·f 

~o. \0\D'~'d..l\- (\, 

'I\1 \\\E. 

~\K\ 0\= C.J~l.KI~~ 1\.\>~Ek\ .. .S 

t\usn~ .\UI\S 

k '\C.:. ~M'\1.ill \...N'\b\-1\ f\LC..O\>,\~ I 

\\1:~\\b"'~~~ 

~e...'\\\\!>\,~()\- \,.! d\ ~ M.(\·{'\ck ffi.\1~ 

\=ca- ~ ':lR~~ -..k\.~\C.:,(L\ \)~~'\\-\c\ <.t \\o.n-\s. \_ourt\.'1 

1\e\itl-L. \LD\ C.Oc\t..> o~ G-\w'-· ~roc.... 

h~~~~c'\ LoU\-'\- Lr~'tf\.\"o..\ \lo, \0\()'~·l:-\- [\_ 

B, ZtO- of 

~0.~\o-..... La.-r.'\0\"'* f\\clwr, 

~U-'1.\Y~ 0\~~.Yrr:so\ 

f\~,.\ .... s~\.\u. \x\".tt1 otoo ~ "'-1S ~--\ 

~~'\'\.t~'\ ,\ ~. \""\"lOS 

RECEIVED IN . COURT OF CRiMINALAPPEALSl 

SEP 0 1 2015 

An.\ AcOSla;·Gie~ 
'\he., Ut'\&"t.rs\~1\.e..A. ~t..'h'\:io~u- J ~\b <&{..) 1 t)-\- ~tJ:...DKl c..:e.r\\~t.S ~\.o.\:: -\1\.w -\o \louJ\'":.\ \\s.\-~. 

\)ttSCf\.S. o•c\.t\. C..l'\.'h"t\~ "'a..V-t..; C\"'- \v"'\-<,-·e.-~ \.1'\. \tL oui:c..oYV'LJ ofc '\h\:::. CA:s..L1~~ ~-~~~~U\-\-n\\~~ 

at-L m.oA(..., \t"- o,~c\.o-- ~ho:lc ~Ll iuc\.~'t.S o\. \h\s <:..DUr-'\: VV\U.~ e..vo\uo.\~ ~o~i1\:.\e..> d\::.~_o\~{:~c.n.\\~~ 

0\~ \~s.o,_\. 

~().m.\~ ~M\)\'\..'t' t\.\c...oi""~ t -\·~.t:., ~L\:~'\·\oY\~.x·. 

\>l'""i::> 'Se.. ~~e..s..~-\-a..\:~~y,, 

~a.t.\ ... S'\:',\-u. lir,~ 

~DloD t-K -~r~\'-\ 

b\L,'\'\.lh'-~ ~-L [I.I.Ob 

\'"-u S-\co_\:u o-\- \e.)(o.S1 C.OtH\--\'/ o\ \\mT~S. Q\'\.d. \\s 

C..O\.lY\~ 'E_'i 0-~\0-t'{.S. - ~::.\s\m·'*: h~$\r\c.,"\: f\:t-\:6f"V9 

\ 

1

Jb \ ~r-a"-\..\~""' 1 ~u th .. , (oDD 

\\oll::."'To~' ';\ ~os .tl 0()~ 

\~1'\ot-ab\u l-'\o.r·c.., t.cu~u- ~ ~\..\~~ \)~\~~~'~ 

:t;l.BI"'· ~\~'\:t-\c:.:t· t.out-'t 

\L.\3L. Cx~-r."-\•"'-o\. -1us.-\\tL ~u­

\ ll.() \ ~n:n·"-~\,·"" 

\\oushv-. ,\x., II OD'l. 

~t... ~~tti(},-.f.A" • t\nn'\~~ Lclf\j\A« 1\.\cb'("'f'. ,'nu-t..'b~ ttr-\-~C\(.S. ~o.'\. ""-- \~ \,\t~t:.~ ox,A 

~C\S 'ho wru., -\--o \'~o.\-...£.J C.O~ks to ~el~\lu- '\b ~ Jutl.~u at-.~ fu.s~s.~t\-\: \J;str\c..-\- f.\.~or-r•Oj 

Cl\"\c\_ \"\ut,'\.b\'i ·:~e.\~\.i..S.-\ -\\'\o . .'\: '\-k~:i.. \\t.h\ol-o.b\0 C.ou~-"\' SU~~t_C\.d_ ~\s \~uk_. +o O~LH-c\_ V'e..\rt\b,~ ... 

Q Chn.,'\.t.L -to \)r-D~ vJ~k h\~ \)eH\:\of'\ . 

.. 

\\ 
----------------~· \\ 

\A~~LE o~ J\.U\1\0~\ll:.S ---------------------\\i 

\. 

------------:-----------\, ~ .. 

GD~CLUS1b~--------------------------------------------­

~\~\'>B-.\~'L ·. 
1,.;" ~;e..~ C..O~n.lQo:\e..d C..On--\:<'.~'C\U' f\,'\'\.rh·~s\ \...i'\\t\ .1"\tr..\~ l.c~-~., '=3 :0:\ T 

(....\l\ t .·lc\ "\S'O ,~\o\- b'd.. (~\--. ~-~-. \'\B6\ -------------------· ~ 

1_,"' \:'~ \i.L\\y ,~·~\ \=,"J..A '5AS,5'-\"\ (~G\".\qsl\ ____________ __.. 

Un:tt~~ S-\-n-\r..s V. ~t~\5-or-.: bO?:. \=.'J.A \\43 7\\l\!a ('5-\\-. (),,··, l'\1~\ ---------· ~,4 

\e.\cu.s ~\~e...s o~ ~~~(?1\o.-\·e~ ~'"~r..r.l1.H"U , Ru\(..) """i ~.\..\ ts\ ---~-------· J..~ 

\ex.o.s.. ~ ..... u.\e..::.:. a-\ ~\~~\\u'\:~ \)t"oul...\l\-e_., ~u'\e.... 'l'~,b _____________ ~ 
~bb .~o, \D\D~'J....l.\ .. " 

~l\\ \\\"f_ 

~ COU\t.\ C"J~ C...U~ 1.\U\.L 1-\~\)E.I\.\...,S 

1\.\ ~U~'l'l.tJ ~ 

... 

