COMES NOW, JAMES BRADLEY RIEMER, TO RESECITFULLY SHOW THIS COURT THE FOLLOWING;

THE STATE IN IT'S ANSWER TO RIEMER'S VALID AND REASONABLE CLAIMS, THAT HE CITED NON-HELPFUL AND NONTEXAS CASES THAT DO NOT SURFACE TO SUPPLY "EVIDENCE." RIEMER WOULD ASK THIS COURT TO BEAR IN MIND THREE IMPORTANT FACIORS IN ITS BID TO DENY RELIEF'S i) RIEMER IS A LAYMAN OF THE LAW, ii) THE TOCJ LAW LIBRARY IS IN COMPLETE WITH LITERALLY THOUSANDS, OF LAW BOOKS WHICH OMIT THE REFERENCES RIEMER NEEDS, AND iii) HE IS INDISENT, THEREFORE UNAQUE TO AFFORD AN INVESTIGATOR TO SEEK OUT EVIDENCE.

THE STATE CHOSE TO AXIOMATICALLY ARGUE THE CLAIMS AS AFFOSED TO ORDERING TRIAL COUNSEL TO PROVIDE AN AFFIDAVIT TO ACCOUNT FOR HIS ACTIOUS/INACTIONS. THE STATE'S ACTIONS IN THIS MATER CAN BE VIEWED AND ARGUED THAT DUE TO RIEMER'S FINANCIAL DISPOSITION HARDSHIPS HE IS DENIED EQUAL JUSTICE/ PROTECTION OF LAW.

THE STATE HAS FATLEO TO RECOGNICE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF COUNSEL'S ERRORS AND IN DOING SO HAS CONVOLUTED RIEMER'S CLAIMS WITH "NO EVIDENCE" AND ADEQUATE ADVOCACY.

*2 INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE IS JUST THAT, TEXAS CASES OR OTHERS. IN THIS MATTER RIEMER SUPPLIES THE RECORD WHICH THROUGHLY DEMONSTRATES RIEMER'S CLAIMS THAT TRIAL COUNSEL'S ACTIONS WERE INFACT EREGIOUS AND CAUSED HARM-BOTH PRONGS OF THE STAICKLAND REQUIREMENTS.

AN EXAMPLE TO THIS, SEE STATES ANSWER EXHBIT B, P. 28, L. 3-5. GRANTING THAT THERE IS TRUTH TO THE SANE WITNESS' STATEMENT, THE VALID ARGUMENT, WHICH WAS BY ASSED BY COUNSEL, IS-BITIT ONCE, NO SCAR, MAYBE TWICE, HOWEVER, BITE IT 200 TIMES OVER SIX PLUS YEARS-IT [WELL] SCAR. AND SCAR BADLEY-PERIOD, ALSO P. 29. L. 17-19.

NO REASONABLE EXCUSE CAN BE MADE FOR COUNSEL'S LACK OF QUESTIONING THE SANE WITNESS "FANTASICAL"TESTIMONY OR COUNSEL'S LACK OF WHAT THE STATE REFERS TO AS "TRIAL STATEGY" WHICH WAS "GRAB-BAG"AT BEST.

THE STATE WILL HAVE THIS COURT BELIEVE THAT IT'S ENTIRELY ASSIBLE THAT IT'S SANE WITNESS WAS TRUTHFUL WHEN SHE STATED SHE WAS EXPERIENCED WITH 18 t YEARS IN THAT CAPACITY WITH HAVING INJEVER SEEN A SCARRED HYMEN, AND THAT THIS LIE AND COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO IMPERACH THIS LIE WAS NOT PREJUDICIAL.

RIEMER ASSERTS THAT HIS CLAIMS HAVE MERIT AND ANY REASONABLE MIND, ONE NOT STEEPED IN THE CULTURE OF "DENY AT ALL COSTS" WILL SEE THE ERROR, IT'S OVERALL TOTAL PREJUDICE AND THUS REFUTE THE STATE'S ASSERTIONS AS NOT VIABLE.

PETITIONER PAAYS THIS HONORABLE COURT WILL SEE THROUGH THE STATE'S ANSWER AS A PRO FORMA DENIAL AND GRANT THE REQUESTED RELIEF HE DESERVES.

*3 I, James 13. RIEMER SWEAR UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL OF THE FACTS HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. As WELL, A COPY OF THIS REJOINDER HAS BEEN SUBMITED TO THE TRIAL COURT ON THIS DATE, MARCH 18, 2015.

SIGNED THIS IS, DAY OF MARCH 2015.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED, JEANES 12. RIEMER/1854097 9401 SPUY 571 AMARILLO, TEXAS 79107