Case Information

*1 PD-0816-15

In The Count of Criminal Appeals for Criminal Appeals Austin, Texas

AUS 272015

Silvia Romera, Appellant v.

The State of Texas

Aldei Acosta, Clerk

Arpeuant's Motion To Waiwe Rule 9.3(b)(i) Aad Rule 68.5 With Reaard To Appellant's Retition For Discretionary Review

To The Honorable Justices of the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Appellant, Silvia Romera, Prose, requests the Court grant her Motion To Waiwe Rule 9.3(b)(i) AND Rule 68.5 for the Silinc of Appellant's Retition For Discretionary Review. The following allegations are made in support of this Motion.

I.

The court below is Criminal District Court Number Six (6) of Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court No. 27326. The style and number of the Case in the Trial Court is: State of Texas v. Silvia Romera, Cause number: Fol-46535-x.

*2 Appellant, Silvia Romero, was convicted of injury to a child. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a $10,000 fine.

Appellant is proceeding prose in the above cause and will continue to proceed pro se in the preparation and filing of her Petition For Discretionary Review.

Appellant is currently incarcerated at the Lane Murray Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Gatesville, Texas.

In support of her Motion, Appellant who is proceeding prose, is allowed access to the unit's "law library" only 10 hours per week. Appellant must "hand write" all of her documents, including any case law located and at her disposal. Appellant does not have access to any computers, typewriters and/or copy facilities. TRAP 9.3 (b)(i) requires upon filing a Petition For Discretionary that (i) Paper copies of the document filed in paper form a party must file the original and (j) copies of any documents."

TRAP. 685 requires that "The petition must be no longer than 15 pages... A reply may be no longer than 8 pages, exclusive of the items stated above." However, the Rule does include "the following important language: "TRAP 685" The Court copy, 20 motion, permit a longer petition or reply."

*3 Appellant Reitorates her Requested Motion To Waiwe both TRAP. 9.3(b)(i) AND TRAP. 685 in light of the facts that her incarceration prevents here from having access to the electronic technology which would allow her to conform to TRAP. 9.3(b)(i) and TRAP. 68.5. Appellant does not have access to any copy facilities which apply to Rule 9.3(b)(i) and would create an even harsher hardship for Appellant considering the timetable for Receiving Re vieving, Researching and handwriting the Retition for this honorable court Further, Appellant does not have access nor does the unit provide any type of computer facilities for preparation and typing of legal documents thus making it moat to create any type of computer generated document or typewritten generated document which the Rule (68.5) seems to refer as most documents sub mited are either computer generated or typewritten or submitted electronically The very nature of having to handweite documents while making them legible for thus honorable court and not teingable to format (aoa computer generated document) presents an almost impossible task to include important issues and case law within the 15 pages. Therefore, Apelant Requests a ruling on her TRAP 68.5 waiver as well.

Appellant will do her utmost to keep the handuritten Retition to the least amount of pages as Required by the Rule (685) and appeals to this honorable court to waive both Rules

*4

9.3(b)(i) and 68.5 due to the fastslallegations referred to above.

IV.

This Motion To Waive TRAP 9.3(b)(i) and 68.5 is not requested for purpose of circumventing the TRAP Rules established but that justice and fairness prevail considering the lack of facilities in preparing legal documents available to an inexerceted person.

Therefore, Appellant prays that this honorable court grant Appellant's request to waive TRAP 9.3(b)(i) and that as outlined in TRAP 68.5-- "the Court may, on motion, permit a longer petition or reply." Appellant appeals once again to the Court regarding saio Motion and allow Appellant to timely file her Petition For Discretionary Review within the environment she is currently incarcerated in and within the bounds of the lack of facilities provided at the Lane Murray Unit.

Appellant for ther prays that both Rules 9.3 (b)(i) and TRAP 68.5 be addressed in their Ruling.

Respectfully Submitted,

Silvia Romero, Rose TDCJ*01883677 LANE MURRAY UNIT 1916 N. Hwy. 36 By Pass Gatesville, TX. 765 P 8

*5

This is to certify that on August 19, 2015, a true and corret copy of the above Motion To Whive 9.3(b) (b) AND 68.5 With Reeard to Appellant's Retition For Discretionary Review, was forwardee for filing to: Hon. Abel Acosta, Cleck, Count of Criminal Appeals, Austin, Texas, P.O.Box 12308, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas, 78711 and a copy of the foregoing document was served on the Dallas County Criminal District Attorney's Office, by U.S. Mail addressed to: Hon. Craig Watkins, Criminal District Attorney, ATN; Appellate Div., 133 Riverfront, LB19, Dallas Texas 75207, by depositing both in the U.S. mailbox located by the Dining Hall on the Lane Murray Unit.

Sluia Romero
Silvia Romero, Prose

Unsworn Declaration

I, Silvia Romero, TDCI $\pm 01883677$ , being presently inexcerated in the Lane Murray Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Conyell County, Texas dechase under penalty of perjury that I am the Appellant Prose, Aftient in the above and foregoing Motion, I haveread said Motion and the factual allegations/in formation of said Motion are true and correct and same has been deposited in the U.S. mailbox next to the dining hall on the Lane Murray Unit.

Ekeouted on this 10day of August, 2015