£2,^7-03,02,01
March 13, 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
Court of Criminal Appeals
Supreme Court Building
P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
Re: Motion For Rehearing COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Ex parte Hansley
WR-82,887-03 19 2015
Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed for filing the origirtaY—aiTci" one un
bound copy of my pro se MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM
THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION'FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Please indicate the date of filing on the enclosed copy
of this cover letter and return the same to me in the postage
paid envelope provided for your use.
Respectfully,
^IocKojJ O^Jk,
Michael S. isley
Hansley (/
Clements Unit - 1815497
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
cc.
file
encls.
March 13, 2015
Abel Acosts, Clerk
Court of Criminal Appeals
Supreme Court Building
P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station
Austin, TX 78711
Re: Motion For Rehearing
Ex parte Hansley
WR-82,887-03
Dear Clerk:
Please find enclosed for filing the original and one un
bound copy of my pro se MOTION FOR REHEARING/REINSTATEMENT FROM
THE DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
Please indicate the date of filing on the enclosed copy
of this cover letter and return the same to me in the postage
paid envelope provided for your use.
Respectfully,
Michael S. Hansley
Clements Unit - 1815497
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
cc.
file
encls.
NO: WR-82,887-03
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
MICHAEL SHAYNE HANSLEY,
Petitioner,
v. ^OTIOfI DENIED
v^ I THE STATE OF TEXAS,
) \
Respondent.
MOTION FOR KEHEARIMG/REINSTATEMEHT FROM THE
DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPOS
Petitioner/Applicant, Michael Shayne Hansley, submits this
motion for rehearing/reinstatement asking the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals to reconsider its dismissal of the pro se
application for writ of habeas corpus and with respect thereto,
will show the following:
A. INTRODUCTION
1.. Applicant filed his pro se application for writ of
habeas corpus seeking relief from the judgment in the 212Th
Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas in cause
numbers ll-CR-1177, ll-CR-1178, and ll-CR-1179.
2. On February 10, 2015, the trial court entered an order
with a general denial of all relief sought and the same was
Page 1,
forwarded to this court on or about the 13th day of February,
2015.
3. On March 4, 2015 this Court dismissed without written
order the application for writ of habeas corpus for a rule 73.1
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure procedural violation for
exceeding the 50-page limit of a non-computer generated memorandum
of law in support of the application.
B. ARGUMENT £ AUTHORITIES
4. The Court of Criminal Appeals should grant a rehearing
and reinstate the application for writ of habeas corpus for
an adequate review of the unconstitutional claims presented
therein.
5. Dismissal of the application for writ of habeas corpus
for non-compliance with rule 73.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure (TRAP) is not the appropriate method in accordance
with handling a pro se application when the trial court refused
to rule on the pro se filed Motion To Exceed the Page Limit
as indicated by the transcript presented to this Court.. The
Applicant cannot force the trial court to rule on filed motions
before it. The trial court does not have the discretion to
refuse to rule. In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.-
El paso 2006, orig. proceeding.).
6. Applicant complied with all requirements by filing
the appropriate motions with the convicting court. Rule 73.1(d).
The trial court refused to rule and prevented Applicant from
correcting the page limit requirement prior to the clerk filing
the same with this Court.
Page 2.
7. In the two filed Motions requesting to exceed the
page limits (See trnscript pgs.. 386, 393) and established "good
cause" to exceed the page limit. However, the court refused
to rule on any filings. Id. Shredder. -
8. A total miscarriage of justice is established in the
unconstitutional conviction of applicant which is clearly pre
sented in the application. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722
(1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986). The trial court
has refused to correct a clear error, of law and process and
the same has been presented to this Court of which Applicant
is respectfully requesting to be reinstated and ruling on the
merits be given.
C. PRAYER.
9. Wherefore, for these reasons stated in this motion,
Applicant respectfully asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to
grant this motion and reinstate the Application for writ of
habeas corpus and issue a ruling on the merits.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael S. Hansley,
Clements Unit-18154^7
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
Pro se
March 13, 2015
Page 3.
