Jackson, Charles Alfred

Texas Supreme Court

Jackson, Charles Alfred

DecidedOctober 12, 2015

DocketWR-79,910-02

StatusPublished

This text of Jackson, Charles Alfred (Jackson, Charles Alfred) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson, Charles Alfred, (Tex. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

cnaau€s a. JABKHQN `,f#111o13¢2 l MRRK sTILE£ sess FM 351u ° * nznunnhr§ rx`?vvns l

taaaawf cnuwrv ' l 4 ` "mnrr nn 2-1-010414‘0518273~3 rnomns a. mxunén ' " ' ' D:sTchv mueax»cmxmiunu ' WF_ 7 _; _

sq1 u. B£LKNAP _` ‘ ` 1 '_» , nnvz§'§a~n@{as

rear mnern, Tx vsxss.oauz v ~v ` . ' j ;M

g

`DEAR cL£RK,PLEAsE F!mo zuc;ns€o THE ¢n;nnwzms§n@ §§ kp¢uxcamr v oeaecrzom 10 TH£ srnrz's ¢anpnszn uewoanmoun Fncfgsfmwsrmes nmu cowuuuszmms nF uaw amo.aaxwa{:r rn THE erw€wvfum Q€§fut cover

y IMMAADITLV F@H cowslosanr:sm'rw twa couaTs FAQTS F:m§;nss ann

. ;nNcLquaMH appuxcawr msuzn`asx res saenz rHAT THEV\QRES;NT st

znaném?rnm ?a TH€ count mIanu? DELAY sum Tu TIME LIMIT§ man 1

MAIgIMB-TIME TRAv€u. APPLI;AN? msuLn ahss usx THE QLERR fo FILE

sara stamp AND RaTuRw. 50 rust AFPLICAMr mnuLb se Aavxsép THAT '

mrs uaascr;nw HAS.BEEN paa@cwrzr TQ`THE cnuar rea cun$xo§garzsw.

, \Q`\

‘.\ .l z \\ \\_

o `~.

-_\\ ~ /. .~`

l ? . R_ESP B?FULU ` SUBM§[T`TED,, . \" ;

,`- ,» \' \. a ¢. . `s '. ., ,4 . ‘. ' y ` ,\ \' k \. " . "\v / :\. l "\ . ,l '; ‘-. w ". i\, ,,' - \ ,

c~1~u1oa1azueib273-a _ `l - @:;

ExPARTE &_ IN rae cRIMINAL nxsrarcr ~ §`;~‘ count mu. 1 nF cHARLEs ALFnEn JAcKan § tanaANr cuuwrv, TExAs x dJ1

APPLIBANT’S DBJECTIUN TD THE STATE'S PRUPDSED MEHDRANDUM, FINDINGS DF FACT AND CUNCLUSIUNS DF LAU_

y TU: THE HUNDRABLE JUDGE UF SAID CDURT, wTHE APPLIBANT IN THE ABUVE NUMBERED DAUSE HAS FILED HIS 11. 07 URIT. ALLEGING YHAT HE 15 BEINE UNEAUFULLV RESTRAINED BECAUSE £1¢ HE RECIEVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANEE UF CDUNSEL FRQM HIS TRIAL COUNSEL ANDF APPEALATE CDUNSELN&RIAL CUUNSEL MAS INEFFECTIVE IN GRDUNDS UNE,wTUU, THREE, FBUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN EIGHT, AND TEN, a AND APPELLATE CBUNSEL UAS IMEFFECTIUE IN GRDUND5 NINE.

k

THE DISTRICT ATTDRNEY, AND BUTH TRIAL AND APPEAL CUUNSEL"S HAVE ALLEDGED THAT ALL THESE HARMFUL GRUUNDS BF ERRDR UERE THE RESULTR DF TRIAL STRATEDBY. APPLICANT DBJEBTS TD THES FINDINBS AND STATE'S THE FULLHMING:

_ IN EIGHT BF THE AFPLICANTS EUID€NCE PRESENTED IN THE URIT _, ALL SUFPDRTED BV THE RECBRD DF THIS BDURT THE URIT SHUULD BE BRANTED AND RELIEF AFFDRDED THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICRNT HAS vHAISED THESE BRDUNDS 0 IN THE INTREST DF BUSTICE AND HAS DDNE UHAT THE LAM DEMANDS 1N DRDER TD BET RELIEF DN A URIT .

