C"Du.€\~ Oc C_(Lim lc\.\aL, /“Wp§a {S. K€)LL RC©/5' g:al" §§ (Lf l (L&(_CL\)QO “T)ou({` Le.{(er~ "/Lmj' "/ou //\o..u¢> /\Jo LA)H`+@/ //Ab@as` Cb( pus` H\e¢Q U\ "\)(;>u(` {®o¢"ff A// '7/)€ 7/)'1/|@ di /)7‘/ 57/€_//'/6 _ . MO(;@_[JR_ ftes?w¢@ fm §7/+~7£5 t>le`Gz/\/M Awswez, . ,, 14 imm ¢\s,.no!)Q/§. l//a/a-§zé} ~é , //-cz_ 3/7?~6 Ll»cz/SSDA~Q, )l~c@-B¢B<>»e. » 'Tl\€ GEG'/W'L;i' [o)uf+ /}’la//F@ /}’)@ 37/)7@6~ 6an1,de/~ 70 HW/c`(a¢\l+er AW//`faj/`¢>,J lG/_ LJf/ri~-L>F 7"/}!5&,6` /a/Fu£, E>,\) S@p+. 911.91>/§... §`{Z.Ip`r:/\/\lc 7/127 uf,)[ /)M. AB:L M:@>®'a 2 mu@+ mg ZD a€¢§%¢ »W HWL'ZCcm/>m~. fLe§VM¢ CM?/ ¢`7/)@¢/dc @/M% SQ/+ 6/@; mb/. //¢7 76 %w @M~ 7%0/ |~l~ 10" 7(0 L¢m§# /§>`/` A’)¢= 7a H/¢ /WY Zr:(%)¢»/Ce. 1 €M, wm _2@ mo wm my M»,Q;<¢K defpc(;f/u//V C§`u¢é /}?/(#@Q ` ` PECE\vED \N @oum oF cnlMlNALAPPEALS OCT 30 2015 Aw@§&@@§&a.©f!@mk cause, Number's=11-cR-3363-G,11-cR-3179-G, (KJ 11-cR-3506-G,11-cR-3180-G. lN THE COURT GF CRIMINLA APPEALS OF TEXAS. EXPARTE RAUL LONGORIA ¢/`_/J C/.`/I'/Lf/.`/J~‘C/.`/> APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO STATES ORIGINAL ANSWER. TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF APPEALS COURT: NOW, COME"S RAUL LONGORIA,PRO-SE,and files this his Applicant's response to States, Original answer in the above entitled and styled cause listed with four different numbers The state has given the same response to each writ Applic&nt filed and would respectfully show the court the following: ' l - The attorney for the State was quick to point out the applicant Mexican ky mafia gang member.Raul"Cooney"Longoria, applicant therefore would show point out this is not true.Mr.Longoria compleated .. Grad and all coarse and ,disassociated from that group the Mexican mafia...CFurtherthe Mexican Mafia,did not go on a Robbery spree.This was not part of the admonishing of the plea.Violating Article 26.13 of the lndictment,Violating Tx.Rules of Evidence TRE 401"Relevant Evidence... ' SEE.Mayes V. State 816 S.W.Zd 79,85(TX.Grim App 1991); TRE 403."He said she said" should be on the basis of the testimony of the complainant and the trier of facts. Rodriguez V. State 203, S.W 3d 837,839(TX.CRIM.APB 2006) Mr.Longoria is not a MEXICAN MAFIA MEMBER"THAT is EASY TO verefie thru , BRAD LlNlNGSTON TDCJ DIRECTOR;. ll. ~ Court of Criminal Appeals is ultimate factfinder EXPARTE Reed 271 S.W.3d 698 727(TEX CRIM APP.2008)THE Court of Criminal Appeals is not bound by the findings conclusions or recommendations of a trial court,however because the trial court is in a better position to make determinations of credibi- ty,the court of criminal Appeals, should defer to thoses findings,lf they are supported by the record, EXPARTE THOMPSON 153 S.W.3d 416.(TX.Crim app 2005) EXPARTE BATES 640 S.W.Zd 894 898 (TX.crim App 1982) THE record does not discuss show ,or,state Mr;Longoria the Mexican Mafia member the state has tried to show in there response this is abuse of power by James Odell,Because it is not true, ' lll. There is prima facie showing the court appointed counsel that filed notice Of Appeal and motion for appointment of counsel for appeal,is on the record and attached to the original writ of.