V- •
0H>n on**n ORIGINAL 2M.THE couRT of Lkl/MA/AL hPPEALS OF TEXA£
"gECESVED IN FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TkSUS FEliPE LOPEZ MAR 2 3 2017 mar 23 z::? -V£-
Abel Acosta, Clerk Abel Acosta, Clerk THE 4TATE OF TEXAS
PETiTiOA/ HA/ CAUSE A/O. cRl?77*4 AMD CftXZBSH PKo/a THE ar1** DiST&leT couRT OF KHown cdiAhty, T-tXAS A/ID THE CouRT OF APPEAL* FoU THE ElEVEA/TH DISTRICT oF TEXAZ^ NO. ll-llf-OOZST
PETITION FaR DtSCKETtOA/AKY REVIEW
JEJUS FEliPE LOPEZ-
MiCkad unit, QUiaf Fm X69V-f Te.nneis.ee Colon Y, TX ?tr2tfa
PRo-SE
(APPELLAaYT HE&uESTS a/0 oKAL AK&u/y\ea/\) a/amb< nF ALL PART\FC
JUDGE Honorable ST^Phth El/is IT1* biSTriCT coa&T TUctet.
ATTOR/I/EY FoR THE Sf-a.it. oa/ APPEAL t Ctik\ST\A/A A/EISOIV AUitCLht District Attorney, Krovfij county
TfUAL COUNSEL 5TUART HoLDBA/ P.O. &0X i n bck.llIn3 tr, TK 76>?3~\
AftorntV \rok APPEAL 1 APPellcute Counsel: Tim coPelfrhd P.O. tsx 3
-1- TAfilE QFXQ/*TEA/TS_
PAGE /va/nes of cell Parti eS i c » Tai/e of Lovitthf5 11
Xhofex of Authorities 111
stAte/r\e.nt ke3a,rdin£ a/o oroul ArSUmtnt 1
£fcuf€,m€hf Of the CClS^ 1
StcLf?/H.£tit of PtoC-cdur&l H/ifory 1
Qrtouhd for Rtvieti/ —
At9Uwent
Pray-er for Mlzf 3
c*rf\-EiLaf-e of service H
Declaration fverlficjouilon ti
APPE//DIX S court of APPectlS' M-z/nafdun dUM opinion
£XtW3IT t*± Mtmorandu/n opinion of th-e ElEVE/iW court of APPecL/5
EXH/B/TJtA QP/hloft of mofioh of RE-HecurlyiQ undtr -HultS APPtllcLnt Procedure WJj of th£ ElEVEA/Tti court at APPvaulS
ll fEQEMl. PA&£
Hotte&koJ V, Uhiftd StateS, 23L? U.S. 1ro)lLS'l b>(a S. Ct+ IA34, i%H7 HO L.Bd,lCr7 (MtbL _ 3
S±A1£
HeirSheets V, State} 3V-2 f.t^. id HI,13 -M CW.cr/m. AfP. ion J — — &
ToknSor) V. J-hcvtf, 1(&7 i.K xd H10, Hi7 CTcX.crl/h.. AM i*#) _ JL
Motilieu v. 5tate, 7f ^v. 3d ?TZ,?>
scott \r.s-teuic, X%7 <,.w. 2 d L7D) bio Crc^cr;^ ,APP. Mo?) .2
Hi J+AtEMf-AsT REC-APDlA/6 A/nofiaA A&MjmlMT
a/o ora,l cA.r3umtr\T is refuested beCu-utSe, c_s urlU t>*? £hoi^n heloWt Th£ -trio,! record Clea.rH CStccbliSh t>£ th-e evidence -
STAT&ABArt a.F THE CASE-
on The 'WTh Ua,y aP A u3 UST. XoH t Tesui FEliPE LoPEt.,( 'StPPellanT^) WtL<> convicted In the 2rrh District Court of Brown county,T£xAs a-nd s-en t-ctnLed to life without Pa-tol*. In the T-tXouS b-e.Pa.rtfluent 6F triMl/vaJ Justice ih ca.ui-t &ii-it4-0o&3$~/u-iH-oo23Li Tor the offense Of Continuous lexacul a,buS~e of a. Chlldj S.M.L Co. Pseudoh ya\J in tri&l courT caub-Z number ck-X%^
J e^t^enstotfS of t)/n€ for Petition for Discretionary AevlcuSj flrit on* wa,s r^ranTtd l~eCcnd b-enl-ed* Th-t Perl ti Oh \asu. s ex-ten d-cJ ro A4a.rch •lOj 1017,
Mlnuh/I) FoP kEV\E\A/
