Flores, Vincent

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 16, 2015
• Docket: WR-83,010-01
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

STATE OF.TEXAS Criminal No. 746 and 3627.06 § v. This document co~tains so!l'e VINCENT FLORES pa~ges that ar~ of P?or quahtv at the time of 1ma~mg. tRECE~VED ~~ . § OOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

§ MAR 16 2015

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

NOW INTO THIS HONORABLE COURT, comes Defendant(Vincent Flores), who moves this court

to order the 51st District Court of Sterling County, Texas to 1) Clarify the court's ( .

December 11, 2014 order denying petition for WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE 'MOTON TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA or 2) issue a ruling on Defendant 1 s WRIT OF

ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE; MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(cause no. 746) and order the County Court of Steriing County, Texas

to issue a ruling on Defendant's WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN ALTERNATIVE; MOTION

TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(cause no. 3627 .06) for

the following reason to wit:

L.

In July 2014 Defendant. filed a WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION

TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA in the 51st District Court(cause no. 746) and the County

Court(sause no. 3627.06). ON August 6, 2014 the County Court denied Defendant's WRIT OF

El:ZRO,R CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA(cause no.

3627.06, see attached order). In November of 2014 Defendant submitted a WRIT OF ERROR

CORAM NOBIS; OR IN . THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION

COMMUNITY SUPERVISION in the 51st District Court and County Coury of Sterling,

Texas(cause· ·no .. 's 3627.06 and 746--attached herein). On December 11, 2014 the 51st

District Court issued an order denying Defendant's petition for WRIT OF ERROR CORAM

NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA •. One week later DHendant

,.? ..... filed a motion to the 51st District Court requesting that the court clarify the order

and explain if the District Court was denying Defendant 1 s first WRIT OF ERROR CORAM

NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA, as the order indicates only

or :j:f the court construed Defendant 1 s second WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE; MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION :· :; ' -

as supplement to the first WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS and was denying them both. Defendant

also contacted the County Court requesting that the court issue a ruling on the WRIT OF

ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION

. COMMUNITY SUPERVISION. Defendant also explained to both courts that he had pending

litigation in federal court(Western District of Texas-Midland/Odessa Division) that is

relative to the outcome of the District and Cbunty courts ruling--Defendarit was granted n a stay by the federal court for this very reason. In January 2015, the 51st District

Court again issued the exact . same order without any clarification. That sa~e month

Defe.ndant 1 s fam:i.ly . contacted the Clerk who represents both courts to insure that both

courts had received the WRITS that were filed in November 2014, subsequently Defendant

sent a second copy of both WRITS to the. Clerk, this time the Clerk did acknowledge

receiving the · copys, however the Clerk s.tated that the copys were not signed or

notarized, a?ain in February 2015, Defendant sent a third copy, which was the second

sigried and notarized copy of the WRITS (cause no. 7 46 and 3627. 06--enclosed) and' which

time Defendant explained that to both courts that he has pending litigation in federal

court and requested the courts issue a ruling by March 5, 2015--Defendant gave notice

to both courts that if no ruling was issued by March 5, 2015--Defendant would file a WRIT

OF MANDAMUS with the Court of Criminal Appeals to order the District Court to 1) clarify

the 1 December. 11, 2014 order or 2) rule on the WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(casuse

no. : 746--enclosed) and order the County Court to issue a ruling on the WRIT OF ERROR

CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION SUPER-

VISION(cause no. 3627.06~-enclosed).

·.~· ...... ··:·

II.

Based:~ on the above describeq facts, Defendant respectfully request that the Court_ of

Criminal Appeals order the 51st District Court to ·1) clarify the December 11, 2014 order

or 2): issue a ruling on the WRIT OF ERROR. CORAM NOBIS; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO i VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION(cause no. 746--enclosed)

and o.rder the County Court to issue a ruling on the WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR IN

THE ·ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY

SUPERVISION(casuse no. 3627.06--enclosed).

Conclusion

Wherefore, Defendant respectfully request that the Court of Criminal Appeals GRANTS

Defendant's WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

·certificate of Service

' I hereby certify that a copy of the said motion was sent to opposing counsels and was - mailed on March_}fl_, 2015.

F.C.I. Big Spring 1900 Simler Ave. Big Spring~ Tx. 7~720

. I Cause No. 3627.06

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COUNTY COURT § vs § OF § .... VINCENT FLORES § STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS

ORDEH REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS

On this the ,; th day ofc;~L--4-. I 201the Court having examined and considered

the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nbbis filed by Vi~cent Flores finds the pleading to be ' without merit and the relief sought is hereby denied.

..··::· ,; CAUSE NO. 3627,06

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE COUNTY COURT § vs. § OF. § VINCENT FLORES § STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE; MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW,· VINCENT FLORES, the Defendant/Probationer in the abov-e

styled Cause (hereinafter "Flores"), and pursuant to this Court's inherent

power, authority, and interest in· preventing injustice, hereby files ·this

i Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis; or, in the ·alternative;

Motion to Vacate Order of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and in

support thereof, Flores would respectfulli show the Court as follows:

I.

On October 6, 2006, at approximately 7:30pm, a Sterling County Police

Officer conducted a warrantless seizure and search of Flores's person, ·as

well as a warrantless search of Flores's vehicle (as more fully detailed at

Part VI of this motion, infra). Flores asserts that no legitimate basis . . . existed which warranted the Officer's aforementioned actions (no degree· o'f·

"reasonable. suspicion" -or- "probable cause" -or- "consent" -or-:- "concern for

officer safety" existed which justified the searches conducted).

As a result of the above referenced warrantless and unconsented search

of Flores's vehicle, the searching Officer found a personal use quantity of

Marijuana, and a personal use quantity of cocaine in Flores's vehicle. Upon

discovery of the aforementioned Marijuana and cocaine, Flores was arrested by

the searching Officer and charged as follows:

·?r·· (Page 1 of 10) ·.

(A) For the Marijuana, Flores was charged--by Information issued in The

County Court of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE NO. 362706 (herein after

"this Cause")--with a Class "B" Misdemeanor in violation of Texas Health

and Safety Code §481.12l(b)(l); and,

(B) For the cocaine, Flores was ·charged~-by Indictment issued in The

District Court, 51st Judicial District of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE

NO. 746st--with a "Third Degree" Felony in violation of Texas Health and

Safety Code §481.115(c)".

III.

On July 25, 2007, Flores agreed to plead guii ty to the marijuana

offense charged in this Cause. In exchange for that plea Flores agreed to

accept the imposition of a twelve (12) month term· of Deferred Adjudication

Community Supervision (hereinafter "Supervision").

IV. On January 30, 2008, this Court--upon motion by Flares--granted Flores

a reduction in, and early termination from, the aforementioned twelve (12)

month term of Supervision.

v. Flores now asserts that his guilty plea to the marijuana offense

charged in this Cause was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily

entered, and that:

(1) This Court's Order imposing the twelve (12) month term of Supervision;

(2) This Court's "findings of guilt" in this Cause; and,

(3) Any and all forms Flores signed (which purported to "waive" certain

rights of Flores's);

are all constitutionally invalid because:

(A) Flores was never forewarned--either by this Court, the State

Attorney's Office, or Defense Counsel Fred Brigman (hereinafter

Brigmap")--of the completely unexpected collateral

(Page 2 of 10) consequences he would suffer in subsequent prosecutions as a result

of , his guilty plea--and this Court's findings of guilt--in this

Cause;

(B) Flores's reasonable understandings and reasonable expectations--

regarding the effects and consequences of hi~ aforementioned guilty

plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--would have in

subsequent criminal proceedings have been violated; and,

(C) Mr. Brigman. never informed Flores that a legitimate and viable

basis existed for Flores to move to suppress the drug evidence

involved in this Cause, and that suppression of the drug evidence

would lead to dismissal of the , aforementioned charges against

Flores in this Cause.

VI.

-'Flores asserts that because his guilty plea in this Cause (for the

reasons set forth herein) was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily

entered, then this Court's findings of guilt--along w:!-th the imposition of

the aforementioned twelve (12) month term of Supervision--are

constitutionally void, and the Order imposing said term of Supervision must

therefore be vacated based upon the following facts, to wit:

(1) Moments prior to Flores's arrest on October 6, 2006 (at approximately

7:30pm), the arresting officer approached Flores--who was standing near

the edge of a small lake located 40 yards behind the "Town and Country"

convenience store in Sterling City, Texas, in an area then open to the

public--and started questioning Flores about what he was doing.

(2) In response to the arresting officer's questions Flores stated he was

waiting for his Cousin who was then in the Town and Country convenience

store. The arresting officer then instructed Flores to walk to the front

of ·the convenience store.

•f,',

(Page 3 of 10) 1 (3) At the front of the convenience store the arresting officer asked Flores

whether any of the vehicles in the stores parking lot' were his. Flores

answered "yes" and then pointed out his car, a Ford Contour.

(4) The arresting officer told Flores "I'm going to put you in handcuffs

because I want to search your car." Flores asked "why" and the arresting

officer responded "because we've had some complaints about "vandalism."

(5) ,After pat frisking and handcuffing Flores (possibly for officer safety)

the arresting officer proceeded to search Flores's vehicle, whereafter

the drugs--specifically the marijuana ~hich supports the offense charged

in this Cause--was discovered, .. and resulted in Flores' arrest and

subsequent prosecution in this Cause.

(6) At no time ·during the above described interactions between Flores and

the arresting officer, did Flores do anything that would have warranted

the offi~er handcuffing Flores or searching Flores's car. Flores never

gave the. officer consent to search his car, nor did the arresting

officer--at any time--have lawful justification (meaning reasonable

suspicion, probable cause, consent, concern for officer safety, etc.) to

conduct a warrantless search of Flores's p~rson or of Flores's car.

(7) Had l'1r. Brigman told Flores that the arresting officer's above described

conduct justified suppression of the drug evidence ·found in Flores's

car, Flores would never have agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the

aforementioned twelve (12) months of Supervision, Flores would instead

have insisted that:

(A) l'1r. Brigman file a motion to suppress the drug evidence--on .the

basis that the arresting officer lacked. any reasonable suspicion,

probable cause, consent, or concern for officer safety--that

otherwise may have justified the Officer searching Flores's person

and car (all in violation of Flores's Fourth Amendment right to be

free from unl~wful searches and seizures). And, ·~,-

(Page 4 of 10) I

(B) Flores would have insisted on. going to trial rather than entering

what Mr. Brigman called a "plea of convenience" in this Cause. .~

(8) In addition to the above described Fourth Amendment violations--which

Mr. Brigman never informed Flores could result in suppression of the

drug evidence and dismissal of the Indictment in this Cause--Mr. Brigman

also misadvised Flores about the effects his guilty plea, and the

effects this Court's findings of guilt, would have on Flores in future

criminal proceedings.

