Hicks, Tracy

MR. HICKS TRACY
2661 FM 2054
Tenn. Colony,Tx 75884

August I'L. 2015
1

HON. JOHN E. NEILL,RESPONDENT
18th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
RECEIVED
GUINN JUSTICE CENTER IN SUPREME COURT
OF TEXAS
204 s. Buffalo Ave
Cleburne Tx 76033 AUG 18.2015
BLAKE HAWTHORNE, Clerk
HON. DALE HANNA,PROSECUTING ATTORNEY BY Deputy
GUINN JUSTICE CENTER
204 s. Buffalo Ave,Ste 209
Cleburne Tx 76033
This document contains some
pages that are of poor quality
at the time of imaging.

Dear Clerk

Enclosed for filing with.the court is Relator's petitionfor writ
of mandamus;Upon the filing of this petition please return a file
marked copy for my records;A copy of this petition has been previously
mailed to all interested parties.

SINCERELY

RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUG 18 2015
• IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

AT AUSTIN FILED
IN SUPREME COURT
OF TEXAS

AUG 18 2015
IN RE TRACY HICKS BlAKE HAWTHORNE, Clerk
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY PATRICK D. PASSMORE, Deputy

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBER 29450

FROM THE 18th DISTRICT COURT OF

JOHNSON COUNTY,CLEBURNE TEXAS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TRACY HICKS,RELATOR

PRO-SE#673001

H.H. COFFIELD

2661 FM 2054

Tenn Colony~Tx 75884

RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED AUG 18 2015
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN

IN RE TRACY HICKS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER 29450
FROM THE 18th DISTRICT COURT OF
JOHNSON COUNTY,CLEBURNE TEXAS

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS NO.l0-15-00224-CR

RELATOR'S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Relator,•rracy Hicks,Pro-Setfiles this his Motion Asking the court to Take Judicial
Notice of the following facts in this case;
· 1. Relator originally filed this suit in the Tenth Court of Appeals;That Court
has misconstrued the petition as a request for a writ of habeas corpus,whereas
Relator complains of respondents denial of right to speedy trial,and the Abuse
Discretion on Trial Motions where the court could act only one way on said issue
raised by the motion;Complains that respondents. failed completely to Analyze or
Correctly Apply the laws as they apply to the facts of this case;Further,Relator
ask this court to take judicial notice of the fact that relator has not been accorded
the requested discovery in this matter,and respondents has clearly failed without
cause,to turn over the requested trial records,and documents which are relevant
toti1ese proceedings. Relator ask the court to take judicial notice of the fact
that relator is greatly being prejudiced by the constitutional violations and
the abuse of discretion committed by respondents during trial;See Issues 2-5 in
this petition.
Relator Pray that the court will;Conditionally grant' the petition,and accord
relator discovery in this matter.,and thereafter Grant a Hearing where these issues
can be resolve according to law.
 IN THE· SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
·-
AT AUSTIN

IN RE TRACY HICKS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBER 29450
FROM THE 18th DISTRICT'COURT OF
JOHNSON COUNTY,CLEBURNE TEXAS

RELATOR'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF LEVEL
TWo)\ DISCOVERY PLAN

Relator,ask the tourt to Order that Discovery be conducted accord~bg

to a level Two Discovery Control Plan~tailored to the circumstances
of this suit,as permitted by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures ,190.4;

INTRODUCTION
Relator is Tracy Hicks,acting Pro-Se.,The Respondents are; Han. John
E. Neill.,and Dale Hanna Prosecuting Attorney of Johnson County.
Relator filed this civil action,complaining of the respondents Abuse
of Discretion on trial motions,and the failure to Am:llyze ur: correctly
Apply the laws as they apply to the facts of the case.
Relator, ask this court,to allow discovery under Level Two control
plan because;
A. There are r.elevant documents, and testimony within Respondents
filesthat is important to the current claims final outcome,which
would include BRADY Material; The Issues regarding this suit are
Complex,and discovery,and a hearing at which both parties could
argu€ their positions would be helpful to the court in any decision
rendered by this court.
Relator,during any discovery allowed, would conduct all discovery
according to ~he Texas Rules of Civil procedures,and the Rules of
this court.,Texas Rules of Civil Procedures Rules 190-198.
SO MOVED AND PRAYED THAT RELATOR'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY BE GRANTED.
 NO.

IN RE
TRACY HICKS
RELATOR

RELATOR"S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Relator, Tracy Hicks,Submits this petition for a writ of mandamus

complaining of the Honorable John E. Neill,Presiding,Judge of the
18th District court of Johnson County,Texas.,Jud~e Neill,has a duty
under the law to provide relator with a speedy trial and resoluti~nn

of these issues as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution,and Article !.,section 10 of the
Texas Constitution.
The Issues presented in this petition are complex,and would require
discovery,therefore relator request that discovery be allowed to better
I
assist the court in it's decision,and to clerify relator's contentions.

IN RE TRACY HICKS MANDAMUS 1
p • l I

~Ott. • •·• • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • •" • • • • • .. • • • • • • •.• • • • .... • • • • • • • • • • • ••·• • •PAGit1
tllble Of ·COntents ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ·••••••••••••••tAG&:, 11

lOINTITY Or PARTIES & COUNSBt••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••p&ge,l
INO~ Olf Atrl'HORI~·••,••••·•~··••••••••••••••••••••••:····•••••••••PAGE~2,3,A,B,C
·STA~. OP 'lHB CASE ••••••• • • •••.• • •• • •., •• •. • •• • ~ • ••• • • ••• • • •• •••• PAG8,4..

STA~ OF JURISDIC1'ION. •• • •• •••• ••• • ••••.• ••• • ••• ••• •• ••. • • ••• •• PAG8,5

IS$U!tS ~· • .. ~ ••••••••••• • •• • •• • •·• ••. •. • •• ••. •••. •• •• • • •• • • .pAQB,6,7
STA~ Ot.FAC'J.'S ............................. .-.................... pAQS,7,8
~· .~ ~IBS•· • • • •. • • • ••.• • • •••••••• • • •·•. • ••• •. •. • •. • •• PAGE 9-25

. . ' .

the Unit~ ~t.atea Conetitutton,to move the prosecution
f()rvard, ·ana br:i"9 the def&ndant to trial.
PR.i\YD~ •• ~ .. -: •.•• ·• ~ • .......... ~ •••••••••• • ••••••• • • •. ~ ••••••• • • • • • ••• PACIS ,25
CBR'.t'Ii'lCATS. Ci1! SIRVICi:. •......... • ..... • • •• • ••• • •••• • •• • •••• • ..........PAOEr.26

ii

··: ~ I • .:~ •
 1, ..

' l l. I

TRACY HICKS,

. . . .. . '

·Reiat~ 'certif~u that tM following ia a complete list
. ' ' . . .

of the
.
pal-ties;
. .·
the attorneY'• •and any
.··.
other person
: -· '
Who hu . . .

any interest in the outcome of this petition.

·' ·.;

. . : ·:·>. ·.:.:·

H.i. doftoiBLo UNIT
I

2661 FM 2054
Tennesaee CoJony, 1'X · 75884

(903)9,28-2211 J

REJspondent
18th Diatriet COUrt
Guinn JWJtice Center
204 s. Buffalo Ave

ClebUme Tx 760331

Q.linn Juat1ce. Center:
204 s. Buffalo AVe Ste 209

Clebume Tx 76033

:.\.<-_._

XN ItS TRACY. HI~·, PAGI 1
 :~.·

•• >
·;,"
l •·

!
o'F
0

INDEX AUTHORITIES
"

Barker v. Wingo,
~07 u.s~ 514 (l972).; ••••••••••••••••••• ~····•·••••••••Pagei9,10,ll
Cantu v State,
253 s ..'w~~ 3d 273(1'ex.Crim.App. 2008) •••••••••••••••••••• page:lO
~Pillingham v State,
·'4a3 -u.s·•. 64 (1975) ~ ••••• • ••••••• •·· •••••••• ~ ·•··• ••••••• Page, to
Bai.·ril! v State,
· 489 s.w. 2q ·303 (Tex. Crim. App .. 1973) ......... ~ •· ... • ..... Pag&,l.i

. Hull v State,
699 s.w. 2d 220 (Tex.Crbi. App. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page,9

Moreau v···faa..lx ref i
271 S.W.t_379 (Tex. l925)••••••••••••••••••••·····••••••••Page,9_ •... ··
Perkin~-~ -State,
504 s.·w·· 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) ............• •••••••• •»age,lO

Smith. v Hooey,
. ' . . .

