MR. JASON T. PEGUES #728196 HUNTSVILLE UNIT 12th STREET HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348

September 18,2015 RECEiVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS TO: Clerk of the Court; Abel Acosta Court of Criminal Appeals Box 12308 OCT 06 2015 Capitol Station Austin, Tex~s 78711 Abe! Acosta, Clerk

Re: Filing a Motion--for Leave and an Original Petiton for Writ of Mandamus in reference to applications No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4 This document contains some pages that are of poor qualit)}' Dear ¢lerk of the Court: at the time of imaging.

Enclosed is a <Mb~tion for Leave and d";:._pr-~ginal Petition for Writ of Mandamus in reference to cause number: 94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR- 026185 .HC4. If you will please file the enclosed so that it may be presented to this Honorable Cpurt so that it may be reviewed, .heard and ruled on, I would really appreciate it. Thank you for your time and assistance.

Relator: Petitioner: Applicant:

cc/file: of 1 .•

No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4 * IN THE COURT OF * CRIMINAL APPEALS In re Jason Tyrone Pegues * AT * AUSTIN, TEXAS * Relator's Motion For Leave To File His Original Petition For Writ of Mandamus

To The Honorable Judge of Said Court: Comes now, Jason T.Pegues #728196, Relator, Pro-se,in the above styled and numbered cause of action respectfully submit this Motion for Leave to file his Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to the Texas Rules of App.Proc.art.72.1 regarding two applications for writ of habeas corpus 11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Relator is asking for this Honorable Court's permission for leave to file an original petition for writ of mandamus in reference to cause number 26185. Relator would also like to show this Honorable Court the following:

Grounds for filing Writ of Mandamus I.

On "JU.}y &~ ZDIS , the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County where the Hon.Judge Thomas R.Culver,III presides reconsidered relator's initial applications writ for habeas corpus 11.07 due to the aggravated perjury committed by court appointed counsel Cary M.Faden in his court ordered affidavit which was attached and referenced to in relator's initial applications No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR- 026185 HC4. The aggravated perjury was discovered when relator subsequently filed a Motion For Forensic DNA Testing and the official record was ordered and reviewed revealing that DNA test results were inconclusive, with no match. (see Attachment "A"). After relator's applications were reconsidered, relator filed a~Motion requesting that the court hold its ruling for 30 days so that relator can supplement and amend his applications. Immediately after, relator filed two

-1- supplemental amended applications -fo,r writ of habeas corpus 11.07 with the District Clerk of Fort Bend C.Yftt~ Annie Rebecca Elliott,who forwarded the applications to the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office(John Harrity) which was received on August 03,2015 and on August 12,2015. (see Attachment "8").

II.

According to the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the code of criminal procedure, the State has failed to comply with the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c). The State has not filed an answer in reference to relator's supplemental amended application HC4 within the 15 day rule set in the rules nor has an order for designating issues been determined. Relator's supplemental amended application in reference to the reconsidered application HC3, the State's Appeal Attorney John Harrity has it classified as HC5 in which relator did object to(see Attachment "C"), the State has filed an answer, but a determination whether designating facts and unresolved issues to the legality of relator's confinement has not been made within the time frame mentioned in the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c),and relator is asking this Honorable Court for its permission to leave and file an original petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents to forward both supplemental amended applications which was filed properly by relator.

The "illegal tactic" Reason for State's Delay in forwarding Relator's Applications to this Honorable Court I.

The State's delay in forwarding relator's applications are based on the following facts and evidence:

In a total different proceeding pertaining to this case 26185 which is relator's Motion For Forensic DNA Testing, the State has lost the evidence in this case they claimed to have had against relator, which entitles him to relief. Ex parte Roslyn Marie Turner,394 S.W.3d 513(Tex.Crim.App. 2013). In the DNA proceeding of this case, which began around March 24,2015, the State first filed an extension for time on June 08,2015 (see Attachment "'·')) ") in which the State requested for the deadline date to be extended to June 29,2015 in the trial court and was granted as well. Shortly after, the State filed a

-2- second Motion reqesting the trial Judge to enter orders to various parties for the location of the evidence in this case so the State can respond to relator's Motion for DNA testing,in which too this motion was granted by the trial court (see Attachment "E"). Relator objected stating tht the trial Judge was being bias in granting this particular motion due to in relator's initial application(HC3),the State requested the same course of action and the trial Judge denied the State's request, but now in a different/later proceeding the trial Judge grant the same request he previously denied. On b-~-r.s ,relator filed a writ of mandamus in the First Court of Appeals at Houston requesting the court to compel the trial court to respond to relator's Motion for DNA testing which was condititonally granted (Appellate Case No.Ol-15-00535-CR) as the First Court of Appeals at Houston gave an order to the trial court to respond to relator's writ of mandamus within 30 days from the order. (see Attachment "F ") . The State did reply on '7-2.Y- 15 and relator responded to the State's reply on '7•30- 15 II.

Although the second motion filed by the State on June 26,2015 (see Attachment ":E") requesting the trial Judge to enter orders to various parties for the location of the evidence in this case 26185 was granted, relator received copies of all parties affidavits ordered by the trial Judge, all parties stating that they have no knowledge of .. where the evidence in this case is located and have no personalLA1TACH~~,~~J recollection of this case. The only party who has failed to submit his affidavit ordered by the court and signed by an Hon.Judge, placing this party in contempt of court for not following and complying with a court order signed by an Hon.Judge is the then lead prosecutor Former Assistant District Attorney, James Sidney Crowley and on ;B,-:_Zboe..._-_·._.15 _____ relator filed an objection in the trial court. As of date, the trial court hold~ relator's Motion For Forensic DNA Testing h~ving by facts and evidence lost the evidence in this case, continuing to delay making a finding required by the code of criminal procedure art.64.04, and with the State not being able to present evidence in this case, confirms the following: • Texas Penal. Laws has- been violated which was one of the provoking 'reasons why relator filed his motion for DNA testing. (see Attachment "Gr"l. • With the State not being able to present the evidence in this case confirms that the evidence in this case has been tampered with as well as fabricated,especially with the State having claimed that they had this evidence against relator.

-3- With the State not being able to present the evidence in this case to the court, confirms that relator was in fact convicted by an illegal taken statement that was secured, admitted into evidence, and used as over 90% of relator's conviction, violating Vernon's Ann.Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art.38.23. Wilson v. State,311 S.W.3d at 458-59; Smith v. State,165 S.W.3d 36l(Cr.App. 2005); Hampton v. State,36 S.W.3d 921(App.8 Dist. 2001); Ex parte Roslyn Marie Turner,394 S.W.3d 513(Tex.Crim.App. 2013).

The Tex.C.C.Procedure 38.23 prohibits the admission of any evidence obtained in violation of Texas Penal Laws related to gathering, creating, or destroying evidence. 38.23 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure includes evidence that is obtained in violation of Texas Law as well as that obtained in violation of the Federal and State Constitution. Wilson v. State,311 S.W.3d at 458-59; Smith v. State,165 S.W.3d 36l(Cr.App. 2005).

III.

With the State not being able to present the evidence in this case and parties stating in their court ordered affidavits that they have no knowledge of where the evidence in this case is located and noCA#Qchnt~,~~~ personal recollection of this case, forces the State to determine whether they want to attempt to prove that the statement was legally taken or not, and with the official investigating record proving that the statement was illegally taken, without the statement and without the State not being able to present the evidence in this case, Constitutionally entitles relator to relief.

The respondent/trial court is holding relator's supplemental amended applications in reference to the reconsidered applications HC3 and HC4 due to through investigating to respond to the relator's motion for Forensic DNA Testing in this case 26185'.evidence has been ldst and can not be located, which are grounds for not only reversal but for re-lat-or to be exonerated, and so the respondents is breaking all rules pertaining to forwarding relator's applications to this Honorable Court.

IV.

The State's delay in forwarding the relator's applications is also because~~~lator is proving by facts, support from State, Federal and Supreme Court cases, along with the official investigating record in this case that the statement which was secured and used as over 90% of relator's conviction was clearly illegally taken, so with the State not being able to locate and present the evidence in this case, there is

-4- no support for conviting and sentencing relator to 50 years in ~~ison, resulting that the State is holding and refusing to respond to any of relator's filings, ignoring and neglecting the integrity and fairness of the Justice System, as the State continue to search for the evidence in t h is c as e , extend in g a 6 0 day 's t a,n dar d of pro c e d u r e to six months not caring of its consequences, and if the evidence in this case has not been found in six months, then surely the evidence in this case is lost, destroyed or never did exist.

v. The State stated that there was a knife handle and a phone book in which d i d no t c on t a in r e 1 at or ' s p r in t s , c on c 1 u d in g t h;a t w i t h t h e s t at e n o t being able to present evidence in this case, confirms that if relator did not confess to in particulars of the crime in the illegal taken statement, the State only verbalized it in t~\al for slandering purpos'es which had an impact on the jury's ver·~-~ct, furthering confirmin confirming that with inconclusive DNA testing results, the illegal taken statement was over 90% of relator's conviction, and with relator's ability to prove the statement was illegally taken beyond a reasonable d~ubt, confirms that t~ere was no evidence in which would have convicted relator. See Attachment "U~ where the State relied solely on the DeGarmo Doctrine and the illegal taken statement, but now that the court of criminal appeals has completely overruled the DeG~rmo Doctrine C~~££~!£~-Y~-~!~!~~12~-~~~~1~_122-~I~~~£Ei~~~££~~Q11)) and is to be applied retroactively according to West's Texas Digest 2d [lOO(l)courts] a s t he Law o f C a s e Do c t r in e . a p p 1 i e s , _t_Q _· t h i s c a s e ~.2.1~2 a s we 1 1, .=- - ( :hi_~~£l~i!!_y~_Qi!.l._£.f_.E~!~~~~~-I~~~~-.2..2,2._I~l~-~~2) , r e 1 at or i s now able to present the Entire initial Police Investigation of this case, supported by the investigatin~ record to expose all the Constitutional, Substantial, and Procedu~al errors and violations that took place in the initial police investigating parts of this case ~.2.1~2·

VI.

According to !Yi~~~£~_l2= As a general rule, a party's failure to produce evidence within its control raises the presumption that, if produced, it would operate against him.

With the State not being able to present the evidence in this case,

-5- confirms that without the illegal taken statement, there is not any physical or biological evidence, nor was there ever any to support convicting relator.

I •

In the initial police investigation, Constitutional, Substantial, and Procedural rights were violated and affected. The investigating record in this case reflects that the police officers visited the child numerous times although he was classified as only a witness, questioning and interrogating him about a criminal act, never informing him of his 5th Amendment right of having his parents present before and during the interrogation/questioning, which is a Due Pro~ess violation under th the 14th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution, as well as a parental notification requirement violation.~£!~~-Y~-~~!~i~~L~l~-Q~~~~l£L~l£=~2~; f£l£!~~£_y~_f£~~~lllL~l~-Q~~~-l~l=l£2; ~i!~~~~L-l~~-Q~~~-~!-~l£L~~~L ~~~-~!-~l~; Q~~~-Y~-~~~~i~~!£~L-~ll_Q~~~-~!-l~~; ~ill~!_Y~-K~~!i~-~l~ Q~~~-lQ~LlQ~LlQ£; ~i~£~l-Y~-~!i~£~~L-~ll_Q~~~-l~~L~~; ~!£~~-Y~­ ~i~~i~~i££iL_£~l_Q~~~-£l~L~£; Q~~~-y~_Yill~~~~-~Q~-K~l~-2~~; Q!~~£~-Y~ !l~!~~L-~lQ_Q~~~-~!-lll· The investigating record also reflects that multiple times the police officers visited the victim parents at their home which was right next door to where the witness lived, but instead of the police going to the witness home where his parents ~o~ld be present, the ·police waited until the child was at school to qriestion/ interrogate him in a office alone during school hours avoiding parental interference which is a due process violation and police coercive conduct. The police never notified the child's parents of their questioning/interrogating the child at school, the child was being interrogated without the informance, notification, or consent of his parents which affected substantial rights, pursuant to !~~~!~!_!~!~~ £f_f!i~i~~!_K!££~~~~~~~£~~2· establishing that these plain errors were prejudicial. C!!!i~£!~-Y~-K~!~i~~L-~~£_Q~~~-£~£L£~l-~l~~Q)).

-6- II.

These violations and errors in the initial police investigation in this case I£!~~ led to the child being arrested from school with no evidence, making the arrest illegal. The officers continued to violate due process rights and affect substantial rights, committing plain erro~s that were prejudicial by failing to inform the child's parents that the child had been arrested and why, and in failing to do so Yi£1~!~~-I~~ilz_££~~-~~~~~I~QII£2· The investigating record in this case reflects that the child was arrested at 1100 hours and the child's parents were notified at 1607 hours, making that a five hour and seven minute.delay, which is a Yi£l~!i£~_£i_I~~i!z_f£~~-~I~QII£2 and due process right violation as well. Q~~~-y~_QiY£~~y=Q~Ei£~YL!l£_I~~~EE I~_lQ~; !~-E~-£~~~L22~-~~~~I~_ll~_II~~~~EE~=~~~~!i~_!222); Q£~~~!~~-Y~ ~!~!~L2-~~~~1~_I£l_I~EE~!_Qi~!~!222) ; 1~-Y~-~!~!~L221-~~~~I~-£~QL£~~= ~£-II~~~£Ei~~~EE~!222). The State statue requires that a child parents must be promptly told that the child has been arrested and why and requires more than just a phone call. !~-E~-£~~~L22~-~~~~I~_ll~_II~~~ ~EE~==~~~!i~~l222)· In that five hour and seven minute delay, the coercive conduct by the police continued as the police took the child out of the county the crime occurred in [Fort Bend County], to another county [Harris County], acting without legal authority, lodging the child into a.~acility that was not approved by the Fort Bend Juvenile Court and extracted a statement/confession from the child, making the statement/confession illegal and inadmissible by l~w violating V Vernon's Ann. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art.38.23. ~i!~£~-Y~ ~!~!~L-1!!_~~~~1~-~!-~~~=~2; ~~i!~-Y~-~!~!~L-!£~-~~~~1~_1£!_IfE~~EE~ IQQ~); Q~~~-y~_2£~~-~~-Q~Ei£~YL_!~1_!~1~-~1~=~12_I2!~_fiE~!22~), but there was no evidence against relator, so although the statement was taken illegally, that was all the State had so it was secured, admitted into evidence, and used to convict relator and sentenced him to fifty years in prison. tl~~E!£~-Y~-~!~!~L1£_~~~~1~_2I!_I~EE~~-Qi~!~ IQQ!).

III.

After the child was certifi~d, the investigating record in this case which proves the violations and errors that occurred in the initial police investigation was sealed by the Fort Bend County Juvenile Court in purpose to hide these violations and errors, which has been hidden for over twenty years. Relator had no knowledge that the investigating record in this case ~~1~2 had been sealed, but relator was recently able to gain possession of the investigating record in this case, establishin establishing "!iii:.E!!!~!i~~-!~i:.~~!!.£~-£!._~~1~!££.:~-!!!!!£.£~!!.£~", entitling him· to a live evidentiary hearing, !.!_£.~E!~_IE~!!~li!!L_1.~_§..:.!i.:.1~-~1.1L~1.~ 1.!~.!.:.£Ei!!!.:.!E.E..:.~QQ~); !.!_E.~E!~-I~l~lL_1Q2__§..:.!i.:.1~-1~~-1.I~.!.:.fEi!!!.:.!E.E..:.~QQ~), but the State has lost the evidence in this case, entitling relator to relief. !.!_E.~E!~-~£~ll!!_~~Ei~-I~E!!~EL_12_~_§..:.!i.:.1~-211_1.I~.!.:.£Ei!!!.:.!E.E..:.~Q11), Either the State with-held this favorable eviderce and failed to disclose this favorable evidence to the defense ~E~~l-~.!.-~~El.!.~!!~L-11.1 Q.:.§..:..-~1~1.12.~1); !.!_E.~E!~-!~~!!!~L1.~~-§..:.!i.:.~~-~~1-1.!~.!.:.£Ei!!!.:.!E.E..:.12.~2.); Q!!i:.!~~-§.!~!~~-~.!.-~~~l~lL~1.1_Q.:_§_.:__~~1.L~1.~-1_12_~2); !.!_E.~E!~-f~l~~E£!!_1Q2_ §..:.!i.:.1~-~~-1.I~.!.:.£Ei!!!.:.!E.E..:.~Q1Q), or the District Court Appointed Counsel Cary M.Faden ignored and neglected the violations and errors that are clear and'obvious in the investigating record when appointed to this case. Either way, now that the court of criminal appeals has completely overruled the doctrine in which this case was under the authority of (The DeGarmo Doctrine) [See: 2~.££Q~£!!_~.:__§.!~!~L_12_~_§..:.!i.:.1~-12.2_1.!~.!.!. £Ei!!!.:.!E.E..:.~Q11)] and relator has gained possession of the investigating record in this case, relator is now able to present the Entire investigating record along with all the violations and errors that occurred in the initial police __i_tlvestigation of this case ~~1~2· I,·,-......,.,_\

IV.

T h e a f or em en t i on e d i s t h e " :frT,l __ .• e g a 1 t a c t i c " r e a s on for t h e S t a t e ' s \

delay in forwarding the relator's supplemental amended applications and memorandums to this Honorable Court.

PRAYER ------ WHEREFORE,PREMISES CONSIDERED, relator prays that this Honorable Court grant this Motioni_For Leave to file his original Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the respondents in this case to forward both of relator's supplemental amended applications so that this. Honorable Court. c~n review relator's merits and claims so that they may be fairly adjudicated. The State has lost the evidence in this case and now the

-8- State is refusing to comply with art.ll.07 Sec.3(b),(c) of the Te-x-as Code of Criminal Procedure and hold relator's applications which is a violation and illegal delay, so relator is - pr~ying this Honorable Court grant this Motion for Leave which is required to file .iii.--~~-d§~ -- --- , for a petition for Writ of Mandamus to be-.f_i-1ed in this--Honor~~_l_e_GQurt, so that this court can review the investigating parts of this case that has been hidden illegally for over twenty years by the State in Fort Bend County, Texas, and now that relator have the investigating record and other facts to prove the initial i~v~s!~g~i~on violations and errors that occurred in the initial part of this case, the State is doing all the possible to avoid all the information and evidence from reaching this Honorable Court.

Thanks for your time and consideration. ''- r _\

Petitioner: Applicant:

I,l~~£~-I~X~~~~~-!li~!~£, Relator, being presently incarcerated in Walker County, .~exas do hereby affirm that I have delivered a copy ''~- .1

of this Motion For Leave to File My Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Honorable (~~urt of Criminal Appeals, to the prison mailroom officials for delivery to the following by way of United States Postal Mail Service:

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS CLERK OF THE COURT: ABEL ACOSTA BOX 12308 CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

Relator:

--9- INMATES DECLARATION

I,l!~£g_I~K~~~~~-ftl1~l2~' presently incarcerated in Walker County,Texas hereby declare under the penalty of perjury that the aforementioned in my Motion Foj Leave to File His Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus is true and correct.

Signed on this 18~, day of~' 2015.

Jason T.Pegues #728196 HUNTSVILLE UNIT 12th Street Huntsville, Texas 77348

cc/file: -10- No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AT AUSTIN

No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4

In re Jason Tyrone Pegues Relator

Relator's Original Peititon For Writ of Mandamus

JASON T. PEGUES #728196 HUNTSVILLE UNIT 12TH STREET HUNTSVILLE TEXAS 77348 A complete list of all interested parties is provided below:

Relator

Jason T.Pegues #728196 Relator Huntsville Unit 12th Street Huntsville, Texas 77348

!E!~!_f£~E!_l~£~~: The Hon.Thomas R.Culver,III Judge,240th Judicial District Court Fort Bend County, Texas

l£!!..!!._!!~EE!!Y State's Appeal Attorney 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

~.!!..!!.!~-~~£~££~_E!!!£!!

Fort Bend County District Clerk Jackson Richmond, Texas 77469

-1- Pg.

IDENTITY OF .................................. • 1 PARTIES.

TABLE OF CONTENTS •.•• ................................... • 2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES •• .................................. • 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. .............................. .4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. .............................. • 5 JUDICIAL NOTICE •••.••••..• •6 Relator filed two supplemental amended applications in reference to the reconsidered applications No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4, which was received by the District Attorney's Office in Fort Bend County on ~~~~~!_Q1L~Q!1 and ~~~~~!_!~L~Q!1· The respondents of this case has failed to comply with the rules under art.ll.07 Sec.3 (b),(c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Proiedure in failing to forward relator's supplemental amended applications to this Honorable Court within the 35 day rule for a trial court to do so. Failure to do so shall result in Mandamus relief.

ISSUES PRESENTED ••. •7 STATEMENT OF FACTS. •8 ARGU.~M~NT • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 9-11

SUMMARY. .12 PRAYER •. . .............................. . .13 APPENDIX OF ATTACHMENTS. . 14 AFFIDAVIT •..•••.•••.•.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . .15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. ................................. • 16

-2- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 1. In re Smith,279 S.W.3d 714 (Tex.App.-Amari1lo 2007) ...

2. State of Texas, ex rel.Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist. 34 S.W.3d 924,at 927, [6,7] ...

3. Wilson v. State,311 S.W.3d at 458-59 ...

4. Smith v. State, 165 S.W.3d 361 (Cr.App. 2005) ...

5. Jacobson v. State, 398 S.W.3d 195(Tex.Crim.App. 2013) ...

6. Martin v. Hamlin, 25 S.W.3d 718(Tex.Crim.App.2000,orig.proceeding) 7. Benson v. District Clerk, 331 S.W.3d 431(Cr.App. 2011) ...

8. In re Escareno,297 S.W.3d 288(Cr.App. 2009) ...

9. Gibson v. Dallas County,Distiict Clerk, 275 S.W.3d 491(Cr.App. 2009) Dejean v. District,Dallas County, 259 S.W.3d(Cr.App. 2008) ...

Statutes 1. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 52 ...

2. Texas Government Code-Section,22.221(a), (b),of the Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated ...

3. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 ...

4. U.S.Constitution, 1 5 \ 5th, and 14th Amendments ...

5. Texas Constitution, Articles 5 Sect. 1A, 6A, thru 14 ...

6. Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07 Sec.3(b), (c) ...

).:.3- Statement of the Case

In the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County,Texas where the Hon.Thomas R.Culver,III presides/trial court, relator's application No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4 were reconsidered due to aggravated perjury committed by a representative of the State(court appointed counsel Cary M.Faden). The State filed its supplemental amended answer and supplemental amended findings of facts and conclusions of law in this Honorable Court. Relator filed a motion in the trial court requesting 30 days to supplement and amend his applications, and within those 30 days, relator filed two supplemental amended applications and memorandums in reference to the applications that were reconsidered (HC3 and HC4) with the Fort Bend County District Clerk,Annie Rebecca Elliott,301 Jackson,Richmond Texas 77469,who forwarded both supplemental amended applications for writ of habeas corpus 11.07 with memorandums to the State's Appeal Attorney John Harrity in the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office,1422 Eugene Heimann Circle,Room 20234,Richmond Texas 77469, who received the applications on August 03,2015 and on August 12,2015 which was over the 35 day rule under art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) and the trial court has failed to act and still has not forwarded relator's supplemental amended applications to this Honorable Court. The nature of this proceeding is for the two supplemental amended applications that has been properly filed in the trial court, forwarded to this Honorable Court so that relator's merits and claims can be fairly adjudicated, or grant the relief requested by relator in his supplemental amended applications with memorandums due to the State not contesting. The respondents has failed to comply with art.l1.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which results to Judgement by Default.

-4- Statement of Jurisdiction

I,Jason T.Pegues #728196, makes this statement of jurisdiction pursuant to the Texas Government Code-Section 22.221(a), (b) of the Vernon's Texas Code Annotated;

(a) Each court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals may issue a writ of mandamus and all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.

(b) Each court of appeals for a court of appeals district may issue all writs of mandamus,agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a: 1. Judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district; or 2. Judge of a district court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under chapter 52 code of criminal procedure,in the court of appeals district.

-5- Request for Judicial Notice

I, Jason T.Pegues #728196, respectfully request that this Honorable Court takes Judicial Notice pursuant to Texas Rules of Evidence, Rule 20l(d),of all ·the following issues and evidence presented in this writ.

-6- Issues Presented

1.)Point of Error Number One: The Hon.Judge Thomas R.Culver,III in the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County,Texas has failed to comply with the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the code of criminal procedure, in violation of the Judicial Canon(3),and violation of U.S.Constitution 1st,sth,and 14th Amendment, as well as Supreme President.

2.)Point of Error Number Two: The State's Appeal Attorney John Harrity in the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office has failed to comply with the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the code of criminal procedure,in violation of a ministerial duty as well as a violation of U.S.Constitution 1 5 t,5th,and 14th Amendment.

3.)Point of Error Number Three: The Di~trict Clerk of Fort Bend County Annie Rebecca Elliot has failed to comply with 1the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the code of criminal procedure,in violation of a ministerial duty and the clerk's statutory duty concerning compliance with the habeas form, as well as a violation of U.S.Constitution 1st 15th 1 and 14th Amendment •

-7- Statement of Facts

On June 30,2015 the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County,Texas where the Hon.Thomas R.Cu1ver,III presides/trial court reconsidered relator's applications No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4 based on the aggravated perjury committed by the court appointed counsel Cary M.Faden in his court ordered affidavit stating that "DNA test results confirmed relator as the perpetrator", which was attached and referenced to in relator's initial applications No.94-DCR-026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4. The aggravated perjury committed by the court appointed counse+ Cary M.Faden was discovered by the State when relator filed a Post-Conviction Motion For Forensic DNA Testing around March 24,2015, (see Attachment ".'~,"),and in the State's investigation to respond to relator's Motion For Forensic DNA Testing, the official record was ordered. According to the official record, DNA test results were inconclusive,with no match. (see Attachment ";A ").Coleman v. State,297 S.W.3d 681. Due to relator's application HC3 and HC4 being reconsidered, the State filed its supplemental amended answ~r and supplemental amended findings of facts and conclusions of law in this Honorable Court on June 30,2015. . Relator immediately filed a motion in the trial court requesting 30 days so he could supplement and amend his applications which relator also sent a copy of his motion to this court to inform this Honorable Court of the proceeding status. Relator then filed two supplemental amended applications for a writ of habeas corpus 11.07 in reference to the applications that were considered (HC3 and HC4) in which the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office received on August 3,2015 and on August 12,2015 (see Attachment "8") which was over 35 days ago and the respondents in this case still have not acted and still have not forwarded relator's applications to this Honorable Court.

-8- ARGUMENT I.

Relator's purpose of this writ of mandamus is to compel the respondent's in this case to forward relator's supplemental amended applications to this Honorable Court so that relator's claims and merits can be fairly adjudicated. The Honorable Judge Thomas R.Culver,III presiding in the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County,Texas has mandatory and ministerial duties prescribed by the U.S.Constitution 1st,sth,and 14th Amendments and Adjudicative Responsibilities pursuant to Judicial Canon(3). The respondent have violated the prescribed by law mentioned above in failing to comply with the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the code of criminal procedure. The statute does not supply authority to the trial court to extend the time limitations imposed by the statute,other than by timely entry of an order designating issues to be resolved. Martin v. Hamlin,25 S.W.3d 718,719(Tex.Crim.App.2000,orig.proceeding); Hill v. Court of Appeals for Fifth Dist.34 S.W.3d 924,at 927[6,7]. Relator's two supplemental amended applications were properly filed, and the Hon.Judge Thomas R.Culver,III in the 240th District Court in Fort Bend County had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act,was properly and procedurally correct in asking the respondent to perform the act, and the respondent has failed or refused to do it. In re Smith,279 S.W.3d 714(Tex.App.-Amarillo 2007),which entitles relator to mandamus relief. The reconsidered habeas applications No.94-DCRr026185 HC3 and No.94-DCR-026185 HC4 were right and just to be reconsidered due to a clear and obvious aggravated perjury committed by court appointed counsel Cary M.Faden. The violations and failure to comply with rules of the law are not accepted and justified based on fear of one error and violation exposing another. The rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure is law and the respondent has violated those rules and law, resulting to relator's purpose of this mandamus,requesting this Honorable Court to compel the trial court in this case to forward both of relator's supplemental amended applications to this Honorable Court or grant relator relief requested in his supplemental amended applications and memorandums.

