~~ID/-D~
November 1, 2015
Elijah Taylor
James V. Allred Unit
2101 F~ 369 North
'Iowa Park, Texas 76367-
A b (2! 1 ''·A c 'oe t a ·-v' 1''
Cl-2rk of Court COURT §,:ECE!V£o IN
Court of Criminal Appeals Of Texas . CRIMINAL APp
Office of th-2 Cl-2rk J\!f'l• cALs
P.O. Box 123G8 . ul/ 09 2015
AiJst\i'n ,·1 Teixa§1:787ll
/5_iJ:.~~i:in, T:.'~x.;:;.·..::·..
RE: Ex Parte Taylor
7:-:;fiJI.
I. -- _.AliJelfiJ
coera. Clerk
\
\
Dear Clerk of Court
Enclosed please find an orig~nal copy of tje Motion For
Leave To File Relator's Original Petition ForJWrit Of Mandamus, ~
and an original copy of Relator's Original Petition For Writ Of
Mandamus to be filed with this Court.
The P-2titioner/Relator pleai to this Honorable Court of
Criminal Appeals of Texas that he does~~t have access to a copier
nor does the prison he reside at enable prisoner's with access
to a copier, thus, Taylor request that this Honorable Courtt
supply the Dallas County District Attorney, Mrs. Susan Hawk with
the necessary copies.
Your time and consideration is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
This document contains some
Sincerely, pages that are of poor quality
at the time of imaging.
Elijah Isaiah Taylor Please forward a copy to:
!s/lJ.jyv~
Clerk of Courts
Frank Crowley Courthouse
133 N. Riverfront Bl~d.
Dallas, Texas 75202
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
CAUSE NO. W-11-40599-K NOV Og 2015
NO. WR-83 1 100-1
11J;I~Icf'AHt~SAIAH TAYLOR E~be8 Acosta. Clerk
IN T H
.TEXAS COURT OF
EX PARTE CRIMINAL APPEALS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
RELATOR'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF r-n\NDAMUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES. OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES /~OW E i 1 j ah Taylor; hereinafter styled Petit i one5 /Relator 1
~ro se1 and respectfully moves this Court for leave to file the
attached Writ of Mandamus in his own behalf and would show the
following:
JURISDICTION
This Honorable Court maintains original jurisdiction under
provisions afforded in the Texa~ Constitution in Article 5 § 31
and in the Code of Criminal Procedure in§§§ 46.011 46.11 and SL
89.46. Only the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction
in final post-conviction felony proceedings. Tex. Code of Crim.
Proc. Ann. Article 11.07 § 5:\t~= v
The Petitioner/Relator has exhausted all administrative
remedies required by the State of Texas prior to bringing this
claim for relief in this Court.
The facts set forth in the attached Writ of Mandamus are
undisputed 1 substantially true 1 and should be accepted :as '.tEue'~T~
by this Honorable Court.
1 of ]/
CONCLUSION
The Criminal District Court has been holding Petitioner/
Relator's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
Art. 11.07 since January 25, 2015, and the motions that were
attached have been·pending for the same amount of time. Taylor
submitted his Motion for Judgement on Pending Motions on October
1, 2015, In accordance wi~h Inre Tasby,40 S.W.3d 190 (Tex.App.
Texarcana 2001) as stated by Judge Grant '' ... a three month
period is allowed for the.court to make it's ruling. Tex. R~?.
Judici·al Ad~in?/ reptihted in Tex.Gov. Code Ann. tit.2, subtitle
F. App. (Vernon 1998). This is a rule of judicial administration
adopted by the Supreme Court of Texas, This rule is set forth
in Rule 7(2), which requires a.district or statutory county
court judge to rule on a case within three(3) months after the
case is taken under advisement." Petitioner/Relator humbly
request that this Honorable Court consider this rule and compel
the lower Court to grant him an Evidentiary hearing due~to their
inordinate delay in these~proceedinqs which is a violation of
his due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States of America Constitutiofi.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, Petitioner/Relator pray that
this Honorable Court grant his Motion For Leave To File Relator's
Original Petition For Writ Of Mandamus and compel the l~wer Court
to proceed with the hearings in the name of justice.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/l~~
EilJa~~
2 of 3
CERTIFICATE REGARDING SERVICE
I hereby certify that it is my belief and understanding that
the Dallas County District attorney Susan Hawk, is a partici-
pant in the Court's CM/ECF program and that separate service of
the foregoing document is not required beyond the notification
of Electronic filing to be forwarded on November 1, 2015 upon
the filing of the foregoing document.
/s/ t£~~ ,~ ~
Elijah~r~D7l
James V. Allred Unit
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa Park, Texas 76367-6568
VERIFICATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Elijah Taylor, do declare,
certify, and verify under penalty of perjury that the above
information is true and correct. Executed this lst day of
November, 2015.
