### ORIGINAL IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS WENFORO LETTSOMEj Petiiioherj

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS j RECEIVE <M Appellee.

. COJOTOFO^^jj

o-a n

0 281!
TM* THE hu iA Abel Acosfra, CteWCOURT OF APPEALS

- FIRST DX5TRICT OF TEXAS CA(tf£ MO, 0hl3-O0S-32~CR FILED IN 

### On Appeo/fr„» 1*. JSLi OtsfHct ^,tC0^OFCR,M,NALAPPEALS H*»* <Wy, Texas MAR 20 2015 Trkl Court Cost t4o. 0131709S Abel Acosta, Clerk

FETITION FOR DISCRETION*** REVIEW

TO. C.X-ID. No. Ote$¥36f OalhahT UnttNo.07^ II1SO FM W8 Dalhahf; leXAS 7W&TABLE OF CONTENTS A/m©4ihce/>ie/tt-feh'tibh For Discretionary R&vim Table Of Contents Table OF Authorities And Statutes Used List Of Interested forties Oral Argument Statement Of Cose. And Procedural History Statement Of Facts WttnoranJuM-Ptfiti'tn For discretionary Review Ground One I Facts I Argument Ground One I Crround TWo t Fads I 

### psryumerit Ground Two * Prayer Certificate. Of Service Sworn Declaration Affidavit OfVJenforJ Lettsome 

### potion To Suspend the Ra/e, Rule A

m pages;

X K

I 1
a 3 11 11 U 13 At Rear At Rear At tor At RearTABLE OF AUTHORITIES SMU:

.Ajbrecnt v. State.. W6 S.k/.a</ *7 CTe^.CHm. Apf» ffl*)

Bill V. Statej133 S,W> 3d S*3 CTex.A/V*;Waco &>p7) Brads V. Alary'***; *73 US, S3, 83 S*CtIWjtO L.&U *£W«) _fi Oe Ufta y, tote, W S.W.2<t*7lXApp<8 »& '**5 «>.*• *W £&. G^e/- v. i/a, rj; <Z* '*%,*?*Q*f!i, , ^ ,^ ,„„, ^ *,* -#- (ruefwe v. Stattj 8X> SMU 3t78J3$<r(Tex,App, Grpus Q\hW IMj/*etrefds) 8 Jackson v. \Mnk, m U,$.j Uf. J^JtyffA<* W*^

. _*_ McMnJ v. State) di* S*vJ.*d fAl + , „ -JL- ^Xemery v. &%8V S.vJ* M 3& at 397 %I0 

### mTATv. State j * fi S,ULA/ m *t 879 CfeX, Cr,/W, /f«r Zt

sn4kti^--V' w&J^wu&fl* atfrt.Mfs.fa&sa. *tio& x

^TATUTE5 USED,' T€X. Code of Crfw. ProcJ38.Z* C«) TCX. Const X,f/* 

## Ttt.'fSfcJfclS Art. §13,01 CaXjXbXm) TeX. Penal Code Ann. Art/a3> OZC*K» 

### Te*, *• App^ *WvA«le ^XgO And Rule ^ TeX> R. ofEvft. R«lc /OS^*) Tex. R. «fEv/d^ Rule 403 TeX. R. «f CvAft Rule **KW CAS, fTTj Const flmeno'* U.5. S'U Const. Amenf U*S* 6 th Const' jWno"' U*S* MTh Const Aj]\fV» r , , . , frp/»g/fgy Key 3Ty<rJfJltf#. exe/«w*tertffach*PWohTo /CWnQ law/ Key 77/CCearrtfrewind Jo IhStt-itcf) t ± ^jf.

Suprexh^nj)6ft frj«rrtal lay K»V .S^yg7f3l)4#.cXc/««^^dr/acf/JAleT^To«9^r«ffkv^P f%LJL/nfli Fow Key 777 CCourTis reftf//*ecf 7o inSfritcf)
. .& CrW**1 ^a r°Y H*fl£*teffttcfrsupports by recordre^emfi^moi^SKt^CIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS WENFORO LETTSOMEj&OtSSW! Petitioner,
Vs.
THE STATE OF TEXASApfft'/eeLXST OF INTERESTED PARTIES