393· u.-s. 374 (1969) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Pa:_ge,9-,ll,l2

Taylor,Bx Part,e,
522 s.w. ~d479 (Tex.Crim. App. 1975) •••••••••••••••••• Pagel0

Turner v State,
· 545 s.w. 2d 133(Te-x .. Crim.App.1976) ...................... Page9,ll,l2

u.s. v Mari~n~
404 u.s. 307 (197l) •••••••••••••••••• ~··········~··•·••Pag~,l0
Wilson v BOwman,
381 s.w. 2d 320 (Tex.1.64)•••••••••••••••••~•••••••••••Page,11

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS Page 2
l l . l- l

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
tallirts y State,
7~0 s.w. 2d 176 (Tex.Crim. App. 1986) ••••••• ~····•••••••Page,l3,14

Cro~~lin ~ State,
90 Tex ~r.R.467,235 s.W.905,906(192l) ..................... Pagel4

In R8Gonzale1J,
115 5•W•. 3d 36(Tex.App.san Antonio 200:3) •••• •. :~ •••••••• • Page,i4
· Prudenti~1:Ins,Co•Of.Am,

148 s~.w: 3d l24,135-36('l'ex •• 2004) ••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,l4
Walkez: v Paeke.r,
.. 827 s~w. 2d833,839 (Tex. l992) •••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,l4

Repu6lic:an Party .v Dietz,
940 s.w. ad 86,94(Tex~l997)••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••age,l4

Dobec~a . v . State, .
. (App.S' Dist, 2003) 2003WL 194711 ,~ ...................... Page,l6
JohnsOn v State,
629 s.w.- 2d l37('1'ex.At>P·Dallas)~................. ~ ....................... Page,l6

Lanum v State, ·.1

952 s.w. 2d 36 {Tex.erim.App. 19 ) ••••••••• •.•. • •••••••••••••••••••• Page,l4 ·

liughes v st~te, . · . . . .
~ s.w. ·24· 248,PDR.,833 s.w. 2d 137(Tex. Crim. App. 19 ) •••••••••• Page 1 16

Martinez v State,
;53 s~w. 24 804,~ ~- Qmbsd;z:ev,981 s.w.~cras 1973,631:cJ ·
le:a •.,z;.€83,~~1·
..
• ~ "•• • ••• • ·•.•·•••••••••••••••·••••
.
~ ••••. ;~ -~~~ •••• ., ...... ~ .l;lage, 16
\
!
IN RE tU' ProduCts North America, Inc, ''
. . IAlJO .
244 s.w.3d l.ii('lex• •) ••.••••• •.• ...................................... Page,l6·
-v-,
Gas s.w. 2d 47(1'ex.erim. App· 19 ) •••••••••••••••••.•• ,••••..• ••••• o ••• Pase,l6
 I 'a·
' ~ ). l

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

French v B.stelle,
692 F.2(S1021,(5th Cir. 1982)•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••Page,18,21

175 s.w. 3ds0o(Tex. App. Beaumont 200S) •••• ~ •••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••• Page 18.
Strickland v waBhington,
466 u.s •. 668,104 s.ct. 2052,2064,80 t.Ed.2d.674(198~U ................. •Pa<.;~e,l8,19,20
Mitchelle.V State,
68 s.w. 3d 640,647(1'ex. Crim•AtlP• 2002) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,l8,2l
"l',,

Bone V State,
77 s.w. Jd 8.28,833(Tex. Crim~ App. 2002) •••••••• •• •· •• • ~~ ••••••••••••• •Page~lf
FlCMtra VState,
133 s.w. 3d 853,856 (Tex. App .. Beaumont,2004 No pet,citing Hernandes v sta.t«t'
988 s.w.· 2d 770,772(Tex. Crim. App. 1999)•••••••·•~··••••••••••••••••••••Page,l9

Andrews v State,.
159 s.;;w., 2d 981,982(Tex.Crim. App. 2005) •••••••••• • •••••••••• •• •• ·••••• P~Age,19

Glorieo V S~te,
(Cr .. App. 1988)637 s.w. 2d 483 s.w. 2CI 454 .................. ~ ••••••••••• Page,l9,

Diremigo v State,
(Cr. App. 1982·)~37 s.w. 2d 926 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• llage,l9:

Smith v state,
lS8 s.w. 3d 463,465(Tex. erim. App. 200) •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,20
Bx Parte J<>rdan•
(er. App• 1994)879 s.w. 2d 6l ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Page,20
Bill V ·r.o¢ctwt,
106 S•Ct
. 366(19 ) •••:. •• ••• • • • • • •. •. • • • •• • • •. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .Page,21
.

Bullard v iatelle. ~. . .
.
·.

708 F •. 2d 1021(1980)·•• • ••• • •• •• .~ •• • • •• • • ••• •• • • • • •. • • • • • • •·••• • • • • • • • .,Pag~21~
Jackson v Virginia, .
u.s. s.ct.99,2781,443 u.s. 307,61 t.r.a.2d. 56Q,r~.a.n-looet. 19S,444,u.s.s90,
62 ·t.F.d. Jd. 126 ••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••.• _••••••••••••.•.••••••••••• •l?l!l9~. ·'21

IN RE TRACY ·SICKS-MANDAMIJS· Page 3A
 ~; -~' ··:
.. :·:'.1, .....
' .. ;.;.·:.;:.::
·...
.{~ .::,

j l------------~----·~"----------~'----------------------~------------------
___v_,695 s.w. 2d 479 (Tex. Crim. Aw• ~9. I ) ••••••• ~ ......... 4 • • • • • •· . . . . . . -P~g~

_v_,244 s.w. 3d .840 Tex.· App. 200 ) .................. • ••••••••••••••••• Page,22

:IN Re Chevron,u.s.A.,Inc c!A,l
,109 F •. 3d l016(CA.,Tex. 1997) ........... ~ •••••••••••••• ~···················Page2.2

EX Parte Fortune, ·,
797 s.w •. 2d 929 (Ter. .. Crim. App. 198 ) .................................... Pa9e·,22

Elder V State,
132 s.w. 34 ;20 .:(TeX. App.Fort Worth 2004) ••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••••• Page,2~

United States V Dixon,
509 u.$. §88,689,113 s.ct. 2849,2855,125 t. EQ. 2d 556 (1993) ........... Page,23 .

Brown V Ohio,
432 u.. s .. l61,169,97 s.ct. 2221, 53 t.Ed. 2d 187 (1977) ................... Pa9e /23,24

Parish V State,
~9 s .. w.. 2d 352,354 (TeX. Crim. App.l999) .............................. page,2l,25

Ochoa V State,.
982 s.w . 2d 9041 908 (Tex Crim. App• 1988) •••••••••••••••••••••• ., •••••• Page.~3-:24
Cunningham V St~te,
726 s.w 2d 151 ,('l'ex .. Crim. App. 1987) ............................ •. •• • • • .Pag.e; 24
A

Demoss V State,
12 s.w. 3d 533,561 (Te~ .. Aw• san Antonio,1999 pet rrafused .............. page,24
Blocllburger,
284 u.s •. at 304,. 52 s·,ct •. 180 ............................................. ·Pfl9e,:~
STA'l'OTES

Chapter 3.04(-)Tex •. Penal Code.Vernon's Ann· Tex.Code Crim.Proc.,Article 21.24
-rex. Code Crim. Pr:oc.,Article 22.011,21.11
'l'ex. COde :c;rim.Proc· ,Art.26.13(a) . .
Tex. Penal COde Ann. ·l2.42(b)(c)vernon•s .1974);
'.rex· Conat.Articles,l§lO,l§l3,1§14;Art.S§67Tex .. Gov,t Code 22.222(a)
u.s .. ConStitutional Amei1dments lst,Sth,8thl6th,l4th

