."` IN THE \/\O\ \L\D[.V| "6§
COURT OE` CRIMIAL APPEALS
AUSTIN/ TEXAS
Ex parte §
Valentin Moreno, Jr. § Writ No. 49,474-05
. RECEIVED lN
Appllcant § CouRT oF chM\NAL APPEALS
APPLICANT'S FINAL AMENDMENTS TO
APPLICANTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
lEC 04 2015
TO THE MOST HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Comes Now, Valentin Moreno, Jr., Applicant, pro se in the above referenced
' Abel Acosta, C|erk
cause and respectfully files, 'Applicant's Final Amendments To Application For
Writ Of Habeas Corpus. In support, thereof, Applicant submits the following:
I .
JURISDICTION
This most Honorable Court poses exclusive jurisdiction over the these habeas
corpus proceedings and the subject-matter, herein, pursuant to Chapter ll in the
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
II.
STATEMENT OF CURRENT FACTS
l. Applicant filed a successive pro se writ of habeas corpus application1 on
June 15, 2015. Challenging a jury's verdict of guilty of capital murder.
2. The Attorney representing the State, filed the State's Original Response
and Answer, on july 8, 2015.
3. The trial Court adopted the State's proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, Recommendation and Order, on July 20, 2015.
4. Applicant's application was recieved and presented to this Honorable Court,
on September 22, 2015.
5. On November 51 2015, this Honorable Court granted, Applicant's Motion For
Leave And To Stop Writ Of Habeas Corpus Review; Applicant wasqpyen(30) PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (A), APPLICANT ADDITIONALLY
CONTENDS/ THE THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HE HAS PRESENTED 'CONTRADICTS SCENIETC
EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE STATE AT TRIAL.' THUS, APPLICANT ARGUES/ THAT
HE HAS MET THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH BY ARTICLE 11.073 IN THE TEX. CODE OF
CRIM. PROCD. PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (B)/ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT WITNESS
BEATRICE TREVINO'S RECANTATION AND MIS-IDENTIFICATION CLAIM/ NEEDS TO BE
REASSESSED AND CONSIDERED IN CONJUCTION WITH THE SUGGESTIVE POST EVENT
INFORMATION TREVINO WAS EXPOSED TO BE THE STATE AND NEWLY DISCOVERED
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON POST EVENT INFORMATION/MISINFORMATION GIUEMDETKN.UJ
PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (C)/ APPLICANT CONTENDS/ THAT THE STATE INFLUENCED
NW)CR TAINTED WITNESS YVONNE GONZALES' D§{IURB{UBHIEKETBIJOFDPPEKDNT/ BY
BY DETECTIVES TELLING GONZALES THAT APPLICANT WAS A GANG MEHBER. THAT, WAS
l
HUHUICULLYSUXDSUNEI{STEMDU‘DUUW@EIIL GISHIRLK;IHSNWHBE,THEUIN.
[l] PURSJANI‘ 'IO GRO.ND l\lIV|BER CNE, APPLIC`ANI‘ ]l\]VCKES ARI'ICL.E 11.073/ W'IEREAPPLICABLE.
Rev.Ol/i4/l4
GR()UND T\VO:
APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION IS THE RESULT OF
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: VIOLATING THE 5TH AMEND-/
6TH AMEND. AND THE 6th AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND T\VO:
THE PRIMARY CONVICTION IS THE RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS OF
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: (A) COUNSEL FAILED TO
INVESTIGATE AND GER A FIRM GRASP OF DR. A.J. ALAMIA'S PROPSED
SCIENTIFI TESTIMONY; TRIAL COUNSEL INJECTED A PREJUDICIAL EXPERT
wITNESS (DR. ALAMIA) INTO THE TRIAL. (B) COUNSEL FAILED JNVESI‘IGAIE
AND GET A FIRM GRASP, OF THE ALLEGED IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S
EYES AND THE INFORMATION ON SUCH AN IDENTIFICATION. ADDITIONALLY/
CONSEL FAILED TO CONSULT AND PRESENT DR. PAUL MICHEL. (C) CUREEL
FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND GE A FIRM GRASP OF THE BALLISTIC-
RELATED EVIDENCE. ADDITIONALLY FAILED TO CONSULT AND PRESENT A
BALLIS EXPERT MAX SCOTT. (D) COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND
GET A FIRM GRASP/ ON PRIOR INCIDENTS INVOLVING DETECTIVE JOSEPH
Rev. 01/14/14
BUENROSTRO AND THE APPLICANT/ AND BRING THEM TO THE ATTENTION
OF THE JURY. SPECIFICALLY, AN INCIDENT WHERE DET. BUENROSTRO
HAD THREATENED TWO JUVENILES INTO SIGNING FALSE STATEMENT
AGAINST THE APPLICANT. (E) COUNSEL FAILED TO PROTECT APPLICANT'S
INTEREST AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/ AFTER STATE WITNESS BEATRICE
TREVINO REVEALED WHAT HAD OCCURRED BETWEEN HER AND THE H{HKUKR/
(e.g., COUNSEL FAILED TO AS FOR A CONTINUANCE/ TO INVESTIGATE
THE POST-EVENT INFORMATION BREATRICE TREVINO HAD BEEN EXPOSED
AND HOW IT INFLUENCED HER IDENTIFICATION. FAUHNG HJREQUEST THAT
BEATRICE TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION BE SUPPRESEED AND STRIKEN H€M
THE REDORD. BASED ON BEATRICE TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION HAVING
BEEN CONTAMINATED BY THE STATE. FAILED TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL/
PURSUANT TO THE STATE NOT DISCLOSING THE PRE-TRIAL INCIDENT
BETWEEN BEATRICE TREVINO AND THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT BEATRICE
TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION HAD BEEN CONTAMINATED BY THE STATE.
l
FAILED TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGED THAT INFORMED THE JURY HOW SUGGESTIVE POST-
qu@;LNEQRMAIION;c N EFFECT AN EYEWITNESS MEMORY).
