Rey, Reynaldo

Court of Appeals of Texas

Rey, Reynaldo

DecidedJanuary 23, 2015

DocketPD-1545-14

StatusPublished

This text of Rey, Reynaldo (Rey, Reynaldo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rey, Reynaldo, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

XhTheCaar+flfCriminal AppStlS ORIGINAL 0fTex4s A+ Austin, TetoS „_„_..._ »PBI'»W ,••*•.•«»[• . RECEIVED,! S\! COURT Of CRiiiNALAPPEALS

Reynoldo Rey JAN 23 2015 /Ippeik^xn Pro Se, Abe! Acosta, Clerk Vs. FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS T^e 5ta+e OfTexas1 2 3 2D^5 !esponder\+ J -•—•-• ; ' " •"••"• '• Abel Acosta, Clerk'

Prom The Cour\ Of Appeals Epr-The. Se^+h Di5k\c4 0f Tetas A+ Amanita TeXas

From Tm Bl^ vlu^ciql ^ CouiA+V,leXasHo^OrqUe 3^khCnClr^y} ITP C\et\Aor\; OuH- O-P Appeals CH-/a-004~W-CR - »wv''witfi3ey.''..a!!gtfj|WM«jMMiif;wa Tq h Ift n-P C-nv\±ejn+?>

Xde-rt-h+>/ o-FJu^e, Parh^S and Counsel . . .... 5. Xy\clex- Of Authorities ...•...'.,..... i iL S^a+dmenf Regarding Oral /Va^jyienrt. ° *• • • -^i-

S+at£M£n+ o£ Procedural tU^-HDry, 6 r ,,,.,. JL Grounds ^cov RcvieW, , . « , . « , * , ; , . ,^L

Xs^ue No. TKeTria CouH-Elided in FindihaThe S;tetf£ Mef i-f^TAr^k^ld BuiJey\ #£ Au+ka/rhVaifcm The. DMA E\zi cAeiAce Inkocluced Later B^Fbvse, TTifttTury A-fTrial . » * * 0 ,..».,, j5_ Xssm& Mo. 3~ The. Ei/i^mce-Presented During IheTral Was LegallyInsafftqewfTo^ppoH-XKe Tury^s V/e^ic-*- &f &uiliy<. j ,„..*.,, :2_

Argument -fi)«- 6-rtfUhd< One*.. . . . . :£_ _^_ JL iL _3_ Argument 4^ &ri)unclTvVo*. - . , _3_ J£iL _& Hii£ Prayer-for R&li£/f« e » .- « * * . . • . « * . - » *iii •Cerfif \ea+e 0-f Servhe^* ,.,.,.*. ,(i.,..J5

"I _gjgryHty Qf• 3uAg£ ..far-t-l.

\

.KeynalaD twy iHn Dcinleltf, WarricK Attarney at La .w/

A4-for nay pt La vv

.ppffl-lAg.SuTrla 1. •C?M^.&w* - eSkmekk A whet Davis PflSoX 1053^, «,--_.. UWbocK,TO^08-3 53tr. . •

-a- ?* 0-P Au4kbc-\+\ e£

r,n.c;p Lam Page BaldntmeV.S+A+e,7l S.W.3il&3,7fc8tfdX. tw- App.<^a^4 •BU^-ov.S+flte1%iS.w.^ttt»Oex.C^»v\.App.\cl^fe.&iwi,App,aa^ Da^sv.S+o+e, o<»»<»JZ tmllfcr- v,£-taH£,,73S,W.3«l MOfoxdr iw.App. 20O2\ , %1Q

J*} IPO V - ' l l U / f i f f f o cC 0 e i»o a a it ' -

L*aror\e V.StatedS.W.ai&0i.il7C!e)cCnv*, App.KTt)- i2_ Malik\/.Sta+elcJ53S.W.2J a^tTeX.Cri^App. W7V. • ± MdranJa v/.£4a+e,£53S,W3d 7fe2,~76^ CTeX App;-A>mH llo , aooi.p£+.A\sv»isse
Mon+^(9mdryv«5ta+ei8tOS.W,2ei 37^,3^1 Ctex.App.m(J

Host ey v. Stafe,183 SW.^J 2iq,a-S4tex.&im, App.W$,J£ Pond&K4^v.!Sk^,l^SW.aA571,586(tdK.C^w.App. Wife).* il'

"3- RoAK3Mfi.x\/.St-ate,8MSW.^Aff7/fteK,Cri^App.W\)^ - *il Sm!+k^, State, k83S/^^ , _4l Si^k^vS-MenS^MM l,\o£i£X,£riw,App, I^Wt

