32_‘/ /O% ?d@v . 10 WE MML _ACQS`F<>\ CQu/¢T Qle@\< ‘ '\€@=;; Q;)U/LT §§ C@…U<»L_ AMML§ “@ G. _Q_<»p»`mL STUQU AU§\~.,\_) Temx 7%7\)

§-`@M. (QOJCQQL \/co§couez. “'."L 73 811 C/

Q`AMSN 1 RECElvED nw h OO F/V\ LQS: gmp Tg:gp¢M}H_AL_APpEAtS __j;)}.Q§\AQL*@LQ/_O_)_`[;Cl<_&:§__zl€§_?> l MA R 23 2915 DATE '~ 3 /)_8/;10/$' v d 5 Ab@'A°M’C'QFk

. _@_E;_E>_<£A@E:B_A£Q&LJ®@MQ,Mlw_§;cg;am_agé_wa_'_

_I)m '~’W;/; Ac@am x . `€\MSQ £¢/U(l QUC(QSQJ OM.(L CQD\/ c£: M>/ TcMeL>/ lifted _BQQLLM£§U pp IM<>A:v/t L;QQLAQ:M_T v ___\Le_\ a \A;ngl_ O_Q_A_QLQ§ D&M_s§a LjJNA O,uo QM\/ di M_\[¢ A_VQL\¢A./\m< _§QQQIQMM_\@LQLTPU wm L\ 10 ‘T\~LE '\Q\M Cou/LTS. OQCLQL QP-_ m§¢w_'@s&\:`\ low MQ,( 105pr ma 17<IH '7@72<<11~ ` Cauf£\: 01£_ /ézz<mz_@_w:ty €c`@" Q 74 50 '\Qu(e 73 L(((/)Y;DCCJQSF” “'”:ol¢h_ (LMC¢H:'FWAI~€L/_)_T L;;L_AJQT¢)M o'€ TI»Q c§§@ 95 SHQQeS§’Tk<:';T \A)QUIA 19.2 wi L\_ /.\/\A W.FA_SOA)&S|-€ T() S¢MD(,\/ 70) (Q A/\.) &cU¢T'§/)LJA(T _Q&.Q\/LLC_ earljplo_e§[¢g yam[é_@¢zu& ~LQ,S_Q__LQ_OL_\}MCQM:M§_ Q.§_ wcLI 0.5 ”Th¢s baum i/u le A`00000/Czo€r? l40L!94AS Q€Cr/LC‘ . ;2€<§0€6/7£<)//»/ BQLMI/,<<l AMQI- "

:! .,, ill ".,~ , y :, ,_\ y Q/V No. 199$*02~0685»92 IN THE 175ch olsTRch aExAR cauNT¥, TEXAS Ex FARTE § RAFAEL vasquez § § § APPLICANT'S SU?FLEMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO THE TRI&L COURT'S DRDER GF DISMISSAL TD THE HQNGRABLE JUSTICES 03 SAID COURT: Gree‘\.g$.

Comas now, Ka£ael Vasquez; Appl£canm here£é: to file these} his supplemental OBJECTIONS 10 THE Tcial Court’s dismissal of * hit Writ of Habeas Cotphh. Said Otdec was dated'ZS Fabruary, 2015, postmarked 3/5/15, and received Dy Appliganc on 3/10/2015.

Thua, lhahds hill 3/20/2015 to eimaly Etla his obje¢tions. See Houstoo v. back 687 0.8. 266, 101 L.EdZd 265, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988)(Courc documents timely £iledal£ placed in a prison unit mailbox on or dbiore the last day of filing)¢ HISTORY Foc the sake of judicial economy, Applicant respectfully reminds this Honorable C¢urc that a more complete background is contained within the Applicant's £irs& objeetions filed on March 11, 201$. Here, Applieanf simply attaches two additional objections.

