Case Information

*1

30,092-03

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MAY 112015 ADSSIADDR, CENTK

WILLAM BUFORD HARRISON T. DC. ITF 1969618

MICHAEL UNIT 2664 FM 2054 TENNESSEE COLONY TEXAS 75386

TO-THE, CLERK OF COURT TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS PO 80X 12308 AUSTIN TEXAS - 78711 Dear Sir, ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF MY MEMORANDUM OF LAW THAT COMPLIES WITH TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 73. I FIIED AN APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ON 11-06-14 RE: CAUSE NO. 644449-C 179 tA DISTRICT COURT HARRIS, COUNTY, TEXAS, CHRIS DANIEL, HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLEARRY PO.80X 4651 HOLSTON, TEXAS, 77210, I ALSO SENT A EE THE STHER COPY OF MY MEMORANDUM OF 1 - TO CHRIS DANIEL DATED ON 4-4/-2015 FROM THE MICHAEL UNIT, 2664 FM 2054, TENNESSEE, COLONY, TEXAS, 75886, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN THIS MATTER

PS MEMORANDOM E LETTER SINCERELY mailed ON 5-5-15 WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON DUE to MEDICAL Transport and hold ON MY OUT going MAIL! Thank You, AWaYtinG REPLY.

*2 CAUSE NUMBER 699999 C

EX PARTE WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON

WRT NO.

TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT AUSTIN TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OF LAW V

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON APPLICANT ANALYSIS SUBMIT'S THIS' HIS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW'IN THE ABOVE SITTST AND NUMBERED, CAUSE, WRT, AND SEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT.

APPLICANT HARRISON WILL SHOW THIS HONORABLE COURT AS FOLLOWS:

APPLICANT HARRISON FILES THIS(HIS) HABEAS WRT AURSUNIT TO THE PROVISIONS OF VERNON'S ANN. TEXAS COBE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 11. ARTICLE 11.07.

2.

AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS WARRANTED, APPLICANT HARRISON RESPECTFULLY, URGES THIS HONORABLE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TO ORDER THE 179TH DISTRICT COURT, OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS TO CONDUCT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THIS CAUSE/WRT (SEE: ARTICLE 11.07:

*3

PAGE(2)

THAT A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING BE MADE AND TRANSMITTED (SAME) TO THIS HONORABLE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS.

SUPPORTING ORIGINAL

HABEAS WRIT NOW BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT

SPECIAL PLEADING

THE"STATES ORIGINAL ANSWER" AND THE STATES PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER." (AND ADOPTED BY THE TRIAL COURT AND BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT.) IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MERE"STANDARD FORM" THATS USED DAILY BY THE HARRIS-CONITY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S (OFFEICE) IN HABEAS WRITS AND THAT FAILS TO ADDRESS THE APPLICANT HARRISON'S HABEAS WRIT.

3 . APPLICANT HARRISON IS A LAY PERSON AND IS UNLETTERED IN THE STUDY OF THE LAW, APPLICANT HARRISON SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO THE SAME STRIGENT STANDARD OF PLEADINGS AS THAT OF AN EDUCATED COHNSEL, HAINES V. KERNER — US_ (1972) APPLICANT HARRISON RESPECTFULLY UROES THIS HONORABLE COURTTO CONSTRUE THIS MEMORANDUM LIBERALLY AND IN THE INTREST OF JUSTICE - I.d.

OPPOSITION

APPLICANT HARRISON SHOWS AFFALL OPROSITION AS FOLLOWS: A.

APPLICANT HARRISON SHOWS SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS ESTABLISHING THAT THE CURRENT ISSUED) COULD NOT HAVE BEEN

*4

PAGE(3)

PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY BECAUSE OF YEARS OF UNAVAILABILITY.

