Fred Yaz.d\ T.D-C.T. #oi8Ul^ Ellis W*t 1^7 f m i&o rWWille^Tx TMH3 M«g3o,"i* His, L»VuU IcttiKaacr-R^^^t rYKorneij &Coartselor at LauJ \\oz Naeces AastM.Tx ^7o(
of Vg;lU««S0A County «,_,,_ ftof9+-CR/^^«D *TWj (W of Appeals Cause Ho. : 03- / mHm .t>ecir m Hs\ T V « • » Icermcuxer-KawireE ^^ —-^ As tjou. are auiare by tVie Copij of m Maq 04, 2oi5"^ Motto* to extend T7*ie -For FiUg ttte Appellants Kepl^J Sn'et3 HvaT u^s wailed fe the "tturj brief, (as I had predated to m^ Tanuarif 0^2015", Utter mailed fo t|dU bif Certified Mait, tkj/ ctrgaed "Hie so-called YoUNGBLOOD standard of the need to shou; some 'fea^ Esiik'by the Laui U&ccewetff). Kls\ Iceflhaaer-Rav/uVez ?through one of tjour responses to w^ iMu/cwertVia and steadfast" declarator to you. that I am iVmoc£)it of charge of ^lurde^and tfcat 1was wrortcffully charged artd Conv/icted office same91V1 no uncertain terms, tfou niade tt clear to nfle houl lc#le credence UOU afforded rt\e9 and td tf1(/ appellate cause, fcy stating, "shooing aman iVi the back is riotselfdefense.H Wift all due respect, I fed .'t necessarcj to state that otvioasltj djoa toere not present on loca tion at the moment that I wjas -forced to -fite ml( a^apotf because had tfou tee*? there, Vjott uJoaU cectauilij knou) that I did wot shoot tAe assailartt/nfrudW iVt Ik back. Furthermore please be aaWj that aperson's todcf dees not remain still^artd changes posifron(V) as he/she rjefs shot, especiajli/ ku the ^ery po»Wi| Uf7 ♦ fO caliber projectiles. This is par+calarty the case uuhen tte person shot Is in a-fast mov/ing/rotatina moto/i situated on top ofaHfoot kiistr.ct /tftorneys office to hav/e tdewt to e\/e^ appoint me a Court /IppoiViteJ appellate Attorney Had \tnot Wn for the efforts of Mr. tfampWi, one of my trials paTtf defense lawyers, ar\d the Honorable vfsifiVuy Ja^ge Burt Richard son, toho had beetf assigned mi| vert/ niah profile case ta>mina fVcvvt ouisiAe of COilUamsort Countcj, th«.s appeal's process vOoulA hav/e Uen Uj extinguished ^ Vie Wi'lUnaM Counts judccVal authorities. But as reluctant as uon mad fee to tffficfVelif <««t me, «>»»£* WsW*- nl(f W«* t> begwty of ArJer.l as/c tfou for ffce sate of «jf to tfoa.j sis, ages 13 a*4 \\ «e«)> please kelp tdfs [00/o DfsabU Veferaff of fte Arixed FSrces of the Urn fed Stales, M ser*J 4«erf« «ditt Wor to be mtf effect.Ve adv/ocafe, as If is flour prafessfonal
rffc, Uml febitlto *prfir-. astyle wl-U-Ary WW «J ph f;*t ted of J U<* W «tn( cU.(^t«* W ™«J*««#• "M w*t fte stfitem of jtffe to beta* Mft* crf« «*« L.*5%*« W«« c^-exa^a^-^^IU^ that U^AiAnot k,o^ ^^e^ika to o\fcn o of 7 those and other exculpatory evidences, (BAD FAITH) Well, I kriou whu they went out of thtir tOacf to describe aManj tcana
3bfot/Wt as a"Rolled up C^arefe/ Wty /Wti* police detectives cUumed Mtheu 4iled to fingerprint aJ p«U print ^ homes front entry d^r, If a reasonable jurist does v\ot believe that AustVs police veteran hotniade deT- ectiy/es animus touwd wie, av\ IRANIAN, Man^thiVij to do a>Vtfi if^en allou) meio sawst denying the defendant the Legal Cafak'X&u to argue me protections afforded to Texas honeomecs, and o^Bier^, bjj tfe "Texas legislature, in the 2oo7expanded CASTLE DOCTRINE ladas an addiWa/ motVe, One ma.t( Sai/ "Hiatal of this »s pare specaUtiotf on ma part, l^oes r\u.s\*A TolCce Department «3ant a reasonable jurist "to i>e(as destroyed, mak^ ^ unavailable -for the defeaW to We it tested ?