Case Information

*1

$722·15$

Count of Cciminal of Appouls ORIGINAL of TEXAS

CASE NO. 02-14-00206-CR / Teialno,CR-1270X6

Raul Villess GARZA, Appellant/Pio-SE

V.

The State of Texas Appolles

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 102015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUL 102015

Abel Acosta, Clerk

To The Honorable Judges of The Court of Cciminal Appouls of the State of TEXAS:

Come Now, Appellant Raul U. GARZA 1242859, ANd Respectfully submits this P.O.R. References to the Record in this P.O.R. will be by volume and page. The clerk's Record is referred to as (CR.-). The Reporters Record is referred to as (RR.-). The Supplementel Reporters Record is referred to as (RR.5U-). The Appendix documents are referred to as (AP.-). States exhibits are referred to as (SX.-). And Appellants' exhibits are referred to as (OX.-).

Point of Errae No. 1 Restated

The Evidence from Appellants' Prison cell and his Statements should have been suppressed.

*2 Appellant was charged with Asseavated Peajung, a thirddegree Felony, enhanced to a second-degree felony (count $U$ Tex. Pen. C. $\$37.03$ (A), and he was charged with Tamperins with a Fabricating Physical Evidence, (count 2) Tex. Pen. C. $\$37.09(\mathrm{A})$ ; C. 100 , Ap. I Appellant plod not guilly to the charges and proceeded to tay the cases to a juay. R. U6, P8. Appellant was found NOT Guilly in count 1.

Prior to beginning of the teial, a series of pretetal motions were heard. On January 13,2014, a pre teial heteins was had regreding Motion to Recuse or Disguality Judse Relyk Waltom 355-4 Judicial District Judse. C. 59 R.5 U1, pl. ON March 25,2014 A Motion to Suppress Video Confession and Appellants statement R. U4, P8

Robert Young, employed as a Head County district Attorney's investigator, was called by the state. R. U4, P8-10. MR. Young testified that he travelled to the Michael Unit in Tennessee Colony, Teins to talk to TOCI inmate, Raul U. Garza, Appellant, on Moneh 42013 R. U4, p10-11 He met with Appellant at an empty office at the prison unit. R. U4, p12-13, And that was one else was in the Room but U.S. R. U4, P33, Appellant was read his Miranda Richts before the interview began, but did not probable cause to arrest the Appellant for any crime. R. U4, p13-14. The interview was recorded, and Young clnimed that Appellant admitted falsifying affidavits attached to the 6th Wait of Habers Corpus. (hereinafter "with"

*3 Audio and Video versions of the interwiven were submitted into evidence, $RR,V4,p15,17-18,5x,1-2$ Appellant wrote a statement that was admitted to evidence, $RR,V4,p19-21,5x,3$ . Appellant [2]josed a consent to search and distinguished control of document in his possession, $RR,V4,p29-31,5x,4$ . " According to $0\times ,12$ the Consent form was not signed by Appellant, $RR,V4,p$ 64-66, Weady Discourse Evidence (here is after "NOE " " " ) me. Young Earsed the Appellant's signature to cover that he had no statement to Remove the Appellants' personal and legal files from Michael Unit"

The State did not seek a warent prior to getting materials from Appellants' cell, $RR,V4,p85$ . Me. Young told prison authorities to search Appellants' cell and take documents from his cell, $RR$ , V4, p 49-50 Young Reclaimed and Reviem them. The Appellant, had confess and signed the consent to search form, $RR,V4$ , p 50-51,54 Appellant's cell was search, initiate by Young, occurred about 11:30 am. And the consent to search form was signed by Appellant at 18:53pm. In fact, Robert Young told the Appellant's that he did [3]ot need a statement to seize documents, $RR,V4,p52-53$ Appellant consented to goins over the document with Robert Young, After he was told that no warent was needed. $RR,V4,p57$ .

Wendy Carlson, a Handwriting Expert and Forensic document Examiner, testified by Phone at the hemeins. $RR,V4$ , $p59,63$

*4 Ms. Carlson compared several samples of handwritten received from Appellant with the signature on SX.4, the consent to search form, and, in her opinion, the consent form was not signed by Appellant, R.R. U4, p64-66, 0x.12. "NOE," accordings to Expert Ms. Carlson's opinion, MR. Young forged the Appellant's signature, 'Young testified, 'that no one else was in the room when the consent form was signed R.R. U4, P32.

At the motion to suppress hernings, Appellant testified next. He claimed that MR. Youngs called him a liar several time. And that Young asked him if He masturbate, play with myself R.R. U4p 83, 84 He claimed that MR. Youngs wasn't listening to him, Young wasn't teying to hear the truth, Young was teying to convince me to say that yes, I did it. R.R.U4,p83,84 He claimed that he made a false confession to Robert Young. R.R.U4, p82, SX. 3 Appellant claimed that he had never seen the consent to senech form, and it was shown to him by his tefal counsel,' and that the purported signature on that form was not his signature. R.R.U4, p82, SX. 4 Appellant requested that the tefal judge listen to the entire Aubio/ video interview to determine whether the confession should be allowed to be admitted at tefal. R.R.U4, p83-84, SX.1-2 Appellant claimed that he was taken from his cell and held in a four-by four room visit they took him to talk to Robert Young, was waiting for a good hour-and-a-half, maybe two hours, R.R.U4, p84-85 Appellant testified that he confessed, because Young finally wore him down to where I was going to tell Young what he wanted to hear. Appellant was able to keep his five volume Teial Transcript.

*5 that he could not duplicat $(8,322\mathrm{m})$ he was indigent. Youngs kept his promise for the exchange for his confession statement. This took place after Robert Young shut-off his audio recordens, just prior to Appellant giving Youngs the written confession RR. U4p 35-37, SX, 1-3, Appellant reviewed his claim that he had never seen the consent to search form until it was beveried to him by his Attorney. RR. U4, p86-89, 94, SX-4

Some of the materials taken from Appellants' cell included communications with post-trial Astioncy. RR. U4, p 80-81 Appellant claimed his $4^{\text{th}}$ Amendment right were violated, and the search and [E]onification of his personal and legal materials from Michael Unit by Robert Youngs. RR.U4,p82 "Appellant is now claiming that a Violation of his $4^{\text{th}},5^{\text{th}}$ and ${14}^{\text{th}}$ Amendment were violated by Robert Youngs forging the Appellants' signatus on the consent to Search form. MAE ${}^{\text{I}}$

The State confronted Appellant with his written confession and questioned him about its contents and the circumstances surrounding his making it; Appellant "Insistent" that he was under pressure to grant Robert Young's demands for a confession in order to keep the irreplacable Trial Transcript record. RR.U4 $p95-87,5x,3$

Court's Decision

*6 The trial judge, Judge Walton, denied Appellants' motion to suppress the Appellants personal and legal documents taken from Michael Unitt, R. 44, P88, C. 185 . Judge Walton denied Motion to suppress Audio and Video and written confession, SK.3,1-2, R.R. US, P.S, CR. 203, 205

Court of Appeals, second District of Terms, case no.02-14-00206-CR Memorandum Opinion, Under Discussion

1. Motion to Suppress: This court execse, H page 4 last paragraph. The Appellant required that he did not consent to the [R]emoval of his personal and legal documents from Michael Unitt, NOT the search.

A person has "standins" to contend that a search or Disziune was unreasonable if (1) he has a subjective expectation of privacy in the place or object searched, and (2) Society is prepared to recognize that expectation as "Reasomable" or "resitimate". U.S. Const. Amend. XCU, State U. Granoville, 423 SGO, 3d 399, 404 (Tex. exim. App. 2014)

The most recent case that Addresses issues common to this case, by logical extension, is State U. Granoville, 423 SGO, 3d 399 (Tex. exim. App. 2014). The case involves the search of a high school student's cell phone stored in a jail property room, while the student was "under abeest." State U. Granoville, 423 SGO, 3d at 401. The officer retrieved the phone, turned it on, downloaded (Remove) a photo that was on the phone, printed the photo and retained the photo and the phone for evidence.

*7 In this case, Appellant Accordios to me. Young testified that the Appellant was not underest, that he was not in his custody, that Young had No probable cause to Arrest the Appellant, and that he had No Arrest Libareast. R. U6 plol-102

The officer and the presecutor contended that an office with probable cause had the Authority to senech anythins in the jail, with cut exception. State U. Granville, 423 S, 0.3 d at 902.

The Assumption that IJDisonees or proctrial detainees are without any fourth Amendment rights is not supported by the Supreme Court. As a unanimous Supreme Court noted in 1974:

Lavful imprisonment necessarily makes unannilable many. Rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen, a "Retention justified by the considerations underlyins our penal system... But, though his rights may be diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institutional environment, a Personee is not wholly stepped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime. There is no inon curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country. WSelf U.MeDonneil 418-462, 539, 55556 S, ct, 3963,412 &;d, 2d 935 (1974).

