Blanchard, Thomas Duane

Case Information

Hon Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308, Capital Station

29,572-11 Austin, Texas 78711 RE2 (U). 29,572-10 Legible copy of supplemental Transcript Dear Mr. Acosta, I recently mailed an addition to the Application for a Unit of Mandamus regarding omitted items by the District Clerk of Bragoo County. The clerk mailed me a copy of the Supplemental Transcript (rebutted) and the copy was very light and not legible. I am sending you a copy that is legible to be submitted to the Honorable Judges. I apologize if I am not doing things correctly. I don't know the proper procedures or terms and I have limited access to outdated materials. I greatly appreciate your patience with my case, I'm just trying to get a new trial and I'm doing the best I can. I am grateful for your time and help, RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FEB 262015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

Very truly, I ourt

CAUSE NO. 12-02841-CRE-272-6 EXPANTE THOMAS BLANCHARD

REEUTTAL TO STATE'S ORIGINAL ANSWER

I.

Now comes thomas BLANCHARD, RELATOR IN THE ABOVE NUMERED AND ENTITLED CAUSE AND FILES THIS. REEUTTAL TO PROVE HE HAS ALLEGED SEVERAL FACTS THAT, IF TRUE, WOGLD ENTITLE HIM TO RELIEF. II.

IN GROUND ONE, RELATOR ALLEGES THAT AT THE TIME OF TRIAL BRAZOS COUNTY DID NOT HAVE AN EUIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. THE STATE CLAIMS THAT THE FACT MIKE WELCH WAS IN POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS AND KEPT THE EUIDENCE IN THIS CASE IN HIS FILE CAPINET WAS BROUGHT OUT IN TRIAL AND IS NOT NEWLY DISCOVERED EUIDENCE. THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EUIDENCE THAT THE RELATOR IS REFERRINE TO THAT DID NOT COME OUT IN TRIAL IS THE FACT WELCH KEPT THE EUIDENCE FOR TWO MONTHS AND THE EUIDENCE DID NOT GO INTO AN EUIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM. AFTER WELCH TESTIFIED HE KEPT AN "ON-DEMAND" SUPPLY OF UN-LOGGED NARCOTICS, THE RELATOR FILED A COMPLATNT WITH THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN WACO

THE RELATOR FOUND OUT THAT BRAZOS COUNTY WAS NOT USING AN EUIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM AND FOUND OUT THROUGH THE BOOKING DESK AT THE BRAZOS COUNTY JAL THAT MIKE WELCH DID NOT PUT THE EXHIBITS INTO EUIDENCE. THE STATE, ALONG WITH WARD, SWAN AND MAltSERGER SAID THE EUIDENCE WAS GIVEN TO THE EUIDENCE CONTROL TECHNICIAN AND THEN GIVEN TO KENNY ELLIOT. THAT IS NOT TRUE. THE RELATOR WILL ALSO SHOW THE REASON WELCH KEPT THE EUIDENCE IN HIS POSSESSION FOR TWO MONTHS. WELCH KNOWS THAT MOST TYPES OF METHAMPHETAMINE DO NOT HAVE A STABLE PH BALANCE AND AFTER 2 TO 3 WEEKS WILL TURN INTO A BATH SALT. WELCH HELD ON TO IT SO HE COULD TEST IT BEFORE IT WENT TO THE CRINE LAB. HE THEN SENT IN A DIFFERENT SAMPLE FROM HIS FILE CABINET FÜLL OF "ON-DEMAND" DRUGS 30 THE DPS CRINE LAB WOULD GET A POSITIVE RESULT. THAT IS ALSO THE REASON HE DID NOT SUBMIT THE USED SYRINCE BECAUSE HE KNEW WHAT HE SUBMITTED WAS DIFFERENT AND HE DIDN'T WANT TO RAISE ANY FLAGS. WHY DOES AN INVESTIGATOR KEEP A FILE CABINET FÜLL OF DRUGS AND NOT PUT IT. INTO EUIDENCE IF THE COUNTY HAS AN EUIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM? THAT IS ILleCAL DRUG POSSESSION YET THE STATE IS O.K. WITH THAT. IN CROND TWO, THE RELATOR ALLEGES THE PROSECUTION KNEW THIS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL AND SUPPRESSED THE INFORMATION SO THEY COULD USE TATNTED EUIDENCE AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.

