Vasquez, Rafael

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 16, 2015
• Docket: WR-32,180-09
• Status: Published

Opinion

_Lml@jll;:e;__/§_,c@§:g», ,,__,,_ ' #_4 _,~_#,

(: l L:\Mumj” §' QIZ\:\MNAL _ _&v'_%§_ v 7 ,§;*,__.; /Q¢YL_MLCM;YDLA§_ ' §___#,_,_/)4;__;_#________ KMIFWALH_*# S\`ij_A_/\,._LQ_MF,MF___;__.#____¥;#__;

/LLSQAA_;;SQ §§ ' . s ,, fég_§j@jl»g&\_&l%ml_»£§g_& f

E_@_o_g_;_;jlq£@ic,\[c@@;u¢_a_,i:;£;;) L_l~' ,__# -___, .,\_\_ao,E/ML_LQ_Q\;;__, ` _ ` RECE\\/ED \N F,_J#

____'*~__,_.________

L;:UM@,\_\NM§:F,_M£_AWAMLM ,__.,F_

FK£;EX;\DALJ£:_€_AM~LLMSQ_LE;WMSS;QG:QLG§ ' bd SL,J'__` M§';c_@,;a;@:;@;j,OJ@:@QD@N§M@L@£QUMQQA;@@_,_ ~ £e[£;l:€¢£LLB&O.,@QCH_/LQ;_ZS;L@)LBQC&)£H)+__%#,,J#

_ _ 4_____4__

/JDE,MA:LM_._AMTC, __ ' " ' ~ _

, ' 3¢QQ:¢I@;¢FSQLL_&MS=Q,LQ;L;LNQA_{LOALL iC@p_>/#,@QMT_@C;AA§L_O;b_v:£<:'@;;o;Lm:/_L¢;,LM;§,_CL@HQL%_~__. M;L@_C7_SBPQ?_OJ§;B,-e,c; pure q ` . \FU c;»;\/_T;_o»:_h;:;\..__;__ ;(QQL;SUL;W_QA),§/;QM_@QA);Q\_D_KL;(YM@_¢% __ QJQ_AQQC;QLOAL,O_AJ,AL€.\__#__,___/____,__._,#M#,,__

?L@§_QQL§O;;LLLS_-:LWM_:L@;LU_@:@_%#

________

QIQU'QCT'UNS A_fi& iiM~eL\// 9 \-Q§l. \D€-.? `TI§Q \Qu|<§> le& ()Z§c~?m/AL docwv\.e/;S umwa Mc§§kQA \d M nMQ(//£§A 2 G)u@( Q{€/Ll(. cJC’ [)LZSAZ CUuN`r\//`» Q?f’>/ `i`d i_I-_L@SA'\J A~Tc/Nic) O‘H;c~e §;CFTRQ D:BT_\QH;`|` A-‘T'¢UWU£,\/ .

UAJ'¢¢)ZTUAJOCP€L~/ `F\uz `@2.\&0/0 Méuk./€»OOM (A)LcQ/ae ]: A/\»\ \Oc,a.`m¢\ 1/\<;& '\Qece/On~/ M\\\l/\A~A&{§) /v\\/ AM§H AJJZCQQ,S§.TQT,AH_* a mann/o Cu,wp§@.~v Tl§e §S§MQ.§,.QA he@@… hQ.u~§

CL `\`2/\_) CLC\`\J 605 L\M\lc/»\\OJ\); 30 : i/wucl,§_, `_' iT_ `Lu~£(l A/v<) KM\\OM@§L-.l/Q `1`0 do C§.u 1 /Z“E;S»AL/§/ (`A/\) w B/ SQ/z_-f¢__>z_y\/L_QQ‘ELQ__ ASLFLAJ\\ 69 \l/u\; i\M{K;/ SULQ/v\§ &Q(c§/\) _

lg&vm§A-'\m(; /fl%q§_¢z a(lc§,§) M~e °\`o il/\/\~Y Y¢w iu

&AuM;~Q ‘£ML \l/m)£, ’§<~A Q`M/Sld§%c>;.) trw

. QQ§!Q(.\"€)I\/V SUIQM \`,T-edj

` \

HQ. 1995-CR~0685¢WZ

Ex PARTE § 4 12 222 couar 02 RAVAEL vasquez d § _ 2 cn:wxuac APPEALS v QB§TIN, TBRAS

APPLchNT's oaaacrrous 20 232 rarAL conar's seven oxsaxssch 222 waxr 02 HABEAS canvas

20 283 HQNORABLE JUSTICES GF SAIID6OUHT¢ Greeltnga.- 6omaa now, animal Vasquez, Applieant herein, co 21m21y 2112

khis, 513 ijecttone 23 the Trial Coutt é O2de2 dated February 23, 2015. Said erder is postmarked 3/5/2915, and was reaaived by the Applicaut on 3/10/2015. Thua, he has ten £109 days to timely file his Objeet1ona per Tex. R. App. ?20¢., 2212 73.4 (b)(Z)(Weac 2014)1»822 also, Houaton v. Lagk 487 USS¢ 266, 101 LeBd¢ 26 245, 108 3¢66. 2379(1988)(921809 Ha£lbox Rule)»_

22 22328203¥?§2*TRE*G§SB*WHW“ l

M_,: 9a Novembet BQ, 1995, the Applicann was sentenced to 1126

in 292 2063~28 and £1ned $10, 000 following a verdict of guilty

to 292 charge of agggavatad sexua1 assault of a ¢hild after a §

ju2y trial. Ahp1122n2'2 appeal was 211ed on day 6, 1996. The

`Juagmenc was acme¢med. see oa~ss~oosz-cn.¢ o¢~ss»ooss~ca. App;zoanc s first 2212 app11ca21on sought an out»o£~t&ll¢opportunicy to file

a Penit1on 502 Disccetionazy Review,¢only, and was denied without 'w21tcen 02622 on Ju1y, 28, 2006 (22~32,180~06)¢ 292 inacanc app11cat£on 13 his second 23quest.§9gx

“) ~,&;. . _. -,e, ,_; /...\;§…..,

nllqaoat¢no:¢¢ the applicant

:; "7‘, ......