Expectations of privacy is jail may be diminished but are not nonexistent. State U. Granville, 423 S, 0.3 d at 411

An object of property to which an expectation of peivacy attaches involves a physical dimension and an international dimension, and a defendant's

*8 subjective expectation of priuacy can attach to either or both. Even if a defend- ant's subjective expectation of priuacy has been entirely frustrated with respect to the physical dimension of such pidequety, he may yet detain a subjective expectation with respect to the international dimension. Walter, United States, 447 US 649, 657, 100 S.Ct. 2395, 65 L.Ed. 2 d 400 (1980)

The Texas Court of Appeals has found that the 4th Amendment does apply and that incarcerated people have an expectation of priuacy in their personal [Property], in this case data inside a smart phone, and that there was neither a WARMant in support .... U.S. Court Amend. XTV, STREe U. Granville 423 S.CO, at 404-405; Arizona U. Grant, 550 U.S. 332, 345, 149 S.Ct. 1710,173 L.Ed. 2 d 485 (2009)

The Appellant was not underrest, was not in state 355th District Court on Mod County custody, Noe did Mr. Kums has Probable cause or a warmant to remove the Appellants' personal and legal files from Michael Unif. The search and seize of Appellant's document was unrefated to prison-security concern.

Court in other jurisdiction have addressed inmate priuacy issues —in U.S. U. Cabers, 796 Fd 20, 23-24 (2d on 1980) (detaines' Retains an expectation of priuacy within his cell sufficient to challenge the investigatory search ordered by the presocrator" to get evidence to aid them in injins additio n additional Indictment against a detainee; the search was unrelated to jail-security concerns).

*9 Lowe U state, 203 GA. App. 277, 416 S.E.2d 750, 752 (GA App 1899) (pectaiol detinuee had reasonable expectation of peivacy in papores in his cell coustionins his handwritins becouse seareh was unrelated to need of jail and was an attempt to find evidence to bolster state's case);

In the case of United States u Cohen, the Appeals Court found that the seareh of the Appellants peison cell was initiated by the presectation, not prison officials; the decision to seareh for consternand was not made by those officials in the best position to evaluate the security needs of the institution, nor was the seareh even colorably motluated by institutional security concerns; and, tha the Appellants peivacy rights were violated with in his cell, us uCohen, 796 E.2d 20, 23-24 (2nd, Cie. 1986).

Under the $4^{\text{th}}$ Amendment, Police officers may seareh an ARResteE and the arEa with in the immediate control of the ARResteE, . . U.S. Const. Amend. State U Gannwille, 423-300 3d at 410 , Arizona U. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 395, 129 S.Ct. 170,173 L.Ed. 2d 485 (2009). But, even if the state had relied upon the "seareh incident to ARrest" doctrine in this case, there was No derest nor was there was an exisent circumstance. Arizona U. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 345, 129 S.Ct. 170, 173 L. Ed 2d 485 (2009)

The Appellant is a convicted peisouce, but, the thod

*10 Disteict Attorney did not send investisator Robert Kums to investigate convicting case. This was a intereviem about A new crime. And According to Mr. Kums, He had No peabable cause, And No Wormant to search or SEize Appellants peopleaty, that the Appellant was NOT unidenest, And that the Appellant was not in his custody. Therefore the Appellant was not a preterial detainee, or an Arerestee.

The Curet of Appents, has "ERROe" in their opinion under the Appellunt's first point as to the senech of his peison cell And SEIZURE of the tarsistle evidence. That both Cobers and Lowe do a ply because this senech and seize was NOTdowe by 70 C J for security or discipline reasons. but to further the state's effort to obtain a new conviction against a peisouce. Just as Robert Kums forged the Appellants signature on the consevit to senech fern. (NO, $E^{21}$ )

The Curet of Appents, erroed when they stated, (distinguishing Cohen on ground that Appellant was a convicted prisouce) but, I was not a convicted of a new crime, when my rights were violated by Kouns when he remous my property (documents) from Michael Unit. If the 47 A Amendment does not a ply to a suspect, which the Appellant was at the time that his cell was senech and sleze by the ondee of the Rasecutor. There would be no reason for a Consent to Senech fern. The Granville, Cohen and Lowe cases do a ply and suppost the Appellants ground in first point. Appellant asks this Curet to correct the lowe Curet opinion.

*11

1. Motion to suppress by count of Appenls: Count Erenord in their opinion: Appellant mailed on June 4, 2015 a copy of Newly Discoued Evidence*. The facts in NoE.7 support the Appellant reason that his confession was result of coercion. be duress.

Reasons one: Was called a like sereral time. Reason two: Was asked question about the Appellants convicted case, like do I masturbate, do I play with my self, questions that are irrelevant to this investigation. Reason three: Me. Young was NOT teyins to hear the truth. Reason four: And Young told the Appellant that he could keep his five-volume Trial Trans- scapts for a confession.

The fact is that Young tist took irelevant documents (letter from Attorneys, personal letters, Medical Records, birthday cards, cheistmas, cards, and TOCIS inmate Records) for this investigation but just leave the Appellants five-volume T.T. Asniv, the Reason for the Appellant could keep the 5 vol. T.T. was to confess to this crime, RR. U7p.207, 242, 243, US, $\rho 30$ .

The two reasons was that the Appellant did not have ${\Phi }_{2,322,00}$ to replace them. And that he needed his

*12 five-volume Trial Tannscripts and his medical information because they were vital Resources that he needed to use to prepare a parole package. P.R.U.7p.269-270

Appellant was Awakened at 4:30am, And was willing to talk with MR. Young, And after a few hours the Appellant got tired of being "BAdspeed" by MR. Young. So the Appellant told Young what he thought he wanted. A confession. P.R.U.7p.285-286.

Appellant wanted AN Attorney, but Young was going to take all his personal and legal files. And Appellant fighting a wrongful conviction and coming up for parole, his files were very important. Young, told the Appellant that he could not get an Attorney here to visit but he was going to remove all the Appellants files that might. P.R.U.7p.267, 268, 269, U.S. $p12,13$ , 15 and 16 , and U.S. $p20,21$ and 29 , UK-119+119A.

Young accused the Appellants sister, P.R.U.7p.272-286, U.S. 22, 23-25, Appellant was lied to ANd Young called Appellant a lion P.R.U.7p.9-21,23-25.

The court of Appell's Eeccred, (court Memorandum opinion) P.S. 7 In. 2 the entire conversation was Not Audiotaped. MR. Young knew of the Audiotype before any conversation of MR. Young promise ANd Eeece the Appellant for a written confession. P.R.U. $9,33+34$ . Young forsed the Appellants signature on the consent to search form. N.O.E. 4

*13 The lower Court, (355 M District Court) Eerowed, in the issued of findings that "beyond a Reasonable doubt, without regard to the teuth or falsity of said Audio taped and Video tape oral statement, that the same was freely and Unluntarily made, Judge Walton, did not hear All the conversations nor did He hear Evans promiss and coerced the Appellant when Investigator Evans, turn off the Audio and the Video tape Records. RR, U9, p33-34. Also Judge Walton did not see NAG 4 Evans forased the Appellant's sismatures.

The Motion to Suppress should have be suppress, Appellant asks this court to overrule the Court of Appen's Ruleins.

Point of Eeror No. 2: The Evidene is legally insufficient To support the findings of Guilt, 's statement of Fuets

Appellant plent out Guilt to count 1 and 2 of the indictment. RR, U4, p8 The Substance of the State's case was explained in the prosecutor's openins argument:

The defendant is changed with makins false claims in that wait 4 , and he's changed with manfactuerins false documents that he included in that wait.

The temperins with evidence change involves the two take affidavits that this defendant

*14 created. And we're going to show you that they're fake. It's obvious they're fake when you look at them. And they were material to this proceed in because the defendant used those documents to try to claim that he was actually innocent of his original charge. (Count 1) The Asserated peejury comes from the fact that this defendant not only included those documents in that weif, but he also, in writing made some false claims in that weit. And that's where the Asserated peejury comes from $RR.U_{6}p9-10$ .

The state opened in case with an offer of All six weit of Mabers corpus filed by or on Appellants behalf, over the years, since his conviction in 2009, 5x1-6, 18-68, $RR.U_{6}p33$

STATE Witness - Peiscilln sides OK/A Peiscilln kinds Nk/A Peiscilln Kendall:

Previous wife of Raul Garcia, Appellant, R&;. U6, p46-48. Ms Peiscilln sides Identified an affidavit she sissed as Peiscilln G^RzM ON April 17, 2000 DX140, 5x 92, RR V6p 99-50, DX 139, DX55 [Facts]- Peiscilln sides, testified that she had a disorder of Multiple personality AR U6 71-22 Peiscilln sides also stated, that she used the name of Rebecca As a personality, $RR.U_{6}p72$ And one personality some

*15 time did not know what the other personality was doing RPLG, $\rho 77$ And Accordins to Exhibit OK54,134-140 RRV7p184 Priscilla sides sism All these signature.

