776-/5 7-77-/5 778-/5 77?./5 IN THE ORIGINAL COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AT AUSTIN, TEXAS /\/M IPW »^b» •«• uwim wr vniii/mwL HhTtALS) AUG 2 7 2015 REGINAL KEITH PINK, Abe! AcftsteuQterk Petitioner rILED IN v. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS THE STATE OF TEXAS, AUG 27 2015 Respondent Abel Acosta, Clerk From the 5th Court of Appeals, Cause Nos: 05-14-00877-CR, 05-14-00878-CR, 05-14-00879-CR, 05-14-00880-CR; From the 283rd Judicial District Court, Cause Nos. F09-55346-T, F13-60732-T, F13-60733-T, F13-721123-T, the Honorable Judge Rick Magnis , presiding PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW Reginald Keith Pink, Pro Se TDCJ# 1938997 McConnell Unit' 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102-8583 361.362.2300 (ph.) 361.362.3011 (fax) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents i Index of Authorities ii Statement Regarding Oral Argument iii Statement of the Case iii Procedural History 1 Ground For Review No. 1 1 The Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed petitioner's conviction holding that the Anders brief represents a professional evaluation of the appellate record— Ground For Review No. 2 2 The Court of Appeals erred in denying multiple pro se requests for evidentiary hearing to resolve issue of lost/missing transcripts— Ground For Review No. 3 2 The Court of Appeals erroneously confirmed the convictions holding petitioner was given a copy of the appellate reco rd and advised of his right to file a pro se response... Ground For Review No. 4 3 The Court of Appeals erred in holding that it reviewed the record, counsel's brief and pro se motions finding nothing in the record one might arguably raise on app eal ... Conclusion 4 Prayer 5 Certificate of Service 6 Appendix 1V INDEX OF AUTHORITIES UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Amendment 6 5 Amendment 14 5 FEDERAL LAW 28 U.S.C §2254 2 Federal Cases Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 1 Dalton v. Battaglia 402 F.3d 729, 736 (7th Cir. 2005) 2 Hall v. Quarterman 543 F.3d 365, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2008) 2 Harich v. Wainwright 813 F.2d 1082, 1090 (11th Cir. 1987) 2 Jackson v. Estelle 570 F.2d 546, 547 (5th Cir. 1978) 2 Woodcock v. McCauley 563 F.2d 806, 808-09 (7th Cir.) 2 Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 34.6 4 Rule 38.9 3 Texas State Cases Dunn v. State 733 S.W.2d 212-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) 4 Emery v. State 800 S.W.2d 530-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) 4 Gianous v. State 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) 1 Harris v. State 790 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) 4 Kelly v. State 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex.- Crim. App. 2014) 2 Ortiz v. State 862 S.W.2d 170 (Tx. App. 4th Dist. 2014) 4 n STATEMENT REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT Petitioner believes strongly that oral argument would be helpful to the Court in assisting them in deciphering exactly what occured during the Janu ary 23, 2014 arrignment/plea hearing that was recorded yet not made part of the appellate record. Further, oral argument is necessary to make the Court aware of. the harm and prejudice caused to the petitioner by not allowing the issues and Constitutional.violations which occured during that hearing to be raised on Direct Appeal to the Appellate Court. Petitioner believes oral argument should be permitted to reveal how the Court of Appeals erred in its fact finding, determinations thereof, and in the denials of pro se motions and requests to show documentary or otherwise evidence from either the Appellate Record or the Dallas Co. Judicial System Electronic Docket sheets, that, the January 23, 2014 hearing did in fact "take place, was recorded by the Court Reporter, and that portion of the Appellate Record is lost and or missing. Petitioner has shown due diligence by request ing these transcripts from the Court Reporter of the 283rd District Court, the Trial Court, as well as the 5th Court of Appeals/ and attempted to properly address the issue of the lost portions of the transcript prior to the submi ssion of the substantively defective Anders Brief. Petitioner intends to argue how his repeated requests for evidentuary hearing, which are the generaly accepted and usual course of jurisprudence in such situations. For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests oral argument be granted ,- STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 26, 