Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Sam Autry Fletcher, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

Supreme Court briefNov 12, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

* * i

No.

(Q) 0-8 ORIGINAL

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF SHE UNITED STATES

Sam Autry Fletcher - Petition

FILED

vs.

(

NOV 1 2 202*

Bobby Lumpkin, Director - Respondent

gMgaSTO

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Sam Autry Fletcher, Pro Se

TDCJ-CID # 02038766

McConnell Unit

(

3001 S. Elnily Dr.

Beeville, Texas 78102 i

{

"MiSEivEU”

APR 2 j) 2025

SUPI?EEM°FcTyjR?:L>^ls<

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1 1. Does Title 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(l) or any other provision of the AEDBA,

or any clearly established U.S. Supreme Court authority give frderal

district or circuit courts discretion to disregard or ignore a state

habeas petitioner's clear and convincing evidence which substantiates

and proves true all of the petitioner's claims;and,1,therefore?, rebuts

the §2254(e)(1) statutory presumption of correctness?

2. What form of recourse or type of redress is available to petitioner's

that submit irrefutable digital audio, photographic,and other documented

ary evidence that supports and proves the verity of all of theenetitiona

petitioner's factual assertions and validity of Constitutional claims

set forth in the Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. §2254 habeas petition, and

the petitioner's proffered evidence is repetedly disregarded, ignored ^

and overlooked by all state and federal courts that reviewed or passed

upon petitioner's claims?

-i-

LIST OF PARTIES

Sam Autry Fletcher # 02038766, Petitioner, Pro Se, McConnell Unit, 3001 S. Enily

Dr., Beeville, Texas 78102

ReniPaxtonViAttoineytfor Repondent (Bobby Lumpkin, Director), P.O.Box 12548,

(

Austin,ITexas 78711-2548

-ii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented.

. . .x

List of Parties.

.ii

Table of Contents.

Index to Appendices.

. .iii

••

.iv,v

Table of Authorities cited.

• • vi

Statutes, Rules and Other Authorities.

. .vi

Opinion Below.

Jurisdictional Statement.

’

. .1

. . .1

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved.

. . .1

Statement of the Case.

Reasons For Granting the Writ.!. r;

(

Conclusion.

(

22^

.14

(

./f

(

f~'

<■

A A A

“1X1=

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix Volume 1:

A. United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denial of Petitioner's

motion for Certificate of Appealability (pg.1-2)

United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denial of Petitioner's

motion for Extension of Time to file Petition for Reconsideration or

Rehearing En Banc (pg.3)

United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Order deferring ruling

on Petitioner's Motion to Compel District Clerk to Transmit Withheld

Exhibits (pg.4)

B. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,

Houston Division, Memorandum Opinion and Summary Dismissal (pg,1-101)

C. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals White Card denial of Petitioner's

State habeas writ application (pg.l)

D. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals White Card Refusal of Petitioner's

PDR, and White Card denialodf Petitioner's motion for rehearing (pg.1-2)

E. 1st District Court of Appeals of Texas Memorandum Opinion and Denial

on Petitioner's direct appeal.(pg.1-40)

F. State trial Court's findings of facts and conclusions of law on

Petitioner's Motion for New Trial (pg.1-3)

Appendix Volume 2:

A. Complaint (pg.l); Indictment (pg.2); Bail Bond Certificates (pg.3-4);

Judgement and Commitment and Remand to Custody Orders (pg.5-8); and

Trial Court's certification of Petitioner's right to appeal and appoint

ment of appellate counsel (pg.9-13)

B. Petitioner's Motion For New Trial (pg.1-6)

C. Petitioner's State Appellate Brief on direct review (pg.1-34)

D. Petitioner's PDR in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (pg.1-22);

Petitioner'ssPetition for Rehearing on PDR (pg.23-46)

E. Petitioner'ssArticle 11.07 State Habeas Application (pg.1-57)

F. Petitioner's State Habeas Affidavit (pg,l-89); State Habeas Affidavits

of Witnesses (pg.90-109); Petitioner'ssState Habeas Motions for Discovery

and related Subpoena requests (pg.110-138)

G. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Remand Order (pg.1-2)

H. State's proposed order and Trial Counsel's Affidavrtvafter'vTremand (pg.1-9)

-iv-

.•V

I. Petitioner's State Habeas affidavit authenticating exhibits (pg.2-5);

Petitioner's State Habeas Motion for Continuance to Obtain Additional

Discovery and Supporting Affidavit (pg.6-22); Petitioner's Motion to

Stay State Habeas Proceedings Pending the-Filing of Additional Evidence

in the State Habeas (trial) Court (Pg.23-27)

J. State Habeas (trial) Court's findings of facts and conclusions of law

after remand (pg.1-6)

K. Petitioner's State Habeas Objections to the State Habeas (trial) Court's

findings and conclusions after remand (pg.1-9); Petitioner'IsState Habeas

Proposed findings and conclusions after remand (pg.10-34)

L. Petitioner' Supplimental State Habeas claim after remand (pg.1-5)

M. Witness/Supporter's Affidavit in support of and authentecating audio

recordings evidence submitted to State Habeas (trial) Court (pg.1-2)

Appendix Volume 3:

A. Petitioner's Federal Habeas §2254 Writ Betitibnt(pg.1-47)

B. Petitioner's initial Federal Habeas Motions (pg.1-8); District Court's

denial of Petitioner's initial motions (pg.l0-lO

. - 1

C. Petitioner's initial motion for discovery and subpoenas (pg.1-^24); District

Court's denial of discovery motion (pg.25-27)

(

D. Respondent's Second Motion for Summary Judgement-(pg.1-60)

E. Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Second/‘motion for Summary Judgement

(pg.1-95)

F. Petitioner's §2254 supplimental motions'for discovery (pg.1-14); Petitioner's

third motion for counsel (pg.15-17)

G. Petitioner's §2254 Notice of Appeal (pg.1-2); Petitioner's motion to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (pg.3-4); Petitioner's motion for

order designating record on appeal (pg.5); Federal District (habeas)

Court's order granting Petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis

(pg.6-7)

-v-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

Brumfield v. Cain, 576 US 305,135 S.Ct. 2269, 192 L.Ed.2d 356 (2015)....

4,12

Ford v. Wainaright, 477 US 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986)...

Harringtonsv.i Richter, 562 US 86, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011).

Johnson v. Williams, 568UUS 289, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013).

• • • 4,5,7,8,12

King v. Emmons, 144 S.Ct. 2501, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2920 (2024).

. . 5

Miller-El w.Cockrell, 537 US 322, 123 S.Ct. 1209, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). . 5

Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 US 930, 127 S.Ct.2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007)..5,10

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 US 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). . . .11

Tharpe v. Sellers, 583 US 33, 138 S.Ct. 545, 199 L.Ed.2d 424 (2018)..............5

STATUTES, RULES, AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

08- U.S.C. §2254.

.13

28 U.S.C. §2254(d).

. . .4

28 U.S.C. §2254(ejj(l).

. . .4,12

Randy Hertz & James S. Liebmand, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedures,

7th Edition (Matthew Bender)

^ ^

•••

-vi-

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals appears at Appendix

Volume 1/iA to the petition and is unpublished.

The opinion of the UHited States District Court appears at Appendix

Volume l.B to the petition and is reported at: Fletcher v. Lumpkin, 2023

U.S. District LEXIS 175052, 2023 WL 6390438.

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at f

Appendix Volume l.C to the petition and is unpublished.

The opinion of the state intermidiate appellate coufct appears at Appendix

Volume l.E to the petition and is unpublished.

r •

JURISDICTION

The date on which the United States Court of Appealssdecided my case was

July 15, 2024. No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

An extension of time to file the petition for a~writ of certiorari was

granted to and including Noember 12, 2024 on September 9, 2024 in Application

No.24A247.

