CAUSE NO. CR 20713 §\fi JOEL RAMIREZ · R\EC~~VED ~n~ IN THE 35TH JUDICIAL TDCJ ID #1699615 ICOORl~OOIMtNALAPPEAlS RELATOR ~PR 17 2015 v. § DISTRICT COURT OF
CHERYL JONES COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK: Ab~ Aeosts, Clerk IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, § RESPONDENT § BROWN COUNT¥ TEXAS
A. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, JOEL RAMIREZ, Relator, pro se in the above-styled and numbered cause
of action and. files this Original Applicaiton For Writ of Mandamus, prusuant to
Article 11.07 Section 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and would show
the Court the following:
B. RELATOR
LOl JOEL RAMIREZ, TDCJ #1699615 is a.:·offehoer ·iflceiliatedi :iff· the Texas Departmnet
of Criminal Justice and is appearing pro se, who can be located at Eastham
Unit, 2665 Prison Rd. #1, Lovelady, Texas 75851.
1.02 Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other adequate remedy at law.
1.03 The . act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not discretionary in nature.
Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 66.1 With or Without Petition: the Court
of Criminal Appeals may review a court of appeals' decision in a criminal
case on its own initiative under Rule 67 for Discretionary Review Without
Petition or on th-e Rule -1 petition of a party under Rule 68 - 2. Under Rule
66.2 Not a Matter of Right Discretionary review by the Court of Criminal Appeal
is not a matter of right, but of the Court's· discretion.
1.'04 RELATOR ·would show that if this Honorable Court 0f Criminal App~als Grants
RELATOR'S 11.07 Writ for an out of time PDR it ·would still have an injustice
affict in the problem of missing Vol. 1 and 2 of the Reporter's Records that was left out of the Direct Appeal on Ground number Five. If RELATOR was given
an oppertunity to file a·.! PDR the number Fifth Ground would still be left out
for lack of Vol. One and:'IWo of the Reporter's Records.
If Granted Rule 67 the Direct Appeal would still not beincomfority with
the Constitutional Right to Profect an Appeal without all the Reporter's Record
in ·which RELATOR Vol. three - ?
In Vol. Three; Page 7; Line 18 - 25Ms. Hennington: Your Honor, we would
like to,· with the Court's premission, to proceed with our motion to withdraw
first. THE COURT: All right. And that's in each case, right? MS. HENNINGTON:
Yes, sir, Your Honor. Your Honor, based on the request of our client,. Mr.
Reamirez, ··we have filed a motion to withdraw (Page 8; Lines 1 - 25) in each of
the cases that we have been appointed to;.represent him on.
He has accused us of not investigating, not researching the law. He has
accused us of -- of going doing things without his premission.
And we believe that those allegations have put us in an untenable position
that we can't represent him. We spoke with him today to make sure there is
nno chance to repair that relationship, and he has informed us that he does
not want us to be his lawyers, that he believes we have done thing that . violate
our code of ethics. and . we are requesting to be aluowed to withdraw from
representing him.
THE COURT: : All right. Mr. Ramirez, what is ti you're complaining of?
I've not read the letters that you've s~nt because they have been sealed.
I thinnk . you've gotten a response back from my court (Page 9; Lines 1 - 7)
administrator about that. Whatever the letters are, when you-- you can't
communicate directly with me when you have a lawyer. So, they've been sealed.
They are in the·Court's .file, whatever they are, but they are sealed. If you
need me to open them in the presence of everybody, I. can do that, but right
now, I want you ·to tell me what is you concern, what do you want done, and . /.
Page TWo why.
THE DEFENDAT: I wanted to take the stand,, THE COURT: Go ahead. but they
wouldn't subpoena my witnesses. Tey say my witnesses don't matter, that it
was irrelevant. All they wated to subpoena is character witnesses after I
lose. they told me I was going to lose anyway. At that time I was here, sir.
I came ready to go to jury, they said, Your're going to get life .. I assumed
I was going to (Inaudible). something wrong here (Page 10, Lines 1
10) I took too much medication. It's my medication. If I wouldn't have been
so medicated, I would have never signed that -- whatever I signed, you know.
I mean why wouldn't they subpoena my witnesses? All they wanted to
subpoena was characte.)::: witness for after I lose. They never talk about I might
win. They are mad at me becuase I wouldn't plea bargain or plead. It's just ..•
. . . . . . . . . . . THE COURT~ what else? Tell me everything you're concerned
about. THE DEFENDANT: She said something a bani t -- THE COURT: She said what?
