Pursuant to your request of April 25, 2016, please accept the following as a statement regarding oral argument in the above pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 71.3.

This is a capital murder case in which the death penalty was assessed. A total of 30 points of error are presented in appellant’s opening and supplemental briefs.

Among the issued to be resolved on direct appeal are the following: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to invoke Petetan’s attorney-client privilege as to testimony he sought to offer from his former attorney on the issue of competency to stand trial (Point of Error One).

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence Petetan sought to offer concerning the legal fate of those who obtain an incompetency determination through malingering (Point of Error Two). Whether the jury’s answer to the intellectual disability special issue is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence (Point of Error 10).

The tenth point of error includes a challenge to this Court’s jurisprudence in Ex parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). That opinion is receiving *2 Letter to Abel Acosta

May 31, 2016

Page Two

keen interest from the Supreme Court of the United States in Moore v. Texas , No.

15-797, which has been relisted five times on a request for certiorari review of this Court’s opinion in Ex parte Moore , 470 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).

It is upon these issues that oral argument is particularly sought. Undersigned counsel is of the opinion that oral argument would serve to clarify those issues and to explain to the Court why Petetan should prevail on them.

Sincerely,

/s/ Richard E. Wetzel Richard E. Wetzel Attorney at Law cc: ACDA Harmon