in Re Artis Charles Harrell

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2015
• Docket: 01-15-00731-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

RECEIVED IFIRST COURT OF APPEALS | ' HOUSTON, TEXAS FILED IN 1STCOURT OFAPPBA HOUSTON, TEX AUG 2 8 2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE AUG>#2015 CLERK ^^======—— CHPfrrOPHER A. PRINE ii-ERK_

AUG28 *0t5 TOP, *©» 01-15-00731-CV pRlN£

CAUSE NO. 2014-63129

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL, Relator/

v.

JUDGE PATRICIA J. KERRIGAN Respondent.

WRIT OF MANDAMUS INDENTITY OF PARTIES

Relator, Artis Charles Harrell, pro se, at all relevant times

since the initation of this civil suit, has been incarcerated

and is being detained in TDCJ-CID at the McConnell Unit, 3001

South Emily Drive, Beevelli, Texas 78102-

Respondent, Judge Patricia J. Kerrigan, a Harris County Civil

District Court Judge, for the 190th Civil District Court at

201 Caroline St., 12th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002.

Interestd party, defendant, Jerome Godinich Jr., a Harris

County attorney at law, 929 Preston, Suite 200, Houston/ Texas

77002.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

IDENTITY OF PARTIES i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . ii

STATEMENT CONCERNING ORAL ARGUMENT .. ii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ii

STATEMENT OF CASE 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS 2

ISSUE PRESENTED 3

I. THE TRIAL COURT REFUSE TO RULE ON PENDING MOTIONS HAS CAUSED HARRELL'S CASE TO BE ARBITRARILY DELAYED, THEREBY ABUSING ITS DISCRETION ... 3

ISSUE NO. ONE............. 4

Argument & Authorities 4

CONCLUSION 6

PRAYER - ,... 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 7

EXHIBIT CERTIFICATE OF HARRELL 8

i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES PAGE

TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

RULE 51.1 - - - ii

RULE 51(a) 7

CASE LAW

Cooke v. Millard, 854 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, ori. proceeding) 5

Greenberg, Benson, Fisk & Fielder, P.C. v. Howell, 685 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1994, orig. proceeding)... 5

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) , 4

Jones v. Smith,.470 S.W-2d 305, 307 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1971, orig. proceeding) .. 5

In re Martinez Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683-84 (Tex.App--- San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) ...... 5

Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 266-67 (Tex.App.— Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) 5

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) 4

STATEMENT OF ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument waived.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Honorable Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to hear this

WRIT OF MANDAMUS according to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure,

Rule 51.1, to compel Judge Patricia J. Kerrigan, to rule on

all pending motions.

ii STATEMENT OF CASE

The Harris County District Clerk received and filed Artis

Charles Harrell's ("Relator") "Original Petition" on or

about October 10, 2014. See attached and incorporated as Exhibit

1.

Jerome Godinich Jr., the real party in interest, filed his

answer on or about November 12, 2014. See attached and

incorporated as Exhibit 2.

Relator served Godinich with the first set of interrogatories

on or about December 2, 2014; the second interrogatories was

served upon Godinich on or about January 2, 2015; and the third

interrogatories was served upon Godinich on or about February

23, 2015, respectively.. See attached and incorporated as Exhibit

3, 4/ and 5, respectively.

Relator filed three motions to compel with the trial court

on April 2.3, 2015. See attached and incorporated as Exhibits

6/ 7, and 8/ respectively.

Relator filed three motions for an immediate ruling on the

pending motions to compel with the trial court on or about May

13, 2015. See attached and incorporated as Exhibits 9, 10, and

11, respectively.

Relator sent the trial court judge a letter on May 28, 2015,

requesting an immediate ruling, or in the alternative, a reason

for refusing to rule on the pending motions. See attached and

incorporated as Exhibit 12. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Artis Charles Harrell ("Relator") made "interrogatories"

discovery requests, whom the real party in interest, Jerome

Godinich, refused to answer under oath by not verifying his

answers. Relator took action by filing first, a motion with

the trial court to compel Godinich to answer the requested

interrogatories under oath by verifying his answers. The trial

court refused to rule upon Relator's motion to compel. Relator

then filed with the trial court a motion requesting an immediate

ruling on the motion to compel. Again, the trial court refused

to rule on the pending motions. Relator then wrote the trial

court judge a letter again requesting a ruling on the pending

motions. Once again, the trial, court refused to rule on the

pending motions. Relator now files this his request for writ

of mandamus as to compel the trial court to rule on the pending

motions. ISSUE PRESENTED

ISSUE NO. ONE: THE TRIAL COURT REFUSE TO RULE ON PENDING MOTIONS HAS CAUSED HARRELL'S CASE TO BE ARBITRARILY DELAYED, THEREBY ABUSING ITS DISCRETION. Issue No. One: The trial court refuse to rule on pending motions has caused Harrell's case to be arbitrarily delayed, thereby abusing its discretion.

Argument & Authorities

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, which is available only

when (1) a trial court clearly abuses its discretion and (2)

there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins.

Co. of Am., 148 S.W.Sd 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). A trial court

clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision

so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to- a clear

and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839 (Tex. 1992). With respect to a trial court's determination

of legal principles, "a trial court has no 'discretion'

in determining what the law is or applying the law to facts."

In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135 (quoting Walker, 827 S.W.2d

at 840).

In the instant case, Harrell requested interrogatories from

Godinich, the . real party in interest. Godinich refuse to answer

said interrogatories by not verifying his answers. Harrell filed

several motions with the trial court to compel Godinich to answer

all requested interrogatories by verifying his answers. The

trial court refused to rule on the pending motions.

Harrell then filed several other motions with the trial court

requesting an immediate ruling on the pending motions. Again,

the trial court refused to rule on the pending motions. :Harrell

then wrote the trial court judge a letter again requesting a ruling on the pending motions. Once again, the trial

court refused to rule on the pending motions. With no adequate

remedy at law by appeal, Harrell was left with no choice but

to file this application for writ of mandamus.

A court of appeals may not prescribe the manner in which a

trial court exercise its discretion, but it may, by mandamus,

require a trial court to exercise its discretion in some manner.

