."` IN THE \/\O\ \L\D[.V| "6§

COURT OE` CRIMIAL APPEALS
AUSTIN/ TEXAS

Ex parte §
Valentin Moreno, Jr. § Writ No. 49,474-05

. RECEIVED lN
Appllcant § CouRT oF chM\NAL APPEALS

APPLICANT'S FINAL AMENDMENTS TO
APPLICANTION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

 

 

lEC 04 2015
TO THE MOST HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
Comes Now, Valentin Moreno, Jr., Applicant, pro se in the above referenced
' Abel Acosta, C|erk
cause and respectfully files, 'Applicant's Final Amendments To Application For

Writ Of Habeas Corpus. In support, thereof, Applicant submits the following:

I .
JURISDICTION

This most Honorable Court poses exclusive jurisdiction over the these habeas
corpus proceedings and the subject-matter, herein, pursuant to Chapter ll in the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

II.
STATEMENT OF CURRENT FACTS

 

l. Applicant filed a successive pro se writ of habeas corpus application1 on

June 15, 2015. Challenging a jury's verdict of guilty of capital murder.

2. The Attorney representing the State, filed the State's Original Response
and Answer, on july 8, 2015.

3. The trial Court adopted the State's proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions

of Law, Recommendation and Order, on July 20, 2015.

4. Applicant's application was recieved and presented to this Honorable Court,

on September 22, 2015.

5. On November 51 2015, this Honorable Court granted, Applicant's Motion For
Leave And To Stop Writ Of Habeas Corpus Review; Applicant wasqpyen(30)<tqs.

Bxp l.

6. On November 22, 2015, Applicant sent to this Honorable Court, his first

amendments to his application.

7. Herein, Applicant makes the final amendments to his application for writ of
habeas corpus. In support, thereof, Applicant also submits a supplement
memorandum. All Exhibits mentioned and/or cited, therein, are filed with the

Appendix submitted with the initial application.

III.
DUE DILIGENCE

For the last three weeks, the building Applicant is currently housed in, is
under lockdown for annual shake-down. Applicant is not educated in the law, and
for the last three weeks, Applicant has not been able to consult with prisoners
more versed in the law, concerning on how to amend his application. The initial
application applicant submitted, was prepared with the assistance of numerous
prisoners-

Applicant is doing his best, to exercise due diligence and amend his q;ddzmdxl
within the (30) days the Honorable Court granted him. On a sincere and honest
note, Applicant does not know what he is doing, herein. Thus, respectfully asks
this Honorable Court to accept, his pro se pleading on a less strick standard.

IV.
AMENDMENTS

In a copy of this initial application, Applicant has submitted his amatmats
and attached a supplement memorandum. (See Appendix - A)

Amendments were made to Ground Number One (A), (B) and (C), Ground Number
Four and a Ground Number Five was added, thereto.

V.
EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUESTED

 

Pursuant to this amended application, Applicant respectfully moves this

Honorable Court for an evidentiary hearing.

Page 2.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant respectfully prays that this
most Honorable Court accepts this amended application for writ of habeas corpus,

granting any and all relief deemed adequate and just.

Done on this £'£/ day of é@¢é@e/ l _2015.

Respectfully Submitted,

%/Wf€//M£

Valentin Moréno, Jr.
788216, Robertson Unit
12071 FM 3522

Abilene, Texas 79601

Page 3.

VERIFICATION
I, Valentin Moreno, Jr., hereby verify under the penalty of perjury that the

statements made herein, are true and correct, and offered in good faith.

Done on this d day of 52 cwij , 2015.

Valentin Moreno/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

l, Valentin Moreno, Jr., hereby certify that the original copy of
Applicant's Final Amendments To Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, was
sent by certify mail to the Clerk of the Court Of Criminal Appeals, using U.S.
Mail. And that notice of the same, was sent to the attorney representing the

State, via U.S. lst Class mail.

Done on this é&f day of é;é¢¢»uéé' , 2015.

Valentin Moréno, Jr

Page 4.

APPENDiX-A

 

 

Case No.

(Thc Clcrk ol."thc convicting court Will l]ll this line in.)

