Case Information

*1

02715 028.15 083.15

ORIGINAL

In The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Petition For Discretionary REVIELY NO 2 (Cleak Assnins number)

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

MAR 202015

Foom The Sixth Court of Appeals

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS CAUSE ABS $=06-14-00083-CR,06-14-00084$ AND $06-14-00085-CR$ From the The Trial Court of The 6th District Court of Red River County, Texas

ROBERT SHAME KINGLON (Petitioner /AppeLLAN /of FendANi HERELIN)

FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

V S

MAR 202015

The State of Texas APPELLEE/RESPONDANT

Abel Acosta, Clerk

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIELY STATEMENT REGAROUR ORAL ANGEMELY ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED SO AS TO ANALS ANY MIS INTERPRETATIONS AND CLAISELATIONS ORAL ANGEMELY GY TELECOMPRENCE OR IN PESSUM CENTE'S HASING KINGLON ROBERT SHAME KINGLON, PRo SE TOC I $1923349$ MICHAEL PERSON UNIT, 2664 Fm 2654 TENANESSEE COLOM, ANDERSON EALTH, TEXAS 75286

*2 CONTENTS

LETTER TO COURT CERK (PAPETS) - - - I PARK IN ENTHETY DECLARATION OF INABILITY TO PAY COST LEAVES IN ENTHETY I GINGUITH INHATE PLUS F

*3 CARENTS - CARE.

That APPELLATE CUNGEL opTED NIF TO FILE A MOTION FUR NEL TRIAL, but That "PRESUMPTION" is cLERRLY STATED IN APPELLATE'S BREET by APPELLATE CUNGEL That PETITUUM MASS LITTUGT THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CUNGEL BECAUSE THE RECARD MASS NIF REAQY ON TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR NEL TRIAL, AND FOR NO OTHER REASON - A STRUCTURAL FERON, UNDLATIVE 6th AND 14th US CA FAUST AMENO WITH ESUREGONS HARM. 3. SINCE APPELLATE CUNGEL STATED A VERLIFARME REASON FOR NO MOTION FOR NEL TYLAL FILLD ON APPELAL IT LUNG SEEIN A PRESUMPTION." THAT CUNGEL OPTED TO WAYLE SULD IS SOMM-WHAT MISPLACED, EFFORTEUS, MISLFAOULD STANDARD. SEE = THE PABLLEM WITH THE COURT OF APPELALS PERCE- MISMOTION - PARK $5-8$

CONCLUSIONS - REASONS FOR REVIELY RECREST FOR RECORD APPLLEMATATION PRAJER - - - 12 PRACTI AND CONCLUSIONS BE CAVRESTED - - - 13 CER TIFICATE OF SECLUCE - - - 14 UN SMOAL DECLARATION - - - 14 MOTION FOR OUT-OF TIME NEL TRIAL (S) OF MUSCHINEL HERRILLE - - - - The FOLLALITLE RESELVED SMOULD IN JUDIES SMOULD DISQUALLIY TRENDLLES INTERESITED PARTIES STATE PUSE CUTTING A TURKEY JUDIES OF THE TEXAS COURT OF ORTHURA APPELALS. JUSTICES MURDIS, C.J. CARTER AND HOSPLEY, JJ OF 6th CUNG OF APPEALS, TEXAS

ROBES' SHAYLE KINGH - PETITUM OON DIARD - 58 No 2404785 COURT ON APPEAL DAN MEETING - 58 No 13898700 AT TRIAL FOR PERITUCE HOW UAL VARLEY - 58 No 24496780 - FOR BEO RANK DISTUCC ATROUNAY? OFTCE ON APPEAL

*4

INREX OF AUTHORITES

PHE

ALMALZA US TEVAS 686 SW2d 157 (TCA 1985) - - 4 ARIZONA US FUEMINATE III SCT 1246 - - - - 4 GELSON US STRIE 2345 W3d 485 (TA-HON 15701572005)-35 BERGER US US BEAQ US CHUPARAZ 20 F3d 1965 - - - - - - - - 4 BOROERS US STRIE 846 SW2d 834 (TCA-1992) - - 5,3 BRECHT US AbRAMS 113 SCT 1710 - - - - 7 BROUH US STRIE 943 SW2d 35 (TCA-1997) - - - 6 CHRUIC Eutis US Lucey 105 SCT 830 (1985) - - - - 4 EV PARTE A 26 L 757 SW2d 369 (TCA-1988) - - 13 EV PARTE OO16LE 848 SW2d 691 (TCA-1993) - - - 4 EV PARTE FELTON 315 SW2d 733 (TCA-1991) - - - 1,9 EV PARTE JANUET 891 SW2d 935 (TCA-1994) - - - 13 EV PARTE MCJNAKHUS 954 SW2d 39 (TCA 1997) - - - 6,8 EV PARTE PON 738 SW2d 235 (TCA 1987) - - - 1 EV PARTE RICH 194 SW2d 503 (TCA-2006) - - - 1,7,9 EV PARTE LUELCH 931 SW2d 183 (TCA-1998) - - - 1,19 FEAGIL US STRIE 967 SW2d 417 - - - - 6, FULLER US STRIE 224 SW3d 823 (TA- - - - 2001) - - 7 GALINDO US JOHNSON 19 F SUPP 2d 697 - - - - - III GARZA US TEVAS 898 SW2d 192 (TCA 1993) - - - - III HANEY US COCKRSEL 306 F3d 257 (5TH-CR 2002) - - 17, MA4NES US KERLER 92 SCT 594 - - - - - III III HILL US LOCCHANT 474 US 52 (1985) - - - 1 IOUA US TOLAR 541 US 77 - - - - 1 ISSA US STRIE 826 SW 2d 159 (TCA 1992) - - 6, JANES US TEVAS 796 SW2d 514 (TA-TEV ARRANA 2006) - - 6,8 MAETIL US STRIE 143 SW 412 (TA-AWHTN 2004) - - 1,11,13 METHANIN US RICHARDSON OLD HAMN US STRIE 977 SW2d 354 (TCA 1998) - - 3,5,613

*5 ONVEL US MEANIOUH 115 SET 992 - - - 7 PHE US PIGUELLEM 1255071800 (2005) - - 1 RRS US AURRICRINAL 522 F 3 d 517 C 57 CIR 20491 - - III SAWYDR US WHIRER 112 S 672514 - - - 1,7,9 STPICKLAND US WASLILY TON 1045022052 - - - 1,5 WARD U STAIE 746 SU 3 d 794 CTA 1934 - - $3^4$ VIOAURR 1 USNME 49 SU 3 d 830 CTA-2001 - - - 6 LAUY, RUES, STAINES = ALL TEY R. APP P'A RUES ARE From A PERSONAL 2002 TEUYS CURE OF CELM P'A AS MICHAEL UN LAW LIBRARY IN ACCESSIBLE DUE TO UNE LALYAGLIN OCUERILE MAECL 4, 2015, AND AS ACCESS TO RUSKES. TRY R. APP P'A RULE 2 RUE 9.1 (a) (b) RUE 9.1 (b) RUE 9.2 (a) (1)(2) (b) (a) (b)(c), 2 (a)(b)(c), 8 RUE 9.2 (a)(1)(2), (b)(1) (A)(2)(c), 2 (a)(b)(c), - 214 RUE 9.3,2 (a)(1)(2), (b)(1) (A)(2)(c), 2 (a)(b)(c), - 214 RUE 9.3,2 (b)(2), (d) RUE 9.3,3 (a) (b) (e) (g)(h) - - - 10 RUE 9.3,3 (a)(b) -13 RUE 22 RULE 22.1 RULE 22.2 (b) (2) RULE 33.2 (a)(b) RULE 34 RULE 34.1 RULE 34.2 RULE 34.3 (a) (b) (e) (g)(h) - - - 10 RULE 22 RULE 22.1 RULE 22.2 (b) (2) RULE 33.2 (a)(b) RULE 34 RULE 34.3 RULE 34.4 (a) (1) (2)(h) - - - 12 RULE 34.5 (a)(b) (e) (g)(h) - - - 12 RULE 34.6 (a)(b) RULE 34.7 (a)(b) RULE 34.8 (a)(b) RULE 34.9 (a)(b) RULE 34.10 (a)(b) RULE 34.11 (a)(b) RULE 34.12 RULE 34.13 RULE 34.14 (a)(c)(2)(h) - - - 12 RULE 14.3 RULE 14.4 (a)(c)(2)(h) - - - 12 US CONIT MEANS 14 US CENT MEANS 14 US CENT MEANS 14 USC 2254 d (1) (2) - - - 7

*6 PETITIONS IS ACVALLY INNOCEST OF THE PRELIMINARYS: PUBLISHEMY ASSESSED.

