BARNES, GARY WAYNE Sr.
This text of BARNES, GARY WAYNE Sr. (BARNES, GARY WAYNE Sr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Gary Wayne Barnes Sr, Appeal from the DallaS
movant, county , Criminal District
vS_ Court Three; ;
Order denying TNA Testing;
THE STATE OF TEXAS CCA NO. WR_-12,658-18,l9,20 and 21
q ., '~*;‘:
0€09¢0!¢0?¢0’|¢0’¢@
NOTICE OF APPEALS
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES:
I Gary Wayne Barnes Sr. the Pre SE movant in cause number of Dallas county convictions in indictments F-80-0165303J F-81-01105-J, F-81¥01027-J and F-81-02518-J request to file an appeal in the ;above numbered causes in the Article 64.04 findings as the court' ORDER is signed on the ll,th Day of Dec. 2014.
The movant files notice of Appeal Pre Texas Code of Criminal Procedures Chapter 64.04 supported by his contemporaneously
filed Memorandum and applicatant attachements and Exhibits in support of the Writ of Habeas Corpus presently pending in the above entitled petition numbers;.
Per Texas Code of Criminal Procedures chapter 64.04 by use and by reference thereto the materials contained in movant's attached MOTION FOR DNA TESTING , contemporaneously filed Memorandum in Sopport of the Writ of Habeas Corpus with movants
Attachements and Exhibits reflects the following;
On Feb. 20 2009, the movant was granted DNA testing and testing' was premitted by the DPS with the results released on May l3, 2009. The court theld a result hearring on June 8, 2009 and durring the hearing it became apperrant that thur no fault of the movant the §§tater had tested the "Wrong evidence";
l. the actual crime scence evidence was withhheld and replaced with evidence of an un-related set of offenses:
2. The evidence that was tested is not the actual crime scence evidence for offenses that was committed on July 4, 1980 as the SWIFS , crime lab files presently shows the evidence tested in file numbers 80-p-1632 and 80-p-l635 was filed
Appeal Page l.
V,\
'/
in the S IFS crime Lab in the Month of Feb 6, 1980_(6) months‘ prior to and before the date of the commission of the offenses, being committed. I.
In this case the movant will establish Equatable Tolling of extraordiniary circumstances justifying the delay in obtaining- the newly discovered, newly presented evidence_ in the presentation of a 'ORDER' of the convicting court/ having all records and files sealed,
The evidences records and files was Ordered Sealed by the convicting Court Judge on June 25, 2009 which has worked to inpead the movant from obtaining the withheld actual crime scence evidence. l 7
On June 8, 2009 the movant filed an objection in opeH court that the court take Judicial Notice concerning the findings of the results of the chapter 64;04 as the evidegce was faulty and not the aactual crime scence evidence as the resul§s was con- tridictory to the sworn testimony and the statements of the victims that prior to the offenses being committed she had
never had a sexual intercourse with a male or a female§!
The Results in the test results states that the DNA pro- files of a un-Known Male and Three un-known and un-identified females profiles which is un-explainable in~a case where the
victims sworn statements and trial testimomy are a contridiction
-of the findings.
These findings along wch the movants knowledge ii knowing that he did not commit these offenses presents issues ofv
the evidence is questionable;
II.
On June 8, 2009 at the result finging hearing a women in the court gave a note to the Bailiff to give to the movant stating that the evidence was wrong, not the actual crime scence evidence_ This was reflected in the movants Objections and request for Judicial notice.
The movant, was not allowed to file a Notice of appeal as the Judge rushed to seal the files as being confidential and
by the same stroke of the pen the Judge approved an order for
Appeal Page 2.
the movant's court appointed attorney to withdraw as the attorney of records. (see Movants Habeas Corpus application page 7.)
The movant points to the case in McQuiggins V. Preking'
133 s. et. 1924 (2013) _where the United states supreme codrt
has held that a claim of actual innocence if proven is a gateway by which the movant can raise a claim of actual innocence.
In this Appeal the movant can show the exceptional
set of circumstances in the convicting court filed a "ORDER" to` Seal the Files, Records which has 'impeaded the movant from
obtaining the files and the records that was mailed ;LQ movant' on May 16, 2014 in a un-markedb.no returnable postage legal
envolope, mailed to the prison mail room that has been recorded as questionable legal mail with no-returable address¢not on movants mailing list. l '
The SWIFS lab files was mailed to the movant, and the movant did not and has not violated the court order, making copies of the files, but use the files as movant's Attachements and Exhibits A thur L in presenting the files in the movants 1 Memorandum in Support of the Writ of Habeas Corpus showing that the actual crime scence evidence has not been presented to the court. _
The movant has been convicted of offenses that was committed on July 4, .1980, but the evidence that has been presented to the `court as states Exhibit 3 and tested by the DPS in file numbers 80-p-1632 and 80-p-1635 was on file in the SWIFS crime lab Feb. 6, 1980 (6) months prior to the offenses was committed.
The police report in the Dallas` police Department files of number #307064-1 is also a 'filing that was filed in that department in the month on feb, 1980 and is not the case in the same transaction of the offenses committed on July 4, 1980 in the Dallas Police Department filing number of 506950-L
same tranaction .
III. In the interest of justice in q a miscariage of justice in the conviction 'of a innocence person where the actual crime scence evidence has been withheld this court is`
Appeal Page 3.
in the position of a review of the files a review to which the movant ,has been impeaded from presenting &from showing
due to the June 25, 2009 court order to seal the files as .confidential.
The movants Attachements and Exhibits clearly shows by McQuiggins V. Perkins, clear and convicing evidence that the actual crime scence_has been withheld; l
In the state not presenting the actual crime scence evidence at the movants trial has deprived the movant of his constitutional right to due process and the right to legal sificient evidence to support the verdicts, judgements and the sentences.
A review of the files in this case will show that the convicting court has already Granted.the movant's Motion for DNA Testing on Feb. 19, 2009 (see Attachement and Exhibit A thur L and
attached here as Exhibit a) through no éroi of the movant
the state has tested the wromg evidence_
The Judge of the convicting court has stated in the records that the movant has established that he wis-entitle to the requirments as set of in the statute in requesting DNA test- ing as authorized by Chapter 64. 01, 02,and 03. (a) (2).
The movant can now show 'this court by a review of the’
filing systems of the Dallas Police Department and the filing systems of the Southwest Institute of Fresence Science Lab that the actual crime scence evidence for the offenses that was commiytted on July 4, 1980 is not the evidence that was submitted for testing in file numbers 80-p-1632 and 80-p-
1635 tested in DPS file number LlD-184098-2 with the results of May 13, 2009.
Under the holdings of Brady V.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Gary Wayne Barnes Sr, Appeal from the DallaS
movant, county , Criminal District
vS_ Court Three; ;
Order denying TNA Testing;
THE STATE OF TEXAS CCA NO. WR_-12,658-18,l9,20 and 21
q ., '~*;‘:
0€09¢0!¢0?¢0’|¢0’¢@
NOTICE OF APPEALS
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES:
I Gary Wayne Barnes Sr. the Pre SE movant in cause number of Dallas county convictions in indictments F-80-0165303J F-81-01105-J, F-81¥01027-J and F-81-02518-J request to file an appeal in the ;above numbered causes in the Article 64.04 findings as the court' ORDER is signed on the ll,th Day of Dec. 2014.
The movant files notice of Appeal Pre Texas Code of Criminal Procedures Chapter 64.04 supported by his contemporaneously
filed Memorandum and applicatant attachements and Exhibits in support of the Writ of Habeas Corpus presently pending in the above entitled petition numbers;.
Per Texas Code of Criminal Procedures chapter 64.04 by use and by reference thereto the materials contained in movant's attached MOTION FOR DNA TESTING , contemporaneously filed Memorandum in Sopport of the Writ of Habeas Corpus with movants
Attachements and Exhibits reflects the following;
On Feb. 20 2009, the movant was granted DNA testing and testing' was premitted by the DPS with the results released on May l3, 2009. The court theld a result hearring on June 8, 2009 and durring the hearing it became apperrant that thur no fault of the movant the §§tater had tested the "Wrong evidence";
l. the actual crime scence evidence was withhheld and replaced with evidence of an un-related set of offenses:
2. The evidence that was tested is not the actual crime scence evidence for offenses that was committed on July 4, 1980 as the SWIFS , crime lab files presently shows the evidence tested in file numbers 80-p-1632 and 80-p-l635 was filed
Appeal Page l.
V,\
'/
in the S IFS crime Lab in the Month of Feb 6, 1980_(6) months‘ prior to and before the date of the commission of the offenses, being committed. I.
In this case the movant will establish Equatable Tolling of extraordiniary circumstances justifying the delay in obtaining- the newly discovered, newly presented evidence_ in the presentation of a 'ORDER' of the convicting court/ having all records and files sealed,
The evidences records and files was Ordered Sealed by the convicting Court Judge on June 25, 2009 which has worked to inpead the movant from obtaining the withheld actual crime scence evidence. l 7
On June 8, 2009 the movant filed an objection in opeH court that the court take Judicial Notice concerning the findings of the results of the chapter 64;04 as the evidegce was faulty and not the aactual crime scence evidence as the resul§s was con- tridictory to the sworn testimony and the statements of the victims that prior to the offenses being committed she had
never had a sexual intercourse with a male or a female§!
The Results in the test results states that the DNA pro- files of a un-Known Male and Three un-known and un-identified females profiles which is un-explainable in~a case where the
victims sworn statements and trial testimomy are a contridiction
-of the findings.
These findings along wch the movants knowledge ii knowing that he did not commit these offenses presents issues ofv
the evidence is questionable;
II.
