Carr, Thomas Raymond

Case Information

Joanna Staton

District Clerk BELL COUNTY, TEXAS BELL COUNTY JUSTICE COMPLEX 1201 Huey Road ・ P. O. Box 909 ・Belton, Texas 76513 (254) 933-5197 $·$ Fax (254) 933-5199

Joanna.Staton@co.bell.tx.us - www.bellcountydistrictclerk.org August 12, 2015 This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging.

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK OF CRIMINAL APPEALS P.O. BOX 12308

AUSTIN, TX 78711 NO: 57558-D

COURT OF CRIGINAL APPEALS
$\Delta {1101}^{\circ }2015$

AbelAcosta, Clerk

EX PARTE

THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

DEAR MR. ACOSTA: ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT IN THE ABOVE ENTITLED AND NUMBERED CAUSE.

IF WE CAN BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE, LET US KNOW.

SINCERELY,

Postconviction Writ of Habeas Corpus

Cause No. $\underset{―}{57558-D}$

EX PARTE

THOMAS RAYMOND CARR In the Judicial Courts VS Of The State of Texas Bell County, Texas

Delivered to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Austin, Texas on the 12th day of August, 2015.

Joanna Staton District Clerk Bell County, Texas BY: $\frac{\text { WrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrWrW

TRIAL COURT WRIT NO. FR 57558-D

CLERKS SUMMARY SHEET

APPLICANTS NAME: THOMAS RAYMOND CARR (As reflected on the Judgment) OFFENSE: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT (As reflected on the Judgment) CAUSE NO: FR57558 (As reflected in Judgment) SENTENCE: THIRTY (30) YEARS TDCJ:ID (As described on Judgment) PLEA: ( X ) GUILTY ( ) NOLO CONTENDERE ( ) NOT GUILTY TRIAL DATE: $11/21/2006$ (Date upon which sentence was imposed) JUDGE'S NAME: HONORABLE JUDGE MARTHA J TRUDO (Judge Presiding at Trial) APPEAL NO: N/A (If Applicable) CITATION TO OPINION: N/A S.W.2d $$ (If Applicable) HEARING HELD: $$ YES $$ NO (Pertaining to the Application for Writ) FINDINGS &; CONCLUSIONS FILED: $$ $X$ YES $$ NO (Pertaining to the Application for Writ) RECOMMENDATION: $$ GRANT $$ DENY $$ NONE X DISMISS (Trial Court's recommendation regarding the Application) JUDGE'S NAME: HONORABLE JUDGE MARTH J TRUDO (Judge Presiding at Habeas Proceeding)

| EX PARTE | No. 57558-D | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | | X | IN THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT | | | X | JUDICIAL DISTRICT | | THOMAS RAYMOND CARR | X | BELL COUNTY, TEXAS | | VOLUME | | PAGE | | Clerk's Report | | 1 | | Index | | II | | Applicant's Petition | | 1 | | State's Answer | | 272 | | Motion to Enter Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law | | 274 | | Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Court | | 276 | | Clerk's Certificate that Record is True and Correct | | 280 |

FILED

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 2015 AUG -4 AMII: 02 SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 JOANMA STATCII

INSTRUCTIONS

1. You must use the complete form, which begins on the following page, thille an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief from a final felony conviction under Article 11.07 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (This form is not for deathpenalty cases, probated sentences which have not been revoked, or misdemcanors.)
2. The district clerk of the county in which you were convicted will make this form available to you, on request, without charge.
3. You must file the entire writ application form, including those sections that do not apply to you. If any pages are missing from the form, or if the questions have been renumbered or omitted, your entire application may be dismissed as non-compliant.
4. You must make a separate application on a separate form for each judgment of conviction you seek relief from. Even if the judgments were entered in the same court on the same day, you must make a separate application for each one.
5. Answer every item that applies to you on the form. Do not attach any additional pages for any item.
6. You must include all grounds for relief on the application form as provided by the instructions under item 17. You must also briefly summarize the facts of your claim on the application form as provided by the instructions under item 17. Each ground shall begin on a new page, and the recitation of the facts supporting the ground shall be no longer than the two pages provided for the claim in the form.
7. Legal citations and arguments may be made in a separate memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73 and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not.
8. You must verify the application by signing either the Oath Before Notary Public or the Inmate's Declaration, which are at the end of this form on pages 11 and 12. You may be prosecuted and convicted for aggravated perjury if you make any false statement of a material fact in this application.
9. When the application is fully completed, mail the original to the district clerk of the county of conviction. Keep a copy of the application for your records.
10. You must notify the district clerk of the county of conviction of any change in address after you have filed your application.

FILED

Case No.

(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in. 2015 AUG -4 AMII: 02

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07

NAME: Thomas Raymond Carr DATE OF BIRTH: 08/14/1967 PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Hughes Unit, Route 2 Box 4400, Gatesville, Texas 76528

TDCJ-CID NUMBER: 01405931 SID NUMBER: 03563080 (1) This applicant concerns (check all that apply): $✓$ a conviction $◻$ parole $◻$ a sentence $◻$ mandatory supervision $◻$ time credit $◻$ out-of-time appeal or petition for discretionary review (2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you want relief from? (Include the court number and county.) ${264}^{\text{th}}$ District Court of Bell County, Texas (3) What was the case number in the trial court? 57,558 (4) What was the name of the trial judge?

The Honorable Martha J. Trudo

(5) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide the attorney's name:

Court appointed counsel, John Robert Bingham, Teddy L. Potter, Esq., since retired for health/disciplinary reason (Ethics Decision Included in prior Application), and Charles "Monty" Montgomery, Esq. (6) What was the date that the judgment was entered?

November 21, 2006 (7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence?

Aggravated Sexual Assault- First Degree Felony: "Did ...cause a Dildo to ... penetrate the anus of ... a child less than 17 years of age and ...operated in concert with Tammy Bishop during the same criminal episode, and ... did ... administer a controlled substance to the said $◻$ M $◻$ ..." Sentence: Thirty (30) years (8) If you were sentenced on more than one count of an indictment in the same court at the same time, what counts were you convicted of and what was the sentence in each court? $N/A$ (9) What was the plea you entered? (check one) $◻$ guilty-open plea $◻$ not guilty $◻$ guilty-plea bargain $◻$ nolo contenderel no contest If you entered different pleas count in a multi-count indictment, please explain: (10) What kind of trial did you have? $◻$ no jury $◻$ jury for guilt and punishment $◻$ jury for guilt, judge for punishment (11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase of trial did you testify?

Yes. Applicant's trial counsel called him to the stand to plea and at sentencing

(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction? $◻$ yes $◻$ no If you did appeal, answer the following questions: (A) What court of appeals did you appeal to? (B) What was the case number? (C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's name: (D)_What was the decision and the date of the decision? (13) Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals? $◻$ yes $◻$ no If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions: (A) What was the cause number? (B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? (14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures challenging this conviction? $◻$ yes $◻$ no If you answered yes, answer the following questions: (A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number? WR-79.620-02 ,WR-79.620-04, and WR-79.620-06. (B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Dismissed for non-compliance, pro se not signed, WR- 79.620-02 on 09/11/2013. Denied the relief without written opinion on WR- 79.620-04 on 3/26/2014. Dismissed for non-compliance on WR- 79.620-06 on 7/08/15. (C) Please identify the reason that the current claims were not presented and could not have been presented on your previous application.

The medical records received from the TDCJ on June 24, 2014 did not have the Uniform Health Status Update dated 12/26/06. The decision on WR-79.620-04 was prior to receiving the records.

Previously, The Bell County, Texas jail indicated that it had no records. The above mentioned status update was not included in any records, previously. Habeas counsel met with Applicant on October 1, 2014. The Texas Uniform Health Status Update form was acquired from the records Department at TDCJ prison system by happenstance. Applicant asked about a document listed as "unavailable to him". A clerk in the prison brought the "filled out" Texas Uniform Health Update dated 12/26/2006 to him. The "WAREHOUSE 337600" box - containing hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of medical records did not contain the update. It was not included in the response to the "Chapter 64" motion, though other medial information was. Competency was discussed in the prior application for writ of habeas corpus, but did not show the probability that the medication was given ABOVE the prescribed amount and ABOVE the FDA recommended maximum dosage. The claim based on lack of voluntary and knowingly plea, as it relates to competency at the time of the plea, was not presented earlier, because neither Applicant, nor his attorney, was able to obtain from update form showing the medication dosage for Applicant at or near the time of his plea.

A statement was recently obtained from Robert O. "Buck" Harris, the attorney for Applicant's wife. The statement clearly shows that there was a deal not to prosecute the wife except for one drug charge. Applicant's medication and the prosecutorial misconduct show coercion and a lack of a knowing and voluntary plea.

Applicant's counsel made repeated attempts to contact Applicant's trial counsel since early 2013. Applicant's habeas corpus counsel finally received a three ring binder of what purports to be trial counsel's complete file and notes.

Applicant's counsel was unaware of the victims' medical records containing evidence of the lack of blood tests and of ${\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}}^{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}}S$ use of a prescription amphetamine until the response by the State to a Chapter 64 motion. Also, the victims' hospital records were not on the court's docket sheet. Counsel learn that the records had been sealed, recently. The clerk's office indicated that a court order was

needed to see the records, but ultimately turned over the records. The above proves the claims for incompetency, lack of a knowing and voluntary plea, coercion, and ineffective assistance of counsel (15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal Court?

Q yes $\varnothing$ no If you answered yes, please provide the name of the court and the case number: (16) If you are presenting a claim for time credit, have you exhausted your administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time credit resolution system of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to any final felony conviction, including state jail felonies) $◻$ yes $◻$ no If you answered yes, answer the following questions: (A) What date did you present the claim? (B) Did you receive a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the decision?

If you answered no, please explain why you have not submitted your claim: (17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your claim that you are being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the facts supporting each ground. You must present each ground on the form application and a brief summary of the facts. If your grounds and brief summary of the facts have not been presented on the form application, the Court will not consider your grounds. If you have more than four grounds, use pages 14 and 15 of the form, which you may copy as many times as needed to give you a separate page for each ground, with each ground numbered in sequence. The recitation of the facts supporting each ground must be no longer than the two pages provided for the ground in the form.

You may include with the form a memorandum of law if you want to present legal authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief set out in a memorandum of law that were not raised on the form. The citations and argument must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73 and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not. If you are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts pertaining to your offense and trial in your memorandum

GROUND ONE:

Applicant's plea was not voluntary and knowing and was coerced under the $6^{\text{th}}$ Amendment because the prosecutor lied about key facts involving circumstances about the plea and issued threats of continued prosecution.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:

1. Tammy Bishop. Applicant's wife, actually committed the sexual assault on. $◻$ M by shoving a dildo in his anus after the two had a sexual relationship. Applicant had no physical or sexual contact with anyone that claimed to be assaulted, as evident by the statements recently obtained from responses to a chapter 64 motion. See Exhibit 1.
2. Trial counsel. Charles Montgomery, made statements at a hearing to the effect that

Tammy Bishop was let totally off the hook, was in prison on a light sentence, and was not being prosecuted at all for rape of juveniles. The prosecutor, Mark Kimball, as an officer of the court, stated at that hearing, "That is a lie." He then stated "It's a lie before the court." See. Exhibit 2. 3. The prosecutor, Mark Kimball, again, as an officer of the court, stated at Tammy

Bishop's plea hearing on November 30, 2005, "I will let the court know that there are further charges that will be filed against Ms. Bishop. She is well aware of it." He further says "This, by no means, is the end of cases against Ms. Bishop, and she is well aware of it."

To this day, she has been convicted of only of one delivery of a controlled substance to minor charge. See Exhibit 3. 4. At Applicant's bond hearing, Mr. Kimball stated "And every time he [Applicant] gets closed to getting out of jail, "I'm going to file case after case after case. I have seventeen different cases." See Exhibit 4.

1. Mr. Kimball asked the following question at Applicant's plea hearing on November 21, 2006, "One thing you mentioned yesterday... what's going to happen to my wife and you understand what happens to your wife is up to the State of Texas and the courts and I absolutely refuse to answer that question" See Exhibit 5.
2. Applicant's counsel has now learned that Mr. Kimball and the wife's attomey, Robert O. "Buck" Harris, had an agreement to pursue only one delivery of a controlled substance to a minor charge. Attached is a statement from Buck Harris saying "As part of the plea, the prosecutor agreed to NOT PROCEED to indict Ms. Bishop on any sexual assault charge or any other drug charge." He also says "The prosecutor never made any demand to plead guilty to any sexual assault charge." See Exhibit 6. This evidence is completely at odds with prosecutor Kimball's dire and false statements on the hearing records. Based on Applicant's clear concerns about his rapist wife's deal and his medication over dosage, as shown below, his plea was not knowing and voluntary and was coerced.
3. Based on Kimball's statements, Applicant believed that his wife, Tammy Bishop, was being prosecuted for aggravated sexual assault just like he was. In reality, Tammy Bishop was "off the hook" for anything other than on drug conviction. Mr. Kimball sees how important the wife's plea is to Applicant yet still misleads Applicant at Applicant's plea hearing by not disclosing the agreement.

GROUND TWO:

The prosecutor lied about having "blood tests" showing that the alleged victims had taken methamphetamines. The testing showed that, possibly only amphetamines, not methamphetamines, were present.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:

1. The affidavit for Arrest and Complaint signed by Detective Mike Simmons was filed on July 15, 2004 to arrest Applicant on the delivery of the controlled substance methamphetamine. Detective Simmons states "I have been further informed by the parents of all three juveniles that the children tested positive for methamphetamine."

The Bell County prosecutor, Mark Kimball, stated that "blood tests are in evidence," under the falsehood that the tests showed methamphetamines. See Exhibit 7 and 8 2. In facts, no blood tests were performed. The alleged victims were tested only once at Metroplex Hospital late in the evening on June 21, 2004 or possibly June 22, 2004.

Only standard urinalysis drug screen test were done, not blood tests as stated by Mark Kimball. The tests were positive for amphetamines and THC. No tests indicated methamphetamines. This is true, even though the victims were tested two days after the incident date. The literature indicates that methamphetamines could show up in the urine within that time period, if proper testing procedures were done. See Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10. Additionally, the Metroplex hospital records show that J $◻$ was taking a prescription drug, Concerta, an amphetamine. See Exhibit 9. This supported the Applicant's allegations that the victims were crushing up pills and using them. Trial counsel, Montgomery, should have reviewed the hospital records. The records would have been available to him. He never discussed this with Applicant. This shows ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of a knowing and voluntary plea, and coercion.

GROUND THREE:

Applicant's trial counsel. Charles Montgomery, lied about researching the law and explaining the law to Applicant. Trial counsel's representation of Applicant over the entire representation shows ineffective assistance of counsel. Applicant now has trial counsel's notes after repeated requests.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:

1. The indictments and the amended indictment are so confusing that you cannot understand them. Mr. Montgomery never explained the indictments or the aggravated sexual assault allegations to Applicant. See Exhibit 11.
2. Mr. Montgomery was ordered by the trial court to file a court-ordered affidavit.

Montgomery was to explain his research of the applicable law. He failed to answer any important questions for the court. He goes into a rant about everything except the law of aggravated sexual assault and of delivery of a controlled substance. If he could not even explain the law to the trial court, then he certainly did not have the ability to explain it to Applicant. See Exhibit 12. 3. Mr. Montgomery did not know the law. Mr. Montgomery eventually sent Applicant's habeas corpus counsel his entire file in a three ring binder. The binder only had two-pages of documents on the law. It consisted of portions of the U.S. and Texas Constitution and of the severance of trial provisions of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 14. 4. Mr. Montgomery's file shows that he recommended filing an "interlocutory" appeal. He based this appeal recommendation on supposedly errors at the pre trial motion stage. Mr. Montgomery stated in the court ordered affidavit that he was never going to file an appeal; however, Mr. Montgomery's own notes contradict this position. See Exhibit 15.

GROUND FOUR:

Applicant could not enter a voluntary and knowing plea due to his incompetence at the time of his plea hearing. Applicant was being treated with 1200 mg of Seroquel at the time.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:

1. At the time of Applicant's plea, an unnamed medical provider was dosing Applicant with 1200 mg daily of an antipsychotic drug. Seroquel. The Texas Uniform Health Status

Update shows that Applicant was prescribed 200 mg T.g. am., which means one 200 mg does before noon, and 200 mg TTTTT q.h.s, which means five 200 mg doses at bedtime. See Exhibit 16 and the list of medical abbreviations in Exhibit 17.

The prescribed amount far exceeds the 800 mg daily recommended maximum dosage in the literature. The literature indicates that side effects of the drug could include dizziness, drowsiness, altered mental status, confusion, and other potential complications. These severe side effects are for the recommended dosage at a maximum of 800 mg daily.

Applicant was receiving 1200 mg daily. See Exhibit 16 and 17. 2. Frank Pugliese, Ph.D. a forensic psychologist, appointed by the trial court apparently on Montgomery's request, determined Applicant incompetent. Dr. Pugliese found that

Applicant was delusional and hallucinating to the point that it resulted in impaired judgment and ineffective communication with Montgomery. According to Pugliese, competency restoration included adjusting his medication needs. The adjustment would be appropriately addressed in a psychiatric facility. See Exhibit 18. 3. The trial court ordered Applicant to be committed to North Texas State Hospital. The order included assessing whether he could be restored to competency and if he had a mental illness, Joseph Black M.D. at the facility eventually sent a report indicating that

Applicant's competency was restored, Joseph Black M.D. See Exhibit 19.

Dr. Black's report does not indicate that he ever interviewed Applicant after the initial admission, Instead, B. Thomas Gray, Ph.D., a psychologist, did the entire evaluation. He found Applicant to be malingering. At the same time, he says that it is "quite important" for Applicant to take his psychoactive medication. He also states that it is unclear whether Applicant needs the medication to maintain trial competency. It was at this facility that Dr. Black switched Applicant from a previous antipsychotic medication to 800 mg daily of Seroquel. See Exhibit 19.

GROUND FIVE:

Applicant could not have been found guilty under the aggravated sexual assault statute because no "date rape" drug was administered.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FIVE:

1. Applicant was indicated for aggravated sexual assault with one of the aggravating factors being the administration of a "date rape" drug to the alleged victim. See Exhibit 11
2. The legislative history of the statute makes it clear that Methamphetamines are not included as an aggravating factor and are not defined as "date rape" drug. See

Memorandum of Law. 3. The Metroplex Hospital Records of the victims show that NO "date rape" drug was found in their systems. Additionally, the statements of the victims and of Tammy Bishop show that no one was administered a "date rape" drug. See Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 9 . $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$

GROUND SIX:

Applicant could not have been found guilty under the aggravated sexual assault statute because he did not "act in concert" with Tammy Bishop.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND SIX:

1. Applicant was indicted for aggravated sexual assault with one of the aggravating factors being that he acted in concert with Tammy Bishop. The statute provides that Applicant must 1) cause the penetration of the anus of the victim and 2) act in concert with another assailant who causes the penetration of the anus of the same victim. See Exhibit 11 .
2. The legislative history of the statute indicates that this aggravating factor was added for "gang rape" situations. The history shows that the intent was to stop multiple rapists situations. See Memorandum of Law.
3. After obtaining the statements of the alleged victims and of Tammy Bishop, it is clear that there were not multiple rapists, here. The only rapist was Tammy Bishop. She was the only person to have sex with any of the victims. She was the only person to have actual physical contact with the victims by dildoing them in their anuses. See Exhibit 1.

GROUND SEVEN:

Applicant was threatened with repeated prosecutions because he exercised a legal right.

FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND SEVEN:

1. Applicant was almost certainly loaded up with 1200 mg of an extremely strong medication.
2. The Prosecutor had an "under-the-table" deal with Tammy Bishop, the wife, to which he would never admit, even to the point of lying to the trial court.
3. Applicant's attorney heavily pressed Applicant to plead guilty to the bizarrely written indictment based on the threats of successive prosecutions against Applicant and, falsely as it turned out, Applicant's wife. The successive prosecutions were never going to take place.
4. The Prosecutor admitted Applicant was concerned about his wife during the proceedings, but intentionally left the question about what would happen to

Applicant's wife unanswered. Mr. Kimball knew that would happen to the wife, Tammy Bishop, but did not tell Applicant that she was not going to be prosecuted for any sexual assault crimes.

WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT RELIEF TO WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEDDING.

VERIFICATION

This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for non-compliance. For verification purposes, an applicant is a person filing the application on his or her own behalf. A petitioner is a person filing the application on behalf of an applicant, for example, an applicant's attorney. An inmate is a person who is in custody.

The inmate applicant must sign either the "Oath Before Notary Public" before a notary public or the "inmate Declaration" without a notary public. If the inmate is represented by a licensed attorney, the attorney may sign the "oath Before a Notary Public" as petitioner and then complete "Petitioner's Information. A non-inmate applicant must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed attorney, in which case the attorncy may sign the verification as petitioner.

A non-inmate non-attorney must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public and must also complete "Petitioner's Information. An inmate petitioner must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public or the "Inmate's Declaration" without a notary public and must also complete the appropriate "Petitioner's Information.

OATH BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF CORYELL

the applicant (petitioner (circle one) in this action and know the contents of the above application for a writ of habeas corpus and, according to my belief, the facts stated in the application are true.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS $$ DAY OF August 2015.

PETITIONER'S INFORMATION Petitioner's printed name: Tinnolay Tescln State Bar Number, if applicable: 19908200 Address: PO. Box 255 Cactesville, TX 710529,

Telephone: 254-8105-0313 Fax: 1-254-731-2594

INMATE'S DECLARATION

I, $$ , am the applicant / petitioner (circle one) and Being presently incarcerated in $$ , declare under penalty of

Perjury that, according to my belief, the facts stated in the above application are true and correct.

Signed on $$ . 20 $$

Signature of Applicant / Petitioner (circle one)

PEtitioner's information

Petitioner's printed name: $$ Address: $$ $$ $$

Telephone: $$ Fax: $$

Signed on $$ , 20 $$ .

Signature of Petitioner

FILED

CAUSE NUMBERS 57,558-A and 57,557-A 2015 AUG -4 AMII: 03

EX PARTE THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

IN THE 264

DISTRICT COURT

BELL COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OF LAW CONCERNING COMPETENCY, INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY PLEA, CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATUTE, AND OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE

Applicant presents this memorandum of law. He states that all facts alleged in this document and all legal authority cited are fully incorporated into the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Exhibits List, containing three pages and indicating twenty-five exhibits, is fully incorporated into this memorandum of law and into the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Pursuant to T.R.A.P. 73 the word count for this Memorandum of Law is 3,561 and for the Exhibits List is 738 words. The total word count is 4,299 words.

I. APPLICANT NEVER HAD A PROPER COMPETENCY HEARING BASED ON TEXAS LAW

Issue Presented: If a defendant was heavily over-medicated, had been previously declared incompetent to stand trial, and was found competent solely on a hospital doctor's report - after said doctor never interviewed the defendant - in declaring defendant competent to stand trial, may defendant plead guilty to a crime?

1. Applicant can seek relief through habeas corpus if the court does not hold a proper competency hearing. Ex parte McKenzie, 582 S.W.2d 153, 154 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The appropriate remedy is a remand for a retrospective hearing if possible. Ex parte Ridley, 658 S.W.2d 177, 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Applicant is entitled to relief where he was (1) denied effective

assistance of counsel at a competency hearing, (2) the competency hearing was improper for some reason, or (3) the trial court erroneously failed to hold a competency hearing. Ex Parte Garrett, No. WR-75,44701, 2011 WL 2382572 (Tex. Crim. App. June 8, 2011) cited because it lists cases holding that the proper relief is a retrospective competency hearing, if possible. Huff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 325 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Hawkins v. State, 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Crim.App.1983)(vacated on other grounds, 494 U.S. 1013; 110 S.Ct. 1313; 108 L.Ed.2d 489; 1990)); Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App.1980)(vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902, 101 S.Ct. 3134, 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981)); Garcia v. State, 595 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Callaway v. State, 594 S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Caballero v. State, 587 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Ex Parte Winfrey, 581 S.W.2d 698 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). a. Applicant's trial counsel, Montgomery, objected to a restoration to competency at what was entitled "Motion on Competency". It was heard on March 24, 2006. He objected to the North Texas State Hospital Report. See Exhibit 2. Transcript V1 P 95 through 99. However, Applicant's trial counsel failed to request a separate hearing, which could be in front of a Jury, if requested. b. The Honorable Martha Trudo found Applicant competent based solely on the report from Dr. Black. See Exhibit 2. Transcript V197. Lines 7 through 11 . c. If a defendant objects to the finding of competency that is based solely on the report, then the issue shall be set for a hearing before

the court, except if requested, it shall be before a jury. T.C.C.P. 46B. 084 . d. Applicant would then have the opportunity to question the North Texas State Hospital doctors, Dr. Black and the psychologist, Dr. Gray, who authored most of the report. See Exhibit 19. Applicant could then present evidence of 1) the medication being prescribed and its effects on him, and 2) incompetence. e. Despite Applicant taking large doses of medication and his prior incompetence, the trial court at the plea hearing simply asked applicant "Do you believe you are mentally competent to proceed to court today." See Exhibit 5. Plea and Sentencing Hearing Transcript V1-8, Line 10. f. It is baffling that trial counsel had strongly objected to Dr. Black's report and the circumstances around it, and then states that Applicant was somehow competent at the plea hearing. In the court-ordered affidavit, Montgomery responded to Applicant's concern for psychiatric medication affecting his plea by "trashing" Applicant. Exhibit 12, page 6. g. Here, despite Applicant taking large dosages of medication and Applicant being found competent based solely on the report from Dr. Black, the trial court simply asked applicant "Do you believe you are mentally competent to proceed to court today." See Exhibit 5. Plea and Sentencing Hearing Transcript V1-8, Line 10. h. The trial court was required to hold a trial on the issue of return to competency because 1) the trial court based its competency ruling

solely on the final report of Dr. Black, 2) trial counsel, Charles Montgomery, objected to the report, and 3) Montgomery failed to request a hearing. 2. In order to convict a defendant of a crime he must be competent to stand trial. A defendant cannot make a knowing and voluntary plea if he is on too much medication at his plea hearing. A defendant must be able to understand the indictments and the statutes related to the crimes for which he is charged. The standard for determining whether a defendant is incompetent to stand trial, states: (a) A person is incompetent to stand trial if he does not have: (1) sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding; or (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. (b) A defendant is presumed competent to stand trial and shall be found competent to stand trial unless proved incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence. TCCP sec. 46B. 003. 3. In sum, based on the statutes and rules a defendant must be competent at the time of his plea to be sentenced. Casey v. State, 924 S.W.2d 946; 949 (Tex. Crim. App. -- 1996). 4. Applicant's trial counsel did not inform Applicant of the charges and proceedings against him because: a) the indictments do not make any sense, when compared to the aggravated sexual assault statute, b) Montgomery did not research the applicable law or inform Applicant of the law, c) Montgomery does not even outline the law as requested by the court and as

requested in a June 14, 2014 letter from habeas counsel. Instead, he rants about everything under the sun, except the applicable law, in the court ordered affidavit. In response to the June 14, 2014 letter, he provided a twopage document that contained only the double jeopardy provisions of the U.S. Constitution and Texas Constitution and the statute dealing with joinder of certain offenses. T.C.C.P. Art.21.24. Montgomery says that he kept no other research, and says he incorporated his research into his pretrial motions. However, no research on law was cited in the pretrial motions.

II. DEFENDANT WAS PROSECUTED UNDER A STATUTE THAT WAS CREATED FOR GANG-RAPE SITUATIONS INVOLVING SPECIFIC "DATE RAPE" DRUGS

Issue Presented: If a defendant pleads guilty to conduct that was not meant to be covered by the criminal statute, is the defendant entitled to relief in postconviction? 5. The following is a summary of the case law on aggravated sexual assault involving "acting in concert" in gang rape situations. (The legislative history is explained infra.) a. In Miranda v. State, 391 S.W. 2d 302 (Tex. App.-Austin 2012, writ refused), Miranda actually sexual assaulted the victim as a principal actor. Other assailants sexually assaulted the victim, too. While the case goes into an explanation of "the law of the parties" and "acting in concert", the defendant could have been convicted without the use of the "law of the parties."

b. In Moreno v. State, 04-12-04456-CR (Tex. App.-San Antonio, August 21, 2013), the defendant could have been convicted on multiple theories without using the "law of parties." c. In Arredondo v. State, 270 S.W. 2d 676 (Tex. App.- Eastland 2008, writ ref'd), Arredondo pled guilty to sexual assault, but not guilty to aggravated sexual assault. The jury found him guilty of aggravated sexual assault, because another assailant testified as to pleading guilty himself to aggravated sexual assault. The court said that was proof of "acting in concert," because no objection was made by Arrendondo's trial counsel to the use of the other assailant's guilty plea to prove "acting in concert." d. The court in Arredondo v. State, 270 S.W. 2d at 679 attempts to define "acting in concert" through the use of legal dictionary definitions. However, the definition of "law of the parties under" Texas Penal Code Sec. 7.02 is essentially the same conduct required for "acting in concert." This is double jeopardy. e. If a double jeopardy claim is apparent on the face of the record, the court can review a double jeopardy claim in a habeas corpus proceeding. Ex Parte Denton, 399 S.W. 2d 540 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). 6. The Texas Aggravated Sexual Assault Statute, Tex. Penal Code Sec. 22.021 (1999) was intended to apply to "date rape" drugs only. Please see the drugs

defined in the statute. Also, the legislative history indicates that it applies to date rape drugs only. TXB.An., S.B. 1100, 5/13/99.

III. APPLICANT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITHOUT THE COOERCED PLEA

Issue Presented: Can a defendant plead guilty to a crime, while over-medicated, if the state could not have convicted the defendant in a criminal trial? 7. Based on the statements of the alleged victims and Tammy Bishop and on the Metroplex hospital records, the State could not convict Applicant on the delivery of a controlled substance charge. The State had no physical evidence taken from the scene of the crime. The state simple had uncorroborated statements of accomplices. 8. Absent any corroborative evidence, possible statements from witnesses will not prove a drug is Methamphetamine. Steele v. State, 681 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.App.- Houston [14 ${}^{\text{th}}$ District ] 1984, pet. ref'd). Bright v.State, 556 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). In Steele, the defendant admitted that the substance he sold to a police officer was cocaine. The chemist did not testify that the substance was cocaine. The court held that without other evidence corroborating the police officer's testimony, such as a lab report, the State failed to prove a material element of the offense. Steele v. State, 681 S.W.2d at 131 . 9. Here, Applicant was arrested at his home on July 9, 2004, twenty days after the alleged incident based upon a search warrant. At the time of arrest,

Applicant denied "providing drugs to the boys" and "denied injecting any of them with Methamphetamine." At the same time, the police seized the items in Exhibit 8. See Exhibit 21. The Bell County District Attorney's office never provided Applicant's trial counsel or habeas corpus counsel with Applicant's denial statements. The information was provided as a response to a T.C.C.P.chapter 64 motion. 10.According to the Bell County District Attorney's office, offense reports show that potential illegal drugs were seized on July 20, 2004. See Exhibit 25. The offense reports have never been provided. 11.The affidavit for arrest for the delivery charge states that the incident occurred on June 19, 2004. It states that statements were taken, a videotape was reviewed, and the juveniles' parents say their children tested positive for Methamphetamines. See Exhibit 7. 12.The affidavit for arrest on the aggravated sexual assault charge was filed over six months after the alleged incident and sworn to by Detective Mike Simmons. See Exhibit 21. He swears under oath to Judge Martha Trudo the following "I have reviewed the medical records of all three boys, which showed positive results for Methamphetamine." The accompanying sworn complaint was signed by Detective Simmons and by Bell County Assistant District Attorney, Mark Kimball. See Exhibit 21. They knew the Methamphetamine information was false based upon the Metroplex Hospital records. See Exhibit 9.

13.Pcr Steele v. State, if you take away the statements of the accomplices, here, who were not even police officers as in Steele v. State, you have no corroborative evidence to prove delivery of a controlled substance. No drugs were recovered at the scene of the alleged crime. Only urine tests were done on the juveniles several days after June 19, 2004 at Metroplex Hospital. The tests were potentially positive for Amphetamines, not Methamphetamines. $◻$ N , to whom the Methamphetamine was allegedly delivered, was taking an Amphetamine, Concerta, at the time of the urine test. While it would not be corroborative evidence of delivery of Methamphetamine, the State did not even have lab tests done on the items seized at Applicant's home.

IV. TEXAS' AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT STATUTE IS UNCONSTITIONAL AS APPLIED DUE TO IT BEING SUBSTANTIALLY OVERBROAD

Issue Presented: Can a defendant on huge amounts of Seroquel plead guilty to conduct that was not intended to be covered by the aggravated sexual statute by the Texas legislature? 14. The Texas Penal Code has a confusing and tortured aggravated sexual assault statute. Tex. Penal Code Ann., sec. 22.021 (West 2003). a. In this case, the facts center on the two aggravation provisions alleged by the Bell County, Texas District Attorney in the amended indictment as they relate to the statute. b. First the State has to prove " [a] person intentionally or knowingly causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means." Tex. Penal Code Ann., sec. 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) (West 2003).After

proving these facts, the State has to prove the aggravating subsection of the statute. c. The first applicable aggravating subsection involves " administer[s] or provide[s] ...rohypnol, gamma hydroxybutyrate, or ketamine to the victim of the offense with the intent of facilitating the commission of the offense." Tex. Penal Code Ann., sec. 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2(A)(vi) (West 2003). Applicant found no case law on the provision. The legislative history of the subsection clearly indicates that the provision only involves administering "date rape" drugs to the victim with the intent of "facilitating" the commission of the offense. Crim. Justice, Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 1100, ${76}^{\text{th}}$ Leg., R.S. (1999).

1. First, a defendant has to "rape" the child. Next, the defendant has to provide a "date rape" drug or a "mickey-if you will" to the child with the intent of making it easier to rape the child. The "mickey" has to be one of the defined drugs.
2. Based on the newly discovered statements of Tammy Bishop and the alleged victims, no "date rape" drug was involved in this case. This aggravating subsection does not fit.
3. Clearly, in a "date rape" drug scenario a defendant could be a party to the offense, under the law of the parties, and fit within the statute. He could have provided a "date rape" drug or a "mickey-if you will", to the victim. In this scenario, he could commit aggravated sexual assault.
4. Charles Montgomery somehow had Applicant plead to this aggravating factor, when no "date rape drug" was administered.

d. The second applicable subsection involves 1) "act in concert" with another rapist who causes the penetration of the anus of a child "directed toward the same victim." Tex. Penal Code Ann., sec. 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2(A)(v) (West 2003). The Texas Penal Code does not define act or acting in concert. The scant case law found attempts to use legal dictionaries to define act in concert. None of the dictionaries defined it. The cases turned to "concerted action" to interpret the "term of art". Black's Law Dictionary, P. 262 (5th ed. 1979); Black's Law Dictionary, concerted action (18c) $({10}^{\text{th}}$ ed. 2014).

1. Since the Texas Penal Code does not define "act[s] in concert", the courts try to give the words their ordinary meaning. Since the definition is not apparent after trying to give the words their ordinary meaning, courts turn to the legislative history behind the statute to determine legislative intent.
2. The "act in concert" provision was enacted in 1993 as part of a fairly extensive change in the Texas Penal Code. Tex. S.B. 1067, ${73}^{\text{rd}}$ Leg., R.S. (1993). Tex.HB 77 had a Bill Analysis provision giving a background of the bill that was incorporated into the final bill, Tex. S.B.1067. Comm. on Crim. Justice, Bill Analysis, Tex. HB 77, ${73}^{\text{rd}}$ Leg., R.S.(1993). The legislative purpose of the bill was to "clarify sexual assault as aggravated sexual assault if more than one individual engages in conduct directed toward the same victim at the same time". Several high-profile cases of "gang rape" were part of the reason for the bill. For example, prior to the bill becoming law, a gang of men could each rape the same women. Each man could only be charged with sexual assault, unless she

was threatened with serious bodily injury or some other factor, such as use of a weapon. 3. This interpretation is further bolstered by the statute using the words or terms "acts in concert with another [who engages in the rape of the child] directed toward same victim"... Tex. Penal Code Ann., sec. 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) and 2(A)(v) (West 2003). The legislature chose to use the words "same victim" in the statute. The legislature inserted the words "same victim" in the statute. 15. Concerted action means "[a]n action ... agreed on by parties acting together ..., so that all involved are liable for the actions of one another." Black's Law Dictionary 18c ( ${10}^{\text{th}}$ ed. 2014); Concerted action (or plan). "Action that has been ... agreed on and settled between parties acting together pursuant to some design or scheme". See Accomplice. Black's Law Dictionary 289 ( $6^{\text{th}}$ ed. 1990)Why? If one leaves out the word same in "same victim", then the change would affect the meaning intended. That meaning is gang rape.

