HX.5-15
CAUSE N0:PD-0425-15
IN THE COURT
OF
OF
TEXAS
CRIMINAL APPEALS ORIGINAL
ZIULIO TORRES PALOMO
V.
STATE OF TEXAS
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
DISTRICT OF' TEXAS AT TEXARKANA '
AND
ON APPE'AL FROM THE 196th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
OF HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL NO. 28777"
BRIEF FOR PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REUIEL)
3ULI0 TORRES PALOMO
#192 3341 court of cmm appeals
Mc Cbnnell Unit
3 0 01 S. Emily Dr :.; OCT 23 2015
Beeville, Texas 78102
Petitioner- PRO-Se
Abel Acosta, Clerk
FILED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OCT 23 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
LIST OF PARTIES
APPELLANT- 3ULI0 TORRES PALOMO
ATTORNEY FDR APPELLANT DAVID"KETTH" UILLFORD
LINDEN'S UILLFORD
P.O. BOX 1T
Greenville, Texas '; "••
75401
ATTORNEY FOR DIRECT APPEAL CARIANN ABRAMSON
P.O. BOX 1683
Forney, Texas 75126
PROSECUTORS STATE KELI AIKEN
ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY (af- trial)
GEORGE'CALVAN ' GROGON
ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY(at trial)
NOBLE D'. WALKER
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
(ON APPEAL)
Hunt County District
Attorney's Office
2507 Lee Street
Greenville, Texas
75401
(i)
Table of'Contents
Index of Authorities pg.iv-v,
Statement of the Case pg.1&2.
Issuses Presented pg . 2 .
Statement of Facts • p g . 3 & 4 . ,<
Argument pg .5-14,
Point of Error One pg.-5.
Insufficient Proof of Appellant Committing Continous Sexual
Assault on Nancy Ramirez:
Poiratof Error Two- pg.6.
Insufficient Proof of Appellant Committing Con tin bus ^-Se.xual
Assault on Kary Ramirez:
Point of Error Three pg.6.
Nancy Ramirez statements are inadmissible under the outcry
exception rule when the translator did not accureterly trans
late the questions& answers to/of the Forensic interviewer who
testified as the outcry witness whmo was actually a third party
witness under Texas 'Code of Criminal Procedure art.38.072 and
eligible to testifiy as original outcry witness
Ms.Claudia Alavrado is the first person over the age of 1B years
to be told of the alleged incident. The trial court abuse it's
discretion when it allowed Ms.Charlene Ralph who Is officially
a Forensic Interviewer to testify u'dder the Hearsay Rule
pursuant to T.C.C.P.art.3 8s0 72.
Point of Error Four pg.6.
Nancy Ramirez& Kary Ramirez statements are inadmissible under
the outcry exception when the translator Claudia Alavardo did
not accrately translate the statements (qliesti-on & Answers)of
the Forensic Interviewer who testified as the outcry witness.
Point of Error Five pg.10.
Appellant was prejudiced by the trial's court's failer to appoint
New Trial Counsel when conflict of interest arose under discip
linary rules about Trial counsel and Appellant, see, State Bar
Rules of Texas "Ethical Consideration on Code of Professional
Responsibility", EC7-8.
Point of Error Six . P9-11
Appellant is entitled to New Trial because the State, through
it's Child Advocacy Center, faied to provide mitigating or
exculpatory material after requested by appellant on numerous
occasions.
Point of Error Seven pg.13.
Appellant was deprived of his sixth amendment rights of effective
a s s i s t a n'@ e of counsel because defense counsel:
A:Alloued Appellant to file a sworn statement of his criminal
history(without proper investigation of all the facts, a mini-
trial duty) that resulted in a perjury charge indictment and
which thus created a conflict of interest.
(ii)
(see Texas Bar Rules of Lawyer Profession Conduct).
B: Attorney failed to request a continuance when state's agent
Hunt County Child Advocacy Center failed to produce requested
mitigating evidence and/or- exculpatory material reqested several
times ,which finally became apparent at trial.
