%(,¢ 9 gm /?@Z¢Wf?
79 95 _fc¢i z/A/j/ »
jj 77 7 799/m 759
“ ./l 591 /" Z< yyf/f’

' ' Q£L;L.'»ZB/f // `\,\\ §§LQL‘ 09
dps/97 0/'4(919)/9¢ /y//‘%U M

RE:;¢EW:D m

/9/( %Ag¢ 9¢¢¢/¢ couRToF`cR!F,elNALAPPEALs
994 609 999 em 082@35
:Z<;’: W /¢/;» 99 99
9\-,?@5@£913@3*;&, §33@§&<

9 9/ -9/9 f
919/99 97;(9;:: 999¢9 999 9¢9#/9»033,?9/~999,999»9 v

9 %£9;79;
293 99 §/9/!¢9 z /// /9 /9J@/ //9//%/9/;:;/
597/993 %///z/W/;//WMM/)/ /0 //{Ma /7/2 :;9”/ : : fpm/y y
199 999 99/9/ /9 999 9/999// 999

/'\///9 %/95/»»/// //9/ WI//U %9’/9,(,

/A»W /j //'J /2999 /L /9999%%/1{€”/ MWC y

/7/¢//9/%0 774 /9/9 9[//./7/?/1/69 //1 //,¢‘9/~ %//L,}/c%’/,

 

 

 

L'~JHI‘E NO. 3.2~“¢}332£.‘:°-€¢3?~272~:-"1
E§}¢; PPM@ ` -' § IN 'I.’HE CGUR’I‘ CJF CRIMI.?§‘L DIS'I‘E'~Z.'C‘X§F
§ 2721’1§51 JUDICI?*"L BISI’RICI*
D§W¥?Z B.. GRF?ER § FRE’)?G£~? C(HI&\?!.'Y, TEXZ~`§S
BPPLICANT'S B'BTION TO RECUSE D.ND DIS’Q‘UALIFY U'§ M\’.ABIE J{`)'DGE ‘F.`RZWIS

M I[II FROM E§NY M‘I} ALL PRD¢HTEDIL‘C~S DFN~»ING WITH D.PELICANT’S ,}..O'?
HZ‘£BE’AS CURPUS

'EG THE IM#EUBAHLE/JUDGE GE' SZ~!ID COURT:

OQ?'U NOW, DAVE D¥WNE GREIER, .Z§ppl:§.cant,h@rein am in 511§;§..~»:):¢:€: of weiss
W’;,icm will shm;' this warrale C¢.mrt the f§x`l,lowin;§: `

I.

Pight before the jun/ry was ch)m in, during a hearing in open cmt,
concernmg the fact that trial jw§g'e 'l‘mvisl?myan I`ELI, had mavile
xcepresenteé applicant in a cr:§,u‘zinal casse |z-zs a des»f@szse at'&:‘:smeey, §'iis
représ¢antatim (Wa: _"nsucéé:s:aful)- as hi$repr@i-z@n'a:at;iori r@sulte<§ in Appl.;§.can‘i;
being amaridj;'ed. T.\:avis§ryan III wath for me record "ezn§ iii either :Bid@
mts 133 off we ca.¢se, I’ll willingly recuse Ws>elf. . ." \j'ol. ll P.S' L,lZ-»I€.B,

Z§;_;gvlicwt was of the belief that when he filed his original application ~::.»f
hamm cor;ms 3.1.07’ _zmich cited nmn€erou$ allegations vc:)z@‘:` ,i;lr:consti‘cutional
violations and ir:~;zr‘oprieties of ITaViEEr§'an 111 himself Gmrjng am before tzial
seven keegan concem'x.ixag- his ac:t:i.c;»n.~’s ami:¢“.mactionss by '§§rac@.all.y violating
mmatc>ry S“€;atut@s, as Wel; as me~m rules of fevidence and proc@c?ure$. Applic&nt
al.s=zo allech in grounds of emorss 3.8-19 in hiss hamm application that ju;`ig@
Bryem allowed the promoter in open baum cm th@ r@cc:>):r.% to cmzit a bkate.nt