PURSUALT AND CONSISTAL TO THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PACEOURE, PETITIONS REQUEST TO EINUCE RULES- "SUSPENSION OF RULES AS PETITIONS IS PRO SE AND NOT FORMALLY EOUCRTED IN LAW, AS TO SEEK EVERDIANT AND PRACTICE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE BASED ON THE MERITS. PETITIONS HAS NO COHER OR OTHER OFFICE EQUIPMENT TO PERFECT THE PETITIONS, HAS LIMITED ACCESS TO WEST TEXAS DIGEST 2d REFEREGURE Books by THIRALGAN PACKES ONLY Which REQUIVES THE THMATE TO SUBUNIT A WRITTEN REQUEST AS AN EXAMPLE ON FEBRARY 1, 2015, IN WHEM THE THMATE REGREES THE BACK A'WEEK TO THE WEEKS AFTER SUBUNESED OF REQUEST, ALLENED TO REVIEW IT FOR 2 - 3 HOLM PERIODS, GENERALLY, AND THEM REQUIRED TO DEPOSITORY, THEM THMATE MOST WAST ANOTHER PACKYS TO THE DAYS TO REORDER OR ORDER OTHER BACK (S). THERE Books PER ORDER, OLE ORDER AT A TIME, A 3 WEEK PACKES - IN THE MINIMMEN - TO COMPLETE THAT CYCLE. THE ONLY VERNANTS TEXAS ANNATED CODES AVAILABLE AND THE CODE OF COUNLAR PACKEDURE, PACKED CODE, AND CYCLE PRACTICE AND RELIGIONS CODE. TO AGERIWATE THE LIMITED ACCESS TO COURTE, THE MUSCLEER PRISE UNIT WELF ON LOCK DOCK FOR SHOKE DOCK ON MARKER 1, 2015. VERIFICATION TO THIRALGANE MAY BE ADIE TO BE ADVANCED FOR ASSISTE COLLINS/ FRAME TROLS - MUSSELS TO PETITIONS REQUEST ENCYCERATION OF RULE 9.1 (b) UNEERESERTE PARTES" 9.2 FILLING (a) (1) (2) - (b) FILLING (1) MALL (1) 2 "TIMALY IF RECRELED WITHIN THE DAYS AFTER FILLING ORADLING" "PETITIONERS ORADLINE IS MARCH 20, 2015 - (C) (2) (c) (2) POST OF MALLING" - (A) (B) (C), TO INCLUDE RULE 4.1 COMPUTING TIME (a) (b) WHILE DOCKETING CASE

PETITIONER REQUEST SUBSEMBLING OF NUMBER OF COHES - RULE 9.3 AND REQUEST THE COURTS CEREK MAKE SUCH, AND RULE 38.9 DRIEFING RULES TO BE CONSTRUED LIBRARITY - (9) (b). THE TEXAS COURT OF CRISMICAL APPEND. HAS UNESEDUCEDD AND WELVE RULE 88.1

SEE HAVNES US KENNEE 92 SCT 5945 PRO SE PREAWING AND TO BE

*7 CONSTRUED LIBERALLY AND HELD TO LESS STRIWGED STRADADES THAN PLEADINGS DRAFTED BY ATTORLEYS, AS FUETER, IF THE COURT CAN REASONABLY CONSTRUCE THE PLEADINGS TO STATE A VALUE CLAIN upou LUNISH A LITIGANI could PRUAL; IT should Do so DESPIRE ANY FALLURE TO LITE PAPER AUTORITY, CONSIDER of LEGAL THROOLES OR PERIECIPLES, POUR CONSTRUCTION OR LACK OF FORM AND NOT HELD TO SAME STRADADES AS AN A FURLEY - BOAG US PAC.DONGAL 102 SC7 700 CITING HAYNES U KREWER 92 SC7 594. GALIABS US JOHNSON. 19 F SUPP 2d (97 = DISTRICT COURT IS PERUISED TO CONSTRUCE THE READINGS OF Pro SE INHATE PETITION LIBERALLY. RIES US QUARTERMAN 522 F 3d 517 (57 CIR 2008) = PETITURE NEED NOT SPELL OUT ENCH AULABLES OF THE CLAIN. RELAXING OF RULES AND FARURS TO RESOLVE APPEND- GARZA V TENAS 898 SW 2d 192 (TCA 1993) - JOLES US TENAS 796 SW 2d 193 (TCA-1994) ATES' FURTHS.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF THE THAN AND APPLLATE COURT'S DEPENDIMATION OF ISSUES PRESELTOD. IN BOTH INSTRUUES, INFPECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COULSER, AMONG OTHER REVERSIBLE EFFRMS, HAS RESULIED IN GUROBLEUCH PUNGSHERAT OF PETITIONER LUNG IS ACTUALLY UNNOCENT OF THE PUNGSHERAT ASSESSED. NATURE OF THE CASE = MOTION TO ADJUOICATE GUATT ON THO CHARLES OF INDESERVY WITH A CHILD. MOTION TO REVERE COMMUNITY SUPPLISEING ON OLE CHARLE OF QURELARY. THAN COURT = THE HONOLENSE EPIE CLLFFORD - 6th DISTRICT COURT, RED RILER COUNTY, TEXAS. ON APPUL 14, 2014 THAN COURT DISPOSITIONS = THE THAN COURT ADJUOICATED PETITIONER GUATTY ON THE THE CHARLES OF INDECERVY WITH A CHILD AND SENSERVED PETITIONER TO 40 YEARS IMPREQUENENT. THE THAN COURT ALSO RELIVED PETITIONERS COMMUNITY SUPPLISEWN ON THE SOLLE CHARLE OF QURELARY AND SENSERVED PETITIONER TO 2 YEARS IMPREQUENENT ON THAT CONVERTIEN. - SEE PACK 4 OF APPRELLATE RAIFF - " Note ON COMBINED (APPEND) GRIEES - THE (THE THO YEARS IMPREQUENENT SUPPLIED FOR PUEYBALS COLLIGNANCE WITH 2-10 YEAR CONCEPSENT DERIVING PROBATIONS FOR INDECERVY AT

*8 ORIGINAL PLRAS OF GULD ON MAY 9, 2013 AMEN TO THE 6th RQWT OF APPERALS OF TEYAS STELLS FROM THE REWARATIOUS OF COMMUNITY SUPPLAVIOUS IN THESE SEPRADE CAUSE NURSERS BELOW. THE TRIAL COURT CAUSE NOS CR01648, CR01649 AND CR01722 RESPECTIVELY. THEIR TRIAL COURT NOS WHERE ASSIBLEED SEPRADE CASE NURSERS IN THE 6th COURT OF APPERALS OF TEYAS AS CASE NOS 06-14-0083-CR, 06-14-00084, ER AND 06-14-00085 CR, RESPECTIVELY. AS THE LSSUES PRESELTERD HEREIN ARE IDELTICAL FOR EXCH CASE, THESE CASES WHERE DW APERAL IN A SINGLE BRIEF BY GOLD PERIWARD AND STATE, AND LINKLSE DEZERLINED BY THE 6th COURT OF APPERALS OF TEYAS. SEE APPRELIONS GROEF-PAGE 4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

This PERIYING FOR DISLAPET HARAfy REVIEW, AFTER A MUTYON FOR EXTENVION LAS GRAVYED, IS DUE ON MARCH 26, 2015 WITH REQUIVIST OF TEYAS RULES OF APPAIMTE PROCEDURE RULE 4-2 (a) (1)(2), (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i), AND RULE 4-1 (a) (b) EHIGME.

IN AUGUST OF 2016, A GRAND JURY IN RED RUVER COURITY REFUERED AN ORIGINAL INDIVIDENT AGAINST PETITUNAR THAT CHARGEO HIM WITH THE SECOND-DEGREE FELONY OFFERED OF INDECELLY L.II A CHILD. SEE CR, P35.6-7, TEX PERAL (FOR ANUN 8 21.11 (a), (d) (WEST 2011). SUBSERVED, PERITUNAR ENTERED A PLRAS OF GULDY, WHICH INCLUDED A JUOICIAL CONFESSIOUS ANALYS THE UNITED PLRAS ADMONSERVED (CR, P35 20-43), AND LAS PLACED ON DEPEREED ADJUOICATION COMMUNITY SUPPLAVIOUS FOR TRELIGO YEARS. SEE CR, P35 43-44. (PERITUNAR STATES ALL TUBE CHARLES 10 YEARS AND 2 YEARS PULCHERESIA WHERE ORIGINALY CONCUREED IN PLRAS OF GULDY (ERAL)

SUBSERVED, THE STATE FILED SEVERAL APPLICATIONS TO PENOKE PROVATION but PROCEEDED TO A BREATH TRIAL ON THE SECOND ANAGED APPLICATION. SEE CR, P35. 84-90. AFTER A CONFESTED PERALLE, THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE ALLEGATIONS AND GREEN POWER BY A PREPULERALAGE OF THE EVIDENCE AND RELATED PERITUNARTS COMMUNITY SUPPLAVIOUS. SEE R.R, P35 68. THE TRIAL COURT SEVITELLED PERITUNAR TO THEIR (20) YEARS CONFILERED IN THE TEYAS DEPARTMENT OF CRININAL JUSTICE, INSTIDTUNAR DIUSSION. SEE R.R, P3. 68.

