Jackson, Samuel Roy

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 28, 2015
• Docket: WR-59,058-09
• Status: Published

Opinion

CERTIFICATE OF INTERES'rED PERSONS ...... .. ') ~·

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN. TEXAS

. \ /

PETrrioN' .. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SEEKING RELIEF FROM UNLAvli"UL CONFINEMENT UNDER VOID ~JDG~m~tr AND VOID COURT ORDER RE~DERED ~R THE OFF~~SE AGGRAVATED ROBBER~ CAUSE NO. 913043 FR0£>1 THE !83RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS This document contains some pages that are of poor quality at the time of imaging.

.., ~ ,• .= •. h .. I ! . ': .. ' '. ~ i . ~ • I

·.' ·•' ,· .. '1 • •

INTE~ESTED PERSONS: \''\

,Judgb Vanessa Va':\,a..Squez Criminal Justice Bldg •• 18th Fl. 1202 Franklin Houston. Texas 77002

Assistant District Attorney RECEiVED !N (COURT OF CRfMIN!.t APPEALS l03rd .Judicial District Court Criminal Justice Bldg •• 18th Fl. APR 28 2015 1201 Franklin Houston. Texas 77002 Ab@J Acosta, Crerk (Petitioner) Samuel Roy Jackson TDC..J-!Oii 1268721 Nathaniel J. Neal Unit 9055 Sour 591 Amarillo. TX 79107·-9696

-~.··

/

i ',. ...._\ I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS i

TABLE OF CONTENTS . II

TABLE OF.AUTHORITIES . iii ISSUES 'DO BE. ADDRESSED • Section(A) C.C.P. • Articles of Law

CRIMINAL LAW KEYS ' . GROUNDS FOR RELIEF CONCLUSION SUf1MARY

~ATOR'S REQUEST

DECLARATION OF PENALTY OF PERJURY • .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE •

Appendix:

Contents: Documents (A) • (B), (C), (D), (:t;:), (F), (G), (H) .(I) (.J) {i'f) (LJ

ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES page

Addison v. State• 28 S.W.2d 55 Tex Crim App 1955 . {~J In re Alexander• 243 S.W.2d 822 Tex App San Antonio 2007 Tex Crim App 1962 Bender v. State• 353 S.W.2d 39, 171 Tex CrUn:·628 . ((gl

Carpenter v. State. Cr App 1949, 153 Tex Crim 218 S~W.2d 200;7 • n1 Catching v. State. 285 s.W.2d 233. 162 Tex Crim 342 • (tf~ Colbeat v. State. 314 S.W.2d 602. 166 Tex,Crim 431 • (lz) Davis v. State. 503 s.W.2d 241 [Tex Crim Ap~1 1974] C~t Ex parte Drake· 883 S.W.2d 213 Tex Crim App 2002 (2l Halbadier v. State. Cr App 1920 • 87 Tex Crim 129, 220 S.W.95 .• ...(~] Ex partE7 Haskin·. 801. S.W.2d 12 Tex App Corpus Christi 1990 Ho v. State. 856 S.W.2d 495 Tex App Houston [1st Dist.]

State v. Edwards. 808 S.W.2d 662. f5Jttp)_ Ex pare~ 'rownsend. 135 S.W.3d 79, 81 [Tex Cr App 2002] ccn Wells v. State• 516 S.W.2d 663 • (tiJ -4/.t:if;_A.JlJ"UJitl.T..!~--ftd ~- iuLJ.J_jpJ...(c_fttJ:..S'=="lf.X_(q.J..tl..l-.Yle.l ( £'0 --A R1'' tutu A y_j{, Rill I 'l_f_IJLJ..d=!.1::t:7.~===-.::.···=·.......,=---------~ (2 J f}{A~V..£_z_JL.ff A.T f .l.J Z £., w_,)_d_ro_CJ_5/(LTfX A_p.p_lf..()V.£[p_t:tLUL/)_js_r_zd.cttf "' (/} _ix_p..A B.t.t_L-fA w_/(ftv_.Lt.SS_f,_4L1.cl£1L6_£s_s_r.f/L1'tff-"-l-pA..HL/. q q_tf__ _ (I) .iJJ.r5-Q.N_IL.J:T-~'l ~

Petitioner. § FROM THE 183rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT SAMUEL ROY JACI\SON. § § COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY. TEXAS Vs. § § AGGRAVATED ROBBERY: THE STATE OF TEXAS § CAUSE NO. : 913043

PETITION· FOR vJRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO U.S~C~A .. CONSTITUTIONAL FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (VERNON"S ANN.). TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 5 AND 11. SEEKING RELIEF FROM VOID JUDGMENT. VOID SENTENCE AND VOID COURT ORDER. UNLAWFUL CONFINEMENT UNDER CAUSE No.: 913043

COMES NOW • Petitioner • SAMUEL ROY JACKSON, -in the. above-styled caption

and .Cause and presents ~his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

U.S.C.A. Constitutional Fourt2enth Amendment. Vernon's Ann •. Texas Constitution

Article 5 and 11. Seeking relief· from a Void Judgment. Void Sentence and

Void Court Order rendered without jurisdiction or subject rnatter jurisdiction

vested in the 183rd Judicial District Court at jury trial. in \-.rhich Petitioner

was wronsfully convicted for the offense Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043.

in which he is currently incarcerated for.

In support of his petition. Petitioner will show the Court the following:· I

Jurisdiction -of the Court of Criminal Appeals According to Code of Criminal Procedure Ann .. Article 11.05

Citing: Chavez v. State. 132 S.W.3d.509. 510(Tex App Houston[lst.Dist.] 2004)

no pet. Original Jurisdiction to grant a \Kit of habeas corpus in a criminal

case .is vested in the· Texas Court of Criminal Appeals·. the District Courts. ·the

County Courts. or a judge in those Courts. Tex.Code.Crim.Proc.Ann .. Art. 11.05.

[WEST 2005] Ex parte viJatson v~ State. 96 S.W.3d 497, SOO(Tex App Amarillo.

2002); Ex parte Hawkins. 885 S.~'7.3d 586. 588(Tex AppEl Paso 1994).

- 1 - Ex oarte Drake· 833 S.H.2d 213 Tex Crim App 1994: A general rule; A Post-

conviction writ of habeas corpus is· reserved for those instances in which

there was jurisdictional defect in trial court which rendered judgment void

for denial of fundamental or Constitutional rights. Inre Parr. 199 S.W.3d

457, Habeas Corpus Key 445, Judgment or sentence may be collaterally attacked

by means of a petition for writ of habeas corpus only where they are void

because trial court lacked jurisdiction. Tex Crim App 1999. Tex.App.-Houston

[lst Dist.] 2005. A perty may collaterally attack a judgment of a court of

general jurisdiction in another court of equal jurisdiction i f the underlying

judgment is void. Armentor v. Kern. 178 S~W.3d 147. a petition for writ of

habeas corpus is one type of collateral attack. Judgment Key 470.523 C.J.S.

Judgment 499 533.

Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist. 1995] Judgment \vithout jurisdiction is void.

It is not entitled to recognition in any State and it is subject to collateral

attack. U.S.C.A. • Const. Amend. 14. Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 5 and 11.

Soigener v. ~\Jallis. 80 S.W.3d 174(Tex.App.-l'llaco 2002).

Citing: Ex oarte Seidel: Cite as Vol. 39 S .W .3d 221 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001)

Criminal Law Key 1493: lack of jurisdiction·over caserenders the judgment

void and may always be collaterally attacked. Criminal Law Key 990.1. A void

judgment is a nullity and can always be attacked at any·time.

The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available

when there i.S no other adequate remedy at law. Ex Qarte Townsenq. 137 S.W.3d

79. 8l(Tex.Cr.App. 2004) Habeas Corpus Key 201. 271.

Jurisdiction of the Court

[Adjudicated Fact] the Court of ·Criminal Appeals in Austin. Texas has the

jurisdiction over·:Pe'Eitioner Jackson's J:)etition for writ of habeas corpus

seeking relief from unlawful confinement cause by a void court order rendered

- 2 - d•Je to a void judgment rendered without any jurisdictional authority ov~r

Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson: which is a U.S.C.A .. Const. Amend. 14 Due

Process violation.

Citing: Ex parte Seidel: Cite as Vol. 39 S.W.3d 221· Tex.Crim.App. 2001.

Criminal Key 1493: Lack of· jurisdiction over case· renders the judgment void

and may always ·be collaterally attacked. criminal Law Key 990.1. A void

judgment is a nullity and can always be attacked at any time.

ISSUES. TO BE ADDRESSED· ·

(A) Is the aggravated robbery complaint #913043 a valid complaint. And does

it satisfy the Constitutional Requisites of a· charging instrument?

(B) Did the aggravated robbery complaint #913043 vest jurisdiction in the

183rd District Court?

(C) Are the information.a:ccusations·in the aggravated robbery complaint #913043

valid information·. and· did the information accusations asserted on the face

of aggravated robbery indictment's·charging paragraph vest Judge Joan Huffman

with personal jurisdictional authority overPetitioner Samuel Roy Jackson?

(D) Did Judge Joan Huffman have jurisdiction to conduct subsequent jury trial

under aggravated robbery indictment Cause·No. 913043?

(E) Is the judgment rendered by the jury under agg robbery indictment #913043

a void judgment?

(F) Is the court order issued by Judge Joan Huffman ordering Petitioner Jackson

to serve 35-year. s;entence in the custody of the Director· of the· Texas Depart-

ment of Criminal Justice- Correctional Institutions·Division (hereafter TDCJ)

for the offense aggravated robbery Cause No. 913043. a void court order issued

by Judge Joan Huffman without personal jurisdiction over·Petitioner Jackson?

(G) Is Petitioner Ja:ckson unlawfully confined in the custody·of TDCJ director.

Rick Thaler. under a void judgment and void court order rendered in the 183rd

- 3 - District Court of Harris County for the offense aggravated robbery Cause

No .. 913043?

(H) Is . T. William an Assistant District Attorney who prepared the aggravated

robbery complaint #913043 reflected in the top-righthand corner by T.W.D.A. ?

"Argument"

If T. Williams is an· Assistant District Attorney who "initialed" his

first name in the jurat of aggravated·robbery complaint #913043. then aggravat-

ed robbery complaint #91:?043 (according to. Article 15.5 T.C.C.P.) is an

invalid complaint. Citin.g: Wells v.- State. 516 S.W.2d 663. Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure (Vernon's Ann.) Article 15.5. A prosecuting attorney cannot

sign as the Affiant in the· jurat of Complaint.· A person authorized to present

an Information and conduct a prosecution cannot be the Affiant to the Complaint

supporting Information.

NOI'E:. Should it be found that Petitioner Jackson is unlawfully confined

under a void judgment and a void c9urt order. this Honorable Court should

issue a Habeas Corpus·ordering Jackson's immediate release.

In order.to correct this blatant ·injustice connected to Jackson's unlawful

incarceration under a void judgment·under aggravated robbery Cause No. 913043.

at the Nathaniel Neal Unit (TDCJ-CID), 9055 Spur 591. Amarillo. Texas 79107:

CITING•OF AUTHORITIES:

Ex Parte Seidel. Cite as Vol. 39 S.W.3d 221 ··Tex Crim App 2001. Criminal

Law Key 1493. Lack of jurisdiction over case renders the judgment void and

may always be collaterally attacked.

Ex Parte Seidel. 39 S.W.3d 22l(Tex CrimApp 2001). Criminal Law Key 990.1

A void judgment· is a nullity from the beginning and is attended none of the

consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever

- 4 - .because it does not affect. impair or create legal right. Ex Parte Spaulding.

68 S.W.2d at 745.

Tex App Houston [14th Dist.] 2007. A judgment is void so as to be subject

to collateral attack. when·it is apparent that the court rendering the judgment

had no jurisdiction of the parties or ·property.· no ·jurisdiction· of the subject

matter. no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment. or no capacity to act.

Staytzenberqer. v. State. 232 S.W.3d 323.

Tex App Tyler 1991. State v. Edwards. 808 S.W.2d 662. Fundamentally defec:-

tive information is void. does not\ effectively invoke Court's jurisdiction

over defendant and will not support conviction.

[Section One]

Applicable Law: Requirements by Constitutional Requisites of a Charging Instrument: Such as Complaints. Information and Indictments.

(A) Criminal Law Key 990.1

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.5. 15.4 Vernon's Ann.

(C) Code of Criminal Procedure Article 222. 415. 414

(D) Indictment and Information-Key 41(3)

(E) Vernon's Ann •. Tex c.c.c., Article 21. 22

GROUND FOR RELIEF: fA) Unlawful Confinement in TDCJ Urider· Cause No. 913043

Due to Void Judgment rendered· without jurisdictional authority rendered

under invalid aggravated ·robbery complaint and information under-cause No.

913043. in the 183rd Judicial District Court of Harris County. Houston. Texas.

[Facts Supoorting Ground]

On May 24, · 2002 the Harris County· District Attorney's Office filed an

invalid aggravated robbery complaint ·#913043-in the-Harris County District

Clerk's Office. Charles Bacarrise. which was filed in the 183rd Judicial

- 5 - District Court ·of ·Harris County. Texas. See A0pendix Document (A). Copy of

Aggravated Robbery Complaint #913043.

[Fact Established ·in the Record] Officer M. A. Khan is reflected as

the Complainant who filed Aggravated Robbery_ Complaint ;F913043. See Appendix

Document (B). Copy of l83rd District Court Aggravated Robbery Docket text

#913043. However. !1. A. :Khan did not sign as the Affiant in the jurat on the

.face of Aggravated Robbery Complaint #913043. causing the complaint to be

an invalid complaint.

[Citing of Authorities] Tex Crim App 1962. Complaint not signed by Affiant

was fatally defective and conviction on information based on such information

was reversed. Vernon's Ann .. T.C.C •.:? •• Art. 222. 415. Bender v. State. 353

S.W.2d 39. 171 Tex Crim 623.

Colbeat v. State. 314 S.W.2d 602. 166 Tex Crim 431. A complaint which

is not swornto by Complainant is of no effect and will not support a prosecu-

tion by information. Vernon's Ann. • 1'.C .C~P .. 415. 414.

[Fact] "Complainant" Officer N. A. Khan did not swear to the jurat.

T. William signed on the face of Aggravated Robbery Complaint :!f913043. See_

Apoendix Document (A).

[Citing of Authorities] Caroenter v. State. Cr App 1949. 153 Tex Crim 218

S.I.V.2d 207. Indictment and Information Key 41(3). Tt}e Complaint must be I Authenticated by Jurat of officer before whom it Has made and in.the absence

of a valid complaint there can be no·valid·information.

[Adjudicated Facts] 'r. William is not listed as one of the ten Houston

Police Department (hereafter "HPD") officers named· on the face of- Assistant

District Attorney . Brad Hart·' s subpoena filed in the l83rd District Court·.

On the face of Brad Hart's sub:Joena ·it is reflected Aggravated Robbery ·

Compla:i,nt #913043 's Offense Report #072416202. See Appendix Document (C).

- 6 - Assistant District Attorney Brad Hart's Subpoena. Also see. Appendix Document

(D), HPD Offense Report fW72416202~ T. Williams is not listed as a HPD Officer

under Police report #072416202. Officer M. A. Khan andOfficer z. A. Brown

are listed as "Reporting Officer(s)" on the Aggravated Robbery Police Report

#072416202.

