Patrick Heaney v. State

Opinion

toyed \ mq. qi~is~ooHlo- c& October 19, 2015

Ttheb £oofcT oF ft?P£AL5

TU. SA*L. ©t Tex its

IVp\)<2^t *t c_\*o±*. a]&. bit*!- W- 7jo£2.oL

***•€•

To lite tfowofcifc^Le :5bvnccc oF Ttte: cjdoWC of POTeAu^ \ C«>^efe *oo0>f T i

fc^>e\\fc*r ute» ©a vv>e.ltLA cUttU &>& eye. £ora

( /RECEJVEDN OCT 1 9 2015 I THIRD COURT OF APPEALS/ X pfRFYD.KYLE / \.4 3 hwpJlvfc^ £ec©rA V\e*S M?C wufti*_ AuiiwliJoU. 4-o Atestis v .

OJSOfT" t>Ct>t^_

W> Wce^ £--v "flu, ^ktt, "&fl£_ D? TeXA3 «U 1 Hiil\ Gx»/"t>

321. n^^cili IV. rJOr tftrsX. \L*_ Uqo.t'y -tr>f Pk*ju vwjft. ex.-W^'o°£.

*\Le -tWx h=> 4CLfc frff-elltf^T^ tflo"HJ A»w^*

>/X> $,eu,kC

X , *ZXiJk \W». ^wen&l?, U*'*j ^rc^\{^ la- ^fcbwi^aoez- uwT i.*> ^SJtAfi- Goo-v^y Tcx**j destLy 0^ i cL»cIa-/-£- U^«Lr ^c^a\4^ af "^erw>ry 4^-t- 'TU* ^ortAo^ U Tfcoe: ,wi Co££&T' EtfeciAei ^ ^Vl> V^~ cLy oi OcrWUr b "^ y^ ^o(r.

©(- iU. Tft#«i> C^ij ^TvUklr A4tt^e.jrr ^.o.&e* VWg, Cus^> Tejc*> nftUT ^?U^L \W>^ t ifo Sc

»I.-v (5"^ *-«\c ^r^^i n

3d J^- DckU^i^^^^is^: Coo t\ o[_^J^^£aX^ r CL^f-

^_JD3r li^QPif20 iCjL-

yo->- >jq*^ ^y—***___ 4 CX^C(2

Sii^—_)6b«**3»^- .^_jl^_v_ -tSzJT' ^£ - » ^H (/ ^ r.

af^5 r

-J 3

M 9 ,.c V Q T

* t— _r > =- 7s'

| _1 J: -^

i ^ •5: VA