Case Information
*1
30,638-07
CAUSE NO. 14524
TO: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O.BOY 12308
CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS APR 152815
ADO ACOSSA, CleriK
FROM: TOMMY PERKINS
652924 WYNNE UNIT 810 Fm 2821 HUNS VILLE TEXAS DATE: 04-10-2015
77349 I HAVE JUST RECENTLY DISCOVERED EUIDENCE IN COURT PROCEEDINGS OF LAMAR COUNTY COURTHOUSE, STXTH JUOICIAL 119 N. MAIN RM. 405 PARIS TEXAS 75460 OF CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR THAT HAS RESUIED IN THIS WROINGFUL CONVICITION. I HAVE USED MOST EVERY MEANS TO CONTEST THIS CONVICtION 84 USE OF STATE HABEAS CORPUS 811.07.TWICE, AND A FEDERAL HABEAS CORRIS 22254 ON THE BROUNDS OF ACTUAL INNOCCNCE. ACIDDODNG TO THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT EXHIBIT B, ELLLY FRANK VICKERS WAS EXECUTED JANUARY 28.2004 FOR THE MURDER OF PHILLIP KINSLON IN ARTHUR CITY.TEXAS VICKERS V. TEXAS, 118 S.C. 298 (oct. 14,1997)(ESEP. DENIED); VICKERS V. COCKRELL, 72 FED. APPK. 40 (5TH CR. 2003)(HABEAS). VICKERS DOCUMENTED FITNAL WORDS STATES: "AND IWOUD LIFE TO CLEAR SOME THINGS UPIF I COULD. TOMMY PERKINS, THE MANTHAY EOT A CARITOL LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDERING KINSLON--HE DID NOT COIT. I DID IT. HE WOULD NOT EUEN HAVE HAD ANYTHING TO OOWITH ITIFHEHAD HNDAN
*2 I WAS GOING TA SHOOT THE MAN. HE WOULD HAVE NOT GOME WITH ME IF HE HAD KNOWN.
ACCORDING TO EXHIBITF, THE DATE of JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE WAS JULY 29,1993 YET, ON THE 28TH DAY of JULY, 1993 A MOTION TO WITHBRAN COUNT OF INDICTMENT EXHIBIT'A WAS PRESENTED BY KERYE ASHMORE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTENEY 3RD FLOOR LAMAK COUNTY COURTROUSE PARIS TEXAS 75460 903/7372413 TBA* 21162500 INDICATIONS TO DISMISS COUNT I AND 2. THIS DOCUMENT WAS CERTIFIED, SISHED ANO SEALED ON JULY 2ND 2007 BY MARUINANN PATTERSON, DISTRICT CLEEK EXHIBIT 'A' ALSO. JUNE 13TH, 2006 THE STATE COUNSEE FOR OFFENDERS P.O. BOX 4005 HUNTSUILLE TEXAS 77342 -4005 STATES: "THREE ARE NO ADDITIONAL COUNTS TO THIS CHARGE (i.e. Count 1, Count 2). APPARENTLY THE ADDITIONAL COUNTS WERE DROPPED. AS TO THE OXAOLY WEARON FENDING, THERE IS NO OXAOLY WEARON FINDING, AS STATED BY M.MERCHANT ON AGAUR DATE.
