Case Information

*1 NO. C-396-010432-1249395-A

PROPOSED FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

To THE MOST HONORABLES JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

LARRY JOE MORGAN, HEREINAFTER, CALLED. PLANtIFF makeS known To the court that he is LLEGALLY Restrained in His LIBERTY BY JAMES A. LYNAUGH UNIT, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, AT FORT STOCKTON TEXAS, SOLELY UNDER, AND BY VIRTUE OF A JUDGMENT, AND SENTENCE CAUSE NUMBER 12493950 STYLED THE STATE OF TEXAS V. LARRY JOE MORGAN SAID JUDGMENT.

COMES NOW, LARRY JOE MORGAN, PLANtIFF PRO SE, PLEAD TO THE COURT TO ASSENT His MOTION OF PROPOSED FINDING OF FACTS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

• ON MAKLH 25 TH 2015, PLANtIFF MAILEG His 11.07 WrIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
• ON APRIL 8TH 2015, PLANtIFF RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THE STATE DESIGNATING ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED; BY HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY'S HON. R. SCOTT WALKER, AND HON. GRIAN WALKER BY AFFIDAVITS SAID ORDER.
• ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS PLANtIFF MAILED TRAVERSE AFFIDAVITS AFTER RECEIVING HIS TRIAL ATTORNEYS AFFIDAVITS, MAY 24 TH 2015, AND JUNE 10TH 2015, BOTH MAILED WITHIN TIMELINE.
• ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS PLANtIFF MAILED His TRAVERSE MOTION'S CITING HIS ATTORNEYS VIOLATIONS OF TEXAS

*2 Rules of Disciplinary Professional Misconduct, June 1st 2015, and June 10th 2015, Both mailed within the timelines.

The following are the designates issues among many, the state whose to be resolved. Furthermore, plaintifi with list them along with his arguments.

(a) Counsel failed to present the defense of self-Defense. In not using the defense of self-Defense consortiute, ineffective assistance of counsel as the evidence stood, and meets the standard of stelland. W. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 668 Defense Counsel has a duty to bring to Bear such skill, and knowledge as well. RENBER THE TRIAL A RELIABLE ADVERSARIAL TESTING PROCESS: HAD, Counsel presented the evidence for the Records, it would have counter the testimoniEs of the state's victim, and witnesses and the trial outcome would have found PLANtifi. Also counsel was in violation of rule (03,(a), and (b) of TEXAS rules of professional conduct. (Please note that hereinartier plaintifi will address TEXAS rules of professional conduct as follow torked.)

(b) Counsel failed to support the 911 CALLER WHESE call counter the testimoniEs of the states victim, and witnesses. In failure to do so constitute ineffective counsel. The 911 CALLER PLANtifi heard deserided plaintifi as being the victim HeR testimony would have wakennte a not cullty verdict. AGAIN COUNSEL MEET Stelland W. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 668 standard (3)(c), Counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations, or to make a reasonable decision that makes PARTICULAR INVESTIGATIONS UNNECESSARY. Counsel also visited rules so4, (2) (3), and (4) of torked.

(c) Counsel failure to support the arresting officer, officer SALAZAR. DNa testing was never done, if would have proof was true. LIGIT. ALSO HAD Counsel did a medical history on plaintifi he