V. A DEFENDANT MUST MAKE A KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY
WAIVER OF HIS POST CONVICTION REMEDIES AND GROSS

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL PREVENTS IT

Issue Presented: Can a defendant on huge amounts of Seroquel waive his right to post-conviction remedies even if his counsel was grossly ineffective, especially in not obtaining discovery or putting minimal or no effort into a case with raised competency issues? 16. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in a waiver of post-conviction habeas corpus case, outlines knowing and intelligent waivers of post-conviction remedies. Ex Parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The

court found that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment was of such a magnitude as to render the guilty plea involuntary. Ex Parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d at 499. The trial counsel was alleged to have been unprepared to present any viable defense for the applicant. Ex Parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d at 500. The court also discussed other claims that could affect a knowing and intelligent waiver of postconviction rights such as actual innocence based on new evidence, the suppression of material, exculpatory evidence by the State, and ineffective assistance of counsel. These claims may be based upon facts not within the applicant's knowledge or comprehension despite due diligence and the assistance of counsel at the time of the plea and waiver. Ex Parte Reedy, 282 S.W.3d at 498 . 17. The Facts mentioned above and in the Application show no rational juror could have found Applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or "actual innocence". Also, the facts indicate despite due diligence, Applicant can show relief based on suppression of evidence by the State and ineffective assistance of counsel. 18. The following facts indicate suppression of material, exculpatory evidence by the State that by its very nature could not have been discovered by Applicant. a. The Bell County District Attorney's office failed to provide witness statements, or at least information from the statements that it had:

1. No "date rape" drugs anywhere in the case;
2. No blood tests, or any test showing a positive result for Methamphetamine, and in fact lied about it;

1. No drug evidence recovered from the scene;
2. No evidence to corroborate the statements of accomplices that Methamphetamines were delivered to $◻M◻$ and b. The Bell County District Attorney's office provided false information or flat out lied about:
3. Prosecuting Tammy Bishop for aggravated sexual assault, when Mark Kimball, the Bell County Assistant District Attorney, had an under the table deal to not prosecutor her;
4. Pursuing Tammy Bishop on numerous charges, when Mark Kimball had no intention of doing so;
5. Having blood tests to confirm Methamphetamines in $◻M◻$ and the other juveniles systems; c. The Bell County District Attorney fail to provide trial counsel with a copy of a statement/information about Applicant denying delivering drugs to the alleged victims at the time of his arrest. d. Evidence discovered from trial counsel, Charles Montgomery, shows that he had viable defenses, but failed to either follow up or understand them. The following information has been discovered that he:
6. Did not show facts or law to counter the State's burden of proof/evidentiary requirements for delivery of a controlled substance and for aggravated sexual assault. The facts and law were there;
7. Failed to follow up on the absolute right to a competency hearing;

Applicant submits this memorandum of law to the court for review. Applicant prays for any relief to which he is entitled. Applicant requests a hearing, and an

explanation if possible as to why his claims should not be reviewed, especially in light of the newly obtained evidence.

Certificate of Compliance

1, Timothy Tesch, certify that this Memorandum of Law contains 3,561 words and the Exhibit List contains 738 words. The total word count is 4,299 words.

In

all, of the records are attached. The urine drug screen tests indicate positive findings for amphetamines and THC. 10.16 pages of drug testing information for Methamphetamines and amphetamines. 11.The indictment for aggravated sexual assault dated March 23, 2005. The amended indictment for aggravated sexual assault that was amended on March 24, 2006 by the trial court. Neither indictment tracks the statutory language of the aggravated sexual assault statute. 12. Court Ordered Affidavit filed by Charles Montgomery, trial counsel, in Cause Numbers 57,557-A and 57,558-A on April 10, 2013. 13.Acknowledgment of Receipt of Thomas Carr's File from Attorney Charles Montgomery received by Tesch Law Firm on June 26, 2014. The receipt is six pages. The documents sent by Charles Montgomery are attached in other exhibits. 14. Two page Document from Charles Montgomery, trial counsel, showing only research in his file. It consists of U.S. Constitution, Amendment V, Texas Constitution Art.1.10, and Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 21.13. 15.Handwritten note from Charles Montgomery recommending the filing of an interlocutory appeal. 16. Texas Uniform Health Status Update (with handwritten number of #1403931). This document shows the current prescriptions being administered to Applicant. Note the dosage of Seroquel (one tablet ( 200 mg ) before noon and five tablets ( 200 mg ) before bedtime. 17.Rxlist, Medicinenet, and other literature. The medication that Thomas Carr was taking rendered him incompetent to make a plea. The class of drug, dosage, and side effects for Seroquel include an atypical antipsychotic and the Max. dosage per day at 800 mg . Common side effects - drowsiness and dizziness. Other side effect - altered mental state. 18. Report from court ordered examination with Dr. Frank A. Pugliese that was filed with the trial court on October 7, 2005.

19.One page report from Joseph L. Black M.D. and five page report of B. Thomas Gray, Ph.D. Both reports were filed with the trial court on March 6, 2006. 20. Affidavit for Arrest and Complaint filed July 15, 2004 by Detective Mike Simmons to arrest Tammy Bishop for the June 19, 2004 delivery of Methamphetamines to a minor, $◻◻M◻$ 21. Affidavit for Arrest and Compliant filed January 3, 2005 by Detective Mike Simmons to arrest Thomas Carr for aggravated sexual assault. 22. Complete docket information sheet for State of Texas v. Thomas Raymond Carr, Cause No. 57, 557, delivery of Methamphetamines to a minor, $◻◻$ $M◻$ . 23. Complete docket information sheet for State of Texas v. Thomas Raymond Carr, Cause No. 57, 558, aggravated sexual assault. 24.Copy of June 6, 2014 letter to Charles Montgomery and of release of file to Charles Montgomery. The released asked for specific information. Montgomery has the original signed documents. The copies are not signed. 25.Part of response by the Bell County District Attorney to Applicant's Chapter 64 motion.

Exhibit 1

HARKEK LEGIITS POLICE DEPARTMENT State Of Texas Voluntary Statement - (Not under arrest) THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF Rell Before me, the undersigned authority in and for the said country and State, on this the A D. 20th personally appeared, Domesy Bishop. Address 42460 Mark HTP-06 Age 280, Duke of Birsh 715-722 Phone Number 259-622-0720 when, after being by me, duty sworn, deposes and says: About a week or so before Ethel's Day SOMI I met. Serial May for the first time. He came over to the house after a phone call to my partner, Thomas Carr. Serial helped set up a pool in the backyard later in the afternoon. Serial left sometime between 3:5pm. I think it was Eidoy, June 18, 2000, Tom told me that we were going over to Jerrids house. I think it was late eating when we got there. Serial had a couple of his friends over. We drank several drinks together. We started playing around, set on the

trapauling, I risk it was inis intention for Jend to have set with me. Tom mes been wanting me to do something with another man for guite some time. Jend and I went to the back porch area. I sat on Jend's lap and he tried of was kissing on me. One of Jend's friends stood in front of me and touching on me on my less + in between my less. When we fint got there, all the did a line of meth. I think the one that was rubbing on me was chris. We went up to Jend's room. There was a dildo there, and I don't know the first key's name but I used the dido on him anally Jend + chris left the room. I have read this statement consisting of page(s), each of which bears my signature and I swear and affirm that everything contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. My name is Jend, H. 19.20 I am 37 years old, have completed 12 years of formal education and I do read and write the English language. This statement was completed at (location) H. 19.20 at (iune) D. 05 pm (on (date) 3-4-24 signature S-mon to any subpcribed before me at (location) H. 19.20 at (iime) D. 05 pm on (date) 19.24 signature of Noary

Notary Public in and for the State of Texas. My commission expires on

State's Exhibit No. 6, page 2 of 4

THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF D. III

Before me, the undersigned authority in and for the said county and State, on this the day of July — A.D. 242 personally appeared, Tanny Bishop, Address 1844 Mark, R. H-714 Age 29 Date of Birth 7-15-74 Phone Number 2551-699-0720

Whi, after being by me duly sworn, deposes and says: While that happened, Jerrid and Chris came back and I used the dilda on them and I used the dilda on them. And I was there and he hissed on me. Tom was there and he videos typed that. Jerrid performed oral sex on me. I was enjoying that, even though I was against this happening in the first place. I think, that is why Tom got mad and the whole thing kind of stopped. Between going upstains and being on the back porch, Jerrid, the two boys and I used shot up. Each of them went into the bathroom with Tom and I assume they shot up. I felt sick for a few days after this. There might have been

State's Exhibit No. 6, page 3 of 4

DERARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STATE OF TEXAS

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT-(not undar arreat)

THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF NUBOES

Before me, the undersigned authority in and for said County and State, on this the day of November th $200, personally appeared Jerrid May who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says: $3/4142004$

I Jerrid May am giving this statement to Sergeant Saenz and Sergeart Rohrman on my own free will. While I was in a drug chat room in either May or June I met a perion named "Tom". We talked about amoking marijuana online, and also "Tom" spoke of another drug that I can't remember. After about a thirty minute online chat (Yahoo), I asked "Tom" if we could meet sometime, and "Tom" gave me his phone number (254-455-9681) I think. I called "Tom" the next day and we set up a meeting at Harker Heights Park. We met at the park at about 8:00 am. We spoke for awhile and "Tom" invited me back to the house. While we spoke "Tom" told me that he had been arreated for marijuana two years ago. We went to Tom's house and I met his family. Tom's wife's name was Tammy, she was thin with bloods hair and blue eyes I also met their datighter named Alexis. We went to Wal Mart and bought a swimming pool. We hung out in the family room talking for and watching TV until four in the afternoon. In the morning time Tom asked me if I wanted to do drugs and I told him yes. Tom then showed me some "ice" and asked me if I wanted to try some. I told Tom that I did not want to try "ice", but that I would smoke weed if I he had some. I went home at four in the afternoon.

About a week later I went back to Tom's house at about 9:00 pm. Itrained really bad and we amoked some marijuana that I had brought over. We amoked the marijuana in Tom's room while Tammy slept in the family room. Tom also shot up some methamphetamine. I saw several needles lying around the room. Tom told me that Tom cooks the methamphetamine himself, he also offered to give me a job selling the methamphetamine for Tom. I ended up staying the night at Tom's house on this night. I slept in the family room. When we woke up we set up the new swimming pool that Tom had bought. I then went home.

The next time I saw Tom was Friday the 18th of June. My parents were out of town. I went over to Stephen's house and hung out with them for a little while. Me, my friend Chris and Stephen went to my house to hang out. They wanted to get high so I called Tom for some drugs. Tom came over with some ice in a little baggle. He charged me 825, but I only gave him 812. Me and my friends then stunted the ice taking our nioes. The ice was in rock form, and we didn't know how to use the ice so we just crushed it. Tom called me back on our house phone (254-690-4302) and told us that he had some marijuana. Tom said that he could be over in about 20 minutes. It was about 10 pm . Tom and Tammy showed up with the weed and more crystal methamphetamine. We snorted this ice and it was pretty strong.

On Saturday the 19th, Tom showed up to the house at about 4:00 pm. Tom had needles and some more ice. My friends were still staying with me. Tom went into the bathroom and put the ice in a spoon and added water. He then heated it up with

A lighter. Tom then put the liquid into a needle and then gave me the needle. I did not know that Tom wanted me to shoot up. Tom put the needle into my veins and showed me how to shoot up. I told Chris to shoot up because it felt good. Chris also shot up with the methamphetamine. Tom then shot Stephen up with the methamphetamine. I gave Tom the rest of the $\backslash$ 25$ for the drugs. While Tom was at my house, Tom sat at my family's computer desk for a little while. Later that night my dad called. Tomi Tammy, Chris and Stephen all went to Tom's house because I thought that my dad might send someone to check up on me. Tom came and picked me up later in the night and I stayed the night with Tom. We slept in the trailer outside. We all stayed in the trailer (Myseff, Tom, Tammy, Chris and Stephen).

On Sunday morning I woke up about 5 am, and everyone was smoking weed. Tammy and I started talking and we ended up having oral sex. I performed oral sex on Tammy while Tom was watching. Chris and Tom were arguing over something Chris said about Tammy. Tom punched Chris twice in the face and left some marks. Tom started acting crazy and acting like he was going to hurt us. After a while Tom calmed down and drove us home. That was the last time that I saw Tom. Tom threatened Chris and Stephen and they are extremely scared of Tom. They both would probably talk with law enforcement and not tell Tom. I was the only one who had contact with Tom.

Ayeonit

Subscribed and sworn to before me, the undersigned authority, on this the day of 1998.

Notary Public in and for Nuccee County, Texas

HARKER, aEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT

State Of Texas Voluntary Statement - (Not under arrest)

1111 E 33477 1111 E 33477

1111 E 33477

Before me, the undersigned authority in and for the said county and State, on this the 20th of Suly 231-1990.

A.D. 20th of Suly 231-1990

A.D. Date of Birth 231-1990 Phone Number 2321-555-1625

who, after being by me daily sworn, deposes and says: On Friday, June 19, 2000 I went over to Send May's house in Harker Heights. My friend Chris Lalee was with me. This was in the afternoon. Send called his friend Tom to bring some drugs. Tom brought some pills and we went upstairs. We crushed the pills and stifhed them. The pills were white. Tom also brought some red pills but we didn't do them. No 20th of evening Tom brought some hydra marijuana and a gas, mask. On Saturday evening Tom brought some needles and some cryste I mith. Tom's wife came over also. Send was the first to use the mesh. Chris was second. I was last. Tom put the needle in my arm.

ne pulled the middle back and I saw red in the needle. After I got the shot, I got. Where I couldn't breath very well, Jerid helped me in to a cold shower. In all, I think I did three shots of math, ale stayed up all night on Saturday. On Saturday after we did the math, we went to Tom's house and snished weed. I didn't see anyone have sex but Tom told us that if we wanted to we had to do the mesh. Someline while we were at Jerid's, Jerid and Chris fingred Tom's wife. I think Tom vided teped that, bet. Simmors wrote this statement for me as I told him. I Srephen Garcia.

I have read this statement consisting of $$ page(s), each of which bears my signature and I swear and affirm that everything contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. My name is Srephen Garcia I am 16 years old, have completed 40 years of formal education and I do read and write the English language. This statement was completed at (location) FOD Gramine, Harker Heights, TX at (ime) 16:55 am on (date) 12:54 am (post) 12:55 am on (date) 12:54 am signature, Stephen Garcia Sucrm upand subscribed before me at (location) 19106rashe, Harker Heights, TX at (ime) 16:55 am on (date) 12:54 am on (date) 12:54 am of Mntary of Public in and for the State of Texas. My commission expires on 1920 as Mntary

State's Exhibit No. 2, page 2 of 2

HARKEI, AEGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT State Of Texas Voluntary Statement - (Not under arrest) THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF RE 11 Before me, the undersigned authority in and for the said county and State, on this day, is A D 2004 personally appeared. Age 14 Date of Birth 40th of Phone Number who, after being by me duly sworn, deposes and says: On Friday, June 18, 2004, and I went to $◻$ house in Harker Heights, made a phone call to a person that he said was his uncle. That guys name is Tom. Iridd leteg told me that he was not his uncle. Tom brought some meth with him and we snorted it. Tom left for about 30 minute and some back with Tammy and some weed. Tom and Tammy went upstair. Stephen went up while Jend and I sniked a cigarette. Tammy called Jend into the downstairs bothrom. Jend came back and told me to go shortup. I hist bid him that I didn't want to but I eventually did. When I got into the bathroom, I saw some needles and a bag of meth. Tom put the meth in a spoon, melted it with a lighter.

Tom shot the "left in my 19th 7m right arm. I was afraid to do it myself. I went to the couch + talked to Jend. I went to tell Stephen to shoot up to. $$ went into the bathroom and apparently shot up. Everybody went outside and he showed me the mask. The mask was in a black bag. $$ me and Stephen smoke marijuana out of the mask. We went back inside and we talked for a little white. $◻$ was really messady he was running in walls and stuff. I think Ione video taped some of this because he had a video camera set up on a friend. It was early morning when Tom and Tammy said they had to leave Me, Stephen + Jend took showers. Jend drove us to our houses

I have read this statement consisting of $$ page(s), each of which bears my signature and I swear and affirm that everything contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. My name is Christopher Felse. I am 14 years old, have completed 7 years of formal education and I do read and write the English language. This statement was completed at (location) HHS at (iune) 7:50pm on (date) 7:5:00 signature Chis Vohy

State's Exhibit No. 3, page 2 of 5

HARKEK. REIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT State Of Texas Voluntary Statement - (Not under arrest)

THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BALL

Before me, the undersigned authority in and for the said county and State, on this the a D. Beast Personally appeared.

Age 14 Date of Birth Phone Number 90-0350 who, after being by me daily sworn, deposes and says: to we could change clothes. We went back to Jend's. We were up in his room watching a movie when they called and said that they were coming back. When they got there we shut up again and smoke more pot. We missed around for a while. After that father called and thought he heard a death ring. Me, Tanny, at out a side door to hide in case there was somebody that stayed at his house and the rest of us went to We steged in a storage room in the background. We waited there and Tanny called every once in a while to see if it was safe to go back finally he

Exhibit 2

ORIGINAL

REPORTER'S RECORD

VOLUME 1 OF 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 57,557 and 57,558 THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

MOTIONS ON COMPETENCY

On the 24th day of March, 2006, the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the Honorable Martha J. Trudo, Judge presiding, held in Belton, Bell County, Texas:

Proceedings reported by Computerized Machine Shorthand Method.

MR. MONTGOMERY: That's my whole point, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Montgomery, step I'm finding him competent based on what I've received. Any objections you have we'll deal with it later. That's what I'm now finding him competent to proceed. MR. MONTGOMERY: All right, Your Honor, At the conclusion of this hearing I'd like to make a bill of exception.

THE COURT: All right. Now we're going to proceed with the motion to quash the subpoena. All right. State.

MR. ODOM: Your Honor, for the Court's information, yesterday I accepted service for Mr. Garza's subpoena in this case. After meeting with Mr. Montgomery, I was advised that he had intended to call Mr. Garza concerning office policy about the back of the indictment in this case, that is, that the -- the charging portion of the indictment but the back of it contains the words "of a child" after aggravated assault. Mr. Montgomery has complained about that, about including that.

I will state to the Court right now we agreed to redact those words even though it's not part of the indictment itself from the back of that

Elizabeth A. Young, CSR, RPR

apprising the jury of the whole aggravated conduct on the part of the defendant. The jury is going to heat it all, Judge. So if the jury is going to hear it all wnd sentence him for all of it, I want them bound by that verdict.

Your Honor should know perhaps it will make a lot of this go a lot easier, if we address the ugly fact that the heart of this crime is that his wlfe dildoed three juveniles over the age of 14. He had no hand in it except he filmed it. Now true, they can hpld him responsible under the law of parties for what she did.

They cannot as my motion to quash points out without being in violation both of the Texas constitution, the United States constitution, double jeopardy clauses. They cannot then use the same fact which constitute him acting together with her under the law of parties to come along and say, oh, by the way, that's also acting in concert and under the statute 1 elevates the second degree offense to first degree

They had a good first degree case against Tammy. She was the one who did the dildoing. And since he was filming it they could have argued that Tammy was prosecutable under for a first degree offense.

And they could have prosecuted Tammy for

a second degree offense of sexual assault. But no. What have they done? They have let Tammy totally off the hook. She doesn't get prosecuted at all for the sexual assault for the rape of these juveniles. She' in prison on a light sentence and they promised her quick release which is another matter I'll get to.

MR. KIMBALL: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That is a lie. MR. MONTGOMERY: She is. MR. KIMBALL: It's a lie before the court.

THE COURT: All right. Wait. One at a time. I want to first deal with this consolidation and joinder and as I look at 302 why should not I order since it is apparently and I think that I heard a bond or didn't -- I believe I heard something on this a long time ago. It seems that that --

MR. MONTGOMERY: There was a high bond. THE COURT: I think I heard something on this a long time ago.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, yọ́u did. Your Honor saw the tape.

THE COURT: And so why should I not joì these for saving the Court's time and --

MR. KIMBALL: Because the defendant does

Elizabeth A. Young, CSR, RPR

that and then a summary and recommendations. That's what I am referring to and that's what I have reviewed.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Exactly, Your Honor, and -- and on the next to last page there or second from last page, you have him saying that the defendant seems to enjoy trivia game and shows knowledge in many subjects. Okay?

And in another part of his report he said that the defendant was observed making organized request of his family on the phone. Mommy, don't send me cookies. Is that an organized request? Telling his mother that he can't have cookies at the hospital? Or that they can't send him razor blades. Is that an organized report? This report is full of bull.

This doctor got tired of Tom's staying longer than the other patients stayed and wrote a report that is full of bull. And we need the report that should have been written by the attending psychiatrist who interviewed this defendant certainly before you can eradicate and wipe off the chalk board the report by the Ph.D. here in Bell County who had interviewed the defendant and had found him incompetent.

THE COURT: This is an updated diagnosis per Joseph Black, M.D. attending psychiatrist and that the report.

Exhibit 3

the charges against you, Ms. Bishop. MR. KIMBALL: Your Honor, the State offers the defendant's confession for all purposes. MR. HARRIS: No objection to State's 1 as tendered. THE COURT: State's Exhibit No. 1 is admitted against you, Ms. Bishop. (State's Exhibit No. 1 admitted.) Based on that I will state that the evidence is sufficient to find you "guilty." I will withhold a findin and ask: Is there any further evidence from the state or Defense on punishment issues?

MR. KIMBALL: Your Honor, I don't think we deeg a PSI in light of the plea agreement. I would let the Cour know that there are further charges that will be filed agains. Ms. Bishop. She is well aware of it. She is the major witness against the co-defendant in this case, or a major witness against the co-defendant in this case. There will be several trials in which she will have to appear probably on first-degree felony offenses involving sexual abuse of a child.

And the main reason we are doing this, Judge, s:s has been in jail a long time, but it is just not safe to $\because 2$ her on the streets. The State has reason to believe her life is in danger if she hits the streets or that she might go bett

using methamphetamine. We certainly don't want that als, by no means, is the end of cases against Ms. Bishop, and ease is well aware of that.

THE COURT: Anything from the Defense? MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, Defense would conlur with Mr. Kimball's resuscitation.

Ms. Bishop, you agree to waive a presentence investigation report at this time. Is that correct? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Your Honor, I would further advise the Court tha Ms. Bishop's sister-in-law and parents are present in the counroom, and they have been made a part of the loop, and they have been made aware of the events we have testified th THE COURT: All right. That is obviously th fariter back there. MR. HARRIS: Yes, sir, it is. THE COURT: Okay. All right, Ms. Bishop. I will find you "guilty," assess your punishment at eight years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Institutional Division. I will give you credit for all the days you have served in the county jail and sentence you to the eight-year term.

Do you understand what's happened to you now? THE DEFENDANT: (Indicating) CAYLA R. MAY, CSR, BPR

Exhibit 4

REPORTER'S RECORD CAUSE NOS. 01,847B AND 53,430 STATE OF TEXAS vs. THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

X X X X X

IN THE DISTRICT COURT $X$ OF BELL COUNTY, TEXAS $X$ 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

HEARING MOTION TO REDUCE BONDS

On the 3rd day of January, 2005, the following proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and numbered cause before the Honorable Martha Jane Trudo, Judge presiding, held in Belcon, Bell County, Texas.

Proceedings reported by BETSY MOCK CLIFTON by machine shorthand and computer-aided transcription.

BETSY MOCK CLIFTON CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER P. O. Box 365

BELTON, TEXAS 76513 (254) 933-5790

APPEARANCES:

2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HARR KIMBALL

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY BELL COUNTY, TEXAS

FOR THE STATE

MR. TED FOTTER ATTORNEY AT LAW BELTON, TEXAS

FOR THE DEFENDANT

State rests. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Potter, any other

evidence?

MR. POTTER: Your Honor, the only other evidence we would have simply that he nas no assets. His truck was sold. He has no assets at all. He has to depend on his father who's the cnly one to help him with any situation. He has no - nothing to convert to cash for bail bond. I have nothing further. THE COURT: Mr. Kimball? MR. KIMBALL: Well, number one the motion to reduce bail in the deferred adjudicacio case, since that's entirely up to the Court -- and wa filed this morning -- it was entirely up to the Court what bail you set in that case. And I think a hundred thousand is too low. I think it should be about two million now. By law you have to reduce the bail in the new case. But you can put as many restrictions on there as you want to. I need to inform the Court that sitting on my desk, which will be filed afternoon, is another complaint. This time of aggravated sexual assault of a child because, urder the law, when two

you are to have no contact and not use those types of devices to contact people.

Of course, you are to have no contact with these young people shown in the video and those that are alleged to have been given illegal drugs by you.

You will know -- and your lawyer knows who those people are and the names of those people and who's in these videos.

And, if you are to get out and get back with your wife and live together, then these rules apply the same. That you do not have any contact with these people whatsoever whether directly or indirectly or to their families or by mail or any way. I don't want you to get in touch with these people --

THE DEFENDANT: I understand. THE COURT: -- whatsoever. Now, is she on bond? MR. KIMBALL: No, Your Honor.

She's in jail. She's represented by Mr. Harris. He's not seeking a bond reduction at this time because I have promised 17 indictments for her as well should she seek a bond reduction.

Exhibit 5

A Yes, sir. Q And so I informed you, did I not, that you either take this or we just go to trial December 4 an you just get what you get? A Yes, sir. Q I also told you that this case would not would not give you 30 years if the families of the three boys involved did not give their assent to that 30 years, correct? A Yes, sir. Q Well, you've got some thanking to do for some people, right? A Yes, sir. Q Not keeping you locked up for the rest of your life. You understand the addendum that I prepared for your plea bargain that the judge mentioned specifically prohibits you from filing any type of writ of habeas corpus or any time seeking any kind of judicial review for either of these convictions.

Period. A Yes, sir. Q You're stuck. A Yeah. Q Nothing you can do. You go down and serve your time. When you're done, you're done.

A Yes, sir. Q If you seek judicial review, if you file wriat of habeas corpus, if you try to file out of time appe 1 or anything like that, you understand that your confessions that you've signed and sworn to will be admissible in any subsequent proceedings?

A Right. Q All bets are off and I'm going to file as many cases as I can and come at you with full force. You understand that?

A Yes, sir. Q You had a little stint in Vernon's, correct, when we had an order restoring your insanity back in August or restoring your competency back in August, correct?

A Yes, sir. Q And you told the judge you felt you were mentally competent. You understood everything that has happened here today, the charges against you and your options and everything like that?

A Yes. Q In fact, Mr. Montgomery didn't bring it up but he has spent, many, many, many hours with you on this case, has he not?

A Yeah.

Q And he's also I'm sure told you of the many, many hours that he has spent getting discovery from me as well as talking with witnesses and so forth?

A Yes.

Q One thing you mentioned yesterday when in out discussions was what's going to happen to my wife and you understand what happens to your wife is up to the State of Texas and the courts and I absolutely refuse to answer that question.

A Yes, sir.

Q All right.

MR. KIMBALL: Pass the witness.

MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, I have a couple of other questions, Your Honor, real quickly.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. MONTGOMERY:

Q Yesterday I told you I was given by the prosecutor the State's witness list and notice of other crimes, extraneous offenses, et cetera, that might be offered in evidence in its case in chief, plus the medical records that we had requested and I won't name those in court, you know what they were.

You understood that the State has done everything that was necessary under the voluminous pretrial requests that we had in this case and that

Exhibit 6

12

TESCH LAW FIRM

PH. 1.254 .866 10131 FK 1254 TII 2544 www Tescheliberlai com | Teschi.finbubank, Cinn P.O. Box 2851 Gutesville, TX 78528

MA: 20,2015 Sent via: email Comish Law Firm 404 North Main Street Belion, Texas 76513 ATTN: Robert O. "Buck" Harris RE. Statement Tammy Bishop v. State of Texas; Cause No. 58703

Dear Mr. Harris:

As mentioned in our phone conversation, I am handling a habeas corpus matter for Thomas R. Carr. You indicated that you would sign a statement regarding the handling of Tammy Bishop's case.

Enclosed please find my proposed statement based on our conversation. Please review it. If there are any changes, please note them on the statement and email it back. I will make them and resenl the statement. If there are not any changes, please fax or email the signed statement to me. Please mail me the original. Thank you.

Statement of Robert O. "Buck" Harris

My name is Robert O. "Buck" Harris. I am a licensed attorney in the State of Texas. I practice criminal law in Bell County, Texas.

Tammy Bishop was a client of mine in 2004 and 2005. The State through Bell County investigated allegations that she delivered a controlled substance to three minor males and that she sexually assaulted them. The incident allegedly occurred on or about June 18, 2004. She was never indicted.

I was aware of and reviewed a copy of a videotape purporting to show Ms. Bishop sexually assaulting three minor males. None were less than 14 years old. The videotape showed a woman, allegedly Tammy Bishop, having sex with the minors. It also showed a women using a dildo on the anuses of the three minors. I took the position with the prosecutor that I would try any case involving sexual assault if Ms. Bishop was indicted. The circumstances surrounding the three minor males having sex and having a dildo used on them snally would be extremely embarrassing at a jury trial. Eventually, the prosecutor chose to work out an agreement to have Ms. Bishop plead guilty to one drug charge rather than proceed to indictments on any other allegations.

I remember Thomas Carr, the common law husband of Tammy Bishop, being represented by Ted Potter and Charles "Monty" Montgomery. I did not discuss anything related to Ms. Bishop's or Mr. Carr's criminal case with Mr. Carr's attomeys.

Bell County did not indict my client. The prosecutor agreed to have Ms. Bishop plead guilty by information to one count of delivery of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, to Jerrid May, a child less than 17 years of age. In Cause No. 58703 she pled guilty on November 30, 2005 and was sentenced to eight (8) years in prison. The prosecutor never made any demand to plead guilty to any sexual assault charge.

As part of the plea, the prosecutor agreed not to proceed to indict Ms. Bishop on any sexual assault charge or any other drug charge. The understanding was that Ms. Bishop would complete her sentence and not get into any other trouble. If she complied, then Bell County would not pursue any further charges. While the agreement was not in writing, I would not have recommended that Ms. Bishop do the plea without an understanding with Bell County not to pursue further charges.

Robert O. "Buck" Harris

Exhibit 7

STATE OF TEXAS } COUNTY OF BELL }

COMES NOW THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT, A PEACE OFFICER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AFTER HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN ON OATH, WHO DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT I HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE AND DO BELIEVE THAT THOMAS RAYMOND CARR HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO A MINOR AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT TO WHICH THIS AFFIDAVIT IS ATTACHED AND THAT MY BELIEF IN THE FOREGOING IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.

I AM A CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY THE HARKER HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A DETECTIVE. PURSUANT TO MY DUTIES AS A DETECTIVE, I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THE INVESTIGATION OF A REPORT OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO A MINOR IN WHICH THE SUSPECT'S NAME IS THOMAS RAYMOND CARR.

I HAVE READ THE STATEMENT OF ANTICI ME, WHO IS 16 YEARS OLD. HE REPORTS THAT THE SUSPECTS, THOMAS CARR AND TAMMY BISHOP, CAME OVER TO HIS HOME IN HARKER HEIGHTS, BELL. COUNTY, TEXAS ON JUNE 19, 2004, WITH MARIHUANA AND METHAMPHETAMINE. JERBID AND HIS TWO 14 YEAR OLD FRIENDS WERE GIVEN METHAMPHETAMINE, BY INJECTION, BY THOMAS CARR. I HAVE SPOKEN TO TAMMY BISHOP, WHO GAVE A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT IN WHICH SHE ADMITS TO INGESTING METHAMPHETAMINE WITH THE THREE JUVENILES, WHICH SHE AND CARR BROUGHT TO THE RESIDENCE. I HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A VIDEOTAPE IN WHICH THE THREE JUVENILES, CARR AND BISHOP ALL REFER TO DRUG USE, AND IT IS APPARENT, BASED ON MY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE AS A POLICE OFFICER, THAT ALL THREE JUVENILES ARE INTOXICATED. I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE THROUGH MY INVESTIGATION THAT ONE OF THE 14 YEAR OLDS HAD A BAD REACTION TO THE DRUGS AND WAS TREATED AT A LOCAL HOSPITAL. I HAVE BEEN FURTHER INFORMED BY THE PARENTS OF ALL THREE JUVENILES THAT THE CHILDREN TESTED POSITIVE FOR METHAMPHETAMINE.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, YOUR AFFIANT REQUESTS THAT A WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUE FOR THOMAS RAYMOND CARR FOR THE FELONY OFFENSE OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO A MINOR.

Exhibit 8

APPROF

No. 57,558

Afficavit

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Daniel C. De Leon, who. after by me being duly swom, deposed as follows: "My name is Daniel C. De Leon. I am over the age of 21 years of age, of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated. "I am currently employed as a detective with the Harker Heights Police Department ('HHPD') in Harker Heights, Texas, and serve as the custodian of the evidence section. At the request of the Bell County District Attorney's Office, I have searched our records in an effort to locate any evidence in our possession on 2004 HHPD Casi Number 04-01847. The date of offense in this case was June 18, 2004, the suspect was Thomas Raymond Caj:(DOB: 8-14-67), and the victims were: N. S. G. G. and C. V. who, at that time, were all juveniles residing in Harker Heights/Killeen area. I have attached the two page Evidence Submission Repart ('Report') to this affidavit as Exhibit "A," and it is included by reference for all purposes. The Report lists itens that were seized and placed into evidence by the HHPD officers who investigated the case. Basically the list is composed of a computer and its peripherals, a camera, papers, and items containing suspected illegal drugs of illegal drug residue. Items 3,11 , and 14 , which are various video recordings, are no longer in our custody becalise they were returned to the defendant's mother, at his request. In addition, not listed are three Metroplex Hospital repors containing the blood test results of the three victims, which we do have in our custody. We have no other items of evidence in this case, and do not now have, nor have we ever had, any biological evidence, or items thought to contain such, in our possession relating to this case. "Further affiant saith not."

Daniel C. De Leon, Affiant

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this the $$ day of July, 2014.

State's Exhibit No. 7, page 1 of 1

CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION RECORD

Exhibit-A, page 2 of 2

Exhibit 9

・

AFFIDAVIT

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared

deposed as follows: My name is media leane Starkwick. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated:

Attached here are 3010 pages of records from the medical records of

(NAME OF PATIENT)

These said pages of records are kept by said Hospital in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of said Hospital for an employee or representative of said Hospital, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis, recorded to make the record or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonable soon thereafter. The record attached hereto are the original of exact duplicates of the original.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

"SUBPOENA - Duces Tecum Cause No. 57558 To The Sheriff, Constable, or any Peace Officer of BELL County, said State, Greeting: You are hereby commanded to summon:

CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS METROPLEX HEALTH SYSTEM

to be and appear. . . . . INSTANTER . . . . . before the Honorable 264 District Court of Bell County Texas, to be held at the Courthouse of said County, in Belion, Texas, then and there to testify as witness in behalf of the STATE OF TEXAS in a criminal action pending in said Court, entitled and numbered on the Criminal Docket of said Court, THE STATE OF TEXAS vs. THOMAS RAYMOND CARR, No. 57558, and therein remain from day to day, and from term to term, until discharged by due course of law.

Returnable INSTANTER.

HEREIN FAIL NOT, and make due return hereof, showing how you have executed the same. Witness my official signature, at Belion, Texas, this 30th day of October, A.D. 2006.

