XhTheCaar+flfCriminal AppStlS ORIGINAL 0fTex4s A+ Austin, TetoS „_„_..._ »PBI'»W ,••*•.•«»[• . RECEIVED,! S\! COURT Of CRiiiNALAPPEALS Reynoldo Rey JAN 23 2015 /Ippeik^xn Pro Se, Abe! Acosta, Clerk Vs. FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS T^e 5ta+e OfTexas1 2 3 2D^5 !esponder\+ J -•—•-• ; ' " •"••"• '• Abel Acosta, Clerk' Prom The Cour\ Of Appeals Epr-The. Se^+h Di5k\c4 0f Tetas A+ Amanita TeXas From Tm Bl^ vlu^ciql ^ CouiA+V,leXasHo^OrqUe 3^khCnClr^y} ITP C\et\Aor\; OuH- O-P Appeals CH-/a-004~W-CR - »wv''witfi3ey.''..a!!gtfj|WM«jMMiif;wa Tq h Ift n-P C-nv\±ejn+?> Xde-rt-h+>/ o-FJu^e, Parh^S and Counsel . . .... 5. Xy\clex- Of Authorities ...•...'.,..... i iL S^a+dmenf Regarding Oral /Va^jyienrt. ° *• • • -^i- S+at£M£n+ o£ Procedural tU^-HDry, 6 r ,,,.,. JL Grounds ^cov RcvieW, , . « , . « , * , ; , . ,^L Xs^ue No. TKeTria CouH-Elided in FindihaThe S;tetf£ Mef i-f^TAr^k^ld BuiJey\ #£ Au+ka/rhVaifcm The. DMA E\zi cAeiAce Inkocluced Later B^Fbvse, TTifttTury A-fTrial . » * * 0 ,..».,, j5_ Xssm& Mo. 3~ The. Ei/i^mce-Presented During IheTral Was LegallyInsafftqewfTo^ppoH-XKe Tury^s V/e^ic-*- &f &uiliy<. j ,„..*.,, :2_ Argument -fi)«- 6-rtfUhd< One*.. . . . . :£_ _^_ JL iL _3_ Argument 4^ &ri)unclTvVo*. - . , _3_ J£iL _& Hii£ Prayer-for R&li£/f« e » .- « * * . . • . « * . - » *iii •Cerfif \ea+e 0-f Servhe^* ,.,.,.*. ,(i.,..J5 "I _gjgryHty Qf• 3uAg£ ..far-t-l. \ .KeynalaD twy iHn Dcinleltf, WarricK Attarney at La .w/ A4-for nay pt La vv .ppffl-lAg.SuTrla 1. •C?M^.&w* - eSkmekk A whet Davis PflSoX 1053^, «,--_.. UWbocK,TO^08-3 53tr. . • -a- ?* 0-P Au4kbc-\+\ e£ r,n.c;p Lam Page BaldntmeV.S+A+e,7l S.W.3il&3,7fc8tfdX. tw- App.<^a^4 •BU^-ov.S+flte1%iS.w.^ttt»Oex.C^»v\.App.\cl^fe.&iwi,App,aa^ Da^sv.S+o+e, o<»»<»JZ tmllfcr- v,£-taH£,,73S,W.3«l MOfoxdr iw.App. 20O2\ , %1Q J*} IPO V - ' l l U / f i f f f o cC 0 e i»o a a it ' - L*aror\e V.StatedS.W.ai&0i.il7C!e)cCnv*, App.KTt)- i2_ Malik\/.Sta+elcJ53S.W.2J a^tTeX.Cri^App. W7V. • ± MdranJa v/.£4a+e,£53S,W3d 7fe2,~76^ CTeX App;-A>mH llo , aooi.p£+.A\sv»isseRale °IOl(a\, , * , , l£_ Appellant Waives Oral Argument OhSepfem^r^l 2012 .theAppelUcrt- was^oundqu] ity by +Kejury a£+he0££&nsUi-H33i'H11.(W ip, i53r13f] On October^, ao\3i.im AppellouH-Pilea his Noti, and^eSupplemeiAfal Reporter^ ReeorA was fel&l on May 23, 3613'.. Si-at^mentOf Procedural lr\\S~i-ary A The Am&rillo Court £-P App&ils at£\^vAed Appellants Conviction on Oetoher^S.^W.Melthei- £k)e tiled a mction -fbr rehearing (rrr?Mnd.^ Fflr Rei/ievi/ IThgTTrial Court E<-reci In FiiaA vv\g The State tAet VP$TV\te£>V\oU BarAev\ cot Auih£vvHcati% The DMA Ei/\Aey\ee \wtrodueed L^ferBefere Thetrury At Trial, ^l.The E\j\ A&\cd, Presented DueingTkcTri Legally In^ul^ci^ltT^) Support The {JLi^ y>s Verdict- o^£i* •*;:.£ Monkery v.^a+e>8[0£/^^ on Y-eW^na^^aV.S^crtt,;&53 3,yi/3d 76i,7^peX,App,-^ AmcTirl i\o2D01i pef. di£)^d). in r&/f4he witnesses' crfidibti ity b^t rei/ieu/d£ n#i/o the H-ml^rfe applJ cation tft the •tecf-Sttfthe (aw/ &U2Jvnav\ i/, S-frate, °155 S,l/i/.2ol&5,88^^^^'^«Appd^7);&leKtIne\/,5^ ^/^w.3^,^7^8^^-G^;vw,App.xocaY Autli^ntiC^tioh 6?f phy^/dalei;tdLin<^e re&u iVes \cierjt- f£leafiDhiyrWSwpp£hf a fS toiCer v,^tat^,7885Wid IOfrfc*.