Skief, Tiwian Laquinn ( 2015 )

6S5-/5
NO. PD-0655-15 FILED IN
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ORieiNAL COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Abel Acosta, Cierk
TIWIAN LAQUINN SKIEF PETITIONER
THE STATE OF TEXAS RESPONDANT
PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
On Rehearing from a refusal of his Petition, for Discretionary
Review in No. PD-0655-15 on November 4, 2015.
RECEIVED IN Tiwian LaQuinn Skief
COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEALS TDCJ #01769917
Coffield unit
NOV 23 2015 2661 FM 2054
Tenn. Colony, Tx. 75884
Abel Aeosta, Clerk Pro se.
NO. PD-0655-15
TIWIAN LAQUINN SKIEF § IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
§
V. § APPEALS OF TEXAS AT
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN.
MOTION FOR REHEARING
COMES NOW Tiwian Skief, #01769917, Petitioner in the above
-styled and -numbered cause and files his motion for rehearing,
and shows this Honorable Court GOOD CAUSE to GRANT this motion
as follows:
PERTAINING TO QUESTION NUMBER ONE
Within the Petitioner's question number one, the issue boils
down to this question here: Is there evidence (facts) that shows
the Petitioner sought an explanation from or discussion with the
Complainant concerning their differences? No! The Petitioner
truly searched the entire record, and has found out that not one
witness testified to the erroneous conclusion that "the Peti
tioner sought out and/or approached complainant." In other words,
there is no evidence of the Petitioner seeking out for and/or
approached Complainant.
Their is one element in common when this Honorable Court
looks in iLee v. State [259 S.W.3d 785 (Tex.App. --Houston, 1st
Dist, 2007)], Fink v. State [97 S.W.3d 739 (Tex.App. --Austin,
2003)], and Bumguardner v. State [963 S.W.2d 171 (Tex.App. --Waco
1998)]. Truly, this one element is that Lee, Fink, and Bumguar-
der all sought out for and/or approaced complainant in their
cases. The Petitioner lacks this one main element. Therefore, the
page 1
Petitioner argues that there is a substantial circumstance within
the Petitioner's case that is in need to be re-addressed by this
Honorable Court. Finally, this Honorable Court should grant the
Petitioner's rehearing.
PERTAINING TO QUESTION NUMBER TWO
Since the Petitioner argees that Riketta's statement to ~
Barbara Castro was an excited utterence, this Honorable Court
must look to the attendant circumstances and assess the likeli
hood that a reasoanble person would have either retained or re
gained the capacity to make a testimonial statement at the time
of the utterance. See U.S. v. Brito, 427 F.3d 53, 61-62 (1st Cir.
2005); Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730, 742. (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
The Fifth District Court of Appeals simply did not do this.
Therefore, This Honorable Court should rehear this question at
hand. Furthermore, Riketta Johnson, being unde rhte stress of
the phone call, was not in immediate danger and Riketta knew,
and comprehended the larger significance of her words. In basic
terms the record fairly supports her statements to Castro, and
the fact that the statement also qualifies as an excited utter
ance, will not alter Riketta's testimonial nature!
Finally, the Fifth District Court of Appeals failed to pro
perly use the two-pronged test set out in Wall v. State becuase
they are bound to. id. 184 S.W.3d 730, 742-43 (Tex.Crim.App.
2006). The Petitioner implores this Honorable Court to re
hear this Question for review at hand, and grant this motion for
rehearing.
page 2
PERTAINING TO QUESTION NUMBER THREE
The Petitioner only seeks for an answer for the following
two questions: (1) Did the United States Supreme Court intend
for the State Courts to limit (or restrict) the term, or defi
nition of "Testimonial" to solely relate a statement, declaration,
or affirmation to law inforcement based agencies only? And (2)
Although the Texarkana District. Court of Appeals in McCarty v.