PA<:;B 3B
 STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus from this .court compelling Judge John E.Neill
of the 18th District Court of Johnson County texas,to bring relator to a speedy
trial;Relator further seeks a mandamus compelling.the respondents to correct the
Abuse of discretion ,and constitutional violationscommitted at trial ,as shown
in this mandamus;Relator does not seek a writ of habeas corpus,or,any relief accorded
by a writ of habeas corpus;relator seeks an order from this court,compelling the
respondents to;(l)Accord relator a mini trial inwhich issues regarding the Abuse of
discretion committed at trial,and other Constitutional violation can be addressed,
and then,accord relator the relief as Equality and Justicedemands.See Issues 2-5'
in this writ.
Relator,has presented these issues to the Tenth Court of Appeuls ut Waco Texua;
That Court Denied relator's contention of right to speedy trial.,and misconstrued
this writ as requesting for habeas corpus relief; The relator does not seek a writ
of habeas corpus. Relator seeks an Order from this court.,Conditionally Granting
this writ of mandamus,and compelling the trial court Judqe,and state prosecutor to
addr0ss issues Two-Fiv0 of this writ application; Alternatively,Relator request that
discovery under Level Two be allowed,so that relator can better assist the court in
understanding relator's claims ••
The Respondents,Judge John E. Neill,and the State Prosecutor Dale Hanna,has a
legal duty under the laws of this state,and the Constitutional Amendments to the
United States Constitution,to perform their duties as demanded according to Law;
See Issues 2-5 of this writ.,it is clear that respondents Abused their discretion
and failed to analyze,or apply the laws and Statutes correctly on Issues 2-5 9f this
.writ. Respondents has a duty under the provisions of the 6th Amendment of the
United States Constitution as applied to the states by the 14th Amendment of the
United States,and Texas Constitution Article l§lO.,to provide relator with a
speedy trial,and a fair resolution of the issues of this writ.
Relator has no other clear,adequate remedy at law or €Quity,and it is necessary
that a writ of mandamus be conditionally Granted Ordering Respondent to dispose
of Issues 2-5 as Equality of.law demands.

IN RE TRACY. HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE ,4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This court has Jurisdiction to issue a writ of Mandamus under Texas
constitution article 5 paragraph 3.,Tex. Gov't Code §22.002(a) (b)

IN RE TRACY HICKS PAGE §
• J ·J ~

ISSUES. PRESENTED
Denial at Speec'¥ Trial

. Once a Speedy Trial has been requested, the Trial Court has a legal duty,

under the Texas Constitution and United States Constitution,to move the

prosecution forward and bring the defendant to trial.

ISSUE NUMBER TWO

The Respondent Abused it's idscretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary
and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of lawRespondent
fail to analyze or apply the Severance law to an indictment containing multiple
Non-Property offenses,Resulting in a deprivation of relator's Fundamental Con
stitutional rights;Tex .const.art 1§10,1 §13,1§14, u.s.c~.A. ,Amend, 1st ,5th,6th,l4th
WHEN IT FAIL TO FORCE THE STATE TO MAKE AN ELECTION ON WHICH CHARGE IT WAS PRO
CEEDING UPON,RESULTING IN A SENTENCE THAT IS BOTH ULTRA LICITUM AND ULTRA PETITA.

ISSUE NUMBER THREE

Respondent Abused it's discretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary and

unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law;Respondent

clearly fail to analyze or apply the law correctly when it fail to undertake
to Admonish l:'e.l.atc±Lto correct range of punishment on each charge of the indict
ment prior to accepting a plea of guilty in violation of Texas Code Criminal
Procedure Art 26.13.,Tex.Const art.l§lO,l§l3;U.s.c.A.lst,5th,l4th

ISSUE NUMBER FOUR

Respondent Abused it's discretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary and
unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law.Respondent fail
to Analyze or apply law correctly where the state used an infirm prior convict
ion for enhancement purposes.The evidence demonstrated a Predicate violation
required for sentencing l;~lator as a career or habitual offender.Tex.Penal Code
Ann.l2.42(b)Vernon's(l974);Violated Realtor's Fundamental Constitutional right
as promised by Texas Constitution,art.l§l3,1§14;U.S.Const Amend6th,14th.

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS
I I

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE NUMBER FIVE
The respondent Abused it's discretion when it reached a decision so Arbitrary
and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial error of law.,Respondent
fail to accord relator Equality and Justice under the law of this state,and the
United States;Fail to analyze and apply correct law ,and sentenced r:e.iator in
violation of the Double jeopardy Clause;Tex Const.,artl§l4;u.s. Const.Amend.Sth,
and 14th,Depriving realtor of his Fundamental Constitutional Rights.

STATEMENT ·OF FACTS

On or about,May 1993,f@1.~tPr while reporting ·to his parole officer in Tarrant
County,was arrested ana charged in a Multi-count indictment with the offense of

sexual· assault of a person; 22 .011; 21.11. , ;r@latot"was denied bond.
and was convicted by Respondent,and sentenced to a term of fortyyears at
TDCJ-ID. Thus far,no direct appeal was allowed;however,r~J?tor,imrnediately

after the guilty plea,~lp.~or wrote the respondent and requested appointment
of counsel for an appeal;and requested some form of~resolution of the indictment
and charges as written,and resolution of the other known fundarnentai- consti-
tutional violations in the trial; Reiator submitted numerous writ applications,
with supporting case law in an attempt to have these constitutional violations
corrected; Prior to triaLrelator filed between l,and 23, motions~·iFl:··particular,
a motion requesting the state to make an election upon which charge of the in-
dictment it was proceeding upon; The Respondent fail to respond to any motion;
thereby allowing the prosecutor-to convict relator on all charges of the in-
dictment.,preventing relator from knowing the actual charge inwhich he was
being on trial for. The charges are currently serving as active unadjudicated
offenses;causing prejudice to relator,and has restricted his ability to receive
any sentence at least partially concurrent with any sentence he is presently
serving;-

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS ·PAGE 7
I t I I

has caused the duration of the present imprisonment to be increased and con-
ditions under which he must serve the sentence greatly worsened beyond the
terms of any plea agreement; has prejudiced relator's opportunity for any
fair consideration for parole,and caused anxiety and concern,as well as
Oppressive incarceration. R~~ator,after trial filed with respondent numerous
times,a request to correct the hereinafter fundamental constitutional
violations as justice requires; As the Respondent has never responded to these
particular reguest,reaator recently filed a formal motion for Speedy trial.
Thereby invoking his rights under the Texas and Federal Constitutions. His
Speedy Trial motion duly filed on March 29, 2015.
Since filing .. the motion for speedy trial, the 18th District Court has done
nothing to move the prosecution of the Multi-count indictment, or attempt to
correct fundamental constitutional violations inwhich r.elator complains of;
further, over the past 22 years,despite several letters,motions,and phone
calls to the court requesting copies of the indictment,oftense or police
reports,or records or other information filed in this case,to intlude a copy
of Court's docket sheet related to the case, the court has failed to reply
in any manner;and the prosecutors office has engauged in unethical conduct
when :relator submits any motion,writ,demonstrating the fundamental consti-
tutional violations that have prejudiced 1?elator's ability to enjby any term
of the plea agreement,and creating an unfair plea bargain •

.I)..RGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE ,8
 ' .
' '

ARGUMENT· AND AUTHORITIES

This reLator has expressly invoked his right to a speedy trial under both
.the State and Federal Constitutions. The right to speedy trial is guaranteed
by the Sixth Amendment as applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. See Barker v. Wingo, 407.u.s. 514 (1972). In
addition,Article 1 §10 of the Texas constitution guarantees the accused in all
criminal prosecutions the right to a speedy public trial. Although the Texas
and Federal rights to a speedy trial are separate and distinct, the inter-
; pretation and application of the Sixth Amendment right. to speedy trial by the
Federal Courts serve as a useful guide to the interpretation of the Texas
Constitutional right to speedy trial.
In Barker v. Wingo, id.,the United States Supreme Court established a
balancing test and suggested four factors to consider in determining whether
an accused has been denied a speedy trial. The factors: (1) length of delay,
(2) reason for delay, (3) assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the . '·'··
accused. While the State has the burden of justifying the length of delay,
the defendant has the burden of proving the assertion of the right and proving
prejudice.
Importantly, it is well established that a defendant incarcerated on another
charge is entitled to the same speedy trial rights as a defendant on bail.
Smith v. Hooey,393 u.s. 374(;J-969); Ex rei Moreau v. Bond,271 s.w. 379 {1925).
As a result, the r~•s status as a prisoner can neither prejudice his
speedy trial rights or serve as justification for the delay on the part of the
State.
In the case at bar, r·ela.t:Or~~- was arrested and charged with sexual assanl t
•'
on May 1993, • More than 22 years has passed; a time more
than sufficient to require a further examination of relator's speedy right
claim. Hu11 v. State,699 s.w. 2d 220 {Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Turner v. State,
545 s.w. 2d 133 {Tex. Crim. App. 1976}.

