Bruce Lynn Christensen v. State

CLERK’S RECORD VOLUME _1__ OF _1__ TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2001CR4986 IN THE _226TH___ DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, HONORABLE SID HARLE, PRESIDING BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN VS STATE OF TEXAS DELIVERED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 4TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ON Wednesday, October 08, 2014. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT: VINCENT DENNIS CALLAHAN PO BOX 12141 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78212-0141 PHONE: 210/737-3404 FAX: 210/737-3404 DONNA KAY MCKINNEY DISTRICT CLERK BEXAR COUNTY Cynthia Gomez BY : /s/ CYNTHIA GOMEZ APPEALS CLERK 1  CAUSE NO. 2001CR4986 BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN DEFENDANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT VS. 226TH JUDICIAL THE STATE OF TEXAS BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS INDEX CLERK’S RECORD COVER SHEET.......................................................................... 1 INDEX............................................................................................................................ 2-3 APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 ............................................................................... 4-22 FILE STAMPED ON 05-07-2012 PG 4****** APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ................................................... 23-29 FILE STAMPED ON 06-09-2014 PG 23****** PETITION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING – MOTION FOR BENCH WARRANT ............................................................................................................. 30-108 FILE STAMPED ON 06-12-2014 PG 30****** ORDER .................................................................................................................. 109-118 SIGNED ON 06-13-2014 PG 118****** APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS ............................................... 119-125 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION .................................... 126-149 FILE STAMPED ON 06-18-2014 PG 126****** NOTICE OF APPEAL ......................................................................................... 150-151 FILE STAMPED ON 10-06-2014 PG 150****** DESIGNATION OF RECORD ........................................................................... 152-154 FILE STAMPED ON 10-06-2014 PG 152****** NOTICE OF APPEAL ......................................................................................... 155-156 FILE STAMPED ON 10-06-2014 PG 155****** DESIGNATION OF RECORD ........................................................................... 157-158 2 PETITION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING – MOTION FOR BENCH WARRANT .......................................................................................................... 159-173 ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................. 174 CRIMINAL APPEALS CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS ............................................................................. 175 CERTIFICATE ............................................................................................................ 176 3  FILED ___O'CLOC](~M Case No. ~OD l ~L}0~ (p- 'tJ 3 MAY 0 7 2014 (The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.) IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07 NAME: mu:E LYNII with. trial counsel he would have been"greatly.chilled in that crosss" or as here unable to cross examine. In applicant's second writ the court found that habeas counsel was effective and the CCA denied relief W/0 written order. The court in fact had no reason to review because under then currept Texas apd Fj fth Circuit 12recedent, patently . unfair though it might be the realalty facing a convicted Texas criminal defendantis that neirther a negigent failure or even malicious refusal to present a potentially merit- ious claim or even gross incomptence is the course of the defendant's state habeas proceeding, effectively preculdes habeas review of that claim. At the time of applicant's evidence hearing, a state habeas petitioner possessed no, right to effective habeas counsel on any issues presented. Applicant made every effort to to present to the court his complaint about the proformance of his habeas counsel before the hearing. I'm sure that Mr. Callhan was aware of his action's and his desired outcome. He knew he'would sufferno legal consequences for his failure to properly plead and prove my ineffective of counsel claim. The proposed finding of facts and law sUbmitted by Mr. Callhan was so poorly done , that a first time jailhouse lawyer could have done a better. job. · Allowing the courts to consider the mcomplete record that ishis clients affidavits to be removed from the record and other-parts altered shows he's planed POJlTING.GRoUND FOUR: The court refused to allow defjindaot to havli his restJ;;QiliDts adjusted to allow him to have full access to his legal notes and to be able to freely confer and assist his habeas counsel. As defendant was asking the court for this assistance, court appointed habeas counsel sat by doing nothing, refusing to assist him with this action as it became apparent that he did not want him to be able tu access his note:'! ana t:al ~ce c~stensen Polunsky Unit ill08982 3872 FM 350 s. Livingstone, Tx 77351 27  October 29, 2013 Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 Sa11 Antonio, Toxas 78205 RE: @001-CR-4986-Ml-Aupp. Dear Ms. Alice s. Gonzales Thank you for re~ponding to my requact. There i.B some confusion on what I rtceded~ It appe2rs to me t~at the court records are i11- compl~5~eand also have beecl &ttl~e~Q. According to the Indsx, Th2 affidavit of Ms. Valada~ is licted and it locke like i_s't be011 is not actualy mi~siny~ I al2o ser1t a a~cor1d affidavit and it's r~ot J.iated at all. Next on tt1e li~t is the Judges order wj.tlt 11 pages pages ot exhibitao T~le in6cx doesn:t saj vhat tncse exhibits are~ I ~;~m tt·yi.ncj to CJB<> if thobe: inculderl any of the af:ld;o.v.i.ts. If so J would nr:,cd I also need to ?rove th~t fto •• l6, 2006, and the court reporl&r has a tranvcript and co~ies of the three affidavits or if you can find them, I need to prove to to the Court of Criminal Appeals of the need to supplement ~he record ev~t· .. with a affidavit from Ms McKinney of the facts of the case what @®II they may be. I need to show due diligente in trying to set the re- cord straight. Your assistance in this matte~ would be greatly appr&ciated. I belive the this manipulation of the record is the beggening of Ms. Valadaz's court house offenses. I will wrtle to the court reporter also to see it he is going to respcndst.o my re~uest. If you would possibily coordinate the search for these affidavits with the court reporter. and let me know what you find. Thank you for your time looking into this matter. Sincerely, 28 Bruce t. Christensen  June 5, 2014 Donna Kay McKinny Bexar County District Clerk 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Dear Ms McKinny, Enclosed is my Second Writ of Mandamus, please file it and bring it to the attention of the court. I have Ask Judge to expedite this cause because I have already file my application for 11.07 and the record that you forward to the court with the 11.07 will incomplete • I have also forwarded a copy to the other respondants in C/O Criminal District Court Adminstrator. Would you please assure that they are aware of the writ as I have written them at the court house and they have not responded. As you can see I believe that your court record has been comp- remised by people that the court should be able to trust. We will see. Thank you for your time on this matter and I'm looking forward to hearing from you. 'k>~ .~~·-:? Bruce Christensen Pol unsky_un it-#-- H-08 9 82- _ _ - - - - 3872 Fm 350 s. Livingstone, Tx. 77351 1!1lJ ..... = a D = 0 r·T1 <- = ;;z: ~~~~ ...1:-~:: '"l:l I l);.";:::: c; ..0 ~'j-•-j-(1 _, ~ c; sP·~·~D ..7."f11 ~ u -.>...rTlA -~:::v z 29 ~\ 1:,> -m::;o c ... w lv . -< ., "' ::!:~' _.,rn- ~ PETITION FOR EVIDENTARY HEARIN$·., .:.1£'S fXt\\ll\1 34 ,,. PAGElt2; OF 60 f:;, ' ~-  while others were Aggravated Sexual Assault or Sexual Assault of a Child under Seventeen. Again this had to do with the age of the child at the time of the alleged date. " I advised my client that the Indictment alleged four (4) Aggravated Sexual Assaults, three (3) Sexual Assault of a Child under Seventeen (17) and six (6) Indecency with a Child- Contact. I also advised my client that the Aggravated Sexual Assault Counts, Sexual Assault Counts and the Indecency with a Child counts all fell under Article 42.12 S 3g of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section of the Code aggravated the punishment in that he had to serve a minimum ofhalfofthe punishment before he would be eligible for paro !e. I also advised him regarding Deferred Adjudication and or Probation in accordance with said Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "Defendant entered one Plea ofNo Contest to his Indictment and submitted one Application· fur Deferred Adjudication under one Cause Number. Defendant knew that he was going to receive only one punishment for the whole indictment. Defendant plead NO La Contendere to avoid Stacked sentences in the event of Jury convictions. Defendant was advised of the different degrees of charges and punishment within the Indictment, but most importantly that all the Counts fell under the above referenced Article. "Defendant was aware of the high possibility for Jury Convictions and the· ,ikelihood of stacked sentences and thus entered his plea freely and voluntarily. Defendant was advised that the punishment he could receive ranged from T~o years to Ninety-nine years or Life or up to Ten years : of Deferred Adjudication. Based on the entire Indictment, a plea bargain for a cap of Thirty-five years, which included allowing Defendant to apply for Deferred Adjudication, was accepted by the Defendant. I advised my client of the very slim chance for Deferred Adjudication and prepared him for a prison sentence. At no time did I ever advise Defendant that all the Thirteen charges alleged against him were Aggravated Sexual Assault. He was told that the punishment would be aggravated 35  in accordance with said Article fthe Code of Crimina! Procedure." illLDAQ ALADEZ Plaintiff SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on q.J_ (t 'by-~--,-- / 36  APP.EXIBIT it 3 'AGE" OF 60 DUPLICATE Court Name: TEXAS WESTERN Division: 5 Receipt Number: 500022927 Cashier ID: dgarci Transaction Date: 10/28/2013 Payer Name: TDCJ- INMATE TRUST FUND ---------------------------- PAPER COPIES For: BRUCE CHRISTENSEN Amount : $25.00 CHEC~ Check/Money Order Num: 598578 Amt Jendered: $25.00 (~ --------------------------------- ·-' Tota.l Due: ~25.00 Total Tendered: 25.0.0 Change Amt : 0.00 (COPIES) .... SA-07-CV-1008. BRUCE I '!NN CHRISTENSEN V. DIREC I iJI~ TUCJ/CID ·NATHANIEL A. QUARTERMAN. SA-08-CV-93. BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN VHTLDA QUESADA VALDEZ 0 ATTORNEY AT LAW; MARY BETH WELSH. oEXAR COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY; ET AL. 37  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Oct, H, 015 Filed 03/3~e~~ 7 , APP • EXIBIT Judge Sld ~. Herl• ~It 4 22Bth Judicial Oiatrlot PG 7 OF:•Go Bax.or County Courthouse 300 DelorOI!IB St. San Antonic,.TX 78205 Inclcaed in ay Aaaponae to Ns. Valadez's ···A~ldavlt, which I raolavad today the 11th due to her have bean given an iapropar addraaa f'or ••· Please Di-isa ay ilotlon to anPqrc"• and allDw . . to rile thla •f'f'ldavlt in raaponae. I sent all Df' the •• pollee report• that· I had t you to be i,_,led ln my -orandua ln support at" my appllcetlon. I hav.e raqueetad that the Oisrtlct clark notll"y if, aha had reciaved ay Maeorcndua and the att9ch. .nts aant the wMtc later. I have had no reeponae f'roa her and aha raf'u••• to give thla daf'andant the ao•t aoa.an curtoday even with the s.A.s,E. inculded eo •he ha• no • expense to aeil the r,'lqUttat Inf'oraetion. So all I c•n hope ie that the Meao,.andu. ·,· ln eupport at" II)' appllcati on endh tchne sent a week late are e pert ol' the I'Ue end hev• been lnculded in &lll881iHiilil thi• prodaa. Thank you for you tiae and affort:a ~nvloved in thl• a•••• ... AepectFully Bubllit:ed, /) ' I 79107-9696 38 J  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/~~~ 7 cau. ta NO. 1001-CI'I..........wi.· --~jV--~~-~--~-------- E lC PART!!: IN TH« DISTRICT COURT f !28th JUDICIAL DISTRICT I AFFIDAVIT This sf'f'ldavit 1• Jn raepon- so HJlda Valada•'• •f'f'id.,h reol•v•d by •• on the 11th dai or Oot4ber 200i 1 and •ak• 'Cha f'ollowin~ a'Cat. . entc Ma V•lad•z h•• onoe •g~in f'allad to prapperly inv•e'Ceg•t• thi• oeee 'end the indiotaent end h . . •l•• li'Cated tha f'aat•• tha indictment oher~ed • 'Cotal of tan count• with 'Cwo count• n•vlng three per~-rephe describing thr•• dlf'f'•rcns ••Y• 'Co ooaait the ·~ cf'renc•. Th••• coun'C• ••r• coaalt•d in 1994 and 1995 1 and the 1•• in •f'f'eot et tha tl . . •auld h•v• nos allowed tha•• ooub'Ca to be et•cked.Bhe la corraot in tha'C thara ... shr•• eltne•••• •eking • campl•int, tha Plr•'C witn••• alleged that th• of'f'ena .. ooooured in anat 1!195, 1!19__ , Th• indiat.ent da110rlb. . thr•• of'Fancae, wl.n thr•s leaesr inaulded cf'f'enc••• The •acond wltn••• allegat:l the theo of'Panc" occourad in 1914 1 tha Jndta-li de•o,.lb. . one inoid•nt 1 with two ,_,.tttS dif'f'er~~ aasns swo oa.alt the of'f'enoe one being • lesaar lnouldad ohepog•, Tha thl,.d wltna .. allaged that the of'f'enco oooau,..,d 11'1 19911 1 thl• wea alao liatad •• two cpunta daacpolblng ana of'~enca. The f'i,.at (count f I) oiM,.ea !,a ae_xiiUl -••ult w/chUd •• t:ha via~ I! ••• l'lf'tocn •t t!w Her b lrt:hdtly • - tt•w_dey of' tilll!!. 1 11184 0 . . ahOan on the police poepc,.ta a~lt~~d by ~~~ of'f'loa~ aellad tt 'Cha her hoaa. Alae t:ha ~ff'idavit oF Oeseatlv• Malt.n. Thla avldei'ID• ia '" tho court record and in applloa'C'a ·~po.ntfua ln aupport of' applloatlon f'or wpoft:. Oaf'endMt dld I'IOt C•- nat) sdvhad that the ••ntano- aara to '"U" oonau,.rent: •• ahown on t~a plea t•ttttt• ba,.glan 1 page 101 1 oQUrt: poeaa,.d 1 or 'Chat th~ punleonaant ranga begaln at ~ Y••~, •• it J.a alaarly et:ated ln thlt aourt'• •cllaonla'-'t and del'end•nt•a . . tvara .nri aff'ldavlt of adaonlt:lona, ~•g• 104-101 Court ftacord, that 'Ch~ punla~.nt poenga ••• 5 year• to S9 y••'"•• 39  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 21 end .that .•11 th~•• oeunta agg~avatad 8aweul . . .eult or • Child l"enel Coda • - · 22.01!'1. ell tt!raa count• • Pl~t: dag~- PalMY• DePendent pleed t:o tt.rea oounta end ~••loved • thl~ty yea~ ,' ~ aantanoe f'or aeah '"""' ttt•ioh etta aau~t daoi•d Cor - t:h~e hael'lng ~ 11 trlll'laarlpt wlll ahow, that: the Judge •••-•d thet: the aant:enoaa ~ 1111re to run concurrently end •ltd• notetlon to the rnrd wltho&n: H coaeent rroe Me. Yalod~z or Mr, Sunk, ••• ~age t tt, Court: l'leoord, Mw yaledelr l'atlad t:o propper lnvhtwgeta the Jndicteant •weinat tho defendant and to edviae hle ol' the d!l'l'arent chargee and the di Fl'arent: renjjllls al' punlahiiOint ol' e.ah, nor wea aha eee•r or the powsihle conqueneea or $H alloalng the o01.1rt to ataalc tho -!'IteM•• ""'lot! •oul'!f '"'"""' t:han bean anouthar oapact of tho plaed bargain Mt that -u!Sthaye b,... unottelnwbl"' Nnd ~"'••on Por opp. . l. Thora ie no reeaon to ello• tho deFendant to plead guilty to • first degree Felony when the charge la • eecand degree Felony end accept ten yeere ~~• then allowed by lee, At no tiee did ehe e$t ctete that the dsFendent ••• to reoleve one eentence 1 Pact ie the record !a clear thet the dePendent plead gullty end ~~laved thirty yeere an each count, See pege12 end page___ , Court record. Aa fer aa ~•· Veledez'e trial I l l prepertion end negotletione elth the dletriot Attorney•• oi'F1ce, The only reason th•t the dafendent'• pretrlel tie• reached fourteen eonthe le that ~. Yel•dez dld not reecl: propperl)' when lt wee relized thet the Grand Jury that hed indicted hla ••• It not peneled propperly. ehe never e~n lnl'•reed hie thet lt heppened end the poeeible ctregitiee poee.Lble Flaet ie ahe did no,\1: livlln lihiliw up in eciurt the dey (Sept 10, 2001) when the atatae attorney stated Eome- thinQ about needln~ to look et the 1nd1cteent, 18 whe dldnot even began l:o negotet:e until! Neroh c~, 200e when the dePendent hed.been lno•~••~•ted Par fourteen eonthe, ehe took advantage ol' denandent•e eitueltion 8 end billed the oaurt two eaperete Fee•• ror bean eppolnted couneal, She requeeted the eppoint•ent or ., lmteategetor ehloh did nothing to 1nveeteget• del'enda~nte oeee by lneteed epent hi• billeole ti . . ta e nather dePendent oF 14e. Votldlla&'ll " Mickel Tualter who ea .. char~ee elth Hurder, tf' the doekat 11h11"~ (which Wile not enoluded ln the appllwl reoord) would be lnveste~ated t It would ahae thst she Pelted to ~how 40  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 21 up ~o th• del'•ndent'• court d•t••• Wh•n h• ••k th• court p•r•onel ....,r.i.ut t:he where wbo:~ut• o, Me· Val..tez, th• oo-ent il11dtl "oh we11 thetHlldo", When t r•qu•etwd to •ee ~~ evldene~ egelnet . . •he eteter.l 11eh'll tha di•trlat •t>tarnlf'•apeni'Ue pollc,. "'"' lll.lf'l'iohnt, but that .t we• nat ellowttd to hsni,ile the f'ita, II' t h~ ..................1$11 ~ndaretood the chargee egainet •• and eaen the •vidence pr••entad, I would not have plead to the ple., ba~(JIIln 1 all! pr ... <>!.'\"lt,ed, Th .. def'll!ndflnt la not eullt)l or SC:OSI.. of tha .,., •.rgw.. "'""""nted to t.h .. lndtetm..nt. lfht>l'l I thoueh'll waa child abuse and what tho law 1~ ere not the aeme, but $$ whut 1 did do WUn'" ~bet thia h10op,.nnt th•t '~.t Plae • - no1: Fra.,ll! ijivln:ij. But t"e ,._.ln F~tot i• Ms. Valodcur'" •nat&lllont th01t l;heN-cd co~1l~in wltn•vses wa~ younger the~ fourteen an~ l•t•r 1 ln .Jenu~try 2001 were yo..,:;oer than ,..,vente..,.,, le allil..tleda-:z did in Feat advh111 1na to pll!!!>d OiUilt:y 1:<> '1111 thrlU.n char.;,fl~ biiCU!tUSel •ha bull.~v•d Chl'lt th-U:J all U!Jid• SOJd ,-:h~t: It '::1r-"tr.:k.t 0::<":JWM to !, With witnes• onu~ber one. th~r 1~ •ix counts with two containing th~es p8r9, ·~~~~ th~t t~~ o•F~~oe• ~~oour!d in 1994, 199_, F.IP"ld ;"?Qf)-1, Tl-tP. wit~<7.::~ WFl'2 L'~""~~"!,.. t'""-=! gge oF 14 lrt 19'34 1~~9, snd ovt!!r" t~.,. !ide ~r 14 b'.it (J,.;,d~r- t!->·'!~ :::~,~~) 2001. 4 tote sl OF._§_ Cr:!UMt~ th~-t thl'! do;Fer'":f-H'!:t C~L•lr_! hi!ve 2. The ·~eond wrtM·,~e ~ll~Q~~ ~hDt ~M9 incident ooooured in 1995 and ~~)~ ws~ und~r tM~ ege o• Fourteen Th~ indictment w~~ for On~ ~ryu~t oF •~8· 5~x~·~I -~~sult w/ chllkd and the $~cond ~nun~ w~~ fo~ ~ l~sa~r c~erg~ oF in~aoeny with • ohild, De,endant could ~~v~ ~~~~ o~nv\~tg~ ~F o~ly o~• cou~t. #. Th~ t[,ird wltne9~, (lind~~y ~~~~n) ~ll~l~j the incent~nt o~cnur~d in 1ggg: ~n1 1~ f~r s~,~~u~ ,~s~ult ~n~ indency with child, She w~s eve~ tha ngs of fcurt~•n ant t~e time or the incident whioh the g~~nd Ju~y h•d oh~rged d~,f~ndt with baoBU118 h~r birthdey w•• or thR_day oF - - - - - ' .:.;!'14,~ 42  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 6 of 21 PAGE TWO If Me. Veladea'e atetaa that her trial atregy was to av,~d ataekln~, ah~ nevsred inPormad me, ~nd it M spp~sr3 that eh~ never invest~g~ted the law or thew Facta Involved In thla oaaa, (woulcl l!ll;k the court to ask Ma. Valdaez to list ona witness, elthar For the dafanee or the proouoution that she interviewed a or to list one witn~~s tjet ~ppointed lnvaatagctar interview etthmr For the defence or forth~ proc,, Defendant gave her numareet names th~t at leset could have lnvervlawed as mlgeting witneaa st Santancing, end ea the transcript ehowa I did not know why there wes no witne~sea or evidence in the defendsnte fever) but beck to the inveatagetion of the o•••••• Count one oroorad in 1994 1 end count aeven cocored in 1995, I did not brief it in my MeMorandum in auppcrt because it wes not an iasue but the c.cp. waa revi~ed in 1997 to alow the stacking of Sexeul offences that cecoured in a criminal epaaicda. enFd if the court eocaopa Ma, Valadez's stetementa involving the countg and the stacking of them as she atates, then I would raquast to rebrieF my Memoramdum. or to hold avidenceary hearing so that she may be II croee- axeminad and let it be deloped for the record, Next Ms .. ·73rJ) 1 ~· :;:~:::.::·::: :::: :::.:·::::::.