I(e^i £>-&(?
Harvey Leroy Sossamon, Hi flOT&ON DENIED^ #1120297/ Robertson Unit 12071 F.M. 3522 SATE: fo-drl'S COUKTO^0' Abilene, Texas 79601-8799 IY: V, 0 29 20$ January 26/ 2015
Aft*****018* Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk Texas Court of Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308/ Capitol Station Austin/ Texas 78711-2308
RE:Ex Parte Harvey Leroy Sossamon/ III/ Writ No. 16/516-06; Trial Court No. 2001-1073-06-C2A; 54th Judicial District/ McLennan County/ Texas, Request For Stay Of Habeas Corpus And Remand For Habeas Evidentiary Hearing/ Notice Of Objection To Trial Court's Findings Of Facts
Dear Mr. Acosta:
Please find enclosed the original, and a copy for the Court of my motion and objection listed above. Please file these with the Court, and bring this to the Justices's attention, as soon as your time permits. I did not prepare an order for the Court, because I do not what date, if any, the Court would instruct Mclennan County, to conduct an evidentiary hearing, or any of the other request. Additionally, please stamp "Applicant's ccopies filed,", and return them to me in the self addressed, stamped envelope I am enclosing for your convenience. Thank you very much, for all your time and assistance with this litigation.
ccrfile Criminal District Attorney McLennan County, Texas hls3 IN THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
CITY OF AUSTIN
TRAVIS COUNTY/ TEXAS
BX PARTE HARVEY LEROY SOSSAMON/ III
STATE APPLICATION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
TRIAL COURT NO. 2001-1073-C2A
WR-NO. 16,516-06
FILED: NOVEMBER 21/ 2014
54TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICANT HARVEY LEROY SOSSAMON, HI'S PRO SE MOTION FOR STAY AND REMAND BACK TO DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITH NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY RELIEF
TO:THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:
INTO COURT COMBS, Harvey Leroy Sossamon, III, Applicant
pro se, hereinafter "Applicant/" pursuant to Article 11.07/
§ 3, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 1, §§
10, 12/ 19, and 29/ of the Texas Constitution, and the First
and Fourteenth Amendment, under the United States Constitution,
and TRAPP. 73, and request that the Court issues a stay for
the processing of his initial state application for habeas relief,
and additionally that the Court remands this cause back to the 54th Judicial District Court, of McLennan County, with instructions
to rule on his timely and properly filed motions directly related
to this post-conviction challenge to the validity of Applicant's
conviction, and sentence of LIFE imprisonment for the offense
of first degree murder.
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN STATE APPLICATION TO THIS COURT
Applicant vigorously and strenuously objects to the district
court's ex parte proceeding with defense counsel Stanley L.
Schweiger, and the McLennan County District Attorney's Office,
by the honorable Matt Johnson/ on November 18, 2014/ after counsel
Stanley L. Schweiger submitted and filed his affidavit six ('6)
days earlier on November 12, 2014.
Applicant has never even seen counsel's affidvit, and did
not ever have any opportunity to file a response to the affidavit/
before the district court by Judge Matt Johnson, accepted it
as trustworthy/ and ordered the clerk to certify the record/
and forward itAthis Court. Applicant notified Judge Matt Johnson/
that counsel Stanley L. Schweiger did not provide him/ with
a copy of the affidavit/ and that he did not have any opportunity
to file a reply/ or response to the affidavit, and to challenge
the district court's findings, of facts/ conclusions of law,
and recommendation to deny the relief requested in the writ.
Karen Matkin, McLennan County District Clerk, did notify
the McLennan County District Attorney's Office/ of my complaint/
that I have never even seen the affidavit that Stanley L.
