491,¢/2?1!'0\/©2 RAYMOND KEITH WALLS TDC No. 01828261 McConnell Unit 3001 S; Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102 15 March 2015 Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Re£ wR481,484401 s wR-81,484{02 Dear Mr. Acosta, Clerkr Enclosed please find the eriginal copy of Applicant's Objection to appointed Counseljs Motion to withdraw and Brief in support. Thank you for your time adn consideration in this matter. Sincerefy, RAYMOND K; WALLS files cc; Other enclosures RECE\VED \M couRT oF cR\wuNAL APPEALS MAR 23 2015 Abe\ Acosta, Cl€"‘ wRITsE leaz,484¥01,e wR481,4s4¥02 DISTRIcT coURT Nos= cR-01624 & cR-01626 EXPARTE ` § IN THE 102th DIsTRIcT coURT aAYMoND KEITH wALLs § 0F APPLICANT § RED RrvE§€couNTY,TEXAs APPLIcANT*s oaJEcTIoN To APR)INTED couNsEL*s uoTIoN To wITHDRAW AND BRIEF IN suppoRT To THE HoNoRABLE couRT or cRrMINAr APPEALS$ 0n April 28/ 2014, Applicant filed his Pro Se App- lication for writ of Habeas Corpus seeking Relief fron Final conviction under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11;07» on Auguet 20, 2014, This Appeez heart eiae£ed the District court and Defense counsel to make the following findings$ The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether the enhancement paragraphs alleging a prior conviction in McCurtain County, oklahoma Cause Number CF-2003- 497 was final conviction*capable of enhancing the applicable range of punishment. The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether the per- formance of Applicant's trial attorney was deficient and if so, whether counsel's deficient performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusion of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the dis- position of Applicant' s claim for habeas corpus relief. on september 13, 2014, the Honereble Bebby deekhart appointed attorney Jason Horton to review Applicant]s filing and provide legal research and analysis in response to the Court of Criminal Appealsi August 20, 2014 Order; APPLICANTWS GROUND ONE§ "Counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the attestation for the "Out of State” document was not accompanied by 'another certificate' that the attesting officer had legal custody of the record." CBJECTION TO COUNSEL'S RESPONSE.° Appl.fcant contend that Mr; Horton, the appointed counselis Response admitted bits and pieces as he correctly recognized Applicantis claims that Kevin Mooreis certification blb NbT render the pen pack self¥authenticating because the certification was not accompanied an officials seal or a certification by a Public officer indicating Mr; Moore had the officil capacity to certify the pen pack and that Mr; Mooreis signature was genuine; See, Texas Rule of Evidence 902(1)&(2). Although the "top" of Mr; Mooreis certification page indicates a seal was "attached”. This error made appointed counsel to traveled to roe ned River cherry oierrier clerk*e effiee . and reviewed the erhibiée erbhiéted et £riaz end ihis erhibit voss nor certain the referereea reel er eeréifieerirn-by a public officer indicating lr: loore had the official capacity to certify the pen pack or that Hr: Hoore”s signature was genuine; See, page 4 of appointed Counsel*s Motion to withdraw and Brief in support. Applicantis Original Memorandum clearly reveals that 28 U:S;¢;h: sec: *1738*, State and Territorial Statutes and Judicial-Proceedings} Full Faith and Credit; The acts of the Legislature of any State, Territory‘ or possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated izi by affixing, the seal of such state, Territory.or possession thereto; The record and dudicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other court within the United State and its Territories and Possession by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form; Such acts, record and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated shall have the same full, faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of suchState, Territory or possession from which they are taken; See, original memorandum at page '6'; In other word, the trial never had jurisdiction to receive such evidence. See, Ragland vs Cone, Ten;Civ; App; 188 S:W; 2d. 1098, no write Mr; Horton is reliance on the "fingerprint" match to authenticate the entire penitentiary package, is misplaced: The fingerprint meteh geee te the "seeeea eeeegerg er preef", proving the defendant is the person previously be convicted, and fails to prove that the document in the pen pack are what ¢he s¢a¢e egger¢e them fe bee see, cole we s¢aee, 484 s;w; 2d; i79, 784 (Tex;crim: App; 1972)¢ The fingerprint are used as a means of insuring that the person on trial is the same one to whom the package refers; in the absence of any other proof that the document in the package are what the State claims, evidence of a valid and final conviction; .;3; Trial Counsel did object to the introduction of the pen pack "on the basis of hearsay and lack of predicates"". (4 RR 11)} Counsel :;g~not "specific" in his objection as required by law# While Appointed Counsel reliance on "Reed va State” 211 S$Wa 2d; 583; In §e£d, the court concluded that language not similar to the above¥referenced certification but perhaps as that Appellant argned that the copies