•8l-/$ RE. CAUSE NO. |A//a. /ffys*f -U(A\_ 7—'-="*••*—^ p i NOTION TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS AND TRIAL REckps IN FORMA pmippptc DEAR DISTRICT CLERK; :--K : ,--: • ••.„ ~K" PLEASE FILE-COPY AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ^fim ^/7'fyfULS JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT. ALSO, ' PLEASE RETURN , CERTl7l^7^F~ SERVICE FILE-DAT.E-STAMPED MARK. YOUR ASSISTANCE IS GREATLY APPRECIATED. SIMCERELY, / -y WR:2:0 20ir;. c;c' (C0PY) ' vAte»Adoste,Gi@irk MOTION DENIED • ' DATE: M-(3'l^ BY:_PC, '('•' CAUSE NO . ItftO' S&lfferb (ifO ••••*.. pX tftfff S^(/Jfcl6TieK J IN THE ApgALs JUDICAL •VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS AND TRIAL RECORDS IN FORMA PAUPERIS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COKES ,3^0^ td^lSMS- ' PRO SE DEFENDANT . IN THIS SAID AND NUMBERED CAUSE, RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THIS COURT TO HEAR THIS MOTION TO OBTAIN DOCUMENTS AND TRIAL RECORDS TO ENABLE DEFENDANT FOR HIS PREPARATION OF FILING HIS MOTION FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, ARTICLE 40.001, PROCESS AND WILL SHOW THIS COURT THE FOLLOWING IN PURSUIT OF HIS DUE PROCESS: -fr- JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS. INVOKED PPURSUA.NT TO VERNON'S ANNOTED TEXAS GOVERNMENT -CODES; § 552.203 AND § 552.223 RULES OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT RULES OF PRACTICE IN DISTRICT AND COUNTY COURT'S; ARTICLE '§ 40.01 ET- SEQ. ..OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURES; THE PRIVACY ACT U.S.C.A. 552(B) OF THE,. TEXAS OPEN RECORDS ACT (TORA); AND RULES 34.5, 34.6 AND 53(1); (2) OF THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE AND ALL CASES CITED INFRA. ; II. PETITONER IS CURRENTLY CONFINED AND RESTRAINED ILLEGALLY OF. HIS LIBERTY. IN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE- INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION PURSUANT ''TO A JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION IN THE ABOVE NUMBERED CAUSE. PETITIONER IS A PAUPER WITHOUT ADEQUATE FUNDS TO PURCHASE HIS TRIAL RECORDS, AND OTHER REQUESTED •DOCUMENTS, AND IS ENTITLED TO AN EVIDENTARY HEARING TO DETERMINE HIS "INDIGENCY" BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT. . p , III. PETITIONER HAS EXHAUSTED HIS STATE REMEDIES AS REQUIRED PUR- .._._SJUAN.T_jrj3_AJCTJ£LE_^ —P-ET-I-T-I-QNE-R-S- TIME HAS -EXPIRED TO FILE A PRE-DISCRETidNARYT REVIEW AND THE COURT ISSUED A MANDATE ON THE CAUSE SOME TIME AFTER. THE PETI TIONER NOW FILES THIS MOTION FOR HIS RECORDS IN ORDER TO PREPARE AND FILE ARTICLE 40.001, NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, TO A HIGHER COURT. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO FILE MOTION FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 40.001 V.A.C.C.P., AND BRINGS THIS MOTION BEFORE THE HONORABLE COURT FOR HIS RECORDS. PETI TIONER HAS STATED AND WILL DECLARE IN THIS MOTION, THAT HE IS "INDIGENT" AND SEEKS THESE RECORDS IN FORMA PAUPERIS THROUGH THIS COURT. THE RECORDS MUST BE AFFORDED AT NO COST TO PETI TIONER IN THIS CAUSE. SEE. ABNOR V. STATE, 712 S.W. 2d 136, 140 (1986) CRAUDER V. STATE, 