in Re Jason T. Pegues

Opinion

N0.01-15-00535-CR FILED W .STCOUBTOFAP;^ Houston ^y-

CUEBK.

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT HOUSTON

APPELLATE CASE NAME:

In_ re_Jason_T._Pegues

APPELLATE CASE NUMBER:

01-15-00535-CR

TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER:

9A-DCR-02 6185

TRIAL COURT:

240th DISTRICT COURT/FORT BEND COUNT1 N0.94-DCR-026185

In re Jason T. Pegues

Relator

RELATOR'S MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGEMENT/FOR ACTUAL_ISSJLANCE_OF_RJ5LATOR^

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Comes now, Jason_T^_Pe£ues_#728196, Relator, Pro-se, respectfully submit this motion to enforce judgement/for actual issuance of relator's writ of mandamus in reference to appellate case number 01-15-00 535-CR. Relator would like to show this Honorable Court the

following:

Z5Q£S22SAt_5I§I25I

Around March 24,2015 Relator filed a Motion for Forensic DNA Testing in which the Fort Bend District Attorney's Office received the motion

o * AEIil_3.L2015. Around June 12,2015 Relator filed a Petition for writ o f Mandamus in this Honorable Court. (Appellate Case •#: 01-15-00535-CR). The State filed a motion for extension of time around June_10x2015, in which the trial court granted, extending the deadline date to

June 29,2015 which was requested by the State in it's motion.(SEE: Attachment _'±A^) . Around JglZ 3,2 015 Relator filed an objection in the trial court and requested for counsel,and that counsel do not file anything until relator and counsel discuss every aspect of the c ase

and agree on what's best to file in which the trial court never responded to.Mempa v. Rhay,389 U.S.12_8. Shortly after, the State filed a second motion, requesting the trial Judge issue/enter orders to

-1- various parties for the location of the evidence in this case 2 618 5,

in which relator also objected to. (see: Attachment "g"). This

Honorable court ordered the trial court to respond to relator's writ

of mandamus 30 days from the order, in which the trial court did respond

to relator's writ of mandamus around July 23,2015. Relator responded to

the respondent's reply on July__30±2 015. The trial court additionally

granted the State's second motion to enter orders to various parties to

locate the evidence in this case so that the State can respond to

relator's motion for forensic DNA Testing.

NATURE_0F_PR0CEEDING

The nature of proceeding in regards to this motion is to compel the

trial court to make findings regarding post-conviction DNA Testing as

required by art.64.04 of the Tex.Code of Crim.Proc. and to also enforce

this Honorable Court's Judgement to actual issue relator's writ of

mandamus. The nature of this proceeding is to also prove and show this

Honorable Court that relator is constitutionally entitled to relief in

which he is requesting this court to grant based on the facts and the

official records of this case 2618 5. In re M. B. Jackson^2 38 S.W.3d 603

(TEX^APP.--Waco 2007); Inre Todd-Warren ALTSCHUL,238 S.W.3d 603.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Relator is requesting that this Honorable Court actually issue relator's

writ of mandamus. Relator along with this Honorable Court has given

the respondent ample enough time to make a finding which is required

by code of criminal procedure art.64.04 due to relator's motion for

forensic DNA testing being filed on March 24,2015, nearly six (6)

months ago. The fact that the respondent granted a motion to enter

orders to various parties so that the state can make a finding, and

-2- receiving affidavits from all parties with the exception of

Former_As sistant Distr ict„At to rney__Jam es_Sidney__Crow1ey_, who is in contempt of court for not complying with a court order that was signed by an Hon.Judge, all parties stating that they have no knowledge of where the evidence in this case is located (SEE: Attachment_'^C^), the

respondent has still not made a finding, violating the Judge's Adjudicative Responsibilities prescribed by the Judicial Canons as well as the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, nor have

the respondent attempted to file for extension, so relator reasonably files this motion respectfully advise this Honorable Court to issue his writ of mandamus so that a finding can be made (SEE: In re _M^B ^Jacks onj_

238 S.W.3d 603_(Tex±Ap_p_j.1-- Waco_2007 )), or grant relator relief of immediately release from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice System, vacating his sentence and charge due to relator being constitutionally entitled to relief. Ex^arte-R^oslin-Marie^urn^r^^A liHil1_112_!Z12L1P.LIZLlA££i1P.12> ' State._.of_ Texas , ex rel jL_Hill_v2._Court

862 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.App.--Houston [,'l 41h_Dig,tA T199 3 .

ISSUES PRESENTED

I.

Relator's Motion for DNA Testing was file around March 24,2015 based

on relator's court appointed counsel Cary M.Faden stating in a habeas

proceeding that DNA testing had been done and confirmed relator as the perpetrator, which through investigation later revealed that aggravated perjury had been committed because according to the record DNA test results were inconclusive with no match. SEE: Attachmen.t_^D^. Counsel

made this false statement with intent to deceive, he was the one who

cross-examined the criminalist Monica Thompson (Attachment "D'Q .

-3- Counsel knew the knowledge of the statement meaning, made false

statement under oath in connection with an official proceeding; and

that false statement was material and could have affected the course or

outcome of an official proceeding. Coleman v. State, 279 _S«JJx2

investigating record reflecting that DNA was detected January 3,1994$ however, relator was not arrested until March 3,1994 and it was not because of DNA confirmation, but by statements made by the then child

illegally taken by the Houston Police Officer, which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the records. DNA was not introduced nor admitted into evidence at trial which occurred nearly two years later.

CN0JICE_JL°_ TJ|I9_C0URJN PLEASE SEE INVESTIGATING RECORD ATTACHED TO

II.

The State has been delaying responding to relator's motion for DNA testing. The respectable purpose for this motion is based on the facts as well as conclusive and preponderance evidence through-out these

proceedings that the State has in fact violated the Penal Code Laws of tampering with evidence in this case as well as fabricating. Penal ^±11-H^.1LS.1L11L11j.-11±.19-±- 37.02, and 37^03. With the State not being able to present the evidence in this case not only confirms that the evidence in this case has been tampered with due to fabrication, but

also confirms that relator was in fact convicted by an illegal taken

statement that was illegally obtained and used to secure a conviction. Furthermore, the investigating record in this case can prove that the statement was illgally taken and inadmissible by law beyond reasonable doubt. The Tex .C.C .Proc.38.23 prohibits the admission of any evidence

obtained in violation of Texas Penal Laws related to gathering,

-4- creating, or destroying evidence. 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure includes evidence that is obtained in violation of Texas Law

as well as that obtained in violation of the Federal and State

constitution. Wilsqn_v1_StatejL311_S1W13d_at 458-59; Smith v. State,165

SAW^3d 361_(Cr1Ap_£ .2005) . The State stated that there was a knife

handle and a phone book in which did not contain relator's prints,

concluding that with the State not being able to present evidence in

this case, confirms that if relator did not confess to particulars of

the crime in the illegal taken statement, the State only.Verbalized it

in trial for slandering purposes which had an impact on the jury's

verdict, further confirming that with inconclusive DNA Testing results,

the illegal taken statement was over 90% of relator's conviction, and

with relator's ability to prove the statement was illegally taken

beyond a reasonable doubt confirms that there was no evidence in which

would have convicted relator. See A11achment_,"E^ where the State relied

solely on the illegal taken statement and the DeGarmo Doctrine, but now

that the court of criminal appeals has completely overruled the DeGarmo

Doctrine (Jacobson v. State,398 S^W^gd 195 (Tex^CrimvA^2^2013)) and is

to be applied retroactively according to West's Texas Digest 2d[100(l)

Courts] as the Law of Case Doctrine applies to this case 26185 as well

(Lindquist v. City of Pasadena Texas 669 F.3d 225) , relator is now able to present the entire initial police investigation of this case,

supported by the investigating record to expose all the Constitutional,

Substantial, and Procedural errors and violations that took place in

the initial police investigating parts of this case 2618 5.

-5- III.

According to Evidence_75: As a general rule, a party's failure to produce evidence within it's control raises the presumption that, if produced.it would operate against him. With the State not being able to present the evidence in this case, confirms that woithout the illegal taken statement, there is not any physical or biological evidence, nor was there ever any to support convicting relator, and with the State not being able to present evidence in this case, it forces the State to make a determination of whether the State wants to attempt to prove the statement that was

admitted into evidence was legally taken, or to grant relator relief of time-served and avoid reversal proceedings.

I05_§IAT^MtNT_WAS_ILLEGALLY_TAKEN

[PLEASE SEE INVESTIGATING RECORD ATTACHED TO RELATOR'S WRIT OF MANDAMUS : APPELLATECASE N0.01-15-00535-CR]

In the initial police investigation, constitutional, substantial, and procedural rights were violated and affected. The investigating record in this case 26185 reflects that the police officers visited the child numerous times although he was classified only as a witness,questioning and interrogating him about a criminal act, never informing him of his 5th Amendment right of having his parents present before and during the interrogation/questioning which is a due process violation under the 14th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution, as well as a parental notification requirement violation. Moran_v_;__Burbinex475_U_1S_L412x432A 1215 £ol£rado_v^_Conne 11£X479_U^S^157zl^; MirandaA384JKS±at_426^444± andat 479 ; IK S±_v±_Uashington, 431 U._ S.a^t_18 5; Mi1ler_vx_l£H1i*j±11 U.S. 104,_109^106 ; Mi ncejr_Vx_Ar iz on a_, 437 U.S.38 5xj8 ; Brown_y_;._M is si-

-6- ssiE£ixi21_Hi2j.2 78A56; IKS^v^ Villegas 404 F.3_d_35_5 ; 0reg_on_v_;_E 1stadA 47 0 U.S. at 371.

The investigating record also reflects that multiple times the police officers visited the victim parents at their home which was right next

door to where the witness lived, but instead of the police officers

going to the witness home where his parents would be present, the police officers waited until the child was at school to quest ion/interrogate him in a office alone during school hours avoiding parental interference

which is a due process Violation and police coercive conduct. The police never notified the child's parents of their questioning/interrogating the child at school, the child was being interrogated without the

informance, notification, or consent of his parents which affected substantial rights, pursuant to Fed££alwRules_o^_Crj.mi^ establishing that these plain errors were prejudicial. (I11ihois^v^ PerkinsA_496_U^S^292A297_£1990).

