Case Information

29,448-40

DATE 10-12-2015

ABEL ACASIA

SUPERME COURT BUILDING

RECEIVED IN

BUSTIN COURT OF CREDIDUAL APPEALS

RO. BOX 12208

BUSTIN, TEXAS 73.711

Abel Acosta, Clerk

BE AFFEDANT OF DANIEL VIUA FOR CAUSE NO. 2006 -412699-B-AND CAUSE NO. 2006 -412699-C.

BEAR CLLK,

ENCLOSERIZMSE FING APPLICANTS AFFEDANT OF DANIEL VIUA FOR CAUSE NO. 2006 -412699-B AND CAUSE NO. 2006 -412699-C THAT YOU WILL BE RECEIVIVE ANY DAY NOU, IN THE ABOVE STYLED AND NUYNSE CAUSES, PLEASE FEE THIS AFFEDANT AND ORINE IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT FOR CAUSE NO. 2006-412699-B THAT IS UNKED REVIEW RTGHY NOU.

A COPY OF THIS NOTION WITH BE GENVER ON THE DISIRIT ATTENEY AT RO. BOX 10536, LUBBock, TEXAS 79465-3536.

THINK YOU FOR YOUR ASSESTANCE IN THIS PARTY.

RESECTANT SUBCRITER BANN UME 1056 US EAKTHON UNIT 12-3 2665 ARDSON Rd. LOUELFAOY, TEXAS 15851

*2 AFETDAUT OE DANIEL UIIA

(HousTON COUNIY) TEXAS (TOCT) NUMBUE IS(384US), I

Am EWY COMPETENTTO MAKE THIS AFFIDAUT AND HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, OE THE EACIS STARTED HEREIN. I WISH TO STATE AS FOLLOWS: I WAS THE DEEAMBANT IN THIS FELONY DWICASE OE THE STATE OE TEXAS U DANIEL UIIA, I AM THE AARICANT IN THE WRIESE HABERS CORPUS IN THE ABOUE STYLED ACTIW NUMBER DO STATE THAT ON THE DATE OE TIMES, 2006 AND TIMES, 2006 DURING IN YITAL A 3001 DWI FELONY WAS NEUCE INTRONICE OE SUMMETTED DURING THE GUTY/INNO- CENCE OE IN YITAL I SULGME UNDIKE ORIH THAT IT IS NO WHERE IN REPORTERS RECOMB SHOWING IT WAS SUMMETTED DURING GUTY/INNOCEWCE OE IN YITAL I HAVE MY RECORPS AND THE ONLY BLACK IT IS SUBMETTED TO THE COURT IS DURING THE BUNISHMENT PHASE. THE ASSISTANT ATERNEY GENEAL STATEMENT MADE IN RESPONSE TO 2354 TO (CLATIN IA) WAS BUT UIIA'S PRIOR CONVICITING DID NOT MEEET THE 10 YEAR RULE REQUIREMENTS OE BENAI CODE 49,09 (E)(3)AECANSE HE WAS CONVICITED OE ANOTHER DWI OFEENISE ON APRY 27, 3001 WITHIN TEN (10) YEARS OE THE 1982 CONVICITING, 9 R.E. STATES EXHIBIT? THE RESPON THE ASSISTANT ATERNEY GENERAL MADE THIS STATEMENT IS BECAUSE THOUS THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE TUMGE FROM GRANTING THE EX POST FACID