Schweiger submitted to the trial court. The State's attorney
in the McLennan County District Attorney's Office made no effort
EX PARTE SOSSAMON: HABEAS CORPUS NO. 16,516-06 2 to correct this deficiency, and Judge Matt Johnson, made no
effort to allow Applicant, any opportunity to be heard after
counsel Stanley L. Schweiger submitted his affidavit, and after
Judge Matt Johnson, refused to allow Applicant to develop the
habeas record, and flush out the facts on his allegations, and
grounds that trial counsel's ineffective assistance, and his
substandard performance with Applicant's defense after Aurora
Victoria Steinhauer, in open court, before the jury, from the
witness stand, under oath and the penalty of perjury admitted,
and confessed, that after Applicant drove away from the scene,
and was gone, "she climbed up on top of the victim, and she
caused him to die accidently" intervening until the EMS team
arrived to provide emergency medical treatment. (CR. 5, 84-
85). All of the McLennan County officials, including the current
presiding judge, has continuously turned a blind eye, and a
deaf ear, to the dying declaration of Donald Wayne Davis who
identified Aurora Victoria Steinhauer as his killer, and who
ordered Aurora Victoria Steinhauer to get off the top of him,
"fbecause she was killing him.]" (CR. 5, 84-85)
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS AND ACTUAL INNOCENCE
Texas litigants are not allowed to raise actual innocence
claims under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130
L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). See Ex parte Villegas, 415 S.W.3d 885 (Tex.
Cr. App. 2013). In Texas, Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.
Cr. App. 1996), governs actual'innocence claims. However, when
an actual innocence claim has been raised in a writ of habeas
corpus, under Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 675 (Tex.Crim.App,
2002), the applicant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.
EX PARTE SOSSAMON: HABEAS CORPUS NO. 16,516-06 3 In 2014, this Court reversed its decision in Ex parte
Robbins, 360 S.W.3d 446, and determined that "accuracy" would
be what the Court strived to achieve, in place of finality.
Additionally, the Legislature placed an exclusive duty on all
the State's prosecutors, to serve justice, and not just to convict.
See Article 2.01, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally,
after DNA evidence proved that the criminal justice system had
repeatedly failed to reach an accurate trial result, sending
innocent defendants to prison, for crimes they did not commit,
the Legislature, authorized additional DNA tests, under new
scientific techniques. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Retired Justice Cathy Cochran, appeared in the February 2015,
issue of Texas Monthly Magazine, and explained the Court's reform
efforts over the last fourteen years. As a result of the Court's
reform efforts, and work with the Legislature, Texas is now
one of the national leaders in producing accurate trial results.
In Applicant's case, during the trial, once the State's
witness admitted in open court, and confess to the jury that
she killed Donald Wayne Oavis, not a single word of testimony
was developed as a result of her confession, and admission.
Judge Clyde Whiteside, Crawford Long, State prosecutor, and
defense counsel Stanley L. Schweiger, buried their heads in
the sand, and 'did not' make any effort whatsoever, to determine
the accuracy of Aurora Victoria Steinhauer's testimony. The
jury went into deliberation, without hearing a single word of expert testimony, or medical professional testimony for the
defense "after" Aurora Victoria Steinhauer testified under oath,
that she accidently killed Donald Wayne Davis.
It is absolutely crystal clear from this Court's decisions
EX PARTE SOSSAMON: HABEAS CORPUS NO. 16,516-06 4 governing ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, that the trial record, is rarely, if ever sufficient to establish
the ineffectiveness of a lawyer. Robinson v. State, 16 S.W.3d 808,
810-811 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Ex parte Torres, 943, 469, 475 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex.Crim. App. 2005); Andrews v. State, 159 S.W3d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Thompson v.
State, 9 S.W.3d 808 ('Tex.Crim.App. 1999). See also, Freeman v.
State, 125 S.W.3d 505, 506-07 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)(citing
Massero v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 505-06, 123 S.Ct. 1690,
155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003)).
Without any opprtunity, to develop the factual record in Applicant's case, and without any opportunity to see, or challenge the affidavit submitted by Stanley L. Schweiger, and without
any assitance of counsel whatsoever, at Applicant's first appellate review on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Martinez
v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2<§ 272 ('2012); Trevino v. Thaler, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 8391 (May 28, 2013); the trial judge, the
honorable Matt Johnson, erroneously made a finding of facts,
and recommended that this Court deny the relief requested. The
denial of an evidentiary hearing, and the determination regarding
the findings of facts, and the conclusion of law without allowing Applicant any opportunity to respond, or challenge the veracity
of the affidavit submitted by Stanley Schweiger, is a blatant
example of why the criminal justice system failed innocent people,
resulting in the confinement of seventy-seven Americans that
never committed the crimes, they were convicted of.
