Cardona, Gabriel, WR-83,424-02

Cardona, Gabriel

WR-83,424-02

| Tex. App. | Jun 29, 2015

Check Treatment

Case Information

*1 RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUN 29, 2015

To the Clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Mr. Abel Acosta

Abel Acosta, Clerk

2E: File Papers: All the following is under cert. no: 7014 18200001 20448744

Mr. Acosta: I received these (3) notices of the arrival of the 11,07 wits; I filed 4... Enclosed phase find several documents that I would like to bring to the Justices for the Court of Criminal Appeals—attention. I believe there were here documents missing in my filings made to the 44th Court in Cobb County Laredo, Texas. Missing as a result of what I believe is tampering and interfering with my filings by the Cobb County District Attorney Office.

Please file with the Court. Your time and effort is greatly appreciated.

Notion for order to Cobb County, pages 144800001 and Exhibit:
Complete and full index of filings: 4 pages
Case letter to Cobb County Dist. Clerk re: File Papers dated 5, 25, 15 (1 page) (copy)
Request for correction of Habeas Record (copy) dated 5, 25, 15 (1 page.)
Fourth Memos: in Reply to State's Responses dated 5, 25, 15 (1 page)

Cease no: 2005 CEN 65001 (A), 2005 CEN 47201 (A) WR No. 83,47401, 83,47402, 2006 CEN 44181 (A), 2006 CEN 77001 (A) - 83,47403, (2) 6. Certified mail receipt no: 7015 CEDD 2005 3186 5427 dated: 65,15

Return Receipt requested dated 6, 8, 15

Unit Mail Book logged 6, 3, 15

Adpressed to: District Clerk—Esther Deghlado

1100 Victoria st. CAe. 203

Laredo, TX 78042

Certified receipts: 7014 18200001 20448725 w/return receipt—Attached to Index.

7014 18200001 2044 3293 w/return receipt—Attached to Affidant of Feeds.

Roof of Purchase Post office receipt.
Addressed to: District Clerk—Esther Deghlado

1100 Victoria st. CAe. 203

Laredo, TX 78042

Respectfully submitted, 6, 17, 15

Crabing Cardona 1444472

All 13 ed Unit

2461 F.M. 249 N

Iowa Park, TX 76367

(DEVIED NATAEMTON)

In the 49th Iwoicm District caigr Webh County, TX Filed: $05.04 .15$ ; (Resubmission to Tr. (4.Crim App)

AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS; IN GENERAL

Comes now Gabriel Cardona, applicant pro se in the above styled and numbered cause and introduces this Affidavit of Facts in Ereneral to the Honorable Court, in support of the Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus filled for cause nois Trial Ct no: 2005 CRN000630 DI, 2006 CRN 44101, 200 CEN 952 DI and 2006 CRN 770 DI. In good faith and for good cause the Applicant shows:

Erabriel Cardona 9.13 .80 , being presently incornerated in the Tex as Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, under inmate no: 14441011, and being competent to make this Affidavit, would show the Court, all in good faith, my understanding of the proceedings and cases, his relationships with Counsel David Almaraz and Counsel Fausio Sosa, and hydee. ision to plead guilly.

1 shall begin by saying that when I was foeing these serious charges I was 18-19 years old. I had been removed from my interest in educating myself, or eduction, for about 3 years, I dropped out of high school as a second year sophomore, 10 th grade. I began tailing grades in my freshman year, 9 th grade. I had been living the Laredo street life for 3 years. The Laredo slong was my vernacular, its life my life. I attended numerous Court proceedings that were continuously 'reset', without anything positive ever coming out of them. All I knew who that it was "moved". The legal terms or language used was one I didn't understand. Words such as Arrangement, Inclutment, record, motion disowery etc. and phrases that included those words I couldn't grasp. I did not understand the significance of "for the record." It was foreign to me. These legal terms were and are not used at all in Laredo's slong language, which is completely spanish often spanglish, but never fully English, What I understood these terms to mean was what I actually related to them physically. For example, when you go before a judge, the charges are read, and you plead not guilly.

*3 is what I related to the word "Arraignment". Discovery was a word that I related to noture and animals. What I watched on T.V. as a kid. Documentaries. All I knew was that you go before a judge, accompanied by the lawyers and they'll take care of everything to our best interests. That we should put all our trust and confidence in the lawyers. I thought they would automatically have our best interests at heart. As a typical ignorant adolescent, I never questioned a lawyer's say or actions in any matter. And so I appeared in numerous Court hearings which were frustrating and oppressive in a way. I had attended few juvenile proceedings, but proceedings of this kind and noture, they were a first time experience for me.