On June 8, 2009 at the result finging hearing a women in the court gave a note to the Bailiff to give to the movant stating that the evidence was wrong, not the actual crime scence evidence_ This was reflected in the movants Objections and request for Judicial notice.
The movant, was not allowed to file a Notice of appeal as the Judge rushed to seal the files as being confidential and
by the same stroke of the pen the Judge approved an order for
Appeal Page 2.
the movant's court appointed attorney to withdraw as the attorney of records. (see Movants Habeas Corpus application page 7.)
The movant points to the case in McQuiggins V. Preking'
133 s. et. 1924 (2013) _where the United states supreme codrt
has held that a claim of actual innocence if proven is a gateway by which the movant can raise a claim of actual innocence.
In this Appeal the movant can show the exceptional
set of circumstances in the convicting court filed a "ORDER" to` Seal the Files, Records which has 'impeaded the movant from
obtaining the files and the records that was mailed ;LQ movant' on May 16, 2014 in a un-markedb.no returnable postage legal
envolope, mailed to the prison mail room that has been recorded as questionable legal mail with no-returable address¢not on movants mailing list. l '
The SWIFS lab files was mailed to the movant, and the movant did not and has not violated the court order, making copies of the files, but use the files as movant's Attachements and Exhibits A thur L in presenting the files in the movants 1 Memorandum in Support of the Writ of Habeas Corpus showing that the actual crime scence evidence has not been presented to the court. _
The movant has been convicted of offenses that was committed on July 4, .1980, but the evidence that has been presented to the `court as states Exhibit 3 and tested by the DPS in file numbers 80-p-1632 and 80-p-1635 was on file in the SWIFS crime lab Feb. 6, 1980 (6) months prior to the offenses was committed.
The police report in the Dallas` police Department files of number #307064-1 is also a 'filing that was filed in that department in the month on feb, 1980 and is not the case in the same transaction of the offenses committed on July 4, 1980 in the Dallas Police Department filing number of 506950-L
same tranaction .
III. In the interest of justice in q a miscariage of justice in the conviction 'of a innocence person where the actual crime scence evidence has been withheld this court is`
Appeal Page 3.
in the position of a review of the files a review to which the movant ,has been impeaded from presenting &from showing
due to the June 25, 2009 court order to seal the files as .confidential.
The movants Attachements and Exhibits clearly shows by McQuiggins V. Perkins, clear and convicing evidence that the actual crime scence_has been withheld; l
In the state not presenting the actual crime scence evidence at the movants trial has deprived the movant of his constitutional right to due process and the right to legal sificient evidence to support the verdicts, judgements and the sentences.
A review of the files in this case will show that the convicting court has already Granted.the movant's Motion for DNA Testing on Feb. 19, 2009 (see Attachement and Exhibit A thur L and
attached here as Exhibit a) through no éroi of the movant
the state has tested the wromg evidence_
The Judge of the convicting court has stated in the records that the movant has established that he wis-entitle to the requirments as set of in the statute in requesting DNA test- ing as authorized by Chapter 64. 01, 02,and 03. (a) (2).
The movant can now show 'this court by a review of the’
filing systems of the Dallas Police Department and the filing systems of the Southwest Institute of Fresence Science Lab that the actual crime scence evidence for the offenses that was commiytted on July 4, 1980 is not the evidence that was submitted for testing in file numbers 80-p-1632 and 80-p-
1635 tested in DPS file number LlD-184098-2 with the results of May 13, 2009.
Under the holdings of Brady V. Maryland, the movant is actually innocence when the actual evidence has been withheld as the movant has been deprived of his constitutional rights to the fundmentals of due process.
Clear and convincing evidence is ekhibited in the filed report of the SWIFS- lab attached here as Exhibit B, dated Julyv 24, 2008 showing tha€ the C. Jordan file has the same file number as the Y. Oviedo file as F+80=01027-J as this
Appeal Page 45
same number .is submitted to the Texas Department of Public
Safety crime lab evidence record sheet 3/6/09 showing the same evidence file number of F-81%01027-J , that is the actual evidece of the file in the szFs tested evidence of SI-016530-J. this_
will now become(exhibit C.)`
Te mwat ns pn£ataitn disourtcknraniandcwgeddane datsquusde scu;aatheisaes: '
The movant request an appeal of the above facts and issus as . the actual crime scence evidence in the above mentioned files sits at the SWIFS crime lab that proves that not only was the wrong evidence tested but the.wrong evidence was present -ed at the movants trial, under the clear and convicing standards no jury in the world would have convicted the movant, if it had been known that the evidence was the evidence of a crime that has nothing to do with the offenses to which the applicant was on trial. `
The evidence is no longer the issue in this case the court only need to petition the files of the' SWIFS CRIME LAB and make a deter- manation a request for a AFFIDIVIT OF THE FlLING SYSTEM a Question of what is the filing Date of the evidence in SWIFS file no. 80-P- 1632 and 80-p-1635. `
` A request for a AFFIDIVIT OF THE FILING SYSTEM Of the Dallas Police Department in the Police report of #307064-L is this file number for a offenses reported on July 4, 1980; is condict-
ionary of a filed case in file number # 506950-L reported on July 4_ 1980¢ in the same time and place.
The movant make these requests as the Judge of the convicting court still has a pending Order that the files are sealed as confidential and the movant is proceeding in Pro-
se and is impeaded by such information being intentionally done when the movant made his objections in open court:
This 'impeadment by court order':is movants request to the united stated court of Appeals for the fifth Circuit in the application to premit the filing of the seeessive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in requesting equitable tolling due to the impeadment Of the Court "ORDER to SEAL THE RECORDS.
Appeal Page 5.
' l- ` , »v' `~‘r '
EXHIBIT A 5\ soUTHWEsTERN \ l ‘ __,. _ INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC_ §CIENCES AT DALLAS , _ . Fl\.ED JUL 2 4 2008 Forensic Biology Unit 523?)1;/111:?€;;;;“,;;;?5“% ` ' luly ll, 2008 Investigating Agency: Amy Murphy " Laboratory #: \8013_`2971 . Dallas County District A_ttorney’s Ofiice A€"“°Y-#’ ‘ '~`5_5.89101;" Appellate Division' _ C““Se #‘ ` FSO-OlOZ7-J 133 N. lndustrial Blvd, LB 19 C°'“Pl“i“a““ Cynthia'lordan Dallas, TX 75207 ` Defe"da”t’ - Gary Wayne Barnes » ` ' 0“°““= Sexual Assault
This report is in response to your request for the search of biological and trace evidence in this laboratory’s evidence storage areas for the purpose of potential post-conviction DNA testing
EVIDENCE: Received by B E. Harwood from PMH O'B-GYN/EOR locked cabinet on December 3, 19802 Kl. Vaginal swab in saline _ ' K2'. Vaginal smear on slide ; K3. y Blood sample from victim K4. Pubic hair combings - K5. Pubic hair cuttings K6. Anal smear on a slide Submitted by W. R. Bricl ` Item KZ and a slide made from item K7 were located in this laboratory’S Storage areas ltems Kl', K3, K4, KS, K6, K7 and KS Were not located in this laboratory’S storage areas \i Analystlnitials(' § Xl)l’\/ Vicl
Trace Evidence Exarniner Direct Line:,_ 214-920-5948 FaX: 214-920-,5813 E-mail:vhall@dallascounty.org '1 Page 2 0f12 FL# 80P29~71 July 11,2008l _lide made from item K_'/ Will remain in laboratory storage until further @M t> ilale Tara D. Johnson, M S. Forensic Biologist ll _ Direct Line: 214- 920-5996 Fax: 214- 920- 5813 ` E- mail: tdjollnson@dallascounty. org cc:‘ Dallas Police Department, Crirnes Against Persons Division- Analyst Initials;_ l l f U\'}/ Texas DPS Crime Laboratory Service Evidence Record Sheet - AF LP Laboratory Case Number 03/06/09 -BA\TOX NiB -CS 1_10 184098 02 DNA QD 1_1'.12 Al\/l - FTl\/l TE " _lResubrnission mAdditiona| Evidence Date Received _ , , `/\D CC/; l l Datecomp|etedk M w _ m MC» ©N llllllll|||lllllllll|l|lll|l|l|ll Section & Analysis by \>NA ~‘)‘,~l » / Reviewed: Tech: M+l 511le /-\dm: j 539 ?QQ EXHIBIT B Report l\/lailed: _ Date Completed B: "ln PerSOn Section & Analysis by Reviewed: Tech; Adm; Report l\/lailed: @fW//W%%W% Date COmp|eted CI James Hamm'@nd Section & Analysis by Reviewed: Tech: Adm: ., Report l\/lai|ed: Received by Pa'fl'lCla Btannorly"/?HLMW /S/¢ng/l[, D€SCrilOflOnl Properly Sealed 9x12 Yel|ow Enve|ope; / Transfer LOg (for court. return from court, at court, bar code unavailable, etc.) Date To From ltems\E) Notes CaseFile information entered: Submitting Officer-Agency-' --County -Offense Date- -Agency Number LAB/c-zz (Rev. 06/05) ' TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBL|C SAFE' CR|ME LABORATORY SERV|CE Laboratory Submission Form Agency Case Number F81-01027, F81-01105 F81-62518 offense - AG`G RAPE,`AGG RAPE, BuRG HAi Date of Offense 07-04-1980 County of Offense Dallas County Agency ' Dallas County D.A. g::§ence Rec,'d Case Contact Person Name Amy Murphy b Title AssistantDistrictAttorney _ A“cj'§,*§';§ 133 N industriai B`ivd., L1319 phone 214.653-3631 Fax 214_653_3643 C' ,State E ‘l 213 code Da"a'°" TX 752°7‘4399 . ' Addi;§'s AsMuRPHY@DALLAscouNTY.oRG SuSpeCt Vleim Name_ (Lan, Fil'$f Mlddle) y Race SeX DOB DL#/SS# l lD# [Z| [:l Barnes, Gary Wayne M B 11/23/1954 SlD 02270491 [I| lE O”Y"( F81-01027 - Agg Rape) [l 13 R.,E~£ F81-01105 - Agg Rape) l:l 'El R_~JgtFai_ozma - Burg Hab) Description of Evidence Submitted Exhibit # :fu|;:t:;' Descrlptlon of Evldence Exam Requested 1 v 2 1 P.ortion of swiFs FL#081515`42 - buccai see Ct Order ` swab of Gary Barnes SWIFS item K2 - FL#80P1632 Vaginal , 2 3 1 _sniearrrem victim Y“ \‘~lilom .. . i. see Cf Order - » - swiFs item K2 - 80P1635 vaginal - ' ` ' 3' 4 1 Smear from victim E'“ R* E~R‘* See ct order U"' ' 4. 