CAUSE NO.C-3-010482-1247332-A
IN THE Ca.JRT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
BOBBY HUCKABY,Re1ator
v.
THE HCNORABLE BRIAN WILLET ,THH.'TARRANT
COUNTY,DISTRICT CLERK,THOMAS J.WILDER,Respondents
IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT N0.3 OF
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
COURT OF CRIMINAl APPEALS
OCT 16 20i5
This document contains some
pages ~hat are of poor quali!W
; at the time of imaging.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
BOBBY HUCKABY
TDCJ-CID#1777084
COFFIELD UNIT
2661 FM 2054
U'ENNESSEE CDLONY ,TEXAS 75884
CAUSE NO.C-3-010482-1247332-A
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
BOBBY HUCKABY,Relator
v.
THE HONORABLE BRIAN WILLET,
THE TARRANT CaJNTY, DISTRICT CLERK
THOMAS J.WILDER,Respondents
IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT N0.3 OF
TARRANT COUNTY ,TEXAS
PETITICN FCR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMIN~L APPEALS:
NOW CQ\1ES ,BCBBY HUCKABY ,and. files this PETITION FOR MANDAMUS ,requesting this
Court to issue a mandamus ordering the Criminal District Court N0.3 of Tarr-
ant County ,Texas and the Tarrant County District Clerk, ("hereinafter Re~ond
ents") ,to enter its findings of fact and conclusions of law and to forward
my writ of habeas corpus,in the above numbered cause,to the Court of Criminal
Aweals of Texas ,as is required by Article 11.07 ,Texas Code of Criminal Proc-
edure("T.C.C.P.")and Article l,Section 12 of the Texas Constitution.
r.
JURISDICTION
On March 27,2012, Relator was convicted for the offense of aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon,whereby he entered an involuntary plea of guilty and he
also pleaded true to the habitual offender notice on that same day of March
27,2012, in cause number 1247332D. The trial court sentenced the Relator to
twenty-seven years in TDCJ-CID.
Although the Relator did not appeal his conviction,he did file an Article
ll.07,under the T.C.C.P.,which the State's Response to the Relator's Applicat~
ion for writ of habeas corpus,filed with the Tarrant County,District Clerk's
off ice ,cin June -3,2015 .See attached Relator's Appendix.
II.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Relator complains that his State Wrmt of Habeas Corpus should have been forw-
arded to the Court of Criminal Appeals with findings of facts,whereby the tri~
al court designated an issue that required an expansion of the record and the
2.
trial court ordered an affidavit from the Honorable Brian Willet ("trial coun-
sel") ,to adlress the Relator's allegations,that he received ineffective ass-
istance from the trial counsel.The Relator's habeas corpus clearly demonstr-
ates that the Relator's trial counsel did in fact file his court ordered af-
fidavit on August 4,2015,but as of October 3,2015,date of this writ of maad-
anus, the Relator's habeas corpus hrl~ sti 11 not been· sent to tht: t:ourt of cr--
iminal Appeals,despite the Relatot·;s repeated requests for the Respondent's
to do so. (See attached Appendix, in relevant part to his due diligence. j
III.
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
RELA'I'OR 'S ONLY GROUND FOO RELIEF:THE Presiding Judeje ,CRlMINAb MAGISTRA'I'E ,CH-
ARLES P.IREYNOLDS,of •rarrant County ,'l'exas and the District Clerk of 'l'arrant
County/l'exas,Thomas A.Wilder,("Respondents;')have and are presently violatin~
the Relator's constitutional right to acce.ss to the court,a.s well as viola-
ting his si.:.atut:or:y right to file an application for writ of habeas corpus, in
violation of Article 11.07 § 3,of the =r.c.C.i?.and the Fourteenth Amendment or
the United States Constitution.
