bear 05113@) @c@s+¢h C/er/< m ' ' ' Ci-;Zs~/s
RE.'_\@'CCQ'/\/L@e M¢ym§ 1152 c+NDjC~3%~0/@¢//5~/2/3¢52_/4 w/»/7~5Lil\ol/
Enc/Dged 15 a C@P\? 05 mv Ob§ec4»ow
TD (PJ€ @/¢\C¢:Q) 1:)@€©/‘¢ `77'\.;["¢:>1_)/'} +D 026
COr\§,Q)e/cd., 09 C¢>P\/ )/\A§ 0\/§0 Re€)/l mm/ed //`0 '1”711° C/'e/»~'/< OF TA//¢Ln)r Co\)/l+Y
) wm Ybo _ “MMM/L¢/
l.."
NO.C~396-010415-1213452-A / 1171 §;LQ ()Ll EX_PARTS ` §_ IN THE 396th JUDICIAL . n ' § 1 DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERY LEE MANNS § TARRANT coUNTY,TEXAS APPLICANT'S OBJECTION TO THE-STATE'S MEMORANDUM, FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCBUSIONS OF LAW: TO THE HONORABLE SAID COURT:
Comes now Jeffery'Lee Manns}Applicant in the above number Habeas“ Corpus¢ files these objection to the adopts td the State's-Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law.
\ I.
The Applicant OBJECTS to the State's findings that this Court did not Abuse of Discretioni
After hearing the testimony of Charles Kent this Honorable Court- had a duty to know the laws that applied to this type of case-
A citizen does not have the right to pursue and no court can extented that right. c.c.p.Art.l4.0la applies to this case and the law is very clear on this so this court has adopted a contro~ versy rule.of law. The State is never going to admit it has done anything wrong even how they apply law. (See Williams v. State,
/
314 sw 3d 45,2010) :1.
The Applicant OBJECTS to the State's findings of fact on Prosecutorial Misconduct.
It is clear from the record that a Bradv violation took place,
the State knew about the GERBER KNIFE, it is why exhibit ll was
left open until Mr. Riddle walk it into court.
l.
II. Cont.
The State admits that the Gerber Knife has NO CHAIN OF CUSTODY (See E»x'hib_it \ §§ Copy Of 'pNA Motion) 5!@¢+5"5 ’Rb§?m$b,’d dog m_ll\%q§&b
This exhibit states that the GERBER KNIFE was not Subject to proper chain of custody.
Now the State in there findings of fact state that it was Mr. Riddle who created a chain of custody. Mr. Riddle is not a law enforcement officer/nor is his dinning room table a property room. This_is a controvery rule of law, the State led to the Court and the Court has adopted this rule of law[the same for deadly weapon/this~Gerber Knife is not a deadly weapon, the law defines a deadly weapon in the manner of it'S use. A car,hammer can be a deadly weapon if it-is-used as one. This GERBER KNIFE is not one, so the State is_wrong inthere application of law. The fact that Charles Kent admits he was not threaten prior to his pursue of Mr. Manns mades‘c»c,p§Art-l4.0la apply to this case and the State
knew this, so they have Commented Prosecutorial Misconduct.
III. 'The,Applicantb§JECTS to the State's findings of facts 4on Inffective Assistance of Counsel. ` The State in trying to justify this attorney lack of duty/has 'push to the side of the-road the law of the State of Tekas; First ixlorderfor a. attorney-to be effective he must know the
the facts of the case to included the law that applies to the case.
In this case Lex Johnson knew the-law but he did not use it to protect his client.
l. he knew that Charles Kent had made another Statement other' -than what he said on the stand.
