Colvin, Billy Gordon

§|.%H'C‘i
Abel Acosta, Clerk
P.O. Box 12308
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
To Abel Acosta,-Clerk:
Please enclosed find the following documents to be filed in this
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, Cause No. ll,707B.
These documents shall be executed upon this court's discretion to
determine the next course of action. This will be at your earli-
est convenience and as time permitted for as the docket calls.
The following documents are: `
(l)-Applicant's Reply and Rebuttal to the Trial Court's denial of
relief sought in the ll§th Judicial District Court of Upshur
County, Texas-total of seventeen (17) pages; `
(l)- -Applicant' s Request for Judicial Notice_ total of one (l) page;
(l)- -Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum- total of
one (l) page;
(l)-Copy of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 81 pg. 69)-total of one (l) page;
(l)-Copy of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 8, pg. 82)-total of one (l) page.
Applicant's Reply to the Trial Court's denial presented to the
court shall be executed by the clerk, applicant's Reguest for
Judicial Notice, Motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testifican~
dum, copies of (R.R. Vol. 5 of 8, pgs. 69-82) presented to the
court shall be executed by the Clerk.
Applicant, Billy G. Colvin, thanks you for your time in this
matter before the court.
Executed on thisj,768 S.W.2d 281, 287 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989); Ex Parte
McGowan, 645 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983).
Applicant contends this concluded and held:
"The Texas Constitution confers appellate juris-
diction upon courts of appeals. Tex. Constitution
art. V. §§ 5 and 67 that includes the power to
review questions of fact in criminal cases."
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.Crim.App.
l996)(quoting Bishop v. State, 43 Tex. 390, 400
(1875).
This Court has jurisdiction over this claim of actual inno-
cence as the applicant contends that it is common knowledge that
the constitution must be regarded as fundamental law, it therefore
belongs to the courts to ascertain its meaning as well as the
meaning of any particular statute proceeding from legislative
body/in furtherance of the constitution.
Further, applicant contends that "[this Court] will not
reverse unless we conclude the error affected a substantial right
of the appellant." Gay v. State, 981 S.W.2d 864, 867 (Tex.App.-
Houston 1998); citing Tex. R. App. P.49 §Q(b). See also Barshaw v.
State, 320 S.W.BG 620 & 342 S.W.3d 91.
Applicant's Reply-iii
Colvin, Cause No._ll,707B
REVIEW
"It is fundamental principles of our habeas corpus law-..that
under the procedure authorized by Art. 11.07, if the trial court
convenes a hearing, elicits testimony, and thereby develops facts,
the Court of Criminal Appeals is not bound by the trial court's
findings and conclusions of law."; Ex Parte Adams, 768 S.W.2d 281,
288 (Tex.Crim.App. l989)(emphasis added).
"Fundamental Due Process requires that criminal responsibil-
ity for an offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt." U.S.
Const. XIV; Alvarado v.PState, 912 S.W.2d 199, 206-07 (Tex.Crim.
App. l995)(citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S. Ct.
1068, 1072-73 (1990)).
"The standard of review [criminal] is more stringent than the
'no evidence' standard applicable in civil cases."
"...in reviewing the factual sufficiency of evidence to
support_a conviction, we are to view all the evidence in a nuetral
light, favoring neither party." Johnson v.HState, 23 S.W.3d 1, 7
(Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Clewis v.State, 922 S.W.2d 126, 134 (Tex.
Crim.App. 1996), "Evidence is factually insufficient if it is so
weak as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust or the adverse
finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the
evidence available." Johnson, 23 S.W.3d at 11.
"Proof by preponderance of the evidence which is defined as
that degree of proof that, when taken as a whole, shows that a 51
fact sought to be proved is more probable than not." Lackey v~
State, 819 S.W.2d lll, 117 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989).
Applicant's Reply-IV
Colvin, Cause No. 11,707B
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Abnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731 (Tex.Crim.App; 1994).