These facts came out on cross-examination under a bill of exception. The Jury was not alIous to see or hear this evidence. These facts were favorable, beyond a Reasonable

STATE Witness no 2, Robert Young, the district Attorneys' investigator, to testify RPLG, $\rho 92$ Young was given the Appellants' WHC #6 to investisate RPLG, $\rho 94-97$ , 5 K 6 Thereafter, on March 4, 2013 Young stated that he met with Appellant at Michael unit at which Appellant was being held Young testified that he had NO PRObable cause to ARrest the Appellant, RPLG, $\rho$ 101-102 Young And No Derest Worrent, RPLG, $\rho$ 101 And that the Appellant was Not in his custody, RPLK, $\rho 101$

MR. Young stated that the Appellant gave him permission to remove the Appellants documents from him and off Michael unit And that Young really did not need Appellants' permission to Remove those documents. Iff this is true way did Young forsed" the Appellants's signature on a consistent to search them. NOE? The State offered into evidence the following:

$$\&\text{SKJG - video recordins of interrogation.}\backslash \&\text{(SKJ at the suppression hearing)}\backslash \&\text{SKJ- Appellants written statement (sXJ at}\backslash \&\text{Suppression hearins)}$$

*16 SA, 13 -A full Audio Recordings (2and 24 hours long) before the interergation was over (SA, 1 at the suppression heniins) RR. U6,p108-113 Eact "the Audio was turned off before interegation And written Statement was siven, RR. 44p33-34 (At the pectrial heaies) sX, 14 the consent to search form used to $man$ Remove documents from Appellants peison cell at TOCJ, Michael Unit AR U6, p 108-116 Eact Accordins to consent to search form it was siga at 18:53 pm, which is in violation in it self, And the signature of the Appellant was fensed, RR.U6,p68-70.

Defense counsel " objected" to entry of these items of Evidence because they were the subject of the suppression heniins, RR. U6, p113-114. The lower Cunt Erroe in Allowins these Evidence Admitted when it was taken in violation of the Appellants $4^{\text{th}},5^{\text{th}}$ And ${14}^{\text{th}}$ Amendment,

The State also offered the following into evidence: SX, 15-32, 35 RR. U6, p108-121, Allwere Admitted as items from Appellants' prison cell AR. U6, p124 Defense counsel objected to these Ehibits as the product of the illegal search of Appellants cell in violation of the fourth Amendment, RR. U6, p 124

MR. Young was cross-examined by defense counsel, Young Admitted that the envelope in which WIIC $4t_6$

*17 mailed from Phoenix, Arizona. OK 35, RR. 16, p172 MR. Youngs confirmed that it was mailed by John Pizer not the Appellant. RR. 16, p173 Youngs confirmed that the Appellant did not have type weiter. RR. 16, p179-180 MR. Youngs confirmed that John Pizer used inmates to help him with his legal task-ANnons those were Research, copyings on usins a type witer. RR. 16, p179-181 MR. Youngs confirmed that John Pizer signed wn 181 RR. 16, p183 when filed, wN 183 was signed by Appellant under. innate Declaration. RR. 16, p187-198, SX. 5 but wN 186 was signed by John Pizer as Raul Garcia, Appellant, which constrained/violate the wait Application's instructions. RR. 16, p195-200, SX. 6 MR. Youngs Received an investigation Report from Arizona's Attorney General investisators on John Pizer, Pizer admitted that he had forged the Appellants signature and that Dr. Hezmall responded back with the Affidavit, preasprph 9 and that Priscilla Responded with an affidavit much later, Parasprph 17. RR. 16, 181. John Pizer never told the A.G. investisators that the Appellant sent him those forge Affidavits. MR. Youngs admitted that he acted on his own by removing the Appellants personal and legal files from Michael Unit. RR. 14, p99-51 MR. Youngs Addmitted that the Appellant had some rights under the 4th and 5th Amendment. RR. 14, p51

Appellants Counsel made a motion for instructed verdict after the states case in chief fee: Count 1 (prejuge)-that Appellant neither signed nor did he file with 46 , with the clerk of the count in 1600 County, Texas;

*18 And, As to Count 2 (temperins)-there was no Evidence that Appellant produced or changed OR. Hezma 1/3 and Priscilla side's Affidavit and no evidence that the temperins occurred in Mod County, Texas, RR. U7, p7-9 The teial judge denied those motions. RR.U7, p7-9 which was no EORoR in judgment

Defend witness - Tonna Hitt, Mod County District Clerk, Admitted that her office received an envelope with wHC 6 on February 8,2013 and that the envelope came by mail from Arizona, which included both feesed Affidavits. RR.U7,p 12-14 ultimately, the count of Criminal Appenls "Dismissed" wHC 6 as not beins in compliance with form requirement for filins a weit. R.R.U7, p24, 26, 31-32, TRAP 73.1 And 73.2

Defense witness- Tracy Board, A DClerk with Mod County District Clerk's office. RR.U7, p45-46 ms Dond testified that she" Received And filled an Noncomplint Application. RR.U7p 54, DX, 131.

Fact- ms. Board, Violated TRAP 73.1 No missins pases, and Not be deowlonded from a computer. It to be returned as Noncompliant. RR. $47,p34-35,50,51-54$

Defense witness- John Pizer, And 87 years old, A Retieed Resident of Phoenix Arizona, A non-lauyce And the president of Heison Lesal Aid Association. RR.U7, p 59-60

*19 MR. Pizer testified that he prepares documents and files documents for prisoners seeking post-adjudication for the raw their cases. RR.U7, p60-61 He stated that he liberally uses the Assistance of other [PRISON ZUmates] to prepare documents/weit required to service his other clients needs, including that of Appellant, RR.U7, p61-62

All correspondence with Appellant was by mail; MR. Pizer and Appellant had never met. RR.U7, p62-66, 123 MR. Pizer assisted Appellant in preparing and filing WHC #5, RR.U7, p63, 5x, 5 However, it was Appellant who filed WHC #5, RR.U7, p97, 105-106

Pizer had written two letters to Dr. Hezmall, inguinins about Appellants case. RR.U7,p64 MR. Pizer wrote letters and made the affidavits for Dr. Ant Hezmalls signature in regard to Appellants case. RR.U7, p79, 120, 122, 123 Also Pizer told the Arizona Attorney General investigators on may 30th 2013 paragraph 9-10 Dr. Hezmall mailed him the affidavit. RR.U7, p73 MR. Pizer also received Priscilla sides. RR. U7,p80H Pizer also told A.G. investigators on may 30th,2013 in paragraph 17 Priscilla responded back with an affidavit. MR. Pizer, always used the word "N-A-U-G-H-T" which was used in both forged affidavits RR.U7, p69-65, 82, 83 Pizer testified that he had a typewriter and that his research inmates used typewritten format. RR.U7, p83 MR. Pizer assembled and mailed WHC #6 to the Mod County District Clerk from his Arizona office. RR.U7, p81-82 MR. Pizer included the included the two foesed affidavits that he made" RR.U7, p82-83,5x, 6

*20 MR. Pizer contained Notary stamps that were on documents contained with in MR. Pizers files. RR. U7, p88-90, Dx. 123, SX.26-27 MR. Pizer admitted that Appellant had NOT Requested that MR. Pizer file WHC 6. RR.U7,p 87 MR. Pizer testified that at NO time did Appellant Request that MR. Pizer create false documents to advance Appellants case. RR.U7, p 76 MR. Pizer testified that he had never witnessed Appellant prepare or use false affidavits, nor and Appellant ever requested that such affidavits be used in his case. RR.U7, p87-88 MR. Pizer also included the letter from Dr. Jesse Garcia in WHC 6, after he "Added" a false date to the letter. RR.U7,p110

MR. Pizer signed Appellants name instead of his own when files, WHC 6. RR.U7, p 275-276, RR. U8,p163, SX.6 MR. Pizer signed Appellants name to WHC 6, prior to files it with the clerk. RR.U7, p 90, 94, SX.6. MR. Pizer testified that he sent a copy of WHC 6 to Appellant after he mailed it to the District clerk's office. And that the Appellant complained about WHC 6's form and that he had sent told Pizer to file any visit. RR.U7, p84-85 MR. Pizer stated that he responded to Appellants criticism and gave no explanation for what and why he filed what he filed on Appellants' behalf, after he had filed WHC*6. RR.U7, p86-87 Dx. 33 MR. Pizer admitted that he has a damaged memory. RR.U7, p 104

MR. Pizer still believes that Appellant was wrongful convicted (in 2004). RR.U7, p122 The facts show that MR. Pizer made, present and use documents [the Affidavits]

*21 with the intent to affect the course of outcome of the official proceedings (the films of the world). CR. 200 parasaph 11, Tex. Pew. c. $837.09(\mathrm{a}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{G})$ .

Defense Witness - Wendy Cneison, a handwaiting and forensic document examiner, to testify. AR.U7.p160 ms. Cneison compared signatures and compiled report. DX.136-138 RR.U7.p164

Ms. Cneison compared the purported signatures of DR. Hezmall and Priscilla Kendall (Priscilla Sides) against Appellants' Known signature. DX. 159 and 160, RR.U7.p165 ms. Cneison was very confident confident that Appellant did NOT Force the name of Dr. Ant Hezmall in regards to WHC . DX. 139+190, RR.U7.p174 ms. Cneison was very confident that Appellant did NOT Force the name of Priscilla Kendall in regards to WHC . DX. 139+190, RR.U7.p179 ms. Cneison further testified that it is highly likely that MR. Azer signed DR. Ant Hezmall's signature in DX. 35 RR.U7.p185 ms. Cneison was very confident in her opinion that Appellant did NOT SEAS the consent to search form. $SX\mathrm{.14},DX\mathrm{.134}-140,RR.U7,p180$ ms. Cneison compared the Known signature of Priscilla Garza (Priscilla sides) against the alleged forged signature of Priscilla Kendall (Priscilla Sides) and ms. Cneison conclusion was that they were written by the same person. RR.U7p184 ms. Cneison further compared the signatures of Priscilla Garza, Priscilla Kendall and Rebecca Kendall and concluded that all three signature were "AUTHORS" by the same person—Priscilla Garza A/KA/An Priscilla Kendall (A/KA Priscilla Sides, DX. 134-190, RR.U7, p184, The jury should have heard Priscilla sides testimony on her Disorder.