Prayer . pg.14
Certificate of serviee _ P9-1 5
Unsworn Declation P 9 •1 5
(iii)
Index of Authority
Cases:
Anderson \l . State, 159S.w.3d 102-03
Bone V . State, 77S.W. 3d 828,835(Tex.Crim . App. 2002)
Brooks U .State ,323S.W .3d 893 ,912(Tex .Crim .App . 2010)-
Brady \l . Maryland, 373 U.S.B7 , 83S.CT .1194--- ---
Cas sidy V.State,14 9S.w.3d 712 ,715(Tex.Crim.App.2004)-----
Cuyler V . Sull i van ,466'U .S .335 ,348-50--; ------
Ex Parte Battle, 81 7S .w .BT ,88 (Tex .Crim .App .1 991 )--' — --
Ex Parte Briggs, 1B7S.w.3d 458 ,469(Tex . Crim.App.2005)---
Ex Parte Duffy, 607 S .w .2d:"'507 ,51 4 ,51 9(Tex . Crim .App .1980)
Ex Parte Felton,8T5 S .w .733 ,735 -36'CTex .Cr im. App .1991 )
ExParte Martinez, 330S .w .3dB91 ,900(Tex .Crim .App.201T)
ExParte Uilborn ,724S.w.2d 391, 393(Tex .Crim .App .1990) --
Ex Parte Wilson,7245.w.2d72,74(Tex. Crim. App.1987)--;
Ex Parte Ybarra ,629S .w .2d94 3 ,'946 (Tex . Crim .App .1 982 )
Ford V . State ,305S.W. 3d 5 30 ,5 33 (Tex .CT im••'. App'. 2009 )• ----
Garica y .State ,792S .w .2dB8 (Tex .Crim,. App '•. T9 99 )----- ---
Garica V .State ,871 5 .w .2d279 (Tex .App;. EL 'Pasdl 994 ,rio ,pet .)-
GallegosU.State,756S.w.2d4 5, 4B'(Tex .App .-San Antonibl 9 88 ,pe t .ref Id
Gay. V .State,98S.w.2dB64,86 6(Tex.App.rWous. [1st .Dist .]1998)
Garza \l. State ,21 35 .w .3d'33'B ,34 7(Tex .Crim .App .2007 )
Hernandez V .State,7265.w.2d53,57,61 (Tex .Crim .App.1986)^-- .
Hardy V. State, 246S.w.3d290,296 Tex. App.-Houst.114th.Dist.]2008)
Hooper V/.State,2T4S.w.3d9,1 3 (Tex .Crim .App .2007) -"-
In Re Posada usa ine .,100S .w .3d254 ,25 9(Tex'.•App .San Aintonio2001.)
Oackson \J . Sta te ,443U .S .30 7., 319 (1 979 ) --: •• • ---
]ackson \1. Uirginia ,776S. w .2d504 ,50-8 (Tex .Crim .App. 1 9'85)--- '
Johnson \1 .State ,304U .S.,45 B ,464 (1 938) -__..____.__ ---- '
Johnson \y.State,9 67S.w.2d410,41 7Tex .Crim. App .1998-----
Kyles U.Bhitley ,U.S.;4T9 ,4 37-38 ,1 1 5S .Ct .1 555(19950 :
Lankston \l .State ,827S .w ,2d'9'07 ,-91 1 (Tex .Crim .App .1 992) -----
L o ng \l .St at e ,B00 S .w .2 d54 5 ,54 7 _^U'
Montgomery V.State,B105,w.2d372,380(Tex.Grim.App .2002)^
Mo till a U.State,78S.w. 3d3 5'2 ,355 (Tex .Gri.m .App .20:0 2}:---
Monreal \]. STate ,94 7S .w .2d5 59 ,564 (Tex .Cr im .App .'1 9970
Moussazadeh \l . State ,361 S.w.3d6B5,689(TeX .Crim .App .201 '2) --
Payne U. State ,51 6S .w .2d675 ,677 (Tex .Crim. App .1 974) ~- — ----^
Saavedra U.State,297S.w.3d-342, 34 8(Tex .Crim. App..20 0-8)
Strickland V .Washington ,446.U .S .69 6 (1'9B4) -____--_
Thomas \l. State ,1 55S .w .3d1 40'7( Tex ';'A'pp.v;-Texarkana1:999 )''----:
United States \l .Bagley ;473U .S .667 ,1 OSS ,CT .3375 (1 9S0 )
Wiggins y .Smi th ,5 3 9U .S .51 0 ,5 21-22(2003) --^ __^_^
Yates W ..State ,941 S .w .2d357 ,364(Tex .App .-Wacol 997)
Statutes and Rule's
Tex . Pen.Code's 21 .02
Tex .Pen.Code S 21 .02(h)
fex: •; Discip'll nary R. Prof Conduct Rule 1 .06(b)(2)
(iv).
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art. 38.072
Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art.38.072 § 2(a)(3)
Tex . R.App. P.44.2(b)
Constitutional Am end mehts
U.S. Const. Amend . \l, VI ,XIV .
(v)
To The Honorable Court of Appeals
Now comes Appellant, Julio Torres Palomo, and submits this
Petition for Discretiony Review on Appeal from a conviction
for alleged continuous, sexual assualt of a young child(ren)
in the 196th Judicial District court of Hunt County,Texas,
The Honorable Steve R. Title jr., Judge Presiding.