These violations and errors in the initial police investigation in this case 26185 led to the child being arrested from school with no evidence making the arrest illegal. The officers continued to violate due process rights and affect substantial rights, committing plain errors that were prejudicial by failing to inform the child's parents that the child had been arrested and why, and in failing to do so violat£s_Family__C^de_Ann, 52.02(b). The investigating record in this case reflects that the child was arrested at 1100 hours and the child's parents were notified at

1607 hours, making that a five hour and seven minute delay, which is a XJ£l*Il££_£l-gilllX-9°de 52 •-°-1&1 and due process right violation as well. jKS^v^ Givosky-Garibay.x_176_F^Supjg_21_102' IH-I^C^R±±995_S^Wx2d II2_illij.A££j.Z^Austin_1999); Gonzale s_v_1_Sit ate±_9 _Sj.Wx21_1£I_iA££Ai_ Dist. 1999);Ljjjtatex_993_S^2 d_6 50x6 55^56^Tex^CrimiA2.P.il999).

-7- The State statue requires that a child's parents must be promptly told

that the child has been arrested and why and reuires more than just

a phone call. Inre C.R.,995 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.App.--Augtin). In that five hour and seven minute delay, the coercive police conduct continued

as the police took the child out of the county the crime occurred which was in Fort Bend County, to another county (Harris County), acting

without legal authority, lodging the child into a facility that was

not approved by the Fort Bend County Juvenile Court and extracted a

statement/confession from the child, making the statement/confession illegal and inadmissible by law violating Vernon's Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art.38.23..Wilsonv^State,311 S.W.3d at 458-5 9;

Smith v. State±165_S^W^3d_361 _(_Cr±A^P-iJQ21) > Mi2J._Xi_1£2.£_ILi_2•£Ii£f.Xa 143__F^3d_534-539 (9th Cir.1998), but there was no evidence against relator, so although the statement/confession was taken illegally,

that was all the State had so it was secured, admitted into evidence,

and used to convict relator and sentenced him to fifty years in prison.

2£SiEl££_Xi_2ia1s.±2i _2±1±22_221_Lh2.L±2_2i 11^2221) •

in.

After the child was certified, the investigating record in this case

which proves the violations and errors that occurred in the initial police investigation was sealed by the Fort Bend County Juvenile Court in purpose to hide these violations and errors, which has been hidden for over twenty years. Relator had no knowledge that the investigating record in this case 26122 had been sealed, but relator was recently able to gain possession of the investigating record in this case establishing "Affirmative Evidence of Relator's Innocence" entitling him to a live evidentiary hearing Ex_£arte Frankl in ,_7 2_S^W^3d_6 7_1^6 78 (Tex .Cr im .Appj.2002 ); Exparte Tuley,109 S._ W^3d_3 88_^Tex^Cr im^A^^OO^),

-8- but the State has lost the evidence in this case 26185. Either the State

failed to disclose this favorable evidence to the defense Br a dy y.

Maryland,373 U.S. 83 (1963); Ex_£art e Ad am s,768 S.W. 2d 281 (Tex^C.rim, A£ExI222)' Ujilte^S^ate^v^Bagley, A73 u'S^_6 67xfr7J[_Xl985); Ex_£arte Cg.12g.££S—222. S.W. 3d 64 (Texj_Crim^A££y2 010 ), or the District Court Appointed Counsel Gary M.Faden ignored and neglected the violations and errors that are clear in the investigating record when appointed to

this case. Either way, now that the court of criminal appeals has

completely overruled the doctrine in which this case was under the authority of (The DeGarmo Doctrine) Jacobson v. _StateJ_39 8_;SxW^-2-122

lle.£j.2ljg.iA££j.2012) and relator has gained possession of the investigating record in this case, relator is now able to present the entire investigating record along with all the violations and errors

that occurred in the initial police investigation of this case 26185.

CLOSING

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

The statement/confession that was illegally taken and admitted into

evidence and used to convict relator, making that illegally taken

statement over 90% of relator's conviction is proven beyond a

reasonable doubt by way of the investigating record in this ease, along

with support by State, Federal, and Supreme court cases. Flores_v^_

Stat e_j__8 24_SxWx2 d_7 04 . With relator proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement that

was secured and used to convict relator was illegally taken and by law

was inadmissible results to the actual evidence the State claimed to

have had against relator. It has been proven that DNA test results were inconclusive, with no match according to the official court

reporter's record in this case which requires for the evidence against

-9- relator to be presented to justify his convict ion.Please see the

1.) Without the illegal taken statement... 2.) With the official court reporter's record reflecting that DNA test results were inconclusive,with no match...

3.) With the various parties who submitted their court order affidavits stating that they have no knowledge of where the evidence in this case is located and no personal

recollection of this case...

4.) With the State not being able to present the evidence in this case . ..

There is no support of relator being convicted and sentenced to fifty

years in prison. The State may attempt to redirect the court's

attention as to how guilty relator was in trial reflection but no where

is there mentioning of the initial police investigation and this is why

the statement carried so much weight. The State had no other evidence

against relator other than the illegal taken statement, but again,

after relator was cert ified,the investigating record in this case Was

sealed so the State either failed to disclose this particular evidence

to the defense which is favorable evidence, or the District Court

Appointed Counsel Gary M.Faden ignored and neglected the clear and

obvious violations and errors that would have resulted this case by law

differently. Relator has spent the last twenty-one years in prison with

the State hiding the investigating record that exposes violations and

errors that would have resulted this case differently. Fortunately,

relator gained possession of the investigating record and fortunately,

the court of criminal appeals completely overruled the DeGarmo Doctrine

enabling relator to present these particular violations and errors the

State hid for so many years. Now that relator is presenting the

-10- investigating record proving violations and errors that occurred in the

initial police investigation in this case 26185, "ironically" the State

has committed aggravated perjury, can not locate the evidence, and

refusing to directly address the designating issues in this case that

occurred in the initial police investigation. According to Tex .R.App.

Proc *44.2(a2 _Const itut ional Error: If the Appellate Record in a Criminal Case reveals Constitutional error that is subject to harmless error

review, the court of appeals must reverse a Judgement of Conviction or

punishment unless the court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that

the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment. Ex_£arte

Thom£so.n_l 53^SvW^3d_416 ; Leday v. State 983 _S jW^ldat,?^; Harrison_v^ U^Sii_3 92_U_1S_1_219 .

Not only did these violations and errors that occurred in the initial

police investigation contribute to the conviction and punishment, but

the State hid these violations and errors for over 20 years by sealing

the record that expose these violations and errors in Juvenile

Proceedings, never disclosing the favorable evidence (With-holding

Evidence) to the defense, tainting the integrity of the Justice System

resulting to unfair proceedings, unfair trial, reversable error, taking

away twenty-one years of relator's life.

Due to all the facts and the official record in this case now being

presented, relator request that this Honorable Court reverse this case and grant relator the relief in which he is Constitutionally entitled

to. Relator request to be bench-warranted to Fort Bend County if

necessary and immediately released from the Texas Department of

Corrections, vacating his sentence and charge.

Executed on this 8th day of September,2015. mitted.

13.L? #728196

-11- PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator, Jason T. Pegues #728196, respectfully prays that this Honorable Court take into consideration all of the facts in this Motion and grant relator the relief in which he is Constitutionally entitled to.

Executed on this 8th day of Se£tember ,2015_•

Submitted,

s #728196 Relator

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Jason TAjPegues #728196, relator, being presently confined in Walker County, Texas, do hereby affirm that i have delivered the original of this Motion to Enforce Judgement/For Actual Issuance of Relator's Writ of Mandamus to the prison mailroom officials for delivery to the following via U.S.Postal service:

CLERK OF THE COURT: CHRISTOPHER A.PRINE

COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST DISTRICT 301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

SIGNED ON.fJp^^^Fj^ ^GNATURE70E--RELAT0R ^

INMATE DECLARATION

1»2al££_li_2e.l££l_£Z22I22> presently incarcerated in Walker County, Texas, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury tha the above and all that is mentioned in this Motion to enforce Judgement/for actual issuance of relator's writ of mandamus is true and correct.

Signed on this 8th, day of Se£tember,2015

3^22^% TAS0N T. PEGUES #728196 RELATOR:

cc/file

-12- ATTACHMENT

EVIDENCE h

CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026185

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § vs- § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, by and through its district attorney, files this State's Answer to Motion for Forensic DNA testing and would show the following:

1. On July 20, 1994, Jason Tyrone Pegues (Movant) was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault ofa child, and sentenced to 50 years inthe Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. He has now filed a Motion for DNA testing.

2. Pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.02, the State not later than the 60 day after the date the motion is served on the attorney representing the state shall: (A) deliver the evidence to the court, along with a description of the condition of the evidence; or (B) explain in writing to the court why the state cannot deliver the evidence to the court.

3. The State would respectfully request an extension of time to file its response.

4. This is the State's first request for extension of time in this case. 5. The undersigned is one of three attorneys responsible for all appellate matters for the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office and is involved in the preparation of other direct appeal briefs or post conviction writs.

6. The State is in the process of obtaining affidavits regarding the 4

location of the evidence to assist the Court in determining whether to order forensic DNA testing in this case. 7. A realistic time that the State believes it could have its response filed in the present case is June 29, 2015. 8. Therefore, the State would request an extension of time until June 29, 2015, to file its response. If there is any way to complete the State's response before that date, the State will forward its response to the Court as soon as it is completed. 9. This extension is not sought for the purpose of delay.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays that this Honorable Court grant this motion and extend the deadline for filing the State's response in this case to June 29, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHNj.HARRITY,III ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY Fort Bend County, Texas State Bar Number 09133100 301 Jackson Street, Room 101 Richmond, Texas 77469 Phone:(281)341-4460 Fax: (281) 238-3340 John.Harrity@fortbendcountytx.gov CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been sent to Jason Tyrone Pegues, Huntsville Unit, 815 12th Street, Huntsville, Texas 77348 on the date of the filing of the original with the Clerk of this Court.

Mattie Sanford

Certificate of Compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(0(3)

In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I, John Harrity, hereby certify that tine foregoing electronically created document has been reviewed by the word count function of the creating computer program, and has been found to be in compliance with the requisite word count requirement in that its word count with regard to those portions of the brief subject to the word count requirement is 556 words.

