Case Information

*1

$84,278-01,02$

December 14, 2015 Apel Acosta, Clerk Cours of Criminal Apprais State of Teers, Supreme Cours Buildings 201 W. 14th Street, Room 106 Austin, TX 18101 RE: Ex Parte, Marcus Purnell Wiluite Wr-84, 278-01; Tr. Ct. No. 1141857-A Wr-84, 278-02; Tr. Ct. No. 1178148-A

RECENT OF CRIMINAL APPRALES DEC 29208 Abel Acosta, Clerk

Deer Mr. Acosta:

Enclosed You will find the following:

1. Rebuttal to Affidavit of Kemnitea M. Foote
2. Rebuttal to States Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order

Please supplement, my Rebuttal to Affidavit of Kemnitea M. Foote, to the facts of the case (i.e. Statement of Facts) as set forth in my application for writ of habers compus.

REBREO:

Marous P. Wilhite Marcus P. Wiluite, Applicat

*2 REFERENCES

1. February 2014 Attormet Disciplinater Actions ..... EXHIBIT-A
2. HCDC The State of Tews vs. Foote, Kemnitea spv. 01859151; ..... EXHIBIT-B Cavse i3 1400401010; Coart: 209
3. Local Lawyers Disciplined in Fegrunet and March 2012 ..... EXHIBIT-C
4. Order of the Supreme Court of Tews in the Matter of ..... EXHIBIT-D Kemnitea M. Foote/MISC. Docket No. 13-9166
5. Court Reset Form; dated (on or reat) 3-3-09; Clerks Record
6. Docket Sheet; stamped 5-21-08; Clerks Record
7. Docket Sheet; stamped 3-17-09; Clerks Record
8. P. S. I. Plen-Arbeement Paperwork; Clerks Record
9. Motion for Community Supervision; Clerks Record
10. Official Court Reporter, 20874; Marcia Bannett; statement to 1474 Court of Appens; Exhipit in Application for Writ of Habers Corpus
11. Recording of Abatement Heavies; 12-16-09; HC. 2087 DC.
12. Ms. Prandia E. Wihite; Affidavit; Exhibit of Application for Writ of Habers Corpus
13. 1474 Court of Appens Memorandum Opinion
14. U.S. St Circuit; Appell; No. 10-20152; USDC 410-CY-3192
15. Case No. H0071133273; [Wihite] Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Kemnitea M. Foote

*3

February 2014 attorney disciplinary actions

RESIGNATIONS

Posted Feb 5, 2014

RESIGNATIONS

On Nov. 19, 2013, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Ken Anderson [#01196500], 61, of Georgetown. At the time of Anderson's resignation, Case No. 12-1093-C26, styled Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. Ken Anderson, was pending in the 26th District Court of Williamson County, which alleged the following:

In August of 1986, Christine Morton was murdered in Williamson County, Texas. Anderson was the Williamson County district attorney and lead prosecutor in the case against Michael Morton, who was charged with his wife's murder. The case against Morton went to a jury trial in February of 1987. The defense theory at trial was that the murder was committed by an unknown intruder. The jury found Morton guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison. In 2011, Morton was exonerated of his wife's murder.

Before, during, and after the 1987 trial, Anderson knew of the existence of evidence that tended to negate the guilt of Morton and failed to disclose that evidence to defense counsel. Further, during a pretrial hearing on Feb. 6, 1987, Anderson told the trial court that he had no evidence favorable to the accused. That statement was false.

Anderson violated Rules 1.102(a)(1), 1.102(a)(5), 7.102(a)(5), and 7.103(b). On Dec. 10, 2013, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Kennitra M. Foote [#24029552], 41, of Spring. At the time of Foote's resignation, there were nine disciplinary matters pending against her alleging that she neglected a legal matter entrusted to her; failed to abide by a client's decision whether to accept an offer of settlement; failed to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of his legal matter; failed to provide a contingency fee to the client with a written statement regarding the outcome of the matter; failed to promptly deliver to clients or third persons funds to which they were entitled; failed to refund advance payments of fee that had not been earned; violated a disciplinary judgment; failed to furnish a response to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, dečcit, or misrepresentation.

*4 Foote violated Rules $1.01(\mathrm{b})(1),1.02(a)(2),1.03(a),1.03(\mathrm{b}),1.04(\mathrm{d}),1.14(\mathrm{b}),1.15(\mathrm{d})$ , $8.04(a)(3),8.04(a)(7)$ , and $8.04(a)(8)$ .

