aw-a
Rov L. Smithwick, .Tr.
TDCJ#62281.4 McConnell
3001 S. Emilv Dr.
Beeville, Tx. 78102 RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Court of Criminal Appeals
ATTN: Clerk
Capitol Station
MAY 06 2015
P.O. Box 12308
Austin, Tx. 78711-2308
RE: Questions/Justification
Dear Clerk/
In Ex Parte Robbins, (73,484-02) the Criminal Court of
Appeals (CCA) Stated:
"This Court may consider a subsequent application only if 'the
current claims and issues have not been and could not have been
presented previously in an original application or in a previously
considered application filed under this article because the factual
or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the
applicant filed the previous application—'"
"As stated previously/ "'(In Robbins)"NO ' NEW FACTUAL BASIS for
the claim have emerged since the applicant filed his original
application. The question remains whether the enactment of 11.073
created a NEW LEGAL BASIS for the claim."
The Criminal Court of Appeals found that:
"Article 11.073 provides a NEW LEGAL BASIS ofr Habeas relief
in the small number of cases where the applicant can show by
the preponderance of evidence that he or she would not have been
convicted if the newly available scientific evidence had been
presented at trial."
The CCA Previously specifically addressed "Robbins'" cited
Errors, but REDRESSED the same errors under Article 11.073.' s
NEW LEGAL BASIS. The Jury did not have the New Scientific
testimony to consider from the States witness that Discredited
the relied upon original Trial Testimony..
LIKEWISE:
In Ex Parte Smithwick (WR-29,892-21) he has DISCREDITED
the Scientific testimony with expert Affidavits/Testimonials
like 'Robbins' did that show the State relied upon Science that
is NO-LONGER SOUND and was unavailable to the Jury to base their
decision.
1.
NO FACT FINDING:
The Trial Court upon being presented such issues of evidence
should have at the minimum developed the Records with a Findings
of Facts to address the issues, but did not. This left the
CCA with an Undeveloped record to consider the NEW LEGAL BASIS.
The Records provided by Ex Parte SMITHWICK in his last
Writ Application are un-refutable and have not been refuted
by the State. > The Scientific Expert Trial Testimony relied
upon innacurate scientific data. >The States own Prosecutor
stated he was going to prove his case RELYING UPON SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE, z—>THAT IS NOW DISCREDITED.
l.The Facts of Records met the requirements of Art. 11.073
--being that the Scientific Testimony relied upon by the State
has been Discredited and the Jury did not have Accurate Scientific
Information to base their Decision.—>How can the claims be
denied without a Developed Record establishing a Findings of
Facts to negate the claims for the Appeals Court to Review and
base a Decision???
2.The Facts of Record show Smithwick did not have the "LEGAL
BASIS" previously of Article 11.073 to review the claims, just
as ROBBINS did not have the New Legal Basis available.-->How
can Smithwick be denied the same opprotunity for Review without
a Developed Record establishing facts to negate the claims???
3.How can Discredited Scientific testimony relied upon
by the State continue to maintain a Conviction without a Developed
Findings of Facts considering Accurate Scientific information
that was not available to the Jury for their Decision???
Will you please answer these questions or take appropriate
action that will estabishc a developed Record of Facts citing
areas for support to.deny SMITHWICK review under the NEW LEGAL
BASIS previously UNAVAILABLE.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Roy L. Smithwick, Jr
j^l-l*