Case Information
*1 CAUSE NO. PD-1379-14
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
SAMUEL AGUILAR,
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
APPELLEE.
RECENT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FEB 23 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
On appeal from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Court of Appeal, under cause number 13-10-00273-CR, from the 130th District Court of Matagorda County under cause number 09-253.
APPELLANT'S MOTION. FOR REHEARING
FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FEB 23 2015
Samuel Aguilar
TDCJ 01631736 coffield unit 2661 FM 2054 Tenn.colony, Tx. 75884 PRO-SE.
*2 JURISDICTION
The Appellant's Petition for Discretionary Review was refused, by this Court, on February 4, 2015. Therefore, the Appellant is within his 15 day timeframe to file his motion for rehearing.
QUESTION ONE
Is testimony relating to extraneous offenses for motive, outweighed by it's prejudicial effect, when the extraneous offenses mislead the jury to consider that the Appellant was being a violent person in nature?
The State focused on the view that the testimony was relevant to demonstrate Aguilar's state of mind as well as his motive for murdering the victim because it showed that he was angry over the prospect of his girlfriend's having had sexual relations with sutton. Further, stating that this argument took place only a short time before Sutton was found murdered, and Aguilar (finally) admitted that he had been in Sutton's house on the day of the murder and had seen Sutton's corpse there. See State's reply to Appellant's PDR, 1.
The Appellant contends that the extraneous offense of the Appellant beating Robbie, cutting her hair, and shooting threats at her for being a prostitute is completely mislead under the Texas Rules of Evidence 403. Not only was this evidence not relevant, but it was completely misleading. How could the jury, being a layman, separate this line of testimony from the alleged motive to kill. One being violent towards his spouse does not prove motive to kill Sutton. Appellant contends that this Court should rehearing this issue and grant rehearing for further proceedings.
QUESTION TWO
How can the thirteenth Court of Appeals erroneously rule that the highly inflammatory photographs of Martinez's back, is not preserved, when the Appellant sought to meet, destroy, or explain the photo's, after proper objection, does
*3 The State contends that the Appellant has vaived his complaint about the admission of the photographs of the physical injuries he inflicted on his ex-girlfrined because his objection at trial (that the photographs depocted an unadjudicated offense) does not match his complaint on appeal (that the photographs were unfairly prejudicial). See State's reply to Appellant's PDR, 43 .
The Appellant contends that this Court has held, in the past, that he can bring his contentions or claims on appeal, if at trial, Appellant tried to meet, detroy, or explain erroneously admitted evidence does not waive the error, nor does it render the error harmless. See Clark v. State, 627 S.W.2d 693, 696 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981).
Appellant implores that this court should grant rehearing just to simply clarify the governing law on this claim because at this point the Appellant relies on governing law that allows him to appeal this issue, but, is being overruled on other governing law in Texas. Under this Court supervisory power, the Court can make it plain as to the governing law, when perservation is involved. Therefore, this cliam should be granted.
QUESTION: THREE
The Appellant only implores this Court to rehear this issue in the light of the follwing question: In a legal sufficiency Standard, is the State's burdin to prove each and every essential element taken away, when a Court of Appeals' ruling, concluded that a rational jury properly weighed the testimony and evidence at trial? Appellant believes that the State's burden is not removed and this Court should grant rehearing to further tell the State that their duty under the legal insufficiency is to proof each and every element of the charged offense.
*4 PRAYER
The Apellant Prays that this Court will rehear this case and GRANT rehearing under the light of the Appellant’s motion for rehearing, and Petition for Discretionary Review, and brief’s on Appeal.
INMATE DECLARATION
I, Samuel Aguilar, TDCJ #01631736, being incarcerated int he TDCJ-CID Coffield unit in Anderson County, Texas, declares that the foregoing is true and correct under the penalty of perjury.
EXECUTED THIS DAY OF FERRUARY 16, 2015.
Samuel Aguilar 01621814-Coffield 2661 FM 2054 Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884
PROOF OF MAILING
I, Samuel Aguilar, TDCJ #01631736, being incarcerated in the TDCJ-CID Coffield unit in Anderson county, Texas, decalres that he has placed this motion for rehearing in the the internal mailing system of the TDCJ-CID Coffield unit in Anderson county, on February 16, 2015.
Samuel Aguilar 01621814-Coffield 2661 FM 2054 Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884 PRO-SE.
*5 CAUSE NO. PD-1379-14 SAMUEL AGUILAR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL § APPEALS, IN AUSTIN TEXAS. §
CERTIFICATE OF GOOD FAITH NOW COMES, Samual Aguilar, TDCJ #01631736, being incarcerated in the TDCJ-CID Coffield unit in Anderson County, Texas, certifies that this motion for rehearing, under the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure 79.2(c), is done in good faith and not for delay. Under the penalty of perjury this is true and correct.
EXECUTED THIS DAY OF FEBRUARY 15, 2015.
| Samuel Aguilar | | :-- | | #01631736-Coffield | | 2661 FM 2054 | | Tenn.Colony, Tx. 75884 | | PRO.SE |
*6