933 S.W. 2d 273, 275 (1996). SNOKE V. STATE, 780 S.W. 2d 212 (1989) EVITTS V. LUCEY, 464 U.S.. 387; 105 S.CT. 830; 83L.Ed. 821 (1985) GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS, 365 U.S. 12; 76 S.CT. 585; 100 L.Ed.2d (1956) '" "' MEYER V. CHICAGE, 404 U.S. 189; 92 S.CT. 410; 30 L.Ed. 2d 892 (1963), TO IMPOSE A FINANCIAL BURDEN UPON AN INDIGENT PRISONER OF THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE EXERCISE OF A STATE AND FEDERAL RIGHT TO SUE FOR HIS LIBERTY IS TO DENY THAT PRISONER OF HIS STATE AND FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, AND IS A [DIRECT] VIOLATION OF HIS. "FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, " U.S.C.A. (14). IN ABNOR V. STATE, AT 140... THE SUPREME COURT OF. APPEALS FOR TEXAS-HELD THAT: "...ONCE AVENUE OF PAAELLATE REVIEW ARE ESTABLISHED THEY [MUST] BE KEPT FREE OF UNREASONED DISTINCTIONS, THAT CAN ONLY [IMJPEDE OPEN AND EQUAL, ACCESS TO THE COURTS"... IN GRIFFIN V. ILLINOIS, SUPRA., THE COURT CLEARLY STATED:. "...THERE CAN BE [NO] EQUAL JUSTICE WHERE THE KIND OF TRIAL • A MAN GETS DEPENDS ON THE .AMOUNT OF MONEY HE HAS." IN' LANE V. BROWN, SUPRA. , THE SUPREME COURT [REjAFFIRMED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF GREEN, SUPRA BY STATING: ". . .DESTITUDE DEFENDANTS [MUST] BE AFFORDED AS ADEQUATE APPEL- L-A-T-E R-E-V-I-E-W AS DEFEND-A-NTS WH'OW7-H"ATE~MO"NEY~~TO-BTTr^THETR TDTflT T'DTNMOi'-'DTnmc jsMrV n o n r~\ r> r» n ' *' IN SMITH V. BENNET, SUPRA., THE COURT FURTHER NOTED: "...THESE PRINCIPLES ARE NOT LIMITED TO DIRECT APPEALS ' FROM CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS BUT EXTEND ALIKE TO "POST-CONVICTIONS AS WELLT77" PETITIONER CONTENDS THE NEED FOR HIS TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS ENT- f': ITLED TO HIM THE SAME, AND SAID RECORDS ARE IMPERATIVE TO PRESENT HIS CASE IN LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO HIS CAUSE. WITHOUT THESE RECORDS HE CANNOT PROVE HIS INNOCENCE TO A HIGHER COURT. PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND DUE PRO CESS OF LAW WHICH PROTECTS AND REQUIRES THE STATE TO FURNISH AN INDIGENT PRISONER SUCH RECORDS WITHOUT CHARGE. SEE. UNITED STATES V. GLESS, 317 F.2d 200 (1963) THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS DUE PROCESS GUARANTEE OF FUNDAMEN TAL FAIRNESS, REQUIRES THE STATE TO PROVIDE A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE MEANINGFULLY" IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN WHICH HIS LIBERTY IS AT STAKE. SEE. AKER V. OKLAHOMA, 470 U.S. at 76; 105 S.CT. 1098 Af.SO, THE SUPREME mnRT Pr.RflRr.V qrPflTPn- "...IT IS A CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO HIS RECORDS WHICH MAKES [ANY] APPELLATE REVIEW MEANINGFUL..." SEE. GARNER V. CALIFORNIA, 89 S.CT. at 581 (1969) ACCORDINGLEY, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE STATE [MUST] PROVIDE THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS FOR. AN EFFECTIVE DEFENSE- THE COURT HEAVILY EMPHASIZED IN GRIFFIN: "...THE HOLDINGS IN THE LINE OF CASES BEGIN WITH GRIFFIN, 351, U.S. 12 (1956), INVOLVING A CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO A. TRIAL TRANSCRIPT, AND ARE FIRMLY [ROOTED] IN BOTH THE DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. SEE ALSO, EVITTS V. LUCEY, SUPRA, at 830, (CRIMINAL DEFENDANT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FREE TRIAL TRANSCRIPT TO PETITION THE SUPREME COURT) "...Id, at 830..." SEE ALSO, BUNDY V. WILSON, 815 F.2d 125-130-31 (1987); ALLEN V. DUCKWORTH, 6 F.3D 458 (1993), (STATE IS NOT 'PERMIT TED WITH ONE TO GRANT SUCH RIGHT, AND WITH THE OTHER HAND... [TAKE] IT AWAY IN AN ARBITRARY FASHION) ... ' THE COURT HAS THE DUTY UNDER VERNONS ANNOTED TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE'S 552.203 AND 552.223, TO DUTIFULLY ACT UPON AN APPLICATION ... -FOR P-UBLI-C—RECORDS THE—GOUR4L---0F-~G-RI-MI-NA-L~A-PP-E-A-LrS-WA-RR-A'NTED"", "IT IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS AS AFFORDED BY THIS STATE'S LAW OF CONSTITUTION, AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, TO [WITHHOLD] THE TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS AND THE STATEMENT OF FACTS, WHEREIN A PRISONER HAS DUTIFULLY SHOWN HIS INDIGENCY TO THE COURTS." SEE. WHITE V. STATE, 828 S.W.2d 15, 17 (TEX.APP. EL PASO 1990)(RELYING ON BRITTON V. NORTH CARO LINA, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.CT. 430-31, L.Ed.2d 4.00 (1971). IN MCBEE V. STATE, 711 S.W.2d at 257 (TEX.CRIM.APP. 1986), THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATES: "...THE LANGUAGE IS [MAND ATORY, IF THE DEFENDANT IS FOUND TO BE INDIGENT, THE TRIAL COURT IS BOUND TO "FURNISH" SAID RECORDS WITHOUT COST..." (CITING BRITTON), AND THAT... "IT IS A STATE AND FEDERAL PROGENCY, AND IT IS ASSSUMED THAT THE .RECORDS [WILL] BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENDANT. . .AND. . .THE STATE BEARS THE [BURDEN] OF [DISPROV ING THE VALUE... OR ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES ='= = " SEE, UNITED STATES V. LOGING, 601 F.2d 2055 (1979); RUSH V. U.5, 5559 F.2d 455 (1977). • P-ETTTTONER--HAS"• A""VESTED-HIGHT "A'RD~A""'TIB'ERTY-TNTElTES"T~ITrTrHTS~ ~ CAUSE. IT IS A "MINISTERIAL"; ACT AND DUTY OF THE COURT [MUST] RECOGNIZE ITS DUTY TO ACT ACCORDINGLY. WADE V. MAYS, 689 S.W.2d 893 (1985); BARONOWSKI -V. TEDFORD,. C. A. NO H-90-330, HOUSTON (1994); BRADY V. MARYLAND, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). • _ PETITIONER, IS AN INDIGENT PRISONER OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. HE WAS FOUND TO BE INDIGENT BY THIS COURT IN CAUSE NO. fcJ/V^-^^ft}) , AND PETITIONER'S INDIGENT STATUS HAS NOT CHANGED. SEE PETI TIONER'S DECLARATION OF . INABILITY TO PAY COST HERETO ATTACHED TO MOTION AND TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN-FORMA PAUPERIS DATA REGARDING PETITIONERS, TRUST FUND ACCOUNT. 9 THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS ARE UNEQUIVOCALLY CLEAR THAT THE PETITIONER IN THIS CAUSE IS ENTITLED TO TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS AND REQUESTED RECORDS. THEREFORE, WITH RESPECT TO THE FOREGOING, AND THE FOLLOWING, PETITIONER WILL RESPECTFULLY SHOW THIS HONOR ABLE COURT WHICH RECORDS ARE ESSENTIAL IN ORDER FOR HIM TO ADE QUATELY CONSTRUCT A MEANINGFUL. MOTION FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVI- -DE-NeE—I-N-^-tJ-IT—FOR—H-I-S—L-I-B-ERTY—TN—TH1"S—CA--US-E^—— I ' t d -n LIST OF REQUESTED DOCUMENTS .UffilCIMENia. 