IN THE COURT OF CRlM,INAL APPE'ALS OF TEXAS

APPLlCATION F()R A WRlT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM FlNAL FEL()NY C()NVICTI()N
UNDER COD.E OF CRIMINAL PR.OCEDURE, AR~TICLE 11.07

NAME; vALENTIN MORENO, JR.

DATE oF BiRTH: JUlY 191 1976

 

PLACE or conNEMENT= FR-EN€H°M- ROBERTSON UNIT

TDCJ-CID NU`MBER: ___Z§§§..l_§.____ SID NUMBE'R»:

 

(_l) This application concerns'(check all that apply):

le a conviction ill parole
C] a sentence [J mandatory supervision
[l time credit , E] out-of-time appeal or petition for

discretionary review

(2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you want relief from. "
(include the court number and county. )

332ND District Court, Hidalgo County

 

(3) What was the case number in the trial court?

CR-OSl7-96-F

 

(4) What was the name of the trial judge?

Mario E. Ramirez, Jr.

Eff`ectivc: Janu§g l. 2014 l

Rev. 01/14/14

(5) Were. you represented by counsel? lf yes, provide the attorney's name:

Richard B. Gould and Norman Mclnnis

(6) What was the date that the judgment was entered?

March 311 1997

 

(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence?

Capital Murder ~ Life, Attempted Capital Murder - Life

(8) lt` you were sentenced on more than.one count of an indictment in the same court at

the same.time, what'.counts were you convicted of and what was the sentence in each
count‘l

County One - Life, Count Two - Life

 

 

(9) W hat was the plea you entered? (Check'one.).

ij guilty-open plea El guilty-plea bargain
not guilty l'_`i. nolo contendere/no contest

If you entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please explain:

 

 

(10) What kind of trial did you have?

l:l no jury l§ jury for guilt and punishment
ill jury for guilt, judge for punishment

Rev. 01/14/l4

 

(ll)

(12)

(13)"

(14)

Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase of the trial did `you testify?

No.

Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction?

53 yes ij no

if you did appeal,v answer the following questions:
(A) What court of appeals did you appeal to? ~l._$.l;_h__§_<zllr_t_§_f__iap.p_e.§l_§__
(B)` What was the case number? 13`9 7'3 3 S_CR and 13`97_336_CR

(C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal‘.’ If- yes, provide the»attorney'sf
name:
Mark Alexander

 

(_D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Affim€<_i/ VaCa‘Ced 8_31?99
Did you file-a petition for.discretion_ary review in the Court of C`rfii_ni_nal Appe'a_ls?

yes ' ij no

lf you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions:

(A) What»was the case number? N/A/ March 5 / 2000.

(B) Wh'at was the decision and the date of the decision? Refused°

Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article
11.07` of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction'?~

yes i`_`l no

lf you answered yes, answer the following~questions:

(A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals’ writ number? WM;Q_Z______

Rev. 01/14/14'

 

 

(15)

(16)

(B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? D@nied Without Writt@n Ord@r

 

(C) Please identify the reason that the current claims were not presented and could
not have been presented on your previous application.

Scientific evidence was not available to applicant. Experts became

 

available with the last year. Witness recantation had not occurred.

 

Evidence is newly discovered and newly obtained. Legislation had

 

not passed Tex. Code of Crim. Prod. art. ll.073.

 

Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal
court-? '

E]. yes ' l:l no

if you answered yes, please provide the name of the court and th'e"case number.:

 

If you are presenting a claim for time credit, have you exhausted.'your
administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time-credit resolution
system of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to
any final felony conviction, including state jail felonies)

[I| yes ill no

lf you answered yes, answer the following questions:

(A) What date did you present the claim?

 

(B) Did you receive a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the deeision?

 

If you answered no, please explain why you have not submitted your claim:

Rev. 01/14/14
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1_7) Beginning on page 6, state conciser every legal ground for your claim that you are
being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the facts supporting each
ground. You must present each ground on the form application and a-hrief
summary of the facts Ifyou'r~grounds and briefsummaty-of`thef_izcts'have not been
presented on the form application`,; the Court will not consider your grounds
If you have more than four grounds, use pages-14 and 15'0t't'he;l`orm, which you
may copy as many times as needed to give~you‘ a separate page for each ground, with
each ground numbered iniseq'uence.- -The recita't'ionof the facts supporting each
ground must be no longer than the two-pages provided for the ground in.the form.

