Case Information

*1

*2 Table of Contents ..... Post Table of Authorities ..... 1 -cases ..... 1,2 -Attachments ..... 2 Statement Regarding Oral Argument ..... 3 Statement of case ..... 3 Statement of procedural History ..... 3 Grounds For Review ..... 3 - Number One: Ineffective Ass. of Trial course! ..... 4,5,6,7,8 -Number Two: Errors in Vari. Dive ..... 8,9 -Number Three: Ineffectent Evidence ..... 9,10,11,12,13 - Number Four: Denied Access to courts ..... 13 Argument ..... 4,14 Rayer For Relief ..... 14,15 Appendix ..... 15,16

*3 Table of Authorities

| Case | Page | |------------|-------| | - Baylock v. Painter 901 F. Supp. 233, 236 | 1 | | - Batson v. Kentucky 476, U.S. 79,106 S.Ct. 1712,90 L.Et. 2D | 4 | | 69 (1986) | 9 | | - Books v. State 323 S.W. 31 893,895 (Tes. crim. App. 2816) | 9 | | - Brausard v. State 827 S.W. 20619 | 10 | | Catalan v. cockrell 315, F. 3D 491493 | 5 | | - Ex parte Amezquitta 223, S.W. 3D 363,368 | 5 | | - Ex parte Brignot 187 S.W. 3D 458,467-468 | 5 | | - Ex parte Weborne 785 S.W. 2D 391,396 (Tes. crim. App. 1989) | 45 | | - Ciglin v. U.S. 405 U.S. 150,153,92 S.Ct. 763,765 | 4 | | 31 L.Et. 2d 104, (1972) | 4 | | - Hernandez v. State 988 S.W. 21 70 (Tes. crim. App. 1989) | 4 | | - Hollis v. State 219 S.W. 3D 446 | 1 | | - Hudson v. High tower 394 S.W. 2D46 | 1 | | - Jackson v. Virginia 443 U.S. 307,315-16,99 S.Ct. 2787 | 4 | | 2796-87, 61 L.Et. 2d. 566 (1979) | 4 | | - Lozano v. Lozano 52 S.W. 3D141 | 8 | | - Marange v. Fontenot 879 F. Supp. 679, 682 | 13 | | - Mitchell v. State 762 S.W. 2D 916 | 1 | | - Mooney v. Holahan 294 U.S. 63 55 S.Ct. 340,79 L.Et. | 4 | | 79 (1935) | 4 | | - Napae v. Illinois 360 U.S. 264,79 S.Ct. 1173,3L.Et. | 4 | | 2d 1217 (1999) | 4 | | - Pembroke v. Wood County, Texas 981 F. 2D, 225,509 | 5 | | U.S. 973,195 L.Et. 2d 665 | 5 |

*4

Table of Authorities (continued) Rint 2

Cases

• Rylander vi state 1075.1W.SD 119.1015.1WisD107
• Strickland v. washington, 466 U.S. 668, 10930, 196985 L. 24,30344 (1984)
• Thomas vi state 550 SiW, 2064,65 (Ter.criApp, 1977)
• U.S. v. Chagra 735 F. 20970
• U.S. v. Como 53 F. 3097
• U.S. vi Halperin 441 F. 206012
• U.S. ex rel. Hough vi. Maroneft
• U.S. v. Stewart, 65 F. 34918 (11 CII, 1995)
• Vandelf v. Moses 31 F. 3 d, 794, 797
• Williams vi Griswald 743 F. 2 d 1533
• Zimmerer vi smyrl, 670 SiW, 20273

Attachments Exhibit 2 Copy of Mrs. Cortes's statement to mediq Exhibit 2 Letter To Judge christi kennedy

Statement Regarding Oral Argument Oral Argument would be helpful because due to the fact Mr. Ford is not a certified lawyer and Mr. Ford's limited knowledge of legal terms; Mr. Ford could better explain his grounds for relief orarky and argue why he should be granted to file a brief andwh- his case should be overturned (fewersed) and a New TrialGranted.

*5 Statement of Case DAVID FORD seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence for the offense of Agg. Robbery with a deadly weapon. Mr. Ford was indicted for this offense in September of 2012 and after entering a plea of 'not guilty!' proceeded to trial by Jury in the 114th District Court of Smith County. Texas. In September of 2013, Mr. Ford was convicted and then sentenced by the Jury to serve a term of thirty years confinement. Sentence was pronounced on the 27th of September 2013 and notice of appeal then timely filed.

