83,@110§~0“
May 7, 2015 '
clerk ' RECE\VED \N
Court of Cr`iminal Appeals QQURT OFCRMINAL APPEALS
§§;§`izxrr;:;(s)g 787.11 v ' n MAY 18 2§§1"
RE: Reply To Order. . . . . Abei mgtayclew
vCause No: W06-65117-I§A}
Dear Clerk,` ,
Enclosed, please find the original copy of the Reply To Order Finding
No Controverted, Previously Un resolved Factual Issues Requiring A Hearing.
Please file and bring to the attention of the court to be considered `
in the writ application currently pending before this court.
Respectfully,
C\¢\r‘\'§ 'Ha v\ L‘\`Smd<,‘
Christian Lisangiv "
#01532263
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa Park,`Texas
76367
Copy Mailed To:
District Clerk
Frank Crowley Courts Building
133 N. Riverfront, LB 12
Dallas, Texas 75207-4300
Cause No. W06-65117-I(A)
IN THE COURT OF'CRIMINPL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
EX PARTE , d § COURT'OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.
CHRISTIAN LISANGTE § AUSTIN, TEXAS
REPLY TO ORDER FINDING NO CONTROVERTED, PREVIOUSLY UNRESGLVED
EACTUKL ISSUES REQUIRING A HEARING.
Petitioner now files this Reply in regards to the Judge of Said Court
abusing his discretion, in denying the Petitioner's writ of habeas corpusv
without holding a hearing on the merits of the grounds raised. The-Petitioner'
established in his writ application that there were controverted, unresolved
facts in which required the trial court to hold a hearing.
The Petitioner's alleged charge in which the trial court claimed to
have used to convict the Petitioner was dropped, throughby the Dallas
County District Attorney dismissing the case. .
This Court must remand this application back to the Court of Number
Two in Dallas Count, Texas for a hearing on_each ground raised.
Further, the Petitioner requested the Court to Order the STATE OF
TEXAS, throughby it's representative to produce a certified copy of
the certification from the State of Texas Supreme Court providing proof
that the Penal Code 29,03 has been certified as being Constitutional.lt
appears in the record that the trial court ignored that ground{ in which
a statue can be challenged at any time. lt the charge's penal code has
not been certified as being constitutional,_the court has not choice
but to dismiss the casei The State of Texas has a Code of Criminal Procedure,
but not one criminal law. There is no Criminal Code and not one criminal
law in Texas, therefore, the charge is unauthorized, unlawful and unconstitu-
ional. Further, under the alleged Texas law, no act or omission is a
crime unless made so by statute. Dawson v. Vance, 329 F. Supp. 1320,
(D.A. Tex. 1971). If there is no law, then there is no remedy at law,
The law is the head of the case. There must be.an injuried party for
a crime to exist. In this case. there is no injuried party.
1 of 2
The STATE also argues that the grounds should have been raised at
the appeal level. No law was ever produced stating that the Petitioner
can not raise the grounds that were raised. The State's Representative
was only using statues, in which the Petitioner is contesting those
statues to be unconstitutional. ` `
The Trial Court ignored the petitioner's reply and made a ruling without
holding a hearing on the merits and bench warranting the Petitioner
back to the court for further proceedings.
It is for the reasons above the Petitioner requests this anorable
Court to remand this case for a hearing in Dallas County, Texas.
Executed on the lth day of y@y, 2015. /
Respectfully Submitted
Christian Lisangi
#01532263
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa Park, Texas 76367 _
CERTIFICATE OF‘SERVICE*
I, Christian Lisangi, do certify that the original copy of this Reply
to the Court's order .... was forwarded-to the Court of Criminal Appeals,
P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas, postage prepaid by U.S. Mail on this
the _;73;_1; day of _;~_@y,__ 2015. `
_Q_v:_\:,\;s»i_"@_u_i~_zls_o\-w_ it
__--
Copy,Mailed To: Christian Lisangi
District Clerk
Frank Crowley Courts Building
133 N. Riverfront; LB;12
Dallas, Texas 75207-4300
2 of 2