321 163 105 ~
. ;\:o:._/Qr_\.S COU[Z,T_'__ o€' C..Q,\~\\A)__ML APFM(S
10 6 66)< 1336$§ CM,TOL Ss\-zcrlm\>
A®\W T-@u_>{a§@ 1361 ct 7 3 2 11 L( MAR 2 3 236
l QA/\A§QY l v -
1100 F/\/\ 1955 '
@6§1\0~@6) `\‘~©<* »O-Ama ”RM§Q~@( \/Q&»_\.Q_e;;,., N@; 1<1°,3';<:_@-@633 ~w.;L
. jm/w, /1/1/112. AQQ '\`0 THZ"_ 1£1A1 Qou.@/T' \
Q)Q_CLQE. ci&.:Dl_§M\§.§A_L__A/\)d ON~Q CODH’ ap 1146 AOOI.\(;ANT`S
$uDD(e/\A~ejmn\ O)oJ'ech/\>\ '1`0 THQ T\Q,zAL Coura-'§ O\QQ\M cna
bs/m&§,aL:]: _Q\A‘\<>.A 3/0//§' lamb L\LQA b&qcm.a`vm_
1'7<'W D¢§W<@J~_Cw_/L:\:¢AL 62_>9<\@ C’QMQ:;L?_F z ML& 73_.._
400\(9`)(MST ¢Qr)\qb BQCA\)~S€._ 50~10 QA/LT~¢§~”T'ML kcc\=\"€C `
30¢\)/\/\%‘\' 16 \k\Qc;\U& €)»€AE~€_ \@~C-pe/z, To `T%€_ 81~11,@&3@¢6~\%°1_'~
1 N\a\\QATQ 1064 a££§e 1/,11¢94/2 Se_pamTa Cauef?_ ~Fm_ No ;'11§")§-’-
. C\Q GKQ%S"L,J¢Q ' ‘ '
@
A_<) L>dlva{
_"\'_\~_\Q ‘\;re,\A_L_ ®§LLQ%§MT 3 \\ 07 1
l ` (,QAIpd?,TUAJ&`l-€_L\// `FL\€ /Uc€\:z@_~& c/BCTMQ. @Ll¢c.n-T\o/\)§ CLS .
_§M,L\_ a§_\ ha §l_o.c_AAe/Lm>/L>/_ pm Aouc~e Tm`§ A€_DL¢¢A/qr possesse§_
~ SL)QQQ§\ \k<:CF' \ l uJCLu_L§_ \OL_LJLLLAN<§_&QA§QAJA!O¢€_ TO____§._.
`€U_WAQ,¢]§Q,_J.AQ:¢¢AM!§CQ,,O| e§_;l__\:@€c:rc,\/ '1?) Yaua 010-pr C~e M.) c§ §
_T;\M_<._ /§_ _QC§§__Q/\)§§`Q_i h@\_Tl)&y§M§§J u§uje,l To he M lTT~e ¢-'
/_/M?Uca/JT' P/lo Sr¢.
No. 1995-03~0683*92
EX FARTE
RAFAEL VIBQBE$
rm rue zvsen vista
DISTRICT COURT, BEXAR
couwrx, rExAs.
wm@@w$
APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENT OBJECTIGNS TO THE TRIAL COURT S
ORDE OF DISMISSAL
TG THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Greetings.
Comes now, Rafaal Vasquez, ABPLICANT Hl§ein, to file these,
his supplemental OBJECTIONS tothhe Trial Court'a diili£sal of
643 Utit of Hebeas Corpus. Said Order was dated 23 February,
`2015, postmarked 3/5/2015, and received by Applloant on 3/10/201$.
Thsl, he has till 3/20/2015 to timely file his dbjec¢iona. See
nous¢on v. task 487 u.s. zea, 101 L.Ed. 20 zas, 108 s.cn. 2379
(1988)(Court document¢g¢imely filed if placed in a prison unit
mailbox on or before the last ddy 06 filing).
HISTORY .
For the sake of judicial economy, Appltoant respectfully
reminds this Honorable Court thlt a more complate background
is contained within the Applioant's first objeo¢iona filed ou'
watch 11, 2015. Heca, Applicant simply atta¢§\a two additional
objections. - 4
OBJECTION # 2
a. The Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to make discretionary
findings §§ fact and conclusions of law in her dismissal of
2/23/2015.Any diacretional act performed by a disqualified judge
1.
