Jackson, Samuel Roy ( 2015 )

CERTIFICATE OF INTERES'rED PERSONS
......
.. ')
~·
IN THE
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN. TEXAS
. \ /
PETrrioN' .. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
SEEKING RELIEF FROM UNLAvli"UL
CONFINEMENT UNDER VOID ~JDG~m~tr
AND VOID COURT ORDER RE~DERED ~R
THE OFF``SE AGGRAVATED ROBBER~
CAUSE NO. 913043
FR0£>1 THE !83RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
This document contains some
pages that are of poor quality
at the time of imaging.
.., ~ ,• .= •. h
.. I ! .
': .. ' '. ~
i . ~
• I
·.'
·•'
,· ..
'1
• •
0
INTE~ESTED PERSONS: \''\
,Judgb Vanessa Va':\,a..Squez
Criminal Justice Bldg •• 18th Fl.
1202 Franklin
Houston. Texas 77002
Assistant District Attorney
RECEiVED !N
(COURT OF CRfMIN!.t APPEALS
l03rd .Judicial District Court
Criminal Justice Bldg •• 18th Fl. APR 28 2015
1201 Franklin
Houston. Texas 77002
Ab@J Acosta, Crerk
(Petitioner) Samuel Roy Jackson
TDC..J-!Oii 1268721
Nathaniel J. Neal Unit
9055 Sour 591
Amarillo. TX 79107·-9696
-~.··
/
i
',.
...._\ I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS i
TABLE OF CONTENTS . II
TABLE OF.AUTHORITIES . iii
ISSUES 'DO BE. ADDRESSED •
Section(A) C.C.P. • Articles of Law
CRIMINAL LAW KEYS ' .
GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
CONCLUSION SUf1MARY
~ATOR'S REQUEST
DECLARATION OF PENALTY OF PERJURY • ..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE •
Appendix:
Contents: Documents (A) • (B), (C), (D), (:t;:), (F), (G), (H) .(I) (.J) {i'f) (LJ
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
page
Addison v. State• 28 S.W.2d 55 Tex Crim App 1955 . {~J
In re Alexander• 243 S.W.2d 822 Tex App San Antonio 2007
Tex Crim App 1962 Bender v. State• 353 S.W.2d 39, 171 Tex CrUn:·628 . ((gl
Carpenter v. State. Cr App 1949, 153 Tex Crim 218 S~W.2d 200;7 • n1
Catching v. State. 285 s.W.2d 233. 162 Tex Crim 342 • (tf~
Colbeat v. State. 314 S.W.2d 602. 166 Tex,Crim 431 • (lz)
Davis v. State. 503 s.W.2d 241 [Tex Crim Ap~1 1974] C~t
Ex parte Drake· 883 S.W.2d 213 Tex Crim App 2002 (2l
Halbadier v. State. Cr App 1920 • 87 Tex Crim 129, 220 S.W.95 .• ...(~]
Ex partE7 Haskin·. 801. S.W.2d 12 Tex App Corpus Christi 1990
Ho v. State. 856 S.W.2d 495 Tex App Houston [1st Dist.] 630 S.W.2d 380 (9)
Ex parte McClain. Cited as 67 S.W.3d 205 Tex Crim App 2002
Naff v. State• 946 S.W.2d 529 . (8)
In re Parr• 199 S.W.3d Tex App Houston [1st Dist. 2006] (2)
Ex parte Rogers. 820 S.W.3d 35 Tex App Corpus Christi 1991
Ex Parte Rosborough. 783 S.W.2d. Tex App Houston [1st Dist.] 1987. ···---
Shackelford v. State• 516 S.W.2d 180 [Cr App 1974]
Spigener v. Wallis• 80 S.W.3d 174 Tex App Waco 2002 • ( 2.)
State v. Edwards. 808 S.W.2d 662. f5Jttp)_
Ex pare~ 'rownsend. 135 S.W.3d 79, 81 [Tex Cr App 2002] ccn
Wells v. State• 516 S.W.2d 663 • (tiJ
-4/.t:if;_A.JlJ"UJitl.T..!~--ftd ~- iuLJ.J_jpJ...(c_fttJ:..S'=="lf.X_(q.J..tl..l-.Yle.l ( £'0
--A R1'' tutu A y_j{, Rill I 'l_f_IJLJ..d=!.1::t:7.~===-.::.···=·.......,=---------~ (2 J
f}{A~V..£_z_JL.ff A.T f .l.J Z £., w_,)_d_ro_CJ_5/(LTfX A_p.p_lf..()V.£[p_t:tLUL/)_js_r_zd.cttf "' (/}
_ix_p..A B.t.t_L-fA w_/(ftv_.Lt.SS_f,_4L1.cl£1L6_£s_s_r.f/L1'tff-"-l-pA..HL/. q q_tf__ _ (I)
.iJJ.r5-Q.N_IL.J:T-~'l ~ 96 S.W.3d 497, SOO(Tex App Amarillo.
2002); Ex parte Hawkins. 885 S.~'7.3d 586. 588(Tex AppEl Paso 1994).
- 1 -
Ex oarte Drake· 833 S.H.2d 213 Tex Crim App 1994: A general rule; A Post-
conviction writ of habeas corpus is· reserved for those instances in which
there was jurisdictional defect in trial court which rendered judgment void
for denial of fundamental or Constitutional rights. Inre Parr. 199 S.W.3d
457, Habeas Corpus Key 445, Judgment or sentence may be collaterally attacked
by means of a petition for writ of habeas corpus only where they are void
because trial court lacked jurisdiction. Tex Crim App 1999. Tex.App.-Houston
[lst Dist.] 2005. A perty may collaterally attack a judgment of a court of
general jurisdiction in another court of equal jurisdiction i f the underlying
judgment is void. Armentor v. Kern. 178 S~W.3d 147. a petition for writ of
habeas corpus is one type of collateral attack. Judgment Key 470.523 C.J.S.
Judgment 499 533.
Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist. 1995] Judgment \vithout jurisdiction is void.
It is not entitled to recognition in any State and it is subject to collateral
attack. U.S.C.A. • Const. Amend. 14. Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 5 and 11.
Soigener v. ~\Jallis. 80 S.W.3d 174(Tex.App.-l'llaco 2002).
Citing: Ex oarte Seidel: Cite as Vol. 39 S .W .3d 221 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001)
Criminal Law Key 1493: lack of jurisdiction·over caserenders the judgment
void and may always be collaterally attacked. Criminal Law Key 990.1. A void
judgment is a nullity and can always be attacked at any·time.
The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that is available
when there i.S no other adequate remedy at law. Ex Qarte Townsenq. 137 S.W.3d
79. 8l(Tex.Cr.App. 2004) Habeas Corpus Key 201. 271.
Jurisdiction of the Court
[Adjudicated Fact] the Court of ·Criminal Appeals in Austin. Texas has the
jurisdiction over·:Pe'Eitioner Jackson's J:)etition for writ of habeas corpus
seeking relief from unlawful confinement cause by a void court order rendered
- 2 -
d•Je to a void judgment rendered without any jurisdictional authority ov~r
Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson: which is a U.S.C.A .. Const. Amend. 14 Due
Process violation.
Citing: Ex parte Seidel: Cite as Vol. 39 S.W.3d 221· Tex.Crim.App. 2001.
Criminal Key 1493: Lack of· jurisdiction over case· renders the judgment void
and may always ·be collaterally attacked. criminal Law Key 990.1. A void
judgment is a nullity and can always be attacked at any time.
ISSUES. TO BE ADDRESSED· ·
(A) Is the aggravated robbery complaint #913043 a valid complaint. And does
it satisfy the Constitutional Requisites of a· charging instrument?
(B) Did the aggravated robbery complaint #913043 vest jurisdiction in the
183rd District Court?
(C) Are the information.a:ccusations·in the aggravated robbery complaint #913043
valid information·. and· did the information accusations asserted on the face
of aggravated robbery indictment's·charging paragraph vest Judge Joan Huffman
with personal jurisdictional authority overPetitioner Samuel Roy Jackson?
(D) Did Judge Joan Huffman have jurisdiction to conduct subsequent jury trial
under aggravated robbery indictment Cause·No. 913043?
(E) Is the judgment rendered by the jury under agg robbery indictment #913043
a void judgment?
(F) Is the court order issued by Judge Joan Huffman ordering Petitioner Jackson
to serve 35-year. s;entence in the custody of the Director· of the· Texas Depart-
ment of Criminal Justice- Correctional Institutions·Division (hereafter TDCJ)
for the offense aggravated robbery Cause No. 913043. a void court order issued
by Judge Joan Huffman without personal jurisdiction over·Petitioner Jackson?
(G) Is Petitioner Ja:ckson unlawfully confined in the custody·of TDCJ director.
Rick Thaler. under a void judgment and void court order rendered in the 183rd
- 3 -
District Court of Harris County for the offense aggravated robbery Cause
No .. 913043?
(H) Is . T. William an Assistant District Attorney who prepared the aggravated
robbery complaint #913043 reflected in the top-righthand corner by T.W.D.A. ?
"Argument"
If T. Williams is an· Assistant District Attorney who "initialed" his
first name in the jurat of aggravated·robbery complaint #913043. then aggravat-
ed robbery complaint #91:?043 (according to. Article 15.5 T.C.C.P.) is an
invalid complaint. Citin.g: Wells v.- State. 516 S.W.2d 663. Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure (Vernon's Ann.) Article 15.5. A prosecuting attorney cannot
sign as the Affiant in the· jurat of Complaint.· A person authorized to present
an Information and conduct a prosecution cannot be the Affiant to the Complaint
supporting Information.
NOI'E:. Should it be found that Petitioner Jackson is unlawfully confined
under a void judgment and a void c9urt order. this Honorable Court should
issue a Habeas Corpus·ordering Jackson's immediate release.
In order.to correct this blatant ·injustice connected to Jackson's unlawful
incarceration under a void judgment·under aggravated robbery Cause No. 913043.
at the Nathaniel Neal Unit (TDCJ-CID), 9055 Spur 591. Amarillo. Texas 79107:
CITING•OF AUTHORITIES:
Ex Parte Seidel. Cite as Vol. 39 S.W.3d 221 ··Tex Crim App 2001. Criminal
Law Key 1493. Lack of jurisdiction over case renders the judgment void and
may always be collaterally attacked.
Ex Parte Seidel. 39 S.W.3d 22l(Tex CrimApp 2001). Criminal Law Key 990.1
A void judgment· is a nullity from the beginning and is attended none of the
consequences of a valid judgment. It is entitled to no respect whatsoever
- 4 -
.because it does not affect. impair or create legal right. Ex Parte Spaulding.