II.

The code of criminal procedure art.11.07 sec.3(b) states: "The attorney representing the state in that court ...who shall answer the application not later than the 15th day after the date the copy of the application is received."

-9- ---- -------·-·----;-,.------:---------- .-----; --:------:------.----- ...

In this particular case 26185,the respondent John ·''·Hai~iti~received _,,_._.. .

relator's supplemental amended application in reference .to .,_; the reconsidered application No. 94 ..:DcR- 026185 HC3 on August 03.i 2015 · (see Attachment "8")and on August 18,2015 the respondent John Harrity filed the respondent's original answ.er, which relator objected to and presented designaing issues (see Attachment "C·") . As of 'date, the respondent has failed to act, the trial court has not decided if there are controvert~d previous un~esolved facts mateiial to t~e legal{ty of the relator's confinement, and has not attempted to file for extension ) . . .· . of time. On August 12,2015 the·'respondent John Harrity received· relator'S rec6nsidered application No.94-DCR-026185 HC4,and has f~iled to file an answer to the supplemental amended application,nor have the trial co.ur.t. decided if there are contr.overted pr,eyious~ t;mr~sol ved . fact~ 1Pa.te~i~i'to .the legaiity of the relato;.;:;·'~CS~ilfi'~eme~t~has failed to file an answer to the supplemental amended application,violating I and failing to comply with the 15 day rule stated in'sec.3(b), (c).

I I~ '

Martin v. Hamlin,25 S.W.3d 718,719(Tex.Crim.App.2000,orig:proceeding) III.

The rule further states according tQ art.ll.07 sec.3(c) of-the ciode of criminal ;j procedure: "Within 20. day·s of "the expir~tion of the time in wh:Lth .the 'state is allowed to answer ... if ·the con~ricting court d~cides that there are no controverted,previously-un~e~oived facts material to the iegality of relator's confinement ...The clerk shall immediately transmit to the court of criminal appeals a copy of the application... Failure of the court to act within the allowed 20 days.shall constitut~ such a findin.g." ~ ·i -. .~

Due to the respondent• John. Harrity filing. an .answer on the 15th day to relator's supplemental amended application in refere~ce to the· reconsidered applica~ion No.~4~DCR-026185 HC3, (respondent john HarritV classifyirig it as HC5) ,-and the trial court not deciding whether or not there are controverted previously unresolved facts material to the legality of relator's confinement wi'thin the 20 days,· .and failing to file· an answer to relator's supplemental amended application in ' reference to relator'.s application No. 94 -DCR- 026185 HC4 within the days set in the rules~ The District Clerk of ·Fort :Be~d County Annie Rebecca Elliott is in~violation of art.ll.07 sec.3(c) for-not immediately transmitting to the ·court of criminal appeals a copy of relator's supplemental amended applications and memorandums·.

!. ii --~ .... (!

irr,,t--. ... , I. , ..

I il 1. .. ~ ,_. ·' . .. -10- IV.

See: Benson v. District Clerk,331 S.W.3d 431 (Cr.App. 2011),clerk of District Court has a ministerial duty to receive,file,and timely forward application for writ of habeas corpus to court of criminal appeal and thus applicant was entitiled to a writ of mandamus to compel clerk to fulfill duty ...Whether applicant had other applications pending was irrelevant to clerk's statutory duty,which is unequivocal and subject only to the limitations in the rules concerning compliance with the habeas form.

Likewise in this case 26185,due to respondent's John Harrity and The Hon.Judge Thomas R.Culver,III not complying with the rules in art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c), The Fort Bend County District Clerk Annie Rebecca Elliott should have immediately forwarded relator's applications to this Honorable Court, however, the Fort Bend County District Clerk Annie Rebecca Elliott still has failed to do so. In the event an order determining issues(ODI) is not entered by the convicting court within 20 days following the state's deadline to answer on an application for writ of habeas corpus, the district clerk has no authority to continue to hold an application for a writ of habeas corpus and is under a ministerial dury to immediately forward the application and related records. In re Escareno 297 S.W.3d 288(Cr.App. 2009),which in this case 26185 the district clerk has failed to do so. "The statute does not supply authority to the trial court to extend the time limitations imposed by the statute other than by timely entry of an order designating issues to be resolved. Martin v. Hamlin,25 S.W.3d 718,719(Tex.Crim.App.2000,orig.proceeding).

v. Criminal Procedural rule governing habeas petition filings does not authorize the trial court to extend the time limitations for review of petition other than by a timely entry of an order designating issues.

Gibson v. Dallas County District Clerk 275 S.W.3d 49l(Cr.App. 2009); Dejean v. District Clerk,Dallas County 259 S.W.3d 183(Cr.App. 2008).

The trial court has abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. A clear failure by the trial court to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion. With the trial court failing to comply with art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the code of criminal procedure,clearly results to Judgement by Defaut.

-11- Summary

In summary, relator respectfully request that this Honorable Court takes Judicial notice of all the aforementioned facts and evidence in said writ and grant this writ of mandamus due to the respondents failing to comply with art.11.07 sec. (b), (c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The purpose and reason for the State's delay is because the State has lost the evidence in this case and can not present the evidence to the court in another proceeding pertaining to this case 26185, so the respondents is holding and violating the law and rules set due to the State not having any Justification and support for relator's conviction and sentencing him to 50 years in prison. With the State not being able to locate the evidence in this case confirms that the evidence in this case has in fact been tampered with due to fabrication which is what provoked relator to file his Motion For Forensic DNA Testing, which is a 60 day standard of procedure but the State has extended it to now complete six months and still has not located the evidence in this case. The State still has not done.a finding which is required under 64.04. Due to the State not being able to locate and present the evidence in this case to the court, and previous applications being reconsidered due to aggravated perjury, relator filed two supplemental amended applications with new facts, new issues, and new evidence proving that the statement that was secured and used as over 90% of relator's conviction was illegally taken, which enforces the State to rely on the evidence they claimed to have had against relator, and due to relator filing his Motion For DNA Testing,enforces the State to present the evidence of this case and the State has clearly either lost the evidence,destroyed the evidence, or the evidence never did exist. So with relator filing two supplemental amended applications with new facts, new issues, and new evidence, proving with the officical records of this case 26185 that relator's Constitutional Rights were violated, Substantial Rights were affected, Family Codes were violated, Parental Notification Requirements were violated,etc. proving that the statement that was admitted and used to convict relator was inadmissible by law, and with it being revealed that the State has lost the evidence in this case and can not present it to the court, the respondents is refusing to comply with the rules of art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) due to the State not having any support/evidence to justify relator's conviction and response.

-12- PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, RELATOR RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS Honorable Court grant this writ of mandamus due to the respondents violating and breaking the rules set in art.11.07 sec.3(b), (c) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Relator request that this Honorable Court compel the respondents to forward relator's supplemental amended applications and grant relator relief based on relator proving by the official records of this case his merits and claims. The State is not justified in delaying forwarding relator's applications disregarding the law and rules set which are meant to be up-held due to their not being able to locate and find the evidence in this case. The law is the law and the rules are the rules,both are not to be violated or broken, and the respondents are refusing to respond with integrity representing the State and the Justice System because of their error, so relator is requesting that this Honorable Court compel the trial court/respondents to forward both of relator's supplemental amended applications in which by confirmation of evidence was received by the respondents which in if respondents fail to do so results to Judgement by Default.

-13- Appendix of Attachments

• Attachment "A": THE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER'S RECORD LORAINE HALL OF THIS CASE 26185.

• ATTACHMENT "B": CONFIRMATION FROM THE FORT BEND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT BOTH OF RELATOR'S SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED. • ATTCHMENT "C": A FILED COPY OF RELATOR'S OBJECTION AND HIS PRESENTATION OF DESIGNATING 'ISSUES IN REFERENCE TO No.94-DCR- 026185 HC5. • ATTACHMENT "D": THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE STATE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING. • ATTACHMENT "E": THE OFFICIAL COPY OF THE STATE'S SECOND MOTION TO ENTER ORDERS SO THAT THE STATE MAY RESPOND TO RELATOR'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING. • ATTACHMENT "F": AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDERING THE TRIAL COURT IN THIS CASE TO RESPOND TO RELATOR'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,AND A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION CARD FROM THE APPEALS COURT AT HOUSTON THAT THE TRIAL DID IN FACT RESPOND. • ATTACHMENT "G": A COPY OF RELATOR'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING. • ATTACHMENT "H": A COPY OF RELATOR'S DIRECT APPEAL HELD IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, HOUSTON (1sT Dist.) opinion December 18,1997. • ATTACHEMENT "I": AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE INVESTIGATING RECORD IN THIS CASE 26185. • ATTACHMENT "J": FILED COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY VARIOUS PARTIES PERTAINING TO THE EVIDENCE OF THIS CASE ORDERED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

-tlJ - The State of Texas *

*

* Affidavit

I,Jason T.Pegues #728196,declare under peralty of perjury tht the facts stated in this writ are true and correct to the best of knowledge and I hereby swear to these facts.

~:#Z'3'/fb Jason T.Pegues #728196 Relator Huntsville Unit 12th STREET Huntsville, Texas 77348

-15- Certificate of Service

I,Jason T.Pegues #728196,declare under penalty of perjury that I have mailed a true and correct copy of the/this writ of mandamus to the clerk of the court of criminal appeal,Adel Acosta,Austin Texas 78711 by way of U.S.Postal Service on q-Jf{'-2{)/S ~~~~~~----------

Executed on:,~~ Je, Z0/!5

fkdffi72UZ0 Jason T.Pegues #728196 Relator Huntsville Unit 12th Street Huntsville, Texas 77348

cc/file: -16- ' . ~

'~ . . .r . - .. -~ -··- :-

Exhibit A · ·at!'XIt:et'M. ·m· ,. + - .,,, ' .. EtZGU ~. aze· 31 ¢'% S &rts#'tf*P'<Pf'ri-::tnisStnt :ts=.;..,.· ..,.__

---· . "') I ~-· .• No. 26, 185 ~ ·~· THE STATE OF TEXAS * IN THE 240TH JUDICIAL vs. * DISTRICT COURT OF.

4 JASON WYRONE PEGUES * FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

~r: ~- . . . <:.:..:.: ~!..

16 .... c.. -~ .. u::i.t. .: ~ UJ ~!J ·.'·~., U> <:5 17 :.·'"> tJl

19'

·23 Loraine Hall, CSR, RPR Official Court Reporter 24 240th Judicial District Court Fort Bend County Courthouse 25 Richmond, Texas 77469 -----~------·-···

1 : Thompson.

13 A ;I'm not employed.

. 1 A . I have a bachelor's and a master's degree ~·· in b~ology from Sam Houston State University.

10 Q ·oNA, is that -- we've heard a lot about 11 chromosomes and matching up different 12 fingerprints?

13 A Yes.

14 Q Have you on few or many occasions had the 15 opportunity to examine rape kits to determine 16 the presence of semen?

18 Q ,All right. Me. Thompson, let me show you 19 what':s been marked as State's exhibit number 35; 20 and ~ will ask you if you can identify that.

21 A Yes, I can.

24 Q !And there appear to be some writinq and 25 numb~rs on there. Can you identify t~ose?

i . i

...... Yes, I can.

3 A ,The laboratory number that was assigned to this:particular sexual assault case is L94-159.

5 Q :no you write that on there, put a lab numb.r on there?

9 Q :where did you retrieve this from?

10 A I retrieved this from centralized evidence recefving at the crime laboratory.

17 Q If something were in the property room, would th~y retrieve it from there?

20 Q ;was that in a sealed condition when you rece~ved it?

22 A Yes.

23 MR. CROWLEY: Your Honor, at this 24 time, we would offer State's exhibit number 25 iJS •

5 ,.,

f. 1 MR. FADEN: Can I approach the ~- 2 witnesa, Your Honor?

3 MR. CROWLEY:· The contents only, , not the hearsay.

5 MR. FADEN: Can you show me your 6 initials here? Do you have any -- who is 7 this? Do you have any idea as to who -- 8 what's your -- I want to find out where her 9 initials were on the document itself.

10 THE WITNESS: Yes (indicating).

12 THE COURT: 35 is the envelope :that's marked, correct?

14 MR. CROWLEY: Actually, it will 15 be the contents. If I can, if we mark that 16 35A being the actual 17 THE COURT: For purposes of the :record, then, are you only offering 35A 19 into evidence or 35, which was the outer 1covering, as well?

21 MR. CROWLEY: Your Honor, we're \only offering 35A; and may the record I

23 \reflect it was retrieved from inside 35?

I

24 THE COURT: Any objection?

1 '!May I approach the witness aqain, Your 2 •Honor?

3 THE COURT: The box and ' 4 rcontents.

5 MR. CROWLEY: Box and contents.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes.

9 MR. FADEN: No objection.

10 THE COURT: 35A is admitted. 35 11. . is not offered. It is not admitted .

12 Q (BY MR. CROWLEY) Ms. Thompson, could you 13 tell us what a rape kit is?

14 A ;A rape kit or a sexual assault kit is a 15 collection of evidence from an individual that 16 has allegedly been sexually assaulted that's 17 taken at a hospital.

18 Q !Do ! they actually take, like, slides from 19 the ~aqinal area or swabs or whatever?

20 A !Yes, they do.

21 Q iDid you perform an ~xamination on the 22 sexual assault kit performed on Mrs. Singleton?

23 A 'Yes.

24 Q ~hat did you find?

25 A 1 found semen pre~ent on. the vaginal smear

1 or the vaginal slide and then no semen present on any other item in the case.

3 Q Did you also attempt to do a DNA analysis?

5 Q :Did you have available some blood samples from the defendant?

7 A . Yes, I did.

8 Q :what was your conclusion on that?

9 A :I could not -- well, I had an inconclusive result.

11 Q Okay. What does that mean? Basically you couldn't tell couldn't make a match~ ¢ .........

13 A ·~t means that the DNA pattern that I \w• detected in the samples that I analyzed were consistent with that of the complainant, but ·there -was -no -o-t-her pa-t-te-rn·. the-r-e-;· so,- 1-.. cou-ldn't .. -- do an analysis and tell whether or not there was a pattern there that would be consistent with anyone else. i Q !Based on what you're saying, you couldn't i make ia match one way or the other?

22 A That's correct.

23 Q You couldn't say it was him. You couldn't rule out that it was him? .-. 25 A tT hat ' s c orr e c t • i~.>'o•

1 Q •And is that common in DNA analyses that you don't ha9e enough there t6 fuake a -- A It happens pretty often, yes.

4 MR. CROWLEY: Pass the witness.

5 MR. FADE~~ May I p~odeed?

6 THE COURT: Yes.

7 CROSS ~EXAMI.NAT ION Q (BY MR. FADEN) Mrs. Thompson, did you ever revi~w any medic~! reports that ~ere taken at 10 Westbury Ho~Pital prior to you~ ~nalyzing the 11 information you have there in the kit, 12 •p~tificallY -~ I will ref•~ yoti to medital r~:. 13 tepotts taken from Westbury Hospital. "-'' 14 A No, there weren't arty med'ical ~e·ports that 15 were :contained in the kit.

16 Q 17 rev! awed arty?

18 A 'No. '19 Q :were you awa':te in the. westbu.ry Hospital · recol.'ids no ~emen ~tis fou.nd?

21 A 22 Q :You' te not aware of that?

23 A :Huh-uh. !

24 Q ~hat dat~ ~id you do your analysis?

25 :january lOth of i994.

1 Q 1 And d~d you make a report or a written repoJ:t?

3 A . Yes, t did.

4 Q :nld you provide that report to Officer s Anderson?

6 A I typed my report into the computer and I did not persbn~lly provide it to her. She retrieved it from the computer.

9 Q !Do you have a~y knowledge that she did so?

10 A •No. Q ~Okay. ju*t :teviewlhg again, you tested the e" ide n <::: e ; i s that c 0 r r e <::: t?

13 A .Yes.

14 Q :r dldn~t c~tch the reS~lt. What ~as the.

15 result &f"your DNA te~tin~?

16 A :rt was inconclusive~ Q A'.

19 MiL FADEN: ~aBs the w~tne~s.

20 REPIRECT EXAMINATION Q :(BY MR. C~OWtEt) CoulU have been him~ . .

22 could not hav.e b·een him?

23 A (That's correct.

24 MR. CROWLEY: Paas the ~itness.

25 MR. FADEN: Nothing fur.ther.

Exhibit B . . .~.·- ....... ,. .. ·.~-.·.··· ..... _, .............................. ,......... ·..............·....... ................... ..-. ~ _ ... __ ..

ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas 94-0CR -026185 LEn Letters (281) 341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

August03,2015 To: John Harrity -II State's Appeal Attorney 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469 Re: Cause No: 94-DCR-026185 HC 5 Ex Parte JASON TYRONE PEGUES Dear Sir.

In accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07, please find enclosed a copy of the following on the above referenced cause: • Application For A Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking Relief From Final Felony Conviction Under Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 11.07 _ • Applicant's Supplemental Amended Memorandum Of Law Under Article 11.07 3(b ), Sec. 4(a) (1) (b) Of Texas Code Of Criminal Procedure Please acknowledge receipt of the above papers by completing the Acknowledgement of Receipt attached. Thank you.

RECEIVED AUG 03 1015 cc: Jason Tyrone Pegues DlS1RICT J\HORNEY'S OFFICE Huntsville Unit 12th Street Huntsville TX 77348

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

Received By Fort Bend County District Attorney: ~d.~ Date

MAILING PHYSICAL Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountygov.com quick link- District Clerk . .'..,

ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas (281) 341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

August 12, 2015 To: John Harrity State's Appeal Attorney 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, f3oQm20234 .· Richmond, Texas 7746~. -·· · · · Re: Cause No: 94~0CR~0261•85 HC 4 (Supplemental Amended 1\pplication) Ex Parte, _ · JASON TYRONE~PEGUES Dear Sir, In ac;cord<:!n.cewith·Code of Criminal Procedure;.:Article 1.1.07, please find enclosed a copy of the following on·the above referenced .c_9u_se: . · • Su-pplemental Amended :Application For A Writ ofHabeas Corpus Seeking Relief From Final Felony Conviction Unde~.'Code of Crimihal Procedure, Artide{1.07 HC4 · • Applicant's Supp-lemental ·. .

Amended Application ., \", Memoranc:furn ··. ··. . ·_. of ...

Law Under Art. 11.07 ;Please acknowledge .reCeipt oHhe)c3bqve,p$~·gfs by cqmpleti~§_.th~,;:Acknowledgement of Receipt attached. Thank you. · '':~;- . ·:· "~ :: ·· ,-~;<···, :· . i ...... .• ·.::-·1.: .· .!"

DISTRICT CLERK ANNIEREBECG_A ELuo#\' .\

n· .···cen'tfE· I'E)·e·· .> · !· vr . -Di . ~ .-·: cc: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 12th Street D!SUHGT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Huntsville TX 77348

'ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF -RECEIPT . ·~··· - ·.r..• ,.,,";;...,...~ •• ---

Received By Fort 8:- Co:;:.istrict Attorney: . ·-fYJ@;ftt .~ oL Date

MAILING PHYSICAL Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountygov.com quick link- District Clerk ATTACHMENT ''C'' EXHIBIT 94-'JCR-Il26185 lETI Letters ,~. IRI - MR.JASON T. PEGUES #728196 HUNTSVILLE UNIT 12th STREET HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348

AUGUST 26th,2015

TO: THE CLERK OF THE COURT ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT FORT BEND COUNTY,TEXAS JACKSON RICHMOND, TEXAS 77469

R~: FILING THIS OBJECTION AND PRESENtiNG DESIGNATING ISSUES IN REF. TO CAUSE N0.94-DCR-026185 HCS

DEAR CLERK OF THE COURT: ENCLOS~D IS A MOTION OBJECTING TO THE RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AND PRESENTING DESIGNATING ISSUES IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CAUSE NUMBER.

IF YOU WILL PLEASE FILE THIS IN THE 240th DISTRICT COURT SO THAT IT MAYBE CONSID~RED AND RULED ON AND ATTACHED AND REFERENCED TO THE HABEAS PROCEEDING IN MOTION, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

FURTHERMORE, PLEASE FILE THIS NOTE ALONG WITH THE OTHER DOCUMENTS TO BE FORWARDED TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR EVIDENCE OF DUE DILLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT.

LASTLY, PLEASE FILE STAMP THESE DOCUMENTS AND RETURN RECEIPT A COPY FOR ME IN THE SASE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE.

77348 FILED cc/fi1e: · lJJf5 AUG 28. PH 3: oz of 1

. :' ..:·:, • 94-DCR-026185 OTPF' Other Prooeedlngs Flltd 37455114 CAUSE N0.94-DCR-026185 HCS Ill 1/1/IJIIII!IImllll/ll/IJ/1/1111 JASON T. PEGUES #728196 § THE 240th DISTRICT COURT ~fK~I£ii!-----------~-- § § vs. OF § § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § APPLICANT'S OBJECTION TO THE RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER UNDER TEXAS RULES OF APP.PROt.33.1 AND APPLICANT'S DESIGNATING ISSUES UNDER ART.ll.07 §3(b) OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW,IASQ~-!~_PEQQ~~-!1~~196, APPLICANT, Pro-se, IN THE ABOVE CAUSE OF ACTION RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS OBJECTION TO THE RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER UNDER TEXAS RULES OF APP.PROC.33.1 AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT PRESENTING HIS DESIGNATING ISSUES UNDER ARTICLE 11.07 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN REFERENCE TO CAUSE N0.94-DCR- 026185 HCS. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THIS HONORABLE COURT THE FOLLOWING:

AROUND .:!.!!1!-~l.t..£2.11• APPLICANT FILED A SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS APPLICATION WHICH THE RESPONDENT RECEIVED THE APPLICATION ON !.!!Q.!!~!-1.t..~.Q.l1· ON ~.!!2!-~1~.Q.11 THE RESPONDENT ORIGINAL ANSWER (A COPY OF) WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT IN WHICH NOW THE APPLICANT OBJECTS AND PRESENT DESIGNATING ISSUES IN REFERENCE TO THE APPLICATION.

,., l~ -1- Datet AUG 31 2015 ROUTED TO OOUF1T I=!T'D TO D. CLERK ON AQQUS!_£1~~Ql1, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED THE RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER IN WHICH THE APPLICANT IS OBJECTING TO DUE TO THE RESPONDENT'S FAILURE TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS PRESENTED IN HIS APPLICATION. FIRST, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THIS HONORABLE COURT THAT DUE TO THE COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL CARY M.FADEN WHO WAS THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL AT TRIAL COMMITTING AGGRAVATED PERJURY IN A HABEAS PROCEEDINGS CAUSED THE APPLICANT'S APPLICAtiONS HC3 and HC4 TO BE RECONSIDERED. THIS APPLICATION THAT THE RESPONDENT IS CLASSIFYING AS THE APPLICANT'S FIFTH APPLICATION IS NOT HIS FIFTH BUT IS A SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED APPLICATION IN REFERENCE TO HC3 WHICH WAS RECONSIDERED DUE TO THE AGGRAVATED PERJURY THAT WAS COMMITTED BY COUNSEL CARY M.FADEN.

SECONDLY, THE APPLICANT'S INITIAL APPLICATION WAS CLOSE TO 15 PAGES LONG, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE APPLICATION BEING RECONSIDERED, THIS APPLICATION TRIPLES THAT AMOUNT DUE TO NEW INFORMATION, NEW EVIDENCE, NEW FACTS, NEW ISSUES, ALL PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY WAY OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THIS CASE AND SUPPORTED BY STATE, FEDERAL, AND SUPREME COURT CASES, AND THE RESPONDENT HAS NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESSED ANY OF THE CLAIMS AND ISSUES SPECIFICALLY PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT IN HIS APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT ORDER THE RESPONDENT TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING DESIGNATING ISSUES AND UNRESOLVED FACTS IN THIS CASE DUE TO THE RESPONDENT ATTEMPTING TO REDIRECT THE COURT'S ATTENTION AS TO HOW GUILTY THE APPLICANT WAS IN TRIAL WHEN IN FACT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT REVIEW THE INITIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION IN THIS ·----·-- ----- CASE £§.1~.?_, ·sYECIFICALLY: 1) THE POLICE OFFICERS QUESTIONING THE APPLICANT AT SCHOOL IN A OFFICE

-2- ' ALONE ABOUT A CRIMINAL ACT WITHOUT THE CONSENT, INFORMANCE, OR NOTIFICATION OF HIS PARENTS.

2) HOW MANY TIMES THE OFFICERS CAME TO THE APPLICANT'S SCHOOL TO QUESTION HIM ABOUT A CRIMINAL ACT WITHOUT EVER NOTIFYING HIS PARENTS.

3) ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT WAS CLASSIFIED AS A WITNESS ACCORDING TO THE RECORD, THE POLICE OFFICERS FAILED TO COME TO THE APPLICANT'S HOME WHERE HIS PARENTS WOULD BE PRESENT TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILD AND QUESTION HIM BUT INSTEAD WAITED UNTIL THE CHILD WAS AT SCHOOL TO QUESTION HIM IN A OFFICE ALONE AVOIDING PARENTAL INTERFERENCE WHICH IS DUE PROCESS VIOLATION AND PREJUDICIAL ERROR AS WELL AS COERCIVE POLICE CONDUCT.

4) FAMILY CODE ANN.S2.02(b) WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE APPLICANT WAS ILLEGALLY ARRESTED ON MARCH 3,1994 AT 1100 hours and HIS PARENTS WERE NOT NOTIFIED UNTIL 1607 hours WHICH IS A FIVE HOUR AND SEVEN MINUTE DELAY. THE STATUE STATES THAT A 'PARENT MUST BE TOLD PROMPTLY THAT THE CHILD HAS BEEN ARRESTED AND WHY WHICH THE OFFICERS FAILED TO DO.

5) THESE PARTICULAR VIOLATIONS RESULTED IN THE CHILD GIVING A STATEMENT THAT WAS USED AGAINST HIM IN TRIAL WHEN IN FACT THESE VIOLATIONS WARRANTS THE STATEMENT INADMISSIBLE.

6) THE OFFICIAL I~VESTIGATING RECORD THAT IS PRESENTED IN THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION WAS SEALED BY THE JUVENILE COURT AFTER THE APPLICANT WAS CERTIFIED. WHETHER THE STATE DISCLOSED THIS FAVORABLE Ir . i

EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE IS TO BE QUESTIONED AND REVIEWED DUE TO THE ' COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL CARY M.FADEN NEVER PRESENTING THE INVESTIGATING RECORD NOR THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES AND VIOLATIONS IN DISTRICT COURT WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE INVESTIGATING RECORD THAT WAS SEALED BY THE JUVENILE COURT. COUNSEL EITHER IGNORED AND NEGLECTED THE ISSUES AND VIOLATIONS OR THE STATE NEVER DISCLOSED THIS PARTICULAR EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENSE.

7) DUE TO APPLICANT'S DNA MOTION PENDING TN THE TRIAL COURT WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE ISSUED ORDERS TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR THE LOCATION FOR

-3- EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, WITH THE STATEMENT THAT WAS ILLEGALLY TAKEN, SECURED AND USED AGAINST THE APPLICANT WHICH THAT STATEMENT WAS OVER 90% OF THE APPLICANT'S CONVICTION, WITH THE APPLICANT PROVING THAT THE STATEMENT WAS ILLEGALLY TAKEN IN THIS APPLICATION, AND WITH THE STATE NOT BEING ABLE TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, SIMPLY ENTITLES THE APPLICANT TO RELIEF.