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution" (see Appendix Volume 4.A)

5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (see Appendix Volume 4.B)

6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (see Appendix Volume 4.C)

14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution (see Appendix Volume 4.D)

-1-

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On December 1, 2012, I,1:the Pro Se Petitioner,(Sam Autry Fletcher) was

arrested and charged with aggravated robbery. App.V2.Ail32. On December 3,

2012, I posted ABail Bond in the amount of $50,000.00. App.V2.A.3-4.

On October 14-16, 2015, I was tried and convicted, and, on October 19,

2015, sentenced to Fifty-Five (55) years in the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice - Correctional Institutions Division. App.V2.A.5-8.

On October 30, 2015, I was appointed appellate counsel, Thomas J. Lewis

(Counsel Lewis). App.V2.A.9-13. Counsel Lewis, acting interim, filed a motion

for new trial on my behalf on November 12, 2015. App.V2.B.l-6. On December 17,

2015, the trial court, after a hearing, denied my motion for new trial and

submitted findings of facts and conclusions of law. App.Vl.F.1-3.

On direct appeal, Counsel Lewis raised four claims of constitutional error.

App.V2.C.l-34. The First District Court of Appeals of Texas denied all relief

and affirmed the trial court judgement. App.Vl.E.1-40.

{

On May 11, 2017, I filed a pro se Petition for Discretionary Review (PDR)

in the Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals (TCCA), challenging the state inter

mediate appellate court's opinions and decisions regarding two of the four

claims passed upon. App.V2.D.l-22. The TCCA-’summarily refused review of, my

PDR and denied my motion for rehearing on PDR. App.Vl.D.1-2.

I sought Certiorari in this Honorable Court5 filed September 5, 2017 and

docketed January 10, 2018 as cause No. 17-7370, but was denied.

On March 6, 2019, I filed a pro se state habeas writ application in the trial

court of conviction, advancing twenty-nine (29) claims of constitutional error.

App.V2.E.l-59. On May 5, 2021, the TCCA denied my state habeas application

without written order (White Card Denial). App.Vl.C.l.

-2“

On May 14, 2021, I filed a timely 28 U.S.C. §2254 petition in the U.S.

District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. App.V3.

A.1-47. After preliminary proceedings, •:theJdiStrictccouttoordered:.the

Respondent--to file a second motion-for summary judgement'.: App.V3.C.25-27.

On December 13, 2022, I filed a very detailed and factually specific

response to the Respondent^ second summary judgement motion. App.V3.E.l-95.

Attached to my summary judgement response were copies of all evidentiary

exhibits previously submitted during my stste habeas proceedings. App.V3.

E.84-86, 96.

On September 29, 2023, the district court, deferring to the state court's

findings and conclusions, and considering the Respondent's summary judgement

arguments, in a one-hundred (100) page opinion, denied my §2254 petition and

a Certificate Of Appealabilty (COA) to appeal its decision. App.VI.B.1-101.

On October 15, 2023, I filed a timely-Notice Of Appeal, Motion To Proceed

In Forma Pauperis On Appeal, and Motion For Order Of Designation Of the Entire

Record on Appeal. App.V3.G.l-5. The district court granted my motion-to pro

ceed in forma pauperis and ordered the entire §2254 habeas record be transmitted

to the Fifth-Circuit Court of Appeals. App.VS.G.6-7.

I filed a Motion to Compel the U.S. District Clerk to Transmit the Withheld

Exhibits with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Clerkiof the

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deferred presenting the motion to the a

appellate court until after I had submitted my motion for COA. App.Vl.A.4.

On July 15, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals denied my motion for

COA. App.VI.A. 1-2. I filed a timely Motion to Extend Time to.File a Petition

for Reconsideration or Rehearing En Banc but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

denied the motion. App.Vl.A.3.