\Mheh two d-tfculled outers StouteM^ntL w-er-e ^rroneou&lV cc/nlttel a.nd ccr^Ued ccS Jh0H/!n9 the connPla-', nan A credibility
-i- IS If PlToPtr to find harmless error based Sold/ am thcct CO mPlcLlhc^n fs TtSt Imah V f
Th-e rouCi of APPea^lS dltlsloh Conflicts with cn>\ot-htr Court of cuPPza-ls oh th € Sa-fvi-c iLsue, S Peelf Ieasily. Sec SJl^LtL. V. 7o.(e9C> Ctckr, Cri*, APP. M07), The emPhu,siS of har/n ounOLltbib ''Should not he oh the ProPrletY of th-e outcome, of the trial*]. (Interna,! auota.tlon<: omitted)* The court of APPeulS huui ^xii Cov\ Ctr U-ed, J £tectue/ Pule , (L^SUla-tlohj or ordlnccnc-e-j Specifically %ule HH.XCb), Tex* id, APP>. CWeSt MID •
AftbUMEA/r Aa/d Authorities
The court of APPea.lS uPhdd the trice! Court's Decision to oudon\t orekdud-e. the h-earsay Testimonies RulirtS if it wra,J v/ithln the i^oh-e of r ecus onu, lale dlsccJr ee.ment, si I P op, ff,b. the tourt theh he-Id thu,i ''Even If the court were to aSSUMe thaT officer Self's out-cfY testimony wa.S err oh eo USlY oudsnittedj if wa,S har/nUSb Ih 115-ht of th-e 3rccPh',Cj detcelled testimony Provided k>VS.m.L, SllP °P. PP. %j in its Mat/SiS, The count ef APPtals did not evaluate hdiv The evidence i*ra,s used, "Lnd Instecc-d St/nPlY noted there \mcuS m it wu,S Wour/nlas In l\&ht of the SrcLphic, detailed •k&sH/nohi Provided bY 6./ri.L. Slif *Y tt.t* Thi5 ^na^iisis misoLpflltS th-t Standard of harm review because. It did not o-ddr-eSi the /v\a.)h -iPP-ect o-P the. -error i.e. enkrtn Ce*^en t o-f eo/nria'.nan fs credlbilltY In the fttY tcsfi/nohY descrlb in3 th-e off-enj-e,
ThlS caJe \c )/*. Portocn f beCaufe the sto^ndo^rd of r^vltna^ for httr/n under Rule W.ACb), Tex. L APP. tree CuireSt U/S)^ Is often aaIsol. PPllzd* An error rv\c\i be con si dered har/nleSS l-fj'after e.ka.jn.1 n,'n3 th-e record nuS, u~ whole, th-e. E revlewl n3 CaurtJ hctS a, ,fa-]r oussurcenct thcuf error did r\dt Influence the jury, or hcuJ. au s!l3ht effect*. TohhSon v. state, Hb7 a\w. ^d HI0jUi7 tux. cr\*\. APP. \°m). ^Cr*) h ca,Se of zriLVe doubt ouS to hour mltss h*s% th-e. Petitioner must win* /Ra.rJhcn*r v. s-hat-e . JUd S.w. 3d
-A- While the existence of other -evidence suPPortine Judgment onust a./ways be of oun V harmless error ccucciyslSj ofhgr evidence of Suilt Should not b-e the . , * sole criteria- for •Evaluating harm _ _. "tee kotteakol t/„ united <+*++<> 3£f U.S. 7S~0j 76 r, let, SCt. II 31 j [%mj 10 L.Ed, IST7 (H V(,) CConSt- rulnS federal rule that was Source tor Rule W,JI C/>J). It hca been ov-er ten Steers 6lhC-c this court has a^ddr*SSe:d th~e Inter Play between other evidence ofSiAltt o,nd PoSslbififY of harm from the -errors effect under flute Ht, 1 Cb),.(T€X. PL,APZ> PlroC. Cwest XGI1). See **/>+;!!/>. \/.