68 S.W.2d at 745.
Tex App Houston [14th Dist.] 2007. A judgment is void so as to be subject
to collateral attack. when·it is apparent that the court rendering the judgment
had no jurisdiction of the parties or ·property.· no ·jurisdiction· of the subject
matter. no jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment. or no capacity to act.
Staytzenberqer. v. State. 232 S.W.3d 323.
Tex App Tyler 1991. State v. Edwards. 808 S.W.2d 662. Fundamentally defec:-
tive information is void. does not\ effectively invoke Court's jurisdiction
over defendant and will not support conviction.
[Section One]
Applicable Law: Requirements by Constitutional Requisites of a Charging
Instrument: Such as Complaints. Information and Indictments.
(A) Criminal Law Key 990.1
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.5. 15.4 Vernon's Ann.
(C) Code of Criminal Procedure Article 222. 415. 414
(D) Indictment and Information-Key 41(3)
(E) Vernon's Ann •. Tex c.c.c., Article 21. 22
GROUND FOR RELIEF: fA)
Unlawful Confinement in TDCJ
Urider· Cause No. 913043
Due to Void Judgment rendered· without jurisdictional authority rendered
under invalid aggravated ·robbery complaint and information under-cause No.
913043. in the 183rd Judicial District Court of Harris County. Houston. Texas.
[Facts Supoorting Ground]
On May 24, · 2002 the Harris County· District Attorney's Office filed an
invalid aggravated robbery complaint ·#913043-in the-Harris County District
Clerk's Office. Charles Bacarrise. which was filed in the 183rd Judicial
- 5 -
District Court ·of ·Harris County. Texas. See A0pendix Document (A). Copy of
Aggravated Robbery Complaint #913043.
[Fact Established ·in the Record] Officer M. A. Khan is reflected as
the Complainant who filed Aggravated Robbery_ Complaint ;F913043. See Appendix
Document (B). Copy of l83rd District Court Aggravated Robbery Docket text
#913043. However. !1. A. :Khan did not sign as the Affiant in the jurat on the
.face of Aggravated Robbery Complaint #913043. causing the complaint to be
an invalid complaint.
[Citing of Authorities] Tex Crim App 1962. Complaint not signed by Affiant
was fatally defective and conviction on information based on such information
was reversed. Vernon's Ann .. T.C.C •.:? •• Art. 222. 415. Bender v. State. 353
S.W.2d 39. 171 Tex Crim 623.
Colbeat v. State. 314 S.W.2d 602. 166 Tex Crim 431. A complaint which
is not swornto by Complainant is of no effect and will not support a prosecu-
tion by information. Vernon's Ann. • 1'.C .C~P .. 415. 414.
[Fact] "Complainant" Officer N. A. Khan did not swear to the jurat.
T. William signed on the face of Aggravated Robbery Complaint :!f913043. See_
Apoendix Document (A).
[Citing of Authorities] Caroenter v. State. Cr App 1949. 153 Tex Crim 218
S.I.V.2d 207. Indictment and Information Key 41(3). Tt}e Complaint must be
I
Authenticated by Jurat of officer before whom it Has made and in.the absence
of a valid complaint there can be no·valid·information.
[Adjudicated Facts] 'r. William is not listed as one of the ten Houston
Police Department (hereafter "HPD") officers named· on the face of- Assistant
District Attorney . Brad Hart·' s subpoena filed in the l83rd District Court·.
On the face of Brad Hart's sub:Joena ·it is reflected Aggravated Robbery ·
Compla:i,nt #913043 's Offense Report #072416202. See Appendix Document (C).
- 6 -
Assistant District Attorney Brad Hart's Subpoena. Also see. Appendix Document
(D), HPD Offense Report fW72416202~ T. Williams is not listed as a HPD Officer
under Police report #072416202. Officer M. A. Khan andOfficer z. A. Brown
are listed as "Reporting Officer(s)" on the Aggravated Robbery Police Report
#072416202.
[fact:] The jurat of Aggravated Robbery Complaint #913043 (hereafter "The
Complaint") was not authenticated by HPD Office/Agency nor any other Office/
Agency because T. Williams is not found ±n the record as a Police Officer.
The jurat of The Complaint NE>T "Authenticated" by the "Complainant". Officer
M. A. Khan IS INVALID. Officer M. A. Khan's signature does not appear anyvJhere
on The Complaint. Therefore • The Complaint does not meet the Const·it utional
requisites of a .charging instrument: thus causing it to be ari Invalid Complaint
that did not vest jurisdiction in the 183rd District. Court under Cause #913043.
[Citing of Authorities] Tex App Houston [lst Dist.]. Ho v. State. 856
S.V'I.2d 495, valid complaint is prerequisite to valid information and proper
jurat is essential to valid complaint. Complaint that is not sworn to before
some official or person in authority is insufficient to constitute basis
for valid conviction. Vernbn's Ann .. T.C.C.P.·, Art. 21. 22~
[Fact] Officer M. A. Khan. the "Complainant" did not swear in the jruat
of The Complaint before the Assistant District Attorney whose Texas State
Bar Number is "SBOT# 1827741". therefore The Complaint is INVALID.
[Fact] T. William is not a competent person tb swear to the accusations
alleged in the Affidavit on the face of Agg Robbery Complaint :,~913043, because
T. William is not the "Complainant" nor is T. 1-villiam one of the ten HPD
Officers who conducted the Crime Scene Investigation· under HPD Offense report
#072416202: therefore. the jurat of Complaint ',~913043 was "signed and sworn to"
by an incompetent uncredible person.
- 7 -
[Citing of Authorities] Halbadier v. State. Cr App 1920. 87 Tex Crim 129.
220 s.w. 85. Indictment and Information Key 41(3). Where the Affidavit or
Complaint on which an Information is found signed by an incompetent person.
it is void and the whole proceeding based thereon fails.
[F'act] T. William does not set· forth any source for his belief in the
Affidavit on the face of Agg Robbery Complaint 1}913043. Thus. The Complaint
is insufficient. See i'1adden v. State. App 7th District 1982. 630 S.~·J.2d 380.
Affirmend. 644 S.~v.2d 735.
[Citing of Authorities] Naff v. State. 946 S.'iv.2d 529. Affiant is permit-"
ted to base accusations in Complaint on information derived from police report.
Vernon's Ann •. ·r.c.c.P .. Art. 15.5
[Fact] In· the detail section of· Officer M'. A. Khan's HPD Offense Report
J072416202 ther::e is rio information/accusations· alleging that Jackson used
a ~mife as a deadly weapon to threaten Larry Seitzler and take his property
by force. or while Jackson was stealing Seitzler's property.
There· is no information/accusation alleging that Jackson· (Suspect :il)
had any of Sei:tzler's property in his possession: the .::eason being. Officer
t'l. A. I\han testified under cross-examination by defense attorney Robert Scott,
stating a Crime ·scene Unit· of the HPD was dispatched and that Unit tested
the knife for "prints" but did not find any i:)rints of J·ackson on said knife.
See attached ·~A.P,.p...;;e;.;.;n"d;.;;;i"x'--_ __:t:..::r:..::i:..::a:..::l:.. .·--=T:..:r:..:a:::.n:.:s:..:c:.:r:..:i::..:;p:..:t:...·_.. :P.. .:a:..:g::..:e:.. .:i'.:. ;Jo:.. ·_· :::!q:::!::::q=-
-=· Therefore. the
incompetent T. · William did not derive his information/accusations from HPD
Offense Report 1)072416202. Ther-efore ·the inforl7lation/accusations alleged
in the Affidavit on the face of Agg Robbery Complaint ti913043 are Invalid
Information and a violation of T.C.C.P., Art: 15.5.
[Citing of Authorities] Davis v. State: 503 S.lv.2d 24l[Tex Crim App 1974],
Information based on fatally defective Complaint is Void. Conviction based
- s -
on such information is void. Shackelford v. State. 516 S.W.2d l80(Cr App 1974).
There couid be no void information in the absence of a valid.complaint.
[Issue: Lack of ·Jurisdiction]
[Fact] The Complaint ;f913I43 is an invalid AggRobbery Complaint. because
its jurat is defective as demonstrated 'in all of the above-stated Adjudicated
Facts supported by Appendix Documents· (A). (B). (C). (D) and (E). and each
of the T.C.C.P., Articles listed under each "Citing of Authorities'' above.
Therefore. the invalid agg robbery complaint ;;'913043 did not vest the l83rd
District Trial Court with subject m·atter jurisdiction or jurisdictional
authority over Jackson under Agg Robbery Cause No~ 913043.
[Citing of Authorities] Catching v. State. 288 S.W.2d 233. 162 Tex Crim
342. A valid complaint is a prereCjuisite to a valid information. And without
a complaint. County Cour:t has no jurisdiction.
[Tex Crim App 19S5] Addi:son: v. State. 283 S.vJ~2d 55: A valid complaint
is a prerequisite to a valid information. and without a complaint• County
Court has no jurisdiction.
[Subject] Invalid Aggravated Robbery· Indictment #913043. Invalid In:fonna-
tion. lAdjudicated Facts] See-Appendix Document (F) - Agg Robbet-y Indictment
#913043. On· the· face of Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 tht::? same Invalid
information that is reflected in the Affidavit· of Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint
;F9l3043 is reflected on the face· of the Agg Robbery Indictr:tent :t913043. Both
the Complaint· and the ·Indictment have the same HPD Offense Report Number.
#072416202, same Complaining Witness (Namely, Larry Seitz.ler), same Arrest
Date (May 24. 2002) and same Defendant's name (Samuel Roy 'Jackson DOB 3/5/56).
[Fact] The Invalid Informatl.on alleged on the face of Agg Robbery
Indictment #913043 did not vest the 183rd District Trial Court with any
jurisdiction over Petitioner Jackson. because the information in the charging
- 9 -
paragraph on the· face of Indictment #913043 is Void Information that derived
from Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint #913043.
[Citing of Authorities] State v. Ed\vards. 808 S.I'J.2d 662(Tex AppTyler
1991) Fundamentally Defective Information is Void· does not·effectively invoke
Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and will not support conviction.
[Subject] Void judgment rendered under Agg Robbery rnvalid Indictment
#913043 and its Invalid Information.
[Adjudicated Facts] Petitioner Jackson was convicted for the offense
Aggravated Robbery cause No. 913043. See Appendix· Document (F) - Judgment
on Plea Before Jury Court Sheet or Document 913043. Also See Appendix Attached
\
Document (G) Writ Order· to Sheriff Tommy Thomas. Both Docwnents (F) and
(
Document (G) reflect the fact · that · "I" Applicant Samuel Roy Jac:Kson was
convicted for· the offense Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043. ·
The records and documents filed under Cause No. 913043 reflect the
Invalidity of the Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint #913043 and its Invalid
Information that was set forth in the Charging I Presenting Paragraph on
the face of Aggravated Robbery Indictment #913043. \;;-hich by law• did not
invoke or vest the 183rd District Court.·Presiding Judge. Joan Huffman. with
jurisdiction over Petitioner Jackson. nor was Judge Joan Huffinan vested with
subject matter jurisdictin ·under Invalid. Agg Robbery Complaint f-913043.
because neither Chai·ging Instrument satisfied the Constitutional Requisites
of a charging· instrument ·according to the Constitutional Laws of Texas.