On Dec. 10, 2013, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of James A. Endicott Jr. [#06613800], 74, of Harker Heights. At the time of Endicott's resignation, three disciplinary matters were pending. In one matter, Endicott failed to promptly deliver funds to a client, and in another, he violated a disciplinary judgment. In two of the matters, Endicott neglected the legal matters entrusted to him and failed to return unearned fees. In all of the matters, Endicott failed to promptly

Endicott violated Rules $1.01(\mathrm{h})(1),1.03(a),1.14(\mathrm{h}),1.15(\mathrm{d}),8.04(a)(1),8.04(a)(7)$ , and $8.04(a)(8)$

On D: $=0.22:3$ , the Supreme Court of Torses accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Jus Anthony Poster Jr. [#07005200], 63, of Fort Davis. At the time of Endicott's resignation, there was no final form of the 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*5

HCDistrictclerk.com The State of Texas vs. FOOTE, KENNITRA (SPN: 01859151)

Cause: 131400401010 CDI: 3 Court: 209

APPEALS

No Appeals found.

BONDS

No Bonds found.

PAYMENT PLAN

No Payment Plan found.

RELATED CASES

No related cases found.

DOCUMENTS

Proper credentials required. Please login or contact Harris County District Clerk's Office at (713) 7557300 .

BOOKINGS

No Bookings found.

HOLDS

No Holds found.

WITNESS

No Witness found.

SUMMARY

| CASE DETAILS | DEFENDANT DETAILS | | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | File Date | 7/22/2014 | Race/Sex | Height/Weight | | Case (Cause) Status | Active - CRIMINAL | Eyes | Hair | | Offense | EXPARTE SHOW CAUSE | Skin | Build | | Last Instrument Filed | EX Parte Proceedings | DOB | In Custody N | | Case Disposition | | US
Citizen | Unavailable | | Case Completion Date | N/A | Address | 3300 LYONS STE 201 HOUSTON TX77020 | | Defendant Status | JAIL | | | | Bond Amount | $\$0.00$ | Markings | | | Next/Last Setting Date | 7/26/2011 | COURT DETAILS | |

*6

11 local lawyers disciplined in February and March

By Mary Flood on March 1992012 3:45 PM $f$ ㅇ ㅇ 9 in $8^{\circ }$

404. 4095

Sections

General questions regarding attorney discipline should be directed to the Chief Disciplinary Counsel's Office, toll-free (877) 9535535 or (512) 453-5535. The Board of Disciplinary Appeals may be reached at (512) 475-1578. Information and copies of actual orders are available at www.txboda.org. The State Commission on Judicial Conduct may be contacted toll-free, (877) 228-5750 or (512) 463-5533. Please note that persons disciplined by the Commission on Judicial Conduct are not necessarily licensed attorneys.

REINSTATEMENT

J. Robert Love [#00791139], 45, of Houston, has filed a petition in the 113th District Court of Harris County for reinstatement as a member of the State Bar of Texas.

BODA ACTION

On Jan. 31, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals signed a final judgment disbarring Robert Leonadis "Pete" McKinney [#13723400], 61, of Houston. On May 12, 2011, McKinney was sentenced to prison for four months, followed by supervised release for three years, and ordered to pay a fine of $\$250,000$ and an assessment of $\$100$ in Cause No. 1:11CR00059-001 styled, United States of America v. Robert L. McKinney, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, after McKinney pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery in federally funded programs in violation of 18 U.S.C. $\$371$ (18 U.S.C. $\$666$ ), an intentional crime as defined in the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. The criminal judgment is final. BODA Cause No. 48984. (Editor's Note: Robert McKinney [#00784572], of Austin, is not the attorney referred to in this action.)

On Feb. 1, the Board of Disciplinary Appeals affirmed the judgment of partially probated suspension of Kristin Diane Wilkinson [#24037708], 48, of Houston, signed by an evidentiary panel of the District 4-E Grievance Committee on Jan. 21, 2011, in Case No. H0080827321. Wilkinson remains on active suspension until April 30, 2013, with the remainder probated until May 1, 2015. BODA Cause No. 48195.

RESIGNATIONS

On Dec. 13, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Steven A. Bearman [#90000546], 48, of Houston. Bearman represented a client in a personal injury case, settled the case without the client's permission, and converted the settlement funds. Bearman violated Rules $1.02(a)(2)$ and $1.14(b)$ .

