ORIGINAL IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS WENFORO LETTSOMEj Petiiioherj v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS j RECEIVE <M Appellee. . COJOTOFO^^jj o-a n 281!

™* THE hu iA Abel Acosfra, CteW- COURT OF APPEALS - FIRST DX5TRICT OF TEXAS CA(tf£ MO, 0hl3-O0S-32~CR FILED IN On Appeo/ fr„» 1*. JSLi OtsfHct ^,tC0^OFCR,M,NALAPPEALS H*»* <Wy, Texas MAR 20 2015 Trkl Court Cost t4o. 0131709S Abel Acosta, Clerk

FETITION FOR DISCRETION*** REVIEW

TO. C.X-ID. No. Ote$¥36f OalhahT UnttNo.07^ II1SO FM W8 Dalhahf; leXAS 7W& TABLE OF CONTENTS pages;

A/m©4ihce/>ie/tt- feh'tibh For Discretionary R&vim X Table Of Contents K Table OF Authorities And Statutes Used List Of Interested forties Oral Argument Statement Of Cose. And Procedural History Statement Of Facts WttnoranJuM-Ptfiti'tn For discretionary Review I Ground One I 1 Facts I a Argument Ground One I 3 Crround TWo t 11 Fads I 11 psryumerit Ground Two * U Prayer 13 Certificate. Of Service At Rear Sworn Declaration At Rear Affidavit Of VJenforJ Lettsome At tor potion To Suspend the Ra/e, Rule A At Rear

m TABLE OF AUTHORITIES SMU: .Ajbrecnt v. State.. W6 S.k/.a</ *7 CTe^.CHm. Apf» ffl*) ± Bill V. State j133 S,W> 3d S*3 CTex.A/V*;Waco &>p7) ^jf.

Brads V. Alary'***; *73 US, S3, 83 S*Ct IWjtO L.&U *£W«) _fi Oe U fta y, tote, W S.W.2<t*7lXApp<8 »& '**5 «>.*• *W £&.

G^e/- v. i/a, rj; <Z* '*%,*?*Q*f!i, , ^ ,^ ,„„, ^ *,* -#- (ruefwe v. Stattj 8X> SMU 3t78J3$<r(Tex,App, Grpus Q\hW IMj/*et refds) 8 Jackson v. \Mnk, m U,$.j Uf. J^Jtyff A<*W*^ . _*_ McMnJ v. State) di* S*vJ.*d fAl + , „ -JL- ^Xemery v. &%8V S.vJ* M 3& at 397 %I0 mTATv. Statej*fi S,ULA/ m *t 879 CfeX, Cr,/W, /f«r Zt

sn4kti^--V' w&J^wu&fl* atfrt.Mfs.fa&sa. *tio& x

^TATUTE5 USED,' T€X. Code of Crfw. ProcJ 38.Z* C«) TCX. Const X,f/* Ttt.' fSfcJfclS Art. §13,01CaXjXbXm) TeX. Penal Code Ann. Art /a3> OZC*K» Te*, *• App^ *WvA«le ^XgO And Rule ^ TeX> R. of Evft. R«lc /OS^*) Tex. R. «f Ev/d^ Rule 403 TeX. R. «f CvAft Rule **KW CAS, f TTj Const flmeno'* U.5. S'U Const. Amenf U*S* 6 th Const' jWno"' U*S* MTh Const Aj]\fV» r , , . , f rp/»g/ lay frj«rrtal fgy K»V Key 3Ty<rJfJltf#. exe/«w*tertffach*PWohTo Suprexh^nj)6ft .S^yg7f3l)4#.cXc/««^^dr/acf/JAleT^To«9^r«ffkv^P /CWnQ f%LJL/nfli law/ Fow Key 77/CCearrtf CCourTis rewindJo IhStt-itcf) t reftf//*ecf 7o inSfritcf) . .& CrW**1 ^a r°Y H*fl£*teffttcfr supports by recordre^emfi^moi^SKt^C IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

WENFORO LETTSOMEj&OtSSW!

