655-f5
PETITION NO. PD-0655-15
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
IN THE
AUG 18 2015
OR COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AM AcOPt* C!P!*
TIWIAN LAQUINN SKIEF PETITIONER
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS RESPONDENT
PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
On Petition for Discretionary Review from the Fifth District
Court of Appeals in No. 05-12-00223-GR Affirming Conviction in
No. F10-35936-L from the Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas
County, Texas.
FILED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUG 19 23^5
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Abe| ^ ^ ^
TIWIAN LaQUINN SKIEF
TDCJ #01769917
COFFIELD UNIT
2661 FM 2054
TENNESSEE COLONY, TX. 75884
PRO SE.
IDENTITY OF JUSTICES, JUDGE, PARTIES, AND COUNSEL
BEFORE^JUSTICES BRIDGES, FITZGERALD,' AND MYERS: George Allen
Sr. Courts Bldg., 2nd floor, 600 Commerce St., Dallas, Tx. 75202.
TRIAL JUDGE: The Honorable Carter Thompson presided over the case
at 133 N. Riverfront Blvd. Dallas, Texas 75207.
PETITIONER-APPELLANT: Tiwian Laquinn Skief, TDCJ #01769917, Cof-
field unit, 2661 FM 2054,. Tennessee Colony, Tx. 75884.
TRIAL COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr. Roger Haynes, and Mr. Phillip
Linder, 3500 Maple Ave., Ste.400, Dallas Tx. 76219.
APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Mr. David J. Pire, 4144 N. Cen
tral Expressway, Suite 250, Dallas, Texas 75204.
RESPONDENT-APPELLEE: The State of Texas
TRIAL COUNSEL FOR STATE: Assistant District Attorney(s) Miss
Stephanie Mitchell and Mr Dewey Mitchell, 133 N. Riverfront Blvd.
L.B. 19, Dallas, Tx. 75207.
APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR STATE: Craig M. Watkins, Criminal Distict
Attorney of Dallas County., 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., L.B.19, Dal
las, Texas 75207.
SKIEF v STATE. PAGE ^
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS: PAGE #
Cover page •"" i
Identity of Justices, Judge, Parties, and Counsel ii
Table of Contents iii
Index of Authorities v
Statement regarding .oral argument vi
Statement of the case vii
Statement of procedural history viii
Statement of jurisdiction ix
Questions for review: x
1* When deciding whether the State is entilted to •:.
an instruction on limiting the right of self-de
fense; did the Fifth District Court of Appeals
unreasonably apply the facts of this case, and to
a standard, subscribed in Lee, Fink, and Bumguar-
dner, that conflicts with the facts—along with
the justified decisions—in Lee, Fink, and Bum-
guardner? 1-7
2- Does the Fifth District Court of Appeals' de
cision conflict with Wall v. State, and is their
decision unreasonable when the Court of Appeals
acknowledges that Riketta Johnson's statement was
an excited utterance—but refuses to use the cor-:,
rect standard hed in Wall? 7-10
3* Did the U.S. Supreme Court intend for the State
Skief v. State Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS: r PAGE #
Courts to limit (or restrict) the term, or defi
nition of "Testimonial" to solely relate a state
ment, declaration, or affirmation to law inforce-
ment based agencies only—calling for "this Illus
trious Court of Criminal Appeals' power of Super
vision? 10-13
Prayer for Relief 14
Inmate Declaration 15
Proof of Mailing 16
Memorandum Opinion (See motion to suspend rule 68.4(j)N affixed).
Skief v. State Page iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASELAW: PAGE #
1* Bumguander v. State, 963 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.App.--
Waco, 1998) 1,2,3
2* Coronado v. State, 351 S.W.3d 315 (Tex.Crim.App.
2011) 13
3* Ex Parte Tiwian Laquinn Skief, No. WR-82,496-01
(Tex.Crim.App. May 13, 2015)(Unpublished Op.) vm
4* Fink v. State, 97 S.W.3d 739 (Tex.App.--Austin,
2003) 1,2
5- Lee v. State, 259 S.W.3d 785 (Tex.App.--[1st dist]
Houston, 2007) 1,2
6* McCarty v. State, 227 S.W..3d 415 (Tex.App.--
Texarkana, 2007) 11,12
1' Skief v. State, No. 05-12-00223-CR (Tex.App.--
'Dallas, May 21, 2013)(Unpublished Op.) viii ,1,3,4
6-7,8,11
3