XhTheCaar+flfCriminal AppStlS ORIGINAL 0fTex4s A+ Austin, TetoS „_„_..._ »PBI'»W ,••*•.•«»[• . RECEIVED,! S\!

COURT Of CRiiiNALAPPEALS Reynoldo Rey JAN 23 2015 /Ippeik^xn Pro Se, Abe! Acosta, Clerk Vs. FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS T^e 5ta+e OfTexas1 2 3 2D^5 !esponder\+ J -•—•-• ; ' " •"••"• '• Abel Acosta, Clerk' Prom The Cour\ Of Appeals Epr-The. Se^+h Di5k\c4 0f Tetas A+ Amanita TeXas

From Tm Bl^ vlu^ciql ^ CouiA+V,leXasHo^OrqUe 3^khCnClr^y} ITP C\et\Aor\; OuH- O-P Appeals CH-/a-004~W-CR - »wv''witfi3ey.''..a!!gtfj|WM«jMMiif;wa Tq h Ift n-P C-nv\±ejn+?> Xde-rt-h+>/ o-FJu^e, Parh^S and Counsel . . .... 5.

Xy\clex- Of Authorities ...•...'.,..... i iL S^a+dmenf Regarding Oral /Va^jyienrt. ° *• • • -^i- S+at£M£n+ o£ Procedural tU^-HDry, 6 r ,,,.,. JL Grounds ^cov RcvieW, , . « , . « , * , ; , . ,^L Xs^ue No. TKeTria CouH-Elided in FindihaThe S;tetf£ Mef i-f^TAr^k^ld BuiJey\ #£ Au+ka/rhVaifcm The. DMA E\zi cAeiAce Inkocluced Later B^Fbvse, TTifttTury A-fTrial . » * * 0 ,..».,, j5_ Xssm& Mo. 3~ The. Ei/i^mce-Presented During IheTral Was LegallyInsafftqewfTo^ppoH-XKe Tury^s V/e^ic-*- &f &uiliy<. j ,„..*.,, :2_ Argument -fi)«- 6-rtfUhd< One*.. . . . . :£_ _^_ JL iL _3_ Argument 4^ &ri)unclTvVo*. - . , _3_ J£iL _& Hii£ Prayer-for R&li£/f« e » .- « * * . . • . « * . - » *iii •Cerfif \ea+e 0-f Servhe^* ,.,.,.*. ,(i.,..J5

"I _gjgryHty Qf• 3uAg£ ..far-t-l.

\

.KeynalaD twy iHn Dcinleltf, WarricK Attarney at La .w/

A4-for nay pt La vv

.ppffl-lAg.SuTrla 1. •C?M^.&w* - eSkmekk A whet Davis PflSoX 1053^, «,--_..

UWbocK,TO^08-3 53tr. . •

-a- ?* 0-P Au4kbc-\+\ e£ r,n.c;p Lam Page BaldntmeV.S+A+e,7l S.W.3il&3,7fc8tfdX. tw- App.<^a^4 •BU^-ov.S+flte1%iS.w.^ttt»Oex.C^»v\.App.\cl<l8)^ . jo Car^oacUe v. State, l0jr.W3d323,3i>^fe.&iwi,App,aa^ Da^sv.S+o+e, <fa2 S.W.ai8itH*fre£. App.- rWs+oft {j^Di-s-t} l^1k»nope+,) **.«-<».a-*-*«>o<»»<»JZ tmllfcr- v,£-taH£,,73S,W.3«l MOfoxdr iw.App. 20O2\ , %1Q

J*} IPO V - ' l l U / f i f f f o cC 0 e i»o a a it <i * e <a a 0 a o o <•> ' -

L*aror\e V.StatedS.W.ai&0i.il7C!e)cCnv*, App.KTt)- i2_ Malik\/.Sta+elcJ53S.W.2J a^tTeX.Cri^App. W7V. • ± MdranJa v/.£4a+e,£53S,W3d 7fe2,~76^ CTeX App;-A>mH llo , aooi.p£+.A\sv»isse<!^a -- -- - . -- to a a ode t»« d a et»*oe*ptf

Mon+^(9mdryv«5ta+ei8tOS.W,2ei 37^,3^1 Ctex.App.m(J Host ey v. Stafe,183 SW.^J 2iq,a-S4tex.&im, App.W$,J£ Pond&K4^v.!Sk^,l^SW.aA571,586(tdK.C^w.App. Wife).* il'

"3- RoAK3Mfi.x\/.St-ate,8MSW.^Aff7/fteK,Cri^App.W\)^ - *il Sm!+k^, State, k83S/^^ , _4l Si^k^vS-MenS^MM l,\o£i£X,£riw,App, I^Wt Wecrt*\err*USNtfe,t5 S.W3d'5*toSl#a(fe)LCr\*v\^pp.oU)Oo)^ i

Texas Penal Code, 5ectioA W.O^CM CO. *»,..*.. 12.