You may include with the form a memorandum of law if you want to present legal </?

authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief set out in a

memorandum of law that were not raised on the forma The citations and argument

must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appe_llate Procedure 73

and.does not exceed 15,000 words if computer’-generated.or 50 pages if not. If you

are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts
pertaining to your offense and trial ini your memorandum.

Rev. 01/14/14

 

GR()UND ()NE:

APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE STATE VIOLATING

 

. IEIJHIAMEND./ 6TH AMEND. AND 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND’ ONE:
THE STATE OBTAINED THE PRIMARY CONVICTION BY THE FOLLOWING ACTS

 

OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: (A) THE STATE PRESENTED THE FALSE

 

SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY OF DR. A.J. ALAMIA; THE STATE SUBSTANTIATRD

 

AND BOLSTERED THEIR WITNESSES TESTIMONIES WITH DR. AMAMIAS'S

 

FALSE TESTIMONY. (B) THE STATE INFLUENCED STATE WITNESS BEATRICE

 

TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION WITH UNDULY SUGGESTIVE POST-EVENT

 

INFORMATION AND POST-EVENT MISINFORMATION7 THE STATE WITHHELD

 

THAT BEATRICE HAD TOLD THE PROSECUTOR THAT SHE BELIEVED SHE HAD

 

MISIDENTIFIED THE APPLICANT AND IN RESPONSE THE PROSECUTOR HAD

 

EXPOSED BEATRICE TREVINO TO SUGGESTIVE AND PREJUDICIAL POST-EVENT

 

INFORMATION/MISINFORMATION: THE STATE PRESENTED BEATRICE TUMWDB

 

EALSE TESTIMONY. (C) THE STATE PRESENTED STATE WITNESS YVONNE

 

GONZALES' FALSE TESTIMONY; THE STATE WITHHELD BALLISTIC-RELATED

 

Rev. 01/14/14

 

FINDINGS, THAT UNDERMINED THE ESSENCE OF YVONNE GONZALES'

TESTIMONYF (AMENDMENTS)> PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (A), APPLICANT ADDITIONALLY

 

CONTENDS/ THE THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HE HAS PRESENTED 'CONTRADICTS SCENIETC

 

EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE STATE AT TRIAL.' THUS, APPLICANT ARGUES/ THAT

 

HE HAS MET THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH BY ARTICLE 11.073 IN THE TEX. CODE OF

 

CRIM. PROCD. PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (B)/ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT WITNESS

 

BEATRICE TREVINO'S RECANTATION AND MIS-IDENTIFICATION CLAIM/ NEEDS TO BE

 

REASSESSED AND CONSIDERED IN CONJUCTION WITH THE SUGGESTIVE POST EVENT

 

INFORMATION TREVINO WAS EXPOSED TO BE THE STATE AND NEWLY DISCOVERED

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON POST EVENT INFORMATION/MISINFORMATION GIUEMDETKN.UJ

 

PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (C)/ APPLICANT CONTENDS/ THAT THE STATE INFLUENCED

 

NW)CR TAINTED WITNESS YVONNE GONZALES' D§{IURB{UBHIEKETBIJOFDPPEKDNT/ BY

 

BY DETECTIVES TELLING GONZALES THAT APPLICANT WAS A GANG MEHBER. THAT, WAS
l

 

HUHUICULLYSUXDSUNEI{STEMDU‘DUUW@EIIL GISHIRLK;IHSNWHBE,THEUIN.

[l] PURSJANI‘ 'IO GRO.ND l\lIV|BER CNE, APPLIC`ANI‘ ]l\]VCKES ARI'ICL.E 11.073/ W'IEREAPPLICABLE.

