4Q471-03
/
Tfre, Cour-f of' GRiMincj/ Af>f>4>j*Ls fiP 7eKa&
JW? KlU.tr^r iMH33=&
^v-H oP U-^Leq-S (Lor^is ^un-sucno-fr ^0 kt-frlLftf
"IHtShkbPJem
^d^lki^^su^awx
'^vtiJ. Gh ttih Motim, and hnn« \£ U M& M^id/}>yj &ft tfiis
fasfeo/'jLt/y i)u4mlHedt
ttflftfatl
Amwi4>. 7^-s 7f/d7
" JAM 02 2015 t—
jVo@i &eost®» Gtefk
CAUSE NO. 1284277-B
WILLIE EDWARD CHOICE § IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
§
US § APPEALS
§
STATE DF TEXAS § AUSTIN TEXAS
§
Motion to object to the trial court finding of facts and
conclusion of law.
TO THE HONORABLE DODGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes now applicant Willie Edward Choice before-this.court in this
motion and object to the trial courts conclusion of law on the
following in.the States application page 3 at 16 alleged the app
licant was not placed.in jeopardy tuice for same offense. See
State wrif exhibit B and C indictment. In the probable cause rep
ort taken by affiant Dackie Blanchard during the forenic interview
of the complaintantDatavia M. Evangelists third paragraph under
probable cause. The complainant alleged on or about October 20,
2010 at 1006 Carolyn Ct., Humble Texas the offense supposedly
occurred against her. The affiant Oaekie Blanchard appeared be
fore the assistant district attorney of Harris county Texas and
stated under oath that Willie Edward Choice the defendant alleg
edly committed the offfense against the child on or about March
17, 2010 inconstant with the childs statement in the report. In
the second paragraph in the probable cause report the'affiant
interviewed the sister Davondria Evangelists that stated during
the interview alleged the offense committed against her on March
17, 2010 however the affiant Jackie Blanchard stated under oath
that the offense allegedly occurred against the child Davondria
Evanglista on or about October 20, 2010 inconstant with the re
port. This error violates the applicants right to due process of
law, U.S. Constitution fourteenth and f if th t-::. .V;. Amendment.
However, both girls testified in the first trial cause no. 12B4276
litigating their claim against the applicant therein was found
not guilty and acquitted of the offense alleged. The State was
barred from relitigating the same issues in a second trial.
Applicant believe that because of the affiant error to due process
of law both indictments should have been "Squashed". Applicants
trial counsel was on a fully probated suspension and was not
eligible to practice law in the state of Texas deceitfully llook
the case. Under the circumstances did not challenge the State
prosecutor or made any attempt, to prevent a second prosecution.
Violated double jeopardy U.S. Const. 5th Amendment . (see) doc
ument from the State.bar of Texas. Applicant pray that the Court
of Criminal Appeal will act accordingly as justice require.
tted
/^Sj^n ature
l2/t2{2Dff
STATE BAR OF TEXAS
Office ofthe ChiefDisciplinary Counsel
October 23, 2014
Willie Edward Choice
TDCJ #01776962
Neal Unit
9005 Spur 591
Amarillo, Texas 79107
Re: Osborne, John Carroll Barcard #15333200
Mr. Choice:
Pursuant to your request, I have researched our disciplinary records and report that we show the
-following:
The following disciplinary action involving professional misconduct has been taken against Mr.
Osborne's law license.
Action Date Sanction Start/End Date
09/09/2013 Partially Probated Suspension 01/01/2014-12/31/2014: suspension
01/01/2015-12/31/2016: probation
12/15/2009 Fully Probated Suspension (01/01/2010 -12/31/2013^)
' —— —i •"**
Please let me know if you need additional information or if I can be of further assistance to you.
Sincerely,
'Areli Arel f2fte/Zb/f
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
State Bar of Texas
P.O.BOX 12487, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2487, 512.427.1350; Fax: 512.427.4167