Pate, Chadrick B ( 2015 )

June 02, 2015
Abel Acosta Clerk of the Texas Court OATE:__!~-±+~-
of Criminal A.ppeals F~LE \N W
201 West 14th Street· BY: --1-1~---
Austin, Texas 78701 RECEJVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINII.L APPEALS
Nema Bardin
PO Box 772 JUN 02 2015
Austin, Texas 78767
512-487-0197 Abel Acosta, Glen,
email: bardin:nema@yahoo.com
Re: Amended Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus WR-78, 165-02 Chadrick B. Pate Applicant~
Nema Bardin Petitioner
Dear Mr. Acmsta,
As you know, I hand delivered a Original Writ of Habeas Corpus appealing from a Void
Judgment in Cause No. A-08-5080-4cr from the Aransas County District Court 36th Judicial
District Arans;as County Texas Judge Janna Whately presiding on May 19•b, 2015
You were kind enough to go over the paperwork with me and after a discussion about it's
contents you fltook the Writ for filing. During the discussion of the contents I asked you about the
time frame fo:r decisions on Original Writs filed straight into the Court of Criminal Appeals with
the kinds of Sf! rio us allegations that I as petitioner had leveled against the 36th District Court
Aransas Coumty, Texas.
You advised llllle that you were bound by no rules for a time for a decision. With that knowledge I
came back to study the rules of procedures once again, and based upon that study and my limited
understandin~g as a layman, I am now filing the above mentioned Amended Original Emergency
Writ by also bLand delivering it to the Court for filing.
J .am .r.espJ>-.clfm.lly .rJ>.qJJ.e.qing that J.h~ W.rit h~ .d.tiliYuro .to ruJ~ nr .nw.r~ .JJL\ijji'.j!.~ ..a.~ .AAD.D ..a.~ i.~
possible, understanding that the Justices have the inherent power to waive any procedural rules
in order to br:ing releif on and emergency basis. Rule 2 of the TRAP.
I have taken nwte that no action as of today at 1 pm. Central Standard time has been taken on the
Writ filed on 1\iay 19•b, 2015, in accordance with the Texas. Criminal Court of Appeals website
under case m~mil.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM mE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAI~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARDtiN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGEJAN~NA K. WHATELY
AMENDED
EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
FILED JUNE 02, 2015
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78,165-02
EX PARTE
FROM THE THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRIC:K B PATE TDCJ #01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICANT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BAJRDIN
PETITIONER
v.
JUDGE JAm~ A K. WHATELY
TRIAL JUDGE
AMENDED
EMERGENCCY APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT
TO
ARTICLE V', SECTION 5 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS 1, 5, 6 and 14
OFTHE UNfiTED STATES CONSTITUTION TEXAS COMMON LAW AND THE COURTS
INHERENT AUTHORITY
TO THEHOJ'~ORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COMES, Petitioner Nema Bardin on behalf of Applicant Chadrick B. Pate and respectfully
submits this .AMENDED Emergency Original Writ Of Habeas Co1Jms petitioning for relief from a
Void Judgmemt in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR Chadrick B. Pate • Trial Court Judge Janna K.
Whately.
The Initial Halbeas Corpus presented under Article 11.07 No. WR-78,165-01 received no
"adjudication on the merits " by the Trial Court or by the Court of Criminal Appeals.
The Judgment,, Sentence and Conviction pursuant to The Judgment rendered by the Trial Court
1.
and executed by Trial Court Judge Janna K. Whatley in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR CHADRICK B.
PATE from the 36th Judicial District Court Aransas County is: Void for Violation of Due Process under
the Texas Contstitution and the United States Constitution , and for Fraud on the Court by the Court.
JURISDICTION
The Court of Criminal A_p_peals has Original Jurisdiction under Article V, Section Five of the
Texas Constitmtion, Article 1, 5, 6 and 14 of the United States Constitution, Texas Common Law and
the Courts Inh.erent Authority. State v. Johnson, 821 S W 2d 609. 612 Tx. Crim. App. 1991 held a
court of criminal a_p_peals may take action only if that action is authorized by constitutional provision,
statute, or Con;1mon law, or the power rises from an inherent or implied power. Mooney v. Holohan,
294 U.S. 103-113 held "To deprive a citizen of his only effective remedy would not only be contrary
to the rudimemtary demands of justice but destructive of a constitutional _guaranty s_pecifically
designed to prevent injustice. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 Sup. Ct. 1963.