[fact:] The jurat of Aggravated Robbery Complaint #913043 (hereafter "The

Complaint") was not authenticated by HPD Office/Agency nor any other Office/

Agency because T. Williams is not found ±n the record as a Police Officer.

The jurat of The Complaint NE>T "Authenticated" by the "Complainant". Officer

M. A. Khan IS INVALID. Officer M. A. Khan's signature does not appear anyvJhere

on The Complaint. Therefore • The Complaint does not meet the Const·it utional

requisites of a .charging instrument: thus causing it to be ari Invalid Complaint

that did not vest jurisdiction in the 183rd District. Court under Cause #913043.

[Citing of Authorities] Tex App Houston [lst Dist.]. Ho v. State. 856

S.V'I.2d 495, valid complaint is prerequisite to valid information and proper

jurat is essential to valid complaint. Complaint that is not sworn to before

some official or person in authority is insufficient to constitute basis

for valid conviction. Vernbn's Ann .. T.C.C.P.·, Art. 21. 22~

[Fact] Officer M. A. Khan. the "Complainant" did not swear in the jruat

of The Complaint before the Assistant District Attorney whose Texas State

Bar Number is "SBOT# 1827741". therefore The Complaint is INVALID.

[Fact] T. William is not a competent person tb swear to the accusations

alleged in the Affidavit on the face of Agg Robbery Complaint :,~913043, because

T. William is not the "Complainant" nor is T. 1-villiam one of the ten HPD

Officers who conducted the Crime Scene Investigation· under HPD Offense report

#072416202: therefore. the jurat of Complaint ',~913043 was "signed and sworn to"

by an incompetent uncredible person.

- 7 - [Citing of Authorities] Halbadier v. State. Cr App 1920. 87 Tex Crim 129.

220 s.w. 85. Indictment and Information Key 41(3). Where the Affidavit or

Complaint on which an Information is found signed by an incompetent person.

it is void and the whole proceeding based thereon fails.

[F'act] T. William does not set· forth any source for his belief in the

Affidavit on the face of Agg Robbery Complaint 1}913043. Thus. The Complaint

is insufficient. See i'1adden v. State. App 7th District 1982. 630 S.~·J.2d 380.

Affirmend. 644 S.~v.2d 735.

[Citing of Authorities] Naff v. State. 946 S.'iv.2d 529. Affiant is permit-"

ted to base accusations in Complaint on information derived from police report.

Vernon's Ann •. ·r.c.c.P .. Art. 15.5

[Fact] In· the detail section of· Officer M'. A. Khan's HPD Offense Report

J072416202 ther::e is rio information/accusations· alleging that Jackson used

a ~mife as a deadly weapon to threaten Larry Seitzler and take his property

by force. or while Jackson was stealing Seitzler's property.

There· is no information/accusation alleging that Jackson· (Suspect :il)

had any of Sei:tzler's property in his possession: the .::eason being. Officer

t'l. A. I\han testified under cross-examination by defense attorney Robert Scott,

stating a Crime ·scene Unit· of the HPD was dispatched and that Unit tested

the knife for "prints" but did not find any i:)rints of J·ackson on said knife.

See attached ·~A.P,.p...;;e;.;.;n""d;.;;;i""x'--_ __:t:..::r:..::i:..::a:..::l:.. .·--=T:..:r:..:a:::.n:.:s:..:c:.:r:..:i::..:;p:..:t:...·_.. :P.. .:a:..:g::..:e:.. .:i'.:. ;Jo:.. ·_· :::!q:::!::::q=- -=· Therefore. the

incompetent T. · William did not derive his information/accusations from HPD

Offense Report 1)072416202. Ther-efore ·the inforl7lation/accusations alleged

in the Affidavit on the face of Agg Robbery Complaint ti913043 are Invalid

Information and a violation of T.C.C.P., Art: 15.5.

[Citing of Authorities] Davis v. State: 503 S.lv.2d 24l[Tex Crim App 1974],

Information based on fatally defective Complaint is Void. Conviction based

- s - on such information is void. Shackelford v. State. 516 S.W.2d l80(Cr App 1974).

There couid be no void information in the absence of a valid.complaint.

[Issue: Lack of ·Jurisdiction]

[Fact] The Complaint ;f913I43 is an invalid AggRobbery Complaint. because

its jurat is defective as demonstrated 'in all of the above-stated Adjudicated

Facts supported by Appendix Documents· (A). (B). (C). (D) and (E). and each

of the T.C.C.P., Articles listed under each "Citing of Authorities'' above.

Therefore. the invalid agg robbery complaint ;;'913043 did not vest the l83rd

District Trial Court with subject m·atter jurisdiction or jurisdictional

authority over Jackson under Agg Robbery Cause No~ 913043.

[Citing of Authorities] Catching v. State. 288 S.W.2d 233. 162 Tex Crim

342. A valid complaint is a prereCjuisite to a valid information. And without

a complaint. County Cour:t has no jurisdiction.

[Tex Crim App 19S5] Addi:son: v. State. 283 S.vJ~2d 55: A valid complaint

is a prerequisite to a valid information. and without a complaint• County

Court has no jurisdiction.

[Subject] Invalid Aggravated Robbery· Indictment #913043. Invalid In:fonna-

tion. lAdjudicated Facts] See-Appendix Document (F) - Agg Robbet-y Indictment

#913043. On· the· face of Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 tht::? same Invalid

information that is reflected in the Affidavit· of Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint

;F9l3043 is reflected on the face· of the Agg Robbery Indictr:tent :t913043. Both

the Complaint· and the ·Indictment have the same HPD Offense Report Number.

#072416202, same Complaining Witness (Namely, Larry Seitz.ler), same Arrest

Date (May 24. 2002) and same Defendant's name (Samuel Roy 'Jackson DOB 3/5/56).

[Fact] The Invalid Informatl.on alleged on the face of Agg Robbery

Indictment #913043 did not vest the 183rd District Trial Court with any

jurisdiction over Petitioner Jackson. because the information in the charging

- 9 - paragraph on the· face of Indictment #913043 is Void Information that derived

from Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint #913043.

[Citing of Authorities] State v. Ed\vards. 808 S.I'J.2d 662(Tex AppTyler

1991) Fundamentally Defective Information is Void· does not·effectively invoke

Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and will not support conviction.

[Subject] Void judgment rendered under Agg Robbery rnvalid Indictment

#913043 and its Invalid Information.

[Adjudicated Facts] Petitioner Jackson was convicted for the offense

Aggravated Robbery cause No. 913043. See Appendix· Document (F) - Judgment

on Plea Before Jury Court Sheet or Document 913043. Also See Appendix Attached \

Document (G) Writ Order· to Sheriff Tommy Thomas. Both Docwnents (F) and (

Document (G) reflect the fact · that · "I" Applicant Samuel Roy Jac:Kson was

convicted for· the offense Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043. ·

The records and documents filed under Cause No. 913043 reflect the

Invalidity of the Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint #913043 and its Invalid

Information that was set forth in the Charging I Presenting Paragraph on

the face of Aggravated Robbery Indictment #913043. \;;-hich by law• did not

invoke or vest the 183rd District Court.·Presiding Judge. Joan Huffman. with

jurisdiction over Petitioner Jackson. nor was Judge Joan Huffinan vested with

subject matter jurisdictin ·under Invalid. Agg Robbery Complaint f-913043.

because neither Chai·ging Instrument satisfied the Constitutional Requisites

of a charging· instrument ·according to the Constitutional Laws of Texas.

[factual and Legal Argument Claim]

Due to lack of jurisdictional subject matter in the 183r·d ·District Com·t.

the judgment rendered· under Aggg Robbery Cause No~ 913043.·at jury·trial

conducted in the 183rd District Court. is a Void Judgment rendered against

Petitioner Jackson.

- 10 - [Citing of Authorities]

[TexAppeal Austin 1999] Vacated. 15 S.W.3d 104 Remand 2000. WL 852697.

A judgment is void only i f the Court rendering the judgment has no jurisdiction

over the subject matter. no·personal jurisdiction over a party. ·no jurisdiction

to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act as Court.

Criminal Law Key 990.1: A judgment of conviction for a crime is void

when ( 1) the document purporting to be chat-g ing instrument, that is Indictment,

Information or Complaint does not satisfy Constitutional requisites of a charging instrumi2nt (2)· thus· trial court has no jurisdiction over defendant

(3) record reflects that thereis no evidence to support conviction.

[Argument]

Therefore. Petitioner Jackson is unlawfully confined in the custody·

of Rick Thaler in· the TDCJ-CIDunder a· void Judgment Conviction for the offense

Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043 from the l83rd Judicial District Court.

Harris·county. ·Houston. Texas·77002.

[facts] The 183rd Judicial Distdct JudgE!-- Joan Huffman. was not vested

with personal jurisdictional authority· 0ver Petitioner Jackson under Invalid

Information Allegations· asserted in the· charging presenting paragraph on

the face of Agg Robbery Indictment #913043.

GROill\JD 'FOR. RELIEF: ( B} Unlawful Confinement; Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson is Unlawfully Confined in the Custody of Director of TDCJ -CID, Rick Thaler.

[Subject]· Void Court Order: The Court Order issued by Judge Joan Huffman

under Agg Robbery #913043. Void Judgment Conviction rendered by twelve jurors

under Invalid Agg Robbery Indictment Cause No. 913043 ·and its Invalid Informa-

tion is a Vol!d Court Order rendered at an illegal jury trial held in the l83rd

- ll - Judicial District Court. The record reflects Invalidity of Judge Joan Huffman's

unla\vful assumption of jurisdiction Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043.

[Argument] Judge Joan Huffman was without subject matter jurisdiction

authority to conduct .aJ~P..Y trial in the l83rd District Court of Harris County,

Texas. Judge Joan Huffman was without jurisdictional authority to·conduct

Vori Dire. allowed State's Prosecutor and Defense Attorney. Robert Scott.

to select jurors. to decide whether or not "I" ·-Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson

was innocent or guilty of the offense Agg Robbery under Cause No. 914043.

After Judge Huffman gave the jury the Court·charge without personal·

jurisdictional authority under Inval.id Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 and

and its -- its Invalid Information that derzwed from Invalid· Agg Robbery Complaint #913043

Invalid Informatin which did not vest the 183rd District Trial Court

with jurisdiction.

,CLAIM: Lack of Jurisdiction Over Aggravated Robbery Indictment #913043 Information~ ...

[Facts Supporting Claim] ·On· June 18, 2003·, the State reindicted the

Petitioner. Jackson. for the offense Burglary of a 8u'll:9lM1 cJ?Fcl1f.l:.U2; hJ:.i,SA.!r.!?.'J21) See Appendix Document "marked" (J)_; Burglary· of a Building Docket 'I'ext 095242 1 of the 183rd District Court. Also See AopendiX ·Document "marked" (K) ; l83rd

Writ Order -filed under Burglary of a Building ·cause No.· 0952420, Ordering

Harris County Sherif-f • · Tomniy :Thomas to arrest Jackson and present him before --~--- _. _ __:_:_~c:_- ·--,-- :::.:... _ _,_·:·J the 183rd District Court for Reindictment of the offense Burglary of a Building

Cause No. 0952420~

LFacts] Petitioner \vas· reindicted for- the offense Burglary of a Building.

Offense which derived out of the same criminal episode as did the Agg Robbery

offense Cause No. 913043~ Both offenses derived from the HPD Offense Report

- 12 - Number 072416202. See Documents "marked" (J) and (Kj in the Attached

Appendix.

rrhe Information/Allegations alleging threat \vith a knife with intent

to place Larry· Seitzler in fear of imminent bodily injury and death. was

not the Information/Accusation set forth on the face of the Burglary of a

Building Reindictment No. 0952420. Therefore. the Trial Court was not vested \ with jurisdiction over the Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 and its Information

due to the Reindictment of Petition for the offense Burglary of a Building

Cause· No. 0952420. and it.S Information. in which the l83rd ~Judicial District

Court was then· "became vested" with s,ubj'ect inatter jurisdiction over the

Burglary of a Building Cause No. rtilq,Jj23.f.:ltJ

Sx Parte Reedy. 282 S .w. 3d 492. 502 (Tex Crim App 2009) ; me Parte Gibson. ,

800 S.ld. 2d 548. 551 (Tex Crim · · App· 1990) ~--Further. "If the 'instrument comes

from the Grand Jury. purports to charge an offense and is facially an Indict-

ment then it is an indictment ~ .. and its presentation by a State's Attorney

invests the trial court with jurisdiction to hear the case._" Ex ?arte Gibson.

supra. See also.· Teal v. State. 230 S.W.3d 172. 180(Tex Crim App 2007). 'rhe

proper test to determine if a charging instrumel'Jt alleges an offense "is

whether the allegations · in it are clear enough· that one can identify the

offense alleged. If they are. then the indictment is sufficient to confer

subject matter jurisdiction."

Therefore. since the allegations on the face of the Burglary of a Building

Indictment #0952420 are clear enough that one can identify the_offense alleged.

the Burglary of a Building Indictment #0952420 conferred ~ubject matter

jurisdiction in the 183rd District Court for ·the offense Burglary of a Building

but did not confer subject matter jurisdiction for the offense Aggravated

Robbery Cause No. 913043: which is the primary Indictment,Petitionf,,,c· was

- 13 - taken to trial for in June 2003 which ended in a mistrial on June 13. 2003.

SeE¥ Appendix Document "marked" (13) -- Aggravated Robbery 183td District Court

Docket Text. Five days later on June 18. 2003.the State obtained Burglary

of a Building Indictment #0952420 from the. 248th Grand Jury in the l83rd

District Court~

[FactJ 'rhe 183rd District Court was not vested with jurisdiction or

subject matter jurisdiction over Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 after the State

abandon the Agg Robbery Indictment ;t913043. then reindicted Petitioner with

the Burglary of a Building Indictment #0952420. the act of reindicting Peti-

tioner · transferred the subject matter jurisdiction from the Agg Robbery

Indictment #913043 to the subject matter jurisdiction for the offense Burglary

of a Building. Therefore. ·the judgment rendered against Petitioner for the

offense Agg Robbery Cause No. 913043 is a Void Judgment rendered without

subject matter jurisdiction.

Petitioner was convicted for the offense Agg Robbery Cause No. 913043

on October 28. 2004. On the same date the State Dismissed the Burglary of

a Building Cause No. 0952420. See Appendix Document "marked" (J).

The Court of .Cr'iniinal.ll.ppeals. locat8d_ in.· 7\usti:n .. ·rexas should not delay

in GRAN'l'ING Petitioner 1 s Writ of Habeas Corpus and ORDER Petitioner RELEASED

IMr1EDIATELY from TDCJ -CID Director. Rick Thaler 1 s custody. Article 11) J, I/. i I

LTudge Joan Huffman· aia not rule or give consideration to Petitioner 1 s

Motion For Written Ruling filed January 8. 2004. See Appendix Document

"titled" Motion For Written Ruling.

All of Petitioner Jackson 1 s motions filed in the 183rd Judicial District

Court were essential to ensure his constitutional rights were preserved for

- 14 - .fa£J~ to assure Petitioner reVl.ew in thelii>fllffa-irl'f,A;If-111f)I'.AUunder a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus when Petitioner has no other adequate remedy at

law to have his claims considered on the merits.

GROUND/CLAIM: (C) , U.S.C.A .. Fourteenth Amendment and State of Texas Fourteenth Amendment Constitution Due Process Violation T.C.C.P., Art. 1.04.

