Case Information
*1 Abel Acos'ta, Clerk *2 M~ ~'1 OF ~0 F'Alltb ')0 "';,)a:t(' fu1P~~~ 0¥- \Jr~l"Mr~ SfbJ IV ~ -ea;N .MMIIP\1~0 '"to ~~ Ro~as. S~Rt~ TE~Tt; ~ ~., 'TO PRD~~I£ c.4.t&: ~ AQlDN. ~\II~. ~Wl~ 5tWw~ n\f ~EftJJfY'VJ"r-~v.tT& ~-oB~R Wt~ ~r&r.l~ 8:F r~te:An&N ~· JJf&*T!.Va.. PRD~ UW'ti£ fZ-flR 1\JJ~ A-CrleJJ aN' i'lt£ PtJLlCC o-R ~ ~D FRl;MPn~b. A. 'V'MR~~ BlcoD ~AW f.)U-t ·1"0 Itt£ ~MJ.JT Rf!\J~ ~ C7R:. -~ <Sf'}::CJMI>tJ ~.
T&l~t: 1'\- '-cMPfTtNI tNT£2ESreD DE~~ ~Nt'l '.Nt'JU) W\'Vt:· f=)iEb I . ~N\OfltWt; 1""$ ~p~~ ·All*. F'J~ Df"PDRTUISL'\'i 1D 'E~J'() llt6' NGY.> ~ ~ ~ .AcnVN ~ \WJJ ~~ fLEAtltAI.-~ ~nn-\-f)l.)"r -E:\If)J r\A'\IlN"t \i \..eWE.b 'D!~Ct:Ne-R'{ OR ~t.AJ ~ th S CLLGhl\.
1l\-t5 C/t'Z£' A-s ts MM'i r MAJJ-'( ~~ A .-e~~ Hsu=. c-~ at:: nt£ l.A{,k ()1:' E~~~(APPO\~t£D t.>~UAlL'l) CoUNbtL At.! t> D\S R:~~f) ~ ·ntt ~ fEt\f>Lc tiF RE:o.Ul~ PE:R~ o-F A Col.>tl'i:.£L l A:L.Lf&_tDtl'f 'FOR f)EF~\
JNt:ffEa}>~e ASSISf~ rs A ~EN -t N nttS I N~T'NJtE A~ VIOL~ OF ~ .ANtJJ~ ~ftvnGAlAt. PR~Een[:Mj S HA.s ~~ PRov&J , :[WilL PRt:C:EEb WlTli A NtW 1\-f'FUCAll.lN\1 FfJR Wtk,·l1 OF 1-\~
. tF-' l\1£tts~V .· I· D~l lSE"Lit-'1£ T WD\Jl.J) E?E J\.(3.{XE' tn= w ~. 1 • G. •"' L. CbRifJ~ . ) l'~ V.~ . . AN~~~~~ A~ INitiA-L f\f=?tv·A:n- .• Ru UNGt er<= \-t ':ME N 1lt'- . . 't'" W'R. \t OF -1-JA:]SEJ\<; ~S. . ..., ' '«-W ~ :t Wtu.-o ~O*tlL'i AfPRECiA-Tt:- r\fLf> or- '1\J.N SOR-\ 1\~ ID IL:>.., .r Be£N ~ 11(/\/V w 'PRo~
lf.lf:. lt> ltfESE AC.ll&/JS gy IH& PvLi . TH£: 1"1M£. :t WA-S. 'QTOP~ffi gy Iff£ 7(<f"1A.I'Y~ ~ii.· ct Al'ID ~l"A-n; ~ ~ CJF \) ~ (..oN5f '*AA1 'l'Ht;;,J ... .,, c:r'- l."vrl li WI\~ VJOLA1z~ . .l.l · · · 'T\T\1~, ""'D lbNl>Rli.D ·. ~R.c1r€C"Ifat.J-5 tj1= ).#( ~~L£Gm I t)£F"-EN£E. Co\..MJ~' OIJ I BY ALL p~~ IN~~ P.s. r: wAs NOT -~TDff\Eb ~'( m~ ~R. rt>R · 1W';- 8>SPieto.N 01= A J)Rh)lf,l~ V'IOI..AiJVIJ ~-OSPJet&\) 01=- j~IC4Jt:~ M1\Jt.l.b- i>KtJr.l€ Cf1M ~~,N~ \tJ ND P~w~ ~-NG ~! S-'\W N ... l>i.Jll~f. rvvq fE.ifFVll 'I' o' ~o ~ssoJcn . .JWtl!k5;,
~
4-bDE-AJbA
Ab~~A ~ ? __ . lh..e_ W- ~ -1-e-ct\- m5wl;k p~ J-o VVL0 ~V
