Davis, Torace, WR-83,986-01

Davis, Torace

WR-83,986-01

| Tex. App. | Oct 1, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

*1 E. Huse Mo. 1980-01 Ex Haste 3 In TIIE 182400 DISSEET LENET 3 3 3 In TIIE 182400 DISSEET LENET Torkce Davis, Applicant

3 MARRISS LENnity, TEXAS RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCT 012015

Applienut's Rebuthal To States Deceitual Abcestudestata, Clerk

Leues about Torkce Davis, Applemest Reuse in the Above slyled Cause and Tiles this Rebuthols having beest sewerd with the States Deigniat Anisuer, Applicant will. Show the Eellewting.

1 . Torkce Davis. Applemest is Eneundly Leuthual And itlogly Restonared of his liberty in the Last Cause until. In The TOLLJ. 701 Rerswant to a Judgement and Sentence of The 18240 DISSEET LENET Of Hera's LENnity, Texas, in Cause Mo. 1980-01. After a quilly the 70 Apprended Assault. Hunishonest was assessor of Elever (11) years in, The Tex Dept of Criminal Just. Iust. Div. II.

Applenut clopodes and stories All of States Elemin in His Anisuer. Rehberice asseris that issue of the State's clenial are sugarated

by official Level Records, Erethemore, The State Listed to Reefree any supporting Evidence to support is Dertial. Applemint Dites the Dettenting additional Repty,

Reply to State's First Clown for Denseld' D' Delt

The State Clounes Thott. in Cader for Applemint to Reward Dut Dut Inelfective Assistance of Counsel Clenon based on the Initial to investugate Applemint Must Show What a more in depth investugations intended have Shown. The State Dited Meunigy V State, 80 Sunt Id 683 Applenils Response: The State Clown is tobe Auct inctivnst, Meunigy Dendy States Thut to Reevat in an inetfective Assistance of Counsel, Sixth amendment Vectateat Cloun. Applemint Must Allty Died Dove That his Counsefs Retemance wien defferent and Counsefs deffering Affected The Dettence of Applemils Case. In his Applection, Applemint Alluged And Reward This Cluise The State chibited Duttres' New deuy this Cloun. Euthemore. Apphemint Dendy Show withat A more in depth investugations intended have Shown. See Applemils D'Demeutum Died Pups 56. The Refee Report auct The Indictiwst. Inctivisnst Dettence Dettence the State Clounes Thot Apphemit Suited To. shown What Tind Censel wient have found with Additional investugations

*3 Applicants Response: Thes is Tabe, See Page 5-8 of Applications of Memonandrum Brid. Apphemist Chanty States "Had The Court Appointed Counsel investigated the facts, Circumstance Phonings and laws invested. Coundel whactd have known. Inets and evidence inctucted in A-D. Penting and What Council whactd have discussed state Chions. That Applicants Suited to Sthand What inthinincising Davis had the invesicating offices wledd have Reveated. Applicants Response: This is Tabe, See Pages 7-8 (3) of Applicants's Memonandrum Brid. Apphemist Chanty States "A Councd whactd have interviewed The State's witnesses, Counscl whactd have known A-3. Futthar, Applicants, The State doesn't deny Appienit Fithinol Allergative that Counscl Suited to Investigate The Facts, Circumstances, P

*4 Eubure 2 Diter7 to the Iudebment. The State Clains, That Eubure 2 Diter7, The Ambient DuelSthous that the Tind Cend wondel have Committed Eme in Drecuthing the Deterrions. The State Cited Exhute White, Heo suized 96

Applicanis Reserra: This is the Auel The Cane is melewant. This Cane (Exthute White) is in Regrids to Tebomony (Decte of Tuiol Not in Fron of an Qowrions (tule 70). Not An Iudebment. See Exhute White Ho suizd 93 , Euthamone. The State Cendy doesn't deny the hef that Canaed del not Deter7 To the indietment thind chelnot the A Phethous to quash The indietment. And deeant deny the bet that Camodis rethous wite aboient and that debervicy Aftetrel The Dettone of Applicanis Cane see Cones ystate ates suizd 300 . Deterduits quilly then deanctors to Altamited Apprentent Assentis Wite levent, Apearsbending that Dangas 30300000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*5 Applenist only has to have that Cenussly Rehormance Was Abbreviated Causels deficiency Affected The Eutheme of Apphemis's Case. It This Requiemanit, Apppleant Sececerted and has clearly demonstrated that Caused who inollector the Suthing he Ubleed to CHe hnothens to quash in whetmeat] The indietmeat.