*3 would Have Found Plaintiff Has Plates Alons with A MULTIPLE AMOUNT OF SCREWS, IN His RIGHT LEG DUE TO A SERIOUS INJURY IN HIS PAST. THIS INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN CONTAARY TO THE STATES VICTIM, AND STATES WITNESSES TESTIMONIES, AND WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE JURY VERDICT TO NOT GUILTY, HAD, PLAINTIFF TAKEN THE STAND. FINALLY AS ASSERTEO IN SAIN 372 U.S. 316 THE SUPPREME COURT AFFIRMED THAT IF EVIDENCE CRUCIAL TO THE ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CL'AIM WAS NOT DEVELOPED AT THE STATE HEARING A FEDERAL HEARING IS COMPELLED. FURTHERMORE, COUNSELS WAS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 9. 1.01. (6)(2)(2) OF T.O.R.P.C. IN REPRESENTING A CLIENT A LAWYER SHALL NOT? (2) NEGLECT A LEGAL MATTER ENTRUSTED TO THE LAWYER; OR (2) FREQUENTLY FAIL TO CARRY OUT COMPLETELY THE OBLIGATIONS THAT THE LAWYER OWES TO A CLIENT OR CLIENTS. (d) CONSSELORS FAILURE TO PRESENT PICTURES DURING TRIAL THAT WOULD CONITER VICTIM'S TESTIMONY. (1) THE PICTURE THAT SHOWED A CUT ACKOSS THE BOTTOM OF THE STATE'S VICTIM STOMACH, WOULD HAVE SHOWED THE JURY, THE STATE'S VICTIM IS A HAGITUAL LIFE, HE HAD ALREADY TOLD FOUR DIFFERENC STORIES ON HOW HE WERE CUT, THE PICTURE WOULD HAVE MEANt HE HAD TO TELL A FIFTH ONE. FURTHERMORE, THE PICTURE WOULD HAVE CONFIRMED PLANtIFF'S TESTIMONY DURING HIS SENTENCING PHASE. ALSO WOULD HAVE GIVE AN FAVORABLE VERDICT. CONSSELORS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE MADE A TACtICAL DECISION WITHOUT FIRST PROCURING THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE SUCH A DECISION. SEE RILEY V. PAYNE, 352 F. 30 1313,1324 (9TH CIR. 2003) ALSO SEE CONSSELORS VIOLATION OF SECTION 9., 904.(0)(4)(2)(3) (4)OF T.O.R.P.C. (e) CONSSELORS FAILURE TO ADMIT THE ORIGINAL POLICE EEPORT AND WITNESS STATEMENTS INTO EVIDENCE TO IMPEACH WITNESSES. IN NOT DOING SO CONSTITUTED

*4

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSELORS. INEFFECTIVENESS Is GENERALLY CLEAR IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPLETE. FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE. BECAUSE COUNSELORS CAN. HAROLY BE SAID TO HAVE MADE A STRATEGIC CHOICE AGAINST PürSUNG A CERTAIN LINE OF INVESTIGATION, WHEN HE/S HAS NOT YET OBTAINED THE FACTS ON WHICH SUCH A DECISION COULD BE MADE. SEE STRICKLAND 466 U.S. AT 690. HAD CONSELORS PRESENTEO THE ORIGINAL POLICE REPORT IT WOULD HAVE COUNTER THE AMENDED REPORT. FURTHERMORE, BY NOT SUBPOENAING THE WITNESSES IN THE REPORT TO IMPERCH, VIOLATED SECTION 9. 1.0.1.,(2)(2), 8.04,(2)(2)(2)(3)(4) OF T.O.R.P.C. ALSO, THE POLICE REPORT AS PLANTIFF SAW IT DEMONSTRATED COLLUSION, AND ORGANIZED CKIME. (F) COUNSELORS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE THE OFFENSE. PRIOR TO TRIAL. FAILURE TO DO SO, CONSTITUTED IN. EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CONSELORS UNDER THE ETH, AND WITH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE (2) SECTION (10) OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. THE DUTY TO INVESTIGATE IS ESPECIALLY PRESSING WHERE AS HERE THE WITNESSES, AND THEIR CREDIBILITY ARE CEUCIAL TO THE STATES CASE. SEE HUFFINGTON V. NUTH 140 F. 30 S72, 550 (4TH CIRIG95) FURTHERMORE, COUNSELORS VIOLATED SECTION 9. 1.01., (6)(2)(2) OF T.O.R.P.C. THEREFORE, COUNSELORS CANNOT SE PROTECTED BY LAW.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A HABEAS PETITIONER IS ENTITLEO TO AN EVIDENTIARY. HearING IF HE (2) ALLEGES FACTS WHICH IF PROVEN WOULD ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF; AND (2) SHOWS THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE A FULL, AND FAIR HEARING IN STATE COURT. EITHER AT TRIAL, OR IN A COLLATERAL PROCEEDINE. 28 U.S.C.A. $\$22.54$ . SEE ALSO ALBERNIV. MEDANIEL 458 F. 30 S60 (9TH CIR. 2006) THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL INCLUDES A CORRELATIVE RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION FREE FROM CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. U.S.C.A. CONST. AMEND.G. PETITIONER NEVER RECEIVED COMPLETE TRIAL RECORDS ON HIS APPEAL. SEE U.S. V. WADSWORTH 530 F. 201500 (9TH CIR 1987). GOVERNMENT HAS THE DUTY TO PROVIDE.