3 

\=\\.D~ \Wf;;.. ",):1.~\\\ b1S\\<J..C::\ Lbl\\\..\ 

D\= ~i,~k-=-LS CJ_)iJJ\l':'t~- I '-(EX_f\S 

\D \\\t.. \-\6 ~~\.£ -.\U\\Gt:S D\= \\\E LOUR:\ D~ CJttt-\."!..k\~ M>\')f.ALS: 

c.o~t:S ~O'W htwu.E~ ~o"-lT /\Len~~ 1'\he..: ~"-'\:.,\\a,'"~, ~r(:) :s.>L, u.~'-d.. '~F"u\\~ t't\.t)'-~€..iSI 

-\h_~ \\6N11~a..\.\E:~ c..nur\- -\t, \Ssu.-t.J 0.. Wt-tt o-\ \~~dt'L'f'i\.U!:> 01\.d_ D~A-<-r-" -\h.L n<o-\t\. \\~s\:t·\c..,\­

C...OUI""'\ a* \\~M""\'i:. "-.nur'~ ;Tex.co 1 Cr\'tr\~~n.\. ~c, \O\D3'J ... t..\- f\. ,+c- ~ihu-' c\e~s\~r\tl~O:l\c\ ~e~\'le__) 

-\he"' \s.S)_\.-t.h \x·, C_.t~..\~-'\..\o, \D\C'i~J...'-\-1-\. ~mv~o~(J\_ by '\+\f~ ~t.o::\:t:..., b,,,ln-1\un.c-y 'J..L./l..o\S anl 

~61:-'Wtlr'~ ~e:h:\\\:1~~ M~~<...: \\,()( \.Jd\ &\-\\(\\{.OS LD\""~\..\.5 Q~~\\ c...c~\o~ 1 M.eM.Oio.f\c.\uw'--

b\\e:::\ ~'f'\ ~:::.~J:\(~o~ o-\· o.~\'\~c:...o..-\\D'f"\. 1 an~ C\f\.'/ Cl'f'\c\. o..\\. tt~~'b~~~ '\-b '"'~s. "oM\nb\e_, e..nur>\-. 

l.. 

--\ \lKiS ~1.t.\lo~ '6 ~1\\F._ t-t\~}..t\ 

..._\u~\s.d~d~·o·~" c~ 4\r,~s,. Lot..,t~\ \s. \n.\ID~t\ ~Ut;SL~r""~ -\-c. 1\ri:;~k \ \.,{il o~ ~.L \ru.s LoA(.) 

rA Cdw,~y,a_\ \)~ou"-ure...:.> , ~e..~\\\ov\-u-' \.s t...U\t"·ut\\y ·~n ~\:CA.-\:u \..lls\oO..~ n.'\:- -\-he_. W.\Lcl.S ~~r\:­

l'f\Ll'-.'\. o\ c_,:,m~.·'\t\.\ --lus..-\;ce..,~ ll\:s.'\"\\:u.'t~nf'Q\ b~\1\s\tw-.. Clf\~ hos \ l W'\~hl. cu:..c..e..s.s -\o \eY.a.S 5\-o..~ 

La..w boo"-s. a.,,c\. ,-~e..sts '\ho:\- '\h',s. C.oL.\.r-t \ ~bt.rol\'f C:.UI\.S'true... \-'\~S. ~\wt\~''""ns \n \i~kt· a\. 

\.\a.~i'l.t.S v. Kf._1tl.if I L~ ()t\ u.s ."'5\ <\ 15 ~ \. ( \ '\ 1 ~ . 

11 .. 

f\~p\~cn,._'\:- ~.:-,. ~ \\~o.\\y <::.6 1'1.~~~-...ut ~u,·su.m\t '\-o ~\u ~ Utt~1't\f./1~ artc\. St.n~\t..n.c.L cy\: ~L m-n\ 

\)~s.-\f"~et· C..L~>ur-\- o-\: ~\c,rt'\S C.Oul\~y ,\-e..~,\n tnusL \'\0, \CJl03l_~ 1w\\-trL ~\~\~c::.at~WGLS. Co~­

·v ic:.."t~ by J.. ury on ~ove.~r ';).3 , '~S {0\- {h{..J ~e..lo ''-'I c,~~ o{ c.c,~~a..\ rr\Ur-'d u-. M'te.r ~J'-> 

jur:-y's ~\N\\n~ a-\~.\~\\, -\:h.t.. \r-ict.\ C..Ourt- a.s~e.c.\ 1\.~~l~c.n~'\:s t-Un~sh~ n:t coV\.{\'1'\<..M.-tM...'-t-

~or-- \'~~ tt"-1. 'id"\u \f.\Lc..s \J~o.!"'\:m.-{n-...'\- o-\· Cr\1'1\~o.\ ~us\\c..L- 't.~~'\-u--t·:eH'Qt \J~v~ic.w·-..., 

\ . 
\hu Ynu't't~t\,. teut-t c& 1\~~w..\s. <i.tL\\vE..r~c\. an UI\~Ltb\~shu\. \"1\-tJn'\.Dr-a.nduM.. o~;f\\b'A. o..~\r-.''('-­

\f\~ ~~\.L f\_~~\~ C-~'1\.-\S, Gbf-..u{c--\-~on Or-'- ~-e_ion.tC.li\f :l_') t ~{)/ .1\\c..on·'- \}\. &t-.:A.'\L 1 l.t\·()"5,- ()l\Ct[:,- C..?-... 1 

~DI 'WL :SS'l:J... ~~ (\elL. 1\.~\l,- \\oLL~c'l'..l\1-\-\ht.\i.s\:.J "fe.br-u.c.~ory -:1.\,1.60# ·+e_'t. nJ 'd\ . 

.m... .. 