Had Caused filled a mabous To growth the indietment, it whodt have Chmuger the Eutheme of the Case Exemest he whodt have been detracting Applenist of a Dindemention misled of A felony, Euthenme, Thaldened

The state Chinn that Exeme the hondeant was Admensted occurting to exist, Appheant's quity Plu is Resuned Voluntary This is tobe "Insuceat people may Phod quity, be Vavous Beasous. As insueant Reven may whodt to the Adveatings of gomble of the Case Sextence. Thule H a Mistaken Vechet is Rehuned by a Reven may not Reven whod he is Admitting ened decept he Allcunys Hative. see chienade, Watswist 8343 The state Chinns that Appheant failed to. Show two trial Caused Resunent him.

Applenists Response: This is tobe. See Raps 5 to of Apphemis Memonention Reit Applenist Cleady Appheus and themestate heus exist Caused Resuaced him to Heal quity. Euthenme, Thaldened

*6 In The Present Case, Appetecost was adomant About his Notguily The. During Tait Leunet's first Atleased to the The Case (on 9thby) Appetecost influenced the Case! that he was not guily (see Leunt Records on 98811). The Tait Leunt Study Responded "Tale this Memedie but and get him Ready (chessed) for Tait. Therefore, The Leunt-Appenished Leunet's Loone to the Lumete helderce and Steted "What the you doing, I'm not Ready to Proposed for Tait you need to take the plan that they're liffering. The Tait Leunt wanted and Censored to Appone her Stend the 8 tifit that she, Tait Leunet was Ckedy unproposed for. Leunt Appoinited Leunet used pressuring Tactics to Accece Appetecost to Plend guily. These Pressuring tactics incibutes the tollouting. A) By listing to inveterbable Reeb. Commitmees. Phonology and Lnus of Appetecosts Case. "Cuminol diffuse Lnuses Must have a firm Remaned of the Reeb of the Case is well as meweanin Leunt believe he Can Reuche Reveanibly effective assistance to his Stend was out of the Tait Room." see Le Rute Vease, was suled 905 ; Le Rute Daily was suled seciously, ex Rute Daily 0565 wizd 980 B) Leunt Appoinited Leunet's Follow To interview States withnesses which incibutes Loone Davis and the wiestipating offences

*7 "Criminal delines Cenusel has a Desconsisibble to seel But and Inthavewf Fritarted witharases and fortiere to thee is to be noftieftive, If not inceropetent, whace the Deult B that any White delane Anilable to the deerserib not Advaned" See Exhale VEarce 125.5 wial 949 . Exhale Dutly 125.5 . 12d 322 . Exhale Dity 125.5 wizd 990 . and Bevell y. Alideana 2821595 S2 S2 2222222222222 C) Counsels fortiere To Resert Exidence Lining bannad minterind evidence) that is forensible evideace to the Appheants quill thancecuse: "His well sefted that an Alieusy has a Heftssicand duty to Resert all Anilable testimeay and fthe Evideace to suppesi the detease of bis Clicail" see Exhale VEarce 125.5 wizd 949 . Dutly 1225 . 12d 322 . Exhale Dily 125.5 wizd 990 . and Shetland v vitchingted wiu 105.5 . 12 d 322 . D) Counsels fortiere to indperuntmity Revien Preserukes life, and E) Counsels fortiere to Resert To Find fortiere to life A Pretiere to quash the inedictanent. In the Rehene. Cunt Appoinited Cenusel Cteady deorassibated that hea cally inftuest was To Read Fitharass Case had nothing oface. Theedy. Reesining Appheant To Plan quilly. Futharase. Counsels Rehears Cteady deorassibates that Cenusel was inforapdent And bdeant in Pessition to Advise Appheant in his Case. Therefore Counsels advice to Pland Wie ill And Eerouceus.

