Nowlin, Olin Ray

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 31, 2014
• Docket: WR-45,324-07
• Status: Published

Opinion

:IN '.'THE .'CRI'MINAL' 'C:OtJRT·~·c;,p·:·APPEALS

P.O, BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OLIN RAY NOWLIN TDCJ-ID# 824386 APPLICANT/PRO SE

RECE\VED lN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OEC 31 2014 vs. Abel Acosta, Clerk

THE STATE OF TEXAS RESPONDANT

MOTION FOR OBJECTIONS TO THE STATE REPLY

(A) IL~ THE COURT OF C~IMINAL APPEALJNfJ010©JfM lDJ~WfO/E[D P,O, BOX 1203 CAPITOL STATION {[J~if~- (-q}- 15 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 IBJV:_rE ._,

OLIN RAY NOWLIN § C~2~0I0347~0628183-E

APPLICANT/PRO SE §

§ vs, § THE STATE OF TEXAS § RESPONDANT

A MOTIONFFpR OBJECTIONS

TO THE STATE REPLY

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

NOW COME SAID APPLICANT OLIN RAY NOWLIN/PRO SE IN THE ABOVE SYLED NUMBERED C-2~010347-0628183-E AND REPECTFULLY SUBMI~S HIS MOTION OF OBJECTION TO THE STATE REPLY.~APPLICANT FILES WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY~ON ·RECORD AND WILL REPECTFULLY SHOW THE'COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS THE FOLLOWING REASON:

(1 )

THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT HE FILED A MOTION FOR A SUBPONA ;. DUCES TECUM THE STATE WITNESS PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE OF CRI~

MINAL PROCEDURE ARTILE 24.02, THE CR[MINAL DISTRICT COURT, NO. #2 REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE STATE WIT~ESS ARE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SUBPONA DUCES TECUM QFrTHE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS & WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE ANY R8LING OF THE TRIAL COURT THE APPLICANT SAK THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO~ #2 FOR· IDENTITY OF THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS THE APPLICANT REQUES~-

2D FOR DOCUMENTATIONS. SUCH AS 1) BIRTH CERTFICATE: AND 2)i f•-.· c AFFIDAVIT UNDER OATH OF SIGNATURE:l

(1 ) -THE STATE STATES· THAT THE::CASE IN BRIEF/PROCEDURAL HISTORY --THAT THEl'NEWLY DCI:SC0VERD" DOCUMENTS THAT THEDDOCUMENTS FI"' LED\<;WITHT['HE- TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 1 S OFFICE AS PART:.,:: O:F '.THEi ·APJPLICANT Is i 1998 TRIAL RECORD I AND ARE NOT II NEW" EVID- ENCE APPLICATION-EXHIBITS A&B. THE BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY THIRD POCKET EDITION STATES THAT fNEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE EXISTING AT . THE TIME OF A MOTION:~ OR TRIAL BUT THEN UNKNOWN TO A PARTY, WHO, UPON LATER DISCOVERING IT, MAY ASSERTASGROUNDS FOR NEWLY DISCOV- ERED EVIDENCE FOR GROUNDS FOR A NEW TRIAL. HRRK A~P.PETC'ANT:

. WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS EVIDENCE TTNTIL YEARS LATER AND THEREFO- RE IT IS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, THE" APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT NO MATTER HOW MENY APPLICATIONS FOR FEDERAL CALLATERA£ RELIEF A~PIRSONER HAS MADE IF DIFFERENT GROUNDS IS PRESENTED BY NEW APPLICATION OR NEW GROUND WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS CONSIDERATION OF MERITS OF A NWW

. APPLICATION CAN Bg AVOIDED ONLY IF ~HERE HAS BEEN ABUSE OF THE WRIT OR MOTION REMENDY AND THIS THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN OF PLEADIND. THE DOCUMENT (b) IS NOT PART OF THE RECORDS BECA- USE IT WAS NOT. ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS AND WAS NOT RULE~ ON IN THE TRIAL COURT BEFORE THE ·JURY

(2) GROUND FOR RELIEF: THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: (1). HE WAS DE~IED DUES PROCESS BECAUSE THE JURY WAS PERMITT~;

ED SEPARATE:

APPLICANT OBJECT: NOT TRUE. THE AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE JURY TO SPEARATE WAS. NOT'/·· BASE ON THE SEPARATEION~QF~~DUE PROCESS BUT BASED ON NOT GIV- EN THE APPLICANT ANY NOTICE OF THE:(b)- SEE APPLICANT SUCCE- SSIVE PETITION ON [ARGUEMENT OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL , OF ERRORS AND DOCUMENTATIONS OF PROOF]

( 2) ~;_-p,\"('2).-THE STATE STATES THAT THE. APPEICANT THAT HE.WAS:DENIEDEFt-: FECTIVE · ASSISTANCE:T~:·o·F? TRIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS ATTO~NEY,