•Statement of Case
Appe llan t wa s i n d icte d on Jan uary 25,2013 for continuous sexual
assa ult alle ging two or m ore of the, following acts:
1 . I ndec ency with • ch i Id b y se xual contact by Appellant touching
the geni tal s of Ka ry R amir ez ;
2. I ndec ency with chi Id b y se xual'.contact: by Appellant touching
the geni t als of, K a r y Rani re z ;
3;-i ndec ency with se xual con'tact f..by ,causing. Kary Ramirez
chi Id ' b y
to t ouch :th e Appe llan t;
geni ta'ls of
4-.: A ggra va te d sex ual a s s a ult by p ene t]ration of the anus of Kary
Rami r ez by A ppell ant s e x u al o r g ah
5 . A ggra va te d sex ual a s s a u 11-••'• by A ppellantls sexual Organ to •; •••''''•-
con t act o r c ontac t an d pe n e t r ate anus of Kary Ramirez;
6Agg ra va ted sexua 1 as s aul t by pen etratlon of the anus of Nancy
Rami re z by a ppell ant ' s s e xual org an ;
7. A ggra vate d sex ual a s s a ult by P enetra'tiofl "of the sexual org^an
of Ka ry R amir ez by app el la nt o rgan i
8.Ag gra v ated s e x u al a s s a u It b y ca using the mouth of Nancy Ramirez
to:,c on ta ct t he se xual org an d f Ap pell ant;
9.Ag gra v ated s e x u al a s s a u It b y pe netra'tion of the mouth of Nancy
Rami rez by A ppell ant ' s s e xual org an;- '':-.
I 0. Aggr a vat ed se xual a s s aul t by causing the s-e-xual organ of
Appe llan t to con t act the a n u s of Nancy Ramirez ;
II . aggr avat ed s e xual a s s ult bye ausing the sexual organ of.
Appe llan t to con t act sexu al o rgan of Nancy Ramirez and/or.
1 2. Inde c e n c y wit h ch ild by s exua 1 contact by Appellant touching
the sexu al o Tgan of N ancy Ram ire z
On S eptember 1 2010, Tex. Pen. Code ''§:'". 21 \ 02:, the alleged offenses
are a degree felonies that are punishable by confinement
first
in t he In t i t utional Division of the Texas Depatment of Criminal
Just ice for Life, or any term of not more than' 99 years or less
than 2 5 year s. Se.e, Tex. Pen .Code |§ 21.02(h).
* '
-. . *'-.'.
arch 24, 2 014, Jury trial proceedings began . '
0 n '" M
Appe 1Iant pi ead not guilty to the charge of continuous se-xual
abus e of you ng child(ern) as charged>!ih" the' indictment.
Puni shment w as assessed by the Jury on April 1 20.14 at' Life,
not i ce of ap peal was filed
trial. on a motion for new
An otion for hew trial-on punishment and a motion in
a mended m
arre s t of j u dgment was filed on May 28, 2 014.
OnMa y2B,2014 the trial court heard Appellant's motion for new
tria 1 and to ok it under advisement, but ultimately denied the
moti on for n ew trial on June10,2014.
(1)
Issues Presented
Point of Error One
Insufficient proof of Appellant committing continuous sexual!
assault of Nancy Ramirez.
Point of Error Two
Insufficient proof of Appellant committing continuous sexual
assault of Kary Ramirez.
Point of Error Three
Nancy Ramirez statements are inadmissible under the outcry '.-.•'••'
exception when the translator did not accuraterly translate
the question and anwers to/of the Foresic interviewer who made
testified as the outcry witness who was actually ,third party
witness under Tex. Code of Crim . Proc . art . 3 8 . 072 and not
eligible to testify as original outcry witness.
Claudia Alvarado was the first person over the age of 18 years
to be told of the alleged incident.
Trial court abuse it's diseretion when it allowed Hunt County
Child Advocacy Center (hereinafter''HCCAC) .
Charlene Ralph who is officially a FoTesic Interviewer to testify
under the hearsay exception pursuant to art. 38.072 of Tex.Code
of Crimial Procedure.
Point of Error Four
Nancy Ramirez statements are Inadmissible under the outcry
exception when the translator Claudia AlVarado did not accurately
translate the statements (questions&answers)to the foresic
interviewer whom testified as the outcry wi t n e s s.
Point of Err or F"i v e •
Appellant was prejuiced- by Trial Court's: failure to-appoint 'new
Trial counsel (defense) when a conflict of interest1 arose under
disciplinary rules between Trial Counsel and Appellant.
See, State Bar Rule s' of -Tex . "Ethical Considerations of Profess--
ional Responsibility',' EC, 7-8.
