Case Information

*1

*2 NO: IN THE SURPEME COURT OF TEXAS Ex PATE MARTIN, SALZNAS RESPONDENT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS RESPONDENT

FROM THE COURT OF CRZMZNAL APPEABS NR 73, 707-04 ON APPLZCATZON FOR A WRZT OF HAUSERS CORPUS CAUSE NR 73, 707-01. REMANO To TRZAL COURT CAUSE NO. 406-351 IN THE DZSTREET COURT OF KERR CONITY.

PETITIOM FOR REVIEW.

*3

IDENTITY OF PARTZES

THE FOLLOW CONSTETUtes A LEST OF ALL PARTZES THAT WOULD HAVE AN ENTEREST ON THE OUTCOME.

PETE TEONER: MARTZN SALZNAS

ATTMMEY FOR: BRUCE CURRY STATE 4 216TH DZSTRZET COURT SAL FARL GARRETTST KENRYZLZ, TEX. 78028

TRAAL JUDGE: HAN. KARL PROHL 198TH JUDZCZAL DZSTRZET 700 MAXN ST KENRYZLZ, TEX. 78028

HABERS CORPUS: HAN. ROBERT R. BAR TEN JUDGE 4 CERCUZT JUDGE

RESPONDENT: THE COURT OF CRZMENAL APPRENTS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308

COURT CApzTOL STATZON MUSTZN, TEXAS. 78711

*4

TABLE OF CON TENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTORZTEES - - - - - - - II IV STATEMENT OF THE CASE - - - - - - - - VI STATEMENT OF JURSZDZETZON - - - - - - VI ISS WES PRESENTED - - - - - - VI ISS WES PRESENTED - - - - VI

IS SUR 1: THE COURT OF CRZMZNAL MANAGLS FAROR IN DZSMZSZNG SUBSER. WENT AARIZZATZON II. 07 HARBERS CARPUS, UNDER NEWly DZSCHVERED EVEDENLE, (SEE-MANONDZY-D) IS SUR 2: THE COURT'S NEGLZG-FNLE RULIZZNG: FAMOR IN DERMZZNG CASE No. WIR-73, 707-01 INEFFECTEVE ASSISTENGE OF COWNSEL THE FENDZNGS AND CONCLUSON OF FACTS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD (SEE-MANONDZY-E) IS SUR 3: THE HARBERS COURT VIOUATED THE DUE PROCESS. THE RECORD CONTRAOZET'S THAT MR. FELZSW WAS CO-COWNSEL, AND DZD NOT TAKE TRZAL ATZORNEY'S TESTZMONY AT ALL TO DELZED THE ZNGEFFECTEVE ASSISTENGE IT COWNSEL CLASS: (SEE-MANONDZY-F) ISSUE 4: FONDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RICHT TO TESTZPY. STATEMENT OF FACTS - - - - - - - 1-3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT - - - - - - 4-1 ARGUMENT AND AUTORZTEES - - - - - 8-14 PRAYER FOR ROLZEL - - - - - - 14 CERTZFZ CATE OF SERVZLE - - - - - - 15 APPEEN DZK - - - - - A TRAU F

*5

ENDEK OF AUTHORZTEES

CASES

COLEMAN-V- THOMPSON, 501 u.s. 722, 749. 50 (1999) - - - - 13 EK PARTE CANADA, 754 Sw. 2d. 660 (TEX. CAZM. AY2. 1988).--4 EK PARTE EDMOND, LZLLY, JR 656 s.w. 24490 (TEX. CAZM. AY2.1983).--9 EK PARTE LEMMEE, 13 Sw. 3d 791 (TEX. CAZM. AY2. 2000).--. - 19,12 EK PARTE MONCHAEA 854 Sw. 2d 128 (TEX. CAZM. AY2. 1993).-- - 10 EK PARTE SCOTT, 505 Sw. 2d. (TEX. CAZM. AY2. 1974). - - 13 EK PARTE TARRES, 943 Sw. 2d 469 (TEX. CAZM. AY2. 1997). - - - 7 EK PARTE VARELAS, 45 Sw. 3d. 427 (TEX. CAZM. AY2. 2001). - - 6 HARRZWE-TON-V-RZEHTER, 131 S.CT. 770,785 (2011) - - - - 8 PURKETT-V-ELLEM, 514 u.s. 765,769,115 S.cT.1769(1995).--9 RAMSGFER-V-WOOD, 64 F. 2 d 1432, 1434 (974 CAZ. 1995). - - - 14 ROMRZEUEZ, 77 Sw. 3d 459 (TEX. AY2.-CAZMUS-CHAZT 2002). - - 8 ROMPZLL-V-BEARD, 125 S.CT. 2456 (2005) - - - - 4 Rousav-v-RuPER, 436 F. 3 d 951,956 (874 CAZ. 2006) - - - 8 SALTII-V-DRETRE, 417 F. 3 d 438 (574 CAZ. 2005). - - - 11 STANLEY-V- BARTELEY, 465 F. 3 d 870 (774 CAZ. 2006).- - - 9 STRECKLAND-V-WASUZWHTEN, 104 S.CT 2052 (1984) - - - - 1,3,4,7,11,19 WITZE-V-ROPER, 416 F. 3 d 728 (874 CAZ. 2004). - - 11 WZLLZAM, 529 U.S. A7 405-06 - - - - - 13 WZLSAN-V-MAZZWCA, 570 F. 3 d 490 (2 140 CAZ. 2009).- - - 13.

STATuTES AND OTHER AUTHORZTEES TEES CONSTZTU ZZON

| ART. 1. | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | ART. 13 | | | | ART. 19 | | | | ART. 11.07 | | | | ART. 22.001 (A) (2) | | | | ART. 22.001 S9 3 (A) | | | | ART. 112 | | | | ART. IV | | | | APREAL AND ERROR-1082(1) | | |

*6

*7

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

MATURA OF!