He tryed to get him to read from it but he claims it is trial strategy not to put the-one item that got his client indicted in the frist place into record after the State objects to the reading from this statement that would of shown that Charles Kent had lied to the police, when he told them that'lMannsF threaten him with a nkife;'This is not what he said on the stand,he said all he seen zwas someone exit the cab of the truck and take off running and he jump in behide them, chasing them with his truck and threatening them with a gun.which by law is a felony§ Now because_of this statement c.c;p.Art.l4§Ola applies to this case a citizen does not have.the-right to'pursue,-The State would like for the court to believe that it can extented this right,but it can"t, breaking and intering of a auto is a misdemeanor not a felony. As the State trys _to claim that Charles kent_seen "Manns" attempting to steal this truck.'This is not what Charles Kent said at trial, he said he thought he was stealing.parts or something- It was learned second to the illegal detention that lManns" was going to steal the truck,
\
not before._
2. Lefoohnson had a duty to objection to the Gerber Knife being `inter the way it-was,there_was no chain of custody. Even he said to the jury the "We-don‘t.know where this knife came from",so why not objection,if_you are protecting your client's rights then you would object to this.knife being inter into the evidence of this trialy that would be trial strategy.
3.
_III. Cont.
If.you don't know where-something comes from the§ you object, this was taught to Lex_Johnson in his first year of law school. v3. Their is much.being hidden behide trial strategy, but for Lex johnson not to.correct the State's closing argument is unreasonable, it allowed the jury to leave with the wrong impression and it allowed the State to_inter ject evidence that was outside the record. Their was no one stab, Even the DNA proven this, the ONLY DNA was Manns on the Kbbolt knife/plus'two unknown females. Where is Charles Kents DNA? Lex Johnson said he ask for DNA on the Kobolt knife because "Manns" had told him ,it was not his. This statement makes no sence,_ where "Manns" told the_police it was his and he was defending him- self, this comes from the Fort Worth Police and the interview tape. So how can this be trial strategy to not object to this kind of -misstatement of the evidence, in light of the fact that he was trying to get Charles Kent to read from his origial statement to the police in the first place and now the State interject evidence,'
that was not in record and it is trial strategy not to object.
CONCLUSION
The Applicate asks this Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals to review the record as a whole, and see for them selfs how the State ~took it upon it' s self to misapply the law in this case and the- convicting Court took it upon it self to adopte the State's Findings of'Facts¢ Even though the-laws of Texas say.otherwise.' d
A citizen of the State of Texas does not have the right to pursue,
c c. .p Art. 14. Ola applies to this case. §hales Kent seen someone
running away from the truck/he was not sure what was going on. So why didn't he call 9ll,no_one knows this but Mr. Kent; What we do
know is he chase after Manns with his truck and pulled a gun on
Manns and threaten to shoot Manns, all of this happen while "Kent'
__*“'“““still*didinot_knoijhat_was_gbing”on. Thfs_isjwhyi§jiij?en*does“ not have the right to pursue. "Kent" told police originally that Manns threaten.him with the knife,but later change_his story to what he testified to at trial¢ The FACT that he_was NOT THREATEN PRICR TO THE CHASE,means the`laws that applied to the case changed.`
These.are some of the things the State does not want to include 'in there Findings and Eacts. Because then they have to admit that there was no chain of custody on the Gerber Knife and they knew about it. They would also have to admit the trial counsel proform» ance fail below.a reasonable standard; Lets face it we donYt know where this knife comes from,the basic rule of law is to object to anything you don't know the facts about. This Gerber Knife was found the next day, it had no bearing on this case, until it was brought to court by Mr@ Riddle.because the.State ask him to,so for the argument Lex Johnson was to have objected/this protected his client’s basic rights~iAnd he should of objected to the State's closing arguments/this Gerber Knife is not a deadly weapon, because this knife was-found the next day closed and laying in the floor" of_the truck by_Mr- Riddle, no one was stab with this knife. And DNA has prove no one was stab with the kobolt knife either. The Applicant objects to the adoption of the State's Findings of Facts,
they are controversy and contrary to the laws-of Texas.