Point of Error ;5ix
Appellant is entitled to a new Trial because the State,through
it's Child Advocacy Center, failed to provide mitigating or
exculpatory evidence material after' requested by Appellant on'
numerous occasions.
Point of Error Seven
Appellant was deprived of his sixth am.endment right to effective
Assistance of Counsel because defense counsel:'
(A): Allowed Appellant to file a sworn statement of fact concern
ing his criminal..record(uiithoijt proper investigtion of all facts,
simply a minstrial duty) that resulted in agrave error, which
(2) .
thus created a conflict of interest. See,Tex.Bar Rules of Lawyer
Professional Conduct).
(B) : Attorney failed to- request mitgating' or Exculpatory material
already requsted several times, which finally became apparent at
trial .
Statement- of facts
On Se ptemb er ; 1 7, 2012,' it is
alle-ged that Appellant's biolgical
daugh ter , comp 1 a in t ant Nancy
Ramirez-, made an outcry to a school-
ma te , n a m e d Ev elyn Re gel a do,
while riding the school bus home.
this schoo lfnat e told her mother ,Marib el Regelado,. who report's
it to :the Scho ol Counselor, Deborah Floyd, with the support of
Marib el ' s Past o't Carlos Mendoza. .••.'.
The T exas Depa rtment of Family and Prd-tect ive -Service s (herein •-•""
after ) "CPS "•) is called,however, neither complaintant Nancy or
Kary Ramir ez , w h'b is the step daugther of Appellant•'"', make outcry
to th e CPS Wot kers .
Ms . Ai sha C outa in with CPS aranges for a forensic interview- to be
condu cted at t he Hunt County Child Advocacy Center (HCCAC) the
folio wing day .
Ms . C harle ne R alph' is a Forensic Interviewer with the HCCAC which
alleg ally in terviews both .girls through a bi-lingu-al interpreter
Ms .CI audia ATv arado, wh;om -works .for the Hunt County Sheriff 's
Dept . as a ".. lay -person whom does clerk work as a back ground
resea rcher ,she is not trained, certifed, licensed,or educated
as a for en sic in ter viewer ,a 1 icensed peace office TV'*
On or about SeptemberT'B ,201 2 it's alleged complaintant Nancy-
Ramirez made an outcry to Charlene Ralph during a Forensic ••<-
interview .through Claudia Alvarado ,of having touched the ;
Appellant's penis and vaginal penetration.
Complaintant Kary Ramirez did not make an outcry of any abuse
on September 1 8 ,2012 .
On October 17, 2012 or about, it's alleged a second
_.„,,.. ,^^..o^..
Forensic
interview was set up for alleged Compliantant Kary Ramirez with
Cladia Alvarado as translator in which compliantant Kary Ramirez
allegally made an outcry that Appellant touched her chest, butt,
and vaginal area with his hands,.she is alleging to touched his
neniR.anH allpnal-lw Ar, r, o 1 1'= r, + r, =„•= + „ ~+ „ A u „ - with his penis.
'' "' t r i al day)'
examiner examination and Forensic interveiw
FILED", against Appellant.
Appellant knew of the interview due to it 's ref erence-'' in the
CPS reports, but no police report was provided nor was the video
of theTForensic interview .turned- over to the --Appellant,' until
the day of his trial.'
Multiple request- were made by Defense for the video. The state
attemped to retieve the video from It's' a^ent',- HCCAC informed -
the state the video did not exist.
It was not until Forensic interviewer Charlene Ralph with the
HCCAC(state Agent)was on the stand testifying in the instant
(3)
That the 2008 video' was located in the file Ms. Ralph brougt it
to the trial' court In Re: Nancy and- Kary Ramrlez.
The 201:4 Dire ctorof HCCAC, Holly Robinson', to1d the trial court
that she did not recall receiving the subpoe na , but,.- did not deny
she could ha v e been se vr-ed one•-.•.( emphsi s mine )and it got loat
on h er de sk?
If s he di 'd Id ok for the v I d e-o tap e o f th e int erview., she would not
have been abl e to 1 ocate i t sine e it ha d bee n removed from the
orig inal vie t ims -fi le for', Jazmln -Cos te 1 1 o :an d .pl.an-ced' in the • -•"-•'
newe r vie t ims file of Nanc y and Kary Ra m i r z;- which was' in-'' posses^--
ion of Ms •' . R a lph,(l t seems' Ms . Ro bin son was a ware' of this 'much,
as i t was un v eiled atcourt)'(' emphs I s -mi'ne•)•'•.'see ,( RR-; 1 2 4)
the trial
The inter veiw s that Ms . Ra Iph co nducted ' were done through -the use
of a Hunt Cou nty Sh eriff E mploye e CI a u d la Al var'ado•'( whbm' is- not
a li cense d Pe ace-Of ficer , but a cler k/b aokgr ourid reseacher whom
happ ens t o be His pa n i c )t o ; ass ist in the tran slation . "
Ms .A 1 vara do h as no for ma1 traini n g 1 n t ransl at ion., Law Enforce- .
ment or F o r e n s ic in terview ing ,no r is sh e ere den ti-'aled;.or cer t'- r
did not/had not accurately translated the question and answers
yet admitted that''-'she- madifid^ the -is seies'sto "aid lri'the; interview
for the state'.'
