October 19, 2015
Valentin Moreno, jr.
788216, Robertson Unit
Abel Acosta, Clerk 12071 FM·3522
Court of Criminal Appeals Abilene, Texas 79601
P.O. Box 12308
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Re: "Ex parte Valentin Moreno, Jr.,"
Writ No. 49,474-05
Cause No. CR-0517-96-F
Dear Mr. Acosta:
Enclosed you will. find the original copies,· of Applicant's Motion for Re-
Consideration of motion for Remand for an Evidentiary Hearing, and ~licant's
Second Request for Judicial Notice. All to be filed in the above referenced
writ, and brought to the attention of the Court, as time permits.
Also enclosed, you will find a self-addressed envelope with postage pre-paid.
Can you please, send me a stampted filed copy of this cover letter, for my
records.
Thank you for your time, attention and assistance.
Respectfully,
RECEIVED IN
OOURT or= CRIMINAL APPEALS
ocr 23 2o1s
cc:file, HCDA
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Ex parte §
Valentin Moreno, Jr. § WRIT No. 49,474-05
Applicant §
APPLICANT'S SECOND REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
TO THE MOST HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW, Valentin Moreno, Jr., "Applicant", ProSe and respectfully files
Applicant's Second Request for Judicial Notice, in the above referenced cause.
As good cause for the foregoing, Applicant would show the following:
I.
The foregoing pleading, concerning an applicantion for writ of habeas corpus
that is currently before this Honorable Court. Said Court, posses exclusive ~
corpus jursidiction over the parties and all subject-matter(s), therein, pursuant
to Chapter 11 in the Code of Criminal Procedure Ann. (vernon 2015).
II.
(A)> Applicant filed a successive Habeas Corpus Application on June 15, 2015,
challenging his conviction, for Capital Murder, pursuant to 'new' Article
11.073, Ex parte Robbinns, 2014 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1900 (TCCA 2014), and
'actual innocence'; Ex Parte Brooks, 205 s.w.3d 538 (TCCA 2006); (citing I
Schlup v. Delo, 513 u.s. 298 (1995).
(B)> The attorney repersenting the State, filed the State's Original Answer, on
July 8, 2015.
(C)> The trial court, adopted the State's Proposed "Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, Recommendation and Order~', on July 20, 2015.
(D)> Said application was presented to this Honorable Court, on September 2, 2015.
Pa:je 1.
III.
Through the foregoing, Applicant sincerely pleads for "mercy". The Applicant
is not skilled in the law, thus, pleads for a less strict standard of review. The
Applicant would respectfully ask this Honorable Court, to take Judicial Notice,
that prior to preparing and filing the current writ of habeas corpus, first the
Applicant petitioned the trial court for the assistance of counsel. The essence
behind Applicant's request for assistance of counsel, was so that the new scientific
evidence Applicant had discovered and obtained, be adequately construed, drafted
and argued in a successive writ.
The Applicant did not and still does not, grasp habeas corpus litigation.
Especially, successive habeas litigation, involving "new" law; Article 11.073
c. Cr. P. On January 6, 2015, Applicant filed his motion, therein, he informed
the trial court, of the scientific evidence he had discovered and obtained and
pleaded for the assistance of counsel. Additionally, in said motion, Applicant
requested a phone-conference hearing, to further support his request for ~
However, no phone-conference hearing was held and on April 2, 2015, the trial
court Judge Mario E. Ramirez, Jr., denied the motion for counsel. See; Appendix-
A (attached hereto.).
Applicant pleads for mercy, in the sense, that if he did not present a certain
issue, argument and/or claim, in the proper manner, that he be given the q±Drtunity
to correct such.
IV.
The essence of Applicant's habeas claims, are supported with credible scientific
data and the sworn affidavit of Dr. James Aldridge. The entire scientific ~'
therein, surrounds the science on the human memory and eyewitness identifications.
Applicant respectfully asks this Honorable Court, to take Judicial Notice, of the
the •unanimous• decision by the New Jeresy Supreme Court in (Hernderson v. State
Page 2.
208 N.J. 208). In this case, there was a unique evidentiary hearing, where
numerous forensic psychologists testified, concering the "malleability of the
human memory", "how 'Post-Event Information' can influence and contaminate the
memory", and '-'inistaken eyewitness identification being responsible for 75 p:rCEnt
of wrongful concitions". The overwhelming scientific testimony in this case, goes
to the essence of Applicant's scientific related arguments and contitutional claims.
:In~part,-- :tlie unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court decision, created certain laws
and mandates, concerning the court's jury charge, in cases involving eyewitness
identifications. Because such issues, as those in this New Jersey case, have not
been considered and decided in Texas, and are present in Applicant's case. The
Applicant respectfully, asks this Honorable Court to take Judicial Notice, of this
New jersey case. The opinion is said case, can be found as Applicant's Exhibit A.l,
attached to his Memorandum in Support of his Applicant for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
In Applicant's case, the conviction is based on three eyewitness identificat=
ions, given by (Raul Guerrero, Yvonne Gonzalez and Beatrice Trevino), and the
scientific testimony of eyewitness identification expert (Dr. A.J. Alamia). Yvonne
Gonzalez recanted her identification of applicant last year, and now claims she
believes he is innocent. Additionally, a ballistics expert last year, determined her
trial testimony was false. Also last year, a forensic optometry expert, determined
that Gonzalez' identification of applicant's "eyes" only, was blatantly invalid.