8) IN THE RESPONDENT'S INITIAL ANSWER LEDAY'S CASE WAS USED BY THE RESPONDENT TO SUPPORT REASON FOR WANTING TO BAR THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES, HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT USED THE LEDAY'S CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICANT NOT BEING ABLE TO PRESENT THESE CLAIMS YEAR~ AGO AND SHOWING THAT THE DeGarmo DOCTRINE STILL APPLIED IN THIS CASE THEREFORE SHOWING THAT THE LIMIT SET-OUT IN LEDAY DID NOT APPLY TO THE APPLICANT.

9) THE RESPONDENT STATED ON PAGE 17 .OF .HIS ANSWER: " ••• ANY ERROR COMMITTED BY THE POLICE WAS HARMLESS ERROR", WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTED OR JUSTIFIED IF POLICE ERROR IS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, STATE, FEDERAL, AND SUPREME COURT HAS AGREED THAT IF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED AND AFFECTED, THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT AND JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL BE FAIR IN ITS JUDGEMENTS OF THE VIOLATIONS.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS 'ONLY REQUESTING THIS HONORABLE COURT TO REVIEW THE INITIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE, BUT THE RESPONDENT IS HIGHLIGHTING THE PROOF OF GUILT WHEN THE APPLICANT IS NOT CONTESTING THAT BUT IS PRESENTING BY SHO!HNG. THE COURT Tl{AT 'l'HE INITIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED, RESULTING THAT THESE PLAIN ERRORS WERE PREJUDICIAL WITHOUT .THE VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED IN THE INITIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED DUE TO THE LACK OF EVIDENCE.

THE APPLICANT IS OBJECTING TO THE RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER AS HE PRESENTS THESE PARTICULAR DESIGNATING ISSUES AND UNRESOLVED FACTS IN THIS CASE. THE RESPONDENT'S ORIGINAL ANSWER IS THE SAME EXACT ANSWER THE RESPONDENT SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICANT'S INITIAL APPLICATION.

-4- HOWEVER, THIS APPLICATION PRESENTS NEW ISSUES, NEW FACTS, NEW LAW, NEW EVIDENCE, ALONG WITH NEW SUPPORTING STATE, FEDERAL, AND SUPREME COURT CASES, IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT FAIL TO ADDRESS BUT INSTEAD REQUESTING AND SUGGESTING THAT THE SAME COUNSEL WHO COMMITTED AGGRAVATED PERJURY IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION CAUSING IT TO BE RECONSIDERED, TO RESPOND TO THE CLAIMS IN THIS APPLICATION WHEN HIS CREDIBILITY HAS BEEN TAINTED WITH AGG~AVATED PERJURY WHICH IS WHY THE APPLICANT PRESENTED THE OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THIS CASE. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVEN. BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE CLAIMS AND ISSUES PRESENTED, HOW HE WAS HARMED BY THESE VIOLATIONS AND HOW THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE • BEEN DIFFERENT, IN WHICH IN THE INITIAL APPLICATION BEFORE RECONSIDER- ATION, APPLICANT FAILED TO DO, BUT SINCE THE APPLICATION WAS RECONSIDERED, THE APPLICANT MADE SURE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, HOW HE WAS HARMED BY THE VIOLATIONS, AND HOW THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT, BUT THE RESPONDENT OBVIOUSLY FAIL TU BEVIEW THE APPLICATION SINCE THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER IS PRIMARILY THE EXACT SMAE ANSWER SUBMITTED WHEN THE APPLICANT FILED HIS INITIAL APPLICATION FEBRUARY 10,2~14.

!!!!!!

WHEREFORE PREMISES C6NSIDERED, .tHE APPLICANT PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT GRANT THIS MOTION OF PRESENTING THESE DESIGNATING ISSUES AS THE APPLICANT REQUEST THIS COURT TO ORDER THE RESPONDENT TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS THESE DESIGNATING ISSUES AND THE CLAIMS PRESENTED IN HIS APPLICATION , AS WELL AS PRAY THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT TAKES THIS OBJECTION INTO CONSIDERATION. OVER-ALL THE APPLICANT ONLY REQUEST THAT THE RESPONDENT'S ANSWER DIRECTLY. ADDRESS THE INITIAL POLICE ERRORS AND VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED IN THE INVESTIGATION OFTHIS CASE .££1~2_, NOT HOW GUILTY THE APPLICANT WAS PROVEN TO BE GUILTY IN TRIAL BUT THE

-5- ERRORS AND VIOLATIONS THAT OCCURRED IN THE INITIAL POLICE INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE.

EXECUTED ON THIS 26th day of ~.QQQ~!• 201..?_·

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~~ii7jf{;ty-Lr~ APPLICANT: HUNTSVILLE UNIT 12th STREET HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348

I,l~~Q!_!~_f!QQ!~_!l£~.1.2~• HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S OBJECTION AND PRESENTING DESIGNATING ISSUES HAS BEEN ~MAILED via U.S. POSTAL SERVICE TO THE DISTRICT CLERK, ANNIE REBECCA~ELLIOTT, THE 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS WHERE THE HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS R.CULVER,III PRESIDES, FOR FILING AND PRESENTATION TO SAID COURT.

SIGNED ON IRIS 26th day of ~QQQST,IQ11·

15 12th STREET HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348

I, l~~QB_!~_f!QQ!~_!l£~12~• PRESENTLY INCARCERATED IN WALKER COUNTY, TEXAS HEREBY DECLARE UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED IN MY OBJECTION AND PRESENTATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

____'l£Zlt4- if728196 HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348 cc/file: -6- MR. JASON T. PEGUES #728196 \, HUNTSVILLE UNIT 12th STREET ~·\C)P.ri·i ~+:-HX:':'TC:+.\ "Y:< ·:;:;;?

HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348 2'6 .M.lG .?.D:f5 PM .·7 t

ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT *LEGAL MAIL* FORT BEND COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK JACKSON RICHMOND, TEXAS 77469

' .. : ;y

?.74t;9::t:3 i oa· :::::·cn:j i ,,,,,,I IIll I,,,,,,, i1' j i 'I iIi,,; i1'1} IIi IIi f i IjI iii iii if J I j j J,, I I I \ j I .> \

ATTACHMENT -

EXHIBIT ' '

CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026185 THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § VS. § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW THE S'TATE OF TEXAS, by and through its district attorney, files this State's Answer to Motion for Forensic DNA testing and would show the following: 1. On July 20, 1994, Jason Tyrone Pegues (Movant) was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and sentenced to 50 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. He has now filed a Motion for DNA testing.

2. Pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.02, the State not later than the 60th day after the date the motion is served on the, attorney representing the state shall: (A) deliver the evidence to the court, along with a description of the condition of the evidence; or (B) explain in writing to the court 'YhY the state cannot deliver the evidence to the court.

3. The State would respectfully request an extension of time to file its response.

4. This is the State's first request for extension of time in this case.

5. The undersigned is one of three attorneys responsible for all appellate matters for the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office and is involved in the preparation of other direct appeal briefs or post- conviction writs.

6. The State is in the process of obtaining affidavits regarding the location of the evidence to assist the Court in determining whether to order forensic DNA testing in this case.

7. A realistic time that the State believes it could have its response filed in the present case is June 29, 2015.

8. Therefore, the State would request an extension of time until June 29, 2015, to file its response. If there is any way to complete the State's response before that date, the State will forward its response to the Court as soon as it is completed.

9. This extension is not sought for the purpose of delay.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays that this Honorable Court grant this motion and extend the deadline for filing the State's response in this case to June 29, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN J. HARRITY, III ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY Fort Bend County, Texas State Bar Number 09133100 0 1 Jackson Street, Room 10 1 Richmond, Texas77469 Phone: (281) 341-4460 Fax: (281} 238-3340 J [email protected] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been sent to Jason Tyrone Pegues, Huntsville Unit, 815 12th Street, Huntsville, Texas 77348 on the date of the filing of the original with the Clerk of this Court.

Mattie Sanford Certificate of Compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3) In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I, John Harrity, hereby certify that the foregoing electronically created document has been reviewed by the word count function of the creating computer program, and has been found to be in compliance "":ith the requisite word count requirement in that its word count with regard to those portions of the brief subject to the word count requirement is 556 words.

John Harrity CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026185 THE STATE QF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § vs. § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON STATE'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING

On this date, the Court considered the State's Motion for Extension of Time to File its Response to Defendant's Motion for DNA Testing. After due consideration, the State's Motion is GRANTED. The deadline for the State's Response is now extended to the June 29, 2015.

Signed this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 2015.

Hon. Thomas R. Culver, III Presiding Judge, 240th District Court / /

ATTACHMENT

,EXHIBIT 94·-DCR-026185 ' ORDER

rr(~J· WJY(\\ Order

- ~yu.

CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026185 THE STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § vs. § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ORDER ON STATE'S MOTION TO ENTER ORDERS SO THAT THE STATE MAY RESPOND TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING On this date, the Court considered the State's "Motion to Enter Orders so that the State may Respond to the Defendant's Motion for Forensic DNA Testing".

In order for this Court to make the findings required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. this Court hereby ORDERS: 1. Former Assistant District Attorney, James Sidney Crowley is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of his affidavit within 30 days of this ORDER with the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing his recollection, if any, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence in this case, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same; 2. Former Assistant District Attomey,Teana Watson is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of her affidavit within 30 days of this ORDER with the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing her recollection, if any, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same.

3. Court Reporter Lorie Crawford is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of her affidavit within 30 days of this ORDER with the Fort Bend

ROUTED TO COURT JUN 2'4 Z01S pL RT'D TO D. CLERK 1-t -1 ~ U' County District Clerk's Office .specifically addressing her recollection, if any, regarding her receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial to date.

4. A representative from the Houston Police Department's Crime Laboratory is ORDERED within 45 days of this ORDER to file an original and three copies of his or her affidavit with the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing their recollection, if any, in HPD Case# 140481893 or 140481893B and LAB#L94-159, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, the knife handle and telephone book along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial in 1995 to date.

Further a representative from the Houston Police Department's Crime Laboratory shall state in their affidavit: ( 1) Whether the evidence recovered in the case still exists; (2) If the evidence still exists, is it in a condition that makes DNA testing possible; (3) Whether the evidence has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to preclude the possibility of substitution, tampering, replacement, or material alterations; (4) whether the evidence in this case was previously subjected to DNA testing and (5) If the evidence was previously subjected to DNA testing, are there newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the ·previous test.

In making this determination this Court ORDERS that a representative from the Houston Police Department's Crime Laboratory make necessary arrangements or seek further orders from this Court to have the evidence that is not presently in their possession delivered to their lab from anyone currently in possession of the evidence.

If any evidence is missing or has been destroyed relating to the present case the affidavit shall state the date of destruction or an explanation on why the exhibits can no longer be located and the approximate date of their loss.

5. Courtney Head, Martin Lopez, and/or a representative from the Houston Forensic Science Center is ORDERED within 45 days of this ORDER to the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office specifically addressing their recollection, if any, in HPD Case # 140481893 or 140481893B and LAB#L94-159, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, the knife handle and telephone book along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial to date. · Further, Courtney Head, Martin Lopez, and/or a representative from the . Houston Forensic Science Center shall state in their affidavit(s): (1) Whether the evidence recovered in the case still exists; (2) If the evidence still exists, is it in a condition that makes DNA testing possible; (3) Whether the evidence has been subjected to a chain of custody sufficient to preclude the possibility of substitution, tampering, replacement, or material alterations; (4) whether the evidence in this case was previously subjected to DNA testing and (5) If the evidence was previously subjected to DNA testing, are there newer testing techniques that provide a reasonable likelihood of results that are more accurate and probative than the results of the previous test.

In making this determination this Court ORDERS that Courtney Head, Martin Lopez, and/or a representative from the Houston Forensic Science Center make necessary arrangements or seek the assistance of the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office to obtain additional orders from this Court to have the evidence that is not presently in their possession delivered from anyone currently in possession of the evidence to their lab.

If any evidence is missing or has been destroyed relating to the present case the affidavit(s) from Courtney Head, or a representative from the Houston Forensic Science Center shall state the date of destruction or an explanation on why the exhibits can no longer be located and the approximate date of their loss.

6. A representative from the Fort Bend County District Clerk's Office is ORDERED to file an original and three copies of an affidavit specifically addressing regarding his recollection, if any, regarding their receipt, delivery, handling, chain of custody, maintenance, storage and condition of the evidence, including the blood and hair from the complainant and the defendant in this case, along with any records supporting the same and any policies regarding the destruction/disposal of said evidence between the time of the defendant's trial to date.

The affidavit shall also state whether any exhibits are missing or have been destroyed relating to the present case. If any of the above named items are missing or destroyed, to state the date of the loss or destruction.

It is further ORDERED that the affidavits ordered above should be sufficiently detailed to allow this Court to make findings of fact The Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office shall make copies of the court reporter's record and photocopies of the exhibits admitted during trial and the · offense report available to any of the Affiants named above that have been ordered to provide affidavits upon their request for the same.

Upon receipt of these affidavits, the District Clerk shall immediately mail a copy to Applicant and the Appellate Division of the Fort Bend County District Attomey'.s Office.

The State will have 30 days following the date that it receives all of the ... ( .

affidavits listed above or 60 days from the date of this order, whichever is later to: (A) deliver the evidence to the court, along with a description of the condition of the evidence; or (B) explain in writing to the Court why the state cannot deliver the evidence to the Court.

The clerk of the Court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to Jason Tyrone Pegues and to the Appellate Division of the Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office. ~ Signed t~ day of , 2015.

r-.. r;) /7 /J 0 ..· -K ~(;w-- Hon. Thomas R. Culver, III 1 Presiding Judge, 240th District Court

FILED 1015 JUN 24 PH I: 47 .~~(~C'4.-' ~ {_ ~ CLERK DISTRICT COURT ~ Fmn RPm r.r:t . rx ATTACHMENT ''F'' EXHIBIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Jason T. Pegues Appellate case number: • ';1".

Ol-I5..:QQ535-CR Trial court case number: 94-DCR-026185 Trial court: 240th District Court of Fort Bend County The Court REQUESTS a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from the State of Texas. The response, if any, is due 30 days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge's signature: __Is/ Harvey Brown X Acting individually

Date: June 23, 2015 _____ :z::.-

--~:~:;:.-:;:_•. ···-·-· · - - - - · - · - -0':'~1~-• • ~~---.,_~- --:--·· ···~--~-----...·~-·-·:...>;;"'""':'~--:-·~.. -;<"·-··--------.. .-- _____.. . . _, . __) -----·~-~~:-; Court of Appeals, First District oFildi~c~s:ilsrtJess U.S. POSTAGE)) PITNEY BO,WES ...' l Fannin Street STATE''b'F ·s\1 TEXAS ....?' l~ '! ~Si.ir:Y~.e5.5 ~-- ·r..- •....,. ·.:1 ~n J ., ..., Houston, Texas 77002-2066 '1-.,J.:.-r't1=0R . PEM:A .... I $ 000 ZIP 7.7002 1V'I • PRIV~fEl.USE 0001172104JU~ 23. 2015 ';

Cv 6,\ g /!

CASE N;~,. 01-15-00535-CR JASON T. PEGUES TDCJ# OQ728196 HUNTSV:LLE UNIT .815 12T~I STREET HUNTSV;LLE, TX 77348

77348 •llpl••llllll\pj••ll!jl il u 1\1 1'11111 1\ 'llll'U 'ltiJl••H,l, 11, l-----~-·--· ----------~----~~--~·----~----~-----~ ')

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS Fannin Streq~ H:(:lU$T()i'!J Houston, Texas lff-,~0!6 U.S. POSTAGE» PITNEY BOWES {/_.~ RE: Case No.2(£tdi.sli.obl:~-CR '~l!l!!:i!.\ ~ ~w:::..... >"'? .

Style: In re Jason T-~Plp~~tts ZIP 77002 $ m 000. •34 0 0001372104JUL. 2~ 2015 The Real party in i~terest's response has been received and filed on the above date in the above referenced cause.

T. C. Case # 94-DCR-026185 Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court Jason T. Pegues TDCJ# 00728196 Huntsville Unit c. r;;./) 'g 815• 12th Street Huntsville, TX 77348

m,u., .. l,li ·l·i 1111 1"'" ,.j 11 1\li.i., 11 ,1n. Ph1. 1•• ,ii, "11

·• "

'- .. :' -:.....__ . I .....

J

ATTACHMENT ''G'' EXHIBIT CAUSE No.26185 ----- § THE 240th DISTRICT COURT § § § § § v. § OF § § § § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS § § POST-CONVICTION FORMAL ~OTION FOR !~!!!~!£-~!!~!!!!!!~

TO THE HONORABtE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: C01'1ES NOW, ill.Q.!_!.:._!]..9J!n.Jtll.§.l96, PETITIONER, Pro-se, IN THE ABOVE STYLED AND NUMBERED CAUSE OF ACTION RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THIS POST-CONVICTION FORMAL MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISION~ OF art. 64~01 (a),(b),(l),(B) OF VERNON'S ANN. TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AND WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THIS HONORABLE COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS THE FOLLOWING:

THIS IS A POST-CONVICTION FORMAL MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING ' PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF art. 64.01 (a),(b),(l),(B) OF VERNON'S ANN. TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, ASKING THIS HONORABLE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS IN A CONDITION THAT MAKES DNA TESTING POSSIBLE, AND WHETHER THE EVIDENCE HAS'-"'BEEN' SUBJECTED TO A PROPER CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

THE OFFENSE FOR WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS TRIED OCCURRED ON • DEC!~.!!ER_28.z.l221· THE PETITIONER WAS SIXTEEN (16) YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE AND WAS CERTIFIED AS AN ADULT AT THE AGE OF.

SEVEN-TEEN (17) ON ~!f!!!1.!!!.L!!.z.l2.2.~.:. THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED BY JURY ON .:l!!!:! _ _g_Q:.!..l.22.1 FOR AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THIS HONORABLE COURT AND SENTENCED TO _FIFTY (50) YEARS IN PRISON •.

THE INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD OF SAID CAUSE NUMBER .£~1~' SPECIFICALLY ON PAGES 2.011,2.015, and 2.017, SHOWS THAT ON ,:!!!!!~!!.!2.z.l2..2,!!_, ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SUSPECTS, DNA WAS DETECTED.

DURING THE VICTIM'S MEDICAL EXAMINATION, RECEIVED JRO~ CENTRALIZED I

EVInENCE, AND RETAINED AT THE LABORATORY FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS, (SEE ATTACHMENT "A';), WHICH CONFIRMS THAT BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL SECURED BY OFFICIALS EXISTED AND COULD BE SUBJECTED TO DNA TESTING. HOWEVER, DURING THE PETITIONER'S TRIAL WHICH WAS APPROX. A YEAR AND A HALF LATER, ~NA WAS NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE~ CONVICTING THE PETITIONER WAS ' SECURED BY STATEMENTS, AND .!.Q! BY DNA OR ANY KIND OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL.

~· .: ... .-2- I,~~~Q~_I~_!~QUE~_!l£~196, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THIS HONORABLE ' COURT TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE (20l(d)), OF ALL THE FOLLOWING ISS~ES AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN THIS MOTION,

-3- ISSUE PRESENTED -------------- I.

THROUGH RECENT ACQUIRE OF THE INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD IN ---- REFERENCE TO CAUSE No.2 6·18 S, A GOVERNMENTAL RECORD, STATING THAT . ,DNA '::-;·

WAS DETECTED ON .:!!;~.!!!!.Y.2.L.l22.~ AND THE PETITIONER BEING ARRESTED ON ~!RCli_l.L.l.2.2~• HAS REASONABLY PROVOKED THE FILING OF THIS MOTION.

INITIALLY THERE .WERE NO SUSPECTS IN THIS CASE. ACCORDING TO THE INVESTIGATING/ A~RESTING RECORD, THE PETITIONER liHO WAS A JUVENILE. AT TljE· TIME, WAS CLASSIFIED AS ONLY A W.ITNESS. THE OFFENSE OCCURRED ON Q!£EMJ!!!_£!i.L.l.2.21 AND SIX (6) DAYS LATER, .:!!!!!!!.n_l.t.l2.2~• THE RECORD SHOWS THAT DNA WAS DETECTED. THR~UGH-OUT MONTHS OF VIOLATING iHE ,. . JUV~NILE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES c·ONSTITUTION, QUESTIONING/INTERROGATING. THE CHILD WITHOUT THE INFORMANCE, CONSENT, OR NOTIFICATION OF THE CHILD'S PARENT(s), COMMITTING PLAIN ERRORS THAT WERE PREJUDICIAL, AND VIOLA1ING FAMILY/ PARENTAL NOTIFICATION CODES AND REQUIREMENTS,~ !!.Q!!L!!!~_J!!~!!L!H!.J!!~· THE PETITIONER'S "ARREST" HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DNA OR ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. THE "ARREST" WAS BASED ON THE VIOLATIONS· AND· ERRORS.~ENTIONED ABOVE, NOT FROM CONFIRMATION OF. DNA. THE PETITIONER'S CONVICTION WAS FOUNDATED, BUILT·ON AND SECURED BY AN ILLEGAL TAKEN STATEMENT~ VIOLATING VERNON'S ANN. TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUlE

II.

WITH THE INVESTIGATING RECORD SHOWING THAT DNA WAS DETECTED o• .:!!!!l!!.!_1.z.l2.2.~• PETITIONER'S TRIAL DID NOT OCCUR UNTIL AROUND .:!!!1!_£Q.L.l2.2.1· THERE WAS NO DNA ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL CONFIRMING THE J:>ETITIONER AS THE PERPETRATOR. DUE TO THE ILLEGAL TAKEN STATE~ENT/CONFBSSION BEING AQHITTED INTO EVIDENCE ALONG WITH THE

-4- :~, ..

JUDICIAL CONFESSION UPON THE PETITIONER TAKING THE STAND DURING THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF TRIAL, THE BELIEF IS TO BE FALSE OF DNA CONFIRMING THE PETITIONER AS THE PERPETRATOR, AND WHICH IS ALSO REASONABLE FOR FILING THIS MOTION, (~!:!!I!!_:_:Y...:._E!TAT!_l£..?._§_.:.!!.:.2.£_1~l._ll!.:.AP_!:.:.£.Q..Q.1)• THE PETITIONER PLEADED NOT GUILTY. IF THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN DNA CONFIRMING THE PETITIONER AS THE PERPETRATOR, THE PETITIONER WOULD NOT HAVE PLEADED NOT GUILTY.

III.

DUE TO THE ILLEGAL TAKEN STATEMENT BEING ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, THE PETITIONER FELT THE NEED TO TESTIFY, ATTEMPTING TO OVER-COME THE IMPACT THE ILLEGAL TAKEN STATEMENT HAD ON THE JURY. ONCE THE PETITIONER TOOK THE STAND [HIS DECISION TO TESTIFY WAS NOT "VOLUNTARY", S EE : ( 1!!.!!~!-Y..:._ ST~!!_.2_!!2..-~.:.~.:.££ , .!! _?_.£l and at .?.ll] ] , HI M TAKI NG THE STAND OFFICIALLY PLACED HIM UNDER THE DeGarmo DO~TRINE. AFTER WHICH, THE STATE INCLUDED VARIOUS FALSE ALLEGATIONS FOR SLANDERING ~URPOSES,

MAKING THOSE FALSE ALLEGATIONS A PART OF THE RECORD, WHICH WERE PROTECTED BY THE DeGarmo DOCTRINE. HOWEVER, ON f~!!UA~!_2~£.Q.13, THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS COMPLET!!!!!, .QVERRUJ&!! THE DeGarmo DOCTRINE ( S EE : ~!QQ! S 01!-Y..:._ ST!!!.L 12.!-~.:.!i.:.l£_1.2.2) , AND I S T0 BE AP PL I ED RETROACTIVELY ACCORDING TO WEST'S TEXAS DIGEST 2d [lOO(l)COURTS] • .

ULTIMATELY AND OVER-ALL, IF ~HE ILLEGAL TAKEN STATEMENT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITT.ED INTO EVIDENCE, THE STATE ~vOULD NOT HAVE BAD ANY EVIDENCE/BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL TO CONVICT THE PETITIONER~ DUE TO THE INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD SHOWING THAT DNA WAS DETECTED ON d~!!!~~Ll.z.l~~~ AND liTHE STATE RESPONDING IN RECENT PROCEEDDINGS THAT DNA TESTING CONFIRMED THE PtTITIONEB AS THE PERPETRATOR, YET IN TRIAL WAS NOT INTRODUCED AND ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE, IT IS REASONABLE TO

-5- /

SAY THAT TrrE SHOWING OF DNA BEING DETECTED IS FALSE AND UNTRUE, WHICH IS A V! 01, AT I 0 N 0 F ~~!!1_!!Q~!-11.:.Q2._£!2ll2J.. ~l • ~!!!!!-..Q.QJ!!_1.?..:.!.Q • !!!AL_£QM!-~I~Q£_!~~-~I:..~1·

IV.

THE VARIETY OF ERRORS AND VIOLATIONS PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BY WAY OF THE INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD, THE RECORD SHOWING THAT DNA BEING DETECTED IS THERE ONLY AS AN ~INVISIBLE CRUTCH" FOR THE STATE JUST IN CASE THE ILLEGAL TAKEN STATEMENT(s) ~ERE

SUBS E QDENTAL IN ADM ISS I BI.E y Y!QLA !!!fL~!U!!_!!_ C 0 .!2!_1.!..:.Q2._£!2illl.£2., ll!!1_f.QQ!2Z.:.!.Q • PEN!.Lf.QQ!1.!..:.Q.!_!!!!!_!lli!:_£.QQ!....;11...:.it~ . THE TEXAS C0 DE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 38.23 PROHIBITS THE ADMISSION OF ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS PENAL LAWS RELATEn TO GATHERING, CREATING, OR DESTROYING EVIDENCE. 38.23 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF C~IMINAL PROCEDURE INCLUDES EVIDENCE THAT IS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS LAW AS WELL AS THAT OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE CONSTITUTION. (SEE: WILSON v. 2..I!!J2_2ll_§..:...!i~l.£2!._ 4 5~.:. 39).

~Egu~g__!Q!L_!!1!!!

DUE TO THE PETITIONER'S INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD, A GOVERNMENTAl~ RECORD, STATING THAT DNA WAS DETECTED ON .:!!!!!!!!!...,.lill94, AND WITH THE STATE AS ftiWELL AS THE PETITIONER'S COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL STATING IN RECENT RESPONSES AND AFFIDAVITS IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN REFERENCE TO THIS CASE CAUSE 1&_18.?_, THE PETITIONER IS ASKING THIS HONORABLE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS IN A CONDITION THAT MAKES DNA TESTING POSSIBLE. IF SO, THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING FOR THE DNA TO BE TESTED. IF THE TEST DOES NOT CONFIRM THE PETITI.ONER AS BEING TOE PERPETRATOR, THE PETITIONER .REQUEST THAT HE

-6- BE IMMEDIATELY RELEASED FROM THE STATE'S CUSTODY OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. IF THE EVIDENCE OF DNA CAN-NOT BE LOCATED DUE TO ''MIS-PLACEMENT" OR BEING DESTROYED, THE PETITIONER REQUEST THAT HE BE RELEASED FROM THE' TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL J~STICE

SYSTEM IMMEDIATELY DUE TO THE VIOLAT(~Q_OF_PENAL COD]!~...dl..:..Q2._1_!_)(12il_2.J I!B:~.f:_f.Q.!?.JLll..:..l.Q ' p E!!!f:_.£Q1?.!_17 • 0 2 ~~21...:.. 0 3 • up 0 N RELEAsE I . THE PETITIONER ALSO REQUEST THAT HIS ENTIRE SENTENCE BE VACATED ALONG WITH THE OFFENSE IN WHICH HE WAS CONVICTED OF.

EXECUTED ON RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JASON~~PEGUEs~#72sl96-­ PETITIONER~ HUNTSVILLE UNIT 12t:h STREET HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348

cc/file: ( -.7- ------·----------- THE STATE OF TEXAS §

§

§

I ,~AS.Q~_!.!._PEGQ~~-ftZ~!!l2§., DECLARE mmER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FACTS STATED AND SHOWN IN SUPPORT OF THIS MOTION BY WAY OF THE INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD ARE TRUr AND CORRECT, AND I HEREBY SWEAR TO THESE FACTS.