P;y::tsw of statue 38.072 T.C.C.P. "outcry witness "shall be the
(6)
first person(does not make an exception for translation), shall
be the first person over the- age of 1 8 years of age ,.besides the
pr epatrator',' Ms.Alavaradd being the first person as the statute ' Accor din g to T.C.C.P. art. 38.072,"the first person
over the a'ge'of 18 years was not Ms.Raplh but Ms . Alvarado.
The chain of out cry goes like this: "Nancy Ramirez first told
her friend&schoolmate Eyelyn Regelado, whom tells- her mother
Maribel Regelado.whmo tells her pastor Carlos Mendoza,togther
they report it to the School Counselor, Debra Floyd, whom
decides to call the Texas Depart, of Family and Protective
services(here after known as "CPS") Neither complaintant Nancy
or Kary Ramirez tells-; or reports this allaged inciid-nt (makes out
cry )to CPS investigator, Aisha Coutain, Therfori,Ms. Coutain
arranges with HCC'AC to have the girls the following day, u ..
(B).
At which point Ms. Raplh met with the girls the following day
at the HuntCounty Sheriff's Office so she could provide a
interpEeter whom speaks spanish/english, Ms.Alvarado took the
call,and made herself available.
It is alleged complainant's made a statement in a discernible
manner alleging a sexual offense(or did they, reason doubt)
or did Ms.Alvardo misunderstand? it has already been determined
that Ms. Alavardo took liberties with the translatins. see,
(RR.9 :1 57-1 58) .
Ms.Alavardo knew what -was at stake for herself and the Hunt
County Sheiffls Office. Ms.Alvarado kfieiils'tfiereRthere was a
possiftle promotion for a job well done(conviction of the Appeal-
ant)she had gygry thing tq^gain and notingto lose by distorting
the facts misleading the jury"taking liberties of the true
facts',' distorting (complainant's)answers by her own admissions
under oath, see, Garcia V. St ate,792s.w.2d BB(Tex.Crim.App. 1 990)
and Tex.Code Crim. Proc. art.38.07282(a)(3).
T.C.C.P. art. 3B.072 suspends the hearsay rule and allows what's
commonly refered to as "outcry" to testify on the behalf of
childern of sexual abuse. ^"Provisions of this statute include
notice and hearsay requirement's" are mandantory and must be
complied with in order for the the statue to be admissible over
the hearsay o-bjection (state' 'did not meet the requirements) .
see, Long V . St ate ,BBOsi^w .2d 545 ,547 (Tex .Crim . App.1990);
Gay V.State, 9Bs.w.3d 864,866 Tex.APP.Hous. [1st .Dist .] 199Bpet.
ref'd.)
The Defendent must be given notice of content and scope. ID.
Statement to be more then a mere allus|on in general to a alleged
sexual abuse, general allusions are vague and arbitrary, see,
Thomas V. State, 155s .w .3d138 .140 (Tex.APP. Texarkanal999,pet.
Ref'd.) Notice- must describe offense in discern able manner,
see,Garcia V.State,792s.w.2d88,91 Tex .Crim .Apo .1990) .
No one question the skills of Ms .Alvarado,. as ifac r.Sourt certified
Interpreter, this court did not go through Ms.Raplh's credent
ial's either to demonsrate the importance of how tointerview
a child of sexual abuse, and the significance of a-'s'king opened-
ended questions. However,Ms.Alvardo on a number of occassions
self adimitted she took"liberties" with the translation onher
own accord, thereby nullifying and undermining the Law and the
standards of the statdtessofft.C.C.P. art.3B.072 and the total
significance of the Foernsic interview there canbbe no assurance
that this jury or anyone else this Appelant was tia-mie-d by Ms.
Alavrado's modified translations. hMt^ied
It's on record that Appellant objected tPtfthe Spanish portion
of the video being admitted on the grounds that it was not
transcribed when offered by the state, which violates statue,
of T.C.C.P. art. 3B.072 which clearly states "Defendant must be
givemi adquent notice of the content and scope", to prevent
violation of Due Process of the Fifth & Fourteenth amendment
of the United States Constitution.
(9)
A Def e ndan t ha s a righ t to know,to be informed what he's charged
with , in 0 r der to prep are for an affirmative defense, see.