-4-

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

ARGUMENT

Does Title 28 U.S.C. §2254(!A)(1) or any other provision of

the AEDPA, or any clearly established U.S. Supreme Court

authority give federal district or circuit courts discretion

to disregard or ignore a state habeas petitioner’s clear and

convincing evidence which substantiates and proves true all

of the petitioner's claims and, therefore, rebuts the §2254

(e)(1) statutory presimption of correctness?

Under Title 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) a federal court cannot grant a habeas petition

filed by a state inmate, with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the

merits in a state court proceeding, unless the adjudication: (1) resulted in a

decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, deary

established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States;

or (2) resulted in a decision that was baseddon an unreasonable determination of

facts in light of the evidence produced in the state court proceeding.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that, "[t]he language of 28 U.S.C.

§2254 (d) makes it dear that this provision applies only when a federal claim

was 'Adjudicated on foe merits in State court]/ n:if and "['a] judgement is normally

said to have been rendered 'on the merits' only if it was 'delivered after the

court • • • heard and evaluated the evidence and parties' substantive arguments."

Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 302, 133 S.Ct. 1088, 185 L.Ed.2d 105 (2013)

(emphasis in original)(citations omitted).

Under Title 28 U.S.C. §2254(e)(l) federal courts shall presume determinations

of factual issues made by Stiteteourtstto be correct, and to defer to those

factual determinations. The petitioner must rebut this presumption with clear

and convincing evidence. Id. Deference to a State court's factual findings,

however, "does:not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review, and does

not by definition preclude relief." Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 314, 135

S.Ct. 2269, 192 L.Ed.2d 356 (2015).

-ft-

Once a habeas petitioner presents clear and convincing evidence which demon

strate that the state courts'^ factual findings were unreasonable or clearly

erroneous, the federal courts are free to assess the merits of a habeas

petitioner's claim "without the deference AEDPA otherwise requires." Panetti

v, Quarterman, 551 US 930, 953, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007); see also

Tharpe v. Sellers, 583 US 33, 34-35 (2018)(granting certiorari where habeas co

courts disregarded and ignored petitioner's clear and convincing evidence).

Though "a state court needcnot make detailed findings addressing all the

evidence before it"; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 US 322, 347, 123 S.Ctv 1209,

154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003), "[i]f a federal claim is rejected as a result of sheer

inadvertence, it has not been evaluated based on the intrinsic right or wrong

of the matter," and "[w]hen the evidence leads very clearly to the conclusion

that a federal claim was inadvertently overlooked in state court, §2254(d)

entitles the prisoner to an unencumbered opportunity to make his case before a

federal judge." Johnson v. Williams, 568 US 289, 302-03, 133 S.Ct.1088, 185 L.Ed.

2d 105 (2013). "For that reason, this Court has not hesitated to find AEDPA's

standard satisfied when a state court's factfinding process disregards inform

ation that is highly relevant to a court's factual determination. King v. Simons,

144 S.Ct. 2501, 2504, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2920 (2024)(Jackson, J. Dissenting from

denial of Certiorari) (citing U.S. Supreme Court cases).

State Court Proceedings

On dMarch &>c2013iovhiie7Qutto'flibailrboad!,i.rat:fhepiriitiatibtt^aiid promptings r.cc.

©f-,the’State assista0t-#isfrict-:attotney,fNathafto.Hennigan., -aodtatitheibehest.of

retained.tEi&l counsel, ;Cornell^Williams ^(Counsel Williams), I-attendedia.-meetihg

and-entered intp, an Oral,Co.operattion/Dismissab AgreemOntQwith State A.D.&.

Nathan Hennigan. App.V2.E.7-8; App.V2.F.12-14.