Understanding of case no: 205 Cew 650 ol . Murder and Aggravated Kidnapping. When I was arrested in June 8, 2005 I had confessed to my knowledge and participation in the failed attempted kidnapping of Bruno Drozco Juarez. I knew I had also assisted investigators into locating discarded evidence. I thought the confession was all the State needed to consult me. A co defendant and childhood friend of mine had also been arrested and charged with Murder and Aggravated kidnapping. Richard Cuarrero. There was only one conversation I had with Counsel Almaraz regarding this case. Counsel told me that I would be found guilty because I was there. I had told Counsel that I didn't provide, touch, or used the firearms nor helped in any way. That I just sat at the backseat. Counsel told me that "under the law of parties yeurte as guilty as the shoaler." I told counsel 'even if I just sat at the backseat!', 'Don't matter still guilty.' Nothing was ever discussed about this case. I often asked Counsel how the case was going but "no hay node" (tharess nothing) was Curnsels all the time response. By the time I plead guilty, I had attended a meeting with Lousenforcement, D.A., and Counsel (which I'll explain shortly) and attempted to be forthcoming with them, but that meeting didn't amount to anything because I was not in agreement with how investigator Garcia was leading me to adnnit to something more than what the facts actually were in the case - but I hadn't realized that Counsel or I had given all the leverage to the State. I didn't make anything of it then because I refused to enter any agreement and refused to sign anything. I felt I was being used. So I thought I would get somewhere in the lower ends of sentences. Around 5-10 years. I knew my participation. I knew

*4 What I had done and not done. I thought Counsel would come up with a go. od defense to get me a good deal. I was banking on the fact that he was hired to do so and is/was not a Court appointed attorney. Then my code/end. ont Richard Cuxerrex received a 15 year sentence on a reduced charge and I himself thought I would get the same deal. We both had the same participation.

Generally I thought that murder carried the death penalty but kind of doubt it that because if for a Capital Murder you get the death penalty then Murder had to be life. I underected that Capital Murder was when you killed a police officer. And since it was worst, I reasoned that carried death penalty, and Murder life. Although I wasn't sure, I thought a trial for murder or Aggravated kidnapping/Felony 1) and being found guilty carried an automatic life sentence, without parole. I didn't know these were ranges. I thought that if someone wanted anything lower than that, it had to be upon a plea bargain. Understanding of case no. 2006 CRW 441 DI, Murder. When I was arrested by investigator Garcia and interrogated for this murder, I denied any involvement and gave my whereabouts on the night in qu. estion. I was arrested and charged with engaging in organized criminal activity. A few days later, the investigator went to the County jail and charged me with the Murder. I was surprised to be charged with the Murder. I had told investigator Garcia how I had been at a Peter Piper's Pizza the night of the 7 th and how later that evening I was given a ride to the bridge as I deported to Mexico. It seemed obvious to me that if he'd go to the Peter Piper Pizza and asked for the cameras he'd see that I was telling the truth, I gave him names of the people who I was with. I was told a girl" had identified me as the shooter. About two to three weeks into my detention Counsel Almaraz was hired to repes. sent me. He visited me and relayed how'a girl" had identified me as the shooter and as I was to explain to Counsel how that couldn't be, he quickly mat. ioned to the phones (in the visitation area) expressing how they were being moni. tored. He explained or expressed to me how it was impossible going against human nature to have seen the shooter when shots are being fired in your direc. tion. After this, nothing was ever discussed about this case. I kept trying to remind Counsel about this notion throughout my time at the county jail

*5 but Curnsel would despotically answer "that it, it's all over, she id, you." I didit know anything else. All I knew was that "a girl" had identified me as the sheeter. I knew it wasnt true, she was lying. Or investigato. was fixing everything up against me (Investigator (Sarcia), I didn't know what the word alibi was or how it could be used in my fever. I didn't know about rebuttal. Cross examination. Had I known about the abave I would have certainly helped counsel in obtaining at least affidavits but most importantly bring the witnesses to Curnsels office. I had the opportunity to do so. I bailed out. Visited Curnsel twice or therefimes. Had I known about rebuttal, powerful as it is. I could have established that for Curnsel. I would have obtained the tapes from Peter Piper Pizza that would clearly show I was there. It would clearly show that neither Jesus nor Rascilis were there. Thus it rebuts the notion that I acted with them. It shows my disengaging from them, concomitantly lending cerdibility. Most importantly, when I visited Curnsel Robert Camacho accompanied me. The ride" to the bridge would be established, cont. 1 rmed as being true. Even as I was later arrested, Robert Camacho visited Curnsel, on my behalf and was not inquired about that" ride" My fear was "the girl". I never knew her name, I didn't know she could be cross examined, vigorously, in an attempt to discredit her and belie her, attempt to impeach her, and theoretically change her with the crime. Curnsel never gave me any case. "Tes, my fear was" this girl" which I thought all the State had to do was put her on the stand and paint the tinger at me. Nothing to do or say to contest that. his toast. Life without parole. I didn't know how to defend myself against her.

When I plead guilty for the above mentioned cases, it was juzy selection day. I was insistent an o trial. I saw that the D.A. confers with C. ounsel and then Curnsel confers with me relaying the States' offer. We were in an adjoining room to the Court room. I initially declined the State's offer but Insticed how Curnsel wasn't interested in that and lasked one question to Curnsel 'que es la defensa?" (whats our defense) ino hay nada "Que don't have any). For all this time I had been banking on the sale fleet that Curnsel

*6 was hired to defend me. But I had been many of Counsel, had been frustrated with him. So when he told me we didn't have any defense that was it for me. I didn't want anything to do with him. I plead guilty at all. Frustrations.