A SUBSEQUENT HABeAs WRIT FILED AFTER FINAL DISPOSITION OF AN INITIAL HABeAs WRIT CHALLENGING THE SAME CONVICITON THE ISSUES) RAISED IN THIS SUBSEQUENT HABeAs WRIT HAVE NOT BEEN AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED UNTIL ALL THE ISSUES LISTED IN THIS HABeAs WRIT WHERE FOUNO OUT AND EXPOSED BY LISA FALKENBURG (O) CHRON, COD AFTER AN INDEPTH INVESTAGATION BY HERSELF AND OTHER REPORTES EMPLEYED BY THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE.

3 IS PANOT A MOCKERY OF THE(LAWS OF) TEXAS JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT THE HARRIS COUNT DISTRICT ATTORNEY(OffICE) IS CONTINOUSTLY MAKING?

A "CONSTITUTIONALLY QUESTIONABLE PRACIICES"? BECAUSE THE FACITUAL OR/AND LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ISSUES) NOW RAISED BY APPLICANT HARRISON ONLY BECAME MADE PUBLIC AND BECAME (ANIARE OF) AVAILABLE TO APPLICANT HARRISON FOR PRESENTATION BEFORE THE (COURTES) AS A RESGLT OF A HOST OF ARTICLES ON THE ISSUES" PUBLISHED BY THE HOUSTON CHRONICLE/NEWSPAPER) SEE ALSO LISA FALKENBURG (O) CHRON, COD) OVER THE PAST YEAR (2014)

THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY AND SHOULD CONSIDER THE MERIT'S OF AND GRANT RELIEF BASED ON THIS INSTANT HABeAs WRIT. VERNON'S ANN TEXAS CODE OF CRITINAL PROCEDURE. CHAPTER 11 Article 11.07 § $4(A)$ ,

B

APPLICANT HARRISON RAISES THREE(3) CONSTITUT IONAL ISSUES FOR RELIEF IN THIS HABeAs WRIT, AND CONSTITUTIOVAL ISSUES FOR RELIEF. AS FOLLOWS:

*5

PAGE (4)

B

(1)... ElAWED INDICTMENT BASED ON THE GRAND JURY SYSTEMS UNFAIRNESS (TWO SEPARATE ISSUE'S) /ARGUMENTS) UNDER THIS SUBJECT); AND(2)...INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BEFORE DURING AND AFTER TRIAL PROCEEDING'S).

THAT THE ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS OF THE PRE-PREPARED INDICTMENT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DURING THE DELIGERATION "NO-BILL" VERSES "TRUE-BILL" IN THIS CAUSE WAS PREVASIVE, PREJUDICE, AND INFLAMMATORY, "COEACED" THE GRAND JURY AND RESULTING IN THE ISSUANCE OF A $$ FLAVED INDICTMENT.

IT IS IN PLANE-VIEV THAT ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS BEFORE THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING ARE PREJUDICE."

ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS PREJUDICED THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING AND RESULTS IN A $$ FLAVED INDICTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. (AND SHOWS) A "CRIMINAL PICTURE" OF APPLICANT'S PRIOR LIFE - STATUS: 2 (AND "SHOWS") THAT APPLIANT TO BE A CRIMINAL: IN-GENERAL": AND 3. ARE MERE UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS OF APPLICANTS PRIOR CRIMINAL STATUS.

IT IS BYOND DOUBT THAT APPLICANT WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY (DEFENCE ARE NOT AND WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT DURING THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING, AND TO THE CONTRARY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEING ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING AND TO THE CONTRARY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BEING ALLOWED TO PRESENT ALLEGATIONS OF . . . ) TO SHOW OBJECTIONS TOTHE PRESENTATION OF THE (PRE-PREPARED INDICTMENT

*6 PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY) ENHANCEMENT DARAGRAPHS AT THE HEARING OF THE GRANDJURY. THE ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS PRESUPICED THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING "COERCED" THE GRAND JURY AND RESULTING IN THE ISSUANCE OF A TRUE-BILL"(INDICTMENT) — FLAMED INDICTMENT BASED ON THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM'S UNFAIRNESS b.

