:: ’ n 33 / Ol§_ ’0{ :ABR-I;L l l2015 Court of Criminal Appeals Sharon Keller-Presiding_dudge Supreme Court Bldg W. 14th St. P.O.Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2308 RE: Reply To The State's Proposed Findinqs of Fact,Conclusion of Law, And Order/Affidavit of Rehuttal Cause No. lO45480-A Dear Sharon'KellerL Enclosed, please find the original Applicnt's Reply To The State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,And Order and a affidavit of Rebuttal.Please file and bring to the attention of this Court. lt is not clear as to whether the 232nd_dudicial District Court of Harris County,Texas has forwarded the Writ Applicatioanlease:file`thisiwithb"the Writ Application's response from the Court and make back to me stamped as filed in the enclosed self-addresses envelope.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in this matter.

v E:§§§§Z§E §?Q Oe Saucedoagr_ touai§@wmmramwsw §§é§equu§;; ;;:<;:138 APR 06 2915 lowe Park, Texas 76367 ma Aco§w,©i@fk ' iu THE coURT oF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR THE sTATE oF TEXAS EX PARTE § 1N THE 232 DISTICT cOURT goE sAUCEDo,‘gR oF § .

A licant pp § HARRIS cOUNTY,TEXAs § APPLICANT"S REPLY TO THE STATE"S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, OONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER Having reviewed the State's Proposed Bfndings oanactjGonclusi n Qf:Lawisiz The Applicant finding that the Findingsv of Facts Conclusions of Law, And Order was in error, and did not pertain to the Applicant's case in which is very important for the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider this reply into evidence and investigate every fact listed in regards to error and due process violations the State committed.

The Applicant will point out facts only in regards to the unauthorized, unlawe ful and unconstitutional sentence the Applicant recieved in this case.(See unacth Affidavit of Rebu`ctai). ' First, the Applicant will establish before this Court that he raise ineff- ective Assistance of Counsel, and in the State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, the Representative for the State,Eva Flores, made allegations of the Attorney asd Defense for the Applicant as being some_ one by the name of Greene, and stated that Greene provided effective assis- tance of counsel to the Applicant, when in fact, Attorney Greene do not exist.(See State's Proposed Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law, and Order at pages (5)(6). Dated§%meE% 27, 2015.

The Court can not make an adequate and impartial findings of facts and con~ clusions through by erroneously and misleading information on behalf of the State.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). Also, the Court must note that the State$sw Original Answer filed October.24, 2013.the State's answer was all inn regards to some Black male offender by the name of dames Smith£dr. #01673290.(See the last page of the State's Original Answer.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).

There were no reasons for the Applicant to present any argument in regards to Attorney Greene's actions falling outside of prevailing professional norms due to the fact attorney Greene do not exist and the State can produce no evidence to support or establish that the Applicant was represented by Att- orney Greene.v Second,the State's Proposed Finding of Fact,Conclusions of Law/ and Order/ made allegations that the Applicant raised the Ground of lnsufficient Evide- nce when in fact the Applicant raised the ground of "No Evidence".There is a difference between,"lnsufficient Evidence" and "No Evidence".(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). The State's Representative-Eva Flores is filing false allegations to mislead the Court into giving a ruling thats not auth- orized,lawful or unconstutitional.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).

Third, the Applicant has Rebutted the State's false and misleading allegations throughby his Affidavit of Rebuttal,in which rebutted the State's allegations and the allegations of the Defense Attorney,Thomas Radosevich/ of him stat- ing he did not see no need to create a paper file,when in fact every Attorney must create a paper file in order to adequately represent his client(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). v Fourth, and last of the Applicant's reply to the State's Proposed Findings _ of Fact,Conclusions of Law,And Order, the Applicant Reguest this court to hold a hearing on whether the_dudicial District Court has misconstrued the Statute of Texas Penal Code 46.01(3),lt states that a (firearm) is;[A]ny device designed,made,or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device _ready convertible to that use." The BB gun mentioned in the trial/nor the States responsehas been found to be a firearm/nor a deadly weapon/This Court has set rules/standards and guidelines the dudicial District Courts must abide by in the State of Texas, that the Court must operate under in order to lawfully convict anyone.When the evidence raised by the State [do not] prove or meet the State's burden of proff as here, the Case must be reversed.