On. -ln~c'-r-~ 'l.b t 'l.D\.S 1 Chi\s \JoJ\\tl 1 --th~ ~~s:~r-\c't C:..\-e.A<... ~o'""' \\nn-\s. Cnui\.*'"1•\e.x.c..s 

'"t:.'h\.iu\ ~\':1\)l~u: ... '-t '\:hn:\: h~s. 1\.,'-\:\d~ \tOI Wr-r~a~· \-\o.\.-e..us Luqlu.S wost'e.£.L\\Iu\. a.~ 

-\-\\e_c\ Dr\ ~ni\uu''-1 \, 'd.o\S. Se..e__·. Pa\\-~~~J~ hh~b\'t I\. ~urSL\a.\'tt+o 1\.\""\:~c.l~ \\. Dl o-\: ~~ 

\ex.os WL o~ L\-~tf\.~t\CJ..\. ~t!lu..Aur~ ~~t.J ~+c..*~ \s. o~D\Ii~ \'S An..'-1~ ~;-; w\-.~c.l,.\n a.t~u-

-\~ c.~~\~t.n.'\ic.\'"'\ o.:~'\u-- \"'o...\J\f\~ ~ttl"- S.eTvu\ w~~ .so..\6.. a~~\\c_cL\.",o\\. ~!..'\-~~0\"\( .. r' c .... \IUJ.s. \ho"* 

~ S::--\-c.:\:e..:. 1 \'"' ·\ho \'5 d.illj.:::.. o..\\.ou.)u\ '\:'£::> 0.1\S.u.)e.x- f\~~\~<:a.~S a.~~~~c::..o...\<t~\" ,~f~DDlls.d.--\ho':\ 

-\:\'\L \r~o.\ C..Our+ c\e .. s.\~f\o.\Ll ts...~~ o-\: ..\.o..u\- 0J~\J, f\d~ ~ bu \-~\v~ \r-~-\r..L \,'-·shw~ 

~ro tfd \n ~ un~ rf\nc\u 0.. n\o\:\0\''1 '\:-o -\ho\: e_,-\-\·e.& Df'\ ,\O.f\\J..(\\"1 ·lL ,'d..O~. 'Se .. e ... /. ~~~\:en""~~ 

b1-,~ \:.~ ~. 

f\s Cl n .... 'S.U.~+ o~ '\:h.~ S:. \-o±e...:S.. f'f\.0'\\cw'\. 1 ~L \r-\n.\. C.. out+ o.Ao~-\u\. -\hL ~-\a..\:e..S. \\:-'0\'lo~cl 

O('dt'...r' \){..~~~~\0:\~f'l.~ l.s.SL\:£.1::. Or'\ '\\\t'eL ~rb\.1Y\~ 6n -._\0.\'\\\.Qf\( ~() 1 ':UJ\S ~. 

'\\ \J \'\£...-t\\.& ~'-"-' n~\'\\c_cud: t'e..c:.e1\JeA \r,.e_\{<'L.~:\ie-1 nsS\.S-\:0.\f\L~ tJ-\_ C...o\.11'\S.'L\ '

1 

~ \t\htih.t,~ ~u '\r~c..\ c ..ourt e..rre.l .. \~"- ~-ct4tt~~,.~ -\hL ~'\:o..'\:-e..~ Mo'\~Df\. ~) C.OI'I\.~~i CI.V"\t 

3\ \Jhe..\\....e.r- \k~ wo...s. ~L\.\\·\u"x~ t..\1.\c\·u\c.LJ w'-A\"- w~~~ '\-o con\l~r~\ ~\(/-> a~~v\;c ... nr-~. 

\b~ \ssut.S. L.>~-e..... ""~'\~o.\ \~ de..s\~no...'\-u\ ~w~~ua.,,\ '\-o \ u. C..o~T:. C..Kl.Y\., ~roc_.. a~. 

\\,()-l. § '~(~\.1....~\e_d,\IL ~O.M.i.fi.."-1 \, d-0\~ t't\n.~::.. Lou\4- t!1::.·\-c,,.\:,\~s.hul ll">~ \e'L.oS ~,u\tAJ 

1\~~~\o..-\:e... 'Y\'"bc.du\'e...J § l·~ .. l.\ ( ~\ ~'ho..'\: o~ ~ \B\s.-\: Ao~ ~\)"1\,.-\:\'\L AQ\L> o~ \~~'\: o~*~ 

0.~~\\Ul.~~ts'<"--. \,y '\\-..u ~-\-1±\u ere 0.. ~()s\-- Lot\.\1 ~c~\D\"- 0.~\)\\ CA't~t.l'"\.. -for l.JJt~ d~ h~ C<H-~US. 

ur~c\o-" ~M:\d~ \\.O-l ~u c\~·ln-~d:: L~-\-.... ~\,o..\.\ to,-wa.,-c\. -\hu wr-tt \.-Je.Lun\. 'tb '\h(..) C.Ou.\~ 

~ c.__.'\~~'"'u.\ t\~~Ut\s ~\u~~e.; c\.~s.:\:r\G\ c.oux* hos \~tv~n,'\..e\L.'-\:t.~'\.S.\of\.o\.-lc~,"'L 
~()''' ~ t.~i~un:- o\ L,t"~N\~'"a..\ ~~w.\s ~ursum"* -\-o ~,\~\u 13.4 ls\. 

' 

. Mso i\\'\. \fro.s. ~u.\<.S J. f\.~~~\\a.'h..) ~t't~u.Au,Je..., V,u\~ I'!, :s ,'\hu -t~'""'<....~ro.1\"\t.J -.\o.- r~\u-t~()"' 

a\ da.\j'I\S \""ms.e..d. tr" a.'<'\ C\~~\\cA:~\)\" \s \ ~ Ao...ys ~'o~ \-hL ~a.·hJ oG ,-lib~-\: o~ \he... a~~\\c.c.&:bv... 

b~ -\\'\.L S\.c:\e....\\,e..., \\..u\Ll s.'\c-.t.'-\:C..:::. ~o* ~ Cllfl\1\Cht--.~ CDU\4: sho.\.\ f-e..:s.b\v..-..J o:<\'f. ~S'SI..\i?..A -\ho'::\ 

--\hu CJllli\4 ~ci.S. 't-~ ~'f ~<-s..t~f\o.tu\. ~e:,l' ~w.t>\u-\~,.,~\ .. f\t\.1 'N\.~~DV\S. ~' e.\l:\-e..N\t>~"< o~ --t\ l\"\fJ 

M.~ ~L~\~ \f\ \~u C.-our't CJ~ Cs\'f~~~u.\ {\~~a.\s hlo\"L ~ ~~\\''o..-\\o"" ~~\~-d.a.'f 

~er~a~:·-c ~ .... ,f\. \). \3..S.. 

