Jones, Keenon ( 2015 )

APPEALS No.WR-82,974-01
TRIAL.Ct.No-2010-426,671-A RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMlNALAPPt:AlS
KEENON JONES § COURT OF CRIMINAL ~
Appellant
v. § APPEALS OF TEXAS JUl 17 2il15
THE STATE OF TEXAS §'· P.o.Box 123os,cAPITOL sT~@fAcosta, Clerk
AUSTIN,TEXAS ~8Yll
APPELLANT"S PRO-SE MOTION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS,WITH THE
TEXAS RULES OF ALLELLANT PROCEDURE and GROUNDS
With ORAL ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
To The Honorable Clerk,Abel Acosta,
Comes Now,~eenon Jones,TDCJI1825082,CID,Alfred D.Hughes Nnit
Rt 2 Box 4400/,3201 FM 929 Gatesville,Texas 76597.
Appellant asserts to this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals
that he didnot filed any Reconsideration Hearing,on his Appeal,he
file,An Unreso~ved "ISSUES" ! "NOT",Requesting any Reconsideration
at this time because of his Records.
Appellant arg~es his reasons for this OBJECTION,is that with~
out his "Phone Call","Records", ! ,HE CAN NOT FILE HIS RIGHT DUE
PROCESS OF LAW,and his well to the point arguments and his vi~l-
ations of his "constitutional Rights",which at this tt~e haved
been violated,under T.he Six and Fourteenth Amendments.
Appellant asserts and argues that he did send a letter motion
to his Lawver and to the court reporter and he did not get any
answer from thoi~ Officials.
Appellant is arguing these facts that he has found newly dis-
covered evidence because of this Honorable Court rulings on this
his Writ of Habeas Corpus.This Rule of T.R.A.P.Rule 79.2(d)states;
T.R.A~P.Rule 79.2.(d) A motion for rehearinq an order ·',~.:
that denies habeas corpus relief under code of Crimi``
nal Procedure,artiales 11.07 or ll.07l.May not be fi~
led.The Court may on its own initiative·reconsider
the case.
Appellant did filed an Notice of Appeal and this court of
Appeals takes it ass an Motion for reconsideration,this Notice of
Appeal does not state anything about "YOUR COURT", tr.'6 Reconsider,
this Writ of Habeas Corpus ll.07,it stated unresolved issues.
Please See State Ex Rel.Holrnes V.Kleven Hagen cite as
819 s.w.539 Tex.cr.App.l99l)pg [l]As previously noted,
the state now seeks relief by writ of Mandamus to corn-
pie Judges to rescind her order granting Williams ha-
beas. conpus relief and to direct the Harris County
sheriff to excute the Governor's Warrant.Pursuant to
Art.V,§ S,of the Texas Constitution,this Court has
jurisdi~tion to issue Writs of rnandarnus.It is well-
settled by this Courti·.that in order for mandamus to
issue,the party seekung mandamus must show that theFe
is no other adequate remedy available and that the act:
sought to be cornplelled is a ministerial act.Brayton
V.Dunn,803 S.W.2d~3]8,320,(Tex.cr;App.l99l) ,citing
State exrel.Holrnes v.salinas,780 s.w.2d 216 (Tex.cr.
App.l990),and Stearnes V.Clinton 780 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.
Cr.App.l990) •.:tll<·' ::;;·_,1.. 1 ' :·:;
Appellant asserts and argues that if his Lawyer and the Court
Reporter never send his copies of that of what he order from them,
then it is not his f~ult,because he due diligently seeked these
records.Please See;
Dean v.state cite as 900S.W.2d.367(Tex.App.-Texarkana
l995)pg 369[1] If an Appellant has made a timely requ-
est for a staernent of facts,but the court reporter's
notes and records have been lost ordestroyed without
the appellant's fault,he is entitled to a new trial
unless the parties agree a statement of facts.Tex.R." <
App.P.SO(e).The party seeking relief must show that
he made a timely request for the statement of facts
and that,without any faul~ of his,the reporter's notes
have been lost or d~stroyed.
