Walls, Raymond Keith

(L{<€q»©l,o'z_ RAYMoND K; WALLS TDC_No; 01838261 McConnell Unit 3001 S; Emilg Beeville, Texas 78102 Mr; Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals _ QPO Box 12308, Capitol Station Au'stin, Texas 78711 Re.~ writ N¢s;~ WRle, 484101 g wR-`sl, 484'-02 Dear Appeél Clerk$ Bn¢lose please find Applicéhf*s Fihdlngs of Facf add coh¥ clusion of law; By copy of this letter, I am fbrwaidihg a cbpf od £he same to the District Court as addressed. ’Thank you for ybur fimé and consldératidn ihb his matter. ,M'l »< uaw RAY oND K. WALLS HEC§§ |me@ . EM files ©ou§m§c§§§ §.§N§§§§ §E§LS ,cc:Mr; Val Varleg _ Di`strict A£toney APR 09 2015 Red River County 400 N. Walnut Street 4 clarksville,z'exas 75426 ' Ab@"%@§ia’m@rk wRIT Nos$ wR481,484¥01 § wR-az, 434-02 nrsTRIcT coURT Nosa cR-01624 & cR-01626 EXPARTE § IN THE 102nd DISTRICT coURT RAyMoND KEITH wALLs § 0F § RED RIVER CoUNTY, TEXAS APPLICANTWS PROBJSED_FINDINGS OF FACT AND coNcLUsIoN op LAW To THE HoNORABLE coURT oF cRIMINAL APPEALS$ coMEs Ncw, RAYMoND KEITH wALLs, TDc No: # 01838261, Applicant in the above number and cause file this his Proposed Findings of Fac£ and Cenclusion of law and sfafes the following$ I.`= FiNDINGs oF FAcT on August 20/ 2014, she Tekas Ccuff of Cfiminal Appeals ordered she frial coors to make she following findings: The trial court shall make findings of fact as fo whether the enhancemenf pafagfaphs alleging a pfiof convicfion in McCurfain Ccunfy/ Oklahcma Cause Number CF;2003;497 was a final ccnvicfion capable of enhancing she applicable range of.punishmenf; The fiial ccuff shall make findings of facfs as to whefhef she peffcfmance cf Applicanfls frial actorney was deficiené and/ if_sc, whe£hei codnsel“s deficient perfor? mance pfejudiced Applican£; The fiial ccufé shall also make any o£hér findings éf fact and ¢bn¢lusiéns of 1aw fha£ it deems felevanf and appropria£e fe the dispcsi£icn of Applicant"s claim fci Habeas Ccfpus ielief; I'I.a coNcLusIoN oF LAw Based on the contentions raised by the Applicant, and study of the applicable law raised by the issues: This Applic- ant making the folbowing conclusion of law¥ as The State claims in their findings of fact as to whether the enhancement paragraph alleging a prior conviction from McCurtain County, Oklahoma in cause Noa CF;2003;497 were a final conviction capable of enhancing Applicant“s punishment ranges The state has misinterpreted the law and facts in this areas$ The law clearly reveal in a Virginiahs case, Virginia method of partially suspending a setnence was Alien to Tenas law, it would be possible to use it as a previous final conviction for enhancement purposes if the State proves to the court that the conviction was "Final under Virginia law¢" Diremiggio v: State, 637 SJWJ 2dJ 926¢ However, Texas never met its burden of proving that the conviction was considered "final" under oklahoma: See, Domingue va State 787 s»w¢'zd; 107 (Téx: App» l nou; [14£h niséa]) 1990): Also see, skillérn v; s£a£é, 890 saws 2d 849, 883 (Tex¢ App: justin 1994, pet Refid)$ Whé¢ 88 8ue:8f:s¢a¢8 psni¢égezaiy packée has been introduced as evidence of a prior criminal record in the "punishment phase", the State must establish/ either by proof or request, that the trial judge took "dudicial Notice" of what a sister state considers sufficient documentary proof of a final convic£ibn; Pééuééélzl vw séa£é, 172 s;w; 38: 761; ;2; When foreign conviction is involved in sentencing, in the absence of proof of the law of the Other State, the Court of Criminal Appeals will presume that other State"s law is the same as that of Texas for purposes of determining whether conviction is final: Vernonqs Ann; Texas C;C;Pu Arts 37:07 §3(a)} Lengéon va séaée, 776 saws 2d 586; second- ly, It does not contain any certification by a Oklahoma Official nor does it bear an oklahoma“s seal; be »The State Claims in their findings of fact as to the performance of Applicant"s trial counsel to determine whether or not they were deficienta This claim is erroneous too; The state quoted in their Findinge of Fae£ end conolusion of law under number "7*, pege 455 sneed en the oklahoma pen packet“s photo, physical description, date of birth of Raymond Keither Walls in bause§ No: and the ekpert fingerprint identification of MrJWalls, the State?s exhibit, Oklahoma pen pack, was admitted by the