### STATE OFTEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

# FRDWI^/Vfey,/»S0URT0FflPPEASL COURTOF
ZACHARIAH HARVEY V STATE OF TEXAS 

# M 282015 

# AbelAcoata,Clerk 174th DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS 

### CAUSE N0:1_3JJLZ£5 

### APPEAL NO: 14-13-nn?7ir,F


## PETITION FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEUPD# 1386-14
'l FIROPi;: DENIAL 1-12-15 COURT OFAPPEALS14th DISTRICT TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

## COMESNOW. ZACHARIAHHflRVFY. whomISINCARCERATEDPROSEandISIN 

## DIGENT. IHAVENOMONEY, MATERIALWEALTH, ORINCOMEFROMANYSOUP 

## RCETOPAYFEESCOSTSANDORATTORNEY. SPFlImanB19S.W.2D406TEX CRIMCODEPFPROCEDURE145.TEXRULEOFAPPELLATEPROCEDURE 2011 CITE: HTRRFNS 257 S.W. 3d 634. 

## THISCAUSEISTIMELYONINEFFECTIVEASSISTANCEOFCOUNSEL/ON APPEAL. FAILSTOCITELAWSTHATAPPLYTOMYCASE. FAILEDTOINVE STIGATEOREVENCITEOUTOFSTATELAWFROMARKANSAS. CLAIMINGIT 

## WASFROMCRIMINALCOURTOFAPPEALS. ONANDON.CH£922F2d52B; SHXLLQ913S.W.2d507TOBIASBB4S.W.2d571 TOALLOWPROSELITIGATION lilIfiriTNS123S.Ct 2527CANBRINGNWETHEORIES INTHE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. RPCHEILE 791 S.W.2d121 ANDTOPROSE REQUIRED ONPDR. 

## PETERSONB49 S.W.2d370ART. 1.051 FORHEARINGS. FARETTA95 S.Ct 2525. I.IATNRTKHt 102 S. Ct 1300. 

## ONJULY13. 2010. MYWIFE KICKED INMY BEADROOMDDRE. AND PHYSICA LLY ASSAULTED ME BY HITTING MENUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT THE FACE AND UPPER TORSO. IMANANAGE TO GET OUT OF THE BEADROOM TOESTABLISH DISTANCE BETWEEN MY WIFE AND SELF. I THEN WENT INTO THE KITCHEN 

## TO PUT THE DISHESANDUTENSILSAWAY. I TURNED BACK TO SEE MY WIFE COMMING IN ADOWNWARDMOTION WITH A KNIFE IN HER HAND. I BLOCKED 

## HERADVANCE. AND STABEDHERONETIME. SPONTANEOUSLY.I"..WAS.INMFEAR FOR MY LIFE. SEE PC.6.03 ALONZO S§8 S.W.3d 77B JUSTIFICATION. THE STATE DID NOT PROVIDE ITS CASE"INTENT TO KILL BEYOND AREASONABLE DOUBT" COOK BB4 S.W.2d 4B5.



## enERROR #1 

# THEOPPINIONOFTHE14thCRNO. 14-13-00774ONAUGUST26. 2014 FROM THE TRIAL CASE #1311763 BY CHRISTOPHER DAMSON & McCALLY. WAS 

### GLOBAL CONCLUSSORY. ABUSE OF DISCRETION NOT SUPPORTED BY THE REC ORD NO CITES. THE ISSUES IN NAME & NUMBER POINT TO THE TRIAL THAT WAS NEITHER FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. THEY ALLOWED FABRICATION OF THE 

### TRUE PROCEEDINGS. NO CITINGS WHAT SO EVER. I COULDNT TURN THIS IN IF I WERE AN ATTORNEY. ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOR THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. TO USE THE STATE VERSON OF PROCEEDINGS. SEE 

### BACK GROUND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE WILL NOT SUSTAIN THE CON VICTION. IN A SELF DEFENSE CASE WHERE THE ALLEDGE VICTIUM PAST IS THE BASIS OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF SELD DEFENSE. THE JURY 

### MUST BE PRESENT DURING THE TESTIMONY OF ALL THE WITNESSES CALLED 

### TO VERIFY THE VIOLENT PAST THAT CREATED IN THE MIND OFlFTfflEEDEFENDANT THAT HE WAS IN IMINENT DANGER OR DEATH. AND THAT HIS REACT 