'I.e". -.\-\,t..- \\"\'&\-o.d c.o..~e.... '\~ ~~~~i'\.C\.\:tl ~SSll-LS ~\o~osu\. \.'( ~ S\:a.~ we_, ... ~ ttc:i\- n.sn\"ec\. 

.h'L Cl.C..C .. (>'!"Ao.,'\(.L) u)~\.... \,~ .~ :~ . .. Y~-~. Qf\c\ 1\~~\~ c_nr-.'\: \--~.os.~--'c ~-u"'- f\o'\:J.~e.c\ ~a..-\: ~,e._. ~'-\:-o±~ 

~c-..s \e.L.f.l\le..~ <lY'\. tt'te...f\.~\Dv'l.~\~\\.f..n'i\Dtt..>1 \hu S\:CL'\:~ \'"\CD .\~\d CH'\. ou:\:- o-\-'*~ h'\£...; l~e.s.~ol\S.~ 

't-o ~~\\c__c,KtS. a.~~tc..n..\\oV'\. 1 "«\\'C\~ a..~'\u- \n~"c~o.\.\'1 \'"'U:£.~"'"'~ ~\~ 0.~\\\~c.o...\~ot' <~'1\c\. ~,\\ 

\tos~-\: t"e..so\\l~ ~L> cie.~'~"-o.:\:d \ s.~u.~:--\\"L ~\:~Ls. 0\\~,,o..\ n.\1\S.ux.r S.hbu.\ c\... 1{\0-\: b 

\ t\clU~u\_ \1\~D -\hf-J lwf.U>\'"'c\_ ~p t 0\\."--C • -\:\\_~ ~:kct\:L \'lns, \a_~\{.!\_ ~D \""~!:\~.~I'\ OCUYI"'c\_O..'i\.C..U 

-\o l\t\:\dL \\, Dl. \he.... ~\:~e.... ho.s. \'S At\:~s. ~o c~'l\'::.LJ)~.x". 

~\"C\.\.\'1 /\\-..0 S.\n.\u1 ~1"'\. ~S. ou-\:-c~-\\~ of"':i''Q\ n.\'\S..wu- ~Lh-\\'\f.re.\u...\:.s. -u, c\ei,~'C'\ct\e..:> 

\\,~ ;\S.S.\.,\.G o\- ~f\i.l~.<.-\:\\le--,) ~s\.~'l\.'-0 ~ U)Uf~ti_ C.\Y~ C.O{•"\.~\ctt....\'f d\s.\~e.:\o..r-'c\ \:ht._, \'::.Sl\c.& 

~~'\(I_, '\:rlo...\ t.&:lL\A o.~~-\ti\ \-o A~\~'-o..\t..., 

-r~--. c:ux.c1~ m"\~ -\:o ~--u\ti:. (3l'--\ fs\ nv,~ -r5:s 1 1\~~\~c..L\.ltt t~~~ -\he&-\\"~ \.\oMm~\u 

Lour* \ss.u.u o.. t"'\.ai'\~nl\"\L\S. o.'f\.<\ J.·,,u...,\ '\:ht.J ~\\\\\~me;\ C'..ourt o~ \\m·\"'~s. r_ou,~y ";"\a.o.S. 

~ t'"e..s..Cl\vt-~ o.\\ ~u~ o\.. -Go.c± n'f\c.\. ~e..'i'. ~or-wo.r"'~ ~L w,-\'\:· \-.u.ot-~ ~ -\hL c..eu,..Jc '* V\N\.~f'\o..\ ~~UL\s c:-1 r\lts\·,~){.."i..o..S \nt-- ~u,A\..er \?'~D~\~~. 

i\ ,, w1·\'-t ~ tt\<A~~~~u.S. \~ Uf\ or-Au d~r-e .. c:hr.~ Cl ~\.\b\~c.... o-\-\.\t..~n.\ o,- ~u'b\\c... boA.~ --tc 

~~m-,_ a.. 6..u\y e.'LaL··h.A. \Jy \ m.D :' Un~ ~'\:c~e..s. V. ~U'\~"' 1 LD1 f .-U \ \!.\~ t \ l~\(.., (6th. 

\ ~ " ~~ ...... \'\-l'\.'\.1.'"\- \~ GY ... €.\L'\nJ ... o\-c.\..\,'\lU·y \"-e1v\.dy ~' e.\t\:r-eto\-d.~Y'\t\.\'1 ~n.us.e..s. l,, t~ Lor'i'-

u~c&-e.A ~"'\:O.:,'Mr' A.(\--\-·,,h-..1~-t \~"\-~.\~Cor·~· ~\4 ~ :ti 0 \SS 1 "'t(a.\-L':L (!;tk C..\ 'I·-. \q &o\. 

\o o~*o.\"f'\. ~'\L i...u\tt- :\h-L ~-\-~,o'f\tr tn\.l.s.\ ~how~ -\-h.<\.\: ('\0 o-t\\fr' C\~c..r\t;CL'\-e .... M'-AV\S. C'i.\s,-\s 
-\o. o,\-·\·n.\\"-~L. r·e..\:~-\: r'~\e.s..'\:u\. Ol\c\. +h.& h~s n:~f'-\: '-\-o \ssUClt\(.L.) c+~L wn'\: \~ c..\-w.r 

an.~. ~."A\s.~u~C\b\u :··'In ,-L ~~\\y, ~3l 'F<~ "Sl.\5 154'-\ ( 1,;.\:h C.\, .. \~~n\ .\ku \~sncl-.\.C.~ 

o\- ··\\.,~ W\-~ ~~ w~~~v'- --\-~~ LDU\-'t~ Ai:s.c.\'"'{~ho~. ~Lf\SDf'\ J 663 l-.ll a'\ \\4l:.. 