(£Af> F/tfTtj). 4 reasonabk misX can cWta;artd objecKveli/ find a pattern df CowGertecf effort by fee detect'ves a*J Investigate to hfcfe exculpatory euidenceO)^rc^ me, the IRftNlflN JUManJ^ Ms. Icenhauer-1Wez, I fcofe that $>* are ""*% ^ f'*ce cf°*r erroneous personal -fee/iVia^) as.de,aboat mtj g*1'"", anbhzlp me ooift fte essential,and mucti needed, Appellants Repu/ Brief f* order to etfectVe^ represent wtf mtferest£s) as tjour court-appointed client, J i^l'^e thai c level of harm that I Suffered from *a 5"Ue 'ftcWjson s uv^liVujness 3of7 to pro^tJe %e SpoKafto* of evidence irtstructfort f° "Hiejur^, is mere
that just"some" kurmj it .Venous," So* uppUWe research foot m^ a*fstfl.« «M «* **«&&,«J macb needed,, Appellants ReplcJ Brief t QAccocJhVw to the United States Supreme Court * 'Arguments of Counsel cannot substitute fir instructions fctf the Court, Taylor v. kentucty , 436 d£ *7S, . ®Accordina to the Court ot CriVufnal /4ppea(s 6T Texas i Juru argument «"s not a substitute for a yroper [art/ cnaroe, /Une v. Stoic, ^/ s^2j 3
^ad faith entails some sortof improper motive, such as persona/aniVws agaiVist the defendant or adesire t* prevent the defendant -fro« okfaiVunj evidence that wigfct be aseU £x parte Napper, 321 S». 3
We first consider rthetter flic trial Court Com^ted cW erroras aslant asserts. Noo * Shte, ifSSM3d 73* SWU^e-fiVhJ error, u*. then determine wMter mellmt y*x hawed to a decree u>arra«tc«fr Wtrsal, Alrtaitza v. State, 686 £U/. 2J /57. In the-face ot* proper objection to charge error j, u)e u)UI rt\>trse onu^^J ** SoMe har^t to the defendant Id. Absent aprefer objects , "* reverse onlj if the. record sU ihe defendant sasW 'fejr^yous har^'ll W*5 U* resulls^m cW error that affects the venf basis of the c«se, delves *ede4jcmt ota \telualole rfaht or vita Ik affects ade-fens.Ve theort/. J *of? J Stuhfcr v. State, 2|g 5,1a/, 3d 70^ If voe -frud charge error, the ejrejious tiarw analysis reamres u;e consider the entire jury charge,, the sfefe of the eMro«e that Ue State acted in bad -faith but in u'hich the loss or destruction ofevidence is, nonetheless so critical to the defease as to niafee a cnVniViaf trial •Kvda*nfiMfa//(y unfair, "Arizona v Younoh/cod., 4g£ L/.S\ 5"/^ !o?S.Ct333a Smce You.ngblood uJas decided,, a number or state, ccacts kav;e held as a matter or State Gmstrtatfonal Lau) that the loss or destruction df evidence crif\da| to the defense does violate, clae process, even «n the absence of bad faith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fred Yaz.d\ T.D-C.T. #oi8Ul^ Ellis W*t 1^7 f m i&o rWWille^Tx TMH3 M«g3o,"i* His, L»VuU IcttiKaacr-R^^^t rYKorneij &Coartselor at LauJ \\oz Naeces AastM.Tx ^7o(
of Vg;lU««S0A County «,_,,_ ftof9+-CR/^^«D *TWj (W of Appeals Cause Ho. : 03- / mHm .t>ecir m Hs\ T V « • » Icermcuxer-KawireE ^^ —-^ As tjou. are auiare by tVie Copij of m Maq 04, 2oi5"^ Motto* to extend T7*ie -For FiUg ttte Appellants Kepl^J Sn'et3 HvaT u^s wailed fe the "tturj brief, (as I had predated to m^ Tanuarif 0^2015", Utter mailed fo t|dU bif Certified Mait, tkj/ ctrgaed "Hie so-called YoUNGBLOOD standard of the need to shou; some 'fea^ Esiik'by the Laui U&ccewetff). Kls\ Iceflhaaer-Rav/uVez ?through one of tjour responses to w^ iMu/cwertVia and steadfast" declarator to you. that I am iVmoc£)it of charge of ^lurde^and tfcat 1was wrortcffully charged artd Conv/icted office