*5 DEFENDANT WITH RECORD OF SUFFICIENT COMPLETENESS SO THAT HIS CLAIM OF CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR MAY BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL. COUNSELORS FAILURE TO PRESENT PICTURE OF THE STATES VICTIM BEING CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF HIS STOMACH DURING TRIAL PUTS THE STATES VICTIM OVER PLANtifi, AS SAID DURING SENTENCING PHASE. SEE NEMLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, AND SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE GROUNDS FOR KELIEF. 14 TH AMENDMENT. SEE ALSO, BINDERS 660 S.W. 20103 STATE EX REL. HOLMES V. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THIRD DIST. (C.C.R. APP. 1994) 885 S.W. 20389 REMEARING DENIED ON RE-MAND 878 S.W. 20684. SEE U.S.V. JASIN 215 F. SUPP. 20 552 (E.O.PA 2002) PLANTtIF ARGUES THAT HIS TRIAL COUNSELORS WAS INEFFECTIVE SECAUSE THEY INEVPLICABLY FAIED TO INTERVIEW, AND CALL AT TRIAL A NUMBER OF FACTS WITNESSES PLANTIFF TOLD THEM WOULD PROVIDE TESTIMONY HELPFUL TO THIS DEFENSE, AND THEY LIKEWISE FAIED TO SEEK OUT EXPERT WITNESS REQUESTED BY PLANtifi. PLANtifi ASSERTs THAT THE RESULT OF THE TRIAL WOULD HAVE SEEN DIFFERENT HAD COUNSELORS FOLLOWED THROUGH ON PLANtifi's REQUESTS. COUNSEL HAS A DUTY TO INVESTIGATE WITNESSES INTERVIEW, AND CALL THEM.

PRAYER PLAINTIFF PRAYS THAT THIS COURT LOOKS UPON ALL THE FACTS THATS SEEN PRESENTED HEREIN, AND ON ALL HIS PRECEDING DOCUMENTS, AND GEANT REQUESTS.

JALY 2Mmggm PROSE

VERIFICATION 1. LAREY JOE MORGAN, TOCI-10M 1847262 BEING PRESENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE JAMES A. LYNAUGH UNIT OF TOCI DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING FACTS ARE TME AND CORRECT.

JALY 2Mmggm PROSE LAREY JOE MORGAN PLAINTIFF DOO 08-07-1960 DATE 09-11-2015 1098 S. NWY 2037 FTSTOCKTON TX 79735

*6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON SEPTEMBER IITH, 2015A TRUE, AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ABOVE, AND FOREGOING DOCUMENT MOTION PROPOSED FINDING OF FACTS, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WAS PLACE IN THE MAIL TO THE CAKE OF HON. THOMAS A. WILDER DISTRICT CLEXK 401 WEST DECKNAP STREET FORTWORTH TEXAS 76196-0402

*7 No. C-396-010432-1249395-A

IN THE 396* JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS

MOTION TO REQUEST COPIES OF TRIAL COURT RECORDS, TRANSCRIPTS DOCUMENTS, STATEMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS ETC...ETC., AFTER FINAL CONVICIION

COMES NOW LARRY JOB MORGAN APPLICANT PRO-SE AND LAYMAN AND RESPECTFULLY MOVES. THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 39.14.C.C.P. AND MAKES. His MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF ANY AND ALL COURT TRIAL RECORDS OF THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF CAUSE NO. 12493950. AND IN SUPPORT THERE OF WOULD SHOW THE COURT THE FOLLOWING:

1 . THE APPLICANT IS LEGALLY INTITILED TO THE FOREGOING INFORMATION PUESUANT TO THE FIFTH, SIVTH AND FOURTEENTH ANENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OF THE. ARTICLE 2, SECTION 10 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE AND UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE 39.14.C.C.P.

