FILED 14-0797 1/7/2015 4:47:38 PM tex-3688319 SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, CLERK

No. 14-0797 ____________________________________________________

In the Supreme Court of Texas ____________________________________________________ IN RE STEVEN C. PHILLIPS, RELATOR. ____________________________________________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts ____________________________________________________ RESPONDENT’S MANDAMUS RECORD KEN PAXTON LESLI G. GINN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS DEPUTY DIVISION CHIEF STATE BAR NO. 24050664 CHARLES E. ROY FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY ERIKA R. SAMS GENERAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE BAR NO. 24083784 DAVID C. MATTAX DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENSE LITIGATION FINANCIAL LITIGATION, TAX, AND CHARITABLE TRUSTS DIVISION ROBERT O’KEEFE P.O. BOX 12548 (MC 17-6) DIVISION CHIEF AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 FINANCIAL LITIGATION, TAX, AND TEL. (512) 936-0538 CHARITABLE TRUSTS DIVISION FAX (512) 477-2348 [email protected] [email protected] COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS ·nlr s U ... -·· · - · ·--·-- . r S A N TEX-A S COM PTROLLER of PUBL I C •• •

ACCOUNTS _ ·•-&<00• - ·••.. - ... .,., ·- · - ·-· ,,__., ..... _ • I

J r--- C- -0- -M - -8- - S- -i I WWW WINDOW . S TATE TX

t=::.::::=:::======== ::='.::===== === ==================:::::::==JI '-·/\;,.,;J :1__, --i;\~}'.~~l~;;:+'/. ... us f ...;:::=:. ~'~. · ~~ :f.:j~--~;·,\ ~f.· " ' ... ~ • .

....=::.=;~

October I4, 2009

Mr. Vincent Castilleja Crime Records Services Texas Depm1rnent of Public Safety PO Box 4143 Austin, Texas 78765 Dear Mr. Castilleja: Pursuant to Chapter I 03 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by the st Legislature, a claimant is entitled to compensation in an amount equal to $25,000 multiplied by the number of years served as a registered sex offender.

Please provide us a written statement verifying registration as a sex offender and length of registration including start and end dates for the fo llowing claimant.

Name DOB Texas DL SSN TDCJ # SID # Number n/a If you have any questions regarding this request, please caJI 5 I 2-936-6100 or Kristie Guerra @ 512-463-40 14.

Sincerely,

fif~.Ptlr~ Leonard Higgins Comptroller's Judiciary Section PO Box 13528 Austin, Texas 78711 -3528

RMROOOOOl STATE OF TEXAS COMPTROLL ER'S OF FICE .:tECEIV6-D q

Claimant name and address

P.O Box 13528 Auslin. TX 78711-3528 Call 1-800.53 1-544 1. exi. 6·5985 or (51 2) 9 36-5985

IA verified copy of pa rdon I court order showing actual innocence and justifying application. Enclosed

A written statement from Texas Departmen t of Criminal Justice verifying length of incarceration in a Slate prison. Enclosed A written statement verifying the length of incarceration from any Texas County or Municipality where incarceraled in relation to Enclosed the charges for which claimant is eligible to make lhe claim.

If applicsb:e. ;; written statement from Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying length of lime spent on parole. Enclosed

If applicable, a written sta tement from the Te~as Department o f Public Safety verifying registration as a sex offender and length of Enclosed registration.

A certified copy each child support order . ii applicable, under w hich child support payments became due during the tim e the claimant served in prison and copies of the official child support payment records described by Section 234.009, Family Code. Enclosed for that eriod.

For proof o f birth date provide a copy of birth certificate, or sl ate driver's license, or state ID, or a notarized statement verifying Enclosed month. day and year of birth.

Total Amount of Claim Supported by the Attached Documentation: 'f-- p 0 0 0 CJ & ,~

CLAIMANT'S CERTIFICATION ,S71~v1?N I.~ C ' I" ff I l lit"..J. do hereby certify that the amount requested is due and payable pursuant to Chapter o f the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and I w ill immediately notify the Comptroller's Judiciary Section in writing of any cha nges or conditions which will disqualify this payment.

Claimant Signalure Date

lo I J o J>

I approve this request for payment and to the best of my knowledge this request for payment is true and correct . ?mplies with Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code .

Date ;o<~->/o RMR000002 ~ ." . .. ~· ·

; ... :·.:· ···:.~·· ~· ":," .

RMR 000003 TXDPS - TXDPS Publfo Sex Offender Registry - PHILLIPS,STEVEN CHARLES Page I of 3

-~·=:~::-:.:~/'' ·111.,::~--~.:~-:~~_,,,===:==.:-_f"iJ<As=oe-PJ\R:iM:eNi.of:-?·u-a~uc sAFEiv········,.~~:.=~::=--]i !~/. x ,~ /\--::;.. . - · ,._.,_'""~-c:=n"tf.1-e·'""R-tc o'R"o"'"'s~--stR·v-y-tt·,._ ·~··~.-- i ,_, .' E. \ ~"' ~=--=-=--===--·-·--·---------------------·----------,.J TXOPS Public Site TxDPS Secure Site Espa1ol Print TXDPS - TXDPS Public Sex Offender Registry - PHILLIPS, STEVEN CHARLES lio_flli:. I t!~.Y.i..~i)Lc.h. I R.~~!JLQ I ~ILQgJ:iQg New Account Date:6 /1 /2009 User: User Training PHILLIPS,STEVEN CHARLES S~< C':"';t!~r R("'}·WY RECEIVED

- ·r .R L?

Description Current Photo SID OCT 1 4 ioo\J Sex Offender Rel(istry Risk level Ending Registration HIGH NON· EXPIRE BIA Date Account Verification QUARTERLY Requirement Sex MALE Race WHITE Ethnicity NON-HISPANIC Photo Reported - 2/26 /2008 Height 5·9· Weight 188 lbs Hames Hair Color BLACK • PHILLIPS,STEVEN CHARLES (PRIMARY) Eye Color GREEN Shoe Size 11 • PHILLIPS,STEVEN C Shoe Width UNKNOWN ICO Birthdates · · · · (PRIMARY)

RegistrationNeri fication Information Date Event Type Agency / 16 / 08 VERIFICATION DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT 12128/07 REGISTRATION DEPT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE HUNTSVILLE Address Information Date Address 09/1 6 /08 DALLAS Occupation Information Date Employer Address 09/16/08 UNEMPLOYED Education Jnformation Date School Employee St u dent 09/16/08 NONE Occupational License Information Date Occupational license Issuer 09/16/08 NONE

https://records. txdps.state. tx.us/DPS_WEB/SorNew/PublicSite/index.aspx?Pagelndex=Indi. RM~lf&883 TXDPS - TXDPS Public Sex Offender Registry - PHILLIPS,STEVEN CHARLES Page 2 of 3

Offenses TX: 11990003 AGG SEXUAL ASSAULT Victim Victim GOC Time Disposition Discharge Status Sex Age Date FEMALE 29 40Y 6/11/1984 NO PAROLE Citation TEXAS PENAL CODE §22.021 TX: 11990003 AGG SEXUAL ASSAULT Victim Victim GOC Time Disposition Discharge Status Sex Age Date FEMALE 29 30Y 8/24/1983 NO PAROLE Citation TEXAS PENAL CODE §22.021 TX:36990013 INDECENCY W/A CHILD EXPOSES Victim Victim GOC Time Disposition Discharge Status Sex Age Date FEMALE 16 10Y 6/11/1984 YES UNKNOWN Citation TEXAS PENAL CODE §21.11 (A)(2) TX: 11990003 AGG SEXUAL ASSAULT Victim Victim GOC Time Disposition Discharge Status Sex Age Date FEMALE 27 10Y 6/11/1984 YES UNKNOWN Citation TEXAS PENAL CODE §22.021 TX:22990003 BURGLARY HABITATION INTEND OTHER FELONY Victim Victim GOC Time Disposition Discharge Status Sex Age Date FEMALE 27 10Y 6/11 /1984 YES UNKNOWN Citation TEXAS PENAL CODE §30.02 (D) TX:22990003 BURGLARY HABITATION INTEND OTHER FELONY Victim Victim GOC Time Disposition Discharge Status Sex Age Date FEMALE 29 30Y 8/27/1982 NO PAROLE Citation TEXAS PENAL CODE §30.02 (D)

Supplemental Photos :

Photo Reported - 12/28/2007

https://records. txdps.state. tx. us/DPS_ WEB/SorNew/PublicSite/index.aspx?Pagelndex=Indi... 6/1 /2009 RMR 000005 TXDPS -TXDPS Public Sex Offender Registry - PHILLIPS,STEVEN CHARLES Page 3of3

Photo Reported - 12/28/2007

,-- Notice -------- -- i DPS cannot guarantee the records you obtain through this site relate to the person about ' whom you are seeking information. Searches based on names, dates of birth and other i alphanumeric identifiers are not always accurate. The only way to positively link someone to , '. a criminal record is through fingerprint verification. Ad.9JtiQD_ilLC11veat~ ·

:.:•c •'···.:,,, "''" _,.,,,,. Cc;;·.<clo'.:·d •c·s•· :•~03 b;.- Mi!=roAssi~hJDJ;,. n R';;he; r>cs·oc·.d. ihio: ;i•o .,, _ ,.," ·.:«·ci "" rrc I~~_g_s D.,~J2.9_[_lJTI.~nt_gf__E'ubU~. _5afety b:1 Mi::: .::.~--:.1'-t. :1,c 'fi;,·~ ·1._,, .;-; ~·-::p. 1 r\ff;(·r,t t'! P1.f~1ic :'cifr:t/ ·~, 1·:-.-..µ,_ ,~!!1k· r:)r i«; ·:,··'t·.·-qr ·'i1_•,~'"-' ,..,,_,,.., '"'··'" D·.'f'"' '"''·'·" d f ,,.;,, '-:;fc1y\ .f'>fivaQll'Qli_<:;y ""''"•' "'"3 the· ,,,,,,,,_._.,,,,n c:-, t:-,;, :ito

https ://records. txdps.state. tx. us/DPS_ WEB/SorN ew/PublicSite/index.aspx?Pagelndex=Indi... 61112009 RMR 000006 Tex as De par tm e.n t o.f. Crim.in.al. J,u.s t.i c..e..

Btad. Uv.lngston Executive Director

September 15, 2009 RECEIVED Steves·Gharles ·Phillips ··· DC\ 1 4 i.UU<l ro1 $.\ RE~ Phillips; -Steven- Charles Dear Ms. Stone, The fil~· of:· this ·Agency 11ave · been reviewed· on · offender · Steven- Charles- Phillips; pursuant to your request.

Offender Phillips was received inw TDCJ custody on 2-22-1983 from DaJlas County on eight 10-year sentences, two-30-year senten ces, and a 40-year sentence. Offender Phillip;s is cbarg,e.d with Am,a.vated Assault (4cts.), Burglary of a Habitation (3cts.),J.ndecen9'.lVIChilQ..Aggravated Rape, and ~ggravat~ ~2cts.).by -t he 204~ and 194~ Judicial District Courts, undtt-eavse-nlll'i'lDin.

F82-82743-NKQ, f82-79130-JKQ, F82--86748-NKQ, F82-68990-JKQ, F82-77699-QKQ, F82-8705 1-JKQ, ¥82-79140-JKQ,f82-8~KQ-i F82-f.7700-QKQ;· ~??l6~~ FSl-77161-NKM. Offender Philips is charged for offenses occurring on 5-15-1982, 4-22-1982, and 5-14- ~982, . with . sentencmg. o n -.6-J l-~984; 8-24-1983: ·and ·8•27• 1·~82-. · Offender Phillips- was- ·relea~ from TDCJ custody on 12-28-2007 on mandawry supervision. · On I 0-27-200& the Court of Griminal ·Appea}s-issued·mandatcs·on cause-numbers Fs-2,79-MO-JK~ F82-86866-NKNKQ, F82-7700-QKQ, F82-77162-NKMKQ, and F82-77161-NKM, setting these cases aside: Offender Phillips served a total o f 25-years, 6-months, and 18-days on these cause numbers, and is not undCT TDCJ jurisdicriorr.· Offender Phillips was oa mandatory supervbion from 12-28-2007 until 10-27-2007, for a period of 9- inont)n,-and 29-611)'9! · ·

;;;(J_ckfr ~:;zez PS•ffi · Offender Time Management Classification and 'Records- (936) 437-6380 cc: tile Our mlss/()11 is to pr,,vidc fJl'b/tc safety, promo•~ po.sit1w cliange 1n offoide' beha>ior, reinli!"grOl#·efltm.ittr311'1o»ocwty. (11ld ms1st•vicrtms of·~- P.O. Box 99 HuntsVillc,.Tu.as.17342-009~ www.ldtj.Sta{C,IX.US

RMR000007 "~ e o. 11:; , /· 2009 2: 55?"1 , .... ... .

R.~CEJ\I ED - -- ~ ocl 1 {~ i1:1u~ Bl~ IN HIE'. CHAl1CERV COURT OF BOONE CIJUNTY , AR\l.AHS/\S

CllElll SUE Pl!ILLIPS, PLAINTIFF Vs. No ...___ _ STEVEN CHARLES PHILLl?S , DEFENDANT •/. . . ~·... - --···-- .. .., . . .

DEC~EE -- • • ·- 0 •••

Of niVORCE - - ••

\. r NOH, on thi s 2nd d~y of Fa.bruary, 1978, comes on for hea r1 ng t he above styled cause, and same fs submitted upon the oral testimony of pl ai ntiff and witness on her behal f. t he official file, statement of counsel and other matters and things before the Court , from all of wh ich the Court finds: 'that t he part1es hereto are residents of Boone County, Arkansas, the defendan t present ly be ing in the military service in Cer:nany: that t ne defendant ;was duly I · notified by publ ication and by Attorney Ad L1tem , such ·proof of publk4t ion and " i Report of At torney Ad litem bei ng fil ed here1n1 that the Court has j urjsdict1on of ~___,.,_.!-!:'!~~1~~- .~l).Ll!:.l.P...~£.l;~J\'.~J).11!".·. '... ' ' • ·. . . ·- . . . . . ... . : r- .' .· ihat t he pl a1nt1ff' has alleq~d and establi shed. by competent test;~ny :~~--=~; -' proper grounds for divorce and a decree of absol ute divorce >hould be ! nt ered i n I her f 3VOr . : I ' i That to t his marriage was born one cMld, nam11ly- that said .chil d ,Is . presently in the care and custody of thP. pl a intiff and she is fit and Proper person to cont 1nue t he ca re ano custody of sa 1cl ch11 d. subject to the .defenqant ' s right of reasonab1e vis1ta t1on with sa1 d child. That the defendan t shall pay t o t he plai~ tiff ~or t he support of said ch1 ld t he ~ um of Sl 00 . 00 each nior.th.

I That. the defendant shoul d return in ~\ed1atel,y to p l~ int 1ff three box~s of h9r persona l . .• ~ ' ~· ........ ··-· ..-·j i'" I items , whi ch she left in Gennany. · J • ;·•• '~. ..&*: .

!T IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT, Considered, Oroered , Adjudged and Oecreed tha t µ ~o in t i ff , Cheri Sue Ph1 1 1i~s. should be and she 1s hP.reby granted a decree of ~ absolu te divorce from t he defend~nt , Steven Charles Philli ps ; that the plaintiff i s r.warded the tare und custody of the minor t hil d of t he parfies , subject to defendant \s ,. right of r~asonable visi t ation wi~h said child; that tha ·defendant sho~ld be and I .~ he Is hereby :>rd~rcd to pay to t'rie plaintiff fo r th~ support of sa id child, t he suw : . ·, ~ ' Seo. '5. 2009 2: 56PM .. _. •)

;· : : :.~j,'!:.•1·~:·. or ~100.00 per month; th<lt the defendant tie and he hareby is directed tofre~°J{ I 11rn11ed11ite?ly to the ;;la·intiff three boxes of her personal Hems, which ' ... she l1:!ft1, l ,,, in Gerr.1any. ' t1;1· i·1 ~;h~~"~ , il cA/1/11' '

RMR 000009 .ARKANSAS DEPAB.T:M~NT. O.F U.ALTll I 03 '76 000103 .

1. r •,.c£ o~ . •· CC UIHY . Boone Q1A·ri; . Bureau of..Y.!tal Statistics · CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH .

~~·--C~l~~~v~~~~o~·w~;~~:~:~l-O-C~A~T-IO-N~~~-'-~~~~~~~~~~1~~'-·~~f:ITYfa==~~r~ I z. us~.:.t. R£s10£,C£ ._STAY( PJ-kansas .= o;=:=,=~.:~A~l~-C_A_T_I0-1~! ~~~~~~.--.-.-_.~·_-~_ . • Of MOTKCR ('tl'~ER;:. ooti ICl)r"u u»i > · o . CC'llltHY Boo1w .. .. -. · .· . (IF ~OT I» M O• ~ IYU, c. llAllE OF • -'-7---'"""-·-- -f::trtr"#iJ;"· .. BOone County .

•• IS 1'1.AC£ OF 81.llTlt IN511>( CITY LI MITS! tl• C I YA<.(7 lQ oqtSS) Hoapitifl ---- · -·-.-Rt~ r "';7·--- -·-- o •. STllUT AQPJl?sS

l . IS R!S1 0£1/C£ INSIDE: CITY llllJTSl _

v Es 13 110 n .. .r(s o 110 ex , .-,, ... . •: l. NAHi! • LAST • Cl ( Tll.E OA r 1uur) Phillips ·i..... l-4-.-S- EX ~~~~~---' S• . ll" l Wlll Oil $. DATE I TRIPLET, ClflLP

.~ 7. NAME I .MIDOLE . w~· &o•" UT 0 ZKD 0 3•• l AST ·or OlllTll I>! "' Steven Charles Phillips ~t-;;---;:~~=:'.:"-.::7.::~:::::-~~~~~>-'.:-:----=-:-=-=-:-:-:--::~=-----=.....,---=-~-~~-=:-;:--:-::---=~-:-=---~ !:{ 9. AGE ( AT TIME OF flUS llRTHl. 110. BIRTllPU.Ct IST~TE o• tOktt•rt (lllJ~YoU I I. US(/A~ OCCUPATION .... 17 'rEA11s Tex.a~ · U. S. Ariu.;( 1Z. MAIDE!j NAM E f'l,.ST 13. CO\.OA OR RACE o! .· Wb.1.te ·. b 1 14. AGt; CAT T IWf ~F T~I! llATl:ll 1·~· ~ ----~-~~~hery'),_ Sue DIRTH PLACE CSTAH o• FOUIGN COUlllftll I----------------,-------~ ~ ~EARS ~~'~!7c:t"a•.:';:~o ::'::, · ·· Arkansas ·· •7 .. INFORMANT - NAME RfU TfOM ro C!tlLO t u 1r Ann CCMC! l'\le>t) l ., I-bther 0

,. : ·;

THIS IS ACERTIFIED COPY OF AN ORIGINAL·DOCUMENT THI S IS TO CERTIFY, That the a bove is. an exnct r eproduction ot t he ori~-- ~ ina l certif icate which is on file in this office and .o f which I am legnl =ustodian . . IN TES TIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and s~al of offi ce at .

Li tt1 e Rock , Arkansas. (Do not acc~pt i.f i:ephotographed, or i f seal ca ; >- >. not b e fe lt . The reproduction of this document is prohibited by la~ Arkan sas Sta tute 82-529_) J ~~-a~ Max-ch ). 7, 1976 . _...,.. ··1ra te -- - -····· State Regis t rar f RMROOOOlO . SEP -1 $~2009 09:04 From: INTEGRITY PRINT!~ 9185283358 To: 18176228071

! .

:f

RMROOOOll SEP- 15- 2009 09:0<! From: INTEGRIN PRINTI~ 91852633S8 To: 19176226071

.DlSlllCl \.OLlln TN 'l'li l! o.LSTRT<.'T cot mi· 1N ANO mr. 1•1.TLS.11 C'OON' f I L E D ~:i'fA':'li l)li <)KL'\l!CNl\ FEB 1~ in92 Tlt\f'T I~. J..Hll l.TP<;:.

DOit t. AIJSTIH. OOURl Cl.£RK l'la intiff, ~ATE f6 ~ llJLSA. COUNlY \t'f.;' .

~·mv RN c. T·ll1 l.l.JI-'$ .

~reod:ir.L. C'a~e No . PO 01 08634

C'3USC ("OllA>:I IJJI rui: hearir1g, the F-lnint.i ff , 'l'!{At'] M. PHU•.LlPS, ilppei>r1ng in i~ers;n:-. Mtd by hat" attorMy, Jul I;; T>r.auqhon, and th<: DeCend<int .:ipp.~nr.g r.o·r. ll:ivlng her-=i:nrot1• ><.x.,-1:11tP.d and fl 1ccl 511 CJ'. id!i!nt \,jflt~y of appeaca11cc ~nd wnlv~r or ti111e to pll'_aa.

111e c •.,un havioq l:IX<lfiirted thl' fili:is .:ind recordu in thi,; cas.= and h~ving h(:arrl ·~r:H t.e stiJllOOy ut" one 11i t.n<'oS..~ ~worn and exainini::d .iu ,:,pon Court ""'! lic•ving fully i.:umiidcrcd n11 nll>l,E>l"illl J'lt<:t:; <1~l~c1l in Pl3 i n t. i 1' 1''" t~rvt jt.i.or1 , tiuds; 'J'ht. ~ t:lte J:>111·1 i"':s h<i'r~t:u :•<:cc l<..'Qa l ly u~ilrrl P.Cl <11l ~r c1lx.Jt1t th"' l'.11:.h day of' 01tdy, 1900, i1~ m1rri::.011, ,\. tknnsr.s ;i:id !\<Ive been cincc t haL ~iffl JIKI are at th<:' present. l:h"" hu:-;h:md and wife; '!'hilt nt 1;]le inacriage hereto Ofle (l} r·1t·i l •l ha::i ~n born to t he

<tnd t n<lt tho Cour t i:lves l1itvc. J11r i~<J i ctjon to dc t.cnn1nra <"!\JSl.t"l<'ly 1"11' t.i. .. above 11::.1ned ~•1nor <.:hil.J under t~ provisions •)£ 10 o.s. 1601 e t seq and that. the prov\!'linn-; oC 25 IJ.S.C . J\, 1901 et zeq ancl JO O.S. 40 E't sec:1 do not apply t.o these pioct!edinqs; '!11o1t a &tate of i n-neonr.!lable ittCutip<ttibility exists b<'ot-ween the pc1ctjc3 hcre~o nnd f,. "ur-h lh11t '"' ,1J;.;u1ute decref! of d lvor.c:.., ,,.l•Nld be ~\/ilrded l.n bt.:>lh i;,;irt ie"' ;;::; prc1ycd for; 'l,1« t the Pl.Jinl·.1.f1' l 1n.'> ~n a resident or the Stilt.e of Oklahoin;, r ot "' pt!ciud ur six month!l next prP.cecJjng thil tiliuq l11oo'rein and <! resl ocnl: or ·1;t1 R;i <:011nry f1;1. t•1i rty ct::!ys; ' l'h<1t tilt> f'lilintiff !;OOUld Ix: a.rilrded I.he te.:clu>< ivt! c-or~ 011d '""-'".<xly of tht:: n1inoc ·~hi ld subjec:I; tn t.lw:1 1~t1mdilnt • s rights of. vi ~i':ation ovory c:.~ln~1: "'""~l<P. 11il ,11111 c111y other ti.1ne~ ·'!"lr"1<:11l~:• l'" Lo both p.>?:"U cs . 'J'he lie 1·\;:1d;,11t. ,,.11uuld pay the s;um or Jl IJfl. ':iO per 1nonth 1.:lll l<.I !i<1pport. "l't'.e Ploi.nL ir f shci1Jlt? Ill< <•!S pon1dble for any mr;cliC'Vl/clr.ml.H -:~nse.s (..'J the~ ''' inor child . ·1'r1<1t ,~ilch p;:irLy shoul<I h-• ;n1<1rded the propc:rty in their

RMR000012 SEP-15-2009 09:05 From:INTEGRITY PRINTING 9185283358 To:l8176228071

.t'l' IS 'l'!ffiREfORE ORDERL'I!, A!),flJ/XOED AND DP.Ciii::EO by t.he Courl t11at 'ff.tACl M. PHILLIPS, ]Jlainl.i ii l1erein, ~ml C. PltILLIPS, l>.:!tl,ndant r.erein, r~ an!l thi;.y ure he.i;.,;,by <iwa.t<l"'-1 .:111 ,;1b~wlut<::! Jt..'(:.cce of divorce ec:1'.oh from L.t1P. otlter, <ind tr1c bonds of 1nuiorimony lwen~t.o eld sl;i ng 1X'll:V1>en ,;:<lid pii.rtie,; <1.cc hereby disso1v.-d, .-s"'L osi<l<> anr:l l'1<?ld for nau9l1t, ctnd botl1 purt-.i.es ;,1·11: ri!'leased cl1<21efrom; PROVW8Ll, tllat the.: p<il"ties zn-e enjoint:J frum nldi:rying ;my oLher party for d [.)l:r:iud of i:;lx (G) months from the date herocf.

T'f' TS PrTfl'11fFR ORDE'f<ED, i\J.JJU1X,;t:;D /\.>..JD DECREED by t/'1c court triat tl1e Plaintirr is <J"1'ard.:fl t:tlP. Rxc:1u::;ive care and custody of tho minor chi.ld subjP.c:t. to !Rfendant's ri~\btc of visiL<lllon every olher we<.>kend encl m1y ot'"?er ti.mes agrcc8t)l<'"< t<> oo'h partili!s;. 'l:'h"' J.Jetrmdi•nt is 0,1;'(;lenxJ ctnd cliri>cted to pay the amount nl' $108.CiO per 11..:i11th chi.J.<.l :;uµp<.>rt dunriy tit"' minority oft.he child iw unti.l f\ll"Lher order 01: tht:1 <:uu4t;, 'HJ<J l'luinLiff sl1oulJ oo cesr.>0nsible for any m0.<ii.<'.''1l/d(·nt;oi1 exp<?nses of Lh<? rninor c:hil.<i.

T'I.' TS r'lJR'l'HPR ORl)f']'l'f,D, ANrJDGlID AND DJ!CRttn by tl·11• Court that 1,1.,e poi:tion ot L><.:t\::n<.lant-'l; income or pedodir' earningR RpRel_fle<i 111 J.?

O.':i. ~ection 1171.2 is l1erel;y assi9ne.cl t..o f-'lctintHf to meet the periodic ci1il.J sup~or1: .:inea:iagf:'"' Dr <>th'"'~ lfli:lintenance ;:>ayr.ients, or both, impoz~ b:r· thi;; l.l&Tli!e. Defend:;;nt~c present and/or ful.ure employer or ;:my person, dcpi.J."trnenl. of t.he '.':l.111.i'! 01 1;o1hkctl i:;ubdivlsion thereof, owing 1r~ir1ire.o;, income or periodic earnings t.o ck,i0nii<mL is directed, upon receipt or r.hn noLkn proviclced in 12 o.s .. S<:tcd.l.)n ll7l.3(D) o. (E), to p:;iy the sut.•.s si;>;<.:·if'ioi.cl in the nQti<.;G tu PlaintifE, unti 1. fun.her order of the.:. l'o-....1rt:.

IT t.S FfJR'f'HER ORDm£D, i'.DJUD3ED /\ND D&::P.8£]) by thu Cou,t that each pr..i~t.y is ;:iw;;ird".'<l lh<i' prOl.>i.'L·ty iu t;huir µos::;u:,rnion and c11rh party rc.:lectsus, quit clwiins and wssi.gn:;i r.o tr1(• oth<:>r pr:trty all bi:; or h<:>r rigl1L, 1·.H.h~ ;,r"l ·int..1.ru:;t, pr<:>:;ro>nt <UJd pro::pective, in each item ot prupl:'I t.y conrinnt:d to i:he other party.

Jlldge of. the District Coui:t APPxCNED: .

~-?~ Trr.c:i M. l'hlllip:e, fJl,~intitf

/we.

Tulsa, Ol<luhonlil 't41 O'i 'll fJ/£14~-0'.,J{',f,

RMR 000013 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NOS. AP-76,010, AP-76,011, AP-76,012, AP-76,013 & AP-76,014

EX PARTE STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. F82-77700-Q; F82~ 77162-Q; F82-79140-Q; F82-86866-Q IN THE 204TH DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY AND CAUSE NO. F82-77161-M IN THE 194rn DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the cierk of the trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two aggravated sexual abuse causes, sentenced to forty and thirty years' imprisonment, indecency with a child, sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, burglary of a habitation, sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment, and aggravated rape, sentenced to ten years' imprisorunent. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions for one of the aggravated sexual abuse cases and the burglary of DCT 0 6 ?OfHI

RMR 000014 ·a habitation. Phillips v. State, No. 05-83-1058-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas, delivered October 26, 1984) and Phillips v. State, No. 05-82-01260-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas, delivered January 4, 1984). Applicant pleaded guilty to the other causes and no appeal was taken from those.

Applicant contends that he has newly discovered evidence that he is actually innocent of these offenses. The trial court has determined that no rational jury would have convicted Applicant in light of the new evidence, which was previously unavailable to Applicant. The evidence, obtained pursuant to post-conviction DNA testing and investigation, indicates that it was another individual, and not Applicant, who committed at least one of these offenses. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Relief is granted. The judgments in Cause Nos. F82-77700-Q; F82-77162-Q; F82-79140-Q and F82-86866-Q in the 204 1h District Court of Dallas County and Cause No. F82-77161-M in the 1941h District Court of Dallas County are set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County to answer the charges against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and Parole Division.

Delivered: October 1, 2008 Do Not Publish

RMR 000015 J '/ 1/r RECEIVED '.

WRIT NO. WX0890025-Q 1 OCT l 4 20091 EXPARTE § IN THE 204th JUDICIAL § DISTRICT COURT STEVEN CHARLES PIDLLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING RELIEF The Court, having considered the allegations contained in Applicant's Application for ·.

Writ of Habeas Corpus , Applicant's Memorandum of Law in Support ofHis Application for . Writ of Habeas Corpus, the State's Response, and official court records in the above numbered and entitled cause, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: IDSTORY OF THE CASE On June 11, 1984, Applicant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Applicant was sentenced to ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Applicant did not appeal this conviction. Applicant discharged this sentence on June 3, 1992. See State's Exhibit A.

ISSUES RAISED IN APPLICATION·. .

In the instant writ application, Applicant contends thaf: (1) newly discovered evidence

I The original case number for this writ was W82-79130-Q(B). The writ was refiled under the above . case number, WX0890025-Q, by order of this Court, at the request of the parties. The writ seeks . relief pursuant to Article I, Section 12 and Article 5, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution and Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. · Tue.Court has also considered each of Applicant's ten additional applications for writs of habeas

RMR 000016 establishes that he is actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted; and (2) the State failed to disclose statements material to guilt in violation of his due process rights.

JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is proper under Article 11.05. Applicant is not confined on this conviction as he discharged his sentence approximately sixteen years ago, and he is not facing other collateral consequences, SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDINGS OF FACT The Court makes the following findings of fact.

1. On May 15, 1982, at approximately 9:30 a.m. a man in a hooded, gray sweatshirt, who was carrying a handgun, walked into an Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Garland, Texas, and commanded that the women in the salon disrobe while he masturbated.

See Applicant ~s Exhibit 3 I.

2. The assault was one of a string of sexual assaults in the Dallas area that were committed by a single individual.· Applicant was investigated and prosecuted for the crime spree .

. 3. Applicant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and indecency with a child as a result of the incident at Garland Elaine Powers Figure Salon.

Applicant c:P,allenges his conviction for indecency with a child in writ number W82- 79140-Q(B).

4. Applicant was indicted for eleven offenses related to a string of sexual offenses that occurred in the Dallas area over a two-day period on May 14 and 15, 1982. He was also indicted for a sexual assault that occurred in February of 1982. The twelve cases were considered related by police because the offenses had similar manner and means, including but not limited to a man carrying a handgun wearing a gray hooded

corpus. Collectively the writs related to a single crime spree in Dallas in the Spring of 1982.

RMR 000017 sweatshirt, covering part of his face, assaulting individuals, and driving a similar maroon car.

5. Appl1cant was identified by at least one victim as the perpetratorin.each of the twelve indicted cases. Wanda S., one of the victims in the Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Garland, identified Applicant in a live line-up approximately four weeks after the assault. Wanda S. initially identified Sidney Goodyear, not Applicant, as the man who assaulted her.

6. Prior to pleading guilty to the aggravated assault that is the subject of this writ, Applicant faced two trials for the assault of Mary B, ~ne of the other victims in the Dallas ·crime spree. In addition to being identified by Mary B. as her assailant, during the trials, Applicant was identified by Michelle H., Susan W., Lani B., and Shannon K., other victims in the Dallas crime spree, as the man responsible for the Dallas crime spree. Each of these victims testified to Applicant's bad· reputation. The testimony from the victims of other incidents in the Dallas crime spree was based on . what we now know was their inaccurate belief that Applicant was the perpetrator of the Dallas crime spree.

7. Applicant faced two separate trials for the assault of Mary B. He was first tried for burglary of a habitation, found guilty, and sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. A year later he was tried for the charge of aggravated sexual abuse related to the same incident. Applicant testified at the first trial, but he did not testify in the guilt phase of the second trial.

8. At the first trial, Applicant presented a defense of misidentification and presented an alibi supported by his own testimony and the testimony of his wife, his sister-in-law; his brother-in-law, and-his uncle.

9. Applicant was found guilty artd sentenced to two concurrent thirty year terms in the two trials he faced related to the Mary B. assault. (RR: 191, 462).

1O. On June 11, 1984, Applicant pled guilty to this offense - aggravated assault with a deadly weapon - as well as eight other charges in the Dallas crime spree, after being convicted for burglary of a habitation and the aggravated sexual abuse. of Mary B. in which Michelle H. and the other victimi) in the Dallas crime spree testified against him.

RMR 000018 11. The various Dallas area police departments where each of the incidents occurred communicated with one another regardirig suspects in these cases. Further, there was sharing of mformation with Kansas City police because they had experienced a string of similar offenses two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas.

12. Following the crimes in the Kansas City area which occurred on May 27, 1982, Kansas City police determined that Sidney Goodyear was responsible for the string of assaults in that jurisdiction. Goodyear's criminal history showed manner and means similar to the Pallas area offenses. See Applicant's Exhibits 1-34.

13. The fact that Goodyear was identified by Wanda S. as the man who assaulted her and the other women in the Garland Elaine Powers Figure Salon was not shared with Phillips or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40.

14. In the· case of victim Connie P ., Ms. P. identified Applicant as her assailant in an aggravated sexual assault. This case was unlike the others in time (it occurred in Febniary whereas the others were committed May 14 and 15), and the manner and means were dissimilar. Police were made aware that Applicant was not responsible for this offense prior to his first trial in the burglary of a habitation of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 37-38. This information· was not shared with Applicant or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. The case was dismissed after Applicant pled guilty to the remaining indictments. See Applicant's Exhibit.39.

15. On June 6, 2001, Applicant filed a pro se motion for DNA testing of the evidence collected in the complainant Mary B. cases. He was denied testing, appealed it, and lost. While attempting to seek relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State agreed to testing on June 21, 2007. See State's Exhibit B.

16. The DNA results excluded Applicant as the perpetrator in the rape of Mary B., thus also exonerating him from breaking into her apartment to commit said rape. See · Applicant's Exhibit 35.

17. The State pursued DNA testing of Sidney Goodyear. Results showed that Goodyear was in fact responsible for the rape of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 35.

18.After linking Goodyear's DNA to the rape of Mary B.; the State gathered the following information about Goodyear: Goodyear committed a string of sexual assaults throughout the coui1try in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and was wanted by many local jurisdictions and the Federal Bureau ofinvestigations; Goodyear's crimes in other jurisdictions were nearly identical to the manner and means used in the Dallas

RMR 000019 area crime spree; Goodyear was an.initial suspect in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear owned a car and handgun that were consistent with the car and handgun used by the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was identified as the perpetrator inthe Dallas crime spree by at least o:ne of the victims; and the evidence the State possessed at the time of Applicant's prosecution that implicated Goodyear was not disclosed tb Applicant.

GROUND ONE: ACTUAL INNOCENCE C::::ONCLUSIONS OF LAW 19.The Court concludes that the DNA results excluding Applicant and implicating Goodyear in the assault of Mary B. were unknown to Applicant at the time of trial and that Applicant's failure to discover this information was not due to a lack of due diligence on his part.

20. The Court concludes that the DNA results are newly discovered evidence that create a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict. · 21. The Court concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Goodyear, not Applicant, committed the assault at the.Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Garland. . 22. The Court concludes that the DNA results implicating Goodyear in the Dallas crime spree and excluding Applicant are supported by -the following information: Goodyear committed nearly identical crimes throughout the country both before and after the Dallas area crime spree; the. Dallas police have at all times believed that each of the crimes in Dallas were committed by the same individual; Goodyear owned th.e same type of car and handgun that was used in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was an initial suspect and identified by at least one of the victim's in the Dallas crime spree; the victims in Dallas, including, but not limited to, Wanda S., and Mary B., provided police similar descriptions of the perpetrator; and the assaults occurred within hours of each other.

23. The Court concludes that relief should be granted to Applicant on his claim of actual . innocence.

24. The Court concludes that Applicant's ground for relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under authority of Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), in that Applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that

RMR 000020 no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the newly discovered DNA evidence and the other evidence demonstrating Goodyear's guilt and Applicant's· innocence.

GROUND Two: BRADY CLAIMS . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.

25. The Court concludes that the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence as is required by Bradyv. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that Applicant is entitledto reliefbecause there is a reasonable probability that had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed the outcome of the proceedings against Applicant would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

26. The Court conCludes that Sidney Goodyear was a suspect in the crime spree for which Applicant was investigated and prosecuted in Dallas. The Court· also finds that Goodyear committed similar offenses throughout the country before and after the DallaS crime spree. The Court also finds that at least one of the victims in the Dallas crime spree identified Goodyear as the assailant in the Dallas crime spree.

27. The Court concludes that while the Dallas area police ideritified Goodyear as a suspect in the Dallas crimes, knew he committed similar crimes in Kansas City two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas, and knew that at least one victim in Dallas identified Goodyear, this information was not disclosed to Applicant or his attorney.

28". The Court also concludes that, prior to Applicant's first trial, the Dallas Police confirrm~d that John Parks, not Applicant, committed the assault of Connie P .,_one of the Dallas victims who initially identified Applicant as her assailant. The Court finds that this information confirming that Applicant was actually innocent of the assault on Connie P. and the information that the police knew that Connie P. misidentified Applicant as her assailant was not disclosed to Applicant or his attorney until after he was found guilty at two trials and after he pled guilt)' to nine additional charges related to the Dallas crime spree.

