Walls, Raymond Keith ( 2015 )

lq<€q 'Ol 162
RAYMOND K.' WALLS
TDC No; 01838261
McConnell Unit
3001 S; Emily
Beeville, Texas 78102
Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk
Court of Criminal Appeals
jPO Box 12308, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
Re.~` writ N¢s.~ wR-`a_l, 484101 s wR'-`-a1, 434'-402
Dear Appeal Clerk§
Bn¢lose please find Applicadé‘s Fiddlngs bf Facf add con¥
clusion of law;
By copy of this letter, I am fbrwaidihg a cbp£ od the same
to the District Court as addressed.
'Thank you for your fimé and considérafidn int his mafter.
Sincerel
,,w...lé »< uaw
RAY oND K. wALLs n HECEB V[SD id ¢‘Rg
files ©OURT@:~CW¢N‘\& AFPEALS
.cc:Mr; Val Varley _
District A£foriey ' APR 09 2015
Red River County
400 N. Walnut St_reet Ab@;lqsosia C,@rk
Clarksville,Texas 75426
wRIT Nos$ wR481,4a4§01 & wa#az, 434-02
nrsTRIcT cover Nosa cR-01624 & cR-01626
EXPARTE § IN THE 102nd DISTRIC'T COURT
RAYMOND KEITH WALLS § OF
§ RED RIVER COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLIcANT"s PRORJSED_FINDINGS oF FACT
AND coNcLUSIoN oF LAw
To THE HoNoRABLE coURT oF cRIMINAL APPEALS£
coMEs NoW, RAYMoND KEITH WAbLs, TDC No: # 01838261,
Applicant in the above number and cause file this his
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusion of law and states
the followingi
I."
FINDINGS oF FACT
On August 20/ 2014, the Teras bourt of Criminal Appeals
ordered the trial court to make the following findings:
The trial court shall make findings of fact as to whether
the enhancement paragraphs alleging a prior conviction in
McCurtain County; Oklahoma Cause Number CF;2003;497 Was
a final conviction capable of enhancing the applicable range
of punishment; The trial court shall make findings of facts
as to whether the performance of Applicantls trial attorney
was deficient and/ if so, whether counsells deficient perfor¥
mance prejudiced Applicant; The trial court shall also make
any othér findings of fact and tbh¢1usi6ns of law that it
deems relevant and.appropriate to the disposition of Applicant"s
claim for Habeas Corpus relief;
Iro"
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 folLowing conclusion of lawt
aa 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¥20031497 were
a final conviction capable of enhancing Applicant”s punishment
ranges rté staté has ii§intéipiétéu tit ita aaa f£¢ts in
this areasr 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
lawa" Diremiggio va State, 637 SJWJ 2da 926: However,
Texas never met its burden of proving that the conviction
was considered ”final" under oklahoma: See, Dominque va State
787 s¢w¢`zd» 107 treas App» l Hou; [14th nista]) 1990):
A1sd séé, ski11érn v; staté/ 890 saw; 2d 349, 883 (Tex¢
ippp gustin 1994, pat R¢fid)$
When an out;of;$tate penitentiary packet 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 "judicial Notice" of what a sister
state considers stffitiént dbeuméntaty ptbtf bf a finaz
convictibn; Pétuccélli v: staté, 174 s:w: 36: 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; Vernon“s Ann; Texas C;CsPJ
Arts 37¢07 §3(a)} Lengten va state, 776 saws 2d sess seconds
ly, It does not contain any certification by a Oklahoma
Official nor does it bear an Oklahoma“s seal;
bd 'The State Claims in their findings of fact as to the
performance of Applicantis trial counsel to determine whether
or not they were deficient; This claim is erroneous too;
The State quoted in their Findings of Fact and Conclusion
of law under number "7*, page 45} Based on the Oklahoma
pen packet“s photo, physical description, date of birth
of Raymond Keither walls in cansel No: and the expert fingerprint
identifieatien ef wriwe11s,'the stete§s exhibit, ok1ahema
sss pssk, Wss sssissss by sss ssusss Dsrssss ssssssi specifically
