Beeson, Daryl Lee

Opinion

m ?5l-0l

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Att: Abel Acosta* Clerk February 3, 2015 P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 78711

Re: SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CAUSE NO. ll-04-0468r6-CR-(l) COUNTS I AND II

Dear Mr. Acosta,

Enclosed please find Applicant's Pro Se Motion Requesting Leave To File A Supplement To The Original Applications For Writ Of Habeas Corpus/ that was filed on Dec. 22,' 2014/ with the 221st Judicial District Montgomery County/ Texas.'Applicant has filed this same motion with the lower court but does not

know ,if the clerk of that court has forwarded said motion to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Please file said motion and present it to the Court/ thank you for your effective assistance in this matter.

Respectfully submitted/

/s/ £fc t-UUL**^-

DARYL LEE BEESON #1788958 Michael Unit

2664 FM 2054

Tennessee Colony/ Texas 75886 RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

FEB 12 2015

I.L.A.

WRIT NO.

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 11-04-04686-CR-(1)

COUNTS I AND II

EX PARTE § IN THE COURT OF §

DARYL LEE BEESON, § CRIMINAL APPEALS APPLICANT § § AUSTIN, TEXAS

PRO SE MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE A SUPPLEMENT TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (11.07)

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW DARYL LEE BEESON/; pro se Applicant, requesting leave to supplement the applications for writ of habeas corpus that was filed in the above-styled and numbered cause to show this Honorable Court the further details of the circumstances of this cause.

I.

The Applicant has. not been notified of a ruling from the Court to date and therefore, submits this supplement to the applications for writ of habeas corpus and is timely filed.

II. NATURE OF THE CASE

The Applicant was charged by indictment with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of --r child/ alleged to have occurred on or about January 24, 2011. The Applicant pled "Not Guilty" but a jury found him guilty as charged and assessed his punish ment at life imprisonment in each count. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively.

III. REQUESTED SUPPLEMENTS OF THE CLAIMS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REAISED ON DIRECT APPEAL

GROUND RTMte:

(1)

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO RAISE A MERITORIOUS CLAIM OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND ALSO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL

GROUND TEN:

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR HIS FAILURE TO RAISE THE TRIAL COURT'S ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ADMITTING HEARSAY VIDOTAPED INTERVIEW

GROUND ELEVEN:

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; OF APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR HIS FAILURE TO RAISE THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATING APPLICANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY DENYING HIS MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

GROUND TWELVE-

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR HIS FAILURE TO RAISE THE TRIAL COURT'S CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION"

IN ADMITTING CELL PHONE PHOTOGRAPHS

Applicant is requesting this Court for leave to add these grounds that are listed above into the already filed applications for writ of.habeas, corpus not to change or take away from these said writs, with the cause number ll-04-04686-CR-(1).

IV. THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED Applicant is not filing this motion to delay but for the admin- stration of justice. Applicant is proceeding pro se in this matter/ without assistance of professional counsel. He has no formal training in law, and has limited access to the Unit Law Library for puroses of reseaching. relevant laws dealing with this case. Therefore, Applicant moves this Honorable Court to review the allegations in this pleading under the standard of review established by the United State Supreme Court in HAINES V. KENNER, 404 U. S. 519,92 S-.Ct. 594,30 L.Ed2d 652(1972).

If this Court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid cause of action' upon which litigant could prevail it should do so despite failure to cite proper authority, confusion of legal theories, or a litigant's unfimliarity with pleadings requirments. BUSH V. U.S. 823 F.2d 909.910(5th Cir-1987).

(2)

V. PRAYER

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS/ and for the reasons stated in the applic ation for writ of habeas corpus/ DARYL LEE BEESON# respectfully Request that this Honorable Court grant Applicant's Pro Se Motion requesting Leave To File A Supplement To The Original Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus.

VI. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on February 3/ 2015/ a Pro Se Motion Requesting Leave To File A Supplement To The Original Application For Writ Of Habeas Corpus/ has been forwarded to Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals at P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711, by U.S. Mail.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/

DARYL LEE BEESON #1788958 ,-\ Michael Unit

2664 FM ;2'054

Tennessee Colony, TX. 75886

I.L.A.

(3)

WRIT NO.

TRIAL CAUSE NO. 11-04-04686-CR-(1)

COUNTS I AND II

EX PARTE § IN THE COURT OF . §

DARYL LEE BEESON, § CRIMINAL APPEALS APPLICANT § § AUSTIN, TEXAS

ORDER OF THE COURT

On ' this the day . of , , came to be heard Applicant's Pro Se Motion Requesting Leave To File A Supplement To The Original Applications For Writ Of Habeas Corpus, in the

above-styled and numbered cause, 'and it appears to the Court that this motion should be granted.

SIGNED ON THIS-THE DAY OF ,2015.

/s/

JUDGE PRESIDING

I.L.A.