John Harrity CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026185

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § VS. § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON STATE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING

On this date, the Court considered the State's Motion for Extension of Time to File its Response to Defendant's Motion for DNA Testing. After due consideration, the State's Motion is GRANTED. The deadline for the State's Response is now extended to the June 29, 2015.

Signed this day of , 2015.

Hon. Thomas R. Culver, III Presiding Judge, 240th District Court ATTACHMENT

EVIDENCE M-DCR-02B186 ' ORDER Order 3647064

THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § VS. § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS ' § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON STATE'S MOTION TO ENTER ORDERS SO THAT THE STATE MAY RESPOND TQTHE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING

On this date, the Court considered the State's 'Motion to Enter Orders so that the State may Respond to the Defendant's Motion for Forensic DNA Testing". In order for this Court to make the findings required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64 this Court hereby ORDERS:

1. Former Assistant District Attorney, James Sidney Crowley is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of his affidavit within 30 days of this ORDER with the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing his recollection, if any, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence in this case, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same;

2. Former Assistant District Attorney,Teana Watson is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of her affidavit within 30 days of this ORDER with the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing her recollection, if any, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same. 3. Court Reporter Lorie Crawford is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of her affidavit within 30 days of this ORDER with the Fort Bend

ROUTEDTOOOURT «• «* ^ RT'D TOD. CLERK /"H^U . I County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing her recollection, if any, regarding her receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial to date. 4. A representative from the Houston Police Department's Crime Laboratory is ORDERED within 45 days of this ORDER to file an original and three copies of his or her affidavit with the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing their recollection, if any, in HPD Case # 140481893 or 140481893B and LAB#L94-159, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, the knife handle and telephone book along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial in 1995 to date.

Further a representative from the Houston Police Department's Crime Laboratory shall state in their affidavit: (1) Whether the evidence recovered in the case still exists; (2) If the evidence still exists, is it in a condition that makes DNA testing possible; (3) Whether the evidence has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to preclude the possibility of substitution, tampering, replacement, or material alterations; (4) whether the evidence in this case was previously subjected to DNA testing and (5) If the evidence was previously subjected to DNA testing, are there newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the previous test.

In making this determination this Court ORDERS that a representative from the Houston Police Department's Crime Laboratory make necessary arrangements or seek further orders from this Court to have the evidence that is not presently in their possession delivered to their lab from anyone currently in possession of the evidence.

If any evidence is missing or has been destroyed relating to the present case the affidavit shall state the date of destruction or an explanation on why the exhibits can no longer be located and the approximate date of their loss.

5. Courtney Head, Martin Lopez, and/or a representative from the Houston Forensic Science Center is ORDERED within 45 days of this ORDER to the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing their recollection, if any, in HPD Case # 140481893 or 140481893B and LAB#L94-159, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, the knife handle and telephone book along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial to date.

Further, Courtney Head, Martin Lopez, and/or a representative from the Houston Forensic Science Center shall state in their affidavit(s): (1) Whether the evidence recovered in the case still exists; (2) If the evidence still exists, is it in a condition that makes DNA testing possible; (3) Whether the evidence has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to preclude the possibility of substitution, tampering, replacement, or material alterations; (4) whether the evidence in this case was previously subjected to DNA testing and (5) If the evidence was previously subjected to DNA testing, are there newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the previous test.

In making this determination this Court ORDERS that Courtney Head, Martin Lopez, and/or a representative from the Houston Forensic Science Center make necessary arrangements or seek the assistance of the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office to obtain additional orders from this Court to have the evidence that is not presently in their possession delivered from anyone currently in possession of the evidence to their lab.

If any evidence is missing or has been destroyed relating to the present case the affidavit(s) from Courtney Head, or a representative from the Houston Forensic Science Center shall state the date of destruction or an explanation on why the exhibits can no longer be located and the approximate date of their loss.

6. A representative from the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of an affidavit specifically addressing regarding his recollection, if any, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial to date.

The affidavit shall also state whether any exhibits are missing or have been destroyed relating to the present case. If any of the above named items are missing or destroyed, to state the date ofthe loss or destruction.

It is further ORDERED that the affidavits ordered above should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to make findings of fact.

The Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office shall make copies of the court reporter's record and photocopies ofthe exhibits admitted during trial and the offense report available to any of the Affiants named above that have been ordered to provide affidavits upon their request for the same.

Upon receipt of these affidavits, the District Clerk shall immediately mail a copy to Applicant and the Appellate Division of the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office.

The State will have 30 days following the date that it receives all of the affidavits listed above or 60 days from the date of this order, whichever is later to: (A) deliver the evidence to the courts along with a description ofthe condition of the evidence; or (B) explain in writing to the Court why the state cannot deliver the evidence to the Court.

The clerk of the Court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to Jason Tyrone Pegues and to the Appellate Division ofthe Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office.

Signed tfesyfc? day ofJa >U^g_ 2015.

Hon. Thomas R. Culver, III ' Presiding Judge, 240th District Court

FILED ?0!5JUN2U PM Is 1*7

* CLEBK DISTRICT COURT &• Tort rfmh r.n. rx ATTACHMENT

"C"

EVIDENCE ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT

DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas

(281)341-4516 Fax (281)341-4519

July 20, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

Dear Mr. Harrity:

Please find enclosed the following:

AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY LORAINE CRAWFORD.

DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT Fort BenckCounty, Texas

vru Deputy District Clerk Lisa Tucker \La^ JUL 20 2015 Telephone: (281) 341-4516

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 815 12th Street Huntsville Tx 77348

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

Received By Fort Bend County District Attorney:

Print »• QfijioJ^ 7 hhs MAILING PHYSICAL 301 Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov Departments - District Clerk Cause No. 94-DCR-026185

THE STATE OF TEXAS * IN THE DISTRICT COURT

VS. * FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

JASON TYRONE PEGUES * 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF TEXAS )

COUNTY OF ROCKWALL ) AFFIDAVIT

LLoraihe Crawford, was the Official Court Reporter for the 240th District Court ofthe State of Texas from 1991 until March of2008. I now reside in Fate, Rockwall County, Texas. Ihave avague recollection ofreporting in the case ofState vs. Pegues, but Ihave no specific recollection ofthe case, nor ofthe exhibits offered and/or admitted into evidence. However, I do remember mat itwas the policy and procedure ofthe court reporters in Fort Bend County to keep exhibits during atrial or hearing until the proceeding was concluded. At that time, it was the court reporter's responsibility to log the exhibits and then to submit the exhibits and the log to the District Clerk. Iam certain Ifollowed that procedure, and there should be an original copy ofthe log in the Court's file. That is all Iremember about mis specific case. It is also possible another court reporter reported ahearing or trial in this case. Itwas Judge Culver's policy to make anotation on the left margin ofthe docket sheet "reported" ifIwas the court reporter for the case. Ifthere was asubstitute court reporter, it was his policy to mark "reported by..." with the name ofthe court reporter who reported that day. I have relinquished my certification as acourt reporter in the State ofTexas afew years after I retired in 2008.

Dated this the jiL day ofJuly, 2015,

LoraineCrawfordyCSRNo. 1365 460 Price Drive Rockwall, Texas 75087 (972) 567-2505 CLLorieLu70l@AOL.com FILED SSI5JUU6 mm it

clerk: ejSTfiicr zmm FOR? BtK'DCO.. T.X Silvia Guevara ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas

(281)341-4516 Fax(281) 341-4519

July 24, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's AppealAttorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

Dear Mr. Harrity: *

AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY LORI WILSON AND COURTNEY HEAD.

DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT Fort BendfCounty, Texas By: MAj/ffi, .\n 0\iD^ Deputy District Clerk Lisa Tucker OFFttfc Telephone: (281)341-4516

CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 815 12th Street Huntsville Tx 77348

Received By Fort Bend County Disjtn'ct Attorney

j nature Signature . / y

Print Name

7/77//Z MAILING PHYSICAL 301 Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fdrtbendcountytx.gov Departments - District Clerk M-OCR-028185 AFFI Affidavit

CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026158

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 240th DISTRICT COURT

vs. §

JASON TYRONE PEGUES § OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF LORI WILSON

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Lori Wilson, who, after being duly sworn, stated as follows:

"My name is Lori Wilson. I am of sound mind, over the age of 18 years, and competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Affidavit.

"I am employed by Houston Forensic Science Center, Inc., a local government corporation that operates as the Houston Forensic Science Center ('HFSC' or the 'Center'). I am the Center's Quality Director. On April 3, 2014, HFSC assumed responsibility for substantially all forensic operations of the City of Houston, including the forensic laboratory formerly known as the HPD Crime Lab.

"HFSC has authorized me to execute this Affidavit in response to the 'Order on State's Motion to Enter Orders so that the State May Respond to the Defendant's Motion for Forensic Data Testing' (the 'Order") issued on June 26, 2015, by the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, in connection with the captioned proceeding.

"The Center does not possess any policies regarding the destruction or disposal of the evidence described in the Order.

"The Center has no knowledge of, or records or things pertaining to, the evidence described in the Order, other than as described in the Affidavit of Courtney Head, which Affidavit was executed on July 17, 2015, in connection with the captioned proceeding."

'vhc 7/?L Lori Wilson

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the _G^day of M\J™ 2015.

LAURA MAYOR NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OFTEXAS MY COMM. EXP ft/91/17§ Solo Page 44-OCR-02618G AFFI Affidavit 3885680

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 240th DISTRICT COURT

AFFIDAVIT OF COURTNEY HEAD

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Courtney Head, who, after being duly sworn, stated as follows:

"My name is Courtney Head. I am of sound mind, over the age of 18 years, and competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Affidavit.

"I am employed by the City of Houston and assigned to the Forensic Analysis Division of the Houston Forensic Science Center. My current job title is Criminalist Specialist/Supervisor - Forensic Biology, and I have been in my current role since January 4, 2010.

"On April 3, 2014, Houston Forensic Science Center, Inc., which operates as Houston Forensic Science Center (the 'Center"), assumed responsibility for substantially all forensic operations of the City of Houston, including the forensic laboratory formerly known as the HPD Crime Lab.

"I am executing this Affidavit in response to the 'Order on State's Motion to Enter Orders so that the State May Respond to the Defendant's Motion for Forensic Data Testing' (the 'Order") issued on June 26, 2015, by the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas in connection with the captioned proceeding (the 'Case').

