Medrano, Abel

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 26, 2015·No. WR-82,939-01·Published

Opinion

' ga ,Or§@/O/

Abel Medrano #1743611 Dalhart Unit TDCJ 11950 FM 998 Dalhart, Texas 79022

May 18, 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk RECE|VED|N ‘Court Of Crimi`nal App@als couRT oFchMlNALAPPz-:ALS P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

AUStil'!, TeXaS 78711 MAY 26 2015 RE: WR-82,939-Ol v .

Sub= Applicanth Pro Se Rebuttal Abel ACOSU, 918¥§(

Dear` Cl€l`k!

Enclosed please find for filing Applicant's Por Se Rebuttal to the State's Re- sponse to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, §§11.07, ll.O73. Please file date stamp and bring to the attention of the Court;

Also enclosed, please find a copy of this letterhead. Please file date stamp

same and return in the provided self addressed stamped envelope. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

Sincerely,

Abel Medrano

AM/ cc: FILE » Attorney for the State, Larry Allison, VIA SNAIL-MAIL

QY‘ ”/” @'MM p/m f/M/ Mé/¢f 4 /4,,, z /v ge .[,/e@/ ¢€MAMY /Ac /9£//)£¢'/.1' Aev't/'M A¢!m/,;/`

No. wR-82,939-01

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN/ TEXAS

EX PARTE § oRIGINATING IN THE 2711h § DISTRICT COURT IN AND FoR ABEL MEDRANO ` § LAMPASAS cOUNTY, TEXAS

APPLICANT's PRO SE REBUTTAL To THE STATE's RESPoNsE To APPLICATION FoR wRIT oF HABEAS coRPUS, §§ 11.07, 11.073

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Applicant Abel Medrano, Texas Department of Crim- inal Justice(TDCJ)-ID #1743611 hereinafter Medrano and files this Applicant's`Pro Se Rebuttal to the State's Response UJApplication for Writ of Habeas Corpus, §§ ll.O7, ll.073, and offers this Hon-

orable Court the following in support thereof:

Statement of the Facts and Procedural History

On January 28, 2015, Medrano filed his State Application for writ Of Habeas corpus, §§ 11.07, 11.073, in thezvth Juaicial nis- trict Court of Lampasas County, Texas, by depositing same in the TDCJ Dalhart Unit's internal mailing system pursuant to the Texas Rule Appellate Procedure(TRAP) Rule 5. On or about March 26,2015, vMedrano received notice that this Court's Clerk had received and

ence to district clerk requesting a copy of the State's Response.

-On or about April lO, 2015, Medrano received same correspondence back from the district clerk stating the following:

"Please know that the information you are requesting is on page 93

in the paper work that was mailed out to on February 27th, 2015." Pursuant to TRAP Rule 5, Medrano filed Motion to Stay Proceedings in this Court, which was denied on the l4th. Conformation of same was received on the l7th, On or about April 23, 2015, Medrano re- ceived a copy of the State's Response accompanied by the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law. This notification was received as regular mail due to the clerk's failure to put return address on envelope. Thus, there will be no record in the Dalhart Unit's

mail room log. (see Exhibit A).

Summary of the Arqument

The State has issued their Response to Medrano's Application' for Writ of Habeas Corpus,§§ll.07, ll.O73, which is nothing more than a general denial (boiler plate) resulting in a decision that is contrary to, and based on an unreasonalbe determination of the facts and the records, in light of the evidence presented at the

state court proceeding.

Argument

The State's Response to Medrano's State Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,§§ 11507, ll.O73, is nothing more than a general denial, basically printing a formatted screen off their computer, after adding the proper names and dates, ect., only addressing the first fact from the first ground, even though they acknow-

ledge that there are eleven grounds total that were presented.

Due to the fact Medrano is actually innocent and the State's "Findings of Fact" only briefly'addressed Ground Two, Exculpatory Scientific Evidence-Untested,§ll.O73j a new addition to the Code of Criminal Procedures(CCP), which provides in part:

(a) This article applies to relevant scientific evidence that:

(l) was not available to be offered by the convicted person at the convicted person's trial; or

(2) contradicts scientific evidence relied on by the State at trial.

(b) A court may grant a convicted person relief on application for writ of habea corpus if: v `

(l) the convicted files an application, in the manner provided- by Article ll.O7, ll.O7l, or ll.O72, containing specific facts in- dicating that:

-(A) relevant scientific evidence is currentlyavailableand was not available at the time of the convicted person's trial be- cause the evidence was not ascertainable through the rexercisex of reasonable diligence by the convicted person before the date of or during the convicted person's trial; and

(B) the scientific evidence would be admissible under the Texas Rules of Evidence at a trial held on the date of the appli- cation; and

(2) the court makes the findings described by Subsection (lHA) and (B) and also finds that, had the scientific evidence been pre- sented at trial, on the preponderance of the evidence the person

would not have been convicted. see CCP §ll.O73(Vernon's Ann. 2013) this rebuttal will begin there, incorroporating Ground One within and extend into Grounds Three, Four and Six, due to the relevancy

of documents now available° and being brought to light and offered

° See Original Memorandum at page 7 °.

to this Court to ensure a fundamentally fair proceeding.

Medrano contends that the State's "Findings of Fact's" claim "Applicant's claims under ll.O73 are not supported by any factual basis or claim of scientific evidence that was not available at the time of trial or contradicts any evidence presented at trial" is in itself contradictive to the record, erroneous, and without merit, citing no facts the State based their unreasonable deter- mination on.

Medrano's first two facts of Ground Two in his application, plainly states:

l) The only scientific evidence relied on by the State, fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegation of sexual assault by penetration.

2) Additional exculpate scientific evidentual DNA evidence, or the 'lack of' from withindjuepants Lisa put back on right after the alleged incident and wore back to Burnet without panties,

will not indicate the presence of semen. while same is supported by the record and clearly cited in his Memorandum in Support beginning at ll.

Medrano contends the only factual and scientific evidence a- vailable and relied upon by the State in his conviction, fails to provide evidence beyond a reasonable.doubt, the allegations con- tainedc within the charging instrument of sexual assault by pene- tration. (C.R. l, p. 12).

Medrano argues that the State both possessed and unconstitu- tionally suppressed exculpatory evidence from the defenseand that that evidence not only was favorable to [M]edrano because it was, and still is exculpatory and impeaching, Healy v. Spencer, 397 F.

Supp.2d 269, 289 (D.Mass. 2005), but the favorable evidence could

very well have been reasonably taken to put the whole case insudi a different lightas to undermine the confidence dithe guilty ver~ dict./Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 269, 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936 (quot- ing Kyles v. Whitley, 514ILS.'419, 435, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L.Ed.

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

Medrano, Abel, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Medrano, Abel (Medrano, Abel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Blackburn
9 F.3d 353 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
Giglio v. United States
405 U.S. 150 (Supreme Court, 1972)
United States v. Agurs
427 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
California v. Trombetta
467 U.S. 479 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Kyles v. Whitley
514 U.S. 419 (Supreme Court, 1995)
Strickler v. Greene
527 U.S. 263 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Smith v. State
165 S.W.3d 361 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Avila v. Quarterman
499 F. Supp. 2d 713 (W.D. Texas, 2007)
Healy v. Spencer
397 F. Supp. 2d 269 (D. Massachusetts, 2005)
Sigala v. Thaler
176 L. Ed. 2d 119 (Supreme Court, 2010)
The South American
19 F.2d 394 (S.D. Georgia, 1927)