§abhabeaus corpus applicant filed. THE ATTORNEY LED Mr.LONGORlA TO BELEAVE HE COULD APPEAL lF HE PLEADED TO THE CRIMES,THE State has TWrongfully allow ."the Right to Due Process, and Constitutional rights as Stated in original writ filed in context Of plea negotiations defendant are entitled to the effective assistance of competent counsel McMann V. Richardson 397 U.S 759,771 90 S.CT 1441 25L.E d.2d763(1970),counsels representation fellibelow an objective standard Of reasonableness,"HlLL V. LOCKHART 474 US at57,qu0ting Strickland v. was- hington 474 U.S at 59. Applicant Objects to the StateS misstateing of facts because the record does show appointed attorneys filed NOTICE OF APPEAL,AND MOTION TO APPOINT APPEAL ATTORNEY lf someone would look at the record and read the exhibits in the original writ it Clearle shows there is merit Wheter counsel missguided applicant into the beleif he could appeal his case if he took his plea it is an abuse of desrecion to simple denie one portion of a writ because a plea was conducted,. THE QUESTION REMAINS WHY DID ATTORNEYS FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL AND A MOTION TO APPOINT APPEAL COUNSEL THEN HAVE MR.LONGORIA WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER THE PLEA,, SEE:WILLIS V. STATE 12lS.W3d 400,403(Tex.Crim App2003)[T]he trial court's Subequent handwritten permission to appeal controls over a defendants pre- ious wavier of the right to appeal allowing the defendant to appeal despite] the boilerplate waiver."Applicant was advised he could appeal by attorney A affidavit from.the attorneys are needed as to why they filed notice of 3 lappeal and motion to appoint appeal counsel. Please view the applicants exhibit in original writ notice of appeal and motion to appoint counsel to prefect appeal attorney violated Chavez V. Statel83.S.W.3d 675,680,( TX Crim app 2006) leding him to beleave he could appeal,there was no reason to file notice of appeal or the motion filed if defendant couldent appeal this proves the attorneys lied to applicant The original writ of habeaus corpus based on the ex. should "contribute" to the attorney to respond by a evidentary hearing or affidavit why they filed notice of appeal and motion for appointment of counsel to do appeal in Rodriquez V. state 8998.W 2d 658,66(Tx.Crim,App 1995)Rather the plea was Unknowing and involuntary,because the State attaches exhibits of a waiver or exceptence of a plea DOES NOT MEAN COUNSEL DlD NOT MISGUIDE APPLICANT INTO A PLEA WITH A PROMISE HE COULD APPEAL TO A HIGHER COURT. IV. APPLICANT request appointment of counsel because of unconstitutional violations S/B 662¢ APPLICANT IS INDIGENT. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED APPLICANT HEREIN MOVES THlS HONORABLE COURT TO GRANT AN EVIDENTARY HEARING AND TO ORDER ATTORENY TO RESPOND BY AFFIDAVIT TO THE ORIGINAL WRIT APPLICANT FILED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL ' RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Zwl 0{¢~»~6@/»5.£¢_ #~ /77&§» W OAl`l-I OFFENDER NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE THE sTATE oF TEXAS BEFORE ME the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared RAUL LONGORIA who being by me duly sworn] dldse on his oath depose and fileanonginalag)]jcationforwrd)tofhabeascorps mimolmtarypleabe:ausebeirgledtobe icouldappeal thesenteme thenfileirgresponseto$tatesanswer thatiwrotearrireadtheforegoirg andthattl'lefactsstatedthere:inaretmeardcorrecttotlebestofnqumledgeardbe]ief.. MYrare isRAULlCl\IIRIAaIdmy identifyir'grmberis 1778874lanpresmtly imarceratedin rll')aSt