TejusPenal Code,Section fa.OSCaV^L ..... .i£ .Rules Te^Las Rules ot Ev/ielenee>Rale °IOl(a\, , * , , l£_

Appellant Waives Oral Argument

OhSepfem^r^l 2012 .theAppelUcrt- was^oundqu] ity by +Kejury a£+he0££&ns<s dF Capi^lt^WAer,as alUd^&i iv\ 4-Ke,maictment in Cause No.^>Ui-H33i'H11.(W i<H-men-f,£R, p.7/vewiict.eRpp,WTj;Wg£Men^.£R,ppi4<H5land RRr6ip. n4)The£ourt Assessed^uniskv^ent as"£apitM litis.

With the pGS&ilaility^orFkwle^CiJwdiad'm^n^CR.pp* t^-lSlJQnJRR.&pnW . u ' .

On (9£_4©b£c fa aoi3i,the. ApDeUontAled Kifi mot-ton -ForMewTHalCCR, f>p, i53r13f] On October^, ao\3i.im AppellouH-Pilea his Noti<Le $t AppeaLCCR.pp, l5k)Tftelml f- CouH^CttVFicatu^ ottheQe-f&n&av\1rS fciaht +o Appeal was til eA oh Octob e^- 4,2DIU, CeR,p,i4g)The Appellants Af^d&v'rir ot Indigency vVasfi\e& onOc+cker- <Q9,20U, CCR.p, 157)The Clerk's Record Was t*led ^nUonuaw 2.S:3L£BThe Repori-^s Record Was f ileA on AprW Xf, ao(2>, and^eSupplemeiAfal Reporter^ ReeorA was fel&l on May 23, 3613'..

Si-at^mentOf Procedural lr\\S~i-ary A The Am&rillo Court £-P App&ils at£\^vAed Appellants Conviction on Oetoher^S.^W.Melthei- £k)e tiled a mction -fbr rehearing (rrr?Mnd.^ Fflr Rei/ievi/ IThgTTrial Court E<-reci In FiiaA vv\g The State tAet VP$TV\te£>V\oU BarAev\ cot Auih£vvHcati% The DMA Ei/\Aey\ee \wtrodueed L^ferBefere Thetrury At Trial, ^l.The E\j\ A&\cd, Presented DueingTkcTri<xl Wa<> Legally In^ul^ci^ltT^) Support The {JLi^ y>s Verdict- o<f Sx*1Ity.

Argumpn+fcnr A-^unrl One In general Atrial ciourt^ Aec^iflni-o aAmi+ or elcluAeeviAemee cWlngtrial is reviewed tor a.n abuse of iiscret\on,TY\e~vr\al eourp£ rait v\g should be a££lvV\e<i <*s long a& it Ues wlthlv\ *c\^*zjdv\& &r reasonable disagre-ement*

-5- -i, ;J ifi!0Siftf';%- :S*'?S-Hrf£f>^£i* •*;:.£

Monkery v.^a+e>8[0£/^^ on Y-eW^na^^aV.S^crtt,;&53 3,yi/3d 76i,7^peX,App,-^ AmcTirl i\o2D01i pef. di£)^d). in r&/<ewmg a+ rtAI *<zourt*S . rallh^ on a motion tb suppress ^HreX^Ude ei/idene^the thecourtshDMW de^ertothen-rUlCoarfS def£v*iiftatkw <Df historical fa^^ WKenth^t^^-'tilings are~ based onei/aluattemd>f4he witnesses' crfidibti ity b^t rei/ieu/d£ n#i/o the H-ml^rfe applJ cation tft the •tecf-Sttfthe (aw/ &U2Jvnav\ i/, S-frate, °155 S,l/i/.2ol&5,88^^^^'^«Appd^7);&leKtIne\/,5^ ^/^w.3^,^7^8^^-G^;vw,App.xocaY Autli^ntiC^tioh 6?f phy^/dalei;tdLin<^e re&u iVes \cierjt- f£leafiDhiyrW<d£nce S^fteim44t>Swpp£hf a f<Vteii/\gi •f/wt +lu9)Yi^tfer inauesticm 15, what its propohent c\a\ms})KTe.)LC}S, Rules p^ Evidence, RuKe^oK^.^^ldencB.