5.
t
The Applicant believes that once this Honorable Court reviews record as a whole they will rule in his favor/and order a new trial} with instructions on lesser~offense,if anything §§ is only guilty of attempted thift, which comes from breaking and intering of the
truck which is a misdemeanor. 'H')€ T/‘UC/( /\)eu€/ /VIM)CCL Md /'Ub»}lqm@
WA$ M,§§//m mccord/w 4\0444¢- owne/, AHc’m/M *l’hc¢`+ 15
r\/¢>ihCr>m(f’/c+ed umw/blonch u§P 05 n/Ib+o/\Jel/).LH:, RES ECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
ef_ery Lee Manns 697 fm 980 Ellis Unit
Huntsville,Texas 77343.
INMATE DECLARATION_
I certify that the_foregoing is true and correct to the best of my ability, Executed on this day/V/of the month Sc/VC”%$P/ 2015.
Jeffery Lee Manns
STATE
V.
NO. 1213452D
mediumon
DISTRICT comi§;{§‘
'F"l L"ED
TARRA-_N;T cousin IN THE 396""JU35i5€ilABJ l 0 AH 8= h 2
;!SnȤ .AW !_1__ DFER
:xz~..)§ ),',LE;R§‘(
TARRANT`coUNTY, TEXAS
. STATE’S PROPOSED MEMORANI)UM, FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The State proposes the following Memorandum, Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law regarding Defendant’s Motion~for DNA Testing.
MEMORANDUM
The defendant, JEFFERY LEE MANNS (“Defendant”), requests DNA testing of
two knives. See Motion for DNA Testing (“Motion”), No. 1213452, p. 2-4.
In light of the evidence presented, the Court should consider the following
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law._
Procedural History
FINDINGS OF FACT
`\.
1. Defendant was convicted by a jury of the first degree felony offense of aggravated robbery with a, deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife, on November lO, 2011. See
State’s=Response,~Attachment A: Judgrnent, No`. 121_3452D.
2. The trial court found the habitual offender notice true and sentenced Defendant to forty-five year/s confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -
Institutional»"Division. »See State’s Response, Attachment A.
3. The Sec_ond Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on 'Decemb-er 65 ' 2012. Sée Manns v. Staté, No. 02-11-00512-CR, 2012 WL 6049099 (Tex. App. ~
-Fort Worth Dec. 6, 2012, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication).
ga »~ r",`\‘~‘\¢" carr
Facts of the Case
4. The Second Court of Appeals summarized the facts as follows:
Charles Kent, a vehicle repossession agent, was on his way to repossess a vehicle when he observed a 1977 Ford F-lSO truck parked in a parking lot with its hood open and a man under the hood on the passenger side. After circling the block to investigate, Kent found the truck in the parking lot with the hood closed and no one around. He parked in the same parking lot to reroute his GPS and Work on paperwork '
The driver's side door of the Ford truck flew open and a man, later identified as [Defendant], jumped out and took off running. Kent drove after [Defendant] and eventually cornered him near a building. Kent, a concealed handgun license holder, pointed his .38 revolver at [Defendant] and told him to “freeze.” [Defendant] fled again, running back toward the Ford truck. [Defendant] fell down, and Kent got out of his vehicle, leaving his gun inside. He jumped on top of [Defendant], who struggled to get fiee. While on top of [Defendant], Kent felt a sharp pain in his stomach and looked down to see that [Defendant] had “stuck” a knife in his stomach. Kent hit [Defendant], who dropped the knife. Kent told [Defendant] that they should talk about things “like men,” and [Defendant] sat up. Kent returned to his truck, got his gun, called police, and detained [Defendant] until police arrived.
When police arrived, they secured Kent's gun and recovered [Defendant]'s knife from the parking lot. The responding officers found the Ford truck with the hood ajar, with wires hanging down underneath the driver's side, and with its ignition pried open as if someone had tried to hotwire the truck. [Defendant] first told police that he was trying to get into the truck to sleep but later told them that he intended to hotwire the truck so that he could drive it to go collect a debt and then return the truck.
See Manns v. State, No. 02-11-00512-CR, 2012 WL 6049099 at * l.