Cooke v. Millard, 854 S.W.2d 134, 135 (Tex App.-Houston [st

Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); Jones v. Smith, 470 S.W.2d 3!05,

307 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 197.1, orig. proceeding).

A trial court may not arbitrarily halt proceedings in a pending

case, and mandamus will lie to compel a trial court to entertain

and rule on motions pending before it. Cooke, 854 S.W.2d at

135; Greenberg, Benson, Fisk & Fielder, P.C. v. Howell, 685

S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1984, orig. proceeding).

A trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion

within a reasonable time. In re Martinez Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d

682, 683-84 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, otig. proceeding);

Ki.ss.am v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 266-67 (Tex. Civ. App.-

Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding). If a motion is properly filed

and pending before a trial court, the act of considering and

ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may issue

to compel the trial court to act. In re Martinez Ramirez, 994

S.W. 2d at 68.3-84.

The instant case is a jury trial case, and Harrell wants to

invoke public policy of resolving this case within the time

5 frame of eighteen months.

In order for Harrell to bring this case to trial, he must

be able to conduct discovery. Without conducting discovery

there can be no final resolution. Harrell believes that he is

entitled to conduct discovery in order to investigate all claims

and defenses put forth be Harrell and Godinich.

CONCLUSION

Harrell believes that he has demonstrated that the trial court

has abused its discretion in not, within a reasonable time,

considered and ruled upon Harrell's multiple motions compelling

Godinich to answer requested interrogatories.

PRAYER

Harrell prays that this Court of Appeals grant this his Writ

of Mandamus in order that he may conduct discovery and proceed

to trial for a final resolution of all issues in dispute.

Respectfully submitted,

Artis Charles Harrell Pro se - TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this Writ of Mandamus

was delivered to the interested parties by First Class Mail:

Judge Patricia J, Kerrigan 190th District Court 201 Caroline St. 12 Floor Houston, Texas 77002

Jerome Godinich Jr. Attorney at Law 929 Preston Suite 200 Houston, Texas 7 7002

rtiis Charles Harrell EXHIBIT CERTIFICATE OF HARRELL

THE STATE OF TEXAS .', IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

COUNTY OF HARRIS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

I, ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL, Relator, do hereby certify that the

above and foregoing proceedings, instruments and other papers

contained in Exhibit 1 thru 12 inclusive, to which this

certification is attached to this Writ of Mandamus is made a

part thereof, are true and correct copies of all proceedings,

instruments and other papers specified by Rule Rule 51(a)

in Cause Number 2014-63129, styled ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL v.

JEROME GODINICH JR. in said.court 190 th District Court of Harris

County, Texas.

Executed on tsA/j/Ul&C r * / 2015

Artis Charles Harrell EXHIBIT 1

ORIGINAL PETITION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCOLSE, AND FOR FAILURE TO TURN OVER TO HARRELL, HARRELL'S CLIENT FILES IN CRIMINAL CAUSE NUMBER 982557 CAUSE MO.

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL IN THE STATE CIVIL Plaintiff

DISTRICT COURT OF

JEROME GODINICH, JR. Defendant HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ORIGINAL PETITION TO RECOVER DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE, AND FOR FAILURE TO TURN OVER TO HARRELL, HARRELL'S CLIENT FILES IN CRIMINAL CAUSE NUMBER 982557

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff Artis Charles. Harrell, files this original petition,

complaining of Jerome Godinich, Jr.'s breach of fiduciary duty

and respectfully shows:

I

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 190.1,

Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this case under Level

3-

II

Plaintiff Artis Charles Harrell is an incarcerated individual

residing at W.G. McConnell Unit, 3001 S. Emily Dr., Beeville, Texas 78102, of Bee County.

Ill

SERVICE OF CITATION REQUESTED

Defendant Jerome Godinich, Jr. is an individual doing business

at 929 Preston, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77002, of Harris

County, at which the Citation and a copy of the Petition shall be served by a process server. IV

ARREST AND DETENTION

On Match 3, 2004, several City of Houston Police officers

from Harris County, Texas, entered Artis Charles Harrell's

("Harrell") home located at 9602 Bird Nest Trail in Fort Bend

County, Texas without his consent, arrest warrant, probable

cause and exigent circumstances.

V

INITIAL APPEARANCE

On March 31, 2004, Harrell was taken before a Harrel County

magistrate, twenty-eight (28) days after the March 3, 2004 arrest

(see attached and incorporated Magistrate's Warnings as Exhibit

A), who informed him of the charge, the right to remain silent,

the right to request or retain an attorney, the possibility

that any statement made may be used against him, and the general

circumstances under which pretrial release may be secured; at

which time the magistrate denied him bail.

VI

PRELIMINARY ASSIGNED COURT APPEARANCE AND PRETRIAL BOND HEARING

On April 1, 2004, Harrell appeared in the 184th District Court

with Jerome Godinich Jr. ("Godinich") as his attorney for the

purpose of the trial court determining pretrial release. The

court had no authority to detain Harrell in custody between

March 3, 2004 and May 10, 2004 without bail, specifically when

no warrant had been issued and no grand jury indictment until

May 10, 2004.

2 VII

ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL

Although, on March 31, 2004, Harrell requested the court to

appoint counsel to represent him because he was financially

unable to employ counsel, counsel was not appointed until April

27, 2004, cause number 982557 (see attached and incorporated

Order Appointing Counsel as Exhibit B).

VIII

GODINICH WAS NEGLIGENT AT THE PRELIMINARY ASSIGNED COURT APPEARANCE AND BOND HEARING, CAUSING HARRELL'S PREMATURE INCARCERATION AND RESULTING DAMAGES

On April 1, 2004, the trial court held the preliminary court

appearance and bond hearing to determine probable cause for

Harrell's further detention. Harrell was allowed to consult

with Godinich, at which time, Harrell informed Godinich that

he believed his March 3, 2004 arrest was illegally performed

without a warrant or probable cause, and that he had been placed

in a live lineup on March 11, 2004 against his will, after he

had invoked his right to counsel on March 4, 2004 during police

interrogation. Godinich told Harrell he would reset the case in order to investigate his claim of unlawful arrest. The case

was reset for April 27, 2004, and the trial court denied bail

without making a probable cause determination for Harrell's

March 3, 2004 arrest in cause number 982557. On April 27, 2004,

the trial court officially appointed Godinich as Harrell's

attorney in cause number 982557 (see attached and incorporated Agreed Setting as Exhibit C), case reset for May 26, 2004. Godinich allowed time to elapse in seeking Harrell's release

3 from premature incarceration, where no warrant had been issued

for Harrell's arrest on March 3, 2004, and no indictment had

been issued by the grand jury until May 10, 2004 (see attached

and incorporated Indictment as Exhibit D).

