I3H~(S t^O .PD-0m~l5 ORIGINAL COURT OV^ CR.IHIN*\L APPEAL OF Tex*\^

PHlLUP LfcO To q0jE.9> TR .

V *be,Acosta,clerk

Perm^M \^ CAv\se. wo, 3(g\u> ^oh me lOOAWtMSTtt\CT COURT OE Uft\.V- CQU,nAtm , Te*^ q, AnJI^ TY\E COURT OF AOPLACS POR. Tv\£ mi/D-r^J" ^ W <bE\/et4TV\ •Dl'STRsKLT 0£ Te**\S URT0F WMINAL nrftALS APPFA,c P^fAfriUllO, POTTe\\ COU^TCf ^Tt.X^'b IS 2&S ^e! Acosta, Clerk Petitiokj for, tM<bcae-uot^m«^ Rtunw

ifc Phillip Leo ToRo.es ire., tftasoT'o n ^ l uhit <fc)55 Spur, Ert i

PeT\Tsrt6Nie.fk \^o ,se MARCUU, , 2015 ."TftScC bt- C0t0Tfev4Tb P^G,E .

Jbe^Trtvf 6^"pakul^>- - . 2^.

IPD^X Q* ^UTUOR.\t^s .... 3^ STftT*Mfc^T ?£G^RJD\*lOv G&AL ^RCiUM^T .... i .

ST«tua£.^T of Cfv^e ... ^,

ST^Te^^T Dif1 P«icctbUR^\L w*>tq(V/. . .. 5,

GRDUMb tOR, R£UIC.W7 ... b .

G^vv^Tvotvi Tvjo »^&Kt\C> . .. . lo ,

RtAS3Ni FOR. REV i£w , ... Ip 7 ft ^ |0

U Tbi^iTmj ot P^ku^

iWS^DisttUCT Court 3uoc\€ MftVJL COUWVf C,a MAW ST. Suited ms^pvus ,TexHS ~m4 6

$GO VJtST AVENUE, fcOK I

sieves R, &ir,d TRML LOUKl^et- fip. fcox a«si

3ew\ ^, COURTS L~V/ 3\3 SOUTH ^ULCV ST. CXARJEvlfc^ fTEXAS* 1^'lX(*

|0I1 WEST 10lh ftHAVUU£ TtWb 1 n 101

Counts of APPeaLS <p\ s. fiLLKcxe,suite i-A aka^aulOjrex**£ i^ioi -7HU^

2-.

I^bEX 0>£ AUTHQfc\TTL<=> P^Ge STATE OF- Te*t\S

EXPWifc ftbAK^^tft 5.w. 14 *8(T».CR\n^pp. wa^y ^ BxPQRTfc OftRMCM*, 18$ ^H 3d HiXCTek.CXih. ft PP. ioofe }, 7' ExDarxe OMtJOT, 3oo S.w, 3d 7lo8 (Tex. CtClM, AOP. 100<0 . 7i CLtvjtsv.srrvre^^ s,w,2j liu (tex,c«c\m, upp, look) ^ i0< feX PRRTE DWKilELS, u stote:, 25 SVJ, 3cJ 8^3 (TfX, Cftl*v iH+*W, 206o} . ('o , bOUhiER lflquAMARllO€3MC.10\ $Vm, id 138.1iKtL(TEX . 1^85^ , 3, UkJITieD States ^utho^it\£.s U.S.V.1&GuiLAR.,lp4'& P.3d 3I%33C7 (*fr D*. 3,011) .

US. V. ftLVMRAoo-vnLDLX,5Xi ^34 337^41 (^CiR. .^ooft).

Cook v. He Kuhe( 313 F.3d 3a& Ao%R. loo^) • CRAWFORD V.WASHINGTON,SMI \\% 30? <e8 (loon) , ^'o US, V. DICKSON, lo31 £.Bd lQ(p,ni (s+hGR. lOil"). ^jj GHRMRR.T V. KOMTtH ,^ f.*<f 337 ((fl^ClR^OoV) . o| USlimmh ,$12. F. 3d) 5i7, (^03-06 ("a^Ci*, 100fl), ^' US.V.KftRCU^,^ SC4.AI^(l((fl4('^IO^ (,] US. V.hATUS-Z^WASjU^B P.3d 109^( ^ (JR. 10){Y. cj # UVV.MCOWM,1*^ ^.3d 4^,^03 (tf*»Cui. a^oioV ^ Pointer, v, Texas, 3$o us. 400,403 (1%^ . T,<Uo PiKKETTV. US.^51? U.S. \W,l33(lOOq), ^ Ufc.V.TlfcK&O-TlRK&O,*^ F.3d Ul (s4kCi£. 200^) t c| ( ^THTiAES AMD Rulec> Tex .K. tvvb. ftoHto ,(*} % (fl Tex. R. ^pp- P. 44.1(<0 q' te^ *.*p0-p« i*^3'<x)(cyn iJ; Xt^THE COl\RT OT

FOR Th£ STRie &£ TEKA9,

E* PARTE. PRO SG ^ PhiluP Leo TOR.SLE-% JR . % Rb.-0134-\S PETlTlOviea §

COMe'b NiO\Ni Pt-ULUPLEO TOtLRtc,3R..PG-TaiO^ER UiHH V\\<b PETITION &)R bise^eT\ou<\Rv/ review from TKt *3uc*a€KEvyr ft*Jb OPivuotA c\£ tue SEVENTH blSTRALT COURT DP APPEALS A<HARJ<-LO TCXA<b .

