/7fmf5 ORIGINAL Tki'AL hh. 6-l-QC-IA"3Ql46o f\pfxL> Cftuf»t NO. (?3-|3-002^W-Og

RECEIVED IN MAY 14 2015 MS. Abel Acosta, Clerk -(Re StaVs Of T^iVS Ke^m. 4V\e: \WA h^V^cix Loueir oP totals,

^Vi-Vloas 4^e_ ^iSdjfcJE-^aMu Eki/le:^

"TKoMfts ftVKia<to"a FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MAY 14 2015 Abel Acosta, Clerk ES ftklA (Lau.klSE.1 IWe. -QdoulllviA (Lfl^-lii-uW ft Lts-V cP fill , iacV A-o 4A^e 4cja\ C_&o.<l4-:s GnIA-1 iuA^lahm+

5&OTMD.ooi8G>owq \CT\ /\L LAcuikfcSftS s-V.

Cronos eJ foiski c+ PV-ttiejaGu^ 0-fftfcE 6VSE focp IIS S.fck :H8£oCI<&3). . 1 TCu fee. Les\ic &em£- (koo<\uAa.3lO s.U^A BostJtottz Ski <lRW& Vk. UasV\\ ,^-W, %{p us •UflCWitiL'i

i I taeu - \u „0eit\ heouuENtt ^IWeile &££ /vlo Ofcivl Re UGjOTS mej cJIeJ*. tsEE ftpp eituii x. [W(\l' SkkMEKlV oP CjAS>E- "iSst- ftp^E.I.Wu V/vlfVS fmA,i L,4e^ An^ tdfSUltTtd AieE &iP^f QeueI A^d> 4Vc juucxj ^uoJk4V\e J TKe kC^eUAkbW -KieJ) A-^eIl* AbQE&l frJLv ~ 'T5\EL AGfcE.ll Art*'* (LocAkSlEl JfitacA) fyA, f\adEk %e Cr^e^ m PtaaeftU ft^Wel 4^e £jd^l~

(k&EilUUb-k , Coafii CWi0klAE^ &5uMSeK feA^P UEEb 4A\E t£cicJ\£jEjae^ o£ (W«teC- Us.

U.S., ku ^E^EMt-ir0^iLA pe^-P^SSteaAi klikl- UftfiOAl Jc£ AV\E &E(LbW AkU/ clEtUoiXsWtiLr 4Wvt 4We££_ rA££_ fto ft&apfcWE ^e^uO^k <ta bi fvVU^u^%E -R&al Cou^ju^uE/a4©P^uu;^o/^ ( i V bu TAMu&eju 33^0 ist AWe (LdqeI oP R&&ea\s /VWejuEi/ -Ike XaiJAMdKoNL. CAlkud£ofiL\/5 SfpftE, Cf\Jo4 ftAfrsU&stt Mo. 03-lS-Ob"7^foCft.NCT^.flpp p,*TV\E££_ W^S l\io fcA\kE£. MoViO*A5 6k qtf sl\ 0^5 (kouKlAs AoE feVi EUi *•••• • -i .1 in i -• • -* i • ii — "•

SEEuW Wi4k kd<£ EV/ick^V, USeA <>&ECLuIa- Vihea AnIcL (LkAeA cAfciU S£A ^<E ft^ellftid/t -Vo

-\-2Jfll C-Z>CaMSE\ £(V.IeA +d oLlEti +o (WlLl oP ^ftfi>- seEerWzjs cVv-AeAcWe-jNte 4Wucitah> af 4v^. A^pe- rVa lESAfcAi/^5 wk\ \e dw +eJ<\\.

