<.App.-nouston [1st Dist.] 1`995). For this reason this order rs Transmit Habeas Corpus Record which includes findings of facts and conclusion of law and a recommendation dismissing applicant's 11.07 has been issued prematurely, as such it should be denied and a order issued that it be remand back to the trial court for further proceedings. IV. Next is the determination as to whether the trial court was correct in ruling applicant's application should be dismissed for failure to properly comply the legal standards. sTANDARD oF R‘EvIEw: Ex Parte Crgiq Allen Necessarv, 333 S.w.3d 782 (Tex.lOth Ct. App. 20l0) "In reviewing the trial`court's decision to grant or deny habeas corpus relief...If the resolution of those ultimate questions turns on an application_of legal standards, we review the determination de novo. The most vital fact in the` resolution as to whether applicant\s application is in compliance is the trial court's own written admission that the original application was in full compliance. See page 1 which states: June 1, 2015: lApplicant filed his original petition with this Court. This petition was thirty three ppges long and gpjseg seventeen grounds pi error. The trial court also admitted applicant's original memorandun\ of law was in full compliance when filed. See page 2 which admits the original memorandum of law was 50 pages. July 6, 2015: Applicant filed a "Memorandum of Law" supporting his claims for relief. This document is fifty pages long." Therefore,` by the trial court's n own admission Applicant's original handwritten application and typed nemorandum of law was in full compliance as such the recommendation should be overruled and remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings. Applicant has for the convenience of the court and for clarity and simplification dealt strickly with the issues effecting the application its self first and issues effecting the memorandum of law second. The trial court begins speaking about motions. By definition as defined by the Black's Law Dictionary tenth edition. "A written' or oral application requesting a court to make a specific ruling or order." Please bear in mind that not one single motion has ever been ruled on, as such all motions are to be considered pending `motions,' which are as defined by id: "A motion under consideration." A motion is an application for an order of the court. Lindley v. Flores, 672 S.w.2d 612 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1984). The court has issued no order(s ) either granting or denying any motion(s) whatsoever in this cause. The record is totally devoid of any such ruling and if a copy of the order does not appear in the record it has no legal effect. In Re Fuentes, 960 S.W.Zd 261,264 `(Tex.App.-Corpus ’Christi 1997): Additionally the court's recommendation that the pending motion(s) has negatively affected the compliace of ‘Applicant's original application is an arbitrary decision . founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason(s) of fact. Additionally this decision has no legal support. Therefore, the court should review this decision de novo. Ex Parte Craig Allen Necessary, 333 S.w.3d-782 (10th Ct. App. 21010). "It is well-settled that a written order must appear somewhere ip ppg court's record jp_order tp pg effective, whether it be in the court's file record or in the minutes of the court. Since 1923, Texas Courts have consistently enforced the following.general rule. All order nmst be entered of record to be effective (Applicant omitted other. citations). The order must be reduced to writing, signed by the trial court, and entered in the record. " Therefore, no lnotion filed in this case can legally effect whether the original application is in compliance or not. Any recommendation otherwise is a clear and arbitrary decision and misapplication of the law. Ex Parte Criag Allen Necssary, supra. Now to error on the side of caution, applicant will address these non-ruled on motions there merits. See complained of order page 2: duly 6, 2015: Applicant filed "Motion to Supplement Ground _of Error Thirteen" in which applicant raised an additional twent-two grounds for ineffective assistance. Motions are to be judged not by their caption, but from its body and prayer of relief. See AbujAhmad v. Shadowbook Appprments, 776 S.w.2d 704,708 (Tex.App.