My frustrations and waviness of Counsel happened for several reasons. In the month of October we attended a Court proceeding and as I came back to the County jail, I was taken to a room where investigator Garcia and I believe Adan were at. They relayed to me that they wanted to speak with me and I declined, I told them I had nothing to talk with them about. They told me that Counsel had an deal for me or that Counsel had made a deal with the D.A. lin unsure. I declined to hear them. They insisted that at least to attend the meeting which would be at the Laredo Police Department, and listen to Ldrait Counsel had to say, Counsel had not told me anything about any agreement or about any meeting. Didn't mention a word. The only reason why I attended was because I thought he probably had something good in store for me. Upon arrival, investigatora began with their questioning going on a case by case basis. Investigator Garcia was actually quicting me with words such as "uh-huh" "okay", "don't f-with me" when I would say something off his script. All throughout, Counsel did not uther a word of advice. He left me at the mercy of these investigators. When the murder of Noe came up (case no:2000cew wu or). they let me speak with Counsel in private. I specifically and explicitly told Counsel I could not say I killed Noe Flores." I didn't. I can't." Counsel goes about that I had to say something and all I could bring myself to say was self-defense. Hence the absurd story of Noe setting up his own brother, that ultimately resulted in his death. That story is false. I implicated myself in the Murder of Moises and in the Murder of Jesus Resender. When the Murder of Jesus Resender came up I told investigators I wasn't involved in any way but investigator, Garcia mainly, was upset and threw at me how they knew that I had given so much money to this person, another, family and friends. And so I just went with it and used that for credibility purposes. I then realized something wasn't right. It all came to my senses. I immediately realized or projected in my mind that I was being used. I refused to continue and refused to

*7 'enter any agtements and br sign anything. I didit want to speak with them any longer. That's when I began distancing from eannid. I begom to su. spect of him. Then the following month I was indicted for the Uunder of Mo. ies and thet Counsel loiter withdrows from that case and the case of Jesus Pesender, and I just thought Counsel had for me over. The less I spoke with him the better if wass for me. He with. drew from those eases for financial reasons, but I had been told he was hired to representme with all my cases. So I was just banking on the fact that he was hired to representme. So when he hld me that we didit have any defenses my frustrations boiled. I plead. (I didit want to demplain against him because he was hired by co conspirator and thought that if I did, he would turn them a geinst me. I felt stuck and had to Counsel.)

My relatiorship with Cunsel Atmaraz wasit a working relationship at all. It started off odd because as he was hired he had a verbal aliercation with my brother Luis. I boiled out on March 20,2000 and visited eounsel twice possibly three times. My brother Luis had been arrested by the Federal Government and I wontot a lawyer for him. I inquired Mr. Atmaraz but he respectfully declined because, he was already repesenting a coderlendont of my brother, Eduardo Cevrean. He did hawever suggest a friend of his, Oscar Reiar and hld me he (Caines) would hire him for me. I brought Counsel the, hiring money, 10 k , and he directed me to later visit Mr. Reña. Upon visiting with Mr. Reña, and after leaming aboat my brother's stofus. I inquired Mr. Reña if everything was good and if Cansel Atmaraz had given him, the full payment. He said yes. No loter did I have Mr. Atmaraz in my ear, mad, telling me to mind my own business and not be going around Mr. Peñas office asking questions lin not supposed to. I was just making sure everything was okay but I guess that's not how it works with lawyers. I was arrested an seperate charges on April 11,2000. Canned visited me a few times but was just interested in more money. That was all he would ask me for. I would ask for the case but "no hay nada" would be Cansels answer. there were a few times probably thine, but for sure twice when after a burt hearing, Cunsel would come speak with me in the Cas-

*8 urts holding cells and would relay to me how he had just drank a few beers with his friends through the weekend, and how they were interested in me. I asked Counsel who his friends" were and he would state"Federal Agents." I immediately caught on to it and told counsel to not be going around the bush and that I didint want to hear that bls. He was relaying to me if I was interested in becoming a Federal informant, then the "plea discussions", then him withdrawing from my other cases which I was told he was hired to represent me with. And so it was always one difference over another. I feltshark with him because he was hired by coconspirators. We never had a working relationship.

Case no: 205 Cew as 2 D1, Murder. Represented by Counsel Fausts Sosc. When I was arrested for the organized criminal activity in relation with the murder of Woe Flores, I was interviewed by investigator Richard Ramirez (name he gave me) in to this Murder. I denied any involvement. I further provided investigator with information that was given to me by my then friends Jesus Ciontales and Rosalis Beta. I wasn't charged with this offence. Then the 'plea discussions" in which I implicated myself; then I was Indicted the following month of December, which was really uneventful. This case overall was non existent. This case was never discussed between Counsel Sesc and I. Notance. It was all about the Resender case. I was somewhat confused because I had implicated myself in the 'plea discussions" and thought it would be used against me. I didint know plea related statements that did not result in a plea were inadmissible. I somewhat disabled the relacrency of those admissus because I refused to sign anything but want sure. In the back of my mind lay what investigators had told me that David Pablo and Jan were implirating me. I saw then in the indictment but was completely unaware of the extent of their statements. I thought, sure they'd see me a cand, in their houses, but nothing more. I didint know they were actually saying I was part of their squad, which I was not Their leader, Lucio Velfe Quintino, and I didint like each other. How am I going to be part of their group. One thing is to be friends with Jesus and Posalio. I grew up with them, since childboud I and another thing to be part of their group going around committing murders. In the end, when I plead guilty, all the tolls with Counsel were about the Double homicide, and when Counsel told me that my

*9 federal time would be concurrent, this case was lumped with the other ones. But I did not know absolutely anything about this case.