^TATEMt^T 0\r 6R<\L AeC\\XKGM-T

Petittov^R. would wftWE oral mqumewt i^ place he vo^uub RG.S9eQTFULLV| ASK FOR V\ PLAVtvi ERA OR <\^fc A ¥>&UftE 0^ b^ieetlOKJ RtVlEW \t\ THVS CASE, PER TUE- TlVibN^CVb ^

OOWMER V.?\qUAMa\\\^eO^V^TORS l^C.TOl S.W^d A38,^U-S1 ug>. v. bicks>oM k3^ p. §4 i$<p, \tI fs+K Qti. ^QiA • TO HONORABLE 3USWCE<b QV TtAE TEX*** COURTS OF CRi\M.«*4*YC APPe<ftL,S . PETmO^ER PHvi_LlP L<LO TQRR&3 3r. RE-SPECTFULLV/ 5U$MlT£ Tms, Permovi for btscRsT\ov!>f\RM ren/vevj inj Response to th^ ^eve^tvi LM5TR\CTS OPv^Hoa At^O "3uD6E»AE^T WHICH UpHE.Lt> TUE ftbTub\CK=mOKJ OF PET\TVOK&>R K.G"UOtv) TO REVOKE U\«S PROfcflfUON Ort TWe ORA^iKiAL Ct*^RQv.E ^f1 ^C-»GV?jc\\;aT^D ASSAULT UMTH DEiADL\{ V^e^PoM . POR U5VUCH PeTnrlO^ER, V\«V?> ^>Gevi PUACGO O^ PEFSRR.£D ^t>3uCumTlONi ANiQ Pk^SE-SStb A SEN* TERCEL b^ TVjeKJT <<( MEARS t^ TUG TeYf\<=» \}£P<\&TKG.Wyr OF CRvn^KlV^U 3^ST\CE For co*jl>£«s\ie*kx petluo^er, phu_lip llo to^cestsl. iou_\_ &e Referred to v\s PeTvTvovieR,AK>Ci the states ^^ Te.x*\s P^oseavuoN wiel.

BR DEFERRED TO ASTUE STATE ALL OTHER PARUES A<^ tMT«4ESSES VOU-L &E KiA«Ae^ AST^THE RECORDS, AL^O^OTE PETITIONER DOES KSOT HlWeTUE Records inthc case he has ksot ea/e*i a,gen (Kweu a copm q*-the kst^o^ TO REVOKE, A^b tviOW RETeRRCO TO A KT.R,,

ST^TE\Ke^T ^r-THE Case.

PETITIONER W>¥\S CHARGED 6M GOHPlAVNt Mb INFORMATION VM HALL COUMt^/ TX . £0R A FELoN^/ OFFENSE OP A(aC-xRAVATEb ASSAULT WITH A bt*DLV Uo^Potvi PETmO^ER- FILED &N R<PPCAC*moN FOR COHHttKUT\( SUPERVISION &V5EO OKI A PLEA RECDJKHE^b»VTlOKi V£0>A TUE "STATE, ^El\TvOM£R PL^A^ GUILW/ T0 Th£ offense io^ft ms placed on btFtRReb HtfruovoruoKi p«o^t\o^ for eight \fE«\RS. THE STATE BLED A KT,R,f\LLRC\^NCWTAAT ^ETITVOKJER HAb Vlut-IVtek TWO CGlSlbrUOM'b OF HIS PROBATION" (AND HVS PKQBATlO^ VOAS REVOKED , Petitioner Filed a^ appuoatvo^ for a^Outo^tvhe appeal qn the Ktjr..

AtOD APPEAL WAS C\RANTEL\ PETITIONER VSl\<b APPOINTEE* ftTTOR^Ev lAARLSAftmOLE AS APPELLANTS COUNSEL ,A^D TUR SEVENTH bVSTRVCT COURT HF AOPb^LS AFRRKEC) TUG HJ.R., A^D PETITIONEE. CO«AES BEFORE THV9> WONORA^Ui. COURT For a Review of v-us case: .

^STATEMENT b.F PPOCEDURKU RVSTARy

ON DECE«AGER \«S, ^Ol4 TlAG COURT UP APPEALS OPlNioN AFFvRnED THE. KT.R, TUDQEHENT CAUSE Blclip. 0«^ ffcfcRMARV b, ^016 TAVS COURT GRANTED pETmotvigRs PRO se M^yuo^i Vmdr an exTe^slo-m or-TvnR in k>h\cV\ to ^n_e VU<b VETLUO^. ^OR 'DvSCRbTlONARxf RE\MRv< t/O V-A*\RCH \^ , ^0\5

5.