I didn't understand you. THE DEFENDANT: She said something that wasn't right.
(Page 11; Line 13 -25) The COURT: Now, what is your response to what
he says, his complants? give me your response. MS. HENNNINGTON: Judge, we
know that he has had medicaition, but he is telling us things that -- or saying
what he is saying is he was on some medication and we forced him to sign
it because he never would have signed it if he would have been not under the
influence. He has accused us of lying to him. I mean, and it 's in his letter.
He has told us that. He's told it to our face. He said it in the letter.
I understand he's nervous now, so I'm not sure what I didn't say correct
earlier, but he has done all of those things. As far as what we've done,
we have (Page 12; Line 1) · researched.
(Page 12; Line 17 - 25) THE COURT" The I'll open the letter and read
it at this time. There is a letter in the Court's file. It's file-marked
january 5th or 2011, where it was written in -- a letter was written to Mr.
Page Three Ramirez by Ms. Aaron who is my court. coordinator, who is present in the
courtroom, with copies to Ms. Hennington, to the D. A. 's off ice, and the
clerk. That is, copies of the letter that she wrote. The document bhat .-was
watten by the (Page 131 Line 1) Defendant has been under seal since it
was received.
(Page 15; Line 11 - 14) And Mr. Ramirez was involved all along the
way, when in jail, when not in jail, in these preparation attempts, in the
work that we have been doing.
(Page 16; Line :6 2l)I believe that he believes in his heart that
Ms. Hennington and I are no doing a good job for him, will not to a good
job for him, and do not have his best interests at heart. I believe
he is sincere when he tells the Court that he believes all we want him to
do is to plead guilty. I believe while it is not so that we've promised
him he would get life if he was convicted, I believe he hears that and he's
inmovable in his belief that that is what we're advising him.
THE COURT: You' 're telling me you did not tell him that. Mt. JONES:
I did not. I would never THE COURT: And Ms. Hennington never said that?
THE DEFENDANT: She did.
(Page 181 Line 5- 14) Mr. Ramirez, you've heard what they've had to say.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CAUSE NO. CR 20713 §\fi JOEL RAMIREZ · R\EC~~VED ~n~ IN THE 35TH JUDICIAL TDCJ ID #1699615 ICOORl~OOIMtNALAPPEAlS RELATOR ~PR 17 2015 v. § DISTRICT COURT OF
CHERYL JONES COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK: Ab~ Aeosts, Clerk IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, § RESPONDENT § BROWN COUNT¥ TEXAS
A. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, JOEL RAMIREZ, Relator, pro se in the above-styled and numbered cause
of action and. files this Original Applicaiton For Writ of Mandamus, prusuant to
Article 11.07 Section 3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and would show
the Court the following:
B. RELATOR
LOl JOEL RAMIREZ, TDCJ #1699615 is a.:·offehoer ·iflceiliatedi :iff· the Texas Departmnet
of Criminal Justice and is appearing pro se, who can be located at Eastham
Unit, 2665 Prison Rd. #1, Lovelady, Texas 75851.
1.02 Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other adequate remedy at law.
1.03 The . act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not discretionary in nature.
Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 66.1 With or Without Petition: the Court
of Criminal Appeals may review a court of appeals' decision in a criminal
case on its own initiative under Rule 67 for Discretionary Review Without
Petition or on th-e Rule -1 petition of a party under Rule 68 - 2. Under Rule
66.2 Not a Matter of Right Discretionary review by the Court of Criminal Appeal
is not a matter of right, but of the Court's· discretion.
1.'04 RELATOR ·would show that if this Honorable Court 0f Criminal App~als Grants
RELATOR'S 11.07 Writ for an out of time PDR it ·would still have an injustice
affict in the problem of missing Vol. 1 and 2 of the Reporter's Records that was left out of the Direct Appeal on Ground number Five. If RELATOR was given
an oppertunity to file a·.! PDR the number Fifth Ground would still be left out
for lack of Vol. One and:'IWo of the Reporter's Records.
If Granted Rule 67 the Direct Appeal would still not beincomfority with
the Constitutional Right to Profect an Appeal without all the Reporter's Record
in ·which RELATOR Vol. three - ?
