\.J
J~gz+-11
Mr.Charles Clay Wilson
T•D.C.J.-CID#521150
John M.Wynne Unit
810 FM 2821
Huntsville,Texas 77349
In the office of RECEIVED IN
Abel Acosta, Clerk COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
· some
This document contams rty SEP 30 2015
For The court of Criminal Appeals aoes that are of P?or qua '
P ...
P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station 0 f · agmg
at the time 'm . Abet Acosta, Clerk
Austin, Texas 78711
RE: Relator's Motion for leave to file for a Writ of Mandamus and Relator's
Application for a Writ of Mandamus.
To the Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk,
Please be advised that I'm the above relator in this action.
I'm a indigent offender incarcerated at the T.D.C.J.-CID John M.Wynne Unit
Prison. I'm only able to send the original copy of the above mot&on for
leave to file for a Writ of Mandamus and relator's application for a Writ
of Mandamus to be filed and brought to the Honorable Justices or Judges att-
ention for their disposition and hearing concerning the state Prosecutor and
the trial court lacked jurisdiction tb try or to hear this ease.in T/C NO.
#02F0236-102: and Appeal N0.06-03-00172-CR was void and the opinion, judge-
ment. Mandate,must be recalled and dismissed for lack ofni11ri~diction in
absent of a criminal accusation does not exist and the state prosecutor and
the grand jury conspired to violate the relator's due process right and due
course of law right. To illegally vote to indict relator without a criminal
accusation complaint.
Relator request this Honorable Court to issue a order directing Abel Acosta,
Clerk to make the required 11 copies of the above Relator's indigent motion
for leave to file for a Writ of Mandamus and relator's applica~ion for a
Writ of Mandamus since T.D.C.J.-CID indigent officials will not supply rel-
ator with the proper amount of typing paper to make the required 11 copies
of this action, Therefore I'm requesting this Honorable Court to aid relator
in this action due to his inablity to meet the required 11 copies for this
Honorable Court use's and to send a additional copy to the State Attorney.
Than"K You for your time in this matter of Great Consideration and this
matter to me.
~ctfull v Submitted by,
-~c£ tA)~
Cla~ilson
C arl.E;; TDCJ-CID#521150
John M. Wynne Unit
810 FM 2821
Huntsville,Texas 77349
--
IN THE
- -- .
COURT OF CRIMINAL
- -
APPEALS
- .....
AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN RE: CHARLES CLAY WILSON § APPEALS CAUSE NO.
RELATOR 06-03-00172-CRS
v. ON APPEAL FROM
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THE 102nd JUDICIAL
6th. Supreme Judical District § DISTRICT COURT OF
OF TEXAS BOWIE COUNTY,TEXAS
TEXARKANA,TEXAS,RESPONDANT § T/C N0.#02F0236-102
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THERHONORABLE JURISTS OF SAID COURT:
Comes now CHARLES CLAY WILSON, Relator, P~m-se without the aid of counsel.
And for good reason files this motion for leave td file petition for a Writ
of Mandamus. ,Therein complaining of The Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Supreme Judicial District of Texas, by it's failure to perform its minis-
terial duties in the manner required under The APPlicable
-- ' Law and Fact, by
viewing the relevant evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict of
it's review of factual sufficiency of the essential of the offense to affirm
the judgement of the trial court. Respectfully, in support, the following
matters are submitted:
I.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
(1). It appears from the trial court records in cause N0.#02F0236-102. The
State of Texas District Attorriey or his Assistant Dis~rict Aftorney's inte-
ntionally and knowingly return a void indictment without filing a criminal
complaint theres no critable person who sworn out no criminal accusation comf.'~: :; ;
plaint.
The State and the Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to illegally sworn inaa
jury to try and convict and hear the illegal cause #02F0236-102 which vio-
lates the relator u.s. Constitution Rights to Due Process and also to vio-
3
lates his rights under Texas Constitution of Due Course of Law.
The State District Attorney can not proceed to prosecute an information or
indictment in cause #02F0236-102 Alony, A criminal complaint must be embr-
aced in the transcript on appeal in cause#06-03-00172-CR.
See Corr-pos v. State, 141 SW2d 344,139 Tex.Crim.411; Ho v. State, 856 SW2d
495, rehearing denied; Naff v. State, 946 SW2d 529 rehearing overruled;
~ . ~:l .. !<~ ... ~.
State V- Bishope, 921 SW2d 765; Ramon v. State, 159 SW3d 927, 930=32(Tex.
