mm -0.:
November 221 2015 L’xCA ) \
,
Valentin Moreno, Jr.
788216, Robertson Unit
Abel Acosta, Clerk 12071 FM 3522
GJni.oECtmun£.Agg§ds . Abilene, Texas 79601
P.O. Box 12308 `
chpitoal station
Austin, Texas 787ll
Re: Writ No. 49/474-05; Ex parte Valentin Moreno, Jr.
Dear Mr. Acosta:
Enclosed you will find Applicant's Amendments To Application For Writ Of Habeas
Corpus with Appendix - A. All to be filed in the above mentioned cause and
brought to the attention of the Court, as time permits.
Also enclosed, is a self-addressed envelope with postage pre-paid. Can you please
send me a stampted filed copy of this cover letter, for my records.
May you and your staff have a Blessed Thanksgiving. Thank you for your time,
attention and assistance.
Respectfully,
MW%;Z/_/ d 2 . RECEIVEDIN
/ /L%L¢WQ COURT oF cliN/\LAPPEALS
ND‘J 30 2015
cc: file ` Abe' Acggta. C|Srk
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN/ TEXAS
Ex parte §
Valentin Moreno, Jr. § Writ No. 49,474-05
Applicant §
APPLICANT'S AMENDMENTS TO
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS OORPUS
TO THE MOST HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Valentin Moreno, Jr., Applicant, Pro Se in the above referenced Case
and respectfully files, Applicant's Amendments To Application For Writ of Habeas
Corpus. In support thereof, Applicant would present the following:
I.
JURISDICTION
This most Honorable Court poses exclusive habeas corpus jurisdiction over the
parties and subject-matter/ herein, pursuant to Chapter ll in the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure Ann. (Vernon 2015).
II.
STATEMENT OF CURRENT FACTS
l. Applicant filed a successive writ of habeas corpus application, on June 151
2015. Challenging a jury's verdict of guilty for Capital Murder.
2. The Attorney representing the State, filed the State's Original Response
and Answer, on July 8, 2015.
3. The Trial Court adopted the State's proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, Recommendation and Order, on July 20, 2015.
4. Applicant's successive application, was presented to this Honorable Court,
on September 22, 2015.
5. Applicant filed, Applicant's Motion For Leave And To Stop Writ of Habeas
Corpus Review. This Honorable Court granted said motion, on November 51
2015, granting Applicant (30) days to amend his application.
Page l.
III.
AMENDMENTS
Attached hereto, is an actual application for writ of habeas corpus form/
with Applicant's Ammendments. Applicant reasserts all claims asserted within
the original application.
Applicant has amended Ground Number One (A) and (C), and added Ground Number
Five. Pursuant to what is already argued in Ground Number One (A), Applicant has
added, a claim that he has presented credible scientific evidence, that oxdladdis
the scientific evidence relied on by the State at his trial. Said claim, submitted
under the provisions set forth by new Article ll.O73(a)(2) of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure. [See; Appendix - A, attached hereto.]
Additionally, Pursuant to Ground Number One (C), Applicant has added a claim/
alleging the prosecution team influenced and tainted witness Yvonne Gonzales' in-
court-identification of the applicant, with prejudicially suggestive feedback and'
post event information.
Finally, Applicant has added Ground Number Five, submitting an independant
claim under Article ll.O73 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Therein, the
Applicant alleges, that he has presented credible scientific evidence, that
"contradicts the scientific evidence relied on by the State at his trial".
IV.
Based on these amendments/ Applicant respectfully requests for an evidentiary
hearing.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant respectfully prays that this honorable
Court grant, any and all relief deemed proper and just.
Signed on this ;Q§Q{day of 440/@n44§@/ , 2015.
Respectfully Submitted/
Valentin Moreno, Jr., 788216
Applicant - Pro Se
Robertson Unit
12071 FM 3522
Abilene, Texas 79601
Page 2.
VERIFICATION
y
I, Valentin Moreno, Jr., hereby verify, that the contents and statements made
herein are true and correct, and offered in good faith/ and made under the
penalty of perjury.
Signed on thisgid day of M¢g£& / 2015 Q/
Valentin Moreno, Jr.
Applicant - Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Valentin Moreno, Jr., hereby certify, that the original copy of Applicant's
Amendments To Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus with Appendix, was sent by
U.S. certified mail, to the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Additionally,
notice of said filing, was sent to the attorney representing the State, via lst
Class U.S. mail.
Done On this & 0/ day of éédg/»ég/ , 2015.
Q/éé,/_/g;%%&
Valentin Moreno, Jr.
Page 3.
APPENDIx_-_A
[Appendix - A, Is An Application Form
For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Applicant's
Amendments To His Application Are Found
Therein.]
Ca`s"e No
(.The Clerk ofthe convicting court will f' 11 this line m )
1111 1111:<:01)111~ GFCRIMNALAPP§ALSOF TEXA§
APPLICATION FOR A W.Rl"l` OF HABEAS CORPUS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVIC'I`ION
_UNDE€R CODF»;. OF C_RI’VIIN.AL PROC:EDURE§ ARTICLE ll~l 07
NAME Valentin Moreno, Jr.