Wecrt*\err*USNtfe,t5 S.W3d'5*toSl#a(fe)LCr\*v\^pp.oU)Oo)^ i

Texas Penal Code, 5ectioA W.O^CM CO. *»,..*.. 12. TejusPenal Code,Section fa.OSCaV^L ..... .i£ .Rules Te^Las Rules ot Ev/ielenee>Rale °IOl(a\, , * , , l£_

Appellant Waives Oral Argument

OhSepfem^r^l 2012 .theAppelUcrt- was^oundqu] ity by +Kejury a£+he0££&ns~~Ui-H33i'H11.(W ip, i53r13f] On October^, ao\3i.im AppellouH-Pilea his Noti~~
f- CouH^CttVFicatu^ ottheQe-f&n&av\1rS fciaht +o Appeal was til eA oh Octob e^- 4,2DIU, CeR,p,i4g)The Appellants Af^d&v'rir ot Indigency vVasfi\e& onOc+cker- , and^eSupplemeiAfal Reporter^ ReeorA was fel&l on May 23, 3613'..

Si-at^mentOf Procedural lr\\S~i-ary A The Am&rillo Court £-P App&ils at£\^vAed Appellants Conviction on Oetoher^S.^W.Melthei- £k)e tiled a mction -fbr rehearing (rrr?Mnd.^ Fflr Rei/ievi/ IThgTTrial Court E<-reci In FiiaA vv\g The State tAet VP$TV\te£>V\oU BarAev\ cot Auih£vvHcati% The DMA Ei/\Aey\ee \wtrodueed L^ferBefere Thetrury At Trial,

^l.The E\j\ A&\cd, Presented DueingTkcTri Legally In^ul^ci^ltT^) Support The {JLi^ y>s Verdict- o
Argumpn+fcnr A-^unrl One In general Atrial ciourt^ Aec^iflni-o aAmi+ or elcluAeeviAemee cWlngtrial is reviewed tor a.n abuse of iiscret\on,TY\e~vr\al eourp£ rait v\g should be a££lvV\e
-5- -i, ;J ifi!0Siftf';%- :S*'?S-Hrf£f>^£i* •*;:.£

Monkery v.^a+e>8[0£/^^ on Y-eW^na^^aV.S^crtt,;&53 3,yi/3d 76i,7^peX,App,-^ AmcTirl i\o2D01i pef. di£)^d). in r&/f4he witnesses' crfidibti ity b^t rei/ieu/d£ n#i/o the H-ml^rfe applJ cation tft the •tecf-Sttfthe (aw/ &U2Jvnav\ i/, S-frate, °155 S,l/i/.2ol&5,88^^^^'^«Appd^7);&leKtIne\/,5^ ^/^w.3^,^7^8^^-G^;vw,App.xocaY Autli^ntiC^tioh 6?f phy^/dalei;tdLin<^e re&u iVes \cierjt- f£leafiDhiyrWSwpp£hf a fS toiCer v,^tat^,7885Wid IOfrfc*.£rim. Apb, l^fi^cert CJ9^0\ Wifhtout ej/idenee D-f tamper^g m^sf• - questions coheerwiing e^re £\r\d ^^st^dy D¥av\ tt^vtf 5o4o w/eiahf a+t^ched, nettKe advrus£ab(lit;yc>£ rfthe ewden^.U^Vie. i/.^tate,^^ 5.u/t^d6/b2/ £/7CfeX,Sri-mr/Tpp.(fF7)(address!ng custody o-f emtrsllei SMbsfanCje-Y. -fhetriW Cflait has-fhe , disere.-tioKi'4-D defer vnl net-He; sa-£f>rc-r£rtcy erfan exA denf i<3ry dm? Aicafe. 5mifK V. 5fa+£, £83 ^u/t2d 3«,4a5(7eX:,Cr\Fn.App,Hg^ ;'*