IX

FIDUCIARY MISCONDUCT WAS INHERENTLY UNDISCOVERABLE

Fiduciary's misconduct was inherently undiscoverable because

Godinich concealed the matter that influnced his actions to

Harrell's prejudice duricg Harrell investigating claims

of ineffective assistance of counsel against Godinich in 2007.

Harrell, during his state writ of habeas corpus proceedings,

claimed that Godinich failed to challenge the probable cause

for his arrest and detention, where Godinich had filed a pretrial

motion to suppress evidence, claiming that Harrell's arrest

had been illeqally performed without a warrant or probable cause

(see attached and incorporated Motion to Suppress Evidence as

Exhibit E).

Godinich responded by filing a sworn affidavit with the trial

court on March 17, 2008, claiming that he "is not aware

of abandonding any of the motions to suppress filed in this

case (see attached and incorporated Godinich's Affidavit as

Exhibit F).

Godinich*s affidavit concealed material facts about Harrell's

illegal arrest that made the breach of fiduciary duty claim inherently undiscoverable. Moreover, the trial court record at the habeas proceedings reflect that it accepted Godinich's 4 March 17, 2008 sworn affidavit as true and creditable (see attached and incorporated Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order as Exhibit G).

X

DISCOVERY BY SERENDIPITY

When Harrell was pursuing his investigation against Godinich

for ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Godinich made

discovery Of fiduciary misconduct inherently undiscoverable by making false statements in his March 17, 2008 sworn affidavit.

After exhausting state and federal remedies. Harrell continued

his investigation against Godinich for ineffective assistance

during his 2005 criminal trial, cause number 982557, by filing

a "motion for the production of grand jury proceeding

and transcript in cause number 982557 namely; probable cause

documents'" (see attached and incorporated Motion For Production

as Exhibit H).

On September 14, 2010, the trial court denied harrell's motion

for production. harrell then appealed the trial court's denial,

and the Clerk sent Harrell a certified copy of the Clerk's Record

dated December 14, 2010. This Clerk's Record contained a copy

of ' a criminal complaint that had been filed in cause number

982557 for aggravated robbery. This complaint does not state

a reason to believe Harrell committed any offense against the

State of Texas. Moreover, December 2010 is when Harrell had

discovered that his arrest and detention had been illegally

performed without a warrant or probable cause (see attached 5 and incorporated Clerk's Record at page 2 as Exhibit I).

Godinich represented Harrell on April 1, 2004 at the

preliminary assigned court appearance and pretrial bond hearing.

Godinich knew or should have known of the March 30, 2004 criminal

complaint. Godinich had a legal duty to disclose, and his failure

to disclose the March 30, 2004 criminal complaint to Harrell

or to the trial court constituted fraudulent concealment, a

claim that is not subject to defense of limitation, (see attached

and incorporated Artis Charles Harrell's Affidavit as Exhibit

J).

XI

GODINICH'S LEGAL DUTY TO HARRELL

In light of the circumstances, the discovery of the March

30, 2004 criminal complaint, where the trial court record does

not reflect a warrant or an indictment for Harrell's arrest

between the dates of March 3, 2004 and May 9, 2004. Harrell

has an absloute right for a judicial officer to determine whether

probable cause existed for his arrest and detention prior to

the return of the May 10, 2004 indictment in cause number 982557.

Had Godinich sought Harrell's release from unlawful custody,

he would have laid grounds for suppressing the March ll, 2004 pretrial live lineup out-of-court identification and related

evidence, and minimized Harrell's loss of earning capacity and

loss profits between March 3, 2004 and May 10, 2004.

Godinich had a legal duty to secure Harrell's immediate release

from unlawful custody, either by (1) personal recognizance bond, 6 or pretrial writ of habeas corpus because no probable cause

existed for his arrest and detention between March 3, 2004 and

May 10, 2004. Godinich*s breach of duty at the preliminary

assigned court appearance and bond hearing caused Harrell's

premature incarceration and resulting damages.

XII

DAMAGES CAUSED BY BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

Harrell seeks to recover mental anguish damsges because the

fiduciary misconduct was foreseeable. Harrell seeks to recover

loss of profits from the time between March 3' 2004 and May

10, 2004, and loss of earning capacity because harrell's

diminished capacity to earn a living was foreseeable in light

of the fiduciary misconduct.

XIII

GODINICH IS NEGLIGENT FOR HIS FAILURE TO TURN OVER TO HARRELL, HARRELL'S CLIENT FILES IN CRIMINAL CAUSE NUMBER 982557

In November 2006, Harrell first requested his client files

from Godinich, but Godinich refuse to respond (see attached

and incorporated Harrell's letter dated November 18, 2006 as

Exhibit K). Once Harrell discovered the March 30, 2004 criminal

complaint, Harrell again contacted Godinich requesting the entire

contents of his [Harrell's] client files located within his

[Godinich's] records, generated by him [Godinich] in his representation of Harrell as defense and appellate counsel in cause number 982557 (see attached and incorporated Harrell's

Affidavit as Exhibit J).

7 After Godinich refuse to respond, Harrell contacted the State

Bar of Texas. On October 14, 2013, Mr. Godinich gave the

following response: "We have been unable to locate your files.

Your case was tried in July 2005 and we do not retain files

longer than four years after the case has. been resolved." (See

attached and incorporated State Bar Letter as Exhibit L and

Godinich?s Letter as Exhibit M).