Garica ftv.s ta te ,792 s . w . 2d88 ,91 (Tex.Crim. App.1990).
The t rial uled the objection, the Sixth Court of
c ou rt o verr
Appeal s st ated e r r or w as "not presevred frfr viewing',' video was
admitt ed a nd s hown to the jury, which prejudiced the verdict,
as it w a s oneb i te of t h e p o i s o n a p p 1 e .
Let it be note d fo r th e record that Ms.Alvarado's translation
for Ms .Ral ph , shou Id n pt have been admitted as the state failed
to pro vide a"n_ai'tr al I interpreter','to Assure the "outcry" statement
en j oye d " N n o 'j mo ti v-e "t o be sircu m~ve dted,distorted or misapplied
for tr ansl ator s ow n personal benefit.
The inabil ity , n o attempt by the state, to obtain a fair and
impartial , neu tra'l ,1nterpr e't- e r e i(: s e e tf o o t n o t e (3 ) of the original
Appellant b-rT'l'e f as it states on pg. 29 of44) If this cqux.t finds
that Ms.Al v a r a do d id not had,not acted in the capacity of a
neutral pa rty as argued in points of error one & t w q , ,th e n by
statue Ms . Ala vard o becomes the "outcry" and not Ms.Raplh by
default, d ue t o th e fact'that both Nancy & Kary Ramirez spoke
of the all eged inc ident only in Spanish directly to Ms. Alvarado,
had they t he a bili ty to speak to Ms.Raplh she could/would not
have neede d an int erpreter to understand.
The testim ony of b oth Nancy & Kary Ramirez the modified trans-
lated stat e m e n ts t o Ms.Raplh is actually third party hearsay
outside th e he arsa y exception rule.and harfn1 displayed of this
admission lays in the bolster of the girls testimony,
For these fact s an d admissions this court should sustain points
0 f ?. e r'ror T hree and Four, arrest, the judgment.y sentence and con-
viction in alt erti ve Reverse and Remand for new trial.
Point of Error Five
Appellant was perjudiced by continued appointment of counsel
and trial failure to appoint new counsel when their was a
confict of interest under disciplinary rules ofthe State Bar
bewteen Appellant counsel and Defendant.
Additional Facts
Defense trial counsel had Defendent sign a sworn application
in request for cBmmurtiity supervision in which Appellant was not
eligible,trial counsel should/could have maed the effort to
assure self and client about eligibility as it would simply a
mini'sfbrial duty as it's attorneys duty to investigate all the
issuses pertaining to his/her clients.
Standard of Review
Once the Attorney finds themselfs in confict with a client,
they shouid withdraw from representipn immediately the court
shall than permit Attorney to withdraw so the court can assure
the Defendent a fair trial, see,In Re Posada USA Inc. inQs.UJ.3d
254 at2.59(Tex .App . San Antonio 2001 pet.granted) ..-,.".-:;.-y v -.-;
' '-, •• A "- " - "' '••' - '•• --'•- -"•' " '-"' :' "-
(10) .
rH 1 CO iT: =
E i CO tn •rH 01
a , Tl -p rH •H ID u c tn rH
i In QJ X rH u 01 -P -P .3 rH p •rH o c CO
- • 4- O c -
3 -p to >> X •H •H > C to U C to •rH •p D c o 4- •H 01 •H
