### ......·._

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Clerk

- Abel Acosta P. 

### o. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Feb. 22, 2015 Guadalupe Padilla #1088118 Terrell**Uni~** 1300 FM 655 Rosharon, TX 77583**~OT~OINJ ID~S~~§SIEIQ'l**  

### lOAlfE: 

# 3.3'\$ BY: 

# PCz
Re: Case N,o.: WR-61,391-08, Writ of Habeas Corpus Application**Tr~.ct.** No.: 952802-E P£Nrfi-f);**~-/l-;tct5'** Dear Clerk: Enclosed please find original Motion for Reconsideration on Court's Own Motion, of denial of Applicant's writ of habeas corpus, art. 11.07 v.A.C.C.P

.. Applicant is an indigent prose litiqant without access to**phon~,** E-mail, computer.or xerox copier. Please file this original, with6ut copies, and bring to the attention of the court. Thank you for your asststance.



## RECEIVEDIN COURTOFCRIIVill\lALAPPEALS 

## IFEB25

## 2015NO. WR-61,391-08 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL AP:?EALS OF TEXAS

GUADALUPE PADILLA Petitioner 

## v. THE STATE OF TEXAS Application for writ of habeas corpus in Cause

No. DlDC-95-952802 (95-2802), from the l67th District Court. of Travis County, Texas

MOTI0N FOR RECONSIDERATION**0~** COURT'S:OWN MOTION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: COMES.NOW, Guadalupe Padi:lla, Applicant,. with his Motion ForReconsideration on Court's Own Motion, of the refusal to grant relief in application for writ of habeas corpus. Applicant**argw~s** that the instant applicationshou1d,not be denied.until the State court's grant an evidentiaryhearing, and fact finding proceedings•.Here, application adequately.alleged facts which, if true, would entitle the Applicant relief. 

# VJpp

### ltco.t con 

### d

### ~11 1"l

## c/ '--l1-1-b I<;). I. The federal court is required by federal law to accept as true any factual allegations that are made and supported in federal court, when the State court has made findings against the Petitioner on those facts without first ordering
a hearing. The State fact finding procedure is deemed "unreasonable", which
means that the State's factual findings are notbinding on federal habeas corpus. Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2004).

l.In addition, reconsideration is required to determine whether State court's fact findings warranted a presumpt"io•1 ·:1f correctness• .:Jefferson v. Upton, 130 s.ct. 2217 (2010). 

## n. Applicant contends the procedures which led up·to the State court's sl:lm'- mary denial of habeas reliefmay have been so deficient that theyresulted in
a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. 28 u.s.c. §2254 (d)(2). Applicant challenqes the fact-f"indinq process itself on the qround that itwas deficient in the following particulars: 1. conviction was based on outmoded science; 2. the State court's failure toaddress relevant a,nd.material questions raised by results of.post-conviction DNA testing, where results conflict with State's theory of.case and facts presented to the iury; 3. whether the State court·r.eached an accurate result.and did it fairly, in 'light.of new rule of law establishing that outmoded science as a cause of action for a writ of habea·s corpus. Art. 1L073 v.A.C.C.P•• With all due respect to the Judges.of the Court of Criminal Appeals, this· Applicant poses the following scenario inthat it relates to the facts and cir,_ cumstances in this case: Applicant asks what a person should do if authorities respondinq to a Complaint, entered your house and collected bedsheets from the bed' which that person'shares with his wife/qirlfriend (and upon which they had had consensual sex), and used this bedsheet at person's trial to show that**b~dsheet** had semen stains, and through pretrial DNA testinq identified·said person's DNA profile mixture from semen stain. but:not Complainant's and used this evidence aoainst him.at trial. At trial the.state failed to perform DNA testing on sexual assault kit, but post### con~iction DNAtest.results refiect said person.identified from bedsheet·(semenstain) was excluded·from DNA profile mixture from sexual asisault kit. Iri addition, Hospital records from sexual assault exas

2.reflected that Complainant had a sexually transmitted disease**~ Trich~**  monas, with live STD organisms, at-time of--exam, and State'sexpert witness told or explained to the jury that STD would have to come from fluid in the semen (from bedsheet). In the case at bar, and contrary to-the state's evidence and theory of the

: . . . casepresented to the jury, post-conviction DNA testing (a validatediforensic science), has cast doubt on the accuracy of the original-juryverdict. Here, Complainant was excluded from DNA profile-from semen stain 0n bedsheet, and Applicant was excluded from DNA profile mixture identified in sexualassault kit. Questions raised by validated DNA testing, which conflict with trial court outmoded science, relate to: 

### *** The Immaculate STD Transmission 

### *** 1. Who transmitted sexually.transmitted-disease/infection- Trichomonas with live parasitic organisms, to Complaini:mt on· Oct. 22, l994;,_and/or does the Court of Criminal App:=als-simply defer to a·trial court finding that Complainant simply contracted**s~_T.D.** but, not explaininghow?? 2. Does STD

- Trichomonas found in vaginal fluid collected from Complainant at sexual assault exam of Oct. 22, 1994, constitute biological biological material for purp0ses of.Chapter 64proceedings?? 3. Did the State c0urt's properlyanalyze outmoded science used at trial to determine method of transmission.of S"T.Dt, in light of DNA testing; and did the State Court's fairly apply.new law establishing that outmoded science is a cause of action for a writ of habeas corpus?·?-
Applicant prays-the court reconsider it's**judgement~** denying habeas corpus Application, and te-visithabeas cla5.ms ·to determine:whether fact·finding proceedings.are.adequate and warrant a presumption of**correctn~ss.**

3.

## -~.......... A=-"'-/i

## li.....___...c....:...!t-o~t Guadalupe Padilla #1088118 Terrell**~unit** -- 1300 FM, 655**Rosharon~** TX 77583' .

# .

Certificate of Service L hereby certifyand declare'that a true and correct copy of the fore- I; going Motion for**Rec~:msideration o~** **C~urt'**s 

### own Motion, has been forwarded to the**Travi~** County District Attorney's Office, P. 

## o. Box 1748, Austin, Texas 78767, by depvsiting such in

## u.s. Postal container, first-class postageprepaid, on thi.s, the 

## JJ,._J day of Feb., 2015.

Unsworn Declaration I, Guadalupe Padilla, TDCJ-ID No. 1088110, hereby declare under penalty of periurythat.I am currently incarcerated in the Terrell Unit, TDCJ-ID in Brazoria County, Texas, and that the statements in this foregoing instrument
are true to the bestof my beliefs. So sworn on this the 

## )2r/fdaiof Feb. I 20i5.

# :~-L...:.~~=.~....:L.J:.k::::::.......:. 

# L=-

\.

4.