Nowlin, Olin Ray ( 2014 )

:IN '.'THE .'CRI'MINAL' 'C:OtJRT·~·c;,p·:·APPEALS
P.O, BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
OLIN RAY NOWLIN
TDCJ-ID# 824386
APPLICANT/PRO SE
RECE\VED lN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OEC 31 2014
vs.
Abel Acosta, Clerk
THE STATE OF TEXAS
RESPONDANT
MOTION FOR OBJECTIONS
TO THE STATE REPLY
(A)
IL~ THE COURT OF C~IMINAL APPEALJNfJ010©JfM lDJ~WfO/E[D
P,O, BOX 1203 CAPITOL STATION {[J~if~- (-q}-
15
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 IBJV:_rE ._,
OLIN RAY NOWLIN § C~2~0I0347~0628183-E
APPLICANT/PRO SE §
§
vs,
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
RESPONDANT
A MOTIONFFpR OBJECTIONS
TO THE STATE REPLY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
NOW COME SAID APPLICANT OLIN RAY NOWLIN/PRO SE IN THE ABOVE
SYLED NUMBERED C-2~010347-0628183-E AND REPECTFULLY SUBMI~S
HIS MOTION OF OBJECTION TO THE STATE REPLY.~APPLICANT FILES
WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY~ON ·RECORD AND WILL REPECTFULLY SHOW
THE'COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS THE FOLLOWING REASON:
(1 )
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT HE FILED A MOTION FOR A SUBPONA ;.
DUCES TECUM THE STATE WITNESS PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE OF CRI~
MINAL PROCEDURE ARTILE 24.02, THE CR[MINAL DISTRICT COURT,
NO. #2 REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE STATE WIT~ESS ARE ANY EVIDENCE
OF THE SUBPONA DUCES TECUM QFrTHE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS &
WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE ANY R8LING OF THE TRIAL
COURT THE APPLICANT SAK THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO~ #2
FOR· IDENTITY OF THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS THE APPLICANT REQUES~-
2D FOR DOCUMENTATIONS. SUCH AS 1) BIRTH CERTFICATE: AND 2)i f•-.· c
AFFIDAVIT UNDER OATH OF SIGNATURE:l'NOT OBJECTING TO THE STATES EVIDENCE THAT
WAS NOT ALLOW PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES ~PPELANT PROCEDURE RULE
30 (b) (7)
~= 1 (3) . THE STATE ~TATES THAT T~E APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DE~
NIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT FULLY INVE-
STIGATION HIS CASE:
APPLICANT OBJECT: NOT TURE
THE; APPLICANT. CLAIMs-· .L THAT; ~;THE,:::· 'GRAND JURY DID ITS INVESTI- ··.. · ..
GATION AND FOUND NO EVIDENCE OFi'THIS:~STAirE WITNESS AS IN EXHIBIT
(b)
(4). THE STATE STATES THAT THE APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DENIED ,
HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION:
..!.J {t.-•
APPLICANT DOES NOT OBJECT:
APPLICANT CLAIMS THA~ HE HAS A RIGHT TO FACE HIS ACCUSERS AND
TO SEE IF THEY ARE REAL BY NOT SUBPONA DUCES'::TECtJM "THE '.:"-~!:.T..ff.E:SS .:
IDHAT~WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE HAD ANY RULING OF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BEFORE THE JURY IS A VIOLA-
TION OF THE APPLI~ANT TEXAS AND~FEDERAL COUNSTITUTIONALS A-
MENDMENTS RIGHTS 6th/5th/14th.
AR