\d\\B~_'t-6~t.. 1 ba.s.cl Of\_ -\-he__ a~C\JL 1 b\\\i\l.t~ ~~~ 1\.LLDlli, ur~ ~\s \\61\br~~\u 

Uu\\- -\:t> ~SS\\~ 01. \.D\""\~ a.\. MO\~a:M.U.S. c\~rtL\:\~~ ~ m\\:\ ..\u.t\\D.a.~ ~\s:\r-~c.,-\: ~u\->-\ 

o\. \\Gr-\"\s tou(\'\/ i\exo..s, C..a.\.'l~u\lo.\()\07:>~~-\\. ,'\o t'~~\\.Je....-\b-\-\~""-d\.1 Ae.:s.\~(\.c..\-eA. 

•\SS.\lU:.. O.\~ ~ -t\-wO.\~ ·\:h.eJ Cl\\be..\.\c.:\u l"t.Lcn--~ to -\-\'\f.; Lou\k n.C Cr~to-..~'t"'o...\. f\~~~L\s. a.-\.\u--

~~~ tt's \t..C..iH~\.N'\.-e.~v..\\c,~, ~\,~~\"~ o~ ~o..c\ Clt'\dC.of\.c..\u.s.~o\'\S rA \aw . 

. , :lo\"S. 

~a~"~ \_a.(\'\1)\~ r\\c.cr-V"\ ~OtB'\15'\ 

~~0 ~E t>S-~\>S--~"8J.\I\\I..o~ 

~-t\\<.S u('.~--\: 

3 o luD ~ \"\. sS \2.\ 

~l?..fi..\..l'(\1\l)~ ;-r ~~ t ll 0 s 
~~~\e... \\Q..\.e..o.:::. ~~~\l(:A\ion. ~ .... e..cb"u\. 

-~ \'1\o'\:\oX'\ \\~~ts\:h"\r~ \)c:..~\~ .... o~\c-t"'\ ~~ 1:.:s..sut.S 

·~ S'\-tt\:~ ~ t'o~os.u\. G \"'ck.r ~e.s.\~"o~~\"~ '!.s ~~t..S 

L~ S'\o~~ Ol·\~l-,ol ~\'\.SoJu" 
CHRIS DANIEL 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

January 20, 20~5 

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN 

#01339759- STILES UNIT 

3060 FM 3514 

BEAUMONT, TX 77705 

RE: CAUSE #1010324.,A 

228th District Court 

Dear Applicant: 

Your post conviction application for Writ of Habeas Corpus was received and filed on 1-7-15. Article 11.07 of the Texas code of 

Criminal Procedure affords the State 15 days in which to answer the application after having been served with said application. 

After the 15 days allowed the State to answer the application, the Court has 20 days in which it may order the designation of 

issues to be resolved, if any. If the Court has not entered an order designating issues to be resolved within 35 days after the State 

having been served with the application, the application will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for their 

consideration pursuant to Article 11.07, Sec. 3( c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 

The records of the office reflect the following: 

CAUSE NO. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DISPOSITION 

re correspondence should indicate the above listed cause number. 

1201 FRANKLIN • P.O. Box 4651 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651 PAGE 1 OF 1 

REv. 01-02-04 
February 4, 2015 

CHRIS DANIEL 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN 

#01339759- STILES UNIT 

3060 FM 3514~. 

BEAUMONT, T)\ .77705 

To whom It May Concern: 

Pursuant to Article l 1,07 ofthe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed 

copies of the documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ filed in 

cause number 1010324-A in the 228th District Court. 

D State's Original Answer Filed 

D Affidavit 

D Court Order Dated 

D Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affidavit. 

D Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order 

~ Other 

Sin~eely, 

4 / 

Bren a Me · .(l)eputy I 

Criminal Post Trial 

Enclosure( s) - Motion Requesting Designation Of Issues I State's Proposed Order Designating Issues 

1201 FRANKLIN • P.O. Box 4651 • HousTON, TExAs 77210-4651 • (888) 545-5577 

PAGE I OF I REv: 01-02-04 
i ., 

I 

Cause No·. 1010324-A 

EX PARTE 

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN, 

Applicant 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE 22Sth DISTRICT COURT 

OF 

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

MOTION REQUESTING DESIGNATION OF ISSUES 

The State of Texas, by and through its Assistant District 

Attorney for Harris County, requests that this Court, pursuant to TEX. 

CODE (RIM. PROC. art. 11.07, §3(d), designate the following issues which 

need to be resolved: 

1. Whether the applicant received ineffective assistance of 

counsel; 

2. Whether the trial court erred 1n granting the State's motion 

. to compel; and 

3. Whether there was sufficient evidence with which to convict 

the applicant. 

FILED 

Chris Daniel 

District Clerk 

JAN 2 6 2015 

~me:;----~==~~­

By: _ _!r:~· ~m~i=+y._re-xa_s _ 

~ 
f .. ~. 

Service has been accomplished by mailing a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing instrument to the applicant at the following 

address: 

Damien Lamont Alcorn 

#13389759 - Stiles Unit 

3060 FM3514 

Beaumont, Texas 77705 

SIGNED this 26th day of January, 2015. 

1 fully submitted, 

Vf-. F res 

As~. ant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 755-6657 (office) 

(713) 755-5809 (fax) 

Texas Bar I.D. #24059760 

2 
'· ' 

FILED 

o1~r:?c?~~;~ Cause No. 1010324-A JAN 2 

11ma: 6 2015 

EX PARTE 

DAM IEN . LAMONT ALCORN, 

Applicant 

§ IN THE 228ttall)ISTR1~-~~H-.-

§ OF 

§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

STATE'S PROPOSED ORDER DESIGNATING ISSUES 

Having reviewed the applicant's application for writ of habeas 

corpus, the Court finds that the following issues need to be 

resolved in the instant proceeding: 

1. Whether the applicant received ineffective assistance of 

counsel; 

2. Whether the trial court erred 1n granting the State's motion 

to compel; and 

3. Whether there was sufficient evidence with whiCh to convict 

the applicant. 

Therefore, pursuant to Article 11.07, §3(d), this Court will 

resolve the above-cited issue and then enter findings of fact. 

The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED NQI to transmit at this 

time any documents in the above-styled case to the Court of 

Criminal Appeals until further order by this Court. 
By the following signature, the Court adopts State's Proposed Order 

Designating Issues in Cause Number 1010324-A. 

