Walls, Raymond Keith

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 23, 2015
• Docket: WR-81,484-01
• Status: Published

Opinion

s _91,¢/8¢/'0\/©2

RAYMOND KEITH WALLS TDC No. 01828261 McConnell Unit 3001 s; Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102

15 March 2015 Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals P. O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711

Re£ wR431,484-01 s wR431,484{02

Dear Mr. Acosta, Clerk$

Enclosed please find £he original copy of Applicant's Objection to appointed Counselfs Motion to withdraw and Brief in support.

Thank you for your time adn consideration in this matter. `

Sincere y,

¢{w&

RAYMOND K; WALLS

files cc; Other enclosures

RECE\VED \N couRT oF cRn'\mNAL APPEALS

MAR 23 2015

Abe\ Acosta, G\€"‘

wRITs§ wR¥a1,4a4¥01 a wR431,484;02 DIsTRIcT coURT Nos: cR-01624 & cR-01626

EXPARTE § IN THE 102th nIsTRIcT couRT eAYMoND KEITH wAst `§ or APpLIcANT § RED nivz§€coUNTY,TEXAs

APPLIQANTWS onchTIoN To APR)INTED couNsEL*s MoTIoN To wITHDRAw AND BRIEF IN sUPPoRT

To THE HoNoRABLE coURT op cRiMINAn APPEALSE on Apriz 28, 2014, App11¢ant filed his Pro se App# lication for writ of Habeas Corpus seeking Relief fron Final conviction under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11;079 On August 20, 2014, This Appeal Court ordered the District Court and Defense counsel to make the following findings$ The trial court shall make_findings of fact as to whether the enhancement paragraphs alleging a prior conviction in McCurtain County, Oklahoma Cause Number CF-2003- 497 was final conviction capable of enhancing the applicable range of punishment. The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether the per- formance of Applicant's trial attorney was deficient and if so,'whether counsel' s deficient performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and conclusion of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the dis- position of Applicant' s claim for habeas corpus relief. On September 18, 2014, the Honorable Bobby lockhart appointed attorney Jason Horton to review Applicant"s filing

and provide legal research and analysis in response to the

Court of Criminal Appealsl August 20, 2014 Order;

APPLICANTWS GROUND ONEE "Counsel was ineffective by failing to object to the attestation for the FOut of State" document was not accompanied by 'another_certificate' that the attesting officer had legal custody of the record." oaJEcTIQN To coUNsEL*s REsPoNsEE Applicant contend that Mr; Horton, the appointed counsells Response admitted bits and pieces as he correctly recognized Applicantls claims that Kevin Moore*s certification le NbT render the pen pack self¥authenticating because the certification was not accompanied an officials seal or a certification by a Public officer indicating Mr; Moore had the officil capacity to certify the pen pack and that Mr; Moorels signature was genuine; See, Texas Rule of Evidence 902(1)&(2); Although the "top" of Mr; Moorels certification page indicates a seal was "attached". This error made appointed counsel to traveled to the Réd Rivéi cététg nictiict cléik*s cffice l and reviewed the cinibits ctbaitted at tiial add this exhibit poss Nor ccataia the icféichccd seal ct ccitificati&h by a public cfficci iédicatihg nis uccié had the cfficial capacity to certify the pen pack or that Hr: loore“s signature was `genuine; See, page 4 of appointed Counsel*s Motion to withdraw and Brief in support.

Applicantis Original Memorandum clearly reveals that 28 UJS;C;§: secs l"1738"', State and Territorial Statutes and Judicial-Proceedings} Full Faith and Credit; The acts of the Legislature of any State, Territory' or possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated

;2_'

by affixing, the seal of such state, Territory.or possession thereto; The record and Judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other court within the United State and its Territories and Possession by the attestation of the clerk and seal ef the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form; Such acts, record and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated shall have the same full, faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of suchState, Territory or possession from which they are taken; See, original memorandum at page '6'; In other word, the trial never had jurisdiction to receive such evidence. See, Ragland vs Cone, Ter;Civ; App; 188 S:W¢ 2d; 1098, no writ; Mr; Horton is reliance on the "fingerprint" match to authenticate the entire penitentiary package, is misplaced; The fingerprint match goes to the "second category of proof", proving the defendant is the person previously be convicted, and fails to prove that the document in the pen pack are what the State asserts them to be: See, Cole v; State, 484 s;w; 2d; l79, 734 (Tex;ctim: App; 1972)¢ The fingerprint are used as a means of insuring that the person on trial is the same one to whom the package refers; ln the absence of any other proof that the document in the package are what the State claims, evidence of a valid and final conviction.

