SMITHWICK, ROY LOUIS Jr. ( 2015 )

aw-a Rov L. Smithwick, .Tr. TDCJ#62281.4 McConnell 3001 S. Emilv Dr. Beeville, Tx. 78102 RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Court of Criminal Appeals ATTN: Clerk Capitol Station MAY 06 2015 P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Tx. 78711-2308 RE: Questions/Justification Dear Clerk/ In Ex Parte Robbins, (73,484-02) the Criminal Court of Appeals (CCA) Stated: "This Court may consider a subsequent application only if 'the current claims and issues have not been and could not have been presented previously in an original application or in a previously considered application filed under this article because the factual or legal basis for the claim was unavailable on the date the applicant filed the previous application—'" "As stated previously/ "'(In Robbins)"NO ' NEW FACTUAL BASIS for the claim have emerged since the applicant filed his original application. The question remains whether the enactment of 11.073 created a NEW LEGAL BASIS for the claim." The Criminal Court of Appeals found that: "Article 11.073 provides a NEW LEGAL BASIS ofr Habeas relief in the small number of cases where the applicant can show by the preponderance of evidence that he or she would not have been convicted if the newly available scientific evidence had been presented at trial." The CCA Previously specifically addressed "Robbins'" cited Errors, but REDRESSED the same errors under Article 11.073.' s NEW LEGAL BASIS. The Jury did not have the New Scientific testimony to consider from the States witness that Discredited the relied upon original Trial Testimony.. LIKEWISE: In Ex Parte Smithwick (WR-29,892-21) he has DISCREDITED the Scientific testimony with expert Affidavits/Testimonials like 'Robbins' did that show the State relied upon Science that is NO-LONGER SOUND and was unavailable to the Jury to base their decision. 1. NO FACT FINDING: The Trial Court upon being presented such issues of evidence should have at the minimum developed the Records with a Findings of Facts to address the issues, but did not. This left the CCA with an Undeveloped record to consider the NEW LEGAL BASIS. The Records provided by Ex Parte SMITHWICK in his last Writ Application are un-refutable and have not been refuted by the State. > The Scientific Expert Trial Testimony relied upon innacurate scientific data. >The States own Prosecutor stated he was going to prove his case RELYING UPON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, z—>THAT IS NOW DISCREDITED. l.The Facts of Records met the requirements of Art. 11.073 --being that the Scientific Testimony relied upon by the State has been Discredited and the Jury did not have Accurate Scientific Information to base their Decision.—>How can the claims be denied without a Developed Record establishing a Findings of Facts to negate the claims for the Appeals Court to Review and base a Decision??? 2.The Facts of Record show Smithwick did not have the "LEGAL BASIS" previously of Article 11.073 to review the claims, just as ROBBINS did not have the New Legal Basis available.-->How can Smithwick be denied the same opprotunity for Review without a Developed Record establishing facts to negate the claims??? 3.How can Discredited Scientific testimony relied upon by the State continue to maintain a Conviction without a Developed Findings of Facts considering Accurate Scientific information that was not available to the Jury for their Decision??? Will you please answer these questions or take appropriate action that will estabishc a developed Record of Facts citing areas for support to.deny SMITHWICK review under the NEW LEGAL BASIS previously UNAVAILABLE. Thank you for your time and attention. Roy L. Smithwick, Jr j^l-l*