/'JLr' ~ ~ IYfl{ 1 Ot ).e--lk, h .ec..J w .,+itt e.. ~ [1] 6 L . .t rb 11 s -i--e-c -h~ ( Z t i J_ b~l teJJ>e '~ fd-ttnt Ov\.~l -~ we;.,S ~~ ~ kty -\-o -~Lt 'f>{,e_~ of- (j U ~ lty, . -r {vld N\r, ~~ ~ w~ VU> w-ay 1 t ~
~ Ot.-~~C'V~ vvt..eacS,~, 't-Wl_?O~~;b~~
l ~ ~~ VV!Jy ~, t9v[ ct.tl T tuU e;~ I a W1 vwf- I'{ 1~. I fe-lt I~~ OL ~~ss, TLo W1V
1 l'lfft ~"'-€_ 0 Ut l + b W -t\-w_ t~d< 'S ~-twn
ef- (1'\~ ;~~~ d.e__~SQ__ ~ WlMieH- ~ ~ tow+' rvt 'f 'I~.~~~-~,, WuA se.J a.vtJ ot lS ~ ttrol !' C~Vl<D{d .. vJ,~o,( ~~_s tfrT dw... f'DCP-SS • ilt.£.
~ vYL '' rOt L I rtttdeJ '' ~~ -f-o wtA. M ,
! -lot& ~~ l wOJAie1 l1:u- ~vJ hrMte.. Y~Vt ~ ,'v\,~{~ ~ w·tx£ 'sh.ocl~/ wh.rvvt 6~n ~ :t nfllA) ~l,~ W£A.~ ~ fit-ttlJvl J a ~l~ blc-eA {es'\- fes-v\_t+~-tk.oci- wevs ~t QNJW'l A. ~ ~+ ~~w~ 1 o- l~tN'ov+ocy f'r,,_~ ~ CA P'~ f4>U" _w~ enA~ ·CA. p~ 6 f ~ ~~II M>.f 0\~ re__f«seJ iv obJ'kf- o-r«~~+- --tv 'hufpress a\'l'f of -+4ls, · lfe1\( f;r1>t n+* of. ll.¥l 1~.e1:,.Jcd o~ Vvtlwlel ~ ~- owt. cvM DY1 <PhL~/~ ~~ *5 CAU_SE NO. 14722-A
HB STATE OF T&XAS IN THE 29TH JUDICIAL ·.·:.".
vs. DISTRICT COURT OF PALO PINTO COUNTY, TEXAS
JAMBS AUDIE SEXTON DEFENDANT'S F_IRST MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL FOR BABEASCORPOS, UNDER TEXAS FAIR DEFENSE ACT, . ARTICLE 1.051 V.A.C.C.P.
TO THE HONORABLE . COUR-T AND JUDGE THEREOF:
COMBS NOW [1]
Jamie&~ Audie Sexton, Defendant in . the aboVHntitled and n~red cause [1] proceeding pro se and pursuant to· ffii ··erexu-·· Falr~oefiiiie·-·- ·· ·p··· .---- Act·, codified at Article:.l.OSl, Teli:as Code of criminal Procedure, and Section 24.016, 'l'e~ GoVemment Code, and uk& the District Court appoint him counsel for the •· specific purpose of raising his aubstanti_al claim of ineffect- ive assistance of trial counsel in an application for writ of habeas corpus -relief pursuant to Article 11.07, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.. In support of thia Motion to t~ ~. J)tfendant woulcl show the following: ·• ·
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Defendant vas convicted sentenc- ed to 12 years cr:mfinement in the Texaa Depertment of criminal Justice. Direct appeal was vai ved as pet' · the tersu of the plea agreement. Thereafter proceeo:.