Upon the Court reversing this case for a hearing and point out to the Court the true meaning of a firearm and a geadly weapon/the court must then re- lease the Applicant from his unlawful confinement,because the jury was not aware of the law and it's interpretations, therefore, the Applicant relies upon the integrity of the 232nd Court that it is in error and have the App- licant unlawfully confined. (See Attached Affidavit). d Executed on this §Z day of April__ 12015 Res ect lly submitted

Saucedqur.

Allred Unit #1402138 ZlOl FM 369 North lowa Park, Texas 76367 CER'I‘IFICATE OF SERVICE l,§oe_Saucedo,`dr.,do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Applicant's Reply To The State's Proposed Finding of Fact,Conclusion of Law,And Order,has been forward to the U.S.mail,postage prepaid/first class, to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Sharon Keller,Presiding_dudge, Supreme Court Bldg,ZOl w. 14th St.P.O.box 12308 Capitol Station,Austin Texas 787ll- 2308,0n this the _,_1_’+_day Of Aprii,zoi§. gancz'{:;z; _ oe Saucedo Jr. AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH State of Texas)§ . . c1l1cet Wichita County) " lndeed, no more than (affidavit) is necessary to make the _ prima facie case."United States v. Kis,658 F.an 526,536 (7th Cir.l981): cert denied,SO U.S. L.W.Zl€Q,S.Ct.March 22, 1982.

That l,§oe Saucedo,a living breathing man/being first duly sworn,depose and say and declare by my signature that the following facts are true/correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

That,for Resolving a Matter it must be expressed.

That,Truth is expressed in the Affidavit form.

That,an Unrebutted Affidavit stands as thruth in commerce.

That,an Unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce.

That,a truth Affidavit,under Commercial Law can only be satisfied by a Re~ buttal about the truth Affidavit,by payment/by argreement,by resolution by a jury according by the rules for Common Law.

That,this is a Rebuttal Affidavit to the Affidavit of Thomas A. Radosevich‘s the State's Original Answer Filed October 24,2013 by Eva Flores, Respondant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order February 27, 2015.

That,Thomas A. Radosevich failed to rebut the allegations that_doe Saucedo was a habitual offender.

Thathdoe Saucedo never held any prior convictions within the ten year time limit that could be used against him for enchancement purposes.

That,_doe Saucedo never possessed a firearm.

That,the claim of doe Saucedo used a deadly weapon to wit;a firearm was never proved. ' That,when a conviction is over ten years old it can not be used for enchance~ ment purposes.

That,Thomas A. Radosevich,in his Affidavit of trial Counsel dated 12-09»13/ admitted that he did not create a paper_file,in which a paper file inthe instant case would have help establish.and prove facts before the jury.This was a part of failing to prepare for trial That,Thomas A Radosevich,inthe last paragraph of the first page of Affidavit of Trial Counsel,stated he failed to move to dismiss any portion of the in- dictment when it appeared doe Saucedo would not accept any plea bargains Thomas A, Radosevich had a duty to try and have all charges dismissed on bdrdf oftus<jiaunyetlm¥ lof 3 held a conflict of interest in the case when_doe Saucedo refused to accept the State's and Court's offer. doe Saucedo has a right to not accept or to make any pleas,yet the court failed to inform Joe Saucedo of these rights They only wa- nted _Joe Saucedo to give them unlawful subject- -matter jurisdiction without _Joe Saucedo being aware of the fraud committed with the Defense Counsel,State Representative Eva Flores,and the Judge of said Court.

That,Thomas A,Radosevich had a duty to present the law on deadly weapons and what it means to be a deadlyfw¢apon,. b That, Thomas A Radosevich had a duty to present the law on firearm and what it mean to be a firearm.

That,at no time during the trial did Thomas A,Radosevich present the meaning of a firearm to the jury as outlined in Texas Penal Code ANNOTATED §4€ .Ol(3) (VERNON 2003).

That,Failure of Thomas A Radosevich,as counsel for Joe Saucedo to file motion for investigator deprived_doe Saucedo to present the following:(l)The com- blaint Humberto Arias, (Z)Humberto Arias was an lllegal immigrant/and was mak- king a deal with the State to continue to live inthe United Statesw if he'd `testify against doe Saucedo.(3)Humberto Arias had stole the car he claimed belonged to his friend Julio Fraga's Mother.ln which could have been used to show Humberto lack of credibility of his truthfulness,(4)-Whether Samuel Martinez was driving a car or truck because in the Court of Appeals"opinion they stated Samuel Martinez was placing something in the back of his truck. (5)An expert on firearms and whether a BB gun was a deadly weapon or could be used as a deadly weapon (6)The owner of the house where the BB gun was claimed to have been found could have provided a statement as to whether or not their kids or grand kids owned or left the gun in the yard or under the house~ j _ That,Thomas A.Radosevich and t 1 Celeste Carter conspired to convict dca Saucedo of Aggravated Robberi. 1 That,the alleged charge of Aggravated Robbery has not-been certified by the State Supreme Court as being constitutional before being implemented in this case.