Being marginally aware of the law regarding Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

-5-

and Prosecutorial Misconduct, and in anticipation of the State and/or Counsel

Williams' failures to act candidly, effectively, or honorablly, I preemptively

did the following things—for accountability and transparancy purposes:

(a) made digital audio recordings of certain conversations had between

police agent Christopher Mullins and I—discussing instances of my

cooperation and eager anticipation of the State to honor the dismissal

dismissal agreement;

(b))made a digital audio recording of a pretrial meeting had between

Counsel Williams and I—discussing all relevant topics asserted

and detailed in my state habeas affidavit and avered in my state

and federal pleadings and papers;

(d) accumulated relevant photographic and documentary evidence;

(e) saved certain text messages and emails exchanged between police

agents and I;

(f) took very detailed and specific notes of all testimony and

relevant occurances during trial and.motion for newwtrial

proceedings; and

(g) instructed my supporters to be invigilate and document (written,

photograph, audio recording, or audio/video recording) everything

when attending my court proceedings or engaging with my lawyers

or court officers.

The state never honored the agreement it made with mef.oand counsel Williams

assisted the state in covering this fact. I was tried and convicted on October

16, 2015.

Upon being appointed and meeting appellate counsel, I notified Counsel

Lewis of all of counsel Williams' failuresaand of the evidence to support my

allegations. App.V2.E.45-47; App.V2.F.77-79. I further alerted counsel Lewis

to the statels breach of agreement. Id. Counsel Lewis never investigated my

claims, the evidence supporting my claims, and ignored my supported when they

attempted to provide him with the necessary proofs. App.V2.F.90-109.

On direct appeal.to the First District Court of Appeals of Texas, counsel

Lewis raised four claims of constitutional error on my behalf. App.V2.C.l-34.

-6-

The First Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's rulings and

Jury's verdict and, thus, denied all relief. App.Vl.E.1-40.

In my PDR to the TCCA, I alerted the state's high criminal court to the factual

errors contained in the intermediate appellate court's opinion, and pointed to

the trial court records for support. App.V2.D.l-22. The TCCA summarily refused

my. PDR. App. Vl.D.l. I filed a timely motion for rehearing on PDR. App.V2.D.23-46.

The TCCA denied rehearing on my PDR. App.Vl.D.2. Consequently, none of my sub

stantive arguments or evidentiary corrections regarding the circumstances«6f my

custodial interrogation, invocation and waiver, or the sufficiency of the state's

evidence have been adequately "evaluated" or adjudicated "on the merits" by the

TCCA. Johnson v. Williams, supra, at 569 US 302.

During my state habeas proceedings, I submitted a habeas application advancing

thirty (30) claims of constitutional error (29 initial claims and 1 supplimental

claim after remand). App.V2.E.1-57. I attached to my state habeas application an

eighty-eight (88) page affidavit,Retailing very specific and relevant facts

and pointing the reviewing courts to all existing evidence in support. App.V2.

F.l-89. I also presented the state habeas courts with motions requesting very

specific discovery items—which were highly material and relevant to the review

of my claims—and motions for live evidentiary hearings to adequately and fully

develope the record for meaningful review. App.V2.F.HO-f-138. The habeas (trial)

court never granted me a live evidentiary hearing to develope the facts or

evidence.

The state habeas (trial) court, after remand and without evaluating any of

my substantive arguments or exhibitory evidence, made factual findings adverse

to me__all gleaned from trial counsel (counsel Williams) habeas affidavit, and

transmitted my habeas application to the TCCA with a recommendation of denial.

Spp.V2.J.l-6.

-7-

I filed very detailed and factually specific objections to the state habeas

(trial) court's findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendation, along

with my own factually correct proposed findings and conclusions. App.V2.K.l-34.

The TCCA, after an independent review of the state habeas record, adopted the

habeas (trial) court's findings and conclusions and denied my state habeas writ

application. App.Vl.C.l.

M No state court has ever "evaluated", discussed or even simply mentioned any

of the clear and convincing evidence submitted by me during my state habeas

proceedings 5 thus, none of my state habeas claims have received an adequate

review "bn the merits'.*" Johnson v. Williams, supra, at 568 US 302.

Federal Habeas and Appellate Proceedings

In my §2254 habeas petition, I raised thirty-two (32) claims of constitutional

error App.V3.A.l-47. Two of my §2254 claims were adopted from my state direct

appeal and PDR proceedings, and the other thirty claims were adopted from my

state habeas proceedings. I also submitted withimy i§2254epeti'tion motions for

discovery and evidentiary hearings. App.V3.B.l-8; App.V3.C.l 24.