Statement of procedural History The Twelfth Court of Appeals opinion and judgement was handed down February 27,2015. Motion for Extension of Time to file motion for rehearing was filed Monday April 6, 2015. Motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing was overruled as untimely on April 8, 2015. Consequently no motion for rehearing was filed.

Grounds for Review Mr. Ford sets forth four (4) grounds for Review. Ground for Review Number One (4): Inteffective Assistance of Trial Counsel

• The Court of Appeals Erred in holding that counsel was effective.

Ground for Review Number Two (4): Errors in Voir Dire

• The court of Appeals in holding that there was no errors in voirDire.

Ground for Review Number Three (3): Insufficient Evidence

• The court of Appeals erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient.

Ground For Review Number Four (4): Denied Access to Courts

*6 Mr. Ford was Denied Access to a law library during the stage of filing his pro se brief.

Argument Ground For Review number one (4): Ineffective Assistance of counsel Mr. Ford Trial counsel was ineffective. Effective Assistance of counsel is to be evaluated under the standard enuecated in Strickland v. Washington H6D U.S. (168 1053,ct. 1965, $5 L. 2d. 20 344(1934); see also Hernandez v. state, 433 344, 2d 70 (Tex.crim. App. 1994). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (.) that his trial counsels perfomance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or was deficient and 2.) that a reasonable probability exists that, but for trials counsels alleged errors, the result would have been different, thick land H6D U.S. at 667-33. Counsels ineffective by totality. Although no one instance standing alone may be sufficient proof of ineffective assistance of counsel, performance as a whole may compel such a holding. Ex parte helbora, 733 344, 20 391, 396 (Tex.crim. App. 1994) Counsel failed to conduct reasonable investigation of the facts and law and did not attempt to interview states witnesses) Melvin Thompson was deficient and failed to A) Investigate and Oixaver evidence B) Introduce foworable evidence in Mr. Ford's defense C) Seek out and Interview potential witnesses. D) File a motion to suppress evidence

Melvin's deficient performance prejudiced mr. Ford's case because evidence if (1.) Investigated and discovered and 6) Introduced into evidence would suggest and prove that Mr. Ford was not the perpetrator who robbed tortuosofts;

*7 C)witnesses if interviewed could testify to facts and favorable evidence in Mr. Folds defense; D) motion to suppress if filled would be granted, therefore making false and immaterial evidence in Mr. Folds case inadmissible and remaining evidence would be insufficient to support a conviction. A) Failure to Investigate and Discover Evidence (Exparte Ameryquitta 2235 W. ${303}_{03}$ (An attorney representing a criminal defendant is charged with making an independent investigation of the facts of the case; such action encompasses the duty to conduct a legal and factual investigation and to seek out and interview potential witnesses. Aplander v. Stard ^[102] 3W.3019 101 3W. 30102 ; Exparte Meltzeres 785 3W. 2D 391.396 Tex. Cr. App. 1990 (An economic decision to not fully investigate is neither a strategic nor reasonable decision) Ex parte Briggs 1875 W. 30458 . 167 468. Melvin failed to investigate the DVD with the Audio Recorded statements of Karla Cortes (see DVD, contact Melissa Wilgus at 403) 690-1720 or Private Investigate Ben Bryan at (403) 570-4476) and Discover material and exculpatory evidence Karla told the police officers when questioned that her perpetrator was "not skinny". Melvin also failed to investigate and discover a document (see attachments, Exhibit 1) material to this crime which is also Exculpatory evidence of a statement Mis, traila cortes gave to the media(news) (C6619 2m 1 TVch 7 ) describing her attacher as a "heavyet guy" who fled the scene as a "passenger" in a setan. B) Failure To Inhance favorable evidence (Catalan v.Cochrell 315, 130 491-493; An attorney has a proffetonal duty to present all available evidence and arguments to support the defense of his client. Thomas v. state 550 3W. 2D 64165 Tex. Cr. App. 1977 Melvin failed