SIGNED on the __ _ 

2 
August 7, 2015 

CHRIS DANIEL 

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK 

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN 

#01339759- STILES UNIT 

3060 FM 3514 

BEAUMONT, TX 77705 

To Whom It May Concern: 

Pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, please find enclosed 

copies ofthe documents indicated below concerning the Post Conviction Writ tiled in 

cause number 101 0324-A in the 228th District Court. 

~ State's Original Answer Filed August 6, 2015 

D Affidavit 

D Court Order Dated 

D Respondent's Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order For Filing Affidavit. 

D Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact and Order <c 

D Other 

Sincerely, 

I aMc~. puty 

~al-Post 1al 

Enclosure(s)-

1201 FRANKLIN • P.O. Box 4651 • HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4651 • (888) 545-5577 

PAGE I OF I REV: 01-02-04 
F I{ L E &use No. 1010324-A 

EX PARTE 

Chris Daniel 

Dlctrlct Clork 

AUG 0 6 2015 

DAMIEN LAMONT ALCORN, 

Applicant 

§ IN THE 228th DISTRICT COURT 

§ OF 

§ · HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 

STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

The State of Texas, by arid through its Assistant · District 

Attorney for Harris. County, files this, its original answer in the 

. above-captioned cause, having been served with the original 

application for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. 

PROC. art. 11.07 (West 2013), and would ·show the following: 

L 

The applicant is · confined pursuant to the judgment and 

sentence of the 22Sth District Court of Harris County, Texas, in 

cause number 1010324 (the primary case), where the applicant was 

convicted by a jury on November 23, 2005 for the felony offense of 

capital murder. The jury assessed the applicant's punishment at 
·" 

confinement for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -

Corrections Institutions Division (TDCJ-ID). 

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals delivered an unpublished 

memorandum opinion affirming ·the applicant's conviction in the 

primary case on February 27~ 2007. Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-

. CR, 2007 WL 582292 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] February 27, 

2007, pet. ref d.). 

II. 

The State denies the factual allegations made in the instant 

application, except those ·supported by official court records, and 

offers the following additional reply: 

Reply to the Ap_plicant's First _and Second Grounds for Relief 

In his first ground for relief, the applicant alleges that the 

State withheld Brady information . Applicant's . Writ at 6-7. 

. Specifically, the applicant claims that the State withheld phone 

records of the applicant's acc;omplice that· the State received several 

months before trial. ld 

2 
.• 

In his second ground for relief, the applicant alleges that the 

State committed· prosecutorial misconduct when it used perjured 

testimony. Applicant's Writ at 8-9 Specifically, the applicant claims 

that a State's witness lied when she testified that her husband sold 

or gave a gun to the applicant. ld 

Brady Violation 

Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the State is 

required to provide a defendant with any exculpatory evidence that 

is favorable and material. When alleging· a Brady violation, the 

applicant has the burden of showing that:. 1) the prosecutor failed 

to disclose evidence; 2) the evidence was favorable to the applicant; 

and 3) the evidence was material, such that there is a reasonable 

probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, 

the outcome of the trial would have been different. Ex parte Kimes, 

872 S.W.2d 700, 702-703 (Tex. Crim. App .. 1993). 

In .the instant claim, the applicant fails to demonstrate that this 

information was withheld from the defense. The . applicant shows 

3 
records that existed in 2005, but has not shown that trial counsel 

was not aware of these records. Furthermore, he fails to show how . 

or that these records are exculpatory. Finally, the applicant fails to 

demonstrate materiality such that there is a reasonable probability 

that, had trial counsel known of the records (assuming arguendo 

that counsel was not aware of the records), the outcome of the 

trial would have been different. Ex parte Kimes, 872 S.W.2d 700, 

702-703 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 

Prosecutorial Misconduct 

. A prosecutor's active or pass1ve use of perjured testimony 

violates a defendant's right ·to due process. Ex parte Castellano, 

863 S.W.2d 476, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), citing Mooney v. 

·.Holohan, 294 US. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340 (1935). Such violation occurs 

whenever the pro·secutor has actual or imputed knowledge of the 

perjury which is material to the conviction. Ex parte Castellano at 

. 481, 485. The State commits a due process violation when (1) the 

State presents false testimony, (2) the State knows or has reason to 

4 
know that the testimony was false, and (3) the false testimony is 

material. Furthermore, the prosecutor must correct a false 

impression, including those that do not amount to perjury, left by a 

witness. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153, 92 S.Ct. 763 

(1972); Napue v.· Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 7.9 S.Ct. 1173 (1959); 

Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28, 32, 78 S.Ct. 103 (1957). 

A charge of perjury is a serious accusation and must· be 

clearly supported by the evidence. Haywood v. State, 507 S.W.2d 

756, 760 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A defendant bears the burden of 

showing that ·testimony used by the State was perjured. Luck v. 

State, 588 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (op. on reh'g); 

Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65, 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). ,Even if 

conflicting testimony is presented, that fact alone would not indicate 

perjury. Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 312 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1986); Brown v. State, 477 S.W.2d 617, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). 

In this case, the applicant fails to meet his burden of showing that 

the testimony that forms the basis of his complaints amounts to 

5 
perJury. The applicant merely highlights conflicts between his own 

testimony and that of a State's witness. 

Conflicting testimony is resolved by the fact finder - 1n this 

case, the jury. ·Losada v. State, 721 S.W.2d 305, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1986). The jury . may accept all, part, or none of any witness's 

testimony. Penagraph v. State, 623 S.W.2d 341, 343 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1981). It is the jury's job to judge the credibility of the 

witnesses, and to decide the weight given to each witness's testimony. 

Banks v. State, 510 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) 

(abrogated on other grounds). The jury may resolve or reconcile any 

conflicts in testimony as they see fit. /d When evidence exists that 

both supports and conflicts with the jury's verdict, the courts must 

assume that the fact finder resolved such conflicts in favor of the 

verdict rendered. Turro v. State, 856 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1993). That is exactly 'what happened in the instant case - the jury 

resolved the conflicts in the testimony in favor of a guilty verdict. 

6 
Furthermore, trial counsel had· the opportunity to cross-examine 

the witness during trial. The jury thus had the opportunity to 

consider the testimony of all witnesses. All of the alleged conflicts in 

evidence were ·before the jury for its consideration, both for 

substantive and credibility purposes. 

