August 1, 2015
CLERK
P.O. Box 12547
AUSTIN,TEXAS
78711-2547
FROM:
LORD HARLECH OSBY
1430910-TDCJ-CID No.
264 FM 2478
HUNTSVILLE,Texas
77320-3322
RE:Motion for Leave to File Writ of Mandamus, Petition for Writ of
Mandamus
Dear CLERK:
Herein, vou will find Petitioner's above stated documents to be filed seekina
relief of the Court via l'landarnus to compel trial court dutv that is Ministerial,
and Petitioner has no other remedy,available.
Please file and present to the COURT. Also please return to me a copy with
your stamp marked filed in the COURT,please? I have placed inside Postaqe.
Emphatically,
LORD HARLECH OSBY
1430910-TDCJ CID No.
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUG 13 2015
<1>
.table of cases
Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07 §4(a) (1) (2)
Exparte Harrinqton 310 s.w.3d 452
Ex Parte Evans 964 s.w.2d 645
Ex Parte Torres 943 s.w.2d 469
Ex Parte Whiteside 12 s.w.3d 819
Ex Parte Me pherson ~)
32 s.w.3d 860
Government Code 22.22l(b)
Texas Constitution Article -5 §6
Texas Constitution Article I §3,13,16,19
United States Constitution Bill of Rights
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Motion for Leave
1. Petition for Writ of Mandamus
1. Statement of Case
2. Procedural History
2. Grounds for Relief
3. Argument & Authorities
4. Summary
4. Prayer
< >
TIM THIRD
COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
In RE:LORD HARLECH OSBY
Relator
vs.
PRESI.DING JUDGE
27 - JUDICIAL DISTRICT
BELL COUNTY, TEXAS
Respondent
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
HONORABLE COURT:
Now comes LORD HARLECH OSBY, TDCJ-CID No.l430910, W.J.Estelle
Unit, Huntsville, Texas, 77320-3322, this his Motion for leave to
file Petition for Mandamus, as this is an extraordinary case that
requires the Court of Appeals to excercise original jurisdiction
as Petitioner ha~ no other remedy at Law, to compel 27th JUDICIAL
DISTRICT JUDGE to comply with Code of Criminal Procedure -Article
11.07, and subsections, governing his first and only challenge to
conviction in Cause No.38,597-C, 27th District Judge dismissed said
Application as successive under Articl- ll.07§4(a),(l)(2), on May
27,2015; Petitioner has no. other remedy at Law.
Respectfully Submitted,
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
In Propria Persona
AUG 13 2015
::r,
.. '
IN THE THIRD
COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
In RE: LORD HARLECH OSBY
Relator
PRESIDING JUDGE
27 - JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
BELL COUNTY, TEXAS
Respondent
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
HONORABLE COURT:
Now comes, LORD HARLECH OSBY, TDCJ~CID No.l430910, W.J.Estelle
unit, HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS, 77320-3322, this his petition for Mandamus
relief in Cause no.38,597-C, a Article-11.07 procee~ing, The Court
of App~als has original jurisdiction to issue Writs of Mandamus
Article-5,§6~Texas Constitution, and ~ex~~ Government Code_-
22.22l(b).
STATEMENT OF CASE
Petitioner seeks Mandamus relief from the court as there is
no other remedy av~ilable at ~aw. pn May 2~,2015, 27th District
Court Judge, dismissed Petitioner's Application for writ_of Habeas
Corpus- Article -11.07, as a successive w~it-ll.07§4(a)(l)(2).
Petioner's Cause No. 38,597-c, was his first "challenge to the
conviction'', as defined in ccire case law. Trial court dismissed
based on lack of jurisdiction under 11.07§4(a)(l)(2),· to ·here the
Application. Petitioner herei~, seeks Mandamus relief to compel
27th District Judge to comply with Mandatory procedures of 11.07 -
and subsections to resolve The complained of United States Consti-
tutional violations via testimony, Affidavit, and or Bench warrant
in order that Petitioner can provide any necessary proofs in support.
<1>
' '•
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner avers that FR-38,597-c, WR-48,960-06, is his
third Habeas application. However, Cause no. 38,597-A,WR-48,960-02
·was seeking relief from2 Parole violation as the record reflects.
It was filed on May 16, 200l(denied). On September 26, 2007, the
FR-38,597-B,WR-48,960-03, was denied,/- the 27th District Court
Judge Martha Tr~do, dismissed the writ as successive under 11.07§4
(a)(l)(2), ignoring the fact that 38,597-A, never challenged the
conviction as defined under Law. On May 27,2015, 38,597-C was
--
filed and dismio?$ed py:the 27th District Court as successive under
"· ; .• . .•·• !.•:
Article ll.07§4(a) (1) (2), both 38,597-B and 38,597-C were "challenges to
the conviction", as defined but were dismissed .as "successive" under ll.07§4(a)
(1)(2), Petitioner filed Petition for Discretionary review, and the Court has
stated that under Jacolos v.State,692 s.w.2d 724('l'ex.cr.App 1985) no Petition
can be filed from such a decision. on July 24,2015. Petitioner also states
that on June 6, 1990, he received 22-years confinement as a sentence by then
trial Judge Joe Carroll (27th District) Although he has discharged the sentence
as of_2013, he suffers from the "collateral consequence" of the conviction in
that the complained of 38,597, was use9 to enhance the current holding case he
under now 2005CR-8108/Bexar County,Texas, originally a second-degree felony
after enhancement became 60-years confinement.