DATE oF B,IRT_H:' JulY 19' 1976
RLAC.E'O'F CONFINEMENT:; French M. Robertso_n Unit
11)<:;1‘-1:11) NUM§ER=» .....W.__.... 4§»111'):§1)11111:11 ~
(I). Thi§:;appliea`tidn<.con'cerns"(check all that apply):-
Ki a eunvi¢:tibn; .C] parole
t\ a s¢n,tévee' 1:1 mandatoryZ'siu;;e::vs`si`dn 1
EI time»:creditl El vout`-,dfét'i`me appeal 01", petition .for`
discretionary/review-
(2)_ What district c`oiirt entered the judgment "0f the conviction you Want relief frdm?_
' (_Include the court number and county. )
332nd District Court, County of Hidalgo
(3) Wh`at W'_`aS the caséflix'mib"'e`r in the`:tr"ialycolil‘t?
CR-0517-96-F
(4) What:\yas the name'>'o'f"the trial j`u_dge?
Mario E. Ramirez, Jr.
Hfiec'tiv¢; Januan) 11.1120141 1
lRev; 011/1 4/1121j
(s): wereyi»iu represented'.by:_couns¢i? If/yes,pwvide_¢’v‘e_.aumey»"s;nme:
Ricard B. Gould and Norman E. McInniS
(;.6); What was'~the detectth fhe"jludgmenf-was enterei_i“?l-
March 31 1996
(.'z). Fo'r: what affevs~e:;wer:e;you convicted add_.wha::wa's cna sentenc1?1 1
Capital Murder - Capital Life'Sentence
`(.8).1E iit-you were senten;ced.:on more:than 01111111111111' of¢an .ind`ic;tm§nt:i`n the,same court atf
~the. sameftime,_ what.~counts'were;you convicted of.andawhat--was the sentenee?ih~each_
.¢011'!1’1¢,?1 ` §
N/A
('~9)' Whja't was1thé plea you entered?` (Che¢l'irney'§
namer ` ’ ` ‘
Mark_NAlexander _, _
(Dj Wha`t:was thedecis'i`on and the'~date pf;the.dg¢i:sion»?j » Af_f§m€d
~Did 1011 file a'»peffifion~for discretionaryrre§iew‘i'né'the_ Com>o_f Criminal;-Appeag$?;
@ Y`¢~s 13 nfl
'1`f,,y,c»11v did tire a petition far discretionin 'réviéw',¢`.answer the:fonm§ving questions:,
(A,')» What-was‘fh.e1~case number?- ; N/A
"(Bj 'What,'was ihe,1d'é'cisi_ozi and`:thj@qa_cjej ufthe.i‘decision"?' ~ refused
`Hav'e yo'\'j previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus `undér` chlé
11.0.7 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this convcctwn"
`l, yes ljs .n"o»
lf yca answered yes§ answé`i'=~thé fallowing q,uestions::
('A‘-) What was .t`he Coqrjt`ofi.Cr'iminal Appe'als’ writ number? »WR:QMZQ;QL__
3
Rev. 01/"'14-/~14
(’15)1
§(16)
(B)` ‘What:was>the decision and.;t"hé;.:da`te, df:the;d_'ecisi'¢")'n?;
Dismissed
'(`C.), P.leasefi`d¢niify:fh§ reason that the current claimsi‘we.r,e nqt.;_pres'§nted and could
’.not have been presented on your previous;~application.-
Note: The foregoing application1 is only an amended version of an
application already before this Court. On 11/05/15/ this Court
granted (30) days to amend the application.
Do you currently have any petltmn ori appeal pending m any other state erl federal
court?
251 §yes 'L';l= '_no.
'If‘yi)u:answeredjyes, please@:proyid"ef`t_hej_nam'e_j of;the“ court and thei~',ic__`as'einu'nilier;
As stated above, there is currently an application before this Court.
‘I"f"y'ou are presenting a'* claim fortinie*credit, "hav.el,.yo[uéx_h`austed.*yeur g
administrative remedies by presenting your"cl'aim to the time credit resolutlon`
system of the Te"Xas Departm'ent of Criminal Justice? _(Th`_is requirement applies to
any final felony convictibn, mcludmg state jail felonies)
l:l yes El `n‘o»
lf you answered yes',`-,answer.~ the.;fo_ll`()\ying questions':
SUPPORTING.-GR{?)UND.“TWQ=i
APPLICANT'S CLAIMS ASSERTED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION/ ARE BASED
ON THE NEWLY DISCOVERED AND NEWLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE PRESENTED, THEREIN.
Ré.v.-. 0,1./ 114/154
R`e_v. 01 `/1'4/14,v
.GR<)UND'THREES.
APPLlCANT REASSERTS HIS CLAIMS ASSERTED W;THIN ORIGINAL APPEICATION NO.
49/474-05
'FACT.,SI;SUPBORTING GROUND THREE
HEREIN/ APPLICANT WOULD ADD THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED WITHIN THIS PLEADING.
