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