WHAT WARD AND SWAN DID TO HIDE THIS INFORMATION IS SIMPLE. THEY DID NOT TELL THE DEFENSE UNDER DISCOVERY THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS KEPT BY WELCH FOR TWO MONTHS IN A FIIE CARINET FUll OF OTHER DRUG EXHIBITS AND THAT IT WAS NOT PLACED INTO EVIDENCE. HAD THE RELATOR KNOWN THIS AT THE TIME OF TRIAL HE WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE AND CHALLENGED THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. THE RELATOR WAS ARESTED AT IOIS A.m. FOR DRIVINE WHILE LICENSE INVALID, EVEN THOUGH A D.R.S. CHECK WILL SHOW THAT AT THE TIME OF ARREST THE RELATORS LICENSE WAS ONLY EVERYTRED WHICH IS NOT AN ARRESTABLE OFFENSE. WELCH UJOLATED PROTOCOL BY HOLDINE EVIDENCE SO HE COULD TAMPER WITH IT. IF BRAZOS COUNTY HAD AN EVIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, WHY DIDN'T WELCH PLACE THE ITEMS INTO EVIDENCE? WHY DOES HE KEEP A FILE CABINET FUL OF NARCOTICS FROM CASES AND NOT PLACE IT INTO EVIDENCE? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE. HE IS A DIRTY COP AND USES HIS "ON-DERMAND" JRUGS TO SET PEOPLE UP. THERE IS NO OTHER JUSTIFICATIAN. THE RELATOR SHOULD SE GRANTED A NEW TRIAL OR AT LEAST A YEARINE SO HE CAN HAVE MARY KUCERA FROM THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN WACO TESTIFY, IS WELL AS THREE DEPUTIES FROM THE BRAZOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, ABOUT THE LACK OF AN EVIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, THE RELATOR FOUND OUT ABOUT THE LACK OF AN EVIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM IFTER TRIAL IN SEPTEMBER, 2013.

MAT IS ALSO WHEN HE FOUND OUT WELCH KEPT THE SUIDENCE FOR TWO MONTHS, THE D.A.'s STATE WELCH EVERNSTUELY TESTIFIED ABOUT THE EVIDENCE JONTROL SYSTEM, THAT IS NOT TRUE. HE WAS ASKED TWO TIPES BY THE DEFENSE WHEN HE RELEASED THE ITEMS AND PLACED THÉm INTO EVIDENCE, BOTH TIPES WELCH STATED HE DIDN'T KNOW WHEN HE RELEASED THE ITEMS NOR DID HE TELL US HE KEPT THE ITEMS FOR TWO MONTHS, ALSO THE STATE CLATMS WELCH DID TURN OVER THE EVIDENCE TO AN EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN, YET THEY FAILED TO PROVE IT BY SUBMITTINE COPIES OF THIS F ICTITIOUS EVIDENCE LOO AND THE NAME OF THE EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN, THE STATE IS STILL BEING EVASTVE ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AND TRYING TO COVER UP WELCH KEEPING A FILE CABINET FULL OF DRUGS FOR "ON-DEMAND" USE. IT DOES NOT MATTEZ IF HE IS LAW ENFORCEMENT, HE IS IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF NARCOTICS, AND THE D.A'S OFFICE OVERLOOKS IT, THE RELATOR CAN EASILY PROVE THIS THROUGH TRIAL RECORDS, AND THE LACK OF EVIDENCE LOGS, GROUND THREE CLATMS WARD, SWAN AND MATS BEREER, SUPPRESED A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. THE RELATOR COULD HAVE HAD THE EVIDENCE SUPPRESED AND THE CASE DISTRISED IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A HEARING ON THE CASE. WARD, SWAN AND MATS BEREER STATE THAT THE RELATOR ACCIDENTALLY MAILED THE DOCUMENT TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE INSTEAD OF THE DISTRICT CLERKS OFFICE.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT WENT TO THE DA.'S OFFICE. WARD AND SWAN KNOW BY LAW IT MUST BE FILED AND BROUCHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT. WARD'S EXCUSE ON RECORD WAS THAT THE WRIT WAS MAILED TO THE WRONG ADDRESS SO HE PLACED THE WRIT IN THE FILE. IN WARD'S AFFIDAVIT HE CLRINS HE DID NOT SUPPRESS THE WRIT AND GAVE A COPY OF IT TO MAITS BERGER AS SOOM AS HE WAS APPOINTED. TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS WILL PROVE WARD DID SUPPRESS THE WRIT, WAS EWASIVE ABOUT IT WHEN IT WAS BROUCHT UP IN COURT, AND LIEO SEVERAL TIPES ABOUT THE WRIT. WARD STATED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT HE TURNED THE WRIT OVER TO MALTS BERGER AFTER HE WAS APPOINTED. DURING VOIR DIRE, 3R.R. praes 8-9, HE TOLD JUDGE BRYAN HE GAVE MAITSBERGER A COPY OF THE WRIT "LATE LAST WEEK", JUDGE BRYAN MWHAT THEY SUGGEST THEY DO ABOUT IT AND WARD STATED THAT IT'S MOOT ANYWAY BECAUSE T.O.C.T. HAD A HOLD ON THE RELATOR, AND THE BLUE WARRANT WAS LIFTED ON FRIDAY, SO UNETHER OR NOT THE WRIT WAS GRANTED OR NOT, THE RELATOR WAS STILL ON A HOLD FROM T.D.C.T.: SO IT RENDERS IT MOOT." (3R.R.PRE 9), THAT WAS A HABEAS FILED IN CHAMBERS COUNTY AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HE BRAZOS COUNTY CASE AND WARD REFERRED TO IT TO AVOID THE WRIT HE SUPPRESED. (SEE EXHIBIT A IN MEMORANDUM). THE RELATOR STATED THE HABEAS IN QUESTION WAS OVER THE PENDING FELONY. MR. WARD STATED "THEN HE SHOULD HAVE FILED IT". 3R.R. PREE 10).