On Dec. 12, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Dan Dewitt Simmonds [#24027980], 39, of Katy. The Court found that in connection with the settlement of two personal injury matters, Simmonds failed to hold funds belonging in part to the clients separate from his own property, to keep the funds in a separate trust account, and to promptly deliver all the funds that the client was entitled to receive; disbursed the funds to persons who were not entitled to receive them; and engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Simmonds violated Rules 1.14(a), (b), and (c) and 8.04(a)(3). He was ordered to pay $\$8,377.94$ in attorney's fees and costs.

On Dec. 12, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Steven Jay Rozan [#17357000], 68, of Houston. At the time of Rozan's resignation, there were 10 disciplinary matters pending against him. In six of those matters, Rozan neglected the legal matters entrusted to him. In eight matters, he failed to keep his clients reasonably informed about the status of their legal matters and to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. In seven matters, he failed to refund advance fee payments. In three of the matters, he failed to surrender papers and property to which his clients were

*7

entitled. In four matters, he violated a disciplinary judgment and failed to comply with Section 13.01 of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure relating to the notification of an attorney's cessation of practice. Rozan violated Rules 1.01(b)(1), 1.03(a), $1.15(\mathrm{d})$ , and $8.04(a)(7)$ and (a)(10). He was ordered to pay $\$12,692.53$ in attorney's fees and expenses and $\$61,925$ in restitution.

SUSPENSIONS

On Dec. 14, Richard Alan Mintz [#14198800], 60, of Houston, accepted a one-year, fully probated suspension effective Nov. 15. An evidentiary panel of the District 4-F Grievance Committee found that Mintz, upon termination of his representation, failed to surrender papers to which his client was entitled and failed to refund an advance payment of fee that had not been earned. Mintz violated Rule 1.15(d). He agreed to pay $\$525$ in attorney's fees and $\$3,620$ in restitution.

On Nov. 19, Robert C. Gerringer [#07826200], 66, of Houston, received a three-year, partially probated suspension effective Jan. 1, with the first year actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4-D Grievance Committee found that Gerringer failed to keep his client reasonably informed about the status of her legal matter, to promptly comply with reasonable requests for information, to promptly deliver funds that third parties were entitled to receive, and, upon termination of representation, failed to surrender property to which the client was entitled. Gerringer also failed to timely furnish to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel a response or other information as required by the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Gerringer violated Rules $1.03(a),1.14(\mathrm{b}),1.15(\mathrm{d})$ , and $8.04(a)(8)$ . He was ordered to pay $\$1,865$ in attorney's fees and expenses.

On Dec. 14, Arthur Eureste [#06702250], 67, of Houston, accepted a one-year, fully probated suspension effective Nov. 15. An evidentiary panel of the District 4-B Grievance Committee found that Eureste was hired for representation in a bankruptcy case. During the course of the representation, the client made numerous attempts to contact Eureste to ascertain the status of her case; however, Eureste failed to respond. Eureste violated Rule 1.03(a).

On Dec. 15, Kennitra M. Foote [#24029552], 39, of Houston, accepted a two-year, partially probated suspension effective Dec. 15, with the first three months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4-A Grievance Committee found that in connection with representation in a personal injury matter, Foote failed to explain an offer of settlement to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision regarding the offer of settlement and to abide by the client's decision of whether to accept the settlement offer. Upon receiving settlement funds in which the client had an interest, Foote failed to promptly notify the client of her receipt of the funds and to promptly deliver settlement funds the client was entitled to receive. Also, Foote failed to withdraw from representing the client after she had been discharged. Foote viSîtatd Rules $1.02(a)(2),1.03(a)$ and (b), 1.14(b), and 1.15(a)(3). She agreed to pay $\$1,100$ in attorney's fees and expenses.

On Jan. 27, John S. Chase, Jr. [#04149100], 59, of Houston, accepted a three-year, partially probated suspension effective Jan. 31, with the first six months actively served and the remainder probated. An evidentiary panel of the District 4-E Grievance Committee found that in representing a client, Chase failed to maintain communication with the client. Upon Chase's settlement of the client's matter, Chase failed to notify the client of his receipt of settlement funds and to promptly forward any funds to the client. Chase converted the funds for his own use, but repaid the funds prior to a scheduled disciplinary hearing. Chase commingled his own funds with the client's settlement funds. Chase failed, upon the conclusion of a contingent fee matter, to provide the client with a written statement describing the outcome of the matter and showing the remittance to the client and the method of its determination. Chase violated Rules 1.03(a), 1.04(c), and 1.14(a) and (b). He agreed to pay $\$1,384.04$ in attorney's fees and costs.

