David James Chapman v. State

Opinion

Dew 1a Cofa$> CWa^fvoA X tov/ft oflwrnb Qcuot/ -. TgXO^ ^fencb.nt^;;!^^ in fimlra. \b~Tir& HonofaGieTuioe, of 8&Td CoufS-: Coffl?S onuh fb^r} HarQgS C-hg^rmg Qeftytfaft £pg^ Tn?) Orfrlrm rO honing. anfi-^Ccy^ £btj?y, mows nndv,:9n->sR -fors cojPHd .State Of igXQfvQH ftF J-H2. Sfc^eS (ATftflBSpS, to re-Hetin-Wcm rryrnan-nq •or rxgaPSStYnQ fo -hoe. Uteres vtoirrfifo on-ft/or offihtor Stovhgmgms "fe tn£?ifxv 6v 6cestinn^iiTu^r

-feviovo^QQ -facts g^T"^F 71 Arty fejCdcJt of y>nbr Cfi^npyl ArCP^T MovCh

Sfa M ^re defe^nt -Mer CoS^ holaJ oemlro ooTnRtk FILEBriN "hog, r^fendo/rV 1ST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON. IbXAS

JUN -S2°15 "0P/T/jfT CHHISTQPHjR CLERK LN presence

H Th^gxrstQPoeDFoiny rteoffi c3n£i£ifaffr- ivfcfeQCft TnCKdJm any rtgnS -firm-fae OlietfH Car (y^hTCK ^f&ndonj- alleged

Af custody iTS Qsdfe|UQl€\y estebi^vfe-i zs he Stq^mzov 6y -fne pfo^qjfAp tefrsa

C& 6toaJ5e^TH ij^ytR .CcgfE^ pca^flirtvhn in .. . i ... — -- . ,.. - . • -.,,... - - Jafftfrtfj Tip, [

jTx^gajfor -frvaft Sicx-V^ UJvSh^J&n^jg

\\bS>eeufton ;WffiCsV o>v^x>CV^^>€