_ @s,§s§~ 2a
Dr.ALB;M§yh1WIb,Jr.
Paralegal Specialist
Mark W. Stiles
3060 FM 3514`
Beaumont, Texas .
77705-7638
December`zlst, 2015
The Honorable Abel Acosta,
Clerk 4 `
Texas Court of Crimimal Appeals
P.O. Box 12308 '
Capitol Statiohn
Austin, Texas`7871142308'
Ref;,», cause No..v 1222_385-D/ccA # 65,555-20;_ Applicati¢nrfor_ writ of Mandamus '
Dear Mr. Acosta: . » ' .' ' t
Enclosed herewith.please"find.the Original copy/of Applicant Alex Melvin Wade,
Jr., object to the Supplemental Record filed with the Court on December 8th,
2015 with the attacment, Affidavit of Kenneth`D;fCash,"Applicant;Alex Melvin
Wade, Jr.,'s memorandum brief on unresolved>issue whether the Applicant received
ineffective assistance of counsel in primary case; Applicant Alex Melvin Wade,
Jr.,'s memorandum (Amended).brief insupport of the.unresolved claim of ineffective
Assistance of counsel and insufficieny of the evidence in the primary case, with
copy of the jury_instruction and.juryis note thats to be filed and attached
to Applicant s recently filed docket sheet from the 185th Judicial District
Court printed from the Chris'Daniel, Clerk's website showing the list of_seven
(7) pages of=filing._ ' " `
Please have these-documents attached together and presented to the court upon
submission of the file in the above entitled cause of action;
I thank you ery kindly for your attention in the handling of this matter.
/‘,
" ` - RECE|VED |N
// f - ` ' , . couRToFchM\NALAPPEALs
IEC 28 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
Dr. Alex Melvin Wade, Jr.
Pro Se
Paralegal Specialist
Mark W. Stiles
3060 FM 3514
Beaumont; Texas 77705-7638
vCause No. :65 ,555- 20
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
STAJE OF TEXAS
Re Re: Alex Melvin Wade, Jr.
Relator
ON APPLIGATION FIR AN WRIT OF MANDAMUS §
CAUSE NO 1222385-D IN THE 185th DISTRICT COURT
FROM HARRIS COUNTY
APPLICANI AL.EX MELVIN wABE JR. O__BJECI 10 THE SUPPLEMENTAL
‘ ' RE“RD FILED wITH"` THE COURT.»`_` o_N DEGEMB ETS;H ZCIB"
MAY IT PLEASE THIS HONORABLE COURT.:
COMES NOW Alex Melvin Wade, Jr. , p___ se, files this his objection to the
Supplemental habeas record, presented by the Office of Chris Daniel, Clerk
_ of Harris County on December 8th, 2015,_in response to the ordertissued by this
Court on November.éth, 2015 for good cause as follows:_ , . l
g n Ih.`_ _
Applicant confined in Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Mark W.=Stiles
3060 FM 3514, Beaumont, Iexas 77705- 7638 received the Clerk' s "white card,"
December 18th, 2©15.t€n day after the filing of the record, :that is alleged
to be supplemental record consistent with the Order of this Court on 11/04/15.
This objection is presented within 10 days of receipt of the whiteocard notice.
of court proceedings, therefore, Applicant' s objection is filed in a t1me1y manner.
' 11.
‘ Applicant's objection is based on if the supplemental record filed with
this Court, is inconsistent with the copy of the docket sheet printed from
the online website of Chris Daniel, Clerk of Haaris County, Texas District Courts
that Consiste of seven (7) pages listing the pleadings and filing and fore-
more than alleged by the State' s ®riginal Answer filed November 5th, 2015.
The docket sheet list all filings submitted to the Office of Chris Daniel dur-
ing 19 months before the filing of Relator's Second Application for Writ of
Mandamus. The list show the State' S Motion Requesting Designation of issue
filed 03/11/15 and signed by Judge Susan Brown on 03/12/14. Applicant intent
is in the filing of.this objection to the supplemental record so it can not
be considered waived by Relator if in fact the record is not consistent with
the docket printout of the Clerk Record in cause number 1222285-D.
Applicant' s unresolved claim of "actual innocence is supported by sub-
- stantive claims of prosecutimnal misconductr:and ineffective assistance of
counsel." Applicant must be provided a forum to:atsUImLIe his claim of
actual innocence.
