gi ,azq“@z,@z ,¢~/O:~

January 27, 2015 Tyler, Te.

Re: Exparte Ml'chae] Regard Wel)b, Case No’s. 007-0447-l l, 007-0048-11, 007-0449-l l & 007- 0450_11 un the 7"‘ Judi¢iai Dismcr own Ofsmirh Coumy, Texas). `r` Reply to State’s Original and Supplemental Answers to Application for Habeas Corpus Dear Clerk: Enclosed please find the original copy of Applicant Webb’s Reply to State’s Original and Supplemental Answers to his Original Applications for Writ of l-labeas Corpus Applications, to be filed among the papers in the above-styled and numbered causes.

Please notify Applicant at his address listed below of the date of filing and disposition of these proceedings Thank you t`or your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely /

R‘ECE|VE;) lN GOuRToFcRiMiNAL APPEALS FEB 04 2015

/ , ’. /’/ h ' ID#01784539 /m.

810 FM 2821 Abel ACOS?§, Clerk Huntsville, Texas 77349 Enclosures CC: ’$* Abel Acosta, Clerk Court of`Criminal Appeals P.O. Box 12308 Austin, Texas 787l l *Z' Aaron S. Rediker Asst. District Attorney Smith County, Texas lOO North Broadway, 4"] Floor Tyler, Texas 75702 Fi|e CASE NUMBER: 007-0450-11-A © © PY EX PARTE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT MICHAEL RENARD WEBB ' § 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT APPLICANT, TDCJ-ClD#01784539 § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPL]CANT WEBB’S REPLY TO STATE’S ORIGINAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO HIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, your Applicant, Michael R. Webb, TDCJ-CID#01784539, proceeding in pro se, in the above-styled and numbered cause pursuant to article 11.07, § 3 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and files this, his Reply to the State’s Original and Supplemental Answer(s) to his Original Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus and in support thereof, would show the Court as follows: I.

Jurisdiction The Court has subject matter and jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to Texas Code of criminal Procedure, Article 11.07. et. seq.

II.

CONFINEMENT & RESTRAINT Applicant was indicted in cause number 007-0450- ll, filed in the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas, for the offense of possession/manufacture with intent to deliver a l controlled substance, namely cocaine, >lg, DFZ,‘ a second degree felony (enhanced). On March 19, 2012, Applicant, with his two trial attomeys, Mr. Greg Waldron and Ms. Tonda Curry, entered into a non-negotiated plea of guilty in a single hearing2 Based on his plea entered at that time before the Court, the Court found Applicant guilty of the charge alleged in the instant indictment and sentenced him thereafter in a consolidated plea and sentencing hearing to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-ClD) for thirty (30) years. A direct appeal was taken to the Twelf`th Court of appeals in Webb v. State, No. 12-12-00175-CR, who affirmed the judgment and sentence in an unpublished opinion dated June 25, 2013.3 No Petition for Discretionary Review was filed in this case.

Applicant filed his original application seeking a writ of habeas corpus in this case on September 20, 2014, as opposed to Respondent’s claim the same Was filed on October 01, 2014.4 Respondent made a separate answer to the instant state Writ application on October l6, 2014.5 Then, it subsequently made a “consolidated” supplemental response to the instant writ

' This case was as being enhanced with one enhancement paragraph and drug free zone allegation Applicant’s related unadjudicated cases; case number: 007-0448-11 for manufacture/intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely, cocaine >4g <200g, a second degree felony (enhanced) and in case number: 007-0449-11 for manufacture/intent to deliver a controlled substance, namely cocaine <l g in a drug free zone (DFZ), a third degree felony (enhanced); See Exhibit A, Judgment and sentence in State of Texas v. Mz'chael Renard Webb, No. 007-0450- l l_ See Webb v. State, No. lZ-l 2~01 78-CR (Tex. App. _ Tyler June 25, 2014, no pet.).

STATEMENT OF FACTS Applicant adopts the background facts articulated by the TWelfth Court of Appeals in its consolidated unpublished memorandum opinion entered on June 25, 2013, at the time it affirmed all of Applicant’s judgment and sentences before it, as follows: [Applicant] was charged by indictment with the offense of aggravated assault on a public servant and three instances of manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance. On February 29, 2012, a bench trial began on the indicted offense of aggravated assault on a public servant. Ultimately, the trial court found [Applicant] guilty of the offense and made an affirmative deadly Weapon finding. Sentencing was postponed until after a presentence report was prepared On March 19, 2012, [Applicant] pleaded guilty to the remaining offenses Each offense was enhanced under the habitual offender statute, and two of the cases contained drug-free zone enhancements [Applicant] pleaded true to all enhancements in each case. The trial court pronounced [Applicants] sentence in each case on April 20, 2012. [Applicant] Was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in addition to being assessed court costs and in some cases, restitution The trial court ordered [Applicant] to pay S55,432.l8 in restitution and taxable court costs in the aggravated assault case. ln one of the drug cases, the trial court ordered [Applicant] to pay $515.00 in restitution in addition to taxable court costs In another of the drug cases (a drug-free zone case), the trial court ordered [Applicant] to pay $515.00 in restitution, but did not order payment of restitution in the other drug-free Zone case. The certified bill of costs Was not in the record when the judgments of conviction were signed After [Applicant] filed his brief, the district clerk supplemented the record in each case to include a bill of costs. Id.6 III.