The Writ lies as a traditional civil remedy for the enforcement of the right to personal
liberty, not as• a stage of the state criminal proceedings or as an a_p_peal therefrom.
E~parte Gimmbonini 117 CAL 573, 49 P. 732; VOID judgment is Never final and a judgment
acquired throULgh violation of "due process of law" and Fraud is void and never becomes final.
Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi 12 S W 3d 71 76 (Tex. 2000,) Ajudgment will never be
considered fintal if the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. It is well settled law that a legal action
by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity. his Habeas Corpus is a collateral attack on a void judgment
A collateral att:ack is any _proceeding to avoid the effect of a judgment which does not meet all the
requirements .(of a valid direct attack. There is neither a set procedure for a collateral attack nor a
statute of limi1tations. See Glunz, 908 S W 2d at 255: Davis v. Boone, 786 S. W.2d 85,87 (Tex.App-
San Antonio 1990, no wriO.
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Applicant was charged in a two count indictment with Murder Texas Penal Code 19.02 (Count 1)
Aggravated Assault Texas Penal Code 22.02/ Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity (Count 11)
. On February 12, a jury found Applicant guilty of Murder. On February13, 2009, the jury assessed the
maximum pu:nishment, ninety nine (99) years or life confinement in the Texas Department of Justice-
Institutional Division and a $10,000.00 fine. Applicant filed his notice of appeal on February 25,
2009. Applicamt then appealed his conviction through court appointed attorney. That Court affirmed
the Trial Court's judgment on October 7, 2010: Applicant Pro Se Petitioned for Discretionary Review
was refused om May 25,2011. The final mandate issued on June 21,2011.
Applicant then filed Habeas Corpus 11.07 through a paid Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisp. Ms. Crisp
proved to be imexperienced and refused to present Applicant's number one Ground for Relief Void
Judgment for Jack of Jurisdiction. When Applicant's Mother found out that Ms. Crisp did not include
the Ground he: had his Mother with his Power of Attorney to amend the Habeas and add
the Ground fo·r Void Judgment as his number one (1) ground. There were no hearings or factual
findings by th·e trial court and none by this Court. See WR-78,165-01 in Court Record.
Applicant's W1rit was denied without Written Order on 3/6/13. Because Applicant is not skilled in the
law he did no•t know to Appeal the 3/6/13 decision and thought that his opportunity to file a Federal
Habeas Corputs was nearing the deadline. He then filed a Pro Se Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U S C
2254 that court conducted NO evidentiary hearing and denied the Writ with prejudice and no COA
Applicant discovered that because his trial court judgment was void he filed into the Trial Court
Motion to Vaccate Judgment on 12/5/14. After providing the trial court every opportunity to provide
releif, by requesting on at least 3 occasions a decision, when the court had still not ruled or
corresponded with Applicant he then withdrew that Motion on 5/18115. There are no other motions
3
pending in thi~s matter at this time. Applicant is presently in custody of Texas Department of Criminal
Justice System Stiles Unit Beaumont Texas.
EMERGENCY RELIEF
A.\\\\W:an.t ba.\lJ lw!u.. ~all'J iw:.w:~awl u~ tW!. trial '!IW.rt' 'i. ~all'J tilifaiiWi V'lid JJJJicl,IJlJ!nt
since May 5tb, 2008. (more than 7 years) He has proclaimed his innocence from the time he was
charged with 14he horrific crime of murdering his own best friend. He mourned the death of his
frktrd itr cr jttl~ «418 S.W.2d 214.223.
The trial court and it's officers committed fraud on the court when they set into motion a scheme
calculated to i nterfere with the iudicial system's ability impartially to adiudicate the matter of
Applicant's pn;:>perly filed Motion for Severance first and in doing so to influence the trier of fact and
unfairly hamp•ered the presentation of Applicant's Defense Motion and his NOT GUILTY claim.
Fraud on the c•ourt occurs where it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly that a party has
sentiently set iinto motion a scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability
impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the
presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense. AOUDE v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d
1115,1118 (r•t Cir. 1989). It is fraud that denies a losing litigant the opportunity to fully litigate at
trial his rights or defenses that could have been asserted. Alexander, 266 S W 2d@ 1001: King
Ranch, Inc. v·. Chapman, 118 S W 3d 742,752 (fex. 2003). Each of these conditions occurred at the
illegal proceedings in Applicant's Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR.