5) df\allEKiAE' C>P 4jj\E _£U<AemV ~Im A\\fi\ ll VidAS AivL EX^Et?Wli+^E55 4k<4 4es4vPvE^.-Vo ^^eUa^ Nb+ ^EiKfcj M" AW" loCJvYtotd/ \fdJkEfiE-VkEMufL-- ^AeIL kOkdevL J\e&UiaEAJT "TKe AVsl ftkaujaE/aA U hftSEJt ou A\ve ^se-

iv/l UvE Uikw^s \ UkE*±M VkE kfcotSEc^bE's UiAk- MIA Wfc, VxikEfcEAkoUlV . \JkEU TkI -Vftti- KeUVe P&£SEECx4oe) QSeJP 4-IUES fcFK£££L MdiOELi fc |^ku ^u\es o9 E^ieatE-kuVE^oQ T&seJ> otsi 4kis tufe 4kE Cj^WiUu ov «xe T\lso >W\E N|olECx,fee ^E£Lu\B?koa Avki <!Wfc- dAEeizja nP 4¥>e A^Ei\AiaV4o &&c*j£ Wk Lz>i4Aut)t D$EE fekdtt fcfcifeS OpEUViEl4t£.-LLi\E S^ftiS* tASE cWi^/dS O^E&- IE (xslir /W &a*ia*.l, a 10 S,US A, SOS CU (W IcXAlV^IA 300kV, .

RppEAiAr*-

T^ Akxi oP TisfleKLckviE ftss\<A^M^EL CyP (jDeuAr £*.\* Tm 4WiS UVSE .$>E_ AkkE\Wl4'$> HAuk&E\ 4fc\l bEiova, 4kE S^AiddiACi; IfVi <W\k\-i 0) 4kE Course! dfc<L>&Lufc\<E ftkVti oWiEC-Uftkil; ft fctiLsE -U 4ft\K U\Wv We As^Wt; Akid> tufcttdbUjM/ J&M*1M kk&A> iki sWwJkk uil4k +o kir-te£T£6 (Wg /A) CotfoF CeLLtAkAte L&ms* S+A+/V3 it iJfvw* fS^eeitea AHj^teAL .evihe*fc£- LSee ktk Vs. UiSSOcaCj. 13k suL2if8l&oo^:

tCsx A5U\s ae^UvEjvLp 4Ke \s A%xe use or NzSZjulVJeA AEs4trdD(\lq^ OUEk A%nE AEsHtuDfdU ck €«&£ U'rkfcSS.(3B^VE<kfi^\ Ut£ Evixt^lWZS ejuic no33; Ce^tk ho\1 ;iw, ^^W Vs. See ft^Eidd,^ -

A Wke&£fi>££ / l*£MlS£ toM^JIeQjeA , H Ee^E^- k,\lq PeAa 4W\4iVCvS C^«uc4 ftiikjE^ Ri^ to(L- exrf^^S Xn^^^A £o/4AT»<vk0KU tocj UtANitviOa 4k\S ft+\+\oU Wk UlS(^Ei\hN^e^^^ViE\AA.-J BCECxjvki QkV Ufta Hi SO IS', W^«rrE=L T.TkouAS ftkijO^KUkE£EkM CEfcJvC* 4k*l Dtd 4k\s 4Ke IU^n c^u c£ UAvV, aoiQi, mi oei- fiiMAl AnuL ft (W of Ate- 4*£q6ii4a Mfta(d 4% T^e.Couei (^(LjeJkAvaal oP (\wseM <S^

TRouAS (VWCtiaSOlX

H1 * *

CAUSE NO. 03-13-00746-CR THOMAS ATKINSON, § in THE 3RO COURT Appellant. § § V- § OF APPEALS AT § THE STATE OF TEXAS, § Appellee. § AUSTIN, TEXAS MOTION TO PROCEED, IN PRO-SE STATUS, AND REQUEST FOR A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO FILE HIS APPELLANT'S BRIEF

COMES NOW, Thomas Atkinson, #1886762, Appellant in the above-styled and numbered cause, and files this motion to proceed as pro se status and to ensure the Appellant the opportunity to file his Appellant's brief on his own behalf and shows this Court good cause to grant this motion as follows: 1.) Appellant's attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel with annexed brief in support on March 18, 2014.

2.) Appellant's counsel feels that the Appellant's appeal has no merit and will not stand.

3.) Appellant believes that he can prove that there are three potential grounds that are non-frivolous: which are A) Legal insufficiency claim; B) A Rule 403 of the Texas Rules of Evidence-Prejudicial effect, of some of the evidence outweighed the probative .j;alue of it; and C) Under rule 901-there was not proper identification of some evidences at trial.