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 9
..
'

LENGTH OF THE DELAY
There is no constitutional basis for holding that the speedy
trial right can be quantified into a specific number of days br
months, Barker v. Wingo,supra; Perkins v. State 504 s.w. 2d 458
(Tex. Crim. App. 1974),overld on other grounds; Ex Parte Taylor,
522 s.w. 2d 479 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). The right to. a speedy···
trial arises from the time the defendant is formally accused or
arrested. Dillingham v United States~423 u.s. 64(1975); United
States v Marion,404 u.s. 307(1971). "The Barker test is triggered
by a delay that is unreasonable enough to be presumptively
prejudicial. • •.• we have held a delay of four months is not
sufficient while a 17-month delay is." Cantu v State,253 s.w. 3d
273, 280-81 (Tex.Crim. App. 2008).
Here ;-ela"'tt>r:.r was charged more than 22 years ago (22).,And the
Multi-Count indictment was also filed at that time,and fundamental
constitutional violations weretcommitted by respondent,together
with an abuse of discretion in this case; considering this delay
together with r~l~tor's motion for speedy trial;consequently this
delay is more than sufficient to require a further examination of
the speedy trial claim as well as the claims of fundamental con-
stitutional violations committed in this case.
REASON FOR DELAY

As pr~viously stated this re~~tor filed his formal speedy
trial mot;foo approximately 60 days ago, he filed informal requests
(in the form of letters,motions,pho~e calls to the court) mqre
than 22 years ago.,Nbne of his request,or his motion have been acted
upon by the Court,or responded to by the prosecutor in an ethical
respectful manner.

IN RE-TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,lO
I <

Despite reJator's attempts to resolve the Multi-Count charges of the indict-
ment and Fundamental constitutional violations in this case, there is nothing
to indicate that the state has even made an attempt to secure a trial date, or
relator's appearance at a hearing. The primary burden is on the prosecution
and the courts to insure that defendants are speedily brought to trial.
Turner v. State, 504 s.w. 2d 843,845 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Both the trial
Court and prosecution are under a positive duty to prevent unreasonable delay.
Wilson v. Bowmant381 s.w. 2d 320 (Tex.l964). Here, the reJ.·ator has done nothing
to prevent or delay a trial in this case.
REAL'IDR 'S ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHTS
Relator for the past(22)twenty two years has wrote the court numerous times,
starting in 1993 immediately after trial.,it wasn't until March 29, 2015 that
he made n formal motion for speedy trial, more than 60 days ago. As the u.s.
Supreme Court stated in Barker v. Wingo,supra,"the defendant's assertion of his
speedy trial right, then, is entitled to strong evidentiary weight in determin-
ing whether the defendant is being deprived of the right. We emphasize that failure
to assert the right will make it difficult to prove that he was denied a speedy
I
trial." Barker v. Wingo,407 u.s. at 533. Again, here the ~·itor wrote letters,
and filed numerous motions,and wirt applications requesting the court resolve
the Multi-count indictment and other fundamental constitutional violations in this
case more than 22 years ago,and filed a speedy trial motion approximately 60 days
ago. Relator has clearly asserted his speedy trial rights.
PR&JUDICE .ro THE REALUDR':.
The right to speedy trial is designed to protect three general interest: (1)
to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) to minimize anxiety and concern
of the accused; and (3) to limit the possibility that the defense will be ffim-
paired. Barker v. Wingo,supra. The defendant invoking his right to speedy trial
must make some showing of prejudice resulting from the delay. Barris v State 489
s.w. 2d 303,308 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). r
The interest 9f a defendant incarcerated on another charge are entitled to the
same protections afforded the defendant who is either incarcerated or out on bail
on a pending charge. In Smith v. Hooey,supra,the United States Supreme Court noted

IN RE TRACY HICKS -MANDAMUS PAGE 11
' '

that the defendant incarcerated on another charge may (1) lose the possibility
that he might receive a sentence at least partially concurrent with the one he
I

is presently serving; (2) have the duration of the present imprisonment increased
and conditions under which he must serve the sentence greatly worsened; and
(3) suffer from the same anxiety and depression of the defendant at large,under
a pending charge. Smith v. Hooey,393 u.s. at 378 •
Whis ~iator is losing the possibility of a partially concurrent sentence with
every day that passes,where·the Multi-Count indictment operates as a detainer on
the additional charges of the indictment. In addition, the charges as filed in
the indictment, is:~ resulting in the loss of certain educational and vocational
programs; (2) he is not permitted off-unit or outside prison compound priviliges
; and (3) he is inelig·i_able for S2 trusty classification,and fair consideration
for parole possibilities because parole board members a~re\•,considering the additional
charges as unudjudicated,unresolved chargeo·against relator. Each of these limi-
tations restricts rei~tor's efforts at rehabilitation. And as the Court of Criminal
Appeals recognized "the detainer may well have prejudiced his opportunity for
clemency, pardon ••• [ o:r l parole. " Turnersupra at 139. These allegations alone
constitute a sufficient showing of prejudice, even without considering the dimm-
ing memories of all involved in the incident.
Re-lator, in particular ,further complains of the Respondents Abused its discret-
ion during trial b¥::r:eaching a d!?cision so arbitrary and unreasonable amounting
to a clear and prejudicial error of law,by failing to analyze or apply the law
of severance to the Multi-Count indictment containing Multiple Non-Property
offenses:;resulting in the deprivation of relator's fundamental constitutional
rights as guaranteed by the Texas Constitution article 1§10,1§13,1§14;U.s.,
Constitutional Amendments lst,5th,6th,and l4th,when it fail to force state to
make an election on which charge of the indictment it was proceeding upon,
resulting in a sentence that is both Ultra Liciturn,and Ultra Petita; Respondent,
has fail to correct this violation of relator's fundamental constitutional
rights,even after r~ator's mnny request in the form of letter,rnotions,and phone
calls to the court over the past ( 22·) t\lenty two years.

IN RE TRACY HICKS -MANDAMUS PAGE 12
I ' I '

Prior to triaLltelator filed.with respcindent between one(l) and (23)motions;
amoung those motions were,A motion to quash the indictment,and a motion
requesting state to elect which charge of the indictment it was proceeding on.
See respondents docket sheet,and counsels files on this case.
respondent fail to analyze and apply the law correctly. the indictment con-
tained Multiple Non-property offenses,the offense of sexual assault,Tex. Penal
CQde sec.22.0ll;and the offense of Indecency,Tex. penal Code 21-ll.,and other
charges.Texas Constitution Article 1§10 Provides iri part;"Rights of accused in
criminal prosecutions; He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause
of the accusations against him;
United States.Constitutional Amendment 6th provides in relevant part; That
the accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; 14th
Const.Amend. "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty,or property
without due process of law;Nor deny to ahy person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.·
Chapter 3.,3.04(a) Tex~s penal Code provides;Whenever two or more offenses
have been consolidated or joined for trial under section 3.02 of this code,
the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses. !
Under well established law of this state,A defendant's timely motion to force
state to elect must be granted if the state has misjoined Non-Property offenses
in a single indictment; trial court has discretion to delay state's election c
due to misjoinder of non property offenses in a single indictment,once request
ed, until submission of charge to jury; however,if trial court uncessarily
delays election and thereby prejudices defendant,trial court may be found to
'
have abused its discretion,Vernon's Ann.Tex.Code.Crim.Proc.,art21.24;If trial
court fails altogether to require state to cure misjoinder of nonproperty offenses,
whether by denying motion to quash indictment or denying mot~on to force elect-
ion,appellate court must reverse conviction-Vernon's Ann. Texas code. Crim.Proc.,
art. 21.24.,See Callins v. State 780 s.w. 2d 176 (Tex. Crim_.App. 1986).
·Relatormade a timely motion to quash.,and motion to force state to elect;
Respondent denied the rnotions,and delayed forcing the state to elect due to
misjoinder of Non-Property offenses in a single indictment.