[factual and Legal Argument Claim]
Due to lack of jurisdictional subject matter in the 183r·d ·District Com·t.
the judgment rendered· under Aggg Robbery Cause No~ 913043.·at jury·trial
conducted in the 183rd District Court. is a Void Judgment rendered against
Petitioner Jackson.
- 10 -
[Citing of Authorities]
[TexAppeal Austin 1999] Vacated. 15 S.W.3d 104 Remand 2000. WL 852697.
A judgment is void only i f the Court rendering the judgment has no jurisdiction
over the subject matter. no·personal jurisdiction over a party. ·no jurisdiction
to enter the particular judgment or no capacity to act as Court.
Criminal Law Key 990.1: A judgment of conviction for a crime is void
when ( 1) the document purporting to be chat-g ing instrument, that is Indictment,
Information or Complaint does not satisfy Constitutional requisites of a
charging instrumi2nt (2)· thus· trial court has no jurisdiction over defendant
(3) record reflects that thereis no evidence to support conviction.
[Argument]
Therefore. Petitioner Jackson is unlawfully confined in the custody·
of Rick Thaler in· the TDCJ-CIDunder a· void Judgment Conviction for the offense
Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043 from the l83rd Judicial District Court.
Harris·county. ·Houston. Texas·77002.
[facts] The 183rd Judicial Distdct JudgE!-- Joan Huffman. was not vested
with personal jurisdictional authority· 0ver Petitioner Jackson under Invalid
Information Allegations· asserted in the· charging presenting paragraph on
the face of Agg Robbery Indictment #913043.
GROill\JD 'FOR. RELIEF: ( B}
Unlawful Confinement; Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson is
Unlawfully Confined in the Custody of Director of
TDCJ -CID, Rick Thaler.
[Subject]· Void Court Order: The Court Order issued by Judge Joan Huffman
under Agg Robbery #913043. Void Judgment Conviction rendered by twelve jurors
under Invalid Agg Robbery Indictment Cause No. 913043 ·and its Invalid Informa-
tion is a Vol!d Court Order rendered at an illegal jury trial held in the l83rd
- ll -
Judicial District Court. The record reflects Invalidity of Judge Joan Huffman's
unla\vful assumption of jurisdiction Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043.
[Argument] Judge Joan Huffman was without subject matter jurisdiction
authority to conduct .aJ~P..Y trial in the l83rd District Court of Harris County,
Texas. Judge Joan Huffman was without jurisdictional authority to·conduct
Vori Dire. allowed State's Prosecutor and Defense Attorney. Robert Scott.
to select jurors. to decide whether or not "I" ·-Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson
was innocent or guilty of the offense Agg Robbery under Cause No. 914043.
After Judge Huffman gave the jury the Court·charge without personal·
jurisdictional authority under Inval.id Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 and
and its
--
its Invalid Information that derzwed from Invalid· Agg Robbery Complaint #913043
Invalid Informatin which did not vest the 183rd District Trial Court
with jurisdiction.
,CLAIM: Lack of Jurisdiction Over
Aggravated Robbery Indictment #913043
Information~ ...
[Facts Supporting Claim] ·On· June 18, 2003·, the State reindicted the
Petitioner. Jackson. for the offense Burglary of a 8u'll:9lM1 cJ?Fcl1f.l:.U2; hJ:.i,SA.!r.!?.'J21)
See Appendix Document "marked" (J)_; Burglary· of a Building Docket 'I'ext 095242
1
of the 183rd District Court. Also See AopendiX ·Document "marked" (K) ; l83rd
Writ Order -filed under Burglary of a Building ·cause No.· 0952420, Ordering
Harris County Sherif-f • · Tomniy :Thomas to arrest Jackson and present him before
--~---
_. _ __:_:_~c:_- ·--,-- :::.:... _ _,_·:·J
the 183rd District Court for Reindictment of the offense Burglary of a Building
Cause No. 0952420~
LFacts] Petitioner \vas· reindicted for- the offense Burglary of a Building.
Offense which derived out of the same criminal episode as did the Agg Robbery
offense Cause No. 913043~ Both offenses derived from the HPD Offense Report
- 12 -
Number 072416202. See Documents "marked" (J) and (Kj in the Attached
Appendix.
rrhe Information/Allegations alleging threat \vith a knife with intent
to place Larry· Seitzler in fear of imminent bodily injury and death. was
not the Information/Accusation set forth on the face of the Burglary of a
Building Reindictment
No. 0952420. Therefore. the Trial Court was not vested
\
with jurisdiction over the Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 and its Information
due to the Reindictment of Petition for the offense Burglary of a Building
Cause· No. 0952420. and it.S Information. in which the l83rd ~Judicial District
Court was then· "became vested" with s,ubj'ect inatter jurisdiction over the
Burglary of a Building Cause No. rtilq,Jj23.f.:ltJ
Sx Parte Reedy. 282 S .w. 3d 492. 502 (Tex Crim App 2009) ; me Parte Gibson. ,
800 S.ld. 2d 548. 551 (Tex Crim · · App· 1990) ~--Further. "If the 'instrument comes
from the Grand Jury. purports to charge an offense and is facially an Indict-
ment then it is an indictment ~ .. and its presentation by a State's Attorney
invests the trial court with jurisdiction to hear the case._" Ex ?arte Gibson.
supra. See also.· Teal v. State. 230 S.W.3d 172. 180(Tex Crim App 2007). 'rhe
proper test to determine if a charging instrumel'Jt alleges an offense "is
whether the allegations · in it are clear enough· that one can identify the
offense alleged. If they are. then the indictment is sufficient to confer
subject matter jurisdiction."
Therefore. since the allegations on the face of the Burglary of a Building
Indictment #0952420 are clear enough that one can identify the_offense alleged.
the Burglary of a Building Indictment #0952420 conferred ~ubject matter
jurisdiction in the 183rd District Court for ·the offense Burglary of a Building
but did not confer subject matter jurisdiction for the offense Aggravated
Robbery Cause No. 913043: which is the primary Indictment,Petitionf,,,c· was
- 13 -
taken to trial for in June 2003 which ended in a mistrial on June 13. 2003.
SeE¥ Appendix Document "marked" (13) -- Aggravated Robbery 183td District Court
Docket Text. Five days later on June 18. 2003.the State obtained Burglary
of a Building Indictment #0952420 from the. 248th Grand Jury in the l83rd
District Court~
[FactJ 'rhe 183rd District Court was not vested with jurisdiction or
subject matter jurisdiction over Agg Robbery Indictment #913043 after the State
abandon the Agg Robbery Indictment ;t913043. then reindicted Petitioner with
the Burglary of a Building Indictment #0952420. the act of reindicting Peti-
tioner · transferred the subject matter jurisdiction from the Agg Robbery
Indictment #913043 to the subject matter jurisdiction for the offense Burglary
of a Building. Therefore. ·the judgment rendered against Petitioner for the
offense Agg Robbery Cause No. 913043 is a Void Judgment rendered without
subject matter jurisdiction.
Petitioner was convicted for the offense Agg Robbery Cause No. 913043
on October 28. 2004. On the same date the State Dismissed the Burglary of
a Building Cause No. 0952420. See Appendix Document "marked" (J).
The Court of .Cr'iniinal.ll.ppeals. locat8d_ in.· 7\usti:n .. ·rexas should not delay
in GRAN'l'ING Petitioner 1 s Writ of Habeas Corpus and ORDER Petitioner RELEASED
IMr1EDIATELY from TDCJ -CID Director. Rick Thaler 1 s custody. Article 11) J, I/. i I
LTudge Joan Huffman· aia not rule or give consideration to Petitioner 1 s
Motion For Written Ruling filed January 8. 2004. See Appendix Document
"titled" Motion For Written Ruling.
All of Petitioner Jackson 1 s motions filed in the 183rd Judicial District
Court were essential to ensure his constitutional rights were preserved for
- 14 -
.fa£J~ to assure Petitioner reVl.ew in thelii>fllffa-irl'f,A;If-111f)I'.AUunder a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus when Petitioner has no other adequate remedy at
law to have his claims considered on the merits.
GROUND/CLAIM: (C) ,
U.S.C.A .. Fourteenth Amendment and
State of Texas Fourteenth Amendment
Constitution Due Process Violation
T.C.C.P., Art. 1.04.
T.C.C.P.. Art. 1.04 •. Due Process of Law Statute. No citizen of this
State shall be deprived of his life. liberty. property. privileges or immun-
ities or in any manner disfranchised except by due course of law.
[Argument] Judge Joan Huffman refused to afford "me" Petitioner Jackson
Due Course of Law. when the trial judge refused to rule on the following:
(A) Motion to Set Aside Indictments-- See Appendix Documents marked (~).
Judge Joan Huffman did not conduct a trial on r1otion to Set Aside Indictment.
Articles 27.04• 507. 571, 560. Motion T:tiedby Judge. An issue of fact arising
upon a motion to set aside Indictment or Information .shall be tried by judge.
[Harmfull Error] When Judge Huffman refused to conduct trial on Motion
to Set Aside Indictment. she contributed to Petitioner's conviction because
the State was allowed the second opportunity to convict Petitioner for the
offense Aggravated Robbery whereas Petitioner • in his f1otion to Set Aside
Indictment. issue lS that. the Burglary of a Building Cause No. o:~·Ft'.~l.~as
a "reindictment" from the same criminal episode that the Agg Robbery Indict-
ment i#.9l3043 derived from. That trial ended in a mistrial on June 13, 2003.
See Appendix Document marked (8 ~ .
Double Jeopardy Key of the U.S.C.A .. Amend. Five "prohibited" reindict-
ment after the State announced "ready" and the trial comenced on its merits.
- 15--
FU{ther. had Judge Joan Huffman· complied with Due Course of Law Mandatory
Statute. Art. 27.04. 507. 571, 560. the Trial Court would have more than
likely dismissed ··the Burglary of a Building Indictment #0952420. And the
Trial Court was withotit jurisdicition to conduct the subsequent trial. Judge
Joan Huffman was not the judge who presided over the Aggravated Robbery Trial
that ended in a mistrial onJune 13. 2003. Judge Joe Ann Ottis was the "sit in"
presiding judge.