The Respondent, Bobby Lumpkin, Director, filed a second motion for summary

judgement, arguing that all relief should be denied and requesting dismissal of

my federal habeas petition. App. V3.D.1-60. I filed a very detailed and factually

specific response to the Respondent s second motion for summary judgement, in

which I painstakingly pointed out all erroneous factual assertions and legal

arguments made by the Respondentyand demonstrated why summaty judgement was not

proper in this case. App.V3.E.1-95. I supported my summary judgement response

with copies of all exhibits previously submitted during my state PDR and Habeas

proceedings. App,V3.E.84-86, 96. Furthermore, I filed several explanative

motions for discovery, subpoenas,‘evidentiary hearings, and counsel in order to

resolved-unresolved factual disputes and fully develope the habeas record for

-8-

adequate and meaningful review. App.VS.F.^hl'^te and. mean!

The district court never granted me discovery, an:evidentiary hearing or

counsel. Instead, "the district court, deferring to the state courts' findings

and conclusions; accepting the Respondent's summary judgement arguments; and

gleaning its own unreasonable findings from the state and federal records, in a

one-hundred (100) page opinion, denied my §2254 habeas petition and a COA to

appeal its decision. App.VI.B.1-101.

I filed a timely motion for COA in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, detail

ing and demonstrating all reasons necessary for the granting of a COA. Fifth

Circuit Court of Appeals Cause No. 23-20546. After receiving a copy of the?:

record on appeal from the district couet Clerk, I quickly noticed that all of

my evidentiary exhibits were not included in the record. I immediately filed a ‘

motion in the Fifth: Circuit Court of Appeals to Compel the District Clerk to

transmit the exhibits to the appellate court. Id. In my motion to compel, I

explained the materiality of the exhibits and theirrrelevancy to the appellate

courts ruling on my motion for COA. Id.

I received a notification from the

Clerk of the Fifth Circuit Appellate Court, notifyinggme that my motion to

compelfcwould be submitted to the court upon the filing of my Motion for COA.

App.Vl.A.4.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, in a one page, three paragraph

opinion, denied my motion for COA. App.VI.A.1-2.

I did not have enoughjtime to

prepare and file a petition for reconsideration or rehearing en banc, being

that I received the Fifth Circuit's opinion nine (9) day late and my motion for

extension of time to file a petition for rehearing was denied. App.Vl.A.3.

Surnnatimnn

The records before the state courts contained sufficient facts supported by

clear and convincing and, in many areas, irrefutable evidence to raise questions

-8-

as to whether:

(1) my custodial statement was taken in violation of my U.S. Constitutional

5th and 14th Amendment rights to counsel and due process;

(2) the state's evidence at trial was legally sufficient for a rational

jury to find me guilty of the offense beyond-a reasonable doubt;

(3) the state entered into and later breached an oral cooperation/dismissal

agreement with me ; and whether trial counsel failed to memorialize the

agreement in writing and later, during state habeas proceedings, perjured

himself in an attempt to conceal his and the states errors;

(4) the state withheld material evidence from the defense and, also,

tampered with and destroyed material evidence; and

(5) trial and appellate counsel rendered-unconstitutionally deficient

performance which resulted--in prejudice to me.

In advancing contrary views of the record, the state courts severely mis

stated the record facts; r,misquoted material portions of the trial transcripts

and custodial interrogation recording; divorced certain facts from context; and

totally disregarded all of my supporting evidence. Such factfinding procedures,

review of claims and resulting rulings have been found to be inadequate by

numerous federal district and circuit courts, as well as This Honorable U.S-.--,

Supreme Court. Accord Randy Hertz & James S. Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus

Practice and Procedure, 7th Edition, §20.1[a]-[d] n.1-57; §20.2[b] n.21-22,

[c] n.87-92, 96; §20.3rfi|.in. 155-157; §30.1 n.ll; and, §32.4 n.12-14 (Matthew

Bender) (citing cases).