^> OncC -the proporient erf ev/idence ^ee/cSjMe threshold requirement of present 1V3testimony that the ei/tdence is k/haf the propd)nen+-^ayS if tS.thcweighf eiventhe evidence and related tes-tivvion\/ iS within the providence ofthe trier dr PckcJc, £e£lbauiS V, 5tate,9POLS.\A/2d8rlh l^ (7e*. App,-BoustDnQ^tDis+J Wife ru9pet,;. When the trial eoar+dbesnotv»^ked.)(p\\cl+ 1 tending^ of historical ^ . a rei/ieu/mg e&urf srauld viewthe evidence\v\a Itgkf m^sf f^t/0rable ttfthe tr\a Icourts ru Ii ng and 4£j£ Uvne the trk( e^rf ma<4e implicit findings <>ffkctthaf can be supported hy-fhe record.Carmonche v/. Sfafe, I0S. W, 3d $25,12.>2gttU. C\-!w\lApp.'3LD0O).(nreviewMgthetrial court's ,. evidentiary iruling a re^/ltwing couM~ skouId Consider /only What wa^ before, the trial aouH art the tiiwe of VfS rut ing-U/e^herred v. State, 15Ssu7.5d540, 5 43LLteX.Crtv/\,App,3£0O) Thetrial LWtCDndaci ed apretrial hearing
-> G-^y Ion Lew istesfifteiK> hisroLeVtKe crW, scene investigation as a memlfler of the lAe^v-ifIcattomSechon flfthaXlubbock.

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

~~XhTheCaar+flfCriminal AppStlS ORIGINAL 0fTex4s A+ Austin, TetoS „_„_..._ »PBI'»W ,••*•.•«»[• . RECEIVED,! S\! COURT Of CRiiiNALAPPEALS~~

Reynoldo Rey JAN 23 2015 /Ippeik^xn Pro Se, Abe! Acosta, Clerk Vs. FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS T^e 5ta+e OfTexas1 2 3 2D^5 !esponder\+ J -•—•-• ; ' " •"••"• '• Abel Acosta, Clerk'

Prom The Cour\ Of Appeals Epr-The. Se^+h Di5k\c4 0f Tetas A+ Amanita TeXas

From Tm Bl^ vlu^ciql ^ CouiA+V,leXasHo^OrqUe 3^khCnClr^y} ITP C\et\Aor\; OuH- O-P Appeals CH-/a-004~W-CR - »wv''witfi3ey.''..a!!gtfj|WM«jMMiif;wa Tq h Ift n-P C-nv\±ejn+?>

Xde-rt-h+>/ o-FJu^e, Parh^S and Counsel . . .... 5. Xy\clex- Of Authorities ...•...'.,..... i iL S^a+dmenf Regarding Oral /Va^jyienrt. ° *• • • -^i-

S+at£M£n+ o£ Procedural tU^-HDry, 6 r ,,,.,. JL Grounds ^cov RcvieW, , . « , . « , * , ; , . ,^L

Xs^ue No. TKeTria CouH-Elided in FindihaThe S;tetf£ Mef i-f^TAr^k^ld BuiJey\ #£ Au+ka/rhVaifcm The. DMA E\zi cAeiAce Inkocluced Later B^Fbvse, TTifttTury A-fTrial . » * * 0 ,..».,, j5_ Xssm& Mo. 3~ The. Ei/i^mce-Presented During IheTral Was LegallyInsafftqewfTo^ppoH-XKe Tury^s V/e^ic-*- &f &uiliy<. j ,„..*.,, :2_

Argument -fi)«- 6-rtfUhd< One*.. . . . . :£_ _^_ JL iL _3_ Argument 4^ &ri)unclTvVo*. - . , _3_ J£iL _& Hii£ Prayer-for R&li£/f« e » .- « * * . . • . « * . - » *iii •Cerfif \ea+e 0-f Servhe^* ,.,.,.*. ,(i.,..J5

"I _gjgryHty Qf• 3uAg£ ..far-t-l.

\

.KeynalaD twy iHn Dcinleltf, WarricK Attarney at La .w/

A4-for nay pt La vv

.ppffl-lAg.SuTrla 1. •C?M^.&w* - eSkmekk A whet Davis PflSoX 1053^, «,--_.. UWbocK,TO^08-3 53tr. . •

-a- ?* 0-P Au4kbc-\+\ e£

r,n.c;p Lam Page BaldntmeV.S+A+e,7l S.W.3il&3,7fc8tfdX. tw- App.<^a^4 •BU^-ov.S+flte1%iS.w.^ttt»Oex.C^»v\.App.\cl^fe.&iwi,App,aa^ Da^sv.S+o+e, o<»»<»JZ tmllfcr- v,£-taH£,,73S,W.3«l MOfoxdr iw.App. 20O2\ , %1Q

J*} IPO V - ' l l U / f i f f f o cC 0 e i»o a a it ' -

L*aror\e V.StatedS.W.ai&0i.il7C!e)cCnv*, App.KTt)- i2_ Malik\/.Sta+elcJ53S.W.2J a^tTeX.Cri^App. W7V. • ± MdranJa v/.£4a+e,£53S,W3d 7fe2,~76^ CTeX App;-A>mH llo , aooi.p£+.A\sv»isse
Mon+^(9mdryv«5ta+ei8tOS.W,2ei 37^,3^1 Ctex.App.m(J