10
APPLICANT'S CLAIMS/ GROUNDS FOR RELEIF
Claim# 1.
The State and iit's officers committed fraud, the crime of tampering with a government record and
violated Applk:ant's Due Process Rights when first they had Applicant arrested on fraudulent charges,
brought the chtarges before the Grand Jury against Applicant and then when illegally joining
Applicant to Defendants and Offenses in a 2 count indictment with Count (1) TPC 19.02 Murder and
(Count 2) TP'C Sec. 22.02 Assault/TPC71.02 Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity. Then when
they participak::d in a Scheme to convict Applicant of a Crime that they knew he did not commit., again
when they participated in a scheme with jailers to divest Applicant ofhis Discovery Evidence Record,
privileged de~fense and attorney notes, and again at pre trial when they schemed to maintain a.ioint
trial with co d1efendants, then again at a trial where they had no jurisdiction to bring the Applicant
before a Jury,mr Bench trial and then enter an illegal void judgment against him ..
Claim# 2.
The Trial CoUlrt committed Fraud and Fraud upon the Court by the Court, when The Court and
it's Officers .
l.Entered into a scheme of deliberate misuse of the judicial process designed to defeat
Applicant's Cbaim of Innocence by: Disobedience to the Orders of the Judiciary, relentless repeated
fraudulent act:s ofthe filing of fraudulent proceedings, documents, Orders, Motions, and Notices
Through Lies., Omissions. Commissions and Concealment. (tampering with government records.)
(and)
2..T.aropt'~r.i_og ~rjtb ib.e-~.d.miu.t.~.r.ati.n.u .ofJ.u.~_i.c.r: ib..r.DJ.Jg..b .acis .des..igu.e.d f.o .deg.r.arle ib.e JJ.ulic..i.BJ sys.t.e.m
and lying to fhe Court and to The Tier Of Fact. 3. Certifying a Fraudulent Record into the 13th Court
of Appeals, Criminal Court of Appeals Austin Texas, and the U.S District Court Southern District,
Houston Texas
Claim# 3.
The Trial Cmurt violated Applicant's Due Process Rights to a Fair and Impartial Trial,
Opportunity ·to Be Heard and Notice when the Trial Court:
11
1. Disobeyed a Court Order and Failed to hold Applicant's Scheduled Court Ordered Jury Trial
Date on 11-J-08.
2. Failed t:o Prosecute
3. Proceeded to a Joint Jury Trial after losing Jurisdiction to Proceed.
4. Violatimg Pre trial and Severance Statutory Procedures Title 1 Chapter 28 Article 28.01Section
1(~) Se:ction 2, CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CHAPTER 36. THE TRIAL BEFORE THE JURY,Art. 36.09. and Art. 36.10
SEVERANCE ON SEPARATE INDICTMENTS. Texas rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41
JMJ.S\.TDJJ\TDEJ~/SE.VER4J\TCE.
5. TRCP 41 , Criminal Justice Standards Part 11 Standard 13 .2.1 and Sec. 310
6. Violatimg Rules of Evidence 614(3)
'{:ru\ucm:g 'Utrv\. 'CtJ&:'lWte'l C::,·clttc&e D. 'Crf"cep.'S\'2:,~5\.%\ '25dm~ctun ~-
Violating Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 (a)(b) (1) and SubsectionD.(c)
7. Violating TCCP Title 1. Chap. 2 Article 2.01
8". TCCP Titre I Cftapter I Artfcfe T.05
9. Violathng TRAP Rule 34.5 (a), (a)2
Violatung Tx. R. Civ.301 TCCP Title 1. Chapter 28 Section1(5) and Section 2.
10. Tampe.red with the pre trial Court and trial court record Texas Penal Code 37.10
Claim 4.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Applicant receiived Ineffective Assistance of Counsel under the 61h Amendment and Counsel in
fact stood as a.n Adversary while as an Officer of the Court he Committed Fraud on the Court.
and Violated Applicant's right to appear, opportunity to be heard and notice.