4.) The Appellant believes that these grounds are substan tial errors to be brought out at this time.

5.) A denial of the Appellant to proceed as pro se status and denying an opportunity to file his Appellant's brief would '•« i

be a denial of his Due Process Rights and Due Course of Law.

PRAYER

Appellant pray3 that this Court will grant this motion and give the Appellant the opportunity to proceed as pro se status and file his brief on his own behalf with a reasonable amount of time to prepare his brief.

INMATE DECLARATION

I, Thomas Atkinson, TDCJ-ID #1886762, being incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Divis ion, at the Coffield Unit in Tennessee Colony, Anderson County, Texas, declares that the foregoing is true and correct under the penalty of perjury.

Executed this the^ day of March, 2014.

Respectfully Submitted,

Thomas Atkinson, pro se TDCJ-ID £1886762 H. h. Coffield Unit 2661 FM 2054 Tennessee Colony, Texas 75884 tr

Thomas Atkinson TDCJ-ID #1886762 H. H. Coffield Unit 2661 FM 2054 Tennessee Colony, TX 75884 March 27, 2014 Arnalia Rodriguez-Mendoza District Clerk Travis' County Courthouse P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767 RE: Trial Court Case Number: D-l-DC-12-301480 Court of Appeals Number; 03-13-00746-CR Dear Clerk, On Tuesday, March 18, 2014, Appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief on behalf of Appellant. At this time, Appellant is requesting a copy of the record pursuant to TRAP 34.5(g) and 34.6(h). Pursuant to this statute in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the trial clerk is required to furnish Appellant with a copy of the trial record. -Appellant'asks that you would please furnish me with a copy of the Clerk's record and the Reporter's record as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance for your time and service in this matter.

..." !. ; . .^ ... Sincerely,

Thomas Atkinson, pro se

cc: File Jeffrey b. Kyle, Clerk for the Thir District Court of Appeals TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00746-CR

Thomas Atkinson, Appellant v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-l-DC-12-301480, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Thomas Atkinson was tried before a jury and found guilty of the offense ofmurder. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02(b)(1). The jury assessed punishment at 75 years in prison, and the court sentenced appellant accordingly. See id. § 12.32 (punishment range for first-degree felony is minimum of 5 years and maximum of 99 years).

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concludingthat the appeal is frivolous and withoutmerit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements ofAnders v. California by presentinga professionalevaluation of the record and demonstratingthat there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant's counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and briefto appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following dismissal of this appeal as frivolous; and provided appellant with the mailing address of this Court and the trial court so that he could inform the courts if he desired to review the record and submit a brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. Appellant requested and received the appellate record and filed three briefs.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field Affirmed

Filed: January 22, 2015 Do Not Publish

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionaryreview or file a pro se petition for discretionaryreview. Seegenerally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overrules the last timelymotionfor rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petitionmust be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the rules ofappellate procedure. Seeid. R. 68.4. Once this Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7. ^ Cellmark 13988 Diplomat Dr. Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75234 te_FORENS!CS Tel. 800-752-2774 LabCorp Spedalry Testing Group Fax. 214-271-8322 May 29, 2013

Keith Lauerman Attorney at Law 1524 S.IH-35 #175 Austin, Texas 78704

Agency Case Number D1DC-12-301480 Austin Police Department Laboratory#: Ll 207393 Orchid Cellmark case Number: CR13-0013

Dear Mr. Lauerman, I have reviewed the discovery materials released by the Austin Police Department Forensic Science Services Division, including all processes and procedures performed inthis case, the accreditations ofthe laboratory, thecurriculum vitae and proficiency test results ofall laboratory personnel involved in this case, and all laboratory standard operating procedures. I have formed the following opinions concerning the results and conclusions rendered by their laboratory regarding the testing performed in this case.

Itappears from the documentation received that the testing was performed in an appropriate manner according togenerally accepted standards and practices inthe forensic community.