 

Rev.Ol/i4/l4

 

GR()UND T\VO:

APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION IS THE RESULT OF
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: VIOLATING THE 5TH AMEND-/
6TH AMEND. AND THE 6th AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND T\VO:

 

THE PRIMARY CONVICTION IS THE RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS OF

 

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: (A) COUNSEL FAILED TO
INVESTIGATE AND GER A FIRM GRASP OF DR. A.J. ALAMIA'S PROPSED

SCIENTIFI TESTIMONY; TRIAL COUNSEL INJECTED A PREJUDICIAL EXPERT

 

wITNESS (DR. ALAMIA) INTO THE TRIAL. (B) COUNSEL FAILED JNVESI‘IGAIE
AND GET A FIRM GRASP, OF THE ALLEGED IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S

EYES AND THE INFORMATION ON SUCH AN IDENTIFICATION. ADDITIONALLY/

 

CONSEL FAILED TO CONSULT AND PRESENT DR. PAUL MICHEL. (C) CUREEL

FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND GE A FIRM GRASP OF THE BALLISTIC-

RELATED EVIDENCE. ADDITIONALLY FAILED TO CONSULT AND PRESENT A
BALLIS EXPERT MAX SCOTT. (D) COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND

GET A FIRM GRASP/ ON PRIOR INCIDENTS INVOLVING DETECTIVE JOSEPH

Rev. 01/14/14

 

BUENROSTRO AND THE APPLICANT/ AND BRING THEM TO THE ATTENTION

 

OF THE JURY. SPECIFICALLY, AN INCIDENT WHERE DET. BUENROSTRO

 

HAD THREATENED TWO JUVENILES INTO SIGNING FALSE STATEMENT

 

AGAINST THE APPLICANT. (E) COUNSEL FAILED TO PROTECT APPLICANT'S
INTEREST AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS/ AFTER STATE WITNESS BEATRICE

TREVINO REVEALED WHAT HAD OCCURRED BETWEEN HER AND THE H{HKUKR/

 

(e.g., COUNSEL FAILED TO AS FOR A CONTINUANCE/ TO INVESTIGATE

 

 

THE POST-EVENT INFORMATION BREATRICE TREVINO HAD BEEN EXPOSED

AND HOW IT INFLUENCED HER IDENTIFICATION. FAUHNG HJREQUEST THAT

 

BEATRICE TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION BE SUPPRESEED AND STRIKEN H€M

THE REDORD. BASED ON BEATRICE TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION HAVING

 

BEEN CONTAMINATED BY THE STATE. FAILED TO REQUEST A MISTRIAL/

PURSUANT TO THE STATE NOT DISCLOSING THE PRE-TRIAL INCIDENT

BETWEEN BEATRICE TREVINO AND THE PROSECUTOR AND THAT BEATRICE

TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION HAD BEEN CONTAMINATED BY THE STATE.

 

l

FAILED TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGED THAT INFORMED THE JURY HOW SUGGESTIVE POST-

 

qu@;LNEQRMAIION;c N EFFECT AN EYEWITNESS MEMORY).

9

Rev. 01/14/14

 

GROUND THREE:

APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BE THE
THE CUMULATIVE EF`FECT OE` DENIAL AND VIOLATIONS OE` THE STHAMEND.,
6TH AMEND. AND 14‘1‘[~1 AMENDMENT OE` THE U.S. CONTITUTION.

 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:

THE PRIMARY CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE E`OLLOWING CONTITUTIONAL

VIOLATIONS: PROSECUTORIAL MISISCONDUCT AND INEE`FECTIVE ASSISTANCE

 

OE` COUNSEL. HEREIN/ GROUND NUMBER ONE AND GROUND. NUMBER TWO

 

ARE ADOPTED AND RESTATED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

Rev. ()l/l4/l4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ll

Rev. Oi/l4/i4

GR()UND FOUR:
APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY

 

VIOLATIONS OF THE 5TH AMEND./ 6TH AMEND./ BTH AMEND./ AND
THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:'
APPLICANT'S CLAIM OF INNOCENCE HEREIN, IS INTERTWINED WITH THE

 

CONSITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS CITED AND ARGUED IN GROUND NUMBER ONE/

 

GOUND NUMBER TWO AND GROUND NUMBER THERE OF THIS APPLICATION.