T.C.C.P.. Art. 1.04 •. Due Process of Law Statute. No citizen of this

State shall be deprived of his life. liberty. property. privileges or immun-

ities or in any manner disfranchised except by due course of law.

[Argument] Judge Joan Huffman refused to afford "me" Petitioner Jackson

Due Course of Law. when the trial judge refused to rule on the following:

(A) Motion to Set Aside Indictments-- See Appendix Documents marked (~).

Judge Joan Huffman did not conduct a trial on r1otion to Set Aside Indictment.

Articles 27.04• 507. 571, 560. Motion T:tiedby Judge. An issue of fact arising

upon a motion to set aside Indictment or Information .shall be tried by judge.

[Harmfull Error] When Judge Huffman refused to conduct trial on Motion

to Set Aside Indictment. she contributed to Petitioner's conviction because

the State was allowed the second opportunity to convict Petitioner for the

offense Aggravated Robbery whereas Petitioner • in his f1otion to Set Aside

Indictment. issue lS that. the Burglary of a Building Cause No. o:~·Ft'.~l.~as

a "reindictment" from the same criminal episode that the Agg Robbery Indict-

ment i#.9l3043 derived from. That trial ended in a mistrial on June 13, 2003.

See Appendix Document marked (8 ~ .

Double Jeopardy Key of the U.S.C.A .. Amend. Five "prohibited" reindict-

ment after the State announced "ready" and the trial comenced on its merits.

- 15-- FU{ther. had Judge Joan Huffman· complied with Due Course of Law Mandatory

Statute. Art. 27.04. 507. 571, 560. the Trial Court would have more than

likely dismissed ··the Burglary of a Building Indictment #0952420. And the

Trial Court was withotit jurisdicition to conduct the subsequent trial. Judge

Joan Huffman was not the judge who presided over the Aggravated Robbery Trial

that ended in a mistrial onJune 13. 2003. Judge Joe Ann Ottis was the "sit in"

presiding judge.

Petitioner filed his Motion to Set Aside Indictment% on January 8. 2004.

prior to the subsequent trial during which Petitioner ,Jackson was convicted

for the primary offense. Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 9130~3. Further. the

acts of Harmful Error lead to Petit±oner's· conviction and wrongful incarcera-

tion in TDCJ-CID, · \vhere Jackson is ·currently serving time as· an Actual

Innocent person: due to aVoidJudgment rendered during an Illegal Subsequent

Trial conducted in the 183rd Judicia:l District Court after Petitioner Jackson

filed his i'1otion to Set Aside· Indictments.

Motion Key 36, 40. A 'l'rial Court is Required To Consider And Rule Upon"ivlotion ~ViH1in Reasonable Time.

[Claim] Judge Joan Huffman violated ·u.s.c.A~. Fourteenth Amendment.

Due Course of Law Clause requirement. when the TrialJudgerefused to conduct

trial upon Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus filed June 28, 2004, March 11,

2004. See Appendix Document ( ~) Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043, l83rd

District Court Docket •rext.

Violations And Denial of Due Process Under the Following 'l'exas Cqde of Criminal Procedure.

Article 11.10 Proceeding Under · t•Jrit: When motion has been made to a /

judge under circumstances set forth in the two proceeding articles, he shall

appoint a time when he will·examine the cause of the applicant;:. and order

the writ returnable at the time in the county where the·offense is charged

in the indictment or information to have been committed. He shall also specify

- 16 - some place in the County where he will hear the motion.

[Article 11.49] Order of Argument: The Applicant shall have the right

by himself or counsel to open and conclude the argument upon the trial under

habeas corpus.

·Judge Joan Huffman refused· to comply with ·any of the Due· Course of Law

under Articles 11.10. 11.11. 11~49.· Under vJrit ·of Habeas· •:corpus Due Process

of Law: which is a direct violation of the Texas Constitution Code of Criminal

Procedure Article 1. 04.

Further. Joan Huffman refused torule on-Petitioner's Motion For Discovery

And Inspection · of Evidence filed on January 8, 2004. See Appendix Docllinent.

Motion For Discovery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ And· Insoection of Evidence. Aggravated Robbery Cause

Number 913043 Docket Text.

Judge Joan Huffman refused to rule on Petitioner Jackson'sMotion To

Dismiss Court Appointed Attorney. ·filed December· 22. 2003. and filed on March '- - i 20. 2003. See Appendix Document• Motion To Dismiss Court Appointed Attorney.

See also Aggravated Robbery Docket Text #913043.

Judge Joan Huffman denied Petitioner Jackson his-eonstitutional·Rights to /

'Self-representationwhen she refused to rule on Petitioner's MotionTo Dismiss

Court Appointed Attorney Robert Scott. and refused to allow Petitioner Jackson

request to be allowed to represent himself after the State reindicted Jackson

for the offense Burglary of a Building Cause No. 0952420~

[Citing] Webb v. State [Cr App 1976] 533 S.W.2d 780• Criminal Law Key

641.4(1) Defendant in state criminal ·trial has' a Constitutional Right to

proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.

Evidence: Due Process Vici1ation

[Claim] Due Process Violation: The photographs presented at the subsequent

trial was not gathered by the HPD Officers who arrived at the location 2001

- l7 - Karbach St., "the Crime Scene :Location of HPD Offense Report #072416202.

Even though a Crime Scene Unit was dispatched according to Officer M. A. Khan's

testimony. See Appendix Document. Trial Transcript ;Page #99.

The Complaining Witness "namely" Larry Seitzler. 'took photographs and

then "someone" from the Harris County District· Attorney's Office_~, ....see. Appendi£

Document• Trial transcript Page Nos. 74, 108. 111.

The concrete block presented by the State was not gathered by the Crime

Scene Unit of the HPD, ·it was brought to trial by the Complaining Witness.

"namely" Larry Seitzler. See Aooendix Document:· Closing Argument by Defense.

Page No. 86.

The Due Process of· evidence gathered byan investigating agency such

as a crime scene police officer. is that the evidence gathering process require

the gathering of evidence. tagging it and placing it in the property ro,om.

The above said photographs and concrete block did not go through this

process. See Aooendix Document: Trial Transcript Page No. ··99.

[Actual Innocence Claim] Petitioner isactually innocent. in that Petition-

er never did use a knife in any manner to threaten Larry- Seitzler with immenent

bodily injury and death. S'ee Appendix Document: Closing Arguments by Defense.

Page No~ 83; Trial· Transcript .·Page No. 10; and Physical Evidence Ben Taub

Medical Records supporting Actual· Innocence Claim. Therefore. Petitioner

Jackson is Actually Innocent of· the Element Threat 1vith a Knife as the State

alleged on· Indictment ~f913043.

Petitioner's finger prints were not found on said knife. which would (

show the knife in his possession. Petitioner did not attempt to stab Seit:der

or use the knife in any other manner to threaten Larry Seitzler or cause

Seitzler to fear for his life as the State alleged in Agg Robbery Indictment

it913043. Petitioner never said anything to Seitzler. Thus, accordingly,

- 18 - medical records reflect in a human body diagram that Petitioner was shot

twice. once in the back of his right leg and once in the back of his left

forearm: which proves Seitzler shot Petitioner ·while his back \vas turned

toward Seitzler. and also proves Petitioner was·not facing Seitzler and/or

threatening Seit'zler when Jackson was shoL Therefore.· Seitzler' s accusations

and the State's· accusations alleging "threat of Imminent Bodily Injury and

Death by the use and Exhibiting a Knife as a Deadly Weapon" in indictment

#913043, are no more· ·than · Perjured Accusations ·made by the State and the ·

Complaining Witness "namely" LarrySeitzler made against Petitioner Jackson.

Furthermore. the HPD Crime Scene Unit· tested the knife for finger

prints but did not find Jackson's prints on the knife. See Appendix Document.

Trial Transcriot Page ( )•

The error is the Perjured Accusations madeagainst Jackson in the

presenting paragraph of Aggravated -Robbery Indictment· #913043. which· contribut-

ed to Jackson's conviction for the offense AggRobbery Cause No. 913043.

Also. the error· of the 183rd'District Trial Judge's unlawful assumption of·

jurisdiction under Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint' I·ndictment and Information

contributed to Jackson '-s conviction: because Judge Joan Huffman conducted

an illegal trial without subject matter jurisdiction.

"Harmful Errors"

[Citing] Ex parte William. 65 S·.W.3d 656. 658(Tex Crim·App 2001). An

Applicant must show harm. that is he must prove by a preponderance of· evidence

that the error · contributed to his ·conviction or puni·shment. The error of

Jackson's trial defense attorney's failure to object to ,State·. Prosecutor's

presenting photographs of the crime scene· by the Complaining Witness and

by someone from the Harris County District Attorney's Office contributed

- 19 - to Petitioner's conviction. •because the photographs were presented as evidence

for the State which had an effect on the jury's verdict. Even the Officer

Mohammed A. Khan testified stating that none of the photographs presented·

by the State were taken by any member of the HPD the nigh~the Crime Scene

Unit was· at the scene of the so call·ed incident where "I" Jackson was shot.

See Appendix Document. Trial transcript Testimony of Officer M. A. Khan

Page No. 108.

In ·order for the jury to find PetitiOner guilty. the jury had to beheve I

that the photographs presented by the·State were the actual crime scene caused

by Petitioner Jackson's actions. Petitioner Jackson has provided a sufficient

record that supports every allegation asserted within·this. his Petition

For Writ of Habeas Corpus. See Citing: Ex oarte Chandler. 182 S.W.3d 350.

353 Tex Crim App 2005.

Petitioner's jurisdiction defect· claim. void· judgment claim and Const-

itutional rights· violation I claim of unlawful confinement along \vith his actual

innocence claim is cognizibil by way of a post-conviction petition for writ

of habeas· corpus which is the only remedy by law to present Petitioner's

above, said claims.

Ex parte Davis. 747 S.W.2d 216. '223(Tex Crim App 1996) Because the Court's

authority to issue a ·writ· of habeas-corpus stem ·from Article 1 and·5, Texas

Constitution which provides that subject·to such regulations as may be pre-

scribed by law· the Court of Criminal Appeals and•the judges thereof shall

have the ·power to issue writ ·of habeas corpus •. Therefore. since Petitioner

Jackson has presented this petition for writ of habeas corpus as a collateral

attack. attacking his void judgment. jurisdiction. ConstitutionalRights

Violations and Actual Innocence Claim. the Court of Criminal Appeals so

consider the factual allegations of· each above said claim. and give a written

\

- 20 - ruling on the merits of Petitioner's Claims. Tex App Tyler 2001. Where a void

judgment has been rendered and the record. reflects it invalidity. the Trial

. Court has the duty· to Set A:side the judgmen"f even i f the· petition does not

. satisfy all the requisites of a Bill of Review. Thompson v. Ballard. 149 S.W.3d

161.

Statement of the Case

Petitioner h~s no other adequate remedy by law. except by-petitioning

the Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Petitioner's Request

Petitioner · respectfully requests that the Court of Criminal Appeals

examine the State Court records and his Petition·presented that supports

his claims. and should the Court find that Petitioner's claims and factual·

alleg,ations are sufficient·.- to support his eligibility for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus. that the Court of Criminal Appeals GRANT Petitioner's petition for

a writ of habeas corpus. and remand the writ to the 183rd DistrictCourt

of Harris County. Houston. Texas. with an order ORDERING the presiding judge

to VACATE the void judgment and ORDER Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson RELEASED

IMMEDIATELY from the custody of Warden Jamie Baker and the Director. Rick

Thaler. from the TDCJ-CID Nathaniel J. Neal Unit in Potter County. Amarillo.

Texas. where Petitioner Jackson is currently incarcerated.

Respectfully submitted.

Samuel Roy Jackson TDCJ -ID# 1268721 Neal Unit 9055 Spur 591 Amarillo. TX 79107-9696

PETITIONER. ProSe.

- 21 - Declaration of Penalty Under Perjury

I; Samuel Roy Jackson. hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the

allegations and information asserted· with this petition for writ of habeas

corpus are true and correct according to my knowledge. SIGNED this the ___day of _ _ _ _ _, 2015.

Samuel Roy Jackson TDCJ-ID# 1268721

PETITIONER /APPLICANT. ProSe.

- 22 - CEHTIFICA'l'E OF SEH.VICC:

r. StllQUel Roy Jackson. \ •.roc;a 126B72l. Petition~. hli'ireby ce:ctify that

a true; and corrolct copy o i?&t.it.ione l.!'or Nt·it of H..:abaa.s Co?Cpus ua.;; sex:v·ad u;;:on the l83l"cl District Court. 1201 Franklin. Harris Counc.y. Houston• 'r.:ixas 77002 on this th<3 l:. J t;e/ dd"·' o:E );,zi/ ' 2015. by ):)lacing 5dmQ in

thG Noal Unit Prison !'icdlbo;~. '-.....

SIGNED this the lf{F hday cf lfra; f , 2o1s. A:wwrl&-j, dc!Umz Samuel Roy Juck::n/ . TOCJ IDit 1268721

PETITIONER / APPLICANT APPENDIX COVER SHEET

APPENDIX DOCUMENTS OF THE HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK RECORDS FILED UNDER AGGRAVATED ROBBERY CAUSE #913043 IN THE 183rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, HOUSTON, TEXAS

DOCUMENT (A) Aggravated Robbery Complaint Cause #913043

DOCUMENT (B) Harris County Online Public Record (183rd District Court Agg Robbery Docket Text)

DOCUMENT (C) Ass.istant District Attorney, Brad· Hart's State Subpoena

DOCUMENT (D) Houston Police Report No. 072416202

DOCUMENT (E) 183rdDistrict Court's Report Trial Transcript Page #99

DOCUMENT (F)·Aggravated Robbery Indictment #913043

DOCUMENT (G) Aggravated Robbery #913043 Judgment Plea Before Jury Sheet

DOCUMENT (H) Judge Joan Huffman's Order to Serve·35 Year Sentence Cause #913043

DOCUMENT (I) Judge Joan Huffman's Writ Order to Harris County Sheriff I (Sheriff, Tommy Thomas)

DOCUMENT (J) Burglary of a Building #0952420 Docket Text '-

DOCUMENT (K) Burglary of a Building Writ Order to Sheriff

DOCUMENT (L,) Motion to Set Aside Indictment

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS DECLARATION OF PENALTY UNDER PERJURY

I. Samuel Roy Jackson. TDCJ# 1268721· hereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury that the above said documents are authenticated copies of the Ha~ris County District Clerk's Office of Chris Daniel. filed under Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043. in the 183rd District Court of Harris County. Houston, Texas. SIGNED this the £176 day of

Samuel Roy Jfickson .TDCJ-ID# 1268721

PETITIONER /APPLICANT, ProSe •

. - 24 - .. {/) {ESTATE OF TEXAS D.A. LOG NlJMBEH:774777 ) . CJJS TRACKING N0.:903303269~ -AOOl A.MUEL ROY JACKSON SPN: 00386651 BY: TW DA NO: 001827741 ll9 AREBA DOB: BM 03/05/56 AGENCY:HPD OUSTON, TX DATE PREPARED: 5/24/02 0/R NO: 072416202M ARREST DATE: 05/24/02

:::IC CODE: 1204 04 RELATED CASES:

:LONY CHARGE: AGGRAVATED ROBBERY \USE NO: 913043 BAIL: $30,000 \R.RJS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NO: 18 3 PRIOR CAUSE NO: ~ST SETTING DATE:

THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

fore me, the undersigned Assistant District Attorney of Harris County, Texas. this day appeared the undersigned nffiant, who under oath says t he has good reason to believe and does believe that in Harris County, Texas, SAMUEL ROY JACKSON, hereafter styled the Defendant, etofore.on or about MAY 24,2002, did then and there unlawfully while in the course of-committing theft of property owned by LARRY rTZLER and with intent to obtain·and maintain control of the pro'perty, mtentionally and knowingly threaten and place LARRY SEITZLER in r of imminent bodily injury and death, and the Defendant did then and there use and exhibit a deadly weapon, to-wit: A KNIFE.