APPLICANT’S ALLEGATIONS In the instant application seeking habeas corpus relief, Applicant submits three separate grounds for relief as follows: l. Applicant complains that his guilty plea was unknowingly, unintelligently and therefore, involuntarily entered based upon the erroneous advice of'trial counsel(s) in violation of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States constitution; 2. Applicant complains that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 3. Applicant complains the trial court erred and abused its discretion by accepting his guilty plea in this case, as well as another offender’s guilty plea in an unrelated case at the same time, confusing him and contributing to his plea of guilt being entered involuntarily. Id. See State Writ Appl. 6-10.

IV.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES A. Ground One: Involuntary Plea ln ground one the Applicant herein complains that his guilty plea was entered unintelligently, unknowingly and involuntarily based upon the erroneous advice of counsel.

Specifically, Applicant submits trial counsel(s) were ineffective and provided him with erroneous advice, which he premised his decision to enter a guilty plea, prejudicing the defense. ln his instant application, Applicant has averred that his trial attorneys advised him after being convicted of Aggravated Assault with a deadly weapon upon a Public Servant in a companion case 7 and was sentenced to life imprisonment in TDCJ-CID, if he went to trial on this case (and his two other pending drug possession cases) stemming from the same criminal episode the State would ask that the trial court cumulate or “stack” whatever sentences he might receive in this case and the other two pending drug cases With his life sentence assessed in the aggravated assault on a public servant with a deadly weapon.

Standard of Review lneffective assistance of counsel claims are reviewed for federal constitutional error under the two- prong standard of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See Burger v. Kemp, 483 U.S. 776, 107 S.Ct. 3114, 97 L.Ed.Zd 638 (1987).

To satisfy this standard a criminal defendant must establish: First that counsel’s performance was deficient This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial Whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that renders the result unreliable Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential.” Id. at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065.

Every effort must be made to eliminate “the distorting effect of hindsight.” Id. Courts ‘must

(1980). A defendant is constitutionally entitled to have counsel acting in the role of an advocate.

Ana'ers v. Caliform`a, 386 U.S. 738, 743, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1399, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

Normally, the reviewing court looks to the totality of the representation and the particular circumstances of the case in evaluating the reasonableness of an attorney’s conduct. See Ex parte Felton, 815 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The review conducted of defense counsel’s representation is “highly deferential and presumes that counsel’s actions fell within a Wide range of reasonable assistance.” Mallett v. State, 65 S.W.3d 59, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citing T ong v. State, 25 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)). It is the defendant’s burden to overcome this presumption by proving his ineffective assistance of counsel claim by a preponderance of the evidence McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824, 843 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Moore v. State, 694 S.W.2d 528, 531 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); also see, United States v. Cronic, supra at 658, 104 S.Ct. at 2046 (the burden rests on the accused to demonstrate a constitutional violation).

Burden of Proof In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden of proof is always on the applicant Ex parte Rains, 555 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). lt is thus applicant's burden to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence" that the alleged errors “contributed to his conviction or punishment” Ex parte Willl`ams, 65 S.W-3d 656, 658 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In order to prevail, an applicant must present facts that, if true, would entitle him to the relief requested Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Relief may be denied if the applicant states only conclusions, and not specific facts. Ex parte McPherson, 32 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In addition, an applicant's sworn allegations alone are insufficient proof ofhis claims Exparte Empey, 757 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988).

State’s Proced_gral Default The record below is procedurally devoid of trial counsel, Mark Waldron and Tonda Curry’s affidavits responding to the Applicant’s complaints of his plea of guilty being entered unknowingly, unintelligently and involuntary based upon the erroneous advice of counsel, as well as issues of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and are therefore not properly before this Court as a Court of original jurisdiction and based upon the facts and records before this Court, it is readily apparent that the Respondent included the affidavits in question with the “State’s Supplemental Answer,” to the instant application seeking habeas corpus relief by doing so in a “consolidated fashion,” versus each singularly as required by the rules of the Court, by presenting the same together in said pleading, instead of separately as required by the instructions contained with the article 11.07 habeas corpus application, instruction number four (4), as well as the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and Texas Administrative Code. Therefore, when considering Applicant’s instant application and only the original answer filed by the State, Applicant’s allegations have not been properly met and rebutted by same, and since the State did file separate original answers to each separate writ application, only the

substance contained therein should be considered by the Court in determining whether or not to grant or deny relief. (emphasis added).8 Applicant suggests that the Court of Criminal appeals remand this case to the district court with instructions on how it should properly file any supplemental answers to its original one, separately in each case according to the rules of the Court of criminal appeals, Texas Rules of Appellate procedure and Texas Administrative Code as the Applicant is required to do.9 Otherwise, in the interest of judicial economy, Applicant attaches hereto and makes a part hereof, both the affidavits of Mr. Gregory A. Waldron and Ms Tonda Curry’s (trial counsel’s), which they themselves filed correctly with the district clerk of Smith County as Exhibit C and Exhibit D, respectively and will offer his arguments in dispute thereof infra.

In the instant application, Applicant claims, inter alia, that his attomey’s erroneously informed him that if convicted of the three companion drugs case, any sentence assessed by court or jury could be ordered to run consecutive to the life sentence he received in the first case tried to a jury in which he was found guilty by same and assessed a life sentence.

Multiple Prosecutions TEXAS PENAL CODE TITLE 1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS CHAPTER 3. MULTIPLE PROSECUTIONS

s See Exhibit B, “State’s Supplemental Answer in Opposition to Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” at 46-53, as transmitted and numbered by the Clerk of Smith county to the CCA.

