·•. . . . . . .: • : : : - l
1~.rus-o~
. i
May 18, 2015
Clerk of the Te:xas Court of Criminal Appeals
201 West 14th Street RECEIVED IN
Austin, Texas 78701 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Nema Bardin MJ).Y 19 2015
POBox 772
Abel Acosia, Clerk
Austin, Texas 78767
Re: Enclosed Original Writ of Habeas Corpus Chadrick B. Pate Applicant #01563340, Nema Bardin
Pe.tit.i.c\w.r awl Eme..rge..w:y ~M.v.ti.c\t:~ .fnr nr.ig.ir..wJ W..r.i.t .o.f Jhbe.as CntpJ.JS Relief CJ:w.D.r~tck B, P.ate
#01563340 Ap,plicant, Nema Bardin Petitioner.
I am the Petitioner in the above referenced Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus.
Applicant Pate: presented his initial 11.07 Habeas Corpus to the trial Court made returnable to this
Court.
The Initial Habeas Corpus presented under Article 11.07 No. WR-78,165-01 received no
"adjudication 'on the merits " by the Trial Court or by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
nt:~ J2/5/J 4 .AJ-1Uli.c.aut .fiJe.d .a .Mo.t.int:~ fD V.ac.af.e Vni.d JJ.Jdglm>..ut iut.o ib.e trial ,e.our.t..AppJ.i,e.aut .a..;;.kt>.d nt
numerous occasions for a decision from the trial court. The trial court refused to answer and has not
corresponded 'lwithApplicant at all, and that Motion was withdrawn on 5/18/15.
I am now as the Petitioner bringing this Original Writ on behalf of my son Chadrick B. Pate pursuant to
Article V, Sec.:S, Constitution of Texas and pursuant to Texas and United States Common Law.
Please file the Writ as an Emergency In The Interest of Justice, as my son has been imprisoned for 7
years under thtis Void Judgment obtained through illegal proceedings held by the trial court which
violated his 1s1., 6th and 141h Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.
The trial court committed fraud upon the court, The 13th Court of Appeals, The Texas Criminal Court··-.
o.f~4_Aru".a..ls .aw.ll .t..be LT. S. Fe.de..r.aJ Di..~.t 0:\!.lr.t SDJ.\t..be..rn Di.."-tr.ic.t, HDJ.l-'\tnt:~ T.e.Y.aS w..be..t:~ tbey B.rs.t ..beJd
an illegal joint trial and obtained a conviction through holding illegal proceedings and filing illegal
entries into the: trial court, and then submitting a Void Judgment Record to The 13th Court of Appeals,
•crit-s wart ~ 1'-e~C:!S Curnt Di Cimi1J.f"d1 h~d1-s), m1~ tire \3. <;:,. "'ttitt:rro Dt~trtt1"l Curnt '2,uctcrtemDnta:tt1"l ,
Houston Texas
runderstand tfnat these are fofty and serious cfaims and f have supported the cfaims with the triaf court
records, and affidavits which are contained in the Exhibits of the Writ.
1.
I am respectfully submitting this Writ as an Emergency for filing and docketing
cc: file
Writ Hand Delivered COCA
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
\
TDCJ #015(63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, T~XAS
.. ,
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015163340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO
Article V, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution Article 1, 6. and 14 of the United States
Constitution Texas Common Law And United States Common Law
TO THE HOr~ORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES, Petitioner Nema Bardin on behalf of Applicant Chadrick B. Pate and respectfully
submits this Ori_ginal Writ Of Habeas CoiJms _petitionin_g for relief from a Void Jud_gment in
Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR Chadrick B. Pate.
The Initial Ha1beas Corpus presented under Article 11.07 No. WR-78,165-01 received no
"a<.ljudication ron the merits " by the Trial Court or by the Court of Criminal A_p_peals.
The Judgment, Sentence and Conviction pursuant to The Judgment rendered by the Trial Court
and executed by Trial Court Judge Janna K. Whatley in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR CHADRICK B.
PATE from the 36th Judicial District Court Aransas Counzy is: Void for Violation of Due Process under
the Texas Contstitution and the United States Constitution , and for Fraud on the Court by the Court.
1
JURISDICTION
The Court of Criminal Appeals has Original Jurisdiction under Article V, Section Five of the
Texas Constitmtion, Article 1, 6 and 14 of the United States Constitution, Texas Common Law
and United States Common Law. State v. Johnson, 821 S W 2d 609. 612 Tx. Crim. App. 1991
held a court off criminal a_p_peals m3:y take action on~y if that action is authorized by
constitutional provision, statute, or Common law, or the power rises from an inherent or implied
power. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103-113 held "To deprive a citizen of his only effective
reme4y wouldl. not onl_y be contrary to the rudimentary demands of justice but destructive of a
constitutional guaranty specifically designed to prevent injustice. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 Sup. Ct.
1963. The Wnrit lies as a traditional civil remedy for the enforcement of the right to personal
liberty, not as; a stage of the state criminal proceedings or as an appeal therefrom.
Exparte Gimmbonini 117 CAL 573, 49 P 732; VOID judgment is Never final and a judgment
acq_uired through violation of "due process of law" and Fraud is void and never becomes final.
process of lawr" and Fraud is void and never becomes fmal. Exparte Giambonini 117 CAL 573, 49
P 732 I Dubaiii Petroleum Co. v. Kazi 12 S W 3d 71 76 (Tex. 2000,) A judgment will never be
considered fintal if the court lacked subiect matter .iurisdiction. It is well settled law that a legal action
by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity.
THIS ~HABEAS CORPUS IS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON A VOID JUDGMENT
A collateral attack is any proceeding to avoid the effect of a judgment which does not meet all the
requirements of a valid direct attack. See Glunz, 908 S W 2d at 255, There is neither a set procedure
for a collatera] attack nor a statute of limitations. See Glunz, 908 S W 2d at 255: Davis v. Boone, 786
S. W.2d 85,87 (Tex.App- San Antonio 1990, no writ).
2.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Applicant was charged in a two count indictment with Murder Texas Penal Code 19.02 (Count 1)
Aggravated Assault Texas Penal Code 22.02/ Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity (~ount 11)
. On February 12, a jury found Applicant guilty of Murder. On February13, 2009, the jury assessed the
maximum. pu:nishment, ninety nine (99) years or life confmement in the Texas Department of Justice-
Institutional Division and a $10,000.00 fine. Applicant filed his notice of appeal on February 25,
2009. Applicamt then appealed his conviction through court appointed attorney. That Court affirmed
the Trial Court's judgment on October 7, 2010: Applicant Pro Se Petitioned for Discretionary Review
was refused om May 25, 2011. The final mandate issued on June 21, 2011.
Applicant then filed Habeas Corpus 11.07 through a paid Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisp. Ms. Crisp
proved to be imexperienced and refused to present Applicant's number one Ground for Relief Void
Judgment for Jack of Jurisdiction. (See note below) When Applicant's Mother found out that she did
not include the Ground he had his Mother with his Power of Attorney to amend the Habeas and add
the Ground fo·r Void Judgment as his number one ( 1) ground. There were no hearings or factual
findings by th·e trial court. and none by this Court.
Applicant's W1rit was denied without Written Order on 3/6/13. Because Applicant is not skilled in the
law he did no1t know to Appeal the 3/6/13 decision and thought that his opportunity to file a Federal
Habeas Corputs was nearing the deadline. He then filed a Pro Se Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U S C
2254 that court conducted no evidentiary hearing and denied the Writ with prejudice and no COA.
Applicant tho,ught that he could not Appeal because of the Order on the COA. He then with the
assistance of his Mother as his Power of Attorney began to study to find a way to get back into Court
Sote: Judge J. Price delivered the opinion in Ex Parte Casey Tyrone Sledge No. A-P-76497 and opined that if applicant had raised his present
claim in his orginal 'Writ, "We would not hesitate to reach the merits and if appropriate grant relief.
3.
Applicant disc:overed that because his Judgment was void that he thought he could ask the Trial
Court for relie:f because he had read 2 cases that helped him understand the basis for asking for relief:
Ex parte :Casey Tyrone Sledge No. A- P- 76947 and Patton v. Diemer 35 Ohio St. 3d 68,518 N E 2d
941 : showing It is not incumbent upon appelle to establish a basis for relief nor is it incumbent for the
court to decide its authority therefrom, Rather thejud,gment sou_ght to be vacated constituted a nullity
therefore withtin the inherent power of the trial court to vacate the Judgment, and then filed a Motion to
Vacate Judgment in the Trial Court on 12/5/14. After requesting on at least 3 occasions a decision
the court had still not ruled or corresponded with A_p_plicant and then he withdrew his Motion on
;/18/15. There are no other motions pending in this matter at this time. Applicant is presently in
custody of Texas Department of Criminal Justice System Stiles Unit Beaumont Texas.
THE COURT'S POWER TO SET THE VOID JUDGMENT ASIJ)E
Where a void jiudgment has been rendered and the record in the cause, or judgment roll reflects the
vice, then the 1court has not only the power but the duty and even after the expiration of the term to
;;et aside such judgment. Harrison v. Whitely, Tex Crim App 6 S W 2d 89.
MANDATORY RELEIF
Relief under void judgment Statute is Mandatory, Carter v. Fenner 136 F 3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir)
1998. a void jmdgment decree or order may be vacated at any time on motion of a party or any person
affected thereby. Johnson v, Zerbst 304 U.S,.458 Supreme Court 1938 showing when court
violates Constitutional Rights they lose jurisdiction to _proceed to trial and the conviction is void.
E.VlDEN'tA.RY RE.A.RIN.G
Petitioner request evidentary hearing if the Court cannot determine that releif is required
tk.-uagi\" tire lAY-s'~·
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A grandjury im Aransas County Texas in the 36th Judicial District of Aransas County indicted
Applicant Chatdrick B. Pate in a 2 count indictment under Penal Codes 19.02, 22.02 and 71.02
along with 4 co defendants on June 24, 2008 See Ex# 2 Indictment. Applicant was the last tc
be arrested,of the other co defendants. A_p_plicant was arrested on M8:Y 5, 2008 when the Aransas
County Sherifilf illegally had his pre trial supervision (on a separate case ) revoked and had the
bondsman withdraw his bond. Applicant had abided by every pre trial supervision requirement.
Thus when the indictment was _presented to him he was already in custody of the Aransas Councy
Jail, where he remained until he was released into the custody ofthe Texas Department of
Criminal Justke in 2009.
Because the State brou_ght the char_ges a_gainst A.P..Plicant alon_g with the other co defendant's his
trial and the o:ffenses were joined. Applicant entered a Plea ofNOT GUILTY and asked for a
jury trial and had his Defense Attorney John Gilmore file a "Motion for Severance of Defendant
and Offenses" on July 31st 2008. See Ex# 1. At some _point 3 of the co defendant's took _plea deals to
testify against Applicant and the only other co defendant (Hall) who plead Not Guilty as well.
Applicant's Attorney John Gilmore came to the jail only twice to visit client although Applicant
asked numerouts times to see him. Both A_p_plicant and Petitioner asked Mr. Gilmore numerous
times about thte Severance, he told both Applicant and Petitioner only a few days before a joint
trial with the other co defendant(Hall) that his Motion for-Severance had been denied. (This was no1
true) however A_P..plicant did not know about this lie until after the trial was over, the A_p_peal had
been denied, amd he was proceeding with a State Habeas Corpus under Article 11.07.
Applicant hired a young inexperienced Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisp, who refused to enter
Ground One :fior Relief at A.P..Plicants reguest "voidjud_gment for lack ofjurisdiction". When
5.
Applicant and Petitioner discovered that Ms. Crisp filed the Habeas without this Ground for
Relief, Petitio~ner immediately supplemented the Habeas Cot:pus and amended Ground One to
Violation of d-ue process" Judgment void for lack of jurisdiction". Applicant nor Petitioner knew
at the tine that there were numerous other violations of due process, and fraud involved with the
Applicant's Conviction.
The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Applicant's Habeas Corpus 11.07 without written order
on 3/06/13. H(~ then filed a Federal Habeas Corpus that was also denied. It was after this denial
that throu_gh st:udy Petitioner discovered the numerous due _process violations that the trial court
had abused antd the fraud on the court by the court..
The trial Court focused it's violation of Applicant's Due Process rights under the U.S
Constitution 14th amendment and it's Fraud l!POn ( "1\P.plicant's Motion for Severance of
Defendant and Offenses" ) Although the "Motion for Severance" never received a formal
hearing where a Judge either Granted or Denied the Motion with on the Record Factual
Findings, Judge Joel Johnson did at a_pre trial for the Co defendant Hall SEVERA_p_plicant's
trial from co dlefendant Hall. See Ex# 8 10/23/08 Court Reporters Record Volume 4 of 11 page 5
line 16-25 and page 6line 1-3. Judge Johnson continued Hall's trial date to 1/5/09 and he reminded
A_p_plicant's Defense Attom~y Gilmore, The State, co defendant Hall, co defendant's attom~y Stan
Turpin. and thlle Clerk of the Court, that he would be back in November to hear Applicant's case.
Applicant did not appear at this proceeding that took place on 10/23/08 and he did not appear at any
_pre trial_proce1edin_gs other than his Motion to Dismiss durin_g the entire tine from 6/24/08 to 2/9/09.
He did not kncnw about any pre trial hearings, as his attorney told him nothing about them.
The Court vioLated it's own Court Order when the Court failed to hold Applicant's Court Ordered Trial
on 11103/08 .
6.
He did not know that Judge Johnson had Severed his trial. It was after the pre trial hearing on 10/23/08
when Officers of the Court accelerated their scheme to keep Applicant joined for trial by illegally
REJOINING 1them for trial through Fake Proceedings and Motions and Orders .. After the Officer's of
the Court viol:ated Applicant's 14th amendment due process rights and through Officer's Fraud on the
Court. 1\P..Plic ant was tried in a ille_gal joint trial with the co defendant_, found _guiltv and
;entenced to 919 years or life and a $10.000.00 fine. The Trial Court Judge certified into the Court
of Appeals Co·rpus Christi, Texas a Fraudulent Judgment Record, that included fraudulent
documents, antd excluded the fraudulent ~proceedinp;s that they used to r~ioin A_pplicant's Trial
with the co defendant. That same Judgment Record followed Applicant to this Court when he
filed his 11.07 Habeas Corpus, and again when he filed his Federal Habeas Corpus.
Throughout tht~ Memorandum that follows you will see through the review of the Trial Court Record
itself just standing alone that Applicant did not know that Judge Johnson had severed his trial from the
co defendant. You will see the use of fraud and the violation of his due process right to a fair and
impartial trial,. opportunity to be heard, and notice and how they were used to deceive him to
convincetQI'.J"..dJJJ:e'i- Th1e. trial ~n:t. ln.'it. 9.ui'iflir..tjJW. tn, tp:QI'.J".J"..d tn, t.J:i.al . .fulm.wm "~~ ~b.U.. 3.0A U.S 4.~
Sup.Ct.1938/:: Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct
. 822 9 Led 2clll , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(1 st Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266
S.W. 2D@ 1001:King_Ranch._ Inc. v. Chavman,_118 S.W.3d 742,_752 (fex. 2003)
11.
FACT2.
INDICTMENT EX# 2
The indictment charges Murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02 Felony Murder
The Indictment does not charge Murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02 and Texas Penal Code
7.01, 7.02, or 77.03. (which describes "the law of parties").
The Jury found Applicant guilty under Count (1) of the indictment Murder under Texas Penal Code
19.02 which states:
§ 19.02 MlffiU>ER. (a) In this section:
(!)"Adequate eause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment,
or terror in a_p(;;!rson of ordinary tell!per, sufficient to render the mind inc~pable of cool reflection.
(2)"Sudden pa:ssion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual
killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not
rolft!JJ t.bft. -.:P..~J.lt. Q{ {QJ:mf"J.. ~Q"\{Qr.Jlljnn_.
(b )A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionalLy or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2/ ~- ru- \.."'4\ThY ~~ mniiiy· irrjaty '4mi "vmm«s- an .n.:t d~".rrly· d-~mr ru- lrmmr« lik
that causes the death of an individual; or
{3) commits or attempts to comrriit a felony, other than mans·laughter, and "in the course ol and "in
furtherance of ·the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he
commits or att(;;!mpts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
individual.
(c) Except as plrovided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d)At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the
death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant
proves the issu.e in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the
Reennd .tkg..rre..
APPLICANT'S Claim UNDER 1,2 and 3
Applicant Guilty of Count (1) under Penal Code 19.02 MURDER the trial court did not order an
acquittal for the State's failure to prove the elements of Murder under Penal Code 19.02
Officer's of the Court continually introduced fraudulent evidence on the "law of parties" although
The indictmen1t does not allege that Applicant committed the murder under Texas Penal Code 7.01,
7.02, or 7.03 in connection with the charge of murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02. See Ex# 2
12 .
Indictment In ·Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR.
The Trial Court and it's officers prepared a fraudulent Charge of the Court Document
and read aloud "The Charge of the Court" then sent the physical paperwork into the Jury Room with
the Jurors where they used this charge to help ascertain the facts to convict Applicant of Murder. The
Char_ge of the Court looks little like what Texas Penal Code 19.02 reguires to reach a Guilty verdict.
See Ex# 3 •Charge of the Court in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR.
The trial court and it's officers used this fraudulent " Charge of the Court" as part of a scheme to
confuse the jwrors and to convict A_p_plicant.
The charge of the court presented in open court and in document provides : you are instructed that the
law applicable to this case is as follows:
COUNT ONE
1.
Our law provides that a person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual. (itt is true that this statement comports with 19.02 2 (b) 1.
2.
.4 pe..r~-mo .acJs J<~JJll)~tLogJ_x n.r w.iib .kt1.0w.lf'.dg.f'~ w.iib .r.f'b')Pt'rJ f.l) .E .r.f'sllh .of.b..t." .c.nos.i.J.JL'J" w.b.f'.o .b.f' _t.,. .Ew.art>:
that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (Nowhere under statute 19.02 is this
statement found)
A_person acts knowin_gly, or with knowled_ge with re~pect to a result of his conduct when he is aware
that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (Nowhere under statue 19.02 is thls statement
found. A "deadly weapon means a firearm. (Nowhere under statute 19.02 is this statement found.
Individual meams a human being. (Nowhere under Statute 19.02 is this statement found.
3.
13
committed by his own conduct , by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible or by
both.
A person is cri:minally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if, acting with
intent to promtote or assist the commission of the offense,he solicits encourages, directs aids, or
attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. Mere presence alone will not constitute one a
party to a crin:1e.
FACT3.
CAPIAS AND WAIVER OF ARRAINGMENT
On 6/25/08 a 6Capias was issued under Applicant Chadrick B. Pate in Cause No. A-08-5080-4 CR
See Ex# 3 Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER# 3
The trial court violated Applicant's Due Process when they issued a capias and confmed him under a
fraudulent indictment.
The Grand Jur;y would have had to find _probable cause to join A_p_plicant in the indictment and because
the requirememts to join the offenses and defendants are statutory they would have had to determine
that Applicant based on Officer Kirk and Brooks testimony that Applicant met the criteria under
Criminal Justi•ce Standards Part ll Standard 13-2.1 and Sec. 310 8{b) and they could not. J\pplicant
does not have access to the courts files arrest records of all the co defendant's and his own and
therefore canntot include in the exhibits, but the trial court has copies.
When the court violates due _process it loses jurisdiction and canno(proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391
63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d.
14.
FACT4.
WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT
On 6/27/08 Waiver of arraignment was entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet See Ex# 4
Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet. NO CLAIM
PRE TRIAL DATE AND ANNOUNCMENT DATE
'C{W;\\.~ M-V~~"t..W~ \\£'C{}\\\) ~"£.)
On 7/10/08 entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Ex# 4
Case Set Pre trial 7/24/08
Ann. 7/31/08
JT 8/4/08
APPLICANT'S Claim UNDER 3 and 4
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures and
Rules
notice. Applicant's due process was violated when he was not allowed to appear, and be heard and
notice. There iis no recorded record of this proceeding. A court loses jurisdiction when it violates due
process and lo1ses iurisdiction. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of
Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S.
391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d.
Fact3
7/24/08
DISCOVERY RULED ON
COURT REPORTS RECORD (NONE)
On 7/24/08 Enttered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is
Discovery Rulled On
J!i
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraud, Ineffective Counsel, and Violation of Due Process
Applicant did not appear at any Hearing on Discovery. The Court violated Applicant's due process
right to impar1tial fair trial, opportunity to be heard and notice and violation of statutory
rule . There is 100 recorded record of this proceeding. However there are Discovery Orders that Judge
Jant:W w.hat.t'Jy .TJ.ll.t-.d .nn
Applicant's dwe process was violated, and this proceeding was concealed from him. TCCP Title 1
Chapter 1 Ge~neral Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being
heard by hims,elf or counsel or both.See TCCP Title 1. Chapter 28 Section (1)5 and Section 2 also
~ee Fayv. N·oia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d, Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115,
1118(rt CircULit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ lOOl:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d
742_.752 (Tex. 200~).
Fact4
7/31/08
Motion for Continuance Granted I Reset Dates
COURT REPORTER'S RECORD (NONE)
On 7/31108 entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex#4
MFC Granted
Ann. 9/25/08
J.T. 9/29/08.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraudl Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures and Ineffective Counsel
he did not kno'w that a motion for continuance had been granted or that an Announcement date of
9/25/08 had been set or that a Jury Trial date of 9/29/08 had been set. The trial court violated
A_p_plicant's du.e _process rights to an im_partial fair trial, o_p_portunity to be heard and notice. And
16
violation of statutory procedure. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of
Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both.