*8 to introduce the DVD with the Audio Recorded statements of Karlu Cortes and Tevin Dorsey. (See DVD contact Melissa Wilgus at 803)-590-1720 or Private Investigator Ben Bryan at (803) 670-4476) Mr. Thompson also failed to introduce Karlu Cortes's statement to the media (see attachment, Exhibit 1). The DVD and statement to the media contains material and exculpatory evidence by Karlu Cortes. The DVD als contains Mr. Dorseys Audio Recorded interview consisting of many less that could be used to prepare for trial to properly cross-examine and impeach Mr. Doxeys Testimony. The DVD with Mr. Cortes's Audio recoded statement contains the "not Striag" "Statement/Evidence. Exhibit 1 which is Mrs. Cortes's statement to the media contains her description and evidence of her perpetrator being not Stimsy. Also meluin failed to introduce and call to stand on Mr. Firds behalf as a witness to testify to Evidence ( 8519 who was summoned to court by subpoena Dices Teum. (8519 was commanded to bring any records of an interuiew conducted with Karlu Cortes on or about August 10, 2012 to August 16, 2012, C8519 could have testified to evidence of Karlu Cortes's statement to the media describing her attacher as 'heousset' and sheeng the scene as a passenger ina seetus C.) failed to seek out and interview potential witnesses. An abhorney representing a criminal defendant is charged with meeting an independent investigation of the facts of the facts of the case; such action encompasses the duty to conduct a legal and factual investigation and to seek out and interview potential witnesses Rylander Vistate 1075 (w. 3018 , 101 5(w. 30 107) Exporte Wellcome, 785 5 (w. 20 391 396 (Ten coAde. 1990) Meluin failed to interview and calls as a witness c8519 to who Mrs. Cortes gave a statement material to this (nme, which is Exhibit 2 (see attachment). The news personnel could testify that

*9 P6-17 Karla cortes old give a statement to media and what that evidence was, as recorded. Melvin also failed to interurew the police (Detective who took Mrs. Cortes's initial recorded interuiew at the scene of crime on the carly morning hams of August 10, 2012. The officers could testify to the questeray of Mrs. Cortes on the OUO about the description of that her perpatriate was not on The Dvo with Karla cortes's Audio Recades statements (contact melissa Wilgus at 803) 590-1720 to view Dvo or Ben Bryan at (803)570-44781), when astres was her attacties Stimsy: "she said no". She also stated and testified that her perpatriate was her husbands size. (See Dvo) and (Tr. Trancript vol. 1 pp. 106 line 512. Mrs. Cortes testifies to her perpatrator being heaupet and stocky like her husband, D.) failed to file motion to supress evidence. To prevail on an irffective assistance claim premised on counsels failure to file a motion to supress, an appellant must show by a preponderance of the evidence 1) that the result of the proceeding would have been granted different, 21) That the motion to supress would have been granted and 3) That the remaining evidence would have been insufficient to support his conviction. Hollis y State 219 514, 30 446; While surprotion of evidence is left to the court it is the duty of the defense attomey to attempt through all legal means to have evidence detimental to his clieat surpreses. Mitchell w State 7122 51W/2D 916. 1.) Different Result - The result of the preceeding would have been different because had counsel supresses All weaponsincase there would be no affimative timing of a deadly weapon. Also had counselsuppres Mrs. Doxeys false statement Mr. Fad would not have being wrongfully convicted as the perpitrake based on Mr. Conseys False destimany, 2.) motion would have been granted - motion to supress would we been granted because DNA results repertes neither weapon incase contained fingerprints for Mr. Fad or Mr.Doxey therefore can not be firt

*10 to a material point in this crime. See Foresie Grolesy and DNA laboratory reports. contact Kimberlee Mactet TDPS volce#244-324-3260, Laboratayat Tt. 1208-85350; Agency # 1220922 , ( Offene date 8 llol2012) Also motion to supen, Mr. Darscy statement would be been granted becaue exilence stousit is false. Mr. Darscy fits Mrs. Corless description of her perpatrator. (see attachment Exhibit 1) she gave to the melea as being heauvet. Thace (5) withoases testimony conchurate and inicate that mi. Darscy is a heauvet guy. Detective Swan testifred that out of Mr. Fad and Mr. Darscy that Mr. Darscy is heauvet of the Two (see Tr. Trans. vol. 11 P3 98 line 2-25 to P3. 94 line 1-9) ; Kenneth Gartener testified Mr. Darscy is montert heaurer than Mr. Fad (see Tr. Trans. vol. 8 P3. 155 line 20-24) and also testifred shaguang thmber told him teun is short and stoctay (see Tr. Trans. vol. 8 P3 138 line 7-23). Also Mrs. Corless Testifred her perpatrator was heauvet and stoctay lithe her husband. (see Tr. Trass vol. 7 P3. 106 line5a) And Craig shins testifred he would not decite Mr. Fad as heauvet arstoctay. (see Tr. Trans vol. 8. P3. 244 line 8-13.) Based on all evidence and testimeny Mr. Darscy is the perpatrator and his statement and testimony is tebales by withoses testimony prating his testimony to false and perjures acussing Mr. Fad as being the perputrate who robbed mis. cortes 3) Remaining Evidence insufficient to support cunction. If weaen and Mr. Darscys statement was 3 av presed remaining evidence would be insufficient to convert hecause evidence would be conumstantial to add give rise to any number of inferences, none more probable then another. And when circumstantial evidence is quely a guess, it is on legal effect "no evidence", 1.07 and v. 1.02 ane, 52 5.14 .20141 Ground For Review Number Two (2) Errors in Voir oike

