_ by Kevin Eo Moore who was identified as the coordinator of Offend-
er Record Units, Oklahoma Department of Corrections. The att-
estation lacked a seal and Secretary of the State did not sign
the attestation page. However, based on the incomplete document
by Kevin Es Moore, the Expert Fingerprint identification, and the
court's own physical observation of the defendant, being
the photo, the physical description, and date of Birth,
the court found sufficient evidence to support that the
oklahoma pen packet was authentic and was, in fact, the
Oklahoma pen packet of Raymond Keith Walls, tees, it was
what it purported to bes However, the "pen packet” from
Oklahoma used for enhannement purposey,. contains certification
by Kevin Be Moore hereby certifys He is the coordinator
of the recrd Unit of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

The Oklahoma penitentiary packet admitted into evidence
of Burglary and attempt of Burglary for purpose of proving
Applicant's prior. conviction was not properly authenticated
under Statute. Tex. Rule of Evid. 902(4). However,the Court
specifically noted that the certification was accompanied
by a Public Officer having a seal that certified "the Signer
has the official capacity and that the signature is genuine."
811 Sows 2d. at 585; citing Tex» ReCrime Evid» 902(2). Here,
Mrs Moore's signature was not accompanied by a seal or the
certification required by Rule 902(1),(2) or (4)s Also see,
Bank vi State; 158 SsWs Bas 653; See, 28 UsSeCvAv § 17386

The State reliance on the "Fingerprint" match to authenticate
the entire penitentiary packet,is misplaced: The Fingerprint

-4-


When foreign conviction is involved in sentencing,
in the absence of proof of the law of the Other State, the
Court of Criminal Appeals will presume that other State's
law is the same as that of Texas for purposes of determining
whether conviction is final. Vernon's Ann. Texas C.C.Ps
Arts 37607 $3(a); Langton ve State, 776 SeW. 24 586. Second-
ly, It does not contain any certification by a Oklahoma

Official nor does it bear an Oklahoma's seal.

be “The State Claims in their findings of fact as to the
performance of Applicant's trial counsel to determine whether
or not they were deficient. This claim is erroneous too.
The State quoted in their Findings of Fact and Conclusion
of law under number "7", page 45: Based on the Oklahoma
pen packet's photo, physical description, date of birth
of Raymond Keither Walls in Causé: Nos and the expert fingerprint
identification of Mr.Walls, the State's exhibit, Oklahoma
pen pack, was admitted by the court. Defense Counsel specifically
objected twice to the lack of predicate and once on the
basis of hearsay to the introduction of Mr.’ Walls" Oklahoma
pen packet and then renewed his objection immeidately after
the pen packet was admitted. This is not true! Trial Counsel
only objected to the Fingerprints See, (RR Vol» 4 pgs 4-14.)
The court clains based on their own observations of the
defendant, the court overruled the defense counsel's objection
based on the Court's Reading of its "attestation by legal
keeper of the records with certificate" and it's (seal)
of the State and secretary of state signed on June 9, 2010,
=3-


match goes to..the second category of proof, proving the 2
defendant is the person previously be convicted,and fails

to prove thatthe document in the pen packet are what the
State asserts them to be. Cole vs State, 484 Swe 2de 779
784 (Texs Crim: Apps 1972). Counsel failed to "object" to
the entire "pen packet". Counsel based is objection to the
fingerprint. See, Fontenot v. State, 704 SeWs 26 126.
Secondly, It does not contain any certification by an Official

from Oklahoma not does it bear Oklahoma Seals

co The State claims in their findings of fact and conclusion
of law that it deem relevant and appropriate to the disposition
of applicant's Writ of Habeas Corpus relief. This conclusion
of law is erroneous.

The pen packet were not authenticity from oklahoma
officialssSee, Bank v+.State,158 SoWe 3d 653.
.An out of state judgment is inadmissible without proper
authentication. Hutchins.) V.Selfert, 460 SsWe 24 955 (Tex.
Cive App. - Hou. [14th Dist] 1970) writ Ref'd nefeeo))e.

