Rey, Reynaldo

XhTheCaar+flfCriminal AppStlS ORIGINAL
0fTex4s
A+ Austin, TetoS „_„_..._
»PBI'»W ,••*•.•«»[•
. RECEIVED,! S\!
COURT Of CRiiiNALAPPEALS

Reynoldo Rey JAN 23 2015
/Ippeik^xn Pro Se,
Abe! Acosta, Clerk
Vs. FILED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
T^e 5ta+e OfTexas1 2 3 2D^5
!esponder\+
J -•—•-• ; ' " •"••"• '• Abel Acosta, Clerk'

Prom The Cour\ Of Appeals
Epr-The. Se^+h Di5k\c4 0f Tetas
A+ Amanita TeXas

From Tm Bl^ vlu^ciql ^
CouiA+V,leXasHo^OrqUe 3^khCnClr^y} ITP C\et\Aor\;
OuH- O-P Appeals CH-/a-004~W-CR -
»wv''witfi3ey.''..a!!gtfj|WM«jMMiif;wa
 Tq h Ift n-P C-nv\±ejn+?>

Xde-rt-h+>/ o-FJu^e, Parh^S and Counsel . . .... 5.
Xy\clex- Of Authorities ...•...'.,..... i iL
S^a+dmenf Regarding Oral /Va^jyienrt. ° *• • • -^i-

S+at£M£n+ o£ Procedural tU^-HDry, 6 r ,,,.,. JL
Grounds ^cov RcvieW, , . « , . « , * , ; , . ,^L

Xs^ue No.
TKeTria CouH-Elided in FindihaThe S;tetf£
Mef i-f^TAr^k^ld BuiJey\ #£ Au+ka/rhVaifcm
The. DMA E\zi cAeiAce Inkocluced Later B^Fbvse,
TTifttTury A-fTrial . » * * 0 ,..».,, j5_
Xssm& Mo. 3~
The. Ei/i^mce-Presented During IheTral
Was LegallyInsafftqewfTo^ppoH-XKe
Tury^s V/e^ic-*- &f &uiliy<. j ,„..*.,, :2_

Argument -fi)«- 6-rtfUhd< One*.. . . . . :£_ _^_ JL iL _3_
Argument 4^ &ri)unclTvVo*. - . , _3_ J£iL _& Hii£
Prayer-for R&li£/f« e » .- « * * . . • . « * . - » *iii
•Cerfif \ea+e 0-f Servhe^* ,.,.,.*. ,(i.,..J5

"I
 _gjgryHty Qf• 3uAg£ ..far-t-l.

\

.KeynalaD twy
iHn Dcinleltf, WarricK
Attarney at La .w/

A4-for nay pt La vv

.ppffl-lAg.SuTrla 1. •C?M^.&w* -
eSkmekk A whet Davis
PflSoX 1053^, «,--_..
UWbocK,TO^08-3 53tr. . •

-a-
 ?* 0-P Au4kbc-\+\ e£

r,n.c;p Lam Page
BaldntmeV.S+A+e,7l S.W.3il&3,7fc8tfdX. tw- App.<^a^4
•BU^-ov.S+flte1%iS.w.^ttt»Oex.C^»v\.App.\cl^fe.&iwi,App,aa^
Da^sv.S+o+e, o<»»<»JZ
tmllfcr- v,£-taH£,,73S,W.3«l MOfoxdr iw.App. 20O2\ , %1Q

J*} IPO V - ' l l U / f i f f f o cC 0 e i»o a a it ' -

L*aror\e V.StatedS.W.ai&0i.il7C!e)cCnv*, App.KTt)- i2_
Malik\/.Sta+elcJ53S.W.2J a^tTeX.Cri^App. W7V. • ±
MdranJa v/.£4a+e,£53S,W3d 7fe2,~76^ CTeX App;-A>mH llo ,
aooi.p£+.A\sv»isseRale °IOl(a\, , * , , l£_

Appellant Waives Oral Argument

OhSepfem^r^l 2012 .theAppelUcrt- was^oundqu] ity
by +Kejury a£+he0££&nsUi-H33i'H11.(W ip, i53r13f] On October^, ao\3i.im
AppellouH-Pilea his Noti, and^eSupplemeiAfal Reporter^ ReeorA was fel&l
on May 23, 3613'..

Si-at^mentOf Procedural lr\\S~i-ary
A The Am&rillo Court £-P App&ils at£\^vAed
Appellants Conviction on Oetoher^S.^W.Melthei-
£k)e tiled a mction -fbr rehearing
(rrr?Mnd.^ Fflr Rei/ievi/
IThgTTrial Court E<-reci In FiiaA vv\g The State
tAet VP$TV\te£>V\oU BarAev\ cot Auih£vvHcati%
The DMA Ei/\Aey\ee \wtrodueed L^ferBefere
Thetrury At Trial,

^l.The E\j\ A&\cd, Presented DueingTkcTri Legally In^ul^ci^ltT^) Support The
{JLi^ y>s Verdict- o^£i* •*;:.£