### ION WAS JUSTIFIED. THIS DID NOT OCCURE. AZARIA HARVEY "DAUGHTER" TESTIFIED BEFORE THE JURY AND IT WAS LIMITED BY PRE-TRIAL MOTTON IN LIMINE. BY STATE AZARIAH TESTIFIED THE BEST SHE COULD UNDER W\ 

### SAID MOTION. BUT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BEFORE THE JURY UND 

### ER SAID MOTION. BUT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO ELABORATE THOROUGHLY AGA IN UNDER SAID MOTION. NON OF THE OTHER FOUR WHICH NEGATES THE MAN -DITORY DUTY OF COURT IN AFAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL. ON THE SUFF ICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE OF SELF DEFENSE. THE JURY MUST BE PRESENT AND WAS NOT. WHO ARE THE WITNESS THAT GAVE TESTIMONY THAT THE SAME AS TRIAL COURT EXCLUDED? (SEE CUMULATIVE Pg.14) ABSOLLITELY NO EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT STABBED THE DECEDANT TWICE. THIS 

### IS TOTALLY FABRICATED. I REQUIRE AN EXPERT FORENSIC ^SCIENTIST TO REVIEW THE AUTOPSY AND ALL MEDICAL EXAMINER THAT ACTUALLY PERFOR 

### MED THE AUTOPSY DID NOT TESTIFY. THE OPINION OF THIS COURT ISRIM 

## D.DIEBAND BIASED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. THEIE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE ALLEFED VICTIM WAS IN AVIOLENT RAGE THAT WE WERE ARGUING. AN 

### THAT IRETREATED FROM MYBEADROOMTO THE KITCHEN. BUT SOME HOW I AM THE VIOLENT ONE. WHICH IS NOT RATIONAL. OBVIOUSLY HER INJURIES CAME WHEN SHE FELL. AND WHEN SHE KICKED DOWN THE DOOR THE PHYSIC^ 

## AL EVIDENCE ISCONSISTENTWITH THE CLAIM OF SELF DEFENSE. WHICH IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.



## C2.1THE JURY WAS ENTITLED TO INFER THAT THE DECEDENT HAD HER ARMS RAISED TO SHOW APPELLANT. SHE WAS HOLDING A KNIFE. AND TRIED TO STAB ME. SHE HAD NO DEFENSIVE WOUNDS. THE JURY WAS NOT FREE TO TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF EXCULPATORY WITNESSES THE STANDARD OF REVIEW ON SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE ON SELF DEFENSE. WHICH IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE CASE CITED BY THE COUTY OF APPEALS IS CLEARY ERRONEOUS CONTARARY TO LAW. AND THE ABUSE' OF DISCRETION AS EXPLA INED ABOVE. THE STATE HAS THE ULTIMATE BURDEN OF PROOF WHEN CONFRONTED WITH A SECTION 2.03 AND 2.04 DEFENSE. THE STATE BURDEN IS PROV ING IT'S CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THEREFORE. WE HOLD THAT WHEN A DEFENDANT CHALLENGES .THE FACTUAL SUFFICIENCY OF THE REJE CTION OF A DEFENSE. THE REVIEWING COURT REVIEWS ALL OF THE EVIDErNCE IN A NEUTRALLIGHT AND ASKS WETHER THE STATE EVIDENCE TAKEN ALONE IS TOO WEAK TO SUPPORT THE FINDING. AND WEATHER THE FINDING OF GUILT WAS CONTARY TO THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS TO BE CLEARY WRONG AND UNJUST.THAT A RATIONAL FACT FINDER 

## C'Ou'lDDETERMINETHATTHEAPPELLANTUSEDDEADLYFORCEWHENANDTO THE DEGREE HE REASONABLE BELIVED FORCE WAS IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY TO PROTECT HIMSELF. IN THIS CASE WHERE THE ALLEDGED VICTIM USE ATTEMPTED TO USE UNLAWFUL DEADLY FORCE THAT IS ALL THE LAW REQUIRES TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF SELF DEFENSE. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE ACCUSATION THAT I MADE A SELF-SERVING SELF DEFENSE. CLAIM. 911 TAPES OF EMERGENCY PHONE CALL ARE BASED ON HEARSY. NOT STATEMENT OF FACT PER5E: BROWN 