-Fort worth 1989). Applicant unambiguously stated in caption and body of this motion that he sought to add reasons twenty three through twenty five why his counsel was ineffective. This lnotion does not seek to add one single new ground for relief \nuch less as stated: "[t]wenty-two grounds." Therefore, this decision is arbitrary and has` no factual or legal support. Also within the body of the lnotion it states: "Due the fact the new -rules only allows two pages per-ground applicant has for the convenience of the court as well as abiding by the rules completely re-typed ground of error No. thirteen pp ppg ppg§§, They are numbered pages 27 and 28 as originally numbered in the form. Please §jmply take the original ground pf error No. thirteen out ppg replace jt pdth ppg attached ppgg_gllg§". No where in the body of this or' prayer 'for relief does applicant request or seek the court to combined or add any additional-pages. The court's findings is clearly not supported by the record. 3 _Now lets observed the recommendations regarding this same motion. See Page 5 which states in relevant part: Failure to Comply with Two Page timit. 5.. On duly 6, 2015, Applicant filed a Motion to Supplement Ground of Error Thirteen, which consists of two additional type written pages on the form provided py the Court of Criminal Appeal . (Applicant' s Motion to Supplement Ground of Error Thirteen at 3- 4). 6. By combining the fonn pages of the original petition's Ground of Error Thirteen with the form pages of the Motion to Supplement Ground of error Thirteen, the total number of form pages for Ground of Error Thirteen is four. 7. Because Ground of Error Thirteen exceeds the two pages provided for each issue by the Court of Criminal Appeals, this Court recommends that Applicant's writ be dismissed as noncompliance. TEX.R.APP.P, 73.1(d)..- This recommendatioN is based upon no guiding rules and principles. Because the motion was never ruled on, no order was issued, no order appears in the record. As such, no one had legal authority to take any action pursuant to this lnotion by but not limited by adding any additional pages to the original application. Next the body of this lnotion and prayer for relief applicant unambiguously sought and requested that the original handwritten pages 27-28 be "replaced" with the new typed pages 27-28. Therefore the decision represents an abuse of discretion. See In Re Gore, 251 S.W.3d 696, 699.(Iex.Appr-San Antonio 2007): . "A 'trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner or, stated differently, when it acts without reference to guiding rules and principles.' In Re Colonie_\l Pipeline Co., 968 S.w.2d 938,941 (Tex. 1998...1»1._al_ker, [v..Packer, 827 s.w.zd 833, 839 (Tex.1992)] 827 S.l\l.2d at 840. However, “[a] trial court lhas no 'discretion' in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Thus, a- clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute and abuse of discretion..¢" 4First and foremost this motion was never granted as such no order was issued thereby providing anyone , authorization to act upon this motion. Therefore, the act of adding these two additional pages to the applicant's original application is VOID and without legal authority. This is true because this motion is legally characterized as' a pending motion. Furthermore, the_motion, in the body and prayer for relief seeks that the original two pages be “substi_tuted" for the typed pages numbered 27 and 28. Simply put there is no guiding principles or rules that allows the court to act on a motion without an order and certainly not act contrary to athe request in the body of the motion and or prayer for relief. Abu-Ahnad v. Shadowbook Apartments', supra at 708. This act»._of doing so presents a clear abuse- of discretion. In Re Gore, Supra at 699. n l n Applicant will concede that he did file a second motion to- supplement the record with ground of error 18 which actually does seeks relief for two grounds of error on a single page.'