...... ·._
Feb. 22, 2015
Guadalupe Padilla #1088118
Terrell Uni~
1300 FM 655
Rosharon, TX 77583
~OT~OINJ ID~S~~§SIEIQ'l
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Clerk - Abel Acosta lOAlfE: 3. 3 '\$
P. o. Box 12308, Capitol Station BY: PCz
Austin, TX 78711
Re: Case N,o.: WR-61,391-08, Writ of Habeas Corpus Application
Tr~.ct. No.: 952802-E P£Nrfi-f); ~-/l-;tct5'
Dear Clerk:
Enclosed please find original Motion for Reconsideration on
Court's Own Motion, of denial of Applicant's writ of habeas corpus,
art. 11.07 v.A.C.C.P .. Applicant is an indigent prose litiqant
without access to phon~, E-mail, computer.or xerox copier. Please
file this original, with6ut copies, and bring to the attention of
the court.
Thank you for your asststance.
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIIVill\lAL APPEALS
IFEB 25 2015
NO. WR-61, 391-08
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL
AP:?EALS
OF TEXAS
GUADALUPE PADILLA
Petitioner
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Application for writ of habeas corpus in Cause
No. DlDC-95-952802 (95-2802), from the l67th
District Court. of Travis County, Texas
MOTI0N FOR RECONSIDERATION
0~ COURT'S:OWN MOTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES. NOW, Guadalupe Padi:lla, Applicant,. with his Motion For Reconsidera-
tion on Court's Own Motion, of the refusal to grant relief in application for
writ of habeas corpus. Applicant argw~s that the instant application shou1d,not
be denied. until the State court's grant an evidentiary hearing, and fact find-
ing proceedings •. Here, application adequately. alleged facts which, if true,
would entitle the Applicant relief. VJ pp ltc o. t con d ~ 11 1 "l c/ '-- l 1-1- b I<;).
I.
The federal court is required by federal law to accept as true any factual
allegations that are made and supported in federal court, when the State court
has made findings against the Petitioner on those facts without first ordering
a hearing. The State fact finding procedure is deemed "unreasonable", which
means that the State's factual findings are not binding on federal habeas cor-
pus. Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2004).
l.
In addition, reconsideration is required to determine whether State court's
fact findings warranted a presumpt"io•1 ·:1f correctness • .:Jefferson v. Upton, 130
s.ct. 2217 (2010).
n.
Applicant contends the procedures which led up·to the State court's sl:lm'-
mary denial of habeas relief may have been so deficient that they resulted in
a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 28 u.s.c. §2254
(d)(2).
Applicant challenqes the fact-f"indinq process itself on the qround that
i t was deficient in the following particulars:
1. conviction was based on outmoded science;
2. the State court's failure to address relevant a,nd.material questions
raised by results of. post-conviction DNA testing, where results conflict
with State's theory of .case and facts presented to the iury;
3. whether the State court·r.eached an accurate result.and did it fairly, in
'light.of new rule of law establishing that outmoded science as a cause
of action for a writ of habea·s corpus. Art. 1L073 v .A.C.C.P ••
With all due respect to the Judges.of the Court of Criminal Appeals, this·
Applicant poses the following scenario inthat it relates to the facts and cir,_
cumstances in this case:
Applicant asks what a person should do if authorities respondinq to a
Complaint, entered your house and collected bedsheets from the bed
which that person 'shares with his wife/qirlfriend (and upon which 'they
had had consensual sex), and used this bedsheet at person's trial to
show that b~dsheet had semen stains, and through pretrial DNA testinq
identified· said person's DNA profile mixture from semen stain. but:not
Complainant's and used this evidence aoainst him.at trial. At trial
the.state failed to perform DNA testing on sexual assault kit, but post-
con~iction DNAtest.results refiect said person.identified from bed-
sheet·(semenstain) was excluded·from DNA profile mixture from sexual
asisault kit. Iri addition, Hospital records from sexual assault exas
2.
reflected that Complainant had a sexually transmitted disease ~ Trich~
monas, with live STD organisms, at -time of--exam, and State's expert
witness told or explained to the jury that STD would have to come from
fluid in the semen (from bedsheet).
In the case at bar, and contrary to -the state's evidence and theory of the
: . . .
case presented to the jury, post-conviction DNA testing (a validatediforensic
science), has cast doubt on the accuracy of the original-jury verdict. Here,
Complainant was excluded from DNA profile-from semen stain 0n bedsheet, and
Applicant was excluded from DNA profile mixture identified in sexualassault
kit. Questions raised by validated DNA testing, which conflict with trial court
outmoded science, relate to:
*** The Immaculate STD Transmission ***
1. Who transmitted sexually .transmitted-disease/infection- Trichomonas
with live parasitic organisms, to Complaini:mt on· Oct. 22, l994;,_and/or
does the Court of Criminal App:=als-simply defer to a·trial court find-
ing that Complainant simply contracted s~_T.D. but, not explaining how??
2. Does STD - Trichomonas found in vaginal fluid collected from Complainant
at sexual assault exam of Oct. 22, 1994, constitute biological biologi-
cal material for purp0ses of. Chapter 64 proceedings??
3. Did the State c0urt's properly analyze outmoded science used at trial to
determine method of transmission. of S" T. Dt, in light of DNA testing; and
did the State Court's fairly apply.new law establishing that outmoded
science is a cause of action for a writ of habeas corpus?·?-
Applicant prays-the court reconsider it's judgement~ denying habeas corpus
Application, and te-visithabeas cla5.ms ·to determine:whether fact·finding pro-
ceedings .are.adequate and warrant a presumption of correctn~ss.
-~..........
A=-"'-/ili.....___...c....:...!t-o~t
Guadalupe Padilla #1088118
Terrell ~unit - -
1300 FM, 655
Rosharon~ TX 77583
3.
' . .
Certificate of Service
L hereby certify and declare' that a true and correct copy of the fore-
I;
going Motion for Rec~:msideration o~ C~urt' s own Motion, has been forwarded to
the Travi~ County District Attorney's Office, P. o. Box 1748, Austin, Texas
78767, by depvsiting such in u.s. Postal container, first-class postage pre-
paid, on thi.s, the JJ,._J day of Feb., 2015.
Unsworn Declaration
I, Guadalupe Padilla, TDCJ-ID No. 1088110, hereby declare under penalty
of periury that .I am currently incarcerated in the Terrell Unit, TDCJ-ID in
Brazoria County, Texas, and that the statements in this foregoing instrument
are true to the best of my beliefs.
So sworn on this the )2r/f dai of Feb. I 20i5.
:~-L...:.~~=.~....:L.J:.k::::::.......:.L=-
\.
4.