Nowlin, Olin Ray
Date Filed2014-12-31
DocketWR-45,324-07
Cited0 times
StatusPublished
Full Opinion (html_with_citations)
:IN '.'THE .'CRI'MINAL' 'C:OtJRT·~·c;,p·:·APPEALS
P.O, BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711
OLIN RAY NOWLIN
TDCJ-ID# 824386
APPLICANT/PRO SE
RECE\VED lN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OEC 31 2014
vs.
Abel Acosta, Clerk
THE STATE OF TEXAS
RESPONDANT
MOTION FOR OBJECTIONS
TO THE STATE REPLY
(A)
IL~ THE COURT OF C~IMINAL APPEALJNfJ010©JfM lDJ~WfO/E[D
P,O, BOX 1203 CAPITOL STATION {[J~if~- (-q}-
15
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 IBJV:_rE ._,
OLIN RAY NOWLIN § C~2~0I0347~0628183-E
APPLICANT/PRO SE §
§
vs,
§
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
RESPONDANT
A MOTIONFFpR OBJECTIONS
TO THE STATE REPLY
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
NOW COME SAID APPLICANT OLIN RAY NOWLIN/PRO SE IN THE ABOVE
SYLED NUMBERED C-2~010347-0628183-E AND REPECTFULLY SUBMI~S
HIS MOTION OF OBJECTION TO THE STATE REPLY.~APPLICANT FILES
WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY~ON ·RECORD AND WILL REPECTFULLY SHOW
THE'COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS THE FOLLOWING REASON:
(1 )
THE APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT HE FILED A MOTION FOR A SUBPONA ;.
DUCES TECUM THE STATE WITNESS PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE OF CRI~
MINAL PROCEDURE ARTILE 24.02, THE CR[MINAL DISTRICT COURT,
NO. #2 REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE STATE WIT~ESS ARE ANY EVIDENCE
OF THE SUBPONA DUCES TECUM QFrTHE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS &
WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE ANY R8LING OF THE TRIAL
COURT THE APPLICANT SAK THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO~ #2
FOR· IDENTITY OF THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS THE APPLICANT REQUES~-
2D FOR DOCUMENTATIONS. SUCH AS 1) BIRTH CERTFICATE: AND 2)i f•-.· c
AFFIDAVIT UNDER OATH OF SIGNATURE:l<AND 3)'BR:;:[:VEELICENSE OR A
TEXAS ID CORD OF SIGNATURE:
(1 )
-THE STATE STATES· THAT THE::CASE IN BRIEF/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
--THAT THEl'NEWLY DCI:SC0VERD" DOCUMENTS THAT THEDDOCUMENTS FI"'
LED\<;WITHT['HE- TARRANT COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 1 S OFFICE AS PART:.,::
O:F '.THEi ·APJPLICANT Is i 1998 TRIAL RECORD I AND ARE NOT II NEW" EVID-
ENCE APPLICATION-EXHIBITS A&B.
THE BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY THIRD POCKET EDITION STATES THAT
fNEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE EXISTING AT . THE TIME
OF A MOTION:~ OR TRIAL BUT THEN UNKNOWN TO A PARTY, WHO, UPON
LATER DISCOVERING IT, MAY ASSERTASGROUNDS FOR NEWLY DISCOV-
ERED EVIDENCE FOR GROUNDS FOR A NEW TRIAL. HRRK A~P.PETC'ANT:
.
WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS EVIDENCE TTNTIL YEARS LATER AND THEREFO-
RE IT IS NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE,
THE" APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT NO MATTER HOW MENY APPLICATIONS
FOR FEDERAL CALLATERA£ RELIEF A~PIRSONER HAS MADE IF DIFFERENT
GROUNDS IS PRESENTED BY NEW APPLICATION OR NEW GROUND WAS NOT
ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS CONSIDERATION OF MERITS OF A NWW
.
APPLICATION CAN Bg AVOIDED ONLY IF ~HERE HAS BEEN ABUSE OF THE
WRIT OR MOTION REMENDY AND THIS THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN
OF PLEADIND. THE DOCUMENT (b) IS NOT PART OF THE RECORDS BECA-
USE IT WAS NOT. ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS AND WAS NOT RULE~ ON
IN THE TRIAL COURT BEFORE THE ·JURY
(2)
GROUND FOR RELIEF:
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
(1). HE WAS DE~IED DUES PROCESS BECAUSE THE JURY WAS PERMITT~;
ED SEPARATE:
APPLICANT OBJECT:
NOT TRUE. THE AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE JURY TO SPEARATE WAS. NOT'/··
BASE ON THE SEPARATEION~QF~~DUE PROCESS BUT BASED ON NOT GIV-
EN THE APPLICANT ANY NOTICE OF THE:(b)- SEE APPLICANT SUCCE-
SSIVE PETITION ON [ARGUEMENT OF VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL ,
OF ERRORS AND DOCUMENTATIONS OF PROOF]
( 2)
~;_-p,\"('2).-THE STATE STATES THAT THE. APPEICANT THAT HE.WAS:DENIEDEFt-:
FECTIVE · ASSISTANCE:T~:·o·F? TRIAL COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS ATTO~NEY,
DID NOT OBJECT TO THE LACK NOTICE OF THE STATE'S WITNESS
APPLICANT OBJECW~~NOT~TRUE
BUT APPLICANT CLAIMS THAT COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTLVE~ASS~S~ANCE
ANCE OF COUNSEL.: BY>'NOT OBJECTING TO THE STATES EVIDENCE THAT
WAS NOT ALLOW PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES ~PPELANT PROCEDURE RULE
30 (b) (7)
~= 1 (3) . THE STATE ~TATES THAT T~E APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DE~
NIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT FULLY INVE-
STIGATION HIS CASE:
APPLICANT OBJECT: NOT TURE
THE; APPLICANT. CLAIMs-· .L THAT; ~;THE,:::· 'GRAND JURY DID ITS INVESTI- ··.. · ..