### 355 F3d B2; CRAWFORD 124 S.Ct.1356. THEREBY NOT TRUST WORTHY OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE. THE CRIME SCEN EVIDENCE IS THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT SELF SERVING CREDIBILITY OF 911 CALLS CITE PENAL COD 9.31-9.32. DUE TO THE ILLEGAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MOTION IN LINE. THE JURY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HEAR FROM FOUR OF THE CHARACTER WIT

### ness who were not allowed to give sworn testimony before the jupy THE PANEL STATES THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO DISBELIEVE THE STATEMENT 

## ANDAPPARENTLY THE EVIDENCE FROM THE CRIME SCENE WHICH IS'iPRJUBELBH£LXHA!CDl§SAAC0NEfcHSQSWL§TSEEMEFJ!R5it&HJCRlIS QSREreiABCEIDffND(5ISIA GttEaREVIQEAIIDQN. ..,: ,,. _...••.""



### T31THE GRANTING OF THE MOTION IN LIMINE WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRE TION. MISAPPLIED DUE TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASSERT AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATE RHAMRFRS 93 S.G. 103B. SELF DEFENSE IS BASED TOTALLY UPON iilETHEF: JURYS CONSIDERATION OF THE ELEMENT WHEN PROPERLY INSTRUCTED. TO u TO DETERMINE THE GUILT INNDCENCE OF THE DEFENDENTBASED ON THE VIC -TIMS VIOLENT HISTORY T0RRE5V. STATE 117 s.w.3d B91. IN ADDITION THE STATE HAS A DUTY TO SEE THAT JUSTICE IS DONE AND NOT TO CONV ICT AND CAN NOT SECRETE WITNESSES. NOR EVIIDENCE THAT WOULD YiNEGATE THE CONVICTION. ART 2.01 C.C.P MITCHEL 977 S.W.2d 575; BR.RRFR 

### 55 S.Ct 629; 5MTTH 205 F3d 1045. MOTION IN LIMINE. HFRNflNnF7 767 S.W.2d 903-4 (4RR-121). T.R.E. 405 IN FACT THE STATE HAS VIOLATED IT"S OWN MOTION IN LIMINE. BY PROVIDING MY CASE ON APPEAL SEE SEE 

### STATE BRIEF Pg's 14-21 WHICH IS REVIEWED BYTHE APPELLATE COURT AND PERSERVED IN ADDITION VIOLATEB/lRRAnV B3 S.Ct 1194. DO NOT RE 

### QUIRE PRESERVATION SAMCHF7 120 S.W.3d 359 THE MOTION IN LIMINE EFFECTIVELY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF PROOF FROM THE STATE TO THE DE FENDANT THAT I HAD TO PROVE THERE WAS NO MALICE TO MEET IN STAB BING MY WIFE. MillIanfv 9BS.Ct 1881. TO PUT THE KNIFE IN MY HAND AND OUT OF HERS. WHICH IS SPECULATION AND NOT THE TRUTH AInN7n 

### 353 S.W.3d 7BB P.C.2.03. DEFENDANT DID NOT THEN HAVE TO RETREAT. 

### HTNnRHTP 9n S.._C.t 1068.. HERE AGIN THE JURY WAS N_OJ.ALLOWED TO HEAR MY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF FACT! THAT THE ALLEGED VICTIUM WAS A VA 

### VIOLENT PERSON. SO I HAD TO RESPOND TO HER ATTACK IN A WAY THAT h! WAS SELF DEFENSE. I WAS IN FEAR OF MY LIFE. I PROVED SELF DEFENSE THAT CAN"T BE DISPROVED DUE TO THE FACT THERE IS INSUFFICIENT EVI -DENCE. THAT THE INCIDENT DID NOT OCCURE AS I SAID IN FACT THERE 

### WERE WITNESSES THAT SUPPORT MY SELF DEFENSE CLAIM. AND THE STATE USED KNOWING PERJURED TESTIMONY BY A SUPERVISOR OF THE MEDICAL 