Therefore, i, in my inexpert opinion and legal acumen, and based on readings

of federal district, circuit, and U.S. Supreme'’Court authorities, believe that

"the factfinding procedures upon which the [state] court[s] relied were not

adequate for reaching reasonablly correct results

or, at a minimum, resulted

in a process that appeared to be 'seriously inadequate for the ascertainment

of truth." Panetti v. Quarterman,rsupra > 2 at 551 US 954 (quoting Ford v

Wainwright, 477 US 399, 423-24, 106 S.Ct. 2595, 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986)).

■ -10-

The federal district court's decision and opinions rested upon:

(i) deference given to the state courts' unreasonable and clearly

erroneous factual findings and legal conclusions;

(ii:))its acceptance and crediting of the Respondent's summary

judgement arguments;

(iii) its own extrapolation of partial and incomplete facts aftd

arguments from the state and federal court irecords, divorced

from context and construed in a manner which supported its

deferential opinions and decision; and

(iv) a total disregard for any of the corrections or factual errors

(substantive arguments) I pointed out in my pleadings, and the

clear,'^convincing and irrefutable evidentiary proofs I submitted

in rebuttal to the state court's findings and conclusions and

the Respondent's summary judgement arguments.

This type of deferential review and blind acceptance by aifederal Habeas court

of the state courts' factual findings and legal conclusions that are shown to be

unreasonable and clearly erroneous, as well as a federal habeas courts^' own

axtrar.;J.':i t .1

unreasonably extrapolated facts and conclusions, have also been found to be

inadequate, improper and debatable by numerous circuit courts of appeals and

the U.S. Supreme Court. Accord Randy Hertz & James S. Liebman, Federal Habeas

Corpus Practice and Procedures, 7th Edition, supra.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its order denying my motion for a COA,

and without addressing any of my subtantive arguments regarding the district

court's errors and debatability of the district court s rulings, opined that

I "ha[d] not made the requisite showing" under Slack V. McDaniel, 529 US 473,

484 (2000). App.VlVl-2. The circuit court of appeals goes no further to explain

why none of my allegations, which are all supported by evidence, do not meet

the threshhold requirements of showing the denial of a constitutional right

and that jurists of reason could debate^whether the district court errored in

its review and decision. Furthermore, the circuit court of appeals reached its

decision without reviewing any of the evidence that I submitted to the federal

district court; as that evidence was never transmitted to the circuit court

to be considered.

-lfc-

Because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that I did not make the

requisite showing for the granting of a COA, it never reached the issue of

of whether I was entitled to an evidentiary hearing in order to fully develope

the record for an adequate and meaningful review. App.Vl.A.1-2

The records here all demonstrate that no court, state or federal, has actually

took the time and "evaluated" any of the "intrinsic right[s] or wrong[s] of the

matterjs]" that I actually presented through "substantive arguments" and

supporting "evidenced" Johnson v. Williams, supra, at 568 US.302 (citations

omitted). Thus, my Federal Constitutional claims have never received any sort

of adequate or meaningful review "on the merits#" Ibid.

Ifdthefederal:Tdistriet andeappellatelcourtsididinbitshaveathetdiscretionc'to

disregardy iignore or overlook the substantive arguments or clear and convincing

evidence that I submitted under §2254(e)(l), which actually rebuts the state

courts' findings and conclusions, then, in doing so, have the federal district

and appellate courts "abdicate^]" and "abandon [:ed]" their duty of judicial

review; Brumfield v. Cain, supra, at 576 US 314, and, thus, failed in their

crucial task of "guard[ing] against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal

justice system." Harrington v. Richter, 562 US 86, 102, 131 S.Ct. 770, 178 L.Ed.

2d 624 (2011).

This question deserves the interpretive powers of this Honorable Court. As such,

I am most humbly and respectfully seeking:, this Court's protection and requesting

that Certiorari be GRANTED on this question.