THE RELATOR THEN STATED HE DID FILE IT, THE CLERK DIDN'T FILE IT. THE COURT RESPONDED" WELL, YOU HAD IT ADDRESSED TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE" (3R.R. PAGE 10). EVEN IF THE RELATOR MAILEO IT TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO FILE IT. WARD AND SWAN KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY KEPT THE WRIT OFF THE DOCKET AND BENIED RELATOR DUE PROCESS. WARD LATER STATED ON RECORD" THAT THE WRIT HAD BEEN FILED," 5R.R.PAGE 356). THAT IS NOT TRUE. IN SR.R.PAGE 355, MALL'S BERGER STATED, IN PART"HE'S ASKING HIM TO TESTIFY FROM AN ITEM THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADDITTED INTO EVIDENCE" GOING BACK TO 3R.R. "AGE II, WARD STATED"(IN PART) IT'S MOOT BECAUSE IT'S YOT A QUESTION OF LAW RELATOR IS RAISING. INSIDE HIS MOTION, IT'S A FACtuAL DISPUTE". THE RELATOR WILL NOT NOV SHOW HOW THE SUPPRESSED WRIT WOULD HAVE HELPED HIM HAD THE A.D.A.S AND TRIAL COUNCEL NOT SUPPRESSED THE HABEAS. THE GROUNDS IN THE WRIT HAVE NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED. O START, A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS THE PROPER JAY TO CHALLENGE BEING ILLEGALLY DEPRIVED OF INES LIBERTY. (SEE C.C.P.) ONE BEING ILLEGALLY YETAINED SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WRIT ON TRIAL TO YET RELEASED. HAD THERE BEEN A HEARING ON THE WRIT THE RELATOR COULD HAVE PROVEN: D WELCH HAD THE RELATOR ARRESTED FOR DRIVING UNILE LICENSE INVALID, EVEN THOUGH WHEN DEPUTY JARLSON CHECKED THE RELATOR'S T.D.C., IT CAME BACK EXPIRED, NOT INVALID. DUE TO THE FALSE WREST, THE EVIDENCE FAILS UNDER THE EVCLUSIONARY .ULE AND MUST BE SUPPRESSED. (SEE C.C.P.)

THE RELATOR DID NOT GIVE CONSENT TO SEARCH. IN THE WRT THE RELATOR STATED THAT THE UIDEO WOULD PROVE THAT HE DID NOT GIVE CONSENT. AT THE TIME THE RELATOR SUBMITTED THE WRTT, HE WAS UNAWAR THAT OFFICER CARLSON UJOLATED PROTOCOL AND WALKED OFF TO MAKE A PHONE CALL AND THE REFUSAL TO SEARCH WAS NOT RECORDED. RECARDLESS OF ALL THREE DEPUTIES CLATMINE RELATOR GAVE CONSENT TO SEARCH, THE UIDEO IS THERE TO PROTECT THE RELATOR'S RIGHT'S AND THE USE OF THE UIDEO WITHOUT AUDIO IS UNFAIR PREJUDICE AND VIOLATES RELATOR'S PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. THE RELATOR STATED IN GROUNDS 4 AND 5 THAT CARLSON, WEICH AND YOUNG HAD LIED ABOUT WEICH ASKINE RELATOR IF HE WAS A CONVICTED FELON WHEN HE ARRIVED AT THE SCEME. THE RELATOR ALSO ALLEGGEO YOUNG LIED ABOUT TOUCHINE THE EUJSENCE. THE STATE CLATM'S THAT IS IRRELEVANT SINCE THE RELATOR TESTIFIZED. THE REASON THE RELATOR BROUCHT FORTH THESE CLATMS THAT TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS AND THE UIDEO PROVE IS FOR IMPERCUMENT PURPOSES. IF THEY LIE' ROUT ASKINE RELATOR IF HE IS A CONVICTED FELON, THEY WILL LIE ABOUT CONSENT TO SEARCH, THE RELATOR IS BEINE PHISHED BECAUSE DEPUTY CARLSON UJOLATED PROTOCOL AND WALKED OFF WITH THE BODY MIKE. SINCE THE RELATOR IS NOT AT FAULT FOR THE LACK OF AUDIO ON THE UIDEO, IT IS A BIC FAT DENIAL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO PROSECUTE HIM BASED ON THE EUJSENCE RECOVERED FROM THE ILLEGAL SEARCH.

The video Lacking Audio DURING A RequeST To SEARCH DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE C.C.P. DUE TO CARLSON'S NEGLI GENCE, THE EUIDENCE FALLS UNDER THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AND MUST BE SUPPRESSED. WARD, SWAN AND MALTSBERGER KNOW THIS AND THAT IS WHY THE WRIT WAS SUPPRESSED AND WHY THE GROUNDS WERE NEVER ADDRESSED. IN GROUND FIVE THE STATE SAID" CARLSON DID NOT TESTIFY THAT APPLICANT DID NOT GIVE CONSENT TO SEARCH". THE RELATOR DID NOT SAY CARLSON DID HEAR RELATOR NOT GIVE CONSENT TO SEARCH, THE RELATOR STATED CARLSON SAID THAT WELCH ASKED" DO YOU mING OR CAN I OR DO YOU mING (IF HE COULD SEARCH) AND CARLSON SAID RELATOR GAVE A NEGATIVE RESPONSE SUCH AS NO, I DON'T MING. WELCH AND YOUNG TESTIFIED RELATOR RESPONDED WITH A POSITIVE ANSWER SUCH AS YES, YOU CAN SEARCH. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT TRYING TO IMPEACH THE ITATE'S WITNESSES ON CONFLICTING TESTIMONY. HE TRIAL COUNSEL CLATM'S THAT IMPEACHING THE TATE'S WITNESSES IS A RAD TRIAL STRATEGY. SQUIOUSLY ALL OF HIS TRIAL STRATEGIES ARE DEFICIENT. HIS TRACK RECORD PROVES THIS. MALTSBERGER HAS NEVER WON A DEFENSE TRIAL. EVER. MALTSBERGER WAS NOT PREPARED NOT QUALIFIED TO REPRESENT THE RELATOR AT TRIAL. THE TRANSCRIPTS PROVLE THAT. MALTSBERGER ALLOWED THE STATE TO USE THE UIDED JITMOUT AUDIO TO PROSECUTE EVEN THOUGH USING RE UIDED INFRINGED ON RELATOR'S PRESUMTION OF INNOCENCE. (8)

IN GROUVE FIVE THE RELATOR CAN SHOW THAT TRIAL COUNSEL WAS DEFICIENT FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PERIURED AND CONFLICTING TESTIMONY FOR IMPERCHMENT PURPOSES. TO START, CARLSON AND YOUNG TESTIFIGED THAT WHEN WEICH ARRIVED ON THE SCENE HE ASKED THE RELATOR IF HE WAS A CONVICtED FELON. THE UIDEO PROVES THAT WAS A LIE AND THEY SAIA THAT ON THE STAND TO LET THE JURY KNOW THE RELATOR HAD A CRIMINAL HISTORY. IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE RELATOR TESTIFIGED, TRIAL COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THEM ON THE LIE AND CHALLENGED IT FOR IMPERCHMENT PURROSFS. TRIAL COUNSEL DIDN'T OBJECT TO OR CHALLENGE ANY OF THE CONFLICTING TESTIMONY AND WAS DEFICIENT FOR NOT IMPERCHINE THE STATE'S WITNESSES. MALLS BERGER JUST WENT THROUGH THE MOTIONS, HE HAD NO INTENTION OF GETTINE THE RELATOR AN AQUITTAL. (PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT 1, PAGES IAND 2) ON THESE TWO EXHIBITS, APPERL ATTY, RICHARD WETZEL, SENT ME A COPY OF HIS INVESTIGATION REPORT AND EXPLAINED THERE WAS NOTHING TO APPEAL BECAUSE TRIAL COUNSEL DIDN'T OBJECT TO OR CHALLENGE ANYTHING. PLEASE KEEP IN MINN HE HAS NEVER WON A DEFENSE TRIAL. HAD HE IMPERCHED THE STATE'S WITNESSES ON THEIR TESTIMONY, AND PROUGHT OUT IN TRIAL ABOUT THEIR CONFLICTING TESTIMONY AND THEIR FLAT OUT LIE ON UIDEO SHOULNG WEICH DID NOT ASK RELATOR IF HE WAS A CONVICtED FELON, THE JURY WOULD HAVE RNOUN THEY LIEO ABOUT CONSENT TO SEARCH.

IN GROUND SIV, RELATOR ALLEGES TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT DISCOVER THE LACK OF AN EVIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM. TRIAL COUNSEL CLAIMS BRAZOS COUNTY HAS AN EVIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM AND STATED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT, IN PART: "WHAT APPIICANT REFERS TO IS INVESTIGATOR MICHEAL WELCH'S ADMISSION DURING CROSS- EXAMINATION THAT AFTER HE GATHERED THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE, HE PLACED IT INTO A FILE CABINET IN HIS OFFICE, RATHER THAN DIRECTIV HAND THE EVIDENCE TO BRAZOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN." THE RELATOR WILL SHOW THAT IS NOT WHAT HE IS REFERINE TO. AFTER TRIAL IN SEPTEMBER OF 2013, THE RELATOR FOUND OUT FROM THO SEPUTIES AT THE BRAZOS COUNTY JARL THAT WELCH KEPT THE EVIDENCE IN HIS FILE CABINET FOR 3 MONTHS BEFORE GILINE IT TO KENNY ELIOT. THE EVIDENCE DID NOT GO TO AN EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN. I FILED A COMPLAINT WITH U.S. ATTORNEY MARY KUCERA IN WACO ABOUT WELCH KEEPINE A FILE CABINET FOL OF "ON-DEMAND" DRUGS IN HIS POSSESSION AND NOT LOGGING THEM INTO EVIDENCE, IN OCTOBER 2013 I WAS TOLD BY DEPUTIES PHILIPS, BOOKER AND TWO SEAREENTS THAT BRAZOS COUNTY WAS UNDER INVESTIGATIon AND IN TROUBLE FOR NOT USING AN EVIDENCE CONTROL SYSTEM, TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT PROVIDE THE NAME OF THE EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN EITHER. A NEW TRIAL OR AT LEAST A HEARING IS REQUIRED SO I CAN HAVE THESE PEOPLE TESTIFY TO THE FACTS ON THE LACK OF AN EVIDENCE !ONTROL SYSTEM AT THE TIME OF TRIAL. (ID)

IN GROUND SEVEN, THE RELATOR CLATMED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE TRIAL COUNSEL REFUSED TO REPRESENT AND PURSUE THE FACTS OF A HABEAS CORPUS TRAT THE RELATOR HAD MAILED TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE, THAT WAS GIVEN TO WARD AND SWAN. WARD AND SWAN SUPPRESSED IT AND TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INSTRUCTED BY RELATOR TO BRINE IT TO JUOGE BRYANS ATTENTION AND FIND OUT WHY IT HAD BEEN SUPPRESSED, TRIAL COUNSEL TOLD THE RELATOR HE WAS NOT APPOINTED WHEN THE WRIT AS MAILED, REFUSED TO INVESTIERATE THE MATTER AND JATD HE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED, THE GROUNDS IN THE WRIT ARE NOT FRIVOLOUS AND HAD THE ISSUES OF THE PREST AND VIOED BEEN CHALLENDED IN COURT, IT IS HIGHLY PROBABLE THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE ULDULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT BUT FOR THE DENIAL OF REPRESENTATION AT THIS CRITICAL STAGE BY TRIAL COUNSEL. MAITS BEREER THEN STATED IN HIS AFFIGAVIT THE WRIT WAS A LETTER SENT TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE AND SA VALID WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. THE RELATOR WOULD SHOW THIS COURT HE IS NOT AN ATTORNEY NOR PARALEOAL AND DRAFTED THE WRIT FROM MEMORY AS BRAZOS COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE A LAW LIBRARY TO LOOK UP PROPER FORMS IN. HE IS NOT TO BE HELD TO THE STRUCT STANDARDS OF AN ATTORNEY. THERE MUST BE GOOD GROUNDS IN THE WRIT BECAUSEAD A. WARD SID EVERYTHINE HE COULD TO AVOID A HEARING IN IT AND TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS SHOW HE LIED IBOUT NOT SUPPRESSIONS IT. (SEE 3RR. PACKS 8-10) SEE 5RR. PACKS 955 AND 956) RELATOR WAS APPOINTED RICHARD JETZEL FOR ANY POST CONDIICTION WRIT AND WARD SUPPRESSED HE ORDER I SENT TO THE COURT REQUESTINE MR. WETZEL EPRESENT ME. (II)

THE WRIT WAS NOT A MOTION THAT WAS MERITLESS. REGARDLESS OF MALLS BERGER'S EXCUSES, I TOLD HIM TO HAVE A HEARING ON THE WRIT. HE REFUSED AND MADE APPLICATION REPRESENT HIMSELF, DURING AN ADVISARIAL PROCEDING, MALLS BERGER TOLD THE APPLICANT HE IS GETTING PAID BY THE STATE AND DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WHAT I WANT. IF THE WRIT WOULD HAVE BEEN MERITLESS, WHY DID THE JUBESE, PROSECUTION AND TRIAL COUNSEL DO 30 MUCH TO AVOID HAVING A HEARING ON THE GROUNDS? AS I HAVE MENTIONED, THE GROUNDS IN THE WRIT STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED, IN GROUND EIGHT, RELATOR CLIMS INEFIFECTIVE COUNSEL BECAUSE TRIAL COUNSEL HAD NO TRIAL STRATEGY AND WASNT PREPARED FOR TRIAL. FROM WHAT I GET OUT OF HIS STRATEGY IS THIS, THE RELATOR DID NOT GIVE CONSENT TO SEARCH BUT IF HE DID HE WITHDREG CONSENT IN THE PATROL CAR. THAT WAS HIS DEFICIENT STRATEGY ON THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS, HAD HE PURSUED MY SUPPRESSED WRIT THE CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE ARREST WAS FOR A BOOKS CHARGES, THE RELATOR'S T.D.E. WAS NOT INVALID, JUST EVERYRED. THE UIDEO WITHOUT AUDIO INFRINGED ON RELATOR'S PRESUMPTION OF INNOGENCE AND SHOWS UNFAIR PRESUPICE. TRIAL COUNSEL FAIRED TO DISCOVER AT THE TIME OF TRIAL, THAT WELCH KEPT THE EUIDENCE FOR TWO MONTHS AND DID NOT PLACE IT INTO EUIDENCE BEFORE IT WENT TO KENNY ELLIOT.

TRIAL CONUSEL DID NOT ATTEMPT TO IMPERACH STATE'S WITNESSES, DID NOT PURSUE A UIARLE DEFENSE STRATEGY AND COULD HAVE HAD THE CASE DISMISSED. HAD HE PURSUED THE DUE PROCESS ISSUES ON THE UIDEO WITHOUT AUDIO, THE FALSE ARREST ON THE EXPIRED DRIVER'S LICENSE AND HAD HE DISCOVERED THE EVIDENCE WAS KEPT IN WELCH'S FILE CABINET FOR TWO MONTHS AND REQUESTED A PRIVATE TEST BE DONE ON THE SYRINGE AND DRUGS, THEN HE WOULD HAVE HAD A UIABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY. MALLS BEREER IS NOT A GUALIFIED TRIAL ATTORNEY, HIS TRACK RECORD OF -O-WINS PRONE THAT, HE IS A PLEA BARG AIN ATTORNEY AT BEST, THERE WAS NOTHING FRIGIOUS IN THE CLASS OF THE RELATOR'S SUPRESSED WRIT, WARD STATED HE DISCUSSED THE WRIT WITH MALLS BEREER, OBVIOUSLY THE DISCUSSION WAS ON HOW TO SUPPRESS IT.

THE RELATOR HAS PROVEN THROUGH COURT RECORDS AND TRANSCRIPTS THAT ALL EROUNDS HAVE MERIT AND RELIEF SHOULD BE GRANTED,

CERTIFICATE OF SERUICE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THIS REBUTTAL WAS MAILED TO A.D.A. JESSICA ESCUE AND THE COURT CONDINATOR OF THE 373 NO DISTRICT COURT AT 300 E. 36TH, BROWN, TEXAS 77803 ON JANUARY 15TH, 2015

Thomas M. Monachand
Holatac

CERTIFICATE OF SERUICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THIS REBUTTAL WAS MAILED TO THE HONORABLE ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT P.O. BOX 12308, Capital STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 ON FEBRUARY 14TH, 2015

Thomas M. Monachand

RELATOR

COMMENTS FOR APPEAL TYY RICHARD WETZEL, ATTY EYHIBIT 1, PAGE 1

1. jury sworn
2. plea of not guilty
3. State's opening

12. Mike Welch - BCSO

1. October 12, 2011, on narcotics surveillance at a home - saw a tow truck at the residence - ran a computer check on plates and determined they did not belong to truck
2. tc or objection to information supplied about plate on truck - correctly 22. learned plates had been cancelled and new plate was supposed to be on the truck
3. saw Blanchard leave the home, take items from the cab of the truck and place them in the bed of the truck
4. when truck drove away, had nearby patrol vehicle stop the truck because of narcotics suspicion and he know Blanchard had an expired driver's license
5. following stop, Blanchard was arrested for expired driver's license and displaying the wrong license plate on the truck
6. before he was arrested, asked for consent to search the truck
7. Blanchard consented to a search of the truck before he was arrested 28. never heard consent withdrawn
8. Blanchard was arrested and placed in handcuffs while the search was being conducted
9. found flashlight in tool tray in bed of the truck with no batteries - opened the flashlight
10. while on surveillance, had seen Blanchard take the flashlight from the cab of the truck and place it in the tool tray
11. inside flashlight, found syringe and small plastic bag which appeared to contain methamphetamine
12. syringe admitted without further objection, and no chain of custody objection 38. no further objection to baggie with meth upon admission, and no chain of custody objection
13. field tested positive for methamphetamine

X 53. why ask about circumstances of officer previously arresting Blanchard 58. this was not an inventory search or search incident to arrest 59. if consent had been withdrawn, he would have stopped searching 67. did not test syringe, but it appeared to have been previously used 160. much cross on chain of custody - so what? Did not object at the time the items were admitted based on lack of a chain of custody

1. Efrain Perez - DPS chemist
2. substance recovered from Blanchard's truck weighed .18 grams
3. substance contained methamphetamine including adulterants and dilutants
4. no further objection to admission of meth, and no chain of custody objection X
5. extensive cross on possibility of contamination in lab

92. John Carlson - BCSO

1. stopped Blanchard's truck on request of fellow officers
2. determined plates on the truck were not valid
3. following stop, determined he did not have a valid driver's license
4. heard Blanchard tell Welch that he did not mind his truck being searched
5. never heard Blanchard withdraw or revoke consent to search
6. Blanchard was arrested for no valid driver's license and placed in the patrol vehicle
7. while search was proceeding, went to car, opened door and asked Blanchard whether he had given consent to search
8. Blanchard mumbled Don't tow my truck, I'm going to lose my truck and then said nothing else - covered by motion to suppress?
9. closed the door to patrol vehicle and walked back to ongoing search

103-104. asked about consent because he thought consent had not been captured on body mike and he wanted confirmation of the consent from the patrol car recording system 105. video admitted without objection 107. wears body mike which records on car system and car has a mike to pick up sounds within the car 107. while he was closing door to the car, mike in car recorded Blanchard withdrawing consent to search truck 107. officer did not hear Blanchard withdraw consent 108. in transit to police station Blanchard never said "I didn't give you consent to search my vehicle" - covered by motion to suppress? 116. body mike did not pick up Blanchard withdrawing consent in patrol car 116. recording from car shows that once the door was closed, Blanchard said "I did not give consent" 118. as officers were looking in flashlight, Blanchard could be heard on the recording saying "Get out of there." 119. while being transported, Blanchard never said he had not given consent and then told cop they were going to put him away for life

Ms. Parker, saying that anything that $Y$ filed in the Court would just be set aside. They were not going to have a hearing on it. It would not be admissible evidence, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

On the letter she referred to correspondence, which was a motion to dismiss counsel for Earl Gray; and she said that it was correspondence that was filed with the Clerk. And that was filed with the District Clerk. And I was intending to fire Earl Gray, and she was still telling me to contact Earl Gray over these issues.

THE COURT: Well, if it hadn't been filed in, and it doesn't have a cause number, I'm not sure I can take it up right now.