9
Rev. 01/14/14
GROUND THREE:
APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BE THE
THE CUMULATIVE EF`FECT OE` DENIAL AND VIOLATIONS OE` THE STHAMEND.,
6TH AMEND. AND 14‘1‘[~1 AMENDMENT OE` THE U.S. CONTITUTION.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:
THE PRIMARY CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE E`OLLOWING CONTITUTIONAL
VIOLATIONS: PROSECUTORIAL MISISCONDUCT AND INEE`FECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OE` COUNSEL. HEREIN/ GROUND NUMBER ONE AND GROUND. NUMBER TWO
ARE ADOPTED AND RESTATED.
10
Rev. ()l/l4/l4
ll
Rev. Oi/l4/i4
GR()UND FOUR:
APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY
VIOLATIONS OF THE 5TH AMEND./ 6TH AMEND./ BTH AMEND./ AND
THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:'
APPLICANT'S CLAIM OF INNOCENCE HEREIN, IS INTERTWINED WITH THE
CONSITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS CITED AND ARGUED IN GROUND NUMBER ONE/
GOUND NUMBER TWO AND GROUND NUMBER THERE OF THIS APPLICATION.
(AMENDMENTS)> PURSUANT TO A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THE
FOLLOWING IS CUMULATIVELY SUBMITTED: THE PRIMARY CONVICTION IS BASED ON THE
TRIAL IDENTIFICATIONS BY WITNESSES (RAUL C-I.]ERRER), YVCI\NE (H\]ZALES & BE`A'IRICE ']REV'.|ND)/
AND SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY OF (I:R. A.J. ALA[V[[A). FIRST, GONZALES HAS RECANTED HER
TRIAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT/ SPECIFICALLY AN'IMPROBABLE' "EYES"
IDENTIFICATION. ADDITIONALLY/ FCRE[\EIC CPIUVIE!]RY SECIALISI‘ DR. PAUL lV[[G-lEL, EU]ND
GONZALES' IDENTIFICATION OF THE "EYE" BLATANTLY INVALID'. EUR]I-IERIV[RE/ BALLISI'ICS
EXPERT MAX SCOTT DETERMINED/ THAT GONZALES' TRIAL VERSION OF` THE SHOOTING
WAS MISLEADING AND FALSE. GINZALES' ]IENI'IFICA'I'ICN @` APPLICDNI"S EMES, WAS BASF_D AND
OCRE{B;RATED CN HER VERSICN OF ‘]I-]E S-IDI‘ING. THESE TWO EXPERTS "CORROBORATE" THE
12
Rev. Ol/l4/l4
MISIDENTIFICATION, GONZALES HAS REVEALED. SECOND, BEATRICE TREVINO RE[`ANIED
AND ADV[[‘I'IED S-]E MIS]DENI'IE‘IED ']I-]E APPLICANI‘. [2] ADDITIONALLY/ THERE ; IS NOW MTC
EVIDENCE O.\] ]§CSI' EVENI‘ W[[S]I_\IEUVIA'I'ICI\i/]l\]ECRlVIA'I'ICI\L THAT SHOWS/ THE STATE INFLUENCED
AND CONTAMINATED TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION OF' THE APRLICANT,_;AFTER TREVINO
CONFESSED TO THE PROSECUTOR SHE BELIEVED SHE HAD_MISIDENTIFIED ']I‘]E APPLICANI'.
THIRD, DR._`A\_LAMIA'S SCIENTIFIC TESTIMON¥/ WHICH THE STATE RELIED_ON TO
CORRQBORATE THE _TESTIMONIES,__._QE_=_\=THE STATE'S WI_TNESSES.. HAS NOW BEEN,SHOWN TO
HAVE BEEN MISLEADING AND INCORRECT.'- IN A NUTSHELL, MOST OF THE EVIDENCE 'IHAT
THE` STI-\TE USED TO OBTAIi_\l THIS. CONVICTION/ HAS NOW BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN
,UNRELIABLE, M;SLEADING AND_INCORRECT. THUS, ESTABLISHING A PRIMA EACIE
SHOWiNG OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE. BUT/ IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ON BEHALF
>OF AN INNOCENT MAN/ TAKE "ALL" THE EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO APPLICANT'S
,INNOCENCE, (E.G., STORE ATTENDANT'S sTATEMENT, ALL wITNESSES THAT cLAIM
mxmnmmransmorcaufn<$$,ALLTHEaEno$S§;AITHERNHY'HDE