### EXAMINERS OFFICE. ALLOWED;STAB WOUND BEING TWICE. WHILE THE PHY SICAL EVIDENCE WILL SHOW ONLY ONE WOUND ACTUALLY CAUSED DEATH OR 

### INFLICTS. THE STATE DID NOT DISPROVE MY CLAIM OF SELF DEFENSE BEYOUND AREASONABLE DOUBT. SAXTnN B04 S.W.2d 910.13.16. WERE OVER 

### RULED BYMFRA7 ,,785 S.W.2d 146. DUE TO CITES TO VAN miTtUFR 709 

### S.W.2d178 STATE HAS NOT DISPROVED THAT IDIO.NOT :ACT.I6TSELF DEFENSE.



### C41SEE NEUTRAL LIGHR NOT LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PROSECUTION 7111TANffq7 S.W.3d 595 AND SAXTON HAS NOTVALUE FOR REVIEW. PENAL CODE 2.04. STATE MUST DISPROVE NOT REFUTE BEYOND A REASONABLE II DOUBT REAVI5 970 S.W.2d 115. TORRES 117 S.W.3d 891. THE REACHING OF GUILTY VERDICT MUST BE "SET ASIDE" DUE TO THE FACT THEREAWAS'iA BHBONSTITOTIONALTUNDERSTANDIiNG.OF THE LAW IN REACHING A GUILTY VERDICT. SEE ABOVE FRA MCTR 105 S.Ct 1965.76 THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT I INTENDED TO KILL. JOHNSON 271 S. W.3d 359. THAT THE JURY INSTRUCT IN THIS SITUATION IN KRfl.ir.nl/Tr. !', 351 S.W. 3d 523 . HAVING A KNIFE IS NOT INTENT A KNIFE IS NOT A DEADLY WEAPON PER SE 1.07 & 9.31 PENAL CODE CADWELL 288 F.3d 838; BUENO 996 S.W.2d 406. THE EXCLUSION OF THE TESTIMONIES FROM THE WITNESSES THAT IS NOT MULTIPIE WITNESSES TO THE SAME SITUATION. BUT INSTED MULTIPLE WITNESSES NOT CUMULATIVE TO MULTIPLE INSTANCE INVOLVING HER VIOLENT CHARACTER. AND HER PERPENSITY TO VIOLENCE : SEE T.R.C. & F.D.E. 402-04 3B.36 T.C.C.P. T.R.A.P. 44.2. JURY ::'. EXCLUSIVE OF TRIER FACT. MnMTnnMFRV 810 S.W.2d 372. MflRTTM 107 S.Ct 1099 PROPER JURY 

### INSTRUCT ON SELF DEFENSE . HARM ANALYSIS A!MAND7 686 S.W.2d 157 

### T.C.C.P. ART 38 SflNnRTfiRnM 99 S.Ct. 2450; BARRFRA 10 S.W.3d 743. INNEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ON JURY INSTRUCT RFAGAN 365 F3 

### d616.;. FAILURE TO OBJECT .INDICTMENT YOUNG 356 F..3d.616. CONTRARY.. TO AND OR OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE. RMTTH 417 F3.d 438 (KNOWINGLY ACTUAL INNOCENCE CAN BE BROUGHT FIRST ON APPEAL. AND DUE INEFFECt 

### TIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WAS NOT BROUGHT MURRAY 106 S.Ct. 2639. THE EXTERNAL IMPEDIMENT WAS THE MOTION IN LIMINC USE BY THE STATE WHICH WAS USED TO DEPRIVE ME OF MY CDNSTITUTIONSL RIGHT TO BE •[.. 