Petitioner, Vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Apfft'/ee- LXST OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Wenford Lettsome t fetitumer Prose TPCJ-IO Ho* 0$&t36<l 'Ifm-Wto** Dalhortj Texas WOZX- 7<&V

Court Of Criminal AffeatsOf Texas P0. Box /2308;CaplTolStatin Austin j Tems 79711

First Court Of Appeals 30\ Fanntn Street! Rm. XOS Houston j TetaS T700SL HRAL argument: Revest Oral Argument retarding fhe -failure of $e Officer renderiy defendants Miranda tiahtsjand Penal CodeS l2,otC*X2)ti>X*M nottetno QfrliQuous aqojusf PenalCode §XI,OSiCOOherroneous rulinos, XfarreitUs hotwfe&thiyAotInvoke Mfrnhda Ifyib %m W&Ntnt™' *+*£ wa* t&t Properly Ser\tef~Then there is no pfolahk Cause-for erroneous arrestor seizure* STATEMENT OF CASE ANb PROCE&UkAl KlSToRf" Petitioner j Wen ford Lettsome^ pro-s^tlrialCourt Cause No* OBWO&jryrested on or about,/Wayfa3lMj feYas PfnalCbdef&LiOZ OOOyrCyidthen and there un/aiJfW in%nlibmllv ahd.kfioVingly threaten M&jton Letffomej * Compfamantj with 'imminent^k »>JutY. V u*Mj*l embitiM a deadly weaponj namely, A Machetes)/ faaLa prior ConvKhon on NovMer 23, koto-'Cause M?. rZlMv Oistrict' CoUrfoTHarris Counf/Jjetas for A/Wyj a-fe/ony offense of Unlawful Restraint ^fyfi^^ll^^L assault oka household mem&er/ Petitioner Appealed case No.0hi3-oo£3ii ~*J convjchon y*s affirmedJftetfoUsMTs fUiUn For ^^l°W *****, -A\ffelhnPs Conviction wos upmdor affirmed on December IB) XolfjOn fypwk STATEMENT OF FACTS Petlt/onerj h/erfbrd Lettsomej Pro-Sej U'mj convicted of the charae aitefjtd in the indictment Ga/tfe (Vo> 013470^ and based on the predicate of his Prior Convictionj Trial Court Commenced on June fy duoO, The State called Complainant Elfeston Lettsome and Alphonsine.

Lettsomej To testify on the questio/ij "Did Wenford Lettsonne threaten you with aMachete f}) hndj the answer was nonreSponsivej from both he and his u'tfe. See R.R. Vol,3 of b, fa. l3XH3-2r Through 133:1 ("Ohjectbnj Judae - Sustained;as Narrafvef) and R.R. Vol. 3of 6j fy l3K^2f(?0&j*&on; Tudae-Sustainedj as A/onres/>o«sivef) and (UL Vol,3 of b, h).S*7;/0-/9: C^ilO Q, Threats? Ill A. f/e never talk threats 1b me. iit Q. He wouldnT threaten you every time f llf A* I don^t think So* Ul Ms* Summers i Objection Your Honor* Asked and A/Wered* 11° The- Court I Sustained* Atorf'question.*)J On RAM.3of 6j Pa* 11*.!/0-lf:([JX Ms, Summers !T have a motion ibr on instructed verdict I believe 1h& Stale. naS failed sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to Convict this defendant beyond a, reasonable doubt '.IG The. Court iIts dented* JURISDICTION This Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this uvrlt CP.OX) under the authority of fhe Rules of Appellate Procedure; Ruk 68.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL *ff**L$ ofr ^liftS WENFORt> LETTS0r\£#Oie6436<l § COURT OF APPEALS WtrtiWr, Prose, g msT DIsnicr ^-^ Vs* *« £ CAUSE NO. OH3-OOS3&-CH THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee* § MEMORANDUM I PETITION FOR uISCRETlONPiRY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES IM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: COKES NOWj Wenford Lettsomej Petitionerj Pro-Se.j with hiS ?et\tAh For Discretionary Review challenging Constftutibw,/Issues that Wtnt maddressed and unchallenged at Pretrial) trial court; and on Peiitianerls Appeal* G-ROUND ONE : U.S. ^thjSthylHth Constitutional Amendments To 0>ue Process)J State, Constitution 1^100>ue Process), I J19 0>ue Course); Prosecutorial Misconduct-Inadmissible Evidence ; IIIeja I Search And Seizurej CE^ual protection Of The Laws ,)j Ahuse of Discretion) Police failed to render defendants Hrahda Ryhts* FACTS* Petitionerj Wenford Ltttsomej defendant^ pro-Sej Contends and argues that he is actually innocent of the a/Ieyed charfed offense, setout in Ue indicfmentfld*) CcmSt Mo. OttWotSl When complainant Elleston Lettsome made the. cornplaintat the police statoh) itwas Three days to two weeks prior to an alleged argument, and arrest) on or aiout May 6px>lXt The jpolice hud a uiarranf and probable. cauSe for defendants arrest, out) police didh*t have a yarrant to Search and ie/ze a Machete frorn defendants house to he. uStd for alleged evidence-based on probable cause and for good cause" Such u/as not Set out in the arrest warrant only •The police, acted to retrieve a machete- at Petitioners houSe. in an Illegal search and Seizure and for a.

