not limited to the conviction at and' or 'even a conviction to began`with; Habeas relief is available for anyone' in anyway restrained of his liberty. See, Gibson v. State, 921 S.W.Zd 747) 753 (Tex.app.#El Paso, 1996, writ denied)(Holding: article ll.Ol descr- ribes “the 'writ as"a remedy to be used when 'any person', not just a person accused or convicted of a crime, is restrained in his liberty").
5. Applicant now shows he has clearly shown his burden of proof of his restr- 'aint with verification of conviction and confinement with the "Offender Info- ltmation Details" exhibit €H§ &E§IE d :YM the state in their reply.
6. this shows 1aqu ‘q‘=l'éaf_- C§WF'P§E.;A M;EZIE§ment regarding Applicant' s condition
FEB 05 2015
ADSBACOSYQ, Cl@m Page l tARR]
of confinement’ is moot due to his confinement is not required to come from the conviction lchallenged. Just the fact he has never left confinement since this arrest and conviction are enough to overrule this point.
II. INNEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
7. This matter will be addressed in response to affidavit and response filed filed by defense attorney Ken Gordon.
III. MIRANDA
8. Applicant now argues that the states shows that Miranda should not be considered for first time on habeas corpus. Instead the_state claims Applicant' should have addressed this issue on appeal. n
9. Applicant now shows that Applicant was not permitted to file an appeal in this case 'due to plea deal. In addition record will show applicant was onlyv informed he could not appeal. At no time was he notified this could not be addressed ata later time, even after Defense attorney was made aware of the ldenial of Miranda. compound this with the fact that Brown county has no 'law dlibrary' for' inamtes shows -that Applicant had no means to research this matter on his own. Then neither the trial judge nor trial counsel advised applicant of this‘ or _any other rights beyond right to appeal being lost as a result of plea.deal. n
lO. Applicant shows state claim that Miranda shoulanot`be addressed. Appli- cant now¢ assert that the law does not say it can not be addressed. Factor in again Brown county's lack of law library for research and lack of notifi- cation of this denial by both trial counsel and trial judge should show cause to qualify as` substantial reason to allow the matters of denail of miranda
to be addressed, expecially since it was openly admitted by the arresting 'officers on record.
ll. denail of any constitutionally protected rights, such as miranda, speedy trial, double jeopardy and suffient evidence, without proper notification and understanding of the consequences is an absolute miscarriage of justice. Had applicant be informed of all of the rights that would be lost beyond solely the right to appeal, applicant never would have agreed to the deal.
IV. PROTECTION FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH AD SEIZURE
ll. The state did not contest this claim.
Page 2 [ARR]
V. PROTECTION FROM DOUBLE JEOPARDY 12. The state did not contest this claim.
VI. RULES OF EVIDENCE' RULE 901
13. the State did not contest this claim.
VII. SPEEDY TRIAL
14. The state did not contest this claim. Conclusion
15. When one takes the time to look and see that the states claims here truly
havev no bearing on Applicant's confinement and their request to deny the
issue of miranda that Applicant was not advised he should not be able to
vhear later would amount lto complete disregard of justice. This would mean
that people's constitutionally~ protected rights mean nothing because they
are being manipulated into signing away rights they were never made aware that they were signing ,away. If this is allowed to happen then it is the
same as telling the people that both the U.S. constitution and state constit-
ution mean nothing and the state_can ignore each of those as they see fit.
Respectfully Submitted/
Micheal Rals on\“\\
l vERIFIcATIoN I, MICHEAL RALSTON, TDCJ #1219556., being currently incarcerated at the French M. Robertson Unit, in Jones county, located at 12071 F.M. 3522, Abilene Texas, '79601, declare under penalty of perjury that the above and forgoing APPLICANT'S REPLY TO StATE'S RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM FOR APPLICANT'S aPPLIC- ATION ID TRUE AND CORRECT.
ExEcUTED THIS THE' g day of"% mg 4 , 2015. CERTIFICATE oF ‘sERvICE"
I, MICHEAL 'RALSTON/ TDCJ#1219556, do hereby certify that a true and cor-, rect copy of the forgoing and above reply has been served on Elisha Bird,
assistant District Attorney, 200 South Broadway, suite 323, 3rd floor, Brown- wood, Texas 76801, via first class mail, postage prepaid on this the
g day of EZZQQQ 72015. <:::?`~"d:;;;§:::§§$
Micheal Rals on
__`
Page 3 [ARR]
cAUSE No. 16,547-A
EX'PARTE § IN THE HoNoRABLE'W § ` . MIcHEAL'RALsToN ' ' ,§ coURT'oF“cRIMINALMAPPEALS"' . _ `. d ~- . § § AUSTIN, TEXAS
APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL UNDER TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ll;O7
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT OF APPEALS;
COMES NOW, MICHEAL RALSTON, APPLICANT" Pro Se and requests THE APPOINTMENT` OF COUNSEL to assist in hearings performed pertaining to applicants writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to texas code of criminal Procedure Article ll. 07 and would further show the Court:
I. JURISDICTION
This Honorable court has both exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in controversy in the above-styled and numbered cause, pursuant to Texas Code of Crimal Procedures Article ll.O7.
II. FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION
Applicant .filed his habeas corpus into the trial court challangeing his
5 year conviction obtained through plea deal in 2004. Applicant showed that he has never left state custody due to seperte conviction.
The state filed a reply to applicant's application for writ of habeas corpus and the order was signed submitting both to the court of Appeals. In said order by trial judge Steven Ellis states that if Applicant is found to be indigent the court would appoint counsel to assist applicant during hearing in this matter.
III. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Applicant wished to submit this motion (and required Affidavit) pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedures, Article ll.07. The Applicant is still indigent and Affidavit of Indigency is included. Applicant now respectfully request the appointment of counself for this matter.