PUBLIC REPRIMANDS

On Dec. 5, Caesar Escalante [#06662090], 60, of Houston, accepted a public reprimand. The 127th District Court of Harris County found that Escalante settled his client's case, but thereafter failed to keep his client updated as to the status of the payment of the settlement monies. Escalante violated Rule 1.03(a). He agreed to pay $\$2,000$ in attorney's fees and expenses.

*8

ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

MISC. DOCKET NO. 13-9166

IN THE MATTER OF KENNITRA M. FOOTE

The Court has reviewed the Motion for Acceptance of Resignation as Attorney and Counselor at Law in Lieu of Disciplinary Action of Kennitra M. Foote (the Motion) and the Response of the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the Commission for Lawyer Discipline (the Response). The Court concludes each meets the requirements of Part X of the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure. Therefore, the Court deems the professional misconduct detailed in the Response conclusively established for all purposes. The Court further concludes that acceptance of the resignation of Kennitra M. Foote is in the best interest of the public and the profession.

Therefore, the law license of Kennitra M. Foote of Houston, Texas, State Bar Card Number 24029552 is canceled. The Court notes that Kennitra M. Foote has already surrendered her Texas bar card and Texas law license to the Clerk of this Court.

Consequently, Kennitra M. Foote is prohibited from practicing law in the State of Texas. She is prohibited from holding herself out as an attorney at law, performing legal services for others, giving legal advice to others, accepting any fee directly or indirectly for legal services, appearing as counsel or in any representative capacity in any proceeding in any Texas court or before any Texas administrative body (whether state, county, municipal, or other), or holding herself out to others or using her name in any manner in conjunction with the words "Attorney at Law," "Counselor at Law," or "Lawyer."

*9

No.1141857-A No.1178148-A

EX PARTE

MARCUS PUNNELL WILHITE

RESUTTIAL TO AFFIDAVIT OF KENNITRA M. FODTE

1. Marcus P. Wiluite, was represented by former Texas attorney Kenntra M. Foote, in case numbers 1141857 and 1178149. In contrast to the Affidavit pied, as previous client of the State's witness, I can attest to the following as untrue:

2. Ms. Kenntra M. Foote did not keep me reasonably informed of the actions now process of the charges that were pending against me. I did not refuse to do to trial, I in fact insisted on it. Ms. Foote made me sikh, on Marcu 3, 2009, the court deset form, by an X, benerth the writing of, "I don't want the ISye. offer, I want to do to trial." (See Court Reset Form; dated 3-3-09; Client Ms. Foote, until my trial date, June 29, 2009; which was set after the reporting of 3-3-09 to 3-17-09, when I went before the Judge to be admonished concerning trial. According to court records, I was set for trial per puth the dates of, 8-18-08 and 6-29-09, stemming from me doing before the Judge, insisting on doing to trial. (See: Docket Sheet, stamped 5-21-08; Docket Sheet, stamped 3-17-09; Client Recort)

The State did not continue to offer career and career sentences as the case went on; in fact, the State offered smaller and smaller sentences: 30 yrs., to 20 yrs., to 15 yrs. (See Court Reset Form; dated 3-3-09; Client Recort) If. Ms. Foote was "sure" that I would receive a lesser punishment from the Judge than from the State, why was the P.S.I. without an adered recommendation; why was I still subject to the full range of punishment, 5-99 yrs., when the States offer was 15 yrs.,"in which I received"??? If Ms. Foote was"sure" (i.e. promise), why didn't I receive less than what the State offered???

If Ms. Foote explained in detail the P.S.I. else agreement and insteuted me where to sish after each statement was explained, why did Ms. Foote do theoull the paremore first and put $X^{\prime }$ s everywhere I should initial??? If she explained it to me at all, let alone first, how could she have put an $X$ in an area not applicable and how to sCRatell the would aPR out??? (See P.S.I. Pler-Represent Paremore; Client Record) Ms. Kenntra M. Foote is being untruthfull, hee usual modus operandi. 2. If no coercion nor turents were not stated nor implied for me to plead divilt, why would Ms. Foote make me sish a court reset form, stratina, "I don't

