CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this 8th day of July,2015, a true and-
correct copy of Applicant's Reply to State's Response and

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,.was mailed

to:
R.N.(Bobby) Bland
Ector County District Attorney
Ector County Courthouse

300 N. Grant RM:305
Odessa, Texas 79761

A leas Mat

Billy Wayne Haynes
#1723231 Clements H/S
9601 Spur .591
Amarillo, Texas 79107

19.



to promote the commission of the offense." Clearly, Chunns own
testimony; he was more then an innocent bystander as. the State
tries to claim.

In Appellate counsels affidavit, he seems to feel that; for
some reason, he could not raise the issue, simply because trial
counsel did not object to it, but the Appellate Court seems to
think that not: only could it be raised, but that it should’ have
been raised,.as there.is evidence in the record: that. Chunn "may
have committed an act to promote the commission of the offense".
Regardless. of what is in. the record, court will not, sua sponte
raise any issue on the behalf of either party, it 'is up to the
party who is arguing to raise:it.

Because Gounsel.did not raise it, the Courts denied relief, in
part because the issue wasn't raised, and so it left.the door
open for one to believe that he. was not an accopmlice by. law!

A witness's. status as an accanplice is critical because of how accanplice

witness testimony is viewed by the courts. Before a conviction.can

be based on an acoomplice's testimony, the testimony must. be corroborated

bd independant evidence tending to comect the accused to the crime.

fex.Code QGrim.Proc.ANN art.38.14

An accomplice is someone who participates with the defendant
before,during,or after the commission of a crime and acts with
the required culpable mental. state.See dury v.: State,255 SW3d
491,498(Tex.Crim.App.2007). Courts~held in Cocke v. State,

201 SW3d 744(T.C.A.2006) that a person did not have to be charged

to be an accomplice, only that they could have, is sufficient

enough.
Applicant prays this Court GRANT relief

13.



This was the last thing the jury heard before retiring to begin
deliberations.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that, the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated where the state
knowingly uses perjured testimony to obtain a conviction. Ex parte
Ghahreman, 332 SW3d. 470,483(T.C.A.2011)

US v.Bagley,473 U-S.667,669,105 S.Ct.3375(1985)-The Supreme Court
has suggested that the knowingly use of "false" testimony is
treated the same as knowingly use of pérjerd testimony.

Applicant has shown diligence in trying to obtain.a copy of
Mays letter, as well as trying to get a hearing so that he can
properly establish the record to support his ‘claims outlined in
his writ of habeas corpus, but was denied the opportunity by
the court. He contends he has never had a conversation with
Micah May, there has never been an opportunity to do so, and
can prove this with the assistance of a hearing. and counsel for
the purpose of the hearing.

Applicant prays this court GRANT relief sought, or in the
alternative,;.order the trial. court to hold a hearing so that
he can establish the record.

GROUND 2.

State contends that, trial counsel was not ineffective for
failing to investigate May is without merit, and that no
evidence was presented to sustantiate Applicant's claims,
and he failed to show what an investigation would have shown.

APPLICANT'S REPLY.
Applicant did, in his memorandum in support of his writ, show

what an investigation would have shown. May has never lived in
a cell with nor around Applicant, there was never an opportunity

4.



Ground 8. Appellate counsel again, is in the opinion that he could
not raise any claims not "found in the record" even though he was
aware that his testimony was false, and Applicant: told him he

has never spoke to May. It.is Applicant who suffers; not counsel.
He was denied relief for a crime he did not commit, due to the
States use of May's false testimony.

The trial court should be an indépendant arbiter in these matters,
but in its Findings of Facts and Recomendations. in this case, it
is a mere reiteration of the States proposed findings. It found
that Applicant provided no evidence to support his claims, but
it was the trial court who refused: to grant Applicant .a hearing
so. that he could establish the record, prove his claims, that
will entitle him to relief!

Applicant has no access. toa copier, is proceeding pro se, he
cannot afford to hire counsel. He's done the best ‘to his.abilities
to show the Court what he claims. is indeed the truth. A hearing
would have allowed him to do this.