ON AUG.IL 14, 2014, THE TRIAL COURT SUGGED ITS JUDICIPEDY REWARITED THE PERITUNARTS COMMUNITY SUPPLAVIOUS. SEE CR, P35 101-102. SEE (PERITUNARTS THESE DEPARTONL LIFE RELATED TWO 20 YEAR SEVITELLES (LIFE ORDING CONDITIONS) - SEE PAGE 7 OF APPRELION'S GREE - R2 P3 68.

PERITUNAR TIMELY FILED NUTLEST APPERL THROUGH APPAIIER APPLICATE COURTAL APPAIIER APPAL 14, 2014 RELIPTING TRIAL COURTAL ON RAPAL 14, 2014.

*9

The 6th Court of Appieks opinion was issued devewberly 2014 AfFIRMING The comuiction and deky 14 RELIEF BASED ON PETRONES complanE of (1) the treat coult fation to conduct a SEteh 14th HENrLtE AFtre ADJUOICATING HYM GUUITY AND GYALID DELIEF to PETRONER 64 HIS SELAND COMBLAINS OF INSESSING ATHELLEYS FeEs AGAINST HHM. AFFIRMED As MoblFED by JUSTICE MAKIES, C. 5 , CAR TER AND MISSELEY, JJ, MEMANARAGUM OPINION by JUSTICE CARTER, SEE 15th court of Appieks memahandUm opitioN - PARE 2-3. No thetioL for Refirertion Filed.

UN PRESELTED ERROAS EY AMULATION LEADING To

GRAVES For REVIFL WYTH BEASON, FIR REVIVELY 1. PETIRONERS DEKINAE MER BARBARIN WAS A PLEA OF GUUITY

TO TIO CAVIS OF INVERVEY WYTH A CHILD IN EVERWHEE FOR 2 TEAMS OF DEPEREO COMMONITY SUPPRELIGON FOR 10 TEARS ON 2-20 RALEE SELAND DESERE PELONYS, UPA REVOCATION, TO RUN CONCELMEDITY WYTH A 2 YEAR CONFIRMEDY SUPPREDED FOR FIVE YEARS FOR DURBLARY ALSO CONCELMEDY, MAKING PETRIONER OTHER UNEARTHENEY OF THE TIO PLENYY YEARS CONSECUITIVELY ORALD UPA REVOLUTION AND ADJUOICATION. SEE HARRY US ECKRELL 306 F 3d 257 C 5th CIR 2001, SAWYER US LUNTEY, 112 SC 2514 : The ACUM INWICH EVERTOAL APPLIER B Thase ARRIVELY IHNCELL OF THE PULSIMENT ASSESSED OVERLIIME PIOCEDUR GROUNDS AND DEFAULTS AS BARS TO COLLUER PIION, SEE EY PARIE RICH 194 SU 3d 508 (2006). 143

REVITIONER BASES HIS APELVEMEDY ON MARTIN US ETAPE SUSSE 192 (TEY APP- GHEE EMMENT) ANSTIN 2004

NST ONLY HOUID THAT BE TRIAL COUNI, STATES EHER, bUT INVERGEN ASSISTRME OF TRAIL CANSER AT PULSIMENT SEVEREVING - EY PARIE PETRON 815 SU2d 733 (TIR 1991); EY PARIE WELEN 991 S4U 2d 183 (TIR 1999); STRECKLAND U WASHING TON 1045 C 2052; JACK US TONE SYLLSTRECITAL CHRONIC ANDRAIN WUKNOWING EHUULARTAY PULA OF GUULITY, PACE US DIGUUYAN 125 SC 1867 (2005); EY PARIE PON 938 SU 2d 285 (TCA 1997), HILL US ECKLINAT, 474 US 52 (1988), ME THANN US RICHARD SON

*10

1. Based on the following authority: The 6th count of appears מרended on MFftabuk this issue that he that could fail to conduct a punishment that the MFfta ADDibication of this moboria Revobation is, against PEtitiok.

The cruy of PEtitiok's complaint is that, although PEtitiok's trial atheaty as sPated in Appears's (sPate's) order at pace is "UPan conclusion of steeperal rubbish testimony, the state tested - see R.A., Pg 64. The defetue decided made, as a unless, see R.A., Pg 65, following that testimony, the defetue tested - see R.A., Pg 67. The state then tested and chased see R.A. Pg 67. (The PEtitiok's there in due to counterfeetor to chase us that "reltitiok" from PEtitiok as various issues presented to court, but made important is that after setiencing, the trial count failed to conduct PEtitiok's elitement to a separate punishment that this error was subsumed and seveted in which PEtitiok was dehased by the court, since, and that counter to object to the two consecutive 20 year seveted in past הז this order of 2 ten year and one five year conducted commonly supervising. His maximum, in his case, should be 2que by year seveted, conducted with the five who dueming Colverent as the understood it the past 6 months to be in the Gultly pler trial count. The statement found at pace is of Appears's (sPate's) order stated in SIDEL RESTED AND closed (R.A., Pg 67), the trial count selected Kitslow (PEtitiok) to 20 years in the reys deparment of cimmint Justice is miscending, though, and not marmed, possibly infudertial, that is, showing starting the rule of the retum concertirely.

The states deief at paces 17, 18 su6Gest the PEtitiok's through the revocation rebeing trial counter, that the

*11 PETITIOUS HAD The opuRtUWGtY To PRESENT mTIGATING EUDENICE DUI RESIED AFTER RECAELING MOORE. (The DRIEF COES NOT WRITING IF ANY EUGERSIIVE FRONUS, ATTIOUS OF OTHER "SILENT TRATICS" MAY HAVE INPLWELKE CONVSEL TO REST)

EVER, IF TRUE, The PETITIOUSEDR HIS CONVSEL COULD NOT object COREEST OR OTHERLUSE ADDRESS THE COURT OF THE PONISLIVELT SEMIENKING EREOR UNTIL AFTER SEVEREK WAS PROHONDED AFTER ADJUOIATION Which WAS AFTER THE RECQL OF MORE BY PETITIOUSS CONVSEL TO AFTER MITIGANTING EUGRES, BECAUSE THE SEVEREK WAS NOT ANNUWGED, OF OTHERLUSE KNOWL TO PETITIOUS OF HIS CONVSEL REESE THE EARLE OCCUPED, ADDRESSING THE EREOR AT THE STATED RECALL STYLE OF MORE? NOOULD SEEN UNKNOWL ANDO IMPROBED THE DRIEFS DO NOT STATE IF ANY SU6ERSIIVE OR CONVOCIVE TRATICS USSE EMPLOYED TO SILENE CONVSEL, ON CONFRONTINE THE ILLEGAL SEVEREK WHEL PROHONDED.

IT MAY BE THAT CONVSEL AT REVOLUTION PERALLE WAS INEFFICILLE WITH EGRERIANS HARM FOR NOT FLLING A MOTION FOR WELY TRIAL WITH/OR OTHERLUSE ADDRESSING THE EARLE AT THE REVOLUTION PERALLE LEVEL. SEE OLDMAN US STATE 977 SU 2d 354, 360-362 (TCA 8998) CITING THE PERLIGD FOR FLLING A MOTION FOR WELY TRIAL, THE PENKEN FOR EYER IS A CRITICAL STAKE AT Which DIFERDANT IS GUARANIZED 6th ANEAMENT RIGHT EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CONVSEL. IN RELIGAN US STATE 224 SU 3d 485, 491 ( TA-11000704157DIST 2005) THE COURT OF APPERAS WROIte, which A DIFERDANT IS DEPRIUED OF EFFECTIVE CONVSEL DURING THE PERLIGD FOR FLLING A MOTION FOR WELY TRIAL, THE PERLIGD IS TO RESET THE APPRELLATE TIME LIMITS. SEE WARD US STATE 770342 d 794, 800 (TCA-1989 ENSRACE). "IN WARD, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPERALS ENAMINED CONVSELS ACTIONS IN FRALING TO SEEVER A STATEMENT OF FACTS Which REVOLVED THE SUbSEGUENT AFTER MEANINGLLES THE COURT HELD THE ENACTING TO BE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CONVSEL ON APPERAL, WITHOUT EVAMINING THE ISSUE OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CONVSEL IN CONJULTING WITH A MOTION FOR WELY TRIAL. SINCE THE ATTODAY, who REPRESELTS ONE AT TRIAL EATIWES AS A MATTER OF LAW UNTIL REPLICEMENT BY THE COURT, THE HOLDINGS IN RELIGAN LAND WARD SEEN APPROPANTE TO SAY THAT REVOLUTION CONVSEL WAS INEFFICILLE FOR NOT FLLING A MOTION FOR WELY TRIAL, objective, OR OTHERLUSE ENCUTT THE SEVEREKING EREOR TO THE REVOLUTION COURT.

