Sheyenne Nicole Liles v. State

Opinion

5th Court of Appeals FILED: 10-21-15

Lisa Matz, Clerk

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF APPE^'S 5th OIST OCT 1 9 2015

05-14-01386-CR LISA M„.z CLERK, 5th DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS FZLED XIM Court of Appeals -0£UiL2015 ^ Lisa Matz

SHEYENNE LILES, Clerk, 5th District Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Cause No. F13-71006-Q

On Appeal from Criminal DistrictCourt, No. 204 of Dallas County, Texas The Honorable Tammy Kemp, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT'S PRO SE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION, OBJECTION TO COUNSEL'S ANDERS BRIEF, and NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

SHEYENNE LILES,

Appellant, Pro Se TDC# 01956109 Murray Unit

1916 NHwy 36 Bypass Gatesville, TX 76596

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES:

Sheyenne Liles, pro se, brings this Response in Opposition, Objection to Counsel's Anders Briefand Notice of Supplemental Authority. In support thereof, Appellant cites the below listed points oferror in favor of Appellant and arguable grounds for relief:

1) Appellant's trial transcripts were confiscated by prison authorities on September 29, 2015 and she was thus denied access to the transcripts at a critical stage ofthe appeals process;

2) Appellate counsel's conclusion that trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel is in error in that prior to, during and post-trial, all critical stages of the proceedings, trial counsel's actions and inactions fell below the necessary standard of competence required by STRICKLAND v WASHINGTON. 466 US. 668 (1984), all to Appellant's demonstrated prejudice;

3) Appellant received ineffective counsel when trial counsel failed to challenge the indictment and where the indictment was vague and insufficient to advisethe common citizen as to what conduct was proscribed;

4) Specifically, Appellant was denied a fair trial when, despite Appellant's specific requests, trial counsel failed to obtain a separation of trials from co-defendant;

5) Appellant was denied a fair trial when trial counsel bullied, threatened and insisted that appellant not testify, despite Appellant's numerous statements that she wanted to tell the jury that she was under the influence of a violent pimp since her early teens and that she received multiple beatings that resulted in contusions, a broken jaw, 2 broken teeth and a hairline fracture;

6) Appellant was denied a fair trialand sentencing when counsel failed to object to the conviction and where thejury failed to make a specific finding that a "deadly weapon" was used, thus making a 3 G finding improper;

7) Appellant was denied a fair trial when trial counsel failed to adequately impeach the State's sole witness against her based upon promise of leniency affecting her credibility and veracity;

8) Appellant wasdenied a fair trialand fairsentencing where trial counsel failed to subpoena and call as witnesses both at trial and sentencing persons who could verify and prove that the Appellant was tortured and beaten as a teen into submission by her vicious pimp;

9) Appellant wasdenied a fair trialand sentencing where trial counsel failed to document before thejury her substantial efforts to flee herpimp and starta new life;

10) That trial counsel erred in failing to adequately argue at sentencing against the excessive sentence finally handed down, which sentence punishes the victim and rewards the actual perpetrators;

11) That considering the failure oftrial counsel to present all available mitigating and exculpatory evidence and the failure of the state to seek out the truth, there was not legally sufficientevidence to support Appellant's conviction,JACKSON v VIRGINIA. 443 US. 307 (1979); 12)That appellate counsel was derelict in her responsibility to communicate withthe Appellant in that despite several initiatives, appealscounsel failed to communicate with Appellant at any time.

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, Appellant objects to the filing of the Anders Brief, andrequests that the Court review the trial record, reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

Respectfully Submitted

^nmvMrmhi Sheyenne Liles, Pro Se

> fO*9-jots

No. 01956109 Murray Unit 1916 NHwy 36 Bypass Gatesville, TX 76596

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on October Q_, 2015, true correct copies ofthis Pro Se motion was mailed to: Clerk, Court of Appeals, 5th District of Texas at Dallas, 600Commerce St., Suite 200, Dallas, TX 75202, the Appellate Division ofthe District Attorney's Office, 133 N Riverfront Blvd., Dallas, TX 75207 by first class mail, and deposited in the prison mail receptacle at TDC, Murray Unit, 1916 N Hwy 36 Bypass, Gatesville, TX 76596

fpftgr

SheyennejLiles

r>&. HBxi.Xioai(ka <\X£fAMJ$L

^jjiXsLmsyx 0

iS^hkb^

LzILk.

t^XsuuAjK. \Shau fc-Tmcui- _t£>

fid. 5^._oi^do cMim^-, _

K3l<VujLAJjLm cuJdt QCvQjLttu. |

lQri*j=iSL

VA

4{44y^fe £ l/Ck£i££&.