lq<€q 'Ol 162 RAYMOND K.' WALLS TDC No; 01838261 McConnell Unit 3001 S; Emily Beeville, Texas 78102 Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals jPO Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Re.~` writ N¢s.~ wR-`a_l, 484101 s wR'-`-a1, 434'-402 Dear Appeal Clerk§ Bn¢lose please find Applicadé‘s Fiddlngs bf Facf add con¥ clusion of law; By copy of this letter, I am fbrwaidihg a cbp£ od the same to the District Court as addressed. 'Thank you for your fimé and considérafidn int his mafter. Sincerel ,,w...lé »< uaw RAY oND K. wALLs n HECEB V[SD id ¢‘Rg files ©OURT@:~CW¢N‘\& AFPEALS .cc:Mr; Val Varley _ District A£foriey ' APR 09 2015 Red River County 400 N. Walnut St_reet Ab@;lqsosia C,@rk Clarksville,Texas 75426 wRIT Nos$ wR481,4a4§01 & wa#az, 434-02 nrsTRIcT cover Nosa cR-01624 & cR-01626 EXPARTE § IN THE 102nd DISTRIC'T COURT RAYMOND KEITH WALLS § OF § RED RIVER COUNTY, TEXAS APPLIcANT"s PRORJSED_FINDINGS oF FACT AND coNcLUSIoN oF LAw To THE HoNoRABLE coURT oF cRIMINAL APPEALS£ coMEs NoW, RAYMoND KEITH WAbLs, TDC No: # 01838261, Applicant in the above number and cause file this his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of law and states the followingi I." FINDINGS oF FACT On August 20/ 2014, the Teras bourt of Criminal Appeals ordered the trial court to make the following findings: The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether the enhancement paragraphs alleging a prior conviction in McCurtain County; Oklahoma Cause Number CF;2003;497 Was a final conviction capable of enhancing the applicable range of punishment; The trial court shall make findings of facts as to whether the performance of Applicantls trial attorney was deficient and/ if so, whether counsells deficient perfor¥ mance prejudiced Applicant; The trial court shall also make any othér findings of fact and tbh¢1usi6ns of law that it deems relevant and.appropriate to the disposition of Applicant"s claim for Habeas Corpus relief; Iro" coNcLusIoN oF LAw Based on the contentions raised by the Applicant, and study of the applicable law raised by the issues: This Applic- ant making the folLowing conclusion of lawt aa The State claims in their findings of fact as to whether the enhancement paragraph alleging a prior conviction from McCurtain County, Oklahoma in cause Noa CF¥20031497 were a final conviction capable of enhancing Applicant”s punishment ranges rté staté has ii§intéipiétéu tit ita aaa f£¢ts in this areasr The law clearly reveal in a Virginiahs case, Virginia method of partially suspending a setnence was Alien to Tenas law, it would be possible to use it as a previous final conviction for enhancement purposes if the State proves to the court that the conviction was "Final under Virginia lawa" Diremiggio va State, 637 SJWJ 2da 926: However, Texas never met its burden of proving that the conviction was considered ”final" under oklahoma: See, Dominque va State 787 s¢w¢`zd» 107 treas App» l Hou; [14th nista]) 1990): A1sd séé, ski11érn v; staté/ 890 saw; 2d 349, 883 (Tex¢ ippp gustin 1994, pat R¢fid)$ When an out;of;$tate penitentiary packet has been introduced as evidence of a prior criminal record in the "punishment phase", the State must establish, either by proof or request, that the trial judge took "judicial Notice" of what a sister state considers stffitiént dbeuméntaty ptbtf bf a finaz convictibn; Pétuccélli v: staté, 174 s:w: 36: 761; ;2; When foreign conviction is involved in sentencing, in the absence of proof of the law of the other State, the Court of Criminal Appeals will presume that other State“s law is the same as that of Texas for purposes of determining whether conviction is final; Vernon“s Ann; Texas C;CsPJ Arts 37¢07 §3(a)} Lengten va state, 776 saws 2d sess seconds ly, It does not contain any certification by a Oklahoma Official nor does it bear an Oklahoma“s seal; bd 'The State Claims in their findings of fact as to the performance of Applicantis trial counsel to determine whether or not they were deficient; This claim is erroneous too; The State quoted in their Findings of Fact and Conclusion of law under number "7*, page 45} Based on the Oklahoma pen packet“s photo, physical description, date of birth of Raymond Keither walls in cansel No: and the expert fingerprint identifieatien ef wriwe11s,'the stete§s exhibit, ok1ahema