(9) Flores asserts that Mr. Brigman's affirmative misadvise (as described

below) invalidates the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of

Flores's guilty plea in this Cause, as well as invalidates this Court's

findings of guilt, the Order imposing the twelve (12) month term of

Supervision, and all "waiver of rights" forms Flores signed in this

Cause-~because Mr. Brigman expressly informed Flores that:

(A) If Flores entered a "plea of convenience" guilty plea to the drug

offense charged in this Cause (in exchange for the twelve (12)

month term of Supervision); and,

(B) If Flores "stayed out of tro.uble" while on Supervision,· Mr. Brigman

assured Flores that he (Mr. Brigman) absolutely would:

(i) File for early termination of Flores's Supervision;

(ii) Ask this Court to allow Flore's to withdraw his guilty plea;

and, . . (iii) If this Court granted Mr. Brigman's request that Flores be

permitted to withdraw his ·guilty plea, Flores would have no

conviction in this Cause that could be used against him :i.n

future criminal proceedings .

. (10) Mr. Brigman further explicitly informed Flores that i f this Court were

to grant Flores the aforementioned early termination and withdiawal of

-~··

(Page 5 of 10) .; his guilty plea, Flores's criminal record in this Cause would be "wiped

clean" and Flores would suffer no collateral consequences as a result

of him pleading guilty in this Cause.

VII.

Flores asserts that Hr. Brigman's above described express

representations, as well as·Mr. Brigman's complete failure to advise Flores

regarding the existence of a viable basis to move for suppression of the drug

evidence and dismissal of the charges in this Cause, are the sole reasons wqy

Flores chose to plead guilty, rather . than insisting that Nr. Brigman move to

suppress the drug evidence, move to dismiss the charges, and proceed to trial·

in this Cause. Flores further asserts that had Hr. Brigman not advised Flores I

that if this Court were to allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea--thereby

"wiping away" Flores,' s. criminal record in a manner that would not effect him

.in future. criminal proceedings--Flares wouid not have entered a "plea of

convenience" guilty plea, he instead would have insisted on going to trial on

the drug offense charged in this Cause.

VIII.

Flores asserts that as a result of .Hr. Brigman's above described

express representations--and material omissions--Flares developed certain

reasonable understandings and resonable expectations, namely:

(1) Flores reasonably understood and reasonably expected that:

(A) Mr. Brigman was at all times representing Flores to the best of his

abilities, and in Flores's best interests;

(B) Should this Court allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea in this .

Cause, Flores's criminal record would be "wiped clean"; and;

(C) If Flores's record was "wiped clean"--by withdrawal of his guilty

plea in this Cause--then he would not have any "conviction" that

could be used against him in any future criminal. proceeding.

(Page 6 of 10) · ....

IX. -:

Flores asserts that his "reasonable understandings" and "reasonable : expectations" (as previously described) were violated when: (1) After pleading guilty to Count One of a multi-count, multi-defendant

federal Indictment--issued in the U.S. Distr~ct Court for the Western

District of Texas (Midland-Odessa Division), Criminal Case No. M0-12-CR- 00011 (hereinafter "federal case")--Flores 1 s guilty plea--and/or this Court 1 s findings of guilt--in this Cause was used to increase his Criminal History Score from "Category I'' Criminal History, up to

"Category II" Criminal history. The effect of his guilty plea:--and/or 1 this Court s findings of guilt--in this Cause, resulted in Flores's otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range' of 168-210 months being

increased to 188-235 months (a Category I Criminal History--combined. with Flores's offense level of 35--would result in a guideline sentencing range, of .. 16_8-210 months; while a Category II Criminal History-~combined with Flores's ·offense level of 35--resulted in a

guideline sentencing range of 188-235 months. Because Flores received a "low end" sentence of 188 months rather than a "low end" sentence of 168 months, Flores was prejudiced by receiving an extra 20 months as a result of his guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt in this / Cause. See attached Exhibits A and B)).

X.

Flores asserts that the federal government's reliance upon his guilty

plea--and/or this-Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause, as a "sentence"-- for purposes of increasing his Criminal History score from Category I up to Category IT--violated Flores 1 s above described "reasonable understandings"

and "reasonable expectations" regarding the impact his . guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause would have in future criminal

proceedings. Because Flores 1 s rec-eived a "low end" sentence of 188 months in his federal case, rather than receiving a "low end" sentence of 168 months, Flores was prejudiced by receiving an extra 20 months as a result of his

guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause.

XI.

Flores requests that this;, Court find that his guilty plea--as well as this

,.-"·· (Page 7 of 10) Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause was "void ab initio," due to the

extent of "collatera1 consequences" which Flores was never advised--either by

this Court, the State Attorney's Office, or Mr. Brigman--he would be

subjected ·to in future criminal proceedings, and because of the unknowing,

unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea Flores entered in this Cause--as a

result of Mr. Brigman's ineffectiveness, misadvise, and withholding of

relevant information (information that wouldhave changed the outcome of this

Cause, as well as changed the outcome of Flores's federal case).

LEGAL ARGUMENT

XII.

The Texas courts have routinely found that when a defendant is not

adequately apprised of the consequences of his guilty plea, _or that he was

not fully informed (or. otherwise mislead) by defense. counsel or the Court,

. the defendant 1 s plea _is constitutionally invalid. See Anderson v. State, 182

S.W. 3d 91LI (Tex. Grim. App. 2006). This is in keeping with the general

principle that a defendant must be fully informed of the consequences

attendant from his. guilty plea.

XIII.

The writ ·of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available tu

a petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate his criminal conviction

on constitutional grounds. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F. 3d 884, 887 n.

6 (5th Cir 1999). Where a defendant is no longer in custody on the conviction

under attack, coram nobis is the appropriate vehicle under which to challenge

the validity of the conviction if the defendant 1 s guilty plea--and/ or the

Court's findings of guilt--were premised upon misinformation (or the

withholding of material information), and for claims regarding ineffective

assistance of counsel relati~e to the validity of the gtiilt~ plea--and/or the

Court's findings of guilt. See Campos-Conrrada v. Thaler, No.· 3:12-CV-4190,

2012 U.S~ Dist. Lexis 166457 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2012).

(Page 8 .of 10) WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, and in light of the foregoing facts

and legal arguments, Flores prays that this Court will enter an orde.r

vacating the July 25, 2007, Order which imposed Flores's twelve (12) month

term of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and that this Court will

grant Flores any other relief to which .he is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

Vincent Flores Federal Register Number 88010-280 Federal Correctional Institution 1900 Simler Avenue Big Spring, Texas 79720

VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HOWARD §

ON THIS DAY personally appeared VINCENT FLORES, who, after being

placed under oath, stated the following:

"My name is VINCENT FLORES, Federal Inmate Register Number 88010-280,

and I am the Defendant/Probationer in this Cause . (Cause No. 746ST, in the

District Court, 51st Judicial District of Sterling .County, Texas), and I have

been so at all material times relevant to this proceeding."

"I have read the foiegoing "Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram

Nobis; or, in the Alternative; Motion to Vacate Order of Deferred

Adjudication Community Supervision" and every statement, fact, and assertion

contained therein is within my personal knowledge and is completely truthful

and correct."

Vincent Flores

Sworn to and subscribed before me on

NOTARY PUBLIC

(Page.9of 10) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the above and foregoing

instrument was sent via First Class Mail, postage pre-paid, this 31st day of

.; October, 2014, to the County Attorney's Office at: P.O. Box 88,. Sterling

City, Texas 76951; and 609 4th Avenue, Sterling City. 76951; and all iri

accordance with Texas Rules of Criminal Procedure. . .~

(Page 10 of 10) ..... .·· /

' \ 0, \ I . ~ @ Case 7:lL. •.

If\.1 THE Ui\IITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOH THE., WESTEH.N DISTRICT OF TEXAS • '.' .. ..,.. ! . •· MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION ') .,J

UNITED STATES bF AMERICA ) ~~0-12-CI\-Ol;L 4 ) ~-' •) vs. ' ) ) ) - .·

.) . n Cl . _BEFORE THE HOI\IORABlE · ROBE,RT JUNELl UNITED STATES DISTRICT. JUDGE 9 In Midland~ Texas r:.~~;·r;-:r~~ .~:,'~~-~':~~~~;:-;;";j.:;c:~" ~~~;·:~~~i'~·~:~~;·;.t ',~.~·:y.o ··•\:·~:-; ·~\'·::'" 1';.:"•- ".~1 .•..•.J~.R·

1!.1 1SfMR';1~;rS:fiEv[\·T~f!EifsiisreRGE·R; ::;/ · ·~-c;;;·:rfa·l~lie·)/ i-t-"t;iw'· ' :---·.-·······_..... 600.N. Marienfeld, suite 850 Midland, Texas 79701 c 432.) 5 70-4014 • '17 I COURT REPOH.TER ~ MR. TODD ANDERSON, RMR, CR~ i

united ·States court 1\eporte r 200 ·E: .Iiiia ll , Rill.·· 116 ' , ~~i ell and,· _lcexas · 79701 (43Z) 686-0GOS 20

r) ') L...J The abqve-s:tfl eel and nUinberecl caus(!. w.as rel?.or·ted by . ..· ~. · ~

nJechani ca·l ste.n_ogl~aphy .and pr:oducml by conJPL!tel~·.

- -. • ,It·

Todd Ancle l~::::qn, 1\MR, . CRI\ 1.1t'' ---------------- '------------'---- ..

'1 what. IJOI~t i 011s of those w i I I be ..:cl i sff i buted ·to· thos(:"l. pe1~son~;. ~ -~- .

,_') TI-ll~ COUfU: Uncle1~ Ai5P li cat i Oli Note 2 Lll.ld~l- 3WI . 1 ') J of the Se11tenc i ng Guide I i ne_s, it p1~ov i cles, "To· quCJ I i fy~- for· ~ . 4 an adj UStlllellt Lflldel~ thiS seCt i Oil, the- clefendCJilt- lllUSt have

5 been i.~he Ol~gan i Zel~, I eCJde_l~, 11101l3gel~·, or- ~upe'n1i SOl~· C!f one 01-

6 7 wa1Tarited, l1ow~ve1~, in- the case of' a defendant who cJ i_ cl no:t .. ,•.. 8 ol-ge:m i ze, I eacl, _man2rge; 01- supe,~v i_·se ~nothcT p211-t i c i-p;:Jnt ~~ :. ~

g but who nevel:._..:the I ess exei~C i sed mmwgelll~'ITt. l~esp~ns i b i I j 1=y - ' ; . . . . . .....

·1·1 01~gan i zat ion."

