in Re Jason T. Pegues ( 2015 )

N0.01-15-00535-CR
FILED W
.STCOUBTOFAP;^
Houston ^y-
CUEBK.
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE
FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT HOUSTON
APPELLATE CASE NAME:
In_ re_Jason_T._Pegues
APPELLATE CASE NUMBER:
01-15-00535-CR
TRIAL COURT CASE NUMBER:
9A-DCR-02 6185
TRIAL COURT:
240th DISTRICT COURT/FORT BEND COUNT1
N0.94-DCR-026185
In re Jason T. Pegues
Relator
RELATOR'S MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGEMENT/FOR
ACTUAL_ISSJLANCE_OF_RJ5LATOR^
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Comes now, Jason_T^_Pe£ues_#728196, Relator, Pro-se, respectfully
submit this motion to enforce judgement/for actual issuance of
relator's writ of mandamus in reference to appellate case number
01-15-00 535-CR. Relator would like to show this Honorable Court the
following:
Z5Q£S22SAt_5I§I25I
Around March 24,2015 Relator filed a Motion for Forensic DNA Testing
in which the Fort Bend District Attorney's Office received the motion
o
* AEIil_3.L2015. Around June 12,2015 Relator filed a Petition for writ
o
f Mandamus in this Honorable Court. (Appellate Case •#: 01-15-00535-CR).
The State filed a motion for extension of time around June_10x2015, in
which the trial court granted, extending the deadline date to
June 29,2015 which was requested by the State in it's motion.(SEE:
Attachment _'±A^) . Around JglZ 3,2 015 Relator filed an objection in the
trial court and requested for counsel,and that counsel do not file
anything until relator and counsel discuss every aspect of the c ase
and agree on what's best to file in which the trial court never
responded to.Mempa v. Rhay,389 U.S.12_8. Shortly after, the State filed
a second motion, requesting the trial Judge issue/enter orders to
-1-
various parties for the location of the evidence in this case 2 618 5,
in which relator also objected to. (see: Attachment "g"). This
Honorable court ordered the trial court to respond to relator's writ
of mandamus 30 days from the order, in which the trial court did respond
to relator's writ of mandamus around July 23,2015. Relator responded to
the respondent's reply on July__30±2 015. The trial court additionally
granted the State's second motion to enter orders to various parties to
locate the evidence in this case so that the State can respond to
relator's motion for forensic DNA Testing.
NATURE_0F_PR0CEEDING
The nature of proceeding in regards to this motion is to compel the
trial court to make findings regarding post-conviction DNA Testing as
required by art.64.04 of the Tex.Code of Crim.Proc. and to also enforce
this Honorable Court's Judgement to actual issue relator's writ of
mandamus. The nature of this proceeding is to also prove and show this
Honorable Court that relator is constitutionally entitled to relief in
which he is requesting this court to grant based on the facts and the
official records of this case 2618 5. In re M. B. Jackson^2 38 S.W.3d 603
(TEX^APP.--Waco 2007); Inre Todd-Warren ALTSCHUL,238 S.W.3d 603.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Relator is requesting that this Honorable Court actually issue relator's
writ of mandamus. Relator along with this Honorable Court has given
the respondent ample enough time to make a finding which is required
by code of criminal procedure art.64.04 due to relator's motion for
forensic DNA testing being filed on March 24,2015, nearly six (6)
months ago. The fact that the respondent granted a motion to enter
orders to various parties so that the state can make a finding, and
-2-
receiving affidavits from all parties with the exception of
Former_As sistant Distr ict„At to rney__Jam es_Sidney__Crow1ey_, who is in
contempt of court for not complying with a court order that was signed
by an Hon.Judge, all parties stating that they have no knowledge of
where the evidence in this case is located (SEE: Attachment_'^C^), the
respondent has still not made a finding, violating the Judge's
Adjudicative Responsibilities prescribed by the Judicial Canons as well
as the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, nor have
the respondent attempted to file for extension, so relator reasonably
files this motion respectfully advise this Honorable Court to issue his
writ of mandamus so that a finding can be made (SEE: In re _M^B ^Jacks onj_
238 S.W.3d 603_(Tex±Ap_p_j.1-- Waco_2007 )), or grant relator relief of
immediately release from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
System, vacating his sentence and charge due to relator being
constitutionally entitled to relief. Ex^arte-R^oslin-Marie^urn^r"A
liHil1_112_!Z12L1P.LIZLlA££i1P.12> ' State._.of_ Texas , ex rel jL_Hill_v2._Court
862 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.App.--Houston [,'l 41h_Dig,tA T199 3 .
ISSUES PRESENTED
I.
Relator's Motion for DNA Testing was file around March 24,2015 based
on relator's court appointed counsel Cary M.Faden stating in a habeas
proceeding that DNA testing had been done and confirmed relator as the
perpetrator, which through investigation later revealed that aggravated
perjury had been committed because according to the record DNA test
results were inconclusive with no match. SEE: Attachmen.t_^D^. Counsel
made this false statement with intent to deceive, he was the one who
cross-examined the criminalist Monica Thompson (Attachment "D'Q .
-3-
Counsel knew the knowledge of the statement meaning, made false
statement under oath in connection with an official proceeding; and
that false statement was material and could have affected the course or
outcome of an official proceeding. Coleman v. State, 279 _S«JJx2669 F.3d 225) , relator is now able
to present the entire initial police investigation of this case,
supported by the investigating record to expose all the Constitutional,
Substantial, and Procedural errors and violations that took place in
the initial police investigating parts of this case 2618 5.
-5-
III.
According to Evidence_75: As a general rule, a party's failure to
produce evidence within it's 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,
confirms that woithout the illegal taken statement, there is not any
physical or biological evidence, nor was there ever any to support
convicting relator, and with the State not being able to present
evidence in this case, it forces the State to make a determination of
whether the State wants to attempt to prove the statement that was
admitted into evidence was legally taken, or to grant relator relief
of time-served and avoid reversal proceedings.
I05_§IAT^MtNT_WAS_ILLEGALLY_TAKEN
[PLEASE SEE INVESTIGATING RECORD ATTACHED TO RELATOR'S WRIT OF
MANDAMUS : APPELLATECASE N0.01-15-00535-CR]
I.
