The opinion
WR-82,467-01
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 11/25/2015 10:47:33 AM
Accepted 11/25/2015 11:14:57 AM
ABEL ACOSTA
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CLERK
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS RECEIVED
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
11/25/2015
EX PARTE § ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
§
§ NO. WR-56,666-03
§
DENNIS LEE ALLEN §
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
EX PARTE §
§
§ NO. WR-82,467-01
§
STANLEY ORSON MOZEE §
APPLICANT’S MOTION FOR ORDER TO DISTRICT CLERK
TO TRANSMIT AMENDED APPLICATIONS AND
SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS
TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE:
NOW COMES STANLEY ORSON MOZEE and DENNIS LEE ALLEN,
Applicants, and submits this Motion for Order to District Clerk to Transmit Amended
Applications and Supplemental Exhibits and would show the following:
I.
Applicants have filed the following with the Dallas County District Clerk:
1. Amended Applications for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Relief From Final
Felony Conviction Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07.
Applicants’ Motion for Order to District Clerk to Transmit Amended Applications and Supplemental
Exhibits - Page 1
2. Affidavit in Support of Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
3. Exhibits in Support of Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
4. Supplemental Information in Support of Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
5. Supplement to Amended Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
A copy of each of the above named filings is attached to this motion.
II.
Counsel for Applicants has requested that the District Clerk transmit these items to
the Court of Criminal Appeals. Thus far, the District Clerk has not done so. For this reason,
Applicants request that this Court issue an order to the Dallas County District Clerk to
transmit these items to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicants pray that this motion be
granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary A. Udashen
GARY A. UDASHEN
Bar Card No. 20369590
SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
2311 Cedar Springs Road
Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-468-8100
214-468-8104 fax
Appearing on Behalf of the
Innocence Project of Texas
Counsel for Dennis Lee Allen
Applicants’ Motion for Order to District Clerk to Transmit Amended Applications and Supplemental
Exhibits - Page 2
/s/ Nina Morrison
NINA MORRISON
INNOCENCE PROJECT, INC.
40 Worth Street, Suite 701
New York, New York 10013
212-364-5340
212-264-5341 fax
/s/ Ezekiel Tyson, Jr.
EZEKIEL TYSON, JR.
Bar Card No. 24034715
THE TYSON LAW FIRM
342 W. Montana Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75224
214-942-9000
214-942-9001 fax
Counsel for Stanley Orson Mozee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 25th day of November, 2015, a true and correct copy of the
above and foregoing Applicants’ Motion for Order to District Clerk to Transmit Amended
Applications and Supplemental Exhibits was electronically delivered to the Dallas County
District Attorney’s Office.
/s/ Gary A. Udashen
GARY A. UDASHEN
Applicants’ Motion for Order to District Clerk to Transmit Amended Applications and Supplemental
Exhibits - Page 3
Case No. W00-01305-FR(B)
(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.)
v
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
CAL
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS-C—OV.P.KS _Dtpury
SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY CONVICTION
UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ARTICLE 11.07
NAME: Dennis Lee Allen
DATE OF BIRTH: July 7, 1962
PLACE OF CONFINEMENT: On Bond
TDCJ-CID NUMBER: 01001859 SID NUMBER: 05465683
(1) This application concerns (check all that apply):
X a conviction 111 parole
X a sentence 111 mandatory supervision
LI time credit LI out-of-time appeal or petition for
discretionary review
(2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you want relief from?
(Include the court number and county.)
265th Judicial District Court/Dallas County
(3) What was the case number in the trial court?
F00-01305-FR
(4) What was the name of the trial judge?
Keith Dean
Effective: January 1, 2014 1
(5 ) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide the attorney's name:
Yes, Jim Oatman
(6) What was the date that the judgment was entered?
September 1, 2000
(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence?
Capital Murder/Life
(8) If you were sentenced on more than one count of an indictment in the same court at
the same time, what counts were you convicted of and what was the sentence in each
count?
(9) What was the plea you entered? (Check one.)
0 guilty-open plea 0 guilty-plea bargain
X not guilty 0 nobo contenderelno contest
If you entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please explain:
(10) What kind of trial did you have?
0 no jury X jury for guilt and punishment
0 jury for guilt, judge for punishment
2
(11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase of the trial did you testify?
Yes, Guilt-Innocence
(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction?
X yes El no
If you did appeal, answer the following questions:
(A) What court of appeals did you appeal to? 8th District/E1 Paso
(B) What was the case number? 08-00-00442-CR
(C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's
name:
Yes
(D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Affirmed - 07/11/2002
(13) Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals?
X yes Li no
If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions:
(A) What was the case number? 1390-02
(B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Refused - 01/29/2003
(14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article
11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction?
X yes El no
If you answered yes, answer the following questions:
(A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number? 56,666-02
3
(B) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Denied - 11/12/2013
(C) Please identify the reason that the current claims were not presented and could
not have been presented on your previous application.
The current claims are based on newly available and newly discovered evidence
that could not have been presented at the time of the filing of the first application.
The factual and legal basis of these claims was not available. Moreover, by a
preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the U. S. Constitution, no
rational juror could have found the Applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Art. 11.07, Sec. 4.
(15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal
court?
El yes X no
If you answered yes, please provide the name of the court and the case number:
(16) If you are presenting a claim for time credit, have you exhausted your
administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time credit resolution
system of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to
any final felony conviction, including state jail felonies)
yes EJ no
If you answered yes, answer the following questions:
(A) What date did you present the claim?
(B) Did you receive a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the decision?
If you answered no, please explain why you have not submitted your claim:
4
(17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your claim that you are
being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the facts supporting each
ground. You must present each ground on the form application and a brief
summary of the facts. If your grounds and brief summary of the facts have not been
presented on the form application, the Court will not consider your grounds.
If you have more than four grounds, use pages 14 and 15 of the form, which you
may copy as many times as needed to give you a separate page for each ground, with
each ground numbered in sequence. The recitation of the facts supporting each
ground must be no longer than the two pages provided for the ground in the form.
You may include with the form a memorandum of law if you want to present legal
authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief set out in a
memorandum of law that were not raised on the form. The citations and argument
must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73
and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not. If you
are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts
pertaining to your offense and trial in your memorandum.
5
GROUND ONE:
Applicant is entitled to relief based on newly discovered evidence of actual innocence. No
rational jury would have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt had the new DNA and
other evidence been available.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:
Newly discovered and newly available evidence demonstrates Applicant's innocence. This
evidence is three separate DNA tests definitely excluding both Applicants (Allen and co-
defendant Mozee) as the source of probative evidence from the crime scene. An unknown
person was the source of 1) DNA mixed with the victim's in a distinct drop of blood swabbed
from the front of the store. 2) DNA on the handle of a hammer found next to the victim's corpse,
which contained the victim's own blood on the ball end. 3) A hair underneath the victim's
fingernails. Additional newly available evidence of innocence, includes correspondence from
two jailhouse informants, Lonel Hardeman and Zane Smith, which contradicted their trial
testimony revealing that they had sought and believed they had been promised deals for their
testimony. There is also evidence that these informants fabricated their claims against Allen and
Mozee. Other new evidence is that Det. Berry swore out an affidavit in which he made false
representations regarding the eyewitnesses he had interviewed. Additional newly discovered
evidence is that one of the three store clerks who Det. Berry claimed had identified Allen had
6
actually told another officer she did not get a good look at the suspect and could not identify
anyone. Moreover, there is newly discovered evidence that none of the three store clerks who
allegedly identified Allen as passing the deceased's credit cards actually stands by their
identification and each of them have withdrawn or recanted their identification or expressed
doubts about it. More newly discovered evidence consists of statements from neutral
eyewitnesses describing a pair of suspects seen before and after the murder who did not fit
the physical features of Mozee and Allen. Also, there is new evidence of at least one additional
undisclosed eyewitness interviewed by Det. Berry who gave a detailed description of two men he
saw arguing with the victim shortly before his death. Other new evidence is the fact that
nowhere in the state's files is there any reference to photo arrays containing either defendant
being shown to two eyewitnesses - Scott James and Insun Chon - which indicates that photo
arrays were shown to these witnesses but they did not pick out Mozee or Allen. There is also
newly discovered evidence that Zane Smith had a motive to claim that Stan Mozee confessed
to involvement in this murder: that Mozee allegedly stole Smith's commissary in jail. This
newly discovered evidence establishes that Applicant is actually innocent in that
no rational juror would have convicted him in light of the newly discovered evidence.
Additionally, actual innocence is also established under the Schlup standard as a gateway
to the other constitutional violations alleged in this Application.
7
GROUND TWO:
Applicant is entitled to relief because, by a preponderance, he would not have been convicted
had the new DNA evidence been available at trial.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:
Under Art. 11.073, Tex. Code Crim. Proc., the new DNA evidence in this case provides a ground
for relief. This new DNA evidence was not available to be offered by Applicant at his trial since
it was not in existence. This new DNA evidence identifies DNA from persons other than Allen
or Mozee, in locations where DNA from the persons who committed this murder would be
found. Had this new scientific DNA evidence been available and been presented at trial, on the
preponderance of the evidence, Applicant would not have been convicted.
8
9
GROUND THREE:
The state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Applicant's due process rights.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:
The state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of due process as follows:
1) Pretrial correspondence from informants Hardeman and Smith found in the file of the
Assistant District Attorney who prosecuted this case contains the following exculpatory evidence
which was not disclosed to the defense and which contradicts trial testimony presented by the
state.
a. Correspondence from Lonel Hardeman to the prosecutor regarding his belief that he a
deal for his testimony with the prosecutor. This directly contradicts Hardeman's testimony,
directly elicited by the prosecutor, that he had no deal, understanding, arrangement or
expectation of leniency, did not want a deal and never even discussed a deal.
b. Correspondence from Zane Smith to the prosecutor regarding his discussions with the
prosecutor regarding assistance from the prosecutor with Smith's own legal issues. This also
contradicted direct testimony from Smith, elicited by the prosecutor, that there was no deal,
understanding, arrangement or expectation of leniency. This exculpatory correspondence and
the discussions between the informants and the prosecutor or other state agents was never
revealed to the defense.
10
Because the state lacked any forensic or credible eyewitness testimony inculpating either
defendant in the crimes, and was forced to rely so heavily on informant testimony to prove its
case, the violations here were unquestionably material to the outcome. Moreover, the state's
violations were compounded by the fact that its former lead prosecutor (1) was under direct
pretrial orders from the trial court to make timely disclosure of precisely such Brady material,
and (2) repeatedly and deliberately elicited testimony from both informants at trial disclaiming
any expectation of personal benefit to themselves, even though he knew - as reflected by the
letters in his own file - that this testimony was false.
2. The state also failed to reveal deals, agreements or understandings with the following
witnesses that the state either would or already had assisted them with their own criminal
problems: (a) John Paul Robinson, (b) Cynthia Sloan, (c) Kenneth Jones, (d) Charles Manning,
(e) Alvin Degrafton-Reid, (f) Zane Smith. In fact on Manning and Degrafton-Reid, the police
detective helped them with their probation violations.
3. The state also failed to reveal that the prosecutor interviewed the following two witnesses
who allegedly identified Allen as passing the deceased's credit cards and they expressed doubt
about their identification: witnesses Kwoon and Jang.
11
GROUND FOUR:
State's witnesses testified falsely at trial and the prosecutor failed to correct their testimony or
inform the court of its falsity.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:
State's witness Lonel Hardeman claimed at trial that he had no deal, understanding or agreement
with the state, that he would receive help with his own criminal cases after his testimony. He
also claimed that he had no discussion about help with his cases, had no hope of leniency from
the state, and did not want any help and would not accept it if offered. All of these statements
were false and the prosecutor knew they were false. Yet, the prosecutor did nothing to correct
this false testimony or inform the court of its falsity. This is a violation of the prosecutor's duty
to correct false testimony and is a violation of Applicant's right to due process.
State's witness Zane Smith also falsely implied to the jury that he had received no help from
the state on his case and expected none. Likewise, state's witnesses Robinson, Sloan, Manning
and Degrafton-Reid all testified that they had no understanding with the state for assistance
on their cases, and the state had not and would not assist them. This was also false testimony the
state failed to correct violating Applicant's due process rights.
12
13
GROUND FIVE:
The State secured Applicant's conviction through the presentation of false testimony from its
lead detective in violation of Applicant's due process rights.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FIVE:
The state secured these convictions through the knowingly false sworn statements of Det. Berry.
Berry had submitted an affidavit prior to trial in support of applicant's arrest where he stated that
he had located three employees at businesses where suspects had attempted to use the victim's
stolen credit cards within hours of the murder. Berry further attested that the three employees
had identified Allen from the photo array. Berry also testified to this. Newly discovered police
reports and notes from the District Attorney's trial file show that these statements were false.
Moreover, Det. Berry had located and interviewed five, not three employees from these
businesses. In fact, not all of them selected Allen's photograph; one clerk did not, identifying a
different suspect.Also, as to the most relevant witness, Insun Chon, who dealt directly with the
suspect and refused to complete the transaction, Det. Berry's reports make no mention of any
array or lineup ever being shown him. This is likely because the identification procedure
engaged in with this witness did not result in any inculpatory evidence.
Det. Berry's credibility was critical to the state's case: he was the only witness to the allegedly
14
voluntary "confession" of guilt made by Mr. Mozee in custody, and he interviewed virtually all
of the state's key informants and eyewitnesses. The new evidence that he knowingly
misrepresented the nature of the eyewitness evidence to the court and jury in sworn statements
undermines confidence in the trial's outcome and requires due process relief.
15
GROUND SIX:
The state failed to disclose favorable eyewitness evidence in violation of Applicant's due process
rights.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND SIX:
The state's trial prosecutor also failed to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding
eyewitnesses, in violation of due process and the district court's express pretrial orders.
In particular, the state failed to disclose the fact that Ms. Kyoung Jang, one of the three store
clerks who purportedly identified Allen to Det. Berry, had earlier stated to another detective
that she "could not recognized [sic] anyone in relation to the attempt [sic] use of the
complainant's credit card, as she had not gotten a close look at the individual trying to use it."
This report was addressed to Det. Berry, was dated more than a year before trial, and was part of
the prosecution's trial file, but was never disclosed to either defense counsel. In addition, the
District Attorney's trial file contains a report regarding another key eyewitnesses who also did
not identify Allen or Mozee: Insun Chon, a store manager who refused to complete the
transaction with the man who tried to use the victim's stolen card Yet, there are no reports
reflecting that eyewitness identification procedures (arrays/lineups) were shown to this witness -
despite the fact that Det. Berry showed the defendants'photographs to every other witness
16
who viewed the suspects, including those with far more limited opportunities to view the
suspects than Mr. Chon This strongly indicates that this witness, consistent with the rest of the
investigation, was in fact show the defendants' photographs and did not identify them, but the
state failed to memorialize or disclose that fact to the defense. In fact, a recently disclosed
notation in the district attorney's file indicates that Mr. Chon did not identify either defendant
prior to trial and the prosecutor was aware of that fact.
17
GROUND SEVEN:
The testimony from the informants was false and presented in violation of due process.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND SEVEN:
State's witness Hardeman now admits that the testimony he presented at trial was false and that
Allen did not say the things he claimed at trial he said. Moreover, it is clear from the
records that he falsely testified concerning whether he expected to receive any benefits from
the state. Even if the prosecutor did not know of the falsity of the substance of this testimony,
the presentation of this false testimony is a violation of due process.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously held that due process requires relief whether new
evidence reveals that a key witness's trial testimony against a defendant was false, whether or
not trial prosecutors knew or should have known of its falsity. Thus, the informant's recantation,
if credited, would provide further grounds for granting the writ (in addition to the considerable
documentary evidence establishing due process violations regarding these informants as set
forth separately in other grounds, supra).
18
19
GROUND EIGHT:
Applicant received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND EIGHT:
In an evidentiary hearing on this writ application, the state's prosecutor at trial, Rick Jackson,
claimed that an entry in his notes stating that he showed physical evidence to defense counsel
Jim Oatman, means that he showed defense counsel the letters from Hardeman and Smith
concerning their discussions with the state about help the state would give them on their cases.
Prosecutor Jackson does not claim to remember actually giving or showing defense counsel
these letters. Rather, he relies on this notation of showing defense counsel the physical
evidence as his basis for his claim that he showed the letters to defense counsel. Nevertheless,
the evidence clearly shows that the prosecutor did not show these letters to defense counsel.
However, if the court finds the prosecutor's testimony in this regard convincing, then there is
clear and obvious ineffective assistance of counsel by defense counsel in failing to use these
letters at trial to impeach the testimony of Hardeman and Smith claiming they had no deal,
agreement, arrangement or understanding that the state would assist them in their own cases.
This ineffective assistance would be inadequate performance by counsel and would have
20
affected the outcome of these cases since Hardeman and Smith were important state
witnesses.
WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT
RELIEF TO WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
VERIFICATION
This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for non-compliance. For
verification purposes, an applicant is a person filing the application on his or her own behalf. A
petitioner is a person filing the application on behalf of an applicant, for example, an applicant's
attorney. An inmate is a person who is in custody.
The inmate applicant must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a
notary public or the "Inmate's Declaration" without a notary public. If the inmate is represented
by a licensed attorney, the attorney may sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" as petitioner and
then complete "Petitioner's Information." A non-inmate applicant must sign the "Oath Before a
Notary Public" before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed attorney, in which
case the attorney may sign the verification as petitioner.
A non-inmate non-attorney petitioner must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public"
before a notary public and must also complete "Petitioner's Information." An inmate petitioner
must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a notary public or the "Inmate's
Declaration" without a notary public and must also complete the appropriate "Petitioner's
Information."
OATH BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF 734'
Ga Udashen , being duly sworn, under oath says: "I am the
applicant petitioner cle one) in this action and know the contents of the above application
for a writ o dbeas corpus and, according to my belief, the facts stated in the application are
true."
Signature of Applican
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS
PHYLLIS ANN SPURGEON
Notary Public, State of Texas
Sigfiature CNotary Public
•
My Commission Expires
-•"°)e • April 27, 2016
22
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION
Petitioner's printed name: Gary A. Udashen
State bar number, if applicable: 20369590
Address: 2311 Cedar Springs Road
Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 214-468-8100
Fax: 214-468-8104
INMATE'S DECLARATION
I, , am the applicant / petitioner (circle one) and
being presently incarcerated in , declare under penalty of
perjury that, according to my belief, the facts stated in the above application are true and correct.
Signed on , 20
Signature of Applicant / Petitioner (circle one)
23
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION
Petitioner's printed name: Gary A. Udashen
Address: 2311 Cedar Springs Road
Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: 214-468-8100
Fax: 214-468-8104
Signed on 7,4,‘/V, ,7 ,20
Signature of Petitioner
24
Case No.
(The Clerk of the convicting court will fill this line in.)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM FINAL FELONY
CONVICTION UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
ARTICLE 11.07
Stanley Orson Mozee
NAME-
DATE OF BIRTH- 04/21/1959
On bond pursuant to Art. 11.65
PLACE OF CONFINEMENT.
TDCJ-CID NUMBER: 939024 SID NUMBER . 2375532
( 1) This application concerns (check all that apply): G:#
a conviction 0 parole 3, c:"
94r a sentence 0 mandatory supervision C3
--0
' . •-
0 time credit 0 out-of-time appeal or petition tor-
discretionary review : (1"?
c: w c.ii
--,..
(2) What district court entered the judgment of the conviction you want relief from?
(Include the court number and county.)
265th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas
(3) What was the case number in the trial court?
F99-02631 -R
(4) What was the name of the trial judge?
Judge Keith Dean
Effective: January I, 2014
(5 ) Were you represented by counsel? If yes, provide the attorney's name:
Matt Fry
(6) What was the date that the judgment was entered?
August 2, 2000
(7) For what offense were you convicted and what was the sentence?
Capital murder with a deadly weapon; Life imprisonment
(8) If you were sentenced on more than one count of an indictment in the same court at
the same time, what counts were you convicted of and what was the sentence in each
count?
N/A
(9) What was the plea you entered? (Check one.)
0 guilty-open plea 0 guilty-plea bargain
if not guilty 0 nolo contenderelno contest
If you entered different pleas to counts in a multi-count indictment, please explain:
(10) What kind of trial did you have?
0 no jury 0 jury for guilt and punishment
4 jury for guilt, judge for punishment
2
(11) Did you testify at trial? If yes, at what phase of the trial did you testify?
Yes, both during trial and during a pre-trial hearing to suppress the confession.
(12) Did you appeal from the judgment of conviction?
If yes 0 no
If you did appeal, answer the following questions:
(A) What court of appeals did you appeal to" 5th District, Dallas, Texas
(B) What was the case number? 05-00-01260-CR
(C) Were you represented by counsel on appeal? If yes, provide the attorney's
name:
Dean M. Swanda
(D) What was the decision and the date of the decision? Affirmed 12/1-4/2001
(13) Did you file a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals?
El yes / no
If you did file a petition for discretionary review, answer the following questions:
(A) What was the case number?
(B) What was the decision and the date of the decision?
(14) Have you previously filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article
11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure challenging this conviction?
El yes no
If you answered yes, answer the following questions:
(A) What was the Court of Criminal Appeals' writ number"
3
(B) What was the decision and the date of the decision?
(C) Please identify the reason that the current claims were not presented and could
not have been presented on your previous application.
(15) Do you currently have any petition or appeal pending in any other state or federal
court?
D —yes no
If you answered yes, please provide the name of the court and the case number:
(16) If you are presenting a claim for time credit, have you exhausted your
administrative remedies by presenting your claim to the time credit resolution
system of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice? (This requirement applies to
any final felony conviction, including state jail felonies)
Dyes 0 no
If you answered yes, answer the following questions:
(A) What date did you present the claim?
(B) Did you receive a decision and, if yes, what was the date of the decision?
If you answered no, please explain why you have not submitted your claim:
4
(17) Beginning on page 6, state concisely every legal ground for your claim that you are
being unlawfully restrained, and then briefly summarize the facts supporting each
ground. You must present each ground on the form application and a brief
summary of the facts. _Ifyour grounds and briefsummary of the facts have not been
t fonnaflplicatidh; the Court will not consideryour grounds;
.iiTthdoiitlh
If you have more than four grounds, use pages 14 and 15 of the form, which you
may copy as many times as needed to give you a separate page for each ground, with
each ground numbered in sequence. The recitation of the facts supporting each
ground must be no longer than the two pages provided for the ground in the form.
You may include with the form a memorandum of law if you want to present legal
authorities, but the Court will not consider grounds for relief set out in a
memorandum of law that were not raised on the form. The citations and argument
must be in a memorandum that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 73
and does not exceed 15,000 words if computer-generated or 50 pages if not. If you
are challenging the validity of your conviction, please include a summary of the facts
pertaining to your offense and trial in your memorandum.
5
GROUND ONE:
Newly Discovered Evidence Establishes that Mr. Mozee is Actually Innocent. No Rational Jury Would Have
Found Proof of Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Had the Newly Discovered Evidence Been Available.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND ONE:
A combination of previously-unavailable DNA evidence and exculpatory documentary evidence that was
suppressed by the State's trial prosecutors demonstrates the innocence of Mr. Mozee and his co-
defendant Dennis Allen; at the very least, no rational jury would have convicted either man of capital
murder had this evidence been available. The new evidence includes, inter alia: (1) newly obtained DNA
—
testing-revealing that-person(s) other than the defendant deposited DNA mixedwith the victim's on a
bloodstain at the scene of the crime, in a hair fragment under the victim's fingernails, and on a hammer
found next to the victim's corpse; (2) contemporaneous correspondence from the State's two primary
jailhouse informants, revealing that both men had repeatedly sought. and believed they had been
promised, leniency in their own cases in direct exchange for their testimony for the State, in direct
contravention of their trial testimony and the State's own representations to the jury; (3) exculpatory
eyewitness evidence suppressed by the State at trial; and (4) evidence that the lead detective in the case --
whose credibility was critical to the State's presentation -- had submitted a false pretrial affidavit to the
court. misrepresenting the nature of the_ eyewitness evidence gathered to date. Given the lack of forensic
6
evidence or credible lay witness testimony connecting either defendant to the crime, had the new evidence
■ I1 a • 111 I . ! •.11 11 ' 11 I I II
I 1- 1 I II
Applicants' acquittals.
7
GROUND TWO:
Applicants are Entitled to Relief Because, By a Preponderance of the Evidence, They Would Not Have
Been Convicted Had the New DNA Evidence Been Available at Trial.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND TWO:
The new DNA evidence set forth with respect to Claim One, supra, also entitles Applicants to relief under
the newly enacted provisions of Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.073, in that it establishes, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that Mr Mozee and his co-defendant would not have been convicted had the jury heard
that evidence. The State's trial case rested on the uncorroborated "confession" of Mr. Mozee (which was
wrfiten . Ont fOihirri- bYilie lone- -ctetectiVe to whom he- had-allegedly made-these unrecorded-admissions)
which he has disavowed for more than fifteen years, as well as the implausible and self-interested testimony
of a jailhouse informant. For this reason, new DNA evidence pointing to an unknown individual as the
source of key DNA deposits in multiple locations at the scene of this violent robhery-murder would have
readily tipped the scales to acquittal, satisfying the preponderance standard for relief.
8
9
GROUND THREE:
The State Failed in Disclose Favorable F.videnre Revrding Jailhniise And Other Informant Wit ne sses, and
Elicited Testimony from the Informants that the Trial Prosecutor Knew Was False, in Violation of Applicant's
Due Process Rights.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND THREE:
The State violated Mr. Mozee's due process rights by failing to disclose its communications with at least
two jailhouse informants -- one of whom testified at both trials, and one of whom testified at Mr. Allen's trial.
These rnmmimications pertained to the benefits that both informants expressly son & and believed they had
been promised in exchange for their testimony, including letters sent to the lead prosecutor demanding certain
benefits in exchange fig—testifying and/or seeking to have the State honor promises of assistance-that informants
believed had been given. Testimony by informant Zane Smith at Mr. Mozee's trial, and by the former prosecutor
in this proceeding, Rick Jackson, that Smith had "no deal," whether express or implied, is contradicted by this
correspondence, and by the fact that after both trials were over, the prosecutor went to extraordinary lengths to
benefit Smith. He personally appeared for the State in an "agreed motion for a new trial" for Smith, even after
the time to seek (and the court's jurisdiction to grant) such relief had expired; this resulted in the entry of what
was effectively an illegal judgment and sentence reduction on Smith's behalf.
In addition, the State failed to disclose the fact that the lead detective in this case actively assisted two
other informants, Charles Manning and Alvin Degraftenreed, with probation violations before they testified.
This fact was documented in ADA Jackson's pretrial notes that were only recently disclosed. It directly contradicts his
10
sworn tectimnny in this prnreeding that he never ascictert, nr directed anynne tn accict, a State inInrmant with any
pending criminal matter before the informant testified. This evidence is relevant to assessing the former prosecutor's
credibility on all of the due process issues in this writ, including testimony that the State did not assist informant Smith
with his own pending criminal charges, which were resolved with a highly favorable plea less than three weeks before
he testified.
Finally, newly disclosed materials that predate Smith's plea and his testimony against Mr. Mozee reveal that he
failed to timely disclose Smith's anticipated testimony in violation of_pretrial orders; falsely told counsel on the first
day of trial that he had only been contacted by Smith "in the last few days"; and violated pretrial orders to disclose
Smith's written statements.
Former ADA Jackson admitted in this writ proceeding that he was obligated to provide this information to Mr.
Mozee's counsel, yet he has no recollection or record of doing so. Because the State lacked any forensic or credible
eyewitness testimony inculpating either defendant, and was forced to rely so heavily on informant testimony, the
violations here were unquestionably material to the outcome. Moreover, the State's violations were compounded by
the fact that its former lead prosecutor (1) was under direct pretrial orders from the trial court to make timely
disclosure of this material, and (2) elicited false testimony from informants at trial disclaiming any expectation of
future personal benefits to themselves.
11
GROUND FOUR:
The State Secured Applicants' Convictions Through the Presentation of False Testimony from Its Lead
Detective in Violation of Due Process
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:
The State violated Mr. Mozee's due process rights when it secured his conviction through the knowingly
false sworn statements of Det. Rick Berry. Det. Berry submitted an affidavit prior to trial in support of co-
defendant Allen's arrest, in which he represented to the Court that he had thus far located "three
employees" from the various business at which an unknown suspect, accompanied by a second man, had
-
- —attempted-to-use the-victim's stolen credit cards within hours of the murder._ He fuither atfeited that he
had shown defendant Mr. Allen's photo to each of "the three employees" he had identified from these
locations, at which time they "all picked the defendant's photo as the person who had used the credit
cards." He then repeated this alleged chain of events to the jury in sworn testimony at Mr. Mozee's trial.
Newly-disclosed police reports from the District Attorney's trial file reveal that these statements
were false. In fact, Det. Berry's own reports show that when this affidavit was submitted, police had
interviewed five -- not three -- employees from the various businesses who had witnessed the use of the
stolen cards. Moreover, not "all" of them selected Allen's photo: one clerk did not (identifying a different
suspect), and the lineup report for the fifth (the store manager, who had the most direct contact with the
12
suspects) was never produced and may never have been prepared.
Det. Berry's credibility was critical to the State's case: he was the only witness to the allegedly
voluntary "confession" of guilt made by Mr. Mozee in custody, and he interviewed virtually all of
the State's key informants and eyewitnesses. The new evidence that he misrepresented the
nature of the eyewitness evidence to the Court and jiiry in sworn statements undermines confidence in
the trial's outcome and requires due process relief.
13
,
GROUND FIVE:
The State Failed to Disclose Favorable Eyewitness Evidence in Violation of Due Process.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND:
The State's former trial prosecutors also failed to disclose exculpatory evidence regarding eyewitnesses, in
violation of clue process and the district court's express pretrial orders.
In particular , the State failed to disclose the fart that Ms Kyniing Jang , one of the three store clerks who
purportedly identified Allen to Det. Berry, had earlier stated to another detective that she "could not
-anyo-rie-in relation to-the- attempt [sic] use-of-the-complainanes-credit card,-as-she had not -
gotten a close look at the individual trying to use it." This report was addressed to Det. Berry, was dated
more than a year before trial, and was part of the prosecution's trial file, but was never disclosed to either
defence (-mince! Tn addition , the District Attorney's trial file contains reports and notes reprding at least
one other key eyewitness who also did not identify Mr. Allen or Mr. Mozee: Insun Chon, a store manager
who refused to complete the transaction with the man who tried to use the victim's stolen card. Yet there
are no reports reflecting that eyewitness identification procedures (arrays/lineups) were shown to him --
despite the fact that Det. Berry showed the defendants' photographs to every other witness who viewed the
suspects, including those with far more limited opportunities to view the suspects than Mr. Chon.
14
Recently obtained pretrial notes from Mr. Jackson's trial file also indicate that (1) Mr. Chon did not identify
Allen or Mozee as the perpetrator, and (2) Mr. Jackson met with several of the eyewitnesses who made the
allegedly positive identifications shortly before the defendants' trials, yet did not call them as
witnesses. This undisclosed exculpatory matherial further undermines confidence in the coutcome of the
trial.
_
15
GROUND SIX:
Applicants Were Cnnvirterl nn the Rasis of False Testimnny hy Jailhnnse Infnrrnants Requiring Due Process
Relief Even if the Witnesses' Perjury Was Unknown to Prosecutors
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND:
Two State informants -- Lonel Hardeman and Zane Smith -- have given voluntary interviews to
Applicants' counsel in which they admit that they gave false testimony at the trials of Mr. Mozee and Mr.
Allen. Smith has specifically admitted what was already indicated from the newly disclosed file materials:
that he falsely testified when he claimed to expect no personal benefits from the State in exchange for his
•
feti m oriy: in fkt, liehéliêved he had been specifically promised -by tharial - prosecutot th-arth-e- Statewould seek • -
- —
a sentence reduction on his behalf after he testified. Testimony by Smith at trial, and by the former prosecutor in
this writ proceeding, that they had no express or even implied "deal" is further undermined by the fact that after
both trials were over, ADA Jackson went to extraordinary lengths to obtain the promised benefit for Smith, by
filing an "agreed motion for a new trial" even after the time to seek (and the court's jurisdiction to grant) such
relief had expired, resulting in the entry of what was effectively an illegal judgment and sentence reduction on
Smith's behalf.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has previously held that due process requires relief where new evidence
reveals that a key witness's trial testimony against a defendant was false, whether
16
or not trial prosecutors knew or should have known of its falsity. Thus, the informants' recantations, if
credited, would provide further grounds for granting the writ (in addition to the considerable documentary
evidence establishing due process violations regarding these informants as set forth separately in Ground Three,
supra).
-
17
GROUND SEVEN:
Applicant Received Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at Trial
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND:
Applicant received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in at least three respects:
(a) Counsel failed to object to hearsay testimony elicited by the State from Det. Rick Berry that
three store clerks had "identified" Mr. Mozee's co-defendant, Dennis Allen, as the person who used the
victim's stolen credit card on the night of the murder. Counsel also failed to conduct a reasonable pretrial
—investigation- into-these alleged-identifications, This lack of diligence-allowed-the-State to- improperly-argue -
in summation that the identifications of Allen corroborated Mr. Mozee's custodial "confession," which greatly
prejudiced Mr. Mozee. Indeed, at Mr. Allen's trial (when this hearsay testimony was not used), nape
of the three store clerks actually identified Allen: one clerk recanted his earlier alleged identification, and the
other two clerks did not testify.
(b) Counsel failed to challenge the voluntariness and truthfulness of Mr. Mozee's custodial
"
confession" when he failed to obtain and introduce recent medical records showing that Mr. Mozee had a
documented history of serious mental illness, including schizophrenia, that made him susceptible to giving a
false and involuntary confession. Counsel also failed to retain a qualified expert on false confessions or
18
otherwise present evidence to help the jury understand why the "confession" lacked any indicia of truthfulness
or reliability. This ineffectiveness greatly preiduced Mr. Mozee because it allowed the State to argue in
summation that there was no evidence he suffered from mental illness, that he was feigning symptoms of
mental illness, and that his signed confession was voluntary and reliable.
(c) At an evidentiary hearing on this writ application, trial prosecutor Rick Jackson admitted that
he had no specific recollection of showing Mr. Mozee's counsel the letters received from informants Hardeman
—_- and-Smith-regarding
__ _ __the-benefits-they
. expected
_ _ to receive
_ _ from the-State in-exch-an
_ - for-theite-stimony;--nor
•. __
did he have any file notation corroborating his belief that he must have fulfilled his obligation to Mr. Mozee's
counsel to disclose this correspondence to him. The evidence establishes that the prosecutor did not show
these letters to either defense counsel. However, if the court finds the prosecutor's testimony in this regard is
convincing, then there is clear and obvious ineffective assistance of counsel by defense counsel in failing to use
these letters at trial to impeach the testimony of Smith claiming he had no deal.
agreement, arrangement or understanding that the state would assist him with his own plea and sentence, or to
seek a new trial for Mr. Mozee based on the letters and the false testimony given by the various informants at
both trials. This ineffective assistance, if proven, would be deficient performance by counsel and would
undermine confidence in the outcome of the trial.
19
C
--
-
20
WHEREFORE, APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT GRANT APPLICANT
RELIEF TO WHICH HE MAY BE ENTITLED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
VERIFICATION
This application must be verified or it will be dismissed for non-compliance. For
verification purposes, an applicant is a person filing the application on his or her own behalf. A
petitioner is a person filing the application on behalf of an applicant, for example, an applicant's
attorney. An inmate is a person who is in custody.
The inmate applicant must sign either the "Oath Before a Notary Public" before a
notary public or the "Inmate's Declaration" without a notary public. If the inmate is represented
by a licensed attorney, the attorney may sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public" as petitioner and
then complete "Petitioner's Information." A non-inmate applicant must sign the "Oath Before a
Notary Public" before a notary public unless he is represented by a licensed attorney, in which
case the attorney may sign the verification as petitioner.
A non-inmate non-attorney petitioner must sign the "Oath Before a Notary Public"
before a notary public and must also complete "Petitioner's Information." An inmate petitioner
_ must-sign either the-"Oath Before a Notary Public"-btfore a notary publicor th-e "Inmates _
Declaration" without a notary public and must also complete the appropriate "Petitioner's
Information."
OATH BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF TEXAS
Dallas
COUNTY OF
Ezekiel Tyson, Jr. , being duly sworn, under oath says: "I am
the applicant / petitioner (circle one) in this action and know the contents of the above
application for a writ of habeas corpus and, according to my belief, the facts stated in the
application are true."
'
Signature of Applicant / tition (circle one)
(99
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF ,20 I-C.
irieressidirlhAlwillhmandbodbodimaim.
K CECILIA LUGO
•
My Commission Expires
August 16, 2019
•
PC1,1,K, /IT
tary u lic
PTTIWRIPTIMPWRWWwWW"/■
21
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION
Petitioner's printed name: Ezekiel Tyson, Jr.
State bar number, if applicable: 24034715
Address: The Tyson Law Firm
342 W. Montana Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75224
Telephone: 214-942-9000
214-942-9001
Fax:
INMATE'S DECLARATION
, am the applicant / petitioner (circle one) and
being presently incarcerated in , declare under penalty of
perjury that, according to my belief, the facts stated in the above application are true and correct.
Signed on 1■1 cxember 1 3 '
1
,20 C
Signature of Applicant / tretitiope (circle one)
22
PETITIONER'S INFORMATION
Petitioner's printed name- Ezekiel Tyson, Jr.
Address- The Tyson Law Firm
342 W. Montana Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75224
214-942-9000
Telephone-
214-942-9001
Fax-
. 1 S-1
Signed on 1 -Mvernbc."- 1 :5 , 20 .
Signature of iCetitione?
23
CAUSE NOS. F99-02631-R, F00-01305-R
WRIT NOS. W99-02631-R(A) and W00-01305-FR(B)
EX PARTE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
0
203RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STANLEY ORSON MOZEE
and
DENNIS LEE ALLEN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE:
NOW COMES the Applicants, STANLEY ORSON MOZEE and DENNIS LEE
ALLEN, and submits the attached affidavit from the following person in support of their
Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Stuart Parker
Respectfu ly submitted,
GAR A. UDASHEN
Bar Card No. 20369590
SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
2301 Cedar Springs Road
Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-468-8100
214-468-8104 fax
Appearing on Behalf of the
Innocence Project of Texas
Counsel for Dennis Lee Allen
Affidavit in Support of Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Page 1
NINA MORRISON
INNOCENCE PROJECT, INC.
40 Worth Street, Suite 701
New York, New York 10013
212-364-5340
212-264-5341 fax
EZEKIEL TYSON, JR.
Bar Card No. 24034715
THE TYSON LAW FIRM
342 W. Montana Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75224
214-942-9000
214-942-9001 fax
Counsel for Stanley Orson Mozee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Affidavit in Support of Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus was delivered to Cynthia Garza
and Patricia Cummings, Assistant Dallas County District Attorneys, on this the t day of
November, 2015.
GARY A. UDASHEN
Affidavit in Support of Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Page 2
STATE OF TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Stuart Parker,
who, after being by me duly sworn, upon oath said:
My name is Stuart Parker. Jam an attorney licensed in the State of Texas since 1975. I am
board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
I knew Jim Oatman, both personally and professionally. Mr. Oatman was a highly skilled
and conscientious attorney, both as a prosecutor and defense attorney. He put a great deal of effort
into his work and was uniformly viewed as someone who did a very good job for his clients. He was
not only a great courtroom lawyer, but was also known as someone who was well-prepared and
thorough when it came to pretrial discovery and preparation.
I have been asked to comment on the following factual scenario. These facts have been
provided to me by Gary A. Udashen and my comments are based on the information Mr. Udashen
has provided to me.
In the year 2000, Mr. Oatman represented Dennis Lee Allen on a capital murder case. During
trial, the state presented two informant witnesses: Witness one, Lonel Hardeman, testified that he
had spoken to Allen and Allen had admitted being involved in this murder. At the time of trial,
Hardeman was in jail with pending cases. At trial, Hardeman testified that he had no expectation
or hope of leniency from the state in exchange for the information he had provided against Allen.
The testimony from Hardeman at Allen's trial included the following:
(Mr. Jackson - Prosecutor)
Q : Mr. Hardeman, do you have any expectations — what are your expectations
for testifying in this case?
A: Nothing, just to bring a closure to Mr. Boms' death. That's it.
Q. Okay. Have I told you that we would talk about maybe doing something in
your case after this was over?
Affidavit of Stuart Parker - Page 1
A. No, sir.
(Allen T.T. Vol. 3, p. 266.)
(Mr. Jackson - prosecutor)
1 2
Q : So [Lisa] kind of passed the word to Berry that you wanted to talk to him?
A: Well, she stated to him that she knew about the case and for all charges
[to] be dropped against me, that she would testify against Dennis Lee
Allen. And when Rick Berry came to me, I only told him what I knew. I
didn't know nothing else was going on.
: Okay. So she kind of negotiated in your behalf', kind of like an agent I guess;
Q
is that right?
A: Yes, sir.
: Okay. If all charges were dropped you would testify against Dennis Allen?
Q
A: Correct.
: Okay. But you really didn't want any part of that, did you?
Q
A: And I still didn't [sic].
(Id. at 272) (emphasis supplied).
(Mr. Jackson - prosecutor)
Q: You and Mr. Berry didn't talk about what might be in it for you; is that right?
A: No, sir.
(Id. at 269.)
•••
(Mr. Oatman - defense lawyer)
Q: And you really don't want any help from Mr. Jackson here for doing the right
thing by coming down here; is that right?
A: That's right.
: And I take it [if] once this case is over, Mr. Jackson came down and told your
Q
judge, hey, he helped us out on a capital murder case, you're going to go no,
Mr. Jackson, I don't want your help. I want to face these two life sentences
on my own because I am such a I good soul; is that right?
A: Due to the fact that I never done a robbery before. I'm not going to ask Mr.
Jackson for no help.
: Okay.
Q
A: Because truthfully I can stand on the stand just like I am today and beat those
robbery cases, because I never done a robbery before.
: Going to beat them, aren't you?
Q
A: I put it in the Lord's hands.
(Id. at 274-75.)
'Lisa was Hardeman's girlfriend.
'Berry was the police investigator.
Affidavit of Stuart Parker - Page 2
After the Allen trial, upon review by Innocence Project attorneys, letters from Hardeman to
the prosecutor were found in the prosecutor's file. These letters were in the prosecutor's file at the
time of the Allen trial. These letters included the following statements:
I Lonel Hardeman Jr. is writing you because I truly feel that I'm being used by the
Department against crime. After turning over true statements, letters, and affidavits
to your departments to Detective Rick Berry about the April 7, death of minister Jesse
Borns; Willing to testifie [sic] against Dennis Lee Allen, a man that I only been with
since Sept. 18, 1998 till today of Aug. & Sept. ... From day one Mr. Rick Berry
was told from me and others for the information and the things he collected from
me all charges against me to be dropped since all allegations are not true. On
August. 27, 1999.
Mr. Rick Berry stated that he would help me like I helped him; Ms. Crum this would
be the second murder case I've helped the Department on with true facts and
statements, and willing to continue. I feel as though with the cooperation that I
give and the jepordy [sic] of my life that you should release me back to my
family. Mr. Ken Penrod and Alvin Pereze are the other two men that knows that I am
honest as well as lain you should[.] I spoke with you before. Laying here in jail on
charges I didn't commit is wrong, Like I said I'll do whatever it takes to convict
Dennis Lee Allen, Taking the stand won't be a problem, All I ask is for my life
back with my family. I help you once I'll help you again. Ms. Linda Crum from this
letter I wish to hear from you as a response to my letter and freedom; I thank you for
in your time out to read this letter and pray to God that this incident come to an
closing of the truth and righteousness of Justice. Say hello to 1 Ken and Mr. Pereze
as well. Yours Truly, A man that wants his Freedom.. .Lionel Hardeman Jr....God
knows who lieing[sic] ....and who's telling the Truth...
(Letter from Hardeman to Capt. Crum, dated Aug. 29, 1999).
Dear Sir: With all respect and honor to you I Lonel has been thinking of the issue of
the Dennis Lee Allen case. I'm wanting to let you know that I know that we can
come to an agreement on the cases pending against me for the testimony against
Dennis Allen. I know that 1 if I don't agree to testifie that I would be facing trial in
my behalf. I rather do time if I have to and not be number as a snitch than to do time
on "Death Row" wondering who's waiting to kill me for talking against Dennis L.
Allen and yet I still do time. I can't live that way. In 1998 I help the homicide unit
solve a murder [illegible] and I had 4 charges against me then and if the 1
District Attorney agreed upon a deal with me then I know you can [illegible] no
different from any other District Attorney! Mr. Ken Penrod and Alvin Perez is the
two that helped me then I know somewhere you and I can come to an agreement
for my testimony for the Dennise [sic] Allen trial. All I'm asking for in the return
of my self is for the 3 robbery cases be droped which I know for a fact I didn't
do, and state jail probation 2 years for what I did do and sign befor I step on the
stand so when I step down I'll be back in the arms of my family and not having
to worrie if I'll ever see Dennise [sic] L. Allen for a while. This is not a lot to ask
Affidavit of Stuart Parker - Page 3
for, I still will be accepting a conviction and I know I would have to walk very lightly
for the rest of my life. Other than this don't call me back, I don't want to waste
your time nor mine.
11 have a family to that loves me; I have childrens as well that care for me; Dermise
[sic] is a man that I know would come after 1 me if he had a chance; Im risking
myself, family and friend by standing trail against him; Im bring Justice to a family
that lost a love one behind a person with no moral; I think for what I'm asking for
is not even enough but is acceptable to ask for, I've been here once remember that
in 1998 murder case I know it can be done, I'm willing to tell the truth if your willing
to give my life back to me. I thank you for your time and patients and tell Douglas
Shopmeyer God is watching his children every step of the way. God know Imdtw-7
telling the truth and soon the court will to someway some how. . ..You can't Hide the
Truth! You have the Right man now lets put him away! God Bless you.
(Letter from Hardeman to ADA Jackson dated Feb. 14, 2000).
1Dear sir: My agreement with you is soon to be over...with you or without you I
know I can win my case along with out jepeordising [sic] my life as well as my family
lives because I never done any robbery what so ever and Im willing to go to trial now
because I can't keep waiting on another man trial that keeps on being
reschedule. My state jail time is about up and yes Im on parole; Im not afraid of what
I have to face, cause I am innocent.
When found innocent I'm facing maybe a little more time if any at least I know
something is being done, so I can go home. Im tired of 1 of laying here knowing I can
win my case than to wait on a man that is guilty. I have a life and a good family and
childrens that loves me. We can't keep waiting on another man when I can take
care of my own. Long as I been here I could have been to trial and home and if I
have to be here past my state jail time than I rather go to trial cause Im not going to
keep on waiting any longer on another man that keeps being set off I hope you
understand. Im not going back on my word but Im not going to keep waiting on
him either if I have to come to court from the free world then I will but this waiting
and waiting no more People can't even let me know what's going on I have to hear
about it from T.V. You people tell me one thing and there's another I don't know
what to think or do no more, I need my lawyer to contact me "ASAP" I have a lot of
question that need to be brought out to you and him. Please contact me; thank you.
(Letter from Hardeman to ADA Jackson dated July 7, 2000).
1 The District Attorney's file also contained letters that Hardeman's girlfriend wrote him while
he was in jail. The following are excerpts from these letters:
What are they talking about doing on your cases? Are they offering probation at all?
Oh!!! This is what I wanted to talk to you about. One night right after you had left I
was sitting on the steps alone drinking and shit and these 2 white men passed by. I felt
Affidavit of Stuart Parker - Page 4
like they were cops but I didn't give a shit right 5 minutes later they stopped in front
of me and started questioning me and shit about what I was doing and so forth.
Anyway after we talked a minute he said you seem educated and all this. Then he
said that they were homicide detectives working on the case of the minister that
got robbed and killed. He gave me his card in front of everybody right. I look
at it and tear it up. He ask me if I wanted to make some money, I said yeah. He
said if I come up with anything to call him. Well I didn't tell him what I knew.
He told me what he knew. He said he looking for a black man that hangs where
I was sitting with receding Salt-n-pepper hair in his late 30's to early 40's that
goes by the name Stan. I told him I'd ask around but I didn't know much. But I
know who did it Lonel. I called Marvin and asked him to get in touch with the
detective to see if I could talk to him in exchange for lesser sentences for both of
us. But I do know 100% who did it. Do you think I'm doing the right thing? About
talking to the detective? He hasn't come to see me yet so maybe Marvin didn't even
call him but I sure would like to get in touch with him. Maybe you can find someone
on your end to get in touch with him. His name is Detective Rick Berry--DPD
homicide division. If you contact someone who can get him, tell him that I need
to speak with him regarding information on the homicide case on the minister.
Maybe he can do something for us because I do have some pertinent information
for him. And I don't care about telling it because I don't plan on being in the South
Side like that ever again. I'm looking out for me and my baby, fuck the rest.
(Undated letter from Lisa Davis (Hardeman's girlfriend) to Lonel Hardeman, at pp. 7-9) (emphasis
supplied; typographical errors in original).
Anyway I am sure you have heard about D.A. He has been charged with the death of
the preacher I have been telling you about. He was p/u [picked up] 2 Saturdays ago.
That's why the detective didn't come see me because they had him already. Plus
he has 2 robbery charges pending. One of them is aggravated. It's in this past
Saturday's paper. I will try and send that to you.
So you know what that means huh? You probably can prove that he was the
mastermind of that hustle. I sure hate that for him but you now have a better chance
on your cases boo.
(Undated letter from Lisa Davis to Lonel Hardeman).
I understand that one question the court is considering is whether the prosecutor had given
these letters to Mr. Oatman, either during or before trial. This question has arisen because Mr.
Oatman is deceased and unable to answer the question. I also understand that there was no reference
at all in the trial to these letters.
Based on my knowledge of Jim Oatman's skills and dedication as a lawyer, Tam certain that
he would have used these letters to impeach the testimony of Hardeman if he had been given them
Affidavit of Stuart Parker - Page 5
by the prosecutor. Any competent lawyer would have used them, and since Mr. Oatman was not just
a competent lawyer but an outstanding one, I am sure he would have used them at trial. Based on
the fact that Mr. Oatman did not use these letters to challenge the testimony of Hardeman, my
conclusion is that he was never given them by the prosecutor. In addition, had Mr. Oatman been
shown the letters by the prosecutor prior to trial, I have no doubt that he would have requested that
copies be made so that he could have had them available for impeachment purposes at the time the
witness testified, and that he would have used the letters for that purpose during trial.
Additionally, at Allen's trial, the state called a jailhouse informant, Zane Smith, who testified
that Stanley Mozee, Allen's co-defendant, admitted being involved in the crime. During Smith's
testimony at Allen's trial, it was revealed that he had written a letter to the state in which he claimed
that Mozee confessed to the murder. However, the state apparently did not reveal that Smith had
written a second letter to the District Attorney immediately after the Mozee trial, but before the Allen
trial, that stated the following:
1 Dear Prosecutor, Jam writing this letter in response to the issues we discussed on the
Mozee trial. Sir I was also scheduled to go to my parole lhearing the day I was
supposed to testify, that's why I didn't get to speak to you before I came in to testify.
Mozee has been sending word by other inmates telling them I'm a snitch and also
telling me that he's got my address and that he's gonna get me. Sir I am not too
worried about those issues but what I'd like to know is -- Will you still be able to
intercede on my behalf as you said. Sir I would appreciate any efforts that you can
help me with in this matter. Please notify me if possible. Sincerely, Zane A. Smith.
P.S. I've forgotten your name.
(Letter from Smith dated Aug. 2, 2000).
1 This letter contradicts Smith's testimony at Allen's trial where he indicated that he had
already been sentenced in his own case and did not reveal that he was expecting more benefits from
the state than what had already been received.
Based on my knowledge of Jim Oatman's skills and diligence as a lawyer I am confident that
he would have used the letter from Smith to the prosecutor to make sure the jury knew that Smith
Affidavit of Stuart Parker - Page 6
was expecting assistance from the prosecutor based on his testimony at trial, and that Smith had
immediately asked the prosecutor to deliver on that expectation immediately after he testified at co-
defendant Mozee's trial.
In summary, Jim Oatman was an outstanding lawyer and I am certain that he would have
used each of these letters at the Allen trial had he been provided with them. In addition to using
these letters to impeach both Hardeman and Smith, it is also my opinion that Mr. Oatman would
have used these letters to powerful effect during his closing argument (for example, to argue more
broadly that the State's evidence and witnesses could not be trusted because at least two of its
informants had already been shown to have given false testimony about undisclosed expectations
and personal benefits).
Stuart Parker
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared Stuart Parker,
known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and after being
duly sworn by me did state upon oath that the facts contained in said instrument are true and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me th I #4'L- day o C LUIZ' , 2015.
LAURA MARTINEZ
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
March 13,2019 ary Public in and for
The State of Texas
My co/
_mmis//ion_expires:
1 3 q.
Affidavit of Stuart Parker - Page 7
WRIT NOS. W99-02631-R(A) and W00-01305-FR(B)
CAUSE NOS. F99-02631-R and F00-01305-R
EX PARTE IN THE DISTRICT COURT
STANLEY ORSON MOZEE 265 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AND
DENNIS LEE ALLEN DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF
APPLICATIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES the Applicants, DENNIS LEE ALLEN and STANLEY ORSON
MOZEE, and submits these Exhibits in Support of their Amended Applications for Writ
of Habeas Corpus:
Exhibit A: Portions of Clerk's File in Charles Manning
Exhibit B: Portions of Clerk's File on Alvin Degraftenreed —
co
Respe fully submitted, --o
C J)
-
GARY A. UDASHEN
Bar Card No. 20369590
SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
2311 Cedar Springs Road
Suite 250
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-468-8100
214-468-8104 fax
Appearing on Behalf of the
Innocence Project of Texas
Counsel for Dennis Lee Allen
1
NINA MORRISON
INNOCENCE PROJECT, INC.
40 Worth Street, Suite 701
New York, New York 10013
212-364-5340
212-264-5341 fax
EZEKIEL T SON, JR.
Bar Card No. 24034715
THE TYSON LAW FIRM
342 W. Montana Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75224
214-942-9000
214-942-9001 fax
Counsel for Stanley Orson Mozee
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Exhibits in Support of Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus was delivered to Cynthia
Gari and Patricia Cummings, Assistant Dallas County District Attorneys, on this the
clay of November, 2015.
GARY A. UDASHEN
2
111111111111111111111111 FRS- in 2-QT
P72-
ORIGINAL REVOCATION
BOND S7 111
ill 1111 Appellant Attorney
(appointed/retained)
F809245 Court Reporter IS .3
54 0ii —
THE STATE OF TEXAS
Atty. for Stet _ AlrgiTA
t Li'
VS. , q4„,
F98-15085 Atty. for Defenda
OFFENSE CHARLIE JUNIOR MANNING Jud gfr
• zutzke (VISITING/MAGISTRATE)
. /MAGISTRATE)
AGGRAVATED THEFT OF PROPERTY THE VALUE OF Date MEMORANDUM OF PAPERS FILED
$1500 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN ;20,000, A STATE 467
JAIL FELONY OFFENSE AS CHARGED IN THE
INDICTMENT
ia .g . 98r eatteiL 067-1 4/)
/Pa itfr-h I. 9161 . ObOO
2 a,3.92' 1
t
NM 14 1999
INDICTMENT FILED CERTIFIED COPY OF INDICTMENT DELIVERED 3 PROB VIOL MTN MO—WARRANT ISSUED
TO THE SHERIFF TO BE SERVED ON DEFENDANT
JUL I 6 IEM
( DATE)
IN THE COUNTY JAIL ON 4 g,meri a)id_ Ait, ayseo
PROB
PROB VIOL MIN W/DRAVIN — DEFT CONT ON
199? DOATFFEEONFSE.
5
Jo 11 RM
Judgment Rendered PROB VIOL MIN FILED-O ISSUED
re 2 2 1009
V 709 0125r /26. 7 MOD %CIL. MTN, W/ORAWN—DEFT CONT ON PROB
1
VOL 47 PAGE ;5'9 . 9 . a0.01]
Q
Sentenced 19 8 vitrnadi (1.0-01
BEGINNING ON DATE OF: 9
CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED: 10
11
Attorney 12
Add ss
13
112 eived Copy of Indictment on
Dais 14
15
e")
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION -
IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT 3
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS SEG 0005
CASE NUMBER F-9010085 DATE. 120701
OFFENSE THEFT AGGREGATE 1.500.: TIME 122612
REDUCED. CHARGE
7
TNE:STATE OF.:TEXWAPS.
DEPMANNING:.CHARLAEJUNLOk M DOB4O4229F
BNO 99107544
DISPOSED BY DISM
2
13 SENTENCE
-: APPEAL: - - - - - - - - -
6 SPECIAL CONDITION • MNT
7
He 00:000T: sEN*Fmcc..J0-.0EGI,N
ADDITIONAL CKED1T FOlk:TIMr:SER'VED
REMARKS 120701_DEFT NOT IN JAIL; JUDGMENT SET ASIDE; - - - - - - - - - - -
4
2$
26 RETURN ANY WARRANTS. 0 TRit k
CASEONLY.
27
8 JIM HAMI,IN
(7." DISTRICT CLERK A . JtFLEASE-INFORMATION.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I REMARKS - - - - - - - -
31
BY k'
17'32 GOBBOLD:D
DEPUTY CLERK
35
36
3
38
39
4
Cr 4
4
43
(--- 44
45
L
46
4
48
M
51
$2
çsa
56
CAUSE NO. F9815085J
THE STATE OF TEXAS
IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO 03
VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CHARLIE MANNING
ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDINGS AND
GRANTING DISCHARGE FROM COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
FOLLOWING DEFERRED ADJUDICATION
This day came on to be considered the matter of the release from
community supervision of the defendant in the above styled and numbered
cause, and the dismissal of the proceedings against the defendant. It
appearing to the Court that the adjudication of guilt was deferred and
the defendant was placed on community supervision on the 3rd day of
December , 1998 , for the felony offense of
THEFT $1500,-
AS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT
and it is further appearing to the Court that the period of community
supervision has expired and the Court has not proceeded to an
adjudication of guilt in this cause;
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the period of supervision herein is
terminated, the defendant is discharged from 'community supervision, and
all proceedings in this cause against the defendant are hereby dismissed,
except as provided in Article 42.12 Section 5, Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure.
SIGNED this 4th day of December , 2001.
Id
JUDGE ROBERT FRANCIS
CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO 03
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
C 257934
dc
. NOTICE OF DISPOSITION --
IN CRIMINAL ,DISTRICT COURT 3
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS SEG 0009
CASE NUtIDER F 910& DtkTE-- —
OFFENSE THEFT ASS 1.500 TIME 135441
. REDUCED CHARGE
THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. .
DEF MANNING CHARLIE JUNIOR -RACE, B SEX M DOB 042259
' 'I
)
1
DISPOSED BY
z
SENTENCE
3 YRS TO STATE JAIL PROBATED APPEAL
6
51 ErTACT—CDNI7ITION ---------
7
700 .'60 FINE, $ 186.25 COST SENTENCE TO - BEGIN 000000 -
o . S
ADDITIONAL CRED T FOR TIME SERVED
3
REMARKS 092000 DEFT NOT IN JAILWROB VIOL MTN W/DRAWN DEFT TO CONTINUE ON I
BAION;RECALL WARRANT - - - - - - - -
0 ------
JIM—MrAIIL.E1
, DISTRICT CLERK RELEASE INFORMATION
DALLAS COUNTY. TEXAS I REMARKS
,
0 BY BAItlitY C
DEPUTY CLERK
,
DATE: September 20, 2
CAUSE NO.:F9815085J
THE STATE OF TEXAS Criminal District Court No 3
VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CHARLIE MANNING JR.
STATE'S MOTION TO . WITHDRAW ITS MOTION
TO REVOKE PROBATION OR PROCEED TO AN ADJUDICATION OF GUILT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Comes now the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas, by and through the
undersigned Assistant District Attorney, and in the above cause respectfully
requests the Court to allow the State to withdraw its Motion to Revoke
Probation or Proceed to an Adjudication of Guilt.
Respectfully submitted,
BILL HILL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DALLAS COUNTY, EXAS
By:
Ass ant-Distric ttorney
ORDER
The foregoing State's Motion to Withdraw its Motion having been
presented to the Court, same is hereby in al things.granted, and the
Defendant is continued on probation.
Awsplomo
.7 GE, CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO 3
ML#C257934 dc
TRIAL DOCKET - CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT - DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
BAIL STATUS: BOND
F98-15085-QJ
No
•
STATE OF TEXAS ATTORNEYS 12e2/.. OFFENSE DATE OF FILING
AGGRAVATED THEFT OF PROPERTY THE VALUE OF $1500 OR MORE
CHARLIE JUNIOR MANNING . 0 4. .
4Ac a .. BUT LESS THAN $20,000, A STATE JAIL FELONY OFFENSE AS JULY 15 1998
7 CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT
4-.20 ,- 5 e ' r' Coil_ 44.1--6.51
,
• 1E/NMI -
DATE OF ORDER
re'WM= ORDERS OF COURT
AL 21 IN FIRST SETTINa IQ;
- 7 - ; • --.1_, 7•--2c;- 9e3-
" ,,... ill• --3 _43.
iv • 111C -
4. -
5 8- Jcv —/ —
0- I-GIs IMIIIIPANIIIIT
0- 98' 1-01-42-1:' ...;411.
c9--'-', , a. dr
■-■1 - , AP ■ 1 ■'• 40.'
• i
'AO II, tvz • - /
-3 7: 0 #4,..., 4. 6.-- j a lar fll EM I r
DEC 3 1998 ill ' WAIVED. DEFENDANT ARRAIGNED. DEFENDANT WARNED. PLEA OF
: :. :. - .e . - , •_ . ) 1
TO PROVE DEFENDANT'S GUILTY AS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT — Ififgg..-
,t .1 kilt,
5 , : i . . - ' ' : ,' : tt.: ■ , ., ■ II
- UnQ
MITTED ON THE -- ..- - DAY OF 0. -- 19.' % . FURTHER
L
k I
PligigUNAS ” YEARS. COURT COSTS 'OFI . . : ± g T
ri I .- '. ! ! ! - ■ ! , ■
. I I OF A FINE IN THE AMOUNT
ô
OF ,• ° 1 •
P _
. .' . .1 . THE FINE TO . 1 Ailf
— _,,.... —
D , l'H -4 .--a
PAI BY _A1_19—C
STATE OF TEXAS
—e5
vs No F- 9i5.Y5 06—
Ckart e— or- Me6101/%A.,
DATE OF ORDER ORDERS OF COURT
g
Iwo-
7 , , --.1. 0,1 c..1( „.0 , Co - c_iS. .0 e-c, .5-L.- f a, e,r- 4 A LAVAC.
•
7 7 ...... //- , cv ,C .il_
90 -4 p
- 3o - - ot) 0 5 c. 7-
• C2 ,
6 _.0 • -3-e7 Ezi -—- )1",-1-1 .V.-- 522 -f —q
, -AI& i
1, - 0 0 ,, . • , 0- CC C-
„ 4,-cro MC _ .., o
- z €f- az 2/ id L---
C
6) a /./. %& -
O _,Mr.....-. 01 a L.__
5- , e2.,
/ a 0 e_____
I PW OW-- 0 0 t (---
A-' 0<f) ERO__,/ AP
1
g '' &CD _./ - .0 0 (7 3 •■-$C2>C2D I -
1. . (____
6 ' (2_.3 - co ir _ . , -, ., .o
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
/4 -
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. { CAUSE NO.(S)
_ /fop-
C ir bc /114-At Fit
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed by agreement to:
recommend the following:
at am/pm
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail
Years Probated for Years.
Days In Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
Aseastant Mudd Anomey attorney for Defendant Defendant
-
PhCla3 Nurrber
72-- PJ/ 2-
Phone tannbet Phone Nunitaa
ORDER AND FINDING
State (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
Dania Judge
Date
FORM 98 WHITE COPY — FILE, YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. { CAUSE NO.(S)
CAAfhe
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed b agreement to:
recommend the following:
ilir 2_,L4 * 61. at anVpm
for the purpose of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
Assistant Diana Anomey Attorney for Del Defendant
(2)6- 7 2-- /2-
hone Nurriner ‘• Phone Nurrter Phone Nurrbef
ORDER AND FINDING
State (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
Meted Judge
Dee
FORM 96 WHITE COPY — FILE, YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
-
0 0
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
CAUSE NO.(S)
.1"
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
,a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
• I
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case p9ssed by agreement to:
recommend the following: 1-66
7L1"
47 at am/pm
for the purpose of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
Asostam District Attorney Mornay lor Del Delerelant
22 -9 J/2-
hone Number Phone Number hone Number
ORDER AND FINDING
State (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
District Judge
Dale
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. { CAUSE NO.(S)
6tn.,
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed by agreement to:
recommend the following:
2— ift—c at arri/pm
for the purpose of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail S-
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
Assistant District Attorney
Phone Numbs'
C2
Phone NUII*Of
—F 3/2-- Phone Number
ORDER AND FINDING
State (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
District Judge
Dale
FORM 9S WHITE COPY — FILE, YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. CAUSE NO.(S)
F- 9 8-- ... ( _SG
r It Itee.:•:.5
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed by agreement to:
recommend the following:
2 WI/ 4t7 at anVpm
for the purp9s9,of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail SA1/40
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS)/ (IS NOT) waived.
Assistant Diana Attorney Attorney bar Defendant Delendant
Phone Nurnbat
(9/06 - P3/2
Phone Nurrbet Phone Nurrbel
ORDER AND FINDING
Stale (IS, IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
Deed Judge
Dale
FORM 96 WHITE COPY — FILE. YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. { CAUSE NO.(S)
044 r/o "r7 i— ")--
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause Is charged with the offense of
a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case paged by agreement to:
recommend the following:
at anVpm
for the purpose of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
G J10, y,/,
County Jail
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
I.
Phone Ni. Phone Nurrber Phone Nurrbet
I (er("'"A*1
ORDER AND FINDING
State (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
Mulct Judge
Dale
FORM 93 WHITE COPY — FILE, YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. CAUSE NO.(S)
F
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense Is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed by agreement to:
recommend the following:
2---g/l/Aft4 at am/pm
for the purpose of: _A)
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
Assistant Dhoti Anornoy
Phcee Nurrber PM,,o NuIIo, Phone Nunter
06 ;;/
ORDER AND FINDING
State (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
Distdo Judge
One
FORM 98 WHITE COPY — FILE, YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
71, :
-
NOTICE OF DISPOSITION
IN CRIMINALDISTRICT COURT
DALLASCOUNTY EXAS'"
CASE NUMBER F-9815085 DATE 010400,
AI
FFENS E THEFT :AGG 1.,500 TIM 16ZO32
REDUCED CHARGE
THE STATE OF TEXAS VS.
DEF MANNING CHARLIE JUNIOR RACE B SEX . M DOB 042259
BNO 99107544
DISPOSEDErt
SENTENCE 1 ,
3 YRS TO STATE JAIL PROBATED
SPECIAL CONDITION !LA".
n20
21
• 22 700.00 FINE $ 186.25 COST SENTENCE TO BEGIN 000000
23 ADDITIONAL CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED
'REMARKS 010499 DEFT IN JAIL;$10,905' : PR . BOND POSTED PER.JUDGEFRANCTSMOPT,'
:atiN
g
.SENT TO BOND DESk -
;:r1
29
W
JIM HAMLIN
31
DISTRICT CLERK RELE A S E INFORMATTON
'2 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS REMARKS THIS:,011SE,:..0.tiLY.,A
4
1 C
3 BY BAILEY C
1-7'
35 DEPUTY CLERK
:77
17
7.3 •
•
DEFENDANT'S PERSONAL DATA
a-4-1,x
Defendant's full name:
Aliases or nickname:
Home address:
7 0p,4 ,1
.
A 4 144 4 For .................... years
. For
Previous address: .............................................................................................................................. years
6449) 224 .....7 13,,!?: ....................................................................
Phone: - "/ Birthdate: tfi .•
3a
Birthpl c e: , 44,4 Education (yrs.).........,.... iClo r..1. 713 ... 10
Ht: " Wt: / 61J 1 Eyes : P r•-• .1-l ai'r% ` eiii
.... If unemployed, how long: ...............................................................................
Set'
Res. Dallas Co. (yrs) ........................
Name of present employer: .......................... His address: .............................................................
Phone: ................................... Typ 4.,,iv '1 7;..- *
Name or supervisor: .................................................................................. Employed since: .............................................
Approx. TOTAL earnings past twelve months (after deductions): $ ...................................................................................
Name of former employer ............................................................. His address: .................................................................
Phone: ........................... TylWor-w&ik:---- —
Name of supervisor . Employed from .................... to .................
Reason for leaving: ...................................................................................................................................................................
Marital status (circle) S M W D Sep. ALL minor children (No.) ..............................................
Spouse: ................................................................................. Address: .................................................................................
Church & Pastor ................................................................................. Address: .....
Home: Rent? ............... .........,Own? Monthly 7nt, or payments: $
Military service (circl A F M N CG From 7? to
Type discharge: 4- 0,{14 - Pension •r•-1-- Amt; $ .............................................
Auto: Make ................................................................... Body type ....................................... Model .............................
Auto license No ...................................................................... Texas or .......................................................... Oper. Comm.
Chauf. Driver's license No. ........................................................................................ Expires
Social Security No. '2) —S-73,3
I
Three Dallas Cki nt yLR9 idgits who will ALWAYS know your whereabouts:
I
h ef c_cw: e Address A.4.0/A i',.. 4 I, - r A /f..,
1. •Name
Phone .Cz) '9 Y f- -/ff ) Relationship .........................................................................
1/q414, 1 e(jf i f e
2. Name / Address it
• Phone ........................................................................... Relationship
3. Name Address
Phone ................................................... Relationship
How many times have you been arrested before? .................................................................................................................
Have you ever been convicted of an offense other than a traffic ticket? .........................................................................
Describe time, place and nature of offense: ......... ` ............. •
Have you ever been on probation? "14. Offense ..............................................................................
1
Officer Ms C44 Lur- Address ................................................................... Revoked? ........................
Discuss
Have you ever been on parole? ............................................... Offense ...............................................................................
Officer .................................................... Address ................................................................... Revoked? ........................
Discuss .......................................................................................................................................................................................
Have you ever been on bond? ................ How many times? ........................... Charges ................................................
............................................................................................... Name of bondsman ...............................................................
Defendant's Statement: I have voluntarily prepared the foregoing to submit to the Court as an exhibit to my appli-
cation for personal bond, appearing on the reverse side hereof. I have carefully checked the same for accuracy and
understand that any false statement made herein may be grounds for th urt to withhold or withdraw my personal
bond at any time. I agree to allow the Court to contact any of the have listed above to verify the inform-
ation furnished by,me.
Date: ......................................................
' Defendant:5 Signature
FORM 3664
APPEARANCE BOND (AFTER INDICTMEMP-FELONY-PERSONAL BOND)
• THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
THAT 1, C r/'e-
-1-1
as principal, and being the defendant in the charge referred to herein, am Iffld and firmly bound unto THE STATE
.7A 1" 44 04
4)t1-e-' .4.CP 114 ($
ie.
OF TEXAS in the penal sum of DOLLARS, payable to said
State, and for the payment of which sum, well and truly to be made,'I do bind myself, my heirs, executors, and admin-
istrators, jointly and severally by these presents; and in addition thereto, I am bound for the payment of all necessary
and reasonable expenses incurred by any and all sheriffs or other peace officers in rearresting me as principal in the
event I fail to appear before the court or courts provided for herein at the time stated herein; the amount of such ex-
pense shall be in addition to the principal amount specified herein. For the payment of which sum or sums well and
truly to be made, as aforesaid, I do bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, jointly and severally by these
presents; this bond shall be valid and binding upon me as principal, for my personal appearance before the court desig-
nated herein and before any court in which this cause may hereafter be pending at any time when, and place where,
my presence may be required under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of Texas or by any such court and for
any and all subsequent court proceedings had relative to the hereinafter described charge.
CONDITIONED, that, whereas, I as principal, now in legal custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County, Texas,
-0-3
charged in due form of the law in the Judicial District Court of Della; ft.
Co...unt
4.,.y.7
, Texas, in Cause
No.r1S- -tra /1.5- 1-,c,,--/fe
, and styled the State of Texas vs.
with a felony offense, and who by the order of the judge of said court has been required to give y personal bond in
the sum set out above, conditioned for my personal appearance before said last named court on the ............. day of
//..... ,2-esvac-...............
lac.- 90
A.D. /.11 , at ................... o'clock 4
M., or upon notice by the court, and
any other court provided for herein, to answer the said above described charge now pending against me and for any and
all subsequent proceedings had relative to the charge. Now, If I as principal shall make my personal appearance as
.?
provided for herein before said Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, in the Courthouse in
the City of Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, and there remain from day to day and term to term of said court until dis-
charged by due course of law, then and there to answer said above described charge, and shall personally appear as pro-
vided for herein before any court in which this said cause may hereafter be legally pending as well as before any other
court to which said cause may be transferred, at any time when, and place where, my presence may be required under
the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of Texas or by any of such courts, and there remain from day to day and
term to term of any such courts in which or before whomever said charge is pending, for any and all subsequent pro-
ceedings had relative to the charge, until discharged by due course of law; THEN the above bond will be null and void,
OTHERWISE to be and remain in full force and effect.
WITNESS my hand this day of
Signature of Defendant as Principal
3
e22
9
1.
0
"
4 ca 4 r ifre
' I; Address of Defendant as Principal herein
Melilla
fr ...........................
Name of Employer or Business
714
Place of Employment (Street Address)
"I swear that I will appear before the ............................. Judicial District Court of Dallas,County, Texas at the
'
Courthouse in the City of Dallas, in Dallas County, Texas, on the ....
17
" .of ......... a-'qft-
day .
.
20420.
A.D. I4..... , at .................. o'clock .... M., or upon 'notice by the Court, or pay the court the principal sum of
......................................... ts 0/. o 41
or )' DOLLARS,
- plus reasonable expenses Incurred in
any arrest for failure to appear.',
t-De
SWORN to and 'bed by ........................... ................. before me, on this
•
day of
1:90
JIM HAMLIN, Clerk of Judicial District
.By.. ••I Deputy
\
The foregoing bond taken and approved by me this •• ...... ai>06
Judge,C udicial District Court
of 'Dallas County, Texas
fl
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. CAUSE NO.(S)
x./ 4,1 7
r- k
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
,a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed by agreement to:
recommend the following:
FeI 24'" 6r at am/pm
for the purpose of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail
tva-
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
Aesietant Dieted Artomey Attorney for Defendant Defendant
t h e Nurrber Phone Number Phone Number
ORDER AND FINDING
State (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
Dien ict Judge
Do
FORM 95 WHITE COPY — FILE, YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
\A\ et471,fi,a(it2T
( .1 0 1,00g
CAUSE NO.
F9815085J F
THE STATE OF TEXAS cAPIAS ISSUED
) This th aayof December A.D.1999
VS. 089499 ) Honorable ROBERT FRANCIS
) Judge, Criminal District Court No 3
CHARLIE MANNING, JR
Of-r- 06-22--9g
Defendant DSO #: 0765572 AT LARGE
XX IN CUSTODY
DATE OF BIRTH: 04/22/ 59 LAST KNOWN ADDRESS:
RACE: B SEX: MALE 300B AUGUST DR 4.-
HAIR: BLK EYES: BRO. DENTON X 76 07
HT: 5'10" WT: 175 lbs. DATE La -1 3 -
DEPUTY
Offense: AGO THEFT OF PROPERTY
To any Sheriff or any Constable of the State of Texas: 1IO222t(1 %g
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to take the body of CHARLIE MANNING. JR
who has been charged by indictment for a felony offense and placed on probation,
and him safely keep so that you have him before the Honorable Criminal District
Court No 3 of Dallas County, Texas at Courthouse, thereof in the City of
Dallas, instanter, then and there to THE STATE OF TEXAS against the said
,CHARLIE MANNING. JR for violation of the- Conditions of
probation in Cause No
F9815085J F
State of Texas vs. CHARLIE MANNING, JR
HEREIN PAIL NOT, but have you then and there this Wr:i howing how
you have executed the same.
Given under my off Aal seal of Said Court of Dallas County, Texas,
this th day of December A.D. 1999
ATTEST UM EigDATE
J411 11,01,1, Dist ct Clerk WAMOSI
Dail s • Y. t- as
AMINUILMI
By I
il
-m- -7-
eputy
k
- • ••
vzsmicalual
MOM=
NCIC MEM
SHERIFF'S
MIME=
Came to hand this day of
INN
0?C
RETURNED on this ..
) :P" day of " 1/ ' Er , A.D. 19
Mileage $ JIM BOWLES
ap0 BOWLES, Dallas County
SheRiii ff
Fees
Total By rim UAL-11.-r14/. 0. / Deputy
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. { CAUSE NO.(S)
9T-
C F li--- 16---
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
,a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense Is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CON71NUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed by agreement to:
recommend the following:
6A
t -- 2■ 7a
at am/pm
for the purpose of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Flne The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS)! (IS NOT) waived.
Assisttnt Mulct Attorney
r-v 227 : ' --r-7347
Phone,Nurrber Phone Number
ORDER AND FINDING
Stale (IS/ IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
Okddct Judge
Don
FORM 96 WHITE COPY — FILE, YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS. CAUSE NO(S)
C4orh, odonggen •Irs
,
CASE INFORMATION
The Defendant in this cause is charged with the offense of
,a degree felony. The possible punishment for this
offense is
PLEA BARGAIN DATA CONTINUANCE DATA
On a plea of Guilty, the District Attorney will Case passed by agreement to:
recommend the following:
at anVpm
for the purpose of:
Years TDC Days in Dallas
County Jail
Years Probated for Years.
Days in Dallas County Jail Probated
for Days. which will be the setting of this case.
Fine The appearance of the Defendant at the next setting
(IS) / (IS NOT) waived.
Assistant District Attorney Morey of Defendant Defendant
Phone Nurrbet rep,,&-rw7 Vhone Number
ORDER AND FINDING
Slate (IS / IS NOT) found to have, in fact, been ready this date
District P.Oge
Doe
Cr1111.1 OR WHITE COPY — FILE. YELLOW COPY — DISTRICT ATTORNEY. PINK COPY — DEF. ATTORNEY/DEFENDANT
No. F9815085J
THE STATE OF TEXAS CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO 3
VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
man MINIM JR
MOTION TO REVOKE PROBATION OR PROCEED WITH AN ADJUDICATION OF GUILT
COMES NOW the State of Texas by and through her Criminal District Attorney
and would show the Court the following:
That CHARLIE MANNING. JR , Defendant was duly and legally placed on
Probation in the above entitled and numbered cause in the Criminal District
Court No 3 of Dallas County, Texas, on the 3rd day of December , 1998,
A.D. of the offense of
AGGRAVATED THEFT OF PROPERTY, AS CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT
That Defendant has violated the following conditions (b.d.1.1.m, & n) of
said probation in that
(SEE ATTACHED)
This violation occurred after December 3. 1998 and during . the term of
probation.
WHEREFORE, the State prays that said Defendant be cited to appear before this
Honorable Court and show cause why his probation should not be 'revoked; and
that upon a final hearing, the probation heretofore granted said Defendant be
revoked.
This the 22nd day of December , A.D. 1999.
BIL llas County, Texas
ASS T DIST ICT ATTORNEY
A 13 this ',ion was deliVered to the Deend.ant on the 3?) day of
, A. D. 19
CS) 0\4\11\6•Q/K0
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OFFICER
I received a copy of this motion o day of 02aidadDA.D. 1999.
De endant M14257934.030
********************** COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OFFICER
• FILED
• JIM HAMLIN
* . DISTRICT CLERK *
* DALLAS CO., TEXAS *
DEPUTY
****************w*****
tc/mb
79815085J
p
ecember 22. 1999
THE STATE OF TEXAS Criminal District Court No 3
VS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CHARLIE MANNING. JR
(b) Avoid injurious or vicious habits, and do not use marijuana, narcotics,
dangerous drugs, inhalants or prescription medication without first
obtaining a prescription for said substances from a licensed physician;
to include alcohol as a prohibited substance.
( CHARLIE MANNING, JR submitted urinalysis on July 27, 1999 which
tested positive for Cocaine).
(d) Obey all the rules and regulations of the probation department, and
report to the Probation Officer as.directed by the Judge or Probation
Officer; to-wit: WEEKLY, MONTHLY, TWICE MONTHLY
(CHARLIE MANNING, JR failed to.report to the probation officer as
directed for the months of February through June and November 1999).
(j) Pay a probation fee of $40.00 per month to the Probation Officer of
this Court on or before the first day of each Month hereafter during
probation;
(CHARLIE MANNING, JR did not pay probation fees as directed and is
currently delinquent $440.00 ).
(1) Defendant will perform 120 hours of Community Service Restitution
enroll and cOmmence said CSR on/or before January 1. 1999 . , and
complete a minimum of 10 hours per month until completion fo CSR on or
before Januar y 31. 2000 . Perform CSR hours at an approved community
service project designated by the CSCD. A processing fee of $50..00
payable. to the Volunteer Center will/will not be required for referrals
through the Volunteer Center.
(CHARLIE MANNING, JR did not begin community service hours as directed).
(m) Make restitution in the amount of $600.00 for the loss sustained by
the injured party. Payments are to be paid through the probation
officer of this court at the rate of $25.00 per month. First payment
is due on or before January 1. 1999 and a like payment is due on or
before the first day of each month thereafter until paid in full.
(CHARLIE MANNING, JR failed to pay restitution as directed and is
currently $275.00 ).
(n) Reimburse Dallas County, Texas, in the amount of $886.25 for the
services of a Court-appointed Attorney and fine and/or court cost.
Payments are to be paid through the probation officer of this court at
the rate of $50.00 per month. First payment is due on or before
Januar y 1, 1999 and. a like payment is due on or before the first day
of each month thereafter until paid in full.
(CHARLIE MANNING, JR did not pay court-appointed attorney and fine
and/or court costs as directed and is currently delinquent $550.00 ).
,
. CAPIAS
PROBATION VIOLATION
CAUSE NO.
F9815085J F
THE STATE OF TEXAS CAPIAS ISSUED
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.