While there are a couple ofminor anomalies noted from the review ofthe materials, which I will outline below, I have determined that the overall conclusions reached seem justified based ^ on the data generated. ^\ According to me initial DNA report dated 7/17/2012,Jhere were five items that DNA analysis] was requested on. However, DNA analysis was only pTrfrjmed on two ofthese items. The j tested items were lab item #34, a partially burned cigarette, and lab item #16, the blood / standard from Alejandro Hernandez Jr.' Lab items #18 (swabs from the front passenger's side / dashboard handle ofthe victim's vehicle), #26 (swabs from tie exterior front passenger door j handle and surrounding textured area ofmardon Chevrolet Silverado) and #27 (swabs from j interior front passenger door handle, grip, arm rest, and textured surfaces ofseat belt parts in j maroon Chevrolet Silverado) were not tested. I cannot find any information in the case report j orthe case file as to why these items were not tested for DNA. Testing ofthese items may / produce additional results relevant to this case. ™,/ Lab item #34, the partially burned cigarette, produced a mixed DNA profile. While Thomas Trent Atkinson is the source ofthe major component ofthis profile, there are minor peaks present inthis profile as well. While the minor component istoo minimal to make any good comparisons, these minor peaks arenot consistent with the DNA profile ofthevictim. Could another person have been present in the vehicle that possibly touched this cigarette butt?" It is possible that the DNA profile ofanother person could be developed ifother samples in this case were tested. %C6lIITiark K, *3988 Diplomat Dr. Suite 100 £3 mRFMQIPQ Dallas, TX 75234 ^\r.T._.V.r..Y.?...... Tel. 800-752-2774 LabCorp Specialty Testing Group Fax. 214-271-8322 As an accredited laboratory we keep detailed records ofall reagents that are used during our testing. We document the lot number and expiration date of each reagent as well as the quality control steps taken for each reagent to ensure accurate and reliable results are obtained. In this case the lot nurnbgrsfor reagents are listed for each process, but the expiration dates are jj^T"~ S5^^°IJ22£^£tiiereagents. This information may be located in paperwork storedinJhe laboratory, but Idonolhave this mfonrmtioiLtQ-reyiew. Have all reagents used in this case been properly documented and quality checked where necessary? Were all reagents used prior tofheir expiration dates? " ~~ * *3**""""^ "" ——-^—-——=———-—

During the processing ofDNA from the evidence and reference samples in this case there are' several instances where the sample isremoved from a tube and transferred to a new tubeorto a plate. These transfers create several chances for cross-contamination or sample switching to occur. Agood laboratory practice is to have a second analyst do a check prior to transferring samples to ensure that the sample is being transferred into the correctly labeled tube or into the correct position on a plate. In this case, there is no indication that any transfer checks were performed during anysteps of the process.

All of the testing in this case was performed properly and followed all laboratory standard operating procedures and accreditation guidelines. The Austin Police Department Forensic Science Services Division was able to obtain a mixed DNA profile from the partially burned cigarette and Thomas Trent Atkinson is the source of the major component of this profile. jQbyiQusly, DNA testing does not tell the jury how_pr when the DNA originated on this item.

DNA testing onlyindicates that this profile" was obtained from this piece of evidence. .

Sufficient amount ofthis sample remains for retesting ifit is deemed necessary^ """ Should you have any questions, please call me at (214) 271-8338 or email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Kelli Byrd, M.S.

DNA Analyst IV

#!

If f*CkIilft«lt"k 13988 Diplomat Dr. Suite 100 ^S UlFKIWOi B* Dallas, TX 75234 fe* FORENSICS Tel. 800-752-2774 —:.. .T.\.T.'.Vr.'.T.T Fax. 214-271-8322 LabCorp Specialty Testing Group January 19, 2015

Ms. Sharon Atkinson Windridge Dr. Niederwald, TX 78640

Agency Case Number D1DC-12-301480 Austin Police Department Laboratory #: L1207393 Orchid Celhnark case Number: CR13-0013

Dear Ms. Atkinson, This letter is in response to a subpoena we received asking for clarification about the work Celhnark Forensics performed in this case. No physical testing of evidence was performed at Celhnark Forensics in relation to this case. We did not test a cigarette butt for DNA. The only work I performed on this case was a review of the discovery materials released by the Austin Police Department Forensic Science Services Division, including all processes and procedures performed in tins case by their laboratory, the accreditations of the laboratory, the curriculuin vitae and proficiency test results of all laboratory personnel involved in this case from the Austin Police Department, and all Austin Police Department laboratory standard operating procedures.

Should you have any questions, please call me at (214) 271-8338 or email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Kelli Byrd, M.S.

Supervisor, Forensic Casework 3ouX Hmq{ »gS^3^^^••^

..cm^I W>hw> if kfi&c'S- +o pI^a&p^ kente, frU *xrtc.? fp dfofriSV CKpp^t<tffcot ^frftftfrtl, aAtk ){,{&&$ '"ffiti. "

^ r ^lW^:!>flMi-.:*yM4 tat^W <xwjL fro ofW-; f Afeaffo on 4ke U£e ke. £»4W dr^-h&-ft*c<t /I (4<,u,\j[ fo? oiCortA'IcV' of iVAt*fr5f CMJ 4WV W lri»rf&iY>#-, rMpAo CX6t£> g.yoJ.rtA/1 Ki.r iV frio\» 7^Hi> t^kltfl TuWS 'tkppom^fa^tU^^TMArfL tw^iAV &'^i&<fifa&-> /foot 2T V>uAV f^twtd; IW UtAkr b»e Vl <ri^.^Hlv rt*olV* SU sf-)3 /[rfttW ,jVWik ^^.^, kt &«AJl hi. uW<l bid AIL

* 3* Hi W.-AiW-p"fr^ fit ifr*> fcr Afn^wS, 1* I to^V yiort allfit- kt> a«Jc Ml (or {rUV ar foV Me 6& _.^V.V-N v ..i.vyv.s- vfsiir- r\'->—w\^ 'fi v—i^jj—u-m**^—s«a—^ ^ • « •^ •**

Vll 6j<Jte>&5i- *+ YouV tioAoV^ % o,\So jaVt Sft'./vi /l„Me'S fryU HuMkf'< fe people iffio k_. loiAdl CaW ortA// bukoAf, uU uk>tAVJ T^^e >CotrtcWirtfrs, \kt t> ^ 5^ojt i^;Aia<l^v pc<ip)g like f>Wia<kS g\oS*'Vf>,frk KMtT CaWrl ^/rf {kg**. . $6 rtuA\L$<r> -h> !)&' txift^ y^r^ u^'-4>ef..3r"^\jL <iv< jfW ^^onSij tp,/|s *>\rs »^W6yr*^U^ ^v ?U*U P* I**** ♦p *<A k>r /*X*\t ****+£; Ik I'M It?!*. k\ tA V&* ftlWf i ~^ I . k » » I I •t IIV. ft. I »r-J hither 5f6>\t.iAOt^,rJL(p^4yoa,'fe Kfc*. -Ike. 5r<j ^itue iT~McL k*M;_Vt g^oVg. a. Urvfe^ Jkia-W/feff :L.

4« Ik* y^A^y-. tie'fr-iii s^yV 6,ri<A Xj^lt /4s -for any o.}\*.af,d2 Gira-rtd juvy -ft&t'iMerty.JT # U^'ill obUin 4WV, i-Tftny e.y.jaffi iht* /«AfW j* ills- leffer Ivom. M*f ill?,, In Ws Alt.'.- X^ &wy &*•¥&*• tOtlMiilii to^O* lAeAvjAei* £ diVvy M6tL'f<"WrUu^ oXCtx _._?*&,rt!> 4WV X*t ^rtcxDfcHf_ o< ^QMeirvno>> K?/><- Me^Wvv^ Y^r ey^eLVvft/t^X oV.H T,*aV fke, pkonf rrvVlS t: aLa^ JfoM y$„. 7p_-yt.£ Hi Ko6 frlcV bttfl top fcoM W\VV /Hi toflCfftfljrt^ H»_ 5f<KJf. Mthf ^tyCJyMt.V yo-^d ^u^,kt &_S ft_lV_U»ci uJ^reL^ „rp„A_jX k_lQui )biUu^ M^ Ifo kWpmey ItfMe Ve^ck 11 fauA-.ifoV aWe M? «l Cop/. X iTf,ft,y H.cl tk<A \W&* -_VWttif^. Irtft^ 330/O0O cMa*5 -W> M 4Vva,^/vl 49