Relator,specifically contends that the Respondents of the Tarrant County ,Te-
xas-, criminal District Court No.3 and the Tarrant County,'I'exas District Cle-
rks office are denying him of his constutional right to access to courts,by
failing to appoint someone to make a findings of fact,approve it,and have the
clerk tran~'1llit it to the Court of Criminal Atpeals,in response to the Relat-
or•'s State wcit of habeas corpus~ir. violation of hi.s due process,and theref-
ore, neglecting to perform its complete ministerial duties and is disregardi-
ng due course of lo.w.
Because the convicting court dieT desi9nate issues that needed to be resolved
ana .since the convicting court ordered an aHioavit frcma the tt·ial counsel and
since the record demonstrates thc::t the court ordered affidavit has been added
to the Relator's habeas corpus record, therefore pUi:suant to Article 11.07 ,§ 3
(d)of the T.C.C.P.;'\lso,the Relator contends that there is no provision for·
him to appeal the Respondent's failure to perform its dvties according to ll.O
7,§ 3(d),wherein it provides in relevant part: ..• 'aiter the convict1ng court
makes findings o:t iact or approil•?S the findin: ca::::e is now before the
Court of Criminal Aooeals,in accordance with Art.ll.07 § 3(d),and since there
3.
is no provision for him to appeal the Resoondent's failure to make fjndinas
of fact·,failure to transmit and/or failure to perform its ministerial auties
in this context,thus the Relator's inability to appeal leaves the Relator
with no other adequate remedy at law except the filing of this mandamus.Delem
v.District Clerk,l87 S.W.3d 473(Tex.Crim.App. and Exparte Ybarra,l49 S.W.3d
147Tex.App.2004).
Moreover,this Court of Criminal Appeals has held that mandamus relief may
be granted if the relator shows;(l)that the act sought to be compelled is
purely ministerial,and(2)that there is no adequate remedy at law.Winters
v.Presiding Judge,ll8 S.W.3d 773,775(Tex.Crim.App.2003),Ex Parte Ybarra,l49
s.w .l47Tex Crirri.App.2004) ,and Deleon v .District Clerk, 187 S.W. 3d 473, 474(Tex.
App.2006).
In the instant case,the Relator has shown that: (l)the Respondent of the
trial court has a ministerial duty of law .to appoint someone to make a fin-
ding of facvt and/or approve the findings of fact(or deny it)of the person
he designates to make them and then the Respondent of the Tarrant County,Te-
xas District Clerk's .. office should perform the ministerail duty to transmit
the findings of fact,in response to Relator's state writ,immediately to the
Court of Criminal Appeals,under one cover,the application,any answers filed
by the State and the affidavit filed by the Relator's trial counsel.These
aforementioned ministerial duties, that. are material to the legality of the
Relator's continued confinement under Article ll.07,and despite numerous
attempts to inquire from the Tarrant County Texas District Clerk,District
Attorney's,and/or from the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals,all via
letters ' am the attached Appendix to this mandamus trying to diligently noti-
fy./) the .Relator as to why his habeas corpus proceeding is being delayed.
Thus, Relator has met all requirements for mandamus relief ,he respectfully
requests that this this Cburt of Criminal Appeals grants hi~ mandamus and/or
direct the Respondents to appoint someone to make a findings of fact,approve
it and or order the Tarrant County,Texas District Clerk to transmit his writ
to the Court of Criminal ~peals of Texas. (See attached Appendixe$.
PRAYER
WHEHEREFORE,PREMISES CONSIDERED,Relator respectfully prays that the Honor-
able Court of Criminal Apppeals grants this foregoing writ of mandamus and
thereafter direct the Respmdents make its findings and transmit his habeas
corpus to this Court of Criminal Appeals.
Respectf~ubmitted, /.
B
·~
.
P~np 084 iolrpo15
1
4.
VERIFICATION
"My name is Bobby Huckaby #l777084,and I am filing this mandamus and I have
read the writ of mandamus and I verify,under penalty of perjury that every
statement is within my personal knowledge,is true and correct.
