Court Opinion

ID: 4053951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-29 04:38:21.938377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:29.935015
License: Public Domain

(L{<€q»©l,o'z_

RAYMoND K; WALLS
TDC_No; 01838261
McConnell Unit
3001 S; Emilg
Beeville, Texas 78102

Mr; Abel Acosta, Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals _
QPO Box 12308, Capitol Station
Au'stin, Texas 78711

Re.~ writ N¢s;~ WRle, 484101 g wR-`sl, 484'-02

Dear Appeél Clerk$

Bn¢lose please find Applicéhf*s Fihdlngs of Facf add coh¥
clusion of law;

By copy of this letter, I am fbrwaidihg a cbpf od £he same
to the District Court as addressed.

’Thank you for ybur fimé and consldératidn ihb his matter.

,M'l »< uaw
RAY oND K. WALLS HEC§§ |me@ . EM

files ©ou§m§c§§§ §.§N§§§§ §E§LS
,cc:Mr; Val Varleg _
Di`strict A£toney APR 09 2015
Red River County
400 N. Walnut Street 4
clarksville,z'exas 75426 ' Ab@"%@§ia’m@rk

wRIT Nos$ wR481,484¥01 § wR-az, 434-02
nrsTRIcT coURT Nosa cR-01624 & cR-01626

EXPARTE § IN THE 102nd DISTRICT coURT
RAyMoND KEITH wALLs § 0F
§ RED RIVER CoUNTY, TEXAS

APPLICANTWS PROBJSED_FINDINGS OF FACT
AND coNcLUsIoN op LAW

 

To THE HoNORABLE coURT oF cRIMINAL APPEALS$

coMEs Ncw, RAYMoND KEITH wALLs, TDc No: # 01838261,
Applicant in the above number and cause file this his
Proposed Findings of Fac£ and Cenclusion of law and sfafes
the following$

I.`=
FiNDINGs oF FAcT

on August 20/ 2014, she Tekas Ccuff of Cfiminal Appeals
ordered she frial coors to make she following findings:
The trial court shall make findings of fact as fo whether
the enhancemenf pafagfaphs alleging a pfiof convicfion in
McCurfain Ccunfy/ Oklahcma Cause Number CF;2003;497 was
a final ccnvicfion capable of enhancing she applicable range
of.punishmenf; The fiial ccuff shall make findings of facfs
as to whefhef she peffcfmance cf Applicanfls frial actorney
was deficiené and/ if_sc, whe£hei codnsel“s deficient perfor?
mance pfejudiced Applican£; The fiial ccufé shall also make
any o£hér findings éf fact and ¢bn¢lusiéns of 1aw fha£ it
deems felevanf and appropria£e fe the dispcsi£icn of Applicant"s

claim fci Habeas Ccfpus ielief;

I'I.a
coNcLusIoN oF LAw

Based on the contentions raised by the Applicant, and
study of the applicable law raised by the issues: This Applic-
ant making the folbowing conclusion of law¥
as The State claims in their findings of fact as to whether
the enhancement paragraph alleging a prior conviction from
McCurtain County, Oklahoma in cause Noa CF;2003;497 were
a final conviction capable of enhancing Applicant“s punishment
ranges The state has misinterpreted the law and facts in
this areas$ The law clearly reveal in a Virginiahs case,
Virginia method of partially suspending a setnence was Alien
to Tenas law, it would be possible to use it as a previous
final conviction for enhancement purposes if the State proves
to the court that the conviction was "Final under Virginia

law¢" Diremiggio v: State, 637 SJWJ 2dJ 926¢ However,

 

Texas never met its burden of proving that the conviction

was considered "final" under oklahoma: See, Domingue va State

 

787 s»w¢'zd; 107 (Téx: App» l nou; [14£h niséa]) 1990):

Also see, skillérn v; s£a£é, 890 saws 2d 849, 883 (Tex¢

 

App: justin 1994, pet Refid)$

Whé¢ 88 8ue:8f:s¢a¢8 psni¢égezaiy packée has been introduced
as evidence of a prior criminal record in the "punishment
phase", the State must establish/ either by proof or request,
that the trial judge took "dudicial Notice" of what a sister
state considers sufficient documentary proof of a final
convic£ibn; Pééuééélzl vw séa£é, 172 s;w; 38: 761;

;2;

When foreign conviction is involved in sentencing,
in the absence of proof of the law of the Other State, the
Court of Criminal Appeals will presume that other State"s
law is the same as that of Texas for purposes of determining
whether conviction is final: Vernonqs Ann; Texas C;C;Pu
Arts 37:07 §3(a)} Lengéon va séaée, 776 saws 2d 586; second-
ly, It does not contain any certification by a Oklahoma

