I3H~(S
t^O .PD-0m~l5
ORIGINAL
COURT OV^ CR.IHIN*\L
APPEAL
OF Tex*\^
PHlLUP LfcO To q0jE.9> TR .
V
*be,Acosta,clerk
Perm^M \^ CAv\se. wo, 3(g\u> ^oh me
lOOAWtMSTtt\CT COURT OE Uft\.V- CQU,nAtm , Te*^ q, AnJI^
TY\E COURT OF AOPLACS POR. Tv\£ mi/D-r^J" ^ W
- - . 2^.
IPD^X Q* ^UTUOR.\t^s .... 3^
STftT*Mfc^T ?£G^RJD\*lOv G&AL ^RCiUM^T .... i .
ST«tua£.^T of Cfv^e ... ^,
ST^Te"T Dif1 P«icctbUR^\L w*>tq(V/. . .. 5,
GRDUMb tOR, R£UIC.W7 ... b .
G^vv^Tvotvi Tvjo »^&Kt\C> . .. . lo ,
RtAS3Ni FOR. REV i£w , ... Ip 7 ft ^ |0
U
Tbi^iTmj ot P^ku^
iWS^DisttUCT Court 3uoc\€
MftVJL COUWVf C,a MAW ST.
Suited ms^pvus ,TexHS ~m4 6
$GO VJtST AVENUE, fcOK I
sieves R, &ir,d
TRML LOUKl^et-
fip. fcox a«si
3ew\ ^, COURTS L~V/
3\3 SOUTH ^ULCV ST.
CXARJEvlfc^ fTEXAS* 1^'lX(*
|0I1 WEST 10lh
ftHAVUU£ TtWb 1 n 101
Counts of APPeaLS
£ AUTHQfc\TTL<=> P^Ge
STATE OF- Te*t\S
EXPWifc ftbAK"tft 5.w. 14 *8(T».CR\n^pp. wa^y ^
BxPQRTfc OftRMCM*, 18$ ^H 3d HiXCTek.CXih. ft PP. ioofe }, 7'
ExDarxe OMtJOT, 3oo S.w, 3d 7lo8 (Tex. CtClM, AOP. 100<0 . 7i
CLtvjtsv.srrvre" s,w,2j liu (tex,c«c\m, upp, look) ^ i0<
feX PRRTE DWKilELS, u stote:, 25 SVJ, 3cJ 8^3 (TfX, Cftl*v iH+*W, 206o} . ('o ,
bOUhiER lflquAMARllO€3MC.10\ $Vm, id 138.1iKtL(TEX . 1^85^ , 3,
UkJITieD States ^utho^it\£.s
U.S.V.1&GuiLAR.,lp4'& P.3d 3I%33C7 (*fr D*. 3,011) .
US. V. ftLVMRAoo-vnLDLX,5Xi ^34 337^41 (^CiR. .^ooft).
Cook v. He Kuhe(
313 F.3d 3a& Ao%R. loo^) •
CRAWFORD V.WASHINGTON,SMI \\% 30?
Tex .K. tvvb. ftoHto ,(*} % (fl
Tex. R. ^pp- P. 44.1(<0 q'
te^ *.*p0-p« i*^3'&UftE 0^ b^ieetlOKJ
RtVlEW \t\ THVS CASE, PER TUE- TlVibN^CVb ^
OOWMER V.?\qUAMa\\\^eO^V^TORS l^C.TOl S.W^d A38,^U-S1
ug>. v. bicks>oM k3^ p. §4 i$f\RM ren/vevj inj Response to th^ ^eve^tvi
LM5TR\CTS OPv^Hoa At^O "3uD6E»AE^T WHICH UpHE.Lt> TUE ftbTub\CK=mOKJ
OF PET\TVOK&>R K.G"UOtv) TO REVOKE U\«S PROfcflfUON Ort TWe ORA^iKiAL
Ct*^RQv.E ^f1 ^C-»GV?jc\\;aT^D ASSAULT UMTH DEiADL\{ V^e^PoM . POR U5VUCH
PeTnrlO^ER, V\«V?> ^>Gevi PUACGO O^ PEFSRR.£D ^t>3uCumTlONi ANiQ Pk^SE-SStb
A SEN* TERCEL b^ TVjeKJT <<( MEARS t^ TUG TeYf\<=» \}£P<\&TKG.Wyr OF CRvn^KlV^U
3^ST\CE
For co*jl>£«s\ie*kx petluo^er, phu_lip llo to^cestsl. iou_\_ &e
Referred to v\s PeTvTvovieR,AK>Ci the states " Te.x*\s P^oseavuoN wiel.
BR DEFERRED TO ASTUE STATE ALL OTHER PARUES A<^ tMT«4ESSES VOU-L
&E KiA«Ae^ AST^THE RECORDS, AL^O^OTE PETITIONER DOES KSOT HlWeTUE
Records inthc case he has ksot ea/e*i a,gen (Kweu a copm q*-the kst^o^
TO REVOKE, A^b tviOW RETeRRCO TO A KT.R,,
ST^TE\Ke^T ^r-THE Case.
PETITIONER W>¥\S CHARGED 6M GOHPlAVNt Mb INFORMATION VM HALL COUMt^/ TX .
£0R A FELoN^/ OFFENSE OP A(aC-xRAVATEb ASSAULT WITH A bt*DLV Uo^Potvi
PETmO^ER- FILED &N RA TUE "STATE, ^El\TvOM£R PL^A^ GUILW/ T0 Th£
offense io^ft ms placed on btFtRReb HtfruovoruoKi p«o^t\o^ for eight
\fE«\RS. THE STATE BLED A KT,R,f\LLRC\^NCWTAAT ^ETITVOKJER HAb Vlut-IVtek
TWO CGlSlbrUOM'b OF HIS PROBATION" (AND HVS PKQBATlO^ VOAS REVOKED ,
Petitioner Filed a^ appuoatvo^ for a^Outo^tvhe appeal qn the Ktjr..