~- :~\·,, .. \ .. .... ... f~ '"- \. ; .: .. - :.'·. ···~.

-:- ;· ..... : ·: -- -'- <>J 0

:AJNST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.

Sworn to and subscribed before me on May 24, 2002 ~ . -

FIANT ' lti ) t 1} utY¥v'J !56~ L..;;sSIST ANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. ~(36~ BARNO.

COMPLAINT -!

) f x; b ; + (S ) Doc 11 f'1 t AI r HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ... . On lin~ Pp.blic He cord;; . _j ........................................ 44' '.. _- . ·i~~ D_is1.ric1 .e ............,...,_.Courrty.Criminal _ _, _ _.._ _Records _ __

I Home I !if!!I! I~ I !i@lll!.~l~ lliJn Sear£t! I m'N Sear'c!ll Dl.Jl.Q.!r£tll Ca:11a# Soarch 1 •

,Gase Transactions lQEJOC) ~ ___N_a_n-,e-:--·JACKSON, ~iAMUEL R~Y-- --i-~---- Case Number: 09·1304301010 - Off~~~;~,, P.OBBEHY (-/:1_GG RO_~ _ERY ~~~_!:Y WPN) Bond Amount: ,$0 r' - -

Ca ce Statu-· COMPLETE~FINAL DIS OSITION NO AGTIVI1Y ~ . ~.EXPECTED- j - t'

...fl:~pPSI·r~~,-~_: _DiSP_.OSi:D C;~s1~ -,,..,. ___ ··-· _ J Ca~;e Comp!P.tion Date: 1'0/28/04 j l/ Last lnstrurn~nt filed: ON APPEAL CCJ: fit. Court: 183. f' File Date: 05/24/02 ~

04/17/06 04/17/06 APPEAL APPEAL MANDA-TE A;FI OPINION FILE - ~CE SNU: SNU: 987 988 l • - 08/01/05 APPEAL DIS ArTY - CH CKED IN RECO SNU: 989 , 08/01/05 APPEAL STATES BRIEF SNU: 990 . 07/11/05 APPEAL RECORD CHECK·D OUT - D.A.: SNU: 991 07/08/05 APPEAL DEF ArTY - C CKED IN RECO SNU: 992 03/24/05 APPEAL RECORD CltECK - DEFE~ .... SNU: 993 03/09/05 APPEAL STATE~ENT OF SNU: 994 02/15/05 APPEAL MAILED TO FI A SNU: 995 11/01/04 APPEAL FIRST COURT F APPEALS - C SNU: 996 10/28/04 APPEAL PAUPERS AFFI VITT SNU: 997 10/28/04 APPEAL SENTENCE IMP SED SNU: 998 10/28/04 APPEAL NOTICE OF AP SNU: 999 02/25/05 APPEAL ·NEXT- TRANS IT TRANSCRIPT DUE .05/2~/0:! CC:·1?~ ..'\I~JT r:~~S~ .... , ?.,. ., 10 3 ?lr"r'" !t::'(YDP~':::-~ l"''r."7\r.'T v ~a:P!·: I,E·\!81.~ Fl

~;~;:~~~ ~~~-~E~~~ .'B~ · ~~~~~~~ND;,~ t:::··~[:~:~~rA SNU: 999

OFF~SE 05/?ll/02 05/24/,02 06/11/03 O?.I: 'H0UST0N POLICE DEPJI-.P. )~:OMP_~It-!_11\~U'- ATTI -'t . f KH[\N, ~-~ \ TIME 1123I AM UNT . NO: 0724li620:

$0 SNU: 998 J 06/11/03 NOT ACKNOWLEyGED BY SHERI'FF 05/25/02 CMIF TIME 1015 At'1d,UNT $50000 SNU: 999 05/25/02 NOT 1\CKNOWLEtED BY SHERIFF 07/25/02 GRAND JURY ACTION FID 07/25 02 · G230 SNU: 999 07/25/02 GRAND JURY ACTION ROTATION CRT 183 OFF FRE,Q T BND $0 07 /2i5/02 GRAND JURY ACTION OFFENSE AGG ~OBBERY-DEADl)Y WPN LEVEL F1 07/2~/02 ORI: HOUSTON POLICE DEPAR OFFE SE NO: 072416202M 10/219/04 ATTORNEY CROWLEY, JAM S S_lDNEY SNU: 998 10/29/04 ATTORNEY AAA COURT 18 CFI 183

• ~9r/29'/0~~ JUDGE HUFFMA:N 1 . JO :__ P,RESTDING , 05/28/02 ATTORNEY SCOTT, F:OBER R. SNU: 999 . 05/28/02 ATTORNEY AAT COUF.T 18 CFI 183 II i htto://aoos. iims.hctx.iletfsubcrim/Caselnquiry .do ?courtDi~lsiort=003&cas~N um=09_13 04 3... 9/12/2011 -, APPUCATION FOR SUBPOENA BY STATE FOR WITNESS IN DISTRICf COURT Brad Hart, 713-755-6150 ·August 6; 2004 1- ~ \

No.952420

The State Of Texas In The Dtstnct Court No 183rd vs Of Hams County, Texas Samuel Roy Jackson Offense Burlary of a Building Please ISSue a subpoena 10 the abov_e styled cause for the followmg named wttness(es) whose locabon 10 ~ 9lunty and vocabon, as far as known, I state below - __ 1 _ ~- "7- Houston Pohce Department OR#072416202 iABrown#11632 ~ }\ahn ~113967 AMdler#1o6163 c - (j -~ * ) ,' . R Calderon #86814 ~ KD Franklm #83416 0~ DARyza~~5248 ~ •NW. Kiesewetter #97585 0~ 1 WC Sheldon #38788 Re IJL#3814-02 (J \~LYons #98709 (~ 'LAHwa#109051 0~ Pecsonal Senir.e Requested - tn be seryed bJ DA lnyestlgator rs:;; Charlene Maxey- 3434 W Little York #2307, Houston, Texas Q~ o(0 Please contract ADA Brad Hart at 713-755-6150, upon receipt II.~ ,, ~

.~ .![' , ~' • i.. E .~ I..Ct\RJSSE D(y,(j R~ ,,,, r:u•1k Q ~

.~~·9·Zdf ley _:...-. - • r- ~Deputy

c@ 0 1f found 10 your county, to ap·J)Cal~l'ore 0 the Honorable Joan Rullman, District Court No 183rd, Hams County, Texas, on October 25, 2004 at 8 45 a m , to gJVe e m behalf of the State and Defendant m the above styled cause wherem the State of Texas IS the Plambff and Samuel Roy IS the Defendant, and to remam there from day tci day, term to term unbl chscharged by the Court The tesbmony of sa1d wttness( beved to be matenal to the State

Ass1stant D1str1ct Attorney Hams County, Texas

Sworn to and subscnbed before me, th1s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A D 2003

CHARLES BACARISSE DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS BY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Deputy APPUCATION FOR SUBPOENA BY STATE FOR WITNESS IN DISTRICf COURT Brad Hart, 713-755-6150- August 6, 2004 No952420

The State Of Texas In The D1stnct Court No 183rd vs Of Hams County, Texas Samuel Roy Jackson Offense Burlary of a Building

Please ISSue a subpoena m the above styled cause for the followmg named wttness(es) whose locabon m Harris County and vocabon, as far as known, I state below

(j~ Larry Settzler, PO Box 70170, Houston, Texas TI270

Please contract ADA Brad Hart at 713-755-6150, upon rece1pt

~

# Q~ ~ 0~ ~ Q«@ 0~ rtf ~ 1? .. ~ . C.i~ ... ~r.AR~SE Ji) 1i. o~~~~·~ ~G 0 9 2004 , ~I''> ":c. -· /, ':'c~~ 3 .

~--~ ~--- 63P.utv tf found m your county, to apllC8J~to.re the Honorable Joan Huffman, Dtstnct Court No 183rd, Hams County, Texas, on October 25, 2004 at 8 45 a m , to g~ve e 0 m behalf of the State and Defendant m the above styled cause wherem the State of Texas IS the Plambff and Samuel Roy , 1S the Defendant, and to remam there from day to day, term to term unbl discharged by the Court The tesbmony of satd wttness( beheved to be matenal to the State

Asststant Dtstnct Attorney Hams County, Texas

Sworn to and subscnbed before me, th1s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day o f - ' - - - - - - - - A D 2003

CHARLES BACARISSE DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS BY - - - - - - - - - - - D e p u t y .... , , , ... , , , , .. • ••, , "• o o r roo o "rl" J II It Jl t Itt I I 11 t r I I t rJ fl IIJI It

PUBLIC RELEASE INFORMATION ~~ J f If I f .. .1 I I I I I I II I f I fI If f If II II I IJ I f I I I I JI I I f f f I I I I I I I I I f I II I : I I fI I JI I f If I I I I I If I II II If I I I fI I I I I tI I I fI I f f 1 I I I f I f I II I I

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT FRONT PAGE OFFENSE REPORT Incident no. 072416202 M fl J1 t t I I f I t ff U f I I ff ff I tr ff ff f It I f tl If fl If ff I U U U 11 f I I rr I f 1 I fl f It I f If I I I I f ft f ft U rr I II If ff I I rr I I II I t I I f U tr II fl II

ffense- AGG.ROBBERY D/W remises- COMMERCIAL BUILDING Weather- CLOUDY

ocation: Street no- 002001 Name- KARBACH Type- Suffi~- Apt no- S City-HOUSTON County-HARRIS Kmap-451V Dist- 3 Beat- 3810 ighborhood code-00253 Desc-FAIRWAY PARK,HEMPSTEAD GARDENS;DEAUVILLE PLAZA

!gin date- FR 05/24/02 Time- 0004 End date- I I Time- ;eived/Employee: Name-LAPTOP No.- Date-05/24/02 Time-0636 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT($)

01 Business name-REALTY Address-2001 KARBACH #S;HOUSTON,TX 77092 Phone: Home-(000) 000-0000 Business-(713) 476-9302 Ext-

02 Name: Last-SEITZLER First-LARRY Middle~WAYNE Race-W Sex-M Age-51 Hispanic-N Address-2001 KARBACH #S;HOUSTON,TX 77092 Phone: Home-(713) 476-9302 Business~(OOO) 000-0000 Ext-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------· ARTICLES

01 Disposition-DAMAGED Property tag no-0-0000-00 Complainant no-01 Item type-DOOR UCR class-00 Serial number- Value-$ 500.00 ~ription-THE FRONT GLASS DOOR WAS BROKEN BY A SMASHING OBJECT. THE GLASS ON DOOR WAS SMASHED. NCIC mise-GLASS/ NCIC case-

02 Disposition-DAMAGED Property tag -no-0-0000-00 Complainant no-01 Item type-COMPUTER UCR class-00 Brand-COMPAQ Model-5000 A* Serial number- Value-$ 1200.00 ..,.._.. ....... ......,..._.,.,.'- .,...,_ . . . . . . . ,_ .. .._ ...... _...,._ ... _.._.._.._.,,_.._. ,.,..._..._....., ... ,.._ "'"'''-"._, .... LJ..1Ul..J

1 rt rr t 1 t 1 I I t ff rr I I I H II J fJ rf fl I U J I rr fl ff fl II f II If U ff J f I II I I I I If I If I f If I f J •I I U I tr 'II n t rr U ff f I ff t J If f f I t I It ff II n ff

~----~-------------------------------------------------------------------------

DETAILS OF OFFENSE

try-DOOR-GLASS BREAK it~SAME AS ENTRY Instrument used-SMASHING OBJECT :.o ..

~PLAINANT #01 IS A BUSINESS. COMPLAINANT #02 LIVES AT THE LOCATION OF '1PLAINANT #01. SUSPECT #Oi BURGLARIZED COMPLAINANT #01 WHILE COMPLAINANT #02 3 THERE. COMPLAINANT #02 SHOT SUSPECT. SUSPECT #01 AND #02 FLED THE SCENE. ) SUSPECTS / BOTH SUSPECTS ARRESTED. EVIDENCE WAS TAGGED. NO WITNESSES.

'icerl: Name-ZA BROWN Employee no- Shift-3 'icer2: Name-MA KHAN Employee no- Shift-3

·ision/Station #-NORTH/STA 1 Unit #-3Bl5N

1 received: Date-05/24/02 Time-0007 Report accepted: Date-05/24/02 Time-0647

" Ex; bi .t P0 c "' rvJ t "' r (It) case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 22 of 27 99

1 do . with it? 2 A. ~ollect it, place it, check it for fingerprints, :~..:.;.

3 see if there's any type of print on it, and if there's not we 4 usually take it to the evidence, the property room, and tag it 5 with a case number. 6 Q. Is that what you did in this case as far as taking 7 it, tagging it, and putting it in the property room? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And you're not a fingerprint person are you, I ~ean,

10 a person who takes f1ngerprints? 11 A. No, sir. 12 Q. S0·'"YOU'di'dn'·tdo·that·with···this Stat·e'sNo. 11, you.

15 "' A. Q. Dtdc'' ·y:dt2:·.· N~·que s:t. :,t'h·a·t···t:re•;. tJ·on-eq ... • -=---~+A-~---t.r----'V.,r't:~..,,~.;'it';:>:~· . ·1~ M.. .:s··~''1Tr-.--------------------~-------

17 Q. To~"'o/0tfr'''i"t'hat·':done?,

18 A. A·~ tfn9;1:''was:•:;•d,i;sp a:t:ch ed~;., ana· ·that tin; ·t · feu•n:d- : nG> 'p·f·;i:ih\ts - • \ t

20 Q. Now, we've talked abo~t the Complainant taking you 21 inside showing you whdt happened, you recovered the weapon. 22 What db you do then? What happens then? 23 A. Usually we gather all the things that we're going to 24 take to the property room and get the statement and, you know,

• 25 we doh't find any suspect then we just basically start the

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR, RPR

...... . ,~-.. --.. J ~ .,r ·. /· THE STATE OF TEXAS D.A. LOG NUMBER:774777 vs. CJIS T~CKJNG N0.:9033032694-A001 SAMUEL ROY JACKSO~/)~o 3119 AREBA HOUSTON, TX

NCICCODE: 1204 04 t:-v GJ rd · SPN: 00386651 DOB: BM 03 OS 56 DATE PREPARED: 7/24/02

RELATED CASES: BY: mkb DA NO: 1827741 . AGENCY :HPD 0/R NO: 72416202-M ARREST DATE: 05 24 02 • FELONY CHARGE: AGGRAVATED ROBBERY I!<{) BAIL:~., &&7"d?oJ ~). -

fN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

fhe duly organized Grand Jury of Harris County, Texas, presents in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, that in Harris County, Texas, )AMUEL ROY JACKSON, hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about MAY 24,2002, did then and there unlawfully, while in the :ourse of corrunitting theft of property owned by Larry Seitzler and with intent to obtain and maintain control of the property, intentionally and ~owingly threaten and place Larry Seitzler in fear of imminent bodily injury and death, and the Defendant did then and there use and exhibit a ·leadly weapOn, to-wit: a knife. 2\ Before the commission of the offense alleged above, (hereafter styled the primary offense), on January~ 1997, in Cause No. 9825, in the 144th District Court of Chambers County, Texas, the Defendant was convicted of the felony of burglary of a habitation.