2013, Petitioner, ReginaMPink (Pink) was convicted of robbery, two aggravated robbery w/ deadly weapon,,and one aggravated assault on a public servant in the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The trial Court assessed punishment as LIFE imprisonment in each case. Petitioner appealed the convictions, and appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. On May 26, 2015 the 5th Court of Appeals filed a memorandum opinion affirming the convictions. in PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 26, 2015, Petitioner Received notification of Opinion and Judg ment from the 5th Court of Appeals, informing him that his convictions had been modified and affirmed. On July 10, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for rehearing with the Court of Appeals. On August 3, 2015 Petitioner received the Order from the 5th Court of Appeals denying the rehearing. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER ONE The Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed petitioner's conviction holding that the Anders Brief represents a professional evaluation of the Appellate Record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California. ARGUMENT: The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the convictions based on an Anders brief that was based on appellate counsel's evaluation of an incompl ete appellate record which was void of transcripts from an arringment/plea hearing- held on January 23, 2014, where issues to be raised on direct appeal occured. These transcripts have been diligently sought in Pro Se motions to the Court of Appeals making the Court aware of the issue of lost and/or miss ing portions of the Appellate Record prior to counsel's submitted Anders brief. All such pro se motions were denied. Review should be granted based simply on the Court of Appeals decision to affirm on an incomplete appellate record, and any evaluation ignores the record and evidence giving rise to meritor ious issues that could be raised therefrom, (see Appendix Exhibits 3, 4, 5, & 6, as well as Dallas Co. Judicial Sys. docket sheets Ex. 2). These are documentary evidence, by a preponderance.of the evidence, that a hearing occured on January 23, 2014 and should have been recorded at the request of the parties and/or as a matter of regular Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals decision to affirm departs so far from the usual course of jurisprudence as to call for the exercise of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals powers of supervision, for the fundamental reason that an incomplete record makes any brief invalid, therefore, the .Anders brief filed in this ease does.not meet the requirements of Anders v• California 386 U.S. 738 (67') for the fact, it is based on an incomplete Appellate Record and the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity to respond, (see Gianous v. State 436 S.W.2d .137. (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER TWO The Court of Appeals erred in its decisions denying multiple pro se motions and requests for evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of the lost/missing transcripts and docket sheets being evidence of lost/missing portion of the Appellate Record. ARGUMENT: Careful review would show all petitioner's pro se motions were not fair ly evaluated, thusly, the Court of Appeals erred in. denying the requested evid- entuary hearing and ignoring the federally recognized standard entitling the petitioner to such a hearing when he can show clearly and convincingly with the evidence presented,. (see appendix exhibits) that its reasonable the pro ceedings in which he refers are to have taken place, (see also 28 U.S.C §2254). The Federal Courts have set the precedence in holding that petitioner is entitled to an evidentuary hearing in cases such as these, (see Dalton v. Battaglia 402 F.3d.729, 736 (7th Cir. 2005); Hall v. Quarterman 543 F.3d 365, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2008; Woodcock v. McCauley 563 F.2d 806, 808-09 (7th Cir. ); Jackson v. Estelle 570 F.2d 546, 547 (5th Cir. 1978); and Harich v. Wainwright 813 F.2d 1082, 1090. (11th Cir. 1987). Petitioner submitted exhibits 2-6 in his requests for an evidentiary hearing, and argues that the Dallas County Judicial System Electronic Docket Sheets in and of themselves entitled him to an evidentiary hearing. The above cited cases are examples of how the Appellate Courts decision denying petitioner's properly presented motions departed from the precedence in the proceedings creating a fundamentally unfair environment and depriving him of due process so as to call for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to exercise its power of supervision. For these reasons the Court should grant review. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER THREE The Court of Appeals erroneously confirmed the convictions holding that, petitioner was given a copy of the Appellate Record, advised of his right to file a Pro Se response to the Anders brief, but failed to do so. ARGUMENT: The petitioner was not given a "complete" copy of the Appellate Record by either Counsel or the Court when counsel's Anders brief was filed as required. (see Kelly v. State 436 S.W.3d 313, 316, 318, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Therefore, petitioner was not able ,to properly respond without the lost/miss ing portion of the appellate record containing the hearing on Jan. 23, 2014 encompassing the constitutional violations to be' raised on appeal. Depriving petitioner of a "complete" record after due diligence requests also nullifies any opportunity to adequately respond to counsel's Anders, brief. (see Gianous v. State 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). In an attempt to obtain a complete record of the actual proceedings, petitioner sought and was granted a 30 day extension of time to file his' response to counsel's brief. In this time petitioner utilized all of his resources to gain a copy of the Dallas Co. Judicial Sys. Docket Sheets, (see Ex.2). The Court Advised petitioner to reply by the Feb. 4, 2015 deadline, however, his evidence was yet to be rec eived and timely requested an additional extension as other state agencies were less that expedicious in relinquishing the requested documentary evidence that would show that a hearing did in fact transpire as insisted upon by the pet itioner. Irregardless of petitioner's "just cause" the 5th Court of Appeals denied the motion for the second extension. A denial after a showing of good or just cause conflicts with.the decisions of other Courts on the same issue, who generally grant pro se litigants second request for extension when making a showing of just cause as petitioner in this case. This consequently, denied petitioner his guaranteed constitutional right of appeal. These aforementioned issues caused egregious harm and prejudice and created procedural defaults and errors petitioner sought to raise on direct appeal. This also created a legal prejudice affecting collateral review of these errors which, could be supported by the lost/missing transcripts. It is alleged these transcripts are being held by the trial Court leaving the App ellate Record incomplete. Petitioner made the Appeals Court aware of these issues in his submissions, hence are judicially noticed, (see Tex. R. App. Proc 38.9 (b) making the Anders brief substantively defective). For these reasons review should be granted. GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER FOUR The Court of Appeals erred in holding thet it reviewed the record, cou nsel's brief and petitioner's pro se motions and finding nothing in the rec ord that might arguably support the appeal. ARGUMENT: The Court of Appeals erred in its investigation, review, and determinarion of the Appellate Record and petitioner's pro se motions filed. A close and exh austive review of the submitted record reveals undisputedly in comments made by the trial Court Judge, (see Ex. 3), the lead prosecutor,, (see Ex. 6) and the petitioner., (see Exs. 4 & 5).which were made in a Feb. 3, 2014 proceeding show unquestionably that a hearing was held prior to the 2.3.14 hearing and was held on the record. The transcripts of the "hearing" prior to 2.3.14 are not included in the submitted Appellate Record, thusly, the Court of Appeals could not have reviewed them. The certified copies of the Docket sheets, (see Ex. 2) and petitioner's motions, in the very least, gives rise that the Court of App eals review was not based on a "complete Appellate Record", and any determin ation thereon arguably removes subject matter jurisdiction, hence, voiding the resulting determination. The references made in the record submitted reflect other record portions not included, clear and convincing evidence that the rec ord in fact is incomplete. Affirming a case with an incomplete record conflicts with precedence set under substantially similar circumstances of other Courts of Appeals, (see Ortiz v. State 862 S.W.2d 170 (Tx. App. 4th Dist. 1993); also Emery v. State 800 S.W.2d 530-33 (Tx. Crim. App. 1990); Dunn v. State 733 S.W. 