'12 i nels that thel--e is s Tg_n i'_r-=- i can·s ev i clence . The (;oLwt r --· '13 COnta i llecl ill tiie p1:-ese11:tence xepo1:-t ·that. ·the 'Dt:"}:fenclt:lllt ~/C:lS (J

pe1~son. who cl i c;[C.~

16 the United. Stat~es,

'17 _ _~@CI0~~~~Q;,~;~~~~9EJf&'s~~:::i~9J~~tJ2,9.~~-j:~~pSr:d.93w:i:;fi~1·;rq~i~liJ1-itr·ri~)t::-~/ _ :. '18 (~!Q~£~~I~9)i~;~~i?;'9~~,ifi;~~~~~c{f~X.:i5,~·hE.1:~fi~~JJi;1~Wi\~~:-~;.t,~~:s::~i_\li,:~~n~1~~ g·• :;.[)jy,.::~& !f-;i,;Vi :~?~?,i.J'P'A! ·,+_· (.·~," • ....,. •• ·-- 11' _ , , •. ·- ~ • .,,.~__...-' ,.,...-._· •• ., ~:.~A,t"':~- ·'"'; .;• --,-~•;t• .•. •. _-,•t", ·•-:.~· . .,

~t"~;WIJat: ,,pa·I~

20 ~J?,J~9:~~~rifO'r\~r:o.r~&;::c~~,Br;:~~YI:4!~~.9 Jy:~·r.u;;::~y;~?. }!Y 9~_,1f_::l:i~~~ 1o~~ :_ . .- :~. 2'1 . fi1:_t.Jr;~:;G.o:Qhi:~;:;.u~~~~~~:;,::g?I\9,9}~{ii~.~It:qQJt8.1?_~l:;:JAI:r:~·0r1tt:.·:y:i}cftl··: .@~~-:~;~;:ti~~-JJ~~~9~~]·».:~l;(::i:i~I~';:.,:!,3F1,)::o:2.;~:q;6:~.1~(;f~~£.3~~~;·.-,i·~,~-~-~;';~;~,;'li~':i:;;:~::>2:6 8f::~T;,: ;~~: ·t - 23 ER~~~Q's~~~.-~:~;~~{.~~;:~~i~~~~:~:~~il~;~r .. _ __ 24 (i;OI'l-EY~<'. .'flia.s:<:foi?:-::,Ep:O.s~:;e·s:s;i:otl::;:.o:C';J:i.1:;{,coil.tt:OT;J;ed:f;:sub.s:t'citV;e;;;_ · -~ ~.(:"' ,. :'-'.:.','>····" ·::_--.--·2 .._., .:::. :;'~jt.:('ll'vrf~

25 ~~q;9:0~~i.1l\~J:~t~~nY:~:;;~':-~Ict%5~!~EJ~iJ~§g,~4;·;~~:)1!~f1~~D"'~{i',§·q;:~~~~::i}:;c~~~~i;:9,:J~~:;t:ffQrt!·!~1 1~~~ti:~{;!g:q~it_·~: t· + -

______ ____:•:...,_.---'----,---'-~'

Todd Ancler5911 ·, f\MI'\, CRR

-·- --·------·-----·---- --- ___ ____ , · ---·--:------'

.-

6 r~:9:~F~·~Ti:~!~'i~:§:.: ·Q-a\(:Wt~~i(i.lill?.'~'i,:Fz~~ §.o;r~ifP. IJ,tl;!~tll~>·t.o LLJJJ~:)(i:~ ~,o H·~:~: ~ ~i\{$ ·,1~¢,1::: 1:: i_ llg, ·:.> 1 ~i:~~~~i;j~::ij-l[S!)J:~p,;,l).\;,i;"{3j3:?,~r9,\l(J2){;~~~ ~ !"'~;;!J':~~~:~,i;Y:e,'lif~''c~ :·po~i i" "':'' 9 Ami J U1 ink· your- posi t ion · is they .shoul cl not ·-1 0 on I y ·one of then! ?houl d be counted; · is Uiat -- · -· Ml'<.- I:IERSI-113EI-\GI::r<: . Yes. Dne ··- both ~f i I i ngs ~ COiliC'- '12 out o'f the Sl:lllle stop ·in Stel-l i i1g Count:~/') · _.. / ' · '13

14 n~sponse? . .- : .. 15 Ml\. HERSH13EI\GER: . Y.es. .111/hat- he i ~-·saying- i ~' . i~t- j: . '16 Is --' it Is u··e'ated ..s~pa n:rte I y: ~but. theil -~tllel-e' ~. tl1e r; tllei·e Is the wonl II un I ess. II~· 1-\ncl if' t:lle .wor~cl. II ui1l es::~...· .; I

·1u Ulll ess lle is· sentenced on. d i f"fel-e.nt. clays -- . if lle Is '19 sentenced on cl i ffel-errt clays, the1~ ·til at basi ca I I y cloes not . -

. . . . . 2 ·1 docun1en:t, then ... that wou I cl -- t_heri it waul cl no·t count.

22 f]\l.ld 111y. Ullclel-st<:lncJ i llQ, tll~rt IJe_ w

. . . ~-----;:--------------:;.-------:-------. . . . - . [. - '

Todd Allele r SOil , f{W\, .· .I consp i ,-as;y befor-e the date that he pI eel ancl got ,-e.ce i V8tl 2 If' 1·1e was i nvo I vecl in it -- and thJ·nl<... as I - .: 3 ,-ecal I , t.he dat.es of the pl-obat·i or1 we1;.e tl1e1-e in 2007-:-

4 So he;; pI eel' ancl he· was . given 1xobot ·ion, one ce:ise .... ...; .. .• .. Oil. ' ~

5 May 29th;. the othel-. 011~ 01i J1.1l ·.25th. · And ~o ~rom ··th::rt. ·t i 1i1e y 6 pe1- i ocl. say: May ·zg" 2007, and you sa icl 11e was on··:.- f1~ w;Js·- .~

7 .·.

8 see whe,-e -- I ~guess the secpnd one -- Okay~ l-Ie had DOt. ·12 9 months cle'ferrecl pl-obat ion.- · - 10 On ·the othe,- case,..J the County CoLwt ~ase, '1'1 Mr. · cr=ouch, when cl i cJ he come · of'r=: of pl-obat ion· on til at. cas:c~? ' '- '12 BecaLJse .it· s not .I i sted. in til....e pr·esen.tence ,-epcwt:.. 13 . PI~OI3AT I 01\1 OFF I CEI<: Your_: l·loncw, . he was cl i scl'lc.ll:.gc~ '14 on· the County ~case on Janua 1"y 30. 2008. ... -1 ~) THE COURT: Okay. So JanLial-y 30, 2008. So ~he .~ 16 ' ,•

spent about six moiTths ·then ·on p1-oba·t i.OI}. · - . . "'" .. '17 Mr-. _Leachman. other· thc:m this state~n<:::nt. ~clo ·you , ..... .. . ~- i ' ··r _,. '18 have r.:my ·otlle1- ev i clence that the Defer!dan.:t was ·i nvo I ved' in - .... -. . . .. ·... ·.~ . -~

. . . '19 . ·the consp i ,-acy cluJ- i ng ·that time fn:~nie?~ ·

20 Mr~. I_EACHMAI\1 : Othe ,- than s i Ill i I a,- pass i ng ~

;z·1 statements I i l<.e that, Yow- Hono,-, no. ... :-...~r.r~:~-~·~;-~;-y:;,\~~f.?:;~~~'i'~~:~;-~~~:<:~.:.:~:~·;:,;;7,~~~:;~;:~ ;~·-~;i.~;::~~~~Tr~;".t,.~,~~;~~~!?.:-;:~-~~~:~~~~->:~,.;;,-;' -· ..·... ~ . : -~ -~' ·- z·" _t_ Gi~.I;:IJ.i~-:~;c 0 lJI~ir,~ i"'·~;.;,::::@kay:r:').>,r,;; 119f11lli~.§ o;J ng !:'itm; g J;:ant;·.:::~!~ e.:·::? - ~ . . . . .· . . I.

iii~ii:~s::;:::t:!~!!~'t:~;~!:~:!~~:::~;:;:~!:;d~~ 23 24

25 =

.. ·?- • . .. . ~

I , , . Todd A11dersqn, ·RMR, CRR· (tl}2)' 6-86-0605 . ...... ~- . l J:::; <~/;_l'i :~. -.: . (i .

~ '. ' . case 7:1. , -ooo:tl-H/\J !j3,:~I~.(if;~~;;:f[;i~5:?~r::i,-82:.)}/ol{Lj~;:;.[?-aq~~2.·Sr3i..::~::,.:...

·rr·::··r~ .:~t;:;~~~: _~:~·->~.'.~-;-~ ~.t·,;~:.-~·;>\~::.: :~·-\-;. 'r · ..: · ·" 1 l~;.t:.l;J ;::JrJ•.d=:o,U r.:c,;. ijJO: rJlLS.•;.:. .• · . ~- ...,._ ' • I '4 '

'isd,,:,_: t~\: ~ ~' :- . )., :·.·. •,, :;.,. ~." ~ .....~~:~·." ·:· ~ .' .), -~.;· 1~~~::,..-.-t ~ ~t )::-:.:.-;-;·_:_,~ -~~ .- . . .~·:.u~-~-.~ . ,.;:·~..... ·': ~~_:";.~-)':+~-}- /:" ::·~:. ~. '(~~-: f• _:-: ;; 1 ~ t'.O: ( ·:. '!

3 ~:~~Y.P:;::~i:?~l?;c!::r~ft~.~i5:?:~~b.e~;~$~!F~;4tJ~J:;~:~i1~9i,;{3:1;.~tiB3'b·r~·~',:)l;i:f.f9J.::::~v:J:u:;~l.;~~·r1ofN... . 4, t::.':;~;v;:·:7':·(i:!~:~·:.:;:ii::!.;l ~.!5ha9~-t:~2 G~:l\1i'.i:n~ :i&'\lj:~f::~~t_§.f~ ::·;p~o-i~:n ~~?P.t~~::o,:twoflj·~: ;irl t ~ .:,.:h).r:- ,; s ~:@f.,_~·r~~!/!':!:,t~a,;;~.:::-:J.l.F;;;tg\::y::r.iS:·?:;.S!(.~P.~r~~~:';e rr;:}:.;;s~:~~.~ (:)_r~,:: fll o)i:::).: ,/ 6 Any other- objections? 7 .... 8 THE COURT: Okay. lioes :the Govenlm8rTt rlc1Ve: ..

THE COUIH: Okay. I lwve rev i ewecl the pr:.es~n tenc:e

.. '

· I r=·; ncl the l~epor ..·t iJCCur-ate ;:mel. corTe.ct -With· . ·13 .Jasor1 Cr-ol.icl'l. . . ~ . . . - . 1 tl ·the e)

0n'.'~ia6,si78i·:\~~x;t~~~g·~~~~~~~dZ~1-iii~;~:~i·~:~i;: 1t~~c:~ ;·:rJ1~\::·~ 1) 1S'J::i~c-?;t)oil\. . '18 t.;~;·q·;~~·;.··~l1e'~:'Q.·:':s.·.:. ·.::.~~!\te.6c,l]\9':i\G.i(~cJ~~:!.::i)\~s·:c:~.s/ aiJ!e. r)~-~d- .•. ·: ·~

/;5II)~};s·9~·~·:!fQ. EY~1·~ ~.~~~:\,;f.¢,gpJ>·~: ; W:'~ .'~·}:s;:~·,;:::: .: ~ . -~

20 C~~'):.1f:Lsif~L!ED';g~(LI;:.Ii·L~{l?r.t0~'~0\.~~s:J~·Y· .. ,::.~r·:~.2.-,..:_·i · · f,.l":~~·~.-.\< · + ~:J~JJ··•·.;:-: c(·,:·~:, ~~.~~.:~~ :·t· ·-:?~ .~:. ~~ ··:~~:..1 :;.;,::~~ .:.-~·~?·t.£.;"'.~,;-.,_,. ..... ~ · --·· ~ ··-: :·· ,.. · · .,. ·- -~ · .... ·- -~.. ""': ~"' :' · :i ;_.:;: ·. .. of"·· ..

