UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JEANNETTE J.CLACK WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS PHlL|p J_ DEVL{N CLERK OFCOURT ' 501 west s"' street, suite 1100 CHIEFDEPW Austin, Texas 78701 ' August 19, 2015 _ RECE|VED |N t COURT oF chMlNAL APPEALS Court of Criminal Appeals ` , ‘ P.o. Box 12308 r AUB 21 2015 Austin, Texas 78711 To Whorn lt May Concern, AbezAcoSta, Clerk The enclosed documents were received on August 17, 2015. It appears they were addressed to us in error and are intended for your court.

If this office can assist you in any other manner, please let us know.

Very truly yours, JEANNETTE J. CLACK, Clerk By:_Deputy Clerk/AD CC: Dietrick Lewis Johnson, Sr. ’ dyeing Lv ~g_:;m§-W 3a . ga.$g;z'@|

\‘LZS\~Q?B RECElvED IN CQJQL' Q’ v d gg,q.éd~to,§ gm adm(;L_;,¢ QW¢YOURT oF chMINALAPPEALs , `; / ‘ >Q 9§=,@'~\© é?`, _<¢, %C»AQMQN'." `T&xo/§ 7773© _AUG 212015 37;/,¢~@" Aeeiaeesraelerk`

1\1 \¥\§. C¢;)C‘T" &F QQ~;/\A:'{NAL. AYQEAL"> QF “‘T’é>¢,QS

‘\>c>, \A)Q’ XZ) SSQD.~@\ ':’N §§ >:-.:EjQ-r¢;\< LL=,V¢:§ ;._;'L;H\\§¢M §Aj M '\/\\ AO()\_T<;AT~'L*>¢\\ grid v\/?_~"" ¢\F M.§N>AML>§ ' TCAQ§¢ /\@§ 91::2;2:»~1 ama 3\~=¢ 31;>33 ;)@1;,)’ 21¢:1»33<?0';~,°3€)1:

”_T:' \.-\A\/E Gc\lClmS€\F \‘cl£ €:L\_m,./IALC», Wr»,crg.!\/\E/\u""'$ FC_J(L \A"z£ @E\/IE\X/`_ _§::M<€T S-\éELT' CA§£ r\lc:> 3\‘1 'Z\SSl-t &\\h \DA=:; :M M§T~:Q\( AQ@:L \§ ,3¢3\§ 8@\“ wmerL ¢HQN& £em~¢>§ \,\/G’¢¢ cJ-;"'.'t-mél_\ 8 "T\;is 02@4/§:;':¢,\\

. / § "" /\/§» , __ \¢JAS _T(r\\j €q\/c¢<\ i§‘-' lM€ >6&~§£.

Q - l '._F-. l _' ”" c __' .§ ¢= é’."" "" E§ 51 £T’ZM£N‘."' csc '_'£'/\AM‘T'A¢\T F:<\<"’."S

:\:\££`£ .TL>\ &/{em>§\.c'r' £QL& nF ':'~J.'t`\xg§.$‘ .'_;Me§¢_l"d\,x.` \ @"7' \A)£“‘"`“"z:€ l-\AR >…Q (`/\0\\ 1~§ \_c_'°'."TSL`§ c\}€<=~"" T'r./\~ \ \£§L\_t§&_ CQNSG L A\h> s’."‘»';z g \,J£J.'£ )"'E »MEI \/n€&;¢§m»o"'” .:r~(~ T§§,§§ AN> ML,M¢~, >>¢mmsmq‘:;-a /52&3§11:'.¢>.::.4¢ Wl',‘;§(‘ml\a.p:.`r‘.l /

/""'1'¢.'>'\\1 SQ)d/\i 13€>\§ F\S`J\P<A_:i §§ 7:€`2£') A‘.IV\ &~151@:.`)"3 ,, .. _ _ 6:1\1@& "~.C” QAN““' 1 $E€M"`_'° 1a <_:11~;“.'\1~1> am "TFFa Ql-im\i€ At\i?__' ND\A/ EML U\x";"a> \l-i*;.;`é LT.'/\.\E cf

\/C.zNC \rJl-l/-VTC_‘ \m) A£Z , , §»_

' 101¢\1"‘" m\t&&m\d \n/E;LL_ .1HA'1" 5 Er\\m_deG-i AFT+AT »» "' ') (/mE-.~_ 11:31)_ 1116 L§@b §§ `/`\/_\_€ac:-€L,L Aoa-:L-!

iva 1,.,;‘.\;9§‘ 1137 ,TSA\.L' CA§1§5§11‘°°" g \_L‘, CFL. \D'. 511 TSA:AH \'. \'Z

.-.\-t@\_A/we£., ::: ¥&A> 1\1}_1l 411 1 §§ L.as';' ‘ d ' ` ‘1’/(`¢~/\15"’1511'\.”1_`| 1§"1.'¢&’\ Q/\\~ -\_Y'i£,-

`/ .:v ‘ 1 >1""&/\1».