In Vol. Three; Page 7; Line 18 - 25Ms. Hennington: Your Honor, we would
like to,· with the Court's premission, to proceed with our motion to withdraw
first. THE COURT: All right. And that's in each case, right? MS. HENNINGTON:
Yes, sir, Your Honor. Your Honor, based on the request of our client,. Mr.
Reamirez, ··we have filed a motion to withdraw (Page 8; Lines 1 - 25) in each of
the cases that we have been appointed to;.represent him on.
He has accused us of not investigating, not researching the law. He has
accused us of -- of going doing things without his premission.
And we believe that those allegations have put us in an untenable position
that we can't represent him. We spoke with him today to make sure there is
nno chance to repair that relationship, and he has informed us that he does
not want us to be his lawyers, that he believes we have done thing that . violate
our code of ethics. and . we are requesting to be aluowed to withdraw from
representing him.
THE COURT: : All right. Mr. Ramirez, what is ti you're complaining of?
I've not read the letters that you've s~nt because they have been sealed.
I thinnk . you've gotten a response back from my court (Page 9; Lines 1 - 7)
administrator about that. Whatever the letters are, when you-- you can't
communicate directly with me when you have a lawyer. So, they've been sealed.
They are in the·Court's .file, whatever they are, but they are sealed. If you
need me to open them in the presence of everybody, I. can do that, but right
now, I want you ·to tell me what is you concern, what do you want done, and . /.
Page TWo why.
THE DEFENDAT: I wanted to take the stand,, THE COURT: Go ahead. but they
wouldn't subpoena my witnesses. Tey say my witnesses don't matter, that it
was irrelevant. All they wated to subpoena is character witnesses after I
lose. they told me I was going to lose anyway. At that time I was here, sir.
I came ready to go to jury, they said, Your're going to get life .. I assumed
I was going to (Inaudible). something wrong here (Page 10, Lines 1
10) I took too much medication. It's my medication. If I wouldn't have been
so medicated, I would have never signed that -- whatever I signed, you know.
I mean why wouldn't they subpoena my witnesses? All they wanted to
subpoena was characte.)::: witness for after I lose. They never talk about I might
win. They are mad at me becuase I wouldn't plea bargain or plead. It's just ..•
. . . . . . . . . . . THE COURT~ what else? Tell me everything you're concerned
about. THE DEFENDANT: She said something a bani t -- THE COURT: She said what?
I didn't understand you. THE DEFENDANT: She said something that wasn't right.
(Page 11; Line 13 -25) The COURT: Now, what is your response to what
he says, his complants? give me your response. MS. HENNNINGTON: Judge, we
know that he has had medicaition, but he is telling us things that -- or saying
what he is saying is he was on some medication and we forced him to sign
it because he never would have signed it if he would have been not under the
influence. He has accused us of lying to him. I mean, and it 's in his letter.
He has told us that. He's told it to our face. He said it in the letter.
I understand he's nervous now, so I'm not sure what I didn't say correct
earlier, but he has done all of those things. As far as what we've done,
we have (Page 12; Line 1) · researched.
(Page 12; Line 17 - 25) THE COURT" The I'll open the letter and read
it at this time. There is a letter in the Court's file. It's file-marked
january 5th or 2011, where it was written in -- a letter was written to Mr.
Page Three Ramirez by Ms. Aaron who is my court. coordinator, who is present in the
courtroom, with copies to Ms. Hennington, to the D. A. 's off ice, and the
clerk. That is, copies of the letter that she wrote. The document bhat .-was
watten by the (Page 131 Line 1) Defendant has been under seal since it
was received.
(Page 15; Line 11 - 14) And Mr. Ramirez was involved all along the
way, when in jail, when not in jail, in these preparation attempts, in the
work that we have been doing.
(Page 16; Line :6 2l)I believe that he believes in his heart that
Ms. Hennington and I are no doing a good job for him, will not to a good
job for him, and do not have his best interests at heart. I believe
he is sincere when he tells the Court that he believes all we want him to
do is to plead guilty. I believe while it is not so that we've promised
him he would get life if he was convicted, I believe he hears that and he's
inmovable in his belief that that is what we're advising him.
THE COURT: You' 're telling me you did not tell him that. Mt. JONES:
I did not. I would never THE COURT: And Ms. Hennington never said that?
THE DEFENDANT: She did.
