Court Opinion

ID: 4047181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 00:20:40.794706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:30:38.216673
License: Public Domain

“`

gz,v 7£~/0'/

Dear honorable Clerk, please file all 3 of these critical documents.
They were all placed into the prison mail system<"PriscwnMailbaXRule-
") on Friday, Feb. 20th, before lO:OO O:Clock AM. I'm sure they will

sit in the prison mailbox over the weekend, then on momnday,

they should be logged out and mailed out. Mail does not move
around here on the weekends.

I will have a familly member come and purchase time filed stamped
copies soon. THANKYOU.

PS: I RECEIVED YUUU CARD NUTICE THAT YUU RECIEVED MY WRIT ON FEB-lOth, 2015

Werifkdde by¢nisonlmdlroom.
DESMOND L DET

RECEWED
CCN/.~; T OF CR!MINAL'/¥PPEALS

593 27 2015
AbelAm,Cierk

cOURT oF cRIMINAL APPEALS wRIT No. -WR~SZ' 778_01
TARRANT coUNTY, Tx wRIT No. c-396-010272-1152016-A

EX PARTE

§

§

§ IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
§ OF TEXAS, IN AUSTIN, TX

DESMOND LEDET §

OBJECTION #5: THE APPLICANT NEVER MADE ANY AGREEMENT WITH DEFENSE

COUNSEL TO ALLOW THE JURY TO HEAR HIM INVOKING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS, AND THE MULTITUDE OF EMPHASIS ON THE INVOCATI®NS BY THE

STATE AS EVIDENCE OF GUILT, IN ORDER TO SOMEHOW CONVINCE THE JURY
` THE APPLICANT WAS INNOCENT`AND THE SEX WAS CONSENSUAL.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

I, Desmond Ledet, the above said Applicant, respectfully pree':
sent this humble objection to the trial court's adoption of the
”STATE'S PROPOSED...FINDINGS...CONCLUSIONS” presented to this
honorable Court as stated above in the heading. Specifically:

l: On p.8 of the "State's...Proposed...Findings...ConclusionsV
U39, citing to Hon. Fortinberry's non-credible Affidavit,
the findings state:

"Applicant was in full agreement with the defense and
what- they were attempting to show at trial."

22 I AM THE APPLICANT, AND I STRONGLY, AND RESPECTTULLY OBJECT
. TBAT IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH. ~

3: Defense counsel never once discussed with me allowing the
jury to hear me invoke my constitutional rights to termina-
tion of the interview, counsel, and silence over and over
again in the face of accusation, after first allowing the
jury to hear me being read my MIRANDA rights, as some type
of a defensive strategy in order to convince the jury that
I was innocent, and the sex was consensual. Which is what
the inaccurate fact findings alLege was Hon. Fortinberry's
reason for not objecting to the evidence. Id at p.6, TZO

4: Specifically the findings presented to this Court state:

"Hon Fortinberry did not object to the evidence that §m¢f
phasized the fact that Applicant invoked his constitue
tional rights BECAUSE he concluded that the evidence re-
inforced the defense that Applicant was innocent and that
the sex was consensual." Id, p.6, UZO. (underline/high-
light mine);

_ p.l Of 4

lO:

11¥

lé:

13:

It is true that I refused any plea offers and insisted on
going to trial, and I made it clear that the truth of my
defense was that I was innocent and the sex was consensual

o

So yes it is true that my defense was that I am innocent,
and the sex was consensual...(the jury even rejected the
complainants version of what took place).

But the only thing I ever discussed prior to trial with
Hon. Fortinberry was that in my own defense 1 would take
the stand and testify in my on behalf that I WAS INNOCENT
AND THE SEX WAS CONSENSUAL. HE KNEW THAT PRIOR TO TRIAL.
THAT WAS THE ONLY.EXCULPATORY DEFENSE WE HAD DISCUSSED;
TBAT I WAS-IN AGREEMENT WITH ----- MY TRIAL FTESTIMONY OF
INNOCENCE AND CONSENSUAL SEX. THAT'S IT.

All though Hon. Fortinberry,may have in conflict

with thousands of State and Federal cases nationwide, u.,
thought that allowing the jury to hear evidence that led
the jury over and over and over and over and over again,
to the inescapable conclusion that.I invoked my constitu-
tional rights in the face of accusation,would somehow re-
inforce "the defense that Applicant was innocent and that
the SeX was Consensual", I, DESMOND LEDET, THE APPLICANT
HAD NO KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO TRIAL THAT HON. FORTINBERRY
ERRONEOUSLY THOUGHT THAT THAT EVIDENCE WOULD REINFORCE MY
DEFENSE, See my Grounds #5~19,20, 22,23.

It was my defense that I was innocent and the sex was con-
sensual,that defense had nothing to do with State's Exhi-
bit 27.

In fact as stated in my Ground #33 Hon. Fortinberry infor-
med me at trial that he had never listened to State Exhi-
bit 27 prior to trial. I may not be able to prove that

he told me that, and he apparently refuses to admit it.
Nevertheless” the State presents nothing but Hon. Fortin-
berry's Affidavit, which has already been proven to not h
be credible. Remember he said in it that he never told

me that I would lose the presumption of innocence by tak-
ing the stand and testifying.(Hon.Fortinberry's Affidavit
response to Ground #25).