Crim.App.2004); House v. State, 947 SW2d 251-53(Tex.Crim.App.l997); Brown
v. State, 921 SW2d 227,229-30(Tex.Crim.App.l991); See Humphfey v. State,
99 SW2d 600 131Tex.Crim.383; Peterson v. State, 732 SW2d 22 PDR Dismissed
781 SW2d 933.
II.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
ILLEGALLY TRIED AND APPEALED
Relator was indicted incause #02F0236-102 and was tried by a jury found
relator Charles Clay Wilson guilty of the offense of Aggravated Assault the
102nd District Court of Bowie County,Texas in cause NO. 02F0236-102 styled
the State of Texas v. Charles Clay Wilson, 134 Sw3d 104(Tex.~pp.Texarkana
2004).(N0.06-03-00172-CR). The judgement was affirmed on appeal. Wilson's
State, 1215_:-04 P~lator Wilson's first state writ application was filed on
March 10,2005 and was dismissed or denied on June 22,2005.
Relator Wilson's second state writ application was filed on July 14,2005
and was dismissed inder the state subsequent writ sta~ute on January 4,2006~
III.
STATE COURT RECORDSo/
The state's available Wilson's the relator state court records have prev-
iously been forwarded to this court.
IV.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A illegal enpaneled pitty jury• who lacked jurisdiction to hear or to try
Lf
the relator due to the State of Texas Bowie county District Attornev or his
Assistant District Attorney return a void indictment without a criminal
accusation complaint being filed by a critable person does not exist in
none of the state court records. The state is prohibited by the state legi-
slature precluded a state prosecutor from presenting an informatio~ "Until
affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defendant with
the offense." The affidavit shall be filed with the information;Article
21.22 Supra. Such an affidavit is of course a complaint within the meaning
of Article 15.04 V.A.C.C.P."In other words a prosecuting attorney is not
authorized to institute prosecutions in the coun~y court ubon his act or
of his own volition". Kennedy v. State,Supra,at 294,161 Tex.Crim.303,276
SW2d 291(1955).
One may not be "Both the accuser and the prosecutor is misdemeanor cases."
Wells v. State, 516 SW2d 663,at664(Tex.Crim.App.1974);Compare Glass v.
State, 162 Tex.Crim. 598, 288 SW2d 522(1956); catchings v. State, 162Tex.
Crim.342 SW2d 233,at234(1955).
If the indictment is to be considered the charging instrument, where is the
jurat??
The indictment is merely a presentment by the grand jury consequent to a
verified criminal accusation. So whose affirmation is verified on that pri-
mary accusation?
"State of Texas v. Carroll Pierce 109 125(91).1991.Tex.41404; 816 SW2d 824.
See also chapter 16 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, surely this practice
of indictment without criminal accusation can not be based on past practice
of some assumption of implied power. The State violated the following
authorties Mallory v. u.s. 77 s.ct.1356, 354 u.S.449(u.s. 06/24/1957);
See H.R.Thomas v. State,l 29 Tex.Crim.628 at 632; 91 SW2d 716;1935 Tex.Crim.
App.557. The State District Attorney violates the following Art's 2.03,2.04
2.05 Texas Code of Criminal Procedures. See also Chapter 16 T.C.C.P. See
5
also Art. 16.17c.c.p. See also 20.19,21.20, 21.22, 27.01, 15.04 of[V.A.C.C.P]
With no proper criminal accusation in the court record, There is no accused
and the court is without jurisdiction over relator.See William T.Gholson
the court held:
"Therefore it is the complaint alone and not any other affidavit given in
support of arrest or search warrants, which determines the validity of the
information. Holland v. State, 623 SW2d 65l(Tex.Crim.App.l98l).William T.
Gholson v. State of Texas(06/23/83).TX.41167; 667 SW2d 16; See also J.W.
Winans v. State, 135 Tex.Crim.l02; 117 SWQd 81:1938 Tex.Crim.App.584; see
also Clivares v. State, 765 SW2d 140. The judgement is reversed and the pro-
secution ordered dismissed.
No complaint appearing as a predicate for the indictment in cause 02F0236-
102 it will be necessary for this court to reverses and direct the'dismissal
of the prosecution. Article 415 Vol.l Vernon's Ann.Tex.CCC~P. See Olivares
v. State, 127 Tex.Crim.316; 76 SW2d 140; 1934 Tex.Crim.App.Lexis 42. This
practice pfoalto~tng ~•1grand jury to act without a criminal complaint,then
allowing prosecutors to innore the clear requirement of Art's 2.03, 2.04,
2.05 Tex.c.c.P. however long it may havebeen practice is simply not in com-
pliance with statutory stipulations.See also 13 AM Jru proof of fact 3d, 21
See Monell v. Dept. of Social Services(l978) 436 u.s. 658 and Soell v.
