Carl Edmond Yancy v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

hft Petitioner's triaf uhy did my lawyer not Conduct 0 pre-Trio/ investigation, into my (Petitioner), CM EbMObtb HH/ty's Case! 2, Why d'd Petitioner's Lawyer not CcdL any important 'facts witmtsseSj Medicalexperts^ b)JJt PXperfSjfrXuol assault experts to guestion the. scientific medicu! definition of the (Complain - fonts SeXUaL usfault exonti nafron os m) favdU. Hfllin S W f id 210 Of bndstadt V, (Lean ZltI2d111. /21 3, Jf ike definition given in Pppemns's B/,efftX Yd! 1 of BO^Qt/pgUj States that after a Z hour exam Cn at ton fevea/ed no trauma ~to Complain tants Vigincij Hymenf Cervix,or Perineum^and this H the medical cJefin ition of u woman ufbo Is a virgin ^then ufby is Petitioner frill In prison -for the none erisharer Crime erf Inserting his penis Into Com plain to nTS vigma once or twice a uieefl 1, Petitioner ast phis Honora Me Court Hits very Important gve^rian.^ ujoujdntfbis medit Hit Comp/aintant not a Vtry In Oh the time of the. Z hour examination! Uh y u/ostht physician nett Called to testify Instead of using Secondhand testimony from Peer! CppeHeurt's fir Up (p, t \Jo! 1 atti)py 3, hjiou/ Is It fhot the examining physician and the fexua/BsSouJf Purse art &t disagreement OS to whether a sex tW astoutt toojt place 1 C,CtfitX\foh(rt 98)pgHjphysic Ian s frtondho-nd testimony . Cluing fexvaf assoUltf PA(dX,Voh> at lat)pg/C,fexval ffssault Expert do/Ws no Sexual a SCOUIff %0oesn't this Crease a Variance and hour Coj/dPetitioner he Convictedu/itbout Evidence? 8, Jf Dalton v. State 898 hU 2J929(jex.fpp-brtldortf Iftf), icfrn/e as to oJhuf happens tv a tuoman uJho Is a \rrrgtp u/bin Sexually assaultedf then hour Is b that CoMplalntanfs uJha is a Vitginj(fate~ mentf true l fLppe)Van ft l$rCe'fl(pt(l\td i at Itljpgb, and (LypeJ/anfs Brief,:,(tEVol'3 ertlUbtZaypglfl % pre not these Statements an Impossibility uritk a Virgin l If), If Petitioner has not Sey.ua I(y assaulted Com/uLcunfadf) inserting hb penis Once or twice a. U/teiC far tearsjibe* houf Is it fhaT Compblatant$ Sister four Stitiuner haring Sex with the Virgin Comphintuntl Pppeilent'sBnefj(&PVolic(t$t)pgll. If, If the {is ter told an untruthj perjuring herSelf po help -fit Complain huntf wouldn't if/hand tv reason that She told an untruth about Pppef/ant Sexually assaulting ber. ddffiPpoh athf)ygll. 12, There however iuos hdft found that (dos nut Petitioner's/ So boujis It tinner Idas Con­ victed (When Phillips the Ihates bfU Expert State's the blip did not /Match Petitioner's Ddft! Pppehantis Br, e f, (& Vu!3 at fi7)y>y5, I3i Coing to the heart of the matter, Pppej/ant tuou/dasp this Honorable fourt this. Tf Petitions ec Committed no Cringe, of msertincj h's penis info Compla infants, vigina once or twice a u/ttjf for yearsf because Coflip/alhtanf- if medically &nd physically 6 virgingfhen iuiy has Petitioner' riot been Veltased from, prison to go borne jv bis famt Ly! /Vi, idhy urasnt the violation of Petitioner's Const!futianod/Lmendmcnt Bight and H/ nut addressed in any of the State Courts judgment?! tS, Would this Honorable fourt ih. hs wisdom please, determine Qnd acuurd fai'rfy f-o Petit!on erj aside from Mon if ary amount for false, imprisonment from ftuftj the Restitution for CalIatera/ bamuges/lnjurles to Petitioned? life 1 Petitioner would Consider the amount Ordered hu this Honorable Courtt because, ifstimss ft Move on don't you ~tblhlc Z «•>* £ * W's . Qumtoy&) pmiMTtb !i), (Jly does At /. Case keep $eiT*)i$ Sent hack- u/ithuuf the Cost, being heard by -fke /ousts and Hie Major. grounds addressed along with "the bitft /SStrtr . ... __ ____ )% Pnd doesn't' PltniK v. Qon^aks UZ Su. sd, (>3S(feKrftpp-Houston fathbistj2oo/))h/,l/endlng Key ?V fa). ft Pro fe Inmate's. Petition Should he Viewed urlth liberality andpatiencej andis . (lot held tv the ffringtnt Standards applied tv formal pleadings brofted by /blarney's, bugles Yifoiue m l/'ksj-IO tttyo/ S,Cfd7S,U L Pd* id tt 3 (mo) fatfa ftcu\es Y, ferner,H0H l/S'Sl%Slt>~ 2!t tz S*(ft 30 L. td'id' t>$L UVii)f Slock v. Juc/csonj$l StM)< 3cI HtjS!per'Ppp' !y/er zootjttOpfaj ftguiloe Vi fhn£)h% 2d,), hi Uer. ftpp'ftovsfon [)St jDist}/9?7j h/0. petij^fee also /a a a V. Farrington ■Bf SMld.HHl iTer, fyp-JexarVana looi)/ apply to this petitioner's Case os kte/L $o (dkg doesdt Seem, not to he hemg applted'fo my tostj and tnyCoSt addressed by ibis Honorable (oyrijar the lower Courts,Jdbat- k*«£JI-dofie^ezLe.ptf£ijykTjfor my /reedo**.^u/hXc-k hetongs> (70^-juJr_to^rn^f J)J/:tJ^^t^e±yy_ftmeri(on_uritk ttue- jufTi.t.e,.PotLaiL bias northnerfcct- huilrdn Hits ytinripte.