same91V1 no uncertain terms, tfou niade tt clear to nfle houl lc#le credence UOU afforded rt\e9 and td tf1(/ appellate cause, fcy stating, "shooing aman iVi the back is riotselfdefense.H Wift all due respect, I fed .'t necessarcj to state that otvioasltj djoa toere not present on loca tion at the moment that I wjas -forced to -fite ml( a^apotf because had tfou tee*? there, Vjott uJoaU cectauilij knou) that I did wot shoot tAe assailartt/nfrudW iVt Ik back. Furthermore please be aaWj that aperson's todcf dees not remain still^artd changes posifron(V) as he/she rjefs shot, especiajli/ ku the ^ery po»Wi| Uf7 ♦ fO caliber projectiles. This is par+calarty the case uuhen tte person shot Is in a-fast mov/ing/rotatina moto/i situated on top ofaHfoot kiistr.ct /tftorneys office to hav/e tdewt to e\/e^ appoint me a Court /IppoiViteJ appellate Attorney Had \tnot Wn for the efforts of Mr. tfampWi, one of my trials paTtf defense lawyers, ar\d the Honorable vfsifiVuy Ja^ge Burt Richard son, toho had beetf assigned mi| vert/ niah profile case ta>mina fVcvvt ouisiAe of COilUamsort Countcj, th«.s appeal's process vOoulA hav/e Uen Uj extinguished ^ Vie Wi'lUnaM Counts judccVal authorities. But as reluctant as uon mad fee to tffficfVelif <««t me, «>»»£* WsW*- nl(f W«* t> begwty of ArJer.l as/c tfou for ffce sate of «jf to tfoa.j sis, ages 13 a*4 \\ «e«)> please kelp tdfs [00/o DfsabU Veferaff of fte Arixed FSrces of the Urn fed Stales, M ser*J 4«erf« «ditt Wor to be mtf effect.Ve adv/ocafe, as If is flour prafessfonal
rffc, Uml febitlto *prfir-. astyle wl-U-Ary WW «J ph f;*t ted of J U<* W «tn( cU.(^t«* W ™«J*««#• "M w*t fte stfitem of jtffe to beta* Mft* crf« «*« L.*5%*« W«« c^-exa^a^-^^IU^ that U^AiAnot k,o^ ^^e^ika to o\fcn o of 7 those and other exculpatory evidences, (BAD FAITH) Well, I kriou whu they went out of thtir tOacf to describe aManj tcana
3bfot/Wt as a"Rolled up C^arefe/ Wty /Wti* police detectives cUumed Mtheu 4iled to fingerprint aJ p«U print ^ homes front entry d^r, If a reasonable jurist does v\ot believe that AustVs police veteran hotniade deT- ectiy/es animus touwd wie, av\ IRANIAN, Man^thiVij to do a>Vtfi if^en allou) meio sawst denying the defendant the Legal Cafak'X&u to argue me protections afforded to Texas honeomecs, and o^Bier^, bjj tfe "Texas legislature, in the 2oo7expanded CASTLE DOCTRINE ladas an addiWa/ motVe, One ma.t( Sai/ "Hiatal of this »s pare specaUtiotf on ma part, l^oes r\u.s\*A TolCce Department «3ant a reasonable jurist "to i>e(as destroyed, mak^ ^ unavailable -for the defeaW to We it tested ?(£Af> F/tfTtj). 4 reasonabk misX can cWta;artd objecKveli/ find a pattern df CowGertecf effort by fee detect'ves a*J Investigate to hfcfe exculpatory euidenceO)^rc^ me, the IRftNlflN JUManJ^ Ms. Icenhauer-1Wez, I fcofe that $>* are ""*% ^ f'*ce cf°*r erroneous personal -fee/iVia^) as.de,aboat mtj g*1'"", anbhzlp me ooift fte essential,and mucti needed, Appellants Repu/ Brief f* order to etfectVe^ represent wtf mtferest£s) as tjour court-appointed client, J i^l'^e thai c level of harm that I Suffered from *a 5"Ue 'ftcWjson s uv^liVujness 3of7 to pro^tJe %e SpoKafto* of evidence irtstructfort f° "Hiejur^, is mere
that just"some" kurmj it .Venous," So* uppUWe research foot m^ a*fstfl.« «M «* **«&&,«J macb needed,, Appellants ReplcJ Brief t QAccocJhVw to the United States Supreme Court * 'Arguments of Counsel cannot substitute fir instructions fctf the Court, Taylor v. kentucty , 436 d£ *7S, . ®Accordina to the Court ot CriVufnal /4ppea(s 6T Texas i Juru argument «"s not a substitute for a yroper [art/ cnaroe, /Une v. Stoic, ^/ s^2j 3