Appellant asserts that on this Ruled of Appellant Procedure
§ 44.0l.(a)The state is entitled to appeal an order of a
court in a criminal case if the order;
Appellant argues that his first prong,on this Writ of Mandamus
that this court went straightt~1the point of sendinq appellant to
ari avenue of wanting him to file an Motion for recorisider~tion,
~hen in this case law it states this;Please See;
819 S.W.539 n.at 541 [2i3)As to the first prong,rela-
tor contends he has no other adequate remedy at law
because the State has no right to appeal a judgment
granting habeas corpus relief unless that judgment
may be construed .as' an order granting a new trial.
See Art.44.0l,V.A.C.C.P.Ordinarily,a respondent in a habeas
corpus case cannot appeal from. a jud~ment discharging ~
the app~icant.state v.Gonzales ,459 s.w.2d 947(Tex.
Civ.App.-San Antonio,l970,no writ).
Appellant also· aigues that if his law would haved send him
all .. his records it would have been a differsnt out come on him
and .on his filing to this court his right due process of law.
See 900 S.W.2d 367,n.at.369(Tex.App.-Texarkana 1995).
369[4]Nevertheless,when an appellant is deprived of a
statement of facts.he is entitled to a new trial irre-
spective of harm.Sheffield V.State,supra.Dean's fail-
ure to show or even ~llege.~a defect or in adequacy in
the warrent does not cure the error.Dean v.state.Supra.
Appellant asserts that he is requesting all his documents of
his case,"The Phone Calls•.that were used to convicted him.or
all the DNA Testing records if there were any in his case,the
lawyer never showed him any records of this kind at any time.
Rule 44.01. (3)grants a new trial;
Rule 44.01.(6)is issued under chapbet 64.
Appellant is also requesting the DNA Testing that was done on
his case and claim at this time.
4.
,,·
PRAYER
I1Keenon Jones prays that this Honorable Court of Appeals of
ITexas will Grant this Motion of Appellants request for this been-
ing argu~d in a very short time1to argue1because of lock down in
this Unit and dorms.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,Appellant c~rtify that a copy of this pro-se motion was
sent to this Honorable Court of Appeals of Texas P.O.Box 12308/·'
Capitol Station Austin1Texas 78711/by u.s.postage and is adding
the prison mail box rule1and is requ~sting that this court will
send copies to all partys involved and that. this court will Grant
this motion,and that it will conduct a Evidentiary Hearing and
that appellant is under penalty of periurv and that a of the
above is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and that
all relief will be sought in his case and claim.
Texas Gov't Code1Civil Practice Remedy/132 28 u.s.c. § 1746.
Executed on ehis 15 day of July 2015.
Respectfully Submitted
Keenan Jones #1825082
Alfred D.Hughes Unit
Rt 2 Box 4400//3201 FM
929 Gatesville1Tx 76597.
Respectfully Submitted
7-15-15
' .
APPEALS No.WR-82,974-01
TRIAL.Ct.No.2010-426,671-A
KEENON JONES COURT OF CRIMTNAL
Appellant
v. APPEALS OF TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS §<)p';;'O.Box 12308,C?\PITOL STATION
AUSTIN,TEXAS 78711
Appeals From The
140TH Judicial District
County Courthouse
Lubbock,Texas
APPELLANT"S PRO-SE MOTION OBJECTING TO THE DISMISSAL DECISION
OF THE RULING DATED,6-15-2015,PURSU~NT TO ~HE
TEXAS RULES OF APPELLANT PROCEDURE RULE 79.2(d).
And Adding Oral Argument To The Hold Rule of
T. R. A. P. Rule 79. Rehearings,( 79.1 )Motion For Rehearing,
(79.2.)Contents. In Addition With A
WRIT OF MAND~MUS,BEENING THE SUBPLEMENTARY GROUND,
FOR THIS "OBJECTION".
VERNON"S CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS ANN
nrticle V.Judicial Department Section § S.Jurisdic~
tion of Court of Criminal Appeals;terms of Court;
Clerk.Sec. S.(a),(b),(c).
VERNON"S TEXAS STATUTES ANNOTATED
6.Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 44.01.[812],[893],[871] Appeal by state