-Arevalo v. Statej 970 S.W.2d 547 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998), convic-
tion aff'd on remand, 987 S.W.2d 167 (Tex.App.~Houston 1999,
pet. ref'd) 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
Bailey v. Haddy, Dallam 376, 378 (Tex. 1841). . . . . . . .
Clewis v. State, 922 S.W-2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). . . . . .
Daniels v. State, 632 S.W.2d 126 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) .
Doyle v. State, 631 S.W.2d 732,.738 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982). . .
Haii v. state, 225 s.w.3d 525, 535-36 (Tex.crim.App. 2007). .
Koah v. State, 609 S.W.2d 156 (Tex.Crim.App; 1980). . . . . .
Lopez v. Statel 315 S.W.3d 90, 98 (Tex.App.~Houston 2010, pet.
granted, 9-22-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Murray v. State¢ 302 S.W.3d 874, 876_(Tex.Crim.App. 2009) .
Rider v. state, 567 s.w.2a 192, 195 (Tex.crim.App. 1978). . ._.
Williams v. State, 547 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) . . .
Ex Parte Evans, 964 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998) . . . . .
Ex Parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d 860 (Tex;Crim.App. 2000). . . . .
Ex Parte Santana, 227 S.W.3d 700, 703~04 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) .
Ex Parte Thomas, 953 S.W.2d 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997). . . .
Ex Parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Tex.Crim.App‘ 1997)
Ex Parte Watson, 306 S.W.3d 2594 262-63 (Tex.Crim.App. 2009). .
TEXAS STATUTES -
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 2.01. . . . . . . 1 . .
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 11.07 § 4 . . . .". . . .
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 21.15 . . . . . . . . .
Applicant's Reply-V
Colvin, Cause No. 11,707B
.Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure Art.
Code of Criminal Procedure Art.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (COnt'd)
Government Code § 51.901
Penal Code § 21.11.
Penal Code.§ 32.48,
Penal Code § 37.01.
37.10
Attorney General DO;JM%266.
Applicant's Reply-VI
Colvin,
Cause No.
11,707B
37.09 (1) . .
38.072. . . .
NATURE OF THE CASE
Applicant, Billy G. Colvin was indicted on June 28, 1996 for
Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Child. Applicant pled not guilty z
and proceeded to a jury trial. Applicant was found guilty by the
jury and they assessed punishment at fifty (50) years confinement
in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice on August 21st, 1996.
At trial, applicant was represented by Dwight A. Brannon. The
State was represented by Tim Cone; applicant filed an appeal and
Brannon represented applicant on appeal. On March 28th, 19977 the
Sixth Court of Appeals found no error in the judgment, and ordered
the judgment of the court to be affirmed in all things.
Applicant filed his first writ of habeas corpus, 11,707A/ on
August lst, 2008. Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeals in
No. AP-76,009, found that applicant was "entitled to the opportun-
ity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of if
the judgment of the Sixth Court of Appeals in Cause no. 06-96-
00057-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 11,707A from
the 115th Judicial District Court of Upshur County."
`Applicant filed a pro se petition for discretionary review,
PD-l486-08. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed all of appli-
cant's remaining claims-contained within his writ of habeas
corpus 11,707A; Ex Parte Torres clearly relates to dispositions of
such writs of Habeas Corpus:
"Dispositions relating to the merits should be
labled 'denials' while dispositions unrelated,
to the merits should be labled as 'dismissals'..."
Ex Parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Tex.Crim.?;j.
App. 1997).
Applicant's Reply*VII
Colvin, Cause No. 11/707B
Applicant filed his second writ of habeas corpus, 11,707B, on
September 23rd, 2015. The State filed an answer in opposition to
applicant's writ on October 29, 2015 and on the same date the
115th District Court filed its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law in agreement with prosecution and recommended that this Court
deny relief requested by Applicant.
Applicant executed his Reply on December; J`/ , 2015.
Applicant's Reply-VIII
Colvini Cause No. 11,707B