John Gilmore Applicant's Defense Attorney committed fraud on the court and violated
A_p_plicant's Due Process when he lied to his client, to a _potential jury _pool, failed to re_present
and defend applicant, participated in a scheme with other officer's of the court to rejoin
applicant's triatl to that of the co defendant, failed to notify applicant about pre trial hearings,
a_p_peared at he:arings without a_p_plicant's knowledge , misrepresented a_p_plicant at _pre trial
hearings and at trial, concealed Orders of the court from applicant failed to secure a hearing
and decision <:Jn applicant's Motion for Severance and abandoned applicant's defense and
coo_perated wi·th State's attorney to convict and if he in fact filed a Motion for Continuance after
12
10/23/08 or before the Applicant's scheduled trial date of 11/03/08 or any time after that, he did violate
TCCP Article ll.052 (a) and (d) by sigining a Motion for a continuance that was based on a lie, that he
and the officer''s of the court perpetrated. . He was ineffective for abandoning the "Running
Exceptions" in to a formal Motion in the trial court. And for tampering with government documents
a felony under Texas Statute 3 7.10 as it was used to defraud the court.
M:E.MORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S HABEAS CORPUS
FACTS IJN THE TRIAL COURT RECORD THAT SUPPORT APPLICANT'S CLAIM'S
FACT 1.
INDICTMENT
·Ex#2
On 6/24/08 an Indictment was filed and Applicant was joined to 4 co-defendants and Offenses, Count
(1) Murdeir under Texas Penal Code Section 19.02 First Degree Felony
Count (2) Aggravated Assault under Texas Penal Code 22.02 and Organized Criminal
Activity unde:r Texas Penal Code 71.02 First Degree Felony.
Applicant and one other co defendant were tried in a joint trial beginning on 2/9/09. The other 3 co
defendant's go•t plea deals and testified against Applicant.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 1 and 3
The State and :it's officers committed fraud on the court and violated Applicant's Due Process Rights to
a fair and impiartial trial with opportunity to be heard and notice, when they illegally joined Applicant
to Defendants and Offenses. In order that Applicant could be charged as a party to the crime that he
was indicted for he must have been charged and convicted in another similar crime with the same co
defendant (s). The prosecution knew that he had not been charged or convicted of any other crime that
was similar to· the crime charged in the indictment or commuted with the defendant (s). State has ccess
l3
to all criminal files of applicant and all defendants.
The State brought count 2 against Applicant to convince and confuse both the Grand Jury and the Trial
2ourt Jury thmt Applicant was a party to both counts charged in the Indictment and that he was a gang
member when in fact they had no evidence of gang related offenses or membership to support the
char_ge. Witho1ut evidence the char_ge could not be brou_ght. However there was ample evidence that all
other co defentdants were members of a gang. The trial court record points to no evidence that
Applicant was a "gang member" with the exception of a so called gang expert that worked for the D.A
Office.
The Rules for Joinder of Defendant's and Offenses are Statutory and it is a violation of due process
when a court does not follow statutory procedures he loses jurisdiction and is barred from proceeding
SEE;
TRCP RULE 41. MISJOINDER OR NON-JOINDER OF PARTIES
Misjoinder of ]parties is not ground for dismissal of an action. Parties may be dropped or added, or
suits filed sepatrately may be consolidated, or actions which have been improperly joined may be
severed and ea1ch ground of recovery improperly joined may be docketed as a separate suit between
the same parties, by order of the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at any stage of
the action, bef«:>re the time of submission to the jury or to the court if trial is without a jury, on such
terms as are jwst. Any claim against a party may be severed and proceeded with separately.
See also: Crin:tinal Justice Standards Part II Standard 13-2.1 and Sec. 310 Joinder of
their participa1tion in similar offense on different dates with a common third defendant the same
transaction or series of transactions test of rule 8(b) is not satisfied.
Applicant timely filed his Motion for Severance ofDefendant's and Offenses on 7/31/08. See Ex #1
The trial Corurt did not hold a hearing and did not provide written factual findings of facts for denying
or granting his Motion for Severance of Defendant's and Offenses. Applicant was denied Access to the
14
Court and had no opportunity to be heard or notice.
Because the trial court violated US Constitutional Due Process Rights, Statutory Procedures and
Tampered wit1h Trial Court/Governmental Records) The trial court lost jurisdiction to proceed to trial.
Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S 458 Sup.Ct.1938/: Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d,
Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d 1115, 1118(1st Circuit 198~). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@
L001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003)
FACT2.
INDICTMENT EX# 2
The indictment charges Murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02 Felony Murder
The Indictment does not charge Murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02 and Texas Penal Code
7.01, 7.02, or 77.03. (which describes "the law of parties").
