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.
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
(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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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.
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
(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
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