(4)

CROKNDMNE:

TNESFECHFjyS^ ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR HIS FAILURE

TO RAISE A MERITORIOUS CLAIM OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND ,.-' ALSO HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE: Applicant's appellate counsel was 'ineffective; for fai.lipqg

to raise .a.meritorious claim of Applicant's Due Process Rights ,of .the Fifth Amendment and. also,,his. constitutional Right

••of. counsel that were violated during a custodial interroga

tion... with Detective Funderburk. Applicant's testimony and

...in the. .taped interview,, it is clear he invoked, his right to counsel and to terminate the interview, each time he

would invoke those righ,ts the Detective would get-up and

leave closing the door and leaving Applicant with1 the feeling

Of being, flocked-in. If the accused indicates in any manner

tnat-.. ne wishes ,.to .. reaiiw-silent or to consult an attorney, interrogation must cease, and any statement obtained from

Jiim may not'be admitted against him at trial. Thus, violati ng

14 id)

mv. mmm

APJP l i c a n t ' s Fifth, Fourteenth and h is Six th Ame ndment Rig ht

to counsel.

SEE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, GROUND ONE:

15-(d)

Rey;,tlZl4/l-4;

GROUND: ten : INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR HIS FAILURE TO RAISE THE TRIAL COURT'S ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ADMITTING HEARSAY VipOTAPED INTER¥IEWi

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: 1 Appellate counsel was ineffective for his failure to raise

trial court.'s clear abuse of discretion in admitting a hearsay

videotaped ..-.interview o.f .the complainant.. The, trial court

admitted into evidence a prior videotaped interview of the

complainant. The videotaped interview was inadmi s'sible hearsay

which was not subject to any applicable exception. ...Therefore,

the videotaped interview was inadmissible hearsay that should

npt:- have been- admitt'ed.':, The admission of the videotaped

interview strongly increased .the weight and belieyability

of the, complainant's testimony, to show that Applicant threat-

ed ,her with death or serious.;body injury as alleged in the

jindictment. Such consistent testimony bolsters the complain

ant's live testimony- at trial. Therefore, the admission

T4 (e)

Rev. 01/14/14

of the, videotaped interview was harmful to the Applicant

at trial. Without doubt a clear abuse of discretion is shown

by_ the trial court in allowing the videotaped interview

to be presented to the jury.

SEE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, GROUND TflD:

1$ (e)

Rev. 01/14/14

'GROUND:: ELEVEN [ INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF APPELLATE COUNSEL FOR HIS FAILURE

TO RAISE THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATING APPLICANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY DENYING HIS MOTION FOE CONTINUANCE.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: Applicant's appellate counsel was ineffective for his failure

to raise trial court denying his motion for continuance, based

on a. need. ..for .-more time to investigate the .evaluation of <

.the complainant's mental state, due to her having "Multiple

Personalities".and to assist the preparation and presentation

of his defense. Here in the case at bar, the complainant

described a girl named "Emily" who exists inside her head

who she has 7 known forever and who talks to her and tells

her what to do and also gets mad at her if she doesn't do

as "Emily" tells her to do. One of the elements of the offense

was about whether or . not a, threat was made, the defense

heeded more time to find out, to what extent has "Emily"

been persuading or has been influencing Bethany Cochran,

U (f)

Rev. 01/14/14

the complainant in this case. The trial court denied the

motion for continuance/ due to the fact it was the defense's

third one/ and in doing so denied the Applicant sufficient

time for him to effectively use this information in his

defense, thus, denying Applicant's due process rights, and

denying him of effective assistance of counsel.

SEE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR HABEAS CORPUS, GROUND THREE:

is; (f)

Rev. 01/14/14

GROUND: TWELVE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OFlAPPELLATE COUNSEL FOR HIS FAILURE

TO RAISE THE TRIAL COURT'S CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION '__ IN ADMITTING CELL PHONE PHOTOGRAPHS

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND: These photographs were presented by Sergeant Funderburk who is.

not a expert in cell phone.or computer recovery/ nor did he

remove these photos from the cell phone. The admissibility

of these photos was objected to by counsel and is as follows:

"Again/ Your Honor, we are going to re-urge our previous object

ion to the admissibility of the photographs. Even in the punish ment phase of the.trial, they are — the search was conducted

in violation of my client's privay rights and were on his

phone. And any evidentiary value, probative value is far out

weighed-, by the danger of prejudice. And also relevance. Your

Honor/ relevance to what happen,in this, case ..They are photog

raphs- depicting -- firstof all/ there is no evidence that

the, photographs involved himat all. Number two, there is

no .evidence that the -photographs depict anything other than 14 (g)

Rew01i:4/14

consensual adult activity. And there is nothing; — these are

not bad acts. There is nothing unlawful about what is depicted.

And. since ,theys depict consensual adult activity, they have

no relevance in this case." (RR Vol.VII.pg.20). Applicant

contends that these photos were erroneously admitted into

evidence. There was no foundation laid for the photos/ they

were not properly authenticated, they had no relevance other

than.,_to prove character conformity, and the danger of unfair

prejudice arising from the admission of the photos substantially

outweig.hed any probative value they might have had. See TEX.R.

EVID.403,404(b) ,901. The general rule.,,, a photo is admissib.leM <£

it is relevant to, the material issue and is an accurate repre

sentation of its, subject as to a given time. The trial court

decision to admit these phojtos was a, clear abuse of discretion.

Appellate counsel's failure to raise this issue was a violation

of Applicant's Sixth Amendment Right.

15: (g)

Rev, mmM