AND WARD US STATE ABOVE 740 SU 2 d 744,800 (TCA-1989 ENSRACE) 3.

*12 SEEMS To SUCCESIT Thar, WHEREIN WARDTHEREIN CONVERS FALKED TO SECURE STATEMENT OF FACTS PROBELLS THE SUSSERVEDS? APPERL MEANUUSNESS, IN PETITONER HEREINS CASE THE PETITONER's APPRELANT GUYER AT PAGES 9,10 IT SPATES IN ShORT PETITONERS THAT CONVERS was REWREUED ON APRIL 14, 2014 AND APPROVERS APPRELARE CANVED ON APRIL 14, 2014. APPRELANCE GUYER AT PAGES 10 SPATES, THE REPORTERS RECORD WAS FILED IN This COURT ON JULY 4, 2014. THEREFORE OWRILD THE TIME FRAME THAT KINSLOU CONID HAVE FILED A MATION FOR HELV THAT - APRIL 14 TO MAY 14 - KINSLOU WAS WITHOUT THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CONVERS. Who could HOWE KNOW OF THE RELEVANT FACTS NECESSINGHAND SUCH A MATION.

The MAY THAT THE APPRELLATE CONVERS CANED NOT GET THE RECORD THE AFTER THE DEADLINE SUPPARIS THE CLAYM OF A SECURITYAL ERBUR - SEE ANIZALA US FUMINATE III SCT 1246, of IN THE LEAST INTEFFICULE ASSISTABLE OF CONVERS ON APPERL. SEE' EVERY US LUCET 105 SCT 830 (19.85) FOR FALILURE TO FILE A MATION FOR NEW THAT, WITHOUT THE RECORD. SEE FEV PRATS DAIGUE 8485 W 2d. 694,692 (TCA-1993).-'FALILAR TO RANGE A WALLID LEGAL CLARM. THAT NECESSARILY WOULD HAVE RESULVES IN A REVERSAL APPRENTS ALGA CONITITURES INTEFFICULE ASISTABLE BY APPRELLATE CONVERS.

FUTTLE, IT WOULD APPERL THAT APPRELLATE CONVERS FOR PETITONER HEREIN PERCEED AND WAS INTEFFICULE WITH HARM BY NOT ADDRESSIBLE INTEFFICULE ASSISTABLE OF THAT CONVERS FOR NOT ADDRESSIBLE THE SEVERELLED ERBUR AT THE REVEALSTAL HEALTHS ON KINSLOUS APPERL, OR this RIGHT TO CHARGE CONVERS.

ThAT CLARM IS SUPPAR. TED BY APPRELLATE GRIEF AT PAGES WHERE FACILAR BACKGROUND STATES: "AT THE OUTSET OF THE ADJUSTATION HEALTHS KINSLOUS THAT CONVERS ACKED THE COURT TO BE ALLOWED TO WITHORALL. P.R. P.94. HIS CONVERS CITATED THAT THE RELIEVED KINSLOU HAND RETRILED ANEITER AT TORNEY TO REPRESENT AT THE HEARTHS - P.R. P.95. AFTER SAME DISCUSSION, IT APPRESED THAT KINSLOU HAND NOT RETRILED ANEITER ATTORNEY AND THE THAT COURT OBSERVED THAT THE HEARTHS WOULD PROCEED. P.R. P.96. SEE U.S US GONZALEZ-LOPEZ 126 SCT 2552 AND PLANO US CALIFORNIA 20F3d 1469: CONCEEDLLS CHAICE OF CONVERS RIGHTS AND DEDUAL OF RIGHT TO CHAICE OF CONVERS IS RELEVIBLE EFFICIR RESORDERS OF WHERE PRESTABLE IS SHOULD.

"KINSLOUS THAT CONVERS NEY SUSPERED TO ALLOWING THE HEARTHS TO PROCEEDING, TELLING THE COURT HE HAD INSURVEDING TIME TO PREPARE. P.R.P.98. THE JUOSE ALSO OVERLAND THIS OUPTION AND OBSERVED THAT THE HEARTHS WOULD PROCEED - P.R. P.99. THAT MOTION

*13 OF The Record most early support a Harvard Ineffortive Assisftive of convifed by not de1in6 prepated out also Eerce of this count not to allow kiwslow to return new Couled And/or in the Least Resertive the research in the Least to give this Couled most parparation time - perttays the Resort for a request of this Couled chanker not de1in6 prepated is not aduncating pertinences cause - Stuck Lays us wathin too 104 SCF 2052, to see that justice is dave - dased us U.S. cTino PreseCure and JPEES abuGertive to insure justice and not merely cohunt.

It appears the result of above was not tarkness, and Appellate couled was Ineffective for not cithin 7 apce Eerces. 354,363 (754 1993) In OLDMAM v state, 975 sw2d and de1in6in us state 224 sw2d 438, 490 (reV App-Hourton [1995] 2057, 60 p97) as stated a page 3 of deff of the 6th count of apEers, teVAs at FatiNve 2, if stated, "absent a record should otherwise we must apply the prescription that the RErath that a matioN be new that was not fixed was because the APPElLAS considered fiNve but qitd not to file if - without an Evide library. HeArin, one could presure it was fithe to file if because of the result of the DANO NVE It should be noted that the 6th count of ApEers of teVAs in 175 MEmunRANm ofiMON at pTCE 3 reLled ON, VIDAURE i sTATE 49 sw2d 880, 886 (tCA 2001); DARDES v state 846 sw2d 834,836 (tCA-1992). It should also be noted that AppelLAS Couleds deff at ApES 9, 80 suGLeST AppelLAS Couled Explained why a mOTION for new this was not finally fixed by App. Couled

The Problem with the count of ApEers Deffern-1ation is that in VIDAURE v state 49 sw 3d 880 (tCA 2001), the count of CHIM-1ARd ApEers on PETiTion for disdertiontely REURED RULED that (1) the RLEE (T Rappan 25.2 (6) (2) LIMITiNd ApEers Folluleds a pLEd of guiln of holo centriPTE Dib not apply to the Deffern-1er chaiin that the Lams deffuled of a sepparate puedhmein HeAR the PELCHINE A FINDING that the VIdaURE DEffERD ADJERCEED AQUIOLATiN SUPPLISED AT [2] = EVER ThBEDT the probation was the result of a guiln pLEd Ed at 49 cithin FeagIn $v$ sTATE 354 362 ( 417 (tCA 1998) FeagIn DISTIN6wLLED BETWEEN EARd APPEAELS OF 155 UEs RELATIVE TO The