The applicant fails to demonstrate that the State . knowingly 

relied upon false statements. For all these reasons, the applicant's 

first and second grounds for relief are without merit, and should be 

denied. 

Reply to the Applicant's Third Ground for Relief 

The applicant all~ges in his third ground for relief that there IS 

no evidence, other than uncorroborated accomplice testimony, to 

support his conviction. Applicant's Writ at 10-11. 

On appeal, the applicant raised four grounds for relief: 

1. That the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction, 

as it relied solely on the testimony of a person the applicant 

feels should have been designated an accomplice to the crime; 

7 
2. That the co-defendant's refusal to .testify and invocation of his 

. Fifth Amendment. right was improperly imputed to the applicant, 

unfairly prejudicing the applicant; 

3. That the trial court erred by admitting eviden·ce of the 

applicant's extraneous offenses and bad acts via a third party's 

testimony;· and 

4. That the trial court erred by admitting evidence . of the 

applicant's extraneous offenses and · bad acts via the 

applicant's recorded statement to police. 

See Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL 582292 (Tex. App. -

Houston [14th Dist.] February 27, 2007, pet. refd.). 

In its decision, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that "the 

trial court correctly gave the jury the responsibility of determining 

whether [the State's witness] was an accomplice," and overruled the 

applicant's first issue on appeal. Alcorn. v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, · 

2007 WL 582292 at *1-*4. The Court of Appeals· specifically noted 

that mere presence, knowledge, failure to disclose, and concealment 

8 
of a crime do not make an individual an · accomplice." /d (citing 

, Maynard v. State, 166, S.W.3d 403, 411 (Tex. App. - Austin 2005, 

pet. refd). 

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals also addressed the applicant's 

claim that the trial court erred by allowing the State to grant use 

immunity to his accomplice. Specifically, the (ourt of Appeals noted 

that the trial court advised the accomplice that. he could not invoke 

his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent: because he had been 

granted use immunity. Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL 

582292 at· *4. ·Despite the court's admonishment, the accomplice 

. refused to testify, so the triaL court held the accomplice in 

contempt of court - ten times. ld; States Writ Exhibit A, Judgment 

of Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1047601; 

States Writ Exhibit B, Judgment of Contempt and Commitment 

Order in cause number 1 047602; States Writ Exhibit C, Judgment of 

Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1 047603;. States 

Writ Exhibit D, Judgment ·of. Contempt and Commitment Order in 

9 
.... 

_; 

cause number 1047604; State's Writ Exhibit· E, Judgment of 

Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1047605; State's 

Writ Exhibit F, Judgment . of Contempt and Commitment Order in 

cause number . 1 047606; · State's Writ Exhibit G Judgment of 

Contempt and Commitment Order in cause number 1047607; State's 

Writ Exhibit H, Judgment of Contempt and Commitment Order in 

c;ause number 1047608,· State's Writ Exhibit/, Judgment of Contempt 

and Commitment Order in cause number 1047609; and State's Writ 

Exhibit J, Judgment of Contempt and Comm/tment Order in cause 

number 1047610. · The Court of Appeals held that the applicant was 

· not unfairly prejudiced by the. accomplice's invocation of his own 

Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. 

The Court of Appeals further held that the applicant failed to 

preserve error by failing to object in a timely manner in his claim 

that the trial. court abused its discretion when it allowed a witness 

to testify about the applicant's extraneous offenses and prior bad 

acts. Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL 582292 at *4-*5 .. 

10 
' ' 

Finally, the Court of Appeals, without specifically finding error, 

held that the applicant was not harmed by the trial court's 

admission of evidence of the applicant's extraneous offenses and 

prior bad acts via the applicant's recorded statement with the police. 

Alcorn v. State, 14-05-01195-CR, 2007 WL 582292 at *5-*6. 

Issues raised and rejected on direct appeal need not be 

considered on habeas. Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470, 47Z (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1984). The Court of Appeals has addressed the 

applicant's third ground for relief directly. Because the applicant's 

third ground for relief was raised . and rejected on direct appeal, that 

issue need not be considered in the instant writ · proceeding or 1n 

any subsequent proceeding. Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d at 47-2. 

Reply to the Applicant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Grounds for Relief 

The applicant alleges in his fourth ground for relief that the 

trial court erred by denying his motion to find that the State's witness 

was a party to the offense. Applicant's Wnt at 12-13 

11 
In the applicant's fifth ground for relief, he complains that the 

\ 

trial court . erred by allowing the State to grant his accomplice use 

immunity. Applicant's Writ at 14-15 

·In his sixth ground for relief, the applicant complains that the 

trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a witness's 

testimony may be tainted if that witness 1s compensated. 

Applicant's Writ a( $16~$171. · 

Claims of trial court error· are generally record claims which 

are required to be raised in the trial court and on direct appeal. 

An application for writ of habeas corpus may not be used to litigate 

matters that could have been raised on direct appeal. Ex parte 

Nelson, 137 S.W.3d 666, 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Ex parte 

Townsend, 137 S.W.3d 79, 81 (Tex. Crim. App~ 2004). "Record 

claims " which could have been but were not presented in the trial 

court or on direct appeal should not be considered on habeas. Ex 

1 The applicant's writ memorandum uses pages "14" and "15" repeatedly to 

complete his w··rit application. In order to avoid confusion for the purposes of 

this answer, the State will designate the page after the first page 14 and page 

15 of the writ application as page 16, and· continue thereon. 

12 
parte . Gardner, 959 S.W.2d 189, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (op. 

reh'g). Because the applicant's claim of trial court error is a record 

claim, it should not be considered on habeas. 

For all these reasons, the applicant's fourth, fifth, and sixth 

grounds for relief are without merit and should be denied. 

Reply to the Applicant's Seventh and Eighth Grounds for Relief 

In his seventh and eighth · grounds for relief, the applicant 

complains of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the 

applicant claims that counsel failed to: 

1. object to the prosecutor referring to the identity of the 

applicant's accomplice because the. applicant had not yet 

been identified as having been at the scene; 

2. object to the admission of the applicant's accomplice's 

criminal history; 

3. object to hearsay testimony of "witnesses;" 

4. investigate; 

5. interview witnesses; and 

13 
6. object to illegally seized evidence. · 

Applicant's Writ at 18*-21~ 

The United States Supreme Court held in Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), that the benchmark for 

judging any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is whether 

counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the 

adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having · 

produced a just result. The Court in ·Strickland set forth a two-part 

standard, which has been. adopted by Texas. See Hernandez v. 