*10 CONT. ; PAGE 1. 1

WANT THE ISYR. OFFER, I WANT TO GO TO TRIAL." (SEE: COURT RESTF FORM: DATED 3-3-09; CLEXES' SECOED) IF MY CASE WAS "ABOUT TO BE" SET FOR TRIAL BEFORE THE JUDGEO P.S.I. ADMONISUMENTS, WHY WAS IT ALRANDY SET FOR TRIAL, CLEXELY EXPRESSED??? (SEE: DACKET SHEET; STAMPED 3-11-09; CLEXES'SECOED) IF JUDGE COLLINS OFFERED TO CONDUCT A P.S.I HARRING AND OFFER LESS THAN WANT THE STATE HAD ON THE TABLE, WHY DIDNT I RECEIVE LESS THAN THE ISYES. ; WHY WAS I WET SUBJECT TO THE FULL RANGE OF PUNISHMENT??? ARE THESE "CONTRADICTING" EVERY'S WANT LED TO "A BREAK IN THE STANDOFF" BETWEEN THE STATES WITNESS AND MYSELF??? Is this WANT LED ME TO PLAND GUILTY??? WHY WASN't JUDGE COLLINS' OFFER MADE GOOD (i.e. FULFILLED), IF MY ARREEMENT TO PLEAD GUILTY RESTED UPON SAID OFFER???

IF M. FOTTE TROUY FELT THAT I WOULD NEVER ALKWY MYSELF TO BE LED, WHY WOULD HER TESTIMONY, SUPPOSEDLY IN MY BEHALE, AT THE P.S.I. HARRING BE, "MR. WILHITE IS A FOLLOWER AND INCREBSE OF BEING A LERDER."??? IF I SIEMED THE PLEA ARREEMENT DOCUMENTS WITHOUT HESITATION, WHEN DID M. FOTTE EXPLAIN THEN TO ME; WHERE WAS MY USUAL MODUS OPERANDI THEN, SEEING THAT THERE WAS NO HESITATION BETWEEN ME RECEIVING AND SIGNING THEM??? IF M. FOTTE EXPLAINED TO ME as SUE GID"AL HER CLIENTS", WOULD I BE CONSIDERED MISINFORMED, OR DECEIVED??? (SEE: FERRUARY ADIV ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS)

IF M. FOTTE LET ME KNOW (i.e. PROMISE) I WOULD RECEIVE A LESSER SENTENCE THAN WAS ON THE TABLE WITH THE STATE, WHY RECORDING TO COURT RECORDS I DIDNT??? IF I FILTLY REFUSED THE OPTION OF GOING TO TRIAL, HOW WAS I PROPERLY ADMONIISLED TO BE SET FOR TRIAL TWICE??? (SEE: DACKET SHEET; STAMPED 5-21-09; DACKET SHEET; STAMPED 3-11-09; CLEXES'SECOED) M. KEMWITER M. FODTE IS BEING UNTRUTUPUL, HER USUAL MODUS OPERANDI. 3. If M. FOTTE "PROMISED" ME THAT THE JUDGE, THROUGH P.S.I., WOULD OFFER ME LESS THAN WANT THE STATE HAD OFFERED AS A PLEA ARREEMENT, WHY WOULDNT M. FOTTE PUT A CAP ON THE RANGE OF PUNISHMENT, BUT LEFT ME SUBJECT TO THE FULL RANGE OF PUNISHMENT, AND WITH A "PROMISE" THAT'S SUBJECT TO NOT BE MADE GOOD (i.e. FULFILLED). WOULD A JUDGE, THROUGH A P.S.I., OFFER ME PUNISHMENT, OR "GIVE" ME PUNISHMENT??? BECAUSE I WASN't OFFERED ANYTHING. IF THE IS YEZ. WAS AN OFFER, CLEXES'SECOED SHOW THAT I DIDNT WANT THE ISYR. OFFER, BUT WANIED TO GO TO TRIAL.

IF THE OUTCOME OF THE P.S.I. REPORT WOULD ORTERMINE IF I WOULD RECEIVE PROBATION, WHY WASN'T I OIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEN THE P.S.I. REPORT AT ANY STAGE OF MY CASE??? IF THE JUDGE DEEIVING INTO THE ACTUAL CASE WOULD ORTERMINE IF I WOULD RECEIVE PROBATION, WHY WOULD THE JUDGE