-12-

B. What form of recourse or type of redress is availabletto

petitioners that submit irrefutable digital audio, photo

graphic and other documentary evidence that supports and

proves the verity of all of the petitioner''s factual

assertions and validity of Constitutional claims set forth

in the petitioner's 28 U.S.C..§2254 habeas petition, and

the petitioner's proffered evidence is repetedly disregarded,

ignored and overlooked by all state and federal courts that

reviewed or passed upon petitioner's claims?

The facts regarding this question are the same as those detailed in the

Statement of Facts and preceding question argument above.

As I pointed out in myystate habeas affidavit; App.V2.F.27.-28 ,j?i intentionally

made recordings of a conversation had'between triaixeaunseliandamyseifrduring'our

lastbpretrialrmeeting;;atihis office. I also made recordings of specific convers

ations had between state police agent, Detective Deputy Christopher Mullins, and

myself—discussing various aspects of my cooperation;and anticipation of dismissal.

App.V2-F.14. I gathered as much audio, photographic and documentary evidence as

I could, while out on bail-bond, to show the courts—if needed be—my efforts to

assist my attorney and the state in proving my non-involment in this offense and

bring; those responsible to justice, oE*j.#fnneedebef toy prove the state or trial

counsels' misconduct or lack of candor.

I presented all of my accumulated evidence, as well as discovery and subpoena

requests for additional known evidence, to the state and federal courts, raising

very serious questions as to the way this case was handled from the onset toutu-v/^

present; and, thus, raising ahserious question as to the Constitutionality of

my arrest and conviction. App.V2.E.1489£,A]p£.V3.E.84-86, 96. None of my evidence

was addressed by any of the reviewing courts. This fact alone is enough to raise

questions as to the propriety of the proceedings below, and implicates violations

of the due process clause.

Also worthy of noting is thecfact that the-majority of my Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel claims, and my Prosecutorial Misconduct (breach of oral

-13-

agreement)claim, were primarily based on the proofs contained on the audio

recordings I submitted; supported by the additional photographic and documentary

evidentiary exhibits. Thus, the audio recordings were the most material and c. u

crucial pieces of evidence that the reviewing courts were analyze and consider

in evaluating the merits of my constitutional claims.

In this modern era of digital technology, I truly believe that there is no

better evidence fbr^a-petitioner-' to presentutoia..reviewing.,judicial body to

prove his claims than audio recordings of material discussions—with the only

exception being audio w/videp. Technology has becomeingrained in and the wayyof

the world society and, in my humble opinion, the American people, more than any,

have a great interest in the fact of knowing whether American Courts will ignore

irrefutable digital., audio (or video) evidence presented by a Citizen to prove

a U.S. Constitutional Infringment committed against that Citizen.

The evidence that I presented throughout my state and federal proceedings,

and that all courts have disregarded, ignored, overlooked and failed to mention

actually demonstrates that I have been tried and convicted in violation offmy

4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights under the,United States Constitution.

I have done all that I can do as an incarcerated, pro se petitioner—aside from

uploading all filings and evidence to the internet and invoking the Court of

Public Opinion on the matters.

Who do I (a wrongfully convicted citizen) turn to for redress and recourse?

PLEASE GRANT Certiorari on this question.

CONCLUSION

Considering all things above, I humbly and respectfully request that This

Honorable U.S. Supreme Court ORDER all records and exhibits from the related

lower court proceedings be transmitted to This Court for review and consideration.

I request that This Honorable Court review my assertions of facts—especially

-14-

those found in my state habeas affidavit; App.V2.F.l-89, my claims of error and

all supporting evidence provided, and compare it with the findings and conclusions

found in the state and federal courts' records.

In all, I request that my Petition For Writ Of Certiorari br GRANTED on all

questions.

Respectfully submitted this^

4K day of November, 2024.

Sam Autry Flfetcher, #02038766

McConnell Unit

3001 S. Emily Dr.

Beeville, Texas 78102

-IS-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.