23 The Defencl

24 Sup8r~v i sec! Te I e~se· is f'i vc year-~!·~ ·. .· 2S

-- .,. -~

------------ --'----·

Todd Anck~r"SQI} 1 ltMI\, CRI\ (432) G86:..0605~ 'i.} ::~-c.:..-:. ~~\ :-; /. 7 - case 7:1. ~- -ooo11- RI-\J f:':"J~9_c·u~i'i~:i:lf11?$;:T8i.le~::~?~l.P)-/\1?~!?~·9.?.;,·~.?;;·9r~~s}'.::'.,; ,. --------------------------·----~-----~·

-~ ~

1 cleg,-ee,s, an c.1ssoc i ate '.s degi-ee c.rt a j un i 01- col l·ege_ in I ().wa ,·

2 ·ancl Jchen he p 1:1yed basebal I at the Un i ver's i ty. o-F -So(rtll. -- ·'· 3 Dakota.

!I He actua I I y Elpp 11 eel to wol-k l""ol- ··the Un i tecl StateS . - •. 5 Bol-der· I:Jatxo I .

6 He he's. pI ayed semi- pi-o basepa I I , ti" i e'cl ·to he I p "':.

'7 this. 111an who . h~s a . baseba I ,· ac

13ut I think he's· con11n i ttecl to t1-y i ng to~ atone 1·1ot ·

only ·to the .cour~t. to his.'fami ly, but to the citizer1s_o"f .:. ' .· '18 this couiTtry. cincl try·. to -.:.. · t1-y to he I p in-this s I tuat·i on. .....

. '19 An c1 so fweFVii"oTi~fiT;I1-8'5T:-~·:~F11"t3:"'76.,..8Eii::-";lJ'''Eo';.:'G·Gi iS"s :r:·act,~'~ ·i~er~~·eiJ·c~i h:~F''Ii- i-i,;~.:.,.n:i ·, .~. · .,. '"" -~<-~ ·.~;,' 0:';t~~~i~ ;:;,:·~:;';:··~~1C ~,.::.:.,;~;:;.;:: ~,;:~:.~:~:~.~·.:~~~~~:--·~c·;~~.;;{:.• ~. :','.,,~ ~:·:·.;:_··:· ~' f."/4·:;, ~ !: ~~•· ;. \,:.~ .'c·4. ' .. .t ; ·\<) < <,:·.~·~,-:: F ::/ •j . 20 t:<~.1 1.~;::q_o:~;tollJi;oJ~i~&I)~Y;g~~i'~.§~lrte(~\?'~;·~;i~j~;;~)J~j'.;?~~.£:.9:,~·¢:;:t'?l···. ·..

~:t I.J. r:};:c.()u.~r~}f.;~~FINf~~ :;.~::~~g~~q~sJ·l i~p;r:?~~/~r-:: ';/_ ~ 22 . t.:~riT~::.(~,i-\,~WMti~'·t2:.t?J::C!9.~{~~t~:~_;lit:/~i8'Q\~~f''i'JS~·y:er~~~i5S'{~I.~:;/·~~$SF.9:·;·"' 23 r~~~9,~~::~~:Ui1;:~~j~p ~~ ~~~~,:;9·P~iS:9:i~X~r;;·e,:fi}J:9;~·t..~·;, (0h:r~~;~h:$.:;,~9:~nsY~;t\~'::~: ~-~.: . An c1 . 1· 24 would ask the Cm:li-t to cl i s1n iss .the · n3ma i·n i ng. counts· t:rt tlie ,- cone I U'S ion . · 2 :J

• . : * h >~ . ~f· '------------------=:___----~-----,-----------------~------c---~------~·

:I Todd Allele I" SOil; ~~~~I\, CRR {432) p86..c0605 .. t.J:·-~ c..:.._~_:. ::~J~~ ~·

____,.________· ____· __. _, ___. _____ , ·'

2 c I i e11t want to spend 11 is time?

3 Ml~. 1-IH\SHBt:I~GEI\: You1_-. l-Ion or-, he re~quesJs B i u. · _; ~- .... ~-

5 THE COURT:: AI I right. 1 '111 hot· clepc.11-:-t i ng f1-onl LJ1e 6 n~conunencled sentence.

7 PLwsuant to ·the Sentencing l~efonn Act o-r-- ·r9.84.,

U wh i ell . have cons i cle1~ecl in. an ~clv i ?OI"Y ctlfJ.:Jc i ty, <:1ncl t:.l11~. 9 sentencing~ r=-aetol-s · s.et- fon~h • in ·r i3, U1:ri tecl. Stc:rtes Cocle:<. -- · ..... .. . .

Section 3553(a)-; wht.~1l I have ..,. - consiclel-ed ~in ·' 817:-ivinq _c:Lt a - - . ~

·r·1 1-easonaiJ I e seritence -- ancl I clo ri ncl the gt:1 i cle U ne-·1-ange ·111 '12 til is case t.o .be fCI i 1-- ancl r:-easonab I e .·the r=:o I I owing l3 sentence . is i 1nposecl: '14. ! '15

'16 '17. .• - I w i I I 1-econHnencl ~·that he be p I aced at the ·m(~n ' s -~ ! •

1f3 fac i I i ty at 13 i g Spl- i ng unt i I he. becomes e I i ~Jib 1·e t.o '19 pa1-t i c i pate in the 500-llour- clrug. t1-eat111e1T~ p1~ogn:un. and tlx~n . 20 be ·tl-ansfeiTecl: ·to a faci I i ·ty tl}at l)as ·that +pr,_ogi-C.llll"; ·that:' he

gets a I so eclucc.i·t ion oncl job tr:a in i ng. ·! . ~ ·~

2 '') _f.__ Upon 1::_e I ea:;e . fl-om ·the Bul-emi of' Pi- i sons.· you+ 1-e .... • . ~- 't· _;,..

23 placed on.supel-_yised 1-el_ease fol-_a ·teni1 oi=-·five- yeC:il-s. ') L[' ,_ The ~Jenel-a I ·ter-m;:; of superv i secL 1-e.l ease · cll-e those .. .,. 25 set 'for" the U.S. Cour-ts fol- the Western D i s·tl- i ct _of. Je)

~ ·----------'---·-----------'---'-------~----,---'---~--·.

Todd And~ I" SOil., RMIZ, CfUZ (432) GSG-,..0605~ -~·- : ): _; -~.:~..;... ~-; --~~~,t.·:.· 746

EX PARTE IN THE 51st District Court

OF STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS

VINCENT FLORES, APPLICANT

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR.WIUT 01:;' ERROR CORAM NOBIS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA

The defendant, VINCENT FLORES filed a Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis or in the Alternative Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea.

The Court having review file finds said motions should be DENIED. i . .

.IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis or in the :Alternative Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea be and the same is hereby DENIED.

JUDGE PRESIDING

· XC: Allison Palmer

· Vincent Flores FCI Big Spring 1nnn ;;r' ~. C:irnlot- .....1hronno J ...._. .:... "'·' .&...._...,...,.._...,,~ 1 • .,..~.a."-'L•-'

Big Spring, TX '79720

' I'

'· •• CAUSE NO. 746ST

I THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § vs. § 51st JUDICIAL DISTRICT § ;VINCENT FLORES § OF STERLING COUNTY, TExAS

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE; MOTION TO VACATE ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

' TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: r COMES NOW, VINCENT FLORES, the Defendant/Probationer in the above

styled Cause (hereinafter "Flores"), and pursuant to this Court's inherent

power, authority, and interest in preventing injustice, hereby files this

Verified Petition for Writ of Error . Coram Nobis; or, in the alternative;

Motion to Vacate Order of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and in

support thereof, Flores would respectfully show the Court as follows:

On October 6, 2006, at approximately 7:30pm, a Sterling County Police

Officer conducted a warrantless seizure and search of Flores's person, as well

as a warrantless search of Flores's vehicle (as more fully detailed at Part VI

of this· motion, infra). Flores asserts that no legitimate basis existed which

warranted the Officer 1 s aforementioned actions (no degree of "reasonable

suspicion" -or- "probable cause" -or...: "consent" -or- "concern for officer

safety" existed which justified the searches conducted).

As a result 'of the above referenced warrantless and unconsented search

of Flores 1 s vehicle, the searching Officer found a personal use quantity of

Marijuana, and a personal use ·quantity of cocaine in Flores's vehicle. Upon

discovery of the aforementioned Marijuana and cocaine, Flores was arrested by

(Page 1 of ll) '(A) For the Marijuana, Flores was charged--by Information issued in The

County Court of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE NO. 362706--with a Class

"B" Misdemeanor in violation of Texas Health and Safety Code

§481.12l(b)(l); and,

;(B) For the cocaine, Flores was charged--by Indictment issued in The District

Court 51st Judicial District of Sterling County, Texas, CAUSE NO. 746st

(hereinafter "this Cause")--with a "Third Degree" Felony in violation of

Texas Health and Safety Code §481.' 115 (c)".

On May 29, 2007, Flores agreed to plead guilty to the cocaine offense

:charged in this Cause. In exchange for that plea Flores agreed to accept the

; imposition of a three (3) year term of Deferred Adjudication Com~unity

Supervision (hereinafter ·"Supervision").

IV.

On February 4, 2008, this Court--upon motion by Flares--granted Flores

a reduction in, and early termination from, the aforementioned three (3) year

term of Supervision.

v. Flores now asserts that his guilty plea to the cocaine offense charged

. in this Cause was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered, and

that:

(1) This Court's Order imposing the three (3) year term of Supervision;

1 (2) This Court's "findings of guilt" in this Cause; and,

(3) Any and all forms Flores signed (which purported to "waive" certain

rights of Flores's;

(A) Flores was never forewarned--either by this Court, the State

Attorney's Office, or Defense Counsel Fred Brigman (hereinafter "Mr.

(Page 2 of 11) Brigman") --of the completely unexpected collateral consequences· he

would suffer in subsequent prosecutions as a result of his guilty

plea--and this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause;

(B) Flores's reasonable understandings and reasonable expectations~-

regarding the effects and consequences of his aforementioned guilty

plea and this Court's findings of guilt--would have in subsequent

criminal proceedings have been violated; and,

(C) Mr. Brigman never informed Flores that a legitimate and viable basis

existed for Flores to move to suppress the drug evidence involved in

this Cause, and that suppression of the drug evidence would lead to

disiJlissal of the aforementioned Indictment against Flores in this

Cause.

Flores asserts that because his guilty plea in this Cause (for the

reasons set forth herein) .was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntariky

entered, then this Court's findings of guilt--along with the imposition of the

aforementioned three (3) year term of Supervision-~are constitutionally void, - and the Order imposing said term of Supervision must therefore be vacated

based upon the following facts, to wit:

(1) Moments prior to Flores's arrest on October 6, 2006 (at approximately

7:30pm), the arresting officer approached Flores--who was standing near

the edge of a small lake located 40 yards behind the "Town and Country"

convenience store in Sterling City, Texas, in an area then open to the

public--and started questioning Flores about what he was doing.