Sec. 3.01. DEFINITION. ln this chapter, "criminal episode" means the commission of two or more offenses, regardless of whether the harm is directed toward or inflicted upon more than one person or item of property, under the following circumstances (1) the offenses are committed pursuant to the same transaction or pursuant to two or more transactions that are connected or constitute a common scheme or plan; or (2) the offenses are the repeated commission of the same or similar offenses10 Sec. 3.03. SENTENCES FOR OFFENSES ARISING OUT OF SAME CRIMINAL EPISODE. (a) When the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced Except as provided by Subsection (b), the sentences shall run concurrently (b) If` the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode, the sentences may run concurrently or consecutively if each sentence is for a conviction of: (1) an offense: (A) under Section 49.07 or 49.08, regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of both sections; or (B) for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A), regardless of whether the accused is charged with violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations of both sections; (2) an offense: (A) under Section 33.021 or an offense under Section 21.02, 21.11, 22.011, 22.021, 25.02, or 43.25 committed against a victim younger than 17 years of age at the time

of the commission of the offense regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of more than one section; or (B) for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A) committed against a victim younger than 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense regardless of whether the accused is charged with violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations of more than one section; (3) an offense: (A) under Section 21.15 or 43.26, regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of both sections; or (B) for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A), regardless of whether the accused is charged with violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations of both sections; (4) an offense for which the judgment in the case contains an affirmative finding under Article 42.0197, Code of Criminal Procedure; (5) an offense: (A) under Section 20A.02 or 43.05, regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of both sections; or (B) for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A), regardless of whether the accused is charged with violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations of both sections; or (6) an offense: (A) under Section 22.04(a)(l) or (2) or Section 22.04(a-l)(1) or (2) that is punishable as a felony of the first degree, regardless of whether the accused is convicted of violations of the same section more than once or is convicted of violations of more than one section; or ll

(B) for which a plea agreement was reached in a case in which the accused was charged with more than one offense listed in Paragraph (A) and punishable as described by that paragraph, regardless of whether the accused is charged with violations of the same section more than once or is charged with violations of more than one section. (b-l) Subsection (b)(4) does not apply to a defendant whose case was transferred to the court under Section 54.02, Family Code. ll As none of the exceptions articulated and codified supra, (Which allows an exception to the criminal episode restrictions regarding cumulating certain sentences regardless of whether or not they Were part of the same criminal episode) are not applicable to the applicant as he was never convicted of any of the statutory offenses enunciated under our Penal Code and therefore, trial counsel was erroneous in advising Applicant that they were and Applicant strenuously avers herein, that had he been aware that any corollary conviction or sentence resulting from his pending indictments’ could not be cumulated with his life sentence already assessed in his first companion case tried, he would not have pled guilty, but would have insisted on proceeding to trial by jury in all of his remaining companion cases still pending.

Af`f`ldavit of Gregory A. Waldron, Trial Counsel (lead) In his affidavit, attached hereto as Exhibit D, counsel states in relevant part: Webb was found guilty by this court and sentenced to life in prison. Webb had four other cases pending, three to which he pled and one that was dismissed Counsel had

“ Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, sec. i, err Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. l, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 596, Sec. l, eff. Sept. l, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 667, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Amended by: Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 527 (H.B. 904), Sec. l, eff. September l, 2005.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 593 (H.B. 8), Sec. 3.47, eff. September l, 2007.

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1291 (S.B. 6), Sec. 6, eff. September l, 2007.

Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1130 (H.B. 2086), Sec. 21, eff. September 1, 2009.

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 24), Sec. 6.01, eff. September l, 2011.

Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 228 (H.B. 220), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.

lengthy discussions with Webb regarding how to proceed with trial and Webb agreed with counsel’s trial strategy. Counsel also had discussions with Webb regarding the potential of stacking of sentences after his conviction for aggravated assault lt is still counsel’s position that Webb’s sentences could have been stacked Id. at cover.

See Exhibit C, Amdavit of trial counsel, Gregory A. Wala'ron. lt is Applicant’s assertion herein that under these circumstances which are firmly rooted in the record, it is apparent that each of his attomey’s12 misinformed him as to whether or not the adjudication and sentencing in the pending three companion cases could have been cumulated with his life sentence, not distinguishing between one or the other, but informing him all three companion cases would be stacked by the trial court if he did not enter open pleas of guilt to each. Applicant avers that had he known that one or all of the three pending cases could not be cumulated as a matter of law, he would not have entered open pleas of guilt before the trial to any of them, but would have insisted on proceeding to a trial by jury in each case. m with UnrelatedDefendants During the plea colloquy, Applicant Was taken unaware that the trial court planned on taking his plea(s) with another defendant in an unrelated case at the same time. Neither of his trial attomeys’ informed him prior to the time his plea(s) were taken. He himself had three cases he was entering pleas of guilt to and is unaware of the exact number the unrelated defendant was pleading to and the transcript is demonstrative of the confusion that ensued during the process Contrary to both trial attorneys’ assertions contained in their respective affidavits in this regard,

'2 Applicant incorporates by reference the affidavit filed by second chair counsel, Ms. Tonda Curry, attached hereto as Exhibit D, her sworn statement in this regard; “[C]ounsel also had discussions with Webb [Applicant] regarding the potential of stacking of sentences after his conviction for aggravated assault lt is still counsel’s position that {Applicant’s] sentences could have been stacked” ld. at cover. This generalization by counsel fails to distinguish between whether or not one or all three 'of the pending indictments could have resulted in any future adjudication of those charges and resulting sentences being cumulated as told to Applicant by same at the time he was advised by both attorneys that he should enter open pleas of guilt.

neither of them personally informed him of this situation prior to it occurring or ask his permission or if he was okay with proceeding in such a manner lt was very confusing to Applicant with the judge switching back and forth between him and the other unknown, unrelated defendant to the point Applicant felt like an automaton being prompted by counsel thought the proceeding to say yes or no to questions asked by the court Applicant became dismayed as the hearing progressed and acquiesced in the face of his complaints made to counsel being rebuffed and ignored; it was like, “just be quiet, answer as you are told or else. . .”