McDanial(l989 CAt nc) 824 F2d 1380).See also Const.,Tex.Code of Crim.Pro.
by Art.l sec.9; J.M Thornberry v. State, 3 Tex.ct.App.36 1877 Tex.Crim.App.
202(emphasis added).
~e iftdictment cannot be the sole sourse of jurisdiction as the Grand Jury
is instructed to vote on a criminal accusation. The prosecutor willaa~gue
that the Grand Jury is specifically give the power and the duty to invest-·
igate into matters. See Art.20.09 T.c.c •. P. See also chapter 16 c.c.P. the . ;
District attorney is forbidden to swear out a criminal complaint. See also
Art.21.22 presentment entered record see in Peter B. Peterson v. State,Texas
(12/20/84) 1989 Tex.41854:781 SW2d 1933, See Art's 27.0l,and 21.20 v.c.c.P.
See also Kennedy v. State, 16l,Tex.Crim.303,276 SW2d 291{1955).
v.
JURISDICTION
{1). This Honorable court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject
matter under the authority of Article v. section 5 and 6 of the Texas Con-
stitution [V.T.C.A. TEX.Const.] See Section 22.221 of the Texas Government
Code uV.T.C.A. Gov•t Code]. And Article 44.25 of the Code of Criminal Pro-
cedure;:·f•V. A. c. c. P. ] .
VI.
GOOD FAITH BELIEF
0
(1). Leave for therflling of the ~etition for a Writ of Mandamus is not sou-
ght to burden this Honorable Court. Or respondent. But to see justice served.
It is the good faith belief of relator that by reviewing or viewing all the
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict the court of appeal did
not preform its ministerial duties required by the relevant law of facts.
In consideration had the appeal court used the proper standard· of review
required to determine the factual sufficiency of evidence that was used in
establishing the elements and viewed the relevant evidence in a neutral
light it would have found that the state did not prove that relator was
responsible for perpetruting the Aggravated Assault and the verdict to be
so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence to be clearly wrong
and manifestly unjust.
Relator futher cliam that the state district attorney failed to file a crim-
inal complaint it does not exist and the relator illegally restraint since
no person has made a criminal accusation against relator which is necessary
to render the state's jurisdiction.
Relator has been made to answer an infamous crime which no one has accused
relator of committing. Therefore the state of Texas is restricting relator
at his liberty without authority or jurisdiction. Where prosecution for theft
7
proceeded in the county court on an information and no complaint was emb-
raced in the transcript on appeal, That court was without proper jurisdi-
ction in the absence of a complaint. See Compos v. State, 141 SW2d 344,
139 Tex.Crim.411: Ho v. State, 856 SW2d 495 rehearing denied: Naff v. St~te
945
946 SW2d 529 rehearing overruled: State v. Bishppe 921 SW2d 765: Gholson
v. State, 667 SW2d 168 P.D.R. refused: V.A.C.C.P. Art's 15.04, 21.22 Bal-
dauf v. State, 456 SW2d 136,Prosecution cannot proceed upon an information
or indictment along. Hum~hfey v. State, 732 SW2d 22 P.D.R. Dismissed.
VII.
RIGHT TO RELIEF SOUGHT
{1). Relator has no adequate remedy at law, but does have a clear undis-.
putable legal right to relief sought under the relevant law of facts and
the act sought to be compelled is ministerial and constitutional and jur-
isdictional.
~e respondant th~ ~~ate of Texas District attorney ret~rn a void and illegal
Grand Jury Indictment without a complaint being filed the State's Dist-
rict Attorney abused his power of office to indict relator violates Art's
2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 15.04. 21.22, 27.01, 20.19, See in RE Guerra 235 SW3d at
432-439 note 17, See also235 SW2d 432-444~445.See Kennedy v. State, 276
SW2d 291 161 Tex.Crim.303; Peterson v. State, 781 SW2d 993.
The State District Attorney is prohibited by law to be both fhe accuser and
the prosecutor See also Wells v. State, 516 SW2d 663-664{Tex.Crim.App.l974)
Glass v~ State, 162nTex.Crim.598 288 SW2d 522(1956) Catchings v. State,l62
Tex.Crim.342, 285 SW2d 233 at 334{1955).
The State District Attorney and the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to hear
or try relator upon a illegal indictment in cause #02F0236-102 was returned
by the State without a complaint violated relator due process right's.
