/Dear Clerk Acosta,  | 5  ,Q §

win vv»>' .W»l»fQ/AMM*’ °~f/""°°'+'b" n ‘07

1 just got my response /denial back from Ft.Worth DA office. They said" Applicant's claims
are best suited for a Motion for Reconsideration, and not as an application alleging his

first application was not properly considered." Qbw#Qd.Om F&yLSTX 0?-+hCH~oL&J@i/rQfP0WW~

So here 1 am filing the Motion to reconsider, they said to file. 1 am filing it with ya'll
coz they lie, they are opposition and will not give me relief/action/justice.

Thank y@u, C@um 0\= cnuv\\N/>.L APPEALS
`§§§§§1§§“§§§1*_1°6“`°'2 .\uu 02 2016

899 fm 632
kenedy,TX 78ll9

y Ps: l’ ~<<>»~+» w +-‘@\X come Jv»éb;@ a m+r@»m@ WM'F?§@@~/>;zw ne

/)A@€€»`c,@, hay @Mc<:w ~€e,\ol).c>t<, WL@w +w>z r~<z~\+ ».¢¢»v,@~,¢¢,~u`

.{\/IQHQQ. M/QS’|"F<»»U C\r'{' 371  l/\QJ\/Q/r` f‘€,_£’p@)')c&§ -(;u amy vv\o“f`/`O¢'q
31 542/wl wm

g@ 7¢,>\\ p\w@ raped +1» m, w@+zvv\ +iwgs.@.r@k +.> mt
Cé/ see 31 hazel ct \/\Qiw§v\gj\

/\/Qw»h`l u;+ bee <JszrQz§L¢/u\»\sz~\ +mm ii ewov \/\'ola»+\` t/(.§
C;)n§,}."+t\:,\_,‘~ov,:\/M{L{~{.»\,\ M,\,,\q,.:,,l\/\AQM_\» @\¢'AQ,AQ/\)CQ.$`§ L@,\/\J,_ [_}¢<L Qroux;%\/\ MM>"W\~S\

 L\¢J\g_g_b_j Qoy[bg),£ V\/\,U»S'\" `O~Q,»

_ ruff ,
TZ)AM CovLQ, of`Crxv~/\.‘N,§\ @YQ)C,Q<){)@)~#“Q_ A'H\`O/' §W - uhl JZ/l’ C<> !&‘..‘\‘\`OV‘.
?»»MA/nl Whw +we, only W°~`f *”"L PYU§WFMFQ::~@LV \/?Mr)~(z\/\MX r¢>?`f '\4"3

W(,,§ toy u\`&)Lo~\-\` +L\e </(§ Com§+`f*.‘/”"i"_"°*’\~ _ _ `
d plug pro L@Q~  C\)v\S{";-\'\,\'\*\O'/"r?& \rl§\¢\‘{' \/1  
Pfo)ac~)~'ft)»»M/L+»»QLA. <,~vu/»§Q'r$l/»<>U cov»fQ/v)+ for w\ *~F>O ‘/`@ HWQ*

)r O@QM`»JJ.. . -
guido QM §0 bay LAAA)QH.QT)T¢…AQ/,/ /\/42,247£5` filling
@R@AREB

~‘ coUR'i' oF cRiMiNAL APPEALS

EXPARTE §
§ TRIAL Crt N0: C-371-OlO503-O743445
JASON MATrHEw TRUvER § weir No= 34,352-01

MOTION FOR RECONCIDERATION BECAUSE DA OFFICE LIED TO DENY GROUND ONE

1 just got the DA offices response/denial to my subsequent writ to appeals their lies, and they
said on page six of their response "Applicant's claim's are best suited for a Motion for Recons-

ideration..."

So I'm filing this motion to reconsider with this court, coz the DA office lies.They are corrupt
and deny us who are indigent/prose filing. So please order a hearing like ya'll did for Brian
Franklin in 2014 when FtWorth DA office denied to give him a hearing like their doining me.