Harrell then notified Godinich that he [Harrell] was

not satified with his [Godinich's] October 14, 2013 response

and requested that he [Godinich] provide harrell with a sworn

affidavit explaining his actions and inactions taken in handling

his [Harrell's] case in cause number 982557 (see attached and

incorporated Harrell'a Letter dated October 21, 2013 as Exhibit

N). Again, Godinich refuse to respond. Harrell then gave Godinich

a "demand letter and notice of intent to sue for breach

of Fiduciary Duty." (See attached and incorporated Harrell's i

Demand letter as Exhibit O). PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully request judgment against

Defendant in a sum that is within jurisdictional limits of this

Court, together with the costs and disbursements of this action,

and any other relief to which Plaintiff deems himself entitled.

Artis Charles Harrell TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102

PRO SE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of this original

petition was delivered by certified mail return receipt

requested to Jerome Godinich Jr. at 929 Preston, Suite 200,

Houston, Texas 77002, of Harris County.

Artis Charles "Harrell TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 s. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102 EXHIBIT 2

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIAL NO. 2014-63129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § § VS. § 190TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § § JEROME GODINICH JR. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

DEFENDANT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND VERIFIED DENIEL

Now Comes Jerome Godinich Jr., hereinafter "Defendant," and files this Original Answer

and Verified Denial to Plaintiffs Original Petition and would respectfully show unto the Court

as follows:

I.

Defendant denies generally the allegations contained in Plaintiffs Original Petition filed

herein and demands strict proof thereof.

II.

Verified Denial

Defendant Jerome Godinich Jr. denies that he is liable in the capacity in which he has

been sued.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays that upon a final

hearing hereof, the court order that Plaintiff recover nothing ofand from Defendant and award Defendant attorney's fees, post-judgment interest and all costs ofCourt and such further and other relief, at law and in equity towhich Defendant may show himselfjustly entitled.

Jerotne Godinij 929 Pseston, Houston>Tgp(s 77002 Tel: (713) 237-8388 Fax:(713)224-2889

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument was delivered via facsimile and CertifiedMail, RRR to the following counselof record:

Artis Harrell TDCJ#01334295 William G. McConnell Unit 3001 South Emily Drive Beeville, TX 78102

On this the 12th day of November 2014. VERIFICATION

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

On thisday,Jerome Godinich Jr. appeared before me, the undersigned notary public, and, after being by me first duly sworn, stated that hehas read the foregoing Original Answer and Verified Denial and thatthe factual allegations stated therein are within his personal knowledge and are true and correct.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this the l{ day of fJiX/g m bd/y 2014.

k^- (K NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR dz*s

THE STATE OF TEXAS Jerome Godinich, Ji U.S. POSTAGE PAID Attorney at Law '»,.-. . HOUSTON.TXrg^ssesas-v . "*^Ml^cBWEW,"' iA- -._ 77201 J- 929 Preston, Suite 200 $»~"~*iNOV 12,14 Houston, Texas 77002 -*<• AMOUNT

701M 51ED DDDE 73MD A137 $6.49 1000 00112902-23 78102

II BBE«?TC

\\ > ,T" P Artis Harrell TDCJ#01334295 William G. McConnell Unit ^y 3001 South Emily Drive Beeville, TX 78102

•'ssl U^ciSaoci-js^ *llJllji/'/|jP/*'»f//|>f-|J*#'#'

PLAINTIFF ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL1 FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT CASE NO. 2014-63129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL IN THE 190th STATE CIVIL Plaintiff

v. DISTRICT COURT OF

JEROME GODINICH/ JR. Defendant HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT

Plaintiff Artis Charles Harrell ("Harrell") serves the

following written discovery upon Defendant Jerome Godinich,

Jr/ ("Godinich") and demands timely response under the

appropriate Rules of Civil Procedure.

To: Jerome Godinich,. Jr., by and through Artis Charles Harrell,

W.G. McConnell Unit, 3001 S. Emily Dr., Beeville, Texas 78102.

Artis Charles Harrell, serves these interrogatories on Jerome

Godinich, Jr., as allowed by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

197. Jerome Godinich, Jr. must answer each interrogatory

separately, fully, in writing, and under oath, within 30 days

after service.

INSTRUCTIONS

For any requested information about a document that no longer

exists or cannot be located, identify the document, state how

and when it passed out of existence or when it could no longer

be located, and give the reason for the disappearance. Also, identify each person having knowledge about the disposition or loss, and identify each document evidencing the existence

or nonexistence of each document that cannot be located.

DEFINTIONS

The following definitions shall have the following meanings,

unless the context requires otherwise:

1. "Plaintiff" or "defendant," as well as a party's full or

abreviated name or a pronoun referring to a party, means the

party, and where applicable, the party's agents, representees,

officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate agents,

subsidiaries, affilates, or any other person acting in concert

with the party or under the party's control, whether directly

or indirectly, including any attorney.

2. "You" or "your" means Jerome Godinich, Jr., successors,

predecessors, divisions, subsidiaries, present and former

officers, agents, employees, and all other persons acting on

behalf of jerome Godinich, Jr. or his successors, predecessors,

divisions, and subsidiaries.

3. "Document" means all written, typed, or printed matter

and all magnetic, electronic, or other records or documentation

of any kind or description in your actual possession, custody,

or control, including those in the possession, custody,

or control of any and all present or former directors, officers,

employees, consultants, accountants, any and all present or former directors, officers, employees, consultants, accountants,

attorneys, or other agents, whether or not prepared by you, 2 that constitute or contain matters relevant to the subject matter

of the action.

4. "Possession, custody, or control" of an item means that

the person either has physical possession of the item or has

a right to possession equal or superior to that of the person

who has physical possession of the item.

5. "Person" means any natural person, corporation, firm,

association, partnership, ioint venture, proprietorship,

govermental body, or any other organization, business, or legal

entity, and all predecessors or successors in interest.

6. "Mobile divice" means any cellular telephone, satellite

telephone, pager, personal digital assistant, handheld computer,

electronic roldex, walkie-talkie, or any combination of these

devices.

7. "Contract" menas the agreement that is the subiect of

this lawsuit which includes any court ordered appoinments.