OBJECTIOH §2 a. The Ttiab court lacked jurisdiction to nike diacretionary findings of fast and conclusions of law in her dismissal of 2/23/2015. Any discretional act plat§umed by a disqualified judge is void. Burketv v. Snave 196 S.w.3d 892 (Tex.App.~-Texarkana 2006); Hete, the Tr£al¢@€urc failed or 2efused to make any findings of fact dr conglusiona of law as to whoever or non aba should 1. noonan hotsclt. when faced with a Motion for Rocuoal, a Judgo has two optionc; Grant the Motion to Rccuso-~or pass the document on to another judge for dicposition. In the instant casc, the ' Trial Court envoked very limited jurisdiction and diiorction thus creating the vary structural error further dcnyinggnpplionnt bia right to an impartial fact finder. Scc Abdgga£garova v. Stcta s.n.sd 191 (Tex.App.-»san Anconio, zon?q(rhxs same trial court having been found to be piltial,§tcnultcd in thc reversal of a capital murder conviction)g Cain §§ Statc 967 S.w.Zd 262, (Tex.Crin. App. 1997)! Bluc v. Stntci'él S.W.Sd 129, 138 (Tcx.€rim.App. 2000); Tcx.€onst.ntt. Vj:§l~a(&)n. Eaaily, the Trlal£ Gourt'n limited jurisdiction puponc£ully operatcdato circumvent the "tcasonable member of the public at largo," analysis required when a judge is faced with n Motion for Rocunal.

Abd¥gaggauovn v. State augrn.,(citing Arizona v. Fulminnn!§go U.St 279 (19$1).

OBJECTION #3 a. In East v. Scott 55 F.Sd 996,(5th Cit. 1995), the court held that "thc opportunity for an evidentiary hearing in a federal habeas corpus proceeding is mandatory only where there is a factual dispute which, if resolved in the pctitioner‘a £avor, would entitle the petitioner to relief and thc petitioner hoc not received a full and fair evidentiary hearing in the state oou:t.” (citing Townscnd v. Scin 372 U$S. 293 (1963). Horc, the Ttial Goutt has _cnvokcd diacretionary, limited jurisdiction that operated to deny Applicant thc opportunity to cnvoko the appropriate standard of evidence used in answering the question of whether or not the Trial Court should ih&¢ recused hersel£t An evidentiary 2. hearing is required to asced¢hin the merlsoriens facts wh¢ue the state trier of fact relied on an error of law in determining thét she lacked jurisdiction over a writ of habeas corpus seeking only an out»o£»time appeal opportunizy. Towuaend, §gggg.

Each and ev¢ry allegation previously advanced in the instant application and the first sgbmitc@d`abja¢£¥§p are herein reas$ewied.

Respect£ully submitted, Ra¥aef Vaaquez XFVITCANT UNSWCRN BECLARATION I, Ra£ael Vasquez, TDCJ',BI¢QI, an inmate confined in chhaRammey Unit GEQ&eed in Brazoria Gouncy, Taaas, sweet ande¢£§hnalty of parjucy, that the foregoing insc:umenc is true and correcd insofar as l understand the applicable law to xequire.

Exacuted this 15th day of Match, 2015 .a se asquéz CERTIFICATE 93 SERVICE I, Ra£ael Vasquez, TDCJ 573821&, sweet and affirm that a true and complete eopyulf this instrument was delivered by first class mail, postage prepaid, to she o£f£ca of the Bexar County Distriot Att¢tney, Mr. wi¢holas "Nico" LaHood, at the Cadena*Reeve$ Justica §enter, 300 Dolorosa, Fi£th floor, San Antonio, Texaa 78205# 030. .

§a¥aafvvaaquez ‘XFF[TGANT 3.

wo.“meas~cn~osas~wz " ax PARTE_ q la ram xvszb cazmxsan ~ $AF§§L vasquez § acme mm BEXAR "' ‘ § 'couNTY, TsxAs __§, AP?LICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL LDBJECTIONS TO TH£ TRIAL CGU§T S ` GRDER 0F DISHISSAL ll TO THE`HBBBBABLE JUSTICES OF SAXD CGURTBiGteeBingS» v _ Comes n§§, Rafael Vasquea, Appli§an§ herein, to file §§fore this Honorable Court, his Soppl¢lent§l ebje§§lona to the T§ial Gour§’§ Order`dl§mlssing his writ of habeas corpus, dated 23 Februaty, ` 2015, postmarked 3/5/15, received by Appxi¢ane`nn 3/10/2015;.»` Thu§, he has until 3/20115 to timely file his obj§§§lon§ per Tex.R.App. Pr§§., nolo 73 é(b)(l); Houa§on v. Laok 108 S. §§.

2379 (1988)(prison "§allbox §ul§“).