Petitioner filed his Motion to Set Aside Indictment% on January 8. 2004.
prior to the subsequent trial during which Petitioner ,Jackson was convicted
for the primary offense. Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 9130~3. Further. the
acts of Harmful Error lead to Petit±oner's· conviction and wrongful incarcera-
tion in TDCJ-CID, · \vhere Jackson is ·currently serving time as· an Actual
Innocent person: due to aVoidJudgment rendered during an Illegal Subsequent
Trial conducted in the 183rd Judicia:l District Court after Petitioner Jackson
filed his i'1otion to Set Aside· Indictments.
Motion Key 36, 40. A 'l'rial Court is Required To
Consider And Rule Upon"ivlotion ~ViH1in Reasonable Time.
[Claim] Judge Joan Huffman violated ·u.s.c.A~. Fourteenth Amendment.
Due Course of Law Clause requirement. when the TrialJudgerefused to conduct
trial upon Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus filed June 28, 2004, March 11,
2004. See Appendix Document ( ~) Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043, l83rd
District Court Docket •rext.
Violations And Denial of Due Process
Under the Following 'l'exas Cqde of Criminal Procedure.
Article 11.10 Proceeding Under · t•Jrit: When motion has been made to a
/
judge under circumstances set forth in the two proceeding articles, he shall
appoint a time when he will·examine the cause of the applicant;:. and order
the writ returnable at the time in the county where the·offense is charged
in the indictment or information to have been committed. He shall also specify
- 16 -
some place in the County where he will hear the motion.
[Article 11.49] Order of Argument: The Applicant shall have the right
by himself or counsel to open and conclude the argument upon the trial under
habeas corpus.
·Judge Joan Huffman refused· to comply with ·any of the Due· Course of Law
under Articles 11.10. 11.11. 11~49.· Under vJrit ·of Habeas· •:corpus Due Process
of Law: which is a direct violation of the Texas Constitution Code of Criminal
Procedure Article 1. 04.
Further. Joan Huffman refused torule on-Petitioner's Motion For Discovery
And Inspection · of Evidence filed on January 8, 2004. See Appendix Docllinent.
Motion For Discovery
``````````````````````````~-~
And· Insoection of Evidence. Aggravated Robbery Cause
Number 913043 Docket Text.
Judge Joan Huffman refused to rule on Petitioner Jackson'sMotion To
Dismiss Court Appointed Attorney. ·filed December· 22. 2003. and filed on March
'- - i
20. 2003. See Appendix Document• Motion To Dismiss Court Appointed Attorney.
See also Aggravated Robbery Docket Text #913043.
Judge Joan Huffman denied Petitioner Jackson his-eonstitutional·Rights to
/
'Self-representationwhen she refused to rule on Petitioner's MotionTo Dismiss
Court Appointed Attorney Robert Scott. and refused to allow Petitioner Jackson
request to be allowed to represent himself after the State reindicted Jackson
for the offense Burglary of a Building Cause No. 0952420~
[Citing] Webb v. State [Cr App 1976] 533 S.W.2d 780• Criminal Law Key
641.4(1) Defendant in state criminal ·trial has' a Constitutional Right to
proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.
Evidence: Due Process Vici1ation
[Claim] Due Process Violation: The photographs presented at the subsequent
trial was not gathered by the HPD Officers who arrived at the location 2001
- l7 -
Karbach St., "the Crime Scene :Location of HPD Offense Report #072416202.
Even though a Crime Scene Unit was dispatched according to Officer M. A. Khan's
testimony. See Appendix Document. Trial Transcript ;Page #99.
The Complaining Witness "namely" Larry Seitzler. 'took photographs and
then "someone" from the Harris County District· Attorney's Office_~, ....see. Appendi£
Document• Trial transcript Page Nos. 74, 108. 111.
The concrete block presented by the State was not gathered by the Crime
Scene Unit of the HPD, ·it was brought to trial by the Complaining Witness.
"namely" Larry Seitzler. See Aooendix Document:· Closing Argument by Defense.
Page No. 86.
The Due Process of· evidence gathered byan investigating agency such
as a crime scene police officer. is that the evidence gathering process require
the gathering of evidence. tagging it and placing it in the property ro,om.
The above said photographs and concrete block did not go through this
process. See Aooendix Document: Trial Transcript Page No. ··99.
[Actual Innocence Claim] Petitioner isactually innocent. in that Petition-
er never did use a knife in any manner to threaten Larry- Seitzler with immenent
bodily injury and death. S'ee Appendix Document: Closing Arguments by Defense.
Page No~ 83; Trial· Transcript .·Page No. 10; and Physical Evidence Ben Taub
Medical Records supporting Actual· Innocence Claim. Therefore. Petitioner
Jackson is Actually Innocent of· the Element Threat 1vith a Knife as the State
alleged on· Indictment ~f913043.
Petitioner's finger prints were not found on said knife. which would
(
show the knife in his possession. Petitioner did not attempt to stab Seit:der
or use the knife in any other manner to threaten Larry Seitzler or cause
Seitzler to fear for his life as the State alleged in Agg Robbery Indictment
it913043. Petitioner never said anything to Seitzler. Thus, accordingly,
- 18 -
medical records reflect in a human body diagram that Petitioner was shot
twice. once in the back of his right leg and once in the back of his left
forearm: which proves Seitzler shot Petitioner ·while his back \vas turned
toward Seitzler. and also proves Petitioner was·not facing Seitzler and/or
threatening Seit'zler when Jackson was shoL Therefore.· Seitzler' s accusations
and the State's· accusations alleging "threat of Imminent Bodily Injury and
Death by the use and Exhibiting a Knife as a Deadly Weapon" in indictment
#913043, are no more· ·than · Perjured Accusations ·made by the State and the ·
Complaining Witness "namely" LarrySeitzler made against Petitioner Jackson.
Furthermore. the HPD Crime Scene Unit· tested the knife for finger
prints but did not find Jackson's prints on the knife. See Appendix Document.
Trial Transcriot Page ( )•
The error is the Perjured Accusations madeagainst Jackson in the
presenting paragraph of Aggravated -Robbery Indictment· #913043. which· contribut-
ed to Jackson's conviction for the offense AggRobbery Cause No. 913043.
Also. the error· of the 183rd'District Trial Judge's unlawful assumption of·
jurisdiction under Invalid Agg Robbery Complaint' I·ndictment and Information
contributed to Jackson '-s conviction: because Judge Joan Huffman conducted
an illegal trial without subject matter jurisdiction.
"Harmful Errors"
[Citing] Ex parte William. 65 S·.W.3d 656. 658(Tex Crim·App 2001). An
Applicant must show harm. that is he must prove by a preponderance of· evidence
that the error · contributed to his ·conviction or puni·shment. The error of
Jackson's trial defense attorney's failure to object to ,State·. Prosecutor's
presenting photographs of the crime scene· by the Complaining Witness and
by someone from the Harris County District Attorney's Office contributed
- 19 -
to Petitioner's conviction. •because the photographs were presented as evidence
for the State which had an effect on the jury's verdict. Even the Officer
Mohammed A. Khan testified stating that none of the photographs presented·
by the State were taken by any member of the HPD the nigh~the Crime Scene
Unit was· at the scene of the so call·ed incident where "I" Jackson was shot.
See Appendix Document. Trial transcript Testimony of Officer M. A. Khan
Page No. 108.
In ·order for the jury to find PetitiOner guilty. the jury had to beheve
I
that the photographs presented by the·State were the actual crime scene caused
by Petitioner Jackson's actions. Petitioner Jackson has provided a sufficient
record that supports every allegation asserted within·this. his Petition
For Writ of Habeas Corpus. See Citing: Ex oarte Chandler. 182 S.W.3d 350.
353 Tex Crim App 2005.
Petitioner's jurisdiction defect· claim. void· judgment claim and Const-
itutional rights· violation
I
claim of unlawful confinement along \vith his actual
innocence claim is cognizibil by way of a post-conviction petition for writ
of habeas· corpus which is the only remedy by law to present Petitioner's
above, said claims.
Ex parte Davis. 747 S.W.2d 216. '223(Tex Crim App 1996) Because the Court's
authority to issue a ·writ· of habeas-corpus stem ·from Article 1 and·5, Texas
Constitution which provides that subject·to such regulations as may be pre-
scribed by law· the Court of Criminal Appeals and•the judges thereof shall
have the ·power to issue writ ·of habeas corpus •. Therefore. since Petitioner
Jackson has presented this petition for writ of habeas corpus as a collateral
attack. attacking his void judgment. jurisdiction. ConstitutionalRights
Violations and Actual Innocence Claim. the Court of Criminal Appeals so
consider the factual allegations of· each above said claim. and give a written
\
- 20 -
ruling on the merits of Petitioner's Claims. Tex App Tyler 2001. Where a void
judgment has been rendered and the record. reflects it invalidity. the Trial
. Court has the duty· to Set A:side the judgmen"f even i f the· petition does not
. satisfy all the requisites of a Bill of Review. Thompson v. Ballard. 149 S.W.3d
161.
Statement of the Case
Petitioner h~s no other adequate remedy by law. except by-petitioning
the Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Petitioner's Request
Petitioner · respectfully requests that the Court of Criminal Appeals
examine the State Court records and his Petition·presented that supports
his claims. and should the Court find that Petitioner's claims and factual·
alleg,ations are sufficient·.- to support his eligibility for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus. that the Court of Criminal Appeals GRANT Petitioner's petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. and remand the writ to the 183rd DistrictCourt
of Harris County. Houston. Texas. with an order ORDERING the presiding judge
to VACATE the void judgment and ORDER Petitioner Samuel Roy Jackson RELEASED
IMMEDIATELY from the custody of Warden Jamie Baker and the Director. Rick
Thaler. from the TDCJ-CID Nathaniel J. Neal Unit in Potter County. Amarillo.
Texas. where Petitioner Jackson is currently incarcerated.
Respectfully submitted.
Samuel Roy Jackson
TDCJ -ID# 1268721
Neal Unit
9055 Spur 591
Amarillo. TX 79107-9696
PETITIONER. ProSe.
- 21 -
Declaration of Penalty Under Perjury
I; Samuel Roy Jackson. hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the
allegations and information asserted· with this petition for writ of habeas
corpus are true and correct according to my knowledge.
SIGNED this the ___day of _ _ _ _ _, 2015.
Samuel Roy Jackson
TDCJ-ID# 1268721
PETITIONER /APPLICANT. ProSe.
- 22 -
CEHTIFICA'l'E OF SEH.VICC:
r. StllQUel Roy Jackson.
\
•.roc;a 126B72l. Petition~. hli'ireby ce:ctify that
a true; and corrolct copy o i?&t.it.ione l.!'or Nt·it of H..:abaa.s Co?Cpus ua.;; sex:v·ad
u;;:on the l83l"cl District Court. 1201 Franklin. Harris Counc.y. Houston• 'r.:ixas
77002 on this th<3 l:. J t;e/ dd"·' o:E );,zi/ ' 2015. by ):)lacing 5dmQ in
thG Noal Unit Prison !'icdlbo;~. '-.....