`#
§
Heres my 2% page memorandum 1 just filed, carbon copy of it to prove Truver needs a hearing. `§
Also see below: d 4 3
z /,_/_ W'\;/. (L/;p{.'w¢-/L:L\ uv\¢-,L\r {5'1`0$€£0.')~01` N\l$`
l. Truver quoted Brady V. Maryland 83 S.Ct 1194 on his memorandum's page five, it says it's a
"due process fourteenth amendment rights violation and grounds for reversal on habeas corpus
when the prosecutor witheld evidence favorable to the defense."
A. The states responsepage four Tex. Code. Crim.Proc.Ann.art. ll.O7,§4.
(2) By a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution
no juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
If Rousseau/Prosecutor had not violated Truver right to due process, by witholding the guns/shoe
consent to search form then Truver's motion to suppress would have been granted. He would not

have been convicted. Hs-/‘<>Qv~,\‘ CQ\~P\A.S V\/\u$“\” \3£_  Yw/\~\'Q& \'\v(p, \§r-@.&)¢ 

2. Montoya V. State 744 SW2d l5,25, 108 S.Ct 2887 (Tex.Crim. App. l987) and Lopes 85 SW3d 844
say" when a person voluntarily consents to a search the scope of the search is limited by the
express object of the search."

Court of Criminal Appeals reversed drug cases Montoya and Lopes, and eight other cases sited
by Truver. All similar to Truver's case.

3.Montanez V. State 143 SW3d 344, reversed at 211 SW3d 412 was in Truver's memorandum and says"
"In a single issue, he complains of the denial of his pre~tria1 motion to suppress, challengi-
ng the ruling on three levels: l. the stop was not justified, 2. consent was not proven by cl-
eat'and convincing evidence, and the scope of the search went beyond the consent given." Also
" In a motion to suppress evidence from a voluntary consent to search, the Texas Constitution
requires the state to show by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was valid."

read this memorandum 2% pages to see state officer's own testimony that prove the state didn't
meet the Texas Cons't requirementthat Truver consented to a search for drugs.

HabeaS Corpus must be granted when thefE is a due process violation of Constitional Cbnsent Law,
My motion to suppress must must be granted like the Court of Criminal Appeals did in Montoya, an

d the other nine similar drug cases sited in Truver's memorandum, which all proves the DA office

11@@~ /<Q¢A B¢.i¢< @e+»\'.;$~'£_.%.°~

PLEASE ORDER A HARING

Re$pectfully Submitted, P§`\  DF`WV\Q-   lok 133 ')"|S/(TK`¥C* M\’Af?`
   nn WJ.»\ mw fm r@v~»»s<»}v\e <’/Y~l>r <>\/\ ‘°"‘°"
 WM"`j/M…  Corpg( when COMS+T%\M§~:E>§@\)\ QF<\§\'\'\`~J'|`.M

§::::£f;t::::   mw amiss me Pr»w~ wm w -»\»» `

,~¢/ rt wm »<e/¢ +r wl
§:?1@§:,§>3;273119   Lo\)u:.)A Mc)i"\b\/\\ ‘D"
(”"‘<Q“'*“'X G"‘K"`”L°° °°£H`_" AWQ’M` P»~oy@<,v+o/ ¢/ro\.»=\>l>&_;wil~\o|ol~“v\g, ‘T‘*"’/‘b‘°"“K_<QOV`N""/¥

Or'Y\/\a

-,_~-=',,._s'-. . 1>.»-‘»,~-- , ~

n”i“` m usnonAnous

 

!

~ »All this was in Truver's first writ applications emorandum, it all proves Prosecutor
~Andrea Jacobs lied in all the states fact fin6inlB to deny Truver's ground one. Truver's
ground one in his first writ`was.” The guns and shoes consent_form was witheld, ad a false
non limited form used to deny Truver's motion to suppress."

1,Tho oh office Lied saying Truver presented 5S’credible evidence that the guns/shoes consent
ltc search form existed between 1999-200l. In Truver's first writ he typed word for word
officers/states own witnesses testimony that are all credible evidence the limited guns/shoal

‘ consent form existed on 8~l8~99 when Det.Brannan said Truver signed it. Heres their words
again: t 1 . -

A. on motion to suppress trial record page 174 lines ll-13 Prosecutor Rousseau says to Brannan
"Upt6 the date wo're talking about that your actually- 1 guessthis would be August l8¢l999

' when you're talking to Truver..." then §§oy go down to page 18 with Brannan saying he had
foot prints in the mud §§ the murder_sceHe; Then page 18 lines 15-2B,Brannan says, ”weil» 1
asked him if he would be willing to sign a consent to search form, that 1 would-wanted to
go out and collect whatever guns he had and search and see if he had any others and cllect
whatever tennis shoes that he might have out there to use to compare with evidence that we
-¢°11°19=°<’~." Th@" RQUS.S¢“ *=k@d»-hiffu_liihvd..,Qil§,..!ze,esien,,_s.esta§ensnt,sindicatingz:~ethat;.»he€!didf