(2) In response to the arresting officer's questions Flores stated he was

waiting for his Cousin who was then in the Town and Country convenienc.e

store. The arresting officer then instructed Flores to walk to the front

of the convenience store. ·~.

(Page 3 of 11) :(3) At the front of the convenience store the arresting officer asked Flores

whether any of the vehicles in the stores parking lot were his. Flores

(4) The arresting officer told Flores "I'm going to put you in handcuffs

b!;!cause I want to search your car." .Flores asked "why" and the arresting

officer responded "because we've had some complaints about ."vandalism."

(5) After pat frisking and handcuffing Flores (possibly for officer safety)

the arresting officer proceeded to search Flores's vehicle, whereafter

the drugs--specifically the cocaine which. supports the offense charged ~

this Cause--was discovered, and resulted in Flores' arrest and subsequent

prosecution in this Cause.

(6) At no time during the above described interactions between Flores and the

arresting officer, did Flores do anything that would have warranted the

officer handcuffing Flores or searching Flores's car. Flores never gave

the officer consent to search his car, nor did the arresting officer--at

any time--have lawful justification (meanin~ reasonable suspicion,

probable cause, consent, concern for officer safety, etc.) to conduct a

warrantless search of Flores's person or of Flores's car.

(7) Had Mr. Brigman told Flores that the arresting officer's above described

conduct justified . suppression of th~ drug evidence found in Flores's car, ~

Flores would never have agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the

aforementioned three (3) years of Supervision, Flores would instead have

insisted that:

(A) Mr. Brigman file a motion· to suppress the drug evidence--on the

basis that the arresting officer lacked any reasonable suspicion,

probable cause, consent~ or concern for officer safety--that

otherwise may have justified the Officer searching Flores 1 s .person

·and. car (all in violation of_ Flores 1 s Fourth Amendment right to be

. free from unlawful searches and seizures). And,

(Page 4 of 11) (B) Flores would have insisted on going to trial rather than entering

what' Mr. Brigman called a 11 plea of convenience 11 in this Cause.

(8) In addition to the above described Fourth Amendment violations--which Mr.

Brigman never informed Flores could result in suppression of the drug

evidence and dismissal of the Indictment in this Cause--Mr. Brigman also

misadvised Flores about the effects his guilty. plea, and the effects this

Court's findings of guilt, would have on Flores in future criminal

proceedings.

(9) Flores asserts that Mr. Brigman 1 s affirmative misadvise (as described

below) invalidates the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of

Flores's guilty plea in this Cause, as well as invalidates this Courtls

findings of guilt, the Order imposing the three (3) y~ar term of

Supervision, and all. "waiver of rights" forms Flores signed in this

Cause--because Mr. Brigman expressly informed Flores that:

(A) If Flores entered . a "plea of convenience" guilty plea to the drug

offense charged in this Cause (in exchange for the (3) year term· of

Supervision); and,

(B) If Flores "stayed out of trouble" while on Community Supervision,

Mr. Brigman assured Flores that he (Mr. Brigman) absolutely would:

(i) File for early termination o.f Flores 1 s Community Supervision;

(ii) Ask this Court to allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea;

and,

(iii) If this · Court granted Mr. Brigman's request that Flores be

permitted to withdraw his guilty. plea, Flores would have· no

conviction in this Cause that could be used against him in

future criminal proceedings.

(10) Mr. Brigman further explicitly informed Flores that if this Court were

to grant Flores the aforementioned early termination and withdrawal of I

I

(Page 5 of 11) his guilty plea, Flores's .criminal record in this Cause would be "wiped

clean'' and Flores would suffer no collateral consequences as a result of

him pleading guilty in this Cause.

Flores asserts that Mr. Brigman's above described expre~s

representations, as well as Mr. Brigman's complete failure to advise Flores

;regarding the existence of a viable basis to move for suppression of the drug

, evidence and dismissal of the Indictment in this Cause, ate the sole reasons

why Flores chose to plead guilty, rather than insisting that Mr. Brigman move

to suppress the drug evidence, move to dismiss the indictment, and proceed to

trial in this Cause. Flores further asserts that had Mr. Brigman not. advised

Flores that if this Court were to allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea--

thereby "wiping away" Flores 1 s criminal record in a manner that would not

effect him in future· criminal proceedings--Flares would riot have entered a

"plea of convenience" guilty plea, he instead would have insisted on going to

trial on the drug offense charged in this Cause.

Flores asserts that as a result of Mr. Brigman's above described

express representations--and material omissions--Flares developed certain

reasonable understandings and resonable expectations, namely:

(1) Flores r~asonably understood and reasonably expected that:

(A) Mr. Brigman was at all times representing Flores to the best of his

(B) Should this Court allow Flores to withdraw his guilty plea in this

Cause, Flores's criminal record would be "wiped clean"; and,

(C) If Flores 1 s record was "wiped clean"--by withdrawal of his guilty

plea in this Cause--then he would not have any "conviction" that

could be used against him in any future criminal proceeding . .!

(Page 6 of 11) -~····~·· IX.

Flores asserts that his "reasonable understanding-s" and "reasonable

·expectations" (as described above) were violated when:

· (1) After being charged in a multi-count, multi-defendant federal

Indictment--issued in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of

Texas (Midland-Odessa Division), Criminal Case No. M0-12-CR-00011

(hereinafter "federal case")--Flores was served with a 21 U.S.C. §851

information notifying him that his Deferred Adjudication guilty plea in·

this Cause was considered a "conviction" and would be used to enhance

Flores's statutory mandatory minimum sentence from 10 years, up to 20

years (see attached Exhibit A);

(2) As a means of allowing Flores the opportunity to avoid receiving the

enhanced 20 year S·tatutory mandatory minimum sentence, the government

offered to withdraw the aforementioned §851 notice of enhancement in

exchange for Flores agreeing to the following terms:

(A) Plead guilty to Count One of. the federal Indictment (conspiracy to

distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C §846);

(B) Waive every right Flores had to challenge his federal sentence and

conviction on direct appeal;

(C) Waive every right Flores had. to challenge his federal sentence and

conviction in any collateral proceeding.

(3) At sentencing in the federal case Flores's guilty plea in this Cause was

used to increase his Criminal History Score--from "Category I" Criminal

History up to "Category II" Criminal history--the effect of which

resulted in Flores's otherwise applicable sentencing guideline range of

168-210 months being increased to 188-235 months (a Category I Criminal

History--combined with . Flores's offense level of 35--would result_.in a ·

guideline sentencing range of 168-210 months; while a Category II

i (Page J of ll) I J-''\ I Criminal. History--combined· with Flores 1 s offense level of 35--resulted in a guideline sentencing range of 188-235 months. Because Flores received a ",low end" sentence of 188 months rather than a "low end" sentence of 168 months, Flores was prejudiced by receiving an extra 20 months as a result of his guilty plea--and/or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause. See attached Exhibits B and C. X. Flores asserts that the federal government's reliance upon his guilty plea --and or this Court's findings of guilt--in this Cause: (1) As a "conviction"--for purposes of enhancing his statutory mandatory minimum sentence from 10 years up to 20 years; and, (2) As a "sentence"--for purposes of increasing his Criminal History score •'

from Category I up to Category II;

violated Flores's above described "reasonable understandings" and "reasonable l-

, expectations" regarding ·the . impact his Deferred Adjudication guilty plea--

and/or this Court 1 s findings of guilt--in this Cause would have in future

Flores further asserts that if not for the federal government's utilization

of his invalid· guilty- plea--:and/or this Court 1 s invalid findings of guilt--in

this Cause, to enhance his statutory mandatory minimum sentence, Flores never

would have agreed to plead. guilty in the federal case under the ahove

described conditions. Instead, Flores would. have entered an "open" guilty

plea--without waiver of any of his appellate or collateral rights--which, in

turn, would have resulted in Flores not having his direct appeal dismissed due

to the above "waiver," and would have resulted in Flores receiving a

lower sentence in the federal case.

Flores requests that this Court find that his guilty plea--as well as this

:·/ Court's ·,findings. of guilt--in this Cause was "void ab initio," due to· the

(Page 8 of 11) extent of "collateral consequences" which Flores was never advised--either by

this Court, the State Attorney's Office, or Mr. Brigman--he would be subjected

to in ·future criminal proceedings, arid because of the unknowing,

unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea Flores entered in this Cause--as a

result of Mr. Brigman's ineffectiveness, misadvise, and withholding of

relevant information (information that would have changed the outcome of this

Cause, as well as changed the outcome of Flores's. federal case).

The Texas courts have routinely found that when· a defendant is not *· adequately apprised of the consequences of his guilty plea, or that he was not

fully informed (or otherwise mislead) by defense· counsel or the Court, the

defendant's plea is constitutionally invalid. See Anderson v. State, 182 S. W.

3d 914 (Tex. Grim. App. 2006). This is in keeping with the general principle

that a defendant must be fully informed of the consequences attendant from his

guilty plea. I· XIV.

The writ of error coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available to a

petitioner no longer in custody who seeks to vacate his criminal conviction on

c~nstitutional grounds. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F. 3d 884, 887 n. 6

(5th Cir 1999). Where a defendant is no longer in custody on the conviction

under attack, coram nobis is the appropriate vehicle under_which to challenge

the validity of the conviction i f the defendant 1 s guilty plea--and/or the

Court's findings of guilt--were premised upon misinformation (or the I withholding of material information), and for claims regarding ineffective

assistance of counsel relative to the validity of the guilty plea--and/or the

Court's findings of guilt. See Campos-'-Conrrada v. Thaler, No. 3:12-CV-4190, "'' 2012 U.S.: Dist. Lexis 166457 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2012).

I, (Page 9 of 11) WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,· and in light of the foregoing facts

and legal arguments, Flores prays that this Court will enter an order

vacating the May 2.9, 2007, Order which imposed Flores 1 s three (3) year term

of Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision, and that this Court will

grant Flores any other relief to which he is justly entitied.

Vincent Flores Federal Register Number 88010-280 Federal Correctional Institution 1900 Simler Avenue Big Spring, Texas 79720

ON THIS DAY personally appeared VINCENT FLORES, who, after being

"My name is VINCENT FLORES, Federal Inmate Register Number 88010-28(1',

and I am the Defendant/Probationer in this Cause (Cause No. 746ST, in the

District Court, 51st Judicial District of Sterling County, Texas), and I have

"I have read the foregoing "Verified Petition for Writ of Error Coram

Nobis; or, in the Alternative; Motion to Vacate Order of. Deferred

Adjudication Community Supervision" and every statement, fact, and assertion

contained herein is w1thin my personal knowledge and is completely truthful

(Page 10 of 11) CERTIFICKfE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the above and foregoing

' instrument was sent via First Class Mail, postage pre-paid, this 31st day of

October, 2014, to the Sterling County District Attorney's Office at: 124

Beauregard Avenue, San Angelo, Texas 76903, and all in accordance with Texas

Rules ,of Criminal Procedure.

\

(Page 11 of 11) ( I

) Case 7:12-cr-00011-RAJ ·Document 298 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TE~S MIDLAND-ODESSA DMSION

UNITED ST.ATES OF AMERlCA, Plaintiff,

v.