IN RE TRACY HICKS -MANDAMUS PAGE 13
 ·.
..
Respondents total failure to srant. relator's timely motion to quash,and
m::;.:J.on for state to elect. which count it was proceeding upon,"at all". ,has dent~

violence to relator's fundamental constitutional rights; respondents·further
abused it's discretion; respondent had a duty imposed by law to force state to
elect; the law of severance,provides in part;"A defendant shall have a right
to a severance of the offenses". ,Ch. 3. ,3.04(a) Tex.Penal Code;see also Callins
Supra. Under well settled law of this state,a defendant's timely motion to
force state to elect must be granted if the state has misjoined Non-property
offenses in a single indictment.,Crosslin v State 90 Tex.Cr.R.467,235 s.w.905,
906. (1921). relator ask the court to Conditionally grant a Mandamus. The Courts
of Appeals has held; Because mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse
of discretion,or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no other
remedy by law,the relator's must demonstrate that either; (l)the trial court
could reasonable have reached only one decision concerning the resolution of
certain factual issues or.matters committed to the trial court's discretion:
or (2)the trial court fail to analyze or apply the law correctly.,In Re Gonzales
115 s.w.3d 36(Tex.App.San.Antonio 2003). Iri the case at bar ,_the trial court
could reasonably have r~ached' only one decision concerning the resolution of
the Mis-Joined Non-Property Offenses in the single indictme~t committed to
respondents discretion;the respondent fail to analyze or apply the law of
severance,at all, in this case ·as d~monstrated above,and abused it's discretion
warranting Mandamus relief.Walker v Packer 827 S.W 833,839 Tex ( ) I.d.
at 840. Moreover ,Mandamtis relief is available to correct a trial court's ·
deprivation of fundamental constitutional rights.,Republican Party v Dietz
940 S.W.2d. 86,94(Tex. 1997) Relator ask the court to conditionally grant
a mandamus compelling respondents to correct the issues regarding the Mis-
joined non property offenses of the single,-: indictment,·"'or~ -in'-tAe"'a1ternative,
exercise this courts power to reverse and remand the conviction as Equality and
Justice demands.,Callins supra.
Complaining further,relator says that respondents abused it's discretion when
it reached a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable,amounting to a clear and
prejudicial error of law affecting relator's ability to plea knowingly and intell-
igently. Respondent fail to analyze or apply the law correctly when it fail to
undertake to admonish relator to the correct range or punishment r.~t.tached to each
charge of the MultiCount indictment prior to accepting the plea of guilty:violating
Tex.Code.Crim.Proc.,art.26.13,and relator's constitutional rights asguaranteed by
Texas Constitution art.l§IO,l§l3;U.S. Const Amend.l4.

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 14
 ' .
' .

Over the past twenty two(22) past years,reiator has wrote respondent in the
form of letters,motions,writ application,and phone calls requesting resolution
of this issue as justice requires. ,Respondent has fail without cause to accord
reondent during the sentencing phase of Re:J:.ator's trial. Relator ask ti\~~
-
court to issue this Mandamus compelling the Respondent to correct the fundamental
constitutional violation that took place during trial, as :.;.. \! i_.il.nstfilce i C') demands.
Relator further ask the court to. strongly consider that Relator is being Restrainec
of his liberty by virtue of the infirm prior conviction insufficiently proven
at trial; said prior conviction expired on December 5,2001. Relator ask the court
to grant any other relief the court deems just and appropriate in this matter.
It is clear that Respondent fail to hold state to its burden of proof;that there
was no evidence submitted by state to prove up the one prior used for enhancement
purposes; Had Respondent eorrectly applied the law,and requirements of Tex. Penal
Code 12.42. (b) together with the Texas CJ'n:stiitiJtfun article l§lO,l§l3;U.S. Constitutior
Amendments Sixth 6th,Fourteenth ,and the Due Process Clause ••,Relator would have
either plead not guilty,or received a sentence within the range of third d~ree
felony. v. ,69s·s.w. 2d479;____v 244 s.w.3d 840.,( ).In re Chevron
U.S.A.,Inc.C.A. ,.l.Ci)9xF.ld'n016(C.A. (Tex)l997 ..

Relator complains further that the Respondent Abused it's discretion when it
reached a decision so Arbitrary and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudical
error of law.,Respondent fail to accord relator Equality and Justice under the law
of this state,aswell as the United States; Fail to analyze and Apply correct law,
and sentenced relator in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.'l'ex. Const.art.
l§l4;U.S. Const.Amend.Sth,and 14th.Depriving re.lator of his Fundamental Constiut-
ional Rights. As with other claims.rrelator has wrote.the Respondent numerous
times over the past 22,years,by letters,motiohs,and writ application,requesting
f~fffpti~n gf ~HlrdgppJ.e j~ggq.;-?Y ir~~K::due to the prejudicial treatment rela~or
is being subjected to; The Respondent has fai 1. to n:-::~ponc'l in r~ny mnnm~r t.o the
request,and has done nothing to move the prosecution forward to resolve this
issue. Relator was charged by Multi-count indictment containing three offenses
alleged to have taken place in a common incident.,Exhibit.•A"· :i.ncHctment#29450.
The laws of this state are clear. In Ex Parte Fortune 797 s.w.2d929(Tex.Crim.
App• (19 )>Entering plea of guilty does not preclude defendant from raising.
double jeopardy contention in application for writ of habeas corpus.,u.s.c.A.
Const.Amend.S; Double Jeopardy Prohibits state from obtaining convictions in
successive prosecutions where common incidents exist.U.S;.C.A. Const. s.,Ver:non
Ann. Tex. Const.Art 1§14;

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,22
 Where the intent of the legislature is ambiguous as to allowing individuals
to simultaniously punished for commission of multiple offenses under separate
and distinct statutes,test to be applied for double jeopardy purposes to de-
termine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision
requires proof of fact that the other does not.,u.s.c.A.,Oonst.Amend.5.
The Fifth Amendment provides in revelant part;"[Nor shall any person be subjected
to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
The Double Jeopardy Clause serves three primary purposes;
(1) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal;
(2) it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction;
(3)it protects against multiple punishments for same offense.
In the present case,the Respondent,and the state has fail to adhere to the
laws and Texas Constitution,aswell as the constitution of the United States
regarding the Double Jeopardy Clause;and has fail to correct this ~·
viulatiuiJ uf Re\l,:ator's Fundamental Constitutional Right. R~lator waB convi'cted
by single indictrnent,containing Multtple offenses a~leged to have taken place
. in a common incident. In Elder v State,l32 s.w.3d 20 (Tex.App.Fort Worth 2004)
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment protects a defendant in a
criminal proceeding against both successive punishments and successive prosecu-
tions for the same offense.United States v Dixon 509 u.s.688,689,696,113 s.c.t
2849,2855,125 L.Ed ..2d556(1993).The double jeopardy clause provides that No person
shall "be subjected for the same .offense to be twice put in .jeopardy of life
· or lint>" u.s.const.amend v.
Greater inclusive and lesser included offenses can be the same offense for
jeopardy pruposes,Bro~ v Ohio,432 U.S.l61,169,97 S.ct:. 2221,.2227,53 L.Ed.2d.l87
(1977); Parish. v State.· 869 s.w. 2d 352,354(Tex.erim.Api>.l999). Thus, where the
evidence shows that the defendant committed only one act that could be used to
prove both a greater inclusive anH lesser included offense,the defendant cannot
be convicted of both offenses. Ochoa v State 982 S.W.2d 904,908 (Tex.erim.App.
1988) Relator in the case at bar,was charged on May 1993,in a three count indictment
with having committed sexual assault in count one.,22.0ll.by Intentionally and
Knowingly causing the penetration of the sexual organ of Sandi Burton by the male
sexual organ of ~ator(then defendant) ;and Sandi Burton was a child under 17
who was not the spouse of defendantTex.Penal Code Ann.§22.0ll(c)(l)(l994,Vernon.,
(a)(l)(A)(2)(c).