29. The Court concludes that the evidence identified in paragraphs 26:.28 constitutes material, exculpatory evidence which should have been disclosed to Applicant. The Court finds that there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a different outcome at Applicant's trials and that he would not have pled guilty to the remaining charges had the favorable evidence been disclosed by the State.

RMR 000021 30. The Court concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Applicant is entitled to relief based on the State's failure to disclose the favorable evidence identified in paragraphs 26-28.

31. The Court agrees and concludes that relief should be granted and the conviction set of aside under the authority Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

ORDERS OF THKCOURT The Court ORDERS the following: 1. Applicant's writ of habeas corpus is granted pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Applicant's conviction is vacate.ct based on a showing that he is actually innocent of the crime pursuant to Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

3. Independently, Applicanes conviction is vacated based on the State's failure to disclose material, exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (19_61).

4. The CLERK is instructed to forward a copy of this ORDER to Applicant's counsel and to counsel for the State .

. -k., SIGNED this !)'" day of a# '2008

~ . 204m JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RMR 000022 .~:n .~

'.77~.

::.·:· . J JUl 2

;~·:i· ];~;:

~: ·; $: ~; ·~· :? .?.~·l.

·~· RMR 000023 MOTION TO DISMISS PROSECUTION STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 204m § v. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF § STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § NO. F82-86866-Q(B) § § § MOTION TO DISMISS NOW COMES the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas, and asks this Court to dismiss the above-entitled and numbered cause for the following reasons, to-wit: The Defendant stands charged with the offense of aggravated rape. The Defendant pied guilty to this offense and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Post-conviction DNA testing establishes that the Defendant did not commit this offense.

The Defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was actually innocent of the charged offense and that the State failed to tum over exculpatory evidence. The State agreed that the Defendant was entitled to relief. This Court issued findings of fact and a recommendation that relief be granted and transmitted them to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On October 1, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief on actual innocence grounds, set aside the Defendant's conviction, and remanded the case to this Cowi.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this case be dismissed because Steven Charles Phillips has shown that he is actually im1ocent of the c!2-iJTged offense. ~) ':j: :. 'O <::. ';) ~:;; ·z.- ....... -~ -, !.5_ ';:» ;Cl :;·.

NOV O 7 ?fJOB ~ ".;.-\ -- OJ· ~ ) •'--.;: Oismissed on Motion of Di:;t.

---~~~- Michaei VI an:: _ _ --=:::::,,,.. ________ -UtkinB ~ Assistant District Attorney al District Attorney Dallas County, Texas Dallas County, Texas

RMR 000024 MOTION TO DISl\IISS PROSECUTION STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 204rn § v. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF § STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § NO. F82-79140-Q(B) § § § MOTION TO DISMISS NOW COMES the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas, and asks this Court to dismiss the above-entitled and numbered cause for the following reasons, to-wit: The Defendant stands charged with the offense of indecency with a child. The Defendant pled guilty to this offense and was sentenced to ten years in prison. Post-conviction DNA testing conducted in one of the Defendant's eleven related cases establishes that the Defendant did not commit this offense.

The Defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was actually innocent of the charged offense and that the State failed to turn over exculpatory evidence. The State agreed that the Defendant was entitled to relief. This Court issued findings of fact and a recommendation that relief be granted and transmitted them to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On October 1, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief on actual innocence grounds, set aside the Defendant's conviction, and remanded the case to this Court.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this case be dismissed because Steven Charles Phillips has shown that he is actually innocent of the charged offense.