THE CASE

A PLAA OFFER THAT WAS NOT COMMUNICATED TO PECOTIONER DURING TRZRL. AND WAS NOT ANAAE, UNITX THE HERRING CONAT OF CRZMENAL AAPLERS DZSMZSTZM WZTH OUT WRZTTEN ORDER ILOT HABERS CORPAS AAPLERATION CASRNG. WR-73, 707.04 WODER NEWly DZS COVERFED FEUEDENCE. AND THE FENDZHGS AND CONCLUSTON OF HABERS COURT ARE NOT SUQPORTHED BY THE RECORD EN CASZ N0: WR-73, 707.01 DEHZED PESTZLONER DUE PROCESS AND VIOLEATEN OF THE 6 TRAMEND MENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONARECONSTORATION DEHZED-May 22,2015 (SEE-MANCHER ID)

CONAT OF CRZMENAL AAPLERS:

DZSMZSTZM CASZ N0:WR-73, 707.04 AND DEHZED CASZ N0: WR-73-707.01 WZTH OUT REVZENZM THE CASZ.B-29-10

TRZRL. CONATS:

COURT OF: APLERS

THE NON. PRUNL 198 TR JUDZLAL DZSZLET EWTRR FED JUDUENENT, PESTZLONER WAS TRZED BY JUNY AND CONVECTED, SENTENLE T, 60 STFY YAS. TOL. FOR AUGANUATED ASSAALT. NO: A06-351

FURTH. COURT. UF. ARRUER, SAN ANTONIO. AFTERED JUDUENENT ON SEPT. 10,2008 CASZ. NO. 04-07-00492.CR.

THE. COURT OF CRZMENAL AAPLERS REFUSE DZSCRITZMARY. APAZL, 29, 2009. CASZ N0: PO-1465.08

FALE. HOST HABERS CORPUS AAPLERATION. FOR 22,2010 THE. COURT OF CRZMENAL AAPLER REMANDED CASE To TRZRL. CONAT ON APAZL 28, 2010 (SEE-MANCHER). To HOLD HERRING ON ENEFFECTIVE ASSESTANCE OF CONVISIEL CLATM.

DZSPOSTETZON: HERRZRL WAS HELD ON JUNE 24, 2010 THE. COURT OF CRZMENAL AAPLERS DEHZED WZTH OUT WRZTTEN ORDERS ON THE FENDZHGS OF THE HABERS COURT ON SEPT. 29, 2010. (SEE-MANCHER ID) THE. FACTS. CONTRADZCTS. THE FERDZHGS AND CONCLUSTON OF THE HABERS. COURT. AND THE ONSTEENH OF TREAL AZTIONEY AND DEHESSEN'Y HER TESTENHWY BY HABERS JUDUETZS A VIOLEATEN OF DUE. ARRCESS, THAT THE DZDNOT COMMUNICATE A. PLAA OFFER TO PESTZLONER.

*8

JURISDZCTZON

JART HAS JURZDZCTZON PARSUANT TO SECTZON 22,001 (A) (2) AND 22,001 S (3) (A) (B) GOVERMENT CODE: APPEALAND ERROR - 10820

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1: THE COURT OF CRZMZNAL APPEALS EARED IN SECONVON DZSMZSZNG SUOSEQUENT HAROAS CORPUS MARL- ZCATEON, UNDER NEWly DZSCOVERED EYZDENCE. THE EYZDENCE WAS OMZTTEED AT THE HEARZNG BY TREAL ATTORNEY, THAT SHE DZSMOT COMMUNIZATE A PLEADруется TO REZETZONER DURZNG TREAL.

ISSUE 2: THE COURT'S NEELZGENCE RULZZNG. THE COURT OF CRZMZNAL APPEALS EARED IN DENZEZNG. CASE NO. WR. 73-707-01 INEFFECTZVE ASSZSTANCE OF CAUNSFEL. THE TESTZMONY SHOWZNG THAT TIME FZMZ- ZNG AND CONCLUSZON MAE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS ON THE RECORD.

ISSUE 3: THE HAROAS COURT VZOLATED THE DUE PROCESS. MR. ELIZSON WAS NOT REZETZONERS ATTORNEY, NOR WAS THE EVER ABOXNTED BY THE TREAL COURT TO REPRESENT REZETZONER, THE HAROAS JU DUE REFUGEZNG TO CONSZDER TREAL ATTORNEY TESTZMONY AT ALL TO RECZED THE ZNEEFFECTZVE CLAZM, THAT WAS OR DERED BY THE COURT OF CRZMZNAL APPEALS ON REMANDED IN CASE NO. WR. 73, 707.01 INEFFECTZVE ASSZSTANCE OF CAUNSFEL. 'INTER ALZM'!

WITNESSES-88 ISSUE 4: CRZMZNAL DEFENDANT HAS FUNDAMENTAL CONSTETUZONAL RELIGT TO TESTZEY IN HZS OR HEAR OWN DERKE AT TREAL. U.S. C. A. CONST. AMEND. 5, 6, L4.

*9

of FACS

court of carmznal appEALS In case No. wR-73, 707-ol correcity started the nature of fucs case on REMANDED to the trial NAREAS count, PETETEONER CONTENDS TAAltics TR2M. CONNAEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE, ENTER ALTA, SHE PREVENTED H2M FROM TESTEFING IN H2S DEFENSE AND D2DNOT ADEQUATtity ANVESTEGARE TME CASE. (SEE-APPENDIX- A)

AfPLZENT HAS ALLEGED FACS TAA, ZF TALLE M2GHT ENTEtLE H2M TO RELZEF. STRECKLANDY-WASHINGTON, W66 U.S. 608 (1994): EY PARTE LEMME, 13 Sw. 34 791, 795-96 (TEZ CR2M. MAA 2000), EN TWESF CARLUMSTANCES, ADDETEONAL FACS ARE NEEDED. (SEE-APENDIX-A)

ON JUNE 24, 2010 A HERRENG WAS HELD AND PETETZONER'S TREAL ATOORNגY TESTEFVED THAT SHE VIOUATED PETETZONERS R2GHT'S TO TESTEFy AND THAT EN FACT SHE WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTENCE OF CONNAEL AT PETETZONER'S TREAL. SEE-HARERS HERRENG TRANSCR2PT. THE ZSSUE OF THE NEWly "ERRORS OF ON ZSS ZON AND ERRORS OF COMMZSSZON" AT THE BENCIL (EV. H. P. 124-125). (SEE. APPENDIX-D, HERRENG TRANSCANT)

MR. STEADMAN, THERE IS ONE ZSSUE THAT I THOUGHT WE NEED TO ADRESS.

THE REPORTER: YOU WANT THIS ON THE RECORD? THE COURT: YES, I GUYSS SO YES. GO AHEAD. THE HERRENG W2LL RESUME. CONNAEL.