The Jury found Applicant guilty under Count (1) of the indictment Murder under Texas Penal Code
19.02 which s:tates:
§ 19.02 Mlffi:.DER. (a) In this section: 1)"Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly
produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to
render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2)"Sudden pa:ssion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual
killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time ofthe offense and is not
s.olel~ the-tesn]t of fomre.r.1ftavocat.inu..
(b)A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionall.y or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) itttetrds M CStY:re ~ ~, itrj«ry' and amtmit.r Bit set dear/j' ~ M /nimat1 life
that causes the death of an individual; or (3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other
than m:anslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in
immediate flig~ht from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an ac1
clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first
degree ..
d)At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death
under the imm1edia:te influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant
proves the issu.e in the affirmative by a_pre_ponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony ofthe
second degree ..
15
APPLICANT'S Claim UNDER 1,2 and 3
The State and the trial committed fraud and fraud upon the court when after the Jury found
Applicant Guilty of Count (1) under Penal Code 19.02 MURDER the trial court did not order an
acquittal for the State's failure to prove the elements of Murder under Penal Code 19.02
Officer's of the: Court continually introduced fraudulent evidence on the "law of_parties" although
The indictment does not allege that Applicant committed the murder under Texas Penal Code 7.01,
7.02, or 7.03 im connection with the charge of murder under Texas Penal Code 19.02. See Ex# 2
Indictment In ·Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR.
The Trial Court and it's officers prepared a fraudulent Charge of the Court Document
and read aloud "The Charge of the Court" then sent the physical paperwork into the Jury Room with
the Jurors where they used this charge to help ascertain the facts to convict Applicant ofMurder. The
2harge of the Court looks little like what Texas Penal Code 19.02 requires to reach a Guilty verdict.
See Ex# 3 Charge of the Court in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR.
The trial court and it's officers used this fraudulent " Charge of the Court" as part of a scheme to
confuse the jurors and to convict Applicant.
The charge of the court presented in open court and in document provides : you are instructed that the
law applicable to this case is as follows:
COUNT ONE
l.
Our law provides that a person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual. (it is true that this statement comports with 19.02 2 (b) 1.
2.
A person acts lmowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware
that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (Nowhere under statute 19.02 is this
statement found)
16
A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware
that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. (Nowhere under statue 19.02 is this statement
found. A "deacdly weapon means a firearm. (Nowhere under statute 19.02 is this statement found.
Individual meams a human being. (Nowhere under Statute 19.02 is this statement found.
(There is absolutetv nothin,g in number 3. that comports with Penal Code 19.02 Murder:)
Our laws proviide that a person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense if the offense
committed by his own conduct , by the conduct of another for which he is criminally responsible or by
both.
A person is cri:minally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if, acting with
intent to promLote or assist the commission of the offense,he solicits encourages, directs aids, or
attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense. Mere presence alone will not constitute one a
party to a crirr1e.
FACT3.
CAPIAS AND WAIVER OF ARRAINGMENT
On 6/25/08 a aCapias was issued under Applicant Chadrick B. Pate's Cause No. A-08-5080-4 CR
See Ex# 3 Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet.
The trial court violated Applicant's Due Process when they issued a capias and confined him under a
fraudulent indictment.
The Grand Jw::y would have had to find ~probable cause to join A.P..Plicant in the indictment and because
the requirememts to join the offenses and defendants are statutory they would have had to determine
that Applicant based on Officer Kirk and Brooks testimony that Applicant met the criteria under
Criminal Justi,ce Standards Part 11 Standard 13-2.1 and Sec. 310 8(b) and they could not. A_p_plicant
17
does not have access to the courts files arrest records of all the co defendant's and his own and
therefore canUtot include in the exhibits, but the trial court has copies.
When the court violates due process it loses jurisdiction and cannot proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391
63 S. Ct. 822 19 Led 2d.
FACT4.
WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT
On 6/27/08 Wativer of arraignment was entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet See Ex# 4
A.P..Plicant's Criiminal Docket Sheet. NO CLAIM
Fact 5.
PRE TRIAL DATE AND ANNOUNCMENT DATE
COURT REPORTER'S RECORD (NONE)
On 7/10/08 en1tered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Ex# 4
Case Set Pre t1rial 7/24/08
Ann. 7/31/08
JT 8/4/08
APPLICANT'S Claim UNDER 3 and 4
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures and
Rules
Applicant did mot appear at these proceedings and his Defense Attorney did not notify him or give him
notice. Ex parte hearings were held violating due process of law. Applicant's due process was violated
when he was not allowed to appear, and be heard and notice.