In the initial police investigation, constitutional, substantial, and
procedural rights were violated and affected. The investigating record
in this case 26185 reflects that the police officers visited the child
numerous times although he was classified only as 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 process violation under
the 14th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution, as well as a parental
notification requirement violation. Moran_v_;__Burbinex475_U_1S_L412x432A
1215 £ol£rado_v^_Conne 11£X479_U^S^157zl^; MirandaA384JKS±at_426^444±
andat 479 ; IK S±_v±_Uashington, 431 U._ S.a^t_18 5; Mi1ler_vx_l£H1i*j±11
U.S. 104,_109^106 ; Mi ncejr_Vx_Ar iz on a_, 437 U.S.38 5xj8 ; Brown_y_;._M is si-
-6-
ssiE£ixi21_Hi2j.2 78A56; IKS^v^ Villegas 404 F.3_d_35_5 ; 0reg_on_v_;_E 1stadA
47 0 U.S. at 371.
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 officers
going to the witness home where his parents would be present, the police
officers waited until the child was at school to quest ion/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 Fed££alwRules_o^_Crj.mi^
establishing that these plain errors were prejudicial. (I11ihois^v^
PerkinsA_496_U^S^292A297_£1990).
II.
These violations and errors in the initial police investigation in this
case 26185 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 errors 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 violat£s_Family__C^de_Ann,
52.02(b). 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
XJ£l*Il££_£l-gilllX-9°de 52 •-°-1&1 and due process right violation as
well. jKS^v^ Givosky-Garibay.x_176_F^Supjg_21_102' IH-I^C^R±±995_S^Wx2d
II2_illij.A££j.Z^Austin_1999); Gonzale s_v_1_Sit ate±_9 _Sj.Wx21_1£I_iA££Ai_
Dist. 1999);Ljjjtatex_993_S^2 d_6 50x6 55^56^Tex^CrimiA2.P.il999).
-7-
The State statue requires that a child's parents must be promptly told
that the child has been arrested and why and reuires more than just
a phone call. Inre C.R.,995 S.W.2d 778 (Tex.App.--Augtin). In that
five hour and seven minute delay, the coercive police conduct continued
as the police took the child out of the county the crime occurred which
was in Fort Bend County, to another county (Harris County), acting
without legal authority, lodging the child into a facility that was
not approved by the Fort Bend County Juvenile Court and extracted a
statement/confession from the child, making the statement/confession
illegal and inadmissible by law violating Vernon's Ann.Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure art.38.23..Wilsonv^State,311 S.W.3d at 458-5 9;
Smith v. State±165_S^W^3d_361 _(_Cr±A^P-iJQ21) > Mi2J._Xi_1£2.£_ILi_2•£Ii£f.Xa
143__F^3d_534-539 (9th Cir.1998), but there was no evidence against
relator, so although the statement/confession 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.
2£SiEl££_Xi_2ia1s.±2i _2±1±22_221_Lh2.L±2_2i 11^2221) •
in.
After the child was certified, 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 26122 had been sealed, but relator was recently
able to gain possession of the investigating record in this case
establishing "Affirmative Evidence of Relator's Innocence" entitling
him to a live evidentiary hearing Ex_£arte Frankl in ,_7 2_S^W^3d_6 7_1^6 78
(Tex .Cr im .Appj.2002 ); Exparte Tuley,109 S._ W^3d_3 88_^Tex^Cr im^A"OO^),
-8-
but the State has lost the evidence in this case 26185. Either the State
failed to disclose this favorable evidence to the defense Br a dy y.
Maryland,373 U.S. 83 (1963); Ex_£art e Ad am s,768 S.W. 2d 281 (Tex^C.rim,
A£ExI222)' Ujilte^S^ate^v^Bagley, A73 u'S^_6 67xfr7J[_Xl985); Ex_£arte
Cg.12g.££S—222. S.W. 3d 64 (Texj_Crim^A££y2 010 ), or the District Court
Appointed Counsel Gary M.Faden ignored and neglected the violations and
errors that are clear 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) Jacobson v. _StateJ_39 8_;SxW^-2-122
lle.£j.2ljg.iA££j.2012) 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 investigation of this case 26185.
CLOSING
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The statement/confession that was illegally taken and admitted into
evidence and used to convict relator, making that illegally taken
statement over 90% of relator's conviction is proven beyond a
reasonable doubt by way of the investigating record in this ease, along
with support by State, Federal, and Supreme court cases. Flores_v^_
Stat e_j__8 24_SxWx2 d_7 04 .
With relator proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement that
was secured and used to convict relator was illegally taken and by law
was inadmissible results to the actual evidence the State claimed to
have had against relator. It has been proven that DNA test results
were inconclusive, with no match according to the official court
reporter's record in this case which requires for the evidence against
-9-
relator to be presented to justify his convict ion.Please see the
following:
1.) Without the illegal taken statement...
2.) With the official court reporter's record reflecting that
DNA test results were inconclusive,with no match...
3.) With the various parties who submitted their court order
affidavits stating that they have no knowledge of where
the evidence in this case is located and no personal
recollection of this case...
4.) With the State not being able to present the evidence in
this case . ..
There is no support of relator being convicted and sentenced to fifty
years in prison. The State may attempt to redirect the court's
attention as to how guilty relator was in trial reflection but no where
is there mentioning of the initial police investigation and this is why
the statement carried so much weight. The State had no other evidence
against relator other than the illegal taken statement, but again,
after relator was cert ified,the investigating record in this case Was
sealed so the State either failed to disclose this particular evidence
to the defense which is favorable evidence, or the District Court
Appointed Counsel Gary M.Faden ignored and neglected the clear and
obvious violations and errors that would have resulted this case by law
differently. Relator has spent the last twenty-one years in prison with
the State hiding the investigating record that exposes violations and
errors that would have resulted this case differently. Fortunately,
relator gained possession of the investigating record and fortunately,
the court of criminal appeals completely overruled the DeGarmo Doctrine
enabling relator to present these particular violations and errors the
State hid for so many years. Now that relator is presenting the
-10-
investigating record proving violations and errors that occurred in the
initial police investigation in this case 26185, "ironically" the State
has committed aggravated perjury, can not locate the evidence, and
refusing to directly address the designating issues in this case that
occurred in the initial police investigation. According to Tex .R.App.
Proc *44.2(a2 _Const itut ional Error: If the Appellate Record in a Criminal
Case reveals Constitutional error that is subject to harmless error
review, the court of appeals must reverse a Judgement of Conviction or
punishment unless the court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that
the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment. Ex_£arte
Thom£so.n_l 53^SvW^3d_416 ; Leday v. State 983 _S jW^ldat,?^; Harrison_v^
U^Sii_3 92_U_1S_1_219 .