CREATED TO ACT as a CATEKEEPER IN CRININAL CASES (TO THE CONTRARY THE GRAND JURY SYSTEMS UNFAIRNESS IS BECALSE IT DISPROPCITISNATELY TARGETS MINORITIES AND THE POUR) GRAND JURIES ARE TASKED WITH DECIDING WHETHER ENGUGH EVIDENCE EXIST TO HAND DOWN AN INDICTMENT, WHICH ALLOWS PROSECUTORS TO GO FORWARD IN A CRININAL CASE.

BECALSE OF THE POWER GRAND JURY'S CAN WIELD AND THE SECRECY OF THE PROCESS. CRITICS HAVE LONG COMPLAINED OF THE LACK OF DIVERCITY IN HARRIS COUNTY'S GRAND JURY'S- OUR GRAND JURY'S SHOULD REFLECT THE POPULATION OF HARRIS COUNTY. SEECTED IN A WAY SO THAT ALL (OUR) RESIDENTS FEEL THAT THE SYSTEM IS JUDICIALLY LEGAL AND NOT VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW) FAIR. PERHAPS THIS HONORABLE COURT WILL COME TO AND RENDER A CONCLUSION THAT A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW HAS ACCURED. IQ.

*7 ADVOCATES OF THE "KEY-MAN" SYSTEM GENERALLY SAY THE ONEROUS SCHEDLING MAKES PICKING A RANOEM GRAND JURY DIFFICULT. THEY POINT TO THE ADVANTAGES OF HAVING A COMMISSIONER WHO CAN FIND VOLUHTEERS WITH FLEXABLE SCHEDULES, GENERALLY RETIREES AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT.

GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS ARE SECRET AND THERE IS NC RIGHT OF CRGSS-EXAMINATION(CONTRAAY TO SEE COVERNOR OR RICK PERRY'S GRAND JURY .... TO PROTECT THE COVERNOR'S INTREST DURING THE GRAND JURY PROCESS. INCLUDING LEGAL RE--SEARCH, WITNESS INTERVIEW AND DEALING WITH THE COURT AND PROSECUTOR ON A GROAD RANGE OF ISSUES. IS J

IN AN AREA AS LARGE AS HARRIS COUNITY (GRAND JURIES IN HARRIS COUNITY TYPICALLY MEET FOR SEVERAL HOURS A DAY TWO DAYS A WEEK FOR THREE MONTHS) HUNDREDS OF FELONY INDICTMENTS MAY BE HANDED DOWN BY A GRAND JURY WITH LITTLE MORE THAN A PREFINCTORY RECITATION OF THE ALLEGATIONS (PREVASIVE, PREJUGICAL AND INFLAMMATORY: "COERCEO" BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY) BY PROSECUTORS (PROSECUTORS KNOWINGLY PRESENTING FALSE OR/AND INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO GRAND JURIES TO GET INDICTMENTS HANDED DOWN).

THE "KEY-MAN" SYSTEM... A FREQUENT GRAND JUROR IN A SYSTEM FULL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT-FRIENDLY VOLUNTEERS CURRENTLY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN HARRIS COUNTY HAS BEEN AND IS ON A SINKING TRAJESTORY). THE SYSTEM CAN BE MANIPULATED BY COMMISSIONERS

*8

PAGE 7

TEMPTED TO PICK CRONIES (AT WORST) AND A NARROW SLICE OF SOCIETY (AT BEST). THIS IS A CONFIRMED CASE OF THE GIVE-A-DAMN HUNGER FOR PROSECUTION AT ANY COST, REGAROLESS OF FRUTH OR LEGALITY. SEE HOUSTON CHRONICLE (NEWSPAPER), CITY/STATE SECTION 3 SATURDAY, AUGUST 30, 2014.