ef the judgment era sentence were ieearieeibie beeeeee, eitheegh they were eertifiea bythe eeeteaier er reeera et the rbcdro, they laid yet refieet a eeperete eertifieetier by the nietriet eierk er the erigieez eervietieg ebert ir bailee ceirty: Applicantis claim is total different from 533§ as -neak w; stete- 153 s:w: 3dr 649 given the ebert e clear pictnre of applicant}s claim; The document were not properly authenticated and should not have been admitted. See¢ §§n£' supraj Because the applicant find the peh pack should have been admitted and proof of a prior conviction for a reportable offense is an essential element of failing to register in violation of article 62:02, Tex; Code Crimi As the peniten¥ tiary pen pack was the only evidence the State relied upon to prone applicant was previously convicted of a reportable offense The improper admission affected applicantis substan- tial rights; 3 Tex; R; App; P; 44;2(b); See/ £én£, supra at pge 654: cfc king tr stete, 953 s;w: 2d: 266, 271 freer crim: App: 1997); The record does not contain a certificate from a "Judge” in the County where the prison is located or from a Clerk of a court in that County; There is no "signature" nor "seal" by the "Secretary State of Oklahoma". there is nothing to indicate that the proper were were received from the legal custodian of the record in Oklahoma; The Oklahomais pen pack were improperly considered by the Court in assessing Applicant*s punishment. The "form" does not even have Applicant's name in it at all; See, Carpenter v; State, 781 S;W; 2d; 707. Regardless or not if the Trial Counsel objected to the "hearsay or Predicates”: The trial court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence a "pen package" from the State of okalhoma reflecting Applicantis prior conviction for Burglary and attempt Burglary, since there was certificate by a judge of the court of record in which the record was kept certifying that attesting officer had legal custody of the asserted writting and there was no certificate from ` "secretary of State of Oklahoma" or any other appropriate official certifying as to attesting officeris position and to the fact that he had custody of the document as asserted in` his eertificete; carter v.' state, 571 s.~w.‘ 2d. 308.~ See, Original writ with attachment; APPLIcANTWs eaoUND Twoe vcounsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court admitting_into evidence a pen package not properly authenicated under Rule 902 of the Texas Rules of Evidence See, Objection to Counsells Response Ground 0ne. APPLICANTVS GRouND THREE_YApp1icant asserts tjhat counsel's failure to discover that one prior conviction could not be used for enhancement;; OBJECTION TO COUNSELWS RESPONSE; Applicant claims that McCurtain bounty, oklahoma cause Number CF-2003-497, could not be used for enhancement because Applicant was on Probation for that offense at the time he committed the instant offense; Applicantla Oklahoma pen pack reflects that on April 16, 2004, Applicant received 23 years imprison- ment in cF12003¥497, "wi£h e11 exeept £he first right (é) years suspended under the custody and control of" the Oklahoma Department of correction: In Texas, a prior felony conviction can be used for enhancement if the State shows that the defendant has previously been finally convicted of a felony other_than a state jail felony; See, Tex; Penal Code Ann; § 12;42; While Mr;HOrton is reliance on "Louisiana conviction" where [State] proved Louisiena cenviééle£w£§ final under [Ledleie£ 1aw1 could be used for enhancement in [Teras]; Applicant‘s case is . just the opposite, the [Teras dourt] never proved bklahoma“s piiei eeavieé!ea wee a fleez ee£éleé!e£ enaei okzeheie zew» eeaza be deed ref ehheééeiee£ 15 treie§]: see; sk111ei ve s£e£e, 890 s:w: res 339, 383 rre§: ipp; iiéiié 1993, pete re*f) APPLICANTWS GRoUND FoURZ "Applicant was denied the effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, in violation of Anders v.California;;;_when cousnel, in failing to raise the claims which applicant now seeking to raise, was permitted to withdraw after a non-advocatory brief;" countries To counsrL‘s nssponss? applicantis current grounds for review are supported by Texas precedent; Therefore, Applicantls appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise Applicant”s current claims on direct appeal; APPLchNT*s GRoUND FlvE$ "The Applicent is entitled to an evidentiary Hearing on these issues:" onuscrlou To coUNsEL*s REsPoNsE! There are controverted, previously unresolved facfs which are material to the legality of Applicant“s confine- ment;" Tex;Code of Criminal Proc § 11;07(d); PRAYER FoR THE REAsoNs sET FoRTH ABovE, the undersigned respectfully requests that he be granted a remandéd and reverse: Respectfully Submitted, wm KEITH'wALLs 01833261 v y William G; McConnell Unit 3001 S;'Emily Dr: Beeville, Texas 78102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEv I hereby certify that a ttrue and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to the following listed persons this [z; day of [ybzkzq l , 2015, addressed as followingt Mr. Val Varley 4 . _`_ . Red Ri!€§ Eounty pistrict Attorney 400 N; Walnut Street Clarksville, Texas 75426 gann/nn /¢{ UQ//»S RA WoNE K.~ wALLs