£,)~ il..drxb lr/c¢ot5
BOBBY H KABY#l7770 . ,2nd
Coffield Unit
2661 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony,Texas 75884
CERTIFIDCATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on October 1,2015,a true and correct copy of this fo-
regoing document was sent u.s.prepaid mail to the Clerk of the Court of Crim-
inal 8ppeals at P.O.Box 12308,Capitol Station,Austin,Texas 78711.
EXECUTED ON THIS 7th day of October,2015.
fo&:z~ tc/nhd5
Coffield Unit
2661 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony,Texas 75884
5.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPJB:NDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
FILED
THOMAS A WILDERJ))ST. CLERK
Mr. Bobby Huckaby, Applicant TARRANT COUN 1 r, TEXAS
TD~J# 1777084-Coffield
2661 FM 2054 AUG 3'1 2015
Tennessee Colony, TX 75884
I
_ _ _ __
TIMI~:;,;.._.___
BY_ _ _ _ _ DEPUTY
HONORABLE THOMAS WILDER
Tarrant County District Clerk
401 w. Belknap
Fort Wort~, Texas 76196-0402
- -.
Tuesday, Aug~st 11th, 2015
HONORABLE THOMAS WILDER:
Dear Mr. Wilder,
enclosed, please find two (2) sets of my APPLICANT'S STATED
OBJECTIONS TO DELAYS ON WRIT, to be filed under the above-listed
I
Writ number.
'Pl~ase submit one (1) set to the Trial Court; andj keep one
(1) set for your records in the District Clerk's Office.
~y copies of the above, I am notifying the following parties
which ~re listed on Page 4 herein:
1). Asst. District Attorney John E. Meskunas (State's Attorney);
,2). Attorney .Brian J. Willet ( 2012 Trial/Defense Attorney); and,
3). The Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk, Tx. Court of Crim. Appeals,
at Austin, Texas.
Thank you very much for your public services and professional
assistance in the above matter. Sincerely yours
~~afJ.J'5~~~y, Pro-se
Applicant/ TDCJ# 1777084
2661 FM 2054-Coffield Unit
Tennessee Colony, TX 75884
ENCLOSURES: 2 set~
BH/lg (CC: Files)
THOMASA FILED
TARRAN'm8o~~~~T. CLERK
. 'EXAs
WRIT NO. C-3-010482 - 1247332-A
AUG 3·1 2015
TIME
EX PARTE § IN THE CRIMINA Iey>l'I"::;~'TlfRR":ii'1C~'ff-------
§ 0EPUrY
BOBBY HUCKABY § COURT NUMBER 3 OF
(Applicant) §
§ TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, Ft. Worth
"[§11.07 TX.C.C.P.]APPLICANT'S STATED OBJECTIONS TO DELAYS ON WRIT"
£0 THE ~ONORiBtE JUDGE OF SAID COURTS:
COMES NOW THE APPLICANT, BOBBY HUCKABY, Pro-se, by and through
himself, and makes this his "APPLICANT'S STATED OBJECTIONS TO DELAYS"
in the procedural time limits of his Tx.c.c.P. Art. §11.07 et seq
Writ of Habeas Corpus, which was filed over 35-days ago. Applicant
will show the convicting Court and the Texas Court of Criminal App-
eals (at Austin, Texas) the following facts and objections~ to wit:
I.
THE 27-YEAR PLEA BARGAIN WAS VOID DUE TO MHMR ISSUES ; FOR
IMPROPER ADMONISHMENTS; AND, FOR~:INEFEECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Applicant has challenged the fact that there are controverted,
previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the Appli-
cant's·indictment, conviction, and confinement in Cause No. 12477332D.
Applicant asserts there are also collateral consequences (TDCJ-ID's
. Healthcare/MHMR system is impacted due to overcrowded conditions,
and thus is unable to render proper MHMR treatments equal to a State
Mental Hospital(s) similar to Applicant's past commitments) which
renders the Applicant's guilty plea involuntarily and unwillingly
and unknowingly entered into. Applicant was coerced to plea guilty.