TCCP Title 1 Chapter 28 Section (1)5 and Sec. 2. See: Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9
Led 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(1 st Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S. W. 2D
@ 1001:Kin_g :Ranch, Inc. v. Cha_pmaJ1, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex. 200~).
Fact 5.
7/31108
Applicanfs Motion for Severance of Defendant's and Offenses
It is not Recorded on Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet EX # 4
Applicant :filedl a timely Motion for Severance of Defendants and Offenses on 7/31/08
See Ex# 1 Motion for Severance.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
Ineffective Assistance Violations of Due Process Fraud on the Court
District Clerk repeatedly failed to record Motions onto applicant's criminal docket sheet, Counsel did
not object and Court did not correct. When a court violates due _process it losesjurisdiction and cannot
proceed , Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d
1115, 1118(rt Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ 1001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118
S.W.3d 742.• 75i2 [Tex. 200~).
Fact 6.
'}1,1.~Q£
Court Reporter's Record Volume 2 of9 Announcement Chadrick B.Pate A-08-5080-4CR See Ex# 5
Sl'-dl'es" 1lfotfun rurContinw.mc-e
Applicant's Request for a Decision on his Motion for Severance of Defendants and Offenses.
Judge Wellb orns Reason for Continuing the matter of the Motion for Severance to the next Pre
Trial Hearing. District Clerk Duties and Reset Dates
17
On 9/25/08 entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex # 4
States Motion 1to Continue Granted
Reset 1113/08 JJury Trial
10/03/08 Announcement
10/23/08 Pre Trial.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
Ineffec1tive Counsel. Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures Fraud on the
Court by the Court
Judge Michael Wellborn presided over this proceeding and those that appeared were Attorney John
Gilmore and State's Attorn~y M. Rodriguez.
Applicant did mot know about this hearing and did not appear. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General
ProvisionsAr·ticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or
counsel or both. See: Mentor v. Caswell (1997) 123 Ohio App. 3d. 256 Defendant was absent for
unexplained neasons at time of suppression hearing, which proceeded with participation of counsel and
co -defendant , The defendant had a right to be present and denial of Continuance was abuse of
discretion .. In Ap_plicant's case he had a ri_ght to the Severance and denial of same was an abuse of
discretion.
He had a right to challenge the judges reasons for not ruling on his Motion for Severance then.
He had a right to challenge the State's Motion for Continuance. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General
Provisions Arrticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or
counsel or both. At this hearing The State filed a Motion for Continuance and Judge Wellborn Granted
the MotionAtltorn~y John Gilmore A_p_plicant's Defense Attorn~y reguested a Decision on A_p_plicant's
Motion for Sfeverance of Defendant's and Offenses that had been filed timely on 7/31108. See Ex#5
Cnurt ~rt·et:~ RJ!co.cd v.nl2. n( 9 tpJPJ!.~ 3 lin£. 9-25 awl tpJP,;e 4. lin£.~ t-4...
Judge Wellbonn continued the Matter of the Severance stating that the reason was that he was waiting
18
to find out if he was going to need to appoint the Co defendant Christopher Hall a new attorney. See
Ex#S page 31ines 13-18. Judge Wellborn gave no valid reason to continue the matter of the
Severance.
At the hearing although he had continued the Matter of the Severance until the next pre trial date he
signed , dated and granted an Order for Severance. Ex# 6 Order Granting Severance.
Judge Wellbonn made no effort that day or any day to reverse the Order Granting the Severance. When
a judge does ntot follow statutory procedures he violates the defendant's right to due process and loses
jurisdiction to proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 US 391 63 S. Ct. 822. 9 Led 2d.
The District CLerk did not first enter the Order onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet, and did no1
urge another Order reversing the action of the Judge nor did the clerk make any notation on the record
of this order, instead the District Clerk kept the Order in Applicant's file, and later filed the Order into
the Applicant's Judgment Record and certified it as an Overruled Motion on the Severance and then
certified it into The 13th Court of Appeals Corpus Christi, Texas then later told Applicant's Habeas
Investi~ator Stacey Deville See Ex# 7 Deville's Affidavit., that the Granted Order was iust a Qiece
of paper in the Applicant's file.
The District Clerk committed fraud upon the court for purposeful failure to complete the duties of the
office. The District Clerk with other officer's of the court by this failure illegally disposed of Judge
Joel Johnson's Oral Order severing Co defendant's trial from Applicant's trial date, See Ex# 8 Court
Reporter's Rcecord Volume 4 of 11 page Stines 14-25 and page 6lines 1-3.(0ral
Order)
The failure to ·enter the proper proceedings onto the applicant's criminal docket sheet and or the trial
court's record concealed the Order of the Court from the Court and the Applicant. Fraud is defined as
trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for the purpose of
inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some calculable thing belonging to him or a false
representationt of a matter of fact by words, conduct or by concealment of what should have been
19
disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury
(emphasis adJ?licant and the co defendant. When a judge does not follow statutory req_uirements he
loses jurisdictiionrand cannot proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d, Aoude v.
.Mruw
- O» -- £ .2rl JJJ.Sr
- -C.nr-p... .89.2 '
JJJ.8{J st Clr~.wt J_9.8_9).._;~JJ'.~.p;.
...... - _.,.._ .... - . - --.... - - -- -
.U6 .& W.. .2D@ DDJ;K.iDg ~
Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex.2003)
Fact 9.
10/30/08
FRAUDULEJNT PROCEEDINGS ENTERED ONTO APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET
SEEEX#4
•COURT REPORTER'S RECORD ON 10/30/08 PROCEEDINGS (NONE)
Entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Ex#4
Defendants Motion for Continuance
Reset 1/5/09 Jury Trial
12/22/0B Ahliotincement
2/9/09 Jmry Trial
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2, 3 AND 4
Fraud on 1the Court Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures Ineffective Counsel
Applicant did mot appear or know about any proceedings for 10/30/08 Applicant's attorney did not
advise him of any proceedings ~d did not tell him about any continuance. There were no scheduled
proceedings for 10/30/08. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of
Accused~ He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both.
Applicant was; not notified of any proceedings for 10/30/08 either by his Attorney or the Court.
26
Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc.
Forrest, 795 s.. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990). These fraudulent proceedings are not recorded by a
Court Reporter and are not in the Court's Records. The trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed
that parties may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed of order,
that ~P..peared to allow the court to ~proceed was in violation of the 1st amendment to the Constitution.
Near Minnesmta ex rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697,51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v.
Karmer, 334 ns~ L 68 S; Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948);
Once a court orders _per trial orders the court cannot disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867
S. W. 2d 48,5ll Tex. App.(1933). A court's jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the court
of the proceedi.ngs due to complete the court as the 141h amendment requires. If the U.S. Constitution
amendments atre not complied with the court loses jurisdiction to proceed. Johnson v. Zerbst 304
U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
perhaps onto other Court Records that have been concealed from him. The District Clerk committed
fraud on the c•ourt and the Applicant. The District Clerk committed fraud upon the court for
pufQoseful failure to complete the duties of the office. The District Clerk with other officers of the
court by this failure illegally disposed of Judge Joel Johnson's order severing Co defendant's trial from
Applicant's trial date. The failure to enter the proper proceedings onto the applicant's criminal docket
;heet and or tt1e trial court's record concealed the Order of the Court from the Court and the Applicant.
Fraud is definn RJ>s-nr.d
w w - •• -
Y~ 2
of9 Ex# 5
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraud on the Court by the Court, Ineffective Counsel
Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedure and Rules.
The court didl not provide a court ordered jury trial for the applicant on 11103/08 and stated no reason
for failing to do so and gave applicant NO notice. Applicant's Attorney provided no reason or notice,
and there is no Recorded Record of any Proceeding that effected a change in Applicant Court Ordered
Trial Date.
A court's j-urisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the court of the proceedings due to
complete tlhe court as the 141h amendment requires. If the U.S. Constitution amendments are not
;::omplied with the court loses jurisdiction to proceed. Johnson Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
There are no legitimate court proceedings that overrules or voids Applicant's Court Date.
The court had 1no jurisdiction to proceed to a joint trial or a separate trial of Applicant or to hold any
other proceediings other than Acquittal. The trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed that parties
may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed of order, that appeared
28
to allow the court to proceed was in violation of the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Near v.
Minnesota ex rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334
U.S. 1. 68 S. «:.:t. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948). Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot
disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(1933).
See: Fay v. Nmia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d ·' Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 111~,
l118(rt Circmit 1989). Alexander,-266 S.W. 2D@ lOOl:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d
742;752 (Tex~ 2003)~
Fact 11.
11/25/08
CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL PRE TRIAL HEARING A-08-5080-2CR COURT
REPORTER RECORD VOLUME 5 OF 11 EX# 13
FRAUDULJENT DISCUSSIONS OF APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR SEVERANCE AND TRIAL
DATES.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Ineffective~ Counsel, Fraud on the Court by the Court, Violation of Due Process a Statutory
Procedures and Rules
Judge Michael. Wellborn presided over this pre trial hearing with co defendant Hall appearing with his
Defense Attorr1ey Stan TUil.?in and State's Attorney M. Rodrigues.
Applicant Chadrick Pate did not appear nor did his Defense Attorney John Gilmore. Applicant was not
before the coutrt for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.
W. 2d 700, 7CG3 (fx. 1990) •
At this proceedling Judge Wellborn, Stan Turpin and M. Rodrigues discussed Applicant's pre trial
motions and tlrial date when he was not present or represented. The Court had already lost jurisdiction
over Applicanlt and the Subject Matter, and committed fraud on the court by the court in having these
discussions th:at would make it appear that Applicant was still in the jurisdiction of the court. A court'~
29
jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the court of the proceedings due to complete the
court as the 14J.th amendment requires. If the U.S. Constitution amendments are not complied with the
court loses juritsdiction to proceed. Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
There arre no legitimate court proceedings that overrules or voids Applicant's Court Date.
The court had 1no jurisdiction to _proceed to a joint trial or a se_parate trial of A_p_plicant or to hold ~Y
other proceediings other than Acquittal. The trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed that parties
may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed of order, that appeared
to allow the co·urt to _proceed was in violation of the 151 amendment to the Constitution. Near v.
Minnesota ex: rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334
U.S. 1. 68 S. Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948). Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot
disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(l93~).
See page 3lin·es 7-25 This is a discussion between Judge Wellborn, Stan Turpin, and M. Rodrigues
where Judge vlVell born is first advised by Stan Turpin that he has talked with the State and Mr.
Gilmore who !has the co defendant Pate and he has Mr. Hall. He then advises Judge Wellborn that his
client has a mcotion for severance that was submitted by Hall's former attorney Cochran-May and they
were not going to go forward on that motion and that he had talked to his client who was in agreement
. He then adviised Judge Wellborn that he has cheeked with Mr. Gilmore and it's his understanding that
Mr. Gilmore is in agreement with that too unless his client tells him something different, and that was
his understandling.
Then Judge Well born asks who is the defendant then there is a discussion about the
name betweem Judge Wellborn, Stan Turpin and States attorney Rodrigues when they fmally get the
name right. SEE Reporters Record Vol5 of 11 page 41ines 1-13.
Jud_ge Wellborn ask when Pates trial date is scheduled Stan TuiJJen answers Right now on January
30
the 5th. Judge 'Wellborn responds Okay well both cases on the same trial docket at this time? M.
Rod.r\g:uez re~J,Oonds. Yes,. your Honor. Judge Wellborn responds Okay well its kind ofhard to try them
on the same ti:me if it's not on the same docket.
Mr. Turpen responds I understand Judge. Judge Wellborn responds Minor technicality.
Then a De_put)l' Clerk res_ponds And also Mr. Gilmore is not su_p_posed to be here on the 5th. He will be
on vacation ti[l the 9th See page 6 lines 2-7. Stan Turpin: Judge, what I would like to do on that is
leave it in the file just in case we need it because I did talk to Mr. Gilmore. Gilmore says he didn't see
any reason to $ever unless his client told him otherwise , but I haven't talked back with him to know
that, and I don't think he has a motion on file.
At the time of 1this discussion applicant's trial date had already been severed from that of the co
defendant Christopher
- Hall and the Trail Court refused to proceed to trial. Applicant
.._ -- was not before the
court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S. W. 2d
7.Q.f4 7.fl1 (t'L t'l'lfl\-.
The trial court and it's officers had already begun entering and concealing fraudulent proceedings,
motions. Orde:rs, and trial dates onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet.
This discussiom among officers of the court without appearance of Applicant and his Attorney is fraud
and a violatiori of Applicant's due process right to be present, opportunity to be heard and notice. This
is a manipulation of the judiciary and concealment of proceedings from Applicant.
JOHlNSON V. ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938 and Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S.
Ct. 822 9 Led. 2d, Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118(rt Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266
S.W. 2D@ 1001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003).
31
Fact 12.
12/22/08
FRAUDLENT PROCEEDINGS ENTERED ON BOTH APPLICANT CHADRICK B. PATE AND CO
JDEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL'S CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEETS
SEEEX#4
ANDEX#12
COURT REPORTER'S RECORD FOR 12/22/08 PROCEEDINGS (NONE)
On Applicant's: Criminal Docket Sheet the following fraudulent proceedings are entered. Ex#4
Continuance Grtanted
Reset 2/9/09 Jury Trial
215/f.tCJ .Ao..tJ!\lloc.e.~ut
On Co Defend ant Christoper Hall's Criminal Docket Sheet the following fraudulent proceedings are
'a'A~ro. ¥-""A# ·lNl
12/22/08 ContiLnuance Granted.
Reset to Feb. Trial Docket
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2;3; AND 4
Fraud on tbae Court by the Court, Ineffective Counsel, Violation of Due Process and Statutory
Procedures and Rules.
Applicant did 1not know about any 12/22/08 proceedings and did not appear at any such proceedings.
Applicant was; not told by his attorney or the Court about any proceedings for 12/22/08. Applicant was
not before the court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest,
7.9!t .S. W.. 2rl 7.0{\. 703 (T.x.. J_9_9fl}..
Applicant does not know if co defendant asked for a continuance or if he appeared at any 12/22/08
proceedings, h10wever the Trial Court Record clearly reflects that there was no such proceedings
recorded on tbte record of the court.
These illegal entry's onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet were all a part of the scheme by officer's
of the court to• make it appear that the court still had jurisdiction over the Applicant and the subject
matter when in fact jurisdiction had been lost. Fraud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme
J2
calculated to imterfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by
improperly inf!:luencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's
claim or defense Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F 2d 1115,1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
Applicant was not before the court for adjudation the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v.
Forrest, 795 s.. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990).
The Court hadl already lost jurisdiction for the violation of the Applicant's 14th amendment rights.
JOHNSON V. ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct.1938.
Fact 13.
2/5/09
F'RAUDLENfT PROCEEDINGS ENTERED ONTO APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET
SEEEX#4
COURT REPORTER'S RECORD FOR 2/5/08 UNDER APPLICANT'S NAME OR CAUSE
NUMBER (NONE)
The following fraudulent proceedings were entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet.
2/5/09 All Ready
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
Fraud on the Court by the Court, Ineffective Counsel, Violation of Due Process and Statutory
Procedures and Rules
Officer's of the: court continued their scheme to defraud the court and the applicant and to influence the
tier of fact. Fr:aud occurs when a _party sets into motion a scheme calculated to interfere with the
judicial systenns' ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or
unfairly hamp,ering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense. Aoude v. Mobil Oil
Cor_p. 892 F. :Zd 1115, 1118 (l"t Cir. 1989).
Applicant did mot know about any such proceedings and did not appear at any such proceedings and
was not told b:y his attorney or the Court about any such proceedings. He did not announce ready.
33
Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc.
v. Forrest, 79S S. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 199~).
Fact 14.
2/5/09
CHRISTOPHER HALL PRE TRIAL HEARING CAUSE NO. S-08-5080-2 VOLUME 5-A OF 11
SEE EX# 14
FRAUDULENT CASE NUMBER AND VOLUME NUMBERS WERE ENTERED ON CO
DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL'S 2/5/09 PRE TRIAL HEARING COURT REPORTERS
RECORD.
This hearing with the fraudulent cause number and volume numbers was not entered onto the co
defendant's judgment roll under the table of contents that listed all the other volume numbers and
cause numhers in the trial court recorded proceedings. SEE EX# 15 page 2 of Reporters /record
Volume 1-11 MASTER INDEX
FACT 15
2/5/09
FRAUDULJENT DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT'S DECISION ON PUNISHMENT BETWEEN
JUDGE WHATLEY AND DEFENSE ATTORNEY JOHN GILMORE
CONCEALMENT OF FRAUDULENT PROCEEDINGS
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraud and Fraud om the Court, Ineffective Counsel, Violation of Due Process and Statutory
Procedures and Rules
Co defendant Christoper Hall's Ex# 16 Indictment, Ex# 12 Criminal Docket Sheet, and all other
Court Report.er's Records Ex#'s lllllll/l/lllll/llllll/11/11
identify Hall's: Cause No. A-08-5080-2CR not S-08-5080-2
The Court Reporter's Record show under Christopher Halls Recorded Proceedings Volumes
1-11. these Vollumes are listed in the Courts Table of Contents of the Co Defendant's Judgment Roll
that was submtitted to the 13th Court of Appeals Corpus Christi Texas Cause No. 2:12-cv-00093.
34
The Court Reporters Record actually contain 12 volumes on Christopher Hall's pre trials. But the 12th
Volume is stvled Court Reporters Record Volume 5-A of 11 and instead of the proper Cause No. of A
-08-5080-2CR it is represented as S-08-5080-2.
See EX# 15 3RD PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1 of 111 Master Index
Volume 2 of 1:1 Pre trial Motions (7/24/08) (there is no Court Reporter's Record on this)
Volume 3 of 11 Announcement (9/25/08)
Volume 4 of 1:1 Pre Trial Hearing (10/23/08)
Volume 5 of 1Jl Pre Trial Hearing (11/25/08)
Volume 6 of 111 Jury Trial Voir Dire Proceedings (2/9/09)
Vn.lnm~ 7 nf JJJ ..Jury T.r.ial Gnililnnn~u (2l9.1fl9)
Volume 8 of li Jury Trial Guilt innocence (2/i0/09)
Volume 9 of 1:1 Jury Trial Guilt Innocence (2/11/09)
v~1~m11 3YtTj '"\'TYI.\ 06\\i \'rtmrt.~~ \'l~\1.W8)
Volume 11. of JU Punishment-Sentencing (2/13/09)
l!':S!I'N Court Reporters Record ~ofume 5-A of ff was not recorded onto tfte Ta6fe ofContents ofco
defendant's Jmdgment Roll like all the other above listed volumes were, and was not submitted to The
13'h Court of Appeals where co defendant filed his Appeal .. Judge Whately and Pam Heard the District
Clerk submitte,d a fraudulent Judgment Record to the Courth of Appeals This fraudulent Cause No
entered onto thLe Court Reporters Record and fraudulent volume number is part of the scheme that the
officer's of the court _participated in to conceal _proceedings from the court and '!J)_plicant and influence
the tier of fact,. and deceive any future proceedings held by any other officer's of the court.
At tbi'i bi!aliuf,?, Ttial.llJilibe .laJJn.a.. Wbat.el~ l).tesided aJJ.d thn.~ that aJt.~ed w.ere Co. defeudant.
Christopher Hall with his Attorney Stan Turpin, State's Attorney Patrick Flanigan, and Applicant's
Defense Attorney John Gilmore. Applicant did not appear. Applicant was not before the court for
ac),iuration the court had already lost .iurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S. W. 2d 700, 703 (fx.
1990). Judge 'Nhatley and all the other officer's in appearance schemed to make it appear that
Applicant had. announced Ready for trial when he was not before the court for adjudication and did no
announce ready for trial this scheme incl~ded kee{_)ing the At>t>licant and the co defendant ioined for
the trial held om 2/9/09. Officer's of the court continued their scheme to defraud the court and the
applicant and to influence the tier of fact. Fraud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme
calculated to interfere with the judicial systems' ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by
35
improperly infrluencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's
claim or defentse. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F. 2d 1115, 1118 {1st Cir. 1989).
The Court had! already lost jurisdiction for the violation of the Applicant's 141h amendment rights.
JOHNSON V. ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938. The court had no jurisdiction to proceed to a
joint trial or a separate trial of 1\P..Plicant or to hold any other _proceedin_gs other than Acguittal.
The trial courtt was without jurisdiction to proceed that parties may have agreed to it are immaterial.
The verbal, Wlritten or illegally disposed of order, that appeared to allow the court to proceed was in
violation of the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Near v. Minnesota ex rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51
S. Ct. 625, 7:5 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334 U.S. 1. 68 S. Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948).
Once a court orders {ler trial orders the court cannot disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867
S. W. 2d 48,511 Tex. App.(1933).
At this pre tria] hearing Judge Janna Whately did not call Applicant's Name or Cause Numbet, she did
not call co defendant Hall's name or cause number. However at the very beginning of the {lroceedings
Flanigan announced Ready on Hall see Ex#l4 page 3 lines 3-5. Flanigan never announced ready on
Pate, and Joh:n Gilmore never announced Ready on Pate.
After some dis:cussions on Hall's pre trial motions, Stan Turpin finally announced ready as well.
See Ex # 14 p:age 3 lines 8-13.
Judge Whatelyr's only question to John Gilmore was Who is doing Punishment and Gilmore's response
was I think we are going to Jury on that. See Ex# 14 page 9lines 16-25 and page 10 lines 1-4.
