October 6, 2015

*>T\\Ttof rex he?

"F180M ftPP£AL MO? lO-lM-ooaAo-CR. and »0'iM-O0al^-Cic FROM C0LJ6E MO.6 atc'365 and <3to(cl3 WJD, .;;,.-••„ ;-.:JiLS M0TI0M FOR. RFH5'dElw6 Fo£ ^FTlTlOM QCT FOR. XiE6CR£T\0MfiZ'i Zc\i\E\ti

To THfc Hon/OSR&LF 3UD6E; of' Scud coaet, Laxt of Cn^Wl^^, tonnes noto Darrick E&uxird £o6S; petitioner, herein and respectfullij £l«s 4Ki-> Mot'.on For Rph^nn^ -for Petition Foe DceerefciOrwi) ftbjieui and in Support of «vWi a Motion, prb-t'iooer ^hxco -Vhe court the &l\ou><s«; X.

"The.^pfe«i>pWoncrl.ode> torw'iefed im 4bc a~)84h District court o^ cOall^r county t#xq5> of 4V>t offcn^e of Q^ravakcl EoWbenj (_X3l) iM oax. mo? '0-N-oo5ao-ce. And io-w-oo£#-<l£ stijkA State of Tocae> vfe. Qarnch Eduaar^ Ro-bS* Th<- petitioner 0pp«»led 4o|4he T*n4h Court of AflKcrfs, 4he a^e ^as ft^wa on fynH,'&>'£>. The oouef of aWiudl Aftx&b re-Cu^ed ftfitiW> M<k\on For "Descnettorvw^ fcv/iao ^rthout opinion qu 'xptennber lb, 5lo)6> -I- m..

Petitioner r^p^ctfuili} mca/c5 4Wia court to r«v/]cio hit? PetiTiom Foe D2F!>CKETi(Xmeij (eTVitW, issues presented an& rdbutfed but-be. 'oTpvTF.

Xn itf> Be^j Dxia<2)|O0j The 7en4h Court of Appeal*

Tin.

tOhen k~-extol uairirn the e>pcofic6 of 4bc ctatur) U*>) ta^ct 9*t\ fiontr respectful Ia r^ac^t +Ki ^ tmr f "to con^i <\er 4be, loll pu3-« n^: In ihc oboi/e. trfj-Ued cm^eh; ftti+ioner entered open pWa6 of auilV, Ice: +u>b coun-t'b of A^rcv/^ed pokbery (^ T-eX„ piM, Cccb, Plnn ^ ^.Q3~Y Trial court found hi.^ AUitttt, and Qdaed a dtacllu ujetfpon-^todim and ^ntenced him to ttoo |i&. oentenc£6. ""rial CLOMff eer-ti^d pchhvnu'b n^h-t to Appeal mboth ca<xtb, ( 6ee_ £XH-i6!T5 I, and St) - Appella-re. course] chcoe 4o file, an Ander^ 6nef on P^titionet^ bcrrf, OufoUc of 4-he, forie-F &\Wd- V cirque ^tfraj addi'ti'onal mtnt-ortous issaef?, -rho^c cta\iwi& he did. (\^ree>e> vA>erc tMid to be. -£ri^.jeuS; wot because petitioner had -irudc^ ff(U«l^5 \<b6ue5 but- because, he had -(Wfieted Kia Appediatd- r'uh+6, Tht^> if? inaccurate,, and Should be rev/i^uoed j a6 Arhc Oi'stncf court urh£\td pefitiona'6 r\a\fr to Appeal ( '5ec E)frt->B(T5 ^and^Y mL.

fi^l Question one, in cndirvxi Mifion o^ked] T6 a Jiittj p^a (oPen Plea) rendered invalid a>he 4he tried coaet ^^6 to no\d a heannn or oralla odwonish 4be Petitioner on 4-Ke, Consetfueneef) of hi 5 p\ea?