THE PETITIONER WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED FOR AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT. THE INVESTIGATING/ARRESTING RECORD OF THIS CASE £6185 STATES THAT DNA WAS DETECTED ON J~!Q!!!_lL!~!! ALTHOUGH THERE WERE NO SUSPECTS AT THE TIME OF DNA BEING DETECTED. THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ARRESTED UNTIL MA!f!!_l.z1.2.~~' AND IT WAS NOT BECAUSE OF DNA OR ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE/BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL TO THE PETITIONER'S RECOLLECTION, DNA WAS NOT ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE NOR INTRODUCED AT TRIAL, AND DUE TO RECENT STATEMENTS IN RESPONSES AND AFFIDAVITS BY THE STATE fTHAT DNA WAS TESTED, CONFIRMING THE PETITIONER AS THE PERPETRATOR, AS WELL AS THE RECORD SHOWING THAT DNA WAS DETECTED, THE PETITIONER IS ASKING THIS HONORABLE COURT TO DEMAND THE STATE TO PRESENT THIS DNA AND TEST IT.

EXECUTED ON: ____________________

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, J ASON-'T:-'P EG UES ff 72 8196-- PETITIONER: x/file: "' -8- ..

PRAYER ---·--- WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, PETitiONER, ~A~QN T. PEGUES #728196, RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL OF THE FACTS IN THIS MOTION AND GRANT THIS POST-CONVICTION FORMAL MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING.

EXECUTED ON THIS .-... ___ cay of ~--------------------'2015.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, JASON -T-.-p EGUES#728i~-­ PETITIONER:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ---------------·-------- . I, ~!~ON_!~_fiQQ~~-!l~~~~' THE PETITIONE~, BEING PRESENTLY CONFINED IN WALKER COUN~Y, TEXASt DO HEREBY AFFIRM THAT I HAVE DELIVERED THE ORIGINAL OF THIS POST-CONVICTION FORMAL MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING TO THE PRISON MAILROOM OFFICIALS FOR DELIVERY TO THE FOLLOWING via U.S. POSTAL SE~VICE:

THE DISTRICT CLERK, ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT: OF FORT BEND. COUNTY 240th JUDICIAL DJSTRICT COURT HONORABLE JUDGE THOMAS R. CULVER III jol JACKSON STREET, RICHMOND TEXAS 77046 SIGNED ON ------------.------------ SIGNATURE.OF PETITIONER JASON T. PEGUES #728196 PETITIONER: !J!~!!~--.!l~£1!!!!!!Q!

I,JASO_!!_!~_PEG,!!!L!72~196_, PRESENTLY HWARCERATED IN WALKER COUNTY, TEXAS, HEREBY DECLARE UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED IN MY POST-CONVICTION FORMAL MOTION FOR FORENSIC DNA TESTING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

SIGNED ON THIS day of ,2015.

JASON T. PEGUES #72Bl96 PETITIONER:

-9- ATTACHMENT ''H'' EXHIBIT Pi:CUE,'.) v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997 -TX ... · http://caselaw.findlaw.cornltx-coun-of-appeals/ I 0 I 2121.htmi

® FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

Court of Appeals of Texas,Houston (1st Dist.).

PEGUES v. STATE Jason Tyrone PEGUES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 01-95-01008-CR.

--December 18, 1997 Before SCHNEIDER, C.J., and O'CONNOR and MARGARET GARNER MIRABAL~ .U.

Cary M. Faden, Sugarland, for Appellant.John F. Healey, Jr., John H. Harrity, ill, Richmond, for Appellee.

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING We overrule the appe!lant's motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute this in its stead.

Jason Tyrone Pegues, the appellant, was found guilty by a jury ofthe offense of aggravated sexual assault. Punishment was assessed at 50 years in prison. On appeal, the appellant argues the trial court erred in (1) not entering written findings of fact and conclusions oflaw on the voluntariness and legality of his confession and (2) overruling his motion to suppress his confession. We affirm.

Background The offense for which the appellant was tried occurred on:becember 28, 1993:';/'.on March 3, 1994, Oflicer Anderson went to Willowridge High Schoolto arrest the appeliant. After the arrest, Anderson transported the appellant to the command station in downtown Houston and brought him before Judge John Joneitz, a magistrate judge who administers statutory warnings to juveniles. Judge Joneitz administered t.he statutory warnings to the appellant.

Afterwards, the appellant was placed in a holding cell at the downtown command station, J (l I of4. 2/7/20 lJ 2: l6 }·~/ :tEGUE6 v. STATE, No. 0!-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997- TX ... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx:~ourt-of-appealsll 0 1212l.html

which had been designated as a juvenile holding facility by the juvenile boards of Harris and Fmi Bend Counties. Anderson typed the appellant's statement as he stated it to her.

After Anderson typed the appellant's statement, she gave him the opportunity to correct it.

Anderson then took the appellant back to Judge Joneitz's chambers, where Judge Joneitz privately asked the appellant to read the statement back to him. Judge Joneitz asked the appellant some questions that were designed to enable him to determine if the statement was given freely and voluntarily. Judge Joneitz determined the appellant gave the statement freely and voluntarily and certified that the appellant signed the statement in Judge Joneitz's presence.

After conducting a pretrial hearing on the voluritariness of the appellant's statement or confession, the trial court. denied the appellant's motion to suppress his confession. The appellant re-urged his objection to the admission of the confession at trial, but the trial court overruled it and admitted the confession into evidence.

The appellant testified during the punishment phase of the trial. When asked of his feelings about the events that took place on December 28, 1994, the appellant said he was sorry. He said he regretted what had happenedto the complainant and assumed full responsibility, saying he had just made a mistake. He said he had been attending a r.~-

rehabilitation program that involved therapy for sexual offenders. On cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited the following testimony from the appellant: Q (by Crowley): In fact, Mr. Pegues, I would suggest that you're not sorry at all for raping [the complainant]; but you're very sorry that you're looking to go to the penitentiary, aren't you?

A (by the appellant): No, sir. I'm sorry ofthe fact that I did something like that.

Motion to Suppress the Confession In point of error two, the appellant claims his confession was taken in violation of Tex.Fam.Code § 52.02._!_ Relying on the DeGarmo doctrine, in our original opinion we held the appellant waived this complaint because he. admitted he committed the offense duri.ngthe punishment phase of the trial.· DeGarmo v. State, 691 S.W.2d 657,660-61 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985), \In his motion for rehearing, the appellant argties we tookhis statement at the p:unishment pha.se out of context and that it was not an unequivocal confession. He argues DeGarmo should not applyhere) We dis~gree: .

The DeGarmo doctrine provides that, if during the punishment phase, a defendant confesses to all the elements of the crime for which he has been found guilty, he waives any error that might have occurred during the guilt stage of the trial/' Id.; Deleon v. State, 925 S.W.2d 295, 296 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no pet.).

of4 2/7/2013 2:16PM PE~GUES v. STATE, No. 01-95-0 1008-CR., December 18, I 997 - TX. .. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appealsll 0 12121.html ! -·

The appellant, responding to a question clearly referring to the rape, expressed remorse for raping the complainant. His confession, which he claims should not have been admitted, also stated he raped the complainant. ;.Neither statement admitted to using a knife during the attack. Thus, the appellant's statement at the punishment phase did not confess to all the elements of aggravated sexual assault. The DeGarmo doctrine does not apply squarely to this case but its rationale does.

The DeGarmo doctrine has been called a common-sense rule of procedure. See McGlothlin v. State, 896 S.W.2d 183, 187 (Tex.Crim.App~ 1995). This is so because a defendant who complains of the improper admission of evid'ence, a trial error, would at most be granted a new trial. Id. at 188. Upon retrial, the defendant's judicial confession to all the elements of the offense would be admissible. See Tex.R.Crim.P. art. 38.22, § 5 (1979). Therefore, anew trial would be pointless, as the trier of fact would hear the defendant's confession to the offense.

The same reasoning applies in this case. Here, the appellant did not admit to all the elements of aggravated sexual assault, and so did not waive all error occurring during the guilt phase. However, pis judicial confession to the rape matched the confession he argues was erroneously admitted. The DeGarmo reasoning applies here. Assuming the confession w&s erroneously admitted and the appellant was granted a new trial, his judicial confession, that he was sorry he committed the rape, would be admissible at the new trial.

We ~onclude the appellant's admission during the punishment phase waived any error that may have occurred concerning the admission ofhis confession at the guilt phase of the trial.

We overrule point of error two.

Failure to Enter Findings In point of error one, the appellant argues the trial court erred in not efl.tering findings of fact and conclusions oflaw regarding the confession's voluntariness. As stated above, the appellant waived any error that may have occurred with regard.to the admission of the confession. This includes the entering of findings of fact and conclusionsoflaw following a hearing on voluntariness.

We overrule point of error one.

'Ve affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES 1. Section 52.02 provides in pertinent part:(a) A person taking a child into custody, without unnecessary delay and without first taking the child to any place other than a juvenile processing office designated under Section 52.025 of this code, shall do one of the following: * * * * * *(2) bring the child before the office or of4 2/7/2013 2:iG n·l PJS6U"r~S v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997- TX ... http://caselaw.findhiw.coJ:n/tx-court-of-appeals/1 0 1212l.html •• ' , 'r ' 1 •

official designated by the juvenile court ifthere is probable cause to believe that the child engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision; [or](3) bring the child to a detention facility designated by the juvenile court. Tex.Fam.Code § 52.02(a) (1996).

O'CONNOR, Justice.

Copyright © 2013 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved.

of4 2/7/2013 2:16PM ATTACHMENT · ''I'' EXHIBIT WATSOS ~ VJ.

JASON T~:~.r.S F:BGURS

·-- ---· ~~-.... ... ~~&

1 D"~-·· e~:~~~~-?--~ 39594 - - . ...._, AGG.~:~~D SEXUAL ASSAULT .... ......., --· 94273003 ·-- o;t!IIUS! fti!!CIIDt -?;~ _/P5 ~ --· !---· 09/08/94 December 28, 1993 ....._.BPD _,. 1404818938 --·; I

aan.-. ~.1; , {2(}LJ_ r" IIIU!ID CUIDa OF t!.JU' ~ !;~J. ~- AftiC."P • .:5:,.c"lH' 'UTr!2SSBI'! : .._ ~tmGLARY ...... ;:gp;WlfT!Wt~ :...am.~~...: -· - ,J;rl :IN 'lBE NAME ~~iO E!' .J;.U'l'JWO.:T'l'!C VF '!'B2 S1'A'l'B OP 'l'EXAS1 ·orb~ ut.:ly .,rqanized ~and Jury of Port Bend Co11nty, Texas, presents in the ::~su:i.ct Court of Port Bend County, Texas, that in Port Bend County, Texas, 3MroJL:~~ PBGUB§ , hereafter styled the Defendant, heretofore on or about ~~ 28. 1993. did PARAGRAPH A th!!T.• ~:<¥.~ there .: ":.entionally and knowingly cause the f.cJnetration of the ferr~&le se"'l.Al nr9-,~ of Martha Sinqlet.c.n by defendant's eexual organ, without th~· consent of Martha Sinqleton, and the defendant dit:i th"n :ond there by ac:te anct words threaten and place Martha Singleton in fear that death AID serioua b<vlily injury would be imainently inflicted on Martha Singleton, and said agts and words occurred in the presence of Martha Singleton.

PARAGRAPH B then. and there intentioi:lii.Uy and knowingly c:auee the penetration of the fem&4e sexual orgau uf Martha Singleton by defendant's sexual orqaa without '-h~ '1cns~nt ot Martha Singleton, and in the course of the sADe 'cri.JIIinal ep1sc~e t~~ ~efendant used and exhibited a deadly weaP?n, to~wit: a knif@.

PARAGRAPH C !~~~iat~i~~1~i~:;,n~on~Uyd ~d ~ow~ngly cause tba penetration of the mouth Martha Singleton, andth: d:~:~ni ~de~al organ, without: the consent of f~j:~:n :~:1alb:e~rtba ~inlleton in· £ear ::a~e!~h~~ :.c;:i;::~t; Words occurred in the" ~:;e~cen~fi';.f:_t!drt'-on ~lha Singleton and said acta and na u4 .. .tnq eton.

....

PARAGRAPH D then Qnd there inteutionally and knowingly cause the penetration of the mouth ~~ Martha Singleton by the defendant's sexual organ, without the consent of ,i;;-_~t~"' 15.u~'L:'!ton, an~ in +.he course of the same criminal episode the defe!tc=-.. ..,.,.:! ~<,d :--,Jdu..k..i.ted a deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife. ·

A<~S':l' TBB PEACE .ARD DIGBITY OP TBB S':l'A'l'B • ~a~------------------------------~==~------------------­ Ano~~-------------------------------~~~~--------------­ ~~AT&:~~------------~--------~==~~~---~·--------------- IiOIIff; PHONE:'------- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ woax l'RONI:•------------

~·~·----------------------~~=----------------- A90USS::_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a'IY:'-~=---------

&';.,,~'--·.--,.---------------:=:=.:=:=;;:'-7JP:,_ _ _ _ _ _ __ HOa!EPROtt~.. wou·PIIOia"Ks•----------- !i:"'!i':: SL!~ Dt!B: ·~i .'27/ l.;.~- .. _.

Al<A1 1 PEGUES. JA£'0~! n~:QI AKA2 2P£GUES.JASON T'f~Ql AKA3 3PEGUES. JASON T'YP.QJ

BOND: 45. 9€·~ CASE-'!: DT: €1?/tlfl/1994 STATU!."· ~ ':<OND: 10,9€'~ tP:SE>;: .!)T; 09/1.:\B/"! 994 SH T!.!S · -~ SON!.\ : i e . ~t'"~ C~M~£NTS: ~ASEO: pr i 1 = RETU~:il! TO t!AH! MENU f'A2 ::: !::XIT THE SYSTEI'!

F'F1 =~EPJRI-! TO ftR0'.4SE MESSAGES 'f'f****'~''f******•'f-!t*****"****.. ,. .. ~ ~"-'('lf'flflf..,.'fi'flflflflflflflf*-~<':'f~!:*** OPEF:ATOF: .;:?-!!) ·~~:- ~HP.KGE RECORDS FOR THIS INHAT£

.. )cd-e a-.? ~-.~ (d -~g'- 93 Li\ST: Pi:.Glit:S OOR: 01/27/77 N Lo"' w,,~-;o:;,<>;. '~~< 17J.I-g4- GRADE: 10 ALIAS: HEIGHT: 506 WEIGHT: 175 HAIR: BLK EVE: :: ?HYSICAL-ODDITIES: PRINT!!: -----------~----------------------------------------~-----------------~-- PER~ON / LOCATION OATE TIME: OFFICER ~UVT.NILE DIVISION 03/0'J/911 11.00 ANDERSON,S.J PEBUES,WILL'~~ ~4THER 03/03/94 1607 ANOERSON,SJ .J UV EN I L f : ~- ~ i ,. . "f { 1 ~! 03/03/94 1700 ANOERSON,SJ NA~E: ~EiUES,~~~LIAM RELATION: FATHER cusroo·~: n~D~ESS! :i607 ~INTERBRIAR HGUSTON,TX P!-:uNE: ~OI'IEil: 713-438-8830 BUSINESSO:

~ LOCATlON: 16301 CHII'HIEY ROCK HOUSTON.TX 'st. . :. ;-i BV: ANOERSON,SJ H067721 '--------- - -;~; ~~~-~;~~~~~-~;~;~~ LOC~TI~N: ~5603 wo~7Eh BRrAR -,- DATE: 03/03{~4 .TI~E: ::: ~~-~ ~~~ ~ ~~-~~~~;~~~~-;~~~-~;(;;;~;-;-'~~;:-~;~ KMAP-571X HOUSTON, FORT BENO . ~ ----.. ·-~--- -- ---·------ -------------------------------------------------~---~.=.------ Cui.'LAINJ\NT lil: SINOLETON,I'tARTHA ---· RACE: B SE:i: .f.~.~.7C~: ~ AOuA~SS: 6919 BROAOWAY;SHEVEPORT,LA 71109 ~; PHONE: HOME!t: 318-636-2543 BUSINESSil: EXT-:~.

--------------- · --------- SUMMARY {BRUF OESCRIPT!ON) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CO"P WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED AT 15603 ~INTER8RIAR BY 1:.>uSTON POLICE OEP'ARTfiiENT ~~RRE~T INfOR~AT!ON REPORT Incident no. ' 1 • .. o. fl 1 t ' I ..0 6 1 I ffen~a- SfXJ~l R!5~ULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTING INSTRU~ENT AS PER omGINAL ·t~mises- RESIOENCK (PRIVATE) Weather- CLOUDY ocat:le-.: : -,.. "'r: ,,._ .. Ct.~60:J '!.am"- WINTER BRIAR City-HOt,;!'.''ON Ccunt;<-!'ORT Sr::NO Kmap-571X 01st-l6 6eat:-l6E4C eighborhaod-e~da-00072 Oesc-CHASEWOOO,WILLOWPARK,BRIARGATE,FOX~EAOOWS,OUAILRUf E~d da~e- ·I Time- :Begin date- TU 12/28/93 Time- 1200 No~-000000 Oat87l2/Z8f93 Time-171' eceivad/Em~1oy~e: Name-LAPTOP Hate crime related~N ang crime retated-N 1--·-·---·----·-·-·--··---·-·------------·---------~---------------- COMPLAINANT($) Pllddle- Name: Last-SI~-~~ --nN Fir$1:-MARTHA Race-8 Sdx-F gu-1 ,i!zponic-N _qddreP.o-6919 !), ~JAo';S!IEVEPORT,LA 71109 Pncn•: ~ome-(318) 6!6-2543 ausiness-(713) 000-0000 Ex~- ::;; :ver l.icensell- SOC TTV-434-55-1353 Farce us~o 4gain~t complain~nt- Y 008- Ol/3Q/76 ~~~ation to su~p-UNKNOWN IF RELATED R•lation to ~(01) Suspe~t-UNKNOWN By-A-'!B ~nJ~red: T~ken to-WESTBURY HOSPITAL Condition-POSSIBLE INTERNAL INJURY ----- ----~----------- ------------------.. . . . . . . ....,.---------==------·-------------------- W!TNESS(S)

JrlfddlE- Name:, Lalit:-PEe Firgt-.JASON Race~B Sex-M Age-16 Hispanic-N Addre~s-15607 Phon'!; Home-(71 ERBRIAR:~tSSOURI CITY,TX 38-8830 8u.s.ine5s-( 71.3) ainant- N _.24-§9- DOB- 01/27/77 ~---------------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ RE?ORTEE(SJ ----- NONE rf--:~ . . ..... - . - ' ' • ..::;··. ,7.",} •• " ....... -•••• (, • .....: ...... • -(~(";"'\ ..... " ' ........... " ........ . ciclent no. 140-'<l:.eS'3 e CURRENT INFORI'IATIO.N REPORT ··. PAGE 2.005 .~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~· ~~~~~~~~~: ...... · ........... · · .................. · · · ·.<s P£R"oRiO~~~ ....... . ~~~ 8 J.L.KAY TOOK PICTURES WITH A ROLL OF FILI'I AND ALSO WILL PRINT THE IFE !'\>.:''·;_;: .:1l'iD TF,lf"'HON': !'lOOK.

SYS~EI'I ADVISORY; REPORT ENTERED USING PERSONAL COI'IPUTER VER-2.07 ································-··································· ENTRY DEVICE: ZENITH 286 109430 TIME-1810 * - ENTR': ~.·OM •::Oi\Tfo-122893 TIME-1701 TO. DATE-122893 TR~~SrE~ .~vi~E: AST BRAVO 385SX/20 106088 X33 TIME-1718 TRANS FEll ·~~. i c:-:.22893 TII'IE-17114 LOA.D DATE-122893 OIST-16 LOCATION Of O~~ENSE: POLICE DISTRICT-DISTRICT 16 ****~''***********w•••**********************************************

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------· SUPPLEI'IENT(S) -------- -------- ·- ··-- -------- ··-- ---------------- ----------·---------------------· Offense- SEXUAL ASSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTING INSTRUI'IENT street location information Numb~r- 15603 Na~e-WINTER BRIAR Type- Suffix- Apt no- N.ame-tS603 Type- Suffix- Date of offense-12/28'93 Date of supplement-12/28/93 compl(s) Last-SINGLETON First-I'IARTHA l'liddle- Recovered stolen vehicles information seat- 00 Ois~rict- Recove~y l~c~~ion­ by- Stored- Empt-093807 Shift-2 Oiv/Station-SW-PATi4 officer1-EM JOHNSON Empt-087297 Shift-2 aff1cer2-CI'I GAINER Phonal (713) 729-1111 Ext-0000 Caller'S name-NORI'IA SUPPLEI'IENT NARRATIVE

INTROOI.:CTION: OFFICERf JOHNSON AND GAINER, RIDING 1SE3SE AT 1659 MRS. WERE DISPATCHED TO SSE GAS~ER 0~ A HOSPLT~L CHECK. OFFICERS ~RRIVEO AT 1711 HRS AHD OBSERVED THE LOCATION TO BE WESTBURY HOSPITAL.

Of~ICERS ~~·ICERS TOOK ACTIONS: CUSTQ .. f G~ TH~ SEXUAL ASSAULT K~T AND COMP'S CLOTHING AT 171S /-:,." ;...../_......

UHt~ t I . ..

I I I I I II 1 I It: I t • 01 I I I I <.(-:~ t• t• • ' ' • •'IIU I I I U I .

II II II t I I I I I I &IUU .. UUI

~~dent no: 14G~~1P.93 b CURRENT XNFO~MATlON REPORT PAGE 2.006 . U tl I I t •I I t I II I I ft I I I I h I I I 1 tt I I I I U II I I I U ,' U U U ',I I f I I I M M \1 It II II I I II I I I I I I I I If J U" U t I t I t U I I Jt U ll

S. FRC~ NURSE NORMA ROVANZO. OFFXCERS ALSO SPOKE ~ITH THE COMP AND ADVISED ·--·~~,~E~ THAT SHE NEEO~Q TO CONTACT THE SEX CRIMES DIVISION TO SET UP AN APPOINTMEN ~ GIV~ ~ STATE~ENT. OFFICERS LEFT THE PHONE NUMBER OF SEX CRIMES WITH THE 0~~. ~~~!r~PS M~INTAINED ~ARE, CUSTODY. ~NO CONTR8L OF THE EVIDENCE UNTIL A6~E~ ~T THt C~~~~~l F~OPE~TY ROOM. OFfiCERS THEN MADE THIS SUPPLEMENT.

SVST~n ADVISORY: REPORT ENTERED USING PERSONAL COMPUTER VER-2.07 ••~,•·• •* •• **•*•*•••a "'•• ••• •• •• ••• •••••• **"' "'•** •• ,..,..,...,. "'""• •*••• ,...,.,.,.,., _ _.

ENT~Y DEVICE: ZENITH 266 109819 E~TRV FROM OATE-122893 TIME-1B21 TO OATE-122893 TniE-1832 TRANSFER DEVICE: AST BRAVO 386SX/20 106094 X34 TRANSFER OATE-122B93 TIME-2219 LOAD OATE-122B93 Tit!E-2221 LOCATtr~ OF ~FFENSE: POLICE DISTRICT-DISTRICT 15 OIST-15

S~p~lement entered by - 93807 · Reoe-~ reviewed by-PAT Employee number-080342

~f1&~~~- ASSAULT (RAPE' I BY CUTTING IMSTRU"ENT !E~CAL Straet location information Number- 15603 Name-WINTER BRIAR Type- Suffix- Apt no- Name-15603 Type- Suffix- Dace of offense-12/28/93 Date of supplement-12/29/93 Compl~~) ~J~t-SINGLETON First-MARTHA Middle- Last- Recovered et~len vehicles information Sl:ored- by- Phil- (000) 000-0000 Officerl-5.~. ANDERSON Empt-067721 Shift-1 Oiv/Station-JUV SUPPLEMENT NARRATIVE THE STATE OF TEXAS INCIDENT NO: 140481893 ~~UNTY OF HARRIS STATEMENT BE~ORE ME, THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, ON OECEt!BER 29TH, 1993, AT 13SO HOURS PERSONALLY APPEARED nARTHA SINGLETON, ~HO, AFTER BEING OULV SWORN, UPON ~ATH DEPOSES AND STATES: MY NA~E lS MARTHA SINGLETON; I AM. 15 YEARS OF AGE, HAVING BEEN BORN ON 01/2uf7e. I'IY HOME ADDRESS IS 6919 8ROAD~AY, SHREVEPORt, LA 71109- WHERE I l :VE ~I.TH OEBR.~ SINGLETON, ~HO IS MY MOTH£R, HER PHONE IS (318) 636-2!£ · i ~~ TO SeABURG HIGH ~CHOOL ~HERE I AN IN THE TENTH GRADE.

I L'VE WITH ftY I'IOTHI. ... A:.:u -~Y T!J!::t.VE _,_,. y~j.fi. OLD BROTHER, BRAJCOON SINGLETON. eR'ANa: . ·," ·. ·.. · C'2· . .· AS PER ORIOIN~· ,; " ; ' ;. ' • i ' "; • " ' • • • n ' • ·, ' .,";' ;;:J • • •" ' "u" • ' • •'' • ' u ,; """" ·, ~' ' ' ' ' " ' "" u • " ' • n' . cidt•nt no. '140481893. B !:!.'!'t~ENT J:NFOP,l!'<TJ:ON REPORT :· PAGE 2.007 tt U 1 I I t I t • !; I + ~· : I I 1 II 1 1 I I U t I I I 1 1 •• • 1 I " I 11 ' ' l 1 • I I I I I I II U II It II ft I I tl I I I I I I I I g I U II II I U I I U I 1 tt 11 U 1 ES TO &ETHUI•Z:: l:tlll"'LE SCHOOL J:N LOUISIANA WHERE HE J:S IN THE SEVENTH GRADE·.

PARENTS HAVE BE~M DIV~RCEO FOR ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN YEARS NOW. "y FATHER, THUR ·s·I .St·,·T:Il, LIVES AT 1561.1 IJ'INTERBRIAR", IIJISOURI CITY, TEXAS.· "y BROTHER I CAI'IE, 7::; S:!I\!Ot'' AFTER CHRISTI'IAS, TO VISIT OUR FATHER IN TEXAS. IT WAS Ot.