• The court of Appetts erred in holding that voir Dite was effective. Prosecutors made race-based Jury selection decisions in violation of Batonv.

*11 Kentucky. All Black vennte members were excluded from Jury. In Baton the supreme court held that a prosecutor use of peremptory strikes in even a single case to remove blacks from the Jury an account of their race violates the equal protection clause. Baton vikentucky, 4716.45. 74.106.SCE.1712.90.L&;d. 2069 (19862). The 11 Mir, has held that removal of 3 or 4 black vennte members establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, U.S. vi. stowart. 165 F.3d 918 (1980, 1495) Grand for Review number Three (5) : Insufficient Evidence.

• The court of Appetts erved in holding that the evidence was suffire and The standard enueiated in Jackson vivigning, is the one by which sufficrency of the evidence challenges are measured (443 U.S. 307.615-16.99 Sct.2781.2782.27)

61 L &;d. 3256 ( 479) Proofs vstate (3235) 431 893, 595 ( 78 s. Criming 2010) Essential of the due process gourionteed by the 14th Amend. is that no person shall be met to suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficrent proof defined as evidence necessary to convince a trice of fact beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of every element of the offense. Evidence was misifficrent to convict Mr. Ford of App. robbery because false testimony by Mr. Onisey was used to obtain Mr. Fords conviction. Tewin Onisey's statement ticsitimacy acusing Mr. Ford of allegedly robbing has la Cortes was false and perjured. We know that atrial based on false or 3 uprossed evidence is no trial at all, false or suprossed evidence can neither convict nor contemn. U.S. ex. rel. Hough will beconcept, It is well settled that the state is not permitted to present false evidence or allow presentation of false evidence to go uncorrected whether prosecutor had actual knowledge of the falsity of the testimony is irrelevant. If the prosecutor shall have tawm insufficiently 50 (19810) V. 145.1405 U.S. 150.153192 Sct. 763.76531 L.84.24 104 (1972) Kitting 14aque v. Illinois 310 U.S. 244, 745 (1173) 3 L.8d. 221217 (1959) and money Hol stian 244 U.S. 15355 Sct. 34479 L.84.741 (1935) However, if false evidence is presented by the prosecutor at trial a new trial inwavanted only if the false teslimary

*12 call have in any reasonable likelihood, affected the Twys determination (see id. at 154, 17A Sect. at 165). To obtain a new trial upon allegations that gave case included False testimons, and that prosecution knew or should have known of the falsity, moxing party must show that his statements were false (2.) That statements were material i.e. highly significant factor reasonable, like to have affected judgment of the juys, and 3.) that the prosecution knew they were false, (4.5.v.Chagga 135 F.20570). (4) Tevin Daseys statement, 4) testimons was false (perfumed-Mir. Daseys stated and testified that Mir. ford rothmed Mir. Cortes, Karla Cortes described her perpatriates physical description and mir. ford does not fit that description but Mir. Daseys, Karla Cortes's descriptions of her perpatriator corroborated with 512 (6) witnesses testimons including Mir. Karla Cortes's destimony, solutes (centralists Mir. Daseys Testing and would he 'clear and convincing evidence' that would lead a trial of fact to believe that Mir. Dasey was the actual perpatriator who robbed Mir. cortes and that his testimony and statement was false and perjured accessing Mir. ford of allegedly robbing Karla Cortes, Encouraged v. State 5203M, 2012 (clear and convincing evidence is that massive or degree of proof which will produce in mind of trial from belief or conviction as to the truth of allegations sought to be established.) (4.3.v.Halperin 441 F20612 (A witness may be contradicted on a material point by the testimony of other witnesses showing a contrary state of facts in order to show that his statements were false and thus in search for credibility. This proper to submit evidence of any acts or circumstances which are inconsistent with relevant testimony of witnesses and which in any respect tends to contradict the witness as to a material fact.) Karla Cortes described her perpatar as being "heavy" and fleeing the same as a passenger in a sekon to the media (see attachments exhibit 4). Also she described her perpatriator as "not stinary" when questioned by Detections (police in her initial related interview the moxing of the robbery August 10,2012.

