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- / mHm

.

t>ecir mHs\ TIcermcuxer-KawireE V « •»

^^

—-^

As tjou. are auiare by tVie Copij of m Maq 04, 2oi5"^ Motto* to extend

T7*ie -For FiUg ttte Appellants Kepl^J Sn'et3 HvaT u^s wailed fe the "tturj <Wt

of Afpeals., I respectfully reauested the aftremen honed Court to 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 of charge of ^lurde^and

tfcat 1was wrort cffully charged artd Conv/icted office same 91V1 no uncertain terms, 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 todcf dees not remain

still^artd changes posifro n(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 ofaHfoot ki<jh U/roiyht Iron fence tuning tocOards me, «3itt\ his right arm extended, tfitii «;hat appeared

to be a gun in his riglit hand.

The mtruJer/assaikwT therefore, \eftme, the halfsleep? terrorized

hovweoioAer and "famili/ man *no choug tuf fb shoot to stop /tfru oetfe\/irt4 he

Mis about to -fi'r^ aj/iat I preceded to be his gu*i at we, <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 of ArJer.l as/c tfou for ffce sate of «jf totfoa.j sis, ages 13 a*4 \\ «e«)> please kelp tdfs [00/o DfsabU Veferaff

offte Arixed FSrces of the Urn fed 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 of more veteran /io.n<'ciJe detectives

rffc, Uml febitlto *prfir-. astyle wl-U-Ary WW«J ph f;*t ted of J U<* W «tn( cU.(^t«* W TM«J*««#• "M

w*t fte stfitem of jtffe 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 of thtir tOacf to describe aManj 3bfot/Wt as a"Rolled up C^arefe/ Wty /Wti* police detectives cUumed

Mtheu 4iled to fingerprint aJ p«U print ^ homes front entry d^r, If a

reasonable jurist does v\ot believe that AustVs police veteran hotniade deTectiy/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

TolCce Department «3ant a reasonable jurist "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 ofthose veteran bom fade defectives that rterforfrf"**

voaij to miscbaracterize an important fiece of e^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, Ifcofe 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/ Brief f* order to etfectVe^

represent wtf mtferest£s) as tjour court-appointed client, Ji^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

that just "some" kurmj it .Venous,"

So* uppUWe research foot m^ 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 a substitute for a yroper [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 adesire 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 error j, 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 error that affects the venf basis of the c«se, delves

*ede4jcmt ota \telualole rfaht or vita Ik affects ade-fens.Ve theort/.

J *of? J

mere
Stuhfcr v. State, 2|g 5,1a/, 3d 70^ If voe -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 ofprobate

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 or another s-fztje official acted »Vi good or

bad faith iVt -failing •*> preserve evidence cannot be detersinqfiVe

of whether 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?); Ihorne kTPeparWf *f Public S<ftfij, 774 P. <2d 132^ 13 3o(#(aska H8?)'

D of 7
Ms- 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 Mo he* to Extend Tfofe fir F*~lCt\o the Appellants

Reflg 6nef 0)*% Hie iTiCrJ Court of Affealsj 1Would &very appreciate

ofaCopt/of the 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 nt atrials

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 of ttie arguments that Vm "r}f;*f} "TM

make r^t the na^es of tbe defectives, Invest\gatorsJ and paJe5

that are pertinent to mU arauivients Will probably Suffice. I

fhank t/ou aaaui w (/our be^\

Sincerell3 j>

eMt^z

Ffcej) VflZDl, Appellftit

A of 7
CBKTjFlCATe- Of serVice

Icertify that fe attached Doc^ent(s) wasr>ere) ^ent as Seated

this dau to each of the fclUhVij:

Appel^

Ms. Unaa Icerthaaer-RaMirez, Es<JU.S. Mail Attorney <^ Counselor at Law

WO5 Nueces

Austin s1x '7E70|

Klerk of "Third Court of Appfglg

Honorable Jeirreq ^> kule

Werk

U.S. Mail Court of Appeals

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'il

j^

&#*^:*

m

1000

I

7 1711

I

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

AUSTIN.TX

78729

MAY 30, 15

AMOUNT

$1.19

00102290-03

Honorable. Jc^rg) P. kjW,

KU-rk

Court °£ flppv*\s

TW P-VToct o£ UM5

f.o. 8oX l&£4?

••-'•', '

^^^^^j