Webb, Michael Renard

gl ,9351“02103/”*/05`

January 27, 2015
Smith Count istrict Clerk

100 North adway, Room 204
Tyler, Te s 75702

Re: Ex parte Michael Regard Webb, Case No’s. 007-0447-1 l, 007-0048-.11, 007-0449-1 l & 007-
0450~1 l (In the 7'h Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas).

> Reply to State’s Original and Supplemental Answers to Application for Habeas Corpus
Dear Clerk:

Enclosed please find the original copy of Applicant Webb’s Reply to State’s Original and Supplemental
Answers to his Original Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus Applications, to be filed among the
papers in the above-styled and numbered causes.

Please notify Applicant at his address listed below of the date of filing and disposition of these
proceedings

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
, <’

RECEW ~

COuRT oF cRIMINAL APPEALS
*',NW ' FEB 0 4 2015
wynne unit
§L?ir:];llie§?exas 77349 Ab€l ACOSta, Clerk
Enc|osures
CC:

*!~ Abel Acosta, Clerk
Court of Criminal Appea|s
P.O. Box 12308
Austin, Texas 787] l

*Z‘ Aaron S. Rediker
Asst. District Attorney
Smith County, Texas
l00 North Broadway, 4"‘ Floor
Tyler, Texas 75 702

File

lPY
CASE NUMBER: 007-0449-11-A
EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

MrCHAEL RENARD wEBB § 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

APPLICANT, TDCJ-CID#01784S39 § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPLICANT WEBB’S REPLY TO STATE’S
ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO HIS
ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, your Applicant, Michael R. Webb, TDCJ-ClD#01784539, proceeding in
pro se, in the above-styled and numbered cause pursuant to article l l.07, § 3 of the Texas Code
of Criminal Procedure, and files this, his Reply to the State’s Original and Supplemental
AnsWer(s) to his Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and in support thereof, would

show the Court as follows:
I.

Jurisdiction

The Court has subject matter and jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Texas Code of

criminal Procedure, Article 11.07. et. seq.
II.

CONFINEMENT & RESTRAINT

Applicant Was indicted in cause number 007-0449- ll, filed in the 7th District Court of

Smith County, 'l`exas, for the offense of possession/manufacture with intent to deliver a

controlled substance, namely cocaine, >l g, DFZ,1 a second degree felony (enhanced). On March
19, 2012, Applicant, With his two trial attorneys, Mr. Greg Waldron and Ms. Tonda Curry,
entered into a non-negotiated plea of guilty in a single hearing.2 Based on his plea entered at that
time before the Court, the Court found Applicant guilty of the charge alleged in the instant
indictment and sentenced him thereafter in a consolidated plea and sentencing hearing to
confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
(TDCJ-CID) for thirty (30) years. A direct appeal was taken to the TWelfth Court of appeals in
Webb v. State, No. 12-12-00175-CR, Who affirmed the judgment and sentence in an unpublished
opinion dated June 25, 20]3.3 No Petition for Discretionary Review was filed in this case.
Applicant filed his original application seeking a writ of habeas corpus in this case on September
20, 2014, as opposed to Respondent’s claim the same was filed on October 01, 2014.4
Respondent made a separate answer to the instant state writ application on October 16, 2014.5

Then, it subsequently made a “consolidated” supplemental response to the instant writ

' This case was as being enhanced with one enhancement paragraph and drug free zone allegation

2 Applicant’s related unadjudicated cases; case number: 007-0448-11 for manufacture/intent to deliver a controlled
substance, namely, cocaine >4g <200g, a second degree felony (enhanced) and in case number: 007-0450-11 for
manufacture/intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely cocaine 1G DRUG FREE ZGNE

Attomey for Siare:

C aging lnstmmenr: St@§_e_ for focnsc:

lNDlCTMENT 481.112(€!)

gate of Qf’fense;

07]26/10

l)cgrcc of foense: Plca to Qf?ensg Finding§ gri Dcaglx Wea,p_gg__
lgr Degree Felony Gllilfy N/A

‘i`erms of Plg Bai'gain:
Defendant Made Open Plea.

Plca to l" Eriharicement Paragraph: TR UE Plca to 2“° Enhancemerit/Habltual Paragraph: N/A
Findings on l" Enliancemeni Flndings on 2“" Enhanccment/Habimal N/A
Paragraph: TRUE Paragraph:

Plea on Jurisdictional Paragraph: N/A

findings on lurisdictional Paragraph: N/A

Date Serireiice Imposed: 04/20/2012 Date Sentence to Commcnce: 04/20/2012

Punis‘rimenr and Plane of` . . .
Conf.mcmem: 40 Ycars 00 / Texas Department of Criminal Jnstice

'l`HlS SENTENCE SHA l,l. RUN CONSECU'I`¥VELY TO LIFE SEN'I`ENCE IN CAUSE NO. 807»(}447-!1

l:l SENTENCE OF CON\"`[NEMENT SUSI'ENDED, DEFENDANT PLACED ON COMMUN]TY SUPERV!S!ON FOR N/A.

.F. i.n_.¢: §..___Qur\ C<>s:rs &\¢Me. lisath
M AGENCWAGENT (see below)
Smith County Co¢lections Departrnerit
So`”o 5368`00 3515'00 200 E. Ferguson, Suite 213
Tyler, TX 75702

Scx Offender Registration Requlrements DO NOT APPLY to the Defendant. Tr£x. CODE CRIM. PROC. chapter 62
l`lie age of the victim at the lime of the offense was not provided
lime Credited: 415 DAYS

Ml pertinent information names and assessments indicated above are incorporated into tire language nude judgment below by reference
This cause was called for trial in Smith Counry, i`exas. The State appeared by her Discrict Attomey.

goun§£l l Waivcr Qf Counsel {select une)

E Del`endanr appeared in person with Counse‘..
33 Dcfendam knowingly, lntclligemly, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel in writing in open court

24

30th parties announced ready for trial Defendant waived the right of trial by jury and entered the plea indicated above The Court then
admonished Defendant as required by law lt appeared to the Court that Defendant was mentally competent to stand lrial, made the plea freely and
voluntarily, and was aware of the consequences of this plea The Court received the plea and entered` it of record Havirig heard the evidence
submitted tire Court found Defendant guilty of thc offense indicated above ln the presence ol` Defendant, the Court pronounced sentence against

Defendant.
'l”hc Court FINDS Defendant committed the above offense and GRDERS, ADJU DGES AND DECREES that Defendant is GUIL'I'Y of

the above offense The Court Fri\'i)s the Presenience lnv¢stigation, il` so ordered, was done according to the applicable provisions of TEx. Coor-;

CRrM. PRoc. art. 42.12 § 9.
The Court Okor.ns Defendanr punished as indicated above The Court Oiu)£ns Defendant to pay all fines court cosis, and restitution as

indicated above

Pu ishment tions select one
g Confmement in State Jail or Institurionsl Division. The Court ORI>ERS the authorized agent of the State ofTexas or the Shenff of this County
to rake, safely convey, and deliver Defendam to die Director ofTDCl-ID. Tlie Court ORBERS Defendant to be confined for the period and in the
manner indicated above The Court Oiu)r;ns Defendanr remanded to the custody eftlie Sherin` ofthis county until the Sherill‘ can obey the directions
of this sentence The Court anr.as that upon release from confinement Defendanr proceed immediately to the Smith County District Clerk’s
Oliice. Once ihcrc, the Court Unm:izs Defendant to pay, er make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines, com costs, and restitution m

ordered by the Court above
{:1 County Jail-Continement / Cont`memeot in Lieu of Payment. The Court Olmeizs Dcr`endant immediately committed to the custody ofthe

Sheriti` of Smith County, Texas on the date the sentence is to commence Det`endant shall be confined in the Smith County Jail for the period
indicated above The Court Gtu)ms that upon release from confinement Defendant shall proceed immediately to the Smith County Dism'et Clerlc's
Otl‘ice. Oncc there, the Court Onoaizs Defendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fincs, court costs. and restitution as

ordered by the Court above
l:l Fioe Only Payment. The punishment assessed against Defendant is for a F§NE QNLY. The Court ORoF.Rs Dcfcrtdant to proceed immediately to
the Ol`tiee of the Smith County District Clerk. Oncc lhcre, tire Couir Oru)t:ns Defendant to pay or make arrangements to pay all fines and court

costs as ordered by the Court in this cause

§xecution l Susgension gf Senteng {sgleec one}

§§ lite Court Oiu)r;its Defendants sentence Execimio.
111 The Court ORoERs Defendants sentence of confinement susi>n.~osi>. The Court Oiu)r:ns Defendant placed on community supervision for the
adjudged period (above) so long as Defendanl abides by and does riot violate the terms and conditions of community supervision The order setting
forth the terms and conditions of community supervision is incorporated into this judgment by reference

The Court ORDF,RS that Defendant is given credit noted above on this sentence for the time spent incarcerated

lT lS FURTHER ORDERED that the said MICHAEL RENARD WEBB having` in the 7”’ Disrrict Court of Smith County Texas‘, in Cause No. 007~
0447-|1, been duly and legally convicted of the offense or'Aggravated Assauit On Public Servnnt and punishment thereof having been assessed and
adjudged at confinement m thc Texas Dcpartment ofCriminal lusticowstirational Division for LIFB, and lie having on the 20"' day of Apr‘il, 2012,
by the said Court been sentenced m accordance with said conviction1 l'l` lS FURTHBR ORDE`.RED AND ADIUDGED that the punishment herein
adjudged against the Defendanc MlCHAEL RENARD WEBB shall begin when dre§udgmenc and sentence in said Cause No. 007~0477~1 l shall

have ceased to operate

ent nd made a pa hereof,

g Attachment A, Order to Wltbdraw Funds in incorporated into t

Signed and Ordered on this g day of Apr'i!, 2012.

o BLE xERRir 1. Russi‘~ftli.
Ju PREerrNG

Right Thurnbprint:

25

EXHIBIT

B

19

.».».. . ,

lr')lSFlt‘-§égctq ‘ `
DlSTRiC`T cig;§;<
cause NuM_BE_n 007-044_81-:1 1-.A ; .
cAUs'E NuMBER oov-oat;o-ia-A€l§ll££ ~8 Pn i.= 51; _
c;AusE NuMBER 007-0450.- ,

E~xPAR'rE § m me -~

MICHAEI. RENARD WEBB § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

~S'I`ATE~' 5 SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER IN OPPOS'l'I’ION
TO APPL!CATION FOR WRI,T OF HABEAS CDRPUS

To rita HoNoRABLF. CouRT:

Pui"~'sua°r'i't to article 11.07; section 3 of the Texas' Code of Crimi'n_al
Procedure, the State, acting through the undersigned Assistan_t Criminal
District Attomey, urges the Court to find there is no necessity fora hearing on
any of applicants alleged grounds for relief and to recommend relief be
denied..

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The applicant, MIC_HA_EL WE_BB, was indicted in cause number oo7~o448.-
11, oo_7-0449-1'i, and 007-0450-11, filed in the 7th Di_stj_rict Cour_t_ of Smith
Co`unty, Texas, for the offenses of ` possession of cocaine with the intent to
deliver, possession of cocaine in a drug-free zone with intent to deli`y"'er,
possession of cocaine in a drug-free zone with intent to deliver, respectively

On 19 March zoiz, applicant, with his counsel-, entered nonnegotiath pleas of

47

guilty in each case in a single hearing Based on his pleas, the Court found
applicant guilty of the offenses as alleged in the indictments a°nd sentenced
him to confinement for 30 years i'n the Texa‘s Departme'nt of Crimina'l`
]ustice-=~lnsti_tution_al Division in Caus_e Numb;er 007-0448-11, 40 years in
Cause Nun'ibe'r 007~0449-;1, and 20 years in Cause Number 0'07‘-450~11,
without a fxne.».' The Twelfth Court of Appeals affirmed applicant's convictions
o'n 25 June 2013. Webb v. State, Nos, 12-12~00175-CR, 12-12~00176-CR, 12-12.-»
00'177-CR, 1`2-'1‘2.-001"7'8-CR, 2013 'I"ex-. lApp L_E_X__I;S 769_2.» (Tex. App.-__-Tyler' june
.25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.,; not designated for pnblic_a,tion);. The State timely
filed its response and, as applicant alleged that he received ineffective
assistance from his trial counsel, Gregory A. Waldron and Tonda L_. Curry, the
Court granted the State’s request for a designation of applicant's first and
second grounds for future resolution.. In. compliance with the Court’s
designation order, Mr. Waldron and Ms_'. Curry filed their aMdavits on 10
November and 18 Nove`r`nber 2014, respectively,
' STATEMENT oF F~Ac'r.s

The State challenges all factual allegations made by applicant in his writ

application and specifically denies that he is entitled to relief on any of his

claims

48

APrucANT’-s AttscATloNs

Applicant alleges two separate grounds for relief: (1) involuntary plea due
to the ineffectiveness of trial counsel; (_a) ineffective assistance of counsel for
failure to properly investigate the facts of applicant's case, among other
reasons`; and (3) that the Court abused its discretion in conducting a group
plea session `These claims are denied.
STANDARD or Rrvlsw FoR._INsFFEcTn/ENESS CLAIMS AND API>L!cANT"s BuRDBN o'F PRoot-'

l'n a habeas corpus proceeding the burden of proij is always on the
applicant Ex parte Ra’ins; 555 S,'W.;zd 478 (Tex_. Crim. App. 1977). lt is thus
applicants burden to “prov'e by a preponderance of the evidence" that the
alleged errors ‘~‘contril')'ut`ed to his conviction or punishment;.'z E)_c parte
Williams, 65 S.W.3d 656, 658 (Tex. Crim. App.~ 2001). I_n order to prevail, an
applicant must present facts that, if` true, Would entitle him to the relief
requested Ex parte Mgldon_ado, 688 S_`.’W.;d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).
Reli'ef may be denied 'if the applicant states only conclusions, and not specific
facts. Ex' parte McPherson, 32 S..W;gd 860, 861 (Tex._ Cri_r_n_. App. 2000). ln
addition, an applicants sworn allegations alone are insufficient proof of his

claims Ex parte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex;.- Cri`m;.~ App.- 1988).

49

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of cou_nse_l, an applicant must
meet the two-prong test articulated in Str`iclcland v. Wash'ington`, 466 U.~S. 668
(1984). Specifical'ly, he must show: (1) deficient performance in that his
counsel’s representation fell below 'an objective standard of reasonableness
under prevailing professional norms an'd (2) prejudice or `a reasonable
probability that, but for counsels deficient performance the result of the
proceeding would have been different _Id. at 687-88, 6’94. "A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcoine" Id. '“[W]hen a person challenges the validity of a plea entered
upon the advice of counsel, contending that his counsel was ineii`ective, the
voluntariness of the plea depends on (1) whether counsel's advice was within
the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and if not,
(2) whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he
would not have pleaded guilty to the charged offense and would have insisted
on going to trial.” Ex parte ngrx‘ngton, 310 S,ng 452, 458 (Tex_. Crim,, App.

2010) _(_internal quotation marksaon`ii`tted).

l, §Roijz€!}j) O`Nji-:: Trial counsel Was not:ineiféctive for~advising applicant that his l
sentences in each case could be Sta_cl<_ed even though the offenses arose during
the same criminal episode
In his first grou,n_cl_-, applicant argues that his plea wa`s involuntarily entered
due to the ettone_ous advice of his counsel that his sentences could bie stacked
even though the offenses were committed during the same criminal episode
(Wri_t Appl. 6.-7). Article 42,._08 of the Code of Crim'inal Procedure provides in
pertinent pai'l§:-
Whe'n the same defendant has been convicted in two or more cases,
judgment and sentence shall be pronounced in each case in the same
manner as if there had been but one Convlction;, E_)_ccept as provided by
Sections (b) and (c) of this article, in tl_i_e discretion of the court, the
judgment in the second and subsequent convictions may either be that
the sentence limposed o't suspended shall beQ'n when the judgment and
the sentence imposed or suspended °i'n the pi‘ec`eding conviction has
ceased to operate, or that the sentence imposed oi‘ suspended shall run
concurrently With the other case or cases, and sentence and execution
shall bic-accordingly . .. .
Te).c_._ Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.. 42..08(a) (West 2014). How.ev'e’r, "‘['w]he"n the
accused is found guilty of` more than one offense arising out of the same
criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a sentence for each
offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced Section

3.03(a) only prevents cumulation of sentences for offenses arising out of the

same criminal episode when they are prosecuted in a_ single trial or plea

51

proceeding Ex parte Pharr, 897 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex. Crim A_pp. 1995). As
nothing prevented the State from prosecuting these cases in separate _
proceedings trial counsele advice regarding the cum‘\'il`ation of applicant's
sentences was not erroneous See id. 'l'h'erefore, as applicant has failed t'o
prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that his trial counsel’s advice fell
outside the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, his
first ground for relief should be denied

lI. GROUND "I`WO: Applicant has failed to prove ' that his counsel’s
performancewas deficient for any of the reasole he has alleged_._

In his second ground,, appellant complains that his counsel was ineffective
for failing to obtain an investigatoi~, failing to thoroughly investigate the facts
of his case before advising him to plead guilty, failing to determine that the
State’s evidence did not include his fingerprints or DNA on the drugs, and
failing to object to the group plea session ('Writ Appl_, &9). Fi_rst, applicants
trial counsel did in fact hire an investigator to determine the extent of the
victims impairment from his injuries as it related to the issue of serious
bodily injury (At_ta_ch. 1»2.). Further, applicant fails to show, from facts
contained in the record, what a more thorough investigation would have

shown or how such evidence would have affected his decision to plead guilty
`6

52

(Writ Appl. 8-9). See Mooney v. State, 81'7' S.W.z'd 693, 697 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991) (no ineffectiveness where appellant failed to establish what, “if anything
counsel could have learned from a more thorough `iiivestigation.l’). La'stly',
applicant fails to provide any-authority for the proposition that his group plea
session was somehow improper. See Ex parte Wilson, 716 S.W.2d 953, 956
(Tex.. Crim. App. 1'986) (pr'esurnption of regularity with respect to guilty pleas
under article 1.15 of ' the Code of Crimi'n_a_l Procedure)~; $hipley v.\ -State, 838
S.Wzd 475, 480 (Te')‘c. App.--El Paso 1992; pet, tef’d) (citing McMiIlan y. State',
727 S.W.2d 582, 583-84 ('l`ex. Crim-.,App. 1987) (“[A]_n accused who is apprised
of such rights, even when given in a group plea session, shall he found to
adequately understand those rights.”). Accordingly, appellant has failed to
carry his burden under Strickland.’s first prong to show that his trial counsel’s
performance was deficient, and his second ground for relief should be denied ..

III. GROUND 'I'HREE-: By failing to object at his plea hearing applicant has
forfeited hist challenge to the group plea -ses'sion,

In his third ground for relief, applicant argues that the Court abused its-
di_scret`ion in conducting a group plea admonishment with applicant and
another defendant simultaneously (Writ Appl. 10). As appellant did not raise

an objection to the procedure during the hearing or raise the issue on appeal,
7

53

he has forfeited any alleged error for review, and his third ground for relief
should be denied. See Ex` parte Bag!ey, 509 S.W.2d 332, 333-334 (Tex. Crim.
‘APP-1974) j
PRAYE§R
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDBRE_D, the State prays fh.a..'.f the Court
find that there a`_re no controverted»,- previously unresolved facts material to
the legality of applicants confinement; that there is no necessity for a fact-'
finding hearing as there is ample evidence in the record i`or the Court to rule
on the relief sought; and that the Co_ur.t enter Findi'ngs of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, n recommend denial of the relief sought, and send
applicant hence without delay.
` Respectfully submitted
D. MA'I'I` BlNG'HAM

1 Crin_iina_l Distri.c,tAtcomey
Smith County, Texas

_`
/,
f

/

'ALA`RON §§EISIKER ` " m
Assis`tant Crim'inal Dis_il‘i'ct“Attomey
SBOT ~#:'.24046`692

xoio North Broadway, .4th Flo;or
Tyler, Te'x`as 75702

Phone': (90'3) 590-1720

Fax:; (9.03) 590~171`9'

8

54

EXHIBIT

C

20

ra~l:_o.- row u_a;nu:_:m p_.m. ¢c~-»'/~.eulo arc

CAUS_E NO. 007~0449-11

srArE oFrExAs § 7"~‘ summit nrs'rmcr count
Vs. § I'N ANi) ch`>'l'i
MICHAEL RENARD wr,us § smu couNrY-,- rEx-As

rsa causal has reviewed luiwa ama webb’s Applibaadn for a Writ of Habe'as
Corpus in Cause # 007-,0448.-.11 and submits this adidavit in response to the claims made.by
Wehb. Cou`n"sel was retained to represent Mi'chael Re`nar`d Webb on his 5 cases tim he had
pending in Smith County, T.X. Webb made the decision to go to trial before this court on~ the
aggravated assault charge, Cau`s'e No. 007-0447-11, in 2012.. Webb was foim;d guilty by this
court and sentenced t_o life in prison Webb had four othec'cases pending, three to which he pled
and one that was dismissed Cot`t'izs`el had lengthj,`r discussions \`=,`vith Webb regarding how to
proceed with trial and Webb agreed with counsel’s trial strategy. Counsel also had discussions
with Webb regarding the potential of stacking of sentences after his conviction for aggravated
assault lt `i_s still counsel’s position that Webb’s sentences could have been stacked. Only one of'
_ the three drug cases for which he received penitentiary time occurred on the same d_a_te as the
aggravated assault The other two cases occurred on separate dates approximately 9 months
prior to the aggravated assault Counsel believes the exposure to stacked sentences was very
much a real possibility based on Art. 42.08 o_f`the Code of Criminal Procedmi‘: and Penal Code `

§3.03 and the facts of the case. Punhermore, this case.alleged the offense occurred in a drug free

58

»
'_J_l__:U-l°°“ ui¢*‘a\~ Pol"¢ l l_'| I."'¢\Jl.’ -|IU

.’

§ Zone, which also created an issue with stacking sentences Webb’s claims are mdofl’ct:t. and
meritless
A private investigator was not warranted `i_r_l these cases. Seveijal of the drug cases were
controlled buys with video/audio evidence pr`ov"ide`d to counsel that, substantiated Webb’s
involvement
At no point did Webb object to having his plea taken with od;,e_rul_l_rcl_e_.tcd defendants

The court questioned him in detail regarding this fact-.

Gregory A-.~ Waldron, State Bar- No. 00788598 .
Holmes & Moore, P.-_L_.~_L.C-.
P.O..B_o)`< 3267

Longview, Tex`z`is 75606
Telephoae: (903) 75.3-22`00
Fa;t N_e. {903) 758-1864

59

-'J"JJE._I°\F‘ vio'&'JJ'l¢llh 11"|1,".°‘\¢!. Jl\l

` s'rA'rE oF TEXAS §

COUNTY OF GREGG § _

BEF.ORE ME this daie`piersonally appeared GREGORY A- WAIL.DRON, trial counsel for
the Defendan_t in t_l;e a__bcv_e entitled and numbered cause, who upon oath stated-as follows:

“ f am the attorney fo_r the Defendant in the above entitled and numbered cause Iha_ve
read the makers contained m this A&idavit m Responsc to Writ ofHabeas. Corpus, and all
_ allegations therein are true and correct."

ATTORNEY POR DEFENDANT

swoRN To AND sstcR`rBI'-:D BB`FORE ‘Mr~: on this we 17°‘ day amax/amber 2_014.

fhng fan Zéé'¢

§ 6 ’“°§MQNMES l NOTARY PUBLIC, sTATa oF TEXAS'

CERTIFICATE QF SERVICE

As attdrhe'y ofiecc)`r_d` for` Defenda`r'ir, I do hereby cjerti'f`y that a true and ¢¢rrejct copy of the l .
above and foregoing document was fomarded to the.Smith County District` Attdmey’s office this

rhal')‘” day omemr>er,.zom.

AUORNE¥ non DBFENDANT'

60

dau:?.|d.: r .3 .. . 24 1 .>»d.
`, . ,..,.,_...,§r.!.§.n ._ 1 . ..,

EXHIBIT
D
2 1

CAUSE ND. 00'7-.0449-,11 _ 'L§js pb¢pp.;
credit or ma rp gets ;-, 3. mo mo T_,_¢
er , _ oer>mv

same orm_ta_s § 1"5‘ woman msi';uc':'hcoonr

vs. § ns AND iron

MICHAEL mm wasn § show coUNj_'rY,t TEXA~s

Tn`.al nominal has reviewed M'ichae_l Renatd deb’s Appheehm fdir'a Writ cf Habcas
corpus in cause # 001-0450-1`1 rod dismiss this station in response to th_c simms made by
Webb. Cetmsel was retained to represent Mich.ae.l Renard Webb on his '5 cases that he had
pending in Smith County, TX. Webb made the de¢ision to go t'o trial before this oo`lift on the
aggravated mont chargo,. cross No. 007-0447-'11, in 2‘012. Wooh was found guilty by this
cain-t and mccord to life in prison webb had four othcr cases pending thr‘e;r to whi¢h.hoptod
anders motors disposed '

Conosci had lengthy discussions with Webb regarding how to proceed with trial and
Webb ahead with counst ton snotogy. comer also had discussions with webb regarding
tire mistrial cfstasltmg of aeatmees nder his sanitation far aggravated assnil.t.- lt is still

counsel’s position that Webb’s sentencesde have:bee_x_x stacked

68

cciaisei believes the expcsttre to steam ' seateoaea‘ was very much a real possib' " 'ii'ity
basedonArt. 42.08_ ofth_¢ Cod¢qungriin_iil Procedure and Petia_l Coder_§3.03.a_nd die-facts ofthe

At_it.c pt>hitdid Webb objectt.c havit_t'sh.ispleataltea with cthernmeweddefetdent`s-
mcnatt deem "' petition iadatai‘iregadia" gthi‘sfaet,.

Webb’s other accusations about counsel mouih.` ' ing answers tt`) Bef:ndant` ' are outrageo" " fm
ahd. false l.ftht.s Ce`\itt had dealt anything close tn that it would have timelian stopped the

Plee$'.

_ ,'
'-.aseI,-eatte ~
Tyler~, Tit 75701
assessedan
oosessas§ds
Ba'r;Ne.O$.Z'?'S‘¢'OO

69

. STA_TE OFTEXAS §
§
COUNTY QF'SMITH §
BEFORE ME this date personally appeared Tonda L Curry, trial ediz'nsel_ for die
Defendantin the.abojve~mtitled,and numbered eause; who iipo'n oath stated as follows:
I am the:attomcy forthe Defendant in the above entitled an`d~numbered cause Ihav"e
read thema'.`uers contained.in this ' `-- ` ' ' _ '~ _nseto WritofHabeis Céfpli'i»and all
anegaaans therein-m me ana - 4
SWORN'TO AND:SUBSCRIBED BBFORB ME ‘on this the 17'“ day of Ndv`en`lb£f 2014..
MYF§§;{‘,L",‘§_‘{ZY 2_§‘1"3 No"rARY PUBLIC, s"rATE csra-ms
§

70