*13

P674//

See DVD with ARDS Recorded Interviews, contact Melissa Wilgus at (903) 590-1130 or contact Private Investigator Ben Bryan at (903) 570-4176). (Tany Shine, siraguang Humber Kenneth Gorderer and Damon Swan all testified to the physical descriptors of one or both suspects charged with a case. A one Tevin Dussey and David Ford, (Tany Shine testified that he would not describe mrs. Ford as hewnet or shecty (see Tr. Trans. vol8 Pg. 39 lines 8-19). Shaguang Humber testified and tell Kenneth Gorderer that Tevin was short and shecty. (See Tr. Trans. vol. 8 : Pg. 138 line 1133) Kenneth Gorderer testified Tevin is shorter and heavier than Mr. Ford (see Tr. Trans. vol. 8 : Pg. 153 lines 2004). And Damon Swan testified that all of Mr. Ford and Mr. Dussey that Mr. Dussey is the hewnet of the two Melissa slinter testified to the descriptors of the two individuals in her apticumples which happened to be in the same season that was evidence from robbery was fundin. She described one guy as slender and the other guy as hewnet. (Tr. Trans. vol. 7 Pg. 447 line 18-25 to Pg. 45 line 14 vol. 17) Melissa also testified that the driver was slender and tallest of two and that He was hewny. (Tr. Trans. vol. 7 Pg. 55 lines 6-93). Melissa slinter testified a tell slender guy got out of car and that the person who stayed in car was larger than the person who got out car, (Tr. Trans. vol. 7 Pg. 50 line 11-25 to Pg. 51 line 141). Slinker Also testified that the hewiler larger guy in car had a shallice or something wrapped around his head. (Tr. Trans. vol. 1 Pg. 51 line 12-21) Slinker Also testified that the guy walking outside of the car was a thin man and he had nothing on his head. (Tr. Trans. vol. 1 Pg. 52 line 3-8) Yavila Cortes testified that theircus two guys in car cane Orviny tother in passenger seat. (Tr. Trans. vol. 7 Pg. 14 line 3-8) said she couldn't describe driver (Tr. Trans. vol. 7 Pg. 101 line 5-9). Also testified his perpetrator was size of her husband, stated he was not a reall tall guy but was hewnet and shecty (Tr. Trans. vol. 11 Pg. 106 1-25 to Pg. 107 1-12.) Last but not least Tevin Dussey testified to his physical

*14 description and apparel What he was wearing the morning of the robbers which matches the physical description of the perpetrator that Mrs. Cortes said sobbed herand Mr. Dussey matches the description of the apparel ms. 5 tinter gave of one of Tues individuals at her apt. computer morning of robbery, Mr. Dussey testified that that he is heavier than Mrs. ford and would describe himself as heauper (Tr. Trans. volio) by illo lines (724). Mr. Dussey Miss testified that he had one during his trouve as a steallap to be room on your head the morning of the robbery (Tr. Trans. volio) by. 86 line (25 to 125 to 102) inat 40) Miss Mrs. Dussey testified that he still over from the passengers seat into the Drivers seat and he accused Mr. ford of getting out the Drivers seat godiuent to robb Mrs. Cortes (Tr. Trans. volio) by. 14 line (228). This allegation was rebutted by Mrs. Cortés physical description of her perpetrator which Mr. ford does not fit and Mr. ford does and by the site of the setan Mrs. Cortes said her perpetrator was in. Bosen on all the eillene. It is clear and cowinely that Mr. Dussey statement acusing Mr. ford of robbing traila cortes was false, Mr. Dussey perjued himself in stand and that Mr. Dussey is the actual perpetrator who abled Mrs. cortes. (Defended testifying units, eath ommith, perjury if he gives false totimacy concruity a material ma the with willful intent to preuib false totimacy) U.S. Acconno 53 F. 3052 f. (Brouissad vi state 827 SW. 20619) 21) Mr. Dussey statement was material - Mrs. Dusseys statement was material because probability exists that in absence of his false totimacy and statement he fulgment of dury could have been different, therefore probability ejots affecting the outome of Mr. Fails Trall, 82) Prosecution knew or should've known Mr. Dussey statement and testimony was false - Prosecution knew or should have known Mr. Dusseys statement was false because proceuties had knowledge and access to information in the clerics record, which there is a copy of Exhibit 1 (see attachments) which is Mrs. cortess statement to press, describing her perpetrator as neauper. Prosecutors also knew or shouldic known Mr. Dussey