*8 "Ortendents Etechean to Heard quilly in 10th Conikurdure withou based upon tecouness advice of Cenusel is not cheme telluribaly and hewningly" see VACOPEANd CELLS [B] iand, Ex Dato Eutlle SIT suizd S! Fusther, Appolicaut osserts Thot Tand Conuwel chesist deay ex disputes Appolicaut's Cluion Also Appolicaut Chailly Stoled Thot" Had he known Thot The instictment was delective And thot he was actually Charged with a Class A thackenougues Assault and thot The Eividence Leves such he wleuld have toted the Jung Tind. See Rape 10 of Appolicaut's Memorandum Buiat Withoult Tand Conuwel's deceptien, Withoubling of Evidence And Wrenald advice and incompehance Rethicnce wleuld have Demanated Tind. Actual Insuaccuice Cbion State Chains Appolicauts queand he Retef Chalkauges The Sufficienity of Evictance Appolicauts Repeuse: Appolicaut osserts Thot Evictance Thot Tnari Dares did not Eurilue sevious bodily InJung. And Evictance thot Inari Davis did not secl on Receive Any Herdient Teentment in The Alluger InJung, The Indictmenit, whieh Chealy chesist Atlege Thot Appolicaut Canser Sevious bodily InJung And Teens law VACOPE (BauL CoR) 370.02. Appolicaut osserts Thot The State chesist deay Thot The nicuity chreyeried Evictance whait Aunilible To The Appolicaut At the time of his Rec. $- 8 -$

*9 Sylv. D. Delecrive InDietwaer State alleges that Appheant Chain tey Satally defective medietment and the Atial Coun's Lock of Iniscilettent was bowered Exeruse Appheant taited to Desect to inedietment piere to teial (but yet, the state Chims that Appheant failed to show borm couver by teal Counsels tature to Desect And tature to Sile a monew to quash the inedietment in Cause no. 159.6060) Appheants Response: The States Chmm is fabe dined cuswppented Eeithamenc, the State chesuit deay or dopate Appheants Chinn. Appheant died not whive this thim by foiling to Desect to the inidietment Desause: A. Because A Saldly defective inedietment is a Inisiderient mialte That Canent be bowered. see VAIIandant. 5311 (b) : Veneris AnuTens P. 8 ad 114 (b) Adhuvistate 995 suad 592 ; Evime v. State 397 suad 502 ; and ex Bate Gancia 560 suad 918 B) State is bound by Allignthes in Ctruging wlsteument. In the Ctruging instuiment Appheant is Ctruged with A Clus A Moslemener. See 'Comp. v. Sted. 925 suad 22 C) Indetmest Must Alloge verything State is Requiand to Pove to Mthin Convection. see Stevens v. State 811 suad 800 innd VAI candad 13 to

*10 (1) Dnmission in midetimest of Matemal clement of offnose is Innidecteanal ddict. suseetible to Federal Habins Althek see Ex Rate Daxia sto swed 2) Appletastis Conviction con mive Best mopony Conaduct withich is not Ceianed Othase or in wthok in in Rott woon Conduct not Alloged in inibictment. see Ladders v state 98 sued sye, In the Restat Case. Appletast is Not Accued of Coning "seven" bodily insury! 3) "Defendants Conviction by quilly Ma wirs Revaed upon shoning that Cbanging instumest wuda withich detendant Phaded quilly Dnmitted Longuage necessary to Convict Allogations fited to include whoid "seveus" wthich wirs shaded to Aver Aggravated Assault. And without wthich Trendued the Allogations doeziptive of Misdenemian Assault Othase." see Ealza v state 165 sued see Thesbac. Accordingly, in the Reenit Case that Conuvel unenugfully Advised Plotted to Advise Appletast on basic clements necessary for An Aggravate assautt Convictions. The Atleaney's tathise to Advise Appletast. led to his Cheats's Plan of quilly, thesbac Accordingly Appletast's Plan of quilly And Not been knowiangly And Vehustuaily see Evalcy v us yed led wot, and Ex Rute Galleges sus uced ste

*11 In the Present Case. Canl Appenstol Cenndel cdeanlt chany an dispute Apponils Clams Neithen des the best Conesel Reponnd To huy of Apponils Clains. The Leat Recents, Nthich inctudes: A) Heves Cunlly Cinnined Destuel Deolet Sted in Cones Ne. Lethers (uthich clankly and unquesneunly fones that thind Conesel did not Dtest to be tike a thothout to quash the inctictment) B) The Inctictmest in Cones Ne. Lethers. Uithich Cteats, and unquationnably fones that Apphegust Was Not Changed With Cussing Jethers "Cunlly Jusluy, Appheant has unquesneunbly Fones that he is cutilted to Hobess Canpus Rehéd in the Above Style Cones And gives Pany that this Honourable Canl quats All Relet to Nthich Appheant is cutilted note: Deceumest of Eudace inctuded in this Bdeathtal inctudes: Exhibit (A). Haves Cunlly Cinnined Destuel Deolet Sted in Cones Ne. Lethers: Ined B) The Inctictmest in Cones Ne. Lethers.