Host ey v. Stafe,183 SW.^J 2iq,a-S4tex.&im, App.W$,J£ Pond&K4^v.!Sk^,l^SW.aA571,586(tdK.C^w.App. Wife).* il'

"3- RoAK3Mfi.x\/.St-ate,8MSW.^Aff7/fteK,Cri^App.W\)^ - *il Sm!+k^, State, k83S/^^ , _4l Si^k^vS-MenS^MM l,\o£i£X,£riw,App, I^Wt

Wecrt*\err*USNtfe,t5 S.W3d'5*toSl#a(fe)LCr\*v\^pp.oU)Oo)^ i

Texas Penal Code, 5ectioA W.O^CM CO. *»,..*.. 12. TejusPenal Code,Section fa.OSCaV^L ..... .i£ .Rules Te^Las Rules ot Ev/ielenee>Rale °IOl(a\, , * , , l£_

Appellant Waives Oral Argument

OhSepfem^r^l 2012 .theAppelUcrt- was^oundqu] ity by +Kejury a£+he0££&ns~~Ui-H33i'H11.(W ip, i53r13f] On October^, ao\3i.im AppellouH-Pilea his Noti~~
f- CouH^CttVFicatu^ ottheQe-f&n&av\1rS fciaht +o Appeal was til eA oh Octob e^- 4,2DIU, CeR,p,i4g)The Appellants Af^d&v'rir ot Indigency vVasfi\e& onOc+cker- , and^eSupplemeiAfal Reporter^ ReeorA was fel&l on May 23, 3613'..

Si-at^mentOf Procedural lr\\S~i-ary A The Am&rillo Court £-P App&ils at£\^vAed Appellants Conviction on Oetoher^S.^W.Melthei- £k)e tiled a mction -fbr rehearing (rrr?Mnd.^ Fflr Rei/ievi/ IThgTTrial Court E<-reci In FiiaA vv\g The State tAet VP$TV\te£>V\oU BarAev\ cot Auih£vvHcati% The DMA Ei/\Aey\ee \wtrodueed L^ferBefere Thetrury At Trial,

^l.The E\j\ A&\cd, Presented DueingTkcTri Legally In^ul^ci^ltT^) Support The {JLi^ y>s Verdict- o
Argumpn+fcnr A-^unrl One In general Atrial ciourt^ Aec^iflni-o aAmi+ or elcluAeeviAemee cWlngtrial is reviewed tor a.n abuse of iiscret\on,TY\e~vr\al eourp£ rait v\g should be a££lvV\e
-5- -i, ;J ifi!0Siftf';%- :S*'?S-Hrf£f>^£i* •*;:.£

Monkery v.^a+e>8[0£/^^ on Y-eW^na^^aV.S^crtt,;&53 3,yi/3d 76i,7^peX,App,-^ AmcTirl i\o2D01i pef. di£)^d). in r&/f4he witnesses' crfidibti ity b^t rei/ieu/d£ n#i/o the H-ml^rfe applJ cation tft the •tecf-Sttfthe (aw/ &U2Jvnav\ i/, S-frate, °155 S,l/i/.2ol&5,88^^^^'^«Appd^7);&leKtIne\/,5^ ^/^w.3^,^7^8^^-G^;vw,App.xocaY Autli^ntiC^tioh 6?f phy^/dalei;tdLin<^e re&u iVes \cierjt- f£leafiDhiyrWSwpp£hf a fS toiCer v,^tat^,7885Wid IOfrfc*.£rim. Apb, l^fi^cert CJ9^0\ Wifhtout ej/idenee D-f tamper^g m^sf• - questions coheerwiing e^re £\r\d ^^st^dy D¥av\ tt^vtf 5o4o w/eiahf a+t^ched, nettKe advrus£ab(lit;yc>£ rfthe ewden^.U^Vie. i/.^tate,^^ 5.u/t^d6/b2/ £/7CfeX,Sri-mr/Tpp.(fF7)(address!ng custody o-f emtrsllei SMbsfanCje-Y. -fhetriW Cflait has-fhe , disere.-tioKi'4-D defer vnl net-He; sa-£f>rc-r£rtcy erfan exA denf i<3ry dm? Aicafe. 5mifK V. 5fa+£, £83 ^u/t2d 3«,4a5(7eX:,Cr\Fn.App,Hg^ ;'*