8. "Identify" or "describe" when referring to a person, means

you must state the following:

a. The full name.

b. The present or last known residential address and

residential telephone number.

c. The present or last known office address and office

telephone number.

d. The occupation, iob title, employer, and employer's

address at the time of the event or period referred

to ineach particular interrogatory.

3 e. In the case of any entity, identify the officer,

employee, or agent most closely connected with

the subject matter of the interrogatory and the

officer who is responsible for supervising that

officer or employee.

9. "Identify" or "describe" when referring to a document,

means you must state the following:

a. The nature (e.g., letter, handwritten note) of

the document.

b. The title or heading that appears on the document*

c. The date of the document and the date of each

addendum, supplement, or other addition or change.

d. The identity of the author and of the signer of

the document, and of the person on whose behalf

or at whose request or direction the document

was prepared or dilivered.

e. The present location of the document, and the

name, address, position or title, and telephone

number of the person or persons having custody

of the document.

INDIVIDUAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS REGARDING HARRELL'S ARREST AND DETENTION BETWEEN MARCH 3, 2004 AND MAY 11, 2004 IN CAUSE NUMBER 982557

jRfeerrogatory 1:

Identify the document that a natural and detached magistrate issued an arrest warrant, or that there was an indictment issued for Harrell's March 3, 2004 arrest and detention in cause number 982557.

4 Interrogatory 2:

Explain how long Artis Charles Harrell was held in the custody of the Houston Police Department arid the Harris County Sheriff's Department respectively, without bond, before he was taken before a magistrate and charged by indictment with aggravated robbery in cause number 982557.

Interrogatory 3:

Explain in full detail, if any, whether Houston Police had probable cause to arrest Artis Charles Harrell on March 3, 2004 in cause number 982557.

Interrogatory 4:

Explain in full detail, under what circumstances was Artis Charles Harrell arrested on March 3, 2004.

Interrogatory. 5:

Identify the document that reflects when Artis Charles Harrell was taken before the magistrate in cause number 982557.

Interrogatory 6:

Identify the document that reflects when Artis Charles Harrell was charged with aggravated robbery in cause number 982557.

Interrogatory 7:

Identify all evidence obtained by law enforcement from Artis Charles Harrell between March 3, 2004 and May 10, 2004 while he was in their custody, and was that evidence seized legally or illegally, explain your answer in full detail.

Interrogatory 8:

Identify any primary and excess insurance polices, on your part, that may be liable for payment of any portion of any judgment Artis Charles Harrell may secure or that may be responsible to provide at least part of your defense to this suit.

Interrogatory 9:

Identify any documents whereby any insurance company is defending you under a reservation of rights to assert policy defenses against you at a later time. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of "Plaintiff Artis Charles Harrell's First Interrogatories to the Defendant" was delivered by certified mail return receipt requested to Jerome Godinich, Jr. at 929 Preston, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77002. Certified Mail No.. 7008 0500 0000 6637 6855, by placing the same in the prison U.S. mailing system on December 2, 2014.

Artis Charles Harrell ' TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102

PRO SE EXHIBIT 4

PLAINTIFF ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT JEROME GODINICH JR.. CAUSE NO. 2014-63129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

v- § 190th JUDICIAL DISTRICT JEROME GODINICH JR. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT JEROME GODINICH JR.

Mr. Jerome Godinich jr. these next set of interrogatories are the discovery into the facts of what if any investigation you may or may have not conducted in your preparation for trial in cause number 982557.

Interrogatory No. 1:

When the Houston police arrested Artis Charles Harrell on March 3, 2004 in cause number 982557, did police find him in possession of the victim's stolen property (i.e., credit cards, ID, wallet, or car).

Interrogatory No• 2:

Was the Houston police outside their territorial geographicial jurisdiction when they entered Sugar Land, Fort Bend County and arrested Harrell in his home located at 9602 Bird Nest Trl. without a warrant or probable causeand exigent circumstances on March 3, 2004. *»•

Interrogatory No. 3:

How come you failed or did not challenge the probable cause for Harrell's March 3, 2004 arrest when the State filed their affidavit of probable cause on March 30, 2004 twenty-seven (27) days after Harrell had been arrested, an affidavit that does not state the police reasonable belief that Harrell committed this crime in cause number 982557.

Interrogatory No. 4:

How come you failed or did nots suppress the March 11, 2004 uncounseled live lineup identification evidence as evidence obtained in violation of the 14th Amendment because the police failed to take Harrell before a magistrate in a timely manner and the 6th Amendment because Harrell was denied counsel at this March 11, 2004 lineup. Interrogatory No. 5:

Prior to the March 11, 2004 uncounseled live lineup identification, did the Houston police have any reasonable basis to believe that Harrell committed this crime in cause number 982557, if so, explain the police reasonable belief, if not, explain the police not having a reasonable belief.

Interrogatory No. 6:

How come you failed or did not call the arresting officers to the witness stand during any of the pretrial motion hearings in cause number 982557 to explain the circumstances surrounding Harrell's March 3, 2004 arrest.)

Interrogatory No. 7:

Absent the constitutional violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, for the police failure to take Harrell before a magistrate in a timely manner, of which the March 11, 2004 pretrial live lineup identification evidence was Obtained, and the constitutional violation of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution, of Harrell being denied the right to counsel at the March 11, 2004 lineup, which was the result of the 14th Amendment violation, what evidence, if any, is there linking Harrell to this crime in cause number 982557.

Interrogatory No. 8:

Is there a casual connection between the delay of Harrell not being taken before a magistrate in a timely manner, Harrell being denied the right to counsel at the March 11, 2004 pretrial live lineup identification and the March 11, 2004 pretrial live lineup identification itself, if so, explain, if not, explain.

Artiar Charles Harrell TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beevile, Texas 78102

PRO SE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument (i.e., Plaintiff Artis Charles Harrell's Second Interrogatories to the Defendant Jerome Godinich Jr.) was delivered via Certified Mail, RRR to the following counsel of record:

Jerome Godinicg Jr. 929 Preston, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002

Certified Mail No. 7013 3020 0000 0350 1564

Executed on January 2, 2015.

c. U«^eM rtis Charles Harrell NO. 2014-63129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § § § VS. § 190TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § § JEROME GODINICH JR. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

RESPONSE TO PLAINTD7F ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT

Interrogatory 1:

Respondent is unable to answer interrogatory number 1 since the respondent is not in possession of the offense report.