ALLEGATIONS OF THE APPLZCANT !. In Ground One, Applicaot alleg¢¢ he was denied effecti§e 3 assistance of counsel on appeal. ` 2. In Ground Two, Applicant alleges he was_déuied dba tighe of sel£~rapceaentation on Ip}paal. ` 3. In Ground Thrae, Applicana alleges the Ttial Court’s failure to remain fair and impartial denied Applicant's due process tighten

on,appeal.

THE TRIAL COURT'S FleDINGS OF FACT¥ AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Applicant'a first writ application thsdenied withoi¢ta written order on the Trial Court'a findings with a hearing fan affidavits] on July 28, 2004 (93~32,180»06)» 2. This enact does not have jué£adiction to consider the merits of a subiaquenz application for eric of habeas corpus “uhless the app}ication contains suf€icient specific facts establlihing that the current claims and issues dav¥nnot been and could not have been presented previously in an original application. Tex. Code Crim. ?roc. art. 11.07, §4£¢)£1)@¥¢¢$#§014)? 3. This court finds that Appl;cant is precluded from bringing this second writ application haled upon the subsequent writ provision in Tex¢ Code Ccim. Froc. Art. 11.07, §4, (a)(l). The current elaims and issues either were or could have Been presented in ' Applicanc's first writ application. v &. Baoed on the-foregoing findings of facc and conclusiona of

law,_ic is hereby recommended that this application bg diamissed.

2.

A'PPLIcAN'r‘s oaJEchoas 1. The Trial hence has informed this Honotablc Court that the

Applicant's first orie application was denied, and thoa, said Trial Court lacks jurisdic¢\ionovar the instant application.

Howobar, cba first writ application aougho only an ouc~o£* time~ opportunity co file for petition for piacretionaiy Raviaw. Thua, neither eha first nor the inacant applicationa sought to challenge the underlying convictions or sentencc. Accordingly, the_trial Court'c dismissal was improvident.

In Ex Parte Evana 964 S.W.Zd 6o3 (Tll.Crim.App. 1998), thia_ Honorabla Court bald there

"Both the definition of ’conviction!’ and this Court'a

_ caaedlaw regarding writ applicacione loads us no the

conclulion that tha procedural bar of §h [TBx, C.C.?.

otto 11.07] is limited to instances in¢which eha initial

application raises claims regarding the falidity of the

prosecution or judgment of guilt. lt does not appl co

claims regarding other matters [which have nothing§ to

do with the_conviceion other than sharing eha same forum

or fact-fikddig...As a result, [Evans's] application is

not barred by Section 4 bocauae Applicanc's prior

application did not involve a claim_which challenges the

conviction oz sentence within cna meaning of Araicl.a

11.07, §&." _

Sca aloo, En parte Rawlinson.Q$S S.Q.Zd 198 (Tax.Crim.App. 1997)(The harm "cgcniction," encompaaoea judgment and sentence only).

Page 1 of tva instant application clearly defines that: "Applicant has filed a Brit of Habaas Corpue seeking an oug-of-timo appeal opportunity before the Texaa Court of Ctiminal 'Appaalo. Portlog v._State 89 S.W.Bd 188, l£?(Tex.App.~~Taxarkcna 2002, no pet)); Rezcs v. Stata 89 S.W.Sd 291, 293, n{Z(To¢. App»

-~El Paao, 199&, no pet.) Saa, In re Cain 137 F.Bd 236, 235(5ch

3.

_§i.¢;-M,

Cir.1998...“). Acoordingly, Applican; Objecta to the Trial Coutt's

having impravidently dismissed the instant application without

due process of the instrument;

Prazer Appl£caantprays this Honerable Coutt REMAND the instant n

application back to the Trial Court for full consideraciqn of the merits of his allegations. Rgg?ect£ullyf§ubmitted,

.',JT_.».»~*“'*"'"N` w ` 5` ._¢-' t_; )_ (,»

UNSWGRN DEGLARATION I, Rafael Vasguez, TDCH-IDES?BSZI&, an inmate confined in the Ramsey 1 Unit located in Br@zorin County, Texas, sweet ander penalty of perjury that the €chgoiag instrumtnntis true and correct insofar as l undedtt¢ld the applicable law to require.

E§S§hc¢a on §pia, fha 1;=§`¢gy of nar¢h, 2015.

~' s “ / ,< '.§5~‘; e'~'-‘“;\. ~' ' f ~»=' " .~ §§Eq§i Vaaquez yiwka?LZEGA$T

`-.G""

CERTIFICATE\OF SERVICE

I, Ra£ael Vasquez, TDCJ $73821&, muniz and affirm that a true and co kane cogy of the-foregoiig instrument was delivar@d by first c aaa mai , postage prepaid, co the office of the Bexar

County Diatrict Actornay, Mr. Nicholaa "Nieo"“LaHood, at the ?aul Elizondo Towar, 101 W. Hueva, San Autonio, Texas 78205, on this, the llth day of Mareh, 2015. Exe¢g;ed on the ilth of

March, 201$.

4._