:IN '.'THE .'CRI'MINAL' 'C:OtJRT·~·c;,p·:·APPEALS P.O, BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 OLIN RAY NOWLIN TDCJ-ID# 824386 APPLICANT/PRO SE RECE\VED lN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OEC 31 2014 vs. Abel Acosta, Clerk THE STATE OF TEXAS RESPONDANT MOTION FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE STATE REPLY (A) IL~ THE COURT OF C~IMINAL APPEALJNfJ010©JfM lDJ~WfO/E[D P,O, BOX 1203 CAPITOL STATION {[J~if~- (-q}- 15 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 IBJV:_rE ._, OLIN RAY NOWLIN § C~2~0I0347~0628183-E APPLICANT/PRO SE § § vs, § THE STATE OF TEXAS § RESPONDANT A MOTIONFFpR OBJECTIONS TO THE STATE REPLY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS NOW COME SAID APPLICANT OLIN RAY NOWLIN/PRO SE IN THE ABOVE SYLED NUMBERED C-2~010347-0628183-E AND REPECTFULLY SUBMI~S HIS MOTION OF OBJECTION TO THE STATE REPLY.~APPLICANT FILES WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY~ON ·RECORD AND WILL REPECTFULLY SHOW THE'COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS THE FOLLOWING REASON: (1 ) THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT HE FILED A MOTION FOR A SUBPONA ;. DUCES TECUM THE STATE WITNESS PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE OF CRI~ MINAL PROCEDURE ARTILE 24.02, THE CR[MINAL DISTRICT COURT, NO. #2 REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE STATE WIT~ESS ARE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SUBPONA DUCES TECUM QFrTHE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS & WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE ANY R8LING OF THE TRIAL COURT THE APPLICANT SAK THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO~ #2 FOR· IDENTITY OF THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS THE APPLICANT REQUES~- 2D FOR DOCUMENTATIONS. SUCH AS 1) BIRTH CERTFICATE: AND 2)i f•-.· c AFFIDAVIT UNDER OATH OF SIGNATURE:l'NOT OBJECTING TO THE STATES EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT ALLOW PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES ~PPELANT PROCEDURE RULE 30 (b) (7) ~= 1 (3) . THE STATE ~TATES THAT T~E APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DE~ NIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT FULLY INVE- STIGATION HIS CASE: APPLICANT OBJECT: NOT TURE THE; APPLICANT. CLAIMs-· .L THAT; ~;THE,:::· 'GRAND JURY DID ITS INVESTI- ··.. · .. GATION AND FOUND NO EVIDENCE OFi'THIS:~STAirE WITNESS AS IN EXHIBIT (b) (4). THE STATE STATES THAT THE APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DENIED , HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION: ..!.J {t.-• APPLICANT DOES NOT OBJECT: APPLICANT CLAIMS THA~ HE HAS A RIGHT TO FACE HIS ACCUSERS AND TO SEE IF THEY ARE REAL BY NOT SUBPONA DUCES'::TECtJM "THE '.:"-~!:.T..ff.E:SS .: IDHAT~WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE HAD ANY RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BEFORE THE JURY IS A VIOLA- TION OF THE APPLI~ANT TEXAS AND~FEDERAL COUNSTITUTIONALS A- MENDMENTS RIGHTS 6th/5th/14th. AR