SIGNED this the lf{F hday cf lfra; f , 2o1s.
A:wwrl&-j, dc!Umz
Samuel Roy Juck::n/ .
TOCJ IDit 1268721
PETITIONER / APPLICANT
APPENDIX COVER SHEET
APPENDIX DOCUMENTS OF THE
HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK RECORDS
FILED UNDER AGGRAVATED ROBBERY CAUSE #913043
IN THE 183rd JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
HARRIS COUNTY, HOUSTON, TEXAS
DOCUMENT (A) Aggravated Robbery Complaint Cause #913043
DOCUMENT (B) Harris County Online Public Record
(183rd District Court Agg Robbery Docket Text)
DOCUMENT (C) Ass.istant District Attorney, Brad· Hart's State Subpoena
DOCUMENT (D) Houston Police Report No. 072416202
DOCUMENT (E) 183rdDistrict Court's Report Trial Transcript Page #99
DOCUMENT (F)·Aggravated Robbery Indictment #913043
DOCUMENT (G) Aggravated Robbery #913043 Judgment Plea Before Jury Sheet
DOCUMENT (H) Judge Joan Huffman's Order to Serve·35 Year Sentence Cause #913043
DOCUMENT (I) Judge Joan Huffman's Writ Order to Harris County Sheriff
I
(Sheriff, Tommy Thomas)
DOCUMENT (J) Burglary of a Building #0952420 Docket Text
'-
DOCUMENT (K) Burglary of a Building Writ Order to Sheriff
DOCUMENT (L,) Motion to Set Aside Indictment
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATED DOCUMENTS
DECLARATION OF PENALTY UNDER PERJURY
I. Samuel Roy Jackson. TDCJ# 1268721· hereby certify and declare under
penalty of perjury that the above said documents are authenticated copies
of the Ha~ris County District Clerk's Office of Chris Daniel. filed under
Aggravated Robbery Cause No. 913043. in the 183rd District Court of Harris
County. Houston, Texas.
SIGNED this the £176 day of
Samuel Roy Jfickson
.TDCJ-ID# 1268721
PETITIONER /APPLICANT, ProSe •
. - 24 -
..
{/)
{ESTATE OF TEXAS D.A. LOG NlJMBEH:774777
) . CJJS TRACKING N0.:903303269~ -AOOl
A.MUEL ROY JACKSON SPN: 00386651 BY: TW DA NO: 001827741
ll9 AREBA DOB: BM 03/05/56 AGENCY:HPD
OUSTON, TX DATE PREPARED: 5/24/02 0/R NO: 072416202M
ARREST DATE: 05/24/02
:::IC CODE: 1204 04 RELATED CASES:
:LONY CHARGE: AGGRAVATED ROBBERY
\USE NO: 913043 BAIL: $30,000
\R.RJS COUNTY DISTRICT COURT NO: 18 3 PRIOR CAUSE NO:
~ST SETTING DATE:
THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
fore me, the undersigned Assistant District Attorney of Harris County, Texas. this day appeared the undersigned nffiant, who under oath says
t he has good reason to believe and does believe that in Harris County, Texas, SAMUEL ROY JACKSON, hereafter styled the Defendant,
etofore.on or about MAY 24,2002, did then and there unlawfully while in the course of-committing theft of property owned by LARRY
rTZLER and with intent to obtain·and maintain control of the pro'perty, mtentionally and knowingly threaten and place LARRY SEITZLER in
r of imminent bodily injury and death, and the Defendant did then and there use and exhibit a deadly weapon, to-wit: A KNIFE.
~- :~\·,,
..
\ ..
....
... f~ '"- \.
; .:
.. - :.'·. ···~.
-:- ;·
..... : ·:
--
-'-
<>J
0
:AJNST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.
Sworn to and subscribed before me on May 24, 2002
~ . -
FIANT
'
lti ) t 1} utY¥v'J !56~
L..;;sSIST ANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
~(36~
BARNO.
COMPLAINT
-!
) f x; b ; + (S ) Doc 11 f'1 t AI r
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
...
. On lin~ Pp.blic He cord;;
.
_j
........................................ 44' '..
_- . ·i``
D_is1.ric1
.e
............,...,_.Courrty.Criminal
_ _, _ _.._ _Records
_ __
I Home I !if!!I! I~ I !i@lll!.~l~ lliJn Sear£t! I m'N Sear'c!ll Dl.Jl.Q.!r£tll Ca:11a# Soarch 1 •
,Gase Transactions lQEJOC) ~
___N_a_n-,e-:--·JACKSON, ~iAMUEL R~Y-- --i-~----
Case Number: 09·1304301010 -
Off``~;~,, P.OBBEHY (-/:1_GG RO_~ _ERY ``~_!:Y WPN)
Bond Amount: ,$0 r' - -
Ca ce Statu-· COMPLETE~FINAL DIS OSITION NO AGTIVI1Y
~ . ~.EXPECTED- j -
t'
...fl:~pPSI·r``,-~_: _DiSP_.OSi:D
C;~s1~ -,,..,. ___ ··-· _ J
Ca~;e Comp!P.tion Date: 1'0/28/04 j l/
Last lnstrurn~nt filed: ON APPEAL CCJ: fit.
Court: 183. f'
File Date: 05/24/02 ~
04/17/06
04/17/06
APPEAL
APPEAL
MANDA-TE A;FI
OPINION FILE -
~CE SNU:
SNU:
987
988
l
•
- 08/01/05 APPEAL DIS ArTY - CH CKED IN RECO SNU: 989
, 08/01/05 APPEAL STATES BRIEF SNU: 990
. 07/11/05 APPEAL RECORD CHECK·D OUT - D.A.: SNU: 991
07/08/05 APPEAL DEF ArTY - C CKED IN RECO SNU: 992
03/24/05 APPEAL RECORD CltECK - DEFE~ .... SNU: 993
03/09/05 APPEAL STATE~ENT OF SNU: 994
02/15/05 APPEAL MAILED TO FI A SNU: 995
11/01/04 APPEAL FIRST COURT F APPEALS - C SNU: 996
10/28/04 APPEAL PAUPERS AFFI VITT SNU: 997
10/28/04 APPEAL SENTENCE IMP SED SNU: 998
10/28/04 APPEAL NOTICE OF AP SNU: 999
02/25/05 APPEAL ·NEXT- TRANS IT TRANSCRIPT DUE
.05/2~/0:! CC:·1?~ ..'\I~JT r:``S~ .... , ?.,. ., 10 3 ?lr"r'" !t::'(YDP~':::-~ l"''r."7\r.'T v ~a:P!·: I,E·\!81.~ Fl
~;~;:``~ ``~-~E``~ .'B~ · ``````~ND;,~ t:::··~[:~:``rA SNU: 999
OFF~SE
05/?ll/02
05/24/,02
06/11/03
O?.I: 'H0UST0N POLICE DEPJI-.P.
)~:OMP_~It-!_11\~U'-
ATTI -'t . f
KH[\N, ~-~ \
TIME 1123I AM UNT .
NO: 0724li620: ":c. -· /, ':'c`` 3 .
~--~ ~--- 63P.utv
tf found m your county, to apllC8J~to.re the Honorable Joan Huffman, Dtstnct Court No 183rd, Hams County, Texas, on October 25,
2004 at 8 45 a m , to g~ve e
0
m behalf of the State and Defendant m the above styled cause wherem the State of Texas IS the
Plambff and Samuel Roy , 1S the Defendant, and to remam there from day to day, term to term unbl discharged by the Court The
tesbmony of satd wttness( beheved to be matenal to the State
Asststant Dtstnct Attorney
Hams County, Texas
Sworn to and subscnbed before me, th1s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ day o f - ' - - - - - - - - A D 2003
CHARLES BACARISSE
DISTRICT CLERK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS BY - - - - - - - - - - - D e p u t y
.... , , , ... , , , , .. • ••, , "• o o r roo o "rl" J II It Jl t Itt I I 11 t r I I t rJ fl IIJI It
PUBLIC RELEASE INFORMATION
`` J f If I f .. .1 I I I I I I II I f I fI If f If II II I IJ I f I I I I JI I I f f f I I I I I I I I I f I II I : I I fI I JI I f If I I I I I If I II II If I I I fI I I I I tI I I fI I f f 1 I I I f I f I II I I
HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT FRONT PAGE
OFFENSE REPORT Incident no. 072416202 M
fl J1 t t I I f I t ff U f I I ff ff I tr ff ff f It I f tl If fl If ff I U U U 11 f I I rr I f 1 I fl f It I f If I I I I f ft f ft U rr I II If ff I I rr I I II I t I I f U tr II fl II
ffense- AGG.ROBBERY D/W
remises- COMMERCIAL BUILDING Weather- CLOUDY
ocation: Street no- 002001 Name- KARBACH
Type- Suffi~- Apt no- S
City-HOUSTON County-HARRIS Kmap-451V Dist- 3 Beat- 3810
ighborhood code-00253 Desc-FAIRWAY PARK,HEMPSTEAD GARDENS;DEAUVILLE PLAZA
!gin date- FR 05/24/02 Time- 0004 End date- I I Time-
;eived/Employee: Name-LAPTOP No.- Date-05/24/02 Time-0636
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPLAINANT($)
01 Business name-REALTY
Address-2001 KARBACH #S;HOUSTON,TX 77092
Phone: Home-(000) 000-0000 Business-(713) 476-9302 Ext-
02 Name: Last-SEITZLER First-LARRY Middle~WAYNE
Race-W Sex-M Age-51 Hispanic-N
Address-2001 KARBACH #S;HOUSTON,TX 77092
Phone: Home-(713) 476-9302 Business~(OOO) 000-0000 Ext-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------·
ARTICLES
01 Disposition-DAMAGED Property tag no-0-0000-00 Complainant no-01
Item type-DOOR UCR class-00
Serial number- Value-$ 500.00
~ription-THE FRONT GLASS DOOR WAS BROKEN BY A SMASHING OBJECT. THE GLASS ON
DOOR WAS SMASHED.
NCIC mise-GLASS/ NCIC case-
02 Disposition-DAMAGED Property tag -no-0-0000-00 Complainant no-01
Item type-COMPUTER UCR class-00
Brand-COMPAQ Model-5000 A*
Serial number- Value-$ 1200.00
..,.._.. ....... ......,..._.,.,.'- .,...,_ . . . . . . . ,_ .. .._ ...... _...,._ ... _.._.._.._.,,_.._. ,.,..._..._....., ... ,.._ "'"'''-"._, .... LJ..1Ul..J
1 rt rr t 1 t 1 I I t ff rr I I I H II J fJ rf fl I U J I rr fl ff fl II f II If U ff J f I II I I I I If I If I f If I f J •I I U I tr 'II n t rr U ff f I ff t J If f f I t I It ff II n ff
~----~-------------------------------------------------------------------------
DETAILS OF OFFENSE
try-DOOR-GLASS BREAK
it~SAME AS ENTRY Instrument used-SMASHING OBJECT
:.o ..