"My only 'recollection' regarding 'HPD Case # 140481893 or 140481893B and LAB#L94-159' arises from the following items and documents currently in the Center's possession:

1. A plastic bag containing an index card to which a square piece of gauze is attached. The square of gauze (approximately 2" x 2") appears to have a reddish brown stain located in the center. 'L94-159' has been marked on the index card.

2. A flip-top tube containing a small piece of gauze (also located in the plastic bag noted above containing the index card). 194-159' has been marked on the tube. 3. Twenty-four pages of documents, accurate copies of which are attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 'A.'

"I have not opened the plastic bag or the tube described above.

"Other than the items and documents described above, I have no personal knowledge regarding the current existence of evidence recovered in connection with the Case. The piece ofgauze described above may be in a condition that makes DNA testing possible. "I have no personal knowledge regarding the chain of custody of the plastic bag or the tube described above or whether evidence in the Case previously has been subjected to DNA testing. "If evidence in the Case previously was subjected to DNA testing, newer testing techniques may be available that provide more accurate results than previous testing, depending when the previous testing was conducted.

"I have no personal knowledge of the present whereabouts of evidence related to the Case other than the items and documents described above.

"I have no personal knowledge that evidence related to the Case is missing or has been destroyed.

"I understand that Lori Wilson, another employee of the Center, also is executing an Affidavit in response to the Order. To the best of my knowledge, no other person employed ormanaged by the Center has information related to the Case that is different from the facts stated in this Affidavit and in Ms. Wilson's Affidavit."

Courtne

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the \i day ofOW 2015.

LAURA MAYOR NOTARY PUBLIC : STATE OF TEXAS . ate of Texas MYCQMM.EXP.8/21/17J CO

ij23 Olr- c83 Q I. V; o !-C • m > UJ CI —

C£f 0) ZJ © CM ,S1:> a

LJL &> 8U8P@8!i$ CHARGES FE£P-CAUSE NO. o

MttJfflafcg"** ^ ^ *L ll SIMM ao»*r GHlra race 8BX< onto** B58B2SSSTSSS5XSan ST* Tor MT O StefeM BOB RACE COMPLAiWTfS) orrBm A&J&lJUBZ. cury ^Egg^gggtg^ fa^ * *W sec INCtOENTNa hQtj$IJfi% NAMSOfeX, Md«» MM ft La*} DOB DATE OF OFFENSE /J?-Jgg- ?3 RACE tax DATgauaMirrFP Jr-ff-^V DOB RACE SEX

LOCATION OF OFFENSE /$&Q^ U2uaOJL&-jEULlAJL 3

LIST EVIDENCE 8UBMnTED.AND FROM WHOM OR WHERERECOVERED. U124J0M y w&iHL lip^sjcw* TIEm&L

SUGGESTIONS ABOUT EXAMINATION OR ANALYSIS - COMMENTS ABOUT CASE Z&J3Z *?•&&.. W rp*S>, fO^iwfr^ftr €>f L£JAlAL-^LJ^^^lLL. (PtaaM Print) SUBMfmNG OFFICER tetoHWaLnQ KAME/Ftel MkfcBe WBaU Uafi . CLAsancA-npN CLASSIFICATION VnpH LMPmvEE mo IMPLOYEENO. nmnw«u< CManwsHrr FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY

RECDBY £M .iff &tafc T <&t$*' RECD FROM VjA'"! . T /V~ m C.CP *&L *T PLACE RECD iJ& w —• J-

::'/-;*ic DATE RECD m. £i S-MM a-ss^f DAY OF WEEK % wL A, X* t TUao "Tvo* TIME RECD JM t- i 3cqrn M 4-30w UCR NUMBER Oc2 POfBM NO. HPDOOOie *\ I" " w MWi?

9ft «KVS• rf-VWaw*'

; v:»*P£^*?Ww:*^,B'*-:!,- .. y>^--•*•«//'•*< : k..:.U-:-.-.: Sf^.i, •*fsRi. otm^riMm ts ess? l\&m *$:&.-.

•8»J8S9W»aSB*BBBpii VI / 8aa& sais Fafeio Hair 3. Ot&ar . <&ac

IUdd gpaeiga«««

Bleed Saliva iif? lltl ff| IIMIHI Otibar (Specify}

0^ C%« ^v eg 8B&3«8fc)

l^^

7(

(Assignsant) (Data)

S*v?vii

£ « • HOUSTO* MlW^i«BtfUfiiMt ' •'•-.* V "'• ^ii^^l^l^ OFFENSE REPORT Incident no. .*4W8*W:*- .,-J '«miiiiiMtiiri«w»«»««2jy *• »»*«*•*»* MM**"**1*

SUPPlgSENT(S) L>T* *

No-0005 )f*^» Dffenee- SEXUAL ASSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTINO INSTRUMENT Street Ideation information Number- 16603 "ama-WIHTER 8RXAR Typa- Suffix- Apt no- Name-16603 TypQ- Suffix- Date of offenBe-12/28/93 Data of eupplewent-0l/0.v/9« Compl(s) Leet-SINBLETON First-MARTHA Middle- Last- Reeovered stolen vehicles information Stored- by- PM- 1&00) 000-0000 Offloerl-S.J. ANDERSON Empf-067721 Snift-i Olv/StetlonOUV SUPPLEMENT NARRATIVE

THIS SUPPLEMENT IS 6LIN6 6ENERATE0 IN ORDER TO REQUEST THAT THE HPD CRIME LAB ANALYZE THE RAPE KIT AND THE COMPLAINANT'S CLOTHING, THAT ARC TAGGED UNDER THIS CASE NUMBER IN THE HPO CRIME LAB, FOR EVIDENCE OF A SEXUAl ASSAULT

Supplement entered by » 67 7?i

END OF PAGE TWO MlaBBtftVitf ,'j> ^ it2

vQPWBBC

iMW'Owi'iQ HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY DIVISION TEMPORARY RELEASE OF PROPERTY P^CEIPT V\ TAG NO. 6*CX DAY OF WEEK mt l CASE WO. i tl '\i\ n*TE .' ~ fs"*°H I, fcttr't C-it^Ur assigned to the .-'I

Division,hereby,certify that : hav° r*' hi? below listed property from the property Division for the purpose f: : ABORATORY ANALYSIS COURT APPEARAN-rE

mOPEBTf OH COURT —OBW MUST BE ttETimKED••.-OPFRI^ ITEM^ NO. OR DSSCR;Pri.OV ™ ' ,;'•' • ««**»•> °**f t ROOM liwoit-fc

OFFICER RKCSJVJNO, !»HiP'\r." « EMPLOYEE NO. j^j&li^ "EMPLOYEE no. ' ->'•• PROPERTY flFHlCKK_p _„*_...

THIS SECT?OK IJ-H> r' ••\:*'r TO COURTS

BVIOKNCK KEPT l«Y OVHT:

i-ni'»T ON lECFJVKO HV DATE

SI ON A ru P F. O P HH' F '• « ! ?«•

v ,n •woi'KPry room this sgrtJon. mvf r> • • .v i- :»ipt has I. rrfjm Of!

.'•O'.'RT RECEIPT ALL PR<»PKRT> • - ••: \'C.

•nun sm,;>;<-\ .V/vMORY RKCEJPT r :M« .\*0.

.V'H-TK ."»»*-\ •n?"h si'Y ROOM. PINK COPY OFFICER)

Fp-T \.j HP-. HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT , KSii;;-;'

SUPPLENENT(S) 3^9"3^-H ( ~ N°-0019 Offense- SEXUAL ASSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTIN6 INSTRUMENT FdrttW -, » Street location information OftkCplCA-' Number- 16603 Name-WINTER BRIAR Type- Suffix- v» •*-\ Apt no-* Name-16603 Type- S*J*J*,*~ __ _ Date of offanee-12/28/93 Bate of ruoplement-09/28/94 Compl(e) Laet-SINSLETON First-NARTHA Middle- Laat- . * *. Recovered stolen vehicles Information d by_ Ph*- (000) 000-0000 Officori-KIM fcp#-0B91S4 Shift- OW/Stacton-CRIMF. LAB SUPPLEMENT NARRATIVE

REFi L94-159

SUSPECT: OASON TYRONE PEGUES ON MARCH 3.1994 THF FOLLOWING ITEX* WF.R: WB« I *" ThI ..AeORATORYs ONE VIAL OF BLOOD.SALIVA AND H»I«S *A-e3* -'."..^*» mu^ PEGUES ON MARCH 23.19.94 THE FOU OWING ITCH WAS TfANSFF«*FS *0 e.TMTJNPSON FOR DNA ANALYSTSt A PORTION OF FROM JASON "YRONE PSS'JcS THE REMAINING EVIDENCE HAVE SEi» ?.3«ITTE; »ta .rf* =.•••• E«r»* BOON.

Supplement entered by ••« SCfiOA Oate cleared- 03/0*5 o«

"V \Y y'V, \ e 0) \ 1

\ h0 1

1 AAoaisl^M JL%ik^l>%^Ug%t j^pejjj^fafl.flfrldciice Record »**•. '•«' •1 g Number nft

HorkedBy A>/,y BmpjM^£ i&iDhfoton A//iB^Or\fi*^|0(B^tWtwc^44i; DivbiDm/>>/>.ii-/ Ajjj enae B£E idartTyper EvM^Pbuad |Wf SafeKeeping (fall) Eli Invert pij|Property Officer's Sign. &Brop.* ^Sv^-^ n

Bar f^ode Sticker DcseripHSon CQaanglty, Make »Mnde8, Serial t, AmyDamage, etc.)

>£&GS ;->?Mir^ sfoii IM J U J — Investigative Division

Dale Sent i£'5-cY^ Dale Property Tagged,

The property listed oa the reverse side was authorized by your Division to be lagged in the Property Room. Disposition Information isrequired bythe Property Division. ^

(cSoXtoo-o^°f*'Pr0,Wrty,d"e'^SiS°' ™'f0m MUST*retun>edl0**Propwt,r*°°mw,*h,eq(1P)** Hold for Cotirt Case Defendants Name 6. Release to Owner (or Authorized Person) Owner's Name Charge Filed it Filed In Date &Time Notified to Reclaim Property! Hold for>r runner further Investigation: investigation: Signaruire oWnv^jaatrMShift Commander ^/k9 , ♦ Method of Notification;

Required MutAA 7. Dispose of as Authorized byCity Ordinance 3. Hold for possible Surely or Indemnity Bond Agreement. (thr only afittAt proptny b no longer ttttdedm nUtnee orfor investigation, ond at! rmnobk iffotu Typeof Bond Required: to At rtlum At property toAt owmrhot beene* Person must be advised that he has 30 days to baustS byAt InvetttgoUve BMrfwy* secure bond and retreive property. Name of person to whom release was refused: 8. Transfer of Responsibility: Division transferred to: Date &Tims notified that property would be Authorized by: '. _____ returned: (NOmAmhet&ng Pino* MUSTbt issfgntito DivtHou Accepting Tnvaftt tfJt«p»riW%/ •Method of Notification 9. Destroy Property as Ordered byCourt: 4. Hold for Property Hearing: (Court Otdertfor obstruction ofproperty to bt kept on Hearing Date: JtttbyAt hmUgMiwDivitim).

5. Photograph & Release to Owner: Dale &Time Noiified to Reclaim Property: »Method ofNotification: Indicate if in person, by •Method of Notification phone, or by mail, (If property value is$200 or more, mail must becertified, return receipt). Return address on envelope should include the 'Hote: Imvsiigaior is responsiblefor photo- (_y V Division and Investigator's Name.. graphingproperty BEFORE it is released to osner).

^ K;

j\ -Mi' Number \A(Vfe 1K{ jO Date Tagged A>F>-12 *v~ *\\ |ime_ I3L& § — —.

. . i

n't-rr',' i*'y . .

L-inii as; i .. i ... ., rij, f nwtto S|i__ «>>sT . . . . if : Vrrffa Officer's Name _£2t£ ft^h Division mse 'TO •Si Ck^cM11 ^caUo« IffiftS tog-ife^ Officer's Signature & BnipJ Type: EvIdL>

Date Sent ^y fl 5 1TO5 9 Date Property Tagged. _Tag Number

I. Hold for Court Case Defendants Name 6. Release to Owner (or Authorized Person) Charge Filed __^_ Owner's Name •. Court Filed In Date &Time Notified to Reclaim Property: 2. Hold for further Investigation: 'Method of Notification? Signature of Investigative Shift Commander Required .__ _^ 3. Hold for possible Surety or Indemnity 7. Dispose ofas Authorized by City Ordinance Bond Agreement (Useonlyafter Atproperty h no longer******** Type of Bond Required: evidence orfirInvestigation, andoB monebte efforts toAt return At property toAt owner hot been e» Person must be advised that he baa 30 days to homtdbyA*investigative DhMon} secure bond and relreive property. Name of person to whom release was refused: Transfer of Respoosibi Division transferred to: Date &Time notified that property would be Authorized by: returned: (WW Authoring Person MVSTbe outgnedto *Method of Notification DitMon Accepting trantjtt oftotsponeMtity)

9. Destroy Property as Ordered by Court: 4. Hold for Property Hearing: (Conn Ordersfir destruction ofproperty to be kept on Hearing Date: file byAcbivesttgatin Division/.

5. Photograph & Release to Owner: Dale &Time Notified 10 Reclaim Property: • Method ofNotification: Indicate ifmperson, by • Method of Notification phone, or by mail, (If property value is$200 or more, mail must becertified, return receipt). Return address on envelope should Include (he •.Vote: Iitwxttgtuor is responsiblefor photo Dh Lsfon andInvestigator's Name.- graphing propertyBEFORE it is released to owner).

,**~ ~£j££± Da,e ' Signature ofInv#tigative Officer Employee Number Property Room Use Only Property Room Use Only Final Supervisory Review by: Letter Disposition Review by: Name Date Name Date • Ko. HPM001I - Uoiisioa Mke jjgggtoggHjj^^jy g*aj Evidence Rea»rd r»K«- I .«« | Ntmto MfTVlSl&MS ' ~j SlDateTagged &SJagj °\^J|iu.e Jp CA I 3.N94 5 »V 2 5 B95 9 -- ^ -•- vfwe* HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY DIVISION |j i TEMPORARY lyiruttAKX KSi,JSA3E RELEASE OF PROPERTY RECEIPT RECEIPT ay of WEEKj£^e#asL TAG m. SACf1,MCH jLlCfj CASE NO. \4QJgl6T3-g . • DATE 1HVT5" i. E> M* John^cQ >a<„n^ to the 6o(&uu^k gfe( ivision,hereby,certify that I have received the below listed property from the roperty Division, for the purpose oft

VgOURT APPEARANCE^ INVESTIGATION LABORATORY ANALYSIS PROPERTY OR COURT RECEIPT MOST BE RETURNED IN SEVEN (7) PAYS ITEM NO. OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY^ AS LiSTED ON P^PeRTy" ROoV TnTOcB*

OFFICER RECEIVING PROPERTY /y gj jffiNdft^ BMPI.OYRB NQ.C^^B^ PROPERTY OFFICER ft YHa^eL^/ . "~"~EMPLOYBg NOjoifrl/ THIS SECTION USED FOR RELEASE OF BVIDBNCB TO COURTS

EVIDENCE KEPT BY COURT;

RECEIVED BY /T. S ,Clftfltt/U/ IW 24&-f4l COURT OnjA^J^ print nrv jZTTT^ - »datei ^ SIGNATURE OF RECEIVING OFFICIAL/T^'K^LAft^ .^^j^P ftnSjfr'Pdn * THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF EVIDBNCg-TO PROPERTY ROOM

I,hereby,certify that all property signed out on this receipt has been satisfactorily cleared in the Property Division by return of; ALL PROPERTY , PARTIAL PROPERTY /COURT RECEIPT *} \TE /• /7' 7*> PROPERTY OFFICES ££ -\(ju*~ EMPLOYEE MO. Pf*?: THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF LABORATORY RECEIPT

OFFICER RETURNING LABORATORY RECEIPT^ . BMP. NO.. PROPERTY OFFICER RECEIVING RECEIPT 5MP.NO♦

DATE LABORATORY RECEIPT RECEIVED EVIDENCE KEPT IN LABORATORY;

.WHITE COPY ORIGINAL, YELLOW COPY PROPERTY ROOM, PINK COPY OFFICER) iiOUSttt ideiace Record" ' Efagj/ / Qf r

CompIJQwner j^feji ***&Ad i

. _____ p... . -/ r , -^ i*M -^°l , .._ ...c,..

,v......:. ..* >•••< ;*y v-:rz~""" £>ACG' day of ',•:::-:•; I/O vn 6AcJ" PTT XO.

' - 5= 94, fn'mr 6lo Di vis ien >V. ? r /t v, ••; -»;• •', .'•=-. ~S property fron the Proper~y ".".v 1 5iv- :"c <

C ••.••••:•"•••.:o?y ANALYSTST> PROP3FH : S!S*.,TS,.T :2t f . tit rUBNEC' UN 3"SV]SN<7) DAYS 73 ",. "**??g'g-» ' 'BBig: —*S -•..—.••><-• »i.'—«.• —»•»••••••• 1 mi .11 . - - 11 miiwin

racUi/A -VaSAyJ-r Iui4 ^CjmiL.*A

OF' "v'i r.XQl- -ZiVi- 0> 6~ fe_^ J^t^&* 2HPL0TEI NO.JMli .:<*•*. .'? COURTS

ZVaDE^;C:L .•

jATE •-. rr. >'

" ao.OM

-/ "iturn of;

J--*-' :OURT RECEIPT

Jl_j2t_LU^. fj-AHtis Mo&i&r r.rvi 0.1 ami

-: '•'• . jo .

'.. ••.="••! yfN-> COPY OFFICER) Houston Police Property Division J« Disposition Authorization /£ // Investigative Divisi tymviv hJfVJtvM 0.

Date SentMAR 29 ]m % s Date Property Tagged, _Tag Number,

The property listed onthereverse aide was authorized by your Division tobe tagged in the Property Room. Disposition in formation is required by the Property Division. Indicate the current status ofthe property, date, and sign. This form MUST be returned to the Property Room within ten (10) days. (General Order700*1)

1. Hold for Court Case 6. Release to Owner(orAuthorized Person) Defendants Name Owner's Name Charge Filed Date & Time Notifiedto Reclaim Property: Court Filed In

2. Hold for further Investigation^ * Method of Notifications

A Signature ofInrastiutive^SbM Commander Required %£ rY/&******* 7. Disposeofas Authorized by City Ordinance Hold for possible Surety or Indemnity (Use only after At property Is nolongerneeded'at Bond Agreement. evidence arjbrtitv^^wi, and f&mcaabU efforts Type of Bond Required: . to Ae return As property to At.omerhasbeet) «- Person must be advised that he has 30 days to housedby the Investigative Division) securebond and reireive property. Name of personto whom release was refused: 8. Transferof Responsibility: - Division transferred to: Date & Time notified that property would be Authorized by: returned: (NOTE; Authorising Person MUSTbe assigned to Division Accepting Tnmsftr ofPcsponsMtsy) 'Method of Notification 9. DestroyProperty asOrdered by Court: 4. Hold for Property Hearing: (Court Orders fir destruction efproperty to be kept* file by Ae bwestigativt Division), Hearing Dsie: 5. Photograph & Release to Owner: Date& Time Notified to Reclaim Property: / j* Method of Notification; Indicate if In person, by '..-•' I/ phone, orbymail. (Ifproperty value It$200 or • Method of Notification j/<' more, mail must be certified, return receipt). A - Return address on envelope should include the (Note; Investigator is responsiblefor photo Division and Investigator's Name,- graphing property BEFORE it is released to (' ; owner).

fc ; -<£ c < £Li£LJi£l d ±zL Date Signature of Investigative Officer Employee Number

Property Room Use Only Property RoomUse Only Final Supervisory Review by: LetterDisposition Review by;

Name Dale Name Date. Houston Police Property Division Disposition Authorization

Dale Scot ^J±m_\_ Dale Propctty Tagged Tag Number ^ g , /~ ' The property listed on the reverse side was authorial by >our Division lo be U«ej in U:e Property Room. Disposition irjorrns?:oo is required bythe Property Division, Iruficaie the cu„eir>UU,!us of the property, date, and sign. This htm NiUST he returned to the Properly Room within ten (10) days {General Order 700-H * "

1. Hold for Court Case Defendants Name 6. Release lo Owijer (or Authorited Person) Owner's Name Charge Filed _ Court FiK'd In Date * Time Notified lo Reclaim Properly: Hold for flrther Imesligslion: B* Signature of J«cstigatiy*&ffl Commander Method of Notification:

1. Dispose of as Authorized by City Ordinance 3. Hold for possible Surety or Indemnify Bond Agreement. (Ihr only after the property it no longer needed as e\idtnce orfor investigation, and oilrttenable efforts Type of Bond Required: to ikt return the property to the o*nerhas been «• Person must beadvised (hat he has 30 days lo kimtdby the Inrtulgalhr Division) secure bond and retreive property. Name of person to whom release was refused: 8, Transfer of Responsibility: Division transferred lo: Date &Tim; notified that property «ou!d be Authorized by; . nturned: tSVTZ; Avlhonjng Penen Ml'STbe *,'.'J-"wrf lo ul*s!in Aerepiing TVj/i.;.',/ ?f£t>f#n.-J<.::;iy) •Method of Noiifica ;.in 9. D«!;cy Piopert) a; ?>.:••. i -

5. Photograph & Release to Owner; Date & Time Notified to Reclaim Property:' ' , u ., , „,„,...*. ,. . ,, , - J * Melbod of Notification: Indicate if m person, by "McO,^dl7\rc7t'ifi'c;iic"rr " " 1M 17 1^95 Phone« w^ n,ail- •_ ^^^—-jrffjjrn address on envelcpe should include ihe \\>'e; In *s/>£,mr is rn-owbUfor photot " "^""""-"©ivivion and imfftig'iltafJp Nawe.- gropowg property BEFORE !t is released lo -wucr). ,

'->-?» H». OCKTQl | f, ... I • -" . • ' Houston Police Property Division Disposition Authorization invcsiiB,iive DivKJUVEWLiS SEX-CRIMi Date Sent_?Bl?J?*iDale.Property Tagged Jag Nuniber M/y

Se^7-f",0d°Vl!C ZT****? 'U.'h0ri"dby >0Ur Div'i,ion ,0*ta«*dia *< ?

I. Hold rot Court Case Defendants Name 6. Release to Owner (or Authorized Person) Owner's Name Charge Filed Court Filed In Date &Time Notified lo Reclaim Property: 2. Hold for fv nher Investij slion: ♦ .Method of Notification: X. Signature of Iweslitaliy^WJl Commander 7. Dispose of as Authorized by City Ordinance 3. Hold for possible Surely or indemnify Bond Agreement. ((he only after Atproperty it no longer neededas eiidenre orfor tmesilgolien, and oil itumahle efforts Type of Bond Required: to ike return the property to ike o**er ku been ex- Person roust be advised that he has 30 days to hoiutdby the Invtttigoth* Dinston) secure bond and relreive property. Name of person lo whom release was refused: 8, Transfer of Responsibility: Division transpired lo: Date & Tir.n notified that property would be Authorized by: returned: ISOTE: Auikorizir.f Pino* it VST be a-i^J to 2imkn Afttfi'.Kg 7***tftt .-/HuprtviSUry) MfihoJ of Nolificalk»q 9. Destroy Picpv'rt) a; 0- u:•.£ k-y ?.i;rt: 4. Hold for Property Hearing: 'Cun OiJtrtfor 4tstniel'nn offrrftrnlo be left an liesring Date: __ file b) Ae bnestigalixe Dintion). "St-f Photograph & Release to Oucer: Date &Time Notified to Reclaim Property: • Method ofNotification: Jndicale if in person, by * Method of Notification 'tliil <7 $95 p^one'or b) mai1, (lf Pr°Per,yvsIue ** wo° <>f more, mail must be certified, return receipt), 3Y~— i 3E?s Kiturn address on envelope .should include the l'.'-ve: Ls'ttiigaior is rt pen; Me for "photo-" "J"X"~~Division and In\e<»igolp>is F^me*- &raphh,s proper!) BEFORE ii is relraud to " /) >•>& 'y /? / _ _,

/y- > - '.->- =S e--*

Date A_,_,. jL.\d&&3k3tssx.. Signature of Investigative Officer Employee Number Property Room Use Only Property Room Use Only (J ••• i Firal Supervisory Review by: Le.'ter Disposition Review by: Name Sate N'ame Dstt r» •/••«. i-o-tM)»u DAY of ke£k \Mc3a^€^Ja.v-il TAG NO. 5AC.fiJfVj<:i|jd7s03 case vo. mmm-& r, 5. M- irteori

Division, hereby, siariiry thst " h.tv.» -."ce.'.v*: ;"-:-3 aalo-w listed property from the Property Division, Sot the ouroose c: ptsPdW*, i™-™- ! •'•--• •:'-1 ° «"'••'- a • - =*•-- -.-•*»« >^ i""V :.\30RAT03Y AXALYSIS PROPSRTY OR COIJRT RECEIPT MUST 3E AKTUBNED IN SEVEN (7) DAYS HEM SO. OR D2SC<~I'P?I'0:\ Or" 'P'-'O-'^RTsF US f/iS"-",7.D OM PROPSRTY ROOM JXYOICE

CoJrag^Gttiate| ZT-5T-3 7T^ ~— OFFICER PROPERTY REOEIVJVK? OFFICES .'^OPeiT • * Wm

THIS" SECTION USED FOE RELEASE OF EVIDENCE TO COURTS

'

RECEIVED BY . ... tN COURT ON PRINT DATE SIGNATURE OF RECEIVING OFFICIAL

''HIS SECTIO;; 0;iED FOR ^T'JR:--! OF EVIDENCE TO PROPERTY ROOM

..',.Jtrs'-oy, C2tT, :.r* t': ?': a„_ •:. ro;"K-;c';*' signec: -Hit on til is reeaipt has b?e.'i sat'.sfvC/jri! :'. -i',-, •; •$; •... . ,-i.e •" r z o.«s r fc v D.tvis.io.1 V/ laturn of;

.vLL PROPSRTY -/; :ai'; i"K'OPt:RTY f' COURT RECEIPT J •5AT"2 •• '/*/'. fi . ";vF'::-v ,•;•--•;• ;:,:. ^ -^i^— rfPUOYS-E TO. fVC?^ •"..(.IS. o.E.CXZXN USED FOR 3ETURN OF LABORATORY RECEIPT

: ;^: ;y;. K!?"h: •••.•• •. • .;- • - - ;;: j - - - _ ef-.p.v'o.

""C^F.-R-"- 0 .•••'••: • '-•' -••• '.- :..:;-:• :?'P."0.

" V7 •:' '. \,*:0«A'.' ' • • " "; ' "

V ' Dc'SCF ft.J* ::' V • ;:; i . '"»..'

•viTfrf! ' :;'-*•; •M1H,v:--\.. ;:..;.'. •••v,--' :'HApFRlY ROOM. PINK COPY OFFICER) -ni'- \'l ''ial'- n ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas

(281)341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

July 27, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY DEPUTY CLERK FROM THE DISTRICT CLERKS OFFICE.

DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT Fort Bend County, Texas

Ajuu ilru Deputy DistricTCIe'rkTisa Tucker Telephone: (281) 341-4516 JUL 28 2015

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CG: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 815 12th Street Huntsville Tx 77348

Received By Fort Bend County District Attorney

Signature

Printl Name •

MAILING PHYSICAL 301 Jackson Street Richmond, Texas 77469 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov Departments - District Clerk Cause No. 94-DCR-026185

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

vs § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

AFFIDAVIT

My name is Lisa Tucker. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts herein stated: The office of the Fort Bend County District Clerk is the custodian of records. Attached are 3 pages of records from the above mentioned cause. In response to the "Order on State's Motion to Enter Orders so that the State May respond to the Defendant's Motion for Forensic Data Testing order signed on June 26, 2015, by the 240tfl District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas. As of today's date and to the best ofmy knowledge the only exhibits in our possession are listed on the attached 3 page list provided by Court Reporter. The listed exhibits are stored here at the Fort Bend County District Clerks Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle Richmond, Texas 77469. As of today's date no log exist or has been found showing sany past record ofthe exhibits being checked out.

Also, as of today's date no one has checked out any of the attached listed exhibits and all listed exhibits are here in custody at the Fort Bend County District Clerks Office.

These 3 pages of records are kept by District Clerk ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business of the District Clerk for an employee or representative of District Clerk ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis recorded to make the record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonably soon thereafter.

The records attached are the original or exact duplicates of the original.

AFFIANT:

*~V\J-yu )aj~p IIj2~ DATE: ~1~ oCh V5 Deputy District Clerk Lisa Tucker

ORIGINAL Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared \_x'^ZX. \KJcA<~£-Y' who was sworn and subscribed before me on this the 9-^^- day of .< \>^v> 20 \^> . "" ~ 0

NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR FORT

IRMA CORTEX Notary Public, Stateof Tsxas My Commission Expires 06-20-2011

ORIGINAL Shelf

JASON PEGUES

CAUSE # 26,185 and 26,341

STATES EXHIBITS

#1 STATUTORY WARNING OF JUVENILE BY MAGISTRATE #2 SECOND MAGISTRATE APPEARANCE FORM MAGISTRATE'S DETERMINATION OF A JUVENILE'S COMPETENCY TO MAKE A WRITTEN STATEMENT DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS #1 STATEMENT #2 CERTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION #4 MINUTES FORT BEND COUNTY JUVENILE BOARD #5 CITY OF SUGARLAND/FORT BEND COUNTY JUVENILE BOARD

Mim.

M

Hi mm m .HSw-ESffilif JASON PEGUES 1-26,185 TRIAL: JULY 18TH THRU 2f)TH /'/ 5 SHELF: PUNISHMENT: 50 YEARS TDCJ '' BIN: STATE'S EXHIBITS: 01. THRU 15. PHOTOS 16. PHOTO LINEUP (NO #17 SX-ENTERED) IB. THRU 20. PHOTO LINEUPS S 23. THRU 24. PHOTOS 27. PHOTO 30. BLACK. PANTS 31. MEDICAL RECORDS 32. STATUTORY WARNING '•% %\ 33. magistrate's CERTIFICATE 34. JUVENILE WARNING 35. RAPE KIT ENVELOPE 35A. RAPE KIT 36. STATEMENT 37. STATEMENT 38. CAMISOLE 39. SWEATER DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS: 01. DR. COX REPORT m JASON PEGUES fl26,185 JANUARY 31, 1995 SHELF n BIN H CHARGE: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT ATTEMPTED CAPITOL MURDER BURGLARY OF A HABITATION HEARING: EXAMINING TRIAL AND WRIT HC.#I EXAM.TRIAL-DEFT.BIND TO GRAND JURY WRIT HC.ttl-BONDS SET ON EACH CHARGE STATE'S EXHIBITS I. Through 8 Photos - (Copies) 9. Magistrate's Verification - (Copy) 10. Confession - (Copy) 10A. Second page of Confession - (Copy) II. Statutory Warning - (Copy) 12. Statement - (Copy) 13. Photo - (Copy) m ^o: , M-DCR-02618S LETT Utter*

ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas

August 04, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEY TEANAV. WATSON.

