Case Information
*1 Court of Criminal Appeals Sharon Keller-Presiding Judge Supreme Court Bldg 201 W. 14th St. P.C.Box 12308
Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2308
RE: Reply To The State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, And Order/Affidavit of Rebuttal Cause No. 1045480-A Dear Sharon Keller, Enclosed, please find the original Applicnt's Reply To The State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, And Order and a affidavit of Rebuttal. Please file and bring to the attention of this Court. It is not clear as to whether the 232nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas has forwarded the Writ Application. Please file this with the Writ Application's response from the Court and make back to me stamped as filed in the enclosed self-addresses envelope. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in this matter.
RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS APR 062015
Respectfully, Joe Saucedo, Jr. Allred Unit #1402138 2101 FM 369 North Iowa Park, Texas 76367
Abel Acosta, Clerk
*2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
EX PARTE JOE SAUCEDO, JR Applicant § IN THE 232 DISTICT COURT § OF § HARRIS COUNTY,TEXAS §
APPLICANT'S REPLY TO THE STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Having reviewed the State's Proposed Eindings of Fact; Conclusion of Law; The Applicant finding that the Findings of Facts Conclusions of Law, And Order was in error, and did not pertain to the Applicant's case in which is very important for the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider this reply into evidence and investigate every fact listed in regards to error and due process violations the State committed. The Applicant will point out facts only in regards to the unauthorized, unlawful and unconstitutional sentence the Applicant recieved in this case. (See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).
First, the Applicant will establish before this Court that he raise ineffective Assistance of Counsel, and in the State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, the Representative for the State, Eva Flores, made allegations of the Attorney asd Defense for the Applicant as being someone by the name of Greene, and stated that Greene provided effective assistance of counsel to the Applicant, when in fact, Attorney Greene do not exist. (See State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order at pages (5)(6). Dated February 27, 2015. The Court can not make an adequate and impartial findings of facts and conclusions through by erroneously and misleading information on behalf of the State. (See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). Also, the Court must note that the State's Original Answer filed October 24, 2013.the State's answer was all in regards to some Black male offender by the name of James Smith, Jr. #01673290. (See the last page of the State's Original Answer. (See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).
*3 There were no reasons for the Applicant to present any argument in regards to Attorney Greene's actions falling outside of prevailing professional norms due to the fact attorney Greene do not exist and the State can produce no evidence to support or establish that the Applicant was represented by Attorney Greene.
Second, the State's Proposed Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, made allegations that the Applicant raised the Ground of Insufficient Evidence when in fact the Applicant raised the ground of "No Evidence".There is a difference between,"Insufficient Evidence" and "No Evidence".(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). The State's Representative Eva Flores is filing false allegations to mislead the Court into giving a ruling thats not authorized, lawful or unconstutitional.(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal). Third, the Applicant has Rebutted the State's false and misleading allegations throughby his Affidavit of Rebuttal, in which rebutted the State's allegations and the allegations of the Defense Attorney, Thomas Radosevich, of him stating he did not see no need to create a paper file, when in fact every Attorney must create a paper file in order to adequately represent his client(See Attached Affidavit of Rebuttal).
Fourth, and last of the Applicant's reply to the State's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, And Order, the Applicant Request this court to hold a hearing on whether the Judicial District Court has misconstrued the Statute of Texas Penal Code 46.01(3), It states that a (firearm) is;[A]ny device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device ready convertible to that use."
The BB gun mentioned in the trial, nor the States responsehas been found to be a firearm, nor a deadly weapon, This Court has set rules,standards and guidelines the Judicial District Courts must abide by in the State of Texas, that the Court must operate under in order to lawfully convict anyone. When the evidence raised by the State [do not] prove or meet the State's burden of proff as here, the Case must be reversed.
*4 Upon the Court reversing this case for a hearing and point out to the Court the true meaning of a firearm and a geadly weapon, the court must then release the Applicant from his unlawful confinement,because the jury was not aware of the law and it's interpretations, therefore, the Applicant relies upon the integrity of the 232nd Court that it is in error and have the Applicant unlawfully confined.(See Attached Affidavit).
Executed on this day of April _ , 2015
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joe Saucedo, Jr.,do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Applicant's Reply To The State's Proposed Finding of Fact,Conclusion of Law,And Order,has been forward to the U.S.mail,postage prepaid,first class, to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Sharon Keller,Presiding Judge, Supreme Court Bldg, 201 w. 14th St.P.O.box 12308 Capitol Station,Austin Texas 787112308,on this the day of April,2015.
*5 State of Texas) Scilicet Wichita County) " Indeed, no more than (affidavit) is necessary to make the prima facie case."United States v. Kis,658 F.2nd 526,536 (7th Cir.1981): cert denied,50 U.S. L.W.2169,S.Ct.March 22, 1982.