TesuS fellf-t Lofe7- tDCJwo. Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI V- •
0H>n on**n ORIGINAL 2M.THE couRT of Lkl/MA/AL hPPEALS OF TEXA£
"gECESVED IN FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TkSUS FEliPE LOPEZ MAR 2 3 2017 mar 23 z::? -V£-
Abel Acosta, Clerk Abel Acosta, Clerk THE 4TATE OF TEXAS
PETiTiOA/ HA/ CAUSE A/O. cRl?77*4 AMD CftXZBSH PKo/a THE ar1** DiST&leT couRT OF KHown cdiAhty, T-tXAS A/ID THE CouRT OF APPEAL* FoU THE ElEVEA/TH DISTRICT oF TEXAZ^ NO. ll-llf-OOZST
PETITION FaR DtSCKETtOA/AKY REVIEW
JEJUS FEliPE LOPEZ-
MiCkad unit, QUiaf Fm X69V-f Te.nneis.ee Colon Y, TX ?tr2tfa
PRo-SE
(APPELLAaYT HE&uESTS a/0 oKAL AK&u/y\ea/\) a/amb< nF ALL PART\FC
JUDGE Honorable ST^Phth El/is IT1* biSTriCT coa&T TUctet.
ATTOR/I/EY FoR THE Sf-a.it. oa/ APPEAL t Ctik\ST\A/A A/EISOIV AUitCLht District Attorney, Krovfij county
TfUAL COUNSEL 5TUART HoLDBA/ P.O. &0X i n bck.llIn3 tr, TK 76>?3~\
AftorntV \rok APPEAL 1 APPellcute Counsel: Tim coPelfrhd P.O. tsx 3
-1- TAfilE QFXQ/*TEA/TS_
PAGE /va/nes of cell Parti eS i c » Tai/e of Lovitthf5 11
Xhofex of Authorities 111
stAte/r\e.nt ke3a,rdin£ a/o oroul ArSUmtnt 1
£fcuf€,m€hf Of the CClS^ 1
StcLf?/H.£tit of PtoC-cdur&l H/ifory 1
Qrtouhd for Rtvieti/ —
At9Uwent
Pray-er for Mlzf 3
c*rf\-EiLaf-e of service H
Declaration fverlficjouilon ti
APPE//DIX S court of APPectlS' M-z/nafdun dUM opinion
£XtW3IT t*± Mtmorandu/n opinion of th-e ElEVE/iW court of APPecL/5
EXH/B/TJtA QP/hloft of mofioh of RE-HecurlyiQ undtr -HultS APPtllcLnt Procedure WJj of th£ ElEVEA/Tti court at APPvaulS
ll fEQEMl. PA&£
Hotte&koJ V, Uhiftd StateS, 23L? U.S. 1ro)lLS'l b>(a S. Ct+ IA34, i%H7 HO L.Bd,lCr7 (MtbL _ 3
S±A1£
HeirSheets V, State} 3V-2 f.t^. id HI,13 -M CW.cr/m. AfP. ion J — — &
ToknSor) V. J-hcvtf, 1(&7 i.K xd H10, Hi7 CTcX.crl/h.. AM i*#) _ JL
Motilieu v. 5tate, 7f ^v. 3d ?TZ,?>
scott \r.s-teuic, X%7 <,.w. 2 d L7D) bio Crc^cr;^ ,APP. Mo?) .2
Hi J+AtEMf-AsT REC-APDlA/6 A/nofiaA A&MjmlMT
a/o ora,l cA.r3umtr\T is refuested beCu-utSe, c_s urlU t>*? £hoi^n heloWt Th£ -trio,! record Clea.rH CStccbliSh t>£ th-e evidence -
STAT&ABArt a.F THE CASE-
on The 'WTh Ua,y aP A u3 UST. XoH t Tesui FEliPE LoPEt.,( 'StPPellanT^) WtL<> convicted In the 2rrh District Court of Brown county,T£xAs a-nd s-en t-ctnLed to life without Pa-tol*. In the T-tXouS b-e.Pa.rtfluent 6F triMl/vaJ Justice ih ca.ui-t &ii-it4-0o&3$~/u-iH-oo23Li Tor the offense Of Continuous lexacul a,buS~e of a. Chlldj S.M.L Co. Pseudoh ya\J in tri&l courT caub-Z number ck-X%^ J e^t^enstotfS of t)/n€ for Petition for Discretionary AevlcuSj flrit on* wa,s r^ranTtd l~eCcnd b-enl-ed* Th-t Perl ti Oh \asu. s ex-ten d-cJ ro A4a.rch •lOj 1017,
Mlnuh/I) FoP kEV\E\A/
\Mheh two d-tfculled outers StouteM^ntL w-er-e ^rroneou&lV cc/nlttel a.nd ccr^Ued ccS Jh0H/!n9 the connPla-', nan A credibility
-i- IS If PlToPtr to find harmless error based Sold/ am thcct CO mPlcLlhc^n fs TtSt Imah V f
