...... ·._ 

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. 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIIVill\lAL APPEALS 

IFEB 25 2015 
NO. 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 For Reconsideration on Court's Own Motion, of the refusal to grant relief in application for 

writ of habeas corpus. Applicant argw~s that the instant application shou1d,not 

be denied. until the State court's grant an evidentiary hearing, and fact finding proceedings •. Here, application adequately. alleged facts which, if true, 

would entitle the Applicant relief. VJ pp ltc o. t con d ~ 11 1 "l c/ '--l 1-1- 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 not binding 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 relief may have been so deficient that they resulted 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 

it was deficient in the following particulars: 

1. conviction was based on outmoded science; 

2. the State court's failure to address 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 postcon~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's expert 

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 

: . . . 

case presented to the jury, post-conviction DNA testing (a validatediforensic 

science), has cast doubt on the accuracy of the original-jury verdict. 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 explaining how?? 

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 64 proceedings?? 

3. Did the State c0urt's properly analyze 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 certify and 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 postage prepaid, on thi.s, the JJ,._J day of Feb., 2015. 

Unsworn Declaration 

I, Guadalupe Padilla, TDCJ-ID No. 1088110, hereby declare under penalty 

of periury that .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 best of my beliefs. 

So sworn on this the )2r/f dai of Feb. I 20i5. 

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

\. 

4.