Kevin Balditt v. State

Opinion

TH E. HOTTL£

C-OUIU" Of APPGAUS

rr

- neeves 3"«snc6 t 3 2.00 c^oLOitosA lt)

— Za

lO —i.—«

3 -_ -n

fe §

I

SalditT

TK,

VIA IA.S. AAA i

TiME To PtUe

I of

Cause No . (W-i5-0M.«3i "

Tk.;al CovlkT Wo. 2.

THe c&agt

TWE STArB of T'^as Saij HwTWNiog

p

ro >"

Appellant's M°tiom "To gx-rewptuas to

THAT THIS riffJ^ABLE £iMi«T £iCT£nD THC T//i/i£ TO FIl£ MIS SftlCF AnJ in 5».-.PPC2T 0? HIS d£QttcST SHOWS:

I - APPtU-AW is A is kjctt

'1.

H AppEaflM- has wevm wqustBp p6*. ^^ c'v:tc^/0;J. w Mft S. APPeU-AMT WflJ, Bee^ WrfSKeCBSMfc ,M O

crJ U.S. po3T^u mail- Por Oe/-.iAA/iersrri AFFlPAf.-

7.

8. %elM SeeKs * (j.o) ^ ♦d*^ 4* prop^L

ei 11*&4e -\w-e.

/\jbrf«rn -(vU

pp THAT

dATc

the"

foP- ?0B-

- tLeeves S*

D«*Tlt rcr

Toes no.

10

a \anJjt op

-pHc of

of

%M

TDLjiON*.

=! c: -\

£ ?

£ O r-

h m

1! H 2 X