THAT THE KEY MAN" SYSTEM USED IN HARRIS COUNTY TO PICK GRAND JURORS IS RIPE FOR ABUSE AND FAVORITISM

FLAVED INDICTMEN, BASED ON THE GRAND JURY STSTEMS UNFAIRNESS (C)

TO BE ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL BASED ON AN INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAINA(DEFENDANT) MUST SHOW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE WAS DEFICIENT AND THAT THE DEFICENCY PREJUDICED THE DEFENSE. STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 669,104 S. ct. 205230 L.E d. 2.0674(1984): EX PARTE LANE 303 SW 303702 (TEX. CRIM. APP. 209)

THE FIRST PRONG REQUIRES THE (DEFENDANT) TO SHOW COUNSEL'S PERFORMANCE FELL BELOW AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF REASONABLENESS UNDER PREVAILING PRO-FESSIONAL NORM. STRICKLAND 466 U.S.AT 687-88 104 S.ct. 2052: LANE 303 S.W. 3d at 707.

APPLICANT HARRISON ALLEGES(INPARTICULAR) THAT COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR:

*9 (1.) Failure to object to the validity of the inOIctment issued by the Harris County Grand JURY for SAld REASONS: (A) Two(2) Enhancement Paragrams of PRE-PREPARED InDictMENT THAT PREJudiced THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING: (3.) Two(2) Enhancement Paragrams of the PRE-PREPARED InDictment were mere unproven allecations that required the Grand JURY's HEARING - AND

A violation of due process of law Id. (C) Two(2) Enhancement Paragrams of the PRE-PREPARED

INDICTMENT BEFORE THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING WERE (PERVASIVE AND INFLAMMATORY) PREJUDICED.

APPIicant HarRison farther says that counsel was ineffective for failure to investigate and object to the Harris County Grand JurY based on the Texas System's GRAND JURY IS: (D) A flawed inDictment and that the KEYMAN'SYSTEM (DuBbED"PICK-A-PAL") IS"HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE" AND "Subsceptible of aguse as Applied" and (E) A flawed indictment issued by a Grand Jury under the "KEY-MAN" SYSTEM (OVERZEALDUS PROSECUTORS: JUDGES APPOINTING LAW ENFORCEMENT FRIENDLY PEOPLE TO ACT AS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS FILLING GRAND JURIES WITH COUNTRY CLUB PALS, ACTIVE DUTY COPS AND EX-COPS, ACTIVE PROSECUTORS AND EX--PROSECUTORS AND mostly WHITE ELITES) IS PREJUDICED AND VIOLATIVE OF DUE PROCESS.

*10

PAGE 9

THE SECOND PRONG REQUIRES THE (DEFENDANT) TO SHOW THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT, BUT FOR(HIS)HER) COUNSEL'S ERROR, THE RESULT OF THE PROCEEDING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. STRICKLAND 466 US AT 687-694 104 S.Ct. 2052: LANE 303 S.W. 3d 101.

THERE IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY THAT, BUT FOR COUNSEL'S INEFECTIVENESS AND NANELY:

1. COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT ANO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH OBJECTIONS TO THE INDICTMENT ISSUED BY THE GRAND JURY, OBJECTIONS BASED ON TWO(2) ENHANCEMENT PARAORAPHS OF THE PRE-PREPARED INDICTMENT WERE MERE UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS ANO THAT WAS(PREVASIVE AND INFLAMMATORY) PRE JUDICED BEFORE THE GRAND JURY'S HEARING: AND
2. COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO OBJECT AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH OBJECTIONS, BASED ON THE INDICTMENT BEING ISSUED BY A GRANA JURY EMPANELLED UNDER THE "KEY-MAN" SYSTEM THAT'S VIOITIVE OF DUE PROCESS: THE RESULTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT: BECAUSE OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION (THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS NOTED) APPLICANT HARRISON HAS BEEN DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN THIS CASE.