6-93, 0~ a SUNOA,, ~R~·. ~UR OAU~V C~M! AND PICKED US UP TO BRING US BACK TC XAS. !'IV DAD HAD BEEN lN LQUSI~~A VISITING HIS MOTHER. MY DAO IS MARRIED TO ENOA SINGLETON ANn THEY 'lAVE A THREC: OR FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WHO IS TIFFAN\ NGLETON THAT U:VES WITH THF'"'. ON TUESO'AY, 12-2B-93, BRENDA IJENT TO WORK AT E BUDWEISER IN ROSENBUR3. ~y BROTHER WENT WITH !'IV FATHER TO LOAD I'IY FATHER'S UCK. TIFFANY GOES TO ~ PRIVATE SCHOOL AND SHE WAS AT SCHOOL THAT OAV. I WAS MY DAD'S HOME ALONE ANO AROUND NOON I HEARD THE DOOR BELL RING AND YHEN I TO THE DOOR A BLAC~ ~AN WAS THERE. HE WAS KIND Of SHORT AND STOCKY AND HE N'T HAVE ANV BEARD ~R MUSTACHE ANO HE WAS WEARING A BLACK SKI MASK ON HIS Ati'W!TH A B~UE JACKET WITH CUT OFF KAKI SHORTS AND SOliE WHITE K-SWISS TENNIS OES ON. HE TOLO liE THAT H!: :-,1\D P. PACKAGE FOR PlY STEP-IIOTHER AND HE SAID HIS AME WAS CHRIS. HE SAID HE h~t ~ P•C~AGE FOR MV STEP-IIOTHER AND HE WOULD BE DIDN'T HAVE THE P~~~~SE WITH HI~. THEN HE WALKED BACK DOWN THE w~EET ··~ THE RIGHT. THEN I WENT BAG~ IN AND WAS WATCHING T.V. A COUPLE OF INUTES LAr:~ THE DOOR ~~LL RANG AG~I~ ANO HE SAIO HE ~AS CHRIS AND THAT HE AO A PACKAGE. WHER i 0PENEO TH~ DO~R ALL HE HAD WAS A TELEPHONE BOOK AND A KNI~E. THE TELEPH~"F CDOK ~Al IN 21S ~IGHT HAND AND HE HAD THE KNIFE IN HIS 'LEFT HAND. i ":~s·T SEE TH~ KNIFE ~T fiRST ANO THEN HE !lOVED THE PHONE BOOK ANC .I SAW THE ~<~FE. THEN HE PUSHEC HE THROUGHT THE HALL WAY AND BACK TOWARDS THE :OEN. TH~• I WAS ~IGHTING HIM AND I TOOK THE KNIFE FROII Hill AND I CUT !'IV FINGERS THEN v 'SIAaBEO !~Ir-. IN ONE Of HIS LEGS BELOW THE KNEE. THEN I STABBED HIM SQH~·- .~E IN HIS FACE I THINK ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE. HE SAID 'GIVE ME THE KNIFE' ' ANO 1-:~ , ;;,;nc:iJ HIT;!~G ME AND Fit;HTING ME. HE ALSO ASKED !'IE IF THERE WAS ANVBOO~ ~L!E THEME. H~ PUSHED ME IN THE COUCH ANO I COULDN'T BREATH CAUSE HE HAD ME ON ~; STJ~ACH WITH ~y NOSE AND FACE IN THE COUCH. I TOLD HIM I COULDN'T BREATH ANO i-IF.: ::iAID IF I .Gt." ·~ HIM THE KNIFE HE WOULO LET liE UP. THEN HE TOOK T!iE KNIFE OUT DF MY riA~U ~~0 ~~ STARTED HITTING ME AND HE PUSHED ME OOUN ON THE FLOOR BY Trif. END TABLE. HE TOLD ME TO STOP SCREAMING OR HE WOULD KILL ME. WHE~ ~A• ~~VING TO GET UP FROM THE COFFEE TABLE HE STABBED ME IN TH~ ~IDOLE OF MY UPP~R ~ACK. THEN HE RIPPED MY PANTS. I HAD ON SO"t BLACK STIRRUP PANTS, A LONG PURPLE KNii SWEATER AND SOME STOCKINGS WITH OUT ANY SHOES ON. HE RIPPED THE ZIPPER PART OF ~y .ANTS AND PULLED THEM OFF OF ME. THEN HE PULLED IIY UNDERWE~~ OFF TOO WITH T~E PANTS. HE KEPT H!TTING ME AND PUSHING ME DOWN. HE PUSHED MY LEGS PUSHING MV KNEES INTO MY CHEST. HE GOT ON TOP OF liE. HE HAD HIS JACKET ON ANO U~!IPPEC HIS PANTS AND TOOK HI$ PENIS OuT. HE PUSHED HIS PENIS INTO MY VAGINA. fHEM HE GRABBED MY HAND AND PULLED ME UP OFF THE FLOOR. HE TOOK MY HANcr ANO TQlO ME !0 ~U~ HIS PENIS. HE HAD AN ERRECTION. THEN HE PUSHED ME BACK DOWH ON THE FLOOR AND THE~ HE PUSHED ~y LEGS UP AGAIN, INTO MY CHEST. AND TRIED TO PUSH HIS PENIS BACK IN MY VAGAINA. I WAS SCREAMING AND HE TOL~ ME TO STOP SCREAMING AND HE HIT ME IN MY FACE WITH HIS FIST ON THE LEFT AMO RIGHT SIO~S OF MY FACE. THEN HE PULLED ME BY MY HAIR ANO TOLD ME TO PUT' MY MOUTH ON HIS PENIS. HE KEPT STICKING HIS PENIS BACK AND FORTH IN MY MOUTH. HIS PENIS WAS cRRE~T. THEN HE PUSHED ME BACK DOWN ON THE FLOOR. THEN HE STILL TRIED TO FORCE H4S PENIS IN I'IY VAGINA. HE GOTIN AND TOLD !'IE TO IIOAM OR SOMETHING. I TOLD HIM ~y DAOOY wAS COMING BACK AND HE KEPT ON FOR A LITTLE WHILE. THEN I TOLD Mrr "V DAD WAS COMING BA~K IN ~NO HE TOLD ME TO STAY THERE AND HE WENT TO THE sLrOING OOOR IN TH~ O~N AND HE RAN OUT.THE BACK. I C~OSEO THE SLIDING DOOR BACK AND I ~ENT ~NO LOCKED THE FRG~T DOOR AND I WENT IN THE BACK ROON·AN~ CALLED ~~ ~EIGHBOR, VO•ANOA AND JO ANN, AND TOLD THEM TO COKE AND GET "E· JO *MN CAME AND ~ ~AL~ED BACK DOW~ TO HER HOUSE AND THEY CALLED THE POLICE.

T~E PO~~CE CA~E 'NO MADE A REPO~t. THE,~NBULANC~ CANE AND TOOK ME TO THE HOSPITAL. THEY Li.!O A RAPE 'KIT ON .,e •.· .--f: !-!!IV~ ~:C.vER S«<t ntAT "AN BEFORE THAT ·.~ . '.· -------- .·1 OIO-~OT HEAR OR SEE IVE UAV. NO ONE ELSE CAME SF. atFOfl~ QH ~fT~R THAT ~AN UNTIL THE POL CA"E. SO"EONE CALLED THE ~ HU~~ UP. ONE TEEN AGER CALLED THE HOUSE ASKED FOR MR. OR MRS. ~~L~f~~ AND T TOLD HI~ THEY WEREN'T HOME. SAID HE WAS BOBBV. I ASKED ~V GUY WHO DID THIS LOOKED LIKE Ht NO OF BIG EARS THAT STUCK OUT. HE HE CA"E THERE BUT ONE TI~E WHEN Hl ACE. HE KEPT TAKING THE MASK OFF THINK HE PUT It BACK ON HIS HEAD KNOU HLft IF I H~~ AGAIN. ONt .. HE TOOK THE .__

AND CAN READ AND WRITE THE i. ·W";; IT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO HF. BEST OF M~ r.~C~L~OG~.

:;: HIWE (1IV~N T!liS STATEI'If.N'r TO OFFICER S .J. jMIOEcR5iOH OF I'IY OwN f'~EE WILL. iHIS S1'ATEI'IEfH llY CFFI.CER S •..l. ANDERSON.

SIGNED SUCSCP:SEO AND S~ORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 29TH DAY OF OECEABER • 1993 SIGNED NOTARY PUBLIC IN hND FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS rtam~nt p~~ared by - Report reviewed by-J.JACKSON . ./'.

Offanse- SEX~'A-l ASSI';:Jl. T / BY CUTTXN {RAPE) INSTRUMENT S'traet local:ion nformation 1SSC arne-WINTER BRIAR Type- Suffix- Type- SuffiK- a of supplement-12/29/93 "lcldh- Recovered stolen ve clee information stored- by..;, . . Pht- {ooa) oao-o·aoo Officerl-S.J. ANDERSON Empt-067721 Shlfc-1 D!V/Station-JUV SUPPLEI'IENT OFFICER ~.J. ANDERSON. UORKING .lUVENILE S X CRIMES. UAS ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE FOR A fOL\OW UP ~~~ESTIGATION.

!:!~ \2-29-~3 AT 0840 HOURS OFFICER ANOE;RSO RECEIVEO A CAll FROM A JO ANN BUilTC: WHO STh~~O THAT SHE 1~ A ~R!ENO OF TftE FA ILY AT PSt437-7895. ,:-· JO .~NN STATED 'rHAT 1'1\~· COPlPL. HAD C~l<£'eo AFTER THE SEXUAL ~SSAULTEO OCCUR~ • . .· . . ....... .. ~ . . . :. ·. . -: . ("{'t~ . . ·:~ . .... ~ ,., .. ;.... ,"., ,,..... • ~,. ~u!'~~l~~. ;~;~;~~;~~~. ;~;~;;;' ·;-;,. ~ .. "A'S'~? «n l I f •· f • C U . t tt t t ' l ft . • I ~ U f t ' • II._ t t I" ' ot llll I I C l t t l ,dU h 0 U d . I ct J I l f I t f I J4 f U.JI lt t H.

ASK~O HER TO CO~E OVER. ~0 ANN STATED THAT WHEN SHE ARR!VEO SHE OBSE IN THE HOuSE AND THE conPL. WAS VfRY UPSET • .:; ; "r· ~··;sHfa AO'!I:ScC T!iAT SEVERAL WITifESSES OB.sERVEO A W!UTE TRUCK IN THE 1\:I.V£ U!tt w.:::r .:.c:.o Lt:TTEHS. SOME CHILOREN HAO 08SI:;RVEO THAT TRUCK TO HAVE THE nns "S•INfl DOLLAR T::IIJCK" PRINTED ON IT.

ANN ~1.'11TEO THAT ~HE kNOWS THE SANO COLLAR TRUCKS COI'If TO THAT NEIGH80Rif000 CO.~ECT THE CLOTHES FROM THE PtOPLE THAT DO NOT ~ANT THEIII ANYMORE. JO A~N TED THAT THEY RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE SAND DOLLAR TRUCK PEOPLE LAST YEEK ANYTHING TO SE PIC~EO UP HOWEVER THEY TOlD THEM TKAT THEY

ST~TC..· TH~T WkTNESSES FURTHER OBSERVED A HAM WALK UP WXTK A PACKAGE 1:7 ~!o:: '\ ·,>:ONE 8001C ArlO NOT A PACKAGE.

STA1EP THAT 7~£ SUSPECT FORC£0 HIS WAY IH AMO STASB£0 THE COMPLAINANT ICE. rHE COMPL. WAl A~LE TO GET THE KNIFE AMO SHE STA8$EO THE SUSPECT IN KIS L!G. fH~ COMPt. W~S THEN ABLE TO GET THE KNIFE AWAY FROM THE SUSPECT ANO SHE ST~B2eO T~C SUSP~CT :N HIS LEG. THE CO"PL. CUT HER HANO ON TK£ KNiFE. ~0 ANN FURTh~~ STATED THAT SEVERL NEIGHBORS HAD SEEH 8ROKEN INTO. SHE STATEO .THAT THE COMPL'S RESIDENCE HAO ~TTEKPTEO ENTRY TO IT. .

JO ANN STATEO THAT SHE HAD SEEN A SAND DOLLAR TRUCK YESTERDAY ~HEN THE POLIC~ <!:'FtCERS CAM.:= OUr AHO SHE ATTEI'IPTI:O TO fOLLOW :C't HOWEVER WIS UNA8l·E • ..:JO ANN STI\TEO "tHAT SHE CALLED SAND DOLLAR TODAY ·ANO THEY STAT!::O THAT THEilE WAS TnUCK In -He H~IGHSORHOOO YESTERDAY, 12-28-93.

JO ANN STATEO THAT THE COM Pl.. Hl\0 CAll EO MER HOUSf VESTEROAV, 12-28-93. CJlVU6 AMO SHE RAN TO THE COKPL. A~O OBSERVED HEa T~ &e 8LE£DING AHO SHE ASKfO HER EP SHE HAO SEEN RAPEO AHO. SHE STAT£0 THAT SHE HAO. JO ANN TIIEN RAM OUT AHO '-OOK~l FOR THE SUSPECT ~OWEVER THERE ~AS NO SIGN Of HIM AT THAT TtME.

JO ANN FURTHER s;ATEO THAT SHE HAD THE COftPl'S FATHER THfRE WITH Hfft AT THIS TII'IE ANO OFFIC.E.R ANDERSON SCH.EOUt.EO Ar4 1\I'POINTMfNT TO INTfRVIfW THE COfiPL. ON- 12-29-~3 AT 1400 HQURS. ~H 12-29-93 AT 1350 HOURS OFFICER ANDfRS ARR .. v£_0 Ir! ·JUV£t4IL£ SEX CRIMES AT ON f1ET WITH THE COffPLAIIfAHT WH!tf SHE MOT"~"· 8300 MYKA~A WITH HER fiOTHER, FATHfR AHD STEP· AN0£RSON TOOK A WRI T *~ SUPPtc•f!HT T fH STAT~MENT FROM COMPLAIN£~r ~ ¥ ~" FOR THAT STATEMENT. nn • "AR,HA SINGLETON.

FATHER. ART StNGlETOH 8/N/41 OF TEX~St438-8830. .•

........ : U I I ·a I I I Ill I I l1 I l I I hI I I I U I , cident no. ·14048189::!

1 ~ ~ !! • ~ .I : , 0 , H ; ; ! I I , 11 • CURRENT • , l f~ II I I ..-.. t ~FORI'IAT:Z:O_tl REPORT •! I tl II tl I I f I I I I II U II Jln 11 I I 1• I I I I I t I t II I It II U 1 ll I I u I I U II ll

:· .;;;o .• Tui..C Hiri THAT SHE STA88ED THE SUSPECT IN HIS LEG AND IN HIS FACE AN

SINGLETON s1AT~t lHA; ~· aBSeRVED ALOT OF BLO~D ON THE SOFA AND ON THE FU~TE!R 03~ERVEO THE C~MPL'S BUTTONS ON THE FLOOR.

T STATED THAT HE w~: AWARE THAT THE SAND DOLLAR CALLS AND ASKS IF THE PEOPLE ANYTHING THEY iANT TO GIVE AWAY. THEY THEN TELL YOU WHAT DAY THEY WILL eE THE ~EIGHBORHOOD. THEY TOLD HII'I THEY WOULD BE IN THE AREA ON 12-28-93. ART ATEO THAT THEY OO~ATEO SO~ETH!NG LAST YEAR HOWEVER DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO ONATE THIS YEAR.

I~Y~RV!~~~n ~HE CQ~PL'S MOTHER, DEBORAH RAWLS B/F/39 OF . 1-27-54 WHO LIVES I~ ~n~~-'~·~~1 LOUISIANA WITH THE COMPLAINANT. SHE STATED TH. ~ ~~CElVED A CALL FROM TH~ ~u~~L'S STEP MOTHER AND SHE THEN DROVE TO TEXAS BTAT~O THAT THfik LOCAL POLICE WOULD BE THE SHRIEVEPORT r~e~ SIGNED A MEDiCAL RELEASE OF RECORDS INFORI'IATIOH FOR~ SO THAT THIS COULO O~TAIN A COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT ON THE COMPLAINANT.

,2-29-9~ ~T 1630HOURS OFFICEH ANDERSON CALLED THE SAND DOLLAR THRIFT STOR~ .::-:..:: :;;.RR!S!!!!~G, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77011 ?Slt923-1Q6l AND TALKED WITH REG-;.NALC PO~~! ~·HO C~~,IRM(JTHAT THERE WAS A TRUCK IN THAT AREA YESTERDAY, 12-28-93, THAT ~"a 0~i~eN BY RUBIN OELDN WHOSE HOME PHONE IS PSI227-3341.

ON 12-z~-~J ~~?i~~a ~~~ERSCN CALLED THE ~.A.'S SPECIAL CRIMES DIVISION AND REQUE$if0 THAT A GRANO JURY SUBPOENA BE FAXED TO THE PHONE COMPANY IN ORDER -~ OBTAIN THE RECORDS ON PS*Z27-3341.

ANDERSON TOOK A POLOROID PHOTO OF THE CO~PLAINANT WHILE SHE WAS IN TH!

INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE ••.••.•••.•••••••••••••.••..•••••

SupPlem~~r entered by Q 677Zl Employee number-06!942 R~port revie~ed by-J.JACKSON

/..- .· ...

~--:~: ~-: ·_~:--.:,. --:---.·~- ~-~. ' • k ,;, • • -;

-: · ;·~~::~<: -~-'":; ;-.: ·;_;:.:~~.. •" -' ' ~ , t ! t (:::·.{?J •~ l ~ • ·· ,I 11 I I t n .

J II U U I t I .~ I t ' ("~ f ..., l I U ,. It n 11 fl I I I I I AS l'mt OIOOINAL I If I II II It t II I I U J I II II U •

cldcnt no. 14G4S1Sq3 B ~~RRENT INFOR~ATibN REPORT PAGE 2.01.1. •UttritttUitlllt·IUIIIIUitltUUICtii'IUUUI·IIlltlllllllttUUIIUfllllll.tftllUUIUI1111tUUII•

~~XU,~ ~SSAULT (R~Pg) / BY CUTTING INSTRUMENT 3treat location information lumber- 15<03 Nam~-~:~r~R BRIAR Type- Suffix- p~ ne,- f.i;lr.•e-15503 Type- Suffix- ·a=e of offens~-1~/28/93 Date of supplement-01/03/94 ompl(s) La·~-S!NGLETON Flrst-~ARTHA ~lddle- La at- Recovered stolen vehicles information Stored- by- Phi- {000) 000-0000 fficerl-S.J. ANDERSON Empt-067721 Shlft-1 QlvfStatlon-JUV SUPPLEMENT NARRATIVE N 01-03-94 OFr~:~~ AIID~~~ON RECEIVED A COPY OF THE nEOICAL REPORT ON MARTHA !NG~ET~~ OAT"O 12-28-93 ~T !545 HOURS. THAT REPORT STTEO THE FOLLOWING:

r~·~~r: NO; SIZE OF ~ERFCRATION O.S CM. ~~~TRAL PER~Ofi~TIOM: VES; SIZE OF PERFCR~T!OM 0.5 C"- ;;,.;;;:Ri'tTIONS: YES E~YT~EMA OR ABRASIONS OF INTROITUS: YES

L~~~~~TtONS: YES O.S CM VERTICAL TEAR EXTENDING POSTERIOSLY FRO" VAGINA. l'j.'GO!J: YES FLUID OR OI~C~~hGE: YES FORf.IGN aorn' NO TREATMENT: LACERATIONS CLEANSEO_~ELL WITH BETAOINE SOLUTION. ~OUNOS ON RIGHT INOEX. FINGER AND BACK ONES. LOCALLY WITH l~ (U~KNWCN ~EOICIME WRITTEN)~ EXPLORED ~D FVIOENCE OF FB ~OUNO TO RIGHT INDEX FINGER REPAREO WITH IS SUTURES ~F S-O CHROMIC. WOUND TO BACK REPAIRED WITH 13 SUTURES OF S - 0 IROMIC.

NEOSPORIN OINT~ENT ANC DRESSINGS APPLIED." THAT MEDICAL W~S SIGNED BY JEAN TSCHUSCHKE D.O. N.O. , . •:::::::::::::::::::ENO MEDICA~ REPORT ON nARTHA SinGLETON''''':::::::::::::.

OFFICER RE~~~STEO THAi THE HPO CRIME LAB ANALYZE TME RAPE KIT DONE ON THE CORPl AND TAGGED IN THE HPO PROPERTY ROOM UNOER THIS CASE NU~BER AS ~fLL AS ANALYZE TH~·coMPLAINANT'S CLOTHING 'TAGGED UNDER THIS CASE NURSER IN THE HPO PP.UPERTV RCOI'I.