.l\pplicant will officially retract this motion~and resubmitted a new one dividing these grounds into grounds of error 18,19. Also ' includes is a motion to suspend the rules pursuant to Tex.R.App.Proc. Rule 2. Yet original motion was p_o_t acted upon by orders of the court, therefore, an_y act of supplementing applicant's original application or memorandum is without legal authority and is void as a matter of la'w. Furthermore, ;th_is exist no guiding principles or rules that will allow the court to grant a motion knowing that granting it will violate thev rules. Therefore, recommending that Applicant's application be dismissed as noncompliance in of TEX.,R.APP‘. Rules 73,1, 73.2 Now the issues dealing with the memorandum of law. Page two which states: duly 6, 2015;“ Applicant filed a "Memorandum of law" supporting his claim - `for` relief. This document is fifty pages long. Attached to the Memorandum are numerous exhibits these exhibits are twenty-eight pages long (Applicant's Memorandum of_law at 1-78) By stating that 'Applicant's Memorandun\ of law is numbered 1-78. This implies that the court has ndsapplied the law by counting the exhibits as additional pages to the memorandum of law. Applicant actually attached 28 pages of exhibits to his memorandum of law making the total number of pages to 78. The law requires these 28 pages of exhibits or appendix(s) ‘to not be counted. See Tex.R.App.Proc Rule 73.1(d) "The prescribed limits do not include appendices, exhibits..." This is an arbitrary and a misapplication of the law the act of doing so is in itself an abuse of discretion and requires a de novo review._Lg Re Gore, supra at 699, §x_Parte Craig Allen Necessav, supra. Additionally on page 2 the courts seeks to have Applicant's application dismissed because he filed a motion that is not on the prescribed forms. Three is no rule that requires motions to be on any prescribed form. Page 2- 3 states: duly 31, 2015:. Applicant files a "Response to the Court' s Order and Request for a Supplemental Order." This response reargues the grounds raised in the previous petitions, motions, and memorandaums, as well as raises a new ground of error that the 'district judge that signed the order designating issues was not the same .judge which presided over 'the trial. This response is twenty pages' long and is not on the prescribed form. (Applicant‘s Response 'to the Court's Order at 1-20). This is applicant's supplemental motion for a live evidentiary hearing in which he seeks a live hearing because the Judge Kyle Hawthorn that ordered the paper hearing is not the judge that held the trial. Therefore, Applicant is entitled to a live evidentiary hearing. Citing Amos v. Scott, 81 F. 2d 333, 347 (5th Cir. 1996). Applicant sought to fully develop the record to include the factual basis of his claims against Judge Travis Bryan III. This motion also is used to provide the _federal court documented evidence that Applicant is exercising due diligence in developing the factual bases for all his claims in state court. There is no rule or guiding principles that requires applicants to place all or specifically motion(s) for live evidentiary hearing on the forms provided by the court of criminal appeals. This is clearly set forth in the body of the motion for relief. Also this_ motion was never-ruled on therefore, no one 1 had authorization to take_any action upon the motion. Therefore, this decision represents a decision that is both arbitrary_ and is a misapplication of the law. The trial court's recommendations clearly implies that any nwtion filed in the trial court during a habeas proceedings the trial court has authorization to act .upon it in any way shape form or k fashion that will. negatively effect applicants application. These decisions ;are based` upon no rules or guiding _prin§iples and no law._Therefore, the decisions and..recomnendations represents an abuse of discretion. In Re Gore, supra at 699. Additionally trial court recompends the application - to be denied for- nonicompliance pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 73.1(d) 73 2. The trial recommendation on this issue appear on page 6 which states in relevant part; 2. Applicant' s June 4, 2014 "Motion 'to provide Notice," 4 pages)( June 29, 2015 "Motion to Supplement Ground of Error Thirteen, " (4 pages) duly 63 2015, "Memorandum of Law," (50 'pages) duly 16, 2015 "Motion for Live Evidentiary Hearing," (13 pages) July 16, 2015 "Motion to' Hold Proceedingsv in Abeyance,"(4 pages) July 31, 2015 "Response to the Court' s Order," (actually supplemental motion for live evidentairy hearing 20 pages) and August 4. 