*11

FINAL COMMENT

ISSUES OF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW $$ THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, IMPLICITLY CONDONED THE KEY-MAN" GRAND JURY SYSTEM (IT IS THE COURT'S DUTY TO APPLY THE LAW NOT ABSTRACT PRINCIPLES OF FAIENESS OR POLICY)

THIS IS SO SYMPTOMATIC OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ANO SO VERY DEPRESSING WHEN YOU CONSIDER HOW(WE) PRIDE OURSELVE'S FOR A NATION OF LAW'S $$ AS LONG AS THEY DON'T INTERFERE WITH A PROSSECTTOR'S WIN-LOSS RECORD.

CONCLUSION

APPLICANT HARRISON RESPECTFULLY PETITIONS THIS HONORABLE COURT TO REVERSE THE JUDGEMENT OF CONVICIUN AND ISSUE AN ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE THE INDICTMENT, OR AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE. THAT THIS CASE BE REMAND TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO GE CONDATED.

OR AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE APPROPRIATE ACTION) DISPOSITION THIS HONORABLE COURT SO DEEM JUST AND PROPER.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, APPLICANT HARRISON RESPECTFULLY URGES THIS HONORABLE COURT TO GRANT APPLICANT HARRISON'S HARVEAS WRIT, IT IS SO MOVED AND PRAYED FOR AND IN ALL THINGS.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED William A. Quend Hascobout WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON

*12

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE AS AEGUIRED BY TEX. R. APP. 73,1(F) WILLIAM GUFORO HARRISON APPLICANT ANO IN PRO-SE BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT FILES THIS(HIS)" CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE" IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED CAUSE/WRIT PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDURE, CHAPTER II, ARTICLE 11.07, § 3. THE APPLICANT HARRISON CERTIFIES THAT THE NUMBER OF WORDS IN THIS(HIS)"MEMORANDUM OF LAW" IS APPROXIMATELY 1850

DONE AND EXECUTED, ONTHIS THE 4th DAY OF APRIL: 2015

WILLIAM GUFORO HARRISON WILLIAM GUFORO HARRISON

81

LESS NUMBER OF WORDS IN THE "CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE" AND THE "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE".

*13 WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON TDCT 1969618, MICHAEL UNIT 2664 FM 2054 TENNESSEE COlONY TEXAS 75886

HONORABLE CLERK OF THE COURT OFFICE OF THE CLERK TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

RE: EX PARTE WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON WRIT, NO. CALSE NO. 644449-C (HABEAS WRIT)

DEAR HONORABLE CLERK OF THE COURT: THE ABOVE NOTED ACTION HAVING BEEN TRANSMITED TO YOUR OFFICE FOR FILE/LOCKET, FOR A DISPOSITION. THE ENCLOSED MEMORANDUM IN THIS HABEAS WRIT/ FILED BEFORE THE COURT FOR DISPOSITION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN THIS MATTER EXECUTED ON THIS DAY OF Oprie 2015

RESPECTFULLY

C.C.: FILE

WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON

*14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WILLIAM GUFORO HARRISON APPLICAHIT ANO CERTIFIES THAT I HAVE SERVED A COPY OF THIS (MY)" MEMORANDUM OF LAW" IN CAUSE NO 644449-C TO THE STATE ON THIS THE 4th DAY OF Oprid 20 IS BY MAIL AS FOLLOWS:

MS. DEVON ANDERSON. DISTRICT ATTORNEY HARRIS COUNITY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE 1201 FRANKLIN. SUIT 600 HOUSTON, TEXAS, 77002

WICH:IN BUFORd HARRISON WILLIAM GUFORO HARRISON

*15

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

I WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON TOCJM1969618 BEING PRESENTLY INCARCERATED IN TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AT THE MICHALE, UNIT, 2664 FM 2054 TENNESSEE COLOM TEXAS 75886 OQ DECLARE UNGER THE PENALYY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING (STATEMENI /ETC) IS TAME AND CORRECT DOME AND EXECUTED; ON THIS THE 4th DAY OF APRIL 2015

W. Blow-Attend Hounion

WILLIAM BUFORD HARRISON