 

(AMENDMENTS)> PURSUANT TO A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE, THE

 

FOLLOWING IS CUMULATIVELY SUBMITTED: THE PRIMARY CONVICTION IS BASED ON THE

 

TRIAL IDENTIFICATIONS BY WITNESSES (RAUL C-I.]ERRER), YVCI\NE (H\]ZALES & BE`A'IRICE ']REV'.|ND)/

 

AND SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY OF (I:R. A.J. ALA[V[[A). FIRST, GONZALES HAS RECANTED HER

 

TRIAL IDENTIFICATION OF THE APPLICANT/ SPECIFICALLY AN'IMPROBABLE' "EYES"

 

IDENTIFICATION. ADDITIONALLY/ FCRE[\EIC CPIUVIE!]RY SECIALISI‘ DR. PAUL lV[[G-lEL, EU]ND

 

GONZALES' IDENTIFICATION OF THE "EYE" BLATANTLY INVALID'. EUR]I-IERIV[RE/ BALLISI'ICS

 

EXPERT MAX SCOTT DETERMINED/ THAT GONZALES' TRIAL VERSION OF` THE SHOOTING

 

WAS MISLEADING AND FALSE. GINZALES' ]IENI'IFICA'I'ICN @` APPLICDNI"S EMES, WAS BASF_D AND

 

OCRE{B;RATED CN HER VERSICN OF ‘]I-]E S-IDI‘ING. THESE TWO EXPERTS "CORROBORATE" THE

 

12

Rev. Ol/l4/l4

 

MISIDENTIFICATION, GONZALES HAS REVEALED. SECOND, BEATRICE TREVINO RE[`ANIED

 

 

AND ADV[[‘I'IED S-]E MIS]DENI'IE‘IED ']I-]E APPLICANI‘. [2] ADDITIONALLY/ THERE ; IS NOW MTC

EVIDENCE O.\] ]§CSI' EVENI‘ W[[S]I_\IEUVIA'I'ICI\i/]l\]ECRlVIA'I'ICI\L THAT SHOWS/ THE STATE INFLUENCED

 

 

AND CONTAMINATED TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION OF' THE APRLICANT,_;AFTER TREVINO

CONFESSED TO THE PROSECUTOR SHE BELIEVED SHE HAD_MISIDENTIFIED ']I‘]E APPLICANI'.

 

 

THIRD, DR._`A\_LAMIA'S SCIENTIFIC TESTIMON¥/ WHICH THE STATE RELIED_ON TO

CORRQBORATE THE _TESTIMONIES,__._QE_=_\=THE STATE'S WI_TNESSES.. HAS NOW BEEN,SHOWN TO

 

HAVE BEEN MISLEADING AND INCORRECT.'- IN A NUTSHELL, MOST OF THE EVIDENCE 'IHAT

THE` STI-\TE USED TO OBTAIi_\l THIS. CONVICTION/ HAS NOW BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN

 

,UNRELIABLE, M;SLEADING AND_INCORRECT. THUS, ESTABLISHING A PRIMA EACIE

 

 

SHOWiNG OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE. BUT/ IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ON BEHALF

>OF AN INNOCENT MAN/ TAKE "ALL" THE EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO APPLICANT'S

 

,INNOCENCE, (E.G., STORE ATTENDANT'S sTATEMENT, ALL wITNESSES THAT cLAIM
mxmnmmransmorcaufn<$$,ALLTHEaEno$S§;AITHERNHY'HDE<IAMdAHLmJNranSNOI

‘]I-]ERE, APPLICANI"S ALIBI WI']I\]ESSES). [2] APPLICANI‘ O:NIEN]B/ 'IREV'.|I\U'S REI`ANI‘ATICN NEEDS 'IO BE

 

REUNS]DERED, INLIGEOFTEELUEQHITCEVMURBTEVEVTMUMMU.

s1;3)

Rev.,= 0,1!1“14;`14=

 

GR()UND: FIVE
NLDBJWE IS INNOCENT AND SUBMITS AN INDEPENANT CLAIM UNDER ARTICLE 11.073

 

OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

 

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND:

APPLICANT CONTENDS, THAT HE HAS PRESENTED CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE/

THAT "CONTRADICTS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE STATE AT TRIAL."

 

APPLICANT ARGUES/ THAT HE HAS MET THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH BY ARTCLE 11.073

 

OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.