Is/ ~~ d; _--
ElijatlSaiahTayl~
TDCJ-ID # 1776071
3 of 3
CAUSE NO. W-11-40599-K
TN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
CIE>FTTEXAS
IN RE ELIJAH ISAIAH TAYLOR
SEEKING WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE
'PRESIDING' JUDGK-'.OF'~.THE-·'CRTMINAE. DISTRICT
COURT NO. 4, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. F11-40599-K
WRIT NO. WR-83, 100-1
RELATOR'S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
NOV 09 2015
IDENTITY OF PARTIES
The parties in this case are:
1. Petitioner/Relator
Elijah Isaiah Taylor
TDCJ-:-ID #1776071 ->
James v. Allred Unit
2101 FM 369 North
Iowa P~rk, Texas 76367-6568
2. The State of Texas
Susan Hawk
District Attorney of Dallas County
Frank Crowley Courthouse
133 N. Riverfront Blvd.
Dallas, Texas 75202
CAUSE NO. W-11-40599-K
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL. APPEALS
OF TEXAS
NO. WR-83,100-1
IN re Elijah Taylor
,.
RELATOR'S ORIGINAL BETTT~0N FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
\
TO THE HONORABLE juDGES OF THE-TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW Elijah Taylor ~ the Pet~tioner, pro·se and respect-
fully moves this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of Ma~damus and
order the "Criminal. D:bstrict 1Court Number 4 of Dallas County,
Texas'' to either grant or deny Petitioner's Motion for Appoint-
ment of Counsel; Motion for a Evidentiary hearing; Motion for tre
Court T6 Take Judicial Netic~; Motion T6 Recuse Habeas Corpus
Judge; and Motion for Ad Testificant. Petitioner also moves this
Honorable Court to compel the Habeas Court, pursuant to Article
11.07 Section 3(c) of the Texas Code of C~minal Procedure, to
ha~~ a Findings of Fact and Conclusion Hearing or an Evidentiary
Hearing, and f6rward the Supplemental Transcript to this Honor-
able Court of Criminal Appeals ~s1otdered in a decree iPer Curiam
by this Court on May 13,2015, and would show the following:
I. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction.of this Court is invoked pursuant to the Texas
Code.of Criminal Procedure, Sections 46.01, 46.11 and 89.46 and
under provisions afforded in the Texas Constitution Article v
Section 3 or whatever applicable Texas Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, statue or rule necessary to invoke jurisdiction of this
Court. Article 11.07 vest complete jurisdiction over post con-
viction relief 'from final felony convictions in the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals. citing to Ex Parte Hoang, 872 S.W.2d 694,
697 (T~x.Crim.App. 1993) hold that "The Court of Appeals does not
have jurisdiction to review post· conviction Habeas corpus:"
I I . ,-STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Peiitioner is illegally resrained of his liberty by the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division in the All~
red Unit located at 2101 F.M. 369 North, Iowa Park, Texas 76367-
6568 pursuant to an order of conviction imposing after being
\
found guilty by a jury on March 23, 2012 of Capital Murder.
Petitioner has been sentenced to Li~e Without Parole.
III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
The Court of Criminal Appeals should issue a Mandamus to the
Habeas Court Judge of the Criminal District Court Number 4
directing the Court to tule)oniTayl!or's pending motions which
are in conjunction with the Petitioner's pending Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 .. These are the following pending
motions:
l. Motion for Appointment of Counsel;
2. Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing;
3. Motion to Recuse Habeas Corpus J]Jdge;
4. Motion for the Court to take Judicial Notice; and
5. Motion for Ad Testificant
A. Pending Motions
Petitioner understands that the.District ~ourt is busy with
civil and criminal proceedings. His case is one of many, and he
apologizes for any inconv~nience .caused. It may be that the Court
plans to rule on hi~ motions, or has an internal procedure for
doing so. He simply ask that the Habeas Court make a decision
on the pending motions so that he may proceed in the Habeas forum
Petitioner contends that in order for the Habeas Court to gain
adequate assessment of the facts involved in this case it's
imperative that these motions be adjudged. Holmes v. S. Carolina,
126 S.Ct. (2006) when the~Supreme Court held that ''by evaluating
the strenght of only one parties evidence, no logical conclusion
can be reached regarding the strength of contrar~ evidence
offered by the other party to rebut or cast doubt."
B~ Inordinate Delay
The Habeas Court has been holding the Petitioner's motions
under advisement since J~nuary th~ 25th 2015. Ten ~onths is
excessive~andcentirely to lohg. These motions are in conjunction
with the Petitioner~~8 Writ of Habeas Co~pus pursuant to Article
11.07, in which this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals via
Per Curiam ordered the Habeas Court to resolve theiissues~~ithin
90 days from the time the order was filed which was May 13, 2015.