. . »......\..~......,......'_..,.,-...._¢» -- .»-¢~

fact'éonsentTt§jEhat5s§§ZcH?”“Brannan@§§id;§§es,sir.F l _
Dat.srenna is credible evidence $ruvarginflnc! signed conant to a search for guns/shoes
€vidn¢¢ to¢ogmpare`to'foot prints at tho.scsna. nousseau said this as on 8~l8-99.j

.B.Motion to suppress to suppress page 77 lin?S 12-23,Lisa Mullen is questioning crime scene
sarchgoffioor]Walies;ishe asks, “So you weron't-let me ask you this. lt you were going
out there to do a_consent to search that would cover drugs» is it safe to say that you would
have done a'heck of slot more than what you did that day?" gBzq§pig§§3§gd, Yes ma'am." then
line'2lpane»asked"him,"Basically you want on a search for s ic ems Walles, "yes¢ma'm'
0¢licer.Iblles greed he did not do;:H:§epnt to catch that covered drugs. ne agrees it was
.m ueispe¢i¢x¢: iam mm gave  t*f¢¢. mm 1a seems evidence w m using t
lruvs*s guns/sees limit during the search on;8~18~99 the day hannan said Truvr signed it-

C.Motion to suppress page 32 lines 21-25, Sgt. Loftis is asked by Lisa Mullen," After you fhn¢
ished the search»~which didn’t take very long because it was not a complete search that one
would typically do. would you agree with me on that?F Loftis said,”Yes" Page 33 lines 1-2
Lisa asko,”!t was just a search for specific items? Loftis¢ "Yes." .

:_sgt. bettis is credible evidnce he was using Truver's limit of secific items gus/shoe on
8-l8499'duriog the earch. 4 _

`All three state witnesses are credible evidnce rruve signed.consont limitin th scppe_of
the search to guns and shoes to prove he did not kill HBrty. Truver's 1995 attorney Loism§
Livens told him to always limit a consent to search to specific items. so he did here in 1999

2.!ha hon dacobs Lisd saying traver presented no authorities that state drugs could¢not_be,
seizd during a search for guns and shoes. In zruver's first writ's memorandum3§:5B§es'2,3,4L
he sited all four of the below similar drug cases which were all reversed by the court of s
¢riminsl lppeals due to the fact the scope of the sarches exceded the consent given, all of
them their old motion to suppress were granted on habeas corpus: ` <¥wro
-lopez 85 8.W.3d 844 “when a person voluntarily consents to a search» the scope of theissgbh
is limited by the express object of the search." hopes followed Hbntoya 744 8.W.Zd 15¢25»
`(Tec,Crim¢App. l987) Both Lopes and Montoya were reversed on habeas_corps by the Court of
Criminal Appeals coe the sear esE, 'egded the express object of the search during a consent
so search. net. Brannan~saidj§E§n!2z§aas object et to search was for guns/tennis enos Q6i;
compare to evidana collect v at the murder scene. Anything seized other than murder case?wa
Xq3evidence like dru9s, Truver by law of consent could not be charged with. *'j;
.§vIAA -hay 583 SI2IiB48 ¢” Hhen the basis for 3 search or seizure is consent» the government mstjy;
conform to the limitations placed on the right granted to search, seize, or retain the papers
or effects."nN@Y ¢onsented to a seardh for stolen tools, and drugs were seized.( sversed¢
motion to suppress granted rex. cria. App. 19ld)¢q1% y
l»Hantzho 93 8.Wz3d 536. " when a person voluntarily consents to a search. the officers autho¢i
rity to perform the search is not without limit." (Rsvaraed» motion to oppress granted)_

 
 

~,$K____h;ntzke folloed,  915 B.W.Zd »493» and was follo¢ed by names 124 S.W.Sd 326¢ dues 72 S.W.
Zd?&§ 'Autran 830 ’Saw".'zd_,¢'d(>?‘|, reversed at 877 B.W.Zd 31. . All these drug cases were reversed
coz the searches exceeded the sothority' of the officertwho conducted the search»_ All of them
consent was given for specific items¢ not_,dr_v.zgs. . '_ .

