Smith, Robert Lee

INMATE'S DECLARATION
, am the applicant I petitioner (cirCle one) and being presently
incarcerated in /.&A/kL Cowiii~Y
' , declare under penalty of perjury that, according to my belief,
the facts stated in the above application are true and correct.
...
·;
... "•·:
\\
This document contains some
pages that are of poor quality
at the time of imaging.
<0!-.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
ROBERT LEE SMITH, NOS:961276 & 966324
APPLICANT,
vs.
DISTRICT CLERK, HARRIS
COUNTY I TEXAS
RESPONDENT I
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
\
APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:
NOW COMES ROBERT LEE SMITH. aoolicant. complaininq of District Clerk of '
Harris. Countv. Texas Resoondent. and oursuant to Rule 211 of the Texas Rule of
Appellate p~cedure in criminal cas~s moves this court to Grant applicant
leave to file this application for a Writ of Mandamus tendered contemporaneous-
ly with this motion.
Applicant prays that the motion be Granted, the said application for Mandamus
be filed and set down for a hearing, that the relief requested be qranted, and
for other relief, general and special, including a stay of the proceeding
. below until the matters complained of in said application are cured.
Ellis 980
Huntsville,Texas 77343
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the above motion for leave to file
for Mandamus was delivered or mailed to Resoondent at Resoondentis
'this,?J aav of 5-eo.f:.e.Pnb£/L
, ,2o1s:
I'
I
~
'·
IN THE COURT
'
OF CRIMINAL .APPEALS OF TEXAS
!
AT AUSTIN,TEXAS
Robert Lee Smith Nos:961276 & 966324
Applicant,
Vs.
District Clerk., Harris
Countv. Texas
Resoondent.
APPLICATION FOR MANDAMUS
TO THE HONORABLE. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS: '
NCM COMES ROBERT LEE SMITH. APPLICANT.ann asks t.his court to issue a Writ
of Mandamus to the District Clerk, of Harris County, Texas respondent, to
require the respondent describe relief requested and in support of this appli-
cation would show the Court the following; That every since jury trial and
on appeal applicant has been informing the respondent about all records along
with transcripts, to allow applicant his constitutional rights to prepare for
his appeal under the Six Amendment of the United Stat~~-~ns~i-~~.!:~~12..' Due Process
Law and eaual Protection.
I-
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Applicant was tried for the offense of aqqravated sexual assault <:~·~-~I:!_i_l_?_i!:!_
a case stvled, The State___ ?!__T~x:.::a:.::s_..:..V::::s..:..._....:A:..:.P~::JP~::.:l:..:l::.:.c::;;:a:::n=t' Numbers 961276 & 9.6.6324,
in the 184th. Judicial District Court Of Harris County, Texas. The Indic~-
--- ---·- ------- ---
ment was returned ~~~--24 · day of October, 2003. '!'rial was begun on the
3 day of August,2003, and completed on the 15 day of November,2003. A Jury
·-·---- ----
found applicant guilty and 1assessed punishment at fifty(50)years concurrent
'7•
in the Texas Department Of Corrections (see exibi t 'b' attached hereto.) Notice of
Appeal was timely filed on the 28 day of November 2005. ('see lm' all exibits
attached hereto) Aplicant filed defendant(applellant's request for a transcrip-
tion of the Reoorter's ·Notes(see exibits A-B-D-E-F attached hereto). The onlv
respondent response was held about request·on Feburary 28,2008,(see exibit
C attached hereto). Subsequently, the court reporter has refused to prepare the
transcript, contending that. the applicant was · not indigent. (see exibits
~~~· attached hereto) Applicant subseqvently requested the trial court to enfo-
(l).
rce his order(see exibit E.F.attached hereto). But the trial court has refused
to do so.
II.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Applicant requests in this application that this court~·direct respondent to
order the court reporter to prepare copy of the trial proceedings below without
charge to applicant, as required by law.
III.
JURISDICTION
This court has iurisdiction to consider this aoolication oursuant to art-5,5
of the Texas Constitution and article 4.04 Of Criminal Procedure.
IV.
AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENT
Applicant contends that he is indegent without funds, property or securities
in which to pay for trial court records, Therefore, the documents and records
should be afforded at no cost to defendant in order that he mav construct an
Aooeal. and. suooort of the foreaoina defendant cites the followina cases~
ECKRIDGE V. WASHINcm::>N. 357 U.S.214. 7R S.GT. 1067(1959). SMITH V. RF.NNETT.365
U.S. 477 ,83'-:.S.CT. (1963): ORAPER V. WASHINGTON, 372 U.S.487. S.CT. 774ll963l:
GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS, 35 U.S. 2. 76 S.CT.5R5(1956): LONG V. DISTRICT muRT OF
I~A, 385 U.S. 92, 87 S.CT.362Cl966): WILLIAMS V. OKI.AHOMA.::\Q'l TT.S. 458,89 S.CT.
1818(1969): GARDNER. V. CALIFORNIA. ::\91 TLS 370~89 S CT.582(1969):NEVER V.CHICAGO,
404 U.S.189,92 S.CT.30(197ll:CURRY V-STATE 488 S.W.2d 606 Tex.CR.APP.(l973):
U.S.V. DAVIDSON,483 F.SUPP.l253(1977): EX PARTE MAYS,510 S.W.2d 606(TEX.CR.APP.-
1975): CAR'l'UERIGHT V. STATE,527 S.W.2d 535 CTF.X-CR APP.l975}:COVILLOR V.STATE,
577 S.W.2d 118. 120-128(TEX.CR.APP.l977}: ABNOR V. STATE.712 S.W.2d l3HTEX.-
rn.APP.l986).
(2)
·,
:V.
CONCLUSION
(1) Aoolicant has no other leaal remeov available to him other than this aooli-
cation for mandamus
(2) This action sought is, order the facts of this case, is essence, a mere
ministerial act which respondent has a legal duty to perform.
(3} Aoolicant has orooerlv requested respondent to perform which respJndent
has refused.
COPIES OF EXHIBITS SHOULD BE CERTIFIED COPIES
ATTACH AFFIDAVIT OF WITNESS TO FACT:
WHEREFORE,PREMISES CONSIDERED. applicant prays that this application be Granted
and that respondent be ordered continue with relief requested.
.. ·:-.
Respectfullv 7~'>
Robert Lee Smith {pro se)
Ellis Unit/1697 FM 980
Huntsville,Texas 77343
( 1).
-~· ~ ~ ... '--. -.r _ _._~:·.:'_ -·····
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS·
COUNTY OF WALKER
BEFORE ME. the undersigned authority, on this date personally
appeared applicant who upon being duly sworn did depose and
state;
My name is Robert Lee Smith and I am the relator in the
above cause. I have read the above application for Mandamus
and state that the- factual allegations
and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME.the undersigned authority,
by the said applicant on this the]/ day of Jee/eJ?16.Etf. 2015,
to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
N9TARX ~UBLIC IN AND FOR
~~~tv.P~ ,COUNTY,TEXAS~
CERTIFICATR :oF SERVICE
I herebv c~rtffv that a coov of the above Aonli~Rtion for
Mandamus was delivered or mailed
address on this ~) day of_5_·~~-=~l:..¥~~
..
EXHIBIT-A)
EXHIBIT-Al
\ .
November 2812007;
CAUSE NOS:#961276 & 966324 L 365 U.S.
477, 83 ·:s;CT.(l963}: ORAPER V. WASHING'1'0N, 372 U.S.487. S.CT.774(1963}:
GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS. 3§1 U.S.12. 76 S.CT. 585(1956}: LONG V. DISTRICT COURT
OF IOWA, 385 U.S.192, 87 S.CT. 362(1966}: WILLIAMS V. OKLAHOMA, 395 U.S.458.
89 S.CT. 1818(1969}: GARDNER V. CALIFORNIA, 393 U.S.370, 89 S.CT.582(1969}:
NEVER V. CHliCAGO. 404 U.S. 189. 92 S.CT.30(197ll :Currv V.STATE. 488 S.W.2d.
606 Tex.cr.APP. (1973): U.S. V. DAVIDSON. 483 F.SUPP.1253(1977):EX PARTE-
MAYS, 510 S.W.2d 606 (TEX.CR.APP.1975): CARTUERIGHT V. STATE. 527 S.W.2d.