VIII.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
{1) wQerefore premises considered, relator respectfully asks this Honorable
b
'court to grant leave for filing of the petition for a writ of mandamus. This
providing him with a means to have this wrongful matter complained of rec-
tified in the matter prescribed under law.
Grant the relief deemed just and proper.
Relator seeks a new opinion and judgement mandated in cause #06-03-00172-CR
be issued and a dismissal of this action be reversed and dismissed with
prejudice.
(2) So move and pray for that in all things this motion be granted.
Respectfully ~u~mitt~ ·h
@p.~a_~--~-
Charles Clay Wilson#521150
John M Wynne Unit
810 FM 2821
HDnsville, Texas 77349
Relator Pro-se
7
GNSWORN DECLARATION
Pursuant to the provision of title 6.Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code
Chapter 132~ 132.001 et.seq, the following declaration is made under the
penalty of perjury:
I Charles Clay Wilson Relator TDCJ-CID#521150 being presently confined in
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division
at the John M. Wynne Unit located at 810 FM 2821 Huntsville,Texas 77349 by
my signature below hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the allegat-
ion made ~n the motion for leave to file petition for writ of mandamus to the ~E
r:.:~ ~;..
be~t of my knowledge are true and correct.
Executed on this the~ day of Se1:e£Qke.£__, 2015 A. D.
Charles Clay Wilson,Relator,Pro-se
CERIFICATE OF SERVICE
ft~harles Clay Wilson,Relator,TDCJ-CID#521150 by my signature below cert-
ify that the original copy of the motion for leave to file petition for
Writ of Mandamus were sent on the date below to the clerk of the court of
criminal appeals for Texas by United States mail.
Relator is totally indigent and can only afford the one original copy is
all that I could afford to draft up. If the court requires eleven copies
then relator respectfully request this Honorable Court be ordered to make
the additional copies that this Homorable Court requires since relator can
not afford to make the additional copies due to TDCJ-CID Indigent official
have a limit on writing paper to twenty-five sheets at a time and one ink
pen as needed. Five carbon papers with exchain. Relator respectfully req-
uest this court to make the additional ten copies to total to the eleven
copies as required by law. Thank You.
Signed by~~-{ A)~
Charles Cl~Wilson
Relator~Pro-se
Executed on this__~dl~~~·- day 2015.
•. I
\1\
·-
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
IN RE: CHARLES CLAY WILSON ~ Appeal Cause No.
Relator § #06-03-00172- CR
v.
§ ON APPEAL FROM THE
THE COURT OF APPEALS 102nd Judicial
FOR THE SIXTH SUPREME § District Court of
Judicial District of Texas Bowie County, Texas
§ T/C N0.#02F0236-102
Texarkana,Texas,Respondant
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Comes now Charles Clay Wilson,Relator, Pro-se without aid of counsel.And
for good reason files this petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking relief
from the court of appeal for the Sixth Supreme Judicial District of Texas
~pmmitted reversal error by not dismissing the case because the criminal
complaint must be embraced in the transcript on appeal Compos v. State,l41
SW2d 344,139 Tex.Crim.411; Humphreys v. State,99 SW2d 600;peterson v.State,
732 SW2d 22,PDR Dismissed 781 SW2d 933.
This honorable court lacked jurisdiction to affirm relator's appeal when
it ap~ear that the State of Texas District Attorney and the trial court
102nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County,Texas lacked jurisdiction
to try or hear this case since the State District Attorney illegally indi-
cted relator without a criminal complaint being filed by a credible person
does not exist in none of the trial court records. And the Texas ·state
legislature precluded a state Prosecutor from presenting an information ''U0til
".Until affidavit has been made by some credible person charging the defend-
ant with an offense". The affidavit shall be filed with the informat.ion.
Article 21.22 Supra. Such an article affidavit is of course a complaint
withiri the meaning of article 15.04 V.A.C.C.P.
J
In other words, a prosecuting attorney is not authorized to institute pro-
secutions in the county court or dis~rict ccurts upon his independent act
or of his o~n voilition. Kennedy v. State, SUPRA,at 294,161 Tex.Crim.303,
276 SW2d 291(1955). One may not be "Both the accuser and the prosecutor in
misdemeanc,r or fe:c:r. ys cases". Wells v. State, 516 SW2d 663, at 664['Ie>:. Crim.
App.l974]Compare Glass v. State, 162 Tex.Crim.598,288SW2d 522 (1956};Catch-
ing v. St~te, 162 Tex.Crim. 342 SW2d 233,at 234(1955). If the indictment is
t.o be considered the charging in~.trument, where is the jurat?
The indictmer.t is merely a p1