=l,`Of
Re_v-. 01/'14/`.14.-
111
Re,`v.» OKI-/fl 4/:1'4
-GRo.UN"o EQUR~;§
'APPLLCANT REAS$E§TS HIS CLAIMS AS$ERTED_wITH;N,QRIGINALHAPPLICAjlpm NO,
49 / 474-05
,FACTSzsUPPORTING:GROUNI) FOU;R,:: .
HEREIN, APPL,ICANT WOULD ADD THE AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED WITHIN: THIS PLEADING.
'12_\
Rev. 01/..1;,4/14y
.1?3
Rev.~Ol)./'l 4./1*4
GROUNI) FIVE
APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION IS THE RESULT OF CONSTITUTIONAL_
WvIOLATioNS: APPLicANT INVQKES A cLAIM UNDER THE PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE 11.073
TEXAS coDE OF cRIMINAL PROCEDURE
FACTS#::$UPPORTINGGROUND=
THE ESSENCE OF THE FOREGOING CLAIMS, ARE
SUBMITTED UNDER ARTICLE 11.073 (A) THE STATE ELICITED, PRESENTED AND RELIED
ON THE SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY OF DR. A.J. ALAMIA/ SPECIFICALLY, THAT "THE HUMAN
MEMORY FUNCTIONS LIKE A CAMERA IN TRAUMATIC EVENTS{ l"I‘AK]ING SNAPSHOTS`THATH
STAY INGRAINED IN THE MEMORY'." PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 11.073/ APPLICANT CONTENDS
THE FOLLOWING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, "CONTRADICTS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THE
STATE RELIED ON AT HIS TRIAL".
FIRST/ ACCORDING TO THE INNOCENCE PROJECT/ "THE BIGGEST LIE OF THE HUMAN
MEMORY IS THAT IT FEELS TRUE. ALTHOUGH OUR RECOLLECTION SEEM LIKE…LITERAL
SNAPSHOTS OF THE PAST/ THEY' RE ACTUALLY DEEPLY FLAWED RECONSTRUCTIONS, A SET
OF STORIES CONSTANTLY UNDERGOING REWRITES." [l] SeCOnd, ALSO ACCORDING TO THE
INNOCENCE PROJECT, IN 75 PERCENT OF DNA EXONERATION CASES,.THE PRINCIPLE CAUSE
FOR THE ERRONEOUS GUILTY VERDICT, WAS"MISTAKEN EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATIONS'.
ALMOST ALL THOSE'CASES, INVOLVED A TRAUMATIC CRIME (EVENT). {2} Third, ACCORDING
TO NEUROSCIENCE PROFESSOR DR. JULIAN P.-KEENAN/ "IT IS'NOW WIDELY ACCEPTED
THAT OUR MEMORIES/ THOUGHTS, EXPEIRENCES AND FACTS ARE NOT SNAPSHOTS OF THE
PAST IN WHICH EVERY DETAIL IS PERSERVED". [3] FOUrth/ ACCORDING TO PIONEER
PSYCOLOGISTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF SCIENCE: DR. DANIEL L. SCHACTER AND
ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS. THE HUMAN MEMORY DOES NOT FUNCTION LIKE.A VIDEO RECO§DER
AND/OR CAMERA. [4] Fifth, PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSOR DR. JAMES ALDRIDGE/ HAS TAUGHT
ADVANCE COURSES ON THE HUMAN MEMORY FOR THE LAST THIRTY YEARS. ACCORDING TO
DR. ALDRIDGE, "THE HUMAN MEMORY DOES NOT FUNCTION LIKE A CAMERA IN TRAUMATIC
EVENTS":“ADDITIONALLY, DR. ALDRIDGE REVIEWED THE SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY GIVEN
AT APPLICANT'S TRIAL BY DR. A.J. ALAMIA, coNcLUDING, THE SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY
WAS MISLEADING AND INCORRECT. [5] Sixth, THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME cOURT, IN
1€4
Re\'::. 01/'1"4/1»4
vSTATE V. HENDERSON/ 208 N. J. 2081 REVIEWED ALOT OF RESEACH ON THIS SUBJECT
AND THE TESTIMONIES OF NUMEROUS EXPERTS IN THESE RELATED FEILDS OF SCIENCE.
CONCLUDING, THAT THE HUMAN MEMORY DOES NOT WORK LIKE A RECORDER/CAMERA. [6]
BASED ON THE SCIENTIFIC RELATED EVIDENCE PRESENTED HEREIN, APPLICANT C%@/£"9/~ @/_//_1/7! _
/¢w/ /W v J§Ozz_,_ .
,AM€ z ':@/ %
'I`el`eph`,one-:` .
'Il:ax.: .. ,
signed an /)¢/Me/ £.,2 ,__20 /5‘/.
WMVQ(
:,»Sf'.ignat:l;r¢. ofil??f:r`ji'ti'ozléf»
185
'Rev,...\oi;_/14/JI,4\»