Case Information
*1 RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
DEC 182015
ABEL ACOSTA, Cleri CourtDECernonalApeals R.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austia Texas 78711
RE: MARES, ANTHONY CCA No. W.R-67,617-01,02 and-03 Total CourtCase No. 24573-A;-Rand-C
Dear Mr. Abel Acosta,
I want to thank you for the help and information you provided for me on May 11, 2015. I come to you now out of desperation.
I am an indigent layman with very limited knowledge of legal matters. And I have a limited amount of possible law library time.
I am unable to find a means of suitable relief for my situation.
I was convicted of Aggravated Robbery. The state withheld favorable evidence and this court.
*2 reverse and remanded back to the trial court for cescing. Five enclosed a copy of the mandate as well as the 'Debriean' section of this courts' findings that led to the mandate. I have underlined the parts in question. The trial court did not adhere to the opinion or the mandate in its entirety. They did not permit the previously with held information to be considered by the jury. I submitted any full argument with case law to support in C.C.A.o. W.B. 67,617-C. And it was denied. Are there any avenues of relief available to me at this point? Iour time and attention is greatly appreciated on this matter.
Sincerely, AUTHONY MARES 11880896 Ferguson Unit 18180 Savage Dr. Midway St. 75252
*3
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Austin, Texas
M A N D A T E
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
TO THE 3RD DISTRICT COURT OF ANDERSON COUNTY - GREETINGS:
Before our COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, on MAY 19, 2010, the cause upon an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus styled:
EX PARTE ANTHONY MARES
CCRA No. AP-76,219 Tr. Crt. No. 24573-B was determined; and therein our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS made its order in these words: "This cause came on to be heard on the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the same being considered, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF IS GRANTED, in accordance with the Opinion of this Court, and that this Decision be certified below for, Observance."
WHEREFORE, We command you to observe the order of our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS in this behalf and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed and executed.
WITNESS, THE HONORABLE SHARON KELLER, Presiding Judge of our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, with the Seal thereof annexed, at the City of Austin,
*4
The withheld évidence does not exonerate applicant of his participation in the robbery, but had the state timely disclosed Yao's statements, as required by Brady, the statements could have been used by the defense to persuade the jury that applicant was not the shooter. In light of all the evidence, including the highly favorable disposition of Whitlock's charges, the absence of the withheld evidence undermines confidence in the jury's determination of punishment. Because criminal trials are bifurcated, we may grant relief by ordering either a new trial or a new hearing on punishment only. Ex parte Hill, 528 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). We grant applicant relief in part and remand the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.
Delivered: May 19, 2010 Do not publish