Accordingly, Applicant would respectfully request that this Honorable Court sustain this ground for relief.

B. Ground Tw0: Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel(s) Applicant would point out to the Court that neither Mr. Waldron or Ms. Tonda Curry responded to his second and third grounds presented in the instant application, and while the State’s silence as to any issue they choose to remain silent to are deemed to be a “general denial,” controverted issues involving ineffective assistance of counsel, wherein the same is designated as requiring resolution, which go unanswered or addressed by trial counsel affidavit in their response to those allegations contained within the instant application are not afforded a default response of a general denial within this Court’s jurisprudence and therefore be deemed as admitted ln his Second ground Applicant alleges that both his trial attomey’s representation was deficient and the following instances of ineffective assistance of counsel has been made against them in Applicant’s writ application, which he reiterates and'discusses herein now further below:13 (a) Counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain funds from the Court to hire a private

Applicant avers that had counsel hired a private investigator with funds from the court it would have increased his chances of having a better outcome in regards to the drug cases alleged against him by the State. Applicant bases his assertions upon the following facts: (1) two of the three pending drug cases against him occurred approximately nine months prior to the aggravated assault case arising However, neither of the attorneys was familiar with the facts or evidence connected to the State’s prosecution of the prior drug cases when they became involved with the assault case and assumed responsibility for defending him in his other related cases, including the instant one; (2) At the time of his plea(s) to the three pending drug cases Applicant asked his attorney to explain to him what “drug free zone” meant and how it would impact his sentencing before the trial court and Mr. Waldron responded: “Just keep quiet and don’t piss off the judge. Following counsel’s advice Applicant remained moot until asked a question by the trial court in regards to the plea process and Mr. Waldron would either nudge him or tap his foot against Applicant’s foot and then whisper out the side of his mouth the response he wished Applicant to make. This became especially confusing to Applicant as the judge switched back and forth between him and the unrelated defendant the court was taking a plea from at the same time. ln retrospect, Applicant understands this is not how the law envisions plea hearings to be conducted and these processes conducted in this regard that led to his unknowing and therefore, involuntary guilty plea being entered Counsel provides no information in»rebuttal to Applicant’s assertions in this regard within their respective affidavits and Applicant requests that this Honorable Court resolves these allegations in his favor and thereafter recommending that the writ issue.

(c) Counsel, through lack of investigation failed to determine through fingerprinting or DNA analysis whether or not the bags containing the illicit contraband substance had ever been in Applicant’s personal possession after being found, not on his person, but in proximity allegedly to where he was arrested for aggravated assault against a public servant, after being physically subdued by several other police officers Again, neither attorney addresses this issues in their affidavit(s) responding to the ineffective assistance of counsel allegations contained in the instant writ application and therefore, Applicant requests the habeas court deem them admitted by same. (d) Counsels were separately and collectively ineffective for failing to object to the trial court taking his pleas while doing so at the same time with an unrelated defendant Applicant avers here, as he does above, that he objected to his plea being taken with the unrelated defendant because it was too confusing to both his attorneys and was told the best thing he could do is keep quiet, following counsel’s lead, say what he was told to say or he would never see the light of day again. That is a very strong a persuasive thereat, which applicant took seriously and complied when Mr. Waldron would either nudge him or tap his foot against Applicant’s foot and then whisper out the side of his mouth the response he wished Applicant to make. This became especially confusing to Applicant as the judge switched back and forth between him and the unrelated defendant the court was taking a plea from at the same time.

C. Ground Three: Abuse of Discretion by Trial Court Applicant incorporates by reference for all purposes the arguments presented in ground two, supra, and would ask that the Court consider same in support of the instant ground presented herein for all purposes CONCLUSION Accordingly, Applicant would respectively request that this Honorable Court sustain each ground presented herein for habeas relief and remand this case back to the trial court for further

consideration sIGNED on this the 27“' day erranuary 2015.

Respectfully submitted, ' ael R. Webb, Applicant, Pro se T CJ-ClD#01784539 ynrie Unit FM 2821 Huntsville, 'l`exas 77349 § CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l, Michael R. Webb, Applicant, Pro se, TDCJ-C[D#01784539, herein certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was sent to the Respondent, by placing same, in the prison mail box, first-class, postage paid, addressed to: Aaron S. Rediker Smith County Asst. District Attomey North Broadway, 4th Floor Tyler, Texas 75702 siGNED on this the 27“‘ day erranuary 2015. /A/ ‘chael R. Webb, Applicant, Pro se

EXHIBIT A

CASE N0.007-0450'1 1 Cou.-rl INCIDENT No.r’TRN: 90614241 19 THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN 'I'HE ‘7'm JUDICIAL v. § DISTRICT COURT MICHAEL RENARD WEBB § SMITH CGUNTY, TEXAS sms n:) No.; rxossoiaso §

JUDGMEN'I' OF CONVICTION BY COURT-WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL

judge Presiding: HoN. KERRY L. RUSSELL Date Judgment Entered: 04/24!12 Attomey for S¢atc: 2;1::;:: oglagham‘ R‘ vance/a Attomey for Defendant: WALDRON, GREGORY A.

focnse for which Defendant Convir:ted: MAN DEL CS PG 1 <1G DRUG FREE ZONE

Charging lr_\§_tgg;ent: §tatg;e for foeng: lNDlCTMENT 481.|]2(b1 wm 03/03/\1 MQI_QEQM Bl§am. OH;QM _F__Lg§_in in on madme ‘ 3rd Degree Fe!ony (Enhanced) Guilty N/A

BMB£§_&&_;§I§; Defendant Made Open Plea; State Agreed to Dismiss Cause No. 007-»0446-»11 (Engaging in Organized Criminal Acfivity).