5. 6. For some non-drug c'aseS, it may be appropriate to attach a copy of the offense report v P|ease include brief case synopsis, unusual examination(s) requested, and/or relevant case priority information. See Court Order Are known standards (blood, saliva, h'air, inked prints, clothing, fabrics, etc.) submitted for comparison? EYes ENo Have any of these exhibits been previously analyzed by a laboratory? [:|Yes |X|No Which ones? e:K‘ TEXAsz DEPARTMENT OF PUBL|C SAFETY DPS GARLAND CRIME LABORATORY 350 WEST |H 30 GARLAND, TEXAS 750.43-5998 Voice 214-861-2190 Fax 214-861-2194 ` ` ' commission LAMAi§iizBiaEgi . » ‘ ADABROWN Sero|ogy\DNA Report ` - ' v cARmO;Z:d§§';RTH Assistant DA Amy Murphy v Dallas Co. Appellate Division 133 N. lndustrial Blvd., LB 19 Dallas,- Texas 75207 Laboratory Case Number ` Agency Case Number Offen_se Date L1D-184098 ' F8101027 07/04/80 Suspect(s) l - Victim(s) ‘ Barnes, Gary Wayne y m Y* a \. ' ' R~z do . Offense: Sexual Assau|t County of Offense: Dallas (057) Evidence Submitted » . _ |n person by James Hammond on February 20, 2009: 1. Buccal swabs from Gary Barnes ln person by James Hammond on l\/larch 6 2009: 2. Buccal swabs from Gary Barnes . 3-1 item K2 vaginal smear slide from‘Y*M(Previously stained) 3- ? ltem K2 vaginal smear slide from \.'-"*(' .’n.s"iir:ed) 3.-3 item K2 vaginal smear slide lron\ “W*{i insta?ned\ 4. item K2 vaginal smear slide from mw(l’reviously stained) Requested Ana|ysis Perform Post- Conviction DNA analysis on the items submitted in accordance to the Court Order F81- 01027~ QJ, F81- 01105- QJ, F81- 02518- J 1n the Criminal District Court Number 3 of Dallas County, Texas. Results of Ana|ysis`and lnterpretation Spermatozoa, semen specific constituentsl Were detected on the two previously stained vaginal smear slides (ltems 3- 1 and 4). Apparent cellular matter Was detected on the two remaining vaginal smear slides (ltems 3- 2 and 3- -3). No apparent hairs or fibers Were detected on the vaginal smear slides `An attempt Was made to extract DNA from evidentiary samples relating to this case 80th bucca| swabs from Gary Barnes Were extracted by a method that yields DNA The vaginal smear slides (ltems 3-1 3~ y 2 3- 3, and 4) were extracted using a method designed to yield two fractions; a fraction enriched for DNA - from non-sperm cells usually associated With the victim (the epithe|ial cell fraction), and a fraction enriched for DNA from sperm cells (the sperm fraction). DNA typing was performed on these samples using the po_lymerase chain reaction»(PCR). The following loci were examined: 0831179, 021811, ACCRED/TED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CRIME LABORA TGRYDlRECTORS- LAB ACCREDITA T/ON BOARD COURTESY- SERVICE- PROTECT|ON l\~‘('. - _ u./ ..- Laboratory Case Nu"mber , Agency Case Number Offense Date - l_‘1D-184098 - . '. '/ F8101027 07/04/80 078820, CSF1PO, 0381358, THO1, D133317, D168539, D281338, 0198433, vWA, TPOX, 018851, Amelogenin, 058818, and FGA. . ' » _ '. The partial DNA profile from theraction_of the first vaginal smear.slide_ (ltem :3-1) is`__consistentj_, _' with a mixture from Gary Barnes a_ng__,`:_spm_e__,gnknovvn___ind,ividual.` Gary Barnes cannot-be excluded asa contributor to the stain at the loci 0881179,"_03813`5`8, THO1,'D138317, 0168539, D1'984'33,'vWA, 1 \ TP¢OX, Amelogenin, 058_818, andFGA. At these loci, the probability of selecting an unrelated person at'- random`who could be a contributor to the sperm fraction of the vaginal smear slide is approximately 1 in 5.679 million for Caucasians, 1 in 6.789 million for Blacks, and '1 in 1`.038 million for Hispanics. The" approximate World population is 6.5 billion. The partial DNA profile from the epithelial cell fraction of the first vaginal smear slide (|tem 3-1) is consistentwith some unknown female . - ~ The partia|.DNA profile from the.action of the second vaginal s__mea_r_slid_e (ltem 3-2)_is consistent with a mixture from Gary Barnes and so"me unknown individual Gary Barnes cannot be excluded asa contributor to the'stain at the loci 0881179, 021811, 078820', DBS1358,'THO1, 0138317, 0198433, vVVA, TPOX, 018851, Ame|ogenin, 058818, and FGA. At these loci, the probability of selecting an unrelated person at random Who could .be a contributor to the sperm fraction of the vaginal smear slide is approximately 1 in 30.84 million for Caucasians, 1 in 46.15 million for B|acks, and 1 in 7.358 million for- Hispanics. The partial DNA profile from the epithelial cell fraction of the second_vaginal smear slide (|tem 3-2) is consistent With the same unknown female ' The partial DNA profile from the sperm'fractlon of the third vaginal smear slide (ltem 3-3) is consistent With a mixture from Gary Barnes and some unknown'indivi,dual. Gary Barnes cannot be excluded as a contributor to the stain at the loci 0381358§ 0138317, D198433, and Amelo_genin. At these loci, the probability of selecting an unrelated person at random who could be a contributor to the sperm fraction of the vaginal smear slide is approximately 1 in 92 for Caucasians,'1 in 79 for Blacks, and 1 in 74 for Hispanics. , _ v l The partial DNA profile from the epithelial cell fraction of the third vaginal smear slide (ltem 3-3) is consistent with the same unknown female - The partial DNA profiles from the sperm and epithelial cell fractions of the final vaginal smear slide (|tem 4)iis consistent some other female Gary Barnes is excluded asa contributor to the sperm and epithelial ‘ cell fta'c'ti'o'ns of the vaginal smear slide ' The four vaginal smear slides (|tems 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 4) Were depleted during analysis The remaining DNA extracts and the remaining samples of the buccal swabs from Gary,,Barnes (ltems'1 and 2) Will be stored frozen to preserve the biological constituents For comparison purposes please submit known specimens from the victims Contact the laboratory for instructions on the proper collection method for additional evidence ' ' VVe are unable to retain this evidence P|ease make arrangements to pick it up at your earliest convenience 1 , 1 ipso J mes icho|s ‘ P' rensic Scientist o . . Texas DPS Garland l_aboratory Page 2 0f2 ' 05/13/09 HmX>m Um?>I._._/>mz._. O_n _qu_i_O m>_um._.< _ _ . _imc Ommm n _1.~ UL mhowm A...`D:Sm_r>mOD>._,OD< >:m_ =QB s m=am 63 + Amovummno:a sma_m_w soUTHwEsTERN EXHIB§T -C INSTITUTE OF FORENSIC SCIENCES AT DALLAS 5230 Medical Center Drive Dallas, Texas 75235 M£D JUN l 5 200 9 ’Forensic Biology Unit April 8, 2009 investigating Agency: Micheu€ MOOre ' Laboratory #: 80P2971 Dallas County Public Defender’S New FL: 081)1542 Office - ' ' 133 N. industrial Bivd., LB.2' ' Ag°“°y#: 558910L Dallas’ TX 75207 Cause #: F80-l6530-U § - 4 ' complainam: CynthiaJordan fm __H'¢i'i‘m'_"i`¢`iw*`m___" _:'_"Wn§n?:___~G§y'Ba`rHe-S_"_ ______ ___"» offense Sexual Assault EVIDENCE: Received by B. E. Harwood from PMH OB-GYN/EOR locked cabinet on December 3, 1980: . KZ. Vaginal smear 1 ` Retrieved from SWIFS lockbox on September 9, 2008: (08P1542) l. Buccal swab standard from Gary Barnes RESULTS: 'Portions of the following stored Samples Were subjected to a chemical process _to extract deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA): ` - ` _ K2T1. Swabbing of vaginal smear (08P1542) 'l. Buccal swab standard from Gary Barnes DNA Was extracted from sample K2Tl (swabbing of vaginal Smear) in a manner designed to yield two fractions: a fraction enriched for epithelial cell (female) DNA; and a fraction enriched for sperm cell (male) DNA. On occasion, the differential extraction method does not completely separate the two types of DNA due to the relative amounts of the two cell types present in a particular sample. The DNA extracts from the above listed samples Were amplified using the Polymerase Chain Reaction method, and typed for Amelogenin and the following nine (9) Short Tandem Repeat '(S_TR) systems: D3Sl358, vWA, FGA, D881179, DZISl l, DlSSSl, DSSSl 8, D13S317, and _ Analyst Initials g 19 EXHIBIT C` ‘Pag`e 2 of3 n FL#80P2971 _ April 8, 2009 D73820. 'Sample (08Pl542) l was amplified and typed for the following four (4) additional STR systems: Dl6SS39, THOl, TPOX, and CSFlPO. ' ` ' Sample K2T1 (swabbing of vaginal smear) Epithelial cell fraction. No DNA profile was obtained from this _fraction.- Sperm` cell'fraction. Spermatozoa were not detected in this fraction-by microscopic examination No DNA profile was obtained from this fraction T-able 1. DNA Profiles ' ‘ (08P1542)1. Bucca| " "'“ ‘_ ’-' _STR'System""' "_' _"swa'b'from"€ary"_ ' Barnes An_ielogenin XY , , .D3Sl358 15,16 ` vWA 15',17 FGA 21,2`2 D8Sll79 10,1'3 DZl_Sll 28,30 DlSSSl ~ 15,16 D'sssis 11,1_3 » D138317 11,12 D7S820 10,10 D16853_9 9',12 ' `THOI `7,7 TPOX 8,8 CSFlPO 11,12 CONCLUSIONS: -<"""7"¢"/§5§ /Ar 55 DMA‘TEST EE§LJLT§ SH¢>Lo)/o@ DNA P,QOF/Lé 711'0/€ §Are)>f .