Wenford Lettsome t fetitumer Prose TPCJ-IO Ho* 0$&t36<l 

## 'Ifm-Wto** Dalhortj Texas WOZX- 7<&V
Court Of Criminal AffeatsOf Texas P0. Box /2308;CaplTolStatin Austinj Tems 79711
First Court Of Appeals 30\ Fanntn Street! Rm. XOS Houstonj TetaS T700SL HRAL argument: 

### RevestOral Argumentretarding fhe -failure of$e Officer renderiy defendants Miranda tiahtsjand Penal CodeS l2,otC*X2)ti>X*M nottetno QfrliQuous aqojusfPenalCode §XI,OSiCOOherroneous rulinos, XfarreitUs hotwfe&thiyAotInvoke Mfrnhda Ifyib %m W&NtntTM' *+*£wa* t&t Properly Ser\tef~Then there is no pfolahk Cause-for erroneous arrestorseizure*STATEMENT OF CASE ANb PROCE&UkAl KlSToRf" Petitionerj Wenford Lettsome^ pro-s^tlrialCourt Cause No* OBWO&jryrested on or about,/Wayfa3lMjfeYas PfnalCbdef&LiOZ OOOyrCyidthen and there un/aiJfW in%nlibmllv ahd.kfioVingly threaten M&jton Letffomej * Compfamantj with 'imminent ^k »>JutY. V u*Mj*l embitiM a deadly weapon j namely, A Machetes)/faaLa prior ConvKhon on NovMer 23, koto-'Cause M?. rZlMv Oistrict' CoUrfoTHarris Counf/Jjetas for A/Wyj a-fe/ony offense of Unlawful Restraint ^fyfi^^ll^^L assaultoka household mem&er/Petitioner Appealed case No.0hi3-oo£3ii ~*J convjchon y*s affirmedJftetfoUsMTs fUiUn For ^^l°W *****,

\ffelhnPs Conviction wos upmdor affirmed on December IB) XolfjOn fypwk -A STATEMENT OF FACTS 

### Petlt/onerj h/erfbrd Lettsomej Pro-Sej U'mj convicted ofthe charae aitefjtd in the indictment Ga/tfe (Vo> 013470^ and based on the predicate ofhis Prior Convictionj Trial Court Commenced on June fy duoO, The State called Complainant Elfeston Lettsome and Alphonsine. 

### Lettsomej To testify on the questio/ij "Did Wenford Lettsonne threaten 

### you with aMachetef}) hndj the answer was nonreSponsivejfrom both he and his u'tfe. See R.R. Vol,3 ofb, fa. l3XH3-2r Through 133:1 ("Ohjectbnj 

### Judae

- Sustained;as Narrafvef) andR.R. Vol. 3of6jfy l3K^2f(?0&j*&on; 

### Tudae-Sustained j as A/onres/>o«sivef)and (UL Vol,3 ofb, h).S*7;/0-/9: C^ilO Q, Threats? Ill A. f/e never talk threats 1b me. iit Q. He wouldnT threaten you every timefllfA* I don^t think So* Ul Ms* Summers i Objection Your Honor* Asked and A/Wered* 11° The- CourtI 

### Sustained* Atorf'question.*)J On RAM.3of6j Pa* 11*.!/0-lf:([JX Ms, Summers !T have a motion ibr on instructed verdict I believe 1h& Stale. 

### naS failed sufficient evidence for a reasonablejury to Convict this defendant beyond a, reasonable doubt '.IG The. Court iIts dented*JURISDICTION 

### This Court has thejurisdiction to entertain this uvrltCP.OX) 

### under the authority of fhe Rules ofAppellate Procedure; Ruk 68. IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL *ff**L$ ofr ^liftS WENFORt> LETTS0r\£#Oie6436<l § COURT OF APPEALS 

## WtrtiWr, Prose, gmsT DIsnicr ^-^
Vs* *« £ CAUSE NO. OH3-OOS3&-CH THE STATE OF TEXAS Appellee* § MEMORANDUM I PETITION FOR uISCRETlONPiRY REVIEW

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES IM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: COKES NOWj Wenford Lettsomej Petitioner j Pro-Se.j with hiS 

### ?et\tAh For Discretionary Review challenging Constftutibw,/Issues that Wtnt maddressedand unchallenged atPretrial) trialcourt; and on Peiitianerls Appeal*