2015 "Motion to Supplement" (4 pages a total of 105 pages) all are memorandums of law which cite legal authority to support Applicant' s original grounds for relief or argue for additional ground for relief. . . _ 3. Applicant has filed a total lof 147 pages, of petitions; supplemential petitions, and memorandums of law with this Court. l`:4. Application has not asked for leave to exceed the page requirements prescribed by Tex.R.Ap.P. 73.1(d), nor_has he shown ,good cause why such should be granted. ' ' ' ` 5. Applicant has not been granted leave by this Court to exceed the fify page limit imposed by Tex.R.App.P.73.1(d). 10 6. Consequently, :since Applicant has exceeded then fifty Pages that T~U Tex.R.App.P.73.1 allows, this Court recommends that Applicant's writ be dismissed`for`honcompliance. TEX.R.APP.P.73.1(d),73.2". 7There'is no rule and guiding principles, or law that classifies a motion as a memorandum of .law; A motion is a request for the court to do something. A motion that has not been ruled on is considered a pending motion and provides no legal authority for any one to act upon them or grant any type of relief. $imply because Applicant provide legal support in his motions, thereby, providing legal authority for the court to rule favorably, does not convert these well researched motions into memorandums of law. Therefore, the court's recommendations that applicant's memorandum of law is 147 pages is an abuse of discretion. As such applicant's original memorandum of law is inv compliance. Applicant respectfully submits that. the memorandum of law is optional and if found for some reason to be out of compliance 'the original application should not be dismissed. Applicant's original 50 page memorandums is in compliance. l The trial court's recommendations are arbitrary as they are not founded upon rules and guiding principles nor do they have legal support as such they are acts of abuse of discretion. In Re Gore, supra at 699. wHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Application prays that his objections be granted and remand this cause back to the trial court for the completion of the evidentiary hearing already ordered or order a live evidentiary . hearing and grant applicant any further or additional relief he is justly entitled to, it is so prayed. espectfully submitted, Um Dave reer #1829754 wayne Scott Unit Retrieve Rd. Angleton, Texas 77515 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been sent to all parties in this cause by addressing a copy to: District Attorney, Mr. Jarvis Parsons, 300 E. 26th Street, Suite 310,_Bryan, Texas 77803; The Brazos Co. District Clerk, Marc Hamlin, 300 E. 26th St., Suite 1200, Bryan, Texas 77803, the District Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals; Abel Acosta, Supreme Court Bldg, 201 N. 14th St. Rm 106, Austin, Texas 78701-1445, by placing a copy of the same in the U.S. Mail postage prepaid on this ezéklk' gave DY Greer day of August, 2015, 12 DM' 0 ém %zr/W _/\/W/)/z fca/7 M//z/ * ' - 6 ear fame/af /@ /4/¥/7[£/0/\/ Z< 77J//f_ § ,2/ / f ’ ' 26 .~ » , s ., 0 tamm/2 %//ML: £Z¢azc, //;.,.. D !N /(y/%§/)IC 600/57 A¢£é SEP 03 gmng %0/ M /‘///`_S'! 57a/06 Abei@@@§i&,@@@rh ,#Us?zx/ 7,< 7j7d/v/VVJ/ ,Q:: ix W/m/ A/M- D J¢:z%, De/z, ~ /7,@ /¢¢ ma /V[J))é' /:/7/\/@ §/LZO§A'D /5»< /Y¢z/»/é z/y ///;y gulf /77/ 7M) /WW/MJ {/v@"/¢M f %/7/1¢%/'/71/ /7@7/¢/1/ /Gz/W' 70 /ZM //;y /%7_;@/./ /2,< leeway af amy flag va/ %/WéZM/¢// /ze@¢;p&,£{ /€UL£ 73 q[€)@ U/’/7z¢ ///¢ [OU/€'/éwf¢;f w 92 yca /a //¢ /i¢/ F/f 500/67 deep /,4 las w;/W f 77//}7 /;/W ZM,,/f /,4¢1 A/A /¢(££l£ 7‘6,‘ /AW, /&/2;//9»/):/ WJ/;/w/ 71 7 @[2) b/vzzz /7¢' /w,c/ (a/»\/l!~©( ;Jz/?/ /,,22» §/Z ,.DU¢ 5 _ 7/2' /»;z/ 7//£ {w,c/ 61/2¢ %/1/ @/J/me/ /“///// %%2:2,4,1// 005 A/U//A¢//a~ %zzz:d /@, flew /)z¢~ /#:@' %OzzM/J /0/"%%'6" J/M¢T j//é~ /i@/zpaw 774 -;N 1 ///¢» /¢M w /W,,M/ ,a/y¢> /A~ p,;rwm dam rf MZHI WY‘U¢-f . _ ;J/% f %///. 7///¢’/)/£ /w/ /ézf// /77¢¢£ .» /W/<‘ [o 0/1/7>/ %UJ//r’/Vz¢ /;/ ///¢/f@’ /WVWA; . ` ' ' !/Wz/{w¢/¢ ,(////Lz 77l/j we a n\ ppm 2> amf //,e/ iii/lema 4001/2214 wRIT NO. 12-03324-CRF-272-A EX PARTE _ § IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT § 272nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAVE D. GREER § BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR L§A!