NOV O7 2008 ~ z UY/,· c__h aeJ H ::-• 0 liSmissed on Motr.1n nf nkt. Attv. -..: A'sst. Dist. Attv. l vJa.10 ~~\ ) -·· ,_.

~~~ Michael Ware (__ Assistant District Attorney · Dallas Cotmty, Texas

RMR 000025 MOTlON TO DISMISS PROSECUTION STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 204rn § v. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF § STEVEN CHARLES PmLLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § NO. F82-77162-Q(B) § § § MOTION TO DISMISS NOW COMES the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas, and asks this Court to dismiss the above-entitled and numbered cause for the following reasons, to-wit: The Defendant stands charged with the offense of aggravated sexual abuse. The Defendant was convicted of this offense in August of 1983 and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. Post-conviction DNA testing establishes that the Defendant clid not commit this offense.

The Defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was actually innocent of the charged offense and that the State fail~d to turn over exculpatory evidence. The State agreed that the Defendant was entitled to relief. This Court issued findings of fact and a recommendation that relief be granted and transmitted them to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On October 1, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief on actual innocence grounds, set aside the Defendant's conviction, and remanded the case to this Court.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this case be dismissed because Steven Charles Phillips has shown that he is actually innocent of the charged offense.

I -....J

NOV 0 7 2008

Michael Ware Assistant District Attorney Dallas County, Texas

RMR 000026 MOTION TO DISMISS PROSECUTION STATE OF TEXAS § INTHE204rn § v. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF § STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § NO. F82-77161-Q(B) § § § MOTION TO DISMISS NOW COMES the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas, and asks this Court to dismiss the above-entitled and numbered cause for the following reasons, to-wit: The Defendant stands charged wit11 the offense of burglary of a habitation. The Defendant was convicted of this offense in August of 1982 and was sentenced to thirty years in prison. Post-conviction DNA testing establishes that the Defendant did not commit this offense.

The Defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was actually innocent of the charged offense and that the State failed to turn over exculpatory evidence. The State agreed that the Defendant was entitled to relief. This Court issued findings of fact and a recommendation that relief be granted and transmitted them to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On October 1, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief on actual innocence grounds, set aside the Defendant's conviction, and remanded the case to this Court.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this case be dismissed because Steven Charles Phillips has shown that he is actually innocent of the charged offense.

NOV 0'7 2008 fl I il-i.smissed on Motlbn of Dist. l\t~y. ( / '1 ; J Ct e_, j IJG/e__;

Michael Ware Crai Assistant District Attorney · 1al District Attorney Dallas County, Texas Dallas County, Texas

RMR 000027 ...__,_

MOTION TO DISMISS PROSECUTION 5EB- c,o STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 204rn § v. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF § STEVEN C!L\RLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS § NO. FSZ-77700-Q(B) § § § MOTION TO DISMISS NOW COMES the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas, and asks this Court to dismiss the above-entitled and numbered cause for the following reasons, to-wit: The Defendant stands charged with the offense of aggravated sexual abuse. The Defendant pied guilty to this offense and was sentenced to forty years in prison. Post-conviction DNA testing conducted in one of the Defendant's eleven related cases establishes that the Defendant did not commit this offense.

The Defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was actually innocent of the charged offense and that the State failed to turn over exculpatory evidence. The State agreed that the Defendant was entitled to relief. This Court issued findings of fact and a recommendation that relief be granted and transmitted them to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On October 1, 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief on actual innocence grounds, set aside the Defendant's conviction, and remanded the case to this Court.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully requests that this case be dismissed because Steven Charles Phillips has shown that he is actually innocent of the charged offense.

Nov o 7 zoos Oi'smissed on Motion of Dist. At-l:y. (fY} ,· chae { Asst. Dtst. Affy.J Warf:..-/ --L2 - ~--

~:rdh/"~ Michael Ware Assistant District Attorney Dallas County, Texas

RMR 000028 l '

Texa s Department of C riminal Ju s tice Brad Livingston Executive Director

November lJ, 2009 RECEIVlE.0 . ..

Leonard Higgins Comptroller's Judiciary Section NOV l 8 2.009!

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts P.O. Box 13528 ~rt~\.

Austin, Tx. 78711-3528 RE: Phillips, Steven Charles The files of this Agency have been reviewed on offender Steven Charles Phillips, pursuant to your request.

Offender Phillips was received into TDCJ custody on 2-22-1983 from Dallas County on eight-10-year sentences, two- JO-years, and a 40-year sentence, with sentences to run concurrent.

Offenses County Cause Number Sentence Sentence Dnte Date of Offense Sentence Begin Maximum Date fapiretion Aggravated Dallas F82·82743-NKQ 10-years 6-11-1 984 5-15-1982 6-4-1982 6-3-1992 Assault Aggravated Dallas F82-79130-JKQ 10-ycars 6-11-1 984 S-15·1982 6-4-1982 6·3-1992 Assault Aggravated Dal las F82-76748· NKQ I 0-years 6-11-1984 5· 14-1982 6-4-1982 6·3-1992 Assault Aggravated Dallas F82-86990·JKQ 10-years 6·11-1984 4-22-1 982 6-4-1982 6-3·1992 Assault Burglary Dallas F82-8 7051-JKQ 10-years 6-11-1984 5-14-1982 6-4-1982 6-3-1 992 Habit3tion Burglary Dallas F82-77699-QKQ JO-years 6-1 1-1984 S-14-1982 6-10-1982 6-9-1992 Habitation Aggrava ted Oallas F82-86866-NKNKQ 10-ycars 6-11-1984 5-1 4-1982 6-4-1982 (6-3-1992) Rave (10-27-08 vcr CCA mandalel Indece ncy Oallas f82-7? 140-J KQ JO-yea rs 6-11-1984 5-15-1982 6- 10-1982 ( 6-9-1992) W/Child (10-27-08 per CCA Mandatcl Burglary Dallas F82-771Gl -NKM JO-yea rs 8-27-1982 5-14-1982 6-10-1982 Habitation (10-27-08 pe r CCA Mandate) Aggn ~111ed Sexual Abuse Dallas f82-77162-NKMKQ JO-years 3.•24-1983 5-14-1982 6-4-1 983 W/DW {10-27-08 per CCA i\landate) Aggrava ted Sexual Abuse Dallas F82.-77700-QKQ 4()-ycars 6-11-1984 5-14- 1982 6-4-1982 (10-27-08 per CCA Mandate) Offender Phillips was released from TDCJ custody on mandatory superv1s1on on I 0-23- 1996, and returned to TDCJ custody on 1-7-1998 with jail credit allowed from 5-14-1997 due to violation of mandatory supervision, and pursuant to revocation warrant of arrest issued 11 - 18- 1997 by the Parole Division. Offender Phillips was again released from TDCJ custody on 12-28-2007 on mandatory supervision and remained on supervision until the Court of Appeals issued a mandate on cause numbers F82-86866-NKNKQ, F82-79140-.JKQ, F82-77161-NKM, F82-77162-NKMKQ, and F82-77700-QKQ, setting the cases aside on 10-27-2008.

Our mi.uirm Is to provide public .wfeo•. promote positive change in qffender belurvior. ,·ci11tegrate offend~rs into soC'iety. and .a~sis1 victims of Cl'ime.

P.O. Oox 99 Huntsville. Texas 77342-0099 www.tdcj .stat1:.lx .us RMR 000029 ' '' Phillips, Steven Charles TDCJ# 351441 Page 2 Offender Phillips spent a total of 2-years, I-month, and 10-days on mandatory supervision on the two 30-years, and the 40-year sentence in cause numbers F82-77161-NKM, F82-77162-NKMKQ, and F82-77700-QKQ. The sentences in the two IO-year sentences in cause numbers F82-86866-NKNKQ and F82-79140~JKQ expired on 6-3-1992, and 6-9-1992, while Offender Phillips was in TDCJ custody.

Offender Phillips served a total of 25-years and 3-days of calendar time on these sentences, and is not under TDCJ jurisdiction.

~~ Charley Valaez PS-III Offender Time Management Classification and Records (936) 437-6380

cc: file

Our mission is to provide public safety, promote positive change 111 r!ffender behm,ior, reintegrate offenders into society. and assist victims of crime.

P.O. Box 99 Huntsville, Texas 77342-0099 www. tdcj.state. tx. us RMR 000030 C.HILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT Post Office 8ox 637 l:krryville. Arkansas 72616 Phone: {870) 423·2979 Toll Fn:c(877) 900-151 4 Fa.x: (!170) 423-4n35 http://www.sllllc.ar.usl<lfa

November W, 2009

RE: Chc:-ri Macumber vs. Steven Phillips Care# - & To Whom (t May Concern: This is to advise th.at no _payments for child support have been processed thru the Office of Child Support frc1m Steven Phillips in regard to the above referenced child support cases.

Siucerely,

~.L~ Denise Hu:tchison Child Sup:f!ori Supervisor I

RMR000031 Page I c .

AJU<ANSAS CHILD SUPPORT TRACKI NG S~STEM PAYf\CENT HISTORY REPORT FROM : {)7f2.111979TO : 11/l3Jla09

Case ID: Payor 10: Nnme: PHTI.LlPS C STEVEN Docket Number: Payee ID: Name: MACUMBER. S CHERJ NO of O ther Cases PayGr is Present: I

OJSCLAJMBR: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO§ 9-14-807 C.:HIW SUPF\JIU' l'A YM.l:Ni .K.J::.{..'()JW J~:iut:U iW l ttc l.if't'rCI! uf arru:, Si.i'fi'Glll E"roR\.."'EM~NT 'fitr....OVGK 113 STATE O!STRlBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHil..D SUPPORT PAYM.ENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFlED PAY HiSTORY MUST BE JN WRJTING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PA.RENT OR THEIR ATIORN.EY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT. CERTIFrEO PAy IDS TORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LJTl1..E ROCK, AR 72203. UNOff'ICIAL C'O?IES OF CHI.J.,D SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AVAIL.ABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFFICE.

11/23/2009 RMR000032 Page 2 o_ RCT Sratm; LookUp Code Descrtptioo Code Deocriµtion 00 Regular callection H Hold 01 Prior Collection I identified 02 IRS Collection M MaDual Distribution 03 Staie !«:venue Coll""'iion 0 Out Of Balance 04 ESD Collection R Researcli GS Advance \Undistrihuted Er.cess) s SHEF Special Handling lJ Increase Regular Coliectiorus x Refund Increase Advance 13 Increase ESD Increase IRS 15 Increase Stlite Revenues 16 Increase Prior Collections 21 Decrease lli:gu!ar Collections 22 De;;:rease Adv.llJlce 23 Decrease ESD 24 Dccreas.e IRS 25 Decrease State Revenuc 26 Decrease Prior Collections

Indicator LwkUp DISB. Hold LookUp Code Description Code Description AAC Applied To Anothcr Case (i.) A Address Hold HOL On Hold D Daily Disbursem~1t Hold RNN Refunded To NCP I 6Month Hold IUN Identified But Undistributed F Futtm:Huld RSC Ri:searcl1, Sbef, Out Of Balance L Less Than Zero Dollar Hold w Welfare Disttibutio11 Hold p Deceased Hold E Foster Care Hold

DISCLAlMER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO § 9· 14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF Cl-ULD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS STATE DISTRIBUTION Ul\TJ.T SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CLlSTDDlAN, NON-CUSTOD1AL PARENT OR THEIR AITORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTlf!ED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, UTILE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AV AlLABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFflCE.

11/23/2009 RMR 000033 Page L ARKANSAS CRlLD SUJ'PORT TRACKING SYSTEM PA Yt.fEN'f IDSTORY REPORT FR.OM : 01/01/1976 TO : 11123/20119

Case ID: Payor ID: Name: PIID..L1PS C S11:"VEN Docket Number: Payee ID: Name: MACU!vfBER S CHERJ NO <lfOtber Cffent: 1

Co1lcctlon before 08/0U1997 Receipt Number Receipt Daic Rooeipt 1)-pe Receipt Amount Chock NO OJ/ 1411997 0025 0077 Oli1 2/1997 00 110.00 W181l997 ooru 0016 M116ll997 00 110.00

OJSCLA.IMER: PURsUANT"IU ARK. "L:ul.lt ANNO~ Y·i+Au I Cru.Lu 5u Jlf>O'.K.T y;,. ·,1.-IBHT imce~ IS:.lUlID·B': THI: CWl1-C£ or cmr..o W !'!lOOT ENf'O!lC£ME!'f f TI!R-OL!GH IT£ ST ATE DISTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT IDSTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE TN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODI AL r ARENT OR THEIR ATIORNEY OF RECORD ro THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNlT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LI TILE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AV All.ABLE THROUGH THE LOCA L COURT CLERKS OFFICE.

11/23/2009 RMR 000034 Page2 01 Receipt T)pe RCT Statu~ LookUp Code Dw:ription Cade Description 0[} Regular collection H Hold 01 Prior Collection I Identified 02 IRS Collection M Manlllll Di~tribution 03 State Revenue Collection 0 Out Of Balance 04 BSD Collection R Research 05 Advance (1Jncfatributed Excess) s SHEP Special Har1dling 11 Increase Regular Collections x Refund 12 Increase Advance 13 Increase BSD 14 Increase IRS 15 Increase Stare R.1wenues 16 Incroase Prior CollectiollS 21 Decrease Regular Collections 22 Decrease Advance 23 D~easeESD 24 Decrease IRS 25 Decrease State Revenue 26 Decrease Prior C-0llections

Indicatnr LookUp DISB. Hold LookUp Code Description Code De£criptlou AAC Applioo To Anothtlf Case (s) A Address Hold HOL On Hold D Daily Disbursement Hold RNN Refunded To NCP l 6Month Hold IUN Identified But Undistributed F Future Hold RSC Research., Shef, Out Of Balance L Less 1118ll Zero Dollar Hokl w Welfare DiWibution Hold p Deceased Hold E Foster Care Hold

DISCLAIM.ER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO§ 9-14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENTIBROUGH ITS STA TE DISTRJBUTlON UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHlLD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAy msroRY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD TO 1HE STATE DlSBURSEMENT UNI l, CERTIFIED PA y msTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LlTI'LE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOff!C!AL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECQRDS MA y BE AVAILABLE IBROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFFICE.

l 1!23/2009 RMR 000035 s u s JI A N TE X A 5 C0 MPTR0 LL ER of PU B L IC A C C O U NT S c 0 M B s P.O Box 13:32 6 • AUSl lH, TX 78 71 1·3!52 8

November 24, 2009

Mr. Steven C. Phillips

Dear Mr. Phillips: The Comptroller's Judiciary Section is in receipt of your claim and supporting documentation requesting wrongful imprisonment compensation. The claim has been approved for the follow ing amount and pursuant to Section 103.15l(a), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the payment will be mailed within 30 days of the date of this letter.

Lump-sum payment: $1,262,500.00 Pursuant to Section 103.00J(b), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the claim was reduced because of concurrent sentences served from June 4, 1982 through June 9, 1992. 17ze sentences served under cause numbers F82-82743 -Q, F82 -79130-Q, F82-76748-Q, F82- 86990-Q, F82-8705J-Q and F82-77699-Q ran concurrently with cause numbers F82-86866-Q, F82-79140-Q, F82-77161-M, F82-77162-Q and F82 -77700-Q. (See attachment) The court order submitted by the claimant did not grant relieffo r the sentences served under cause numbers F82-82743-Q, F82-79130-Q, F82-76748-Q, F82-86990-Q, F82-87051-Q and F82- 77699-Q.

In addition, any compensalion for child support payments determined by the Comptroller to be owed under Section l03.052(a)(2), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, will be paid within 30 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with Section 103.052(c), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, any compensation for child support payments will be paid on the claimant's behalf in a lump-sum payment to the state disbursement unit, as defined by Section 101.0302; Texas Family Code, for dis tribution to the obligee under the child support order. The Comptroller will notify the claimant of the amount of any payment made on the claimant's behalf to the state disbursement unit.

If you have any questions or need additional infonnalion. please contact the Comptroller's Judiciary Section by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 1-800-531-5441 , extension 6- 6100.

Sincerely, ~-P{J;r:-- Leonard Higgins Comptroller' s Judiciary Section Attachment

RMR000036 1-- --· - ....

s u s ;\ N T EXAS C 0 MP TR 0 L L ER fJ./ PU BL IC AC C 0 U N T S ;_ i! - -- -· -- - -- -......:• ; ; ! C 0 YI B S PO Sox 1:35 28 • Au3T•N. TX 78 7 11 .'.3526 ff-~ j i i '('.-:-\~~i-~~l-j I i;·::::-.:.::::-;:=:::::::=.::::::-.:.::;::~=-=::::::=:::::.::.:::::::-.:::=:=:::-:.·.::.:.:::::==:::::::-.:-::::::-.:::;:::::-_-:.~:::::::.-=::-.::::::::.::-.::::::::-:-..::..--::~7'"-===--:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:·:::::::::'.\\~~ December 23, 2009 ..... ·

Mr. Steven C. Phillips

Dear Mr. Phillips: Enclosed is your wrongful imprisonment compensation lump-sum payment in the amount of $1,262,500.00. Pursuant to Section 103.00l(b), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the claim was reduced because of concurrent sentences served from June 4, 1982 through June 9, 1992. The sentences served under cause numbers F82-82743-Q, F82-79130-Q, F82-86748-Q. F82-86990-Q, F82- 8705 l-Q and F82-77699-Q ran concurrently with cause numbers F82-86866-Q, F82-79 l40-Q, F82- 77161-M, F82-77162-Q and F82-77700-Q.

The Comptroller's Judiciary Section received additional court orders submitted on your behalf by Mr. Randall E. Turner on December 17, 2009. The additional orders were received after the 10 day time period prescribed for applications to cure under Section 103.051(d), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Comptroller will , however, consider the additional orders if a new compensation claim is submitted for the time during which the six concurrent sentences were served.

· In addition, it appears that the claimant may be entitled to compensation for child support payments under Section I03.052(a)(2), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. However, based on the records submitted, the Comptroller is unable to detennine the appropriate amount of compensation that may be owed under Section 103.052(a)(2). If supplemental information is submitted which enables a determination of the appropriate amount owed, then payments will be made in accordance with Section l03.052(c), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Such payments will be paid on the claimant's behalf in a lump-sum payment to the state disbursement unit, as defined by Section 101.0302, Texas Family Code, for distribution to the obligce under the child support order. The Comptroller will notify the claimant of the amount of any payment made on the claimant's behalf to the state disbursement unit.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Comptroller's Judiciary Section by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 1-800-53 1-5441, extension 6- 6100.

Sincerely,

~~i;;~ Comptroller's Judiciary Section

RMR000037 STATE OF TEXAS COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE

Claimant name ana aaaress

P.O. Box 13526 Auslin, TX 78711-3528 Call 1-800-531-5441, ext. G-5985 or {512) 936-5985

A verified copy of pardon I court order showing actual innocence and justifying application. Enclosed

A written statement from Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying length of incarceration in a S tate prison. Enclosed A written statement ve rifying the length of incarceration from any Texas County or Municipality where inca rcerated in relation to the charges for wh ich daimant is eligible to make the claim.

Enclosed D If applicable, a written statement from Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying length of time spent on parole. Enclosed D If applicable, a written statement from the Texas Department of Publlc Safety verifying registration as a sex offender and length of registration.

Enclosed D A certified copy each child support order , if applicable, under which child support payments became due during the time lhe claimant served in prison and copies of the official child support payment records descnbed by Section 234.009, Family Code, for that eriod .

Enclosed D For proof of birth date provide a copy of birth certificate, or state driver's license, or state ID, or a notarized statement verifying Enclosed month, day and year of birth.

Total Amount of Claim Supported by the Attached Documentation: jf / . (,, o o, ;; oo ~ CLAIMANT'S CERTIFICATION ~q~:,;iL:....:::..;:.:::::_,,___L.-...::!l""-"i,4--i~L::--~--,,-,--,• do hereby certify that the amount requested is due and payable pursuant to Chapter of the Texas Civil Practice and Re e ies Code and I will immediately notify the Comptroller's Judiciary Section in writing of any changes or conditions which will disqualify this payment.

Claimanl Signalure Dale Of o·1 10

AOdresstCity/S1a1eJzlp code

sign ... here r /!)

RMR000038 Leonard Higgins 01-07-10 Comptrollers Judiciary Section Texas State Comptroller of Public Accts.

PO box 13528 Austin, Texas 787 11-3528 Re: your 11-24-09 letter Dear Mr. Higgins, Please find the enclosed documents noted in your letter: Court orders granting relief for sentences served under cause numbers F82-82743-Q, F- 82-79130-Q, F82-76748-Q, F82-86990-Q, F82-8705 1-Q and F82-77699-Q.

I hope these orders will enable you to proceed with my claim.

Thank You,

~ e , ;:,J,.:tt.j'-4 Steven C. Phillips

Attachment

RMR000039 \ .. :. .. . ':"' : .....• . .... ·:.:· ...... ~ :···· .·...... .· .·~: . ..... -~· ....... . ':,, : ·~ . ... . .. ) ........ . . .. . .... .....· •...: ..·.-..·................... .. •••.. ·:~ .. .... •... =--'!:.'l.:.• ..... . -.:· -t . ~ · ··

RMR 000040 '• ,.

Texas De p a r tment of Cr i mi n a l Justice Brad Livingston Executive Director RECEIV ED November 13, 2009 t'\O ~ 1 8 2.QU9 Leonard Higgins Comptroller's Judiciary Section \5!~ Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts P.O. Box 13528 Austin, Tx. 787 11-3528 RE: Phillips, Steven Charles The files of this Agency have been reviewed on offender Steven Charles Phillips, pursuant to your request.

Offender Phillips was received into TDCJ custody on 2-22-1983 from Dallas County on eight-10-year sentences, two- 30-years, and a 40-year sentence, with sentences to run concurrent.

Offenses County Cause Number Sentence Sentence Date Date of Offense Sentence Begin Maximum Date Expiration Aggravated 0 3llas F82-82743-NKQ 10-years 6-1t-1984 5- 15-1982 6-4-1982 6-3-1992 Assault Aggravated Dalt as F82-79130-JKQ 10-years 6-1 1-1 984 5-15-1982 6-4-1982 6-3-1 992 Assault Aggravaled Dallas F82· 76748-N KQ 10-years 6-1 1-1984 5-14-1982 6-4-1982 6-3-1992 Assault Aggravated Dallas F82-86990-JKQ JO-years 6-1 1-1984 4·22-1982 6.;1-1982 6-3-1992 Assault Burglary Dallas F82-8705 l-JKQ IO·}'Cars 6-11-1984 5-14-1982 6-4 -1 982 6-3-1992 Habitation Burglary Dallas F82-77699-QKQ 10-ycars 6- 11-1984 5-14-1982 6-10-1982 6-9-1992 Habitation Aggravated Oallas F82-86866-NKN KQ JO-years 6-11- 1984 5-14-1?82 6-4-1982 (6-3-1992) Raoe OC>-27-08 oer CCA mandate) Indec ency Oallas 1782-79140-JKQ 10-yca rs 6-11-1984 5-15-1982 6-10-1982 ( 6-9-1992) W/Child 110-27--08 ner CCA i\landatel Burglary Oallas F82-77 l61-NKM JO-years 8-27-1982 5-14-1982 6-10-1982 Habitation (10-27-08 oer CCA Mandate) Aggravated Se:tual Abuse Dallas F82-77162-NKMKQ JO-years 8-24-1983 5-14-1?82 6-4-1983 \ V/DW (10-27-08 per CCA Manda te) Aggravated Sexual Abuse Dallas F82-77700-QKQ 40-ycars 6-11-1984 S-14- 1982 6-4-1982 (10-27-08 per CCA Mandate) Offender Phi llips was released from TDCJ custody on mandatory superv1s1on on 10-23- 1996, and returned to TDCJ custody on 1-7-1998 with j ail credit allowed from 5-14- 1997 due to violation of mandatory supervision, and pursuant to revocation warrant of arrest issued 11-1 8- 1997 by the Parole Division. Offender Phillips was again released from TDCJ custody on 12-28-2007 on mandatory supervision and remained on superv ision until the Court of Appeals issued a mandate on cause numbers F82-86866-NKNKQ, F82-79140-JKQ, F82-77161-NKM, F82-77162-NK.Ml<Q, and F82-77700-QKQ, setting the cases aside on 10-27-2008.

Our mission. is l o provide public sofety, promOfl! positive chonge 111 offender helinvior, rcin1egro1e offenders Into society. and a.msr \'tt:lim.f ofcrime P.O. Oox 99 lluntsvillc, Texas 77342-0099 www.tdcj.state.tx.us RMR 000041 Phillips, Steven Charles TDCJ# 351441 Page2 Offender Phillips spent a total of I-years, 4-months, and 20-days on mandatory supervision on the two 30-years, and the 40-year sentence in cause numbers F82-77161-NKM, F82-77162-NKMKQ, and F82-77700-QKQ. The sentences in the two 10-year sentences in cause numbers F82-86866-NKNKQ and F82-79140-JKQ expired on 6-3-1992, and 6-9-1992, while Offender Phillips was in TDCJ custody.

Offender Phillips served a total of 25-years and 3-days of calendar time on these sentences, and is not under TDCJ jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Offender Time Management Classification and Records (936) 437-6380

cc: file

Our mission is to provide public safety. promote positive change in offender behavior, reintegrate offenders into society, and assist victims of crime.

P.O. Box 99 Huntsville, Texas 77342-0099 www.tdcj.state.tx.us RMR 000042 ..

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NOS. AP-76,010, AP-76,011, AP-76,012, AP-76,013 & AP-76,014

EXP ARTE STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NOS. F82-77700-Q; F82-77162-Q; F82-79140-Q; F82-86866-Q IN THE 204rn DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY AND CAUSE NO. F82-77161-M IN THE 194rn DISTRICT COURT FROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam.

OPINION Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the cierk of ihe trial court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two aggravated sexual abuse causes, sentenced to forty and thirty years' imprisonment, indecency with a child, sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, burglary of a habitation, sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment, and aggravated rape, sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his couvictions for one of the aggravated sexual abuse cases and the burglary of .OCT 0 6 ?nn!I

RMR 000043 1 I ~ '

·a habitation. Phillips v. State, No. 05-83-1058-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas, delivered October 26, 1984) and Phillips v. Stale, No. 05-82-01260-CR (Tex. App.-Dallas, delivered January 4, 1984). Applicant pleaded guilty to the other causes and no appeal was taken from those.

Applicant contends that he has newly discovered evidence that he is actually innocent of these offenses. The trial court has determined that no rational jury would have convicted Applicant in light of the new evidence, which was previously unavailable to Applicant. The evidence, obtained pursuant to post-conviction DNA testing and investigation, indicates that it was another individual, and not Applicant, who committed at least one of these offenses. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Relief is granted. The judgments in Cause Nos. F82-77700-Q; F82-77162-Q; F82-79140-Q and F82-86866-Q in the 204 1h District Court of Dallas County and Cause No. F82-77161-M in the 1h District Court of Dallas County are set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County to answer the charges against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and Parole Division.

Delivered: October 1, 2008 Do Not Publish

RMR 000044 WRIT NOS. W82-77162-Q(B), W82-77699-Q(B), W82-77700-Q(B), W82-79130-Q(B), W82-79140-Q(B), W82-82743-Q(B), W82-86748-Q(B), W82-8686,6-Q(B), W82-86990-Q(B), and W82-87051-Q(B)i (,A) f:>d-- ~ 111 Let - {YI,~~) ~'. .'

EXPARTE ) IN THE 204th CRIMINAL . ) ) DISTRICT COURT - (_,) ) -.-.. · STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS ) DALLAS COUNTY, TEJEAS' ~~

MOTION CLARIFYING JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL REMEDY FOR APPLICANT'S WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS Applicant Steve Charles Phillips files this motion amending his Memorandum of Law in Support of his Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Mr. Phillips has ten applications for habeas corpus pending in this Court. These applications were filed on June 20, 2008 and challenge convictions associated with the following case numbers: F82-77162 (aggravated sexual abuse), F82-77700 (aggravated sexual abuse), F82- 79140 (indecency with a child), F82-86866 (aggravated rape), F82-77 699 (burglary of a habitation), F82-79130 (aggravated assault), F82-82743 (aggravated assault), F82-86748 (aggravated assault), F82-86990 (aggravated assault), and F82-8705 l (burglary of a habitation).

Each of these ten writs was filed pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. On July 3, 2008, Mr. Phillips filed an amendment pursuing habeas relief pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article V, Section 8 and Article I, Section 12 of the Texas Constitution.

Mr. Phillips files this motion to clarify the jurisdictional grounds and procedural remedies for each of his applications. For his applications for writ of habeas corpus for the following convictions, Mr. Phillips asserts thatArticle 11.07 is the exclusive remedy: F82-77162, F82-

RMR 000045 77700, F82-86-866, and F82-79140. 1 However, for the six remaining applications for writs of habeas corpus pending in this Court (convictions F82-77699, F82-79130, F82-82743, F82- 48, F82-86990, and F82-8705 l) Mr. Phillips only seeks habeas relief pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article V, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution, and Article I, Section 12 of the Texas Constitution.

To the extent that Mr. Phillips has previously asserted that Article 11.07 is the proper remedy for the six writs associated with the following convictions: F82-77699, F82-79130, F82- 82743, F82-86748, F82-86990, and F82-87051, he seeks to amend the applications to rely solely on Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article V, Section 8 of the Texas · Constitution, and Article I, Section 12 of the Texas Constitution.

Respectfully submitted this :1_ day of July, 2008

~ Bar Card No. 20369600 Sorrels, Udashen & Anton 2301 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 468-8100 Fax (214) 468-8104 Jason Kreag Barry Scheck Innocence Project, Inc. Fifth Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10011 (212) 364-5340 Fax (212) 364-5341 Attorneys for Mr. Phillips

Mr. Phillips also has an application for writ of habeas corpus pending in the 194th Judicial District Court concerning his conviction in case number F82-7716 l. Mr. Phillips continues to seek relief from that conviction under art. 11.07.

RMR 000046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this!]_ day of July, 2008, a true and correct copy of Applicant Steven Charles Phillips' Motion Clarifying Jurisdiction and Procedural Remedy for Applicant's Writs of Habeas Corpus was delivered to the District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas.

R~

RMR 000047 WIUT NO. WX0890028-Q 1 EXPARTE § IN THE 204tb JUDICIAL § DISTRICT COURT STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING RELIEF The Court, having considered the allegations contained in Applicant's Application for Writ ofHabeas Corpus 2, Applicant's Memorandum ofLaw in Support ofHis Application for Writ of Habeas Corp_us, the State's Response, and official court records in the above numbered and entitled cause, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions oflaw: HISTORY OF THE CASE On June 11, 1984, Applicant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 'P\irsuan( to a plea oilrgain, Applicant was sentenced to ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; Applicant did not appeal this conviction. Applicant discharged this sentence onJune 3, 1992. See ··.·-~\"'

State's Exhibit A.

ISSUES RAISEDJN APPLICATION In the instant writ application, Applicant contends that: (1) newly discovered evidenc;e

I The qriginal case number for this writ was W82-86990-Q(B} The writ was refiled tlllderthe above case munber, wX0890028-Q, by order of this Court, at the request of the parties. The writ seeks relief pursuant to Article I, Section 12 and Article 5, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution and Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

RMR 000048 establishes that he is actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted; and (2) the State failed to disclose statements material to guilt in violation of his due process rights.

JUIUSDICTlON Jurisdiction is proper under Article 11.05. Applicant is not confined on this conviction as he discharged his sentence approximately sixteen years ago, and he is not facing other collateral consequences.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDINGS OF FACT The Court makes the-following findings of fact.

1. On April 22, 1982, at approximately 8: 10 p.m., a man in a hooded, gray sweatshirt, who was carrying a handgun and holding a piece of clothe over his face, walked into the laundry factilty at an apartment complex and sexually assaulted Lani B. See Applicant's Exhibit 25. (At some poillt after the assault, but before Applicant's trials, Lani B. changed her name to Lani T) 2. The assault was one of a string of similar sexual assaults that occurred in the Dallas area in the spring of 1982 that were committed by a single individual.

3., Applicant was indi~:ted for el.even qffenses in the Dallas area crime spree. Ten of these offenses 9ccurred over a two-day period on May 14 and 15, 1982, and one .~occurred on-April 22, 1982. The assault on April22, 1982, is the subject of this writ. 'i;~'· .... "c./i'r~~i?;}f,£fmtwas .also indicted for a sexual assault that occurred in February of 1982. <<?Tue'tivelve cases were considered related by police because the. offenses had similar manner and means, including but not limited to a man carrying a handgun wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, covering part of his face, assaulting individuals, and dtiving a ~· :·•p~~;:..- . similar maroon car.

corpus. Collectively the writs related to a single crime spree in Dallas in the Spring of 1982.

2 • ~. - : . -=_ .. '

----.---.- - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - . -...-.-----..-.,_-_ ··-··- ···-. ---------~ ___:.:_ ___ __:_:......_~~--------· .......... --~- -·

RMR 000049 4. Applicant was identified by at least one victim as the perpetrator in each of the twelve - indicted cases. Lani B. identified Applicant in a photo line-up approximately one month after her assault and in a live line-up over six weeks after her assault.

5. Prior to pleading guilty to the aggravated assault that is the subject of this writ, Applicant faced two trials for the assault of Mary B, another victim in the Dallas crime spree. Applicant was fow1d guilty of burglary of-a habitation in the_ first trial and aggravated sexual abuse in the second trial, and he was sentenced to concurrent thitiy year terms for the assault of Mary B.

6. In addition to Mary B, several victitns in the Dallas crime spree testified during Applicant's trials and identified hitn as the man responsible for the Dallas critne spree. Michelle H., one of the victin1s from May 14, 1982, identified Applicant and testified at both ofl_iis trials for the ~sault ofMaryJLin add_i!i_cm~ Lani B., testified at Applicant's second trial. Lani B. testified that Applicant had a bad reputation and_ improperly stated on cross-examination that she was not a complaining witness in this case, when in fact, she was. (RRl :'205-207). Other victitns from the Dallas crime spree, Susan W. and ShannonK., also testified at-Applicant's second trial. The testitnony from the victims of other incidents in the Dallas crime spree was based on what we now know was their inaccurate belief that Applicant was the perpetrator of the Dallas crim,e spree.

7. Applicant testified at the first trial, but he did not testify in the guilt phase of the second triaL At the first trial, Applicant presented a defense of misidentification and presented an alibi supported by his own testimony and the testimony of his wife, his sister-in-law, his brother-in-law, and his uncle.

8. - On June 11, 1984, Applicant pled guilty to this offense - aggravated assault with a deadly weapon related to the assault of Lani B. - as well as eight oilier charges in the Dallas critne ,spree; ,,after being ·convicted for burglary- of a habitation and the · ~ aggravated sexual abuse ofMary B.

9. The variotii'LD.anaJE.ate.a police departments where each of the incidents occurred communica{ed\vith one another regarding suspects in these cases. Further, there was sharing of information with Kansas City police because they had experienced' a string of similar offenses·tW-0.;;weeks after the critne spree in Dallas.

10.Following the crimes in the Kansas City area which occurred on May 27, 1982, Kansas City police detennined that Sidney Goodyear was responsible for the string of assaults in that j~risdiction. Goodyear's ci·iminal history showed manner and means

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

RMR 000050 similar to the Dallas area offenses. See Applicant's Exhibits 1-34.

11. Goodyear was identified by one Dallas victim, Wanda S., as the man who assaulted her. This information was not shared with Phillips or his counsel. Sge Applicant's.

Exhibit 40: She later identified Applicant as the man who assaulted her.

12. In the case of victim Connie P., Ms. P. identified Applicant as her assailant in an aggravated sexual assault. This case was unlike the others in time (it occurred in February whereas the others were committed May 14 and 15), and the manner and means were dissimilar. Police were made aware that Applicant _was not responsible for this offense prior to his first trial in the burglary ofa habitation of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 37-38. This information was not shared with Applicant or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. The case was dismissed after Applicant pied guilty to the remaining indictments. See Applicm;t 's Exhibit 39.

13.0n June 6, 2001, Applicant filed a prose motion for DNA testing of the evidence collected in the complainant Mary B. cases. He was denied testing, appealed· it, and lost. While attempting to seek relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State agreed to testing on June 21, 2007. See State's Exhibit B. ~.., ..

14. The DNA results excluded Applicant as the pefR~trator in the rape of Mary _B,, thus also exonerating him from breaking into her apartment to commit said rape. See Applicant's Exhibit 35. · 15. The State pursued DNA testing of Sidney Goodyear. Results showed that Goodyear was in fact responsible for the rape of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit-:35. · 16.After linking Goodyear's DNA to the rape of Mary B., the State gathered the following information about Goodyear: Goodyear committed a string of sexual assaults throughout the country inthe 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s andwas wantedblf many local jurisdictions and the Federal Bureau.oflnvestigations; Goodyear's crimes in other jurisdictions were nearly identical to the manner and means used in the Dallas area crime spree; Goodyear was .'1:Il initial suspect in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear owned a car and handgun that were consistent with the car and handgun used by the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was identified ai?the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree by at least one of the victims; and the evidence the State possessed at the time of Applicant's prosecution that implicated Goodyear was not disclosed to Applicant.

.. .:· ·:,_ .. :-::::::-;::·.

... ~-

RMR 000051 GROUND ONE: ACTUAL INNOCENCE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 17. The Court concludes that the DNA results excluding Applicant and implicating Goody em· in the assault of Mary B. were unknown to Applicant at the time of trial and that Applicant's failure to discover this information was not due to a lack of due diligence on his part.

18. The Court concludes that the DNA results are newly discovered evidence that create a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undennine confidence in the verdict.

19. The Court concludes that tl1e State and Applicant agree that Goodyear, not Applicant, committed the assault of Lani B.

20. The Court concludes that the DNA results implicating Goodyear in the Dallas crime spree and excluding Applicant are supported by the following information: Goodyear committed nearly identical crimes throughout the country both before and after the Dallas area crime spree; the Dallas police have at all times believed that each of the crimes in Dallas were committed by the same individual; Goodyear owned the same type of car and handgun that was used in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was ari initial suspect and identified by at least one of the victim's in the Dallas crime spree;· the victims in Dallas, including, but not limited to, Lani B. and Mary B., provided police similar descriptions of the perpetrator; and the assaults occurred within hours . .-:.·' ofeach other. " 21. The Court concludes that relief should be granted to Applicant on hi_s. clairr:t of act:llal innocence.

22. The Court concluA,s>·Jhat Applicant's ground for relief sholJld_be granted .<md the conviction set ~iside ·under authority of Ex parteJilizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), in that Applicant has shown by cl~ar and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the newly discovered DNA evidence and the other evidence demonstrating Goodyear's guilt and Applicant's innocence.

s ·...

RMR 000052 GROUND Two: BRADY CLAIMS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

23. The Court concludes that the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that Applicant is entitled to relief because there is a reasonable probability that had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed the outcome of the proceedings against Applicant would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

24. The Court concludes that Sidney Goodyear was a suspect in the crime spree for which Applicant was investigated and prosecuted in Dallas. The Court also finds that Goodyear committed similar offenses throughout the country before and after the ·Dallas crime spree. The Court also finds that at least one of the victii;ns in the Dallas crime spree identified Goodyear as the assailant in the Dallas crime spree.

25. 'rhe Court concludes that wh1Je the Dallas area police identified Goodyear as a suspect in the Dallas crimes, knew he committed similar crimes in Kansas City two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas, and knew that at least one victim in Dallas identified Goody ea~:, this infonnation was not disclosed to Applicant or his attorney.

26. The Court also concludes that, prior to Applicant's first trial, the Dallas Police confirmed that John Parks, not Applicant, committed the assault of Connie P., one of the Dallas victims who initially identified Applicant as her assailant. The Court finds that this information confirming that APJ2licant was actuallyiunocent of the assault on Connie P. and the infornrntion that thepofice knew that Connie P. misidentified Applicant as her assailant was not disclosed to Applicant or his attorney until after he was found guilty at two trials and after he pied guilty to nine additional charges ···related to the Dallas crime spree.

27. The Court concludes that the evidence identified in paragraphs 24-26 constitutes material, exculpatory evidence which should have been disclosed to Applicant. The Court finds that there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a different outcome at Applicant's trials an<lthat he would not have pied-guilty to the -remaining charges had the favorable evidence been disclosed by the State.

28. The Court concludes. that the State and Applicant agree that Applicant is entitled to relief based on the State's failure to disclose the favorable evidence identified in p~~g~iph; 24-26. ' .

_, ...,... .. .;..

RMR 000053 29. The Comt agrees and ,c9ncludes that relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

ORDERS OF THE COURT The Court ORDERS the following: 1. Applicant's writ of habeas corpus is granted pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Applicant's conviction is vacated based on a showing .that he is actually innocent of the crime pursuant to Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). - .

3. Independently, Applicant's conviction is vacated based on the State's failure to 1isclose material, exctilpatory evidence as is required by Bradyv. Maryland, 373 U.S.

4. The CLERK is instructed to forward a copy of this ORDER to Applicant's counsel and to counsel for the State.

fr. --- SIGNED this·-£ day of .au>/ ,2008

- ·:·:...., ·arg~--0 204ru JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

-

RMR 000054 WRIT NO. WX0890024-Q 1 EXPARTE § IN THE 204th JUDICIAL § DISTRICT COURT STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DAL~ASCOUNTY,TEXAS

ORDER GRANTING RELIEF i i The Co~rt, having considered the allegations contained V1Applicant's1?-pplication for i ' Writ ofHabea~ Corpus 2, Applicant's Memorandum ofLaw in Support ofHis Applicationfor I Writ of Habefs Corpus, the. State's Response, and official! court records in the above. ' . - numbered .· and:entitled cause, ; makes the following findings of: fact and conclusions ' oflaw::..: '

HISTORY OF THE CASE On June 11, 1984, Applicant pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation. - ! . . !

Pursuant to a ~lea bargain, Applicant wllil sentenced to ten ye~rs' confinemerif in the T:xas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Aipplicant did not appeal this .. :\;·i;l:~<~0~~x~· . -.-1 . ..... ·· . · 1

conviction. Applicant discharged -. this :·~ sentence on June 19, 1~92. See State''~Jtxhibit°fi" .! ..

ISSUES RAISED IN APPLICATION j ·. -.. · .. · · -- . · 1 • ,•'i·,:. •.•'S'!cc· ·, , • • .. • •• •

··:-1n the iifstant writ application,Appli~antcontends that:-6) newly disco¥ered.eviden,ce.,...;~j;!~(; l .···~(·;·$~~~:.. . ' . . . e>stablishes that he is actually inn<l&i~.i,ffi,~Wi£ioffense of which-he was convicted; and (2) the l •. :t;;;o;.coc· ·:." .. ~~~~~+-~~~~

I The original c~se number for.this_ writ was W82-77699-Q(B). The writ was refiled under the aboye ,_.'.°:·<.:?-.-· case number, WX0890024-Q, by order of this Court, at the request of the parties. The writ seeks relief pursillrnt t~ Article r,' Section 12 and Article 5, Section 8 of the)Texas Constitution and Art.icle - 11..05 oftheTexasCodeofCrirninalProcedure... ·: . "-:~ The Court has also considered each of Applicant's ten additional applicationsfor:writs ofhapeas

RMR 000055 State failed to disclose statements material to guilt in violation of his due process rights.

JURlSDICTION Jurisdiction is proper W1der Article 11.05. Applicant is not confined on this conviction as he discharged his sentence approximately sixteen years ago, and he is not facing other collateral consequences.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDINGS OF FACT __ The Coutt makes the following findings of fac!-_ _ 1. On May 14, 19 82, a man in a hooded, gray sweatshirt arid boots, who was carrying a handgun, approached victinl Michelle H. around 1: 15 p.m. while she was sunbathing next to the pool at an apartment complex. See Applicant's Exhibit 27.

2. }'he assailant forced the victim at gunpomt into the apartment where she was staying with a friend, commanded her to disrobe, and orally raped her. No DNA or other physical evidence was gathered from the crime scene. _ · · - --...__,_ 3. The assault of Michelle H;·occurred less than two hours before the assault of Mary B., another of the approximately 60 victims involved in the Dallas crime spree for which Applicant was prosecuted. ' .:;!J•'.

4. Applicant was indicted for eleven offe~'es related to a string of sexm1l offenses that occurred in theJ)allas area over a two-day period on M,ay 14 and.15, 1982. He was also indicted for a sexual assault that occurred in February of 1982. The twelve cases were considered related by police because the offenses h11d similar manner and means, including but not limited to a man carrying a handgun wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, _coveriqg part of his face, assaulting individuals, and driving a similar

corpus. Collectively the writs related to a single crime spree in Dallas in the Spring of 1982.

'2

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

RMR 000056 5. Applicant was identified by at le¥t one victim as the perpetrator in each of the twelve indicted cases. Michelle H. identified Applicant as her assailant in a photo line-up· approximately four weeks after her assault.

6. Michelle H. also identified Applicant as her attacker in the two trials Applicant faced for the offenses against victin1 Mary B. (1RR2: 27; 2RR1: 194, 198). In addition to Michelle H., Susan W., Lani B., and Shannon K., other victims in the Dallas crime spree, also testified at-Applicant's second trial. Each of these victims testified to Applicant's bad reputation. Thetestimony from the victims of other incidents in the Dallas crime spree was bas~d on what we now know was their inaccurate belief that Applicant was the perpetrator of the Dallas crime spree.

7. Applicant faced two separate trials for the assault of Mary B. He was first tried for burglary ofa habitation, found gµilty, and sentenced to thirty years' imprisomm;nt. A year later he was tried for the charge of aggravated sexual abuse related to the same incident. Applicant testified at the first trial, but he did not testify in the guilt phase of the second trial: 8. At the first trial, Applicant presented a defense of niisideritification and presented an alibi supported by his own t~stimony and the testimony of his wife, his sister-in-Jaw, his brother-in-law, and his uncle.

9. Applicant was fourid guilty and sentenced to two concurrent thirt;l year terms in the two trials he face_d related to the Mary B. assault. (RR: 191, 462). lO~On June 11, 1984, Applicant pied guilty to this offense - burglary ofa habitation related to the assault of Michelle H. - as well as eight other charges in the. Dallas crime spree, after: being convicted for burglary of a habitation and the aggravated sexual abuse of Mary B. in which MicheHeH. testified against him.-- · , .., · 11. The various Dallas area police departments where each of the incidents occurred communicated with one another regarding suspects in these cases. Further, there was · sharing of infomrntion with Kansas City police because they had experienced a string of siniilar offenses two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas; 12. Following the crimes in the Kansas City area which occurred ou May 27, 1982, Kansas City police determined that Sidney Goodyear was responsible for the string of assaults in that jurisdiction. Goodyear's criminal history showed manner and means siillllado.the Dallas area offense'$. ·see Applicant's "Exhibits I-34. --,,, ·

RMR 000057 13. Goodyear was· identified by one Dallas victim, Wanda S., as the man who assaulted her. This information was not shared with Phillips or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. She later identified Applicant as the man who assaulted her.

14. In the case of victim Connie P., Ms. P. identified Applicant as her assailant in an aggravated sexual assault. This case was unlike the others in time (it occurred in February whereas the others were committed May 14 and 15), and the manner and means were dissimilar. Police were made aware that Applicant was not responsible for this offense prior to- his first trial in the burglary of a habitation of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 37-38. This information was not shared with Applicant or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. The case was dismissed after Applicant pled guilty to the remaining indictments. See Applicant's Exhibit 39.

15. On June 6, 2001, Applicant filed a prose motion for DNA testing of the evidence collected in the complainant Mary B. cases .. He was denied testing, appealed it, and lost. Whil~ attempJin__g to seek relief frorr{the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State agreed to testing on June 21, 2007. See State's Exhibit B. ·· 16. The DNA results excluded Applicant as the perpetrator in the tape of Mary B., thus also exonerating him from breaking into her apartment to c01rimit said rap~ .. See Applicant's Exhibit 3~. , 17. The State pursued DNA testing of Sidney Goodyear. Results showed that Goodyear was in fact responsible for the rape of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhil;>it 35.

18.After linking Goodyear's DNA to the rape of Mary B., the State gathered the following infonnation about Goodyear: Goodyear committed a string of sexual . assaults throughout the country in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and was wanted by mar1y local jurisdictions and the Federal Bureau ofinvestigations; Goodyear's crimes in other jurisdictions were nearly identical to the marmer and means used in the Dallas area crime spree; Goodyear was an initial suspect in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear owned a car and handgun that were consistent with the car ar1<l handgun used by the perpetrator in the Dallas crin1e spree; Goodyear was ide1{tified as the perpetr~tcirlli the Dallas crime spree by at leasforie'ortitevictims; and the evidence the State possessed at the time of Applicant's prosecution that implicated Goodyear was not disclosed to App1icant.

RMR 000058 GROUND ONE: ACTUAL INNOCENCE

CONCLUSIONS 01< LAW

19. The Court concludes that the DNA results excluding Applicant and implicating Goodyear in the assault of Mary B. were unknown to Applicant at the time Df trial and that Applicant's failure to discover this infonnation was not due to a lack of due diligence on his part.

20. The Court concludes that the DNA results are newly discovered evidence that create a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undennine confidence in the verdict.

21. The Court concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Goodyear, not Applicant, committed the crimes against Michelle H. · 22. The Court concludes that the DNA results implicating Goodyear in the Dallas crime spree and excluding Applicant aresupported by the following information: Goodyear committed nearly.identical crimes throughout the cotmtry bo£l;1before and a~er the Dallas area crime spree; the Dallas police have at all times believed that each of the crimes in Dallas were committ~d by the same ~dividual; Goodyear owned the sa~e type of car and handgun that was used iri. the Dallas crime spree~ 'Goodyear was an initial suspect and identified by at least one of the victim's in the Dallas crime spree; the victims in Dallas, including, but not limited to, Michelle H. and MaryB., provided police similar descriptions of the perpetrator; and the assaults occurred within hours of each other ..

23. The Court concludes that relief should be granted to Applicant on his claimofactual ·· · ·•" innocence.

24. The Court concludes that Applicant's ground for relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under authority ofEx parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. C1:im. App. 1996), in that Applicant has shown by clear and convirldri.g evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted himin light of the newly discovered DNA evidence and the other. evidence demonstrating Goodyear's guilt and Applicant's innocence. ::,.,·

.. -.. ::.~ ....

~----•v~ ¥<:~·---• ·----------•·

RMR 000059 GROUND Two: BRADY CLAIMS ·CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 25. The Court concludes that the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evjdence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that Applicant is entitled tD relief because there is a reasonable probability that had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed the outcome of the proceedings against Applicant would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

26. The Court concludes that Sidney Goodyear was a suspect in the crime spree for which Applicant was investigated and prosecuted in Dallas. The Court also finds that Goodyear <;Qrnmitted similar offenses throughout the country before and after the Dallas crime spree, The Court also finds that at least one ofthe~ictims in the Dallas crime spree identified Goodyear as the assailant in the Dallas crime spree.

27. The Court concludes that-while the Dallas area police identified Goodyear as a suspect in the Dallas crimes, knew he committed similar crimes in Kansas City two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas, and knew that at least one victim in Dallas i~entified Goodyear, this. info1m!ltion was not disclosed to Applicant or hjs attorney.

28. The Court also concludes that, prior to Applicant's first trial, the· Dallas Police corififriied that John Parks, not Applicant, committed the assault of Connie P :, orte of the Dallas victims who initially identified Applicant as her assailant. The Court finds that this information confirming that Applicant was actually innocent of the assault on Connie P. and the information that the police knew that Connie P. misidentified Applicant as her assailant was.not disclosed to Applicant or his. attorney until after he was found guilty at two trials and after he pied guilty to nine additional charges related to the Dallas crime spree. .."<•.<·<-···

29. The Court concludes that the evidence identified in paragraphs 26-28 constitutes material, exculpatory evidence which should have been disclosed to Applicant. The Court finds that there is a reasonable probability tliat there would have been a different outcome at Applicant's trials and that he would not have pied guilty to the ·remaining charges had the favorable evidence been disclosed by the State.

30. The Court concludes that thec,~ta{e.,Jl,QQ.Applicant agree that Applicant is entitled.to . ,,q;~liefc!t~~()J).::tbe State's failure to.5.li§.c!Qse the favorable evidence identified in . . '" ~· . .· ' paragraphs26~28. - ,,, ·

-----~---,-------·------·--~..--,...,------~-- ·----------------

RMR 000060 31. The Court agrees and concludes that relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963}

ORDERS OF THE COURT The Court ORDERS the following: 1. Applicant's writ of habeas corpus is gran_ted pursuant to Atiicle 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Applicant's conviction is vacated based on a showing that he is actually innocent o.( the crime pursuant to Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). · · 3: Independently, Applicant's conviction is vacated based on the State's failure to disclose material, exculpatory . evidence - as is required by Bradyv. Maryland, 373 ....U.S. (1967).

4. The CLERK is instructed to forward a copy ofthi's ORDER to Applicant's counsel .,, and tci counsel forthe State.

-IP· SIGNED this-~ day of _____~+,,.<---~' 2008

204rn iUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RMR 000061 WRIT NO. WX0890025-Q 1 EXPARTE § IN THE 204th JUDICIAL § DISTRICT COURT STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING RELIEF The Court, having considered the allegations contained ~Applicant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2, Applicant's Memorandum ofLaw in &upporfofHis Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the State's Response, and official court records in the above numbered and entitled cause, makes the following findings of fa9t and conclusions of law: HISTORY OF THE CASE O~ June 11, 1984, Applicant pied guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Applicant was sentertced to ·ten y.ears' · confinement in the '[exas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Applicant did not appeal this conviction. Applicant discharged this sentence on June 3, 1992. See State's Exhibit A.

ISSUES RAISED IN APPLICATION In the instant writ application, Applicant contends that:(,!) newly discovered evidence

I The original case nwnber for this writ was W82-79130-Q(B). The writ V{as refiled under the above case number,_WX0890025-Q, by order ofthis Court, at the request of the parties. The writ seeks relief pursuant to Article I, Section 12 and Article 5, Section 8 of the. Texas Constitution and Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedme. · }The Court has also considered each of Applicant's ten additional applicatfons for writs of habeas ..-.

RMR 000062 establishes that he is actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted; and (2) the State failed to disclose statements material to guilt in violation of his due process rights .

.fURISDICTION Jurisdiction is proper under Article 11.05. Applicant is not confined on this conviction <is he discharged his sentence approximately sixt~en years ago, and he is not facing other collateral consequences.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDINGS OF FACT 111e Court makes the following findings of fact.

1. OnMay 15, 1982, at approximately 9:30 a.m. aman in a hooded, gray sweatshirt, who was carrying a handgun, walked into an Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Garland, Texas, and comnumded that the women in the salon disrobe while he masturbated . .See Applicant's Exhibit 31. - ·. . . ..,_ ....

2. The assault was one of a string of sexual assaults iµ the Dallas ·area that were comn1itted by a single indivi~ual. Applicant was investigated and prosecuted for the crime spree . . ;;,_;:~'4...;.,~icant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and indecency ·:-:o.-;c·· with. a child as a result of the incident at Garland Elaine Powers Figure Saion.

Applicant challenges his conviction for indecency with· a child in writ number W82- 79140-Q(B).

4. Applicant was indicted for eleven offenses related to a string of sexual offenses that occurred in the Dallas area overa:t:Wu-day period on May 14 and 15, 1982. He was also indicted for a sexual assault that occurred in Febru~ry of 1982. The twelve cases were considered related by police becausethe offenses had similar manner and means, . .iiw!uding but not limited to a man carrying a handgun wearing a. gray hooded

corpus. Collectively the writs related to a single crime spree in Dallas in the Spring-0f 1982. ·

RMR 000063 sweatshirt, covering part of his face, assaulting individuals, and driving a similar maroon car.

5. Applicant was identified by at least one victim as the perpetrator in each of the twelve indicted cases. Wanda S., one of the victims in !he Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Garland, identified Applicant in a live line-up approximately four weeks after the assault. Wanda S. initially identified Sidney Goodyear, not Applicant, as the man who assaulted her.

6. Prior to pleading guilty to the aggravated assault that is the subject of this writ, Applicant faced two trials for the assault of Mary B, one of the other victims in the Dallas crime spree. In addition to being identified by Mary B. as her assailant, during the trials, Applicant was identified by MichelleH., Susan W., Lani B., and Sharu10n K .• other victims in the Dallas crime spree, as the man responsible for the Dallas crime spree. Each of these victims testified to Applicant's bad reputation. The testimony from the victims of other incidents in the Dallas crime spree was based on what we now know was their inaccurate belief that Applicant was the perpetrator of the Dallas crime spree. .

··· 7. Applicant faced two separate trials for the assault of Mary B. He was first tried for . burglary of~ habitation, found guilty, arid sentenced .to thirty years' imprisonment. A year later he was tried for the charge of aggravated sexual abuse related to the same . incident. Applicant testified at the firsttri~f, but he did not testify in the guilt phase of the second trial. ..

8. At the first trial, Applicant presented a defense of misidentification and presented an alibi supported by his own testimony and the testimony of his wife, his sister-in-law, his.brother-in-law, and his uncle. .. -_ ,,. ·- ~- . · 9. Applicant was found guilty·and sentenced to two concurrentthirtyy,ear.terms in the two trials he faced related t~ the Mary B. assault. (RR: 191, 462). ' ~"':.' :-· 10. On June 11, 1984, Applicant pied guilty t9 this offense - aggravated assault with a deadly weapon - as well as eight other charges in the Dallas crime spree, after being convicted for burglary of a habitation and the aggravated sexual abuse of Mary B. in which Michelle H. and the other victims in the Dallas crime spree testified against : ·him.

RMR 000064 11. The various Dallas area police departments where each of the incidents occurred communicated with one another regarding suspects in these cases. Fµrther, th.ere :W'!S. , sharing of information with Kansas City police because they had experienced a string of similar offenses two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas.

12.Following the crimes in the Kansas City area which occmred on May 27, 1982, Kansas City police determined that Sidney Goodyear was responsible for the string of assaults in that jurisdiction. Goodyear's criminal history showed manner and means similar to the Dallas area offenses. See Applicant's Exhibits 1-34.

13. The fact that Goodyear was identified by Wanda S. as the man who assaulted her and the other women in the Garland Elaine Powers Figure Salon was not shared with Phillips or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40.

14. In the case of victim Connie P ., Ms. P. identified Applicant as her assailant in an aggravated sexual assault. This case was unlike the others in time. (it occmTed in February whereas the others were committed May 14 and 15), and the manner and means were dissimilar. Police were made aware that Applicant was not responsible for this offense prior to his first trial in the burglary ofa habitation of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 37-38. This information was not shared with Applicant or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. The case was dismissed after Applicantpled guilty to the remaining indictments. See Applicant's Exhibit 39. .

15. On June 6, 2001, Applicant filed a pro se'inotion for DNA testing Of the evidence collected in the complainant Mary B. cases. He was denied testing, appealed it, and· lost. While attempting to seek relief from the Court of Criminal· Appeals,'the State agreed to testing on June 21; 2007. See State's Exhibit B.

16. The DNA results excluded Applicant as the perpetrator in the rape ofMary B., thus _ also exonerating- him· from breaking- into her·-apfil1t:Jjl~i:ttl~~ommit said rape. See Applicant's Exhibit 35. -- · 17. The State pursued DNA testing of Sidney Goodyear. Results showed that Goodyear was in fact responsible for the rape of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 35.

18.After linking Goodyear's DNA tb the rape of Mary B., the State gathered the following information about Goodyear: . Goodyear c.ommitted a string of sexual assaults throughout the country in the 1960s, 1970s, and.1980s and was wanted by many localjurisdicti.ons an~ the;);"e~erall,?l.11,"t;al!: pf.Investigations; Goodyear's crimes in oth_er}urisdictions were nearly idei1tical to the manner and means used in the Dallas

RMR 000065 area crime spree; Goodyear was an initial suspect in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear owned a car and handgun that were consistent with the car and handgun used by the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was identified as the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree by at least one of the victims; and the evidence the State posses~ed at the time of Applicant's prosecution that implicated Goodyear was not disclosed to Applicant.

GROUND ONE: ACTUAL INNOCENCE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 19. The Court concludes that the DNA results excluding Applicant and implicating Goodyear in the assault ofMary B. were unknown to Applicant at the time of trial and that Applicant's failure to discover this infonnation was not due to a lack of due diligence on his part.

20. The Court concludes that the DNA results are newly discovered evidence that cre:ate a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict.

21. The Court concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Goody~ar, not Applicant, · . committed the assault at the Elaine Powers Figure Salon in G_(lrland. · · 22;The Court concludes that the DNA results implicating Goodyear in the Dallas cfime spree and excluding Applicant are supported by the following information: Goodyear committed nearly identical crimes throughout the courttry both before and after the Dallas area crime spree; the Dallas police have at all times believed that each of the · -...... crimes in Dallas were committed by the same individual;. Go.odyear.owned the.smne type of car and handgun that was used in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear w.as.an initial suspect and identified by at least one of the victim's in the Dallas crime-spree; the victims in Dallas, including, but not limited to, WandaS,; and.Mary B., provided police similar descriptions of the perpetrator; and the assaults occurred within hours of each other.

23. The Court concludes that relief should be granted to Applicant on his claim of actual ·ilinocence.

24. The Court concludes that Applicant's ground for relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under authority of Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202. (Tex, Crim. App. 1996), in that Applicant has shown by dear and convincing evidencetl~~t

·--'-~.~..,,,,,. ·-·· _.. ··-----------~·----·----

RMR 000066 no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the newly discovered DNA evidence and the other evidence demonstrating Goodyear's guilt and Applicant's innocence.

GROUNDTWO: BRADY CLAIMS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 25. The Co mt concludes that the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that Applicant is entitled to relief because there is a reasonable probability that had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed the outcome of the proceedings against Applicant would have been .different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399, 404 (Tex. Cri'm. App. 1992).

26. The Court concludes that Sidney Goodyear was a suspect in the crime spree for which Applicant was investigated and prosecuted in Dallas. The Court also finds that Goodyear committed sin1ilar offenses throughout the country before and after the Dallas crime spree. The Court also finds that at least one of the victims in the Dallas . crime spree identified Goodyear as the assailant in the Dallas crime spree.

27. The Court concludes that while the Dallas area police identified Goodyear as a suspect in the Dallas crimes, kiiew he committed similar crimes in Kansas City two. weeks after the crime spree in Dallas, and knew that at least one victim in Dallas identified Goodyear, this information was not disclosed to Applicant or his attorney.

28. The Court also concludes that, prior to Applicant's first trial, the Dallas Police confirmed that John Parks, not Applicant, committed the assault of Connie P., one.of ... the Dallas victims who initially identified Applicant as her assailant. The Court . finds thatthis information confirming that Applicant was actually innocent of the assault on .·· · Connie P. and the information that the police knew that Connie P. misidentified Applicant as her assailant was not disclosed to Applicant or his attorney i.mtil after he was found guilty at two trials and after he pled guilty to nine additional charges related to the Dallas crime spree.

:-:· 29. The Court concludes that the evidenc.e identified in paragraphs 26-28 constitutes,,,, .:.

material, exculpat01y evidence which should have been disclosed to Applicant. The.

Court finds that there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a - different outcome at Applicant's trials and that he would not have pied guilty to the remaining charges had the favorable evidence been disclosed by the Sfate.

•

RMR 000067 30. The Court concludes that th~ State and Applicant agree that Applicant is entitled to relief based on the State's failure to disclose the favorable evidence identified in paragraphs 26"28.

31. The Court agrees and concludes that relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

ORDERS OF THE COURT The Cowi ORDERS the following: 1. Applicant's writ of habeas corpus is granted pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Applicant's conviction is vacated based on a showing that he is actually innocent of the crime pursuant to Ex partf Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

3. Indcp~!!de~tly, Applicant's convic~~on_i~ va~"1ted based on the State_) failure to disclose material, exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1967).

4. The CLERK is instructed to forward a copy of this ORDER to Applicant's counsel and to counsel for the State.

:.k• SIGNED this !) day of df , 2008

~~.

204TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RMR 000068 WRIT NO. WX0890026-Q 1 EXPARTE § IN THE 204th JUDICIAL § DISTRICT COURT STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING RELIEF Tee Court, having considered the allegations contained in Applicant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2, Applicant's Memorandum of Law in Support of His Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the State's Response, and official court records in the above numbered and entitled cause, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: HISTORY OF THE CASE On June 11_, 1984, Applicant pied guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Applicant was sentenced to ten years' confinement in the Texas De,~artmentofCriminal Justice, Inst~h!tional Division. Applicant -did not appeal this conviction. Applicant discharged this sentence on June 3, 1992. See .State's F;xhibit A..

ISSUES RAISED IN APPLICATION In the instant writ application, Applicant conte~g§ that: O) newly discovered evidence

I The origin.JI! case number for this wTit was W82-82743-Q(B). The writ was ri:;filed under the above case nwnb~r, WX0890026-Q, by order of this Court, at the request of the parties. The writ seek~ relief p~rsuant to Article I, Section 12 and Article 5, S~ction 8 of the Texas Constitution and Article ··I 1.05 of1he Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. '.!The Court has also considered each of Applicant's ten additional,<}pplications for writs of habeas -··

RMR 000069 establishes that he is actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted; and (2) the State failed to disclose statements material to guilt in violation of his due process rights.

JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is proper under Alticle 11.05. Applicant is not confined on this conviction as he discharged his sentence approximately sixteen years ago, and he is not facing other collateral consequences.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDIN<,;S Q.F FACT The Court makes the following findings of fact.

1. On May 15, 1982, at approximately 10:30 a.m., a man in a hooded, gray sweatshirt, who was carrying a handgun and holding a piece of clothe over his face, walked into an Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Carrollton, Texas and commanded that the women in the salon disrobe while he masturbated. One of the victims in the salon was Susan . w.· 'See Applicant's Exhibit 32.

2. The assault was one of a string of similar sexual assaults that occurred in the Dallas area in the spring of 1982 that were committed by a single individual. For example, approximately one hour pefore the assault at the Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Carrollton, a similar assault occurred at the Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Garland, Texas. In total, there were approximately sixty victims in the Dallas area crime spree, . each describing the same perpetrator.

3. Applicant wa.S.indicted for eleven offenses in the Dallas crime spree. Ten of these offenses occurred over a two-day period on May 14 and 15, 1982, and one occurred on April 22, 1982. Applicant was also indicted for a sexual assault that occurred in February of 1982. The twelve cases were considered related by police because the offenses had sin1ilar manner and means, in~luding but not limited to a man carrying a h~dgurlwearing a gray hooded s~eatshirt, covering part of his face, assaulting

COJ:p.µs. C_qHt<cti:vely the. wrj,J..S related to a single crinle spree in Dallas in the Spring of 1982.

RMR 000070 individuals, and driving a sin1ilar maroon car.

4. Applicant was identified by at least one victim as the perpetrator in each of the twelve indicted cases. Susan W., one of the victims at the Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Carrollton, identified Appli_cant in a photo line~up.

5. Prior to pleading guilty to the aggravated assault that is the subject of this .writ, Applicant faced two trials for the assault of Mary B, another victim in the Dallas crime spree. Applicant was found guilty of burglary -of a habitation in the first trial and aggravated sexual abuse in the second trial, and he was sentenced to concurrent thiriy year terms for the assault of Mary B.

6. In addition to Mary 13, several victims in the Dallas crime spree testified during Applicant's trials and identified him as the man responsible for the Dallas crime spree. Michelle H., one of the victims from May 14, 1982, identified Applicant and testified at both of his trials for the assault ofMary B. Susan W., one of the victin1s at the Elaine Powers Figure Salon in Carrollton, testified at Applicant's second trial.

Susan W. testified that Applicant had a bad reputation and improperly stated on cross- examination that she was not a complaining witness in this case, when in fact, she was. (RRl: 199-204). Other victims from the Dallas crime spree, Lani B. and Sharinon K., also testified at Applicant's second trial. The testimony from the victims of other incidents in the Dallas crime spree was based on what we now know was their inaccurate be1iefthat Applicant was the perpetrator of the Dallas crime spree. :c·'

7. Applicant testified at the first trial, but he did not testify in the guilt phase ofthe second trial. At the first trial, Applicant presented a defense of misidentification and presented an alibi supported by his own testimony and the testimony of his wife, his ____ sister-in-law, his brother-in-law, and his unQle, 8-.-·Dn Jun}!-11, 1984, Applicant pled guilty to this offense - aggravated assault-with a deadly-weapon related.to the assault at the Elaine Po~vers in Carrollton-as well as- - eight other charges in the Dallas crime spree, after being convicted for burglary of a foibitatiori"and the aggravated sexual abuse of Mary B.

9. The various Dallas area police departments where each of the incidents ·occurred ·.. ~unicated 'with one another regarding suspects in these cases. Further, there was s11aring.,0f information with Kansas City police because they had experienced a string of similar offenses two weeks .after the crime spree in Dallas. ....;.·~

:,··,;·

RMR 000071 IO.Following the crimes in the Kansas City ar~a. which occurred on May 27, 1982, Kansas City police determined that Sidney Goodyear was responsible for the string of assaults in that jurisdiction. Goodyear's criminal history showed manner and means similar to the Dallas area offenses. See Applicant's Exhibits 1-34.

11. Goodyear was identified by one Dallas victim, Wanda S., as the man who assaulted her. This information was not shared with Phillips or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. She later identified Applicant as the man who assaulted her.

12. In the case of victim Connie P., Ms. P. identified Applicant as h~r assailant in an aggravated sexual assault. This case was unlike the others in time (it occurred in February whereas the others were committed May 14 and 15), and the manner and means were dissimilar. Police were made aware that Applicant was not responsible for this offense prior to his first trial in the burglary of a habitation of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 37-38. This information was not shared with Applicant or his counsel. See_ Applicant's Exhibit 10. The case was dismissed after Applicant pled guilty to the remaining indictments. See Applicant's Exhibit 39. · 13. On June 6, 2001, Applicant filed a prose motion for DNA testing of the evidence collected in the complainant Mary B. cases. He was de.p.ied testing, appealed it, and lost. While atte~pting to seek relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State agreed to testing on June 21, 2007. See State.;s Exhibit B.

14. The DNA results excluded Applicant as the perpetrator in the rape of Mary B., thus also exonerating him from breaking into her apartment to commit said rape. See Applicant's Exhibit 35.

15. The State pursued DNA testing of Sidney Goodyear. Results showed that Goodyear was in fact responsible for the rape of Mary B· See Applicant's Exhibit 35.