5. _Another knife (“Gerber knife”) was found in the almost-stolen truck after the offense. [4 RR 87-89]
6. The Gerber knife was in possession of the vehicle owner until he handed it over in the middle of trial for admission into evidence [4 RR 87-89, S.Ex. ll]
7. Defendant’s DNA was found on the knife recovered from the scene of the offense (“Kobalt knife”). See Motion for DNA Testing (“Motion”), Exhibit 4: Report of Laboratory Examination, No. FRl l-0031-A Supplemental; Motion, Exhibit 5: Report of Laboratory Examination, No. FRl 1-003 l~A.
Evz'dence Exl'sts
8. Pursuant to art. 64.02 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the State admits that evidence exists that might contain biological material. See State’s Response, Attachment C: Vargas Affidavit; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.02(2)(B) (West 2013).
9. The knives Defendant wants tested are available for DNA testing. See State’s Response, Attachment C
Appointment of Counsel
10. Defendant filed his Motion on December 12, 2014. See Motion, p. 1.
11. Defendant requests appointment of counsel. See Motion, p. 3~4.
12. Defendant is indigent
Kobalt Knife
Prior Testing
13. The knife found at the scene of the offense (“Kobalt knife”) has already been subjected to DNA testing. See Motion, Exhibit 4: Report of Laboratory Examination, No. FR11-0031-A Supplemental; Motion, Exhibit 5: Report of Laboratory Examination, No. FR11-0031-A.
14. Defendant’s DNA was found on the Kobalt knife. See Motion, Exhibit 4; Motion, Exhibit 5.
15. Defendant does not contest the accuracy of the 2011 DNA test results. See Motion, p. 3.
Identig
16. . Defendant admits that he Was the person involved in the offense. See Motion, p. 3. As
17. “Manns[’] statement to the police was that Charles Kent could have bump[ed] up
against the knife during their struggle and while he was throwing it away, so no one got hurt.” See Motion, p. 3.
18. Defendant’s DNA Was found on the Kobalt knife. See Motion, Exhibit 4; Motion, Exhibit'$.
19. . The identity of who “stuck” the victim with the Kobalt knife is not and was not at issue.
20. Identity is not and was not at issue.
Gerber Knife
Chain of Custody 21. The Gerber knife was not recovered by law enforcement [4 RR 87-89_;__S,.Ex._.1.1.]~
22. The Gerber knife was in the possession of the owner of the vehicle and not handed over until he testified [4 RR 87-89, S.Ex. 11]
23. The Gerber knife was not secured in relation to the offense. [4 RR 87-89, S.Ex. 11]
24. The Gerber knife Was not in the possession of the state during the trial. [4 RR 87- 89, S.Ex. 11]
@ The Gerber knife was not subjected to proper chain of custody.
Excul ator Results
26. The Gerber knife Was found inside the vehicle by the owner after the offense [4 RR 87-89]
27. Based on the facts of this case, the absence of Defendant’s DNA would not prove that he did not attempt to steal the vehicle.
28. Based on the facts of this case, the absence of Defendant’s DNA would not prove that he did not threaten or place Charles Kent in fear of imminent bodily injury or death while attempting to obtain or maintain control of the vehicle,
29. Based on the facts of this case, the absence of Defendant’s DNA would not prove that Defendant did not use or exhibit a deadly weapon.
30. Based on the facts of this case, the absence of Defendant’s DNA on a knife found inside the vehicle would not disprove any element of the offense for Which he was convicted. See State’s Response, Attachment B: Indictment, No. 1213452D; Tex. Pen. Code §§29.02, 29.03.
31. Defendant has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he would not have been convicted had exculpatory results been obtained through DNA testing
of the Gerber knife. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appointment of Counsel 1. Defendant filed his request for appointment of counsel on December 12, 2014. See Request, p. 1. 2.| Counsel is only required to be appointed “if the person informs the court that the
person wishes to submit a motion under this chapter, the court finds reasonable grounds for a motion to be filed, and the court determines that the person is indigent.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann art. 64.01(c) (West 2013).