Before the commission of the primary offense, an? after the conviction in Cause No. 9825 was final, the Defendant committed the felony of >Urglary of a habitation and was finally convicted of that offense on June 29,2000, in Cause No. 819158, in the 174th District Court of Harris

• :ounty, Texas.

GAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.

~ ) INDICTMENT FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY • roDGMENT ON PLEA BEFORE JURY e... ,, .. ! . . .,. COURT/JURY ASSESSING PUNISH.MENT

CAUSE NO. q l ~0 L{ :3 TilE STATE OF TEXAS DIS1RICf COURT vs.

91ooy~J_£ft) CJa.Cks~ COUN'JY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW NO._ _""- AKA______________________________ OF HARR:l$.£QUNTY, TEXAS ~~ · ...

Dateof (O-Z~-o4 -~~Da·te of <5-d-L{- Q :J_ Jud nt: ffense: Attorney for Q 1 1 , ,_1_ ~ State: .Qt1C\ .L:I ~

Jury Verdict: GUILTY

~ Affirmative Findin ,Deadly w

~~iv· . . ,r·s nla Fmc 1n the Amount o : _ _....:.l_ _ __ 0 FineOnly

Time: '::]' 0 Q days toward days toward incarccntion, Credited: 0 0 D incarcerati rine and costs fine and costs COURT COSTS: S

[] Nrunech~g~from~~~~-------------------------------------------------------- [] Judgment Addendum incorporat~ herein by reference. 0 Driver's license is suspended for a period of _ _ _ _ _ _ _d.ays/months/years.

0 The Defendant is entitled t o - - - - - - days credit toward suspension of driver's license.

0 It is order~ by the Court, that any weapon(s) seized in this ease is/are hereby forfeited.

0 Educational program waived in accordance with Article 42. 12 Sec. 13 (h), upon a finding of good cause by the Court

0 ln accordance with Section I 2.44(a), Penal Laws ofTexas, the Court finds that the ends of justice would beSt be serv~ by pimishment as a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant is adjudged to be guilty of a state jail felony and is assessed the punishment indicat~ above. 0 In accordance with Section 12.44(b), Penal Laws ofTexas, the Coun authorizes the prosecuting attorney to prosecute this cause as a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant is adjudged to be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor ~d is assessed the punishment indicated above.

CRIMCSCB32 0312212000 RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM 1 This instrument is of poor quality at the time of imaging _____ _.... --- - - · - fx;J;;+ Dc'ci/f~l'Nr(ll)

.~ ;. . C10~?JrJ['j;Cftf ./f/l ,~ CTctcfcc§(W""" .n'J -~ l~d~ndam

• Th1s cause being called for trial in Harris County, Texas, unless otherwise refen:nced, the State appeared by her District Attorney as nanid named above appeared in person with Counsel as_ named above; or the Defendant knowingly, intelligently, ancfvoluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel as indicaled above in writing in open COurt, and the said Defendant having been duly arraigned and it appearing to the Coun that Defendant was mentally compet.c:nt and having pleaded as sho'NTI above to the charging instrument, both parties announced Tcady. for trial and thereupon a jury, to-wit, the above named foreperson and eleven others for a felony offense indicated above or the above named foreperson and five otherS for a misdemeanOr offense indicated above, was duly selected, impaneled, and sworn, the jury having heard the charging instrument·read and the Defendant's plea thereto and having heard the evidence submitted and having bcc:n duly charged by the Coun. retired in charge of the proper officer ID consider the verdict, and afterward )YFTe brought into Coun by the proper officer, the Defendant and the defendant's counsel, if any, being present. :ind returned into open court the venlict set forth above, which was received by the Court and is here now entered upon the minuteS of the Coun as shown above. - 1N: Defendant having previously elecled, in writing and at the time of his plea, to have punishmenl assessed as indicated above. And when Defendant is shown above ;to haV~; ~iected 10 have the jury assess punishment, such jury was called back into the ~ and hCard evidence relative..!0 the question of punishment and having bcc:n duly charged by ~ C(!Urt; they retired to consider such question and after having delibeDICd they returned into Court the verdict shown Wlder punishrilcnt above'; and when Defc:ndanl is shown -above to have elecled to have punishmenl fixed by the Cl;>urt, in due form of Jaw further evidence was heard by the Court relative to the question of ,punishmenl and the Court fixed punishment of the Defendant as shown above. . "0..0'=::, . IT IS CONSIDERED, ORDERED, AND ADJUDGED by the Coun. in the presence of the Defendant, that the said jud~"be and the same is hereby in all things approved and confirmed;· and !hal the Defendant is adjudged gtiilty of the offense set forth above as found by the verdict of~~ and said Defendant as indicated above. Further. the Court finds the Presentence Inv_estigation, if so ordaed, was done according to the applieablc provisions of Ait. 4il

is indicated above that the sentence is to be suspended, and if so, the Defendant is placed on community supervision for the period indica led above pending ~~all ding by and nol violating the terTI'l; and conditions of his comnumity ·

supervi~~ ORDERED by the Cowt that. this sentence runs concurrenl with any o~k~ce(s) unless it is indicated on the Judgment Addendum that the sentence is a lQ. . . • co run cumulatively.. · .. · . . Y) O -a· I ( _ · Signed and ~red on 17 pl-. b '1 ©5 ·~@;

0~ eoJlllllWlity Supervision O~ Exp~eson: __~-------------------~~~~~~~------------ Notice of Appeal: l0-2-<6- Q~"' Mil!l_date Received: _ _,__-__;_J_1-;.;---!f-9,::;..~~.-_·-:::.+-~j~(l::..;rf\.6~d After Mandate Received, Sente Lt) - 2. 8 ~ b t/ •W / ~ 813" ~ VerifiedM

Received on ~ ~~ a t - - - - - AM 1 PM.. CJ-ted.xJ- LCBT ~

Sheriff, Hanis County, T~ LCBU--'EYl_j___......,.,_ ____

By. _____________________~----D~uty

SPECIAL INSlRUGnON OR NOTES:._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

:RJMCSCB32 0312212000 2 Right Thumbprint • ~2. STA~E OF TEXAS NO. 0 913 04 3 01010 I

a~·

w• vs. IN THE 183 DISTRICT COURT

COUNT~~;~~~ ~Q:.~$9N ,' SAMUEL ROY BOOKED ,?,:Z,'(-O d- ~CKSON, SAMUEL ROY OF HARRIS ~CKSON, SAMUEL ROY

:I.. USE NUMBER: 091304301010 OFFENSE·: AGG ROBBERY- DEA '\_

::AR_S TDC: 0035 DATE SENTENCED: 10/28/04 ?N .. : 00386651 SID.: TX01985103 DOB: 03/05/56 Rll.CE: B SEX: M ~LL: 7F4 0~ HOLD: BOPP 01 ) THE SHERIFF OF HARRIS COUNTY - GREETINGS:

YOU WILL DELIVER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, IN- DIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS OR HIS AUTHORIZED AGENT, THE ABOVE ~I''I'UT·IONAL ~ED PRISONER IN YOUR OFFICIAL CUSTODY, HAVING BEEN SENTENCED TO THE TEXAS DE- ,RTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION AND ARE _DIRECTED TO ATTACH l THE COMMITMENT PAPERS A STATEMENT ASSESSING THE·DEFEND~~T'S CONDUCT WHILE IN .IL. BE DELIVERED, HAVING GIVEN'NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEALS, 1USTON, TEXAS, PENDING MANDATE FROM SAID COURT,- TI THIS WILL BE YOUR AUTHORITY FOR SO DOING.

HEREIN FAIL NOT, BUT OF THIS WRIT THEN AND THERE MAKE DUE RETURN, SHOWING HOW U HAVE EXECUTED THE SAME. IF NOT EXECUTED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM DATE HEREOF, YOU ALL NOTIFY SAID COURT, IN WRITING, THE CAUSE_...Sf......f..f.:-.~.LURE WHAT EFFORTS AND HAVE. E,:N . MNJE . • TO EXECUTE SAME . .•• ....r 0 k'l~ C ······- 0 .. ~P-'' •J

WITNESS/'~J ~stGNAru¥'~Atm ON THIJ i!r: SEAL OF OFFICE, ~~_DA\ ~l OCTOBER A.D. 2 04 ~- cifu:\R~ .-. J$ ~E DISTRI ·.

SNU: 999 ' ~. .. -·' t :. ~

SHERIFF'S RETURN

RECEIVED TJWl WRIT ON THE _2.1_ DAY OF [fide( A. D . viE ON THE ~ DAY OF /lA2Vl?rJ1h£?( A.D. ar;tJC BY DELIVERING THE BODJ' OF TIIE WITHIN ).{)JI( AND I E~91JTED THE

VIED PERSON TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF THE CORRECTIONS.

TOMMY THOMAS SHERI~.FHARRIS COUNTY TEXAS J~ • N0V 0 -~ "/f"f: .... ,_uu~ f, BY. . ORlGINAL TO TDC-ID DATE: _ __ DEPUTY UlstrJct & County Crlmlnol Records ~ ~----------~----~~------~------ I !1.Q!ru! I 1Mt:1 I~ I T!I!D.JJ...W I o Soprch I SPN Soptch I Pl S0prqh I Cpu! SOB [[Ph I ,-s-(1 :,..,...-' .

• Case Trans:~ctions (QDOC) -)

Name: JACKSON, SAMUEL "R Y 0 Case Numbe.r: 09524200101 Q Of!"eOse; BURG.LARY {S.URGLA Y OF A BUILDING) Bond Amount:~ $0 Case Status: DISM-DISMISSEQ·;-

,r .-,( ··<{ ;9a .'t:"'"'.~c:<~;~d~~,~·-'~~-!-'~~~,.,., OISPOSJ?D

/ File Date; 06/18/03 · / ' / Court Set&ln,e Date: -~~ ~·""iitM. ., . . . . ... led . . .. 10/28/0,4 .....ue=~- ! _ _ _ __ // ·'loG 06/18/03 CI liND TIME 1532 AM $0 SNU: 999 06/18/03 ACKNOWLEDGED BY SHERIFF 06/20/03 SERVICE A.CTIVITY BY PLACING D F IN JAIL ON 06/19/03 66/20/03 RECEIPTED BY CLERK ~-\8'~}~ ~·~~~- ~ -·. ... ~ ~;a~~~ 06/18/03. GRAND JURY ACTION ROTATION CRT OFIF FR~Q T BND $0 06/18/03 GRAND JURY ACTION OFFENSE BURG ARY OF ·A BU~LDING LEVEL FS ~~o/~.@v '0.~'\.! fl0(!1.~ ~~'GB ·-~ :@ ~G~· @;~.~~lfJJJ6~46l0M

• 07 /i0/03 ATTORNEY SCOT'!_, ROBER R. SNU: 999 01/10/03 ATTORNEY AAT COURT 18 err. 183 07/10/03 JUDGE HU~FMAN, JO N PRESIDING 10/28/04 C87 ACTIVITY DISM OTHER TATUS D CFt 183 SNU: 999 10/29/04 MO.TI()NS PROSE WRIT NDAMUS SNU: 988 10/29/04 MOTIONS FILEC· CFI 183 10/26,/04 MOTIONS ELEC1ION - J SNU: 989 10/26/0.; NOTIONS FILEC· CFI 183 10/22/04 MOTIONS ·MO J}C

05/07/04 MOTIONS CFI 183 03/11 MOTIONS SNU: 995 03/11/04 MOTIONS FILED· CFI 183 01/12 4 MOTIONS PROSE: ~ SET ASIDE SNU: 996 01/12/04 MOTIONS !J.!&Q- CFI 183 12 22/0 MOTIONS ~-9.-f?.Lt:i~IU-,J:;y....L.y SNU: 997 12/22/03 MOTIONS FILED CFI i83 08/04/03 MOTIONS ADOP MOTION ILE SNU: 998 .. 1-L

• -------------------~· . HARRIS COUNTY'JIMS- Criminal Subscriber Access Sy tern Page 2 of2

• 08/04/03 MOTIONS FILED CFI 183 08/04/03 MOTIONS TRANSCRIPTION SNU: 999 08/04/03 MOTIONS FILED CFI 183 06/18/03 PRECEPT/SERVE IND DATE R:!:TURNED HOW EXECUTED E DATE SERVED 06/1~/03 10/28/04 COURT ORDER DISMIS:3AL SNU: 999 10/28/04 DISMISSAL Rt:ASON DEFENJANT CON ON ANOTHER CHARGE

fi~4~!t~i9.i~i~~Jt'(~i~JM U!4:\fit::.:.,IM,.:.. ~~~~~lliH!!!~ b;iii¥~a~fDJMiY~t~~:/rm·.~mil

. §M.J:1§.0,' ~~ccet;slraator i. ,/l2.'201113:34PM

f~..,_ r . I i

• \ I \

It I

• 095242001010

THE STATE OF TEXAS VS. IN THE 183 DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS JACKSON, SAMUEL ROY JUN 1 t 200S DOB: 03/05/1956 BAIL $ 0

FIRST SETTING:

================~=========~====~==============~================================

~~~:~;~;~~•e=::::=~::~~~~~:!!::!f!~~~~::::::::::==~~=qg2~J!&L.= . ~ ' TO ANY PEACE OFFICER OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: ~ olJ/ YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED TO ARREST JACKSON, SAMUE~~y IF HE IS TO BE FOUND IN YOUR COUNTY, AND HIM SAFELY KEEP, OR S00 ~0VIDE THAT YOU HAVE HIM BEFORE THE HONORABLE 183 DISTRICT COURT IN AND/~SAID COUNTY OF. HARRIS, AT THE COURTHOUSE THEREOF IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON~~

· . . INSTANT,~~ THEN AND THERE TO ANSWER THE STATE OF TE~~PON REINDI.CTMENT . PENDING IN SAID COURT CHARGING HIM WITH ~GLARY OF A'BUILDING . 0~ A FELONY~ FILED IN .. SAID COURT ON 06/1~/2003 -~U HEREIN FAIL NOT, BUT OF THIS WRIT ~EN AND THERE MAKE DUE RETURN, SHOWING HOW YOU HAVE EXECUTED SAME. IF ~T EXECUTED WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM DATE HEREOF, YOU SHALL NOTIFY SAID , T IN WRITING, THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURE, AND WHAT EFFORTS HAVE BEEN 1!, , TO EXECUTE SAME. . {~ . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THERE~~ SET MY HAND ·~~·· SEAL OF THE COURT, AT AJ*15(: OFFICE IN HOUSTON, TEXAS ~ v06/18/2003. A;l~~tt)~6':. :. · .

I ~; 0© CHARLES~~qilliS~E, .PISTRICT CLERK ~ HARRIs ~~~.:;TEfAS

o o0-.(f!jj ({;))~ BY ~~ ~ ·.JV_ ' ~ .. ~·v DEPUTY . . .J5) .., {. INITIATING ~~~z.,"'! JOHNSON, DANA MONET .•.., ·•·

,. RETURN

WRIT RECEIVED ~ I~ ~AT 1.1:(..:;Ao' CLOCK AND EXECUTE!? BY .;J,:., ARRE.STING THE DEFENDANT AND ( 1) PLACING HIM IN JAIL IN HARRIs;; ~TY, "t~~s ON ~- ~ I~ I AT ~·CLOCK, OR (2 .;. HIS~ **~GUi'EQ :laFf~E . n (CR . L LE ACTION . . • 1~~ G\ 1'.1\\' I(.:J~L ·)~, \ vH

SHERIFF OF HARRIS COUNTY I TEXAS LV) 7 = .. BY 'GS:~ ... 16 c .....J . QO~~ADGE NO. ) CHARG~ CAUSENO. ~ fJ3_ THE STATE OF TEXAS DISTRICT COURT

