D Dear Mr. Acosta: September 6,2015 Re: Cause No. w11-14842-H(B) My name is Sam Jones the Applicant in the above cause number, my ll.07 writ application is pending in Criminal District Court No.l in Dallas County. The trial court ignors all of my motions and pledings._ Enclosed is a copy of my motion to amend my 11.07 application and memo- randum, l filed such motion in Criminal District Court No.l on this date* due to the fact that that court ignors all of my motions and pledings l mail you a copy of this motiion asking that you will either file it in your court for the record or forward it to the trial court for a ruling.

Thank You.

Sam Jones

zglwo»~o§ IN THE 'I‘EXAS coUR'r oF cRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS ` Ex Parte Sam Jones § Criminal District Court No.l Applicant/Petitioer 8 In And For Dallas County. v § State Of'TeXas 8 Cause No. W11-14842-H(B) APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE STATE'S RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HEABEAS CORDUS AND APPLICANT'S,MOTTON TO_AMEND OR WITHDRAW HIS APPLTCATION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW: TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT BURNS: On September 14,?015 Sam Jones (hereafter referred to as Applicant) filed a ll.07 Application For Writ Of Heabeas Corpus in your court and he submitted what he believes to be a "SO-page" memorandum of law that's in compliance with Rule 73.l<d) TeX.R.APP.P. The state contends in their Response that the memorandum and application is not in compliance with rule 73.l(a)(dJ` for the Following reasons: (l) The state contends that the mem-_ orandum exceeds the SO-page limit contending that its "67-pages" in lenght; and (2) That Applicant's final ground for relief has been appended to his application form using plain, unlined paper rather than copies of the pre- scribed form pages. d v ,I Applicant contends herein that his memorandum of lawnand application form is in fact in compliance with rule 7?.l(a)(d) being that: (]) The memorandum of law is "SO§pages" in lenght exclusive of appendices, exhibits, list of exhibits, cover page, table of contents, table of authorities, statement facts relevant to the issues presented for review, statement of facts, procedural history, drounds§presented"forireview, and“prayer & verification.

l(2)'Applicant has repeatedly written the district court clerk and his unit law library requesting copies of pages 14 and ld.of`the prescribed form but to no avail. Applicant's unit law library refused to provide him with the requested forms and instructed him to use his own plain uni lined paper. [See attached exhibit "A"]. In one of applicant's requests to the district clerk the clerk misunderstood applicant's request for "blank" copies of pages 14 and 15 of the prescribed form and erroneously sent applicant multiple copies of pages lA and l§ of his previously filed 1107l application. [see clerk's record]. Applicant then sent the clerk‘s office two additional requests, one request also'informed the clerk that he had misunderstood applicant's request and erroneously sent his multiple copies of pages 14 and 15 of his previously filed ll.07 application. Appli- cant's other request was stamp file dated on Septemher ?,2015 and mailed back to him stating that he would receive the requested forms. [see lattached exhibit "B"]. However, applicant never did receive the requested prescribed forms thus he had no other choice but to use plain unlined paper fdr l single ground out of "twenty-one." l TI If applicant's memorandum does exceed the SO-page limit, which he contends that it do not, but if it does exceed the page limit its only due to him erroneously including the following sections/pages as part of the "exclusive pages" that he erroneously thought didnit count towards the 50epage limit; (1) List Of Exhibits; (?) Procedural History; (3) Statement oF Facts, (4) Statement of Facts Relevant To The Tssues Dresented>For Review;{(§) Grounds Presented For Review; and (6) Prayer & verification.

Note that at the bottem of applicant's stamp file dated letter to the court clerk either the judge or the clerk wrote "writ pending 8-l3-lS" however, applicant's writ wasn't filed and filed dated uhtil 9-14-15 one month later. \I

“If this court concludes that Applicant's memorandum of law and his appli- cation does not comply with rule 7?;1 then he request to amend his appli- cation and memorandum by the following waysb (1)“Applicant request that the court on its own accord will subtract or delete, or nullify the said sections/pages in his memorandum outlined in the above section IT of this motions Or (2) Applicant request to amend his memorandum himself by deleting the said sections/pages from his memorandum, such sections/pages are a total of 12 pages numbered iieiv and vii-xv. lf such sections/pages are not part of the exclusive pages then those 12 pages makes the memorandum a total of 67 pages not 67 as the state allegesji (3) Applicant_request that the court will instruct the district clerk to mail him copies of pages 14 and 15 of the prescribed form; Or (4) Allow Applicant to with- draw his application and memorandum to Correct the errors.

PRAYER= WHEREFORE, PREMISE CUNSIDERED¢ Applicant respectfully prays that this .Honorable Court will "GRANT" this motion and accept his submitted 11.07 application and memorandum of law or in the alternative allow applicant to amend such correcting the errors or the court on its own accord delete the said sections/pages`in the memorandum outlined herein this motion. Or in the alternative allow applicant to withdraw the application and memo- _randum.to correct the errors. l vERiFrcATIoN= 1, Sam Jones being the Applicant in this motion declar that the facts stated herein are true and correct. By my signature below 1 certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that a copy of this motion was mailed to the Court Of Criminal Appeals and to the Dallas District Attoreny Susan Hawk by placing such in the Wynne Unit U.S. mail box§ Executed at Walker County, Huntsville, Texas on this the eth say of september 2015. ' XW"/ W '*»