*3 AND IENCIDD YEAR RULE. AUT. WHAN SHE MADE THAT STRIEMED THREE IS NO REE. PARTIES RECORD TO SHOUL IT WAS DITRODUCE DURING CASE IN CHIEF, WHICH WAS ALSO A RESUREDINGY UNDER WEAKER U.S. STATE, 56.5 W. 34, 894, 899 (TEX. ARP. TEXAREANO 2000 AND WEAKER U.S. STATE, 87.5 W. 34, 552 (COURT DE CRITONAL ARPANS OF TERMS, EN RANC. SEPT.11, 2002). THAT WHY THIS IS FROM OR DISTANCE OF PEAUTARY ON THE COURT, BE CAUSE IT WAS NOT SUAPETTER TO THE TOTAL COURT DURING GUITTENNS. CANCE, THE STRIEMED WAST THAT, SEPT. TO STOP THE PERSON TUBE FROD GRANITING. THE EX PAST FACIO CLAIDO, AND TO STOP THE 10 YEAR RULE, BY WITHUGOTNG THIS EUROENCE. HAS ALSO UFOLATO TENES PENAL. CODE 49.09 (E), THAT WAS SITEL INEFFECT ON ANGUST 87.2005 THE DAY OF ARPJCANTS CRITHE, PLANSE SEE. BODBESUCE U.S.STATE, 31.5 W. 34, 353 (TEX. ARP. SAN ANTONTO 2000) AND PHILIERS U.S.STATE, 998.5 W. 493 (TEX. CRITALARP. 1999). BY APPLICANTS BEI EINE AND UNDERSTANDING OF THESE CASES HIS RIGHTS HAVE DIEEN UITUATO UNDER PENOI. CODE 49.09 (E) AND EX PAST FACTO AND 10 YEAR RULE, DUE PROCESS AND EQUIV PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

ELETHER AFETANT SAITH NOT.

RESPECTSWAY SUBDITED SsSsSive UND. 9/384115 EASTHORN UNIT. 12-5 246.5 ORISON 64.12

LONELONY, TERMS 1,5851

TADDAIE'S DECLARATIAN

I, DANIEI ULLA" 1336118 , AM THE AMPICAWY AND BEING PRESENTLY INCAKCERATED IN EASTHAM UNIT, LOUELADY, TEXAS, DECLARE UNOYE PEALITY OF PERTURY THAT, ACCORDING TO OY ABLIEF, THE FACTS STARTN IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT.

STENED ON OCT. 12, 305. RESPECTFULY SUMITTED. DANIEI ULLA" 1336118. DANIEI UNIT 12-5 2665 PRISON Rd. $^{I}$ LOUELADY, TEXAS 7.5851

ABEL ACOSTA

SUPERME COURT BUILDING

AUSTIN COURT OF CRIMINAL ARPENIS

P.O. BOX 12308

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78TH

RE: APELICANTS REQUESSES BASE ON THE DRETVE V. HALLY REQUEREMENT APELICANT REQUESSES FOR AN ORDIN REPANOING THE APELICATING BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT A PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APELICANt REQUESSES FOR A EUIDENTIARY HERMING.

DEAR CLARK, DATE 10-12-15 ENCODE PLEASE FING APELICANTS REQUESSE BASE ON THE DRETVE V. HALLY, REQUEREMENT APELICANT REQUESSE FOR AN ORDIN REPANOING THE APELICATING BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT A PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APELICANt REQUESSES FOR A EUIDENTIARY HERMING, IN THE ABOVE STYLLD AND NUARVE CRUSE, PLEASE FILE THIS AND BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT.

A COPY OF THIS MOTION WITH BE SAKUED ON THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AT P.O. BOX 10536, LONDock, TEXAS 7948-3536.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTENCE IN THIS MATTER.

RESPECTFALLY SUBMITTED Bianin 21182, "1336/18 EASTHAM UNIT 1255 2665 FRISEN Rd. ^[41] LOVELADY, TEXAS 75851

*6 DISTRECT CISEY BARBARA SUCST ROOM 105, COURTHOUSE R.A. BOX 10536

LUBBACK, TEXAS 79408

RE: AARLICANTS REQUESIS BASE ON THE DIETRE U. HALEY REQUEREMENT AARLICANT REQUESIS FOR AN ORDER REDANOING THE AARLICATION BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT A PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AARICANT REQUESIS FOR A EUROENTIARY HEARING DEAR CISEY, DATE 10-12-15

ENCLOSED PLEASE EING AARLICANTS REQUESIS BASE ON THE DIETRE U.HALEY,REQUEREMENT AARLICANT REQUESIS FOR AN ORDER REMANDING THE AARLICATEN BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT A PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE AARLICANT REQUESIS FOR A EUROENTIARY HEARING, IN THE ABOUE STYLLD AND NUMAUR CAUSE PLEASE EIIE THIS AND ORING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT.

A COPY OF THIS NOTION WITH BE SERVED ON THE DISTRECT DITERNSY AT P.O. BOX 10536, LUBBACK, TEXAS 79408-3536

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS DIETRE.

