Come now, Lionell Frazier Jr. her by notify this court his intent to add the following ground. This is a replacement of the original but a supplement to writ in the above cause.

Ground

Violation of F.Mh. Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment: Counsel failure to object to perjured testimony, Prosecutor used perjured testimony to convict, Violating due process. Facts - Applicants Counsel was ineffective by failing to object to perjured testimony knowing testimony was false. Officer Thomas Stated under oath that he was hospitalized with or from a by-per extended leg injury. Counsel knowingly did, not object to this perjured testimony knowing it was false. There is no medical record showing or pruning officer Thomas's testimony. See pages 23, 24 and 30 of the States Memorandum of Finding of Facts and Conclusion of Laws, You will find that my Counsel knew there were not any medical records and what the prosecutor intention's was. Counsel should have objected to leave error on appeal.

Prosecutor knowingly and intentionally used perjured

*2 testimony to get a conviction. By allowing officer Thomas to state that he was hospitalized and suffered from a hyperextended leg injury, under oath with no medical records. The jury will find Appleton's guilty just because there was a officer invited.

Memorandum of Supplement To apply the Strickland standard First, defendant must show that counsels performance was deticent. Second, he must show that the performance perjudiced the defense. As for the first prim, Counsels failure to object to the perjured testimony forfeited any error associated with the objection on appeal. Counsels failure to object was unreasonable, under prevailing professional norms and was not sound trial strategy. The failure to object to officer Thomas perjured testimony at its earliest opportunity was certainly unprofessional and no conceivable trial strategy could justify the tailing to object to the admissability of the perjured testimony. Outter Vs State 716 S.W. 2d 48 Hernandez Vs state 726 S.W. 2d 52-57 Tex Crim Miranda Vs State 993 S.W. 2d 323.

As for second prim, there is not only a reasonable probability, but reasonable certainty that for Counsels unprofessional error's the result of the proceeding would have been different, had the Counsel objected to the perjured testimony it would have not entered to in flame and prejudice the detince and deny any due process. The record in Appleton's case is sufficient to address this claim, as there can be no reason justified by trial strategy for failure to object to the admissability of the perjured testimony to raise a claim on appeal. Rodriguez Vs Quarterman 535 F.Sup 2d 820.327 red Hppx 166. Constitutional Law 268(9) Knowingly use of perjured testimony by prosecutor in obtaining conviction violates detendants due process rights and denies accused thin trial U.S.CA Cent Amends 6, 14 C.M.S(Tex) 2002: To order to obtain Habers relief on

*3 false testimony grounds petitioner must show $U$ The evidence was false 2) that evidence was material and 3) that prosecution know that evidence was false

Deliren McCudrall 294 F.3d 730, Wiles Us. Lynaugh B35. F. 2 d 126.

First ground, officer Thomas knowingly used false testimony, that he was hospitalized from a bysperextingled leg injury that he sustain obing the incedent. Prosector knowingly altered officer Thomas to use per- ward testimony saying that he was hospitalized, to consult, knowing the evidence was false. Second ground, The evidence was material, because the only evidence is officer Thomas testimony which all they needed to consult. The prosecute's unfaithful act affected the course and the outcome of the official proceeding also Valated Applicant Constitutional Right and also process rights. Faulder Us Jubson 81 F.3d 515 Third ground, The prosecution has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence or any evidence that is against the Applicant and his counsel has to build a strategy off this evidence. Evidence that is material to the outcome of the case. See Dandy Material (Cases Criminal Law Key 359-1992). Prosecutor would have brought forth any evidence like medical records to make Applicant take the plan bargain. The Prosecutor know there were not any evidence of officer Thomas going to the hospital or receiving medical attention. Prosecutor know that if he got officer Thomas to state that he went to the hospital, he jury would consult with no evidence of officer going to hospital. Even if that meant Valet ing Applicant's rights See pages 23,24 and 30 of the States Memorandum findings of Facts and Confusion of Law. Stating that officer Thomas said that he was injured and hospitalised. Prosecution know there was no evidence of any of these things. Prosecutor is a worker of the State. There job is to make sure justice is served the proper way. To make sure all the elements to consult are true.

*4 Confusion and Prayer Applicant request that the Court allow this supplement to be added to Habeas Corpus Application, also request that the court not hold it againt him, that his intention are well placed. I pray that the court grant Applicant some relief by this ground.

Inmate Declaration I Linnell Fraser Jr. *1820764 being presently incarcerated in the Corticld Unit of Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division in Anderson County, Texas, and, of very well declared under penalty of perjury that the foregone statements are true and correct Executed on this of Muquest 2015.