GATION AND FOUND NO EVIDENCE OFi'THIS:~STAirE WITNESS AS IN EXHIBIT
(b)
(4). THE STATE STATES THAT THE APPLICANT THAT HE WAS DENIED ,
HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION:
..!.J {t.-•
APPLICANT DOES NOT OBJECT:
APPLICANT CLAIMS THA~ HE HAS A RIGHT TO FACE HIS ACCUSERS AND
TO SEE IF THEY ARE REAL BY NOT SUBPONA DUCES'::TECtJM "THE '.:"-~!:.T..ff.E:SS .:
IDHAT~WAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE MERITS ARE HAD ANY RULING OF
THE TRIAL COURT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BEFORE THE JURY IS A VIOLA-
TION OF THE APPLI~ANT TEXAS AND~FEDERAL COUNSTITUTIONALS A-
MENDMENTS RIGHTS 6th/5th/14th.
AR<SEM'E'NT ·
THE APPLICANT ARGUES THAT THE TEXAS RULES APPELLANT PROCEDURE
RULE 30 (b) (7) FORBIDES FOR UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESSES~TO BE
HEARED IN THE JURY DELIBERATION OF ITE RETIREING TO THE DELIB-
ERATING OF ~HE JURY . WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE JURY VERDICT
( 3) [l
' .
~ !'' ' .
PURSUNT TO TEXAS:RULES~APPELLATE~PROCREBRE-RULE~44:2 - WHICH
CAUSE THE JURY TO!:.DECIDED THE APPLICANT SENTENCE IN AN IN-'
APPORPRIATE MANNER • THE REAL ISSUES IN THE .APPLICANT.OF HIS
CASE WAS THE UNSUBPONA. WITNESS IN VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITB-
TIONAL::RIGHTS OF THE 6th/5th/1.4th AMENDMENTS~OF THE CONFRONTAT-
ION CLUASE OF TEXAS RULES APPLELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 30 (b)
(7) OF THE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS ;,P0RBIDING TO BE HEARD.IN
THE JURY DELIBERATJONr~ THE APPLICANT HAD NOT PROTECTION AGA-
INSE THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS;
CONCLUS·ION
THE APPLICAN.T IN HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE EVIDENCE OF NEWLY ,
DISCOVERED AND IT IS NOT PART OF THE 1998 TRIAL THE TRANSC-
RIPT OFF~THE APPLICANT TRIAL DOES NOT SHOW WHE UNSUBPONA WIT-
NESS EVER APPEAR AT TRIAL BEFORE THE JURY THEREFORE CANNOT BE
PART OF OF THE TRASCRIPT R£CORDSS EVf;,R.__T!:IOSE THE CLERK DOCUM-
ENT IT,WHIS ~S ERR0R~ON THE STATE PART. THIS IS UNFAIR TRIAL,
PURSUANT TO TITLE 28 U~S.C. 2254 (b) (l) SEE APPLICANT SUCCES-
SIVE PETITION ,
PRAYER
THE APPLICANT PRAYERS THAT THIS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS WILL UPHOLD
THE APPLICANT TEXAS AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDNENTsr·) ::c
THAT WAS VIOLATED OF THE UNSUBPONA STATE WITNESS THAT THE
APPLICANT'~' NEYER: •· HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO FACE HIS ACCUSER
AT ANY TRIAL OF THE COURTS THE APPLICANT IF.NOT A NEW TRIAL
TO FACE HIS ACCUSER THEN THEFAPPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:· WILL GRANT THE APPLICANT A JUDGMENT~
ACUITTAL FROM THE FALSE INFORMATION OF THE UNSUBPONA WITNESS
THAT WAS LET INTO THE JURY DELIBERATION THAT- HAS NOT BEEN ,
THE JURY TRIAL
THE APPLICANT THANKS THEJUDGE OR JUDGESFOR.YOUR HELP IN THIS
CENCERN MATTER: THANK YOU
(4)
..
RESPECTFULL SUBMITTED
OLIN RAY NOWLIN
TDCJ-IN NO. #824386
MARK STILE UNIT
3060 FM 3514
BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77705
~~~
OLIN RAY NOWLIN
APPLICANT/PRO SE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THE UNSIGNED HEREBY CERTIFIES :~: THAT A TRUE AND CERRECT COPY
OF THE FORGOING WAS MAILED TO THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO
PASS COPIES TO THOSE THAT ARE CONCERN UNDER 1 2 (12) F.R.C.C
AND INMATE MAKE ONLY ONE COPY OF HIS WRIT AND REQUEST THAT
THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO MAKE COPIES FO HIM DU~ TO BEING I~
NDIGENT AND UNABLE TO MAKE COPIES~
SIGNED ON THIS 22 DAY OF DECEBER 2014
SIGNAT!JRE rQJ.lin ~014
(5 )