~~~ooumv,TEXAS ~ TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: (check one)

0 (name), the DEFENDANT m the above styled and numbered cause respectfully pet1bons the Court to appomt counsel to represent h1m I her m th1s cause and would show the Court .that he I she IS fmclllc1ally unable to h1~ attorney C~

~~ 0 (name), a WITNESS m the above styled and numbered cause respectfully petitions the Court to appomt counsel to represent h1m I her m the mtercsts of JUStice and wouJd show the Court that he I she 1s fmanc1ally unable to h1re an attorney

W1tness

Sworn to and subscribed before me on thJS, the _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ __,200_.

~~~~~D ~ ~* "£ c~~c:L o~ . 0\ . \\\\l D;utYi)trlct Clerk Harris County, Texas rf'~ y \a~ ~ lU\.. n'l'J· -teY.ot} ER APPOINTING COU~L ~· C()\J -:1iil!l ~ ~'I on/~ d: ~~e Court determined that the 0 •

is, the LQ.:_ day above named defendant I witness ~~davit s~g o,._\9 that he I she ts without counsel and ts fhiandally unable to hire an attorney. The Court ORDE~at the attorney listed below Is appointed to represent the defendant I wl~ = : 7 v e In th~ · .

~0~ Attorney ~ s-tf()i ~ ((_'§>-

...Z4 City . ??W'l,State (3) Zip E-Mail Address

l/17ftPiz.lol ol~~ Bar Card!SPN Number

I ?1?91 /I- Phone Number P1~12-k"l ~ $1/ I

DISTRICT CLERK . I . .

QJ. rk llAE NIJ ekmriiiU rkr CA/_rr/~7/;Ej' ric:- umaztd:r/t,,y. () f 1 Th afi~111E !

ESOOSS A -..- esc so

e e . (iu;.rE . ..

J:, ri',e- I~J/lcl _.;;;;//{-~I Ll/saicr Cvnr !lA 19,t /.s r; ?' 7 N 7$ ;< /1 J .. t)./11/J;;;;?E ltJENO IJI/Ir/r Jy //Nf ~,m; t?ll wNAJes Jt; irlr /llie~ E'rl ol.f!E.t~JEj ; # · rir A.f..5E.f.f;~~~ t?fl(::J,e . 17

i M'it) /,..t ri~ A'#/JtVkfr :I de /J/Sr ,dCr (177D;M£1 ;"tt /IN'/; /1'/E'AIO; li~rlo't ~tvr-"/fN.e.mr.vr-/ly,r.w~ ;wiE,-J/rR .5VCh -f"Vff/JJ.e'N/f Wr.R~~/'1/rd t'P£ ?J;P#/ l ttJ)/t-) m/y)r /)irrl?E~Q 7P .r/~,/E/l 4E J.r /iNtj ;yv//r P,l £#NPC.e',VCE t?j/ dil~/,..c;./V~NT. C?A' /_/E .; 'hlllfj,rn;,;'; 1':11 AA/y .fpc~~ ,#£fEr/# /~5 ?5c. I o~ i ~. ; .4~tNrEd Q~ iJefl//Ec/ i . . . ~ ~ - r;:; Jl~~r ~J'c/./:f";rpi!J/k· 7/i"gA~ ~y .4lV E;;£rr-,.vEnr ()fll"r?cr~ '..> O,f_ /Z-9r~1. £"5 ?Jil rk _s;.rNr tljJ 7/r G//.ve- 4

:IVtJI /J?/Ic/r A V/il1t? 'Jr /0 /.fe- JJ.ehN/#.,r!Tj ?4r ;5 · : ()/1°/'A 1°.-f/ rj, >p...frcvT'C)A!f /aJ_5p_>/(::; ~/ t?#cl /IN~ /Ill ;E,xcu/);Art;.RY ~vld.r»rE tJA ZlhRm/Jr/·~A~ /'d //;vtP.R !tJf/ rhr c/i:Jfo~~ .k..vorE/o/l&-'.f

;/ ; 1.:1M'~~~ ~ . j)EN/~j ' ·: . ~ - . --- q) ri;J !/A~E..f-r MA'~/IA/T tJ I) !)~;:;.~.~cl,t;.vr ,_9qr/ IIJitj · :AFht4vl'O Jv;;,J?PAr/~9 r;{~ ~/67 lf//l..t>,(J;Ihvr ;c~A N't'?cl /)4"/1/./~?"d . . .

@ .,-je _tJe-hAI~E f&fv6r r~r "_5r.l'£,vr~l/';c ?Zrr ~;~£' .CP#cfrc/Er~ /dA' j}, (

.til' le,)(llr ofl /EJr/'#7 /o /Je ~Atc/k jt_j /1 /;t~v,rc- hvr..s-7'/'t;A-TP.R ~~r/ If 4 /Jrh/Y->~

OJ rk 1?-k-#~ . .~r C/-1#1'1()/ ,f/IN); ftJ ro n//1/ w/l'i ot/r .f/1/'?1 J#~£m/JT/~-¥ ~uri Lt.fj/Ftr/C::, A/ c ~A/ ;ir- h-///vdA~Vr h~ /A11.E r-k ~1.:--/-f-v_;.r ro r.l~ (~,ff.EJ Af19t~J/ ~~~--. .. __ ,;..

·~ r£-:s. /5 7P G~r/' h; /k r A ~tiC: ,QiftCI G.RRrcr ~f ; t>!l y-j~ ~&ftJ/~9 fNJ'UtJ/ne.N/ ?1/..t.r tk~vv~~e-/ TE ; Jb.s/:S-t/l,.;r IJ/:srt€/'rr /!7/CJ~#elj 6P"/ /J?J 1-&~~~D..r .c()//rr 7/.Y /IJ 1-11- ~()() tJ . f/lyl! 'I c. •• '1 /:I'

ff

JJl . iJEh>/~#~ /~ --vtJ7 ~a- 7ii C:d.,e/<" -tv>~ h/1/r/ ?~,E /,(3- ?Ati.J/ /~ 4-/i"MJE GP~£/,

.. c r£ c~v/r/ 5~v/cl /l/t6tcJ d ,ar/?~.t/r­ rk /l!jk 7P k/.-?f-->/~ .hf,..,se-# _z;;;, ~ ;~;)t;,/E _s~;~r/ Cv~. ·

G~-

-· 1

2 D·l·0···i.:t-he, ·;:po 1 i c-e"·'o.f,:f':~:ce:r..:s .take Nte'S~e'W!i):f.l'elil0~Gt!J•~p,h s?

Th:ei:~+0-r:l'8'5· ; l·•:di-:d, not. :;take \we.r:e. ~t;akeJti;;';py S'Om;e:one·.:~W;i•t•h. . • 4 Q. W~re·;·the:y>aJ·l taken that night then? - 5 ~- N,o . , .sir. 6 Q. Which ones were taken that n;i·ght? By the way, the

7 ph'Ot@:!)j•rr:<:fphs 't1 ~at we'.re talk-'i'litg~··ahout tal\·i·l\\9• that :r:tight, y\eU

8 took· tho·se. yotrrs·e->J•f? •'

10 Q.

•• 13 14 15 an·g 6> . {jl. Q. R~tr.~ifi$' ·.'

Al~ ··r~·ght.

·Are t·Mo·se· t~e: ·I 've··got ·thr-ee· . .·photog•r:·a'!l>hs... her,:-.e, 9, · 10

o.nes.:·. t:hat.:y.o·u took? : • --~~:.._.;..----={A.~·=-)_......:Y-=-·e;s_, ·16 i·~··.-~s·:t:'r'f ··t'he ' ---~a·re . 17 Q. Are.: those the orll y ones ·.YOV- -too-k? 18 , .....· .. 19 Q. Do·:•y·ou"-"know,·•wher:-e-. they a.r:-e?

20 {£7 ·N;e,;,~5]:: ·don-' t . 21 . . I '

22 w~u·l·d:,.'have:<.beem·'··one·s, t'hat· .. ·were·taken-by't:h~;·'-Df.str+ct· Attdr·Aey'_s \ 23 Office or,·some·one: else · bthe·r tha_n,,.your.-.s~lf \- corret:t? 24 A. ·'fhat'•·:s;c"true''t'--s'i r·.

- 25 e·;'·Y·e·a·:-·-i<'now·~wh:en··i·t'i'l

MATTIE K1l415LE1, CSR, RPR

·-·.-- .. ·------------ Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04108 Page 24 of 21108

e 1

3 Q. (BY MR. SCOTT) THE COURT:

else had any knowl ed~fe in your investigation as to what That's sustained.

Were you placed on notice that anyone • 4 occurred out there that morning except the complaining witness?

5 A. That's correct.

6 Q. And you and Officer Brown were not witnesses as to

7 what occurred, you showed up after the fact, did you not?

8 A. That's correct.

9 Q. So once aga~n the only witness that you interviewed

10 about anything that had to do with this offense was the

11 ·complaining witness, right?

12 A. Yes, sir.

e 13

15· Q. Di'<:F~~yt>'ti"''take•.··any.

!l;~i,Qlh t•1',<:.,o'O.:ft;fie:e

A. r i•·• p.i ctur!es';·. Of• ''i:he·;··soe:A'e""··out ·t·her,e".,~that

Or< •:t1hat ·, ·ea:rlo/' ·me'f',fl:i'n'g?

.r- eH·d- not. ~take•. an.y · p:ci.c"tu.rr-e.s. • 16 Q. WeJ:;•e·•you ..pr.e-sent whe·f'l"··any- crime s>C:,ene-un•it or anyeme 1 7 els.e' w4 th the ... Heu:s•ton · Po·l i ce'"'flepartment·· came····and-·c't:0ok 18 phpt·og:vaph·s•-:oou:t.-tJ~e:r;e?

19 A. Cr:j!me.- s.ce,ne, umt·t :wa•s· not •<:l+spat;ch.ed, .o.u.t.._tll.are.

20 Q. So there· were no~ phot•ogrvapns.·tak-en•b.y :-any.me.mber:;::;;.,_QJ

21 t t:\~ -"Hsus4~·BH•>P:GJ;j,;ceo. O.epa.r4:illen t ·.. j n .ry.e:J~a1t.i,Q11.1~:o :'titJ~··rfi~f)v-e;s~t'<;\:t§'a-;t;·"h.:m

22 o;f;'~t1hi;s~.·"(:J•rr~·me'-; ·. ;i\s ·'.t;Jctaffi~.,QQCf',~.c;t.; :i,:-S~JtJt?

23 A. Np,fl:;.'~:;a;;t-;;·,·tne' ·'p·o'i"n:t, '·~tbat ";!I -was'"1t.h eP.e .

24 Q. J:f..'' i't-:-~happ.ened··, i t·~' ha ppe ne.d::·s,cme :ecMi!e,n·,,_"t:i.,me./" .. cor;o;r,e·ct?

25 A. rH;a;tyt~s-¢'co::rf:e:et .

MATTIE KIMBLE, ·cSR, RPR • Ca.~e 4:08-cv-00~43 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 26 of 27 "f'if 1

3 A. Q. A. We determined one hit the back of the trunk.

That's in the car, yes, sir?

And·th'en the other twowent into him. • 4 Q. Into him referring to the person he shot, right?

5 A. Yes;1 exactly. 6 a. So,~. i f there's exit wounds in him, were you able to-

7 find that bullet once it exited him? 8 .. MR. HART: Calls for speculation as to whether

9 there were ex.~ t wound-s.

10 TH~_ COURT: ·sustained.

11 Q. (BY MR. SCOTT) Were you able to find any bullets,

12 projectiles o'r otherwise, at the scene of this shooting? No.~ ..

• 13 A. ' 14 Q. Did you talk to the man out there as to the location

15 that he was iri during the shooting as well as where he says the .. .. ' -1_6 suspect was cfuri ng the shooting? Did he 1 ay all that out for

17 you during th~ in~estigation? :.·

18 A. Yes.\ sir.

20 ·t,~"e1""e~,'e~S"..,i·l€f:e~~~tit4ire\~:k'fl~i<.:1t-ef.;'-"'·Stat:e~~s"'-~E.Xtim~t!J'.1~*'~N6"·~\h:1'1-::;\~~··se"t~i$lgrt';t;Aie¥:ce'?-- ·- 21

22 a. W~~F·€""~h e• ·· poq;ctfu.r.e:s . !

22 ''0'·':- yP~·~er~·'S·e·en- -he.r::e ., tt'oti'a'S''\ ·~·to ··y·o'cr··r'':'krrom~~~

·24 .y.coil:k1Welr·e·--·there:-;~0:P:~·nort?- ·-

• 25 A. Th:·e eKhtbi·t·s;c"'·ri•gnt·-··he\r-e?

-MATTIE ~Bl.t, ·CSR, RPR • Case 4:08-cv-0044 iled in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 1 of 27 76

• .1.1.'

• / 1 given opportunity to make summation r~marks.

2 " In addition, upon request, you may ·~":~

3 request to s~,e any of ·the evidence which £1 -..s~ peen

4 admitted during the course of this trial.

5 (Court's Charge read t¢. the jury.)

6 THE COURT: So, with that, that

7 concludes the reading of the ~ha~ge. At the

8 conclusion of the' argument, the bailiff will ~ay this

9 Charge on the table in the jury room.

10 You may proceed.

11 MS. KIBLER: rhe State will waive the

'12 ri~ht to open· but reserve the· right to close~

13 Your Honor ..

' 14 '!'HE COURT: Then, Counsel, you may

15 proceed.

16 . MR. · SCOTT,: Thank you, · Your Honor.

17 CLOSING ARGUMENT BY ·THE DEFENSE

18 MR. SCOTT: ~adies and ~entlemen bf the

. 19 jury, I appreciaee the a~tention ¥ou•ve showri during

20 the pr~sentation of this case. The Court has .·now ',

: ·, f lJ ' .' ' ' :. 21 . told you what .sh~ would do when we ~tarted all this

22 Q p.nd that is gi y~ you the Court's Charge. This is. the

23 guidelines and_rules by which you are to deliberate. .. ~ 24 ~We told you abdut the indictment. This follows out .

'•·· 25 : and tells you ~he words and the phrases that are

~ATTIE KiMBLE, CSR Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 2 of 27 77

• .,.~ 1 defined in the law and that you must follow. '•.

2 We also told you that it's your

3 responsibility ·.. . to determine ~,:-; wha~ the facts are .

4 Disputed facts, a jury resolves disputed facts. My

5 client has entered a plea of not guilty. It

6 brought -- once that happens, a person goes to trial,

7 a j~ry is selected. That's what happened.

You must therefore, as a juror, analyze

9 the evidence, base your decision solely ~~on that

10 evidence, and a true verdict render.

~1 S ') wh.a t do you have to look at?

12 The case did not take very long. The

• 13

15 circumstances under which it happened took less than

10 seconds,

of time, 15 seconds.

it was phenomenal. I mean, such a short period

But regardless of the • 16 length of time that it took, it's still necessary for

17 to you break down all the conduct, analyze the 18 conduct, and see if the spoken word coincid~s or

19 correlates with what the physical evidence shows when

20 you have physical evidence.

21 There ie physical evidence in this

22 case. There's a great deal of physical evidence in

23 this case. But there's also a great deal of issues

24 that have not been answered.

·- 25 Now, you got a complaining witness that

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR

• - ·-.-- ·--- -------------~- _______ .._________________________________________ Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 3 of 27 78

• 1

3 talks about bei:-.g on 'the phone at 1:30 in the

morning, talking to his daughter who was in Plano or

somewhere~like that wheQ he heard the window break, • 4 the glass break out of the door. Well, we know it's

5 not 1:30. It can't be 1:30, because it has to be

6 before 12:09.

n Why do we know that?

8 Because the officer wrote down when he

9 got the call, two minutes later he got there. You

10 say, well, wait a· minute. We're talking about things

11 that happen, people don't really know. Well, that's

12 true. That's true. But what it tells you is that

•• 13

15 things are not necessarily as precise and accurate as

you would normally want them to be before you make a

decision such as your being asked to make here today. • 16 So we know the time frame's off. Well,

17 12:09, 12:06, 12:07, 1:30, what difference does it

18 make? Well, that's the difference it could make to

19 you if you wanted to analyze and be a critical juror

20 and find out what was going on .

21 He talks• about the man that he says

22 came into the building, carne into the building

23 through the' 'lllindow of the front cdoor, which is

24 Exhibit 3, all right. Exhibit 4 shows that front

• 25 door now . But, of course, it,

MATTIE KIMBLE, likewise,

CSR shows the

• ·. Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 4 of 27 79

2 3 blind as it appears now and it appeared, according to the officer, damage to· the same on that night. the";~.~. blind out of about one, There's only two, three,

4 four slats. The bottom of that blind is absolutely

5 intact. There is no damage to the bottom of that

6 blind. 7 Well, does that make any difference? 8 We'll put it together in a minute for

·9 you. 10 No. 5, ~ikewise, a picture of th~ front +1 door, the same blind. This shows you other things, 12 though. This shows you basically from the doorway,