Please contact the District Attorney's Office prior to appearance to avoid an unnecessary trip to court. 939-3521 or 1-800-460-2355, ext. 5215

NOTE "It is an offense for a person to intentionally influence or coerce a witness to testify falsely or to elude legal process. It is also a felony offense to harm or threaten to harm a witness or prospective witness in retaliation for or on account of the service of the person as a witness or to prevent or delay the person's service as a witness to a crime."

NOTICIA: "Es celito intimar y obligar a un testigo a declarar con falsedad o a evadir el proceso judicial. También es delito penal herit o amenazar con herir a un testigo, o a un testigo prospectivo, en represalia o a consecuencia de haber declarado en juicio o con el atan de impedir o demorar su comparecencia como testigo de un delito." "DUCES TECUM TO BRING OR PRODUCE ANY &; ALL MEDICAL RECORDS INCLUDING ANY &; ALL PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS, OF JERID MAY DOB:05/13/1988, CONCERNING EXAMINATION &; TREATMENT OF JERID MAY FROM JUNE 19.2004.THROUGH PRESENT DATE ."

Officer's Return

1. Nursing Assessment Reviewed $◻$ BP, HR, RR. Temp reviewed PHYSICAL EXAM GENERAL APPEARANCE $◻$ alert $◻$ no acute distress

ENT

$◻$ and ENT inspection $◻$ pharynx nint $◻$ disluded $◻$ firm pig reflex

EYES

$◻$ dispils squid, round $\Delta$ reactive to light $◻$ EOMS issues

NEURO / PSYCH

mental status $◻$ mood/affect nint

For suicide attempts: On direct query, patient ADMITS/DENIES (continued consideration of suicide as an option. $◻$ (desires w/o) orientation $◻$ (formal x) cranial nerves separty, motor $◻$ K's intact as tested $◻$ jmi motor response $◻$ uni sensory response $◻$ jmi reflexes $◻$ mmi gait NEOK / BACK $◻$ mormal inspection $◻$ fleck supple REBPIRATORY $◻$ no resp. distress $◻$ breath sounds nml $◻$ vS $◻$ regular rate, rhythm $◻$ heart sounds normal G| AABDOMEN| $◻$ non-tender $◻$ jmi bowel sounds $◻$ no organomegaly SKIN $◻$ skin nmi, no rash $◻$ warm, dry EXTREMITIES $◻$ normal ROM $◻$ in signs of injury $◻$ no pedal edema PROCEDURES: $◻$ Restraints $◻$ intubated by SD physician breath sounds equal $◻$ Gastric Lavage $◻$ Charcoal $◻$ for $◻$ to given

Vibiblting: Indicates organ system * equivalent or minimum required for organ system exam (ivertime -32

| LABB, XRAYS, and PROGRESS | | | :--: | :--: | | EKG MONITOR STRIP | NSR Rate | | EKG NIM: $◻$ Inserp. by me $◻$ Reviewed by me $$ | | | NSR mmi internals $$ nmi axis $$ | | | $◻$ nmi QRS $$ | | | $◻$ nmi $ST/T$ | | | not / changed from: | | | CXR $◻$ Inserp. by me $◻$ Reviewed by me $◻$ Disrod viracoiogist: | | | $$ nmi/NAD $$ no inflitrates $$ | | | $$ not / changed from: | | | CBC
normal except
WBC | Chemistrias
normal except
No | $\&\text{ABG's}\&\text{UINE:}$ | | $$ Hgb | $$ | | | Hct | Cl | | | Platelets | $◻$ | | | $$ segs | Gluc | | | bands | BUN | | | | Creat | | | Pulse O2 | \% on RA/ | | | Time | unchanged $$ improved $$ re-examined. | |

ORDERS: $◻$ $$ Pn $$ Pn $$ Pn $$ Pn $$ $◻$ (ivertime -32

| LABB, XRAYS, and PROGRESS | | | :--: | :--: | | EKG MONITOR STRIP | NSR Rate | | EKG NIM: $◻$ Inserp. by me $◻$ Reviewed by me $$ | | | NSR mmi internals $$ nmi axis $$ | | | $$ nmi QRS $$ | | | $◻$ nmi $ST/T$ | | | not / changed from: | | | CXR $◻$ Inserp. by me $◻$ Reviewed by me $◻$ Disrod viracoiogist: | | | $$ nmi/NAD $$ no inflitrates $$ | | | $$ not / changed from: | | | CBC
normal except
WBC | Chemistrias
normal except
No | $\&\text{ABG's}\&\text{UINE:}$ | | $$ Hgb | $$ | | | Hct | Cl | | | Platelets | $◻$ | | | $$ segs | Gluc | | | bands | BUN | | | | Creat | | | Pulse O2 | \% on RA/ | | | Time | unchanged $$ improved $$ re-examined. | |

INTERVIEW WITH OTHER RESPONSIBLE ADULT: Nome: Relesionship: $$ Considers ongoing suicide risk: high low uncertain Capable / comfortable with observing patient at home? Yes No N/A MEDICAL CLEARANCE FOR PSYCHIATRIC REPERAL (if needed) Book reish to indicate that diagnosis is unlikely based on H&;P and, when needed, lab testing -Texalc (PCP, Amphetamines, Hallucinogens, Acetaminophen, ASA, ETCN, Other) -Mifecioxus (Meningitis, Encephalitis, Sepsis) -Metabolic (Thyroid, Hypoglycemia, Drug Withdrawal, Hypoxemia, Electrolytes) -CNS Vascular and Other (CVA, TIA, Seizure, Trauma) -Other Unstable Comorbidities $$ Collected medically for paych referral $$ CRIT CARE: 30-74 min $75-104$ min $$ Prior records ordered $$ Reviewed $$ Additional history from Forny caretaker paramedics

CLINICAL IMPRESSION:

Ethanol Incoxication Psychosis Schizophrenia- acute exar Depression Drug Overdose) Inseriional) accidental) $$ Suicide Attempt) Ideation Time CONDITION $◻$ unchanged $◻$ improved $◻$ stable $◻$ SHT $$ RESIDENT / PA / HP SIGNA FURE ATIENGING NOTE: Residents / PA / HP's history reviewed, patient interviewed and examined Briefly, pertinent HPI is: My personal exam of patient reveals: Assessment and plan reviewed with resident / midlevel, Lab and secondary studies show: I confirm the diagnosis of: Copyright reviewed. Patient will need Pincal confresdent / midlevel note for details $$

METROPIEX HOSPITAL

2201 S. Clea: Creek Road Killeen, TX 76549 (254) $526·7523$

PSYCHIATRIC DISCHARGE SUMMARY

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

is a 16 -year-old white male admitted with a history of shooting himself veins with crystal amphetamines at a friend's home and having breathing problems. The friend brought him to the emergency room. Refer to the psychiatric evaluation for details.

LABORATORY FINDINGS: CBC with differential revealed low hematocrit at 41.78 , (42 to 52), MCH at 29.9 pg ( 30 to 34 ), segs at $38.1\%$ , elevated eosinophils at $9.2\%$ , and basophiles at $1.7\%$ . Comprehensive metabolic panel revealed slightly low total proteins at $6.1\mathrm{g}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{l}(6.4$ to 8.2 ) and elevated SGOT at 38 units/1t ( 15 to 37). Urine drug screen was positive for amphetamines and THC. Urinalysis within normal limits. RPR nonreactive. Thyroid panel within normal limits.

HOSPITAL COUNSE: Concerta was discontinued and no medications were given during his stay here. He said his parents told him that if he does not change he may end up in jail or be dead and had encouraged him not to use drugs but he ignored them. We reiterated the same issues and gave his packets of drug education as assignments. He had no remorse for his behaviors and no motivation to changes. He was euthymic with a blunted affect. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. We reviewed the after-care plans. His parents wanted him to be assessed at Shoreline for possible drug rehab admission there. He denied depressive feelings, moods swings, auditory or visual hallucinations or paranoid delusions and was discharged to his parents to be taken to Taft, Texas where he will be assessed by Shoreline Facility for admission to the drug rehab program.

DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS: AXIS I:

1. Stimulant induced psychosis.
2. Stimulant abuse.
3. Cannabis abuse.
4. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type by history.
5. Oppositional defiant disorder.
6. Anxiety disorder not otherwise specified.

AXIS II: None. AXIS III. None.

| Admit: | $06/21/2004$ | Patient Name: | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Disch: | $06/26/2004$ | MR#: 294227 | Accu: 1008423 | | Sex. M | Age: 16 Y | Dictating: Vijayababu Jampala, MD | | | Room: | Pt Type: $P$ | Attending: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | |

METROPLEX HOSPITAL

2201 S. Clear Creek Road Killeen, TX 76549 (254) $526-7523$

AXIS IV: Severe - problems with primary support system, peer relationship problems, school problems and legal problems. AXIS V: GAF 50.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. He is on no medications.
2. He is being discharged to the parents with recommendations to be assessed by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Killeen, Texas for follow-up rehab programs. The parent were also given the name and the number for the Shoreline Drug Rehabilitation Program in Taft, Texas where the parents plan to take the patient for assessment for the inpatient drug rehabilitation program.

VJ/us D: $07/26/2004$ T: $07/27/200411:26:58$ E.T. E: $07/27/200411:26:58$ E.T./uw Job N: 163760 Doc N: 2327224 CC: C.T. * Central Time / E.T. * Eastern Time

| Admi: $06/21/2004$ | Patient Name: 06 | | S | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Disch: $06/26/2004$ | MR#: 294227 | | Acct#: 1008423 | | Sex: M Age: 16 Y | Dictating: Vijayababu Jampala, MD | | | | Room: Pt Type: P | Attending: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | | |

METROPLEX PAVILION MENTAL HEALTH NURSING ASSESSMENT

REVIEW OF SYSTEMS

MENTAL STATUS EXAM

PSYCHOSOCIAL DATA

MSTRCPLEX HOSPITAL 2201 S. Clear Creek Road Killeen, TX 76549 Dr. Phillip Day * Dr. Fayza Reheim Pathologists

Ordering Physician: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD

| Patient | M | | | | Location: 9A | Room: 9A | 904-A | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Physicians: | | | | | Case 8: 1008423 | | | | | JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | | | | Med Rec#: 000294227 | | | | | Admit Date: 06/21/2004 | | Discharge Date: 06/26/2004 | | | | | | TEST | WBC | RBC | HGB | HCT | MCV | MCH | MCHC | | UNITS | $\times {10}^{\circ }3/\mathrm{u}\mathrm{L}$ | $\times {10}^{\circ }6/\mathrm{u}\mathrm{L}$ | g/dL | | fL | pg | g/dL | | LO-HI | $4.0-12.0$ | $4.7-6.1$ | $14.0-18.0$ | $42.0-52.0$ | $80-94$ | $30-34$ | $32-36$ | | 06/22/04 | | | | | | | | | 0515 | 8.0 | 4.83 | 14.4 | 41.7 L | 86.3 | 29.9 L | 34.6 | | TEST | RDW | PLT | DTYPE | SEGS | LYMPHS | MONOS | EOS | | UNITS | \% | $\times {10}^{\circ }3/\mathrm{u}\mathrm{L}$ | | | | | | | LO-HI | $11.5-13.5$ | $140-450$ | | $40-75$ | $15-50$ | $1-12$ | $0-5$ | | 06/22/04 | | | | | | | | | 0515 | 13.0 | 173 | AUTO DIFF | 38.1 L | 44.9 | 6.1 | 9.2 H | | TEST | Free t4 | | | | | | | | | Index | | | | | | | | | ug/dL | | | | | | | | 0515 | | | | | | | | | 06/22/04 | | | | | | | | | 0515 | 3.10 | | | | | | | | TEST | Sodium | Potassium | Chloride | CO2 | Glucose | BUN | Creat | | UNITS | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{q}/L$ | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{q}/L$ | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{q}/L$ | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{q}/L$ | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}$ | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}$ | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}$ | | LO-HI | $135-146$ | $3.5-5.3$ | $98-108$ | $21-32$ | $70-110$ | $7.0-22.0$ | $0.6-1.2$ | | 06/22/04 | | | | | | | | | 0515 | 141 | 3.8 | 104 | 29 | 78 | 14 | 1.1 | | TEST | Bilirubin | Total | Albumin | Alk Phos | SGOT | SGPT | T-3 | | | | Protein | | | (AST) | (ALT) | Uptake | | UNITS | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}$ | g/dL | g/dL | U/L | U/L | IU/L | \% | | LO-HI | $0.0-1.0$ | $6.4-8.2$ | $3.4-5.0$ | $50-136$ | $15-37$ | $30-65$ | $25.0-41.0$ | | 06/22/04 | | | | | | | | | 0515 | 0.7 | 6.1 L | 3.7 | 74 | 38 H | 52 | 35.2 | | | | | | | | | |

DOB:05/13/1988 AGE:16Y SEX:M Printed 06/27/2004 07:00 INPATIENT MEDICAL RECORDS CONTINUED Page

METROPLEX HOSPITAL
2201 S. Clear Creek Road
Killeen, TX 76549
Dr. Phillip Day * Dr. Fayza Reheim Pathologists

Ordering Physician: JAMPALA, VILAYABABU, MD

| Patient: | | Location: 9A | Room: 9A 904-A | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Physicians: | JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | Case #: 1008423 | | | Admit Date: 06/21/2004 Discharge Date: 06/26/2004 | | | | | TEST: | TSH | | | | UNITS | uIU/L | | | | $06/22/04$ | | | | | 0515 | 0.78 | | |

06/21/04 1450 Drug Screen, Urine Amphotamines, Urine Bacbituates, Urine Benzodiazapine, Urine Cocaine, Urine Opiates, Urine Phencyclidine, Urine TNC, Urine

• Positive [NEG] Negative [NEG] Negative [NEG] Negative [NEG] Negative [NEG]
• Positive [NEG]
• Positive [NEG]

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared $$ who being by me duly swor ( FULL NAME) deposed as follows:

My name is Melba Leanne Starkovich. I am of sound mind capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated:

I am the custodian of the records of $$ HOSPITAL

Attached here are $\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}$ pages of records from the medical records of $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ (ADMISSION AND DISCHARGE DATE)

These said pages of records are kept by said Hospital in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of said Hospital for an employee or representative of said Hospital, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis, recorded to make the record or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonable soon thereafter. The record attached hereto are the original of exact duplicates of the original.

$$\&\text{Melba Leanne Starkovich}\backslash \&\text{(SIGNATURE)}\backslash \&\text{SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this}\frac{1}{2}\text{day of November,}199\backslash \&\text{I ISSA LUCAS}\backslash \&\text{HOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS}\backslash \&\text{COMMINISION EXPRISES}\backslash \&\text{SEPTEMBER}162007$$

SEAL

My Commission Expires: $$

THE STATE OF TEXAS

" SUBPOENA - Duces Tecum " Cause No. 57558

To The Sheriff, Constable, or any Peace Officer of BELL County, said State, Greeting: You are hereby commanded to summon:

CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS METROPLEX HEALTH SYSTEM

Or Serve At: RETURN TO DA'S OFFICE FOR SERVICE

To be and appear. . . . . . INSTANTER . . . . . before the Honorable 264 District Court of Bell County, Texas, to be held at the Courthouse of said County, in Belton, Texas, then and there to testify as witness in behalf of the STATE OF TEXAS in a criminal action pending in said Court, entitled and numbered on the Criminal Docket of said Court, THE STATE OF TEXAS vs. THOMAS RAYMOND CARR, No. 57558, and therein remain from day to day, and from term to term, until discharged by due course of law.

Returnable INSTANTER.

HEREIN FAIL NOT, and make due return hereof, showing how you have executed the same. Witness my official signature, at Belton, Texas, this 30th day of October, A.D. 2006.

Shelia F. Norman, Clerk, 264 District Court, Bell County By:

Please contact the District Attorney's Office prior to appearance to avoid an unnecessary trip to court. 939-3521 or 1-800-460-2355, ext. 5215.

NOTE 'It is an offense for a person to intentionally influence or coerce a witness to testify falsely or to elude legal process. It is also a który offense to harm or threaten to harm a witness or prospective witness in retaliation for or on account of the service of the person as a witness or to prevent or delay the person's service as a witness to a crime."

NOTICIA "Es delito intimar u obligar a un testigo a declarar con falsedad o a evadir el proceso judicial. Tambien es delito penal herir o amenazar con herir a un testigo, o a un testigo prospectivo, en represalia o a consecuencia de haber declarado en juicio o con el afan de impedir o demoral su comparecencla como testigo de un delito."

• DUCES TECUM TO BRING OR PRODUCE ANY &; ALL MEDICAL RECORDS, INCLUDING ANY &; ALL PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS,OF STEVEN GARCIA DOB.02/21/1990,CONCERN ING EXAMINATION &; TREATMENT OF STEVEN GARCIA FROM JUNE 19,2004 THROUGH PRESENT DATE "

PSYCHIATRIC DISCHARGE SUMMARY

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: S is a 14 -year-old Hispanic male who was admitted with a history of using drugs including methamphetamine, resulting in auditory and visual hallucinations and paranoid delusions on the night of admission. Refer to the psychiatric evaluation for details.

LABORATORY FINDINGS: Psychological testing on 6-25-04 by Eugene Waters, Ph.D., revealed a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified and borderline personality traits. Refer to his report for further details.

CBC with differential revealed increased monocytes. Comprehensive metabolic panel revealed elevated alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin at $1.3\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{l}$ ( 0 to 1). TSH within normal limits. Urine drug screen positive for THC and amphetamines. RPR nonreactive. Urinalysis revealed a small amount of bilirubin, trace ketones and protein with 2-5 red blood cells. EEG revealed normal sinus rhythm.

HOSPITAL COURSE: He was maintained on no medications during his short stay here, as it was felt that his psychosis was the result of the drug abuse. He was alert, awake and more appropriate as the treatment progressed. Family therapy went well. He admitted to low esteem and depressive feelings. The guy who gave him drugs had reportedly threatened to kill him if he told anyone about who gave him the drugs. No cravings for drugs were seen. His lip abrasion was treated with peroxide. He needed nutrition supplements. He denies suicidal or homicidal thoughts, urges or plans or florid psychotic symptoms. He admitted that using drugs is wrong and that he would not repeat such a mistake again. We processed how drugs can be detrimental to his health and how they can cause mental status changes. At birth he had anoxia secondary to aspirations. He said he felt supported. He denied suicidal or homicidal thoughts, urges or plans and was discharged in stable condition to his mother. We gave him a drug package which he worked on in his therapy sessions.

DISCHARGE DIAGNOSIS: AXIS I: 1. Psychotic disorder not otherwise specified. 2. Dysthymic disorder. 3. Stimulant abuse, episodic.

AXIS II: Borderline personality traits. AXIS III: None.

| Admit: $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Disch: $06/28/2004$ | MR#: 294254 | | Acct#: 1008534 | | Sex: M Age: 14Y | Dictating: Vijayababu Jampala, MD | | | | Room. Pt Type: P | Attending: JAMPALA, VIZAYABABU, MD | | | | ORIGINAL | | | |

METROPLEX HOSPITAL

2201 S. Clear Creek Road Killeen. TX 76549 (254) $526-7523$

AXIS IV: Severe - problems with primary support system, peer relationship problems. AXIS V: GAF 50

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Consider antipsychotic medication in the future if he regresses to any psychosis, but at this point he does not need any medications. 2 He will be seeing Dr. Daheim on 7-6-04 for follow-up individual and family therapy.

VJ/uv D $07/26/2004$ T. $07/27/200410:18.34$ E.T.

E. $07/27/200410:18:34$ E.T./uv

Job H: 163746 Doc H: 2326622 CC: CT - Central Time / E.T. - Eastern Time

| Admit | $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: | | | :-- | :-- | :-- | :-- | | Disch | $06/28/2004$ | MR#: 294254 | AcctH: 1008534 | | Sex: M | Age: 14Y | Dictating: Vijayababu | Jampala, MD | | Room: Pt Type: P | Attending: | JAMPALA, VIJRYABABU, MD | | | ORIGINAL | | | |

METROPIEY HOSPITAL

2201 S. Clear Creek Road Killeen, TX 76549 (254) $526-7523$

PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

S is a 14-year-old Hispanic male in $8^{\text{th}}$ grade at Liberty Hill Middle School. He lives with his mom, stepdad and 2 sisters 17 and 5. There is another 2 t old girl in the home.

HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS:

The patient reportedly used drugs on the night of admission including methamphetamine, resulting in auditory and visual hallucinations and paranoid delusions. He has been biting his lip and has an abrasion on his lower lip. He has had behavioral changes in the last 2 weeks and the parent blame a couple of friends. He has also been having strange body movements, talking to himself with animation and has been telling recent happening about his lifestyle in bits and pieces. He has also been making comments like, "Take my life, drowsy, hypocrite," etc., which has been getting worse. The mom is being reminded of the biological dad when she looks at him.

This admission was necessitated as the patient injected methamphetamine over the weekend and became psychotic with paranoid delusions, auditory and visual hallucinations, biting his lip and saying that he was in a fight. He was hallucinating and talking to the walls and boxes. No previous behavioral problems are reported. He claims he is seeing someone who has a mask, and he cannot see her face.

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY:

None.

FAMILY PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY:

The mom is 7 months pregnant and feels that she cannot handle him and is scared for che safety of herself and the unborn infant. The stepfather of 10 years works at McLane. The biological father has been in prison for murder in California. The biological dad reportedly committed the crime while he was under the influence of drugs. The patient's last saw his biological father at age 5 .

DEVELOPMENT HISTORY:

He is che product of a normal pregnancy and had meconium with labor 45 minute long. He weight 10 pounds 8 ounces. He was slow in talking in sentences and walking and toilet training.

MEDICAL HISTORY:

He is allergic to cats. He has never been hospitalized. He has seasonal asthma. No staring spells, no epilepsy, no headaches.

MENTAL STATUS EXAMINATION:

He is casually dressed, appearing his stated age. He is sleeping and is

| Admit: $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Disch: | MR#: 294254 | | Acct# 1008534 | | Sex: M Age: 14Y | Dictating: Vijayababu Jampala, MD | | | | Room: 0902 Pt Type: P | Attending: JAMPALA, VIDAYABABU, MD | | |

MITROPIEK BOSPITAL

2201 S. Clear Creek Road Killeen, TX 76549 (254) $526-7523$ difficult to awaken. He answered monosyllabically, nodding or answering in 1 word the reportedly had Geodon and Ativan shots last night). His 3 wishes are to be rich, to have a good life and fur his family to have a good life. He denies current suicidal or homicidal ideation. His career plan is to be an artist. He is sad, blunted in affect, unarousable. He is oriented to place only with poor judgement operationally, no insight and no remorse for his drug abuse.

DIAGNOSES:

AXIS I: I. Stimulant induced psychosis. 2. Rule out major depression. 3. Dysthymia. 4. Oppositional defiant disorder.

AXIS II: None. AXIS III: None. AXIS IV: Severe - problems with primary support system, peer relationship problems. AXIS V: GAF 30. Severity - severe. Prognosis guarded.

RECONHENDATIONS:

1. Admit to acute inpatient treatment with close observations, structured milieu behavioral management, individual, family, group and activity therapy and specialized educational services.
2. Will not start any medications at this point. Although Geodon was ordered, will discontinued at this point to watch his baseline behaviors and need for antipsychotic medication. I believe this is a stimulant use psychosis if there is no previous history of psychosis.
3. Drug education, and referral to outpatient rehab services will be made.

VJ/ow D: $06/22/2004$ T: $06/22/200415:04:13$ E.T. E: $06/22/200415:04:13$ E.T./ uW Job #: 152028 Doc #: 2165402 CC: C.T. = Central Time / E.T. = Eastern Time

| Admit: $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: GA | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Disch: | | | | | Sex: M Age: 14Y | Dictating: Vijayababu Jampaia, MD | | | | Room: 0902 Pt Type: P | Attending: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | | | | ORIGINAL | Page 2 of 2 | | |

PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

DOB: 2-21-90 age 14 DATE OF EVALUATION: 6-25-04 REASON FOR REFERRAL: Stephen is referred for psychological evaluation by Dr. Jampala, as part of his admission to Metroplex Pavilion. The request is for assistance with differential diagnosis, personality dynamics, and treatment planning.

ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES:

Diagnostic Interview Review of Hospital Records Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence (TONI 2) Wide Range Achievement Test (WHAT-3) House-Tree-Person (Projective Drawings) Bender Gestalt Projective Drawings Rorschach Inkblot Test

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Ssays he was admitted to the hospital because "I did drugs and I was hallucinating," adding that he did "the shot kind" of drug, unable to recall the name, and that his only prior drug use was "the pipe kind." For a detailed history, the reader is referred to the psychiatric evaluation done by Dr. Jampala, as well as the psychosocial evaluation.

ASSESSMENT RESULTS:

presents as passive, cooperative, somewhat lethargic and slow. sticnts at drawing are detailed and careful, and her participates without incident. He scores at third grade level in both Reading and Spelling, and at fourth grade level in Math, with probable significant deficits in all three areas that would require remedial intervention. Standard scores are 71, 76, and 75 , respectively.

His Bender suggests conflict and tension in his relationships with both parents and in his role in his interpersonal world, where he appears to feel isolated, and there also appear to be ego-integrity problems in his relationship with his mother. Overall inner tension is suggested by the pressure exerted in his drawings. His very artistic drawings suggest and active (out of control?) fantasy life, a possible traumatic event early in his childhood, and a sense of alienation within the family constellation, with unresolved oral dependency needs.

His Rorschach indicates that $S$ n readily distorts reality, with no apparent concern for the incongruous nature of some of her percepts and fluid boundaries, making it difficult for him to interpret events accurately. Selfconcept is distorted, as is his view of others, and his passive behavioral style makes him vulnerable to being used or manipulated by others. He has

| Admit: $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: 06/22/2004 | | :-- | :-- | | Disch $06/28/2004$ | MR#: 294254 | | Sex: M Age: 14Y | Dictating: EUGENE C. WATERS, Ph.D. | | Room: Pt Type: P | Attending: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD |

ORIGINAL Page 1 of 2

withdrawn from age-appropriate competitiveness, with lowered aspirational level, probably due to his lowered self-esteem, and lack of self-confidence, and he keeps others at a safe and superficial distance in order to avoid compromise, not expecting to have positive interactions. Oral dependency needs are unresolved, and he easily feels challenged, due to his fragile sense of integrity. One metamorphosis response suggests that personality is organized at a borderline level, and he appears to be extremely ambivalent, unable to clear define his boundaries.

DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSION:

AXIS I: Psychotic disorder, not otherwise specified. AXIS II: Borderline personality traits. AXIS III: Deferred to physician.

RECOMMENDATIONS: An antipsychotic medication appears appropriate, and psychotherapy may have to explore family dynamics as part of intervention as well as self-esteem and self-concepts issues.

EW/us D: $07/26/2004$ T: $07/26/200415:24:49$ E.T. E: $07/26/200415:24:49$ E.T./us Job B: 163734 Doc B: 2323163 CC: C.T. Central Time / E.T. Eastern Time

| Admit: $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: 074254 | ACTB: 1008534 | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Disch 06/28/2004 | MR#: 294254 | | | Sex: M Age: 14Y | Dictating: EUGENE C. WATERS, Ph.D. | | | Room: Pt Type: P | Attending: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | | | | | |

PSYCHOSOCIAL ASSESSMENT

I. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION

• NAME: DOB and AGE:

DATE QF ASSESSMENT: ETHNIC: (4) $/24/04$

INFORMATION: ADDRESS: 4410 Grant C. P. (4) $/24/04$

QMAN: 44231100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

III. SOCIAL HISTORY

A. BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT:

Was pt full term? Weight? Vaginal delivery or C-Section? $10\mathrm{K}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}$ Was C-Section planned or emergency?- Poyeal delining-

Any complications during pregnancy, delivery or at birth? - In bhep l m Any ETOH or drug use by mom during pregnancy? Any ETOH or drug use by mom during pregnancy?

Developmental milestones WNL? Any developmental delays? In what areas? Wellbut at almuer 2 y del - side aslujal Any significant health problems or surgeries or hospitalizations as a child? Age? 15 m Any head injuries? LOC? How long? Age? Where was pt born? Multiple moves? - Calf-

What grade is pt in? Name of school? What type of classes? (i.e. resource, content mastery) Any other special ed. Services?

Any learning disabilities? Is English the language?

Was the pt ever retained or advanced a grade? When?

Any behavioral difficulties in class? Detentions? Suspensions? Expulsions?

For what reasons?

C FAMILY CONSTELLATION AND RELATIONSHIPS (Include discipline): 277 No then 9? Repting NPS To 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Describe pt's relationship with absent parent? Describe pt's relationship with household members?

Who is primary disciplinarian? What form of discipline is used? -Tah play starlon Is disciplining effective? D. MARITAL Snd $10-3P128$ mons

How many times have parents been married? Common law or legal?

Give names of spouses and approximate dates of each marriage/ union?

Any children from these relationships? Briefly describe each relationship. Any physical abuse? TtHop $f_r$ abune

Is (Are) parent(s) currently married, living with or dating anyone?

Length of time?

E WORK/FINANCIAL (Include military history):

Where are parents working? (Include bio and step parents) How long? -Kallm

Describe job.

Any past work or military history? Length of time? Any other source of income? (SSI/SSD, child support, housing, food stamps, TANF, etc) How much?

Does anyone else contribute to the household? What type of insurance does pt have? Any financial stressors? $0K$ Does family have access to transportation?

F. SPIRITUAL/RELIGION:

Does pt or family have any religious affiliation? Current belief system? What church do they attend? Is pt involved in any church activities? Does pt enjoy attending church? Yes

Was pt baptized? Does pt or family consider spiritual beliefs a large part of their life?

G. PHYSICAL/SEXUAL ABUSE:

Is there any hx of physical or sexual abuse with pt or family member? When, Where, What, Who; and by whom? Age of abuse? Age of perpetrator, if known? nork Was a report made? To Whom? Is CPS currently involved with family? CPS worker's name and #? Age pt achieved menarche? Any difficulties? Is pt currently sexually active or has hx of being sexually active? nork Sexual orientation? Sexual preference? - huss yield fom Any hx of STD? Any pregnancies? Does pt use birth control? Type? H. SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS:

Does pt have any friends? Any best friends?

Is pt able to make friends and maintain long term relationships? Does pt socialize more with males or females?

Is pt able to share?

Who does pt consider a support system? What does pt do for fun? Rovest Dron Play Stntion Conpuct Any involvement in extracurricular activities of other leisure activities? $$ $?$

I ALCOHOL/DRUG HISTORY: 199822.04 stonted wang Does pt drink or use drugs? What kind? Frequency? How much? $$ Nwit 1998 200019 When did pt start using? 2-22-04 Does pt feel he/she has a problem with drugs/ETOH? 249 How much does pt spend on drugs or ETOH? 20 Has pt ever been to rehab? Where? When? How long? Was it successful? 212

Does pt attend any support groups? Any legal problems due to drugs/alcohol? Any family hx of abuse? (Give details) (2) 20 (2) 20 (2) 20 (2) 20 (2) 20

J. LEGAL: (2) 20 Has pt ever been arrested?' Why, When, Where, How long, What reason?

Is pt currently on probation or parole? Why? Any charges or warrants filed against them? Why? Any other legal issues? (custody, divorce, restraining orders, DWI'S, etc.) Any family history of legal involvement? Who, Why, When...?

IV. PERTINENT MEDICAL/PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY

Has the pt ever been hospitalized before for any psychiatric problems? Where? When? Why? (Include diagnoses and meds, if known)

Any past suicide attempts or gestures? (Include dates and nature of attempt)

V. INTERVIEW OBSERVATIONS (Include family expectations/participation)

| Appearance | $\because$ Alect | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Eye Contact. | | | | Mood | | | | Affect | | | | Thought Process: | | | | Speech: | | | | What is pt's/family's expectation from treatment? | | |

VI. DIAGNOSTIC SOCIAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

A STRENGTHS | Caring for other | | --- | | | | |

B WEAKNESSES: - Con zelfales follow

C GOALS.

VII. DIAGNOSTIC SUMMARY

Summary of why patient is admitted. Diagnoses.

What are the patient's current needs?

Assessment of the case.

Goals of treatment.

VIII. SOCIAL DISCHARGE PLAN

Where will pt be discharged to?

Aftercare arrangements?

Any identified services needed?

METROPIEZ HOSPITAL

2701 S. Clear Creek Road Killeen, TX 76549 (254) $526-7523$

HISTORY AND PHYSICAL

CHIEF COMPLAINT:

Admission to Metropiex Pavilion

HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS:

The patient's mother has been reporting changes in his behavior for about 2 weeks now. He got in with a group of kids that were doing drugs. The mother did not know that he had been smoking marijuana for probably over 2 years. His father is in prison for murder in California. The patient was 5 years old the last time he saw his father. He has been talking to himself and having hallucinations according to the mother. Over the weekend, he was apparently with some friends and they did marijuana and crystal meth. He chewed on his lower lip during this time under the influence.

PAST MEDICAL HISTORY:

He was delivered normally after a normal pregnancy. Birth weight was $10\frac{11}{2}$ pounds. There is no history of birth injuries or breathing difficulties. He had no problems while in the Nursery or for the first month of life. There is no history of him being hospitalized previously, and there have been no chronic illnesses, except for seasonal allergies.

ALLERGIES:

No known medical allergies according to the chart. He is allergic to cats.

INHUNIZATIONS:

Stated to be up to date.

FAMILY HISTORY:

There is a family history of asthma and school dysfunction.

REVIEW OF SYSTEMS:

Negative.

PHYSICAL

GENERAL: He is a tall, thin boy. He climbed on the table and immediately laid down. He could not open his eyes well for the exam. His eyes were pinpoint when I finally could look at them. He was very wobbly in his gait. He apparently got some Ativan and Vistaril last night because of the reaction to the crystal meth injection and he is still under the influence of that at this time. VITAL SIGNS: Nored and are within normal limits. HEENT: Nose, mouth, pharynx, eyes, and ears are normal. His lower lip on the right side has been chewed considerably inside and out. It does not look infected. It is swollen, and there are abrasions. MECK: Supple and normal. CMEST: Normal.

| Admit: $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Disch: | MR#: 294254 | | | | Sex: M Age: 14Y | Dictating: Pamela Hornbeck, | | APNP | | Room: 0902 Pt Type: F | Attending: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | | | | ORIGINAL | Page 1 of 2 | | |

HETROPIEI HOSPITAL

2201 S. Clear Creek Road Killeen, TX 76549 (254) $526-7523$

HEART: S1 and S2 are normal. Regular rate and rhythm. No murmur. LUNGS: Clear to auscultation. ARDOHEN: Soft. No hepatosplenomegaly. Nontender. No masses. EXTREMITIES: Within normal limits. BACK: Within normal limits. SKIN: Within normal limits. WEUROLOGICAL: At this time, he is under the influence of Ativan and Vistar.? from what the nurse told me. His examination was within normal limits, except for the fact that he kept falling asleep and could not stand up straight, just from the drug effect.

ADMITTING DIAGNOSIS:

1. DYSTHMIA, OPPOSITIONAL DEFIANT DISORDER, RULE OUT MAJOR DEPRESSION.
2. NORMAL NEUROLOGICAL EXAM.
3. NORMAL PHYSICAL EXAM.

PLAN:

1. Psychiatric evaluation and treatment as per the Psychiatric Team at Metroplex Pavilion.
2. Cleared medically for admission to the Pavilion.
3. Normal neurological exam, with the exception mentions. No further neurological consultation is warranted unless indicated by further-course and/or information.

Pamel Herribeck, APNP For Omar Homsi, M.D.

PH/SD D: $06/22/2004$ T: $06/22/200416:06:30$ E.T. E: $06/22/200416:06:30$ E.T./SD JOD 8: 152051 Doc 8: 2165836 CC: C T = Central Time / E.T. = Eastern Time

| Admit: $06/22/2004$ | Patient Name: | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | OIsch: | MR#: 294254 | Accit: 1008534 | | | Sex: M Age: 14Y | Oictating: Pamela Hornbeck, APNP | | | | Room: 0902 Pt Type: P | Attending: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | | |

NOTICE TO ALL PATIENTS OR PATIENT REPRESENTATIVE a physician is on duty in this Emergency Room. That physician is not an employee or agent of Metropies Hospital. You may tenn, to be seen by your family physician or you may choose to be seen by the physician on duty in the Emergency Room.