HISTORY For §h§ sake of judicial e§onomy, Appll§an§ respectfully points to a mate §omple§e hi§tory of this writ of h§b§a§ §orpu§ ££Ied wish the ins§§n§ application. H§§e, Appl£§ant notes that he has, co da§e, filed an wri§§ao Obj§o§ions to the Cout!ia sua sponte dismissal on 3/11/2015. Se§ llao, his Supplemen§§l objections #2 and #3 filed 3/15/2015. Thl§ is his §e§ood sup§lemencal 0 objection timely filed in accordane¢d§*th TRAP R. 75§#(§)(2).

Appli§ant‘s Obje§§ion to the Trlal Couct'a dismissal #4: a. Primarilly, the ¢§ial Court olleg§s that she does not hav§ jurisdiction "unleas the application contains sufficient sp§§iflo 1. facts eacabllihing th§c the current olaim§ and issues have not been and could not hoye been pceoentod_pgeviously in an original appltoation.“ Tax.Codo Crim» Froo¢, Arc. 11.07 §§ (a)(l)(Order, Findings of Fact and Conoluaioos of Law, pg. 2,,2/23/2015).

Howavar, a prisoner’s application 13 not second 02 sueoessivi¢, simply because it follows an earli§¢tpet£tion...a later potition sdccesa1ve when it 1) Raisea a claim challenging the §!titiohér’. conviction or sentence "Thac was or could \hia been raised in` an erliec pecition." Id. lnterestingly, ThehTrlal Court has ovér~- looked this element of the statutory roquicomenta. And 1a any eveant, _z doilnition, Applicant haas hot rely on newly d1sooved¢dd ev1dence to show that a “raasonable fano-finder would fnot] have £61und the ApOlioant guilty of the underlying offenae." Soe 22§§ § 2246 (b)(Z)(A)(B), nor than h1s claim "rolies on a new rule of constitutional law.“ Catn v. State 947 3 W.Zd 262, 266 (Tex;- Crim.App. 1997)("non-success£ve writ dismissed as 'not decea¢lyy) Ao¢ordingil’§che applicanc s document 1a no§ auooeas1ve simply _ beeause 11 follows another app11cat1on. Tho app1ioat1on should § be REMANBED BACK TU THE 12161 Cougn no addretp the issues therein.

Objeozicn §Sa did in any eitaa, the appropriaté vehicle for seeking an out-o€-time appeal is by writ of habeas corpus from eha Texaa Court of Criminal Appeala, V.A C.C P. A2t. 11.07; Ashoca d V. State¢$i S.W.Sd §05, 409 (Tex.App.~~-Houston [18: Diit.] 2002, pea. filed); Rivera v. Scate 160 S.W.Zd 1§8, 169 (Tex.App»~S¢ San Antonio 1996, no pet.); Olivo v. State 918 S.W.Zd 519, 525 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996)("donial of a meaningful appeal due to ineffective assistance of counsel 13 proper gcouods for habeas reliof”). Thua, the prior app§icacion, seeking only an out*o£» 2» time opportunity to £1le PDR was "onothcc mattcr" neither oE(L¢-T@Naama,wgkwéb whtch have anything to do with the unde21y1ng conviction other " 1\” than "sharing the same forum 02 fact~§1nd1ng“ thivddo not roach the de£121t1on oE a challenge to the conviction. Ex Parte Bvans S.N.2d 663 (Tex.€rim.App. 1998). Accordingly, the Triel’Couxt’s d12m1ssal was improvidenttaad th1a Honorablc Court should REMAND the application»back to the Triol Court lof consideration of the issues therein. v Respectful}y submittcc,, // ,.‘i_;/“V,€ ./~:!,::‘;;:mf- ' "/,°)"1`/, z ..

Ra£ael¥Vasquc! APPLIGANT " 0252022 ozcmauzos !, Ra£acl Vasquéz, TDCJ §?3821§, en inmate cou£imeé in the Ramscy unit located 12 B2azoria Goinly, Texca, swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing instrument 18 true end correct insofar as 1 nndc2stand the applicable laiwto sequiro. ' 'Executcd this 17th day of Narch, 2015. »'/:/¢v,/pff/ “”"""°j$ ' asquczévAPFLl NT CERTIFI€ATE OF .SEHVICE 1, Rafacl Vasquec, TBCJ §73821§, sweet and a€£122 that a t2uc copy of dlis instrument has been delivered to the office of the Diatrict Attorncy, char County, postage prcpaid, at Cadohn°~ reeves Justice Genter, 300 Dolorosa, 5th floor, Sao il¢onio, Texas, 78205~3030 on this, the 17th day of March, 2015.