~PLAINANT #01 IS A BUSINESS. COMPLAINANT #02 LIVES AT THE LOCATION OF
'1PLAINANT #01. SUSPECT #Oi BURGLARIZED COMPLAINANT #01 WHILE COMPLAINANT #02
3 THERE. COMPLAINANT #02 SHOT SUSPECT. SUSPECT #01 AND #02 FLED THE SCENE.
) SUSPECTS / BOTH SUSPECTS ARRESTED. EVIDENCE WAS TAGGED. NO WITNESSES.
'icerl: Name-ZA BROWN Employee no- Shift-3
'icer2: Name-MA KHAN Employee no- Shift-3
·ision/Station #-NORTH/STA 1 Unit #-3Bl5N
1 received: Date-05/24/02 Time-0007 Report accepted: Date-05/24/02 Time-0647
"
Ex; bi .t P0 c "' rvJ t "' r (It)
case 4:08-cv-00443 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 22 of 27
99
1 do . with it?
2 A. ~ollect it, place it, check it for fingerprints,
:~..:.;.
3 see if there's any type of print on it, and if there's not we
4 usually take it to the evidence, the property room, and tag it
5 with a case number.
6 Q. Is that what you did in this case as far as taking
7 it, tagging it, and putting it in the property room?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And you're not a fingerprint person are you, I ~ean,
10 a person who takes f1ngerprints?
11 A. No, sir.
12 Q. S0·'"YOU'di'dn'·tdo·that·with···this Stat·e'sNo. 11, you.
14
15
"'
A.
Q. Dtdc'' ·y:dt2:·.· N~·que s:t. :,t'h·a·t···t:re•;. tJ·on-eq
... •
-=---~+A-~---t.r----'V.,r't:~..,,~.;'it';:>:~·
. ·1~ M..
.:s··~''1Tr-.--------------------~-------
17 Q. To~"'o/0tfr'''i"t'hat·':done?,
18 A. A·~ tfn9;1:''was:•:;•d,i;sp a:t:ch ed~;., ana· ·that tin; ·t · feu•n:d- : nG> 'p·f·;i:ih\ts
- • \ t
20 Q. Now, we've talked abo~t the Complainant taking you
21 inside showing you whdt happened, you recovered the weapon.
22 What db you do then? What happens then?
23 A. Usually we gather all the things that we're going to
24 take to the property room and get the statement and, you know,
•
25 we doh't find any suspect then we just basically start the
MATTIE KIMBLE, CSR, RPR
...... . ,~-.. --..
J ~ .,r
·. /·
THE STATE OF TEXAS D.A. LOG NUMBER:774777
vs. CJIS T~CKJNG N0.:9033032694-A001
SAMUEL ROY JACKSO~/)~o
3119 AREBA
HOUSTON, TX
NCICCODE: 1204 04
t:-v
GJ
rd ·
SPN: 00386651
DOB: BM 03 OS 56
DATE PREPARED: 7/24/02
RELATED CASES:
BY: mkb DA NO: 1827741
. AGENCY :HPD
0/R NO: 72416202-M
ARREST DATE: 05 24 02 •
FELONY CHARGE: AGGRAVATED ROBBERY I!<{)
BAIL:~.,
&&7"d?oJ ~). -Urglary of a habitation and was finally convicted of that offense on June 29,2000, in Cause No. 819158, in the 174th District Court of Harris
•
:ounty, Texas.
GAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.
~
)
INDICTMENT
FOREMAN OF THE GRAND JURY
•
roDGMENT ON PLEA BEFORE JURY
e... ,,
.. ! .
. .,.
COURT/JURY ASSESSING PUNISH.MENT
CAUSE NO. q l ~0 L{ :3
TilE STATE OF TEXAS DIS1RICf COURT
vs.
91ooy~J_£ft) CJa.Cks~
COUN'JY CRIMINAL COURT
AT LAW NO._ _"-
AKA______________________________
OF HARR:l$.£QUNTY, TEXAS
`` · ...
Dateof (O-Z~-o4 -``Da·te of <5-d-L{- Q :J_
Jud nt: ffense:
Attorney for Q 1 1 , ,_1_ ~
State: .Qt1C\
.L:I ~
Jury Verdict: GUILTY
~ Affirmative Findin
,Deadly
w
``iv·
. . ,r·s nla
Fmc 1n the Amount o : _ _....:.l_ _ __ 0 FineOnly
Time: '::]' 0 Q days toward days toward incarccntion,
Credited: 0 0 D incarcerati rine and costs fine and costs COURT COSTS: S
[] Nrunech~g~from````--------------------------------------------------------
[] Judgment Addendum incorporat~ herein by reference.
0 Driver's license is suspended for a period of _ _ _ _ _ _ _d.ays/months/years.
0 The Defendant is entitled t o - - - - - - days credit toward suspension of driver's license.
0 It is order~ by the Court, that any weapon(s) seized in this ease is/are hereby forfeited.
0 Educational program waived in accordance with Article 42. 12 Sec. 13 (h), upon a finding of good cause by the Court
0 ln accordance with Section I 2.44(a), Penal Laws ofTexas, the Court finds that the ends of justice would beSt be serv~ by pimishment
as a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant is adjudged to be guilty of a state jail felony and is assessed the punishment indicat~ above.
0 In accordance with Section 12.44(b), Penal Laws ofTexas, the Coun authorizes the prosecuting attorney to prosecute this cause as a
Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant is adjudged to be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor ~d is assessed the punishment indicated above.
CRIMCSCB32 0312212000 RECORDER'S MEMORANDUM 1
This instrument is of poor quality
at the time of imaging _____ _....
--- - - · -
fx;J;;+ Dc'ci/f~l'Nr(ll)
.~ ;. . C10~?JrJ['j;Cftf ./f/l ,~ CTctcfcc§(W"" .n'J -~
l~d~ndam
•
Th1s cause being called for trial in Harris County, Texas, unless otherwise refen:nced, the State appeared by her District Attorney as nanid
named above appeared in person with Counsel as_ named above; or the Defendant knowingly, intelligently, ancfvoluntarily waived the right to representation by counsel as
indicaled above in writing in open COurt, and the said Defendant having been duly arraigned and it appearing to the Coun that Defendant was mentally compet.c:nt and having
pleaded as sho'NTI above to the charging instrument, both parties announced Tcady. for trial and thereupon a jury, to-wit, the above named foreperson and eleven others for a
felony offense indicated above or the above named foreperson and five otherS for a misdemeanOr offense indicated above, was duly selected, impaneled, and sworn, the jury
having heard the charging instrument·read and the Defendant's plea thereto and having heard the evidence submitted and having bcc:n duly charged by the Coun. retired in
charge of the proper officer ID consider the verdict, and afterward )YFTe brought into Coun by the proper officer, the Defendant and the defendant's counsel, if any, being
present. :ind returned into open court the venlict set forth above, which was received by the Court and is here now entered upon the minuteS of the Coun as shown above.
- 1N: Defendant having previously elecled, in writing and at the time of his plea, to have punishmenl assessed as indicated above. And when Defendant is shown above
;to haV~; ~iected 10 have the jury assess punishment, such jury was called back into the ~ and hCard evidence relative..!0 the question of punishment and having bcc:n duly
charged by ~ C(!Urt; they retired to consider such question and after having delibeDICd they returned into Court the verdict shown Wlder punishrilcnt above'; and when
Defc:ndanl is shown -above to have elecled to have punishmenl fixed by the Cl;>urt, in due form of Jaw further evidence was heard by the Court relative to the question of
,punishmenl and the Court fixed punishment of the Defendant as shown above. . "0..0'=::, .
IT IS CONSIDERED, ORDERED, AND ADJUDGED by the Coun. in the presence of the Defendant, that the said jud~"be and the same is hereby in all things
approved and confirmed;· and !hal the Defendant is adjudged gtiilty of the offense set forth above as found by the verdict of`` and said Defendant as indicated above.
Further. the Court finds the Presentence Inv_estigation, if so ordaed, was done according to the applieablc provisions of Ait. 4il= ..
BY 'GS:~ ... 16 c .....J . QO``ADGE NO.
) CHARG~
CAUSENO. ~
fJ3_
THE STATE OF TEXAS DISTRICT COURT
``~ooumv,TEXAS ~
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: (check one)
0 (name), the DEFENDANT m the above styled and
numbered cause respectfully pet1bons the Court to appomt counsel to represent h1m I her m th1s cause and would
show the Court .that he I she IS fmclllc1ally unable to h1~ attorney C~
``
0 (name), a WITNESS m the above styled and
numbered cause respectfully petitions the Court to appomt counsel to represent h1m I her m the mtercsts of
JUStice and wouJd show the Court that he I she 1s fmanc1ally unable to h1re an attorney
W1tness
Sworn to and subscribed before me on thJS, the _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ __,200_.
````~D ~ ~*
"£ c``c:L o~ .
0\ . \\\\l
D;utYi)trlct Clerk
Harris County, Texas
rf'~
y
\a~ ~
lU\.. n'l'J· -teY.ot} ER APPOINTING COU~L
~· C()\J -:1iil!l ~
~'I on/~ d: ``e Court determined that the
0 •
is, the LQ.:_ day
above named defendant I witness ``davit s~g
o,._\9
that he I she ts without counsel and ts
fhiandally unable to hire an attorney. The Court ORDE~at the attorney listed below Is appointed to
represent the defendant I wl~ = : 7 v e In th~ · .
~0~
Attorney ~
s-tf()i ~ ((_'§>-
...Z4
City .
??W'l,State (3) Zip E-Mail Address
l/17ftPiz.lol ol``
Bar Card!SPN Number
I ?1?91 /I-
Phone Number
P1~12-k"l
~
$1/ I
DISTRICT CLERK
. I . .
QJ. rk llAE NIJ ekmriiiU rkr CA/_rr/~7/;Ej' ric:- umaztd:r/t,,y.
() f 1 Th afi~111E !
ESOOSS
A
-..- esc so
e e
. (iu;.rE
. ..
J:, ri',e- I~J/lcl _.;;;;//{-~I Ll/saicr Cvnr
!lA 19,t /.s r; ?' 7
N 7$ ;< /1 J
..
t)./11/J;;;;?E ltJENO IJI/Ir/r Jy //Nf ~,m; t?ll wNAJes Jt;
irlr /llie~ E'rl ol.f!E.t~JEj ; # · rir A.f..5E.f.f;``~ t?fl(::J,e .