AVISO A NUESTROS PACIENTES

Ray un medicn de turno aqui en esta sale de emergencia. Ese medico no es empleado ni agente del Metropies Hospital. Usted quede pedir que su medico personal tu alienda a usted aqui o usted puede ver al medico de turno.

AUTHORIZATION FOR MEDICAL AND/OR SURGICAL PROCEDUERS AND TREATMENT 1. hereby authorize the attending physician and whomever he may designate as his assistant to administer such medications and treatment as is necessary, and such operations or procedures as are considered therapeutically necessary on the basis of findings in my case I also consent to the administration of such anesthetics as are necessary

C. M. ing information.

MEETROPLEX HEALTH SYSTEM Travilion Nursing Admission Summary

1008534 M H D 000294254 Q JANPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD 902A $6/22/04014Y$ P $2/21/90$ ADDRESS BURAN MEDICAL ISSUES SUMMARY

METROPLEX PAVILION MENTAL HEALTH NURSING ASSESSMENT

METHOD I HOSPITAL
2201 S. Clear Creek Road
Killeen, TX 76549
Dr. Phillip Day * Dr. Fayza Reheim Pathologists

Ordering Physician: JAMPALA, VLJAYABABU, MD

| Patient: Physicians: | JAMPALA, VLJAYABABU, MD | Location: 9A
Case #: 1008534
Med Rec#: 000294254 | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | $\&\text{TEST}\&\text{UNITS:}\&\text{LO-HI:}$ | $\&\text{WBC}\&\times 10·3/\mathrm{u}\mathrm{L}\&4.0-12.0$ | $\text{RBC}\times 10·6/\mathrm{u}\mathrm{L}4.7-6.1$ | $\text{HGB}g/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}14.0-18.0$ | $\text{HCT}\text{E}42.0-52.0$ | $\text{MCV}\text{fL}80-94$ | $\text{MCV}\text{pg}30-34$ | $\text{MCHC}g/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}32-36$ | | $06/22/04$ | | | | | | | | | 0530 | 8.2 | 5.17 | 14.9 | 43.6 | 84.2 | 28.7 L | 34.1 | | TEST:
UNITS:
LO-HI: | RDW
\% | PLT
X10.3/uL | DTYPE | SEGS | LYMPHS | MONOS | EOS | BASOS | | $\&\text{10-HI:}\&06/22/04$ | $11.5-13.5$ | $140-450$ | | 40.75 | 15.50 | $1-12$ | 0.5 | $0-1.5$ | | $0530$ | 12.0 | 229 | AUTO DIFF | 46.9 | 35.9 | 12.3 N | 3.9 | 1.0 | | TEST:
1EST: | Free t4
Index
ug/dL | | | | | | | | | $\&06/22/04\&0530$ | 3.80 | | | | | | | | | TEST:
JNITS:
LO-HI: | Sodium
mEq/L | Potassium
mEq/L | Chloride
mEq/L | $\&\text{CO2}\&\mathrm{m}\mathrm{E}\mathrm{q}/L$ | Glucose
mg/dL | $\&\text{BUN}\&\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}$ | $\&\text{Creat}\&\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}$ | Calcium
mg/dL | | $\&06/22/04\&0530$ | 140 | 4.1 | 104 | 25 | 69 L | 21 | 0.9 | 9.0 | | TEST:
UNITS:
LO-HI: | Bilirubin
mg/dL | Total
g/dL | Albumin
g/dL | Alk Phos | $\text{SGOT}\text{(AST)}$ | $\text{SGPT}\text{(ALT)}$ | $\text{T-3}\text{Uptake}$ | T4
ug/dL | | $\&06/22/04\&0530$ | $0.0-1.0$ | $6.4-8.2$ | $3.4-5.0$ | $50-136$ | 15.37 | $30-65$ | $25.0-41.0$ | $4.5-12.1$ | | $0530$ | 1.3 N | 6.6 | 4.1 | 261 N | 35 | 31 | 37.5 | 10.0 |

JARCIA, STEPHEN

DOB:02/21/1990 AGE:14Y SEX:M Printed 06/25/2004 07:15 CHART COPY CUMULATIVE SUM

9A/-9A0901-A COPY CUMULATIVE SUM

METRO &; HOSPITAL
2201 S. Clear Creek Road
Killeen, TX 76549
Dr. Phillip Day * Dr. Fayza Reheim
Pathologists

Ordering Physician: JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD

| Patient: | GARCIA, STEPHEN | | :--: | :--: | | Physicians: | | | | JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | | Admit Date: 06/22/2004 | |

| LATE: | $06/22/04$ | | :-- | :-- | | TIME: | 0530 | | | | | FOR: | NON REACTIVE |

| NORMALS | UNITS | | :--: | :--: | | 5.0-9.0 | | | 1.001-1.035 | | | NEG | mg/dL | | NEG | mg/dL | | NEG | mg/dL | | NEG | /ul | | NEG | mg/dL | | 0.2-1.0 | mg/dL |

GARCIA, STEPHEN DOB:02/21/1990 AGE:14Y SEX:M Printed 06/25/2004 07:15 CHART COPY CUMULATIVE SUM CONTINUED Page 2

METRO X HOSPITAL
2201 S. Clear Creek Road
Killeen, TX 76549
Dr. Phillip Day * Dr. Fayza Reheim
Pathologists

Ordering Physician: JAMPALA, VILAYABABU, MD

| Patient: | GARCIA, STEPHEN | Location: 9A | Room: 9A0901-A | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Physicians: | | Case #: 1008534 | | | | JAMPALA, VIJAYABABU, MD | Med Rec#: 000294254 | | | Admit Date: 06/22/2004 | | | | | | Urinaly | | | | DATE: | $06/21/04$ | | | | TIME: | 2010 | NORMALS | UNITS | | Nltrite | Negative | NEG | /ul | | Leukocyte esterase | Negative | NEG | /npf | | WBC | $0-2$ | 0-2 | /npf | | RBC | $2-5$ | $0-2$ | /npf | | Bacteria | Few | | | | Epithelial | Few | | | | Mucus | Many | | |

Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared $$ MeHm Leann Starkovich (FULL NAME) who being by me duly sworn deposed as follows: My name is MeHm Leann Starkovich. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated:

I am the custodian of the records of $$ $△3015$ Ciegr Creek Pol Killegan P 76549 (NAME OF FACILITY AND ADDRESS) Attached here are $$ pages of records from the medical records of $$ (NAME OF PATIENT) hospital stay period: $\frac{3-11-05}{}$ Emergency Point (0) 2014 Emergency Rept. (ADMISSION AND DISCHARGE DATE)

These said pages of records are kept by said Hospital in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of said Hospital for an employee or representative of said Hospital, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis, recorded to make the record or to transmit information thereof to be included in such record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonable soon thereafter. The record attached hereto are the original of exact duplicates of the original.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

" SUBPOENA - Duces Tecum

Cause No. 57558 To The Sheriff, Constable, or any Peace Officer of BELL County, said State, Greeting: You are hereby commanded to summon:

CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS METROPLEX HEALTH SYSTEM

Or Serve At: RETURN TO DA'S OFFICE FOR SERVICE

to be and appear

INSTANTER . . . . before the Honorable 264 District Court of Bell County, Texas, to be held at the Courthouse of said County, in Belton, Texas, then and there to testify as witness in behalf of the STATE OF TEXAS in a criminal action pending in said Court, entitled and numbered on the Criminal Docket of said Court, The STATE OF TEXAS vs. THOMAS RAYMOND CARR, No. 57558, and therein remain from day to day, and from term to term, until discharged by due course of law.

Returnable INSTANTER.

HEREIN FAIL NOT, and make due return hereof, showing how you have executed the same. Witness my official signature, at Belton, Texas, this 30th day of October, A.D. 2008.

Shelia F. Norman, Clerk, 264 District Court, Bell County By: Please contact the District Attorney's Office prior to appearance to avoidan unnecessary trip to court. 939-3521 or 1-800-460-2355, ext. 5215.

NOTE It is an offense for a person to intentionally influence or coerce a witness to testify falsely or to elude legal process. It is also a który offense to harm or threaten to harm a witness or prospective witness in retaliation for or on account of the service of the person as a witness or to prevent or delay the person's service as a witness to a crime."

NOTICIA 'Es delito intimar o obligar a un testigo a declarar con falsedad o a evadir el proceso judicial. Tambien es delito penal here o amenazar con herir a un testigo, o a un testigo prospectivo, en represalia o a consecuencia de haber declarado en juicio o con el ateli de impedir o demorar su comparecencla como testigo de un delito."

• DUCES TECUM TO BRING OR PRODUCE SNV A AL MEDICAL REPORTS INCLUDING

Poor shop $d$ appetite $d$ atheophotane use

MENTAL STATUS: ORIENTED: $$ $YOY$ HALLUCINATIONS: $$ no: no SPEECH: $$ N.L. APPEARANCE: $$ N.L. AFFECT: $$ $$ $◻$ MOOD: $$ c:lom THOUGHT CONTENT/PERCEPTION: $$ $$ $Y$ EASILY DISTRACTED $$ POUR RIDGMENT $$

REVIEW OF SYMPTOM: MAJOR DEPRESSION (MUST MEST DSM IV DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA) $$ POUR APPEITTE; EIGNIFICANT WEIGHT LOSS INSEADHA OR WYPERSOMATA PSYCHOMOTOR AGITATION OR RETARDATION LOSS OF EHERDY OR FATIGUE PEELING OF WOR THE ESSINESS, SELF-REPROACH OR EXCESSIVE OR DIAPPROPRIATE CULT RECURRENT THOUGHTS OF DEATH, SUBCDAL IDEATION, WISHED TO BE DEAD OR SUICIDE ATTEMPT CONPLAINTS OR EVIDENCE OF DIAGNESKED ABILITY TO THINK, CONCEPTRATE (SUCH AS SLOWER THINKING INDECISIVENESS NOT ASOCIATED WITH MARKED LOOSEHING OF ASSOCIATKING) OR INCOHERENCE.

DISPOSITION:

ATTEINDING ER PHYSICIAN: $$ $$

ADMITTING PHYSICIAN: $$ PHYSICIAN'S ADMITTING DIAGNOSIS: $$

SIGNATURE

• NOTE: THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD ACCOMPANY PATIENTS BEING ADMITTED: (1) EMERGENCY MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION, (2) EMERGENCY ROOM EVALUATION/FACE SHEET, (3) BLUE CARD AND (4) SIGNED PATIENTS' BILL OF RIGHTS COVER SHEET.

Exhibit 10

Stimulant ADHD Medications: Methylphenidate and Amphetamines

Stimulant medications including amphetamines (e.g., Adderall) and methylphenidate (e.g., Ritalin and Concerta) are often prescribed to treat children, adolescents, or adults diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

People with ADHD persistently have more difficulty paying attention or are more hyperactive or impulsive than other people the same age. This pattern of behavior usually becomes evident when a child is in preschool or the first grades of elementary school; the average age of onset of ADHD symptoms is 7 years. Many people's ADHD symptoms improve during adolescence or as they grow older, but the disorder can persist into adulthood.

ADHD diagnoses are increasing. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of 2011, 11 percent of people ages 4-17 have been diagnosed with ADHD.

How Are Prescription Stimulants Used?

Prescription stimulants have a calming and "focusing" effect on individuals with ADHD. They are prescribed to patients for daily use, and come in the form of tablets or capsules of varying dosages. Treatment of ADHD with stimulants, often in conjunction with psychotherapy, helps to improve ADHD symptoms along with the patient's selfesteem, thinking ability, and social and family interactions.

Prescription stimulants are sometimes abused however-that is, taken in higher quantities or in a different manner than prescribed, or taken by those without a prescription. Because they suppress appetite, increase wakefulness, and increase focus and attention, they are frequently abused for purposes of weight loss or performance enhancement (e.g., to help study or boost grades in school; see box).

Because they may produce euphoria, these drugs are also frequently abused for recreational purposes (i.e., to get high). Euphoria from stimulants is generally produced when pills are crushed and then snorted or mixed with water and injected.

Do Prescription Stimulants Make You Smarter?

A growing number of teenagers and young adults are abusing prescription stimulants to boost their study performance in an effort to improve their grades in school, and there is a widespread belief that these drugs can improve a person's ability to learn ("cognitive enhancement").

Prescription stimulants do promote wakefulness, but studies have found that they do not enhance learning or thinking ability when taken by people who do not actually have ADHD. Also, research has shown that students who abuse prescription stimulants actually have lower GPAs in high school and college than those who don't.

How Do Prescription Stimulants Affect the Brain?

All stimulants work by increasing dopamine levels in the brain-dopamine is a neurotransmitter associated with pleasure, movement, and attention. The therapeutic effect of stimulants is achieved by slow and steady increases of dopamine, which are similar to the way dopamine is naturally produced in the brain. The doses prescribed by physicians start low and increase gradually until a therapeutic effect is reached.

When taken in doses and via routes other than those prescribed, prescription stimulants can increase brain dopamine in a rapid and highly amplified manner (similar to other drugs of abuse such as methamphetamine), thereby disrupting normal communication between brain cells and producing euphoria and, as a result, increasing the risk of addiction.

What Are the Other Health Effects of Prescription Stimulants?

Stimulants can increase blood pressure, heart rate, and body temperature and decrease sleep and appetite. When they are abused, they can lead to malnutrition and its consequences. Repeated abuse of stimulants can lead to feelings of hostility and paranoia. At high doses, they can lead to serious cardiovascular complications, including stroke.

Addiction to stimulants is also a very real consideration for anyone taking them without medical supervision. Addiction most likely occurs because stimulants, when taken in doses and routes other than those prescribed by a doctor, can induce a rapid rise in dopamine in the brain. Furthermore, if stimulants are abused chronically, withdrawal symptoms-including fatigue, depression, and disturbed sleep patterns-can result when a person stops taking them. Additional complications from abusing stimulants can arise when pills are crushed and injected: Insoluble fillers in the tablets can block small blood vessels.

Do Prescription Stimulants Affect a Patient's Risk of Substance Abuse? Concerns have been raised that stimulants prescribed to treat a child's or adolescent's ADHD could affect an individual's vulnerability to developing later drug problemseither by increasing the risk or by providing a degree of protection. The studies conducted so far have found no differences in later substance use for children with ADHD who received treatment and those that did not. This suggests treatment with ADHD medication appears not to affect (either negatively or positively) an individual's risk for developing a substance use disorder.

Learn More

For more information on prescription stimulants, visit www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ research-reports/prescription drugs/director.

Ritalin Dependence-Signs of Ritalin Use Vs. Abuse, Tolerance

Ritalin is the trade name for methylphenidate, a stimulant that is most commonly used to treat attention-det cit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adults and chronic sleep disorder. It is listed as a controlled substance in the United States and is comparable to the drug amphetamine

IN THIS PRNT VERBON ARRICLE

Is Ritalin Addictive? Understanding Ritalin Dependency and Tolerance Effects/ Side Effects Withdrawal and Detoxil cation Treatment for Ritalin Addiction (http://www.dependency.net/learn/amphetamine/). Abuse of Ritalin produces effects similar to cocaine. When used exactly as prescribed, Ritalin is considered safe, which is why it is so frequently prescribed for children. Although Ritalin increases the levels of dopamine in the brain, like other stimulants, the controlled dosage prevents the chemical changes from inducing the euphoric effects of illegal stimulants. Abuse by Ritalin users with a legal prescription (http://www.dependency.net/learn /prescription-drugs/) is not common; however, abuse by people who obtain the drug illegally for its ability to mimic the effects of cocaine at high doses is very common. The most common abusers of Ritalin are teenagers and young adults who use the drug for its euphoric effects, to stay

Act Now Get Help Today

Don't worry, we hate spam

I'm seeking treatment fur.

Your name

Your email

Your Phone Number

Submit Form

Or Call Toll Free 1888-290-6365 (tel: +8882906365 ) To Speak With a Treatment Advisor

Popular Treatment Centers

awake, and to increase concentration. Other abuses of the drug include taking it to lose weight or enhance performance.

Is Ritalin Addictive?

Studies indicate that Ritalin is not addictive when taken orally and used exactly as prescribed; however, it is addictive when abused. How addictive is Ritalin? It is highly addictive when misused and can result in severe psychological dependence (http://www.dependency.net/learn/drug-and-alcohol-tolerance-vs-dependence/). Basically, Ritalin abusers seek to turn the drug into a substitute for cocaine and experience the same addictive dangers.

In addition to taking Ritalin in excessive dosages, Ritalin abusers often crush the pills and snort the powder or mix the powder with water and inject it. This type of abuse produces results that are almost exactly the same as cocaine use. Abusers who use Ritalin to stay awake typically take the drug orally, while abusers who are interested in getting "high" snort or inject it.

Understanding Ritalin Dependency and Tolerance

A person who abuses Ritalin can develop a psychological dependence on the drug. Likewise, the person can develop a physical tolerance to the drug that requires an increased dosage to attain the same results. Ritalin dependence can lead to drug cravings and panic attacks if the drug is not available. These panic attacks can cause psychotic episodes and heart problems.

It is important to distinguish between abusers who are

Glucan from The Ritalin's TOP REHAB CENTER

A new, more than 200 years old, is a high risk of a drug abuse. It is a major cause of death in the United States. It is a major cause of death in the United States.

Click here (/treatmentcenter/) to contact a treatment center advisor, or review a facility below.

Axis Residential Center Indian Wells CA9220 Axis Residential Treatment Center is a full-service, private and safe treatment facility with professional, caring staff providing 24 hours a day, 7 days a week support.

Browse Articles

Prescription Drugs

Adderall

misusing Ritalin for performance purposes, which may cause them to stray into dependency and addiction (http://www.dependency.net/learn/drug-addiction/), and those who are specif cally seeking a cocaine-like high. Some hardcore abusers engage in "binge-crash" behavior, where continual use over the course of days without sleep results in a lapse into a coma-like state of heavy sleeping. If this sounds very much like cocaine abuse, it is because the tolerance and dependency dangers are almost identical. (http://www.dependency.net /learn/adderall/) Alprazolam (http://www.dependency.net /learn/alprazolam/) Ambien (http://www.dependency.net /learn/ambien/) Amphetamine

Effects/ Side Effects

Withdrawal and Detoxification

People who abuse Ritalin can overdose on the drug. It is important to be able to recognize the symptoms of an overdose in friends and loved ones so you can arrange immediate treatment. A Ritalin overdose can cause psychosis, agitation, lethargy, and seizures. If you suspect an overdose, contact a poison control center. A Ritalin overdose has the potential to cause an onset of sudden death, especially in people with underlying heart conditions, so immediate medical attention is advisable.

Withdrawal from Ritalin can result in a change in the person's behavior that may be diff cult for you to handle alone. Ritalin withdrawal symptoms are psychological (http://www.dependency.net/learn/drug-addiction/), and suddenly stopping the drug can cause psychotic behavior, aggression, panic, extreme fatigue and depression, and even suicidal tendencies. (http://www.dependency.net /learn/adderall/) Alprazolam (http://www.dependency.net /learn/alprazolam/) Ambien (http://www.dependency.net /learn/ambien/) Amphetamine

(http://www.dependency.net /learn/ativan/) Barbiturate (http://www.dependency.net /learn/barbiturate/) Benzodiazepine (http://www.dependency.net /learn/benzodiazepine/) Clonazepam (http://www.dependency.net /learn/clonazepam/) Codeine (http://www.dependency.net /learn/codeine/) Darvocet (http://www.dependency.net /learn/darvocet/) Demerol (http://www.dependency.net /learn/demerol/) Dexedrine (http://www.dependency.net

Short-Term Effects of Ritalin

Ritalin abuse produces a stimulant-like effect. The Ritalin high induces euphoria, wakefulness, and increased focus and awareness. The intensity of the high depends on the delivery method. Taking the drug orally produces little euphoric effect, unless it is taken in larges dosages. Snorting or injecting the drug greatly heightens the experience. The side effects of abusing Ritalin can include an increase in blood pressure, heart rate, and body temperature. Ritalin can also cause nervousness, dizziness, vomiting, stomach pain, diarrhea, shortness of breath, chest pain, hallucinations, itching, rashes, fainting, and seizures. Coming down from Ritalin can induce withdrawal symptoms, especially if the person is psychologically dependent. These symptoms can include panic, depression, mood changes, and psychotic episodes.

Long-Term Effects of Ritalin

Long-term Ritalin use may cause heart disease or stroke. Ritalin can block small blood vessels over time in abusers who inject the drug. Ongoing intravenous use can also expose the abuser to various blood-borne viruses, such as hepatitis $B$ and $C$ .

Treatment for Ritalin Addiction

Ritalin abuse treatment can be complicated by the severe psychological dependency that abusers experience, which can cause them to exhibit psychotic behavior when taken off (http://www.drugs.com/sfx/ritalin-side-effects.html) the drug. This behavior can manifest in life-threatening ways that may be too complex for an untrained individual to handle alone. People who are interested in I nding (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh22-1 /44-46.pdf) inpatient or outpatient services should consider /learn/dexedrine/) Diazepam (http://www.dependency.net /learn/diazepam/) Dilaudid (http://www.dependency.net /learn/dilaudid/) Fentanyl (http://www.dependency.net /learn/ fentanyl/) Fioricet (http://www.dependency.net /learn/I oricet/) Hydrocodone (http://www.dependency.net /learn/hydrocodone/) Klonopin (http://www.dependency.net /learn/klonopin/) Lorazepam (http://www.dependency.net /learn/Iorazepam/) Lorcet (http://www.dependency.net /learn/lorcet/) Lortab (http://www.dependency.net /learn/lortab/) Methadone (http://www.dependency.net /learn/methadone/) Methamphetamine (http://www.dependency.net /learn /methamphetamine/) Morphine (http://www.dependency.net /learn/morphine/) Narcotic (http://www.dependency.net

calling 1-888-290-6365 (tel:+18882906365) or / Iling out a quick contact form so they can I nd the support they need. / learn/narcotic/) Norco (http://www.dependency.net

Luxury and Executive Programs Detox, Dual-Diagnosis and more Call 1-800-768-1799 Today Or Get Facility Details

Effective, Affordable Luxury Insurance, Financing Available Call 1-800-798-7926 Today Or Get Facility Details

Excelent Value / /earn/opleid/) insurance Accepted Call 1-800-798-7926 Or GetFifth/1/44w.dependency.net /learn/oxycodone/) OxyContin (http://www.dependency.net /learn/oxycontin/) Percocet (http://www.dependency.net /learn/percocet/) Ritalin Roxicodone (http://www.dependency.net /learn/roxicodone/) Sedative (http://www.dependency.net /learn/sedative/) Soma (http://www.dependency.net /learn/soma/) Tramadol (http://www.dependency.net /learn/tramadol/) Tranquilizer (http://www.dependency.net /learn/tranquilizer/) Valium (http://www.dependency.net /learn/valium/) Vicodin

(http://www.dependency.net /learn/vicodin/) Vicoprofen (http://www.dependency.net /learn/vicoprofen/) Xanax (http://www.dependency.net /learn/xanax/)

Articlectegories

DrugAddiction

Prescription Drugs (http://www.dependency.net /learn/prescription- drugs/) Drug &; Alcohol Tolerance vs. Dependence (http://www.dependency.net /learn/drug- and-alcohol-tolerance- vs-dependence/) cocaine (http://www.dependency.net /learn/cocaine/) Crack Cocaine (http://www.dependency.net /learn/crack-cocaine/) Crystal Meth (http://www.dependency.net /learn/crystal-meth/) ecstasy (http://www.dependency.net /learn/ecstasy/) heroin (http://www.dependency.net /learn/heroin/) ketamine (http://www.dependency.net

(http://www.dependency.net /learn/vicodin/) Vicoprofen (http://www.dependency.net /learn/vicoprofen/) Xanax (http://www.dependency.net /learn/xanax/)

Artide categories

Drugaddiction Prescription Drugs (http://www.dependency.net /learn/prescription- drugs/) Drug &; Alcohol Tolerance vs. Dependence (http://www.dependency.net /learn/drug- and-alcohol-tolerance- vs-dependence/) cocaine (http://www.dependency.net /learn/ cocaine/) Crack Cocaine (http://www.dependency.net /learn/ crack-cocaine/) Crystal Meth (http://www.dependency.net /learn/crystal-meth/) ecstasy (http://www.dependency.net /learn/ecstasy/) heroin (http://www.dependency.net /learn/heroin/) ketamine (http://www.dependency.net

I learn/ ketamine/) LSD (http://www.dependency.net /learn/Isd/) marijuana (http://www.dependency.net /learn/marijuana/)

CALLUSTCLLERE 1888-290-6365 (TEL $+18882906365)$ CRUEECLR

C) 2015 Dspendency.net | All Rights Reserved

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy (itos-pp/)

EMPPA
PRACTICAL PAIN MANAGEMENT

$\Xi$ Q Subscribe to PPM and get a FREE Practice Listing. FOLLOW US $\mathit{f}\mathit{◻}\mathit{g}$

RENEW OR SUBSCRIBE TO PPM

Subscription is FREE for qualified healthcare professionals in the US. RENEW | SUBSCRIBE Download Email Print Tweet C Subscribe or renew to PPM

Methamphetamine Urine Toxicology: An In-depth Review

By Michael DeGeorge, Jr., PharmD1/author/11339/degeorge-jr) and John Weber(/author/11340/weber) 8-1 4 - Lika $12$ When a patient's urine drug screen tests positive for methamphetamine by mass spectrometry, the result has serious implications for the patient and the provider. Determining the source of the methamphetamine is an important next step and is not always as straightforward as it appears.

Background

Methamphetamine increases synaptic dopamine, primarily by stimulating presynaptic release rather than by blocking reuptake. Small doses have central stimulant effects without significant peripheral actions. Methamphetamine produces subjective effects that are similar to those of cocaine, and it is for this reason that it is often a medication of abuse. 1 In 2011, 133,000 persons aged 12 years or older abused methamphetamine for the first time and the overall number of past-month methamphetamine abusers was 439,000.2 Methamphetamine abuse carries significant morbidity. According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 6.6\% of emergency department visits involving illicit drugs in 2009 were due to methamphetamine. 3 In the United States, methamphetamine is a schedule II drug and is approved for treating both attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and obesity under the brand name Desoxyn. In addition, benzphetamine (Didrex) is a schedule III medication approved for treatment of obesity. Didrex is metabolized to methamphetamine. Besides prescription sources, methamphetamine (ie, "crystal meth") can also be produced in small, clandestine laboratories using ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as a key ingredient. This has prompted restrictions on the distribution of these over-the-counter (OTC) medications.

Toxicology

Methamphetamine has 2 isomers, d-methamphetamine and l-methamphetamine. Prescription methamphetaminc (Desoxyn) 4 is composed entirely of the d isomer. D-methamphetamine increases alertness, concentration, energy, and in high doses, can induce euphoria, enhance self-esteem, and increase libido. 1 These traits make d-methamphetamine very attractive to a potential abuser.

On the other hand, I-methamphetamine affects the sympathetic nervous system but has little activity in the central nervous system, so it is not thought to possess an addiction potential anywhere near that of the dimethamphetamine isomer. Among the

(http://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/sites/default/files /imagesache/figletbox-large/nogas/2012/11/28/1109_3.png) The challenge for the laboratory is to differentiate between the d and the I isomer forms of methamphetamine. The cinician need this critical information because without the d:I-isomer ratio, the clinician is unable to narrow down the potential sources of the methamphetamine. A positive methamphetamine test could be caused by use of an OTC product, a prescription drug, or illicit use (Table 1).5-8 The laboratory may run up to 3 distinct tests to produce a complete amphetamine profile. The first test is an immunoassay (IA) screening test for the amphetamine class of medications, which includes both amphetamines and methamphetamines. If the screening test is positive (a reaction greater than the cutoff), then a mass spectrometry (MS) confirmation test is performed to determine which specific compounds, amphetamine and/or methamphetamine, are present. Once methamphetamine is confirmed positive by MS, a third test may be performed to ascertain the ratio between the 2 isomers of methamphetamine. The d, I-isomer test also is performed by MS. Understanding each of the 3 testing steps is essential to clinical decision making related to patient care. As noted, the first test is the IA screening test. This step is nonspecific in that the reaction can be caused not only by amphetamines but also by other compounds with a similar molecular structure, phentermine being a classic example. If the IA test is negative, no further testing is required and the amphetamines are considered negative. If the IA test is positive, the sample is analyzed by MS to determine whether it was an amphetamine that caused the reaction. The MS confirmation test can come back with a possible results: 1) no amphetamines detected; 2) amphetamine only detected; 3) methamphetamine only detected; and 4) both amphetamine and methamphetamine detected (Figure 1). If no amphetamines are detected, then the amphetamine result is negative and no further testing is needed. If only amphetamine is detected, once again no further testing is needed. A finding of amphetamine-only positive by MS can be caused by prescription drugs (Adderall and various amphetamine salts) or as a result of methamphetamine metabolism, where the methamphetamine (whatever the source) has been converted to amphetamine. When methamphetamine is detected or both amphetamine and methamphetamine are detected, then the lab can run a d,1-isomer test to try and narrow the source of the positive methamphetamine finding (Figure 1).

The third and final test is the methamphetamine d,l-isomer test by MS (Figure 2). Based on a 1991 Department of Health and Human Serviés Technical Advisory, a d-methamphetamine level that is $\>20\%$ of the total is considered indicative of a source other than an OTC product of a metabolite of selegiline. 9 These sources could include a prescription medication or illegally manufactured methamphetamine. If the patie it does not have a prescription for a drug that would result in $\>20\%$ d-methamphetamine, illicit use of a diverted prescription product or street methamphetamine should be considered as a source. A recent study by Esposito et al published in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology showed that d-methamphetamine percentages often were few percentage points above or below the expected value based on the standard solutions they were testing. 9 This was due to impurities in some of the derivatizing agents used. When interpreting test results, a clinician should consider that the result might never be $100\%$ d or l isomer due to these impurities. Esposito concluded that the $\>20\%$ d-methamphetamine guideline is still relevant and appropriate based on their findings. 9

Summary

Illicit methamphetamine availability and use poses a serious health risk in the United States today. If abuse is suspected, urine drug tests are available to help clinicians detect its presence and intervene in order to optimize patient outcomes. There are a few distinct sources of methamphetamine. Using current methodology for urine toxicology testing will allow clinicians to narrow down the possible source of a positive result and assist them in managing their patients accordingly. View Sources (/treatments/pharmacological/non-opioids/methamphetamine-urine-toxicology-depth-reviewofielders) First published on: November 1, 2012

Related Articles

Ziconotide for Chronic Severe Pain (/treatments/pharmacological/non-opioids/ziconotide-chronic-severe-pain) Why Some Patients Require High Dose Opioid Therapy (/treatments/pharmacological/opioids/why-some-patients-require-high-dose-opioid therapy) Urine Drug Testing as an Evaluation of Risk (/treatments/pharmacological/opioids/urine-drug-testing-evaluation-risk) Doctors May Now Electronically Prescribe Schedule II Drugs (/treatments/pharmacological/doctors-may-now-electronically-prescribe-schedule-n-drugs) FDA's Proposed Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Opioids (/treatments/pharmacological/opioids/fda-proposed-risk-evaluation-mitigation-strategy-rems-opioids) Making Practical Sense of Cytochrome P450 (/treatments/pharmacological/opioids/making-practical-sense-cytochrome-p450)

Vertical Health Websites

(3) SHOW MAIN MENU

(5) SHOW SUB MENU

Types of Pain Acute Pain Post-surgical Pain Sports and Overuse Injury Trauma Cancer PainHeadache Cluster Headache Migraine Post-trauma Headache Tension Headache Neuropathic Pain Carpal Tunnel Syndrome CRPS/RSD/Causalgia Diabetic Neuropathy Multiple Sclerosis Phantom Limb Syndrome Postherpetic Neuralgia Trigeminal Neuralgia Gral and Maxillofacial Pain TMJ Tooth Pain Rheumatologic and Myofascial Pain Fibromyalgia Inflammatory Arthritis Lupus and Other Autoimmune Disorders Lyme and Other Infectious Diseases Osteoarthritis Plantar Fasciitis Spine Pain Discogenic Pain Facet Syndrome Myofascial Back Pain Radiculopathy Trauma Other Types of Pain Abdominal and Pelvis Pain Brain Injury General Musculoskeletal Pain Pain Co-morbidities Pain Treatments Complementary Treatments Acupuncture Biobehavioral Homeopathy Lasers

Magnets Prolotherapy Interventional Pain Management Ablations Injections Pumps Stimulators Manipulation and Massage Massage Osteopathic Pharmacological Non-opioids/OTC Opioids Psychological Biofeedback Cognitive-behavioral Therapy Rehabilitation Exercise Physical Therapy Resources Clinical Practice GuidelinesDiagnostic TestsEthics and LegalClinical ResourcesHospice/Palliative CareNews and ResearchPractice Management PCP Updates Literature Review Past Issues FOR PATIENTS Pain Treatments Bracing/Splinting/Prosthesis Complementary Treatments Hormone Therapy Interventional Pain Management Manipulation and Massage Nutraceutical Pharmacological Non-opioids/OTC Opioids Psychological Rehabilitation

Will I Pass A Methamphetamine Drug Test

88 Replies Updated Wed, Apr 29'15, 5.31 AM

Home ) Drugs: M ) Methamphetamine ) Discussions

Conversation Starter

Angela Says:

Sun, Aug 21 '11, 3:39 PM For the last two weeks ive been smoking meth, nomore then two grams throughout that time. Havent touched it since yesterday aug, 20th. I have to see my probation officer on sept, 2nd and will be getting drugged tested. Here's another thing. Im prescribed Adderall 20 mg and never had a problem passing test, now that I have been using methamphetamine this month, will it trigger me to have a positive drug test even if the meth is already out of my system? Whats the longest time meth has stayed in someone's system? What can I do in 13 days?? Please help!

Showing Replies 1 - 20 of 88

1. Verwon Says:

Thu, Aug 25 '11, 11:15 AM

Though it can vary from person to person, depending on their own individualizing factors, Methamphetamine is generally detectable for approximately 5 days, after use in a standard urine test

However, as to the longest time it's been detected, the answer is a lifetime. There is no explanation for it, but traces tend to linger in some people, even with just one use.

As to the Adderall, the Amphetamine salts in it can cause a false positive for $$ Methamphetamine $$ http://www.medschat.com/wiki/Adderall/ http://www.medschat.com/wiki/Methamphetamine/

Are there any other questions or comments?

2 Frank Linn Says Thu, Aug 25 '11, 1:22 PM Meth will not show up on the piss test after 13 days. they will see the meds that you have a script for, as long as you have proof you're in the clear. Allthough, if anybody does a hair test on you you'd be toast...unless you shave your head.

3 Angela Says:

Fn. Aug 26 '11, 6:10 PM

Exhibit 11

IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

THE GRAND JURY, for the County of Bell, State of Texas, duly selected, empaneled, sworn, charged, and organized as such at the January Term, A.D. 2005 of the 27th Judicial District Court for said County, upon their oaths present in and to said court at said term that

THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

hereinafter styled Defendant, on or about the 18 th day of June A.D. 2004, and before the presentment of this indictment, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there cause an object, to wit: a "dildo" to contact and penetrate the anus of J. A. J. A. A child less than 17 years of age and not the spouse of the said Thomas Raymond Carr, and the said Thomas Raymond Carr operated in concert with Tammy Bishop during the same criminal episode, and the defendant did provide to and administer a controlled substance to the said J. A. M. with the intent of administering said offense. against the peace and dignity of the State.

District Attorney 27th Judicial District of Texas

The State of Texas

COUNTY OF BELL

of the $$ District Court of Bell County, Texas, do hereby certify that the within and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the original Bill of Indisment, filed in said Court on the day of $$ A.D. 20 $$ in cause No. $$ , styled The State of Texas, vs.

Given under my hand and the seal of said Court, at office in $$ this day of $$ A.D. 20 $$ .

By $$ Deploy

1

IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE Ue TEXAS:

THE GRAND JURY, for the County of Bell, State of Texas, duly selected, empaneled, sworn, charged, and organized as such at the January Term, A.D. 2005 of the 27th Judicial District Court for said County, upon their oshs present in and to said court at said term that hereinafter atyled Defendant, on or about the 18th day of June A.D. 2004, and before the preseftment of this Indicdment, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there cause an object, to wit: a "dildo" to contact and penetrate the anus of Jerrid May, a child less than 17 years of age and not the spouse of the said Thomas Raymond Carr, and the said Thomas Raymond Carr operated in concert with Tammy Bishop during the same criminal episode, and the defendant did provide to and administer a controlled substance to the said Jernd May with the intent ofadministaring said offense

aganst the peace and dignity of the State.