3. “(b) The motion may request forensic DNA testing only of evidence described by Subsection (a-l) that was secured in relation to the offense that is the basis of the challenged conviction and was in the possession of the state during the trial of the offense, butz
(1) was not previously subjected to DNA testing; or
(2) although previously subjected to DNA testing, can be subjected to testing with newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the previous test.”
Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 64.01(b) (West 2013).
4. The Gerber knife Was not secured in relation to this offense
5. The Gerber knife was not in possession of the state during the trial.
6. The Kobalt knife Was subjected to prior DNA testing,
7. Because Defendant does not contest the accuracy of the 2011 DNA testing results, there is no reasonable likelihood that there are newer techniques that would :
provide more accurate and probative results.
8. Defendant’s request for DNA testing of the Gerber knife and Kobalt knife do not meet the requirements of article 64.01 for a motion for DNA testing.
9. There are no reasonable grounds under article 64.01 for a motion to be filed.
10. “(a) A convicting court may order forensic `DNA testing under this chapter only if: (1) the court finds that: (A) the evidence: (i) still exists and is in a condition making DNA testing possible; and (ii) has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect; and (B) identity was or is an issue in the case; and (2) the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that: (A) the person would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and (B) the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a) (West 2013).
11. The Gerber knife has not been subjected to a proper chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered With, replaced, or altered in any material respect
12. Defendant cannot show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been through DNA testing of the Gerber knife.
13. Identity is not and was not at issue. 14. There are no reasonable grounds under article 64.03 for a motion to be filed.
15. No appointment of counsel is required See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01(0).
16. Defendant’s Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED.
Motionfor DNA Testl`ng Article 64.01
17. “(b) The motion may request forensic DNA testing only of evidence described by Subsection (a-l) that was secured in relation to the offense that is the basis of the challenged conviction and Was in the possession of the state during the trial of the offense, butz
(2) although previously subjected to DNA testing, can be subjected to testing with newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the previous test.”
Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 64.01(b) (West 2013).`
18. The Gerber knife was not secured in relation to this offense,
19. The Gerber knife was not in possession of the state during the trial.
20. The Kobalt knife Was subjected to prior DNA testing,
21. Because Defendant does not contest the accuracy of the 2011 DNA testing results, there is no reasonable likelihood that there are newer techniques that would provide more accurate and probative results.
22. Defendant’s request for`DNA testing of the Gerber knife and Kobalt knife do not meet the requirements of article 64.01 for a motion for DNA testing. '
23. Defendant’s motion fails to meet the statutory requirements of article 64.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Article 64.03
24. “(a) A convicting court may order forensic DNA testing under this chapter only if: , .. _
(l) the court finds that: (A) the evidence: (i) still exists and is in a condition making DNA testing possible; and (ii) has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect; and (B) identity was or is an issue in the case; and (2) the convicted person establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that: (A) the person Would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing; and (B) the request for the proposed DNA testing is not made to unreasonably delay the execution of sentence or administration of justice. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03(a) (West 2013).
25. The Gerber knife has not been subjected to a proper chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any material respect
26. Defendant cannot show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he would not
have been convicted if exculpatory results had been through DNA testing of the Gerber knife.
27.
28.
29.
Identity is not and was not at issue.
Defendant’s motion fails to meet the statutory requirements of article 64.03 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
Defendant’s motion for DNA testing is DENIED.
WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court adopt these Proposed Findings of
F act and Conclusions of Law and DENY the Defendant’s Motion for DNA Testing.
Respectfully submitted,
SHAREN WILSON Criminal District Attorney Tarrant County
Aridréa Jacobs, Assistant Criminal District Attorney State Bar No. 24037596
401 West Belknap
Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201 Phone: 817/884-1687 Facsimile: 817/884-1672
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true copy of the above reply has been mailed to Defendant, Mr. Jeffery Manns,
TDCJ-ID# 1751637, Ellis Unit, 1697 FM 980, Huntsville, Texas 77343 on or before the
.10“‘ day of March, 2015.
/\/"
Ahdréa Jacobs