*15 Statement are testinual was false because Mr. Cortes stated to Police (Detor. in her initial recorded interview that her abattoir was "not obting" when questioned. (see DVO. contact Meltow Wilgus a(905)590-1720 or Ben Bryan at 903 570-4476.) MWhllams v. Griswold 243,520 1533 (count of appals states, It is of no consequence that the facts pointed to mual support only knowledge of the police because such knowledge will be imutted to State prescutters.) In conclusion, Mrs. Cortes's descriptions as to what her perpatrator did a did not look like werythes with the physical descriptions of the Two suspected arrestes and charged in the Ages Robbery of Mrs. Cortes shows that Mr. Ford was does not fit the description of Mrs. Cortes's perputrator and Mr. Dorsey does fit the descriptions. Therefore Evidence proves that Mr. Dorseys statement and testimacy acusing Mr. Ford of robbing trade cartes is false and perjured. (round For Review Number Four (4) "Denied access to counts - Convettional officials prison officials violated Mr. Ford. Due process right of access to counts (law library) to pirtue a legal claim. A prisoner contesting that his right of access to the counts was violates because of inadequate access to a law library must establish Two elements 1) The access was so limited as to be unreasonable and 2) The inadequate access caused him actual injury. Baylock w. Painter 901 Fsupa 233,236 (citing Vandelof v. moses; 3) F31 744 7475900 also Marange V. Fontenoy 8055 F. 34 pp. 674,684; Rembrake V. wood county, Tejas, 931 F25,225,505 U.3. 973,125 L. $2d,2d,665$ U. Access was so limited as to be unressonable.

The denial of states to prison officials was to an extreme of depriving the defendant of access to an adequate law library and its services while in the 2 mith county Jail reviewing his trial transcrip transcripts in order to precar and file his prose brief. Mr. Ford was denied access to the

*16 This is File his prese brief. There fore his appeal was. Jutgas be the 12 ceat of appents cutthout Mr. Fords prose brieft. 2) In adequate access causes him actual injury. Due to this depriation of her library serrores, an actual injury was caused to Mr. Fords. He was unable to file his pre se brief and in addition the presentation of the detentute meitous grounis apart from those atfalth by his attorney. Furthermore such depriation has resulted in the Mr. Fords ability to only argue these points presented by his attomey and resulting in having to file a RQR, on these (incurths. 1). (Rechrenos of course! 2) Sufferency of evidence 3) erious in voit Dire, 4) competency to stand trial and 5) Errors in punishment.

For notice: Mr. Fords has been actively purting his appal land case. Mr. Fords Files all motions and motions for extensions of time that he has trowledge of and trying to meet the deadliner while studying the law as fast ans efficient as he can. Mr. Fords wrote the 12 thcourt of Appents letter and also in his motion filed for extensions of tion to prepare it file his pre se brief, explaining to the 12 th that he was being denied access to courts. (The law library) Mr. Fords Afts urate a letter to Jutge chrisst, Kennedy infoming her of Mr. Fords rights and needs with hopes that she could assist, provide and a instruct the county Sairtso matre available to Mr. Fords access to an adequate library to use its serurce for Mr. Fords legal matters, Mr. Fords never received an response. See Attachments Exhibit 2 "letter to Jutge Chrisst Kennedy." Hayer for Relief Mr. Fords prays the court of Criminal Appents Grant his RQR and allow Mr. Fords prepuce it file a brief and or reset Appentate The limits.