*22 All the above testimony clearly shows that Mr John Pizer made, presented and used the force affidavits in WHC*6 without Appellant Known or premission, Mr Pizer violated 7ex, Penal Code Anw, $37.09 (a)(a)

Determinant Appellant, Real Willess Gneza, testified that he did NOT sign the application for WHC 6, RR. U7, p206 Appellant testified that he did NOT make the affidavit of DR. Pat Heemall or Priscilla Kendall (Priscilla sides) that were attached to WHC 6, 546, RR.U7, p206 Appellant denied that he instructed other to make those affidavits, RR.U7, p206. Appellant denied MAKING, Presenting, or using any false AEDidavits, RR.U7, p207 Appellant gave a false confession, Afee Young, tuen off the Audio tape before the written statement done, RR.U4, p.33434, Appellant was "dodsered" RR.U7p255-256 Appellants sister was being accused by Young, RR.U5, p9-21 and 23-25. Appellant was promise and coerce that if he would give Young a confession Appellant could keep his five volume 7erial Transcripts, he needed for a parole package, RR.U7, p269, RR.U8, p13-14/5, 21-24, 25 and (31), RR.U7, p. 207 Appellant knew that Pizer had downloaded WHC*6 and that it was missing, pnse and according to TRAp 75.1 the Cleak would mail it back RR.U7p211

Appellant testified that when he became aware there was a problem with WHC 6, he tried to protect MR. Pizer, because MR. Pizer was old, and he had previously made mistakes on a prior wait (WHC 5) that MR. Pizer had help Appellant prepare, RR.U7, p207-208, 210, 212-213

*23 Appellant "denied" that he Requested preparation of WHC #6 by MR. Pizer; he did NOT Request the Attachment of Any fake Affidavits; And, he did"not" Request that anyone else supply MR. Pizer with fake affidavits. AR.U7.p213-214 Appellant claimed that he was prepared to begin preparing his own WHC #6, but then he found out that priscones with Appetels in state of federal courts would probably not make parole - he was set to be prתוed in May, 2013. AR.U7p 214215.

Appellant "MUST" ... make, present and use documents [the affidavits]... with the intent to affect the course or outcome of the official proceedings [the filins of the writ]... CR. 210 para,anph II, Tex. Pew, C. $37.09(R)(2)

In late January or early February 2013, MR. Pizer sent Applant an unsigned draft of WHC#6, without any attached affidavits or other documents attached. AR. U7.p215-216 Appellant testified that without "consulting" him, and without his Knowledge, MR. Pizer mailed WHC #6 to the Hood District clerk. AR.U7, p217-218, 271-272 Appellant claimed that the first time that he saw the signed and filed WHC #6 was when MR. Young came to intereegate him at the Michael Unit prison facility. AR. U7, 230 The Video of the interegation of Appellant by MR. Young was published to the jury. AR.U7,p230, SX.13,UX.20-22

VERDICT During its closing, Argument, the state emphasized

*24 the parties' law of Terms, RR. US, p174 The State claimed, "there is only one person that these false documents and the false weit benefited," RR. US, p189

The Defense's closing emphasized that no actions were taken in that County, with the exception of the filins w1to 6and that was done by MA. Azer. AR, US, p176,179 Appellant had "No Knowledge" that the w1to 6 was even filed. AR, US, p176

The Jury did not understand the wording in the Indictment: During deliberations, the jury asked:

$$\&\text{Ql. does MA. Garzm have to have Knowledge of}\backslash \&\text{filins to be found suity?"AR, US, p190-191}\backslash \&\text{A. The Judge Refused to Answer the question; and}\backslash \&\text{Q2. Can you please difine "to wit" AR, US, p191}\backslash \&\text{A. The judge Refused to answer the question.}$$

The jury found the Appellant was suilty on count 1 (Pergury), and it found Appellant suilty on count 2 (temporing with or fabricating evidence). AR. US, p194-193

Appellant plied true to enhancement parasraph. #1 AR. US, p194 The jury sentenced Appellant to 20 years in 7001 with no fine. AR. US, p203

*25 ADELUMENT ANO AUTRORETIES UNOER POINT OF ERROR No. 2

Legal Sufficiency of the Evidence

Tex. Renal Code 837.09 (A) A person commits an offense if, Kocouins that An investigation or official proceedings is pendins or in progress, he:

The Appellants' jury found the Appellant Notguilty of Krowins that An investigation or official proceedings was pendins or in progress.

(2) makes, presents, or uses any Record, documents orthins with Knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceedings.

The Appellants' jury did not know what the word "to-wit" menst, found the Appellant Not Guilty in count1.

Drosky U. State, 915 S.CD.dd 120, 144 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1994, pot. refd.). "E]or A person's Actions to fall within... 837.09, A separate criminal offense must already have been committed; other wise, the actor could not knloco] that An investigation... is pendins."

The Court of Appeals erred in analyzins the Sufficiency of the Evidence. Accondins to Drosky U. State, Jury found the Appellant Not Guilty of Assaturated Arejury count1 a criminal offense. Appellant did not knloco] that Asppanate crime was committed until March 42013.

*26 The Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution protects Adefendants right to a fair trial; By the state was so sure that the Appellant had No rights under 4th Amendment; And did 'not need a search and seize warent, why did the Hood County investigate MR. Rebeet Kuns forged the Appellants Signature on a Consent to Search Feen? The presumption of Innocence is a basic component of that right. U.S. Const Amend. XIV, Tex. C. Caim. Proc. Aet. 38.03 Federal due process holds that a conviction is unconstitutional unless, after vievings the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosce cution, a Rational teies of fact could have found the essential elements of the ceime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson U. Uissinia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99.5Cf. 2781 ; CIL.Ed. 2d 500 (1979), MAUAiz U. State, 840 S.W. 2d 415,423 (Tex. Caim. App. 1952).

In 1979, the United States Supreme Court Recon- nized for the first time, in Jackson U. Uissinia, Federal, due process standard for sufficiency of the evidence, below which a state court conviction cannot be sustained. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 316-20 The Texts count of Cciminal Appeals has stated that there is no meaning ful difference between legal and factual sufficiency standards of evidenstion. Review claim. Greeks U. State, 323 S.W. 3d 893, 895, 912 (Tex. Caim. App. 2010). Thus, the Court of Cciminal Appeals uses only the Jackson standard in evialuating the sufficiency of the evidence to support "each element" of the charged offence.

Appellants jury found him "Not Guilt" in county I on Kivouins that an investigation or official proceedings was Bedings or in progress.

*27 Jackson, 493 U.S. at 316-20 IW adue process Review, the Reviewing count views all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the decision, to determine if any national terms of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Innsci u State, 330 S.00, 3d 633,638 (Tes. Caim. App.2010)

Appellants Jury found him "not Guilt" for presenting with the with the two fessed Affidavits and "knowing" that an official proceedings was in progress in Count I. Geott, set forth two straightforward ways in which evidence can be deemed to be factually insufficient: (1) when the evidence supporting the verdict is so "work" that the verdict seems clearly wrong and manifestly unjust; and (2) when the supporting evidence is outweighed by the great weight and preponderance of the contrary evidence, so as to render the verdict clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Geott' u State, 273 S.00, 3d 273, 283 (Tes. Caim. App.2008) The remedy is Reversal of the judgment for the Appellant. Geott, 273 S.00, 3d at 283, Tes. C. Caim. Reoc. Aft. 4425

When performing this review, the count must give due deference to the fact finders' assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence. Johnson U State, 23 S.00, 3d 1,100,20 (Tes. Caim. App. 2000) The count can find the evidence factually insufficient only where necessary to prevent manifest injustice. Aebers U. State, 220 S.00, 3d 521, 524 (Tes. Caim. App. 2007) To Reverse upon a determination of manifest injustice, the count must determine, with some objective basis in the record, that the great weight and preponderance of all the evidence, though legally sufficient, constendicts the verdict. Watson U. State, 204 S.00, 3d 404, 417 (Tes. Caim. App.2006); Johnson, 23 S.00, 3d at 11

*28 Apollonite Criminal Law Apollonitis Jary found him "Not Guilty of Drinkuwing that Aninvestigation or official proceedings was pending or in prosess. When wMCTE with two fereed affidavits was filled, "Count I."