Not only did these violations and errors that occurred in the initial
police investigation contribute to the conviction and punishment, but
the State hid these violations and errors for over 20 years by sealing
the record that expose these violations and errors in Juvenile
Proceedings, never disclosing the favorable evidence (With-holding
Evidence) to the defense, tainting the integrity of the Justice System
resulting to unfair proceedings, unfair trial, reversable error, taking
away twenty-one years of relator's life.
II.
Due to all the facts and the official record in this case now being
presented, relator request that this Honorable Court reverse this case
and grant relator the relief in which he is Constitutionally entitled
to. Relator request to be bench-warranted to Fort Bend County if
necessary and immediately released from the Texas Department of
Corrections, vacating his sentence and charge.
Executed on this 8th day of September,2015.
mitted.
13.L?
#728196
-11-
PRAYER
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Relator, Jason T. Pegues #728196,
respectfully prays that this Honorable Court take into consideration
all of the facts in this Motion and grant relator the relief in which
he is Constitutionally entitled to.
Executed on this 8th day of Se£tember ,2015_•
Submitted,
s #728196
Relator
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jason TAjPegues #728196, relator, being presently confined in
Walker County, Texas, do hereby affirm that i have delivered the
original of this Motion to Enforce Judgement/For Actual Issuance of
Relator's Writ of Mandamus to the prison mailroom officials for
delivery to the following via U.S.Postal service:
CLERK OF THE COURT: CHRISTOPHER A.PRINE
COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST DISTRICT
301 Fannin Street
Houston, Texas 77002-2066
SIGNED ON.fJp"^Fj^
^GNATURE70E--RELAT0R ^
presently incarcerated in Walker County,
Texas, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury tha the above and
all that is mentioned in this Motion to enforce Judgement/for actual
issuance of relator's writ of mandamus is true and correct.
Signed on this 8th, day of Se£tember,2015
3^22^%
TAS0N T. PEGUES #728196
RELATOR:
cc/file
-12-
ATTACHMENT
EVIDENCE
h
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 STATE 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 ofa child, and sentenced to 50 years inthe
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 60 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 why 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
4
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,
JOHNj.HARRITY,III
ASST. DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Fort Bend County, Texas
State Bar Number 09133100
301 Jackson Street, Room 101
Richmond, Texas 77469
Phone:(281)341-4460
Fax: (281) 238-3340
John.Harrity@fortbendcountytx.gov
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(0(3)
In accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I, John
Harrity, hereby certify that tine 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 with 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 OF 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
EVIDENCE
M-DCR-02B186
' ORDER
Order
3647064
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 TQTHE 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.
64 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 Attorney,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
ROUTEDTOOOURT «• «* ^
RT'D TOD. CLERK /"H^U
. I
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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
Attorney'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 courts along with a description ofthe 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 ofthe Fort Bend County District
Attorney's Office.
Signed tfesyfc? day ofJa >U^g_ 2015.
Hon. Thomas R. Culver, III '
Presiding Judge, 240th District Court
FILED
?0!5JUN2U PM Is 1*7
* CLEBK DISTRICT COURT &•
Tort rfmh r.n. rx
ATTACHMENT
"C"
EVIDENCE
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 ELLIOTT
Fort BenckCounty, Texas
vru
Deputy District Clerk Lisa Tucker
\La^ JUL 20 2015
Telephone: (281) 341-4516
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues
Huntsville Unit
815 12th Street
Huntsville Tx 77348
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
Received By Fort Bend County District Attorney:
Print
»• QfijioJ^
7 hhs
MAILING PHYSICAL
301 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.
* FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
JASON TYRONE PEGUES * 240th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF ROCKWALL ) AFFIDAVIT
LLoraihe Crawford, was the Official Court Reporter for the 240th District Court ofthe State of
Texas from 1991 until March of2008. I now reside in Fate, Rockwall County, Texas.
Ihave avague recollection ofreporting in the case ofState vs. Pegues, but Ihave no specific
recollection ofthe case, nor ofthe exhibits offered and/or admitted into evidence. However, I do
remember mat itwas the policy and procedure ofthe court reporters in Fort Bend County to keep exhibits
during atrial 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 Clerk. Iam
certain Ifollowed that procedure, and there should be an original copy ofthe log in the Court's file. That
is all Iremember about mis specific case. It is also possible another court reporter reported ahearing or
trial in this case. Itwas Judge Culver's policy to make anotation on the left margin ofthe docket sheet
"reported" ifIwas the court reporter for the case. Ifthere was asubstitute court reporter, it was his policy
to mark "reported by..." with the name ofthe court reporter who reported that day.
I have relinquished my certification as acourt reporter in the State ofTexas afew years after I
retired in 2008.
Dated this the jiL day ofJuly, 2015,
LoraineCrawfordyCSRNo. 1365
460 Price Drive
Rockwall, Texas 75087
(972) 567-2505
CLLorieLu70l@AOL.com
FILED
SSI5JUU6 mm it
clerk: ejSTfiicr zmm
FOR? BtK'DCO.. T.X
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 AppealAttorney
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 BendfCounty, Texas
By: MAj/ffi, .\n 0\iD^
Deputy District Clerk Lisa Tucker
OFFttfc
Telephone: (281)341-4516
CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues
Huntsville Unit
815 12th Street
Huntsville Tx 77348
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
Received By Fort Bend County Disjtn'ct Attorney
j nature
Signature . / y
Print Name
7/77//Z
MAILING PHYSICAL
301 Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142
Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469
http://www.fdrtbendcountytx.gov
Departments - District Clerk
M-OCR-028185
AFFI
Affidavit
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 240th 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."
'vhc 7/?L
Lori Wilson
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the _G^day of M\J™
2015.
LAURA MAYOR
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OFTEXAS
MY COMM. EXP ft/91/17§
Solo Page
44-OCR-02618G
AFFI
Affidavit
3885680
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 240th 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). 194-159' 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 ofgauze 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 ormanaged 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
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on the \i day ofOW
2015.