16.After linking Goodyear's DNA to the rape of Mary B., the State gathered the following information about Goodyear: Goodyear committed a string of sexual ----.. assaults throughout the country in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980..s-aiid was wanted by ...:..,, niaily local jurisdictions and the. Federal Bureau oflnvestigations; Goodyear's critnes in other jurisdictions were nearly identical to the maruier and means used in the Dallas area crime spree; Goodyear was an initial suspect in the Dallas criiffe spree; Goodyear owned a car and handgun that were consistent with the car and handgun used by the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree; (}oodyear was identified as the perpetrµt9r in the Dallas crime spree by at least one of the victims; ~nd tl~~-evide~ce the State possessed

RMR 000072 at the time of Applicant's prosecution that implicated Goodyear was not disclosed to Applicant.

GROUND ONE: ACTUAL INNOCENCE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 17. The Court concludes that the DNA results excluding Applicant and implicating Goodyear in the assault of Mary B. were unknown to Applicant at the time of trial and that Applicant's failure to discover this infomrntion was not due to a lack .of due diligence on his part.

18. The Court concludes that the DNA results are newly discovered evidence that create a qoubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undennine confidence in the - verdict.

19~ TheCourt concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Goodyear, not Applicant, cmrunitted the assault at the Elaine Powers Figure Salon.in Carrollton.

20. The Court concludes that the DNA results implicating Goodyear in the Dallas crime spree and excluding Applicant are supported by the following information: Goodyear con~nitted nearly identical crimes throughout the country' both before and after the Dallas area crime spree; the Dallas police have at all times believed that each of the crimes in Dallas were cmrunitted by the same individual; Goodyear o\Vned the same type ofcar and handgun that was used in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was an jpitial suspect and identified by at least one of the victim's in the Dallas crime spree; the victims in Dallas, including, but not limited to, Susan W. and Mary·B., provided police similar descriptions of the perpetrator; and the assaults occm:red within hours of each other.

21. The Court concludes that relief should be granted to Applicant on his claim of actual mnocence.

22. The Court concludes that Applicant's ground for relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under authority ofE;; parte Elizondo, 947 S:W. 2d 202 (Tex ..·· C1im. App. 1996), in that Applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the newly discoveredDNA evidence. and the other evidence demonstrating Goodyear's guilt and Applicant's . mnocence.

·:.;;.. .. .... ~ •. - ·c~·- .. - - "-_.-

RMR 000073 GROUND TWO: BRADY CLAIMS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 23. The Court concludes that the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Mmyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that Applicant is entitled to relief because there is a reasonable probability that had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed the outcome oL the proceedings against Applicant would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). · 24. The Court concludes that Sidney Goodyear was a suspect.in the crime spree for which Applicant was investigated· and prosecuted in Dallas. The Couti also finds that Goodyear committed similar offenses throughout the country befor~ and after the Dallas crime spree. The Court also finds that at least one of the victims in the Dallas crime spree identified Goodyear as the assailant in the Dallas area crime spree.

25. The Court concludes that while the Dallas area police identified Goodyear as a suspect in the Dallas crimes, knew he committed similar crimes in Kansas City two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas, and knew that at least one victim in Dallas identified Goodyear, this information was not disclosed to Applicant or his attorney.

26. The Court also concludes that, prior to Applicant's first trial, the Dallas Police confinned that John Parks, not Applicant, committed the assault of Connie P., one of the Dallas victims who initially identified Applicant as her assailant. 'The Court finds that this information confaming that Applicant W£!? actually innocent of the assault on Connie P. and the infonnation that the police knew that Connie P: misidentified Applicant as her assailant was not disclosed to Applicant or his atto_mey until after he . •. was found guilty at two trials and after he pied guilty to nine additional charges related to the Dallas crime spree.

27. The Court concludes that the evidence identified in paragraphs 24-26 constitutes material, exculpatory evidence which should have been disclosed to Applicant. The Court finds that there is a reasonable probability that' there would have· been a different outcome at Applicant's trials and that he would not have pied guilty to the remaining charges had the favorable evidence been disclosed by the State.

28. The Court concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Applicant is e;;fltfod to relief based on the State's failure to disclose the favorable evidence identified in

. - ~

RMR 000074 paragraphs 24-26.

29. The Court agrees and concludes that relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

ORDERS OF THE COURT The Court ORDERS the following: l. Applicant's writ of habeas corpus is granted pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure..

2. Applicant's conviction is vacated based on a showing that he_ is ac_tually innocent of the crime pursuant to Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

3. Independently, Applicant's conviction is vacated based on the State's failure to disclose material, exculpatory evidence as is required by Bradyv. Mmyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1967) ..

4. The CLERK is instructed to forward a copy of this ORDER to Applicant's counsel arid to counsel for the State.

-~ dA~~ SIGNED this . { . day of_,,_~ _ _,,,o;-----' 2008

DG ENA LEVARIO 204rn JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

___ ,..

RMR 000075 ''

WRIT NO. WX089002<)-Q 1 EXPARTE § IN THE 204th JUDICIAL § DISTRICT COURT STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING RELIEF The Court, having considered the allegations contained in Applicant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus2, Applicant's Memorandwn ofLaw in Support ofHis Application for Writ of'Habeas Corpus, the State's Response, and official court ~·ecords in .the above numbered and entitled cause, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: HISTORY OF THE CASE - _.,_ -. On June 11, 1984, Applicant pied guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Applicant was sentenced to ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Applicant did not app~;:i,~ this conviction. Applicant discharged this sentence on June 3, 1992. See State's Exhibit A.

1ssu:Es R.AfsEP rn APPLICA'f10N Ip. the instant writ application, Applicant contends tliat: (1} newlygis,p:iy_g~!(.d eyid~nc;e establishes f!i.Clt~~ is actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted; and (2) the .-.

I The original case number for this writ Was W82-8705 l-Q(B ). The writ was refiled under the above case number, WX0890029-Q, by order of this Court; at the request ofth,e.parties. The writ seeks relief pursuant to Article I, Section 12 and Article 5, Section 8 oftheTexas Consfrtution and Article 1L05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2 The Court has also considered each of Applicant's ten additional applicat_ions for writs of habeas

RMR 000076 State failed to disclose statements material to guilt in violation of his due process rights.

JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is proper under Article 11.05. Applicant is not confined on this .·' '·

conviction as he discharged his sentence approximately sixteen years ago, and he is not. facing other collateral consequences.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDINGS OF FACT The Court makes the following findings of fact.

1-. On May 14, 1982, at approximately 11 :45 p.m., a man in a hooded, gray sweatshirt, who was carrying a handgun, broke into an apartment.of Beverly S. See Applicant's Exhibit 30.

2. The assailant forced Beverly S. and five other women who were present in the apartment to take off their clothing and perform various sexual acts.

3. The assault was one of a string of similar sexual assaults that occurred in the Dallas area in the spring of 1982. For example, several hours before the assault of Beverly S., the perpetrator assaulted three other women in other apartment complexes in Dallas. In total, there were approximately sixty victims in the Dallas crime spree, eac~ describing the same peI]Je1r<t!Or.

4 .. Applicant was indicted for eleven offensesin.the Dallas area. crime spree. Ten of .these offenses oc:curred over a two-day period .on May 14 and 15, 1982, and one occurred on April 22, 1982. Applicant was also indicted for a sexual assault that occurred in February of 1982. The twelve cases were considered related by police because the offenses had similar manner and means, including but not limited to a . ina11 carrying a handgun wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, covering part of his face, t!Sstlfr'tting individuals; and driving a similar maroon car.

··-<:.: corpus~ Collectively the writs related to a single crime spree in Dallas in.the Spring of 1982.

RMR 000077 · -S. Applicant was identified by at least one victim as the perpetrator in each of the twelve indicted cases. On June 4, 1982, Beverly S. and two of the other women, Sandra W. and Shannon K., identified Applicant in a live line-up as the perpetrator of the burglary and sexual assault.

6. Prior to pleading guilty to burglary of a habitation of Beverly S's apartment, Applicant faced two trials for the assault of Mary B. Applicant was found guilty of burglary of a habitation in the first trial and aggravated sexual abuse in the second t1ial, and he was sentenced to concurrent thirty year terms.

7. In addition to Mary B, several victims in the Dallas crime spree testified during Applicant's trials and identified him as the man responsible for the Dallas crime spree. Michelle H., one of the victims from a similar crime at a different apartment complex on the afternoon of May 14, 1982, identified Applicant andtestified at both of his trials for the assault of MaD' B. Susap.. W., L~i B., and Sh~~n K., other victims in the Dallas crime spree, testified at Applicant's second trial. Shannon K., one of the victims in Beverly S's apartment, testified during the punishment phase of Applicant's seco1id trial, outside of the presence of the jury, that Applicant had assaulted her. (RRl: 213). In the presence of the jury, she testified that Applicant had a bad reputation. (RR!: 268): The testimony from the victims of other incidents in the Dallas crime spree was based on what we now know was their inaccurate belief that Applicant was the perpetrator of the Dallas crime spree. .

8. Applicant testified at the first trial, but he ·did not testify in the guilt phase of the second trial. At the first trial, Applicant presented a defense of misidentification and presented an alibi supported by his own testimony and the testimony of his wife, his ·sister-in-law, his brother-in-law, and his uncle.

9. On June 11, 1984, Applicant pled guilty to this offense - burgi~ ·q(~J1apitation related to the assault-OfBeverly S.-as.well as eight-0ther charges intheDallas crime · spree, after being convicted for burglary of a habitation and the. aggravated sexual abuse of Mary B.

10. The various Dallas area police departments where each of the incidents occurred communicated with one another regarding suspects in these cases. Further, there was sharing of infom1ation with Kansas City police because they had experienced a string of similar offenses two weel<s after the crime spree in Da!Jas.

11.Following the crimes in the Kansas City area-which occurred on May 27, 1982, Kansas City police det~rmined that Sidney Goodyear was responsibl~forth~-string of . .": ~,-~ ·:'!';~.- .

...

RMR 000078 assaults in that jurisdiction. Goodyear's criminal history showed manner and means similar to the Dallas area offenses. See Applicant's Exhibits 1-34.

12. Goodyear was identified by one Dallas victim, Wanda S., as the man who assaulted her. This information was not shared with Phillips or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. She later identified Applicant as the man who assaulted her.

13. In the case of victim Connie P., Ms. P. identified Applicant as her assailant in an aggravated sexual assault. This case was unlike the others in time (it occurred in February whereas the others were committed May 14 and 15), and the manner and means w~re dissimi!ar. Police were made aware that Applicant was not responsible for this offense prior to his first trial in the burglary of a habitation of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 37-38. This information was not shared with Applicant or his younsel. See Applicants f:xhibit 40. The case was dismissed after Applicant pied guilty to the remaining indictments. See Applicant'~fixhibit 39.

14. On June 6, 2001, Applicant filed a pro se motion for DNA testing of the evidence collected in the complainant Mary-B·. cases. He was denied testing, appealed it; and lost. While attempting to seek relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State agreed to testing on June 21, 2007. See State's Exhibit B. is. The DNA results excluded Applicant as the perpetrator in the rape of Mary B., thus also exonerating him from breaking into her apartment to commit said rape. See Applicant's Exhibit 35. l6.The State pursued DNA testing ofSidlley Goodyear. R~sults showed that Goodyear<. was in fact responsible for the rape of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 35.

17.After linking Goodyear's DNA to .the rape of Mary B., the State gathered the following information about Goodyear: Goociyear committed a ·string of sexual· assaults throughout the country in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and was wanted by many local jurisdictions and the Federal Bureauoflnvestigations; Goodyear's crimes in other jurisdictions were nearly identical to the manner and means used in the Dallas area crime spree; Goodyear was an initial suspect in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear owned a car and handgun that were consistent with the car and handgun used by the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was identified as the perpetrator inthe Dallas crinie spree by at least one of the victims; a.pd the evidence the State possessed . at the time of Applicant's prosecution ,that implicated Goodyear was not disclosed to ,i,\£P!i9aIJ.L

RMR 000079 GROUND ONE: ACTUAL INNOCENCE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 18. The Court concludes that the DNA results excluding Applicant and implicating ·Goodyear in the assault ofMary B. were unknown to Applicant at the time of trial and -that Applicant's failure to discover this information was not due to a lack of due diligence on his part.

19. The Court concludes that the DNA results are newly discovered evidence that create a · doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict.

20. The Court concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Goodyear, not Applicant, committed the assault of Beverly S. and her friends.

21. The C.o.i:Jrt c-~ncludes that the DNA results implicating Goodyear in the Dallas crime spree and excluding Applicant are supported bythe following info1mation: Goodyear .. committed nearly identical crimes throughout the country both before and after the .Dallas area crime spree; the Dallas police have at all times believed that each of the crimes in Dallas were committed by the same individual; Goodyear owned the same fype of car and handgun that was used in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was an initial suspect and identified by at least one of the victim's in the Dallas crime spree; the victims in Dallas, including, but not limited to, Beverly S., Shannon K., Sandra W., and Mary B., provided police similar descriptions of the perpetrator; and the. assaults occurred within hours of each other.

22. The Court concludes that relief should be granted to Applicant on his claim of actual innocence.

23. The Court concludes that Applicant's ground for relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under authority. of Ex parte Elizondo, 94 7 · S. W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), in that Applicant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the newiy discovered DNA evidence and the other evidence demonstrating Goodyear's guilt and Applicant's . .i!moc_<;nce ..-.:::;,,- . ..::.,·

RMR 000080 GROUND Two: BRADY CLAIMS

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 24_. The Court concludes that the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that Applicant is entitled to relief because there is a reasonable probability that had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed the outcome of the proceedings against Applicant would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

25. The Court concludes that Sidney Goodyear was a suspect in the crime spree for which Applicant was investigated and prosecuted in Dallas. The Court also finds that Goodyear committed similar offenses throughout the country .before and after the Dallas crime spree. The Court also finds that at least one of the victims in the Dallas crime spree identified Goodyear as the assailant in the Dallas crime spree.

26. The Court concludes that while the Dallas area police identified Goodyear as a suspect in the Dallas crin1es, knew he committed similar crimes in Kansas City two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas, and knew that at least one victim in Dallas iqentifie_d Goodyear,Jhis information was not disclosed to Applical)t or his attorney. . . . . --~ .·· . . .

27. The Court also concludes that, prior to Applicant's first trial, the Dallas Police confirmed that Jolu1Parks, not Applicant, committed the assaultof:Qonnie P., one of the Dallas victims who initially identified AppliCant as her assailant. The Court finds that this information confinning that Applicant was actually innocent of the assault on , · Connie P. and the information that the police knew that Connie P. misidentifi.e:d ··· • Applicant as her assailant was no} disclosed to Applicant or his attorney until after he was found guilty at two trials and after he pied guilty to nine .ad..ditional charges related to the Dallas crime spree.

28. The Court concludes that the evidence identified in paragraphs 25-27 constitutes material;,,yX\jUJpatory evidence which should have been disclosed to Applicant. The Court finds that there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a ., differenJ~}ltcome at Applicant's trials and that he would not have pied guilty to the· remainiiigchatges had the favorable evidence been disclosed by the State. · 29.The Court ¢oncludes that the State and Applicant agree that Applicant is entitled to relief based on the State's failure to disclose the favorable evidence identified in ·paragraphs 25-27.

RMR 000081 30. The Court agrees and conc;ludes that relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

ORDERS OF THE COURT The Court ORDERS the following: 1. Applicant's writ of habeas corpus is granted pursuant to Article 11.0§ of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Applic_imt's conviction is vacated bast:;d on a showing that he is actually innocent of the crime pursuant to Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 199.6).

3. Independently, Applicant's conviction is vacated based on the State's failure to disclose materiat exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. -83 (1967).

4. The CLERK is instructed to forward a copy of this ORDER to Applicant's counsel and to counsel for the State.

_- -_ -A SIGNED this .t:;' day of dup., ,2008

d?~ JUDGE LENA LEVARIO 204111 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

-7

---- --- --- ------------~----.------------· -------------------

RMR 000082 WRIT NO. WX0890027-Q 1 EXPARTE § IN THE 204th JUDICIAL § DISTRICT COURT STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING RELIEF The Court, having considered the allegations contained in Applicant's Application for Writ of Habeas Corptis2 , Applicant's Memorandwn ofLaw in Support ofHis Application for _\V'.rit of Habeas Corpus, the _State's Response, and official court records in the above nwnbered and entitled cause, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: HISTORY OF THE CASE On June} I,, 1984, Applicant pied guilty to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Applicant was sentenced to ten years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Applicant did 11ot appeal this conviction. Applicant discharged this sentence on June 3, 1992. See State's Exhibit A.

ISSUES RAISED IN APPLICATION In the instant writ application, Applicant contends that: ( 1) newly discovered evidence

l The original cast; number for this writ was W82-86748-Q(B). The writ was refiled under the above case number, WX0890027-Q, by order of this Court, at the request of the parties. The writ seeks relief pursuant to Article I, Section 12 and Article 5, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution and_ Article --~ 11.,PS of the Texas Code_ of Criminal Procedure.

2 The Court has.also considered.each of Applicant's ten.additional applications for writs of habeas

. ·- -··

RMR 000083 establishes that he is actually innocent of the offense of which he was convicted; and (2) the State failed to di-sclose statements material to guilt in violation of his due process rights.

JURISDICTION Jurisdiction is proper under Article 11.05. Applicant is not confined on this conviction as he discharged his sentence approximately sixteen years ago, and he is not facing other collateral consequences.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FINDINGS OF FACT The Court makes the following findings of fact .

. I. On MayJ4, 1982, at approximately. 2:15 p.m., a man in a hooded, gray sweatshirt, who was carrying a handgun, approached victim Carrie S. and her boyfriend, Mike W., as they sunbathed next to an apartri:ient swimming pool. See Applicant's Exhibit 28. - - 2. The assailant forced victim Carrie S. to take off her clothes and "model" for him.

3. The assault was one of a string of similar sexual assaults that occurred in the Dallas areain the spring of 1982. For example; approximately one hour before the assault of C~ie S.,_a similar assault occurred at_~_dj(ferent apartment complex. pool in Dallas, _ 4uring which the perpetrator assaulted Michelle H. Additionally, less than one hour after the .assault of Carrie·. S., another similar assault occurred at third apartment-. comp.lex, during which the perpetrator assaulted Mary B. In total, there were approximately sixty victims in the Dallas crime spree, each describing the same perpetrator.

4. ·Applicant was indicted for eleven offenses in the Dallas area crime spree. Ten of these offenses occurred over a two-day period on May 14 and 15, 1982, and one occurred on April 22, 1982. Applicant was also indicted for a sexual assault that

.. .corpus . ..Collecti:vely the writs.related to. a single crime spree in Dallas in the .Spring of 1982.

RMR 000084 occurred in February of 1982. The twelve cases were considered related by police because the offenses had similar manner and means, including but not limited to a man carrying a handgun wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt, covering part of his face, assaulting individuals, and driving a similar inaroon car.

5. Applicant was identified by at least one victim as the perpetrator in each of the twelve indicted cases. Carrie S. identified Applicant as her assailant in a photo line-up.

6. Prior to pleading guilty to the assault of Canie S., Applicant faced two· trials for·the assault of Mary B. Applicant was found guilty of burglary of a habitation in the first · trial and aggravated sexual ab!;lse. i,n the second trial, and he was sentenced to concunent thirty year terms. - .

7. In addition to Mary B, several victims in the Dallas crime spree testified during Applicant's trials and identified him as the man responsible for the Dallas crime spree. Michelle H., Susan W ., Lani B., and Shannon K., other victims in the Dallas crirne spree, testified at Applicant's second trial. Each of these victims testified to Applicant's bad reputation. The testimony from the victims of other irlCidents in the Dallas crime spree was based on.what we now know was their inaccurate belief that Applicant was the perpetrator of the Dallas crime spree.

8. Applicant testified at the first trial, but he did not testify in the guilt phase of the second trial. At the first trial, Applicant presented a defense of misidentific;ation and presented an alibi supported by his own testimony and the testimony ofliis _wife, his sister-in-law, his brother-_in-law, and his uncle.

9. On June 11, 1984, Applicantpled guilty to this offense - aggravated assaultwith a deadly weapon related to the assault.of Carrie S. - as well as eight other charges in the Dallas crime spree, after being convicted for burglary of a habitation and the .aggravated sexual-al;mse:ofMary R 10. The various Dallas area police departments where each of the incidents occuITed communi_cated with one another regarding suspects in these cases. Further, there was sharing of ir1formation with Kansas City police because they had experienced a string of sirnilar offenses two weeks after the crime spree ir1 Dallas.

11.Following the crimes in the Kansas City area which occurred on May 27, 1982, Kansas City police determined that Sidney Goodyear was responsible for the string of assaults in that jurisdiction. Goodyear's criminal history showed manner and means similar to the Dallas area offenses. See Applicant's Exhibits 1-34.

• n • :.~ -~=n~•nn •-•--n•••---·-•-•·-·---·•••••-••--•-

RMR 000085 12. Goodyear was identified by one Dallas victim, Wanda S., as.the man who assaulted her. This info1mation was not shared with Phillips or his counse(·See Applicant's Exhibit 40. She later identified Applicant as the man who assaulted her.

13. In the case of victim Connie P., Ms. P. identified Applicant as her assailant i.n an aggravated sexual assault. This case was unlike the others. in time (it occurred in February whereas the others were committed May 14 and 15), and the manner and means were dissimilar. Police were made aware that Applicant was not responsible for this offense prior to his first trial in the burgl.ary of a habitation of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 37-38. This information was not shared with Applicant or his counsel. See Applicant's Exhibit 40. The case was dismissed after Applicant pied guilty to the remaining indictments. See Applicant's Exhibit 39. - 14. On June 6, 2001, Applicant filed a pro semotion for DNA testing of the evidence collected in the complainant Mary B. cases. He was denied testing, appealed it, and lost. While attempting to seek relief from the Co_urt of Crhninal Appeals, the State agreed to testing on June 21, 2007. See State's Exhibit B.

15. The DNA results excluded Applicant as the perpetrator in the rape of Mary B. 1 thus also exonerating him from breaking into her apartmentto commit.said rape. See Applicant's Exhibit 35. . .

16. The State pursued DNA testing of Sidney Goodyear. Results showedl:hat Goodyear was in fact responsible for the rape of Mary B. See Applicant's Exhibit 35. · 17.After lillking Goodyear's DNA to the rape of Mary B., the State gathered the following information about Goodyear: Goodyear col11111itted a string of sexual assaults throughout the country ill the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s and was wanted by manylocaljurisdictions and the Federal Bureau.oflnvestigations; Goodyear's crhnes in other jurisdictions were nearly ide11tical to the manner and means used ill the Dallas area crime spree; Goodyear was an illitial suspect in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear owned a car and handgWl that were consistent with the car and handgun used by the perpetrator in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was identified as the perpetrator in the Dallas crin1e spree by at least one of the victims~ and the evidence the State possessed · at the time of Applicant's prosecution that implicated Goodyear was not disclosed to Applicant. ··

.. -- ---

'

RMR 000086 GROUND ONE: ACTUAL INNOCENCE

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18. The Court concludes that the DNA results excluding Applicant and implicating Goodyear in the assault of Mary B. were unknown to Applicant at the time of trial and thatApp1reant's failure to discover this information was not due to a lack of due diligence on his part.

19. The Court concludes that the DNA results are newly discovered evidence that create a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdiCt.

20. The Court concluqes that the State and Applicant agree that it is highly probable that Goodyear, not Applicant, committed the assault of Carrie S.

21. The Court concludes that the DNA results implicating Goodyear in the Dallas crime spree and excluding Applicant are supported by the following infom1ation: Goodyear committed nearly identical crimes throughout the country both before and after the.

Dallas area crime spree; the Dallas police have at all times believed that each ofthe crimes in Dalias were committed by the same individual; Goodyear owned the same type of car and handgun that was used in the Dallas crime spree; Goodyear was an initial suspect and identified by at least one of the victim's in the Dallas crime spree;· the victims in Dallas, including, but not limited to, Carrie S. and Mary B., provided police similar descriptions of the perpetrator; and the assaults occurred within hours of each other.

22. The Court concludes that relief should be granted to Applicant on his claim Qf a.ch!{t!:&:,J';;,<. ·{':;: mnocence.

innocence.

RMR 000087 GROUND Two: BRADY CLAIMS

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

24. The Court concludes that the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Mmyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that Applicant is entitled to relief because there is a reasonable probability that had the exculpatory evidence been disclosed the outcome of the proceedings against Applicant would have been different. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W. 2d 399, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

25. The Court concludes that Sidney Goodyear was a suspect in the crime spree for which Applicant was investigated and prosecuted in Dallas. The Court also finds that Goodyear committed similar offenses throughout the coLmtry before and after the Dallas crime spree. The Court also finds that at least one of the victims in the Dallas crime spree identified Goodyear as the assailant in the Dallas crime spree.

26. The Comt concludes that while the Dallas area police identified Goodyear as a suspect in the Dallas crimes, knew he committed similar crimes in Kansas City two weeks after the crime spree in Dallas, and knew that at least one victim in Dallas identified Goodyear, this information was not dis~!osed to Applicant or his attorney.

· 27. The Court also concludes that, prior to Applicant's first trial, the Dallas Police confinned that Jolm Parks, not Applicant, committed the assault of Connie P., one of the Dallas victims who initially identified Applicant as her assailant. The Court finds ,·_'.-;~:.,.. that this information confinning that Applicant was actually innocent of the assault on .:'.>''~~~§.,eonnie P. and the info1mation that the police knew that Connie P. misidentified · .. - · .. ··':Applicant as her assailant was not disclm;ed to Applicant or hi!) attorney until after he was found guilty at two trials and ·after he pied guilty to nine additional charges . related to the Dallas crime spree. ..

28. The Court concludes that the evidence identified in paragraphs 25-27 constitutes material, exculpatory evidence which should have been disclosed to Applicant. The Court Tmds that there is a reasonable probability that there would have been a different outcome at Applicant's trials and that he would not have pied guilty to tlle remaining charges had the favorable evidence been disclosed by the State.

29. The Court concludes that the State and Applicant agree that Applicant is entitled to relief based on the State's failure to disclose the favorable evidence identified in paragraphs 25-27.

RMR 000088 30. The Court agrees and concludes that relief should be granted and the conviction set aside under the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

ORDERS OF THE COURT The Court ORDERS the following: l. Applicant's writ of habeas corpus is granted pursuant to Article 11.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Applicant's conviction is vacated based on a showing that he is actually innocent of the crime pursuan_t to Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W. 2d 202 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

3. -·....Independently,·-· Applicant's conviction is vacated based on the State's ;.-. ... failure to disclose material, exculpatory evidence as is required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1967).

4. The CLERK is instructed to forward a copy of this ORDER to Applicant's counsel and to counsel for the State.

...: .:'

•

RMR 000089 ::.:u.

CHlLD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TRANSMITTAL #2 ·SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS PP,tflionor • IV-Dease: [ ] TANF [ J IV-E FOSTER CARE [ J MEDICAID ONLY R!l8pondenl [ J FOAM EA ASSISTANCE [ ] NEVER ASSISTANCE Steven ?hi \Ii ~s Non-IV-0 Case: [ J FILE STAMP To: (Agency Name and Alt.!ress) Leona.rd.. l.Ji j~'ns Responding FIPS Code State Aeopot1dlng IV·D Case No. - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - ( 51 ~) 03l, ..- b I gtf- Responding Tribunal No.

From: (Conract Person, Jllg11ncy, Address, Phone, Fax, E-mali) Initiating FIPS Code Slats Lt) f- 1si-.e,.- 'E - P.:e«'-) Vl \~. Initiating IV·O Casa No. Initiating Tribunal No. Send Payments To: (if different from above) Payment FIPS Co<Je 0500000 State .._A..., R_ __ _ Arkansas Child Support ~learinghouso P.O. BOX 8125 Bank Account Routing Code Little Rock, AR 72203 State wllh Continuing ~elusive Jurisdiction (CEJ)

I. Action 1.[ I Status Aeque6t 7.( J Notice ol Arrea rs~ Aeconclllatlon/Determlnatlon of Sum-Certain 2.[ J Statu~ Update 8.( ] Change of Payee/Redirection of Payment 3.[ ] Notice of Hearing 9.(i.._] Othe r A . y <!.AS C I S CJ...osllc{ 4.[ ] Notic• of Case F.orwarding 5.[ ] Document Filed 6.( ) Order l$$ued/COmfinned

] Please Return the ~cknowledgement Attached (2 of 2) II. Additional Information

OMB No. 0970 - 0085 ·

ocse . F1so2 12/04 1 of "J

RMR000090 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TRANSMllTAL #2 ~SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Pet'<:loner , ' ' IV-D Case; [ } TANF [ J lV-E FOSTER CARE [ ] MEDICAID ONLY [ J FORMER ASSISTANCE Respondent [ ] NEVER ASSISTANCE Non-IV-0 Casa: [ J FILE STAMP To; (Agency Name and Adijre$s) Responding FIPS Code Stam Responding lV-0 Casa No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Responding Tribunal No.

From: (Contact Person, A<~ency, Add!'l',ss, Phong, Fax, E-mai~ Initiating FIPS Co<le State Initiating !V-D Case No. Initiating Tribunal No. Send Payments Tc: (If ctlffer!lntfrom above) Payment FIPS Code Smte Arkansas Child Support ·::;rearinghovse P.O. BOX 8125 6ank Account Routing Code Little Rock, AR 72203 State with Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Return This Form to Initiating State [ ] Request Reaeived and No Additional Information is Necessary [ J Additional lnf<iirmation Needed (See Remarks) [ ] Remarks/Re~onse

[ ] Your Case hf,s been Forwarded for Action to:

Name of Worker Agency Name Address, Ff PS Code

Phone, Extension & Fa)•.

Date Person Completing Form (Pritit or Type) Telsphom1 Number & Extension FAX:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ E-mail: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~--------

":hild Support Enforcerr'ent Transmittal #2 - Subsequent Actions Return this Page to the Initiating Jurisdiction

OCSE • F!S02 12104 2 of ;.

RMR 000091 . CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TRANSMITTAL #2 ·SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Petitioner IV-D Case: [ ] TANF [ ] IV-E FOSTER CARE [ J MEDICAID ONLY Rospondenl { J FORMER ASSISTANCE [ ] NEVER ASSISTANCE 'Steven ?h.i \Ii 05 Non·IV-0 Case: [ 1 FILE STAMP To: (Agency Name and A<rdress) Leona.rd.. Lk 3~1 nS Responding FIPS Code Aespondlng IV·O Case No. Stale

( 51 ~) q3l., ... bl gr/- Responding Tribunal No.

From: (Contact Per;on, .Algency, AtldreM, Phone. Fax. E·mall} Initiating FIPS Code State W ~ 1Stier . ocs t.. - ~f1'"'-) V) \\;e. Initiating IV-0 Ce.Ge No. Initiating Trtbunal No. Send Payments To: (if different from abOVe) Payment FIPS Code 0500000 State AR Arkansas Child Support :::1earinghouse P.O. BOX 8125 Bank Account Routing Code Little Rock, AR 72203 State wtth Continuing Exclusive Juris.dicllon (CEJ) L.

1. Action 1.[ I Status Request 7.[ I Notice of Arrearage Reconciliation/Determination of Sum-Certain ~.[ I Status Update 8.[ J Change of Payee/Redirection of Payment J.[ ] Notice of Hearing 9.( "J. ) Other f\ 0

MY CA.s('. 1S CJ...QS.Qc( .[ ) N otice of CaseF!Orwardlng 5.[ ] Document Filed 6.[ ] Order lssu&d/c0111firmed

) Please Return the ·-6,cknowledgement At.tached {2 of 2) II. Additional Information

c ' <':' ··• ··· n n ·· · 40 , • .,.

•n

OMB No. 0970 • 0085

OCSE • FIS02 12/041of2.

RMR000092 .CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TRANSMllTAL #2" SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS Petitioner IV-D Casa: ( J TANF [ ] IV·E FOSTER CARE [ ) MEDICAID ONLY [ ] FORMER ASSISTANCE Respondent [ ] NEVER ASSISTANCE Non-IV-D Cai;;e: [ ] FILE SiAMP To; (Agency Name and Adijresa) Reepondlng FlPS Code State Reepondlng lV-0 Ca13e No. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Responding Tribunal No.

From: (Contact Person, A:;,ancy, Address, Phone, Fax, E-main Initiating FIPS Code State Initiating IV-0 Ce.se No. Initiating Tribunal No. Send Payments To: (If dlflsnmtfrom above) Payment FJPS Code State Arkansas Child Support '.;learinghouse P.O. BOX 8125 Sank Account Routing CodB Little Rock, AR 72203 State with Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ) ACKNOWLEDGEMEENTS Return This Form to Initiating State [ ] Request Received and No Additional Information is Necessary [ ] Additional lnfomnation Needed (See Remarks) [ ] Remarks/Re~onse

[ ] Your Case hf'<s been Forwarded for Action to:

Name of Worker Agency Name Address, FIPS Code

Phone, Extension & Fa>•.

Date PeIBOn Completing Form (Print or Type) Telephone Nurnber & ExteMlon

E-mail:-------------------

Child Support Enforcerrent Transmittal #2 - Subsequent Actions Retum this Page to the 1nitiating Juri$diction OCSE • F\802 12104 2 of~·

RMR 000093 Page 1 OJ L.

ARKANSAS Cl:ULD SUFJ>QRT TRACKJNG SYSn:M PAnIBNT HISTORY REPORT FROM : 07/()Ul 997 TO : 10/1012002

Case ID: Payor ID: Name: PHILLIPS C STEVEN Doc:ket Numbt:r Payee ID: Name: MACUMBER S CHERI NO of Other Cases Payor s Present: I

__ ____,___,_ ~ .. ---·· -----·-·· ...... .. ... ~-----..--_...,.~.....,..,...-....--------,,..--·--~-. ----~. ~-. ~-.---

DISCLAThiER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO § 9-14-807 CHlLD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE Of CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS STATE DISTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYM E.NT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY lUSTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR TifEIR ATIORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPrES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE. AVATLABLE THROUGH TifE LOCAL COURT Cl.ER KS OFflCE.

2/19/20] 0 RMR000094 rage 2 011..

Receipt Type RCT Status LookUp Code Descrlptl1m Code Description 00 Regular collection H Hold 01 Prior Collection I ldr;:utifierl 02 LRS Collection M Manual Distribution 03 State Revenue Collection 0 Out OfBal1mce 04 ESD Collection R Research 0:5 Advance (Undistributed Excess) s SHEF Special Handling 11 Increaw R.egtllar Collection~ x Refund 12 Increase Advanoe Increase E'SD Im.-rease IRS Increase State Revenues Jm:rease Prior Collections 21 Decrease Regular Collections 22 Decreiu;c Advance 23 Decrease ESD 24 Decrease m.s 25 Decrease State Rcvcm1e 26 Decrease Prior Colloorions

lndiCJ1.tor LookUp DISB. Hold LookUp Code Des-crlption Code Description AAC Applied To Another C<1se (s) A Address Hold HOL On Hold D Dail}' Disbursement Hold RNN Refunded To NCP [ 6 Month Hold IUN Identified But Undistributed F Future Hold RSC Research, Sfief, Out Of Balance. L Less Than Zero Dollar Ho!d w Welfare Diiroihution Hold p Deceased Hold E Footer Care Hold

DISCLAIMER: PURSUANT TO ARK.. CODE ANNO§ 9-14-807 CHfi,D SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE Of CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ST A TE DISTRIBUTION UNlT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFTED PAY HISTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR THEIRATIORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, UTILE ROCK, AR 71203. lJNOFFlCIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFFICE.

2/19/2010 RMR 000095 ;r- !1 .1 ..i~ s iiI u s A N T EXA S C 0 M PT R 0 L L E R n/ P U 8 L IC A C C 0 U NT S ,, :I •' c 0 M B s P.O. Sox 135 2 8 . A U S T IN. TX 78 71 1·352 8 I:_M·-·-..n~ - ---- - February 26, 2010

Dear Mr. Phillips: The Comptroller' s Judiciary Section is in receipt of your claim and supporting documentation submitted on January 12, 2010, requesting wrongful imprisonment compensation. The claim has been approved for the following amount and pursuant to Section 103.15 l (a), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the payment will be mailed within 30 days of the date of this letter.

Lump-sum payment: $806,666.67 In addition. as compensation for child support payments under Section 103.052(a)(2), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, a lump-sum payment will be paid on your behalf to the Texas Attorney General's Office for payment to the Oklahoma disbursement unit. This payment will be made within days of the date of this letter in accordance with Section 103.151(a), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Comptroller will give you notice of the payment amount.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Comptroller's Judiciary Section by e-mail at leonard.higgins @cpa.state.tx.us or by phone at 1-800-53 1-5441, extension 6- 100.

-t 1-t-;r:- Leo d Higgins Comptroller's Judiciary Section

RMR 000096 HECEtVED Vt/\1 05 2.0\G p>""<} ~RV ;UD1v2h ·

May3, 2010 State of Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section Attn: Leonard Higgins P.O. Box 13528 Austin, TX 78711-3528 Re: Steven Charles Phillips SSN: To Whom it may Concern, This document is my effort to detail the events and a time period that have created a child support payment that is severely in a state of arrears, and owed by the state of Texas.

Beginning with the years o - a n d . , two children were born to Steven and myself. (see two attached documents) Our marriage ended in 1978 (see the attached divorce decree).

Our second child was born i n out of wedlock. The divorce decree acknowledges one child for a child support order, Here, I must acknowledge and point out that there is no child support order for the second child. Steven and I were not at odds with each other prior to his incarceration, so he just paid to me cash that I might need. We had no reason to believe that he would soon be in prison for the rest of the chiIds young life.

When the children were ages 6 and 3, their father, Steven Charles Phillips was wrongfully incarcerated for twenty-six years in the state of Texas. He was found innocent due to DNA testing and released in late 2008.

During that time, both the state of Texas and the state of Arkansas, in reference to child support, were unable to assist with child support for prisoners. However, child support cases were opened with the Child Support Enforcement Unit of Arkansas for both children. A total of $220 was paid in 1997 on one case. (see attached payment history documents) This amount will show as a deduction within my calculations as to what is due.

Once the children became 18, I had given up hope. The children wondered if the nightmare would be over and their father would ever be free. Please, keep in mind this incarceration covers a span of 26 long years. So, I did not keep receipts, medical bill receipts, dental bills, pharmacy bills, health insurance costs, education, etc. I did not keep the child support cases open, I did not petition the courts to increase child support order to keep up with the changing

RMR000097 economy (there wasn't any child support).

Furthermore, and definately the most frustrating issue of all is that I did not have an order of child support set up before Steven became entangled in the terrible web of the Texas prison system. Both our hands were tied. Thank God he never gave up on proving his innocence.

My sincere effort has been put into arriving at a reasonable amount owed, and that it reflects a. modest amount owed to these children by the state of Texas, accruing during the period of tme that their father was wrongfully imprisoned.

Originally, I had attempted to arrive at a total by multiplying a dollar amount to} each child. now realize that the most common way to come to a more suitable amount is to look at the amount paid each month for two children. I have looked at child support charts that go back as far as 1990.

I realize that the child support for~ates that only $100 per month was ordered to be paid. Steven was in the milit~ years old, and I thought $100 a month was a lot of money.

So, what I have done is this, I begin with the year 1982 and end with the year 1997. 1997 being the year that ·the second child turned 18. Every third year I increase the amount of child support, as I would have done had I had the opportunity to go before a judge and ask for an alteration in the payment because of Steven's increased eamings, cost of living adjustments, etc. 1982-1985 is 3 years 36 months @ $500 per month = $18,000 (two children) 1985-1988 is 3 years 36 months @ $650 per month = $23,400 (two children) 1988-1992 is 3 years 36 months @ $800 per month = $28,800 (two children) · 1992-1994 is 2 years 24 months @ $900 per month = $21,600 (two children) 1994-1997 is 3 years 36 months @ $575 per month = $20.700 (one child) $ 112,500 sub- total 1997 payments made total $220 - 220 $112,280 total due As I stated earlier, I did not keep 15 years worth of receipts or bills, etc. but one could etimate t hat over that period of time one could expect to spend approximately $8,000 per child on health care, dental and orthodontia.

At last, that brings the final total to $128,280.

My greatest hope is that you will not hesitate. This money is for two very special young adults who did not deserve to be so wronfully deprived of the financial and emotional support of their father. These children are still "counting on me" to " see it through", and I am counting on you to take positive action with this letter and the attached documents.

RMR 000098 ., I ' ~

Please, feel free to contact me at any time.

cz:-;o i;_'Jlf~~~ Su~ac~mber Cheryl

RMR000099 Page I v. L ARKANSAS C HI LD SUPPORT T RACKING SYSTEM PAYMENT HISTORY REPORT FROM : 01101/1976 TO: 11/23/2009

Case ID: Payor ID: Name: ~ILLIPS c STEVW Docket Number: Payee ID: Name: MACUMBER S CHERI NO of Other 1

Collection before 0810111997 Receipt Number Receipt Date Receipt Type Receipt Amount Check NO 03/ 1411997 0025 0077 03/ 1211997 00 t i / ,1811997 0003 0016 04/16/1997 00 "!..!: /

DISCLAIMER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO§ 9-14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ST ATE DJSTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HI STORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR THEfR ATTORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0 . BOX 8128, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORTPAYMENT RECORDS MAYBE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OfFICE.

11 /23/2009 RMR OOOlOO Page 2 (_,, ~

Receipt Type RCT Status Look Up Code Description Code Description Regular collection H Hold Prior Collection I Identified 02 IRS Collection M Manual Distribution 03 State Revenue Collection 0 Out Of Balance 04 ESD Collection R Research 05 Advance (Undistributed Excess) s SHEF Special Handling 11 Increase Regular Collections x Refund 12 Increase Advance 13 Increase ESD 14 Increase IRS 15 Increase State Revenues 16 Increase Prior Collections 21 Decrease Regular Collections

·3· Decrease Advance ·L Decrease ESD 24 Decrease IRS 25 Decrease State Revenue 26 Decrease Prior Collections

Indicator Look Up DISB. Hold LookUp Code Description Code Description AAC Applied To Another Case (s) A Address Hold HOL On Hold D Daily Disbursement Hold RNN Refunded To NCP I 6 Month Hold !UN Identified But Undistributed F Future Hold RSC Research , Shef, Out Of Balance L Less Than Zero Dollar Hold w Welfare Distribution Hold p Deceased Hold E Foster Care Hold

DISCLAIMER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO§ 9-14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS STATE DISTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFFICE.

] 112312009 RMR 000101 Page I \,~ L ARKANSAS CIULD SUPPORT TRACKING SYSTEM PAYMENT HISTORY REPORT FROM : 07121/1979 T O : 11123/2009 --·---~ Case ID: Payor ID: Name: PHILLIPS C STEVEN Docket Number: Payee ID: Name: MACUMBER S CHERI NO of Other

- - - - -------- -- DISCLAIM ER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO § 9-14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS STATE DISTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTJFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE JN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STA TE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8I28, UTILE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AVA ILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFFICE.

1112312009 RMR000102 Page 2 or L --..----···-------· Receipt Type HCT Status LookUp Code Description Code Description 00 Regular collection H Hold 01 Prior Collection I ldentified 02 IRS Collection M Manual Distribution 03 State Revenue Collection 0 Out Of Balance 04 ESD Collection R Research 05 Advance (Undistributed Excess) s SHEF Special Handling 11 Increase Regular Collections x Refund Increase Advance Increase ESD Increase IRS Increase State Revenues Increase Prior Collections Decrease Regular Collections Decrease Advance Decrease ESD 24 Decrease IRS 25 Decrease State Revenue 26 Decrease Prior Collections

Indicator LookUp DISB. Hold LookUp Code Description Code Description AAC Applied To Another Case (s) A Address Hold HOL On Hold D Daily Disbursement Hold RNN Refunded To NCP I 6 Month Hold !UN Identified But Undistributed F Future Hold RSC Research , Shef, Out Of Balance L Less Than Zero Dollar Hold w Welfare Distribution Hold p Deceased Hold E Foster Care Hold

DISCLAIMER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO § 9-14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS ST ATE DISTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTJFlED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFFICE.

1112312009 RMR 000103 RMR 000104 This is a legal document. Signing this legal document gives you certain rights and responsibilities. Signing this document is voluntary. You should consult an attorney if you have concerns about signing this legal document. If you are not sure that the man named in this Acknowledgment is the biological father of the child, you should not sign this document. You may want to get a genetic test. The biological father who signs this Acknowledgment becomes the legal father of the child when this document is filed with the Department of State Health Services, Texas Vital Statistics. This document requires an Entity Code completed in the lower right corner by an individual certified by the Office of the Attorney General to administer Acknowledgments of Paternity.

Benefits, Rights, And Responsibilities Of Paternity Establishing parentage makes it easier for a child to receive benefits such as social security, military and veteran's benefits, health care coverage and life insurance, as well as inheritance.

Both parents have parental rights and duties as provided by state law. Either parent has the right to seek p1imary custody of the child. A parent not living with the child may have the right to visit and maintain a relationship with the child, either as both parents agree or as ordered by a court. This Acknowledgment has the same effect as a court order establishing paternity. By signing this Acknowledgment, you may be ordered to pay child support and medical support.

This document may be completed before the birth of the child, at the time of birth, or at any time after the birth of the child. If this document is signed before the birth of the child, it is binding for any child born no later than 300 days after the signature date on this document. When this Acknowledgment is properly filed with Texas Vital Statistics, it creates a parent-child relationship between the man and child. Establishment of paternity is required for a father's name to be entered on a birth certificate.

Child support services can be obtained through the Office of the Attorney General, Child Support Division or by hiring an attorney.

Denial Of Paternity If a child's mother is married to a man other than the biological father at the time of birth or within 300 days of the ending of the marriage, the (ex) husband is presumed to be the legal father. To complete this document for a child that has a presumed father, the presumed father must deny paternity by completing the Denial of Paternity section. The mother must agree that the presumed father is not the biological father by also signing the denial section. The acknowledgment section must also be completed by the biological father and mother, or the denial will not be accepted.

Upon the filing of this document, the presumed father is legally determined not to be the father of the child. His legal duty to support the child is removed. Likewise, his legal right of custody or visitation with the child is terminated.

Change Of Mind If any party to this document changes his/her mind about acknowledging or denying paternity, he/she may file a suit to rescind this document. This has to be done within sixty (60) days after this legal document is filed with Texas Vital Statistics or before the first hearing date in a proceeding involving the child, including child support, whichever occurs firsl. After si..xty (60) days, or first hearing date, a lawsuit is required to challenge this document. Fraud, duress, or material mistake of fact in signing this form must be proven during the lawsuit. The suit must be brought within four (4) years of the file date of this document.

If A Party Is A Minor If a party to this document is a minor on the date the document is signed, the lawsuit required to challenge the document must be filed within four (4) years of the date the party became an adult

All parties must receive oral notice of the above information before completing this Acknowledgment. You can receive oral notice of the information by calling 1-866-255-2006 and selecting option 1, "Notice of Rights and Responsibilities of a Parent."

If you have questions, you may call the Paternity Opportunity Program at 1-866-255-2006.

RMR 000105 • STATE OF TEXAS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PATERNITY This ts a legal document. Type or Print in black Ink. Parents are to be given a copy of th is completed document. • We declare under penalty of perjury that Steven Charles Phillips -==0~ io~lo~~ic~a~IF~ ·~~ha'>-:-~r.~-.1~~~-=:.::::,~ 11i~d<~lle~~~~~~-+b~S1=~=,.~ ~"'--~~~~~~ is the biological father of bo Arkansas c:icy to Chervl Sue Pltilli s Molhc.t'S firs.1 middle fa'l.lttamc

We further declare under penalty of perjury that: • We have been given wTitten and om! notice of: the benefi ts of having paternity established; the availability of paternity establishment and child support services; and the legal consequences of, the rights and responsib ilities of, and the alternative to signing this Acknowledgment. • No other Acknowledgment of Paternity form naming another man as the biological father of this child has been .filed. • There is no court order naming another man as tb.e biological father oftbis child. • A genetic t.est hes not determined that another man is the biological father of this child.

Fill one circle by the correct statement from EACH oftbc following: © Tn~'TC h!!.n2! been genetic testing of the man listed 0 Genetic testing has determined that the man listo.'Cl above is the a hove to detcmJine if he is the biological father of this child. 0 r biological father of this chi ld.

© The mother was not mnrried to someone other than tht: O The mother ID!1 mnrried to someone other than the biological biological fotho.f at the time of the child's birth or within father at the time of the child's birth or during the 300 days days prior to the child's date of birth, or there is n court or before the child's birth or during the first two ycurs 1)r ihc child's order that states that the man the mother wns married 10 is life, a man continuously Jived with the child and represented the not the father of the child, and during the first two yearn of child as h is own; and that man has completed the Denial of the child's life, no man wntinuously lived with the child Paternity below or has a Denial of Paternity filed with the Vital and represented the child ns his own. StAtistic.• Unit.

~ C?, Mi:t,,i_, O ~I CY 16 £ -3-JO Full Signature of Biologicallf<'illcr dote elate *'* '\' ** "** *"" • *'* .... '** • ** *** ** • ** ••• ** * '** *** ** * *1t "'** *• * *• *** '** .,..1' "''** ** * ""* .... *•* ...... * ** *** 11( 'fir Denial of Paternity (only rcqoircd if •mother:!!'.!!! 1n>tricd to someone oohcr than the biological fodocr or if, during the <hild's fir.<t 1wo years of lifo, n man continuously lived with the child and rcprcscllted tile child 4S his own" iHhcckcd.)

We de<.:lare under penalty of perjury that·....,..---,,.--,...-------....,.,-,,----- -- - . . , - - - - - - - - - Prc:.'Umcd Father's lirst middle la.'11 name the presumed fatheroftbc child, is not the biological father. We understand that filing of this denial with an acknowledgment removes tho presumed fatl1er's legal duty to support the child and terminates his right of custody or visitation with the child.

Full Signature of Presumed Fa ther date Full Signature of Mo ther date I Pra;umc-d F'alhcr's date c>f binh sociol security n1~ Presumed l'mher'• addre.<.'; city State Y.ip code

• • Tc.xas Ckp~rtmc:nl of State Hcal1h Scrviccs Vital Sta1is1ks Uoil VS· IS?.I M Revised 9/2005

RMR000106 Este es un documento legal. Finnar este documento legal le otorga ciertos derechos y responsabilidades. Firmar este documento es voluntario. Debe consultar un abogado si tiene preocupaciones sobre la firma de este documento legal. Si no tiene la seguridad de que el hombre que se menciona en este Rcconocimiento es el papa biol6gico del nifio*, no debe firmar este documento. Usted quizas desee pedir una prueba genetica. El papa biol6gico que firma este Reconocimiento se convierte en el papa legal del nifio cuando se presenta este documento ante la Oficina de Estadisticas Vitales de Texas del Departamento Estatal de Servicios de Salud (Department of State Health Services, Texas Vital Statistics). Este documento requiere que una persona certificada por la Procuraduria General para administrar el Reconocimiento de Paternidad escriba un C6digo de Entidad en el !ado derecho al pie de la pagina.

Beneficios, Derechos y Responsabilidades de la Paternidad El establecer la patemidad facilita que un nifio reciba beneficios tales como Seguro Social, beneficios de las fuerzas armadas y de veteranos, cobertura de seguro medico y seguro de vida, al igual que una herencia.

Segun las leyes estatales ambos padres tienen derechos y deberes patemales. Cualquiera de los dos padres tiene derecho a intentar obtener la custodia principal de! nifio. Un padre que no vive con el nifio puede tener derecho a las visitas ya mantener una relaci6n con el niiio, ya sea si los dos padres estiin de acuerdo o si lo ordena la carte. Este reconocimiento tiene el mismo efecto que una orden de la corte que establece la paternidad. Al firmar este Reconocimiento a usted se le puede ordenar que pague manutenci6n de nifios y manutenci6n medica.

Se puede llenar este documento antes del nacimiento del nifio, en el momento del nacimiento o en cualquier momenta despues del nacimiento. Si este documento se firma antes del nacimiento de! nifio, queda vigente para cualquier nifio que nazca dentro de un lapso de 300 dfas despues de la fecha en que se firm6. Cuando este Reconocimiento se presenta correctamente ante la Oficina de Estadfsticas Vitales de Texas (Texas Vital Statistics) crea una relaci6n padre e hijo entre el hombre y el niiio. Se requiere el establecimiento de patemidad para que el padre de un nifio aparezca en el acta de nacimiento.

Se pueden obtener los servicios de manutenci6n de nifios a traves de la Divisi6n de la Procuraduria General para la Manutenci6n de Ninos o contratando a un abogado.

Negaci6n de Paternidad Si la mama de un nifio esta casada con un hombre que no es el papa biol6gico al momento de! nacimiento o se convierte en mama antes de que t:ranscurran 300 dfas de termiriar el matrimonio, se presume que el (ex) esposo es el padre legal. Para llenar este documento para un nifio que tiene un presunto padre, el presunto padre debe negar la paternidad llenando la secci6n de Negaci6n de Patemidad. La mama debe estar de acuerdo en que el presunto padre no es el papa biol6gico firmando tambien la secci6n de negaci6n. La secci6n de reconocimiento tambien debe ser completada por el papa biol6gico y la mama o de lo contrario no se aceptara la negaci6n. Al presentar este documento se determina legalmente que el presunto padre no es el papa del nifio y su deber legal de mantener al nifio termina. Asimismo, su derecho legal de tener custodia o visitas con el niiio desaparece.

Cambia de Opinion Si una de las partes de este documento cambia de opinion sobre el reconocimiento o negaci6n de patemidad, el/ella pueda entablar una demanda para rescindir el documento. Esto se tiene que hacer dentro de Los sesenta (60) dfas despues de que este documento legal fue presentado ante la Oficina de Estadisticas Vitales o antes de la primera audiencia en el procedimiento que tiene que ver con el niiio, incluyendo la manutenci6n de nifios: Lo que ocurra primero. Si se cambia de opinion cuando ya pasaron los sesenta (60) dfas o la fecha de la primera audiencia, se debera entablar una demanda para desafiar el documento. Durante la demanda se debera probar fraude, coacci6n o error material de los hechos al firmar el formulario. La demanda se debe entablar dentro de los cuatro (4) afios desde haber presentado el documento.

Si una de las partes es menor de edad Si una de las partes a este documento es menor de edad en la fecha en que fue firmado, la fecha requerida para desafiar el documento debe ser antes de que transcurran cuatro (4) afios de que la persona se convirti6 en adulto.

Todas las partes deben recibir notificaci6n oral de la informaci6n aquf mencionada antes de llenar el Reconocimiento de Paternidad. Usted puede recibir notificaci6n oral de la informaci6n llamando al 1-866-255-2006 y eligiendo la opci6n l, "A viso de Derechos y Responsabilidades como Padre".

Si tiene alguna pregunta puede Hamar al Programa de Oportunidad en la Patemidad al 1-866-255-2006. *Nota del traductor: Para prop6sitos de esta traducci6n el termino "nifio" puede indicar tanto un nifio como una nifia.

RMR 000107 I U · J...>J.C.:1..JCOJ.~""t r . J. " J.

• !'# ~l : • ,. ~, • .;!:: ;.~ ~~" .. . \:~ (' .:. ,it' ;~t ~: '1~ ~·( .

RMR 000109 . PURI OF ROOtl E COUNTY, .l\RKANS/\S .$}:;~- PLAINTI FF

DEFENDANT .DECREE OF DIVORCE-·-·-· ···· - - ·

NOW, on this 2nd day of February, 1978, comes on fo.r h~ar\ll9: tQe · il~P~!! .s tyle~ ; .. "l.·"t:. ,,. .. , ....

cause, and same i.s submit t ed upon the ora 1 testimony of.: pJ.a:jn_t,,iffr:;~.~?,.J..~:t~p;~~~;.J~n.;~~·./":;l~ :.':.~,...;.;:ft~:·~·.~):~!·.::.r:~·-:·;· ,..,.:.:;.::<·.~;~.~1~:-~~~~~·· her behalf, the official file , s tatement of counsel and o ther ·mat;t~li:f~9)j,cjkitb;i;rJ bofoco tho ''"'t• from •11 of whi<h tho Cwt fiod" ··. ·~·fSff:J~;[f@~, That the part i es hereto are residents of Boone Coun ty , Arkansas, t he defendant' '::;;·;;. ·,h!:' __ ,,. -.-..-;; presently being in t he military service i n Germany ; t hat t he defendant was duly . notified b.Y publ ica t i on and by Attorney Ad Litem, such -pr oof of publication and Report of Attorney Ad Li tem be i ng filed herein; that the Court ha s j uri sci 1ct 10r'IO-r--- - ·- ··. t_he_yar:t_i e~. _and subj ect matter.

That the plaintiff ha s alleged and established by competent testimony jus t and '. proper grounds for divorce and a decree of absol ute divorce should be entered in her favor.

That to t hi s marriage was born one chi l d, namel that said child is p r~ sen tly in the care and custody of the plai nt iff and she i s fit and proper person t o conti nue the care and custody of said chil d, subject to t he defendant' s right of reasonable vi sitation with said ch i ld. That t he defendant shal l pay to t he plainti ff for the suppo rt of said child the ~ um of $100.00 each month .

That the defendant should return illl'lledi atel .v to p)ai_n ~~:ff. : gi!"~ - · • - •• ... - · - -- · · .. • • - •• • • - - - • ---- - -~- •• ~::::~'{,)~~ ~pO items, wh ich she left i n German.v. ..,,,._,., IT IS, THEREFORE , BY THE COURT, Considered , Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that pl aintiff, Cheri Sue P hil l i ~s. shou l d be and she is ·hereby granted a decree of

RMR OOOllO iit> the .defe11di1nt be and he hereby is di recte.d to return ·:~L:~~i~~ee::~oxes: of. her ;.::< <.::}. · :· .~ 1~55?~ <~::',}.~r'.~:;.~· personal items, which she left ~ ·: ...'.·','< ;,:.;··~ ~::

I~~....;,· ... ,,,

RMR 000111 REVENUE PROCESSING DIVISION

FLAG TP#· c

RMR 000112 .,

August 12, 20 I 0

Dear Susan Combs, My family and I are in desperate need of your help, encouragement, and advice. Our story is somewhat unbelievable, and it seems that it will be an ongoing nightmare if we do not receive some cooperation from our state governments, and federal if necessary. I pray that you will read this letter with compassion and sincerity, for we no longer know what to do to resolve this dilemma between two state governments, that involves two very innocent children.

I will try to make this as simply stated as possible; even though the timeline covers more than three decades: In 1975, I married Steven Charles P~in our hometown of Harrison, Arkansas. I was sixteen years old o. . . . . _ w ben I gave birth to our daughter, We agreed to a divorce in 1978 and a court order was set for child support for Although the marriage was dissolved, our relationship had not ended. I gave birth to Steven's son, n Due to the fact that we were not married at the time, there was no court order for child support for - - I was only nineteen when - w a s born, and I had no idea how important a ~er would be in the legal system of2010.

Steven moved to the state of Texas to make a new start, and I remained in Arkansas with the two children. Then, in 1983 Steven was arrested. falsely accused, and ultimately wrongfully imprisoned in the state of Texas until the latter part of 2008. He has been exonerated, he is being monetarily compensated, and his life is moving forward. His story is accessible via the internet.

However, what you do not see in the press/news/internet are the two children's stories.

As I stated earlier, a child support order was and is in effect f o - b u t I never petitioned the courts for an order fo~ I contacted the state of Texas to see if there was any kind of fund for children of prisoners, to no avail. I opened child support cases with the Department of Child Support Enforcemeot in Arkansas, for both children.

There was oothing they couJd do for these children but to wait unti1 he was released. 1 was to stay in touch with their office to keep the children's cases open. I did keep their cases open until they reached the ages of 18, and then I just gave up hope that they would ever see their Father outside of those prison walls.

Miraculously he, with the help of DNA testing, the Innocence Project and many others

RMR000113 too numerous to mention, was released In speaking with the Office of Child Support Enforcement of Arkansas, I have learned that somewhere around 1998, their office went to a new computerized registry, and due to the fact that both children were over 18, their cases did not get included in the registry.

As I understand it, the state of Texas uses the office of the Attorney General to collect and disburse child support payments. Whereas, the state of Arkansas has its own division of Child Support Enforcement and is not under the administration of the Attorney General.

So, l have been unsuccessful with Texas and Arkansas at working together to solve this dilemma.

I have written to and have spoke with a judiciary member, Leonard Higgins of the comptroller's office for the state of Texas. He states that the state of Texas will not consider paying the child support that is due to these two children without a court order for child support, as well as an actively open case with the Office of Child Support. Keep in mind that these two "children" are no"9an-ears old. Of course there is not an open case!

I will go on to say that this Mr. Leonard Higgins with the comptroller's office in Texas, bas been rude, with no empathy or assistance. He even stated that "Ifyou are looking for a source of income, you might get it from Steven, he bas plenty!" This type of response has not been typical of any of the many people that I have spoken to in both Texas and Arkansas, most have been empathetic and willing to do what they can. I have enclosed a copy of the letter that I sent to Mr. Higgins stating the amount that I had calculated to be due to these children.

I am not looking for an income. I am now 51 years old and a retired teacher. I am not wealthy but I am very comfortable. I am remarried and I have 4 children andl5 grandchildren. This money from child support/state of Texas is not for me. It is for two children who did without so much and did absolutely nothing to deserve this neglect Along with the shame and humiliation, the teasing, and the loneliness of having to do witlwut their Falher, who was uJtimate1y wrongfully found guilty ofa terribJe crime.

Lives are being mended, relationships restored, and now that their Father is on the other side of the bars and razor wire, and in a new light, these children still cannot get a "'break or ray ofjustice"'.

I refuse to sue their Father for Child Support. This is an error on the part of the state of T exas. If I work with the State of Arkansas, that is what they do; ..Enforce".

As J bring this letter to a close, I pray that what you hold in your hands will not be tossed aside. But that you will look to the list of names to which this letter will be delivered and contact just one that you know and work together to help these children. Will you be the one to help or will you say ..This is someone else's problem''?

RMR 000114 Enclosures

Cc: President Barack Obama First Lady Michelle Obama Vice President Joe Biden The Honorable George W. Bush Laura Bush The Honorable George H.W. Bush Barbara Bush The Honorable Wm. J. Clinton Sec. of State Hillary Clinton Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Jimmy Carter Rosalynn Carter Senator Kit Bond (MO) Senator Claire McCaskill (MO) Congressman Roy Blunt (MO) Governor Rick Perry (TIC) Attorney General Greg Abbott (TX) Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) Senator John Comyn (TX) Congressman John Boozman (AR) Senator Mark Pryor (AR) Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR) Governor Mike Beebe (AR) Bruce Campbell (AR) Representative Kay Hopper (AR) Representative John Burris (AR) Senator Randy Laverty (AR) Senator John Key (AR)

RMR 000115 Representative Roy Ragland (AR) Chief Justice Jim Hannah (AR) Justice Don Corbin {AR) Justice Robert Brown (AR) Justice Ron Sheffield (AR) Justice Jim Gunter (AR) Justice Paul Danielson (AR) Justice Elana Wills (AR) Hon. John Putman (AR) Hon. Gary Isbell (AR) Hon. Shawn Womack (AR) Hon. Gordon Webb (AR) U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services/Admin. For Children & Families Office of Child Support Enforcement: Administrator Dan McDonald (AR) Oprah Winfrey Dr. Phil McGraw

RMR 000116 May 3, 2010 State ofTexas Comptroller Judiciary Section Attn: Leonard Higgins P.O. Box 13528 Austin, TX 78711-3528 Re: Steven Chartes Phillips SSN:- To Whom it may Concern, This document Is my effort to detail the events and a time period that have created a child support payment that is severely in a state of arrears, and owed by the state ofTexas.

Beginning with the years otlll and - two children were born to Steven and !llvseff. (see two attached documents) Our marriage ended In 1978 (see the attached divorce decree).

Our second child was born in , out of wedlock. The divorce decree acknowledges one child for a child support orde Here, I must acknowledge and point out that there Is no child support order for the second child. Steven and I were not at odds with each other prior to his incarceration, so he just paid to me cash that I might need. We had no reason to believe that he would soon be In prison for the rest of the childs young life.

When the children were ages 6 and 3, their father, Steven Chartes Phillips wa_s wrongfully incarcerated for twenty-six years in the state of Texas. He was found innocent due to DNA testing and released In late 2008.

During that time, both the state of Texas and the state of Arkansas, in reference to child support, were unable to assist with child support for prisoners. However, child support cases were opened with the Child Support Enforcement Unit of Arkansas for both children. A total of $220 was paid In 1997 on one case. (see attached payment history documents) This amount will show as a ~uctlon within my calculations as to what is due.

Once the children became 18, I had given up hope. The children wol"!dered if the nightmare would be over and their father would ever be free. Please, keep !" mind this incarceration covers a span of 26 long years. So, I did not keep receipts, medical bill receipts, dental bills, pharmacy bills, health insurance costs, education, etc. I did not keep the child support cases open, I did not petition the courts to increase child support order to keep up with the changing

RMR 000117 ,.

economy (there wasn't any child support).

Furthermore, and definately the most frustrating issue of all ls that I did not have an order of child support set up before Steven became entangled in the terrible web of the Texas prison system. Both our hands were tied. Thank God he never gave up on proving his innocence.

My sincere effort has been put Into arriving at a reasonable amount owed. and that it reflects a modest amount owed to these children by the state of Texas, accruing during the period of tme that their father was wrongfully imprisoned. · Originally, I had attempted to arrive at a total by multiplying a dollar amount for each child. I now realize that the most common way to come to a more suitable amount ls to look at the amount paid each month for two children. I have looked at child support charts that go back as far as 1990.

I realize that the child support for - a t e s that only $100 per month was ordered to be paid. Steven was In the mil~years old, and I thought $100 a month was a lot of money.

So, what I have done is this, I begin with the year 1982 and end with the year 1997. 1997 being the year that the second child turned 18. Every third year I increase the amount of child support, as I would have done had I had the opportunity to go before a judge and ask for an alteration In the payment because of Steven's increased earnings, cost of living adjustments, etc. 1982-1985 is 3 years 36 months @ $500 per month = $18,000 (two children) 1985~1988 is 3 years 36 months @ $650 per month = $23,400 (two children) 1988-1992 Is 3 years 36 months @ $800 per month = $28,800 (two children) 1992-1994 is 2 years 24 months @ $900 per month = $21,600 (two children) 1994-1997 is 3 years 36 months @ $575 per month = $20.700 (one child) $ 112,500 sub- total 1997 payments made total $220 - 220 $112,280 total due As I stated earlier, I did not keep 15 years worth of receipts or bills, etc. but one could etlmate that over that period of time one could expect to spend approximately $8,000 per child on health care, dental and orthodontia·.

At last, that brings the final total to $128,280.

My greatest hope is that you will not hesitate. This money is for two very special young adults who did not deserve to be so wronfully deprived of the financial and emotional support of their father. These children are still •counting on me• to •see it through•, and I am counting on you to take positive action with this letter and the attached documents.

Please, feel free to contact me at any time.

RMR 000118 ' I '

Thanking you in Advance,

Cheryl Sue Macumber

RMR 000119 - '.>' '

·. , '- . , ~: . >- - '""'. -' "". . ii • I ~"'-;;'... ·~·~· . 2~~.~ .::~::·d_;HO::i -:~5J 1:tJ. f"~i~· c.i· . '· . '-f R I ( 11 .'...:.. - - \RD \. i' ! 1:I . j . j'

RMR 000120 IT'~ ···:- ··-~--· ·,\- . N TEXAS COMPT RO LLE R IJ( PUBLIC ACCOUNTS : - - - · ·.. - - · -· -- - - - - -··-· 1 ; ' C 0 ' '\ B S f"'O 9ox 1.35 28 • AuST•>< . TX 78711·.3528 ...~ Y,:JI;.:~~"' .

I~·:·:·;:::.::'.;· ' 1Y • ·: ::-:;""";":·--::.-::::::::::::·:::::·:-:·:·;77,·:::·:.. -:-·'.:·::::--:::-.::-:--;·.7.:-:~ ..~::::· :.::-:-· .·:·; -_··:::-:-·::-" ·-·- .. . ....-:::. ·:··:::·:-:-:~:·:~...~ ·:·: ::·:·::··::·.-··:.. :.::.;,- ·:·::::; ..: "'::::.::: 1.'..t~;0::: ; . . .. . · . : _,:. . .#

August 23, 2010

Ms. Cheryl Sue Macumber c PY ' .

Re: Steven Phillips Wrongful Imprisonment Claim Dear Ms . Macumber: Our office is in receipt of your lelter dated August 12, 20 10, addressed to Ms. Combs. It has bee1l referred to the Judiciary Section for response on behalf of the agency. In your letter, you request assistance with obtnining compensation for child support incurred during the wrongful imprisonment of Mr. Steven Phillips.

Under Section l03.052(a)(2), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Co<le, a person entitled to wrongful imprisonment compensation is also entitled to compensation for child support · payments owed by the person on whose imprisonment the claim is based that became due during the time served in prison and interest on child support arrearnges that accrued during that time. In order to receive the compensation for child support payments owed, Section 103.05 l(a)(6), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires the claimant to submit ( l ) a ce1iified copy of each child support order requiring payment ~uring the time the claimant served in prison and (2) copies of the official child support payment records for that period as described by Section 234.009, Texas Family Code. Unfortunately, our office has not received the documents required by Section l03.05l(a)(6). In addition, the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Office indicated that no judgment was issued for case numb and the case file was closed and purged on October 11, 20 . n a 1t1on, accor mg o e n orcement Office, no judgment or order was issued for case number Consequently, the Comptroller does not have the information necessary to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for child support payments that may be owed under Section l03.052(a)(2).

If supplemental documentation from the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Office is submitted which meets the legal requirements of Section 103.051 (a)(6), then any payment would be made in accordance with Section !03.052(c), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Pursuant to Section 103.052(c), any such payment would be paid on Mr. Steven Phill ips's behalf in a lump-sum payment to the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Office for distribution.

RMR 000121 Ms. Cheryl Sue Macumber ,\ugust 23, 20 I0 Page Two

I hope this information is helpful. You may wish to contact an attorney for assistance in obtaining the required documentation from the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Office.

Sincerely,

~.__() ;)~ r-:- Leonard Higgins Comptroller's Judiciary Section

RMR 000122 .

CHJLD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT Post Office Box 637 Berryville, Arkansas 726 16 Phone: (870) 423·2979 Toll Free(877) 900-1 5 14 Fax: (870) 423-4635 http://www.statc.ar.us/dfa

-RECElV{: D SEP C7 2D10 August 27, 2010 JU DlClAHY

RE: Child Support Case Dear Ms. Macumber, I have enclosed a copy of the arrears calculation for the above referenced case. OCSE records indicate only two payments received in 1997. The only order that I located was your divorce decree, in which he was ordered to pay $1 00 per month for one child, Sincerely,