MR. STERADMAN: YES SZR. WHEN I E2RST GOT AAPO2NTED TO THIS ABOUT A MONTH A60 I WENT OVER AND TAKLED To MR. CUERY (DZSTRZET ATTORNEY) CERTAIN ZSSUES WH2CH WERE CONTENG UP IN ONE OF THE CONVER SATZONS I HAD WITH MS. PERSON (TAZL ATTORNEY) SHE RELAYED TO ME THAT A PLEA OFFER HAD BEEN MADE DUT THAT IT WAS DURING.

*10 MANUNZCATE ZI TO MA SALEMAS BECAUSE MASON TOLD HEM THE SAME THOUG. BASED USON THAT I THOUG. MA. CURRY - - AND THAT'S WHY MRS. WILKES (ASSIST DOT ATBENY) SHE'S AVAZLABLE TO TESTZEY. AND TO MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, I THOUG. IT IS A MOOT POINT. BUT THERE IS A DOTERENGE OF OPENION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT ACTUALLY OCCLERRED AT TREAL. MA. CURRY AND Z. BOTH AGREED THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT PART- SPECIFFEACLY THE AAPLZCATION PROCESS, BECAUSE IT WASO'T KNOWN AT THE TONE IT-- IT GOES ZNTO WHETHER BECAUSE...

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, IT WASO'T KNOWN BY WIDOM? MR. STEADMAN: IT WASO'T KNOWN BY -- MY CLZENT DZON'T, REALIZES WITL AFTER SPEAKING WIZW MS PERSON AFTER GETTING BACK HERE THAT THAT ISSUE HAD CAME UP. AND -- BUT IT IS A MOOT ISSUE I CAN PUT MY CLZENT ON FOR THAT BRZKE PURPOSE, BECAUSE THE STATE THROUGH MA. GRAY RE-OFFERED. BECAUSE THE REMEDY ZN THAT CASE IS AN OFFER -- IFA PLEA OFFER IS NOT COMMUNZCATED TO THE DETERNDANT THE REMEDY IS TO REVERSE THE CASE AND REINSTATE THE PLEA OFFER. MR. CURRY SMOKE TO MA. GRAY AND ACTUly REINSTATED THE PLEA OFFER BEFORE WE STARTED THESE PROCEEDING.

THE HABKAS JU DUE REIEUSED TO CONSEDER THIS OMZS ZON BY PETZTZONER TREAL AETORNEY OR ANY TESTZMANY OF MS. PERSON (TRAK CONSSE) THAT SHE VZOLATED PETZTZONERS, RZENT TO TESTZEY OR ANY OTHER EVERENCE OF FACTS THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE HABKAS HIEARZUG. NONE AT ALL.

THE HABKAS JU DUE MADE HZS FENDZUG AND CONCLUSION ON MR. ELLZSON'S TESTZMANY ALONE. THAT WAS NOT PETE FZONERS ATTORNEY AT HZS TREAL. THE FAETS IN THE RECORDS SHOW 3.

*11 cous From the testzmony that some zM Jury MENAS'S HABEAS HARRING, FENDENL AND CONCLuSION PARTZCULA- RY FENDENL OF FACT (A) ENFIFECTINE ASSESTANEE OF COUNSEL. (1) PREVENTZML AQUIZLANT FROM TESTZSZML-DEE-AMENOZL-8)

AT THE REQWEST OF AQUIZLANT'S TREAL ATTORNEY, AN ATTORNEY WZTH CARATER EXPERZENCE AS A CRZMZMAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY ASSESTED AQUIZLANT'S TREAL ATTORNEY DURZML TREAL (DEE-AMENOZL-8) THZS CARATER EXPERZENCE ATTORNEY MR. ELLISSW WAS NOT AQUIZLMED TO REPRESENT PESTZENKER OR WAS HE CO-COHNSEL. AND WAS SUSTAINED FROM THE TREAL HABEAS JUDSR ON THE RULFZML. (EV.H.P.138) STAIR UNESTZONZML TREAL ATTORNEY MS. PERESWN. (SEE AQUIZLANT)

Q- THEN WE HAD-- WE-- YOU DZD HAVE CO-COHNSEL! MR. STERDMAN, Your HOWar, ZM GUZM L? OBJEC. MR. ELLISSW WAS NEVER AFFICIALLY AQUIZLMED AS CO-COHNSEL, AND HE SAZD HE APPERRED AS A MENTUR. ZMEAN Z THENK ZT NEEDS T? BE DEFENED FOR WHAT ZT WAS. (SEE AQUIZLANT)

THE COURT. THE OBJECZON ZS SUSTAINED WZTH REFERENCE TO THE WORD MR. ELLISSW BEZML CO-COHNSEL.

THE COURT OF CRZMZMAL APPERLLS DENZED PESTZENKERS II.O7 HABEAS CARPUS AQUIZCATZON ON THE TREAL COURT'S HABEAS FENDZML AND CONCLuSION WZTH OUT MMEETEN ORDER, AND DZSMZSZZML-HABEAS CARPUS,CAVENOZT'S 707.04 (HASIA CORPUS AQUIZCATZON NO. WA. 73, 707.04 THE HABEAS JuDUE VZULATED DUE PROCESS DY REFUGEZML T? CONSZDER (TREAL ATTORNEY) MS. PERESWN'S TESTZMONY AND MADE AN ERROR IN DENZEZML THE ENFIFECTZME ASSESTANEE CLAZM STRECKLAND-V-WASTZMEN, 104 S.C.T. 2052 (1984) ON ALL THE FACT'S THAT ARIC ON RUCGARD TO SUPPORT PESTZENKERS LLO7 HABEAS CARPUS AQUIZCATZON IN CASE NO. WA. 73, 707.04 (FACTS THAT WHERE OVER LOOKED BY COURT OF CRZMZMAL APPERLLS.