 

AT TRIAL/ THROUGH DR. A.J. ALAMIA THE STATE PRESENTED SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY,

 

SPECIFICALLY/ "THAT IN TRAUMATIC EVENTS THE HUMAN MEMORY FUNCTIONS LIKE

 

A CAMERA: TAKING SNAPSHOTS THAT STAY INGRAINED IN THE MEMOR ". THE IN THEIR

 

CLOSING ARGUMENTS, THE STATE EMPHASIZED ON DR. ALAMIA'S SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY/

 

BOLSTERING THE TESTIMONIES OF THE STATE'S KEY WITNESSES. BASED ON THIS

 

MENTIONED SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY AND THE STATE'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS/ THE JURY

WAS LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION/ THAT DURING THE CRIME/ THE MEMORIES OF THE

 

wITNESSES 0PERATED L`IKE A cAMERA.

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS, THAT PURSUANT TO THE EXPERT SCIENTIFIC OPINIONS AND/OR

14

Rev. 01/14/14

 

CONCLUSIONS AND/OR RESEACH BY DR. JAMES ALDRIDGE, DR ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS/

 

DR JULIAN P. KEENAN/ DR. DANIEL L. SCHACTER, THE RESEARCH AND FINDINGS OF

 

THE INNOCENCE PROJECTS/ CONCLUSIONS BY THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT IN

 

HENDERSON V. HENDERSON/ 208 N.J. 208 AND THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THEREIN.

 

APPLICANT VIGOROUSLY CONTENDS, HE HAS PRESENTED CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC ENIUHIE

 

THAT CONTRADICTS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE STATE AT HIS

 

TRIAL.

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS/ THAT HE HAS ESTABLISHED THE PROVISIONS IN ARTICLE

11.073 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMIAL PROCEDURE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

Rev.01/14/14

 

WHEREFORE, APPLlCANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT
RE.LIEF TO WHlCH HE MAY BE ENTITLED lN THle PROCEEDING.

V ERIFICATI()N

This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for noncompliance For
verification'purposes, an applicant is a person filing the application on his or her own behalf A
petitioner is a person filing the application on behalf of an applicant, for cxample, an applicant’s
attorney An inmate is a person who is in custody

The inmate applicant must sign either the “Oath. Bc.t`ore a Notary P`ublic"’ before a
notary public or the “lfn,mate`s Declaration" without a notary public. .lt` the inmate is represented
by a licensed attorney, the attorney may sign the "Oath Bci`ore a Notary Publi`c” as petitioner and
then complete “Petitioner’s [nforination.” A non~inmate applicant must sign the “Oath-Before a
Not'ary Public” before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed attorney in which
case the attorney may sign the verification as petitioner

A non-inmate non-attorney petitioner must sign the "Oath Bet`ore' a Notary Public”
before a notaryjp_ublic and must also complete "Petition.er’s information.” An_ inmate petitioner
must sign either the “Oath Before a Notary Public” before a notaiy public or'the “lnmate.=’s
Decl`aration?’ without a notary public and must also complete the appropriate “Pe'titio'ner’s`
Informatio_n_-.”

OATH` BEF()`REv A NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF TEXAS
CoUNTY or §%”e,s~
MM/é% /'/t /7% f€/L 0 g , being duly sworn, under oath says:v “I am
the applicant»/ petitioner (circle one) in this action and know the contents of the above

application for a Writ of habeas corpus and, according t_o my bciicf, the facts stated in the
application are true.”

Signarure Petitioner (ci`rcle one)

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE M-E THIS DAY OF , 20

 

Signature of Notary Public

Rev. 0.1/14/14

 

 

PETITIONER’S [NFORMATION

Pctitioner’s printed name:

 

Statc bar number, ii" applicable

 

Addrcss:

 

 

 

Telcphone:

 

Fax:

 

INM:ATE’S DECLARATI()N

l, %L/§//§m///v »¢%0 reyes j , am the applicant / petitioner (c`ircle o.ne) and-

 

being presently incarcerated in gte //‘“e/)c% M/_ ,¢Z/er/;¢ /» , declare under penalty of

perjury that, according to my beliet`, thc facts stated in the above application are true and correct.

Sisned on /%/0 §,»// ,20/,<' .

%/¢,MMQZ

SignatureCpp_/M o who Petitioner (circle one)

17

RcV.OI/14/l4

 

PETlTIONER"S l.NF()RMATlON

Petitioner’S printed namet

 

Address:

 

 

 

'l`elephonez

 

Fax-:

 

 

Signed on

 

 

18

Signature of Pctitioner

Rev. 01/14/14