PRAYER AND CONLUSION
For all the reasons stated above, Applicant prays the Court
EX PARTE SOSSAMON:HABEAS CORPUS NO. 16,516-06 5 will stay his habeas proceeding, and analysis, until a fully
developed record on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims,
and his actual innocente claim can be fully developed by the
convicting trial court, in McLennan County, (Waco) Texas.
Additionally, Applicant prays that the Court will take
judicial notice of his objection, to the district court's findings
of facts, conclusions of law, and the recommendation to deny
the relief requested in the writ. The findings of facts, are
inaccurate, not accurate, and the district court has mistakenly
denied Applicant, the basic and fundamental opportunity for
a full and fair opportunity to be heard, and to provide this
Court, with an adequate record on his ineffective assistance
of counsel claims, and his entitlement to a hearing under Ex
parte Torres, supra, and Ex parte Franklin, supra.
Respactfully ,/slibmittep,
samon, III Pro Se 1120297U>feoberbBon Unit 12071 F.M. 3522 Abilene, Texas 79601-8799
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Harvey Leroy Sossamon, III, do hereby certify, that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion For Stay and Remand Back To District Court For Further Proceedings With Notice Of Objection To District Court's Finding Of Eacts and Conclusion Of Law, and Recommendation To Deny Relief, to the State's attorney, by U.S. Mail, first class postage requested, and addressed to the below address, on this g^^l^day of January, 2015:
Criminal District Attorney's Office 54th Judicial District Court 219 North 6th Street, Ste 200 Waco, Texas 76701 6 EX PARTE SOSSAMON: HABEAS CORPUS NO. 16,516-06 omm '^HHH^ Harvey/Ueroy S^samdn, III Movant/Applicant Pro Se
EX PARTE SOSSAMON: HABEAS CORPUS NO. 16,516-06 Harvey Leroy Sossamon, lit 11120297, Robertson Unit 12071 F.M. 3522 Abilene, Texas 79601-8799
January 26, 2015
Mr. Abel Acosta, Clerk Texas Court of Criminal Appeals P.O.. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2308
RE.Bx,Parte Harvey Leroy Sossamon, III* Writ Ho. 16,5l6«r-06j Trial Court No* 2001-1073-06-C2As 54th Judicial District, McLennan County, Texas, Request For Stay Of Habeas Corpus And Remand For Habeas Evidentiary Hearing, Notice Of Objection To Trial Court's Findings Of Facts
Dear Acosta
Please find enclosed the original, and a copy for the Court of my motion and objection listed above. Please file these with the Court, and bring this to the Justices's attention, as soon as your time permits. I did not prepare an order for the Court, because I do not what date, if any, the Court would instruct Mclennan County, to conduct an evidentiary hearing, or any of the other request* Additionally, please stamp "Applicant's copp&esefi&ledefi, and return them to me in the self addressed, stamped envelope I am enclosing for your convenience. Thank you very much, for all your time and assistance with this litigation. • • '• -3S
*„•«
^nr~ frfffiV cc:flie Criminal District Attorney McLennan County, Texas hls3 •&.;•'• IN THE
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS VMS':
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
EX PARTE 3 HARVEY LBROY SOSSAMON, III
ffjv'/ S TATE APPLICATION FO R^C. ^w-r:.I;St;.^;o f habeas c o r p u St .