LAURA MAYOR
NOTARY PUBLIC :
STATE OF TEXAS . ate of Texas
MYCQMM.EXP.8/21/17J
CO
ij23 Olr- c83
Q I. V;
o
!-C
• m
>
UJ CI —
C£f
0)
ZJ
©
CM ,S1:> a
LJL &>
8U8P@8!i$ CHARGES FE£P-CAUSE NO.
o
MttJfflafcg"** ^ ^ *L ll SIMM
ao»*r
GHlra
race 8BX<
onto**
B58B2SSSTSSS5XSan ST* Tor MT
O StefeM
BOB RACE
COMPLAiWTfS) orrBm A&J&lJUBZ.
cury
^Egg^gggtg^ fa^ *
*W sec
INCtOENTNa hQtj$IJfi%
NAMSOfeX, Md«» MM ft La*} DOB
DATE OF OFFENSE /J?-Jgg- ?3
RACE tax
DATgauaMirrFP Jr-ff-^V
DOB RACE SEX
LOCATION OF OFFENSE /$&Q^ U2uaOJL&-jEULlAJL 3
LIST EVIDENCE 8UBMnTED.AND FROM WHOM OR WHERERECOVERED.
U124J0M y w&iHL lip^sjcw* TIEm&L
SUGGESTIONS ABOUT EXAMINATION OR ANALYSIS - COMMENTS ABOUT CASE Z&J3Z *?•&&..
W rp*S>, fO^iwfr^ftr €>f L£JAlAL-^LJ"^lLL.
(PtaaM Print)
SUBMfmNG OFFICER
tetoHWaLnQ
KAME/Ftel MkfcBe WBaU Uafi . CLAsancA-npN
CLASSIFICATION
VnpH LMPmvEE mo
IMPLOYEENO. nmnw«u<
CManwsHrr
FOR LABORATORY USE ONLY
RECDBY £M .iff &tafc T
<&t$*'
RECD FROM
VjA'"! . T
/V~
m
C.CP *&L
*T
PLACE RECD
iJ& w —• J-
::'/-;*ic
DATE RECD m. £i S-MM a-ss^f
DAY OF WEEK % wL A, X* t TUao "Tvo*
TIME RECD JM t- i 3cqrn M 4-30w
UCR NUMBER Oc2
POfBM NO. HPDOOOie *\
I" " w MWi?
9ft «KVS•
rf-VWaw*'
; v:»*P£^*?Ww:*^,B'*-:!,- .. y>^--•*•«//'•*< : k..:.U-:-.-.: Sf^.i,
•*fsRi.
otm^riMm ts ess? l\&m *$:&.-.
•8»J8S9W»aSB*BBBpii
VI
/
8aa& sais
Fafeio Hair
3. Ot&ar .
<&acw»«»««2jy *• »»*«*•*»* MM**"**1*
SUPPlgSENT(S) L>T* *
No-0005 )f*^»
Dffenee- SEXUAL ASSAULT (RAPE) / BY CUTTINO INSTRUMENT
Street Ideation information
Number- 16603 "ama-WIHTER 8RXAR Typa- Suffix-
Apt no- Name-16603 TypQ- Suffix-
Date of offenBe-12/28/93 Data of eupplewent-0l/0.v/9«
Compl(s) Leet-SINBLETON First-MARTHA Middle-
Last-
Reeovered stolen vehicles information
Stored- by- PM- 1&00) 000-0000
Offloerl-S.J. ANDERSON Empf-067721 Snift-i Olv/StetlonOUV
SUPPLEMENT NARRATIVE
THIS SUPPLEMENT IS 6LIN6 6ENERATE0 IN ORDER TO REQUEST THAT THE HPD CRIME LAB
ANALYZE THE RAPE KIT AND THE COMPLAINANT'S CLOTHING, THAT ARC TAGGED UNDER THIS
CASE NUMBER IN THE HPO CRIME LAB, FOR EVIDENCE OF A SEXUAl ASSAULT
Supplement entered by » 67 7?i
END OF PAGE TWO
MlaBBtftVitf ,'j> ^ it2
vQPWBBC
iMW'Owi'iQ
HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
PROPERTY DIVISION
TEMPORARY RELEASE OF PROPERTY P^CEIPT
V\ TAG NO. 6*CX
DAY OF WEEK mt
l
CASE WO. i tl '\i\ n*TE .' ~ fs"*°H
I, fcttr't C-it^Ur assigned to the .-'I
Division,hereby,certify that : hav° r*' hi? below listed property from the
property Division for the purpose f:
: ABORATORY ANALYSIS
COURT APPEARAN-rE
mOPEBTf OH COURT —OBW MUST BE ttETimKED••.-OPFRI^
ITEM^ NO. OR DSSCR;Pri.OV ™ ' ,;'•' •
««**»•> °**f t
ROOM liwoit-fc
OFFICER RKCSJVJNO, !»HiP'\r." « EMPLOYEE NO. j^j&li^
"EMPLOYEE no. ' ->'••
PROPERTY flFHlCKK_p _„*_...
THIS SECT?OK IJ-H> r' ••\:*'r TO COURTS
BVIOKNCK KEPT l«Y OVHT:
i-ni'»T ON
lECFJVKO HV
DATE
SI ON A ru P F. O P HH' F '• « ! ?«•
v ,n •woi'KPry room
this sgrtJon. mvf r> • • .v
i- :»ipt has
I.
rrfjm Of!
.'•O'.'RT RECEIPT
ALL PR<»PKRT>
• - ••: \'C.
•nun sm,;>;<-\ .V/vMORY RKCEJPT
r
:M« .\*0.
.V'H-TK ."»»*-\ •n?"h si'Y ROOM. PINK COPY OFFICER)
Fp-T \.j HP-.
HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT , KSii;;-;'-e3* -'."..^*» mu^ PEGUES
ON MARCH 23.19.94 THE FOU OWING ITCH WAS TfANSFF«*FS *0 e.TMTJNPSON FOR
DNA ANALYSTSt
A PORTION OF FROM JASON "YRONE PSS'JcS
THE REMAINING EVIDENCE HAVE SEi» ?.3«ITTE; »ta .rf* =.•••• E«r»* BOON.
Supplement entered by ••« SCfiOA
Oate cleared- 03/0*5 o«
"V \Y
y'V, \
e
0)
\
1
\
h0
1
1
AAoaisl^M JL%ik^l>%^Ug%t j^pejjj^fafl.flfrldciice Record »**•. '•«' •1
g Number
nft
HorkedBy A>/,y BmpjM^£
i&iDhfoton A//iB^Or\fi*^|0(B^tWtwc^44i;
DivbiDm/>>/>.ii-/ Ajjj
enae
B£E
idartTyper EvM^Pbuad |Wf SafeKeeping (fall) Eli Invert pij|Property Officer's Sign. &Brop.* ^Sv^-^ n
Bar f^ode Sticker DcseripHSon CQaanglty, Make »Mnde8, Serial t, AmyDamage, etc.)