• 13 14 15 which is the dovrway which is in No. 7, you come through this doorway and you go into the room, which is No. 5, all right? You come out of the door and, 16 as the Prosecutor was standing approximately right 17 here in this location, where the man says he was, 18 looking out this door, right in this doorway, looks

lS and sees a man crouched down, he says, over here by 20 this desk, okay?

21 EverybodY on the same page? 22 That's what he said. He even got up 23 and demonstrated with the little garbage can and he 24 bent down on one knee where he says he saw the man . 25 with the knife in his hand. The man's back would be

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR <' Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 5 qf 27 80

3 towards you, of course. It would,

from ·the complaining witness, would it not 7

crouched down. .. like this, cutting the cable, likewise,. .. be ,, away

He W'as

the man's

4 here, the man's back is obviously away from him. At

5 least that's the way I perceive him. The man gets up

6 and turns to him and holds the knife up like this.

7 He's shot, according to the man.

8 Now, the man'dives back out through the

9 window that he's just come through supposedly. Of

10 course, he·did that without any damage whatsoever to

11 those Venetian blinds. No damage. None . . ~·~

12· Is that poss~ble?

15 T)le evide.nce~.-would indicate it is . ··~\

Common sense woul~ tell~~o~ that's impossible. ... cannot have cie·ared -that wLj.ldow without destroying, ·~ He

16 bending, damaging, in some way doing something to

17 those Venetia~ blinds. 18 Now, you-know that he says he's in fear ·,;~

19 of his life supp-osedl'y because the man is some -- he

20 says ten fe~t, it ~ppears to be 15 feet away from

21 him, because he's ho1aing a knife. The man's left

22 hand is down to the side, the knife is in this

23 manner.

24 Is that consistent with what he is

• 25 says?

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR ... Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 6 of 27 81

3 consistent with the medical

impossib~e. ~It's That's what he says.

retords~ But it's not

It's

physically impossible to have • 4 occurred that way, according to these medical

5 records. Because it tells you in here that the man,

6 as we've shown, was shot here on the under side of

7 his arm and it talks about a fragment of the bullet

8 b~ing in the ma~·s wrist to this day. It couldn't

·9 have happened like the man wants you to believe it

10 ·happened.

11 Holding the knife out like this is

12 physically impossible for him to shoot where he says

15 he was over here.

like this. Unless the man had the knife up

That allowed an entry wound and that

allowed the trajectory up to his elbow. That's what • 16 it says, but the man said he held the knife like

17 this, made no gesture, did nothing.

18 Shot through and through in the leg ..

19 How do we know he's shot through and through in the

20 leg? The man wants you believe that while he was

21 still -- becau::"e I ask40ed the man, I said, are you

22 sure he didn't turn or·do something? No, he did not.

.. ;23 He stood and he faced me and I shot him twice, pow,

24 pow.

•• 25 We have a gunshot wound to the mari's

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR • '~ v·w.""'i'~:«.. _________________ ......... _ Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 7 of 27 82

3 leg. It's in the medical records.

and through gunshot wound;

out the O'the,c side. It is a through That means in one side,

The man is standing facing the • 4 complaining witness, he is backed up because of where

5 the man tells you the Defendant was kneeling right in

6 front of the desk. ('

/ 7 The officers who spent an hour out

8 there looking for evidence could not find a bullet or

9 · bullet fragments, a spent bullet anywhere in that

10 office building. There's a bullet because ·he said he

11 fired the bullet. But we know where one bullet is.

12 It's in this man's arm. You know that because of the

15 medical records. You know there is another bullet

somewhere because we got a through-and-through hole

in his femur. And it says that in the medical • 16 records. But we can't find a bullet in the office.

17 We can't find a bullet in the desk .. We can't find a

18 bullet anywhere.·

19 We say, well, what difference does it

20 make?

21 Well, i~ makes a lot of difference. It

22 makes a lot of difference because you would have

23 tangible proof other than just what a man says, a one

24 ·witness who says something, supported by the result

25 of the firing of the gun. You'd have that, if you

-······-·····--·------- MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR • .! 83 Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 8 of 27

3 found the speLt round and they looked for it.

couldn't find it.

~But you've got something else in the They

• 4 medical reports. Not only do they talk about the

5 through-and-through gunshot wound to the femur, but

6 they show throuqh an arrow and through a diagram in

7 here that it was an entry in the back and it was exit

8 out the front. .Exit in the back -- or entrance in

9 the back, exit out the front. Shoot from there to

10 here, and it would have to enter from the back.

11 Why?

12 Because that's what the medical records

15 say. The man would have to be facing this direction,

would have to be with his back to the man when he's

shot. And that would, likewise, be consistent with • 16 him being shot in the back of the arm. So, the man

17 isn't facing him with the knife. He isn't about to

18 attack him with the knife. If he's in the building '! 19 at all, I submit to you he would have to be facing

20 away from the man when he's ihot.

21 But tha~ still doesn't answer the issue

22 as to where is the bullet. Where is the bullet? The

23 evidence could lead you to believe that the man was

24 out the door aLd was shot in the back. And that

2.5 would explain no bullet, no spent roune, other than

-~· MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR

• ..! Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 9 of 27 84

3 the one that he's got in his arm.

orie forever.

he's sho~--~then, We can

But if he's out of the building and

you say, well, tr~ce

what are you that

• 4 talking about? What are you talking about?

5 ~ell, I'm talking about somebody that

6 might have had too much experience as a reserve

7 officer who might have had a burglary and

8 overreacted. We might have had a person that is

9 junior G-man who wanted to do his own investigation ' 10 and take his own pictures and shdw you how much this

11 chunk of con~rete wei~hed.

12 Of course,. that brings up another

15 curious thing . The officer talks about that,

out there and finding the knife, which,

one bothered to see if there were other knives like going

of course, no • 16 that knife in the kitchen. I don't know if those

17 come in sets or not, I don't have a clue. But it

18 would be curious to know if there were other knives

19 like that knife in that man's kitchen. Nobody

20 bothered to look for that that we know of. Perhaps,

21 it didn't occur to them. We don't know. We don't

22 know what was done out there, do we? Do we know?

23 Do we honestly know out of all those officers what

24 anybody did?

,,, 25; We had a print guy. One man who came ••••

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR • 85 Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 10 of 27

2 3 in and didn't know anything about any of it.

said, I'm a print man.

anything .sometime, ·~··· I can get prints off of most

sometimes you can't. He just

The guy that 4 actually did any of the print work, we don't know 5 what he found cr didn't find. We do know he g6t a 6 couple of smudged prints. We don't know about that 7 knife. We don't know about other knives that were 8 dropped that night, and we don't know anything about

9 this big chunk of concrete. 10 The officer never mentioned that

11 concrete, did he? 12 With all these pictures that the

15 concerned Complainant was taking because why? the police 'weren't doing it right or something. Something was wrong, I wo~ld assume, because he saw Either

16 fit to take thP only pictures of the scene, the only 17 pictures of·the stuff. Well, not even the scene. I

18 take that back. ·TheDA's office goes out there two

19 weeks ago, they take these pictures. They take these 20 scene pictures a year later. So, the fellow didn't

21 even do that part. Bat we .do know that No. 6 shows

22 us the computer. I'm curious as to why a person

23 would cut the computer cords as far as just 24 unplugging them. I don't know, maybe there's a

• 25 reason for that. You can cut them quicker than you

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR 86 • 10.. •. Case 4:08-cv-00443 Docur1ent 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 11 of 27

2.

3 can just unplug them.

I don't know that.

:~-.; I'm not a computer person,

Takes a picture of what he says is the so

• 4 knife that the man had. I'm having trouble seeing

5 any concrete block, any concrete anywhere. You think

6 this size, you think the officer would have seen that 7 oh, yeah, I know how he did it, he broke out the

8 .window with this chunk of concrete and it was laying

9 inside the door. I asked him what he saw. I think 10 my· exact phrase was: Was there anything of interest

11 to you beiides the computer and the knife that you

12 saw there? I think that was my question, maybe it

13 wasn't, but it was something like that. Not a thing.

15 16 Not a thing. So th~ officer doesn't even know about that until the guy brings it down here in his own little • 17. satchel to mak: sure you get to see it. Wh1ether i t

18 is or not, I don't know. Whether it's the same

19 brick, same rock, same anything. The officer sure

20 cah't testify, he cari•t help you with it because he

21. 9oesn't know anythin~ about it. 22 So, we're back to the same man. The same

23 man that we know is not being accurate with us when 24 he talks about shooting the man. He carinot be

25 accurate when he talks about shooting the man because

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR • 87 Case 4:08-cv-00443 Docur,,ent 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 12 of 27

3 we've got medical records that disproves everything

he says in relation to those injuries.

Makes it physically . impossible for it to occur . •' ~-~ Everything. • 4 But you can be a law enforcement minded

5 to th~ point ~o say, well, we don't care what that's

6 about, we still want to convict this man. But that's 7 not your job. It's not your responsibility. Your 8 responsibility is to listen to the evidence and, 9 based only on that evidence, co~e up with a verdict.

10 The State has that responsibility. 11 It's their burden. It's their job~ Ten to

12 fifteen I'm not sure. I don't want to mislead

15 you. A number of officers went by there, went

through there, did all this stuff. We don't have print man here. I ·. We got one here. We don't have • 16 photograph~ h~re. We don't have anything. But ba.sed --------------------------------------------------~----- 17 upon that type of evidence, the Sfate wants you to I

18 convict my client. I think if you read the Charge

19 and read your responsibility, the weight of

20 testimony, those type of things, that you realize

21 whatever happened out *there, we haven't been given

22 enough information to know. As I said, kind of like

23 "Wheel of Fortune." How many have been right up to 24 the last two letters and missed it, like the

25 Prosecutor's grandmother? How many have come right

-,--,.-----------------·----··------------------- MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR

• · - - - - - - - --------- ----- Case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 13 of 27 88

3 up to the last letter and missed it?

You're not being asked to get

We're ask'ing:.-you to be convinced beyond a reasonable close~ • 4 doubt. Because it's not just what happens when you

5 go home. It happens to the system. It happens to

6 this process. And this process is dependant upon

7 people taking an oath and listening to the evidence.

8· And if it, is consistent and if it is believable and

