Munoz, Juan Ricardo

JLlofUAcdzlk, clerk -Og.lin?^
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FEB 06 2015
' AtoeS Acosfta, Cteirk •
as.stW* Ur«YMas*/"t"r^Pe***'** *W
I'MUMlUyXr
HOW . Joe/g^ToAA £U\lj&- ^*i
C -«-
UNDER ART.11.05 T.C.C.P.,ANY JUDGE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS HAS THE POWER TO ISSUE THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS;AS UNDER
ART.11.07 §5,THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS "MAY DIRECT THAT THE
CAUSE BE CHECKED AND HEARD AS THOUGH CRIMINALLY PRESENTED TO SAID
COURT OR AS AN APPEAL".
YOUR HONOR HOLDS EXCLUSIVE DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO REVIEW
MATTERS RELATIVE TO VIOLATIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS. IN
EFFECT,ART.11.04 STATES THAT "EVERY PROVISION RELATING TO THE WRIT .
OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL BE MOST FAVORABLY CONSTRUED IN ORDER TO GIVE
EFFECT TO THE REMEDY,AND PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON SEEKING
RELIEF UNDER IT". WITH THIS SAID, I RESPECTFULLY IMPLORE YOUR DISERe
ETIONAL AUTHORITY TO REVIEW,AND INTERVINE AS APPROPRIATE TO THE FOL
LOWING: (QUOTING RULE 79.2(a) A MOTION FOR REHEARING AN ORDER THAT
DEiSJIES HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ,ART,
11=07 OR 11.071,MAY NOT BE FILED. THE COURT ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE
RECONSIDER THE CASE .-AMENDED JULY 12 ,2011 ,EFF. SEPT. 11 ,2011-T .2010 WL 546676 (Tex. App.—El Paso, Feb. 17, 2010, pet. dism'd).
2See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holdingprose pleadings to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers); see also Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir.
1985) (explaining that liberal construction allows for active interpretation of&pro se pleading to
encompass any allegation which may raise aclaim for federal relief).
ATTACHMENT (A)