This Court also ordered the Habeas Court to forward the
supplemental transcript containing all affidavits and interroga-
tories or transc~iption of the court reporter's notes from any
hearing or depositfu6n~, along with the trial court's supplemental
findings of fact and conclusions of law within 120 days from the
above date. The Habeas Court has yet to follow the decree of this
Honor~ble C~urt, ~hd~ib~s1been forty(40) days past the ordered
120 days deadline. Petitioner contends that this is a violation
of his Due Process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States of America's Constitution. The lOth Court of
Appeals in a remand stated: ''This Co~rt ha~ said that a mere
I
lapse of time does not, in and of itself, c6nstitute a denial of
a constitutional right. Baliay v. Patterson, Warden, lOth Cir.
Lee v. State of Kansas, 346 F. 2d 48, But an inordinate, ~eicess
)
ive d~lay may very well amount to .a denial of Due Process cogni-
zable in Federal Court." Smith v. State of kansas, 356 F.2d 654
(]6th Cir.); Kelly v. Krouse, Warden, 352 F.2d 506 (lOth Cir.).
An inordinate, excessive and inexcusable delay may very well
amount to a denial of due process cognizable in Federal Court.
Smith v. Kansas, 356 F.2d 654, 655 (lOth Cir. 1966) cert. denied,
389 U.S. 871,888~S.Ct. 154 19 L~Ed.2d 151 (1967) in holding that:
"delays in processing defendants post-conviction motions for
relief in the state courts deprive him of the swift and impera~·~
tive remedy to which he was constitutional~y entitled, and ~~1~
hence the Federal District Court was ordered to consider the
merits of Petitioner's claims for Federal habeas relief~'.
In an abundance of caution the Petitioner Submitted a Motion
for Judgement on the pending motions on October the lst 2015, the
Habeas Court yet and still failed to take heed, therefore,
Petitioner humbly request that this Honorable Court acknowledge
the fact that the Habeas Court has undoubtedly violated his Due
Process rights and compel the court to hold a hearing on the
pending motions promtly, and to submit supplemental transcripts
and answers as pr~viously ordered by this Honorable Court.
Trial Court may not arbitr~rily halt proce~dings in a pending
case, and mandamus will lie to compel a trial court to hear and
rule on motions pending before it. INre Tasby, 40 S.W. 3d -190 (~2
(Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001). Judge Grant concurring with the
ruling in Tasby in hi_s opinion ·stated: "I agree with the majority
opini,op,~ but wri t'e separately to point out that even• in a case
I
which has been heard and then taken under advisement 'by the court
[a three month period is allowed for the court to make it's
r~ling. Tex. R. Judicial Admin.?, reprinted in Tex. Gov. Code ~,r
Ann. tit.2, subtitle F. App. (Vernon 1998). This is a rule of
judicial administration adopt~d by the Supreme Court of Texas]
This rule is set forth in Rule 7(2), which requires a district or
statutory county court Judge to rule on a case within 3 months
after'the case is taken under advisement."
In light of the concurring opinion of Judge Grant Petitioner
asserts to this Honorable Court that in accordance with the very
I
same rules that Judge Grant cited in~his opinion, that the
Habeas Court inexcusable, excessive delay is unacceptable and
due to the tardiness of the Habeas Court he is entitled to
mandamus action.
c. Violation Of Article 11.07 ot, '",
The.:
."'
Te·xas . Code of :CrJmzo;c~w>roc.
.
The District Clerk of Dallas. County~ Texas has a ministerial·
duty to recieve and file all papers in a criminal proceeding,
and perform all other duties imposed on the clerk by.law pursuant
to TCCP Art. 2.21, and is responsible under TCCP 11:07 Sec. 3(c)
to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy
of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers ft±ed
and a certificate reciting the date upon which that finding was
made if the~convicting court decides that there are no issues to
be resolved.
The Distri~t Clerk violated Article 11.07 Section 3(c) of the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure by failing to provide a copy of
the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed, and
a certificate reciting the date upon which-that finding was made
to the Court of Criminal Appeals within the time prescribed by
law and within a reasonable time from the date on which the doc-
uments were requested to be transmitted. Petitioner has gone well
beyond any requirement or.o~Iigations imposed~ upon him by the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In contrast to petitioner's
efforts, the District Clerk has wholly failed to comply with the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07 Section 3(c), is
acting in bad faith, and has also failed to afford Petitioner the
the professional and common courtesy of any written responses to
his correspondence and request.
