An oral argument, might be helpful because there are some discrepancies in the tacts of this case. One brief states there was a ritle retriered and another soups otherwise Also due to the fact that Deputy Stevenson foiled to turn on his dosh cam his depiction on what happened the night of December 18,2019 has varied.

STRIEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 1,200 Appellant, Lordorrell Carroll, was indieted on both counts of aggravated robbery alleged to have been committed on July 17,2015. Hearings were held during course of the trial on defendants motion for a contandance and motion to suppress that were both denied by the trial back on July 18,2015, a ivy found the defendant guilty on all four colnts and serfented him to 45 years. Entitlement in the penitentiang on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. Notice of appeal was fited on August 18,200 by trial counsel. A motion for new trial was fitted by retainted counsel, Lott Brooks, on August 9, 2015. Mr. Brooks did not order a record of file as brief in this matter. Appellate counsel was appointed by the trial

*4 courts on March 91, 2014. On December 23, 2014 the fourteenth courts of appears held that there was no error in the judgment.

Ghahid Fof Review No 1 THE LAURT OF APPERAS ETHED IN HOLDING THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DIFFICIENT

I Search and Secure A.

When the defendant shows a search or seizure occurred without a warrant, the burden shifts to the state to prove the recomableness of the warrantless search or seizure. Whether probable cause to arrest is then sufficient depends upon the totality of the circumstances. U.S.A. A. C. A. A. A. A. A. Hinend 4. "Probable cause must be based on facts, not opinions," see Tarel V. State, 153.5.10.3d 488. 493-94 (trees C. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A.) for a uneffective substitutes for specific articuldade facts. "the curt further stated the reliance on a police officers special tracing is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion absent objective factual support at 494.

Here Deputy Stevensons reason for suspicion was he thought the appellant was dressed oddly for what he described as "not that odd of weather." Deputy Stevenson took tation also asked the appellant why was he wearing caveralls and his reply was because "he had been at work." Deptity Stevenson both at upon himself not to believe. The

*5 Statement and said he did not believe the appellant because he did not see any hand hats or work hosts in the vehicle. We turn the court of Criminal Appeals attention to Walter V. State 997 514.2d 353." Officer became suspicious because motorist's manner of dress did not square with his story that he had been playing basketball in the parh. The state also contend that the hosts that there was no basketball in appellants vehicle shows the appellant's claim of playing basketball was evidently untrue. While the observe of a basketball tends to support the inference that appellant was living we do not find that it was great keeping in determine whether officer Carol acted reasonably. Here Deputy Stevenson testified he did not believe the appellant came from work because, "He didn't see any type or construction materials inside of the vehicle." 6. In this issue the appellant asserts that the state failed to meet its burden to show probable cause justifying his arrest. When the defendant shows that a search or secure gecured without a worrentless the burden shifts to the state to prove the reasonableness of the worrentless search or secure. The court errored in showing the reasonableness of the worrentless search and secure. Deputy Stevenson reason for the search was because according to him the appellant was dressed coldly when Deputy Stevenson was put on the stand to testify, he testified

*6

that he did not pay attention to the appellants attire" when he pulled the vehicle over and questioned about the appellants clothing this prove that the state did not prove reasonableness of the marrentless search or seizure- because Deputy Stevenson stony changed and the fact that he failed to turn on his death came shows the state did not exhibit any articulable facts from Deputy Stevenson. Deputy Stevenson also testified under both that he did not see anything in plain view of the vertical when questioned by appetlants attorney, the appetlant would take to show the court of Criminal Appetts that the trical court and appeals court-erored and his Act. Amend it was violated by the illegal search and seizure.

Prayer

Wherefore, Appetlant respectfully proustsptat the Court of Criminal Appetts see the errors made and grant a review

*7