VERIFICATION
My name is Michael S. Hansley and I have read the above
motion for rehearing/reinstatement. -Pursuant to Rule 79 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.the court has not denied
the Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus under 79.2(d) and
a rehearing is appropriate. All stated facts therein are true
and correct and this motion is filed within the 15-day alowance
for filing by placing the same in the Bill Clements Unit prison
mail system on this 13th day of March 2015.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service was accomplished by placing a true and exact copy
of this instrument in the Bill Clements unit prison mail system,
postage paid on this.13th day of March, 2015, addressed to:
Rebecca Klaren
Assistant District' Attorney
600 59th Street, Suite"1001
Galveston, TX 77551
emu ouk,,
Michael Shayne Hansley
Clements Unit-1815497
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
Pro se
Page 4.
NO: WR-82,887-03
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS
MICHAEL SHAYNE HANSLEY/
Petitioner,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Respondent.
MOTION FOR REHEAHIKG/REINSTATEMEST FROM THE
DISMISSAL OF APPLICATION FOR SfRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner/Applicant, Michael Shayne Hansley, submits this
motion for rehearing/reinstatement asking the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals to reconsider its dismissal of the pro se
application for writ of habeas corpus and with respeefct thereto,
will show the following:
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Applicant filed his pro se application for writ of
habeas corpus seeking relief from the judgment"in the 212Th
Judicial District Comit of Galveston County, Texas in cause
numbers ll-CR-1177, ll-CR-1178, and ll-CR-1179.
2. On February 10, 2015, the trial court•entered an order
with a general denial of all relief sought and the same was
Page 1.
forwarded to this court on or about the 13th day of February,
2015.
3. On March 4, 2015 this Court dismissed without written
order the application for writ of habeas corpus for a rule 73.1
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure procedural violation for
exceeding the 50-page limit of a non-computer generated memorandum
of lav/ in support of the application.
B. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
4= The Court of Criminal Appeals should grant a rehearing
and reinstate the application for writ of habeas corpus for
an adequate review of the unconstitutional claims presented
therein.
5. Dismissal of the application for writ of habeas corpus
for non-compliance with rule 73.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure (TRAP) is not the appropriate method in accordance
with handling a pro se application when the trial court refused
to rule on the pro se filed Motion To Exceed the Page Limit
as indicated by the transcript presented to this Court.. The
Applicant cannot force the trial court to rule on fi&ld motions
before it. The trial court does not have the discretion to
refuse to rule. In re Shredder Co., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex.App.-
El paso 2006, orig. proceeding.).
6. Applicant complied with all requirements by filing
the appropriate motions witht&ie convict .ing court. Rule 73.1(d).
The trial court refused to rule and prevented Applicant from
correcting the page limit requirement prior to the clerk filing
the same with this Court.
Page 2.
7. In the two filed Motions requesting to exceed the
page limits (See trnscript pgs. 386, 393) and established "good
cause" to exceed the page limit.. However, the court refused
to rule on any filings. Id. Shredder.
8. A total miscarriage of justice is established in the
unconstitutional conviction of applicant which is clearly pre
sented in the application. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722
(1991); Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986). The trial court
has refused to correct . a clear error of law and process and
the same has been presented to this Court of which Applicant
is respectfully requesting to be reinstated and ruling on the
merits be given.
C PRAYER.
9. Wherefore, for these reasons stated in this motion,
Applicant respectfully asks the Court of Criminal Appeals to
grant this motion and reinstate the Application for writ of
habeas corpus and issue a ruling on the merits.
Respectfully submitted,
Michaii S. Hansley,
Clements Unit-1815497
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, TX 79107-9606
Pro se
March 13, 2015
Page 3.
VERIFICATION
My name is Michael S. Hansley and I have read the above
motion for rehearing/reinstatement. Pursuant to Rule 79 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure the court has not denied
the Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus under 79.2(d) and
a rehearing is appropriate. All stated facts therein are true
and correct and this motion is filed within the 15-day alowance
for filing by placing the same in the Bill Clements Unit prison
mail system on this 13th day of March 2015.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Service was accomplished by placing a true and exact copy
of this instrument in the Bill Clements unit prison mail system,
postage paid on this 13th day of March, 2015, addressed to:
Rebecca Klaren
Assistant District Attorney
600 59th Street, Suite 1001
Galveston, TX 77551
Michael Shayne Hansley
Clements Unit-rl815497
9601 Spur 591
Arnarillo, TX 79107-9606
Pro se
Page 4.
Hansley, Michael Shayne
Combined Opinion