-\2- ttcoffa reflect 4h<3t no hearing u>Q6 held on mau^, ^olM, or 4WF4be petitioner ioa6 orailu rtdnoonfobed bu fhe court", ftppV» cable, uatot Dae Ccure>cc£ lai© and Due, Prcce-exf) under tao4>> Teya6 and United 6tabr.6 constitution require, oral admonishment. Lincoln \/. State; 3d£> syl-'cld t*3& (T^xae. CnW App.) Othe Applicable, La.u> ccncemiri4 Auiiftj plea.6' tl loo felony caeca 4u'»|4a plea w/vaed be, ouppor-hd h^ 6uf£icienf egnknce to establish 4be elements of 4tie_ offence. (Tex. Code. Criivn. Prce Art:, \,\<b) fruerij v/, State, 514 SH 2d 3M3} 36\ ("fen. Cri^. App. \41Q) a^\ (PI conv/icfion rendered uii-thout jiCfii.ii nl suffiaenf evidence -to exappor-t a auilttj plea comtifutte^ fnal -error* Robert lee: MeneWe v/. S>tide. #P "frvaS) ^61 5,V|3d q (^ooq) 3} Fadure, to introduce tv/iience of axx\\\ on p^ of aailtu^ u>We, a defendant enters o plea of1 ^u'dtu to +hc fr\a\ Courtij th< Estate iS bound to introduce evidence 6hou3*ina <k£cn<Wds Au\VH Tf the. state fail5 vr> sach respect") 44ne, defendant- \s en-V'd\ed to o, nea> tr\aL ^P'vfaj v- State (cn.App.lAqo^) iMDT^X'CnM. |ol, \43 5.W, ad 31>U. Tn regainna stafe 4o inVoduce, evi derse-c ohpu^in^ de^endatyt^ cujuVt, Ve^oiature in-tented -ttad no ptc6on could be. cor>vic-tecl On b\5 auilta p\e& toHVxout evidence ban* \r\troduce.d t>u££icvenrt -to -shoLO <*u\rh cra*)&rd V* 6ta4:£ (TeX. trim. flppt 66M, £16 5.W. Ad ^M^) ( LtL. ftpp, KB5), m\ AcOnv/'ictitfln or\ a fluiita, pl^a 4-WM- \^> entered solelu AS a result- of faultUj \e<yd acWice\s & i\A\scama«e/ of "Suffice.

Unikd states \(. Scott, lo^6 F.3d ULoOKLir. iqei^ ft yossji^ urvfaif outcome in a ydicia-l proevedirvj} a^> uohem a Ae£endan-t i^> con vk^cc\ despite 4be lack of evidence on a €5Sentiai element c4 ihc Cr'i^e e

-3" l5) fto to ^ueoton +1003 ftas 4be Court of ftppals erred in -finding no arguable issuer for Appeal ?

Clfaudble frow\ the record are three issues 4bat ^erc refused bu Appellate counsel due to a belie-r -that Ckfifioner had voawith hi^> ri^hV to Appeal.

Roco«v/«r Trial court certified Petitionee^ ti^hV to Appeal \n bo4h etse-oj Cs?e^xWl61T I, and 3^. issue \: The euiaence-ooas \(ofb\& 'inou$?ieienti to support: Afttioner's conviction •for AAyai/ated PobbeaA. issue A" The evidence u>as k^allu insu-f&'cienf to support the <lefld\u u>eapon -^loAinj.

issue2>°. f\ppe\\ant jjxs denied Wis 6on5titutinrY\l ri^hti to rcasonablu elective assistance of counsel

e) fts to ^uesiion three, j tas -Vbe Appellate court -erred \i\ findina no Ardtwble 'issue ^r appeal On 4t>e k^xl S>uffieienca of evidence issues ?

165UC 1 .

Fads'.

The on\u evidence st Petitionere> connection to the robbery of the Riles coft6 fhdt Petitioner-bid laujor nnd 6cott ahouti the insurance, payments ?icti^ Bike had gotten and on a sepenate acca^'ion> pointed put- uohere £ile£> hi/ed (£p(e iSq-^o) -t|- tOhile the. prosecutor claimed 4Wxt another £amil^ member \denV^i"ed Petitioner (^iceic^J, -l-here u>as no evidence to -Support that elcurA, kte\4her fitness "to the evend supported -rhat Ve^moncj (aR^aMj &%-M), AppViea^icn'.