AtOD APPEAL WAS C\RANTEL\ PETITIONER VSl\ WONORA^Ui. COURT
For a Review of v-us case: .
^STATEMENT b.F PPOCEDURKU RVSTARy
ON DECE«AGER \«S, ^Ol4 TlAG COURT UP APPEALS OPlNioN AFFvRnED THE. KT.R,
TUDQEHENT CAUSE Blclip. 0«^ ffcfcRMARV b, ^016 TAVS COURT GRANTED
pETmotvigRs PRO se M^yuo^i Vmdr an exTe^slo-m or-TvnR in k>h\cV\ to ^n_e
VUOES NOT
Cjb^TmN ENHANCE PROVING. THAT APPELLANT VIOLATED The CoNd\-H0NS OF
HAS PROPjAT^Otsi ^MTHe PREPQNOERA^CE OF THE EVIDENCE A^iD
QUESTIONS AS FOLLOWS,
6)UEST\ON QUE! bECAUSE PETITIONERS KT.R^WASHaseO ON A^ ALLEGATION 0^
SlHPLE ASSmuT.HE WAS PoR^ALLV/CHARGED fcVIwFORnAT\0^ K^G WORSTED.
WAS PETLUONERS RvuHTS To ATURVf Te\AL,\H0UVTEtf WHEN Tt\E STATE
CWQSE TO fclSHlSS THE ^SDG^AEANORs ASSAUCT ALLEGQlvON AND PROCEED
LOlTA THE tAT.R. WHQUT THE ^LLCGeO VlCTtn KiOR THE C&VAPLA\nA^T
AS W^T^ESS^ AT THE HT.R >UEAR^G , (\LrtDER STATE LAW \ ?
QUESTION, TWO t &\0 THE STATE VIOLATE THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE AA| FRTL\N6
IN AVG^0D FAITH EFFORT To PRODUCE EVIDENCE K)HM TUE ALLEGE \MCTm
UORENHO ANiD THE COMPLAINANT (oFRCER POWELL \ bib MOT APPEAL FOR
the h.t.r. ?roceed\nc\ , a^d
Question Three : was The evidence \n tvus cas&
c^. ^0 weak asto he cuea^l^ loronq, or manifestly un3ust? or
QhX ViAS TUt FlNblNE OF VITAL FACT So CONTRARY To THE GfcEAT WEAGiHT AND
preponderance of the evidence to re clearly/ v^ro^gi?
Reason por Review
pLAWi ERROR", ARRVVEWXNCt COURT H^M GRANT REUEF- fWpLA\N e.«.ROR''
RNJEVi Vf THE "ERROR VO*S NOT \RA^SEO A^b PRESERVED . IF THE ERRoRv ^
CEEAR ANOOG>NMOUC>.^Ee»
PUEKETT V>U.S. SSL? ^>. W\ , 133 (ZQQ^ ) ,ALSO SEE,
(p.
U.SV,t>tcKS^N^32.F.^ lfr»,m(6*Wi/MlV:us VMCC4KJN U3 E -U
H8U S03fe^QRAOIOV AM b IP TUE PlAHi ERROR. AFFECTED THE PlAW ERROR
To &E Assessed &4 CotiSMLTirtO, the uhole record. See
US.V, AGUILAR^S F.34 31^,3X1 fe*hUR,aou\
L^DCR TEXAS RULES OF APP. P. HU A(*\ IF U F\ViDS THAT PET L\VOMERS
Substantial Raghts wwe been) violated \f The errors'seriouslv
affects The fairness,Ik)Tegr.\tv. OR PutiucRCPutatvom of judicial
PROCEEDIHQ^.TH^ COURT KUST K£VERSt THE 3i\bC\t¥CNT uF ADJUDICATION
Back to progatio^, Id.Auvula^.uh^ f,3ci, aisq sfx , U5S v. harchs ,no
Ttus Court umll Find Plain error uuere the KTR-- Proceeds Ci
AFFECTED P£TYT\oV)eRS CO^TVTUTlOWAL. RVGuTS To A FAIR Pact TlNDvNQ
process, That the swe ad^htted thpkoper hearsay EvibeNEE
Ui^bEK The" CRAVORORD STANDARD, SEE iRAWFoR£> v RlAgatK\rnTON'f5q[ us.
3>u Cc^faoK )tTms court has adopted this standard itf cuewis v, ^Tme
5111 S,w,Xc\ igip (tex.cw.APP. 1^4^,stating
THE STATE ACVkIAMG CARRIES The RURbEt^
OF PKOOF" To FSTASUSR THE ElEHENT uT A CRlKE
AT TtiAL.AMD &PPEUantS POVnTS OT ERROR CRAUENQ1NG7
The SuPFtciENCv of the evidence useo to estahush the
element (opthe cuapGeb CFPense could cla\h vjas so
ViEAK TO BE FACTUAL \NSUFF\CtEt4T Id . CUENISJ t 1A, S.W JLc/
AT UB .
TUts Court w^lefind puun error \«^ prosecutorial hiscowduct,
£4 blSMlSSlNG THE HVSDE^ANOR PAnvc^l VIOLENCE CHARCc TO GO TO
TWE M.TR, PROC^EDVnG UNCfcP. AUESSER EuRDEN ^F PROOF UHTHOUT
A-75UR4 .
1
