Marshall, Romarcus Deon ( 2015 )

Romarcus D. Marshall
#1043741
l3001 S. Emily Dr.
Beeville, Tx/ 78102
June 2, 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
COCA of Texas
P.O. Box 12308
Austin, Tx. 78711
RE: Tr. Ct. No. 833880-E &
Honorable AcoSta,
AS followed, you will discover my
court'S
tion the
before Court ASAP please.
assistance.
h);Q. wl <)Of
RECE|VED lN
couRT oF cR\MlNAL APPEALS
JUN 05 2015
Ab@:Acosia,oa@:z<
WR-62,634-9
objection to the trial
findings. It'S very important that you bring this objec-
Thank you for your time and
Sincerely Submitted,
omarcus D. Marshall
#1043741
3001 S. Emily Dr.
Beeville, Tx. 78102
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
BE: WR%621634-O9 & Tr. Ct. NO. 833880-E
EXParte
Romarcus Deon Marshall
Applicant
IN THE 179th,DISTRIcT oF
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
OBJECTION TO THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF FACT
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
T0 THE HONORABLE SAID COURT:
Applicant raised a legitimate claim regarding the relief
of an out-of-time appeal with the necessary document from the
Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO.l4-15-OOlO3-CR to prove such`
claim. Please see the following exhibit & all that it offers.
In the trial court's findings which it adopted from the Distrie
ct Attorney‘s assistant, Barber was cited in order to sway a
denial; Ex Parte Barberf; 879."S.W.~:`~2d 889, 891-892 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994).
Ex Parte Barber is totally -opposite from which Applicant has
raised. Applicant is not obligated to smjsfy the standards proj-
ected in Ex Parte Barber while seeking an out-of-time appeal.
However, if Barber was a factor/-the trial court is again in
err because Chapter 64 speaks for the applicant, and the trial
court knows this, or should know that anyone who.raises a claim
under Chapter 64,i¢ratsbs?§ a claim of innocence, and if the H©vant
is not contacted upon the State's findings , he/she will not be able to appeal
after 30days unless they file for an out-of-time appeal.
v A written' order is required for an appeal from a convictiing
court's ruling on a motion for DNA testing, In re Johnston,
79 S.W.3d 195/198; A finding that there are no grounds to order
.testing or a finding after' testing that the test results do
not show a probability that the applicant would not have been
convicted may be appealed to the appropriate Court of Appeals
or to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in capital cases/
Tex. Rules of Crim. Proc. Chapter 64.05, State V. Patrick & State
ex rel Hill `V. Greene, 86 S.W.3d 592, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.ZOOZ).
Furthermore, a movant in Chapter 64 appealing has 30 days from
the DNA motion is denied by the State to file a notice of appeal,
Jacob V State, 115 S.W.3d 108, llO-ll, (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003),
and Swearingen V. State, 189 S.W.3d 779, (Tex.Crim.App. 2006).
Applicant was stripped of the right to give a 30 day notice of
appeal, and Applicant would had never found out about the attorn-
ey, nor the findings of the DNA motion if not for_the 14th Court
of Appeals.Tb this day, Applicant Marshall hasn't receive the or-
iginal finding regarding the DNA issue from the State. Applicants
asking that this honorable Court grant the relief of an out-
of-time appeal.
Dated: 6/02/2015
Resp tfull :Z§§:;;ye
Romarcus D. Marshall l
#1043741 '
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed
March 17, 21015. - ' `
In The
Iiourfeenih Court of Appeals
NO. 14-15-00103-CR
IN RE ROMARCUS DEON MARSHALL, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
179th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 833880
MEMoRANDUM oPINIoN
On February 3, 2015, relator Romarcus Deon Marshall filed a petition for
Writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code-Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004);
see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the
Honorable Kristin M; Guiney, presiding judge of the 179th District Court of Harris
County, to respond to his motion for appointment of counsel regarding DNA
testing.
We ordered the Harris County District Clerk to file With this court a
supplemental record of the proceedings concerning relator’s request/for counsel for
the purposes of DNA testing. The record reveals that on May 12, 2014, relator
filed his motion for the appointment of counsel regarding DNA testing. The trial
court appointed Jerome Godinich as relator’s counsel on May 13, 2014. , The trial
court adopted the State’S proposed findings of fact on October 17, 2014, among
Which included findings that (1) because DNA testing of the available evidence
Would neither determine the identity of the person Who committed the offense nor
exculpate relator, he had not met the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure;l and (2) relator is not entitled to additional forensic DNA
testing under Chapter 64. Consequently, relator’s request for relief is moot.
Accordingly, We dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of
jurisdiction
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Brown.
Do Not Publish -- Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
l See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.03(a)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2014) (providing that a
convicting court may order forensic testing under this chapter only if, among other requirements,
the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the person Would not
have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing).
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Romarcus D. Marshall, heredo certify that an original
objection was sent to the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeal, `and a copy was sent the the clerk of the Harris Countv
district Court 179. by putiing such in the mial box with pre
paid postage of the date of 6/02/20l5
_Sincerely sub itted
omarcus D. Marshall
#1043741
3001 S. Emily Dr.
Beeville, Tx. 78102