Case Information

*1

NUO.03-14-00313-CR IN THE

THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS SURREME JUDICIAL COURT OF APRRAls

KIRT AIIEN ESTHAY,

Affilanit

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Aff&;IIEE.

AIIEAL OF CAUSE NO. DAS-13-01849 From THE 119TH JUDICIAL COURT OF CODUCHO COURTU:

MOTION TO SUFIIMENT ORIGINAL FRO SE BRIEF OR RESPONSE TO THE ANdERS BRIEF I.

To The Honorable Justices of the Court of AIIEals come now KIRT Allen ESTHAY, Affellanit Pro SE, MOTION TO SUFIIMENT or Amend Original Rétition as Per TRAP Rule 68.10 A Fto se litigant is entitled To Amend or Sufflimenf a fending before the court makes its determination and/or in the furtherence of Justice as needed:

*2 II.

ON SEPTEMPER 3, 2014 affellant received notice by the Texas Defartment of criminal Justice mail room, at the mark W. Stiles unit, at 3060 Fm. 3514 Beaumont, Texas 77705 That Attornet had Filed on Anders brief and Affellant's right to File a Pro se brief or response to the AMPErs brief.

III.

ON SEPTEMPER 8, 2014, the affellate record was first made available to the affellant. The Honorable court did give the affellant Two extension therefore making the deadline February 27, 2015 for filing brief or response.

IV.

THIS IS Affellant's First brief, Affellant has very limited access to law Librars to have a week, if LuckY. Had gone through unit Lockdown, 21 days. Librars being closed for holidays, affellant have very limited legal knowledge.

*3

Aprellant is asking the honorable Justice To allow his second sufflement or amended brief in, FRCP 15, rule 15 d sufflement are by leave of the court and sets forth acts'.... which have haffened since the date of the Pleading sought to be SuPPlemented.' United States V. Hicks, 283 F 3d 380, 385;

VI.

It is an abuse of discretion to den't leave to amend unless there is sufficient reason, such as undue debt, bad faith or dilators motive on the Part of movant or undue Prejudice to the offosing Part4. Eire stone V. Firestone, 76 F3d 1205, 1208 (De cir 1996) citing Eeman V. Davis, 83 S.Ct. 227 (1962) : VII.

BJuright refusal To grant the leave to amend without ant Justifying reason appearing for denial is not an exercise of discretion; it is merely an abuse of that discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules. Marshall V. Knight 4445 F3d 965, 970 (7Thcir 2006) citing Eeman V. Davis, 83, Sct, 227 (1962).

*4

XIII.

For the reason stated above, AffellanT resfectfull4 request to be allowed To SufflimenT or armed Pro se brief or resfense in Suffort of Affellanis affeal.

Resfectfully submitted, Kirt Allen Esthal Kirk Allen Eactray Pro se 7DC 3 NO. 1919078 3060 F.m. 3514 Beaumon TX 77705 AffellanT Fra4s that the canT grant this motion To sufflimenT or Amend original Retition or resfense to Anders brief.

Resfectfull4 submitted, KIRT Allen Esthal Kirk Allen Eactray Retitioner, Pro se Texas Deffartiment of Criminal Justice; Mark w. Stiles Unit TDCJ 700.1919078 3060 F.m. 3514 BeaumonT, Texas 77705

*5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hendr certify that a true cofi of the above Motion for Suffiment or amended Retition of brief was served on Mr George McCrea, District Altomey by Placing a cofi in the Us Mail addressed to, Tom Green Count4 courthouse, court St. AnWex, 124 w. Beavergard, San Angelo, Texas 76903; on this the day of march 2015.

