Case Information
*1
228-15 ORIGINAL
En The
Carst of Criminal Appeals Of Texas
P.O. Box 12309 Capitol Station, Austin, TXN89799999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
*2 Statement Of The Case:
Fettioneer was indicted and convicted on March 7, 2014, for aggravated sexual assaultor a child (CR 10). (CR 229-273) Later the same day was sentenced to eighty yonder imprisonment and filmed . Appool Mosice intimidately given The only good defense at Heraway, Mo. Ricardo Concealce did was claim Jutriment Evidence" Reguested an constructed Verdict from The Court Jute. V. 5 of 9 at 56 lines 19-25. A conviction with insufficient evidence to Convicts Affirmed by The First District Court Of Appool Of Trans ON February 3, 2015
On April 29, 2015 This heritable Court Ordored The PDR redraw and granted 30 days. Thereby this is timely filed, this day of May 2015.
Statement Of Facts The Redviquec Family long time patients of Dr. Yaa AnaahHenny, (RRS-9) Had treated the Fettioneer for worts and a rash in Paris (RRS-12) No herpes.
On July 5, 2011 the child Clavdia Redviques - C. for perfection was treated by Dr. Henry (RRS-19) She was 10 years old. (RRS-20) C. was complains about a vagunin rash while is highly possible due to hygiene. (RRS-20) C. stated More than once no sexual contact caused the rash (RRS-21-23) On July 12 after driving C. for over an hour with whom in the room and C. explaining two possible scenarios. Dr. Henny kicked 1400 out of the Room (RR 5-34 bottom)
P 9 of 14.
*3 Initially on July 5th, denied any sexual contact (RRS29) On July 12 C, still said No sexual contact (RRS29) It appears after Mom-Luz Farfan-L.F. being kicked out of the room and intimidating, boombrating, C. said a boy at school had touched her on her skivd. (RRS-30) She C. was very scared (RRS-29) Dr. Hanny refused to believe her explanation of a classmate touching her. (RRS-30) - No C. that a lie, Let's try it again."- Dr. Hanny's one back mind never asked who the boy was not his name. (RR 4-155) C. knew the boys name (RR 4-155) live Number 70 "Uh-huh" There is no outcry witness (RR 4-22) "What Dr. Henny said" Not O. Emphasis added. The Case of the case is that C. was tested possiblyfor herpes simplex Virus 2 (RRS-34) And Dr Hanny insist it is only transmitted genitial to genitial (RRS-43) 99\%. That it is a preposterious claim that its transmitted theough-bistring (RR4-2) (RRS-27) She saw classic heptic lesions on C. Vagina. (RRS-25) No thrawn a the hyman is intact No physical sign of penetration (RR 4-84) Herpes can come from touching (RR 4-98) or while bisthing (RR 4-98, 1004106) Do. Rener Isaac that a hyman can heal back after a penetration (RR4-86) That any 60 IQ MOON will know to be False. Dr. Hanny coaxed C. into incrimination her beloved father, Fstittener, Alan Omar Radriguer, of sexually assaulting her. Dr Hanny's pecmicious filels of Medecin dexterity, kicked Mom out of room. P 2 of 14
*4 (RR5-24) Dr. Homy thraumatized: C. physiologically and mentally that C. couldn't remember her father's name. (RR9-118) Couldn't tell diference between truth and a lie. (RR 4-119) She thought it was all her fault, she was to blame for the situation she was angry with herself and even wanted to hit herself in the face (RR4-149) Dr. Homy accused the father of transmitting her pes to C. That is the Cruz of the case.
Dr. Homy lied when she testified that Max Rodriguez tested Positive For both herper Simplex Virus 1.2. And that such were in both bub Corp Test results. (RR5-39440) See (V1 of 1-88) where test results for Alun Omar Rodripuez show negative specifically for Herper Simplex Virus 1.2. It glasses in the record, while defense Atherosy, Rizudo Corzalez, cross examined Dr. Homy, the Count cut him off, "Let's pass to other Topic" An acquirestat defense counsel didn't object. (RR5-54) Now existing Extensions oftrees were considered by the copy. (V1 of 1-232) The story shows onably determined a guilty Verdict.
