\»>Q>\'¢ »~*"\\ \1~"<‘_1;“;3 --c.»,g; q/\ .- L|;? .‘ OS , C_, <;')'\_,\ Q_'“{ Q_',~ \'~" C_ \`=;I`X..\"`r"l ".\"x`\Q. L \`:\ \.'T" F~’W‘:“:. \“_`\ L _'\" w 1 h n v ` 1 a % °\"\_\\;_j 1¢2»`§.='1<~3 1110-5 C_,‘.l‘ m X;_\A(>\;:§K'T&_ Q,Y~\L\L]_U \./\) \/S“:\\ \`\* ` " n y v k *€ \_ DIS. rrz:.r_LT <;osz ©C\L~LJT~\$ Qc>um¢"r#? `Tl;»E)` T`<;’.> k;` I..\_E \~\‘J; § @B;TF_CT`J:OQ ”l`c' 'T\~&\;_ g‘r'(;qu_-‘ mm mmm<,. w \_~Qm W{§j E©EH“'@Y‘E@ UN C)\2 \>E\’§ y _ ©©URT OF©RMVJHNAIL APPEALS SEP 212015' . SQ`I_\B c;c>u\!l_'{ "` now 110/mas R(>p\-\ ch~A~ CJ@L`\!IF`¢ \/D` §m§¥@q§w©?§€§@©g§:k `3. \A>QL,\ c>\~ mo\-szw~( Fo\'a \,\@,G\(€3 gee.bcw§¢ l ` % . ~. , ~\ _ \)>e’ivv\~'§s`~ ‘Y\: *“""' c ©\_»¢YL\` l<‘# W'?~v\?‘\~¢ \5:\ \?PL‘ ‘;“Q"’"&"S C/`r>§l Q';‘&~\Qr~. ¥O l-\;b Y:?:‘ZZ>"S ;L$ TL/LD`XC"' F{L \)" "` ' § nw q "` L§\\z`l.v::r wwm*vg s=\ucms+ \'l z<>"S ’ ah O\ G`RQ§Q{L‘ A ) \ R€§,(><:)D$@. `Yc> 'T'\~lEL-'L»OHC>QRE.\¢E `SU\DC>\'-.`;. (> LC `I_ @S~-?.@;C)H%~~T 'c'_ ` ' .' . ‘ ' ~ 'DQE_LQ § C g§_\ `:L £v`he 1%3 QC\ wj"`d"¢'\c°*t` 0"5&"'<\`<:¥ CG @1~ Q~,\l-`~ \Q~L,_l RPP:L.AA tz\ '\ elqu P‘i\d'v\c§{(,m__»{-e<£ mc¢z$c')v\~m\b\_g W§»~. ' ' `(~Q ' s ‘ . \¢- - ` ‘ - {`£__£ at 4 d “"-`*3` \'RWSS L.R{`_$ -k-\,-»~Q¥ $;:;.\`C\ m O.:‘_l\= _` .. _ v \Yv qoc¢’\ \~u>,\~\er ‘*Y" "S SLJQWAL§` »<> ~U §§ m ` “ C-(’V \R P(>\._\` ((H D.X_ RS_` 1 ’ ’ »~ -` ">'1¢_,»~¢%~5` `§`C"P` M`OT SQC@B ~ '1\: cg ;Evz - `T_ LQL\[;\»~L w VIC'L_` \“\ F 11:\ ‘ . . <>PL# w.v\~¢\; \¢ ~ qp€zlL/WZUL _ “F”wbec\§&~ \`) /\~.\ .k` ci Q'\r c"_ <_ gck ~Q. c.(. »_(~i_‘_§`~_(?;'\;_v?_-_“zn.\;~Léi¢?./_j_a/__Z.BQ.L,§ QQ hub wl ‘a`§“/??’?LM '/ QY=\\,\r{r\ ’LA")` ,S°.v\r~\\“{~\\ 'T\>C§-I\>\:X. 331 ¢>'1<£>¢\ \?\b\oea¥$bvw Uv=\{¥ \10`1\ *?m’?>SZZ 'Plbi"l_evw@ “`\'E`\\ WRIT NO. WOS-ZGOGB-T(C) (Ex parte) Calvin W. Smith ` In The 283rd Judicial District Court .Dallas County, Texas RECE|V APPLICANT'$ osJECTION To THE COURT OF CR| STATE'S RESPONSE, FINDING oF FACT AND oRDER TO THE HONORABLE.JUDCE OF SAID COURT: ~ . Aco a,C!erk Now comes Applicant Calvin. W. Smith, by way of objection to the State's response, finding of fact and arder. I. It would be a complete fundamental miscarriage of justice in light of Murray v. Carrier 477, U.S. 496, 91, L.Ed. 2d, 397, lOO Sct; 2639 (1986). If this court adopt the trial court's Aug. 12, 2015 response and order. Applicant asserts that such decision or conclusion by the State, taht Applicant has failed to demonstrate why he was unable ot present these claims in his previous writ. Applicant asserts that the State's contention in the light of Applicant attached exhibits (l) and (2), as set out in the T.C.C.P. 11.07 Sec. (4). Due to exhibits one and two being newly discovered evidence, which supporting'the police corruption that Applicant argued at hsi initial court trial, which was two newspaper articles on the Lead Detective Dennis Morrow who also worked and set up my case, was caught being in the police corruptino, identical ot Applicant's allegations duing his trial.' Applicant further asserts that the newly discovered evidence and arguments submitted therein, meet all the requirements of T.C.C.P. Art. ll.O7 Sec. (4) as set out in Ex parte Brook 219 S.W. 3d. 396 (Tex. App-_2007), and Schlup v. Delo 513 U.S. 296. 