### HEARD BY THE JURY WHICH DETERMINES THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS 

### 9ES.I HAVE ARIGHT TO BRING ABOUT AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE BASED ON U.S.125 S.Ct 738 HOOKER , THE CHARACTER OF THE VICTIM THAT MUST BE HEARD BY THE JURY AND WAS NOT (4 RR-121.) THIS BRADY VIOLATION WAS DEADIBANG WINNER. AND WAS NOT BROUGHT ON APPEAL OR OBJECTED AT TRIAL. THE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS MATERIAL AND IMPROPERLY 

### WITH HELD FROM THE JURY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS BM&3 54 F3d 1508. SEE-ALSO Hfir.MFR BB5 S.W. 2d 3B9 947 S.W.2d 202; TRFWTNO 

### 135 S.Ct 574; Mr.nilTGHFN 133R.Ct 1924. THERE HAS BEEN AFUNDAMEN TAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN THE CONVICTION OF THIS APPELLANT WHO IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT.

r<sTERROR #2

SUFFICIENTY OF THE EVIDENCE WILL NOT SUSTAIN THE CONVICTIONS AS TO THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. HEAR IN THE JURY RETURNED A GUILTY VERDICT. AND I AM REQUESTING FOR A NEW TRIAL. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE MUST BE BROUGHT FIRST ON APPEAL AND WAS NOT. A TRIAL COURTS DECISION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IS REVIEWED UNDER ABUSE OF DESCRETION STANDARD BURDEN 55N3d 608. A DEFENDANT IN A HOMICIDE PROSECUTION WHO MAY INTRODUCE EVIDENCE TuR.E. 4,.04 TflTF 9 01 G'.W.'ZTd BBV S.W.2d1B9 THERE MUST BE SOME EVIDENCE OF VIOLENT^ OR AGGRESSIVE PAST BY THE DECEASED THAT TENDS TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF SELF DEFENSE. IN THOSE SPECIFIC ACTS MAY EXPLAIN. THAT ALSO AND DEMONSTRATE INTENT OR MOTIVE BEYOND THE CONFRONTATION HEARING WE HAD MULTIPLE WITNESSES. THAT GAVE MULTIPLE ACT OF VIOLENCE NOT HEARD BY THE JURY. THAT THE ALLEDGE VICTIUM WAS THE FIRST AGGRE SSOR. THIS EVIDENCE SHOULD BE REVIEWED ON A NETURAL LIGHT. FINDIN OF GUILT IS CONTARY AND UNJUST. DUE TO THE JURY NOT BEING ALLOWED TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY OF THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. AND IS NOT IN LIGHT IN FAVORED TO THE PROSECUTION 7lllTAMT 97 S.W.3d 595; RFAWFB 970 S.W.2d 115-6 SMTTH 417 F3d 43B. ( SELF- DEFENSE IS AN AFFIR MATIVE DEFENSE BY A PEPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCERIIRKS 98-S.Ct 2141 MARTTN 107 S.Ct. 1098 THE ACT WAS SPONTANEOUS AND NOT PRE MEDITATED. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO ESTABLISH AND PROVE THE 

### ELEMENTS OF THE MURDER BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (Pg 3 OF THE 14t COURT OF APPEALS OPPINION. AND SAXTnN 804 S.W.2d 913. ARE INCORRE 

### -ECT) AND THE ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED BY THE JURY THAT I DID NOT -'.:; 

### ACT IH SELD DEFENSE IS NOT FOUND. THE WORD ALSO IMPLY THE JURY CHARGE IS INSUFFICIENT PflTTFRSniM 978 Ct 2319. STATE LAW MUST:- 

### EQUAL OR EXCEDE FEDERAL LAW OR BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.HEITMAN 815 S.W. 2d 681 THEIR IS NO PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS IN THIS OPPIN 

### ION. THEIR HAS BEEN AN UNREASONABLE OBJECTIVELY APPLICATION OF OR LAW AS RULED ON BY THE SUPREME COURT. ANS OR CONTRART TO MARTTN 1 

### 107 S.Ct. 109B. SEE Pg. 4 OF CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS OPPINION qAXTON 804S.S.W.2d 913-14). IN ADDITION THEY FAILED TD TAKE PRINT OFF THE KNIFES TO HIDE THE FACT SHE THE DECEASED HAD A KNIFE IN ;i HER HAND AT THE TIME. THAT I TURNED AND DEFENDANT MY SELF. ALL OF THE KNIFES BUT THE ONE WAS NOT WASHED. JUST BEFORE THE OFFENCE THIS WAS INEXCULPULATDRY MATERIAL THAT WAS IMPROPERLY HELED UNDER SUBSECTION 9.D1 RRADV V. MARYLAND 83 S.CT. 1194.

