No.
--------
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS
IN RE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB
DEC 10 2015
Abal AooD, Clerk
MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS PRO SE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, William Charles Webb, who files this his MOTION
FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO ~ILE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, and would show
the court the following:
(1) Mr.Webb is seeking to file a writ of Mandamus in this court.
(2) It is only proper to file a motion for leave in order to
file anything in this court.
WHEREFORE, based on the above Mr.Webb request that this court
grant his motion and allow him to file a writ of Mandamus in this
Honorable Court.
Respectfully Submitted,
William C. Webb#1888883
Hughes Unit
Rt.2 Box 4400
Gatesville,Texas.76597
u.s.A
.
Tit
Executed on this the~day of December,2015
Cause No.2012-675-C2E
William Charles Webb IN THE 54TH JUDICIAL
TDCJ-ID#1888883,
RELATOR DISTRICT COURT OF
v.
JON R. GIMBLE (CmUNTY DISTRICT CLERK):
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, McLENNAN COUNTY,TX
RESPONDENT
A. PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, William Charles Webb, Relator, pro se in the above-
styled and numbered cause of action and files this Original
Application For Writ of Mandamus, pursuant to Art.11.07 Sec.3(c)
of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and would show the
Court the following:
1.
B. RELATOR
1.01 William Charles Webb, TDCJ#1888883 is an offender
incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
and is appearing pro se, who can be located at the Hughes
Unit (Rt.2 Box 4400) Gatesville,Texas.76597.
1.02 Relator has exhausted his remedies and has no other ad2
adequate remedy at law.
1.03 The act sought to be compelled is ministerial, not
discretionary in nature. TCCP Art.11.07 Sec.3(c) requires
Respondent to immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal
Appeals 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, if the convicting court
decides that there are no issues to be resolved. No copy of
1
the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers
filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that
finding was made have been transmitted to the Court of
Criminal Appeals. Had such documents been transmitted to the
Court of Criminal Appeals by Respondent as required by
statute, Relator would have received notice from the Court
of Criminal Appeals.
2.
C. RESPONDENT
2.01 Respondent, Jon R. Gimble, in his capacity as District
Clerk of McLennan County, Texas has a ministerial duty to
receive 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 filed, 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. Jon
R. Gimble, District Clerk, of McLennan County may be served
at his place of business at P.O.Box ~451 Waco,TX.76703.
3,
~. VIOLATION OF ART.11.07 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROC.
3.01 The Respondent violated Art.11.07 Sec.$(c) of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedur by failing to provide a copy of
the application for writ of habeas corpu3, 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 documents were requested to be
2
transmitted.
3.02 Requests for the transmittal of the application for writ of
habeas corpus, any answers filed, and a certificate reciting
the date upon which that finding was made were made by
Relator to Jon R. Gimble, Distcict Clerk, of McLennan
County, by mailed letters dated November 18,2015; November
30,2015; pursuant to Art.11.07 Sec.3(c) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. True and accurate copies of the above
letters are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" through "B" and
are incorporated by reference herein for all purposes.
3.03 To date, Relator has received no re~ponse from Respondent
regarding Relator's request for transmittal of 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.
3.04 As is clear from Relator's letters, Relator has repeatedly
put Respondent on notice that Relator seeks the transmittal
of a copy of the application for writ of habeas corpus, any
answers filed, and a ce~tificate reciting the date upon
which that finding was made to the Court of Criminal Appeals
and that such records are required by the Court of Criminal
Appeals to act on Relator's writ of habeas corpus. Relator
has gone well beyond any requirement or obligations imposed
upon him by the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. In
contrast to Relator's efforts, Respondent has wholly failed
to comply with the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Art.
11.07 Sec.3(c), is acting in bad faith, and has also failed
to afford Relator the professional and common courtesy of
any written responses to his correspondence and requests.
3
' 3.05 Art.11.07 Sec.3(c) clearly states that "Oi]f the convicting
court decides that there are no such issues, the clerk shall
immediately transmit Gemp~asis added] to the Court of
Criminal Appeals a copy of the application, any answers
filed, and a certificate reciting the date upon which that
finding was made. Failure of the court to act with the
allowed 20 days shall constitute such a finding''. Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure Art.11.07 Sec.3(c). Respondent is in
violation of this procedure, ministerial duties, and thus
the laws of this state.
4.
E. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CO~SIDERED, R8lator, William Charles
Webb, pro se, respectfully requests a finding that the
Respondent did not transmit documents to the Court of
Criminal Appeals within a reason~ble time after the date
they were requested and that Relator brought this litiggti6n
in good faith and has substantially prevailed. Relator
prays for an Ordar directing Respondent to transmit 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 as
directed in Art.11.07 Se~.3(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure and as requested in Relator's letters (Exhibit
"A" through "B").
Respectfully Submitted,
By:William Charles Webb
RELATOR
4
. F. UNSWORN DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
- -
I swear under the United States Constitution that the fore-
going APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS is true and correct,
ill that the facts and allegations are trw:! and correct.
William
RELAtOR _Charles
_ _ _ _Webb
__
Executed on this the.JE:_day of December,2015.
G. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the above APPLICATION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the Clerk of the Court of
the Court of Criminal Appeals by U.S. postal mail on this the
P _day of Dece:nber, 2015.
William Charles Webb
RELAT~--------
5
Cause No.2012-675-C2E
William Charles Webb IN THE 54TH JUDICIAL
TDCJ-ID#1888883,
RELATOR DISTRICT COURT OF
v.
Jon R. Gimble (County District Clerk):
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
RESPONDENT McLENNAN COUNTY, TX
ORDER
On this day, came on to be heard the foregoing Relator's
Application for Writ of Mandamus and it appears to the Court
that the same should be:
- - -GRANTED
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the District Clerk shall
immediately transmit to the Court of Criminal Appeals a copy of
the application for writ of habeas corpus, any answers filed,
and a certificate reciting the date upon which that transmittal
was made.
SIGNED on this the ________day of ______
-------- ,2015.
X
,.P"R~ES:o:"'I~~D::--:;I;:-:oN=G:---;J=u DG E
Exhibit A
WILLIAM C. WEBB
HUGHES UNIT
RT. 2:~ BOX 4400
GATESVILLE,TEXAS.76597
November 18,2015
JON R. GIMBLE
DISTRICT CLERK
P.O.BOX 2451
WACO,TEXAS.76703
RE: Ex Parte William Charles Webb (No.2012-675-C2E)
Dear,Clerk
This letter is being written in regards to the above entitled
and numbered cause. The State has made an answer to my applicatioo
and the Court as of yet has not designated any issues to be
resolved. Please note that the State made its answer on the 19th
of October 2015. Today's date is November 18,2015. My information
is as follows. I ask that you forward my Writ of Habeas Corpus
to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin,Texas please? Thank
you for your time in advance to this matter.
Best Regards:
William C. Webb#l888883
Hughes Unit
Rt. 2 Box 4400
Gatesville,Texas.76597
u.s.A
EXHIBIT B
WILLIAM C., WEBB
HUGHES UNIT
RT.2 BOX 4~00
GATESVILLE,TX.76597
JON R. GIMBLE
DISTRICT CLERK
P.O.BOX 2451
WACO,TX.767'J3
November 30,2015
RE: EX PARTE WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB
(No.2012-675-C2E)
Dear,Clerk
This letter is being written to you in rega~d3 to the above
entitled and n~mbered cause. This is my second letter to you
regarding this issue. I ask that you forward my writ of habeas
cor~vs to the Court of Criminal Appeal5 please? My information
is as follows. Thank you for your time in advance to this matter.
Best Regard3:
xjU~~-
No.: 2012·675·C2E
IN THE 54THJrirliCIALDISTRICT COUR~lS OCT 19 Mi 8: 33
0~ MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS nY~1R~cf;cL.~ ~
. f'-1CLEN~U\i< c:~. r
I
I
STATE'S ANSWER TO AN APPLICATION
FOR WRIT
.I
OF HABEAS CORPUS
""'" Pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State of Texas,
by and through the Criminal DistriCt Attorney for McLennan County, Abelino 'Abel'
j
Reyna, files this answer to the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by
I .
WILLIAM CHARLES WEBB, hereinkfter called "Applicant." This is a case other than a
I
I
case in which the death penalty was ~ssessed.
I
Applicant alleges five groundsI for relief in
.
his application. The application is the
I
first post-conviction writ he has filed.