DID NOT OBJECT TO THE LACK NOTICE OF THE STATE'S WITNESS

APPLICANT OBJECW~~NOT~TRUE

BUT APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTLVE~ASS~S~ANCE

ANCE OF COUNSEL.: BY>'NOT OBJECTING TO THE STATES EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT ALLOW PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES ~PPELANT PROCEDURE RULE 30 (b) (7)

~= 1 (3) . THE STATE ~TATES THAT T~E APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DE~ NIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT FULLY INVE- STIGATION HIS CASE:

APPLICANT OBJECT: NOT TURE THE; APPLICANT. CLAIMs-· .L THAT; ~;THE,:::· 'GRAND JURY DID ITS INVESTI- ··.. · .. GATION AND FOUND NO EVIDENCE OFi'THIS:~STAirE WITNESS AS IN EXHIBIT (b)

(4). THE STATE STATES THAT THE APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DENIED , HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION: ..!.J {t.-•

APPLICANT DOES NOT OBJECT: APPLICANT CLAIMS THA~ HE HAS A RIGHT TO FACE HIS ACCUSERS AND TO SEE IF THEY ARE REAL BY NOT SUBPONA DUCES'::TECtJM "THE '.:"-~!:.T..ff.E:SS .: IDHAT~WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE HAD ANY RULING OF THE TRIAL COURT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BEFORE THE JURY IS A VIOLA- TION OF THE APPLI~ANT TEXAS AND~FEDERAL COUNSTITUTIONALS A- MENDMENTS RIGHTS 6th/5th/14th.

AR

( 3) [l ' .

~ !'' ' . PURSUNT TO TEXAS:RULES~APPELLATE~PROCREBRE-RULE~44:2 - WHICH CAUSE THE JURY TO!:.DECIDED THE APPLICANT SENTENCE IN AN IN-' APPORPRIATE MANNER • THE REAL ISSUES IN THE .APPLICANT.OF HIS CASE WAS THE UNSUBPONA. WITNESS IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITB- TIONAL::RIGHTS OF THE 6th/5th/1.4th AMENDMENTS~OF THE CONFRONTAT- ION CLUASE OF TEXAS RULES APPLELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 30 (b) (7) OF THE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS ;,P0RBIDING TO BE HEARD.IN THE JURY DELIBERATJONr~ THE APPLICANT HAD NOT PROTECTION AGA- INSE THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS;

CONCLUS·ION THE APPLICAN.T IN HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE OF NEWLY , DISCOVERED AND IT IS NOT PART OF THE 1998 TRIAL THE TRANSC- RIPT OFF~THE APPLICANT TRIAL DOES NOT SHOW WHE UNSUBPONA WIT- NESS EVER APPEAR AT TRIAL BEFORE THE JURY THEREFORE CANNOT BE PART OF OF THE TRASCRIPT R£CORDSS EVf;,R.__T!:IOSE THE CLERK DOCUM- ENT IT,WHIS ~S ERR0R~ON THE STATE PART. THIS IS UNFAIR TRIAL, PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 U~S.C. 2254 (b) (l) SEE APPLICANT SUCCES- SIVE PETITION ,

PRAYER THE APPLICANT PRAYERS THAT THIS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WILL UPHOLD THE APPLICANT TEXAS AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDNENTsr·) ::c THAT WAS VIOLATED OF THE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS THAT THE APPLICANT'~' NEYER: •· HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FACE HIS ACCUSER AT ANY TRIAL OF THE COURTS THE APPLICANT IF.NOT A NEW TRIAL TO FACE HIS ACCUSER THEN THEFAPPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:· WILL GRANT THE APPLICANT A JUDGMENT~

ACUITTAL FROM THE FALSE INFORMATION OF THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS THAT WAS LET INTO THE JURY DELIBERATION THAT- HAS NOT BEEN , THE JURY TRIAL THE APPLICANT THANKS THEJUDGE OR JUDGESFOR.YOUR HELP IN THIS CENCERN MATTER: THANK YOU

(4) ..

RESPECTFULL SUBMITTED

OLIN RAY NOWLIN TDCJ-IN NO. #824386 MARK STILE UNIT 3060 FM 3514 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77705

~~~ OLIN RAY NOWLIN APPLICANT/PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THE UNSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES :~: THAT A TRUE AND CERRECT COPY OF THE FORGOING WAS MAILED TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO PASS COPIES TO THOSE THAT ARE CONCERN UNDER 1 2 (12) F.R.C.C AND INMATE MAKE ONLY ONE COPY OF HIS WRIT AND REQUEST THAT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO MAKE COPIES FO HIM DU~ TO BEING I~

NDIGENT AND UNABLE TO MAKE COPIES~

SIGNED ON THIS 22 DAY OF DECEBER 2014

SIGNAT!JRE rQJ.lin ~014 (5 )