The court had no jurisdiction over Applicant or the Subject Matter at this time, the court had already
lost jurisdictiom for violating Applicant's 14th amendment to a fair and impartial trial, opportunity to be
hear~ and nottice. Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 SuQ. Ct. 1938.
36
FACT 16.
2/9/09 The Illegal Trial of Applicant
FRAUDULE1NT PROCEEDINGS OF JOINT JURY TRIAL OF APPLICANT CHADR1CK B. PATE
~N.O CO UE.FE.NOAN1: CHlU~.TOPB.ER HALL
In Spite of ;a Court Order by Judge Joel Johnson given by Oral Order on 11/25/08 that Severed the
Trials of App1licant and Co defendant Hall, Judge Whately and Officer's of the Court simply set about
acting alone :and together to manipulate the judiciary process to make it appear that the court still had
jurisdiction o·ver the Applicant and the subject matter and then tried him in an illegal proceeding that
they submitted as a fair and impartial Jury trial.
These Office:r's of the Court participated in hearings that involved Applicant's Motion for Severance,
they all knevv or should have known that Applicant had not appeared at these hearings and could no1
object to theiJr fraud. The officer's knew that Judge Johnson had severed the trials of the Applicant and
the co defendant, they knew that there had not been a formal hearing on the Motion for Severance
where a Judge: entered factual findings on the record for his reasons denying or granting the Motion.
They knew thaLt he did not ask for a Continuance on 10/30/08, and they knew that fraudulent Motions
Orders and Reset Dates had been entered onto his Criminal Docket Sheet. They knew that legitimate
Orders had not: been entered onto his Criminal Docket Sheet.
They conce:aled the illegal entries, Motion, Orders and Reset Dates when a Court Reporter did not
Record the Pv10ceedings, if in fact they held any proceedings.
Officer's of the Court lied when they entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket on 10/30/08 Motion for
Continuance, then they lied again when they entered All Ready on 2/5/09.
Their fraud in •entering a different cause number and out of seq_uence volume number on
CoUrt Reporter Record Volume 5-A of 11 .
IriaJ Crout C.a.u.~ ~Nn . .S-.0.8-5.0.8.0-2 Df f.~ 2151.()9 .P.r~ Irial Hi'.a.tiug Df Ch.ti.'\t!lp.hi-.r 1:J.a.JJ aru:l t.bi-.o ~ODJ
including it hn the Record that they sent to the Court of Appeals is more than suspicious. It was at this
37
hearing that Jrudge Whatley and Officer's schemed to make it appear that Applicant had appeared and
announced reatdy for trial, and then entered it onto his criminal docket sheet.
If the Court of Appeals had that document they would have seen that Applicant was not there.
John Gilmore :had abandoned Applicant's defense long before this hearing and just kept participating in
the fraud.
The trial coULrt and it's officer's through the various frauds just mentioned above and throughout this
Habeas Mo1tion willfully abused the judicial process, their lies, deception dishonesty, their silence,
commission, Clmissions , speech, etc. made it impossible for Applicant to present his defense.
The scheme that they put in place to keep Applicant and co defendant joined for trial at any cost, could
I
not help to ha've influenced the jury (tier of fact). Applicant was convicted and his liberty stripped from
him by a Judiaical System that he trusted to hear his defense and Acquit him. He was not willing to
take a plea dteal for something he did not do. He trusted the judicial system and his Defense Attorney.
He relied on •a "jury" that was deceived by the State to Acq_uit him. A jury that had no idea all that had
gone on befone he appeared in front of them and plead "Not Guilty".
The fraud and violation of Applicant's due process did not stop here, the fraud continued even after
Applicant's Conviction . However at the illegal trial various more frauds and violations of Applicant's
due process were abused.
The following is a list of event's of the proceedings in this fraudulent proceeding.
Before the tria] started on 2/9/09 at the Voire Dire proceeding See Ex# 17 Court Reporter Record
Volume 4 of 9, page 102 lines 5-25 .
Applicant's 1V1other was entering the Court room and was stopped at the door and told
that she could not come in for the trial. She went to the District Clerk's Office and asked to see a Judge
The clerk asked her why and she told her that she was not being allowed to go inside the court room.
Clerk went to announce her to the Judge, when she came back she told her that the Judge told her to go
38
back down there and she would be allowed to go in. She went inside and was told to stand on the back
wall because there was no seating for her.
At the Voire Dire a potential Juror Ms. Voss kept asking John Gilmore (Applicant's Attorney)
about why both Applicant and Co defendant were at the same trial. Gilmore finally gave her an
answer. See Ex# 17 Court Reporters Record Volume 4 of 9 Chadrick B. Pate page 102 lines 5-25.
He said we are being forced to do it this way okay. We don't want to.Ms.Voss was not picked for the
jury trial.
After the Voire: Dire Proceedings the Jury Trial_proceeded, and before it did , A_p_plicants Mother was
;tanding outside the Court Room Doors in the Lobby Area when a woman who did not identify herself
and who was unknown to his Mother stated loudly. I am invoking "The Rule" Applicant's Mother
Asked first Wlho the woman was and she identified herself as Assistant District Attorney and then
Applicant's M:o~her asked what rule she was talking about and the woman's response was you cannot
come into the court room during the trial unless you are called to testify. See Texas Rules of
Evidence Inv1okin_g Rule 614 Under this rule at the reguest of a _party the court shall order witnesses
excluded.so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses and it may make the order of it's
own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (3) a person whose presence is shown by at
party to be ess:ential to the _presentation of the _parcy's cause. The Court violated Applicant's right to be
heard and notiice.
There is no on the record request from any party to exclude Applicant's Mother . Applicant was not
given an o_p_portunity to be heard to challenge the Rule and to _present his case that his Mother should
not be excluded under Rule 614 (3). There is no record that Applicant was given and opportunity to
be heard or notice. Applicant's Mother was not called to testify. It was the State that subpoena her to
testify.
Applicant was brought to the trial in Leg Restraints. There is no Court Order ordering him to wear Leg
39
Restraints and no hearing on the matter. Someone in the audience stated out loud.( that person was a
witness for the State who obviously was sitting in the court room) He is injail I can see
his Leg Restraints. See Ex# 18 Trial Transcript page 259,260 and 261 and Ex# 19 Applicant
Affidavit. The court must make independent determination that restraints are justified and must state
its reason on 1the record. See Deck ck v. Missouri 544 U.S. 622 {2007).
Defense Atton:1ey John Gilmore, Co Defendant's Attorney Stan Turpin, and the State's Attorney
stayed silent as to the justification of Leg Restraints on Applicant violating Applicant's Dut::
Process ri.,ghts and committin.,g fraud on the court.
Defense Atton:1ey motioned for a severance numerous times at trial, to which Judge Whately simply
overruled and held no hearing, and made no on the record factual findings for her reasons to deny the
severance. See Ex# 20 Trial Transcript Reporters Record Volume 6 of9 page 22111-25.
Judge Whately allowed the State to bring in the statement of a co defendant that was not testifying
that Applicant 1could not confront. She simply told the Jurors to disregard the statement.
· At the sentenci_ng and _punishment _proceedings John Gilmore did not call one Witness on A_p_plicant's
behalf, and he: did not tell Applicant's family that they could testify for him until about an hour before
the proceedings. Applicant's Best Friend and Sister had already left the proceedings for the day and
Ap_plicant's M1other could not reach them. A_p_plicant would not allow his Mother to testify because she
was still in sho1ck and devastated from the Jury having found a Guilty Verdict against her oldest child
and only son.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3. AND 4
Every single event at the 2/9/09 joint trial of Applicant was Fraud upon the Court and a violation
of Applicant's Right to Due Process under both the Texas Constitution and the u. s. Constution.
40
THE EVENlfS AFTER THE TRIAL AND CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT
AND CERTIFICATION TO THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
EA.cr t7.
FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT ROLL TO THE
~3TH C&..PRTOF APPEALS CORPUS CllRlSfl TEXAS, CRliHlNAL COURT OF APPEALS,
AUSTIN, TEXAS AND THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT
HOUSTON TEXAS
6/24/09
Applicant's Claim under 2,3, and 4
6/24/09
ERATJOTlLEl!\TT RECORDS. lN. CERilflCA.TlON Of A.PPLlCANT'S. JUDGMENT ROLL TO THE
i3tH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS
Judgment Records to the 131h Court of Appeals Corpus Christi, Texas . Judge Whatley certified See
EX# 24 Judgfe Whately's Certification the proceedings that were held , instruments and other papers
that were filedl in cause A-08-5080-4 CR Cbadrick B Pate.See EX# 14 INDEX CHAD RICK B.
PATE A-08-5080-4CR page 1 under last entry on the page showing Order on Motion for Severance.
See Ex # 6 • This is the same Order that Judge Wellborn called a Mistake and said that it had
not been officiially filed. See Ex# 9. It is also the same Order that the District Clerk Pam Heard
;aid had not been filed and was just a piece of paper in the file. See Ex# 7. Yet Judge Whately
says it was a p1roceeding that was held and it was filed into Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR.
The District Clerks Office (Pam Heard's Office ) also certified that the Order was a proceeding
that was held :and filed in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR. See Ex# 23 District Clerk Pam Heard's
Certification .. By submitting the Order on the Motion for Severance Judge Whately and Pam
Heard committed Fraud on the Court.
The Index (Judgment Record inA·08•5080 ..4CR) that Judge Whately and Pam Heard submitted to the
41
Court of Appeals is not only fraudulent for listing the Order on the Motion for Severance as a
_proceedin_g that was held and filed into Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR Chadrick B. Pate.
It is also fraudlulent because the Index does not list all of the Fraudulent Proceedings that the Court
entered and mcorded as held and filed in Cause No. A -08-5080-4CR on Applicant's Criminal
Docket Sheet See Ex# 4. The ille.p;al Proceedin.,gs that Jud.,ge Whately and Pam Heard did not certifiy
to the Court o:f Appeals, are the Proceedings that were used to make it appear that Applicant had been
legally rejoine~d to the Co defendant for a joint trial after they refused to hold the Court Ordered Trial
for Applicant con 11/3/08. The listed Proceedings had to be Concealed from the Court of A_p_peals
otherwise the Fraud committed against the Applicant and The Court of Appeals, Criminal Court of
Appeals and the Federal Court would have been revealed and Applicant's conviction would have been
Overturned lomg ago.
1.
Proceeding 0111 10/30/08 Defendant's Motion for Continuance Reset dates Jury Triall/5/09
An.OlliJD£.eQJ,l\1 t2Ll2lfl8.\.
2.
Proceeding 12/22/08 Reset dates Jury Trial2/9/09 Announcement 2/5/09
3.
Proceeding 2/5/09 All Ready
The Judgment for Chadrick B. Pate Cause No. A·08-5080-4CR does not conform to statutory rules.
See: Trap Rule 34.5 (~)states Contents
Unless the pa1rties designate the filings in the appellate record by agreement under rule 34.2 the
record must imclude copies of the following: Trap Rule 34.5 (a) (2) Indictment or Information.
An_y S_pecial Plea or Defense Motion that was _presented to the court and OVERRULED
Any Written ''Waiver, any written stipulation and in case in which a plea of guilty or nolo
contendre an;y documents entered for the plea.
The Motion foJr Severance is a Defense Motion_pursuant to 34.5 (a) (2) however it was not overruled.
The Order Granting Applicant's Severance dated 9/25/08 EX#6 is the Order that Judge Wellborn said
42
that he signedl by mistake and the same order that The District Clerk had called just a piece of paper in
the Applicant"s file. And the Court Index Judgment does not include all of the Fraudulent Proceedings
entered on Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet.
Also see: Tx. R. Civ. 301 Judgment of the court shall conform to the Pleadings nature of case
proved and the verdict if an_y and shall be so framed as to give pany all relief in which he is
entitled eitht;~r in law or equity .
Judge Whately- and the District Clerk violated Applicant's Due Process right to a fair and impartial
A_p_peals Proce:ss, to be heard and notice and committed fraud on the Court, the 13th Court of A_p_peals,
The Court of Criminal Appeals, Austin and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofTexas,
\
Houston Division where the fraudulent record was entered to conceal the Trial Court's fraud on the
court by the court. And to be certain the A_p_peals Process would be denied.
;'Fraud is defined as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation, concealment, or nondisclosure,
for the purpos•e of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to
him, or a false: representation of a matter of fact ~y words, conduct or by concealment of what should
have been dis;closed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury," (emphasis added) In re E.P ., 185 S.W. 3D 908 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006)
FACT 18
The District Clerk's Responsibility to report fraudulent documents
See Govt Codle Sec. 51.303.Duties of the Clerk (a)The clerk of a district court has custody of and
shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully deposited in the clerk's
office. (b) the clerk of a district court shall ((1) record the acts and proceedings of the court (2)
enter all j udgr:nents of the court under the direction of the ,iudge.
also see Govt.. Code Title 2 Subtitle D. Chap. 51 Section 51.901 Subsection J. showing: It is the
duty of the District clerk if the clerk has reasonable basis to believe in good faith that a
43
fraudulent doeument or instrument has been previously filed or recorded or offered or
submitted for :filing or for filing and recording is fraudulent, the clerk shall:(l) if the document is
a purported judgment or other document purporting to memorialize or evidence an act, an
order, a directiive, or process of a purported court, provide written notice of the filing,·recording
, or submissiom for filin_g or for filin_g and recordin_g to the stated or last known address of the
person agains1t whom the purported judgment, act, order, directive, or process is rendered;
Applicant's Claim Under 2 and 3
Fraud on the Trial Court, and Courts of Appeals
The District CJlerk did not provide notice to Applicant of Fraudulent Judgment, Criminal Docket Sheet
Court Order or Index Sheet that their office certified to the l3 1h Court of Appeals. The District Clerk
did not provide notice of the Purported Motions for Continuances, Purported Orders on Continuances,
Purported Court Ordered Reset Dates, Purported Announcements (that do not exists in the Court
Records,) only on the Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet. The District Clerk and Court should have
had a reasonable basis to believe in good faith thai: the above mentioned documents were fraudulent.
1. Becaus:e the clerk's office is the party that discovered with the court that the Order Granting
Applicant's Motion was a mistake but yet allowed it to be certified to the 13th Court of Appeals Corpus
Christi, Texas 2. Because the clerk's office has custody of and shall carefully maintain and arrange the
records relatimg to or lawfully deposited in he clerk's office.
The Clerk reco1rded as filed the above mentioned documents when the clerk's office knew that
every proceed:ing/document, order, reset day, announcement motion and order entered onto the
A_p_plicant's Criminal Docket Sheet after the 10/23/08 hearing on his Motion to Dismiss were
fraudulent entries. The Clerk's office knew that there were no Recorded Proceedings in the Court
Record showimg evidence of any of the entries that the Clerks' office made onto the Criminal Docket
Sheet after the~ 10/23/08 hearin_g.
44.
The District Cterk and Judge Janna Whatley committed fraud and fraud on the court when they
submitted a Fraudulent Judgment to the 13th Court of Appeals and failed to Report Fraudulent Records
filed and enter,ed into the Trial Court and the 13th Court of Appeals Corpus Christi, Texas.
Letter fr())m Judge Wellborn in Response to Letter from Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisp.
Ex#9
Without quoting Judge Wellborn, he in essence stated that he was the pre trial judge at a hearing for a
Motion for Se:verance by Applicant on 9/25/08 but that the State req_uested a Motion for Continuances
that same day and that both parties agreed to continue said matter. He said that while he meant to sign
an Order Granting the Motion for Continuances, he instead had signed the Order Granting the Motion
for Severance by mistake. He said that there were several orders in the Clerks file and they brought
him the wronE~ Order but that they discovered it quickly and that is why the order was never formally
filed and did not get a file stamp . He went on to explain that normally all Orders received a file stamp
when they we:re filed . He also stated that when someone announced that one or more of the parties
:1£.,,
were waving there rights to a jury trial that the Motion for Severance became Moot.
Judge Wellbo1rn did not explain why the Order Granting the Motion remained in the file or why he
did not reversie the action of signing the Order. He also did not say who made the announcement and at
what proceedi:ng it was announced, or why there was no record. on an announcement or factual
findings on hi:s reasons for determining the Motion was Moot. See EX# 9 Letter from Judge
Michael Wellborn to Carrie Crisp.
Facts in The Trial Court Record regarding the claims in Judge Wellborn's letter do not comport with
the: .cJ.aitr.\,'\
There is no rec:orded proceeding of any Announcement announcing that one or more of the defendant's
There is no rec:orded proceeding where Judge Michael Wellborn rendered the Motion Moot and
45.
provided a decision with factual findings on the Record
There is no Record of notice of any such hearing and there is no notice to Applicant of a decision
finding the Mcotion Moot.
There are laws and procedures that must be followed at pre trial and trial.
Announcemen1ts are Sl!P.POSe to be made on the record and Notice _given.
Defense Motioms must be ruled on prior to trial and a hearing had to determine the facts presented in
the Motion, a :Decision must be made on the Motion with factually findings that support either the
Granting or Dtenial of same and notice _provided.
When a Motiom is presented to the judge the maker of the Motion must also prepare a Order for the
Judge to sign and provide said order to the judge and they go over the Motion and Order together.
It is not the clerk that _prepares or _presents the Order, it is the Maker ofthe Order.
John Gilmore 1told the Applicant and his Mother who both inquired numerous times that the Motion for
Severance was denied, He told Applicant's Mother this only a few days before trial when she insisted
that he find outt what was _goin_g on with the severance.
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court proceeded to a joint jury trial with the co defendant when Applicant
Chadrick B. P'ate and the natter were not properly before the court for adjudication, the trial
court had no j1urisdiction to enter a Void Judgment, Sentence and Conviction against him and
illegally impri son him in the Texas Department Criminal Justice System.
All of the Fact:s Presented Both On The Record of the trial court and Outside the Courts Record and
SuQported by the Courts records or sworn affidavit verify the Conclusion that At>t?licant's Judgment is
Void.
46.
That Conviction was acquired through the Violation of Applicant's Due Process Rights to a fair and
impartial trial, opportunity to be heard and Notice, and that Officers of the Court committed Fraud
on the Court b:y the Court in order to obtain an illegal Conviction of the Applicant.
They each one and all at one time or another made intentional misrepresentations to the Court, were
deceitful, usedl trickery concealed facts, were _passively silent, _prevented a decision on a defense
motion presentted fraudulent documents, entered fraudulent proceedings and used deception by
commission, by omission, by speech, by silence, and by innuendo to obtain the conviction
The trial court: _proceeded to trial when they had no jurisdiction over A_p_plicant or the matter
and gained an illegal conviction that illegally imprisoned Applicant,
Applicant nor the issue were properly before the court for adjudication. The trial court violated
A_p_plicant's Due Process Rights to a impartial and fair trial, o_p_portunity to be heard, and notice
through their ~violations of Applicant's Due Process, fraud and fraud upon the court that caused the
Court to lose j urisdiction to proceed to trial and to enter a Void Judgment, Conviction and Sentence.
Johnson v. Ze1rbst 304 U S 458 Sup Ct , Fay v. Noia 372 U S 391 (1963)
Mapco Inc. V~ Forrest, 795 S W 2d 700.703 (Tx. 1990) See Armstrong v. Obucino 300 III
140,143 (192l), Bracey v. Warden US Supreme Court No 96-6133 (June 9th 1997)
Exparte Youn:g 418 S. W. 2d 214.223(Tx. Crim. App. 1977.
Fraud may comsist of both active misrepresentation and passive silence. Vela v. Marywood
17 S. W. 3d 7'50, review denied with per curiam opinion 53 S W 3d 684 rehearing of petition for
review deniedl (Tex App. Austin 2000).
"Fraud Upon the Court" has been defined as that fraud committed by an officer of the court in any
attempt to dec:eive, either by commission, by omission,by speech, by silence, by gesture, by innuendo
47
by look, etc. \Vhenever this fraud is committed by any attorney or judge, it is a "fraud upon the Court"
In Eu_gene Le:e Armentrout et. al.,'Ill. 2D 242 75 Ill Dec 703 457 N.E.2d 1262 (198~): Regenold v.
Baby Fold, In.c., 68 IU. 2D 419,435 12 Ill Dec. 151.369 N.E. 2D 858 (1977); In re Lamberis, 93 Ill.
2D 222,229,66 Ill. Dec.623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982); BuUoch v. United States k 763 F 2d 1115,1121
(1985); Root )Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F2d 514 (1948) ·
Fraud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's
ability impartially to adiudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly
hampering the: presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense. AOUDE v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
892 F.2d. 1115,1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
[t is fraud that denies a losing litigant the opportunity to fully litigate at trial his rights or
defenses that could have been asserted. Alexander, 266 S W 2d@ 1001: King Ranch, Inc. v.
Chapman, 118 S W 3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003).
[n Fay v. Noia. the court observed: Criminal proceedings so fundamentally defective as to make
imprisonment ]pursuant to them constitutionally intolerable should not be allowed to obscure the basic
continuity in the conception of the Writ as remedy for such imprisonment.
48
PRAYER
Whereforce Petitioner Prays that the Court grant Chad rick B. Pate releif from which he is
entitle«d in this proceeding, that includes an Order for his Immediate Release from
Incarceration,
OrdJtt Va.:atin~ an.d Diun.is.~ ~ Vnid .lu.d.PJD£nt , Sellf£n£e, a.n.d. Cnn.v.id.inn.,
an Onrder Removing the Conviction from all Judaical and Government Records,
And ·an Ordenr that Sanctions the Trial Court and it's Officers of the Court for the fraud and due
~ tNkAtimM ittllkted IYp'tflT Clndrkk B Pdre. Aad aa,· «ker mid tlttrt l$ ttfwNahk M /rim.