. \

criminal coff@n`.e@ (Tcex.?. Coc?»e E.Ql) {S&z@ Vc)l -f?~ Pa§,»‘@ 365 L.M~»X.S "?£'&: view ram
vae.= to m bey<md ea rmsc;<mhle c“»ioui.<:fc,. w .") zw§'z:§c§a zmam?+:)igxwwsly <ie.»~»x):im A§oplicaz"rt
a fair tr:i.al, Ac“z'<§§i%;ic)mlly Z\;g:i:)l:§.cant alleged with a .»t~:v;¢p§:c)z‘t.a`ng affidavit that

ju<;?<ge Bryar_x had extens:§.va=e Sec:ce.i; ex game marmmicai::i.m wirh the d&limz‘a‘i::§zzg

;_~)

43

~‘“'.»)»-M.

,\ . - 3

"._ m
‘-»....,....,,

\<
jurz,»". 'I"n:?z.s; is in effect asking the jj)§§.,e tr') Gp.en§.y and mpezrtial§y 333 1033
nglicant to further develo;:) the record 310 gmcvid@ additional evidence that
he 03“33. dhi~:=s dj.ccrcetjcn, violated nlms@fmmn rule.ez, mcgu§.ai;im and miatutcrally
mardiancd groceé.ures . ‘I’o further develop€the record the j»ud§, 0 himself 330331<?. m

fom@d to voluntarily cestify against 3133333@1£ 3333 355 provide additidml mmrn

ev:§dez"zc€ that he both violated all the afomnn': icr`xc~:d righk$ of A'pplicant but
why he allan-red thc §Yoézccutor 3':0~ 3;-.11 the jury during eldeng zale§y.mec~mtss that

the proof did net havc~a to he beyon§ a reasonable doubz'.. ‘l"he-n rccczmzcnding that
his actions and inactions= denied A;)plicant a fdo;`}'r tz~ial.; , Ess@ntially Jz,zdge.
B;yalz. is being pleach in a incitic»n to set himself up to personal 11 dave;? 010
the mccord ‘-:o be used 3:0 verify his act;~_; of judicial mlscondnct , posssiblc`
rcvcmal iran the bfench, or the public bccmmjng aware of theresa estes cf ~zzals*
conduct lossing reelection due to leasing §;ub}.ic tm~$t. 930 Sa'y as a drastic
un& restatement Jw:`:ge Bz~yan‘ 's inq:a'rt iality is him bly cun.:~,twal..l<;~ Fs'b.¢.~zo it' 3 l
wainwan ccnt'r_"o'\»'*€~r$y ’¢;3'3@.3: jud@@._ I?-rynn has a crucial per$:a'.c)nal' int@rcst in
thc cuicc;mz> of the subject matter of this procéeding. As,Suc‘n he has a'
personal biasmss and Wcjm:ice in influij the out 003330,,0£‘ these _'c_mi=<:eminm
Sc-:e In re Chaves, 130 S.W.Z%d 107,132 (Tex.Agxp.‘-FZJ_ Paso 2003.):
"Di aqualiflcation of a judge can not be waiv<;~:-d even by consent cf the
parties, and the issue may be ._,`.,_..;_3 rais@d at any timc. Games: ]v. Staf;e,
737 S.,W. 2d 315 (Tex.Crim.A§;/). 19537[ 737 S..W.S.?.d ;at 318.- mO‘I§\IUIE 2: Ru'.l.e
3.£31'.)(2) provide$the various gz.'cmldss for recusal, which incer requiring
a judge to recuse §353333€:13? in any pmceed:inc in mich (331) 1330 :ml:>.:zxt;`i.al:i.ty
might reasonably be quan ticnec¢, and (b) he has a 3:)@3:'~'=03'33.1 bias or gmejndice
concerning the subject wattr=~.r or a party, or personal 3mvlwdge of
disputed evjdnntiary facts ccnce'ming the proceeding.
` The courts have flatqu held that even 331 ken a ;ud~gc’ 35 w131:&13‘32:i.an.'¥.ity mcjh*"
reasonably be cpestioned he challe recuse himsclf. Gulf writich Warehomsc
Cc, v. 'I‘cwer@, 858 ,.W. 2335 5,6 558 (TQM. Ai;,p.-Eeamacnt 99 3):
"Rcega:rda`ng di.Sq\§alificaticn of a judgz-:», we have two !:aSeS cf considerat.'§,cm