Weapon^ againstdefendant at 4- time, when the at/efedMacAeie-yaS not in plain Sight) but was stored in \ts Same place for years* The Statt acted in Prosecutorial Misconduct to have had the. alkged evidence, admitted into trial court}namely the "Machete* as an alleaed deadly weapon *The alleged machete was used as evidence, when It was not part of a crimej was inadmissible* Petitioner never had a Machete, on his person during any atkged argument with complainantJand the First CourtOf Apfea/s did confirm that fact* Petitioner had never caased an injury in thk CauSe^nor a death , or a SeriouS bodilyInjury) Of imminent bodily injury on or to the complainant* At trial court) fhe Slates Penal Q>da, was in error) and misapplied use of(Same) statute. This case is based on the predicate, of said prior alleged offense in the enhancement paragraph cause. No* I2./U7? of an alleged unlawful restraint,' also Petitionees TeiLaS Penal Code should have heen a\ Third Degree Felony and Punishmentinstead of Second degree Punishment* -2- GROUND ONE

PhiosEcarorXirM mzscoiiouct : Petitionerj U/a/rfW Let/some^ contends andargues thatAt IS Actually innocentof violating thelah/ that Petitioner Is accused 6§ th% State, faikd fo process the correct IktaS fchat Code on thl indictment* The Penal Cade used hasgant fast the proper range, of otpunishment] tkt amhiguous difference Le%>een thtfu/o staTultsthat do hot<Q0>ly and ivhtre one slatufe atkmfts tb compensate for The other wfhtr they art not reconcilatle to this particular accusationj Texas Penal Code Ann* Arfi$2l>0Z(aYi) Is aggravated AsSau/faaaiftst a sfous-e. or SeriouS BodilyInjury-is a Second'Degree Felony Offend Tktdif^ct IS TeXaS Penal Cede to which Is thl desirtdalleged sTatgtt^ (a)Cl) intentionally and kfiPu/lfig/y %rmtth£ another with imminent hdlf^ Injuryj W (b) An ottenSt under Sahsection CaXl) IS aClaSS ft l^isdenmnor/Mc^i that iktoffenSe. is afelony of the, jhthd degree if the offense is committedagai/istiCZ) amember of the defendants Totnih or household, if ifisshown on the frkt of the offenfe that me defendant has hten previously convictedofan offense against a rptmher ofthe defendants family or household under this Sect/ane Petitioner contends that the indictmentconk!* aparagraph of unlawful hesfra/hf againsta: family mmitr, Farther, the. SfaA would Ui/e tb prove that ther-e. was a weapon used in the offense In order for the weapon lb he admissiih~-o'tAeru/ise there is no u/tapon used in the offhnftj %if Cast is Lase.d on thispoint* Tketestimony from States witnesses showed that the alleged weapon "'Ityichete was inadmissible -mtaning there was no \dtaf>on mi tie Texas Penal'Code Ann. Urt §'XhOl'&)&)WGXti IS a third -.3-