Flca to I“ Enhanccmem Paragraph; TRUE Plea to 2”‘ Enhancement/Habima| Pa:agraph: N/A Findings on l“ Enhancemenr Findings on 2"° Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: TRUE Paragmph: . N/A Plca on jurisdictional Pamgraph: NIA

Findings on Jurisdictional Paragmph; N/A

Darc Senu=,-nce Imposed: 04/20¢'2012 Datc Sentencc to Commcncc: 04&0!2012 §';:m::;?d wm of 26 Vears / Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institufional Divison

Tl'll$ SENII`.NCE SHALL RUN CONSECUT|VELV TO L!FE SENTENCE |N CAUSE NO. 007-0447-1£ AND CONCURRENTLY WlTH CAUSE. NO. 007»0449~11 l:l semth or coNrrNEMi;Nr susrmoro, nr;r'ENnANr nAcrn on coMMuNrrY surmvisioi~t son N/A,.

Finc: Couff éc.§w', Rcstitutiggg Restitu!ir_ig an§l;}§ tg; _ ha AG ENCY)AGENT rm below) Smith County Collcetions Department $0.00 5368.00 $0.00 200 n F"guson, Soiw 213 _ Tyler. TX 75702 Sex OIfeuder Registration Requiremeois DO NOT APPLY to the Defeadant. 'I`£x. CoDE CRIM. Paoc. chapter 62 The age of the victim at the time of the offense was not provided rim cr¢dizcd: 415 DAYS Al| pertinent information names and moments indicated above are incorporated into the language of the judgment below by reference This cause was called for trial in Smith County, Tcxas. The State appeared by her Distn'ct Auomey.

Counsel /Waiver l l ct ne Det'cndant appeared in person with Counsei, l:l Det`endam knowing§y, intelligcnriy, and voluntarily waived the right w representation by counsel in writing in open court

Both parties announced ready for trial. Defendant waived the right of trial by jury and entered the plea indicated above The Court then admonished Defendant as required by law. lt appeared to the Court that Defendant was mentally competent to stand trinl. made the plea freely and voluntarily, and was aware of the consequences of this plea Thc Court received thc plea and entered it ofrccord, Having heard the evidence submitted the Co\m found Dcfendant guilty of the oll'ense indicated above. ln the presence of Det`endant, the Court pronounced sentence against Dcfendant. .

The Coun FiNos Defendant committed the above offense and ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Der‘endant is GUILW o the above oll’cnse. The Court Floms the Prescntcncc Im/cstigation, if so ordcrcd, was done according to the applicable provisions of 'l`EX. CODE CRrM. PROC. art. 42.12 § 9.

The Court ORnF.m Dcfendant punished as indicated above The Court ORDERS Dcf'endant to pay all finds court costs, and restitution as indicated above Pgnishment Options (select onel Conlinemenr in State Jail or lnstitucional Dlvision. The Court ORDERS the authorized agent of the State of 'l`exas or the Sheritf of this County to take, safely convey. and deliver Defendant to the Director ofTDCJ-lD. The Court ORDERS Defendant to be confined for the period and in the manner indicated above Thc Court ORDERS Dcfendant remanded to the custody of the Shen`fl` of this county until the Sheriff can obey the directions of this sentence, The Court ORD£RS that upon release from confinement Det`endant proceed immediately to the Smith County District Cle¢k’s Oll'icc. Once thcrc, thc Court ORDERS Dcfendant to pay, or make arrangements to pay. any remaining unpaid fines, court costs. and restitution as ordered by thc Court above. n County Jail-Con Enement / Con§nement in Lieu of Payment. The Court ORDF.RS Def`endant immediately committed to the custody of the Sheril!`ot` Smith County, 'I`exas on the date the sentence is to commence Dcfendam shall be confined in thc Smith County Jail for the period indicated aboven Thc Court Ortoens that upon release from coolinemem.. Defendant shall proceed immediately to the Smith County District Clerk's Of'lice. Once there, the Court Onr)r:its Del`endant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, any remaining unpaid fines court oosts, and restitution s ordered by the Court above l:l Fine Only Payment. 'l`hc punishment assessed against Dcfcndant is for a ms oNL\'. Thc Court GRDERS Dcfcndant to proceed immediately to the Oftice ofdle Smith County District Clerk. Oncc there. the Court ORoERs Defendant to pay or make immigements to pay all fines and court costs as ordered by the Court in this cause Execufion l Sus nxion of Sentence select one

§ 'lhc Court Onneks Defcndant’s sentence executed [] Thc Court Onocns Defandanr’s sentence of confinement susrr.woeo. The Court Oimr.as Defendant placed on community supervision for the adjudged period (above) so long as Del`ondanr abides by and does not violate the terms and conditions of comm\mity supervision The order setting forth the terms and conditions of community supervision is incorporated into this judgment by reference The Court Onoctzs that Defendant is given credit noted above on this sentence for the time spent incarcerated E Attachment A. Order to Withdraw I~'unds in incorporated into thisjudgment and made a part hereof.

Signed and Ordered on this 2 day oprril, 2012.