£rim. Apb, l^fi^cert CJ9^0\ Wifhtout ej/idenee D-f tamper^g m^sf• - questions coheerwiing e^re £\r\d ^^st^dy D¥av\ tt^vtf 5o4o w/eiahf a+t^ched, nettKe advrus£ab(lit;yc>£ rfthe ewden^.U^Vie. i/.^tate,^^ 5.u/t^d6/b2/ £/7CfeX,Sri-mr/Tpp.(fF7)(address!ng custody o-f emtrsllei SMbsfanCje-Y. -fhetriW Cflait has-fhe , disere.-tioKi'4-D defer vnl net-He; sa-£f>rc-r£rtcy erfan exA denf i<3ry dm? Aicafe. 5mifK V. 5fa+£, £83 ^u/t2d 3«,4a5(7eX:,Cr\Fn.App,Hg^ ;'* ^> OncC -the proporient erf ev/idence ^ee/cSjMe threshold requirement of present 1V3testimony that the ei/tdence is k/haf the propd)nen+-^ayS if tS.thcweighf eiventhe evidence and related tes-tivvion\/ iS within the providence ofthe trier dr PckcJc, £e£lbauiS V, 5tate,9POLS.\A/2d8rlh l^ (7e*. App,-BoustDnQ^tDis+J Wife ru9pet,;. When the trial eoar+dbesnotv»^ked.)(p\\cl+ 1 tending^ of historical ^ . a rei/ieu/mg e&urf srauld viewthe evidence\v\a Itgkf m^sf f^t/0rable ttfthe tr\a Icourts ru Ii ng and 4£j£ Uvne the trk( e^rf ma<4e implicit findings <>ffkctthaf can be supported hy-fhe record.Carmonche v/. Sfafe, I0S. W, 3d $25,12.>2gttU. C\-!w\lApp.'3LD0O).(nreviewMgthetrial court's ,. evidentiary iruling a re^/ltwing couM~ skouId Consider /only What wa^ before, the trial aouH art the tiiwe of VfS rut ing-U/e^herred v. State, 15Ssu7.5d540, 5 43LLteX.Crtv/\,App,3£0O) Thetrial LWtCDndaci ed apretrial hearing G-^y Ion Lew istesfifteiK> hisroLeVtKe crW, scene investigation as a memlfler of the lAe^v-ifIcattomSechon flfthaXlubbock. Police Department,Ontlus occas\q\\ his role was pkotoampWvn^the crime scene \v\ general andthe ev id enee h eiv\a collected. Deceased Dere&rli/e UidtGiwrniite role was to collect evidence. C^3, p.H5) 6-c\ykh LowtStestlfveAtba+hewo\dpp.3~4) Wc^ \denfif\ep.S2r 53,5b-U)But kecoalci K\ot 4-e<.+ify 4ou/ko bggged orkidp^d collectthe robe, pillow eas^aullt, sheets cmAblanket.And We. Cau Id v\cA-meal Ikom/tk^Se i4ewaS were C£>(lacfed.(.RR,3,p.6^) Tke Sfa4e^ witnesses coaid not aghee is>n Wkmfhe crW scene wa£ aetiVe.Poe.Carryard iPc*\^m0rete3Kft&i to ^r^me 2&, Km CRR 3,p, £3>£Pcel, P. a££c^ryl^3k~37' . EParraKLorel Eat Lewi/is testified 4o^Unc M, igg^CM^p^ TKe DPS Lab records could wot aaree on \Ad\e\a Items wei^e received. Stents Pretrial EYj^llaVFlb Indicates that x 5abvn\ss,von Iw^ rec^l\/ed on3LiAe3^Hvlcl8^.CSRR^,po4 Stated Prctridjl^^ hears a reeel\/ed sfampdateof3Uhe 3A, WW, onthetirSt baqe and atvpeddateot^UneSO, IW, on the second pq<3eu>RK^pp,T8nikel^sfiniony of37m TKomas does not kelp clear this diScrepency Sii/vce. he test^edto both dates, CRR.3, pp.87-88^0 TKc Appellant Wes Ituptotkis courtto decideWliefter -the tecH4toowy of retired at£c^P£ (cusfodycftte He>nsfro*n vuklck katrscStotek £Xk;brr*l IS u/erc nscwared, Infhcabsence #ft^stlvnonyfrom the&.e.c£aoeA officer ui# -S' CollectedtKe^bedsbreadiCfuiW, blanket, andsKeef (Sfate*5 rWt^alEyWvt^tWthecrl^ scene, Wi+b conflicting testvvnony aboutWketKer Stated Pretrial b£kib. ar\d cdIected it the right way. is is not Sufficient to establish thatfheVVevns anewhaf the pro pon e nt eda\vv\ thei*\ to be, Arguhnem-t f OY-rfrnandTA/ft The proper standard of re\/t eu/fora courtto util ize, indeterminmg wketkertke eiAvdene+ui/i- neee^Sarl ly Increase the ^totcis theories of liability, and adequately describes dhepartleukr o#ense for Which thede-fenaan-t Wa£ t-rted, Malik y,SiQ^^SZSM3iAQ39CreX^im,Ap^l^l)i --