2d 212-214 (Tx. Crim.. App. 1987); Harris v. State 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tx. Crim. App.), holding that it has long been the rule in Texas that when an appellant, thro ugh no fault of his own or his counsel's is deprived of a portion of the state ment of facts [the appellate record] which he diligently requested, the app ellate Court cannot affirm, (see Tex. R. App. Proc. 34.6). For these reasons review should be granted. CONCLUSION Petitioner, Reginald K. Pink, in the above and foregoing information has showa the Court that issues exist, namely in the lost/missing transcripts, which , would show constitutional violations that could have been presented on direct appeal. Petitioner alleges these constitutional violations are specifically: 1. petitioner's counsel, admitted in open Court, that he purposely did not tell petitioner all his rights; 2. trial counsel refused petitioner's requests to do any investigation because he believed petitioner to be guilty; 3. trial counsel refused to file any motions on petitioner's behalf claiming it would be a waste of the Court's money; 4. petitioner and trial counsel, due to counsel's opinions of petitioner continuously on the record and off the record had conflicts of interests, such as: a) counsel refused to provide petitioner copies of police reports related to the causes; b) counsel refused to thoroughly explain the ele ments of the indictments and the repercussions thereof; e) counsel's request to the Court to force petitioner to give a plea; 5. the Trial Court's refusal to grant petitioner's repeated requests for appointment of different counsel, responding "its not your counsel's fault we are here," and indicating he agreed with counsel's assessments; 6. the trial Court's denials violated petitioner's 6th and 14th guaranteed constitutional right to effective representation and due process. Petitioner alleges there are other issues/violations but without the record cannot effectively cite nor argue them. For these reasons the Court should grant review. PRAYER Wherefore premises having been duly considered, Reginald K. Pink, petitio ner pro se, humbly and respectfully prays that the Honorable Court would grant his Petition for Discretionary Review. Petitioner seeks to have the record developed so as to include the portions that were intentionally or unintention ally not admitted as part of the Appellate Record, and once the record is whole he be permitted appointed counsel and new direct appeal of the above cited issues. Further, petitioner respectfully requests he be granted any general relief the Court deems appropriate or to which he is entitled under either Federal or Texas law. Respectfully Submitted, Reginald Keith Pink, Pro Se TDCJ# 1938997 McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102-8583 361.362.2300 (ph.) 361.362.3011 (fax) APPENDIX EXHIBIT 1 Memorandum opinion 5th Court of Appeals EXHIBIT 2 Dallas Co. Judicial Sys. Electronic Docket Sheets, Certified EXHIBIT 3* Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4, pg 30 Line* H^- EXHIBIT 4* Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4, pg 31 EXHIBIT 5* l^'nes /-Y Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4, pg 34 EXHIBIT 6* Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4 pg 35 *(NOTE: Please see the Reporter's Record as indicated). IV DECLARATION I, Reginald Pink, does now attest that the foregoing documents and info rmation are true and correct and are thusly sworn to under penalty of perjury to their validity. (T.G.P. & R. §132.001-132.003 and 28 U.S.C. §1746). 911 P4 Reginald Pink, Pro Se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing and included documents have been properly served upon, the parties listed below at their respective addresses, as well as delivered to this Court. The documents were placed in the McConnell Unit mailbox with first class, pre-paid postage affixed, addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, c/o the Clerk of the Court, Abel Acosta at Capital Station, P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711-2308. Executed on this the '£.£> day of A^USf , 2015. Reginald Pink, Pro Se also served: Micheal Casillas Dallas Co. Dist. Attorny's Off. 