CD -P tu o 01 Tl -P rH 3 X to Dl Q c IH u X o 0) tn -h CO -P u 0) tu Tl 3 4- -P 4- fH E
QJ U u >> N P rH 3 SZ 3 > cn-p •P 3 •p ai QJ tn -p -p 0) •H c •H Tl ^ o 01 Tl D 3- 4- -p >> a
to 3 rH to 3 X • •
p o rH 01 M tH +J O 3 •p -P Tl to D tn T) tn - 3 rH •H CO 01 •H C U D tn X fH
-o -p •H ra -P o to •rH cj 3 -p T) 4- O p tn •rH 4-
• c 3 (H in X •- QJ 3 ••-> to 3 O 0) X _J •H ra to .—n TJ o •rH u 4- 3 cr TJ 01 •H •H L) c D O E Tl
3 a O ra QJ tn •P p rH u tn U Tl -p c •H 0) rH fH tn o LJ •ai U 0) Tl > P 01 fH C tu 01
to CJ SZ fn T> •
rH to -P to QJ -p c tn (H >rH a > fH rH QJ to QJ 0) LJ •P X CO tn >> E EL = to •p a
u p -p •H 2= •p 3 • p tz •H el -p tn tn ai - - a +J CO •rH D QJ 01 E 3 X tn -p zc •to XI HJ X tn ai ai ai rH u ' c
Tl <-\ •rH •H tn u a 0) tn 0) Fh C 3 •H tp 01 j* 3 •H •P rH X -P •p tn to •bl fH •<-{ P X u 01 QJ TJ 3 ro ai
sz to 3 X -p :> 3 a u •rH -P Tl 01 U X 0) +j L> rH Tl (H to. EL -p tn 01 01 01 -P •p X O 4- 01 sz p fH P1 a QJ Tl u -n
p c fn 3 (H O •H p rH 0) -H -P -P Q to CO D 0) rH CO > fH •p u tn c 0) u O in •p - o CO 4- -P a EL-rH
•H a tn to o 01 D rH P •rH a 01 -P U -p rH tp 01 -P a tn Tl LJ CO QJ tn O 0) .0) c LJ P 4- -p • in fH 3 >
3 •rH -p E ra tn X tO -rH CO 01 01 tn cn u CO •rH rH QJ X X •rH U 0) Dl 0) fH >> ai •p cr ra c tn > QJ 01 EL tn qj
tn u tn tn o cn •rH 3 - to -p >
— -p 01 E :=> ra fH C •P tn ELX ra EL fH 4- tn CJ X UJ 01 to LT
o tn to -p 01 Dl n u •""J 01 CO
- >^
p tu u •H P •H -p tn 4-> tp U 3 rH rH X -p CO +j >> > Fh > E -p -P to 01 tn -P X > Tl •r-3 "E 3 X -P CJ rH rH •n fH
to i-H C 3
-p rH fH m" C o u •H X •p CO ra m E •rH 3 3 C X X 01 •H - CO p tn oU +j ai rH tn •rH >. EL
P> u -
01 QJ EL u •rH :tn" Dl
0) Tl •H «— TJ Tl EL — Tl E D -p O •r+ 3 c a _I Tl o -p 01 rH 01 c 4- fH H3_.
•H °ii tn -p 01 rH 4- -p EL C X -H fH 03- 10 QJ ai 01 rH tn LT1 •rH 4- rH 3 D 3 H X 4- 4- cn TD c -P QJ to 3
E rH ;0J- to 01 D p Tl 01 (0 •P CO D ID ~D •3 u N rH 3 tn 4J EL 01 -P QJ tn d fH tn • 0) r-i D a o D_ 01 3 tn 4- tn s: (J
U tu to r&- X tn cr ra c tH 01 tn u c M Tl 01 •rH •H a QJ u LJ u u U 4- X CO 0) 4- QJ X 01 fH CJ in CO QJ CO X
tu fH •H el-p -P E to E CO rH ra D -p u CO X E ra •H -H 01 a 3 TJ -p 01 •p -P a fH EL CO •• CJ Q 3 '•• QJ
EL 3 fH •H - • • to D c u to -p fH rH c D (P QJ •rH u. C 4- > > ai •H •H D to CO in -p 0) > 01 tn >
Tl -P •u D) QJ *--• X ra rH P 01 •H X -H to 01 U to 0) X •P •H 4- 01 tn X -P > 01 X u c o •P P p rH rH c ai D Tl
01 0) c: c tn ~—
-p to IH C (H x > Ld •H LJ •p X Tl rH CO O Tl c c 3 c Tl -p O u tn L) 01 c 0) ro •rH X rH >> rH
x O c •H' o ra m c 01 0) 01 O -P -P •P -H (H 3 u C 4- to -P 01 01 ,ra tn •H •p EL •H 0) > 3 fH •rH E P1 rH Tl OJ
O OJ fH fn u v— u •H rH 3 E •p a u_ 4- +J >. CO •H to o c fH tn di tn 4- QJ rH -H > QJ E 3 c X fH o u N OJ CO X
Tl u sz EL 3 • a cj C C C tH rH O u X o 01 - 0) CO ai U rH X ED CO •rH •p •H - CJ >> •rH CO u P> fH SZ
r-l a. 3 -p EL 4- C •H 01 0) C -H D !«- 3 CO tn 3 Dl fH •rH U >>rH 3 Q C 0) -P tn Tl -p •P E a >. -"X-. rH 4- t~> CO tn CD P