QA§£ 1\1;:>. li. LZC:Z>`<X W‘:MU>“@M~ "'"°“'°"“F ” 3 1€'._:"_:’> _ § CE 1€1',~;;1€~.1'55""1'_ ..»;Q.»;. _,/ 4 _ f ~ ~ / .- \ 91 .1`.' .,1_ -",.; item l '~.

311 L~;-递°\i\ _V\c§; `d§g,§ 1 '\31€\,.` ""'1\`_¥1'¢1~\§ \h._> 1'¢\1 A>\[ch_€ §§ 159\);:§1@ ‘_"'& ~/' gm 1 ‘_<> ‘_&j_¢;§oém_:> (‘§1£" (.§. :AN'\ t\\C‘>\ {V\A`D FS`T'\H ADKIL§ _L\’b 1\11>1/\/\1\'3/1§4<§ _”E_Qg§§_§;@!v\€r\~ §:1\1 §§ oim\.dv€ EL§_¢ ”75`1§`1 / ' (-\ d "'I'AM A \~b<l( :. i;,, ;¢ .:`\ ‘ l-.§~ 1 l\D_\' ME.

.1"_'.\'1';\1 Q€C>C@Kéé§ .»q\\> .1 3~;_~ é. ;§""_Y' ~ ` "1\11:11." 'C.<c..`.

SD~£:/\ ALV\/Au8 3:@:"1;:< 14 C_J)_§c

Z§HIBIT-C Q/é}; SFC“\{` names THE TEXAS PENAL c_oDE §§ U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 May 15, 2015 RE: The machination's committed by the State and U.S.' Assistant District Attorney's as follows: Dear OPR Dept.: On Novenber 28, 2012, State of Texas case number's; "219- a ` 81234-2012, 2l9-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012, Assistant Dis-r trict Attorney; "Cynthia A. Walker," postponed a 9:30 AM Pre- Trial Hearing, with Honorable Judge "Scott J. Becker." resid- ing. Further, drove to meet up with this Petitioners U.S. Assis- tant District Attorney; "Tracey M. Batson,".whose the prosecutor in defendants parallel case's;§to retrieve a copy of his Federal (11)(C)(1)(C) Plea Agreement. 'D.A. Walker went to doctrine the petitioner's federal (11)(C)(1)(C) plea agreement, to make it suit her Aggravated Kidnapping case she was prosecuting again~ st this defendant in his State parallel case's. Further, in federal Court, all weapon_giolation’s was dismissed against. this defendant during plea negptiations. ' 3 ' 5 On November 28, 2012, at 1230 PM postponed Pre-Trial hearing in Case NO. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905~2012.

D.A. Walker entered this federal plea agreement into the Court‘s. record, now saying petitioner gave U.S. Marshal‘s verbal consent (1) :o search a parked,_locked vehicle on private property, where a firearm was recovered. Therefore, they (Prosecutor's) doc- trined the plea agreement to fit an Aggravated Kidnapping, using the federal (11)(C)(1)(C) plea agreement as a confession to find this petitioner guilty on all his State parallel case's.` Under Texas Penal Code, Section 32.48 (Simulating Legal Process) (a) A person commits an offense if the person reckless~_ ly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a simmons, complaint, judgment, or other Court process with the intent to: (2) Cause another to; (A) Submit to the putative authority of the document, or (d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a Clerk of a Court or an Employee of a Clerk of a Court created or established under the constitution or laws of this State, there is a re- butable presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by section (a).

Gn November 28, 2012, State Assistant District Attorney entered this federal (ll)(C)(l)(C) Plea Agreement, into the States record to use as a confession against this petitioner.

After this petitioner saw that the State of Texas was using his Federal Plea Agreement against him, he entered a Motion_ in Federal §ourt to withdraw his guilty plea. z On;January 30, 2013, at petitioner's federal hearing to_ withdraw his guilty plea, the U.S. Assistant District Attorney, had the State Assistant District Attorney actively participating- fn the petitioner's federal hearing to withdraw his guilty plea, on video and audio, sitting at the table for federal prosecuting Attorney's.