That,the Thomas A Radosevich nor Eva Flores can say how the jury would have viewed an investigator's or expert‘ s testimony and what their opinion would have been on firearm crxk§dhhwexxnu of 3 That,the Respondant's proposed Findings of Facts and Order dated February 27,2015,contained false information and information in regards to an Atto- rney by the name of Greene,throughout pages (5)&(6)under Conclusion and Law That,Eva Flores can not under the penalty of perjury produce any document or statement or even an affidavit from the Attorney Greene labled in the Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact and Order Febr- uary 27, 2015. v That,the trial Court in it's determining findings used false facts and all- egations, in reegards to Attorney Greene and the Applicant not showing any ineffectiveness of Attorney Greene. Attorney Greene do not exist in this case.

That, EvawFlorésuLw:,in the State's Original Answer filed October 24,2013/ attached a document titled/"Offender lnformation Search",with the name of Smith,assigned to Goree Unit.The Court used this as accurate information.

That, EvaeFloresutgv/for the State,alleged allegation in her response in regards to sufficiency of the evidencezdoe Saucedo raised "No Evidence"/ There is a difference between "No Evidence"and Sufficiency of Evidence".

That,Eva Flores,raised sufficiency of the evidence knowingly the trial court would not review the facts_doe Saucedo presented and would take the side of the State.

That, the State failed to meet it's burden of proving_doe Saucedo committed any offense.

That, the Staee failed to prove that a BB gun was a firearm or deadly wea- pon.

That, this Affidavit if not rebutted point for point by any man representative of the State of Texas at any level/in any manner,at any time within (7) days upon reciept,these facts stand as true inthe public record.

Further Affiant Saith not.

Done this_d=g;j:day\of April,2015.

JBe'Saucedo'Alired unit‘#1402138 Allred Unit 2101 FM 369 worth lowa Park,Texas 76367 3cf 3 A'l`C-060 (Rev. 7) Attachinent 2 _. NOTICE OFFENDER NOTARY PUBL!C SERVICE Under both Fedei'al law (28 U.S.C § l746) and State law (V.'l`iC.A._ Civil Pi'a_ctice & Reinedies n Code, §l32.00]-l-32.003), offenders incarcerated in 'l`exas may use an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in place of a written declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit sworn before a Notary Public. ln a request for Notary Public service, each offender must explain why an Unsworn Declarati_on is insufficient before Notary Public service will be provided. ' ’ »i=*»i==r»i=>i=**>i=>i<>i<*=i=i->i~>k***>i=**>i=>i=>i=>i=*i=>i==i<'>i=»i=***=r.*****=r*****=i=*****>i=#**=i<**=i=>i=>i=*>i==i=*>r>i=**#*>i<»i=*** A/i example of an unsworn declaration pui'sua)il 10 State law is as follows:

"My name is doe wis _-t,'£lr~ ` Sai.icedo my date of birth is ]:5:69 , (First) (l\/Iiddle) (Last) and my inmate identifying nuinber, is #MOZJ 33 . l am presently incarcerated in .i v mined iim'r in Ic“;a Park ' ` (Correctioiis unit name) (City) Wichita 'I\`=‘XSS 76367 - . l declare under penalty of (County) (S'tate) (Zip Code) perjury that the foregoing is true and correct ` , 20 15 /é£@</€(IM~ " Executed on the 15t- day of ppril- . C (DTfender Signature) *=i=*=i=********#******=i=*********=i=**>i=**>i=****>i=*****=i=*>i=>i=**=i=************************* A)i example of an unsworn declaration pu)'suanl to F ederal law is as follows.' (insert offender name and TDCJ niimber), being (insert TDCJ unit name), in County, Texas, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true l presently incarcerated in

and correct

Executed on the day of , 20 . (Offender Signature) *************=l=***********>l<*’l=>l<>i=*****************>l<************>l=*****>l=*********** NOTICE NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE DENIAL Regarding your request for Notary Public service, insufficient justification was provided necessitating Notai'y Public service l-low,ever, you may proceed with an Unswoi‘n Declaration.

M //4 (Date) (Signatui'e - Notary)