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB19 Dallas, Texas 75207 State Prosecuting Attorney P.O. Box 12405 Austin, Texas 78711 Deemed Filed: Warner v. Glass 135 S.W.3d 681, 682 (Tex. 2004) ,/* MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 26, 2015. In The Court ot Appeals! jftftl) Btetttct of tKexaa at Ballatf No. 05-14-00877-CR No. 05-14-00878-CR No. 05-14-00879-CR No. 05-14-00880-CR REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-55346-T, F13-60732-T, F13-60733-T, F13-72123-T MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers Reginald Keith Pink appeals his convictions for robbery, two aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offenses, and one aggravated assault on a public servant offense. See TEX. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.02(a)(2), 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at life imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.* The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. * We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties "of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). Appellant did, however, file several pro se motions. ' We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se motions. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Although not an arguable issue, we note the judgments in cause nos. 05-14-00877-CR and 05-14-00879-CR do not correctly reflect appellant's pleas to, nor the trial court's findings on, the enhancement paragraphs. In each case, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs alleging prior felony convictions, and the trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true. The judgment adjudicating guilt in cause no. 05-14-00877-CR contains no reference to the enhancement paragraphs and the judgment in cause no. 05-14-00879-CR states "N/A" in the sections regarding the first enhancement paragraph. As a result, the judgments are incorrect. Accordingly, we modify the judgment adjudicating guilt in cause no. 05-14-00877-CR to show that appellant pleaded true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found the paragraphs are true. We modify the trial court's judgment in cause no. 05-14- 00879-CR to show appellant pleaded true to the first enhancement paragraph and the trial court found the paragraph true. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. refd). -2- In cause nos. 05-14-00878-CR and 05-14-00880-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgments. In cause nos. 05-14-00877-CR and 05-14-00879-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgments as modified. 'UJ^? Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47 140877F.U05 -3- Court of Appeals jfiftFi ©tatrtct of tEexaa at ©alia* JUDGMENT REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-00877-CR V. F09-55346-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt is MODIFIED as follows: Add section "Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True." Add section "Plea to 2nd Enhancement /Habitual Paragraph: True." Add section "Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True." Add section "Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: True." As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt. Judgment entered May 26, 2015. Court of Appeals! $ iftfi ©tetrtct of t&exaa at Ballasi JUDGMENT REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-00878-CR V. ' F13-60732-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and WhitehiU participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered May 26, 2015. -5- Court of appeals jftftl) Btsitrtct of Cexa* at ©alias JUDGMENT REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-00879-CR V. F13-60733-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and WhitehiU participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled "Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph" is modified to show "True." The section entitled "Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph" is modified to show True." As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment. Judgment entered May 26, 2015. -6- Court of Appeals! $ tftl) Btetrtct of Cexas at ©alias JUDGMENT REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-14-00880-CR V. F13-72123-T). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and WhitehiU participating. Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered May 26, 2015. 