*12 THE COURT OF CRZMZMAL APPEALS COMMEETED ERROR IN PETETZONER'S CASE BY NOT ADARESZM. THE SUBSEQUENT H.O T HADEAS APPLICATZON, DE CAUSE THE EYZDENCE THAT WAS OMET TED OF PLGA OFFER NOT BEZMU COMMUNZCATED AND THE OTHER OMESSZON BY TIZAL ATZORNEY WAS EN FACT A UZOLATZON OF THE 6TH AMENDMENT, AND THE HADEAS COURT NOT EVEN CONSZDEXZMU. THE RELEVANT EYZDENCE, TO THE ALL ARADY REMANDED CASE, THAT WAS ORDER BY LONR T OF CRZMZMAL MANAALS. WHZ THER TIZAL CONSSELL ADVZSED PETETZONER OF HZS RZGHT TO TESTZEY ON HZS OWN BEHALE, AND ZE SA, WHZTHER SHE PREVENTED HZM FRAM EXERCZSZMU. THAT RZGHT, ZE THE TIZAL COURT FZMDS PETZTZONER'S RZGHT TO TESTZEY IN HZS DEFENSE WAS UZOLATED THE TIZAL COURT SHELL DETERMZNE WHZTHER THZS UZOLATZON THE JUDZCED THE DEFENSE.(SHEE-AMPENDZK-A) STREKLAND V= WASHZM ZEN, 466 u.S. 608 (984). THE TIZAL COURT SHALL MARE SPECIFZE FZMZMU OF FACT AS TO WHETHER TIZAL CONSSEL FAXLED TO DZS COVER AND PRESENT EYZDENCE SUPPORTZMU PETZTZONER'S THEORY OF THE CASE. THZS COURT SHOULD GRANT REVZEN AND HOLD A HEARZMU AND REVZEN THE EYZDENCE OF THE TESTZMONY AS A WHOLE. THE COURT OF CRZMZMAL APPEALS NOT REVZEVZMU. THE HEARZMU TRANSCRZPT CONST ZTUTES NEGLZGENCE ON THERE PART, AND DEHZEZMU HADEAS CORPUS AAPHIZCATZON ON THE FZMZMUS AND CONCLUSZON OF THE HADEAS TIZAL COURT THAT WAS HELD JUNE 24, 240. HADEAS CORPUS - 444864 (7) MARK OVER, THE EYZDENCE CONTRADZETS THE HADEAS JUDGE'S FZMZMUS THAT PETZTZONER ADREED NOT TO TESTZEY ON HZS BEHALE. HADEAS CORPUS ZS AVAZLABLE ONLY ZO REVZEN JURZSDZET. ZONAL DEFICETS, OR THE ERROR ZS OF CONSTZTUTZONAL DEMENSZEN) TRADZTZONALY 'NOWEXER' THE DENZAL OF FONDAMENTAL OR CONSTZTUTZONAL RZGHTS MUST HAVE OCLUREED DURZMU THE UNDERLYZMU STATE CRZMZMAL PROCEEDZMU. EX PARTE CANADA, 75455 W. 2 d 660 (TEX. CRZM. AAP. 1988), ROM PZLL-V-DEARD, 125 S.CT. 2456 (2005)

*13 ITEN OF THE FACTS TO 5499ART AAPLZCANTS 1607 AN ANAL OR SUBSERVANT AAPLZCATION FOR WRIT OF HASSAS CORPUS THUST STATE SPECIFEE, PARTZCULER ZLED FACTS WHIZH ZE PROVEN TRUE WOULD ENTZTLE RETZTZONER TO HABEAS RELZEF.(EV.H.P.110-112) ( TRAAL CHUNGEL MS. PERASON TESTEMONY) Q- ORAY, ZN FACT, AS MR. ELIZSON TESTZFZED, ONE OF THE RESSON'S SUZOOSFIDUY MR. SALZNAS WAS ADVZSED NOT TO TESTZEY WAS DECAUSE OF HZS CONVIETZ ZON ZN THE MEXZCAN MAFZA.

A - CORRECT. Q- OUT THE FACT TO THE ZSSUZ OF HZS MEMBERSHZZ ZN THE MEXZCAN MAFZA DZD COME OUT ZN TRAAL, DZD ZT NOT? A - 27 DZD. Q- 50 WZTH REGARDS TO HZM TESTZFZN6, ZSN'T TRUE THAT MR. SALZNAS HAD BASZCALLY ZNSTZSTED ON TESTZFZZN6? A - 2 WOULD HAVE TO ALREE WZTH THAT. Q- ORAY - AND ZSN'T ZT TRUE THAT you ALL DZDNOT ALLOW OR SALZNAS TO TESTZEY? (A- THE CONVERSATZON THAT MR. ELIZSON SAZD THAT HE HAD HERE WZTH MATTZW ABOUT TESTZFZN6 E DONOT REZALL THAT CONVERSATZON E SZMELY 00 NUE. QQ- YOUN DON'T RECALL WHETHER THAT CONVERSATZON TOWK PLACE? A- NO- BETWEEN MR. MATTZWET AND MR. ELIZSON E DO NOT. Q- 50 WHAT WANT TO DO ZS THE AAPLZCANT'S AAPLZCATION FOR WRIT OF HASSAS CORPUS YOUN HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO HZM BASED WQON HE HAD - HE HAD WRITTEN A LETTER TO YOUN REGUCESTZNG WILY HE HADN BEEN GZVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TESTZEY. ZBNTT THAT CORRECT? A - CORRECT. (4.5;C.A. CONST. AMEND. 5, 614. FUNDAMENTAL RZENT TO TESTZEY.

*14 IT IT TRLE THAT AN NO DEEN DURING THE TREAL, AT LEASS $\Rightarrow$ AWARE OF, DED HE EVER CONSENT NOT TO TESTEY? $\Rightarrow$ NOT TO ME. Q-Olky so would you ALAKE WETH ME THAT you -- OR LET ME JUST ASK THIS QUESTION, DED you UNZCATERALLY MAKE THE DIESS CON THAT HE WASH? GUZUK TO TESTEY WEEYWOUT CONSULTING HZM DURING TREAL? A. No, I RNow THAT RZCK AND Z TALKED ABOUT ZT.

Q-Olky, DED RZCK TELL you THAT MARTON HAD TOLD HZM THAT HE WANT TO TESTEY. A. I JUST DENT REMEASER THAT CONVERSATZON.

Q-BEAKSE BASED YOUNG THIS LETTER ZT MAOER'S AS THOUGH AS TREAL CONVSEL YALL MADE A DECESSON NOT TO ALLOW HZM TO TESTEY WOULD you AGARE WETH ME. A. I KNOW Z DEDN'T WANT HZM TO TESTEY, Z REALLY CAN'T TELL you THE EXACT WORDS THAT WERE SAED Z KNOW THATS ZM PORTANT, JUT Z JUST SZMply CAN'T REMEMBER, ZT.

$$\text{(EU. H. P.}123$$

(MS. PERSON TESTEMONY TO SUBJORT RESTZONERS (L.OT ANGLZATZON)

Q-Olky - Do you EER THAT HZS RZENT TO TESTEY EN HZS ONCE BEEYWIC DEPENSE WAS VIOLEED? A. NO RESPONSE.