&4'\.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015,63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
.OATH
STATE OF' TEXAS,
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
I NEMA BARDIN BEING DULY SWORN, UNDER OATH SAYS: I AM THE PETITIONER
iN THIS ORI,GINAL HABEAS CORPUS ACTION AND KNOW THE CONTENTS OF THE
ABOVE APPJLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND, ACCORDING TO MY
BELIEF, Tffi~ FACTS STATED IN THE APPLICATION ARE TRUE.
l'l-\-~
SUBSCRilliJED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME MAY Hrf'H 2015 •
. . . . . . ~!"k~',,, N. A. CADENA
bt.A;~t---.. Notary Public, State of .Texas
L.<.. ~) ~ .. My commission Exp1res
NOTARY PUBLIC
-..,;.;._....~~+? october ac, 20l8
.,,,,,?,~,,......... . .. .. ·-~
sc.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015t63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION
NEMABA.RDIN
P. 0. Box 7·72
Austin, Tex:as 78767
512-487-0197 cell
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that a true original of the above and foregoing Application of Original Habeas
Corpus w~ils personally hand delivered on the 191b day of May, 2015 to The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals Clerk's Office at 201 W. 14tb Street Austin, Texas 78701
~~~ner
51.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015(63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHAD RICK 18 PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015632~40 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER TO CLERK COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT LIST (2 PAGES)
EXHIBITS 1-24
ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (51 PAGES)
JURISDICTION PAGE 2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY PAGE.3 AND 4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE PAGE 5-8
CLAIMS/GROUNDS FOR RELEIF PAGE 8-10
FACTS SUPPORTING CLAIMS GROUNDS FOR RELEIF PAGE 10-46
CONCLUSION PAGE 46-48
PRAYER PAGE 49
OATH PAGE 50
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PAGE 51
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
-·.......
'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015163340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
EXHIBIT LIST
Ex# 1 Motiom of Defendant Chadrick Pate for Severance of Defendant's
Ex # 2 Indictment
Ex # 3 Char~~e of the Court
Ex # 4 Crimimal Docket Sheet of Applicant Chadrick B. Pate
Ex # 5 9/25/018 Reporters Record Volume 2 of 9 Chadrick Pate
Ex # 6 Ordenr on Motion for Severance Chadrick Pate 9/25/08
Ex # 7 Affidavit of Stacy Deville (On statement from Pam Heard on Mistake of Severance Order
page ll paragraph 3
Ex # 8 10/23/'08 Reporters Record Volume 4 of 11 Pre trial hearing Christopher Hall A-08-5080-
2CR
Ex# 9 Judge! Wellborn's letter to Carrie Crisp Applicant's Habeas Attorney
Ex# 10 Carri·e Crisp letter to Judge Wellborn
Ex# 1110/23/1~8 Reporter's Record Volume 3 of 9 Chadrick Pate Motion to Dismiss A-08-5080-
4CR
Ex# 12 Criminal Docket Sheet Christopher Hall A-08-5080-2CR --.
E..x# L" JJ.l2..".1fl8 JUpnrt.u.s Runrrl Vnhun.e .5 nf JJ pr£ ir.ial Ju>.ar.i.og Chr.i~.u Hall _A-.0.8·:SJl8.0-
2CR
Ex# 14 2/5/019 Reporters Record Volume SA of 11 pre trial hearing S-08-5080-2
t.:\.¥t -...~ Ytmt~ \Tt&a. C'f.m+~ \WI. <:-mart\\~~ \\u-m-1! 'hko.WA 1m 11 ~ 'l
Ex# 16 Indic·tment Christopher Hall A-08-5080-2CR
Ex# 17 2/9/09 Reporters Record Volume 4 of 9 page 102 line 9-25 Chadrick Pate A-08-5080·
.:rCR
Ex# 18 Repo•rters Record Volume of pages 259lines 1-25
Ex# 19 Affid:avit of Applicant Chadrick Pate on Leg Restraints
Ex# 20 Reporters Record Volume 6 of9 page 221lines 1-25 Chadrick Pate
Ex# 21 Index of Events certified to Court of Appeals Chadrick Pate
Ex# 22 JudgDDent Front Page Chadrick Pate A-08-5080-4CR
Ex# 23 District Clerk Certification to the Court of Appeals
Ex# 24 Judge Whately'S certification to the Court of Appeals of all proceedings.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015~63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 1
MOTION OF DEFENDANT CHADRICK PATE FOR SEVERANCE OF DEFENDANT'S
Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-13 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Page 37 of 60
CAUSENO. A-08-5058-4CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS • IN THE DISTRJCT COURT
vs. • 361h JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CHADRICK PATE • ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
MOTION OF DEFENDANT CHAQRICK PATE
FOR SEVERANCE OF DEFENDANTS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES the Defendant, Chadrick Pate, by and through his attorney John
Gilmore, and respectfully moves this Court for an order severing the offenses charged
against this Defendant in the indictment herein from the offenses charged the co-
defendants and for a separate trial thereon, on the grounds that this Defendant is by the
joinder herein and for good cause would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
I.
Defendant believes that there are previous admissible against the co-defendants
( ;
in this case.
II.
Further, we believe that there will be conflicts in the defenses of this Defendant
and the co..;defendants which will be prejudicial to Defendant if they are tried together.
III.
A joint trial of Defendant and his co-defendants poses a security risk to Defendant
and to trial participants and spectators.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that this Honorable Court sever him
from the co·defendant indicted herein and order a separate trial of the charges against
him from the offenses charged the co-defendants and for such other and further relief as
this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.
fi~,· · .=: ..,_ rv::;:;.
'cloci(~_M.
.· . . . . . . .
- .
..
:. . '
.
-·
Case 4:13-cv:oo709 Document 5-13 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Page 38 of 60
Respectfully submitted,
622 S. Tancahua/ P. 0. Box 276
Corpus Christi, Texas 78403
(36ruil'. ~82-4378/phone
(361 .882·3635ffax
A ORNEYFOR DEFENDANT
BARNO. 07958500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John Gilmore, do hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion
of Defendant Chadrick Pate for Severance of Defendants has been served on Aransas
County District Attorney's Office, Nueces County Courthouse, 301 N. Live Oak Street,
Rockport, Texas on this the,'?~y of July, 2008.
~
.?J1
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015~63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 2
INDICTMENT
INDICTMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS va •. MICHAEL JASON UNDERWOOD, CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH HALL,
ANTHONY LEE RAY, CHADRICK B. PAT~ AND KEVIN RAY TANTON
OFFENSE Murder, Aggravated Assault /Engaging In Organized Criminal Activity
TPC Sec. 19.02/ Firat Degree Felony
TPC Sec. 22.02/71.02/1 Firat Degree Felony
WITNESS·. Michael Brooks, Ruaaell Kirk
:~.~:~:~~:.:.~~~=~~. :~:.~~. . . :.::!::. . . :~:.::~~.:
IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Count One
COMES NOW THE GRAND JURORS for the County of Aransas, State aforesaid, duly
selected, organized, impaneled and swom as such at the April Term, A.D, 2008, of the 36th Judicial
District Court, in and for said County, a quorum thereof being prese.nt, upon their oaths present in
and to said Court that MICHAEL JASON UNDERWOOD, CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH HALL,
ANTHONY LEE RAY, CHADRICK B. PATE, and KEVIN RAY TANTON, acting alone and
together, on or about the 4th day of January, A.D. 2008 and anterior to the presentment of this
Indictment, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there intentionally or knowingly cause
the death of an individual, namely, Aaron Watson, by shooting the said Aaron Watson with a
firearm;
Count Two
AND THE GRANO JURORS AFORESAID, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present in
and to said Court that MICHAEL JASON UNDERWOOD, CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH HALL, ·
ANTHONY LEE RAY, CHADRICK B. PATE, and KEVIN RAY TANTON, acting alone and
together, on or about the 4th day of January; A.D: 2008 and anterior to the presentment of this
Indictment, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly cause serious bodily injury to Aaron Watson by shooting the said Aaron Watson with a
handgun, the same being a firearm;
And the defendants did then and there commit said offense with the intent to establish,
maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination who collabprated in
carrying on said criminal activity;
against the peace and dignity of the State
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015163340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 3
CHARGE OF THE COURT
Charge Jmy p. I
Cause No. A-08-5080-4· CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§ ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CHADRICKB.PATE § 36TII JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CHARGE OF THE COURT
MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
The defendant, CHADRICK B. PATE, stands charged by indictment with the
offenses of COUNTS 1 MURDER, alleged to have been committed on or about
January 4, 2008 in Aransas County, Texas; and COUNT. 2 AGGRAVATED
· ASSAULT, alleged to have been committed on or about Janwuy 4, 2008, in Aransas
County, Texas. The defendant is also alleged to have committed ~e offense of
Aggravated Assault in Count 2 while ENGAGING IN ORGANIZED CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to each offense you are
instructed that the law applicable to this case is as follows:
COUNT ONE
1.
Our law provides that a person commits murder if he intentionitlly or
knowingly causes the death of an individual.
,.
Charge Jury p. 2
2.
A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to a result of his
conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to cause the result
A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his
conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.
A "deadly weapon" means a firearm
•Individual" means a human being.
3.
7. c:,---~ Cet.)C~j
Our laws provide that a person is criminally responsible as a party to an
offense if the offense is committed by his own conduct, by the conduct of another
A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct \
\
of another if, acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense,
he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit
offense. Mere presence alone will not constitute one
f'6Y1A l 0od..tP~-.if..t::J.L
N
-
.. 1--3lrO~JI ~.L\-0~
I b~ !ot D I){__- ~ol (7V) ,.--
I~-
I . lJt 'o1 q}J...c;-7~ ?e. 1:3oaH\. On~-"
I
' ' M/Fic C1v oo;:bd i
I!
I!
'
j q}J.Of /~ r ~- Qclr•• --;-r-;-
1
I·
q ~~Gla?2 5-~ 110dia-n #b (knJ ~~ I
I
.I
' id~~ ~r.? fkw-Y t-- vr- ~A/- tlJ:. I~ 6?)
fJT &c.r. J-3. :Jt;zJJj ~ ~~
I
i i ...
lo 2::, l1t'O~ ~~ l._ ~C-Dol ~l~~ ~
i L .Q\·I"rtv-
. ~\ h \) u
! '
rfu AI-~ \...._,£_~ ~ D "-"' /\~· l .A ~~
i
I
j
I \ L _ \ l \. \L4:. c_.-& 0 . L . s\:. - ... J 1 0 ~-ll ~ o-- iI
'· -
~~~ .-.a_~ ~-\h "!. ~ _0 "'""~ "~' l"J"-..~ wl,t;~
: :
I I
i
;
I
' ;~o ~' "_a
\
. \-,.k CA..-~ Au.t..:.
~
"
.Q. . ~ t..--h.. .LiT"' kD
\) '-'
i
i
l
I
I
I l
m
y..
'
-\¥·
~
~
~
j
~-.
/.---..... -~ ..----..
STATE OF TEXAS ,1
VS. No. _0 g ::0 g()- I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~====~====~==~~====~====~========~====~====~====~====~E=~~~~==rr=======~~~~-~
II ORDERS OF COURT CONTINUED PROCESS
1\).. .. ·~"~ \~.
'l. ~._. ~ ~),.) ~~ -b.\,.,,_.._ . "l::w. o_~ n~ 1.-l ....
-------- ---
!\,__ . .·~ ~- \.~~ \,.,L. . ~-\l- ~ ~ ~J.. ._,__. w) b-n..A .....Jin......Q.,
r\cl/, .J!)Q~ ~ ~~~ Y-z. ~ -o.:,JJ ~ ;s:{ fQ..cL ..._ 1~
n l)
~~ L ~. \ClD '{))..:"!")1\.. n "'t11
.._;
- V1Jh~""'.r..._P
Q 0
Yn
l2--./~- ,-<,:/0 ~ f:J~ -,. O.V(rllrAn.r-rl Jo/c-cd !Jo-tGuJLt--./.,.
- u 0f f.J~iL
nof'Vll~,Q h\J
.<'/.. . ~'i'Jd W. ~v~ ~ J.uL J..JlJ.c.-...-J~ ':)/?yn J.=
,.~ I
J01vvro.l" ql!r-' 0
~I o1o7 ~vnol", )YJu../1'-(d.@ q.,\- O.LOJero·. .s~- .tQJUvn..lc /o:s\j t
-4-~-----
~
lu.mc~ b.uc+. e.. tL -~\j bYou.~ tire 2pM COW~ ~t] f~ct iwJj 9 1 1~------~-
~-------~---1---ll :h£ d ([p A 0 ~ ·5o~ o-lU "£ un I(2n - 2(210 ) - l?rvJ e ~ : I l -3 . L 6 ~ I
b. OA---"'-"' .f,.t &~ , ..: ·. ~ ~ . . C_j ).Q (, I~ d) .s v&v- j (IV I Y"V\ I/1<-{ hi, (
1-l ) .,J j,_
~ l \\ bi +k ··, r. M ~dnu~~tb·ll~. I?1J -- ~
f.ea:tA mer>-~. J~ANI c 0! .';n - l 0: l.,n" .... - &uJ,.. - /(J: <(:::,-- Lu.n..ch. bMc.AttY /2... -
-v- 7]' .
~ AQ.uitt;.xd (N,nv·rc.J }\; .'liY' 1.0'- c)JJ ~J _,.,7 ~ J. IJ..r c 'lj -
.I
~~
'r·
','-
.. y
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015j63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 5
9/25/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 2 OF 9 CHADRICK B. PATE
1
(
\
'
1 R E P 0 R T E R' S R E C 0 R D
2 VOLUME cJ OF q
3 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4-CR
4
THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
5
vs. ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
6
CHADRICK PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
7
*********************************************************
8 ANNOUNCEMENT
9 *********************************************************
A P P E A R A N C E S
10
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE:
11
MR. MARCELINO RODRIGUEZ
12 Assistant District Attorney
( P.O. Box 1393
13 Sinton, Tx. 78387
(361) 364-6220
14 Fax No. (361) 364-9490
SBN: 00797336
15
16 ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MR. JOHN GILMORE
17 Attorney at Law
622 S. Tancahua
18 Corpus Christi, Tx )8401
(361) 882-4378
19 SBN: 07958500
20
21
22
23 On the 25th day of September, 2008, the following
proceedings came on to be heard in the above-entitled and
24 numbered caus~ before the Honorable Michael E. Welborn, Judge
..
presiding, in Rockport, Aransas County,. Texas:
25
~~~,
I'-......
Proceedings reported by Shorthand Method.
SYLVIA D. TREVINO, CSR (361) 364-6200
2
/
I
\
1 THE COURT: Mr. Gilmore, how are you today?
2 MR. GILMORE: I'm doing just fine, Judge.
3 THE COURT: You're here today -- Let's see.
4 You're on State versus Chadrick B. Pate. And what do we got
5 going on, Counsel? What are your announcements in that case?
6 State has filed a motions for continuance, I believe?
7 MS. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct.
8 MR. GILMORE: We don't oppose it, Judge. We're
9 going to -- Mr. Pate -- during the hurricane, Mr. Pate was
10 taking extensive attorney/client notes prior to the hurricane.
11 When they were evacuated, he was instructed to put his notes
12 in plastic garbage bags and when he got back from the
(
~ 13 evacuation, his notes were thrown out. Got that from Ricky
14 McLester, Chief Deputy.
15 THE COURT: Threw all the plastic bags out?
16 MR. GILMORE: No. Just two people. Everybody
,17 got their stuff back except for two people. So all of his
18 discovery is gone and all of'his attorney/client notes are
19 gone.
20 THE COURT: So he's not opposing a continuance
21 because he needs to get back to square one?
22 MR. GILMORE: Yeah.
23 THE COURT: All right.
24 MR. GILMORE: I heard that you reset Ms.
( 25 Cochran-May's case to November the 3td.
SYLVIA D. TREVINO, CSR (361) 364-6200
3
(
1 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
2 MR. GILMORE: Which may be feasible, but I have
3 a federal jury trial set then and those things in Judge Head's
4 court, those things are known t·o fold. And last time I talked
5 to my client, he wanted tog~ to trial.
6 THE COURT: All right. Well then ~hat I'll do
7 is go ahead and set that on November 3rd, making a.note
8 subject to your availability.
9 MR. GILMORE: Probably need -- We also need a
10 decision -- I have a motion to sever, along with Ms.
11 Cochran-May and she's going to need a decision on that, too.
12 There's going to be maybe a new attorney on that case.
(
13 THE COURT: rhat's what I'm waiting to find
14 out. That's why I wanted to know~ because I'm going to have
15 to get a new attorney, going to need to get one pretty quick
16 and that new attorney is going to want a new-- We'll need a
17 pr~-trial to decide. Basically three of these cases are going
18 to be severed out anywa.y.
19 MR. GILMORE: We got a shooter and we got my
20 guy that wasn't there.
21 THE COURT: He wasn't there.
22 MR. GILMORE: He wasn't there. I know what
·,·
23 they're saying, but --
24 THE COURT: You ~in't going to figure out how.
I
25 they're going to get there. That's the reason they call it an
l,> .
SYLVIA D. TREVINO, CSR (361) 364-6200
4
1 allegation. All right. We are going to give you the same
2 thing. We will have a pre-trial set on that for about the 3rd
3 so we can look at severance at that time if see where we're
4 at. And make a note that that's subject to your federal
5 court.
6 (END OF PROCEEDINGS.)
7
8
9
10
11
12
(
'·· 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SYLVIA D. TREVINO, CSR (361) 364-6200
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015~63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 6
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SEVERANCE 9/25/08
CAUSE NO. A-08-5058-4CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS * IN THE DISTRICT COURT
vs. * 36th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CHADRICK PATE * ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER~
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the ;;6 day of ~ . ,2008,
came on to be considered and above and foregoing Motion of Defendant Chadrick Pate for
Severance of Defendants;
After consideration of the same, it is the opinion of the Court that Defendant's Motion be
GRANTEDIBI:fliHB.
~
SIGNED this ;1..5 day of ~· ,2008.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015~63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXIDBIT 7
AFFIDAVIT STACEY DEVILLE
DISTRICT CLERK PAM HEARD'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MOTION OF SEVERANCE
ORDER SIGNED BY JUDGE MICHAEL WELLBORN 9/25/08
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TRAVIS §
AFFIDAVIT
Before m~ the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Stacey Deville,
who, being by me duly sworn, stated:
"My name is Stacey Deville. I am over the age of eighteen, of sound mind, capable of
making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated:
I was hired by·Nema Bardin to investigate the facts and circumstances associated with
Chad Pate's conviction for the death ofAaron Watson. Below is the information I learned
during the course of my investigation.
I called and spoke with Pam Heard, the district clerk for Aransas County (Ms. Heard was
also the district clerk in 2008). While speaking with Ms. Heard she mentioned that there
was no severance granted. I did not see or have a copy of the granted severance but had
been informed by Attorney Carrie Crisp that a severance was in fact granted. I mentioned
to Ms. Heard that there is reportedly paperwork :from Judge Wellborn stating that the
severance was granted. She said that she did not know of any severance, but if there wa5
then it was "just a piece of paper" saying that it was granted but was not file stamped
with their office, and thus was not granted.
I called and spoke with Juror Herlinda Maldonado. Ms. Maldonado repeatedly expressed ·
that she did not understand why Chad Pate was tried With Christopher Hall, the co-
defendant MS. Maldonado told me that she thoUght that it was harmful to Chad's case
that the two were tried together. Ms. Maldonado stated that. the jurors had- trouble
deciphering which evidence and what witness' testimony applied to which defendant Ms.
Maldonado stated that it was hard to hear what one did over the other and keep all of the
evidence between them separate. According to Ms. Maldonado the jurors relied on the
foreman of the jury to get "everything straightened out." She told me that she and the
other jurors depended on the foreman to keep the evidence straight between the two
defendants. Ms. Maldonado said that Pate should not have been tried with the co-
defendant because it did not help Pate's case and was "guilt by association". She stated
that Pate was prejudiced by the joint trial. It was the opinion of Ms. Maldonado that the
Applicant's case was hurt by the fact that he was tried with the co-defendant. Juror
Herlinda Maldonado also informed me that she (Ms. Maldonado) did observe applicant
being brought into the court room in leg restraints.
·~.p (initials)
According Ms. Maldonado, the jury was under the·mistaken impression that Pate bad to
serve thirty-five years no matter what sentence the jury assessed. Instead of applying the
jury charge issued by the court, the jurors decided. that "no matter what he would serve 35
years." According to Ms. Maldonado, the jury came to the conclusion "that no matter
what he [Pate] would serve 35 years." Ms. Maldonado also stated that she did not think
that Applicant should have been given the ninety-nine (99) year sentence. I asked her if
she knew about the state's recommendation for 10 years or the fee, and she stated tha~ she
had not heard of either of these. She was under the assumption that both penalties would
keep him in prison for thirty-five years regardless if given life or·thirty-five years.
I spoke with Tracy Watson on multiple occasions during the course of the investigation. I
was able to locate Tracy through her father's phone. She wa$ unable to talk some of the
times I caUed, due to using her father's phone. When I was able to talk with Tracy, she
infonned me that she doesn~t believe that Chad could have done this to Aaron. She stated
that she doesn't believe Chad committed the murder, and that he may have been set up.
She stated that she thought it was coincidental that her mother an~ her were both arrested
and placed in jail the day that Aaron was killed. She stated that she believed Aaron was
an informant for the police. She stated that there were times when Aaron would've been
arrested for selling or distributing drugs but was never caught for the offense. She
believes that he was working with the police and that is possibly why he was never
caught for the drugs.
Tracy went on to mention that after the death of Aaron she spoke with a friend of hers,
named Keith Kefauver, legal name Brian Keith Kefauver. Kefauver was reportedly
speaking with Tracy regarding the death of her husband and mentioned to her that "one of
them had to go," referring to Aaron Watson and Chad Pate. Tracy made it sound like this
was referring to a set-up of Chad to take the fall for Aaron's death. Tracy mentioned that
she asked him why she had not heard of this before and be said that she did not need to
know this infonnation. Tracy asked Kefauver whose decision was it that one of them had
to go and he did not answer.
Nema Bardin emailed me after my conversation with Tracy and asked if I was able to
discuss with her the reduced sentence she received. I did not have this question listed and
therefore was unable to ask her about this. I called her back and asked to speak with her
regardmg this but she was unable to talk and asked that I not call her on this number
anymore. I asked ifshe had another number that I could call her on to discuss this and the
other questions I had for her, but she stated that she did not have another phone number. I
have not heard from Tracy since this day and therefore was unable to ask this and the
other pertinent questions in regards to this case.
I spoke with Lane DeRaven who was incarce1f11ed in the Aransas County Jail with
Christopher Hall. DeRaven was cellmates with Christopher Hall, Chadrick Pate's
~ (initials)
co-defendant. Hall reportedly confided in DeRaven about what happened in relation to
the death of Aaron Watson. Hall said that he was called and informed by the others, not
Pate, of the plans for dealing with the decedent. Hall reportedly stated to DeRaven that he
had never met with Pate regarding the decedent and that Pate was not a part of the death
of Aaron. Hall stated that Chad Pate was not present for or at any point involved in the
planning or the commission of this offense.
I received a letter in the mail fiom Brian Brock, Chad Pate's family member. regarding
the case. I ~ informed that Brian had inside information relating to the murder of
Aaron. Brian wrote that he was willing to speak with me regarding the case, but had to be
given a guarantee for his safety and the safety of his family. He mentioned his fear for his
life and the life of his family•. and that if I/we could guarantee that all would be safe then
he would provide insight into the case. I cannot verifY the legitimacy of Brian's letter due
to the fact that two different handwriting styles were used to write the envelope and the
letter. With that said,. I can attest to the fact that I did receive a letter from a reported
Brian Brock who was in jail, and the postmarked letter came from the area code the jail
was located in. As for if this was indeed Brian Brock writing this letter, or if the letter
was in fact correct, I cannot say.
While reviewing the State's evidence for the case (Via copies provided), I noticed that the
evidence collection time is not noted on the packaging. In my experience of working in
this field, I have always written the date and time of collection. On most of the chain of
custody tags, there is an area for the date and time of collection. In this case, I do not
recall seeing the time collected written on the tagging. When I was working in the field, it
was our departmental policy to provide this information but this might not be proper
departmental policy for this department.
While reviewing the evidence, I also noted that there was unknown DNA found
underneath the victim's :fingemail(s). I noticed that the evidence was tested to the known
suspect(s), but l did not recall seeing the evidence tested against the other potential
parties. Unless the evidence has been further. tested, or there is an updated report of the
DNA that I have not received, then some of the DNA underneath his fingemail(s) is still
unknown.
Throughout my investigation, I got in touch with many of the parties involved who were
and were not contacted. ·I also contacted the jurors in the case. Most of the people I
attempted to contact did not want to get involved or would not return my calls. I was told
by Tracy Watson that she was fearful of her safety after Aaron's death, and as well by
Brian Brock (in his letter) that he feared for his safety and the safety of his family if he
was to disclose infonnation on this case. It appeared that people were afraid to talk due to
the nature of the crime, and the parties affiliations with the Aryan Circle.
<;:D (initials)
To note,~ of this date I have not been n:questecl_-~,provide copies of my case mateJ:ial.or
any other:material
,. •
'""'~.:t.·
to Nema Bardin. 1 bliie
.
any_&Dd~.copies
• . ...,,_.. _ •
of reports and biformaiion
.
readily.a~able but bave not been teqUeSted Jo seild-~ to ~e client. If any material is
~ bj. the.client, and/or the CC)Urt(s), I~ pro"Vid~ these when requested. ·
·i
I
.'
'i j
So .(Initial)
·..·.
'·
I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT TilE FOREGOING IS TRUE
AND CORRECT,."
SIGNED this ~y of l,).::_c_ .~ .:lo{2.
X ~t. c.._---.-~
Affiant, Stacey Deville
SUBSCRIBED AND SWOR~TO BEF ME by the said
CS4 O..C:tJ \:);N, \ \(D_n this the ;;l \"\'day of~~l5::!!lO~L~o \ (_
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015t63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 8
10/23/08 REF•ORTERS RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 11 PRE TRIAL HEARING CHRISTOPHER
HALL A-08-5080-2CR
~ e-x t•
,.. ¢~ :2 75-0i ~
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
Pretrial Hearing
10-23-08
1 REPORTER I s RECORD
VOLUME LJ OF _11__ VOLUMES
2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-2CR
3
4
5 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DIS~CT COURT
)
6 vs. ) ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
)
7 CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH HALL )
) 36TH JUDICIAL oi~'MI'Veo IN
8
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
9
AUG 1 o 2011
10
11 - louise Pearson, Clerk
12 PRETRIAL HEARING
,~
··'
13
14
15
16 - Original produced on March 11. 2009 -
17
18
19
20 On the 23rd day of October, 2008, the following
21 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and
22 numbered cause before the Honorable Joel B. Johnson, ,Judge
23 Presiding, held in Rockport, Aransas County, Texas.
24 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype machine.
25
l ~---_j
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
II
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 .....
L-
Pretrial Hearing
10-23-08
_,. 1 APPEARANCES
2
3 MR. MARCELINO RODRIGUEZ
SBOT NO. 00797336
4 Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 1393
5 Sinton, Texas 78387
Telephone: 361-364-6220
6 Attorney for the State
7
8 MR. PATRICK L. FLANIGAN
SBOT NO. 07109600
9 District Attorney
P.O. Box 1393
10 Sinton, Texas 78387
Telephone: 361-364-6220
11 Attorney for the State
12
13 MR. STANLEY A. TURPEN
SBOT NO. 20344300
14 Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1209
15 Portland, Texas 78374
Telephone: 361-643-6422
16 Attorney for the Defendant
17
18 M1\. JOHN s. GILMORE I JR.
SBOT NO. 07958500
19 Attorney at Law
622 S. Tancahua
20 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: 361-882-4378
21 Attorney :for the Co-Defendant Pate
22
23
24
25 L _j
----------~-~---~---·-----~-~----------------'---~--
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
Pretrial Hearing
10-23-08
., P R 0 C E E D I N G S
.!.
2 (Defendant present)
3 THE COURT: Christopher Hall, Mr. Turpen.
Stan, you just got re-appointed as a result of
Ms. Cochran-May's employment in the county attorney's office.
MR. TURPEN: That's correct, Judge.
THE COURT: You need a reset?
MR. TURPEN: Big time.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURPEN: I have talked to him for about an
hour-and-a-half and talked to Tamara a little bit; talked to
Marcelino a little bit but that is about it.
THE COURT: Okay. The next round of jury trials
after this --
DEPUTY CLERK: December the 3rd -- or December
~~
the 1st.
1
.l•
7 THE COURT: Will you be ready by December you
18 think, or no?
19 MR. TURPEN: Judge, I'm -- or that week I'm
20 going to tell you that to be honest with you I don't think I
21 could be ready by then.
THE COURT: Okay. January the 5th will be the
·~
trial date.
2.4 MR. TURPEN: Thank you, Judge. That was more or
less what I had mentioned to Marcelino. I figured January I
------=· -~·=·-·---=~-------·-·-·----·-~~~-
~·~~~-·'
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 4
Pretrial Hearing
10-23-08
should be able to be up for it.
DEPUTY CLERK: Announcement?
THE COURT: At 9:00 o'clock -- hang on. That is
going to be tricky. It looks like the announcement docket
\-lill be D•::cember the 30th.
--~
6 Now, guys, I am remissed to tell you whether
7 that would be an afternoon or a morning.
8 DEPUTY CLERK: So far our list says 1:30 still.
9 THE COURT: That is what your list says?
10 DEPUTY CLERK: So far.
1.1 THE COURT: Then that is what I'm going to tell
12 you.
13 MR. TURPEN: Judge, can I fax in my announcement
14 on that?
15 THE COURT: On a murder case?
16 MR. TURPEN: I'm off the week after Christmas.
17 THE COURT: You can't be off the week that I
18 have got you. I want to set you for trial the first time and
19 then be off the next week when you
20 MR. TURPEN: Well, I have put my announcement in
21 for vacation. I do it every year. And the week after
22 Thanksgiving I go hunting. The week after Christmas I do what
23 I can do.
24 THE COURT: This is not the week after
25 Christmas -- well the 30th I guess is.
W.
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
' .
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
P.r·e t r _ia .L Fif::a .r.ing
.l 0--2.3 ·-()8
l MR. TURPEN: I think it i:;.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Can you h2ve an annoc.mcemenc:
-~
the week before Christmas on December the 22nd?
,? ......
,- 4 MR. TURPEN: Okay.
DEPUTY CLERK: At 1:30? The clerk is going to
get the blame.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: 9:00 o'clock is good.
THE COURT: I mean one announcement docket on
-::--=:- ~ --
one case, it should be 9:00 o'clock. That is what I'm
--::::::- "'"" -----------...
10 thinking.
MR. FLANIGAN: I would say for-- if we'll do
~2 stuff on the 30th, let's do it at 9:00 o'clock as well.
THE COURT: Well, you'Ll not do anything on the
14 30th. I'm not doing anything ~n the 30th right now.
MR. FLANIGAN: Okay.
MR. GILMORE: Judge, I have a codefendant in
this case.
18
19 as well.
20
C[:ts THE COURT:
November i..,rhen I come over here .
I know 1 but we'll try your case in
.22 MR. GILMORE: We' ll ·cry me·:
23 THE COURT: You're my numbe:::- one prioritv :i.n
24 life, John.
L
' '
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 6
Pretl:JaJ. HeaTing
.l 0-·2 3--03
1 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Got to be number one with
2 somebody.
3 THE COURT: Somebody has got to be number one.
4 DEPUTY CLERK: Pretrial?
5 THE COURT: A pretrial. How many pretrials have
6 already been conducted in this case?
7 DEPUTY CLERK: Everyone has been passed. We
8 really haven't addressed anything yet.
9 ~m. FLANIGAN: We have one pretrial, Judge,
10 where, like, the discovery motions and all the non-evidentiary
11 motions were agreed to, but there have been no evidentiary
12 trial.
THE COURT: The 25th of November ··- no, that is
14 the week before Thanksgiving. That is when you leave off the
week afte.r-.
MR. TURPEN: I'm leaving the week after
Thanksgiving. This is the week before.
THE COURT: All right. The 25th at
~----=~
9:00 o'clock.
~
0 MR. TURPEN:
THE COURT:
At 9:00 o'clock.
And what that does is it has you
appearing before the trial judge for your pretrial, for your
. -- ·:..·..:..: -~-,----~-_...--
announcement and for your jury trial. You stay hooked up with
·---=~. ,..
..:.----;;;;;:::::::.-==·= " - ' - - - -
24 where the case is set.
. -------~---------------~----
25 All right?
L~~---- LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RP~
..
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 7
Pretrial Hearing
10-23-08
1 MR. TURPEN: Sounds good, Judge.
THE COURT: Done.
3 (End of proceedings)
5
6
7
9
1.1
12
l3
15
16
L7
19
20
') 1
:;:. . .J.
23
* *
25
L __
LTSA TUCKSR RILEY, CSR. RPR
' .
. '
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 8
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF ARANSAS
3 I, LISA TUCKER RILEY, Official Deputy Court Reporter
4 in and for the 156th District Court of Aransas, State of
5 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains
6 a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence
7 and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the
8 parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record
9 in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred
10 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.
11. I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
12 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
13 offered by the respective parties.
14 I further certify that the total cost for the
15 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $44.00 and will be
16 paid in full by Aransas County.
17 WITNESS MY OFFICIP~ HAND on this, the 11th day of March,
18 2009. l. _j) . . .-----
19
20
~(~)~2)
LISA TUCKER lULEY, CSR I R
21 Texas CSR #3895
Official Deputy Court Reporter
22 P.O. Box 700
Sinton, Texas 78387
23 Telephone: 361-364-9320
Expiration: 12-31-2010
24
25
LISA TOCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015,63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 9
JUDGE WEJLLBORN'S LETTER TO CARRIE CRISP APPLICANT'S HABEAS ATTORNEY
'. EJ( ttq
'"'
*
.·~~·~tfi''o;;·li;..
.'
·={Ill~'P' (. ~~
:'10"''
(It'
.:.
····.::... ::"......:......
MICHAEL E. WELBORN
District Judge
36th Judicial District
P.O. Box 700
Sinton, Texas 78387-1303
COUNTIES:
Aransas
Bee
Live Oak
McMullen
San Patricio
361/364-9310
Fax: (361) 364-9410
October 5, 2012
The Law Office of Carrie Crisp
109 E. Hopkins, Suite 206
San Marcos, Texas 78666
RE: The State of Texas v. Chadrick B. Pate, Cause A-08-5080-4-CR. In the 361h Judicial
District Court of Aransas County, Texas.
Dear Counsel,
First, I apologize for not getting you a response on a more timely basis. I did have to do
some research to determine the correct answers to some of your questions.
The Judges for the 36'\ 1561h and 343rct District Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in five
ditierent counties and the jurisdiction to generally exchange benches. The three Judges rotate
from county to county on a set schedule and all criminal matters are set on available days without
.regard to which presiding Judge will be setting. In the matter involving Mr. Pate, it was my
scheduled date to handle all criminal pre-trial matters in Aransas County. (All criminal cases are
scheduled for pre-trial, announcement and jury trial at the docket call of all new indictments
according to the published calendar for the three district judges.)
Regarding Mr. Pates case, research shows that I did preside over the pretrial matters that
involved multiple defendants in the same criminal indictment. The docket reflects that the Court
was considering a motion to sever, however the issue became moot when it was announced that
it appeared one or more ofthe defendant's were going to waive their right to a jury trial in the
pending matter. Counsel for the State, did move tor a continuance on the active trial setting.
Both State and Defendant agreed that said matter should be continued. I granted the State's
Motion to Continue at the hearing on September 25, 2008. There were multiple orders presented
and in the clerk's file at that time. The order presented to me at the hearing on September 25,
2008 was incorrect, as they presented the order on the motion to sever and not the order on the
motion to continue. The order on the severance was signed by me in error on that date. The
Court and the Clerk's office discovered the error before the order was formally filed (that same
day) in the paper's of this cause. This is why the Order in question had not been file stamped.
Mr. Gilmore attorney for Mr. Pate filed the Motion for Severance that was scheduled for
hearing on September 25, 2008.
Normally any order granting a motion is file stamped by the District Clerk's office after it
is granted and signed by the Judge. This order was not file stamped because it was quickly
determined that the wrong order was handed to the Judge for signing.
•
"'
If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to call or write. I do respond to
appropriate email iftime is ofthe essence. (Email: welbornme@aol.com.)
Respectfully,
d£~--
Mictlel ~. Welborn.
Judge Presiding
361h District Court.
-· .;. \.J'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015163340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 10
CARRIE CRISP LETTER TO JUDGE WELLBORN
\.. \ . . ,; .
. :".:_·.;:.··.
"<. . . . . . . . . .• •• ; •,
- ..
·. ' - . .. :-~. . ... ·... · ,: -
September 17,2012
The mlonorable Michael Welborn
Judg•e 36th District Court
P. 0. Box 700
Sinton, TX 78387
Viafiucimilie to 361-364-9410
IN RF:: case The State q{Texas v. Chadrick B. Pate, Cause No. A-08-5080-4-CR (HCl)
in the 36th Judicial District Court for Aransas County, Writ no. WR-78, 165-01 in the
Courtt of Criminal Appeals.
Dear Judge Welborn,
My name is Carrie Crisp and I am Chadrick Pate's habeas counsel. In June of
2012,, I filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Pate, challenging
both :his murder conviction and the sentence for that conviction. One of the claims for
~;:eU.ef is the denial of due. ~n:oc.ess. becaJJ.se Me Pate was tried with the co-defendant~ Mr.
Christopher Joseph Hall.
During my pre-writ imY:stigati th\'2. a oorma~
situation? Did you sign the order granting the motion to sever? If so, why did you grant
the severance? Who approached you with the motion for severance? Where did the order
I,
.'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015t63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 11
10/23/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 3 OF 9 CHADRICK PATE MOTION TO
DISMISS A-08-5080-4CR
REtORTER Is ~ORD
VOLUME ~ OF ~ VOLUMES
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
5 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT
)
6 ) ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
)
)
) 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Fl L E 0
IN THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS
CORPUS CHRISTl
JUN'IO 2009
{) 12 MOTION TO DISMISS9y , . ·. r ' .
DORIAN E. RAMIREZ CLERK'
·~
DELIVERED
JUN i 0 2009
17
13th COURT OF APPEALS
..
18
19
ORIGINAL
20 On the 23rd day of October, 2008, the following
21 proceedings came on to be held in the above~titled and
22 numbered cause before the Honorable Joel B. Johnson, J~dge
23 Presiding, held in Rockport, Aransas County, Texas.
24 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype machine ..
t J 25
LISA TUCKER RILE~~ 6SR~ RPR
Case.4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-17 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Rage 2 of 36 2
Motion to Dismiss
lD-23-08 J .
••
1 APPEARANCES
2
3 MR.. MARCELINO RODRIGUEZ
SBOT NO. 00797336
4 As~istant Di~trict Attorney
P.O. Box 1393
5 Sinton, Texas 783a7
Telephone: 361-364-6220
6 Attorney for the State
7
8
. MR. JOHN S. GILMORE, JR.
9 SBOT NO. 07958500
Attorney at Law
10 622 S. Tancahua
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
11 Telephone: 361-882-4378
Attorney for the Defendant
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
...
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
..
Case 4:13-cv-00709. Document 5-17 Filed in TXSD on·OS/17/13 Page 3 of 36 . 3
Motion to Dismiss
10-23-08
1 MOTION TO DISMISS
2 10-23-08
PAGE VOL.
3
4 DEFENDANT' S EVIDENCE
5 Chadrick B. Pate Direct Cross V.D:ire
By Mr. Gilmore 5 v1
6 By Mr. Rodriguez 14 v1
7
STATE'S EVIDENCE
8
Bryctnt Ol::son Direct cro::;::; V.Dir:e
9 By Mr. Rodriguez 17 v1
By Mr. Gilmore 24 v1
10
11
Defense's Argument ..... ., ...................•....... 31 1
12
State's Argument ......._·' .....•........... ·...... , ...· ... 32 1
13
Court's Ruling ................. , . . . . . . . . . . , ....... , 33 1
14
Reporter's Certificate , ...•...•...........••...•.• 35 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-17 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Pag~ 4 of 36 4
Motion to Dismiss
10-23-08
1 ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
2 Direct Cross V.Dire
3 Olson, Bryant 17 vl 24 v1
Pate, Chadrick B~ 5 v1 14 vl
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-17 Filed in.TXSD on 05/17/:1,3 Page 33 of 36
33.
Motion to Dismiss
10-23-08
1 direct evidence that these documents were intentionally
2 destroyed or taken away from your client there will be #
3 immediate relief for you and immediate bad news for someone
q;
4 else.
5 MR. GILMORE: Yes, sir.
6 THE COURT: Your motion is denied at this time.
7 MR. GILMORE: Yes, your Honor.
8 Just for scheduling,~ Judge, I know you're
9 getting ready to take a recess, but I think we're set for
10 THE COURT: November the 3rd.
~-------------------------------~
11 MR. GILMORE: -- November the 3rd. And I talked
~
12 to Mr. Rodriguez. I'm not sure that they have got everything
13 ready that they need to have done, Judge.
14 MR. RODRIGUEZ: We're still waiting on some
15 reports by a dive team that collected the weapon, your Honor,
16 and we're getting further evaluation done on the handgun that
17 was collected from the dive team. It's a matter of doing a
18 report. The testing has already been done.
19 MR. GILMORE: Are you going to be the trial
20 Judge or --
21 THE COURT: Yes. Yes.
22 MR. GILMORE: Are you going to be here for
23 docket call? My only problem going to trial or other than
24 I don't have everything that they have got so far, but I have
25 a federal case that may go to trial in Judge Head's court. My
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
Case 4:13-cv-00709. Document 5-17. Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Page 34 of 36
34
Motion to Dismiss
10-23-08
1 client is kind of vacillating: He doesn't know what he is
2 going to do yet, so I haven't filed a motion for continuance.
3 I'll know next week what he is going to do, but I just like to
4 inform the Court of that.
5 THE COURT: What are y'all ready to try on
6 November the 3rd?
7 MR. RODRIGUEZ: An attempted capital
8 murder/sexual as~ault/injury to a child.
9 THE COURT: And the lawyers are ready?
10 MR. FLANIGAN: I think the primary case would be
11 the attempted capital murder. Mr. Wimberly, that is
12 Mr. Teague is defending on this case.
13 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Teague, and you
14 understand him to be ready?
15 MR. FLANIGAN: I believe he is going to -be
16 ready.
17 THE COURT: Well, I think I'm going to leave it
18 to the judge who hears the announcement docket.
19 MR. GILMORE: Okay. Judge, that is fine. I
20 jusl wanted Lo let y'all know we may have a problem.
21 THE COURT: I have been trying to get all of
22 Mr. Pate's cases off the docket as quick1y as ~ can, John. I
23 have got one off that nobody wanted to try, and it would be my
24 pleasure to take another one off the docket that nobody wants
25 to try .
.
~".
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-17 Filed inTXSD on 05/17/13 Page 35 of 36 35
Motion to Dismiss
10-23-08
1 MR. GILMORE: Okay, Judge.
2 (End of proceedings)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 * * *
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
·.. .~
..
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-17 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Page 36.of 36
36 .
1 STATE OF TEXAS
.. 2 COUNTY OF ARANSAS
3 I, LISA TUCKER RILEY, Official Deputy.Court Reporter
4 in and for the 156th District Court of Aransas, State of
5 Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains
6 a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence
7 and other proceedings req~ested in writing by counsel for the
8 parties to .be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record
9 in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred
10 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.
11 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
12 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
13 offered by the ~espective parties.
14 I further certify that the total cost for the
15 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $163.00 and will be
16 paid in full by Aransas County.
17 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND on this, the 11th day of March,
18 2009. ......
19
20
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR,
21 Texas CSR #3895
Official Deputy Court Reporte'
22 P.O. Box 700
Sinton, Texas 78387
23 Telephone: 361-364-9320
Expiration: 12-31-2010
24
25
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015163340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 12
CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET CHRISTOPHER HALL A-08-5080-2CR
~n I~ EKif(a:
( CRIMINA( DOCKET
C:{
~~
-
NUMBER OF CASE~] STYLE OF CASE AT'I'ORNEYS OFFENSE I>AT.E OF FILING
Montb
-
Oay
'v
()
lll
~/-5o;>~-~~~ ~ ~ c/ ~
*~
STATE OFTEXAS
vs. Information, Index or N
~ Indictment ~
~
N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------~! ~
---
-------- ~~~~~~~~~======~~~~~~~~~tJ~~~~~~I 8
0
D:#.TE OfORDERS ~
Mortth Day Vol
0
0
(')
c
3
CD
1 ~
_ _ _ _[ ] l'{ Oi .- k~- ~
117131 lo& I :;~i !~(b-
finn.: q/J. +n-"1
~ '-t'IL"' 11 P ' q crw d 0 ~c,t.-e-1 on .t-~ ( t
)2-k--2. s hc>LY-'- cord B'"'"-l"' ce
..\1'\:<-'~ ( S .,.>0 ~e-l,o ~
~~-
J
\\ \/)V-\ \'O {l- <>V
\ - - •• 7 ·0-_ -e co {
~
:t-Lt C/)
•'
v( No. Ul::t 5D3'o- L
( ( (")
'!:»
::s
DATE Of' ORDERS
ORDERS OF COURT CONTINUED
MlllnteBook ·-
J:S
Vol
1---- --1-----H-~::..::..---:..
,.~l~f/f) -·--- ~
.~("f~ . ,~ F~- ~J fJt;cd <./. ~ - ~
v\ I.IC><-1"-=--H---'-'~~~-~ '. -- ~GiJ ~J t:tJ~~~-
OJ.R (l_ ~ lib u.(fR l )J} '¥A Oc--J.tJ.. fa. {jA \J -f''
·
r
Lfi- !~
..Ju') !l!'lt!d" sue"' c. 3'3U- .ik-aif.,- ~7 ,B,r..v 1\p,o;v<- - CD
a.
:r
't t t 11"""'-'~~dla.a--t ~~·~"- ~. .1.5~ -~~ -l
t2 ~ ~Oj __ ~mor"J~Mo a-t d C'. q ./). ~J e (0: ~<:) - ,.u.-wfb.e!_____e10 I----H------
X
(f)
0
JJ.uN:k· b .l1 c.-lAc ll- e.. I p~- ~~ SueA.V...-, _Ph~'ij'J.. ( ldJ~p~t·i~---4---lt-----· - - 0
::s
i.J .)./ t1"\v\n.iAl /'w..., (}~u - S X- 2 7.-4 z_g - ~ N e.,o{ 0
- () .J I _i\y.J_~ ~
--......
(j)
1---1 ~ ttV Dt,hr.ct. ~0 am. eti?cvt: - iwhrn-o~ 0 .
<[!{Vtt ltV' - C)
--
N
......
1~ ~~~p;b•;~:;~~~~~i~n,-:~·;~~:lr}-G1~,_w
N
1 lJ
1~ d;: i_ Jo;;_ -(£ /.;oicv..ii ·dll t.Jvn,j C1otvw.1 11
- Sl>
tC
CD
1 1 1 1 ll---- ~
1 ~~~r__________________ CD
0...,..
~
w
-0
'-"
3a\q en
( CRIMINAL DOCKET -~2;
~~
CASE No.ld.B_
--
..J
-- NUMBER OF CASE STYLE OF CASE ' ATTORNEYS OFFtNSR DATE OF FILING ~
I MOIIfh I {)ay Year ()
~
------ STATE OF TEXAS . ! 'Pa:br~.· <:k Fl ~!l'liJQ.~ STATE (a IZA- ·a~ ro
··-
AOi 5o&J~L-
vs.
J -JV\ v.,_y J.~ Information, Index or
hidlctment
~-
-,
N
1--'
- -- 1-·-
r}\(i~b::i7her ~ltu
'\
Sd:c.. v-. ~\f PL~ ~-
N
~
I Fee Book "' I
Vol. I Pa~ 0
0
DEFENDENT g
-
I 0
(0
DATE OF ORDERS Was
Stenographer ORDERS OF COURT
Minute Book
WITNESSES
-a. w
Month ·Day ~ Year Used .. Vol. Page
!
0
0
-------- 2- ll: 01 1-6,;'$ "'.· aJ,nu,.~Jw?~t»-r«L~~ ~ (')
c
' 3
----- rn.tid..e Ol'\ r~<~:d - I · .· · . r- ~r.A,~e q· LO -lo :~l)c;
l_g Jl!c. . ro
::J
......
: iQ :1:2- lu.ncYl b...lh:J(~ 12.: 25"!.. C,JukRo{c, rN~rru~ 1--'
0I
--- I. j
~n,.,.,. i <110(1"" J 1F, ~ Cly__a 1\.t ~ ~h"' o ..,; ()1
I Il
i ; /.JIJ».~,~ e t: 'jJ - bAJ"'-'.. .... 4··I Z. Taa hDvn ~ 1), ,.._,. d ~
! 0 (i)
1 D~ e 542'-
C(/t\cJJ.J.Aorl --
0.
::J
---·
d. .R i07 T.Q()nmor~.Rc q:/oQ~-.- 6.-ucl e. urtr -ta:.s<..~ -i
X
i (/)
------ "·-·-----~·-·
_j ! t1.·.1:) I~~ C.Jl ~kYndr- hattn:--t_- Sx Annh 0
--·· ··-- -
i
~~ · ~ ~!{ ~oak:-Q. f_:L/~ 'ff"')_,M_rDA--wn' lr- -·
0
::J
0
- nhu4~ 'L:<.f( -Wif'eO ~~~-&-.z.g ~
1--'
-
-~---
~ 1. • Jun·
!.
j
vf.;/ Iii d . -1 UIU, L"'t: -
6 .
(J;>,..
. ·-·. .
c. fl. .OOoh--
I
hJ. I ),.. r'"' c. /Or;.-._
.
N
1--'
N
~ I .)jo_,_ ~o-htov-~m-C: /() ,Ql> - St-roud' Of.om.A<:.
~.... ~ cl
~ ~~
~ ....
~
] E ..£
d p ~ ~ .
~ l
._1- 1p. '
l0 ~ \.::
~- ~
:. \
t:l !' l 1::::
Ill
;:l
:z
I=
:z
~ ~~
M;~- E o
- ·~ i <;:
~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~
Q
t.> ~
1-<
AI I
~.. Jl~1~~~
;:l
Q
u
] ~ ~' c:; J < ~
""0rn
Ql
Ill
Q
Ql
Q 1'.""'- ~:::l, ~~~~
~~ ~ IIld ·-~ ~~
r
I
I
I
~I ~ ~ . ,. _; ~ " I
~ ~K' ~
I ~~, 1
c: 2l .
~~~ · ~ •
~ ·t'- ~ . ~
I
l
"
'
1lll
i~'
·c ::::tP> ~ 8 .~ !- I
I
I
< .N ~ ~·· V) 0 ~ jt); I -
Ill
~ ~
Q
.. ~
~
~ s ~ ::-
" I I
I
I I
IIC
~ ~ ~ {
Q ...
~ ,! 3
...::::=;
0
.~
~ 1· "') \'\) o- ~ II
Q ~ ' I
-l~. ·~
,j "' I
'
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015t63340 ARANSASCOUNTY,TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 13
11/25/08 REF'ORTERS RECORD VOLUME 5 OF 11 PRE TRIAL HEARING CHRISTOPHER
HALL A-08-5080-2CR
£'(.. *~
l/4, .21S-o..J ~
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
Pretrial Hearing
11-25-08
1 REPORTER'S RECORD
VOLUME 5 OF II VOLUMES
2 TRIAL C~ CADSE NO. A-08-5080-2CR
3
4
5 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) IN TBE DIS'l'lUC'l' COURT
)
6 VS- ) ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
)
JOSEPH BALL )
) 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUG 10 2011
Lowse pearson, Clerk
- Or~g~nal produced on March 11, 2009-
18
19
20 On the 25th day of November, 2008, the £allowing
21 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and
22 numbered cause before the Honorable Michael Welborn, Judge
23 Presiding, held in Rockport, Aransas County, Texas.
24 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype machine.
25
~·.:~\~f'
!
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
Pretrial Hearing
11-25-08
1 APPEARANCES
3 MR. MARCELINO RODRIGUEZ
SBOT NO. 00797336
4 Assistant District Attorney
P.O. Box 1393
5 Sinton, Texas 78387
Telephone: 361-364-6220
6 At:"l:o.rney for t;he St:at:e
MR. STANLEY A. TURPEN
9 SBOT NO. 20344300
· Attorney at Law
10 P.O. Box 1209
Portland, Texas 78374
11 Telephone: 361-643-6422
Attorney for t:be De£enc:fant
12
13
14
15 ~
~~
~
16
18
20
,...,.,
.:.::.. J..
~ , "N
~d-'1·" D .
22
23
24
25 L_ J
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
PROCEEDINGS
(Defendant present)
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Turpen.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'll get the file, your Honor,
if we can go through it.
THE COURT: Which file?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Hall's.
MR. TURPEN: Judge, for the record, I have
talked with the State, and I have also talked to Mr. Gilmore.
has the Codefendant Pate. I represent Mr. Hall.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. TURPEN: And Tamara Cochran-May represented
him before I was, and there was a motion to sever that was
filed, and they were going to not go forward on that motion.
I have talked to my client and he in agreement.
~ I have also checked with Mr. Gilmore, and it's
my understanding he is in agreement with that, too, unless his
client tells him something different. That was my
understanding.
THE COURT: Who is the codefendant?
MR. TURPEN: Pate is the last name.
THE COURT: Pate.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Chadwick.
MR. TURPEN: Chad --
L.~ MR. RODRIGUE_z_:_C_h_a_d_r_i_c_k_. -~-~--· ---···------J
.;._ ,,, . -~ ''i' ·:: •' . . .···• ·: :.:
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 4
E':.:·_--(2.-ti i.a . .{ flea r inq
1.1--25 ---:~8
.,J. THE COURT: When is that one scheduled
t:;:ia.l?
MR. TURPEN: Right now January the 5th
z:::z;:: :;:::::a -:::-
THE COf.lRT: Okay.
·-~
Well,
~--
both cases on-~
the same
~ ----------
~r1ai doc~et at this time?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, it's kind of hard to
::ry the~~~ the same time if it's not on the same docket.
MR. TURPEN: I understand, Judge.
THE COURT: Minor technicality.
- ----
DEPUTY CLERK:
supposed to be here on the 5th.
the 9th.
-=
And also Mr. Gilmore is not
He will be on vacation till
14 ~ 1WE COURT: Yeah, supposed to be.
.MR. RODRIGUEZ: Your Honoi:, may we approach
17 THE COURT: On what, Hall? Did you bring my
18 file back in? I was going to say, no, you can't, because I
19 don't have a file.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: We have reached an agreement on
?l r:::cet.ty mu:.:::::-1 all th~ motions, your Honor.
22 MR. TURPEN: That's correct.
.....
--~
L •. J MR. RODRIGUEZ: We went ahead and marked the
24 GlSCOVPry reotion.
25 TFl E c:f:Jf)_t-: 'T; ·_;}_]_
liSA TUCKER RILEY, CSR,· R?R
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
.~:..,-:_··-:::: t :"":.·.?.a] li£;.a :.::-.1 n~J
3] -··25·-·l!/3
1 that you have filed, Mr. Turpen?
MR. TURPEN: They are, Judge. I went ahead and
just refiled all the pretrial motions. The only one I was
going t'o carry over from Tamara's was the motion to sever. I
don't think •l'fe' re going to use them.
..-
{; THE COURT: All right. Well, we have got the --
all right. You've got an order on discovery here?
Ml~. TURPEN: Yes.
T:CJE COURT: It looks like it has got some pen-
10 and-ink changes on it. This particular order, is that the
Il one?
"': ,...,
.1. 1:. ~ffi. TURPEN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Y' all are agreeing t:hat this order
14 should be entered; is that correct?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, your Honor.
"',
.i. 0
.. THE COURT: By t.he agreement of counsel then the
! .1 order shall be entered on discovery.
.1 8 MR. 1.'URPEN: Thank you, Judge .
THE COURT: Motion in limine we • 11 t.ake up I
20 guess at time of hearing.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, Your Honor.
'J2 THE COURT: I'm looking at the different orders
~~ here that are contained. There is a motion for severance, and
24 I believe that has been withdrawn; is that correct?
I MR. RODRIGUEZ: ------
That's correct, your Honor.
------
~------· ---------------------·------------=~~-~
Scanned Jan 26~ 2012 6
Pretrial Hearing
11-25-08
THE COURT: Is that correct?
MR. TURPEN: Judge, what I would like to do on
that is leave it in the file just in case we need it because I
did talk to Gi.lmore. Gilmore says he didn't see any reason to
sever unless his client talks otherwise, but I haven't talked
back with him to know that, and 1 don't think he has a motion
7 in the file.
TliE COURT: All right.. Then no ruling on the
:::· motion to sever.
~
MR. TURPEN: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Motion to inspect and examine and
12 test physical evidence.
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Not a problem, your Honor.
THE COURT: Granted.
., ;::.:,
MR. RODRIGUEZ: The only stipulation is that is
:.6 {j\·~::r~r;; tJy appointment and ""Je have somebody there ·to lay it out
1'1R. TURPEN: At the sheriff's office.
THE COURT: You'll just need to make an
MR. TURPEN: Okay.
THE COURT: Motion to require State to reveal
In other words, that is the deal. This is the
MR. RODRIGUEZ; The codefendants, and that's
~ ---::::;;:::::: =
Scanned Jan 26_, 2012 7
Fr+.:::tr_ial FJ.ea r.ir1~;r
1.1 --·25-().3
basically a public record now since they went ahead and
~ .-------=
2 entered their pleas.
,--------- -~
:1 MR. TURPl}_!!;) I have been told they have -- they
4
5
have it: in each one of their files.
me.
,__- - That is sufficient for
He said ir:. was the same dea.l for each codefendant; is
6 that correct?
MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Each one received the same
8 plea offer.
c) THE COURT: So basically no object.ion to it.
10 It's granted, and I would just simply indicate see
11 codefendants' plea bargains.
MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir.
THB COURT: And they are a public record.
14 MR. RODRIGUEZ:
. ====---
Just a 1.Yaiting sentencing at ~
point.
r:==- ,5'C ~~u:Rp-;;:p .· ----=.,_.___,=-
~MR. TL """" I understand.
'l'HE COUR1': This is one of the group that I
J ~~ accepted the pl·za bargain on?
MI?.. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: That we're waiting to get sentenced.
:?'I
22 -
Okay.
lJ co refrain from racial discrimination in the exercise of
24 peremptory s~~ikes?
It's kind of like thac
LISA T~CKER R1l£Y, CSR, RP?
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 8
P.r:et1.-ial iiea:rir:tq
.I.I--~?5--08
1 preemptive Batson.
2 THE COURT: I don't think
3 MR. RODRIGUEZ: I --
THE COURT: the Court needs to grant any
5 motion in that regards. That is the law.
6 MR. TURPEN: I understand, Judge. I have talked
7 to the State about it, but this case involves or at least the
8 allegations are that Mr. Hall is involved with a gang that is
9 probably ~~own for racial epithets and things that I just
10 wanted to preclude that from even coming up.
11 THE COURT: That's a Batson.
12 MR. TURPEN: Here in Rockport I don't think it
13 will any w~y.
14 THE COURT: That is a Batson issue at time of
15 trial.
16 MR. TURPEN: Yes, sir.
17 THE COURT: And the State will always be
18 instructed not to do that. I'm going to grant the motion.
19 MR. TURPEN: I understand, Judge.
20 THE COURT: Although I don't think it's
21 necessary, and you'll be ordered not to do that.
22 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, your Honor.
23 THE COURT: And they'll --
24 ~~- RODRIGUEZ: And I'll refrain from doing
25
_j
Scanned Jan 26! 2012 9
1 THE COURT: Motion for inspection of premises.
2 t'l.fR. TURPEN: It's a trailer and a yard in
3 between.
4 MR. RODRIGUEZ: The only problem we have with
5 that, your Honor, is I'm not sure who has the premises now.
6 It was a trailer. I'm not even sure it's still there. At one
7 time it belonged to the mother of the victim. Of course, the
8 victim is now, of course, deceased. The mother that was
9 living there is in custody, and the children are with CPS. So
10 there are basically -- unless someone else moved in. I don't
11 know who controls the premises. I told Mr. Turpen that I'll
12 try to find out who has it and make it available to him if I
13 can.
14 MR. TURPEN: I'm not asking that the defendant
15 be present. l • m just for my personal vie•Npoint.
16 THE COURT: I understand that. l have but one
11 question in that particular matter, and I think the issue will
18 always remain is is the premises under the control of the
19 State, and the answer is, no, it.'s not, is
20 MR. RODRIGUEZ: No.
21 THE COURT: I don't know how the State -- I can
22 order the State to allow you to attend the premises when they
23 don't have control of the premises.
24 P.fR. TURPEN: I understand. I guess we have an
25 agreement I think between us to find out who has control and
_j
I;
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 10
1 try to set something up •.vhere I can go out there and look at
2 it.
.3 I'IJR. RODRIGUE'Z; I will make an effort to assist
4 him to get the information.
5 TP..E COURT: That.'s exactly what I'm putt.ing on
6 the order. I'm denying i t but State is to assist in viewing
7 of premises and not. to take any measures that would deprive
8 him of the ability to examine it.
9 MR. RODRIGUEZ; If anything I can get a floor
10 plan for him.
11 MR. TURPEN: That's fine.
12 MR. RODRIGUEZ; Tracy Watson who was living in
13 the residence is still here. I can prob~bly get a diagram
14 MR. TURPEN: Get a diagram of the yard.
15 MR. RODRIGUEZ: or something. That may be of
16 assis·c.ance to defense counsel.
17 THE COURT: All right. Assi.st as best you can
18 in that, and most irnpo:rta.ntly don't take any action that would
19 deprive him of the ability to examine the premises noting that
20 it's not controlled by the State.
21 The only other thing we have is a motion for
22 voir dire of expert witnesses. What is this?
23 .MR. TURPEN: Basically it's a Da1.1bert challenge.
24 I have talked to the State. What I'm going to do is ask the
25 I Court to hold it in abeyance until trial. I think I may be
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 11
able to resolve it without having to have that type of
hearing.
I have been informed by the State, number one, I
have got the expert's names. I can call them; review the
~ stuff with them, but also it's my understanding one of these
5 tests, the scent test.
~~- RODRIGUEZ: The scent lineup.
MR. TURPEN: They are going to have one of these
9 supposedly in -- Ms. Cable is going to have one in Sinton on
;} the 15th or something like that, so I may be able to come up
THE COURT: I have heard about those things.
Ivf.R. RODRIGUEZ: And I '11 provide him \vith
14 information, the curriculum vita of the expert that will do
that..
THE COURT: Isn't the expert the dog?
L ; MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, the handler.
THE COURT: I mean, if you want to voir dire a
!0 dog, feel free .
.MR. RODRIGUEZ: The dog did have training, so I
/l guess there is a certification.
THE COURT: I mean, which one is the witness?
23 Which one is the expert witness?
MR. TURPEN: The dog or the trainer?
THE COURT: The dog or the trainer? I think the
·~~~~~-------- ________I
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 12
:?·rst.rial Hear.i.nq
_I .l -· ?.!."i -0~?
l dcg is the wicness. I would be willing to grant thclt one to
2 see him voir dire a dog. I would like to watch that.
.:l ()kay . Yeah . t~el J ~ just ho1c1 t.·h.at off~ I think
4 I know w~ere you're going on that.
r.;
_, My understanding is cne
6 bloodhound is very truthful.
7 And 1 don't think that the defense
8
Ci voir dire an expert wi~ness. I think they are just putting
]Q
.l1 Yr:..Ji.l • ~~-e
... 1 :.?'
13
14
th~:: competency and ask the Court to make such a
det.-t~rrn.i na ti()i!
MR. 'I'UF'.FEN: u r,de.r stand .
1. =·
16 TF-IE: CO[!.F? T: even at the t1me of hearing.
,7 was going to try to do i~ outside
.l
l e
J9 it .
20
21 an issue that 1s qoinq to be in the t~ial of the case, it
22 would be best to do t~is ahead of time if we know that ic's
23 going to be an issue
24 I will.
l-~·~·--
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
.Fr\::: t ::~--i a J .flea r.i ng
l THE COURT: Okay. Anything else on your
2 pre·trials?
3 MR. TURPEN: That's all I have. Judge.
THE COURT: All right. Well, very good. Those
5 orders will enter as reflected.
6 MR. TURPEN: Thank you, Judge.
7 Also I think all the other -- I have asked that
8 all the other motions that Ms. Tamara Cochran-May be filed,
9 have those be struck at this time, too, so there is no
1 'J confusion.
THE COURT: Okay.
1:2 MR. TURPEN: I' rn not sure what she filed.
13 THE COURT: All right.
MR. TURPEN: I just think it's cleaner to go
• t-'
forward Wl._n what I have got.
l 6 THE COURT: You're going forward on your motions
-'-' only?
---[;7 MR. TURPEN: Right, except for the motion to
19 seV"er in case Mr. Gilmore comes back and says his client wants
to sever and needs to sever or something. We'll bring it
-------···---·-----
back.
4.
nr:"'.eG.• l
THE COURT: I think it's more than a want. or a
think there has to be some purpose behind some
?4 speclr~c reason the case needs to be severed such as prior
?S c:rim.;_nai history or something of that nature.
LISA TUCKER RlLEY, CSR, R2R
.. '
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 1s
1 fl~. TURPEN: Yes, sir.
2 THE COURT: All right. Very good.. Very good.
3 We'll see everybody on the next setting date,
4 whenever that may be.
5 MR. RODRIGUEZ: ~22nd.
6 THE COURT: Well, we'll see everybody on chat:
7 date. That's me.
8 (End of proceedings)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
lB
19
20
21
22 * *
23
24
25
-~ -------------~=~--~-_____,__________j
S!SA TUCKSR RILEY, CSR, FPR
...
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 16
1 STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF ARANSAS
3 I, LISA TUCKER RILEY, Official Deputy Court Reporter
4 in and for the 36th District Court of Aransas, State of Texas,
5 do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true
6 and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and
7 ot.her proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the
8 parties to be included in this volume of the Reporter's Record
9 in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred
10 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.
11 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
12 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
13 offered by the respective parties.
14 I further certify that the total cost for the
15 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $78.00 and will be
16 paid in full by .i\ransas County.
17 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND on this, the llth.day of March,
18 2009.
19
20
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, R R
21 Texas CSR #3895
Official Deputy Court Repo• . ,r
22 P.O. Box 700
Sinton, Texas 78387
23 Telephone: 361-364-9320
Expiration: 12-31-2010
24
25
w
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR, RPR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE: FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015(63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 14
2/5/09 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 5-A OF 11 PRE TRIAL HEARING CHRISTOPHER
HALL S-08-5080-2
' ,
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
Pretrial Hearing
2-5-09
,._,. .,_.!_ REPORTER I s RECOIU>
VOLCME 5-A OF 11 VOLUMES
2 TRIAL ~ CAUSE NO. S-08-5080-2
3
4
5 THE STATE OF TEXAS ) :IN THE DISTRIC"l' COURT
)
6 vs. ) ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
)
7 CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH HALL )
) 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
8
RECENEDIN
9 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
10 AUG 10 2011
11
LOUISe Pearson, Clerk
12 PRETRIAL BEAIUNG
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ORJGJNAL
20 09, the following
21 proceedings came on to be the above-titled and
22 numbered cause before the e Janna ~- Whatley, Judge
23 Presiding, held in as County, Texas.
24 Proceedings stenotype machine.
25
. R RILEY I CSR, RPR
..
Scanned Jan26, 2012
Pretrial Hearing
2-5-09
'1t!Jrill' APPEARANCES
1
2
3 MR. PATRICK L. FLANIGAN
SBOT NO. 07109600
4 District Attorney
P.O. Box 1393
5 Sinton, Texas 78387
Telephone: 361-364-9390
6 A~cor.ney for tbe S~ace
7
8
MR. STANLEY A. TURPEN
9 SBOT NO. 20344300
Attorney at Law
10 P.O. Box 1209
Portland, Texas 78374
11 Telephone: 361-643-6422
A~torney £or t:.he Defendant:
12
13
14 MR. JOHN S. GILMORE, J"R.
SBOT NO. 07958500
15 Attorney at Law
622 S. Tancahua
16 Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Telephone: 361-882-4378
17 At:t:o.rney for t:he De£endant: Pate
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
L____~---·
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
~?.-rf.:~t.r.· J a .l ~:.·§:~a E·1. n~r
2···S-·D9
1 P R 0 C E E D I N G S
2 (Defendant present)
3 MR. FLANIGAN: I'm ready on Hall. I'm not happy
4 with a late-filed motion to suppress that we have in
5 Mr. Hall's case.
6 THE COURT: It's not set for pretrial.
7 What is your motion, Mr. Turpen?
8 14R. TURPEN: Judge, well, fi~st of all, I'm
9 ready for trial subject to I have carried over, with Judge
10 Welborn's permission, the Daubert challenge concerning the dog
11 patch sniff test. I have talked to Mr. Gilmore. We feel it's
12 probably a good idea to go ahead and go forward with that. I
13 have also --
14 THE COURT: I don't know how Jt1dge Welborn can
15 carry over an evidentiary hearing without checking with
16 everybody. Do yop-all know about that?
17 MR. TURPEN: The State's attorney was present
18 when he did that, Judge, at the last pretrial hearing. That's
19 when we went through it. My understanding at that point the
20 State wasn't ready to go forward with it that day; neither
21 were we. That is why
22 THE COURT: Carried to Lrial. It's not carried
23 to pretrial; carried to trial.
24 MR. TURPEN: Exactly. Carried to trial.
25 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
L ___ ----~-~---------~-_j
. '
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 4
_P_r--t~t.r j_ aJ I-lea r i11.:;.r
2·-5--·0.9
1 MR. TURPEN: That's what I'm asking for is to
2 carry i t to trial. I don't think it will take that long. I
3 just -- I have talked to David Cano. David Cano told me that
4 you-all had one in Sinton, and evidently it was granted, so ...
5 THE COURT: Are you talking about as far as a_
6 Daubert challenge?
7 MR. TURPEN: There was another Daubert challenge
8 against the same witness and in Sinton.
9 THE COURT: Don't know r:othing about it.
10 MR. TURPEN: Honth and a half go.
ll MR. FLANIGAN: Judge Johnson heard that hearing
~
12 and denied the defense challenge --
13 MR. TURPEN: Correct.
14 1'-!R. FLANIGAN: -- to that- evidence by tr1e Court,
15 not that it makes any difference in this trial, but
16 THE COURT: I don't know anything about
17 Okay.
18 MR. TURPEN: Then on this case I was brought in
19 on this case when Tamara Cochran-May
20 THE COURT: I know all of it. That is why we
______....,
21 reset it this far down the road.
22 1~. TURPEN: I have talked with Tamara. What I
23 have got is a motion to suppress on a photographic lineup. In
24 the photographic lineup that I had from Tamara there was only
25
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 s
._, 1 the Daubert challenge and all the stuff in there and went
2 through it. At that point I did.TJ't see any issues with
3 photographic lineups based on what I had seen.
4 Later, and I can't give you the exact date but I
5 believe it was the early part of January, that first week in
6 January, I received some supplemental discovery from
7 Hr. Rodriguez, one of those being a photographic lineup of
8 Mr. Hall where he is identified as No. 5. I checked with
9 Tamara. We did not have -chat in our discovery before.
10 After I went through the first week in
11 January I had a t.rial that lasted most of the week in Kleberg.
12 The second week I was sick. I got sick the first week. So I
13 spent the second week trying to recover. The last
14 two-and-a-half weeks I spent getting ready on this trial.
15 When I sat down with Mr. Hall, Mr. Hall who has
16 been looking at these photographs for a long time before I
17 even -- I got the case, he noticed something t.hat I had not
18 seen and ,,.,hat he has put in here I put in my motion to
19 suppress photographic lineup. He is alleging, and I certainly
20 can't answer his questions on it, that the two photo arrays
21 t.hat deal with him have been tampered with. The reason that
22 he has brought this up is that when you look at the other
23 photo arrays for all the other codefendants the location of
24 the codefendant in the photo array is always the same and the
25 people surrour>ding him have nol changed.
1
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
?:_-~.:~c:z:·:i.a.i ~f-feari.n.-;·
2--5-09
l In Mr. Hall's photographic lineup, the two
2 lineups, for some reason his location changes from five to
three and there is also different people that are surrounding
'i him. So he is alleging that the photograph;ic arrays were
S tampered wi t.h and tha.t when the witnesses look at this r tl1a·t
6 there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification of the
7 defendant in trial as a result of this procedure, specifically
8 the tampered photo arrays of the defendant were different than
S the photo arrays of the codefendant.
10 The defendant's picture was rotated and
L~. submitted with each array having different people around the
12 defendant, both acts --
13 THE COURT: I don't need you to read your
~~ •j motion, Mr. Turpen ..
1 ') MR. TURPEN: I'm just explaining.
THE COURT: Explain in normal terms. You're
}7 reaciing.
3. g MR. TURPEN: Okay. Explaining
1'HE COURT: Your client thinks your photo array
20 is messed up. Cool.
.?1 So, Mr. Flanigan?
MR. TURPEN: And I think it would take probably
,!.·. five or ten minutes, and I would ask that it be carrit?d to
24 trial along with the Daubert challenge. That's why I filed it
todayso there wouldn't be more~:_:_ surp~is~~::_t:~
1
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
r?rer:.r.-ial ii"r-:=:arj_J'Jg
2-5-09
1 is, if there is a surprise, instead of waiting till the day of
2 trial like I filed it today as soon as I found out there was
3 some issue that I have not:. seen.
l'-'!R. FLANIGAN:· Well
5 ·THE COURT: Sorry, guys. I haven't touch the
6 cases before. It:.'s all new to me.
1'1.ffi. E'LANIGP.N: Dnfort1.mately the State is stuck.
8 Either we have to deal with late flled motions or we have to
deal with ineffective assistance of counsel. Because business
l
10 doesn't get taken care of in a timely fashion and according to
1.1 t.he rul.es and according to the Court's schedule, we're going
12 lto object. I 'm not going to be surprised j_ f the Court goes
ahead and has a hearing however long it takes anyway, but, you
14 know, we're just at the mercy of the Court or at the pleasure
15 of the Court. Let me put it that way.
16 'l'HE COURT: Who needs to be witnessed? l mean,
17 who is supposed to be the witness on this? You're talking
38 about five minutes. The.re is no way you can do it in one
19 witness in five minutes.
2D MR. TURPEN: Well, you have got Officer Brooks
21 and one of the officers, probably Matt Baird.
22 THE COURT: Is that right? Do you know?
23 MR. FLANIGAN: You know, Judge, I have no idea.
:::4 I got this about three minutes before I walked into court to
',.·.
f,
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 8
£·t.-:::;!: .?..' .l :1} ;{::?.d.:_~ _i_ TiC]
2~--- 5- C} .S
1 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
2 MR. FLANIGAN: So
3 THE COURT: You need co figure out who it is and
4 I want to k.now how much time and when it is going to be done
5 then. Okay? I need to know who the witnesses are so we can
6 get them here to deal with it.
7 l"L'R.. FLANIGAN: I assume that they'll be here any
8 way, Judge. They'll be available.
9 MR. TURPEN: They are on his witness list.
10 THE COURT: Okay. Just make sure they are.
11 Okay.
12 MR. TURPEN: ,Judge, I ·think the Court needs
13 me -- well, I usually try to file these things in a timely
14 manner. This is one of those situations where I have got new
15 information. Granted if I could have gotten on top of it the
16 first week in January when it was handed to me, that would
17 have probably been a better situation, but that's not the way
18 it happened.
19 THE COURT: Okay. What else?
20 MR. TURPEN: Other than that I would ask that
21 the Da be:r-t challenge be taken up. Other than those two
22 issues we're waiting to go to trial.
23 I have checked with my client he has also told
24 me that his mother, who is present today, that they have
o=t=::~_t_o__t_h_e- j ~ i_l_.__R_~.ha~ not
25 l_b_r_o_u_a_Jh-t hi m_c_J__
L!5A TUCKER RI~~Y, CSR, RPP
been able to
J
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 9
..?r·etz-__,ial iie.a.r.ir:(;t
2--5-(7:-}
1 even look at the clothing yet, and I'm sure there is some --
THE COURT: He won't. They'll put it on him.
They have got it. I'm sure all -- like all the other jails,
4 t~ey have it.
THE OFFICER: They'll dress him out Monday
6 morning.
MR. TURPEN: That is my request, Judge, is to ·'-''-
3 least have him try on the clothes before trial, because if
S they need to be altered --
10 THE COURT: I'm not in charge of the jail,
.ll Mr. Turpen. I'm sorry. You'll have to talk to somebody else
1..!. about that. Okay? ~'ie're having a meeting at 3 o'clock, but
1:: you're asking things of me to do that I have no control over.
14 MR. TURPEN: I ' l l certainly address that with
1~ the sheriff.
THE COURT: What else?
MR. TURPEN: That's all I can think of, .Judge.
lP THE COURT: Okay. Who is doing punishment?
19 MR. TURPEN: Ma • am?
20 THE COURT: Who is doing punishment?
MR. TURPEN: I have to talk to my client. He
22 has still not decided yet.
THE COURT: Before 9 o'clock it must be filed.
MR. TURPEN; I understand, Judge.
,~~ THE COURT: Mr. Gilmore?
L-~-~~~-- -----------
' .
Scanned Jan 26, 2012
P.retr.ial Hearing
2--5·-09
l MH. G.ILNORE; .:.. think 'dB'.re going t.o jury for
~~ punishment.
3 THE COURT: File your election before 9 o'clock.
4 MR. GILMORE: Okay.
cj THE COURT: All right.
6 (Another case called for announcement)
7 MR. TURPEN: Yes. Judge, announcement on
8 punishment, I'm pretty sure it will probably be the jury
9 because we did discuss that at the jail yesterday evening,
10 but
11 THE COURT: Okay. If you-all don't tell me now
12 otherwise Jt defaults to me. When I start at 9 o'clock Monday
13 morning i~ goes to the judge. I have to stop it because I
15
can't get anybody moving on this stuff, and I have one person
that has done it today. ---.. . ---- ----- .. __ ~-
1
.~
G All right. Number one is Hall and Pate~
1.7 Number two is Barns, subject to Mr. Roger's
18 availability, three is Ramirez, four is Moreno, five is
19 Satterlee, six is Campos, and I have down seven and eight for
20 Moreno, but I know we won't try both of them.
2.1 M..~. FLANIGil..N: Which Moreno are you speaking
22 about?
THE COURT: Ramiro. I'm sorry. I'm looking at
24 Moreno. Instead I wrote them down seven and eight. Then nine
25 and ten, Last two, Chupe and Soliz.
"=====~--=~~-----~----~------ ----·--------~
.,
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 11
p·xet:.r.i.a 1 .Hear i.ng
2-·5-09
1 MR. FLANIGfl..N: Okay. Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay.
3 (End of proceedings)
4
5
6
8
9
.iO
11
12
1.5
1.7
18
J9
20
2l
22
24 ·•·
LISA TUCKER RILEY, CSR. RPR
...
Scanned Jan 26, 2012 .:. 2
l STATE OF TEXAS
2 COUNTY OF ~SAS
3 I, LISA TUCKER RILEY, Official Deputy Court Reporter
4 in and for the 36th District Court of Aransas~ State of Texas,
:'1 do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true
6 and correct transcription of all portions of evidence and
7 other proceedings .requested in -...;riting by counsel for the
8 parties to be included in this volume of t.he Reporter's Record
9 in the above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred
JJ) in open court or in chambers and were reported by me.
11 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the
12 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any,
13 offered by the respective parties.
14 I further certify that the total cost for the
1 ~~ preparation of this Reporter's Record is $61 . .50 and will be
16 paid in full by Aransas County.
17 ~HTNESS MY OFFICIAL lLZI,ND on this, the 21st day of July,
18 201.1 ~
~a
J. --'
20
LISA TUCKER RILEY 1
21 Texas CSR #3895 •
Official Deputy Court Re,"ts..L:_..
P.O. Box 700
Sinton, Texas 78387
23 Telephone: 361-364-9320
Expiration: 12-31-2012
24
25
: I
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE. THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015t63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 15
MASTER INDEX CHRISTOPER HALL REPORTERS RECORD 1-11 PAGE 2
Case 2:12-cv-00093 Document 11-8 Filed in TXSD on 06/12/12 Page 7 of 66
Scanned Jam 26.. 2012
Correspondence to Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
Judgment of Conviction by Jury; Sentence by Jury to Institutional Division, TDCJ . . . . . 218
.Receipt tor Ven VacRet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
. Ncr1tice from Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
C\am far rclOTt)'flwn:nl\t h'tittrrn:y v-~ .. . .. . . ... .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . . .. ... .. . . . 'l.'lS
Correspondence from Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
.C£>"'~ Le.tter - - . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . ..... - . . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ·.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Ordler from l31b Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
Not:ice of Setting ............................................·.. . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Co11respondence from Detendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Ord·er Allowing Withdrawal of Counsel and Appointing New Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
Affiidavit oflndigence with Order Appointing Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
Fax Notification of Appointment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
t:ov'er Letter lrom Court ot A.ppea"ls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~45
Judgment and Opinion from Court of Appeals (Withdrawn) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24E
Judtgment and Opinion from Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
C.Witn. fut Eclna~l.lu.venile Aflm:M.~ Fees. .. . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. .. . . 109
Conrespondence from Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 0
Conrespondence to Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
Conrespondence from Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
Mar1date ............................ · ....... 1/ ........................... . 314
Court Docket Sheet
;4.-r,:: , 0./
_!\_._,\:\)[\
..... ~ .....JL..~ '>- ••• -~~· ••••••••••••••.•••.••••••••••• 315
·. . . ./ ·- •/,J
Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
v
Case 2:12-cv-00093 Document 11-8 Filed in TXSD on 06/12/12 Page 6 of 66
Scanned Jan 26,. 2012
Steate's Application for Subpoena ........................................... . ISS
Su'bpoena Returned Served
Ju.."'liD P.adgett - - - .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
M'\ (..).../
j., .
,,; ··"\ JlC')' !)'l.lt-: ........... ,............. ,......... - ........ - .......................................... ·' .................. . 168
'1.:"\.t ')'
\\.) t...l
1 0 •• ·-.
/)\..""
/! ;;_, .
v-·
,~· Emest So1'IS • • . • . . . • • . . • . . . . . • • • . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
---·-·-·--·-··-·-·--·-·-Def~~~t·;·Eiection as to Punishment ....................................... . 170
Strike List - State ........................................................ . 172
Strike List- Defense ............................................. ·........ . 174
Jwry Chosen ............................................................ . 176
JwryNote 1 .............................................................. . 178
Chlllfge of the Court ...................................................... . 1/~
Ve:rdict ................................................................ . "191
lutry "J!l.iTotr: l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Punishment Charge ...................................................... . 194
'l'~~rJ. ............................................ ·············· ······ ........ - .... ······ .......... l9&
Triial Court's Certification of Defendant's Right of Appeal ........................ . 19S
Onder to Withhold ............................................. ~ ......... . 20(
N-~»tm.P.»t• . f(l£. ~".{.:~~- .. Ox /L. v:~.. ... . . .. .. . .. . . .. .
11
t 7.
Receipt for Capias and Precept from Sheriff Department . .(f.{.~ .. . . .. . .. . ... . . .. 19
Cotrre~ondence to Attorney ............................................... . 20
CaJpias Returned Served ... / . ............................................. . 21
Pre:cept Returned Served .. . / . ............................................. . 22
··w· ......................................
Corrrespondence from Defen~ant{ ... 23
Waiver of Arraignment ... . 1 .7(f.
1 . . . . . i/; /" .· · /i.P/' · ·J · · · · · 25
Mo>rion for Discovery with Order . 1t}...... .1{. P.,. . ~~~ . 7(,J., l ... jZJl:
Mo,tion for Authorization to Expend Funds for Investigator ... :1{.~1 .. r.--~ ... 27
39
r.~, MCor~es~ndcence .from Defendanlt .{·,;_..[..(.1 :~ • 1~. ;~ ~ •. ~~ ~;; ~ ~ ·,~;J.' .. ~ .. j ..,i{~· ...
1
41
lY ot10n lOr ontmuance . . . . . . . . -;1) •• ({;)l.l.._...., .. 'y ~~~ .. 'd'~. . . { ... 43
9)
Trial Exhibits
-ooo-
. ·I
. I
('·I
.·.
...
Scanned Jaan 26, 2012 L/-Lf; ,2 7.5- () f 1
············- ----·l
1 REP 0 R"T"El:c. ., S
··- - -·· -- -- - ------
"k"EiCtJ'k'tl
2
3
' DF ) ) V.o.uw.B.S
4 Tria1 Court Cause Number
;..___._;;.__._c.