INVESTIGATION TO CONTINUE ••••.••••••••••.•••••••••••.••

~~~~!~m~nc ~ntered by • 6772~ aa~ort r~~ieued by-RICP~!O -~mployee number-064566 ,.'"' (,...c:-h . .. - " , ·, . ·, , '·, ' ", ' " , ' , , " , , ' , " , , , . " . , , .•.. , " , , , ;·' • • ";, " .... ".

14U481893 B C~~~EMT !~F1R~ATION REPORT ~' ' , • • " ;AS ·fao CRIOINliU.. . ... ' " ' ' ' ' " ' . ' " . ' ' ' ... .. """ ' ~ ' ' ' """ · .... .......... ' ' ' .' .......... PAGE ' "' " ' ' .... ' 2.012 "

~(;;..uAL ,.:.$:•:·:..,. ~~AP!:) / BY CUTTING INSTRU"ENT c'~7'' .i.c~,ti-JI'I information ·.I:, 15603~~me-W!NTER GRl~~ Type- Suffi~- Mame-1560~ Type- Suffi~- te of offense-12/28/5~ Date of supple~ent-01/03/94 ompl(s) Last-SINGLE ~M First-~ARTHA Middle- Last- Recovered stolen by- vehicles information Phi- {OOO} ooo-oooo ANDERSON Emp~-067721 Shift-1 Oiv/StatLon-JUV ~·~~LE~ENT NARRATIVE ~H!~ ~UP?LEM~NT IS SEIN~ ~fHEAAT~~ IN ORDER TO REQUEST THAT THE HPO CRIME LAB AMAL,lE ~~E RAPE KIT ~·0 THE CO~PL~I~~NT'S CLOTHING. THAT ARE TAGGED UNDER TH:: Co\SE ·.~UPIBE~ IN -;-;.;<. ;~P'J ::;RI~E LAB. FOn EVIDENCE OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT ....•••.....

l~~ent ~n~ered by • 67721 Employee number-064566 ·. .o;·, -: r<.vieo.;e~ !ly-RICHARD --------- .-- .. -----------------------------------------------------------------· No-0006 C 'fense- SEXUAL ASSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTING INSTRUMENT Street location information Number- 15603 Name-WINTER BRIAR Type- Suffix- N~m~-~5603 ~upplement-01/06/~~ Apt no- Type- suffix- Date of offensQ-12/28/93 Date of Compl{s) Last-GINGLETON Middle- First-~ARTHA La-st- Recovered stolen vehicles information scJred- by- Pht- (OOO) ooo-oooo Of1lcer1-S.J. ANUcRSON Empt-067721 Shlft-1 Oiv/Station-JUV

OFFICER ANDERSON RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FROM THE PHONE COMPANY P,EGARD!NG PSi227-J34l: (NON-PUB) OELEON. RUBEN 1806 CA~PIJELL P:·;c~E ·coMPANY'S HOUSTON. TEXAS ::::::::::;;:,:::::::::ENiJ s.S.4S3-77-0SSS INFO ON PSi227-3341:::::::::::s::: r;-r~ r.A . . ... • ~~ t t 1 1 n.n 1 1 r ·• t n n 11 .' • • t 1 t 1 n lilt u 1111 •• • ~ 1 1 1 1 1 11 AS"Peit' ()Rf(!jJN~ • ;G. 140q81893 B ~U~~F.NT INFORMATION REPORT PAGE 2.013 f' ! 0 0 I I I I I I U I I U ' I I I II I t I I II I I I I II U I · I If t"U U U I t I I I I I II U II lf It II I I It I I I I I I t I It t II II U t If I 1 n I I U It It 1

FIC~~ .. ~~E~!G. AGAIN CALLED THE SAND DOLLAR TRUCKS AT PSI923-1461 AND INQUIRE ALL 8LACK ~~L~ r~-~~ CR~VE~S A~J EMPLOYEE REGINALD GAVE THE PHONE TO: YNE CRAWFORD B/~!~7 fDL'~7387370 S.S.i467-90-B706 AND THEN TO TRUCK DRIVER, UL JOSEPH FONTENET:E 9/M/31 TOL~0363626B S.S.i46S-39-0525. THEY BOTH STATED ~RUCKS ON THAT DAY FOR SAND DOLLAR.

EGINALD THErl 1\DV. ~EO THAT THE THIRD AND ONLY OTHER BLACK I'IALE TRUCK DRIVER IS: 0BERT EARL MITCHELL B/M/31 T.O.L.OS274578 S.S.XXX-XX-XXXX HOWEVER HE HA~

,LREAOY LEFT THE BUILDING.

FFICER CHECKED THE THREE BLACK MALE TRUCK DRIVERS BY NAME AND FOUND THAT Y~E CRAWFORD HAD BE~~ HA~0Lf0 BY HPD UNDER I.O.i440239 ON OB-17-84 FOR THEF1 NO ON 05-19-90 FOR Su~~r;T:~o ~ARCOTICS. HIS LAST PHOTO WAS TA~EN ON DS-20-9( OROC:RED A COPY Cr ::;i'lf •'HOTO FROM THE. HPD PHOTO LAB.

FOUND THAT POBERT EARL KITCHELL HAD BEEN HANDLED BY HPD UNDER H.P.D.

I.O.i449S37 UN il-1q-B4 FUR MU~ilER AND HIS LAST PHOTO WAS TAKEN ON 12-14-84.

OFFICER ~RO~R~= ~ COP~ OF T~AT PMOTO FROM THE HPD PHOTO LAB.

A~OFRSON WAS NOT ~BLE TO LOCATE ANY RECORD ON PAUL JOSEPH FONTENETTE HI~ TOL IS REGISTERED TO AN ADDRESS OF 6114 KENILWOOO, HOUSTON, TEXAS. ·rftCE~ ~~~~~EU A COPY OF HIS TOL PHOTO.

~ICER WA9 ~ClO BY PAUL FC~TENETTE THAT THE SAND COLLAR COMPANY HAD TRACKING.

OH THE ~~HD COLLAR TRUCKS THAT COULD TELL WHERE THAT TRUCK HAD SEEN. HE FURTH~~ A~~I~EO THAT TH~ INFORMATION WAS STORED IN A WAY THAT COULO LATER BE OBTAIMEO FROM THAT L_~PANY.

OFFICfR ANDERSON ASKED REGINALD ABOUT THAT INfORMATION AND HE ADVISED THIS OFFIC!R TO CALL BACK AFTER TEN O'CLOCK A.M. AND TALK ~iT~ THE OWNER, ANITA ~IGu!NS.

ON Ot-06-94 ufFICER LEFT A MESSAGE FOR THE COMPL'S FATHER AND STEP-MOTHER TO RETURN THIS OFFICERS CALL. ~T 16~0 HOURS THE CDMPL'S STE 0 -MOTHER CALLED AND ADVISED THAT THE 11 WITNESS ~fTt~~> WILLOW RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL.

THE STEP-MOTHE~ FURTM~R ADVISED THAT SHE WOULD CALL BACK WITH THE NAMES OF THE OTHER WITNESSES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THA~ HAD SEEN THE SUSPECT ON THE DAY OF "THE INC !'JENT.

AT 1235 HOURS OFFICER ANDERSON CALLED THE SAND DOLLAR TRUCKS AND TALKED WITH ANITA RIGGINS WHO STATED THAT SHE DOES IN FACT HAVE TELE TRACK WHICH IS HANDLE BY PACK TEL.

ANITA RIGGINS ~TATED THAT SHE RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE OFFICER ON THE DAY Of THE INCIDENT ANi1 SHE RAN A TRACE ON THE TRUCKS ANO LOCATED TWO TRUCKS THAT WERE ANYWHERE NE !\R THE i.REii ;JITH IN AN HOUR OF THAT CALL. ONE TRUCK WAS OlliYE~· DY ~ WHitE MALE AND THE SECO~O TRUCK WAS DRIVEN BY A HISPANIC MALE.

A:UTA \U";;, tNS FURTHER AOVJ:'.t:ll THAT ALL. OF HER DRIVERS WERE IN THE OFFICE AT CJ800 HOUN~ IN THE MORNING "). r Qi'r:::C!OP._?'";~!fC:OED TO SPEAK WITH OR SEE THEM • .,.· .. .. ·" _,.-- . (;r>-, . .· "" •. i •,; ' .. ' ' .. , '. '"'' '' ,;·, r:) .. ' • • .. • .... ,. .. ,·; • •. ~·""""" Q •' • • • ",AS.JER. OIUO~NA&... =u~RENT INFJK"ATXON REPORT '' PAGE 2.01~ H I I f I h l I I ·1 M f I t' • U ' r • ~ U ~ U ' ' II I I I I t t I r. .. tl II II If I I r• I f 1 1 1 a f 1 tt 1 n tl tt I " I t U I ' rt H .. 1

CONTTNUE •••.••..• :~····~·············~---··

1;7721 Employee number-044i73 ~--·-------------------·--------------------------------------------------------

SEXUAL ASSAULT (li~~<o • • ··,y CUTTING INSTRU"ENT s~~y~~ i~ca~ion 1nf~rmat1on ~uc~~r 15603 Name-~I~TER 6RIAR Type- Suffix- Apt no- NamR-1560~ Type- Suffix- Oat~ o~ offa~se-12{28!~~ Date of supplement-01/07/94 :Compl(s) Last-SJ~C'~lON Fir•~-MARTHA Middle- Recovereu stolen vehicles information Store·,- by- . Pht- (000) 000-000D ott:r·;rj,-s.:;;. Empt-067721 Shift-1 Oiv(Station-JUV ~UP~LEMENT NARRATIVE 0~ 01-07-~• RT ~315 HOURS OFFICER ANDERSON RECEIVED A CALL FRO" JO ANN BURTON ~HO STATED TH~T SH~ HAD L~~~TEO A WITNESSED BY THE NAME OF HUEY JACOBS JR. ~HC IS A 16 YfAR OLO ~~v 1hAi LIVES IN LOUISlANk AT PSt318~tS3-8381. SHE STATED THI HE HAD BE~N VISITING HOUSTON AT THE TI"E OF THE OFFENSE AND ~E OBSERVED THE S~S~~CT'S 7RUCK PARK DOWN THE STREET fROM THE COnPl'S HOUSE AND THAT HE THEN WALktJ TO THE COMPL'~ RESIDENCE.

JOANN FUOTH!R STA1~0 THAT THE NEIGHBOR BOY. LISTED AS THE •1 WITNESS. ALSO SA~ THE VEHICLE PARK OO~H THE STREET FRO" THE COMPL'S HOUSE AND T~EN UAlK TO THE COJIIPL'S HOUSE . . JO ANN ~TAr~o THAT THE BOY'S UNCLE IS THE ONE UHO TOLO HER THAT THE BOY SA~ THt SUSP~C~ AND ~E CE,tRXBED Nl" AS 6ElNG SHORT AND STOCKEY.

AT 0820 HOURS OFFICER ANDERSON ATTEMPTED TO CALl WITNESS HUEY ~AC08$ 3R. AT PS!31G-Z53-8,~1 HOWEVER HIS AUNT. GWEN JACOBS. ANSWEREO THE PHONE ANO ADVISED THhT HUEY WAS IN SCHOOL.

GWEN JACOBS STATED THAT THEY WERE CAlLED BY A RElATIVE LAST HIGHT AMO THEY !:lSCUSSEO THIS ~ITH ~lUEY WHO STATED THAT .HE SAlol THE TRUCit HOI.IEVER OtO MOT SfE THE DRIVER. iiiooif:~ STATED THAT TriEY LIVE IN !'!~RS'ZVIllE LOUISIANA AND THAT TK:IS OFFICER COUlD CALL BACK AFTER NUEY RETURNED HOME FROM SCHOOL.

ItiVESTl:G.AT'!;ON TO C~MTIMUE. • •• • • • • · · • • • ·~=··· .. ,·,· · ••· · ••·•· ·••·- •· •••••••• 5&&& .-·~;,- . .: . ·. ' . . · r.?· (-..:. · ()R!.Gil~L. .. .

H U .

O O • ' O " O . .. O .. . \. '·' f,.......

O ·.• ;1 .. o ' U ... 0 u 0 . n n 00 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 n . f?: H U 0000 U.., n· o 0 0 0 ~ PER " 0 U H 00 0 U 0 0 " 0 n .0 00 H 0 CURR~~T INFORMAT~ON REPORT 2.0~5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . PAGE : ~ ' 1·.•. I I f It ~ 11 II U I I I I I I I II I" U U U U I I U I I I I I t I I U I tl U U I h I I II I I U U U I I I I I II' - U I 1 I I U I • • •

6772~ Employee number-044773

SEXUA~ ~SSAULT (RAPEJ / BY CUTTING INSTRUMENT Street location inform~tion 15603 Marne-WINTER BRIAR Type- Suffix- Na:.te-l.5603 Type- Suffix- ate of otfense-1~/28/93 Date of supplement-0~/~4/94 l(s) Last-SXNGLETON First-MARTHA Middle- Last- P.~covered stolen vehicles information by- Phi- (000) 000-0000 Stored- Empl-094271 Shift- Oiv/Station-CRIME LAB Officerl-~HOM~SO~ ~UPPLEMENT NARRATIVE

UNKNOWN ~r• :~NU~~y 3,1994, THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE RECEIVED FROM CENTRALIZED 1. ON~ ~EXUAL cVIO~~=~ ~ECEIVING: ASSAULT KIT FROM COMPLAINANT, ~ARTHA tiNGLETON, CONTAINING THE ITEMS; =~LL0WING SME~RS- V~GINAL, ANAL, ORAL b~PH~ - VAGINAL. ~NAL, ORAL ~il 000 SA(IIPlE HEAD HAlR - PULLED, LOOSE PIJBIC HAIR - PULLED FINGERNAIL SCRAPINGS LOOSE EVIDENCE X2 - DEBRIS. HAIR FRAGMENTS, HAIR ~ITH ROOTS NASAL SAMPLE 2. ONE CAROBOAnO SOX conTAINING THE FOLlOWING ITEMS OF CLOTHING FRO" THE COMPLAINANT: CiLACK 8RASSIE1'!; ~ANTIES WITH SANITARY NAPKIN i'URI"'L'- SWEATER BLACK STIR-UP Ph~~~ SEJ;GE CAMISOLE ANALY~IS AND RESULTS~ SEMEN W~S OETECTEQ ON THE VAGINAL SMEAR. ~~WAS DETECTED ON ANY OF fRE OIRER ITEMS ANALYZED.

COMPLAINANT'S BLOOD AND SWABS. ARE BEING RETAINED AT THE lABORATORY FOR FURTHER ANA~.YSIS.

ALL OTHER lTEI'S Of EVI~ENCE HAVE BEEN RETUR~O TO THE PROPERTY ROO"- (?!:/?· . . ... . . . c~--·· . it U I 1".1 . I l t U I : fl ! f t I U I I • : .'"' Of "j '-- ~ •:,·•,·.Ju 1 I I II I Ill\ II I I I·; I I .

I U II It h .g:;;,..

U IIl!' a· I I I I I U I II 1111 I U 1 1 II 1 1 It If U I

'ci~ent no: ~cO~S1893 B ~URRENT INFOR~ATION REPORT -· PAGE 2.016 . i• II I t I I I I I II I I tl I ' I I II I I ' l 1: t I I I U U I I I II I II Ia U I I I I I I I II U U II II U I I If I I I I I I I I U I II H U t II I I U I I II II U I

pple~~nt ~nt~•~c ~Y = 94271 AS PER ORIGINAL .;ort 'revieued by-GAM Employee number-061076

SE~U~L ASSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTING INSTRUMENT Street location !~formation 15603 Name-WINTER BRIAR Type- Suffix- Name-15603 Type- Suffix- . ate of offe~se-12/28/93 Date of supplement-02/11/94 ompl(s) L?.st-SINGLETON First-MARTHA Middle- •_as t - Recovered stolen vehicles information by- Pht- (000) 000-0000 A:-!!1: .. ::~. Emplt-067721 Shi.ft-1 Oiv/Station-.JUV SUPPLEMENT NARRATIVE OFFICER A~2~RSON 08TAiUED A PHOTO OF DWAINE CRAWFORD AND Of ROBERT MITCHELL, _FPO~ rft~ HPD ~rtOTO LA&, T~POUGH THEIR I.O. NUMBER.

QFf:C~R ANDERSON PREPARED PHOTO "A" PLACING RdBERT EARL MITCHELL'S PHOTO IN T~E &2 ?OS:TION WITH FIVE OTHER BLACK MALES WITH SIMILAR DESCRIPTIONS AS ROBE~T ~Io~h~LL'S IN THE ~1, &3, !4, &5 AND *6 POSITIONS.

OFFlC!R ~NDERSON THEN PREPARED PHOTO ARRAY "B" PLACING DWAINE ANTHONY CRAWFORD' PHOTO IN THE 12 POSITION WITH FIE OTHER BLACK MALES WITH SIMILAR DESCRIPTIONS ; OWA:~! CRAWFoe~•s IN THE 11, 13. ~4. 95 AND 16 POSITIONS.

OFFICER ANDERSON ORDERED THE PHOTO OF PAUl .JOSEPH FONTENETTE FRO" THE DEPART~~~ CF PUBLIC SAFETY OFF OF PAUL FONTENETTE'S TOLIO~E2~2E. THAT PHOTO ARRIVED AT THE .JUVENILE SEX CRIMES DIVISION HOWEVER WAS ADDRESSED TO OFFICER HENDERSON OF ANDERSON AND WAS RETURNED. / OFFICER ANDERSON THEN R~-OROERED THAT PHOTO WHICH WAS THEN MAILED AGAIN TO TH= HPO .JUVENILE SEX CRir.ES DIVISION AT 8300 MYKAWA.

ON 01-18-94 Ai ~~00 HOURS OFFICER ANDERSON WENT TO THE WILLOW RIDGE HIGH SCHCCL 'NO MET WITH WITNESS JASON PEGUES.

OFFICER A~~~RSON PRE::NTEO PHOTO ARRAY "A" AND "6" TO JASON PEGUES AND ASKED If HE SAW THE MAN THAT HAu BEEN WALKING TO AND FROM THE COMPL'S RESIDENCE ON THE D~Y'OF THE ASSAULT.

JASON WAS NOT ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE PHOTOS IN EITHER "A" OR "B" PHOTO ARRAY AS BEING THE MAN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE DAY OF THE ASSAULT. ( WITNESS JASON PEGUES THEN TYPED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: "I HAV~ LlVEO 1560~ ~:~TER BRIAR FOR ABOU~ 3 YEARS NOW. MARTHA'S FAftiLY WAS LIVINd NEx·- DOOR WHEN l MOVED IN. I LIVE WITH MY MOTHER AND FATHER AND BROTHER ~~ OcCEMBE'C 2B. 1993 AT ABOUT NOON I WAS SITTING IN MY LIVING ROOM WATCHING T.V. MY P,1RENTS !.JERE ~'1' WORK AND MY P.ROTHER WAS NOT AT HOME. I SEEN A COMPANY

- - .. ----- ---'--,..--- (;~; . -. (,i. :• . 0 1111fiiiU'• nlllftiUIIUIIti•"Jtllt11llltUIIir QltiiiiiiiiUUIUIIIIIIIIIIU

cid~nt no: 140-Sldi~ e CURRENT INFORMATION REPORT · PAGE 2.017 U It I I ' 1 1 I I II I I It I I I I U I I I 1 h I I t I U II I 1 I II I II II II I I I I I I I IC U 11 U It II 1 I II ,I I t I 1 I I I t1 1 II 11 II 1 II 1 t U 1 t .. tt t1 UCK Wl7H RED ~NO WITH WHITE _LETTERS. I SEEN A MAN ABQUT 5'6" TO 5'7" GET OUT THE TRUCK. HE WAS BROW~ SKINNED WITH BLUE SHORTS ANO BLACK SHORT SLEEVE .:;;T. L: 7":N HE CAME OUT THE TRUCK AND WENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TRUCK HE T s~c~ ~- H~ OTW~R SID~ ~~D GOT BACK IN THE TRUCK ANO WENT DOWN THE STREET 'ATER I SEE~ THE Sn~~ M~~ WALKING ON MY SIDE OF THE STREET DOWN THE SIDE WALK.

HIRTY MIM. L~T~R I START SEEING H.P.D. WHEN I START SEEING H.P.D. I WENT T~IDi TO SCE ~~AT WAS GOING ON. JOANNE ASK ME IF I HAD SEEN ANYTHING, ~ TOLD ER ABOUT THE TRUCK I HAD SEEN AND THE MAN I HAD SEEN. SO SHE TOLO ME THAT I EEOEO TO 'EE THE POLICE AND TELL HIM WHAT I HAD SEEN. SO I TOLD HIM AND HE TO E TO WRITE ~ REPORT. JOANNE IS MY NEIGHBOR THAT LIVES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ME SEEN MART~ER, GIRL THAT GOT RAPEO, FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN SHE GOT INTO THE OF JASON PEGUES TYPED STATEMENT::::::::::::::::::::::: T~EW ~· '• c TC AND SIGNED THAT TYPED STATEMENT. SEE THAT STATEMENT

FF!CER ANCct!SQN oesERVEO T~E iS SUPPLEMENT ENTERED BY THE HPD CRIME LAB WHICH ATED TH~T "SEMEN WAS OETECTEO ON THE VAGINAL SMEAR".

OFF!~!R ANDERSON ALSO RECEIVED A COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT ON MARTH SINGLETON WESTBUR"f HOS·PITAL WHICH STATED: FEMALE PRESENTS TO ER AFTER ALLEDGEO SEXUAL ASSAULT. STA7: . ADOl~~CENT BOY RANG DOORBELL AT HER FATHER'S HOME & STATED HE H~D A PACKAGE.Fa: PATlENTS MOTHER. STATES SHE OPENED THE DOOR & HE FORCED HIS WAY INTO THE HOUSE ~IT~ A KNIFE. STATES HE TORE OFF HER CLOTHING & FORCED HER INTO ~NAL, ORAL & VAGINAL PEHEi~nTION. STATES THEY STRUGGLE~ OVER THE KNIFE WHICH RESULTED IN LACERAl"lONS TO THE RIGHT INDEX fiNGER & BACK. STATES SHE TOLD HIM HER FATHER W.

COMING &"HE LEFT. SATES INCIDENT LASTED 20 MIN. LMP 12-27-93. WITH OUT CONDOM.

PE: AWAKE, ALERT, WELL ORIENTED X3. PATIENT STATES SHE HAS NEVER H~D SEXUAL RELATIONS BEFORE.

EYES 1 PERRI, EOMI . EARS TM"S INTACT. MOUTH: WITHOUT LACERATIONS. NECK FULL nt HEART RRR LUNGS TA3 BACK 0.75 CM LAC TO MID BACK WITH 2 SMALL NICKS PRESENT.

EXT: RIGHT :L~t!EX FINGE1.: FULL ROM, .75 Cll LAC TO FLEXOR RO$ ASPECT OF RIGHT INDEX FINGER. NEUROVASCULAR STATUS INTACT. ABO. SOFT. NT • ~S ~ :_ GENITALIA: LABIA SWOLLEN WITH SMALL AMOUNT ACCHIXMOSIS PRESENT. HYMEN PERFORATED 0.5C~ ~!D~ tNE VERTICAL TEAR NOTED EXT~NDING POSTERIORLY FROII VAGINA.

CX NULLIP WITHOUT LESIONS. MENSTRUAL BLO~O NOTED IN VAGINAL VAULT •. UTERUS OF ~~RMAL SIZE AV/AF WITHOUT MASSES OF TENDERNESS ALTHOUGH PATIENT WAS VERV \JNC:)MFORTABLE WITH EXAM. RAPE KIT COMPLETED. TX: --W(iliNOS CLEANED WELL t.IITH BE"'i'ADINE & NS. WOUNDS ON RIGHT INDEX FifiGi:.'i<& BACICAREA LOCALLY UITH 1CC 1 t XVLO EACH. EXP~ORED - NO EVIDENCE OF ~ B AT THIS TillE. VERY SUPERFICAL. NO TENDON O~MAGE TO FINGER. FINGER WOUND REPAIRED WITH (14) 5-0 ETHILON SUTURES.

BACK WCUND REPAIRED WITH (t3) 5 - 0 ETHILON SUTURES. EDGES UELL APPROXIMATED.

NEOSPORI~ OINTMENT & DRESSINGS APPLIED. SERUM HCG NEGATIVE. RPR NON REACTIVE. ::~::::::•::::END REVIEW OF MEDICAL STATEMENT FROM WESTBURY HOSPITAL:::::::::::

THE MEDICAL REPORT RECEIVED IN THE RAPE KIT STATED: COVERED I.JITl' 1:'•.:-•STRIAL BLOOD.

Vl'~'·'l: RING HYI'>b~ 1. INTACT: NO . .. .. :tT:: AS JIER omGiNAL~ I I I 11 I It U 1: I I I I I I t U U II &I Jl n I'. Q I I I I 1 U 1 It It n 1 t1 1 I t1 I t U 11 U U

1rl• 1t no. 14048189J ~ CUR~lNT INFORMATION REPORT -PAGE 2.01.9 I II I I U I I I I U I I I I U I t I t ,1 II I I I U I U H II I I• I I I I I U U U It U n t I II I I I I I I I I U I II It H I U I I U 1 I II It U 11 LL, I ~AS COMING FROI~ THE_ FIELD HOUSE ON MV '-IAV TO STH PERIOD (I l-IAS GOING T : ~~~~ SO I ~~ARu SOMEONE TALKING & I TURNED (CAUSE I NOTICED HIM) AROUND & ~SE~ ~ l~OKED & HE STOPPED & LOOKE~ THEN HE STARTED RUNNING MV YAY. I C~T HE ~:~ :~·~:N~ ME SO I STARTED RUNNING FASTER. I.IHEK I CAME ON THE OF frlf: :;•;P,IJ\JL 1 ···.:f<NEi:J AROUND & HE I.IAS GONE. SO I'M THINKING HE'S ON THE S01101..

T 5'6" TO S'i" BROWN SKINNED BLACK PANT & A OFF WHITE SHIRT. I OIO NOT OTICE ANY SHC.~ CAUSE IT HAPPEN SO FAST. MIDDLE WEIGHT/ ABOUT 190 OR 1.95 LBS.

ASON PEGUES" ::::::::::::::,::::END JASON PEGUES WRITTEN STATEMENT TO SCHOOL::::::::::::::: FFI.CER ANDERSON FURTHER OBSERVED ~-NT PRINCIPAL PAGE'S ATTACHED NOTE WHIC TATED: 02-02-94 235-S!4S p~~;:~-- · .'iL~l!O ~HTH/MRS. PEGu::::; ~., :!. :30 REGARDING THE. INCIDENT' DESCRIBED BY JASON. I QEVIS PAGE SUGGESftD TO MH~- PEGUES PICK JASON UP AFTER SCHOOL. ' ' .•:::::::::::: ·::::::::Er.O ASSIST. PRINCI?AL PAGE'S NOTE::::::::::::::::::::: ' ASOH ST~TF~ THAT ~fS. Pf~E ~~0 NOT CALL THE POLICE. ~RS. PAGE HOWEVER ADVISEC 'ASON'~ PARENTS TO NOTIFY THIS OFFICER ABOUT THE INCIDENT. JASON DID NOT KNOW HAD Cri~LED OR NOT. j~SC~ F~~1HER STATED THAT THE INCI~ENT OCCURRED AT APPROXIMATELY 1200 OR 1215 ·:JOURS. ~~ 02-1~-34 0FFICER ANDERSON CALLEO TH! COMPLAINANT, MARTHA SINGLETON, AND A~;;~~G HER TH~T THIS OFFICER WOULD BE BRINGING THE PHOTO ARRAY'S TO SHREVEPO~T FOF: Hf..R To VIEW !<:--· ATTEI'lPT TO IOENTI FY THE MIIN THAT SEXUALL V ASSAULTED HER I!l HOUSTGN, 7EX~:. r~: CCMPL. AOVISEO THIS OFFICER THAT-SHE WOU~D BE IN SCHOOL U~T!l APPROX. 1500 HOURS.

0~ 02-16-94 OFFICER ANDERSON RECEIVED A VOir.E MAIL MESSAGE FROM THE COMPL'S MOTHER DATED 02-15-94. OFFICER ANDERSON RETURNED THAT CALL.AND SHE STATED THA7 SHE WOULD PICK THE COMPL. UP FROM SCHOOL EARL'l AND ADVISED THIS OFFICE TO COME TO THE COMPL'S RESID~NCE TO SHOW THE PHOTO ARRAYS.

ON ~2-15-94 OFF!CER ANO~RS~N AND OFFICER K. CLARK PRi96350 DROVE TO SHREVEPORT LDVTSIANA AND MET WITH THE CO~PLAINANT AT APPRQXIMATELY 1305 HOURS.

OFFICeR ANO~~Sd~ ~~ESENTED PHOTO ARRAY "A", •B• AND •c• TO THE COnPLAINANT. THE COMPLBIHANT QIJ NOT IDENTIFY ANYONE AS BEING THE nAN THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HE HOWEVER SHE Sl"A:rEO THAT THE I'! AN ·t:oOKEO· AI:OT LIKE PHOTO t4 OF ARRAV "B".

THE COHPL. FURTHER STATED THAT THE I'IAH THAT ASSAULTED HER HAD BIG EARS. SHORT HAIR, DARK S~IN AND WAS APPROX. 5'8". SHE STATED THAT HE WORE A BLUE JACKET WITH A GOLO AND REO EMBLEM OR CREST ON THE UPPER RIGHT FRONT SHOUlDER AREA.

SHE ~TATED THAT SHE STABBED THE MAN OVER HIS RIGHT EVE AND IK HIS LEFT LEG WIT: THE SAME STtAK KNIFE THAT HE HAD STABBED HER WITH.

OFFICER ANDER~ON ANO ~l~~~ THEN RETURNED TO HOUSTON. TEXAS.

IHVEST1i~Tt0N TO CONTIN~e ..••.•....•••••••••••••••••••••••••.

Exhibit J ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas (281) 341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

July 20, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

Dear Mr. Harrity: ....

Please find enclosed the following: AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY LORAINE CRAWFORD.

DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTI Fort Be\iS.ounty, T~xas .

By: .fiW ll u Alb Deputy District Clerk Lisa Tucker JUL 20 2015 Telephone: (281) 341-4516 DISTRICT AHORNE'\f'f:;, Offi.GE CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 12th Street Huntsville Tx 77348 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT Received By Fort Bend County District Attorney:

~;(__ ~~0

MAILING PHYSICAL Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov Departments- District Clerk Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 THE STATE OF TEXAS * IN THE DISTRICT COURT vs. * FORTBENDCOUNTY, TEXAS JASON TYRONE PEGUES * 240th ruDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF ROCKWALL ) AFFIDAVIT

I, Loraine Crawford, was the Official Court Reporter for the 240th District Court of the State of Texas from 1991 until March of2008. I now reside in Fate, Rockwall County, Texas.

I have a vague recollection of reporting in the case of State vs. Pegues, but I have no specific recollection of the case, nor of the exhibits offered and/or admitted into evidence. However, I do remember that it was the policy and procedure of the court reporters in Fort Bend County to keep exhibits during a trial or hearing until the proceeding was concluded. At that time, it was the court reporter's responsibility to log the exhibits and then to submit the exhibits and the log to the District Cleric I am certain I followed that procedure, and there should be an original copy of the log in the Court's file. That is all I remember about this specific case. It is also possible another court reporter reported a hearing or trial in this case. It was Judge Culver's policy to make a notation on the left margin of the docket sheet "reported" ifl was the court reporter for the case. If there was a substitute court reporter, it was his policy to mark "reported by ... " with the name of the court reporter who reported that day.

I have relinquished my certification as a court reporter in the State of Texas a few years after I retired in 2008.

Dated this the /?J{:L day ofJuly, 2015~

Loraine Crawfm~ CSR No. 1365 Price Drive - Rockwall, Texas 75087 (972) 567-2505 CLLorieLu70 [email protected] FI-LED 2015 JUL I 6 AH lfJ{ I e ,-/) /) ~ .' J.:~.. • /_// ~./h!' ... . '..1:;-: ~v.<u_f:..-t'""'"~ \..:;:z~w.!r:·... r:LEP;,.K.DISTRICT COURT FOrd 80·1'0 en .. 1'{' · Silvia Guevara ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas (281) 341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

July 24, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

Dear Mr. Harrity: Please find enclosed the following: AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY LORI WILSON AND COURTNEY HEAD.

DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT Fort Ben By: _ _-!-~ti-L=:l.<...-~I..O,c~~~--­ Deputy District lerk Lisa Tucker Telephone: (281) 341-4516

CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 12th Street Huntsville Tx 77348

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

MAILING PHYSICAL Jackson Street · 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov Departments- District Clerk 94- OCR- 026185 AFFI Affidavit 3686686

~ CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026158

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 240th DISTRICT COURT vs. § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF LORI WILSON BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Lori Wilson, who, after being duly sworn, stated as follows: "My name is Lori Wilson. I am of sound mind, over the age of 18 years, and competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Affidavit.

"I am employed by Houston Forensic Science Center, Inc., a local government corporation that operates as the Houston Forensic Science Center ('HFSC' or the 'Center'). I am the Center's Quality Director. On April 3, 2014, HFSC assumed responsibility for substantially all forensic operations of the City of Houston, including the forensic laboratory formerly known as the HPD Crime Lab.

"HFSC has authorized me to execute this Affidavit in response to the 'Order on State's Motion to Enter Orders so that the State May Respond to the Defendant's Motion for Forensic Data Testing' (the 'Order') issued on June 26, 2015, by the 2401h District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, in connection with the captioned proceeding.

"The Center does not possess any policies regarding the destruction or disposal of the evidence described in the Order.

"The Center has no knowledge of, or records or things pertaining to, the evidence described in the Order, other than as described in the Affidavit of Courtney Head, which Affidavit was executed on July 17, 2015, in connection with the captioned proceeding."

Lori Wilson SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the _rt day of <1ufyM 2015. . •• e :a: .q

Not ~4-DCR-026186 ·Affl Affidavit 3685690

ilm~IIIM~~~~IIIII CAUSE NO. 94-DCR-026158

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE 240th DISTRICT COURT vs. § JASON TYRONE PEGUES § OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF COURTNEY HEAD BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Courtney Head, who, after being duly sworn, stated as follows: "My name is Courtney Head. I am of sound mind, over the age of 18 years, and competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in this Affidavit. "I am employed by the City of Houston and assigned to the Forensic Analysis Division of the Houston Forensic Science Center. My current job title is Criminalist Specialist/Supervisor - Forensic Biology, and I have been in my current role since January 4, 2010. "On April 3, 2014, Houston Forensic Science Center, Inc., which operates as Houston Forensic Science Center (the 'Center'), assumed responsibility for substantially all forensic operations of the City of Houston, including the forensic laboratory formerly , known as the HPD Crime Lab. "I am executing this Affidavit in response to the 'Order on State's Motion to Enter Orders so that the State May Respond to the Defendant's Motion for Forensic Data Testing' (the 'Order') issued on June 26, 2015, by the 2401h District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas in connection with the captioned proceeding (the 'Case'). "My only 'recollection' regarding 'HPD Case # 140481893 or 140481893B and LAB#L94-159' arises from the following items and documents currently in the Center's possession: 1. A plastic bag containing an index card to which a square piece of gauze is attached. The square of gauze (approximately 2" x 2") appears to have a reddish brown stain located in the center. 'L94-159' has been marked on the index card.

2. A flip-top tube containing a small piece of gauze (also located in the plastic bag noted above containing the index card). 'L94-159' has been marked on the tube.

3. Twenty-four pages of documents, accurate copies of which are attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit 'A.' "I have not opened the plastic bag or the tube described above. "Other than the items and documents described above, I have no personal knowledge regarding the current existence of evidence recovered in connection with the Case. The piece of gauze described above may be in a condition that makes DNA testing possible. "I have no personal knowledge regarding the chain of custody of the plastic bag or the tube described above or whether evidence in the Case previously has been subjected to DNA testing. · "If evidence in the Case previously was subjected to DNA testing, newer testing techniques may be available that provide more accurate results than previous testing, depending when the previous testing was conducted. "I have no personal knowledge of the present whereabouts of evidence related to the Case other than the items and documents described above. "I have no personal knowledge that evidence related to the Case is missing or has been destroyed. "I understand that Lori Wilson, another employee of the Center, also is executing an Affidavit in response to the Order. To the best of my knowledge, no other person employed or managed by the Center has information related to the Case that is different from the facts stated in this Affidavit and in Ms. Wilson's Affidavit."

Courtne ad SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the (1~ day of ~,. . ,.J;. ;. .vl~"l_ __ 2015. I

~ M :.t_"l }·· c.c "' I

Cl 9 ~'! k·y ·"·:...,. l, \\ :::;.·.""· 0>·· u. ... ttl g!

2: ~ ·~·-C UJ ~ •. G'-· (2:: (!) ::J ..... ~ N •M•v . _ ;:• C.9 - '·-:..t.J1 ~ - _.J N \. "" :j ' '•• ...J C'.l (.. .f! lL ...., => ~ ·¥ rAF -· r---·~::.: ~·: (/) C:;:) ('I =~-~NO. l ~!

r. ~..Ia-.~'1£$ ~~22 ~ < llU8I'IIImlll ,.y- 1g = _ ;J • i ·' ....

DOB D cDV"'IJ • Dl:llllrllt

HAWS~ Mldllelr.llll I 1Ai1J DOB RACE 5EX LOCATIONOFOFFENSE ISito'j t.J:Cat7£& BtllAR ·:!.

., ; ---i ----·----------------i _ _ _ _ J! ! . ., } SUGGESTIONS ABOUT EXAMINATION OR ANALYSIS • COMtJ.ENTS ABOUT CASE J:f.s Z:: ...l=.:t.ilL __ ~ l P£t? COH. fo~ ~ 14./H---'<£ t:>,t, I E;t.. UAt..__,IL.LL~L i

(f'lilllu~ SUBMfTllNG OFFICER ~~..:::(....:.,,..:-~I!!:...L.c:. :'f:-~!:...--~~~~~~~~~.,c...a.~~~:=-

REC"D BY· FlEO'DFROM ~CERECD~~~~~-+--~--~-~--~~--4---------+-X~~+-~ OATEREC"D DAY OF VIEEL<~---.__;;..-~-+-----'~c:;..:.....--+---L...;,..,.;;::::.=..._t--- TIMEREC'D UCR NUMB':R FORM NO. HPO<XI016 Exhibit A ~ •.a -.. / -..~\ •' -.

... (!:) G:> ·Bead Bail: iutt1c Hair ::~ :~ ...

3. otbaJ: - - - - - - -

J.

. ;

]UY b~CK r;f{i41Ef ' 72;<( -:ruv£-rt<F s-zv.rR~ Cow (~J- w~z~ {Assiqnment)P~R. #) :.::

'· ·.~-

;: ·~· .,. ..·.. ::.: ~ • . \i .:ii .--.~i JU.t

-·---- ________...._ ---------------------- - --------------------------- . '

-------- -·----- i ·'

·. No-0005 .~ffense- SEXUAL ~SSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTl"O INSTRUMENT Street 1Dcat1on informat(en Number- 15603 ""ame-WINTER BRIAR T'f·pe.. $uffh- . Apt no- Nama-16603 Type- Suffh- D~te of offenee-12/28/93 Oate of •upplement-01/0~/9~ Compl(s) Laet-SINBLETON Flr&t-MARTHA Middle- Laet- Recovered •tolen vehiclea information stored- by- Pht- (~OO) ooo-oooo Dff1car1-S.J. ANDERSON Empt-067721 Snlft-1 Olv/S~e~lon-JUV SUPPLEMENT NARRATTVE THIS SUPPLEMENT IS etiNG 6EN!RATED IH ORDER TO REQUEST THAT THE HPD CRI"E lAB ANA~YZE THE RAPE KIT AND THE COMPlAINANT'S CLOTH1N6, THAT kR~ TAGGED UNDeR THtS CASE NUMBER lN THE HPO CRIME tAB, FOR EVIDENt£ Of A SEXUA~ ASSAULT •••••••••••••

Supplement entered by • 677~1

ENO OF PAGE TWtl ..

I . ~'lit • i -1' I

AIC"D,.... I I I ·.

PLACIJIIC!) I I I I • • I I • I l OATI! - ~

'L,· DAYOFWI!!K I I ....~ I I ,...AIC'D I : ·- ..-.. •• I t ' .......... '

! '·

CAY OFW!!:!i!t ...J ~·~ N :n .. "·· Q ~· N' .. .

i. r ~ G\ f Q ..', ~~ l v - ra. ',, l ~ • -· . .. ..... . ~~.,.,,~7~\: . ... . . .. . . ... . .

L#h1~~1'':~7-.TiS4'"::'('~"'" :~·"7"""'~'-''7~f;,~ HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT ~ROPERTY »IVISlON tl..A C 1:1.~ ~ (3 A c I.

DAY OF WF.EK_ _....-£:.~·J=---- ·~~\. TEMPORARY RELEASE OF PROPERTY PT:CEI PT rn r TAG ?JO. . .

CASE NO ._.i,_,_f_:~lt-:...!--...:...-- DATE_ _ !_-_5...:....--·_q..;....q,.._

Oivision,hereby,cer~ify t~~t ~ hav~ r~~· -~ Property Division for th~ p~rpose . ~; 3'!s!qnec to the .: ~~~ b~lnw ------------ : f listed property from ~ th~

COURT APPF..\RA.O.:·:"'£ :ABORA~ORY ANALYSIS ... -- ...

------- -----·--- . ---··· .. : .... . ·------------- ----·- ----· ...... -- .... . - ~- ~· .... ·- ..--------- Ot-'FICF.R Rr:cr.n pm ~)~.!.:;··-.1 · , : ·'·· -' - ~·\...

PROPER'l'Y nrrl~~:~: ...... - ...•_.......... • .. . . . '-~

----- ...... ---·-------- ------- - ·-· ---·----- n:cF.n·t-:ll 11v nmR'r oN -~D':"'A:::::'I':::::E---

.... -·------- ·.

I •. ,.. -~"•Pt ~as ~.. . .. . rr-t•Jl':"l ~f:

. . . . \' :·o!lRT RECEIPT

-··. ________ , . :; . ':'). _____ ---···--·-F'~-::- .\.0. _ _ _ __

------- .. ---------- <1i'i- ;.:J'Y P.()()!\t PP.\K COPY OFFICER) . :~·.,;.~. ~:; :s~~ r.i11;ti;J~f.t':'4\oi1~1~lYlft·~!i.{~t::~,i.'i;:iiijU1;; · · . .:>r· : .· .: \ · -~~~ . ·:·· . . ~ · ·..~~':'"•~·· ·-~· ·.. ·. ·.. ,.~. ::-:· ·:~.:~~·}~;~;:i~~l[t·.~;~~~~''f*1i'b''..:;:r·n:iii~'it•fi~{,~~-~ · .• . ·. . . . ·D'R/%~IM·A~. XNFoR'MATI·CJfJ. RI":OitT NnN-ItU~t.tc· ·, ··:·-:,·:·•:::";~"'.:-.,::~:·.·~ :i:.~;':··1ii·." •.. .· I ../;···. .,~.··\··.:,~ ·--~- :~~. . ;'·. _:. . ~. ._.. ~ . ,_. .,..): ;::~:. _t\'~:-:·::· .·~ ~~· -: ~-...~p~r.·:·. -~-~-~·r-~···::::-. .. . i·-~ ~:.. ·~.---~ ~~-1111 I I I I I I II~· .. •!'i• u' I 'it ,· ii ' • ,;-;., I .. it: .. u······ I • " ' uti ! I I i·l ., I·,,, ~· I •• ,. I .• I I lit it·n 11. • I •· , .• 1_~· . .",;.:.,,·~-~.r;:..j'~j;~·;.:{~:w~ .·\;,-.:. .· -:. . HOUSTON Po'!. ice: DEPARTM.ENT ' .· ·. .. :r.,·~:. ·p,"~ifi~·ao't{:;::.:~.~;:i~ OFFEN'Sl::. REPORT ll"'cident no.~. 1~0481t5·9S.. · fJ.i.·.~~~: <,l.il II II II U I I I I I I II II I II II II I II I II I I I II I II II I II I I I I n I II D I I I I I I t I I II I I II I I I C II I II N li I I I I II I ~.'I IUj ••·I' I 1 I·~~ " . ia t1"!~ ·'.·~,1). ' ' . ' :~1 SUPPlEMENT(!) ~~~3l}( ( .·~· No-0019 Offense- SEXUAL ASSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTING INSTRUMENT F«t·~ ····,

Number- S\:rvet location info,rm~tion 15603 Nam&-WINTER BRIAR Typ•- Su1ftx- ~~~LL' Apt no..; Name-1&603 Type- Suffix- Date of offen&e-12/28/93 Oate of t.u~plem~nt-09/28/94 Compl(e) last-SINGLETON f1rst-~~RTHA ~1ddle- Last- Recovered stolen veh~e1Y6 tnfor~~tion Sterad.,. by- Ph·- (OOOJ 000-0000 Offh..,r1-KIJ!I f~pw-08~1~4 Shift- 01v/StdtLon-CR!Mf. LAB

REF, 1.9'1-lS9 SUSPECT: JASON TYRO~~ PEGUES ON MARCH 3.1994 THf fOlLOW!Na IT£~~ W!R~ ~J!" : THt .. ~eORATORV: ONE VIAL OF BLQOO.SALIVA A~D HA!~S ,~,;~ ~R~- ~~~0~ 1~1o~: Pt6UES ON MARCH 23.199~ TH! FDliCWING DNA ANALYSIS' ~ PORTION QF FROM JASON ~VRO~t ? r. ... - ·.·~ ~" M '·-

THE REMAINING EVIDENCE ~AVE BE~~ ~~S~!:TEC . ,n, ::. .. ·~ · E. r: '! v R0 0 r .

Supplem~nt enter~d b~ ~ ~0~G~ O~te cleared- 01/0~ ~' I -~ I, It.(_ . \ I

·' ·I _.. ', '\I' - ''-"""""' .I \ '

.·., 'i· ... .' ' '

-~~:·· :. ~~ ..

. ~! ;! !. ~. ~-I ·'i" " .

'I ..

~· .·

i "'!Q ~ 'b g I .s:= i l I ::10 ~ ~ i > i :z: ~ I :10 I > I !< ;;!

3.... 1 ~ ...~ ;::!:

~ ...

I I ' I i I ! l I l I I I I I 1 I !!

I I i· I l I l : '?;~ ·:;:!j •·':1 '<i . ·-···r . :' .~

...

;=- I \ i l I 1 !

I I I I I I I

I ::. l - .>= ~

:: I e Il li ~ ~ ~ I I i1 I i ... .::. I - .. ~ !~ ~~

tl I I

I I I e ~ .. :::; - =- ... ;: !;; ':10 ..c i: ~ -- s - ;r..t ~ - ~ )C !! ~ :10 z :-r: ~ 00: - ~ ~ ~ :... : t= z i7. :'1: :... e :r. !i.

! ~~~~~1' ~~ I~ ~ ,_""""z,re

_..c.-;: I~ ~ -~ s ..... ~ ~~s~ I ,..,..£'!

I ; l:t ...... ...,~ 1,--lp :,?- ""h if$ I I - i~ '""' ;,.,_ ,., .....

I> :..

1~-r- .... - I --,., =~~< --··i:: :'!: ....

-,.::r: ....

~I$. •:.J 1~1 ~~:;:, i l :. V' : : I I I l , p fr- I~ ' • ..

I I I ; i ~ 'k I :I-II j ?i-J ~ t ~ •• -:::c :"f':l _: .':_ I -~~ I

i J ! .(- : -· - ~~ 'l.i - .cj ~->c :::r. 1 I ' ·~ i t 'l . ... >-• -- ~: ~: t~t~,; :l -':_i---~----' .......... ..., I ,....

I !

r·~ I J I << I: I I ':"'::P. ;1:

1. l i___,___ LL._ _ , ---.......... ... lloustqu )'it Prope~ BVi~euce ltecord I . ul J ·o: , I'IIJ!l". • cNwnber ~ 'I) IDate Tagged t!&- R£5-l'f:t 11me ____i"::i ~~: ·>-. .. I - •• 1 Compl./Owoer Ofllcer'' Name -:Kf. . .,. ,. . "'81\ '-Rt vk,~.r<u_\ -~ LOaUIUIIf·2<c-uv fY-!If.tbJjofflcer'sSJgnaturc&Bmp.l l11M~ivf) ;if==r-.- .:.~- ~ GJ Safe Keeping (Jail) Ellilllillnvest lillili] fProperty Officer's Sign. -~ Bmp.l. ';;-t:="'·-< ...., .---v" ~,, , ,

.-~--18~1·-':-~- .~..

Bar~ s~ .~_ -c;_- ~_""' Qcarlptloa (Quautlty, Make ,Model, ._;;.._ ..'~m;a i - _· _,_ ":,-a n- £: o:e:ua. ~ Serial'· Ally Damage' etc.) z; ~ t liL . • - I CLL.j ~ -,, .- Gf' (ill: - -t>

r--.. 1 , ../ 1. , )EUi G·s .],:~-cv'. '· ( ;t.i!J ~ . ! \ v (_P- o~ ._·-----·· t-~ -----··· ·----- .. f__v ;_;t- ····· ...

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------.---.......... ·--·-· . ··----

---- -- --~-- --·. · . Houston Police Property Dh·ision J( :;2._ ~ I( • 1 .;;J., (,~~,. .'LhU /) /I Di~~~sition Aufhorlzatlon . t/ .c--. ~ Investigative Division Gltt-1 Aj(,l.m w Incident No. J tf-OY~ ( ~ 1 ~· -J...J Date Sent &- 5 ... cjc;t!i) Date Property Tagged Tag Number C. ?'J) 1 .--- ' ·,

Tbe property listed oo the reverse side was authorized by your Division 10 'bt tag&td Ia the Propett)' Room. Disposllion lnfonnatioo is required by the Propct1)' Division, Indicate die currenl starua of the propet1)', dare, and sip. This form MUST be returned to the Properly Room within ten (10) days. (General Order 7()().. J)

D 1. Hold for Court Case Dcfendaols N a m e - - - - - - - - - - D 6. Release to Owner (or Authorized Person) <h\-"Dcr'S Namo - - - - - - - - - - - -

m.

Cbuge F i l e d - - - - - - - , . - - - - Dale & TJmo Notified to Reclaim Property: urt Filed In Jd for further Investi~ation: gnature~ctsrlgaliRsbift ~ der ~ I lk g ,_.,~ I._ Method of Notification: Required~\ Jl c ~ ~~~ ·~"~ D 3• Hold for possible Surely or Indemnity Bood Agreemenl.

Type of Bond Required: D 7. Dispose of u Authorized by City Ordinance (U11 , . ,1 lfllu 1M P"'P'"l es 110 ltm~r rwttld a rNkrw or/11r inwnlft#lt~tt, 111111 all rrn~N~bft (§om 1o 1M rtllll'll lilt pr'O/Hrf]lo 1M _ , AM 6na u· Person musl bo advised that be bas 30 days to IIDIIWI"' 1M 1Avuti1111fiY DlvisiOII) secure bond and relreive proptr1)'· .Name of person to whom release was refu!ed: T1Uifer of Responsibility: Division transrerred to:, _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date &. Tim: notifi"' thai property would be Authoriz.ed by:, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ returned: I (lt'OT£: A~ttltiH'ilJ'nlp,,_ MUST~ tJUtp~d 10 DiMsf1111 A«qtinl TrGIU/tr qJ~,iponstbili,J •Melbod of Notilicatioa Destroy Property a.s Ordered by Court: (CAI<n Otrlm for t{tst,.ctiOfl qfproptnylo bt upt 011 Hold for Property Heariog: fik ~IN lnwlllltlliw Dinsitm}.

Hearing Dale: ··-- - - - - - - - - - Photograph &: Release to Ov.'Der: Date & Time Notified 10 Reclaim Properly: D ~felhodor Nollncalion: Indicate i( In person, by '"~iethod of Notification ~ phone, or by moil. (lr property volur is $200 or

-----c. t.Vot~: /m·otigntor iJ rtsponsiblt for photo· ~r(lphing property BEFOP.E II is relrn.sed lo · v-_'• . · ~ ;• more, moil mtLo;l be c:ertined, relum ret"elpl).

Relurn address on emelope should Include I he Dht~ion and lm·esti2otor's ~ll.me.·

(1'1'/iU).

Date Employee Number Properfy Room Use Only Property Room Use Onlj. fi.oal Supervisory Revi('w by: Letter Disposition Review by: Name Date Date ,- ~"~·· HJ'l)O»IJ i'· ! I l'uJ!t" I nl NuaJt~r 1 1 :dName odzed By _ _#ljA- Officer's Signature k Bmp.l ent Type: -~-------!'--- . . .=: ~ _, , _ --- ......... Property0£ficer'sSlgn. ~Bmp,l_ ~ '> :J...;vv\.Y\ , ,. \.:1

c (\' (~ ~--· (~ . ,./Q 9\t t~

p ' 3 1994 5 .,,t-.f;, AY ~ 5 1995 9 "t-. \ . .• \.-c-.;.;<:.

~- ·---~·- _,_______________ ------- ---·-·---- .. -- ·---·· .. ----···.

·-----. ······------- ·- ---------------· Houston Polirc Property Dh·ision Disposit[on Authorization .. rnvesligative Division ___,s.,.EiinfX'tr-4C~R~~I lHn-EE~S~-Ineident No. - - - - - - - - - - - ...

Date Sent ~AY ~ 5 19.95 9 Date Property Tagged._ _ _ _ _ _ _Tag Number _ _ _ _ _ __

Tb~ property listed on the m•cne side was authorized by )'OUr Oh•islon to be taggtd in the Propul~ Room. Dlsposltloa Lnfonnatioo i5 required by lhc Property Division.

Indicate the c:unent•tatus oflhe property, dale, and sien. This form MUST be returned to the Properly Room whhin teo (10) daya. (Ocneral Or~r 700-l) ·

Hold for Court Case Refea5o to Owner (or Authorized Person) Defendanta N a m e - - - - - - - - - Owuer'• Namo ----~----­ Charge F i l e d - - - - - - - - - - - Dale & Tlmo Notified to Reclafm Property: Court Filed In---------- Hold for fUrther Investi,ation: .. Method of Noli(~eatioo: Signature of Jnvestigath•c Shift Commander Required--------_,....- Dispose of as Authorized by City Ordinance Hold for posslblo Surety or Indemnity (Uu only tVf'r lA~ PlfiP'rfliiiiOIOIIIU ,.,,u4 01 Bond Agreement. ~"" or for ltlvtlrll41iM,IWI fill "IONiblt (j/llffl Type of Bond Requfrcd: - - - - - - - Ill IN rrtum 1M PfTIIMrf1 Ill 1M cnlfiCr btu "'"' a• Person must bo advised that be bas 30 days lO MII.Ud i1t 1M tJI...ntitlllbw DMnllfl) secure bond and retrelvo pro~rty.

Name of peraoo to whom release was refused: l bate & Tim~ notified thai propc'rt)' would be ' • returned: •Method of Notification Destroy Property as Order~ by Cou11: .~4. Hold for Property HeariD1: Hearing Date: ~---------­ {CoMtt OrtlmJor ~tllrwt!M qfPfTIIMrf1 Ill lw lql 011 filt b)· w /nwllltatiw DMnQit). ·

·~.=J s.

Photograph&: Reluse to Owner: Date & Titne Notified to Reclaim Property: ~ ~lrlhodofNolifiation: Indicate lf tn person, b1 phone, or by moll. (If property vulue is $200 or • ~iethod of 1\olificalion more, moil must be certified, return receipt).

Rrlurn address on em·elope should include the ·',Vote: lmt>.~tigaror is rtsporuiblt for photo· Dh t~ion and lm·estignlor's Name.· gr.--:phing propal)' BEFORE il iJ rduued ro owntr).

Employee Number Property Room Use Only Property Room Use Only Final Supervisory Review by: Leiter Di,posilion Review by: .:; :.i Name Dale .-. ··' Namo Date l'nRr I "' J ec~·Name orhed By, Officer's Name fiSC 4. et.'IIOflker's Slgoal.ure & Bmp.l ,......""•nd 0 Safe Keeping (Jalt) hii!;ltnvestl.liil::l IProperty Officer's Sign.~ Bmp.l. ·~ '- AJY\.»A, '"' , ' (Quaadty, Make ,Model, Serial I, Auy Damage, etc.) 71:; E (X\ G '3>- y.QY,~ )__ Cl) q-4 ~ h uc ;;»..t· ~·I' l}'~ ' ~ J I ~UJ A fC;L. ""'-7="-\A lr"'- '""'' \1 v ... - -·- -·- ---------

·-----------------·-- --·- ---- -·--·---· ·-·-·-·--·-- ..: ~ ..,...--i-.. ['i\f.~

' ~-···· ..... "· .. .... .... . . • . ......... _ .... _ ....... ,_........... _ - . • ' ~ ". ~ i. ·..... ' • • . •. • . ,· . . • . . . . • .• .• ' . •• _·,.,.. . . .. - .... - ............... -- ...,~ .. ,~.~-~~~·"' ,.,. 2 •• ~""-~ ....... ~~~ .... '.··.•:·~······~· ~:~~· :..,. '-·'~'·J·. ;t • • I .. •f lftl'r-4; .. ' •' • '•I ~ • '"' • '

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY DIVISION . , 1. J _ . l TEMPORARY RELEASE OF PROPERTY R~CEIPT \f\lt:V.\"\€;z:u~ 5Ac.F16ACU ,t!71J~ AY OF WEEK TAG NO. CASE NO. \~DL\~l B~-3-B DATE 1-l'j-<=(5 r, ~. (V\ · -:sDbo~n assigned ·to the ~tm'llie-*- @hO { listed property from the LABORATORY ANALYSIS

THIS SECTION USED FOR RELEASE OF EVIDENCE TO COURTS

SIGNATURE OF THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF I,hereby,certify that all property signed out on this receipt has been satisfactorily cleared in the Property Division by return oft ALL PROPERTY PARTIAL PROPERTY 00URT RECEIPT ) ~ / ~ / · 19' ·7 ~ ?ROPERTY OFFICE!t _ _ _ _ _~:.,;·,:~·_:=t..4...0•C¢:"=...__- _ _ ___,..::)'(PLOYEE ~0. )?'v 1Z· THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF LABORATORY RECEIPT 0FFICER RETURNING LABORA~ORY RECEIPT~---------------EMP.NO. __________ ?ROPE.RTY OFF!CER R-ECEIVING RECEIPT --------------------~MP.~O. __________ CA~E LABORATORY RECEIPT RECEIVED______________~ ~VIDENCE KEPT IN LABORATORY:

'.WI-UTE COPY ORIGINAL, YELLOW COPY PROPERTY ROOM, PINK COPY OFFICER) • Par.<;'_!_of...:..J_ :.:ase Nuntber Suspect Name Officer's Name :SDI/iJ~ B. tf\ Division 5w Ptti:Ir Dffense Officer's Signature & Emp.l Incident Type: Evid(XJ Found [ ] Safe Keeping (Jail) CJ Invest I/' I IProperty Officer's Sign. ~ Emp~# e-...., :::../' 1~ /11/ ~-'D L£ Bar Code Sticker Description (Quantity, Make ,Model, Serial #, Any Damage , etc. ) LE- :7 t.l( .£~~~~~~~~~?~~~~:--. 0)- N ~l) L flt-.v .5 ~KU41 /1-5.5-,t;tJII I</ "1' F~c-- l::i:) (I)- 6Kv... .:.:.JJ 8A(~ t.JrrH C.O,:,'IPJ.. CLO/HIJ416 .f...'ler.-,~ .·} . , I ') .:..I.e:~ t) (-' ' ~ c·· • - 159 ~ACG.

BAcr· ·• ....... . •.

Di v i s i c n .. ·.. -: r. .'i · :- , -~ : : ·~ i?rQ~e::·':y -:.>v: .;.:.·.•:- :c· ~

...... ·- . ----·-·- -----·----·

:'.;:'c~··

·-·-···· ····- ···--··------.. ------ =..:.==-...::=:-...-=:-..::::.::::==;; .. ·=-·...:.:.:::~.-::-::-:.:.~ . ··- . ·..... ··:.:.::--...· -:'""" :::.-::.:··~:::::-:-::~-=--::=--====== : .. · :•.:·) :· ,; :,_-;..,- ;~o.:>M ... ··--·· --- --------- -·----------- .; .--~cein~ ,'las ::1 -~<:urn of; ... ~--·-------- .......... ~· . ;...~.) ,., .;omn RECEIPT /~"1' 1\ ft:, lll9f:>!~ ---. ---- .•. -- . -: ~::. ·::.:. :::.-.:.~: ::-.=.;..-.:: - '.,':•' "";" •P,: '!\ - .:.•.. _ _;,;, _______ •.. ..:. ..! ..:_...:..

r.: ·:o. ----- .. • __ Houston Police Property Division 'I /~ ·If .. !]., C~v~ Disposition Authorization Investigative DivisiJUVE NiLE ~EX CR~9fo. --...~l~'f~o_tf..i.-..u.X'..r...l,JJ.l'___.:.1....:3;;.._.4-.&;.L.··-· .Date Sent MAR 2 9 1994 'I • Date Property Tagged._ _ _ _ _ _Tag Number __B_"'k CF

The property listed on the J'C\'OlBO sido was authoriz.ed by your Division to be tagaed in _the Property Room. DisposiliOD iD formation ia required by tho Property Division.

In dicato lh~ e:urrent ·lfatus of tho property. dale, and sign. This form MUST be returned to the Property Room within 1811 (1 0) days. (General Ordot 700-1)

Hold for Court Case ' Release to Owner (or Authorized PetsOD) ~f=~wN~--------------------­ Own~'•Name _____~~------ Cbar'c F i l e d - - - - - - - - - - - : - Date & Time Notified to Reclaim Proporty: Court Filed In------------ Hold for further Investi~&ation· • Method of Notification: Signature of ~§Jltiv , Commander Requin:d ~ ~1-f) Disposa of as Aulhorized by City Ordloa.Dce Hold for possible Surety or Indemnity (U11 D1111 ti/Ur 1M Prfi/Wrf1 b M IMI"' Mtdld • Bond Aarcc.menL l'llitlDw '"for lnw.nilf#IOtl,llllll Gil~ (jfotv Typo of Bond Requin:d: ----------..,.- to rM JYtllm fM propnfy ID flu OIIIIID'Nu bwt G" Pen;on must bo advised that he has 30 days to ""-'- by llwt bJvufiJGIIYII Dfl~Uion) liecure bond and retieivl' property.

Name of person ·to whom release was refused: Tnmsf~ of Rcspcmsibillty: Division tranafomd 10:._ _ _ ___,_ _ Date & 'P(me notified that property would bo Aulhoriudby:._______________~- returned: fNOTE: AUIAorlzJnt p,,_. MUSTIll IISIIpd 1o Di'rilion An:tpl(nl nranv""u tV~)

4. •Method of Notification

Hold for Property Hearing: 09. Destroy Property as Ordered by Court: (Coluf Orrkrr /or delhWtioa tV"PrtiiMrf'J 1o Ill lqr 011 Jil. b) flu lllmn'tfltiw Division), Hearing D a t e : - - - - - - - - . - - - - - Photograph & Release to Owntr: Date & Time Notified to Reclaim Property: (! • Method or Notification: Indicate II In person, b7 ,'__ .,. \f phone, or by muU. (If property •alue is $200 or • Method of Notification ;i ,.; 1~' -./ • more, mail must be certified, return receipt). ,\ · ,\; ~: 1-'' Return address on envelope should include the (Note: bmstigator is respollsiblefor phot~ . \! ,'.i.·· Dh·islcin and Investigator's Name.- "raphing propertv BEFORE it is re/e(Utd to (' '\ f_}:, ,, • \' l '' ' OWIIer). ,··.''.'_~- . ·~ • •· - ' \ l ~ .-

Date Signature of Investigative Officer / . ·Employee Number ( I .... i .

Property Room Use Only Property Rnom Use Only Final Supervisory Review by: Letter Disposition Review by: ~ame Date Name Da~ , • Houston Polkc Proprdy Di\'ision /] Disposilion Authorizntion .~9:1_ ~ ·tr~ J._., /.

Investigative DiviJlniENJLE-SEX-CRJM&tt~o. L.i. () tt3J qq3 --:__/3__ Date Sent U~_2 8 -~!'!_!_Date Pn-~pc1ty Ta~gt>d_______· _____Tag Number _L,I:{_ e. F_ __.__ -----------..,.----- ------ -~::----· ....... • The rr~,r~ny li:oh•li un the r•m:OIC 5iJ~ wu Jolhon~d by ) our Dh·hion to he 1-lf&"J in tl:e Propcr1)' Rovm. Oi!<po~ili~~o i11fonn:~1:on is r••quir~~ by the Proptli)' Dh·ision. lncficale the tiiTJI!nt r:Wius or the prC>p\'r1y, d~le, "nd d:;n. This f"r:n MUST bt rc:um.:J to the Pro~.rty Room '''ithin tcn (H)) Jays. {0~ r.tral Order 700-1)

Hold for Court Case Rcltase lo Owner (or Authorized l'moo) Dcftndant.~ NAme _____ -------- Owi\er's Name----· Char~e filed-----·· ·-- - - - - - - - - - Date.$: Time Noli !it'd lo Rul:~im Property: CCiur1 Fill.'d ln _________ -·---- ··---·- Hold for f\lrther lnH~tic:ili\'n: --·-·-·------ ..M~thod of Nolifi~<'~tion: ·------- Signahae :~~tiy~ Commande.r Rc.quir\"d. ~~- Di~:pose of as Authoriud by Cil)' Ordinance Hold for possible Surety or lndemruty (tl11 mly o.ftcr lht propcftJ u 110 loro&cr fltt.!tl tu Bond Agreement. "i.!fllrt or for i111 olf~Ch'OII, AN1 oil rt lt~.'Uhlt rff-'N Type of Bond Required: lo IM rtlllm /Itt p~f.trty ro 1M o"n~r b "'"' U• Person musl be advi!te.d lhat be bas 30 days to h.J1<1tJ by rht lnrulilorr'•y DMslon) · ~cure bond anJ retrti\e prOpt'r1)'.

Name of p.!rson lo whom relt-1~ '>'-as rcfu$td: Transfer of Responsibility: DiYi~ion transr~rr~d lo: _______ ····----- --------- -·----- --------- Date & Tir,,: notifaed thl pOp(rty \li>u!d be A~:tboriud by: ___________ 1-:?IIJmed: f.\'OTE:A~t~<>n:int Pt"t" Ml'STlot 0o1.·:vo~J ro ;;;,.:JiO:.fl .irrtJ'IfT.S T•.;tt/tt ,..._, P.n~"- :li.';'ty}

[l9. (C.... rr OrJtrrf.;,r .falrvrli.-n ofprt;trf) ro l.t kpl on /It b) lht l111tMitotiu Di•isiM). .

.- ' _ _ _._- ~-_;: ·~l' 5"~-. ----- _____ . ). /.-. ; ,\.,_~4~~--""-------- .r ;·, 2.... r Dale Signa!'.lre of Invcsl~gative Officer frr·ployee Number -----~---------- J ; J /' ·~'.···;) ',-~· ...

Property Room Use Only JI j - rroperlyRoom Use Only ! . . ------------------------ .' ./ v. Lc:rer Di~pmi:iun Review by: . ·;1' Fnd Supc:rvi~ry Rc .. :e·.v by; i·'.i ; J ,·..,.' ::.t. ·~· ...... ., ,.,/ ·/ .. .: ··~ ,:; ..,/ .L• . ., J ? -"' / -·------ -·----------·· -··· --·------ . .//{ ;~.U/ (~ ·' Dat~ Name D:,re ---------·-- ·--·· __ _____ -·---·- ,. . . / . - .J. , / ( ·, -.,:..- Name ------·--··---·----~--·- -- , ---------------1.--------- -------------- The rro;-x-rty li>IL'd on lht· rt\'Wt sick w~s authoriud by )'OUT l)j,·i~ion to he '"SSL'd in the Pror,i"1y Room. Dispo~ilioo infonn:•!k>n is r.•quirt"J by lhe Propeny Di,·i~ipn. !ndic.ale the c~m~nl ~latus uf tl:e J'l"ra1y, ~ale, Rnd sicn. This f,,.m MUST ht rcrurrcd to the Pre>pMy Room within ten (10) dJys. {Gtncral OHler 700·1} ·--- ·----------·-----· Hold for C01,1r1 Case Rdr.ase to Owner (or Authoriud Pcrlon) Defendants Name-------------·---- 0\mcr's Name----·------- Charge Filed---·-·----------· Dale & Time N(1tified to R~·cl:lim Property: Court Filt'd In---···---- ___, ________ _ -----------..,...- ------· ---- --- • ;\h·:h-)d of Norifio:.:~rion: Hold for further ln\'c~tig~lion: Slgn;;ture of J~l.'stic;ri~ Commander Rc<1uir"d ../....L_p,~~::.'!::P.-- Dispose o( as Authoriud by City Ordin1111ce Ifold for pouible Sur"!)' or Jndcmnily only qfttt rAt propr If)' u no IM&tt MrJrtl tU (l.lsr Bond Agreement. ni.!rnrt- or for l'm'f'sliltlll'on, GNJ allttiM.ahlt r.lf.•ru ID rAt rtlilm rltt pmputy ro rAt o""'' .US f,rtn tz• Type of Bond Required: - - - - - - - - M~<Jtd by rht Jn•ulitolil-, Di>-islon) Person m\I.St be advi~d that be bas 30 dsys to secure bond a.nd relrei\'e proptrty.

Name of pcr~on to whom rtlt.ase was rdu~d: Tranrfcr of Responsibilil)': Division lransftsrtd t o : _ · - - - · - - - - ·--·---------------- Date & Tir,,'! notif11~d th3l p1optl1)' \LOuld be Aulhoriud by: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ rc-:umcd: __ ., ______ -------------- f\'071:: A<~:\.-n'd"t r<n<>• \H:STbt .1-;.";r"'J 10 ;J,'t;Ji~,..,. Arttf·::r.s T•J'"-.~/rr .:/ P.c.·pr.r...·-:.&..,:~ry}

•C.•~n OtJtn/"' .frJirvrli.:n ofpr;t~ I<> bt Ufl on Hold for ?roptr1y H.:.aring: Jolt b) 1l.r /nltJiit"li\t Di•ili"n).

H<!4ring Date:-------------·--=·-.., •. __ . . . .. \;' .. t .- : .. --·:; F'horografb & Ri.'lta!e to ~r.~r: :r.,'{)~~:~~-;~, .. ~ ·-'' D.r;te & T;me ~otiJi<!d to Rec!aim Prnperty: • ~fethod or ~ol\lication: Indicate if in prr-Son, by ~--------.- .. - .. --·------------- ~}' :•; 1 7 1q95 phcmr, or by mail. (If propHI)' r:!lue is S200 or • \!.:thod !Jf ~CirficafJQn '• -"'' - . -' mort, IJ)::Iil musl be ctr!Hied, return rl'<'tipl). ------------- - -----~-- \-----:-..:::..-~ addrr.s.s on ennlope should include the 'JI:oro:··- -- _ ........,.:>:· ::::·-Dil'i>ion and I~; ~tig:;~ ~~,mt.• 1'.'.·,:e: /· ...,_. lig111or i! rt jiC.'I ...-b!t for grn2hir1s proptr.') BEFORE i1 iJ rrlrn.<cd 10 · /} . •"i=r--"?,-1 · ~· . (__ ~· a__-· (.., ~ -~ p ~- ~ • ·~· ,, 1:er). ... - - - /.I) ·.~ . ·t.;' . · - .... _..,.,.

1 . {./· ..~/. /'~~": '·:I ~ : ____6.._ 7 7 .:>_ I Signature of Inve~tigati\e Officer Emp:oyee Number -·-- ,... ·------'----------- _____P_r_o~erty Room Use Only __'-] [______ Pr~crty ~~om-~!.e Only . ___ J ·-- Fir~~~~pe~~::..:?

Name Revi.c•y ~~~--- Jl ~~e Lc:ter ----~-;;;~·------ Di~j>OSit;oo Review by: D•t• -,1 ----------~ -- ------ - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - · · - ___ _.J . • DAY O.f

Divisio·:'1,h.zor.,:·1:q,::,.:!:r::.!:"y ~~:1;.':. ·· i'.t.!'t''J :::ce.t.v:-:· listed property !rom the Property Division ~or the o~rpo~0 c:: 6lOC~0 . f' , co·_·Jro: A:·:?:::: r:v,~iC'~ ·~---------

_.$8. wJ \J)O.\ ~~~~Jt.,\\J-o. ...,._WAf ~LA-, As~\- K\.-\" , 6~~ ~ 41/ 4>m'PI ..Ck~

EVIDENCE l·mPT BY COURT;

RECEIVED B Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _COURT ON_ _~,.,...--­ f'RIN'l' DATE :JIGNATT.TH:F. OF ;=tE.ClHVING ')FfTCTA.L

.. ,. .f:~r·:~~~.' ~c~r:·: ·. J· •• : ·~-1": ·'·--- :.:::-;·:.';·:·/.~: ..... E-i~-~.t>~G -~iJ.r. on t.ia:;_-s r_e-·:~~ipt ·11as ·.:~,~:.~ s.:1T.. :_-::: :~--~ ·-~:. ·:·~-~ ;_ '· ·:.,··. ·::~:. _.,'?? :-::-:.c~rt::._,. r:·i\tisl·.")!'l ~,'l :ceturn of 1 (_cOURT RECEIPT ) , S.\'!''S ·::wr"OY!..P. · IO. of'V.3l'/' 3ECI ::eN !JSJ::D P•Jr: ':Wl'1'JRN :)F ~~·-''130RATCfRY - =--========:;==== RECEIPT .. ·-·-····--·--·-·--·-----·~-·-----

~'--.P. ··o. ------------------ --------- · - - - - - - - - - - - :~\r. ·o. _____

"·--·-·-------- -···--·· ·- --- ·-· ___ ,_ ·-·- .. ·--- ... ____ , .... __ , __ . ---------- ·-·----......,.---- .. '.:;-rrrE . ,;c:·· ii:•1 .... , .. ···;. •.. • ·'.'> ,·,·, ·•• :'•-J,PFR'l Y ROOM. P.tNI-\ COPY OFFICER) ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas (281) 341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

July 27, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

Dear Mr. Harrity: Please find enclosed the following: AFFIDAVIT SUBMITIED BY DEPUTY CLERK FROM THE DISTRICT CLERKS OFFICE.

DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTI

By: _ _--li.-YY-fi-I~~~~~=::.....:....-- Deputy Distri le k isa Tucker Telephone: (281) 341-4516 JUL 28 2015 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues Huntsville Unit 12th Street Huntsville Tx 77348

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT

MAILING PHYSICAL Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov Departments- District Clerk Cause No. 94-DCR-026185

STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURI OF vs § FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS JASON TYRONE PEGUES § 240TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

AFFIDAVIT

My name is Lisa Tuc~er. I am of sound mind, capable of making this affidavit, and personally acquainted with the facts,herein stated: The office of the Fort Bend County District Cler:k is the custodian of records. Attached are pages of records from the above mentioned cause.

In response to the "Order on State's Motion to Enter Orders so that the State May respond to the Defendant's Motion for.ForensicData Testing order signecj on June 26, 2015, by the 2401h District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas.

As of today's date and to the best ofmy knowledge the only e;.chibits in our possession are listed on the attached 3 page list provided by· Court 'Reporter. The listed· exhibits are stored here at the Fort Bend County DistricLCierks Office 1.422 Eugene Heimann Circle Richmond, Texas 77469. As of today's date no log.exist or<b~s be~·ri:jC>und showing~ari'y past record of-the exhibits being checked out.

Also, as of today's date no one has checked out any of the attached listed exhibits and all listed exhibits are here in custody at the Fort Bend County District Clerks Office.

These 3 pages of records are kept by District Clerk ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTI in the regular course of business, and it was the. regular course of business of the District Clerk for an employee or representative of District Clerk ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTI, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis recorded to make the record; and the record was made at or near the time or reasonably soon thereafter.

The records attached are the original or exact duplicates of the original.

AFFIANT: J) ' . \/\ )C;rh j &"=£ tea._ DATE: _·__._]_--~_l_,__-_\_~---­ Deputy District Clerk Lisa Tucker ~ rr~~ \F))~~/ ~Yu·~ ORIGINAL Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared \ ), ~ \ u<.J...(.£_{" who was sworn and subscribed before me on this the --"'J-_. _y..__·"- d:y of >.\LL~e> \S U COUNTY, TEXAS IRMA CORTEZ Notary Public, State of Texas My Commission ~es 06-20-2018

ORIGINAL /.:; ·:: ..:: "_-· ·' .:_:::._,_ ..;,o.:

JASON PEGUES CAUSE # 26,185 and 26,341 STATES EXHIBITS #1 STATUTORY WARNING OF JUVENILE BY MAGISTRATE #2 SECOND MAGISTRATE APPEARANCE FORM MAGISTRATE'S DETERMINATION OF A JUVENILE'S COMPETANCY TO MAKE A WRITTEN STATEMENT DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS #1 STATEMENT #2 CERTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION #4 MINUTES FORT BEND COUNTY JUVENILE BOARD # 5 CITY OF SUGARLAND/FORT BEND COUNTY JUVENILE BOARD JASON PEGUES #26,185 TRIAL: JULY 18TH 'I'HRU 20TH /.:'/.'/~5 PUNISHMENT: 50 YEARS TDCJ SHELF: BIN: STATE'S EXHIBITS: 01. THRU 15. PHOTOS 16. PHOTO LINEUP (NO #17 SX-ENTERED) 18. THRU 20. PHOTO LINEUPS )' 23. THRU 24. PHOTOS 27. PHOTO 30. BLACK. PANTS 31. MEDICAL RECORDS ··~ '~~'\,:if-~.

32. STATUTORY WARNING .., :; 33. magistrate'S CERTIFICATE 34. JUVENILE WARNING 5. RA.PE KIT ENVELO~E 35A. RAPE KIT 6. STATEMENT 37. STATEMENT 38. CAMISOLE 39. SWEATER

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS: 01. DR. COX REPORT JASON PEGUES U26,185 JANUARY 31, 1995 SHELF 1 BIN CHARGE: AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT ATTEMPTED CAPITOL MURDER BURGLARY OF A HABITATION HEARING: EXAMINING TRIAL AND WRIT HC . ~'I EXAM.TRIAL-DEFT.BIND TO GRAND JURY WRIT HC.#I-BONDS SET ON EACH CHARGE STATE'S EXHIBITS 1. Through 8 Photos - (Copies) 9. Magistrate's Verification - (Copy) 10. Confession - (Copy) lOA. Second page of Confession - (Copy) 11~ Statutory Warning - (Copy) 12. Statement - (Copy) 13. Photo - (Copy)

,_

'i·.

94-DCR-026185 Lm l.et111rs 3702682

~m111•1- ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas (281) 341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

August04, 2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle. Room 20234 Richmond,Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-026185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

Dear Mr. Harrity: Please find enclosed the following: AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEY TEANA V. WATSON.

RECEIVED DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE RE n AUG 04 2015 Fort Be ty, Texas DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT Received By Fort Bend County District Attorney:

s?Yjri;tC:Z ¥J CC: · Jason·T.yrorie Pegues Huntsville Lthit · 81S12tti Street Huntsville :rx 77348 MAILING PHYSICAL Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://wNw.fortbendcountytx.gov Departments - District Clerk STATEOFTEXAS § § COUNTY OF FORT BEND § AFFIDAVIT My name is Teana Watson, I am over eighteen years old and of sound mind and competent to make this affidavit. I was one of the Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted the State of Texas vs. Jason Tyrone Pegues in Cause No. 94-DCR-026185. I ceased working in the Fort Bend District Attorney> office in 1996. It has never been my practice to hold onto evidence and I do not have any evidence from this case, nor do I have any information to provide or any recollection regarding the location of any e1"ence in this case.

//A/. 'it,_ tJL.~~-~ Si nature of Affiant Teana V. Watson

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN THISdroAY OF JULY, 2015.

.t.fJ..~·~~ fi..W.tot JACKIE LYNN KERMODE ~~~ \:"-:~,l'\l4 Notary Public. State of Texas Mv Commission Expires . My Commission Expires: 05/Jrs/tq I I ....{~;~.~~"' May 15, 2019

(C©fPY r ~~ (')· • o::<~ :;:tX Cit 0~ 2:: c:t t0_)~d UJ ~~:; ~X

- _J <1)1Ll M o!Xl _..J ::::> .~ ·.~t:. lL -, ~uP 4 - &.r;') c;::;> C'--1 r-~ d ''-··' ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT DISTRICT CLERK Fort Bend County, Texas (281) 341-4516 Fax (281) 341-4519

August06,2015

To: John Harrity, State's Appeal Attorney Fort Bend County District Attorney's Office 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 20234 Richmond, Texas 77469

Re: Cause No. 94-DCR-025185 The State of Texas vs Jason Tyrone Pegues

Dear Mr. Harrity: Please find enclosed the following: AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY MARTIN LOPEZ.

RECEIVED DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT AUG 06 2015 Fort Bend Cou_nty, ~ OISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE s~~ue~~~~~~~------------- Deputy District Clerk Petra Lozano Telephone: (281) 341-4516

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECE'IPT

Print Name · 8/e:, /!5 cc: Jason Tyron~ Pegues Huntsville Unit 81s 12th street Huntsvilie Tx •· 77348

MAILING PHYSICAL Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142 Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469 http://www. fortbendcountytx.gov Departments - District Clerk Houston PoHce D-epartment Tuesday, Augm;t 4, 2015

From: ivlurtin LOf.tiZ HPD Pl'opet·ty Division Telephone# · 832-394-4096 FAX# :S:32<J9't··~I091

To: Lisa Tucker Deput) District Clerk Fort Bend FAX# 281-:!41·45~9

sut.j.cc: State of Texas ,.~ .•h~or. Tyre>ne Pe-rue~

FILED 94-DCR -025185 LETT AUG 0 4 2015 f letters 3706580 AT $9: M. ~~~~ Ill ~~~~~~~~~~~111111111 Clerk District C~rt. f:ctt Bend Co., TX •,, 04-AUG-2015 02:27 From:8323944091 Pali\e-:2·'6 ~-DCR-026185 AFFI Allhlavit

·.i~IIM~I ···- ____ ,._. -··----·-·· Houston Police Department EMPLOYEE SWORN AFFlDA VlT STATE OF TEXAS DATE: 08/04/15 COUNTY OF HARPJS TI11.1E: 08:22 Statement or Person 1Jnder Oath BEFORE ME, the under:;:\gned authorit), p~rsonally appeared 1-Aartin Lopez: \V:bo uron t:eing duly sworn, deposed and st"lted as follows: My name is Martin Lopez. I am 40 years of age, and my date of birth is 03/10/75. My employee number is 115994 and I have been enrl0.yed. ·with the city of Houston for app'"0Xi:r:Jatf']y 15 years. I am assigned to the -Houston Polic:e Department. Property Dtvision, as p,· Sr..

Microcomputer P...nalyst ivly work number is 832-394~4096. Tb.«~ facts statecl herein are tme and correct, except those stated ~n1 infonnation and belief: to the best of my know'tedge During the first week of June, Fort Bend County DA Investigator John Bohannon requested assistance from the Property Division in finding information related to artLCles that hac!. been previously tagged imo the HPD Property ~~oom under case 140"-81893.

A search in the Property Division's E\'idence Management System did :10t show any item information under case l40481S93. While doing flrther research I looked in the Division's closed out files and found two invoices for case 140481893. The first invoicE: had a tagging date of 12-28·93 and the second invoice had a tagging date of 05-25-94. The invoke for evidence tagged on 12.,.28~93 (:ontai::-,ed the following: barcode· BACF (1 Sexual Assault Kit) and. barcode • BACH (1- bag containing clothes). The invoice for c:vid~nce tagged on OS-25-94 contained the following: barcode- C7DS: (Vial ofblooc, Hair, Saih·a).

Attached to both ,invoice:: was an "HPD Property Division Tempora.ry Release of Property Receipt'' fonn which stated that all items under bmcodes BACF, BACH, and C7D9 had been taken. for Court Appearanc-.e on 07-19-95. This "HPD Property Division Temporary Relea3e of Property Receipt" form also stated that a:J item~: und;~r barcode3 BACF, BACH, and C7D9 were kep~ by the 240th co·~rt on (:7:-19-95. · I have attached copies of the two invoices and the "HPD Property Division Temporary Release of Property Receipt" fom1 ·.vith this affic!Evit.

On June 4, 2015 I f."lade e. :opy of the t\\'(t invoices und the "HPD Property Division Temporary Release of Property Receipt" :fonn and had these do::uments notarized by Sgt. Lance Jolmson.. I then provided ·the notarized copies of these docum1~nts to Investigator Johr1 B~hannon on that date.

I was not employed by the Houston PoHre Peparon~:J.t at the tim.e when the -evide~ce \mder case 140481893 was tag~ed i.M<}:lll_.· e Propertv. • Room or w:1en this evidence was taken and kept by the H11:1$<0n J'oliee Dep.tr.m(n\: f of"¥ f;;/lfA (h.~: ?rintcd: 08.'0<;/l S lnttmal Amrrs J)lvr~ton ~ C f;l:,' Pe.ge 1 of2 Page~.5 AtJs -4 P1f :Z: SZ Initials: ,v( ..._ Date: 8 ·l.f ~ I ) . .(." /"":) ·:.~~"~G' .. .. ~~~ · 04-AU3-2015 02:27

court At no. time did I physically handle these item';, ncir was I pmt of the •=hain of c.ustody of these items.

Finally, although I have fully cooperated and answel'ed all issues presented in t::lls matter to the best of my ability as ofthe date ofthis statement, thi!: incident occurred 9 we1~ks ago. Therefore, I hereby reserve the right to supplement and/or amend this statement should additional facts be brought to my attention 1hrough further investiga::ion, subsequent reflection on the matter, because of an honest def,~ct in the perception of the event(s), or the common foibles of htunan memory.

I have completed 16 yean; of school and can read and write the English Languag•:. I have read this statement in its entirety and certify that it is correct and true to the best of my knowledge. .

(Name: Printed) (Signatur(:)

Subscribed and swam to before me this ·f~Jy. day :>f Avbrfi.T

Notary Signature: L~ ti. {Ju~tt_~ (Nowy Stamp/Seal)

e. RANDY 1g CARODINE NOTA~Y PUBLIC STATE OF TEXAS X?.....1•0]7_"""~11'.,17o..t . MY COMhU...

HOUS10n Police Dcp:mmcnt: Dat'! Printed: OB./(}~tl5 Intent a! .,:Jialrs ::>iYiSion Page 2 of 2 Pages Initials: ~C:... . Date: 8 · If~ (4 • r'ri.fi.<?__1_of_J_ ·~

i~se Nl!mber I.D '• <t Divisicn .:_.r;::.;t ~i"1l·:·;.:.l2<. I Officer's Name " !L"' !Offen~ Location Wt::<.TBvP.. r #w2._ IOfficet's Si&r.&ture &. ~np.N lnadent Type: Evio.1(2ZJFound 0 Safe Keeping (Jail) 0 Invest 0 IProperty Officer's Sign.~ Emp.# ·.EA-.· f L~ ::;:, ·/ IJ I_., "'P ·

Bai' Code SticKer Description (Quanllly, Make ,Model, Serial fl, Any Damage, etc.) I ---; 1:' .-,w h!n~~'lt'~~fmgfdf&l (t)- Nr:D J...frw s~KvA-1 4-S.SI/r)// Kt--r · ---

CB lO- 6~L>v.)JJ 8A6 wrrrl c:t>I"1Pt. CLO/Ht/t/6 J:'f~,~ 212 B

rl (J) (S) <t ~ nno Vi m E L lL

.m ru ru (S) If) ..-1 reI

~ I ;t l'nj!(',.L_ul .. _,

tJ) "..

If)

.

II ~'.. .A-lou•;; ::.t~r c,~\"" ll.. 'OJfl • N . L/.1 •.. ~-~~ _ tcer s _ame~ j\f\ 5\~U65<1u.~ ~ Location/$~~~ ~~~Olllcer's St~!lalllre& J31np~#. l!liztt~G \)&;f "-7' . ..... ... "' (l_

___ "·'-- Property Ofncer'i Sign.&. Bmp.l1 \dr L ___ -- .... .

Bar Code SUcker Description (Quantlt}', Make ,Model, Se_rJal I, APy Damoge , etc.) ~~ tt r. ..... ~~..-•~·. ~·-

J'wqAi ~ . -- fm§>;14! .l.t.--.. -- ···- ·----- jjtf li1 SE(S)f,3 6-Le.d.

.;j'___., 1------------------L~~~jv~--------· -----·--· r. . _i.l.z~t.

m ... ('>) ~- l"l ~ lL.

E L [.. _.. ______ .......... __________ ,., ___ .. ___ -· ...... ________________ m ru ru IS) If) ..... ('>) ruI ~I ~ 04-AUG-2015 02:29 From:B323944091

HOUSTON P~L!CE ~EFARTM~lJT 'PROPERTY DIVISION I_ \ . j TEN?ORARY RELEASE OF ?ROPERTY RE.CEIPT DAY OF WEEK \f._Lto..\\e~'-\ . TA.G NO. 5/\C..Fd)A\1-t ,e.ILJfl cAsE No. V-loL\Sl e,1-3-{3 . _ DATE -;---(:J-45 ...

I' e. \V~' ~)b[1~,~~-_:_a:~signed to the ?=>u%rr~· ~::·~~ ( Div.is ion,hereby,certify that I have .recei~ed the below listed property froro t.he Property Division for the purpose o~: ' ~c.a,.'(O_/' - ----.._, f- ~URT APPEli~ANc~:_/ ·:NVEST~G,:.TJON L~.BOF.ATOF:Y .ll.NA~~..'fS :S PROPERTY OR COURT RECEIPT MtTST BE RETURNED IN SEVEN 1[7} DAYS =-· ......ruM No. oR oE'ScRrPrioN otPRC..ip£:i1·'r A~; LrsTtD oN PRoPE'R'T1- Rod'MI'N'Vb"'i"CW"" ._...,. .S.E. w/ \ho;.\ 8tosJ l\fi.IR. sb\dt.. ) LC.j {'I~J.. Lc....-~ Asso.. ....\~ K~~ I 13<ou~~ ~) ~ Cn,...,opl- f)A.H...: 1 ·- OFFICER RECEIVING PROPERTY OFFICER PROPER~'Y-~. ~'---­ Q \V -~"'-l!lr=:/'-·-------- EMPI,ClYEE NO. EHPLCYEE No.]'T~279"- c:r. 3EV~ .

THIS SECTION USED FOR RELEASE OF EVIDENCE TO CoURTS_ EVIDENCE KEPT BY COURT; f7l5 IN /'111:":\. til•<~~}~k ~~,t I t%!. lQ~ MZ<uAti!ll..__fut>uJ!j_ __ fu§ w I! ·.arr-et CJc1bece (.:~~~~3) Bra.~ ~Jf1ftgr2_ .: -:- RECEIVED BY PRINT . ' s ' Q~Wl~\, \ IN Aot /45 ··- COURT ON ] DATEt ,;.. t S!GNATUll.E OF RECEIVING ·:>FFlCI.A -'\ 'iri£ . -lf>s.I]:'J.·~!:J VI === PROPEI!TY ROOM I,hereby,certify that all property signed out on this receipt has been satisfactorily cleared in the Property Division by return of; ALL PROPER':'Y PI\.F.TII'aL PROPERTY ~~Ol.JRT RECEPT ) / DJ~TE •. I' /1; 'i'' PROPER:Y OFFICE~-- EMPLQYEE: NO. 1'«.37/. ======~~=:=~~=::::::::::::::::::::==~·==~==::;.=~~=========·--== THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF LABORA'f()I{Y RECEIPT

OrFlCER RETURNING LABORA~ORY RECFIPT____~---------- EMP.NO. PRO?ERTY OFFICeR RECEIV!!!·3 RE:EIFT DATE LABO~ATORY EVIDENCE KEP'l' IN LABORATORY; RECEIPT RECE!VED_. 18:: ~ Of ~ I~Y . ·----~· RANDY SO l~NP

p·usuc STATE OF TE~S .NO. I ··-··--·

- - . ·--- ·---·-· 'tz '~ ~MYCQ7M~~o R.zlA;~/~ . ~~~ 'Yl/'!•....J (WHITE CC·?.Y ORtGlNAL, YELLow· COPY f'ROPERTY ROOM, ;: COPY O'!:?FlCER}