May 2§: , 2015
Office Of The Clerk
Court of Crimina| Appeals
Post Office Box 12308
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Ex Parte Martin Allen Draughon, Trial Habeas No. 463,7298;
Ex Parte Martin Allen Draughon, Tria| Habeas No. 463,7288;
Ex Parte Martin Allen Draughon, Trial Habeas No. 463,727B.
Dear C|erk:
l am enclosing for filing my 'pro se' ”Applicant's Objections To Trial Court's Findings Of Fact
And Conclusions Of Law” in trial cause numbers 463,7298, 463728B, and 463727B.
These cases are from Harris County, Texas, the 338th Judicial District Court. On Apri| 24, 2015
the 338th Judicial District Court signed three orders adopting proposed fact findings and
conclusions of the State. The clerk was ordered by the trial court to prepare a transcript of
papers in these habeas cases and transmit the transcripts to this Court. The transcripts from
Harris County should be on tile with your office by this date.
Please file the enclosed ”objections" and present same to the Justices of the Court of Crimina|
Appea|s. ` °
Very truly yours,
` ' Rece\veo \N
MW\ couRT or cR\lmNAL APPEALS
Martin Allen Draughon, Applicant ’JUN 01 2015
347 East Whitney, Apt. H
Houston, Texas 77022 Abg,` ACOSU’G§@§'K
Cc: file
Enclosures
iN THE couRT oF canliNAL APPEALs oF TExAs
AT AusTlN, T`EXAs
Ex PARTE MART\N ALLEN DRAuGHoN, )
) WR|T NUMBER
APPLlCANT ' )
APPLlCANT'S OBJECT|ON-S TO TR|AL COURT'S
FIND|NGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS|ONS OF LAW
TO THE JUST|CES OF THE COURT OF CR|MlNAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW habeas applicant Martin Allen Draughon, and files these ”objections" to the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law signed by the Judge Presiding of the 338"‘ Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas in trial court habeas cause 463,727-B, on April 24, 2015.
BACKGROUND
l. Applicant filed his instant application for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Artic|e 11.07,
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. during Ju|y, 2011. |n his ’application' the Applicant pleads verified facts
demonstrating that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment Rights were violated when he
entered an involuntary and unintelligent plea of guilty due to the ineffective assistance of his
defense counsei. Applicant entered the guilty plea on or about July 16, l987, to the charge of
aggravated robbery, and was sentenced to thirty-nine (39) years imprisonment.
2. On August 9, 2013 the Respondent filed a response, and requested the trial court to order
Applicant’s former defense counsel, Wi|ford A. Anderson, to tile an affidavit within thirty days
\ of the signing of the court’s order in this regard. The trial court signed the order on September
23, 2013. However, attorney Anderson was contemptuous of the court's said order, and failed
to file an affidavit within thirty days, and in fact for over a year. Applicant then filed a ”Motion
For The Court To Accept Applicant’s Findings Of Fact And Conclusion Of Law," and in light of
attorney Anderson's continuing refusal to comply with the court's September 23, 2013 order.
The trial court failed to rule on Applicant’s 'motion’.
3. During early |Vlay, 2015, Applicant received from the Harris County, Texas District Clerk an
order signed by the trial court, dated April 24, 2015, in which the trial court adopted the State's
Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order in cause number 463,727-B.
4. The trial court's Apri| 24, 2015 order adopting the State's proposed findings and
conclusions states, at page 1 thereof as follows, in pertinent part: ”The Court further finds that
the facts asserted in the credible affidavit of Wi|ford A. Anderson filed in this cause are true. . ."
5. The Applicant never received, from any source, any purported copy of an 'affidavit’ that
may have been filed by attorney Wi|ford A. Anderson prior to the trial court's said April 24,
2015 order of adoption, nor has Applicant subsequently received, from any source, a copy of
any such 'affidavit'. Due to the omission, Applicant’s due process and equal protection rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as under Article |,
Sections 3, 3a and 19 of the Texas Constitution, where violated in that Applicant was denied his
'right' to receive a copy of such ‘affidavit’, to examine it and challenge its contents and veracity
in the trial court during the course of the habeas proceedings.
Ru|e 21, et. seq. of the Texas Rules of Civi| Procedure, as well as Article 11.07, mandate that
every pleading, motion, document filed by a part be duly served on the opposing party. Ru|e
21a(h), Tex.R.Civ.Proc. provides that a party may offer proof that it did not receive a particular
document, and a court may grant such relief as it deems just. Applicant offers such proof, in
the form of this instant 'verified pleading', that he did not receive, from any source, any
affidavit that may have been filed by attorney Wilford A. Anderson, Consequent|y, Applicant
gl_ajg§ts_to any consideration by this Court of any affidavit that may have been filed