SUCH INDICATED ABOUE SUGGESTS THAT THE LAMAK COUNTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE DISTRILSED CHARLES THREE DAYS FRIOR TO THE PROCEEDINGS ON JULY 29TH, 1993. MY PRIOR ATTENEY DAN MEXHAN HAD FIIED A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND WAS HAND DELLIVATED TO THE DISTRICT ATTENEY FOR LAMAK COUNTY. TEXAS ON THE 24TH DAY AUGUST, 1993 AND AN ORDER S ETTING HEARING WAS SET FOR 10100 A.M. ON THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1993 AS NOTARI. 2ED BY MISCHELLE SPANN WHOSE COMMISSION EXPIRED 7-09-94. AND ON THAT 29TH DAY OCTOBER. I WAS INSTRUCTED BY A GUARD TO 'GET DIESSED A GET READY FOR HEARING', BUT THIRTY (3D) MINUTES LATER, I WAS TOLO TO DISREGARD. SUCH ATTENDT WOULD SHOW THAT THE COURT HAD EUERY INTENTION ON PURSUING A NEW
*3 TRIAL WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THE MOTION EOR NEN TRIAL. HAD BEEN GRANTED. ARr. 40.001 NEN TRIAL ON MATERIALEUJONCE 73R0.166 .,CH. 900.811 .01 .865 S RRT. 1.1993 KEEPER U. STATE. 74 S.W. 32 31.38 (TEX CRIm.APA 2002). Such OISEEGARDED MOTION FOR NEN TRIAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
RECEIVIT4, I'VE BEEN IN COMIIICATION WITH SHAMNTGLEGODEN, DISTRICT CLEEK LAMAL COUNTY 119 N.MASN Room 405 PARISTEXAS 75460 (903) 737-2427 AND EN MAECH 04.2015 EHE STATE: "YOUL INDICTMENT SPECIFICALLY SAYS COUNTS I AND 2 WERE CAPITALMUUDER. SHE HAD ALSO STATE: "WHICH COUNTS YOU WERE CONUICTED OF: YOUL JU OEMENT DOES NOT SPEEIFY THAT INDIERMATION". ANO SIK SAYO"YOU KNOW THAT COUNT 3 OF YOUR INOICTMENT WAS DISMISSED ANO YOU WERE NOT CONUICTED OF. THAT CHARGE"AND ON MAECH 13,2015 SHE STATE: "YOU WERE CONUICTED OF'CAPITALMUUDER' WITH NO DEADLY WEARON FICNATURS. THIS ONLY CONFUSES THE ISSUE. HOW CAN I BE CHARGEO WITH CAPITAL MUNDER WITH COUNIS 1 ANO 2 WERE DISMISSED ON JUY 16.1993 ANO COUNT 3 MUNDER CHARGE WAS DISMISSED ALONG WITH THE DISMISSED DE. AON-WEARON CHARGE?
THE DOCUMENTS I POSSESS SHOULD BE CONSED EED BUTHENTIC PULSUAN TO TEXAS RULES EUJONCE 901 (B) (C) ANO CAN BE PRESENTED PROUSDED I BE AFFORDED THE OPDDRLUNITY TO DO SO. THE COURT PROCEDJNGS ERRDR HAS PREVERTED ME FROM PROPERIY PRESENTING THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPRALS PULSUANT TO TEXAS RULES APPRLAN' PROCEDURE REVERSIBLE ERRDR 44.1 (A)(2);44.2 (A)CONSTITUTIGNAL ERRDR SCOTT V. STATE. 227 S.W. 34670.690 -91 (TEX CRIM. APA 2002): CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON.541 U.S.36.68-69.124 S.CT. 1354.1373 .158 L. (2004).
*4 I, TOMMY PERKDIS HAVE RESENTIV SUBMITTED A MORION LAMAK COUNIY DISTRICT COURT FOR APPERINTMENT OF COUNSEL FUSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SINCE THE CONSTITUIONAL ERRORS DISCREBED ABOUE PRESSNIS AN " EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" I AM CURRENTIV ANJATTING SOME SORT OF REDIV FROM THE LAMAL COUNIY DISTRICT COURT.
I PLAY THE COURT OF APPERLSEOR THE STATE OF TEXAS CONSIDER THE ABOUE STATE AS I FEELE HAVE EXHAUSTED EVERY AUXILABLE REMEDY, TO DISCloSE THIS EUXORNCE OF QUESTIONABLE DUDOCIAL PROCEDURES THAT ULTIMATEIV LEO TO THIS WNOWEFLL CONVICTION AND I RESPECTFULLY REDUCEST THAT THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPERLSE OF TEXAS RESPOND TO THE FNCloSED NEWLY DISCOVERED EUXORNCE IN A TIMEIV FASHION.
SINCERELY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED JOHNmy Perkin 04-10-2015