535(TEX.CR.APP.1975 )COUILLOR V. STATE. 577 S.W.2d. 118. 120-12HTEX.CR.APP.
1977): ABNOR V. STATE. 712 S.W.2d. 136(TEX.CR.APP.1986).
v.
The Supreme Court held that States are required to established avenues
of Appellate review but it not fundamental that once established these avenues
must be kebt free from unreasonable distinctions that can onlv imoede ooen
and eoual access to the courts. Defendant contends that, If denied the reauested
ohotostat cooies of the trial court reporter's/Clerk's Records, he is therefore,
beina denied the riaht to Appeal. said denial would be a violation of the Fourt-
eenth Amendment to the u.s. Constitution. To imoose anv further financial con-
dition between an indiaent orisoner of the State and his execise of a State riaht
to sue for Libertv, is to denv that prisoner the "EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW"
In the case of LANE V. BRCIW. SUPRA THE COURT REAFFIRMED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRI-
NCIPLES OF GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS SUPRA, BY STATING TO FOLLOWING:
A DESTI'l'l:n' DEFENDANT .MUST BE AFFORDED AS ADEQUATE
APPELLATE REVIEW AS DEFENDANT WHO MAY HAVE TO BUY
TRANSCRIPP
IrtLane Supra, The court went on to observe that Smith v. Bennett,. 365 U.S.477
83 S.CT. 768 reaffirmed these Principles when iustices sais in pertinent part:
"That; these Princioles were Not"Limitted .to D1'rect Apn.o.=-ls" F ·
~~~-;~:::=-::-~~~-=~~~------~~==:~=:::~::r:o:m~c~r~~minal Con-
~--dner.• Sup-a
victions: It is further stated in UCU.' ._, that a layman actina in his .:.:
own defense, or his own behalf, ·~needs the court records even more so that an
Attornev actina in his behalf would."
In the case at bar, defendant asserts that his need of the records are
essential, and are reauired to present his case in the most favorable liaht,
and he must procure said records to prove his errors pertaininq to the issues
in a 11.07 Writ Of Habeas Corpus to the trial court and the Court Of Appeals,
.as well as the higher court.
Defendant asserts that . his Constitutional Guaranteed Rights have been
violated, but cannot be pursued by Post-Conviction Writ Of Habeas Corpus::;due to
.the lack of his trial records and other essental documents. Defendant avers
that if he is denied the right to the trial records of his case in the above
styled and number cause, that he would be denied the Right to Adequate Remedy
Of Equal Access To Exhaustion The Issues Regarding his Illeqal Convictions,
and The Judae may not deny Defendant the trial Court Records On Discretion
That A Fair Trial Was Held. Eskeridqe v. Washinqton, 78 S.CT. 1061(1961):
Smith V. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 81 S.CT. 895. THE COURT MADE CLEAR THAT THESE
PRINCIPLES WERE NOT TO BE LIMITED TO DIRECR APPEALS FROM CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS,
BUT EXTENDED TO STATE POST-CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS. The court also stated
in Smith v. Bennett, 81 S.CT. at 898 that the Fourteenth Amendment weiqhs
the interest of Rich and poor criminai in equal scale and its hand extends
as for to each. The court also· stated in Griffin v. People, 76 S.CT.at 590----'-
"THUS TO , DENY ADEQUATE REVIEW TO THE POOR MEANS THAT MANY OF THEM MAY LOSS
THEIR LIFE LIBERTY AND OR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF UNJUST CONVICTION WHICH APPELLATE
COURTS WOULD SET
'
ASIDE."
.•
Defendant avers that·all said NOTES and Documents Of The Proceeding Occur-
rina before, during.and after the trial on the instant case are in the possess-
ion of the Court Reporter and The Court Clerk Of The 184th. Judicial District
CdlitETin Harris Countv,Texas The Cost Of Said Records Must be Assumed By
the State In This Regard Under The Jurisdiction, citing, Griffin Supra.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the defendant respectfully request and
beseech this Honorable Court To Grant The Relief Sought herein, or in the alte-
rnative, set this matter on the Docket for an evidentiary hearinq on the
merits, or Grant any further Relief that this court deems proper and/or just.