Monkery v.^a+e>8[0£/^^
on Y-eW^na^^aV.S^crtt,;&53 3,yi/3d 76i,7^peX,App,-^
AmcTirl i\o2D01i pef. di£)^d). in r&/f4he
witnesses' crfidibti ity b^t rei/ieu/d£ n#i/o the H-ml^rfe
applJ cation tft the •tecf-Sttfthe (aw/ &U2Jvnav\ i/, S-frate,
°155 S,l/i/.2ol&5,88^^^^'^«Appd^7);&leKtIne\/,5^
^/^w.3^,^7^8^^-G^;vw,App.xocaY
Autli^ntiC^tioh 6?f phy^/dalei;tdLin<^e re&u iVes \cierjt-
f£leafiDhiyrWSwpp£hf a fS toiCer
v,^tat^,7885Wid IOfrfc*.£rim. Apb, l^fi^cert
CJ9^0\ Wifhtout ej/idenee D-f tamper^g m^sf• -
questions coheerwiing e^re £\r\d ^^st^dy D¥av\ tt^vtf
5o4o w/eiahf a+t^ched, nettKe advrus£ab(lit;yc>£
rfthe ewden^.U^Vie. i/.^tate,^^ 5.u/t^d6/b2/
£/7CfeX,Sri-mr/Tpp.(fF7)(address!ng custody o-f
emtrsllei SMbsfanCje-Y. -fhetriW Cflait has-fhe ,
disere.-tioKi'4-D defer vnl net-He; sa-£f>rc-r£rtcy erfan
exA denf i<3ry dm? Aicafe. 5mifK V. 5fa+£, £83 ^u/t2d
3«,4a5(7eX:,Cr\Fn.App,Hg^ ;'*

^>
 OncC -the proporient erf ev/idence ^ee/cSjMe
threshold requirement of present 1V3testimony
that the ei/tdence is k/haf the propd)nen+-^ayS if
tS.thcweighf eiventhe evidence and related
tes-tivvion\/ iS within the providence ofthe trier dr
PckcJc, £e£lbauiS V, 5tate,9POLS.\A/2d8rlh l^
(7e*. App,-BoustDnQ^tDis+J Wife ru9pet,;.
When the trial eoar+dbesnotv»^ked.)(p\\cl+ 1
tending^ of historical ^ . a rei/ieu/mg e&urf srauld
viewthe evidence\v\a Itgkf m^sf f^t/0rable ttfthe
tr\a Icourts ru Ii ng and 4£j£ Uvne the trk( e^rf ma<4e
implicit findings <>ffkctthaf can be supported hy-fhe
record.Carmonche v/. Sfafe, I0S. W, 3d $25,12.>2gttU.
C\-!w\lApp.'3LD0O).(nreviewMgthetrial court's ,.
evidentiary iruling a re^/ltwing couM~ skouId Consider
/only What wa^ before, the trial aouH art the tiiwe
of VfS rut ing-U/e^herred v. State, 15Ssu7.5d540,
5 43LLteX.Crtv/\,App,3£0O)
Thetrial LWtCDndaci ed apretrial hearing
 G-^y Ion Lew istesfifteiK> hisroLeVtKe crW, scene
investigation as a memlfler of the lAe^v-ifIcattomSechon
flfthaXlubbock. Police Department,Ontlus occas\q\\ his
role was pkotoampWvn^the crime scene \v\ general andthe
ev id enee h eiv\a collected. Deceased Dere&rli/e UidtGiwrniite
role was to collect evidence. C^3, p.H5)
6-c\ykh LowtStestlfveAtba+hewo\dpp.3~4) Wc^ \denfif\ep.S2r 53,5b-U)But
kecoalci K\ot 4-e<.+ify 4ou/ko bggged orkidp^d collectthe
robe, pillow eas^aullt, sheets cmAblanket.And We.
Cau Id v\cA-meal Ikom/tk^Se i4ewaS were C£>(lacfed.(.RR,3,p.6^)
Tke Sfa4e^ witnesses coaid not aghee is>n Wkmfhe
crW scene wa£ aetiVe.Poe.Carryard iPc*\^m0rete3Kft&i
to ^r^me 2&, Km CRR 3,p, £3>£Pcel, P. a££c^ryl^3k~37' .
EParraKLorel Eat Lewi/is testified 4o^Unc M, igg^CM^p^
TKe DPS Lab records could wot aaree on \Ad\e\a Items
wei^e received. Stents Pretrial EYj^llaVFlb Indicates that x
5abvn\ss,von Iw^ rec^l\/ed on3LiAe3^Hvlcl8^.CSRR^,po4
Stated Prctridjl^^ hears a reeel\/ed sfampdateof3Uhe
3A, WW, onthetirSt baqe and atvpeddateot^UneSO, IW,
on the second pq<3eu>RK^pp,T8nikel^sfiniony of37m
TKomas does not kelp clear this diScrepency Sii/vce. he
test^edto both dates, CRR.3, pp.87-88^0
TKc Appellant Wes Ituptotkis courtto decideWliefter
-the tecH4toowy of retired at£c^P£ (cusfodycftte
He>nsfro*n vuklck katrscStotek £Xk;brr*l IS u/erc nscwared,
Infhcabsence #ft^stlvnonyfrom the&.e.c£aoeA officer ui#

-S'
CollectedtKe^bedsbreadiCfuiW, blanket, andsKeef (Sfate*5
rWt^alEyWvt^tWthecrl^ scene, Wi+b conflicting
testvvnony aboutWketKer Stated Pretrial b£kib. ar\d cdIected it the right way. is
is not Sufficient to establish thatfheVVevns anewhaf
the pro pon e nt eda\vv\ thei*\ to be,
Arguhnem-t f OY-rfrnandTA/ft
The proper standard of re\/t eu/fora courtto util
ize, indeterminmg wketkertke eiAvdene+ui/i-
neee^Sarl ly Increase the ^totcis theories of
liability, and adequately describes dhepartleukr
o#ense for Which thede-fenaan-t Wa£ t-rted,
Malik y,SiQ^^SZSM3iAQ39CreX^im,Ap^l^l)i

-