State, 726 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. Crim. App .. 1986). First, the 

defendant must prove by a preponderance· of the evidence that 

counsel's · representation fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness. Mitchell v. State, 68 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2002); Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1992) (citing Strickland v. Washington, • 466 U.S. at 688). Reasonably 

effective assistance of counsel does not require error-free counsel, 

or counsel whose competency is judged . by hindsight. ·Mercado v. 

14 
State, 615 S.W.2d 225, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Second, there 

must be a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's 

. unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been . I . . . 

different. /d A . "reasonable prdbability" is "a probability sufficient 

d · fid . · h I .. ,_, to un erm1ne con .I ence 1n t e outcome. tu. 

j 

I . I 

Article I, Section 10 of thJ Texas Constitution also requ1res . I. 

I 

that a criminal defendant receiVe effective· assistance of counseL · 

I 

However, the Texas constitutio~al provision does not create a 

I 

I 

standard that is more · protective j of a defendant's rights than that 

I 

established 1n Strickland Black ¢ State, 816 S.W.2d 350, 357 (Tex. 

I 

Crim. App. · 1991) (citing Hernandez v. State, 726 S.W.2d 53 (Tex. I 

Crim. App. ·1986)) .. Therefore, an ~nalysis of \:he effectiveness of the 

. I . . . 

_applicant's trial counsel in thej primary case pursuant to the I . . 

Strickland standard satisfies both the federal and state constitutional 

I 

I 

requirements. 

I 

The court will not use hindsight to . second-guess a tactical 

I 

decision made by trial counsed nor will. the fact that another 

15 
.. 

attorney might have pursued a different course support a finding of 

ineffectiveness. Solis v. State, 792 S.W.2d 95, 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1990); 8/ott v. State, 588 S.W.2d · 588, 592 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). 

When evaluating an ineffective assistance claim, the reviewing court 

looks at the totality of the representation and the particular 

circumstances of the case. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 

813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In reviewing counsel's performance, the 

court indulges a strong presumption tha~ he acted within the wide 

range of reasonable professional assistance. ld 

Failure to· Object 

The applicant complains that trial counsel failed to object to: . 

7. the prosecutor referring to the identity of the applicant's 

accomplice because the applicant had not yet been 

identified as having been at the scene; 

8. the admission of the applicant's accomplice's criminal 

history; 

9. hearsay testimony of "witnesses;" 

16 
10. illegally seized evidence. 

Applicant's Wnt at 18*-21 ~ 

To show ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object, 

the applicant must show that the trial court would have either 

sustained the objection or that he would have committed error in 

overruling the objection. Ex pane White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. · 

App. 2004); Vaughn v. State, 931 S.W.2d 564 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

Furthermore, an isolated failure to object generally does not in itself 

constitute ineffective assistance. Bridge v. State,. 726 S.W.2d 558 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 

Failure to Investigate 

The · applicant alleges that counsel failed to conduct an 

adequate investigation, and failed to interview witnesses. · Applicant's 

Writ at 18*-19~ 

The defense counsel has a duty to make a proper 

investigation and prepare for trial. Ex pane Dunham, 650 S.W.2d 

825 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In order to succeed on a claim of 

17 
ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to investigate, an 

applicant must show what a more in-depth investigation would have 

revealed. Mooney v. State, 817 S.W.2d 693 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

Furthermore, the applicant must show how the alleged inadequate 

preparation affected the outcome of the trial. Ex parte Walker, 777 

S.W.2d 427 (Tex. Crim. .. App. 1989). Moreover, even assuming 

arguendo, that defense · counsel limited his investigation, an 

. I 

attorneys decision may· be reasonable under the 

circumstances. Harris v. Dugger, 87 4 F2d 756, 763 (11th Cir.), cert. 

denied, 110 S.Ct. 573 (1989); Butler v. State, 716 S.W.2d 48, 54 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 

The applicant fails to show what further investigation by 

counsel would have revealed, nor how counsel's alleged inadequate 

investigation affected the outcome of the instant case. The 

· applicant also fails to allege what, if any, witnesses counsel should 

have interviewed. The applicant presents nothing more than 

conclusory allegations that counsel .failed to investigate, which, even 

18 
.:io 

if sworn to, do not overcome the State's denial and do not warrant 

habeas relief. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1967); Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) . 

. ·The applicant also fails to show how counsel's failure to investigate 

rendered his representation· ineffective. Thus, the applicant fails to 

meet his requisite burden, and these aspects of the applicant's 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit, and 

should be denied. 

Nevertheless, and without waiving the foregoing arguments, the 

resolution requires info.rmation concerning trial counsel's strategic 

decisions, and confidential communications with the applicant. 

Therefore, the State believes that further factual investigation is 

necessary to determine the merit, if any, to the applicant's 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim. 

Ill. 

·The trial court has already designated the 1ssue of ineffective 

assistance of counsel as an issue that needs to be addressed. The 

19 
State respectfully requests that the trial court order Randolph 

McDonald to file an affidavit addressing the instant allegations of 

ineffective assistance. 

IV. 

Service has been accomplished by sending a copy· of this 

instrument to the following address: 

Damien Lamont Alcorn 

#1339759 - Stiles Unit 

3060 FM 3514 

Beaumont, Texas 77705 

SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2015 .. 

ores 

Assistant District Attorney 

Harris County, Texas 

1201 Franklin, 6th Floor 

Houston, Texas 77002 

(713) 755-6657 

(713) 755-:5240 (fax) 

Texas Bar ID #24059760 

20 

., 

I. 
Certificate of Compliance as Required by Tex. R. App. 73.3 . 

The State of Texas, through its Assistant District Attorney for · 

Harris County, files this, its Certificate of Compliance in the abovecaptioned cause, having been served with an application for writ· of 

habeas corpus pursuant to Tex. Crim. Proc. Code art. 11.07 § 3. The 

State certifies that the number of words in the State's Answer is 

3,059. 

21