RESPECTFUUY SUBMITTED DANIQ YUW. 138618

EASIHNO UNIT 12-5 3665 PRISON RU $^{II}$

LDUELARY, TEXAS 75851

*7 DANIE) UTIA V. STATE OF TEXAS $\frac{E}{2}$ LIABOCK, COUNIY, TEXAS

APPIICANT REQUESIS BASE ON THE DIETKE U, HALEY, REQUEREMENT APPIICANT REQUESIS FOR AN ORDER REPANIONS. THE APELICATON BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORREST A PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPIICANT REQUESIS FOR A EUROENTIARY HEARTNG.

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRITONAL AMPERS, Now COMES DANIEL UTIA (35618, APPIICANT IN THE ABOVE STYLED CAUSE AND MAKES AND FILES THIS THE APPIICANT'S REQUESY BASE ON THE DIETKE U, HAILEY, EALL, S. 356, US31, 603d, 659,124,5,CT. 1847 (2004), REQUERENENT APPIICANT REQUESIS FOR AN ORDER REPANIONS, THE APPIICATON BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORREST A PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPIICANT REQUESIS FOR A EUROENTIARY HEARTNG.

GROUMS FOR RELIEF IN THE TRIAL COURT (1) EY POST FACT UTOLATION (2) INEFFECTUE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL (3) ACTUAL INNOCCENCE BASED ON NEW Y DISCOURED EUROENCE.

THE CLATMS BATSED IN THIS CURRENT APPIICATON ARE BEING CHALLENGE BY THE STATE A PROCEDURALY DEFAMITED. FOR THE REASON THAT, THE SUGSTANTIVE CLATMS MAKE IN APPLICANTS CURRENT WRIT APPIICATON CLATMS OF AN EX.

*8 ROSTO FACIO UIOIATION, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSE, ANO ACTUAL INNOCCENCE BASE ON NEGLY DISCOVERED EUIDENCE THAT THE STATE HAS UIDIATED PISUAL COAE, 4109 CATHAT WAS IN EFFECT ON AUGUST 27, 2805 THE DAY OF AMEICANTS CRIDE, AND EITHER WERE OR COMO HAVE BEEN RAISE IN AMEICANTS A-AMEICATION SINCE THE FACIUAL BASES FOR THE CURTAS WERE AUPILABLE AT THE TIDE AMEICAN EISE HIS A-AMEICATION, HOWEVER, THE STATE, IN MACING. THAT ASSERIOM, ATTERNS ID, SERVANTE THE TRUE BASES OF AMEICANTS CURTAS BY EXPLOSING THE EHR ASSESS, EEN ASSERIOM, AND "FACTUAL BASES" AND PROCESSID CONTENA THAT, THE FACIUAL BASES FOR AMEICANTS THREE GROUNDS FOR RELIEFCT.E., THE RECORD EUIDENCE AND AMEICANTS APEUDUS, CRIDENAI HISTORY) WERE AUPILABLE AT THE TIDE AMEICANIS A-AMEICATION WAS EISED. THE STATES RESPONSE, EISED BY WAY OF "STATES PROPOSED CONUCTIONS. COUR'S FOURING OF FACES, CONSQUSTONS OF LAW AND RECORDEDIATION ID THE COURTSE CRIDENAI APAEASON AMEICANTS ART, U.O) AMEICATION FOR WRIT OF HABERS CORPUS, SEEKS ID PERSUARE. THE TRIAL COURT ID PRODET FUNDINGS OF FACTINGT INHIST EIGATED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT BE PROPORUY EFFECTIVE FOR THIS CONET'S ACCEPTANCE AMEICANTS RESUGSTS THIS COURT ID DISREGAND THE ADOPTED ETHOUS AND PROCESS ID THE FACTS AS THEY AMEEAR OF RECORD.

BASE ON THE DIETVE UUALEY DEQUITERNAI SAUULS, USR L.ED. 24, 659,124 S.C. (206) THE UNITED STATES SURRENE COURT OBSERVED THAT: "WE ARE ASKED IN THE RESENT CASE ID PATFING THE ACTUAL INNOCEUCE EXCEPTION ID PROCEDUAL DEFINITOF CONSTITUTIONAL CURTAS CHALLENGING NONCONETAL.