§ TO FLL§ HIS MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF TEXAS RULES OF APPELLANT PRGCEDURERULE 73.4(§1£2) UNTIL THE COURT COMPLL§§_HITH RUL§ 47 Qg§, T0 Iw§ FACT TH§ COURT CIT§D A CAS§ THAT AEELICANT HAS NO ACC§SS T0 10 THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOw, DAVE DUANE GREER, Applicant herein and in support of this motion will show this Honorable Court the following: I. Applicant seeks leave to file his motion not for reasons of delay nor to harass any party but so that he can adequately oppose the 0riginal Order to Transmit Habeas Corpus Record. which was signed on 8-17-15 and lnailed to Applicant on 8-18-15 and received by Applicant on 8-24-15 which is documented in the wayne Scott whit's legal mail log which is available for this Honorable Court's inspection. wHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this motion will be granted so that justice can be served by applicant being able to present a well researched response to the aforementioned court order, and grant Applicant any or additional relief he is justly entitled to, it is so prayed. espec§§ully submitted, ave D. Greer #1829754 wayne Scott Unit Retrieve Rd. Angleton, Texas 77515 CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE I, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been- sent to all parties in this cause that have been served by addressing a copy to: D_.istrict Attorney, Mr._ Jarvis Parsons, 300 E. 26th Street, Suite 310, Bryan, Texas 77803; The Brazos District Clerk, hare h'amlin, 300 E. 26th St., Suite 1200, Bryan, Texas 77803, the District Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals; Abel Acosta, Supreme Court Bldg, 201 w. 14th St. Rm106, Austin, Texas 78701-1445, by placing a copy of the same ink the U.S. Mail postage prepaid on this __Q£___ day of August, 2015, ave D?Greer wRIT NO. 12-03324-CRF-272-A ' EX PARTE':`""""""`""`”"""`"‘”"`”""”"`“"““`°"`“"*""*` § IN THE cRInINAL *[)‘Is1R‘I‘cT“““a‘“~~“r~'~'“~M~~~-~ a § 272nd JlJDICI/-\L DISTRICT DAVE.D. GREER 4 § k BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF TEXAS RUl;:S OF APPELLANT PROCEDURE Un.ll(bl(LUNTIL TMURT COlLPl_.l§wITH RU|£M Dlll_-Z` T0 TlL_E FACT THE COURT CITED AN OPINION THAT APPLICANT DOES NOT HA!§ ACC§SS TO TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: n COMES NOw, DAVE DUANE GREER, Applicant herein and in support of this motion will show this Honorable Court the following: I. 0n 8-17-15 This Honorable court signed an order entitled "Order to Transmit wabeas Corpus Record, which also included fact findings,` conclusion of law and recommendations. It was mailed to applicant in accordance to the Clerk's cover letter on 8-18-15 and received by Applicant on 8-24-15 which tis_ documented in the wayne Scott Unit's legal mail log which is available for this Honorable Court's inspection. within this 0rd_er the Honorable Court cited Ex Parte MCKnight, No wR-36,732,' 2015 wL 3641403 (_Tex.Crim.App. \June 10, 2015) (not designated for publication). Applicant has sought by written request to the prison law library in efforts to obtain a copy or access to this case. Applicant was informed by wayne Scott l|nit's' prison law library supervisor Ms. Ruthey Grays. She stated: "That we do not have access to west Law cases." Applicant must have access .to this case before he can adequately prepare his response. Rule 73.4(b)(2)"...A party has ten days from the date he receives the findings to file objections, but the trial court ma)/, nevertheless, transmit the record to the Court of 'Criminal Appeals before the expiration of the ten days."Applicant received the courts findings on August ZL`F, 2015 at ' approximately 12:20PM. Therefore, applicant's response is due to be filed¢Nor before September 2, 2015, Applicant seeks to suspend this time until five days after Applicant receives a copy of this case. wHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this motion will be granted so that justice can be served by applicant being able to present a well researched response to the aforementioned court order° Applicant specifically request that the ten day time limitation to file objections to the courts findings .pursuant 73.4(b)(2) be suspended until five days after Applicant official and actually receives a copy of the aforementioned court opinion5 and grant Applicant any or additional relief he is justly entitled to, it is so ~prayed. esp ctf lly submitted, ave . Greer #1829754 wayne Scott Unit Retrieve Rd. Angleton, Texas 77515 CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE I, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been sent to all parties in this cause by addressing a copy to: District Attorney, Mr. Jarvis Parsons, 300 E. 26th Street, Suite 310, Bryan, Texas 77803; The Brazos Co. District Clerk, Marc Hamlin9 300 E. 26th St., Suite 1200, Bryan, Texas 77803, the District Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals; Abel Acosta, Supreme Court Bldg, 201 w. 14th St. Rm 106, Austin, Texas 78701-1445, by placing a copy of the same in the U¢S. Mail postage prepaid on this QL§ day of August9 2015, wmc wave D}JGr§er M/c 9 éfza< /£H~Wf% /`//y)e ._§5¢27 U/t;z/ é eye few/ev ,0,€@ jay @/¢ezz /(/z.