The State of Texas
Country of Bell

of the $$ District Court of Bell County, Texas, do hereby certify that the within and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the original Bill of Indictment, filed in said Court on the $$ dity of $$ A.D. 20 $$ in cause No. $$ styled The State of Texas, vs.

Given under my hand and the seal of said Court, at office in $$ this day of $$ A.D. 20 $$ $$ Elerk By $$ Deputy

Exhibit 12

Exhibit 12

1

STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BELL §

COURT-ORDERED AFFIDAVIT (in Cause Numbers 57,557-A and 57,558-A) Before me, the undersigned notary, personally appeared this day Affiant, Charles ("Monty") Montgomery Jr., who, after being identified by Driver License and then by me duly sworn, deposed upon his oath and stated as follows: "I, attorney Charles ('Monty') Montgomery Jr. (State Bar #14288000), give this Affidavit in response to and compliance with the January 23 ${}^{\text{rd}},2013$ 'Designation of Issues and Order Expanding the Record' in Cause Numbers 57,557-A and 57,558-A of the ${27}^{\text{th}}$ Judicial District Court of Bell County, Texas; and I have either good reason to believe or personal knowledge of all facts herein set out and swear to the truth of same. "As regards the Court's designated factual issue NUMBER 1 (one), as trial counsel, I did investigate the facts of the cases and the law applicable to said facts, and did discuss both, as well as possible defenses, with Applicant, Thomas Raymond Carr. Witness the following 'plea colloquy' / question and answer exchange between myself and Applicant:

RELIGIO

Q: ...Now, Tom, have you any dissatisfaction whatsoever with my representation of you? A: No. Q: Is there anything that I have failed to explore by way of investigating and preparing any defensive issues or witnesses? A: No. Q: All right. And it is true, is it not, that I obtained and interviewed and [got] an assessment by Bob [BARBARBARI] Outten who . . earns his living as a drug and alcohol counselor and was going to give testimony in mitigation of Affidavit-Page 1 of 22

punishment apprising the jury of the role that drugs might have played on your mind and your intent[,] and weighing all of that in the balance, as well as all of the other testimony that we developed, in interviewing all of the witnesses that you told me about, plus some others that I developed on my own, you have decided to take the State's plea bargain offer of 30 years rather than risking a trial; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: All right. As a matter of fact over the weekend I made contact with and interviewed the last remaining witness that you wanted me to talk to and gave you a report back on his unwillingness to testify and what that testimony would have been had I compelled it by subpoena, correct? A: Yes. Q: All right. And yesterday we met with the two detectives who had worked this case and we reviewed the original camcorder film from which the State's copy was made and we proceeded to develop any evidence that we thoughtmight serve as a basis for exoneration of guilt, correct? A: Yes. Q: All right. And again weighing that in the balance [,] you decided to take the State's offer rather than go to trial? A: Yes. Q: And also yesterday in our meeting with Detectives Jerry Dugger and Mike Simmons, you were provided access to your computer, were you not? A: Yes. Q: We were unhappy with the fact that we had been unable to obtain an expert to do a computer analysis for the $\backslash$ 500$ that the Court had been able to authorize[,] and Jerry Dugger who is a police officer and not obligated in any way whatsoever to assist us nevertheless accessed everything on your computer that you thought would be to [sic] of avail in your defense; is that correct? A: Yes. Q: And he promised to develop for you and print up for you and, if necessary, give testimony to all defensive matters that were raised on your computer, correct? A: Yes. Q: And he also pointed out some things that did not forebode good, again that they showed sites that 11.16 . 11.16 . 11 you had accessed on your Affidavit-Page 2 of 22

computer. And he expressed the opinion that based upon his years of experience in working these types of cases, pornography cases, et cetera, he saw no basis whatsoever from those computer records that he had found on your computer on the hard drive in the unallocated space, et cetera, he saw no evidence whatsoever for any further investigation of any other crimes, did he not? A: Yes, sir. Q: And he sad he would testify to that and that was one of the detectives who worked this case, correct? A: Yes, sir. Q: Is there any complaint that you've got regarding my failure to do anything in prepanation of any possible defense in this case? A: No, sir.

This 'plea colloquy' between myself and Applicant next addresses (RR V1-pp16-17) my development of the applicable LAW, regarding which the following explanation should - better than mere quotation of the plea colloquy - illustrate my efforts thereon: In addition to successfully getting STRICKEN from the CAPTION of the Indictment (in Cause No. 57558) the 'molester'-branding allegation '[Aggravated Sexual Assault] Of A Child', and ALSO forcing AMENDMENT of that Indictment's allegation of specific intent, I HAD ADDITIONALLY ATTEMPTED TO QUASH SAID INDICTMENT vis a vis a contention that the law of parties would have to be relied upon to hold Applicant criminally responsible for (his common law wife) TAMMY BISHOP's anal dildopenetration of the (named 16 year old) victim (and two 14 year old extraneous victims) - my client's main defensive claim being that he did not personally dildo the victims and only FILMED it). THEN (so my argument ran), this 'Parties-Prosecution' of a 2nd degree offense would be boot-strapped into a Ist degree 'Operating-In-Concert' case WITHOUT THE REQUISITE factor of any ADDITIONAL conduct. I advised my client, Applicant Thomas Carr, Affidavit-Page 3 of 22

that I had done my best to build reversible error into the Record - in the event of a TRIAL followed by an appeal - but that, as Thomas himself kept complaining, TAMMY's NOT HAVING BEEN INDICTED FOR A SEX OFFENSE (or as a co-defendant) would probably doom any appeal or collateral attack based upon said issue: AND THAT - as I put on the Record in the plea colloquy (RR-VI, pg 17) - Applicant's judicial confession to the amended indictment, alleging that $HE$ administered the drug to the victim with the intent of 'facilitating commission of the penetration of the anus of [the victim]' 1992 would DEFEAT any appellate contention that there had been reversible error in the trial court's denial of said motion to quash.

FNI: Said amendment, substituting the phrase 'facilitating commission of the penetration of the anus of [the named victim]' for the original allegation 'with the intent of administering said offense', grew out of another attack by my motion to quash.

There were many other issues, factual and legal, that I dealt with, constantly (when Applicant wasn't either at the Vernon State Hospital on competency commitment or elsewhere, at the San Antonio Dominguez Unit, etc.) over the 22 month duration of my representing Applicant, a few of which will be touched upon hereinafter. Suffice it to say that, when he was at the Bell County Jail, I was NOT visiting Thomas for the purpose he would have the Court believe (that of getting him to enlist cellmates as my clientele), but, rather, because I was constantly addressing his problems and needs, attending to his medical issues (infra) AND to the problems of his parents and children (infra) growing out of his and Tammy's incarceration. While this might seem irrelevant to the manner in which I discharged my criminal-case representation responsibilities, the point is that Applicant has fabricated a picture that I 'never counseled' him, 'never did anything to represent' him, and 'just sat there and got [him] to sign a plea, with broken promises [I] would appeal [his] case' (infra).

For example, Thomas viewed the video TWICE - not just immediately before signing up for a guilty plea, but, also, months before that; and on both of those two

Affidavit-Page 4 of 22

occasions he heard HIMSELF GIVING DIRECTIONS AND ISSUING THREATS, as, for example, that if the juveniles resisted the anal penetration that he wanted to film, then they would have to perform Fellatio upon him.

And as for his complaint that I never showed him Tammy Bishop's alleged written statement, well, NEITHER had Ted Potter - for thirty years the kingpin of the central Texas criminal defense bar and APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS ATTORNEY (whom I had substituted in for) - been able to get the State to give it up; it wasn't statutorily discoverable (Tammy NOT being a co-defendant). I had, moreover, gone to the jail to intervicw her - and she decided not to discuss anything with me (although my stated agenda was merely discussion of their children's visitation with Applicant's parents / the children's grandparents).

As for his boast of having gotten 'quite a few people to fire their lawyer and hire [me]', that grew out of his and his celimates monitoring the block-long walk from my office to the jail; I do not deny benefiting from the earned reputation of a lawyer who regularly visits his clients.

As for the State threatening Applicant with ' 17 [seventeen] indictments' AND my supposedly 'not responding', I had previously told Thomas that by MY COUNT, there were indeed FIFTEEN, but not seventeen, possible total charges, SOME OF WHICH - if not ALL of which - he should EXPECT to receive stacked / consecutive sentences for! IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THIS - and not the bleak prospects of an appeal, or anything else - was why I advised Applicant to waive trial, waive direct appeal as well as collateral attack, and plead guilty. I would have loved to have tried that case, as winning it would have been a big feather in my cap; but I owed it to my client to make him see reality - that we wouldn't win 17 (or even 15) times; and that any jury who might buy the State's argument that Tammy's cooperation as a witness should condone Thomas taking all the blame, that would be a jury that WOULD 'MAX' HIM and also recommend consecutive sentencing. AND THAT IS WHY THOMAS ACCEPTED THE STATE'S OFFER. After all, it had taken me 23 months to get it down to thirty years; and it wasn't going to get anything but worse!

Affidavit-Page 5 of 22

Finally, as for Applicant's claim of having been on 'psychiatric medication [and] ... scared' and supposedly not allowed to talk to his family before making a decision to accept the offer or reject it, well, simply put, neither was the case. He knew beforehand what the offer was, and that I could not get a better one - and had only gotten THAT offer by meeting with the assembled three juveniles AND their parents, letting them know that in any trial I would be attempting to litigate the juveniles' previous drugging and boozing - AND ASKING THE JURORS 'Where wore the PARENTS?' As for the psychiatric medication, that was the result of Applicant overplaying his hand at Vernon State Hospital, refusing to participate in interviews by the diagnosing doctor (actually calling him an insulting name which he stupidly joked about in a long distance MONITORED phone call to me), AND being observed demonstrating hidden cognitive abilities AND consequently classified as a malingerer who should be returned to Bell County with medications for 'Psychotic Disorder'. Truth was, Thomas was constantly manipulating, but in complete control; witness the unusual consistency of his very clear, cursive signature on the plea papers.

FN2: I even tried to contest his discharge and return to competency, by arguing that the psychiatric reports had not been authored by a doctor who had PERSONALLY interviewed this 'Malingering . . . Personality Disorder' patient.

In closing, I must comment further on something only touched upon hereinbefore. Applicant knew that I had great respect for the jury-persuasion skills of lead prosecutor, MARK KIMBALL; but I had also informed Applicant that health problems (the back of a Veteran who walks with a cane) were rumored to be bringing about Mark's early retirement. And in that meeting which preceded execution of the plea papers (the description of which meeting is highlighted and set out on pages 2-3 hereinbefore), Mark brought this matter up, then introduced his side-kick, prosecutor MIKE WALDMAN, telling Applicant that the younger Waldman would be around to carry through on Mark's promise to return additional indictments and STACK Thomas/Applicant if he refused the offer it had taken me 23months to get. And I told Thomas - out of Kimball and Waldman's presence - that one of Ted Potter's last jury-trial clients had paid dearly for the low-punishment verdict Ted got a jury to give in the DWI-crash Manslaughter death of a three year old child; true to his 'threat' to return additional indictments and STACK said Manslaughter defendant if Affidavit-Page 6 of 22

he went to trial. WALDMAN DID INDEED OBTAIN A SECOND INDICTMENT and try thit case to another jury, with the result that the defendant who had only three years to do after the first trial WOUND UP STACKED, with twenty-three years to do after the second trial.

FN3: This revelation was significant to Applicant, as well as myself, because said attorney Ted Potter lad represented Applicant prior to my being retained. In short, it was my considered judgment - and advice to Thomas Raymond Carr - that he take the State's offer of a thirty year punishment recommendation, waive appeal and NEVER breach his plea bargain by attempting to get habeas relief. Apparently (?), my former 'Client &; Fejand' (as his letters refer to himself) has now forgotten the TWO 'DISCLOSURE OF PLEA RECOMMENDATION' provisions - WHICH APPLICANT SIGNED AFTER I HAD SIGNED THEM AND MADE SURE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THEM - that if he ever 'attacks the judgment and sentence in this case [57,558]' OR 'tries, in any way, to collaterally attack the judgment and sentence in this cause [57,557]', the State is no longer bound by its promise not to file additional charges! "As regards the Court's designated factual issue NUMBER 2 (two), to wit, whether I requested and received complete discovery from the State AND shared that information with my client, I must initially note that upon my entry into the case I was met with what my predecessors, Ted Potter and John Bigham, had faced - a determined Mark Kimball, who was prepared to return seventeen indictments of Applicant, Thomas Raymond Carr AND GO TO TRIAL if Applicant / then Defendant-Carr would not take a fifty (50) year plea offer. Kimball initially stonewalled me, then orally assured me that I would get everything I was entitled to if I executed a 'Waiver of ... Formal Discovery'. On January ${27}^{\text{th}},2005$ , shortly after my substitution in as counsel of record, I did sign that waiver and do believe that it paid off, in that it got Kimball talking to me about the

case AND EVENTUALLYLED TO a group meeting between myself and the three juvenile victims AND their parents, which meeting (as hereinafter explained) resulted in (RR-VI-19) parental permission'being given to Kimball to COME DOWN (first from fifty years to thirty-five, and - after 23 months of fighting me - from thirty-five to the thirty year offer that Applicant decided to take).

Meanwhile, however, disagreements between myself and Kimball regarding what I should be considered 'entitled to' (i.e., differing views regarding what $J$ contended to be Brady-Discovery) caused me, on September 20", 2005, to file my 'Affidavit Supporting Application For Deposition Testimony' and the thereto attached 'Defendant's Amended Omnibus Poe-Trial Motion', seeking, inter alia, joinder of prosecutions, quashing of the indictment, expert witness funding, compelled trial testimony of the indictment-named victim, a copy of the video / Defendant's recorded statement, notice of extraneous offense evidence, a list of the State's case-in-chief witnesses AND of it's expert witnesses, various other routine Discovery requests (criminal histories, etc.), and quite a few requests that were TAILORED to discovering evidence corroborating my client's story that, inter alia, the three juveniles got themselves high on pills they'd been crushing - which pills supposedly came from the prescription drug stash of the father of the indictment-named victim (contrary to said father's contention, at the above mentioned joint meeting, that none of his pills had been at his house where and when the subject criminal assaults took place); together with a 'Motion In Limine' AND an 'Application . . . For Deposition Testimony' (of / by SAID father). Affidavit-Page 8 of 22

AS REGARDS whether I got that 'complete discovery' addressed by the Court's Designated Factual Issue Number Two, I must say in all candor that I told my client / Applicant that I felt the Court had erred in denial of some of my requests BUT that any prejudice thereby occasioned would NOT likely generate a REVERSAI. of conviction upon appeal (INFRA, regarding appellate engagement and advice).

At any rate, I did share with Applicant all Discovery obtained; and the (previously herein described) meeting with Jerry Dugger ^[394] fully synbored and dashed - all hope that exonerating evidence would be found on the defendant's computer, so that (by virtue of the described law-enforcement-computer-assistance) we got MOTE discovery than what we were sIaluitorily entitled to!

FN4: Please refer back to pages 2-3 hereof, where the quoted 'plea colloquy' between myself and Applicant reflects his confirmation of the valuable assistance of Detective Jerry Dugger in examining Applicant's computer in search of exonerating evidence.

be coupled with computer evidence that the couple (Thomas and Tammy) had sought out ADULT - rather than juvenile - websites. Another witness that Applicant had me interview was a neighbor that would supposedly testify (1) he'd been told by TAMMY that the (the indictment-named 16 -year old ) juvenile said neighbor had seen visiting Tom's house was an adult 'rich guy from Kuwait' she was going to leave Tom for; and (2) was into drugs; said witness told me that his testimony would 'Not belp' Applicant.

Herewith submitted as EMPIRATIONR is a three-page write-un (one of

several Applicant furnished me in our preparations for a jury trial) of the defense (in addition to the claim that his sole role was the mere filming of Tammy's actions) that Thomas wanted to present, the Court's reading of which will illustrate why I previously herein stressed that drug and alcohol counselor BOB OUTTEN was prepared to give testimony (that I would have tried to get in on Guilt-Innocence rather than just on punishment) as to the effects of drugs - particularly drugs mixed with alcohol - on Thomas's mind /intent. "As regards the Court's designated factual issue NUMBER 4 (four), as trial counsel, I did NOT fail to contact any alibi witnesses. There were NO alibi witnesses, as Applicant himself appears momentarily in his own video, wearing a hideous negligeetype 'gown'. And as Applicant acknowledges in the plea colloquy, I contacted ALL of his so-called 'witnesses'; and they generally (supra) would not testify to what Thomas wanted, with another exception, his mother, Gerda, whom I recall being able to confirm Affidavit-Page 10 of 22

that - prior to Tom's and Tammy's arrest for the subject offenses - Tammy was sneaking out of the house at night to supposedly rendezvous with the indictment-named juvenile victim. The triviality of this type of 'defense' was in keeping with Applicant's approach to everything: whatever the problem, it was always someone else's fault, as evidenced by EXHIBIT TWO (Applicant's five-page 'Overview MTR [Motion To Revoke] ${}^{\text{PN5}}$ write-up done to enable my preparation for the then-upcoming hearing on revocation of his felony probation), wherein, on the second page thereof, the second paragraph of said page shows Applicant attributing to his probation officer, Mr. (Joseph) Perez NOT HAVING AN UNDERSTANDING OF HIS JOB REQUIREMENTS; just as, two pages later, he talks about the indictment-named victim BEING A 'PUNA' a punk that 'GOT EXACTLY WHAT HE ASKED FOR'!

FN5: The memos Tom generated were always discussed at my next jail visit, when - he now contends - I was, assertedly, NOT counseling him and instead supposedly focusing on which of his cellmates might become my clientele. In point of fact, the complaint raised on the first page of this particular memo (about having been put on ' 10 years [probation] immediately') was resolved with the decision that he should get started serving time on that case while I continued fighting his new cases, and thereafter consider appropriate habeas relief. "As regards the Court's designated factual issue NUMBER 5 (five), as trial counsel, I did timely communicate all plea offers from the State to Applicant. As is recited by two of prosecutor Mark Kimball's letters (EXHIBITS THREE and FOUR) to TED POTTER, whom I had replaced, Kimball offered me, initially, the same fifty (50) years that he'd offered both Potter AND Potter's predecessor, JOHN BIGHAM, telling us all there would be NO FURTHER NEGOTIATION! Affidavit-Page 11 of 22

Nevertheless, I gradually got the offer down to thirty-five years, and finally (after 22 months fighting for Tom), down to the thirty year offer which Tom elected to take rather then running the risk that Kimball/Waldman would carry through on their promise of additional indictments / stacked sentences. Each time I had a better offer I immediately went to the jail to report it, but Thomas never understood why HE should get ANY time; it was all the fault of Tammy - AND OF THE VICTIM (Exhibit Two, supra, wherein Thomas says 'The punk got exactly what he asked for'). FN6

FN6: The next sentence, referring to 'his [the pseudonym-named victim's] 35 year old girlfriend in Kuwait', is a reference to the girlfriend about whom Exh. 8 ) shows Thomas quoting said victim's brags that she used to dildo him because he liked it; in Thomas's mind, neither he nor Tammy should be punished for giving said juvenile - and the two younger ones - what the older juvenile liked. "As regards the Court's designated factual issue NUMBER 6 (six), as trial counsel, I did agree to prosecute an appeal IF Thomas pleaded 'Not Guilty', went to trial AND was convicted. I made very clear that to get the benefit of a plea-bargained punishment recommendation, his 'Guilty' plea would have to be coupled with a WAIVER of both direct appeal and collateral attack. I explained what was meant by those terms, and I emphasized that if Thomas ever tried to overturn his Guilty plea / conviction, he would then have released ${}^{NN.V7-17,18}$ the State from its promise not to return additional indictments; and in that event he would probably face multiple trials and stacked sentences. Finally, I explained to Thomas that, yes, he could plead 'Guilty' withOUT benefit of a plea bargained punishment recommendation and STLLL APPEAL any of our pre-trial motions that had been adversely ruled upon, BUT that there was little Affidavit-Page 12 of 22

likelihood that an appellate court would find reversible error, AND that after such a 'Bench Trial' on the sole issue of punishment, the Sentencing-verdict would be difficult to overturn! AND WIIEN TOM AND I MUTUALLY SIGNED THE PLEA PAPERS, I FASTIDEOUSLY WENT OVER EVERYTHING AGAIN, MAKING SURE THAT APPLICANT, THOMAS RAYMOND CARR UNDERSTOOD - AND TOLD ME THAT HE UNDERSTOOD - EVERYTHING THAT HE WAS SIGNING.

While my request for compensation additional to the initial fee WAS based on my continuang efforts to (1) lower the State's Plea Offer while (2) building whatever defense was available AND (3) attempting to inject reversible error into the case, it was never stated by me. OR understood by either Thomas or his father Lowry, that there would be an appeal irrespective of whether the defendant might plead 'Guilty'! It was always understood that I was working to generate the BASIS for an appeal should one become necessary; and when Thomas WAIVED both direct appeal and collateral attack in order to get the benefit of the thirty-year punishment recommendation, NEITHER be NOR his father Lowry thought that I would be liliug any appeal OR refunding any fee, for I'd done everything I had agreed to do! And subsequent to Sentencing, NEVER did Thomas or Lowry write or call inquiring of the status of any appeal

Witness EXHIBITS 5.85 A , wherein Thomas, writing me from the (Abilene) Middleton Unit, speaks of his always-ongoing (infra) medical issues AND being 'ready to move to Gatesville soon' - BUT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT EXPECTATION OF APPEAL. See also EXHIBITS 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7A &; 7B, revolving around the singular issue of Lowry's difficulty with having to travel far to see Thomas. In sum, I did NOT

fail to do anything that I had been paid to do; and for compurison purposes 1 refer the Court to EXHIBITS EIGIT AND NINE, which bespeak the determination of prosecutor Kimball not to lower his plea offer (particularly to the point that I alone finally got him to), Kimball's intent to return 17 indictments / seek stacked sentences, AND my never-ceasing ${}^{\text{EN7}}$ efforts on Thomas's behalf.

FN7: Getting him 15 rather than 20 years in the $2^{\text{nd}}$ degree case facilitated a possible parole after serving only half of his time on the 10 -year sentence (RR-VI-22). "As regards the Court's designated factual issue NUMBER 7 (seven), other facts pertinent to resolution of Applicant's Petition are as follows: I spent many hours (confirmed by the plea colloquy between prosecutor Kimball &; Applicant ${}^{\text{RR-VI-18}}$ et seq.) tending not only to Applicant's personal issues, but also - at Applicant's request - to those of his parents and children, issues growing out of Thomas's and Tammy's incarceration (infra). Moreover, Thomas had constant medical complaints regarding which he expected me to intercede: one of many such examples is when on March ${10}^{\text{th}}$ of ' 05 , I placed a phone call to said Bell County Jail doctor, SHELLEY HOWEL's commercial office (he only visited the jail once per week) - a call which he had to later return - regarding Tom's complaints that the doctor was refusing to give him 'Serquili' and had merely increased his former medication (Efexor ${}^{\text{EN8}}$ ) dosage, and that Tom hadn't had a promised bowel examination (his bowel was bleeding and the pain of his movements hadn't diminished); and I was supposed to pass on to Dr. Howel that Tom was 'uncomfortable - but not excruciatingly so', AND INQUIRE ABOUT A FOOT

Affidavit-Page 14 of 22

SOAK! The doctor took the complaint professionally - not at all like Applicant's reported (supra @ Exhibit Five) Middleton Unit doctor's response (which, unfortunately, I highlighted FN9 in yellow upon my January of ' 07 receipt of that letter, not realizing I would one day have to file the letter as an exhibit) and explained to me his course of 'treatment' for my client: and I thereafter - after unsuccessful attempts to get Howel to respond to other inquiries - lodged Thomas's complaints with the Jail Administrator AND Nursing Staff, AND did research on / obtained a federal pamphlet on the liabilities incurred by medical neglect of jail / prison inmates. FN8: Cellmate Nick Hildner's complaint that Tom beat him with a disassembled piece of shower apparatus was both DENIED by Tom and EXPLAINED vis a vis the remembrance that 'we asked for new psych meds [for Serquill] and instead of change them they increased the dosage [of Effexor]'. See ERENHEPS TEX, 10A and 10D (Tom's LETTER of denial, the ENVELOPE it came in, $AND$ his father LOWRY'S LETTER cautioning him about getting into more trouble, and advising him to shut his mouth because Tammy still had 'the letter' (which Tom had told me he wrote, before his incarceration, in a period of POST-VIDEO suicidal reflection about what they'd done)!

FN9: It should be mentioned that the reason I highlighted the subject portion of Exhibit Five was that it was a precursor of how hard it was going to be to get Tom a requested assignment to the Gatesville Unit / or any location close to Lowry; inmates with medical/psychiatric issues do not easily get relocated.

Moreover (as mentioned previously in connection with my attempt to talk with Tammy), I spent many hours consulting with Thomas's father, LOWRY, and mother, GERDA (they were separated); and there were many phone calls in regards not only as to property seized by law enforcement (upon executing a search of Gerda's &; Tom's /

Tammy's home) but also as to both Lowry's and Gerda's desire for visitation with Thomas's and Tammy's children, Lowry primarily wanting visitation with the then thirteen year old Michael and Gerda primarily wanting overnight and weekend visitation Affidavit-Page 15 of 22

with then five year old Alexis ('from six P.M. Friday to four P.M. Sunday, twice a month) at Gerda's residence - which CPS was saying was 'a crime scene' and had some wall damage (which Skip was in the act of repairing). And this role as intermediary between the CARR and BISHOP families had me also dealing with Potter as Lowry's former custody attorney (Lowry wanted me to get a REFUND from Potter, and I did) and with Potter's then-associate, DAN LIGHT, from whom I obtained such of Potter's criminal-case file material as ENHIDNEY ELEVYEN (informing Thomas that it was not a defense that he, Thomas, had wrongly believed the indictment-named victim to be an ADULT); and Thomas was meanwhile sending me letters, from where he was elsewhere incarcerated, regarding a Bar grievance against Potter (whose written advice to him I'd thought quite sound, supra @ Exhibit Eleven).

EXHIBIT TWENTE is a 'Message' Memo by my secretary (now deceased) KAY (WHITE) JONES advising me that Lowry / 'Skip' wanted me to call him back regarding an assertedly false claim by Potter that the desired civil-fee refund had already been made. All of these were the sort of non-criminal matters I generally refuse to get involved in, but nevertheless was expected to by Thomas and Lowry / Gerda. And in the last phone contact I ever had with Lowry, I remember explaining that Thomas in order to get the benefit of the 30 year plea-bargained punishment recommendation had WAIVED both direct appeal AND subsequent / collateral attack; AND, while Lowry was NOT inquiring about the prospects of an appeal. I nevertheless pointed out to Lowry that under the Circumstances of the case Thomas would probably be subjecting himself to further prosecution and stacked sentences Affidavit-Page 16 of 22

should be ever attempt to overturn his Guilty plea / conviction.

FN10: There was more to this case than just the despicable facts behind the Indictments / the filthy debauchery of the VIDEO and disgusting sight of Tammy wiping off the dildo apparently unbothered by getting the boys' FECES on her hands; more than just the look of pain on the face of one of the boys who was threatened with having to perform Fellatio if he didn't submit to being dildoed -- a threat I tried to keep out of evidence by complaining (EXHIBFETHESTEFEN) of NOT being afforded EITHER a TRANSCRIPTION OF or the videoed RECORDING of Tom's alleged utterance of the threat. ": Tom had been told that one of the boys' father was a member of the President's Crawford. Texas security team. I had no confirmation of that; but, still, Lelosed down my office after it was BURGLARIZED by someone who TEOK NOTHING and merely picked the hidden locks without damaging them - of my desk AND LEFT THE DRAWERS STANDING WIDE OPEN, pulled fully out!

And when Lowry Carr charges that I thereafter was 'no where to be found', he forgets that I continued to fight for Tom for ANOTHER TEAR &; FOUR MONTHS, and finally got Kimball to give me that thirty year offer! Moreover, Lowry and I had many phone conversations AFTER the closing of my commercial office; and he knew that I was offering out of my home. WHERE both HE and GERDA wrote me (supra, Exhibits 6, 6A &; 6B, 7, 7A &; 7 B) and see EXHIBITS FOURTHEN &; FAA, containing a newspaper clipping that Gerda wanted me to see. And Lowry should know that SUBSEQUENT to Tom's departure from Bell County, I accepted a collect phone call from Thomas (in TDCJ) inquiring NOT ABOUT ANY APPEAL BUT SOLELY WHETHER I COULD GET HIM TRANSFERRED TO A UNIT

Affidavit-Page 17 of 22

CLOSER TO 'HOME'. I distinctly recall that last phone conversation with

Tom, because he told me that 'I can't believe I took thirty years' - but said NOT ONE WORD ABOUT ANY APPEAL; then still having a fresh recall of Kimball's Sentencing-admonitions (supra and RR-VI-19 et seq.) about the consequences of "any type of writ ... or ... judicial review", Thomas merely wanted me to try getting him incarcerated close to his father Lowry. And glances back at Tom's letter from the Middleton Unit (supra, Exhibit Five) AND Lowry's notes to me (supra, Exhibits Six and Seven) accompanying the letters (supra, Exhibits 6A and 7A) from doctors Braun and Rebecca (attesting to Lowry's health problems with having to travel far), ALL FAIL TO EVINCE ANY HOPES OF OVERTURNING THE GUILTY PLEAS / CONVICTIONS.

Examination of my large file has not produced any notes of whom I contacted in regards to Tom's and Lowry's hope that I could accomplish a nearby incarceration; and I loathe the thought that perhaps the time-demands of my practice kept me from adequately following up on their request; nevertheless, the point is that from the correspandence I received, NONE of the Carr's (neither Tom nor Lowry nor Gorda) ever expressed any desire for or expectation of an APPEAL.

Finally, I would reiterate that I was also required to handle for Tom both a misdemeanor and the bereinbefore briefly mentioned felony probation revocation in Cause #54340 (wherein he had been placed on probation for an April 25 th, 2002 Possession of Marijuana Over Four ...); and pursuant to which, after it became obvious that I wasn't going to get the new indictments quashed and that he was Affidavit-Page 18 of 22

probably going to have to - in lieu of what a jury might do - take at least some (concurrent) TDCJ time, Thomas entered selective pleas of 'True'.

ADDENDUM in re 857,557A:

AS REGARDS APPLICANT'S COMPLAINT THAT HE NEVER SAW ANY 'EVIDENCE' of 'Delivery' of a controlled substance to a minor, the initial observation must be that, nevertheless, he signed the Judicial Confession thereto and pleaded Guilty AND in the course thereof confirmed (RR-VI-9 &; 10) to the Court that he had not been coerced in doing so; he thus bears a heavy burden of overcoming the admissions of the plea colloquy AND, further, of explaining away his sworn testimony (supra, page one):

Q . . Now, Tom, have you any dissatisfaction whatsoever with my representation of you? A: No. Q: Is there anything that I have failed to explore by way of investigating and preparing any defensive issues or witnesses? A: No.

Moreover, the advice that I gave Applicant, prior to said Plea, was sound advice, to wit, (1) forensics evidence is NOT necessary, upon appeal, to support a conviction based upon any Fact Finder's (reasonable) decision regarding whom to believe; and (2) my joint meeting with the three MINORS (one of whom in particular was vulnerable in appearance) and their parents confirmed that there would indeed be VICTIM testimony as to having received Methamphetamine from Applicant, as was expected by Applicant himself to be CORRORORATED by the testimony of TAMMY; and (3) once a jury saw Applicant parading around in his video wearing that hideous 'Teddy Bear negligee' and telling the juvenile who was protesting that he could TAKE IT

(because she /Tammy did it to Applicant all the time) OR PERFORM FELLATIO upon Applicant, then he, Applicant, would have lost all credibility; and there was not going to be any jury mercy upon Applicant, for he would get the MAXIMUM second degree felony punishment of twenty years RATHER THAN THE FIFTEEN YEARS THAT

THE STATE WAS AGREEING TO RECOMMEND in order to accommodate the possibility of an early Parole on the first degree case (eligibility to be derived from having served half of the thirty years that the State was recommending in said first degree case).

As for the contended lack of (forensic) evidence that Thomas 'did ... knowingly deliver ... Methamphetamine' to the indictment-named ( 16 year old) victim, Thomas is hung up on the INCORRECT belief that the State would have had to prove an INJECTION; and such is not the case, as it would have sufficed for the jury to find from the testimony that it was HE who supplied to the boys the pills that they were (by Tom's own story) 'eating AND crushing up and snorting'. Whence the Sent. ${19}^{\text{th}}$ (2006) filing of my 'Motion For Continuance' setting out the following:

1. The State had failed to comply with the Court's pre-trial ruling requiring that Defendant be given a list of case-in-chief witnesses 'no later than fourteen days prior to [our scheduled October] trial' - hampering our ability to timely confer
2. The State had concomitantly failed to honor a promise to the Court to provide Defendant - twenty days prior to trial - specified prescription records of the previously herein mentioned father of the indictment-named victim.

Hence, I had again done my best to inject REVERSIBLE ERROR into the Record in the event that we be put to trial without the requested continuance and DISCOVERY:

Affidavit-Page 20 of 22

and this was explained to Applicant before he decided to enter a Guilty plea. In connection therewith, it is, again, upon the Record (RR-VI-21) that Applicant acknowledged having been informed by me of receipt from the prosecutor (AFTER mine and Applicant's meeting with Detectives Dugger and Simmons, then with prosecutors Kimball and Waldman) of 'the medical records that that we had requested'?

Finally, it is also on the Record (RR-VI-27) that there was NO Lab Report; and confirmation as to the 'Methamphetamine' classification of the controlled substance came from 'the victim's blood'. Regarding which I would observe that it is hardly ineffective assistance to fail to get discovery of that which never existed. And it was a strategic decision on my part - a decision proven sound by obtaining a fifteen year (rather than twenty year) recommendation on the second degree case - NOT to rankle the prosecutor by insistence on seeing the medically documented blood-work.

In closing, I did everything I promised to do - and much more than what the Carr family would have obtained from most attorneys; and it is because of my steadfast efforts on behalf of Applicant, Thomas Raymond Carr that he obtained the prospect of being paroled after ONLY FIFTEEN (rather than twenty) years - a a prospect that I hope he has not forfeited by this improvident Writ application."

AFFTANT, Charles ("Mysy Montgomery Jr. SEOT 14288008

4400 Seven Coves Rd., Temple, TX 76502-6551 4400 Seven Coves Rd., Temple, TX 76502-6551 Affidavit-Page 21 of 22

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO, before me, the undersigned Notary,

by the above named Affiant (as known to me or identified by Driver License), this the ${10}^{\text{day}}$ of $$ 2013.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this the $O^{\text{day}}$ of April, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Court-Ordered Affidavit (in Cause Numbers 57,557-A and 57,558-A)" was served, by hand delivery, on the Office of the Bell Cpunty District Attorney.

Exhibit 13

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT OF THOMAS CARR's FILE FROM ATTORNEY CHARLES MONTGOMERY

The undersigned, SHAINA MEDFORD (cell phone # 254-493-2447), on behalf of her employer, Attomey FIMOTHY TESCH (office # 254-865-0313), acknowledges her receipt this $26\%$ of June, 2014, of Attorney Charles Montgomery's original file (i.e., exclusive of post-conviction/collateral relief proceedings), subject to inspection by Mr. Tesch, who has agreed to hereafter provide Mr. Montgomery his, Mr.Tesch's, own/personally signed receipt for EACH of the below listed items/documents (tendered in a 3 -inch ring-binder notebook and in the following sequence ): : Mr. Tesch will co-sign and date this very same receipt and NOT construct a differently itemized receipt. Should Mr. Tesch contend a herein-listed document to be missing, he shall merely line-through same on this very same receipt. Meanwhile, NO document shall be removed from or rearranged in the tendered notebook; and should these terms NOT be acceptable, then Mr. Montgomery shall withhold delivery until Mr. Tesch can personally receive / acknowledge receipt of these documents/this file.