Witness Beatrice Trevino recanted and admitted to mistakenly identifying applicant
days after his trial. Additionally, there is scientific evidence that Trevino's
in-court-identification had been influenced and tainted by unduly suggestive post
event information. And, Dr. A.J. Alamia's scientific testimony, that "the human
memory functions like a camera in traumatic event. Has now been determined to have
been misleading and incorrect. Junk'science ..... "
In a outsell, 75 percent of the evidence presented by the State at trial, and
Page 3.
used to obtain the primary conviction, has been shown to have been misleading
and false.
v.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant respectfully prays that this
Honorable Court, accepts the foregoing and take Judicial Notice of the issues
presented herein.
signed on this jM day of (Jc/o6er I 2015.
Respectfully Submitted,
tU~·~Oc
Valentin Moreno, Jr.,
Applicant, Pro Se
788216, Robertson Unit
12071 FM. 3522
Abilene, Texas 70601
Page 4.
VI.
VERIFICATION
I, Valentin Moreno, Jr., hereby declare under the penalty of perjury, that the
contents in the foregoing pleading are true and correct.
Signed on this /?8' day of tJc;d&er , 2015.
U/~~o_
Valentin Moreno, Jr.,
Applicant, Pro Se
VII.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
r, Valentin Moreno, Jr., hereby certify that the original copy of Applicant's
Second Request for Judicial Notice, was sent to the Clerk of the Court of Criminal
Appeals, via u.s. lst Class Mail. And, that notice of the same, was given to the
aatorney representing the State.
done on this !9-fJ day of t:f·'J'1. kc
I
I 2015.
Page 5.
A P P E N D I X A
CAUSE NO.
CR-0517-96-F
EX PARTE §
VALENTIN MOREN01 JR. §
APPLICANT/ PRO SE §
APPLICANT'S MOI'ION FOR
AN A'ITORNEY
TO THE HONORANLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes Now1 Valentin Moreno/ Jr.1 Applicant pro se1 in the above styled
cause and respectfully files Applicant's Motion For Ah Attorney. In ~rt
there of1 Applicant would present the following:
I.
Applicant was convicted by a jury of the offense of capital murder/ More
this Honorable Court. Thus1 this Court has jurisdiction over all habeas ~
matters/ in this case.
II.
Applicant respectfully asks this Court1_for an attorney/ for the purpose
preparing and presenting a successive writ of habeas corpus. In support of
this motion1 Applicant would cite Tex. Code of Crim. Procd. art. l.05l(d)(3).
Said article states in part1 (d) An eligible indigent defendant is entitled
to have the trial court appoint an attorney to represent him in the following
appellate and postconviction habeas corpus matters: (3) a habeas corpus
proceeding if the court concludes that the interest of justice requires
representation. Applicant would also cite1 Trevino v. Thaler/ 2013 u.s.
Lexis 3980/ Martinez v. Ryan1 132 s.ct. 1309 and Tex. Code of Crim Procd. art.
11.073/ in support thereof.
Applicant understands the enormous hurdle before/ which is Tex. Code of
Crim. Procd. art. 11.07 § 4(a)(2). Applicant asserts/ that it reqires a
Page 1.
skilled attorney, to be able to effectively litigate in successive habeas
corpus litigation. Thus, in the interest of justice Applicant respectfully
asks this Court for an attorney. It is well acknowledged, that successive
habeas litigation leaves no margin for error, additionally, this Court is
well aware that Applicant is not educated in the law. For Applicant to be
able to effectively prepare and present the newly obtained evidence, that
~Applicant's conviction was obtained by violating the constitution,
Applicant needs an attorney.
LII-
In the successive application, Applicant will present forensic ~logists
that have determined that the testimony the prosecution elicited from Dr.
A.J. Alamia, was misleading and incorrect. The same psychologists, will
also testify that the prosecution contaminated the identification teSOmcny
of prosecution witness Beatrice Trevino, with post-event information.
Also, forensic specialists in the field of optometry, will testify that
the testimony and eyes identification by prosecution witness Yvonne Gonzales,
was unreliable and misleading.
Additionally, certified ballistics experts will testify, that the ~
of prosecution witness Yvonne Gonzales was unreliable, misleading and false.
Applicant contends, that with the team of experts he has put together,
most of which are assisting him pro bono, he will be able to show ~bXiacU
violations, (e.g., ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct) that
led to a miscarriage of justice due to the incarceration of someone who is
actually innocent.
IV.
Applicant respectfully request a phone-conference hearing, to be able to
support the for going motion.
Page 2.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Applicant respectfully prays that
this Honorable Court, grant a phone-conference hearing and Applicant's
Motion For An Attorney.
Done on this 22nd day of December, 2014.
Respectfully Submitted,
Valentin Moreno Jr.
788216, Robertson Uri~t
12071 FM. 3522
Abilene, Texas 79601
Page 3.