`TL)§`T A_P/QOF/L€ BUT .//\/DIC/¥T/UG_ Wi? ,\50'/ M/H"C H ¢ Inasmuch as no DNA profile was obtained from sample KZTl (swabbing of vaginal smear), no comparisons or conclusions will be made regarding this sample. DISPOSITION OF EVIDENCE: Unused portions of the following samples have been stored, and are available for future testing: KZTl and (08P1542) l. Unused portions of DNA extracts of the following samples have been stored, andare available for future testing: KZTl (epithelial and sperm cell fractions)` and ~ (081>1542) 1. A`rialyst_ Initials` C_/f§ ` EXHIBIT c Page 3 Of3 . - PL#80P2971 Aprii 8, 2009 ADDITIONAL` COMMENTS: In the event additional analysis is required, please notify the laboratory as soon as possible ' Courtney`Ferreira v -F,orensic Biologist ll Direct Line: 214-920-58'41 ` FAX: 214-920-5813_` E-rnail: cferreira@dallascounty.org - ccc Amy Murphy, Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division Analyst lnitials (_/ § EXHIBIT D » 3 ` ` . ¢`~' !! .CD Mar 271 2014 . ' Gary Wayne Barnes ‘ ’~~f~ TDcJ-Io #31881429'1'APR "3 PH 3¢26 1100 FM 655. Ram.s¢§§§f.§",~' in,':~:i.‘_~;[;;(ns Rosharon . Texa ‘ "LDUTY 77583 ' Gary Fitzsimmons Diatrict Clerk j Frank Crowley Cuurts Bldg. 133 N. Riverfront Blvd, LB 12 - 1 \ Dallas Texas 75207 4313 Dear Clerk: -Enclosed plaese__find for filing with the Criminal District Court number Three- a MOTION FOR APPOINTHBNT OF‘INVESTIGTOR,' Please file the same with the court and return a filed copy to the applicant; _I Thank you in advance for your consideration in this above mentioned request; Reseect£ully Submitted Cause Numbers F-Bl-llOS, F‘-81-1027 ' i: l l E D and F-80-16530 20114APR_-3 PH 3:25 Gary Wayne Barnes § IN THE CRIMIN&HK}_W. HHUB _ FV“ 1 ZERK VS. § DISTRICT COURT TH' ` TEXAS f __ _ |\I`DUTY § OF DALLAS COUNTY TEXA b THE STATE OF TEXAS 4 § § MOTION FOR THE APPOINTHENT OF AN INVESTIGATOR TO THE HCNORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 'Now ~comes Gary Wayne Barnes, the applicant in the ' above entitled and numbered causes a petition in Pro- Se to request that the court appoint an Investigator where the applicant has ' requested' the appointment of counsel where there are new facts, newly discovered evidence of the origional filings systems of the Dallas Police department, Southwestern Institut- ¢. ute of Forecics Science and the office of the Dallas County Clerks has documents files and imformation of the idates of the above mentioned crimes,'police reports , crime file numbers evidence files and the evidence filing dates for the offenses to which the applicant has been convicted. ) I. In open court on june 8, 2009 the applicant made ia request `that the court take "JUDICAL Notice' that the evidence which was tested was not the proper evidence of the crime secnce to which the applicant was convicted. The applicant attempted to point out that the evidence which was tested at the texas Department of Public safety No. LlD- 184098. was not the evidence of the actual :crime scence; Page l. Barnes 2. 'The applicant was convicted on Feb, 27, 1981 for theo offense committed on July 4 1980l in the Dallas Police Department file number #506950-L and f 307064-L for offenses committed July 4, 1980 and the swrFIs lab file numbers o_f # ao-P-lsaz` and # 80jP- 1635 for the evidence of the offense which was committed on the date of july 4, 1980., v This court in a ORDER GRANTING DNA TESTING varified that the evidence was locked in a box science the date of the offense in a certain chain of coustody. The State presented at trial Extraneous offenses and evidence of swrFs liab s 80-1'>-`25-93 and DPD '-file zniimbe`r_ of # 4a2§55-' L as an extraneous offense being committed prior to and _before the offense which was committed July 4, 1980, lThe state presented at trial Extraneous offense and levidence of SWIFS lab # 80-80-P-2971 and DPD file number as an extraneous offense being committed on Dec. '2, l980an offense that committred after the offense of July 4, 1980.DPD~‘n'-55`8q `D`L The filing order ofl both the bPD and SWiFS filing of the cases before and_after the offense of July 4, 1980 proves that the lab numbers in # §_Q=e;i._§£and # ao-P-isss are not the actual evidence of the crime scence and that a records search shows that this ' ence was _gg grile n at they SWIFS lab_p£igr to and before the date to which the July 4. 1980 offense was committed. II. The applicant was granted DNA testing on Feb. 20, v2009 and that testing was prefromed by the DPS lab in number vLlD-184098 as the filing systems will show that this is not and can not be the actual crime scence evidence_ Page 2. Barnes 3. The filing systems of both the Dallas Police Department and the files of the Southwestern Institute of Froenics science labproves that the state has introduced persented and tested the evidence which is not, was not the evidence of the actual crime scence. v III.. The `applicant was convicted in (2) two jury trials where the State filed it's notice of intent to uses extraneous offenses and .to present extraneous evidence prusuant to Rules' 404 and ,,609 of thre Texas Rules of Evidence and Article 37.07 of the code of Criminal proceedures. By the use of this new inrormation that the evidence has never been presented the ant Jury or to the actual trial Judge the the` applicant has not been given a fair trial and has been denied due process in a constitutional meaning of the actual evidence 'of the crime scence .being presented to ~the court and entered' upon the records- Iv,, The files of both the DPD and SWIFS labs proves that there is a serious issue of testing the actual evidence as this evidence is still on file at the lab in the numbers filed as 80-P-2784 and 80~P-~2790, that was filed on July 4, 1980. ' This evidence can be tested and this evidence will prove that the applicant is actusal innocence and that the victims are the actual victims of the crime to which the applicant has-been convicted. Page 3. Barnes 4. Applicant request the appointment of INVESTIGATOR in assisting a review by this court in _determination as to the fact of the evidence so that, a Order can be filed that a copy of the porition of the files of the' Dallas police -Department and the Southwestern Instutute of Forenics Science Lab be sealed for the future review of the appellate court when necessary. Applicant request the appointment of investigator to preserve and present affidivits to the court -of the in Brief data of the DPD and SWIFS Lab of the filing systems ’that the correct dates that all evidence was reported and presented to the lab in accordance with the dates of each of the offeenses was committed as well as the .evidence filed with the lab. V. Tha applicant can prove and present the facts that are related to the issue of the evidence and that the testing of said evidence 'proves that the applicant in actually` innocence of the crimes to which he was convicted. In the inter- trest of_ justice the applicant request that the Judge look to the facts look to the filing process of both of the above mentioned agencies which shows the the evidence used in the convictions was no file in the Lab filing systems prior to and before the date that the crime was committed. Wherefore, Premises Considered, the applicant Prays that this court grant this Motion for the`Appointment of Invest- igator: Respectfully Submitted: Page 4. Barnes 5. ~ Gary W§;ne Barnes Pro-Se #318814 TDCJ-ID 1100 FM 655, Ramsey Rosharon. Texas 77583 Signed on this the 27. day of 2014 CERTIFICATED OF SERVICE A true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been delivered to the office of the Dallas County Clerks officepursuant to the Texas Code of Criminal §rocedures on this the 27 Th day of March 2014by placing the same in the united States Mail: Gary Wayne Barnes #318814 WWW%M Page 5. nwd< Ew<=o manson ¢wwmmws .-oo ass mmm, wwmmm< Hom:wnos` emxwm owmmw wmmmw zmww. 01 |d _l_ \ (.O i. ¢..4 hi 60 as llllild“-‘! ~ ¢ ~ 7~ .> l seessslmssresmsaaa ~ .rt\ _f¢\\»\ alaba:mw: n i:= 3 "} '~.l'. UHMHNHOH GHNWW an< mwnnmwaaobm mnw=r odor~m< mccann wwam. www z. ww ssesseesassr§s%x;saese§s§= EXHIBIT E Cause Number's F-80-16530'F-81-l105 and F-81-l027 F!U:`_D ' § Garv Wavne Barn€'s IN THE cRIMINAL DIS 1_ § iii‘ifnza inn 27 app icant, COURT NUMBER THREE OFFAvvf ‘1 03 - - §§ . t ~,- `."‘°clé‘mi" vS_ § DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS' nomine YT£XAS THE sTATE or TEXAS ‘ ~ _ _' _ N.WWHWWHNMN¢ § MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL __mUEPUTY TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE 0F SAID COURT: Now comes Gary Wavne Barnes. the applicant in the above- entitled and numbered cause's and moves the court to' `appoint Attornev to disclose all exculpatory evidence which the Southwestern lInstitute of Froenic Scence Laborotorv has in it{s possession and further that the evidence in the below- SWIFS files to be obtained. for the courts review in a determin ation as to what evidence therein is exculpatory and finally th§t the court order appointment of Attornev in a review of this below listed evidence as the applicant has been convicted in the above stated cause numbers 'where the evidence which was presented as the State's Exhibit's is not the actual evidence of the crime scence- I.. `The applicant should be appointed an Attorney as the applicant was granted bNA testing on Febuary 20, 2009 uneder chapter 64.03 and the said testing was preformed by the (nps) department of Public safety in number Lin-la4098 the the results was submitted bef¢re this court on June 8, 2009. Barnes 2a v II. A review of the records of the Dallas Police department (DPD) and the files of the Southwestern Institut of Froensic.