Case Information

*1 This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging.

Count New Diese file under Tr. Ct. No. 429-51194-10-HC and 11-10-16130-2 (A) and filelstamp and plese return to ne astamped copy.

Trend You willian Sodeis Autrey $41 / 2 / 15$ 14059545 KT-2F P.O. Box 660334

MOTION DENIED DATE: 4-20-15 BY: TC.

Dallas 7775266

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS APR 132015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

*2 To The Court of Criminal Appeals

The State of Texas P. C. No. 429-51194-10-HC v. # w10-10130-02(A)

William Sodric Autrey Rose

Morton For Leave of Court or Aeturn To The District Court to Supplement Previously Filled State II-07 wort of Itabres Corpus

To The Honorable Court

Now comes William Sodric Autrey Rose herein referred to as Petitioner in the above stiflual and numbered cause and requests this Court to grant Petitioners Mofion For leave or return to the lower Court to have unexhausted Federal claims and would would show the court as follows: The Petitioner is a layman to be unskilled in the language a system and drafting at a low that a skill at Harnory would apply Petitioner pray That the court will review his claims under the 110 Se litigant pleadings, Petitioner statos that his claims should not be procedurally banned nor should they fall under abusive worts Petitionis claims should be granted under due diligence; under due diligence; under Extraordinary situations and under Newly discovered evidence.

*3 Petitioner further states that at no time has he stopped telling, his case either in state Court, lourt of Apprais or court of Criminal Apprais. Petitioner is representing himself pro se, has to apply to a T A. De. Law library, to ask legal questions, study and research case laws. The time allowed at the jail law library is limited to 1 hr a week, and it is ill equipped, but from necessity after receiving a long day sentence, and from due diligence, the petitioner discovered 3 more constitutional violations, and because of poor representation, and petitioner did not have many to live counsel.

Claims) Arguments Petitioner claims that his first tobacco will was not ost suchodicated on the constitutional events 71stend. Petitioners tobacco will was white cardied by the Court of Criminal Apprais without written opinion leaving Petitioner no room for rebuftial arguments. Petitioner claims that his discovery of constitutional violations was the result of no effective assistance of counsel - at the time petitioner did not know anything about the law and relied solely on the ill advise and representation of his attorney. Therefore the court should reconsider his unexhausted discovery plan.

Discovery claims are: under cause: 429-9154-10 petitioners states in Collin County The state abused its direction and showed prejudice by denying him effective assistance of counsel on direct August

*4 after petitioner was convicted on the offense of oxyenzene crine. [see argument endowed.] The U.S. S. of. have long stated that "Faviness of the Appellate Process requires that a defendant must receive more than nominal representation from counsel. (2) Constitutional violation undors cause $£ 510 - 16130$ , Retitioner state The the state abused its discretion and she would prejudice when the Court failed to recognize Retitioner's Motion Letters to allow him to represent himself due to conflict of interest. (3) Breach of Contract by the state in its proffer deal with Retitioner in 2005, Feb 25, 2008 and May 6, 2008 change of it. after Retitioner had fulfilled his obligation. F10-16130 See Argument endowed]

*5 Arguements by Petitioner Petitioner adds to previously submitted 11.07 related to F10-16130 and 429-31194-10, 2 constitutional violations by the state in Dallas and Collin County. In Dallas related to F10-16130 Petitioner previously waward right to Counsel and expressed his intent. This letters to the trial court on 315/12-3112/12 to represent himself. This was done in a timely manner, and knowingly intelligently. Petitioner as evidenced from his letters knew what was at stake. Under Fairta v. California 422 U.S. 806,95 S.Ct 2525 45 L. Cal 2d 562 (1975) Petitioner has to right to be Pro Se. The trial court never wamed him of the dangers or pitfalls, never inquired into his right or intent or desire as faretta $$ 6^{th}$ amendment require. This is a per se judicial violation under Noder V. United States 529 U.S. 1, 8, 119 S.Ct 1827, 1834, 144 L. Cal 2d 35, 45 (1999) Structural Error. No harmless analysis is required.

Then Breach of Contract by the State in its proffer agreement with Petitioner on Feb 25, 2009. The original one, which on May 6, 2009, The State changed the original terms of the contract/proffer. Letter Petitioner met the terms of the original proffer on Feb 27, 2009 and March 24, 2008 in violation of Sastabello v. New York Art 1 sec 10 of U.S. Const. and Ridkett v. Adanson 483 U.S.

*6 $1, 5 - 6.0 .3, 1075.0 t 2680, 97$ L. Ed 2 d (1987) To Colin County $296^{n} 429 - 51194 - 10$ The Trial Court a d edeined Retitioner counsel on direct appeal after Retitioner was convicted of organized crime on 1019114 and sentenced to 4 life sentences. Retitioner signed certification of appeal on 1019114, was not given as attorney as a right under $6^{th}$ amendment. Retitioner on 10119114 filed timely notice of Appeal and Motion For New Trial. Arrest and Judgment, and its subsequent supplemented Motion and Appeal. Retitioner was not given as appellate attorney until Dec 8, 2014, 61 Days later denying him right to appeal trials courts decision, drawing him the right of as attorney for Motion for New Trial "(Connor v. State 977 S.W.2d 325 TX Crim App 1994), right to appellate a tternely under $6^{th}$ amendment, causing Retitioner to be denied the right to appeal denials of motion for New Trial, causing Retitioner to be in violation of TX. C.C. P. 26.3 and (0.5(b) and possibly later right to direct appeal. See Douglas v. California 312 4.5. 353, 357-58, 93 S.Ct. 814, 916-17 9 L.Ed 2d 811, 914-15(1963) Strickland v. Washington 104 S.Ct and Evitts v. Luong 469 U.S. 387, 396, 105 S.Ct 930, 936, 93 L. Ed 2d 921, 930(1995) 14th anand, 6 th 5th amend vidations by the states' Trial Court.