The First Count of Criminal Appeals of Texas Affirmed the judgment by no reversible error. The Appellate ineffective Counsel only raised one claim of court improper limiting cross-examination. Never challenged the sufficiency of the Evidence, Ineffective counsel at trial, No outcry witness, Boascots's misconduct, Casting and Body Violation, specify trial Violation, Court' abuse of direction Complete innocence among others's No Full and Fair hearing.
*5
Trial Counsel did not File a Pretrial Motion in suppress evidence-pos. No Motion in Linive did not object to Inevi mending evidence.
Legal Brief:
Retitianer Filing Pro-se assisted by layman of the law in mato deas Not wnive any night Nancely Constitutional Right which camnot be wnived. Hidalgo in state 945 sww 2nd 313. And Retitianer invokes a liberal Pro- Se filing. Joak an in Beyer 750 F5upa 553. To prove ineffective assistance of Counsel, Retitutioner will alude to dehors percoxd chins for collateral attack which appear on the Eace of the record. Souril in Collins 557 F5upa 843. Retitioner will claim Crcumstantial evidence will prove that the alleged charges of sexual assault of a child undor Forternts are false for if cia- cumstantial evidence can convict the Pea Forep ulso can and will acquit Ex Rute Amarguita 225 s.wwid 363 (Ex.Crim.Ap 2006) By the preponderance of the evidence presented in the care at hand, this howemble Court of Criminal Apprais should Rule that ineffective assistance of Conrte ghze on the face of the record. Ex Rute Maytiner 330 s.wwid 991. Dut To the short space to file this Brief secking review and de
*6 Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Fundamental miscarriage of Justice. a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
*7 were ineffective. Trial defense counsel Ricardo Concha, never objected to the introduction of evidence (RRS-35) (RR4-176). He failed to submit any written objection per-trial and timely issued (RR4-176) (RR4-181) (RRS-19) (RRS-35) (RRS-18). He even allowed void convictions. Stipulated into evidence (RR 6-18). We a misdemeanor, two deffered adjudication which were not final convictions dismissed which rendered them void as constitutionsally deffective. He himself prevented there to the gury to consider us estremious crimes which prejudiced the Retitioner in due Process Violation. He failed to effectively defend Retitioner. See Old Chief v. US. 119 Sch. 644 where he stipulated to old convictions. Voided. Reversed &; Remar ded. See Hidalgo v. State Super 9459 m. 2d. 213. Where of Prior Jud ment maybe collateral attacked if they are void or if they are tain ted by constitutional defect, both fit the case all hands, in, told and ineffective. Prepassentation rundow constitutionsel defect. He failed to file a Motion in liiniwe to bave use of there void offenses. Galloway v. State s995dived. 1429 Beto v. State 408 F. 2d. 313; State v. Concin 905 sived 75 Houston v. State 916 sived 705. The gun presented into evidence prejudiced Retitioner on his guilt and Rarishment by the arbitrary action of defense counsels. No challenge to a speedy Trials Retitioner constantly urged a trial in order to prove his inocence. 32 months before trial is no excuse for 13 contimpanse without good cause other than to brainwast the child , into believing somethfing not reab See: Orand v. State 854 sived 560 , Note 44 , Crim. Law Key 577.15 (4), 577.16 (8) where one year delay is presumptive preju dicial. U.S.C.A.med. 6. 7 of 14
*8 He failed to object to a trial without an outcry witness. (R-184-5) The state claimed the another L.E. to be the outcry with Ness (RR-4-6) However, she testified that Dr. Honsy had said about sexual assault not here. (RR-4-6) See (RR-4-22) Where she could her daughter that if she did not come out in 5 minutes to call 911 and Tell them what Dr. Honsy said? 