(Page 181 Line 5- 14) Mr. Ramirez, you've heard what they've had to say.
We will talk about the jury waiver business later, if we need to, but right
now,: juslh.the only issue is whether they should be allowed to withdraw as your
lawyers . today. And now, this is set for trial taday and ready to go.
Anything else you want to tell me that you believe has a bearing on that?
THE DEFENDANT: They said they didn't tell me that I was going to get
life?
THE DEFENDANT: Why do they say my witnesses don't matter? THE COURT:
Let me ask her. did you tell him that his witnesses didn't matter?
MS. HENNINGTON: Y6lir ·Honor, .wi'thout go;ing · into detaiHF •of the
Page Four (Page 19; tine 20 - 25) THE COURT: You concur with that, Mr. Jones? Mr.
JONES: Your Honro, I apoligize. Mr. Adams was making a remark to me, sidebar.
THE COURT: Did you not hear what she said? MR. JONES: I did not.
(Page 20; Line 20 25) THE COURT: Back to you. Anything else, Mr.
Ramirez, you would like to say on this issue of the attorneys representing
you?
THE DEFENDANT: They both told me I'm going to lose and they don't want
to subpoena my witnesses. All they want to subpoena is character witnesses
for (Page 211 Line 1 - 25) after I lose- I've seen them three times- Both
times, she tried to get me to plead, he tried to get me to plead, and we
worked on my case one time, three hours. He took pictures for three house.
Do you think we're ready for jury tdal, three house on IT¥ case?
THE Court: 'Ibday ·is a nonjury proceeding- There has earlier been a
jury waiver. So, we will talk about that in a minute, but --
MR- JONES: May I address that last comment? THE COURT: You may-
MR. JONES: Your Honor, it's my understanding --and Ms. Henington
might be able to shed light on this as well -- that knowing that we had
today's setting, in December' Mr- Ramirez was contacted and re<:J.uired to
get with us to do trial preperation. Df I understand the chain of events
in the of:tSice, what happeneed was we received work that instead he had written
a letter to you, telling the Court, as your've now see, that we were
essentially incompetent boobs who were twisting his arm, and he did not
make himself available for trial preparation for today's setting. I would
just like to add before . the Court rules that I truly believe there is an
irreparable (Page 22; Line 1 - 4) attorney-client relationship. And, in
fact, Mr. Ramirez has evenn spoken to us earlier this morning and directly
to me looking at me regarding representing himself if the Court does not
permit us to withdraw.
Page Five (Page 22; 5 - 25) THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ramirez, anything else you
want to say on this issue of the withdrawing of the attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: sir. THE COURTL All right. At this juncture, vien
the circumstances and the totalityof the -- what has been presented, what
I think is the credible evidence before me on this issue, I do not believe
that these attorneys have been derelict in their duties. I know each of
these attoneys, and they try cases in this court on a regular basis. They
are good advocates and they are responsible attonreys and I don't find that
they have done anything that merits them being two out of the case as your
lawyers. And the motions to withdraw are denied in each case. We will
go to the next issue, which is this jyry waiver . The jury · waiver was signed
in these matters
MR. JONES: Respectfully, Your Honor, may I interrupt for one moment?
THE COURT : You may .
(Page 23; Line 1 - 25) MR. JONESL Your Honor, based on my discussions
in Ms. Hennington's presence with Mr. Ramirez this morning, I would ask
the Corut to inquire of Mr. Ramirez whether he wishes to proceed pro se.
THE COURT: MR. Ramirez, right now, they are still your lawyers. And
are you telling me that you want to be your own lawyer and go to trial without
any lawyers or not? I mena, right not, I'm expecting them to do their
job for you. You're notg9ing to have hybrid representation. You're not going
to be doing your thing and theni doing their thi;ng at the same time.
In other words you've said you were indigent, I appointed lawyers,
rotating syste, thre next one up, qualified attorneys licensed to practive
in this state. And:in most. cases, you. only have one :lawer. You have two. I'm
not paying for two. They are doing it because of theirchrcrumstances. So,
you're really getting two lawyers for the price of one lawyer in this matter.