`E‘irst, is TEX CGNST.:§;Y#: ‘3/" §33 which 3=:1:03:033 as :Fc;l 1.<3;»33: S~c=c 11 No judge
shall Sit in any cane w}':c~ercin handy be interested, ...‘ 331 559 "I-Iavjng a

gemmiaz:y or financial interest_’»;is certainly of foremost considc~;ration.
’lhere are other concerns however finish have been addressed by Justi<:e Sgears
caicez'ning ccr.rmcnts in &m Fbcplora*cion end production Co. v. Jac?~:son,

783 S.W. 2d 202, 206 (Tex.l?~$?$)); .?.~`u'nlic policy demands that the judge who
sits in a case act with absolute impartiality. Parz§€ergrass v. Eeale,

59 Tex.l}%,¢él£~? (].E’.~SB) 0 Reycmd the dam diet a judge be :Em}_:sl~tial, however,
is the ):'equriement that a judge appear to be impartial so that no doubts

or suspicions exist as to the faimess or integrity of the court. . Actna
wife Im. Co. v. lavoze, 475 U.S. 313, 106 S.Ct. 1580, 89 L.Ed.£d 823 (19~‘1”€);
Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., M..€i U.S 23€',, 199 S.Ct.. 163.€), 64 L“EJ. 2d 1552
(1980) . 'I‘ne judiciary must strive nat o xiv to give all parties a fair

trial but also to maintain a high level of public trust and confidence.
Im?etmity .T.ns Co. v., Mc€?ee, 163 Tex., 412, 356 S.W.,Bd 6»€5€%, 663 ('.?.`cx. 19&2).
'Ine legitimacy of the judicial process is based upon the gabl.ic:'s

resin§ct and its confidence than the system settles controversies
inv;;:nxt:ially and fairly Jvdi.cial decisions rendered wider circzmstancns
that suggest bias, prejudm:e, or favoritism cmr<:~.mine thc-z intagity of the
miri:,'s, bused skepticism and mst;cus’c, and thwart the very priciples can
which tha judicial nystem ia?.:'ased., Ti'le judiciary must tea extremely
diligant in advoiding any appearance off :impr.~ogz.c:?,ei:y' and must hold itself

no exacting standards lest it loan ita legitimacy and suffer a loss of
§mfnlic: confidences Mtnough the court .. c ."

Hn

'IEX., R.CIV"PROC. RUI.,E 1510 Gro\mds far Rcma,al and D' squlific:ation of jenigenz

"(a) Grmuuisfor IB:-'L.`~?,c.pndifir:>a‘<;;icc:rns.1 n judge must disqualify in any

proceeding in zdaich; 7 _ _

(23) we judge knows that, izd.ividuslly dr as a fiduciary, the judge has

an interest in the subject matter in ccnvroversy; or 1

(3) (b) Groundsfcr recusal. A judge must recuse in w?s.ich:

(1) the judge's impartiality might resmmbly be questionsi;

(2) the judge has a personal bias or ;:ccc=:juc"iceccncaming the subject

matter or part “; _

(3 .'T`." the judge has personal kumle~dgeof disputed avident;i.ary facts

concerning the pmceeding: ..