On March 4, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge; "Amos L. Hazzant," in his fact finding and recommendation to the District Judge, was to grant petitioner a right to withdraw his guilty plea and to take the case to trial before a jury.

On March 18, 2013, U.S. and State Assistant District Attor‘ ney's entered an Objection, certifying that'the State of Texas would not use the Federal (11)(C)(1)(C) Plea Agreement as a confession in petitioner's State parallel case's. Further; knowing that the federal plea agreement was already entered into the State‘s record "November 28, 2012," as confession, five (5) months prior to even entering this objection March 18, 2013. l On April 10, 2013, U.S. District Judge; "Marcia A. Crone," denied the Magistrate Judge fact finding and recommendation, on the grounds that the State of/Texas certified that they would not use the Federal.Plea Agreement as.a confession with the State, and made the guilty plea stand. j Pursuant to the Texas Penal Code, Section 36.04, Improper Inffuence (a) A person commits an offense if he privately addres- ses a representation; entreaty, argument, o; other communica§ion to any public servant;who exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to in- fluence the outcome of the`proceeding on the'basis of consider; / ations other than those authorized by law. (B) for purposes if this section, "adjudicatory Proceeding," means any proceed~ ing before a Court or any other agency of Government in which the Legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified parties are determined.

Under the Texas Penal Code, section 36.02, Bribery (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on auother, or solicits, 4'accepts, or agrees to accept from another: (l) Any benefits as consideration for the recipient's decision, (Slam Dunk's in both, State and Federal Court's, by getting the guilty plea to stand), opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter; (2) any benefits as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding; (4) (C) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the`benefit is not offered or conferred or the the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after; (l) the.decision, opinion, recommendaj tion, vot;, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or 7 (2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.

It's clear that this petitioner was tag deemed by State and U.S. Assis}ant District Att%rney’s, who deceiyed the Federal Court Judge's, simply to set themselves up with slam dunks in both Court's. Further, denying this petitioner his 5th and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, depriving _..:,h.im. § __ 1' i S._h_ t__, _ t_? l d 11 s P rO,C e S S. .e_n.d;__§q ua.l_,__.P,.r.Q teg._.t_,i_.p. nl . ._o f then ;_l_a,.w, _, ,… . ,l_.¢ .-- _...,__ _ , by denying him a right to take the case to trial before a jury.

Under the Texas Penal Code, section 37.03, Aggravated Perjury, (a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury as defined in section 37,02, and the false staement: (l) Is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and (2) Is Material; (b) An offense under this section is a fel- ony of the third degree.

Section_37104, Materiality, (a) A statement is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under-the rules of evidence, if it could have effected the course or outcome of the official proceeding. (b) It is no defense to prosecution nunder section 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that declarant mistaken~ ly believed the statement to be immaterial. (C) Whether a State- ment is material in a given factual situation is a question of law.

37.13, Record of a Fraudulent Court, (a) A person commits . an offense if the person makes, presents, or uses any document or other record with: (1) Knowledge that the document or other record is not a record of a Court created under or established by the constitution or laws of this State or of the United States.

Respectfully submitted, ., ' .x

_,j.ii; l th/.¢{_./ l ‘ Dietrick Lewis Jo nson SR. 19831~ ~078 ' Beaumont FCC (MED)

Beaumont, Texas 77720 _.tP_. 0 BOX 260¢0 ._.,-, . .r April 21, 2012 To Bay|or l\/|edica| Records of lrving, l Gera|dine Caston, mother of Dietrick Lewis Johnson give authorization to release the medical records for Dietrick Lewis Johnson (DOB June 20, 1965, Socia| Security XXX-XX-XXXX). Dietrick is currently incarcerated and has brain cancer. Please fax his medical records to his attorney Terri Danie| at 877-291-1215. lf you have any questions, l can be reached at 773-221-2590. Thanks in advance.

Sincerely, Gera|dine Caston February 23, 2014 Re: United States v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. Case No. 4:12~CR88 and 4:13-CR88, State of Tean Case No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012 De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C.

Rafael De La Garza, ll CC: Andrea Stroh Thompson District Clerk, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Clerk of Court Subject: Machinations of the Prosecution, Suppression of favorable eye witnesses.

Dear Mr. De La Garza: There is still a reasonable solution which will prevent the state administration from sporting the black eye that was so rich|y deserved by the United States District Attorney Offlce. l reiterated my previous request that you join with the trials Judge in requesting production of documents and discovery, under _Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This was a painful ordeal for both attorneys (|n the above mentioned case numbers).