RECEIVED DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REE AUG 04 2015 Fort Bep

By- DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Deputy DlStrtfet Clerk Petra Lozano Telephone: (281) 341-4516

Signature II ~' —

r7T7

CG: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 815 12th Street HunrsWWeTx 77346

MAILING PHYSICAL 301 Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fdrtbendcountytx.gov Departments - District Clerk STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF FORT BEND §

My name is Teana Watson, I am over eighteen years old and of sound mind and competent to make this affidavit. I was one of the Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted the State of Texas vs. Jason Tyrone Pegues in Cause No. 94-DCR-026185. I ceased working in the Fort Bend District Attorney's office in 1996. It has never been my practice to hold onto evidence and I do not have any evidence from this case, nor do I have any information to provide or any recollection regarding the location of any evidence in this case.

Signature itiira of r\*P Affiant Affiant ^"""" —•

Teana V. Watson

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN THIS

rtary State of Texas JACKIE LYNN KERMODE Notary Public. State of Texas My Commission Expires My Commission Expires: ffiy/5//9 May 15. 2019

COPY f*

a * uj " n-J CO

IL. R cs> M-DCR-02S185 LETT Lettan 3705668 ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas

August 06, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY MARTIN LOPEZ. RECEIVED DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT AUG 06 2015 Fort Bend County, TerfaS DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Deputy District Clerk Petra Lozano Telephone: (281) 341-4516

Received By Fort Bend District Attorney:

Signature gnaturer / ft

Date ^

CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 815 12th Street Huntsville Tx 77348

MAILING PHYSICAL 301 Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov Departments - District Clerk FlUa-aaiS 32:2' -r ini.'&3.;:>3'

FAX Houston Police Department Tuesday, August 4,2015

from: Martin Loj.uz HPD Property Division Telephone H 832-394-4096 FAX# 832-394" 40 91

t»: Lisa Tucker Deputy District Clerk Fort Bond FAX # 281-:!4J..45S9

s«t.j«n; State of Texas vs. Jason Tyrcne Perues

FILED I ai.t 1 af 5 S^DCfl-028)85 AUG D*\ 2015 Utter. AT *£2£t_L.M. Clerk District CowtFort Bend Go., TX 1 04-FUS-2015 02s2? From:8323944091 Pa?e:2-'6

94-DCA-026185 AFFI ^^oc^'OZcv^s) Houston Police Department EMPLOYEE SWORN AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF TEXAS DATE: 08/04/15 COUNTY OF HARRIS TIME: 08:22

Statement of Person Under Oath

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personalty appeared Martin Lopez, wfro upon heing duly sworn, deposed and stated as follows:

My name is Martin Lopez. I am 40 years of age, and my date of birth is 03/10/75. My employee number is 115994 and I have been employed, with the city of Houston for app^oxiraatply 15 years. I am assigned to the Houston Police Department. Property Division, as a Sr. Microcomputer Analyst My work number is 832-394-4096. The facts stated herein are true and correct, except those stated on Mormation and belief, to the best of my knowledge

During the first week of June, Fort Bend County DA Investigator John Bohannon requested assistance from the Property Division in finding information related to articles that had. been previously tagged into the HPD Property fCoom under case 140*81893.

A search in the Property Division's Evidence Management System did not show any item information under case 14048J893. While doing farther research I looked in the Division's closed out files and found vwo invoices for case 140481893. The first invoice had a tagging date of 12-28-93 and the second invoice had a tagging date of 05-25-94. The invoice for evidence tagged on 12r28-93 contained the following: barcode »BACF (: Sexual Assault Kit) and barcode - BACH (1- bag containing clothes). The invoice for evidence tagged on 05-25-94 contained the following: barcode - C7D9 (Vial of blood, Hair, Saliva).

Attached to both -invoices was an "HPD Property Division Temporary Release of Property Receipt" form which stated that all items under baicodes BACF, BACH, and C7D9 had been taken for Court Appearance on 07-19-95. This "HPD Property DivisionTemporary Fvelease of Property Receipt" form also stated that aft items- undsr barcodes BACF, BACH, and C7D9 were kept by the 240th eo;xt on 07-19-95. I have attached copies of the two invoices and the "HPD Property Division Temporary Release of Property Receipt" form with this affidavit.

On June 4, 2015 I made a copy of the two invoices and the "HPD Property Division Temporary Release of Property Receipt" form and bad these documents notarized by Sgt. Lance Johnson. I then provided the notarized copies of these documrats to Investigator John Bohannon on mat date.

I was not employed by the Houston Police Department at the time when the evidence under case 140481893 was tagged j»*%tke Property Room or wrien this evidence was taken and kept by the Houston Polite UepiKUKBt Ov.i?rinN.-08/O'i/15 Internal Amur; Division

Page 1 of 2 Page Initials: J^J Date: B'H'tT EK-AU3-2B15 32:27 Fr.jm:8323944091 Pt?e-:3-'6

court. At no time did I physically handle these item-;, nor was I part of the chain of custody of these items.

Finally, although I have fully cooperated and answeied all issues presented in tiiis matter to the best ofmy ability as ofthe date ofthis statement, thfe incident occurred 9 weeks ago. Therefore, I hereby reserve fee right to supplement and/or amend this statement should additional facts be brought to my attention Through further investigadon, subsequent reflection on the matter, because of an honest defect in the perception ofthe events), or the common foibles ofhuman memory.

Ihave completed 16 years ofschool and can read and write the English Language. I have read this statement in its entirety and certify that itis correct and true to the best ofmy knowledge. .

Mftf-h^ Upcz (Name: Printed) (Signature)

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 'fiU day af Mf&UYT SlQ/Z.

Notary Signature: &LwtJi 6. i£aa.*s*CC (NotaryStamp/Seal)

BfWT&CrW^m NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS JWCqMM.EXP.10p/17

Hounon PoliceDepartment Dm* Primed: 0S/M/15 Internal AJfsHs Division

Page 2 of2 Pages Initials: -^~ Date: ^^'fSr iiousio lit Prof idemce Record Pfcfii' / of Case Number ,&&*/'-M-91 ft Date Tagged __g-jfcgC /*$3 T§me /&<*? Suspect Name unJCrtbuzJ Compl./Owner Sa^MM M**M-ISL *&> Authorized By_^L____Brnr^j_f£__ MviitoiA-g',c!5!&S Officer's Name 5D/r'4<&l 8>, fi\ Division 5 tJ •/*• f3?" Offcnso /fr g.^fW _^^__£- Loca»o" i_jg____2j g___g U&Vl4frr\ 1M&7 Incident Type: EvWJ^Found Q Safe Keeping (Jail) O Invest [__] Property Officer's Sign; & Emp.i? Bar code Slicker Description (Quantity, Make ,Mo/r K/r •I PI jfc=!_=££=LLJL *Mti»iilte MHHF NOTARY PUBLIC STATEOFTEXAS MYCOMM..EXP.t0ff/17 A(Jt*Xr ^y/^/j 04-WJG-2015 02:28 Frofn:B3S39*W091 PaBc:5''6 04-RUS-2015 02:23 From:B323944091 Po9e:6-'6

<"-""#;*".-iiVL*; -^t=r>sr"-^r-'

houston police department "property division . i , temporary release of property receipt DAY OF WEEK WafeeflW TAG NO. J\l\&MCH&&, CASE NO. \^0Jg(81^D DATE .."7""H^5' assigned to the ^(jfe^ fctfe Division,hereby,certify that I have received the below listed property frotc the Property Division for the purpose of: * yCQURT APPEARANCE^ :NVESTIGATION LABORATORY ANALYS :.S FBpPEETY OB COI7RT RECEIPT MUST BE BETITRNED IN SEVEN ff) PAtB_ '" ITEM NO, OR DESCRIPTION' OF,l',pl'R0PERTYrAirLiSTkD ON PROPERTY 'ROOjTiNVoTcr;'

Cnmpf- rjo-^'^ --- ,j OFFICER RECEIVING PROPERTY (V W> i^**^^ EMPLOYEE NO.C"f3^\ PROPSRTY OFFICER JL£: [eMPLCYEE N0.FJZ7^' i=wsB=sB«*aaoaan:

THIS SECTION USED FOR RELEASE OF EVIDENCE TO COURTS

.Raj ^/iW^l^io^iVgf^xBta^ RECEIVED BY.T.S.O-^^^Ujr7 IN 20fif4) COURT ON 7/W^" PRINT SIGNATURE OF RECEIVING 0FF1C1.A

THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN £ OF EVIDENCi?~TO r" r PROPERTY ROOK

I,hereby,certify that all property signed out on this receipt has been satisfactorily cleared in the Property Division by return of; ALL PROPERTY PfcFTIAL PROPERTY /COURT RECEI'T ) DATE % ££l ^"> PROPERTY OFFICER ti SXb^-s-f EMPLOYEE NO. P.*-.'**? THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF LABORATORY RECEIPT

OFFICER RETURNING LABORATORY RECEIPT. ,EMP.NO.

PROPERTY OFFICER RECEIVING RECEIPT F.MP. NO.