_ le void. Burkott v. State 196 S.W.Sd 892 (Tex.App.--Texattana
2006). Here, the Trlnl Coutt failed or refused to make any findings
of fact or conclusions of law eo to whether or not the should
be tecused. When faced with a Motlon for Recuoal, e Trlal Court
is faced with too opolono; GRANT the motion, ot, in the alternative,
paso the motion on to another jn§ge for disposition. The Triol
_Court'o limited findings of fact and conclusions cf low operated
an their con error, lndoed, en o structural error further denying
Appllcant his right to o trial court without partiallty. See
Abd!§eggn:ova v.Stete 243 S.W.Bd 191 (Tex.App.~~Sen Antonio,
2007)(Einding this cone Teiel Court to have bean biased end prejudiced
in a capital murder case requiring reversal); ¢eln v. $tete
947 s.n.ze 262, 264 (Tex.crim.epp. 1997); aloe vt.sse¢e 41 s.n.aa
61 S.w.Bd 1295 138 (Tex.Crlm.App. 2000); Tex.Conot. Art. V,
§l-a(S)A. Easlly, the trial Court's limited findings of fectl
and conclusions of law, ii any, purposefully cir¢umvented the
“reaconeble member of the public et large,“ analysis required
pet Cain, ougco.;lg!§§gcgggrove v. dental engrat, and Aclzona
v. Fulmlnonte 699 9.$. 279 (1991).
~oa;tcrzon # 3
e. In Eeet v. Scott 55 l.Sd 995 (Sth Clr. 1995), the court held
that "the opportunity £or on evidentiary leaving le a federal
habeas corpus proceeding la mandatory only where there le a
factual dispute onlch, it resolved ln the pettitoner'e favor,
would entitle the£petitioner to relief and the petitioner bee
not received a full end fair evidentiary hearing in state court.“
(clting Townsend v.¢SSin 372 BUS. 293 (1963)). Horo, the Tclol
ny
Court has exercised limited jurisddteion that operato$ to deny
Applieant eha bpportuhity.to envoké eha appropriate standard
of evidenee used.in answering the question of whether or not
she Trial Cour; should have recused hersel£@ An eitdanc£ary
hearing is r&quired to ascertain the meri§ocioua £aats whaza
the state trier of fact has rested upon an error of law in.making
her deciaieu,hop¢d¢fically, shut she lacKs jurisdic¢ion evex‘
a writ of habeqq corpus seeking only an out~of-tima appaal 0
opportuhizy..rownaend, supra., 372 U.SZ*ZQH, 315 (1963).
` Each and qgery allegation pravioq§ly advanaed in the instant
wri; of”uabga§%¢orpus and the firsts&@mitted Objeasion are
detain rea§éét£§d.
Reagza"§;&a£ully §u'bmic.ted .
/,:; `§r»“r‘ ‘§:'fg H;Y“‘ & :' ' 3 ‘- jj / ‘ ;’:: "
" 'é "`*“ f'“ ~;f' “ l= ,F »',)
355aéiivasquezy£AVPLIGANT
UNSWORN BECLARATION
ll Ra£ael Vasquez, TDGJ #73321¢, an inmate confinad in eha Ramsey
1 Unit located in arazeria County, Texas, swear under penalty
of perjury, that the foreg¢iug instrument ia true and correct
insofar as 1 understand the appli¢able law co requira.
GERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ra£ael'?aaquez¢ TDCJ #73821¢» sq¢lr and a§£irm that a true _
and eompleea copy of this instrument was delivered by first cla$s
mail, postage pcapaid, to the o££ioa of the Baxar County Distriét
§§Agg§§gy,wmr,,§§5§¢;3@¢“§1¢0“ LaHood atw&haw£aulelizgndoMTowar5
fSéh'Ag§€§f§¥j¥§x§§Ww?€i§$, on this, the lsuh day of Mareh, 2015¢
v w §§ b %a飧vecedaoaoc;g §adana-Reavea dance
d ~‘M ~H »-er o cross = v
San An{onio, Taxaa zS§g§~§é§gr
y
'aa€aex vasqu`§z Ar»vucmr
.W
1»~» sponte 3§§31§§§2 on 3111
~No. 1995_¢§~0683~¢3-§2
7 § 1 1 _ n ~ ~-~- -~“MY. A§piwan= re j ¢,§- f
§:;;;§:§o a more complete hiszer§ of this Hr;: T§E%§:§ § §§:§INAL
gegqg§§ in§eanc appl£§§ai§a. H§r@, Ap§§§:§ét q%;;; ch:EZAR
he haa, w é§m, EMQd an writtm§ §§jaetwn w the Gmm§is¢aua
sponte 329§2§§§2 on 3/21/2325. Sé; §1§§, 320 Supplem§néal objections
d , _:,__...,. .»..