Official nor does it bear an oklahoma“s seal;

be »The State Claims in their findings of fact as to the
performance of Applicant"s trial counsel to determine whether
or not they were deficienta This claim is erroneous too;
The state quoted in their Findinge of Fae£ end conolusion
of law under number "7*, pege 455 sneed en the oklahoma
pen packet“s photo, physical description, date of birth
of Raymond Keither Walls in bause§ No: and the ekpert fingerprint
identification of MrJWalls, the State?s exhibit, Oklahoma
pen pack, was admitted by the court; Defense Counsel specifically
nbjnnnnn nnlne nn nne in¢k nn pneni¢aen end once nn nne
basis of hearsay to the introduction of Mra Walls“ Oklahoma
pen packet and then renewed his objection immeidately after
the pen packet was admitted; This is not true! Trial Counsel
only nbjnnnnn nn nne nlnnnnpnlnen snn,rnn Vnzn 4 pgn 4;14,)
The court claims based on their own observations of the
defendent, the court overru1ed the defense eouneel*s objection
based on the court*s Reeding of its "ettestaéion by legal
keeper of the reeorde with eertifieaée* and it“e (seel)
of ann snnnn ann nnnn;nnny ne nnnen signed nn nnnn 9, 2010,
_3;

_ by kevin nw Moore who was identified as the coordinator of offend;
er Record Units, Oklahoma Department of Corrections#_The att-
estation lacked a seal and Secretary of the State did not sign
the attestation pagea However} based on the incomplete document
by Kevin Ev Moore, the Expert Fingerprint identification, and the
court“s own physical observation of the defendant, being
the photo, the physical description, and date of Birth,
the court found sufficient evidence to support that the
oklahoma pen packet was authentic and was, in fact, the
Oklahoma pen packet of Raymond Keith Walls, i¢es, it was
what it purported to bee However, the "pen packet" from
Oklahoma used for enhannemené;g#f§§§é{¢ contains certification
by Kevin Ea Moore hereby certifym He is the coordinator
of the recrd dnit of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.
The Oklahoma penitentiary packet admitted into evidence
of Burglary and attempt of Burglary for purpose of proving.
Applicant“s prior-oonviction was not properly authenticated
under Statute; Tek; Rule of Evid¢ 902(4): However,the Court
specifically noted that the certification was accompanied
by a Public officer having a seal that certified "the Signer
has the official capacity and that the signature is genuinea"
811 s.lw.= 2d.' at 585,€ citing Tex-.\ R.»`cfim'.'» Evid.»»~ 902(2).» nere,
Mr; Moore"s signature was not accompanied by a seal or the
nnrnifl¢nnlnn nnqnznnn ny nnzn 902(1),(2) nn rn)n nlnn nnn,
Benk v.~' s£e£e,‘ 158 s;~w;= 'b`d:~ 653'.-i se'e, 28 U.-'s.~='ceA'.\- § 1738.»

The State reliance on the *Fingerprint” match to authenticate
the entire penitentiary packet/is misplaoed$ The Fingerprint v

241

match goes to FP¢ second category of proof, proving the a
defendant is the person previously be convicted,and fails

89 prdve eha¢£hé d¢¢umen¢-ih eha pen packe¢ are what ¢he`
State asserts them to be: Cole v; State, 484 S¢Wv éda 579,
784 (Texa Crim; Appa l972)v Counsel failed to "object" to

the entire "pen packet"; Counsel based is objection to the
fingerprinta See, Fontenot vs State, 704 SJWJ 2dv 126;
Secondly,It does not contain any certification by an Official

from Oklahoma not does it bear Oklahoma Seal?

ca The State claims in their findings of fact and conclusion
of law that it deem relevant and appropriate to the disposition
of applicantis Writ of Habeas Corpus relief: This conclusion
of law is erroneous;

The pen packet were not authenticity from oklahoma
gfficialsaseé; sank ve sf§£é;,158 s:w; 3du,"653¢
`An out of state judgment is inadmissible without proper
authentication; Hutchins:§ V.§eifert, 460 SvW: 2d 955 (Tex;
civ» Appa 1 none [14éh nisé] 1970) writ Réf”d n¢f;ea));
See also, Mega Child Care Incv va Tex; Dept: of Protective
Regulaztory servs, 29 s:w» 3d: 303, 308 {Téx¢ App:
@Mggygwéigthwgist;] 2000, no Peta)("The Tenas Rules of Evidence
require, as a predicate to admissibility, that evidence
be properly authenticated or ldentified:”) Without some

proof that the dccument in the packet are genuine, the Packet

is inadmissible: Texr Ra Evid; 901(a)¢ Secondly, It does
not contain any certification by an Oklahoma official nor
does it bear an Oklahoma;s§?l¥
PRAYERv
FoR THE REAsoN sET FoRTH~ABovE, the applicant respectfully

request that this case cr cases be reversed and remanded;

Respectfullg submitted,

.&QMM L/€c% /Y§X/Q@/

RAY ND KEITH wALLs

TDC No:_01838261 _
Williams Gm McConnell Unit
3001 SJ_Emily Dr:
Beeville, Texas 78102

cERTlFIcATE 0F sERVIcE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

above and foegoing has been for arded to the following listed
_ .. l ‘7 w _ \ _. w
person this day of 62 1 , 2015:

Mf-'~ vélrv,afriléy_ . \. n
Red River Countympistrict Attorney

lhwij k

clarksville, Texas 75426
RAZbeD K: wALLs