$cience Labobotory (SWIFS) shows, proves that the State .has introduced presented and tested the evidence which is not, was not lthe` evidence of the actual crime scence.: III. The applicant- was convicted in (2) two trials where the State filed itis intentions to use Extraneous offenses/ Extran- eoue Evidence pursuant the Rules 404 and 609 of the Texas Rule` of evidence and article 37.07 of the code of criminal procedures, The Stahgpresented at trial evidence in SWIFS file numbers 80-P-1632 and 180-P-1635 and the (DPD) file numbers 506950-L and 307064-L for offenses .that occurred of July 24, 1980 with indictment's file numbersv of F-8l-1105 and F-81-1027. The State presented at trial an Extraneous offense and evidence of SWIFS lab number BO-P -2593 and DPD file number 482955~L as an Extraneous offense being committed `prior to and before the offerns was committed-on July 4, 1980. The State presented at trial .an Extraneous offense and evidence of the SWIFS lab number 804P-2971 and DPD? file number 558910 L . as an extraneose offense that was committed after the offense of july 4, 1980 on nec. 2. 1980. Barnes 3.` IV. The evidence that was tested at the DPS in number LlD- 184098 is not and can not be the evidence of the actual crime scence. w These are facts that will be shown by a review of the above listings and filing systems of both the Dallas Police Department and the southwestern Institute of forenic Science dated and numbering files. The SWIFS LAB >files shows that the evidence in files numbers 80§P-lo32 and 80 -P-1635 was on 'file in the lab .prior to and before the date of the offense of July 34, 1980. d ' `Themfiles shows that the extraneous in SWIFS files number 80-P-2593 and` DPD file number 482955-L was on file at the lab before the crime was committed July 4, 1980. and that there is error in the lower numbers of 80-P~1632 and BO~P-1635 being the evidence of 4a crime that was committed on july as these are numbers of the Jan-Febuary 1980. The evidence that has been tested as well as presented in ,this court as exhibits and in the DNA hearing on june 8,. 2009 is not the evidence of the actual crime scence. v. The applicaIt request the appointment of Attorney to present the issues of the testing the `actual evidence of 'Page 3. the crime scence still on file at the SWIFS lab in the showing that the applicant is actuall innocence and that the wrong evidenced has been accepted as the- state's exhibit's in a jury trial -'and in the chapter 64{02 hearing. This evidence that can be tested is filed in the SWIFS files as_ P~80 2784 and P-2790 of July 4, 1980 that can be tested in showing"€;: the applicant is actual innocence and that the victims is the actual victim of the offense that occurred on the date of July 4, 1980., in the process of motioning the court said attorney can petition this court /for the testing procedures as should be applied under chapter 64.03, 04. The applicant requests a review by the court 's determination as to what evidence vtherein is exculpatory and that the court appoint Attorney of record , so that a Order can be filed that a copy of the portion of the DPD and SWIFS files deemed to be exculpatory be sealed for the future review by the appellate court when necessary. Wherefore, Premises Concidered, the applicant prays that this court Grant this motion for the appointment of counsel in reviewing this above mentioning in assuring that the applicants constitiutional rights has been protected; y Submit;: ' 18%14 u E Ramsey Rosharo, Texas 77583 '» Mar. 18, 2014 ` v b _ Gary Wayne Barne§;éh&&ua 1100 FM 65 ey Rosharon, T;qE§RHSBBBAH[,:27 f‘,\ r\-._, ,.¢ _ "5?, JZWMHU off f "’ T "`LERKNS~ ‘ "»TEXAS DEPUIy Office of the Clerk Gary Fitzsimmins Frank Crowley Courts Bldg. 133 N. riverfront LB 12 Dallas Texas 75207- 4313 Dear Clerk; ‘Enclosedt pfease find the applicant motion-for the APPOINT§ MENT OF COUNSEI.,4 to be filed in the CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT THREE stamp file. a copy and return to the appliucant; I'll thank you in advance‘ for your time and consideration in the request; Respectfully»Submitted; _.I c 92 sw<=m.___ww§mm EEB» _HHOO mz mmm. mwsmm< stn EH%::RN! Hm§%wqqmmw _ _ romww _..___l,___"_,_,_%__n_.£ I...…s_»_.w_.?w§ .s,___m _ _LHW@@§UA%S&M$@W&. l _.`. n :l.l U>m.b>m UHM.HWHDH. GHLWWN zmwww _ own< mwnnmwaso=m mnwsw nnotwm< nocnnm mwmms www z. mw .._mm.,.__.w___.w__.§,\w _______________.l.=._l___.___._____.._§_=_._.s____.l.l_,._._. .... |rl|...l r.|ll\_ Dallas County Pul‘olic Defender’S Office 1 Decembe§£ 12; 2014 , 1 ' Gary Bariies, #318814 Ramsey I§Jnit 1100 FM§655 Rosharon', Texas 775 83 Dear Mr. 'Barnes, Eiiclosed please find a copy of the Article 64.04 Findings in F81-01027-J, F81-01105-J n and F81-(_)2518~J that were signed by the Judge yesterday. Sliould you choose to appeal these findings you must notify the court within 30 days of the date the order was signed at the following address: Judge Gracie Lewis Criminal District Court No. 3 Frank Crowley Courts Building 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., 6th Floor ’ Dallas, Texas 75207 Best of luck to you in the future. Sincer_ely§, Julie Doucet_ AssistantfPublic Defender ~6 133 N. Eliverfront B|vd., 9th F|oor, LB 2 ~e'» Dallas Tean 75207-4313 ~@. Phone: (214) 653-3550 ~<:~ Fax: (214) 653-3539 ~6 \\ F// cAUSE Nos. F81-01027-J, F81-01105-J, F81-02518-J?9/4,C/E. " 50 // THE sTATE oF TEXAS § IN THE cRIMIN§M_» . ` § §H/ / ]/;)/ C v. § DISTRICT T'i£§@ § _ w GARY wAYNE BARNES § DALLAS CoUNTY, TEX§§P/Jr;y ARTICLE 64.04 FINDINGS ON THE RESULTS OF POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING Pursuant to article 64.04 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, this court makes the following findings: f l. In February of 1981, Barnes was found guilty of the aggravated rape of Y.O. (cause number F8-l-01027-QJ), the aggravated rape of E.R. (cause number F81-01105-QJ), and burglary of a habitation with intent to commit rape and theft (cause number F81- 02518-J). The jury Set punishment at confinement for life and assessed a $10,000 fine in each case. 2. On October 25, 2007, Barnes filed a formal motion for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The State filed a response stating that it had no opposition to Barnes’ request for nuclear DNA testing of what appeared to be vaginal smear slides collected during the victims’ sexual assault examinations 3. On February 19, 2009, this Court granted Bames’ motion and ordered the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to first determine whether the slides still in the possession of the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (SWIFS) were in fact taken during the internal examinations of they sexual assault victims in these cases. This Court further ordered DPS to conduct DNA testing on the slides and on known samples from Barnes and the victims. . In a report dated May 13, 2009, DPS informed this Court that it had conducted a _ visual inspection on the slides and confirmed that cellular material was detected on the slides. . In the same report, DPS informed this Court that it had completed DNA testing in these cases. \The test results indicate that: (a) Gary Wayne Barnes could not be excluded as a contributor to the sperm fraction of Item 3-1, a vaginal smear slide from Y.O. The probability of selecting an unrelated person at random that could be a contributor to the sperm fraction of the vaginal smear slide is approximately 1 in 6.7'8`9'_"r_ni11i0n for African Americans. (b) Gary Wayne Barnes could not be excluded as a contributor to the sperm fraction of Item 3-2, a vaginal smear slide from Y.O. The probability of selecting an unrelated person at random that could be a contributor to the sperm fraction of the vaginal smear slide is approximately l in 46.15 million for African Americans. l (c) Gary Wayne Barnes could not be excluded as a contributor to the sperm fraction of Item 3-3, a vaginal smear slide from YO The probability of selecting an unrelated person at random that could be a contributor to the sperm fraction of `the vaginal smear slide is approximately l in 79 for iAfrican Americans. (d) No male DNA was obtained from item 4, a vaginal smear slide from E.R. . The State was unable to obtain buccal swabs from the victims for comparison purposes in these cases. . This Court further FINDS that had these DNA results been available during the trial of the offense, it is NOT reasonably probable that Barnes would not have been convicted. See TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE art. 64.04(Vernon Supp. 2006). Singed and entered this l I77'I day of D.o,c . , 20 / ?L ' F&}t a,