When an applicant files an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the
record can be supplemented by the’ trial court gathering facts. This "provides
an opportunity for a dedicated hearing to. consider the facts,circumstances,
and rationale behind counsel's actions at that juncture of trial." Thompson
v. State,9 SW3d 808,814(T.C.A.1999);""Record is generally best developed in
the context of a hearing held in relation to an application for writ of
habeas corpus".Ex parte Menchaca,854 SW2d 128,130(T.C.A.1993).

The trial. court's findings are not automatically binding upon
the Court: of Criminal Appeals, although it usually. accepts the
findings, if supported by the record-Ex parte Garcia,353 SW3d
785(T.C.A.2011).

Applicant was not afforded the opportunity to establish the

record to prove his allegations, no hearing was given.

17.



"further belief in national_socialisim" and were “nazi Germany
Waffen SS".(RR vol 10 193). It is Applicants contention, ‘the State
used them to make. Applicant look like a "raging racist" as if
race was apart of the issue, when in fact, noone knew who. was
who, much less their race. It was done in contention. to. May's
false testimony, "that bitchass mexican got. what he-deserved",
which was never stated by Applicant. They were posted on a'wide
screen so the jury was sure to see..them.

It was material, as it more. likely then not, invoked the
passion, and emotions of the*hispanic jurors.

Applicant prays this Court Grant relief

GROUND 5.

State contends Applicant's claim of Ineffective Assistance of
counsel for failure to request an accomplice by law: instruction
on both Chunn. and Griffin is without merit.

APPLICANT'S REPLY.

State argues that Chunn just "rode along", that he .was in no way
culpable. Applicant disagrees. Counsel should have-requested an
accomplice by law instruction, due to both Chunn.and Griffins own
testimony. Even the Appellate Court-Eastland found that Chunn,
was "Some evidence that Chunn may have committed an act to
promote the commission of the offense." See,Haynes .v.State, 2013
Tex.App.LEXIS 7232(Tex.App.Eastland June 13,2013 pet-ref'd).

Chunn was told to go ‘home by Kevin Jackson(RRvol1l1 104-05)
and he refused. He knew all in the car with him was Aryan Circle
(RR vol. 11 200) admitted he got out of the:car when they got to

Hughes(RR vol 11 203), he was a willing participant from the

9.



and make—an independant investigation of the facts.and circun-
stances in the case." Bryant v. Scott,28 F.3d 1411,1420(5th.Cir.
1994) (quoting Nealy v. Cabana,764 F.2d 1173,1177(5th Cir.1985)

State argues that if Leachs performance was somehow deficient
for failing to discover what Applicant claims. he should have,
Applicant cannot show that this error. was so serious that there
exist a reasonable probability that the proceedings would ‘have
been different.

Applicant. fails ‘to see how counsels failure to. investigate the
states potential witnesses could not have effected the outcome of
the trial. State used May in an attempt. to corroborate. accomplice
witness. testimony. They argued that Applicant was boasting, that
he admitted to May, then im its closing arguments, reiterated
his false testimony in its closing arguments! May's false testimony
also had an effect on Applicants direct review. The only: other
testimony was from accomplice witnesses, and a conviction cannot
be obtained on their testimony. T.C.C.P.art 38.14.

Counsel states in his.affidavit that had Applicant wanted to
refute the false testimony, he could have done so;.but fails to
mention he strongly advised Applicant to not:to take the stand,
for the State could bring up any alleged bad acts, whether true
or not, if he did.(RR vol 12 6). Applicant should not be forced
to forfeit his right to remain silent in order to refute any of
the States witnesses, especially ones that counsel has a duty to
investigate, but failed to do so;

Applicant prays this Court Grant relief

6.



for Applicant to have a conversation with May, among other things.

If counsel had done a investigation, prior to trial, he would
have béen able. to show that what May claimed was in.deed false.
Counsel had asked Applicant who was May and was. told he did not
know, that should have by itself warranted'a investigation, and
when counsel requested an interview with May through his counsel,
and was told no, that should have added to the need for an
investigation. (RR vol 11 233). Counsel did not object’ to May's
testimony, only parts, and he objected to the purported threat
by May,.but nothing more.

