COMES NOW, STEVEN MICHAEL BACKSTROM, PETITIONER, AND WOU'D RESPETD'Tly, SNow this CAurE the following:

Within the State's original Answer in Response to PETITIONERS ACUH WNOCENCE WRIE of babeas corpus, the, State deemed PETITIONERS drawn! three cling of perjury by the Complaint A "Recon tation" And set forth a TEX Court Cring Procurat 11.073 $4(3)(1)$ standard as opposed to PETITIONERS $34(2)(2)$ claim.

PETITIONER directs this Court to EX PREE FENKING, 310,5 W. 3d, 918, 2010 TEX. App. LEXIS 32.50. IN this particular case, the Ninth District Court of Appeals (BEAH MONT) concluded the trial court erred in denying habeas relief without holding an evident CIABy hearin' because the ailleyed victim in that case recanted which in turn contributed affirmative evidence of PETITIONERS' innovative. The appellate court

*2 went on to say that the trial court should have held a hearin' to allow him the apportunity to call the victim as a yetteless and allow her to explain herself. The State cited, recordation but failed to offer an evidentiary hearin' as prescribed by law.

This Court has chosen to agree with the trial court and thus, as opposed to outright dismissing Retitioners claim, this Court should order a hearin' on the matter in order to resolve all of the issues, or should this Court choose to re- evaluate the constitutionality of the States Rationale for Recommending genial which ultimately influenced this Court to deny relief if would find, that the trial courts Rationale is in fact contrary to US Supreme Court law as previously argued.

So prayed this October 1st, 2015, Under penalty of perjury Petitioner, steps of the statements herein.

Sished this 1st of October, 2015 Respectfully Submitted, "153958 TDC: * 165758 Elements Unit 2601 Spur, 591 MAR:114, N 297