EXHIBIT Cause¢ numbers. F-81-1105, F-81~1027 and F-80-16530 FF!-FD § GARY Wayne Barnes § applicant, § VS. § THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE CRIHINAL DISTRICT G hAPR-h COURT NUHBER THREE. DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS. MOTION FOR POST CONVICTION FRONENSIC DNA TESTING PuRsUANT mo chapter 64.03 TO THE HONORABLE JUDGB OF SAID COURT: PH 3:26 y ysmnns JERK »:E?AS . c:"urv Now Comes Gary Wayne Barnes, the defendant in the above entitled causes by and through PrQ-Se Motion, pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures and would on to the court in support of this motion for post~conviction Forensic DNA Testing the following; I. The applicant was convicted in (2) two Jury's Trials where the State filed Motion of Intent to use Extraneous offenses and Extraneous Evidences pursuant to Rule show 404 and 609 of the Texas Rule of Evidence and Article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures. The State presented at trial in the causes numbers F-Bl-llOS and F-Bl- 1027 filed police reports of the DallAS police Department # 506950-L and 307064-L for the offenses commit- ted on July 4. 1980. The State presented evidence of the southwestern Institute of Fronsic Science Lab in numbers P~1632 and BO-P-1635 as beingvthe evidence of the crime scence of the offenses committed on July 41 1980. 80- The State predented at trial an Extraneous offense and evidence of the SWIFS Lab # 80~?-2593 and the Dallas Police report file number 482955-L for an offense committed against Janine Jay Ketterinq on may 10, 1980 an offense being comm» itted prior to and before the offense of july 4, 1980. The State presented at trial in cause number F-80-16530 as an Extraneous offense and Evidence of the SWIFS lab # 80- P-297l and the Dallas police report file number 558910~ L as an Extraneous offense being committed on Dec, 2. 1980 being an offense "after' the offense committed on july 4, 1980. . In the presentation of the States case in chief the introductions of the extraneous offenses a crime that took place prior to and before the case to which the applicant was on trial and a Extraneous offense that was committed ”after' the offense to which the applicant was on trial. In so doing the state presented a case time line as well as to show the filing systems for both the Dallas Police department and that of the Southwestern Institut of froecsic crime lab. II. A review of the Evidence filing systems for the offenses committed prior to before and after proves, shows that the evidence sumbitted in open court at the trial as well as on June 8, 2009 at the chapter 64 hearinq is not and can 4not be the evidence of the actual crime scence. The evidence that has been presented and tested in the numbers of "80-P-1632 and 80~P-1635 was on file in the SWIFS lab* 7 Paqe 2. Barnes 3. before and prior to the extraneous offense‘ crime committed May lO, l980,and the SWIFS filing systems shows that the numbers 1632 and 1635 . was reported in the month of Feb uary 1980 and (6) six months prior to the offense being committed; The evidence that has been tested by the Depart- ment of public in file Numbers LlD-l84098 shows in the 'Submission Information report " the names of the victims are at error, naminq both Renteria and Ketterninq as the victims. The SWIFS filing systems has recorded that the Extran- eous offense evidence 80-P-2593 was on file after the numbers- of 1632 and 1635 and these numbers are not the evidence numbers for crimes of July 4, 1980. The SWIFS files shows that the evidence for the crimes committed on july 4, l980are in the numbers of 80-P2784 and 80-P-2790 and this said evidence in still on file at the lab and can be tested to showing that the victims are in fact the victims to the offense which was committed no ]uly 4, 19880 and also showing and proving that the applicant in actual innocens. This evidence proves that the appliaant did not commit the crimes to which he has been convicted as there is biological material secured inm relation to the above -entitled and numbered causes , including but not limited to a viginal smears from Renteria and Oviedo as well a reference samples from the applicant. Despitepast testing of the wrong evidence, the wrong evidencef The newly discovered evidence of the july 4, 1980 Paqe 3. 'Barnes 4. presently sits in the SWIFS lab a vaginal smear still remains available for testing. The evidence was in the possession of the State during the prosecution of the offense and remains in the poession of the State , being housed at the SWIFS lab. III. There was DNA testing done in this case. Theese test results did not show the applicant is the person who has committed the offense s to which he has been convicted as that evidence has never been tested which has not allowed for the court to make a favorable finding as the actually evidence of the crime scence has never been presented to the court or has that evidence been tested. Idenity was and is an issue in this case. It is a reasonable probability that the applicant would not have been prosecuted or convicted had the court had Knowledge that the evidence which has been presented . introduced as state's exhibits and tested by the Texas Department of public Safety is not the actual evidence of the actual crime scence. V. The applicant makes this request in the interest of justice , and this request is not made to unreasonable delay the execution of the sentences or administration of Justice. wBEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the applicant herein wwould respectfully Pray that this court order the requested DNA testing be done, Applicant prays _for such other relief as to which the applicant may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted G§iy z:ene!%ag:es #3§§814 1100 FM 655, Ramsey Unit Rosharon, Texas 77583 pro-Se mason BUF\> wit d.' n . _ . `. , _ GARLAND cRIME LABORAToRY LID_184098 Information Sheet Case # LlD- i§)\ii ig § Date: §Z(o 293 Examiner Initials: du Page # TMB LMG AP ALS coNTRoLs (+) [:] " (+) l:i (+) l:l (') i:i (") i:i (') i:] § vt\o Mi sS\`o\/\ ~i:¢ cwt 5-\-¢‘\-{ g w’\iv\, m K iv @ Si\`ole, \/\o\¢\e\r i ' ¥Lt!-t Yo'\>\tp’bb’ - ida `ti-Qw\s ore lah€lt)\ lmiirt`o\\$'- bode- :YO\/\uwu \Lo‘Q-OO\ C.o\/\)\'#~i\'\b ~ i .<) ll ol{_ ia\o.eley\ \/t`e\,\)al\ u\~ (900>;- r,se… - o-t arm ¥M'~\ /£e-z\l/ ets 3~9@ /\Cu\i L:_c\ti/\ S\lcl.t iron \,"""" 3 "l`\ gc¢u@-€cl ¢"wi cal\ctiv& ida iv\d\\\/I)\W,\ l'~{\\ W\i¢.f~')t@v\)\'r{§ue)c '\'o\={s. " »\)6 p wAs T& 35 F/eom 5 zavre/e/A Acco/€D/ SU 5 407 mm REP@»€TDngg/) n}/___a= 65/),§¢;~()0’ 752 bags wev emean /A/ o. H s 3/@ 07 HO"" #016)61‘/ 7_7':7);57‘ 47b 5L/DE /1‘)40 745 A/AM€ /
BARNES LAB REPORT INFORMATION: Texas Police Lab Case # for all involved: #LlD~184098 RENTERIA Elizabeth (Rape Date 7/4/80) SWIFS Lab # FL80P1635 -T[.HS 6 j rL_ )X Agency #506950L /930 N®”’?€ZZ Agency Case #/ Cause # F8l~01105 J FEK, BAZAJES NEW LAB # 08P09l8 (Assigned by SWIFS in 2008 when original specimen appeared to be missing from storage) Per Barnes, her number is also 80P2784 LA¢‘Z TEST/A!é; 6/12/08 - Lab could NO'l` find evidence in storage New Lab # assigned for administrative purposes 2/26/09 K2 Vag Smear located in SWIFS Storage with#’s 80Pl635/FSlOl 105 2/27/09 Smear sent to State Lab (Garland) c/o Manuel Valdez 3/10/09 Garland Lab logged in slide holder #80P1635(K2) Label: CD K -------------- ,(Name redacted but letter K clearly visible as first letter) 1/16/01 Slide 80P1635 K2 SBW (probably indi- cates stain used) Shows sperm with tail OVIEDO Yvette (Rape Date 7/4/80) SWIFS Lab #FL 80 Pl632 _* Agency # 307064L NEW LAB # 08P0919 (Assigned by SWIFS in 2008 when original specimen appeared to be missing from storage) 'r‘H 5' i’$ A )~lov. 1479 ria/nees _ PE£, BA RML='$ KZ Vag. Smear (FL#80P1632) 7/17/08 _ SWIFS could NO'l` locate evidence in storage. New. Lab # assigned #08P09 l 9. /3/17/09 Lab lasted K2 smear drag/gait Dates may be in error using original #80Pl632 B¢' 1/=-4/"",' Agency Case/Cause # F81-01027 J Per Bames, her number is also 80P2790 \2/27/09 Lab sent smear to Texas State lab (Garland) C/o Manuel Valdez 3/10/09 Garland lab logged in l clear bag & 2 sealed slide holders with 3 slides (#80Pl632)#l slide contains sperm with tails; #2 & #3 contain unstained cellular material (Garland converted these 3 slides to 6 slides for test purposes) l ORDAN Cvnthia (Rape Date 12/2/80) SWIFS #FL 80 P297l Cause #F8016530 DPD #558910L BARNE`Sl Gg SWIFS #FL08P1542 (Buccal Swab) 2009 Lab Case # LlD 184098 Case #F8101027 Case # F80 16739 Dism Case #FSO 16740 Dism TE§T/N 6 12/3/80: Kl vag. swab KZ vag smear (f`ound in lab on 7/08) K3 blood sample K4 pubic hair combings K5 pubic hair cuttings K6 anal smear on slide Results of testing: Kl - seminal fluid K2 - sperm K3 - blood group K4 & K5 - nothing K6 - no sperm K7 ~ blue jeans - seminal fluid & sperm K8 - bedspread - nothing (No longer in lab) 4/8/09 - K2 used to extract DNA (Became K2'I`l) divided to yield two fractions: female epithelial cells & male sperm cells Results of testing: Epi. Cells: No DNA profile Could be obtained Sperm - No DNA obtained Thus no comparisons possible l/9/81 Ql Blood Sample QZSaliva Sample Barnes is Type O, PGM Enzyme Type 2-1 & Secretor of Bld Blood Group O(H) 9/9/08 Buccal Swab (08P1542) Stored in lab 4/8/09 Portion of sample amplified For DNA typing Results: No comparison to Jordan possible because there was no DNA available in Jordan’s samples KETTERNING Jennen (Rape Date 5780) #FL 80 P2593 DPD #4829551. /\)0 res r/,JC¢` RENTERIA Joe (father of Elizabeth) Case # or SWIFS #FSl-02Sl8 Texas Crime Lab Case #LlD-184098 (2009) Cause No. F80-16530-J, F81-01027-J F81-01105-J & F81-02518-J