*14 CONVUCTION AND APPERLUS ON ISSUES SEPRAUTE FOR THE CONVUCTION HOLDING THAT UNIV THE FORMER ARE INVINYED BY THE RULE AT E 37 ON PAGE 885: " we have necessary tried that A DEPENDENT is EXTITED TO A PROVIDENIT HERSING AFTER The ADJUOIATION OF SUIT, AND The THILL JUNGE MUST ALLOW THE ACOUSED THE OPERATING TO PRESERV ENIGEME (IN PETITOLEN'S CASE EVALUABLE IN THE FARM OF THE ORIGINAL SELMELCHS RECORD AT ORIGINAL PLEA OF GUILPY ON MAY 9, 2011 AND APPLICABLE LARGE FOR SENTENARE AND PLEA DEAL AS the UNIFRASIDED IT AT THAT TIME, AND REPORTSG RELIGIO of SUCHI) IS6PUS STATE 826 SU 2 d 159 AT 161 (TCA 1992) THE COURTA FOURD THAT IT DID NOT IHNCE JURISPOTION OVER APPRELTAIS APPERL BECAUSE AVE 252 (b) (3) PROVIDITED IT. HOWEVER APPRELTAINS CLAIM THAT the WAS DEPITUED OF A SEPRAIRE PUNtHENFY HERSING DOES NOT CHALLENGE HIS CONVUCTION (AS IN HERSING PETITOLEN KINSING US CASE), IT CHALLENGES THE PROESS bQ UNICH be WAS SERVENCED AN ISSUE UNRECATED TO HIS CONVUCTION" - FEB 614967 SU 2 d 87419 . These FAR THE RULE 25.2 (b) (3) LIMITATIONS DID NOT APPLY TO APPRELTAIS CLAIM AND THE COURT OF APPARIS EFFERD IN FINDING THAT IT LACKED JURISOLATION TO CONSIDER APPRELTAINS CLAIM. LATING 924 SU 2 d 714, DROUGH USTATE 943 SU 2 d 35 (TCA 1997) (THE PETITOLEN HERSING KINSING, PULSE AND PRESS, OF THE ALCOHOLS CLAIM, THE EVERY EFFERES, OF EACH CHALLENGES, THE SEPRAITE AND COMMUNIATIVE ISSUES AND FOURS OF THILL COURT, INVESTITIVE ASSISTABLE CLAIMS AT REGULA TON HEARING, AND APPERL WITH THE SECUNDUM DEFECT OF THE RECORDS BEING LATE, WITH FARLUCE OF THE PROSECTOR TO SHE THAT JUSTUE IS DONE, NOT MERSELY CONVUCTION AS IN "OLOMAM USTATE" FURTHER, IT LARID SEEML TO VOLATE THE TEXAS COUR OF CRIMINAL APPERLIS ORDER IN EY DATE THE JUNKING 954 SU 2 d 39 (TCA 1997; SHE ALSO JUNESAN USTATE 159 SU 3d 514 (TCA 6.

*15 Pex Arkana 2005) = here Failure to object to stricted service is not a sufficient nature. Ackar claim of ilsive he as to Anishment may be Raised at any time, as it appears the case of appears in Petitioner's case Did not consider this issue as it appears not properly prefilled or afuled, or other- use called into question, and the ERло R (i) trade in are not manuess - see the default us Abraham Marm ananyus 1133 C C 1710 ; The oulEL us mechanism than ananyus 1155 C 992 , and the Almanabus Years 686 542d 157 (rcamest HARM ANAYyus, AND 1945 shown cause and prescripted see that US cock

*16

ON AN UNDERWEIDDED RECORD ON DIRECT APPEAL SHOULD, HONE THE LESS OF EVERTHAND AND UPKED OF SUPPLIED BY THE RECORD - USCA CONST AMENDS CHLIM UN 1119 CII

CONCLUSION - REASONS FOR REVIEW

Because of the Followin'S Results of Error, This PETITION FOR OIS CRETIONARY REVIELY SHOULD BE GRANIZED AS:

1. The PETITIONS HEREIN IS ACTIVALLY INHOCENT OF THE

PUVULH MELK ASSESSED AND AS EVERLALND IN THESE PIGD

PAGES, This GROUND IS REVIELIABLE AT ANY TIME. 2. The 6th count of APPERALS OF TEXAS, PUBSUMAT AND

CONSISTANT WITH TEXAS RULES OF APPERLATE PROCESURE 66.3 REASONS FOR GRAWIIND REVIELY, COHINE NEVERER COUTROLIINS

MOR FULLY MEASUOING THE COURT OF CRUMINAL APPEALS DIRECTING THE FOLLOWING WILL be COUSIATED BY THE COURT IN DECIDING WATERED TO

STANT DISCRETIONARY REVIELY. (a) WATERED A COURT OF APPERALS DECISIONS COUTERING SUSPITER COURT OF APPERALS DECISION ON THE SAME IS SUE, (OR A COURT OF APPERALS DECISION CONFULCING WITH THE TEXAS COURT OF CRUMINAL APPERALS OF TEXAS DECISION OR A TEX CIIM APP DEDIING CARLATING ITEM)

THE PETITIONER HEREIN PUBSUMAT TO T.R.A.P RULE 63.3 (a) ABOUR

AT CITED IN PALE HEREIN, IT IS APPARENTS IN STATING EY

PALE ME INCOURING 984 SAL 2 d 39 (TCA - 1997 - ALSO JACKSON U

S PATE 159 SAL 2d 514 (T A - TEX ARKALA 2005) RULING THAT THERE

FAILURE TO OBJECT TO STACKED SENTENCE IS NOT A SUFFICIENT WALLYE

IN ESSENCE, CONFILCTS WITH THE STATES AND 6TH COURT OF APPERALS

OF TEXAS DISSEP AND MERCORNEDUM OPILION CITING THE HOCDINGS

OF VIDALERI U STATE 49 SAL 3 d 880, 226 (TCA 2001), BEDDERS U

STATE 246 SAL 2d 834, 836 (TEX CIIM APP 1992) CITING, IN ESSENCE,

THE PETITIONS HEREIN FAILED TO OBJECT DURING THE HERRIIL AND

ALSO TO FILE A MOTION FOR REW TRIAL. WHIC OCCURTED AT

THE REWOKATION HERRIIN - MOST IMPORTANITM, AND TREN AT APPERAL

THOUGH CONLSELD AND/OR COURT/STATE EERMS. NOTE THE DATES OF

MOLYLKING JACKSON ARE VLDRELINED TO EYNESS THOSE DECISIONS ARE

MORE RECENT THAN VIDALERI, BEDDERS ABOUR. (c) WATERED A COURT OF APPERALS HAS DECIDED AN IMPORTANIT QUESTION

OF STATE OF FEDELNE LAW IN A LAY THAT CONFILICTS WITH THE

*17 DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPROXUS OF THE SUPPERM CONTI OF THE UNITED STATES:

THE PETITONER MERSELY, THE GELY INCHNASES THE ARRIVENEAT BUT INCLUDES ILLEAR FRENTEURS OF PHILIPPHEST ASSESSED- HANEY V CORRELL 306 F3d 257 (5th CR 2002); SALUYER US WILFLEY 112 SC7 2514, EY PARTE RICH 194 SUG 508 (TCA-2006) EY PARTE FELTON 215 SUG 733 (TCA-1991); EY PARTE LEECH SUG 981 SUGHIS (TCA-1998); THOUGH THIS ISSUE NOT FULLY ADDRESSED TO THE 6th COURT OF APPRAS OF TEXAS MAY BE RALSED AT ANY TIME.

(d) As IN THE INSIRRER OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED TO THE FRENTEUCRT OF APPREAL, TEXAS, PUREUALLY TO THE FUERGALLE — (d) LIBERAR A COURT OF APPRASS WAS BE CURRED A STRTUE, RULE, REGULATION OR ORDINANCE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR APPRASS TO MALE MISCONSTEMED, A STRTUE, RULE, OR REGULATION, OR ORDINANCE.

(e) WILKING A COURT OF APPRASS WAS SURFUL REPRESED FOR THE EMPRELY'S SO FAR DEPARTED FROU THE ALCEPITED AND USUAL COVER OF JUDICIAL PROCESSING, OR 'SO FAR SACITOLED SUCLA DEPARTURE by A LOCK COURT, AS TO CALL FOR AN EVERCKE OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPRAS'S' POWER OF SUBCURVIOUS.

The PETITONER CITES 3 NAVES OF INTERES' HERE A. ACTUAL EHIGGELLE OF PHILIPPHEST B. THE DISPUTED RULID OF THE 6th COURT OF APPRASS, TEXAS APPRELVE THE TREATMENT FOR NEW TYAR ON PHILIPPHEST MERSELY.

C. THE "PRESURED" UPINOUS THAT PETITONER OPIED NOT TO FREE FOR NEW TYAR, IL THE IN CURRLE, IS EERRANOUS AS REVOLUTION YEAR IN 6 COURTAL STRIED, HEUAS NOT PREPAREN' ME WAL KIE RESPONSIBLE FOR APPREL' NEW TYAR ISSUES, AND APPRELATE COURT COURD NOT GET THE RECORMS AS UNPREPARED IS A PERESUMPTION OF ME WOLLDS, THE 6th COURT OF APPREAL, TEXAS, IF PRESUMPTION IS A LLOUABLE, WAS BEEN REBUTED TO A RERICHY DADY, AND WITHOUT MORE, CLEAR AND COUNCALLY TO THAT REA SULABLE DADY.