2006 CRW 700 ol. Murder. Represented by Counsel Faust Sosa. I was arrested for this Murder on April 11, 2006, after a house I was staying at was raided by multiple agencies in relation to a Federal investigation. I along with other suspects" wentaken to the Laredo Alice Dept. for questioning. Paul Lease a codefondant was also taken. When I was told that I would be charged with the double homicide. I vehemently denied it. I was adamant and pissed off at investigators for wanting to charge with me with just about any murder happening in Laredo. I was continuously and verbally harassed by investigator Guzman. I kept insisting him to call my lawyer. I showed him my attorneys card and told him to call him if he wants to speak with me. He kept refusing and didn't seem to understand what if you want to speak with me call my lawyer meant. After repeated attempts, I was finally left alone. I did not speak with them at all. After a few hours I hear that my girlfriend at the time, Christina Lozano, was bought in. I heard how investigator Guzman asked her several times to release information to which Christina would repeatedly answer "I don't know what you're talking about, I don't know anything." I then hear investigator Guzman begin harassing her endlessly. Dalling her all types of expletives: pendeja, no te hegas pendeja" etc. Christina broke down and crying told him she didn't know anything. Investigator Guzman didn't leaue her alone and I just couldn't take it. I banged on the wall as hard as I paid and yelled a curs word at investigator Guzman. And he came rushing into my own and I told him to leave her alone. She's not involved in anything and to stop trying to make her say something she doesn't know. He put his middle finger in my face and I was moved to a separate room. Investigator Guzman didn't seem to give a damn about the fact that Christina Lozano was still a minor... I was arrested and charged with the double homicide because Paul Lease had onlessed to it and implicated me. That's all I knew about the case. I didn't know about the accomplice witness testimony rule. I didn't know about impeachment. How codefondants were always impractied. Cross examination. I wasn't concerned about Christina. I saw her in the indictment listed as a witness. I wasn't aware how the state would attempt to corroborate Luseis testimony through her. Although it wasn't my canoeon because I knew how and why she co-

*10 me upon making those statements. But Caused never explained to me the corobaration process. Caused never interieued Christina. (Christina wasnitewn interested in the States cause. Investigator Carola had gone to her house in an attempt to interiew her, but Christina refused and called Mr. Almarar, counsel, asked for ocluice and investigator (Carcia left.) On the contrary, he bumped into her and her mother Wabel outside lubys cafeteria and implied to her that she should stay away from me. My main fear was, Paul Jasso. This was material in my decision to plead guilty. I didint know I could contest whatever he was saying. He was impeachable. Something Ididn't know. The only thing that Caused relayed was that I would be found guilly right off the bat. Because of Jasso and my pnoreonvications. That was it. He never explained anything dse.

My decision to plead guilly for the aboue cases come down uthinately to the fact that I wanted peace of mind: I was told that I would get federal time and that it was already agreed that my federal time would run concurrent. Knowing that, I was at peace accepting a plea borgain, in 36 years I would be out and all this would be over. I was at peace knowing that I would have a second chance. The past year had been hecary on me. I didn't know what the hell was going on. I was stressed. For all the above, not knowing any defin ses, laws, etc. there was alot of uncertainty. I was still insistent on a trial. I wasn't just going to plead to something I didn't do. But when Caused told me that I would be indeed picked up by the foeds, and since my time would be concurrent, I just plead guilly. Little did I know, and Caused never told me, that because of thifre plai I would be charged multiple times, for each plea, in Federal Court. Be extremely prejudiced and be at the very end of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and at the very bottom of it as well. Life! Both Causels knew that.

My relatonship with Caused Sosa never developed. We spoke for the first time about over a monthor two after he was appoinled by the Court. It was bief. It seemed to me that he was onalyzing me. I was already wavy of lawyers because of Almarar, and Sosa didn't even make any attempt to

*11 ensure me that he was there to help me either. I asked him if he knew Christina Lozano but he was quick to change the subject. I just wanted to know why he made three comments to her. What made me suspect or distrust Counsel and learn that he wast going to help me was the fact that he threw at the table in front of me a picture of the deceased Jesus Sesender. He wanted me to touch it. This same exactact was done by the investigators, which I refused to grab or tach simply because I don't touch anything in the possession of the Laredo Fsliire Department. But when Cunsel did this I realized it was for a totally different reason. I grabbed it, looked at it, and gave it back to Cunsel. The other visits were mainly, and entirely actually, about pleading guilly and the States ofHer. All which I declined, Refused. Cunsel visited me about three times may. be 4 times total. So we never developed a working relationship, it didn't help that he volunteered to be Gart Appointed counsel.

I understand that it is not enaugh for me to just claim" Im innaent". But I wholeheardedly believe that God's justice manifesta itself through a jurys verdick. And I have been attempting to do that or obtein that through the with. draud of the guilty pleas-which were not entered treelys knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily and proceed to a trial by jury. I have been trying to obtain relief since day 1. February 12, 2001, the same day I plead guilly. When my sister in law helped me with a three way call to Counsel wherein I left a message to Counsel and requested him to withdraw the plea. I have sent letters to and requested documents from the District Clerk. Since 2001. I have sent a letter to the Innotence Project (2001) I sent a letter to the 4 th Cir. Court of Appeals in 2009 requesting appellate counsel. I sent Counsel Atmaraz a letter requesting case files. All to no avail. My endeavors to justice are sincere.