·:,:::·.::~ ::·.:·:::·,:;::. ~;;t Cnoe again aha he• failed to invaetagats the record propperly ~\ agsin,, •• not all the counta that orocured in 1994 end Stte 1995 ere 3g, sdvise given to the dafendent, M~. Valadez dld recommend that thia da~endsnt plea to s ae •aocnd degree charge that wee infect • second degree, and he did reoieve an elegel ssnt~nce. She incorrectly atetea that ell the wltnaaa were under the age oF fourteen et some point during the elgeged lncedente. She Ia atlll oontandlng in har atateman1! that her advise to the dafsndant waa to plea to the ohargaa baceuse the witnee$se w~re all under the e;e of four- teen at the tim~ or the inoedent£. The plea agreement end the e edmonisMMenta that the defendant ai~nad did not contain eny refel"enoeeo to the ocnviotlona running ooncurant with each other, 43  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 7 of 21 "AGe: THf'll!e: Ms. Valadez do~• not sn•were the aeoond question or eddre•• .tha lftBny othfll,.. elege1:1r)ns m~ide by ths de:'-vende>.nt. Like Fallin~ to shew him thA evidence to him thu~ the Gtatm had !n It• Pile. Falling to ~newer~ hi~ queetlon ~baut the C9Se ~t•tlng that Ph~ woul~ be back, th•t d~y she eleo had he~ daughter with her DMd ~he did ~~uBc ~ ddistw~benoe causlns he~ to !!bandon her client with out nodce. Thllt "'he Feilec:! to ~~sp eny eppointmant to e·~e ehv dcf2Mda~t ~t the jail, and S! inPeovt n~v•r vleited the jell et ~1•. EGT, ECT .. 1 "'W al-ndez WBfl in fact in~ff~~t~.ve &rd eg~!·n rec~mmend Sruee Lynn Chri~ten~9n Cl~tment~r. Unit #111)8!:'82 9801 Spur 591 Amarillo, Tex~e 79107-9696 UN~WOAN O~~l~~~TJDN I, Bruce ChrlAtensen, being bresently incmro~rated in TOCJ-CIC, d~ol~re un~er re~~Ity o' ?erjLtry t~~t ~~~ r~r~;~lng l!lffidevit is true end oorect. 79107-!!!95 44  APP. EXIBIT II 5 PG 140F 60 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Passed By The REGULAR SESSION of the SEVENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE Convened at the· City of Austin, January 12, 1993 and Adjourned May 31, 1993 Published under the Authority of The State of Texas JOHN HANNAH, Jr.···------~-------~-- Secretary of State The Office of~he Secretary of State does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, ' religion, age or disability in employment or the prouision of services. 45  Ch. 900, § 1.01 73rd LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION 7 (b) When a single criminal action is based on more than one charging instrument wi_thin the jurisdiction of the trial couri, the state shall file written notice of the action not less than c 30 days prior to the trial. t 1 (c) If a judgment of guilt is reversed, set aside, or vacated, and a new trial ordered, the state may not prosecute in a single criminal action in the new trial any offense not joined in the former prosecution unless evidence to establish probable guilt for that offense was not known to the appropriate prosecuting official at the time the first prosecution commenced. Sec. 3.03. SENTENCES FOR OFFENSES ARISING OUT OF SAME CRIMINAL EPISODE. When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced. Such sentences shall run concurrently. Sec. 3.04. SEVERANCE. (a) Whenever two or more offenses have been consolidated or joined for trial under Section 3.02 [of this ooae], the defendant shall have a right to a severance of the offenses. (b) In the event of severance under this section, the provisions of Section 3.03 [of tl>io oode] do not apply, and the court in its discretion may order the sentences to run either concurrently or consecutively. TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY CHAPTER 6. CULPABILITY GENERALLY Sec. 6.01, REQUIREMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT OR OMISSION. (a) A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct, including an act, an omission, or possession. (b) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control. (c) A person who omits' to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law as defined by Section 1.07 [of tl>io eoae] provides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act. Sec. 6.02. REQUIREMENT OF CULPABILITY. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b) [of tl>is seotioR], a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires. (b) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, a culpable mental state is nevertheless required unless the definition plainly dispenses with any mental element. (c) If the definition of an offense does not prescribe a culpable mental state, but one is nevertheless required under Subsection (b) [of thio oootioR], intent, knowledge, or reckless- ness suffices to establish criminal responsibility. (d) Culpable mental states are classified according to relative degrees, from highest to lowest, as follows: (1) intentional; (2) knowing; (3) reckless; (4) criminal negligence: (e) Proof of a higher degree of culpability than that charged constitutes proof of the culpability charged. Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the .nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. 46 3592  73rd LEGISLATURE-REGULAR SESSION Ch. 900, § 1.01 (b) The prosecuting attorney must negate the existence of an exception in the accusation charging commission of the offense and prove beyond a reas~nable doubt that the defendant or defendant's conduct does not fall within the exception. (c) This section does not affect exceptions applicable to offenses enacted prior to the effective date of this code. Sec. 2.03. DEFENSE. (a) A defense to prosecution for an offense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is a defense to prosecution .... " (b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of a defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense. (c) The issue of the existence of a defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense. (d) If the issue of the existence of a defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that a reasonable doubt on the issue requires that the defendant be acquitted. (e) A ground of defimse in a penal law that is not plainly labeled in accordance with this chapter has the procedural and evidentiary consequences of a defense. · Sec. 2.04. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. (a) An affirmative defense in this code is so labeled by the phrase: "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution ...." (b) The prosecuting attorney is not required to negate the existence of an affirmative defense in the accusation charging commission of the offense. (c) The issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is not submitted to the jury unless evidence is admitted supporting the defense. (d) If the issue of the existence of an affirmative defense is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge that the defendant must prove the affirmative defen•e by a preponderance of evidence. ' Sec. 2.05. PRESUMPTION. When this code or another penal law establishes a presump- tion with respect to any fact, it has the following consequences: (1) if there is sufficient evidence of the facts that give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly precludes a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of the presumed fact; and · · (2) if the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the court shall charge '' the jury, in terms of the presumption and the specific element to which it applies, as follows: (A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; (B) that if such facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find; (C) that even though the jury may find the existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and (D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption for any purpose. CHAPTER 3. MULTIPLE PROSECUTIONS Sec. 3.01. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "criminal episode" means the commission of two or more offenses, regardless of whether the harm is directed toward or inflicted upon more than one person or item of property, under the following circumstances: (1) the offenses are committed pursuant to the same transaction or pursuant to two or more transactions that are connected or constitute a common scheme. or plan; or (2) the offenses are the repeated commission of the same or similar offenses. Sec. 3.02. CONSOLIDATION AND JOINDER OF PROSECUTIONS. (a) A defendant may be prosecuted in a single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode. · 3591 47  ~OtD) APP EXIBIT TEXAS PENAL CODE II 6 PG l70F 60 Sub. Sec. 3.03. Sentences for Offences Arising Out Of Same Criminal Episode (a) When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced. Except as provided'by Subsection (b), the sentences shall run concurrently. (b) If ~the .accused is found guilty of more than one offence arising out of the same crimin~sentences may run concurrently or consecutively if each sentence is for a conviction of: (1) an offense: (A) Under Section 49.07 or 49.08, regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violation of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of both sections; or (B)for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A), regardless of whether the accused is charged with violation of the same section more than or is charged with violations of both sections; (2) an offense: (A) under Section 33.021 or an offense under Section 21.02, 21.11, 22.0ll, 22.021, 25.02, or 43.25 committed against a victimyounger than 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of more.than one section; or (B) for which a plea agrement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one ofense listed in Paragraph (A) committed against a victum younger that 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations of more than once or is charged with violations of more than one section; (.3)an offense: (A) under Section 21.15 or 43.26, regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of both sections; or (B) for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A), regard- less of whether the accused is charged with violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations of both sections; or (4) an offense for which the judgment is the case contains an affirmative finding under Article 42.0197, Code of Criminal Procuder. 48  (b-1) Subsection (b)(4) does not apply to a defendant whose case was tran- fered to the court under Section 54.02, Family Code. 1· Act 1973, 63rd Leg., P. 883 ch 399 §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. 2. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch900, §1.01 1 eff. Sept. 1, 1994; 3. Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch 596, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995 4. Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 667, § 2, eff. Sept 1 1 1997. 5. Acts 2005, 79th Leg., ch. 527, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2005. 6. Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch. 593 § 3.47eff. Sept. 1, ~2007 7. acts 2009, 8lst Leg., ch. 1130, § 21, eff. Sept. 1 1 2008; l. Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 9.\)0, which ammend the whole Penal Code, made no apparent changes to this section. 2. Act 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 596 designated subsec. (a), and therein, in the second sentence, substituded "Except a~ provided by Subsection (b), the "for such"; and added subsec. (b). Section 2 Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch 5___, provides: "(a) The change in law made by this Act applies to the joinder of prosecut- ionsof offenses arising out of a single criminal episode only if each off is committed on or after the effective date [Sept. 1, 1995] of this act. For purposes of this section, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occures before the effective date. (b) The joinder of prosections for offenses arising out of a single criminal episode if any of the offenses were committed before the changes made by this Act, and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose." 49  STATE COUNSEL FOR OFFENDERS ,, lAPpEXIBIT I 7 LEGAL HANDBOOK PG 1~ 60 PAROLE & MANDATORY SUPERVISION ELILIBILTY CHART Offense Date 73rd Legisature 09/01/93 thur 08/28/95 3g Offenses: 1. Agg. Kidnapping 2. Agg. Sexaul Assault 3. Offenses with Affirmative Finding of Deadly Weapon 4. Indecency With a Child ( Sexal Conduct~Yl) ro:.)~ wt'il') 5. Murder ,. 6. Agg. Robbery 7. Capital Murder Calender Time = 1/2, Minimum of 2 Years, Maximum of 30 Yearss All Other Offenses: Calender Time + Good Time = 1/4, Inculding work credits and bonus. Maximum of 15 Years. Mandatory Supervision Ineligible List 1. Capital Mueder 2. Muder, 1st Degree 3. Agg. Kidnapping 4. Agg. Robbery, 2nd Degree 5. Agg. Sexaul Assault 6. Robbery, 2nd Degree 7. Sexual Assault, 2nd Degree 8. Arson, 1st Degree 9. Agg. Assault, lst &2nd Degree 10. Injury to Child or Elderly, lst Degree 11. Burglary Punishment under Subsection d(2) or d(3) 12. Offenses with an Affirmative Finding of a Deadly Weapon 13. A Felony increased under Health and Safety code 481.134 (Drug Free Zones) 50  ·."' .-- ., pr6seqtiti(;)n.papers . • 51  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB ·Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page20 of 21 <· ;.-";;·· ~11asn~.eom. •. ,, l • : f ' .. : ... , . ,~. .. ·... >' • • •• . . "f. .(i· .. ,:."· ·.k)·:· .·~¥F==±.~···o='¥~#~~c.2=.¥, .. ·i. ·_:: .\·>/> . .:::. .·:· ..·,.. . ·:. ~ ~:='=#"'==" .. ·~·=;=~&Southwest . · .·,, I' ! i "! !,:·· f· ! or · ·.· : . ·.. ·.· • ~· ··i ·•'. 52  I , ' '' APP EXIBIT II 9 PG 210F 60 - November 4, 2002 Bruce Christensen TDC# 1108982 Box38 Huntsville, TX 77344 Re: Appellant's Brief Dear Mr. Christensen: Enclosed please fmd a copy of the Appellate Brief to be filed in your case. Additionally, I have enclosed the United States Supreme Court Case and the State of Texas cases that controls your particular situation. The appellate courts frown upon appeals that are referred to as "frivolous". This is not to say that your case is frivolous to you, .!2,9! l!!J. jippeal is not the appropriate venue. There are other avenues you can pursue. You may. prepare your own appellate brief, as well, if you believe mine is not satisfactory. Where I l believe you have an issue, as reflected in the brief, is that your trial counsel should have ( purs~ed the motion t_o dis~ss the ind~ctment, notba. sed on the f~ct~atitw.as untimely, ~ut f' that It wa~ from an nnproper grand JUlY BEFORE you were remdiCted. To do otherwise reitders your issue mo.ot. You can pursu~ this ·in a Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 that allo":s you to challenge issues based on constitutidnal due process violations 'and_) ineffecj:iveness of counsel. You are entitled to review the appellate record of your case, if you do desire t~ pursue these other avenues. However, my appointment to represent you is completed . and you must ask the. court for additional appointed counsel or prepare thesei 1 documents yourself. ~ Si=ly. ~) ~ 4S "v z Suzanne Kramer enclosures lY '-' . -\. · 1\1\P'- Y ..l '~1~,u'-··followed, this Court will not give permission to appeal. 1'04 54,. (Page 249 t:.>f 253) . •' .... • • 3. TRIAL RIGHTS You have a right to trial by jury, cross examination of witnesses and the right to remain silent. .' 4•. CITIZENSHIP If you are not a U.S. citizen, a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may result in deportation, exclusion from admission to this country or denial of naturalization under federal law. S. DEFERRED ADJUDICATION If the Court defers adjudicating your guilt and places you under community supervision, on violation of. any condition you may be arrested and detained as provided by law. You are then entitled to a hearing limited to a determination by the Court of whether to proceed with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination. After adjudication of guilt, all proceedings including the assessment of punishment and your right to appeal continue as if adjudication of guilt had not been deferred. The Court is also able to assess the full range of punishment. 6. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION PROGRAM A plea .of GUlLTY or NOLO CONTENDERE that results in a conviction or placement on deferred adjudication for an offense under Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure will require you to register as a sex offender with local law enforcement officials as required by Chapter 62 .. You will also be· required to report regularly and to obtain or maintain a Tex.as driver's license or certificate of identification identifying you as a sex offender. Violation of the registration and/or reporting requirements will subject you to additional criminal charges. DEFENDANT'S WAIVERS AND AFFIDAVIT OF ADMONITIONS: ....... TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: I, 'ir.. '• · a,.\f~,.lte,J , the Defendant in this cause, having this day appeared in . ~;;,:~ open court v{ith my counsel and having been duly sworn, represent to the Court that I have received acopy of the indictment or information in this cause, that I fully understand its contents; that I knovv that I am ;;~~~ charged with the felony offense of l}.lj,j. rio~ .. "' Ar.r.,. Ur of c..l.al( J('~"'"9'and that I waive 11.. . . formal arraignment and the reading of the charging instrument. · ,, ''""~ I, the Defendant, hereby enter a plea of GUILTY~ CONTE~ to this charge.. "II I. I have had my Constitutional and legal rights explained to me by my attorney, and have decided to waive my Constitutional right of trial by jury and enter this plea before the judge. I hereby request the consent and approval of the State's Attorney and of the Court io my waiver of trial by jury. I further represent to the Court as follows: ::)::· . 2. I am mentally competent now and was legally sane at the time that this offense was committed. ' 1115 ,. 55 2 (Page 250 <'Jif 253) •• • 3. I have 1'\0t been threatened, coerced or placed in fear by any person to induce me to enter my plea. 4. If I have a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor, its terms are fully set forth in the attached document. I have received no promise from the prosecutm:, my attorney or the Court which are not :set fgrth in ·that document, imd l rea!'ize that no one els·e would be empowered to make me any promises.· : : ·. . · · · · · · . . .: : . .. · · . · . . • 5. Ifl am pleading GUlL TY, it is because I am guilty, and for no other reason. If my plea is one of NOLO CONTENDERE, it is because 1 have considered all aspects of my legal situation and discussed them with my attorney and have determined that the entry of such plea is in my own best interest. 6. If appli'cable, my attorney has explained to me the requirements and consequences of Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sex Offender Registration Program. 7.. I understand the Courts admonishments as contained in this waiver. 8. I am satisfied with the advice and representation of my attorney in this case. '· DEFENDANT SWORN TOtAND SUBSCRIBED ME THIS • . , 200 ~ . ~0~:.~·~T!.r~ ~ ..· ' ~ .:5~~ · . 3~ ( ')--_J.~~··, DISTRICT CLERK · . ~ d".]t ~i::i{l .thi~i.~s •'"11.. ........ ICit I have counseled with the Defen . d ,liavejj oncluded that the Defendant has a :~~;;11 ratio~al, as well as a fa~tual und:rstandink)-~f~~tl):, t~e..~~~ ge(s~nding. and this ~roceed~ng. I have ..~···· explamed.the law regardmg all wa1vers set fo~1n-ily1 dllfPmenwa am sattsfied that m each mstance the defendant has voluntarily relinquished a known ligh_s--~~[(e Defendant's waiver of the right of trial ICh ;:;;:~: by jury. lfapplicable, I have explained to my client tfietrequirements and consequences of Chapter 62 of '/tll\p IJ::_jt. the. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Sex Offender Registration Program. ~...... li":.:\1 ···;r·· '11 Ai/o~o~E~~~f&To :a: I consent to and approve the jury \yaiver in this case. !\::::,. (;~ 11::)1 II::~;; •'J· ::E;~ -· 56 ,.  