See also, Mega Child Care Incs _v. Tex. Dept. of Protective

Regulaztory Servs, 29 S:Ws 34: 303, 308 (Texe Apps

ste] 2000, no Pets)("The Texas Rules of Evidence
require, as a predicate to admissibility, that evidence
be properly authenticated or Identified:") without some

proof that the document in the packet are genuine, the Packet


S| /USU “Ol ,O2,

RAYMOND K. WALLS
TDC No. 01838261
McConnell unit

3001 S. Emily
Beeville, Texas 78102

Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals

PO Box 12308, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Writ Nose WR-81, 484-01 & WR-81, 484-02

Dear Appeal Clerk:

Bnclose please find Applicant's Findings of Fact and con-
clusion of law.

By copy of this letter, I am forwarding a copt od the same
to the District Court as addressed.

Thank you for your time and consideration int his matter.

Sincerel

rnd Lila —
RAVAOWE Ke WALLS RECEIVED IN

files COURT OF CRIAINAL APPEALS
ce:Mr. Val Varley

District Attoney APR 09 2015

Red River County

400 Ne Walnut Street

Clarksville, Texas 75426 Abs! Acosta, Clerk


is inadmissibles Texs Rs Evid. 901(a). Secondly, It does

not contain any certification by an Oklahoma official nor

does it bear an Oklahoma,s
PRAYER
FOR THE REASON SET FORTH: ABOVE, the applicant respectfully

request that this case or cases be reversed and remanded.

Respectfully Submitted,

Kone (ble e826 |

RAYMOND KEITH WALLS
TDCVNos 01838261

williams Gs» McConnell Unit
3001 Ss Emily Dre
Beeville, Texas 78102

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

above and foegoing has been forwarded to the following listed
4
person this 7 day of ALR | > 2015:

Mre Val varley . coe
Red River County District Attorney

Kounond. th.

Clarksville, Texas 75426
RA ypowp Ke WALLS

-6-


WRIT NOS» WR-81,484-01 & WR-81, 484-02
DISTRICT COURT NOS. CR-01624 & CR-01626

EXPARTE $ IN THE 102nd DISTRICT COURT
RAYMOND KEITH WALLS S$ OF
§ RED RIVER COUNTY, TEXAS

APPLICANT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

COMES NOW, RAYMOND KEITH WALLS, TDC Now # 01838261,
Applicant in the above number and cause file this his
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of law and states
the following:

Ie
FINDINGS OF FACT

On August 20, 2014, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

ordered the trial court to make the following findings:

The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether

the enhancement paragraphs alleging a prior conviction in
McCurtain County, Oklahoma Cause Number CF-2003-497 was

a final conviction capable of enhancing the applicable range
of. punishment. The trial court shall make findings of facts
as to whether the performance of Applicant's trial attorney
was deficient and, 1f so, whether counsel's deficient perfor-
mance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make
any other findings of fact and conclusions of law that it
deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant's

claim for Habeas Corpus relief.

1-


Ite
CONCLUSION OF LAW

Based on the contentions raised by the Applicant, and
study of the applicable law raised by the issues. This Applic-
ant making the folLowing conclusion of law:
ae The State claims in their findings of fact as to whether
the enhancement paragraph alleging a prior conviction from
McCurtain County, Oklahoma in cause No. CF-2003-497 were
a final conviction capable of enhancing Applicant's punishment

ranges The State has misinterpreted the law and facts in

this areass The law clearly reveal in a Virginia's case,
Virginia method of partially suspending a setnence was Alien
to Texas law, it would be possible to use it as a previous
final conviction for enhancement purposes if the State proves
to the court that the conviction was "Final under virginia
law." Diremiggio ve State, 637 SdW.e 2ds 926. However,
Texas never met its burden of proving that the conviction
was considered "final" under Oklahoma: See, Domingue ve State
787 SsW. 2d 107 (Texs App. = Hou. [14th Diste]) 1990).
Also see, Skillern v. State, 890 SsW. 24 849, 883 (Tex.
App. Austin 1994, pet Refid)>

When an out-of-State penitentiary packet has been introduced
as evidence of a prior criminal record in the "punishment
phase", the State must establish, either by proof or request,
that the trial judge took "Judicial Notice" of what a sister
state considers sufficient documentary proof of a final

conviction. Petuccelli vs State, 174 SsW.s 3de 761.