Montelongo, Joe ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • W,%E;z~og
    ``l
    Date:_12-17-14
    To: Court of Criminal Appeals
    P. 0. BOX 12308
    Austin Texas 78711
    RECE|VED!N '
    LAPPEALS
    From: Mr. Joe Montelongo #1266916 COURTOFCRMMNA
    . Michael Unit ,
    2654 FM 2054 DEC 302®1@§
    Tennessee Colony Texas 75886
    Abel Acosta, Clerk
    Re: wR-67,332-02.
    Dear Glerk,
    Please file these objections with the C;C.A, Thank You.
    ' cERTIFIcATE‘ oFt sERvIcE ' '
    1 hereby certify that 1 have sent a true copy of these documents
    tO:
    1. District Clerk
    133 North Riverfront Blvd.
    Dallas Texas 75207» ~
    mailed on``the date indicated above.
    UNSWORN DECLARATION
    Applicant declares that the attached is true and correct.
    Respectfully submitted,
    .. n ( _' v
    ¢jjr. Joe Montel§%go'#1266916
    Michae1 Unit
    2664 FM 2054
    Tennessee Colony Texas 75886
    cc.file
    -wR@ei-'s32"-'62 " '
    Court of CrZ@§na§ §ERZ§ls of Texas
    IN THE ZOéth, DISTRICT COURT
    575 F. Supp. 156 
    189 §M D. GA. 1983); and
    Ziegenhagen 890 FZd 937, 940 §7th Clr. 989) "1t is well
    established that no attorney may represents criminal defendant
    when the attorney or a member of his firm either repre senter
    or has previously representt d the government in the prosecution
    of the Defendant See Ex Parte Parker 
    704 S.W.2d 40
    . ``, '
    See supra Ziegenhagen 899 FZd at 940 "although not every conflict'
    of interest is so egregious as to constitute a violation of '
    the 6th amendment. Government employment in a prosecutorial
    role against one defendant and subsequent representation of a
    defendant in a defens =e capacity is not proper'
    2. Applicant also presented newly discovered evidence that proves
    his actual innocense, allows h1.m to toll the AEDPA deadlines,
    and enter into federal court._ y '
    3. The Trial Court failed to obey the I. C. C. P. art. 11. 97 3 §c)
    "1t shall be the duty of the convicting court to decide whether
    there are controverted, previously unresolved facts material
    to the legality of the applicant' s confinement" "Shall" indi~
    cates a mandatory duty. The Trial Court has no discretion in
    making this determination, it must be made. The Trial Court
    has failed to perform it' s mandatory duty in this case, and
    therefore Applicant requests this case be remanded back to
    the trial Court with an order that it perform it’ s mandatory
    duty.
    _Respectfully requested,
    C£r. Joe Montelongo §1266916
    MichaeL Unit 2664 FM 2054
    Tennessee Colony Texas 75886
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WR-67,832-02

Filed Date: 12/30/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/28/2016