VET INSPITE DF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BV THIS RPPLICANT, EVIDENCE BF A CLEAR APFEALLATE AND TRIAL BUUNSEL INEFFECIVNESS TD THIS l‘AFPLICAN? FRUM START TD FINISH AT TRIAL AND APPEAL.

VET INSFITE UF ALL THIS THE DISTRICT ATTURNEV'S DFFICE HA5 _ THI5 CUURT TD DUERLUDK THIS EVIDENCE, BV ABKING THIS DUURT TU CDNSIDER THE FINDING UF THEIR UFFICE TD DENV AEPLIBANT'S URIT. l

THE DISTRIBT ATTDRNEY AND BDTH TRIAk AND APFEAL ATTDRNEYS HAVE ATTEMPTED TD SUBTEFUDGE THE ALLPIEANT'S MRIT BY EASTINB SMUKE SCRERNS AND UNLY SDUND BIT€S DF APPLICANT'S GRDUNDS AND FAILING TU FULLV ADDRESS THE FULL ISSUES IN'TH€ GRUUND UF ERRUR IN HIS URlT.

APPLIcANT an Asx rule count 10 PLEAsE-kch rn MIND.TH£ FqLunuINa

.;> ,' ' ll

, THE DISTRICT §TTURNEY §ND TRI§L CUUNSE§ H§S 5T§§ED THIS U§S TRI§§

..-»1,

"‘-i.`..» .~»

l~)~ (»~

IN `BRUUND DNE §PP§IC§N§ 5T§TED TH§§ CDUNSE§ F§ILED §B STRIKE BI§SED §ND DISQU§LIFIEDJURURS

THE ST§§E RESFUNDED CITINB TH§T §HERE 15 §§ €UIDENCE TU TH§T MNRS BEILE §§5 BI§SED§B§INST§PFLIB§NT _ - _ 111

000010001 0000010 1001 0000 000 BEILE 0000 000 05000001 1001 00100000 000000£ 01100 000010000 00.000001 1001 11 01000000100 010001-010000 ' 01111000 1000000 100 000010001 0500010001 00031010100 1001 000 00100 .15 0001000 10 00 10 100 00501001 00001005 0110 00100000 10 101

v 100001100 11000. 100 090010001 005 000500100 0000 000 10 015 0011 °.011100 1001 0000 0 30000 005 0001 010500 0101000010 1001 000 01000-_ 10010100 0000 11 1001 0101 1001 000 00 0010 . 00100 10 100 1051001

10 1015.0000. 005. 00100 000000 0000 0010 010000 01 10100 00000£0

H10 000000 100 000010001 31010'5 1001 00000€0 001000 10 L0000 0 3 ‘0000100 00000110010 100 1000000001 00011100 0010001000 0100001 0010- l ence. 1_ the sizes responded 010109 that 00 00100 00000100 10 0000001 00500013,, '; 105110001 00 0001000 0000031000. 1010 10 00 0110001 10 500100F0000 `F 0000100010 000000 0000050 00100000 00 00100 001 0000 000001£0 10 010§0 100110000 01 000000100000010, 100 000000 19 00000 1001 01 00Lv 00010100 001 1100 10 100 10 100 0000001 100110001 10 000110001'5 0011 cass 000000 00001 00 0000000 0000000000 or 000;

v 100 31010 000 ALso 010120 1001 00 001000 0010001 10 000001 000 ‘10100 51001001. 000010001 050:015 0001 0100 00 10100 010010001 00000 00000 00 0010£ 00 100100 10 00 01 001 0000 00000001 0005100100 _ , 0010€000 01 100 000£0010000 001001 000 0000000010 000100. rr 11 000 ";Y' 10100 010010001 1000 001 50000 10100 _01001`0001. `“

100 10x00 00000 01 00100000 000 00000 . 0000 0000100100 00100000' 100 000000011 0001€0 002 0051 000001 0000 000 euznv 1100 00 050 100 0 0000100 000001100. 0010 00 00101 001000 10 00 1010 010 00010000000 '010000 000101001. 001 100 01010101 01100001 00000 0001 1010 00001 10