The courts of appeals are in agreement that failure to conduct
any pretrial investigation generally constitutes a clear instance
of ineffectiveness. See,e.g.,Sullivan,819 F.2d at. 1391-92
(prefunctory attempts to contact, attempts to contact. witness
not reasonable); Code v. Montgomery,799 F.2d 1481,1483(11th Cir.
1986)(counsel's performance fell below competency standard
where he interviewed: only one witness); Nealy v. Cabana,764 F.2d
1173,1177(5th Cir)"[A]t a minimum counsel has the duty to inter-
view potential witnesses and to make an.independant investigation
of the facts and circumstances of the case."

"The complete failure to investigate potentially corroborating
witnesses...can hardly be considered a.tactial decision."
Sullivan v.Fairman, 819 F.2d 1382,1391(7th Cir.1987).

In counsels affidavit, he offers no reason for his failure to
investigate, only mentions what May testified to, that he never
testified to living around Applicant, Applicants claims involve
pre-trial investigations. Counsel gives no reasoning for this.
"[A]n- attorney must engage in a reasonable amount of pre-trial

investigation and at 'a minimu...interview potential witnesses'



The Court of Criminal Appeals may exercise its authority to make
contrary or alternative findings and conclusions when independant
review of the record reveals that the trial judges:findings and
conclusions on a post-conviction application for habeas corpus
relief were not: supported by the record.Ex parte Chabot,300 SW3d
768(T.C.A.2009).

Given the opportunity to have a hearing, Applicant will be able
to show the court what he claims is in fact ‘true, and will entitle
him to relief. Trial counsel gave no reasons for. his failure to
do a pre-trial investigation on states witnesses; Appellate
counsel is in the opinion that nothing. outside the record can

be raised on Direct review, even constitutional. violations.

PRAYER
Applicant prays: this Court Grant. relief sought, or in the
alternitave, order the trial court to-hold.a hearing, -appoint
counsel for the purpose of the hearing, so that: Applicant can
fully establish the record to support his claims, that will

entitle him to relief of his conviction.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lt,
Billy Wayne Haynes
#1723231 Clements H/S

9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, Texas 79107

18.



confrontation with McKinney, that is false. Had counsel done an
investigation, he would have found that it was not McKinney’ who
claimed she was in direct control. of Applicant, but her direct
supervisor Cpl. Wilson. Applicant wasn't allowed.out of the cell
until someone was ‘there with cuffs and shackles, and McKinney was
in the picket at all times, the confrontation happend: infront of
Cpl.Wilson, he just told Applicant to ignore her: Shs has a history
of doing this, as she testified to (RR vol 11 260,261).

Again, counsel offers no reasoning in his affidavit as to why
he failed to investigate the States witnesses.

Applicant prays this. Court GRANT. relief.

GROUND 4.

States contention that Applicants: claim of. Ineffective
Assistance on counsel for failure to object to the States use
of his tattoo's is without merit.

APPLICANT'S REPLY.

Applicant contends counsel should have objected to the admittance
of his tattoo's,. specifically, States exhibit No.82, a picture of
"Lightning bolts" on’ his neck. State had already submitted other
pictures, namely of Applicants "patch" and it was never. denied
that he was a member -of the Aryan Circle, so the only reason
the State used the "bolts" was to inflame,.the. minds and passions
of the jury, as seven out of twelve, plus the alterane jurors
were hispanic. There is nothing that suggest anything in the
picture that has to do with anything other then Applicants beliefs.
No lettering, no numbering, nothing. States "expert. witness" on

Gangs, Billy Bloom, even testified that their meaning was in a

8.



RA (085-6

Mr. Abel Acosta-Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
P.O.Box 12308, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711

Dear Clerk, July 8,2015
Please find enclosed Applicants Reply to States Response
to his writ of habeas corpus-writ no. WR-82,685-01,
Cause No. B-35,839-A.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Billy W.. Haynes
#1723231 Clements H/S
9601 Spur 591
Amarillo, Texas 79107

RECEIVED IN
COURT CF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 13 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk



the issue to the jury".Haynes_v. State,2013,Tex.App-LEXIS 7232
(Tex.App.Eastland June 13,2013 pet.ref'd).

Chunn and Griffin are both accomplices by. law,. both could have

been charged, and their own testimony shows this, so counsel should
have requested the instruction by. law, or atleast objected to the
charge given to the jury.

Applicant prays this Gourt Grant relief

GROUND 6.