sss pssk, Wss sssissss by sss ssusss Dsrssss ssssssi specifically sbjssssi swiss ss sss issk ss psssissss ssi ssss ss shs' basis of hearsay to fhe introduction of Mra Walls“ Oklahoma pen packet and then renewed his objection immeidately after the pen packet was admitted; This is not truei Trial Counsel only objected to the Fingerprint: See;(RR Vol: 4 pga 4¥14;) The court claims based on their own observations of the defendant, the court overruled the defense cennsel“s objection based en the ceurt*s Reeding ef its "ettestetien by 1ega1 keeper of the records with eertificete* end it“s (seal) of the state and seeretery ef state signed en anne 9, 2010, _3_` _ by kevin so Moore who was identified as the coordinator of offend; er Record Units, Oklahoma Department of.CorrectionsJ The att- estation lacked a seal and Secretary of the State did not sign the attestation paged However, based on the incomplete document by Kevin Ed Moore, the Expert Fingerprint identification, and the court“s own physical observation of the defendant, being the photo, the physical description, and date of Birth, the court found sufficient evidence to support that the oklahoma pen packet was authentic and was, in facts the Oklahoma pen packet of Raymond Keith Walls, i:e:, it was what it purported to bea However, the "pen packet" from oklahoma used for enhannemené;y§§§§§é?g contains certification by Kevin Ea Moore hereby certifym He is the coordinator of the recrd onit of the Oklahoma Department of Correctionss The oklahoma penitentiary packet admitted into evidence of Burglary and attempt of Burglary for purpose of proving Applicant“s prior-conviction was not properly authenticated under Statute; Ten; Rule of Evid: 902(4)a However,the Court specifically noted that the certification was accompanied by a Public officer having a seal that certified "the Signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine;" 811 sdwa 2di at 585; citing Texa Recrims Evids 902(2)¢ nere, Mr; Moore"s signature was not accompanied by a seal or the ssssifisssiss ssssisss by Ruis 902(1),¢2) ss (4)8 Aiss sss, rank va states 158 s:w: ads 653£ see, 28 vssvcsa: § 1738a The state reliance on the ”Fingerprint" match to authenticate the entire penitentiary packet/is misplaced: The Fingerprint l 241 vmatch goes to FP§ second category of proof, proving the t defendant is the person previously be convicted,and fails to prove thatthe document in the pen packet are what then State asserts them to bet Cole v; State, 484 S¢Wv 2d: l79, 784 rrex: crim; Appa 1972)a counsel failed to "bbject" to the entire ”pen packet"; Counsel based is objection to the fingerprints See, Fontenot v; State, 704 SaWJ 2dv 1264 Secondly,It does not contain any certification by an official from Oklahoma not does it bear Oklahoma Sealr ca The State claims in their findings of fact and conclusion of law that it deem relevant and appropriate to the disposition of applicantis Writ of Habeas Corpus relief; This conclusion of law is erronéous: The pen packet were not authenticity fr¢m_okzahoma gffic1a1saseé, sank v:¢st§té;;z§s saw; adv i653¢ :An out of state judgment is inadmissible without proper _authentication: Hutchins:$ V.§§lfért, 460 SQW: 2d 955 (Tex; civ¢ App¢ l noaa [14th nist] 1970) writ Réf“d_n;f:ea)); See also, Mega Child Care Inc: va Tex; Dept: of Protective Regulaztory Servs, 29 S:W§ 3d: 303, 308 (Tek; App: 1@££££@££$§£”£1§§§] 2000, no Petv)("The Tékas Rules of Evidence réquira, as a predicate to admissibility, that evidénce be properly authénticatad or ldentified:") Without some proof that tha document in tha packet ara genuins, the Packet is inadmissible: Tex$ Ra Evidg 901(a)¢ Secondly, It does not contain any certification by an oklahoma official nor does it bear an Oklahoma;sETlW PRAYER' FoR THE REnsoN sET FoRTH\ABoVE, the applicant respectfully request that this case or cases be reverséd and remanded; Respectfully Submitted, . W@)M M€¢% /§/BX/Qtv/ RAY ND KEITH WALLS TDC Now`0183826l ` Williams Gv McConnell Unit 3001 SJ Emily Dr: Beeville, Texas 78102 cERTlFIcATE oF sERvIcE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and feegeing has been for aided te the following listed person this day of , 2015: Mr`-"' Vél_.Va,iléy_ . Red River County…pistrict Attorney 400 N; walnut street lmsz ` clarksville, Texas 75426 RAZVoND K: wALLs