:: ’ n 33 / Ol§_ ’0{

:ABR-I;L l l2015

Court of Criminal Appeals
Sharon Keller-Presiding_dudge
Supreme Court Bldg

201 W. 14th St.

P.O.Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78711-2308

RE: Reply To The State's Proposed Findinqs of Fact,Conclusion of Law,

And Order/Affidavit of Rehuttal

Cause No. lO45480-A
Dear Sharon'KellerL

Enclosed, please find the original Applicnt's Reply To The State's

Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,And Order and a affidavit of
Rebuttal.Please file and bring to the attention of this Court.
lt is not clear as to whether the 232nd_dudicial District Court of Harris
County,Texas has forwarded the Writ Applicatioanlease:file`thisiwithb"the
Writ Application's response from the Court and make
back to me stamped as filed in the enclosed self-addresses envelope.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in this matter.

 

v E:§§§§Z§E §?Q Oe Saucedoagr_
touai§@wmmramwsw §§é§equu§;; ;;:<;:138

APR 06 2915 lowe Park, Texas 76367

ma Aco§w,©i@fk

' iu THE coURT oF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE sTATE oF TEXAS
EX PARTE § 1N THE 232 DISTICT cOURT
goE sAUCEDo,‘gR oF

§ .
A licant
pp § HARRIS cOUNTY,TEXAs
§

APPLICANT"S REPLY TO THE STATE"S PROPOSED FINDINGS
OF FACT, OONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Having reviewed the State's Proposed Bfndings oanactjGonclusi n Qf:Lawisiz
The Applicant finding that the Findingsv of Facts Conclusions of Law, And
Order was in error, and did not pertain to the Applicant's case in which
is very important for the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider this reply
into evidence and investigate every fact listed in regards to error and due

process violations the State committed.

The Applicant will point out facts only in regards to the unauthorized, unlawe

ful and unconstitutional sentence the Applicant recieved in this case.(See
unacth Affidavit of Rebu`ctai). '

First, the Applicant will establish before this Court that he raise ineff-
ective Assistance of Counsel, and in the State's Proposed Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order, the Representative for the State,Eva Flores,
made allegations of the Attorney asd Defense for the Applicant as being some_
one by the name of Greene, and stated that Greene provided effective assis-
tance of counsel to the Applicant, when in fact, Attorney Greene do not
exist.(See State's Proposed Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law, and Order
at pages (5)(6). Dated§%meE% 27, 2015.

The Court can not make an adequate and impartial findings of facts and con~
clusions through by erroneously and misleading information on behalf of
the State.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). Also, the Court must note
that the State$sw Original Answer filed October.24, 2013.the State's answer
was all inn regards to some Black male offender by the name of dames Smith£dr.
#01673290.(See the last page of the State's Original Answer.(See Attached
Affidavit of Rebuttal).

There were no reasons for the Applicant to present any argument in regards
to Attorney Greene's actions falling outside of prevailing professional norms
due to the fact attorney Greene do not exist and the State can produce no
evidence to support or establish that the Applicant was represented by Att-
orney Greene.v

Second,the State's Proposed Finding of Fact,Conclusions of Law/ and Order/
made allegations that the Applicant raised the Ground of lnsufficient Evide-
nce when in fact the Applicant raised the ground of "No Evidence".There is

a difference between,"lnsufficient Evidence" and "No Evidence".(See Attached
Affidavit of Rebuttal). The State's Representative-Eva Flores is filing

false allegations to mislead the Court into giving a ruling thats not auth-
orized,lawful or unconstutitional.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).
Third, the Applicant has Rebutted the State's false and misleading allegations
throughby his Affidavit of Rebuttal,in which rebutted the State's allegations
and the allegations of the Defense Attorney,Thomas Radosevich/ of him stat-
ing he did not see no need to create a paper file,when in fact every Attorney
must create a paper file in order to adequately represent his client(See
Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). v

Fourth, and last of the Applicant's reply to the State's Proposed Findings

_ of Fact,Conclusions of Law,And Order, the Applicant Reguest this court to
hold a hearing on whether the_dudicial District Court has misconstrued the
Statute of Texas Penal Code 46.01(3),lt states that a (firearm) is;[A]ny
device designed,made,or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by
using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device
_ready convertible to that use."

The BB gun mentioned in the trial/nor the States responsehas been found to

be a firearm/nor a deadly weapon/This Court has set rules/standards and
guidelines the dudicial District Courts must abide by in the State of Texas,
that the Court must operate under in order to lawfully convict anyone.When
the evidence raised by the State [do not] prove or meet the State's burden of

proff as here, the Case must be reversed.