*9 SENTENCING PROF WE OECDUE TO ANSWER THE QWESTION IN THE POSTLIFE OF THIS CASE AND INSTERE HOM THAT A FEBERAL COURT FACED WITH AN EGAYTOUSFACING THINGCEWEE WHETHER OF THE SEATENCER OF THE ORTHER CHORESIC, DUST EIST ADDRESS AN NON OEFAWTHO CIRIGS FOR COMPAREABLE BEI IEF AND OTHER GROWNS FOR CAUSE TO FACUSE THE REDCIGUAR AFFAWY.

THIS ADVODANCE ARTNCTHE WAS IMPLICIT IN CARE IN ITSELF, WANKE WE EXPRESSED CONFIDENCE THAT, FOR THE POST PART, UICITHS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISCARRINGE OF JUSTICE WITH MEP THE CAUSE AND AËTUDICE STANDARD, 497 U.S. AT 495-496, 911.EO.2d 397,106.S.C.T, 2639 (QUOTING ENGLE V. ISAAC, 456 U.S.107, 135, 211.EO.2d 283, 202.S.C.T, 1558 (1952) GUW CONFIDENCE WAS BOLSTERD BY THE AVAH ABIIITY OF DI EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CIRIGS-FITHER AS A GROWNS FOR CAUSE OR AS A FREESTANCING CARD, FOR REFIIE ID SAFE GUWN AGATNST DISSCANICAGES OF JUSTICE, THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SAFE GUWNS, WE OBSERVED, THAT PROPERTY INFORN THIS COURTS TWOGEMEST THOOTS TWO, INTHAT STANDARDS. SHOUS SOUNDN THE EXERCISE OF THE HABEN.

COURTS EQUITABLE DISCAETION WITH RESPECTTO AN OCCEDURALLY OEFAW TED CIRIGNS, CARRIER SURRA, AT 496, 911.EO. 2d, 397, 106.S.C.T, 2639 (QUOTING REED U. Ross, 468 U.S.1, 9, 821.EO.2d, 1, 104.S.C.T, 2901 (1984).

IN HALLY, THE RETITTIONS (THE STATE) CONCEDED AT ORN ARGUMENT THAT THE RESPANDENT HAD A UIABLE AND SIGN EFFICANT." INEFFECTIVE OF COUNSEL CIRID, THE COURT AGREED WITH THE RETITTIONER STATING THAT, "THERE IS A ULERY SIGNEFFICANT ARGUMENT OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL" THE COURT OBSERVED THAT, "SUCC. ESS ON THE. MERIT'S. WOOD

*10 GtUE RESPONDENT AU OF THE RELIEF HE SEEKS=IE, RESENTEUCING, IT WOULD ALSO REDUZOE CAUSE TDEUCE THE PROCEDURAL DEFAM T GF HIS SUEETCIGNCY GF THE EUIDENCE CLAIM,

II GROWN 2 APPLICANT ARGUIS THAT TRIAL COUNSE WAS YN= EFFECTIVE WASU HE FAIL TO CBTECT THAT THERE WAS NON TMEYUANING CONUCCIEN SUBCITED TO THE TRIAL COURT DURING CASE YN CHIEF,

UNDER THE SURRENE COURTS DECISION INSTRICHANG U. WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) WHICH HAS BEEY AROPTED BY THE COURT GF CRIMINAL APPEN S OF TENAS IN HEXHANDS V. STATE, 724 S.W. 53 (TEX.CRTM. 889-1984), A HARASS APPLCATON NEED TO SHEN THAT THE COMPILADVED OF ACT AND CONISSIGNS ON THE PART GF HIS DEFENSE COUNSEI WAS CBTECTIWAY UAR EASONABLE UNDER PREUAI IING PROFESSIDAL NONAS AND THAT HE WAS SUFFICIENYY PRETUNICE BY HIS COUNSEI DISTAKES.

APPLICANT REQUESIS BASE ON THE DREIKE U. HELFY REQUEREMEWY APPLICANT REQUESIS FOR AN ORDIE RE= DYANDING THE APPLICATIDN BACK TOTHE TRIAL COURTTO COMPETI THE STATE TO SHEN THEY TWITRODUCIS THE 20 N DWT CONUCCITON DURING CASE INCHIEEOR ELSE TO CORRECT THIS PROCEDURE DEFAM ITALSO TO DEITANIENE TE COUNSEI WAS INEFFFCTIVE FOR NOT CBTECTING TO NON TMEYUANING CONUCCIEN BEING SUBCITED TETRIAL COURT, APPLICANT ALSO WOULD ASK THE COURT ON THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICANT REQUESIS FOR A EUIDENTIENY HENRRE YO DEITANINE IE HE WAS PRETUNICE BY HIS COUNSEI ANG SENTENE?