ing pro - to hie atatus aa an indigent prisoner, Defendant sought post conviction ~-revi~ "of the j~_~nt of __ ~!ict~()ll __ ~-- ~~t-~c:e. chall~:- .... ~-- .. ··--•" .... ing his plea of guilty vas entered based on trial counsel's ineffective aeaiatanee and vas thus involuntary or otherWise invalid. To Defendant' e ~ledge, District court did not designate any iaeuea of fact to be resolved, did not order an evidentiary hearing be COI'Jducted and did not enter any fin<Ungs t•ct 01: ~nd&tion pertaini119 to ditJpOBition of appli- cation. Defendant received notice the District ODurt•a order for· clerk tC? ·forward application record to COUrt Criminal Appeele, and thereafter received notice from ·the Court of criad.nal Appeals of its receipt filing • of the applicati~ (Bx parte Sexton, ~1. No. wa-79,966-06). on February 12, 2014 court of Criminal Appeals denied the apPlication without witten order•
< •
II.
AU'fBORI'l'Y !be honOrable Diat.l"ict COUrt ia authorized by Article l.OSl(d)(l), COcJe of Criainal Pr:ocedun, to appoint· an attorney to npnaent Defendant · in this aatter. if be · ia 1.ndi4J8Rt and Court concludu the interests of
jwstice require Rpreaer&tation. TBX. 0001 CRIM. PROC. ANS.,_ art. l.OSl(d)(3) (Vernon. 2014). see BeaftJ v. State, 243 s.w.ld 783, 786 ·& n.3 (Tex.App. - Awu:1llo 200'1) •
Section 24.016, ·Government Ooc1e,- also authorizes ·-the 'lii&tricfoourt "to appeint aounsel -to represent an indigent civil litigant in exceptional cases in *ieb publ-ic arid private interests at stake are such that adlaini stration of justice aay be best served by the appointment. ~~ OOV''l' OODE ANN., sec. 24.016 (Vernon 2014). See 'lravelel''a Indem. eo. v. Mayfield, 923 s.w.2d 590, 593 (.X. l996)s Spigener v. wall.ia, 80 s.w.ld 174, · 183 (Tu.App.
- NDc:o 2002h see also _Tolbert v. ·Gibson, 67 s.w.aa 368, 372 (Tex.App. - waco 2001) CiBCU"Ceration of indigent litigant •pr-imary uceptional factor• var rantiag appointment of counHl due fact that· incarceration creates signifi cant limitation upan litigant's ability to conduct adGquate investigation obtain evideace eupporting his claill) J see. ax parte lUeck, 144 s.w.3d 510, 515-16 ('!u.Crim.App. 2004) (hebeae corpus proceedings, including thoae seeking relief fraa _confiaemant in criminal justice ayatem, generally~ aidered to be of a civil nature).
Recent deciaioae by the. United sta~ ~- ~~ !~i~te that the interests justice warront the appointment of couneel in this case by. the District COUrt for the purpoee of repnsenting Defendant in meaningfully seeking collateral . r:eviev adjudication m mrit.s hi& . substantial claim of ineffective asaiatance of trial counsel.
In Martinez v. !yan, u.s. 1 (2012), SUpreD~B Court held that a procedur&l bar" by ~fault would not pcevent a federal .court fEGm hearing ' a substantial Claim of in&ffec:tive uaietanee trial counsel if, in the
State's initial-review collateral Proceeding, there vas no or. counsel in proceeding vas ineffective. !he Court uplained that, because initial review in a collateral proceading. of a pri~'s ineffective aaaiatance *7 of trial counsel claim . is in many vaya the equivalent of his direct appeal · u to that claim, if · the State dou not appoint an attorney to assist the indigent pr:isoner in the initial-review collateral proceeding, he is denied fair proceea. and the opportunity to CIOlllply vith the State's procedures and obtain an adjudication on the merits of hia claim, similar to inatances in which no attorney ia . appointed to pursue the direct appeal or in which tbe attorney appointed to puraue the direct appeal is ineffective.
Subsequent to the Martinez dllciaion, the SUpreme COUrt decided a Texas cue similar to that of Martinez with the same raeulta. See Trevino v .. Thaler, . u.s. 1911 (2013). In Trevino~ the SUpreme COUrt c:oncluded that where,
as . in 'l'uos, the state procedural framawodt, by reason of ita design. and operation, makea it highly unlikely in a typical case a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial couilsel Cl'l direct appeal, the Couc't 'e holding in· Martinez applies.