'thereby, she is not an outcry witness. He failed to object to the Cavt's termination of Cross examination to both the Child C. and Dr. Honsy. (RR-4-182) (RR5-54) Such a Constitutional protection to Cross examine violated. See Washington U. Texas 87 SC1.1920, reversed 400 sw2d 756, 6th 814th Amendment. (April U. State 916 sw2d 494 (Frec 5im Apr 1996) Sly 6hland U. Washington 104 SCt. 2053 Aborted States U. Crook 104 SCt.2052. The First Cantor Approach of Trap did not rule whether such an error was harmful beyond a reasonable doubt (Napman V. California 87 SCt. 224 Rev. 8 Rem. Pettitiancy tried to fire the defense attempt, Ricarde Convales, twice. (V. 1 of 1 p. 89491 ) all in vain. He even failed to object to herway statement of pretrial nature and such were not given for imprcedment in a dasking violation a week a Brady. See Smith U. State 940 sw2d 502 P.D.R granted Vacuated. Casking Rule. See Holeway V. State 535 sw2d 165 (win age 1925); Selway V. State 1025061292 In the case at hand the mother L.E. had been tested for herpes and such test could exho miate this Pettitiancy and it was withheld, the state knew of its existence and deliberately withheld it. (RR-4-94) The cyux of the case is that the child C. was infected with herpes simplex virus 2 and according to Dr. Honsy only genihial to yenitial transmission occur. And she falsely testified that this Pettitiancy LabCorp Test pervith were Positive P. 8 of 14
*9 (ARS-39-39) However, The Lab Corp. Test results for Man Owned Rob injury on (iv) of I at p. 81) Show test results Negative" for HS U. 2 or Herpes Simplex Virus 2. Evidenced in the Record is proof that the State Expert Witness, U. Horney, prepared by knowingly lying to cause harm. See Williams v. Griswold 943 F2d 1533 - Reucrised over prepared testimony. Said defence Counsel seen objected after the wating an "Indetermine" notation. A two year pleabarsale was offered and defense Counsel failed to offer it to the defendant, regardless whether accepted or not he is by law supposed to mediate the offer. Such is an arbitrary action prejudicing Retitioner. Before trial the Trialidye, mentioned it. Circumstantial evidence on the record proves that defense counsel was prejudice against Retitioner and will it will did not object to all evidence to cause procedural default on appeals. His expensive Negates any other rationale. Both poongs are met for ineffective counsel showing prejudice as a bove evidence. See Strickland v. Washington 1045 , c. 1, Suppa. also Mayow v. Cockrell 299 F2d 336 (see 2005) where defense counsel provided. No meaningful assistance committee ineffective as a trainee of Counsel. D. Horney, alleged that this Retitioner gave the HSU 2 to the child C. Note: This Retitioner tested negative to HSU 2 in the Lab Corp test results (W1 of 1 at p. 80) That in itself exhomporter Retitioner and presures Dr. Horney Furthermure, The State claims the child C. was sayed, penetrated. However upon examination the child C, hyman was/is normal, no trauma. She's still a virgine. Thereby no saps, no penetration occurred even. (RR , live 18) = "No physical evidence of penetration." Emphasis added. The State witness-Expert,-Dr. Rewse Jseas, incerdiously testified that, No such thing p. 9 of 14.
*10 as a virginity test exists." That is peryury under oath. She further testified that a broken hym an will beel back to normal quickly, very guidy." (RR 4-84486) Such a pericious life is medically or clinically unacceptable as incompetent or at right perjury to cause harm. Any MOON, under 69 IC, can tell that a hym an one 6 roken will stay 6 roken for life and never heal back to normal. Defense counsel failed to introduce an independent expert witness for sebutial. Such would have exhomocated Retitioner specially with an indeppndant Hsu 2 Lal test of Retitioner, alany with an expert witness. See Pena v State 226 S423d 628 (waco App.) where Lal test and Police expert witness have an incentive to lie since its their duty to the presector. This case at hand is a tremendous example of such precedent truth. Again, Whlens v Crismald 943 Fad 1533. Dr. Isang rightly testified that the Hsu 2 can be transmitted by touch his or birthing. (RR 4-98-109) Which power that it not necessarily is sexual Reclplay. However Dr. Homy is con. traxy and eavowous on insisting that such Hsu can only be transmitted genitial to genitial no other ways (RR 5-43f 29). Dr. Henny is ingrations culprit of this unsavizable cause in hedy overzealous approach to a plight for medical atientions. At first the child C. was just "Elat,"-EE I thought she was a little bit slow to answer But she did-the seened life - we were very non-threatening: It seemed like she was telling us the truth or what we perceived to be the truth, or (RR5-22) Note, we were very non-threatening?"Yes, That was on July 5th and C. said No. 3 rsal contact. (RR5-21) However, on July 12th she-Dr. Homy- lowered the 600m. She put pressures, and it is tipical to threaten a child of being removed from all the family, to be put in a foster house. R19, of 14.