~~~is=o~n~~~;;:1r-i::..J11A...•~~i---­ Child Support Supervisor I

\.... ./)icr-' CCt> ievt.. /w Utr"2- /Jrt/4-'??-K,' If ~~F £1-1 C~x /t()Ylf3" r

/l/ 0 ~7PI-- <!M f - C.1/Z.<..· D(A r./i4.- · ih.,,, c ..,-;.. S~u - t'xv ?"f...1'1-(. '2 ,,,.. -

RMR000123 AUG-27-2010 10 :25 Fr om: BO CO CIR CLERK 870 741 4335 To:l 870 423 4635

.

TN THE CHANCERY COURT Of BOOllE CIJUNTY, ARKANSl\S CllERT SUE PHlllJPS, Vs. STEVEN CHARLES PHILLIPS , DEFENDANT DECREE OF DIVORCE NOW, on this 2nd day of rebruary, 1978, come' on for hearing t he abova styled causo, ond same Is subm1ttnd upon the oral testimony of plafntfff and witness on ht!r bl!half, the off'icfal 1'tle, st;itement of counsel and other mDttcrs and things before t~e Court, from al l or whfch the Court finds: That the parties hereto arc residents of noono County, Arkansas, the defendnnt presently being in t he ~l11tary servfco 1n Germany; that th~ defendant was duly n~t1fied b.Y publkotion ond by Attorney Ad L1tom, ~iich pl'oof of publication and Repor t of Attorney Ad Litein being filed herein: that tho C~urt has jurisdtct1on of the parties and subject m~tter.

That th~ plofntiff has alleged and established by competent testimony just and proper grounds for divorce and a decree of absol ute divorce should be entered in Mr favor .

That to thts marr fa9e was born one chf1d, namel th ~t said child ts presently in t he care and custody of the phfnt11f and she i~ fit nnd proper pcrscm to continue the core and custody of sold child. subject to the defendont ' s right of reasonable visftat1on w1th said ch11d, That the dofendnnt shall pay to the pla1ntf ff for the support of said chf 1~ the sum of $100.00 each month.

That the defendant shoul~ return invned1atcly to p1atnt1ff three boxes of her personal items. which sbc loft in Germany.

IT IS, TiiEREFORE , BY TltE COURT, Cons idered. Ordered. Adjudged and Df!creed that pl ofntf ff, Chert Sue Philli ps, 9hould be and she fs hereby granted o decree of absolute divorce from t he defendant, Steven Char les Ph11l1ps: that the plaintiff 1s awarded the care and custody of the minor child of the parties , subject to defendant's r19ht of reasonable vts1tot1on w1~h safd child; that the defendant shoul d be ond he is hereby ordered to ~ay to the plo1nt1ff for the cupport of sa1d child, the sum

RMR000124 AUG-27-2010 10:25 From:BO CO CIR CLERK 870 741 4335 To:l 870 423 4635

of $100,00 per month; that the defendnnt be and he hereby is directed to return 1irmed1ately to t~e pla1nt1ff throo boxes of her person~l items, which she left in Germany.

N11oml Puller, CIG R~ <rt !'2,1,:e, c e;M/ 1', (l.

201 RMR 000125 Cheri S. Phillips VS Steven~ Docket# E 77-337 Case# - 1978 1979 Amount Due Amoun t Paid Balance Amount·Due Amount Paid Balance J an $0.00 Jan $100.00 $1 00.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 ,; $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $1 00.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 Jun $1 00.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $1 00.00 TOTAL $1 ,100.00 $0.00 $1 ,100.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00

1980 1981 Amou nt Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan $100.00 $100.00 Feb $1 00.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $1 00.00 Apr $1 00.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 J un $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $1 00.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $1 00.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $1 00.00 $1 00.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 TOTAL $1 ,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1 ,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00

1982 1983 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Mar $1 00.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 . $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1 ,200.00 $0.00 $1 ,200.00

RMR 000126 1984 1985 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00

1986 1987 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00

1988 1989 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100:00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 . $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00

RMR 000127 1990 1991 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan : $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 ~ $100.00 Apr $100.00 '" $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00

1992 1993 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Feb $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Mar $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 Apr $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 May $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jun $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Jul $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Aug $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Sep $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Oct $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Nov $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 Dec $100.00 $100.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 TOTAL $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00

1994 1995 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $100.00 $100.00 Jan $0.00 Feb $0.00 Feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 Apr $0.00 Apr $0.00 May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov $0.00 Dec $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

RMR 000128 ~Amount Due 1996 1997 Amt Paid Balance [Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Jan $0.00 Jan $0.00 Feb $0.00 'Feb $0.00 ;· Mar $0.00 Mar $110.00 -$110.00 ~pr $0.00 Apr $110.00 -$110.00 May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep· $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov - . $0.00 Nov $0.00 De.c $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - ·--- TOTAL -·---------· $0.00 $220.00 -$220 . 00 L I

1998 -·--·-··------ -t--·-··- -- ·-----~ - - · ··---·-··-···-· ······ 1999 I Amount Due Amt Paid I Balance Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Jan ; $0.00 Jan $0.00 Feb $0.00 Feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 Apr $0.00 Apr $0.00 May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov - $0.00 Dec $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I I ------- I -·-···-···-· ..• ······ i 2000 2001 I !Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Jan $0.00 Jan $0.00 .Feb $0.00 Feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 $0.00 -~Apr $0.00 Apr May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun . $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov $0.00 Dec $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

RMR 000129 2002 2002 Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Jan $0.00 Jan $0.00 Feb $0.00 Feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 Apr ,J $0.00 Apr $0.00 May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul . $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov $0.00 Dec $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

2003 2004 Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Jan $0.00 Jan $0.00 Feb $0.00 Feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 Apr $0.00 Apr $0.00 May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov $0.00 Dec $0.00~ Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

2005 2006 Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Amount Due Amt Paid Balance Jan $0.00 Jan $0.00 Feb $0.00 Feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 Apr $0.00 Apr $0.00 May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul . $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov $0.00 Dec $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

RMR 000130 2007 2008 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $0.00 Jan $0.00 Feb ' $0.00 Feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 Apr $0.00 Apr $0.00 May . $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov $0.00 Dec $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

2009 2010 Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Amount Due Amount Paid Balance Jan $0.00 Jan $0.00 Feb $0.00 feb $0.00 Mar $0.00 Mar $0.00 Apr $0.00 Apr $0.00 May $0.00 May $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jun $0.00 Jul $0.00 Jul $0.00 Aug $0.00 Aug $0.00 Sep $0.00 Sep $0.00 Oct $0.00 Oct $0.00 Nov $0.00 Nov $0.00 Dec $0.00 Dec $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 oo THAT THE AMOUNT OF$ \ 5$ l1)50 ::.--- IS DUE AND OWING AS ARREARS FOR THE PERIOD OF doh 19'12 TO A~D INCLUDING Gu~ .;l.O.\D

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME A NOTARY PUBLIC THIS _ _ _ _ DAY OF - - - - - - - ' 20 _ _ .

My Commission Expires:

Notary Public

RMR 000131 Pagel ot 2 ARKANSAS CHILD SUPPORT TRACKING SYSTEM PAYMENT HISTORY REPORT FROM : Ol/OU1994 TO : 08/27/2010

Case ID: Payor ID: Name: PHILLIPS C STEVEN Docket Number: Payee ID: Name: MACUMBER S CHERI NO ofOlher o 1s Present: I Collection before 08/01/1997 Receipt'Number Receipt Date Receipt Type Receipt Amount Check NO 03/14/ 1997 0025 0077 0311211997 00 l l0.00 04/18/1997 0003 0016 04116/1997 00 l l0.00

- - ------ - ---- DISCLAIMER: PURSUANT TO ARK. CODE ANNO§ 9-14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS STATE DISTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSfDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PAR.ENT OR THEIR ATTORNEY OP RECORD TO THE ST ATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL ~OURT CLERKS OFFICE.

8/27/QO lO RMR000132 Page 2 of2

Receipt Type RCT Status LookUp Code Description Code Description Regular collection H Hold Prior Collection I Identified IRS Collection M Manual Distribution State Revenue Collection 0 Out Of Balance ESD Collection R Research Advance (Undistributed Excess) s SHEF Special Handling Increase Regular Collections x Member Refund Increase Advance y Other Party Refund Increase ESD Increase IRS Increase State Revenues Increase Prior Collections Decrease Regular Collections Decrease Advance Decrease E;SD Decrease IRS Decrease State Revenue Decrease Prior Collections

Indicator LookUp DISB. Hold LookUp Code Description Code Description AAC Applied To Another Case (s) A Address Hold HOL On Hold D Daily Disbursement Hold RNN Refunded To NCP I 6 Month Hold IUN Identified But Undistributed F Future Hold RSC Research , Shef, Out Of Balance L Less Than Zero Dollar Hold OPR Other Party lt'efund w Welfare Distribution Hold p Deceased Hold E Foster Care Hold

----"--·- DISCLAIMER: PURSUANT TO J\RK. CODE ANNO§ 9-14-807 CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORD ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ITS STATE DISTRIBUTION UNIT SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORD OF THE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT HISTORY. A REQUEST FOR A CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY MUST BE IN WRITING FROM THE CUSTODIAN, NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OR THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD TO THE STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT, CERTIFIED PAY HISTORY REQUEST, P. 0. BOX 8128, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203. UNOFFICIAL COPIES OF CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT RECORDS MAY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL COURT CLERKS OFFICE. " 8/27/2010 RMR 000133 --·-----------·- - - . .... ____________ --- - ---- -- -- -- - ---·--- - s u s ,. N " TEXAS COMPTROLLER of PU B LI C A C COUNTS c 0 R s " ·"' ·- -4·--- "'

October 6. 2010

coP'f Re: Steven Phil lips Wrongful Imprisonment Claim Dear Ms. Macumber: Our office is in recei pt of the chil<l support payment re<.:ords provided to you by the Arkansas Child Suppon Enforcement Division for case# Pur.;uant to Section 103.052(c). Texas Civ il Practice ~md Remedies Code, any compensation for child :;upport payments that Mr. Phillips may be owed, must be paid on his behalf to the state disbursement unit for distribution to the obl ige under the child support order. Consequently, any payment from our office based on the Arkansas child support order and payment records :..Vould have to be paid directly to the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Office fo r distribution.

