in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appe_llate Procedure 73
and.does not exceed 15,000 words if computer'-generated.or 50 pages if not. If you
are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts pertaining to your offense and trial ini your memorandum.
Rev. 01/14/14
GR()UND ()NE:
APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION WAS OBTAINED BY THE STATE VIOLATING
. IEIJHIAMEND./ 6TH AMEND. AND 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND' ONE: THE STATE OBTAINED THE PRIMARY CONVICTION BY THE FOLLOWING ACTS
OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: (A) THE STATE PRESENTED THE FALSE
SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY OF DR. A.J. ALAMIA; THE STATE SUBSTANTIATRD
AND BOLSTERED THEIR WITNESSES TESTIMONIES WITH DR. AMAMIAS'S
FALSE TESTIMONY. (B) THE STATE INFLUENCED STATE WITNESS BEATRICE
TREVINO'S IDENTIFICATION WITH UNDULY SUGGESTIVE POST-EVENT
INFORMATION AND POST-EVENT MISINFORMATION7 THE STATE WITHHELD
THAT BEATRICE HAD TOLD THE PROSECUTOR THAT SHE BELIEVED SHE HAD
MISIDENTIFIED THE APPLICANT AND IN RESPONSE THE PROSECUTOR HAD
EXPOSED BEATRICE TREVINO TO SUGGESTIVE AND PREJUDICIAL POST-EVENT
INFORMATION/MISINFORMATION: THE STATE PRESENTED BEATRICE TUMWDB
EALSE TESTIMONY. (C) THE STATE PRESENTED STATE WITNESS YVONNE
GONZALES' FALSE TESTIMONY; THE STATE WITHHELD BALLISTIC-RELATED
Rev. 01/14/14
FINDINGS, THAT UNDERMINED THE ESSENCE OF YVONNE GONZALES'
TESTIMONYF (AMENDMENTS)> PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (A), APPLICANT ADDITIONALLY
CONTENDS/ THE THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE HE HAS PRESENTED 'CONTRADICTS SCENIETC
EVIDENCE RELIED ON BY THE STATE AT TRIAL.' THUS, APPLICANT ARGUES/ THAT
HE HAS MET THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH BY ARTICLE 11.073 IN THE TEX. CODE OF
CRIM. PROCD. PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (B)/ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT WITNESS
BEATRICE TREVINO'S RECANTATION AND MIS-IDENTIFICATION CLAIM/ NEEDS TO BE
REASSESSED AND CONSIDERED IN CONJUCTION WITH THE SUGGESTIVE POST EVENT
INFORMATION TREVINO WAS EXPOSED TO BE THE STATE AND NEWLY DISCOVERED
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON POST EVENT INFORMATION/MISINFORMATION GIUEMDETKN.UJ
PURSUANT TO ARGUMENT (C)/ APPLICANT CONTENDS/ THAT THE STATE INFLUENCED
NW)CR TAINTED WITNESS YVONNE GONZALES' D§{IURB{UBHIEKETBIJOFDPPEKDNT/ BY
BY DETECTIVES TELLING GONZALES THAT APPLICANT WAS A GANG MEHBER. THAT, WAS l
HUHUICULLYSUXDSUNEI{STEMDU'DUUW@EIIL GISHIRLK;IHSNWHBE,THEUIN.
[l] PURSJANI' 'IO GRO.ND l\lIVBER CNE, APPLIC`ANI' ]l\]VCKES ARI'ICL.E 11.073/ W'IEREAPPLICABLE.
GR()UND T\VO:
APPLICANT IS INNOCENT AND THIS CONVICTION IS THE RESULT OF INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: VIOLATING THE 5TH AMEND-/ 6TH AMEND. AND THE 6th AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND T\VO:
THE PRIMARY CONVICTION IS THE RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING ACTS OF
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: (A) COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND GER A FIRM GRASP OF DR. A.J. ALAMIA'S PROPSED
SCIENTIFI TESTIMONY; TRIAL COUNSEL INJECTED A PREJUDICIAL EXPERT
wITNESS (DR. ALAMIA) INTO THE TRIAL. (B) COUNSEL FAILED JNVESI'IGAIE AND GET A FIRM GRASP, OF THE ALLEGED IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S
EYES AND THE INFORMATION ON SUCH AN IDENTIFICATION. ADDITIONALLY/
CONSEL FAILED TO CONSULT AND PRESENT DR. PAUL MICHEL. (C) CUREEL
FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND GE A FIRM GRASP OF THE BALLISTIC-
RELATED EVIDENCE. ADDITIONALLY FAILED TO CONSULT AND PRESENT A BALLIS EXPERT MAX SCOTT. (D) COUNSEL FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND
GET A FIRM GRASP/ ON PRIOR INCIDENTS INVOLVING DETECTIVE JOSEPH
Rev. 01/14/14
BUENROSTRO AND THE APPLICANT/ AND BRING THEM TO THE ATTENTION
OF THE