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,23
 Count '1\ro·eOf the same indictment alleged that during the same incident;that
defendant;caused the mouth of defendant to contact the sexual organ of sandi
Burton ; ( 2) ( c) ;
Count Three;with intent to arouse or gratifY the sexual desire of defendant,
and sandi Burton was a child under 17 and not defendants spouse;Tex. Penal
Code Ann. §2l.ll(a) 1994(Vernon 's(2l.ll(a) (1) (2) (A) (B).
The sexual assault required proof of the following facts;
* Defendant·· Intentionally or Knowingly;
*Caused the penetration of Sandi Burtons sexual organ by defendants' sexual
organ;
· * and sandi Burton was a child under 17 and not defendant's spouse. 22.0ll(a)(l)(A)(2)(c).
The Indecency count required proof of the following facts;
* Defendant enguaged in sexual contact with sandi Burton by causing the mouth of
defendant to contact the sexu·al organ of Sandi Burton;
* with intent to arquse or gratify the sexual desire of defendant;and Sandi
Burton was a child under 17 and not defendant's spouse.Tex. Penal Code Ann.§2l.ll(a)
(1) (2) (A) (B).
Under Texas law,it is well settled that touching the female sexual organ with
the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire is a lesser includes:. species of
conduct of the intentional or knowing penetration of the female sexual organ.
Ochoa 982 s.w. 2d at 910(Kel.1Er.Jea:n::m:rirg)acx::nrd <1Jnin:ton v state 726 S.W.dj l51,155('1Bc.
~.l$7)(rd::irg that, while aggravated sexual assault statute does not require
specific intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire,the legislature has recognized
that penetration may show such intent)Therefore,the two offenses were the same
offenses for double jeopardy purposes,and the state was not entitled to seek con-
victions for both. Brawn,432 U.S.atl69,97 S.ct.at 2227;0choa982 S.W.2d at 908;
Parish,869 s.w.2d at 354.
In Demoss v State 12 S.W.3d 553,561 (Tex.App.san Antonio 1999,p:!t refi.B3j) A
pe!7$0rrxcoinmits:·aggnivateatsexual assault Of a chlrl:ld:by ~b:ati.n3 t:re ferrale sexwl
organ by any means or by penetrating the mouth of a chi 1 n. by the sexun]
organ of the actor .'l'ex.Penal Code 1\nn.§22.0ll(a)(2)(A), (B)vernon 1999.
A person commits indecency with a child b(ysexual contact if he enguages in
sexual contact with a child or exposes his anus or any part of his genitals
knowing the child is present,with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire
of any person.Tex Penal Code A~nn.§2l•ll(a)(Vernon's 1994) with regard to both-

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE,24
.
-offenses in relator's case,"Child" is defined as a person younger than 17 who
is not the spouse of the actor,i.d.Tex.Penal Code Ann.®22.0ll(c)(l)vernon's 1994)
"Sexual contact"under section 21.11 is defined as any touching of the anus,breast,
or any part of the genitals of a person with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person.Tex •. Penal Code Ann.§2l.Ol,vernon's 1994) .In the case at bar,
because the greater inclusive and lesser included offenses arose from the same
conduct, they were the same for double jeopardy purposes.,Blockburger 284 u.s.at 304,
52 s.ct.l80; Parish Supra. In absence of a clear indication that the legislature
intended to inflict multiple punishment,conviction for both offenses constituted
double jeopardy,and respondent,and state abused it's discretion when it reached
a decision so arbituary and unreasonable amounting to a clear and prejudicial
error of law,by failing to accord relator Equality and Justice under the laws of
this state,and the constitution of the United States;further respondent fail to
analyze and apply Double. Jeopardy law,and sentenced relator in violation thereof
'
Tex. Const.Art 1§14;U.S.Const.Amend,5th.,l4th
CONCLUSION
While no one factor is either a necessary of sufficient condition to the finding
of a deprivation of the speedy trial;instead,the four factors are related and
must be considered together along with other revelant circumstances demonstrating
willful violation of relator's Fundamental Constitutional rights.
However,this relator who has waited over (22)years since being charged,clearly
has shown the denial of his.rights.
I

Rell?ait.et:cis::: not requesting, at this time, the dismissal of the charges altogether (
only that the court conditionally issue a Mandamus in order to enforce relator's
constitutional rights to a speedy trial,and to compell the respondents below to
accord relator the Equality and justice he deserves on the issues presented in
this petition.;Relator request this court conditionally Grant this petition ,and
Grant relator a Mini trial in which these issues ca'i1 be addressed.
PRAYER
For all the reasons above,Relator Pray that this Court Conditionally Grant a Writ
of Mandamus,Compelling the Respondents to bring Relator to a Speedy Mini Trial
as guaranteed by the Texas Constitution,and the United States constitution;Compell
respondents to correct the abuse of discretion and violations of law and duty imposed
upon it at trial as set forth in this petition;Relator pray for any other relief this
court deem just and appropriate.

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 25
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I Certify that I have previously mailed a true and correct copy t
to the Judge,Hon. John E. Neillat his addres at Guinn Justice Center
204 s. Buffalo Ave, Cleburne Tx 76033;along with Hen. Dale Hanna,
Johnson County District Att6rney's office at Guinn Justice center
204 s. Buffalo Ave.,.Ste 209 Cl~burne Tx 76033 By placing the same
in the Mail on.the 12th day of june 2015

I Further Certify that a true copy of the foregoing petition for
writ of mandamus was mailed to the Supreme Court Clerk on this th
I& DAY of August 2015 by placing the same in the u.s.Mail
postage afixed on this the J1,..4 day of August 2015

~~OR,PRO SE

IN RE TRACY HICKS-MANDAMUS PAGE 26
 .....:•·.

(

1. Verification-'l'RAP 52.3 ( j)
2. Verification'!"()btain recorda
3. Verification-Tr:ue copies
.4. Moticn ·tor Speedy Tr'ial-Q::der Ccmplained of
s. O&:'der on ~· Trial
6. Order of Dtsm.tesal--want of prosecution
7. O.rtificate of service
a. ~rtifiea Hail ReceiPt-Proof of Delivery=#=. )o t/ ~970 ~Of!J -2. S"i;,J 0 q/6 Z .
i.Texaa. ~t of Cz:'iminal Justice's Time Sheet XnfOJ:maticn,
provi.deCJ by the Depar:baent ee Evidence Relator ~ c:cepleted
over 45 yean· ec:cumulat~ titne towards 40 year eentcmce no
good conduct t.lma is llfling awarded due_ to charge M\llti-count
!ndietment.see DoeuDmta lufttben 12,13,14.5o.l4 show all charges
an· ~ing ueec5 to prejudiee Relator's ability to ~ivo fair
Consideration ~ing parole; heui~s.
10• Doculne!lt shewing mo:r:e prejudice from Multi-count IOO!~tment
· pr.venting fair canaideration of perole.fl5
11. Doc:uiDent dated Nov 3,2014 ftom family shoving prejudice at
puoltt ~!deration fran Multi-count Indictment.tl6
12. Trail Court .Docket Sheet.
13. Indictmantt29450.
14. Statement of Fact$ St&te of hxaa v. 'lUcy licJc$ #29450
1s. J'UC59eaaent and Sentencetmso .
16. lol$.ce Offense Report( Narrative)
17 • .Relator•• ·fiiotion Requesting ~ial a~.
ALL RECORDS 12-17 ARE WITHIN ~ FIW AND ARE R£QU2S11ID AS PMf OF
!HIS MANDAMOS
I STATE Oi' 'f£XAS
COONTJ or ANDERSON
VBRIFICATION or TRACY HICICS .
This verification is made pursuant 'texas Civil Practice and Remedies CcXIe
§l32.00,and Texas Rules of Appellate Pro®du.re 52.J(j).