Apeason commits tampering with, or fabricating, physical evidence if, knowing that an investigation or official proceedings is pending or in prosess, he makes, present, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its Eabity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or official proceedings. Tex. PRo. C. 337.09 (AIC) Thus, Knowledge that the statement is false is an essential Element of tampering with physical evidence. Tampering with or fabricating physical evidence concerns matters where the defendant has altered, destroyed, or concealed physical evidence." Careion U. State, 926.5 .00 .2 d 625 , 627 (Tex. App. — Eastland 1996, reh. overeuled) In order to $ent$ commit the offense of fabricating physical evidence as, alleged in the indictment, the teial record would have to show that Appellant made "the document or record, and with the Knowledge of its falsity, and used it to affect the outcome of the filing of WHC*6. Careion U. State, 926.5 .00 .2 d at 627.

Appollonitis Jary asked the Question, Does Raul Gnerz have to have Knowledge of the act of filing to be found guilty? R.R.Ug190-191 Jury found GARZA NOT Guilty of AAnvRS Knowledge that WHC*6 was filled with the two affidavits that was made, presented and used by MR. John Pizer.

*29 The Teial judge insteusted the Jany that Appellant (M)ust".... make, present and use documents [the Afidavits]... with the intent to affect the course of outcome of the official proceedings [the filins of the wort]. .." (Juny found Appellant no7 Guilty of this in count I filins of the wort #6) CR. 210 paragraph II, Tex. Am, C $37.09(A)(2) This insteuction increased the burden on the state, and it required the juay to find culpability on the part of the Appellant beyond required by the statute. CR.100, AR.1, Tex. Am, C. $\$37.09$ includes two different culpable mental states - knowledges and intent. Tex. Am, C. $\$37.09$ , Stewart U. State, 240 S, 403 d 872 , 874 (Tex. crim. App. 2007), williams U. State, 270 S, 40, 3d 140, 142 (Tex. crim. App. 2008) Section 37.09(A)(2) Requires that the Acton present the evidence with the requisite knowledge that the evidence is false and with the intent that the evidence would affect the outcome of the official proceedings. Waldron U. State, 219 S, 40, 3d, 531, 535 (Tex. App. - Texakana 2007) Asain Appellants Juny found him 'No7 Guilty' in count I of knowledge of the intent of filins an writ Habers Corpus #6 with two forced Afidavits or knowing that investigation of official proceedings was pending or in progress. Therefore count 2 was part of count I.

John Pizen is the person who had written to Or. Hezmal and Priscilla Kendall (Priscilla sides). AR.U7, p64 MR. Pizen" prepared" the Afidavits for Or. Ant Hezmaill and Priscilla Kendall's (Priscilla sides) signatures. AR.U7, p.79, 0x, 120, 122, 422 Pizen received both Afidavits that appeared to be sizwed by Or. Hezmal and Priscilla sides. AR.U7,p80,82-83 MR. Pizen Assembled and mailed with #6. to that county. District cleel from Arizona. AR.U7,p81-82

*30 MR. PizeR SIsnod Appellant's NANNG isis tend of his COON NANE, when flies wHC*6. RR. U2p225-276, RR. U8p.163, 5K.6 DR. Hezmal's and Peiscilln Kendall's (Peiscilln sided AfRidauits, both Contained Notrey stamps that weeE on documents "contained" within MR. PizeR's files. RR.U7, p88-90, 0x.123, 5x.26-27

MR. PizeR DRdmitted that Appellant had not reguested that Pizee file wHC*6 R. U7, p97 MR. Pizee testified that at [200 time did Appellant Request that Pizee ceente false documents to Aduance Appellant's case, RR.U7, p86. MR. Pizee testified that he never witnessed Appellant'pepperitus or usins' false affidavits of DRoguestins that such affidavits be used in his case, RR.U7, p97-98

There is Dido evidence that showed that Appellant did "make, present and use false documents" Cee, 210 pRRS, graph 11, Tex. Pbn. C. 37,09, WAldeop U. State, 219 SUG 3d at 535 Appellant neither made produced and used the AfRidavits complained of, nor according to MR. John Pizee's testimony, did Appellant attempt to induce MR. Pizee into usins false AfRidavits, MR. John Pizee "alone" was the party Responsible for producins, siswins and flies wHe*6, with Dido involvement, input or evenfplemission from Appellant.

Under Jackson, a juy may dean a ReASONAble inference, SO long as the inference is supported by the evidence, a juy is NOT permitted to assume a conclusion based on speculation or a factually unsupported inference or presumption, ACOPPER U. State, 214 SUG. 3d 9, 15 (Tex. Ccim. App. 2007) A conclusion REAched by speculation may not be completely unreasonable, but it is not sufficiently based on facts or evidence to support

*31 A findins beyound A Renounable doubt Hooper a state, 2nd SUD, 3d at 16.

Appellants' jury did "not understand the Glansuase rore the Ellefinition of a word in the indictment; Appellants' jury Asked two questions while considerins their verdict: (1)"does MR. GARZA have to have Knowledge of the Act of films to be found switt? "Cruets Response "I cannot Answer your question." (a) Can you please define "to-wit? Ccuets Response, I cannot answer your question" $RR,Usp/90-191$

Appellants' jury was Blantused to the detaiment of Apporlant. The jury baby-split the verdict, Apporllant was found NOT Guilly of Asgeguated Reajury and of films with 46 either Actins Alone or with MR. John Rizere as a party to the offense, cR. 270, paragroph 9 Also in commit I Appellant was found NOT Guilly of Knowing that an investigation or an official proceedings was in progress.

Due-process Requires that Appen's courts Revese, the Appen' Courts ERROR by Not ordering a judgment of acgcuitral, if a rationaljury would entertain a Reasonable doubt As to a defendant's suit, Swerenissen u state, 101 SUD, 3d. 89, 85 (Tev. Crim. App.2003)

*32

Point of Error No. 3 Restarted

Judge Walton, Jr, should have been Disqualified from Pessidins over the trial of the case

STATEMENT OF FACTS UNIDER POINT OF ERROR No. 3

Price to the trial of the case, on January 13, 2014, A pectrial henering was had regardless the Defense's Motion to Recuse or Disqualify Judge Ralph Walton, 355th Judicial District Judge, CR.57, RR. SU1, p1 (Reporter's Supplemental Volume1) Jeff Walker, Regional judge for the 8th Administrative Region, peesided, RR. SU1, p1. Mark Ritand was peesent for the Defense and Rebeet Chistion was for the State, RR. SU1, P2

Appellant, Raul U. Gneza, gave defense Attorney MR. Ritand two complaint on Judge Walton, Jr that was filed to the "State Commission of Judicial Conduct" that he filed, DX 34, RR. U1, P224.

Appellant, was called to testify at the hearings, RR. SU1, P9. Appellant testified that Judge Rulph Walton, Jr, Represented him while in private practice on a sexual abuse case in September 1998, RR. SU1, P9 Appellant claimed that the defense of that case involved the same defense - Among them, impotency - that Appellant used in defense of his later case (Couse No.9232) in 2004, when Appellant was repere sented by Andreeo otraway, RR. SU1, P9

Appellant was convicted in that case, cause No. 9232,

*33 And sentenced to peison, Judse Walton, JR. was the presiding judge in that case, PR, SU1, P 9-10. Appellant Requested that defense Attorney MR. Othnory pursue Recusal or disqual- ification of Judse Walton, JR. because of Judse Walton's precious representation of the Appellant, but MR. Othnory failed to pursue the motion to excuse or disqualify Judse Walton and refused or failed to subpoena Judse Walton to be a defensive witness in the case 9232, PR, SU1, P10

Appellant testified that he believed that Judse Walton's past employment as his counsel and Judse Walton's involvement in the prior trial and his review of each WHC 1,2,3,4,5, would make it difficult for Judse Walton to be impartial in the current case regarding WHC 16, PR, SU1, P11

Judge Walton was "Opratial" in this trial, CR-12706, first Judge Walton "Grant" the following motions: (A) For discovery of Arrest and conviction recous of State's witness; (B) For production of evidence favorable to the Accused; (C) for discovery of exculpatory, mitigating evidence: $BR03,\rho 24$

Judge Walton, stated that this trial cr-12706 as perated perjury would be restricted to the relevant of this case only that this is not California, we've not going to try things that are not relevant to the issue in this indictment. $BR04\rho 102-103$ . Defense Attorney MR. Hiland stated, It would be his hly prejudicial, Sone House, for All that information to

*34 Come About, Indecency with a child, without him knows an opportunity to tay to proue his Innocence an thit. RR. 44, p102. Most of the interview between Mr. Young and the Appellant was about his bith defects, could be unsturbate, did the Appellant play with himself. Sx1, 243. RR. $17\mathrm{A}235-242$

Judge Walton, Reverse his order of Gennting the Appellants three motions Aboue and Cunsh them. RR. 44, p99110. Which included Dr. C. O'Toole and Gay Johnson investigate for $AA$ ; office. And Gay Johnson was in the interview and in each with 1-5 filled by Appellant.

Judge Walton overruled an objection of goins any thins fuether about $DR$ . O'Toole because he was subpoensed to be here and the Count guashed his subpoena. RR. $17p127-129$ The State was the one who filed those medical Record of MR. Gaerar which has no Detevant" to this case of Asseronted Panjung. RR. 46, p168, Ox 56 .