There is no re1corded record of this proceeding. A court loses jurisdiction when it violates due
process and loses jurisdiction. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of
Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S.
J.8
391 63 S. Ct. :822 9 Led 2d.
Fact3
7/24/08
DISCOVERY RULED ON In Ex parte Hearing
COURT REPORTS RECORD (NONE)
On 7/24/08 Entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Discovery Ruled On
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraud, Ineffective Counsel, and Violation of Due Process
Applicant did not appear at any Hearing on Discovery. The Court violated Applicant's due process
right to im_partial fair trial, o_p_portunity to be heard and notice and violation of statutory
rule . There is :no recorded record of this proceeding. However there are Discovery Orders that Judge
Im:ma.. Wbat.ely s.i.Pc:Jlt!d.
Applicant's dm~ process was violated, and this proceeding was concealed from him. TCCP Title 1
Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being
heard by hims;elf or counsel or both. See TCCP Title 1. Chapter 28 Section 0 )5 and Section 2 also
see Fay v. N4oia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d 1115,
L118(r• Circutit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ 1001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d
742,752 (Tex. 2003).
Y:ui4
7/31108
Motion for Continuance Granted I Reset Dates Ex parte Hearing
COURT REPORTER'S RECORD (NONE)
On 7/31/08 en1tered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex#4
Cont. Granted
Ann. 9/25/08
J.T. 9/29/08.
19
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraudl Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures and Ineffective Counsel
There is no rec:orded record of this proceeding. Applicant did not appear at any proceeding on 7/31/08
he did not know that a motion for continuance had been granted or that an Announcement date of
9/25/08 had been set or that a Jury Trial date of 9/29/08 had been set. The trial court violated
Applicant's dute process rights to an impartial fair trial, opportunity to be heard and notice. And
violation of statutory procedure. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Rights of
Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both.
TCCP Title 1 Chapter 28 Section (1)5 and Sec. 2. See: Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9
Led 2d , Aomde v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d 1115, 1118(1 st Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D
@ 1001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003).
Fact 5.
7/31108
Applicant's Motion for Severance of Defendant's and Offenses
It is not Recorded on Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet EX # 4
Violation ,of Clerk's Duties Rule 25 and 26 and Tampering with Trial Court/Governement
Document
Al}~&ant. filed)_ a_ ti.n:lel~ Mntinn. fut Seveta.n.ee nf Defu.nillm.t.'i and. Offeo.cre.'i nn. 711110&
See Ex# 1 Motion for Severance.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
Ineffective Assistance Violations of Due Process Fraud on the Court
District Clerk repeatedly failed to record Motions onto applicant's criminal docket sheet, Counsel did
not o~iect and Court did not correct. When a court violates due _process it loses jurisdiction and cannot
proceed , Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d
1115, 1118(rt Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D@ 1001:King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118
20
S.W.3d 742,75i2 (Tex. 2003).
Fact 6.
9/25/08
2ourt Reporter's Record Volume 2 of 9 Announcement Chadrick B. Pate A-08-5080-4CR See Ex# 5
Exparte Hearing
States Motion for Continuance
Applicant's Request for a Decision on his Motion for Severance of Defendants and Offenses.
Judge Wellborn s Reason for Continuing the matter of the Motion for Severance to the next Pre
Trial Hearing. District Clerk Duties and Reset Dates
On 9/25/08 entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex # 4
States Motion 1to Continue Granted
Reset 1113/08 Jrury Trial
10/03/08 Announcement
10/23/08 Pre Trial.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
Ineffec1tive Counsel. Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures Fraud on the
Court by the Court, Tampering with Trial Court/Government Document
Gilmore and State's Attorney M. Rodriguez.
Applicant did Jnot know about this hearing and did not appear. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General
Provisions Anrticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or
counsel or both. See: Mentor v. Caswell (1997) 123 Ohio App. 3d. 256 Defendant was absent for
unexplained neasons at time of suppression hearing, which proceeded with participation of counsel and
co -defendant.. The defendant had a right to be present and denial of Continuance was abuse of
discretion. In Applicant's case he had a right to the Severance and denial of same was an abuse of
discretion.
He had a right to challenge the judges reasons for not ruling on his Motion for Severance then.
