Estrada, Mark Anthony v. State

IH THE
TEXAS COURT OFF' CRIMINAL APPEALS,
AUSTIN,TEXAS. November 18, 2015
IH RE ESTRADA, §
PETITIONER
VS § CAUSE NO. PD-0726-15
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION /MHEA"C"^
--- ^ ^
COMES NOW HARK ANTHONY ESTRADA, Petitioner in the above styled
cause to present this his Motion for recons ideration/reTfi^rMl^Kof
his DNA Petition for Discretionary review and in support states
the following?
I
Petitioner timely filed his DNA Petition f6r Discretionary
review on August 19,2015 and on November 4, 2015 this court refused
it without explanation. Petitioner is a layman to the-law and he t'S
left with the question as to why it was refused by this court and
if the Court of Criminal Appeals even reviewed it.
Petitioner raised several questions of law as to whether the
13th Court of Appeals decision to deny Estrada's Appeal was
diametriealy opposed and contrary*to previous holdings of other
court of-appeals as well as rulings-of this Court of Criminal Appeals
as applied to DNA evidence. Petitioner cited several standing caselaw
to support his claim that his issues that were presented to this court
that pertain to DNA evidence are similar in nature where DNA testing
was granted by this honorable court.
II
Petitioner described facts in evidence that deal with DNA that -•*•'
were inconcluesive as to the identity of those items in evidence
in which the petitioner gave a theory to support his claim of an
"unknown intruder" who left his/her DNA at the scene during the
attack and murder of the victim. Dr. Harry J. Bonnell, a pathologist
in San Diego, CA. reviewed the entire record and the DNA lab reports
and concluded that the DNA in blood found at the scene could well
have been left by the victims attacker, acording to the victims
wounds as he describes in his affidavit. Dr. Bonnell also stated that
the items in DNA should be retested as there are now newer methods.
1.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner does not know as to why his DNA Petition for
Discretionary>review has been refused-'by this court, as he has
prepared and presented a Petition as well as he could according to
the law. Petitioner stated the~-facts in evidence that was before the
court and cited caselaw that shows that DNA testing was granted as
where those cases were similar in nature. Petitioner presented a
affidavit from a well creditable Pathologist with a plethora amount
of experiance, where the doctor states that the DNA in evidence
should be retested and gives his expert^opinion as to why.
PRATER
Petitioner prays that his Motion for reconsideration/rehearing1
be granted and that his DNA Petition for Discretionary Review be
heard or presented to the Judges of this Court of Criminal Appeals.
Petitioner also prays that this Court grant his Petition, where he
has shown that his DNA Motions should have been granted by the 13th
District Court of Appeals as well as the Trial court, based on previous
court rulings where the issues are similar in nature as they pertain
to the evidence in DNA and it's identity.
ResD^ctfully Submitted,
MM^a^estrada
TDCJ # 1568684
McCONNEL UNIT
3001 SOUTH EMILY'DRIVE
BEEVILLE,TX. 78102
C??IIIICAIE_pF_SERVICE^
I, MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA, d~o certTfy that a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Motion fbr recosideration/rehearing has been mailed
in the prison mailbox^with first class postage pre-paid toi
ABEL ACOSTA-CLERK OF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINSL APPEALS, P.O. BOX
12398, CAPITAL STATION, AUSTIN,TX. 78711.
MARK ANTHONY ESTRADA
TDCJ # 1568684
McCONNEL UNIT
3001 SOUTH EMILY DRIVE
BEEVILLE,TX. 78102
$0U. I2,£dt"*
MR. ABEL ACOSTA - CLERK
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
P.O.BOX 12398
CAPITAL STATION
AUSTIN,TX. 78711
LEGAL MAIL
LEGAL MAIL
tt:j:30» SODS ''i'if»'l''iJ'l''IIJ'l'Ml«»"»'iJ|!'.||j'lii'.»'Jl»..//J./J.i./