*11 TELL ME, as sOON as the HERRING StartEd, Before DElving INTO THE ACTUAL CASE, THAT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO aIVE ME PROBATION ??? I HAD THOUGHT A P.S.I. WAS About probation: I FILLED OUT A REWUEST FOR DEdERTION (SEE: MOTION FOR Community Supervision; ClarkS Record), SÍANED FOR THE P.S.I. , FILLED OUT A DEdertion PACKET, THEN WAS TOLD THAT I WOULD MEET WITH A DEdertion OFFICER SOON AFTER. Note: MOTION FOR COMMUNITT SUPERVISION WAS ERROMEOUSLY FILLED OUT BY M's. FOOTE, ATTENTING THAT I HAD NEVER BEEN PLACED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION FOR A FELONY. BOTH M's. FOOTE AND JUDGE COLLINS MADE ME TO BELEVE THAT IT WAS WHAT A P.S.I. WAS ABOUT AND THATS HOW I WOULD RECEIVE IT (i.e. probation). M's. KENNITER M. FOOTE IS BEING UNITRUTUFULL, HER USUAL MODUS OPERANDI. 4. I DID NOT WAIVE THE COURT REPORTER RECORDING THE HERRING; I HAD RESOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS; AND DEFINATLY DID NOT CONSENT TO IT. THROYANOUT THE DURATION OF THE HERRING I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS BEING RECORDED, I HAD NO REASON TO THINK OTHERWISSE THE COURT REPORTER SAY IN POSITION TO RECORD THE HERRING, WITH HER MACHINE IN FRONT OF HER AND OPERATING it (i.e. TYPING); WHEN THE JUDGE LEFT THE BENCH, SHE TOLD THE COURT REPORTER, "WERE OFF THE RECORD" (OR SOMMETRING SIMULAR IN MAIURE, AND THERE WAS NO MORE TYPING, AND WHEN THE JUDGE CAINE BACK, SHE TOLD THE COURT REPORTER, "WERE BACK ON THE RECORD" (OR SOMMTRING SIMULAR IN MAIURE), AND THE COURT REPORTER STRETED BACK TYPING. WHAT ELSE WOULD I, OR ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING THINK???

IF I WAS PRESENT WHEN THE COURT REPORTER WAS WAIVED AND RENEED, WHY DID OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, MARCICA BARNETT, WRIE to THE 14TH COURT OF APPELLS, THAT M's. FOOTE CAME TO HER, AND SHE ASKED "M's. FOOTE IT THE HERRING WAS GOING TO BE RECORDED, AND "M's. FOOTE" SIDD NO THAT IT WASN'T; THE COURT REPORTER DID NOT MENTION M'R. MARCUS P. WILIITE (SEE: OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER; AORTU; MARCICA BARNETT; STRUMENT TO 14TH COURT OF APPELLS; EXHIBIT IN AFFICIATION FOR WAIIT OF HABERS CORPUS); WHY DID ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE, J. STEPHENSON, ON IA-16-09, at NY MERSEMENT HERRING, TELL JUDGE DEWISE COLLINS THAT HE AND KENNITER ARREED TO WAIVE THE RECORDING OF THE HERRING; THE PROSECU'T'R DID NOT MENTION M'R. MARCUS P. WILIITE (SEE: RECORDING OF MERSEMENT HERRING; 12-16-09; H.C. AORTU D.C.) ??? WHY IS THERE A DIFFERENT ACCOUNT OF THIS "WAIVER" FROM M's. KENNITER M. FOOTE, M's. MARCICA BARNETT, AND M'R. J. STEPHENSON ??? IF THE RULES OF APPELTTE PROCEDURE, RULE 13.1, SAYS, THE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER MUST, WNLESS EXCUSED BY ADREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, MAKE A FULL RECORD OF THE

*12 proceding, why wasn't this "notement" enforced by being put in writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record, or made in open court and entered into the record, according to the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule II??? Why the clere's record don't include copies of any written wnives of the reportees record of the P.S.I. Hearings, according to the Rules of Appelate Procedure, Rule 34.5 (a)(2)?? Mr. Marcus P. Wilkite never signed any wniver of not waived before open court the reporters record of the P.S.I. Hearings (See: Clere's Record)

My mother was never given the opportunity to come forward to the bench to speak on my behalf as a character witness (See: Ms. Pamela E. Wilkite; Affidavit; Exhibit of Application for Unit of Habeas Corpus). Ms. Foste' claim that the States witnesses were not called because of a sterectic move on her part, is in conflict with the Judee Askins the presecular, where are his witnesses, and him teklins her that he don't have any"; and the Judee Askins the presecular, what did the witnesses have to say, and him tellins her, "they said that they don't want to have anything to do with the case". Rules of Evidence, Rule 804 (a)(b)(c)(d) says, a decureant is considered to be unavaiable as a witness under those circumstances.

The navies a right to appeal, and Ms. Foste status that I noted to the P.S.I. in instant I didn't receive probation I could still dispute my sentence, why would I waive my reporters record, when a defendant as a party complaining on appeal, have an "obliantion" to bring forward record to sustain its conreations of effect, and if not done, my complaint could not be heard??? The navies a right to appeal, why would Ms. Foste want to wnive my reporters record, kwavies that attorners should be dedicated to perfection of accurate records for review by appelée courts if points of effect are to receive fair considerations and just reuives ??? Was this her findinety duty??? Did she have anything to hide???

