cAsE No.

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN TEXAS EX PARTE h ,,~;{q»mNALAPPEALS § IN~THE 204ch JUDICIAL DISTRICT JOE MONTELONGO san 022315 g § GOURT OF §‘DALLAS_COUNTY, TEXAS ossnefWBW§LiDQWYIAL coURT'S ERROR,IN FINDING NO FACTUAL ISSUES REQUIRING A HEARING TO; The Honorable Judges of said Court; Comes now Applicant _ herein, and would show the Court the following in support of this case being remanded with an order for evidentiary hearing.

1. The documentation attached to.the 11J07 clearly shows that my appointed defense counsel, once acted as Prosecutor against me in a previous case. This clearly presents fact for "conflict of interest" claim. See Habeas Gorpus, and it's appendices.

2; See U.S. v. Ziegenhagen 890 FZd 937, at 940 "although not every conflict of interest is so egregious as to constitute a violation of the sixth amendment, Government employment in a prosecutorial role against one defendant and subsequent represent- ation of same defendant in a defense capacity is not proper" 3. This is clearly the case in my trial. When l asked my defense attorney where l knew him from, he never revealed he had once been a Prosecutor for Dallas County. The Defense Counsel knew there was a potential "conflict of interest", but failed to reveal that to the Court, this was.Ineffective.Assistance of Counsel to represent me under false pretence of no conflict of interest. ' 4. Actual innocense is also an issue that requires a evidentiary hearing.

Conclusion This case should be remanded back to trial court with an order 'for evidentiary hearing.

Respectfully Submitted, Or. CCA CC. Trial Court ' S%@%@ ®®/§z”?g@£§§@é®®®®®®®®®®® -JO€ Montelongo #1266916