r »_-vERROR #3

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSELLOR FAILURE TO CALL UPON EXPERT WITNESSES SEE ART. 26.05 T.C.C.P IN PARTICULAR A MEDICAL EXAMINER TO REBUTT THE STATE MEDICAL EXAMINERS KNOWING USE OF FALSE TESTIMONY SPECIFICALLY "TWO" STAB WOUNDS ON THE ALLEDGE VICTIM. BRIGGS 187 S.W.3d 458; MOONEY 55S.Ct. 340 NAPIIF 79 S.Ct. 1173. CITING &LX B97 S.W.2d. 343; MIL 105 S.Ct. 10B7. THIS IS NOT A STRATEGIC DECISION MADE AFTER FACTS. LAW AND DUTY TO INVESTIGATE. AUTOPSY DONE BY ALEX JOHN. AND THE STATE REL -IED ON DOCTOR DWAYNE WOLF. A VIOLATION OF CONFRONTATION CLAUSE 

### (SEE REPORTER RECORD IV 41-44). CRAWFORD 124 S.Ct 1354 SEE ALSO MFiFMDF7 129 S:. Ct 2527. TESTIMONY IS INADMISSABLE. lilAII, 1 B4 S.W. 

### 3d 730; rni.E 839 S.W.2d 79B. SEE TEX RULE OF EVIDENCE B03 NOT ADMISSABLE. FAILURE TD GET RECORDS. TUCKER 1 B1 F3d 747 NO PRESU MPTION OF CORRECTNESS. THE DEPTH OF THE FATAL WDND WAS AT LEAST 

### FOUR INCHES. THE SECOND ALLEGED WOUND BARLEY BROKE THE SKIN.AND THE TESTIMONY OF WHY THE DECEDENTS ARMS WERE RAISED ABOVE HER ,..::;. HEAD WAS IN CONTROVERSY LEFT IN SPECULATION BY THE STATE PREJUD 

### ICED THE JURY. THE DEFENDANT MUST SHOW THAT THEIR IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT. BUT FOR COUNSELS UNPROFESSIONAL ERRORS THE RESM 

### ULT OF THE PROCEEDING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT : AREASONABLE PROBABILITY IS A PROBABILITY SUFFICIENT TO UNDERMIND CONFIDENCE 

### IN THE OUTCOME. SJTilllJiLAJLD 104 S.Ct. 2052:: lilTI.I.IAHS 120 S.Ct. 1495 CONTARY TO DR•OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE WHICH IT FELL BELOW 1.4.5.6.B.& 14U.S.CA. SINGULAR OR \LEJ_A 70S F2d 954; SATTEfj 977: F2d 1259. CUMULATIVE ERROR. BURCH 401 S.W.3d 634 I.A.CmERROR #4

VIOLATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL ACT BASED ON ABUSE OF DISCRETION. 

### APPELLANT HAD ALREADY BEEN INDICTED ON JULY 1-2011. ARRESTED 

### ON JULY 6-2011. AND TRIED APRIL 1-2013. APPELLANT FILED A;TIM-Y 

### ELY MOTION PRO SE FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL ON JULY 26-2012. THE MOTION WAS NEVER RULED UPON BY THE COURT. THAT IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSEC UTIONS THE ACCUSED SHALL ENJOY THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL. DOGGETT 1*2 S.Ct 26B6. SIXTH AMENDEMENT. THE APPELLANT ALSO CONTESTS THE COURT OF NDT BRINGING THE APPELLANT TO TRIAL. WHICH 

### SURPASSED 70 NONE EXCLUDABLE CLOCK DAY'S. THE DISTRICT WAS REQUI RED TO DISMISS;THE INDICTMENT. ( IF THE DEFENDANT IS NOT BROUGHT 

### TO TRIAL WITH INTHE TIME LIMITED REQUIRED BY SECTION 3161 (C) AN EXTENDED BY SECTION 3161 (H) . THE INFROMATION SHALL BE DISMISSED ON MOTION OF THE DEFENDANT SEE ARTICLE 32.01 AND 28.061. ALFORD 142 F3d 825. 821. A RULE REQUIRING ALL PENDING CHARGES AGAINST A PRISON INMATE TO BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL WITHIN 1BO DAY'S. OR TO BE 

### DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. KELLY 122 S.W.3d 227 ; FEDERAL CIVIL .;: PROCEEDURE 1951. ART 1 SEC. 10 TEXAS. 6 U.S.CA. THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT GENERALLY REQUIRES THAT THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT



### " COMMENCE" WITHIN SEVENTY DAYS FROM THE FILLING DATE ( AND MAK» 

### ING PUBLIC) OFTHE_IJ^fRrj_MATIO.NOR INDICTMENT- P_R...FROMJHE...DA.I.E..."• THE DEFENDANT HAS APPEARED BEFORE A JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE COURT IN SUCH CHARGED IS PENDING WHICH BVFJR DATE LAST OCCURS. 1B U.S.C 

## (SUBSEC: 3161 (C) (1) SEERFRMFfl 30 F3d1539-1566 (5th"dR1994) CITING BARKER 92S.Ct 2182. MOTIONS MUST REQUIRE A HEARING UNDER 

### SUB SEC: 3161 (H) (1)(F) nnHNRflN 29 F3d 940 942-943 (5th CIR 1994 INNEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL FOR FAILURE TO BRING INEFFECTIVE OF TRIAL COUNSEL. DFLGAno T81F3d 10B7; TRFWTNfl 133 S.Ct 524 NO PROCEEEDURAL BAR UNDER THE A.D.E.P.A. SEE hlTlITflMR 120 S.Ct 1495 SEE ABOVE PLEASE CONSIDER ALSO FOR PLAIN ERROR TRX. RULE OF EVID. 103 T . R-A.P-43&44.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED APPLICANT PRAYS THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANTS HIM RELIEF HEREINDESCRIBED; DISCOVERYHEARING. ANEWTRIAL. AQUITTAL. AND ANY OTHER RELIEF ONE MAY BE ENTITLED TO.



### _.0_ RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED. r p_jCAUSE NUMBER: 1311763 THE STATE OFTEXAS § IN THE 174thDISTRICT VS. § COURTOF HARRISCOUNTY ZACHARIAHHARVEY § TEXAS

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

•5.B.1611 &5.B. 825
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:



### COMESNOW, ZACHARIAHHARVEY, DEFENDANTIN THE ABOVEENTITLEDAND NUMBERED CAUSE, AND RESPECTFULLYMOVESTHE COURTTO HIRE AN EXPERTFORENSIC EXAMINER 

### ART. 26.05T.C.C.P, AND THEENTIRERECORDOFINSUFFICIENTEVIDENCE, THERECORD ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND REQUIRE THE ENTIRE RECORD. RAMADAN 89 SW3d 745; STAFFORD 813SW2d 503; BRITT 92S.CT.431; FREE WHITE 823 SW2d 296; PULIDOB79 F2d1255ART. 26.04. ART. 1.05T.C.C.P; MARTINEZ tin*S.CT1309 132. T.A.R.P 20.2. B0USQUET441 SW3d131. ADDRESS SUFFICIENCYOF THE EVIDENCE EVEN IF YOU HAVE OTHER ERRORS. ACOPY OF AUTOPSYAND COMPLETE POLICE REPORT. MONTGOMERY 

### 4B2 FS2d 919; CRAWFORD 934 SW2d 744; NOTE: CLERKS LOG FOR14-13-00774-CRON OR ABOUT 11-4-14. SEE TRIAL: SEE 5TRICKIER119 S.CT. 1936 TRANSPARENCY. WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED. THE DEFENDANT PRAYS THAT THIS COURT GRANT THIS MOTION.

DECLARATION

§ 132.D03 TEX. CIV. PROC & REM. CODES IN ZACHARIAH 1B5334B. BEING PRESENTLY INCARSERATED IN O.B. ELLIS UNIT. INWALKERCOUNTY. TEXAS. DECLARE UNDERTHE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 

## EXECUTEDON^l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING WAS MAILED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNY'S OFFIOE ASSIGNED TO THE 17*th DISTRICT 

### COURTOFHARRISCOUNTY. TEXASONTHE DAYOF ,2015.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

r<o<4 

# I #14 y > .J 4 <* 

### *^r

s: •

_ 

# ^

o 

## 3^ CO 0) o iD

•O m ••«

05