*12

Iumates suican Dechialical

I GRAce L DAVIS, Am the Apphemal And bring presiastly incroceated in Eed Baza and, dechne under Reintly of Reruy that. Arecruling to my behel and Auenstedge the Fich stated in the Above Appieationt he Visit at Hobess Reapus "Appheants Rebutted to States Cuginal Anume Ate hee and Lauee? And all decumant inerhiderl Hincins Ate hee and Lauee?

$\frac{Sept.}{} = \frac{70}{15}$

$~$
\author{ Sejusture of Apphicant

} Tence L. Davis Appheant Rease "PRYSTA Eed Banza unil $1304 H w y 702$ Beeville, Texas 78102

*13 Lentificate Df SeEveEf

I Tocece L. Tawis Apphemis in the Above-Spitel cuse do heedy Beetly that All Mates has been served by Hening The Deignied Copy of Applications Rebuffal to States Deignied Awned in the United States Maid of the Conllanza Maid of The TDES ID with Reper Restage Affixed And Enninated to: Chus Daniel, Haeris County Dist. Dout Chis Livd Louthouse, ste. 920 201 Louthicst, Heuslous, Texas 77022 And A Tue And Lourent Copy T: Lout of Criminal Appenls of Texas P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Slutland, Mothur, Texas 78711

Signed On This The _ 17 _ Asy of Sept. 2015

Squatue of Affinill Toace L. Davis Applenil fro Se $1722573$ East Conza Luvit 9309 Hury 202 Beeville, Texas 78102

*14

Table/ A

Harris County Criminal Distitit Docket Sheet

THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. DAVIS, TORACE

Cause No.: 139100601010-3 Court: 182nd Offense: AGG ASSAULT-FAMILY MEMBER Charging Instrument: Felony Indictment

Level: 2nd Degree Felony

GENERAL ORDERS OF THE COURT

Bond: $$ 0$

Next Setting: Case Disposition: Disposed Case Status: Complete Defendant Status: Disposed

| | | | :--: | :--: | | Date | Comment | | $6 / 11 / 2013$ | Felony Complaint Filed OFFENSE: AGG ASSAULT-FAMILY MEMBER 2nd Degree Felony Bond Amount: $$ 0$ | | $6 / 11 / 2013$ | PROBABLE CAUSE FOUND | | $6 / 11 / 2013$ | COMMITMENT ISSUED-FELONY BOND AMOUNT: $$ 0$ | | $6 / 11 / 2013$ | PRELIMINARY ASSIGNED COURT APPEARANCE SETTING: 6/12/2013 9:00 AM | | $6 / 12 / 2013$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared without counsel | | $6 / 12 / 2013$ | Reset By Operation Of Law, 6/13/2013 09:00 AM Preliminary Assigned Court Appearance | | $6 / 13 / 2013$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared without counsel | | $6 / 13 / 2013$ | The defendant filed a sworn pauper's oath, and JUDGE BARR, JEANNINE ordered DESAI, RIDDHI appointed as Appointed Defense Attorney | | $6 / 13 / 2013$ | STATUTORY WARNINGS GIVEN TO DEFENDANT | | $6 / 13 / 2013$ | Reset Upon Defense Request, 7/18/2013 09:00 AM Non-Trial Setting | | $7 / 18 / 2013$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared with counsel DESAI, RIDDHI. | | $7 / 18 / 2013$ | Reset Upon Defense Request, 8/19/2013 09:00 AM Non-Trial Setting | | $7 / 31 / 2013$ | GRAND JURY ACTION: Felony Indictment GJ COURT: 208 OFFENSE: AGG ASSAULT-FAMILY MEMBER 2nd Degree Felony BOND AMOUNT: $$ 0$ | | $7 / 31 / 2013$ | Precept issued to serve copy of indictment | | $8 / 19 / 2013$ | MOTION FILED: COMPETENCY | | $8 / 19 / 2013$ | ORDER: COMPETENCY EXAM GRANTED | | $8 / 19 / 2013$ | Reset Upon Defense Request, 9/26/2013 09:00 AM Disposition | | $9 / 26 / 2013$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared with counsel DESAI, RIDDHI. | | $9 / 26 / 2013$ | Reset Upon Defense Request, 10/16/2013 09:00 AM Disposition | | $10 / 16 / 2013$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared with counsel DESAI, RIDDHI. | | $10 / 16 / 2013$ | Reset Upon Defense Request, 11/22/2013 09:00 AM Disposition | | $10 / 23 / 2013$ | MOTION FILED: PS DISMISS ATTORNEY | | $11 / 1 / 2013$ | MOTION FILED: PS PROD EXC/MIT EVID |