£.‘4

Right Thumbprint:

EXHIBIT B

LO SF RO(E?): ‘ D!S`lFi`lCT CL§FS}K CAUSE NUMBER oo7-0448-111.-A CAUSE NUMBER007-0449-11-119|-7105[5-8 PH t,. 51_,` CAUSE NUMBER 0;07- 0450- 11 QM!TH COUNTY

Ex PARTE~ § IN TH_E 7 . . _“‘9”¢@ . . § M;chAE_L RENARD wl-:-BB § sMxTH coUNTY,' 'r.ExAs

STATE’S SUPPLEM'EN`TAL ANSWER IN OPPOSmON TO APPLICATlON FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO TH_E- HONORABLE COURT: Pursuant to article 11.07, section 3` of the Te`xas Code of Cr'iminal Procedure, the State, acting through the undersigned As's`istant Criminal District Atto‘rr'tey, urges the-Court to find there 'is no necessity for a hearing on any of applicant.’s alleged grounds fof relief and to i"éc<')r`ftmend relief be denied.

STATEMENT oF"rHE CAsE The applicant,» MICHAEL WE_BB, was ir_t_d_i‘c;t;_ed i_n cause number 007-0448- 11, oo7'-o449-n~, and 007-0450'-11_, filed i__n the 7th Dist;r_i_c_t Court of Smith County, Tex'as, fo'r the offenses of possession of cocaine With the intent to delivery possession of cocaine in a drug-free zone nrith intent to deliver, possession of cocaine in a drug-Fr`ee zone with intent to deliber, respectively On 19 Mai'c`:h 2012, applican_t, with his counsel, entered nonnegoti_a_ted pleas of

guilty in each ca__se i_n a_ single hearing Based on his pleas, the Court found applicant guilty of the offenses as alleged in the indictments and sentenced him to confinement for 30 years in the Tex_as Department of Criminal ]ust'ice-`Institutional Diyision in Ca_u_se Nur_nber 007='0_44_8»1_1, 40 years in Cause Number 067-0449-11, and 20 years i_n_ Cau_se Number 007-450-11, without a fine. The TWelfth Court of Appeals af§nned applicant’s convictions on 25 ]une 2013. Webb v. Sta_te~, Nos, ig-u-oo175<CR, 12-12-0'<)r76~CR, .'12.-12- oo`17'-7-CR, iz~iz-ooi",'$-CR, 2013 Tex. Appi L_EXI;S 7692.- (Tex. App.-Tyler Iun‘e- 25, 201`3, no pet.) (Inei`n_. op.~,; not designated for publicatiion).., The State timely filed its response and, as a)pp`lic'ant alleged that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, Gregory A. Waldron and Tonda L. Curry, the Court granted the State’s request for a designation of app'lic_ant’s first and second grounds for future resolution ln compliance with the Court’s designation order; Mr. Waldron and Ms. Curry filed their affidavits on 10 Nover_nber and 1_8` Novem'ber‘zo14, respectively \ STATEMENT'°OF FACTS~ The State challenges all factual allegations made b'y applicant 'i'n his writ application and specifically denies that h'e is entitled to relief on any of h`is claims._

APPL_!<:ANT'$ ALLE.GATIDNS Applicant alleges two separate grounds for relief? (1) involuntary plea due to the ineffectiveness -of trial counsel';' (a) ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to properly investigate the facts of applicants casei among other reasons;~ and (3) that the Court abused its discretion in conducting a group plea session;. These»claims _a_re denied.

STANDARD o`x‘=. REVI,l-;W Fo_R INEFFEC_TIVENESS CLAIMS AND APPLchNT's BuRnEN osP~RooF In a habeas corpus proceeding the burden of proof is always on the applicant Ex parte Ra,ins, 555 S.W._z__d 478 (Tex_. Crir_n App_. 1977). lt is thus applicant’s burden to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence" that the alleged errors “cont`ributed to h_is conviction or punishment,;"" E)_c parte Mllic'zms, 65 S.W.3d 656, 658 ('l"ex. Crim. APP. 2001). _l_n order to prevail, an applicant must present facts that, if tr`ue, would entitle him to the relief requested Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 ('I`e`x. Cri`rn. App.. 1985).

Relief may he denied if the applicant states only conclusions and not specific facts_.-_ Ex porte McP_herson, 32 S.W.3d .860, 861 ,(Tex. Crim. App. zo`ojo). In add_ition, an applicants sworn allegations alone are insufficient proof of his claims E)_c parte E_mpey, 757 S.Wzd 7'_71, 775 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)-

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, an applicant must meet the two-prong test articulated in Str'icqund v. Washington, 466 U.;S. 668 (1984). 'Speciflcally, he inust show;:~ _ (1) deficient performance in that his counsele representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and (_2) prejudice,_ or a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance,~ the result of the proceeding would have been different ld. at 687-88, _694;. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient t,o undermine confidence in the outcome.” Id. “[W]he'n a person challenges the validity of a plea entered upon the advice of couns`el, contending that his counsel was ineffective the voluntariness-of the plea depends on (1) whether counsel’s advice was within the range of competence-demanded of attorneys in criminal cases and i_f n_ot, (2) whether there is a reasonable probability that, b"u`t for counsel’s errors, her would not have pleaded guilty to the charged offense and would have insisted on going t_o t_ri_al.” Ex parte Harn’_ngton, 310 S.W.3d 452, 458 (Tex'. Crim. App. zoio) (`inter'nal quotation marks omitted).

I_. G_l_loUND ONE: Tr_ial counsel Was not ineffective for¢advising applicant that his sentences in each c_ase could be st_ac_k_ed even though the offenses raro's;e during the same criminal episode.

