Court Opinion

ID: 4049299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 00:55:16.028163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:09.069481
License: Public Domain

10%O\
            X,

                                 rehear y ±}qo/s~-
                                             RECEIVED \H
                                        COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
                                              FEB 06 2015

                                                   is!

                                                                'rJ

l> ' x7 MOSTiMpbtTAdTmfrtfar.

                                 Pe^&ty&l^fa^

                                Uapklitiscoe-ijm-f
h6n. cki&f 'Saslfct,) f-te/e+J k&((er

     RE:    QUESTION OF LAW/DISCRETIONAL      AUTHORITY

             DEAR (\KSACe,U2010 WL 546676 (Tex. App.—El Paso, Feb. 17, 2010, pet. dtsm'd).
          2See Haines v. Kerner, 404U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (holding/^ se pleadings to less stringent
   standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers); see also Franklin v. Rose, 765 F.2d 82, 85 (6th Cir.
   1985) (explaining that liberal construction allows for active interpretation ofapro se pleading to
   encompass any allegation which may raise aclaim for federal relief).
                                              ATTACHMENT (A)