Washington, Timothy James ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • No. 33701
    1
    Ex Parte § In The 13th deicial
    § District Eourt of
    Timothy James washington § Navarro Eounty, Texas
    F%E©EWED UN
    APPLIEA'NTS oBJEcTIUNs vm FINDINGS -nigogrzr;°ATc@FCRH\/JBNALAPPEALS
    ‘ AND CUNCLUSIUNS UF LAU JUL ?<‘z§%
    At®@l#d©@§ta,©fl@r&<
    Erounds Une and Two ,
    Findings 13 and 14:
    (A)
    1.)
    2.>
    3.)'
    (E)
    2.)
    (E)
    Applicant objects to findings 13 and 1& on grounds that:
    Edward Strange at no time, either prior to trial or during trial,
    identified the Applicant as the "black male passenger" Strange
    /
    claimed to have seen inside of Eorman's trwck;
    Un the morning of the burglary Edward Strange saw Applicant in
    Applicants yard speaking with police whom had Gorman detained in
    Applicants yard and Strange never mentioned to.either of the
    several officers he was interviewed by that a black male was
    invo]A/ed ir1 any rnanner. (5ee-Applicants Memorandum3 pgs. 3-5).
    Police left Applicants residence withnut arresting Applicant
    following their interviews with Edward Strange. (Id.)
    Findings 15, 16, and 17:
    Applicant objects to findings 15, 16 and 17 on grounds that:
    Edward Strange admitted that it was possible for Eorman to move
    the safe by himself; (3 RR 115);
    Eorman told Deputy Bailey that he used a piece of carpet to move
    the safe to his trucl<. (L+ RR 25) (SEE-State's E>541 U.S. 36
    ,BB (2004);
    3.) Conclusion 13 (c) is contradicted by the evidence and the law.
    Telling the jury that: 5
    "[Applicant]is trying to deny responsibility. And he's trying to
    avoid any kind of consequences by threatening to harm Eobby Eorman
    or his family. I'm going to ask you, danlt;let'that guy get away
    with two crimes by committing another one.". (5 RR 560 Constitutes
    unfair prejudice that.substantially outweighed any probative_value.
    (5ee Basey.v. 5tate{_215’5.w. 3d 070 (Tex. Brim. App. 2007) see also 1 ``
    l 01d Chief V.'United States, 519 0.5. 172 (1997).
    (F) EDnclusion of Law 16
    Applicant objects to conclusion of law 16 on grounds that:
    1.) The conclusion is contradicted by the objective record. The evidence
    concerning the alleged threat made by Applicant through a third party
    was introduced to prove the truth of the threats: "[Applicant] is
    trying to deny responsibilityx And he's trying to avoid any kind of
    consequences by threatening to harm Bobby Gorman or his family."
    (5 RR 56).
    ' wherefore,``Premises CGnsideredy the habeas trial courtls findings and
    Conclusions should be rejected, and relief should be granted based on
    the facts contained in the objective record, the evidence presented
    by Applicant, and the prevailing law of the Eourt of Eriminal'Appeals
    and the.U.S: Supreme Court. '
    Dated: JUlV 291 2015 t b"V/’Z}l‘%i
    Timothy.James washington
    EERTIFICATE 0F SERVIBE
    l hereby certify that I mailed a true and correct copy of-the foregoing
    to the Navarro Eounty District Attorney's office by mailing such to his
    normal mailing address. /
    names ;luly 20, 2015 `` by;_ _ 7
    `` l Timothy James washington
    TDEJ‘#_01764357
    Eastham Unit
    2665 Prison Road #21
    Lovelady,"Texas
    75051-5609
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WR-83,612-01

Filed Date: 7/23/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016