State contends Applicants:claim of Ineffective Assistance on
counsel for failure to request a limiting instruction on May's
purported threat is without merit.

APPLICANT'S. REPLY

Applicant~maintains that counsel should have requested a limited
instruction on May's purported threat, after his objection was
overruled.(RR vol. 11.236) With a limited instruction specific to
the alleged threat...a jury would have to. have found it "beyond
a reasonable doubt" before they could consider it. The only
evidence of this alleged threat was from May himself. He claimed
of. a threat.in his letter to the State as well, but it wasn't
allowed. -

Ex. parte Varelas,45 SW3d 627,631-32(T.C.A.2001)"defendant is
entitled to a limited instruction that the jury only consider
it if it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

The courts instruction was vague, it was not specific to May's
alleged threat, State and counsel both agree to that fact.

Counsel states in his affidavit that there was no reason to

reemphasize what May had stated in his testimony.with respect to

11.



start. He had more then a culpable state, and the only reason he
nor Griffin was charged, was per detective D.Bass, they were not
believed to be Aryan Circle (RR vol 10 27). Griffin testified
that he was in fact a member of the Aryan Circle on the night of
the offense (RR vol 11 185) and that he was all for taking care
of business(RR vol 11 190-91), so much for det.Bass's theory, the
same could be said for Chunn, but because he didn't admit it? He
was not some innocent’ person as the State contends, and counsel
should have requested the instruction by law on both Chunn and
Griffin.
Hannah Fierros(RR vol: 11 51) testified that everyone knew that
they were going to the Barina residence to retaliate for what had
happend to her and Scott earlier that night.

A witness is culpable as a party to the offense in -:which the
defendant was. charged if he acted "with the intent to promote
or assist the commission of the offense."Tex.Penal Code ANN §
7.02(a)(2)(West. 2011)
A person acts intentionally, or with respect to the nature of his
conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious
objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.
Tex.Penal Code §6.03(a).

A witness's status as an accomplice is critical bacause of how accomplice witness restinmry

is viewed by the courts. Before a conviction can be tased on an accomplice's testimony, the

testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence tending to comect the accusad to the

evime.Tex Code of Crim. Proc. ANN.art.38.14(2005) An maieeis Someone vho participates
with the defendant before,during,or after the comission of a crime and ats with the required

culpable mental state.
In the Appellate Courts memorandum opinion, "Appellant neither

asked the trial court to instruct the jury that Chunn was an

accomplice as a matter of.law nor objected to the submission of

10.



__ GROUND 3.

State contends that Applicants claim of Ineffective Assistance
of counsel for failure to investigate States witness Marcela
McKinney, ‘is. without’ merit.

APPLICANT'S REPLY.

Again, State claims ‘Applicant’ has’ submitted no evidence in
support of his claims. Applicant has tried at any and all times
to request a hearing, but has been denied. If the trial courts
won't give Applicant a hearing so that he can properly establish
a record, it is -no fault of his. He is doing the best he can to
show the court what he says is true.

State contends that. Applicant should forfiet his right to remain
silent, in order to refute the testimony. of one of its witnesses.
Applicant maintains that he should not have to forfiet any of
his rights in order ‘to refute any of the States witnesses.

Counsel again does not offer any explanation in his affidavit
as to why he failed to investigate States witness Marcela McKinny
but does state that Applicant could have waived his right to
remain silent to refute her testimony, even though. he strongly
advised against doing so.(RR vol 12 6). Applicant should not
have to waive any of his Constitutional rights because counsel
failed to perform his duty, to investigate States witnesses.

Code v. Montgomery,799 F.2d 1481,1483(11 th Cir.1986);Nealy v.
Cabana,764 F.2d 1173,1177(Sth Cir.1985);Sullivan v. Fairman,

819 F.2d 1382,1391(7th Cir.1987);Bryant v. Scott,28 F.3d 1411,1420
(Sth Cir.1994).

State claims there was no other eyewitnesses to Applicants

7.



dated January 30,2013, was told quote;" I looked for a copy of
May's statement, but could not find it." Applicant has done all
she could to obtain a copy of May's letter to the State.
It was his hopes that he could have requested and got a copy in’
a hearing.

State argues that discrepencies in testimony do not alone
make a case for perjury-Losada v.."State,721 S.W.2d 305(T.C.A.
1986) and that may be so, but there where way more then just a
few discrepencies in May's statement, he had a.totally different
version. Ex parte Weinstein,421 SW3d 656-674(T.C.A.2014)-Testimony
need not be perjured to constitute a due process violation;
rather, it is sufficient that the testimony was false.

Applicant never contended that May testified that he shared
common activities, as is the States contention, ‘he said that
May has never been housed with Applicant, they shared no
common activities, in an attempt to show that it never happend,
there was never an opportunity, and Applicant has NEVER had a
conversation with May on any level! May was moved to the same
housing ‘area, 2000 block, only after he agreed to testify for
the State against Applicant, and this was against his wishes.
(RR vol 11 241).

Applicant maintains that State used false testimony from
one of its witness to secure the conviction, a violation of
his due process, U.S.C.Amend.14, Texas Gonst.I§§10,19, and it
capitalized on it in its closing arguments-US v.Sanfilippo,
564 F.2d 176-179(5th Cir.1977) States closing arguments
(RR vol 13 34) "he told Micah May, excuse the racial slur,

that bitchass mexican got what he deserved" .

3.



_ GROUND 8

State contends Applicant's claim of Ineffective Assistance on
appellate counsel for failure to raise Prosecutional Misconduct
for using the false testimony of States witness Micah May is
without merit.

APPLICANT'S REPLY

Applicant maintains counsel should have raised Prosecutional
Misconduct, on the States use of the false testimony of Micah
May. Applicant told counsel that May's testimony was false, that
he had never had a conversation with May, didn't know who he was
until he was on the States witness list.

Instead, he groups May in his argument on accomplice testimony
and now contends that, both Applicant and the Appellate Court,
"mischaracterized" his argument.

If counsel did not want to raise a claim of -Prosecutional
Misconduct, nor an Ineffective of Assistance claim on trial
counsel for a failure to investigate, as he states in his affidavit
it is hard to do so, he should have atleast raised May under
Texas Code of Criminal Proceedure ANN.art.38.075 Corroboration
of Certain Testimony Required(2010), as this was in the courts
instructions.

Instead, in his arguments, it was percieved by the Appellate
Court, Applicant as well, that he was arguimg that May was an
accomplice, and the Court held he'was not, and that his testimony
could be considered, and denied relief. It is Applicant who is

being punished for his errors, not counsel! If counsel: would have

raised a Prosecutional Misconduct, a constitutional violation,

14.



" suggest that Applicant should have waived his right to. remain
silent,US Const.Amend.5, to refute the testimony of the States
witnesses, against counsels strong advice against doing so.

Ground 4. Counsel suggests that Applicant. should forfeited
his right to remain silent, US Const.Amend:5, in order to refute
State's introduction of the "lightning bolts" when counsel
strongly advised Applicant not to do so.

Ground 5.Counsel. claims Applicant ignores the fact the Court
gave an accomplice instruction on Chunn and Griffin, that is not
Applicant's claim. Counsel states he could find no reference in
the record, that would suggest requesting an instruction. It is
counsel who ignores the testimony of both’Chunn and Griffin, that
they had an active role in "promoting the commission of ‘the
offense".

Ground 6. Counsel states "there was simply no reason to re-
emphasize what May had stated with respect to the threat:" His
failure to-request a limiting: instruction, specific. to the threat,
allowed the jury,.as well as the Appellate. Court, to consider it,
rather then having to "find it beyond a reasonable doubt". The
only evidence of a threat was from May himself!

Ground 7. Appellant.counsel.is in: the opinion that he could -
not raise the issue of the accomplice by law instruction on both
Chunn and Griffin on Direct Review, but the Appellate: Gourt has
suggested otherwise. It even found that there was."some evidence"
that Chunn may have commited am act to "promote the commission
of the offense". He did, and should have been listed as an

accomplice by law.

16.



7 GROUND 1

State argues Applicant has provided no evidence ‘proving or even
implying that jailhouse informant Micah May gave false or mis-
leading testimony.

APPLICANT REPLY.
Applicant has requested a evidentiary hearing at every opport
-unity so that he could in fact establish the record for the
Courts. With a hearing and the assistance of counsel for the
purpose of the hearing, he would be able to show that May did
give false and misleading testimony, but was not afforded that
opportunity.

