Willie Medina v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
1) Of Ficers Had Wo Probable Cavsé far Zhe Stop. 775 hecessérg Or hot 7
2) There Was Mo Searth Wwatrant Fir the Car. The Reasonas/é?
32) Fheré Was inselticieny Evi ence Fo Suppor7 My ConvieTion-. Oidad Fhe CourT WES TA5h7 Ve 01bn7s 7
Y\ There Was bo Kathie UiolaWor Fe SUtky FAE Sty. I7s Legal fair 4400 Fo USE fay GkCCSE~ LVER IE there's We Sustiticadion?
F) My Prolonged befeatian boas Ualaw fel, The? PO Can Holl Me Ti! Aheg Fial Soerething 2//ecel ?
6)7 hec€ivé db tnetlec Wee Assistance of 4761 Counsel! For Failing Ze objec 7- Jods € Aaswerin§ Verba lq, 27s heyal For kawger objec7 Only tihed Theg lsuad?
YW rial Judge hirong tly Abi séA Hes OISCCETO ON. 21s Legal for ASed5€ Act However He Fes! dike 7
8) Dental Ayplica Vion As Tree Batre, Wo Access Ze Périone/ Properly Ovrin', lCotid AG -Aoving Frots CATT Po UntT fad O-§. Marshel breled Met lithout bertiwal vbpertg 273 Extreor Uingeg Cireversfances. 475 (éasune$le 7 .
4\ 0ent6! oF Spf é-Courd Meters. Abs ehesé-Faile dA 2 obey "order % Aaswer, Dida Prouidé Me lLopiés por ANSkEr OY Alles. Tioas Thed Fp ecatitled. Aish?
Whether the officers had probable cause for the stop, whether there was a search warrant for the car, whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction, whether there was a Batson violation, whether the use of excessive force was legal, whether the prolonged detention was unlawful, whether there was ineffective assistance of counsel, whether the trial judge abused his discretion, whether the denial of self-court matters was proper