That I, Joe Saucedo, a living breathing man,being first duly sworn,depose and say and declare by my signature that the following facts are true,correct and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. That, for Resolving a Matter it must be expressed. That, Truth is expressed in the Affidavit form. That, an Unrebutted Affidavit stands as thruth in commerce. That, an Unrebutted Affidavit becomes the judgement in Commerce. That, a truth Affidavit, under Commercial Law can only be satisfied by a Rebuttal about the truth Affidavit, by payment, by argreement, by resolution by a jury according by the rules for Common Law. That, this is a Rebuttal Affidavit to the Affidavit of Thomas A. Radosevich's the State's Original Answer Filed October 24,2013 by Eva Flores, Respondant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order February 27, 2015. That, Thomas A. Radosevich failed to rebut the allegations that Joe Saucedo was a habitual offender. That, Joe Saucedo never held any prior convictions within the ten year time limit that could be used against him for enchancement purposes. That, Joe Saucedo never possessed a firearm. That, the claim of Joe Saucedo used a deadly weapon to wit:a firearm was never proved. That, when a conviction is over ten years old it can not be used for enchancement purposes. That, Thomas A. Radosevich, in his Affidavit of trial Counsel dated 12-09-13, admitted that he did not create a paper file, in which a paper file inthe instant case would have help establish and prove facts before the jury.This was a part of failing to prepare for trial. That, Thomas A Radosevich, inthe last paragraph of the first page of Affidavit of Trial Counsel, stated he failed to move to dismiss any portion of the indictment when it appeared Joe Saucedo would not accept any plea bargains Thomas A, Radosevich had a duty to try and have all charges dismissed on behalf of his client, yet he-
*6 held a conflict of interest in the case when Joe Saucedo refused to accept the State's and Court's offer.Joe Saucedo has a right to not accept or to make any pleas,yet the court failed to inform Joe Saucedo of these rights. They only wanted Joe Saucedo to give them unlawful subject-matter jurisdiction without Joe Saucedo beinq aware of the fraud committed with the Defense Counsel, State Representative Eva Flores, and the Judge of said Court. That, Thomas A, Radosevich had a duty to present the law on deadly weapons and what it means to be a deadlyweapons. That, Thomas A Radosevich had a duty to present the law on firearm and what it mean to be a firearm. That, at no time durinq the trial did Thomas A, Radosevich present the meaning of a firearm to the jury as outlined in Texas Penal Code ANNOTATED §46 .01(3) (VERNON 2003). That, Failure of Thomas A Radosevich, as counsel for Joe Saucedo to file motion for investigator deprived Joe Saucedo to present the following:(1)The complaint Humberto Arias, (2)Humberto Arias was an Illegal immigrant, and was makking a deal with the Stace to continue to live inthe United States if he'd testify against Joe Saucedo. (3)Humberto Arias had stole the car he claimed belonged to his friend Julio Fraqa's Mother.In which could have been used to show Humberto lack of credibility of his truthfulness, (4).Whether Samuel Martinez was driving a car or truck because in the Court of Appeals"opinion they stated Samuel Martinez was placing something in the back of his truck. (5)An expert on firearms and whether a BB gun was a deadly weapon or could be used as a deadly weapon (6)The owner of the house where the BB gun was claimed to have been found could have provided a statement as to whether or not their kids or grand kids owned or left the gun in the yard or under the house. That, Thomas A.Radosevich and . . . Celeste Carter conspired to convict Jose Saucedo of Aggravated Robbery'. That, the alleged charqe of Aggravated Robbery has not been certified by the State Supreme Court as being constitutional before being implemented in this case. That, the Thomas A, Radosevich nor Eva Flores can say how the jury would have viewed an investigator's or expert's testimony and what their opinion would have been on firearm ac dädily-weapons
*7 That, the Respondant's proposed Findings of Facts and Order dated February 27,2015, contained false information and information in regards to an Attorney by the name of Greene, throughout pages (5)&;(6)under Conclusion and Law That, Eva Flores can not under the penalty of per jury produce any document or statement or even an affidavit from the Attorney Greene labled in the Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact and Order February 27, 2015. That, the trial Court in it's determining findings used false facts and allegations, in reegards to Attorney Greene and the Applicant not showing any ineffectiveness of Attorney Greene. Attorney Greene do not exist in this case.
That, Eva Flores, in the State's Original Answer filed October 24,2013, attached a document titled,"Offender Information Search", with the name of Smith,assigned to Goree Unit. The Court used this as accurate information. That, Eva Flores, for the State, alleged allegation in her response in regards to sufficiency of the evidence. Joe Saucedo raised "No Evidence", There is a difference between "No Evidence"and Sufficiency of Evidence". That, Eva Flores,raised sufficiency of the evidence knowingly the trial court would not review the facts Joe Saucedo presented and would take the side of the State.
That, the State failed to meet it's burden of proving Joe Saucedo committed any offense.
That, the Slate failed to prove that a BB gun was a firearm or deadly weapon.
That, this Affidavit if not rebutted point for point by any man representative of the State of Texas at any level, in anv manner, at any time within (7) days upon reciest, these facts stand as true inthe public record. Further Affiant Saith not. Done this 2 st day of April, 2015.
*8
NOTICE
OFFENDER NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE
Under both Federal law (28 U.S.C § 1746) and State law (V.T.C.A. Civil Practice &; Remedies Code, ), offenders incarcerated in Texas may use an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in place of a written declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit sworn before a Notary Public.
In a request for Notary Public service, each offender must explain why an Unsworn Declaration is insufficient before Notary Public service will be provided.
An example of an unsworn declaration pursuant to State law is as follows: "My name is (First) (Middle) (Last) and my inmate identifying number, is I am presently incarcerated in
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the (Offender Signature)
An example of an unsworn declaration pursuant to Federal law is as follows:
I (insert offender name and TDCJ number), being presently incarcerated in (insert TDCJ unit name), in County, Texas, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the day of , 20 (Offender Signature)
NOTICE
NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE DENIAL
Regarding your request for Notary Public service, insufficient justification was provided necessitating Notary Public service. However, you may proceed with an Unsworn Declaration.