In his first grou'nd, applicant argues that his plea was involuntarily entered due to the erroneous advice of his counsel that his sentences could be stacked even though the offenses were committed during the same crunm_al episode (Wr`it Appl. 6'-7). Article 42.08 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinentpart: When the same defendant has been convicted in two or more c_a_ses, judgment and sentence shall be pronounced in each case in the same manner as if there had been but one conviction». Except as provided by Sec_t`i'o'ns (b) and (c~) of this article, in the discretion of the court, the judgment in the second and subsequent convictions may either be that the sentence imposed or suspended shall begin when the judgment and the sentence imposed or suspended in the preceding conviction has ceased to operate or that the sentence imposed or suspended shall run concurrently'with the other case or cases, and sentence and execution shall be accordingly . ,. .

Te_x_, Code _C_ri_m._ Proc. Ann. art. 42..08(a) (West. 2014).. However, “[w]hen the accused 'i's found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, a' sentence for each offense for which he has been found guilty shall be pronounced Sect;ion 3.03(a) only prevents cumulation of sentences for offenses arising out of the same criminal episode when they are prosecuted i_n a single trial or plea 51` proceeding Ex parte Pharr, 897 S.W.2d 795, 7"96 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). As nothing prevented the State from prosecuting these cases in separate proceedings trial counsels advice regarding the cumulation of applicants sentences was not erroneous See id. Therefor'e, as applicant has failed to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that his trial counsel’s advice fell outside the'range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases, his first ground for'relief should be denied I'I_. GRO`UN'D TWO: Applicant has failed to prove that his counsel’s performance Was deficientfor any of the reasons he has alleged In_ his second ground, appellant complains that his counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an investigator, failing to thoroughly investigate the facts of his case before advising him to plead guilty, failing to determine that the State’s evidence did not include his fingerprints or DNA on the drugs, and failing to object to th¢ group plea session ('Writ_ Appl, 8-9). Fii'st', applicants trial counsel did in fact hire an investigator to determine the extent of the victim’s impairment from his injuries as it related to t_h_e issue of serious bodily injury (Attach._ 1-2). Furth'er, applicant fails= to show, from facts- contained in the record, what a more thorouin investigation would have shown or how such evidence would have affected his decision to plead guilty

(Wri_t Appl. 8-9). See Mooney v. State, 81'7 S.W.2d 69'3, 697 (Tex. Crim. App. iggi) (no ineffectiveness Wh'ere appellant failed to establish what, “if anything counsel could have learned from a more thorough investigation-.”). Las`tly, applicant fails to provide any authority for the proposition that his group plea session was somehow 'irnproper.. S`ee Ex` parte Wils`o‘fi, 7i6 S.W.2d 953,- 956 (Tex_. Crim;. App. 1986) (presumption of regularity with respect to_ guilty pleas under article 1.15l of the Cofde. of Criminal Procedure)»; Shipley v.- State, 828 SiW-_Z.Cl 475, 480 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1992, pet. ref’d) (citing Mc~MiIla'n v; State, 727 S.W.2d 58_2-, 583-84 ('l`ex. Crim._App. 19_87) (“[A]n accused who is apprised of such rights, even when given in a group plea .session, shall be found to adequately understand those rights.”).. Acc'o'rdingly, appellant has failed to carry his burden under Strickland’s first prong to show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient, and his second ground for relief should be denied.

III. GROUND THREE: By failing to object at h_i_s plea h_e_aring, applicant has forfeited lhis challenge to the group plea -se_ssi_or_i;.

In his third ground for relief,` applicant argues that the .Court.abi`ised its discretion in conducting a group plea admonishment with applicant and another defendant simultaneously (Writ Appl. io). As appellant did not raise an objection to the procedure during the hearing or raise the issue on appeal,

he has forfeited any alleged error for reiri'ew, and his third ground for relief should be denied Se'e Ex parte Bagle'y, 509 S.W.2d 332, 333-334 (Teitl Crim. .APP-197,4) PRAYE-R WHEREFGRE, PR;E;MISES CONSIDERED, the State prays that the Court find that there are no controverted previously unresolyed facts material to the legality of applicants confinement; that there is no necessity for a facts finding hearing as there is ample evidence in the record for the Court to rule on the relief sought; and that the Court enter Findi_ngs of Fact and Conclusion_s of L_aw, recommend denial of the relief sought, and send applicant hence without delay Respect;fi.z_lly submitted D. M,A'I`T BINGHAM Cri`minal District Attoi'ney' Si`n`ith County, Te;cas

AAnoN s./§EDIKER " y A_s_sistan't Crimi.n.a.l Distrijct'Attorney SBOT #:' 240466'92 10'_0 North Broam 4th Floor Tyler, Texas 757`02 Phon‘e: (903) 590-1720 Pax:. (903) 590-1719 .8

EXHIBIT

C

.~"~r~' 0 arts LO!S ROGER_S Dl<?!»-".* CLERK cAUsE No. 007~0450-11 tim rent 19 m ur fn STATE OF TEXAS § 7m RENme vs,4 § i_N AND ron M_ICHAEL RENARD WEBB § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS Trial Counsel"-s Affidavit iii Res“ onse to Writ of Habeas Cor' usl