the facts contained in this affidavit are true ei\d. correct.
2. I'am the relator in this cause,l have read the petition
.tor writ· of mandlunus,and t.tt. facts stated ia thls petition
. . ~~~-.

are within air personal knc:Nledge,and are t&'Ue aa.ld-~~t.*

~ OSOLARA'1'%0N

.
I.Traey
.
Bicks,beinfl
.
p,.-esently inca"*ettid Ul'lder the. number TDCJ•lDf67300l •..
in the u.a. Coffield Unit of the ~ Oepartment of Criminal Justice,loca~
in .And9rs0n COUnty,Te~,Verify and Declare under ~lty of perjury the
· foregoing at.ateflienta are true,~ eottect•
&xe:cuted 4~/ J:J, c:Jt~!S '

.;'
IN U TRACY Ul~ I
I
I '

' STATE OF TEXAS
OOONTY OF ANOBRSON

An'IOAVIT OF 'l9ACY HICKS
This affidavit is made pursuant to Texas Ci vtl· Practice and
aemecUea Code,§l32.

1. "'Mf name is. Tracy Hicks,and I am capable of making this
affida\fit,and the .facta in this afti&lvit 4re true end• correct.

2• I em the ~lator in this cause. Prior to filing of~ thi&
petition for writ of ~~~ wrote the court in which this
c.ue is ~i11.9 and nq\.~Uted copies of tho 1ndict::ment or Wor-
maticn,c:ow:t trial rec:Qt't!es,along vith a cop;- of the CIOUt'te docket
she&t· All of Ill¥ requeet have been &man&wered &nd. no documents
sent tome.

I,Tracy Hicks;TOCJ-~Df67300l,bs!nw presently incarC*rated
in the a.-a .. Coffield Unit of the 'reus Depertment of cr-iminal
Justice,located L-. Anderson Ooura:.y,T~xas,vuify &ml declare
under peraalty of p«!rjur-J t;he foregoi~ ·statements are true M~Jl
conect. .
Exec\lt-': -~~ 12:, 2_,0 /5
STATE or !IXAs
cam'lY or ANDDSON

This vedtic:4t1cn of documents is made pursuant Texas Civil
Praotiee end Remedies cede il32. . .(

l•. "My r.ame is 'fra.c:y Hicks,ana l am capa.ple ot making thia
. aff14avit,a,nd the facts in this affidavit Are· trUe ana. COrJ"e<:t•
2. I • the ~lator in···tbie ClAuse. All of the dcc:tmlente included
fa!'ld nferr~ to in this t»t.i tion for: writ of ~. are t.rWt
Oc)piea~

ONSt«>RN. ~LAAA1'ION·
x Traey Rick8,tDCJ_IDt673001,being presently incarcerated 1n th4\!.
a.a. Cpffield Unit of tbo 'l'GJC~ Department of Crilhi-.1 Juatlce,
located in Anf!.G\tes Mail,Poatag• Pl"epaid,to
Dale a&nna,PrCIS\lCU,t:ing Attorney foa Johnson Count,t.'l'exas at;
David R • t'loyd f? .. 0. Box 495 Cleburne '.J:x 76033
on t.his the~C:ya ofj1~~ , ~015

'·

~U-
·~6.v;; ••.
2661 Pil 2054
'l'enn. Colony, T~ 75864-
.. :~

--~

·····\
 . DOCUMENT d3
T. D. C. J. I N S T I T U T I 0 N A L D I V I S I 0 N
DATE 09/27/12 RECORD~ OFFICE TIME 09:53:49
TDCJID: 00673001 NAME: HICKS,TRACY UNIT COFFIELD
SENT. BEGIN DATE 05/0b/1993 TDC RECEIVE DATE 07/08/1994
INMATE STATUS STATE APPROVED.TRUSTY CLASS III W LAST PCR REQUEST 09/27/1c

SENT. OF RECORD 00040 YRS 00 MOS 00 DAYS MAND SUPV PAROLE
FLAT T I lYlE SERVED 00019 YRS 04 MOS 24 DAYS 048 1- 048 1-
GOOD TIME EARNED 00015 YRS 1e1 MOS 10 DAYS 000 1- 039 1-
WORK TIME EARNED 00009 YRS 00 MOS 09 DAYS 000 1- 022 ':/.
MAND SUPV TIME CREDITS 00019 YRS 04 MOS 24· DAYS 048 ':/.
PAROLE TIME CREDITS 00044 YRS 03 MOS 13 DAYS 109 ':/.
MINIMUM EXPIRATION DTE: 05/06/2033
MAXIMUM EXPIRATION DTE: 05/06/2033
'

JAIL GOOD TIME RECD NO NUMBER OF DETAINERS 00
GOOD TIME LOST 00120 DAYS WORK TIME LOST 00000 DAYS
PAROLE STATUS BPP DATE TDC CALC DATE 10/10/1S

REQUEST
CONDUCT RECORD:
 I ' DOCUMENT# 14

NAME: HICKS,TRACY
SID NUMBLR: 02526014 TDCJ-ID NUMBER: GOG"/3001.
'TDC:,J-ID UNIT OE, r.~s~~3IGNivJt.:N'f': c:::_;r:. E'IE:.LD
HC>USTNG 1\SSIG!.-JfvJE:NT: DOEt-1 P6lB BED: 07.1

,, ··, •, i-l·i '. !,7
b\:: f:~ .!"i d(~- n i (!d :f:·;:J r·o J E-~ :( 0.1:' t: h~::· r f:;a.E3 0 r.: ( S) .l i .'3 ( O.:~Ci bt:.l O'i-Y :
()nc o!· rn.or~a conlpOn(·~rlt:S ind:i.ca~:c~d .i.n ~::-3c:h r;araqr·r:Jph J.:i.:·~ted l.Jf~:.lO\·'-' ma.y
ay:.1p . ly, but on.Ly Oi"l~:-? i~.~ ·ceq·u:\._y(::d.
? [~!. '!'HE J\EC()f_;(D IN U IC/-~'f E:S Tl·iAT 'l'Ht:, I NI'-1AT E C{)f-if·J.T ~1 TE;D CNE OJ.<. i~:JUH.i:~ 11

V.'f()'l:.. [NT CUii"11.'NAL ..'t\(.:TS TND.ICl\T.T.NC A CONSCIC>U~3 DT.~:;I{EGl\RD ('OF<. '1\HE
r.T-·JF::~, :·;f.\l~'i~~:.}·:f, on PROPEHT~x~ UF' OTHf~RS; CR 'fH.E Tt·1ST.Z.\l'lT C•_F'F~E!~-i(~~E ()!\

Tr;~-~ Tn ~:; t .i. ·:~ u t J. ·:: ~-t.-.:j j t:~_;_ ·.: .-L :.: -: :i. crl .l. -~ m".:1r·1.~. ~-- .::•1:." ycu r t.r~: . .:~ titlcnt r.> 1 ,::j n r,:c~::q C(.!S ~~
\.,..! 1
~nd wj.l} ~~port Y0UL 0rogr~~s ~0 the Board of Pardons and r~r0l.8S.