é;v //)/A /»€az¢» grew /Z//¢/ jzz¢z;,¢,;¢/ 459 n W 2217/617 {O’o,ez /€Z>c 0/»1,¢101/»2//5 7a Az,r//).z,cr %%zaM//j //07 /a,€ 527/va 007 0/’ fm Fé%/'&° //// ef/é%A/,z.c// ,zz!¢%z/ j/;//Zaf/)/(£A 7/% %)/MMA_¢' §wrx/; /£z¢' 7/!21 %/z/A/ 522 7/'@ %1?/¢‘“ fw ////M' gram fmc //<'Wz»zz 7/@ Az,¢r/Q¢r //7@,0¢/,;1/ /z?»)// //,4;. jzf%j// ali/l `@/ AMZ/f 50/1;¢/ W»Z/"// # /a// y 7///)”/¢ %U /g;z/ /W#£% /5/¢ /0{/,£ /ZC(ZW/M; j/y 7/.//! zz, ` ,' _ ///%// %£:(/¢AC//»'w¢/ ,CAMz/?z/ ALL aec DM D éze% wRIT NO. 12-03324-CRF-272-A EX PARTE § IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT §' 272nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT DAVE D. GREER § BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANT'S MOTION T0 S§T FORTH THE¢BRA;OS COUNTY QL§TRICT CL§B§:§ ACTIONS AND INACTIONS THAT HAVE VIOLATED THE RULES OF APPELLATE FROCEDURE AND OTHER RULES AND PROCEDURES THAT ILLEGALLY LEAD TO TH§_QISTRICT COURT RECOMMENDING TO DISMISS APPLICANT'S 11.07 FOR §§ING OUT OF COMPLIANCE AND OTHERNISE ILLEGALLY INFLUENCED THE HONORABLE COURT'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOw, DAVE DUANE GREER, Applicant herein and in support of this motion will show this Honorable Court the following: I. On 7-6-15 the Honorable Judge Kyle Hawthorn issued a signed order which ordered: "that pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07,§3(d), the Court is `of the opinion that controverted; previously unresolved 'factual issues material toy the legality of Applicant's confinement emist. Therefore, the Court designates the following issues of facts to be resolved." This order is five pages long. The Rules of App..Proc. Rules 73.4(b)(1) ("If the convicting courts enters an order designating issues, the clerk shall "IMMEDIATELY“ transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of that order and proof of the date the district attorney received the habeas application." The District Clerk refused and failed to comply with this mandatory requirement. Applicant presents as supporting evidence the Clerk's present record he is transmitting as part of the order "To Transmit Habeas Corpus Record" signed by a.second judge Travis Bryan III (who was applicant's previous trial counsel) on 8-17-15, listed as document number 9 "ORDER pages 52-56, which is also five pages long. It would be useless_p`f and unnecessary to send this order (document) if the clerk had in accordance with the mandatory requirements of this rule the clear had already sent it. - II. wext the clerk has failed and or refused to comply with Rules of App. Proc. Rule 73.4(0)("...and the name "of the judge" who presided over the application."). The combined effect of these violations of the clerk's has the effect of hiding the fact that one judge ruled there was previously unsolved issues and a second judge issued a contradicting orders that'there was not. That the Honorable Travis Bryan III had a vital self serving personal interest in not allowing applicant to fully develop the facts due to, the facts in this application involving numerous constitutional violations personally against the Honorable Travis Bryan III. fy III. Next Applicat would like to place front and center. the fact that all parties involved have openly admitted applicant's original HANDwRITTEN 11.07 was in full compliance. lt was 33 pages and listed 17 grounds of error. Applicant filed his first motion to supplement adding three additional reasons counsel was ineffective. Applicant typed ground of error No._13 and listed the previous 22 reasons with the three new reasons making a total of 25. Applicant put in the body of the motion and the cover letter to the clerk to take the original numbered pages 27-28 and replace them with the attached numbered pages 27-28. This motion was never ruled on, as such there was no order from the court. Therefore, there was no legal authority for the clerk the place these two pages in Applicant's original application. This illegal action assisted and lead to the order issuing findings on page 5: Failure to Comply with Two Page Limit 1. Tex.R.App.P. 73.1(d) requires that "[e]ach ground for relief and supporting~¥~ facts raised on the form shall not exceed the two pages provided for each, form;“ TEX.R.APP.P. 73.1(d). _ y 2. Applicant's original petition contained seventeen grounds of error. (Applicant's Original Petition at 1-33). 