THE RESULTS OF ALL ITEEIN IN TO PALLY'S COURT OF PERPRARE FOR NEW TYAR AND 6th PHILIPPHEST PERFIND PUREUAT AND CONSISTANT TO TEXP. APP. PAB 21.1 DEFINITION. NEW TYAR (emphasis) MEALS THE REPERADISE OF A CRIMINAL ACTUAL NFTER THE TYAR COURT NAS, ON THE

*18 DEPENDANTS MOTION, SET ASIDE 'A FRAME OR URBIDO' OF GUYL'T ( KIT GUYLT) OF PULSILMEN ASSESS) 21.2 - When motion for new trial REAWYED. A mOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL IS A PERPRESSIVE TO PREPASTUS A PAINT OF ERROR ON APPERL OELY LIEU NECESSARY TO ADOUCF FACES NOT IN THE RECORD. 21.3 GROUDS - The DEPENDANY MUST SE GRAVED A NEW TRIAL FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING REASUMS 2 (a) EVERY IN A MODERIANNCE CASE IN which the DEPENDANY has been UWUALLYDY PRED IN ASSERLIA OR ITAS BEEL DENIED CONJEY; (IN PERIHOLERS CASE IN UAS EFFECTUALLY DENIED PROGRAMMAL HENRING CASE AS UN PREPARED, AND APPENDATE CONJEY. FIS STATED BY APPLIETE CONJEY AT PARK 10 OF APPENDANY BRIDGE - RECORD UWUALLYDY) (b) WEEL THE COURT has mISDIRECTED THE JUNY ABOUT THE LUNG OR ITAS CONHINITED SOME OTHER MORTENAI EFFEEL LIEELY TO INJURE THE DEPENDANYE RULTYS; ( The REGULATION COURT NOT ALLOGUNG CASES OF CHOICE, PROCEDURE WEEL PROVIDY AND UNITELY MAYED DRAILY AND UNITELY MOTION. TO BE RELIVENED FOR CASE BEFORE TYERRIAL AND UNLIVENOUSING UNHERPATED BY COURT DENIED CHOICE OF CONJEY, AND TO PROCED. (e) WEEL A MORTENAI REFERCE WITTESL ITAS BEEL KEGT FOR EOURY BY FORCE, THROUG, OR FROUD, OR WEEL EXROEME YELSEL. TO ESTHOLLSE THE DEPENDANI'S PROCEPME HAS BEEL NITENIUMALLY (OR OTHERLUSE) DESIRGYED OR WITTESL. THIS PRESELTE IS IT PRODUCED AT TRIAL - (PERIHOLER REPLUTAL IS SELSELCE THAT HIS 2-20 YEAR AND 5 YEAR DEPENDANI'S SUGUYD YTHIR BEEL A CONCEPMEY 20 YEAR SELSELCE WITH PERIOMALY AND RECORD'S OF MAY 9, 2011 GUUITY PLGA SELSELCE, (II) WITH UWYL'T IS TEXAS YY'S SUSSA YIL (TA ANALYSIS) (g) WEEL THE JUNY (OR JUGER) ITAS EVIDALED IN SUCH UNISCALDUCT THAT THE DEPENDANI DID NOT RECIPULA A FAIR AND IMPRITAL TRIAL (AS EXPLANED IN PERIODYAL) (h) WEEL THE WERLSE IS CONTRANY TO LUNG AND EVIDENCE. TEX R. APP PRO RULE 22. ANALYSIS OF JUGER杞ELY IN CONTRAN Cass 22.1 DEFINITION. MOTION IN AMELSI OF JUGER杞ELY (EMPHASIS) MEASURE A DEPENDANI'S ORAL OR UNITELY SUCCESSION THAT FOR REASONS STATED IN THE MOTION, THE JUGER杞ELY RELIGERED ALGINS'T THE DEPENDANY WAS CONTRANY TO LUNG. SUCH A MOTION IS MADE IN THE TRIAL COURT; 22.2. GROUDS. THE MOTION MAY BE BASED ON ANY OF THE

*19 FOLLOWING REASONS = (c) THAT THE JUDGE MELT IS INVALID FOR SOME OTHER BEASON (AN ILLEGAL MUSIFICATION OF PLEA REBATIATED SEKIEME FROM 2-10 YEAR AND 1-5 YEAR SEKIEME TO RUN CONCEPT ON MAY 9, 2018 TO 2-20 YEAR SEKIEMES AND A 2 YEAR SEKIEME TO RUN CONSECTIVELY LEPAN REVOLUTION / AQUOICATION OF ASSEMBLAND SUPPLIED ORISIMAL SEKIEME ON APRIL 14, 2014. SEE MARTIN US PEXAS 143 SU 301412 (TARAVYW2014) TEY A APP Pro RULE 33.2 FORMAL BILL OF EXCEpTION. TO COMPLAIN ON APPEND ABOUT A MATTER THAT HALLD ORLELUSE APPER IN THE RECORD, A PARTY MUST FILE A FORMAL BILL OF EXCEpTION. (a) FORW. NO PARTYWNAR FORW. OF WORDS IS RECONTED IN A BILL OF EXCEpTION. BUT THE OGYECTIOIN TO THE COPY'S RUSING OR ACTIOIN, AND THE RULING COMPLAINED OF, MUST BE SITTER WITH SUFFFICIENT SPECIFICITY TO MAKE THE TRIAL COUT ALKER OF THE COMPLAINT (b) ENVERGEN WHEL THE APPRELATE RECORD CONTAIN THE EUROPENCE WEEDED TO EXPLAIN A BILL OF EXCEPION, THE BILL ITSELF NOED NOT REPEAT THE EUROPENCE, AND A PARTY MAY ATTACK, AND IN COMPARATE A TRANSCRIPTION, OF THE EUROPENCE BY THE COURT REPORSEN. TEY R. APP PRO 34. APPRELATE RECORD. 34.1 CURRENT. THE APPRELATE RECORD COUSIST OF THE CURE'S RECORD AND, IF NECESSARY TO THE APPEND, THE REPORSENTS RECORD. EVERY EFF HUERE THAN OUR HELVE OF APPEND IS FIXED, THERE should be ONLY OUR APPRELATE RECORD IN A CASE, 34.2 ABOXED RECORD. BY UNITED, SENTEER STIPPING, FLEED WITH THE TRIAL COURT CURE, THE PARTYS MAY ASSEX ON THE CURRENT OF THE APPRELATE RECORD. AN ASSEX RECORD WILL be PREMISE TO COUTON AN EUROPENCE AND FILING TO THE APPEND. TO REQUEST MATEM TO BE INCLUED IN THE ASSEXED RECORD, THE PARTYS MUST COPY WITH THE PROCEDURES IN RULES 34.5 AND 34.6, 34.5 CURE'S RECORD - THE PERFISHER RECONT (c) SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE APPRELATE RECORD - (1), (2) BY OLDERS

*20 From the Court of Criminal Appetits of TeYAs to the effect of Guilty Court to Forlcand Uhder 34-5 (2) in cases 1h which a place of Guilty on two Comptendee has been effected, Any document effected for the place (5) The Court's statement of under that is deled Applied (or in confraudessary) (6) Any past statement written, and the Court's order on the motion, in short certified steps to supplement the Applied at Record with any sencenous papers from the place of Guilty Treat on may, 2011 detritious the 2-10 year defected application

*21 SENTENCE FOR BURGLAY, TO RUN CONCURRENT AS ORIGINALLY PLEA BARGARLD FOR IN ORIGINAL PLEA OF GUILTY TRIAL AND SERVED UAL ON MAY 9 ON MAETIL Y TEYAS 143 SW30412 CY A-ALTON 2001, 2011, AND OR ALSOU AN OUT OF TIME MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR APPELLATE REVIEW AS CONSIDERED IN OLDIYAM US TEYAS 977 SW2d 354 (TCA-1998), OR EY PARTE AVEL 757 SW2d 369 (TCA-1998)-out of TIME APPEAL GRAINED RASE ON ABOREES' FAILURE TO FILE; EY PARTE UAPREI 891 SW2d 935 (TCA-1994)-out of TIME PETIFIAN FOR DISORTHURAY REVIEW GRAINED BASED ON ABOREES' FAILURE TO ADUISE DEPENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO FILE PISSE P. D. R. 3. OR, ALLOW PETITIONER OUT-of TIME APPEAL ON ORIGINAL PLEA TRIAL COURT OF MAY 9, 2011 BASED ON ULKINGING AND UNVOLVANTARY PLEA OF GUILT/ EMPECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, OR BISINGS THE PLEA AND NEW TRIAL. 4. OR REMAND TO LIVER COURTS FOR PROCESSING CONSISTANT AND PURESUNY TO THE FOREGAINS.