Applicant objects that he has experienced several intentional
delays in this State Habeas Corpus Proceeding, violating Procedural
Time Limitations (see §11.07 Sec. 3{b),(c),and (d) ) totalling 35-
-1-
d"ays for the State ......Prosecutor and the Trial Court to process the
writ so it may issue by oper~~ion of law. Thereafter, ~hen the 35-
~ays has elapsed, the Trial Court must transmit the habeas ciorpus
transcript to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for a final ruling.
A.
OBJECTION NUMBER ONE:
Applic~nt did not WAIVER the 35-day_procedural tim~ limit,
yet the State'~.Attorney _sou~ht an unauthorized extensi~n ~n the
form of a DESIGNATION as reflected in the State's Response To' App;li-. '·
. . .
·'·
cation~Foi,~r{~'~f.Ha~eas Corpus (5 p~~~s) and attach~d MEMORANDUM;
and.· ORDER . ( 2 pag~s) th~ t Applicant . received on ·or a~o~\: J~ne 27th~
2015 ~- The State's Attorney moved the Court to DENY APPLICANT'S PER-
SONAL-APPEARANCE AND PARTICIPATION at the p~oposed -E~ideritiary Hear-
'
ing, thereby abridging his habeas corpus rights and-prfvi;I.eges. The
Applicant ls proc~eding in Pro-se and has no atto~ney to answer for
him at
.
any purported
:. .
Evidentia~·y.
. ..
'
Hearing
: .
that may. be- .conducted. . The·
':·
' .
Applicant's
.
established MHMR statu~,
. . '.
in . addition to
,.
no appointed
. ' '. .
habeas corpus attorney for adequate representation, violates the
accepted . guarantees of Due Process and Equal Protections inhere~nt
in the Texas Constitution at Article I, §§ 10 and 19 of the.Bill of
Rights. Applicant objects and ~akes exception to these violations.
B.
OBJECTION NU~iER TWO:
· Applicant obje6ts that has not been served with a copy of his
Trial Attorney's habea~ corpus-response Affidavit, within the stated
time limit of August 3rd, 2015 (see Page 2. of STATE'S RESPONSE, supra;
I
arid, Pages 1-2 of attached ORDER). Attorney Brian Willet's ORDERED
08/03/15 AFFIDAVIT has not been served upon the Applicant ~s of this
date of 08/11/2015.
-2-
c.
OBJECTION NUMBER THREE
Finally, Applicant objects that these unnecessary delays are
perverting the Interests of Justice in that said delays are ptejud-
. . . . .
icing and violatirig the Apblicant's St~te Procedural and State Con-
stitutional rights, as well as, his Federal Con~ti tution~l rights.
Applicant's 1nd1ctmenE, ¥epresentat1o~, a~d illicit plea bargain·
.~-
negotiations were fundamentally d.efecti ve, -and . the ~rial Records
and the AciREED PLEA HEARING DF MARCH 2ith, ibl2 ("~.O.F.'s") veiify
a~~ supports his me~itorious alle~ations in this State Habeas Cor-
pus Writ Proceeding'.
A~plicant prays t~is Honorable Court ~nd .the Texas Court of
.Criminal Appeals will recognize the deceptive tactics employed by
I
. . .· . . :. . . ·.· I ·.
the State's Attorney and.the Applicant's former Trial A~torney, the
Honorable Brian Willet, to delay these p~oceedings. garm has at~
ached, and. the prohibition against
)
the· Appl':i.cant 's p·articipation
...
ih the requested EVIDENTIARY HEARING (see Page 2 of State's Response)
denies the Applic~nt c6mpulsory process of ~he law (Art.!, §10, Tex-
as Constitution's Bill of Rights of 1876; Tx.C.C.P. Art. 11.07).
T~is shows preferential treatment to the State which transgresses
the fairnes~ d.octrines of the Ame~ican Adversary protocols. Appli-
cant prays for general relief from the Texas Judiciary system~
SUBMITTED ON THIS 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 by Applicant. Respectfully:
v{5J~1