.9 it is logical and it all fits together and it makes

10 sense to you, then convict my client.

11 But if it doesn't, if it doesn't fit

12 and it doesp't make sense and it's not consistent and

• 13. it's not logical, then you react to that as well

14 because you don't have a responsipility to convict.

15 It doesn't say a true verdict render, which is a

16 conviction. It means a true verdict based upon the

17 evidence; and the evidence shows you that that man,

18 whatever he was doing out there, he was not shooting

1S my client in the front.

20 And you know the other things that are

21 so inconsistent here, that if you had to go buy a

22 used car or something like that, based on this

23 information, you'd never buy it. This is a heck of a

24 lot more important than a used car deal . . 25 Thank you.

MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR • Case 4:cti~RRJ~ocuOJJ~;T¥illcfQS:aJTJ\k4JO~$l;fil~T27 Radiology Services Consultation ~edical Records Copy

NAME: JACKSON, SAMUEL MR#: 436-36-13-8

DATE OF BIRTH:. 03/05/1956 ORO#: 90004

SEX: M AGE: 46Y · ORDERING LOCATION: EMERGENCY CENTER

ROOM/BED: 5523- ACCESSION NUMBER: 5513196

ORDERING DR.: LANE PATIEN M.G. ATTENDING DR.: BRADFORD SCOIT M.D.

***Final Report***

DEPARTMENT: BTGH EMERGENCY CENTER RADIOLOGY CPT CODE: 73090 Exam(s): BEC 0057- FOREARM 2 VIEWS MIN -RIGHT · May 24 2002 2:45AM (End Tracking Time) 2 VIEW RIGHT FOREARM: 5/24/02

COMPARISON: None.

CLINICAL INDICATIONS: GSW

IMPRESSION: 1. No evidence of acute fracture noted.

2. There is a bullet fragrrent overlying.

3. Prominent esophagus due to swelling ofthe foreann with air visualized in the soft tissues. Recommend clinical ~orrelation.

DISCUSSION: The bones are well mineralized.

SNSMK!oa

The staff physician below has personally reviewed this exam on the date of dictation.

REPORTED BY: SALAMAAN AHMED. M.D. READING DATE: May 24 2002 11 :OOA STAFFED BY: SHIRISH KOTHARI M.D. SIGNED DATE: APPROVEIYBY: SHIRISH KOTiiARI, M.D. SIGNED DATE: May 28 2002 8:19A Transcribed by I Date: OA I on May 27 2002 :.1:24A Approved Electronically by/ Date: May 28 200:! 8: I 9A

Radiology Services Consultation Page 1

......... --···--·-"""·------------- . .. .. ' ..... ......, -'-'•'~• • ••vvriii-\L ·" I Kl \., I Radiology Services Consultation Medical Records Copy

r VIE: JACKSON. SAMUEL MR#: 436-36-13-8

DATE OF BIRTH: 03/05/1956 ORO#: 90003

5EX: M AGE: 46Y ORDERING LOCATION: EMERGENCY CENTER :-"··

~OOM I BED: 5523- ACCESSION NUMBER: 5513195

JRDERING DR.: LANE PATIEN M.D. ATTENDING DR.: BRADFORD SCOTT M.D.

>EPARTMENT: BTGH EMERGENCY CENTER RADIOLOGY :PT- CODE: 73550 . :xam(s): BEC 0070- FEMUR 2 VIEWS -RIGHT May 24 2002 2:45AM (End Tracking Time) 2 VIEW RIGHT FEMUR: 5/24/02.

~OMPARISON: None.

:LINICAL INDICATIONS: GS\V

· _rRESSION: No evidence of acute fracture.

ISCUSSION: The hip joint appears normal.

.VSMK./oa

he staff physician below has personally reviewed this exam on the date of dictation.

:PORTED BY: SALAMAAN AHMED, M.D. READING DATE: May 24 2002 11 :OOA AFFED BY: SHIR.ISH KOTHARI M.D. SIGNED DATE: lOVED BY: SHIR.ISH KOTHARI, M.D. SIGNED DATE: May 28 2002 8:19A nscribed by I Date: OAJ on May 27 2002 9:26A :>roved Electronically by I Date: May 28 2002 8: 19A

Radiology Services Consultation Page 1 •· ~ •·9 A:! -()ry ~·O~at~e.~~~==~======~~------·--·- ···- -···--------------,r-------------·----·---. -·-·-----·· Tim_e--1-_P_ro..,ce_d_u_re----1---------0_u_tc_o_m_e____________T_ime Procedure Outcome ABO/ ED BBS ----- -----·-------- End Tidal C0 2 KUB Size: CXR Position Taped @ __ ---1----t---------------·---·-·- ----··---·-·-- EKG Aortogram 12 Lead ! - - - tBackb·oard ----j----------------f---+----+------------·-------- Foley Removed Central IVP I Line Cystogram

NGT/ Chest Tube

C-Spines

0 Abdomen 0 Head 0 Pelvic Splint I CT 0 Other. Traction Thora- cotomy Ventricu- lostomy

Other

>isposition Time:

•- -4- 3 rrati~t~ 13 8 . 21 tf !$esident (Signature & 10#) Att~ndi~g (Signature & 10#) JOvct:~~v~~~~~\rt,_ - t~ S u .) / 0 :> I ~· b rris County Hospital District XV Ben Taub General Hospital Emergency Services -PHYSICIAN ASSESSMENT SHOCK ROOM NOTE Distribution: White- Medi.cal Record Yellow- Trauma Services . .. HEAO and S-t.CE Head: B"Norm 0 Hematoma/Swelling 0Delormily []Laceration []Abrasion 0 Conllrsion 0+LOC '

DAmnesia (event retrograrJ~) (event retrograde) Descri -~~~r~------------------------------------------------------------------- es: . orm tXfERL . 0 Hematoma/Swelling 0Laceralion 0Abrasion 0 Racoon Sign/Baltle Sign Gaze: cJ:H

Nose: ~e: 0 Hematoma/Swelling • 0 Det,ormity 0 Laceration 0 Abrasion 0 Contusion 0 Rhinorrhea __....-/ ~1 Describe: J } \ Mouthfrhroat: HCiormflRematoma/Swelling 0 Defonnity 0 ~eration 0 Abrasion 0 Contusion SJ Teeth Malocclusion 0 Teeth Missing Maxilla: 13-Stable 0 Unstable Mandible: ~e 0 Unstable Zygoma: ~ 0 Unstable NECK/BACK 0 Norm 0 Hematoma/Swelling 0 Deformity 0 Laceration 0 Abrasion 0 Contusion 0 Pain 0 Limited Motion 0 JIVD Carotid: +R +L C-Collar in Place 0 Yes 0 No 0 N/A 0 Crepitus Bruit: _ R _ L Alignment Precautions: ______ Describe: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

CHEST.-..-~- ~onn 0 Hematoma/Swelling j:l~~ity 0 L

.LVIS!GV: IDorm 0 Hematoma/Swelling 0 Deformity 0 Laceration · 0 Abrasion 0 Contusion 0 Tenderness 0 Blood al Mea~- 0 Pelvis - Unstable 0 Rectal Exam Done Genitals:

Uterus: LNMP: 0 Pregnant wks. Comments:

EXTREMITIES 0 Contusion X Domin 0 Left o/.;! Z..·· 0 RUE 0 RLE Carotid Femoral Posterior Tibial R+ L+ fJ- GLASCOW COMA SCALE ··:?- ~ SPONTANEOUSLY lA A. RE~I' 10·24 EYE TO SPEECH M 25-35 3 Smoker OPENING TO PAIN 2 > 35 NONE 1 ..< 10 1 ETOH 0 0 ORIENTED COOS & BABBLES lA/ CONFUSED IRRITABLE CRY 1--4 B.SYSTOE£1 IVOA VERBAL INAPPROPRIATE CRIES TO PAIN 3 >90 70-89 . INCOMPREHENSIBLE MOANS TO PAIN 2 60-63 2 PMHx: NONE NONE 1 <50 1 OBEYS COMMANDS SPONT MOVEMENTS 6 ~ 0 0 LOCALIZES WITHDRAWS TO TOUCH 5 C.CONVER~G MOTOR WITHDRAWS WITHDRAWS TO PAIN 4 13-15 Curren! Meds: FLEXION FLEXION 3 9·12 .

f EXTENSION EXTENSION 2 6-8 2 4--5 1 NONE NONE 1 3.() 0 Pup•ls: .1 Hour after admiSSIOn .aceration 8 Bum 0 REACT 0 SLUGGISH 0 UNREACTIVE R: s;ze: - - - - - - - Contusion 9 Avulsion L: s;ze: - - - - - - - - - 0 REACT 0 SLUGGISH 0 UNREACTIVE Hematoma 10 Amputation Fracture 3 5 6 7 6 9 REVISED TRAUM,O. SCORE Abrasion 11

~d!'!··· A+B+C= /}/ Deformity 12 Dislocation Puncture 13 Eviseration Pupil GSW 14 Pain j.._)0J lniti~lc:

:CONDARY ~IIRVFY -- ----·---·------.-- ~anus /7 Toxoid: ~ cc ,..-----· Site f_IJc( :j Pedi: ValtJables: Curren! IM Weight: i_lo. ~-·· 0 Family 0 C.!Pthing Clery t 11: U o_f- z. I/rA Time: (!F'ZetD . lmmuniza7 de with Patient fl~ VI_. '.;" c· I

Jt:,...c.~~ Compa ny:-fft.r

ru..-;~4~ Exp. Date:{{;ji(;/;J v / ' 0 Other (explain) &·<)A lvj,I cI -/d l! By: 7 ,._ -_,_ Allergies: j(/j/L[/f1 Time IV Fluids and Medicalions .,!ntake Output Pulse 8/P Resp. Temp. 0 7 SAL GCS RTS

(' 2.-le !& I ~ f• {__ ,(/t }/~ ~ v c.;v ' I j@--y,r> /(p {,:_., 11d 7:£?:11 /r;-· vz.· .. ( 1 )/).(_{ Cjj 170/r. 6/.Ai D --/v· !(,. _r/;1)) {c, b~~ ~

71 ~79tf/rt_ (~o_ b?A /) [1~,10? /( b 2-·4 IG 5.rk ;vr-./.h I

t(_ ~ 21flv . Cib. ff1[jf_ ·' ~~

..

. .. -

TOTAL Time Assessment I Intervention /

>l.j u. 11 . f} 10 18 rJ Affr ; ll-Fll A-;.:; d, g J!I~ &tn_ OtL/h h tfJJ:Ik-~ tfG t!!D'ffl //r1 u(/w ~ ;#!,~ ~-,/ 3.!/o 6. #llii-4 · ;:c/# . ..,. / . ~}r.U if/('- 1-t/ft?,X' 4L r/ ~ b//(/~/?4 ~-·&'·:? IS/d. rfr-£v'A-.. ·wrV. <

~tL/VI /~A/ . d) tAU~ ~//,./ (?).fZ1:d~.n r~ rtJ~7 71) Ju-4 ~AJ/1 ~- ~~/0/r ..-/l--(' ....__ -/ ~·

7/ /

.

-·

-

I .· ,. sposition Time: 7) /(_d7/ .' ~ing 0 OR/PACU 0 Special ProcefU re OiCU OMorgue - IPhysi¢~ mf~_/ •rse·s Signature & 1011 ///) .. .. Case 4:08-cv-00443 Docur ,ent 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 18 of 27 rniriaiAssessment ...... ~ HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICJ;- MA SA

Oate t;"-,k(~i.';tnmeOr .) ~ PM AM Chief Complain!: b.SW (e.:; p_,.....,....._-r-,( J.:_, f4 M6 SB

NEUROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Time Temp P R 8/P NURSING OBSERVATIONS/INTERVENTIONS 2 3 4 s 6 1 e g

PuoU 00 •• I I ~ Size ··--·· I Reaction I 1!----_ Pupd ReaC1ion:

Level on Consciousness: -.-.-7raie"-~ 2'13rowsy LPupil J OS R . Aeaclive Si~e l '?::, l I "~ Roacrlon

N - Non-Reactive INTEGUMENTARY Color: Skin: _Restlessness _ Lolllargic f::_Normal ewarm _Unconscious _Pale ~ t--nenta-. 0 - - 11 on-,------; _Flushed _Diaphoretic _CyanoNc _Cool ~ ?.'f'lace ...!:l>erson _Jaundiced _Clammy

RESPIRATORY ~Unlabored _,.,bored

Be•t Motor. ~s Co

Motor Ability & Strength: Radial Femoral +- d- -{ ~. 5{2_<$-y~ {f.~ .. ;__~-fr0[V~r- - .I

AA Stron

'l Weak Absent Pedal ( Jo t5) () { . c;, tsL rL'lr(j,, V"ll~ 1

.... :::..-.z< ..~ LA y; c;). •f,L'~"f o-Absent + 2-Normal v + 1-Weak + 3-Bounding AL Ll Allergies '---·- / ~C i.,. ~ '(.Jt. ~/"')?- ( PSYCHOLOGICAL ':rearm _ CombaUve nme IV I MEDICATIONS (dosa/rOU1e/slte) ~perative _Anxious EVALUATION OF PAIN:

t----~.,.,..:--~~ Exact Location: L ~_l~

Pertinent Lab Values

Total: j . EMERGENCY /.AMBULATORY CARE PATIENT PROGRESS RECORD WHITE - Chart Copy

-----------·--· ... _.. CANI>.RY - _________ _____ !\udit CC'ov . ··f. I

~-·- =: -=:-:- =-:-':-0: :-at-':e:-:\::!:::::J'----:-4--{t._()_l/r ___im__e~:-.:tf)l()_ ____ Estimated Tim~-~1lL~_!:x~{_c:l.-D ~ateg~~-")a:::L. o ~---··--- ~---·MOTOR VEHICLE T _ Circle the direction of impact and patient position I 0 MVA Seat Belt 0 Steering Whe_eJ Damage in vehicle. f I g~~~Ped 0 ~~~~~;eat ~~0::~-windshield '-.. [ ~ 0 Bicycle Type of Veh_~ I ~ . . I0 ~~bulalory 0 Speed of Crash: MPH at Scene Fatalities al Scene: X Distance Ejected: Ft. I -

,X.. F ~0

t FALUJUMP TRAUMA ~ ASSAULT ...-/· Approxima~ Height: .-------rt. Used:=-~--=--·-------------- Weapon Landed on Surface Type: Coinll}~ PENE~TING THERMAL 0 Flame 0 Chemical 0 Electrical ~SW SGW OSW 0 0 IMPALEMENT 0 #WOUNDS__ 0 Exposure 0 P~tentiallnhalati.~ Feet from Gun: _ _ __ Weapon/Description: .c=· Description: -~,.,.....o::._ ________________ Self Inflicted? 0 Yes J:;i?o' 0 Enclo~ce Length of Exposure: OTHER Describe: PREHOSPITAL TRANSPORT 0 02 0 Oral Airway 0 ET# 0 EOA 0 BVM --B-e:c01far ~kboard 0 Other 0 Splint---- 0 Pressure Dressing . 0 MEDS 0 IVs Initiated 0 Estimated Blcodloss: cc AIRWAY ~nt 0 Partially Obstructed 0 Obstructed INTERVENTIONS 0 ETT# ~fai/Nasal 0 Nasal Trumpet Ds:getidns 0 Foreign Body 0 OtP,?F A. _/_ 0 Oral Airwa!JJ- · yroidotomy OTracheotomy -~fli.~Precautions Malntained by: j// /'!;:! / ~ Time: ....--- End Tidal C02 - - - - - BREATHING ~p~eous 0 t:abored DAgonal By: M.D. Breath \Sounds DYes DNo Trachea: __....QM~clline 0 Deviated R L Time:------ Chest Wall: 0~ 0 ABN: _ _ 0 Breathing Assisted with Bag-Valve Device ET size Breath SounctrRig~L 0 Diminished 0Absent __ 0 Needle Thoracotomy: ~1: 0Air Expressed Left_~ ODiminished OAbsent _ OOc~r-essi~- 0 Sucking Chest Wound 0 Flail R L ~Administered by: at L CIRCULATI~ Time:------ Color: ·---tfw~ 0 Pale OCyanotic 0 Flushed _ _ 0 Auto Transfusion Uti/izprl cc Skin: ~~~0 Cool OHot OCiammy ODiaphoretic __ 0 P e Dressing t o : - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pulse~resent. 0 Absent 0 Diminished 0 Thready IVs Established (see intake record) Hemorrhage:~~ 0Gr~s Est Blood Loss cc 0 Pericardicentesis OTiloracotomy 0 CPR Initiated NEURO ..--81'Vert gsesp·onds to Verbal OResponds to Pain Only 0 Unresponsive 0+ Loss of Consciousness X · min. Pupils Right: Size. "4 ./tJReactive 0 Sluggish OUnreactive Left: Size '3. ~~live OSiuggish QU;;'reactive 3P: L ft /I ,vu; HR: 1 }/ RESP: /,t TIME: & V).o (>:>nsultants/ Time Time Time Time Service Name & 10 # Service Called Arrived Called Arrived Trauma Faculty ~ l1JI I Pedi Surgery rrauma HO 5 Pediatrics rrauma HO 4 Anesth ::c Chief f 7"\ Thoracic :c Intern . f-A-. ~- Plastic :c Intern Urology :c Nurse 1"j==rr.L"\-H--,-"I-/.--.-+<-ch 1 aplain :c Nurse · -·- .. .., Social Services ICircle One) !eurosurgery CPS APS Police •rtho Other Patient 10 C'U ~

I-. Harris County Hospital District Jb ..L5 8 2llf t JACKSON, SAMUEL Ben Taub General Hospital H 8 03/05156 LEVEL 1 TRAUMA FLOW SHEET o r xv Distribution: White -Medical Records Yellow- Trauma Services

Retention· HR-4Ann.nd PRIMARY ~IIR\/t=V APPENDIX COVER SHEBT

APPENDIX COVER SHEET

APPENDIX COVER SHBgT

- 25 - - I