`0001001 1001 0001 01 010 000 10100 01001€01 000 000 0001001. ¢ ` $f`

IN GRDUND THREE §PPLIC§NT ST§§E'B TH§TGUUNSE§ F§I§ED TU REQUEST § LIMI§ING INSTRUCTIDNTD EXTR§NEBUS §DTS DF EVIDENBE _ fay

STR§TBY BECAUSE HE DID NU§ U§NT TD DR§U THE JURY'S §TTEN§IUN TU 2

.;.___/

applican£ asserta that this could nat hev2 ba2n trial stratgy because ?H£ JURV'a AYTEMYIBN 255 ALREADV FBBUSED 66 THIS THE FAGT THAT

'THIS EXTRANEUU9 ACTS EVIDE6BE 665 58 PGUERFUL 601 EUEN 6 PET¥IFUBGER

MBULD HAVE ALLDWED TNIS TYPE OF T£S?IHGNV 26 FRDN? OF 6 JURV, CDUNSEL U65 DEFICIEN? 16 HIS PERFERMANZE FUR ALLGUIWB ?HIS 13 T6KE FLABE 16 FRDNT GF: THE JURV 660 65 6666966£0 HIS DLIENT 6? 6 CRUBIAL

`Tr ns oF was peacsenznss..~

rm GRnumo Faua APFLICANT sTATE'@ 22 °222$¥?§§;§$¥:f¢@2:%

6CDU6SE F6ILED TG GBSECT YB IMFERMI55IHLE BOLSTERING BF ?HE STA?E'B

wxrm€ss. 4 ` t - »' n _ _ \.,_ .2..

THESYATE RESPBNDED UITINB TH6T: HDN. KLINE TU NUT ‘;‘OBJECT TU TESTIMDNY THAT THE VICTIM H6D 6 REPUTATIDN FUR BEINB TRUTHFUL 665 THE RESULT

DF REASBNAELE TRIAL 5TRATGV. t

AFPLIGANT§ UBJEBTS TD THIS BEEAUSE 65 ST6TED BV THE CDUNSEL 660 D. 6. UFFIBE THE DNLV REAL ISSUE 67 TRIAL 665 YHE CREDIABILITVUF 7HE

HVICTIM 50 FUR CUUNSEL TB ALLUU TESTIHONV BF TRUTHFUL CREDIABILITV TU

l BE AUARDED TU THE PRGSECUTIUN UITNESS UITHUUT EVE6 6TTEMPTINB TG _ LDDGE 66 DBJECTIDN MAS THE REBULT UF DEFICIENT PERFBRMANBE» "

660 665 NOT SDUND TRIAL STRATEBV NUT EUEN 6 PETTVFDGGER UDULD HAVE ALLDUED THIS TVPE UF BULSTERING DF 6 WITNESS UITHOUT CHALLENBING IT..

~ CDU&SEL 665 INEFFEDTIVE IN HIS CUUNSEL GF 6PPLIC66T.'

IN GRUUND FIVE APPLICANT STATES THAT BDUNSEL FAILES TD DBJEC? TD PRDSEBUTURAL NISCDNDUCT DURING 5UILT/ INNDCENCE PHASE BF TRIAL BLBSING ARBUMENTS.

THE STATE RESPDNDED CITINB THAT THE STATE'S ARBUMENT THAT THE APFLIBANT 665 6 PEDDPHILE 665 6 SUMMATIUN DF THE EVIDENDE AND

6 PLEA FDR LAU INFDRCEMENT.

APPLICANT 665 ALREADV 5T6TED THAT THE DISTRICT ATTDRNY 15 TRVING TD SUBTERFUDGE HIS URIT HEAR THEV 665 DUING IT ABAIN FIRST BV DNLV

6NSUERING PART DF BRDUNB FIVE APPLICANY MDULD SHDU THE BDURT TH6T

_:EIDENTIFVS THREE SEPERATE 5ITU6T1065 UHERE THE

PRUSEBUTIUN I6G6GED 16 MISGDNDUET UITHUUT HIB BDUNSEL LUDBINB 66

DBJEBTIGNa THE PRUSECUTIUN H65 FAILED TB EUEN 6DDRESS 6PPL1566T' B UTHER TUD EGMPLAINTE 16 GRBUND FIVE5 NAMELV THE IMPRDPER BBLSTERING

86 THE CREDIABILITV DF THE 5T6TE"5 EXPER? EITNESS BY REFERINB TU

.§

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI