Blanton, Donald Gene

Case Information

OETEBER16,2015 Lorfi of Eririyal Appetis of TEDAS, DIRRK P.O.BOO 12308, LAPIGI SMYON AUSTIN, TEDAS, 78711 IN TEEIDONAID DENK BANON V. RICE TYARKER DANSK NOE 2398 RECETVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS DEAR, LIRRK ENCROSED FER, FINN, AND ADOYACOOS, CENTRATON TO TYE LONF, AT YOUN, EARIIKS DONVERENCE, DRASE FIND TYE ORIGINAL MOTION FER, LEENAE TO FIRD, MOTION ON PASED OF ACTAILY THNOCENTCK UYON SMK'S FRANDUENT RUDENICK UNIT OF MASKAS CERDUS PROOREDINGS DANSK NO. 23,07886 /2357886. FOR, FINN. THANE, YOUN IN ADOMNCE FER, YOUN MURABLE TYTE. TRE SPECTRITY SANTHENT, DONAeD ANN BENSON

Motion For LIEAK to Filed Yotion on BAsed of Acratty HNOCRNE upon SMK's Firaudation Evidence In UQry of Habers Lorgus Opcerdixys

To THe Honorable Justices of THe Longi of Erirional Apprears:

Lortes Noun, Ionald Lekk Bismion, Dut- 1301301891, Depcerdixis Dro SE And Dus sum To Rulk 18.1 TEDAs Rulk of Appellate Procedugk And Rulk 609 of $THE$ TEDAs RULE OF EVIDENCE, THe Eizyly And FourtRently AnfendrIERis To THe uniled SMKes Constitution And, Aatiche $\Sigma ,810$ of $THE$ TEDAs Constitution, And Pugtyre, DUSSUMt To Rulk, 3.09 of $THE$ TEDAs Disciplinarly Pulses of

Progressional Conduct. Files this Original notion for какие to filed notion on based of actually knowledge upon sMeks פלandulent Evidence In Ugl of Mayers Logons Proceedings and would Prespecfully Stow into this phenotype Lour The following.

1. On April 23, 2008, the Lour of Erginal Apprais Denied Defitioner of Mayers Logons 11.07 Petition without Urgimen. Order on the findings of the Pfial Lour.
2. Pfial Lour Saynitted A SmOrm APPIDAVi. IN THEY 11.07 Defition of Mayers Logons,

Aimed SMES Eotis-2iEbysitn To THeS SuDON APORAVi SuDtined To this Coug/ of Lrgitial ApORAts FRAndMENE EidRECE, SEE, AMAcYEd SMES SuDON APORAVi Dage 12-13, 3. TRE Tgial Long Findings of FACs "DAS dOUSI ON this buiT As to any EICIENT OF TRE OPEMSES, 2. DASI dOUSI ON TRE AdTisSisinty of Any EidRECE, 3. DASI dOUSI ON TRE OpedisitiY of Recugacy of Any EidRECE, 4. DRAgly Stow DeItioner ACUALLY $$

1. STAR'S EOYSI-T, EOYSI-TM

Ssptimed To Ytls LONR OF Laritan Appen, TME S TAR HmEN SEPORE Ssptiming SARES EOYSI-T, EOYSI-TM LargR SANDWAY RAP tisdertemop TARiJMNA AND ROLLING PAPERS TgAt TME tisdertemop TARiJMNA AND ROLLING PAPERS OPENSE WAS Nol PIRd AgaINS PELTIONER WITH TME HAMPTAN LONIQ DISIQI ATOQNEY OPDICE AND TME DISIQI ATOPNEY TAD DISIYISSKd TME Tisdertemop TARiJMNA AND ROLLING PAPERS NON WAS ME SEE, AMAcHEd SARES JUNE 29,2005 5.

DISTISSA LIEHER, CINS, MApue V. THNOIS, 360 U.S.244, 269-270, 19 S.C. $1173,3$ U.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), DUE PROCESS VIOLATED HYKEN SIAE AHYOUST NOI SOCIETIVS PASSE EVIDENCE, AlOUS 176 UNCOGREATED HYKEN 17 AppKAPS, 1d, 15 ESTASTSTYKd 744 A CONVICION QSIAVYT USK OF PASSE EVIDENCE, HANUN 70 bE SUCY, bY REPRESENTATIVE OF YYE SIAE, YUS PAH UNDER YYE FOURTERNY, ATMENTHENT, YOONEY V. HOTOTAN, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.C. $340,19$ L.Ed. 191 (1935), DUE PROCESS is VIOLATED HYKEN A PROSECIOOR PASSE TO CORRECITESITONHY HE HYANDS TO BE PASSE, PICTRA V. TEXAS, 355 U.S.28, 31, 18 S.C. 703, 105, 2 U.Ed. 2d 9(1957),

DEPENDANT'S DUE DEACES is ONY inplicated in HOSKE LASES IN VOYEL THE SIARE THERSENES by HUEIR CONDUS' INDICATE HAY THE EVIDENCE COND PORY A BASIS PORY EXOONERATING THE DEPENDANT, ARIZONA V. YOUNGENOOD, 1888 U. S. 51, 58, 109 S. ct. 333, 337-38,102 L.Ed. 2d 281(1988), UNEEN THE SIARE FRANDMIRM FEVIDENCE IN THEIR SHOOR APRI dAVi EUNiSi-C, To THE LONAI UNEEN HYNOWING PATIIONIER, WAS NOT DYARgEd WIDY, THE PISdEYERANOR, MARIJUANNA AND ROILING PAPERS, UNEEN THE SIARE ISSTISSER THE DYARgEd AND HIEVER, ZONDICER Hint, ARizONA V. YOUNGENOOD, Zd, IT is DYnSIAI UNEEN THE LONA' OF DYnSIAI APORAIS

DENIED DEIIONES USII OF HASEAS LORPUS II of DEIITON UNYOUT UNYING OPDDER ON THE Findings of the TAYAL LONEL, UNYING THE TAYAL RECORDS SIGND THE STAR'S SONDAI AND FRANDHENI THE EVIDENCE TO SECURING THE CONVITION. DING, THE HAPME V. HINOIS LONEL, JUDGYENI OF CONVITION REVERSED, POR, OUR OWON EVALUATION of the RECORDS HEXE COYDEN US TO YOID THAT THE PAISE EVIDENCE USED by HE STAR IN SECURING THE CONVITION of DEIITONES, HAY HAVE HAD AN EAPECT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE TAYAL, HAPME V. IIIINOIS, I

IN DEITONER CASE, THE SMRTES FAISE EvidenCER, HAVE SENI A TOIATY ACHARTY - EAN TO ORSIGN FOR LIFE AND 20 YEARS FOR A TIGSORTHANOR ANONIC OF TARIJIANIA RESIDNE AND ROTING DAPERS, SEE AMAcTED, SMRTES SUGAN APPICA VIT PAPE 12-13. GING, Diglio V. U.S. 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763,31 U.Ed. 2 d 104 (1972), AlcoRA V. TEDAS, 355 U.S. 28, 31, 78 S.Ct. 103,105, 2 L.Ed. 2 d 9 (1957), DEITONER, HAVE SIGNON by CIRAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE HAY, RESPIRE EVIDENCE OF gNIL, NO REASONABLE, JUROR COuld HAVE found Hirt bUIIY IN 11911 OF THE NEN EVIDENCE, EO DARIE EI20000,

947 S. N-20 202 (TEN. LENT. App.1996), DURING THE UNITIY AND INNOCENT PHASE OF THE DERITONER'S DURY TRIAL FOR THE OPERASES OF OI DOSSESSION OF COLANE, LESS THAN ONE DRAFT AND (2) TAPPORANG HITH EVIDENCE SEE, ATHACHED, FIRY DISTRICT TONR OF APPERAS DETEVER 22,204, MIFETORAANOUT OPINION, PERITONER OI JECTION TO THE LONEL THE SIARE COULD NOT INNOCLE INTO TEVIDENCE THE YI SDEMEANOR TARIJUANN AND ROLLING DAPERS SEE ATHACHED, VOL.4, RRI, p. 32, TRIAL LONEL OVER

Yisderfianor YARijUANa and Roling Papers into EvidENce As SAREs Eptibing, nDition EndityENt Also Lyarged bENt DisriSSEd, DURING THE SARES PRES TME CASE, THE SARE Told TME JURY you All HAVE MEARE TME EvidENCE ON TME LeCAINE ANd you HAVE tIEARd TME EvidENCE ON TME YARIJUANA AND ROLING DAPERS SEE ATHAChEd, Vol. 41, RR. 11184, JURY PONd EXTIONER, DURING FOR, SARE'S EPISIT-4, Yisderfianor YARijUANa and Roling DAPERS, SEE ATHAChEd, SARE'S SUDAH APendavit DAS 18-13, SUbqitred To TRis DURT OF CAjHINNl APDEAE,

In the SME's WAY OF HASERS LORPINS 1107 PROCREDINS CITY, EAPARIE Elizabeth, 947 S.M. 2222 (CE.DEH. 1980, COWET OF CA.UTINAL APPEARS CAN NOT GNONE CHEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF ACUMI LUNGCEWICH $ℒ$ . DETTIONEPA CONSTITUTIONAL PISTE FANC- DEEN SEVEREY WATED OF THE SME'S TISLONDWEST TO THE ROOT OF THE WATED SME's CONSTITUTIONAL THAT DETTIONEPA CONVINCIONS THAT PART TO A AUGUSTAN OF A FUNDATIONAL OF TISCARENCEA OF INSTICE WICH OCCURRAD, DUE TO THE TISCAREATION OF DETTIONEPA WHO is ADVANIY LUNGCEWICH, EAPARIE ELIZANDICH, THE DETTIONEPA PEEQWESD HIS LUNGCTT TARE INDICAL NOTICE OF THE APPEEIANE PECONDS AS USED AS THE CODITION OF THE LUNGCT OF APPEEAS IN THIS CASE. CITY, SוHITY L. SME, 165 S.M. 3234 (TEC.DEH. 1980 AP22005).

12.

Whegeforfe DpEriSES ConsidRged, Petitioner fespecty pPany TPAY Tys COUR U)II EXAII His rotion and rEeVEsEd Tpe Judgment and ENFEREd A Acguirial in Tys Cause midegeds of in tpe AIIERNAIRE PPAY tpe Cases be REYANdEd To tpe TSIAl COUR for A Mean TPAI. fespecty pHly SUgMMEd, Dlsnald sase Btoster

DEEIIFICIIE OF SEYICER. $\sum$ Donsid beNE BINNTON, TIDY 307697, Do Heffed UERity TPAY A TENE ANd CORREET DQY of TPE A JOVE ANd PERGQOND HAS beEN SEEyled upan KAUPMAN County Dis. 19101 AYPORNEY,

Efipizy morfolle a s/ef. 100 Wks, fuibery Stfek, Faupran. Tebas tord, via U.S. tarf. Eers Class Asme Drfard and Hand Driwery trpugy

ATTORNEY'S AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF KAUFMAN

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared DEBORAH A. BEESLEY, Attorney at Law, who, by me duly sworn on her oath deposed and said as follows: "My name is DEBORAH A. BEESLEY. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Texas. My State Bar Card number is 02042300. I was the attorney appointed by the honorable Judge of the 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County, Texas, to represent, DONALD GENE BLANTON, Applicant in Cause No. 23,078-86 and Cause No. 23,592-86 in the 86th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF KAUFMAN COUNTY, TEXAS, which resulted in Applicant being sentenced to twenty years in prison in Cause No. 23,078-86 and to life in prison in Cause No. 23,592-86 by a jury. "As to the claim that Applicant received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, I would show the Court that I was not Applicant's trial counsel. I had been appointed to represent DONALD GENE BLANTON on August 2, 2004. I met with Applicant on August 4, 2004 at the Kaufman County Law Enforcement Center in Kaufman, Texas. At that time, Applicant had been charged with two felony offenses, Possession of a Controlled Substance Penalty Group One, Less Than One Gram and Tampering With Physical Evidence. Applicant advised me that he was on parole and would have a blue warrant issued for him soon if one had not already been issued for him. Applicant also advised me that the police should have a video of his traffic stop and that the tape would show the police planting drugs on him during the stop. I immediately contacted the District Attorney's Office for Kaufman County and discovered that their office had not received the police report on Applicant's cases yet. I met with Applicant again at the jail on August 12, 2004 to inform him that the District Attorney's Office did not have a copy of his police report or his videotape yet but that I would continue to investigate his case by contacting the Mabank Police Department myself. On September 3, 2004, I was able to talk with Chief

ATTORNEY'S AFFIDAVIT - PAGE 1

be appointed to represent him. The Court denied Applicant's request. The Court advised Applicant that he could have any attorney that he wanted as long as he was willing to pay for the attorney. Applicant did not state any valid reasons as to why I was not representing him effectively. Essentially, Applicant was upset with me because I had advised him that I anticipated that a jury would convict based on the evidence in his cases and that was the only reason he was upset. As the Judge told Applicant during that hearing, Applicant probably would not be happy with any attorney who bothered to tell him the truth ....that he would be convicted by the evidence in his cases. "With respect to the Judge admonishing the Applicant on his right to represent himself, the Judge did everything in his power to make sure that the Applicant understood that he alone would be responsible for knowing everything an attorney should know about the laws when trying cases. No one forced Applicant to represent himself. That decision was his and his alone. No one in the courtroom felt that was a good decision on Applicant's part, but he has the right to represent himself even if he has a fool for a client. "As to Applicant's Ground Five, it is totally and completely without merit. No one other than the jurors went back into the jury room during deliberations. The alternate juror was dismissed and released from her jury duty prior to the jury beginning their deliberations. "With respect to Applicant's Ground Six, he alleges that his conviction was obtained due to improper instructions to the jury regarding having testimony read back during jury deliberations. Applicant's allegation is totally without merit. The Judge gave the proper instructions with regards to the jury not being specific enough in their note about the testimony they wanted read back to them. The court reporter was in the process of finding the testimony that the jurors had requested be read back to them when the jury sent out the filled out verdict form which indicated that they had reached a verdict. Contrary to Applicant's allegation, the jury would have been allowed to hear the testimony that they felt was in dispute but for, apparently, their own decision to continue deliberating and trying to reach a verdict while the court reporter was looking the information up for them. The Judge certainly did not instruct the jury to continue on with their deliberations without hearing the testimony that they had requested. "In his claim in Ground Eight, Applicant alleges that the baggies which contained the 'altered' evidence in his case was not ripped or torn as alleged by the State. Applicant's allegation is totally and completely false. During my investigation of the case, I talked with all of the witnesses who came into contact with the evidence. Each witness indicated to me that the baggies were ripped or torn when he first saw the baggies containing the cocaine in Applicant's cases. This was also verified to me by Andrew Macey who conducted the analysis of the drugs. Also, I personally viewed the two baggies myself prior to the jury trial and noticed that the two baggies definitely had been either ripped or

ATTORNEY'S AFFIDAVIT - PAGE 12

torn. I also showed the torn baggies to Applicant prior to the beginning of his jury trial. In addition, I would bring to the Court's attention that Applicant mislead the Court when he attached a copy of the baggie in Applicant's Appendix "F." Applicant stated to the Court that the picture in Applicant's Appendix "F" is a picture of the baggie that is alleged by the State to contain cocaine. It is not. The baggie that is shown in that picture contained the marijuana that Applicant also had in his possession at the time of his arrest. It does not contain a picture of the two separate baggies which contained the cocaine that was the reason for his arrest. I have attached a copy of the picture which actually shows the two torn baggies which held were evidence against Applicant at his trial, see attached Exhibit "C." "As to Applicant's allegation in Ground Nine that his convictions were obtained and based on legally and factually insufficient evidence, Applicant could not be more wrong. After obtaining all of the evidence on Applicant's cases, I explained to him that the evidence was overwhelmingly against him. The evidence against Applicant was one of the strongest and most powerful in a criminal case that I had ever seen. Not only did Officer Jennings testify that Applicant was in possession of a controlled substance, but he also testified that he saw Applicant exercise care, custody and control over the drug when Applicant threw the two separate baggies out of his truck window. The Officer also testified that the baggies appeared to have been tampered with because they had been ripped in order to allow the drugs to fly out of the bags as the Applicant was tossing the bags out of his window. All of the arresting officer's testimony was corroborated by the videotape of the incident. Applicant's convictions, despite his allegations to the contrary, were based on legally and factually sufficient evidence. "As to Applicant's claim in Ground Ten that his convictions were obtained due to the wrongful denial of his Motion for Change of Venue, I would submit that the Judge's denial of his Motion was proper. Applicant was well aware of the burden in Chapter Thirty-One of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure that requires a defendant to prove that he could not receive a fair and impartial jury in Kaufman County, Texas in order to get the venue changed. He had asked me about getting a change of venue while I was preparing his case for trial and we had specifically discussed that issue. I even made a special trip back to the jail just to show Applicant that particular law so that he could read it for himself. Applicant had the burden of proving that he could not receive a fair trial and he did not prove that. None of the panel members indicated that they had prior knowledge of the Applicant or of his cases. "As to Applicant's allegation in Ground Eleven, he claims that his convictions were obtained because the trial court failed to properly and adequately present the fact issue as to probable cause for the traffic stop to the jury. Applicant's allegation is without merit. The Judge properly denied Applicant's request. During Officer Jennings' testimony,