*11 Or July 12th C. said No.(RRS-29) Der. Homy did not like her diagenosis being questioned by Mum LE. (RRS-24) So she kined out of the interagating room Mum LE after one hour with both (RRS-24) She kicked Mum out because C. was trying to explain a couple of ways "scenarios" as to how she could have contacted the Hsu2. (RRS-29) Circumstantial evidence show Dr. Henny. What at her diagnosis being questioned. Did it approve of an explanation of two different scenarios, so she kicks Mum out and Now she is threatening. The Child C. is very scared. (RRS-29) C. says a boy at school tenched her. No only an adult could have done it. She remembers treating Dad, Alane for. Warts on his penis. Him? It's him? She won't listen to reasons. She threatens C. and scares her into incriminating Max. Robrípus. Ce won't cooperate until over two years of drilling. C. Feels its her fault, she is a agree with herself. So much she wants to hit herself in the face (RRS-199) She C. don't blame Dad. She is so thramatized she don't remembers dads name. (RRS-119) She was not allowed to explain. The Dr. Henny, dispelt the boy at school and did no follow-up, did it ask his name or who he was. (RRS-155) Single teach mind. Yes at First Dr. Henny was very not threatening. (RRS-22) But once Dr. Henny had C. alone, no witnesses, she became "Dr. JAckle." So the Child C. remembers the schoolmate funding her. No C. that's a lie, let's try ayain (RRS-30) More scared, Child C. tries two other scenarions." C. did" (RRS-29; line 24). Frustrated, Dr. Henny, Now Dr. Juckle," Ioways the boom and hit a Crescendo dominating a scared fearful inocent victim of her obsession to incriminate the father, Max Robrípus whom she had previesly treated for penis warts (RRS-15) P. H. of 14.
*12 The end results are an illegal conviction by fabricated evidence. Namely since this Pettitioner is indeed free of the trasper Simplex Vives, which is the crux of the case the Pettitioner passed genital to genital such Hsu, Sexually transmitted desease Noting that the same Dr. Henny insisted that such a Vives is only transmitted by a sexual genital to genital contact and no other way. (RR5-43) Stating "No other way" Therefore, as far as this Pettitioner has been advised by laymen isolates, its determined that no possible results are indicated in the lubber test results. (V.101-85)
Pettitioner can't write no speak English and the writer of this wait has problems understanding what he "Pettitioner" understood at the proceedings during trial. Immopine, The Countsays one thing, it responds again and Pettitioner again so by the time. 3 different persons speak it changes dramatically.
Please accept the "appology" for exdaneously stating at any stage of this Brief that the Count stated the guy finding Pettitioner not guilty. It was referring to the Count and not juyy.
Pettitioner twice tried to have the Count five defense Counsel. Ricavde, Conrater, to no avail. (V.1 of 1-89497). But had to go through trial with a young Judge, Juy &; defense Counsel all against Pettitioner tantamount to a STAR ChAprès. Trial in direct violation of due Races of law of The state had Federal Constitution. The Judge abused Count's discretion for not allowing the Pettitioner the oppertukity to address the Count before sentencing.