Q- Z'M NOT ASKZING BASED ON WHAT MA. ELIZSOR SAED? A. No. I KNOW.

Q- AND ZIM ASKZING BASED ON WHAT YOUN KNOW? A. I KNOW, AND AS Z LOOK BACK ON ZT NON. "WE'S." Q-DO YOU EERL THAT BASED YOUN THE ZNFORMATZON THAT WAS AVAZLABLE ONLY TO YOU THAT WHE THER OR NOT HZS RZENT TO TESTEY ON HZS BEEYWIL THAT YOU PREVEN TED HZM FROM DOZING S.? A. YE'S."

STRECKLAND-VWASRZWETON, 104 S.CT. 2054 (1984). EXPANTE TORRES, 443 Sw. 2d. 469 (TEX. CRZN. NAV 1997). "FACTS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTED ISY THE HABERS COURTS."

*15 To VROTE To HEM DATED SEPTEMBER 3RD, AND IN THE APPLCANTS APPLCATION, YOUR NOW, AS AN EXHEDET EVERY (?) EN THAT LETTER, ONE, YOU TELL HEM THAT THE SHOULD FILIE ENEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CANNAGL as a REMEDly.

A - YES Q- DECAUSE YOU FELT THAT YOUR PERFORMANCE WAS DEELECTENT? A- UN-HUN. Q- YOU FELT YOU WERE ENEFFECTZIVE AND FELT ENEFFECTZIVE ASSISTANCE OF CANNAGL. THAT HAD YOU NOT DEEEN ENEFFECTZIVE, THAT THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE DEEEN DETFERENT? A- I PERSONALY FELT THAT WAY. Q- OKAY AND EN THAT LETTER YOU SPECZICALLY STATED To HEM HAD I QUOTE. "E OCDNOT WANT YOU TO TESTEY ON YOUR OWN DEEHALE DECAUSE ONE you ARE ON THE STAND THE DISTRECT ATTORNEY AND ANY ONE EELSE CAN QUESTION YOU ABOUT WHAT EVER THEY CHOODE, YOU AND I COULD HAVE DZSCASSED MY QUESTION AND ANSWERS. HOWEVER WE COULDNOT HAVE PRE- PARED EFFECTZVELE FOR ONSLAUGHT OF QUESTIONENE FROM THE PROSKECTION (MAKE OF MS. PAARSON TESTMANY FV. H. P. (13-116) CEEI AACKINZY-E, HOWEVE THANERZOTS Q- AUGHT-- AND YOU SAID "E DO NOT WANT YOU TO TESTEY ON YOUR OWN DEEHALE DECAUSE ONCE YOU ARE ON THE STAND THE DISTRECT ATTORNEY AND ANY ONE EELSE CAN ASK YOU WHATEVER THEY CHOODE, YOU AND I COULD HAVE DZSEASSED MY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS? A- UN-HUN Q- 30 WHAT THAT ENFERS TO-- AT WEAST DURZNE THE TREAL YOU NEVER DZSCASSED HES RZENT TO TESTEY WITH WEAST? *A- $\frac{\text{E}}{2}\underset{―}{OED}$ NOT. NO. Q- OKAY AND EN EACT PRZOR TO TREAL HE HAD EXPLAZMED TO YOU THAT HE WANTED TO TESTEY? A- YES, $\frac{\text{E}}{2}\underset{―}{OO}$ READL THAT. EXPANTE VARELAS, 45 Sw. 3d. 427 (TEX,CAZm.AM 2001)

*16 IT'S COURT SHOULD GRANT REVLEW TO CORRECT THE TREAL HASERS COURT'S FENOZNLS AND CONCLUSEDN, AND THE EARONEOUS FAZLURE OF THE COURT OF LREMENAL HASERLS NOT REVLEWEND THE MENEZNUTRANSCRZPT AS A WHOLE:

HASERS COURS-664.7 A. [SALZNAS] WAS ZNFORMED OF HZS RZWHT TO TESTEIY EN HZS OWN DEFENZF, AND THAT ZT WAS HZS DECCEZON WHETHAR TO TESTEIY. [SALZNAS] DECZDED NOT TO TESTEIY, SEE MAPPENDZK-8(A-1) ^[4] THE STATE HASERS TREAL COURT'S FAZTUAL FENOZNLS AND CONCLUSZON OF LAW MAE 'OB JECTZVEY UNRERSONAQLE'. ROUSAN-V-PRBER, 436 F.34 957, 956 (9th E2006). WAS BREED ON AN UNRERSONAQLE DIFERM. ZNATEM OF THE FACTS EN LZWHT OF THE RECORD DEFENZ THE SATE COURT." HARRZWTON-V-RZENTEZ, 131 S.CT 770, 785 QQID. 28 4.5.C.A. $\$2254$ (D).

THE STATE HASERS TREAL COURTS ONLY CONSZDERED MR. ELLZSON'S TESTZMONY. THE FACZUAL FENOZNLS WHERE MADE SULFY ON HZS TESTZMONY ALONE. MR. ELLZSON WAS NOT PETZTZONER'S ATTURNEY. FURTHER MORE THE RECORD STATES EN MR. ELLZSON OWN WORDS, AND TREAL ATTURNEY (MS. MERSON). DZONOT RELQWEST TO THE COURTS OR NEVER ASK THE COURT THAT SUE NEEDED ASSISTANEE AN ATT. ORNEY WITH GREATER EXPERZENGE. (EV.H. P. 29) Q- AND BY YOUR OWN ADMZSSZON, RZCHARD, YOUR ROLE WAS LZMZTED PASED ON WHAT THE TREAL COURT WAS DOZNE BECAUSE JUDGE PRUNL WASH'T LETTZNE YOU FULLY PARTZEZPATE AT TREAL CORRECT? A-VES, THAT'S CORRECT. Q-AND SO YOU WERE JUST HEUPZNE OUT WHEN YOU COULD? A- RZENT. Z WAS MAZNEY THERE FOR MORAL SUPPORt. Q-RZENT, OUT Z MEAN THE COURT MADE IT VERY CLERE THEY WEREWIT COZNE E ALLOW YOU Ee PARTZEZPATE? A- THAT'S TRUE. RADRZGUEZ, 77 SW.34. US9 EECK-NAD.CORPUS. CHAZZY ZOO2) (SEE: ANANDZE.E).