See also Ibarra v. Stephen!, 723 F.lcS 599 (5th Cir. 2013).
Additionally, in wake Martines Trevino, the United Statee Department of JUstice baa adopted a policy c:benge diecontinuing practica of enforcing any vai ver of a defendant • a dght to seek appellate review of.
a aubatantial claim of ineffective aseistance of counsel when defendant has entered . a plea guilty, including those c:asea in which guilty plea !a entered in u~e for a puniehamt reccJillmllndation by proaecutor.
Such policy change is in accord with function of Martinez _and 'fntvino to ermure tbet judgements curtailing tbe rights libe~ty defenckulta c:haJ:9ed vith coa&ittiRJt·ccimaa ·have-been enter:ed in. accord· with tboee perSGilS' fundamentally important rights to effective npresentation of couilael and due prcceas.
I I I .
SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM OF INEPFECTIVB ASSISTANCS OF TRIAL . COUNSSL EXTANT IN THIS CASB A substantial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel exists in this <:aset in th&t Defendant's decision to plead guilty r&ther than go trial was made under durese .stemming from following errore/omissions by trial couneel:
' '
• neither obtained dicovery packet nor interviewed Defendant until day
Defendant WtS acheduled to appear in court post-arraignment (approximately 5 mcmtha had elapsed alnce trial ~1 uaumed reaponsibility for the defense); ·
• failed to mount pretrial cballenge to arresting officer • s probable cause providing buia for . Defendant. 8 arrest •an(l subsequent. blood-dr~v ... police
video -showed Defendant appearing quite aober and in conb:'Ol hill faculties, shoved that arresting officer coupi~y took Defendant off-camera to conduct field sobriety teat which allegedly provi&a<J prob able cause:.
• failed to challenge or verify, thi'OUgh independent testing authorized
by statute, accuracy validity blooct-alcObol test .. naults allegedly showing. Defendant having had legally impermissible blood-alc:chol level, given pt"eaenee of police video sboving · Defendant appearing sober and · well in cOntrol of hi,s faculties and. given fact that documi:nt purportedly
aaserting Dafendant • a blocd-alcohol COI'lCentration level. at time of .21 vaa not an official lab-9enerated analysis report., but arrest to be rather, merely a one-sentence letter oampaaea on a letterhead; .
• failure to mount a pretrial Fourth Amenament challenge to warrantlesa
seizure thE~ Defend&nt • s bleed speci.IMn in absence of his expreu c:on- Hntf . ·.
• advising Defendant that challenge to probable c:ause or evi&mce against
him could only be Ulllde at trial thus requiring Defendant to go to trial in .order to make any challenge to evidence and an:est:
• complete . failure to discuss with Defendant any type of trial strategy
opposing prosecution • e case other than advising Defendant that he had tvo alternatives: •accept a plea bargain or go to trial.,: and DefendaJlt. , informing trial ~1 during in-court appearance ··
• upon that he wanted to go to trial rather than accept (!COffered plee bargain, trial c::ounael advised Defendcmt if he did not acce,pt pltia bargair,a - offer bolt. . instead electe4 to to trial, he VQ\Jld be facing mini1111.111 punishlrlfHlt range of 2S years confinement if convicted.
IV. · DEFENDANT NOT PROVIDED MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE SUnSTANTIAL CLAIM .OF INE~FBCTIVE ASSISTANCE CV COUNSEL Defendant's d!all11m9e to thii validity of nia Palo Pinto County conviction ·and sentence, in his initial postc:onvicti~ collateral proceeding challenging the ·instant conviction falls squarely within the SUpreme Court •a decisions in Martinez Trevino. Defendant did not have any assistance f~ a licensed end 8Y.ill&d attorney to flush out· the fatcts at. an tavidentiary h€1ering or· develop habeas record with evidence found outaide the record before *9 ..
the Court ordered the cl.erk to certify the record end forvaECJ it to the court of Criminal Appeals. The District. COUrt and Q)urt of Criminal· Appeals • per functory hAndling an<i diepoaition denying the initial application evidences the Defendant~s pro. ae miaappr:ehenaion of substantive habeas COrpu& lav and failure to oaq;dy ·with state proc:edur:&l requisites in attmepting to seek meaningful . review · of judgement - errors which &n uperienc:eCJ skilled attorney vould not have made ..
v.