1. Judgment of Conviction By Court in Cause # 57558 (Aggravated Sexual Assault)
2. Judgment of Conviction By Court in Cause # 57557 (Del. C./Substance to a Minor) A. Seven (7) "Judges Docket" sheets (for said 57558 and 57557).
3. The Sixteen (16) page "Plea Packet" for putative "co-Defendant" TAMMY MICHELLE BISHOP in Cause # 58,703.
4. Twenty (20) Dist. Ct. Coordinator "setting notices", beginning with a 3-23-05 notice of indictment, scheduled Arraignment and Pre-Trial in Cause 57,557 (only); and ending with the 9-22-06 notice of a 12-4-06 Jury Trial setting, at the bottom of which notice I recorded "Case Closed by Guilty Plea (Tue. 11-21-06) to [Plea Bargained] 30 years before Trudo (Jdg) (with) Kimball as prosecutor [and then also recorded] (after this I put Defendant on the stand for additional oral judicial confession, etc.)" - which notations I've noted here just to help you (Mr. Tesch) understand my shorthand.
5. Thirteen (13) pages of Bell Co. Law Enforcement Center Medical Request Forms, inclusive of Defendant's requested "criminal record".
6. Thomas Carr's PERSONAL WRITINGS (letters, notes &; memorandums / instructions to me, "Monty" Montgomery), interspersed with NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (therein referred to by Defendant) AND THIRD PARTY LETTERS (to Defendant), all as below itemized:
7. (1) A 10-02-04 letter (a copy of which I later obtained from Defendant) headed "Dear Family, (Carr's &; Bishop)".
8. (2) A 10-25-04 letter-formatted document headed "Dear Lord Jesus"

(21) Four (4) pages stapled together and labeled by Tom at the top thereof, respectively, as "Computer Forensics", "How were we to know", "My [Tom's] closing argument [for his anticipated jury]", and "Gerad's story". (22) Five pages stapled together, containing undated further instructions for me and headed, respectively, "Questions to ask a computer expert", "Back date the computer...", "To copy files we will need..." , "Things to take pictures of...", and a one page map. : At the bottom of said page is my subsequently recorded "PostPlea Memo:

"All of the stuff Tom wanted was accessed by [H.H.P.D. Detective] Jerry Dugger for Defendant at our jail meeting (where we got on Tom's computer and viewed the original cam-corder tape) thru the cam-corder which (with the computer) Dugger &; [Detective] Mike Simmons brought to the jail". (23) An undated (postmarked 8-3-06) and un-addressed letter to me (i.e., without salutation) regarding "Truth and justice..." and swearing to tell the truth. (24) An undated letter (no envelope) beginning " 'Hay [sic] Tom' " and signed "Joe Starks", and apparently quoting in red ink a reader's letter-to-theeditor about Tammy having been given 8 years for Delivery to "boys" while escaping indictment ("no charges") for the "sexual molestation". 8. Sixteen (16) pages stapled together and constituting my / Monty Montgomery's) personal notes / work product, of which, while keeping my originals, I've given you color copies so as to enable you to discern red ink from blue or black ink, and thereby better follow my notations. : The sixteen will actually number eighteen, because one page is copied two different ways (i.e., with two extra half-page {top and bottom} copies, ensuring that nothing was lost in the copying process. 9. Seventeen (17) pages (NOT stapled together), containing various letters / other writings by Lowry Thomas Carr (Defendant's father), Duane Miller, Ted L. Potter, R. O. "Bucky" Harris, and a note from my secretary, Kay Jones. 10. Various documents comprising the file history for Cause numbers 57,558 and 57,557 , in the following order: (1) the Complaint for Del. C/Sub. To a Minor (2) the Complaint for Agg. Sexual Assault (3) a $1/21/05$ printout of Def's criminal history, along with Affidavits For Arrest of both Thomas Carr AND Tammy Bishop on the Delivery charge. (Tammy's $1^{\text{th}}$ "Affidavit" is nothing more than a screwed-up Complaint form; and Tom's contains two Complaints with no Affidavit in this particular packet.)

Receipt-Page 3 of 6

(4) my Motion To Substitute Counsel in Cause # 1847. (5) " " " " " " # 1847B (6) Waiver Of Arraignment in 57,557 and 57,558 . (7) Motion For Continuance in 1847. (8) " " " in 1847B (9) Defendant's Election As To Punishment in 57,557 &; 57,558. (10) Complaint &; Affidavit For Arrest in 1847 (Aggravated Sexual Assault). (11) Two-page Waiver Of Right To Formal Discovery And Request For Informal Discovery - which Waiver I later abandoned (with Kimball's agreement). (12) Indictment in 57558 (with my observations regarding its defects). (13) " " 57557 (14) my rough-out of a bench warrant (to get Tom back from the San Antonio Dominguez Unit (15) my type-writer prepared bench warrant (which never was filed). (16) Kimball's (filed) Bench Warrant. (17) Photostats of U.S. &; Texas' constitutional Double Jeopardy provisions (the only research I kept, as all else would have been incorporated into pretrial motions) (18) Defendant's [15 page] Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion as filed 8-17-05. (19) "[18 page] Amended Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion as filed 9-20-05, this copy of which contains my Hearing notations. (20) The Clerk's copy of said motion, with the Court's (Hearing) notations. (21) The March $6^{\text{th}},2006$ report of the Vernon Campus Texas Dept. of State &; Health Services Chief Psychiatrist, Dr. Joseph Black, M.D., finding Thomas COMPETENT to stand trial, setting out the medications he was on, diagnosing him as "Malingering" and explaining - as verified by Thomas' writings (supra) - that the patient was "feigning . . . mental illness" (see Paragraph 3 on page 4 of the five page report). (22) the March $8^{\text{th}}2006$ Bench Warrant of Thomas back from Vernon. (23) my "Defendant's Court-Directed Motion For A Setting On A Previously Unheard [actually un-ruled upon] Pre-Trial Motion", as filed 9-19-06. (24) my application for a subpoena of District Attorney Henry Garza (along with notation of my agreement to quashing said subpoena in exchange for the State's agreement to deletion of the scarlet words "Of A Child" from the Caption of the Indictment); stapled together with the State's Motion To Quash Subpoena. (25) the bench warrant for Tammy Bishop, issued 9-27-06. (26) Motion For Continuance in Cause Numbers 57557 &; 57558 (complaining of non-compliance by the State with prior court rulings). (27) a 10-24-05 (belatedly furnished) print-out of Kevin May's cholesterol-prescription (Tom's identification of the pills he said the kids were crushing up and snorting, to wit, "methylphenidate" - see above item #7 (21)'s "How were we to know" page - might indicate that Mr. Mays had an ADHD condition/prescription; but Tom's "AZO 36" observation would have to have been incorrect.)

Receipt-Page 4 of 6

(28) the "Notice Of Intent To Use [hospital blood records ] to prove that the boys had been given Methamphetamine. : Those records - filed with the Court Clerkaugment the Affidavit For Arrest ("the children tested positive for meth ...."). (29) the State's "Notice Of Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts". (30) the State's Witness List (for case-in-chief). (31) a 2-8-05 Transmission Verification Report reflecting my having sent Bob Outten (the Beeville, Texas alcohol &; drug counselor who I hired to interview Thomas and prepare Bob's jury-defense-testimony, SUPRA) twenty one (21) pages of factual background on cause #s 57557 &; 57558 (32) a large envelope dated Mar. 14, 2005, repeatedly stamped "Privileged", addressed to Mr. Thomas Carr in cell #304 / changed by Jail personnel to cell 328, and containing a lengthy letter (with exhibits) TO State Bar Senior Investigator J.M.Richards and FROM Ted Potter's grievance attorney, Austin's Jerry Zunker (33) a 3-7-05 Adjudication of Guilt; Sentence To State Jail Div., TDCJ in Cause #53430, wherein Tom had previously been probated on a 4-25-02 Possession of Marijuana Over Four Ounces and Less Than five Pounds, and now (3-4-05) was pleading True only to the "tested positive" allegations of a "Second Motion To Adjudicate", with the State abandoning all other allegations (i.e., those relating to the offenses set out in $57557\&57558$ ) (34) the above mentioned (1-31-05) "Second Motion To Adjudicate". (35) Various (together stapled) Cause #53430 setting notices, respectively dated 1-21-05, 1-27-05, 2-22-05 and 3-1-05 (on which latter notice I recorded that on 3-4-05 Defendant pled True to paragraphs D, E, &; F (of said $2^{\text{nd}}$ MTA), with paragraphs A, B, C &; G being abandoned). (36) the (8-17-04) First Amended Motion To Adjudicate in 53430. (37) my (1-20-05) Motion To Substitute Counsel in 53430. (38) the County Attorney's "Motion To Dismiss" &; County Court at Law Judge's 3-16-05 Order dismissing Cause No. 2C04-05521, stapled together with three (3) preceding Agreed Motion(s) For Continuance. (39) the County Attorney Office's 1-18-05 two-page discovery for said 2C04-05521 (40) County Attorney Richard Miller's Cause #2C04-05521 INFORMATION charging Thomas Carr with Marihuana Possession Less Than 2 (two) Ounces, stapled together with Harker Heights P.D. Detective Jerry Dugger's sworn Complaint and probable cause affidavit AND ten additional pages of supporting Incident / Investigation Report(s), Magistrate's Warning, AND Supplemental Reports(s) all together establishing that only marihuana was found upon execution of the search warrant at Thomas's (Gerda's) residence, and that there never was any seizure of methamphetamine, hence nothing to submit to a lab.

Receipt-Page 5 of 6

(41) my 1-18-05 Motion To Substitute Counsel in said Cause 2C04-05521 (42) a 35 page ACLU "Prison &; Jail Accountability Project" 2003-2004 Prisoner Resource Guide that Thomas Carr wanted me to consult in regards to taking legal action about his medical complaints.

ADDENDUM: The foregoing documents are what currently comprises my file on Thomas Raymond Carr and are additional to those filed with my April ${10}^{\text{th}}$ , 2013 "Court-Ordered Affidavit....". For example, I apparently filed therein the original - keeping no copy - of Thomas's 12-31-06 letter (therein denominated "Exhibit Five"); and there may be other such instances.

As for the accuracy of those comments herein whereby I did you the courtesy of alluding to the significance to me of any given document herewith provided, it must be borne in mind that the case is nine years old, my memory may be wrong due to the passage of time; and your (Timothy Tesch's) signature hereon will NOT be taken as indicating agreement with my conclusions. You are merely confirming receipt of each of the foregoing documents.

Receipt of the Foregoing is hereby acknowledged by signatures of the undersigned.

EXECUTED June 26th, 2014 by

SHAINA MEDFORI, as Agent of and subject to inspection by Timothy Tesch

EXECUTED June $$ , 2014 by

ATTORNEY, TIMOTHY TESCH (SBOT # 19808200) Attorney for Thomas Raymond Carr Receipt-Page 6 of 6

NOTHING HERE FOLLOWS

Exhibit 14

197

Bill of Rights

THE RELIGION

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The

HILL OF RIGHTS

BILL OF RIGHTS

BIOLOGY - DOUBLE JEOPARDY

No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty, nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offense, after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.

HILL OF RIGHTS

No person for the same offense shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty; nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offense, after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction

Art. 1.10. [8] [9] Jeopardy No person for the same offense shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty; nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offense, after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.

Art. 21.13. [407] [463] [451] Act with intent to commit an offense An indictment for an act done with intent to commit some other offense may charge in general terms the commission of such act with intent to commit such other offense.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., p. 317, ch. 722, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1966

instruees may be joined in a single indictment, information, or complaint, with each offense stated in a separate count, if the offenses arise out of the same criminal episode, as defined in Chapter 3 of the Penal Code. (b) A count may contain as many separate paragraphs charging the same offense as necessary, but no paragraph may charge more than one offense. (c) A count is sufficient if any one of its paragraphs is sufficient. An indictment, information, or complaint is sufficient if any one of its counts is sufficient.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., p. 317, ch. 722, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1966. Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 968, ch. 399, Sec. 2(A), eff. Jan. 1, 1974.

Exhibit 15

-

BELL COUNTY
District Court Coordinator

Post Office Box 324 Belton, Texas 76513-0324 (254) 933-5246 Fax: (254) 933-5990

1-800-460-2355 ext. 5246 March 24, 2006

CHARLES MONTY MONTGOMERY 4400 SEVEN COVES ROAD TEMPLE, TX 76502

Re: $57557+57558$ (Ranmmol th the reging $[$ ing $]$ on [the ter ci] ^[1] . State of Texas Vs. Thomas Raymond Carr The above case has been scheduled for a 300 mth in. of May 1, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. Docket Call will be April 28, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

L The settiy are given at backer Call (hopr 3-34) You and your client must be present for Docket Call or the bond will be forfeited.

Notices to:

CHARLES MONTY MONTGOMERY 4400 SEVEN COVES ROAD TEMPLE, TX 76502

MARK D. KIMBALL BOX 540 BELTON, TX 76513

Exhibit 16

$•$

*NOTE: If any treatment has been recommended, the X-Ray was abnormal, or skin test indicates infection please attach tuberculosis record. C. Other Health Care Problems: IV. CURRENT PRESCRIBED MEDICATIONS None

| Medication | Dosage | Frequency | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Anuso Hc 12 Sup. | 1 sup GHH PRN ROL | | | Metamucil 150 Pwot | 2 tablesper GED | | | Lipiter | $20\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{S}$ | | | Scroguel | 200 mg T GPM | | | Serenual | $200\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{S}$ | | | Dovonest | 20 mg 0.0058 cpm Kg | PAW | | THIS FORM MUST ACCOMPANY ALL OFFENDERS TRANSFERIED TO AND FROM ALL TEXAS CRIMINAL JUSTICE ENTITIES COMPLETED BY: 70 Xaws/ Taste | | | | | | DATE: $01/2/2/06$ | | | Signatures/70\% | | | PHONE NUMBER: 254-735-5455 FACILITY: 82/2006/3/12/ | | | | | | 80\% |

Exhibit 17

| Indication | Initial Dose and Titration | Recommended Dose | Maximum Dose | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Schizophrenia-Adults | Day 1: 25 mg twice daily. Increase in increments of $25\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}-50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ divided two or three times on Days 2 and 3 to range of $300-400\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ by Day 4. Further adjustments can be made in increments of $25-50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ twice a day, in intervals of not less than 2 days. | $150-750\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $750\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Schizophrenia-
Adolescents (13-17 years) | Day 1: 25 mg twice daily.
Day 2: Twice daily dosing totaling 100 mg .
Day 3: Twice daily dosing totaling 200 mg .
Day 4: Twice daily dosing totaling 300 mg .
Day 5: Twice daily dosing totaling 400 mg .
Further adjustments should be in increments no greater than $100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day within the recommended dose range of $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day.
Based on response and tolerability, may be administered three times daily. | $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Schizophrenia-
Maintenance | N/A ^[1] | $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Bipolar Mania-Adults Monotherapy or as an adjunct to lithium or divalproex | Day 1: Twice daily dosing totaling 100 mg . Day 2: Twice daily dosing totaling 200 mg . Day 3: Twice daily dosing totaling 300 mg . Day 4: Twice daily dosing totaling 400 mg . Further dosage adjustments up to $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day by Day 6 should be in increments of no greater than $200\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. | $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Bipolar Mania-Chidren and Adolescents ( 10 to 17 years).
Monotherapy | Day 1: 25 mg twice daily.
Day 2: Twice daily dosing totaling 100 mg .
Day 3: Twice daily dosing totaling 200 mg .
Day 4: Twice daily dosing totaling 300 mg . | $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $600\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day |

RxList

The Internet Drug Index

• Patient Information

Indications Dosage How Supplied

INDICATIONS

Schizophrenia

SEROQUEL is indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia. The efficacy of SEROQUEL in schizophrenia was established in three 6-week trials in adults and one 6-week trial in adolescents (13-17 years). The effectiveness of SEROQUEL for the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia has not been systematically evaluated in controlled clinical trials [see Clinical Studies].

Bipolar Disorder

SEROQUEL is indicated for the acute treatment of manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder, both as monotherapy and as an adjunct to lithium or divalproex. Efficacy was established in two 12-week monotherapy trials in adults, in one 3-week adjunctive trial in adults, and in one 3-week monotherapy trial in pediatric patients (10-17 years) [see Clinical Studies].

SEROQUEL is indicated as monotherapy for the acute treatment of depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder. Efficacy was established in two 8-week monotherapy trials in adult patients with bipolar I and bipolar II disorder [see Clinical Studies].

SEROQUEL is indicated for the maintenance treatment of bipolar I disorder, as an adjunct to lithium or divalproex. Efficacy was established in two maintenance trials in adults. The effectiveness of SEROQUEL as monotherapy for the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder has not been systematically evaluated in controlled clinical trials [see Clinical Studies].

Special Considerations in Treating Pediatric Schizophrenia and Bipolar I Disorder

Pediatric schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder are serious mental disorders, however, diagnosis can be challenging. For pediatric schizophrenia, symptom profiles can be variable, and for bipolar I disorder, patients may have variable patterns of periodicity of manic or mixed symptoms. It is recommended that medication therapy for pediatric schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder be initiated only after a thorough diagnostic evaluation has been performed and careful consideration given to the risks associated with medication treatment. Medication treatment for both pediatric schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder is indicated as part of a total treatment program that often includes psychological, educational and social interventions.

Important Administration Instructions

SEROQUEL can be taken with or without food.

Recommended Dosing

The recommended initial dose, titration, dose range and maximum SEROQUEL dose for each approved indication is displayed in Table 1. After initial dosing, adjustments can be made upwards or downwards, if necessary, depending upon the clinical response and tolerability of the patient [see Clinical Studies].

Table 1: Recommended Dosing for SEROQUEL

| Indication | Initial Dose and Titration | Recommended Dose | Maximum Dose | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Schizophrenia-Adults | Day 1: 25 mg twice daily. Increase in increments of $25\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}-50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ divided two or three times on Days 2 and 3 to range of 300-400 mg by Day 4.
Further adjustments can be made in increments of $25-50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ twice a day, in intervals of not less than 2 days. | $150-750\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | 750 mg/day | | Schizophrenia-
Adolescents (13-17 years) | Day 1: 25 mg twice daily.
Day 2: Twice daily dosing totaling 100 mg . Day 3: Twice daily dosing totaling 200 mg . Day 4: Twice daily dosing totaling 300 mg . Day 5: Twice daily dosing totaling 400 mg . Further adjustments should be in increments no greater than $100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day within the recommended dose range of 400-800 $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. Based on response and tolerability, may be administered three times daily. | $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Schizophrenia-
Maintenance | N/A ^[1] | $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Bipolar Mania-Adults Monotherapy or as an adjunct to lithium or divalproex | Day 1: Twice daily dosing totaling 100 mg . Day 2: Twice daily dosing totaling 200 mg . Day 3: Twice daily dosing totaling 300 mg . Day 4: Twice daily dosing totaling 400 mg . Further dosage adjustments up to 800 $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day by Day 6 should be in increments of no greater than $200\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. | $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Bipolar Mania-
Children and
Adolescents (10 to
17 years),
Monotherapy | Day 1: 25 mg twice daily.
Day 2: Twice daily dosing totaling 100 mg .
Day 3: Twice daily dosing totaling 200 mg .
Day 4: Twice daily dosing totaling 300 mg .
Day 5: Twice daily dosing totaling 400 mg .
Further adjustments should be in increments no greater than $100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day within the recommended dose range of 400-600 $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. Based on response and tolerability, may be administered three times daily. | $400-600\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $600\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | | Bipolar DepressionAdults | Administer once daily at bedtime.
Day 1: 50 mg
Day 2: 100 mg
Day 3: 200 mg
Day 4: 300 mg | $300\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day | $300\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day |

| Bipolar I Disorder | Administer twice daily totaling 400-800 | | :-- | :-- | | Maintenance | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day as adjunct to lithium or divalproex. | | Therapy-Adults | Generally, in the maintenance phase, | | | patients continued on the same dose on | | | which they were stabilized. |

1. N/A Not applicable

Maintenance Treatment for Schizophrenia and Bipolar I Disorder

Maintenance Treatment - Patients should be periodically reassessed to determine the need for maintenance treatment and the appropriate dose for such treatment [see Clinical Studies].

Dose Modifications in Elderly Patients

Consideration should be given to a slower rate of dose titration and a lower target dose in the elderly and in patients who are debilitated or who have a predisposition to hypotensive reactions [see CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY]. When indicated, dose escalation should be performed with caution in these patients.

Elderly patients should be started on SEROQUEL $50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day and the dose can be increased in increments of $50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day depending on the clinical response and tolerability of the individual patient.

Dose Modifications in Hepatically Impaired Patients

Patients with hepatic impairment should be started on $25\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. The dose should be increased daily in increments of $25\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day $-50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day to an effective dose, depending on the clinical response and tolerability of the patient.

Dose Modifications when used with CYP3A4 Inhibitors

SEROQUEL dose should be reduced to one sixth of original dose when co-medicated with a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor (e.g., ketoconazole, itraconazole, indinavir, ritonavir, nefazodone, etc.). When the CYP3A4 inhibitor is discontinued, the dose of SEROQUEL should be increased by 6 fold [see CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY and DRUG INTERACTIONS].

Dose Modifications when used with CYP3A4 Inducers

SEROQUEL dose should be increased up to 5 fold of the original dose when used in combination with a chronic treatment (e.g., greater than 7-14 days) of a potent CYP3A4 inducer (e.g., phenytoin, carbamazepine, rifampin, avasimibe, St. John's wort etc.). The dose should be titrated based on the clinical response and tolerability of the individual patient. When the CYP3A4 inducer is discontinued, the dose of SEROQUEL should be reduced to the original level within 7-14 days [see CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY and DRUG INTERACTIONS].

Reinitiation of Treatment in Patients Previously Discontinued

Although there are no data to specifically address re-initiation of treatment, it is recommended that when restarting therapy of patients who have been off SEROQUEL for more than one week, the initial dosing schedule should be followed. When restarting patients who have been off SEROQUEL for less than one week, gradual dose escalation may not be required and the maintenance dose

may be reinitiated.

Switching from Antipsychotics

There are no systematically collected data to specifically address switching patients with schizophrenia from antipsychotics to SEROQUEL, or concerning concomitant administration with antipsychotics. While immediate discontinuation of the previous antipsychotic treatment may be acceptable for some patients with schizophrenia, more gradual discontinuation may be most appropriate for others. In all cases, the period of overlapping antipsychotic administration should be minimized. When switching patients with schizophrenia from depot antipsychotics, if medically appropriate, initiate SEROQUEL therapy in place of the next scheduled injection. The need for continuing existing EPS medication should be re-evaluated periodically.

HOW SUPPLIED

Dosage Forms And Strengths

• 25 mg tablets are peach, round, biconvex, film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 25 ' on one side and plain on the other side,
• 50 mg tablets are white, round, biconvex, film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 50 ' on one side and plain on the other side
• 100 mg tablets are yellow, round, biconvex film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 100 ' on one side and plain on the other side
• 200 mg tablets are white, round, biconvex, film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 200 ' on one side and plain on the other side
• 300 mg tablets are white, capsule-shaped, biconvex, film coated tablets, intagliated with 'SEROQUEL' on one side and ' 300 ' on the other side
• 400 mg tablets are yellow, capsule-shaped, biconvex, film coated tablets, intagliated with 'SEROQUEL' on one side and ' 400 ' on the other side

Storage And Handling

25 mg Tablets (NDC 0310-0275) peach, round, biconvex, film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 25 ' on one side and plain on the other side, are supplied in bottles of 100 tablets and hospital unit dose packages of 100 tablets.

50 mg Tablets (NDC 0310-0278) white, round, biconvex, film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 50 ' on one side and plain on the other side, are supplied in bottles of 100 tablets and hospital unit dose packages of 100 tablets.

100 mg Tablets (NDC 0310-0271) yellow, round, biconvex film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 100 ' on one side and plain on the other side, are supplied in bottles of 100 tablets, and hospital unit dose packages of 100 tablets.

200 mg Tablets (NDC 0310-0272) white, round, biconvex, film coated tablets, identified with 'SEROQUEL' and ' 200 ' on one side and plain on the other side, are supplied in bottles of 100 tablets, and hospital unit dose packages of 100 tablets.

300 mg Tablets (NDC 0310-0274) white, capsule-shaped, biconvex, film coated tablets, intagliated with 'SEROQUEL' on one side and ' 300 ' on the other side, are supplied in bottles of 60 tablets, and hospital unit dose packages of 100 tablets.

400 mg Tablets (NDC 0310-0279) yellow, capsule-shaped, biconvex, film coated tablets, intagliated with 'SEROQUEL' on one side and ' 400 ' on the other side, are supplied in bottles of 100 tablets, and hospital unit dose packages of 100 tablets.

Seroquel (Quetiapine Fumarate) Drug Information: ... http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/rxlist.asp?articl..

Store at ${25}^{\circ }C\left({77}^{\circ }F\right)$ ; excursions permitted to $15-{30}^{\circ }C(59-{86}^{\circ }F)$ [See USP]. Distributed by: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP Wilmington, DE 19850. Revised: October 2013 Last reviewed on RxList: 11/8/2013 This monograph has been modified to include the generic and brand name in many instances. Indications Dosage How Supplied

2015 RxList, Inc. All rights reserved. RxList does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information close window

MedicineNet.com

We Biting Doctors' Kittowledge to You

Source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=19054

quetiapine, Seroquel, Seroquel XR

Pharmacy Author: Omudhome Ogbru, PharmD

Omudhome Ogbru, PharmD

Dr. Ogbru received his Doctorate in Pharmacy from the University of the Pacific School of Pharmacy in 1995. He completed a Pharmacy Practice Residency at the University of Arizona/University Medical Center in 1996. He was a Professor of Pharmacy Practice and a Regional Clerkship Coordinator for the University of the Pacific School of Pharmacy from 1996-99.

View Full Profile Medical and Pharmacy Editor: Jay W. Marks, MD

Jay W. Marks, MD Jay W. Marks, MD, is a board-certified internist and gastroenterologist. He graduated from Yale University School of Medicine and trained in internal medicine and gastroenterology at UCLA/Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

View Full Profile

GENERIC NAME: quetiapine

BRAND NAME: Seroquel, Seroquel XR

DRUG CLASS AND MECHANISM: Quetiapine is an oral atypical antipsychotic drug used for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Although the mechanism of action of quetiapine is unknown, like other atypical anti-psychotics, it inhibits communication among nerves of the brain. It does this by blocking receptors on the nerves for several neurotransmitters, the chemicals that nerves use to communicate with each other. It is thought that its beneficial effect is due to blocking of the dopamine type 2 (D2) and serotonin type 2 (5-HT2) receptors. The FDA approved quetiapine in September 1997.

PRESCRIBED FOR: Quetiapine is used alone or in combination with other drugs to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It also is used for treating major depression in combination with antidepressants.

SIDE EFFECTS: The most common side effects for quetiapine are:

• headache,
• agitation,
• dizziness,
• drowsiness,
• weight gain
• and stomach upset.

Other important side effects include a potentially fatal complex referred to as neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), in which patients may have:

• high fevers,
• muscle rigidity,
• altered mental status,
• irregular pulse or blood pressure,
• rapid heart rate,
• excessive sweating, and
• heart arrhythmias.

WARNING: Quetiapine can cause orthostatic hypotension (a drop in blood pressure upon standing that can lead to dizziness or fainting) especially during the first 3-5 day period of treatment, when it is restarted after temporary discontinuation, and after an increase in the dose. The risk of orthostatic hypotension is about 1 in 100 (one of every hundred patients who take quetiapine). Quetiapine frequently causes tiredness ( 1 in 5 patients), especially during the first 3-5 days of treatment. Because of this tiredness, care should be exercised in any activity requiring mental alertness such as operating a motor vehicle or hazardous machinery. Less common side effects include seizures ( 1 in 125 patients) and hypothyroidism ( 1 in 250 patients).

As with other antipsychotics, long-term use of quetiapine may lead to irreversible tardive dyskinesia, a neurologic disease which consists of involuntary movements of the jaw, lips, and tongue.

In animals, quetiapine has been associated with the development of cataracts, and cataracts have been reported in patients using quetiapine for prolonged periods. Although it is not clear if quetiapine was responsible for the cataracts seen in humans, eye examinations by slit-lamp (to identify cataracts before they impair vision) are recommended at the beginning of treatment and every six months during treatment. If cataracts form, treatment should be discontinued. Quetiapine may increase blood concentrations of cholesterol and triglycerides by $11\%$ and $17\%$ , respectively.

There is an increased risk of hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and diabetes-related events in patients taking atypical antipsychotics, including quetiapine. Patients should be tested during treatment for elevated blood-sugars. Additionally, persons with risk factors for diabetes, including obesity or a family history of diabetes, should have their fasting levels of blood sugar tested before starting treatment and periodically throughout treatment to detect the onset of diabetes. Any patient developing symptoms that suggest diabetes during treatment should be tested for diabetes.

Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotics are at an increased risk of death There is an increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents and young adults taking antidepressants for major depression and other psychiatric disorders.

PRESCRIPTION: Yes

GENERIC AVAILABLE: Yes PREPARATIONS: Tablets: $25,50,100,200,300$ and 400 mg . Tablet (Extended Release): 50, 150, 200, 300 and 400 mg

STORAGE: Tablets should be stored at room temperature, 15 C to 30 C ( 59 F to 86 F ). DOSING: Immediate release quetiapine usually is taken two or three times daily. Extended release quetiapine is taken once daily. The dose usually is increased slowly over several days or weeks to achieve the desired effect. Quetiapine can be taken with or without food.

The initial dose for bipolar disorder is 50 mg twice daily ( $100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day) of immediate release quetiapine. The dose can be increased by $100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day to a daily dose of $400\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. Most patients respond to $400-800$ $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. Doses greater than $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/d$ have not been studied. The starting dose is 300 mg once daily and the

The initial dose for schizophrenia is 25 mg twice daily ( $50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day) of immediate release tablets. The dose can be increased by $25-50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ two or three times daily. The target dose is $300-400\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day in two or three doses. Patients respond to $150-750\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day, and doses greater than $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day have not been evaluated. The starting dose is 300 mg once daily and the target dose is $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ once daily when using extended release tablets.

The dose range for treating major depression is $150-300\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day of extended release tablets. The starting does is 50 mg in the evening for 2 days increasing to 150 mg in the evening.

DRUG INTERACTIONS: Phenytoin (Dilantin) and thioridazine (Mellaril) markedly decrease the amount of quetiapine that is absorbed from the intestine and thereby reduces its effectiveness. Therefore, patients taking phenytoin or thioridazine may require higher doses of quetiapine.

Quetiapine can cause hypotension (low blood pressure) and therefore increase the blood pressure lowering effects of antihypertensive drugs and result in lower blood pressure.

Quetiapine can add to the sedating effects of other drugs that sedate. Such drugs include narcotic pain relievers (for example, oxycodone and acetaminophen [Percocet, Roxicet, Tylos, Endocet]), barbiturates, sedatives such as alprazolam [Xanax] and clonazepam [Klonopin], ethanol, and blood pressure drugs that can cause orthostatic hypotension, such as prazosin (Minipress) and terazosin (Hyrrin).

Quetiapine is eliminated from the body by an enzyme in the liver called cytochrome P450 3A. There is a concern that drugs that strongly interfere with the enzyme, for example, ketoconazole (Nizoral), itraconazole (Sporanox), fluconazole (Diflucan), erythromycin, clarithromycin (Biaxin), nefazodone (Serzone), verapamil (Calan, Isoptin, Verelan), diltiazem (Cardizem, Tiazac, Dilacor) may cause elevated and toxic levels of quetiapine.

St. John's Wort, carbamazepine (Tegretol), and rifampin (Rifadin) will decrease the level or effect of quetiapine by increasing the breakdown of quetiapine.

PREGNANCY: There are no adequate studies of quetiapine in pregnant women. Studies in animals are inconsistent. Some studies suggest effects on the fetus and others show no effects. Quetiapine should be used in pregnancy only if the physician feels that it is necessary and that the potential benefits justify the unknown risks

NURSING MOTHERS: Quetiapine is excreted in the milk of animals during lactation. Although it is not known if it is excreted in human milk, it is recommended that women taking quetiapine not breastfeed.

Medically reviewed by Eni Williams, PhamD Reference: FDA Prescribing Information

Report Problems to the Food and Drug Administration You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

Medically Reviewed by a Doctor on 12/12/2014

MedicineNet does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information

$$ $$ $$

MedicineNet.com

We Bting Doctors' Kopejentge to You

Source: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=19054

quetiapine, Seroquel, Seroquel XR

Pharmacy Author: Omudhome Ogbru, PharmD

Omudhome Ogbru, PharmD

Dr Ogbru received his Doctorate in Pharmacy from the University of the Pacific School of Pharmacy in 1995. He completed a Pharmacy Practice Residency at the University of Arizona/University Medical Center in 1996. He was a Professor of Pharmacy Practice and a Regional Clerkship Coordinator for the University of the Pacific School of Pharmacy from 1996-99.

View Full Profile Medical and Pharmacy Editor: Jay W. Marks, MD

Jay W. Marks, MD Jay W. Marks, MD, is a board-certified internist and gastroenterologist. He graduated from Yale University School of Medicine and trained in internal medicine and gastroenterology at UCLA/Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

View Full Profile

GENERIC NAME: quetiapine

BRAND NAME: Seroquel, Seroquel XR

DRUG CLASS AND MECHANISM: Quetiapine is an oral atypical antipsychotic drug used for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Although the mechanism of action of quetiapine is unknown, like other atypical anti-psychotics, it inhibits communication among nerves of the brain. It does this by blocking receptors on the nerves for several neurotransmitters, the chemicals that nerves use to communicate with each other. It is thought that its beneficial effect is due to blocking of the dopamine type 2 (D2) and serotonin type 2 (5-HT2) receptors. The FDA approved quetiapine in September 1997.

PRESCRIBED FOR: Quetiapine is used alone or in combination with other drugs to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It also is used for treating major depression in combination with antidepressants.

SIDE EFFECTS: The most common side effects for quetiapine are:

• headache,
• agitation,
• dizziness,
• drowsiness,
• weight gain
• and stomach upset

Other important side effects include a potentially fatal complex referred to as neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), in which patients may have:

• high fevers,
• muscle rigidity,
• altered mental status,
• irregular pulse or blood pressure,
• rapid heart rate,
• excessive sweating, and
• heart arrhythmias.

WARNING: Quetiapine can cause orthostatic hypotension (a drop in blood pressure upon standing that can lead to dizziness or fainting) especially during the first 3-5 day period of treatment, when it is restarted after temporary discontinuation, and after an increase in the dose. The risk of orthostatic hypotension is about 1 in 100 (one of every hundred patients who take quetiapine). Quetiapine frequently causes tiredness ( 1 in 5 patients), especially during the first 3-5 days of treatment. Because of this tiredness, care should be exercised in any activity requiring mental alertness such as operating a motor vehicle or hazardous machinery Less common side effects include seizures ( 1 in 125 patients) and hypothyroidism ( 1 in 250 patients).

As with other antipsychotics, long-term use of quetiapine may lead to irreversible tardive dyskinesia, a neurologic disease which consists of involuntary movements of the jaw, lips, and tongue.

In animals, quetiapine has been associated with the development of cataracts, and cataracts have been reported in patients using quetiapine for prolonged periods. Although it is not clear if quetiapine was responsible for the cataracts seen in humans, eye examinations by slit-lamp (to identify cataracts before they impair vision) are recommended at the beginning of treatment and every six months during treatment. If cataracts form, treatment should be discontinued. Quetiapine may increase blood concentrations of cholesterol and triglycerides by $11\%$ and $17\%$ , respectively.

There is an increased risk of hyperglycemia (high blood glucose) and diabetes-related events in patients taking atypical antipsychotics, including quetiapine. Patients should be tested during treatment for elevated blood-sugars. Additionally, persons with risk factors for diabetes, including obesity or a family history of diabetes, should have their fasting levels of blood sugar tested before starting treatment and periodically throughout treatment to detect the onset of diabetes. Any patient developing symptoms that suggest diabetes during treatment should be tested for diabetes.

Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotics are at an increased risk of death. There is an increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents and young adults taking antidepressants for major depression and other psychiatric disorders.

PRESCRIPTION: Yes

GENERIC AVAILABLE: Yes

PREPARATIONS: Tablets: 25, 50, 100, 200, 300 and 400 mg . Tablet (Extended Release): 50, 150, 200, 300 and 400 mg

STORAGE: Tablets should be stored at room temperature, 15 C to 30 C ( 59 F to 86 F ). DOSING: Immediate release quetiapine usually is taken two or three times daily. Extended release quetiapine is taken once daily. The dose usually is increased slowly over several days or weeks to achieve the desired effect. Quetiapine can be taken with or without food.

The initial dose for bipolar disorder is 50 mg twice daily ( $100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day) of immediate release quetiapine. The dose can be increased by $100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day to a daily dose of $400\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. Most patients respond to $400-800$ $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day. Doses greater than $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/d$ have not been studied. The starting dose is 300 mg once daily and the

target dose is $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ once daily when using extended release tablets. The initial dose for schizophrenia is 25 mg twice daily ( $50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day) of immediate release tablets. The dose can be increased by $25-50\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ two or three times daily. The target dose is $300-400\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day in two or three doses. Patients respond to $150-750\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day, and doses greater than $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day have not been evaluated. The starting dose is 300 mg once daily and the target dose is $400-800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}$ once daily when using extended release tablets.

The dose range for treating major depression is $150-300\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/$ day of extended release tablets. The starting does is 50 mg in the evening for 2 days increasing to 150 mg in the evening.

DRUG INTERACTIONS: Phenytoin (Dilantin) and thioridazine (Mellaril) markedly decrease the amount of quetiapine that is absorbed from the intestine and thereby reduces its effectiveness. Therefore, patients taking phenytoin or thioridazine may require higher doses of quetiapine.

Quetiapine can cause hypotension (low blood pressure) and therefore increase the blood pressure lowering effects of antihypertensive drugs and result in lower blood pressure.

Quetiapine can add to the sedating effects of other drugs that sedate. Such drugs include narcotic pain relievers (for example, oxycodone and acetaminophen [Percocet, Roxicet, Tylox, Endocet]), barbiturates, sedatives such as alprazolam [Xanax] and clonazepam [Klonopin], ethanol, and blood pressure drugs that can cause orthostatic hypotension, such as prazosin (Minipress) and terazosin (Hytrin).

Quetiapine is eliminated from the body by an enzyme in the liver called cytochrome P450 3A. There is a concern that drugs that strongly interfere with the enzyme, for example, ketoconazole (Nizoral), itraconazole (Sporanox), fluconazole (Diflucan), erythromycin, clarithromycin (Biaxin), nefazodone (Serzone), verapamil (Calan, Isoptin, Verelan), diltiazem (Cardizem, Tiazac, Dilacor) may cause elevated and toxic levels of quetiapine.

St. John's Wort, carbamazepine (Tegretol), and rifampin (Rifadin) will decrease the level or effect of quetiapine by increasing the breakdown of quetiapine.

PREGNANCY: There are no adequate studies of quetiapine in pregnant women. Studies in animals are inconsistent. Some studies suggest effects on the fetus and others show no effects. Quetiapine should be used in pregnancy only if the physician feels that it is necessary and that the potential benefits justify the unknown risks.

NURSING MOTHERS: Quetiapine is excreted in the milk of animals during lactation. Although it is not known if it is excreted in human milk, it is recommended that women taking quetiapine not breastfeed.

Medically reviewed by Eni Williams, PharmD

Reference: FDA Prescribing Information

Report Problems to the Food and Drug Administration You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

Medically Reviewed by a Doctor on 12/12/2014

MedicineNet does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information

close window

List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions and hospital orders (sometimes referred to as sig codes). This list does not include abbreviations for pharmaceuticals or drug name suffixes such as CD, CR, ER, XT (See Time release technology $\S$ List of abbreviations for those).

Capitalization and the use of periods is a matter of style. In the list, Latin is not capitalized whereas English acronyms are.

Abbreviations which are not recommended by the Joint Commission are marked in red. Those abbreviations which are discouraged by other organizations are marked in orange.

The Joint Commission is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization which offers accreditation to hospitals and other health care organizations in the United States. While their recommendations are not binding on U.S. physicians, they are required of organizations who wish accreditation by the Joint Commission.

Key

Not recommended for use by other organizations, such as the ISMP (Institute for Safe Medication Practices) ${}^{[2]}$ )

List of abbreviations used in medical prescriptions ${}^{[3]}$

| Abbreviation | Latin | Meaning | Possible confusion | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | aa | ana | of each | | | AAA | | apply to affected area | | | a.c. | ante cibum | before meals | | | a.d. | auris dextra | right car | "a" can be mistaken as an "o" which could read "o.d.", meaning right eye | | ad lib. | ad libitum | use as much as one desires; freely | | | admov. | admove | apply | | | agit | agita | stir/shake | | | ait. h. | alternis horis | every other hour | | | a.m.m. | ad manu medicae | at doctor's hand | | | a.m. | ante meridiem | morning, before noon | | | amp | | ampule | | | amt | | amount | | | aq | aqua | water | | | a.l., a.s. | auris lgeva, auris sinistra | left ear | "a" can be mistaken as an "o" which could read "o.s." or "o.I", meaning left eye | | A.T.C. | | around the clock | | | a.u. | auris utraque | both ears | "a" can be mistaken as an "o" which could read "o.u.", meaning both eyes | | BDS/bds | bis die
sumendum | twice daily | | | bis | bis | twice | | | b.i.d./b.d. | bis in die | twice daily | AMA style avoids use of this abbreviation (spell out "twice a day") | | B.M. | | bowel movement | | | BNF | | British National Formulary (http://www.bnf.org/) | | | bol. | bolus | as a large single dose (usually intravenously) | |

| kg | | kilogram | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | L.A.S. | | label as such | | LCD | | coal tar solution | | lin | linimentum | liniment | | liq | liquor | solution | | lot. | | lotion | | MAE | | Moves All Extremities | | mane | mane | in the morning | | M. | misce | mix | | m, min | minimum | a minimum | | mcg | | microgram | | m.d.u. | more dicto utendus | to be used as directed | | mEq | | milliequivalent | | mg | | milligram | | $\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{L}$ | | milligrams per deciliter | | | | | | mist. | mistura | mix | | mitte | mitte | send | | mL | | millilitre | | | | | | | | | | nebul | nebula | a spray | | N.M.T. | | not more than | | noct. | nocte | at night | | non rep. | non repetatur | no repeats | | NPO. | nil per os | nothing by mouth | | NS | | normal saline (0.9\%) | | $1/2$ NS | | half normal saline (0.45\%) |

N.T.E. 0.2 od omne in die

not to exceed both eyes, sometimes written as $O_2$ every day/once daily (preferred to qd in the UK[5]) "o" can be mistaken as an "a" which could read "a.d.", meaning right ear, confusion with omne in die "o" can be mistaken as an "a" which could read "a.s.", meaning left ear "o" can be mistaken as an "a" which could read "a.u.", meaning both ears "O" can be mistaken as an "a" which "O" can be mistaken as an "a" which could read "a.u.", meaning left ear AMA style avoids use of this abbreviation (spell out "orally") "o" can be mistaken as an "a" which could read "a.s.", "or" "a" is "o" "a" is the vagina every other day every day before noon mistaken for "QOD" or "qds," spell out "every day" or "daily". AMA style avoids use of this abbreviation (spell out "every day")

List of symbols used in prescriptions

Contents

• 1 Numerical Notation
• 2 Currently "Discouraged" Practices
• 3 References
• 4 External links

Numerical Notation

When expressing a numerical quantity, Roman numerals are commonly used in place of arabic digits so as to avoid confusion. The numbers $1-3,(I,II,III)$ usually written as upper-case Roman numerals, often have the appearance of a capital "T" or a series of capital "I's" with a dot above each "T." They are also sometimes written as lower-case Roman numerals (i, ii, iii).

Currently "Discouraged" Practices

• Abbreviating names of drugs
• Using apothecary's units
• Using trailing zeros or not using a leading zero

References

1. "The Official "Do Not Use" List of Abbreviations" (http://www.jointcommission.org/assets /1/18/Do_Not_Use_List.pdf) (PDF). The Joint Commission. Retrieved 23 August 2012.
2. "ISMP's List of Error Prone Abbreviations, Symbols, and Dose Designations" (http://www.ismp.org/tools /errorproneabbreviations.pdf) (PDF). Institute for Safe Medication Practices. Retrieved 11 February 2011.
3. Johnston, Mike (2006). The pharmacy technician series: Fundamentals of pharmacy practice (http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Pharmacy-Practice-Technician-Series/dp/013114751X). Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 24. ISBN 9780131147515.
4. "Recurring Confusion Between Opium Tincture and Paregoric" (http://www.pharmacytimes.com/publications /issue/2003/2003-06/2003-06-7241). Pharmacy Times. Retrieved 2015-01-19.
5. BNF (British National Formulary (http://www.bnf.org/)) - published twice yearly by the British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

External links

• "DAW Codes" (http://web.archive.org/web/20110728070323/http://www.studyrx.org /index.php?option=com_zoo&;task=item&;item_id=122&;Itemid=266). Archived from the original (http://www.studyrx.org/index.php?option=com_zoo&;task=item&;item_id=122&;Itemid=266) on 2011-07-28.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org /w/index.php?title=List_of_abbreviations_used_in_medical_prescriptions&;oldid=655882514" Categories: Lists of medical abbreviations

• This page was last modified on 10 April 2015, at 20:41.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Exhibit 18

Exhibit 18

Exhibit 18

FRANK A. PUGLIESE, PH.D., P.C. PSYCHOLOGIST DIPCOMATE IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY AMERICAN BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 19 SOUTH 25TH STREET SUITE 100 TEMPLE, TEXAS 76504

The Honorable Martha J. Trudo ${27}^{\text{th}}$ Judicial District Bell County, Texas September 29, 2005 Cause No. 57558

Judge Trudo:

This report is in compliance with your order for a competence assessment on Thomas Raymond Carr. In completing my evaluation, I conducted a clinical interview of Mr. Carr and administered the Competence to Stand Trial Assessment Instrument to him. I also apprised him of the purpose of my visit with him, the procedures to be utilized during the course of my assessment of him, indicated that a copy of my report would be forwarded to his attorney and to the courts, and discussed the limits of confidentiality. I also received his permission to proceed with the assessment.

MENTAL STATUS AND RELEVANT PAST HISTORY: Mr. Carr is a 38-year-old overweight male of average height who was seen at the Bell County Law Enforcement Center. He responded to most inquiries readily and spoke in a somewhat unclear, tangential manner. That is, he had significant difficulty maintaining a single train of thought and repeatedly complained of being confused by my inquiries. In addition, he reported having auditory hallucinations in which he hears voices and noted he has had ideas of reference in which he believes people are often "laughing at me and talking about me" behind his back. Although he maintained he is currently taking Risperdal prescribed by Dr. Howell, he viewed the medication as being ineffective and in fact "I keep hearing these voices and can't think straight."

Mr. Carr related he and his common-law wife, Tammy (30), lived with his mother and his five-year-old daughter, Alexis, and Tammy's eleven-year-old son, Michael, in Harker Heights prior to his arrest and incarceration in June of last year. He said he and Tammy have lived together for approximately twelve years and worked at different jobs for varying periods of time throughout his adult life. He went on to say he remained in the Bell County Law Enforcement Center from June of last year until March of this year when he was transferred to a TDC facility, where he remained until being returned to Bell County on September 12. When I questioned him as to the reason he was sent to a TDC facility from Bell County in March, he repeatedly he insisted he was unaware of what

prompted the transfer and became increasingly more agitated with me as the session progressed.

Mr. Carr indicated he is an only child who was born in Germany and raised in the Killeen area. He mentioned his father met his mother, a German national, while he was stationed overseas and said he lived in Germany until the early elementary grades when his family moved to the Killeen area. He characterized his childhood as being generally happy and satisfying and did not experience any abuse or neglect. He further noted he attended Killeen area schools throughout his life and made a decision to leave Killeen High School in the tenth grade because of a lack of interest and motivation. He said he was quite oppositional during his childhood and early adolescence and seemed more focused on socializing with peers than in focusing on his schoolwork.

Mr. Carr stated he "piddled around" after leaving high school and met Tammy at a topless bar. He recalled she was a dancer at the time and noted she was his first longterm dating partner. He mentioned they have lived together for the past twelve years and contended they were both equally involved in raising their daughter, Alexis, and Tammy's eleven-year-old son from a previous relationship, Michael. She mentioned both children are currently in the care of extended family members since both he and Tammy were arrested and incarcerated in June of last year.

Mr. Carr stated he has smoked marijuana since adolescence and claimed the substance helped to "calm me down and make the voices go away." He noted he did not consult with any mental health professionals until he and Tammy were visiting her grandmother in Kansas City and he became quite distressed and overwhelmed by the voices he was hearing. He mentioned he went to a free clinic during his brief stay in Kansas City and was prescribed Seroquel, which he continued to take for a few months. He mentioned he was also seen by mental health professionals while he was in the TDC unit earlier this year and was prescribed Stelazine, Nortriptyline, and Cogentin. He felt those medications were instrumental in reducing the frequency and intensity of his "voices" and insisted the Risperdal he is currently taking was ineffective in helping him.

Mr. Carr indicated he has also used methamphetamines on different occasions during the past few years and remembers many occasions when he and Tammy were "up for days at a time." He said his recollection for events was very poor for those time periods and conceded he may have exercised poor judgment during those times.

COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT: Mr. Carr was unclear as to the charges pending against him and verbalized much frustration because "nobody tells me what's going on." He was, nonetheless, quite familiar with court process and procedure, was able to correctly define the roles of different court officers, including defense and prosecuting attorneys and judge, and did not have any difficulty in explaining various legal concepts to me in appropriate fashion.

Mr. Carr went into extensive detail about his communication with two different attorneys, Ted Potter and Monte Montgomery, and insisted he was quite aggravated with

CARN

Page 3 each of them. He noted his most recent communications with Mr. Montgomery have been particularly difficult for him since "he's not doing anything because he's supposed to fix it and get me out of here." He further noted he viewed Mr. Montgomery as "working against me" and felt he was in collusion with the district attorney's office to keep him incarcerated for an extended period of time. He underscored the fact he did not trust Mr. Montgomery, has refused to talk to him on different occasions, and has little confidence in his ability to defend him and present an appropriate defense. Moreover, he asserted he had no additional desire to talk with his attorney because "he's not doing his job and dong what he's supposed to do" and was hopeful of having another attorney appointed for him.

CONCLUSIONS REGARDING COMPETENCE: Mr. Carr is a 38 -year-old male who has been in the Bell County Jail for approximately fifteen months awaiting a court hearing for disposition on a charge of aggravated sexual assault. My assessment indicated Mr. Carr does not have sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding but does have a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. It is my opinion that his tendency to misinterpret and misperceive events occurring around him, coupled with the presence of auditory hallucinations and delusional thinking, impairs his ability to exercise appropriate judgment and communicate effectively with Mr. Montgomery in the preparation of his defense. I do believe, nonetheless, Mr. Carr can be restored to competence within the foreseeable future with specialized help in a psychiatric facility where his medication needs can be appropriately addressed and his behavior can be stabilized.

Respectfully submitted,

Frank A. Pugliese, Ph. D. Psychologist FAP/uf

Exhibit 19

SOUARDOI. SANDIRE, M.D., M.P.H. COMMSSIONER NORTH TEXAS STATE HOSPITAL Jesue R Smith, LCSW, DCSW Chief Exarwove Office

March 6, 2006 Honorable Judge Joe Carroll ${25}^{\text{th}}$ District Court of Bell County P.O Box 747

Beltsin, Texas 76513-0747

Re: Thomas Raymond Carr Case No: F07408 Cause No: $57,557;57,558$ Admission Date: $12/19/05$

Honorable Judge Carroll:

This report is submitted concerning the above named defendant who was admitted to North Texas State Hospital after having been found incompetent to stand trial. This evaluation was for the purpose of determining the defendant's competency to stand trial and not for purposes of mitigating circumstances, guilt, innocence, sanity or future dangerentness.

After a period of observation and treatment, the evaluation has been completed. It is the opinion of the evaluator that the defendant is COMPETENT to stand trial.

Current Medications use as Fillews. Seropre $800\mathrm{m}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{o}q$ Neboprelol 50 mg po BID pr $$ HCTZ 25 mg po q AM

HS Enalapril 20 mg po q AM ECASA gr V po every offer morning We are now requesting that the sheriff of your county transport the defendant to your court as soon as premeal in accordance with Article 46B.079.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to your Court and appreciate your prompt consideration and attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted, FOR THERNUPERINTENDEDIT

Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, Inc in Psychiatry and with Special Qualifications to Forensic Psychiatry Cluel Psychiatrist, Competency Program North Texas State Hospital-Vernon Campus Enclosure: Competency Exalustion cc: District Attorney Defense Attorney District Clerk Sheriff

Sworn to and subscribed before use this the $6^{\text{th}}$ day of March, 2006

Jerty N. Wilt CORMA D. HAM Hillary Public in and for the State of Texas Commission expures CB/08/CN

Referral/Conesultation Report

To be completed whenever a standard MHRS form does not provide adequate space for the required data.

| CARR THOMAS RAYMOND | 656 | | :-- | :-- | | BHIS # 217489 | | | $08-14-67$ | WM | | $12-19-05$ | | | PROGRAM: SPRUGE | |

TO: Consultant and/or Service: Psychological Services REQUEST: Reason for Requested Consultation: Competency Assessment Required by Court;

Physician: Joseph Black, M.D. $\begin{array}{cc}\text{Requested Date:}02-02-06\text{Requeated Date:}\hfill & amp;02-02-06\hfill \end{array}$

CONSULTANT: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Name: Thomas Raymond Carr DOB: $08-14-67$ Race: White See: Male DOA: $12-19-05$ Hospital #: 7808 Cause R: $57,517\&57,558$ Commuting Court: ${27}^{\text{th}}$ District Court of Bell County Report Date: 02-27-06 REASON FOR ADMISSION/ASSESSMENT: Thomas Raymond Carr is a 38 year old White male admitted to the Musimum Security Unit of North Texas State Hospital - Vernon Campus under provisions of Article 46B.073 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. He has felony charges pending after being found incompetent to Stand Trial.

Attempts were made to interview Mr. Carr on 01-27-06, 02-02-06 and 02-23-06. On each occasion, he refused to participate, insisting he was "not ready," and at one point, "I don't know this man" (referring to the evaluator). It has therefore been necessary to rely almost entirely on information obtained from review of his medical record and relevant preadmission documents, as well as consultation with ward staff and members of his treatment team. To enhance the accuracy of observations, a structured checklist was constructed based on the various symptoms he has reported, and the checklist was completed by unit mental health workers that were able to monitor his behavior more closely. I also observed turn during treatment team meetings on the above-fisted dates. He was unwilling to attend fully to the full forensic warning when I attempted to deliver that, although he was informed on more than one occasion that our interactions would not be confidential, and that regardless of his level of participation, a report would be prepared that would be sent to the court to his defense attorney, and to the District Attorney.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND HISTORY: The following is a brief synopsis of what is known concerning this man. As noted above, he refused to cooperate with me during attempts to interview him, and the information reported here has been extracted from interviews conducted by others. The interested reader is referred to the full medical record for additional details, if desired.

Mr. Carr is the only child born to an American father and German mother. He spent his early years in Germany, where his father was serving in the US Military, and the family apparently came to the United States after his father retired from the

B. Thomas Gray, Ph.D., ABPP

Signature, Date, and Time Core form: $◻$ Yes $◻$ No MERS 1-17

Continuation Form Dated: 02-27-06

To be completed whenever a standard MHRS form does not provide adequate space for the required data.

CARR THOMAS RAYMOND BHIS # 217489 08-14-67 12-19-05 PROGRAM: SPRUCE

US Army, white Mr. Carr was in the fourth grade. He has indicated that he is able to speak German quite well, and his English is also fiucist. His parents have apparently been married for 30 years, but seem to be currently living apart. Very little, is actually known concerning his birth, early development, or family background. He asserted that he was, elevated unconscious for brief periods in accidents during his childhood, and that on such occasion, he was hospitalized for approximately one week. There is no independent collateral information to confirm these reports, however. One report suggested that he may have been rather oppositional as a child. It seems that he performed adequately in school, at least until the age of 15 , at which time he began using marijuana regularly. He dropped out in the ${10}^{\text{th}}$ or ${11}^{\text{th}}$ grade, but later earned his GED. He has held unskilled positions in construction and moving furniture, with his longest period of sustained employment being two years. His first long-term relationship developed into a common-law marriage that has lasted for the past 12 years. At the time of his arrest, he, his wife, their six year old daughter, and his wife's 13 year old son from a prior relationship, were living together with his mother.

As noted above, Mr. Carr began use of marijuana at age 15. It is uncertain when he began drinkingalcohol. He informed the treatment team Social Worker that he of late he has been drinking only approximately once per month, but that no phase occasions he drinks "a lot," up to 20 beers per sitting. He has been using methamphetamines for at least "the past few years," which by his account has been particularly problematic. During at least one interview he reported having sought treatment at a free clinic in Kansas City several years ago, where he was prescribed an antipsychotic medication (Sarospad). At other times, however, he has stated that his only treatment prior to being incarcerated for the instant offense occurred within the past two years when he was insurationalized, and was prescribed an older antipsychotic (Stellazine) and an antidepressant (Pantelor). There are no records of him having received psychiatric care within the slate system.

Issues of competency arose while he was incarcerated for the instant offense, and he was therefore seen for evaluation by Frank A. Pugliese, Ph.D., In a report dated 09/29-05, Dr. Pugliese indicated that Mr. Carr complained of bearing values, seeing "visions" that he described as shadows, inaccurately attributed personal meaning to uninitiated events, and had difficulty maintaining a consistent unit of thought. However, Dr. Pugliese went on to note that Mr. Carr was "nonsthpress, quite familiar with court process and procedure, was able to correctly define the roles of different court officials, including defense and prosecuting attorneys and judge, and did not have any difficulty in explaining various legal prospects..." However, Dr. Pugliese went on to conclude: "It is my opinion that his tendency to misinterpret and misperceive events occurring around him, coupled with the presence of auditory and delusional thinking, impairs his ability to exercise appropriate judgement and communicate effectively with (his attorney)." He therefore recommended Mr. Carr he considered incompetent To Stand Trial, the court concerned, and he was transferred to this facility.

COURSE OF HOSPITALIZATION: While incarcerated prior to being transferred here, Mr. Carr had apparently been receiving an antipsychotic medication (Zyprexa), as well as medications to control his hypertension. When he was seen at the time of admission by Joseph Black, M.D., his attending psychiatrist, he complained that the antipsychotic was not effective, but he had previously reported receiving a different medication (Sarospad) that was more effective, and Mr. Carr eventually agreed to switch medications. He has also been enrolled in standard psychosocial educational programming, including a class designed to improve his trial competence. His attendance has been good, although his participation has been hampered somewhat by his repeated insistence that he is unable to remember information pertaining to trial competence. His behavior has otherwise been unremarkable, however, and he was recommended for transfer to the Gateway Program, intended for individuals functioning at a higher and more independent level, he refused this transfer; however, despite the fact that he knew it would involve a loss to his level of privileges.

CURRENT CLINICAL OBSERVATIONS: Thomas Raymond Carr is an obese 38 year old White, made of average stature, who appears his stated age. He has been appropriately dressed in casual clothing for those treatment team sessions that

| | Signature, Date, and Time | B. Thomas Cray, Ph.D., ABPP | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | D: 05/870 | T: 05/10/8/steno C: 02:26-06 | Chief Psychologist, Comp. Cen | | R: 05 (S) AM by hand | | | | Page 7 of 5 | | Continuation of MHRS 3-17 |

Continuation Form Dated: 02-27-06

To be completed whenever a standard MHRS form does not provide adequate space for the required data.

| CARR THOMAS RAYMOND | 656 | | :-- | --: | | BIDS # 217489 | | | $08-14-67$ | | | 12-19-05 | 107806 | | PROGRAM: SPRUCE | |

observed and his grooming and bygone have consistently been good. Physical movements, including gait and posture, were within normal limits. Speech was of normal pace, tone, and volume, and he was readily understandable. As noted above, he has refused to participate in any interview sessions with me, and it was therefore impossible to conduct a full and formal evaluation of his mental state. Since he was admitted he has repeatedly complained of hearing voices that make derogatory comments to him. He has additionally asserted that he has considerable problems with his memory. He has generally been rather vague when pressed for additional details concerning the voices that he claims to hear, however, and in any case there is no evidence that these phenomena in any way interfere with his day to day functioning. Indeed, in general, his thought processes appeared to be logical and coherent, and he has been able to cogorily argue for advancement in the unit level privileging system when meeting with his treatment team. He has also been able to negotiate a change in medication without undue difficulty.

Sotkingly, Mr. Carr's alleged memory deficits appear to be confined to issues regarding trial competency. He has been able to readily assimilate unit rules and procedures, he has been heard on the telephone making organized requests when speaking to his family, and he was able to recall details concerning the way in which informal written tests of formal competency information were administered to him. An observation by a unit Mental Health Worker is particularly adient: "He seems to enjoy zivis games, and shows knowledge in many subjects." It therefore seems more likely that his tenaciously claimed inability to recall competency information in that reflects a lack of willingness to learn this information. There is no evidence suggesting that he is mentally retarded, and his use of vocabulary and his facility in presenting his arguments would suggest that his intellectual functioning is in the Low Average range or perhaps even somewhat higher. His judgement and insight are questionable, however.

UPDATED DIAGNOSIS (Per Joseph Black, M.D., attending psychiatrist) Axis I: Malingering V55.2 Polycubstance Dependence, 304.80 Psychotic Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified 298.9 Axis II: Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified 301.9 Axis (1): Hypertension, 401.9 Hypercholesterolemia 272.0 Hypertriglyceridemia 272.1 Obesity 278.00 Psoriasis 696.1 High Risk Medication V58.69 Axis IV: Problems With Primary Support Group Problems Related to Social Environment Occupational Problems Problems Related to Interaction With Legal System/Crime Axis V. Global Assessment of Functioning

1. Psychological Impairment - 65 - Although he continues to complain of auditory hallucinations and memory/impairment, there is little evidence to support these claims, and in any case there is no evidence of impaired functioning as a result. His primary psychological deficits involve impaired judgment and insight, and a marked insensitivity to the feelings and needs of others.
2. Social Skills - 60 - He is sometimes socially inappropriate, and has little understanding of how to sympathize or share with others.
3. Violence - 70 -There have been no acts of verbal or physical aggression during his may have.
4. ADL/Occupational Skills - 65 - Although he has a limited history of educational and occupational attainment, there are no obvious barriers to him being able to maintain a job and live independently

| | | Signiture, Data, and Time | | | B. Thomas Gray, Ph.D., ASPP Chief Psychologist, Comp. Unit Com | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | D: 05/BIG | T: 05/108/steno | C: 02-26-06 | | | | | R: 05 (B) AM by hand | Corr. Form | $◻$ | No | | |

| Contiaustion Form | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | | Dated: 32-27-06 | CARR THOMAS RAYMOND | 656 | | | BHIS # 217489 | | | | $08-14-67$ | WM | | | 12-19-05 | F07808 | | | PROGRAM: SPRUGE | | | 5. Substance Abuse - 20 - Functioning is extremely imipaired by frequent or daily use of drugs such as marijuana, methamphetamines, alcohol, or others when not in a controlled environment. | | | | 6. Medical - 70 - Mild medical problems which may cause some difficulty in social or occupational functioning, including hypertension, obesity, psoriasis, his need to take prescription medications on a daily basis, and his need for periodic medical follow-up. | | | | 7. Ancillary Problems - 40 - Major problems with the law as evidenced by his having been found incompetent to stand trial. | | | | Global Assessment of Functioning - Equivalent $=($ Subscales #1- #2+#3+44) $+4=65$
Highest GAF - Equivalent Past Year Unknown | | |

CURRENT COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT: As has been noted above, Mr. Carr refused to participate in an interview concerning this information, and it has been necessary to make inferences from statements he has made to others, and from his behavior. The following information is organized according to the six specific areas that are mandated to be addressed in Article 46B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Capacity to Understand the Charges and Potential Consonances of Pending Criminal Proceptions: When mending with his treatment, as recently as $02-15-06\mathrm{M}\mathrm{r}$ . Carr has been able to accurately recite the charges that he faces. Although he denied understanding the meaning of these charges, it is interesting that, when interviewed by the treatment team Social Worker not long after his admission here, he was able to explain the details of the law regarding a prior charge that he faced. It would therefore seem more likely that, rather than being unable to understand the charge he faces, he is in fact simply unwilling to reveal this information. Furthermore, the lengths he has gone to in attempting to convince staff that he has psychiatric deficits of sufficient severity to make him unable to understand or to learn information pertaining to trial competency would imply some understanding of the severity of the consequences he might face, if convicted.
2. Capacity to Disclose Pertinent Facts Events, and States of Mind in Counsel: When he was interviewed by Dr. Pugliess prior to being seen to this facility, Mr. Carr was readily able to identify the attorney of record by name. He apparently expressed considerable dissatisfaction with his lawyer, and indicated his desire to have another atomey appointed to represent him. It is noteworthy that he has been able to reveal relevant information to members of his treatment team when it has suited his ends to do so. This would suggest that he would be able to provide his atomey with relevant information, as well, should he choose to do so.
3. Capacity to Engage in a Reasoned Choice of Local Strategies and Options: He has repeatedly insisted he is unable to recall even basic information pertaining to trial competency. While meeting with his treatment team on 02-23-06, for example, he exhibited considerable difficulty in naming only three of the four possible pleats, and he stated he was uncertain as to their meanings. His performance on informal written tests of factual competency information has also been quite poor. In fact, his scores have been so low that it is far more likely he knows the correct answers to the questions, and has instead intentionally provided incorrect answers. It appears that he has been feismang and/or exaggerating symptoms of mental illness in order to avoid prosecution for the charges that he currently faces, a conclusion consistent with the lack of credibility seen in his claimed memory impairments and his alleged psychiatric symptoms (i.e., hearing voices). Some courts have interpreted the use of such an approach as representing a distinctive legal strategy.

Signature, Date, and Time B. Thomas Grey, Ph.D., ABPP

Chief Psychologist, Cimp. Unit Carr Ferrar $◻$ Yes $◻$ No Chief Psychologist, Cimp. Unit Carr Ferrar $◻$ Yes $◻$ No

Continucen of MARS 3-17

Continuation Form Dated: 02-27-06 To be completed whenever a standard MHRS form does not provide adequate space for the required data.

CArR THOMAS RAYMOND BHIS # 217489 08-14-67 12-19-05 PROGRAM: SPRUGE 4. Causality is Understand the Adversarial Nature of the Local Process: As with other areas pertaining to his, trial competency, Mr. Carr has asserted ignorance of the roles played by various key coontoben personnel. The same informal written tests of factual competency information on which he performed so poorly (see above) have touched on a good deal of information pertaining specifically to the opposing roles played by the district attorney and defense attomey. His extremely poor performance strongly suggests that in fact he knows the information, but intentionally provided incorrect answers. Furthermore, the lengths to which he has gone to in an attempt to make staff believe that he is mentally ill, would imply some awareness of the adversarial nature of the proceedings. 5. Causality is Exhibit Appropriate Countrons: Behaylag: Aside from his reluctance to cooperate with competency training or evaluation, Mr. Carr has posed no behavioral problems during his stay here. He has been cooperative with staff, and has demonstrated an ability to make his needs well known. There are no observable barriers to him being able to conduct himself in accordance with appropriate standards of courtroom decorum. 6. Causality to Testify: As noted above, Mr. Carr has been able to respond to questions posed to him during treatment team meetings. He has been able to present arguments to have medications changed, and to attempt to have his level in the unit, privileging system increased. He has therefore demonstrated an ability to respond to questions appropriately when he chooses to do so.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is my clinical opinion, with a reasonable degree of psychological certainty, that Thomas Raymond Carr currently meets criteria to be considered Competent to Stand Trial. This is based on information obtained from available records, from treatment team members, and from the observations of direct care staff on the unit. Mr. Carr does not appear to meet criteria to be considered mentally retarded, based on his use of language and 'us facility in two languages. He is currently stabilized in a therapeutic environment involving use of psychoactive medications. It is unclear whether these medications are essential for him to maintain trial competency; they do not appear to unduly impact his capacity to participate in his own defense. It would be helpful for him to have access to ongoing psychiatric care, it is quite important that he take prescribed medications as ordered, and it is essential that he abstain from alcohol and all illicit drugs. Failure to follow these recommendations could well result in deterioration of his condition, and a return to trial incompetency.

Mr. Carr has been diagnosed with Malingering, reflecting his tendency to exaggerate symptoms of mental illness. It is possible that he may engage in threats, gestures, or activities in a desperate attempt to appear mentally ill so as to continue avoiding the consequences of the charges he currently faces. This conceivably could include gestures or even outright attempts to harm himself. It is therefore recommended that he be closely monitored.

This report addresses issues of competency only, and is not a dangerousness risk assessment. If the court decuss it appropriate, a qualified professional should be contacted to perform such an evaluation.

It is recognized that decisions concerning trial competency are made by a judge and/or jury, and not by mental health professionals. Consequently, opinions stated in the context of this report are offered as advisory only.

This report may be protected by Fed. Reg. 43CFR(2).

Exhibit 20

STATE OF TEXAS } COUNTY OF BELL }

COMES NOW THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT, A PEACE OFFICER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AFTER HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN ON OATH, WHO DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT I HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE AND DO BELIEVE THAT TAMMY MICHELLE BISHOP HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO A MINOR AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT TO WHICH THIS AFFIDAVIT IS ATTACHED AND THAT MY BELIEF IN THE FOREGOING IS BASED ON THE POLLOWING INFORMATION.

I AM A CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY THE HARKER HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A DETECTIVE. PURSUANT TO MY DUTIES AS A DETECTIVE, I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THE INVESTIGATION OF A REPORT OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO A MINOR IN WHICH THE SUSPECT'S NAME IS TAMMY MICHELLE BISHOP.

I HAVE READ THE STATEMENT OF $\to$ $\to$ $\to$ WHO IS 16 YEARS OLD. HE REPORTS THAT THE SUSPECTS, THOMAS CARR AND TAMMY BISHOP, CAME OVER TO HIS HOME IN HARKER HEIGHTS, BELL COUNTY, TEXAS ON JUNE 19, 2004, WITH MARIHUAN AND METHAMPHETAMINE. JERRID AND HIS TWO 14 YEAR OLD FRIENDS WERE GIVEN METHAMPHETAMINE, BY INJECTION, BY THOMAS CARR. I HAVE SPOKEN TO TAMMY BISHOP, WHO GAVE A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT IN WHICH SHE ADMITS TO INGESTING METHAMPHETAMINE WITH THE THREE JUVENILES, WHICH SHE AND CARR BROUGHT TO THE RESIDENCE. I HAVE ALSO REVIEWED A VIDEOTAPE IN WHICH THE THREE JUVENILES, CARR AND BISHOP ALL REFER TO DRUG USE, AND IT IS APPARENT, BASED ON MY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE AS A POLICE OFFICER, THAT ALL THREE JUVENILES ARE INTOUCATED. I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE THROUGH MY INVESTIGATION THAT ONE OF THE 14 YEAR OLDS HAD A BAD REACTION TO THE DRUGS AND WAS TREATED AT A LOCAL HOSPITAL. I HAVE BEEN FURTHER INFORMED BY THE PARENTS OF ALL THREE JUVENILES THAT THE CHILDREN TESTED POSITIVE FOR METHAMPHETAMINE.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, YOUR AFFIANT REQUESTS THAT A WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUE FOR TAMMY MICHELLE BISHOP FOR THE PELONY OFFENSE OF DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO A MINOR.

Sworn to and subscribed before me by the above named Affiant, a credible person, this the day of ${𝒥}_{\text{EL}}/LA$ 2004.

