OX

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS EX PARTE, rTA-RRISON OLIVER BAILEY, 

### APPLICANT, WRIT NO. U-1270124-U9A) WRIT NO. U-1271031-UCA) WRIT NO. U-1271032-UCA) 

## MOTIONREQUESTINGANENBANCREVIEWBYTHECOURTfREjGE&sEBn'W CONCLUSIONS OFLAU BY THE 291ST JUDICIAL C(EfflfURTOffCRtftllNALAPPEALS OWN MOTION 

## DEC182017 TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICE OF SAID COURT: 

## NOWCOMES, HarrisonOliverBailey, applicantinthiS^^^sa^^Q^P^ng respectfully request this court to conduct an "en banc review" on it's own motion.based on the following: 1). The habeas Court denied applicant motion(s) requesting a live ':i; . - .i~*hearing as opposed to counsel simply filing an affidavit, because it allowed counsel to fabricate the fact's in the affidavit, and deny the allegations to secure a reputation. 2). Applicant never told his attorney Larry Finstrom not to do a inves tigation in this case, in fact applicant repeatedly made attempts to get finstrom to investigate the complainant's background for-.]'..' criminal arrest, which was what he was hired to do. Counsel claimed to had did a criminal background chech of the complainants, and he claimed they all had no criminal records. After being sent to pri 

### son, applicant retained aHouston Attorney [Randy Shaferl'to check the complainants criminal background, and discovered they all had criminal records, which would have been used to challenge this case before a jury. It also showed that the defense counsel wasnot being truthful about this investigation of their backgrounds. 

### 3). Applicant's issue's ppresented inhis habeas applicationwere not addressedby the fact-finder*s,:.,hischallenge,:.-.was that his guilty (1)plea was not knowingly or intelligentlymade with sufficient t awareness of the relevent circumstances, because he would have i 

### presentedhis case before a juryhad counsel investigated the i 

### complainant's backgrounds, and an investigator was not required to do that. ' 

### 4).Applicant was incarcerated in the county jail for over six-months waiting on counsel to pull-up the criminal background of the com

### plianants anhis computor, because itwouldhave proven applicants claim that the complainant's were prostitutes, and the he did have consentual sex with them, but didn't pay them afterwards. Counsel » 

### told applicant about all the publicity atrial would bring, and

, toldhim that ha should think about it before deciding on what he wanted to do, because Mhe lied about the complainants not having any criminal background." 

### 5). Finstrom [defense counsel] never discussed securing aninvestigator or apsycho-sexual evaluation, nor visit him in jail to discuss a defensive matter. 

### 6). The fact-finder never denied the applicant's claim that his guilty plea was not intelligently made, nor address whether the counsel 

### had aduty to automatically investigate the complainant's criminal record(s) and that actually didn't require an investigator. Applicant ask that this court order a reversal based on the issue's he presented in this habeas application, because during the six-months.iira 

### jail,"iwaiting for trial, or counsel to come up with adefensive theory, applicant repeatedly asked counsel to do a criminal background check on 

### the complainants, but he repeatedly said they didn't have any criminal records which was later found to be not true and that's what is being challenged in this proceeding. Counsel's unprofessional error,!was (2) 

# 1deficient, and prejudiced the outcome, because applicant would have 

### chosen to present this case before a jury .Strickland \lWashington,^66 U.S.at 691,104 S.Ct.at 2066, explains that counsel has aduty in every i casetto make a reasonable investigation. Counsel stated in the affida 

### vit he presented-jto the fact-finders that, applicant told him that one 

### of the complainant's was aprostitute, but never told him him the oth ers were. Applicant actually told his counsel that all the complaina^ nts were prosetute's, and he refused to pay them. This issue could V; 

### have been provenhad the court conducted a live evidentiaryhearing, and not let'tcounsel send and affidavit. The court deprived applicant."i
- his right to confrontation in this proceeding claiming the defence • counsel was credible, but fact's will show that pepple consider the applicant as being credible also, and the court based it decision on an unrelated issue, not the issue before the court and not properly resolve the "he said, she said" facts because the question in the case was never addressed, "was applicant's guilty intelligentlymade"I The prosecutor violated applicant right's by not disclosing discov ery evidence favorable to the defense. The state habeas court fact 

### finders did not address the issue presented. Counsel claimed applicant told him not to hire an investigator, which dosen't make any since, be-
*cause that was the reason counsel was retained. Applicant waited for over six-months for his counsel to pull up the information on his com puter, bat counsel::claimed to had did a search, that end up blank, but
* applicant recentlypaid [Randy Shafer], and attorney from Houston Tex. to search for the information, and discovered that all the complaina- 

### *nts Had criminal.^Both*state and federal law support the fact that a guilty plea, such as here in the case at bar, is not intelligently made when information favorable to the defendant is not disclosed. The •-a (3)state habeas court findings, are1 erroneous because the issues that were presented..'was not addressed1 by the fact-finders, and if this i i court deny this habeasicorpus, i;t will be amiscarriage of justice. Applicant respectfully ask that the court order the court i to address the issues presented, and nothing else, because there was 

### not reason for counsel not doing acriminal background check, and an 

### investigatior was not needed, his affidavit is frivious, and sholdnot be considered. WHEREFORE PREMISI5 CONSIDERED, applicant pray that the court accept this motion for en banc review, and reverse and remand this casetto the trial court for further proceeding's based on the fact's presented inthemotion. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED 

# J§m\MoO.^J*,.'W:

INMATE DECLARATION I, Harrison Oliver Bailey, being presently incarcerated in the Texas Depertment of Criminal Justice, at the Allen Polunsky Unit, Polk County 

## declareunderpenaltyofperjurythis js^dayDfDecember2017, that all claims presented here are true and correct.

(4) 

### \ajuiw HffRRISON OLIVER BAILE* 

### TDCJID.N0#K35501 ALLEN POLUNSKY UNIT 3872 F,M 35D SOUTH LEUINGSTDN, TEXAS 77351

# w:

# I