IV. PRO SE SUBMISSIONS
Pro Se submissions should be read liberally by this most Honorable court
Page l [MAC]
and held ftc less stringent standards then formal pleadings drafted by lawy-WF. ers". see, e.g., Houghes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5,9 (19080)7 Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S- 519, 520-21 (1972).
v. PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant now respectfully prays this most Honorable court would appoint him counsel under the provisions of Article
ll.07, Texas Code of criminal Procedure.
VI- VERIFICATION
-I, MICHEAL RALSTON, TDCJ #12195561 being presently incarcerated in the 5 French M. robertson Unit, in Jones county, located at 12071 F.M. 3522, abilene Texas, 79601, declare under penalty of perjury that the above and forgoing APPLICANT'S MOTION lFOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL UNDER TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ll.07 is true and correct.
_ ,~? _ EXECUTED THIS THE g ’ day of /¢:J¢Q¢;Z , 2015.
MICHEAL RAL§%§N
`\\\. `\\ t
VII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, MICHEAL RALSTON, TDCJ #1219556, do hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of the forgoing and above MOTION has been served on ELISHA BIRD, Assistant District Attorney, 200 South Broadway, suite 323, 3rd floor, Brown-
wood, texas 76801, via first class mail, postage prepaid on this the
Zg( day of sz&zqzz 1 2015. MICHEAL RALSTON. \\
\..
Page 2 [MAC]
EX PARTE § IN THE HONORABLE ' § MICHEAL RALSTON § COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS § §
AUSTIN TEXAS
ORDER APPOINTING ATTORNEY
CAME ONITHIS DAY FOR CONSIDERATION, the Applicant's MOTION FOR APPOJNTMENT OF COUNSEL UNDER TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 11.07. The Court has revi- ewed the MOTION and AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY.in this matter and it is hereby:
ORDERED that an attorney shall be appointed. to represent Applicant pursuant to Article` ll.O7, Texas Code of Criminal¢Procedures.»Accordinglyl the following attorney is hereby APPOINTED and INSTRUCTED to contact his/her
client regarding this matter:
Address:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order shall be sent to the Applicant by the Clerk‘ of this Court on the same day this ORDER is signed and dated by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGE PRESIDING DATE
Page l [OAC]
CAUSE NO. 16/547-A
Ex PARTE § IN THE HoNoRABLE MICHEAL RALsToN § coURT oF cRIMINAL APPEALS § AUSTIN, TEXAS AFFIDAVIT oF INABILITY To PAY cosTs» STATE oF TEXAS § coUNTY oF JoNEs §
"I am unable to pay court costs. I understand that I can be held crimi- nally responcible if I lie in this statement. This statement is true and correct. My income, resources and expenses are set out in the schedule below:" MONTHLY INCOME A) Public Assistance O B) Public Benifit O C) Net Employment 0 D) Other Income-VA disability -$64.50/Month
Number of Dependants:l
PROPERTY
cars and trucks: n/a
checking and/or savings accounts: n/a cash: 0
Other properties: n/a
MONTHLY EXPENSES rent?Morgage: car payment transportation Insurance clothing/Laundry food
child care Medical/dental $lOO/ year Utilities O Other 0
OOOOOOO
TOTAL EXPENSES: $lOO per year
DHBTS AND CURRENT CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION N/a
"I am unable to pay court costs in this cast. I verify that the statements made in this affidavit are true and correct".
MICHEAL RALSTON
Page l [AIPC]
,a
~ UNSWORN 'DECLARATION
I, MICHEAL RALSTON, TDCJ #1219556, being presently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, French M. Robertson Unit in Jones county Texas, declare under penalty pof perjury that the above and forgoing Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs, is true and correct.
Executed this the ,€~ day of /E{:L§ _, , 2015.
MICHEAL RALSTON \
Page 2 [AIPC]
CSINIBEE/CINIBUE TEXQS DEPQRTMENT UF CRIMINHL JUSTICE EE/DE/l§
RBSI/R592481 IN-FDRMQ-PQUPERIS DRTQ 15:36:1@ TDCJ#: 01219556 SID#: 06453364 LUCQTIUN: RDBERTSDN INDIBENT DTE:' NRME: RQLSTDN,MIEHQEL BEBINNINB PERIDD: 08/01/14 PREVIOUS TDCJ NUMBERB: EURRENT BQL: 7.31 TUT HDLD AMT: E.@@ SMTH TDT DEP: EBD.@@ 6MTH DEP: 46@.@@ BMTH QVB BQL: 49.@3 6MTH QVG DEP: 76.67 MONTH HIGHEBT BQLQNCE TUTQL DEPDBITS MDNTH HIGHEST BRLRNCE TDTQL DEPOSITS 01/15 76.@7 6@.@@ 1@/14 1@5.54 6@.@0 12/14 144.66 160.@@ @9/14 1@5.47 60.@@ 11/14 95.47 6@.@@ @8/14 103.55 EE.WB PRDEESS DRTE HDLD QMDUNT HULD DESCRIPTIDN
ROBERTBAKER
,' Notary Puhlic, State of Texas
,_` My Commission Exp 07-09-18 1 STATE DF TEXQ COUNT¥ QF.TS=NES DN THIS THEZ§ DQY oF \15§¢@ 226 1 cERTIFY THQT THIS DOCL\MENT 15 TRu CDMPLETE,QND UNQLTERED CDP¥ MRDE BY ME UF INFORMQTIDN CDNTQINED IN CDMPUTER DQTQBASE REBQRDINE THE DFFENDER’S QCCDUNT. NP/SIG: 57 pFl-HELP PFE-END ENTER NEXT TDCJ NUMBER: DR SID NUMBER:
F..~A. s?.b@l u\\\“l uo L\VM