This is not a capital murder case. You know, that's when we have two lawyers. Page Six (Psge 23; Line 23 - 25) I'm not going to pay for two lawyers for you, but
you're got them here because of their willingness to do this and split their
together, but i f you don't (Page 24; Line 1 - 25) want them here, then there
is going to be some serious situations.
but just know this, if we go forward with it, this case --you know,
if you were going to represent yourself, you're not going to have the benefit
of :these lawyers questioning witnesses. You're gong to be representing
yourself and you '11 have to do it all . And I ' 11 to go forward with you and
admonish you about that and be sure that I'm satisfied that you are able
to represent yourself, but it's a situation that I'm asking you, because
your lawyer has asked me that. Otherwise, I am expecting them to do their
job for yo. What is you desire? THE DEFENDANT: I was talking to my wife
and she said to ask you if we have time to hire my own lawyer THE COURT:
You've go your ~ase is going today. I'm not delayig it. So, you have
had if you wanted to hire a lawyer, if-- you told me earlier you couldn't
afford one, but if you wanted to hire a lawyer, you could have hired a lawyer
anywhere along the line. THE DEFENDNAT;: She just told me. THE COURT~,
Well, I mean, this is the day of trial. I' 'm not going to delay it. If you've
got a (Page .. 25; . Linen 1 .. '- 25). ' lawyer'1.that yo want to come in here.. and sH
down her and say, okay, they are ready to go, fine. but i'm not continuing
the case. so, at this point, the last question on this sisue is: Are you
wanting to represent yourslef or are you ready to go on to the next matter,
which is this jury wa1 ver issue, which is going to be something that need \ to be dealt with. THE' DEFENDANT: I can't represent myself. THE COURT:
All right. I think that's a wise~ decision on your part. But at this
juncture, let me go to you now. Back to you. What is your position on this
jury waiver that was filed and accepted:by the Court back to October 25th,
Page Seven 2010, wen it was set for jury trial? MR. JONES: May I address this, your
Honor? 'IHE COURYT: Yes, You may. MR. JONES: Your Honor, we received
the correspondence a copy of the correspondennce the Court has, that
you have reviewed this morning. And we would ask the court to take note
of that in relation ot this motion. THE COURT: I will do so. MR. JONES:
Mr. Ramirez that letter, asserts that he was udner the influence of (Page
26; Line 1 -4) a ~resecription Controlled, Substance, properly presecribed,
when he signed the waiver of jury trial in the case that the state has
elected to go forward in today .....
II.
C. RESPONDNET
2. 01 Re'Sponden t, Chery 1 Jones , in her Qf.ficial Capacity as District clerk of
Brown Cbunty, Texas has a ministerial duty to receive and file all papers
in a criminal proceeding, and preform : all; ,o,ther. dutties imposed on the clerk
by law prusuant to TCCP Art.. 2. 21, and is responsible under TCCP 11.07 Sec.
3(c) transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of the Application
for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificatte recting
the date upon which the finding was made if the convicting court decides
that there are no issues to be resolved.
2.02 That in conformity with Rule 34 of Appellate RecordsRule 34.1 Contents.
The Appellate record consists of the clerk's record and, if necessary to
the appeal, the reporter's record. Even if more than one notice of appeal
is filed, . there.c should be only one appellate record in a case.
VolumeOne and Two will verify Ground Five of the Direct Appeal in support of
of the RR alleged herein. The Direct Appeal was not competed by Rudy Taylor
1:or \-.'ant of what ever reason He had failed to complete Ground Five in the
Direct Appeal.
Page Eight
'' . ' '
2.03 In Relator's Brief on page v.(Issues Presented) Issue Number Five was alleged
but was not argued as it whould have been. In State's Brief on page 5 of
(Issues Presented State alleges (Nothing is preserved for review because
appellant did not argue his Fifth point of error) .• Therefore nothing in
Eleventh District Court oi Appeals had been and was f
Reporter's Records or any number of reasons. This. Honorable Court should take
that Relator should be given another chance to a Direct Appeal to argue
Ground Five to the Fullest. A PDR if granted would lack ground Five and
Relator would lose the benifit of this ground.
D. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PrtEMISES CONSIDERED, Relator, Joel Ramirez , pro se, respectfully
requests This Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals to grant an Out of Time Direct
Appeal to reliti~ate in good faith and to substantially prevail in this matter. It
would not burden this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals to direct the District
Court to let Relator begin over on the Direct Appeal or burden the District
Court of the same.
Submitted on this the 11th day ot April, 2015. Respectfully submitted,
Page Nine