From the moment I have known of this alleged wniver I have complained of it and challenged it; from district court (See: Records of Abatement Hearings; 12-16-09; H.C. 208 m D.C.); to the 14th Court of Appers (See: 14th Court of Appers Memorandum Ofwions); to Federal Court (See: U.S.5th Circuit; Appell; No. 10-20752; U5DC No. 410-CY-3192); to the State Part of Texas, wherein I filed a grievance against her, and she went before the Evidentiaky Panel 4-I of the State Bar District 4 Grievance Committee on, 4-18-13, and re-sioned, in lieu of discipline (See: Case No. 10071133 273; [Wikite] Commission

*13 FOR LAWYER DISCIPLING V. KENNITRA M. FOOTE); NOUN TO THE CAURT OF CEIMINAL APPEALS. M1. FOOTE AND MYSELF NEVER HAD ANY CONVERSATION, NOR STATEMENT MADE, NOR ANYTHING IMALIED, NOR ANYTHING HINJED CONCEENING THE HAIVER OF THE REPORTEES RECORD OF MY OF MY P.S.I. HENRING; NEITHER WRO it MADE KNOWN BY THE CAURT NOR STATE; NEITHER DID THE CAURT NOR STATE SECUKE THE THAT I WAD NOT DEPRIVED OF MY PROTECTED INTREST, BY IMPLEMENTING AND SATISFING THE PEOCEOLEAL SEREQUAPTO TO ENSURE THAT THE REPORTEES RECORD OF MY P.S.I. HENRING; NOT BE WAIVED WITHDUT MY KNOWLEDGE NOR CONSENT. I DID NOT ADRES TO WAIVE THE REPORTEES RECORD OF MY P.S.I. HENRING; it WAD TOYALLY, FACTUALLY, AND CLEMENT WITHDUT MY KNOWLEDGE NOR CONSENT. M1. FOOTE is BEING UNITUYFULL, HEE USUAL MODUS OPERANDI

MORBOWE, M1S. KENNITRA M. FOOTE WAS ORDEREO, BY THE CAURT, TO FILE AFFIDAVIT WITUIN 30 DRY'S OF, $10·30-13$ ; M1S. FOOTE' AFFIDAVIT WAS SENED, 11-2-15, OVER 130 DRY'S AFTER SHID ORDER, WITHDUT AN EXTENTION OF TIME. M1. FOOTE' AFFIDAVIT WAD FILED AFTER THE RESPONDENTS PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND ORDER WAS FILED, WHICH WAS TO BE USED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT. M1. FOOTE' AFFIDAVIT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, AND AN AFFIDAVIT WUSUPPORTEED BY THE RECORD CRIMOT PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A FINDING.

AS THE STATES WITNESS, M1. FOOTE' CREDIBILITY MAY BE ATTACKED BY TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WITNESSES REPUTATION FOR HAVING A CHARACTER OF UNITUYFULNESS OF BY TESTIMONY IN THE FORW OF AN OPINION ABOUT THAT CHARACTER; ALSO, IF SHE HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME OF A PELOMY OF INVOLVING MORAL TOREITUDE, REGRADLESS OF PUNIUMENT; OR IS ELICITED FROM THE WITNESS OR EXTUBLISHED BY PUBLIC RECORD. M1. FOOTE CLAIMS TO BE FEUTHFUL. (SEE: FEBRUARY 2014 ARTERNEY DISCIPLINAT ACTIONS) (SEE: HCDC THE STATE OF TEXAS vs. FOOTE, KENNITRA' SPN. OIESS ISI; CAUSE: 131400401010; CAURT: 209) (SEE: LOCAL LAWYERS DISCIPLINED IN FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2012) (SEE: ORDER OF THE SUPERME CAURT OF TEXAS IN THE MATTER OF KENNITRA M. FOOTE; MISC. DACKET No. 13-9166) M1S. KENNITRA M. FOOTE is UNITUYFUL, HER USUAL MODUS OPERANDI.