KIRT Allen Esthat Kirt Allen Esthay Retitioner, Ro SE 7DCJNO. 1919078

*6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

1) King V. State 645 s.w 2 d 782. 2) Ellison V. Stale (Tex. Cr. APR.) 419 s.w. 2 d. 849. 3) Jackson V. Virginia 443 U.S. 307,318 ,99 s.cT 2781, 2789, 61 L.E.d 2 d. 560,573 (1979) 4) Laster V. Stale, 275 s.w. 3 d 512,517 (Tex crim APR. 2009) 5) Id, at 104, 49 L.Ed 2 d 342, 96 s.c.t 2392. 6) Johnson V. State, 23 s.w. 3 d 1 (Tex crim APR2000) 7) Harris V State, 562 s.w. 2 d 463 (1978)

8) Bendamin Davidson Jr AffellanTV. The state of criminal AReals of Texas 602. S.w. 2 d 272; (1980) 9) Johnson V. State 614. S.w. 2 d 148 (Tex crim APR 1981) 10) Jackson V. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 (1979) 11) C.F. K4les V. whit 44, 514 U.S 419,434 .(1995) (12) Ex Rarte welbon 785 s.w. 2 d 391, 393 Tex APR. (1990). 13) Ex Rarte Vbarra, 629 s.w. 2 d 943,946 (Tex crim APR. 1982) 14) Cruz V. State 238 s.w. 3 d 369,398 (Tex APR-Houston) (st Dist (2006. no Ref.) 15) Burns V. State 728 s.w. 2 d 114,116 (Tex APR-Houston 14th Dist 1987) I. of 3

*7 16.) Figueroa V: state, No 07-05-0314 C.R. 2006 Tex AFF. Lexis 2603, 2006 wL 825036, at 2 Tex AFF Amarillo 2006, No RET 17.) 405. Us. at 154.311 Ed 2d 104, 92 S.CT 763. 18.) in sufficient evidence of a deadl4 weather in Alvarez V. state 566 S.w 2 d 612. 19.) Benlamin Davidson Jr. Affellant V: The state of criminal Affeal of Texas 602 S.w. 2 d 272 (1980) 20.) Truth seeking function of trial Process Id, at 104, 49 LEd 2 d 342.96 S.Ct 2392 21.) Rudiment demands of Justice Id 11279 L Ed 791, SS S.CT 340, 98 ALR 406. (see #22.) 22.) The court reaffirmed this principle in broader term in F4LeV. Kansas 317 US 213 87 L Ed 214, 63 S.Ct 177. (942) 23.) CF. NaRueV. Illinois. 360 US. 264.269, 3 LEd 2d 1217,79 S.CT 1173 (959) 24.) Truth seeking function of the trial Process Id, at 104,49 LEd 2d 342, 96S.Ct 2392. 25.) Beck V. Ohio 379 us. 89,85 S.CT 223 (964) 26.) Wa4ne R. LaFave and Jerold H Israel Criminal Procedur 833, at 140.2 d (992) 27.) Roberts V. state 220 S.w 3 d 521,524 (Tex crim AFF 2007) 2.6F3

*8 28.) Watson V. state 204 sw 3d.404,415 (Tex crim APP 2006) 29.) MooneH V. Holohan, 244 US 103, 79 LEd 791, 55 S.CT 340, 98 ALR 406 (1935) 30.) In re winshif, 90 s.CT. 1068 (1970) 31.) Jackson V. Virginia 99 s.CT. 2781 (1999) 32.) Fiore V. white, 121 S.CT 712 (2001) 33.) Sullivan V. Louisiana, 113 S.Ct. 2078, (1993) 34.) State V. Martin, 128 NE 2d 7 (1955): 35.) State V. Oाten, 515 NE 2d 1009 (1986)

Texas codes crim Roc $AnT\mathrm{.42}\mathrm{.12539}(2)$ 22.02 (a) (2) 38.03 (vernon $3\mathrm{m}/P2008$ )

Texas Renal Code ann 82.01 Rules of evid 608 (b) 609 (a)

3of 3.