*17 IENE HAD HAD A COMPETENT LAWYER WE WOULD HAVE HAD KENSONABLE CHANGE AT HES TREAL. STANLEY-V-DARTLEY, 465 F. 3 d 810 (7TH.C2R. 2006).

HAREAS CORPUS-665.1, 898 (3) HABERS CORPUS-444, 864 (7) AN ORZLZMAL OR SUBSERVENT ADPLZATZON FOR WRZT OF HABERS CORPUS MUST STATE 'SPEEZFEC' PARTZCULAR ZDED FACES WHZCH ZI' PROVEN TRUS, WOULD ENTZTUE PETZTZONER TO HABERS REL ZEE.

EXPANTE LEMLE, 13 SW. 34. 791 (TEV.C22N. A4QA 2006). THE RECORD' ZW THIS CASE SHOW THAT THE TZME OF THE TREAL ELLZSON KNEEW NOTHZM OF THE FACES OF THE CASE AND NOT CONSULTEO WZTH PETZTZONER ABOUT THE CASE, DZDNT REVZEN THE PRO SE. CUTZM ATTORNEY'S FZCES AND DONE NO ZNDCPEMDANT ENVESTZLATEW NON PREPARATEW FOR TREAL. THE EVERENTZARY HEARZM TRANSCRZT RE EN FORCES ELLZSANS TESTEMENY THAT HE WAS TOTALLY UNFAM ZLAR WZTH THE FACES, DURZM TREAL. MR. ELLZSON 'WAS NOT" PETZTZONER'S ATTORNEY, EXPANTE LEDMOND LZWY, 656 SW. 24' 490 (TEV. (22N. A4Q. 1963). ZN THIS CASE IT WAS ADPLZCANTS FOURTH II.OT HABERS CORPUS.

THE STATE HABERS TREAL COURTS FENDZWGS "ARE NOT"SUGGORTED zU ANY WAY BY THE RECORD. PURKETT-V-ELEM, 574 U.S. 765, 769, 115, S.CT. 1969 (995).

THE MOST CON TRADZCIRZM FACES"ON RECORD, WHERE THE STATE HABERS JUDGE ASK THE TREAL ATTORNEY MS. PERSON QUESTZWNS (THE COURT E. H. P. 187-182) Q- Z TREAK YOU WERE ASKED SUBSERVENTY, WHERE YOU PROHZGZTED THE DEFENDANT FROM TESTZFZNG AND Z TREAK YOU ANSWERED AFFIRMATZVELEY, BUT AGAZN, Z NEED TO KNOW.

A- BE CAUSE Z DZDNT' CALL HZM TO THE STAND ZIM THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD HAVE DONE THAT, THEN Z DZD PROHZGZT, HZD FROM TESTZFZNG. WE COULDN'T HAVE GOT YD THERE ANY OTHER WAY.

*18 THE TEST AND THE CHESTZLZED THAT YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTS SSTME IT WITU MA. SALZUAS AND THEN YOU'RE AURESTME WITH HES RECOMMENDATZON THAT HE NOT TESTZD? A-Z REMEMBER MA. ELLISON AND Z TALKZNG ABOUT ZT MA. ELLISON VAS SEATED ATHUT NEAT TO MA. SALZUAS DURZNE THE TREAL. AND ZE TREY DZS CUSSED THAT, Z DZONOT, HEAR ZT. MA. ELLISON AND Z DZD ZW FACT TALK ABOUT ZT AND AUREED THAT ZT AOSOLL TELY. (2) So you HAD CONCURRIGD.

A- YES. (3) WITU THE ADVZCE WIC GAVE.

A- YES. (4) THE AAPLZCANT THAT WE SHOULONIT TESTZD? A-YES WITU MA. ELLISON $\pm$ DZD. AS THE TUSTZCE CAN SEE THE LAST QUESTZON FROM THE JUDGE WAS A "OZCK QuCSTZON," EX PREFE MEACHUCA, 854,5W. 2d. 128 (FZ. KONAMAN. 854) "FALTS ARE NO WHERE ZN HEA (MS. PERSON TREAL ATTUWAY) DZD SHE TESTZFZED THAT SHE WAS PRESENT AND THAT PETETZONER AUREED NOT TO TESTZD.

A CRZMZNAL DETERMONNT HAS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTZTUTZONAL RZD TO TESTZFY ON HZS OWN (BENNLE, AT TREAL, THIS RIGHT ZS PERSONAL, TO THE DETERMONNT AND "AMNOT" BE WANUED" ISY THE TREAL COUR OR ISY DETERNE COUNSEL, STRECKLAND-V-WASRUWERU, IOU SET 205 (1984) 14 AMEND. CONST.

DETERMZWATZON CONSTZUTE A DENZAL OF DUE FIGURSE OF L ZN VZOLATZON OF ART. I 8513 AND 19. ART. IE 112 OF 7. TEXAS CONSTZTUTZON AND VZOLATZON WITZED STATES CONSTZTUT AMENTMENT GTH INEFFECTZWE ASSZSTANLE OF COUNSEL.

*19 LefOSED DURZN6 HZS STATE HADERS HEARZN6 ES VZOLATEON OF THE DUE PROCESS LAW CONCERNZN6 ZMEFFECTZVE ASSISTANCE OF TRZAL CRINSEL, SUMPORTS MZSSCARZUE OF JUSTZCE AND OZES TRUCTZON OF JUSTZCE THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED BY ORES COURT (SEE MADRICE P2)

PETZIZONER WOLLD REIFFRENCE (PANE (14, LZNES 12-23) OF THE INTERZN6 TRANSCRYPT, SPELZFZCALLY, WHERF ZN MS. PERASON HEARZN AFTER REIFFREED TO AS TRZAL CONVSEL, STATES THAT SHE DOES NOT REMEMBER TAKZN6 TO RZLWARD ELLZSON, AND "DOESNOT REMEMBER A CONVERSAZ ZON WHERF ZN MR. ELLZSON HZS CLOSED WITH PETZIZONER WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD TESTZF ON HZS ONN BE KALL, PETZIZONER WOLLD ASSERT THAT THE HADERS TRZAL COURT HAS PLACED MORE WEIGHT ON MR. ELLZSON'S TESTZNOMY AS TO HZS RECOLLIZZTZON OF THE CONVERSAZTZON, AS OPPOSED TO MS. PERASON NOT RECALLZN6 THE CONVERSAZTZON OCLURRED, AND PETZIZONERS S WORN TESTZNOMY DENVZN6 SICH A CONVERSAZTZON TASK PLACE. PETZIZONER DZD TEST ZFY DURZN6 THEY WEARZN6 AND UNDER OATH STATED THAT THE DZD NOT HAVE A CONVERSAZTZON WITH MR. ELLZSON REGARDZN6 WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD TESTZF. (EV. H. P. 192-196).