Our office has contacted the Arkansas Child Support Enforcement Office regarding this matter..

Unfonunately, _they pave notified our office that they cannot accept a payment on behalf of Mr. Phillips fo r distribution because the case is no longer open. Consequently, at this time we cnnnot make a payment based on the records you have submitted. If supplemental documentation fro m the Arkansas Child Suppo1t Enforcement Office is submitted which shows that the case has been reopened and that they can accepc a payment on behalf of Mr. Phillips for distribution, then any payment determined to be owed wi ll be made in accordance with Section I03.052(c), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. You may wish to contact an attorney for assistance in reopening the case with the 1\rknnsas Child Support Enforcement Office.

t].: /! d-r:- leo1lrd Higgins Comptrol ler's Judiciary Section

RMR 000134 SINKIN UWFlllM HY.i Wert Waodlann Arnnne .~n,\ntonio, Texas mt2-MGi Tel 210-i~·6000 f,u 2IO-ia6-2i7i l~llllE\\' ROSS S.Ul Sl!rJ8 TELECOPY COVER SHEET If there is a problem with transmission, please call 210-732-6000 for retransmission.

TO: Susan Combs FAX: (512) 936-6184 Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Comptroller's Judiciary Section FROM: Steven A. Sinkin (by dlf) DATE: Thursday, May 23, 2013 RE: Cause No. 2013-CI-08709 Cheri Sue Phillips v. Steven Charles Phillips In the 438 1h District Court of Bexar County, Texas REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SUPPORT ORDER UNDER UIFSA Our File No. 5898 Number of pages including this cover page: 7

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, and return the original to us by mail without making a copy. Thank you.

Discussion: Enclosed please find the Request for Registration and supporting documents, filed in District Court late yesterday. Please note paragraph 6 of the Request for Registration.

RMR 000135 .. ·------ · - - -- --

FUed SINKIN IAWFIRM 13 May 22 P5:28 JO~ \fest lfood~1n Arcaue Donna Kay McKinney Dlstr1ct Cleric San Antouiu,-Tew iS!l~·U$° Bexar District Tel :ua-mrona fat ~Jo.1~~iii Accepted by: Deborah Garay .l\JIB!Mlll~ Xllllllim May22, 2013 Hon. Donna K. McKinney Bexar County District Clerk Paul Elizondo Tower WNueva, Suite217 San Antonio, TX 78205-3411 Re: Cause No. E-77-337 Cheri Sue Phillips v. Steven Charles Phillips In the Chancery Court of Boone County, Arkansas REQUEST FOR REGISTRATION OF SUPPORT ORDER UNDER UIFSA Our File No. 5898 · Dear Sir or Madam: This is a formal request under the provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act ("UIFSA"), Texas Family Code §§ 159.001 et seq., for registration and enforcement of the enclosed "Decree of Divorce" issued by the Chancery Court of Boone County, Arkansas on February 7, 1978.

1. Please· register and enforce the enclosed "Decree of Divorce."

2. I am enclosing 3 copies of the judgmen~ one of which is a certified copy, of that judgment dated February 7, I 978, which remains in effect. 1his is the controlling Order.

3. I enclose one original and one true copy .of sworn statement of the person requesting registration that as of May 13, 1013, the amount owed as arrearage wider the judgment is $301,199.26.

4. The following information is provided concerning the Obligor: Name: Steven Charles Phillips Addres Date of Birth: Social Security Number: 5. arty seeking registration oftrus final judgment is Cheryl Sue Mac~mber o- and the Sfukin Law Finn, 105 West Woodlawn, SaJ.I Antonio, T~xas, 782 12 .

.I RMR000136 6. The party seeking registration of this final judgment also asserts a child support lien against any and all fimds due obligor by reason of Sec. 103.001, et seq, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 7.

Ifyou have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me at YOU! earliest convenience.

Sincerely yours,

/)/J_sc=_d ~ uuU.11 Attorney . SAS/dlf Enclosures . Copy: Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Comptroller's Judiciary Section P.O. Box 13528 Austin, TX 78711-3528 Via Fax: 512-936-6184 and Email_: [email protected]

I I I

Ii .!

RMR000137 . . -· ........_......... - - - - - --- - -

REGISTRATION INFORMATION ... Obligor: Name: Steven Charles Phlllips Address:

Da~ofbirth: - .

Social Secunty~ . .

Obligee: Name: Cheryl Sue Macumber Address: The order to be registered is the "Decree ofOivorte" issued by the Chancery Court ofBoone County, Arkansas on February 7, 1978.

The order is registered in the following states: None.

Descriptionand location ofany property not exempt from eJ(ecuti.00: all property not exempt under the by law.

Verlftcation X I am the party seeking registration.

I am the custodian of the records for this order.

I have personal knowledge that the following is true and com:ct: The child support m:re&.rage$ duo ood~~~~orm~~Z!Zl~3i::L

SIGNE)) wder oath before me on May 1£ 2013.

RHOMDA F Hll.L NOTARY PUBLIC WAStlll'lGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 411/2019 M'I COMM. If i371ell3

RMR 000138 - .. :'· ; .. ·~

IN THE CHANCERY COURT OF BOOtlE COU.HTY, A.RKANSl\S CHERI SU£ PHILLIPS, PLA!IITIFF N"\ Vs. . . t1--'~v.- STEVEN CHARLES ·PH I L~I PS , OEFEllDA/tT DECREE OF DIVORCE NOl4, on this 2nd' day of February, 1978, comes on f9r hearing the above s tyled cause, and same is subm1tted upon t he oral testim0ny of pl.a int1ff and witness on her behalf, the official file, statement of counsel and other matters and things before the Court, ·from all of which th~ Court finds: T.ha t t.he parties hereto are resi dents of lloone Coun ty, Arkansas, the defenda.nt presen t l y being i n the mil itary service in Gennany; that the defendant was duly noti fied by · ~ublication and by Attorney Ad lite~. ~ch · proof of publication and ... ~ ~

Re port of .Attorney Ad litem ·being fill!$! h~rein: that t he Court has' jurisdlitiori ' of · ~ . . , . . ,,._,.,"' . ·. : :. . ... :; :: ·· ·.· t' ·. :· .: . · . ': .' ~ ~ -;. ·. ~ .. ... : ·:· . .. . ·. ~ ..;:: ~ :.; . .. ...: the pa rties and s ubject matter: · ~· ··· -.: :· ::- ,. .,,;;. :'i :: .;· ·.:-:.:r; ~. : ..": ~ ...:. ~ .,.. . . :-, ..: ~. ;" .: '; , ... :...

That tne' p~-airitfff.. has ·aHege-d·<and' estabHshed by. cOa:lpetent testlmonr: j ust 11-nd, ',: propl!r'.·Qrounos..for ·divorc.e and a decree o f absolute· di vor ce shoul d be entered- !n her favor ;·· That t o t his marriage was.born one chil d, namel~ that said child is presently 1n·the care and custody of the pla inti ff and she is fit and proper person to continue th.e care an d cust ody of sa.icf child, subject to t he defendant's right of reasonable vHitatlon. with said child. That the defendant shall ·pay to the plaintiff for the support of said c hild the s1111 of $100.00 each month.

That the defendant shoul d return illllll!dlately to plaintiff three boxes of her personal items, which she l eft in Germany.

IT IS; THEREFORE , BY THE COURT , Considered, Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that plafnt1ff., ·Cheri Sue ,Ph111 1ps , .should be. ·and .sh,e i s ,.hereby gr anted a decree of. a!isoliite ;·dl·vor'ce·'fri:iin the: defendant; ·steve-n C)liirles cPhillips;;.tha t .tiie:.plai nt iff is awarded the care and c.ustody o f the minor child of the pa r ti es, s11bject ·to defendant' s !. ' .~'" ;.. :- :.~..!~'. :~ : .: :· ;: -: ~!.: .~~- : ·:.~- '.: ' ··~ . . . ' ~ight of reasona~le vtsi tatfon. ~I th s~.i d child; that the defendan t should be and -. ····.· \" ~· ·.: . : · ·· . • . ~ :. ' : .: ' ·· ·~ · · . , .: :·~ · ·· .. · ~;• • he i s her!;b.)' ?rdered to p11y to the pl11intiff for the support of said chiid, t he sum

RMR000139 - of $100.00 per montli; that the. defend<'\nt be and .he hereby i.s direi:te.d tq return irmtediate1y to the plaintiff three boxes of her personal items. which she left in Germany.

filed tb!x t/L day r1 rl? W//

~::·:J<,_L au

' ... •''

,~( { '.~/..?/i/\A}r:' '. \i :_;,r i'- ! ? ' .:.y/~ (:'.! i: ;. ·:· .

.., _ _ ,._ _ ,_,._,.,..., ·...... ~,·.... .-. ,., ....._..... ·7.-.- .. ;.. .. .. • i ~. ;: : .• :;'; . ,, ' ,·

1 . . . .,, ...... 1:_,

RMR 000140 ' .

CLERK'S CERTWICATE STATE OF ARKANSAS } ~ Coumy ofBoooc

.· :

RMR 000141 SINKIN IAW FIRM 105Wes t Woodlawn Avenue San Anto nio, Texas 78212-3457 Tel 2 10-732-6000 Fax 2 10-736- 2 m

STEVEN A. SINKIN ANDREW ROSS R ECElVE£rsiNJCJN 7004 2510 0003 8 6 51 1252 May24, 2013 MAY 3 0 2013 Susan Combs Comptroller's Judiciary Section JUDICIARY Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts P.O. Box 13528 Austin, Texas 78711-3528 Via Telccopier (512) 936-6184 Re: Cause No. 2013- CI-08709 Jn the Interest o Minor Child In the 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas Our File No. 5898 Dear Ms. Combs: Enclosed, please find an original Notice of Child Support Lien. It is my understanding that Steven Phillips is receiving payments pursuant to TCPRC § 103 - Compensation to Persons Wrongfully Imprisoned. Accordingly, immediately upon receipt of this lien, any payments to Steven Phillips must be immediately frozen. Additionally, please provide the address of the Obligor to this office as required by§ 157.314(d)(l). For your convenience, you may fax the address infonnation to the above number.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please contact my legal assistant, Gloria Suarez, if you have any questions.

Until our next communication, I remain Very truly yo,urs,./ ~i;;r;;( /gs cc: Cheryl Macumber Steven Phillips, via 1st Class Mail and CMRRR #7004 2510 0006 4745 4564

RMR 000142 RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2013 Ca use No. 2013-CI-08709 JUDICIARY Jn the Inter est § In the District Court § § 438'h Judicial District § M inor Child § Bexar County, Texas

Notice of Child S upport Lien TO: Susan Combs Comptroller's Judiciary Section Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts P.O. Box 13528 Austin, Texas 78711-3528

Obligor: Steven Phillips Obligee: C heryl Macumber Address: Child and Date of Birth:

OAG Case No: None

Current monthly child support obligation (if any). $0 This amount is separate and in addition to the past due support set forth herein: Amount of child-support auears: $301,199.26 as of May 3, 2013 Date of order or writ that determined arrears: July 2, 1978 Manner in which the child support arrears were The court order establishing the child determined: support obligation, payments made in compliance with the court order and the interest rate applicable at the time payments were due Rate of interest on arrears: Interest rate in effect at time obligation accrued until 12/ 31/200 1; thereafter at 6 percent

RMR000143 The lien is asserted by Cheryl Macumber, Obligee, and the Sinkin Law Firm, 105 West Woodlawn, San Antonio, Texas 78212-3457.

This child support lien attaches to all nonexempt real and personal property of Steven Phillips and any payments due by the State of Texas to Steven Phillips including but not limited to any claims, compensation, settlements, judgments, payments or recovery under TCPRC § 103.001, § 103.052, § 103.053, § 103.151 and § 103.152 that Steven Phillips has against the State of Texas.

Any ordered child support not timely paid in the future constitutes a final judgment for the amount due and owing, including interest, and accrues up to an amount that may not exceed the lien amount pursuant to Texas Family Code§ 157.313(10). By the signature set forth below, I certify that a copy of this Notice of Child Support Lien has been provided to the Obligor.

The Obligor is notified that he may dispute the arrearage amount by filing suit under Texas Family Code§ 157.323.

It is anticipated that additional arrears will accrue, and, on judicial foreclosure of this lien, the Court will be requested to confirm all amounts then due.

Sinkin Law Firm West Woodlawn Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212-3457 (210) 732-6000 Telephone (210) 736-2777 Telecopier By: .~CAJ/ Steven A. Sinkin State Bar No. 18438700 Andrew Ross State Bar No. 24070529 Sam Sinkin State Bar No. 24076901

RMR 000144 Verification STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF BEXAR § Before me, the undersigned notary, on this day personally appeared Steven A. Sinkin, a person whose identity is known to me. After I administered an oath to him, upon his oath he deposes and states he is competent to make this verification, has personal knowledge of the facts and statements contained in this Notice of Child Support Lien and the facts and statements contained in this document are true and correct.

Steven A. Sinkin

Swo

(Not~ Public in an Texas ~--j

RMR 000145 GREG ABBOTT

June 3, 2013

Steven A. Sinkin Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Sinkin Law Firm West Woodlawn Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212-3457 Re: Notice of Child Support Lien: Cause No. 2013-CI-08709; Cheri S. Phillips v. Steven C.

Phillips, , 438th Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas Dear Mr. Sinkin: The Comptroller of Public Accounts ("the Comptroller") is in receipt of your letter dated May 24, 2013 and the Notice of Child Support Lien attached thereto. This letter is to inform you that the Comptroller is not able to comply with your request to freeze annuity payments made pursuant to Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to Steven Phillips for the reasons set forth herein.

The State of Texas and its agencies, including the Comptroller, possess sovereign immunity from liability, suit, and any attempts to control State action. The Comptroller is immune from writs of garnishment, judgment liens, and attachment proceedings because such actions subject the Comptroller to suit and interfere with the Comptroller's ability to carry out her statutory duties. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann.§ 43.002(b); Morris v. Tex. Dep't of Corr., 762 S.W.2d 667, 669-670 (Tex. App.-Tyler 1988, no pct.); Wallace County Water Control and Improvement v. Abendorth, 142 Tex. 320, 322-23 (Tex. 1944).

furthermore, the Comptroller is statutorily obligated to make annuity payments under Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and the Comptroller's statutory authority to withhold payments is also governed by the Government Code. The Comptroller's authority to withhold payments does not include the authority to withhold payment in response to a private child support lien.

Tex. Gov't Code Ann.§ 403.055.

However, based on the contents of your letter, it appears that your client is seeking payment for past-due child support from Steven Phillips, who receives compensation for time spent wrongfully imprisoned pursuant to Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Please be advised that in addition to annuities paid to wrongfully imprisoned individuals, Chapter 103 also provides a mechanism for the payment of certain child support obligations. Section 103.052(a)(2) permits payment to be made by the Comptroller to the state disbursement unit for distribution to a child support obligee for child support that became due and interest on child support arreagcs that accrued during the time the wrongfully imprisoned individual was in prison.

POST OFHO: Box 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512)463-2100 wrn: WWW.TEXASATTORNEYGENERAL.GOV An Equal Employme/lf Opportunity Employer· Pril//ei/ 011 Recydetl Paper

RMR 000146 Steven Sinkin Sinkin Law Firm .June 3, 20.13 Page 2 To be able to make such payments, the Comptroller must receive sufficient information, such as the information required by Section 103.05l(a)(6), to accurately detennine the amount of compensation owed to a child support obligee. Once the Comptroller verifies that amount with the child support service provider of the state from which the divorce decree was issued, the Comptroller is able to issue a lump-sum payment pursuant to Section 103.052(c). Section 103.052(c), requires that any compensation for child support payments that Mr. Phillips is owed, be paid on his behalf to the state disbursement unit for distribution to the obligee under the child support order.

Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this procedure in greater detail.

Sincerely, ~12~ Erika R. Sams, Assistant Attorney General Financial Litigation, Tax, and Charitable Trusts Division Telephone: 512-475-2952 Facsimile: 512-477-2348 [email protected] Attorney for Susan Combs, Comptroller of Public Accounts.for the State o.fTexas ERS:lje Cc: Client

POST OFFICE Box 12548, A llSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512)463-2100 WEB: WWW .TEXASA'ITOl!Nl•:YGENEl!AI..(;()y !111 Eq1111/ Employment Opportunity Employer· Printed 011 Recycled Paper

RMR 000147 ..,....... ~ ,. uonr1a Kay 1Vl£K1nney District Clerk Bexar County

FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: JULY 2, 2013

IA1t I Al llF"'l I\ r-""'"''.11. r-..-..- v. 1 1..1"\Urv-\ CJ..JVVf-\KU;:) Fax#: 512-477-2348 From: ROSANNE MEDELLIN District Clerk's Office Recording Department Tel: (210) 335-2577 Fax #: (210) 335-0536

Page 1 of 5 including coversheet Comments: ORDER ON CASE#2013~CI-08709

This Information in this facslm!le Is privileged and confidential and intended only for the use of the above named recipient, their agent or someone designated by recipient to represent recipient. Dissemination. distribution or copying of this/these dowm~nts is pror11b1teci without perm1ss1on or me recipient. Ir you have received this transmission In error, please notify sender at above Tel number and please retLJrn this miss-received transmission to the address below via the U.S. Postal Service.

Paul Elizondo Tower, 101 W. Nueva, Suite 217, San Antonio, Texas 78205 www.bexar.org/ de

RMR 000148 H8tJ\13S3Cl No. :w1:H..:1-os109 l n the Interest § In the District Court § § 438'h Judicial District § § Bexar County, Texas Order· Regtstering Judgment Uuder UIFSA aud on Arrears On June 28, 2013, came on to be heard this c3se all matters of law and fact were submitted to.the Court. The Court finds it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this case. All perSons enticied to notice were properly notified. A record of the argumonts and evidence was made.

The Court finds that on or about May 30, 2013, Steven Phillips was duly and properly served with process in this cause, that the return has beoo on file for over ten (I 0) days, tht1t Steven Phillips .

has not answered and has wholly made default.

The Court finds that on or about May30, 2013, Steven Phillips was served via certified mail, return receipt requested, and regular mail the Notice of Applicntion for Judicial Writ of Withholding.

A verified morion to stay was not filed within ten days by Steven Phillips.

. 1T IS ORDERED that the "Decree of DivoJce" issued by the Chancery Court of Boone County, Arkansas on Febr0ary 7, 1978 and filed in this cause be and is registered and is a fi nal judgment of this Court und.er the provisions of the lh1ifonn Interstate Family Support Act.

n lS ORDERED that Cheryl Macumber is granted and rendered an order for child support o.rrearages, including accrued interest again~! Steven Philljps In the amount of $304,861.74 as of June 28th, 20 \ 3, the date ofrendition of this judgment, such judgment bearing interest at I0 percent interest compounded :mnually until the date the judgment is pajd, and is rendered on June 28, 2013.

Attorney's Fees r 1· 18 OROE llED that a judgment for attom~y' s fees of$30,400.00 is taxed as costs against

90/G0 3:)'Vd Steven Phiiiips, and Stever• Phillips i:s ORDERED to p<iy those fees by cash, cashier's check or money order directly to Steven A. Sinkln at the Sinldn Law Firm, 105 West Woodlawn, San Antonio, Texas 782 J 2. The attorneys may enforce this order for foes in the attorneys' own narne and utilize all child support enforcement remedies for the colleclion of these attomey's fees. Such judgment bearing interest at the maximum rnte provided by law from June 28 1\ 2013, until paid.

In the event of an unsuccessful appeal (direct or indirect) to the Court of Appeals by Steven Phillips an additional judgment of $25,000.00 for attorney's fees is granted in favor of Steven A.

Sin kin and the Sinkin Law Finn against Steven Phillips. In the event of an unsuccessful petition for review or indirect appeal to the Supreme Coml of Texas by Steven Phillips, an additional judgment of$] 7,500.00 for attomey's fees is granted in favor of Steven A. Sinkin and the Sinkin Law Fim1 and agamst Steven Phillips. In the event the petition for review or indirect appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas by Stevcu Phillips is granted and ultimately unsuccessful, an addHional judgment of $15,000.00 for attorney's fees is granted ln favor of Steven A. Sinkin and the Sinkin Law Fim1 and against Steven Phillips. ln the event of the filing of a petition for bankruptcy by Steven :Phillips, an additional judgmentof$7 ,500.00 for attorney's fees is granted in favor of Steven A.. Slnidn anci the Sinl<m Law flrm and against Steven Phillips for the collection of child suppo1t.

The attorneys may enforce this order for fees in the atl orneys' awn name and utilize all chi Id support enforcement remedies for collection of these attorney fees. Such jud,gment bearing interest at the 'If maximum rate provided by law. e IT ts ORDERED that Cheryl Macumber is awarded ajudgmentof$359.59 against Steven fhillips for costs of court incurred in the course of this lawsuit, with interest at the maximum rate provided by law from the date of this judgment until paid, for which let execution issue.

IT IS ORDERED that Cheryl Macumber is entitled to issue child support liens, levies and

'3ES0SEE0T6 g~:st E106/60/L0 RMR 000150 S0/E0 3911d H8CJ\13S3CJ writs of income withholding as remedies for the collection of unpaid child support.

IT IS fURTll.ER ORDE RED that CJ1cr yl Macumber is entitled to foreclose all child support liens issued in this case.

Order/or Withholding IT IS ORDERED that in addition to all other remedies available for enforcement, the arrearages enumerated above shall be payable through ajudicinl writ of withholding from earnings for child support within two years or less as mandated by the Texas Family Code. IT JS FURTHER OlIDERED that the judicial writ of withholding from eamings for child support shall be binding on Stev()n 'Phiiiip8' 8 present employer and all subsequent employers.

lT IS ORDER EO that all child support payments be made to: Sinkin Law Finn !05 '."lett \1.Jccd!~·.~·~ San Antonio, TX 78212 JT IS ORDERED that Steven Philli·ps's address for service i . IT l S FURTH'ER ORDE RED that Steven PhHlips shall notify in writing this Court; the Sinkin Law Finn nt 105 West Woodlawn, San Antonio, Texas 78212-3457, teiecopier (2iUJ i 36-27n; and the State Case Registry within seven (7) days of any change in aciciress or empioyrnent.

lT I S ORDER ED that this Order on Arrears is a final and appealable order.

Signed this Date: J\me .Z&', 2013.

J udge Presiding

H~'V353~ '3ES0SEE0\:Z 90/170 39\;;ld Approved as to Form & Substance: Sinkin Law Firm West Woodlawn San Antonio, Texas 782 J2-3457 (2 l 0) 732·6000 Telephone (210) 736-2777 Telecopicr By:~~ Steven A. Sin~ State Bar No. l 8438700 Andrew Ross State Bar No. 24070529 Sitm Sinki11 State Bar No, 24076901 Attorneys ror Cheryl Macumber

9£S0S££0TZ: 8r:s1 ET0Z:/Z:0/L0 S0/S0 39\?d H8CJ\73S3CJ RMR 000152 OB-06-' 13 14:54 FRO~- BxCo T-026 P0001/0007 F-029

Donna Kay M£Kinney District Clerk Bexar County

FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: July 6, 2013

TO: Laura Edwards Fax #: 512-477-2348 From: ROSANNE MEDELLIN District Clerk's .Qffice Recording Department Tel: (210) 335-2577 Fax#: (210) 335-0536

Page 1of7 including coversheet Comments: ORDERS ON CASE#2013CI08709

This information in this facsimile is privileged and conf!dential and intended only for the use of the above named recipient, their agent or someone designated by recipient to represent recipient. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this/these documents is prohibited withqut permission of the recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify sender at above Tel number and ple'ase return this miss-received transmission to the address below via the U.S. Postal Seivlce.

Paul Elizondo Tower, 101 W. Nueva, Suite 217, San Antonio, Texas 78205 www.bexar.org/dc

RMR 000153 08-06-'13 14: 54 FROM- BxCo T-026 P0002/0007 F-029 F.118(1 July 29 P9:49 Donna Kay McKinney Dl&trict Clark B$X8r 01st11ot Cause Number 2013-Cl-08709 Accepted by: Monica Hernandez IN TilE INTEREST OF § IN me DISllUCT COURT § § 43gm JUDICIAL DISTRICT § A MlNOR CBILD § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS RESPONDENT'S AMENDED MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Respondent asks the court to gtant a new trial in the interest ofJustice and fairness.

A. Introdnction 1. Petitioner is Cheryl Macumber; :Respondent. is Steven Phillips.

2. l.'etitioner sued respondent for the registration of a judgment under UIFSA.

B. Pacts 3. the Petitioner and Respondent were divorced by court order on February 7, 1978 in the Challcery Court of Boone County, AR in Cause Number B-77-337: The Court ordered the divorce and Mr. Phllllps to pay $100 per month in child support.

4. Jn 1982, Mr. Phillips was wrongfully con'\>ioted of rapo in Dallas, TX and sentenced to years in prison. He was later exonerated on October 1, 2008. As a part ofhls compensation by the Stare ofTexas for those years lost due to no fault of his own, he receives child snpport compensation benefits.

5. On May 22, 2013, Ms. Macumber filed a petition to register the 1978 Arkansas judgment iii Texas. Citation was issued, sen;ed via certified mail and Mr. Phillips do not answer. This Court signed a no-answer default judgment on June 28, 2013. Mr. Phillips now files this Motion for New t rlaL 6. Respondent attaches affidavits to this rn.otion as Exhibits A-B to establish facts not 1:1pparent from the record and incorporates them by reference.

C. Service of Citation Was Defective 7. ·If~a comt signs a default judgment against a respondent who was not properly served, the respondent is deprived of due process. See Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 86- (198.8); LBL Oil Co. v. Int '/ Power Servs., inc., 777 S.W.2d 390, 390-91(Tex. 1989).

· 8. Defects in citation are fatal and a no-answer default judgment cannot stand without strict compliance of the rule.s of citation. Primate Consrr.. Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 1.52 (Tex. 1994).

9. Texas 'Rule of Civil Procedure 99(b)(l I) requires that the citation contain the address of

RMR 000154 08-06- 1 13 14: 54 FROM- Bx Co T-026 P0003/0007 F-029

the court clerk. The citation in this case does not contain the address of the court clerk. This is a futal d ilnle·tautt judgment be overturned and a new trial had.

l 0. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 99(b)(7) requires the citation $how the naines of the par_ti~s. The citation did not correctly name the petitioner. The citation lists the petitioner as Cheri S. Phillips and the petitioner's correct name is Cheryl Maccuruber.

D. Mistake or Accident 1L When a respondent does not file an answer because of a mistake or an accident, the court should set aside the default judgment and grant a new trial if the respondent can meet the reqt:iirements of Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124j 126 (Tex. 1939).

Craddock requires the respondent to do all of the following: a. Demonstrate that the failute to file an answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference, but was a mistake or an accident. Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 925 (Tex. 2009); In re R.R.• 209 S.W.3d 112, 114 (fex. 2006); Estate of Pollack v. McMurrey, 858 S.W.2d 388, 391 (Tex. 1993); Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126.

b. Set up a. meritorious defense. Dolgencorp, 288 S.W.3d at 927; In re lLR., 209 S.W.3d at 114; Ivy v. Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212, 214 (Tex. 1966); Craddock~ 133 S.W.2d at 126. Respondent must allege facts that constitute a defense to petitioner's cause of action and must support the allegations with affidavits or other evidence that set up, not prove, a prima :facie defense. Dolgencorp, 288 S.W.3d at 928; Estate ofPollack. 858 S.W.2d at 392; Ivy, 407 S.W.2d at 214.

c. Demonstrate that granting a new trial will not cause delay or otherwise injure petitioner. Dolgencorp, 288 S.W.3d at 925; In ~e R.R., 209 S.W.3d at 114-15; Craddock, 133 S.W.2d at 126.

12. The court should grant a new trial because respondent's failure to answer was not intentional, but was accidental. Mr. Phillips received the certified mail from the court clerk but set it aside, never opened it, and it became :mixed up with and lost among other legal paperwork from other cases. Mr. Phillips di~ uot believe that he was being served with a lawsuit.

13. A1so, Mr. Phillips did not have reason to believe he was being sued because he had been in talks with the Attorney General and the Texas Comptroller's Office about his outstanding child support and believed it would be handled through the Attorney General's Office. Jn re R.R.• 209 S.W.3d at 115 (Respondent failed to answer a termination suit because she had been in conract with CPS concerning her child. This negated conscious indifference.). Had Mr. Phllli ps known he was being sued he would have answered and appeared.

14. The court should grant a new trial because respondent has the following meritorious defenses.

RMR 000155 08-06-'1 3 14:54 FROM - B~Co T-0 26 P0004/0007 F-029

a. The attorney fees awarded in tWs case are neither necessary nor rensonable. This Court - - - - ----awa:rded1hei>etitimrer..n ltmney OWi' $30,000 in attorney fees, I he record lS void of auy action taken by the petitioner other tJ1an filing a petition for registration and filing a default judgment. This does not support an award that large. b~ Becaw;c Mr. Phillips was wrongfully .incarcerated, this is a case of first impression and precedent of this natlll•e should not be made without full considex"atlon by the Court. c. The Petitioner filed this suit under UlFSA outside of the statute of limitations period.

The Petitioner wishes to enforce a child support otder by registering it under UlFSA. UlFSA § l59.604(b) of the Texas Family Code stat.es that the statute of limitations for a petition for arrell!ases by registration of a child support order is the longer of Texas law or the issuing state: 'fhls order was issued by Arkansas, which has a 5-year statute of limitations (see Ark. Rev. S~t. Ann.§ 9-14-236 (2010)), and Texas has a 10-year statute of limitations. Tex:. Fam.

Code §i l 57.005(b). The Texas limitati011s period applies. This suit must be filed on or before the child turns 28.

· The Arkansas order was issued in 1978 nnd name~~ the child of the maniage.

Therefore the latest conceivable date tWs suit 9ould be---~ 2006. This suit was not filed witil 2013. This suit was filed outside the statute of HmU.ations period. Limitation~ is a meritorious defense.

14. the court should grant a new trial because a new trial will not cause delay or otherwise injure petitioner. Respondent is ready for trial and willing to reimburse petitioner for all . reasonable expenses incurred in obtaining the default judgment.

E. Prayer IS. Respondent prays this Court set this Motion for a hearing. Respondent further pr-ays that i11 the interest of j ustlce and fairness> the court to grant a new trial.

Respectfully Submitted, STICKELS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.

7/2 Tim Robinson, J.D.

SBN 24069040 N. Fielder Rd. Arlington, TX 76012 Phone: 817-479-9282 Fax: 817-622-8071 [email protected]

RMR000156 OB-06- 1 13 14: 54 FROM- Bx Co T-02~ P0005/0007 F-029

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . I hei·eby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoillg Motion was served by facsimile to all known counsel record on the -2.!?/- day of~ 2013.

' r-?fo Tim Robinson

RMR 000157 OB-06-'13 14:54 FRO M- BxCo T-026 P0006/0007 F-029 'f-~1-t? / ·'·. ~ :) .'· NCP Name:: STEYEN PHILLIPS +-~~--P~1:nrn....-~-f"1:lmwn:-.llT.ll'"'77.m'lJrR . . 0 •. ~ ~!. . ~ ~~·;t. 'e I I ~ '9". 'eY. (° f,/! f . ;Q " ;,.(.: ('\ tf;> IN THB INTEREST OF ; § IN THE 43gTH JU 1§1:.~ay;ocytJrf(<o ~ f. . c:. . 'i~~ r:; ACHILD ( . : BE%iRCOUNTY,T~--;;_ y~ :;_'!}.~~ . :. \_'rnTERVENTION () ~ - .

1. · The ATIORNEY GENERAL,.tepresenting the State of Texas, files this pleading purskt'o Texas Family Code • I, Chapter 231 for which discovery is Intended to be conducted under Level 2 of Rule 190, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

THE AlfORNEY GENERAL'S RIGllT TO INT:ERVENE 2. The ATIORNEY GENERAL, pursuant to Texas Family Code § l 02.009, is a necessary part)' because this is an action to establish1 modify, or enforce a support right assisned to the ATIORNBY GENERAL pursuant to Texas Family . ·.

Code Chapter 2'31 .

JURlSl>ICTION \ 3. This Court has continuingjurlsdic~ion of the children the subject of this suit becaust-ofprior proceedings.

ClllLDREN 4. The following chllc;I is the sabj~ct of this suit: Name ·f Sn DOB Birthplace 'i' p - HARRISON, AR No property, other than personal effects, ls owned by any child the subject of this suit. ' PERSONS ENTITLED TO NOTICE 5. The mother of tho child is cikRYL MACUMBER. The ATTORNEY OENBRAL will serve CHERYL. . MACJMBER with this pleading, by an~ through her attomey of record, pursuant to Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedur.111.

6. The father of the child is STEYEN PHILLIPS. The AlTO~EY GENERAL will serve STEVEN PHILLIPS with thi8 pleading) by ~nd through his attorney of record, pursuant to Rule 2la, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. . PRAYER The ATTORNBY GENERAL prays that tho Court grnnt nil relief requested herein. TI1e ATTORNBY _JENERAL'prays for general relief. ,

,~ ~ .......

RMR 000158 OB-06- 13 14:54 FRO~- BxCo T-026 P0007/0007 F-029

Respectfully submjtted, Greg Abbott Attorney General of Texas Daniel T. Hodge 1 First Assistant Attorney General

~ Randolph V. Gonzalez - SBN: 08131200 - Melissa Ramos Munoz- S:SN: 00786186 Attorney of Record Child Support Division C!ffLD SUPPORT UNIT 0201 J460 NORTHEAST PARKWAY SAN ANTONIO TX 78218 Telephone No. 210-804·6416: Fax No. 2.10-930~3625 · CERTlFICATE OF Sl!;RVlCE l oertify~at true.and correcfcopy of the foregoing has been served on the below listed parties or their representatives su tto te 2 la, T.~xas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the 2911' day of July, 2013. . ~

RANDOLPH V. GONZALEZ ;; Attorney ofRecord Party; Attorney for Party: CHERYL MACVMBBR STEPHEN A SINKlN Sinkin Law Fittn W. Woodlawn Avenue San Antonio, TX 78212 STEVEN PHILLIPS TIM ROBlNSON Stickels and Associates, P.C.

770 N. FieldE:r Rd. Arlington, TX 76012

RMR 000159 S U S A N TEXAS COMPTROLLER oj PUBLIC ACCOUNTS C 0 M B S P.O . Box 13528 • AUSTIN. TX 78711·3528

September 10, 2013

Mr. Steven C. Phillips

Dear Mr. Phillips: In 2009, the Comptroller approved your application for wrongful imprisonment compensation filed under Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code ("the Tim Cole Act"). In addition to compensation for time spent wrongfully imprisoned, the Tim Cole Act also provides compensation to wrongfully imprisoned individuals for child support payments owed by the person on whose imprisonment the claim is based that became due and interest on child support arrearages that accrued during the time served in prison but were not paid. As a part of your 2009 application, you sought compensation for child support owed to Ms..Cheryl Macumb~r. In 2009, the Comptroller was unable to satisfy your claim for Ms. Macumber's child support because the Comptroller did not have sufficient information to detennine the amount owed. In addition, Section 103.052(c) requires that child support payments under the Tim Cole Act be made through the state disbursement unit, and the Arkansas state disbursement unit was unwilling to accept Ms. Macumber's payment because they had no records of child support owed. Now, in light of new information and the registration of the child support order in Texas, which permits the Texas state disbursement unit to distribute the payment to Ms. Macumber, the Comptroller can satisfy your administrative claim and pay to Ms. Macumber, via the Texas state disbursement unit, amounts payable under Section 103.052(a)(2) of the Tim Cole Act.

The Comptroller has determined that $18,593.23 is payable under Section i03.052(a)(2) of the Tim Cole Act to Ms. Macumber. The attached spreadsheet details the calculation of this amount. The payment will be paid on your behalf in a Jump-sum payment to the Texas state disbursement unit for distribution to Ms. Macumber. Please be advised that this amount of $18,593.23 in past due child support and interest (which includes all interest that is due) is the proper amount of child support that has been calculated in accordance with appropriate Jaw, and is the only amount that the Comptroller is statutorily authorized to pay. Any other amounts ordered to be paid by you to Ms. Macumber are your obligation to pay or dispute.