2. GRAND JURY MINUTES 3. DOCKET SHEETS 4. ALL SEARCH WARRANTS IN THIS CAUSE 5.. -TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS 6. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. CLERKS RECORDS 8. ALL ARREST RECORDS 9. ALL APPLICATIONS FOR SUBPOENAS 10. JURY VOIR DIRE 11. NAMES OF ALL WITNESSES 12. ALL WITNESS STATEMENTS 13. ALL POLICE REPORTS USED AT ANY STAGE OF PROCEEDING HOWEVER TENTATIVE 14. ALL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THIS CAUSE 15. ALL STATES EXHIBITS USED IN THIS CAUSE 16. ALL DEFENSE EXHIBITS USED IN THIS CAUSE JJ7_. ORDERS APPOTNTTNG COUNSELS AND DATE THSR-SOg ; 18. ANY MEDICAL TESTING OR OPINIONS OF THE- DEFENDANT IN THIS CAUSE 19. ALL MOTIONS FILED BY THE STATE IN THIS CAUSE •20. ALL MOTIONS FILED BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CAUSE 21. RECORD OF ALL PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS IN THIS CAUSE 22. COURT'S RULING ON ALL PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS *, 23. CHARGE OF GUILD/INNOCENCE 24. CHARGE OF PUNISHMENT 25. JUDGEMENT OF CONVICTION 26. ANY PLEA OFFERS BY THE STATE IN THIS CAUSE • 27. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL 28.. DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF APPEAL . 29. DESIGNATION OF RECORD OF APPEAL 30. ANY DEALS OR AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE STATE AND ANY WITNESS IN THIS CUASE 31. ANY RELEVANT RECORD IN THE STATE'S POSSESSION OR CLERKS POSSESSION SAID RECORDS ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COURT REPORTER -A^D-TH-E-C-L-ERK-OF-THE DISTRICT COURT OF AND FOR PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY MOVES THE HONORABLE COURT TO GRANT THIS MOTION IN ALL REGARDS, WHICH WILL ENABLE HIM TO PREPARE IN SUIT OF HIS LIBERTY. PETITIONER . RESERVES THE RIGHT TO FILE MOTION FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL COURT. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ,AJfaanjfo/tUr».n 1rl1-tS CSINIB02/CINIB02 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE 03/17/15 ST55/LS000fag IN-FORMA-PAUPERIS DATA ©8s3£:56 TDCJ'tt: 01718500 SID#: 056797E4 LOCATION; STILES INDIGENT DTE: NAME;; WEISNER, SEAN BEGINNING PERIOD; 08/01/14 PREVIOUS TDCJ NUMBERS:: CURRENT BOLs 48., 59 TOT HOLD AMT ; 0.00 3MTH TOT DEP: 50.00 SMTH DEPs 50.00 6MTH AUG BAL : £.87 6MTH AUG DEP: 8„ 33 MONTH HIGHEST BALANCE TOTAL DEPOSITS MONTH HIGHEST BALANCE TOTAL DEPOSITS 01/15 £5.06 0.00 10/14 0.06 0.00 12/14 ' 50.06 50,00 09/14 0,06 0.00 11/14 0.06 0„'00 08/14 0.06 0.00 PROCESS DATE HOLD AMOUNT HOLD DESCRIPTION STATE OF TEXAS^COUNTY OFj£tJ CV%(S\T\ ON THIS THE HrDAY OF VyfhkCpS , _, I CERTIFY THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS A TRUE, •"" "'NflLTERED COMPLETE,AND UN COPY MADE" Hi BY ME OF INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COMPUTER DATABASE REGARDING "HE OFFENDER'S ACCOUNT, MP SIG: PF1--HELP PF3-EMD ENTER NEXT TDCJ NUMBER: t^lX^Gji. OR SID NUMBER: -«--*- A A r*- *• ^ j STEPHANIE LUTE Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires 03/03/2018 Notary without Bond