>£&GS
;->?Mir^ sfoii IM J U J —
Investigative Division
Dale Sent i£'5-cY^ Dale Property Tagged,
The property listed oa the reverse side was authorized by your Division to be lagged in the Property Room. Disposition
Information isrequired bythe Property Division. ^
(cSoXtoo-o^°f*'Pr0,Wrty,d"e'^SiS°' ™'f0m MUST*retun>edl0**Propwt,r*°°mw,*h,eq(1P)**
Hold for Cotirt Case
Defendants Name 6. Release to Owner (or Authorized Person)
Owner's Name
Charge Filed
it Filed In
Date &Time Notified to Reclaim Property!
Hold for>r runner
further Investigation:
investigation:
Signaruire oWnv^jaatrMShift Commander ^/k9 , ♦ Method of Notification;
Required MutAA
7. Dispose of as Authorized byCity Ordinance
3. Hold for possible Surely or Indemnity
Bond Agreement. (thr only afittAt proptny b no longer ttttdedm
nUtnee orfor investigation, ond at! rmnobk iffotu
Typeof Bond Required: to At rtlum At property toAt owmrhot beene*
Person must be advised that he has 30 days to baustS byAt InvetttgoUve BMrfwy*
secure bond and retreive property.
Name of person to whom release was refused: 8. Transfer of Responsibility:
Division transferred to:
Date &Tims notified that property would be Authorized by: '. _____
returned:
(NOmAmhet&ng Pino* MUSTbt issfgntito
DivtHou Accepting Tnvaftt tfJt«p»riW%/
•Method of Notification
9. Destroy Property as Ordered byCourt:
4. Hold for Property Hearing: (Court Otdertfor obstruction ofproperty to bt kept on
Hearing Date: JtttbyAt hmUgMiwDivitim).
5. Photograph & Release to Owner:
Dale &Time Noiified to Reclaim Property:
»Method ofNotification: Indicate if in person, by
•Method of Notification phone, or by mail, (If property value is$200 or
more, mail must becertified, return receipt).
Return address on envelope should include the
'Hote: Imvsiigaior is responsiblefor photo- (_y V Division and Investigator's Name..
graphingproperty BEFORE it is released to
osner).
^ K;F>-12 *v~ *\\ |ime_ I3L& § —
—.
. .
i
n't-rr',' i*'y
. .
L-inii as;
i .. i ... ., rij, f
nwtto S|i__
«>>sT . . . . if
: Vrrffa Officer's Name _£2t£ ft^h
Division
mse
'TO •Si Ck^cM11 ^caUo« IffiftS tog-ife^ Officer's Signature & BnipJ
Type: EvIdL>CA I 3.N94 5
»V 2 5 B95 9
-- ^ -•- vfwe*
HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
PROPERTY DIVISION
|j i TEMPORARY
lyiruttAKX KSi,JSA3E
RELEASE OF PROPERTY RECEIPT
RECEIPT
ay of WEEKj£^e#asL TAG m. SACf1,MCH jLlCfj
CASE NO. \4QJgl6T3-g . • DATE 1HVT5"
i. E> M* John^cQ >a<„n^ to the 6o(&uu^k gfe(
ivision,hereby,certify that I have received the below listed property from the
roperty Division, for the purpose oft
VgOURT APPEARANCE^ INVESTIGATION LABORATORY ANALYSIS
PROPERTY OR COURT RECEIPT MOST BE RETURNED IN SEVEN (7) PAYS
ITEM NO. OR DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY^ AS LiSTED ON P^PeRTy" ROoV TnTOcB*
OFFICER RECEIVING PROPERTY /y gj jffiNdft^ BMPI.OYRB NQ.C"B^
PROPERTY OFFICER ft YHa^eL^/ . "~"~EMPLOYBg NOjoifrl/
THIS SECTION USED FOR RELEASE OF BVIDBNCB TO COURTS
EVIDENCE KEPT BY COURT;
RECEIVED BY /T. S ,Clftfltt/U/ IW 24&-f4l COURT OnjA^J^
print nrv jZTTT^ - »datei ^
SIGNATURE OF RECEIVING OFFICIAL/T^'K^LAft^ ."j^P ftnSjfr'Pdn *
THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF EVIDBNCg-TO PROPERTY ROOM
I,hereby,certify that all property signed out on this receipt has
been satisfactorily cleared in the Property Division by return of;
ALL PROPERTY , PARTIAL PROPERTY /COURT RECEIPT *}
\TE /• /7' 7*> PROPERTY OFFICES ££ -\(ju*~ EMPLOYEE MO. Pf*?:
THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF LABORATORY RECEIPT
OFFICER RETURNING LABORATORY RECEIPT^ . BMP. NO..
PROPERTY OFFICER RECEIVING RECEIPT 5MP.NO♦
DATE LABORATORY RECEIPT RECEIVED
EVIDENCE KEPT IN LABORATORY;
.WHITE COPY ORIGINAL, YELLOW COPY PROPERTY ROOM, PINK COPY OFFICER)
iiOUSttt
ideiace Record" ' Efagj/ / Qf r
CompIJQwner j^feji ***&Ad i•••< ;*y v-:rz~"""
£>ACG'
day of ',•:::-:•; I/O vn 6AcJ"
PTT XO.
' - 5= 94,
fn'mr 6lo
Di vis ien >V. ? r /t v, ••; -»;• •', .'•=-. ~S property fron the
Proper~y ".".v 1 5iv- :"c <
C ••.••••:•"•••.:o?y ANALYSTST>
PROP3FH : S!S*.,TS,.T :2t f . tit
rUBNEC' UN 3"SV]SN<7) DAYS
73 ",. "**??g'g-» ' 'BBig: —*S -•..—.••><-• »i.'—«.• —»•»••••••• 1 mi .11 . - -
11 miiwin
racUi/A -VaSAyJ-r Iui4 ^CjmiL.*A
OF' "v'i
r.XQl- -ZiVi-
0> 6~ fe_^ J^t^&* 2HPL0TEI NO.JMli
.:<*•*. .'? COURTS
ZVaDE^;C:L .•
jATE
•-. rr. >'
" ao.OM
-/ "iturn of;
J--*-' :OURT RECEIPT
Jl_j2t_LU^. fj-AHtis Mo&i&r r.rvi 0.1 ami
-: '•'• . jo .
'.. ••.="••! yfN-> COPY OFFICER)
Houston Police Property Division J«
Disposition Authorization
/£ //
Investigative Divisi tymviv hJfVJtvM
0.