327-28, 115 Sct; 851} 130_, L.Ed. zd. 308 (1995). ' ' _ _ Which the court in Ex parte Brook 219, S.W; 3d. 396, (Tex. App. 2007); under a 11.07 sec. (4). Review stated that we may not consider the merit of an application unless it includes sufficient specific facts'establishing'by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for a constitutional violation, no rational juror would have found Applicant guilty. The court went on to state that it_must that this necessarily includes a prima facie show- ing of actual innocence in order for the Applicant to demonstrate that the constitutional violation at his trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice which such showing would allow said court to consider a constitutional claim which otherwise would have been barred by Sec. (4) of the T. C. C. P. Which Applicant asserts that as of yet he has not been offorded such opportunity. In .the light of McQuiggens v. Perkins 133 Sct. 1924 (2013) Applicant assert that in the light of his newly discovered evidence seen in attached exhibits (1) and (2) under writ No. W05-26048-T(C) thatApplicanthasnedea prima facia showing of actual innocence, entitling ` him to a hearing on the merits because the two exhibits demonstrate the same identical police corruption that Applicant argued was going on with the same corrupt officer with the Garland, Texas Police Department, officer Dennis Morrow. Therefore Applicant asserts that it who be unreasonable to disregard Applicant's newly discovered exhibits (1) and (2) in the light of McQuiggens v. Perkins 133 Sct. 1924 (2013); Ex parte Brook 219 S.W. 3d. 366 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) and Schlup v. Delo 513 U.S. 298, 327-28, 115 Sct. 851 (1995) which the following courts state; that under an actual innocnet claimj one with a prima facia showing , which in this case, that had it not been for the police corruption by Garland Police officer Denniw Morrow as depicted in Applicant‘s exhibits (1) and (2) no reasonable juror would have prevailed on his pretrial motion to suppress the drugs that was illegally obtained by an unlawful search of the motel room that Applicant rented and had standings. PRAYER Applicant pray that this court will review Applicant's writ along with his two newly discovered exhibits (1) and (2) and determine that Applicant has made the necessary prima facia showing to meet the requisites of T.C.C.P. Art. 11.07 Sec. (4), and thereafter grant Applicant due relief. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE` I, Calvin W. Smith, now comes before this court in good faith, state_that all of the above is true to the best of Applicant's knowledge free from perjury. Date executed H%§,\jl:t D?© j 020 )5 y q&hv(/)L/W M/ Calvin W. Smith TDCJ-ID #1370784 Robertson Unit 12071 FM 3522 Abilene, Texas 79601 Amcl. A<;`os'r/\ SllARON Kl'Il.l.ER I’Rl£$|l)lN('iJUl)(i|Z (`|.I'IRK ,~ re < ($lZ)/lf).\=|$$| P.O. BOX 12308, CAPllOL S l Al ION l,Awlu';NCl': lz. Ml".\'lcus .~ .. t ;. Cm<:lwl..lolleoN AUS] le H~XAS 7871 l _ sl/\N sCllll,ll/u; Mll\'l'; KEASLI‘§R GliN|-`.RA!.(`.OUNSIE|. n/\RBARA P. lll€livlc\' ("'2>“"-‘"""° i:l,sA ALCALA nER'r RlCHARl)s<)N lucle P. YEARv l)Avll) NEWELL moses September l, 2015 Calvin W. Smith #1370784 Robertson Unit j _ 12071FM 3522 ` Abilene, TX 79601 RE: Trial Court Case #W05-26048-T(C) Dear Mr. Smith: After a thorough search of our records, we find that you do not have a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals at this time. If you have any further questions or concerns, please direct them to the District Cle'rk in the convicting county where you originally filed the application I am-herewith returning your documents ` Sincerely, Abel M>sia, `Clerk` AA/kd Enclosure SUPREME CouRT BUILDING, 201 WEsT 14TH STREET, ROOM 106, AUSTrN, TEXAs 78701 WEBsiTE www.CcA.couRTs.sTATE.Tx.us OmEQ>F ZC.:Gm E~O§ OOC_~._. Om OW=<:Z>H_ >Eom>~rm Om .~.mX>w CT IC ws©.,mox C%m/UBG.GV_\ ma>,EOz_.HW L.MMWw N&E.Gmd[®m.. §zm< moémm DS wjy._,m O~u .~\m X>m t emza.j\ nom . ft §§ 1 §_.<_z <<>em_ >eows_ csa O>_l<_Z <<>w__.mzm..§ §§ iam umwa w . ___._.______==__=._.;.=__..._._______._._..r_=...____:.=: