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 Of VJenforJ 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 Rear
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES SMU:

.Ajbrecnt v. State.. W6 S.k/.a</ *7 CTe^.CHm. Apf» ffl*) Bill V. State j133 S,W> 3d S*3 CTex.A/V*;Waco &>p7) Brads V. Alary'***; *73 US, S3, 83 S*Ct IWjtO L.&U *£W«) _fi

Oe U fta 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/*et refds) 8

Jackson v. \Mnk, m U,$.j Uf. J^Jtyff A<*W*^ . _*_

McMnJ v. State) di* S*vJ.*d fAl + , „ -JL- ^Xemery v. &%8V S.vJ* M3& 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. ProcJ 38.Z* C«)

TCX. Const X,f/*

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

Te*, *• App^ *WvA«le ^XgO And Rule ^

TeX> R. of Evft. R«lc /OS^*) Tex. R. «f Ev/d^ Rule 403

TeX. R. «f CvAft Rule **KW

CAS, f TTj 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/CCearrtf rewindJo IhStt-itcf) t

±

^jf.

frj«rrtal lay K»V .S^yg7f3l)4#.cXc/««^^dr/acf/JAleT^To«9^r«ffkv^P Suprexh^nj)6ft

f%LJL/nfli Fow Key 777 CCourTis reftf//*ecf 7o inSfritcf) . .& CrW**1 ^a r°Y H*fl£*teffttcfrsupports by recordre^emfi^moi^SKt^C
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

WENFORO LETTSOMEj&OtSSW!

Petitioner,

Vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Apfft'/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 Austin j Tems 79711

First Court Of Appeals 30\ Fanntn Street! Rm. XOS

Houston j TetaS T700SL

HRAL argument:

Revest Oral Argumentretarding fhe -failure of $e Officer

renderiy defendants Miranda tiahtsjand Penal CodeS l2,otC*X2)ti>X*M

nottetno QfrliQuous aqojusf PenalCode §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"

Petitioner j Wen ford Lettsome^ pro-s^tlrialCourt Cause No*

OBWO&jryrested on or about,/Wayfa3lMj feYas 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 weaponj 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 *****,

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Petlt/onerj h/erfbrd Lettsomej Pro-Sej U'mj convicted of the

charae aitefjtd in the indictment Ga/tfe (Vo> 013470^ and based on

the predicate of his 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 aMachete f}) hndj the answer was nonreSponsivej from both

he and his u'tfe. See R.R. Vol,3 of b, fa. l3XH3-2r Through 133:1 ("Ohjectbnj

Judae - Sustained;as Narrafvef) and R.R. Vol. 3of 6j fy l3K^2f(?0&j*&on;

Tudae-Sustainedj as A/onres/>o«sivef) and (UL Vol,3 of b, 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 time f llf A* 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.3of 6j 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 reasonable jury to Convict this

defendant beyond a, reasonable doubt '.IG The. Court iIts dented*
JURISDICTION

This Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this uvrlt CP.OX)

under the authority of fhe Rules of Appellate 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 Petitionerj Pro-Se.j with hiS

?et\tAh For Discretionary Review challenging Constftutibw,/Issues

that Wtnt maddressed and unchallenged atPretrial) trial court; 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 Seizurej CE^ual protection Of The Laws ,)j Ahuse

of Discretion) Police failed to render defendants Hrahda Ryhts*
FACTS* Petitionerj Wenford Ltttsomej defendant^ pro-Sej

Contends and argues that he is actually innocent

of the a/Ieyed charfed 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 uiarranf and probable. 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 not Set out in the

arrest warrant only •The police, acted to retrieve amachete- at

Petitioners houSe. in an Illegal search and Seizure and for a.

Weapon^ againstdefendant at 4- time, when the at/efedMacAeie-yaS

not in plain Sight) but was stored in \ts Same place 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 not part of a crimej was inadmissible*

Petitioner never had a Machete, on his person during any atkged

argument with complainantJand the First CourtOf Apfea/s did

confirm that fact* 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, of said prior alleged offense in the

enhancement paragraph cause. No* I2./U7? of an alleged unlawful

restraint,' also Petitionees TeiLaS Penal Code should have heen a\

Third Degree Felony and Punishmentinstead of Second degree Punishment*

-2-
GROUND ONE

PhiosEcarorXirM mzscoiiouct :

Petitionerj 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 hasgant fastthe proper range, of

otpunishment] tkt amhiguous difference Le%>een thtfu/o staTultsthat

do hot<Q0>ly and ivhtre one slatufe atkmfts tb compensate for The

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 Penal Cede

to which Is thl desirtdalleged sTatgtt^ (a)Cl) intentionally and

kfiPu/lfig/y %rmtth£ another with imminent hdlf^ Injuryj W (b)

An ottenSt under Sahsection CaXl) IS aClaSS ft l^isdenmnor/Mc^i

that iktoffenSe. is afelony of the, jhthd degree if the offense is

committedagai/istiCZ) amember of the defendants Totnih or

household, ififisshown on the frkt ofthe offenfe that me

defendant has hten previously convictedofan offense against a

rptmher ofthe defendants family or household under this Sect/ane

Petitioner contends that the indictmentconk!* aparagraph of

unlawful hesfra/hf againsta: family mmitr, Farther, the. SfaA

would Ui/e tb prove that ther-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*

Tke testimony 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-