O fn >> c EL o 01 P X E CO 10 tp D •P 0) u -
c 0) -P 01 rH QJ EL •H QJ tn o N D 0) P p rH 4- X to •rH
x tp tn O rH tn cr H-> •H fH C h- u tp - rH c C D a ^—. •H X •H Tl c ra a ai •H EL4- X rH c 01 (0 •P > fH c CO D 0) CJ 4- 3
tn O f-i U -p • c tn to o E \ EL U •R > X fH Dl E Tl CO fH rH jr Tl cr d •p 3 •H •I-) n •h ro 3 u X p> D
3 tn to tn E QJ •H ci • O -P to •rH UJ d to Tl 3 CD' •P 3 Tl QJ D - rH p- > •• O X fH . P EL 3. •H -P •P CO E to
l-l tn u tu ai c •H -E D rH -p U O X EL el si •H C a: fH -P 0) 0) 01 en -p Dl c 01 0 HJ o 3 EL c •H C -P
01 tu u rH rH •rH U Dl ai to -p u
>« E -P Dl +J •
r- U c -* X c •rH O rH fH >> OJ c 01 E D C
tn rH o •3i u LJ XT- n tz- o •H a C D 4J TO -P •Or to D) cr u tn CD Dl ED 3 •H u -P -p •H fH ai ra o -P E •H tn N •H OJ
c 3 (H tn • 3 D c rH ai to o rH •H c 01 C to to • C IM D C ra 0 to EL X fH 4- 0J to to -P Dl
3 02- c tn to X •P> c •H tp -P -H -P •H -P Tl •H -P CO Tl 0) •rH •3-!-X tu a •H a •H -P c rH Ld P QJ u tn u rj to to
o o Ol •rH ai 3 tn rH c ra x -P c 01 X C •rH tn > a u CM -P in CO a CO EL tn 3 tn fH fH to t-\
u > •H c ~ p- tn D to rH a 4J >> D) CO -H -P LJ 0) tp > c CO •H c CO tM rH -P -p Tl E EL C QJ 3 to a •p 4- a tn
In -P •H c tn -
01 to G tn u -h rH D •H a a 0) X fH rH •H c Dl to X TJ •H o QJ D C QJ 4- Tl c D •H -
p to • (J n o tn • -p tn tp X 3 rH 01 D_ -P >. tn M 4- -P CO E •H •H U -H a Tl 01 Tl u P tn .r •H to c QJ io > -p
-to. C >—N QJ •rH •rH 01 CD •H -
o tn 01 0) -1-3 U C +J 01 QJ EL 0) fH tn -h N -P 01 u 0) fH in -p to > Dl OJ p> -p o •H
-•rH' •rH CM u 3 tn c tn -p u X X tn c QJ c c L> Q QJ •H -P CO rH •H X -P 4-> tn QJ 01 Tl fH fH C •p tn OJ p>
X rH -— u m-H 01 - QJ •rH Q_ >> -p -P 0) - •iS>»-H 3 D CO O •P Tl C n CO E E a 3 > -P 01 >> o) tn 0) •rH 3 •H c Tl U TJ
0) EL ^"N in cj rH CM -P 01 X -P tu CO tn a 01 rH •P > 4- 0) •H \ 01 0) 4- a CO Dl fH X -H -p Tl to E •H •H oj c •
•H XI •H > tu x C"- 3 0) 4- tz tn en a c C -P •H CJ E EL X to >>-P 4- U >> >x tn QJ u -P 01 CO o c fH rH a > fn ro QJ
+-> CI •* ' Tl CD to tn P ^ D rH to c .-:*- to rH tO • D •a •P D o H-> fH O -P tn fH HI tn rH to • cr cj •H D CJ OJ •H in
u tn \D ra c xj •H to d X •rH O rH D 3 rH -p -p tn c 0) Tl •P C EL O z 0) -rH >-{ tn 3 cr CJ fH X CO Tl 01 c
•H •H • 4- 01 o CM tn E 01 -p H-> -P rH •p tn CO c c •H to 01 c 3 0) a •P X Ll Tl T 01 (0 01 0) >CJ U 0) QJ c •P a cr -p OJ
4- «n':* • o ox to • X i-H -p rH •rH 0) -P -rH to 3 • • c -P to a m tn •p to C H-> D ro X U -H rH LJ •H fH X QJ a ro 4-
C T— -p -p to 3 3 M 3 cr 01 X 01 EL ct Tl U rH 3: >>tp QJ tn rH CJ 0) to EL a - H fH X 01 •p 01 0) > S. X tn p 01 Dl CM . +j 01
D tn 0) QJ • tn BJ tr tn •H Dl EL rH -P rH WrH D 0) rH X u Dl rH 3 EL to X C fH o c 01 D X c cj tn T>
CJ to QJ tn tu c U to JD QJ c X IH cc 10 3 01 tn ra ro EL 3 0) -P SZ c 3 • :> 3 -p •p 01 3: p QJ tn •rH tz ro
X rH 3 o 0) E3 •p -P QJ X 3 a to D 3 EL —
ex X cr EL C H3 0) •H U fH Dl 01 01 ra rH P • ro fH 01 Tl cn fH 0) CJ 01 QJ
4- tu 3 XI ex 4- *— o to X t- a (-1 X 4-