3. In the Original Petition, Applicant's Ground of_ Error Thirteen alleges that Applicant was denied effective assistance of trial counsel. (Applicant!s Original Petition at 27-28). 4. In the original Petition, Applicant's Ground of Error Thirteen is handwritten on the form provided _by the Court gf_ Criminal Appeals2 and consists gf_"two pages a§_reguired" by Tex.R.App.P. 73.1(d§. ZApplicant's Original Petition at 27-28); TEX.R.APP.P. 73.1(d). f . 5. On duly 6, 2015, Applicant filed a Motion to Supplement Ground of Error Thirteen, which consists of two additional typewritten `pages on the form grovided b the Qourt of Crim'nal Appeals. (Applicant‘s Motion to Supplement round of rror Thirteen at 3-43. ‘ 6. By combining the form pages of the original petition's Ground of Error Thirteen with the form pages of the Motion to Supplement Ground of Error Thirteen, the total number of frmn pages for Ground of Error Thirteen is four. . 7. Because Ground of Error Thirteen exceeds the two pages provided for each issue _by the Court of Criminal Appeals, this Court recommends that Applicant's writ be dismissed as noncompliance. TEX.R.APP.P. 73.1(d). 73.2. As shown and admitted herein Applicant's original HANDNRITTEN application was in full compliance only by the District Clerk placing these new TYPED PAGES into the original application without any authorization is the court able to recommend this_ application to be dismissed as noncompliance for -the aforementioned reason. IV. Now bear in mind Applicant's motion to supplement ground of error 18 and attached memorandum of law was never ruled on as such the district clerk had no authorization to supplement applicant's original HANDNRITTEN APPLICATION. The court once again admitted applicants original memorandum of law is fifty pages in full compliance. See page two second entry: July 6, 2015: Applicant filed a "Memorandum of Law" supporting his claim for relief. This document is fifty pages long." ;_._.~__._=4,.,»..~>_ *v- »__',,f_,, ` v The court also seeks to have applicant's original application to be dismissed for noncompliance because supplemental ground of error 18 raises two grounds on-a single page. See recommendations on page 4. This recommendation would not be possible if the clerk had not illegally supplemented applicant's "original application" with this ground of error No. 18, with this motion that has never been ruled on. Therefore, as such the clerk had no legal authorization to supplement applicant's original HANDNRITTEN APPLICATION with any papers, pages or in any other lnanner which changes applicant's ORIGINAL HANDWRITTEN ORIGINAL 11.07 that was and is as admitted in full compliance. wHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this Honorable Court grant this motion and take note of the illegal actions of the District Clerk in illegally altering applicant's original HANDWRITTEN ORIGINAL APPLICATION and ORIGINAL MEMORANDUM_OF LAw and issue an order that these illegal substitutions be taken out, thereby once again rendering applicant's original application and original memorandum of law in full compliance, and grant applicant any other or additional relief he is justly entitled to, it is so prayed. spectfully submitted, “" v Dave DZ Greer #1829754 wayne Scott Unit Retrieve Rd. Angleton, Texas 77515 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been `sent to all parties in this cause by addressing a copy to: District Attorney, Mr. darvis Parsons, 300 E. 26th Street, Suite 310, Bryan, Texas 77803; The ~ Brazos Co. District Clerk, Marc Hamlin, 300 E. 26th St., Suite 1200, Bryan, Texas 77803, the District Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals; Abel Acosta, Supreme mGourt‘~B'ldg‘;“““ZO‘l"'-"N.“'lélth'St. Rm 106; Austin, Texas 78701-1445;‘ ' by placing a copy of the same in-the U.S. Mail postage prepaid on this 3`2 day of August, 2015. ©\»\` 'V Dave D. Greer ,~,:;a