CONCERNING THE NEED FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
There are no controverted, pr~viously unresolved facts material to the legality of
I
Applicant's confinement which would necessitate a hearing. No evidentiary hearing is
I
needed or warranted under this ~pplication, because any information could be
obtained by affidavit or otherwise. i
ALLEGATIONS IN THE APPLICATION
Applicant contends 'that:
1) He was denied a fair trial due to :the State's introduction of inadmissible extraneous
offense evidence (Ground One); ;
2) The cumulative effect of his trial counsel's errors deprived him of the effective
assistance of counsel (Ground Two);
'
1
1111111 IIIII 1111111111 IIIII IIIII lllllllllllllllllll 1111
1 7 9 2 7 7 8 5 I
·.··,.
3) His right to a speedy trial was violated (Ground Three);
4) His right to remain silent wa~ violated (Ground Four); and
5) Ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel (Ground Five).
GENERAL DENIAL
Pursuant to Article 11.07, all matters alleged in the application not specifically
admitted by the State in this answer are denied.
ANSWER OF THE STATE
In his first ground for relief, Applicanfcomplains of the introduction of extraneous
bad acts at trial. This issue was presented and rejected on direct appeal.
In his second ground for relief, Applicant alleges ineffective assistance by his trial
counsel. He complains variously that he could not communicate with his counsel due
to a "conflict of interest," that this situation contributed to his counsel's failure to
investigate and prepare a defense, and prevented Applicant from participating in and
making informed decisions about his case. Applicant claims that his trial counsel was
ineffecti':e in failing to request a "limiting instruction" and in failing to obtain an expert
witness who could have supported a lesser-included offense of Attempted Arson.
AppliGant claims that his trial counsel failed to object to "highly inflammatory" jury
argument by the State, and failed to seek a change of venue. Finally, Applicant
complains that his counsel did not call his parents to testify to an alibi defense.
Applicant's claims of ineffective assistance are conclusory and unsupported by
factual allegations. Many of his claims are directly refuted by the record. Applicant
asserts that he has made complaint to the State Bar regarding his counsel, which have
been denied. The issue of a "limiting instruction" is nebulous and unsupported by the
record. Other than providing contact information for fire experts, Applicant gives no
factual or legal basis to show how expert testimony would have benefitted his case,
particularly in seeking a lesser included offense. The appellate court, in denying relief
on this point, noted that the Arson statute contemplated the completion of the offense
. 2
even in the absence of continuation after the initial ignition. Applicant has not
demonstrated that the State's argument was objectionable, and supports his venue
complaint only with conclusory, after-the-fact affidavits from his family members.
Applicant's complaint regarding failure to call alibi witnesses does not take into account
that such a defense would have been controverted by the eyewitness testimony that put
Applicant at the crime scene, and was inconsistent with his lack-of-intent defense
presented at trial.
In his third ground, Applicant complains of a speedy trial violation. Applicant
asserts no factual basis for this claim. However, the record is replete with Applicant's
own dilatory tactics which caused 'delay in the trial of his case, including numerous
complaints regarding a succession of trial counsel, numerous inane pro se motions, and
a number of interlocutory appeals of denied motions.
Applicant's fourth ground complains of an improper reference to his invocation of
the right to remain silent. This issue was fully addressed on direct appeal.
In his fifth ground for relief, Applicant complains of ineffective assistance by his
trial counsel. This is primarily based on the failure of appellate counsel to raise an issue
of admissibility under Tex. R. Evid. 403. However, the appellate ground under Rule
404(b) was presented, and the record demonstrates that presentation of Applicant's
prior bad acts, when determined to be probative and admissible, was not overly-
prejudicial, and raising a Rule 403 issue on appeal would have been forlorn. Further,
Applicant's complaint that ineffective assistance of counsel was not raised on direct
appeal is also without merit. Ineffective assistance can rarely be discerned from a cold
record and is typically more suited to a habeas action. And as demonstrated above,
Applicant has failed to reach the high threshold required to show ineffective assistance
of his trial counsel in his application.
3
·'
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
The State recommends to the Trial Court that this writ be dismissed as frivolous,
as there are no legal or factual grounds to support Applicant's claims.
Respectfully Submitted:
Abelino 'Abel' Reyna
Criminal District Attorney
McLennan County, Texas
219 North 6th Street, Suite 200
VVaco, Texas 76701
Phone (2'54) 757-5084
Fax (254) 757-5021
S7r~z~
Chief, Appellate Division
State Bar# 09019700
4