Judge Walton sustained an objection by the State G9 times, Judge Walton overrule by the objection of Defense Attranceg 82 time, Judge Walton was very pratikal in this case fowarable to State.

Judge Walton told Mr. Aland, Defense Attrance, about the days oftrial, "Well, Sure, you know, that's your problem." RR. $17,\rho 75$ Judge Walton Knew that the Jury was sittine confused "We got abis problem here.... This Jury RR. $18\rho 168$ Judge Walton was very BIASED" to Defense in this case.

*35

Appellant further testified that, in his opinion, Jadse Walton had testimony that would help the defense regardless the content of the attachment to whoth, includins, but not limited to, the letter from Dr. Hezmall to Dr. O'Toole, a copy of which is the second page of Sx. 26 , which was [Allmitted during the trial of this case, RR. SU, p15-16, SX, 26

During the hearing, defense counsel And Jadse Walton discussed a part of the Appellants claim of why Jadse Walton should be disqualified. Appellant believed that Jadse Walton should be called as a defense witness in the case, RR. SU, p16-17. Specifically, Appellant wanted Jadse Walton available to testify as a witness, RR. SU, p20-21

During the trial of this case, the Jury tenened that previously Appellant had filed grievances against Jadse Walton. RR. US, p153-154 Appellant had contemporaneously made complaints against Jadse Walton. As well, RR. US, p153-154.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES UNIVER POINTOF EERON

NO. 3

The issue in this case is: Does a judge have the Authority to act when he is statutorily disqualified? Case two has long supported that a disqualifications of a trial judge was jurisdictional, and the issue could be raised for the first time on Appell. Whitehead U. State, 273 SU, 3d 285, 289 (Tex. Ccim. App, 2008; Reh. den.) (conscuering opinion, Justices Johnson and Cochern) Though jurisdiction is something possessed by

*36 Courts, the judge, as an officer of the court with the authority of a judge, is incident to, and attaches to, the jurisdiction of the court itself. Ex parte George, 913 s. 2 d 523 Ctef. Caim. App. (995), 48 A.C.J.S. Judges Section 54 (1981). There fere, jurisdiction includes the power of the court over the subject matter and the person before the court. Whitehend it state, 273 s. 40 2d at 289 . "Even consenting parties cannot waive jurisdictional defects." Ex parte Vivier, 699 s. 40 2d 842,843 (Tee, Caim. App. 1985).

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 30, ol provides: "No judge or justice of the peace [3]hall sit in any case where he may be the party injured, or where he has been of course! for the state or the accused, or where the accused or the party injured may be connected with him by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, as determined undue chapter 573, Government Code." Whitehend U state, 273 s. 40 3d at 287288 ; Exparte Vivier, 699 s. 40 2d at 843

The Court of criminal Appeals has theorized that the legislative intent behind Article 30, ol may also have been to avoid the spectacle of having a teia Court judge peeside over a teial in which he might be called as a witness. Tex Court ofCriminal Prec., Article 30,01, SEE TEX, R. Evid. 605 Whitehend U state, 273 s. 40 3d at 288 The earlist version of this statute was enacted in 1879, and it was identical in All pertinent respects to the present Version. January 4 , State, 36 Tex. Caim. 488, 38 S.40,179,178 (1894).

*37 A tein/udse's judgment is woid, if he had been, or should have been, disqualified from presidins at the teia. Whitehend $U$ State, 2735003 d at 280, 285-289, Wilson U State, 7775002 d 379,380 m 3 (Tex. Caim. App 1998), Exprets Vivie, 6995 U , 2 d at 863 The count of Ccimina/Appeals weole that Article 30,0 Reflected a "Competins policy peotecting against the Appearance of judicial bias" And that simply because there was no injury to the judse alleged in the indietment, that did not diminish the concen that he would be peceivied by the public as a biased kebiter, Whitehend U State, 2735003 d at 287-288 Thus, A count should interpeet the opening clause of Article 30,0 to mean that a teia count judse, in any particular criminal prosecution "that may be the praty injured," is theefore disqualified from presidins over the teia. Whitehend U State, 2735003 d at 288-89 Evidence that a judse is a victim in a case, goes boyand the criminal transsaction at issue, And it includes Actions by the judse or Situations in which the judse is involved, such that a reasonable person would babeo doubts as to his impatiality, Whitehend U. state, 273 5,003d at 288-289

Clearly, Judse Watton was involved in recelving, akevicunins And making orders relative to WHC 4 and All of the other werits (1-5) that had been filled pee viously in the case and that were entered into evidence by the state, SK, 1-6 And 18-68 (inclusive) Judse Watton was a witness to the werits filled in the case and Appellant had expressed an opinion that Judse Watton was a likely defensive witness - facts that Appellant cleaely brought to the attention of the Administrative, judse at the-

*38 pre-teial hearings. Lackey U. State, 344 S.CO. 21837,846 (Tex. Caim. App, 2012), Lankston U. State, 827 S. 40.22807 , 809 (Tex. Caim. App 1992) Additionally, Judge Waltan had mepresented Appellant in a peioe case, one with similar facts and similae defenses.

The Disteict Attorney, to his credit, accused himself and delegated his peosecution duties to a special peosecutor, and, the Disteict Attorney may not have had as many, noe as involved contacts (defensive or otherwise), co is the Appellant, as did Judse Waltan.

Even in civil cases, a judge shall be accused in any proceedings in which the judges impurtiality might reassomably be questioned. Tex. P. Cio. P. 186 (2)(A) The depeinations of a defendant's right to a teial before an impurtial judge is a structural defect in the teial. Anizonar U. Fulminante, 489 U.S.279, 309-10, 111 S.C. 1246, 113 LEd. 2d 302 (1991) Structural ERROR is not subject to harmless erroe analysis. Anizonar U. Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 308-10, Caim U. state, 847 S. 40.22262 , 244 (Tex. Caim. App. 1992) Therefore, even if an Appellate court is convinced that a disqualified judge's involvement in a case was harmless, that involvement still requires "REVERSAL" of the case. Buckett U. state, 196 S. 40.22872,846 (Tex. App Texankann 2000)

Judge Waltan should have been found to be statutorily, disqualified from presiding at Appellant's teial. Lackey U. State, 344 S. 40 , 3d at 849 Discretionary Acts by a disqualified judge creante Reversible" ERROR. Lackey U. state, 344 S. 40.3 d at 849

*39

Burkett U. State, 1965,40,3d at 894 The Resultins judgment of conviction should be ruled a nullity. White hend U. state, 2735,00,3d at 289 Appellant asks this court to overrule the court of Appeals opinion and order.

Point of effor no. 4 Restated

The Evidence is legally insufficient to support the Judgés order that Appellant any Attendees' fees and costs.

STATEMENT OF Facts Under Point of EPROR NO. 4 The Court of Appeals and District of Texas did have 10,880,27 Removed from lower Court order. Appellant asks that if this court find effor any in any Point that it would overrule the court of Appeals order. And remove the 436,00 of court costs.

*40

CONCLUSION

Appellant's documents inside his peison cell were protected by the $4^{\text{th}}$ Amendment. Appellant was coerce and in duress to seve MR. Youngs a false confession so Appellant could keep his five Trial Tannscripts (2.322.00). State had no warant to search or seize Appellant's exesorsal and legal files, So MR. Youngs turn off his records and force Appellants' sismature on a consent to search form. Now, ${}^{\text{or}}$

Therefore Appellants written and oral statement gathered by DAs investigator Robert Young as a result of using the tainted documents should be suppressed.

The evidence does not support Appellants' suit to the charge. John Azee made, prepared and used the force documents when he assembled and filed work, with out any direction from Appellant;

Judge Walter should have been found to be statutorily disqualified from presiding at Appellants' fatal. This amount to jurisdictional erroe, and the resultins judgment of conviction should be ruled a nullity.

Appellant asks this Count to revees the count of Apoenls order of 436.00 to be taken from Appellants Account.

*41

PRAYER

Appellant asks this Court to Reviea the recood. And this Motion for RQ.R. And to make any oedees for further proceedings consistent with all of the rists And protectrions Appollant is due under the law. Appollant asks for all other Relief to oolich he may be entitled.

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have on this 25 day of June, 2015, mailed this R.AR. to the criminal of Appeals in Müstin Eron Michael Mail Room here in Michael Unit, Tewn, Colony, Texas 75886.

*42

Texas: Colorado: 3021 Ridge Road, Suite A-130 Rockwall, Texas 75032 Phone: (214) 458-6009 Fax: (303) 265-9087

1550 Larimer Street, Suite 251 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: (303) 330-8636 Fax: (303) 265-9087

Wendy Carlson

Expert Document Examiner www.AmericasHandwritingExpert.com ws.carlson@yahoo.com

Questioned Document Examiner Letter

January 5, 2015 Subject: Robert Young I have examined five (5) documents with the signatures of Robert Young. For the purpose of this examination I have labeled these exhibits 'S1' through 'S5'.

Today I have compared the signatures of Robert Young on the ' $S$ ' documents to the Raul Villegas Garza signature on the questioned document, labeled herein as 'Q6' to determine if the author of the Robert Young signatures on the ' $S$ ' documents was the same person who signed the name of Raul Villegas Garza on the questioned document: a Consent to Search form dated 3/4/13, purportedly signed by Raul Villegas Garza.