11.
Applicant contention in objection to the supplemental record presented to
this Court by the Office of Ghris Daniel, Clerk on 12/08/15 not be consistent
with the printout of the docket sheet will result in blatant violation of
Relator' S due process of law in this habeas corpus proceeding. Relator herein.
attaches an affidvait discovered after the conviction and was known to exist
by the State' s prosecution authorities and used properly by trial counsel
would have oaqxunke '; and impeached testimony of State key witness Michael
Coulter. The testimony of Michael Coulter was false and/or in a materially
misleading manner in this case. See Exhibit "A" of Capital One. `Relator
lower court habeas record show and direct the location that there is no
complaintant supporting the actual innocence claim.
_2_
The Clerk Record filed in WR-65,555~24, CR-OOO36-00052,_copies of¢exhibits
that should have been used and used properly would alsocomprqmise -the.test-
imony oertate's-Chi f Witness,.Michael Coulter. 'The Testimonmyof Michael
Coulternwas manipulated by the Prosecutors to make it appear before the jury
the draft in the amount of $285,000.00(Two Hundred Eighty Fi e Thousand Dollars)
could not be~processedr -Exhibit "A" thur "S" show the drafts that were"
identical to State's Exhibit "I," were processed through different_banking
facilities. 'These exhibits used by competent trial could would have impeached
the testimony of State's Chief Witness. n l 7
Be it noted, the complete habeas record will show where trial counsel was
ineffective in his representation one of the substantive claims warranted to.
support Applicant/Relator actual innocence}f The.Courttnot having a complete
record as Ordered by this Court in this cause of action, will result in Relator
denial of due process of law._ n n
111;
Applicant's objection at to the claim_of'"actual'innocence, is not cognizable
absent an indepent constitutional violation in the underlying criminal;pro-
ceedings that L§d.to this;relator's`conviction. State' s Griginal Answer is '
not_coxnsumtm&didehabeas record Relator' s claim of actual innocence, based
on the habeas record and not limited to the evidence presented in the habeas
record in light of T’Hcmhse v. Bell 126 S Ct. 2064, 2076- -77(2006)(Applicant
n asserting innocence as a gateway to defau lted' claims must establish that in
light of new evidence, it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would
have found Applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)(quoting Schlup v. Delo,
_3_
513 U.s. 298, 327(1995).
lv.
Relator/Applicant believes'that if he is deprived of the right to present
his common habeas corpus claims include_Sixth Amendment claim of ineffective.
assistance of counsel Strickland v. Washington,m466 U,S. 668,,687(1984),
prosecutional misconduct, see, §Xlg§_!:_Whitele 514 U.S. 4l9, 453(1995)
_ (due process violated because suppressed by the_prosecution of exculpatory
evidence that, if disclosed, could reasonably have altered result of proceed-
ings) see also §§adx_:; Marxlandz 373 U.S..83, 87(1963)§due process violated
if; (1) defense requested suppressed material; (2) prosecution suppressed
evidence favorable to defense upon request; and.(3) evidence is material
to guilt or punishment). CR:OOO80-000871Counselw£iled Motion adopting pre-
vious filed motions CReOOOZO-OOOZZ ~The`newly discovered evidence suppressed
by the prosecution is the kind of evidence that falls within the pale of
-Ex Parte Adams; 768 S.W.Zd 281(Tex.Crim.App. 1989).. The.newly discovered
evidence was withheld by the prosecution office through it employees of the
investigation'agency»
i.Applicant'being unable.to have the entire record certified to this Court
where the filing are specific as to.the error and direct the Court to the
errors supporting his "actual innocence,"`claim and not limited to Relatoris
.substantive claims will result in denial of.due process of lawi*if the sup--
plemental record is not consistent with the printout-of the docket sheet in
cause number 1222385¢D`in`the Office of Chris;Daniel, Cler, Harris;County,
Texas.'
Applicant's objection is based on the above being unable to be reviewed
by the Court of Appeals in this cause of action.