Defendant.

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY CHARGES:

COUNT ONE ~t;~~~gyr~::~~·~£~:~-~ ~)i That on or about May 29, 2007, Defendant, VINCENTFLORES aka "Ceniso", was

. 7onvicted of Possession of a Controlled Substance, in violation of 481.115(c) HSC; said conviction ~

was filed in the 51st District Comt of Sterling County, Texas, in Case No. 746.i?A'.tflie-·aiid·'correct ·•,..« .. :f-:.: )·'·.>:)~...-~ '·.'~--.~""':·· ';:.' ~~·.~;;·.~~-~ 1

r:~o#Y:~~~·p:ga0¥~gli}~~tJ~~#sl~8~~(f~~r;~fc9::·~s:E~1.~1f!.~b!'~.:-J The United States Attorney for the Western District ofTexas, files this Information pursuant

to the provisions ofTitle 21, United States Code, Section 851, for enhancement of punishment.

ROBERT PITMAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

BY: /s/ Russell D. Leachman Assistant U.S. Attorney Texas State Bar No. 112069710 601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600 San Antonio, Texas 78216-5512 (210) 384-7022 (210) 384-7028 FAX

.F:..··· '. '

Case 7:12-cr-00011-RAJ Document 298 Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 19th day of June, 2012, a tme and conect copy of the foregoing instrument was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will transmit 'notification of such filing to the following CM/ECF participant:

Steve Hershberger 600 N. Marienfeld St., Ste 850 Midland, TX 79701

S tevehersh@sbcglobal.net

Is/ RUSSELL D. LEACHMAN . Assistant U.S. Attomey a

.. --· · FILED · ~:,a: ~ ~o 7 CASE N 0. 746 · · COUNT SINGL E COUNl'. -.At 0 c ~'lo'c'o;,; :;:USAN Y../YAIT" 1

INCIDENT NO./Tfu'l: 010 615 3315 . E> ~~~t ?k.:ri-:, ::::rf!!~··· g Co· 1·.ty, Tf:_>~:,::·=; ~rHE STATE OF TEX...I\..8 § IN THE 51ST DISTRICT § V . ',. § CoURT § .,..VJ;NCENT NAVERETTE FLORES § STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS § STATE ID No.: TX07828705 §

ORDER OF DEFERRED ADJUDICATION ,Judge Presiding: HoN. BARBARA L. WALTHER Date Order Entered: 5/29/Z007 Attorney for Attorney for State: STEPHEN LUPTON Defendant: FRED BRIGl\fAN .Offense: POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, PGl. TO-WIT: COCAINE, IN AN AMOUNT, BY AGGREGATE WEIGHT, INCLUDING ANY ADULTERANTS AND DILUTANTS, OF ONE (1) GRAM OR MORE BUT LESS THAN FOUR {4) GRAMS Charging Instrument: Statute for Offense: INDICTMENT 481.115(c) Health and Safety Code Date of Offense; 10/6/2006 Degree of Offense: Plea to Offense: Findings on Deadly Weapon: 3RD DEGREE FELONY GUILTY N/A Terms of Plea Bargain: DEFEND.AJ.~T PLACED ON THREE (3) YEARS DEFERRED ADJUDICATION COMMUNITY SUPERVISON AND.ORDERED TO PAY A FINE OF $1;000.00 AND RESTITUTION OF $140.00 Plea to 1.t Enhancement Plea. to znrt Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: N/A Paragniph: N/A Findings on 1•1 Enhancement Findings on 2nd Paragraph: · N/A EnhancementJHabit;ual Paragraph: . NIA ADJUDICATION OF GUILT DEFERRED; DEFENDANT PLACED ON COMMUNITY SUPERVISION. PERIOD OF COMMUNITY ,SUPERVISION: THREE (3) YEARS Court Costs: Restitution: Restitution Payable to: $See attached $ 140.00 : 0 VICTIM (see below) t8J AGENCY/AGENT (see below) . $ 1,000.00 Bill of . · (seG Cond. C.S.) Costs Sc::~; Offender Registration Requirements do not apply to the Defendant. TEX. CODE CRD.f. PROC. chapter 62 The age 6fthe victim at the time of the offense was N/A ·Time N/ADAYS Credited: NOTES:N/A All pe~tinont lnfonnntion, names nnd assessment$ indicated above aro incorporated htto tho langua::c or 1-he judgment below by reference.

This cause was called for trial in Sterling County, Texas. The State appeared by her District Attorney as named above.

-----··--·------ -·- ------- --------------- ~---------------------------------·----·-·---------·----

Pncel nO ' ~ . .. . , ~·· ... '(,, .!r. . ,"~ " ' '' . ': . \~ ,, ~ t-uea ~'~ !-'age l .. •

L. or j p .. 3

..__,

Counsel/'Waiver of Counsel (select one) lSI Defendant appeared in person with Counsel. 0 Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to representation by counselin writing in open court.. Both parties announced ready for trial. Defendant waived the right of trial by jury and entered a plea as indicated .above. The Court admonished the Defendant as :required by law. lt appeared to the Court that Defendant was mentally com'petent to stand trial, made the plea freely and voluntarily, and was aware of the consequences of this plea. The Court received the plea and entered it ofrecord. Having heard the evidence.subrnitted, the Court FINDS such evidence substantiates Defendant's guilt. The Court FINDS that, in this cause, it is in the best interest of society and Defendant to defer proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt and tO place Defendant on community supervision. . The Court FINDS the Presentence Investigation, if so ordered, was done according to the applicable provisions of TEX. CODE Cnll..r. Pnoc. a:1·t. 42.12 § 9. · · ·; The Court ORDERS that Defendant is given credit noted above for the time spent incarcerated. The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay all fines, court costs, and restitution as indicated above. The Court ORDERS that no judgment shall be entered at this time. The Court further ORDERS that Defendant be placed on community supervision for the adjudged period so long as Defendant abides by aud does not violate the terms and conditions of eo~m.unity S).lpervision, See TEX. CoDE CruM. Pnoc. art. 42.12 § 5(a).

Furthermore, the following special findings or orders apply: NONE

Rendered and entered on May 29, 2007, but signed this day of ~~ . - ·. .~~ , JUDGE PRESIDING

1. -~

#A _p.4

_ .. ...

NO. 746

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTR~CT COURT OF

VS. STERLING COUNTY, TEXAS

VINCENT NAVERETTE FLORES 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ATTACH~NTTOJUDGEMENT DATED--'v~-e.e-t Z-""1. "2-c>C:Y( \ FINGERPRINT OF DEFENDANT RIGHT THUMB

-~~~~ Deputy. S'T'I!FLIJ IG-County Sheriff's Office J~c:r~

-----·--·-------·-------------·-------------·

~·

/. ·:· --... 'I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. If\1 Tl-lr::: FOI\ THE WESTEr\N DISTRICT OF TE'XAS · 2 MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION ') . .J

UNITED STATES OF.AMERICA ) M0-12-CI\~011 ~· ·4 ) ,-J ) vs. ) . '). 6 ) . ) 7

e- 6EFORE.THE HONORABLE ROBERT JUNElL .- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ~) In Midlandp Tex~s '10 ~}<~i~}l~~i~Q'~.~[~.P~.::~r~''Sh~i¢:80.1:\NS.:)' .. .. · ·.. - '1'1 As:-...1 st'anr· Uill':t'ecl· ~tat·es-.A~ctol'n<::y . ·. 601 ·f\1. \AI. Loop. 410, su·i te · 600 :· . '12 san Antonio, Texas. ·78216 · · . ·. ~

~210) 384-7016 .·~ '13 .• 1 ·4 . f:;:Mw~~~~:sT~:\f.E:;;~ ~~S.-8$I~~~-~J Attorney at Law~ ~ '15 ·. 600 f\J. ~~a,~ienfelcl, suite 8-50 Midland, .Texas·. 79701 · '16 Cl-32) 570-4014 '17 COURT REPORTEI\~ MR" TODD ANDERSON, "RMR ~- CRf( '18 united Sbl tes CoLwt Repo r-re r · ~200 E. W.a-1'1 , Hm; lJG. . • 19 Midl~nd, Te~Js 79701. .- (~32) 636-0605 20

2'1

22 ') ') L.J The above-Styl od and ·numb~1·ed cause .Was" l"epOrted ·by .• 1 24 mechanical stenograp·hy ·and prodLicecl by computer .. -~

•!' . _.....· _

. '

~~--=-------------,-----~-----~-~--~--; ;., \

(432).6-86-0GOS .. ·

Case; 7:12 rJOOLt.-y

1 what pol-t ions of those w i I I be c1 i su-i buted to those _pel-sons. ~- ·- ...... ,_ ') li-IE COURT:. Uncle!- App I i cat i 011 ~late . 2 un·cle ,- J Bl. 1 · j '') .j of the Sentencjng GLiidel ine~, it:p,-ovi.cles, "To .qualify for I 4 an adjustment. ur]clei-· this section, ·tile. clef·encle:mt m~1st ha~E_,. • • · . r- 0 been the, or·gan i ze1-, _.1 caclel-: n1anage1-, ?r supc1-:\i i sol- of..: one·?,- G lllol-e othel-. pa1:-t i c i pants. ·An upwar-d depa,-·tlll-e m_ay~ be 7 WEHTanted, howeve1-, in ·the case of a clefemlant who cl i cl. not· ~

8 o ,-ga n i ze . I eacl , manage , o ,- supe nt i se lJI'l~)tilGll:.. .pa ,--t i r: i p;~ n t. .•

9 but who neven:.ll(:) I ess e~

·. '1'1 or·ganization." .,. .. '12 The Coul-t ·r=inds· that ·thel-e 1s signi ficar1t eviclcnce ~

13 conta i nc::cl in the pi-esentence r:epol-t that the Defendant was a ·111 pei-sml who "'cl i ciF~~