Interrogatory 2:

Respondent is unable to answer interrogatory number 2. The Houston Police Department is in possession of the information referenced in this interrogatory.

Respondent is unable to answerinterrogatory 3 sincerespondent is no longer in possession of the plaintiffs file. Moreover, plaintiffwas indicated and the grand juryfound probable cause. Interrogatory 4;

Respondent is unable to answer interrogatory 4 since the question is not clear and is convoluted.

Interrogatory 5:

Respondent is unable to answer interrogatory 5. The Houston Police Department is in possession of the information referenced in this interrogatory.

Interrogatbrv 6:

Respondent is unable to answer interrogatory 6 because the interrogatory is unclear. Respondent is not sure if plaintiff is referencing a motion to suppress or some other pretrial motion. Moreover, respondent is not in possessionof plaintiffs files.

Respondent isunable to answer interrogatory 7. Plaintiffwas convicted ofthis offense by ajury. Interrogatory 8:

Respondent is unable to answer interrogatory 8. Law enforcement is possession of this information referenced in this interrogatory.

/s/Jerome Godinich Jr. Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 Tel: (713) 237-8388 Fax:(713)224-2889

I hereby certify that a trueand correct copy oftheabove andforegoing instrument was delivered viafacsimile and Certified Mail, RRR to thefollowing counsel of record:

Artis Harrell TDCJ#01334295 William G. McConnell Unit 3001 South Emily Drive Beeville, TX 78102

On this the 20th day of January2015.

/s/Jerome Godinich Jr. Jerome Godinich Jr. EXHIBIT 5

PLAINTIFF ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT JEROME GODINICH JR. CAUSE NO. 2014-63129

V. § 190th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

JEROME GODINICH JR. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT JEROME GODINICH JR.

Mr. Jerome Godinich Jr. these next set of interrogatories are the discovery into the facts of what if any investigation you may or may not have conducted in your preparation for trial in cause number 982557. The following interrogatories require you to provide a sworn affidavit. Your failure to provide a affidavit will result in the request for sanctions.

Attached is a copy of the indictment in ca use number 982557, as Exhibit 1. This indictment reflects that Ha rrell was arrested on March 3, 2004, and the indictment was issue d on May 10, 2004, demonstrating there was a 68- -day delay betwee n-Harrell's arrest and indictment. Attached is an excerpt from the trial record, as Exhibit 2. This excerpt: demonstrates that t he police obtained the pre-trial identification ievidence as a res ult of this delay, How come you did ncit imove to suppres s this pre-trial identification evidence as evi<3ence obtained th:rough exploitation of 1the Fourth Amendment to the United States Co nstitutioh.

Interrogatory No. 2:

Did you have knowledge that the prosecution's case was based upon fingerprint evidence recovered from the complainant's car in cause number 982557 to identify the perpatrator in that case.

Identify the arresting officers who arrested Harrell on March 3, 2004.

How come you are not in possession of Harrell's case files in cause number 982557, and how come you've never given the files to Harrell when he requested them.

Interrogatory No. 5:

Do you have legal malpractice insurance. Interrogatory No. 6:

In regards to your investigation of the facts of the case in cause number 982557, did you investigate any alibi defenses or witnesses on harrell's behalf, if so, what was the alibi defense you investigated and/or witnesses, if not, explain your inaction.

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument (i.e.. Plaintiff Artis Charles Harrell's Third set of Interrogatories to the Defendant Jerome Godinich Jr.) was delivered via Certified Mail, RRR to the following counsel of record:

Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 Certified Mail No.: 7013 3020 0000 0355 1460

rtis Charles Harrell

Executed on February 23, 2015 EXHIBIT 6

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT CAUSE NO. 201463129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL § IN THE 190th JUDICIAL § § VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF § § JEROME GODINICH JR. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDSNT

Artis Charles Harrell ("Harrell") asks the court to compel

Jerome Godinich Jr. ("Godinich") to respond to Harrell's

discovery requests.

A. Introduction

1. Plaintiff is Artis Charles Harrell; defendant is Jerome

Godinich Jr.

2. Harrell sued Godinich for damages for breach of fiduciary

duty for failure to disclose, and for failure to turn over

to Harrell, Harrell's client files in criminal cause number

982557.

3. Discovery in this suit is governed by a Level 3 discovery

control plan. The trial Court has not set a date for when

the discovery period will end.

4. The trial court has not set a date for when the case will

go to trial or a date for pre-trial conference hearing.

B. Facts

5. On December 2, 2014, Harrell served Godinich with the

attached discovery request in accordance with Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure 21 and 21a. 6. Godinich served the attached responses on December 18,

2014.

7. Godinich is required by the Rules of Civil Procedure to

verify all answers. However, Godinich has failed to do

so.

8. Harrell attached his affidavit to this motion to establish

facts not appearant from the record and incorporates it

by reference.

C. Argument & Authorities

9. The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so disputes

may be decided by what the facts reveal, hot by what facts

are concealed. Axelson, Inc. v. Hcllhany* 798 S.W.2d 550,

555 (Tex. 1990). Discovery may be obtained about any matter

relevant to the subject matter of the case. Tex. R. Civ.

P. 192.3. Information is discoverable as long as it appears

"reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence." Id.

10. Harrell's discovery requests are reasonably caculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Specifically, they seek information regarding one party's

legal duty to the other party. This information

is necessary because Godinich was Harrell's trial attorney

in a criminal action, of which Harrell discovered that

Godinich had concealed exculpatory evidence in harrell's

defense causing Harrell to be denied due process of law.

Also this information is likely to lead to additional and

2 other information is relevant to the dispute.

11. A trial court may compel a party to respond adequately to interrogatories. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b). Godinich

did not respond adequately to interrogatories as required

by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.1. Therefore, the

court should compel Godinich to comply with the

rule. Godinich's responses are inadequate for the following reasons:

a. Godinich did not verify his responses to

interrogatories. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

197.2(d) requires the interrogatories to be verified by Godinich.