THE PETITIONERS PrayER IS PURESUNY AND CONSISTAN WITH YEY IR. PAP PA RULE 43.2 PITES OF JUDGENEHY (A) MADIFY THE TRIAL COURTS JUDGENEHY AND AFFIRM IT AS MADIFIED; (c) REVERSE THE TRIAL COURTS JUDGENEHY IN LUNGE OR IN PART AND RENDER THE JUDGENEHY AND PAPER INY THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE REVERSED; (d) REVERSE THE TRIAL COURTS JUDGENEHY AND REMAND THE CASE FOR FUATER PROCESSING, (e) VALUE THE TRIAL COURTE JUDGENEHY AND BISINGS THE CASE; AN/OR 43.3 REKN DITION APPROPRIATE ULESS AS MAND NECESSARY. WHEN RELATSING A TRIAL COURT JUDGENEHY THE COURT MAY RENDER THE JUDGENEHY THAT THE TRIAL COURT SHOULD HAVE REVERSED, eVERYTHING LAY A REMAND IS NECESSARY FOR FUATER PROCESSING; OR (b) THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE RECEIVER AY REMAND FOR ANALYSIS TRIAL. 5. COURTS FACES AND CONCLUSING RECEIVED

RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED

ROBERT SHARE KILSHAW, PRA SE TOCPE 1923349, MICHAEL UNIT 2664 FIM 2654, PENNESER COUWY, TV

*22

CERTIFICATE OF SEALLE

On This - DAY OF MARCH, 2015 This 14 PACE (22 stFETS OF PAPER) PETition FOR DISCRETIONARY?

PACE MOTION FOR OUT OF TIME NEL TRIAL (3) OR PUNISHENT SENFACED HERRING, 2 PACE INABILITY TO PAY COSTS, 6- MOLTH INHATF TRUST FICD PRINT OUT. AND 1 PACE LETTER TO COUT CHEEK, MAY MORRER TO PRISUM. PUBLISHING FOR DELIVERY TO THE U.S. MAIL SEALLE AS THE DATE MAIL/FICD should be a REFLECTED ON INHATF TRUST FICD AND NOT OUT-MARK AS LONG ON THING TRUST FICD PRINT OUT From LAW LIBRARY ADJUSTING, IT IS OTHERD THAT DAY, AND MUST BE PLACED IN ENVERGUE AND PRINCED TO PRISUM ADJUSTING - THE ADDRESSED, THEN AND PEAKE FOR DELIVERY TO US. MAIL FOR DELIVERY TO COUTER-6R

The above Alas APPLYS TO THE SINTE AUSECUTING MTORENCEY, EXCEPT FOR INHATF TRUST PRINT OUT. ONLY 1 ISYLES FOR COURT. THE SINTE PROCEDUR AT PO BUT 12405, QUITUL, TRIVAS 73711 . WYTH THE ABOVE ANEXONENI ON MAILING INCLUCED, TEX R. APP. PRO ALLE 9. 2 CAL (1)(2), (6) (1) (A (B)(C), (2) (A) (B) (C) PROD 4-1 (a)(b)

UPSUGGRL DECLARATION

19 MY MAME IS RELERT SRAYEE KINGLON AND MY DATE OF BIRTH is U-22-69 AND I AM PRESENTLY INCREASED IN THE MICHAEL PRISUM UNIT OF TRIVAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUNGE (TDCJ)-INSTITUTIONS BIIGING AND MY IDENTIFICATION KINGER IS 1923349 AS I AM LOCATED AT TENNESSEE CROHY, ANDERLAND COURT, TRIVAS 75386 AND UNDER PERALLY OF PERLIPAY DECLASE THE FREE GOLD THE AND CORRECT. I AM COMPETENT TO TESTIFY AT TNS TIME EXECUTED This 9 DAY OF MARCH, 2015 RESPECTIVE SUBHITED

14 OF 14 PULERLY SHOVE KINGLON, PRO SE TELS 1923349 MICHAEL CHIC, 2669 PR-2054, TENNESSEE CROHY, TN

*23 In The Court of Criminal Appetits, Texas PETRON FOR DISLERTIANE REVIEW

Robert Stane Kinklow, Mawrint, and se us TEVAS

From the 6th Court of Appetits, Texas has: 06-14-00083-0E, 06-14-00084-0E, 06-14-00085-0E THIA Court: 6th CENT OF TEXAS has: CR05649, CR05649, CR0722

Morton for out of the new Trial (s) motions of punishment taking

To the Unstable Judges of the Texas Court of Criminal Appetits.

How comes the mowar Robert Stane Kinklow, those also the petitione in Above cause, at the Appetitor and /or Defendant in Above causes, pursuant to the PACS of His petition for discretionary review. PRAYS the Court demand the mowar for new trials in the trial court and cases above based on an unknowing and frivolourary pears of quality.

INSPECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COLVES, OR NEW PUBLISHERS HERRIKES / SEVERSING IN TRIAL CQUAIS REVOLUTION OF PERFERENTD REMARINS.

RESPETTLE Y SUMPUTER, ROBERT SHEEY, and KINSLOW Robert Stane Kinklow have TREAT 1923349, mULHAR UNIT 2464 FAM 2454, Pennesse Cadyan, Texas 75886

On this — day of hierarchy 2415 TREE, PARK MORTHON LAY tHORPS TO prisol a univeries for MAIL iflunl with the 6th CENT OF APPERAS, TEXAS AND THE SITTE SUBCUTTLDS FORWAY.

My name is Robert Stanne Kinklow and my name of North is and I am currently in-receated in michael prisow use of TEXAS DEPT OF CRUMY DANNE- INTRADONAL OUdYON. My IDELIFITATION hungre is 1923349-pRESENTY OF TEXAS, DECEAS, ANDRE SUN CAUUY, TEXAS 75886 and I BECAUSE THE FREESING IS THE AND CORRECT'S RESPONDY SUSPANED PALE 1 OF 1

Robert Stanne Kinklow Picks

*24 PETITION FOR DISERETIANEY REVIEW No= ROAST SHA YNE KINGLOW, PETIT LONES, Pso SE V5 TEVAS

In the tevas count of CArminat Appetls, tevas from the 6th Count of Appetls, tevas CAVE No $=$ $06-14=00083-06706-14=000847$ $06-14=00085\mathrm{C}\mathrm{R}$ Rial Count $=6^4$ DISR. 10 count TEVAS CAVE No = CRO1648; CRO1649; CRO1722 PETITIONERS DECLARATION OF INABILITY TO PAY COST MON COMES PETITIONER ROSENT SHAYNE KINGLOW, PRo SE TACITY 1923349 AND DECLARES THAT I AM UNABLE TO PAY THE COST OF COMES IN This ACFlow AND REAWEST LEALS OF THE COURT TO PROGREED IN FORH A PAUPERS AND WOULD SHOUL THE COURT THE FOLLOWING: (1) I AM PRESENTLY ILARCEMENTS IN THE MICHAEL UNIT OF

THE TEVAS DEPARTMENT OF CArminat JUSTICE - INABOUTHAM DIVISION WHERE I AM NOT PERHATED TO EARLY OR HANOLE MONEY. (2) I HAVE NO SQUACE OF ILLONE OR SPULSAR INCOME. (3) I CURRENTS HAVE ${50}^{\circ }$ CREDITED TO ME IN THE INMATE MUN FUND. (4) DUSING HY I NCARECERATION IN THE TEVAS DEPARTMENT OF CArminat JUSTICE - INABITUNAAL DIVISION I HAVE RECIEVER APPROXIMATELY US FOR MOKIN AS GIFTS FALM BELLARIES AND FRIEMS. (5) I (HAVE, HAVE NO) PROPERITY, SOCKS, DANDS, GANE ACCOUNE, INTEREST, DIVIDEND ILLONE FOR ANY SQUARE = NO ACCOUNE SPECIFY (6) I HAVE 0 DEPENDENT (7) I HAVE TOTAL DEDUS OF APPROXIMATELY 2000 8, I OWIE 2000 AS RESITUANGG AND FURES 9, HY MOKIN EYPERES ARE APPROXIMATTY USED CERTIFICATE OF SPECISE ON This 9 DAY EAF MAKED 12015 THIS PARK "PERTHER DECLARATION OF INABILITY TO PAY COST LAS HANOES TO PROGEN AUTHORITY WITH AL INMATE TEST FLD PRINT OUT ESSURED FOR COURT ONLY USED FOR MOKING TO THE 6TH COURT OF APPERALS, TEVAS WITH COPY OF This "DECLARATION" TO THE STATE PRESENTLY ARXIVETY AT P.O. P.O. 12405, AUGUST, TEVAS 78711 - 15 PERUTULER PABR 1 OF 2

*25 DOES RECAVEST COURT CLEEK SELLIKE ALL I'RREIL.