I approve ~he jury waiver and ORDER it filed in the papers of the cause. It plainly appearing that the Defendant is mentally competent; that his waivers have been entered voluntarily, in full knowledge of his rights; that the admonishment of the Court have been understood by the Defendant; that the Defendant's plea has not been induced by improper persuasion; and that the Defendant persist in his plea, the Defendant's plea is now accepted by the Court and the balance of this document is likewise ORDERED· · filed among the papers of the cause. . r Jrd· 41 •. • J. . SIGNED and ENTERED this .. :21 .f.!& day of_....~_~c...:__::___:c..:.....!._ _ _, 20_b_~ . JUDGE PRESIDING ; ~c:tl ·"'II" ........ 1!::::11 :~:::tu ........ ()t ::;;:1!: \\tl' ·11::::11 II""" 11::::11 '";(1'' "II ::::;!:: u:::!l· li'"'•• "•i'l 11::)1 11!:::;; '"'II· :~;~;u ' 1·17 4 57 (Page 239 r,)f 253) :., • CAUSENO.~CR 1../~81, PLEA BARGAIN • . ,1. the undersigned Defendant, togelller whh my counsel and counsel for the State. agree that in exchange for the Defendant's agreemen1 to plead guilty or nolo contendere, to allow the State to prove its case by means of written stipulalions. The State may make recommendations regarding punishment: how~ver. it is· understood by all that even in the event the parties agree to recommend specific condhions and terms of community supervision or dererred adjudication or the length of supervision that such recommendations are not part of the formal plea agreement and are not binding on the Court. All parties understand and agree that the terms. conditions and length of supervision of community supervision or deferred adjudication are to be determined and assessed solely within the Court's discretiOn. ft is further understood and agreed by the parties that in the event the CoOn assessed tenns, conditions and or a length of supervision or community supervision or deferred adjudicarion different from those agreed to by the parties, that such difference shall.not constirute grounds fo~ selling aside the Defendant's plea in this cause. If the court grants "deferred. acljudicatlon, the Stale does not recommend any lenn of years as part of the plea agreement. AU parties agree that If deferred adjudication J.. subseq.iently revoked,·Defendant may be sentenced lo any tenn of years within the range of punishment provided by law for thiS ofrense. It is mutually agreed and recommended by the parties; ../' Prosecution to prooeed only on Count(s) k, ~ JJ=" Prosecution for lesser included offense of _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Defendant agrees that he has been previously convicted of one/rwo ot more felonies for enhancemen~ under 12.42 P.C. _Class A Misdemeanor punishment with State jail Felony Conviction under 12.41 P.C. · / . Punishment to be asses.•:~ at 1 <;" years ._7 __ FineS I 1>1!>1 - _ _ Aftlrmative Finding of Deadly Weapon or 3G offense, Defendant not eligible for supervision under CCP 42.12, Sec. 3. _ _ There is no application 'roi community supervision/deferred adjudicalion . . _L Stare will make no recommendation or"Defendant's deferred adjudieationlcommunity ,supervision application. Stare reserves right to speak as to facrual issues relevant to Defendant's punishment. _ _ State. opposes co.mmunity supervision/dererred adjudication. _ _ _ _ _ _ Concurrent wirh: - - - - - - - - - - - --State recommends community supervision. _ _ State rec:~mme.nds dererred adjudication. Causes taken into c o n s i d e r a t i o n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --Restitution to be determined by the Court through the Community Supervision office o r $ ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___ Payable to victim in this cause number only: -==-Payable·rOYictims under: ~ ---'\... '=' _Loth\,.__ tiP Chi1A&'1" c&"!'•~cn•ID~Y· eager~, 0ACI~to~t.. car2r.rDA,..U~ WA-" t;r~~'' ~::a.. .... .. ~ The above terms tonsdtu.te our agreement, and the1e are-no-agreemenLS not set fonh above. The Defendant and Counsel request the Court O:::ib follow the plea bargain. ::--;:;;'11 ..... tl::) . ~ ~~~ \:1,SSIS ?t-!)4/<=>-- DEFENDANT •:::n II_ N.Qlf;: Th~ panies ~re not allowed to make binding agree~ent. s reg.arding the len~ or community ~upervision or th<; terms and conditions 0 ,::-of community superv1s1on. wh1ch are totally dependent upon lhe Courts d1screuon. The folJowrng recommendations do not consurure part of lhe ronnal Jt~a agreement. However. the (State) (both panies) make the foltowing non-binding recommendations: · ___ Community Supervision be granted for ____. years Restirution Center ___ Days in Bexar County Jail or State Jail (circle one) ___ Hours Community Servite ___ Substance abuse treatment facility ___ Days Electronic ~lonitoring _ Days Community Corrections Facility No contoct w i t h - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Other Punishment recommendations: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~------------------------------------------ 58 (Pa~e 240 ~f 253) ., • • APPliCATION FOR DEFERRED ADJUDICATION OR COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (NON JURY) . 'THE S.~ATE OF TEXAS NO. d CX){ Cl\/ 49fffe IN THE 228th · DISTRICT COURT OF . BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: ... Ncm comes the defendant, , In the above styled and numbered cause and says that In the event of a lea of guilty or nolo contendere and after the Court recelves such plea, hears the evidence and finds It substantiates the defendants g·um, the defendant prays the Court to defer further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt and_place the defendant on community supervision In accordance with the provision·s. of. Section 5 (a) of Article 42.12, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. · · · ·· · IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Defendant prays the Court that in the event of his conviction in this case and if his punishment is assessed at a jlerlod not exceeding ten (10) years confinement In the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, or a period in the· state Jail Facility, he/she be placed on community supervision under the applicable provisions of Article .42.1~. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. I acknowledge that, as relates to my application for deferred adjudication, I have been advised by the Court that If adjudication of my guilt is deferred, and J am placed on community supervision, on violation of any condition of community supervision I may be arrested and detained just as any other alleged community supervision violator and I will be entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the Court of whether It proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination. After an adjudication of gui~, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment, pronouncement of sentence, granting of community supervision and defendant's appeal continue as if the adjudication of guilt had not been deferred. · · i ·\ "-~· / / lJO 59,. ~. 1·ilq m~ . ' (Page 244 ~•f 253) :.~ • • ·-··~ ' ...... I ,",, . ' • .- \.. CAUSE NO. too I -CR-_'1....!..!.4i.1<.6.=.."----- THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COU,RT § vs.. § 'l.l." JUDICIAL DISTRICT § · g,. .. ~e Ct..-: r.fe.tel{ § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS • WAIVER, CONSENT TO STIPULATION OF TESTIMONY AND STIPULATIONS The Defendant in this cause, being sworn and having read the indictment or had it read to him, advises the Court that he fully und~tands the charge which is pending against him, and Com1sel for the Defendant has explained the Federal and State Constitutional and legal rights possessed by a criminal defendant, including the procedural rights and safeguards afforded.by the laws of the State of Texas. In particular, Counsel has explained and the Defendant understands the privilege against self- incrimination, the confrontation and cross-examination of the witness. ' Understanding all these rights, the Defendant knoWingly and voluntarily agrees to waive each such right and consents to waive the appearance, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses agairist the Defendant; further, the Defendant and his Counsel agree with the Attorney for the State to the introduction of evidence on behalfofthe State by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, police reports, laboratory reports and any other documentruY evidence which is-attached, mark~ Exhiblt Nos. :t, Ylf, 1'(. inclusi~e, all of which are by this refere~ce made a part of this documenl The Defendant, his Counsel and the State's Attorney agree that this evidence is true and correct, that the Defendant is the person referreq to by the witness in the attached documents, that if the witnesses testified they would identify the Defendant as the person of whom they speak, and that this document and its attachments may be considered as a part of the Statement of Facts in this case. ,. 60 (Pa~ 245 ,of 253) '' • •• . do hereby judicially confess and admit, that I intentionally and knowingly, in Bexar County, Texas on .:.·_~o~~-~A~~~.. ~L~l:!:l~-4.:...,__ _ _...:;~2!t9~9~Q, . CC.UNT I .. . r. \ . \. ;,.:.:-:--- ' '' . . ;. \\ ~- ...... ·._. ;...:· ~~. ·.• . ' :-- 31ST- day of AUGUST, A.O., 1994, ·BRUCE Ci-!RISTENS!;:N, _heteinafter· r:~f~r'red :to _a,. l)efend.-hj;,··di~ _then .and ther\e ln~entfon'~lly,and · f-- knowl,rigly ce the penetrataon .of the FEMA~E SEXL)AL:,;ORGAN ~~f . 1 ROXANNE pZE.TTELLA, hereinafter:; referred to ·a13 .·.tt\e ·!=_~(ljp li!l.flI ---------------------------- ---------------------_,_, 64  oFFICIAL NOTICE FROM coURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS i':-' P.O. BOX !2308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 RE: wr:i·t ·No. um-58 1 369-·06 ~TYLE: Ciffii::JTENSEII 1 BRUCE LYNN TRIAl, CT l•JO: 2001CR4986-W2 Thifl is to advi.f!e that the coc•r·t has denied vJithout "titten or:det 10/31/2007 thE• application for ~;.:Lit of habea" corpue. Di~Jti:ict. Clt?:r.:k B1e.;.;:ar: countY Hargaret G. 'Montema-yor.:- 1.00 Dolor:osa, Room 362 S'll1 ll\i\t.OJ"I~o,I\\ 'J!l( \\Ill\\ 11111.\1iil I 111\1\\1 IIJZD\"' · I \\.11 I\hI II I\\ 11\11111\\ n\1\ 65  ', APP EXIBIT 1 11 13 April 22, 2013 , - ',PG 340F 60 Judge Sid Harle 226th District COUrt Bexar County Courthouse 300 Dolorosa St. san Antonio, Texas 78205 Dear Judge Harle, I wrote to you in Sept. 2012, and asked if you had a "Working File" on my case. The reason I asked is over the years there are some thin9s that did not make i t into the record. For example, the letter that I wrote to you from Bexar county Jail that you took as my notice that I wanted to appeal my case. The PSI used in my sentencing hearing and other things. What I'm looking for specifically is copies of the affidavits sent to you in Sept-act. 2006 by your order, one from Ms. Valadez and two from me. The reason that I wrote to you in Sept. was to see if I could find them, but more so; I had read what you were quoted as sayl.ng in the newspaper during the Morton Court of Inquiry. You said "Our .job is not just to prosecute and win cases; our job is to do just~ce•" You . also said, "the allegation agaihst: Anderson is that he iritentioJMir!~)nd ' .. ,,/-'' ''", knowingly concealed exc::ulpatory evidence. I personally cannot imagine having been a former prosecutor, a worse stain or tarnish on a prosecutor and a public servants Reputation, his Integity, and his Legacy." There was something else you said about the justice system not being perfect but that is the best we have ••• or something to tnat effect. I still believe to this day in the jus- tice system of our country, at least I •m still trying, but when the system is not balanced properly, things ge> wrong, which brings me to my case. Things did go wrong but the system tried to correct the mf stakes. Your lionor, in the CCI? 11.07, it talks about resolving issues, one way is to use your personal recollection. I am asking you to use your personal recollection about those affidavits. When you ordered tl'lem you said when you received them you were going to forward everything ·,. '.' to the cilurt in Austin. But I believe that wl'len you received them~ reviewed them, you saili that Ms. Valadez had done a horriblEf job on her affidavit, and that I wasfable to poitlt out many thi119s that she still had wro119. Again I believe that after the affidavits you had "grave doubt" meaning the matter is so "evenly balanced" (even though Ms •. valadez has a preliiumed deference) a$ to wl'lether h~ errors hM a sUbstance and injuri(;\us effect .... So you then ordered an evidence hearirig and appointed counsel. 66  2 Your Honor, this is wJ~re things get to be a little sticky. I'm asking if you remember those affidavits (all three) and if my statement about them is correct. one frivolous item in Ms. Valadez •s affidavit was that she used the word arduous. "after 14 months of arduous trial prep • • • and in my affidavit I said she didn • t know the meaning of arduous. • • • Well, YOI,lr Honor, if you will look at the record of my habeas corpus you will find that Ms. Valadez's affidavit has been redacted and her mistakes corrected, the word arduous has been changed to "hard work", you might ask why someone might have Changed her affidavit when mine is there and it wouldnot make ar1Y 15~e, arguing 1=hat 11he doesn't know the meaning of the word •••• Well again looking into the record you will find that the affidavit received and file marked oot. 23, 2006 and my sup. affidavit are both missing from the file. I believe that Ms. Welsh, the State's attorney (who had been terminated by the District Attorney's office), did every thing to cover for her friend, Ms. Valadez, and to save her job. TOday, she is still employed by the D.A. I believe that Ms. Welsh and Ms. Valadez fol'llled a criminal conspir- acy with t4r. D. Callahan who were not only work associates, but social cronies, and affectionate friends. Mr. Callahan appeared to me as a dependable profes- sional attorney with Christian values. But in fact he ambushed my hearing, his representation was a farce rendering the hearing a sham. I had a substantial claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.: But he did not call Ms. Valadez to testify, he presented none of the issue.s that I claimed, such as her advice that the state could stack my sentences. I will point out two pieces of evi- ' dance, one, the P.C. sec. 3.01: one criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, such sentences SHALL run concurrently. P.C.eff. Sept. l, 1994, 73rd LEG.REG.SESSI0F 60 P. 0 • 8 OX 1214 1 Sen Antonio, Tx 78212 Dear Mr. Callahan, Recieved your letter regarding your appointment and the hearing on the 11th of Dec. and I'm l;ooking forward to meeting you. If you would please insure that a benchwarrent has been issued and that i'm transfered to San Antonio,as I have seen many times in the past that defendants are still in custody with TOC and not in the city for the hearing. There are things that need to be devloped for the record regsrding my attorney's ineffective assost- ance of counsel. Also theer are reasons and an ''ultimate goal in stirring up highly adverse facts" which I will discuss with you in person, I will say this what I believed I was pleading to and the some of the facts, end even the law which I did not lnow or was r.IOt 1 • d ~g exp e1ne to me, ere three completely different things. One thing that i do not find in your statements ere the cases like Miller v. State, that I cited in by Meromarendem and oth~r cases that stated that if one part of a plea is not attainable then the entire ples is invalid. The state wanted and did expect a sentence of atleast 35 years and also Ms Valadez did advise me on atleast one count, m the one that I plead to, that it was a first degree Fenley with a sentence range of 5 to 99, That much is totally obvious from the record. Even from her statement with the record infrount of her she di not correctly break down the counts and charges. One last thing, there are two witnesses that I would like to be present. One is the Privste Investagoter that was appointed to my case end the other is one of the victums, Lindsey Green, B~ her mom is my sister and address is8330 Slippery Rock,,San Antonio 78251, Phone 256-1808, The last I heard Lindasy is a student at UT in Austin, It will probabley that e court order for her to be there, read her statement givin to The Dective, read it like a defence ettorn3y and then think of the question that you would ask her, even before the trial ••.. ! did not see this statement until even after my appeal to the 4th court of eppeals •.•• or more than three-fourths of the file .. 72  ........ December 4, 2DD6 APP EXIBIT Vincent.D. C!llehen ll 17 Attorne~ et Lew PG41. OF 60 p • D • 8 OX 12141 Sen Antonio, TX 78212 Deer Mr. Cellahen, This is to let you know that I feel that my appearing in person is the only way that my right to be heard in a meaningful manner can be accomplished, as Me Valadez will appear in person and testify, the court should be able to see my ni person so thet the Fact Finder may see how I act and react in decieding the truth which will come down ·to he said, she said. I .also feel that I need to be there to convwy the required information to you eo that the areas you are not Familaure with can be explored and develpoed For the record. The court's refusing to allow me an opporunty to partipate properly at this hearing would prevent me From presenting my case propperly to the appeal's court. So please, you should recieve this on Thur or Friday,with time to make sure that I'm present on Monday. Very Truly Yours Christensen W.P. Clemente #1108982 96D1 Spur 591 Amarillo, TX 791D7 73  APP EXIBIT t 18 PC'. 42()F 60 Vincent D. Callahan Attorney Laurel Heights Station P. 0. Box 12141 San Antonio TX 78212-3007 Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404 December 5, 2006 Ms. Lindsey Green 8330 Slippery Rock San Antonio TX 78251 RE: Writ Hearing, December 11,2006 10:00 a.m. in Magistrate's Court State v. Bruce Christensen, No. 2001-CR-4986 226th District Court, Bexar County, Texas Dear Ms. Green: I have been appointed to represent Mr. Christensen in the above matter. You do not have to confer with me. However, if you wish to recant or withdraw your allegation against Mr. Christensen, as alleged in the Indictment, that he sexually assaulted you on or about December 23, 1999, please either attend said hearing, or inform me or the prosecutor in writing. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, /sf Vincent D. Callahan VDC/ar Cc: Yvonne Gonzales Assistant District Attorney 300 Dolorosa San Antonio TX 78205 \ 74 75 76 77 ' ' 78 79 80  Vincent D. Callahan , 1\PP EXIBIT ', 11 22 Attorney c-PG 49 OF 60 Laurel Heights Station P. 0. Box 12141 San Antonio TX 78212-3007 Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404 February 12, 2007 Bruce Christensen # 1108982 Byrd Unit 21 FM247 Huntsville TX 77320 RE: Application for Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus No. WR-58,369-04; Court of Criminal Appeals No. 2001-CR-4986 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Dear Mr. Christensen: I received your letter postmarked 2/2/07. Under separate cover, I am again sending you copies of: 1. Remand Order of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dated 8/30/06; 2. Applicant's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; 3. State's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on Applicant's Writ of Habeas Corpus; and 4. Supplemental Order of Criminal Law Magistrate dated 12/21/06. I do not possess copies of the trial court's file or of the writ hearing transcript which is in possession of the Bexar County District Clerk. Your case has been properly presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; when it rules I will immediately send you a copy. The high court has not ordered me to withdraw from your case. 81  Page2 Bruce Christensen February 12, 2007 I will stay in touch. Sincerely, ~tM!I())f~ Vincent D. Callahan VDC/ar Cc: Ms. Marge Churchill, Investigator Texas State Bar 126 E Nueva, Suite 200 San Antonio TX 78204 82  Feb. 23, 07 Vincent D. Callahan P.D.Bcx 12141 Sen Antonio, Tx 78212-3404 Dear Mr. Callahan, I reoievecl your le~ter postmarked 2/12/07 Which I just reoieved as I have been moved asain by TDCJ to Amarillo.Please note the correct address as Cle~ents Unit, 9601 Spur S@ 591 Amarillo, Tx 79107. ~s ! ~ecie~ed copieE oF ~he Feu~ Items yaut"' ere giong to resend t·o rne, why not just send me the t:hngs that you di have like the Exhibit tm. 1, 2, 3, 8 4 That the srtate entered into the record and did give you copies that you placed in you Folder without l.ett:ing me eee. Also send me the requested proouders and deadlines to them Fer any writ , memD- cramdum, or motion that could be Filed in the high court, because oF the Lew magiatrate•s obs~rvar.ce (obvisious disragard)For the law end case president. His allowing Hilda's lack cF appearance so that the reccrd msy have bee~ Fully investagated and placed ian the record. Your lack oF r~gard Fer my request For two witnesses companded the problem, end your statement that there were no Favorable wi tneeses ta my ac·t:ua1 i11conce claim, I asllc you \'!ho did do in-terview or intsvste.gete tc ccme to his con- elusion???? Besicelly I believe that you were nnt propperly prepared Fer the hearing Ol" t;hat you never intended to attempt to ~~~* qualiFy ms Valadez•~ ineFFective assistance. next, whether or net to remand the ent.ire case or just count 9. The court has said, ''you cannot plead to an illegal sentence •••• and ir i t is an neg. plea it can ,.,ot be disturbed just part oF 83  Peg!! 2 the bargain See Shannon 708 SW 2d 809, Beck as you cited and simms 808 sw 2d 803. and Adkins 767 SW 2d 809. I beli~ve that I Feel in to the t~ap that men deFandant~s do at thie~ 11.07 hearings the case and oth2r ~vidence is not propper placed into the record For the high Court to aee and revieiN~ Hilda out right lied in her aFidavt!!!d and everybody knows that she did havs dona everything to procect her, You, the District Attcrr.ey, and ~udge Crauthers. Any witnssa rrom the state's witness list end expecially my owr1 court appoin·ted invss"t- agator- Even Hilda could have been called to tesif abut my actual innocence. So I ask you as you are still my attorney, what d~ I need to do to correct the situtation. Or iF I have to re- rile anouther 11.07 or wait and appeal the remand to resentence or remand to answere the indictment jus·t For coun 9. Next, iT _I have to what do i need to lift the time bar on Filling My ~ederal writ 2254. So heree you chance, Act like my attorney ~nc3, ~ )l;: . . Bruce Chriete~ #1108982 W.P. Clements unit 91i!li Spur 591 Amarillo, Tx 79107 Cc: Me. Marge Churogill, Investigator Texas State Bar 126 E. Nueva, Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78204 84  Vincent D. Callahan Attorney Laurel Heights Station P. 0. Box 12141 San Antonio TX 78212-3007 Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404 March 7, 2007 Bruce Christianson # 1108982 W P Clements Unit 9601 Spur 591 Amarillo TX 70107 RE: Application for Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus No. WR-58,369-04; Court of Criminal Appeals No. 2001-CR-4986 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Dear Mr. Christensen: I received your letter postmarked 2/28/07. Please find enclosed the Stipulations, Judgment and Indictment. There is no time limit proscribed for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in their consideration of post conviction writ cases. I deny that I gave you ineffective assistance of counsel at the writ hearing. I am not authorized to assist you in the presentation of an application for Federal writ of habeas corpus. When I receive an order from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals I will immediately let you know. Sincerely, ~i{J)jlfo~ Vincent D. Callahan VDC/ar 85  I APP EXIBIT Vincent D~ Callahan f.- ll 25 Attorney et Law I PG540F60 P.O. Box "12141_ San Antonio, TX 78212-3404 T 0!3!ar MR. Callahar., In regards to your letter and my responce. you stated that you did not possess copi9s oF the court's Fila or the transcript's bwt if ~ou will read the order signed by Judge carruthers, it states that a copy C!F th9 order, 118§Siii!! together with ar.y attach- me~ts we~re to be sent to you F~cm the district ~lerk. I would sugges•c: t:h~t you get MY poPY From the district clerk and send ~' me a copy oF the c~mplete record including the reqwested exibits submitted by the state and the transcript oF the hearing. I have requested a copy From the district clerk ad Frm h the criminal court administrater, M. Barlow with no response from either. I also have one other question, I thought that nny recommondatio to the court oF Criminal Appeals showld be thrcugh Judge Harle. Something about Judge Carruthers or a masters holds the hears but the trial court is responsible, I would like to sse the trial courts or-d!!~s appointing you my cc:unseland for .Judge Carruthers to hold the hears. and its accectance oF his recommondations. I look Forward tn your enswere to these questions. ~...,.,___ Bruce ChrsiteMsen W.P. CLEMENTS UNIT #1108982 9601 Spur 591 AD!arlillo, Tx 79107 C:::: Ms. Marge churchill Investigator Texas State Bar ·126 E. Nueve, Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78204 86  APP EXIBIT AprU 30, 1!007 I 26 PG 55 OF 60 Vincenti O, Callahan Auuorney au Law 1",0, 801( 12141 San Anuonio, TM 78212 AIEl Cauee No, 2001-CA·49B6-W1 Deer Mr. Callahan, Inclosed 1111 the copy cf' the Ccuru•e Orclel" de11ed Jen, 31, 2007. and e le1111el" f'l"om 11he Couru•a ChieF Depuuy Clerk I sent 111 l"eply tic t!hJ.s later on April 2, 2007 bu11 have h111d a no word meek 111s to wheu eouiob hee be111n t•ken lF any. Le11 11te eive you 11he time line For wha11 h111e happened ••••• The court ruled en Jen. 31, end mailed me a copy that dey, buu the clerk made a mleteke and 1nouldad in the envll!lpe a oi:ipy ol" 1ihei courti•a order For AP .. 71S;EI01, ElC ParteWaleh. I reuurned tht order end envlpoe 110 11he clerk thry TOC, Major MUlar, et the clemente Unit.. On Feb, as, t:he chtrk sent me the correct oopy ¢If'' the order, on Meroh 9, 07 I mailed a pe'llitlon For reons1cleret1on fEn l!leno. As you: .can sa• From 11he let11er da11•d mliu•oh 1!!3, Ttlity oonlld'd·ered 111 late l On April 2, 07 I mellacl the dep. Cllerk e letter explelnine the reason For the le'lle f'lling wi11h 11he above dat:ads, The reason For the request ia 11het neither court oonelderecl the Fact that 11hle ceee wee a neg, plea one plea even one senuence, ee eteued ln Ms. Vsledez•e •••••ment, I'm net aura of' wh11111 your suetue ie au Uhle •lme w111h my case, bu11 11' yau etill olnslder your eelf' my 111ttorney then your help would be gre•,ly l!lppriol•tad. Alec enclceed is case 87  lew For the arguement about Neg. Plea and the remand For the entire Although the fl'lea bargain aaeamed Fair on ita Fec:~a then it has become unenForceable due to olrcumatencea beyond control oF the applicant or the etata, namely the Fact that one oF the caunte in 11.he lndio11man1: (Cipaunt) wee miaoharlterlzed reeultlng in en llllgal aentanoe 1 outelde 11ha statutory range oF punishment. Since nei11her the e11ata nor 11he trial court l'tae the authori11h to anaure oamplianoa with the eentenoa, 11he properly remandy la to allow applicant to withdraw hie plea anc:l remand the oaee to the urlal ooul"t putting both partlea beck in.thalr orglaal poaltlone beFore they entered into the plea bel"galn. Th1e plea bargain wee Hlegal and wee apparent on the Face oF the record anc:l Judgement even beFore the lnk dl"yed. Tl'lla court dose not know For aura but he• eaaumed that eppUr;~ant would have ~;~ant. to believe l'le wee getting a soocl deal From the e11ate even lF he would have known th.t he dld not Face a poeelble sentence oF 99 yeare an one count, who eto eey that he would not oFbJected to the reoammemendad 111ap 1111" :!!!5 yeara on the r•mlncher of' ohargee, applicant wee bargaining For one sentence,. the same sentence f'c:~r ell three chargee ... see Trial L!ewyer•s Af'f'lcUvate fl'ege two, aeoond paragraph, "DeFendant entered 111ne plea of' no contest to his lndlotm!lll'ltl end 111.1bmi ttad ~:~na appll~:~atlion f'or deFerred ec:IJ ud!oet£on undt!'r ~:~ne ceuee number. .DeFendent knew that he.wee to reolave 111nly one punishment f'or the whole 1ncl1otment," Spaoif'io parF111rmance of' the pl·ea bargain which wail For the pcuseiblllty oF 3!3 years cannot be obtaineu:t, so 11he parties must: be rat:urned to their position prior to. the plea oF eutl11y. If' the court simply dslet:ee the oonvlo111on For count 9 only, the state would t:hen be bound de11rlman11ly to this aapaot 1111" the agreement! The daoiason of' thie court in deleting the Flndlng of' sully on oountl s only w111hout disturbing the ramender oF the bargain ls to edjuetl tlhe tlen•r 111F "mutsl obU.eet!onz entered by the partliea, thle would oreaua a new bargain not contemplated by the parties or 11he trial oourt The terms oF the plea bargain, being 88  con•raotuel in nature, ere leFt laF• to the parties to determine end atsree Ut:Jon ••• , This OtliUrt h!llls stated marly t!mea that 'i:htll court wlll Mot disturb the terms oF 11uch agreement. That this is nhr'llhl!lr log!oial or Fair. Sh111nnon 1 70S s. w. ed at ss:;z, As r•cent as Pilch Hi# SU1 !!! 194 s.w. 3d soa - this court has ruled that since 111 wee a nes. l"lea thst the proper! remendy le to remand the entire CllJIIS to the trial court plac!ns bouth parties back in their crgianal position beFore the Negatiated Plea. Thil!3 ... rguement is in part oF my Memel"andam included with the applioention, So , Am I Just waet!ng my time here or you st Ul my at11ornay representing me on my 11.07 application? eruca Cnr!atenaen Lyneugh Unit #1108982 1098 $, Hwy 2037 F•. Stockton, T~ 79735 89  APP EXIBIT II 27 PG 58 OF 60 Vincent D. Callahan Attomey Laurel Heights Station P. 0. Box 12141 San Antonio TX 78212-3007 Telephone/Fax: 210-737-3404 May4, 2007 Bruce Christensen # 1108982 Lynaugh Unit 1098 S. Hwy 2037 Fort Stockton TX 79735 RE: Application for Post Conviction Writ of Habeas Corpus No. WR-58,369-04; Court of Criminal Appeals, No. 2001-CR-4986 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Dear Mr. Christensen: I received your letter postmarked 511/07. I had not received a copy of the Per Curiam Opinion dated 1/31/07 which I am returning to you. When I receive notice of the trial setting, if any, I will immediately let you know. If the State persists in its re-prosecution of Count 9, I will file a motion objecting based on the argument that your original plea agreement has been violation by the State and requesting that the prior judgment on the remaining counts be set aside. I will confer with the prosecutor with a view to discover the State's intensions in this regard. I will stay in touch. Sincerely, ~$11;1) /;t~. ' . '"'! 1 Vincent D. Callahan VDC/ar 90  ·~·~----------- CAUSE NO. b/OOICR Lf18fo OFFENSE: $GXA5SA•~T-CI+ILSJ' THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE ~9,_,:;("--"--(:,""'--'!:,_·--=])_1S_·rr<,-'-1--'-_:_T_ _.COURT vs. OF 6ruc..e. L, Chr- Coo ..-,+. I X s .u-. 'r~ 6. 3 0 A MY yrs . ·-rDc... ,-1 Co"" t-1 T +3l1I:. 1-------------------------------~------~--------------------------------------l WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is requested that the above entitled and numbered cause be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, Assistant Cri ina! District Atto - J Bexar Cou y, Texas 2 "I o 2 i! 2.f! 'i ORDER ..... ....~--· The foregoing motion having been presented to me. on this the MAi"28~w day of______~"'=Jil'.:.or____,,A.D; 20 _ _, and the same having been considered, it, is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED DECREED that said above entitled imd numbered cause be and the same is hereby dismissed. ~~ )UDG 226\\l. -~-----------------------------COURT BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 91 OA FOAM 10975 Orhdn~l - WhitP.· St~tP.'o;: C'nnv- Pink· nPfPnthmt'!<:. rnnv- Yt>Jlnw  - June 13,2007 APP EXIBIT # 29 Vincent 0. Callahan PG 60 OF 60 AttornaystLsw Laurel Hights Station P,O.Box12141 SsnAntonio,TX 78212-3404 DasrMr.Csllshsn, Yourlsst letter ofMsy 4, 2007 stated thsSt you weregoing to inquirew~~but the state's intentsians. I have had no response Whet I went youto do is to file s request for s bench wsrrsnr end s motion for s speedy trial, end ell so the motion to object based on the violation ofthe prior plea agreement. This needs to be done without any further deysl end no metter the state's intentions •.•• ! also need for you to help me with filing a second 11.07 based on the ··~~~ti~* same grounds, and any others that you can think of. I will wait until the 25th of june to file the 11.07 waiting for your input. Since it spears that you are still my attorny, the failure to timely acomplish this things will result in a new complant. I slsoneed information about getting the court toreconsider its dascion inblanc. i did file the notioce timily by the clark refuses to file it. There is no reason for the appeal to have come to a stop like it has. Please I'm asking for the help that! believe you should help with anyway and some of the things i shouldn't have hadd to ssk for ~r about .••• _.. -- Bruce Christa sen TDCJ # 11!;18982 Lynaugh Unit 1098 S. Hwy 2037 Ft. Stockton, Tx 79735 92  June 5, 2014 Donna Kay McKinny Bexar County District Clerk 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Dear Ms McKinny, Enclosed is my Second Writ of Mandamus, please file it and bring it to the attention of the court. I have Ask Judge to expedite this cause b.ecause I have alteady file my application for 11.07 and the record that you forward to the court with the 11.07 will incomplete • I have also forwarded a copy to the other respondants in C/O Criminal District Court Adminstrator. Would you please assure that they are aware of the writ as I have written them at the court house and they have not responded. As you can see I believe that your court record has been comp- romised by people that the court should be able to trust. We will see. Thank you for your time on this matter and l'm looking f forward to hearing from you. ~-9;:2 . Bruce Chr1stensen Polunsky Unit # 1108982 3872 Fm 350 s. Livingstone, Tx. 77351 93  TRXAL COURT CAUSEMNO. 2001-CR-4986-W-3 Bruc;e Christensen § In the District Court Applicant, pro se § § vs. § 226th Judicial District § § State of Texas i Bexar County, Texas §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ APl?:t.ICATlON FOR WRIT OP MNDAMUS to THE HONORABLE JUDGE Sid Harle Now comes, Bruce Christensen, pro se and complaining of the following respondents,Donna McKinney, Bexar County District Clerk Cheryl McMahan, Official Court Reporter of the 226th District court on Nov. 16th, 2006 and present for a hearing on Cause No. 2001- CR-4986-Wl, and Roxanne Pena, Official Court Reporter and present for an evidence hearing held on Dec. 11, 2006. Applicant, states that this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and ask the court to grant him leave to file this applic- ation for Writ of Mandamus. The Applicant is entitled to have a "complete" copy of the record forwarded to the Court Of Criminal Appeals with his Application of 11.07, to Inculd all of the parts requested before the clerks record is prepared. According to TX. R.App.Proc. Rule 34.5, The time for request is any time before the clerk's record is prepared. Any party may file with the trial clerk a written designation specifying items to be inculded in the record. Rule 34.5(b)l. If a relevent item has been omitted from the clerk's record, the trial court appellate Court or any party may by letter direct the court clerk to certify and file the appe ellate court a supplement containg the omited items. Rule 34.5(c)l 94  If the clerks recora is defective or inaccurate the appellant must inform the trial clerk of the defect or inaccuracy and in- struct the clerk to make the correction. Rule 34.5(d). :lfso even if the appellent was not timely Rule 34.5(b)t4), says "Failure to timely request". An appellant court must not refuse the clerk's record or a supplement clerk's record because of a failure to be inculded in the clerk's record. This action is under the facts of this case, in essence, a mere ministerial act which the res- pondents have a legal duty to perform. Applicant has properly requested the respondents to preform which they all have refused. The record is missing revelant items that have been omited and applicant has no other legal remendy available to him other t then this application for mandamus. Applicant Request for the following relief is as foltows: Respondant No. 1 Roxanne F. Pena Official Court Reporter Criminal Law Magistrate Court 1. On Dec. 11, 2006, evidence hearing before Judge Carruthers, the State's attorney had you tag Mulit. eaibits, one thru seven. The reporters recora only shows two exibits #1 and i2. The recordcord speaks of others Such as Ji5, intered for Identification purposes. Where are Exibits li3 thru #7 1?? I had ask her to research her records and to enter into the ~ecord those exibits and to send me copies. Inclosed is a copy of the letter sent to to her. Respondant No. 2 Cheryl McMahan Official Court Reporter 226th District Court On Nov. 16, 2006 a conference or hearing was held in the 226th district court, Ms. McMahan was present and is responsable for the record. Judge Harle Set a date for the hvidence hearing, appointed counsel, issued a bench warrent and &&li~&QQlQ&~A heard evidence inculding applicant's affidavits, aad heard the district attorney's recommendation that count 9 be reman- ded ded.for resentencing only.and other unk~o~n Issues! that ~pp­ ellant is unaware of. He was never not1f1ed of th1s hear1ng 95  by the cour·t or by his court appointed counsel. Applicant re- quest a complete transcript and all exibits ana documents used. Appl).cant request that Ms. Mcr1ahan also file an affidavit stat- ing why this transcript and exibits and documents were oot in- culded in the origianel District's court Records. Respondance No. ll< 3 Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk 1. I would request the district Clerk to investagate the offic.al court record to see if the record has been tampered w.i.th. a) The record in in disaray according to the Index, It is possible that the record was not returned to it origianal order when ex- bits were removed and altered. Also the page count does not reconsial with the num- ber of exibits and items in the index. b) Applicants rebuttal afidavite are missing foam the record. c) Judges orders with exibite is missing 5 pages d) Court Transcript for hearing on lllot• Nov 11, 2006 is missing. 2. I would request the district Clerk file an affidavit consid- ering the above items stating what was done and what the results af her inversagation are. and any other pertenet information the the court will need to consider with the current record when it is forwarded to them with my 11.07. 3. Inclosed is co~ies of letters sent to the districk clkrk U$$$$$U Which she has refused to respond to. 4. t would request the the District Clerk send me copies of the Docket sheets for both causes, 2001-CR-4986 and ala() 2001-CR- 2632, showing all appearnces and hearings and the final bill- ing aubmited by appointed counsels. WHEREFORE, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this app- lication for Mandamus be granted and that the respondents be order- ed to proceed as requested, by law to continue wsith the relief requested. Applicant request the this application for Mandamus ~ be expil:.di~n_this request as he haa filled his application for 11.07 and the court when need this information and recorda to propperly consider the issues. I would request for any other relief, gen- eri.land special. as applicant may be intitled to. r isten.sen Applicant, pro se 96  gMIIOIR DECARATlON I, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, pro .ae, in the above styled and captioned c:auf!E" do swear under penaltiefl of perjury that the following Application For Writ of Mandamus and the state- ments contain•d are true and correct to the best of my abilities and knowledge, on this the 5,day of June, 2014. Reopect~ittoo, <(~· . -iJ······ Bruce cbi:it~n Applicant, pro ae h CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - I, Bruce Christensen• Applicant, pro se, in the above styled lnd captioned cause do swear under penalties of perjury that the following Appliction for Writ of Mandamus wu placed in the u.s. Mail, post-paid, on the 5th day of June. 2014. To the following persona: l) Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, Tx. 78205 2) Roxanne F. Pena OGficial Court Reporter C/O Criminal District Court Admminstator Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Delorosa, Suite 4076 Sar{ Antonio, Tx. 78205 3) Cheryl McMahan Official Court-~eporter 226th District Court C/O Criminal Sistrict court Ad,mtaatr&~O! Cadena-Reeves Dtatice Center 300 Deloroaa , Suite 4076 San Antonio, Tx 78205 97 Bruce Christensen Applicant, pt·o ae  ......