SUIT. YET.
THE BLOOD ON HIS SLEEVES COULD BE SEEN. AS THE BANDAGES WENT FROM
HIS KNUCKLES to TTTS ELBOWS. (HE HAD CUT THE VEINS ON HIS HANDS
BECAUSE HEWANTED TO "BLEED OUT" AS FAST AS POSSIBLE.) APPLICANT'S PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CAPACITIES WERE CLEARLY
DIMINISHED. YET NEITHER HIS COUNSEL NOR THE COURT MADE ANY
ALLOWANCE FOR HIS CONDITION. HE WAS COMPEIT ED TO CONTINUE.
THE JUDGE ADMONISHED HIM NOT TO MENTION THE SUICIDE
ATTEMPT. HE WAS DENIED A RIGHT TO EXPLAIN HIS CONDITION OR THE
OUALITY OF HIS TESTIMONY TO THE JURY. THE JUDGE APPARENTLY FELT
APPLICANT WAS LUCKY TO BE ALIVE: HE SAID. "MR. SKTA. T'M
NOT - WHATEVER HAPPENED LAST NIGHT. OBVIOUSLY. I'M GLAD YOU'RE
ALIVE AND ALL THAT STUFF. BUT THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS HEARING
SO, YOU'RE NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT." (EXHIBIT ELEVEN) TT WAS NOT UNTIL A FEW DAYS LATER THAT APPLICANT. BY READING A NEWSPAPER
ACCOUNT. REALIZED WHAT ALL HAD HAPPENED . THE NET RESULTS OF APPLICANT'S CONDITION. AND THE RESPONSE OF
COUNSEL AND THE COURT TO IT. WAS THAT APPLICANT RECIEVED THE MAXIMUM TIME OF TWENTY YEARS. _^^^ IN COUNSEL'S AFFIDAVIT HE WAS TOLD TO "STATE WHETHER
COUNSEL BELIEVED THAT APPLICANT HAD SUFFICIENT PRESENT ABILITY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL WITH A REASONABLE DEGREE OF RATIONAL
UNDERSTANDING AND HAD A RATIONAL AND FACTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM ON THE DATE OF THE TRIAL." COUNSEL GAVE APPLICANT A GLOWING REPORT. FACING TO MENTION APPLICANT'S CONDITION. (PAGES " 82" &"83". EXHTBTT FOUR) FORCING APPLICANT TO TESTIFY IN HIS CONDITION DEPRIVED HTM OF
THAT FAIR TRIAL AND THAT DUE PROCESS OF LAW TO WHICH HE WAS
ENTITLED. NO REASONABLE OR RATIONAL JUROR WOULD HAVE ASSESSED
THE MAXIMUM TIME OF 20 YEARS HAD APPLICANT NOT BEEN PHYICAT LY
AND MENTALLY IMPAIRED AT THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF HIS TRIAL. YET
MADE TO TESTIFY WITHOUT EVEN THE BENEFIT OF MITIGATING EVIDENCE.
GROUND SIX:
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
(FAILURE IN PERFORMANCE)
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND SIX:
COUNSEL FAILED TO PRESENT MITIGATING EVIDENCE AT THE
PUNISHMENT PHASE OF THE TRIAL.
HE. COULD HAVE SHOWN APPLICANT'S POSITIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
STTCH AS HIS MILITARY EXPERIENCE. HIS EDUCATION. HIS POSITIVE CAREER
ACCOMPLISHMENTS. AND POSITIVE ASPECTS OF APPLICANT'S NATURE AND
CHARACTER. AND ALL OTHER MITIGATING EVIDENCE ALLOWED BY LAW.
THE DENIAL OF THE MITIGATING EVIDENCE RESULTED TN APPLICANT'S
RECEIVING THE MAXIMUM TWENTY YEAR SENTENCE. SOME EXAMPLES OF
THE MITIGATING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN ARE:
EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOL: CITY OF HOUSTON ELECTRICAL
APPRENTICE PROGRAM; UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON STATIONARY
ENGINEERING PROGRAM; ADAMS SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING: STATIONARY
ENGINEERING PROGRAM; MILITARY SERVICE: RANK E4 CORPORAL:
HONORABLE DISCHARGE; MPS Mn.TTARY POLICE; THREE MERITORIOUS
PROMOTIONS; TWO MERITORIOUS MASS; DECORATIONS: MERITORIOUS
UNIT COMMENDATION; OVERSEAS COMMENDATION; GOOD CONDUCT
COMMENDATION: RIFLE MARKSMAN: PISTOL MARKSMAN. MILITARY
PERSONAL HIGHLIGHTS: CHOSEN TN 1980 TO COMPETE IN COMPETITION
CALLED "SUPER SQUAD" CONSIDERED TO BE ONLY FOR THE BEST OF THE
BEST OF THE ENTIRE MARINE CORP. EVENTUALLY FINISHED 4th PLACE.
RECEIVING A MERITORIOUS PROMOTION. E4 IN UNDER TWO YEARS. CAREER
PROGRESSION: 1981 -1983: OB GILBERT ELECTRIC - ELECTRICIAN.