2 . ALL CONFESSIONS ADMISSIONS AND STATEMENTS ORAL AND OR WRITTEN AND SET DOWN AND PRESERVED AND UTILIZ PRIOR TO OR DURING THE TRIAL FOR THE INDICMENT AND FINAL CONVICIION IN THE ABOVE FOCEMENTIONED CAUS NUMBER.

*8

NO. C. $396-010432-1249395-A$

EX PARTE

LARRY Joe MORGAN

IN THE 396th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS

MOTION TO REQUEST COPIES OF TRIAL COURT RECORDS, TRANSCRIPTS DOCUMENTS, STATEMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS ETC...ETC.. AFTER FINAL CONVILTION

COMES NOW LARRY Joe MORGAN APPLICANT PRO-SE AND LAYMAN AND RESPECTFULLY MOVES THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 39.14.C.C.P. AND MAKES HIS MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF ANY AND ALL COURT TRIAL RECORDS OF THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF CAUSE NO. 12493950. AND IN SUPPORT THERE OF WOULD SHOW THE COURT THE FOLLOWING:

1 . THE APPLICANT IS LEGALLY INTITILED TO THE FOREGOING INFORMATION PUESUANT TO THE FIFTH, SIVTH AND FOURTEENTH Amendments to the United States Constitution of the Article 4, Section 10 and 19 of the Constitution of THE STATE OF TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE AND UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARTICLE 39.14.C.C.P.

2 . ALL CONFESSIONS ADMISSIONS AND STATEMENTS ORAL AND OR WRITTEN AND SET DOWN AND PRESERVED AND UTILIZED PRIOR TO OR DURING THE TRIAL FOR THE INDICHENT AND FINAL CONVILTION IN THE ABOVE FOCEMENTIONED CAUSE NUMBER.

*9

APPLICANT CANNOT ADEQUATELY PREPAKE THE NECESSARY FACTS TO SUCCESSFULLY PROVE BY PRE-

PANDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE ERRORS CONTRIBUTED TO HIS CONVICTION.

4 . APPLICANT IS ILLEGALLY BEING DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURT / STATE'S ATTARNES WITHHOLDING SAID INFORMATION WHICH HINDEKS APPLICANT FROM EFFECTIVELY PREPARING His BRIEF.

5 . ALL PRIOR RECORDING INCLUDING APPLICANT'S BOND REDUCTION HEARING, 911 CALLERS, AND TRIAL, AND APPERL HEARING ADt AUDIO AND TRANSCRIPTS PROCEEDING.

6 . THE PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORDS OF APPLICANt's, STATES VICTIM, STATES WITNESSES INCLUDING ALL ARREST AND CONVILTIONS.

7 . ANY AND ALL CONFIDENTIAL WITNESSES OR EYE WITNESSES THAT THE STATE USED AS EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH SAID CONVILTION.

8 . ALL INHOUSE AUDIO'S AND VIDEO'S SAID TRIAL, BOND HEARING, AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL HEARING.

9 . IN SUPPORT HEREOF THE APPLICANT WOULD SHOW THE COURT THAT PRODUCTION OF SAID INFORMATION OF

*10 The Foregoing items is necessary to insure that the Applicanit can adequately prepare His Belief Response To His Trial Attornet's Affidavits.

The items are in the exclusive possession, custody and control of the state of Texas by and through its agents, the police or the Prosecuting Attorney's office and the trial court in which Appliant was convicted.