Upon the Court reversing this case for a hearing and point out to the Court
the true meaning of a firearm and a geadly weapon/the court must then re-
lease the Applicant from his unlawful confinement,because the jury was not
aware of the law and it's interpretations, therefore, the Applicant relies
upon the integrity of the 232nd Court that it is in error and have the App-
licant unlawfully confined. (See Attached Affidavit).

d
Executed on this §Z day of April__ 12015

Res ect lly submitted

 
 
   

Saucedqur.
Allred Unit #1402138
ZlOl FM 369 North
lowa Park, Texas 76367

CER'I‘IFICATE OF SERVICE
l,§oe_Saucedo,`dr.,do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
Applicant's Reply To The State's Proposed Finding of Fact,Conclusion of
Law,And Order,has been forward to the U.S.mail,postage prepaid/first class,
to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Sharon Keller,Presiding_dudge, Supreme
Court Bldg,ZOl w. 14th St.P.O.box 12308 Capitol Station,Austin Texas 787ll-
2308,0n this the _,_1_’+_day Of Aprii,zoi§.

gancz'{:;z;
_ oe Saucedo Jr.

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

State of Texas)§ . .
c1l1cet
Wichita County)

" lndeed, no more than (affidavit) is necessary to make the
_ prima facie case."United States v. Kis,658 F.an 526,536
(7th Cir.l981): cert denied,SO U.S. L.W.Zl€Q,S.Ct.March

22, 1982.

That l,§oe Saucedo,a living breathing man/being first duly sworn,depose and
say and declare by my signature that the following facts are true/correct
and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

That,for Resolving a Matter it must be expressed.

That,Truth is expressed in the Affidavit form.

That,an Unrebutted Affidavit stands as thruth in commerce.

That,an Unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce.

That,a truth Affidavit,under Commercial Law can only be satisfied by a Re~
buttal about the truth Affidavit,by payment/by argreement,by resolution by

a jury according by the rules for Common Law.

That,this is a Rebuttal Affidavit to the Affidavit of Thomas A. Radosevich‘s
the State's Original Answer Filed October 24,2013 by Eva Flores, Respondant's
Proposed Findings of Fact and Order February 27, 2015.

That,Thomas A. Radosevich failed to rebut the allegations that_doe Saucedo
was a habitual offender.

Thathdoe Saucedo never held any prior convictions within the ten year time
limit that could be used against him for enchancement purposes.

That,_doe Saucedo never possessed a firearm.

That,the claim of doe Saucedo used a deadly weapon to wit;a firearm was never
proved. '

That,when a conviction is over ten years old it can not be used for enchance~
ment purposes.

That,Thomas A. Radosevich,in his Affidavit of trial Counsel dated 12-09»13/
admitted that he did not create a paper_file,in which a paper file inthe
instant case would have help establish.and prove facts before the jury.This
was a part of failing to prepare for trial

That,Thomas A Radosevich,inthe last paragraph of the first page of Affidavit
of Trial Counsel,stated he failed to move to dismiss any portion of the in-
dictment when it appeared doe Saucedo would not accept any plea bargains
Thomas A, Radosevich had a duty to try and have all charges dismissed on

bdrdf oftus<jiaunyetlm¥
lof 3

held a conflict of interest in the case when_doe Saucedo refused to accept the
State's and Court's offer. doe Saucedo has a right to not accept or to make any
pleas,yet the court failed to inform Joe Saucedo of these rights They only wa-
nted _Joe Saucedo to give them unlawful subject- -matter jurisdiction without _Joe
Saucedo being aware of the fraud committed with the Defense Counsel,State
Representative Eva Flores,and the Judge of said Court.

That,Thomas A,Radosevich had a duty to present the law on deadly weapons and
what it means to be a deadlyfw¢apon,. b

That, Thomas A Radosevich had a duty to present the law on firearm and what it
mean to be a firearm.

That,at no time during the trial did Thomas A,Radosevich present the meaning
of a firearm to the jury as outlined in Texas Penal Code ANNOTATED §4€ .Ol(3)
(VERNON 2003).

That,Failure of Thomas A Radosevich,as counsel for Joe Saucedo to file motion
for investigator deprived_doe Saucedo to present the following:(l)The com-
blaint Humberto Arias, (Z)Humberto Arias was an lllegal immigrant/and was mak-
king a deal with the State to continue to live inthe United Statesw if he'd
`testify against doe Saucedo.(3)Humberto Arias had stole the car he claimed
belonged to his friend Julio Fraga's Mother.ln which could have been used to
show Humberto lack of credibility of his truthfulness,(4)-Whether Samuel
Martinez was driving a car or truck because in the Court of Appeals"opinion
they stated Samuel Martinez was placing something in the back of his truck.
(5)An expert on firearms and whether a BB gun was a deadly weapon or could

be used as a deadly weapon (6)The owner of the house where the BB gun was
claimed to have been found could have provided a statement as to whether or
not their kids or grand kids owned or left the gun in the yard or under the
house~ j _
That,Thomas A.Radosevich and t 1 Celeste Carter conspired to convict dca
Saucedo of Aggravated Robberi. 1

That,the alleged charge of Aggravated Robbery has not-been certified by the
State Supreme Court as being constitutional before being implemented in this
case.