SIGNED THIS ISM DRY OF DECEMBER, 2015. RESPECTFULLY SHOYIITED, MARCH 18. WILIITE, APPIICANT 1100 F.M 655, RANSEY 1 UNIT ROSURRON, TX. 71983

*14

Cause No. 1141857-A
Cause Na 1178148-A

EX PARTE

MARCUS PUNNELL WALHITE, Applicant

8

IN THE ACETM DISTRICT COURT $\frac{8}{8}$ OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

REEUTTAL TO

STATES PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAMD ORDER

The Applicant has considered the application for weit of habers corpus, the States Original Answer and official court records in the above-caprtioned causes. The Applicant declares as Finding of Fact the history of the cases as set forth in his application for weit of habers corpus. The Applicant declares that there are courevented, previously unexeslved facts material to the legallty of the applications confinement which require an evidentiary meaning and will pray that the relief requested be deanited for the following reasons:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The history of the case as set forth in my application for weit of habers corpus; supplementing as set forth in my Resultal to Affidavit of Kemnitea M. Foote.
2. The States Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order was made without an affidavit from Ms. Kemnitea M. Foote, contrary to, as set forth in the Proposed Order Designating Issues and Order for Filling Affidavit, by the Court: Therefore making it void.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The applications habers curllement alleging trial court eredf is a record claim that was raised in court and on direct apperl (see: History of the Case: as set forth in my application for weit of habers

*15 COMPLO AND SUPPLEMENT): THE APPLICANTS RECORD CLLIM is ALSO ALLEGING INEFFECTIVE RESISTANCE OF COUNSEL; RECORD ON DIRECT APPERL INADEQUATE TO DEVELOPE AN INEFFECTIVE RESISTANCE CLLIM, THE VERT INEFFECTIVENESS CLLIMMED MAY PREVENT THE RECORD FROM CONTAINING THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO SUBSTANCIATE SUCH CLLIM; DUPPY, 607 S.W. 20501 , SIA, SIA. THE TRIAL RECORD ORDINARILY DOES NOT REFLECT COUNSELS REASONS FOR DOING OR FAILING TO DO ACTIOUS OF WHICH THE DEPENDANT COMPLAINS; VASQUEZ, 830 S.W. 20951 . MOREOVER, THERE IS NO BAR TO THE APPLICANT DEVELOPING THE FACTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT HIS POST-CONVICITOUS CLLIMS BRUGHT IN THE INSTANT HIDERS PROCEEDING. EX PARTIE (WILLIAMS, 65 S.W. 30658 . CRIMINAL LAM 1028. 2. THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT TRIAL COUNSES REPRESENTATION FEL BELON AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF RECOONABLENESS.........; DEPENDANT, AS PARTY COMPLAINING ON APPERL, HAS AN OBJEATION TO BRING FORWARD RECORD TO SUSTAIN IS CONTENIIONS OF ERROR, AND NOT DOING so, IS COMPLAINTS COULD NOT BE NEARI. FIRMMED IM. Co. V. ALGAMMER, 328 S.W. 20350 . To SATISFY THE PERJUOICE PRONG, DEPENDANT MUST SHOUS THE OUTCOME WAS RENDERED UNRELIABLE, OR THE PROCEEDING WAS FUNDAMENTRALWY UNFAIR. JOHNSON V. SCOTT 68 F. 30106,109. 3. THE APPLICANT HAS DEMOSTRATED THAT COUNSEL PROVIDED REPRESENTATION THAT AMOUNTED TO INCOMPETANCE UNDER PREVAILING NORMS." ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DEDICATED TO PERIECTION OF RECURATE RECORDS FOR REVIEN BY APPELLATE COURTS IS POIND OF ERROR ARE TO RECEIVE FAIR CONSIDERATION AND JUST RULINGS. YOUNG Y. STAFFORD, 491 S.W. 2076 4. THE APPLICANT HAS SHOUN THAT PUT FOR COUNSELS ERRORS AND DEFICIENT REPRESENTATION, I WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY BUT WOULD HAVE INSISTED ON GOING TO TRIAL. HILL V. LOCKHART 474 U.S. 52,59; 106 S. CT. $366,370-71$ . 5. BASED ON THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUANTANCES IN THE PRIMARY CASE, THE APPLICANTS PLER WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE; at THE TIME OF HIS GUILTY-PLER APPELLANTS MENTAL STATE RESTED UP "STATED AND IMPLICED "PROMISES" FROM HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY AND THE TRIAL JUDGE THAT WERE NOT FULFILLED,

*16

1. The applicant has overcome the presumption of regularity created in the trial court records, and has demonstrated that his fleet was involuntary.
2. In all tuines, the applicant has shown that his conviction and sentence were impreperly obtained.

Accordinaly, I. Pray. to the Tears Court of Criminal Appetls that the requested letters reflect be granted.

SIGNED THIS IS TO DRY OF DECEMBER, ADIS:

Respectfully submitted, M. M. M. M. M. M. M.

MARCLS P. WILKIITE Applicant RANNARY 1 UNIT 1100 F.M. 655 R. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M.