Applicant contends that the State knew May's testimony was
indeed false, but used it anyway, in an attempt to corroborate
accomplice witness testimony. The State did not introduce May's
letter into evidence, only chose to ask him certain questions on
the stand. May had his own version of the events, and did not
corroborate: any of the testimony from any other witness.

Anyone reading it and knowing the facts. of the case could
easly see May was only hoping to get something in return for his
false testimony, as he done so.

Surely the State done a investigation on May,. to see if he
could have actually talked to Applicant, and discovered that he
never lived around him, no shared activities. This was May's
second attempt to sell his lies, he wrote the State in the end
of 2010, but they didn't use that, and ten to 14 days before
trial, they decide to use his second letter. How convenient.

Applicant has tried to obtain a copy of May's letter, he even

wrote to Mr.Leach-trial counsel-and requested it, and ina reply

2.



CAUSE NO. B-35,839-A
WRIT NO. WR-82,685-01

1

Ex parte IN THE DISTRICT COURT
161st. JUDICIAL: DISTRICT
BILLY WAYNE HAYNES ECTOR COUNTY, TEXAS

APPLICANTS REPLY TO STATES RESPONSE AND

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND GONCLUSIONS
OF LAW

TO_ APPLICANTS WRIT OF HABEAS GORPUS 11.07



to the threat. Surely-counsel did not think the State would not
reiterate the purported threat in its closing arguments?

(RR vol 13 34)"even during the trial. this defendant threatend
Micah May with his life. During the trial. Who do you need to
threaten if you didn't do anything wrong?".

Counsel was denied a continuance after his objection to the
threat was overruled, the least he could. do was request a limited
instruction, that was the last thing the jury heard before retiring
to deliberate,"who do you need. to threaten if you “didn't. do
nothing wrong". Implying that: Applicant was guilty!

A limited instruction would have made alot of difference in both
the trial outcome and in direct review, state clearly used it
to influence the jury's opinion.

Applicant ‘prays this Court GRANT.relief

GROUND 7.

State contends Applicants claim of Ineffective Assistance on
Appellate counsel's failure to raise issue-of Chunn and Griffin
as accomplices by law is without merit.

APPLICANT'S’ REPLY

In the Appellant Courts Memorandum Opinion in this case,
Haynes v. State,2013,Tex.App.LEXIS 7232(Tex.App.Eastland -June
13,2013 pet-ref'd) "Appellant neither asked the trial court to
instruct the jury that Chunn was an accomplice as a matter of
law nor objected to the submission of. the issue to the jury.
Moreover, appellant does not argue on appeal that such an
instruction should have been given." it also stated that"there

was some. evidence,however,that CGhunn may. have committed an act

12.



then the courts would have.to review it under the Chapman v.
California,386 U.S. 18,87 S.Ct.824 (1967) harm analysis. When an
applicant has shown a constitutional error, a state court on
Direct Review must apply the more strigent CHAPMAN harmless
error standard under which the verdict must be overturned

unless the error is shown harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."
"See Brecht, 507 U.S.at 629-30,636 (discussing Chapman v.
California, 386 U.S.18, 87 S.Ct.824(1967);see also, Fry v. Pike,
551 U.S.112-116, 127 S.¢t.2331(2007).

Because counsel feels that something is "extremely difficult"
as he stated in his affidavit; then he should not have to raise
a issue? Alot of cases, even the opinion of App.Ct.-Eastland,
seems to believe that those issues: cas and should be raised on
Direct Review. Again, it is not counsel who suffers, it is
Applicant, who was denied relief froma life sentence for a
crime he did not commit!

Counsel states "it. was not found in the record" surely he
doesn't expect’ the State to admit. it. violated Applicant's
Fourteenth Amendment~Due Process, right after it done so?

Applicant prays this Court GRANT relief

CONCLUSIONS
Ground 1. State violated Applicant's Due Process, a right
protected by the US Const.Amend.14, Tex.Const. 1§§10,19, by
procuring a conviction through the use of false testiomony from
States witness Micah: May.
Grounds 2,3. Counsel.offers no explanation for his failure to

investigate States witnesses-pre trial investigation-, only

15.