______ '),.. n .··"'· :. I Donne .McKinney Bex\~POlU:l4lu;t, i't~i~atlohdunt lli'tttA\ t..t,c; f.!.•UO\tiUQ• "s-~tU.iilllllt li~li!Gklll t;tlb.t: ld)' ail. ht'lit otl';q;r: l:.h&ll, ~ lift: it c~ ~~nd&tlUII' fl'• pnye~ fQ;; lili1>.:'1 ilatl ~-.1 i.!..lollll; ~~ &lll;llid fii'Olll Uud, r. t'lf.fUafll \':,Q e.Utll'!\'\t tU.:mU.ow ~il<':• 1;1!'&111.4\ldb:td !YICG4Uihl~ie• 99  'l'h111 a~:rtion sought ia \ll'ldl\lt· the hete of this cuuse, :l.n ese$nce, a m~~e minieteri•l act which the reeponQente have a legal duty to pl!'Ofot'm • id. 'I'i'Je ahtr.ict tl!r.•k. !!las been ask to c:ortjfy Supp-Wl with the tHcibtta enured into the teuor:o i\ncl dtiCiavl.tlll ataUn9 w111nt il!l aU:U 11d..stJir19 and wlult tuu been found. ';l'hf qbov• styled and eaption'!ld rsqueu do so I!;W~tn.• uni!lv1L· perH••l ties of prejttry that th~ follcwin9 statem&nt.t• nu&~llll! in the pttilldCln fo:.· Nt n: of Mandamue are t~ue and ¢orrec': to the beet of m:t abiUtiea ltr!lil knowled<;~e; On this the. 2m'! day of Oct. 20lJ. IceJttHy that a true copy of the ilbO'\II!l WillS served on eaeh patr:ty, by t.t. s. Mail in aecor1Si.n9 w:l. tl'! 'l'ex&u!l l{ul,ee Of CivU Pro.::. Bruce Chrietans~n P~titionor, pro ee )~1Hnaky Unit *1108?82 ' · Ill ~50 South Li•.ri.ngstone; t.x 77351 100  October 23, 2013 Mr. Bruce Christensen Polunsky Unit #1108982 3874 FM 350 South Livingstone, TX 77351 Re: Trial Court Number 2001-CR-4986-SPP. W1, Bruce Christensen vs. The State of Texas Dear Mr. Christensen: On October 15 I received correspondence from the Bexar County District Clerk regarding your request in the above-styled cause. After conferring with the clerk in the 226th District Court and reviewing the D page of your case, we determined that I was not present and did not report any of the hearings in this matter. In fact, two other reporters are listed on the D page, Cheryl McMahan and Roxie Pena. I'm sure you've been in touch with them, and if ~ou have not, their addresses will be available through the office of Criminal Cour·t Administration in Bexar County. I apologize for the delay in responding to you. I first got notice of your letter on October 15, on my way to the airport for a long-planned trip, and just got home on October 22. Sincerely, ~~ Cheryl A. Lyren CC: Donna McKinney Bexar County District Clerk Clerk of the 226th District Court 101 !"\ \  Nov. 12, 200.13 Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk Attn. Alice s. Gonzales Supervisor. Criminal Filing 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, Texas 78205 RB:2001-CR-4986-Wl- Supp. Dear Ms~ Gonzales, Thank you for sendin0 the complete record, but I believe there is some cofusion about what I need. It pertains to Wl-Supp only.. Parts of the rwccr·d !1~v~ been removed, ana 011e affi.davit affid&~it i~ th~ one that has been chunged1 ib thrcG pJ.aC0G~ Ju0t L:wo of my affidavits have be0n remov·.:d fcoin thE- rt~cor·d .. 'The f~~.J:e+:: th~y ary11ed points of the miGtakes ir1 her afidavi.t~ New what I noed, and I am hot sbre what it ~.s tha~ you can do, but I need the district clerJ' office to ir~ve~tagate if flarts of the record are missing and as~ist me in tt·yin~ to find t~se affidavitam (I do have copies that I flled in th<; Ped. Court In San Antonio as psrt of rny 2254.) I aJso n~ed some ao1t a statement saying what happened and what was done, like t~e dist. Attonnoys office agreed to ~lace ·my copied into the record. Al.ao Judge El~tJe signed and ~ubbmitted the ord6d aria exibits, If 1·c~ would belp me find out if there was a hearing on Nov, 16,2006, and if the Judge still might have copies cr the court ~eport•r who was here 102 There at that time. I do not know who that would be because if there was a hearin~ there ia no transcript ir• tl1e record. I know that l'm asking a lot, but the Court of Crim. Appeals was not able to consider the complete record. Bometthing esle efl of t!1is happened bet~et·Il Nov~ lG. 2006 a116 Dec. 11th, 2006n Is there will locking forward to t1ear fron1 you &~air\ ~n~ i youli: likE to th;:mk you for t:l"~ tim.., consid&r ing this jjr:oblem. 103  May 19, 2014 Roxanne F. Pena Official Court Reporter Bexar County Courthouse 100 Dolorose ~~reet Criminal La!' ~istrate Court San Antonio, Tx 78205 Dear Ms. Pena, Tiis is in reference to 2001-cR-4986-Wl, Ex Parta Bruce a. Christensen, hearing held on 11, Dec. 2006 before Judge Carruthers with you as the reporter. Ms. Welsh the state's attorney had you tag mult, exibits one though seven ••• the reporters record only shows two offered and at lest one was intreed for Idenification purposes State's Exibit iS, Page 24, line l4 •••• Exibits 6 & 7 are the reporter's record of the plea and sentencing. Where is Exibit H4??? What is Exibit #4???? I filed a writ of mandamus to recieve a complete copy of the record which the district clerk complied with. I need you to resurch your record's and send me copies of Exibits #4, *5, #6, and #7. I look forward to hearing from you, as soon as possible as I have filed anseccesive writ for the court to hear evidence of missing parts of therrec- ord and other issues. ~ttg!J~u" :~ riice:Chri"Stensen Polunsky Unit ill08982 3872 FM 350 S. Livingstone, Tx 77351 104 ' June s, 2014 Criminal District Court Administartor Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Delorosa, Suite 4076 San Antonio, Tx 78205 DeQ Cout·t Adminatrator, Inclosed is a copy of the Writ of Mandamus filled with the court. I have written them at the court house and they have not responded. Would you please notify them of the writ by forward ing them copies and in person if posible. I understand the neither is working at the court house anymore, but are they still aesp- oble tor the records that they took? Please let me know i f you are the correct person to contact and if not then who. Thank you for your time on this matter, il'm am looking forward to hear- B -ce ristensen Poll.!.l'Ui!klf Unit 1!1108982 3872 fM 350 $, Livingstone. tx 77351 105  I May 19, 2014 Vincent D. Callhan llttorny at law P.O. Box 12141 san Antonio, Texas 78212-9998 Dear Mr •.. Callbhan, This is in reference to 2001-CR-4986-Wl Ex Patre Bruce Christensen, hearing held Dec. 11,2006 where you were n~ court appointed attorny for that hearing. It this time I would request a copy of your complete file 6ila this case, inculding all inveet:agative notes and corepondence and any . interviews conducted, including with Ms Valadez and the state•s.attorney. I also need an affidavit i;ls to the reasons you failed to ar<,jue my facts and comsu conclusions of law presented in my brief, and why Me Valadaz was nbO called regarding · by the defence. Please inculed in your affidavit!' your relationship with Ms. Valadez, and Ms Welsh. Please state if you were aware of my affidavits pre~ented to the court in rebuttal to m.s Valadez and if so why you did not :In :--·~" ;!Pnte{rthem into the evidence at the h6-- Christensen Polunsky Unit, ~1108982 3872 FM 350 South Livingstone, Tx 77351 106 ,iJune -, 9, 2014 Donna Kay McKinny Bexar County District Clerk 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Dear Ms. McKinny, Enclosed is my Petition for an Evidetary Hearing and a Bench Warrant. Please file it and notify the court. Attached is 30 Exibits totalling 74 pages. I've requested a check to be sent-to you in the amount of $38.50 for a complete copy of this file. Also I have sent a copy of just the Petition to Judge Harle of the 226th District and to the District Attorney's Office To the attn. of Rico Valdez, appellate Division •. Thank you for your time on this matter •. Submitted, Livingstone, Tx 77351 -• 107  • ' I . ' 108  NO. 2001CR4986-W3 EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § 226TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS 0 R DE R Applicant, Bruce Christensen, has filed a pro se application for post-conviction writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, collaterally attacking his conviction in cause number 2001CR4986. (Vernon 2000). HISTORY OF THE CASE On or about April 22, 2002, Applicant pled nolo contendere pursuant to a plea bargain agreement to three ( 3) counts of aggravated sexual assault. The court assessed punishment at thirty (30) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 2, 2002. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in No. 04-02-00397-CR. Applicant filed this application for writ of habeas corpus on May 7, 2014. A copy of this application was received by the District Attorney on May 27, 2014. 109  ALLEGATrONS OF APPLrCANT 1. In Applicant's first ground for relief, Applicant alleges "Ineffective assistance of counsel Court appointed Habeas Counsel." Specifically, Applicant contends that the court stated that he had alleged sufficient facts regarding counsel's performance, if true might be entitled to relief. He had demonstrated that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial was a "substantial one." The trial court appointed counsel and held a hearing. Appointed habeas counsel then impeded and obstructed in presenting Applicant's claim by: refusing to call any witnesses to testify, including trail counsel, court-appointed investigator, as well as other witnesses; refusing to present any of Applicant's alleged charges and facts of ineffectiveness presented in his pro se brief; refusing to present any of Applicant's statements of facts and law; refusing to correct the false impression of trial counsel's credibility when Applicant brought to his attention that Ms. Valadez needed to testify and not by affidavit; and refusing to use Applicant's plausible and sound strategy that possessed sufficient substance to be viable argument. Habeas counsel refused to follow the above i terns because counsel was inherently in conflict with his client's interest, not his lack of competence, but his misplaced desire, as he stated to 110 Applicant "not to open a can of worms. " Habeas counsel placed himself in a situation that he was required to make choices between advancing his client's interest in a fair hearing or advance other interest to the detriment of his client. Counsel made that choice to advance those other interests, the protection of Ms. Valadez' reputation and her livelihood. What was in counsel's best interest was to call Ms. Valadez and the other witnesses to the stand and aggressively cross-examine her actions such as trial preparation, legal advice given and trial strategy (or lack thereof). But because of his relationship with trial counsel, he would have been "greatly chilled in that cross" or as here, unable to cross examine. In Applicant's second writ, the court found that habeas counsel was effective and the CCA denied relief w/o written order. The Court, in fact, had no reason to review because under then current Texas and Fifth Circuit precedent, patently unfair though it might be, the reality facing a convicted Texas criminal defendant is that neither a negligent failure or even malicious refusal to present a potentially meritorious claim or even gross incompetence is the course of the defendant's state habeas proceeding, effectively precludes habeas review of that claim. At the time of Applicant's evidence hearing, a state habeas petitioner possessed no right to effective habeas counsel on any issues presented. Applicant made every effort to present to the court 111 his complaint about the performance of his habeas counsel before the hearing. Habeas counsel was aware of his actions and his desired outcome; he knew he would suffer no legal consequences for his failure to properly plead and prove Applicant's ineffective of counsel claim. The proposed finding of facts and law submitted by Habeas counsel was so poorly done that a first time jailhouse lawyer could have done a better job. Allowing the. courts to consider the incomplete record, that is, his client's affidavits, to be removed from the record and other parts altered show his planned intentions. The new rule allows an exception to show cause on an ineffective assistance of counsel and Texas should look at it first. 2. In Applicant's second ground for relief, Applicant alleges "Trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed an incomplete record; the official court record had been altered and parts removed and destroyed." Specifically, Applicant alleges that: a) Trial counsel's affidavit altered and replaced in the record b) Applicant's affidavit removed from the official court record. c) Applicant's Supp. Affidavit missing from the official court record; 112  d) Trial judge entered into the record "Exhibits" missing from the court record. Applicant contends the above documents were/are missing, removed, and or destroyed from the official court record and not considered by the court in its decision making of the merits of the case. Applicant has tried to find and replace missing parts of the record contacting the District Clerk and court reporters. Applicant found Items number 3 and 4 in the record of his :2254 filed in the u.s. District Court in San Antonio, Tx. The court should hold a hearing so that items 3 and 4 can be entered into the record and items 1 and 4 can be properly investigated and the findings entered into the record. 3. In Applicant's third ground for relief, Applicant alleges "State's violation of the plea agreement/State's improper modification of defendant's judgment of sentence." Specifically, Applicant alleges that the provisions of Applicant's plea agreement became unenforceable due to one provision being illegal and void sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeals sending the defendant back to answer the indictment on count nine only was improper. The court has stated many times "when only one of the sentencing elements is void, the judgment is rendered void only if the judgment cannot be reformed to cure the infirmity, i.e., the infirmity cannot be 113  cured without resorting to resentencing. The defendant should have been allowed to withdraw his "one Plea" and to return both parties back to their original positions before the plea. By remanding only count nine, the court placed the defendant in a position that he might face adverse collateral consequences from potential new sentencing, and by becoming a separate hearing/trial, the defendant losses all bargaining issues he had when plea bargaining with the full indictment. Now the state has no reason to offer less than the max 20 years and the court, now as a new separate proceeding, has the ability to stack this new sentence on the prior sentence, something that the trial court did not have the ability to do in the first hearing. The trial court stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider this ground as Applicant should have presented it in his first writ. Habeas counsel did in fact touch this issue in short form in his proposed finding of facts, inartfully and incomplete that it was, second how would the defendant know what actions the Court of Criminal Appeals would take before their decision was made. The court did not consider this issue on the merits and should do so now. 4. In Applicant's fourth ground for relief, Applicant alleges "Trial court's failure to allow defendant to fully participate in Applicant's first 11.07 habeas evidence hearing." 114 Specifically, Applicant alleges that the court refused to allow defendant to have his restraints adjusted to allow him to have full access to his legal notes and to be able to freely confer and assist his habeas counsel. As defendant was asking the court for this assistance, court appointed habeas sat by doing nothing, refusing to assist him with this action as it became apparent that he did not want him to be able to access his notes and take part in his own defense. The method that defendant was restrained caused him to be inhibited and discouraged from taking part in presenting his case not only by the court by his own counsel. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On or about April 22, 2002, Applicant pled nolo contendere pursuant to a. plea bargain agreement to three ( 3) counts of aggravated sexual assault. The court assessed punishment at thirty (30) years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. A Notice of Appeal was filed on May 2, 2002. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in No. 04-02-00397-CR. 2. Applicant filed a previous writ of habeas corpus on November 28, 2005 alleging that he pled no contest to Count IX of the indictment, which actually alleged sexual assault in which case he should have been sentenced to two (2) to twenty (20) years 115 for sexual assault but was instead sentenced to thirty years for aggravated sexual assault. Additionally, Applicant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. 3. Pursuant to the Court of Criminal Appeal's order, a hearing was held in the trial court. By mandate issued January 31, 2007, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief in part and ordered that the judgment, as it related to Count IX of the indictment, be set aside and that Applicant be remanded to answer the charges against him (AP-75,602}. 4. On May 23, 2007, the Court granted the State's Motion to Dismiss Count IX of the indictment. 5. Grounds One, Three and Four of this instant writ were previously raised by Applicant in his second writ. 6. With regard to Ground Two in this instant writ, Applicant does not state or show that said current claim was unavailable at the time he filed his previous writ application. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This third writ application is a subsequent application and cannot be considered as it challenges the same conviction as his prior writ. Tex. Crim. Proc. Code §11.07(4} (Vernon 2012}. 116  2. This Court finds that Applicant is precluded from bringing this third writ application based upon the subsequent writ provision in Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07 § 4(a)-(c) (Vernon 2 012) . The current claims and issues either were or could have been presented previously in his prior writ application. 3. Therefore, it is recommended that this application be . DISMISSED. 117  ORDERS The District Clerk of Bexar County, Texas, is ordered to prepare a copy of this document, together with any attachments and forward the same to the following persons by mail or the most practical means: a. The Court of Criminal Appeals Austin, Texas 78711 b. Susan D. Reed Criminal District Attorney Paul Elizondo Tower Bexar County, Texas 78205 c. BRUCE LYNN CHRISTENSEN TDCJ #1108982 Polunsky Unit 3872 FM 350 S Livingston TX 77351 SIGNED, ORDERED and DECREED ON JUN 1 3 2014 _.,..-/ JUDGE SID HARLE 226TH Judicial District Court Bexar County, Texas 118  TRIAL COURT CAUSEMNO. 