Comes now, Ronnie Buss, peckoner, and fiter this Mr. motion for renegaring on the Court decision to refuse petitioners filed deçerationary review, and in support shows the following: 2. On May, 28th, 2015 the 5th Court of Appols affirmed his connection in 1094 05-13-00518-CR for the of tense of Capital Murder. 2. On August, 28th, 2015 the Court of criminal Appeats forcerer decisionary review over this opinion. 3. On November, 4, 2015, the Court of criminal appear refuerer decreesionary review. 4. On light of the Court decision in Snawden v state 353 s.w. 3d 815 (trek crim App. 2015) he wins Court to rehter his petition for discretionary review due this Court's howling crhominers error rhomb take into account and wnt every circumstante apporent in the record thit logically inturns an appellate determination whether "bejons a reasonable doubt" error dis not contribute to the connection or punishment. 5. It is apparent from the record in this case that Mr. reorain and seizure Cluim over his cellphene text wun not haminers because therecun showed his stecell phone record, wure the only ones to be pubvions a admitthi authorsititly to go betwee the juiz, No new independent sources of text metrayes wete entreds betwee the Juze because the Court of Appeats incorrectly reviewd this matter the Court should grand Discretionary Review. 6. Petronpetitioner urges the Court to review the fucs of this care in Concurteare with the proper harm unally, as yet forth in TEXR App 2012a and Snawden v state PO.

*2

1. petitioner a year he tiles this motion in good faith and that the supertantial in terkenty. Circumstante et not havent acless at the time to snowden to state be prevented him from citing the proper harm analysis in his cure and that this motion is not made for delay.

Wherefore premier consldery petitions proks the Count Grant this motion for rehearing an Grant his petition for deserstonary review in this cave.

Repet t4lly submittee Mr. S. 50 Ronnee bars ldwall Robinson unit 12011 fm 3522 Abilene, TX 79601

Substantive Entervening Circumstanter In Concorrence with reK.R. App 2 affirm under Rule 74.281 this motion is made in Loew faith and not for delay. the subrskn trial in terkenty Circumstanter that prevented the from citing the proper harm analysis standard under Snowden V. State $353\mathrm{s},w\mathrm{.3}\mathrm{s}815$ ( for Crim Appand is that my later Vboty did not have this cash in basic format. All new cave after 2007 you have to have printed all from the computer. My later Voter, limits us to 3 sneepent charters or cacer duty when 2 found this cave in it was past the time to incluse it in my aueage tiles PUA, the above two foregoing is true and correct to tee best of my

*3

Knowledge

Dated this day of November, 2015

Rur & &r

Ronne Baus 1848111 Robertson Unis 12071 Fes 3522 Abileney +X 71601

Cerlyficats of yetive

I HERE BY CERTIFY tnany puritnant to Rul8 8.5 and 68.11 of the TEXar Ruiter of Appellate prodeure of true and correct copy of this moxion for rehearing has been sent by first class mail to the state provelating at tomg cat Prur BOX 18046, Austin, TX 78711 and the Dallas county VA, (crug womensing at 133 N. River from D104, L 8 13, Dalins, TX 75203, on this 9 days of November, 2015

Rur & &r

Ronne Baus 1848111 Prove.