State, provided some classic examples held in Crawford, does
the Classic examples give the right for state court's to limit
the testimonial analysis to law enforecement based agencies
only? id. 227 S.W.3d 415, 418 (Tex.App.--Texarana, 2007).
The Petitioner contends that the State should not be allowed
to limit the definition of Testimonial to law enforcement based
agencies only. When the courts in Texas have adopted the same
view set out in McCarty, Axiomly, this Court never cited or
relied in any authority while taking this upon themselves to li
mit (or restrict) the Crawford's confrontational definition of
the term Testimonial, id. 227 S.W.3d at 418. Again and finally,
the Petitioner believes, that the United States Supreme Court did
not intend for their term, or definition to be limited or restri^-
cted to law enforcement based agencies only! Therfore, the Peti
tioner firmly stands on the fact that Riketta's statement to a
manager in the strip club environment fits into the definition of
testimonial. The Petitioner implores this Honorable Court to
rehear this question for review and grant this motion for rehear
ing at hand.
page 3
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Petitioner prays that this Honorable Court will grant
rehearing, and request for briefs on the merits-, or as rendered,
Tiwian Laquihrf Skiei
#01769917-Coffield
2661 FM 2054
Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884
Pro se.
INMATE DECLARATION
I, Tiwian Laquinn Skief, #01769917, being incarcerated in
the Coffield unit in Anderson County, Texas, delcares that the
foregoing is true and correct under the penalty of perjury.
Executed this day of November.17, 2015.
Tiwian
'iwian LaqiHrtfn
LaqiHrnn Skj
Sk
#01769917-Coffield
2661 FM 2054
Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884
Pro se.
PROOF OF MAILING
I, Tiwian Laquinn Skief, #01769917, have; placed this motion
for rehearing in the internal mailing system of the Coffield
unit in Anderson County, Texas, on November 17, 2015. This is
true and correct under the penalty of perjury. Executed this day
of November 17, 2015.
Tiwian Laquinn^Skief (y
#01769917-Coffield
2661 FM 2054
Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884
Pro se.
page 4
NO. PD-0655-15
TIWIAN LAQUINN SKIEF § IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
§
V. § APPEALS OE TEXAS AT
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN.
CERTIFICATION OF GOOD FAITH
COMES NOW, Tiwian; ILaquinn Skief, #01769917, certifies that
the foregoing motion for rehearing is done in good faith and not
for any kind of delay becuase the foregoing motion is so grounded
in the law, it requires for this Honorable Court to rehear Peti
tioner's case.
This is true and correct under the penalty of perjury. Exe
cuted on this day of November 17, 2015.
Tiwian Laqi
#01769917-Coffield
2661 FM 2054
Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884
Pro se.
Clerk of the Court of
Criminal Appeals at Austin
P.O. Box 12308,
Capitol Station,
Austin, Texas 78711 November 17, 2015
RE: Skief, Tiawian Laquinn; PD-0655-15;
COA No. 05-12-00223-CR; tr.Ct.No. F10-35936-L
Dear clerk of the Court,
Enclosed is a motion for rehearing on the above styled and
numbered cause. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted me the
ability to file a single copy on May 29, 2015. Please make and
provide the necessary copies to go to the required parties at
hkrid.
Thank you for all your time and help within this matter!
Respectfully
Tiwian Laquinn
#01769917-Coffield
2661 FM 2054
Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884
Pro se.
Cc: file
•*»"'
Tiwian L. Skief :;,*•>•»•*->„
#01^7 699.17-Cof fie Id
2661 FM 2054 •DALLAS IX 750 •of""*.**. ^°",1>"
Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884 . 39WOV2ai5:FM4 L
LEGAL MAIL!!
Clerk of the Court of
Criminal Appeals in Austin Texas
P.O. Box 12308,
Capitol Station
Austin, Tx. 78711
im..lii1!1i!Mill],||i.}..|.ii||i|il1'1'liii'illh'1','li"i'l'
37 i i 230S&8