Ihe judge can no more bc- expected to admit his wm incopetency than a
a trial attorney can be ex;:.ec'¢:ed to file a dir»;~:»c'i: appeal and schmitt his own
inccmpe!:oc_y. This is the very reason that after a trial a new and differem;
attorney is appointed to to gr'e;;;ara and file the direct animal Alsaaon v. Ga:rrison.
??.€} E“.Zd 312,&16 with Cir.i%?.~) ("The cont@nt of an appam is heavily controlled
by cMael, and diem as hard the dnfendani;"s trial lawyer alst presented tha
appeal, in iacnv;i.ousthat ineffactive assis€;anca of co\m.¢:s€=el ns nut likely to

bn raised at trial or to apwr anan tim assignments of constitutional cannon ") o

.,
‘."`

~.,_!.`

II¢

m &i;;:»giort of Appl:§.cant'@b@l:’@f CRMQB man W:i.ilin§;ness tc rémmc=: himSeli?
when placedin a ¢Nes;timabi@ minimum is eha amax mist RULL\YG ci»* aims cream
which evasist c'>m Jul§r '5, 2915 Cmirt O”rri<=,»r that Beesifgzciat@d"lisuc-JS of Iz`a<:t*i‘<§ 33
Resolv€;ci." ‘Z€'i'iat v~re=c$ sigma-353 by the ficmz:'aa?ole Ky.’i,e Hawthorn AS "Firc~:'.<siciin»g Jii'§{c_:;e"
switch 513 annular Distx‘i<:t nge. Agiplicant m.tm:'ally' mli@vesi the judge Ei:y“em
hai:".=’. voluntérily' recu$ec`} himself hamlet it was abv.ic:us»,`.].frcm a quick r@a@ing
of applicant‘$ 3,}.,(37 that jui?q@ Hr‘yan saudi not inq:>zirtially decieie vizeth<ar viii
cmi emmet vica}.atez<:`é Z~‘)§zpl.'icant’ez right to a fair trial.

III.

Jw£:§e .Hawthom crdeer@d §§ch Trial Counseil emt'i appellant Cozm§sei to SL&;mit
affit"e€zvits:» by ne latc~:»r than 0<:'@:. ?;", 2015., tie alia mexich the Distz:ict Cle:»sk:"
c)i= Brazos Cou.=')ty to Withi'sold 'pre;;:&ming amici transini‘ttiizg the r@mrc} 110 the vCc>e..n':t
Crir<un:z} ip§@,alss mt'il furth@zr order of this cou:e:t.

'Juat im'§.e=.~ hp,.*;.:-i;i.cemt'cs await ami away when river a mmth prior m the
nafoi&rcentione§ at'tzomeyas affi¢iivitsbeing r@c®.:ived., heirs-mci i‘e;.»c»;jivezt'.é on
n "G::‘c'ier '2?0 ‘I‘razmrit !»iih@aa-. me“{;ais~z Recoiri@,'z“ iiian ty' 'T."»mviss

fatigust 2~/3.~, 2615 a

' " "*\ ,...*w '.L .'
Bz:‘yan ill '¥iu..i= oi~c"§ei~ was@aitt»<i §§.u§;m§st 175 2035 mich inci.u§eé€ -anva/...mgly ting

tacu.“s.cmzlsy e;)c.is‘t@€i no factual its

` wis requiring an evidentiary
twice new mi:

hearing an<i?havc~zheardthe ap§li¢::e:n , ami consid&re$, this c<ms:"€; mgic:al].y
heze??fy ome-zim thc-3 Dietri.ct Clerk of Brazcs Cc>unty to micare~;~ an§ tmriéinit tha
recoré. herein to the Cozirf; cf Cz:iminai Apmals with fha mcmmrz§;ati€ms Uzat the
a;piication bca DI$MISSED, " Signed by ‘.Travr;.ss Bi“yara 1351 .` ¢‘.?; PRESIDING...:‘ Ft»r suRi'?`
this mem citier serer thai best intem:st of Jui)?ge Bryan.
zv. `
For Sw;'e we know action speaks lending thin w@rds.. Ju§g@ I~.“€i"yan &lawre£ out

no imcer@ to totally clam S‘nut amy chance that Applic:emt might name had to mgmw'f€é

his due process right to develop the factual bases of the facto that are
presently outside the record
V.