Article 11.07 Sectioh 3(c) clearly.states that "[i]f the con~\~
victing court decides that there are no such issues,~the clerk
shall immediately transmit {emphasis added] to the Court of
Criminal Appeals a copy of the Application, any answers filed,
and a certificate reciting the date upon whi.ch that finding was
made. Failure of the co~~t t~ act within the allowed 20 days(or
in this case 120 days)shall constitute such a finding.'' The
Dallas County District Clerk and the Habeas Court Judge of the
Criminal District Court Number 4 is in violation of this proce-
dure, ministerial duties, and thus the laws of this state.
D. This Petition Satisfies The requirement For Issuance
Of A Writ Of Mandamus
Petitioner has satisfied the requirements for issuance by this
Court for a Writ of Mandamus.
l.'' The Relator/Petitd:oner has a justifiable interest.
Taylor must show that he has a j~stifiable interest in the
di~p~te. See'' Ter~a~as v~ Ramire~, 829 s.w. 2d 712, 713 (Tex.l991)
He' is incarcerated for Capital M~rder . and a. proper evidentiary
~earing may lead to exonerating him. His liberty constitutes a
]usti'f:iable intere·s•t ... ..J
2. The' Relator/Petitioner Ha:s A Clear Right To Relief
.Taylor must show' that he has a clear and legal right to the
perfoc~ance of a certain act. Tilton. v. Marshall, 925 s.w. 2d
672, 68.2 (Tex.l996). Taylor has done so .. He is entitled to a
ruling pursuant to Article lli.07 of the Te~as Code of Criminal t
Procedure.
This is a mandatory provision. The habeE~:'S .Court Judge is 1 , · :·,
required by this provision to conduct an evidentiary hear~ng and
respond.respond to this petition.
The _Co~rt has discretion to determine Facts, findings and
conclusions o~ the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Hopefully the Court
will do so. But until the court makes a ruling, the petitioner
cannot proceed.
E. Relator Has No Adequate Remedy At Law
The Petitioner has exhausted his remedies and has no other
adequate remedy·at law. The act sought to be compelled is minis-
terial and not discretionary in nature. TCCP Art. 11.07 Section
3(c) requires the District C~erk and the Habeas Co~rt Judge to
immediately_.t.ransm:it to the Court of IC"riminal Appeals a copy of
the application for writ of habeas corpus, a~y answers filed and
a certificate reciting the date upon which· that finding was made,
if. the con\(icting court decides that there are no~ issues to be
resolved. NO copy of the appli9ati6n for.writ of habeas corpus,
any answers filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which
-n ;,· . .-.
that finding was made have be~n transmitte~ to the Court of
{
Criminal Appeals. Had such documents been transmitted to the
Court of eriminal Appeals by the Disfrict Clerk as required by
statue, Petitioner would have recieved hotice from this Honor-
able Court of Criminal Appeals.
When a party who' is subject to an improper Judicial decision
has no adequate remedy by appeal, mandamus will issue to correct
a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed
by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d B33, 839 (tex. 1992).
Generally, when there is a disputed issue of m~teria~ fact, man-
damus reli~f will not be granted. See Burns v. Kelly, 658 S.W.2d
~3L,. 733 .( Tex .. App.-Fort Worth.l983, orig. proceeding).
P~titioner/Relator cannot proceed f~rther without the court's
ruling. He cannot appeal any order granting or denial without
an order.
. CONCLUSION,
Petitioner/Relator understands the difficulty of operating a
district court which has many other pending civil and criminal
cases. He does not wish to cause the court any inconv~6*ence
Yet his motions in conjunction with his Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to Art. 11.07, coupled with his original Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to Art. 11.07 of the Tex. Code of Crim.
Procedure has been pending now forten (10) months. He respect-
fully reqeest that this Honorable Court of Criminal appeals
instruct the district Court to make a decision on his Writ of
Habeas Corpus so that he may proceed.
PRAYER
Wherefore, premises considered, Mr. Taylor respectfully pray
for this Honorable Court to issue a Writ of.Mandamus to the
Habeas Court Judge of the Criminal District Court Number 4,
directing a decision on the above mentioned pending motions,
and his Writ ~f habeas Corpus .. Mr. Taylor also prays for all
other relief required by justice.
Respectfully Submitted,
Eli jahC3.ylo~776071
CERTIFICATE REGARDING SERVICE
I hereby certify tha~ it is my 6eli~f an~ understanding that
the Dallas tounty_ Dist~ict. Attorney Susan. Hawke, is a partici-
.
pant in the Court's CM/ECF program and that ' separate service of
the foregoing documen~ is notr·required ~eyond the notification
of Electronic filing to be forwarded on November 1, 2015 upon
the filing of the foregoing document.
Taylor, Elijah Isaiah
Combined Opinion