;3;

Trial Counsel did object to the introduction of the pen pack "on the basis of hearsay and lack of predicates”". (4 RR ll)} Counsel :egonot "specific" in his objection as required by lawj

While Appointed Counsel reliance on "Reed va State" 311 sdwa 2d; 533; ln geed, the court concluded that language not similar to the above¥referenced certification but perhaps as that Appellant atgted that the copies ef the judgment and sentence wete inadniseible hecauee, elthetgh they wete

ceitified bythe ctetodien cf ieceid at the Tncdln, they

'did net ieflect'a eeparete ceitificetien by the oietiict

cieik uf the ailgi;ai eanvieeing basis la naiiae bennett Applicantls claim is total different from §§£d as -aank é; state' 158 s:w: 3d: 649 given the ceuit a clear picture of applicantis claim; The document were not properly authenticated and should not have been admitted. Seei £2££' suprar Because the applicant find the peh pack should have been admitted and proof of a prior conviction for a reportable offense is_an essential element of failing to register in violation of article 62$02, Tex; Code Crime As the peniten- tiary pen pack was the only evidence the State relied upon to proce applicant was previously convicted of a reportable offense The improper admission affected applicantls substan- tial rights; 3 Tex; R: App; P; 44;2(b); Seei §f§£, supta at pga 654: cf: king t: stete¢ 953 s;w: 282 266, 271 (Tez:

ciim: hpp: 1997):

The record does not contain a certificate from a "Judge" in the County_where the prison is located or from a Clerk of a court in that County; There is no ”signature" nor "seal" by the "Secretary State of Oklahoma". there is nothing to indicate that the proper were were received from the legal custodian of the record in oklahoma; The oklahomais pen pack were improperly considered by the Court in assessing Applicant“s punishment. The "form" does not even have Applicant's name in it at all; See, Carpenter v; State, 781 S;W; 2d; 707.

Regardless or not if the Trial Counsel objected to the ”hearsay or Predicates": The trial court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence a "pen package" from the State of Okalhoma reflecting Applicantis prior conviction for Burglary and attempt Burglary, since there was certificate by a judge of the court of record in which the record was kept certifying that attesting officer had legal custody of the asserted writting and there was no certificate from "secretary of State of Oklahoma" or any other appropriate official certifying as to attesting officeris position and to the fact that he had custody of the document as asserted in his certificate; Corter va State, 571 S;W; 2d. 308;

See, Original writ with attachment.

APPLICANT*S GRCUND TWCS "Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court admitting into evidence a pen package not properly authenicated under Rule 902 of the Texas Rules of Evidence

See, Objection to Counsells Response Ground One.

\

APPLICANT"s cROUND THREE "Applicant asserts tfhat counsel' s failure to discover that one prior conviction could not be used for enhancement..

OBJECTION TO COUNSEL}S RESPONSE; Applicant Claims that McCurtain County, Oklahoma cause Number CF¥2003-497, could not be used for enhancement because Applicant was on Probation for that offense at the time he committed the instant offense; Applicantla Oklahoma pen pack reflects that on April 16, 2004, Applicant received 23 years imprison- ment in cFl2003¥497, "with all except the first right (3) years suspended under the custody and control of" the Oklahoma Department of corrections

In Texas, a prior felony conviction can be used for enhancement if the State shows that the defendant has previously been finally convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony; See, Tex; Penal Code Ann; § 12;42; While Mr;HOrton is reliance on "Louisiana conviction" where [State] proved Louisiana connictiennes final under treuisian law] eeuld be used fer enhancement in [Teras]; Applicantis case is just the opposite, the tresss eeurt] neser prered oklahoma“s prior cenvietion res a finel cenéietion under eklahena laws ceuld he used fer enhancement in [reres]: see; skillei vs state, 390 s:w: ida 349, 333 trees epp; esstin 1993,

pete reif)

APPLIcANTVs cRoUND FoURE_"Applicant was denied the effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, in violation of Anders v.California;;;_when cousnel, in failing to raise the claims which applicant now seeking to raise, was permitted to withdraw after a non-advocatory brief;"

osdrcrion re ceukssL“s RBsPensse

npplicantis current grounds for review are supported by Teras precedent. Therefore, Applicantis appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise Applicantis current claims on direct appeal;

APPLICANTVS GRCUND FlvE£ "The Applicant is entitled to an evidentiary Hearing on these issues:"

enascrlow To couNsEL*s REspoNsE$

There are controverted, previously unresolved facfs which are material to the legality of Applicant“s confines ment;" Tex;Code of Criminal Proc § 11:07(d);

PRAYER

FoR THE REASoNs sET FoRTH ABOVE, the undersigned respectfully

requests that he be granted a remanded and reverse;

Respectfully Submitted,

m mm

oND KEITH'wALLs

No: 01333261 _ _ William G: McConnell Unit 3001 S;‘Emily_Dr: Beeville, Texas 78102

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE`

I hereby certify that a ttrue and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been forwarded to the following listed persons this [é; day of /yL€AYQA , 2015, addressed as followingr

Mr. Val Varley Red RiV€B Eounty District Attorney

400 N. Walnut Street printh /»( UQ//»§

Clarksville, Texas 75426 WOND K. WALLS