Theresas no evidence that Petitioner personally participated m tibe offense/5.Ric.SiM,^--^. The- ^toiemen4€? of the prosecutor that Petitioner iA>as'iden4'it?ied are clearly not e/icknce, and \s leaalla iinSufticieTvr 4t> Support Petitioner's conviction -for a&\ca\la\:&l IZobbeaj, ve Coopzr i/. tAakc) 5oo s.W-^d ^51, 1><4I (Tex- CniA* Ap/>* Mis), issuer: tohen a de&ndant$ liability is based on the conduct of anofher u)ho used a3r fxhibiW a (tetfdloj uieapw/ -Ihc evidence *v\ust obo^o ^he de|endan"f uoas avoare 4ha+ <\ de^diu .weapon ooould be used in e0rnm\^6\on of the offense, t^oorlle, v/- Sttfde, ll 6-W. 3d, 363, £35 (TeX. CrirvA* f\pp. aooo) -} Torres \l. State, £33 6/W.3d aie, 30-31 £t^X . App.- " ttousdon Q^tpBT7\ ^cai, mo Pet). Petitioner is entitled to ctialknae 4he -sufftcienaj of Vk, evidence s>upporti'ra 4he_ deadU uo«*pon findim because the voa<b no evidence {x&{\crcr bad anuthinA to do uodh the robbery or even kneu> a dea^la uocapon ^ould be used or -exhibited* is^uE 3: V^Aiortr iX)as denied h\s oonstitutlonal naht to ^ effective assistance of coun6cl^ Applicable Uavo; -5- Acriminal de-tendan-f is ent'ii|ed to the reasonable) effective ass'i-sWi^e of counsel at ail critical staAC.6 of a criminal proceeding Gideon \l, uOdmuori^ht) $1& U.S. 335, 345 (l%3)} Stnctland v/, u)o6bin^ton> %\c U6. kbft, 1^06) »OM 6.6t. 3tf>5£, **<? L. Ed *3d folM CW); Up\on M, 5tate} 853 S.W.ad SHSj 555 ['TeX. Crm, App. 1453).

A^^j-ti'oner uvuist -shou> bu a perponderance of the <vi4ence 4haf h\e> counsel'5 representation fell bejcctf an objective standard of pro&ssicral Ex parte Lane, 303 S-W-3dloa, 10b (lex, C/im. ftpp, £OCtf) Such a clan* rwust be affirmatively supported bu, the record.- ^acb5on v/. state, 0.13 S.W-2d isq, 435 Cl>x. Cri<v/u %• IWJ* mcFarUnd V. State, U&^.Al 4cU, e5oo(Tex. Criw/flfp, Hu), Prejudice to the petifioner tr&r\A counsel's deficient performance is '^ui^ed bu/ u3he4h*r count's conduct -so undermined the proper Wct/on'inA o£ the, adversarial process 4-ha.f the trial eanno-t be relied on a*> having pre dated a ^usfc result, E~X parte Chandler, !&£ 'SVl.^d 360, 2>35 (jex. frin . App, A006) Pretrial iMUfSTicwnojU: The court o£ cnwina/ flfpt^h hfr held thtct defense counsel rviaot /we o £tVm command of the 4acte> o-f the case a^ uoell nf> jov/ernin^ la*) before he can renrjer rea^cmblu effect'/ve assistance of counsel.

Ex parte, toe! born, 166 'o.Yj.M ^|, 345 (TrX- CnnA. App, |4<U?)

Record <bhviAjs tnal counsel dii hot fnkfv/iewi ^i-rnessts be.£or6 the punishment bmrin^ (& RR.Bg>)) Counsel bad not ^poben 4o "Sohnson about the case £AWo) >(^RW).

The record 5boto5 Via\ counsel d'\d not hive a command of tbe rclevaoT lai/^

^ A3 -explained in Petitioner's f.'rot "Usue, fhe k<Jo does not ^^upp^rf o -finding that petitioner vd&s bable, lor the conduct of Toulon and 6cotf- Ipecrxu^e there u>ae> no evidence he did anq of the ae4e uUhich -see-ticn l.dk(a) at the penal £ode u^ould i^p06e. chvYiinal liability on the Petitioner,

kifteierrl- Per-formance of CoanscioP* i, Xt *>3ae> di-ftcW perfr/rrance to permit petitioner \o pletfd au'iHu u)hen the evidence ioas lenallu msu-ficfent to support tbe conviction, a. X U)as also dificient performance 4-d have petitioner okn a u)aiv-er to appeal the ^uticienca of the evidence.