^> OncC -the proporient erf ev/idence ^ee/cSjMe threshold requirement of present 1V3testimony that the ei/tdence is k/haf the propd)nen+-^ayS if tS.thcweighf eiventhe evidence and related tes-tivvion\/ iS within the providence ofthe trier dr PckcJc, £e£lbauiS V, 5tate,9POLS.\A/2d8rlh l^ (7e*. App,-BoustDnQ^tDis+J Wife ru9pet,;. When the trial eoar+dbesnotv»^ked.)(p\\cl+ 1 tending^ of historical ^ . a rei/ieu/mg e&urf srauld viewthe evidence\v\a Itgkf m^sf f^t/0rable ttfthe tr\a Icourts ru Ii ng and 4£j£ Uvne the trk( e^rf ma<4e implicit findings <>ffkctthaf can be supported hy-fhe record.Carmonche v/. Sfafe, I0S. W, 3d $25,12.>2gttU. C\-!w\lApp.'3LD0O).(nreviewMgthetrial court's ,. evidentiary iruling a re^/ltwing couM~ skouId Consider /only What wa^ before, the trial aouH art the tiiwe of VfS rut ing-U/e^herred v. State, 15Ssu7.5d540, 5 43LLteX.Crtv/\,App,3£0O) Thetrial LWtCDndaci ed apretrial hearing
-> G-^y Ion Lew istesfifteiK> hisroLeVtKe crW, scene investigation as a memlfler of the lAe^v-ifIcattomSechon flfthaXlubbock. Police Department,Ontlus occas\q\\ his role was pkotoampWvn^the crime scene \v\ general andthe ev id enee h eiv\a collected. Deceased Dere&rli/e UidtGiwrniite role was to collect evidence. C^3, p.H5) 6-c\ykh LowtStestlfveAtba+hewo\dpp.3~4) Wc^ \denfif\ep.S2r 53,5b-U)But kecoalci K\ot 4-e<.+ify 4ou/ko bggged orkidp^d collectthe robe, pillow eas^aullt, sheets cmAblanket.And We. Cau Id v\cA-meal Ikom/tk^Se i4ewaS were C£>(lacfed.(.RR,3,p.6^) Tke Sfa4e^ witnesses coaid not aghee is>n Wkmfhe crW scene wa£ aetiVe.Poe.Carryard iPc*\^m0rete3Kft&i to ^r^me 2&, Km CRR 3,p, £3>£Pcel, P. a££c^ryl^3k~37' . EParraKLorel Eat Lewi/is testified 4o^Unc M, igg^CM^p^ TKe DPS Lab records could wot aaree on \Ad\e\a Items wei^e received. Stents Pretrial EYj^llaVFlb Indicates that x 5abvn\ss,von Iw^ rec^l\/ed on3LiAe3^Hvlcl8^.CSRR^,po4 Stated Prctridjl^^ hears a reeel\/ed sfampdateof3Uhe 3A, WW, onthetirSt baqe and atvpeddateot^UneSO, IW, on the second pq<3eu>RK^pp,T8nikel^sfiniony of37m TKomas does not kelp clear this diScrepency Sii/vce. he test^edto both dates, CRR.3, pp.87-88^0 TKc Appellant Wes Ituptotkis courtto decideWliefter -the tecH4toowy of retired at£c^P£ (cusfodycftte He>nsfro*n vuklck katrscStotek £Xk;brr*l IS u/erc nscwared, Infhcabsence #ft^stlvnonyfrom the&.e.c£aoeA officer ui#

-S' CollectedtKe^bedsbreadiCfuiW, blanket, andsKeef (Sfate*5 rWt^alEyWvt^tWthecrl^ scene, Wi+b conflicting testvvnony aboutWketKer Stated Pretrial b£kib. ar\d cdIected it the right way. is is not Sufficient to establish thatfheVVevns anewhaf the pro pon e nt eda\vv\ thei*\ to be, Arguhnem-t f OY-rfrnandTA/ft The proper standard of re\/t eu/fora courtto util ize, indeterminmg wketkertke eiAvdene+ui/i- neee^Sarl ly Increase the ^totcis theories of liability, and adequately describes dhepartleukr o#ense for Which thede-fenaan-t Wa£ t-rted, Malik y,SiQ^^SZSM3iAQ39CreX^im,Ap^l^l)i

-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

~~~~Bluebook (online)~~~~

~~~~Rey, Reynaldo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rey-reynaldo-texapp-2015.~~~~