Ledet, Desmond

“` 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 termination 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 reinforced the defense that Applicant was innocent and that the sex was consensual." Id, p.6, UZO. (underline/highlight 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 constitutional rights in the face of accusation,would somehow reinforce "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 consensual,that defense had nothing to do with State's Exhibit 27. In fact as stated in my Ground #33 Hon. Fortinberry informed me at trial that he had never listened to State Exhibit 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. Fortinberry'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 taking 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, contrary to precedent, 'that the evidence that is well recognized 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. ("reinforce 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 INNOCENT 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 introduced 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 evidence 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 BEFOREHAND 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 FEDERAL 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 under 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 weekends. Although the Applicant has already filed several objections 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 until/ Feb.lOth, 2015. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS OBJECTION TIME: LY. PRAYE§ I, Desmond Ledet, the Applicant, humbly and respectfully request this honorable Court will acknowledge this objection, take notice of how this objection is supported by the record, and ultimately 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 over 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