That,the Thomas A Radosevich nor Eva Flores can say how the jury would have
viewed an investigator's or expert‘ s testimony and what their opinion would

have been on firearm crxk§dhhwexxnu

2 of 3

That,the Respondant's proposed Findings of Facts and Order dated February
27,2015,contained false information and information in regards to an Atto-
rney by the name of Greene,throughout pages (5)&(6)under Conclusion and Law
That,Eva Flores can not under the penalty of perjury produce any document or

statement or even an affidavit from the Attorney Greene labled

in the Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact and Order Febr-
uary 27, 2015. v

That,the trial Court in it's determining findings used false facts and all-

egations, in reegards to Attorney Greene and the Applicant not showing any
ineffectiveness of Attorney Greene. Attorney Greene do not exist in this
case.

That, EvawFlorésuLw:,in the State's Original Answer filed October 24,2013/
attached a document titled/"Offender lnformation Search",with the name of
Smith,assigned to Goree Unit.The Court used this as accurate information.
That, EvaeFloresutgv/for the State,alleged allegation in her response in
regards to sufficiency of the evidencezdoe Saucedo raised "No Evidence"/

There is a difference between "No Evidence"and Sufficiency of Evidence".
That,Eva Flores,raised sufficiency of the evidence knowingly the trial court
would not review the facts_doe Saucedo presented and would take the side of
the State.

That, the State failed to meet it's burden of proving_doe Saucedo committed
any offense.

That, the Staee failed to prove that a BB gun was a firearm or deadly wea-
pon.

That, this Affidavit if not rebutted point for point by any man representative
of the State of Texas at any level/in any manner,at any time within (7) days
upon reciept,these facts stand as true inthe public record.

Further Affiant Saith not.

Done this_d=g;j:day\of April,2015.

JBe'Saucedo'Alired unit‘#1402138
Allred Unit

2101 FM 369 worth

lowa Park,Texas 76367

1 3cf 3

A'l`C-060 (Rev. 7)
Attachinent 2

_. NOTICE
OFFENDER NOTARY PUBL!C SERVICE
Under both Fedei'al law (28 U.S.C § l746) and State law (V.'l`iC.A._ Civil Pi'a_ctice & Reinedies n
Code, §l32.00]-l-32.003), offenders incarcerated in 'l`exas may use an unsworn declaration under
penalty of perjury in place of a written declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit

sworn before a Notary Public.

ln a request for Notary Public service, each offender must explain why an Unsworn Declarati_on is
insufficient before Notary Public service will be provided. ' ’

»i=*»i==r»i=>i=**>i=>i<>i<*=i=i->i~>k***>i=**>i=>i=>i=>i=*i=>i==i<'>i=»i=***=r.*****=r*****=i=*****>i=#**=i<**=i=>i=>i=*>i==i=*>r>i=**#*>i<»i=***

A/i example of an unsworn declaration pui'sua)il 10 State law is as follows:

 

 

 

"My name is doe wis _-t,'£lr~ ` Sai.icedo my date of birth is ]:5:69 ,
(First) (l\/Iiddle) (Last)
and my inmate identifying nuinber, is #MOZJ 33 . l am presently incarcerated in
.i v mined iim'r in Ic“;a Park '
` (Correctioiis unit name) (City)
Wichita 'I\`=‘XSS 76367 - . l declare under penalty of
(County) (S'tate) (Zip Code)

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct `
, 20 15 /é£@</€(IM~ "

Executed on the 15t- day of ppril-
. C (DTfender Signature)

*=i=*=i=********#******=i=*********=i=**>i=**>i=****>i=*****=i=*>i=>i=**=i=*************************

A)i example of an unsworn declaration pu)'suanl to F ederal law is as follows.'

(insert offender name and TDCJ niimber), being
(insert TDCJ unit name), in

County, Texas, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true

l

presently incarcerated in

 

and correct

 

Executed on the day of , 20 .
(Offender Signature)

*************=l=***********>l<*’l=>l<>i=*****************>l<************>l=*****>l=***********

NOTICE
NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE DENIAL

Regarding your request for Notary Public service, insufficient justification was provided
necessitating Notai'y Public service l-low,ever, you may proceed with an Unswoi‘n Declaration.

M //4
(Date)

(Signatui'e - Notary)

 

