Moore, Michael Anthony

This document contains some
pages ~hat ar~ of poor quality
at the t1me of 1maging.
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
MAR 13 2015
vJ"':t- C)~.
Absl Acosta~ Clerk
\J u_.. t ; 1/\ , . Q__
This document contains some
pages ~hat ar~ of poor quality
at the t1me of 1maging.
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
MAR 13 2015
vJ"':t- C)~.
Absl Acosta~ Clerk
\J u_.. t ; 1/\ , . Q__
2.
On or about the date of March 2, 2015,Relator File The Foilowing:
1. Applicant Moore Applicant For A Writ Of Heabeas Corpus,Article 11.07;
2. Applicant Moore Motion For Evidentiary Hearing;
3. Applicant Moore Preliminary Motion Request for Notice and Request For
Leave to File Motion For Evidentiary Hearing and
4. Applicant Moore Appliction And Memorandum Law Brief In Support Of Texas
Code Criminal Procedure ll.07,Pursuant To T.C.C.,P. Article 11.073.
3.
Response have Refusal to Act On Relator's Motion For }Widentiary Hearing;
A) Because the court of Criminal Appeals does not hear evidence only the trial
court may condvct an evidence hearing.
If there are controverted and Previously Unresolved issues at fact the Court
must conduct a hearing •••
Ex Part Chamber,612 S.W. 2d 573,574(Tex.Crim.App.(l981);
Only if the Application raises issues of law may the court dispense with a
·hearing) ••
if the trial court denies a hearing to the applicant said Procedure Violates
'Art.ll.07 and Further Violates Due Procedure by Deying the Applicant to Sust=i
ain his Burden·of Proof.
Ex Parte Campos,613 S.W.2d 745,746(Tex.Crim.App.(l98l);
STA"rl<'....MENT OF THE CASE
Tuesday,July l9,1988,Moring Session:B:30 A.M. The Court:I Now Call 17,957-272
The State of Texas VS. riJichael Anthony Moore on a "Felony Information" Filed
Today.
Is the state ready~
Mr.Turner: State is ready Your Honor.The Court:Mr.Moore,Your Case,as it Now
Stands Charges you with Burglary Of a Building by the Paper that we call a
"Felony Information.",Which is Just a Charging instrument.
In this Petition,Relator Moore alleged that the Trial Brief on State's failure
to amend the Indictment Under Cause No.l7,957-272,File on February 3,2015,
By Deputy Clerk Office of Tracy Knighton.
l. Argument:The State Failed to Amend The Indictment Under Texas Law-,The
State has not Amended the Indictment."Neither the Mo•tion (To Amend)Itself
nor the trial Judge's Granting therof is an Amendment;rather the Two
Comprise the Authorization for the eventual A..'llendrnent of the Charging Inst-
rument Pursuant to article 28.10".
Page 2.
Rine V. State,28 S.W.3d 56l(Tex.Crim.App.(2000) Quoting Ward V.State 1829 S.W.-
2d 7871 793(Tex.Crim.App. (1992)( "Emphasis Added").
In order for the Court to deternine the merits of this claim· within the time
allotted by the Texas Code Of C.rl.minal Procedure 1 it is necessary For the Court
to desigate These Issues For future Resolution.See McCree V.Hampton 1824 S.W.-
2d 579);
(A Trial court must desisate all issues reqiring future resolution within
Thirty-Five Days after the Filing of a Petition For Habeas Corpus in order to
retain its Jurisdiction over the Case);
Cause No. 17,957-2721THE STATE OF TEXAS V. MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE,Petition
For Writ Of Hadeas-Corpus;
See Also Tex.Code.Crim.P. Art. 11.07 § 3 (c)l(d);
Arguments
Mandamus is an extraord.inary.remedy,available_only in limited Circumstances.
Canadian Helicopters .Ltd. V.Wittingl879 s.w. 2d 3041305(Tex.l994);
it is the burden of the relator to show entitlement to the relief being requee
sted.
See Generally Johnson v. Fourth Court Of Appealsi700_S.W. 2d 916.917(Tex.-
l985) Orig.Proceeding).In Order to be entitled to relief,the,relator must
show the Following:(l) a legal duty to perform;(20 a demand for performance
and (3) a refusal to act.
See Stoner V~ Massey1S86 S.W. 2d 843~846(Tex.l979).
A. Relator's Petition For Writ Of Mandamus should be Grant because the Trial "
Court has not Rule on his Motion For Evidentiart Hearinq,Pursuant to
Art.ll-07 and further violates Due Procedure by Deying the Applicant to Suste:.:
a in his burden of proof.
Ex Parte Campos,613 S.W.2d 7451746(Tex.Crim.App.(l981);
Relator asserts that the trial court has not Rule on his Pending Motion For s~
Evidentiary Hearing.
Relator Requested that the trial Court Set a Evidentiary Hearing •.
.
B. Relator's Petition for Writ Of Mandamus Should be Grant Because Relator
has no adequate remedy at iaw to resolve any errors.
Though Relator's Petition For Writ Of Mandmus Appears to take issue with the
failure of the trial court to grant his Motion For Evidentiary Hearing that
is now Pending in the Court.