The items requested are authorized to the Applicant by law not providing Applicant with them is a violation of his due process right.

PRO SE REPRESENTATION CONti

Please see herns vs. Kerins. The Applicant is not a License Attorney and therefore should not be held to the stringent standards standards of a trained Counsel.

The following Foregoing information evidence was utilized to establish Applicants Gulf. Thus the absent of such information will automatically violate the Applicant right under article 39.14.C.E. Article 1 sections 10 and 19 of the constitution of the state of Texas and the fifth sixth and four-teenth amendments of the constitution of the United States of America will be violated.

PRAYER

Wherefore, PRoMIsEs considered, the Applicanit

*11 Respectfully moves this Honorable Court Grant to following foregoing request so that approach can adequately prepare his Brief.

VERIFICATION

I LAIRY JOE MORGAN TOLI-ID # 1847262 being presently incarcerated at the James A. Lynaugh unit of TOLI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing facts are true and correct.

LARRY JOE MORGAN Applicant DO 12 08/ 02/ 060 Date 05 04 2005 1098 S. HNY. 2037 FT STOCKTON TX 79735

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on May 28, 2015 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Document Requesting Record for Briefwas mailed To the District Court Clerk of Torrent County Texas in care of Tom Wilder District Court 401 west Belknap street Fort Worth Texas 76106.

*12

No. C-396-010432-1249395-A EX PARTE LARRY JOE MORGAN, Complaintant, $\S$ $\S$ $\S$ $\S$ $\S$

MaTION

GENERAL TRAVERSE AND SPECIAL TRAVERSE To The Most Honorable Judge of Said Court: Larry Joe MORGAN, Hereinafter Called Complaintant, IN THIS PRO SE MOTION MAKES KNOWN TO THE COURT THAT He is ILLEGALLY RESTRAINED IN His LIBERTY BY James A. LYnaugh and the Texas Department of Corrections AT Fort Stockton Texas, SolaLY UNDER AND BY VIRTUE OF A Judgment, And Sentence Cause number 12493950 StYled the State of Texas Vs. Larry Joe Morgan Said JudGMENT.

COMES NOW, LARRY JOE MORGAN, COMPIAINTANT AND LAYMAN TERMS, MOVES TO OBJECT TO R.S.WALKER RESPONSE TO HIS II.O7 WRI T OF HABEAS CORPUS.

COMPLalNTANT HEREANDNOW, ASSEPTS GENERAL TRAVERSE, IN SOME INSTANCING, COMPIAINTANT WILL RESPOND WITH SPECIAL TRAVERSE.

1

R.S.WALKER IS CORRECT HE WAS FIRST APPOINTED MY TRIAL COUNSELOR ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 21, 2012, However 3, Walker fall to mention in His AFFIDAVIT DECAUSE HE VIOLATED SECTION 9. OF TEXAS DISCIPLINARY OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT RULE 1.03 AND 8.03, JUST DAYS AFTER HE WAS APPOINTED, UPON OUR APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JUDGE FOR THE FIRST TIME, I ASK THE JUDGE

*13

To Please Aproint another Attorney or To continue PRO SE, I AsSErTED THEIR HAS BEEN A TOTAL BREAKDOWN IN OUR COMMUNICATION: AS THE COURT SEE OUTLINED ON MYY AFFIDAVIT DATED 5-24-2015. S. WALKER ALSO FAIL TO MENTION / CONTINUED PRO SE AND FURTHERMORE THE COURT KEPT HIM ON AS MY ADVISOR, HOWEVER WHEN I ASKED FOR HELP, AND ADVICE, BECAUSE OF JAIL HOUSE RESTRAINTS HE SAID HE COULD NOT GIVE ME ANY ADVICE, BECAUSE HE WAS NOT MYY ATTORNEY AGAIN IN MYY OPINION VIOLATING RULES 1.03 AND 8.03.