sbjssssi swiss ss sss issk ss psssissss ssi ssss ss shs'
basis of hearsay to fhe introduction of Mra Walls“ Oklahoma
pen packet and then renewed his objection immeidately after
the pen packet was admitted; This is not truei Trial Counsel
only objected to the Fingerprint: See;(RR Vol: 4 pga 4¥14;)
The court claims based on their own observations of the
defendant, the court overruled the defense cennsel“s objection
based en the ceurt*s Reeding ef its "ettestetien by 1ega1
keeper of the records with eertificete* end it“s (seal)
of the state and seeretery ef state signed en anne 9, 2010,
_3_`
_ by kevin so Moore who was identified as the coordinator of offend;
er Record Units, Oklahoma Department of.CorrectionsJ The att-
estation lacked a seal and Secretary of the State did not sign
the attestation paged However, based on the incomplete document
by Kevin Ed 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 facts the
Oklahoma pen packet of Raymond Keith Walls, i:e:, it was
what it purported to bea However, the "pen packet" from
oklahoma used for enhannemené;y§§§§§é?g contains certification
by Kevin Ea Moore hereby certifym He is the coordinator
of the recrd onit of the Oklahoma Department of Correctionss
The oklahoma penitentiary packet admitted into evidence
of Burglary and attempt of Burglary for purpose of proving
Applicant“s prior-conviction was not properly authenticated
under Statute; Ten; Rule of Evid: 902(4)a 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 genuine;"
811 sdwa 2di at 585; citing Texa Recrims Evids 902(2)¢ nere,
Mr; Moore"s signature was not accompanied by a seal or the
ssssifisssiss ssssisss by Ruis 902(1),¢2) ss (4)8 Aiss sss,
rank va states 158 s:w: ads 653£ see, 28 vssvcsa: § 1738a
The state reliance on the ”Fingerprint" match to authenticate
the entire penitentiary packet/is misplaced: The Fingerprint l
241
vmatch goes to FP§ second category of proof, proving the t
defendant is the person previously be convicted,and fails
to prove thatthe document in the pen packet are what then
State asserts them to bet Cole v; State, 484 S¢Wv 2d: l79,
784 rrex: crim; Appa 1972)a counsel failed to "bbject" to
the entire ”pen packet"; Counsel based is objection to the
fingerprints See, Fontenot v; State, 704 SaWJ 2dv 1264
Secondly,It does not contain any certification by an official
from Oklahoma not does it bear Oklahoma Sealr
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 erronéous:
The pen packet were not authenticity fr¢m_okzahoma
gffic1a1saseé, sank v:¢st§té;;z§s saw; adv i653¢
:An out of state judgment is inadmissible without proper
_authentication: Hutchins:$ V.§§lfért, 460 SQW: 2d 955 (Tex;
civ¢ App¢ l noaa [14th nist] 1970) writ Réf“d_n;f:ea));
See also, Mega Child Care Inc: va Tex; Dept: of Protective
Regulaztory Servs, 29 S:W§ 3d: 303, 308 (Tek; App:
1@££££@££$§£”£1§§§] 2000, no Petv)("The Tékas Rules of Evidence
réquira, as a predicate to admissibility, that evidénce
be properly authénticatad or ldentified:") Without some
proof that tha document in tha packet ara genuins, the Packet
is inadmissible: Tex$ Ra Evidg 901(a)¢ Secondly, It does
not contain any certification by an oklahoma official nor
does it bear an Oklahoma;sETlW
PRAYER'
FoR THE REnsoN sET FoRTH\ABoVE, the applicant respectfully
request that this case or cases be reverséd and remanded;
Respectfully Submitted,
. W@)M M€¢% /§/BX/Qtv/
RAY ND KEITH WALLS
TDC Now`0183826l `
Williams Gv McConnell Unit
3001 SJ Emily Dr:
Beeville, Texas 78102
cERTlFIcATE oF sERvIcE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
above and feegeing has been for aided te the following listed
person this day of , 2015:
Mr`-"' Vél_.Va,iléy_ .
Red River County…pistrict Attorney
400 N; walnut street
lmsz `
clarksville, Texas 75426
RAZVoND K: wALLs