TruveraooordircgtoBrannan'smmwor<h:/testimonygaveconsent to.searchforgmmandshoesto

 “' '=;:,..,i““r,..,.,..““~a“::+.:“"~.,,....'=" '::..v“r...,,~ ”-..:“:.:‘f;:i'.r‘~a~' ~"i:~'.,.‘=’
§§ v l ‘ guns , _ 9 . ' , . . ,l 53 v
--lhltama 143 B.W.BB'SM;:... tlge scope ¢§f<the search vogt be§§§: the consent giverin.'f' ?lso¢ " in
a motion to suppress ev ence rom a vo untary consent _ 1 the Texas t tut on rcgu ~
~ res the Btate to show by clear and convincing evidence that the consent was  d voluntary%
--Rayford 125 mild 52_8 Also says this above. both of these drug case_s¢:were reversed cos the court
of driminal Appeals' determined the prosecutor failed `to meet the TX‘_Cons't requirement that
consent~`.was given voluntarily for drugs. » _, 
‘B\eStat'e/Prosecutor failcdtomsetthe*l'exasoons't rcquirementtoprovebycleararodconvinc-
ingevidsncethat'i'ruvervolmtarilycor\sarntedtoasearch £oridrugs. m~annansaid¢c_navcrcon-
~sentedtt:£searohforguna/terznisshoes. Andheagreedwithl\o:u_sseauthat'l*ruverinrnc*,l'sign-
ed for ~ oons`ent», . » '
` There”are` ten drud cases“-sitsd here,all similar to Truver's case. all were reversed by the Crtw..
of Crin» Appls. and ¢rt. of appls. Allfwere reversed motion to suppress g§an§ed due §§ the
fact the searches exceeded the scope o the search, consent g ven. None o t em met_ - e Tex.
constitutional requirement during the motion to suppress hearing. A\l had `D\).Q @voces'$ v\<)\o.+:`o\f\§
'Truver's case must follow all these ten cases similar to his. ‘i‘vruver's habeas corpus mist be
`granted.j ~ ' - __ , ._ _

3. brady V.  83 S¢ct. 1194 was on page 5 of !ruver's first writ's,ruexnorandum,and says,
"Prooecutor suppressed evidence. evidence was favorable to defense” Also says this is serious
enough error to grant habeas corpus. . t . _ `
down V.Borg 951 F.Zd 1011 (9thcir.l99l) was on same page as brady above, it Iays," Proeecutors
failure to notify defense counsel of material exculpatory evidence and arguing false evidence
to the jury was misconduct serious enough to warrant the granting of writ of habeas ccrpus¢”
 Roussoau suppressed/witheld evidence of g\ms/shoes consent form that brennan said
'lruvar signed on &-18-99, and he argued to Judge same wilson false evidence of non limited v
coosantfocmtoget‘i‘ruver'ssotion tosuprressdenied. mioerrorissoriousenoughtowarrant
granting of '.l'ruver's habeas corpus. _- . _ 4
In the»ltates memorandum for Truver's ground one they cited Bzparte Qlabot (!bx.crim. App.2009);
_says¢" l?rosecutor entering false evidence was serious enough error to warrant granting of habea¢
corpus." . ~ ° `_ - ~ , » a
Branxxan~said 'rruver signed consent to search for guns/shoes on `8-1,8-_9_9. prosecutor Rousseau
witheld~this consent form,BBaxman said traver signedj.tlxuver's habeas corpus n.p\a_t be granted
_4 lil_r_a ¢_a_abo_t.,aro\_¢n_.  Br_ady. Lisa miles filed a brady  cg  hearing
  “   'MQ:‘P“¢TO'¢€§F'\?"‘**"H¥""‘  °"”- 
H<-»e)" wrist n ~   ' 1.  l ;_;; w    l
4.  Yamgms swan 45.as(1~e».crm.npp11ge'12)'h qpxinns'a,,;slplargin,,age,_;;ing habeas car-pas
relief may prejudice the credibility of the claim." "ihis says   pu:'ejudioo'. »‘l'ruver's
delay seeking 'habeas_corpusp was not his fault. He was due di_ligent'. -In.'his first,writ memor-
andum  said he did not gltain' his case file from his other  ~old,courtfa'ppointed lawyer w
Leon Hal_,ey until 2012. 'rruvor wrote trial judges James wilson a couple times, no response. He