1G the United Ste:i·tes, allcl oveiTU.I es y"oul-. objection. . '17 .f:Y6'LiJ~:h&;2P:lJJf5j~€2£!'iJo.OJ~,;-~:~~·\~ G;.:·~~ o:;}~:.i::t~Jj::,'c~,;·i .i!l;iJi:~·.r::~·~ _.~ ·· • l8 Wt~ft~~iOJ]YJ.;t1S8 Yili~;~ro){;~~-~~ ~'9Hb l3.1~f,{f.::~?~'/:'~~ ~n?;t,::-~.!T~-~~-~~;:: i]l)'f:iN-~Jf t?i~i,:::6:6YJ : :·/ 19 !-J~~iK~1\.~h~-:Kil.9i~~c1T?.I.1'~.:~.~~~::\t,l.iEJ.:~:;;~¥{M_~iYn~!~1{~1'i.9¢T·g·~:.ri!??.: .· . . ~ . 20 0··'3~'-iQ~~:0~.~:xg,.~r;rro,:p~~~!~:ct:~,":;:,·:/-ff:~~~~~~-.~.~\'f~J51:v;..z~:;~:.::;.yp.LJ_':: . :I:!~ns(./ 2'1 -~ifEU~·:.}~t.~9.9J~0Tn\~:?s:;:::;~"~:~o_l\ay.:~J·:>~-~.~_~F·a·9~::8·r;)h'\~~E? ..a~i;Ar1ci:>£h~t)

~~~'!;~:~~~~::~';~~~-:'~,-~~5§Sii9P~t:?:1SY'"~f-~-~%:;;,i'.~t;?~~,~fi2;1•r,;est ·.-) ....) i..'-.

23 [:p Q+Oc to be 1;, ;;,.6,:·,;.<,- ;2.Q0.9 -~:;;, . , ·• · - 24 r;~Qn,¢;;}~b:If;-,:rgi~n-)B:~~i~l~·].:;s:\~:i.9~~~-~~::·-~?n:'L~;~;)_:~-~·~:~:~HR:-~f~!\~ 8 -· 25 ~~-a·c:iJ~i.J\ij·:;;::.P-']-¢t:}v..~·s,);Q_b~':tfJ.~?J:E1f?\S~b~~ri:~)l~:B:I/ti~(l.~~i;,El,J,,::.:R::i.~?~~~;··i;·¢.·~~:;;Gpli.t;:~·_::· . / ..

_ __:_· . --:;r.-----·- ·•· Todd Ancle rsqn! 1\MF\_, CRI\

. ..-:.. / case 7:L:: oooJ:t-Fu\J (~.~2Liii{l@'i'it~?fls·:~:I~IT8.t.r;;:~t0::r;oT~{!i~~l-g-&::i:~~~;6-r~3p'>:: ·/~ ~ - •.. -----'----------··-~-'-= ·-·--------- .· ~

r9J~iB;%#.~i~i:F-[7i~.i~:~p:l~J~;~y:::.:r~t:e~~-~1D·;;~~?\i1'~1;!}i;!~:¢·~;.;9,~t~'i;1~ai'l.t.,j:i~;~oc~~;1;8_9;.i:J-~-y:p.'?:~:/· · ·- 2 r;;~~Y;i4J:g;9::;~t~99r:.:s~9o,:s,EQ.{i}~I~OJ~:~f~~t:i~iJ,g9J:c.·~·~.r..:o,\.·:~,l' , - 3!

,- J

G 6~,S].K90~~;{.0~:~2~G-~~~!~~eyi;~~~il:l-~§iJ;~~:~~)~{~~~~-G~~~j~;1:.'t6·c,i\:i::yj;§:~0'tTlff;:q:[7:~~·$.::~~,c··tl::r\·9fi_ '; .~~~·~f~~~~~~}~~"~·~,E~a~;b~6ii3~~oB\:'r~~B .,,l~:;;,a~§:g.t;Y~i):,9 qQ.· po:,~'J':· . 1 .• I

8 9 1-\ml I -th.i nk ymw po;s i ·t ion i ~;;; they sllou I d r1ol~ ....... on I y one ·of tl1e111 sl1oul el be coui1ted; i ~:;··that

Ml~. ·IIEI~SI-IBEI~GE:R: ·Yes. One -- bo·tll f i IT ngs con1e

out of the same s·tol) · in SteF I i 119 Coui·n~y ~') . .. ./' . .... THE COURT: Okc.1y. 1-\ncl · d i cl yoLJ n~acl· Mr·. Ci-ol.tcll.' s "14 n:~sponse7 I. '15 MR. HERSHBERGER:. Yes: What he~ is s~ying i~.lt

17 thel-e' s the. wol-d "un I ess . " 1-\ncl i ·f ·the wol-d "un I es.s"

·1s un I ess he 1s sentenced on- cJ i 'ffel-ent cloys -- i f he's ·

'19 sentenced on ·eli ff"'el-ellt · clays-;- then that. basi cci I I:Y cloes ~ no:t .. 20 aiel MI-. Flol-es." But if-_it al-i·ses out of tl1e ?ame_cllat~li.ng

2·1 - clocun1e1rt; then ·t11at wou I cl - ·- then it W

22 )}~i:icflllY Ulld8i~St

23 booked i 11to St~ei-.1 i ll~J County on ~otll cll;JI-ge~l So t~1e 24 clwrg i ng -- tile -·-·.. cllc:wg i ng. insti-UIIlelrt · thel-e, what . he would IJe ·

. 2~) he I ci on out of ;stel-1 i ng County'+ i·t '.s on ·botll ·_- it's --·- boLJ1 •

·.., . . . ---· ----·-------.---- .· ·,

Todd Anderson, ~~~R, CI\P, - (432) 686-0605 ·f..· . u~~.c: -\~:. :-> j 'J -- . ~

,:;~·~'h\:;:l . ..... .

~ . ·. COilsp i l-acy befo1-e ·the elate that. he pIed and got - .-,. n~c~ i ved ~ ~ •• 0.

I ·f he w;:rs i nvoJ ved i n it -- c.mcl I ...'til i 1·11<., C:\'<.3. ·"'·

4 So he pI eel and he was given p1-obat ion, one case on •.. 5 May 29th; tile othe1- one on Ju I y 25t.il. 1-\ncl · so .·. fi-OIIl til at ...f i 1i1e .

6 pel- . i od, . s

i3 see whet-~ -- _I ·guess . the . seco11cl one --~Okay .. 'Tie had .5JOt 12 - 9 ·ntotTths defetT~cl proba:t i 011. .. '10 On the other- ci1se, t:ile County COLwt case, '1'1 Ml-. C1·ouch, whe11 cl i d· he co111e off of pr-o bat l 01'_1 011 Ula·t case? ,· ...... ·12 Because it's. not I j steel in tiJe ~pn~sentence n~pQI-'t. • PROBATION· OFFICER:

on the County case· on Jat1usry 30. 2008 ~-

TI-lE l"''UI~T: Okay. So J<::muat-y 30,. zoo's. So ile ·. -1 G spent <:.lbout six months then Of! pt-obat ion.~ ~- .~

l7 Ml-. Leacil111an. otilet-· than· til is st

~j~~~~~·~:!:~~:~;~~I~!:I::~;~~~;~~l;~:;~:!J!;.;~~!~;;~!;.ecy-·.-. · 22

2_J ~) 41. ••

24 r~~:ETI~5c~;;;,r-;,3l:1':t~--~0~L,~;Tsf~G;~::·;;~F~i:~7rtv-9.'';.1~,9Thti?gi~~~~~~r.;;~::~_,1~r,;;~t:f!.';'··i:!J?:·t-::.~ . ·· 25 fiJ;;{g:~6';~~::·-¢'c?.:,;D7 :! ·;~ ~~:t;f o,l~~~;i;~;s?:~e~'h;8K-.Ewou :t:9';J),~-_3t09:~:i? 9::.1 :11~~~-,:::c~ ~-~-LJ9·~ - :. · ~- .

(43,'2) 68,6-0605 t} : _; r:·;..:\ ~ ~~\-;.;_ tl ;_ ..

. ,..:

'I @~0-~;-~~0i6c·,;_::.:,s8),.6:~~:,;;. _\~/ ,_ t~~2_9;::;'~.l~-~i:~~:w:o'V.:}~:;H;?~e.~;<~_.,~-:)?~(,·t..~,9l~-~T?.l:t~~~tf3;I·Jv.~.);:':;_l:;_i~~-$.!~.e . :-i:t·.·:· _1 ')

t~p:q:t:!~~-:/09:~i~;fl) 8i.i:~~~t hef($.;J!n:el ~~.~~~~r;~-9~~:f3:nr8~..r/~1:9r~.~-Pli:~·?. ~\~~'.wJ~ I::J.~_\(J9vY :: i· ') c)

4 ~~~!,~f~S~:.'?!?I.l~,;:~·0fJ\~fZ:~\9Yr:.~~-¢.,,~_'J ,l .~. J;f~??:f;:.#E~ ~9X':Y.!)?Gi. r:.!i.:-~.s-~: G~~·:~l~o:::::pd.:L ll·t~i.:~· "t 6-i,· . ,- :J ~~~~~-:::~'t~;;i)ri\~lj.~.J~;::[I;_(I.~t~~r·.S'·;;;,¢:fi::s~;\99,:Y:~~c?~:xz:jK·~:t>t~~!~:~~\!:.ar~:~-:~';·::;/-. G .·. Any_ ot11e1- objections? ·-· 7 Ml<. 1-II~RSI·IBEI~GER: 1\lo otl1e1-. objections, You I- Honol- .· 8 THE COURT: Okciy; Does ·the Govel-nment have -any · • 9 objections? .. '10 MF\. LEACHMAI\1: 1\lo, _Your- _l:ionor-. 'I 'I TI-lE CQUI

'12 investigation rcpol-t ~pi-epa reel by U.S. Pi-olxrt iOn Off i eel" '13 Jaso11 Cr-ouch. ~~ f'i ncl tlie ,-epo,-t clCCLwate ancl cor-,-ect with '14 tile. e> ~- ·: ·-~··· ~- .. ~

. ("1... 7' •~-; -:;-"" ;i-·~;~, ·~t-:, r:, ' -;·:;,::;~ ;/7; :·-:~~·~ ~·::; t"'-;~J.:..r: ,,''::-~~> ~-.7;;::::.:~ .:;.:·, ~~-~:::1·,..._.''",:'-,--, ~ ~~ -:"!;""""• • 7,

20 · L:T_I:l_e;:;;c:;;rji)J\ i'.n a;.h:::ITI''S ·to ry<'{ca t e 91 o;r-::y~;,;t;a;:;_2';/.l . 2'1 . t~h;;;;;;'d{~t;t/!t,h&·;gl?Wt;;J~~tWf'\~~~ft~iSr:?:~'l~\§.a.~~iii'Ji,~~ ~:~:~,\\9:WH.~} .· ·.. -~

22 .. •·

)23 The Defenci...'JIJ·t is . i ne I_ tg i b I e fol- prob·~~ i drT. . ' 4

24 Supen1ised ,-elease is five· yeal-s .•. 25 The fine - 1~ange is $20, 000. 00 l~o ~1; ·10 111 i I I ion. ...

Todd Anciei"SQil, rZMR, CRR 0432} G.s6·-coG05 . ·i,·· .L! :~{;_.:".tr~~}>~ '/ ~ . .. ....... Case 7:1.,. ··--~

.- dr2g1-ees, <:Hl ~1ssoc i ate's clegl-ee at a j Ll!l i 01- co I i'ege in l'owa, 2 and then he pI ayed baseba I I at tile Un i ve1-;:; i ty or-=- South ~ .. . ~ . .•. ") ,: .J Dakota.

Jk:) 8c·tua II y app I i eel "t?. WOI-k !:or:. uie Un'i tecl 'St.ates. ---... Bol-cler· ljat:.r·o I . '

·• G He -..,. he's pI ayecl semi - p(o baseba I I , 'tl- i ed to l1e I p 7 tli is man who has 21 baseba I.J academy then~ i 11- San Ma ,-cos. •~ I

n t) Ancl the. gent I eman -- they ca 1·1 him Cook i·e. , That '.s his • ,,I·

9 n i ckllc1111e -- has just great -:-tl1 i ng~ to s'ay about~h i m. . '10 l~ea I I y, til is. is the· typ<:i of til i llg whe1-e-. if ti18:X. ..,., coulcl-fi 1111 c.1 '· serrtencing ancl sT-10w i.t to~·people·+1·1 high_ _,..,.,,

'12 sclloo I , til is would be a. goocl one, ancl kind of te I) ll i gil '13 sclmo I k i cis, . you know,· tl-i is is wl.1at call 11l::lppen to you ~wher) •. ·you 1nake choices that a1-e· the bacl cl1o ices. 1:- i ght here.. Ancl •·. ·- .· -·1 . ,.