Although I am not raising a conflict of interest claim. I would like to point out the following facts which show that Cunsel was not acting as Counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment. A conflict of interest is accordingly plausible. (I am also shacked that Cunsel Atmaraz did this to me. I caught on to it, I wholeheartedly believed I was being used, and which is 10 hy those plea discussions stalled, but I just didn't know much and consequently all the leverage was given to the State) The fact that Cunsel did not conduct me. aningful aduarsarial challenge. Didn't secure my constitutional rightsie. double jeopardy.

*12 The fact that Curnsel did not like a Motion for the eavey for cause no: zow cew (see of (1). The fact that Curnsel engaged in whatever agtements with the State without my consent. I never implied, suggested, or indicated to Curnsel to do so. The fact that the entire version of the factis of all the cases were ch. anged enticely. In the Murder of Duns Cross, it went from 47 Eric lvan Mortines being the man directing the offense to being replaced by me. Contradicting everything I had initially stated truthfully in my confession. Not only is it making me look like a liar, it is also giving the state all the leverage. In the case no: zodo cew (4) 0101. I told Curnsel I did not kill the guy, I couldn't say I did, the fact that Curnsel told me I had to say something. The fact that Janet Rneda did not even identify me as the shooter or of even secing me, evidenced by the testimony she made gave in Federal Court, thus, had Curnsel interviewed her, Curnsel would discover the same. What Curnsel would thus send his client to the guillotine? Curnsel could have mowed to exclude or suppress that id. The synopsis alone is suspect. For cause no: zosccew asz o(a), the fact that Curnsel did not give sand aduise to his client "hey Gabriel lin not representing you with that case, you have not been formally charged norarrested".. but instead left his client at the mercy of investigators. His client thus implicated himself and again sent to the guillotine. For cause no: zodo cew 71010 ), the fact that his client stated he had nothing to do with the offense and thereupon investigators came with extraneous matters, irrelevant. as d Curnsel didn't offer any meaning ful advise? hey, hold an just a minute, he's telling you he's not involved that evidence you mention doesn't prove anything, at best, it concerns irrelevant extraneous matters.' And yet again, his client is sent to the guillotine. then the following month Curnsel conveniently withdraws from those two cases. For all the cases, the factis have now changed drancetically. Now, Gabbrel Cardona was the leader, the man directing these murders. The one in constant contact with the leaders in Mexico. Who was working behind the scenes? Mr. Aburgaz knew I had an active Federal Investigation, Curnsel wanted me to become a informant. Curnsel had been a former federal prosecutor. Curnsel's Federal agents" friends, I wholeheardedly, felt I was being used. Curnsel used me for the federal government. The federal government was working a "Travel Act" indictment. Curnsel knew. He told Christina Lezano and Gaberf Comarchs that why worry about me if I was going to be picked up by the Fedi. All these cases, which enhances the single drug trafficking and prejudices defendants, involving now.

*13 the violence, as evidenced by these offenses. But the government needed the pointman, the one in constant contact with the co-omspirators and big wigs in Mexico. The one who would make the violence element stick like glue. They did not have one. The one who could do that, who would tie directly Muguel Trevinte, or the big wigs allegedly, to the murders, and the only one who could do so was Lucio Veles Alintera! But he was gone. Let go by incom- petent, investigators. Now, all they had left was third party testimony, at best. they needed a pointman. And they found me in a lawyer's client who's lawyer was wanted after being hired by co-omspirators. (I attended a Court hearing where I was asked by the Honorable Lepersabest who had hired Mr. Almanac. I plead the fifth after being alerted about the coming question and advised to do so.) Indeed. The narrative that the Federal Government and Investigator Francis put out there is one and the same: Gabriel Cardena, the leader of a squad of hit men, who are- sous skillings. Where does it come from? Is it accurate? Is it actually and factually correct? If not, then why did Mr. Almanac, a former federal prosecutor engage me to change the entire facts to the governments favor and to my dettiment? (It is the same narrative to the media: See:Laredo M. Times: $3.1 .09, 3.6 .09 .5 .20 .09$ ; Haushin Chronicle: Drug Cartel hires laws as border hitmen? By Susan Carroll 4.15.07; De- tails: 6.09 issue "Vamp Gains"; Now York Times: "... Cartel Lure Amer, reess as killers" by James Noloney 6.23.09 X Although I attempt to set the record straight, the Media pub- tishes what they want. If it bleeds it leads.) Where does it all come from? Straight from those pleadiscussions. Why did I attend? Engage? Because I was operating under misconceptions. (See all the above). Thank God I caught in to it. For what it is worth I do not know. But I show the Court how I was affected and why I plead guilty."

In all fairness and equality, the jurisprudence of the Criminal Justice System, I respectfully request fairness where fairness is due, and an opportunity to establish innocence where innocence is due. Good bless Your Honorable Court.

True, accurate and correct, to the best of my memory, under penalty of perjury.