3. if voa& di-d'atn-/- performance h ptrrn'ft pt4iilontr h ^'ipukfa he usee/ a ctajo% uoeapon.

Triad Performance* doun^el'e) performance ^oas difio'ent in that he failed \v object to clearly objectionable and prejudicial ^ue^tions, Although fhere voat> no evidence 4hcd an^ uoifness t^a^ petitioner ad- the robbenA, defense cowxi did n^t object u3her> prosecutor ddiwed idilnesss identified petitioner at the <scmc of the robberc\ (A££lM6). The c^stion assumed -Carts not in evidence and uyy& improper, pcr ^^ reason counsel's performance ooas di-ticient uihen tie-railed do object -to s^4e meets bu the prosecutor tbrt petitioner toob tbe oth^ to either House, fold ttiern cohere properly coas "in the house and -stood outride direct ma idWd o)r>&^o0in^ on'^ because \Wct uoaf) nt? evidence support}ha (yr\u of-those '^hx&rr\tnbbe

-1- Trial Counsel udo& ditielent in -(ailing to object to te<st"imon^ ttor>n tJ\r. Tho^Aae? ion hi±> Option of proper puni^hnatirrx X&t SS), 'Such evidence is improper and objecticnable, rla^ef) \j. state; "161 6.W. Ad iq3, 1% ("[ex. App.~ Corpus cKristi ) peti r?£'d).

Prejudice: AelaiM o-£ ineffe+ive, ass\S"We c& coon^l u}i||=|gj^ ibupport reversal on appeal because this record aKirmatvveloj t>hou05 that bit -for trial counsel's unprovisional error, there is a reasonable probabilily that the result of 4he proceedings cA^oald have been different, ^ncblandj mrto i\6, cA ^Mj Ex parte MWUr^ 33d 5.W. 3d (plO.

Afr'ial court hae> uoide discretion in (imposing an ahprodak^ sentence, •^actson v/. -State, bdo S.W. ad 804, &|M (7f>, C>i n*. App, ^6^) Gienera^Oj &*> lona, as a SentenCE- \o LcMhindhe rm^c of punrsKment and Ms a factual basis in the record, H *>\{\ not be disturbed on appeal * KtiuCL v/, Sfork, 4s#e 6<Vli 9d 52>l*j 535 (T-rvCriw>. ftpp, \0C]%\ The record 'sboxcys the 4ha1 ~Sui<je 4'id noti consider the |acJLo-£ Widenee or the. eimicrd6 of- the offense <Wr\ n^ the, punvShv^ent phase,

Preiser For belief tetitioner proa^o fh\<s ooart rcv/iccCi the record and \£ and rxrauable. ^fcundt> -for appeal c\re ^ho^on, Petitioner respect-Gxlla as tbe^aoae -b remand -fcr appaintsd coun<sel ot ncuo <or <yant rtlttf required Petitioner rf<3p3ct-fullu 'SjjbwvMHs tKiS HVvcMon^

inspect £uUm) hfimck B>s6

Certi-Picate- OP 6ervie^- This \s -\o Certi4^A fhatontbis daOy Sep{err\be£ d$, 9^0\6 a true cind correct oofty of 4he above, and Sxraf)\n<^ documen-): coa.6 ^Served ondhe cierW.) (\be\ ftcost:c\} rt^ the docirt OF Ooa«v\\n\|\L (\PP3\Ud OP Tcx'AS at P.O. fooy ia3o© Capitol 'cMicn, Austin jT?xct5 nglll

Ckrntnte> Unit 1li0l'M5fuirZft\ flrmrillo, V&5 P\easc -finA enclosed Exhibits one cine) -two \t ^tit/oners f iejht to Appca

Xtems nice) and Glfcti-tW bU Debrief; -trial Cou£X.