DEFENDANT IS INDIGENT indigent unable to retain the services Defendant continues· . to be of a licensed attom&Y. represent him in pursuit of appellate review of his c:laim of .ineffective uaiatance of trial counsel (see attached Declaration of Inability to Pay O.ta supporting Inmte Tnast. f'un4 printout).
VI •
ABOSB OF WRIT ror the reasons aet forth in Martiliez end Trevino, supra, . •etgnifie&nt unfaimesa" of the Court of Crialnal Appeals• denial of Defendant's claim of ineffective aaaiatance of trial counsel, raised in initial-review collateral proceecUng .without tbe aid of a akilled attorney due to hia status as an indigent p:isoner, ahould not serve aa a reliably valid [11] disposition on marit& [0] GUCh tbat pneentment that fundamentally iq»ttant claim in a subsequent application for writ habeas corpus vi tb aid of appoint ed counsel would be ··barred by section 4 Articl.e 11.07, Code of Criminal Procedure.
VII. GUIDANCE OF OUR FOREFATHERS Defendant respectfully expresaea his ~t desire for District COUrt. to remain mindful t.be peramount foCus in this partic:ular judicial matter •ie not (Defendant's] innoc:enc:e or guilt, but solely whether [his) constitutional rights have been pnaened.• Accord Moon v. Dempsey, u.s.
5
86, 87-88 (1923h see alae Irvin v. Dovd, u.s. 717, 722 (1961) (habeas corpus relief available to J:edress due proc:esa violations •regardless of the heinousness of guilt the crime ••• (and] the apparent offendec' thft )~ .
Ex parte Milligan, 71 u.s. (4 Nall.) 2, 118-19 (1866) (•(I]t is the birthright of every American citizen vhen charged with a crime, to be tried punished according the law o 1'00 power of punishment is &lone through the means vbich the laws have provided for purpose, &nd if they are ineffectual, there is an . inlmmity from punishment, no ftll!\tter how gnat an offender an individual may be, or how much his crimea may have ehcx:ked the sense of just ice of country, . or encl&ngend ita safety. By the protection of the law, human rights are sec:ure<i:. withdraw that protection, anCI they are at the merey wicked r'Ul.era, or clamors of an excited people ... ).
VIII.
CONCLUSION foregoing reasons, . the District. Court ahoul4 appoint counsel FOl' for specific purpose of investigating D&fendant•e claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, developing record u necessary, preparing that claim in a fom adequate to ensure meaningful appellate review of that claim on merits.
PRAYBR WHEREI'ORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays the hon orable District oour:t grant this Motion order relief requuted. De fendant prays for general wlief.
J Audie sexton TDCJ No. 1787503 French M. Robertson Unit 12071 '" 3522 Abilene, Tuaa 79601 Defendant/Movant, pro ae *11 INMATE'S DECLAaATION
I James Audie Sexton, YOCJ No. 1787503, being pt'ENHlntly incarcerated at the Jrnmch H. RObertson Unit the Texu Department of Criiidnal Juatice Correetional Institution& Division, loc::at~ in Jones County, Teua, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that foregoing etatetnents of fact an tii:'Ue correct.
BXBCUTED on this the ~y Dec:ellbez; 2014.
CERTIFICATE OF SBRYICB This ie to certify a true and correct copy foregoing OOFBND AN'r1 S FIRST K1l'ION FOR APPOIN'!'MmJ'l' OF COUNSEl. FOR HABEAS OORPVS has been duly served on opposing party to this ease via u.s. Ma.il, firat-claas postage prepaid, addressed to:
CAUSE NO. 14722-A IN THE 29TH JUDICIAL THE STATE OP TEXAS § § ve. § DISTRICT COURT OF
§ JAMES AUDIE SEXTON § PALO PINTO COUNTY TEXAS
DECLARATION OF INABILITY TO PAY COSTS The following declaration is made pursuant the Texas Rules of C1 vil PJrocedure and Title 6, Chapter 132 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
Now respectfully CCIIile8 James Audie Sexton, TDCJ 01787503,: and declares that I am unable to pay the court coeta in this criminal action antJ nqueats leave of the Court to proceed in form pauperis in thie criminal action and would shoW court folloving: .,,_
(l) I am presently inc:accerated at French M. Robertson Unit of the
Te~s Department of criminal Justice where I am not permitted to eam or handle IDOft&Y. I have no source income or spousal incame.
