Montelongo, Joe

W,%E;z~og

`l

Date:_12-17-14

To: Court of Criminal Appeals
P. 0. BOX 12308
Austin Texas 78711

RECE|VED!N '
LAPPEALS
From: Mr. Joe Montelongo #1266916 COURTOFCRMMNA
. Michael Unit ,
2654 FM 2054 DEC 302®1@§
Tennessee Colony Texas 75886

Abel Acosta, Clerk
Re: wR-67,332-02.

Dear Glerk,
Please file these objections with the C;C.A, Thank You.
' cERTIFIcATE‘ oFt sERvIcE ' '

1 hereby certify that 1 have sent a true copy of these documents
tO:

1. District Clerk
133 North Riverfront Blvd.
Dallas Texas 75207» ~

mailed on`the date indicated above.

UNSWORN DECLARATION

Applicant declares that the attached is true and correct.

Respectfully submitted,

.. n ( _' v
¢jjr. Joe Montel§%go'#1266916

Michae1 Unit
2664 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony Texas 75886

 

cc.file

-wR@ei-'s32"-'62 " '
Court of CrZ@§na§ §ERZ§ls of Texas

IN THE ZOéth, DISTRICT COURT

<M

Joe Montelongo

Ex Parte OF

MD(/~.`/J

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

OBJECTIONS TO THE TRIAL COURT NOT MAK1NG FINDINGS Or' FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

To: The Honorable Judges of the Gourt of Criminal Appeals, comes

now Joe Monte1ongo, and makes these his objections to the.
Trial Court not mak1ng "F1nd1ngs of Fact, and Conclusions'
of Law"1n his 11. 07 Writ of Habeas Corpus_appiication~»

Movant does show in support of this motion;

1. Applicant proved that his trial attorney had once prosecuted
him on another charge, and because of Mr. Bret Martin being
the prosecutor, it created a conflict of interest when Mr.'"
Martin was appointed to represent him on another charge. See"
Westbrook v. Zant 

 189 §M D. GA. 1983); and
Ziegenhagen 890 FZd 937, 940 §7th Clr. 989) "1t is well
established that no attorney may represents criminal defendant
when the attorney or a member of his firm either repre senter
or has previously representt d the government in the prosecution
of the Defendant See Ex Parte Parker 

. `, '
See supra Ziegenhagen 899 FZd at 940 "although not every conflict'
of interest is so egregious as to constitute a violation of '
the 6th amendment. Government employment in a prosecutorial
role against one defendant and subsequent representation of a
defendant in a defens =e capacity is not proper'

2. Applicant also presented newly discovered evidence that proves
his actual innocense, allows h1.m to toll the AEDPA deadlines,
and enter into federal court._ y '

3. The Trial Court failed to obey the I. C. C. P. art. 11. 97 3 §c)
"1t shall be the duty of the convicting court to decide whether
there are controverted, previously unresolved facts material
to the legality of the applicant' s confinement" "Shall" indi~
cates a mandatory duty. The Trial Court has no discretion in
making this determination, it must be made. The Trial Court
has failed to perform it' s mandatory duty in this case, and
therefore Applicant requests this case be remanded back to

the trial Court with an order that it perform it’ s mandatory
duty.

_Respectfully requested,

C£r. Joe Montelongo §1266916

MichaeL Unit 2664 FM 2054

Tennessee Colony Texas 75886