Date SentMAR 29 ]m % s Date Property Tagged, _Tag Number,
The property listed onthereverse aide was authorized by your Division tobe tagged in the Property Room. Disposition
in formation is required by the Property Division.
Indicate the current status ofthe property, date, and sign. This form MUST be returned to the Property Room within ten (10) days.
(General Order700*1)
1. Hold for Court Case 6. Release to Owner(orAuthorized Person)
Defendants Name Owner's Name
Charge Filed Date & Time Notifiedto Reclaim Property:
Court Filed In
2. Hold for further Investigation^ * Method of Notifications
A Signature ofInrastiutive^SbM Commander
Required %£ rY/&*******
7. Disposeofas Authorized by City Ordinance
Hold for possible Surety or Indemnity (Use only after At property Is nolongerneeded'at
Bond Agreement. evidence arjbrtitv"wi, and f&mcaabU efforts
Type of Bond Required: . to Ae return As property to At.omerhasbeet) «-
Person must be advised that he has 30 days to housedby the Investigative Division)
securebond and reireive property.
Name of personto whom release was refused: 8. Transferof Responsibility:
-
Division transferred to:
Date & Time notified that property would be Authorized by:
returned:
(NOTE; Authorising Person MUSTbe assigned to
Division Accepting Tnmsftr ofPcsponsMtsy)
'Method of Notification
9. DestroyProperty asOrdered by Court:
4. Hold for Property Hearing: (Court Orders fir destruction efproperty to be kept*
file by Ae bwestigativt Division),
Hearing Dsie:
5. Photograph & Release to Owner:
Date& Time Notified to Reclaim Property: / j* Method of Notification; Indicate if In person, by
'..-•' I/ phone, orbymail. (Ifproperty value It$200 or
• Method of Notification
j/<' more, mail must be certified, return receipt).
A -
Return address on envelope should include the
(Note; Investigator is responsiblefor photo Division and Investigator's Name,-
graphing property BEFORE it is released to (' ;
owner).
fc ; -<£ c
< £Li£LJi£l d ±zL
Date Signature of Investigative Officer Employee Number
Property Room Use Only Property RoomUse Only
Final Supervisory Review by: LetterDisposition Review by;
Name Dale Name Date.
Houston Police Property Division
Disposition Authorization
Dale Scot ^J±m_\_ Dale Propctty Tagged Tag Number ^ g , /~ '
The property listed on the reverse side was authorial by >our Division lo be U«ej in U:e Property Room. Disposition
irjorrns?:oo is required bythe Property Division,
Iruficaie the cu„eir>UU,!us of the property, date, and sign. This htm NiUST he returned to the Properly Room within ten (10) days
{General Order 700-H * "
1. Hold for Court Case
Defendants Name 6. Release lo Owijer (or Authorited Person)
Owner's Name
Charge Filed _
Court FiK'd In Date * Time Notified lo Reclaim Properly:
Hold for flrther Imesligslion:
B* Signature of J«cstigatiy*&ffl Commander
Method of Notification:
1. Dispose of as Authorized by City Ordinance
3. Hold for possible Surety or Indemnify
Bond Agreement. (Ihr only after the property it no longer needed as
e\idtnce orfor investigation, and oilrttenable efforts
Type of Bond Required: to ikt return the property to the o*nerhas been «•
Person must beadvised (hat he has 30 days lo kimtdby the Inrtulgalhr Division)
secure bond and retreive property.
Name of person to whom release was refused: 8, Transfer of Responsibility:
Division transferred lo:
Date &Tim; notified that property «ou!d be Authorized by; .
nturned:
tSVTZ; Avlhonjng Penen Ml'STbe *,'.'J-"wrf lo
ul*s!in Aerepiing TVj/i.;.',/ ?f£t>f#n.-J<.::;iy)
•Method of Noiifica ;.in
9. D«!;cy Piopert) a; ?>.:••. i -•_ "^—-jrffjjrn address on envelcpe should include ihe
\\>'e; In *s/>£,mr is rn-owbUfor photot " """""^-"©ivivion and imfftig'iltafJp Nawe.-
gropowg property BEFORE !t is released lo
-wucr). ,
'->-?» H». OCKTQl | f,
... I •
-" . • ' Houston Police Property Division
Disposition Authorization
invcsiiB,iive DivKJUVEWLiS SEX-CRIMi
Date Sent_?Bl?J?*iDale.Property Tagged Jag Nuniber M/y
Se^7-f",0d°Vl!C ZT****? 'U.'h0ri"dby >0Ur Div'i,ion ,0*ta«*dia *< ?f
more, mail must be certified, return receipt),
3Y~— i 3E?s Kiturn address on envelope .should include the
l'.'-ve: Ls'ttiigaior is rt pen; Me for "photo-" "J"X"~~Division and In\e<»igolp>is F^me*-
&raphh,s proper!) BEFORE ii is relraud to " /) >•>& 'y /? / _ _,
/y-
> - '.->- =S e--*
Date
A_,_,. jL.\d&&3k3tssx..
Signature of Investigative Officer Employee Number
Property Room Use Only Property Room Use Only
(J
••• i
Firal Supervisory Review by: Le.'ter Disposition Review by:
Name Sate N'ame Dstt
r» •/••«. i-o-tM)»u
DAY of ke£k \Mc3a^€^Ja.v-il TAG NO. 5AC.fiJfVj<:i|jd7s03
case vo. mmm-&
r, 5. M- irteori ^ i""V :.\30RAT03Y AXALYSIS
PROPSRTY OR COIJRT RECEIPT MUST 3E AKTUBNED IN SEVEN (7) DAYS
HEM SO. OR D2SC<~I'P?I'0:\ Or" 'P'-'O-'^RTsF US f/iS"-",7.D OM PROPSRTY ROOM JXYOICE
CoJrag^Gttiate| ZT-5T-3 7T^ ~—
OFFICER
PROPERTY
REOEIVJVK?
OFFICES
.'^OPeiT • * Wm^v>
20 \^> . "" ~ 0
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR FORT
IRMA CORTEX
Notary Public, Stateof Tsxas
My Commission Expires 06-20-2011
ORIGINAL
Shelf
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
COMPETENCY 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
Mim.
