Shanklin, Jared Lloyd

.\ -. n _ ;?,7£,<>~€>) Jared Lloyd Shanklin 31202034 Stringfellow Unit A4-21 1200 FM 655 Rosharon, Texas 77583 January 12,2015 Clerk,Abel Acosta Supreme Court Bldg. 201 W. 14th St.Rm.106 P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711-2308 Dear Clerk Acosta, Please find enclosed a copy of Applicant's Objections To State's 'Findinqs of Facts and Conclusions of Law, and Order. Will you please file these into the court promptly,under the same cover for consideration. Also, please notify me of this filing, by stamp-dated and file- marked copy and return of ths cover letter to me at the address above. Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Jared Lloyd Shanklin #1202034 RECE|VED IN y couR'r oF.,chMlNAL APPEA'-Ls FEB 11 2015 " Abel Acosta, C|erk \ CAUSE NO: 941654-A lEX PARTE JARED LlOYD SHANKLIN Applicant. . IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, AUSTIN TEXAS AP§LICANT'S OBJECTIONS TO STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS/ AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AND ORDER Comes now, Jared Lloyd Shanklin,#1202034,pro se applicant/ in the above numbered cause, having been Served with the State's Proposed Findings of' Facts and Conclusions of Law, And Order, now OBJECTS-to the findings pursuant to Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Ann. art. ll.O7 §3, and presents the following: l I. 'Applicant has no objections to point(l.)in the State's Eindings and agrees that reversal was on punishment¢ in which he recieved Thirty years.;(See State's Original Answer @ p.l-2) However, Applicant OBJECTS to the following portions of the Findings of Facts: #6,( because while the appellate court found that trial counsel's failure failure to seek the instruction on manslaughter, 'such failure was in fact~ so outrageous that no competent attorney would NOT have engaged in such trial strategy. Shanklin argued in his' ll;O7, that because his trial counsel failed to give an explantion of why'he chose not to request a lesser offense instruction in his affidavit at the new trial hearing, and that the State was not at liberty to fabricate a tactical reason for his trial counsel\s failure. (See Shanklin's MEMORANDUM OF LAW - MOL hereafter MOL p.4-6) Shanklin relied on BIAGAS V STATE,l77'SW 3d 161-170-71 (Tex.App.- Houston [1St Dist] 2005), and MoRE v JoHNsoN, 194 F3d 586,604 (Sth Cir.1999), further Shanklin's counsel stated in his affi- davit that his failure was not the result of any reasoned trial strategy. (SHANKLIN,19O SW 3d 160) Point is the State's application of STRICKLAND standard is unreasonable and in direct opposition of Federal Court findings which does not_allow the court to make up a strategy for counsel/ especially when counsel has; stated. that he made no reasoned choice in strategy, as here. See MOORE V JOHNSON,lQ4 F3d 586,004 (5th Cir.l999) Eurthermore, Shanklin argued his counsel's failure to seek mitigating evidence on the issue of Defense of A Third §arty (MOL @ p.2), which the state failed to address, has not been found on the facts. Thus an evidentiary hearing is needed. Shanklin OBJECTS to all of the findings of facts made by the State in that they were found of the appellate court based on the application' of another writ, in which the substance of his claims were different from those argued in the previous appli- cation. Shanklin argued, as stated, His counsel's failure to seek lesser instruction of manslaughter and to present mitigating evidence on¢ Defense of Third Party:(B) Failed to Call Eyewit- nesses to Incident;(C) Failed to hire Expert to Present Mitigating Evidence (WILLIS' STROKE);(Za) Failure ` to Raise lneffective Assistance of Trail Counsel for failing to raise_claims mentioned above. Shanklin also argued Abuse of Discretion (MOL p.21). none of Shanklin's claims have been addressed. The State does not argje' that Shanklin's claims are barred as a jsecond and successive writ, but that Shanklin is barred from raising the same claims in a second writ (State's Conclusion of law @ 1). As stated Shanklin presents newsarguments which'the state has not addr€SS@d.(S€e MOL) An Evidentiary Hearing is needed, that findings of facts can be made .upon Shanklin's new arguments stated inhis memorandum and application. Shanklin Objects to all of the state's conclusions of law be- cause by the State's own admission Shanklin's counsel was found ineffective for his failure _to request an instruction on man- slaughter, and was found ineffective on his failure to elicit vtestimony regarding lack of intent to kill.(State's Eindings @ 3) Shanklin Objects to #7/ because by State's own admission it stated that appellate counsel should have raised the claim on direct appeal.(See Conlusions of Law @ l ; 9) Shanklin objects to #5/ as none of his claims are conclusionary_ 4because if' the evidence would not have been sufficient to su- stain a finding of guilt, aguittal would have been in order. Shanklin Objects to #6} in that the appellate court did in fact find, by a preponderance of the evidence that counsel was objectively deficient' in his representation, and that counsel. was ineffective during the punishment phase of trial. Such findings are contrary to the evidence and are unreasonable determinations of facts, in light of the evidence. 'Shanklin objects to #8, in that his claim of sufficiency of v l the. evidence 'clearly would `have been a better_claim to raise/ or in the alternative, equally .as persuasive as the claim of counsel's failure to seek an insatruction on manslaughter. Shanklin objects to #9, in that a miscarriage of justice would occur because Shanklin argued under the plain-error standard Of review .UNI’I‘ED STATES` V RODRIGUEZ/‘l§ F3d 408/415 (Sth Cir. 1994)* Shanklin objects to #lO conclusion of law, as in all things _the state court's findings of facts and conclusions of law are both unreasonable determinations of the facts and unreasonable applications of clearly established federal laws.LINDH V MURRAY/ 521 US 320/336,117 S.Ct.2059¢138 L.Ed.Zd 481 (1997) Accordingly, it is recommended to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that Shanklin's objections be considered and that an EvIDsNTiARY HEARING be held to determine whether affidavit filed in support of' Shanklin's claim of counsel's failure to call eyewitness,Ms. Lilly (See EXHIBIT-A) would have made a difference in the outcome of_trial. (SEE MOL.p.6-8) 1 Respectfully Submittedf %RED LLOYD SHANKLIN #1202034 Stringfellow Unit 1200 FM 655 Rosharon, Texas 77583 I} Jared 'Lloyd' Shanklin, do declare and state that a copy of the foregoing Applicant's Objections To State's Proposed Finding of Facts and Conclusions of law, and Order was mailed to the State's Attorney at 1201 Franklin St., Suite 600, Houston, Texas 77002, an this the /9~, day of U'»