17
i M'it) /,..t ri~ A'#/JtVkfr :I de /J/Sr ,dCr (177D;M£1
;"tt /IN'/; /1'/E'AIO; li~rlo't ~tvr-"/fN.e.mr.vr-/ly,r.w~
;wiE,-J/rR .5VCh -f"Vff/JJ.e'N/f Wr.R``/'1/rd t'P£ ?J;P#/
l ttJ)/t-) m/y)r /)irrl?E~Q 7P .r/~,/E/l 4E
J.r /iNtj
;yv//r P,l £#NPC.e',VCE t?j/ dil~/,..c;./V~NT. C?A' /_/E
.; 'hlllfj,rn;,;'; 1':11 AA/y .fpc`` ,#£fEr/# /~5 ?5c.
I o~
i ~.
; .4~tNrEd Q~ iJefl//Ec/
i . . . ~ ~ -
r;:; Jl``r ~J'c/./:f";rpi!J/k· 7/i"gA~ ~y .4lV E;;£rr-,.vEnr
()fll"r?cr~ '..> O,f_ /Z-9r~1. £"5 ?Jil rk _s;.rNr tljJ 7/r G//.ve-
4
:IVtJI /J?/Ic/r A V/il1t? 'Jr /0 /.fe- JJ.ehN/#.,r!Tj ?4r ;5 ·
: ()/1°/'A 1°.-f/ rj, >p...frcvT'C)A!f /aJ_5p_>/(::; ~/ t?#cl /IN~ /Ill
;E,xcu/);Art;.RY ~vld.r»rE tJA ZlhRm/Jr/·~A~ /'d //;vtP.R
!tJf/ rhr c/i:Jfo`` .k..vorE/o/l&-'.f
;/
; 1.:1M'``~
~ . j)EN/~j '
·: . ~ - . ---
q) ri;J !/A~E..f-r
MA'~/IA/T tJ I) !)~;:;.~.~cl,t;.vr ,_9qr/ IIJitj
· :AFht4vl'O Jv;;,J?PAr/~9 r;{~ ~/67 lf//l..t>,(J;Ihvr
;c~A N't'?cl /)4"/1/./~?"d
. . .
@ .,-je _tJe-hAI~E f&fv6r r~r "_5r.l'£,vr~l/';c ?Zrr
~;~£' .CP#cfrc/Er~ /dA' j}, (~
OJ rk 1?-k-#~ . .~r C/-1#1'1()/ ,f/IN); ftJ ro n//1/
w/l'i ot/r .f/1/'?1 J#~£m/JT/~-¥ ~uri Lt.fj/Ftr/C::, A/ c ~A/
;ir- h-///vdA~Vr h~ /A11.E r-k ~1.:--/-f-v_;.r ro r.l~
(~,ff.EJ Af19t~J/ ``~--.
..
__ ,;..
·~ r£-:s. /5 7P G~r/' h; /k r A ~tiC: ,QiftCI G.RRrcr ~f
; t>!l y-j~ ~&ftJ/~9 fNJ'UtJ/ne.N/ ?1/..t.r tk~vv``e-/ TE
; Jb.s/:S-t/l,.;r IJ/:srt€/'rr /!7/CJ~#elj 6P"/ /J?J 1-&``~D..r
.c()//rr 7/.Y /IJ 1-11- ~()() tJ .
f/lyl! 'I
c. •• '1
/:I'
ff
JJl
.
iJEh>/~#~ /~ --vtJ7 ~a- 7ii C:d.,e/<" -tv>~
h/1/r/ ?~,E /,(3- ?Ati.J/ /~ 4-/i"MJE GP~£/,
.. c
r£ c~v/r/ 5~v/cl /l/t6tcJ d ,ar/?~.t/r­
rk /l!jk 7P k/.-?f-->/~ .hf,..,se-# _z;;;, ~
;~;)t;,/E _s~;~r/ Cv~. ·
G~-aJ·l taken that night then? -
5 ~- N,o . , .sir.
6 Q. Which ones were taken that n;i·ght? By the way, the
7 ph'Ot@:!)j•rr:<:fphs 't1 ~at we'.re talk-'i'litg~··ahout tal\·i·l\\9• that :r:tight, y\eU
8 took· tho·se. yotrrs·e->J•f?
•'
10 Q.
•• 13
14
15 an·g 6>
. {jl.
Q.
R~tr.~ifi$' ·.'
Al~ ··r~·ght.
·Are t·Mo·se· t~e:
·I 've··got ·thr-ee· . .·photog•r:·a'!l>hs... her,:-.e, 9, · 10
o.nes.:·. t:hat.:y.o·u took?
:
•
--``:.._.;..----={A.~·=-)_......:Y-=-·e;s_,
·16 i·~··.-~s·:t:'r'f ··t'he ' ---~a·re .
17 Q. Are.: those the orll y ones ·.YOV- -too-k?
18 , .....·
..
19 Q. Do·:•y·ou"-"know,·•wher:-e-. they a.r:-e?
20 {£7 ·N;e,;,~5]:: ·don-' t .
21
. . I '
22 w~u·l·d:,.'have:<.beem·'··one·s, t'hat· .. ·were·taken-by't:h~;·'-Df.str+ct· Attdr·Aey'_s
\
23 Office or,·some·one: else · bthe·r tha_n,,.your.-.s~lf \- corret:t?
24 A. ·'fhat'•·:s;c"true''t'--s'i r·.
- 25 e·;'·Y·e·a·:-·-i<'now·~wh:en··i·t'i'l'ti"''take•.··any.
!l;~i,Qlh t•1',<:.,o'O.:ft;fie:e
A.
r i•·•
p.i ctur!es';·. Of• ''i:he·;··soe:A'e"··out ·t·her,e".,~that
Or< •:t1hat ·, ·ea:rlo/' ·me'f',fl:i'n'g?
.r- eH·d- not. ~take•. an.y · p:ci.c"tu.rr-e.s.
•
16 Q. WeJ:;•e·•you ..pr.e-sent whe·f'l"··any- crime s>C:,ene-un•it or anyeme
1 7 els.e' w4 th the ... Heu:s•ton · Po·l i ce'"'flepartment·· came····and-·c't:0ok
18 phpt·og:vaph·s•-:oou:t.-tJ~e:r;e?
19 A. Cr:j!me.- s.ce,ne, umt·t :wa•s· not •<:l+spat;ch.ed, .o.u.t.._tll.are.
20 Q. So there· were no~ phot•ogrvapns.·tak-en•b.y :-any.me.mber:;::;;.,_QJ
21 t t:\~ -"Hsus4~·BH•>P:GJ;j,;ceo. O.epa.r4:illen t ·.. j n .ry.e:J~a1t.i,Q11.1~:o :'titJ~··rfi~f)v-e;s~t'<;\:t§'a-;t;·"h.:m
22 o;f;'~t1hi;s~.·"(:J•rr~·me'-; ·. ;i\s ·'.t;Jctaffi~.,QQCf',~.c;t.; :i,:-S~JtJt?
23 A. Np,fl:;.'~:;a;;t-;;·,·tne' ·'p·o'i"n:t, '·~tbat ";!I -was'"1t.h eP.e .
24 Q. J:f..'' i't-:-~happ.ened··, i t·~' ha ppe ne.d::·s,cme :ecMi!e,n·,,_"t:i.,me./" .. cor;o;r,e·ct?
25 A. rH;a;tyt~s-¢'co::rf:e:et .
MATTIE KIMBLE, ·cSR, RPR •
Ca.~e 4:08-cv-00~43 Document 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 26 of 27 "f'if 1
1
2
3
A.
Q.
A.
We determined one hit the back of the trunk.
That's in the car, yes, sir?
And·th'en the other twowent into him.
•
4 Q. Into him referring to the person he shot, right?
5 A. Yes;1 exactly.
6 a. So,~. i f there's exit wounds in him, were you able to-
7 find that bullet once it exited him?
8 ..
MR. HART: Calls for speculation as to whether
9 there were ex.~ t wound-s.
10 TH~_ COURT: ·sustained.
11 Q. (BY MR. SCOTT) Were you able to find any bullets,
12 projectiles o'r otherwise, at the scene of this shooting?
No.~ ..
•
13 A.
'
14 Q. Did you talk to the man out there as to the location
15 that he was iri during the shooting as well as where he says the
..
..
'
-1_6 suspect was cfuri ng the shooting? Did he 1 ay all that out for
17 you during th~ in~estigation?
:.·
18 A. Yes.\ sir.
19
20 ·t,~"e1"e~,'e~S"..,i·l€f:e``~tit4ire\~:k'fl~i<.:1t-ef.;'-"'·Stat:e``s"'-~E.Xtim~t!J'.1~*'~N6"·~\h:1'1-::;\``··se"t~i$lgrt';t;Aie¥:ce'?--
·-
21
22 a. W``F·€"~h e• ·· poq;ctfu.r.e:s . !EPARTMENT: BTGH EMERGENCY CENTER RADIOLOGY
:PT- CODE: 73550 .
:xam(s): BEC 0070- FEMUR 2 VIEWS -RIGHT
May 24 2002 2:45AM (End Tracking Time)
2 VIEW RIGHT FEMUR: 5/24/02.
~OMPARISON: None.
:LINICAL INDICATIONS: GS\V
· _rRESSION: No evidence of acute fracture.
ISCUSSION: The hip joint appears normal.
.VSMK./oa
he staff physician below has personally reviewed this exam on the date of dictation.
:PORTED BY: SALAMAAN AHMED, M.D. READING DATE: May 24 2002 11 :OOA
AFFED BY: SHIR.ISH KOTHARI M.D. SIGNED DATE:
lOVED BY: SHIR.ISH KOTHARI, M.D. SIGNED DATE: May 28 2002 8:19A
nscribed by I Date: OAJ on May 27 2002 9:26A
:>roved Electronically by I Date: May 28 2002 8: 19A
Radiology Services Consultation
Page 1
•·
~
•·9 A:! -()ry
~·O~at~e.``~==~======``------·--·- ···- -···--------------,r-------------·----·---. -·-·-----··
Tim_e--1-_P_ro..,ce_d_u_re----1---------0_u_tc_o_m_e____________T_ime Procedure Outcome
ABO/ ED BBS
----- -----·--------
End Tidal C0 2
KUB Size: CXR Position Taped @ __
---1----t---------------·---·-·- ----··---·-·--
EKG
Aortogram
12 Lead
! - - - tBackb·oard
----j----------------f---+----+------------·--------
Foley
Removed
Central IVP I
Line Cystogram
NGT/
Chest Tube
C-Spines
0 Abdomen 0 Head 0 Pelvic Splint I
CT
0 Other. Traction
Thora-
cotomy
Ventricu-
lostomy
Other
>isposition Time:
•- -4- 3 rrati~t~ 13 8 . 21 tf !$esident (Signature & 10#)
Att~ndi~g (Signature & 10#)
JOvct:``v````~\rt,_
- t~ S u .) / 0 :> I ~· b
rris County Hospital District
XV Ben Taub General Hospital
Emergency Services
-PHYSICIAN ASSESSMENT SHOCK ROOM NOTE
Distribution: White- Medi.cal Record Yellow- Trauma Services
.