that's wilc:i ~'::; :wppened. · I ·! 16 IJut I think he~ s conlinlttccl to tl-yi n~1 to. ~rtoi'le no·t:. ... . ;, '17. on I y to the Cour-t' tD h.i s F_am i I y' but to ..the c'i~t i Z81'1S' of '. ·13 this count1-y arrcl t1-y to·-- t1-y to lie I p in this 's i·tuati m{

· 19 Ancl • so t:vli&:~~YO:u·:l~cf::a~sl<~~:tli0~i:C~o.~;ir'·t{':.-to:::cons'i • ......, 7.....;. ,.:.":•.. 'f· · cieif,':~sel'it.ei1.ci.'/risi:·hi.nJ':at· ~~;fr?/,::f.i·i·'~J;·;~.(,:{.~\!;''f:">'.' ....~:·:~"·.b-:·::.~·:"'f •;- ·,. -."~•'·:-:r .:~_: .- ·;..;:..:-·' ·.~' ·,:;::<..:.~;: ..- -,,.,·~-; ..:,.·· 1"'.· ~ ··:•:.. ·'. .. ·' ·:r.- ' .-- ~-~<··:. . ,_;' :._.~,:. ~;...' ..-·:. 1

2o .[JGW~.:;::~:~e~~~-9}11~;'Q:f:;:-W2s~j8.9./.:p~·unv.~:LU~y:):.11:J:,~-.t:~ ~ s.e~f:. /·.: 2 -, t'fi:H g@3.6fJR~:,;:;:~S;~~,~~"i~~V1:~~~;61;',~~tri2::s:~.: .... · 22 fij8};:J[J~t.\¢·i~;'MA~~~:~~::~;:~(i:cl~:J'~It:J, Fq.lif\'·i;~/l1~,Y~i',~~ 1·1y~tt.1\·i-l g:,. fo ;~_:·.: _.· 23 ~~~~~~-~:~~~-3;;,\RJ'§'¢1R>i~5,\9.P. ~ §;~~:~t{'fC&":;',_\?~:t.f~~u.\:i;.?tii~'~:e:$~.CiJB fi:f;:i,\§:i/~2-.D;;~\~.?:.1 :,7- ~ 2 .:1 i~!w,?~l.~·ifd':t'q~(~5:(:~!;i:~.}::~u !!;t,.~.;_(9..: :,cf.f:~l-~ .·~;-,?-~T;}!;.F\iJ;pJ,~\~~~_'1,!; 1:1 ~~ ::.:s q Sl'}f~ ..:~~,t,,~;~l:, '·~ ~·!:,: · 2'5 p·~?:~sJc:~:,r:(J,'j':>·f';:·~·:·:. /. .. • . . .

~--. - - " - ; - - - .--~--~-~

Todd Anderson, RMR, ~RR 1.+ . (432)~ 686-0605 ._ :;_ •4 ... ~J:<(;;:,_~_:, :)J) Case 7:L ---------- . ------- ~-

•.· 'I :niE COUIH: Mr-. 1-ler:-shbel-ger< wher-e 'cJoes yoLW · 2 c I i ent. want to spend J1 is ·time? - 3 Mr<. +IERSI-IBEI\GER :- · YoLw Honor-, he. r-equests Big 4

5 . THE COUI'H: 1\ I 1- j- i ght. . 1.' 111 not dE;par-·t i ng .ft-olll t~he

G r-econHnended sentence. :I ... •. ' 7 Pui-suant to tl1e Sen~enc i ng f\efonn Act of 1984, ~- .•. n I.J Wh i ell 1- have COI-15 i clet-ecl in E.Hl aclv f sor-y capac i ty, c.in~J .l:he .• ... ··~ g sentenc i i1g · factor·s s,et for-th in ·18, Unl·tecl States Code, · '10 Section 3553(a) .·which I .have consider-ed in an·:iv-ing iJt,: a ·1 'I n~asonab I e sentence -- and I clo n nci U1e gi_r i cle I i ne r-ar)ge iii ..,· '12 this case to be Yair- and n:;asonab I e -.., J:.he ··fo I I owing • • '13 .. sentence i ::> i ruposecl:: '14 r\}~;~!~~~~~:~=~~e:~§i;,~.@~:s:ii~;;:;,~:.t·0:~;~J1 ·:-n,_rt1.:~':.~~\~i.~/~;,tt.~·~SP:?}:s}.~;,_,:S1/$~;:'·. '15' {~~-Q.;:;s -~{8L;?·~·~~Lf -'~-[~)1!~,~;~( ~Q'J-~ ~::;Fcr::~~-~r~.e?Q_:,;_·~~J:(,i;-:¢,f;.:)i1lf) 1\i::s·al11iie'nf :-of· , ,.,~ ·-·~·,""""""'-·:o·----·· -;;: ::r.-r·~~:..;.·:--!:·" ""'!'" • • • .. .l . •

H3 rsiB s-::,:moJ;J.tl:fs~:r·, :_;·J ~~~· .. :·· J:V" ··-·· , .•~..... , . ····:··.~

'17 I · w i I I i"'ecornrnerrcl ·that he be p l_aced at the ·men I s 4

". '18 fac i I i ty ·at 8 i g Spr-: i ng unt i..J he become.s e I i g i b I.e to '19. par-t i c.i pa·te i 11" the 50.0-hour- cln1g · tre<::rtrnent. pr~pgr-a.Ul· and_ );:l1cn be ·tr~ansfetTecl t.o a fac i I i ty ,th<::rt has· that pr-ogr-am: :that l1E:; - 20 .- . .

2'1 gets <.:1 I so c.=xiLic:<:rt ion and j ol) tr-c.l in i ng. T

2~~ Uporl r-elease fr~om the Bureau of Pr-isons, you're '") ....> t....:...J pI aced or:1 supent i secl n~ I ease for-· a tenn of· five ye<:li-S·. . . . ,.. ~·

24 Tll8 oener-·a 1. ·ter-rilS of ~sup~r-v i·sed '(e !~ease :=Jr-e ··tlm:::~c .. .,i.. /' ~1 set for- the U.-s. Coui~ts for- tl1e Westen~ D i·str- i c~t or=- Toxus. .., -- -- - "

Tod cl And c r s 011·, RMI\, cru~ (432) 686-0605 1): ; ( ::·. ~:; ~; ~-1· .·:.

! ..;. .' ~-· )oF 2_

CHAPTER FOUR -CIDMINAL HISTORY AND CRIMINAL LIVELIHOOD

§4A1.2. Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History I

(a) Prior Sentence

(1) Th~ term "prior sentence" means any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt, whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for conduct not part of the instant offense.

Diversion from the judicial process without a finding of guilt (~, deferred prosecution) is not counted. A diversionary disposition resulting from a fmding or admission of guilt; or a plea of nolo contendere, in a judicial proceeding is counted as a sentence under §4Al.l(c) even if a conviction is not formally entered, except that diversion from juvenile court is not counted. (T~~" ;"'?"(.;•::-·:· '·"-;' ,,., c~,, '"" ..,_. ~ ., ~-···-- " " •. <9.~:5'::;::;: 'Diversionci1jlDispositions:.:_section 4A1.2(f) requires counting prior adult diversionary I . <:•. " •. · '"'"."'-"" • ,., . " ' , "•' .,,·_:--,· ..·::.•

dispositions if they involved a judicial determination ofguilt or an admission of guilt in open court. This · reflects a policy that defendants who receive the benefit of a rehabilitative sentence and coiltinue to commit crimes should not be treated with further leniency. 6XJ-JJElT B Pt7G--t- 2orl

SENTE.NCJ.N G TABLE (iiD months nf imprioonment)

-~··. [f(.;;f~!Bli.i H.i~fu-lj:c::;~.~eg~cy:~( C':r!rt11nil' :Jfis!~ry:r~J~ntg) :1 Offense ft1~~:; ;,;1· ·····j;::ii:t:tc'··,. · · '"Iii'''''·''· \J'''"'Iv' '< -·~"·'· · 7· ·"·\:·:· ·:, .:; ,_:,~ VI lr.crcl f(o''~'~ir't <::'(2 or'3)') (4, 5, 6) (7, 8, 9) (10,11,12) (13 or mon) I 0-6 0--6 0-G 2 0-6 0--6 0-6 .:; 0-6 0--6 0-6 3-9 :.... \ ~ - -. 4 0-6 7.rtnte- A. 5 C-6 6 0-6 7 !l-6 15-21 18-24 21-27 ZoneD L5-~l 11-27 2-t-::w Zoo.eC IS-24 24-.30 27-33 21-27 21-.33 30-37 13 12-18 lfl-24 2. rJ ~ 1,~11l.&, ·,') oc·,l.68c210>:> 188-235 210-262 135-293 1(,2-::i:n h3S ~~ ·16S•;nu . 188·23:5" 210-262 235-293 262-327 292-:1(•5 .JG 11<~-2-~5 210·262- 235-293 262-327 292-36.5 324-4ll.~

37 ] 10-262 235-293 2G2C:J.27 292-3(i:'i .i;)A->tO:'i ::>60-life 38 235-293 162-327 . 292-365 324-40:'i ::;r,o.hf~ 360-lik 39 ~62-327 292-365 324-405 3(,11-lif;:: :~W-Irf-. ::>60-li~

40 21J2-3rl:i :U4-40:'i ::;60-lifo 360-Hic 360-1ile 360-life 41 324-40:'5 ~MI-l if.;: ;:;6o-lifr 36U-life 360-lile lfiO-Iifc 42 36(l...lifc ::1(,{1-lif.;: :"60-lifu 360-life 360-1ifu 3GO-Iifc 4J 1i~ life ]if~ lift: life lire

; !' i 'i ..' : colt ' I

! . .

1 ,-- -- -

; ~. "- -- - 2iJ I

G '.' E!

§4A1.2. Definitions and Instructions for Computing Criminal History ,.

( 1) Th~ term "prior sentence" means any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt, whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for conduct not part of the instant offense.

Qiversion from the judicial process without a finding of guilt ~' deferred prosecution) is not counted. A diversionary disposition resulting from a fmding _or admission of guilt; or a plea Of nolo contendere, in a jt}dicial proceeding is counted as a sentence under §4Al.l (c) even if a conviction is not formally entered, except that diversion from juvenile court is not counted.

;_:jl)~',:·~.:~~~:::vi~~';:-;{;;;;~r;nTsp;-:;i[i~7t~:-section 4AI.2(/) requires counting prior adult diversionary dispositions if they involved a judicial determination ofguilt or all admission of guilt in open court. This reflects i a policy that defendant~ wh.o ' receive - the benefit . of a rehabilitative sentence and continue to commit crimes should not be treated with further leniency. '1. t E-XHJfJ;; C PtrC+ 2o;~ 2