14

ON JANUARY 18th 2013 BECAUSE I WAS BEINE CONTINUALLY BLOCK FROM FILING MOTIONS AND MAKING COPIES, AS I TOLD THE J UOGE, I HAD TO SIGN S. WALKER BACK ON, FURTHERMORE S. WALKER CONTINUE TO BREACH His OUTIES AS MYY ATTORNEY: A. HE DID NOT INVESTIGATEV VIOLATED RULE TORPC 1.01. COMPETENT AND DILIGENT REPRESENTATION. B. HE DID NOT PRESENT THE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE. BUT THAT WAS MY DEFENSE AS THE EVIDENCE STOOD. THEREFORE HE VIOLATED RULES 1.01, 1.03, 8.04, OF TORPC. C. HE DID NOT SUBPOENA THE WOMAN 911 CALLER WHOSE CALL WOULD COUNTER THOSE OF THE STATES WITHESSES: VIOLATES RULE 8.04 (2)(3) AND (4) OF TORPC.

14

THE COURT WILL SEE ALL MY DESIGNATED ISSUES AND FACTS OUTLINED ON MYY AFFIDAVIT DATED 5-24-15IN RESPONSE TO R.S. WALKER AFFIDAVIT FILED 5-15-2015AND FURTHERMORE A LAWYER SHOULD NOT ACCEPT REPRESENTATION IN A MATTER UNLESS IT CAN SE PERFORMED COMPETENTLY, PROMPTLY AND WITHOUT LAMPROPER CONFLICT OF INTEREST, SEE GENERALLY RULES,

*14 1.01,1.06,1.07,1.09, AND 109 HAVING ACCEPTED THE REPRESENTATION A LAWYER NORMALLY SHOULD ENDEAVOR TO HANOLE THE MATTER TO COMPLETION. NEVERTHOLESS IN CERTALN SITUATIONS THE LAWYER MUST TERMINATE THE REPRESENTATION AND IN CERTALN OTHER SITUATION THE LAWYER IS PERMITTED TO WITHORAW.

S. WALKER NEVER TOLD ME HE WAS NOT USING THE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE. FURTHERMORE WHAT DEFENSE DID HE USE. RULE 1.03 (a) A LAWYER SHALL KEEP A CLIENT REASONA BLY INFORMED ABOUT THE STATUS OF A MATTER AND PROMPTLY COMPLY WITH REASONABLE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. (b) A LAWYER SHALL EXPLAIN A MATTER TO THE EXTENT REASONAELY NECESSARY TO PERMIT THE CLIENT TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS REGARDING THE REPRESENTATION. IN FACT IN LITIGATION A LAWYER SHOULD EXPLAIN THE GENERAL STRATEGY AND PROPFCTS OF SUCCESS AND ORGANIARY ORDINARILY SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE CLIENT ON TACtIES THAT HIGHT INJURE OR COERLE OTHERS. FURTHER MORE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE IS THAT THE LAWYER SHOULD KEASONAELY FULFILL CLIENT EXPECTATIONS FOR INFORMATION CONSISTENT WITH THE DUTY TO ACT IN THE CLIENT'S ISEST INTERESTS AND THE CLIENTS OVERALL REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE CHARACTER OF REPRESENTATION.

AS IT HAS BEEN ASSETED ON COMPLAINTANT'S AFFIDAVIT DATED 5-24-2015 AND HEREIN THIS MOTION MR. RICHARD SCOTT WALKER HAS MET ALL THE VIOLATIONS OF THE TEVAS RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND STRIKLAND V. WASHINGTON. THE EVIDENCE HE DID NOT PRESENT LOOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THE DEFENSE, THE DEFENSE OF SELF-DEFENSE. SEE TACKSON V. VIRGINIA 443 U.S. 307 (1979),THE SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES A DEFENDANT EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF CONSEL.