SkoiA/db<aGAw)\VreA it tk£-vr fal<C£aH- -fclnds tK^it the ev'id^^cie-U/as a^fhewticateA, Ps/afettt^^Sf^, °lA^ S.W2d S77,5fi6L75)L-^rr».-A^W^^Pri30t <9t t/ie. beginning and end at^keekaln <ot c±cA£i-o&y wilt wi/l support admrSSipK o+An object baring any evidence£^ tamper ma or altera-H #w.>S toiCer v,^tat^,7885Wid IOfrfc*.£rim. Apb, l^fi^cert CJ9^0\ Wifhtout ej/idenee D-f tamper^g m^sf• - questions coheerwiing e^re £\r\d ^^st^dy D¥av\ tt^vtf 5o4o w/eiahf a+t^ched, nettKe advrus£ab(lit;yc>£ rfthe ewden^.U^Vie. i/.^tate,^^ 5.u/t^d6/b2/ £/7CfeX,Sri-mr/Tpp.(fF7)(address!ng custody o-f emtrsllei SMbsfanCje-Y. -fhetriW Cflait has-fhe , disere.-tioKi'4-D defer vnl net-He; sa-£f>rc-r£rtcy erfan exA denf i<3ry dm? Aicafe. 5mifK V. 5fa+£, £83 ^u/t2d 3«,4a5(7eX:,Cr\Fn.App,Hg^ ;'*

^> OncC -the proporient erf ev/idence ^ee/cSjMe threshold requirement of present 1V3testimony that the ei/tdence is k/haf the propd)nen+-^ayS if tS.thcweighf eiventhe evidence and related tes-tivvion\/ iS within the providence ofthe trier dr PckcJc, £e£lbauiS V, 5tate,9POLS.\A/2d8rlh l^ (7e*. App,-BoustDnQ^tDis+J Wife ru9pet,;.

When the trial eoar+dbesnotv»^ked.)(p\\cl+ 1 tending^ of historical ^ . a rei/ieu/mg e&urf srauld viewthe evidence\v\a Itgkf m^sf f^t/0rable ttfthe tr\a Icourts ru Ii ng and 4£j£ Uvne the trk( e^rf ma<4e implicit findings <>ffkctthaf can be supported hy-fhe record.Carmonche v/. Sfafe, I0S. W, 3d $25,12.>2gttU.

C\-!w\lApp.'3LD0O).(nreviewMgthetrial court's ,. evidentiary iruling a re^/ltwing couM~ skouId Consider /only What wa^ before, the trial aouH art the tiiwe of VfS rut ing-U/e^herred v. State, 15Ssu7.5d540, 43LLteX.Crtv/\,App,3£0O) Thetrial LWtCDndaci ed apretrial hearing <ptf\ Appellants Hotion for Uea^ing on c!hailn fit custody , Of pky.£ieat evidence on SepteMhe^24^/^^fu//?fcw testimony was presented cmceming the Ctad In &£ Cas-tody of physical ei/i Jeneeied tecfed <<w TvuneStfi 1W, UntfI DMA analysis \AJascenAucf£cl on ^ratacuf Ap^iI /3, SLOlLCbahe of testing, RR. 6, p. &» T/i e Srkrt-ens bwrd et/i at the CJwi1/1 0f Castcdy hearing w^sto establish thaf the items frovn-S^)- mission P* were Infact-theitevns collected from [Rib (^Street -SJafrnS^iTw I \s the maSf impoH-a/yf sinee-th^ generic, material C£Dinnee^iiA<5 Appeilamt -to the crime scene was supposedtyderli/ed from those Ifemc,.