Respectfully subm.: Gabriel Cardena, 14KH676 (grase) All Red Hint 2101 F. No. 360 N. Iowa Party, TX 16367 12012

*14 To be constitutionally valid, a guilty plan must be made on a "voluntary" and "intelligent" basis. (Broadley v. U.S. 523 U.S. (1999); Brody v. U.S. 391 U.S. 742,743 (1970). A guilty plan is not intelligent and therefore is constitutionally mislid if a defendant" "had not been aware of the nature of the charges against him, including the etimetic of the ... charge to which he pleaded guilty. Bradshaw v. Shumpt, 545 U.S. 135, 152-53 (2005) (emphasis added). Due process clause requires that a guilty plan be made on an intelligent basis. See Smith v. O'Broady, 312 U.S. 329,334 (1941). See also Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 1631, 96 S.O. 2253,49 L.Ed. 2d 108 (1940); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 235, 59 S.O. 1709,23 L. 2d 2427 (1949). For a guilty plan, he valid normally, it must have a basis in fact, and the defendant must admit to that basis in fact. See U.S. v. (1) S. 1657 F.2d 920,924 (1950), 1951 (emphasis added); U.S. v. Johnson, 612 F.2d 365,309 (1960), 1960). In order to enter a valid guilty plan, a defendant also must possess an understanding of "the law" in relation to the facts." McCarthy v. U.S. 394 U.S. 459,466 (1964); Mosby, Israel, 707 F.2d 295,302 (1946; (1953) (emphasis added). This means that a defendant must understand not only the nature of the charge against him but also that his conduct actually falls within the charge. McCarthy, supra, at 394, U.S. 467,59 S.ot. at 1111. (emphasis added). Before, pleading guilty a defendant should be made aware of possible defenses, at least, where the defendant makes known facts that might form the basis of such defenses (such as a confession that provides an understanding of a defendant's culpable mental state or lack thereof.) See Saber v. Crist, 649 F.2d 507,509 n. 3 (1946; (1951) (emphasis added); Thunderbird v. Selen, 565 F.2d 1615, 1025 (1946; (1977). A valid guilty plan must represent a "voluntary and intelligent choise among the alternative courses of action, open to the defendant." N.C. v. Allard, 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.O. 1601, 1641, 27 L. 2 d 2d 112 (1970); The assistance of counsel received by a defendant is relevant to the question of whether or defendant's guilty plan was knowing and intelligent in so far as it affects the defendant's knowledge and understanding. See McKibbon v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 159, 170-71, 90 S.O. 1441, 48,49, 25 L. 2 d 2 d 163 (1970); Siepmy, Rev. of Canal Line, 546 F.2d 11, 51 (5 1971).

Justice. Netherlands opinion for the Court in Powell v. Alabama, 257 U.S. 45, 11 L. 2 d 155, 53 S.O. 55, 54 AL. 521 (1932):

"The right to be heard would be in many cases of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent, and exhausted layman has as small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. It charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of law, and he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and conuicked upon incompetent eüridence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inachmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he may have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand, of Counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he may be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubled that such refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the const. Sense." Icliat 165-69, 11 Led 155, 53 S.ot. at 54. (emphasis added)

*15 LOWA PARK 211 E CASH ST IOWA PARK TX 763679998 05/01/2015 (800)275-8777 9:01 AM

For tracking or inquiries go to USPS.com or call 1-800-222-1811.

Order stamps at usps.com/shop or call 1-800-Stamp24. Go to usps.com/clicknship to print shipping labels with postage. For other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS.

Get your mail when and where you want it with a secure Post Office Box. Sign up for a box online at usps.com/poboxes.

All sales final on stamps and postage Refunds for guaranteed services only Thank you for your business

HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER Go to: https://postalexperience.com/Pos

*16 Full and Complete Index of Filings Date: 4.30 .15 (Expected delivery date; Confirmed by Post Office) Weight: 3 lbs 5.70 oz Cest. receipt *: 7014 1820001 2048 9285 5 -five) Sealed Envelopes in 1 package. (All sealed envelopes were addressed to the Clerk) Envelope # 1 - Writ of HABEAS COapus (28-20 PgS) Trial Cause no: 2005 CRN 630-DI Murder and Agg. Kidnapping Etclands: Double Jeopardy; I.A.C-Failure to Conduct Meaningful Adversarial Challenge; Failure to Explain the True Nature of the Effelus i.e. elements; Failure to fully explain the low of Rethes: Failure to aduine of an Affirmative lack of knowing or infant defense...; ill equipped and unprepared counsel; Unleaving and Unaluntary pleai; Invalid Plea; Cumulative error; Failed to explain a nthre of trial.

Memorandum of Law in support of Writ. Cited authority and provided argument in support of exists of argument. ( $5 - 18$ Pgs)
Attachment to Memorandum of Law; Applicatis confession redacted dated 6.04.05 (13 Pgs.)
Request for Evidentiary Heavings (5 pages.)

Total page Caint: About 68 pages.

Envelope # 2: Writ of Habers Corpus ( 30 Pgs.)

Trial Cause no: 2006 CRN 441-DI Murder Guards: I.A.C-Failure to Investigate and Attening inithertes; Dovid Mtr. Pabb Gomales, Jua Apohiar 18. Gabino Chowe: Failure to inkgiew egwitheis Jaret Rivedo: Failure to investhgate and interview Chriating Loans: Failed to establish an affimative defense theory; Failed to investigate and establish an alibi defense: ill equipped unprepared counsel; Failed to explain the true naifure of the offenses; Unleaving and unaluntary pleas, invalid plea; Cumulative error; Actual innocence. Total of 10 grands - Memorandum of Law in support of Writ; Cited authority and provided argument of how a trial would be altered had counsel done all the above.(18 Pgs.) - Producition of Writnesses Statements: (Synopsis) Interviews of - Gabino Chowe from where invis learned of Licio Velez Quintero (copys) - David Martinez Cerenzo - Pablo Gomales Perez - Jua Apohiar Cuiroga Garcia - Janet Rineda - Chárthio Lozano (Total: 8 Pgs) *Production of Newly Discovered Evidence: (In support of Actual Innocence claim) - Testimony in Federal Court by Janet Rinedo (copy)(4 Pgs.) - Testimony in State Court by Chistina Lozano (copy)(4 Pgs) - Mahon For Evidentiary Heaving (5 Pgs.)

Total page Caint: About 70 Pgs.

*17 Envelope # 3: Loritof Habeas Corpus (32-34 pgs total) Trial Court Cause no: 205 Eew 95201 Murder Grounds: 1.A.C. Failure to investigate and interview witheries: David Alts. Pablo Fronza Ley, Gabino (Cousin), Juan Apolinar Cairncgay García, Failure to investigate Facts; Failure to reaestigate produce a batched inws defense; Failure to inv. circumstances: Failure to inv. and interview (Loritton Lezano) Failure to explain the true nature of the eftence i.e. laws of parthes; Failure to explain the right to and nature of a justtrial; False promise and foulty advice: Induced plea I.A.C. Induced plea by the State, Fundamental Error by the Court; Invalid Reai Cumulative error. Total of: 13 grounds.

Memorandum of Law in support of Writ, Provided earthority and argument of how the trial would be altered had (caused done all the above. (19 pgs.)
Production of Witnesses Statements. Interview Synopsis of:
Frabino Cousez w/ the learning of Luci Valee Minin
David Martinet Cerezo(2 pgs.)
Pablo Gonzales (1 pgs.)
Juan Apolinar Cairncgay García (1 pgs.)
Christina Lozano (1 pgs.)
Testimony Given in State Court by Christian Lozano (1 pgs.)
Testimony Given in Federal Court by David Alts. Cerezo in support of what Caused wadds discovered (5 pgs.)
Excerpts in support of Applicants argument (daini re: Federal Sentence (3 pgs.)
Excerpts of Plea Agreement
Excerpts of Judgment
Excerpts of Decket re: Requesting Appellate Caused letter dated August, 2009; Mailed to Court of Appeals; Fornerated to the 49 District Court.
Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (5 pages) Total pace Court: About 15 pages. Envelope # 4: Writ of Habeas Corpus (33 pgs.) Trial Cause no: 2060 Eew 77001 Murder Grunds: I.A.C. Failure to explain the nottire and reuse of aecusation i.e. aeeangulice witness rule, Failure to inv. and interview (Loritton Lezano: Conflict of Interest: Failed to explain the right to and nature of a just trial; Faulty advice and False promise by Counsel; Induced- Cumulative error) Induced plea by Caused; Induced plea by State; Fundamental error by Court; Invalid Plei; Mase of Rule of lenity, Lalleaming and Unvoluntary plea (12 grounds.)
Memorandum of Law in support of Writ, Cited authority and argument. (15 pgs.)
Excerpts in support of points of argument re: Federal Sentence
Excerpts of decket: rejected offer by def. (1 pgs.)
docket requesting appellate Counsel; leffer forwarded to the Court by the Court of Appeals dated Aug. 2009. (1 pgs.)
Excerpts of plea agreement (1 pgs.)
Excerpts of Judgment. (1 pgs.)

2064

*18

Motion for Evidentiary Heating (5 pgs.)

Total page count about 100 pgs.

Envelope number 5.

In General Motion for Bench Warrant 3 pgs. w/Exhibits -Exhibit: 2 pgs of Mail being opened. -Envenences (2)-Complaints of 5
In General Request for Due Credibility of Clams. w/ Exhibits
Explained the delay and reasons thereto and forthwith.
Explained how I have been attempting to obtain relief.

Exhibits:

Letters to and answers from District Clerk w/ documents requested
Letter-Excllunocance Project (2005)
Card from State Counsel for Offenders (2009)
Plan Agreement's Exhibits I and 2/State) 1 explained how the wording in item 13 of the Plan Agreements was wrong, significantly, altering the agreement and how Counsel didn't notice it and scratched it off to correct it. Thus if he corrected the wording in the initial pages and not the item 13, they does it prove, and show that Counsel did indeed go through the agreement item by item? If so, then why didn't he correct the wording. If not, then how did I know or rather, how could I then be expected to know what the agreement is. which undermines the plan agreements...
Exhibits of Step I and 2 grievances and hows more 2010 this that has consistently denied we access to the Law Library
I also explained how I have been consistently pulled on Federal Bench Warr. acts and for a total of 20 mts. In Cautly, with either no Law Library or ill equipped library's. Something in uncuxies of. Total page count: About 57 pgs. All five envelopes which were sealed, consist of about a total of 330 pages! All five envelopes have a total weight of 3 lbs. S. 1002 . Received by the laws Poste Post office on 4/25/15; The Honorables Secretary relayed to my brother of just receiving "13 pages" Not of documents are missing. Date: 05.04.15 (Expected delivery date S.04.15; Confirmed by Post Office) Weight: 0 Lbs. 2.7002 Cert. receipt no: 1041181000120495293 1 sealed envelope w/ letter. 12 page Affdauit of Facts by General; Explaining of my relationship with Counsel's Almarca and Sosa, how I was affected and why I placed guilty.

