Fred Yaz.d\ T.D-C.T. #oi8Ul^

Ellis W*t 1^7 f m i&o rWWille^Tx TMH3 M«g3o,"i* His, L»VuU IcttiKaacr-R^^^t rYKorneij & Coartselor at LauJ \\oz Naeces AastM.Tx ^7o(



### of Vg;lU««S0A County «,_,,_ ftof9+-CR/^^«D 

### *TWj (W of Appeals Cause Ho. : 03- / m Hm



### . m T V « • ^^ t>ecir Hs\ Icermcuxer-KawireE » —-^ As tjou. are auiare by tVie Copij ofm Maq 04, 2oi5"^ Motto* to extend T7*ie -For FiUg ttte Appellants Kepl^J Sn'et3 HvaT u^s wailed fe the "tturj <Wt

ofAfpeals., I respectfully reauested the aftremenhoned Courtto aKou) us extra tiVne To f.(e the essential, cmd w^h needed
, Repkf Brief, in Ii^ht^fuihattke Williamson County District Att<9rnec/S crPfW argued ir\ the<> brief, (as I had predated to m^ Tanuarif 0^2015", Utter mailed fo t|dU bif Certified Mait, tkj/ ctrgaed "Hie so-called YoUNGBLOOD standard of the need to shou; some 'fea^ 

### Esiik'by the Laui U&ccewetff). Kls\ Iceflhaaer-Rav/uVez ?through one oftjour responses to w^ iMu/cwertVia and steadfast" declarator to you. that I am iVmoc£)it ofcharge of ^lurde^and tfcat 1 was wrortcffully charged artd Conv/icted office same91V1 no uncertainterms, tfou niade tt clear to nfle houl lc#le credence UOU afforded rt\e9 and td tf1(/ appellate cause, fcy stating, "shooing aman iVi the back is riotselfdefense.H Wift all due respect, Ifed .'t necessarcj to state that otvioasltj djoa toere not present on loca tion at the moment that I wjas -forced to -fite ml( a^apotf because had tfou tee*? there, Vjott uJoaU cectauilij knou) that I did wot shoot tAe assailartt/nfrudW iVt 

### Ik back. Furthermore please be aaWj that aperson's todcfdees not remain still^artd changes posifron(V) as he/she rjefs shot, especiajli/ ku the ^ery po»Wi|
Uf7

### fO caliber projectiles. This is par+calarty the case uuhen tte person shot Is in a-fast mov/ing/rotatina moto/i situated on top ofaH foot ki<jh U/roiyht 

### Iron fence tuningtocOards me, «3itt\ his right arm extended, tfitii «;hatappeared

to be a gun in his riglit hand. The mtruJer/assaikwT therefore, \eftme, the halfsleep? terrorized hovweoioAer and "famili/ man *no choug tuffb shoot to stop /tfru oetfe\/irt4 he Mis about to -fi'r^ aj/iat I preceded to be his gu*i atwe, <Vi the aarK of nijht, Hs. Icenhauer-Rawiirez-j as tjou klotO, 1 had to -fight ven/ hard with the 

### U^ District Court aJ Seemingly, the Williamson County X>istr.ct/tftorneys office to hav/e tdewt to e\/e^ appoint me a Court /IppoiViteJ appellate Attorney Had \tnot Wn for the efforts of Mr. tfampWi, one of my trials paTtf defense lawyers, ar\d the Honorable vfsifiVuy Ja^ge Burt Richard son, toho had beetf assigned mi| vert/ niah profile case ta>mina fVcvvt ouisiAe of COilUamsort Countcj, th«.s 

### appeal's process vOoulA hav/e Uen Uj extinguished ^ Vie Wi'lUnaM Counts judccVal authorities. But as reluctant as uon mad fee to tffficfVelif <««t me, «>»»£* WsW*- 

### nl(f W«* t> begwty ofArJer.l as/c tfou for ffce sate of«jftotfoa.j 

## sis, ages 13 a*4 \\ «e«)> please kelp tdfs [00/o DfsabU Veferaff offte Arixed FSrces ofthe Urnfed Stales, M ser*J 4«erf« «ditt Wor to be mtf effect.Ve adv/ocafe, as If is flour prafessfonal <w<( consfrf«fro««| 

### Jut.. I U«) fM«sTM IRANIAN, U WJ-U* ty ««st /Wri««. Hffcr <3

. , , i

. a- t &ree ofmore veteran /io.n<'ciJe detectives 

## rffc, Uml febitlto *prfir-. astyle wl-U-Ary WW «J ph f;*t ted ofJ U<* W «tn( cU.(^t«* W TM«J*««#• "M w*t fte stfitem ofjtffe to beta* Mft* crf« «*« L.*5%*« W «« 