*15 TRIAL COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE WAS SEVERELY DEFICINENT AND MALICIOUS IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT. FURTHER THE COUNSEL'S PREFORD MANLE MEETS THE STANDARD LAID DOWN IN STRIKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 668 (1984) FOR DETERMINING THE INEFeCTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: (a) COUNSEL ACTED UNREASONABLY AND (b) THE COUNSEL'S ACTIONS PREJUDICED THE CLIENT. TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INADEQUATE ASSISTANCE IN THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE WHICH PREJUDICED THE COMPLAINTANT IN THE FOLLOW PARTICULARS: AS IF I WOULD HARM SOMEONE CONTRARY TO SELF DEFENSE. As SET FORTH ON COMPLAINTANT'S II.OT AND His AFFIDAVIT DATED 5-24-2015- AND HEREIN THE FULL COMPLETE AND TRUTHFUL EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SHOWS THAT COMPLAINTANT'S CONVICTION IS BASED UPON NOT PRESENTING TRUE EVIDENCE AND FALSE TESTIMONIES, SABOTAGING COMPLAINTANTS DEFENSE. TRIAL COUNSEL INTENTIONALLY ACTED AGAINST THE COMPLAINTANT AND DID NOT ATTEMPT TO PRODUCE OR EVEN OBTAIN RELEVANT EVIDENCE, CALL ATTENTION TO UTILIZE IMPORTANT EVIDENCE NOR CALL ON IMPORTANT WITNESSES TO PROVE THAT COMPLAINTANT HONESTLY IS LIGIT. FAILURE TO PRESENT TO THE JURY THIS EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD HAVE CLEARLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT COMPLAINTANT ACT IN SELFDEFENSE SHOW CLEAR SABOTAGE AND MALICE OF COMPLAINTANT DEFENSE AND CONTRIBUTED TO A SUCCESSFUL MALICIOUS PROSECTION AND ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS LAWS. THIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE CHANCE THE VERDICt of the JURY AS REQUIRED UNDER THE HARMLESS ERROR RULE DETERMINED IN BRECHT V. ABRAHAMSON. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT ERRORS ARE HARMLESS UNLESS THEY HAVE A "SUBSTANTIAL

*16 AND INIURIOUS EFFECT OR INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THE. JURY'S VERDICT." THE COMPLAINTANT COUNSEL CAN- NOT BE PROTECTED UNDER THE HARMESSS. ERRAR RULE. AS HIS FAILURE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCE RELEVANT TESTIMONY A SERIOUS COMPETENT DEFENSE STRATEGY (AS AGREED TO IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE) AS A CONDITION OF COMPLAINTANT ACCEPTING COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL AND THIS RESULTED IN THE JURY FINDING THE COMPLAINTANT GUILTY, AS OUTLINED ON COMPLAINTANT IIPOT AND HIS AFFIDAVIT AND THIS MOTION HERBIN COMPLAINTANT'S ATTORNEYS PROFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 668104 SICJ 205280 L.E. 20206741984 THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT TO ADVANCE SUCCESSFULLY AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIM YOU MUST PROVE THAT COUNSEL PROFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT. COUNSELOR'S ACTION WAS NOT SOUND TRIAL STRATEGY ON COMPLAINTANT BEHALF.

PRAYER COMPLAINTANT PRAYS THAT THIS COURT LOOKS UPON ALL THE FACTS THAT'S BEEN PRESENTEO ON HIS II.O7 AND AFFIDAVITS AND FINALLY, THIS MOTION AND GRANT HIS II.O7 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.

VERIFICATION I LARRY JOE MORGAN YOCE-IOF 1847262 BEING PRESENTLY INCARCERATED AT THE JAMES A. LYNAUGH UNIT OF TOCE DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FORGOING FACTS ARE TEUE AND CORRECT.

*17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICES

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON TUNE 1, 2015" A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING MOTION TRAVERSE WAS MAILED TO THE DISTRICT CLERK 401 WEST BELKNAP FORT WORTH TEXAS 76196-0402

LARRY 30 E MORGAN COMBINSTANT PROSE TOCS-10 1897262 D 0805071960 LYNAUGH UNITO-14 1098 S. HWY 2037 FORT STOCKTON, TX 79735