                              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<l8)^ . jo
Car^oacUe v. State, l0jr.W3d323,3i>^fe.&iwi,App,aa^
Da^sv.S+o+e, <fa2 S.W.ai8itH*fre£. App.- rWs+oft
{j^Di-s-t} l^1k»nope+,) **.«-<».a-*-*«>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     <i   *   e   <a    a   0   a   o   o   <•>   ' -



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<!^a              -- --       - . -- to
                                                  a    a    ode          t»«    d   a        et»*oe*ptf




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<s dF Capi^lt^WAer,as alUd^&i iv\
4-Ke,maictment in Cause No.^>Ui-H33i'H11.(W i<H-men-f,£R,
p.7/vewiict.eRpp,WTj;Wg£Men^.£R,ppi4<H5land RRr6ip.
 n4)The£ourt Assessed^uniskv^ent as"£apitM litis.
With the pGS&ilaility^orFkwle^CiJwdiad'm^n^CR.pp*
t^-lSlJQnJRR.&pnW . u              ' .
    On (9£_4©b£c fa aoi3i,the. ApDeUontAled Kifi mot-ton
-ForMewTHalCCR, f>p, i53r13f] On October^, ao\3i.im
AppellouH-Pilea his Noti<Le $t AppeaLCCR.pp, l5k)Tftelml

                            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- <Q9,20U,
CCR.p, 157)The Clerk's Record Was t*led ^nUonuaw
2.S:3L£BThe Repori-^s Record Was f ileA on AprW Xf,
ao(2>, 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<xl
      Wa<> Legally In^ul^ci^ltT^) Support The
      {JLi^ y>s Verdict- o<f Sx*1Ity.

          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<i <*s long a& it Ues wlthlv\ *c\^*zjdv\&
&r reasonable disagre-ement*


                        -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&/<ewmg a+ rtAI *<zourt*S .
rallh^ on a motion tb suppress ^HreX^Ude ei/idene^the
thecourtshDMW de^ertothen-rUlCoarfS def£v*iiftatkw
<Df historical fa^^
WKenth^t^^-'tilings are~ based onei/aluattemd>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£leafiDhiyrW<d£nce S^fteim44t>Swpp£hf a f<Vteii/\gi
•f/wt +lu9)Yi^tfer inauesticm 15, what its propohent
c\a\ms})KTe.)LC}S, Rules p^ Evidence, RuKe^oK^.^^ldencB.
SkoiA/db<aGAw)\VreA it tk£-vr fal<C£aH- -fclnds tK^it
the ev'id^^cie-U/as a^fhewticateA, Ps/afettt^^Sf^,
°lA^ S.W2d S77,5fi6L75)L-^rr».-A^W^^Pri30t <9t
t/ie. beginning and end at^keekaln <ot c±cA£i-o&y wilt
wi/l support admrSSipK o+An object baring any
evidence£^ tamper ma or altera-H #w.>S 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 <ptf\
Appellants Hotion for Uea^ing on c!hailn fit custody ,
Of pky.£ieat evidence on SepteMhe^24^/^^fu//?fcw
testimony was presented cmceming the Ctad In &£
Cas-tody of physical ei/i Jeneeied tecfed <<w TvuneStfi
 1W, UntfI DMA analysis \AJascenAucf£cl on ^ratacuf
Ap^iI /3, SLOlLCbahe of testing, RR. 6, p. &»
    T/i e Srkrt-ens bwrd et/i at the CJwi1/1 0f Castcdy
hearing w^sto establish thaf the items frovn-S^)-
mission P* were Infact-theitevns collected from [Rib
(^Street -SJafrnS^iTw I \s the maSf impoH-a/yf
sinee-th^ generic, material C£Dinnee^iiA<5 Appeilamt
-to the crime scene was supposedtyderli/ed from
those Ifemc,.




                        ->
    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\d<eiaUKvc| sieleCnmvn\v\S
c\£crl KmIaseollec-teAea^k pi/Q r pcf£i/Ccl£4/\dec(&fc..3, p.%) E Kcepf -for
tK£.itew^S Collec+ed by George- Extavaoc£- and referred -*-o Kn
Stat&Pretrial E^Uitit^l.CSRR. 2>pp.3~4) Wc^ \denfif\e<A the
robe, pi How oases-, and b^d Un^^s as 4ke Same ones collected
by eriMmiv\£, US \/ear£ earUer.GR£,3,f>p.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<j«y\on Lew/Is isSafA.We^if
tof&rfrtthefirst liv\k Inthe Sta^S.chain d>£ (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<t^l4WOS
collectedokTune 2B, Wfft or3unc Tft^ Without any clear
test\vnony from lewis about whatprocedures w€re usei
to r&covcn tkese itemsand protectthem fhpvn eonfa-
 hVmafiDn at the \W eHvne seene. It Is the Appellaia-fs
posifvowthatWalt Cj^IwmiIvvs w\usf hou/e Collectedthe
praferred ewlc£v\ce>. 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<e presented \s
leaaiiy sufficient-tosupport a coni/lction is) whether*
after t/ievA^iv\g the evidence in tKe light vnosf -toODfable
tothe_prosecoHtoni any rationaltrier offkef e&dd Iwe
ta^Kvd-tke essential elements ct aiVofte/i^e k&yonaQ
 reasonable d/sx/I^^aakson i/.lArgUifa,443ciS3o7i^
-S.ct.^781,6/ L,£d, ^i SfaOCfilOl Federal Gpnstitutional
 law measures ey/ide^tiary suffidevicy agoAnsttke
 elements #f-the erlmlnal offense as defined by$&\e,
lawT^ller*/. State, 13 5,W3d:^^
     The. legal sufficiency ©£the evidence is w&isureid
by tke elements oftheoffense asdefined bythe hypot-
hetieaUy correctjury chatae iaccurately sets out the
law,\Sauthoriz.ed\6ythevv\dvc,tvvieKt-, doe£ n£>+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


                         -<?-