THE STATE OF TEXAS ( |N THE CRIM|NAL VS. ‘ ( D|STRICT COURT #3 GARY WAYNE BARNES " ( DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AFF|DAV|T |N SUPPORT OF MOT|ON FOR DNA TEST\NG l am Gary Wayne Barnes. On February 25, 1981, in Cause Numbers F81-01027~J and F81-01105-J, | was found guilty of aggravated rape and was sentenced to life in the penitentiary On February 25 1981, in Cause Number F81-02518-J, | was found guilty of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit rape and was sentenced to life in the penitentiary On February 27, 1981, l was found guilty of aggravated rape in Cause Number F80-16530-J and was sentenced to life in the penitentiary Notices of appeal were filed in these cases on March 20, 1981, _The appeals were denied, and the mandates were affirmed on November 5, 1982. l state that the following is true and correct: 1. To the best of my knowledge, there was evidence obtained in relation to these cases that consisted of biological material. This evidence included,| but is not limited to, rape kits taken on the victims The evidence was m the possession of the State ouran these cases 2. The evidence, to the best of my knowledge, was not subjected to DNA testing or comparison DNA testing with my DNA. The testing not being done was through no fault of my own. 3. The ultimate question in these cases was whether l, Gary Wayne barns, committed the offenses of aggravated rape and burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit rape. There is a reasonable probability that it would show that l did not commit these offenses if DNA forensic testing was done on the biological material 4. l make this request in the interest ofjustice and not to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice. I Gary Wayne Barnes TDCJ-ID 318814 am presently incarcerated in the Texas Department of criminal Justice, Institutional Division at the Ramsey One unit 1100 Fm 655, Rosharon, Texas 77583 and declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct: Executed on this the 31 th Day of March 9 g¢“’E,is/eel\l “l`l\cnt film a@'llf 2014. ;-1 ,_,.»_. .Z_~..__'l .:k ” y _ v Ei CAUsE No' FxoGra§~BQ/=i£§ 27 J 1181 01105§ g§i€gr%%? As THE sTATE oF TEXAS . 1 - § x UrME cRiMiNAL vs. ~ ` .. ' _. § DISTRICT CoURr#z GARY WAYNE BARNES ' ' 4 § § § ~ _ DALLAS coUNrY, TEXAS MoTIoN To WITHDRAW As COUNSEL' ` ro_ THE HoNoRABLE _JUDGE oF sAiD couer _ _ COMES NOW -Michelle Moore,’ attorney of record for the Defendant in ' 'i° "1"' "“i;`>‘§tive styied"an“d_numbei"edcat. "es_. `3nd'rnoves the`§ourt toy-enter an - ~j-:-: ~-1-»:~'~_ "`orde_r permitting movant to withdraw as counsel of record in this cause for the following reasons: ‘ ' v I-~ . Counsel was appointed on this case'.by Judge Bobby_Francis. TT ___ ,, 3.___`_ -i 3:_… in - , . ,, _ _. __ v §ary Wayne Barnes Was sentenced to life in all of his cases. Mr. Barnes v `has Since asked for and received post-conviction DNA testing in all of these cases. ’ _ . ‘ ,_ _ III. _ " _ A finding was entered in Cause Numbers F81~O_lOZ7-J, FSI-Ol 105-l and F 811-025 l S-J , .on June 8, 2009, which stated that had the DNA test results ` been available during the trial of these offenses, it is NOT reasonably ` probable that Barnes would not have been c`onvicted. The test results in these cause numbers Which did not exclude Barnes as the perpetrator in these crimes Were entered into the court iile. ' ' . 2 IV. - ' l_n Cause Number F80-l6530-J, no male profile was found by testing the rape kit from the original investigation of the case. Because STR testing ' was utilized in Barnes' case, the judge denied additional Y-STR testing `i) v _ - V. - _ All' testing in this case has been granted and received No other testing will be done'through Article 64 of the Texas`Code of Criminal'Procedure. g VI. _ _ The granting of this Motion Will not have a material adverse effect on the - interests of the defendant as he may file his notice of appeal.'- - VII. ' Counsel requests that this motion be filed ~l~»;~-~¥--*-~'-v~'--#+-V~m* RE iii rRE Movant pra ys~tne Court'grant thi 511 1011 -1_ 311 11 "'rie"r “” " `jT'_`_`, :'1_..'_'_ that Michelle Moore be released as counsel of record in this cause. ~"~ s~ s 1 ,:.:Re»Spe'@tn-iiysubmitted ' n WM/f?/)l 111 Mich§,;lle Moore ` Assis ant Public Defender ` v_ w § -' 133 N. lndustrial Blvd., L§ 2 v Dallas, Texas 75207_ (214.) 653-3564 ` State Bar No. 14362150 ' ATTORNEY.FOR DEFENDANT CERTlFICATION l hereby certify to the Court that a true and correct copy of the above and ' foregoing motion has been served on the Assistant District Attorney_of ' Dallas County via inter-office mail on the same date of filing/herewith l{/Iichelle 'l\v;loore v._g.\.-` Onthis £__Z_M day of ORDER §§ !1§% f 2009, the Court, havin; considered the above and foregoing motion find the same is hereby® ’ h DENIED. ever Judge §racie Lewis Criminal District Court #3'_ Exhibit il w Cause Number: F81~01027-J r]g C] Fsi-oiios-J // o Fsi-ozsis-J THE sTATE or TEXAS § 1N THE CRIMiNAL vs. § DISTRICT coURr No. 3 GARY wAYNE BARNEs ` § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S REOUEST FOR RETESTING The Defendant, Gary- Wayne Barnes,. appearing pro se, has filed a request with the Court to consider a media produced videotape of the_ DNA test taken pursuant to a post- conviction DNA testing in the above-numbered and styled cause to support his request for retesting.' The court, after considering the pleadings of the movant, the requirements of 64.01, 64.03 and 64.04 of the Texas _Code of Criminal Procedure, the record, and the Court’s own personal experience and knowledge,v concludes that the'movant,'GaW Wayne Barnes, is not entitled to relief under Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. Art 64.03. The Court finds that Defendant’s request fails to meet the requirements of Chapter 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in that he has shown no evidence that the test conducted was faulty, or if it was faulty, that an uncompromised sample Still exists. movant, Gary Wayne Bames, #08063282 N 2W-2, P.O. Box 660334, Dallas, Texas 75266, TX 75207`, and to counsel for the State. ` erNEDrhis laird day of /\/N' ,2009 §§ n mr 06 131/vw GRACIE LEWIs, JUD'GE cRIMiNAL DISTRICT coU_RT No. 3 DALLAS coUNTY, TEXAS EXHIBIT J F81-01027-QJ Fsi-oiios-QJ F81-02518-J THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT vs. § COURT NUMBER 3 OF k GARY WAYNE BARNES § DALLAS COUNTY,`TEXAS ORDER GRANTING GARY WAYNE BARNES’S MOTION FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING Barnes Was charged with the aggravated rape of Y.O. (cause number F81-01027- QJ), the aggravated|rape of E.R. (cause number F81-01105-QJ), and burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit rape and theft (cause number F81-02518-J). A jury found appellant guilty and assessed a life sentence in all three cases; the jury also imposed a SI0,000 fine in each case. On August 31, 1982, the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions. On October 25, 2007, Barnes, through court-appointed counsel, filed a formal - motion for post-conviction DNA testing under Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The State filed a response to Bames’s motion on February 18, 2009,' agreeing that Barnes had met the statutory requirements for entitlement to post-conviction DNA testing. Accordingly, the State does not oppose DNA testing of what appear to be vaginal smears that still exist in connection with these cases. The State also does not oppose testing, for comparison purposes, of known DNA samples to be obtained from Barnes and the victims, and any of the consensual sex partners that the victims may have had in the seventy-two (72) hours prior to the rape. The State does not, however, waive any arguments regarding the integrity of the evidence to be tested or the interpretation of any test results under Chapter 64 ora subsequent 11.07 writ. The Court, after considering the pleadings of both parties, the requirements of Chapter 64, the record in these cases, and the Court’s own knowledge and experience, grants Barnes’s unopposed request for DNA testing of the evidence currently located at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences (SWIFS). The Court also grants DNA testing, for comparison purposes, of saliva samples to be obtained from Barnes and the victims, and any of the consensual sex partners that the victims may have had in the seventy-two (72) hours prior to the rape. The Court makes the following findings in support of its rulings: Existence of Evidence Contaz'ning Biological Material l. In relation to this case, SWIFS still possesses two slides, which appear to be vaginal smears taken during the victims’ sexual assault examinations at Parkland Hospital. 2. The vaginal smears were secured in relation to the offenses that are the basis of the challenged convictions 3. The evidence appears to be in a condition making DNA testing possible. 4. The evidence was in the State’s possession during the trials of the offenses. 5. The evidence has been subjected to a sufficient chain of custody. 6. Additionally, for comparison purposes, the State will attempt to obtain known DNA samples from Barnes and the victims, and any of the consensual sex partners that the victims may have had in the seventy-two (72) hours prior to the rape. 7. Because SWIFS has been unable to confirm the nature of the slides it has labeled “K2” in each of the victim’s specific laboratory numbers, the slides need to be examined to determine whether they were taken as part of the internal examinations of the victims or Whether they contain hair or fiber evidence 8. Accordingly, Barnes has met his burden of demonstrating that evidence containing biological material still exists in relation to these cases and is in a condition making DNA testing possible. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a)(1)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Identity 9. Identity was and is an issue in these cases. The perpetrator was a stranger to the victims. Barnes’s defense at trial was misidentification; his wife testified that he was at home the night of the offenses. 10. Accordingly, Barnes has met his burden of demonstrating that identity was or is an issue in these cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a)(l)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Signifl`cance of Exculpato)y Results ll. Barnes has met his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a)(2)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The DNA test results will only be considered exculpatory for purposes of Chapter 64, however, if (l) testing yields a male DNA profile that matches neither Barnes nor any male with whom the victims engaged in consensual intercourse in the seventy- two (72) hours prior to the rape; and (2) testing yields female DNA profiles that match the victims, thus confirming that the biological evidence tested was indeed collected from the victims in these cases. Moreover, DNA test results will only be considered exculpatory if a visual examination concludes that the slides were obtained from internal examinations of the victims; test results will not be exculpatory if a visual examination concludes that the slides contain hair or fiber evidence Administration of Justice 12. Barnes has met his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his request for DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Barnes is currently serving his sentences in these cases. Choz'ce of Laboratory 13. DNA testing will be conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 64.03(0)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2008). l 14. The proposed testing could consume the evidence, and both parties have agreed to this condition. Based on the above findings, the Court GRANTS Barnes’s request for post- conviction DNA testing of what appear to be vaginal smears currently in the possession of SWIFS. The Court further grants DNA testing, for comparison purposes, of known saliva samples from Barnes and the victims, and any of the consensual sex partners that the victims may have had in the seventy-two (72) hours prior to the rape. The Court GRDERS that: l. Within ten (lO) days of the date this order is entered, this Court shall issue a bench warrant, transferring Barnes from the lnstitutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to the Dallas County Jail. Upon Barnes’s arrival at the Dallas County Jail, an agent of the State shall collect a buccal swab, thumbprint, and photograph 2. An agent of the State shall transfer Barnes’s buccal swab, thumbprint, and photograph, along with a copy of this order, to the Department of Public Safety Laboratory, attention: Manuel Valadez, 350 W. I-30, Garland, Texas 75043, telephone 214-861-2000, maintaining a proper chain of custody. 3. Within a reasonable amount of time after this order is entered, an agent of the State shall attempt to obtain buccal swab DNA samples from the victims in these cases The State shall also attempt to determine whether the victims -had consensual intercourse within seventy-two (72) hours of the rape. If so, the State shall attempt to obtain buccal swabs from those consensual sex partners The victims and their consensual sexual partners have no legal obligation to provide their DNA samples to the Stat€. 4. If the State obtains DNA samples from the victims and any consensual sex partners, an agent of the State shall transfer the samples to the Department of Public Safety Laboratory, attention: Manuel Valadez, 350 W. I-30, Garland, Texas 75043, telephone 214-861-2000, maintaining a proper chain of custody. 5. DPS shall, upon receipt, visually inspect the slides to determine whether the slides were obtained during internal examinations of the victims or if the slides contain hair or fiber evidence, Upon completion of the visual inspection, DPS shall notify all parties of it conclusions regarding the nature of the slides. 6. If the slides are confirmed to have been taken from internal examinations of the victims and do not contain hair or fiber evidence, DPS shall conduct DNA testing of the slides and reference samples 7. The DNA testing shall be conducted under reasonable conditions designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and the testing process 8. The DNA testing shall employ a scientific method sufficiently reliable and relevant to be admissible under Rule 702 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. 9. 'On completion of the DNA testing, the results of the testing and all data related to the testing required for an evaluation of the test results shall ~be immediately filed with this Court and copies of the results and data shall be served on the movant, via his attorney of record, Michelle Moore (Dallas County Public Defender’s Office, 133 N. Industrial Blvd., LB 2, Dallas, Texas 75207); and on the attorney representing the State, Amy Sue Melo Murphy (Dallas County District Attorney’s Of`fice, Appellate Division, 133 N. Industrial Blvd., LB 19, Dallas, Texas 75207). 10. The State of Texas shall bear the costs of all testing conducted pursuant to this order. THE CLERK IS FURTHER ORDERED to send a copy of this order to: (1) Department of Public Safety Laboratory, attention: Manuel Valadez, 350 W. I-30, Garland, Texas 75043; ` (2) Amy Sue Melo Murphy, Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Division, 133 N. Industrial Blvd._, LB 19, Dallas, Texas 75207; and (3) Michelle Moore, Dallas County Public Defender’s Office, 133 N. Industrial Blvd., LB 2, Dallas, Texas 75207. 4 Signed and entered this l q_lday of F Wil'\ , 2009. \ ».. ) \ § J\UM!L f\Q/ww Judge Gracie Lewis` _` Criminal District Court No. 3 - Dallas County, Texas ` CONCLUSION 7 The movant request that the court consider this appeal of the findings of the DNA testing in the actual crime scence, evidence has been withheld, and the evidence of a set of unrelated offenses has been tested through no fault of the movant; In the interest of justice 'the movant has shown that he has been illgeally convicted using falty evidence that has nothing to do with the offenses committed on July 4 ,1980. Movants Attachements and* Exhibits in support of the facts and :;:ias: jurists of reason would find it debateable that the evidence presented, introduced and exhibited as the states Exhibit's can support the convictions, Verdicts, Judgements and the sentences where the movant has a valid claim s of the denial of constututional rights. Wherefore Premisesv considered movant prays that this court grant leave to file an appeal as the movant has shown that he has been granted DNA Testing but through no fault of his own the wrong evidence was tested: The actual crime scence evidence is still on file and with this being the case and the imformation given in the court files , records the movant is entitle to a new trial in violation `of brady V. Maryland, as the actual crime scence evidence has been withheld; Ga¥gy£:¥ne_Bgrnes #318814 TDCJ-ID Ramsey Unit 1100 FM 655. Rosharon, Texas 77583 Executed on this the 26,day Of DeC, 2014 \ w aé/ &D/[% t ‘ CERFIFICATE OF FILING OF SERVICE I Garyl Wayne Barnes, hereby certify that I file with the clerk of the Court and‘ serve the following Motion of Appeal as required by the Texas Code of Criminal Proceedures as authorized by the Chapter 64.04 for DNA testing in support of this motion on this the 26 day of Dec. 2014 by placing the same in the United States mail on this the 26 day of Dec. 2014, `in the prison Unit mail-room box , first class mail the origional to ; y Gary Fitzsimmons District Clerk Frank Crowley Courts Buldg 133 N. Riverfront Blvd LB 12 Dallas Texas 75207-4314 Gary §§yne Ba nes #318814 TDCJ-ID 1100 FM 655, Ramsey Unit Rosharon Texas 77583 Executed on this the 26 day of Dec, 2014 QQL M/ a@[}[> v~§-_' _:_\;:'-.~=. z=_._~'_-i_-.'=i:‘=_"». -':_=_.‘:*:-z _'-.\. ri::: -_~.__--=_::-_-.l '-~ ~'-"-:'-.“= ' ~..'. .. ~..__.' _. ...... .:. '_.'_. . .._. -..~“'.°‘_'...T. Z :_.;.' _` .- oFFICiAL No`fi`CE`F'R“oi`»/i couRr oF cRIMINAL APPEALS oF TEXAS P.o. Box 12308,CAP1T0L s'rATION, AusrlN, TEXAS 78711 ii )\z>.":'¢$ FC`S;_~
i - 3 "?"~§/ _~**'-z~»' pirNF_‘-' aowi:s . PE t b .:.»l-"j__’ _ NALTY FoR l j 5 1345 ' $ 00.26° z ,i, s …` dt§`iNo. 12/5/2014 PR]VATE USE j~ :; Oooecs?d.ia DECiE Zi:'.~i BARNEs, GARY wAYNE sr. Tri._ s ,j,i On this day, the application fo::r`,j_.41__`1"j"07' Writ"of’ |;ia'beas Corpus has been received andpresented to the Court_ » _ Abel Acosta, C|erk GARY WAYNE§BARNES SR. M g RAMS.EYiu*N'i-T.- Toc#.ia:18814 v ,\ 13 1100 FM'655 ' ' /\\:b .,. RosHARoN,Tx 77583 B-Q~ ` § x . Q) deweese raises "ii'"l'i"`iii"n""ii'i'u'l""‘ii|'l'"'ii'ii.'ilii|i"i'||h‘l
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
BARNES, GARY WAYNE Sr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-gary-wayne-sr-texapp-2015.