P. Conclusion

Godinich's answers are non-responsive to interrogatories

because Godinich was in possession of all information regarding

his investigation into the facts of Harrell's criminal case.

Godinich has yet to explain why he is not in possession of such

investigatory facts. Godinich is Still concealing information

as his answers are not verified.

E. Prayer

For these reasons, Harrell asks the court to set this motion

for hearing and, after the hearing, compel Godinich to file

adequate responses to Harrell's discovery request.. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of Artis Charles Harrell's Motion to

Compel Jerome Godinich to Respond to Plaintiff's First

Interrogatories was served upon the Defendant at the below

listed address:

Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002

Certified Mail return receipt No. 7008 0500 0000 6637 6770

Executed on April 27, 2015.

.s c. Charles /JL**tJ/ Harrell Pro se - TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that a reasonable effort was made to resolve the

dispute without the necessity of court intervention, and efforts

failed.

Artis ]A. c Charles nkL*££t Harrell EXHIBIT 7

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT CAUSE NO. 201463129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL § IN THE 190th JUDICIAL § § VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF § § JEROME GODINICH JR. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT

Jerome Godinich Jr. ("Godinich") to respond to Harrell's

to Harrell, Harrell's client files in criminal cause number

go to trial or a date for pre-trial conference hearing. 5. On January 5, 2015, Harrell served Godinich with the discovery request in accordance with Texas Rule of

Civil Procedure 21 and 21a. 6. Godinich served the attached responses on January 20, 2015.

8. Harrell attaches his affidavit to this motion to establish

9. The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so disputes

may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts

are concealed. Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550,

10. Harrell's discovery requests are reasonably calculated

Specifically, they seek information regarding one party's

is necessary because Godinich was Harrell's trial attorney

Godinich had concealed exculpatory evidence in Harrell's

Also this information is likely to lead to additional and other information that is relevant to the dispute.

11. A trial court may compel a party to respond adequately

to interrogatories. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.1(b). Godinich did not respond adequately to interrogatories as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 193.1. Therefore, the court should compel Godinich to comply with the

rule. Godinich's responses are inadequate for the following

reasons:

interrogatories. Texas Rules oe Civil Procedure

197.2(d) required the interrogatories to

be verified by Godinich.

D. Conclusion

Godinich's answers are non-responsive to interrogatories because Godinich was in possession of all information regarding

his investigation into the facts of Harrell's criminal case. Godinich has yet to explain why he is not in possession of such investigatory facts. Godinich is still concealing information as his answers are not verified.

for hearing and, after the hearing, compel Godinich to file adequate responsess to Harrell's discovery requests. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of Artis Charles Harrell's Motion to

Compel Jerome Godinich Jr. to Respond to Plaintiff's Second

Interrogatories was served upon the Defendant at the below listed

address:

Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002

Artis Charles Harrell Pro se - TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102

dispute without the necessity of court intervention, and efforts

Executed on April 27, 2015,

Artis Charles Harrell EXHIBIT 8

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD INTERROGATORISE TO THE DEFENDANT CAUSE NO. 201463129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL § IN THE 190th JUDICIAL § ' • § VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF § § JEROME GODINICH JR. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT

Artis Charles Harrell. ("Harrell") asks the court to compel

Jerome Godinich Jr. ("Godinich") to respond to Harrell's

duty for failure to disclose, and for failure to turn over to Harrell, Harrell's client files in criminal cause number

3. Discovery in this suit is governed by a Level 3 discovery control plan. The trial court has not set a date for when

4. The trial court has. not set a date for when the case will

go to trial or a date for pre-trial conference hearing. B. Facts

5. On February 23, 2015, Harrell served Godinich with the attached discovery request in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 21 and 21a. 6. Although Godinich's responses were due on March 25, 2015,

Godinich had not responded to Harrell's discovery request.

Therefore, the court should order Godinich to file

responses. Harrell attaches the certified mail recipt and

a copy of the requested discovery to this motion and

incorporates it by reference.

7. Godinich not responding to the requested discovery clearly

demonstrates that he is continuing to conceal material

information that would resolve all matters that are in

dispute.

8. Harrell attaches his affidavit to this motion to establish

facts not apparent from the record and incorporates it by reference.

C. Argument & Authorties

9. The purpose of discovery is to seek the truth, so disputes may be decided by what the facts reveal, not by what facts are concealed. Axelson, Inc. v. Mcllhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Tex. 1990). Discovery may be obtained about any matter relevant to the subject matter of the case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 192.3 Information is discoverable as long as it appears

"reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.

10. Harrell's discovery request are reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically, they seek information regarding Godinich's legal duty to Harrell. This information is necessary because 2 Godinich was Harrell's trial counsel in a criminal action,

of which Harrell discovered that Godinich had concealed

exculpatory evidence in Harrell's defense, causing Harrell

to be denied due process of law. Also this information

will lead to additional and other information that is

relevant to the dispute.

1.1. A trial court may compel a party to respond adequately

to interrogatories. Tex. R. Civ. P. 215.(b). Godinich

did not respond to interrogatories as required by Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure 193.1. Therefore, the court should

compel Godinich to respond to the interrogatories that

is attached to this motion and incorporates it by reference.

Godinich is in fact continuing to conceal material information

that will ultimately resolve all disputes in this case.

for hearing and, after the hearing, compel Godinich to

file responses to Harrell's discovery requests. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of Artis Charles Harrell's Motion to

Compel Jerome Godinich to Respond to Plaintiff's Third

Interrogatories was served upon the Defendant at the below listed

Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002

Certified Mail return receipt requested No. 7008 0500 0000 6637 6770

Executed on April 27, 2015

c • KleislAje>£i lis Charles Harrell Pro se - TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102

dispute without the necessity of court intervention, and efforts

w, C^LmZ/I 'Ar*tis Artis Charles Harrell EXHIBIT 9

MOTION TO TRIAL COURT FOR AN IMMEDIATE RULING ON "ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT" CAUSE NO. 201463129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL IN THE 190th JUDICIAL

VS, DISTRICT COURT OF

JEROME GODINICH JR. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

V, MOTION TO TRIAL COURT FOR AN IMMEDIATE RULING ON "ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES TO THE,DEFENDANT"

Artis Charles Harrell ("Harrell") asks the court to immediately

rule on Harrell's pending motion to compel Jerome Godinich jr.

to respond to plaintiff's first interrogatories to the Defendant,

and would show the following:

Facts

1. On December 2, 2014, Harrell served Jerome Godinich Jr.

("Godinich") with request for discovery and Godinich refuse

to verify his answers, which in essence is a concealment

of information.

