Skief, Tiwian Laquinn

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