Jwige Bryen‘e eeli:` alerting order is extremely inadequate to Sez|/(: the
wielded pampose in a wheels preceedings, as o'fecideé by the U.S. &igzr'z~)me Cou:c't;,
the Honorable Fifth circuit one Texae highest Court; “Court: of Ci':lm‘§nel Ap_oeels."
E*eoh mandates that when en applicant files his collateral attack on his criminal
conviction, the initial took is to "<ietez'rrri.ne whether [his] oli.eqatione, if
pmven would establish the right to habeas relief." If eo he is entitled to en
evidentiary hearing to further develop these factual basis with facto outside
the record. Ex Perte Beyna, 701 S.W.Zd 921 (Tex.€,‘r:im.App.lQS€)); Stree‘cmon v.
Lynaugh, 812 F.Zd 950,956 (Sth Cir.l‘i&%?); mmsenél v. Sain, 83 S.ct. 745, 756
(3.963) . Ju<ige Bryan'S highly controvresial end obvious Sel£ eezving order\.does
sharply question his impartially but SCREAY~BLOUDLY "I'll do ever'th:ing in my
power to both cover up my illegal actions and prevent anyone else twa
discovering them end developing a record prov'Q.»inq them.

1', DA"\?E D. G£UER. TDCJ--ID §3.829'75¢.1., inoera't.ec`l in the Texes Dere.tment of
C minimal Jmstice Institutional Div:i.eicm at the Way?ze Scott_¥mit, in Bm'zorie
Ccm'xty, Texas declar mzcier the penalty ’.') of perjury that the facts within this
notion are true and correot.

My birthday is \o~'?\l` (OQ
mecom on this 3d day of cceober, 2015..

UNDER 1¢:x)th Feéeral low 28 U.S.C. §1746 and State law V.A.C.CIV. L?KOC. &
Rem. Code §132.001~132.003.

M§EREEURE, PRMSES mNSIDERE'D, Applicant prove thie motion in all
things be granted, that this notion he assigned to the presiding administrative

judge, then en order be ieeued that Judge Bryan be dj.eqielified mi oroerec':!

 

recused, also that any and all omere signed or issued by him are hereby null
end void. Then grant Applicant any other or eddittional relief he is justly

entitled to, it is eo prayeé.

Respectfully summitted,

©..,%M~/

Dave D. Greer #18?9754
Weyne Scott Unit
6999 Retrieve Rd.
Angleton, Texee 77515

CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE

32 meeoj certify that a true end correct copy-of this notion bee tee-n
sent to all parties in this cause by ec§c`€reoeing o copy to: Dietrict Attorney,
' .E’r Jezvis Persons, 30ij E. 26th Street, E‘uite 310, Eryan, Texae ?7;€3; ‘I$:ze
emma ceo nearest clerz;, seize evemin,` 300 r:'. 25th st,, suing 1235, mem
'onee 77303; 'I‘he Secoz'xi P.clministretive Jt>',$.i.ciel Dietrict Pree:§.c"¥ing Jedge Olen
Unoexwom`§, 301 N. 'Rxcmpeon St.. Sto. 102, Cor\.roe, ’l‘exee 77303,; we £?onoro"x')le
Jw§!~ge Tz'avis Bryen I§Il', 300 E 26th St. Ste, 204, Br§ien, Tez¢ae 77303; 'l“.he
Diet?:ict. Cle'rk of the Court of the Crizm`.nel A¢_.;;:eefle¢ Ak:el P.ooete, Supreme
Cou;t“i: Bldg», 201 D`J.létw E$t. R.m 1(?.’5, Aust;in, Tez~:ee 7970.'§-.-144‘5, by placing
a co£.~y of tne earle m the U.S. P-?e.'§.l gostec_.,e grop¢aj£' on this 3m day of

Coto!;et, 2015 .

