Marshall, Romarcus Deon

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 projected 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 attorney, nor the findings of the DNA motion if not for_the 14th Court of Appeals.Tb this day, Applicant Marshall hasn't receive the original 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