(2) . '%0~ted to me in Imlate-_Trust fUnd. (3) I currently have $ (4) During my .. inc:&rc:eration in 'l'uu. ~pal'~~ criminal Justice
I have reeeived approximately $ 3{)~ month as gifts from relatives and friends. · I neither own nor have an interest in· any realty, etoc:k.th bonelll, (5) or bank ac:eount, I received no interest or divided income from
any source. I have dependants.
(6) I ~ve total debts of approximately $ .tlfJJ(}
(7) I owe $ 4--- · aa restitution.
(8)
(9) My monthly expenses are &pproxiiBIIltely $ c.:.:_?fJ.~
Being pnaently incarcerated in French M. Robertson Unit of the Texas Department criminal Justice, located in Jonea COUnty, TeUa, I ver!fy declare under penalty of perjury foregoing statements of fact are ~rue ~r,~t.
Executed on this the
J~ Audie Sexton · TDCJ No.
. CAUSE NO. 14722 THE STATE Of TEXAS IN THE 29TH JUDICIAL va. DISTRICT COURT OF
JAMES AUDIE SEXTON PALO Pl·N'l'O COUNT~ [1] 'l'EXAS
. REQUEST fOR JODICIAL NOTICE TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND JUDGE THEREOF;
CONES tiOW [1] . J~s Audie Sexton, Defendant in above-styled and mnn ber:ed cause ~' in eiJpport of his First Motion for Appoin~mant of Haboos Counsel, respectfully requests the honorable District Court to take Judicial Notice of all records on file vith pertinent district clerks pertaining folloving criminal and ha!Jeaa ac\;ions: 14722, State v. Sexton, Palo Pinto COunty~ Texas:
a. CaUM No. Cause No. 147~2-A, J3x parte sexton, Palo Pinto County, 'l'e~B:
b. cause No. 148131 State v. Sexton, Chambers OoWlty,_ Texas:
c.
d. 14813-11\, Ex parte Sexton, Chambers County, Texas; cause No. cause No.
e. 13388, State v. Sexton, Chambers County, Teua; .
f. eauooNo. nx 13388-A, Chambe~ra county parte Sexton, Texa..~: cause No. 13389, State v. Sexton, Chambers COunty, Texas: and
9• cause No.
h. 13389-A, Ex parte Sexton, Chambers County, Texas. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully prays the honorable District Court 9ranta hie request herein i:oa:· and <bits take Judicial liotice of all records of the abo"ve-r.sferonced eriminal ~nd habeael actions.
Defendant prays for general relief.
s Audie &:fxton DCJ l~.
F.H. Robertson Unit 1'2.071 FM 3522 i\bilene, TX 79601 Defendant/Movant, pro H *14 PalO Pinto county District Clerk
~ P.O •. Box 189
Palo Pinto, Texas 76484-0340 ·· ...•. · P.le.&se find enclosed for filing in the above-styled IIUIIIbeted cawie tile
· fOllowing original doc:umente:
• DECr.ARA'l'ION OF INABILITY TO PAY COSTS: and By copy tbia l~&ttec, I am forwarding a ClqjJy of same to tbe opposing party at tbe C'lddmss listed below.
Please file sutait aboVe papers to tho District Court at your aooneat opportunity for heariag dispoaition. ·."'{'; :--: < ·"., Sincently,
.:::"'~,~--~ ... ...,.._,_.,,....,.._, .. -:·"·-·-~ ··.--.~--- .... , ..... -·-···- ·····-·. ···- ·-···----··-~··-- ···-
James Jwdie sexton
TDCJ No.
. F.M. Robertson Unit
12071 PM 3522
· Abilene, Texas 7%01
Defendant/Movant, pro se
JAS I file
encl.
cc::
£- 17 ... - ,:l../)1~ '·, r tttY\ wr: +. ~ -to irt,tvi~ ab.i +~ s tzt-k "'::. VV''( ~CiYl t&r OlfPD•ttt~cJ C.Cun ~e- ( {o-r +letb s CH~r:. .. C Mo.~\4 ~ LA.w L\\-a~ lJ..-n- ·U>tf)
I'VL ~+~~J {-rowt ... T\tlL befj·,~etlr.~ -tk h(aJ &;~ t.t~ lAfpc~ct.f me. ~ ut1ck L{~~ by ~vty wt.Mt ~Dl·~ ~urise-l Wtt~ ·t~qOtlfy o~-k'lv1l?c( w,~t ~ wA-«CUV\,+, 1k ~t 'ftA.\~~ ~ ik_ loi11- WA- tf ~ls, Cta\-vH~ ( ot t\~~ts of-T~~ t,t,V\a· U.S, S~rtW\tti. ~r+ · ~l~ ft.-tis ex~~~ <:.-\~, : ·.· ..