2001-CR-4986-W-3 Bruce Christensen § In the District Court Applicant, pro se § § vs. § 226th Judicial District § § State of Texas i Bexar county, Texas §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ APPLICATION FOR WRIT 011' MNDAMUS to THE HONORABLE JUDGE Sid Harle Now comes, Bruce Christensen, pro se and complaining of the following reepondents,oonna McKinney, Bexar eounty District Clerk Cheryl McMahan, Official Court Reporter of the 226th District court on Nov. 16th, 2006 and present for a hearing on Cause No. 2001- CR-4986-!All, and Roxanne Pena, Official Court Reportet· and present for an evidence hearing held on Dec. 11, 2006. Applicant, states that this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties and ask the court to grant him leave to file this applic- ation for ~1rit of Mandamus. The Applicant is entitled to have a "complete" copy of the record forwarded to the Court Of Criminal Appeals with his Application of 11.07, to Inculd all of the pa:r:·ts requested before the clerks record is prepared. According to TX. R.App.Proc. Rule 34.5, The time for request is any time before the clerk's record is prepared. Any party may file with the trial clerk a written designation specifying items to be inculded in the record. Rule 34.5{b)l. If a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record, the trial court appellate Cout·t or any party may by letter direct the court clerk to certify and file the appe ellate court a supplement containg the omited items. Rule 34.5(c)l 119 If the clerks record is defective or inaccurate the appellant must inform the trial clerk of the defect or inaccuracy and in- struct the clerk to make the correction. Rule 34.5(d}. lfso even if the appellant was not timely Rule 34.5(b)$4), says "Failure to timely request•. An appellant court must not refuse the clerk's record or a supplement clerk's record because of a failure to be inculded in the clerk's t·ecord. This action is under the facts of this case, in essence, a mere ministerial act which the res- pondents have a legal duty to perform. Applicant has pt·opet·ly requested the respondents to preform which they all have refused. The record is missing revelant items that have been omited and applicant has no other legal remendy available to him other t then this application for mandamus. Applicant Request for the following relief is as fol.ows: Respondant No. 1 Roxanne E'. Pena Official Court Reporter Criminal Law Magistrate Court 1. On Dec. 11, :1006, evidence hearing before Judge Carruthers, the State's attorney had you tag Mulit• eaibits, one thru seven. The reporters record only shows two exibits #l and 12. The ~rdcord speaks of others Such as #5, intered for Identification purposes. Where are Exibits 13 thru #7 1?? I had ask her to research her records and to enter into the record those exibits and to send me copies. Inclosed Ls a copy of the letter sent 1li' to her. Respondent No. 2 Cheryl McMahan Official Court Reporter 226th District Court 1. On Nov. 16, 2006 a conference or hearing was held in the 226th distt·ict court, Ms. McMahan was present and is responeable for the record. Judge Harle Set a date for the kvidence hearing, appointed counsel. issued a bench warrant and 6&&6&&&AlA6~A heard evidence inculding applicant's affidavits, aad heard the district attorney's recommendation that count 9 be reman- ded.for resentencing onlr.and other unknown Issues, that app- ellant is unaware of. He was never notified of this hearing 120  by the·court or by his court appointed counsel. Applicant re- quest a complete transcript and all exibits ana documents used. Appl,icant request that Ms. McMahan also file an affidavit stat- ing why this transcript and exibita and documents were oot in- culded in the origianel District's court Recorda. Reapondance No. # 3 Donna Kay McKinney Bexar Collnty.District Clerk 1. I would request the district Clerk to investagate the official court record to see if the record has been tampered with. a) The record in in aiaaray according to the Index, It is possible that the recora was not returned to it origianal order when ex- bi.ts were removed and altered. Also the .page count aoes not reconsial with the num- ber of exibits and items in the index. b) Applicants rebuttal afiaavits are missing foDm the record. · · c) Judges orders with exibits is missing 5 pages d) Court Transcript for hearing on $60• Nov 11, 2006 is missing. 2. I would request the district Clerk file an affidavit consid- ering the above items stating what was done and what the results af her inversagation are. and any other pertenet information the the court will need to consider with the current recora when it is forwaredd to them with my 11.07. 3. Inclosed is co;ies of letters sent to the districk clkrk U~$$$$1:\$Which she has refused to respona to. 4. I would request the the District Clerk send me copies of the Docket sheets for both causes, 2001-CR-4986 and also 2001-CR- 2632, showing all appearnces and hearings and the final bill- ing submited by appointed counsels. WHEREFORE, ALt. THINGS CONSIDERED, Applicant prays that this app- lication for Mandamus be granted and that the responaents be order- ea to proceed as requested, by law to continue wsith the relief requested. Applicant request the this application for Mandamus be ~his request as he has filled his application for ll..07 and the court when need this information and records to propperly consider the issues. I would request for any other relief, gen- erillana special. as applicant may be intitled to. rue istensen 121 Applicant, pro se  YIIIORR DECARATION I, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, pro se, in the above styled ana captioned cause, do swear under penalties of perjury that the following Application For Writ of Mandamus and the state- ments contain'd are true and correct to the best of my abilities and knowledge, on this the S,day of June, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, ~Applicant, pro se h CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Bruce Christensen~ Applicant, pro se, in the above styled lnd captioned cause do swear under penalties of perjury that the following Appliction for Writ of Mandamus was placed in the u.s. Mail, post-paid, on the 5th day of June, 2014. To the following persons: 1) Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, Tx. 78205 2) Roxanne F. Pena Odficial Court Reporter C/O Criminal District Court Admminstator Cadena-Reaves Justice Center 300 Delorosa, Suite 4076 san Antonio, Tx. 78205 3) Cheryl McMahan Official Court-1:eporter 226th District Court C/O Cdminal District court AddnbiiastrAf6R Cadena-Reaves Distice center 300 Delorosa , Suite 4076 San Antonio, Tx 78205 ~t-t_e_d_,_...;,;-""'> 122 Bruce Christensen Applicant, pro se Criminal District court Administartor Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Delorosa, Suite 4076 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Deaa Court Adminstrator, Inclosed is a copy of the Writ of Mandamus filled with the court• I have written them at the court house and they have not responded. Would you please notify them of the writ by forward ing them copies and in person if posible. I understand the neither is working at the court house anymore, but are they still Desp- oble for the records that they took? Please let me know if you are the correct person to contact and if not then who. Thank you for your time on this matter, ii'm am looking forward to hear- ing B ce ristensen Polunsky Unit #1108982 3872 fM 350 S, Livingstone, tx 77351 123 June ?, 20,14 Criminal District Court Administartor Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Delorosa, Suite 4076 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Dear Court Adminstrator, Inclosed is a copy of the Writ of Mandamus filled with the court. I have written them at the court house and they have not responded. Would you please notify them of the writ by forward ing them copies and in person if posible. I understand the neither is working at the court house anymore, but are they still resp- oble for the records that they took? Please let me know if you are the correct person to contact and if not then who. Thank you for your time on this matter, I'm am looking forward to hear- ing fr~ you. kL IIL..J.---::::,..s;:-----· B~T!2:en Po1unsky Unit #1108982 3872 FM 350 S. Livingstone, tx 77351 124  _, Bruce Christensen Polonsky ill08~S2 ~J:ti t:i';::;HS'tii.l!ll :r:¥. .?:.?3<:~;::;.'S'j 3872 FM 350 S. .··_!J-j:;~ ·:XJt:i~ ·?.fJi4 ~--~?f# i. t Livingstone, Tx 77351 Criminal District Court Aerninstrator Cadena-Reeves 3ustice Center 300 Delorosa St. Suite 4076 San Antonio, Tx 78205 ,. -~ ~ '7El:Z0530:ZSI$19 ''''I• •lu• 1.11Jll,tiJJllf1JIIl11 j.j1 lJ~JU,,,/ N •IIi 11111 li1 J 1 -~"'"""''"""'.,.,;;a:.;..,;;~,_"'"=-""""""''"'""""""""'""""""""'""'""""--·-··----~---·..,....,___.....,._...~ =-~~-,.,....~"""'""""""""-~=---=::~:"'"~;'- 125  CAUSE NO. 2001-CR-4986-\'13 EX PARTE § IN THE JUDICIAL DISTRICT § BRUCE CHRISTENSEN § 226th DISTRICT COURT § 1- APPLICANT, PRO SE § 0: (_) § § § § § § § § § § § § § comes now, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, in the above styled and captioned memorandum in support for a writ of habeas corpus, c.c.P. §11.07, by a person in state custody and makes this application herein his memorandum in support of his writ and will show the court the following: JURISDICTION Applicant states this court has jurisdiction over the suoject matter and the parties inculding this seccessive or second writ, pursuant to Vernon's ann.Code of Criminal Proc. § 11.07, Ex parte Maldando, 588 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex.Crim.Appl985). :11.07 §4(ai (1) (b)(c)• This cause of action arises because petitioner is wrong- fully restricted in his liberty by the Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the State of Texas. Tx.c.c.P. art. 11.07 §4(a) Ifa subsequent applicantion for writ of habeas corpus is filled after final disposition of an intial application challenging the same conviction, a court may not consider the merits of or grant relief based on the subsequent application unless the applic- ation contains sufficient specif facts establishing that: (1) The current claim and issues have not been and could not have been presented previous in an oroginal application or in a. previously considered application filed under this article because the fact- 126 ual or legal basis for the claim was unavable on the date the applicant filed the previous application. :4(b) For the pur- poses of Subsection (a)(l), a legal basis of a claim is unavail- able on or before a date described by (a)(l) if the legal basis was not recoqunized by and could not have been reasonable formul~ ated from a final decision of the United States, or a court of appealate jurisdiction of this state on or before tha-t:-aat-e~-§"1 ___ _ (c) For purposes of Subsection, (a)(l) a factual basis of a claim is unavailable on or before a date described by subsection (a)(l) if the factual basis was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diliqence on or before that date. The rule of law at the time of applicants prior application the legal basis for the claim eas not available to him. the rule of law concerning effictive representation durii1g habeas proceedings did not req- urie effective comptent representation. "Dificient perform- ance or even gross imcompitence by petitioner's state habeas counsel does not satisfy either prong of Stricklandtest for ineff- ective assistance, because habeas petitioner possesses no constit- utional right to the assistance of counsel during his state habeas proceedings.• or "Either negligent failure or a malicious refusal by convicted defendant's state habeas counsel to present potintialy meritious claim in the course of the defendant's state habeas pro- ceeding, effectively preculeded review of the claim.• " Tough luck for defendants whose lawyers make mistakes, have conflicts with hs client, or abandon his client or even sabatage the case. In this case applicant had a actual conflict with his counsel and counsel ambushed applicant's evidence hearing. Applicant had a substantial underlying claim of ineffective assistance of Trial counsel and 127 was harmed by his actions and non-actions. If prisoner has ex- husted his state remedy unsuccessfully, but there is intervening supreme Court decision, that might induce the state to give rel- ief, prisoner will be required to apply again for relief from state courts, so that they may have first opportunity to apply new Supreme Court Decision. A new rule of constitutional law should be applied retroactively, as would authorize a second or secces,;i ve writ, if it requires the observance of chose pr_oJ::_e_d_ur_es__ that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In other words; further exhaustion may be required where "an intervening change in federal law cast the legal issue in a fundamentally different light. Counsel appointed for state collateral review refused to present applicant's evidence of fact and law considering trial counsel's ineffective ness, refused to call any witness, three, that were given to counsel and considered to be indispens- able, even needing compulsory service, Trial counsel's testimoney under oath was vital if not mandantory of applicant to prove her trial preperation, stratagy, and legal advise given. Habeas counsel refused to follow applicant's stratgy, which was viable and had been secessfull in his gaining a hearing to prove his allegations. For present purposes, a distinction between (1) a state that denies permission to raise the claim-on direct appeal or (2) a state that grants permission, but denies a fair, meaning- ful opportunity to develop the record is a distinction without difference. Applicant would have been better off to have no att- orney at all, as he would have called witnesses and presented much more evidence for the record, inartfully maybe, but still better than a court appointed attorney that impeded, obstructed, and £rustrated applicant's attempt to comply with the state's estab- ~f~. 128 Further habeas counsel allowed the court to labor with an incomp- record, evidence was not presented (Facts or Law), exibits that weree redacted, exibits that were removed from the record, hearings held and evidence given without applicant's knowelge and prior notice, or thedisicions made were withheld from applicant and the Court of Criminal Appeals for review. The denial of effective appointed counsel during habeas evidence hearinq, and his actual conflict of interest did in fact prejudice applicant and th~s may justify an exception to the constitutional rule that there is no right to counsel in a collateral proceedinq. see Martinez v. ryan, 132 s.ct. 1309, (012), Coleman v. Thompson, 111 s.ct. 2546, Douglas v. California, 83 s.ct. 814. PARTIES TO THE CASE (l) Bruce Christenssen Applicant, pro se Polunsky Unit #1108982 3872 FM 350 S. Livingstone, Tx 77351 (2) Brad Livingston, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice 1107 Ave. J Huntsville Tx. 77342-0099 (3) The State of Texas Susan Reed Criminal District Attorney Bexar County 300 Delorosa. Suite 5072 San Antonio, Tx 78205 STATEMENT OF THE CASE on April 22, 2002, applicant pled nolo contendere to three counts of aggravated sexaul assault. the court assessed punish- ment at thirty years in TDCJ-ID for each count to run concurrently. ---- Applicant filed a' n::>tice of-appea-r-mr-June 19-;--zcro-2-;---Th_e--fourth 129 PAGE I  of Appeals affirmed the judgement of the trial court in No. 04- 02-00397-CR. Applicant filed his first appolicantion for writ of habeas corpus on Nov. 28, 2005. By order dated Aug. 30, 2006, the Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the trial court to make finding of fact and conclusions of law in regard to applicant's claim that his plea was involuntary. On Sept 8, 2006, the trial court ordered that trial counsel file her wriiten affidavit regarding the allagations of ineffective assistance of counsel and for the applicant to file his. On Sept 25, 2006 trial counsel filed an affidavit , and applicant followed up by filing his aff- idavit and supp. affidavit on or about 11, and 16 of Oct. 2006, by placing them in the prison mail system. These affidavits are not in the record. On Nov 11, 2006 The trial court held a hearing and heard evidence, ordered an evidence hearing, appointed habeas counsel, and issued a bench warrant for applicant. This hearing is not in the recordand applicant was unaware of the hearing or any evidence presented. At the hearing the trial court entered into evidence "exibits", some appear to be missing from the record also missing is the court reporters record of this hearing, with all evidence presented, documents and affidavits. On June 3, 2014 applicant recieved a copy of habeqs counsel•s case file, inculded in the file is a handwritten note concerning discovery in this hearing, in which Ms. Valadez denied being ineffective, and Anna, who I would guess works for the district attorney's office. made a statement thatshe would recomend remand only count 9, for re- sentenceing. Those in attendance for this hearing (conference) were (a) Cheryl McMahan, (b) Hilda, (c) Sid, (d) Anna, (e) Terry, (f) and the note taker, would be Mr. Denis Callahan. The above documents were/are missing, removed and or destroyed from the 130 PAGE ~  from the official court record and not considered by the Law Mag- istrateduring the evidence hearing or the court of Criminal appeals in consideration of the merits of the case. Applicant has tried to locate and supplement the record, by contacting the district clerk, Three different court reporters, the district attorney's office, requested the case file from habeas counsel and an affidavit concerning the case, he responded with an incomplete file, and re- fused to provide an affidavit without a court order. The evidence that was withheld, removed, destroyed, or missing from the record was done so by "parties" in this case to cover up ~s. Valadez's ineffective assistance of counsel and to do harm to the applicant by causeing his writ to fail and be denied. The ability to test the accuracy of evidence at the evidence is so important that the absence of proper confrontation at the evidence hearing calls into the ultimate integerity of the fact findinq process. The State's evidence rested on the credibility of Ms. Valadez's affidavit, and the failure of habeas counselto cross-examine her under oath, and the Hearing Judge to ensure proper confrontation and not to place give a finding of credibility to a witness qiving testominy by affidavit only without being aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear heavaly on the listener's understand- ing of and belief in what is said, to insulate his findings from review by denominationg the credibility determinations, for factors other than demeanor and inflection go into the decision whether or not to believe a witness. When a witness leaves a false impres- sion concerning a matter relating to her cr'edibility, the opposing party is allowed to correct that false impression, through cross- PAGE 6 131  examination, a defandant tests the believably of a witness and the truth of his testominy. Primary obiect of the 6th ammendment was to prevent the use of ex parte statements against an accused who has no opportunity to confront and cross-exam the witness, to test the recollection and sift the conscience of those under oath. The courts have pointed out that under Washington v. Texas, 388 u.s. 14, 19 87 s.ct. 1920, 1923 (1967), the defendant must be aff- orded the right to offer testimony of witnesses and to comple attendance,consquently habeas counsel committed an error of canst- itutional magnitude by refusing applicant's request to present appearnce of trial counsel, court appointed investaqator, and other witnesses. To place before the court the she, (Ms. Valadez) was not a credible person, One who's trustworthy and entitled to be believed~ In law and legal proceedings, one who is entitled to have his oath or affidavit accepted as relible, not only on account of his good reputation for veracity, but also on account of his i~telliqence, knowledge of the cucumstances and "Dis- interested relation to the matter in question". Ms Valadez had sufficient interest in the matter to not present an accurate and truthful! account of her representation of her client. As does Mr. Callahan, sui generis in that counsel's "intentionally refusing to plead specific facts that might support a proper habeas corpus application. Not his lack of competence, but his misplaced desire to protect Ms Valadez and her reputation and her livilY--hEX>d, at the peril of his client. Where there is evidence of counsel's "struggle to serve two masters" that cannot be seriously doubted it follows that an accused's defense is impaired".(citinq Cuyler, 446 u.s. at 349, 100 s.ct. 1708), defendant is denied effective 132 PAGE 7 counsel wheie attorney is unable to cross examination of witness bec.ause .att\Drney' s relationship with the \-{ltf\e'i;'j· anc'l. his desire to ad'l(ance interest o:f.,yi,tness OV!'!.r cur):"e!')t; clie1},1;• Ap!)licaQt argues that he was adversely, affected py ,C:Otln.se).s failure to ta~e certain actions, In United Stat~s v. qamb.j-)1~,, the t.h.i.rd circuit a,dopted a helpful test previously .es.tablis}1e(l. in the first circui~ am,d hel.d that in order to prlac;:ed them into his Po,rt~qlio, not letting apJ?licant' see them.,' applicant requested this,, documents to be inculded in the case. file, tl:lere we,re pqt,,al.so Mr. Callahan did not deny there existence. Applicant has, f~le,,two writ of mandumas to get copied from Ms Pena 1 officiaJ c 0 urt .. r,eporter, that tag the exibLts, but, are... not .i!'lcul(led .in the re,c:d,ord. a].so included in the above writ is the ,offiG:ial court repQJ[,t,~? of. t}1e .. 