The defendant did not wish to portray you or your oche as incompetent, but rather as a victim of the machinations of the prosecution. lt is not my belief in which, controls the courts'.

However, the sixth amendment mandates that your office should be willing to do whatever it could to achieve simple justice.

Attorney Terri Danie|, before leaving my state case's as my counsel, had information as to the whereabouts of two eye witnesses who talked with the complainant at (3029 Barnes Bridge St., Da|las, TX 75228) the day of 03-21-2012.

These eye witnesses for the defense were an investment as a community and created a terrible liability for the state and its charging instrument Remedy: ”The eye witnesses provides evidence that complainant was not being held in any fashion, against her will or abducted as communicated on a sworn, lega|, government and state document". Both court officials held knowledge of their existence.

Since it can be proven that the complaining victim falsified legal documents with an insurance agency, irving and Da|las Po|ice Departments, there is no other legitimate conclusion that can be reached by reasonable minds other than that Ms. Love had the understanding with the state to which she submitted a sworn, signed affidavit Offer Proof: ”This 2003 Lincoln LS, V|N 1LNH-M86$33Y677740, was fixed at the Ford dealership located at Beltline Rd. and Highway 30 in irving or Grand Prairie, Texas in January of 2012.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Note to Attorney: You need to contact Psychologist Gilda Kessner (214-455-7692), Psy. D, Pc., PO. Box 181954, Dallas, Tx 75218. ‘ Faithfully yours, Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. T.D.C.J. #01894476 Michael Unit 2664 Fm 2054 Tennessee, Co|ony, Tx 75886 February 23, 2014 RE: State of Texas v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. , Case No. 4:12-CR88 and 4:13-CR88, State of Texas Case No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012, and 219-82905-2012.

De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C.

Rafael De La Garza il CC: Andrea Stroh Thompson District Clerk, U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas Clerk of Court, Subject: File motions, to compel compliance with States Plea Agreement and Force the iudgment of the Trial Court.

Dear Mr. De La Garza: l receive your letter dated January 14, 2014. You stated that your office contacted the AUSA to inform the US Marshalls. Have we come so far that the defense can't trust the state or its administration to play fair and must continually be there saying ”obey court orders, obey court orders”? Regarding the Fiasco of the Coilin County Sheriff's Oflice failure to obey court orders.

Under the rules of iaw, your office must file a motion to compel compliance with Plea Agreement, and enforce iudgment of the Trial Court. Emphasis that per the agreement, state time has to run concurrent with Federai sentence, and by being sent to the state first prevents fulfillment of the plea agreement As the defendant can only be credited for time actually in Federai custody.

Your office must file motion to Federai court for an order of Recovery, urging that the state only had temporary jurisdiction and request a motion to enforce the courts judgment Per Plea Agreement stress the times lost while being in states custody, and request in motion the good time credit you failed to mention during my sentencing i was arrested 03-26-2012, nearly two years time served in Coilin County Jail. lt seemed to me to be the definitive statement that courtroom officials are unable to comply with time honored principle of law.

Faithfully yours, Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. T.D.C.i. #01894476 Michael Unit 2664 Fm 2054 Tennessee, Co|ony, TX 75886 The De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C. v Rafael De La Garza, ii 3941 Legacy Dr. Suite 204-A192 Plano, Texas 75023 De La Garza ii CC: State and Federai Clerks of the Court and Files Re: United States v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. Cause No. 4:12 CR00080 and 4:13 CR00088 State of Texas'v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. Cause No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012 Subject: Requesting that you file a Habeas Corpus-2255 Federai writ and motion for summary ofjudgment; Requesting the Courts’ (state and federai) to Dismiss. ”| need you to file the following" Habeas Corpus~2255, Federai writ Prosecutor misconduct Failure to disclose to the Court and Grand-Jury Brady material (Brady v. Maryland 1963 Case).

Nameiy phone records (Text messages) the state prosecution subpoena phone records April 15, 2013, that would proven to the grand-jury that the complaining witness committed perjury and falsified state and government documents.

File motion for summary of judgment Requesting the court to dismiss.

Grounds 1. Suppression of exculpatory evidence 2. Knowingly, willingly and intentionally used perjured testimony (name|y) complaintant signed statement of facts which was presented to the grand jury. f l 3. Citing Gatson, suppressed evidence was not a work product of the State or Government. Deceit produced court Rulings under the Fourteenth Amendment is a denial of Due Process.

Emphases added: in the present case United States Assistant District Attorney and State Assistant District Attorney is guilty of Suppressing Evidence Favora ble to the accused, deceiving the trial courts during petitioners trial court proceedings Had the defendant held personal knowledge and/or had possession of said Favorabie Evidence he would not entered a plea of guilty in open court.` Therefore, evidence would have changed the outcome of trial court proceedings.