APPENDIX "F" ALLEDGEDLY "TORN" COCAINE BAG

June 29, 2005 Carla Stone Kaufman County Law Enforcement Center

RE: Donald Gene Blanton, DOB 11/13/1962; 902s Manig 2 D2. 444

Dear Ms. Stone:

Please release the hold on Donald Gene Blanton for the offense of Possession of Marihuana alleged to have occurred on July 10, 2004. The State has reviewed this case and does not wish to prosecute the case.

Thank you,

Bi Hunt Assistant District Attorney Bar No. 24027081

In The Gourt of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Ballas

No. 05-14-01324-CV No. 05-14-01325-CV

IN RE DONALD GENE BLANTON, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 86th Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 23078-86, 23592-86

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice FitzGerald, and Justice Francis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus contending that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress in his 2005 trial. A grand jury indicted Donald Gene Blanton on two charges: (1) possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram and (2) tampering with evidence. Blanton v. State, No. 05-05-01060-CR, 2006 WL 2036615 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 21, 2006, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The case was tried to a jury. The jury convicted him of both offenses and assessed an enhanced punishment of twenty years in the possession case and life in the tampering case. Id. This Court affirmed the conviction. Id.

Relator's petition represents an attempt to collaterally attack his criminal conviction. While the courts of appeals have concurrent mandamus jurisdiction with the court of criminal appeals in some post-conviction proceedings, Padilla v. McDaniel, 122 S.W.3d 805, 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (forensic DNA testing), only the court of criminal appeals has jurisdiction in

cases collaterally, attacking a final judgment of conviction of a felony. In McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 717 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding). The intermediate courts of appeals have no original jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus relief in connection with criminal proceedings. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(d) (West 2004) (limiting habeas corpus jurisdiction of intermediate courts of appeals to civil matters); Tex. CODe Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.05 (West 2005) (granting original jurisdiction in cases seeking writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases to the court of criminal appeals, districts courts, and county courts). Because we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding, we DISMISS the petition.

A. It was loose. Q. Just loose on his lap? A. Correct. Q. Later on you did a search of the cab where the driver's seat was? A. Yes, I did. Q. And what you found there was it consistent with what you had seen on his lap when he was getting out of the truck? A. Yes, it was. Q. And was it also consistent with the residue that was left in the bag that Officer Swearingen found? A. Yes, it was. THE DEFENDANT: Objection, Your Honor.

We supposed to be trying this for cocaine not marijuana.

THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MS. HUNT) Okay. There was one bag that you found that you believed to have cocaine in it; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. And then one bag was found by Officer

Swearingen with just residue in it? A. Correct. Q. And the residue was the green leafy residue?

the time, and the lights are going. You think he would notice it? We're not talking middle of the day, lots of cars. Only one car there. You guys can watch that yourself.

The defendant, he doesn't pull over. And he's not speeding. He's not trying to evade or anything. But he's just driving slowly. What's he doing in there? Why doesn't he pull over right away? The reason is he's in possession. He's in possession of, and you heard the testimony, the controlled.

Substance, the cocaine, and you heard the testimony about the marijuana as well. And he's got the bags and he sees the officer and he's the only one on the road and he's got to get rid of that thing. Okay?

They're in little baggies. You can look at the evidence. You can see the bags, types of bags. You will notice that the bags that were recovered are pretty easy to stretch and pull and break. Where the little bag, the bag where the cocaine is in, it's a little tougher. Okay? Look at all of that evidence. And he's trying to get rid of it.

At some point, the siren comes on and he knows he has to pull over. But before he does that, he gets rid those two bags. He throws them out. Whether you think he meant to destroy them, or alter it, at the

Case Details

Case Name: Blanton, Donald Gene

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Oct 22, 2015

Docket Number: WR-57,250-13

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.