226th at the time of the. hearing on Nov. 11, 2006, ';· Cheryl McMahan to recieve a copy ... ,·- :· .. ,·; ,_-_;n·- ;-,: ' of the transcript oan. all exibits. Once again -,:: the applicant was .never informed of thi.s hearing by notic:e or by his appointed counsel. next ,in the ~vidence h,earing ap~J..ican,t, ask the court to remove his wrist restraimts so that ·h~ would· be able to have access to his notes and to take part in the hearing sufficiently. 133 PAGE 8  Mr. Callahan did nothing to assist his client knowing that he had if fact written him requesting the he assist him in this matter. his silence, whichifie would have assisted in probably the littlest amount the iudqe would probably defered to Mr. callhan insteed of to the bailiff who said no to the request. applicant was suprised and did not know how to proceed, and aqain Mr. Callahan refused to assist him. his actions were apparent he did not want his client to be able to access his notes and be able to take part is pres- entinq evidence. The method that the applicant was restrianed, at the ankles and wrist (the wrist allowed no movement of the hands l'--~ caused him to be inhibited and discuraged from takinq part. The not appellant had given the court any reason to have doubts about the security of the courtroom. Also the bailiff had many options and means to security the courtroom, and would have been less interfer- ing with appellant's ability to take part in the hearinq.the trial court abused its disceretion and applicant's due process because the court improperly defered to the bailiff request that remain shackled during hearing. instead of makinq an independant deter- mination. Lakin v. Stine, 431 F3d 959, 963. when a defendant complains on appeal of the use of shackles and the appleeate court first determines if the court abused its discrection by allowinq the defendant to be shackled.(in this case excessive physical restraints, the trial court did not use its discrection as it did not make findings that they were justified by an essential state intersest, as the need for physical security, escape preventation, or courtroom decorum) if so the appellate court then determines whether defendant suffered harm as a result. Lonq v. State, 823 SW2d 259, 282, (Tex. Crim.App.l991). The reasonable of habeas counsel's actions or lack of action may be determined or subst~ 134 PJI,GE (9 B antially infulenced by applicant's own statements or actions. Habeas counsel's actions are usually based "quite properly" on informed strategic choices made by the defendant and on informat- ion supplied by the defendant. What investaqations decisions are reasonable depends critically on such information ••. In short inq- uriry into counsel's conversations with applicant may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's actions and desisions,iust as it may be critical to a proper assessment of counsel's other decisions. Habeas refused to present any of applicant's alleged charges and facts prestened in his pro se er-ief- or -any- i terns of fact and law decussed in the few and short conversions, and in letters sent to counsel before and after evidence hearing. Appell- ant has alleged numerious specific facts showing habeas counsel's investagation and litigation decisions were in fact inadequate, his pleadings and ~roof presented at the hearing where non-exist- ent, except applicant's testimony or proof that I attempted to present at the hearing, but was cut off or rushed to another sub- ject, his proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law were de minis, he presented no facts: and proof. and his cites to law were the least possible amount and still say that he cited cases. he objected to nothing the state presented inculding places that: were ilrevelant, which the applicant had to object on his ownl, and contuniued to make statements to be placed in the record, with out beinq qualified in any way, ask three or four questions and then demand an answer makeinq it sound as if applicant was oive- inq an answer to all the questions. Ms. Welsh made statement of law and fact that were not true, neither mr. Callahan or the court corrected these errors. Which I will go through one at a time. then I will qive the facts and law that I had at the time of hear- FOil inq. Which Mr. Callahan refused to present to the court ·~consideration. 135 page 10  FACTS AND LAW SUBMITTED BY TRIAL COUNSEL AND STATES ATTORNEY 1) Trial counsel stated that all offenses were 3q, and defendant must serve 1/2 of his stenence to be eliqible for parole. Ms. Welsh concurred and so stated in the record of the evidence hearinq CR. paqe 28 line 23. This is incorrect. If Ms. Valadez had correctly researched the law, she would have found that sexaul assault did not become 3q until 1995 and sexaul assault w/child did not become 3q until~l997. That indency w/child did not become a non mandantory supervision (parole) unti~ 1997 a non 3g offense was eliqible for parole when actual time plus qood time equaled 1/4 of sentence be- came parole eligible, and mandantory supervision was released when actual time plus qood time equaled complete sentence. Ms. Valadez had plenty of options avabile to her in the pro cess of plea bargairrinq 2). Ms. Valadez states that applicant was advised that the court could stack the sentences and that he took the plea to avoid stackinq. Ms. Welsh concurred. That is incorrect. Ms. Welsh rants and raves that the offenses are stackable and would have been if the state has ask for it to be. Ms Valdez also stated that she advised me that if taken to trial that the iury cound statck the offenses. CR. paoe 29 line 3 and CR page 30 line 24,thru paqe 31 line 15 , page 34 line 20. If Ms Valadez and Ms. Welsh had of investaqated the rule of law ineffect at the time they would have found that when the ioinder of prosecution, texas law section 3.03 of the penal code provides that an accused is found guilty of offenses arisinq out of a sinqle criminal episode and if any of the offenses were committed before Sept. 1. 1995 136 PAGE IJ  of this act is covered by the law in effect before the cha~ nges made by this act and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. See acts 1995 74th Leq. ch 595 §2 and as such the law ineffect before the above chanqes which pertain to this criminal episode with a offense date of 8/30 1994. See acts 1993 73rd Leq. ch 900 §1.01 the law ineffect at the time P.c. 3.03 did not contain the sub parqraph (b)Xl) or (B)(2). and stated that the sentences shall run current. and I am not sure but my reading of the Leg note (2)(b) also ment to cause of the offenses charqed in one trial and one criminal episode that the "LAW" all law ineffect at the time the criminal episode beqan is the law that the defendant is under not the multipule chanqes in law over the span of the criminal eoisode, defendant is to be tried under one law. some courts have stated that if there is some proof that the offenses occured in 1997 then the offenses can be stacked. I believe that to be in error. see Owens v. State. 96 SW 3d 668,(Tx•App.Austin), dale v. State, 170 SW3d 797, miller v. state 33 SW3d 257, Patterson v. state 96 SW3d 427. All of these had criminal episode beqan date before 1997 and one had a date of may 1, 1995. The cumulation of sentences constitutes an increase in ounshment for the ourooses of ex oost facto analyis. see Johnson v. state 930 SW2d 589. (Tex.Crim-Aop. 1996). Scott v. State 19 SW3d 864 (200). also to show that Ms. Valadez is not current in the law see Baker v. State 107 SW3d 671. Ms- Valadez was Mr. Baker's trial counsel, she allowed Mr. Baker's sentences to be stack ed even though it was in fact one criminal eoisode. and the exceptions in PC 3.03 did not pertian to that case. Ms. 137 PAGE 12  Valadez was and is not up to date _on the law as it pretained applicant. Mr. Callahan and the trial court should have al- lowed defendant to state his evidence. or correct Ms. Welsh on the courts own initiative or atleast researched it. 3) Trial counsel stated that the defendant faced ten counts of a a a. sexaul a.ssaul t, in her affidavit she states that !:Stre-- advised my client_tha~ the_indictment.alleaed-four-aao- ~ex­ ual assaults. three sexaul assualts of a. child under 17· and six indecencies" and faced thireen convictions Ms Welsh concurred statinq as she read from the indictment CR oaqe 30 line 10. Count 2 is an indecency. Count 3, oar. A, agg. sexaul assault: par B. Aaaravated Sexaul assault: Count 4, Indeceny: count S, Par A, Sexayl assault: oar. B. sexaul assault: oar c, indecency; Count 4, (Count 6), Indecency; Count 7, Aggravated sexaul assault: Count 8, Indecencv: Count 9, Sexaul assault: and count 10, is indecency. Now. the fact of the matter is, if you had qone to trial. thev could have stacked and YOU wanted to avoid stackinq. You told Your attornev that. And you said that on the record durina sentencina You know what vou were facina· didn't vou? This is incorrect and theY have misstated the facts and the law- Pirst it was count 9. that was misstated and caused dthe court the labor under Ms. Valades errors- Now both Ms- Valadez and Ms- Welsh after manv hours oreoarina and correctina her affidavit still can not state the offenses the applicant faced cbrrectly. First let me ooint out that Count 3, par B. Is an impossible act to committe and could not have been charaed as is- Second Count Count 5- oar-C- is not indecencv but in fact sexaul assault- Third aooel~ 138 PAGE 13  ellant could not have face thirteen charaes or qenvictions, When the state wishes to charae mul tJ?le .... offenses in a single indictment. it is reauired bv statute tq. set out each seP- arate offense in a separate "count". Tex CodeCrim-Proc.ann. art 21.24 (a). The separate "oaraaraPhs" within a sinale count mav alleae different methods of committina the same offense- Tex-CodeCrim.Proc.ann. a~t, 21.24(b.). But since each "count Alleqes a sinale offense· an indictment cannot authori~e more convictions then there are counts. Martinez v. State 225 SW3d 550 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007) Fourth, There is the issue of double ieopardy. AS I tried to present at the hearinq Count 7 and 8 is one victum with one offense. one conviction and count 9 and 10 was also one .. victum with one offense. one conviction- see victum's statements~ there was only one incident and the evidence is clear- Mr- Callahan refused to call Ms- Lindsav Green to.verifv the fact that there was onlv one incident and that Ms Valadez did not investaqate the facts or for that matter show the evidence to defendant and explain the elements of the offense so when he was told that it was in fact a lst dearee Aaa- Sexaul Assault he had no reason to not plea to the lst dearee off- ence offered. Fifth. I will add in this section that counsel stated that she admonshed defendant the the renae of punishment was anv where from 2 to 99 vears- She did not and the court admonshed defendant ,that the range of punishment was 5 to 99 veaars, If counsel had of oroperlv advised him of the range of punishment he would not have plead to a sentence of ten years over the max allowed. #4) Ms. Valadez stated that defendant was e].iaible ~or, 139 PAGE 14  deferedadjudication. Ms Welsh Concurred. Aplicant tried to prestent evidence that the C-C P 42.12 S(a) states that the iudqe must announce in open court that deffrred adjud- ication is in the best interest of the victnm. It is the responseability of the defense to submit the evidence nec- essary to prove the defendant is aualified to recieve def- erred. I stated in the hearina I'm suaaestina that Ms Valadez submitted no evidence or nottied me th~t was a cause of-- when I was cut off by ms- Welsh and not allowed to cont- and recieved no assistance for Mr. Callahan. The trial judge at sentencina stated that there was no evidence submitted on behalf of the defendant· where I stated "I did not know what he had done with the names I had aiven them to interview· The iudae found no miaataatina facts excePt the one me Valadez metioned about the impact state- ment made about defendant not carina about what he had done. This was in the PSI report that Ms- Valadez did not PrePare the defendant for- in fact defendant has never seen the PSI rePort as he was not shown it bv trial counsel or even in- formed what the report contained . . #5) Applicant stated 21 fact specific alleaation in his brief that Mr- Callahan refused to brina to bear at the hear- ina- She allowed hearsaY evidence to be admited into the record bv stipulation, and Ms. W~lsh used at the hearinq. CR paqe 26 line 22, about an alleged assault that happened 20 years in the past that I would have denied if I had seen the statement befor my direct appeal. Also Ms. Welsh made statements about the lack of witnesses present at the hearina RR Paae 32 line 7. Mr- Callahan refused to Present 140 PAGE 15  witnesses stating that there where no witnesses to testifv of mv actual innocnece. I never ask Mr. Callahan to find anv witnesses for a claim of actual innocence I would like to know how and who he contacted for such a claim Ms Welsh stated that"We have an affidavit that said------ So that will be UP to the court to decied and weiah all that." ----"Ms Valadez has. as an officer of the court· sworn in her affLdavit as to the------" "All right. In her affidavit-- and you understand that the Judae can con- sider the affidavit from Ms. Valadez and that he can con- sider that when he makes his findings. ------" "And all I want in front and on the record is that Hilda Valadez is an attornev who been around for manv vears in this -- in this citv and she aave an affidavit and she informed vou of those thinas," " Ms. Welsh: Your honor, the state would argue that MR. CHRISTENSEN"S TESTIMONY IS NOT BELIEVABLE. That he certainly has every reason to not be honest and forthright with this court. That the court has in front of it an affidavit which the court is entitled to consider in these matters• That they don't have to have live testimony. Ms. Welsh, Mr. Callahan. and Judae Carruthers violated applicants due Process riahts to a fair hearina it is aoparent_Lba~_tbg_state never intented to nla~e Ms v~l~np7 under oath wheresh~ could be crossed, and Mr- Callahan as well knew in advance that she would not be called bv th~ state. Judge Carruthers should have insured that she was called as the aoolirant did infart dPmand of his ,..,.,,n,..,] dtht he needed to ob1ect to her not testifina in person APPlicant was unaware that his affidavits were not in the 141 PAGE f4,16  #6) Mr. Callahan aarueed applicant closing like that of an Ander's brief •. with out stateina so counsel made contrarv arauement if fact makina aoolicant's writ so to say frivolous. He failed to assist applicant in anv way. As it is the defendant faced adverse collateral consequences from potintial new sentencina on remand. The state has no reasons to plea bargain with the applicant the state could ask for a max Rentence and since this is a seperate procceedina aoolicant loses the rights provided with P.c. 3.03 and the court now possible could stack this one sentence on too of thP RPntences currentlv seru.;ng. When applicaant inquired with Mr. Callahan about the state's intentionshe stArP~ ~h~~ as soon as the state did brina me back he would file a motion to dismiss all the counts · and he would inauire with the state about rheir intentions. When the state confered with Mr- Callahan and discussen these oosRible options that applic- ant had· the state then decided to dismiss the count instead of ooenina that can of worms. Which shows preiudice to aoolicant· thAt the reformAtion of ~is judgement was not proper as he would have faced new sentencinq. which the court has stated recentlv "thAt a ludaement mav he rPformPn ~~ lnnn n~ ;r ~nQs not require resentencina- see Rodes v. state 240 SW3d 882 (Tex-crim-Aoo-20071, Statinq at 888"When only one of the sentencina elemPnts is viod thP ltJdapmenr is rendered void only if the iudqement can not be reformed to cure the infirmity (i.e. the infirmity can not be cured Mr. Callahan had many~., without resort to resentencinq). legal cites avaibale to him such a-s-Ben.;~.aman v state. 874 SW2d 132 statinq that if provisions of a olea aarPPment lAtPr Thp-efore regard- bPcome qnPnforceable, plea is involuntarv less of the source of non compelence it is alwavs true that 142 PAGE 17  that when a olea agreement is reached it must be enforced as agree to, or the defendant must be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. See Shannon 708 SW2d 850, Adkins v. state, 767 SW2d 809, ex parte Austin, 746 SW2d 226, Gibson v. State 803 SW2d 318, ex parte Perkins, 706 SW2d 320, court ex parte Miller 921 SW2d 239, In ex parte Ervin the ruled that the state can waive an illegal portian of a plea agree- ment and keep the remainder, which is not relevant here as the court remanded the count for new trial. see ex parte Ervin 991 SW2d 804 (Tex.Crim.App.l999). CLOSING Applicant believes that Ms. Welsh in tatum with Mr. Callahan withheld facts and evi~ence from the applicant. The state has an affirmative duty to disclose the the defense evidence that is favorable to the defendant. It is the duty of both the Trial court and the state's attorney to conduct themselves so as to ensure that an accused recievess a fair and full hearing. There job is not ju~t tp procute and win cases, there job is to do justice. This case highlight everything that can go wrong in the criminal justice system when the system is not balanced. A writ of habeas corpus will be granted for erroneous admission of evi- dence only where the testimony is almost unreliable and the fact- finderand the adversary system will not be competent to uncover , reconize, and take account of its shortcomings. The Supreme Court has stated that in habeas corpus proceedings, the primary purpose is to assure that no one is unjustly imprisoned. There- fore, if a prisoner is unaware of the legal significance of rev- 143 PAGE 18  event facts, it would be unreasonable to prohibit he's attemp for judicial relief. While a prisoner should not be allowed to abuse the writ of habeas corpus, he should not be penalized of availing himself of access to the courts. The hearing judge allowed the exculded evidence and testominy of such vital port- ion of the case and that exclusion effectively preculded the applicant from prosecuting his case. Relief may be granted, not only where the state's attorney knowingly used prejured testominy, but where the state's attorney suppressed or with- held material evidence, where there are circumstances amounting to extrinsic fraud which actually deprived the accused of a fair hearing on the merits, prejudice is presumed. The evidence was material and there is a reasonable doubt, and once unconst- itutional suppression error is found, no further harmless error analysis is necessary. Ms. Welsh's debliberate deception of the court by presenation of known false evidence is incompatible with rudimentary demands of justice. After conviction is obtained the state's attorney is bound by the ethics of her office to inform the appropriate authority of after-acquired or other information that cast doubt upon the correctness of the convict- ion. Because applicant is not an attorney and filing pro se, he ask the reviewing court to liberally construe applicant's arguee- ments and to encourge the court to elevate substance over form. That applicant had a substantial cause of ineffective assist- ance of trial counsel, but for his habeas failing to properly assist him and provide effective counsel his writ failed. App- licant ask the court to find that habeas was infact ineffective and that the state's attorney withheld evidence and gave false evidence at habeas corpus evidence hearing. Applicant prays 144 PAGE ·~ !"'f  that all applicant's points should be stained and' applicant remanded to the trial court to answer t'he indictment. Reapectfully Submitted, ~~'e Bruce Christensen applicant pro se Polunsky Unit #1108982 3872 FM 350 S. Livingstone, Tx 77351 inmate's declaration I, Bruce Christensen, being presently incarcerated in TDCJ-ID, Polunsky Unit, declare under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in the above brief are true and correct, signed on this the 15th day of June 2014. fi~m~- Bruce Christe~sen Applicant pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Bruce Christensen, applicant,, pro se, do hereby certify ,that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Memorandum in Support of Application, Tx. Code of .Criminal Procudure §11.07 Was placed-in -the _prison mqil S¥Stem~on~this ,the_J,6t)L day_of - June, 2014. ~J?