Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Albert Randolph, Petitioner v. Texas

FILED

OCT 13 2023

OFFICE OF THE CLER

| SUPREME COURT. U.S.

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Miber+ Panda }e )— PETITIONER

(Your Name) .

VS.

re

The Stete of Texat — RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

— ; \ 4

Texas Cour+ of Crimina! Appecl s

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Aibe p+ Randel h

(Your Name) .

K+. -Q Roa GYOuV

(Address)

Cotes, \te _texGsi 76S? Z

(City, state, Zip Code)

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

Couct of Crimnal Appeals error denying (Ur i+ of

Habeas Corpus Sor Vew Trish.

Courd of Crimme) Appects error denying Notton

tor New Trig).

LIST OF PARTIES

(WAN parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW........... sisssssessusssesnnusnsensssasosseensesasesnnenssssnnuneesseneaneteenneeee cents 1

JURISDICTION. ..ccccccccssecsssssesssesesssevecsstsectitessssiesssevesseesssiesssiseesticessttsestitecsticesstisessteeee Q

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED oscec-ccccccccccosssseseee 3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE cocceccccccccccccccccesecseeccosee: eccestttsttttssttsstitestesssessesene tt 2@

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT cccccccccccccccccsceccccsseeccccssceseceseeccessteeceeseeeeeee 7-8.

CONCLUSION. .....ccccccccscceseccscscsssceccccececsessssssssesessvssdvectesssavissssuvacsvestevecevacictatavavecesevenes a

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A Court of Crimng) Appeals Decision He

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

IN THE -

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix to

the petition and is

[ ] reported at , Or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix to

the petition and is

[ ] reported at __3 or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished. | |

m For cases from state courts:

The opinion, pt the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix _4*___ to the petition and is

| ] reported at , Or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

Ns unpublished.

The opinion of the ___ court.

appears at Appendix to the petition and is

[ ] reported at : , ; or,

{ | has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: , and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including (date) on (date)

in Application No. A .

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S. C. §1254(1).

[ |] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was JO - H - 203%

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix ,

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

, and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including (date) on (date) in

Application No. A | |

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S. C. §1257(a).

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES | PAGE NUMBER

‘Colem an v. State, 833 St. 2d 286 C Co App.1992) _&.

Robertson v. Sate, le $,W. 3d ISG (Tew. App: 2000) | 8

Nkrumah Lamumba Valier , 2o'l Tes. Nop, LEATS $947 | 8

Ex parte Miliver, 2006 Tet,Crim Agg- Uppub, LExTS 997. Be

Ex patty Gossett, 2067 Ters Coins Ppp, nepebs LEXATS SES 7

Ex parte Tayler, 2007 Tex, Crim, App- Wnpubs LEX TS Qe) 7

ee

Ex parte Rachel, 2009 Tea. Crim. Ppp-Wnpub, LEXTS A4 BL.

Brcdy vs Maryland, 373 U.S. 34) (1962) 7d...

Thomas v, Ste ey £29) Sa1.2d 359 (Ted. Coim-Agp, 1992) co we wee. 2

Watkins w Mijler,J2 F. Supp Ad SIN (USL Dist, 900M

Mc Danie) v, Brown, $53 U.S, ido (2000) a: one

United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d i244 Ci)th Cir. Joo!) 8 _.

STATUTES AND RULES

Fax Peng) Cede $29;01La)CADCA L200e7) - Ey —

Tex: Code Crim, Prot. Ann- art. 11.0784 CadlQ) eee.

— Tete, Code Crim: Proe, Ann, art 38:43 CAI CDCAL ID _ | $

Tek» Code Crim, Proce Ann, ar+-56,.0b La) 8

Tea. Cede Crim.~Proc. Pryrvart. (4.0) CQ) C1) C2), (b) (2 (a) AS

Tes, Health t Safety Code $223,004 CODjLbEI(D 8

‘Jer: Gov't Code $420.03) Cad, Cb). a 3 _

OTHER

US: Cond, Amend: HH 7

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED —

Tex, Penal Code $22.01 |

(a) A person Commits an offense if

Ca) Intention ally or Knowingly

(A) cause the penetration of the Sexual organ oF a Chi id

by any means,

Acticle 11.07 $acaya) - Appendix A

Cadard s order (De ciscdon of the Cour+ of Criminegl

Appecis | |

| Article 33.43

Cad Tn this artele "biolegical evidence means?

(1) contents of Setual assaul+ exammation Kj: -

CAJ establish +he iden tity of the person commiting

the offense of engaging in the Cond uct Cons4 ituting

the offense yor

Ci) exclude a person From the group. of person who

Could have Committed the offense or engaged +h +he

Conducd con shda ting the offense “

Apisele bY) ”

Cay!) A conve feded person may Submit to the Conviehing

Courd a motion for Forensic DVA testing of evidence

that has 4 recjonable lilcehood of containing meterial,

biological. The motion must be accompanied by an

aff davitjSworn +o by the convicted person, Containing

Statem endF of Fathi in Support of the motion-

U5, Const, Amend: I4

No State shall make orenforce any law which sholt

abridge the privileges or immunites of citicens of

the Upited Stetes) nor Shall ony State deprive eny)

person of life, |i therdy, or Property, without duc

prveess of law,

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

September 20,2007 accused the

Petitvones of Sexually assaulting her on the 18+h

day of September,Q007, The Tyler Police Depart -

ment Collected a Sexual assaulevidence Collection

Kits two pair of panties and a pair of boker Shorts

From ee and saliva swabs from the

petit vroner » The items was Submitted to the

Texas Department of Pubiic Safety and +o Orchid

Cellmerk Crime Labsratorys for DvA fering .

October 25,2007 the petitioner was inditted

for Sexual Assault of a Child in Cause number

114 -2075- 07. CCR; 1-2)- Tex, Penal Code -F 22.01) Cad Ca)

Ca). December 13,2007 the petitroner requested

for Discovery of SciendiFit Evidence .C cei ys-47).

Telal, the peogecutor adduced t 1) the Sexual

Assault Evidence Collection Kit, State's Exhibit No-

4-C. RR. Voli A, pgs. 20-21 j the boxer Shor4s, State's

Exhibit Uo, a-A. RR. Vol &, pg !V,and the testi -

mony of forensic scientist Trisha Kacer, about

the testing results from the boxer shorts, RR,

Vol. 2: pg- a5,Ln, 13-23) the panties, State's Exhibit

No- 3. R,J2, Vol. a.pg- 4a, and +he testimony of

Matthew Dupont, forensic Scientist, about the

testing resu 45 From the panties, RR. Vol. a, por.

q4, ln, 3-77 4G, La. 22-255 and the testimony

CR - Clerk's Ree ocd

R.R- - Reporter Record

ne of. TR nce events rte se)

assault. Rk, Voli ad pgs 67-68, 40 Find the petitioner

gisilty eof thse ind loded offense RR Vole 2 pgsele7=—

ee The petidioner wasconvicted and Sentenced +o

life_imprisonment,.CCR2 3-85).

poe Ey ROM, petitioner requested for_additiena). Data

tes#ng.. Tex. Code Crim: Proc: Ann.artd GH.01(07,C2). Cb)

(2) CA Vernen). The Court granted the. Segues+ ond.

tha petitioner cAiscovered “only a Se cology? ZOVA Repock. from +he Texas Department of Pubic Safety. doted

"TT Meck, inthe postessien ofthe paotecudl on _priot +a

aod_during trial, contéining the testing cosults

___ from the Sexual Assaul+ Evidence Collection Kit) and

" from the Boxer Shoris-

Sept mber 71,2023 the pet Ihoner Siled a subse =

pan ert_applicadils.o Foc ta eit of habecs Corpus with +the

Disteict Couct of Smith County, Texas tm cause —

____number_lid=2076-07-AAD. Ter. Code Crim-Prot, Ann.

art.Jl0? $4Ca>CaQ) (Vernon).

_ 7 a. The presented three claims of Deiual

oe Innocence celeding +o! D Sexuc) Assault Evidence

_ Collection Kit iw) _—_

2) the Boxer Shorts and the testimony of Trisha

Wn hacer and 3) the Panties and the testimony of

Matthew Dupont j evidence used +o Convict the pet- |

nn fs ionerof the iadicted offense Da Stuppoct of the

Claims, petitioner Submitted « cogy of the Serology /

Dv A Report 5 Memorandum jand Motion for New

~ __ Trial _ _

The Oistrict Attorney's Office decline +0 re-

. Spease. +o +he application, citing &% prion Cour +

order Prom the Court oF Criminal Dppe gis, Citing |

the peti tioner for abure of ewrit. The applica -

tion and the State's cesponse was focwarded +o

the Court of Criminal A.ppecals on the Qist dav of

S.e.pzem ber, 2023 Sor Further actione

° Th a Cou: c+ of Cc eimina) Appeals ak fon ra 20 +he.

District Dytorney's_. fe 2ponse... +o the Gdn it of Habeas

Ce Co pas and the Morven =for New Trial, cite 23

__ the Court's order for abuse of turrt-

ewe | tte et ee

c

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

The prosecutor had fei) +o comply with his Const-

Vyodional obligation +0 disclose al) exculpatory

evidence ;and to see that +he petitioner had a fair

trial. U.S. Const. Amend. (4) Brady v, Maryland, 373

Us, 83,10 L.Ed, Ad 215,83 Sed. 194 C1IES); Thomas v-

State, M1) Swe 8d 399 (Tex. Crime App. 1992)-

Pelitibner bed come forwarded with Compell ng

evidence that he was actugily innocent of sexual

assault. Watkins wv Miller, 92 F. Supp, 2d sau Cu.s,

Dist. Joo), Ex parte Gossett, 2007 Text, Crims App-

Unpub- LEXIS 985) Fx parte Tayler, 2007 Tex, Crim-

App. Unpub- Leazs jaul-

The Serology /DvA Report Festing results States

that the Petitioner's DVA was not detected on the

smear Slides, and the Swabs tested negative Lor

the petitioner's Dvn, establishing that the pet-

FHioner did not penetrote the Sedual organ oF

with-+he penis of the pebtorery

and that the petit ’oner did not use his mouth on

the sexucl organ of J- The semen

deteeted inthe boxer Shorts alio tested negative

ae dischorged From dhe

vagina of excluded the pelitoner-

The repert also establis hed thet the DwA re-

Covered from the panties excluded the petitioner,

Vagi'ng) swabs tested negative Por the petitioner's

DwA,

Sinee the late 1970's States have used Sevual assault

Peorensic evidence (8 AFF) kits, to colleot evidence for

prosecution in rape Cases . Thesef My +5 includes items

Such as Susabs yi rLeS Cope éiv ‘des, and other materia)

Nee eSSEGLry for collection ef ferens/e evidence pelevent

4e prove the Crime of Fape- Tew» Code Crim Proc. Ann,

ath. § 6.0% CalVernen)s Tex. Hegith a Safety Code +

313.064 Ca), CbdC4) (Vernon) Teds Gov't Code $420.03)

Ca). Ch) (Vernen)’ Me Daniel we Rrown, £f3 ts. 190

(2000) ( Coun+ Pound DWA evidence remains powerFa|

sae #8 ctv sere

in Cul petory evidence). the’ presence oF Semen in

the Vagina of the victim provides both © £) potentrally

tenclusive evidence of the perpetrator ana 2) Con.

etusive evidence of penetration: United Stetes v,

Frazier, 397 F-3A i2H4 Ciith Cir Joo) Csee lung pre Sence

of Semen through Dw analysis) 4s Coleman yv, State,

£33 Sw, dd 296 (Co App- 199A) COVA on Vaginal swabs

match dePendent3 DwA- TVhe preSoan Ce oft Semen it

2 im portan+, both ars @ source of DPYA for Dwa anglyszj,

“end as evidence of Sedual Qactiy ty 4 Nik caumeh

Lamumbe Valier, 206}) Tew, App, LEX TS S947,

The contents of the Seruol errault “erkanunction

_ lit, Ted. Code Crime Prog, art, 38.43 Carta CAD, C 2,

witleither (dentify the pensen.Robeprdsen v, State

I Ste RA DSO Text, Dp PeQ000., or exclude G perJon . Fa

. parte Rachel,2009 Tek, Cri ms App. Unpub. LEXTS 24°

Ex, pacte Miller, 2006 Tex, Crim« Dep. unpub. LEK TS

207.

~CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Dibert Ronda gh

Date: Getober 12,9043

4,