*19 -2 pages' Explaining to District Clerk of the Filings and wrote in detail all filings Explained to nothly me if anything is missing. total page count 14-15 pgs. Return Receipt requested wess signed and stamped dated 05.04.15. Proof of delivery.

The Honorable's secretary states they did not receive such letter! lowa Park Post office received the package in 05.01.15. On 5.15.15, I again filed a Request for Correction of Habeas Record. (Enclosed) On 5.29.15, I received a state's Response (4) A total of 25 pages. Not stanmed as filed and without writ it. On 10.5.15, by proof of certified receipt no: 1013 (2000) 0005186 (8427) , I mailed 4 memorandum of reply to the States Responses. (enclosed)

As of this the 15th day of June. I have received 2 response from the Clerk! True, accurate and correct, to the best of my abilities. Respectfully submitted, Gabriel Bardona 14441672 Alf Redd Unit 2104 F.M. 309, N. lolua 84 fk . TX 74367

For tracking or inquiries go to USPS.com or call 1-800-222-1811.

Save this receipt as evidence of insurance. For information on filing an insurance claim go to usps.com/ship/file-domestic-claims.htm

Order stamps at usps.com/shop of call 1-800-Stamp24. Go to usps.com/clicknship to print shipping labels with postage. For other information call 1-800-ASK-USPS. $$ $ $ 12.30$ ) $$ 0.00$

Get your mail when and where you want it with a secure Post Office Box. Sign up for a box online at usps.com/poboxes.

All sales final on stamps and postage Refunds fur guaranteed services only Thank you for your business

HELP US SERVE YOU BETTER Go to: https://postalexperience.com/Pos

*21 To the whole country district clerk E.STHER DEGOLLADO

RE: FILE PAPERS

Ms. Degallado, Enclosed please find a request for correction of habeas record. Build you please file it under its pertinent cause no. I have not received a response whatsoever notifying me of the arrival of my Habeas (bryus applications and I do not have their corresponding Habeas (bryus record course number. This request is in general form. Please file with the correct Court, please.

NOTE: I sent two separate pieces of mail certified, which consisted of 4 habeas (bryus applications and an official of facts.

Cert receipt no. 2014-1820-0001-2048-0285 - Applications; Memo of Lowi 2014 Feshnery etc.

7014-1820-0001-2049-5293- Letter notifying you of the mailing of the above cert. mail and an official of facts in general form.

Dates of Delivery: Thursday 04/30/2015 in Monday 05/04/2015

Please notify me. Your time and effect is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully submitted, Habeas (Bordea) MMMM22 05/25/15 All Red Unit

2001 F.N. 360 M. Mayer Park, TX 76567

E. 2415

*22

EXPANTE CARDONA

Cause no:

$ IN THE $49^{th}$ JUOICIAL 8 DISTRICT COURT WEBA COUNTY. TEXAS

REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF HABEAS RECORD

Comer now Gabricl Cerdora. applicant pro so in the above entitled and numb. ered canse and makes this request for correction of habras record as follows:

1 . Any and all references made with respect to applicants Federal case referred to as a "RICO ACT" case should stand corrected as a TRAVEL ACT" case or Interstate Travel and foreign Commerre in Aid of Rargueteering. Applicant was indicted under the TROVEL ACT in Federal Court and not under the RICO ACT: 11.

Applicant made an honest mistake under the misreumption that all racquet. eering cases are under the RICO ACT. Made references on Habras applications and affidavit of facts.

WHEREFORE applicant requests that the Habras Corgus record be corrected in this respect. i.e. delete RICO ACT for TORNEL ACT.

Respectfully submitted. Monday May 25.2015 - Habricl Cardona 14444677 All Red Unit 2101 F. 4.369 W .

*23

NOTICE

OFFENDER NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE

Under both Federal law (28 U.S.C § 1746) and State law (V.T.C.A. Civil Practice &; Remedies Code, $§ 132.001 - 132.003$ ), offenders incarcerated in Texas may use an unsworn declaration under penalty of perjury in place of a written declaration, verification, certification, oath, or affidavit sworn before a Notary Public.

In a request for Notary Public service, each offender must explain why an Unsworn Declaration is insufficient before Notary Public service will be provided.

An example of an unsworn declaration pursuant to State law is as follows: "My name is Gabriel (First) (Middle) (Carclona (Last) my date of birth is $9.13 . M o$ . and my inmate identifying number, is $144411 g 22 \dots \dots$ . I am presently incarcerated in

perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 17thday of June 20, 2015 (Offender Signature)

An example of an unsworn declaration pursuant to Federal law is as follows:

I (insert offender name and TDCJ number), being presently incarcerated in (insert TDCJ unit name), in County, Texas, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on the day of , 20 . . . (Offender Signature)

NOTICE

NOTARY PUBLIC SERVICE DENIAL

Regarding your request for Notary Public service, insufficient justification was provided necessitating Notary Public service. However, you may proceed with an Unsworn Declaration.