Exhibit 21

1847

AFFIDAVIT FOR ARREST

STATE OF TEXAS } COUNTY OF BELL }

COMES NOW THE UNDERSIGNED AFFIANT, A PEACE OFFICER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AFTER HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN ON OATH, WHO DEPOSES AND SAYS THAT I HAVE GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE AND DO BELIEVE THAT THOMAS RAYMOND CARR HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT TO WHICH THIS AFFIDAVIT IS ATTACHED AND THAT MY BELIEF IN THE FOREGOING IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.

1 AM A CERTIFIED POLICE OFFICER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY THE BELL COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AS AN INVESTIGATOR. PURSUANT TO MY DUTIES AS AN INVESTIGATOR, I HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED THE INVESTIGATION OF A REPORT OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD IN WHICH THE SUSPECT'S NAME IS THOMAS RAYMOND CARR, AND THE VICTIM'S NAME IS TOM VICTOR.

TOM VICTOR (A ESKED ONYM) REPORTS THATHE IS 14 YEARS OLD HE FURTHER REPORTS THAT THE SUSPECT ON JUNE 14 YEARS INJECTED HIM WITH METHAMPHETAMINE AFTER THAT, THE SUSPECT VIDEOTAPED THE VICTIM WHILE THE VICTIM WAS BEING ANALLY PENETRATED BY A "STRAP ON DILDO" WORN BY TAMMY BISHOP. I HAVE REVIEWED THE STATEMENT OF TAMMY BISHOP WHICH OONFIRMS THAT THIS HAPPENED IN HARKER HEIGHTS, BELL COUNTY, TEXAS, AND THAT, IN FACT, THE SUSPECT INJECTED TWO OTHER 14 YEAR OLD BOYS WITH METHAMPHETAMINE AND THAT SHE ALSO ANALLY PENETRATED THOSE BOYS WITH THE SAME DEVICE. I HAVE REVIEWED A VIDEOTAPE SHOWING THE ANAL PENETRATION OF THE VICTIM BY SUSPECT TAMMY BISHOR AND IS RATHER APPARENT THAT THOMAS CARR IS DIRECTING AND VIDEOTAPING THE ACTIONS OF ALL PERSONE INVOLVED, IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE BOYS INVOLVED ARE HESITANT, BUT AT ONE POINT THE SUSPECT THREATENS TO MAKE EACH OF THE BOYS PERFORM FELLATIO ON HIM THE SUSPECT, IF THEY DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE ANAL INTERCOURSE THE SUSPECT IS SEEN, BRIEFLY, WEARING WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BLACK "TEDDY" TYPE OF LINGERIE. I HAVE REVIEWED THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF ALL THREE BOYS, WHICH SHOWED POSITIVE RESULTS FOR METHAMPHETAMINE. DURING THE VIDEO, TOM VICTOR ALSO IS ALLOWED TO PLACE HIS FINGERS IN THE VAGINA OF TAMMY BISHOP AND PERFORMS CUNNILINGUS ON TAMMY BISHOP.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, YOUR AFFIANT REQUESTS THAT A WARRANT OF ARREST ISSUE FOR THOMAS RAYMOND CARR FOR THE FELONY OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD.

Sworn to and subscribed before me by the above named Affiant, a credible person, this the day of $\frac{1}{2}$ I 2005.

Exhibit 22

All Motions Orders -powers Citations Ciber Documents Acqcers Costs Payments Lender

Check out our new affordable subcription plans at iDucket.com

View Case Track ${}^{\text{M3}}$

Criminal Docket; Case 57557; DEL CS/MARIJ TO MINOR THE STATE OF TEXAS vs CARR, THOMAS RAYMOND Filed 07/13/2004 - Disposition: 11/21/2006 15 YEARS TDCJ;ID 264th District Court, District Clerk, Bell County, Texas

| Date | Description/Comments | Reference Typ Amount | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 07/16/2004 | FILE MAGISTRATE WARNING 07/15/04 | Docket TXT | | | 07/16/2004 | FILE APPOINTMENT OF ATTORNEY 07/16/04 | Docket | | | 08/03/2004 | FILE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL &; ORDER GRANTING /S/MJT 08/02/04 | Docket | | | 08/05/2004 | FILE LETTER OF RETAINMENT FROM POTTER07/29/04 | Docket | | | 08/10/2004 | FILE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ATTORNEY-BIGHAM-08/09/04 | Docket | | | 12/21/2004 | ISSUED SPECIAL HEARING LETTER | Docket | | | 12/22/2004 | FILE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO REDUCE BOND 12/21/04 &; ORDER FOR A SETTING | Docket | | | 01/03/2005 | FILE DEPUTY REPORTER STATEMENT 01/03/05 | Docket | | | 01/03/2005 | PER DOCKET BOND SET AT 75,000 /S/MJT 01/03/05 | Docket | | | 01/21/2005 | FILE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL 01/20/05; SENT UP WITH FILE | Docket | | | 01/24/2005 | FILE ORDER ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE /S/MJT 01/24/05 | Docket | | | 03/23/2005 | ISSUED ARRAIGNMENT LETTER 03/30/2005 ISSUED ARRAIGNMENT LETTER | Docket | |

| 05/09/2005 | FILE WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT BY MONTGOMERY 05/09/05;PAULA TO SEE | Docket | " | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 05/09/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 05/10/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 05/10/2005 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 05/23/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 06/16/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 06/16/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 07/19/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 07/20/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 07/26/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 08/15/2005 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 08/18/2005 | FILE NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER INSANITY DEFENSE &; MOTION FOR EXAM RE:INCOMPETENCY &; INSANITY BY MONTGOMERY 08/17/05 | Docket | " | | | 08/18/2005 | FILE DEFENDANT'S ELECTION AS TO PUNISHMENT 08/17/05 | Docket | " | | | 08/18/2005 | FILE DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION BY MONTGOMERY 08/17/05 | Docket | " | | | 08/24/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 08/24/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 09/20/2005 | FILE DEFENDANT'S AMENDED OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION BY MONTGOMERY 09/20/05;NO ROUTING SLIP | Docket | " | | | 10/21/2005 | ATTORNEY MONTY MONTGOMERY TOOK FILE TO COORDINATOR FOR HEARING SETTING10/21/05 | Docket | " | | | 10/24/2005 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 11/04/2005 | FILE ORDER OF COMMITMENT TO VERNON STATE HOSPITAL /S/MJT 11/04/05 | Docket | " | | | 11/04/2005 | COMMITMENT PAPERS TO SGT. HEJL AND BELL CO. JAIL 11/04/05 | Docket | " | | | 01/27/2006 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 02/21/2006 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 03/08/2006 | ISSUED BENCH WARRANT TO NORTH TEXAS STATE HOSPITAL VERNON CAMPUS ON THOMAS CARR /S/ MJT 03/08/06 ALSO CASE#57558 | Docket | " | | | 03/09/2006 | FILE LETER FROM TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES AT VERNON | Docket | " | |

| | CAMPUS EVALUATION REPORT 03/09/06;PAULA SAW | | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 03/15/2006 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 03/24/2006 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 03/29/2006 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 05/25/2006 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 07/12/2006 | FILE LETTER FROM KELLY TO JENNIFER CASE BE CHANGED TO THE 264 COURT 07/11/06 | Docket | " | | | 09/19/2006 | FILE MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE BY MONTGOMERY 09/19/06;HE TOOK TO JENNIFER TO SEE W/FILE | Docket | " | | | 09/19/2006 | FILE DEFENDANT'S COURT-DIRECTED MOTION FOR A SETTING ON A PREVIOUSLY UNHEARD PRE-TRIAL MOTION 09/19/06;HE TOOK 1JB | Docket | " | | | 09/22/2006 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 11/21/2006 | CPL 15 YEARS TDCJ;ID | Docket | " | | | 11/21/2006 | PG 15 YEARS TDCJ;ID | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE CERTIFICATE OF THUMBPRINT $11/22/06$ | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT TO APPEAL /S/MJT 11/22/06 | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE NOTICE OF PLANNED DESTRUCTION OFEVIDENCE 11/21/06 | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE DISCLOSURE OF PLEA
RECOMMENDATIONS 11/21/06 | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE ADDENDUM TO DISCLOSURE OF PLEA RECOMMENDATIONS 11/21/06 | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE WAIVER OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND WAIVER OF RIGHT TO APPEAL /S/MJT $11/21/06$ | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE WAIVER OF JURY AND AGREEMENT TO STIPULATE UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY /S/MJT 11/21/06 | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE JUDICIAL CONFESSION /S/MJT $11/21/06$ | Docket | " | | | 11/22/2006 | FILE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOTICE AND WAIVER OF OBJECTION TO PRESERVATIONOF EVIDENCE /S/MJT $11/21/06$ | Docket | " | |

| 11/30/2006 | SENT PEN PACK TO JAIL 11/30/06 | Docket | " | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 12/07/2006 | FILE BACK BENCH WARRANT 12/07/2006 SERVED 03/16/2006 | Docket | " | | | 11/20/2012 | COPY OF LETTER FROM CLERK'S OFFICE TODEFENDANT IN REGARDS TO NOT SIGNING WRIT 11.07 11/20/2012;SENT NEW APPLICATION | Docket | " | | | 12/11/2012 | COPY OF LETTER FROM CLERK'S OFFICE TODEFENDANT REGARDING RETURNING WRIT-NON COMPLIANT 12/11/12 | Docket | " | | | 01/02/2013 | FILED POST-WRIT; TO DA 01/02/13; DUE FROM DA 02/06/13 | Docket | " | | | 01/02/2013 | POST-WRIT TO AUSTIN 05/23/13 BY CMRR:7011 3500000152140686 | Docket | " | | | 01/02/2013 | POST-WRIT DISP - DISMISSED | Docket | " | | | 01/16/2013 | STATE'S ANSWER BY SEAN PROCTOR 01/16/2013 | Docket | " | | | 01/18/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT 01/16/2013 | Docket | " | | | 01/24/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT REGARDING COPIES $1/22/13$ | Docket | " | | | 01/24/2013 | DESIGNATION OF ISSUES &; ORDER EXPANDING THE RECORD SIGNED JUDGE TRUDO 1/23/13;COPY TO BETTY YOUNG &; SEAN PROCTOR | Docket | " | | | 01/24/2013 | STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 1/22/13 | Docket | " | | | 01/25/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEAN PROCTOR TO ATTORNEY CHARLES MONTGOMERY 01/25/2013 | Docket | " | | | 01/30/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT 01/29/2013 | Docket | " | | | 03/06/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT ABOUT EXHIBITS 03/05/2013 | Docket | " | | | 03/11/2013 | RECEIVED EXHIBITS 1 &; 2 FROM DEFENDANT 03/11/2013 | Docket | " | | | 03/11/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO LOWERY T. CARR IN REGARDS TO EXHIBITS WE RECEIVED 03/11/2013 | Docket | " | |

| 04/10/2013 | COURT-ORDERED AFFIDAVIT BY CHARLES MONTY MONTGOMERY 04/10/2013 | Docket | " | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 04/12/2013 | LETTER TO DEFENDANT FROM SEAN PROCTORREGARDING AFFIDAVIT 4/11/13 | Docket | " | | | 04/12/2013 | SEAN PROCTOR CHECKED OUT WRIT FILE 04/12/2013 | Docket | " | | | 04/30/2013 | ATTORNEY TIMOTHY TESCH VIEWED FILE INLOBBY 04/30/13 4:12PM | Docket | " | | | 05/01/2013 | DEBBIE CHECKED OUT WRIT FILE FOR SEANPROCTOR 05/01/13 | Docket | " | | | 05/15/2013 | FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SIGNED BY JUDGE TRUDO 05/15/13;MAILED COPY TO DEFENDANT | Docket | " | | | 05/15/2013 | MOTION TO ENTER PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY SEAN PROCTOR 05/14/13 | Docket | " | | | 05/15/2013 | LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT05/14/13 | Docket | " | | | 05/30/2013 | WHITE CARD FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 5/30/13;WRIT RECEIVED &; PRESENTED TO COURT 5/24/13 | Docket | " | | | 05/30/2013 | RETURNED CERTIFIED GREEN CARD 5/30/13; RECEIVED BY ABEL ACOSTA 5/24/13.CMRR: 70113500000152140686 | Docket | " | | | 07/16/2013 | LETTER FROM TIMOTHY TESCH LAW FIRM REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORWRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 7/16/13 | Docket | " | | | 07/18/2013 | MAILED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD TO AUSTIN 7/18/13 BY CMRR: 700103600001 21359923 | Docket | " | | | 07/22/2013 | RETURNED CERTIFIED GREEN CARD 7/22/13;RECEIVED BY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 7/19/13. CMRR:7001 03600001 21359923 | Docket | " | | | 09/12/2013 | WHITE CARD FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 9/12/13;WRIT DISMISSED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 9/11/13 | Docket | " | | | 01/15/2014 | FILED POST-WRIT; TO DA 01/16/14; DUE FROM DA 02/19/14 | Docket | " | | | 01/15/2014 | POST-WRIT TO AUSTIN 01/31/14 BY CMRR:7013 1090000008887279 | Docket | " | | | 01/15/2014 | POST-WRIT DISP - DENIED - 03/26/14 | Docket | " | |

Exhibit 23

Exhibit 23

Check out one new affordable subscription plans at iDocket.com

View Case Track TM (Start Case TrackTM)

Criminal Docket; Case 57558; AGG SEXUAL ASSAULT CHILD THE STATE OF TEXAS vs CARR, THOMAS RAYMOND Filed 01/03/2005 - Disposition: 11/21/2006 30 YEARS TDCJ;ID 264th District Court, District Clerk, Bell County, Texas

| Date | Description/Comments | Reference | Typ | Amount | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 01/03/2005 | ISSUED CAPIAS NO ARREST PER MARK D. KIMBALL BOND SET AT 1,000,000.00 PER JUDGE MARTHA J. TRUDO 1/3/05 | Docket | TXT | | | 01/21/2005 | FILE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSE 01/20/05; SENT UP WITH FILE | Docket | " | | | 01/24/2005 | FILE ORDER ON MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE /S/MJT 01/24/05 | Docket | " | | | 01/25/2005 | FILE BACK PRECEPT TO SERVE ON THOMAS RAYMOND CARR 01/25/05;SERVED01/04/05 | Docket | " | | | 03/22/2005 | FILE BACK CAPIAS 03/22/05;SERVED 01/04/05 | Docket | " | | | 03/23/2005 | ISSUED ARRAIGNMENT LETTER | Docket | " | | | 03/30/2005 | ISSUED ARRAIGNMENT LETTER | Docket | " | | | 05/09/2005 | FILE WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT BY MONTGOMERY 05/09/05;PAULA TO SEE | Docket | " | | | 05/09/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 05/27/2005 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 06/16/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 07/19/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 07/20/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 07/21/2005 | ISSUED SPECIAL HEARING LETTER | Docket | " | |

| 07/26/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 08/18/2005 | FILE NOTICE OF INTENT TO OFFER
INSANITY DEFENSE &; MOTION FOR EXAM RE:INCOMPETENCY &; INSANITY BY MONTGOMERY 08/17/05 | Docket | " | | | 08/18/2005 | FILE DEFENDANT'S ELECTION AS TO PUNISHMENT 08/17/05 | Docket | " | | | 08/18/2005 | FILE DEFENDANT'S OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION BY MONTGOMERY 08/17/05 | Docket | " | | | 08/24/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 08/24/2005 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 09/07/2005 | ISSUED BENCH WARRANT TO TDCJ-DOMINGUEZ UNIT 09/07/05 /S/MJT | Docket | " | | | 09/20/2005 | FILE DEFENDANT'S AMENDED OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION BY MONTGOMERY 09/20/05;NO ROUTING SLIP | Docket | " | | | 09/28/2005 | FILE ORDER APPOINTING DISINTERESTED EXPERT TO EXAMINE DEFENDANT /S/ MJT 09/28/05;APPOINTED FRANK PUGLIESE | Docket | " | | | 10/13/2005 | FILE EXPENSE PAY APPLICATION TO FRANKPUGLIESE AMOUNT OF $\backslash$ 270.00$ &; ORDER/S/ MJT 10/13/05;DC ADDED PSYCH/FEES | Docket | " | | | 10/13/2005 | FILE PSYCHOLOGY REPORT FROM DR. PUGLIESE 10/07/05;PAULA SAW-ENCLOSED INBROWN ENVELOPE | Docket | " | | | 10/21/2005 | ATTORNEY MONTY MONTGOMERY TOOK FILE TO COORDINATOR FOR HEARING SETTING10/21/05 | Docket | " | | | 10/24/2005 | ISSUED JURY TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 11/04/2005 | FILE ORDER OF COMMITMENT TO VERNON HOSPITAL /S/MJT 11/04/05 | Docket | " | | | 11/04/2005 | COMMITMENT PAPERS TO SGT. HEJL AT BELL CO. JAIL 11/04/05 | Docket | " | | | 01/27/2006 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 02/21/2006 | ISSUED PRE-TRIAL LETTER | Docket | " | | | 03/07/2006 | FILE REPORT FROM VERNON STATE HOSPITAL 03/07/06;FORWARDED TO P.KING, COORDINATOR FOR REVIEW FOR BENCH WARRANT | Docket | " | | | 03/08/2006 | ISSUED BENCH WARRANT TO NORTH TEXAS STATE HOSPITAL VERNON CAMPUS | Docket | " | |

| 11/20/2012 | COPY OF LETTER FROM CLERK'S OFFICE TODEFENDANT IN REGARDS TO NOT SIGNING WRIT 11.07 11/20/2012;SENT NEW APPLICATION | Docket | " | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | 12/11/2012 | COPY OF LETTER FROM CLERK'S OFFICE TODEFENDANT REGARDING RETURNING WRIT-NON COMPLIANT 12/11/12 | Docket | " | | | 01/02/2013 | FILED POST-WRIT; TO DA 01/02/13; DUE FROM DA 02/06/13 | Docket | " | | | 01/02/2013 | POST-WRIT TO AUSTIN 05/23/13 BY CMRR:7011 3500000152140723 | Docket | " | | | 01/02/2013 | POST-WRIT DISP - DISMISSED | Docket | " | | | 01/16/2013 | STATE'S ANSWER BY SEAN PROCTOR 01/16/2013 | Docket | " | | | 01/18/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT 01/16/2013 | Docket | " | | | 01/24/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT REGARDING COPIES $1/22/13$ | Docket | " | | | 01/24/2013 | STATE'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER 1/22/13 | Docket | " | | | 01/24/2013 | DESIGNATION OF ISSUES &; ORDER EXPANDING THE RECORD SIGNED JUDGE TRUDO 1/23/13;COPY TO BETTY YOUNG &; SEAN PROCTOR | Docket | " | | | 01/25/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEAN PROCTOR TO ATTORNEY CHARLES MONTGOMERY 01/25/2013 | Docket | " | | | 01/29/2013 | ORIGINIAL &; TWO COPIES OF REPORTER'S RECORD BY BETTY YOUNG FILED 1/29/13;ONE COPY TO SEAN PROCTOR | Docket | " | | | 01/30/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT 01/29/2013 | Docket | " | | | 03/04/2013 | DEBBIE STURTEVANT CHECKED OUT WRIT FILE 03/04/2013 | Docket | " | | | 03/06/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT ABOUT EXHIBITS 03/05/2013 | Docket | " | | | 03/11/2013 | RECEIVED EXHIBITS 1 &; 2 FROM DEFENDANT 03/11/2013 | Docket | " | | | 03/11/2013 | COPY OF LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO LOWERY T. CARR IN REGARDS TO | Docket | " | |

EXHIBITS WE RECEIVED 03/11/2013 04/10/2013 COURT-ORDERED AFFIDAVIT BY CHARLES MONTY MONTGOMERY 04/10/2013 04/12/2013 LETTER TO DEFENDANT FROM SEAN PROCTORREGARDING AFFIDAVIT 4/11/13 04/12/2013 SEAN PROCTOR CHECKED OUT WRIT FILE $04/12/2013$ 04/30/2013 ATTORNEY TIMOTHY TESCH VIEWED FILE INLOBBY 04/30/13 4:11PM 05/01/2013 DEBBIE CHECKED OUT WRIT FILE FOR SEANPROCTOR 05/01/13 05/15/2013 LAW SIGNED BY JUDGE TRUDO 05/15/13;MAILED COPY TO DEFENDANT MOTION TO ENTER PROPOSED FINDINGS 05/15/2013 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BY SEAN PROCTOR 05/14/13 05/15/2013 COPY OF LETTER FROM SEAN PROCTOR TO DEFENDANT 05/14/13 RETURNED CERTIFIED GREEN CARD 05/30/2013 5/30/13;RECEIVED BY ABEL ACOSTA 5/24/13.CMRR: 70113500000152140723 WHITE CARD FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL 05/30/2013 APPEALS 5/30/13;WRIT RECEIVED &; PRESENTED TO COURT 5/24/13 LETTER FROM TIMOTHY TESCH LAW FIRM 07/16/2013 REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION 07/18/2013 FORWRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 7/16/13 MAILED SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD TO 07/18/2013 AUSTIN 7/18/13 BY CMRR: 700103600001 21359626 RETURNED CERTIFIED GREEN CARD 07/22/2013 7/22/13;RECEIVED BY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 7/19/13. CMRR:7001 03600001 21359626 WHITE CARD FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 9/12/13;WRIT DISMISSED WITHOUT WRITTEN ORDER FOR NON-COMPLIANCE 9/11/13 01/15/2014 FILED POST-WRIT; TO DA 01/16/14; DUE FROM DA 02/19/14 01/15/2014 POST-WRIT TO AUSTIN 01/31/14 BY CMRR:7010 1670000048489580 Docket $1/18/20152:14\mathrm{A}\mathrm{M}$

Exhibit 24

Tesch Law Firm

P.O. Box 255

Gatesville, TX 76528 fax 1(254) -731-2584 teschlaw@gmail.com

June 6, 2014

Mr. Charles F. Montgomery 4400 Seven Coves Rd Temple, Texas 76502

Re: Thomas Raymond Carr

Dear Mr. Montgomery: I spoke with you about obtaining Thomas Raymond Carr's file. You wanted a release and $\backslash$ 100.00$ to copy the file.

I represent Mr. Carr. Enclosed is a "RELEASE OF FILE" signed by Mr. Carr. Mr. Carr is entitled to his "Original" file per the State Bar Rules. Should you wish to copy the file for your own records, please do so.

I request that you provide the information requested in numbers one through ten in the release.

If you want someone to pick up the file as opposed to your mailing it, please let me know. Please provide the file within te $n(10)$ days to the date of this letter. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Timothy Tesch Attorney for Thomas Raymond Carr P.S. The release has my bar number as 119808200 , when it should be 19808200 .

I, Thomas Raymond Carr, Wynne Unit, Huntsville, Texas, authorize the release of my entire legal file to Timothy Tesch, P.O. Box 255, Gatesville, Texas 76528, SBN 119808200

This authorization includes the release of information on any criminal matter, child custody information, and child support information that Charles Montgomery, Jr. may have.

It includes, but is not limited to the following:

1) Witness statements in whatever format used tape recorded, written, and notes of interviews with witnesses), 2) All notes of meetings with Thomas Raymond Carr, 3) All research done on statutory and case law, 4) Names, addresses, and phone numbers of persons contacted about competency and insanity, 5) Medical records concerning physician reports and drug prescribed, including medications that Mr. Carr was receiving during the time of his plea hearing on or about November 21, 2006, 6) Names, addresses, and phone numbers of all potential experts contacted including forensic computer analysis experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, DNA experts and Lab experts regarding Methamphetamines, and any other experts, 7) Your contract of employment with Thomas Raymond Carr, 8) The entire original file as required to be released pursuant to the disciplinary rules, 9) If you do not have any documents requested, then an explanation as to why, and 10) If you are refusing to release any item, then an explanation as to why.

Thomas Raymond Carr

Exhibit 25

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW the State of Texas, by and through her District Attorney for the 27th Judicial District of Texas, and respectfully requests that Thomas Raymond Carr's (hereinafter referred to as "Tom" or "the defendant") Motion for Post-Conviction Forensic DNA Testing be denied, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: I.

Procedural Summary

The defendant was indicted on March 23, 2005, for the felony offenses of Delivery of a Controlled Substance to a Minor (Cause Number 57,557) and Aggravated Sexual Assault (Cause Number 57,558), both alleged to have occurred on June 18, 2004. On November 21, 2006, he plead guilty to the trial court in both cases, and the trial court found him guilty in each case, and sentenced him to fifteen (15) years imprisonment for the Delivery of a Controlled Substance to a Minor, and thirty (30) years imprisonment for the Aggravated

to Tom's house and smoked weed. He also recalls $\backslash$ \ $\$andChristopherhavingsexualcontactwithTammy,whiletheywerestillatJ$ \ $\mathrm{s}$ house, which he thought Tom videotaped.

HHPD officers also took a statement from C $\backslash$ \mathrm{~S} \mathrm{~S} \mathrm{~S} \mathrm{~S} \mathrm{~S} \mathrm{~S}$ on July 8, 2004. ^[4] According to the officers' offense report, Christopher recalled the events much the same as did $\backslash$ \mathrm{~S} $and$ \mathrm{S} \mathrm{&;}$ n. He recalls Tom shooting the Meth into his right arm, and Tom providing Marijuana for them to smoke more than once.

The officers note in their offense report, that during conversations they had with the mothers of Christopher, and $S\mathrm{\&}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{;}\mathrm{\&}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{;}$ , each of them stated that their son had tested positive for the presence of Marijuana and Methamphetamine during their treatment at Metroplex Hospital. ^[5]

After obtaining written statements from the boys, the officers report that they prepared an affidavit for search warrant for Thomas Carr's residence located at 114 West Mark Road in Harker Heights, and on July 9, 2004, presented it to District Judge Martha Trudo, who, after reviewing it, authorized the search. At 9:45 a.m, the officers report that they made entry into the residence after knocking on the front door and ringing the door bell received no response. They report that once inside, they encountered Tammy Bishop and

Thomas Carr asleep in the bedroom, and two children asleep elsewhere in the residence. They report that they moved Thomas Carr into the living room, and kept Tammy in the bedroom where she was advised of her Miranda rights. Tammy spoke to the officers at the scene and voluntarily agreed to accompany them to the police station and give a written statement. ^[6] She admitted to knowing that Tom had provided Marijuana and Methamphetamine to the boys, and admitted that she had sexual contact with by letting him perform oral sex on her, and by having sexual intercourse with all three boys with a "dildo." She stated that Tom videotaped these sexual encounters because he had been wanting her to "do something with another man" for quite some time. She admitted that all three boys looked young, but told her that he was eighteen years old.

At the scene, the officers advised Thomas Carr of his Miranda Rights. Carr admitted to the officers that he had been at $\backslash$ 500 $shouse,andthatallthreeboyshadbeentohis,butdeniedprovidingdrugstotheboys,insistingthattheyhadtheirown.HealsodeniedinjectinganyofthemwithMethamphetamine.Heexplainedthathemet$ \ $500$ on a web cite called "Adultfriendfinders.com," and that he purported in his profile to be eighteen years old. He further explained to the officers that he had been searching for someone he and Tammy could have a "threesum" with to "spice up their marriage" because they had been together for 12 years. Officers report that Carr was arrested on suspicion of possession of Marijuana when he took control of a cigarette package from his bedroom that contained a

Marijuana cigarette.

The officers report that during the execution of the search warrant, among the items seized were: a computer and its peripherals, video tapes, a digital audio player with a flash card memory, plastic envelopes containing suspected Methamphetamine residue, unidentified pills, 8 mm video tapes, and a Sony Handycam. They report that all the items seized during the search were cataloged and entered into the HHPD evidence vault.

The State has been in contact with Detective Daniel C. De Leon, custodian of the evidence section at HHPD. Detective De Leon explained that all the evidence seized by the officers in this case was itemized on a HHPD "Evidence Submission Report," and then placed in storage for long term safekeeping. According to HHPD records, he states in an affidavit that all of the items seized by the officers in this case are still in police custody except several video recordings that were reviewed by officers and later released to Thomas Carr's mother at his request. He further states that the Department has never had biological evidence, or items thought to contain biological evidence, in their custody in this case. ^[7]

On July 13, 2004, both Tammy Bishop and Thomas Carr were charged by Complaint with the felony offense of Delivery of a Controlled Substance to a Minor. The record reflects that on March 23, 2005, Carr was indicted for the felony offenses of Delivery of a Controlled Substance to a Minor, and Aggravated Sexual Assault. On November 30, 2005, Bishop, pursuant to a plea agreement, waived indictment and pled guilty to an Information

support of its Orders denying relief to the said defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY GARZA DISTRICT ATTORNEY 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICP

Assistant District Attorney 27th Judicial District Post Office Box 540 Belton, Texas 76513 (254) 933-5215 (254) 933-5704 [FAX]

Certificate of Service

I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the State's Response was mailed to the attorney of record for the defendant, Tim Tesch, at Post Office Box 255, Gatesville, Texas 76528, by United States mail, postage paid, on this the day of July, 2014.

No. 57.558-D

EX PARTE

THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

IN THE 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, TEXAS

State's Answer

COMES NOW the State of Texas, by and through the District Attorney for the 27th Judicial District of Texas, and denies generally the allegations of the Applicant's Petition for post-conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus relief, and opposes any request for bond pursuant thereto. The State would show the Court that this is a subsequent application for Writ of Habeas Corpus relief by the Petitioner, and it does not contain sufficient facts establishing either of the exceptions enumerated in Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 11.07 §(4)(a)(1), (2) & (3) (West Supp. 2014) and therefore should be dismissed.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State of Texas prays that this Court recommend that the Applicant's Petition be dismissed, sending him hence without day.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY GARZA DISTRICT ATTORNEY 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT By: Sean K. Proctor TSB# 16349500 Assistant District Attorney: 27th Judicial District Post Office Box 540 Belton, TX 76513 (254) 933-5215 (254) 933-5704 [FAX]

Certificate of Service

I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the State's Answer was mailed to the attorney of record for the Applicant, Timothy Tesch, Post Office Box 255, Gatesville, TX 76528, by United States mail, postage pre-paid, on this the $$ day of August, 2015.

FILED

No. 57,558-D EX PARTE

THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

Motion to Enter Proposed

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW the State of Texas, by and through her District Attorney for the 27th Judicial District, and moves the Court to consider and enter in this case the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as those of the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY GARZA DISTRICT ATTORNEY 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Assistant District Attorney, 27th Judicial District Post Office Box 540 Belton, Texas 76513 (254) 933-5215 (254) 933-5704 [FAX]

Certificate of Service

I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct copies of the State's Motion to Enter Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the State's proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, were mailed to the attorney of record for the Applicant, Timothy Tesch, at Post Office Box 255, Gatesville, TX 76528, by United States mail, postage pre-paid, on this the $$ day of August 2015.

No. 57,558-D

EX PARTE

THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

IN THE 27TH JUDICIAL

DISTRICT COURT OF

• BELL COUNTY, TEXAS

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Having considered the Applicant's Petition, the State's Answer, and the record in the above numbered cause, this Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

I.

Findings of Fact

History of the Case

1. The Applicant is currently incarcerated in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice by virtue of a Judgment of Conviction entered in the ${27}^{\text{th}}$ District Court of Bell County, Texas, in Cause Number 57,558, wherein he was convicted of the first degree felony offense of Aggravated Sexual Assault.
2. The Applicant pled guilty to the charge, and the trial court found him guilty and assessed his punishment at thirty (30) years imprisonment.
3. The Applicant did not appeal his conviction, but this is his fourth Petition for postconviction Writ of Habeas Corpus relief in this case, his first and third having been dismissed, and his second having been denied. ^[1]

Allegations of the Applicant

1. In ground one the Applicant alleges that his plea of guilty was involuntary and unknowing because of coercion by the State.
2. In ground two the Applicant alleges that the State made false representations about the results of drug tests.
3. In ground three the Applicant alleges that his trial attorney lied about researching the law and explaining the law to the him, and was ineffective.
4. In ground four the Applicant alleges that he was incompetent at the time he entered his plea of guilty.
5. In ground five the Applicant alleges that he could not be convicted of aggravated sexual assault "because no date rape drug was administered" to the victim.
6. In ground six the Applicant alleges that he could not have been found guilty under the aggravated sexual assault "because he did not act in concert" with his co-defendant.

Necessity for an Evidentiary Hearing or Expansion of the Record

1. The Court finds that the existing record is sufficient to address the Applicant's Petition.

Jurisdiction

1. The Court finds that this is a subsequent Petition by the Applicant, therefore, before the Court can review the merits of the Applicant's allegations, it must address the Court's jurisdiction to entertain them.
2. The Court finds that the factual and legal basis for the Applicant's allegations in the instant Petition existed at the time he filed his previous Petitions.
3. The Court finds that the Applicant's Petition advances no facts establishing that the current claims were unavailable when he submitted his previous Petitions, or, that but for a federal constitutional violation, no rational juror could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

II.

Conclusions of Law

Based on a study of the applicable law, this Court makes the following Conclusion of Law:

Grounds For Relief

1. The Applicant's Petition should be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals because this Court may not consider the merits of this application, because it does not contains sufficient facts establishing that: (1) the current claims have not and could not have been presented previously; or (2) by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution, no rational juror could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., art. 11.07, §4(a)(1) &;(2) (West Supp. 2014). III.

Recommendation

The Court recommends that the Applicant's Petition be dismissed. IV.

Transmittal Order

The Clerk is directed to prepare a transcript to include copies of the following documents:

1. the Applicant's Petition;
2. the State's Answer;
3. the Motion to Enter Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law;
4. the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of the Court; and transmit the same to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, Texas. The Clerk is

Thomas Carr - 57,558-D - Findings Page 4

further directed to serve a signed copy of these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon the attorney of record for the applicant, Timothy Tesch, at Post Office Box 255, Gatesville, TX 76528.

Signed this the $$ day of August, 2015.

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF BELL

CAUSE NO: 57558-D

EX PARTE

THOMAS RAYMOND CARR

I, Joanna Staton, Clerk of the District Court, in and for Bell County,

Texas, do hereby certify that the attached instruments are true and correct copies of the

Originals as contained in the courts file in the above styled and numbered cause, now

On file and of record in the said 264TH District Courts,

WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, in my office at Belton,

Bell County, Texas, on this 12th day of August, 2015.

NOTES

"As regards the Court's designated factual issue NUMBER 3 (three), as trial counsel, I did consult with Applicant to prepare for trial. As explained on pages 5-7 bereof, Applicant and I basically spent 22 months constantly rehashing what we could do with the evidence - and what we'd be stuck with. Generally, Applicant's proposed witnesses would NOT have done anything more than show the juveniles to be typical teenagers, except that Tammy's sister, Sonya Bishop - who didn't want to testify - could have corroborated that Tammy said she was going to leave Tom for a RICH eighteen year old who was just back from Kuwait, underscoring the contention that the indictment-named victim LED THOMAS AND TAMMY TO BELIEVE HE AND HIS PALS WERE ADULTS, this to Affidavit-Page 9 of 22

(c) 2015 MedicineNet, Inc. All rights reserved.

(c) 2015 MedicineNet, Inc. All rights reserved.

${}^4$ See Statement of C $\backslash$ \mathrm{~S}$ # attached to this Response as State's Exhibit No. 3, and incorporated by reference for all purposes.

${}^5$ See partial medical records of $\backslash$ \mathrm{~S} $\#andC$ \ $\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}\mathrm{S}$ attached to this Response as State's Exhibit No. 4 and State's Exhibit No. 5, respectively, and incorporated by reference for all purposes.

${}^6$ See Statement of Tammy Bishop, attached to this Response as State's Exhibit No. 6, and incorporated by reference for all purposes

${}^7$ See Affidavit of Detective Daniel C. De Leon, HHPD Evidence Custodian, attached to this Response as State's Exhibit No. 7, and incorporated by reference for all purposes

${}^1$ See Ex parte Thomas Raymond Carr, No. WR-79,620-02 (Tex.Crim.App., delivered September 11, 2013) (not designated for publication); Ex parte Thomas Raymond Carr, No. WR-79,620-04 (Tex. Crim.App., delivered March 26, 2014) (not designated for publication) and Ex parte Thomas Raymond Carr, No. WR-79,620-06 (Tex.Crim.App., delivered July 8, 2015) (not designated for publication).

Case Details

Case Name: Carr, Thomas Raymond

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: Aug 13, 2015

Docket Number: WR-79,620-08

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.