Th-e rouCi of APPea^lS dltlsloh Conflicts with cn>\ot-htr Court of cuPPza-ls oh th € Sa-fvi-c iLsue, S Peelf Ieasily. Sec SJl^LtL. V. 7o.(e9C> Ctckr, Cri*, APP. M07), The emPhu,siS of har/n ounOLltbib ''Should not he oh the ProPrletY of th-e outcome, of the trial*]. (Interna,! auota.tlon<: omitted)* The court of APPeulS huui ^xii Cov\ Ctr U-ed, J £tectue/ Pule , (L^SUla-tlohj or ordlnccnc-e-j Specifically %ule HH.XCb), Tex* id, APP>. CWeSt MID •
AftbUMEA/r Aa/d Authorities
The court of APPea.lS uPhdd the trice! Court's Decision to oudon\t orekdud-e. the h-earsay Testimonies RulirtS if it wra,J v/ithln the i^oh-e of r ecus onu, lale dlsccJr ee.ment, si I P op, ff,b. the tourt theh he-Id thu,i ''Even If the court were to aSSUMe thaT officer Self's out-cfY testimony wa.S err oh eo USlY oudsnittedj if wa,S har/nUSb Ih 115-ht of th-e 3rccPh',Cj detcelled testimony Provided k>VS.m.L, SllP °P. PP. %j in its Mat/SiS, The count ef APPtals did not evaluate hdiv The evidence i*ra,s used, "Lnd Instecc-d St/nPlY noted there \mcuS m it wu,S Wour/nlas In l\&ht of the SrcLphic, detailed •k&sH/nohi Provided bY 6./ri.L. Slif *Y tt.t* Thi5 ^na^iisis misoLpflltS th-t Standard of harm review because. It did not o-ddr-eSi the /v\a.)h -iPP-ect o-P the. -error i.e. enkrtn Ce*^en t o-f eo/nria'.nan fs credlbilltY In the fttY tcsfi/nohY descrlb in3 th-e off-enj-e,
ThlS caJe \c )/*. Portocn f beCaufe the sto^ndo^rd of r^vltna^ for httr/n under Rule W.ACb), Tex. L APP. tree CuireSt U/S)^ Is often aaIsol. PPllzd* An error rv\c\i be con si dered har/nleSS l-fj'after e.ka.jn.1 n,'n3 th-e record nuS, u~ whole, th-e. E revlewl n3 CaurtJ hctS a, ,fa-]r oussurcenct thcuf error did r\dt Influence the jury, or hcuJ. au s!l3ht effect*. TohhSon v. state, Hb7 a\w. ^d HI0jUi7 tux. cr\*\. APP. \°m). ^Cr*) h ca,Se of zriLVe doubt ouS to hour mltss h*s% th-e. Petitioner must win* /Ra.rJhcn*r v. s-hat-e . JUd S.w. 3d
-A- While the existence of other -evidence suPPortine Judgment onust a./ways be of oun V harmless error ccucciyslSj ofhgr evidence of Suilt Should not b-e the . , * sole criteria- for •Evaluating harm _ _. "tee kotteakol t/„ united <+*++<> 3£f U.S. 7S~0j 76 r, let, SCt. II 31 j [%mj 10 L.Ed, IST7 (H V(,) CConSt- rulnS federal rule that was Source tor Rule W,JI C/>J). It hca been ov-er ten Steers 6lhC-c this court has a^ddr*SSe:d th~e Inter Play between other evidence ofSiAltt o,nd PoSslbififY of harm from the -errors effect under flute Ht, 1 Cb),.(T€X. PL,APZ> PlroC. Cwest XGI1). See **/>+;!!/>. \/.
TesuS fellf-t Lofe7- tDCJwo. I9S~/IW AAiCha el un i f XLleLl PM SL0 4-H tenness ~ee olcn y„ t>r 7S~^-6 PkG-SE
-3- CBSTlFICAtE DFKEkVire
T., certify that ou triAe kO\
(bBclARAtio/v /vEfilFlcATln/v
X, TESUS, P£JIPE LoPEz., tOWwo. itrllMj helnj Present!/ th Care -e. routtr d In t-h^e svr.w. sv\ickct-^l unit of th-e TeKOsS DePa-rtment of criminal TitSflCe. In A/tsOERSd/V cowtitY, TeiraS Verity and declare under Penal of PerJury thaf the foreSo'ittQ Siuuh&sneZtAt a.re. true, u-t^d correct*
EkECiAtEO da/ THIS TUB -Ut—bAV of AAQLrch 3.017.
ft) ^si^si-frt^^ ZreStiJ F> Lo^eZ. tDCJ A/0. i9
~H~ | |