court; Defense Counsel specifically nbjnnnnn nnlne nn nne in¢k nn pneni¢aen end once nn nne basis of hearsay to the introduction of Mra Walls“ Oklahoma pen packet and then renewed his objection immeidately after the pen packet was admitted; This is not true! Trial Counsel only nbjnnnnn nn nne nlnnnnpnlnen snn,rnn Vnzn 4 pgn 4;14,) The court claims based on their own observations of the defendent, the court overru1ed the defense eouneel*s objection based on the court*s Reeding of its "ettestaéion by legal keeper of the reeorde with eertifieaée* and it“e (seel) of ann snnnn ann nnnn;nnny ne nnnen signed nn nnnn 9, 2010, _3; _ by kevin nw Moore who was identified as the coordinator of offend; er Record Units, Oklahoma Department of Corrections#_The att- estation lacked a seal and Secretary of the State did not sign the attestation pagea However} based on the incomplete document by Kevin Ev Moore, the Expert Fingerprint identification, and the court“s own physical observation of the defendant, being the photo, the physical description, and date of Birth, the court found sufficient evidence to support that the oklahoma pen packet was authentic and was, in fact, the Oklahoma pen packet of Raymond Keith Walls, i¢es, it was what it purported to bee However, the "pen packet" from Oklahoma used for enhannemené;g#f§§§é{¢ contains certification by Kevin Ea Moore hereby certifym He is the coordinator of the recrd dnit of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The Oklahoma penitentiary packet admitted into evidence of Burglary and attempt of Burglary for purpose of proving. Applicant“s prior-oonviction was not properly authenticated under Statute; Tek; Rule of Evid¢ 902(4): However,the Court specifically noted that the certification was accompanied by a Public officer having a seal that certified "the Signer has the official capacity and that the signature is genuinea" 811 s.lw.= 2d.' at 585,€ citing Tex-.\ R.»`cfim'.'» Evid.»»~ 902(2).» nere, Mr; Moore"s signature was not accompanied by a seal or the nnrnifl¢nnlnn nnqnznnn ny nnzn 902(1),(2) nn rn)n nlnn nnn, Benk v.~' s£e£e,‘ 158 s;~w;= 'b`d:~ 653'.-i se'e, 28 U.-'s.~='ceA'.\- § 1738.» The State reliance on the *Fingerprint” match to authenticate the entire penitentiary packet/is misplaoed$ The Fingerprint v 241 match goes to FP¢ second category of proof, proving the a defendant is the person previously be convicted,and fails 89 prdve eha¢£hé d¢¢umen¢-ih eha pen packe¢ are what ¢he` State asserts them to be: Cole v; State, 484 S¢Wv éda 579, 784 (Texa Crim; Appa l972)v Counsel failed to "object" to the entire "pen packet"; Counsel based is objection to the fingerprinta See, Fontenot vs State, 704 SJWJ 2dv 126; Secondly,It does not contain any certification by an Official from Oklahoma not does it bear Oklahoma Seal? ca The State claims in their findings of fact and conclusion of law that it deem relevant and appropriate to the disposition of applicantis Writ of Habeas Corpus relief: This conclusion of law is erroneous; The pen packet were not authenticity from oklahoma gfficialsaseé; sank ve sf§£é;,158 s:w; 3du,"653¢ `An out of state judgment is inadmissible without proper authentication; Hutchins:§ V.§eifert, 460 SvW: 2d 955 (Tex; civ» Appa 1 none [14éh nisé] 1970) writ Réf”d n¢f;ea)); See also, Mega Child Care Incv va Tex; Dept: of Protective Regulaztory servs, 29 s:w» 3d: 303, 308 {Téx¢ App: @Mggygwéigthwgist;] 2000, no Peta)("The Tenas Rules of Evidence require, as a predicate to admissibility, that evidence be properly authenticated or ldentified:”) Without some proof that the dccument in the packet are genuine, the Packet is inadmissible: Texr Ra Evid; 901(a)¢ Secondly, It does not contain any certification by an Oklahoma official nor does it bear an Oklahoma;s§?l¥ PRAYERv FoR THE REAsoN sET FoRTH~ABovE, the applicant respectfully request that this case cr cases be reversed and remanded; Respectfullg submitted, .&QMM L/€c% /Y§X/Q@/ RAY ND KEITH wALLs TDC No:_01838261 _ Williams Gm McConnell Unit 3001 SJ_Emily Dr: Beeville, Texas 78102 cERTlFIcATE 0F sERVIcE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foegoing has been for arded to the following listed _ .. l ‘7 w _ \ _. w person this day of 62 1 , 2015: Mf-'~ vélrv,afriléy_ . \. n Red River Countympistrict Attorney lhwij k clarksville, Texas 75426 RAZbeD K: wALLs