^ad faith entails some sortof improper motive, such as persona/aniVws agaiVist the defendant or adesire t* prevent the defendant -fro« okfaiVunj evidence that wigfct be aseU £x parte Napper, 321 S». 3
We first consider rthetter flic trial Court Com^ted cW erroras aslant asserts. Noo * Shte, ifSSM3d 73* SWU^e-fiVhJ error, u*. then determine wMter mellmt y*x hawed to a decree u>arra«tc«fr Wtrsal, Alrtaitza v. State, 686 £U/. 2J /57. In the-face ot* proper objection to charge error j, u)e u)UI rt\>trse onu^^J ** SoMe har^t to the defendant Id. Absent aprefer objects , "* reverse onlj if the. record sU ihe defendant sasW 'fejr^yous har^'ll W*5 U* resulls^m cW error that affects the venf basis of the c«se, delves *ede4jcmt ota \telualole rfaht or vita Ik affects ade-fens.Ve theort/. J *of? J Stuhfcr v. State, 2|g 5,1a/, 3d 70^ If voe -frud charge error, the ejrejious tiarw analysis reamres u;e consider the entire jury charge,, the sfefe of the eMro«e that Ue State acted in bad -faith but in u'hich the loss or destruction ofevidence is, nonetheless so critical to the defease as to niafee a cnVniViaf trial •Kvda*nfiMfa//(y unfair, "Arizona v Younoh/cod., 4g£ L/.S\ 5"/^ !o?S.Ct333a Smce You.ngblood uJas decided,, a number or state, ccacts kav;e held as a matter or State Gmstrtatfonal Lau) that the loss or destruction df evidence crif\da| to the defense does violate, clae process, even «n the absence of bad faith. As the Connecticut" Supreme Ccart has explained, fairness dictates that u;hena persons Irtertc/ is at sfate^ the sole, -fad of abetter the police or another s-fztje official acted »Vi good or bad faith iVt -failing •*> preserve evidence cannot be deters inqfiVe of whether the crun»*al defenc/ant received clue process of Lau). " State v. Morales , 232 Conn, 767, 723j (,51- A, Zd <5%S, ^3(^5") See also State v. Furaasen, 2S.kA 3d ^KZ^C- 9f7(^7eW W?)y State V. DsakaW, l IW)/ Commonwealth v. Henderson,, 4-11 Ma«, 3c?1 3(0-311, 5*8 2. N^.zd Wt,*ttl-(mT)j State *Matafetf, ?| rtW 1*3, !«-/*?, 7g7f?2d ^/,^3(mo); ffarwioncl v, State, 5£? A^*^*7(>e.L i?8?); Ihorne kTPeparWf *f Public S^es sent "fo *^e So I cav\ Quote "fee Correct pacves fir tti€ Relief &rCeF9 /{IttrnatiseU as ^ou. are alre^adcf auJare of ttie arguments that Vm "r}f;*f} "™ make r^t the na^es of tbe defectives, Invest\gatorsJ and paJe5 that are pertinent to mU arauivients Will probably Suffice. I fhank t/ou aaaui w (/our be^\
Sincerel l3 j>
eMt^z Ffcej) VflZDl, Appellftit
A of 7 CBKTjFlCATe- Of serVice
Icertify that fe attached Doc^ent(s) wasr>ere) ^ent as Seated this dau to each of the fclUhVij:
Appel^ Ms. Unaa Icerthaaer-RaMirez, Es
Klerk of "Third Court of Appfglg Honorable Jeirreq ^> kule Werk U.S. Mail Court of Appeals Ihird district of Te*as P.O. Box 1254-7 Austin., Tx 787H -25^7
AfpelWte District Attorney for Williamson tmdtj Mr. John C. Prezas Assistant District Attorney US, MAIL it05 Martin Lulfcer kina ,Be* 1 Georgetown, TX 786H
7 of 7 rr ••-'•', ' : -,__._ ; &#*^:* •"I'l'I'liH'ii'ili'hl'h-l'il j^ U.S. POSTAGE PAID AUSTIN.TX 78729 MAY 30, 15 AMOUNT m $1.19 1000 I I 7 1711 00102290-03
Honorable. Jc^rg) P. kjW, KU-rk Court °£ flppv*\s TW P-VToct o£ UM5 f.o. 8oX l&£4?
^^^^^j