~~ h~_)U .1 ..,j yde St::::::L ..L.on ~)()~:. ~~-4-'J (b)
~-~ !:~ y T R!::: \l .T E~ Tt~'

CC: INMATE - TDCJ-ID
 I
' PDKAR008.r,_;:,,PLCO STP~TE OF TEXAS 08/22/2014
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES PAGE 1..
DOCUMENT 15

NOTICE OF P?.RCLE P:n.NEL DECISION

N.l.l.ME: HICKS, TRACY
SID NUMBER: 02526074 TDCJ-ID NUMBER: 00673001
TDCJ-ID UNIT OF ASSIGNMENT: COFFIELD
HOUSING ASSIGNMENT: DORM P62C BED: 095

SUBJECT: Decision Not to Grant Parole - NEXT REVIEW

After a review of your case, the Board of Pardons and Paroles
decision is not to grant you parole and has set your next parole review
date as 08/2016 ..
You have been denied parole for the reas~n(s) listed below:
One or more components indicated in each paragraph listed below may
apply, but bnly one is required.
lD. THE RECORD INDICATES TH?.T THE INMATE HAS REPEATEDLY COMMITTED
CRii:'IINAL EPISODES OR HAS A PATTERN OF SHULAR OFFENSES THAT
INDICATES A PREDISPOSITION TO COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS WHEN RELEASED;
OR THE RECORD INDICATES TH?.T THE INtJ'Jll.TE IS A LEP.. DER OR ACTIVE
INDICATES A JUVEN~LE OR AN ADULT ARREST OR INVESTIGATION FOR
FELONY J\ND t-1ISDEMEANOR OFFENSES.
THE RECORD INDICATES THAT THE INI:-1ATE C0t-1f'1ITTED ONE OR MORE
VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTS INDICATING A CONSCIOUS DISREGARD FOR THE
LIVES, SAFETY, OR PROPERTY OF OTHERS; OR THE INSTANT OFFENSE OR
PATTERN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAS ELEMENTS OF BRUTALITY, VIOLENCE,
01\ C0t·1SCIOUS ::a:.:LECTIOt-: OF VICTI.W S IJULNSJ:-:J\B . LLl.'l'Y :::>UC:H 'l'HA'!' 'T'HF:
INI'-ll".TE P03E:3 A CONTINUING THREAT TO PUDLIC SAFETY; OR THE RECORD
INDICATES USE OF A WEAPON.

The Institutional Division will monitor your treatment plan progress
and WlJl repnrt your progress to tne Beard of Pardons and Paroles.

Should you have any questions regarding this notice you are to
contact your Lnit Institutional Parole Office.

This Notice of the Parole Panel Action is your written detailed
statement as required by Texas Government Code SECTION 508.1411.
NEXT REVIEW
CC: INl"ATE - TDCJ- ID
 .
\
~

..
(

DOCUMENT 16

.·~

Novemb~r 3, 2014

Tracy,

My oldest daughter is 21 today. Her name is Kylie. She is in school at Texas State University in San
Marcos, below Austin. My youngest, Kyndall is a senior and has a volleyball playoff game tonight. She
has been first team all-district the past two years. My son Tyler and I went deer hunting near your home
place in Board bottom this weekend. I just wanted to share some Darrell news with you.

I was very disappointed in the results ofthe hearing. I had a long talk with Ms. Peden's paralegal, Grace
Edwards. She claims that the charges being grouped together are problematic, and possibly some other
things. Regardless, Ms. Peden is still hired to represent you. I only went on what you told me that
everyone Ms. Peden represented got out. I hope she can do the same for you, as I can only imagine how
beyond ready you are to get out. Not sure when I can make a trip to see you, but I will make a point to
on a Saturday, sometime soon I hope.

\ Friends,

Darrell
 . ( MOTION NUMBERil7
r'---.·-~r-•t:_-:..-==-..::..~:•-----------,...---------------------------------;

I
#29450
I! EX PARTE HICKS TRACY § IN THE
§ th
§
§ TEXAS ··n
··~·~-­
;;.;r-
c.n
·~::;b
';]: .._·;:t·""-'
~
s.,._
-4
ORIGINAL ~IOO TO REVIEW TRIAL/APPELLATE RECaiDS
FOR PURPOSE OF PREPARING A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
RETURNABLE TO THE TEXAS CXXJRT OF CRIMINAL .APPEALS ·

TO 'l'HE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now Comes the Petitioner Ex Parte Hicks Tracv in the above cause of action
Pursuant to and in accordance with the Rules of the Court:Tex. Crim. Proc.
I
Code § 11.07 (Vernon's Suoo.2000) and files this Oriaina1 Motion To Review
Tria1/Aooellate Records For Puroose Of preoarina A Writ Of Habeas Corous
Returnable To The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals.
Petitioner in the above case number was convicted in the above Court of
the offense of sexual assault of a person by guiltv plea on Auqust 1993: and
desires to submit a properlv filed Writ of Habeas Corpus returnable to the
Texas Court of criminal Appeals.

Pursuant to and in accordance with the Texas Public Information Act, (V .T.C.A.,
i
!I
Government Code § 552.000 et. Seq.) and Tex. Crim. Proc. Code § 11.07(Ve:rnon's
I. 2000):and the Due process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. petitioner request opP0rtunitv to review the above recorns.
In re Christensen(App. 7 Dist.2000)39 s.w. 3d. 250 •• Petitioner was entitled
to have hearina on Motion f0r·loan of trial and appellate record reaarning
aqqravated sexual assault conviction for purpose of preparina aoolication·for
writ of habeas corous. which would be returnable to Court of criminal AooeaJs.,
Vernon's Ann. Texas Code of Criminal procedure art. 11.07 (Supp.2000).

Petitioner Pray that the Court will set this matter down for a hearina:and
accord the petitioner opoortunitv to review Trial/Aooellate Records for the
Puroose of Prennrina a Writ of ~abeas Corous returnable to the Texas Court of
i Criminal Appeals. SO MOVED AND PW\n:D TW\T ROOUESTED RSLIEF BE GRANTED AND ..

I·!
i
PE'l'ITIOOER BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE CCXJRT TO REVIEW THE RECORDS IN ENTIRETY.
_qM_DAY OF OC'roBER
SIJBIIU'l'IID ON THIS THE
.
b~
2012 B'i:-
Pet1.
'
er Pro Se
I
lI
 .' .. \
...
'
--Jt·----;~:--·~··~-~ -:-·)\-- :~

TRACY HICKS
2661 FM ~2X}(5;4
Tenn. Cly,TX 75884

Oct 9 2012

District Clerk:
P.O. Box 495
Cleburne TX 76033

RE:MOTION TO REVIEW TRIAL/APPELLATE RECORDS

Dear Clerk:
Enclosed for filinq with the Court is Petitioner's motion arid
Proposed order for the Court: Upon the filinq of the motion
please Provide me a filed marked copy for my records.
Sincerely,

CD ~
-< c::::J
~

0
n
-4 j ""T1
·,-
Ul ..::1
CJI'l
>
:X ·-=-o
c:
:z
CP. -i
•','c:.,} ··<
..z:-.

i
I
I
I
I
I
 MOTION NUMBER il7
'l'RACY HICKS
2661 FM 2054
Tenn- Colony, Tx 75884

November 24, 2012

Office Of The District Clerk
Research Cow~lience ~t
Johnson County Guinn Justice center
P ..e. Box 495
Cleburne, i'X 76033

Re; case i 29450 State of t;exas V. Tracy flicks

Dear Clerk;
I r-E.:centl}' wrote ym.a.:- office regard:ing tt·ia1/<'~ppe11ate record.::: in the above case.
'l.'h<:tnk ;rou fot: your: l.:·ep.l y in reference these records. I' arn nc·~;;!ding one corq of the
indictment, and one ( 1) covr of th'= Police O:Cfen:se n2pm:t in the above ca::Je number,
~
.so that I may properly prepare and file a vrit of habeas.Areturnable to the ~xas
Court of criminal Appeals; I am not certa:l.n of how many pa.ges these documents l'lla.Y
be; would you please tell me the cost of these requested documents? I'm assuming
that these documents consist of only 2-3 pages,and therefore in the alterna.ti.ve I
will try and send your office a $3;00 Money order to cover cost of these records.

Thank You for your assistance in this rr~tter

·Sincerely,
 '
':' ·' ' 4... '
, -\ •' -.r ilJ

-" SBRYIC£