DATE LABORATORY RECEIPT RECEIVED___ RANDY "TOIlY PUBLIC EVIDENCE KEPT IN LABORATORY; STATE OF TEXAS m?GmMr®$r4m ^ttaaaWMaamnaaiiniii \imwammaenu m ttmosuxm /

(WHITE COPY ORIGINAL, YELLOW COPY IROPERTY HOOM/WNK COPY OFFICER) rojtn Nn WPrhOniO? ATTACHMENT

"D*

EVIDENCE -• wO*ato***y-^--*w-^<. ^'**«m*i&iote*&£&^ MmtiMmmti'm*umimMm\mrMnnmimiMm "flT -"* Yiit^TTiffffiT'i-'r'-V- *n r

1 1 NO. 26,185 1

2 THE STATE OF TEXAS * IN THE 240TH JUDICIAL

3 VS. * DISTRICT COURT OF

4 JASON TYRONE PEGUES * FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

9 i 10 i i

13 STATEMENT OF FACTS r|>lawC VOLUME VII OF 8 VOLUMES 14 ... .: - ~3 •-<'•-.

16 '"VJ a- .: '•£•;-• | :0 17

19 S'4i/UV u• 20

23 Loraine Hall, CSR, RPR Official Court Reporter 24 240th Judicial District Court Fort Bend County Courthouse ^~v 25 Richmond, Texas 77469

* i -•-a^^fe>***tt*#^a^^*miiawa)Wa^*i«a>«Wfci«M^llitfB»^M3aifeliWB»tetel

1 Thompson.

2 (Whereupon, the witness, MONICA

3 THOMPSON, having been duly sworn, testified

4 ias follows:)

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION

6 Q (BY MR. CROWLEY) Would you state your name

7 for the jury, please?

8 A My name is Monica Thompson.

9 Q It's not Margie Thompson?

10 A No.

11 Q My mistake. How are you currently

12 emp lbyed?

13 A I'm not employed.

14 Q What are you doing right now?

15 A I'm going to law school.

16 Q Back in, I believe, around March or around

17 that area of 1994, how were you employed?

18 A I worked for the Houston Police Department

19 criine lab as a criminalist.

20 Q What is a criminalist?

21 A A criminalist is a person that does

22 sci antific testing on evidence as selected from

23 crime scenes.

24 Q Could you just tell us what your education

25 and background is?

175 '«-W**4fa«A&4-tt. •a^w*a»aew»ta*tt3MB^^ fejaaMtitiiawaaia^^ •

1 A I have a bachelor's and a master's degree

2 in biology from Sam Houston State University.

3 Q Any particular type of training you

4 received?

5 A I received training from the FBI in

6 Quantico, Virginia; also, training from the HPD

7 training laboratory; and training at different

8 seminars and conferences throughout the United

9 States on DNA analysis.

10 Q DNA, is that -- we've heard a lot about

11 chromosomes and matching up different

12 fingerprints?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Have you on few or many occasions had the

15 opportunity to examine rape kits to determine

16 the presence of semen?

17 A Many.

18 Q All right. Ma. Thompson, let me show you

19 what's been marked as State's exhibit number 35;

20 and I will ask you if you can identify that.

21 A Yes, I can.

22 Q What is that?

23 A It's a sexual assault kit.

24 Q And there appear to be some writing and

25 numbelrs on there. Can you identify those?

15 result of your DNA testing? ATTACHMENT

EVIDENCE PSGlitS v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, J997 - TX... hltp://easelaw.fihdlaw.eorn/tx-court-of-appeals/]012i21.hlrnl

> FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

Court of Appeals of Texas,Houston (ist Dist.).

PEGUES v. STATE Jason Tyrone PEGUES^ Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 01-95-01008-CR.

» December 18,1997

Before SCHNEIDER, C.J., and O'CONNOR and MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL, JJ.

Gary M. Faden, Sugarland, for Appellant.John F. Healey, Jr., John H. Harrity, JH, Richmond, for Appellee.

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

We overrule the appellant's motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute this in its stead.

Jason Tyrone Pegues, the appellant, was found guilty by a jury ofthe offense of aggravated sexual assault. Punishment was assessed at 50 years in prison. On appeal, the appellant argues the trial court erred in (1) not entering written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness and legality of his confession and (2) overruling his motion to suppress his confession. We affirm.

Background

The offense for which the appellant was tried occurred on December 28, 1993. On March 3, 1994, Officer Anderson went to Willowridge High School to arrest the appellant. After the arrest, Anderson transported the appellant to the command station in downtown Houston and brought him before Judge John Joneitz, a magistrate judge who administers statutory warnings to juveniles. Judge Joneitz administered the statutory warnings to the appellant.

Afterwards, the appellant was placed in a holding cell at the downtown command station,

2/7/201'J2:16P?.'*// r'EGUES v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997 - 'IX.. http://cas.elaw.findlaw.com/tx-.co.urt-of-appeals/1012121.htral

which had been designated as a juvenile holding facility by the juvenile boards ofHarris and Fort Bend Counties. Anderson typed the appellant's statement as he stated it to her. After Anderson typed the appellant's statement, she gave him the opportunity to correct it. Anderson then took the appellant back to Judge Joneitz's chambers, where Judge Joneitz privately asked the appellant to read the statement back to him. Judge Joneitz asked the appellant some questions that were designed to enable him to determine if the statement was given freely and voluntarily. Judge Joneitz determined the appellant gave the statement freely and voluntarily and certified that the appellant signed the statement in Judge Joneitz's presence.

After conducting a pretrial hearing on the voluntariness ofthe appellant's statement or confession^ the trial court denied the appellant's motion to suppress his confession. The appellant re^-urged his objection to the admission ofthe confession at trial, but the trial court overruled it and admitted the confession into evidence.

The appellant testified during the punishment phase ofthe trial. When asked ofhis feelings about the events that took place on December 28, 1994, the appellant said he was sorry. He said he regretted what had happened to the complainant and assumed full responsibility, saying he had just made a mistake. He said he had been attending a rehabilitation program that involved therapy for sexual offenders. On cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited the following testimony from the appellant:

Q (by Crowley): In fact, Mr. Pegues, I would suggest that you're not sorry at all for raping [the complainant]; but you're very sorry that you're looking to go to the penitentiary, aren't you?

A (by the appellant): No, sir. I'm sorry of the fact that I did something like that.

Motion to Suppress the Confession

In point of error two, the appellant claims his confession was taken in violation of Tex.Fam.Code § 52.02.1

Relying on the DeGarmo doctrine, in our original opinion we held the appellant waived this complaint because he admitted he committed the offense during the punishment phase of the trial. DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657, 660-61 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). %In his motion for rehearing, the appellant argues we took his statement at the punishment phase out of context and that it was not an unequivocal confession. He argues DeGarmo should not apply here.' We disagree.

The DeGarmo doctrine provides that, if during the punishment phase, a defendant confesses to all the elements ofthe crime for which he has been found guilty, he waives any error that might have occurred during the guilt stage of the trial/" Id.; Deleon v. State, 925 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist] 1996, no pet.).

0f 4 2/7/2013 2:16 FM PEGUES v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997 - TX... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1012121.html

The appellant, responding to a question clearly referring to the rape, expressed remorse for raping the complainant. His confession, which he claims should not have been admitted, also stated he raped the complainant. * Neither statement admitted to using a knife during the attack. Thus, the appellant's statement at the punishment phase did not confess to all the elements of aggravated sexual assault. The DeGarmo doctrine does not apply squarely to this case but its rationale does.

The DeGarmo doctrine has been called a common-sense rule ofprocedure. See McGlothlin v. State, 896 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). This is so because a defendant who complains of the improper admission of evidence,, a trial error, would at most be granted a new trial. Id. at 188. Upon retrial, the defendant's judicial confession to all the elements of the offense would be admissible. See Tex.R.Crim.P. art, 38.22, § 5 (1979). Therefore, a new trial would be pointless, as the trier of fact would hear the defendant's confession to the offense.

The same reasoning applies in this case. Here, the appellant did not admit to all the elements of aggravated sexual assault, and so did not waive all error occurring during the guilt phase. However, his judicial confession to the rape matched the confession he argues was erroneously admitted. The DeGarmo reasoning applies here. Assuming the confession Was erroneously admitted and the appellant was granted a new trial, his judicial confession, that he was sorry he committed the rape, would be admissible at the new trial.

We conclude the appellant's admission during the punishment phase waived any error that may have occurred concerning the admission of his confession at the guilt phase ofthe trial.

We overrule point of error two.

Failure to Enter Findings

In point of error one, the appellant argues the trial court erred in not entering findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the confession's voluntariness. As stated above, the appellant waived any error that may have occurred with regard to the admission ofthe confession. This includes the entering of findings of fact and conclusions of law following a hearing on voluntariness.

We overrule point of error one.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

L Section 52.02 provides in pertinent part:(a) A person taking a child into custody, without unnecessary delay and without first taking the child to any place other than a juvenile processing office designated under Section 52.025 ofthis code, shall do one ofthe following: * * * * * *(2) bring the child before the office or

0f 4 2/7/2013 2:36 P.M PEQUES'v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997 - TX... http://easelaw.findlaW.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1012121.html

official designated by the juvenile court ifthere is probable cause to believe that the child engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision; [or](3) bring the child to a detention facility designated by the juvenile court.Tex.Fam-Code § 52.02(a) (1996).

O'CONNOR, Justice.

Copyright © 2013 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. AH rights reserved.

0f 4 2/7/2013 2:16 PM MR. JASON T. PEGUES #728196 HUNTSVILLE UNIT 815 12th STREET HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348 FILED IN 1ST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON. TEXAS SEPTEMBER 8th, 2015

SEP 1 0 2015 TO: CLERK OF THE COURT: CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE >PHERiA. PRINE CHRISTOPI COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST DISTRICT CLERK 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texas 77002-2066

Re; FILING A MOTION IN REFERENCE TO APPELLATE CASE NUMBER:01-15-00535- CR

DEAR CLERK OF THE COURT:

ENCLOSED IS A MOTION WITH ATTACHMENTS IN REFERENCE TO APPELLATE

CASE NUMBER: 01 z1 5z005.35-QR, SO IF YOU WILL PLEASE FILE THIS IN THE HONORABLE COURT SO THAT IT MAY BE HEARD AND RULED ON, I WOULD GREATLY

APPRECIATE IT. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE.

cc/file:

1 of 1 Ik UnVt

7*73«f8 V

hi- .»/ED &HTOF' STON, TL

SEP1! 0 iOl [ "'""STOPHER A. pr«v/E CIerJC ofThe Courf : Chrf«top»ieKA-RinE CwrT"of /VpeALs, first T*sfr,ct 3 01 pAnnVn StreAf Hov stoai ;"Texas 1*700z-zoioic,