## c^-exa^a^-^^IU^ that U^AiAnot k,o^ ^^e^ika to o\fcn

o of 7

### those and other exculpatory evidences, (BAD FAITH) 

### Well, I kriou whu they went out ofthtir tOacf to describe aManj 

## 3bfot/Wt as a"Rolled up C^arefe/ Wty /Wti* police detectives cUumed M theu4iled to fingerprint aJ p«Uprint ^ homes front entry d^r, Ifa reasonablejurist does v\ot believe that AustVs police veteran hotniade deT

### ectiy/es animus touwd wie, av\ IRANIAN, Man^thiVij to do a>Vtfi if^en allou) meio sawst denying the defendant the Legal Cafak'X&u to argue me 

## protections afforded to Texas honeomecs, and o^Bier^, bjj tfe "Texas legislature, in the 2oo7expanded CASTLE DOCTRINE ladas an addiWa/ motVe, One

ma.t( Sai/ "Hiatal of this »s pare specaUtiotf on ma part, l^oes r\u.s\*A TolCceDepartment «3ant a reasonablejurist "to i>e(<eve *^at thre? or wore 

### veteran homicide detecfives ,**d a. te.aw\ of cnVwe scene Investigators art 

### suffered from aColJec+iVe dmH6Sfa about bouj fo perform fcas.c police and deteciiVe t-oork at the scene of* homicide ?(3/\b FAITH)- 

### Was itnoto/ie of those veteran bomfade defectives that rterforfrf"** 

### voaij to miscbaracterize an important fiece ofe^Uence \* A*st«"i po «ce 

## possession(Marihuana Jomt/fWb)as an umViporfont polled "f Curette
on Vus official police report ?(BAD FAlTH) And ttew dkiWcl that tde sad evidence bad not been tesTec/, and that it «>as destroyed, mak^ ^ 

### unavailable -for the defeaW to We it tested ?(£Af> F/tfTtj). 4 reasonabk misX can cWta;artd objecKveli/ find a pattern df CowGertecf effort by 

### fee detect'ves a*J Investigate to hfcfe exculpatory euidenceO)^rc^ 

### me, the IRftNlflN JUManJ^ Ms. Icenhauer-1Wez, I fcofe that $>* are ""*% ^f'*ce cf°*r erroneous personal -fee/iVia^) as.de,aboat mtj g*1'"", anbhzlp me ooift fte essential,and mucti needed, Appellants Repu/ Brieff* orderto etfectVe^ 

### represent wtf mtferest£s) as tjour court-appointed client, J i^l'^e thai c level of harm that I Suffered from *a 5"Ue 'ftcWjson s uv^liVujness
3of7 tcana

### to pro^tJe %e SpoKafto* of evidence irtstructfort f° "Hiejur^, is 

## thatjust "some" kurmj it .Venous," 

# So* uppUWe research footm^ a*fstfl.« «M «* **«&&,«J macb needed,, Appellants ReplcJ Brieft QAccocJhVw to the United States Supreme Court * 'Arguments of Counsel cannot substitute fir instructions fctf the Court, Taylor v. kentucty
, 436 d£ *7S, <?£ SXt. If3t>. ®Accordina to the Court ot CriVufnal /4ppea(s 6T Texas i Juru argument «"s not asubstitute fora y roper [art/ cnaroe, /Une v. Stoic, ^/ s^2j 3<fo*. Arguments of Counsel cannot substitute -fir proper [art/ charje. Hutcb v. State, <fe2 S.iV^d |££


### ^ad faith entails some sortof improper motive, such as persona/aniVws 

### agaiVist the defendant or a desire t* prevent the defendant-fro« okfaiVunj 

### evidence that wigfct be aseU £x parte Napper, 321 S». 3<i 2oz( ley,- CnVn. App, 2oia)v

We first consider rthetter flic trial Court Com^ted cW erroras aslant asserts. Noo * Shte, ifSSM3d 73* SWU^e-fiVhJ error, u*. 

### then determine wMter mellmt y*x hawed to a decree u>arra«tc«fr 

### Wtrsal, Alrtaitza v. State, 686 £U/. 2J /57. In the-face ot* proper objection to charge errorj, u)e u)UI rt\>trse onu^^J ** SoMe har^t 

### to the defendant Id. Absent aprefer objects
, "* reverse onlj ifthe. 

## record sU ihe defendant sasW 'fejr^yous har^'ll W*5 U* resulls^m cW errorthat affects the venf basis of the c«se,delves *ede4jcmt ota \telualole rfaht or vitaIk affects ade-fens.Ve theort/. 