*9 The claim of ineffectiveness of counsel To Redudice, the reviewing court must assess the cumulative imfact of all deficien performance claims For Istands, 3RR28; 15-25: 3RR29; 1-19: 3RR50; 21-25: 3RR51; 1-24; There is nothing gbout any kids anywhere in the records, where is the Objection? also 3RR54; 13-24: 3RR57; 10-12: Leading Stale, 3RR52; 20-25: 3RR53; 2-11: inconsistent Statements aswell as contradicting Testimony, SEE; 3RR61;6-25: and 3RR62: 3RR63: 3RR64: Now for Suablufe Luna 3r: 3RR74; 20: 3RR75;3: AFter the break, 3RR85;3: 3RR86;7: about the Knife... SEE; 3RR74;1-14; and 3RR76;5-8: and now, 3RR85; 7-11: OFFicef GEOrGINA MARTTZ, 3RR94;7; Meaning Two; 3RR99;18-22: The State, 3RR101;18-19: Defendants witnesses, Ernest Torres; 4RR32;6-14: and 4RR32;15-25: 3RR109;14-5: and now, 3RR125;15-17: also 3RR108;23-25: 3RR96;1-4: and now, mrs Derotik, 3RR35;16-18: and 3118;1-8; andnow, 3RR133;21-23: (Williams v. TaVier, 529 us 362.6000 ) Also e.g., Wiggins V. Smith, 123 s.ct. 2527 (2003); washingto V. Smith, 219 F.3d 620, 634-35 7Thcir(2000)

*10 IF counsel had imfeached the testimonies of the states witnesses, Michael CerfAnies, Guadalupe Luva Jr, and Officer GeerGina Maritz, there testiment would obvious! been so weak as to undermind confidence in the verdict, See, Johnsony state, 23 s.w. 33 (Tex crim AfP 2000): A affellant claiming insufficient bears a heavy burden, United States V Maliszewski 161 F3d 992, 1005 (67\%cin 1998) Evidence is legal! insufficient and factual! insufficient to suftent the conviction. Officer Maritz or the other DeffH would not have Needed a search warrant if infart that the thought their was a knife. Code of criminal procedure, ArT1.06. Searches and seizures not without Probable cause sufferT bY oath or affirmation. Acts 1965, 597 Leg. Yol 2, 9317 ch. 722, eff Jan 1, 1966, See 3RR124316-25; 3RR125215; 3RR11831-8; Officer Maritz admits 3RR133,21-23 extirts: Probable cause; office who made the challenged arrest or search subiectively believed he had grounds for his action. As emphasized in Beck y. chio, 379 us, 89,85 s.ct. 223(1964):

*11 Evidence in Affellant conviction will reverse on the basis of insufficiently bears a heavl when a defendanTi is claiming insufficientl of the evidence; United States v. Maliszewski, 161 F3d 992,1005 ( $6^{\text{TH}}$ cir 1998)

Strong susPiction that someone is involved in criminal activit4 is no substitute for Roof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Inference is allowed, speculation is not. Each link in the chain of inferences must be sufficientl4 strong to avoid a lafse into speculation. Baskouski VBet 256, F3d. 687, 693 (7th cir 2001): Prosecution need not negate all theories consistend with innocence. The test is whether Prosecution has Proven its case betond a reasonable doubt. Laird V. Lack 884 F2d 912 (8th Cir 1989) Proof be4ond reasonable doubt means Proof which is so convincing that you would not hesitate to rell and act on it in making themest imbrtant decisions in 1000 own lives. United States V. Stewart 306 F3d 295, 306 (6th Cir 2002)

*12 Ending of Argument

The due Process clause requires the State to move ever, element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The Wianshik 90 S.Ct. 1068 (1970); Jackson v. Virginia, 99 S.Ct. 2781 (1979); Fiore v. White, 121 S.Ct. 712 (2001); Sullivan v. Louisiana 113 S.Ct. 2078 (1993).

1. First: The AffiDavitt created by officer Geor, Sina Maritz stated, Luria had advised he observed Affi, lant Threatening m, Cervantes. C, R; P-8: Mr Luria testified he saw his brother-in-law with a stick in his hand, and then he saw Affi, lant with a knife in his hand. 3RR73325: 3RR7431-2: Also see 3RR83316-19: Final 4; see 3RR83317-22: 3. There was no Threating that Mr Luria seen from the Affi, lant. He never testified that he seen Affi, lant Threatening m, Cervantes.

2. The credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact lost its way and created such a miscarriage of justice that the conviction most be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Martin 128 NE 2d 7 (1955); State v. Otton 515 NE 2d 1009 (1986).

*13

KiFARsthal Firaqo 300 Fm. 3614

Beaumont, IX 27705

Court of Aft goals

Third District of Texas on 36 Fm 0 . K4L6, clerk Fo.Box 12517