' l'
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE CLERK
APRIL 1 I 2015
HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS, ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
RE: KEITH L. CARTER V. DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK
TRL.- CT. NO. F-0242680-RV
Dear Ms. Pearson:
Enclosed for filing is Relator's "WRIT OF MANDAMUS" accordinqly.
Please qive notice upon receipt.
Thank you respectfully for your assistance.
RECEIVED IN
Sincerely, COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
APR 13 2015
Keith L. Carter
Relator - Applicant
KLC/trh
cc: file;
c '
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
NO. WR-64,532-03
KEITH L. CARTER, RELATOR
v.
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, RESPONDENT
ON APPLICATION .FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
CAUSE NO. F-0242680-RV
IN THE 292nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
FROM DALLAS COUNTY
ORDER
Relator filed a previous mandamus pursuant. to the jurisdiction of this Court.
In it he contends that he filed an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
in the 292nd judicial district Court of Dallas County, Texas.
In an attempt to proceed under jurisdictional procedure where such Writ of
Habeas Corpus is ordered by the convicting Trial Court to the Clerk of the
District Court to send such Application of Writ of Habeas CorP.us to this
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Under leqal analysis perspective additional facts have been provided throuqh
due dilisence that all records, except the ori~inal Writ of Habeas Corpus,
nor a copy of the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been sent in compliance and order
by the Trial Court or mandamus order by the Court of Criminal Appeals of.
Texas under the supra number WR-64,532-03 whereeridence shows no Application
for Writ of Habeas Corpus was with the records sent by the Clerk of Dallas
county, Texas.
Further the continuation of such delay of Habeas proceedinq process is viol-
aitve under State and Federal Constitutional Law when the State's hi$hest
Court can not proceed accordinsly due to District Clerk failure to obey such
order at his or her discretion after (McCree v. Hampton) have expired and
no Application of Writ of Habeas Corpus have not been provided accordinqly.
KLC/trh
cc: file;
Carter, Keith Leanell
Combined Opinion