GROUNDS FOR. REVHEW

GRouton nM£i Thg Tdifti an& aooeaec, court abused it's dvsoke-uon UiHEN TUEV ACMUORATeD PETITIONERS GAUCT BECAUSE THE RECORDS £>OES NOT Cjb^TmN ENHANCE PROVING. THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED The CoNd\-H0NS OF HAS PROPjAT^Otsi ^MTHe PREPQNOERA^CE OF THE EVIDENCE A^iD QUESTIONS AS FOLLOWS, 6)UEST\ON QUE! bECAUSE PETITIONERS KT.R^WASHaseO ON A^ ALLEGATION 0^ SlHPLE ASSmuT.HE WAS PoR^ALLV/CHARGED fcVIwFORnAT\0^ K^G WORSTED.

WAS PETLUONERS RvuHTS To ATURVf Te\AL,\H0UVTEtf WHEN Tt\E STATE CWQSE TO fclSHlSS THE ^SDG^AEANORs ASSAUCT ALLEGQlvON AND PROCEED LOlTA THE tAT.R. WHQUT THE ^LLCGeO VlCTtn KiOR THE C&VAPLA\nA^T AS W^T^ESS^ AT THE HT.R >UEAR^G , (\LrtDER STATE LAW \ ?

QUESTION, TWO t &\0 THE STATE VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AA| FRTL\N6 IN AVG^0D FAITH EFFORT To PRODUCE EVIDENCE K)HM TUE ALLEGE \MCTm UORENHO ANiD THE COMPLAINANT (oFRCER POWELL \ bib MOT APPEAL FOR the h.t.r. ?roceed\nc\ , a^d

Question Three : was The evidence \n tvus cas& c^. ^0 weak asto he cuea^l^ loronq, or manifestly un3ust? or QhX ViAS TUt FlNblNE OF VITAL FACT So CONTRARY To THE GfcEAT WEAGiHT AND preponderance of the evidence to re clearly/ v^ro^gi?

Reason por Review

pLAWi ERROR", ARRVVEWXNCt COURT H^M GRANT REUEF- fWpLA\N e.«.ROR'' RNJEVi Vf THE "ERROR VO*S NOT \RA^SEO A^b PRESERVED . IF THE ERRoRv ^ CEEAR ANOOG>NMOUC>.^Ee» PUEKETT V>U.S. SSL? ^>. W\ , 133 (ZQQ^ ) ,ALSO SEE,

(p. U.SV,t>tcKS^N^32.F.^ lfr»,m(6*Wi/MlV:us VMCC4KJN U3 E -U H8U S03fe^QRAOIOV AM b IP TUE PlAHi ERROR. AFFECTED THE PlAW ERROR To &E Assessed &4 CotiSMLTirtO, the uhole record. See US.V, AGUILAR^S F.34 31^,3X1 fe*hUR,aou\ L^DCR TEXAS RULES OF APP. P. HU A(*\ IF U F\ViDS THAT PET L\VOMERS Substantial Raghts wwe been) violated \f The errors'seriouslv affects The fairness,Ik)Tegr.\tv. OR PutiucRCPutatvom of judicial PROCEEDIHQ^.TH^ COURT KUST K£VERSt THE 3i\bC\t¥CNT uF ADJUDICATION Back to progatio^, Id.Auvula^.uh^ f,3ci, aisq sfx , U5S v. harchs ,no

Ttus Court umll Find Plain error uuere the KTR-- Proceeds Ci AFFECTED P£TYT\oV)eRS CO^TVTUTlOWAL. RVGuTS To A FAIR Pact TlNDvNQ process, That the swe ad^htted thpkoper hearsay EvibeNEE Ui^bEK The" CRAVORORD STANDARD, SEE iRAWFoR£> v RlAgatK\rnTON'f5q[ us.

3>u Cc^faoK )tTms court has adopted this standard itf cuewis v, ^Tme 5111 S,w,Xc\ igip (tex.cw.APP. 1^4^,stating THE STATE ACVkIAMG CARRIES The RURbEt^ OF PKOOF" To FSTASUSR THE ElEHENT uT A CRlKE AT TtiAL.AMD &PPEUantS POVnTS OT ERROR CRAUENQ1NG7 The SuPFtciENCv of the evidence useo to estahush the element (opthe cuapGeb CFPense could cla\h vjas so ViEAK TO BE FACTUAL \NSUFF\CtEt4T Id . CUENISJ t 1A, S.W JLc/ AT UB .

TUts Court w^lefind puun error \«^ prosecutorial hiscowduct, £4 blSMlSSlNG THE HVSDE^ANOR PAnvc^l VIOLENCE CHARCc TO GO TO TWE M.TR, PROC^EDVnG UNCfcP. AUESSER EuRDEN ^F PROOF UHTHOUT A-75UR4 .