Overstreet, Jerome
This text of Overstreet, Jerome (Overstreet, Jerome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Enclosed is: Motion for Leave to File Applicant's Motion to Obtain Undeniable Proof of Actual Innocence, Order for Leave to File Applicant's Motion to Obtain Undeniable Proof of Actual Innocence Order Application for Subpoena Please file this with the Court, and notify me with the enclosed self- addressed stamped envelope. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRfMI'N'AL APPEALS No. C-213-009750-1092061-A EX PARTE JEROME OVERSTREET MOTION FOR Lv-EAVE TO FILE APPLICANT'S MOTION TO OBTAIN UNDENIABLE PROOF OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE.TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: Comes now Jerome Overstreet, Applicant in this pending Application of Writof Habeas Corpus, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 72.1, and moves to obtain proof of actual innocence in the above cited cause. Applicant gives the following reasons for requesting this leave: I. Applicant is actually innocent of the crime charged and if granted the evidence he has sought for so long, Applicant will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is innocent of any wrongdoing; so help me God. II- Applicant is so certain that this Court will be convinced of his innocence, that Applicant is willing to forego any and all other claims made in his writ. Applicant will prove to this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that he is innocent by any standard of review. As God is my witness, Applicant does not make this Faustian bargain lightly. III. Applicant has sought this evidence of his innocence for many years and every attempt that Applicant has made to obtain this evidence has been thwarted by personal and officials of Tarrant County. IV. Applicant now stands at the mercy of this Court and demands justice; so help me God. Respectfully submitted, W 'UZzfov-iQ-lS Jerome Overstr'eet, Applicant, Pro se TDCJ#1599743 McConnell Unit 3001 S. Emily Dr. Beeville, Tx 78102 IN THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ORDER FOR LEAVE TO FILE This Court hereby GRANTS Motion for Leave to File Applicant's Motion to Obtain Undeniable Proof of Innocence in this cause. SINGED AND ENTERED this day of , 2014. Judge Presiding IN THE TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: Comes Jerome Overstreet, Applicant, in this pending Application of Writ of Habeas Corpus, moves to obtain proof of actual innocence in the above cited r cause and prays the Court will grant his Applicant's Motion to Obtain Undeniable Proof of Actual Innocence. Applicant will show the following in support: I. Critical evidence, that is undeniable' proof of actual innocence in this Habeas Corpus proceeding remains to be discovered; namely, a complete copy of the Atfit cellphone record of the victim, Vikky Overstreet, Applicant's wife, account number 457560559, phone number 316-204-2044, for the period of Nov. 2007. This cellphone record corroborates Applicant's cellphone record, and proves that the victim was alive and using her cellphone when Applicant had already returned home to Wichita, Kansas. II. Applicant maintains that his own cellphone record (State Exhibit 74) is prima facie evidence that he is innocent. Applicant's cellphone record was presented at trial and proves that Applicant had already returned to Wichita, Kansas, when he received two phone calls from,his wife, who was still in Tarrant County, Texas. Incredibly, everyone at trial was too addle to check the phone numbers of the people that had called Applicant to realize that the victim, Vikky Overstreet, Applicant's wife, had called Applicant, not once, but twice on Saturday, Nov. 10, when State's theory requires she be dead. Because, Applicant could not have been in both places at the same time, Applicant could not have killed his wife, and it is also unlikely that the victim would use her cellphone after her death. III. Vikky Overstreet was found dead in her Tarrant County apartment on Monday, Nov. 12, 2007 with her cellphone (No. 316-204-2044) only a few feet from her body. V3,p75. The GPS cell tower locations from the Applicant's cell phone record prove that Applicant left Tarrant County Friday night, Nov. 9, 2007 and was in Wichita, Kansas by Saturday morning, Nov. 10, 2007. Applicant's cellphone record shows that he remained in Kansas until Monday, Nov. 12th when the victim's body was discovered. Applicant's cellphone record also shows that Applicant received two phone .calls (8:38am &1:30pm) from his wife, Vikky Overstreet (the victim) on Saturday morning from her 316-204-2044 cellphone after he had returned to Kansas. A complete copy of the record for Vikky Overstreet's 316-204-2044 cellphone has never been obtained. IV. State prosecutor, Alan Levy, subpoenaed a copy of Vikky's 316-204-2044 cellphone record prior to trial, but obtained only a truncated copy of the phone record, which was truncated at 5:00pm, Friday, Nov. 9, 2007 and does not reflect the two calls made to Applicant on Saturday morning. Review of the State's facsimile request to At&t shows that ttie State requested that the record not include any information after Friday, Nov. 9th. Because requesting a partial record is quite unusual/ it suggests that Mr. Levy had knowledge of the information contained in that record, and that Mr. Levy knew of Applicant's innocence prior to trial. Trial defense attorney, Steven G. King, also subpoenaed a copy of Vikky's 316-204-2044 cellphone record prior to trial. The subpoena was issued and signed by Deputy Ceasar Rodriguez, but there is no "return" information, thus indicating that the subpoena was never properly served. V. Applicant submitted a motion for subpoena duce tecum with the filing of his habeas corpus with the trial court, 213th District court of Texas, to obtain Vikky Overstreet's 316-204-2044 cellphone record for the entire month of November 2007. The trial court did not rule on the motion and did not issue subpoena duces tecum. Applicant sent a copy of the issued subpoena that was not served to At&t in an attempt to obtain those records. However, At<3t would not honor the out of date subpoena. Applicant filed a supplemental brief reiterating the subpoena, however again the trial court did not rule on the motion or issue the subpoena. Applicant then requested1 the court clerk place the motion for subpoena duce tecum on the docket for disposition by the trial court and provided the court clerk with a self addressed stamped envelope with which the clerk could send Applicant a copy of the updated docket. Applicant waited over 60 days, however the clerk did not respond. Applicant then submitted an application for Subpoena to the District Clerk, for her to issue subpoena to obtain Vikky.'s cellphone record. The District Clerk filed the application on Oct. 29, 2014, however, again the subpoena was not issued. '?•'•• Ironically, deputy district attorney' Patricia Hatley also filed the State's Proposed Memorandum, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the trial court on Oct.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Overstreet, Jerome, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/overstreet-jerome-texapp-2015.