*11 APPLICANT STATE PRISONER PETITIONS FOR STATE HABERS RELITER ALLEGING THAT EVIDENCE WAS ANO IS IN SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT HIS HABITUAL OFFENOOR SPNTENCE AND THAT HIS COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE. THE ONLY WAY FOR THIS COURT TO RESOLUE THIS IS COMPALL THE STATE TO SHOW THAT THEY INTRODUCED IT DURING CASE IN CHIEF AND TO PROUE THEY HAVE NOT UTOLATED PEALAL CODE 49.09 (E).

APPIICANT KNOW IT WAS BEING USED THE (2001 DWI CONUCTION) TO START HIS SENTENCE AT 25 TO LIFE, BE CAUSE BY ...THE INOICIDENT UNDER FELONY ENHANCEDERS, ITSHOWS THE 2001 FELONY DWI. APPLICANT HAS ALWAYS WONDER IF THE STATE HAD UTOLATED THE EX POSTEACID CLASS EITHER BY THE 2001 STATE OR THE STATE OF SENTENACE!, 2005 WHERE THE 10 YEAR RULE WAS REPAIN ED. SO IF THE 2001 FELONY DWI WAS USE TUEGALLY AND THE 1992 MISSEMEANERS WERS MASS TEN YEARS, WHAT WAS USE TO ELEUATE APPLICANTS CASE TO A THIS DEGREE FELONY, TUST AS THE ATTENNEY GENOBA'S OWN ORISSING UERIFY THAT FROM 1992 TO 2005 THEY WERE MAST 10 YEARS! HAD THE 2001 FELONY DWI BEEN USED TO ELEUATE, THEN IT COULD NOT HAVE APEAL USED TO CHARGE APPLICANT AS A HABITUAL OFFENOOR LINGER PEALAL CODE 49.09 (E) THAT WAS STILL INEFFECT ON AUGUST 21, 2006, P1 BASE SEE ROORIQUEZ U. STATE, 31 S.W. 34359 CIERAS APP. SAN ANTOWID 2000), PHILIPS U. STATE, 992 S.W. 24492 (TEX, CRIm, AP, 1999). IT IS ALSO HAVE APPLY CANT HAS STUARD PENAL CODE 49.09 (E) WHERE IT STATES A CONUIICITAL MIRKE USE FOR PURAGE OF ENHANCEDENT UNDER THIS SECTION OR ENHANCEDENT UNDER SUBCHAFTER (D) CHARGE 12, BUT NOT WORK BOTH THIS SECTION AN SUBCHAFTER D.

*12 SEVERAL CASES HAVE GONE INTO SOME DETARY RE-

GARDING THE LEG IS LATIVE HISTORY OF S 49.07 AND 375 UARIOUS INCRRNAITION INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF SUAB.

PART (3), ONE OF WHICH IS GOTIS U, STATE, I BID, IT IS DURING THIS DIS CUSSION I LEARN THE DIAPOTANCE OF THIS SUABART, THE CORREET STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE 1984 CONUICITON WAS TO REPORTE BECAUSE THE CONUIICITON

ACCURRED THAN 4999S BECAK TO THE 3002 DWT OFFENSE, ... AND THERE WAS NO INTEKUGUING INCONICATON RELATED CONUIICITON.

SEE GOTIS U, STATE, 156 S.W. 34, 573, IT IS ALSO IN WEAK U, STATE, 56 S.W. 34, 876, 999 (TEX, APR. TEXAKUNA 3001) AND WEAK U, STATE, 87 S.W. 34, 557, COURT OF CRITONAL APPlyS OF TEXAS, EN BANC, SENTEAK U, 2002 THAT I EARN WHEN THIS ISSUE IS BROUGHY UP BEFORE THE COURT, THE STATE MUST BE REPAY TO CLAMELY AND DISTINCITY ARGUE THE LAW, BECAUSE, ONCE AGAIN NOT ONLY DOES THE STATE REQUIRE THAT THE

CONUICITON FOR BECAK MISDEMEANERS BE OUCK. TEN 4999S

SLO BUY THAT THOSE MISDEMEANERS BE BROUGH AS AN OFFER

OF PROOF THIS PROOF CAN BE MADE BY HAUING AN EXPAY COMPARE FINGER PRINTS WHICH IS HOW THE STATE PROVID THE BECAK MISDEMEANERS IN THE GUILY/INNOCENAE PHASE OF UTHAS TRIAL, BUY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY MUST ALSO PROUE THE

EXISTENCE OF AN "THISE UENING CONUIICITON, ... WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN DIABING GUILY/INNOCENAE AND THERE PADE THE

THISE UENING CONUIICITON WAS NOT SURVEITED TO THE TURY

OR TO THE JUGGE DIABING GUILY/INNOCENAE, A CRITIA.

STEP STAICE PRAICANT PLEA NOT TRUE TO ALL ENHANCEDUANTS,

APPLICANT IS CHALLENGING HIS SENTENCE THERE PADE

LLOY SEC. 4 (A) SHOUD NOT BE APPLY HERE BECAUSE THEN

LLOY SECT.4 (A) WOUD BE AMPLIGUOUS, A COURT MAY...

*13 CONSTORF THE DERITS OEOR GRANT RELIEF BASED ON THE SUBSEQUENT APPLICATION IF THE APPLICATIONS. CONTANIS SUEFICIENT SPECIFIC FACIS ESTABLISHING THAT: (1) APPLICANT CONTENIS THE CURRENT CIRITMS AND ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED PRELIOUSLY IN AN ORIGINAL APPLICATION OR IN A PREVIOUSLY CONSTORFED APPLICATION ETHED UNVER THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THE FACYUAI OR LEGAI BASIS FOR THE CLAIEM WAS UNAUAI) ABLE ON THE DATE THE APPLICANT ETHED THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION,'OR (2), BY A REEPONDERANCE OFTHE EUIDENCE, BUT FOR A UIDIAIION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONUU RATIONAL JUROR COULD HAVE FOWID THE APPLICANT GUIIY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUAT. (B) FOR BURROSE OF SUSSECTION (A) (1), A LEGAI BASIS OF A CLAIM IS UNAUAI LABLE ON OR BEFORE A DATE DESCRIBED BY SUSSECTION (A) (1) IF THE LEGAI BASIS WAS NOT RECOGNIZED BY AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REASONABLY FORMULATED FROM A FINAL DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SURREME COURT, A COURT OF APPEALS OF THE UNITED STATES, OR A COURT OF APPELLATE JURISDICIION OF THIS STATE. ON OR BEFORE THAT DATE: (C), FOR BURROSE OF SUSSECTION (A)(1), A FACYUAI BASIS OF A CLAIM IS UNAUAI LABLE ON OR BEFORE A DATE DESCRIBED BY SUSSECTION (A) (1) IF THE FACYUAI BASIS WAS NOT ASS CERTALABLE THROUGH THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DIIGENCE ON OR BEFORE THAT DATE.

APPIICANT HAS DET HIS BURDEN OF SHOULING THAT EITHER EXCEPTION EWUMERATED IN ARTICLE 11,0784 (A)

*14

IS APELICABLE HERE BY APELING THE DIETEE U. HAYEY, 124 S.C. (84) APELICATIOH,

TII

THE STATUTE INEEEECT AT THE TIDGE APELICANT ENTERED HIS ALISA IN THE EARLYER DWT'S CASES SPECIFICALLY RESTRICTED THE USE OF THESE CONUICITONS AS... REMOTE IF ANOTHER OFFENSE WAS COMMITED MORE THAN 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE THE CONUICITONS WERE EDIH, THE CONUICITONS WERE FINGL NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 13, 1992 WHICH WAS THE DATE OF HIS TUBGEMENT AND SENTENCE. THE AMEWDED STATUTE EXTENDED THE REMOTEWESS DUE. THIS EXTENSTON OF THE REMOTEWESS DATE OCCURREN AFTA APELICANT HAD ALSA GUIITY AND WAS SENTENCE IN THE... PREVIOUS CASES, APELICANT HAD A RIGHTID RELY UPDM! THE ITHEL ICY AND EXPLICY I TOTTATTON OF THE EARLYER UETON OF THE STATUTE, APEI YING THE NEW STATUE ID HIDD AND EXTEWATING THE REMOTEWESS DATE CONSTITUTES AN EX DIST FACTO APELICATTON OF THE STATUE ASID APEICANT. TO NOT EOIDM THE LAW INEEEECT AT THE TIDGE OF THE 1992 CONUICITON WILL ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENEAM TO COMMITY FREUD ON THE COURT, OR DISTATE, OR PERIUEY, AND ALWU THE 10 YEAR RUUE TO BE UITUATED ALONG WITH THE EX POST FACTO CLAIM.

WHEN CONVSEL FAIL TO OBJECY THAT THERE WAS NOT A INTERVEWING CONUICITON SUMITED TO THE TICK. COURT HAS BEEN THE CAUSE OF THE STATE WITHHADING EUIDENCE AND NOW HAS PRETUDICE APELICANT.

APPEICANT HAS BEEN PRETUDICE BY THE CHARGE BEING A FELOWY INSTEAD OF A HIS DEOEMBER. APEICANT WAS PRETUDICE AY SENTENCE WHEN APEICANT WAS...

*15 SENTENCE TO LIFE IN ARISON TWSTER OF A MISOZDRAWDR. BY THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENEON AND DISIRICI ATTORNEYS COMMITTING THESE PROCEDURAL DEFAWTS, FRAUD, OR MISTAKE OR PARTIEY STIL RESUITS TWUIGATION OF THE EX PIST FACID, STIL EXTEANS THE TIME ON HOW THE 10 YEARS RUE IS MEASURED AND STIL RESUITS IN WIGATION OF APPLICANIS DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND PENAL CODE 49.09 (P).

APPIICANI HAS DIEI THE EXEMPTION OF STATE DEFAWIS BY SHOUIME THE STANDARDS OF "CAUSE AND APEITUIICE" WHEN THERE IS A INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE COUNSED DURRY U. CARRIER, 477 U.S.496,911.80.24.397,106.5.C1.263? (1984). DEFAWIT CAUSE BY GOU'T MISREPRESENTION. ARKUS U.DELD, 33.F.3.1.933.CA8,1994), BRADY DIRIGTINS WITHHEID IS CAUSE EOR DEFAWIT, SCOTT U. MULIN, 303. F.3.1.1222 (CA, 2002) ACTUAL TWUOCANCE EXEMPTION, MIS. CARRIAGE OF TWSTICE, SCHLUP U. DELD, 513 U.S. 299,130.1.80.24.808, U.S.S.CT.851 (1995), AND OF COURSE THE DIETKE U. HALLY REQUIVEDMENT, 541 U.S.386,158. 1.80.24,6.59,124.5.C1.184? (2004).

THIS COURT AND THE COURT OF CRITONAL ARPRAIS IS ASKED DUE TO THIS NEWY DISCOVERY EUDIANCE IS ASKTHAT BASKNT SUCH DISCOURY TE THE APPLICANIS AIGWUWNCE ARTICLE 39.14.C.C.P.ART, I. SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE EWHTH, EIETH, STATH, AND FOURTEETH ARREWONENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS BEEN UIDLATED TO HIS TREEARPABCE TWUARY AND THUS DEPTIVE THE DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL HERETN,

PIEASE SEE AFFIDANT.

*16

PRAYER

APPLICANT PRAYS THIS COURT GRAHIT APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDOR REPANONGING THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT TO CORRECT A PROCEDURE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR AN EUIABUTTAKY HERALUG.

RESPECTFULY SUMMITED Daniel WILK 1/386/18 EASTHAM UNIT 12-5 2665 PERSON Rd. $^{I}$ LOUELADY, TEXAS 15851

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I DO HIDDLEY CERTIFY THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE EOREGOTNG RLEARING WAS SERVED BY PLACING IN THE INSTITUTIONAL INTERNAL MAILING SYSTEM, PESTAGE. PERARO ON THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER 2015. ADDRESS TO ALSERVET CLARK AND A EVER COPY WITH BE MAKED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNAY.

RESPECTFULY SUMMITED. Daniel WILK 1/386/18 EASTHAM UNIT 12-5 2665 PERSON Rd. $^{II}$ LOUELADY, TEXAS 15851