~ ~~ ,, Co~\J, ~fo.ie.., l-l>t4- T~~P· Laxis t-3'+'1~ s.~Ca(
T~~~ (~-~~.W4-) z. ··~ \1\ \)~.1\~fC(.(, PO ,'30~·-('-f, :tot'f- ~UI\+1,~, L£.ilS 'f'qg f 3~ 5. Cr I' ~5 L &1: zJ ~~3)
z. ""'~~":·'fl \t' M ~ ~y I 'Pl.ta~ feb~ +.s:> VVly Mlf,,(l'Vt ace. ~ a~ ~....61We. a~ ! f>\~ -to t~MX-- a. ~w,f ~"f A~ou'YW.~ m ~ ~\~~- ' . t'}J(y,. R~
'~ . 1- *16 .,.~' . . ;
S~zz-t.O/) . . Q;loP~t~~O founhf, D6\rJ Ckl • --.. '?<
. • . _ _ •. PI~~ r-e~t my N1oftC+1 fM Appo;vrt~f Ceu\1\~J 4o p-re.~cw~ Wt·,·4 o{ +f~beas . V-(~V\b -+o ~iw_ ~t.trt"fw C\ p~'o~ tul1w5, .. ,,. * rn~IO" Wet~ pos1ed +o 'fouri>,ff,ce. CwJ .- . .
-+N. 1);?4T;d- A-tfc~~~.~ of{t(,R.. +~rov5~ +~
l01w· L, bra '1 1-1 e<.e.O~">· I A.- 1(. 2. 0 ll/-. ·
Vour r:e.spo11~ 4-o my Cot re~~or'ld£.0c . .e.
uf_ -IS~ .ZDIS"", o:;, to -f~ "2:;{-0if.y<>. of +Lu.. · .. /J\o\1'0V\- vJ.; S. meo VI ;V1_51€ 5:,$ CtVI vi o+ f> f'<Dp-u" .
proce..du.ve.,.!
. .. . . RE>s~e_# tly , .
f~k~ ' J"avVtt5 ~k~ T. D.c;. .. :r:+f 17·&~~1~03·
. -Ro~··+(~ u-r1~+ t?o71 t .M4 isS~Z . Ab~le.~..t~.,~ · · , ... ·... 7q~D/ ·
·'
St-t?~Mh~!j ~<;,LeJ7.1,6. ( §B tcJ)
A;v,b aJt•IPoL . . . /l'lt<:.~rt V. !VI- N -~·y .q: 1557...1 ~ L &f.. ZJttfrlift,l'ZiJY3] ~~ ..J. ~-ie_ 2'ol<j- :te.4p, ~IS 'f5~8 zmq. ~ 4-Ff 1..0( ls (34'1 g
CJ~ V. b-bJ.e..
\f\11~~ \11.~ Wl'-f ~ +P ~•S lg"j'i?
~ v. ~~ Zo~-lf- T~4rf ~~.s 510<1
~hJ \1. ~-k.J.e 'ZbllfJ~ Aft> ~ls f3GCfLf
t:>e-uh V~~ ZotlfT~Vf ~tS (p1~-z_
+1-o\~ V- ~ un<-t ~~ Lfut.ts t.f1oul
8¥-~ V. &~~ 'LO~L.f TeN A-w ~t-~ lu371-
AF CM"UL ~ .. -. -1 ~ \ktcoh~ cwJ r~ ;~-Av~ b, , f1' wuviJ ~ ~ uV\~ '6~ ~~Cowt ~ ~~ IM'VI( rao~vht)W ~ W~ ~ ~·1Zlf,Dt7. (b){z,'tJ3) M CW\
'0f~UVL -fo --tk·~ ~~ ~-~~~
~t~