M EKtiM £ O

CAUSE NO. 26383 THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. § WALKER COUNTY, TEXAS' DARRICK EDWARD ROSS § 278TH DISTRICT COURT TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL I, judge of the trial court, certify this criminal case: Qf _iT isnot a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right ofappeal, or isa plea-bargain case, but matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before thetrial and not withdrawn orwaived, and the defendant has the right ofappeal, [or] _ is a plea-bargain case, but the trial court has given permission to appeal, and the defendant has the right of appeal, [or] is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has not right ofappeal, [or] xiant has waived the right to appeal. .

MW^7, DatTSigned d-Q/4 , / .

Ihave received a copy ofthis certification. Ihave also been informed ofmy rights concerning any appeal ofthis criminal case, including any right tofile a pro se petition for discretionary review pursuant torule ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. I have been admonished that my attorney must mail a copy ofthe court ofappeals' judgment and opinion tomy last known address and that I have only 30days inwhich tofile a pro sepetition fordiscretionary review intheCourt ofCriminal Appeals.

TEX.R.App.P.68.2 I acknowledge that, ifIwish toappeal this case and if I am entitled to do so,it is my duty to inform my appellate attorney, by written communication, ofanychange inthe address at which I am currently living orany change in my current prison unit. I understand that, because ofappellate deadlines, ifIfail totimely inform my appellate attorney ofany change in my address, I may lose the opportunity to file a prose petition for discretionary i

Defendant Defe1T3a*ifs Counsel MailingAddress: State^r ofTexas ID#: 2*035 HI if Mailing Address: Telephonenumber: ' Telephone & FaxNumber;,, "A defendant in a. criminal case has therightof appeal undertheserules. The trial court shallenter a certification ofthe defendant's right to appeal in every case in which itenters ajudgment ofguilt orother appealable order. In a plea bargain;case ~ this is, a case inwhich defendant's plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did notexceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by thedefendant- a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised bywritten motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial Court'spermissionto appeal." TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.2(a)(2). -., —,- rlLcD u a lO-DAY OF. Wv^m.

ROBYN FLOWERS DJstrict Cle Walkar County By4L 88 Deputy r Exhibit <£>- / CAUSE NO. 26619 THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. § WALKERCOUNTY, TEXAS DARRICK EDWARD ROSS § 278TH DISTRICT COURT .

TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL tfjudge ofthe trial court, certify this criminal case: is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right ofappeal, or <T- is a plea-bargain case, but matters were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before the trial and not withdrawn or waived, and the defendant has the right ofappeal, [or] is aplea-bargain case, but the trial court has given permission to appeal, and the defendant has the rightof appeal, [or] is aplea-bargain case, and the defendant has not right ofappeal, [or] ' sfendant has waived the right to appeal. A ^ DateSigned Ihave received acopy ofthis certification. Ihave also been informed ofmy rights concerning any appeal ofthis criminal case, including any right to file apro se petition for discretionary review pursuant to rule ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. 1have been admonished that my attorney must mail a copy ofthe court ofappeals'judgment and opinion to my last known address and that Ihave only 30 days in which to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in the Court ofCriminal Appeals.

TEX.R.App.P.68.2 Iacknowledge that, ifIwish to appeal this case and ifIam entitled to do so, it is my duty toinform my appellate attorney, by written communication, ofany change in the address atwhich I am currently living or any change in my current prison unit. Iunderstand that, because ofappellate deadlines, ifIfail to timely inform my appellate attorney ofany change in my address, Imay lose the opportunity to file a pro sepetition fordiscretionary revie\ XM4 -I)mill t fendant ' Defi^griant^Sbunsel Mailing Address: State Bar of Texas ID# IhoysHIl Mailing Address: Telephone number: Telephoned Fax Number.

"A defendant ina criminal case has theright ofappeal under these rules. The trial court shall enter a certification ofthe defendant's right to appeal in every case in which itenters ajudgment ofguiltor other appealable order. In a plea bargain case - this is, acase in which defendant's plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosedutor"and agreed to by the defendant - a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or(B) after getting the trial Court's permission to appeal." TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.2(a)(2). '_ 1LED

RQBYN FLOWERS Jistrict Clerk,Walker County By 26 Deputy t Df 5 ^ t-i C>£ ~S rt-£ ?^

2=> o CP

O3 ^ 7T> 9 o *> =, 0> co g j r» <* r

UN S