What do y'all say about that? THE DEFENDANT: It was mailed to the District Clerk on the date of 11/3. They never -- the District Clerk refused to file it, which violates the procedure for the writ of Habeas Corpus.

MR. WARD: Judge, if you look at the address on it, it does say the District Clerk; but then. the address is to the District Attorney's office. The District Clerk's office apparently routed it up to us. It went into our file and remained there until it was given over to Mr. Maltsberger last week.

DENISE C.PHILLIPS, CSR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 272ND DISTRICT COURT

$3\nrightarrow 0$

THE COURT: Okay. MR. WARD: Late last week, Judge. THE COURT: What do y'all suggest we do about this?

MR. WARD: Well, Judge, I would argue that it's moot at this point, anyway, because we talked to TDCJ. They called us last week and said he was underneath a blue warrant anyway. His blue warrant was lifted on Friday. So, whether or not the writ was granted or not, he was still on a hold from TDCJ; so, it renders it moot. THE COURT: So, it's moot because his blue warrant's been lifted?

MR. WARD: Yes -- well, it hadn't at the time that this had been filed, Judge. It was lifted until Friday.

THE DEFENDANT: I object to that, Your Honor. I have the paperwork where the TDCJ was holding me illegally. I pled it in the criminal court of appeals on a habeas corpus, that actually went through the process as it should have by due process; and they ordered TDCJ to lift the hold. They never have -- they held me illegally on that detainer since September. THE COURT: Well, if your hold has been lifted, there's no more issue to consider. THE DEFENDANT: Well, that was on a

DENISE C.PHILLIPS, CSR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 272ND DISTRICT COURT

different issue. That was to another court. That was in another county.

THE COURT: Well, yeah, but your objective, as I understand it, is to get the hold lifted, right?

THE DEFENDANT: No, this is over this pending felony. This habeas corps here is over the pending felony.

THE COURT: So, what do you say to that?

THE DEFENDANT: That has nothing to do with that.

THE COURT: That has nothing to do with the lifting of the hold?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

MR. WARD: Then he should have filed it, Judge.

THE DEFENDANT: I did file it. The Clerk didn't file it.

THE COURT: Well, you had it addressed to the D.A.'s office.

THE DEFENDANT: That's the address that was given to me by the County Jail, by Officer Shannon to file it with.

THE COURT: Well, what -- what issue is he raising in here, Mr. Ward?

MR. WARD: Judge, he's basically saying --

DENISE C.PHILLIPS, CSR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 272ND DISTRICT COURT

VOLUME 5

were at the sanctuary, and he showed it to me -- gave me this copy. We can bring him in if you'd like. Q. Sure. You mind reading for me the address that you mailed this thing to? A. Sure. MR. MALTSBERGER: Your Honor, object to testimony outside the scope of the -- outside the -- it's not admitted into evidence. He's asking him to testify from an item that has not been admitted into evidence. THE COURT: I sustain that objection. Step into the jury room, ladies and gentlemen. (Jury retired.) THE COURT: Tell them to go ahead and take a ten-minute break. All right. What do you want to get in out of that thing? MR. WARD: Well, Judge, he's testified on the stand just now that he didn't see the test that Welch and Young did. And then, in his motion -- or his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus --

THE COURT: That he didn't see the test? MR. WARD: That was what he just testified is he didn't see the test that Mike Welch and Terry Young were doing.

DENISE C.PHILLIPS, CSR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 272ND DISTRICT COURT

VOLUME 5

THE COURT: Are you talking about the ampules? THE WITNESS: I didn't see it performed. I saw it after the fact when they held it up outside. THE COURT: Okay. Hold on. MR. WARD: And in his Petition for Habeas Corpus, he says that he observed them doing it; and then, he observed them tamper with it and falsify the results.

THE COURT: Okay. I want you to -- MR. WARD: And this has been filed. THE COURT: -- I want you to get him to affirm that he made that statement, and that he sent it. He gave it over. That's his statement. And then, I want you to ask him if he made this statement within the content of that thing, blah, blah, blah. And get him to affirm or deny that. And if he denies it. Then, you can get into evidence the very document itself.

Do you have any objection to that procedure? MR. MALTSBERGER: Not to that procedure, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. That's the proper way to do it. MR. WARD: I'm sorry, Judge. I'm a bit confused about how -- I've been doing it differently

Case Details

Case Name: Blanchard, Thomas Duane

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Feb 26, 2015

Docket Number: WR-29,572-11

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.