<_· c{2;:Q; ruce Christensen -~-~ applicant, pro se · polunsky Unit #1108982 3872 FM 350 S• Livingstone, Tx. 77351 145 EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § B~uce Ch~sitenaen § 231th Judicial District Applicant, pro se § § PETITION FOR EVI:OENTA!U! UEl\RING Motion fo~ Bench Warrant Now comes, Bruce Chrieteneen, Applicant, Pro Se, in the above Numbered abd wtrled cau••••nd files this, hla Petition for Bvid~n- art. 11.07 ( 3 )(d), and would show the cou~t the followinll in sup- port thm:eo£ 1 ONE The court will find that there is definite •controvered, defE>lH~antl> tinaJ. conviction e:dst and needs to be resolved. Thl'b court should fino that there ill! r~ neceao~~i ty fca: the suspension of' time limatiana enunciated in article ~1.07 of the tex. Coda Criro. Prac Ann. art. U.O'Y §3(d) Vernon Supp. 2004. Applicant haa alle<;jed the following illlllHJes which fequi!'7ea resoilution: 1} Ineffilc::ti ve ll.asi.st,;mee of Coun.sd 3) States improper modification of dehndiMta judgement 4} Trial court'fll denial of defendant's right to tully particate. 'I'I~O The fact and alle\jationlll preo~~ent\\'d irl his pet:i tion IU'e com- plex, but applicant. has infact alleged .sufficient hct/3 tErgal·ntitle him to relief. The trial court is the apprQprh.te fot·m for finding of fiilctsoApp- 146  licant has sufficient proff of all his allagation~, which needs to entered into the record and fully expJ.red and developed for the x·ecord THREE I am presently incarcerated in TDCJ-:tD, Polunsklf Unit, 3872 FM 350 South 1 tiving·etone, Tx. 77351. I am unable to pe:r·sonally appear before the court and give t.•'>stimony in this cause and would rll:spectfully request the to Issuf, a warrant from the bench ordering th<;; Bexat· County Shtif.iff to tt·ansport mE to thh~ court for all hearing;;;;. in this matter, ~;q that I may give tent:imony and present evidence and proff of all my allagations. PRiWER Petitioner respectfullu prays that this court grant this petition for an evioenoary hea:cing ana for a bench warrant to atf:end the hearings. To consider and examine the issues before the vour·t and grant any and all such relief as the court may deem he is entitled by law. ci:'~;;:~ Chili~ Bruce se Polunsky Unit UlOB 82 3872 F!~ 350 S. Livingstone, Tx 77351 147  June 15,, 2014 Donna Kay McKinny Bexar County Clerk 101 w. Nueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Dear Ms. McKinny, Inclosed is my Memorandum is Support of Application, of my 11.07 mailed earlier. Please file it with the papers of this cause and notifiy the court and the State's Attorney, providing them with a copy. Thank You for your time and effort in assist- ing me. a=¥~~~e Ch~nsen Applicant, pro se = Polunsky Unit, #1108982 3872 FM 350 S. Livingstone, Tx 77351 148 149  t IN ?H~ DISTRICT COURT vs. § 226th JUDICIAL DISTRICT § 8BXAR COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF APPBAt TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COtlllT: Now acmes Bruce ChriatanQsn, Dafandant in tha abovM antitlad and numbered aaase, an1 gives this writtun notice o£ ap~••l to toe for a Writ of M~ndawu~ leapeatfully DUbmittad, ~'.~ :;;t ~ ' CJ" {)~ 'fhil!l is t~l certifl! tt1at on «QobeJ.' 3, 2014, (jl l:t.ut! !:llld correct post paid, on th• 3rd day of Octobar, ~014. to the fallowing, addt."E>/5/00S ~ Donna .rtay Nckinny B•xar County District Clerk 101 w. Nu•v•• Suita 217 SAn Antonio, Tx 78205 ·"hl<.lge Gic! llarle 226th distr:ict Cot1rt Be••~ CoUilt~ Courth6use 300 Dolor.o~;G San Antonio, Tx 78205 CoUt't of; Appeals ~ ~th Court of App;;.als_,Di~i,:dct ~00 Daloroaa, su1te ~~o~ 1 san Antonio. Tx 7fa.qs ,, . \ J ' 150  r I I I ZG!~ OCT - b t p 2: I(!I DEPUTY i]l'(: ·::.< • ------~ I' ! l I I ! I I l 151  2001-CR~4986-W-i 3 EX PAT.RE . \ IN THE DISTRICT COURT § 226th JUDICIALaDXSTRICT BRUCE CHRISTENSEN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS DESIGNATION OF RECORD TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, the Appellant and files this Designation of record on Appeal, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,' and request that the clerk and court reporter of t:his court make 153  ' lin OCT -b I P 2: I Ill DEPUTY !)'(: _ _ _ I I \ I I I I 154  2001-CR-4986-WR EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § 226th JUDICIAL DISTRICT BRUCE CHRISTENSEN § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now comes Bruce Christensen, Defendant in the above entitled and numbered cause, and.gives this written notice of appeal to the .Co1:1rt State of Texas from a denial of a petition for a :c'>- :,;;:_· ...j• ' I ......, = ~~ ("") ..,.. :::M ;,_,:O. c.. 0 t_,_ ("") zn -1 CD LO -;r>c;: "TJ I .Z;!+}l.......,_ 1 ..... ruce Christensen ~·~:·· 0"1 --'"l-•_r c> ,-·)rq (_) 0 Hughes Unit, #ll0898;t;; -~~ '"'0 4: _:;~·t.J Route ~~ Box 4400 ·, \ii(~ :X ~:;) :;.?' ._;. -1" ~ >- (:;) Gatesvllle, Tx 76597 0 'c'~ )c~ s::. -t~~ • - N c.n c.n ....... .. ,, :--~ ~ >-· ..... . ..,} ["'"'~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that on October 3, 2014, a true and cor~ect copy of the above Notice of appeal was placed in the u.s. Mail, post paid, on the 3rd day of October, 2014. to the following, addresses: Donna Kay Mckinny Bexar County District Clerk 101 W. Nueve, Suite 217 SAn Antonio, Tx 78205 Judge Sid Harle 226th district Court Bexar County Courthouse 300 Dolorosa San Antonio, Tx 78205 Court of Appeals · 4th Court of Appeals District 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, Tx 7 5 155  ' .,_ •:· .·•· 156 \  2001-CR-4986-W-4 'J EX PATRE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § 226th JUDICIAL DISTRICT BRUCE CHRISTENSEN § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS DESIGNATION OF RECORD TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, the Appellant and files this Designation of record on Appeal, pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and request that the clerk and court reporter of this court make and prepare the following matters for inclusion in the record: l. (Original) Motion for Writ of Mandamus 2. (Amended) Motion for Writ of Mandus 3. Motion to Excute Writ of Mandamus 4. Petition for an Evidence Hearing with attachments l-30 5. Index for 2001-CR-4986-W-3 6. Criminal Docket sheets for all causes inculding 2001- CR-2632 and 2001-CR-4986 7. Memorandum in Support of Application 8. State's Response DATED JUNE 11, 2014 1 NOT MAILED UNTIL JUNE 17, 201~ 9. Orders Dated JUNE 13, 2014 Not Mailed until June 25, 2014 10. Clerk's Certificate 11. All corspondence directed to the Court, Court Clerk, and The criminal court adiminstrator. 12. Letter from applicant notifying clerk of missing parts of the record to be filed with application to the court of Criminal Appeals Rec 7/2/14. 13. any and all exhibits used by the State or Defense in this cause 14. Transcription of any hearings, or conferences in this cause. 15. Note-- Transcrites and exibits from hearings Nov. 16 1 2006 and Dec. 11, 2006. 157  15. Defendant's Designation of Record on Appeal. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appellant respectfully request that the clerk and the Court Reporter of this Court, as well as anyprior or substute court reporters, will make and pre- pare all of said foregoing materials and inculde them in -the-rec=------ ----- ___ _ ord in the Appeal of this cause. Respectfully Submitted, ~Mg~ chi ensen ruce Hughes Unit #1108982 Route 2, Box 4400 Gatesville, Tx 76597 CERTIFICATE OF SEVICE This is to certify that on October 3, 20014, a true and correct copy of the above Designation of Record was placed in the u.s. Mail post-paid, to the following addresses: Court Of Appeals 4th Court of Appeals District 300Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Donna Kay McKinny Bexar County district Clerk 101 w. Nueve, Suite 217 San Antonio, Tx 78205 Judge Sid Harle 226th District Court 300 Dolorosa San Antonio, Tx 782 ~Q 158  CAUSE NO. 200l-CR-4986-W3 EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Bruce Chrsitensen § 226th Judicial District Applicant, pro se § § Bexar County, Texas § § § § § § § § § § PETITION FOR EVIDENTARY. HEARING Mo·tion for Bench Warrant TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Now Comes, Bruce Christensen, Applicant, Pro Se, in the above Numbered abo styled cause, and file.s this, his Petition for Eviden- tat·y Hearing ana a Brech wasrant undel;' the provisions of T.c.c.p, art. ll.07(3)(d), and would show the court the :E,ol.lt;lofing i.n aup- port thereof: ONE The court will find that th,ere. is ¢1efinite "controvered, previously unresolved facts, which tu:e material to legality of defendants final conviction exist. and needs to be resolved. The court should find that there is a necessity for the suspension of time limations enunciated in article 11.07 of the tex. Code Crim. Proc Ann. art. 11.07 §3(d) Vernon Supp. 2004. Applicant has alleged the following issues wh~ch fequires resoiution: 1) Ineffictive Assistance of Counsel 2) Incomplete Reeord-records withheld, altered, removed,missing 3 3) States irnprqpet· modificatH:m of defendants judgement 4) Trial court's denial of defendant's right t~ fully particate. TWO The fact and allegations presented in his petition are com- plex, but applicant has infact alleged sufficient facts regarding counsel's performance that, if true might entitle him to relief. The trial court is the appropriate form for finding of facts.App- 159 / llcant haa sufficient p~aff of all hi~ alla~•tlone, which need• Petitioner re•pactfullu pray& that this court grant thi• pllltition for an evidencnu:y hearing anc( fot• a bench w•n·rant to Ret~pect;fully .. Submitted, ""'~.,.,Jli;;:::: , (~~-._,) . (\' . .. ~.eP I \\ ;. ~ruc;"'i5ii~ a· lllnl$~an 1. %>to s~ l?oluntlltJ' Unit ~11013982 3fl7:2 FM 350 S. Livlny•tone, Tx 77351 160  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Oct, H, OS Document 11-2 Filecl 03/3~e ~~ 7 Ju~ga Sld \... Herla 22Bth Judicial Olatriet Bexar County Courthouse 300 Deloroaa St, san Antonia, TX 75205 ~~ Causa No. 2DD1-~-491SB-V1, Oafandanta Aaaponca Inclosed ln ay Aaeponae to Ms. Valadez ••<-A~ ldavi t, which I raelavad today the 11th due to her have ~an given an lapropar addraaa l"ar ao. Pl,.aae (Ji-iea ay ilctlon to onf<:>rca, and allow . . to fila thia affidavit ln raaponaa. I aant all of the Jl pollee reporta that- I had t you to be l,_,lll!d ln my -orandua ln support of my epplication. 1 hav~ raqueatad that the Oiartict clark notify lf. aha had raoiavad ay Maaorandua and the attsch. .nta aant the week later, 1 have had no rwwponea froa her and aha rafuaea to give thla defendant the aoet ca.aon curtoday even with the S.A,S,£, inoulded eo aha nee no $ expanse to eail the requaet 1nfor.-tton. So ell I can hope ia that the ~aaorand~ ln eupport of ay application endh tchna sant a weak late eri a part of the fila and have been lnculded 1~ 1&~818iM8i thi• proo••· Thank you for you tlaa and efforte ~nvloved in thie .. RapactFully Subelted, /] / '' 79107-9696 161  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/~~~ 7 •• --~IV__'~.(--~-------- CAU. NO. 1001·Cf'I......._Wf J f 128th JUDICIAL DISTRICT I AFFIDAVIT Thia l!lf'f'ldavit la in ratSPC>ft- 110 Htlda Valadaa'a al'f'id1rdt reolaved by •• on the 11th d.$ or OotGber iOOi, and a.We the Folloainw etot. . ent; 14e Valadez hea uno• ">lilin r .. u~d to pr-apperly invaut:8gata thia case and tha indlataent end h . . aiea etatad the Paata. t~ lndlatment charged • total of t•n caunta with two oounte having thrae pmr1111o1r•pha describlniii three dl"'•,..nt ••Y• ilo o-•11: the eeae cf'f'anoe. Thea• oounte ware aa.altad in 1914 and 1995,and the law in af'f'act at the tl . . would have not allowed theea caubta to be ateakad.Sha la correct in that there . . . three altn••-• asking e complaint, the Firat witneaa alle~ad that the of'f'enc. . oocourad in ..... 199S, 199__ , The indiotaenc daBCrlb. . three of'l'enoaa, wiilh thraot leaear inculdad ol'f'ancea. Tlw a110ond wltnaaa ellagotf the thtt oFPena" aocoured in 1914, the lndta-t deacl"ib . . one incident, with tao t"ttttS dil'f'arant aeana two oa..lt the of'f'anaa one beln; a lasaor lnouldad charge, The third wltna .. alleged ilhat: the af'l'enca aooour'ed ln 1S9! 1 thla ••• alao liatad •• ~wo count:a daeorlblng one ol'l'enca. The f'lr'at: (oount • II) o"""r911 l.a al!x~l -••ul t w/old ld •• the vlotua I! ••• f'll'tlcon at: t:!ttt ti1ne. Her birthday • - tt••-d•y ol" , 111a4, - ehown on the pallaa reports ·~~tt~d by ~h~ ol'l'laara aallad tt tna her hoaa. Alae the oPf'idavit of Detective Maltan, Thle avldenoa ie in tho court record and ln appl1oat:'a a~randu. ln auppcort of' applloetlon f'or wrh. Qal'andant dld not (••• nat) q~viaed th•t the eantana. . aal"a to run o~,currant •• sho•n on tho plea lllltlll barglan, page 101 1 oourt raaord, or that th~ punlaha•nt range bagaln at !!2 years, •• it: I.e clear-ly •t:•t:•d ln th• court'• ect.onle'-t and dal'andent•e ••lval"• anri al'f'ldavlt: of' adaonltlo~, ~ega 104-101 CauPt llaoard, that ilh'" !)Ufti8hlllttftll rM1ga waa "i yaar10 110 !9 yaal"8 1 162  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 3 of 21 end .that.all three oeunta aggr.vatad •••aut a . .autt o~ • Chlld !'anal Cede • - · l!l'.OlL't. all· t:hraa oaunt:e • ~lrat: dagr. . ~alony. Da~andant plead to ~~• oounta and raolavad • thirty year eent:anoa l'or •••n - ttt•toh the e~our\; daclad tf".,.aol"lpt: wUl ahow, that; t:ha Judge •••'--•d that: nr. to 1"\11'1 conourrently end aed• notation llo t:ha caeaant l'roa Me. Valnd~z or Mr, Su~. 8ea !'age t tt, Court: l'leoord. fi4w V•ladax f'a11ad to pP'Opper lnvnt•u•t• tho lndi~:~tlllont •w•in•~ the defendant and ~o aavlee h!a of the d!ff'opoent ahara-- end the dl !'I'a rant: r.n.,.s af' punlahltftnt of' each, nor wea ahe owaer of' the poeelble conquencea of $$t alloa1ng ~e court to at:aok the . .nt:e~e• ehl~ Nould h~v• than bean anouther eapaot: of the plead bargain tlt ~t wou!8th••• ba.n unet:telnahls Nnd r9eeon f'or epp. . l. Thera 1• no refteon to allow the deFendant to plead guilty to • first degree felony when the charge Ia a ewcond degree f'elony end accept ten y8wrs ~~• then w)lcwed by lew, 4~ no tiaa did aha I$$ ctate that the de¥.ndant ••• to rsclave one eent:.nae, f'aot ie the record iw olwer that the deFendant plead gullty end reaievad thirty yaere on eeoh count. See pwgw12 end pwge___ , Court record. Aa fer ae 111•• Valadez'• trial 181 prapert:lon end negotietlone with the dletriat Att:errtey'e of'l'lee, The only reeeon that ~he O.l'endent'• pratrlel ~lee reached fc~~tean eont:he ie thwt Ne, Grand Jury 1:he1: hed lndlated hlo ehe .... •• Veleda:a: dld not react propperly when it wee r-ell:z:ed that the not paneled propperly, even inf'oraed hl• thllt i t heppened end the poeeibh ne~er ctregit!ea pcealble l'ect io •h• did rtc.i: liven ahriW up in court: the dey (Sept 10, ZOOf) when the stetee ettcrney stated eome- thlng ebout needln~ to look et thw lndlcteent, S8 ehc dldnat even begen to negotete untlll Mwrch 2e, 200e when the def•ndent hed been lnaeraereted For fourteen •onthe, ehe took edvent•w• ol' denendent:'• eitueltion a end billed the court two eepwrete fee'• for been eppolnted oouneel. She requwetad ~he eppoi~aent or ., invwetegetor whioh dld nothing to lnveetegetw c:tel'endllnt:e oeae by ln•••ed epan• hie billsole ti . . to a nothar da¥andant of' Me. Veldeez'e a Mickel Tuo~er wno wac oh3r,ee alth MUrder. t~ the docket ahewt (whloh ••• not enoluded In the wppael record) would be lnveete~wted t lt would ehow that: she Pelted to ~how 163  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11-2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 4 of 21 up ~a the derendent'• court det••• When he eek the court pereanel wbout t.he where ebo~e or Me, Veled••• the aoeeent emde "en well thatHlldo". When l requweted to ••• the evldenee egalnet . . ehe etat•ltl teoh11 11he dietrlat attorny'aopenf'lh pollc:r en IIUf'rtaient, but thet l wee not ellawmd to handle the n la, tr t hed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , , undaretaod the chergea egelnet ...and -·" thll evld...ce preeantad, I would not plead to the ;:>le., ~JIH"(jt:ln 1 e2 pP"~t;!t"tnt.ed. The: dei'Mdfl"'t Ill ne>t guilty ........ of •aile of the <:>h~>rg.,., F-r~Seent;ed to th .. lndietmmnt. Kh••" I though11 waa child ebus~ end whet the low la era nat the aeme, but Sf$ whot 1 did do wuo· co ahe:u~Ful pnd bnd tht!t: I wat- eonv lnced that llh"t l did ..... "'lOW• Sexeul """"ule, "'""" th"'·•.Jh lt • .,., not. Tha ,.. ...... !)M .. ~bet thie n..op .. n .. d is nat & ree•c.n to bw tiill'aonted • Writ. B~.tt It <;Joes t''4'recan1:: th•-t N.t ~"lee .,.. not fre"ll! ;oivlniii• But the M¥in F•ot ie Ms. Velodua'u e~at&•ont th~t th.Waa~d co~1leln wltne9s~• ware yaunQer ~het fourt~en and let•r I tn .Jenu•ry 2001 w.,re yaun,.er then ••venteon, le ell ao nvt OOI"ract "l..indeey Grol0f1 ·,..,. i' Htrnaetn when the ,.lleiJed ae,.IOul t oocoUI"ed, Thue egea of tno ohild reaslly would hi8Va 1:o d01tereine t.n" chsr~~ thet 1:ho1 defend-ant .:t'lt thOJ whera .. u DfJQ• so .. uO>l As'tl•ul't. Not to heve the etete •are• to n;:,t; eteolo: th;a ttertt•nc••· .,.,., ()"P"Cil 'ly .~~~~i~~ed, ·~1~ v,{~~ .• . I!---~.-~ ·' ·-·--·~----------- eruc .. l.::hrt&t;en.. en I, Bruce Chrleteneen, p~tltlaner, ~ in t~e ebave atyled end e.pti<1ned .,f'fldevlt do en !PtOeer under pe.,.lt1•• or puf'jury thet the ~ollo•lng •t•t . .•n* •ad• ln thl• a~fidevlt ere true end oof'reet to tha best ol' My 'lllbllltte,. ""'r! \.l'lowl•dg .. , on thl• the 1Zth d•y I' October ZOO&, -----·~ C\"'e!ifii.R'~wm.·.r 8601 lpur 591 164 .a..rUlo,TX 79107•989!5  Case 5:07-cv-01008-FB Document 11,2 Filed 03/31/08 Page 5 of 21 CAUS! NO, 2001-CR-418S•W1 ltX PAI'ITf: § IN THE DISTI'IICT COURT I 22Gth JUDICIAL DISTI'IICT BEXAR COUNTY. T~XA9 SUP~IH~NTAL AFFIOAVIT This supplemel"1tel ~ffioevit I.e to be in raeopnsll! in oonjuatlon with tha afl'idai'Jvit ~lsn"d ,.., 'Jct.8b .... 1?tO,, 2005, and makes tha fall~•l~g 8t~t~msnt: At no time w~e the def~nd~Mt ~dvier.d that the Plea Ber-geiM wae to to avoid at~okinG, The ~tet~ oFfered • sentPMee o' 35 years, period wl~h no other s~lpletlone For the rirst 13 monthe oF M~. V!:!Idez':; rourti"t~n mont:L1~ of trial pr-eopetion, and on Merch 27, 06 t~r- off'<'r ~henr;!ld t~ lli! a cfto of 2'5 l'"~r" •nd to r-~mein eilient of th~ ~ppllcatioM For pr-obation. ~~ver­ did M~. veladez Fuggest th~t it w•• b~Re to pl~~d to ~ Flr-st degree oFFence when tha Indictment ~herged orly n ~~cnnd degr-ee orrenc~, or- the the punishment rang~ For thRt of'en~e range wea fro~ 2 to 20 y~ere l•t elone t~et th~ court could •~ntence me to thirty y~ars on it. She atet~d thet Ehe edvle~d ~~ th~t th8ro wez thirte~n oounte 1 (Wh~r~ I h~ve ~tst~d th~t ehe 5dvls~d ~e thPt It •~• for te~ count~ or ~S2• ~~w~ul ~s~~ult) ~ut fF t~~ indiuotment ie lnve~teg~t~d prcpoerly it wtl 1 b~ fcL1~d ~~~~t it b~~~kz ~own to ! , With w!tnes• onu~ber one. the>r los -?o; WA'!' L•l""'-l'j~r- t,_,"! .'!gl! 0~ 14 !n 1!'134 1~~91 :$l1d OVn,s~· onde'.;' Section 21.02!, 21.11. 22.0.21, (i}:, years of B.~·:e at th111! time of tht~ conmd.r:.sid of v:tolat.icne of n,ore than on0 sr~~ction; or (B) for· \·thich a t-'.lf::·a ag:c~,ment i.VCt~';l l:-eachf0 in t.1 C(;U;c iri tr;hich t.ht:: accus~t·r:l vJa.u ch<:!l:"tJetl with more than one o:t;;:.1·1.se l:l..:;;t(;·d .in ParagL~B.ph (A} committt:'<"l asain~;t a victum young<::t thtti: 1'1 yea;:·s of. c:;ge at tr1c t inK• of thee condnissicn of the~ vi0.1.ntion,s c;f the sam~:; t:'<:.'ction motT~ thc.tn <:1nce Qr i:-..:~ char·;jDd \·lith v.iolc1.tions c·i: Lfrovid;r law is continued in effect fot· that purpose." 169  Apr.il 22, 2013 JudgileSid Harle 226th District Court Bexar Bounty Courthouse san Antonio, Tx 78205 Dear Judge Harle, I ~