1
IN THE //YA/^
H P 1C: \ hi A 1
UmbtlMnL court OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN , TEXAS
EX PARTE FELIX LONGORIA §
Appellant/ COURT OF CREINAL APPEALS
§
VS
f& 02 2015
NO.PD-1141-14
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ^^h^ffff^Clerk
§ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING f£Q Qo 2015
TO THE HONORABLR COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Abel Acosta, Cierk
Comes now, Felix Longoria/ appellant pro-se in the above-styled and num
bered cause and moves this Court pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure,Rule 79.1 and 79.2 (c), to consider the Court's order of January
14,2015 for rehearing. In support thereof ,v Appellant will show the following:
I.
This Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals has subject-matter jurisdiction
to hear this motion under Appellate No, 03-13-00603-CR and the Rules of Appel
late Procedure, see Rule 79.2(c).
II.
On January 14,2015 this Court ordered Appellant's Petition for Discretion-
ary Review refused. Appellant received the order on the 21st of January,2015.
III.
Appellant follows the Court's directives found in Rule 79.2(c), and pur
suant to the Texas rules of Appellate Procedure, appellant so certifys that
this Motion for Rehearing is grounded on substantial intervening circumstances
and is made in good faith and not for any delay which would tend to prejudice
the State or the interests of justice.
IV.
The interest of Justice is the objective upon which the appellant seeks
by asking this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals to reconsider the Petition -
for Discretionary Review refused on January 14,2015. The issues within the
-1 -
appellant's Motion for rehearing refer to appellant's substative right which
is material to his incarceration and punishment. The reason(s) for the Review
asked whether the appellant is allowed to get before the Court exculpatory
evidence that had been ignored by the appellant's Attorney,the State, and the
Trial Court Judge,although testimony revealed that this evidence existed. The
Attorney for Felix Longoria never sought to search for the Woman named Debbie
in order to establish a Constitutional right to have and present witnesses in
appellant's own behalf. DIETZ V. STATE, 123 S.W.3d 528, at 532(Tx.App.-San-
Antonio 2003),citing CHAMBERS V. MISSISSIPPI, 410 U.S. 284,at 303(1973). The
appellant and his witness at the revocation hearing gave testimony concerning
the existence of such a witness that would have been able to give testimony,
about the elements of the offense against the Appellant and a tape of Debbie
stating that she and the victim Joni Longoria caused the injuries Joni sust
ained because of the assault,and not the appellant. The rules of Appellate
Procedure Rule 33.1 requires that any ground for Appellate Review must be es
tablished through objection by a party and a ruling by the Tial Court upon
matters in issue. Appellant's Attorney never established any such ground to
preserve an Appellate claim. Moreover, The failure of which should not be att
ributed against the Appellant. RANDLE V. STATE, 847 S.W.2d 576, at577 and at
580(Tex.Criminal Appeals 1993). The Trial Court was alerted to this substan
tive right as the need to establish a fact, see Article 2.01. The prosecutor
had a duty to establish whether or not the appellant would have been exculp
ated through a finding of his innocence. Which appellant claimed,plea notwith
standing. These intervening events must certainly show the circumstanees for
a rehearing by the Court.
Appellant, was not refused with prejudice. A refusal of ••/Petition for
Discretionary review...does not constitute endorsement or adopt of the rea
soning employed by the Court of Appeals, see BUGARIN V. STATE,789 S.W.2d 594,
at 595(Tex.Criminal Appeals 1990), Appellant cites this reasoning although an
- 2 -
appellant pled true to the allegations against him at the revocation hearing.
Before his testimony to plead to the allegations and the trial court hearing,
his trial Attorney was made aware of the Tape that Debbie spoke her out-of-
court statement concerning the assault. This may have been reliable and also
material towards appellant's claim of innocence and through his Attorney he
would not have had to plea as he had. This fortfeited his chance at effective
assistance of counsel and the Sixth Amendment right accorded to establishing
Compulsory right to witnesses in his behalf. The Proscutor also was aware of
the Tape. Appellant should not be held in error v/here even Constitutional
rights may be waived. EDDIE V. STATE, 100 S.W.2d 437, at 440-441( Tx.App.-
Texarkana 2003).
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
In conclusion, the appellant requests that this Honorable Court of Cr
iminal Appeals reconsider the substantial intervening circumstances that are
present. The above events are secured on trial record. Appellant prayes that
because of the argument above the appellant asks that the Motion is Granted.
Signed on this Jj(* day of ?\/J£rf/?Juuy^ ,2015.
Respectfully Submitted,
\
^7 0 ^ - ^
-XT'
Felix Longoria, appellant Pro-Se.
c e r t i f i c a t e of service
A true and correct copy of appellant's Motion for Rehearing was mailed to
the State Prosecuting Attorney pursuant to Rule 9.5 T.R.A.P. at Lisa C. Mc-
Minn-State prosecuting Attorney,POB 13046-Austin,Texas 78711.
szZjl/ciL (KS?7j '^/^
- 3 -
^o-
^ ^. ^
X
I
^ "t I
••o
m
•:.\
{••••
i\v
\
y
fi
^ ^ ^
a')
^
."M
^ 1
1 -
0»
P
j?
ft*-
3
rtss"
•wLr
u
PJ l,y
a w
H
Un ***
*ia
.j
T
m ?5
i* N
,tf