Even the "State's Proposed...Findings...Conclusions" re~
peatedly asserts that Hon. Fortinberry did in fact tell
me that I would "lose the presumption of innocence." Id.
at p.7, U28-30. »

There is no credible evidence that I knew beforei after;
or even during trial that Hon. Fortinberry thought, con-
trary to precedent, 'that the evidence that is well rec-
ognized for giving an inference of guilty would do the

p.2 of 4

14:

15:

l6:

17:

18:

l9:

exact opposite and create and inference of innocence. ("re-
inforce the defense that Applicant was innocent and that
the sex was consensual. "). Adopted "...Findings" , p. 6, UZO.

The evidence presented in Grounds #5-19, 20, 22, &23 not
onlyihcludesnm invoking Constitutional rights, but heavy
emphasis put on those invocations as evidence of guilt by
the State. None of it objected to by defense counsel.

The evidence was introduced bytthe State as substantive
evidence Of guilt, NOT BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN AN ATTEMPT
TO REINFORCE THE DEFENSE THAT I, THE APPLICANT, WAS INNO-
CENT AND THE SEX WAS CONSENSUAL.

Because Hon. Fortinberry did not introduce the evidence
that caused me extreme, and gross unfair prejudice, etc.
in the above said grounds as part of my defense(State in-
troduced that evidence to show guilt), Hon. Fortinberry
had no reason to explain to me prior to trial that he had
some plan or strategy to introduce that same said eviden-
ce that gave rise to an inference of guilt, in an attempt
to "reinforce the defense that Applicant was innocent and
that the sex was consensual.

Again, such a'plan or strategy would have been, and is
now/outrageous and points to a lack of knowledge of the
Applicable lawl because that type of evidence leads to
an inference that a defendant is guilty, not~credible,
hiding something, etc.` NOT THAT HE IS INNOCENT AND THE
SEX WAS CONSENSUAL. See Hardie v. State, 807 S.W.2d 319
,322(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610(
1976) and their progeny.

That type of evidence leads the jury to convict based on
evidence aside from the elements of the alleged offense.
See Lajoie v. State, 237 S.W. 3d 345(Tex.App.Fort Worth

2007) and Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172(1997)
and Tex.R.Evid. 403 and their progeny.

 

My defense was that I am innocent and the sex was consenw¢
suall and that was understood prior to trial. BUT I NEVER
WAS INFORMED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT HE SOHE HOW HADWTHE
POWER TO PREDICT THE FUTURE PRIOR TO TRIAL, KNEW BEFORE-
HAND THE STATE WOULD INTRODUCE THE EWIDEMCE RAISED IN MY
GROUNDS #5-19, 2©, 221 &23, AND THAT AS A STRATEGY HE'D?'
NOT »OBJECT;? TO THAT EVIDENCE THAT GAVE AN INFERENCE OF
GUILT, BECAUSE HE ERRONEOUSLY, CONTRARY TO STATE AND FED-
ERAL PRECEDENT,THOUGHT IT WOULD GIVE AN INFERECE OF INNO-

CENCE._

 

 

p.3 Of 4

20: This objection has been placed in the prison mailbox on
the date of Fri., Feb.20th, 2015, before lOiOO AM(filed un-
der the "Prison Mailbox Rule"). Prison mailroom staff will
leave it in the box and pick it up on Monday and send it
out since mail does not move on this Unit during the week-
ends. Although the Applicant has already filed several ob-
jections with this Court, prison mail logs will reflect t
that the Applicant did not receive notice from the Court
of Criminal Appeals that you actually received my writ un-
til/ Feb.lOth, 2015. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS OBJECTION TIME:
LY.

PRAYE§

I, Desmond Ledet, the Applicant, humbly and respectfully re-
quest this honorable Court will acknowledge this objection, take
notice of how this objection is supported by the record, and ulti-
mately GRANT the Applicant a NEWFTRIAL based on ineffective asri
sistance of counsel concerning his Grounds #5~19,20, 22, &23, etc
. THANKYOU.

R spectfull Submitt d,
Desmond Ledet #01651095
Telford Unit

3899 State Hwy.98 .

New Boston, TX 75570

CERTIFICATE OF SERNICE

 

A true copy of the above has been mailed to the Tarrant County
, TX: Criminal District Attorney's Office located at 40l W.
Belknap, Fort Worth, TX, 76196. Placed in prison mailbox on Feb.
20th, 2015. It should be retrieved by mail staff, and logged as
outgoing mail on Mon., Feb. 23 since the mail will sit in box o-
ver the weekend. Prison mail does not move on weekends.
:f,,@@i{”'
pesmond Ledet vv' V'
UNSWORN DECLARATION
I, Desmond Ledet, v:#01651095, am presently incarcerated at the
Telford Unit in Bowie County, TX. I declare under penalty of

perjury that the facts stated herein are true and c rrect.

  

7 i

pf`4` of 4