THE SURPEME COURT TEXCHES THAT "THE DEFENDANT MUST SNow THAT THERE'S A REASONABLE PROBABZLZTY THAT, OUT FOR CONVSEL'S UNPROFESSZONAL ERROR, THE RESULZ OF THE PROCEE. DZN6 WOLLD HAVE BEEN DEFERENT. A REASONABLE PROBABZLZTY IS A PROBABZLZTY SUFFZCZENT TO UNDER MYNE CONCEDENCE ZN THE OUTCOME: "STRZKLAND, 466 AT 695,104 S.CT 2052 (1989). ACCORD UNITED STATES-V-GRAMMAS, 376 F. 34 433,436 (5" $220.2004$ ).

WHEN APPLYN6 THIS TEST ASSUME THAT THE COURT AND JURY FOLONED THE LAW AND WEIGHT THE ERROR ZN LIGHT OF THE TOTAL ZFY OF THE EVERENCE BEFORE THE JU DUE OR JURY." STREEKLAND, 466 US 695,104 S.CT 2052. ZN OTHER WORDS, MUST DEFERM ZNW EXTENT To WHZLH MS. PERASON ERROR'S WHAT ISALZNAST.

SMZN6 V-DREEKE, 417 F. 34438 (5" $200.2005$ ).

*20 HABEAS CORPUS-794.03 PETETZONER WHO RECEEVED ZINFIFECTEVE ASSZSTANCE OF COUNSEL DUE TO A. PLEA COSNSEL'S FAILURF TO ZNFORM HYM OF STATE PLEA BARLAIN OFFER WAS ENTERLKO TO HABEAS CORPUS ARLZEF OR REINSTATEMENT OF ORZGZNAL PLEA OFFER TO ALLOW PETETZONER TO REPLICAD U.S.C.A. CONST. AMEND. 6.

EX PARTE LEMME. 135 SW. 3d. 791 (TEX EXEAL AAP. 2000). TELZS CASE IS EXACTALLY LIEE PETETZONER'S CASE WERE DEEFFENDANT WAS DEEPAT- ED ON THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALLENT A PLEA OFFER DUE TO DEEPENSE CONSRL'S ZINFIFECTEVE ASSZSTANCE, PUTTENE DEEFFENDANT EN THE POSTTON HE WAS PRZOR TO THE SZETH AMENDMENT VIOUATION ORDZNARZLY WELL ENVOILVE REINSTATEAN THE ORZGZNAL OFFER U.S.C.A. CONST AMEND 6.

HABEAS CORPUS-898(3) STATES PLEA OFFER WAS NOT ASCERTAINABLY THROUGH EXERZCZSE OF REASONABLY, DELLGENCE AND THEZ SURPLEME COURT WAS NOT ZNAR- ED FROM ADDRESSZNL MERZTS OF PETETZONER'S S4BSE QUENT AAP- LZCATZON FOR WREZ OF HABEAS CORPUS ON GROUND THEZ HZS TRENl ATTORNEY DZDNOT ZNFORM HYM OF THE OFFER BY DZSTREET ATTORNEY DURZNL DELZBARATZONS OF GUZLTZNNOCENE ZANSE OF TRENL, THOUGH DZSPOSZTZON OF HZS ZNTEEZAL AAPLZCA FROM WAS LZANAL, WHERE RECORD SHOUS ZN PETETZONER'S EARST HABEAS CORPUS, HEXER- ZNL THAT PETETZONER DZDNOT KNOW OF THE PLEA OFFER JUNTEL THE WEARZNL PROCREDZNL WHERE ISEZNL WELL, (EU. II. P. 124-125). VERNOW'S ANN TEXES C.C.P. ART. II.OT 54 PETETZONER DZDNOT ECCENT THE REINSTATE PLEA OFFER AT THE HABEAS HEARZNL BECAUSE HZS TRENL ATTORNEY TESTZQGED THAT SHE EN FAET WAS ZINFIFECTEVE ASSZSTANCE OF CONSRL AND THAT SHE EN FAET DZD VIOUATED PETETZONER'S RELIVT TO TESTZEY. THE FAET THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE HABEAS JU DUE, ONZESSZON THAT TRENL ATTORNEY DZDNOT COMMUNIZATE THE PLEA OFFER IS EN FAET VIOUATZON OF THE G AMENDMENT CONSTZTU TZON OF THE UNETED STATES, AND NOT CONSZDERZNL THEZ EVERENGE IS MZSCARRZLCE OF JUSTZLE'S ON PART OF THE HABEAS COURT AND THE COURT OF EXPRESNAL AAPLZAL'S FOR DZSSMZSSZNL CASE NO. WR-73, 707-04, UNDER NEWly DZSCOVERFED EVERENGE. STATUS QuO - SO THE S4BJEET, MATTER WELL NOT BECAUSE MONT. 12.

*21 THE SUPERME COURT WAS EXPLAZMED THAT A STATE COURT "APPLIZES A DECESSON AN ZS CONTRARY" TO ESTABLZ SHED FEDERAL LAW IN THE STATE HABEAS COURT AAPLZES A RULIE THAT CONTRADZES THE GOVERZAL LAW SET FORTU IN [THE SUPEREME COURTS], OR CONFRONTS FACTS THAT ARE MATERZALEY ENDZSTZNLLLZSURAINE" (FROM A RELEVANT SUPEREME COURT PRICE DENT, VICZ RAACHES AN ORVUSZTE RESULT. WELL ZAM, 529 U.S. AT 405-06.) WZLSON-V-MAZZUCA, 570 F. 24490 (2MD LX 2009). MARRZWGTON-V-RZCHTER, (31 S.CT 770 785 (201).