U338999
Ellis Unit/1697 FM 980
Huntsville.Texas 77343
AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCE
I ROBERT LEE SMITH, Do hereby swear and certify under the penality of
perjury that I am indigent and destitute and have no money, funds nor assets
or financial ability to retain counsel are pay for court records in the above
cause are oav the cost of these leoal oroceedinos.
Robert Lee Smithil338999
pro se. Litiqent
·(_S)
DECLARATION
I, ROBERT LEE SMI~, TDCJ NUMBER-1338999, being presently incarcerated in
The O.B.Ellis Unit Of The Texas Department Of Criminal Justice rin:;G:!375 U.S. 277 84 S.CT. 424 111. Ed.2d 33(1964).
In view of the foregoing and above petitioner heretofore
request's this court to produce the Audio Tape Recording's and
Transcripts pertinent to petitoner's sentence in which was held
"SEPTEMBER,l7,2005,' see HANDSON V. STATE, 956 F.2d 245(11 CIR.(l992).
In Re Jose A Coronado No;04-98-00596-CR.states an indiqent criminal
defendant is entitle as a matter of equal protection or of Due
Process to obtain a free statement of facts and transcrips in order
to assist in perpration of a petition of habeas corpus"ABSENT"
a showing that the Writ of Habeas "ACTION" is not" Frivolous"
and there is a "SPECIFIC" need for the trial records which are
sought. ESCOBAR V. STATE, 880 S.W.2d 782, 873(TEX. APP.(HOUSTON
lST.Dist.l993).
Applicant/Petitioner claims he is ACTUAL INNOCENT, and without
The Fundamental Miscarriage Of Justice Applicant/Petitioner
would never been convicted and or illegally sentenced, so he
need's these record's. Abuse of discretion and prosecutorial
Misconduct by volume. Page and lines, to establish that there
are unadjudicated meritoious allegations of United States Constit-
utional Rights Violations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered Appellant/Petitioner
prays that this' court GRANT this motion. The court Reporter's to
produce the entire volumes of Audio Sound Tape Re~ordinq Of the ~3
transcripts of Appellant/Petitioner Trial and Sentencinq proceedinq
and exhibits.
(2) .
~
,,,.
,;;.:~
; ... ':· ',\:~~.
Jri'•
Jt -~ ·''
AFFIDAVIT/UNSWORN DECLARATION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
State Of Texas, County Of Walker County, I Robert Lee Smith, TDCJI-
1338999, du1tv sworn depose attest and.sav unde~ oena1tv or oreiurv
that the foregoing and following statement are to the best of mv
knowledqe pursuant 28 § u.s.c. 1746. I have serve. file this inst-
rument bv ol~cihci ~am~ within ~.o.c:J~ID#. Irtternal mailina svstem
an officiallv ~eoositorv of U.S.P.S. In a cost oaid orooerlv addr-
e,~s wraooer to infra, and herebv veri tv under oen,al tv of ore iurv
that the foreaoina is true and correct to the best of mv knowledae.
EXCUTED THIS DAY 1 December. 21 1009 :··-· -
;:
Robert
-Ellis Unit/1697 FM 980
Huntsville,Texas 77343
,I •''
(.~ ) ..
r;
EXHIBIT-E)
\,_
EXHIBIT-E)
/
··~·
ROBERT LEE SMITHil338999
ElliS UNIT
1697 FM 980
Huntsville.Texas 77343 JUNE 15.2010:
(
RE:TRIAL COURT N0Si961276 & 966324)
APPEAL COURT NOS·: 01-05-01095 & 01-05-01096-
CR.)).
DEAR CLERK,
Enclosed, please find mv motion, for the l84th.Judicial District
Court to Produce trial court transcriPt for on a Temporarv Loan 1
Basis. Under both Texas & Federal Law. Petitioner has The Riaht t
to Pursue Post-conviction habeas Relief from the iudaement and
sentenced imposed on him.
Please Clerk of the court. Please file this Motion with the
Judae of this court for inspection olease.
r. also reauest that vou-notifv court's,rulina
on mv motion.
(l).
.f ',0
CAUSE NOS:#961276 ~ 966324
IN THE 184th.JUDICIAL DISTRLCT
COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
vs.