.;4_
CONCLUS ION
For the foregoing reasons, Relator Alex Melvin Wade, Jr., files_this his
objection to the supplemental record presented by the Office of Chris Daniel,
Clerk Harris.County, Texas District Courts, if not consistent with the filing
listed in the printout presented to the Clerk of Co ’ f cover Sheet dated
fCERTIFICA'" OF`SERVICE " -
I, Dr. Alex Melvin Wade, Jr. , pro se herein hereby certify a true and
correct copy of the foregoing objection has this¢? day of December 20155
been served upon the_Office of Chris Daniek, ’Clerk' Harris County, Texas
and to the Office of Devon Anderson, District Attorney, 1201 Franklin St.
6th Fl., Houston, Texas 77002, postage prepaid.
Dr. Alex Melvin Wade5 Jr.
Attorney of Record
(\
lN 'l`lll€ UNl'l`l-`.l) S'l`.~\'l`l€$ l)lS'l`Rl(."l` (.`()UR`I`
FOR '|`HE SOU'|`HERN `DlS'l`RlC'l` OF 'I`EXAS
ll()US'l`ON DlVlSl()N
/\l&#ll~iRlC.`/\N ("(')N`Slll.'l`AN'l`. l.l€G/\l.
l.l"'l`lGA'N'l`S_. .l’/~\RAL[{GALS.
j l’.R()'l"l:`-SS|ONAL ADJUS`|`ERS & "
» l`lNANCl./\l. BROKI`RS. and;
/\Ll: .'\' Ml:` LVlN W"\DE. JR.. ' - "
ClVll. .A(."l`l()N N(). 4: |()~Cv-Z"lS-’l-O()l `
l’ltiintitt`s. . ~
vs.
CAPtjt‘ot. oNt~;. N.A..
za'.botroc'/Jem;=ar,vzw.‘fr.vn'=o.vl»’aa
|)cl`cndaitt.
j AFt-‘tt)'Avt'tj oF KP:NNETH t)§ CAStt
. ~'.~‘;"*1"..»\"1"1.~;1)1'-' '1:‘t'ax2xs § "
__1_;‘1.)111~1'1'11<.)1¢1~-1/\RRIS §‘
1313 "l`()Rl§ Ml£ the undersigned notar), on this da_\- personally appezm. d Kenneth l) C;tsh.
_tlte 111"1`12'1111.2'1 petson Whos_-c identity is known 10 mc. Alter l administered an oath 10 affiant
alliant testified
' l. "M_\ name is Kenneth D C`aslt.- l nm over 18 yems ot age. 01 sound mind, and - .
capable ol inaking this affidavit "llie t`acts- stated in this ai`i_`tdzt\it arc within mv personal
knowledge and 211“e true end correct
` 7 l am cutrcntl) employed b) (`:~intztl ()ne N A ( (T;tpitzt| ()ne ) 213 an Assistant
\" tee l’t_csident and Senior l mud lnvesti tttor. l tim also ufeustodiztn` o_l the records ol` '(1'21 itul
.1.'~. P
()nc. l am responsible 1`0r ensuring that C.`ttpital ()nem maintains accurate and complete records ol`
its regularly conducted ztetivities. including tttxesttgnuons ol` dra|ts submitted 1_`or deposit and
' » collection
` .cAi>ITAL oNE
‘* EXH.IBIT A_
(.`upita| ()ne (`.`onl`tdentiztl~ l -
3. ‘ 1'\ttaclicd_ to this all`ida\'it tire 7 pages ol"records' l`rom Capita| ()nc. identified as
l£xhihits A-l through /\~4. `l`hc 3 pages attached hereto.as l`-.xhibits A-l and /\-3 are true and
correct copies ol` documents presented to Capital ()ne for payment as insurance dral`ts b}-"Alex
M. W:ide in April and May 01`2007.
4. 'l`hc 4 pages attached hereto as Exhibits /\~2 and ./\-4. were made at or near the
time ol the occurrence ol the matters set forth by. or from inlomiation transmitted by a person
v ' with knowledge 01 those matters; were kept by Capital ()ne 111 the regular course ol` business: and
were made h_v thc regularly conducted activity as a regular practice n lhe attached rccords. `
Exhibits A-Z and A- 4, which are incorporated herein by rel `ercnce, are exact duplicates 01` the
l original reeords. _
5. _ (`)n or about .April 3, 20071'Alex M. Wade attempted to'd'cposit into a Capital ()ne
account a document purporting to be an insurance draft dated March 5. 2007_. made pay able to
Antericar`i Consultant_. an exact copy ol which is attached to this alli_da\" _11 as l.lxhibit A- l l)urii`ig
4 my investigation of this document, l determined that the document stated a different amount in
written than in_ number form ('°-"l`Wo `l-lu_n`dred lr§ighty`I'-`it’ty Thousand" and -"285.000,00")_.
misspellcd'- Capital' One; N.A'. as "'"Captial"l‘ne" Bank." identili'cd' an entity abovc'the- signature
which didno`t match the entity identified `aS` the issuer bore a signature l`or the issuer that
matched the signature oi` the payee/dcp_ositor, contained rcstrieti\e instructions on the back and `
that there was no remitting bank identified on the face 01 thc doctun_ent. l`he document w as sent
-' 1er collection and retained -‘"l or thcsc reasons Capital One determined that the document was not
legitimate dral`t and confirmed that with the ii§`ura_nee companv identil`t 'd in the document
6. ()n or about May 30,2007,Alc14 M._ Wade attempted to deposit into his ( apit_al‘
_ ()ne checking account a document purporting 10 be an insurance drall dated M11y 28 2007. made
r.
1
1
Capi'tal ()ne (."oni‘ideutial- 2 -
_ i"rn_;.'_in thc amount ol`$7,922.00, an exact cop)l ol` which is attached to this u|`liduvit us
lau, ol thc clocumcnt. l or these rcasons._ Capitn| Onc could not process lor collection tl1c
$7 _922. ll_(l document as a dratl and C`upitul Onc determined that thc document was notz
A" ,l__cgititnut_c draft and conlirmcd that with the insurance company idcntil`lcd in thc document,"
/L.w,& ¢/
Kenneth D. Cash
SW()RN I() and SUBSCRIBF€ l) before me by Kcnncth [). (,as§ oUlctobc _Ol().
@Jtary Public
51)¢12396¢.4
§ JEsstcA 1_. vlLLALoBos
*D - umwa
. .f` STATE O_F TEXAS
. MyCo¢mExpS¢pmhor$,Zot
L"apitul Unc L`onlidcmial- 3 ~
r"
?
' 24.May4)7
External Fraud Inv. Case Report
Executive Summary
' Capizal 0)101/200 700288 7
veritication, it was discovered that the check was counterfeit.
Case ID: 2007002887 wADE,A.Ch¢¢k qud
Dace opened: 5/24/2007 sAR same SAR Fited 5/24/2007
Da¢¢Clos¢d; 504/2007 Exteroa| Inv¢ltigato 108 ~
priority M¢djum Externa| lnvdtlgato Ken D Cash
s_¢ms- » csP-clo's¢d/sAR‘ Filed with Polic¢ Sv‘r¢d lnvwia=wr |D
Resolution: Not Related to identity y Sh*l'¢.d lnv“uglf°"
Manager Closed No _ ' l - . _
Loss anch m: 427-09 £xposure SZB$.tlt)t).no
' L'o” Cost Centm ' _Prevented; 5285.01)011_11
pass much _Lo¢acion=' HSN-Hco~Ri-:s`ECH wDLNDs Bus BNKG - "'°° P'°""" """ ""
l ' n 2404 Rcsearch Forest Dr. n Pmc. Re"lq-Wr'“
w®dlmds ' f TX ' - |.m Risli: w m
. _ ._ ` ., l lnv Recovery; _- $_u.'¢m
. Legal chtcy; c_api;uon¢ Nec Lbss: _ so.oo
Catégoryi - 12' ¢hccl; Frauo Settlcments:` ' ` $0.00
subcategory Noc on Us counterfeit NLAs= so.oo
ryp¢; `Excenml BsA Am¢uoc= so.oo
Lost or'Stolen Items
c When L_ost: Addras Lost:
. # or new Losc.. o ' 'an»`wi¢h card No
Ch¢ck N_umbe__rs Starting 0 _ PIN Revea'led: No
. Endin'g Ch_eck Number:` 0 ' Other Used': No
- Other M|ssiog Items: New Account # _
'.Case,_Clgging_; No_t¢g '- Customer presented "lnsu_rance Drati*f" 1n the amount of$285. 00_0 00 for collecnon. t pon ' _
' ms me win _b¢ referred co me Pas'adm Poiic¢ bepa€un§nc,' sgr. sherman - 71_3475-7899.
CAPITAL ONE v
EXHIBIT Az /'~.L»\~/
Case 4:10-cv-02454 Document 45-3 -~Filed in TXSD on 02/03/11 Page 2 of 3
" ` Extemal Fraud lnv. Case Summary
_ ease to 2007002887
24-May107 WADE,A-Ctteek Fraud
‘ HOW DISCOVERBD 4
Capital one Branch Sales Manag¢r (East Spring Branch, Spri_ng, Tcx_as) notified E,xtemat F rand
lnv¢nti@tions of suspected fraudulent activity on Capital Onc Rescarch Forcst Branch (The Woodkmds.
` customer American Consultant Legal Litigants, (signcr Alex M. Wadc) account ii
Te_xas) banking _
3801609774 (opeued 03/15/2006), discovered by Mr. Coultcr.
_SUMMARYOFFAC’I`S " _
Invcstigation revealed thatMr. Wade visitedtheEastSpdng Branch of CapitalOnetoeonipleteaCapital
One CouecdonReociptandAgteanemforaninsmnncedmtithathewamedeonected Mr.Wndesigned,.
theagreemmtmdlcda€apimlonedeposnshpmdtheinsmmocdmdfmwnwdonbythebank The
followingitemwaspresenwd. .
1 \L1
l A .' ' l'. X' ;. ' l
odor lnsumtwe' Company Ameriean Consuhnm
4/03/01 1016-ko 328 ,ooo.oo
ma __
Theitemwassentforcollectionandretumed. 'I"heinsm'anccdrahwasreviewedand itwas recognized that
the nnmeric amount was $285,000.00 and the written amount was "Two Hund.red Eighty Fit`ty ’I`housand".
instructions on the back ofdraft had misspelled Cnpital One Bank..
He further recognized that the drafting _
'I‘he.bank name was spelled "Capital Ine Bank" and that the instructions also showed restrictive instmctions
on the draft which could not be verified.' Additionaiiy, Mr. Coulter recognized that there was not a
“r¢m.itting bank" on the draft . -
lnvectigntor' received a telephone call_ from Ca.pital One Legal Dcpartment on 04/`2212007 stating that .\'lr
for non payment lnvestigator explained that the check had been verified
Wadc was inquiring to tile reason
` with theTudor Insurance Company, Eiw,n Priee ar 201~847-2887 and the draft had been verified as
comnet'feitbyb/fr. Priee. . 4 »
'STATUS OE ACOOUNT/CASE _*
Thecustomet’swcomxtis indicpmcessofbeingelosedand€apitalonevdllnot'sud'eralossonmis
account This case will be referred co SGT. Shetman (‘713~475-7899) ofthe Pasadeua P'olice Depa`ntmenz,
Pasadena, Texaspor.hiszequest. A SuspieiousActivit_yReport(SAR)willbesentto the Financial Crimes
_Etg'groement Network (FinCEN). .
coNTRQL DEFICIENcrEs/PERSCNNEL Acrto'N'TAKEN
‘Ihere were not any control detieiencies. , ~
08pr 0n02007002887
Case 4210-Cv-02454 Document 45'-3 Filed in TXSD On 02/03/1'1 Page 3 Of 3
Externnl Fraud Inv. Check Fraud incident Report
5/2¢/2007 .
External Inv K,en D Cah Cns¢ lD: 2007002887
Cntegory: 12 Ched¢ Fraud WADE,A-Check Fraud
Not On Us Counrerfeit -
41710-HSN- EAST SPR[NG RTL BNKG (l)
dateOeenrred: 4/312007 Expoeare $285.000.00
'I'u`neOecnrnd: ' P'revented: 5285.000.00
mention ms 41710
I.oeotion: . SN-EAST SPR.ING RTL BNK
l Juraat¢uoo= N°‘ l'°"‘ 5°~°°
l Bow Diseovered E.mptoyee Dctected
- _ roney vtqtanoo
B“k m 1 ` No .Violmim ' .
faa Bnnch lD: 42709 - ~ 1
~tmt.mu¢m= HsN-Hco~ttnsscu wonan l
Lou Co¢t Cenner: . | haw m |
‘ ' ; N¢v'vAeeomt O .
Prv¢md D¢v' 4/3/2°°7 t ovumcww O ;
l Tim¢ mask `
1 item nm 3/5/2007 V" mt
j mention 41.110 ::‘:=S°°“‘"" '°°°°“'°
1 HsN-EA$T sran~to nrt. BNt