CONSTZTUTZONAL LAW-268(5) HABEAS COMPUS-864 (T) THE HABEAS COURT OVER LOUIVED FACTS THAT THEE OM ZSSZON THAT WAS NOT COMMUNIZATED OF A META OFTIFR BY PETZTZONERS ATTURNEY DURZUL STATE HABEAS PROCEEDZNG'S WAS IN FACT ZNIVETZCEE ASSER ANCE OF CANVSEL. COLEMAN-V-TROMOSAN, SOI U.S. 722 749-50 (1999). (SE: AMENOOL. 0 (EUF) PETZTZONER SHOWS A SUBSTANTZAL GTH AMEND MENT RZENT DERNZAL WHEN STATE HABEAS COURT HERAD FUZDENCE OF PETZTZONER'S UNWAYVERZAL DESSAR TO TESTZEy AT TREAL. PETZTZONER SPECZFZCALLY INFORM--FED HZS TREAL COUNSEL (PRARSON) OF THZS RERUZST (EV, (110-116, 181-189). AT THE EUZDENTEARY HERAZUL PETZTZONER MAZNTANED THAT HZS DESSAR TO EXCEAZSE HZS RZENT TO TESTZEY ON HZS OWN DERNACEEURS. TESTZMONY WHZCH WAS SUBPORTED BY (PRARSON'S) OWN TESTZMONY. THE -FUZDENCE SHOWS BY FAZLZWL TO CALL HZM TO THE STAND, SWE REFUSED HZM THE RZENT TO TESTZEY. BECAUSE OF THZS, PETZTZONER WAS DERZED GTHAMENDMENT RZENT, IT ZS CLEAR ON THE RECARD AND EWEN THE JU DUE'S ADMONZSHZNE OF PRARSON. (EV. H. P. 181-182).

EK MATE 31017, 505 SW. 24 (TEX. CZ2n. 1974). THE STATE INTR ODUCEE A T TURNEY RZCHARD ISLZSON'S TESTZMONY THAT PETZTZONER WAYVED HZS RZENT TO TESTZEY AFTER CONF EERZAL WITH CONNSEL. MS. PRARSON "DOES NOT" CORROBORATE THZS TESTZMONY AND TESTZEYED TO THE CONTRARY. ISLZSON'S TESTZMONY SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN USED TO ASSIESS THZS CLAZM. HE WAS NOT PETZTZONER'S ATTURNEY AND KWEN NO FACTS ABOUT THE CASE To ADVZSE PETZTZONER NOT TO TESTZEY. HE WAS THERE FOR "MORAL SUBPORT"(EYH, 29) AND KWEN NOTHZAL OF THE CASE. (EV (2)

*22

CUMULATZVE ERROR

EACH OF PETETZWAR'S CLAZM S OF ZNEFFETZWEE ASSZSTANEE OF COWSEL, STANDZKL ALONE MERZT RELZEF WZTHOUT WAZVZKL CLAZMS FOR EACH ZSSUK, PETETZWER ASK THZS COURT TO ALSO CONSZDFR ZWE CUMULATZVE EFFECT COWSEL'S DEFZCZENLES NAD ON THE TOTALZT of HEA REPRESENTATZON, WHITE-V-AQBER, 416 F.34,728 (8 2004). HOLDZKL COWSEL'S MANY DEFZCZENCZKS CUMULATZWEY PRETUDZCED THE DETENSE, STRECKLAND, 104 S.C. 2052 (9984). COWSEL'S DEFZCZENCZKS CUMULATZWE AS WEUL AS ZNEFFETZENTEY PRETUDZCED PETETZWER'S DEF. ENSZ IN VZOLATZON OF Nzs 6 TH AMENDMENT REDHTS.

RAMSEVER-V-WOOD, 64 F. 24 (432, 1434 (9 1995).

PRAYER FOR RELZEF

PETETZWER RESPECTEULY PRAYS THAT THZS COURT GRANT'S RELZEF. REVERSE THE JU DIEMENT OF THE COURT OF CRZMZWAL ADVERS AND REMAND THZS CASE To THE HABERS TREAL COURT FOR ADDZTEWAL PROCEEDZKLS, KATHER RE-TRY PETETZWER OR RE-ZNSZATE THE PLEA OFFER, AS THZS HONOR ABOE COURT'S RULIZKL AS HEEDED ON THE MERZT'S EN THZS PETETZON FOR REVERW:

SUBMET TED RE SMEETEULY MARTZN SALZHAS - HRO-SE

*23

CERTZFZCATE OF SERVZCE

Z CERTZFY THATA CUEY OF THZS METZTZON FOR REVZEN WAS SERVED ON RESPONDING TWO COURT OF CRZMENI APPENDI P.O.BOY 12308 CAPTOL SWITZON AUSTEN T. TETI. BY U.S. MAZL ON JUNE 192015

Anarion Salmis
MARTZN SALZMAS-PRO-SE
METETZONER

*24 APPENDI X TAB A - ORDER ON RIEMAND WR-73, 707-01 FROM COURT OF CRZMZMAL APPEALS.

B- FENDENL AND CONELUSION OF HABEAS COURT. (MOTZEE) C- SUDSERVENT APPLICATION WR-73, 707-04 OF II. 87 HABEAS CURPUS DISMZ SSED/ DENZED MOTION FUR RECONSERVATENY REMEMBRANG.

D- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARZNLL PAGE 1243127 ON MEULY DESCOVERED EVERYNCE

E- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARZNLL PAGE 113 TRAN 116 ONZSSEW OF VIGLATION OF PETZTENNER'S RIGHT TO TESTEY.

F- TRANSCRIPT OF HEARZNLL PAGE 138 OF MR. IELTSEW NOT BEENL CO-CONSERL, VIGLATION OF DUE PROCES. DOUNAFENT'S OF APPENDIX NOT ANAZLABLE!

PLEAS MOTZ PETZTENNER ASK HABEAS TREAL COURT OF COHES AND BECKING OF BEENL ENDZENT COUED NOT OR TREN COHES TO SEEND RESPONDANT. MAY THE COURT OF CRZMZMAL APPEAL FURNISH IT'S own COHY OF THE ABOVE APPENDIX AS youH HANORAIRE COURT ALL READY HAS THE ORZENNLL DOCUMENT'S THAT MOTZTENNER COULD NOT GET (REPOND) - A FURNICY