2. On April 27, 2015, Harrell filed a motion with this court to compel Godinich to properly respond to requested

discovery

3. As of to date, this court has not ruled on said motion.

4. Harrell is asking for an immediate ruling;:, so that he can

expedite his case in a timely manner without delay.

5. Harrell request that, if this court refuses to rule on the pending mation, a reason for such refusal to rule on the pending motion is requested. Conclusion

The immediate ruling in this case is necessary as to expedite

discovery and final resolution involving all matters in dispute

prior to trial.

for a hearing, rule on said motion, and after the hearing, compel Godinich to file adequate responses to Harrell's discovery

request.

I certify that a copy of the "Motion to Trial Court for an Immediate Ruling on Artis Charles harrell's Motion to Compel Jerome Godinich Jr. to Respond to Plaintiff's F First Interrogatories to the Defendant" was served upon Defendant at the below listed address:

Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002

Certified Mail RRR No. 7013 3020 0000 0355 2573 Respectfully submitted,

•A tl^/f Artis Charles Harrell Pro se - TDC# 1334295 Executed on may 13, 2015 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville/ Texas 78102 EXHIBIT 10

MOTION TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR AN IMMEDIATE RULING ON "ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT" CAUSE NO. 201463129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL § IN THE 190th JUDICIAL § § VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF §

MOTION TO TRIAL COURT FOR AN IMMEDIATE RULING ON "ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT"

Artis Charles Harrell ("Harrell") asks the court to immediately

rule on Harrell's pending motion to compel Jerome Godinich Jr.

to respond to plaintiff's second interrogatories to the Defendant

1. On January 2, 2015, Harrell served Jerome Godinich Jr.

to respond to the requested discovery, which in essence

is a concealment of information.

2. On April 27, 2015, Harrell filed a motion with this court

to compel Godinich to respond to requested discovery.

3. As of to date/ this court has not ruled on said motion.

4. Harrell is asking for an immediate ruling so that he can

5. Harrell request that, if this court refuses to rule on

the pending motion/ a reason for such refusal to

rule on the pending motion is requested. CONCLUSION

The immediate ruling in this case is necessary as to expedite

discovery and a final resolution involving all matters in dispute

for a hearing, rUle on said motion, and after the hearing, compel

Godinich to file adequate responses to Harrell's discovery

I certify that a copy of the "Motion to Trial Court for an

Immediate Ruling on Artis Charles Harrell's Motion to Compel

Jerome Godinich Jr. to Respond to Plaintiff's Second

Interrogatories to the Defendant" was served upon Defendant

at the below listed address:

Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston"" Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002

Certified Mail RRR No. 7013 3020 0000 0355 2573

Executed on May 13, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

ffrtis Charles Harrell TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 300.1 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102 EXHIBIT 11

MOTION TO TRIAL COURT FOR AN IMMEDIATE RULING ON "ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR- TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT" CAUSE NO. 201463129

ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL IN THE 190th JUDICIAL § § VS. § DISTRICT COURT OF §

MOTION TO TRIAL COURT FOR AN IMMEDIATE RULING ON "ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL'S MOTION TO COMPEL JEROME GODINICH JR. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD INTERROGATORIES TO THE DEFENDANT"

Artis Charles Harrell ("Harrell") asks the court to immediately

rule on Harrell's pending motion to compel Jerome Godinich Jr.

to respond to Plaintiff's third interrogatories to the Defendant,

1. On February 23, 2015,. Harrell served Jerome Godinich Jr.

expedite his case in a timely manner without delay>

the pending motion, a reason for such refusal to

The immediate ruling in this case is necessary as to expedite

discovery and a final resolution involving all matters in dispute

for a hearing, rule on said motion, and after the hearing, cpmpel

Godinich to file adequate responses to Harrell's discovery

Immediate Ruling on Artis Charles Harrell's Motion to Compel

Jerome Godinich Jr. to Respond to Plaintiff's Third

Jerome Godinich Jr. 929 Preston Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002

Respectfully,Submitted, •7/W /3> ^/s rjht C$l»a£f Artis Charles Harrell Pro se - TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Uhit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102 EXHIBIT 12

HARRELL'S LETTER TO JUDGE PATRICIA J. KERRIGAN DATED MAY 28, 2015 ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL PRO SE - TDC# 1334295 W.G. McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Texas 78102

May 28, 2015

Judge Patricia J. Kerrigan Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline St. 12th Floor Houston, Texas 77002

RE: Harrell v. Godinich; Cause No. 201463129 Immediate Ruling on Pending Motions

Dear Judge Kerrigan:

I've filed the instant suit against the defendant for breach of fiduciary duty. On file is my request for a jury trial. The trial court has not set a date for when the case will go to trial. Discovery in this case is governed by a Level 3 discovery control plan. The trial court has not set a date for when the discovery period will end.

I've served the defendant with interrogatorie s on December 2, 2014, January 2, 2015, and February 23, 2015 respectively. The defendant is required by the Rules of Civil Procedure to verify all answers, as well provide an answer to int errogatories. However, the defendant has failed to do so in either form, verify his answer and provide answers to interrogator ies. This has lead me to file with the court motions to compe 1 and motions for an immediate ruling on the motion to compe 1. I've filed these motions on April 27, 2015 and May 13, 2015 respectively.

As of to date/ this court has not ruled on said motions. I'm asking that this court make an immediate ruling on the pending motions so that I can expedite riiy case through the court in a timely manner without delay. If this court refuses to rule on the pending motions within 30 days from the date of this letter. This will force me to file with the Court of Appeals a ^rit of Mandamus. Thank you Judge Kerrigan with your assistance.

Sincerely,

ArMs Charl arrell

cc:filed ACH