*13 Cross Coarization E2002. Cassol v. State 916 SUS 2d. 499 (Tes. Crit. App. 1996) Where an athoray may examine ewen only to explore. In the instant case the trial. Judge twice interrupted and terminated the Cross examination. (RR3- 162) and (RR5-54) And the First Count Of Appends Rules No extors. Defense Consel defaulted Proceduilly all claims and such defaults of an ineffective Consel should be impume to the State. All claims falls short on that Retitioner was not afforded a full and fair hearic See Townsend v. 5 Min 83 Sct. 945, where a Federal Count will entertain a 2254 if the state did not provide a full and fair hearing to reentue disputes as in the case at hand and if there are nearly discovered evidence like the results of the LabGrep negative for HSV2 for Abw Orear Rodrigues. (F10P1-81) am on otherg. Retitioner has evidenced by the records cluow of cause and prejudice for this Count to consider the defaulted procedurally claims which if not will consibitute flagnant fundamental ex iscervass of justice. See Hermy v. Traayo-Reyes 112 Sct. 1915 (1992) Ouerouling Townsend Supra. Had defense Counrels asbitary prejudicing actions not happened, this appreaf would not be before this Count a different out cause favorable to the defordant would have surely resulted. Cancer Action to obtain zelieE foow an illeyal incarceration. Incidention lie in this Gort to entertain this matter. Caias in the record and Circumtantial merit zelieE. Boseou toral Misconduct is evident for saying to the juy that the anns of hed been roped. See Vaxpay v. Keane 86 F3d. 1293. Trial Judex Abured Discretion for not granting an Instsucted verdict and stopiny testinomy ameuny others. See: Jackson v. Texas BDo of Rerders And Ravelet 178 Sw. 3d. 272 at 295. And for otheriny The defondan to chose who should sentence him in case of suilt.
*14 Legal Argument Petitioners State And Federal Constitutional Rights of One Process were vie luted, tried and consisted with institutional evidence. The CRUX of two case; Petitioner Passing the may to Achild by genitial to genitial contact. However, Petitioner is HSU2 Free (Viel-81). The truth shall set you Free. Ineffective counsels ordinary actions prejudiced Petitioner by defaulting appealable claims of, Plain orree. for the reasons shown retiet should be granted by dimissin case with Freudice Prayer. Petitioner Pups this court dimiss, allchayes with prejudice.
Certificate Of Declaration The Foregoing is true and correct the underriprod Declares in this non totary sworm bric &;tended via us tered partgse pre- paid this day of May, 2009. And urges the Cunt check to serve all parties of interest. He Capies ing luded. Respecteully Submitted and signed, of the coug Pray Rod rgyed 1928666 Prayes serve all answers also to, Regino Relacios 1569296 1100 Pm 655 Ramsay Luvit Rusharom, Tx, 77583 Rosharom, Tx, 77583 This Fourthaing heard the Petitioner Discretionary Review, gaunts retiet Seugh and reverves the case vucuting the illiexul sentence And Ordering the inndiate retence of Petitioner So Oodered, Presiding honoredte Justice Tulye p. 14 of 14 .
*15 Distinguished Court Clerk Abd Acosta, for The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas RO Dext2308; Capitol Station Autism 7x1 78711 Dear Clerk, Abel, With all due receipt? Please thank as exhibit the enclosed Affidavit in support of my ineffective ass, space of counsel for my PDR No. PO-0229-15. Thank you for your kind service and my thanks are in advance Thank you for my dad bless you. Ye arst truly, Sipred,
*16 AFRIDA VIT. I, Alan Omar Rodriguez, bein, of sound mind and body, date of birth. 28, do hereby decore that defense counsel, Rizusho, González, tHNO2131550 aybitparity acted in such a memory as to prejudice me in such a discriminatory way that he with ill will defaulted defence claims which could have exhomovated me on approval for cause whether of trials 1398403 of Harris County in Houston, Texas. Said Atharney in a pernicious manner disregarded my Pica for a spreedy Trial. Could or agreed to 13 extensions of Trial, failed to object to incriminating evidence. Did not ride a Motion to suppose evidence, namely a gun legally at home, other than it being stolen without my knowledge. He never filed a Motion In Limine, to bazz the state from uselnp previous arrests not of a nature to be used as Extam Nious Crimes to enhance or cause prejudice. Such priors were void and Constitutio nally tainted.
I Further state that Trial expert state witnesses, Dr. Renze, trans, and Dr. Yan Anon, Henny committed perjury to harm me arbitrarily. Custhicuty Declaration.
The undersipted Affiant Declares that the abuse Affidavit is true and correct and this is not, notaried due to imprisonment. Declared this 27th day of May, 2955, and signed Signed, 1928606 Remyey 1 Unit Rostarow, Texas 77583.
*17