*7 To The Court of Criminal Appeals The State of Texas v. William Sodric Autrey Po. se Motion For Leave of Court or Section To The District Court to Supplement Previously Filled State II-07 w/17 of Itotexes Corpus

To The Honorable Court Now comes William Sodric Autrey Po. se herein referred to as Petittoner in the above stiflual and numbered cause and requests this Court to grant Petittoners Motion For leave or return to the lower Court to have unexhousiend Federal claims and would notend show the court as follows: The Petittoner is a layman to be unskilled in the language a system and drafting at a law that a skill at Harnery would apply Petitioner pray that the court will review his claims under the Po. se litigant pleadings. Petitioner states that his claims should not be procedurally banned nor should they fall under abusive wnite Petitioners claims should be granted under due diligence; under due diligence; under Extraordinary situations and under Newly discovered evidence.

*8 Petitioner further states that at no time has he stopped telling, his case either in state Court, lourt of Appenals or Court of Criminal Appoids. Petitioner is representing himself. His se, has to apply to a T7. The law library, to ask legal questions, shally and research case laws. The time allowed at the jail law library is limited to 1 hr a week, and it is ill equipped, but from necessity after receiving a long sentence, and from due diligence, the petitioner discovered 3 more constrictional violations, and because at your representation, and petitioner did not have many to have counsel.

Claims / Arguments Petitioner claims that his first habers wait was not advocated on the constitutional merits. Testreach Petitioners. Habers wait was white carved by the Court of Criminal Appeals without written opinion leaving. Petitioner no room for rebuttal arguments Petitioner claims that his discovery of constitutional violations was the result of ineffective assistance of counsel - at the time petitioner did not know anything about the law and relied solely on the ill advise and representation of his attorney. Therefore the court should reconsider his unexhausted discovery plan.

Sisowery claims are: under cancer. 429-91194-10. petitioners states in Collin County The state abused its discretion and showed prejudice by denying him effective assistance of counsel on direct proposal

*9 after performer was convicted in the offense of orgenized crime. [See argument endowed] The U.S. S.Ct. have long stated that "Favness of the Appellate Process requires that a defendant must receive more than nominal representation from counsel. (2) Constitutional violation unders cause # F10-16130, Perftrater state The the state abused its discretion and she would prejudice when the court failed to recognize Retitroners. Motion Letters to allow him to represent himself due to conflict of interest. (3) Breach of Contract by the state in its praffor deal with Perftrater in 2005, F1623, 2008 and May 6, 2008 change of it. after Perftrater had fulfilled his obligation. F10-16130 See Argument endowed]

*10

Arguments by Petitioner

Petitioner adds to previously submitted 11.07 related to FiO-16130 and 429-31194-10, 2 constitutional violations by the state in Dallas and Collin County. In Dallas related to FiO-16130 Petitioner previously waward right to Counsel and expressed his intent. This letters to the trial court on 315/12-3/12/12 to represent himself. This was done in a timely manner, and knowingly intelligently. Petitioner as evidenced. This his letters knew what was at stake. Under Fairle v. California 422 U.S.806,95 S.Ct 2525.45 L. Gd 2d 562 (1975) Petitioner hado right to be Pro Se. The trial court never wouneed him of. The dangers or pitfalls, never inquired into his right or intent or desire as faretta $\frac{1}{2} 6^{th}$ amendment require. This is a per se judicial violation under Noder v. United States 527 U.S. 1, 8, 119 S.Ct 1827, 1834.144 L. Gd 2d 35,45 (1999) Structural Error. No harmful analysis is required.

Then Breach of Contract by the State in its proffer agreement with Petitioner on Feb 25, 2005 The original one, which on May 6, 2005, The State changed the original terms of The contract/proffer Letter Petitioner met The terms of the original proffer on Feb 27, 2005 and March 24, 2008 in violation of Sastabello v. New York Art sec 10 of U.S. Const. and Ridkett v. Adanson 483 U.S.

*11 $1, 5 - 6.0 .3, 1075.0 t 2680, 97$ L. Ed 2 d (1987) In Colin County $296^{P} 429 - 51194 - 10$ The Trial Court an dined denied Retitianer counsel on direct appeal after Retitianer was convicted of organized crime on 1019114 and sentenced to 4 life sentences, Retitianer signed certification of appeal on 1019114, was not given as attorney as a right under 6th amendment. Retitianer on 10119114 filed timely notice of Appeal and Notion for New Trial, Arrest and Judgment, and its subsequent supplemented Notion and Appeal. Retitianer was not given as appellate attorney until Dec 8, 2014, 61 Days later denying him right to appeal trials courts decision, denying him the right of as attorney for Notion for New Trial "(Connor v. State 977 S.W. 2d 325 TX. Crim App 1994), right to appellate a Horney under 6th amendment, causing Retitianer to be denied the right to appeal denials of Notion for New Trial, causing Retitianer to be in violation of TX. C.C. P. 26.3 and (0.5(b) and possibly late right to direct appeal, see Douglass v. California 312 U.S. 353, 357-58, 93 S.Ct. 814, 916-17 9 L.Ed 2d 811, 914-15(1963) Stridcload v. Luchington 104 S.Ct and Evitts v. Lucey 469 U.S. 387, 396, 105 S.Ct 930, 836, 83 L.Ed 2d 921, 830(1995) 14th amend, 6th 5th amend violations by the states' Trial Court.