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF ·
I. Relator seeks Mandamus to compel the Presiding Judge 27th ,JUDICIAL DISTRICT, to
comply with the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Article- 11.07, arid subsections,
for the resolution ot Application for writ of Habeas Corpus Petitioner has
filed in Cause No.38,597-C, or in the alternative grant petitioner opportunity
to file another application.
II. Compel 27th District Court to examine the record >' _2005CR-8108/Bexar County, Texas,
wherein cause no. 38,597 was used to enhance as a repeater listed on the Indictment
of Cause no.2005cR-810& or in the alternative allow petitioner to hand deliver
proof to the Court of_ the Indictment, as the petitioner has discharged the sentence
the proof would satisfy that he suffers a ~ollateral consequence as a result of
the conviction.
III.· Relator apologizes that before the foregoing two grounds can be granted the 27th
District Judge must determine whether;FR-38,597-A,WR-48,960-02, was an attack
or "challenge to the conviction", as defined by COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, in
Ex Parte EVANS, 964 s.w.2d 645, Relator seeks an order from the Court Ordering
<2>
I ... ,
the 27th Dist·rict Court to determine whether 38,597-A, "challenged the conviction"
as defined in the core case law, and if it is found in Petitioner's favor, then
comply with the Due process inherent in'the Article-11.07 and subsections, to
designatethe issues, and then resolve them as the evidence concludes.
IV.Relator seeks an order from this Court to Compel the District Court to hold
an evidentiary Hearing to determine if FR-38,597-A was a "challenge to the
conviction", and allow Relator to produce facts 1n support of his position that
it was not a "challenge to the conviction".
v. Relator seeks additional Mandamus relief to compel the District Clerk to send
to Relator the requested copy of his FR-38,597-c, stamped ''tiled" with the Clerk's
date and time stamp on it. Relator requested this from District Clerk and she
has never complied as per. rules stipulate, and Relator has no remedy available.
VI.Relator seeks all relief that Court of Appeals deems is relevant is determining
whether 27th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, has abused his discretion when he
granted the State's motion to dismiss Relator's FR-'38,597-C Application for
writ of Habeas Corpus on May 27, 2015.
ARGUMENT
&
AUTHORITIES
Relator incorporates the records 38,597-A,38,597-B,and 38,597-C, for reference
in support of the facts. The core law as precedent on the issue appear to be
clear: Ex Par·te Evans, 964 s. w. 2d 645, Ex Parte Torres, 943 s. w. 2d 469, Ex Parte
Whiteside,l2 s.w.3d 819, Ex Parte McPherson, 32 s.w.3d 860, it is well estab-
lished, what amounts to a .'~challenge to the conviction", that would warrant a
dismissal of a successive writ under Article-ll.07§4(a)(l), but not (2), as .
Relator in his application has as a "Ground four" (2)- which states:"no rational
juror could have faound him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but foe a Consti-
tutional violation". On page-2 of District Court's findings and conclusions of
law#l2- the Court immediately went to the burden of proof being placed on Relator
to prove that a claim was or was not available whenhe submitted his previous
application, without allowing Relator to "prove it". However the burden in this
case is a strawrr.an as there is no place in the provided Application to satisfy
ll.07§4(a)(l). Relator states 38,597-8 was dismissed by 27th Distri~t Court
under 11.07§4, and now the complained of 38,597-C has been dismissed as well.
'I'he District can find in no record where a "challenge to the conviction", exist
in the record(s) of ~8,597-A. It appea~s the 27th District Court has suspended
_;
<3>
·~ ' .
the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Relator in this Cause, which is a Denial of a
United States Constitutional right and the Texas Constitution as well. As the
Court has Dismissed two attempts to "challenge the conviction", based on a rule
of Law contrary to what the Court of Appeals has decided on the same issue, and
have ruled in a way that calls for the Court of Appeals to excercise its' Power
of supervision, to cure what appears as an Abuse of Discretion by the 27th
District Court Presiding Judge.
'I
SUMMARY
In summary, Relator reiterates that 38,597-A was Relator seeking relief from an
unjust Parole violation, 38,597-B was a "challenge to the conviction",,but was
Dismissed under 11.07§4, by the 27th District Court, now 38,597-C has been dismissed
again under 11.07§4, by the same Trial Court, Relator has not had Day. and suffers
a collateral consequence of having been convicted in Cause no.38,597, in that it
was used to enhance his current holding case of 2005-CR-8108/Bexar County ,'l'x.
Relator seeks Mandamus relief to compel the 27th District Court to afford him the
Due Process inherent in the Code Criminal Procedure-Article-11.07, and subsections
procedure.
PHAYER
Further relief Relator prayeth not.