'l`ii_a_l counsel has reviewed Michael Renard Webb’s Applicanon for~a Writ of Habeas Corpus in Cause # 007-0448'-ll and submits this affidavit in response to the claims made by Webb` Counsel was retained t_o represent Mie_hae_l Renard Webb on h'_i_s 5' cases that lie had pending in Smith County, TX. Webb made the decision to go to trial before this court on the aggravated assault oha`rge, Caus_'e No. 007-0447-11, in 2012. Webb was found guilty by this court and sentenced t_o life i_n pri'son_. Webb had four other cases pending-, three to which he pled and one that was dismissed Counsel had lengthy discussions with Webb regarding how to proceed With trial a'n_d Webb agreed With counsel’s trial `sirate`gy. Coimjsel also had discussions with Webb regarding the potential of stacking of sentences after his conviction for aggravated assault lt is still counsel’s position that Webb’s sentences could have been .swcl_<ed. Only one of the'ihree drug cases for which he received penitentiary time occurred on the same date as the aggravated assault The othertwo cases occurred on separate dates approximately 9 months prior to the aggravated assault Counsel believes the exposure to stacked sentences was very much a real possibility based on Art. 42.08 of the Code of‘Crim`inal Procedure and Pe`nal Code §3.03 a‘ud the facts of the case. Furth_ermore, this case~alleged the offense occ_u_x_red in a drug free

At no point did webb object w having his plea taken with other mined de’f¢ndams_. _ The court questioned him in detail regarding this fact. inn Gregory A‘. Waldron, State Bar No. 00788-598 Holmes& Mo_o‘r'e, P.L._L.C.

P.O..BOX 3267 Longview, 'l`exas 715 60'6 T¢lephone: (9`013) 758-2100 Fax No. (90_3) 158-7864

. {,,.‘ \ . . s'r-ATF. oF TExAs. § COUNTY OF GREGG § BEFORE ME this date personally appea`fed GREGORY A. WALDRON, trial cowsel for the Defendant 'in the above entitled and numbered cause, who upon oath st@_t_e_d _a_s follows " I am the attorney for the Defendant~in the above endtled-end.iuziibefed ca`nse. fhave read the matters cotitaihed in this Affida\'fit in Respon`se to Wri;_ of Ha_be'as Corpus, god all allegations therein a`re true and ciorrect."

ATToRNE~Y FOR DEFENDANT

.swoRN To AND sUBscRIBED BEFOR`E ME on wis me 17“‘ day of vaemb¢r 2014_.

NOTARY P.UBLIC, STATE op TEXAS~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As attorney of record for Defendan't, I do hereby certify that a t`r`ue a`nd correct cop'y of the above ajnfd foregoing document was fomarded to the Smith County District Attorney’s office this me 17“’ day of November-, 2014.

ATI`-ORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

EXHIBIT D

GAUSE'NC.~ oo'z-ll-rso-.n

ST`A'T.'E OF `l_'EXAS _§ "I“’ JUD!CIAL DISTRICT COURT vs'. § INAND ron M'lc'HAEL RENARD willis § SMITH coUN'rY`, 'rExAs

Trisi counsel his reviewed watts amato wash‘sapslrcaaoa or a writ cr Haims corpus iri Cacsc #007-0450--11add submisthis arsdariiiorcspocsctorhcclaiins mails by wcbo. coimscl wasioiaiscdtc.rcprsaanrlvlictiacl Rcisrdwcbhcril_d_sas mississide Pon§linz in Sl!.li.!h County, TX, Webb nude the decision to go to trial before this e‘o`l'nt on the aggravated asth chargc, Cdusc Nc. 007_.0.447.,11, in 2`012. webb was found guilty by this court rod assessed to life imprist waco had mmctr`_rcrcascs pcnd'isg, thrcatcwhichhcplcd and one -that~ was dismissed This writ eoneems~a chax~ge~of possession cfa controlled substance too sdiool` zouc which occurred at tl`ies,.ame time as'xhc:sggsycicd assault Counsel had icigtlir almost with waco regarding very w armed with trial ana Webb 'osl'oo<l with wimsel’s`l!'ial mfogy Coim.o.ol oloo dod discussions Will.! Wobb mowing the pot&llial of stacking of ' sentences alia his conviction for awarded assault lt is» still counsel’s po§tion chill Webb’s maxim could hallie been stacked Webba§sens that this ease

aside ncr have been cracked lime it.oceiii'sed ’iiii~i_tie.ssii‘ie criminal concurs the sgmnratsd estelle He"i`e alone This was e'srhool `z.on.o ohel.zo end es'sttoh sanbo~steokoii on lilly offense ever one 'in the s_`amem`minal enis'ode.

Cot.msel believes the exposure to stacked sentences `\`t'/'as very nin'ch a real possibility based cri An. 42.03 stare cede.ofciiinii'ial Procedure and renal coiln§s.t_)_s ai_ir_l the facts of~rlie A.t no point did Webb objoor to having his plea taken hint o.th'or thrown defendants Theoo`urt questioned him in detail regarding-tins fact

1310 ESE linen 323 0 Tylei‘_,_ Tx 75701 903-534-0480 903-534-5565 B_a_r Nb. 052753'100

~¢ ‘.

§ sum or nexns § CCUN'.!"`Y O`F~ SM|TH § BEPORB ME. this datepers<many appeared renda lt Cuny. hist matter tue- Defe¢.l`dant i.n dre~sbove eu_t'it.l.ed'and nmbered cause who upon Oat.l.a~stated as follower lam tim attorney fortune Defendmn incite above entered nndnumbered eenee. `l` have reedthem'ntte'm contained in this Af§dnvit i_n ; ~ '; - to Writ»»ofHdbea's Cetp'ita. uniden allegations thereinntetrne and.eur'reet,_

'. § mtarv_?ublie. State o_! Tanas “ My Commiss_in_n §,_xpi¢es Februch 10. 2318 'l' `¢€;.":`¢¢ .'. ,