-> G-^y Ion Lew istesfifteiK> hisroLeVtKe crW, scene investigation as a memlfler of the lAe^v-ifIcattomSechon flfthaXlubbock. Police Department,Ontlus occas\q\\ his role was pkotoampWvn^the crime scene \v\ general andthe ev id enee h eiv\a collected. Deceased Dere&rli/e UidtGiwrniite role was to collect evidence. C^3, p.H5) 6-c\ykh LowtStestlfveAtba+hewo\d<eiaUKvc| sieleCnmvn\v\S c\£crl KmIaseollec-teAea^k pi/Q r pcf£i/Ccl£4/\dec(&fc..3, p.%) E Kcepf -for tK£.itew^S Collec+ed by George- Extavaoc£- and referred -*-o Kn Stat&Pretrial E^Uitit^l.CSRR. 2>pp.3~4) Wc^ \denfif\e<A the robe, pi How oases-, and b^d Un^^s as 4ke Same ones collected by eriMmiv\£, US \/ear£ earUer.GR£,3,f>p.S2r 53,5b-U)But kecoalci K\ot 4-e<.+ify 4ou/ko bggged orkidp^d collectthe robe, pillow eas^aullt, sheets cmAblanket.And We.

Cau Id v\cA-meal Ikom/tk^Se i4ewaS were C£>(lacfed.(.RR,3,p.6^) Tke Sfa4e^ witnesses coaid not aghee is>n Wkmfhe crW scene wa£ aetiVe.Poe.Carryard iPc*\^m0rete3Kft&i to ^r^me 2&, Km CRR 3,p, £3>£Pcel, P. a££c^ryl^3k~37' .

EParraKLorel Eat Lewi/is testified 4o^Unc M, igg^CM^p^ TKe DPS Lab records could wot aaree on \Ad\e\a Items wei^e received. Stents Pretrial EYj^llaVFlb Indicates that x 5abvn\ss,von Iw^ rec^l\/ed on3LiAe3^Hvlcl8^.CSRR^,po4 Stated Prctridjl^^ hears a reeel\/ed sfampdateof3Uhe 3A, WW, onthetirSt baqe and atvpeddateot^UneSO, IW, on the second pq<3eu>RK^pp,T8nikel^sfiniony of37m TKomas does not kelp clear this diScrepency Sii/vce. he test^edto both dates, CRR.3, pp.87-88^0 TKc Appellant Wes Ituptotkis courtto decideWliefter -the tecH4toowy of retired at£c^P<j«y\on Lew/Is isSafA.We^if tof&rfrtthefirst liv\k Inthe Sta^S.chain d>£ (cusfodycftte He>nsfro*n vuklck katrscStotek £Xk;brr*l IS u/erc nscwared, Infhcabsence #ft^stlvnonyfrom the&.e.c£aoeA officer ui# -S' CollectedtKe^bedsbreadiCfuiW, blanket, andsKeef (Sfate*5 rWt^alEyWvt^tWthecrl^ scene, Wi+b conflicting testvvnony aboutWketKer Stated Pretrial b£kib<t^l4WOS collectedokTune 2B, Wfft or3unc Tft^ Without any clear test\vnony from lewis about whatprocedures w€re usei to r&covcn tkese itemsand protectthem fhpvn eonfa- hVmafiDn at the \W eHvne seene. It Is the Appellaia-fs posifvowthatWalt Cj^IwmiIvvs w\usf hou/e Collectedthe praferred ewlc£v\ce>. ar\d cdIected it the right way. is is not Sufficient to establish thatfheVVevns anewhaf the pro pon e nt eda\vv\ thei*\ to be, Arguhnem-t f OY-rfrnandTA/ft The proper standard of re\/t eu/fora courtto util ize, indeterminmg wketkertke eiAvdene<e presented \s leaaiiy sufficient-tosupport a coni/lction is) whether* after t/ievA^iv\g the evidence in tKe light vnosf -toODfable tothe_prosecoHtoni any rationaltrier offkef e&dd Iwe ta^Kvd-tke essential elements ct aiVofte/i^e k&yonaQ reasonable d/sx/I^^aakson i/.lArgUifa,443ciS3o7i^ -S.ct.^781,6/ L,£d, ^i SfaOCfilOl Federal Gpnstitutional law measures ey/ide^tiary suffidevicy agoAnsttke elements #f-the erlmlnal offense as defined by$&\e, lawT^ller*/. State, 13 5,W3d:^^ The. legal sufficiency ©£the evidence is w&isureid by tke elements oftheoffense asdefined bythe hypot- hetieaUy correctjury chatae iaccurately sets out the law,\Sauthoriz.ed\6ythevv\dvc,tvvieKt-, doe£ n£>+ui/i- neee^Sarl ly Increase the ^totcis theories of liability, and adequately describes dhepartleukr o#ense for Which thede-fenaan-t Wa£ t-rted, Malik y,SiQ^^SZSM3iAQ39CreX^im,Ap^l^l)i

-<?-