! THEREFORE...
ADMISSION OF THESE STATEMENTS WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
.."THE TEST FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION IS NOT WHETHER IN THE OPINION OF THE REVIEWING COURT THE FACTS PRESENT AN APPROPRIATE CASE FOR THE TRIAL COURT'S ACTION...RATHER...IT IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COURT ACTED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY GUIDING RULES AND PRINCIPLES.ANOTHER WAY OF STATING THE TEST IS WHETHER THE ACT WAS ARBITRARY OR UNREASONABLE..."
MONTGOMERY V. STATE, 810 SW.2d 372,380 (TEX. CRIM. APP .1990') .
AS SUCH THE PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF A FAIR TRIAL AND WAS
ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL.
II
THIS PETITIONER IS INDIGENT AND CANNOT PURCHASE A COPY OF
THE TRIAL RECORDS,STATEMENT OF FACTS(REPORTER'S RECORD) NOR THE CLERK'S TRANSCRIPTS.HE HAS WRITTEN TO THE TRIAL COURT MOVING FOR A COPY OF ALL STATED HEREIN... THIS WILL TAKE TIME TO BE HEARD AND THEN
SECURED BY PETITIONER.
(2) Ill
PETITIONER HAS ALSO WRITTEN TO HIS APPEAL COUNSEL ASKING FOR
HIS ASSISTANCE IN THE MATTER TO SECURE SAID RECORD.
IV
WITHOUT THESE RECORDS THE COURT KNOWS THAT THIS INDIGENT
PETITIONER CANNOT POSSIBLY RESEARCH AND PERFECT HIS PETITION: IFOR
(PROPER) DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. WITHOUT THE RECORDS...WHICH IS PLAIN LY AVAILABLE TO ATTORNEYS WITHOUT QUESTION... THIS INDIGENT PETITION
ER CANNOT ACT AS HIS OWN ATTORNEY...PRO SE.! THIS IS A DISTINCT AND
UNFAIR DISADVANTAGE.
V
THIS IS A CAPITAL LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE CASE.
THE PETITIONER IS A YOUNG MAN OF TWENTY-THREE YEARS OF AGE.THERE
ARE REPEATED REFERENCES IN THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF...AND IN STATE'S
APPELLEE'S BRIEF...AND IN THE APPEAL'S COURT'S MEMORANDUM OPINION TO
THE COURT REPORTER'S RECORD.THE PETITIONER MUST HAVE THE RECORD IN
HIS HANDS TO PROPERLY CITE AND REFUTE THE ISSUESMPRESENTED BY THE
STATE AND THE APPEALS COURT.OTHERWISE IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
ISSUE AND THAT IS WHAT PLACES HIM AT THE DISTINCT DISADVANTAGE AS THE
UNBRIDALED STATEMENTS OF THESE INTERROGATING OFFICERS HAD SUBSTANTIAL
AND INJURIOUS EFFECT AND INFLUENCE IN DETERMINING THIS JURY'S VERDICT.
KING V. STATE, 953 SW.2d 266,271 ti>TEX .CRIM. APP .1997 ) AND "THE RELEVANCE OF STATEMENTS BY INTERROGATING OFFICERS HINGES ON DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE RATHER THAN ON THE STATE
MENTS CONTENT..."
KIRK V. STATE, 199 SW.3d 467 ,473-79(>TX. APP .SAN ANTON.) FINCHER V. STATE,No.04-12-00489 CR 2013 WL 5429928 at *2
HUMPHREY V. STATE,No.01-08-00820-CR 2012 WL 4739925 at *2
(TX.APP.HOUS.lst DIST.). HEARSAY IS A STATEMENT,OTHER THAN ONE MADE BY THE DECLARANT
WHILE TESTIFYING AT TRIAL OFFERED TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER
ASSERTED. . 'KIRK' at 478-79 and WOOD V. STATE ,No .01'-13-00845-CR
2014 WL5780273 at *5 TX.APP.HOUS.lst.
HERE,THE PETITIONER MADE NO RESPONSE IN THE LAST HOUR OF THAT
TAPED INTERROGATION.SO THE JURY WAS SUBJECTED TO THE REPEATED AND CON
TINUED HEARSAY OPINIONS OF A FRUSTRATED OFFICER SPOUTING AN..."ENDLESS
LINE OF INUENDO PARADING IT IN FRONT OF THE JURY MEMBERS.THIS "DRILL
ING" STACCOTO tURINGLY HYPNOTIZED AN INDELIBLE IMPRINT INTO THE MINDS
OF THE JURY PREJUDICING THEM AGAINST THIS PETITIONER.
(3) THESE OFFICER'S STATEMENTS "MISREPRESENT THE EVIDENCE" AND AS THEY ARE ON VIDEO ARE NOT SUBJECT TO STANDARD CROSS_EXAMINATION NOR IMPEACHMENT BY THE COUNSEL FOR THEIDEFENSE.THE