A-09-5090-2-CR
•... _ _ _ _ · - · - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - -
-'-'-'-~--'--:;_;;_..;.:
5
THE STATE OF TEXAS *
6' 'It
vs. *
7 *
* ~6~a JOD~CrAL DISTRICT
8
MASrER INDJ:X
10
,J. .,.L
12 ORIGINAL RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMtfl!AL .4.P.PE.4.!S
13
AUG 10 2011
14
15 Louise Pearson, Clerk
.J .6.
17
18.
20
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015(63340 ARANSASCOUNTY,TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 16
INDICTMENT CHRISTOEHER HALLA-08-5080-2CR
Scanned· Jan 26, 2012
INDICTMENT
THE STATE OF TEXAS vs. MICHAEL JASON UNDERWOOD, CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH HALL,
ANTHONY LEE RAY, CHADRICK B. PATE, AND KEViN RAY TANTON
OFFENSE Murder, Aggravated Assault /Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity
TPC Sec.19.02/ First Degree Felony
TPC Sec. 22.02 I 71.p2 II First Degree Felony .
WITNESS Michael Brooks, Russell Kirk
CAUSE# 1J,4f-,62>/~~-4:&_FILEDON_:_.~~fE/_BAILs_y?~~~~ d~.
**",....***H•·•H ·~·. -~ ............... 4 4. AA A·A •. ,,.,. •• AH. 4 • .. ., ....... 4·**" kf<*>*Hkk*=\'~ Ad l •..... , , .,, .·..• 62
Stephanie Abbott ........• , .. , . , ..... , ....•..........•...... , .. ·.... , ........ , ,...· ,....... , 63
Joel Bear ...·, ....... ,,., '··., ..•. ·.•... ··· .............. ·• .................... •.·• ,., ............. . 64
Karl Petzold , .... · ....... ' ... :..... , ·' , ...· . ,. '· . , ·.. '·. ; :.. , .......... ·: ... '· ·, , , .....· ·. , .. ·_, , , ... . 65
Stan Powell .......... , ................... · ... :· ......................... ,_..· ,. , .·.· ... , ... , ..· 66
Willirun Newsom .... , ••·• ..•..• , .. , ·......... ·· .•....·.· .....•... ·..... , .. , ..........· ...•...........•... 67
Nathan Garrett.· .... ,., •.. ,, ......... ,.. ·,., ........•; ,....... , ..... , ............. ·........ ,·., ........ . 68
Gavin Harrison ........•. , . , .............. ·.·· ....... · ..............., , ... ,....·..... , . , ..... , .· .. ,....... 69
Michael Huffinan· ',, , . , •·• • ........................................ , .........................··· 70
Jrunes Beck ......, .• , • , .... :• ,·,, ........ •,. ·'··.' ........ .·:, .. .. , . ·: ... , .. ·.......... . 71
John Gutierrez, ..... , ... ,... , ...... ,.· .......... ,................, ... , ............. ,. .... :.,.·.· .. . 72
MiChael Brooks ...·....•..• , ·.. , ..... ·· ................. ·......................................... . 73
~ State's Motion for Continuance .....•................... , ... , .. , ...... , .... , ..... . 74
'}--Setting Notice . ·.... ·.................... ·. ·· ..................................... , ............ . 76
Subpoena Returned Served
Ranger Oscar Rivera .........•... , ··.:··, .•.... , ........ ,........• ·.. , ........ , .......... . 77
Deputy Keith Pikett ......... .,... , , ; ......... , ·.·, .... <·., .·., ... ,, ..... ,., "' ··:·., 78
Kimberly Wright ..........., ·............. ·, , ..........·...· ...........·., ........... · .... · ... . 79
SuniLee ........... ··:········· ... ,·,. •··•··· .......... •• .... • • ......... •···· • •·• ... • .. ·.. • ... •·· .. 80
Brandy Woolverton .. , .· .....· .. , . , .................. , . ·..........., , ........ ,. , . 81
Todd Garcia .................... ·.......... ·. ·.. ·.... ·... , ..,................ ,.· ........ ·.:· ..•..• :.. , ..... ,., ·. 82
Yvette Garcia ................., .. ·.· ....................•............................... ,...... , •..... 83
JoAnn Budlong ............ ,...·.:.· .. ·· ..... ·•· .......· .....·, .: .. , .. , .. ·, ... , ...... ,, .•....• •· •.. 84
Patricia Arnold ................ , .......•.·............·· ......... ; .. ·, .. , , ..... , ., ............ ·, ·. , .... . 85
Gilbert Cardenas ........ ·:.· ................... , .. , ...................•.... , ·,., .... ,...... ,... , .· 86
WilHam White. ·c.•.,. •.•. , •••••.• · ............ • •••••.• ' •• · . ' . , , ,..•••.• ,. • •• , •••• · •• · ••.••..• 87
Ra)'lllond Smyth .. , ...... , ,.,,, .... ··.: ....... ·....... , .. , . , ,..·. ; ... , ... •·.· .....·..•.... ·. ,.. 88
Nema Bardin .......... · .............................. , ........., .... , .... , .... , .......... 89
Sgt. Chris Baggett •.. ·....· ... · ..•....... , .. , ...... :.. ·...· ·......·....... ,........ ·•...... , ...... . 90
Subpoena Returned Unserved
Danielle Molina ................ ,......• ,......................... , ................. . 91
Cover Letter .............. •... , ............ ·· ............... , ........ ·· ..... , , .... . 92
. . to w·tt hdraw as C ounseI Cocittt~J
M otton .. · .· ..·.. " ...... f;s .. . .
.lo ./.' .....· .........................·.....·.· ...•... 93
. M ott· on· to .W'thd
0 r der on 1 toj.t '7 4-Jh~\ ..................
raw as ·c ounse1 .................... . . . .. . . . . . 96
11
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015l63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 17
2/9/09 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 9 PAGE 102 LINE 9-25 CHADRICK PATE
A-08-5080-4CF
~1'1
• 1~ I
1
..;: 1 R E p 0 R T E R I s R E C 0 R D
' 2
VOLUME OF q- VOLUMES
3
4 Trial Court Cause N_umbe.r. A-na-.snan-4.-c::e.
5
THE STA.T.E O.F .TEXAS * :.r.~ T.l!E !XI S!l'..'QI .CT .C.OJ}RJ!' OFt
6 *
VS. * ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
7 *
CHADlRICK B. PATE * 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
8
JURY 'l'RIAL
Voir Dire Proceedings
A P P E A R A N C E S
11
C.OL'll.rSEZ. FOR J!'llE Sf'A-f'E:
MR. MARCELINO RODRIGUEZ
~:~·; .- "r!
MS. RETHA CABLE
\ ~'2..'2.."5.'2..'11~\Vll 103.'2>'11'?<-:i.~"l "h"l"l'V'?<.'I.lJ't..'i
36th Judi.cial District
14 San Patricio County Courthouse
l'. 0. BoK i'.3-5'3
Sinton, Texas 78387
Tel: 361-364-6220
Jtc1·A-; 3'01. -·Yo~ -~~ ...,ro
SBN: 24046959
17 00785741
COUNrSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MR. JOHN S. GILMORE
~'T'l:D"R'l\f'E.;'f A."J.' ~LKW
P. 0. Box 2 7 6
20 622 South Tancahua
Corpus Cnristi, Texas 78403
21 Tel: 361-882-4378
Fax: 361-882-3635
s-s·N : 07 9 5 8 5 0 0
23 On the 9th day of February, 2009, the following
proceedings came on for trial in the above-entitled and
i;i
24 numbered cause in said_Court, HONORABLE JANNA K. WHATLEY,
i.. Judge Presiding, held in Rockport, Aransas Countyl Texas:
2SL_ Proceedings were reported by machine shorthand.
102
1 Tim Foss, Number Seventy-Two.
2 MR. GILMORE: Yes, sir.
3 VEMIREPERSON FOSS: You said that y'all were
4 not a team.
5 MR. GILMORE: We're not a team.
VENIREPERSON FOSS: Okay. I believe the
7 .Judge said these two gentlemen will be tried in t_b..e s.arn.~
8 case; is that correct?
9 MR. GILMORE: This is going to be one trial.
10 VENIRE PERSON FOSS:. One tr:ial.
11 MR. GILMORE: One tri'al.
12 VENIRE PERSON FOSS: But you're not a team.
(
13 MR. GILMORE: We'r:e D.Q. t-_ a +--~:C.'R,.
'·
14 VENIRE PERSON FOSS: Okay, I guess.
I
15 MR. GILMORE: In other words, to be
16 completely honest with yn11., 1:.. rir.v~.'t--. ~a':i:oc ·w'r!a't. 'n-crppens ·to
17 Mr. Hal_l. Okay? My interests are for Mr. Pate. Okay?
18 VENIREPERSON FOSS: But you're doing it in
19 the same trial.
20 MR. GILMORE: We're being foroed to do it
21 this: way. Okay? All right?
22
23 MR. GILMORE: We would ra~her not do it this
24 way. Okay?
(
1S~~------------------'f_e_s__, __m_a__~_a_m__
. ______________________________________~
,
.
··-""'"·
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015~63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 18
REPOR'FERS RECORD VOLUME CHADRICK B PATE LEG RESTRAINTS PAGE 259
LINE 1..:25
259
1 Please don't discuss the case with anyone.
(The jury exited the courtroom after which there was a
2 discussion off the record.)
\
3 THE COURT: 'Okay. Go ahead.
4 MR. GILMORE: There were some folks sitting
5 out ln the audience over here. I believe i t ' s --
6 THE COURT: Where?
7 MR. GILMORE: Right over here. I believe it
8 was Mr. Watson's family.
9 THE COURT: Mr. Who?
10 MR. GILMORE: Watson.
11 MS. CABLE: His mother and his grandmother.
12 It's his mother. They're here with the little girls.
13 They're custodians.
14 MR. GILMORE: But anyway, one of the people
15 sitting behind the Watsons, his mother and father, said --
16 pointed over to my client and said, "He's in jail. I know
17 he's in jail because I can see his leg brace." And it was
18 said where the jury could hear it. And I just want them
19 instructed not to be making statements in front of the
20 jury.
21 THE COURT: I don't want anybody -- anybody
22 that's involved with the witness or whatever does not need
23 to be making any comments whatsoever about the case while
24 they're sitting in the courtroom.
25 And you'll please advise them,
260
1 Mr. Rodriguez
2 MS. CABLE: I don't know who was talking.
3 Who said that?
4 THE BAILIFF: That's the C.P.S. girl.
5 MS. CABLE: Okay, 'cause it wasn't our
6 witnesses. It wasn't anybody I have control over. We'll
7 make the instruction and, for the record, I didn't hear
8 them make any comment.
9 THE COURT: Is that Ms. Abbott? She's on
10 the witness list.
11 THE CLERK: Stephanie?
12 THE COURT: Yeah. She's on the witness
13 list. If that was her; I don't know --
14 THE CLERK: I think that's her name.
15 THE COURT: Well, y'all's witness ain't
16 going to get to be in the courtroom.
17 MS. CABLE: Not our witness anymore, Your
18 Honor.
19 MR. RODRIGUEZ: She was basically having
20 custody of the children, so that's why she was on the
21 list. They were actually placed with somebody else on a
22 permanent basis.
23 MS. CABLE: I don't think we're planning on
24 calling her.
25 MR. RODRIGUEZ: We weren't planning on
261
1 calling her, Your Honor.
2 THE COURT: You're going to have to check
3 with them, guys, at the door.
4 THE BAILIFF: Yes, ma'am.
5 THE COURT: Would be C.P.S.
6 Off the record, Sharon.
7 (There was a discussion off the record.)
8 THE COURT: Just for the record, gentlemen,
9 I have reviewed -- got to me late -- but Mr. Tanton's
10 criminal history. I've reviewed Mr. Leal's -- no, no.
11 Who is this?
12 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Underwood.
13 THE COURT: I'm sorry; Ray's. There's ...
14 one felony conviction it looks like. Is that what y'all
15 saw?
16 MR. RODRIGUEZ: On?
17 THE COURT: Mr. Ray. It's a conviction for
18 some sort of drugs, Four-Eighty-One-Point-One-One-Five-B.
19 I don't know if that's the cocaine charge or not; I don't
20 know. Less than a gram on him.
21 I'm just now reviewing Underwood's.
22 (Examining document/s). He's got a felony theft,
23 Mr. Underwood does, guys.
24 MR. GILMORE: Who's that?
25 THE COURT: Mr. Underwood has a felony
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015j63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 19
AFFIDAVIT OF CHADRICK PATE (LEG RESTRAINTS)
STATE OF TEXAS §.
WICHITA COUNTY §
AFFIDAVIT OF CHADRICK B. PATE
Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared CHADRICK PATE,
the affiant, a person whose identity is known by me. After I administered an oath to affiant,
affiant testified:
"My name is Chadrick B. Pate. I am over the age of 18, of sound mind, and capable of
making this affidavit. The facts stated in this affidavit are within my personal knowledge and are
true and correct.
During my four day trial in Aransas County Texas from February 9, 2009- February 12,
2009 I was in leg restraints that limited my movement. The limitation of my movement was
visible to people in the courtroom. I was made to wear the leg restraints in the presense of the
Jury."
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me, the undersigned authority on this day J.../
of May, _2012.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
. WRITNO.
EX PARTE FgOM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015163340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 21
INDEX OF EVENTS CERTIFIED TO THE OURT OF APPEALS CHADRICK PATE A-08-
5080-4CR
·;. '$tJ-: ole(7u:; /!,ecMd Gt:->/l__ a..C=~d.l
.• \~ Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-13 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Page 2 of 60 ·/I'\
. . l-&V
~~ CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4-CR
~.
=< P"--!.e-J
:>' ~
' . l-- ()q.:~-
~\ Q' "a
11
/..
THE STATE OF TEXAS ( IN THE DISTRICT COURT iJ7.ft' j).fi1
vs ) 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ~·
CHADRICKB. PATE ( ARANSAS COUNTY
INDEX
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Caption................................................................. 3
Indictinent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Capias Returned Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Precept Returned Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Letter of Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Waiver of Arraignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 10
Motion to Reduce Bond ............................. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Defendant's Motion to Reveal the Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Request Under Article 37.07 Section 3(g) for Notice from State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Rule 404(b) Request for Notice of Intent to Offer Extraneous Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Motion to Prohibit State from Attempting to Introduce Statements Allegedly ,
Made by the Defendant without Prior Hearing on Admissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Motion for Discovery, Production and Inspection of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Order on Rule 404(b) Request ................. ·.......'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Order on Motion for Discovery ........................ ; : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Order on Motion to Reveal the Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
~:::: ::::~~~ck P~e f~r Seve~ce of~fendan~. r/~~1:
;: :::::.:::::
Order on Motion for Continuance ......................... .7./ ~.?. ... ........ 42
State's Motion for Continuance ................... , ....... q /.:t:S ............ 43
?-~~on Motion for ~cv~~~~e .......................... C?J ./. ~ S. ........... -~
. ~~-~;(· Td ({[1--- I
/
Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-13 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Page 3 of 60
Motion to Dismiss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Defendant's Motion to Elect the Jury to Assess Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Defendant's Motion in Limine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
State's Strike List ......................... ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." . . . . 53
Defendant's Strike List . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Jury Chosen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
__!ury Note. . . . . . . . . . . , : .... ~- .... i l\~,·,A.;.yj)_x, ....................... 59
~ har e of the Court .•. ,.,.... j.__v) .... 1.'1. ,U.f' ~ .· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
zrdi~~_(Guiltllnnocence) ........ ; ·,·...... . . . . . . . . . . . ---~~,:. .. ................. 72 ----,
Jury Note ..................................... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
~shmentCharge ............................· .· .......................... 75
zi~o:~=:~.~~~ ~~-~~;.;.,~~~ ~i~~ ~f·~~~~- : : : : : ... : : : : : : : .. : : . : : : : : : :~
/"groer to Withhold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
~otice of Appeal ... ~ \ ~~ .\.V. -~. .................................... 82
Affidavit of Indigence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Order Appointing Counsel .............. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Notice of Appeal to Court of Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
jfudgme~of Conviction by Jun'; Sentence by Jury t~nstitu~nal ~ivision, 1DCJ . . . . . 89
CourtDoc~ .?-:\\~.\~---~-'-~----~-·\·~-~-~-············ 94
cerub·~~~~c; -~ .'-\ \ \"(\ \ 0 ."C ........................... 97
---·----------
2
. ~~(/ ~ . [6 )6 .
46
f\) c) (Yic 0 fJZ..
Defendant's Motion to Elect the Jury to Assess Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Defendant's Motion in Limine r.t L-e ~. C.dl. 0 .C:t.l P. 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
J
State's Strike List .......... ~. ?.
/U ., ., l
2
Jz../2..1-
z_/5
. I
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015~63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXffiBIT 22
JUDGMENT FRONT PAGE CHADRICK PATE A-08-5080-4CR
....
. ·..::. ...
I
/
;'
Cause No. A-08-5080-4-CR (Count One)TRN 914 665 6553
THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 36TH JUDICIAL
v. § DISTRICT COURT OF
CHADRICKB. PATE, § ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT
SID: TX05581316
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY JURY;
SENTENCE BY JURY TO Institutional Division, TDCJ
DATE OF JUDGMENT: February 13, 2009
JUDGE PRESIDING: · Janna K. Whatley
ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE: Patrick L. Flanigan
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT: John Gilmore
OFFENSE: Murder
STATUTE FOR OFFENSE: Section 19.02, Penal Code
DEGREE OF OFFENSE: First Degree Felony
APPLICABLE PUNISHMENT RANGE
(including enhancements. if any): First Degree 5-99 yrs or life/max $10,000 fine
DATE OF OFFENSE: January 4, 2008
CHARGING INSTRUMENT: Indictment
PLEA TO OFFENSE: Not Guilty
PLEA TO ENHANCEMENT Not Applicable
PARAGRAPH(S):
VERDICT FOR OFFENSE: Guilty
FINDING ON ENHANCEMENT: Not Applicable
AFFIRMATIVE FINDING ON Yes-firearm used or exhibited
DEADLY WEAPON:
OTHER AFFIRMATIVE Applicable, See Below
SPECIAL FINDINGS:
·DATE SENTENCE IMPOSED: February 13,2009
PUNISHMENT AND PLACE OF Ninety Nine (99) years in the
CONFINEMENT: Institutional Division-TDCJ, and ~ $ 10,000.00 fine
TIME CREDITED TO SENTENCE: Two Hundred Eighty Five (285) days
COURT COSTS: $265.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF RESTITUTION: $-0-
NAME AND ADDRESS FOR '
RESTITUTION:
The Sex Offender Registration Requirements under Chapter 62, CCP, do not apply to
the Defendant. The age of the victim at the time of the offense was not applicable.
This sentence shall run concurrently unless otherwise specified.
FILED q
a, ___..~.~~v-=--
't~~
- da!i9b ~ 20~
---~=o'clock .# M
,
Pam Heard, District Clerk
D~pu ,AransasCo.,Texas
By JV. Deputy
\
.\
. I
n~Ll· Tnr!a,.,nt nfrnnvirtinn hv rrmrt: SP.ntP.nr.P. Rv .Tnrv_ Cause No. A-08-5080-4.-CR: Pa2e 1 of 4 Pa2es
I
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015t63340 ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 23
DISTRICT CLERK CERTIFICATION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS CHADRICK PATE
A-08-5080-4CR
•·
Case 4:13-cv-00709 Document 5-14 Filed in TXSD on 05/17/13 Page 38 of 38
# a3
The State of Texas )
County of Aransas (
I, PAM HEARD, Clerk of the District Court of Aransas County, Texas do hereby certify
that the documents contained in this record to which this certification is attached are all of
the documents specified by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a) and all other
documents timely requested by a party to this proceeding under Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 34.5(b)
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL at my office in Aransas County, Texas this /If:!
day oL . ·~ ... ·.· , 2009.
PAM HEARD
DISTRICT CLERK
BY:~ ,Deputy
Filed on the ~I' day of -----7'~'f--------, 20 e::J /
z;
____
PA_M_H_EA_R_D_ _ Clerk of the District Court
-----"~--"----·
_____ County, Texas
By --.c....:dj~~~----- Deputy
THE STATE OF TEXAS
County of - - - - - - - - , . . - - - - -
PAM HEARD
I, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Clerk of the
( District Court of - - - - - - - - County,
Texas, do hereby certify that the within and foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the Original Bill of Indictment, filed in said
C'ourt on the _ _ _ day o f - - - - - - , - - - - - A.D. 20
in Cause No. _ _ _ _ _ , styled The State of Texas vs
.....
. Given under my hand and the seal of said Court at office in
- - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - , T e x a s , this. _ _ _ _ _ day of
-----------~· A.D. 20. - - - -
PAM HEARD Clerk
by - - - - - - - D e p u t y
36th D.A. Form 850 - General Indictment 6/90 (12/99}
·----·-- ···-···----·· ···-----···· -- .. -· ······---
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO.
EX PARTE FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK B PATE 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
TDCJ #015t63340 ARANSASCOUNTY,TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
COVER SHEET
EXIDBIT 24
JUDGE: WHATELY'S CERTIFICATION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ALL
PROCEEDINGS
I
I
I
I
The State of Texas (
County of Aransas )
In the 36TH Judicial District Court of Aransas County, Texas, the Honorable JANNA
WHATLEY, Judge Presiding, the following proceedings were held and the following
instruments and other papers were filed in this cause, to wit:
Trial Court Cause No. A-08-5080-4-CR
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff ( IN THE DISTRJ:.~T COURT
vs ) 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CHAD RICK B. PATE, Defendant ( ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
(
Pate, Chadrick B
Combined Opinion