.. HEAO and S-t.CE
Head: B"Norm 0 Hematoma/Swelling 0Delormily []Laceration []Abrasion 0 Conllrsion 0+LOC
'
DAmnesia (event retrograrJ~)
(event retrograde)
Descri -``~r~-------------------------------------------------------------------
es: . orm tXfERL . 0 Hematoma/Swelling 0Laceralion 0Abrasion 0 Racoon Sign/Baltle Sign
Gaze: cJ:H 35
NONE 1 ..< 10 1
ETOH 0 0
ORIENTED COOS & BABBLES lA/
CONFUSED IRRITABLE CRY 1--4 B.SYSTOE£1
IVOA VERBAL INAPPROPRIATE CRIES TO PAIN 3 >90
70-89 .
INCOMPREHENSIBLE MOANS TO PAIN 2 60-63 2
PMHx: NONE NONE 1 <50 1
OBEYS COMMANDS SPONT MOVEMENTS 6 ~ 0 0
LOCALIZES WITHDRAWS TO TOUCH 5
C.CONVER~G
MOTOR WITHDRAWS WITHDRAWS TO PAIN 4 13-15
Curren! Meds: FLEXION FLEXION 3 9·12 .
f EXTENSION EXTENSION 2 6-8 2
4--5 1
NONE NONE 1 3.() 0
Pup•ls: .1 Hour after admiSSIOn
.aceration 8 Bum 0 REACT 0 SLUGGISH 0 UNREACTIVE
R: s;ze: - - - - - - -
Contusion 9 Avulsion L: s;ze: - - - - - - - - - 0 REACT 0 SLUGGISH 0 UNREACTIVE
Hematoma 10 Amputation
Fracture 3 5 6 7 6 9 REVISED TRAUM,O. SCORE
Abrasion 11
~d!'!···
A+B+C= /}/
Deformity 12 Dislocation
Puncture 13 Eviseration Pupil
GSW 14 Pain
j.._)0J
lniti~lc:
:CONDARY ~IIRVFY
-- ----·---·------.--
~anus /7
Toxoid:
~ cc
,..-----·
Site
f_IJc( :j Pedi: ValtJables:
Curren! IM Weight: i_lo. ~-·· 0 Family 0 C.!Pthing Clery
t 11: U o_f- z. I/rA Time: (!F'ZetD . lmmuniza7 de with Patient fl~ VI_. '.;" c· I
Jt:,...c.``
Compa ny:-fft.r
ru..-;~4~
Exp. Date:{{;ji(;/;J v
/
' 0 Other (explain)
&·<)A lvj,I cI -/d l!
By: 7 ,._ -_,_
Allergies: j(/j/L[/f1
Time IV Fluids and Medicalions .,!ntake Output Pulse 8/P Resp. Temp. 0 7 SAL GCS RTS
(' 2.-le !& I ~ f• {__ ,(/t }/~
~
v c.;v
'
I j@--y,r> /(p
{,:_.,
11d 7:£?:11 /r;-· vz.· ..
( 1 )/).(_{ Cjj 170/r.
6/.Ai D --/v· !(,. _r/;1)) {c,
b`` ~
71 ~79tf/rt_ (~o_
b?A /) [1~,10? /(
b 2-·4 IG 5.rk ;vr-./.h I
t(_
~ 21flv . Cib. ff1[jf_ ·'
``
..
. .. -
TOTAL
Time Assessment I Intervention
/
>l.j u. 11 . f} 10 18 rJ Affr ; ll-Fll A-;.:; d, g J!I~ &tn_ OtL/h h tfJJ:Ik-~
tfG
t!!D'ffl //r1 u(/w ~ ;#!,~ ~-,/ 3.!/o 6. #llii-4 · ;:c/# . ..,. /
. ~}r.U if/('- 1-t/ft?,X' 4L r/ ~ b//(/~/?4 ~-·&'·:? IS/d. rfr-£v'A-..
·wrV.
<
~tL/VI /~A/ . d) tAU~ ~//,./ (?).fZ1:d~.n r~
rtJ~7 71) Ju-4 ~AJ/1 ~- ``/0/r ..-/l--('
....__
-/ ~·
7/ /
.
-·
-
I
.·
,.
sposition Time: 7) /(_d7/ .' ~ing 0 OR/PACU 0 Special ProcefU re OiCU OMorgue
- IPhysi¢~
mf~_/
•rse·s Signature & 1011
///)
..
.. Case 4:08-cv-00443 Docur ,ent 2-1 Filed in TXSD on 02/04/08 Page 18 of 27
rniriaiAssessment ...... ~ HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICJ;- MA SA
Oate t;"-,k(~i.';tnmeOr .) ~ PM AM Chief Complain!: b.SW (e.:; p_,.....,....._-r-,( J.:_, f4 M6 SB
NEUROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Time Temp P R 8/P NURSING OBSERVATIONS/INTERVENTIONS
2 3 4 s 6 1 e g
PuoU
00
•• I
I ~
Size
··--··
I Reaction
I 1!----_
Pupd ReaC1ion:
Level on Consciousness:
-.-.-7raie"-~ 2'13rowsy
LPupil J
OS
R . Aeaclive
Si~e
l '?::, l
I
"~
Roacrlon
N - Non-Reactive
INTEGUMENTARY
Color: Skin:
_Restlessness _ Lolllargic f::_Normal ewarm
_Unconscious _Pale ~
t--nenta-.
0
- -
11
on-,------; _Flushed _Diaphoretic
_CyanoNc _Cool
~ ?.'f'lace ...!:l>erson _Jaundiced _Clammy
RESPIRATORY
~Unlabored _,.,bored
Be•t Motor.
~s Co.RY -
_________ _____
!\udit CC'ov
.
··f. I
~-·- =: -=:-:- =-:-':-0: :-at-':e:-:\::!:::::J'----:-4--{t._()_l/r
___im__e~:-.:tf)l()_ ____
Estimated Tim~-~1lL~_!:x~{_c:l.-D ~ateg``-")a:::L. o ~---··---
~---·MOTOR VEHICLE T _ Circle the direction of impact and patient position I
0 MVA Seat Belt 0 Steering Whe_eJ Damage in vehicle. f I
g``~Ped 0
````~;eat ``0::~-windshield '-.. [ ~
0 Bicycle
Type of Veh_~ I ~ . . I0 ``bulalory
0
Speed of Crash:
MPH
at Scene
Fatalities al Scene:
X
Distance Ejected:
Ft.
I -
,X..
F ~0
t
FALUJUMP TRAUMA ~ ASSAULT ...-/·
Approxima~ Height: .-------rt. Used:=-~--=--·--------------
Weapon
Landed on Surface Type: Coinll}~
PENE~TING THERMAL 0 Flame 0 Chemical 0 Electrical
~SW SGW OSW 0 0 IMPALEMENT 0 #WOUNDS__ 0 Exposure 0 P~tentiallnhalati.~
Feet from Gun: _ _ __
Weapon/Description: .c=· Description: -~,.,.....o::._ ________________
Self Inflicted? 0 Yes J:;i?o' 0 Enclo~ce Length of Exposure:
OTHER
Describe:
PREHOSPITAL TRANSPORT
0 02 0 Oral Airway 0 ET# 0 EOA 0 BVM --B-e:c01far ~kboard 0 Other 0 Splint----
0 Pressure Dressing . 0 MEDS 0 IVs Initiated 0 Estimated Blcodloss: cc
AIRWAY ~nt 0 Partially Obstructed 0 Obstructed INTERVENTIONS 0 ETT# ~fai/Nasal 0 Nasal Trumpet
Ds:getidns 0 Foreign Body 0 OtP,?F A. _/_ 0 Oral Airwa!JJ- · yroidotomy OTracheotomy
-~fli.~Precautions Malntained by: j// /'!;:! / ~ Time: ....--- End Tidal C02 - - - - -
BREATHING ~p~eous 0 t:abored DAgonal By: M.D. Breath \Sounds DYes DNo
Trachea: __....QM~clline 0 Deviated R L Time:------
Chest Wall: 0~ 0 ABN: _ _ 0 Breathing Assisted with Bag-Valve Device ET size
Breath SounctrRig~L 0 Diminished 0Absent __ 0 Needle Thoracotomy: ~1: 0Air Expressed
Left_~ ODiminished OAbsent _ OOc~r-essi~-
0 Sucking Chest Wound 0 Flail R L ~Administered by: at L
CIRCULATI~ Time:------
Color: ·---tfw~ 0 Pale OCyanotic 0 Flushed _ _ 0 Auto Transfusion Uti/izprl cc
Skin: ``~0 Cool OHot OCiammy ODiaphoretic __ 0 P e Dressing t o : - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pulse~resent. 0 Absent 0 Diminished 0 Thready IVs Established (see intake record)
Hemorrhage:`` 0Gr~s Est Blood Loss cc 0 Pericardicentesis OTiloracotomy 0 CPR Initiated
NEURO ..--81'Vert gsesp·onds to Verbal OResponds to Pain Only 0 Unresponsive 0+ Loss of Consciousness X · min.
Pupils Right: Size. "4 ./tJReactive 0 Sluggish OUnreactive Left: Size '3. ``live OSiuggish QU;;'reactive
3P: L ft /I ,vu; HR: 1 }/ RESP: /,t TIME: & V).o
(>:>nsultants/ Time Time Time Time
Service Name & 10 #
Service Called Arrived Called Arrived
Trauma Faculty ~ l1JI I Pedi Surgery
rrauma HO 5 Pediatrics
rrauma HO 4 Anesth
::c Chief f 7"\ Thoracic
:c Intern . f-A-. ~- Plastic
:c Intern Urology
:c Nurse 1"j==rr.L"\-H--,-"I-/.--.-+<-ch
1 aplain
:c Nurse · -·- .. .., Social Services
ICircle One)
!eurosurgery CPS APS Police
•rtho Other
Patient 10 C'U ~
I-. Harris County Hospital District
Jb ..L5 8 2llf t
JACKSON, SAMUEL Ben Taub General Hospital
H 8 03/05156 LEVEL 1 TRAUMA FLOW SHEET
o r xv
Distribution: White -Medical Records Yellow- Trauma Services
Retention· HR-4Ann.nd
PRIMARY ~IIR\/t=V
APPENDIX COVER SHEBT
APPENDIX COVER SHEET
APPENDIX COVER SHBgT
- 25 -
- I