4JI66 < DA .CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE' ID F-13607: A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NARB-EIKK RE JUDICIAL INFORMATION A010-020-030-040 FILE DATE 101013 DEF NAME PINK_REGINALD_KEITH RACE B SEX M DOB 09151962 AGE 52 DEF ADR1 646_LACEWOOD DR AC PH SS DEF CITY DALLAS ST TX ZIP 75224 DLNUM DLST DT 092613 TYP/CL F 1 GOC/CAT CODE RB000000 COMT 3RD SID NUM 03736319 OF AMT COMPLAINANT TAPE # ARREST DATE 092613 JUV STAT N REPEAT OFFENDER N CAREER OFFENDER N ORIG-LOC DSO CURR-LOC P FILING AGENCY TXDPD0000 SER/CAS NO 247449A _247449A ARREST NUM 13046113 LAI NUM ; 493406 AIS/DSO NO 1828536 1828536 BOOKIN BOOKIN NUM NUM 13063777 JP FILE DATE OOOO00 JP CASE ID JP COURT ID FED EVH AFF MAGISTRATE DATE 092613 MAGIS COURT 97 MAGIS JUDGE TURLEY BOUND OVER _ EXAM TRIAL DATE OO000O EXAM COURT EXAM JUDGE IND METH IHD GJ/H/R DT 103013 H GJ# 2171 A2 GJ/W/FILE 110113 GJ OS T DA DSP A ACC X REAS DA DISPOS DATE 101013 MISDEMEANOR REDUCTION _ SENTENCE PROBATED _ JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732 GJ CT FP PROS STAT A 656 PROS NAME PRYOR_CHRIS COURT ASSIGNED TO FT DATE ASSIGNED 092613 ASSIGNED BY O REASON A PRECEEDING DA CASE ID SUCCEEDING DA CASE ID TRN 9176431916 TRS A001 WARRANT STATUS S STATE OFF CD 12990002 NEXT * <*£ f^f <* &t- (m -tf)t>«»*»^ pq u CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE APPEALS C020-50 CT DISP NO 01 DATE APPEAL MADE 062714;rCOPY STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED 000000 EXTENDED 000000 DESIGNATION OF RECORD DEFENSE 071614 STATE 000000 TRANSCRIPT FILED 082614 OBJECTION 000000 DATE NOTICE SENT 000000 DATE SENT TO APPEALS 000000 OPINION DATE 052715 MANDATE RECEIVED OOOOOO DISP _ MANDATE ENFORCED DATE 000000 APPEAL WITHDRAWN 000000 CT REPORTER INITIALS BB_ APPEAL REF CODE 0150 REC NO 50 _ GENERAL COMMENTS C080 062714_WAIVER_OF_JORY_616/598 ;_2NDS3RD_TRUE-TRUE_2ND£3RD ;_FINDINGS_OF_DEAD LY_WEAPON_KNIFE_AND_CUTTINGTOOI. DATE 062714 _ C080 062714_DEFT_EXCEPTS_AND_GIVESJNOTICE_OF_APPEALS_TO_THE_COXJRT_OF_APPEALS_5T _PISTRICTJPAT.T.AS DATE 071614 _ C080 08062014 REPORTER'S REC /JR DATE 080614 C080 08/20/2014_REPORTER•S_REC_CHECKED_OUT_BY ,_MATTHEW_J._KITA_/JR_ ' DATE 082014 NEXT #• CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE DISPOSITION C020-01-02 CT DISP NO 01 VERDICT DATE 062714 BY JG DISP PGJG TC DISM TYP VOL 616 PAGE 597_ SENTENCE DATE 062714 BY JG TO L YEARS MTHS DAYS HOURS SENTENCE TO BEGIN 062714 SENTENCE VOL PAGE DISCHARGE N TYPE _ NUM PROBATED SENTENCE TO _ YEARS MONTHS DAYS _____ MULT SENT C PROBATED FOR YEARS MONTHS DAYS PROBATION START DATE SPEC COND 1 FOR 2 FOR FINE CODE _ AMT 0.00 COST CODE _ AMT 0.00 PAYMENT DUE 000000 REDUCED/ENHANCED CHARGE DESC COMT TYP/CL GOC _ COUNTY CODE STATE CODE PROBATION REVOCATION FILE DATE 000000 WARRANT ISSUED DATE 000000 DISPOSITION COMMENT 092613-062714 MOTIONS C020-30 CT DISP NO 01 DT/ FILED 071614:: MOTN TYPE MNT; MOTN PENDING STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED D^Sd;:>PT/NEWl/TRIA-.>::F^-jaP;$. • SENT PENDING _ DISPOSED DT 090514 TYPE D COMMENT MTN/NEW_TRIAI_pENIED_617/802 REC NO 30 NEXT 3. CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE 'NAMES B070 ASSOCIATED NAME KITA,_MATTHEW_2146991863 NAME REF CODE AA1406270 CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 24050883 BOND MAKER _ DT BOND MADE ' B070 ASSOCIATED-NAME LACY,_WAYNE_2146531317 NAME REF CODE CD1309270 CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 11787200 BOND MAKER _ DT BOND MADE. B070 ASSOCIATED NAME BRAY_J NAME REF CODE LP1310110 CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE B070 ASSOCIATED NAME PRYOR_CHRIS_ NAME REF CODE LP1310111 CT APPOINTED BAR NO BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE CHARGE C010 DEF NAME PINK_REGINALD_KEITH_ OFFENSE CD RBOOOOOO STATE CD 12990002_ DESC AGG ROBBERY COMT:: 3RD -^ TYP/CL: F 1 ^: GOC _ GJ COURT FP CURRENT COURT FT PREVIOUS COURTS CHOV DT NEXT STATES RECOMMENDATION NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 012714 i SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 020314 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS • STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 NEXT PS CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE SETS AND PASSES B060 SET FOR DATE 050814 y'; SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 051214 y SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE PLEA PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 062714 .':' SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE SENT PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS. STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 090514 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS EVIDENTIARY STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 NEXT «JI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE SETS AND PASSES BO 60 SET FOR DATE 100114 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE OTHE PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS OVERRULE/MOT_NEW_TRIAL STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 _ NAMES B070 ASSOCIATED NAME KITA,_MATTHEW_2146991863 NAME REF CODE AA1406270 CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 24050883 BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE B070 ASSOCIATED NAME LACY,_WAYNE_2146531317 _ NAME REF CODE CD1310300 CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 11787200 BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE B070 ASSOCIATED NAME PRYOR_CHRIS NAME REF CODE LP1311120 CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE CHARGE C010 DEF NAME PINK REGINALD KEITH OFFENSE CD RBOOOOOO STATE CD 12990002_ DESC;/AGG^OBBERY^ COMT 3RD_F TYP/CL F 1 GOC _ GJ COURT FU CURRENT COURT FT PREVIOUS COURTS CHOV DT NEXT CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE DISPOSITION C020-01-02 CT DISP NO 01 V/ERDICT: DATE; 662714, BY JG DISP PGJG TC DISM TYP VOL 616 PAGE 599_ SENTENCE DATE 062714 BY JG TO L YEARS MTHS DAYS HOURS SENTENCE TO BEGIN 062714 SENTENCE VOL PAGE DISCHARGE N TYPE _ NUM PROBATED SENTENCE TO _ YEARS MONTHS DAYS MULT SENT C PROBATED FOR YEARS MONTHS DAYS PROBATION START DATE SPEC COND 1 FOR 2 FOR FINE CODE _ AMT 0.00 COST CODE _ AMT 0.00 PAYMENT DUE REDUCED/ENHANCED CHARGE DESC COMT TYP/CL GOC _ COUNTY CODE STATE CODE - PROBATION REVOCATION FILE DATE WARRANT ISSUED DATE DISPOSITION COMMENT 092 613-062714 MOTIONS C020-30 CT DISP NO 01 DT FILED 071614 MOTN TYPE MNT MOTN PENDING _ STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED _ DESC MOT/NEW TRIAL FILED SENT PENDING _ DISPOSED DT 090514 TYPE D COMMENT MTN/NEW_TRIAL_DENIED_617/802 REC NO 30 _ NEXT CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE APPEALS C020-50 CT DISP NO 01 DATE APPEAL MADE 062714 COPY STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED 000000 EXTENDED 000000 DESIGNATION OF RECORD DEFENSE 071614 STATE 000000 TRANSCRIPT FILED 082614 OBJECTION 000000 DATE NOTICE SENT 000000 DATE SENT TO APPEALS 000000 OPINION DATE 052715 MANDATE RECEIVED OOOOOO DISP _ MANDATE ENFORCED DATE 000000 APPEAL WITHDRAWN 000000 CT REPORTER INITIALS BB_ APPEAL REF CODE 0150 REC NO 50 _ GENERAL COMMENTS C080 062714_WAIVER_OF_JURY_616/600;_2NDS3RD_TRUE-TRUE_2NDS3RD;_FINDXNGS_OF_DEAD LY_WEAPON_FIREARM DATE 062714 _ C080 062714_DEFT_^EXC»PTS_AND_GXVES_NOTICE_pF_^PEALS_^TO_THE^COURT_pF_APPEALS_5T HJDISTRICTJDALLAS DATE 071614 _ C080 08062014 REPORTER'S REC /JR DATE 080614 C080 08/20/2014_REPORTER•S_REC_CHECKED_OUT_BY ,_MATTHEW_J._KITA_/JR_ DATE 082014 NEXT CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123 A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE GENERAL COMMENTS C080 08/26/2014_CLERK' S_REC_FILED_5TH_CQA_/JR DATE 082614 C080 DATE 082614 C080 101014_DESIGNATION_pF_ITEMS_FOR_SUPPUEMENTAL_CLERK' S_RECORD_ DATE 101414 C080 10/21/2014_SUPPLEMENTAL_CLERK•S_REC_FILED_5TH_COA_/JR_ DATE 102114 C080 11/03/2014_REPORTER•S_REC_RET_BY,_MATTHEW_J._KITA__/JR_ DATE 110314 NEXT *,JI66 * DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE i/f-0955346 -v- A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE A010-020-030-040 J " D* " — * * >r o k MAT x 0 ^ DEF NAME PINK^GINAI^KSITH RACE B gEX MDQB OkIIm^IIe^II0 DEF ADR1 646_LACEWOOD Z!ZZZIZIZ~~~ AC PH «TET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS OPEN STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 JET FOR DATE 052410 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE OTHE PASSED TO DATE JET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS HF.LD_AT_ATTY' S_REQUES' STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 062510 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE PLEA PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS OPEN STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 NEXT 9, 4JI.6 6 DA CASE I D F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID F-0955346 AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE SETS AND PASSES B060 SET FOR DATE 040413 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 < B060 SET FOR DATE 041613 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 042313 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 042513 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE PLEA PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 NEXT to. CJI66 DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID F-0955346 AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE SETS AND PASSES BO 60 SET FOR DATE 050113 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE 00000 SET DISPOSITION CODE ___ _ PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO. 