Handwriting is not only handwriting but also "brain" writing. Handwriting is formed by repeated habits of writing by the author that are created by neural pathways established in the brain. These neural pathways control muscular and nerve movement for writing, whether the writing is executed by hand, foot, or mouth. An examination of handwriting includes establishing patterns of writing habits to help identify the author.

A meticulous examination and side-by-side comparison of the questioned signatures was conducted using the unaided eye, handheld magnifying loupes, photocopy enlargements and metric measuring devices. The scientific methodology used in this examination consists of the "ACE" method, which stands for "Analyze, Compare and Evaluate," the same method reportedly used by the FBI, the U.S. Treasury Department and U.S. Postal Service in their questioned document laboratories. This method was also accepted and affirmed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Case No. 08-CF-1361, Pettis v. United States.

My hypothesis was formed without bias as to authorship of the questioned handwriting and signature. My examination revealed significant similarities present in the questioned handwriting and signature when compared to the known handwriting and signatures. All tests were done with accepted scientific methodology, techniques, and scientific instruments, which helped to confirm authorship of the questioned signature.

*43

Letter of Opinion regarding Robert Young January 5, 2015 Page 2 of 2

Based on my scientific examination and agreement of the unique, identifiable handwriting characteristics and the measurable distinctions in the questioned handwriting and signature, it is my professional expert opinion that it is highly probable that the same person who authored the name of Robert Young on the ' $S$ ' documents was also the author of name of Raul Villegas Garza on the questioned document. Robert Young did highly probably author the name of Raul Villegas Garza on the questioned document 'Q6'.

I am willing to testify to this fact in a court of law and I will prove to the Court that my opinion is correct. My Curriculum Vitae is attached and incorporated herein by reference.

Respectfully submitted,

Wenty

State of Texas County of Rockwall The above Letter of Opinion was subscribed before me by Wendy Carlson this of January, 2015.

Wenty Carlson

*44

Consent to Search

1. You have the right to remain silent
2. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a Court of Law.
3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questunied. or at anytime you choose.
4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questuning, if you wish.
5. You have the right to stop answering questions anytime you chose.
6. You have the right to refuse permission to search your property, whether owned, leased, or under your control, without a valid search warrant.
7. Anything found in, on, or about your property may be seized and used as evidence against you in a Court of Law.

State of Texas.
County of Hood

(1)Tice to search the following:

• Vehicle located at: $$ $$ Make: $$ Model: $$ Color: $$ i.icense Number: $$ V/in a $$ (including containers and contents located therein. $$ Ipartment / House located at: $$ Including: $$

-1 understand that I have the right to refuse consent to the search described above and to refuse to sign this form.

I further state that no promises, threats, force, or physical or mental coercion of any kind whatsoever have been use against me to get me to consent to the search described above or to sign this form.

DATE: $5/5/12$ TIME: $\angle 673$ AM/6/1

*45

Consent to Search

1. You have the right to remain silent
2. Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a Court of Law.
3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned, or at anytime you choose.
4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questioning, if you wish.
5. You have the right to stop answering questions anytime you chose.
6. You have the right to refuse permission to search your property, whether owned, lensed, or under your control, without a valid search warrant.
7. Anything found in, on, or about your property may be seized and used as evidence against you in a Court of Law.

State of Texas.
County of Hood

(1) The to search the following:

Vehicle located at $$ Vehicle described as: Year ...... Make: ....... Model ................. (Color: .......... License Number: $$ Vint $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ including containers and contents located therein. $$ Apartment / House located at: $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$ $$

1 understand that I have the right to refuse consent to the search described above and to refuse to sign this form. I further state that no promises, threats, force, or physical or mental coercion of any kind whatsoever have been use against me to get me to consent to the search described above or to sign this form.

DATE: $3/4/15$ TIME: $\sqrt{8}\pm 1$ WEB

*46

Hood County District Attomey

${388}^{\text{th}}$ Judicial District VOLUNTARY STATEMENT

CASE 8

FULL NAME HdULD Housshreed DATE OF SIRTH 14/31/1960 HOME ADDRESS 26645 FON 20542 Mielhad unit DATE 3/6/2013 HOME PHONE WORK PHONE TIME STARTED OL NUMBER 22363576 3OCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 467-31-2959

Before answering any questions or making any statements, Envoettgator Refeirt Young, a person who identified himself or herself as an investigator for the Hood County District Attorney, duly warned and advised me, and I know and understand that I have the following rights:

1. HAVIE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT ALL AND ANY STATEMENT I MAKE MAY BE USED AGAINST ME AT MY TRIAL.
2. ANY STATEMENT I MAKE MAY BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ME IN COURT.
3. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT TO ADVISE ME PRIOR TO AND DURING ANY QUESTIONING.
4. IF I AM UNABILS TO EMPLOY A LAWYER, THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER APPORTED TO ADVISE ME PRIOR TO AND DURING ANY QUESTIONING.
5. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW AT ANY TIME.

Fully understanding my rights, I hereby knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily wrave my right to remain silent, and my right to have a lawyer present while I make the following statement to the aforesaid person, knowing that I have the right and privilege to terminate any interview at any time hereafter and have a lawyer present with me before answering any more questions or making any more statements, if I choose to do so.

I declare that the following voluntary statement is made of my own free will without promise of hope or reward, without fear or threat of physical harm, without coercion, favor or offer of favor, without teniency or offer of teniency, by any person or persons whoresoever.

*47

Hood County District Attorney 358th Judicial District VOLUNTARY STATEMENT

CASE 8

FULL NAME $$ DATE OF BIRTH $$

HOME ADDRESS $$ DATE $$

HOME PHONE $$ WORK PHONE $$ TIME STARTED $$

DL NUMBER

$$ SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER $$ Before answering any questions or making any statements, Investigator Robert Young, a person who identified himself or herself as an Investigator for the Hood County District Attorney, duly warned and advised me, and I know and understand that I have the following rights:

1. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT ALL AND ANY STATEMENT I MAKE MAY BE USED AGAINST ME AT MY TRIAL.
2. ANY STATEMENT I MAKE MAY BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ME IN COURT.
3. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT TO ADVISE ME PRIOR TO AND DURING ANY QUESTIONING.
4. IF I AM UNABLE TO EMPLOY A LAWYER, THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER APPONTED TO ADVISE ME PRIOR TO AND DURING ANY QUESTIONING.
5. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW AT ANY TIME.

Fully understanding my rights, I hereby knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive my right to remain silent, and my right to have a lawyer present while I make the following statement to the aforesaid person, knowing that I have the right and privilege to terminate any interview at any time hereafter and have a lawyer present with me before answering any more questions or making any more statements, if I choose to do so. I declare that the following voluntary statement is made of my own free will without promise of hope or reward, without fear or threat of physical harm, without coercion, favor or offer of favor, without leniency or offer of leniency, by any person or persons whomsoever.

I have read each page of this statement consisting of $$ pagers), each page of which bears my signature, and corrections if any, bear my 'awyer before or during any part of this statement, nor at any time before it was finished did I request that this statement be stopped I also

TIME COMPLETED $$ DATE COMPLETED $$

WITNESS $$

*48

Hood County District Attomey 388 ${}^{\text{th}}$ Judicial District VOLUNTARY STATEMENT

CASE 8

FULL NAME $$ DATE OF BIRTH $$ HOME ADDRESS $$ DATE $$ HOME PHONE $$ WORK PHONE $$ TIME STARTED $$ OL NUMBER $$ SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER $$ Before answering any questions or making any statements, Investigator Robert Young, a person who identified himself or herself as an Investigator for the Hood County District Attorney, duly warned and advised me, and I know and understand that I have the following rights:

1. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND NOT MAKE ANY STATEMENT AT ALL AND ANY STATEMENT I MAKE MAY BE USED AGAINST ME AT MY TRIAL.
2. ANY STATEMENT I MAKE MAY BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST ME IN COURT.
3. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER PRESENT TO ADVISE ME PRIOR TO AND DURING ANY QUESTIONING.
4. IF I AM UNABLE TO EMPLOY A LAWYER, THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER APPOINTED TO ADVISE ME PRIOR TO AND DURING ANY QUESTIONING.
5. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE INTERVIEW AT ANY TIME.

Fully understanding my rights, I hereby knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive my right to remain silent, and my right to have a lawyer present while I make the following statement to the aforesed person, knowing that I have the right and privilege to terminate any interview at any time hereafter and have a lawyer present with me before answering any more questions or making any more statements, if I choose to do so.

I declare that the following voluntary statement is made of my own free will without promise of hope or reward, without fear or threat of physical harm, without coercion, favor or offer of favor, without leniency or offer of leniency, by any person or persons whomeoever.

I have read each page of this statement consisting of $$ pagristl. each page of which bears my signature, and corrections if any bear my initials, and I canily that the facts contained herein are true and correct. I further canily that I made no request for the advice or presence of a lawyer before or during any part of this statement, nor at any time before it was finished did I request that this statement be stopped I also leclare that I was not told or prompted what to say in this statement.