: WR-KO. 16,516-06 ;
FILED: NOVEMBER 21, 2014
' MCLBHUAH COUNTY, TEXAS
APPLICANT HARVEY LEROY SOSSAMON, SIX'S PRO SE MOTION FjOR STAY AND REMAND BACK TO DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS WITH NOTICE OF OBJBCTXON TO DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING OP FACTS AND CONCLUSION OfTtAH* ABB^RECOMMENDATION TG DENY RB&IEP
INTO COURT COMES, Harvey Lerpy Sossamon, III, Applicant
pro se, hereinafter "Applicant,." pursuant to Article 11.07,
§ 3, of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article I, %%
10, 12, 19, and 29, of the Texas Constitution, and the First
and Fourteenth Amendment, under the United States Constitution,
the processing of his initial state application for habeas relief,
and additionally that the Court remands this cause back to the 54th Judicial District Court, of McLennan County, with instructions
to rule on his timely and properly filed motions directly related
to this post-conviction challenge to the validity of Applicant's
conviction, and sentence of LIFE imprisonment for the offense
NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO TRIAL COURT'S FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSION OF LAB, ABD RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE RELIEF REQUESTED IB STATE APPLICATION TO THIS COURT
Applicant vigorously and strenuously objects to the district court *s^ex parte proceeding with defense counsel Stanley L. Schweiger, and the McLennan County District Attorney's Office, by the honorable Matt Johnson, on November 18, 2014, after counsel Stanley L. Schweiger submitted and filed his affidavit six (6) days earlier on November 12, 2014.
Applicant has never even seen counsel's affidvit, and did not ever have any 'opportunity to file a response to the affidavit,
as trustworthy, and ordered the clerk to certify the record,
and forward it this Court. Applicant notified Judge Matt Johnson,
that counsel Stanley L. Schweiger did not provide him, with
a copy of the affidavit, and that he did not have any opportunity
to file a reply, or response to the affidavit, and to challenge
the district court's findings, of facts, conclusions of law,
Karen Matkin, McLennan County District Clerk,; did notify
the McLennan County District Attorney's Office, of my complaint, that I have never even Seen the affidavit that Stanley L.
Schweiger submitted to the trial court. The Staters attorney in the McLennan County District Attorney's Office made no effort
EX PARTE SOSSAMON: HABEAS CORPUS BO. 16,516-06 2 to correct this deficiency, and Judge Matt Johnson, made no
effort to allow Applicant, any opportunity? to be heard after
counsel Stanley L. Schweiger submitted his affidavit, and after
Judge Matt Johnson, refused to allow Applicant to develop the
habeas record, and flush out the facts on his allegations, and
grounds that trial counsel's ineffective assistance, and his substandard performance with Applicant's defense after Aurora
Victoria Steinhauer, in open court, before the jury, from the
witness stand, under oath and the penalty of perjury admitted,
and confessed, that after Applicant drove away from the scene,,
caused him to die ^accidentiy" intervening until the EMS team arrived to provide emergency medical treatment. (CR. 5, 84-
85). All of the McLennan County officials, including the current
presiding ;judge, has continuously turned a blind eye, and a
deaf ear, to the dying declaration, of Donald Wayne Davis who
identified Aurora Victoria Steinhauer as his killer* and who
ordered Aurora Victoria Steinhauer to get off the top of him,
"(because she was killing him.)" (CR. 5, 84-85)
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS ABD ACTUAL INNOCENCE
claims under Schlup v. Delo,; 513 U.S. 298, 115 S.Ct. 851, 130
L.Ed.2d 808 (1995). See Ex parte Vlllegas, 415 S.W.3dJ385 (Tex.
Cr. App. 2013). In Texas, Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.