Emphases added: Cure: Had this Favorabie Evidence (Phone Records and Text messages) been presented to a grand jury and the courts; the accused would not had been indicted in the State and Government charging instrument Therefore, the outcome in the courts' proceedings would have resulted in a case dismissal.

Emphases added: Vindictive Prosecution The Courts’ believe that there is no room in the system for personal feelings, prejudices, vendettas or any other machinations in the way of fundamental fairness.

Faithful ly you rs, Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. The De La Garza Law Firm Group, P.C.

Rafael De La Garza |l 3941 Legacy Dr. Suite 204-A192 Piano, Texas, 75023 De La Garza ll CC: State and Federai District Clerks Re: United States v. Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. Cause No: 4:12 CR00080 and 4:13 CR00088 State Cause No. 219-81234-2012, 219-81235-2012 and 219-82905-2012.

Standard Discovery Order in Criminal Cases for: Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr. 1. Ali written or recorded statements of the defendant along with all confessions or statements whether verbal or otherwise made pursuant to Art. 38.22 C.C.P..

4. inspection of: G. Ali tangible items of physical evidence collected by the State or its agents concerning the alleged offense, to include latent fingerprints, footprints, hairs, fibers, fingernails scrapings, body fluids, tire tracks, paint scrapings, etc..

10. Ali exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963 Case) and related cases.

12. in appropriate cases, the state is encouraged to furnish offense reports and witness statements in addition to the above items. However, such reports and statements are normally work product of the state and are therefore protected from mandatory disclosure unless the contents are exculpatory.

Such Statements and reports must of course be tendered to the defense for cross examination on proper request under Gaskin or related requirements Emphases Added lViotion For Discovery was submitted to the States Court Docket sheet on April 11, 2013. The subpoena was issued for Metro Pcs on April 15, 2013, by the States Assista nt District Attorney.

On Docket sheet the defendant wrote numerous inmate correspondences to the state trial judge and prosecuting attorney from December 5, 2012 to February 13, 2014; requesting phone records and text messages to show that the complaining witness gave perjured signed statement of facts to the grand jury.

Furthermore, defendant also contacted the United States District Judge Magistrate and Assistant District Attorney about phone records and text messages on numerous occasions.

Discovery and subpoena was ordered and signed by iudge Scott J. Becker on April 11, 2013.

Faithfully yours Dietrick Lewis Johnson Sr.

-i.\ §§ ¢}_w:>~ ` CD ?-"_=?L>,_<j l Lri Exhibit 10 § $i».l,,__ C;, i--,_i>: ~ c ;:'~Jz~_.. e'*i-LTC W219-81234-2012-HC cp 523 mf.f.r_y § ~¢x°iu§ ..

53 E> In the ;_’ 55 o >. , "'~ co Ex parte Dietrick Lewis 'Johnson § § _ § 219th District Court § § ' of Collin County, Texas ~ Request to Designate Issues il The State of Texas moves this Court to enter an order designati- g issues of controverted, previously unresolved fact to be resolved. j 1.

On May 14, 2014; the Clerk served the State with the Application for writ of habeas corpus filed lby Dietrick Lewis Johnson (Applicant) pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. ll.07.

2.

An application filed under Article ll.07 provides for a prompt review by the trial court to determine Whether the application alleges any facts that iftrue, could entitle the applicant to relief See art 11.07, § 3(_0`). li"th,e court determines ~that controverted fact issues do exist, it shall enter an order designating the issues of fact to be resolved Ia'. § 3(d); see Martin v. Hamlin, 25 S.W.3d 718, 719 (Tex. Crim. A.pp. 2000) (holding the trial court has a duty to designate issues if it determines a habeas application contains controverted issues). Upon entry of an order designating issues, the clerk need not forward the application ».to the Court of Criminal Appeals for 180 days. TeX. R. App. P. 73.4(b)(5). `3.4 Applicant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping after a plea bargain and sentenced to 60 years’ confinement l 4.

Applicant alleges prosecutorial misconduct, that his plea bargain is not being followed, ineffective assistance _of trial ' counsel, and actual innocence claims.

5. _ The State generally denies each of Applicant’s allegations The State believes there are controverted issues cof fact material to Applicant’s incarceration The State therefore requests that this Court enter an order designating such issues and the manner of their resolution so that it may, after the issues are resolved, submit a response to assist the Court in making its findings of fact and conclusions of law.