M
m
Hi
mm
m
.HSw-ESffilif
JASON PEGUES
1-26,185
TRIAL: JULY 18TH THRU 2f)TH /'/ 5 SHELF:
PUNISHMENT: 50 YEARS TDCJ '' BIN:
STATE'S EXHIBITS:
01. THRU 15. PHOTOS
16. PHOTO LINEUP
(NO #17 SX-ENTERED)
IB. THRU 20. PHOTO LINEUPS S
23. THRU 24. PHOTOS
27. PHOTO
30. BLACK. PANTS
31. MEDICAL RECORDS
32. STATUTORY WARNING '•%
%\
33. magistrate's CERTIFICATE
34. JUVENILE WARNING
35. RAPE KIT ENVELOPE
35A. RAPE KIT
36. STATEMENT
37. STATEMENT
38. CAMISOLE
39. SWEATER
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS:
01. DR. COX REPORT
m
JASON PEGUES fl26,185
JANUARY 31, 1995 SHELF n BIN
H 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.ttl-BONDS SET ON EACH CHARGE
STATE'S EXHIBITS
I. Through 8 Photos - (Copies)
9. Magistrate's Verification - (Copy)
10. Confession - (Copy)
10A. Second page of Confession - (Copy)
II. Statutory Warning - (Copy)
12. Statement - (Copy)
13. Photo - (Copy)
m
^o: ,
M-DCR-02618S
LETT
Utter*
ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT
DISTRICT CLERK
Fort Bend County, Texas
(281)341-4516
Fax (281) 341-4519
August 04, 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 TEANAV. WATSON.
RECEIVED
DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REE AUG 04 2015
Fort Bep
By-
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Deputy DlStrtfet Clerk Petra Lozano
Telephone: (281) 341-4516
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
Received By Fort Bend County District Attorney:
Signature II ~' —
r7T7
M-DCR-02S185
LETT
Lettan
3705668 ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT
DISTRICT CLERK
Fort Bend County, Texas
(281)341-4516
Fax (281) 341-4519
August 06, 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 MARTIN LOPEZ.
RECEIVED
DISTRICT CLERK ANNIE REBECCA ELLIOTT
AUG 06 2015
Fort Bend County, TerfaS
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Deputy District Clerk Petra Lozano
Telephone: (281) 341-4516
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
Received By Fort Bend District Attorney:
Signature
gnaturer / ft
Print Name
Date ^
CC: Jason Tyrone Pegues
Huntsville Unit
815 12th Street
Huntsville Tx 77348
MAILING PHYSICAL
301 Jackson Street 1422 Eugene Heimann Circle, Room 10142
Richmond, Texas 77469 Richmond, Texas 77469
http://www.fortbendcountytx.gov
Departments - District Clerk
FlUa-aaiS 32:2' -r ini.'&3.;:>3'
Authorized By_^L____Brnr^j_f£__ MviitoiA-g',c!5!&S Officer's Name 5D/r'4<&l 8>, fi\ Division 5 tJ •/*• f3?"
Offcnso /fr g.^fW _"__£- Loca»o" i_jg____2j g___g U&Vl4frr\ 1M&7
Incident Type: EvWJ^Found Q Safe Keeping (Jail) O Invest [__] Property Officer's Sign; & Emp.i?
Bar code Slicker Description (Quantity, Make ,Mo/r K/r
•I PI
jfc=!_=££=LLJL
*Mti»iilte
MHHF
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATEOFTEXAS
MYCOMM..EXP.t0ff/17
A(Jt*Xr ^y/^/j
04-WJG-2015 02:28 Frofn:B3S39*W091 PaBc:5''6
04-RUS-2015 02:23 From:B323944091 Po9e:6-'6
<"-""#;*".-iiVL*;
-^t=r>sr"-^r-'
houston police department
"property division
. i , temporary release of property receipt
DAY OF WEEK WafeeflW TAG NO. J\l\&MCH&&,
CASE NO. \^0Jg(81^D DATE .."7""H^5'
assigned to the ^(jfe^ fctfe
Division,hereby,certify that I have received the below listed property frotc the
Property Division for the purpose of: *
yCQURT APPEARANCE^ :NVESTIGATION LABORATORY ANALYS :.S
FBpPEETY OB COI7RT RECEIPT MUST BE BETITRNED IN SEVEN ff) PAtB_
'" ITEM NO, OR DESCRIPTION' OF,l',pl'R0PERTYrAirLiSTkD ON PROPERTY 'ROOjTiNVoTcr;'
Cnmpf- rjo-^'^ --- ,j
OFFICER RECEIVING PROPERTY (V W> i^**" EMPLOYEE NO.C"f3^\
PROPSRTY OFFICER JL£: [eMPLCYEE N0.FJZ7^'
i=wsB=sB«*aaoaan:
THIS SECTION USED FOR RELEASE OF EVIDENCE TO COURTS
EVIDENCE KEPT BY COURT;
.Raj ^/iW^l^io^iVgf^xBta^
RECEIVED BY.T.S.O-"^Ujr7 IN 20fif4) COURT ON 7/W"^
PRINT
SIGNATURE OF RECEIVING 0FF1C1.A
THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN
£
OF EVIDENCi?~TO
r" r
PROPERTY ROOK
I,hereby,certify that all property signed out on this receipt has
been satisfactorily cleared in the Property Division by return of;
ALL PROPERTY PfcFTIAL PROPERTY /COURT RECEI'T
)
DATE % ££l "^> PROPERTY OFFICER ti SXb^-s-f EMPLOYEE NO. P.*-.'**?
THIS SECTION USED FOR RETURN OF LABORATORY RECEIPT
OFFICER RETURNING LABORATORY RECEIPT. ,EMP.NO.
PROPERTY OFFICER RECEIVING RECEIPT F.MP. NO.
DATE LABORATORY RECEIPT RECEIVED___ RANDY
"TOIlY PUBLIC
EVIDENCE KEPT IN LABORATORY; STATE OF TEXAS
m?GmMr®$r4m
^ttaaaWMaamnaaiiniii \imwammaenu m ttmosuxm /
(WHITE COPY ORIGINAL, YELLOW COPY IROPERTY HOOM/WNK COPY OFFICER)
rojtn Nn WPrhOniO?
ATTACHMENT
"D*
EVIDENCE
-• wO*ato***y-^--*w-^<. ^'**«m*i&iote*&£&^ MmtiMmmti'm*umimMm\mrMnnmimiMm "flT -"* Yiit^TTiffffiT'i-'r'-V- *n r
1
1 NO. 26,185
1
2 THE STATE OF TEXAS * IN THE 240TH JUDICIAL
3 VS. * DISTRICT COURT OF
4 JASON TYRONE PEGUES * FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
5
6
7
8
9
i
10 i
i
11
12
13 STATEMENT OF FACTS
r|>lawC VOLUME VII OF 8 VOLUMES
14 ... .: - ~3 •-<'•-.