To the extent that Relator's Petition For Writ Of Mandamus is to Compel the
trial court to set a Evidentiart Hearing1Relator's Petition should be Grant
Page 3.
because he have no adequate remedy to address any errors.
To be entitled to Mandamus relief in a Criminal case,a Relator must show,
among other things,that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress that
alleged harm.
state Ex Rel.Young V. Sixth Judicial Dist.Court of Appeals at Texarkana,-
236 S.W. 3d 207,210(Tex.Crim.App.(2007);
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
The issuance of a Mandamus is never a Matter of Right,but rests in the
Court.
Dickens V. Second Court of Appeals,729 S.W •. 2d 542,549(Tex.Crim.App.(l987);
Here,Rel.ator's Petition For Writ Of 1-tandamus Should be Grant because Relator r;_
has demonstrate that the trial court has not Rule or denying his Motion For
' Evidentiary Hearing.
Further,to the extent that Relater's Petition For Writ Of Maundamus is att-
acking the 1988,The State Failed to Amend the Indictment,Pursuant to Article
28.10 and because he have no adequate remedied to address any errors.
Relator's Petition for Writ Of Mandamus should be Grant.
Wherefore,Premises Considered,the Relator Prays the Court Grant Relator
Petition for Writ Of Mandamus.
Respectfully Submitted,
·l!JVJ.nd~h~
By: Michael Anthony Moorei481939
Beto bne Unit
1391 FM 3328
Tennessee Colony, Texas 75880
P.aqe 4~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true copy of the above relator has been mailed to Respondent the Followinq:
1. JAVIS J. PARSON
BRAZOS COUNTY DISTRICT ATI'ORNEY OFFICE
300 E. 26th Street,Suite#310
Bryan, Texas 77803,
On this The 9th Day of March,2015.
``~A~
By: Michael A~thony Moo e#4a7939
I
.,
Page 5.
Cause No.
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN Re MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE
Relator
vs ..
JARVIS J. PA..~PON
·BRAZOS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Respondent
Original Proceeding From The 272nd Judicial
DistrictCourt Of Brazos Countv Te"'Ii'IS
Aoolicant ~or Writ n+ u~beas Corpus
Cause No. 17,957-272
· BRIEF IN SUPPORT. OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDUMUS
M~CHAEL ANTHONY MOORE#487939'
BETO ONE illUT
1391 FM 3328
TENNESSEE COLONY, TEXAS 75880
PRO Se OF RECORD: .
COUNSEL.
Page 1.
INDEX OF PARTIES AND OJUNSEL
1 • JARVIS J. PARSON
BRAZOS COUNTY DISTRICT ATI'ORNEY
300 E. 26th Street,Suitei310
BRYAN I TEXAS 77803
AND
2. MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE#487939
BETO ONE UNIT
1391 FM 3328
TENNESSEE COLONY I T~XAS 75880
Page 2.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of parties.and Counsel. ••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•.••••••• 2
Argument .••••••.••••••••• ~ •••••••••••..•• ·•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
The Trial Court's Failre'to Compy With Article 28.10 •••••••••••••• , •. 5
Pra~r .... ·.. ~ ...... -. - :". - ....... --. a ••• 11 • • • • - ••••••• - •••••••••• 0.: •• ,. a <9 .......... • 10
Certificate of Service •.••••••••••••.••..•.•••••••••.••••••••••••.•••• l2
.Page 3.
Index Of Autho~ities
Cases
Ex Parte, Chamber-,
612 S.W •. 2d 573,574(Tex.Crirn.App.(l98l} •••••••.••••••••.••• ~ •••••• p-. 4
J!:lC Parte Campos
613 S.W.2d 74.5,746(Tex.Crim.App.(l981) .••••••••••••.••••.••••.•••.••• 4
Rine V. State,
28 S.W. 3d 56l(Tex.Crirn.App.(2000} •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••. 5
Ward V. State,
829S.W. 2d 787,793(Tex.Crim.App .. (l992) .•••.••••••••••••.•.....••••.••• 5
Mccree V. Hampton·'
824 s. w. 2d 579 ••••••••••.••....•••••••••••••.• .;. •••.·- ••••••••.•••••••••• 6
Canadian Heliopters Ltd.V. Witting,
879 :3.W. 2d 304;305(Tex. (1994} ••••••••••••• • ••• • ••••••••••...•••••••• 7
Johnson V •. Fouri::h Court Of appeals 1
700 S.W.2d 9161917(Tex.(l985) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7
Orig.Proceeding).
Stoner v. Massey,
5H6 S.W. 2d 8431846(Tex.(1979j •••• _________ ~··················· 7
State ex rel. Young V. Sixth Judicial Dist.Court Of Appeals at
Tex:ackana;
236 S.W. 3d 207,2lO(Tex.Crim.App.(2007) ••••••••••••••••••• 9·
Dickens V. Second Court Of Appeals,
7~9 S.W. 2d 5421549(Tex.Crim.App.(l987 .•••••••••••••••••• 10
Texas Statutes
Tex.Code crim.Proc.Ann.art.ll.07 § 4 ...................... 3
Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann.art.ll.073, ,_,, ·,.;,, 1 -, 1 , 1 1 1 t.l, 1 1, , , , , 3
Page 4.