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 050613 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 051013 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 052013 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 NEXT //, * JI66 DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID P-0955346 AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME piNR m SETS AND PASSES B060 SET FOR DATE 052413 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 062113 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE REVK PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 100913 SET FOR TIME 0815 SET TYPE VIOL PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 B060 SET FOR DATE 110113 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS AWAITING_NEW_INDICt" STATES RECOMMENDATION _ _ REC NO 01 NEXT IX NO SENTENCE DATE 062510 BY JG TO years — D^M TYP V0L 5" PAGE 907 SENTENCE TO BEGIN 000000 SENTENCE VOL P*™ °AYS HOURS PROBATED SENTENCE TO P YEARS SriFiii n DISCHARGE N TYPE Nu"m~ PROBATED FOR YEARS 10 MONT^i"" nfye °*YS MOLT SENT " SPEC COND 1 SF SAFEP~ FOR 365~~D~ 9 PROBATION START DATE 000000 FINE CODE N AMT __2000Tob COST CODE N~ AMT 490-00™ "^Tv ~ DESC ROBBERY EDUCED/ENHANCED C^RG^0-00 PAYMENT °UE °00°°° — — COMT TYP/PT v o r*^r< PROBATION REVOcL0^^?^^^0^^"^^^- DISPOSITION COMMENT ™™™^ 101013 WARRANT ISSUED " DAt¥ 100413 NEXT ' ' ?nnnASE ID P-095534* JUDCL CASE ID P-0955346 AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PlS B C020-01-02 dispositxon 7ERDICT DATE 062113 BY JG DISP RFvr -n -.--w CT DI5P N0 ' SENTENCE DATE BY TO ^5L„« ~ °ISM TYP V°L 61° PAGE 728 SENTENCE TO BEcTi ~ENTENCE vS DAYS HOURS ~- PROBATED SENTENCE TO YEARS MoVfSs 7^ DISCHARGE N Ty^ _ NUM _ PROBATED FOR YEARS ~ MONTHS day. »J MULT SENT SPEC COND 1 FOR 2 probation start date ~ FINE CODE _ AMT 0.00 .0.00 rn"?T COST ^nr CODE ZHZ _ AMT =-^/°R PAYMENT DUE 0.00 REDUCED/ENHANCED CHARGE^ DESC COMT TYP/CL GOC COUNTY CODE _ STATE rnnp PROBATION REVOCATION FILE DATE DISPOSITION COMMENT WARRANT ISSUED DATE l&SUED DATE NEXT "I66 • . _5iSR_.FISxS,S_,_, name PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE CO2O-01-02 DISPOSITION VERDICT DATE 062714 BY JG DISP REVK TC DT^m tvd CT DISP NO SENTENCE DATE 062714 BY JG TO L^EARS ~ n-^1mtL SENTENCE TO BEGIN 062714 SENTFNPF vrvr V°L 616 HOURS DAYS — PAGE 596 PROBATED SENTENCE TO YEARS ^THS ^ 7^ °ISCHARGE * TYPE - ™~- PROBATED FOR YEARS ~ MONTHS~ nflvq ™- SPEC COND 1 FOR DAYS PROBATION START MULT SENT C DATE 000000 FINE CODE _ AMT-ZIZZO^O cdsF CODE _T AmFZswToo™ TFyM^NT DUE DESC ROBBERY EDUCED/ENHANCED CHAR^i AYMENT — . COMT TYP/CL F 2 POP PROBATION REVOCA??ONYF?LEEDA^E00000 ^ ^ ""0001_ ~ DISPOSITION COMMEN^O^^IO^^ C020-30 MOTIONS DT FILED 071614 MOTN TYPE MNT MOTN PFNDTMr om*m CT DISP NO DESC MOT/NEW TRIAL FILED SENT pZii" STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED COMMENT MTN/NEW TR"iAL DENIED 617/802 PENDING _ DISPOSED DT 090514 TYPE D NEXT ~=- CU10 DEF NAME PINK RE CO20-50 APPEALS DATE APPEAL MADE 062714 COPY STATFMFmt o- ™™o ' CT DI5P N0 DESIGNATION OF RECORD DE^lslT^xfs^l^CCCC!o^ OBJECTION OOOOOO DATE NOTICE SENT 000000 ^^^ EX™NDED OOOOOO transcript filed 082614 DATE SENT TO APPEALS OOOOOO OPINION DATE 0527m MMIMalo MANDATE ENFORCED DATE OOOOOO apn^T nxIL MANDATE RECEIVED OOOOOO DISP APPEAL REF CODE 0350 WITHDRAWN 000000 CT REPORTER INITIALS BB_" _„„ REC NO 50 eOftn o«9-m «--.-=.-. GENERAL COMMENTS C080 062510_WATVER_OF_JURY_593/908 - DATEo 62 510 " —————— C080 062510_TRUE_TO_2ND_AND_3RD;_2ND_AND_3RD_FODND_TRUE DATE 062510 " " C080 061511_E/O_jyrc>D_COND_OF_PROB_599/347 _ DATE 061511 C080 030712_E/O_MOD_COND_PROB_603/852 DATE 030712 NEXT DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID P-0955346 - -- AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE rnfln „,„,, -._,__, GENERAL COMMENTS C080 062714_DEFT_EXCEPTS_AND~GIVESD-^TE _DXSraiCTjDJ__iAs_ NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF appfats WH 07^i-"~tJK-^_Ay_**M_^«V»T_OF_AFPEALS_5TH C080 08062014_REPORTER'S_REC /OR DATE 080614 C080 08/20/2014_REPORTER.S_REC_CHECKBD_OUT_BX,_MATTHBW J. RITA /JR _ _____ DATE 082014 — — — - C080 08/26/2014_CLERK-S_REC_FILED_5TH_COA_/jR DATE 082614 C080 101014_DESI(SNATION_OF_ITEMS_FOR_SUPPLEMENTAL_CLERK'S RECORD DATE 101414 ~ C080 10/21/2014_SUPPL_a_3NTAL_CLERK'S_REC_FILED_5TH_COA /JR „__„ ; ; — . DATE 102114 uoit 1U^114 ~" C080 H/03/2014_REPORTER'S_REC_RET_BY,_MATTHEW_J._KITA /JR —— DATE 110314 ~ NEXT J5 $ §7V ?> v ^ t -ft I -J Is c_> ^ <^ On \ r_ 5- i1 m \r. ?-• Mr /7 // / ^ & i h i I , s -3* / i ?h ;-f. ? r. i i •?•• ! f •.:•• '•» it" f "" fa t / l i t ! '- / ^ ^ - / '' w i . t;,'. N