' wrote Judge Mollee westfall asking for his case file and record¢no response. He wrote ‘Kyle imi-
takeri land Lisa mullen several times and no response. All these people wore dil\i§*;rate indiffer
rent knowing Truver needed his case files and did not send it. They are why took so long
to file. Then he wrote his other cases lawyer Leon haley and haley sent 'Pruver's_ trial record¢
Rickstts' trial record» and l.'ruver's,Ricket_ts', and !locutt's case files. In thesepape_rs was
Truver's limited guns/shoes consent to search form that Prosecutor Rousseau _witheld_ at tri,al.
then truver spent three yrs. trying to find soxneone to contact Jackie to get her a£fidavit, ~
finally he gave up and filed habeas corpus in June' 2015. g g _
Brannan»!hlles. and Loftis' testimony all prove ‘rruvor's credibility to his claim and that

  

habeas corpus must be granted. ~

 ‘ moments continues

 

cawcr.rsxwornm

All the facts set forth in truver's first writ{s memorandum are all repeated here. This all
_proves beyond a preponderance of evidence that if Prosecutor Rousseau had ot witheld the gun/4

and shoes consent to search form that Brannan said truver signed on August 18,‘1999, then Truver'
s motion to suppress would have been grantod, Truver would have never been convicted if Rousseau

had not vithe1d the guns/shoes consent@§orn¥ during the motion to suppress_hoarin.
` ‘ ` ` " do o.§€o.rcj\/\+\'\o. Co\/ilr€d.d"“‘§$~

_BrannanQ Walles, and Sgt..Loftis testified and all.prove¢¢ruverd:igned consenF £orlguns/shoes

on_8~l8-99. Walles agreed_vith nies Mul1en_he did not _hA v y s. Him and
Loftis both agreed the search was for specific items. Both of them prove they were using 'i‘ruver'
s consent to guns/shoes. Al1 these officers are credible evidence the guns and shoes consent
form existed on 8-18-99. All this proves Prosecutor Andrea Jacobs lied to deny Truver's first

writ°s ground one.
amax c..\» of ,

Authorites Hy»Hantzhs¢Lopes,Hontanss¢ Brady¢ andlBrovn¢ were all in ¢ruver's first writ’s
memorandu,and_prove drugs could not be seized dsdinbarges filed on, during 3 search for guns.`
and shoési The consent to search law is clear in these cases, drugs cannot be seized during a `

cvoluntary_search for-specfic items. The law is clear a consent to search cannot exceed the`

expressjobjectho£.the search. The express object ¢ruver consented to was evidence to prove he'
did+not*killgMarty; Brady and Brown prove habeas.corpus must be granted. Prosecutor Rouseaau's
error was serious enough towvarrant granting of habeas corpus.(Chahot V.~Stste Tex.Crim. App.

_ 009) *§Il this proves prosecutor Jacobs lied to deny Truver's first writs ground one.

l The State/Prosecuoor Rousseau failed to meet the Texas Oonstitutional requirement during the'

Brian Frank1in, »~w

motion to suppress, that he show by clear and convincing evidence that ¢ruver voluntarily
consented tone search for drugs. Detective brennan said Trhver signed consent for guns/shoes

on 8-18--99_. "to compare then to evidence he collected at` the murder scene. Hahsn$ C<:WP b\£ mud
vs gmi/dol .,u\/\Q/v\ wore r,s 141-h nw\av\ivvva-+ dane pr~<)c.tsj l/»'o\os\-c’ov\ o € C<>»\:Q~,;}~+_o §g,,,¢/L\
Ground one through six .must' be Qranted. - mud `

Truver_asks that instead of setting aside his conviction like the Tex. Crim Appls.Gourt did in
May¢Lopes¢Montanez¢ Mantzke¢ and IdnMoya 744 82d 15¢25 (Tom.Crim App.l987) and granting their
motion to BvPPress, just resentence ¢ruver to ten Gtfteen, or twenty years. Back in 2014 at
Brian Franki1in's habeas hearing, Prosecutor strickland asked Judge 8alvant to resentence
Franklin. instead of setting aside his conviction. I0 days later Salvant held a resentencing
hearing, AlS0 recently in 2016 Fort worth DA office resentenced John W. Ro1and_frcm capitbl
life sentence to 25yrs_agg. Ro1and killed the man who raped his kid sister. Tell Judge ollee
westfall to resentence Truver to anywhere between lO-.‘!Oyrs ,.to continue to run cc with his 25yr
agg party to m¢rder sentence. Keep the conviction: ju5§ resentence ¢ruver like ya'll did fof

    

      
 

.,fv~'€\.':.`. g `_ .’.