15
16 '"VJ a- .: '•£•;-•
|
:0
17
18
19 S'4i/UV u•
20
21
22
23 Loraine Hall, CSR, RPR
Official Court Reporter
24 240th Judicial District Court
Fort Bend County Courthouse
^~v
25 Richmond, Texas 77469
* i
-•-a"fe>***tt*#^a"*miiawa)Wa^*i«a>«Wfci«M^llitfB»^M3aifeliWB»tetel
1 Thompson.
2 (Whereupon, the witness, MONICA
3 THOMPSON, having been duly sworn, testified
4 ias follows:)
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 Q (BY MR. CROWLEY) Would you state your name
7 for the jury, please?
8 A My name is Monica Thompson.
9 Q It's not Margie Thompson?
10 A No.
11 Q My mistake. How are you currently
12 emp lbyed?
13 A I'm not employed.
14 Q What are you doing right now?
15 A I'm going to law school.
16 Q Back in, I believe, around March or around
17 that area of 1994, how were you employed?
18 A I worked for the Houston Police Department
19 criine lab as a criminalist.
20 Q What is a criminalist?
21 A A criminalist is a person that does
22 sci antific testing on evidence as selected from
23 crime scenes.
24 Q Could you just tell us what your education
25 and background is?
175
'«-W**4fa«A&4-tt. •a^w*a»aew»ta*tt3MB" fejaaMtitiiawaaia" •
1 A I have a bachelor's and a master's degree
2 in biology from Sam Houston State University.
3 Q Any particular type of training you
4 received?
5 A I received training from the FBI in
6 Quantico, Virginia; also, training from the HPD
7 training laboratory; and training at different
8 seminars and conferences throughout the United
9 States on DNA analysis.
10 Q DNA, 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?
17 A Many.
18 Q All right. Ma. Thompson, let me show you
19 what's been marked as State's exhibit number 35;
20 and I will ask you if you can identify that.
21 A Yes, I can.
22 Q What is that?
23 A It's a sexual assault kit.
24 Q And there appear to be some writing and
25 numbelrs on there. Can you identify those?
176
15 result of your DNA testing?
ATTACHMENT
EVIDENCE
PSGlitS v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, J997 - TX... hltp://easelaw.fihdlaw.eorn/tx-court-of-appeals/]012i21.hlrnl
> FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS
Court of Appeals of Texas,Houston (ist 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, JJ.
Gary M. Faden, Sugarland, for Appellant.John F. Healey, Jr., John H. Harrity, JH, Richmond,
for Appellee.
OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We overrule the appellant'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 of law
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 December 28, 1993. On March
3, 1994, Officer Anderson went to Willowridge High School to arrest the appellant. 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 the statutory warnings to the
appellant.
Afterwards, the appellant was placed in a holding cell at the downtown command station,
2/7/201'J2:16P?.'*//
r'EGUES v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997 - 'IX.. http://cas.elaw.findlaw.com/tx-.co.urt-of-appeals/1012121.htral
which had been designated as a juvenile holding facility by the juvenile boards ofHarris and
Fort 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 voluntariness ofthe 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 ofthe confession at trial, but the trial court
overruled it and admitted the confession into evidence.
The appellant testified during the punishment phase ofthe trial. When asked ofhis
feelings about the events that took place on December 28, 1994, the appellant said he was
sorry. He said he regretted what had happened to the complainant and assumed full
responsibility, saying he had just made a mistake. He said he had been attending a
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 of the 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 § 52.02.1
Relying on the DeGarmo doctrine, in our original opinion we held the appellant waived this
complaint because he admitted he committed the offense during the 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 argues we took his statement at the punishment phase
out of context and that it was not an unequivocal confession. He argues DeGarmo should
not apply here.' We disagree.
The DeGarmo doctrine provides that, if during the punishment phase, a defendant confesses
to all the elements ofthe 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.).
0f 4 2/7/2013 2:16 FM
PEGUES v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997 - TX... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1012121.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 ofprocedure. 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 evidence,, 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, a new 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, his judicial confession to the rape matched the confession he argues
was erroneously admitted. The DeGarmo reasoning applies here. Assuming the
confession Was 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 conclude the appellant's admission during the punishment phase waived any error that
may have occurred concerning the admission of his confession at the guilt phase ofthe 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 entering findings of
fact and conclusions of law regarding the confession's voluntariness. As stated above, the
appellant waived any error that may have occurred with regard to the admission ofthe
confession. This includes the entering of findings of fact and conclusions of law following
a hearing on voluntariness.
We overrule point of error one.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
FOOTNOTES
L 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 ofthis code, shall do one ofthe
following: * * * * * *(2) bring the child before the office or
0f 4 2/7/2013 2:36 P.M
PEQUES'v. STATE, No. 01-95-01008-CR., December 18, 1997 - TX... http://easelaw.findlaW.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1012121.html
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. AH rights reserved.
0f 4 2/7/2013 2:16 PM
MR. JASON T. PEGUES #728196
HUNTSVILLE UNIT
815 12th STREET
HUNTSVILLE, TEXAS 77348
FILED IN
1ST COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON. TEXAS
SEPTEMBER 8th, 2015
SEP 1 0 2015
TO: CLERK OF THE COURT: CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE >PHERiA. PRINE
CHRISTOPI
COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST DISTRICT
CLERK
301 Fannin Street
Houston, Texas 77002-2066
Re; FILING A MOTION IN REFERENCE TO APPELLATE CASE NUMBER:01-15-00535-
CR
DEAR CLERK OF THE COURT:
ENCLOSED IS A MOTION WITH ATTACHMENTS IN REFERENCE TO APPELLATE
CASE NUMBER: 01 z1 5z005.35-QR, SO IF YOU WILL PLEASE FILE THIS IN THE
HONORABLE COURT SO THAT IT MAY BE HEARD AND RULED ON, I WOULD GREATLY
APPRECIATE IT. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE.
cc/file:
1 of 1
Ik UnVt
7*73«f8 V
hi- .»/ED
&HTOF'
STON, TL
SEP1! 0 iOl
[ "'""STOPHER A. pr«v/E
CIerJC ofThe Courf :
Chrf«top»ieKA-RinE
CwrT"of /VpeALs, first T*sfr,ct
3 01 pAnnVn StreAf
Hov stoai ;"Texas 1*700z-zoioic,