Petetan, US Carnell Jr. A/K/A Carnell Petetan, Jr.

AP-77,038 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 5/31/2016 2:43:13 PM

Accepted 6/1/2016 8:14:41 AM

ABEL ACOSTA RICHARD E. WETZEL CLERK

ATTORNEY AT LAW 1411 WEST AVENUE, SUITE 100

AUSTIN, TX 78701 (512) 469-7943

Board Certified Criminal Law (512) 474-5594 - fax And Criminal Appellate Law by wetzel_law @1411west.com The Texas Board of Legal Specialization www.TexasCriminalAppealsLawyer.com

May 31, 2016 Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station June 1, 2016 Austin, TX 78711

Re: Petetan v. State, No. AP-77,038 Dear Mr. Acosta:

Pursuant to your request of April 25, 2016, please accept the following as a statement regarding oral argument in the above pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 71.3. This is a capital murder case in which the death penalty was assessed. A total of 30 points of error are presented in appellant’s opening and supplemental briefs.

Among the issued to be resolved on direct appeal are the following: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to invoke

Petetan’s attorney-client privilege as to testimony he sought to offer from his former attorney on the issue of competency to stand trial (Point of Error One). Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence Petetan sought to offer concerning the legal fate of those who obtain an incompetency determination through malingering (Point of Error Two). Whether the jury’s answer to the intellectual disability special issue is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence (Point of Error 10).

The tenth point of error includes a challenge to this Court’s jurisprudence in Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). That opinion is receiving Letter to Abel Acosta May 31, 2016 Page Two keen interest from the Supreme Court of the United States in Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797, which has been relisted five times on a request for certiorari review of this Court’s opinion in Ex parte Moore, 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

It is upon these issues that oral argument is particularly sought. Undersigned counsel is of the opinion that oral argument would serve to clarify those issues and to explain to the Court why Petetan should prevail on them.

Sincerely, /s/ Richard E. Wetzel Richard E. Wetzel Attorney at Law cc: ACDA Harmon