ON SUORN DECLARATION " MY NAME IS RABERT SNAYNE KINGUW. AND MY BIRTH DATE 13 U-22-69 I AND I AM pressRISY inLARCELATED AT THE MICHAELS PITSE UNIT IN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT of CRUMINAL JUSTICE (TBCS) - INSTIGU TURAL DIMSEUH AND my IDENTIFICATION number is 1923249 as I am LOCATED AT TENESSEE COUNY, TEXAS 75886 IN AND 88546 CONDETY, AND I DECLARE UNDER PEALITY OF PELJEY THAT The FIVE GAILD is TENE AND CARREST AND I AM COMPERENT TO TESTIFY AT This Time. EYECLIED ON This 4 DAY of MARCH, 2015

RESPETTUALLY SENTIERS Robert SNAYNE KINGUW. Robert SNAYNE KINGUW. Pru SR, TBCS P 1923249 MICHAEL UNIT, 2664 Fm 2054 TENESSEE ER COUNY, TEXAS 75886

PAGE 2 of 2

*26

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00083-CR

ROBERT SHAYNE KINSLOW, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR01648

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

*27

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Shayne Kinslow's guilt has been adjudicated on two counts of indecency with a child, and his community supervision has been revoked on a burglary conviction. ^[1] At the late 2013 hearing accomplishing the above, the trial court sentenced Kinslow to two consecutive twenty-year terms on the indecency counts and a two-year term for the burglary. On appeal, Kinslow complains that the trial court wrongly failed to conduct a sentencing hearing after adjudicating him guilty and wrongly assessed attorney fees against him.

We modify the judgment of the trial court to remove attorney fees and affirm it as modified, because (1) Kinslow failed to preserve his complaint about his sentencing and (2) the indigent Kinslow should not have been assessed attorney fees.

(1) Kinslow Failed to Preserve His Complaint About His Sentencing

Kinslow argues that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a sentencing hearing after adjudicating him guilty on the two counts of indecency with a child.

In support of his argument, he cites Issa v. State, where Issa was adjudicated guilty of theft and then immediately sentenced to ten years' confinement. Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Issa appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to conduct a sentencing hearing after it adjudicated his guilt. Id. at 160. The court of appeals held that, because Issa did not object during the hearing, he failed to preserve the issue for its review. Id. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the court of appeals' decision, finding that Issa preserved the issue by raising it in a timely motion for new trial. Id. at 161.

*28 Here, Kinslow failed to object during the hearing and also failed to file a motion for new trial. ^[2] Therefore, Kinslow failed to preserve this complaint for our review. See TEX. R. App. P. 33.1; Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Borders v. State, 846 S.W.2d 834, 836 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). (2) The Indigent Kinslow Should Not Have Been Assessed Attorney Fees

In its judgment, the trial court assessed court costs and attorney fees of $\$2,250.25$ against Kinslow. The record indicates that $\$1,181.25$ of those costs and fees are attributable to the costs of Kinslow's court-appointed trial counsel. Kinslow contends that, because he was indigent, the trial court erred in assessing attorney fees against him. We agree.

A claim of insufficient evidence to support court costs and court-appointed attorney fees is reviewable on direct appeal. Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).

A trial court may order the reimbursement of court-appointed attorney fees only if "the court determines that a defendant has financial resources that enable him to offset in part or in whole the costs of the legal services provided, including any expenses and costs." Tex. CODE Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2014). "[T]he defendant's financial resources and ability to pay are explicit critical elements in the trial court's determination of the propriety of ordering reimbursement of costs and fees'" of legal services provided. Armstrong v. State, 340 S.W.3d 759, 765-66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting Mayer, 309 S.W.3d at 556). Court-

*29 appointed attorney fees cannot be assessed against an indigent person unless there is proof and a finding that he or she is no longer indigent. Cates v. State, 402 S.W.3d 250, 251-52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Mayer, 309 S.W.3d at 556-57.

It is undisputed that, before trial, the court determined that Kinslow was indigent and appointed trial counsel to represent him. The State contends, however, that, by assessing the attorney fees against Kinslow, the trial court made an implied finding that he was no longer indigent. There was testimony during the hearing that Kinslow had paid the required fees and costs of his community supervision for at least one of the three cases at issue, including court costs of $\$303.00$ as well as the $\$50.00$ Crime Stopper fee. The State argues that the testimony is sufficient evidence to support the court's implied finding.

The State's implied-finding argument overlooks the trial court's explicit finding that, at the time of the adjudication, revocation, and sentencing, Kinslow was "too poor to employ counsel for his Appeals" and, therefore, "the Honorable Don Biard, a practicing attorney at this bar" was "appointed to represent [Kinslow] in said Appeals." The assessment of attorney fees was erroneous and must be removed. Cates, 402 S.W.3d at 252; see Mayer, 309 S.W.3d 552; Martin v. State, 405 S.W.3d 944, 946-47 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013, no pet.).

*30 We modify the trial court's judgment by deleting from it the sum of $\$1,181.25$ , the attorney fees component of the assessment. We affirm the judgment, as so modified.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: November 17, 2014 Date Decided: December 19, 2014

Do Not Publish

*31

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00084-CR

ROBERT SHAYNE KINSLOW, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR01649

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

*32

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In May 2011, in Red River County, Texas, Robert Shayne Kinslow was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for two charges of indecency with a child. On the same day, Kinslow was convicted of one charge of burglary and sentenced to two years' confinement, but that sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for a period of five years.

In November 2013, the State moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke Kinslow's community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Kinslow guilty of the two counts of indecency with a child, sentencing him to two consecutive twenty-year terms, and revoked his community supervision on his burglary conviction, sentencing him to two years' confinement. In this case, Kinslow appeals the adjudication of guilt regarding one count of indecency with a child. He has appealed from the adjudication of guilt on the other indecency charge under our cause number $06-14-00083-CR$ and from the revocation of his community supervision on the burglary conviction under our cause number $06-14-00085-CR$ .

Kinslow has filed a single brief, in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals. He contends that the trial court erred: (1) by failing to conduct a sentencing hearing after adjudicating him guilty and (2) by assessing attorney fees against him.

*33 We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date in Kinslow's appeal in cause number 06-14-00083-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that the judgment in this case should be modified to delete the award of attorney fees and affirmed, as modified.

Bailey C. Moseley Justice

Date Submitted: November 17, 2014 Date Decided: December 19, 2014

Do Not Publish

*34

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00085-CR

ROBERT SHAYNE KINSLOW, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR01722

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

*35 MEMORANDUM OPINION

In May 2011, in Red River County, Texas, Robert Shayne Kinslow was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for two charges of indecency with a child. On the same day, Kinslow was convicted of one charge of burglary and sentenced to two years’ confinement, but that sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for a period of five years.

In November 2013, the State moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke Kinslow’s community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Kinslow guilty of the two counts of indecency with a child, sentencing him to two consecutive twenty-year terms, and revoked his community supervision on his burglary conviction, sentencing him to two years’ confinement. In this case, Kinslow appeals the trial court’s revocation of community supervision on his burglary conviction. He has also appealed from the trial court’s adjudication of guilt on the two indecency charges under our cause numbers 06-14-00083-CR and 06-14-00084-CR.

Kinslow has filed a single brief in which he raises issues common to all of his appeals. He contends that the trial court erred: (1) by failing to conduct a sentencing hearing after adjudicating him guilty and (2) by assessing attorney fees against him.

*36

We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date in Kinslow's appeal in cause number 06-14-00083-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that the judgment in this case should be modified to delete the award of attorney fees and affirmed, as modified.

Jack Carter Justice

Date Submitted: November 17, 2014 Date Decided: December 19, 2014 Do Not Publish

NOTES

${}^1$ In May 2011, in Red River County, Texas, Kinslow had been placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for two charges of indecency with a child and, on the same day, convicted of one charge of burglary.

${}^2$ Kinslow acknowledges that he failed to file a motion for new trial. He contends, however, that he had no opportunity to file a motion because he was adjudicated guilty and his appellate counsel was appointed April 14, 2014, yet the reporter's record in this case was not filed until July 1, 2014, two weeks after the deadline to file a motion for new trial. Absent a record showing otherwise, we must apply the presumption that "the reason that a motion for new trial was not filed was because the appellant considered filing but opted not to file it." Benson $v$ . State, 224 S.W.3d 485, 490 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (citing Oldham v. State, 977 S.W.2d 354, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)).