Cr. App. 1996), governs actual innocence claims* However, when
an actual innocence claim has been raised in a writ of habeas
corpus, under Ex parte Franklin, 72 S.W.3d 671, 675 (Tex.Crim.App,
EX PARTE SOSSAMONS HABEAS CORPUS BO. 16,516-06 3 In 2014, this Court reversed its decision In Ex parte
Robblna, 360 S.B*3d 446, and determined that "accuracy" would
be what the Court strived to achieve, in place of finality*
Additionally, the Legislature placed an exclusive duty on all
the State's prosecutors, to serve justice, and not just to convict*
See Article 2.01, Texas Codeof Criminal Procedure. Finally,
after DNA evidence: proved that the criminal justice system had
innocent defendants to prison, for crimes they did not commit,
the Legislature, authorized additional DBA tests, under new
scientific techniques. Article 11.073, Code of Criminal Procedure*
Retired Justice Cathy Cochran, appeared in the February 2015,
issue of Texas Monthly Magazine, and explained the Court's reform
efforts over the last fourteen years. As a result of the Court's
reform; efforts, and work with the Legislature, Texas is now
one of the national leaders in producing accurate trial results*
In Applicant's case, during the trial, once the State's
witness admitted in open court, and confess to the jury that she killed Donald Wayne Savis, not a single word of testimony
was developed as a result of her confession, and admission*
the sand, and 'did not* make any effort whatsoever, to determine
the accuracy of Aurora Victoria Steinhauer's testimony. The
jury went into * deliberation, without hearing a single word of
expert testimony, or medical professional testimony for the
defense "after" Aurora Victoria Steinhauer testified under oath,
It is absolutely crystal clear from this Court's decisions
EX PARTS SOSSARONs HABEAS CORPUS BO. 16,516-06 4 governing ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, that the trial recordV is rarely, if ever sufficient to establish the ineffectiveness of a lawyer. Robinson v. State, 16 S.«.3d 808, 810-811 (Tex*Crim.App. 2000): Ex parte Torres, 943, 469, 475 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997); Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex.Crim. App. 2005): Andrews v. State, 159 S.W3d 98 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Bone v* State, 77 S.W.3d 828 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002); Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). See also. Freeman v.
State, 125 S.W.3d 505, 506-07 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003)(citing Massero v. United; States, 538 U.S. 500, 505-06, 123 S.Ct* 1690,
Without any opprtunlty, to develop the factual record in Applicant's case, and without any opportunity to see, or challenge the affidavit submitted by Stanley L. Schweiger, j$rid without any assitance of counsel whatsoever, at Applicant's first appellate review Son his ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012)•;•; Trevino v. Thaler, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 8391 (May 28, 2013); the trial judge, the
and recommended that this Court deny the relief requested. The denial of an evidentiary hearing, and the determination regarding the findings of facts, and the conclusion of law without allowing Applicant any opportunity to respond, or challenge the veracity of the affidavit submitted by Stanley Schweiger, is a blatant example of why the criminal justice system failed Innocent people, resulting in the ^confinement '-Of seventy-seven Americans that never committed the crimes, they were convicted of.
0v:•all -the reasons stated above, Applicant prays the Court EX PARTE SOSSAMON:HABEAS CORPUS BOv 16,5l6-dj6 5 ft."
will stay his habeas proceeding, and analysis, until a fully
developed record on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims,
judicial notice of his objection, to the district court's findings
inaccurate, not accurate, and the district court has mistakenly
a full and fair ^opportunity to be heard, and to provide this Court, with an adequate record on his ineffective assistance
parte Torres, supra| and Ex parte Franklin, supra.
Re|bp/ectfully,_ submitted,
Harvey veroy Sossamon, III Pro Se 1120297, Robertson Unit 12071 F.B. 3522 Abilene, Texas 79601*8799
CERTIFICATE OP SERVICE
I, Harvey Leroy Sossamon, III, do hereby certify, that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion For Stay and Remand Back To District Court For Further Proceedings With N^tce JOt Objection To District Court's Finding Of gacts and Conclusion Of Law, and'Recommendation To Deny Relief, .to the State's attorney, by U«S* Mail, first class postage requested, and addressed to the below address, on thisffiday of January, 2015: ; ^,.o.
Criminal District Attorney's Office 54th Judicial District Court 219 North 6th Street, Ste 200 Waco, Texas 76701 '•H"\- Wi) . / ••••"•.• >• •' 6 EX PARTE SOSSAMON: HABEAS CORPUS BO. 16,516-06 ^11 ^/3/*^fr?7U i«crv«y/^«roy/Steasaffaeri, lit 8ovanstfApplicfcnt Pro So
""\
8* PASTE SOSSABOBs HABEAS CORPUS B0. 16,S16~06