ROBERT LEE SMITH
MOTION TO OBTAIN TRANSCRIPTS RECORD
To THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, Robert Lee Smith, defendant 1n the above entitled
~nd numbered ~aused, and move~this Court for an Order to Grant
Records of Transcriptss from hearing.
) __!_••
Defendant was convicted on 11/17/05, for the offense of aggrava-
ted sexual assault.
II.
Defendant was confined at Harris Countv Jail, 1200 Baker Street.
Houston.Texas 77002~and is indiaent. Sa. such defendant is unable
to oav anv and all costs of transcrios records.
WHEREFORE. DEFENDANT PRAYS, that this court Grant this motion
and have all said transcriots records forward to the defendant.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, THIS 17th DAY OF DECEMBER.
K~~
RJbert Lee Smith
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Robert Lee Smith, beinq presently incarcerated in Harris Countv,
Texas declare under oenaltv of puriurv that the foreaoina is true and correct.
EXECUTED ON DECEMBER 17, 2005:
1 ORDER
on this,the 14 dat of December 2005, came to be heard defendant's motion and it
should be.
GRANTED
DENIED
-------
(2)
-------------- )
SO ORDERED
JUDGE PRESIDING
GRANTED
----------------
DENIED
-----------------
(3).
.
.. .!;
' ~
...........
'
.
, .........
..
I
~
)Afi'
.l~,
/' . .
EXHIBIT-F)
EX·HIBIT.\})
. EXHIBIT-F)
'\
t;J;f)tr [,1ft(
Cause No;i961276 & 966324
· Robert Le Smith In The 184th District Court §f
pro se,
vs. Harris County, Texas
The State Of Texas
MOTION TO REVIEW THE TRIAL RECORDS ON TEMPORARY BASIS:
Dear Ms Jackson,
greeting, I pray all is well with you and yours, Ms Jackson this motion I
am filing in The 184th. District Court please, file said motion and bring
it to the attention of the Honorable Judge of said court.
,-
Your Assistance and consideration and cooperation with regards to this
matter will be most sincerely appreciated. Thank you in advance.
I look forward to receiveing your reply in the near furture;
Res~~
9/19/011 ~prose
·'
Cause No;#961276 & 966324
Robert Lee Smith
In The 184th District Court· Of
Vs. Harris County, Texas
The State Of Texas
MOTION TO REVIEW THE TRIAL RECORDS. ON TEMPORARY LOAN BASIS:
To The Honorable Judge Of Said Court;
comes's now, Robert Lee Smith, Movant, pro se in the above styled and numbered
cause, and would respectfully move this honorable court to provide Movant
with a copy of the trial records herein referredto as the the"Records" in
trial cause ·numbers 961276 & 966324, on a temporary loan basis, in support
of this Honorable Court is the following;
I.
JURISDICTION
This Honorable court has original and continuing jurisdiction over the parties
and subject matter raised within this faith motion.
II.
OPEN RECORDS ~T
Movant's request is made, in part, pursuant to those provisions enacted through
legislation under The Texas Public Information Acts, Codified Under Government
Code§ 552.000 Ct.Seg. V.T.C.A.,
III.
RECORDS FOR REVIEW
[A] Movant have in the furture have tried to prepare and submit a pro-se
application for Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Pursuant to Texas Code Of Criminal
Procedures Annoate Article 11.07.
{1).
\
[B] within the body of the application for Writ Of Habeas Corpus Movant expects
to raise the following constitutional Error's but not limited to these alone;
1). Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel;
2). Insufficiency Of Evidence;
3 ) . That •.• ect.
[c) as a matter of law Movant would state further that undser the proof Stand~
ard of Tex.code crim. pro. Ann. Art.ll.07 and exparte Maldonado 688 S.W.
2d. 114 (Tex. cr. app. 1985) The applicant must state facts which, if true
would entitle the applicant to relief. ID merely stating Legal Conclusion
is not enough see Exparte Hernandez 705 S.W.2d 700 (Tex.cr.app.l996).
Futher more an applicant, ,to be entitled to relief, must plead and
prove that the complained of error did infact, contribute to his conviction and
/
punishment. Exparte Barber 879 S.W.2d 889(Tex.cr.app.l994) Movant would respect-
fully contend that, there is no way for him to be able to raise and or/plead
factual errors on an application for Writ Of Habeas corpus without first
being able to both review the "CLERK" RECORDS AND THE "REPORTERS RECORDS"within
this cause;
[D] Movant would futthermore point out as a matter of law that in the event he
was thus, forced to raise claims on his state writ, which were the denied
thereafter, both by the Honorable Court and then the Court Of Criminal Appeals
The overall harm from such a denied would not just stop here.
This harm would follow Movant into the Federal Courts as well.
Under the Antiterrorsim and effective Death Penalty Act Of 1996, [AEDPA]
habeas relief under title 28-USCA §2254?, will not be granted for any claim
adudicated on the merits in state courts unless the decision was (l)contrary to
(2)
or involved an unreasonable application of "FEDERAL LAW" CLARLY established
by The Supreme Court, or (2)" BASED ON AN UNREASONABLE DETERMINATION OF FACTS,"
see 28-USCA 2254 (d)(l) & (2).
Movant would in same likeness, be unable to meet these required standards with-
out first being able to review the records, since Movant is indigent (see attached
declaration in support, tThis failure or denial of the right to raise such
claims on habeas corpus, because the Honorable court would not allow Movant a
free viewing of the records would both be unconstitutional and against the
Well Established holding under The United States Court Case Law.
IV.
AS A MATTER OF THE SUPREME COURT LAWS OF THE LAND
[a] Movant would contend that the United States Supreme Court has consistently
held under certain circumstances, that trial records should be made availiable
to indigent prisoners without prepayment of the cost and fee's proving such
records and that prisoners access to the courts cannot be condition upon
the amount of money he/or she may have, (see M.L.B.V.S.L.J., 117 S.CT. 555 (1996),
Griffin v. Illonis 351 US 12,-76 s. CT. 35 (1956,
The Plurality in Griffin reconized "The Importance Of Habeas Review To Correct
Adjudication of guilt or innocence Id. at 18,76 s. Ct. St 590 ..
[T]O deny adequate review to the poor. "The Plurality Observed" means that
many of them may loose their life, liberty or property, because of unjust
conviction which habeas courts would set aside. Id. at 19,-76 S.CT. 590 The
rational has been applied various other forms of review.
[C] as a matter of facts Movant would point out that it is common practice
on the prison Unit that prisiners receive records from the courts as loan
basis to the "Warden Of The Unit" The Warden Allow offenders to review said re
cords within the Unit Library, Under the constance supervision of its staff off-
icers.
(3)
When the pre-established viewing time limitations by the Honorable court has
been exhausted, The Warden then mails the Records back to the court, at the
offenders expense.
v.
PLEA
Movant spectfically request this Honorable court to allow him in same,
as the above said section IV. Subsection(C) and would plea that he only wishes
to review the records, not retain a free copy of said records on the Unit
that he is signed to. If the court is in agreement of this request, then
Movant would specifically request the court for the following;
[A] that the above mentioned trial appeallate records in this cause Number
961276 & 966324, including(l) The clerks records and/or transcripts, and
(2) The reporteds records and/or testimonal minutes.
(B) that the court . Order the District Clerk Of Harris County, Texas to Mail
the complete Records to Senor Warden Of The Ellis Unit, 1697 FM 980 Huntsville,
Texas 77343 , to confirm receipt by calling the Wardens
Secretary, at________________________;
[C] Movant specifically request Ninety(90)days to Review the Records in the
Law Library, on the Ellis Unit Under Supervision Of The Warden Designee .•
VI
CONCLUSION
Movant is making this reasonable and just request in good faith, to deny
this request after having made this good faith attempt, as an indigent prison-
er of this state, would be for the court to deny Movants constitutional vested
rights to equal protection and due process of the law under both u~s. constitu-
tion Amendment(S) and XIV: and Texas Constitutions Article 1 & 10, § § 19. let
this Honorable Court make the fair and just decision to uphold Movants constit-
utionally protected rights by granting this motion.
VII.
PRAYER
Wherefore Premises considered, Movant would Respectfully pray thatt this
motion to review trial records on temporary ;nos#961276 & 966324.
9/19/011
(4).