### J *of? J mereStuhfcr v. State, 2|g 5,1a/, 3d 70^ Ifvoe -frud charge error, the ejrejious tiarw analysis reamres u;e consider the entire jury charge,, the sfefe of 

### the eM<Uic<* (jnclucf.Vyr the Contested issues and the *Jeij/?t of probate evidence), the arauwents of Counsel, as «Jell as all other relevant 

### \Aformat\oA stiouJn by the record, A/ai/a
, 'f/^^V. 3c/ £#?, As U.S. Supreme Courts Jastce Stevens expiated., "there v^oU well be cases i* uihich the defendant is unable tv (>ro«e that Ue State acted in bad -faith but in u'hich the loss or destruction ofevidence is, nonetheless so critical to the defease as to niafee a cnVniViaf trial •Kvda*nfiMfa//(y unfair, "Arizona v Younoh/cod., 4g£ L/.S\ 5"/^ !o?S.Ct333a Smce You.ngblood uJas decided,, a number or state, ccacts kav;e held

as a matter or State Gmstrtatfonal Lau) that the loss or destruction df 

### evidence crif\da| to the defense does violate, clae process, even «n the 

### absence of bad faith. As the Connecticut" Supreme Ccart has explained, fairness dictates that u;hena persons Irtertc/ is at sfate^ the sole, -fad of abetter the police oranother s-fztje official acted »Vi good or bad faith iVt -failing •*> preserve evidence cannot be detersinqfiVe 

### ofwhether the crun»*al defenc/ant received clue process of Lau). " State v. Morales
, 232 Conn, 767, 723j (,51- A, Zd <5%S, ^3(^5") 

### See also State v. Furaasen, 2S.kA 3d ^KZ^C- 9f7(^7eW W?)y State V. DsakaW, l<W W, Va. 75%,145-7IT, +61 S.e. 2^ 5"0<r,S-|(- 512.0115); State v, ^eltsle
, 1^2. Vt. 2?3, 30f, ^4«S A, 2</ £32^ 6*2. (I^o/f) j gx parte Gringo 31,05 $0 2d \XV+, \Z<ri(A\«> IW)/ 

### Commonwealth v. Henderson,, 4-11 Ma«, 3c?1 3(0-311, 5*8 2. N^.zd 

## Wt,*ttl-(mT)j State *Matafetf, ?| rtW 1*3, !«-/*?, 7g7f?2d ^/,^3(mo); ffarwioncl v, State, 5£? A^*^*7(>e.L i?8?);

I

horne k TPeparWf*fPublic S<ftfij, 774 P. <2d 132^ 133o(#(aska H8?)'

D of 7Ms- IcenWer-Kawfre^ In Case tjoa do nvt Msi to effectively represent 

### we. bij filing the Appellant's Reply brief3 please (et rue kncu* that/is fast as i/ou Possibly cqm, I ^<M be vera thank-full if t/ou. tOo*(J,atImst be kivid encuali fo f'/e cl Mohe* to Extend Tfofe fir F*~lCt\o the Appellants 

### Reflg 6nef 0)*% Hie iTiCrJ CourtofAffealsj 1Would &veryappreciate ofaCopt/ofthe same, if <lc* wejd^ please let Me fcnccj novo nvta^j fines can S'ucii Bxtenfion Motions or Reouests be applied-for, Most ^portantlu 9as I'm indigent, please have a Copt/ or ntatrials 

### Reporters Record, or at least /tts pertinent \>^es sent "fo *^e So I cav\ Quote "fee Correct pacves fir tti€ Relief &rCeF9 /{IttrnatiseU
as ^ou. are alre^adcf auJare ofttie arguments that Vm "r}f;*f} "TM 

### make r^t the na^es oftbe defectives, Invest\gatorsJ and paJe5 

### that are pertinent to mU arauivients Will probably Suffice. I fhank t/ou aaaui w (/our be^\

Sincerel l3 j> 

### eMt^z Ffcej) VflZDl, Appellftit

A of 7CBKTjFlCATe- Of serVice 

# I certify that fe attached Doc^ent(s) wasr>ere) ^entas Seated this dau to each of the fclUhVij: 

### Appel^ Ms. Unaa Icerthaaer-RaMirez, Es<J

### U.S. Mail Attorney <^ Counselor at Law

WO5 Nueces Austin s1x '7E70|



### Klerk of "Third Court ofAppfglg Honorable Jeirreq ^> kule
Werk U.S. Mail Court ofAppeals Ihird district of Te*as P.O. Box 1254-7 Austin., Tx 787H -25^7 

### AfpelWte District Attorney for Williamson tmdtj

Mr. John C. Prezas 

### Assistant District Attorney 

### US, MAIL it05 Martin Lulfcer kina ,Be* 1 Georgetown, TX 786H

7 of 7 rr:-,__._;•"I'l'I'liH'ii'ili'hl'h-l'ilj^&#*^:*m1000I71711IU.S. POSTAGEPAIDAUSTIN.TX78729MAY 30, 15AMOUNT$1.1900102290-03Honorable.Jc^rg)P.kjW,KU-rkCourt°£flppv*\sTWP-VTocto£UM5f.o.8oXl&£4?••-'•','^^^^^j