Pursuant to Section 103 .051(d) of the T im Cole Act, you have 30 days in which you may file an application to cure. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Comptroller's Judiciary Section by e-mail at Jeonard.higgins @cpa.state.tx .us or by phone at 1-800-531 -5441, extension 6-6100.

s~ LValdif~t- Compuoller's Judiciary Section cc: Tim Robinson RMR000160 PHILLIPS-MACUMBER-Child Supp Cale (final)

monthly EOM Principal EOM EOM EOM support principal that accrues interest interest arrears balance interest accrual balance total NOTES: $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 Payment Due Date• 14th of month $200.00 $0.00 $200.00 $300.00 $0.00 $300.00 $400.00 $0.00 $400.00 $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 $600.00 $0.00 $600.00 $700.00 $0.00 $700.00 $800.00 $0.00 $800.00 $900.00 $0.00 $900.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,100.00 $0.00 $1,100.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 $1,300.00 $0.00 $1,300.00 $1,400.00 $0.00 $1,400.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $1,600.00 $0.00 $1,600.00 $1,700.00 $0.00 $1,700.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 $1,800.00 $1,900.00 $0.00 $1,900.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 $2,100.00 $2,200.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 $2,300.00 $0.00 $2,300.00 $2,400.00 $0.00 $2,400.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,600.00 $0.00 $2,600.00 $2,700.00 $0.00 $2,700.00 $2,800.00 $0.00 $2,800.00 $2,900.00 $0.00 $2,900.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $3,100.00 $0.00 $3,100.00 $3,200.00 $0.00 $3,200.00 $3,300.00 so.co $3,300.00 $3,400.00 $0.00 $3,400.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 $3,700.00 $0.00 $3,700.00 $3,800.00 $0.00 $3,800.00 $3,900.00 $0.00 $3,900.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $4,100.00 $0.00 $4,100.00 $4,200.00 $0.00 $4,200.00 $4,300.00 $0.00 $4,300.00 $4,400.00 $0.00 $4,400.00 $4,500.00 $0.00 $4,500.00 $4,600.00 $0.00 $4,600.00 $4,700.00 $0.00 $4,700.00 $4,800.00 $0.00 $4,800.00 $4,900.00 $0.00 $4,900.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,100.00 $0.00 $5,100.00 $5,200.00 $0.00 $5,200.00 $5,300.00 $0.00 $5,300.00 $5,400.00 $0.00 $5,400.00 $5,500.00 $0.00 $5,500.00 $5,600.00 $0.00 $5,600.00 $5,700.00 $0.00 $5,700.00 $5,800.00 $0.00 $5,800.00 $5,900.00 $0.00 $5,900.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $6,100.00 $0.00 $6,100.00 $6,200.00 $0.00 $6,200.00 $6,300.00 $0.00 $6,300.00 $6,400.00 $0.00 $6,400.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $6,500.00 $6,600.00 $0.00 $6,600.00 $6,700.00 $0.00 $6,700.00 $6,800.00 $0.00 $6,800.00 $6,900.00 $0.00 $5,900.00

OAG Confldentlal 9/9/2013 Page 1

RMR 000161 PHILLIPS-MACUMBER--Child Supp Cale - (final)

$7,000.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $7,100.00 $0.00 $7,100.00 $7,200.00 $0.00 $7,200.00 $7,300.00 so.oo $7,300.00 $7,400.00 so.oo $7,400.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $7,600.00 so.oo $7,600.00 Unless otherwise indicated, $7,700.00 $0.00 $7, 700.00 EOM interest entry for each line $7,800.00 $0.00 $7,800.00 represents interest accruals from $7,900.00 $0.00 $7,900.00 15th of previous month through $8,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 date in Column A. $8,100.00 $0.00 $8,100.00 $8,200.00 s100.oo·' $0.00 $8,200.00 $8,300.00 $0.83 $8,300.83 one month's interest on 3/14 accrual $8,400.00 $2.50 $8,402.50 one month's interest on 3/14 and 4/14 $8,500.00 $400.00 $5.00 $8,505.00 etc. $8,600.00 $500.00 $8.33 $8,608.33 $8,700.00 $600.00 $12.50 $8,712.50 $8,800.00 $700.00" $17.50 $8,817.50 $8,900.00 $800.00 $23.33 $8,923.33 $9,000.00 $30.00 $9,030.00 $9,100.00 $37.50 $9,137.50 $9,200.00 $45.83 $9,245.83 $9,300.00 $55.00 $9,355.00 $9,400.00 $65.00 $9,465.00 $9,500.00 $75.83 $9,575.83 $9,600.00 $87.50 $9,687.50 $9,700.00 $1,600.00 $100.00 $9,800.00 $9,800.00 $1,700.00 $113.33 $9,913.33 $9,900.00 $1,800.00 $127.50 $10,027.50 $10,000.00 $1,900.00 $142.50 $10,142.50 $10,100.00 $2.000.00 $158.33 $10,258.33 $10,200.00 $2,100.00 $175.00 $10,375.00 $10,300.00 $2,200.00 $192.50 $10,492.50 $10,400.00 $2,300.00 $210.83 $10,610.83 $10,500.00 $2,400.00 $230.00 $10,730.00 $10,600.00 $2,500.00 $250.00 $10,850.00 $10,700.00 $2,600.00 $270.83 $10,970.83 $10,800.00 $2,700.00 $292.50 $11,092.50 $10,900.00 $2,800.00 $315.00 $11,215.00 $11,000.00 $338.33 $11,338.33 $11,100.00 $362.50 $11,462.50 $11,200.00 $387.50 $11,587.50 $11,300.00 $413.33 $11,713.33 $11,400.00 $440.00 $11,840.00 $11,500.00 $467.50 $11,967.50 $11,600.00 $495.83 $12,095.83 $11,700.00 $525.00 $12,225.00 $11,800.00 $555.00 $12,355.00 $11,900.00 $585.83 $12,485.83 $12,000.00 $617.50 $12,617.50 $12,100.00 $650.00 $12,750.00 $12,200.00 $683.33 $12,883.33 $12,300.00 $717.50 $13,017.50 $12,400.00 $752.50 $13,152.50 $12,500.00 $788.33 $13,288.33 $12,600.00 $825.00 $13,425.00 $12,700.00 $862.50 $13,562.50 $12,800.00 $900.83 $13,700.83 $12,900.00 $940.00 $13,840.00 $13,000.00 $980.00 $13,980.00 $13,100.00 $1,020.83 $14,120.83 $13,200.00 $1,062.50 $14,262.50 $13,300.00 $1,105.00 $14,405.00 $13,400.00 $1,148.33 $14,548.33 $13,500.00 $1,192.50 $14,692.50 $13,600.00 $1,237.50 $14,837.50 $13,700.00 $1,283.33 $14,983.33 $13,800.00 $1,330.00 $15,130.00

OAG COnfldentlal 9/9/2013 Page 2

RMR 000162 PHILLIPS-MACUM8 £11-Chlld S<Jpp Cale . (final}

$13,900.00 $1,377.50 515,277.5 $14,000.00 Sl ,425.83 SlS,US.8 $14,100.00 $1,475.00 Sl5,S7S.00 $14,200.00 Sl.525.00 Sl5,7ZS.OO $14,300.00 $1,575..83 $15,875.83 $14,400.00 $1,627.50 $16,027.50 H.5. G"duation $14.400.00 Sl.680.00 S16.080.00 $14,400.00 $1,732.50 S 16,132.SO $14.400.00 Sl,785.00 Sl6, 185.00 $ 14,400.00 Sl.837.50 S16,237.SO $14,400.00 $1,890.00 . $ 16,290.00 $ 14,400.00 $1,942.$0 $16,.142.50 $14,400.00 Sl,995.00 St6,39S.OO $14,400.00 $2,047.50 516,447.SO $14,400.00 S2,100.00 $16,SOO.OO $14,400.00 $2,152.SO $16,552.SO $14,400.00 S2.205.00 S1M05.00 $14,400.00 S2.257.50 516,657.50 514,400.00 $2,310.00 $16,710.00 $14,400.00 $2,362.SO $16,762.SO $14,AOO.OO S2.41S.OO Sl6,81S.OO 514,AOO.OO 52,467.SO $ 16,867.SO $14,AOO.OO $2,520.00 $16,920.00 $14,400.00 52.572.SO $16,971.SO 514,400.00 S2.62S.OO $17,025.00 $14,400.00 $2.677.50 SH.on.so 514,400.00 $2.730.00 $17,130.00 $14,400.00 $2,782.50 $17,182.SO $14,400.00 $2.835.00 $17,235.00 $14,400.00 52,887.SO $17,287.50 $14,400.00 52.940.00 $17,340.00 $14,400.00 52.992.50 Sl7.392.SO $14,400.00 $3,045.00 517,445.00 $14,400.00 $3,097.SO $17,497.50 $14,400.00 Sl,150.00 517,550.00 inter"'t f0< 9 days (10/15 to 10/13) RELEASED ON PAAOlE ON 23RD 10/24/96. 11/ 14/96 $14,400.00 $6,300.00 $37.26 $37.26 $14,437.26 int•rest for 22 days (10/24 to 11/14) 12/14/ 96 $14,400.00 56,300.00 552.50 $89.76 $14,489.76 No amounts !><!tween 10/23/96 01/14/97 $14,400.00 $6,300.00 552.SO 5142.26 S14,542.26 and 5/13/97 are counted towards 02/14/97 $14,400.00 $6,300.00 $52.SO $194.76 $14,594.76 Compttoller's to tal.

03/14/97 $L4,400.00 $6,300.00 $52.SO $247.26 $14,647.26 3/rw./1997 "@a $14,400.00 $6,300.00 ~ 514,537.26 Amount o wed by Phdllps fo r 04/14/97 514,400.00 $6,300.00 $52.50 5189.76 $14,589.76 5130.Sl 4/a/97 ~ $14,400.00 $6,300.00 ~ $ 14,479.76 OS/13/97 $14,400.00 $6,300.00 SS0.75 SB0.51 interest fo< 29 d•ys TAXEN INTO CIJSTOOY ON l 4"TH $14,400.00 Interest f0t l day (5/14) $14,400.00 $3,21 7.74 $17,617.74 $14,400.00 $3,270.24 $17,670.24 $14,400.00 $3,322.74 $17,7Z2.74 $14 ..00.00 $3,375.24 $17,nS.24 514,400.00 $3,427.74 $17,827.74 $14,400.00 $3,430.24 $ 17.880.2• $14,400.oo $3,532.74 $17,932.74 $14,400.00 53,585.24 $17,985.2• $14,400.00 $3,637.74 $ 18,037.74 514,400.00 $3,690.24 $18,090.24 $14,400.00 $3,74 2.74 SUl,142.74 $14,400.00 $3, 795.24 $18, 195.24 $14,400.00 s~. 841 .1• s 1a,2•1.14 $14,400.00 SJ.900.24 518,300.24 $!4,400.00 $3,952.74 $18,3S2. 74 514,400.00 $4,005.24 $18,405.2• $14,400.00 $4,057.74 $18,457.74 $14,400.00 $4,110.24 $18,510.24 $14,400.00 $4.162.74 $18,562.74 $14,40000 S4,l9l.231Mfilf f t .7terestaccrualfor !Sdl\'S -mjl§JiiiMi i!Jh§iil4il •A!sumptlon: Child suppo rt o bligation terminates May 31, 1994 (Finol Payment 5/14/94:

OAG Confidtntllll 9/9/2013 Pago 3

RMR000163 'Cfrexae a!onq>tralur of :Juhli.c J\cnnnde U.Mftl lll'1"fJ9la u, au ,,...._.,NO. 0'18U 0001 901 - 1 1 IMCIOltUU 901 NYJNI Am.ICY• IU-40......l QINll.._LU • STAB ~ 9.5 9 69 2 3 ,., D81CTUJt naw P1Vl -....om T9!I DGUM1 tia.a... n ... Ul10e

TO TX STATE DISPUISfREJIT UNIT NCPtSTEVEM CHARL!S PHILLIPS ID CP• CltUYL MCUMle:I PO IDlC 65'417 SAfll ANTOMJD, TX 7&265-9417

Special Collections SOU PO Box 659417 San Antonio, TX 78265-9417

RMR 000164 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS GREG ABBOTT

September 26, 2013

The Honorable Gloria Saldana Via Federal Express Overnight 111 Civil District Com1 Dolorosa, 211d Floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 Re: Cheri S. Phillips v. Steven C. Phillips, Cause No. 2013CI08709 Dear Judge Saldana: The Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas ("the Comptroller") hereby advises the Court of a recent action taken by the Comptroller related to the issue of child support and ce11ain arrearnges owed by Steven Phillips to Cheryl Macumber, the parties in the above- referenced lawsuit. On September 10, 2013, the Comptroller granted Mr. Phillips' application for child support payments and interest under the "Tim Cole Act." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code § 103.052(a)(2).

The Tim Cole Act gives the Comptroller the duty and the concomitant discretion to determine the amount of compensation owed to the applicant for time spent wrongfully imprisoned. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ 103.051(b). Compensation includes "child support payments owed by the person on whose imprisonment the claim is based that became due and interest on child support arrearages that accrued during the time served in prison but were not paid." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 103.052(a)(2). Review of the Comptroller's decision is only available by mandamus to the Texas Supreme Court. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code§ 103.051(e).

The Comptroller determined that Mr. Phillips is entitled to child support compensation in the total amount of $18,593 .23. This sum represents the amount of child support arrearages and interest that accrued during Mr. Phillips' time spent in prison from June 4, 1982 to October 23, 1996 and again from May 14, 1997 to December 28, 2007. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code § 103.052(a)(2). To determine the amount owed under section 103.052(a)(2), the Comptroller applied the relevant Arkansas laws that govern child support obligations, arrearages, and interest. Tex. Fam. Code § 159.604. On September 11, 2013, the Comptroller issued a warrant for $18,593.23 to the Texas state disbursement unit, as required by section l 03.052(c) of the Tim Cole Act, to be distributed to Ms. Macumber.

Pos·1 OFFICE Box 125'18, AlJ!-iTJN, TEXAS 78711-2548 Tl::L (S12) 1!6)·2100 WEB WWW TEX.ASATTOHNEYGENERAL GOV An ]·,'qua! J·:mployment Opporlm11ty Fmployer l'riuted w1 Necycled Fapc:1

RMR 000165 The Honorable Gloria Saldana 438111 Civil District Court September 26, 2013 Page 2

Counsel for Mr. Phillips and Ms. Macumber made the Comptroller aware of the default judgment in the above:...referenced lawsuit in which Mr. Phillips was ordered to pay $304,861.74 in child support arrearages, including accrued interest, to Ms. Macumber. Because the Comptroller in fulfilling her statutory duty under the Tim Cole Act has determined the amount due for child support obligations, arrearages, and interest, the Comptroller wanted to advise all interested paiiies and the Court that the amount of $18,593.23 has been paid and is the only 8amount the Comptroller is statutorily authorized to pay.

The Comptroller is unaware of the precise calculation underlying the default judgment of $304,861.74, other than the unchallenged representation by Ms. Macumber. This amount, if properly due and owing, cannot, as explained above, be recovered under the Tim Cole Act.

Accordingly, any amounts ordered to be paid by Mr. Phillips under the Order Registering Judgment under UIFSA on Anears, signed by this Court on June 28, 2013, are solely Mr. Phillips' obligation.

For the Court's information, Mr. Phillips' monthly annuity payment for his time spent wrongfully imprisoned is not subject to garnishment. Pursuant to the Order for Turnover Relief, signed by this Court on July 30, 2013, those monthly payments are currently being sent to Tim Robinson, counsel for Mr. Phillips.

Respectfully, /' ' V.J 'lt.A/'fn-, fl. ,/~t'rvv·) Erika R. Sams, Assistant Attorney General Financial Litigation, Tax, and Charitable Trusts Division Telephone: 512-475-2952 Facsimile: 512-477-2348 [email protected]

CC: Client Steven Sinkin Tim Robinson

P 0 ST 0 FF 1CE B 0 X. I ZS <I 8, AU$ TIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 1 I -2 5 4 8 TE l. ( 5 1 2) •16 J -2 l 0 0 WE ll WWW TEX. /IS A r l OH NE y GENE f{ AL li O y J/11 Fq1111/ Fmpluy111e11t OpjHWl/1111~1' Fmp/uy<?r Prmled rm U..:l ye fed Pap<'r

RMR 000166 TIM ROBINSON ATTORNEY AT LAW 6204 SHERBERT DRIVE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX 76180

October 9, 2013 Texas State Comptroller of Public Accounts ATTN: Judiciary Section P.O. Box 13528 Austin, TX 78711-3528 Via US Mail RE: Steven Phillips Compensation Claim Dear Sir or Madam Enclosed please find an application to cure and supportive documentation. Enclosed is a schedule that closely tracks the court order. The judgment amount through June of 2013 was determined by the Court to be $304,861.74 and ordered to accrue interest at 10% compounded annually. To date the interest accrued is $7,621.54 for a total judgment amount of $312,483 .28.

Through February of 1983 (the month Mr. Phillips was incarcerated) the amount owed was $7,743.71. That makes a total request of $304,739.57 due Mr. Phillips under the Tim Cole Act.

Please note that the judgment only states that the judgment amount is for child support and child support arrearages and for no other causes of action Ms. Macumber may have had against Mr. Phillips. l eagerly await your response.

Respectfully Yours,

Tim Robinson CC: Erika Sams via email

Phone: 81 7-408-9777 Email: [email protected] Fax: 817-393-4932 RMR 000167 STATE OF TEXAS COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE

Alternate phooe nu111ber = Mail completed form and documentation to: COMPTROLLER'S J UDICIARY SECTION P.O. Box 13526 Austin. TX 78711-3528 Call 1-800-531 -5441, ext 6·5985 or (512) 936-5985

• A verified copy of pardon I court order showing actual innocence and justifying application.

A written statement from Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying length of incarceration in a State priQ,k\

A written statement verifying the length of incarceration from any Texas County or Municipality where incar . the charges for which claimant is eligible to make the claim.

If applicable, a written statement from Texas Department of Criminal Justice verifying length of lime spent on parole . Enclosed If applicable, a wrttten statement from the Texas Department of Public Safety verifying registration as a sex offender and length of Enclosed registration.

A certified copy each child support order , if applicable, under which child support payments became due during the time the daimant served in prison and copies of the official child support payment records described by Section 234.009, Family Code. Enclosed for that riod.

For proof of birth date provide a copy of birth certificate, or state driver's license, or state ID, or a notarize<! statement verifying Endosed month, day and year of birth.

To tal Amount of Claim Supported by the Attac hed Documentation: f ' "o '.1. • "/Iv I I V":> CJI ~ • ..,, / _J

CLAIMANT'S CERTIFICATION

1._ Steven Phillips ~ , do hereby certify that rhe amount requested is due and payable pursuant to Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and I will immediately notify the Comptroller's Judiciary Section in writing of an chan es or conditions which will di uar this ent.

Claimant Signature Date

~~~~~ ~~~ e . (J , 10 o ·1 I3 817-408-9777 Address/City/Slate/zip code 6204 Sherbert Drive North Richland Hills, TX 76180

I approve this request for payment and to the best of my knowledge this request for payment is true and correct This payment · JOrnplies w ith Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Approved by· Oate sign i.. here' RMR 000168 08- 2 4 - 2013 2:59 PM 16786 160181 1 8173834 832 Pg 2/9

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Brad Livin9$ton Executive Olrecror

September 15, 2009 Steven Charles Phillips

RE: Phillips, Steven Charles Dear M!. Stone, The files of this Agency have been reviewed en offender Stever. Charles Phillips, pursuant to your request.

Offender Phillips was received into TDCJ custody on 2-22-1983 from Dallas County on eight 10-year sentences, two-30-year sentences, and a 40-year sentence. Offender Phillips is charged with Aggravated Assault (4cts.), Burglary of a Habitation (3cts.), Indecency W/Child, Aggravated Rape, and Aggravated Sexual Abuse (2cts.) by the 2041h and 194th Judicial District Courts, under cause numbers F&Z-82743-NKQ, F82-79130-JKQ, F82-86748-NKQ, F82-6&990-JKQ, F82-77699-QKQ, F82-8705 l-JKQ, F82-79140..JKQ, FS.2-86866-NXNKQ, F82-77700-QKQ, F82-77162-NKMKQ, F82-17161-N.KM. Offender Phllips is charged for offenses occurring on 5-15-1 982, 4-22-1982, and 5-14-1982, with sentencing ·on 6-1 1-1984, 8-24-1983, and 8-27-1 982. Offender Phillips was released from TDCJ custody on 12-28-2007 on mandatory supervision.

On I0-27-2008 the Court of Criminal Appeals issued mandates on cause numbers F82-79 140-JKQ, F82-8686<i-NKNKQ, F82-7700-QKQ, F82-77162-NKMKQ, and F82-771 61-NKM, s~tting these cases aside.

Offender Phillips served a total of 2S-years, 6-months, and J.8-days on these cause numbers, and is not under TDCJ jurisdiction.

Offender Phillips was on mandatory supervision from 1:2-.28-2007 until 10-27-2007, for a period of 9-months, and 29-4ays.

/;}'(1Jry ~:lez PS-III Offender Time Management Classification and Records (936) 43 7-63 80 cc: fi le 011• "'''~'on i• IOprovide p111Jlic safety, pro111ore pcnlrfrc chungii In offender bahavtor, r¢/n1~grata of/endon fn/I) sO<'i<I)\ and tUSiSI vlc1t111t ofcrima P.O. Box 99 Huntsvill1;, Tcxns 77342·0099 WWW. tdcj.;tatc. IX.US

RMR 000169 Ex parte Phillips, Not Reported in S.W.3d (2008)

826 (Tex.Crim.App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two 2008 WL 4417288 aggravated sexual abuse causes, sentenced to forty and thirty Only the W estlaw citation is currently available. years' imprisonment, indecency with a child, sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, burglary of a habitation, sentenced to UNDER TX R RAP RULE 77-3, UNPUBLlSHED thirty years' imprisonment, and aggravated rape, sentenced OPINIONS MAY NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY. to ten years' imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions for one of the aggravated sexual OPINION abuse cases and the burglary of a habitation. Phillips v. State, Do Not Publish No. 05-83-1058-CR (Tex.App.-Dallas, delivered October 26, Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. 1984) and Phillips v. State, No. 05-82-0I260-CR (Tex.App.- Dallas, delivered January 4, 1984). Applicant pleaded guilty Ex parte Steven Charles PHILLIPS, Applicant. to the other causes and no appeal was taken from those.

Nos. AP-76010, AP-76013, AP-76011, Applicant contends that he has newly discovered evidence AP-76014, AP-76012. I Oct. 1, 2008. that he is actually innocent of these offenses. The trial court On Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus, Cause Nos. has determined that no rational jury would have convicted F82-77700-Q; F82-77162-Q; F82-79140-Q; F82-86866-Q, Applicant in light of the new evidence, which was previously In the 204th District Court from Dallas County and Cause unavailable to Applicant. The evidence, obtained pursuant to No. F82-77161-M, In the 194th District Court from Dallas post-conviction DNA testing and investigation, indicates that County. it was another individual, and not Applicant, who committed at least one of these offenses. Applicant is entitled to relief. Ex Attorneys and Law Firms parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996).

Robert Udashen, for Steven Charles Phillips.

Reliefis granted. The judgments in Cause Nos. F82-77700-Q; F82-77162-Q; F82-79140-Q and F82-86866-Q in the 204th Opinion District Court of Dallas County and Cause No. F82-77161-M in the l 94th District Court of Dallas County are set aside, and OPINION Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County to answer the charges against him.

PERCURIAM. * 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Article I 1.07 of the Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the clerk of the trial of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division and court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs Parole Division. of habeas corpus. Ex parte Young, 418 S.W.2d 824,

End of Document © 2013 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original US. Government Works.

' : -. _,. '.·· ~ ., -. - ·"'> :._. '

RMR 000170 RMR 000171 No. 2013-Cl·08709 - : .... ;;-:--_t· "' Jn the I ntcrest § In th e Di~~_ictG<>.u_r;t:,:~.

§ ".,I . ' ,.)(°' .~u~,i~i·~\~.isf\:i·~·' :>:~: '~ § 438' § ,, · ·-: " .... ·· . . •• , r; Minor C hild § Bexai-'1Jo'11nt:y~ -fcxis .: ~~ u , .. ..·; : ..~", --::-\ ..· ..\~~ Order Registering Judgment Under UlFSA and on Ar rears .,h -·.. --·"· ,.$ ' . '{-,.... :\. •:-.:·:·~·~59" On June 28, 2013, came on to be heard this case all matters of law and fact were submitted to the Court . The Court finds it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this case. All persons entitled to notice were properly noti fied. A record of the arguments and evidence was made.

The Court finds that on or about May 30, 2013, Steven Phillips was duly ar:d properly served with process in this cause, that the return has been on fi le for over ten (I 0) days, that Steven Phillips has not answered and has wholly made default.

The Court finds that on or about May30, 201 3, Steven Phillips was served via certi fied mail, return receipt requested, and regu lar mail the Noti ce of Application for Judicial Writ of Withholding.

A veri fied motion to stay was not fi led within ten days by Steven Phillips. ~/'' IT IS 0 RD ERED that the "Decree of Divorce" issued by the Chancery Court of Boone 2 County, Arkansas on February 7, I 978 and filed in this cause be and is registered and is a final / judgment of this Cou11 under the provisions of the Unifonn Interstate Family Support Act. ~ (:) l IT IS ORDERED that C h eryl Macum ber is granted and rendered an order for child support v arrcarages, including accrue<l interest against Steven Phillips in tbe amount of $304,861. 74 as of e June 28th, 2013, the dale of rendition oftl1;s judgment, such judgment bearing interest at I0 percent 87 interest compounded annual ly until the da~e the judgment is paid, and is rendered on June 28, 2013. ~ A ttorney ·~ Fees p G lT 'iS 0;.'.{DERED that ajudgrncnl fo r attorney's fees of$30,400.00 is taxed as costs against Case Number: 201 3CI08709 Document Type: ORDER REGISTERING JUDGMENT UNDrn UIFSA AND ON ARREAR~ !5 Page I of5

RMR000172 Steven Phillips, and Steven Phillips is ORDERED to pay those fees by cash, cashier's check or money order directly to Steven A. Sin kin at the Sinkin Law Firm, 105 West Woodhl\~/n,;Sai},'~\, . .. . '""i) 'qh Antonio, Texas 78212. The attorneys may enforce this order for fees in the attorneys' own narne and """':/ ·.-7 . t~ u utilize all child support enforcement remedies for the collection of these altoi~iey'.s kes: Such .;":~JI judgment bearing interest at the maximum rate provided by law from June 28'\ 2013, until paid. ,5~f' In the event of an unsuccessful appeal (direct or indirect) to the Court of Appeals by Steven Phillips an additional judgment of $25,000.00 for attorney's fees is granted in favor of Steven A.

Sin kin and the Sinkin Law Finn against Steven Phillips. In the event of an unsuccessful petition for review or indirect appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas by Steven Phillips, an additional judf.,'111ent of $17 ,500.00 for attorney's fees is granted in favor of Steven A. Sin kin and the Sinkin Law Firm and against Steven Phillips. In the event the petition for review or indirect appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas by Steven Phillips is granted and ultimately unsuccessful, an additional judgment of $15,000.00 for attorney's fees is granted in favor of Steven A. Sinkin and the Sink in Law Firm and against Steven PhiHips. In the event of the filing of a petition for bankruptcy by Steven Phillips, an additional judgment of$7 ,500.00 for attorney's fees is granted in favor of Steven A. Sinkin and the Sinkin Law Fim1 and against Steven Phillips for the collection of child support.

The attorneys may enforce this order for foes in the attorneys' own name and utilize all child support enforcement remedies for collection of these attorney fees. Such judgment bearing interest at the v maximum rate provided ·oy law.

L. IT IS ORDERED that Cheryl Macumber is awarded a judgment of$359.59 against Steven Phillips i'or costs of court incurred in the course of this lawsuit, with interest at the maximum rate provided by iaw from the date of this judgment until paid, for which let execution issue. p G '· 1T IS ORDERED that Cheryl Macumber is entitled to issue child support liens, levies and

/t Case Number 2013CI08709 Document Type ORDER REGISTERING JUDGMENT UNDER UIFSA AND ON ARREAR~ P:ige2of5

RMR 000173 writs of income withholding as rcmc<.lics for the co llect ion of unpaid child support.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Cheryl Macumber is entitled to foruddsc all chiid_'l·\'.\" . • 1.•,, l) suppo11 liens issued in this case. .; }l}0 . . : ·. . : ;· : ' .:1 ~ Order/or Wiiltho/ding ·• • .• • · . ' \ • . _:: :·f \. _'l , ' ·' ·~ : . - ....-,,~ IT IS ORDERED that in add iti on to all other remedies availabl e for e;:11fprccmcnt: the..: . \-.. .s-J·' <~ .... " ... arrearages enumerated above shal l be payab!e through a judi cial writ of wi thholding from earnings for child "uppon within two years or less as mandated by the Texas Fami ly Code. rT ~S FURTH ER ORDERED that the judicial writ of withholding from earnings for child support shall be binding on Steven Phillips's present employer and all subsequent employers.

IT lS ORDERED that all child support payments be made to: Sinki n Law Finn West Woodlawn San Antonio, TX 782 J 2 1T IS ORDERED that Steven Phillips's address for service i T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Steven Phillips shall notify in

~l writing Lhis Court, the ~ink in Law Firm at I OS West Woodlawn, San Antonio, Texas 782 l2-3457,

~ telecopier (2 10) 736-2777; and the State Case Rcgis!'ry within seven (7) cl<1ys or any change in / address or employment. ~~ JT lS OROERl!:U lhat this Order on Anears is a final nnd appealable order. v Sig.1ed this Date: June Z8', 2013.

L ·9 p (3 Q -; Case Number: 2013Cl08709 Document Type: ORDER REGISTERING JUDGMENT UNDER UIFSA AND ON ARREAR~ P~ge 3 of 5

RMR000174 Approved as to Form & Substance: Sinkin Law Firm I 05 West Woodlawn San Antonio, Texas 78212-3457 (2 l 0) 732-6000 Telephone (210) 736-2777 Telecopier By:~~ Steven A. S-in_k_i_n_~-=~----- State Bar No. 18438700 Andrew Ross State Bar No. 24070529 Sam Sinkin State Bar No. 24076901 Attorneys for Cheryl Macumber

~/ / l .PS v i6 l I?

G Q SCase Number 2013CI08709 Document Type ORDER REGISTERING JUDGMENT UNDER UIFSA AND ON ARREAR~ Page 4 of5

RMR 000175 CERTIFIED COPY CERTIFICATE STATE OF TEXAS I, DONNA. KAY r1l(;J<INNEY. f3EXAR COUNTY DISTRICT CLEPK. CERTIFY TH.L\ T THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE OR!GINt'\L RECORD AS INDICATED 13Y THE VOLUME. f"AGE AND COURT ON SAID DOCUME~IT WITNESSED MY OFFICIAL HANO AND SEAL OF OFFICE ON THIS

October fN. 20 l 3 DONNA KA V MCKINNEY BEXAR COCNTY, TEXAS

Hyo DcOG=-- DANIEL ZAMARRIPA. Deputy District Clerk (;VOT r· 1uD WITJIOUT T!IF Cf.ERliS'S OR!GLV IL S!G':\'-tTURE.)

Case Number: 2013Cl08709 Document Type: ORDER REGISTERING JUDGMENT UNDER UIFSA AND ON ARREAR~ Page 5 of 5

RMR 000176 Child Support Paymnets Monthly Principal and Interest- Compounded Monthly '.- · - - - · - -·· --~~-~ - -;""---·----·--------~---·!

!Yearly Interest Rate: i r-~-------------·~·-~-..._-----1 10%\ [Monthly lnterest_~~te: I_________0.83333%[ Month Monthly Payment Interest Total Mar-78 ~· 100.00 - 100.00 Apr-78 100.00 0.83 200.83 May-78: 100.00 1.67 302.51 Jun-78 100.00 2.52 405.03 Jul-78 100.00 3.38 508.40 Aug-78 100.00 4.24 612.64 Sep-78 100.00 5.11 717.75 Oct-78 100.00 5.98 823.73 Nov-78 100.00 6.86 930.59 Dec-78 100.00 7.75 1,038.35 Jan-79 100.00 8.65 1,147.00 Feb-79 100.00 9.56 1,256.56 Mar-79 100.00 10.47 1,367.03 Apr-79 100.00 11.39 1,478.42 May-79 100.00 12.32 1,590.74 Jun-79 100.00 13.26 1,704.00 Jul-79 100.00 14.20 1,818.20 Aug-79 100.00 15.15 1,933.35 Sep-79 100.00 16.11 2,049.46 Oct-79 100.00 17.08 2,166.54 Nov-79 100.00 18.05 2,284.59 Dec-79 100.00 19.04 2,403.63 Jan-80 100.00 20.03 2,523.66 Feb-80 100.00 21.03 2,644.69 Mar-80 100.00 22.04 2,766.73 Apr-80 100.00 23.06 2,889.79 May-80 100.00 24.08 3,013.87 Jun-80 100.00 25.12 3,138.98 Jul-80 100.00 26.16 3,265.14 Aug-80 100.00 27.21 3,392.35 Sep-80 100.00 28.27 3,520.62 Oct-80 100.00 29.34 3,649.96 Nov-80 100.00 i 30.42 i 3,780.38 Dec-80 100.00 31.50 3,911.88 Jan-81 100.00 32.60 4,044.48 Feb-81 100.00 33.70 4,178.18

RMR 000177 Mar-81 100.00 34.82 l 4,313.00 Apr-81 100.00 35.94 4,448.94 May-81 100.00 37.07 4,586.02 Jun-81 100.00 38.22 4,724.23 Jul-81 100.00 39.37: 4,863.60 Aug-81 100.00 40.53 5,004.13 Sep-81 100.00 41.70 5,145.83 Oct-81 100.00 42.88 5,288.71 Nov-81 100.00 44.07 5,432.79 Dec-81 100.00 45.27 5,578.06 Jan-82 100.00 46.48 5,724.54 Feb-82 100.00 47.70 5,872.25 Mar-82 100.00 48.94 6,021.18 Apr-82 100.00 50.18 6,171.36 May-82 100.00 51.43 6,322.79 Jun-82 100.00 52.69 6,475.48 Jul-82 100.00 53.96 6,629.44 Aug-82 100.00 55.25 6,784.69 Sep-82 100.00 56.54 6,941.23 Oct-82 100.00 57.84 7,099.07 Nov-82 100.00 59.16 7,258.23 Dec-82 100.00 60.49 7,418.71 Jan-83 100.00 61.82 7,580.54 Feb-83 100.00 63.17 <i 743.:U:::D Mar-83 100.00 64.53 7,908.24 Apr-83 100.00 65.90 8,074.14 May-83 100.00 67.28' 8,241.42 Jun-83 100.00 68.68 8,410.10 Jul-83 100.00 70.08 8,580.19 Aug-83 100.00 71.50 8,751.69 I Sep-83 100.00 72.93 8,924.62 Oct-83 100.00 74.37 9,098.99 Nov-83 100.00 75.82 I 9,274.82 Dec-83 100.00 77.29 9,452.11 -· Jan-84 100.00 78.77 9,630.87 Feb-84i 100.00 80.26 9,811.13 Mar-84 1 100.00 81.76 9,992.89 Apr-84 100.00 83.27 10,176.16 May-84 100.00 84.80 i 10,360.97 Jun-84 100.00 86.34 I 10,547.31 Jul-84 100.00 87.89 10,735.20 Aug-84 100.00 89.46 10,924.66 Sep-84 100.00 91.04 11,115.70 Oct-84 100.00 92.63 11,308.33 I Nov-84 100.00 94.24 11,502.57 Dec-84 100.00 95.85 11,698.42 Jan-85 100.00 97.49 11,895.91

RMR 000178 Feb-85 100.00 99.13 12,095.04 Mar-85 100.00 100.79 12,295.83 Apr-85 100.00 102.47 12,498.30 May-85 100.00 104.15 12,702.45 Jun-85 100.00 105.85 12,908.31 Jul-85 100.00 107.57 13,115.87 Aug-85 100.00 109.30 13,325.17 Sep-85 100.00 111.04 13,536.22 Oct-85 100.00 112.80 13,749.02 Nov-85 100.00 114.58 13,963.59 Dec-85 100.00 116.36 14,179.96 Jan-86 100.00 118.17 14,398.12 Feb-86 100.00 119.98 14,618.11 Mar-86 100.00 121.82 14,839.93 Apr-86 100.00 123.67 15,063.59 May-86 100.00 125.53 15,289.12 Jun-86 100.00 127.41 15,516.53 Jul-86 100.00 129.30 15,745.83 Aug-86 100.00 131.22 15,977.05 Sep-86 100.00 133.14 16,210.19 Oct-86 100.00 135.08 16,445.28 Nov-86 100.00 137.04 16,682.32 Dec-86 100.00 139.02 16,921.34 Jan-87 100.00 141.01 17,162.35 Feb-87 100.00 143.02 17,405.37 Mar-87 100.00 145.04 I 17,650.42 Apr-87 100.00 147.09 17,897.50 May-87 100.00 149.15 18,146.65 Jun-87 100.00 151.22 18,397.87 Jul-87 100.00 153.32 18,651.19 Aug-87 100.00 155.43 18,906.61 Sep-87 100.00 157.56 19,164.17 Oct-87 100.00 159.70 19,423.87 Nov-87 100.00 161.87 i 19,685.73 Dec-87 100.00 164.05 i 19,949.78 Jan-88 100.00 166.25 20,216.03 Feb--88 100.00 168.47 20,484.50 Mar-88 100.00 170.70 20,755.20 Apr-88 100.00 172.96: 21,028.16 May-88 100.00 i 175.23 21,303.40 Jun-88 100.00 177.53 21,580.93 Jul-88 100.00 179.84 21,860.77 Aug-88 100.00 182.17 22,142.94 Sep-88 100.00 184.52 22,427.46 Oct-88 100.00 186.90 22,714.36 Nov-88 100.00 189.29 l 23,003.65 Dec-88 - 100.00 191.10 I 23,295.34

RMR 000179 Jan-89 100.00 194.13 23,589.47 - Feb-89 100.00 196.58 i 23,886.05 Mar-89 100.00 199.05 24,185.10 Apr-89 100.00 201.54 24,486.64 May-89 100.00 204.06 24,790.70 Jun-89 100.00 206.59 25,097.29 Jul-89 100.00 209.14 25,406.43 Aug-89 100.00 211.72 25,718.15 Sep-89 100.00 214.32 26,032.47 Oct-89 100.00 216.94 26,349.41 Nov-89 100.00 219.58 26,668.98 Dec-89 100.00 222.24 26,991.23 Jan-90 100.00 224.93 27,316.15 Feb-90 100.00 227.63 27,643.79 Mar-90 100.00 230.36 27,974.15 Apr-90 100.00 233.12 28,307.27 May-90 100.00 235.89 28,643.16 Jun-90 100.00 238.69 28,981.86 Jul-90 100.00 241.52 29,323.37 Aug-90 100.00 244.36 i 29,667.73 Sep-90 100.00 247.23 l 30,014.97 Oct-90 100.00 250.12 30,365.09 Nov-90 100.00 253.04 30,718.13 Dec-90 100.00 255.98 31,074.12 Jan-91 100.00 258.95 31,433.07 Feb-91 100.00 261.94 31,795.01 Mar-91 100.00 264.96 32,159.97 Apr-91 100.00 268.00 32,527.97 May-91 100.00 271.07 \ 32,899.03 Jun-91 100.00 274.16 33,273.19 Jul-91 100.00 277.28 33,650.47 Aug-91 100.00 280.42 34,030.89 Sep-91 100.00 283.59 34,414.48 Oct-91 100.00 286.79 34,801.27 Nov-91 100.00 290.01 35,191.28 Dec-91 100.00 293.26 35,584.54 Jan-92 100.00 296.54 35,981.08 Feb-92 100.00 299.84 36,380.92 Mar-92. 100.00 303.17 36,784.09 Apr-92 100.00 306.53 37,190.63 May-92 100.00 309.92 37,600.55 Jun-92 100.00 313.34 38,013.89 Jul-92 100.00 316.78 i 38,430.67 Aug-92 100.00 320.26 j 38,850.93 Sep-92 100.00 323.76 39,274.68 Oct-92 100.00 327.29 39,701.97 Nov-92 100.00 330.85 40,132.82

RMR 000180 r Dec-92 100.00 334.44 ! 40,567.26 Jan-93 100.00 338.06 41,005.32 Feb-93 100.00 341.71 41,447.03 Mar-93 100.00 345.39 41,892.43 Apr-93 100.00 349.10 42,341.53 May-93 100.00 352.85 i 42,794.38 Jun-93 100.00 356.62 43,251.00 Jul-93 100.00 360.42 43,711.42 Aug-93 100.00 364.26 44,175.68 ~- Sep-93 100.00 368.13 44,643.81 Oct-93 100.00 372.03 ! 45,115.85 Nov-93 100.00 375.97 45,591.81 Dec-93 100.00 379.93 46,071.74 Jan-94 - 383.93 46,455.67 Feb-94 - 387.13 i 46,842.80 Mar-94 - 390.36 ! 47,233.16 Apr-94 - 393.61 47,626.77 i I May-94 - 396.89 48,023.66 i Jun-94 - 400.20 i 48,423.86 Jul-94 - 403.53 48,827.39 Aug-94 - 406.89' 49,234.28 Sep-94 - 410.29 49,644.57 Oct-94 - 413.70 50,058.28 Nov-94 - 417.15 50,475.43 Dec-94 - 420.63 50,896.06 Jan-95 1 - 424.13 ! 51,320.19 Feb-95 - 427.67 51,747.86 Mar-95 - 431.23 52,179.09 Apr-95 - 434.83 52,613.92 May-95 - 438.45 53,052.37 Jun-95 - 442.10 53,494.47 Jul-95 - 445.79 53,940.26 Aug-95 - 449.50 54,389.76 Sep-95 - 453.25 54,843.01 Oct-95 - 457.03 55,300.03 Nov-95 - 460.83; 55,760.86 Dec-95 - 464.67 56,225.54 Jan-96 - 468.55 56,694.08 Feb-96 - 472.45 57,166.53 Mar-96 --· - 476.39 57,642.92 Apr-96 - 480.36 58,123.28 May-96 - 484.36 58,607.64 ---· Jun-96 - 488.40 59,096.04 Jul-96 - 492.47 59,588.51 Aug-96 - 496.57 60,085.08 Sep-96 - - 500.71 60,585.78 Oct-96 - 504.88 61,090.67

RMR 000181 Nov-96 - 509.09 61,599.76 !

Dec-96 - 513.33 62,113.09: Jan-97 - 517.61 62,630.70 Feb-97 - 521.92 63,152.62 Mar-97 - 526.27 63,678.89 Apr-97 - 530.66 64,209.55 May-97 - 535.08 64,744.63 Jun-97 - 539.54 \ 65,284.17 Jul-97 - 544.03 ! 65,828.20 Aug-97 - 548.57 66,376.77 Sep-97 - 553.14 I 66,929.91 Oct-97 - 557.75 67,487.66 Nov-97 - 562.40 ! 68,050.05 Dec-97 - s61.08 I 68,617.14 Jan-98 - 571.81 69,188.95 Feb-98 - 576.57 69,765.52 - Mar-98 - 581.38 70,346.90 Apr-98 - 586.22 70,933.13 May-98 - 591.11 71,524.24 Jun-98 - 596.04 72,120.27 Jul-98 - 601.00 72,721.27 Aug-98 - 606.01 73,327.28 Sep-98 - 611.06 73,938.34 Oct-98 - 616.15 74,554.50 Nov-98 - 621.29 75,175.781 Dec-98 - 626.46 75,802.25 Jan-99 - 631.69 I 76,433.93 Feb-99 - - 636.95 77,070.88 !

Mar-99 - 642.26 I 77,713.14 Apr-99 - 647.61 j 78,360.75 May-99 - 653.01 79,013.76 Jun-99 - 658.45 79,672.21 Jul-99 - 663.94 80,336.14 Aug-99 - 669.47 [ 81,005.61 Sep-99 - 675.05 I 81,680.66 Oct-99 - 680.67 82,361.33 Nov-99 - 686.34 83,047.67 Dec-99 - 692.06 83,739.74 Jan-00 1 - 697.83 84,437.57 Feb-00 - 703.65 85,141.21 I Mar-00 - 709.51 85,850.72 Apr-00 - 715.42 86,566.15 May-00 - 721.38 87,287.53 Jun-00 - 121.40 I 88,014.93 Jul-00 - 733.46 88,748.38 Aug-00 - 739.57 89,487.95 Sep-00 - i I 745.73 ! 90,233.69

RMR 000182 Oct-DO - 751.95 90,985.63 Nov-00 - 758.21 i 91,743.85 Dec-00 - 764.53 ! 92,508.38 Jan-01 - 770.90 93,279.28 Feb-01 - - 777.33 !

94,056.61 Mar-01 - 783.81 94,840.42 Apr-01 - 790.34 95,630.75 May-01 - 796.92 i 96,427.68 Jun-01 - 803.56 97,231.24 Jul-01 - 810.26 98,041.50 : Aug-01 - 817.01 98,858.51 Sep-01 - 823.82 99,682.33 Oct-01 - 830.69 100,513.02 Nov-01 - 837.61 101,350.63 Dec-01 - 844.59 102,195.22 Jan-02 - 851.63 ! 103,046.84 Feb-02 - 858.72 103,905.57 Mar-02 - 865.88 104,771.45 Apr-02 - 873.10' 105,644.54 May-02 - 880.37 106,524.91 Jun-02 - 887.71 107,412.62 Jul-02 - 895.11 108,307.73 Aug-02 - 902.56 109,210.29 Sep-02 - 910.09 110,120.38 Oct-02 - 917.,67 111,038.05 i Nov-02 - 925.32 111,963.36 Dec-02 - 933.03 112,896.39 Jan-03 - 940.80 113,837.19 Feb-03 - 948.64 114,785.84 Mar-03 - 956.55 115,742.39 Apr-03 - 964.52 116,706.91 May-03 - 972.56 117,679.46 Jun-03 - 980.66 118,660.13 Jul-03 - 988.83 119,648.96 Aug-03 - 997.07 120,646.03 Sep-03 - 1,005.38 121,651.42 Oct-03 - 1,013.76 122,665.18 Nov-03 - 1,022.21 123,687.39 Dec-03 - 1,030.73 124,718.12 --·- Jan-04 - 1,039.32 125,757.44 Feb-04 - 1,047.98 126,805.41 Mar-04 - 1,056.71 127,862.13 Apr-04 - 1,065.52 128,927.64 May-04 - 1,074.40 ! 130,002.04 Jun-04 - 1,083.35 131,085.39 ~- Jul-04 - 1,092.38 132,177.77 Aug-04 - 1,101.48 133,279.25

\ RMR 000183 ' '•

Sep-04 - 1,110.66 134,389.91 Oct-04! - 1,119.92 135,509.83 Nov-04 - 1,129.25 136,639.08 Dec-04 - 1,138.66 137,777.74 Jan-05 - 1,148.15 : 138,925.88 Feb-OS - 1,157.72 140,083.60 Mar-05 - 1,167.36 141,250.96 Apr-05 - 1,177.09 i 142,428.05 May-05 - 1,186.90 143,614.95 Jun-05 - 1,196.79 144,811.74 Jul-05 - 1,206.76 146,018.51 Aug-05 - 1,216.82 147,235.33 Sep-05 - 1,226.96 148,462.29 : Oct-05 - 1,237.19 149,699.48 Nov-05 - 1,247.50 150,946.97 Dec-05 - 1,257.89 152,204.86 Jan-06 - 1,268.37 153,473.24 Feb-06 - 1,278.94 154,752.18 Mar-06 - 1,289.60 156,041.78 Apr-06 - 1,300.35 157,342.13 May-06 - 1,311.18 158,653.32 Jun-06 - - 1,322.11 159,975.43 Jul-06 - 1,333.13 161,308.56 Aug-06 - 1,344.24 162,652.79 Sep-06 - 1,355.44 164,008.23 Oct-06 - 1,366.74 165,374.97 Nov-06 - 1,378.12 166,753.09 Dec-06 - 1,389.61 168,142.70 Jan-07 - 1,401.19 169,543.89 Feb-07 - 1,412.87 i 170,956.76 Mar-07 - 1,424.64 172,381.40 Apr-07 - 1,436.51 173,817.91 May-07 - 1,448.48 175,266.39 I Jun-07 - 1,460.55 176,726.94 Jul-07. - 1,472.72 178,199.67 Aug-07 - 1,485.00 179,684.67 i Sep-07 - 1,497.37 181,182.04 Oct-07 - 1,509.85 i 182,691.89 Nov-07 - 1,522.43 184,214.32 Dec-07 - 1,535.12 185,749.44 Jan-08 - 1,547.91 187,297.35 Feb-08 - 1,560.81 188,858.16 Mar-08 - 1,573.82 190,431.98 Apr-08 - 1,586.93 I 192,018.92 r May-08 - 1,600.16 193,619.07 ' Jun-08 - 1,613.49 l 195,232.57 Jul-08 - 1,626.94 196,859.50

RMR 000184 Aug-08 - 1,640.50 198,500.00 r-----· Sep-08 - 1,654.17 200,154.17 Oct-08 - 1,667.95 201,822.12 Nov-08 - 1,681.85 203,503.97 Dec-08 - 1,695.87 r 205,199.83 Jan-09 - 1,710.00 206,909.83 Feb-09 - 1,124.25 I 208,634.08 Mar-09 - 1,738.62 i 210,372.70 Apr-09 - 1,753.11 212,125.80 ..______ May-09 - 1,767.72 213,893.52 Jun-09 - 1,782.45 i 215,675.97 Jul-09 - 1,797.30 217,473.27 Aug-09 - 1,812.28 219,285.54 Sep--09 - 1,827.38 221,112.92 Oct-09 - 1,842.61 222,955.53 Nov-09 - 1,857.96 i 224,813.49 Dec-09 - 1,873.45 i 226,686.94 Jan-10 - 1,889.06 228,576.00 Feb-10 - 1,904.80 230,480.80 Mar-10 - 1,920.67 232,401.47 Apr-10 - 1,936.68 234,338.15 May-10 - 1,952.82 i 236,290.97 Jun-10 - 1,969.09 ! 238,260.06 Jul-10 - 1,985.50 240,245.56 Aug-10 - 2,002.05 242,247.60 Sep-10 - 2,018.73 244,266.33 Oct-10 - 2,035.55 246,301.89 Nov-10 - 2,052.52 248,354.40 Dec-10 - 2,069.62 250,424.02 Jan-11 - 2,086.87 252,510.89 Feb-11 - 2,104.26 254,615.15 Mar-11 - 2,121.79 256,736.94 Apr-11 - 2,139.47 258,876.41 May-11 - 2,157.30 261,033.72 Jun-11 - 2,175.28 ! 263,209.00 Jul-11 - 2,193.41 . 265,402.41 Aug-11 - 2,211.69 267,614.09 Sep--11 - 2,230.12 269,844.21 Oct-11 - 2,248.70 272,092.91 Nov-11 - 2,267.44 274,360.35 Dec-11 - 2,286.34 276,646.69 Jan-12 - 2,305.39 278,952.08 Feb-12 - 2,324.60 281,276.68 Mar-12 - 2,343.97 283,620.65 Apr-12 - 2,363.51 285,984.16 May-12 2,383.20 288,367.36 Jun-12 - 2,403.06 290,770.42

RMR 000185 i ,

Ju!-12 - 2,423.09 293,193.51 Aug-12 - 2,443.28 295,636.79 Sep-12 - 2,463.64' 298,100.43 Oct-12 - 2,484.17 300,584.60 Nov-12 - 2,504.87 303,089.47 Dec-12 - 2,525.75 305,615.21 Jan-13 - 2,546.79 308,162.01 Feb-13 - 2,568.02 310,730.02 Mar-13 - 2,589.42 313,319.44 Apr-13 - 2,611.00 315,930.44 May-13 - 2,632.75 318,563.19 Jun-13 - 2,654.69 321,217.88 Jul-13 - 2,676.82 323,894.70 Aug-13 - 2,699.12 326,593.82 Sep-13 - 2,721.62 329,315.44

RMR 000186 I s u s A N TEXAS COMPTROLLER of PUB LI C ACCOUNTS c 0 M B s P.0 . Sox 13528 • AUSTIN . TX 7871 1·3528 ....-::-.... ~\\& <.·, ~ I /'' Ii .J- ~~.,,- ~ . >-S~.- ';~r•.x ----=--- November 2 1, 2013

Mr. Tim Robinson Attorney at Law 6204 Sherbert Drive North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 RE: Steven Phillips Wrongful Imprisonment Child Support Claim - Application to Cure Dear Mr. Robinson: The Comptroller has completed the review of the application to cure that you submitted on behalf of your client, Mr. Steven Phillips. The application to cure was submitted on October 11, 2013, pursuant to Section 103.051(d) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.§§ 103.001-.154 ("the Tim Cole Act"). After careful consideration of the application to cure, the supporting documentation including the Order Registering Judgment under UIFSA and on Arrears issued by the 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County on June 28, 2013 and the schedule of child support arrearages, and contemplation of the tenns and provisions of the Tim Cole Act, the Comptroller stands by the determination conveyed in our letter to Mr. Phillips dated September 10, 2013.

The Tim Cole Act gives the Comptroller the duty and the concomitant discretion to determine the amount of compensation owed to the applicant for time spent wrongfully imprisoned. 2 Compensation includes "child support payments owed by the person on whose imprisonment the claim is based that became due and interesl on child support arrearages lhat accrued during the time served in prison but were not paid."3 The Comptroller determined that Mr. Phillips is entitled to child support compensation in the total amount of $18,593.23 payable to Ms. Macumber. This sum represents the amount of child support arrearages and interest that accrued during Mr. Phillips's time spent in prison from June 4, 1982 to October 23, 1996 and again from May 14. 1997 to December28, 2007. The amount of child support arrearages and interest lhat accrued is based on the Decree of Divorce, signed on February 7, 1978, in Boone County, Arkansas. The Decree of Divorce ordered Mr. ~o - d support to Ms. Macumber for the support of their child- - who was born on o determine the amount owed Please note that the Order Registering Judgment does not address the amount payable under the Tim Cole Act because it is directed to the total amount of child support allegedly owed by Mr. Phillips to Ms. Macumber.

See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code§ I 03.05 l(b).

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § l03.052(aX2).

See id.

RMR 000187 Mr. Tim Robinson November21, 2013 Page2 under Section 103.052(a)(2) of the Tim Cole Act, the Comptroller applied the relevant Arkansas laws that govern child support obligations, arrearages, and interest. 5 To calculate the amount of child support arrearages and interest that accrned, the Comptroller first determined that: (1) Mr. Phillips'. obli ation to pay current child support payments terminated bg operation of law upon the date should have graduated from high school, May of 1994; (2) none of Mr. Phillips s c i support payments that became due prior to March 7, l 989 accrued interest, and all of Mr. Phillips's child support payments that became due after March 7, 1989 accrued interest at the statutory rate of ten percent (10%) per annum; 7 (3) the ten percent (10%) interest rate in this case should be calculated as simple inter~rest on child support arrearages stopped accruing when - turned 23 on- Based upon these principles and applicable law, the Comptroller determined that Mr. Phillips was entitled to child support compensation in the total amount of $18,593.23 payable to Ms. Macumber. Therefore, on September 11, 2013, the Comptroller issued a warrant for $18,593.23 to the Texas state disbursement unit, as required by Section 103 .052(c) of the Tim Cole Act, to be distributed to Ms. Macumber. The amount of $18,593.23 in past due child support and interest is the proper amount of child support that was calculated in accordance with Arkansas law, and is the only amoW1t that the Comptroller is statutorily authorized to pay. Any other amounts ordered to be paid by Mr. Phillips to Ms. Macumber are his obligation to pay or dispute.

Rather than the $ 1.8,593.23 in child support arrearages and interest determined to be payable w1der Section l03.052(a)(2) of the Tim Cole Act, Mr. Phillips's application to cure seeks from the Comptroller child support arrearages and interest totaling over $304,739.57. This $304,739.57 amoW1t appears to be determined based on a chart of alleged child support arrearages and interest submitted by Ms. Macumber to the Bexar County District Court to procure an "Order Registering Judgment under UIFSA on Arrears," signed on June 28, 2013 in Cause No. 2013-CI-08709 in the 438th Judicial District Court of Bexar County. The chart is labeled "Child Support Paymnets [sic] Monthly Principal and Interest - Compounded Monthly."

The calculation in this chart is incorrect because: ( 1) it compounds the interest when a simple interest rate is required; (2) it begins interest accrual prior to March 7, 1989, the effective date of Act 383 of Arkansas, 1989 Regular Session, which authorized the accrual of interest on child support arre~t continues to calculate interest accruals beyond birthday on - in contravention of Ark. Code. Ann.§ 9-14-236.

s See Tex. Fam. Code § 159.604.

See Ark. Code. Ann.§ 9-14-327; Ward v. Doss, '.36 1 Ark.153, Fn. l (2005); Mixon v. Mixon, 65 Ark. App. 240 ( 1999); James v. James, 52 Ark. App. 29 ( l 996).

See Ark. Act 383 of 1989, Regular Session; Ark. Code. Ann. § l 6-65-1 14; Chism v. Phelps, 228 Ark. 936. 939 ( 1958).

See First Nat'/ Bank in Mena v. Nowlin, 509 F.2d 872, 875-76 (81h Cir. 1975); see also In re SW Boston Norel Venture, LLC, 479 B.R. 2 10, 224-25 (B.A.P. I" Cir. 2012); RFF Family P'ship. LP v. Link Dev., LLC. 2013 WL 450150, *8 (D.Mass. 2013); Grandoe Corp. v. Gander Mountain Co., 2013 WL 3353927, *23 (D. Minn. 2013): Barbosa v. Jastrzab, 2010 WL 2666947, *4-5 (N.D.N.Y. 2010): Imperial Casualty and hulemnity Co.. v. Bellini, 947 A.2d 886, 894-95 (R.I. 2008); Edwards v. Campbell, 369 S.C. 572, 577-79 (2006).

See Ark. Code. Ann.§ 9-14-236.

RMR000188 Mr. Tim Robinson November 21, 2013 Page 3 Consequently, the Comptroller is unable to approve Mr. Phillips's application to cure, and stands by the determination conveyed in our letter to Mr. Phillips dated September 10, 2013. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Comptroller's Judiciary Section by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 1-800-531-5441, extension 6-6100.

Leonard Higgins Comptroller's Judiciary Section

RMR 000189 GLENN REGAR TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

January 7, 2015

Dear Mr. Phillips: In 2009, the Comptroller approved your application for wrongful imprisonment compensation filed under Chapter 103 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code ("the Tim Cole Act"). In addition to compensation for time spent wrongfully imprisoned, the Tim Cole Act also provides compensation to wrongfully imprisoned individuals for child support payments owed by the person on whose imprisonment the claim is based that became due and interest on child support arrearages that accrued during the time served in prison but were not paid. As a part of your 2009 application, you sought compensation for child support owed to Ms. Cheryl Macumber.

In 2009, the Comptroller was unable to satisfy your claim for Ms. Macumber' s child support because the Comptroller did not have sufficient information to determine the amount owed. In addition, Section 103.052(c) requires that child support payments under the Tim Cole Act be made through the state disbursement unit, and the Arkansas state disbursement unit was unwilling to accept Ms. Macumber's payment because they had no records of child support owed. In 2013, in light of new information and the registration of the child support order in Texas, which permits the Texas state disbursement unit to distribute the payment to Ms. Macumber, the Comptroller determined that $18,593.23 was payable under Section 103.052(a)(2) of the Tim Cole Act to Ms. Macumber. This payment was paid on your behalf in a lump-sum payment to the Texas state disbursement unit for distribution to Ms. Macumber.

In determining the $18,593.23 payment amount, the Comptroller included a calculation of simple interest of 10% per annum on all payments that became due after March 7, 1989, based on Arkansas Code section 9-14-233, which became effective on March 7, 1989 and provides that all child support that becomes due and remains unpaid shall accrue 10% interest per annum. Now, after a subsequent review of the relevant law, the Comptroller has determined that an additional payment of interest is appropriate.

Arkansas common law and constitution provide for the recovery of 6% simple interest on payments that became due between June 4, 1982 and December 31, 1987, and Arkansas Code section 9-12-309(c), which became effective at midnight December 31, 1987, provides for the recovery of 10% simple interest on payments that became due between January 1, 1988 and January l, 1999. As a result, the Comptroller has determined that a total of $25,125.69 is payable under Section 103.052(a)(2) of the Tim Cole Act to Ms.

Comptrol ler. Texas.Gov Mr. Steven C . Phillips January 7, 2015 Page Two Macumber. The attached spreadsheet details the calculation of this amount. Because the Comptroller has already paid $18,593.23, an additional payment of $6,532.46 has been made, for a total payment of $25,125.69.

The additional payment of $6,532.46 was paid on your behalf in a lump-sum payment to the Texas state disbursement unit for distribution to Ms. Macumber. Please be advised that the new total of $25,125.69 in past due child support and interest (which includes all interest that is due) is the proper amount of child support that has been calculated in accordance with appropriate law, and is the only amount that the Comptroller is statutorily authorized to pay. Any other amounts ordered to be paid by you to Ms. Macumber are your obligation to pay or dispute.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the Comptroller's Judiciary Section by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at 1-800-531-5441, extension 6-6100.

Leonard Higgins Comptroller's Judiciary Section cc: Matthew F. Wymer

Comptrol ler.Texas.Gov RMR 00019 1 Phillips ‐ Macumber ‐ Child Support Calculation

monthly EOM EOM EOM EOM support principal 10% int. 6% int. arrears total date obligation payment balance balance balance NOTES: 06/04/82 EOM = "end of month" 06/14/82 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 Payment Due Date = 14th of month 07/14/82 $100.00 $200.00 $0.00 08/14/82 $100.00 $300.00 $0.00 $0.50 $300.50 Unless otherwise indicated, 09/14/82 $100.00 $400.00 $0.00 $1.50 $401.50 EOM interest entry for each line 10/14/82 $100.00 $500.00 $0.00 $3.00 $503.00 represents interest accruals from 11/14/82 $100.00 $600.00 $0.00 $5.00 $605.00 15th of previous month through 12/14/82 $100.00 $700.00 $0.00 $7.50 $707.50 date in first column.

01/14/83 $100.00 $800.00 $0.00 $10.50 $810.50 02/14/83 $100.00 $900.00 $0.00 $14.00 $914.00 03/14/83 $100.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $18.00 $1,018.00 04/14/83 $100.00 $1,100.00 $0.00 $22.50 $1,122.50 05/14/83 $100.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 $27.50 $1,227.50 06/14/83 $100.00 $1,300.00 $0.00 $33.00 $1,333.00 07/14/83 $100.00 $1,400.00 $0.00 $39.00 $1,439.00 08/14/83 $100.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $45.50 $1,545.50 09/14/83 $100.00 $1,600.00 $0.00 $52.50 $1,652.50 10/14/83 $100.00 $1,700.00 $0.00 $60.00 $1,760.00 11/14/83 $100.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 $68.00 $1,868.00 12/14/83 $100.00 $1,900.00 $0.00 $76.50 $1,976.50 01/14/84 $100.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $85.50 $2,085.50 02/14/84 $100.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 $95.00 $2,195.00 03/14/84 $100.00 $2,200.00 $0.00 $105.00 $2,305.00 04/14/84 $100.00 $2,300.00 $0.00 $115.50 $2,415.50 05/14/84 $100.00 $2,400.00 $0.00 $126.50 $2,526.50 06/14/84 $100.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $138.00 $2,638.00 07/14/84 $100.00 $2,600.00 $0.00 $150.00 $2,750.00 08/14/84 $100.00 $2,700.00 $0.00 $162.50 $2,862.50 09/14/84 $100.00 $2,800.00 $0.00 $175.50 $2,975.50 10/14/84 $100.00 $2,900.00 $0.00 $189.00 $3,089.00 11/14/84 $100.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $203.00 $3,203.00 12/14/84 $100.00 $3,100.00 $0.00 $217.50 $3,317.50 01/14/85 $100.00 $3,200.00 $0.00 $232.50 $3,432.50 02/14/85 $100.00 $3,300.00 $0.00 $248.00 $3,548.00 03/14/85 $100.00 $3,400.00 $0.00 $264.00 $3,664.00 04/14/85 $100.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 $280.50 $3,780.50 05/14/85 $100.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 $297.50 $3,897.50 06/14/85 $100.00 $3,700.00 $0.00 $315.00 $4,015.00 07/14/85 $100.00 $3,800.00 $0.00 $333.00 $4,133.00 08/14/85 $100.00 $3,900.00 $0.00 $351.50 $4,251.50 09/14/85 $100.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 $370.50 $4,370.50 10/14/85 $100.00 $4,100.00 $0.00 $390.00 $4,490.00 11/14/85 $100.00 $4,200.00 $0.00 $410.00 $4,610.00 12/14/85 $100.00 $4,300.00 $0.00 $430.50 $4,730.50 01/14/86 $100.00 $4,400.00 $0.00 $451.50 $4,851.50 02/14/86 $100.00 $4,500.00 $0.00 $473.00 $4,973.00 03/14/86 $100.00 $4,600.00 $0.00 $495.00 $5,095.00 04/14/86 $100.00 $4,700.00 $0.00 $517.50 $5,217.50 05/14/86 $100.00 $4,800.00 $0.00 $540.50 $5,340.50 06/14/86 $100.00 $4,900.00 $0.00 $564.00 $5,464.00 07/14/86 $100.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $588.00 $5,588.00 08/14/86 $100.00 $5,100.00 $0.00 $612.50 $5,712.50 09/14/86 $100.00 $5,200.00 $0.00 $637.50 $5,837.50 10/14/86 $100.00 $5,300.00 $0.00 $663.00 $5,963.00 11/14/86 $100.00 $5,400.00 $0.00 $689.00 $6,089.00 12/14/86 $100.00 $5,500.00 $0.00 $715.50 $6,215.50

Page 1 RMR 000192 Phillips ‐ Macumber ‐ Child Support Calculation

01/14/87 $100.00 $5,600.00 $0.00 $742.50 $6,342.50 02/14/87 $100.00 $5,700.00 $0.00 $770.00 $6,470.00 03/14/87 $100.00 $5,800.00 $0.00 $798.00 $6,598.00 04/14/87 $100.00 $5,900.00 $0.00 $826.50 $6,726.50 05/14/87 $100.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 $855.50 $6,855.50 06/14/87 $100.00 $6,100.00 $0.00 $885.00 $6,985.00 07/14/87 $100.00 $6,200.00 $0.00 $915.00 $7,115.00 08/14/87 $100.00 $6,300.00 $0.00 $945.50 $7,245.50 09/14/87 $100.00 $6,400.00 $0.00 $976.50 $7,376.50 10/14/87 $100.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 $1,008.00 $7,508.00 11/14/87 $100.00 $6,600.00 $0.00 $1,040.00 $7,640.00 12/14/87 $100.00 $6,700.00 $0.00 $1,072.50 $7,772.50 01/14/88 $100.00 $6,800.00 $0.00 $1,105.50 $7,905.50 Ark. Code § 9‐12‐309 takes effect 02/14/88 $100.00 $6,900.00 $0.83 $1,138.50 $8,039.33 03/14/88 $100.00 $7,000.00 $2.50 $1,171.50 $8,174.00 04/14/88 $100.00 $7,100.00 $5.00 $1,204.50 $8,309.50 05/14/88 $100.00 $7,200.00 $8.33 $1,237.50 $8,445.83 06/14/88 $100.00 $7,300.00 $12.50 $1,270.50 $8,583.00 07/14/88 $100.00 $7,400.00 $17.50 $1,303.50 $8,721.00 08/14/88 $100.00 $7,500.00 $23.33 $1,336.50 $8,859.83 09/14/88 $100.00 $7,600.00 $30.00 $1,369.50 $8,999.50 10/14/88 $100.00 $7,700.00 $37.50 $1,402.50 $9,140.00 11/14/88 $100.00 $7,800.00 $45.83 $1,435.50 $9,281.33 12/14/88 $100.00 $7,900.00 $55.00 $1,468.50 $9,423.50 01/14/89 $100.00 $8,000.00 $65.00 $1,501.50 $9,566.50 02/14/89 $100.00 $8,100.00 $75.83 $1,534.50 $9,710.33 03/14/89 $100.00 $8,200.00 $11.67 $1,567.50 $9,779.17 04/14/89 $100.00 $8,300.00 $24.17 $1,600.50 $9,924.67 05/14/89 $100.00 $8,400.00 $37.50 $1,633.50 $10,071.00 06/14/89 $100.00 $8,500.00 $51.67 $1,666.50 $10,218.17 07/14/89 $100.00 $8,600.00 $66.67 $1,699.50 $10,366.17 08/14/89 $100.00 $8,700.00 $82.50 $1,732.50 $10,515.00 09/14/89 $100.00 $8,800.00 $99.17 $1,765.50 $10,664.67 10/14/89 $100.00 $8,900.00 $116.67 $1,798.50 $10,815.17 11/14/89 $100.00 $9,000.00 $135.00 $1,831.50 $10,966.50 12/14/89 $100.00 $9,100.00 $154.17 $1,864.50 $11,118.67 01/14/90 $100.00 $9,200.00 $174.17 $1,897.50 $11,271.67 02/14/90 $100.00 $9,300.00 $195.00 $1,930.50 $11,425.50 03/14/90 $100.00 $9,400.00 $216.67 $1,963.50 $11,580.17 04/14/90 $100.00 $9,500.00 $239.17 $1,996.50 $11,735.67 05/14/90 $100.00 $9,600.00 $262.50 $2,029.50 $11,892.00 06/14/90 $100.00 $9,700.00 $286.67 $2,062.50 $12,049.17 07/14/90 $100.00 $9,800.00 $311.67 $2,095.50 $12,207.17 08/14/90 $100.00 $9,900.00 $337.50 $2,128.50 $12,366.00 09/14/90 $100.00 $10,000.00 $364.17 $2,161.50 $12,525.67 10/14/90 $100.00 $10,100.00 $391.67 $2,194.50 $12,686.17 11/14/90 $100.00 $10,200.00 $420.00 $2,227.50 $12,847.50 12/14/90 $100.00 $10,300.00 $449.17 $2,260.50 $13,009.67 01/14/91 $100.00 $10,400.00 $479.17 $2,293.50 $13,172.67 02/14/91 $100.00 $10,500.00 $510.00 $2,326.50 $13,336.50 03/14/91 $100.00 $10,600.00 $541.67 $2,359.50 $13,501.17 04/14/91 $100.00 $10,700.00 $574.17 $2,392.50 $13,666.67 05/14/91 $100.00 $10,800.00 $607.50 $2,425.50 $13,833.00 06/14/91 $100.00 $10,900.00 $641.67 $2,458.50 $14,000.17 07/14/91 $100.00 $11,000.00 $676.67 $2,491.50 $14,168.17 08/14/91 $100.00 $11,100.00 $712.50 $2,524.50 $14,337.00 09/14/91 $100.00 $11,200.00 $749.17 $2,557.50 $14,506.67 10/14/91 $100.00 $11,300.00 $786.67 $2,590.50 $14,677.17 11/14/91 $100.00 $11,400.00 $825.00 $2,623.50 $14,848.50 12/14/91 $100.00 $11,500.00 $864.17 $2,656.50 $15,020.67

Page 2 RMR 000193 Phillips ‐ Macumber ‐ Child Support Calculation

01/14/92 $100.00 $11,600.00 $904.17 $2,689.50 $15,193.67 02/14/92 $100.00 $11,700.00 $945.00 $2,722.50 $15,367.50 03/14/92 $100.00 $11,800.00 $986.67 $2,755.50 $15,542.17 04/14/92 $100.00 $11,900.00 $1,029.17 $2,788.50 $15,717.67 05/14/92 $100.00 $12,000.00 $1,072.50 $2,821.50 $15,894.00 06/14/92 $100.00 $12,100.00 $1,116.67 $2,854.50 $16,071.17 07/14/92 $100.00 $12,200.00 $1,161.67 $2,887.50 $16,249.17 08/14/92 $100.00 $12,300.00 $1,207.50 $2,920.50 $16,428.00 09/14/92 $100.00 $12,400.00 $1,254.17 $2,953.50 $16,607.67 10/14/92 $100.00 $12,500.00 $1,301.67 $2,986.50 $16,788.17 11/14/92 $100.00 $12,600.00 $1,350.00 $3,019.50 $16,969.50 12/14/92 $100.00 $12,700.00 $1,399.17 $3,052.50 $17,151.67 01/14/93 $100.00 $12,800.00 $1,449.17 $3,085.50 $17,334.67 02/14/93 $100.00 $12,900.00 $1,500.00 $3,118.50 $17,518.50 03/14/93 $100.00 $13,000.00 $1,551.67 $3,151.50 $17,703.17 04/14/93 $100.00 $13,100.00 $1,604.17 $3,184.50 $17,888.67 05/14/93 $100.00 $13,200.00 $1,657.50 $3,217.50 $18,075.00 06/14/93 $100.00 $13,300.00 $1,711.67 $3,250.50 $18,262.17 07/14/93 $100.00 $13,400.00 $1,766.67 $3,283.50 $18,450.17 08/14/93 $100.00 $13,500.00 $1,822.50 $3,316.50 $18,639.00 09/14/93 $100.00 $13,600.00 $1,879.17 $3,349.50 $18,828.67 10/14/93 $100.00 $13,700.00 $1,936.67 $3,382.50 $19,019.17 11/14/93 $100.00 $13,800.00 $1,995.00 $3,415.50 $19,210.50 12/14/93 $100.00 $13,900.00 $2,054.17 $3,448.50 $19,402.67 01/14/94 $100.00 $14,000.00 $2,114.17 $3,481.50 $19,595.67 02/14/94 $100.00 $14,100.00 $2,175.00 $3,514.50 $19,789.50 03/14/94 $100.00 $14,200.00 $2,236.67 $3,547.50 $19,984.17 04/14/94 $100.00 $14,300.00 $2,299.17 $3,580.50 $20,179.67 05/14/94 $100.00 $14,400.00 $2,362.50 $3,613.50 $20,376.00 H.S. Graduation 06/14/94 $14,400.00 $2,426.67 $3,646.50 $20,473.17 07/14/94 $14,400.00 $2,490.83 $3,679.50 $20,570.33 08/14/94 $14,400.00 $2,555.00 $3,712.50 $20,667.50 09/14/94 $14,400.00 $2,619.17 $3,745.50 $20,764.67 10/14/94 $14,400.00 $2,683.33 $3,778.50 $20,861.83 11/14/94 $14,400.00 $2,747.50 $3,811.50 $20,959.00 12/14/94 $14,400.00 $2,811.67 $3,844.50 $21,056.17 01/14/95 $14,400.00 $2,875.83 $3,877.50 $21,153.33 02/14/95 $14,400.00 $2,940.00 $3,910.50 $21,250.50 03/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,004.17 $3,943.50 $21,347.67 04/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,068.33 $3,976.50 $21,444.83 05/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,132.50 $4,009.50 $21,542.00 06/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,196.67 $4,042.50 $21,639.17 07/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,260.83 $4,075.50 $21,736.33 08/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,325.00 $4,108.50 $21,833.50 09/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,389.17 $4,141.50 $21,930.67 10/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,453.33 $4,174.50 $22,027.83 11/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,517.50 $4,207.50 $22,125.00 12/14/95 $14,400.00 $3,581.67 $4,240.50 $22,222.17 01/14/96 $14,400.00 $3,645.83 $4,273.50 $22,319.33 02/14/96 $14,400.00 $3,710.00 $4,306.50 $22,416.50 03/14/96 $14,400.00 $3,774.17 $4,339.50 $22,513.67 04/14/96 $14,400.00 $3,838.33 $4,372.50 $22,610.83 05/14/96 $14,400.00 $3,902.50 $4,405.50 $22,708.00 06/14/96 $14,400.00 $3,966.67 $4,438.50 $22,805.17 07/14/96 $14,400.00 $4,030.83 $4,471.50 $22,902.33 08/14/96 $14,400.00 $4,095.00 $4,504.50 $22,999.50 09/14/96 $14,400.00 $4,159.17 $4,537.50 $23,096.67 10/14/96 $14,400.00 $4,223.33 $4,570.50 $23,193.83 5/96 ‐10/23/96 $4,241.96 $4,580.08 $23,222.04 interest for 9 days (10/15 to 10/23) RELEASED ON PAROLE ON 23RD

Page 3 RMR 000194 Phillips ‐ Macumber ‐ Child Support Calculation

4/96 ‐ 11/14/96 $14,400.00 $45.54 $23.42 $68.96 interest for 22 days (10/24 to 11/14) 12/14/96 $14,400.00 $109.70 $56.42 $166.12 No amounts between 10/23/96 01/14/97 $14,400.00 $173.87 $89.42 $263.29 and 5/13/97 count towards CPA total.

02/14/97 $14,400.00 $238.04 $122.42 $360.46 2 payments of $110 apply to this time.

03/14/97 $14,400.00 $302.20 $155.42 $457.62 3/xx/1997 $110.00 $14,400.00 $192.20 During this period out of prison, 04/14/97 $14,400.00 $256.37 $188.42 $444.79 Phillips owes $427.69.

4/xx/97 $110.00 $14,400.00 $146.37 05/13/97 $14,400.00 $208.40 $219.29 $427.69 interest for 29 days TAKEN INTO CUSTODY ON 14TH 05/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,244.10 $4,581.15 $23,225.25 interest for 1 day (5/14) 06/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,306.13 $4,614.15 $23,320.27 07/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,370.30 $4,647.15 $23,417.44 08/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,434.46 $4,680.15 $23,514.61 09/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,498.63 $4,713.15 $23,611.77 10/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,562.80 $4,746.15 $23,708.94 11/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,626.96 $4,779.15 $23,806.11 12/14/97 $14,400.00 $4,691.13 $4,812.15 $23,903.27 01/14/98 $14,400.00 $4,755.30 $4,845.15 $24,000.44 02/14/98 $14,400.00 $4,819.46 $4,878.15 $24,097.61 03/14/98 $14,400.00 $4,883.63 $4,911.15 $24,194.77 04/14/98 $14,400.00 $4,947.80 $4,944.15 $24,291.94 05/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,011.96 $4,977.15 $24,389.11 06/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,076.13 $5,010.15 $24,486.27 07/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,140.30 $5,043.15 $24,583.44 08/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,204.46 $5,076.15 $24,680.61 09/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,268.63 $5,109.15 $24,777.77 10/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,332.80 $5,142.15 $24,874.94 11/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,396.96 $5,175.15 $24,972.11 12/14/98 $14,400.00 $5,461.13 $5,208.15 $25,069.27 $14,400.00 $5,498.39 $5,227.31 $25,125.69 interest accrual for 18 days TOTAL Tim Cole Act Amount Owed

Page 4 RMR 000195 'Cfiexae '1Iontptro1ur of 'ublic J\ccounh~ ~~NO.

010615 0001 902 tl"50157 7>0000C677Jt 001 PAVDll MECY : SU-465-4561 a..TRDU.ER - STATE FUCM. 132252074 PAY ...nr.46 TO TX STATE DISPURSatENT UNIT NCP•STEVEJI CHARLES PHILLIPS ID CP• CHERYL MACUMBER PO IOX 659417 SAN ANTONIO, TX 71265-9417 VOID AFTH OIVJl/2017

- - - - - - - • - • •• - • .... r • • • • • • - • ..-•--• • • • • • - • - - • • • .-- •• • • •

...

TX SC11e Disbursement Unit NCP:~ Charles Phillips ~ PO Box 659417 San Amooio, Texas 78265-9417

RMR000196