*17 Certificate of Service I: DRVIO FERO, do hereby certify that a time are carred COPI of the above are fireeging Defendants motien for PiDiR, two been fowwites by U.S.mail postage prepaid, first class to the Court of Criminal Appeals at PiDiR: 13308 ,CapitaiStation Avotin Texas 737 U , to the prosecutor on Appeal, Mr. Michael S. west at 4th Floor, Courthouse 100 N, Broadway Tyter, TX 75702 and to the state prosecuting Attamey at Po. Box 12405, Austin, TX 75711 on June 31,206.

| Quotid of | | :-- | | Defendant Ao Se | | DRVIO FERO #18584/1/ | | Printed n44me | | Reach Unit 15845 Fm | | Children Tt 74201 |

Court of Appeals Twelfth Cout of Appeals District of Texas Justement February 27,215 VV0.12-13-00308-CR DRVIO EUGGENE FORD Appellant V.

The state of Texas Appellee Appeal from the 114 th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tc.Ct. No. 114-128142)

*18 This cause came to be heard on the appendate record and brief filed herefin and the same being considered it is the opinion of the court that there was no error in the Judgment. It is therefore ordered, asjudged and decreed that the judgement of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for obsexuance.

Bu per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Warthen, CS3, Hayle, Syand Neeley, S.

*19

Photo: Tevin Montravian Dorsey/Smith County Jail Records

Information from Tyler Police

Original Story: Early Friday morning, at about 5:05 am, Tyler Police were called to the Shiloh Pines Mobile Home Park in Tyler in reference to the reported robbery of an individual. Officers contacted the victim, who said that moments after arriving home she was confronted in her driveway by a younger black male wearing a grey shirt and black jeans. The victim said the suspect immediately pointed a gun at her and demanded money. He then took the victim's purse and fled the scene as a passenger in a light blue sedan.

The victim was not injured during the incident and described the suspect as heavy set and in his early 20s, with a blue bandana covering his facing.

Anyone with information about the suspects involved in this crime are urged to contact the Tyler Police Department, at 903-531-1000, or Crimestoppers, at 903-597-CUFF (903-597-2833).

Crimestoppers will pay up to $\$1,000$ for information that leads to the arrest and charges filed against the suspects in this case, or any, felony case.

*20 Dear Judge Christi Kennedy, How are you today I hope everything is lovely. My name is DRUG Eugene SORG. I have been bercin warranted back from TOCS because I am on Appeal. I filed a motion in the written unit. The motion I filed was a motion for extension of time to File my prose brief. I filed it to the 12thcourt of Appeals. In that motion it says that the District Court send me my final transcript so that I may view it and use the written on the TOCS Unit so that I may prepare my prose brief. Or that I be berch warranted back to the county so that I may review it and have access to a law library to assist me in filing my prose brief. Therefore I have been berckwamantes back to the county. The only problem is that I have not had access to a law library a any legal material to assist me in filing my prose brief. In the motion for extension of time. It says that if im berch warranted back to the county that I have access to a law library and be able to review my final Tricurcint. That motion is a legal document with instruction made for a reason. So what I am informing you is that I have not had access to any legal material perid. The Smith county Jail is supposed to provide me with access to the legal material necessary to assist me with my apper Act if is the costs duty to see that I have access to law, Since I have been back from TOCS on this berch warrant, inmate, have told me that the county has no law library. Well I know that is not entirely true because in the year of 2013, I put in request to use law library and Jail officials to it use the the assistation room and selected a small cabinet. In that cabinet were outtailed to the year 2005, 2008 and 2010, what was supposed to be a law library to assist immates with our legal matters was indesquate. Suits purpose, How since I have been back on berch warrant. This year I have filed request from 3 X 2 week, as to to use the law library with hopes that the legal material has been wanted to par, so

*21

NO. 12-13-00308-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID EUGENE FORD, APPELLANT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114TH § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

David Eugene Ford appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. A jury found him guilty and assessed punishment at thirty years of imprisonment. Appellant's counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. ^[1] We have considered counsel's brief and conducted our own

*22

independent review of the record. We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09.

Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. App. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See TEX. R. App. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. App. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n. 22.

Opinion delivered February 27, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

*23

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 27, 2015

NO. 12-13-00308-CR

DAVID EUGENE FORD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1281-12)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of the court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

*24

NOTES

${}^1$ Counsel for Appellant has certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received a pro se brief.