TIME COMPLETE $$ DATE COMPLETE $$ WITNESS $$ $x106$

*49 Faith Olson

Priscilla Kindle Sides State's Motion to Quash - CR12706 - Raul V. Garza

*50

Texas: $◻$ 3021 Ridge Road, Suite A-130 Rockwall, Texas 75032 Phone: (214) 458-6009 Fax: (303) 265-9087

Colorado: 1550 Larimer Street, Suite 251 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone: (303) 330-8636 Fax: (303) 265-9087

Wendy Carlson

Expert Document Examiner www.AmericasHandwritingExpert.com ws.carlson@yahoo.com

Curriculum Vitae

Qualifications:

Wendy Carlson is a Certified Forensic Document Examiner and Registered Investigator. Ms. Carlson has been qualified as an Expert by State, Local, and Federal courts and has testified in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming. She has studied handwriting and document examination and apprenticed under some of the leading court-qualified Forensic Document Experts in the U.S.A. Wendy has been appointed by federal and state court judges to render opinions on handwriting issues in Colorado and Texas and has completed forensic document examinations for government entities such as Grand Prairie Police Department, Hill County and State Bar of Texas in Texas; Offices of the State or Federal Public Defenders in Nevada, New York and Wyoming; Office of the General Counsel in Oklahoma; Buena Vista Police Department, Chaffee County Sheriff's Department, and City and County of Denver in Colorado.

In the last six years, Ms. Carlson has examined more than 10,000 documents and rendered opinions in approximately 850 active cases and multiple peer reviews involving questioned signatures, altered documents, handwritings, legal contracts, court documents, anonymous writing, and graffiti. Ms. Carlson has rendered opinions on documents from clients in the following states and foreign countries: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Washington D.C., Albania, Bahamas, Canada, Chile, Cook Islands, Estonia, Haiti, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Liberia, London, Morocco, New Zealand and Ukraine. Ms. Carlson has examined documents and rendered opinions for handwriting comparisons written in Afghani, Arabic, Chinese, Eastern Indian, English, Greek, Korean and Spanish writing.

Ms. Carlson's expertise was featured in CNN, The Dallas Morning News, and The Houston Chronicle, as well as investigative reports by ABC's The Denver Channel and CBS4 in Denver, Colorado. Ms. Carlson was hired by the State of Colorado's Denver Election Division to teach employees how to identify a questioned signature prior to the 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 local and national elections.

Forensic Examination Provided For:

Disputed documents or questioned signatures on wills, checks, contracts, deeds, account ledgers, suspect documents, forgeries, identity theft, anonymous letters and writings, alterations, obliterations, erasures, typewritten documents, altered medical records, graffiti, handwritten numbers, computerized and/or handwritten documents, suicide notes, and autograph authentication.

Education:

International School of Forensic Document Examination, Los Angeles, California, 2007-2009 Certification after completion of a two-year course and apprenticeship under leading authorities in the field of Forensic Document Examination and Handwriting Identification from the International School of Forensic Document Examination. Attended weekly classes, lectures and teleseminars from Court Qualified Document Examiners and Instructors Bart Baggett, Robert Baier, Don Lehew, and Beth Chrisman. Prepared for, observed, and testified in actual court trials.

Twelve years experience assisting multiple trial attorneys in case and trial presentation, 1996-2008

*51

American College of Forensic Examiners International Certification after Completion of Registered Investigator Course, July 2010 Certification after Completion of Crime Scene Investigation Course, November 2010 Certification after Completion of Digital Forensics Introduction Course, November 2010 American Institute of Applied Science, Inc. Completed lessons and exams for Questioned Documents course, April 2012

Specific Areas of Training:

Handwriting Identification and Discrimination, Signature Comparison, Techniques for Distinguishing Forged Signatures, Disguised Handwriting, Hand Printing, Block Printing, Altered Numbers, Anonymous Writing, Factors that Affect Writing, Altered Documents, Trial and Deposition Preparation, Document and Exhibit Preparation for Court, Discriminating Elements of Handwriting, Obliterated Writing, Ethics Requirements of a Document Examiner.

Laboratory Equipment and Library Available for Use in Examination:

Richter Optica S6.6 LCD Stereo Zoom Microscope with screen and camera, handheld magnifying devices and loupes of $3x-20x$ , Light Tracer light box, protractor, metric measuring devices, portable black light, Kodak 10x Optical IS digital camera, iMac computer and software, 21.5-inch flat screen monitor, multiple scannesr, printers and copiers. Various books and articles on document examination, handwriting, and hundreds of detailed case studies from actual cases.

Professional Memberships:

American College of Forensic Examiners International Center of Forensic Profiling Forensic Expert Witness Association Forensic Handwriting Institute IMS ExpertServices Sheriff's Association of Texas Texas Police Association

Publications:

How to Spot a Forgery Working With an Expert Witness

Lectures, Seminars and Continuing Education:

11/12/08 The Scope and Sources of Document Examination; Professor: Bart Baggett 12/03/08 Science, Scientific Method, and Writing Identification; Professor: Bart Baggett 12/10/08 Review and Discussion of American Society for Testing and Materials; Professor: Bart Baggett 12/12/08 Assistance in preparation and observation of forgery trial held in the Bahamas with C. L. Baggett 02/18/09 Understanding the Trial; Professor: Bart Baggett 02/28/09 Real Case Mock Trial 03/11/09 A Guide to Law and the Courts, and Rules of Evidence; Professor: Bart Baggett 03/25/09 Real Case Mock Trial 06/23/07 Trial and deposition appearance, testimony, and presentation; Lecturer: Carolyn West 07/02/09 ASTM Guidelines; Professor: Bart Baggett 07/09/09 Jury Selection and an Understanding the Law and the Courts; Real Case Mock Trial; Professor: Bart Baggett 07/23/09 The Rules and Future Challenges to the Expert; Professor: Bart Baggett 09/25/09 Critical Incident Stress: Statement Analysis and Interview v. Interrogation; Instructor: Faith Wood 01/28/10 Working with the Expert Witness...the Plaintiff Attorney's Prospective; Lecturer: Windle Turley, Esq. 07/15/10 Certification after Completion of Registered Investigator Course, ACFEI, July 2010 08/14/10 Forensic Document Examination Seminar training and instruction with Professor Bart Baggett and Instructor Robert Baier

*52 | 08/14/10 | Identity Theft and Prevention; Instructor Robert Baier | | :--: | :--: | | 08/15/10 | Testing of students for Certification at Handwriting University | | 08/31/10 | Introduction to Forensic Document Examination; Instructors Bart Baggett and Beth Chrisman | | 09/29/10 | Attendance and observation of deposition held in Texas with C. L. Baggett | | 10/01/10 | Lecturer and Instructor - Introduction to Forensic Document Examination, Clear Lake High School, Houston, Texas | | 11/08/10 | CLE: Demystifying Daubert: Daubert's Effect on Your Work as an Expert Witness; presented by The TASA Group, Inc. | | 11/16/10 | Certification after Completion of Crime Scene Investigation Course, ACFEI, November 2010 | | 11/16/10 | Certification after Completion of Digital Forensics Introduction Course, ACFEI, November 2010 | | 04/15/11 | Lecturer and Instructor - "How to Spot a Forgery", Denver Elections Division, Denver, Colorado | | 03/08/12 | Continuing research on Science and the Scientific Method | | 03/11/12 | Continuing research on the Significance of Measurements in Forensic Document examination | | 04/02/12 | Continuing research on Disguised Handwriting | | 04/06/12 | Completed American Institute of Applied Science, Inc. lessons and exams for Questioned Documents course | | 06/08/12 | Lecturer and Instructor - "How to Spot a Forgery", Denver Elections Division, Denver, Colorado | | 08/17/12 | Attendance and observation of criminal trial with Bart Baggett, Expert QDE, in Los Angeles, California | | 10/12/12 | Lecturer and Instructor - Refresher Course: "How to Spot a Forgery", Denver Elections Division, Denver, Colorado | | 10/16/12 | Continuing research regarding ESIGN, electronic documents and records, and electronic signatures | | 12/15/12 | Speaker - Holographic Wills and Signatures, Military Order of Purple Hearts Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas | | 02/05/13 | Speaker - Introduction to the Science of Handwriting and Document Examination, Jesuit College Preparatory School, Forensic Science Department, Dallas, Texas | | 02/21/13 | Speaker - Introduction to the Science of Handwriting and Document Examination, Irma Lerma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School, Dallas, Texas | | 02/20/14 | Expert Witnesses and Lawyers Caught Off Guard: Lessons Learned, EJ Janik, Gary Kessler, Esq. | | 10/18/13 | Lecturer and Instructor - "How to Spot a Forgery", Denver Elections Division, Denver, Colorado | | 05/14/14 | Continuing research on handwriting of individuals with Parkinson's Disease | | 06/06/14 | Lecturer and Instructor - "How to Spot a Forgery", Denver Elections Division, Denver, Colorado | | 06/23/14 | Instruction and Training of new ballot and voter signature input equipment and software, Denver Elections Division, Denver, Colorado | | 01/19/15 | Lecture and Presentation/Training - "How to Spot a Forgery", Colorado County Clerks Association, Pueblo, Colorado |