G-ROUND ONE : U.S. ^thjSthylHth Constitutional Amendments To 0>ue Process)J 

### State, Constitution 1^100>ue Process), IJ19 0>ue Course); Prosecutorial Misconduct-Inadmissible Evidence ; IIIeja I 

### Search And Seizure j CE^ual protection Of The Laws,)j Ahuse of Discretion) Police failed to render defendants Hrahda Ryhts*

### FACTS* Petitioner j Wenford Ltttsomej defendant^ pro-Sej Contends and argues that he is actually innocent 

### of the a/Ieyed char fed offense, setout in Ue indicfmentfld*) CcmSt Mo. OttWotSl When complainant Elleston Lettsome made 

### the. cornplaintat the police statoh) itwas Three days to two weeks 

### prior to an alleged argument, and arrest) on or aiout May 6px>lXt The jpolice hud a uiarranfandprobable. cauSe for defendants arrest, 

### out) police didh*t have a yarrant to Search and ie/ze a Machete 

### frorn defendants house to he. uStd for alleged evidence-based on

probable cause and for good cause"Such u/as notSet out in the 

### arrest warrantonly •The police, acted to retrieve a machete- at Petitioners houSe. in an Illegalsearch and Seizure andfor a. Weapon^ againstdefendantat4- time, when the at/efedMacAeie-yaS 

### not in plain Sight) but was stored in \ts Sameplace for years* The Statt acted in Prosecutorial Misconduct to have had the. 

### alkged evidence, admitted into trial court}namely the "Machete* as an alleaed deadly weapon *The alleged machete was used as evidence, when It was notpart of a crime j was inadmissible* 

### Petitioner never had a Machete, on hisperson during any atkged 

### argument with complainant Jand the First CourtOfApfea/s did confirm thatfact* Petitioner had never caased an injury in thk CauSe^nor a death, or aSeriouS bodilyInjury) Of imminent 

### bodily injury on or to the complainant* At trial court) fhe Slates Penal Q>da, was in error) and misapplied use of (Same) statute. This 

### case is based on the predicate, ofsaidprior alleged offense in the 

### enhancementparagraph cause. No* I2./U7? ofan allegedunlawful restraint,' also Petitionees TeiLaS Penal Code should have heen a\ Third Degree Felony and Punishmentinstead of Second degree Punishment*

-2-GROUND ONE

PhiosEcarorXirM mzscoiiouct : 

### Petitioner j U/a/rfW Let/some^ contends andargues thatAt IS 

### Actually innocentof violating thelah/ that Petitioner Is accused 6§ 

### th% State, faikd fo process the correct IktaS fchat Code on thl indictment* The Penal Cade used hasgantfast the proper range, of otpunishment] tkt amhiguous difference Le%>een thtfu/o staTultsthat do hot<Q0>ly and ivhtre one slatufe atkmfts tb compensate forThe 

### other wfhtr they art not reconcilatle to this particular accusationj Texas Penal Code Ann* Arfi$2l>0Z(aYi) Is aggravated AsSau/faaaiftst a sfous-e. or SeriouS BodilyInjury-is a Second'Degree Felony Offend 

### Tktdif^ct IS TeXaS PenalCede to which Is thl desirtdalleged sTatgtt^ (a)Cl) intentionally and kfiPu/lfig/y %rmtth£ another with imminenthdlf^ Injury j W (b) An ottenSt under Sahsection CaXl) IS aClaSS ft l^isdenmnor/Mc^i 

### that iktoffenSe. is afelony of the, jhthd degree ifthe offense is committedagai/istiCZ) amember of the defendants Totnih or household, ififisshown on the frkt ofthe offenfe that me 

### defendant has hten previously convictedof an offense against a rptmher ofthe defendants family or household under this Sect/ane 

### Petitioner contends that the indictmentconk!* aparagraph of 

### unlawful hesfra/hfagainsta: family mmitr, Farther, the. SfaA would Ui/e tb prove thatther-e. was aweapon used in the offense In order for the weapon lb he admissiih~-o'tAeru/ise there is 

### no u/tapon used in the offhnftj %if Cast is Lase.d on thispoint* 

### Tketestimony from States witnesses showed that the alleged 

### weapon "'Ityichete was inadmissible -mtaning there was no \dtaf>on mi tie Texas Penal'Code Ann. Urt §'XhOl'&)&)WGXti IS a third
-.3-