4TO THB HONORABLE JUSTICES 05 SAIB COURT: Gréetings»
C¢mes oow, aafael Vasquez, App§icant herein, to file before
the Court, this, his aupplemelniilobjeccione to aba Trioi Cou§t'a
Order of Dismissal, dated 23 FEBruary, 2025, postmarked 3/5/15,
and received by Applicant on 2/10/2015. Thus, he has until 3/20/15
to timely file his objectiona. Sei, Tea.R.App.P:oc., Rule 73. 4
(b)(£)(weat 2619); Housson v. La§k 223 S Ce. 2375 (1933)(?ria¢ou
"mailbox rule"). x
. 'HISTGRY
Foc the sake 05 judicial eaonomy, Applioant respectfully z
§ry of this writ of Habeaa Corpns
Applicanz notes that
co the Gouc£§s¢suai
points to a mate complete hist
filed with £h@‘inatant application. Here,
he ham, 29 3533, filed an wristen Objection
/2315. 5§§ alao, his
2555 is his second supplemenual objacefon 5
32 § 3 2ileé 3/15/2025.
timely filed in accordance wtch TBAP R. 73.4 (b)(z).
1.
_, ,\"~L-':
'\`.& .
\_\>w
032 0 3 filed 3/23/2025. 2223 is §23 zaoond aupplemantal obje¢gion ..*§§
§_4¥§§1992§§&@3§“sagg§g&zmeNTA§§§%Z§§§§§§§Z§§§mae ?RIAL couar' s §
Supplemental Object£one `
. \~;
;Q.
ta@¢doas ao§
7@€?£§§
l
]1;101
\' under¥§ing ¢f£§nse " Sec §226
. 48$!|(2)§&){3), nor ch t h
Amw@nvhe aohw=wm se &BA@'£E£%M%%%E“ 5.%£3'$%‘§8£ # §§ umw
u§n~suucesaiva` w§it *
"'""¢Wapaaismeaaeeaaslaiw§£§§é&i§“‘"°E€°*“° fm
neuessa§y
overlooked the first half of this requirement in her allegation
of lack of jurisdiction. And in any event, _x,da£inition, Applicant
E§£y 6a newly otecoveréd evidencé to show that a ”raasonable §
t'finder avoid [noc] have found the Applicant guilty of the ,
underlying affense.“ See §22&4£§§£(2)1&)(3), nor that his claim
“Relies on a uaw rule of cansuicutional law." €a£n v. S§até ~@§
.B. 2d 262, 264 (Tex.€rim.hpp. 1997)(non»suc§essiva writ
`_9:»? s
ions dismissed as “not necessary).
65 habeas §Qrpus apilioat
:Acco:dingly, a prisoner a a§§li§acion is not successive simply
because it §ollows auoe§cr applicanion. The applia$tton should
,be remanded back to the iriii Sou:t to adéress the lssqes chau§$n;'
' Dbjeotion # 5 z And in any event, the appropriate vehicle for _
appeal is by writ of habeas corpns E§o§ ‘
V.A.G C.?. A§t. ti.Q?,
App.*~Houston fish Dis§¢]
' seeking an ouc»o£~vime
the Tex&s Court of C§iminal Appeals.v
AshornԤ. State 77 S.W.Sd 405, 499 (Ten.
25
2002, pec. eiled); aivera v. scene 940 s.w.zd 143,149 (Tex,App;
'*San Antonio 1996, do pet.); Olivo v; Scate 918 S.W.Zd 519,
525, n.S (Tex.€rim.App. 1§96)(“deniol of a meaningful appeal
due to ineffective assistance of counsel is proper granada for
habeas relief."), Thus, the prior application, seeking only an
out'o£¢timeuoppozcunl€y of file a PDR is "anocher matter,“ neither
of which have anything co do with the underlying conviction other
than "sharing the same forum or Eact-£inding" thtt do not rea¢h
the definihtion of a challeagg¢to the conviction. EldBarte Evans
Because seeking an out-eE-time PDR involved other oonstderations,
the instant application cannot be considered successive or abusive.
Applicant prays this Honocableacoutt REMAND the issues back to
the Trial Courz div further preceedings. l `: '
/: ,, ,__lf¢ ;_ .
/€¢N{§§@€f? ‘
Reig?c?fuléygal§mittad,
v ’ CNSWORN DECLARATION
I, Ra£ael Vasquez, TDCJ § 73821¢» ll !Bmate confined in
the Ramsay 1 omit located in Brzoria County,.?exas, swear under
p§analcy of perjury, that the foregoin instrumeaz is cruyaand
cortez insofar as l understand-the app i¢able law to requice.
E}gc.;‘xted thia' 17th day 02 Marck\,# 2015.
',@.;l,_._',»*;.
cEaT;FicATE oF szavzce
I, Rafaal Vlsquez, TDCJ § 73@214,"§wear and affirm that
a true and compleq¢¢copy of this instrument was delivered by
first class magl, postage prepaid, to eve Bexar Coun¢y Diatrict
Attorney, Mr. Nicholas LaHéod, at Cadena~Reeves Juseice Ceneer,
300 Dolorosa, 5th Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205*3030 on this,
§he;;?th gay of Harch, 2015. ' v
/‘/ -
'K*HIzZB!EEE!lIF
- . 4 ,"’ "
3»