*15 Harris County Criminal District Docket Sheet

| $11 / 22 / 2013$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared with counsel DESAI, RIDDHI. | | :--: | :--: | | $11 / 22 / 2013$ | ORDER: GRNTD DISCOVERY ORDER | | $11 / 22 / 2013$ | Reset Upon Defense Request 4/15/2014 09:00 AM Jury Trial | | $1 / 6 / 2014$ | ORDER: ATTORNEY FEE VOUCHER
FEE AMOUNT: $$ 175$ | | $4 / 2 / 2014$ | MOTION FILED: MTN DISCLOSE EXPERTS | | $4 / 15 / 2014$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared with counsel DESAI, RIDDHI. | | $4 / 15 / 2014$ | MOTION FILED: NTC INT DESTROY EVID | | $4 / 15 / 2014$ | Delivery Onter Issued
Location: Texas Department of Criminal Justice | | $4 / 15 / 2014$ | Defendant DAVIS, TORACE appeared in person with Counsel DESAI, RIDDHI. LEWIS, JOHN appeared for the State. Court Reporter: WAIVED Judge Previding: BARR, JEANNINE. Defendant waived arraignment and entered a plea of GUILTY E. Defendant, appearing to the Court to be sane, is admonished by the Court of the consequences of said plea. Penalty recommendation of the State is: WOAR The Court found the defendant guilty and assessed punishment at 11 YEARS TDCJ Defendant sentenced to 11 YEARS in the INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION TDCJ. Sentence to begin 4/15/14, APPEAL WAIVED. | | $4 / 22 / 2014$ | ORDER: GRNTD OUT OF CRT HOURS LOG | | $4 / 22 / 2014$ | ORDER: ATTORNEY FEE VOUCHER
FEE AMOUNT: $$ 700$ | | $5 / 15 / 2014$ | ORDER: GRT OUT OF CRT HOURS LOG | | $5 / 15 / 2014$ | ORDER: ATTORNEY FEE VOUCHER
FEE AMOUNT: $$ 1, 300$ |

*16

THE STATE OF TEXAS VS.

TORACE DAVIS

NCIC CODE: 131421 FELONY CHARGE: Aggravated Assault- Family Member CAUSE NO: 1391006 HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NO: 182 FIRST SETTING DATE:

Applenils $h$ thbil B

D.A. LOG NUMBER: 1966681

CJIS TRACKING NO.:9168876807-A001 BY: SG DA NO: 069051500 AGENCY:HPD O/R NO: 071862913 ARREST DATE: 6-10-13

BAIL: $NO BOND

PRIOR CAUSE NO:

IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

The duly organized Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas, presents in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, that in Harris County, Texas, TORACE DAVIS, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about JUNE 10, 2013, did then and there unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly cause bodily injury to JAMI DAVIS, a member of the Defendant's family, hereafter styled the Complainant, by CUTTING OFF THE COMPLAINANTS AIRWAY WITH A BAT, and the Defendant used and exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a BAT, during the commission of the offense.

It is further presented that in Harris County, Texas, TORACE DAVIS, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about JUNE 10, 2013, did then and there unlawfully intentionally and knowingly cause bodily injury to JAMI DAVIS, a member of the Defendant's family, hereafter styled the Complainant, by STRIKING THE COMPLAINANT WITH A BAT, and the Defendant used and exhibited a deadly weapon, namely a BAT, during the commission of the offense.

GAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.

FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY

INDICTMENT

RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM This instrument is of poor quality at the time of imaging