. B::; QK;`\"'\€r\(OU A/;r""@ AQRQS €S`$')On_cl ch \/ /4 ' C `H`OQn OUHN
'MQ . g`\_ "\'\'€, @O\}K SOOCf +0 §,\%_Ql:\>/\\ow NOH\ @~ GU§C;QM§ `€'U Tk
& l\ -n\£ w\`+" €
sh ~ > 5 1 U§".\~nke was A M,€ 5\\6_ €.S`S`€Q qui fg;H/HD on `€PQK~C
I'\'C{§ -' S;\€` n \/-C\ Cl\ C_ .\ lA"- h Srq, d'€£ r\o+. A~ w...'e§§€s no+ ...`<'~K ` gee/jj ./\§wQ/'€ k WV _bo QO (/1€4/ Q,Q_ V\~LQQ,JC`
L '.= ~ ' en'""> BUL@A \/kawt< (P\M"Q' M\p./\
a g\f h wm §SQS:J 313 Ske_
CAUSE NO. 813311-3
EX PARTE, ' § IN THE l76TH DISTRICT § COURT OF
LENNIS J. DUHON § HARRIS COUNTY/TEXAS
APPLICANT
APPLICANT'S OBJECTION TO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND TRIAL COURT'S F.C.R. IN THIS CAUSE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW,LENNIS J. DUHON,APPLICANT/IN THE ABOVE-STYLED AND NUMBERED CAUSE HEREBY ENTERS HIS OBJECTION TO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND THE TRIAL COURT'S F.C.R. TO DENY- ACTUAL INNOCENCE BECAUSE APPLICANT FAIL TO STATE JURY WOULD HAVE FOUND HIM INNOCENCE/GUILTY BASED GN NEW EVIDENCE.
FIRST/IN ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIMS,AN APPLICANT IS ENTlTLED TO AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING (SEE: EX RARTE/FRANKLIN/310 S.W. 3d
918 9TH DIST. ZOlO). ` IN THIS INSTANT CASE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WAS ORDERED AND COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT WAS THEN APPOINTED,HOWEVER,AFTER (6) YEARS/NO HEARING HAD EVER TAKEN PLACE AS ORDERED,DEPRIVING THE APPLIVCANT/OF FURTHER EVIDENCE 'THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FURTHER DISCOVERED BY WITNESSES,SUCH AS WHY THEY DID NOT COME FORTH BEFORE NOW,AND IF THEY DID/DID THEY ADVISE THE PROSECUTOR OF THE ' QNFORMATION WHICH COULD SHOW BRADY'VIOLATION AND OTHER VIOLATIONS TO SUPPORT `ACTUAL INNOCENCE WHERE IF THE JURY HAD HEARD THE EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN THE AF§IDAVITS OF THE DRAPHER_ DUHON,MAXIE MORRISON,MARIE DUHON,AND DANNY BROUSSARD,THAT THE DEFENDANT LENNIS J. DUHON,WAS 261 MILES FROM OFFENSE LOCATION AT THE TIME AND DATE OF THE OFFENSE AND HE COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER,COMBINED WITH THE FACT THERE WAS NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE,NO WEAPONS FOUND,NO GUN SHOT/NO DNA/ AND NO WITNESS OTHER THAN CRISPIN ARISOLA,NO REASONABLE JUROR COULD HAVE FOUND MR. DUHON GUILTY (ALSO SEE PAGE 15 OF APPLICATION). SECOND,APPLICANT RECEIVED NO NOTICE TO FILE TIMELY OBJECTION OF F.C.R. BY COURT,THIS ALSO IS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND
DUE cOURSE OF LAW.. (l)
BY DENYING APPLICANT HIS ENTITLEMENT To REPLY BY OBJECTION'TO THE COURT'S F.c.R. FOR cONSIDERATION oF THE sTATE'S HIGHEST cOURT IN DECIDING HIS HABEAS cLAIMS.
THIRD, THE cOURT IN IT'S F.C.R. ALLEGE IN IT's FINDING OF HIS ACTUAL INNOCENCE CLAIM THAT THE APPLICANT FAILS,TO DEMONSTRATE THAT,BY n @REDONDERANCELQJOE£.THENQEVIDENQEAN@MJRATI@NALz JUROR COULD