He had a right to challenge the State's Motion for Continuance. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General
Provisions Anrticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or
21
S.W.3d 742,75i2 (Tex. 2003).
Fact 6.
9/25/08
2ourt Reporter's Record Volume 2 of 9 Announcement Chadrick B.Pate A-08-5080-4CR See Ex# 5
Exparte Hearing
States Motion for Continuance
Applicant's Request for a Decision on his Motion for Severance of Defendants and Offenses.
Judge Wellborn s Reason for Continuing the matter of the Motion for Severance to the next Pre
Trial Hearing. District Clerk Duties and Reset Dates
On 9/25/08 entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex # 4
States Motion 1to Continue Granted
Reset 1113/08 JTury Trial
10/03/08 Announcement
10/23/08 Pre Trial.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
Ineffec1tive Counsel. Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures Fraud on the
Court by the Court, Tampering with Trial Court/Government Document
Gilmore and State's Attorney M. Rodriguez.
Applicant did mot know about this hearing and did not appear. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General
Provisions Am·ticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or
counsel or both. See: Mentor v. Caswell (1997) 123 Ohio App. 3d. 256 Defendant was absent for
unexplained neasons at time of suppression hearing, which proceeded with participation of counsel and
co -defendant.. The defendant had a right to be present and denial of Continuance was abuse of
discretion. In Applicant's case he had a right to the Severance and denial of same was an abuse of
discretion.
He had a right to challenge the judges reasons for not ruling on his Motion for Severance then.
He had a right to challenge the State's Motion for Continuance. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General
Provisions Am·ticle 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or
21
counsel or both. At this hearing The State filed a Motion for Continuance and Judge Wellborn Granted
the Motion Atltorney John Gilmore Applicant's Defense Attorney requested a Decision on Applicant's
Motion for Steverance of Defendant's and Offenses that had been filed timely on 7/31/08. See Ex #5
O!urt ~rt·&~ R2.:1ud vlll 2. Q.( 9 ~e~ ll.i.ne 9-2.5. awl ~e 4 l.i.ne~ l-~
Judge Wellbona continued the Matter of the Severance stating that the reason was that he was waiting
to find out ifhce was going to need to appoint the Co defendant Christopher Hall a new attorney. See
Ex#S page 3 lines 13-18. Judge Wellborn gave no valid reason to continue the matter of the
Severance.
Alibnngb JJ.Idg-e Wcllhru:o _had cfl.IJ1i.ru.Jed ibe Matter .of the .Sever.ance ibe District ('Jerk did .nnt. enter
the Order to Continue the matter of the Severance onto the applicant's criminal docket sheet or the
trial court record (tampering with a trial court document) but Judge Wellborn DID sign and date and
Order Granting a Severance that same day. Ex# 6 Order Granting Severance.
Judge Wellbonn made no effort that day or any day to reverse the Order Granting the Severance
.(Tampering with a trial court record. government document. When a judge does not follow statutory
procedures he 'Violates the defendant's ri_ght to due _process and loses jurisdiction to _proceed. Fay v.
Noia 372 U S 391 63 S. Ct. 822. 9 Led 2d.
The District CLerk did not first enter the Oral Order of Judge Wellborn to continue the Matter of the
Severance onto A_P..plicant's Criminal Docket Sheet, or the trial court record nor did the Clerk enter the
did the clerk nnake any notation on the record of this order, instead the District Clerk kept the Order in
Applicant's fiLe, and later filed the Order into the Applicant's Judgment Record (tampered with the
trial court .gowemment record and certified it as an Overruled Motion on the Severance and then
certified it into The 131h Court of Appeals Corpus Christi, Texas then later told Applicant's Habeas
Investigator Stacey Deville See Ex # 7 Deville's Affidavit, that the Granted Order was just a piece
22
of paper in theApplicant's file.
The District Clerk committed fraud upon the court for purposeful failing to complete the duties of the
office and connmitted the crime of tampering with the trial court/government record.. The District
Clerk with othter officer's of the court by this failure illegally disposed of first Judge Wellborn's Oral
Order, that ordered the Motion for Severance to be continued to another date, ille_gally dis_posin_g of the
3-ranted Orde1r on the Motion for Severance by retaining it in the file. Then later by illegally disposing
of Judge Joel Johnson's Oral Order severing Co defendant's trial from Applicant's trial date, See Exli
8 Court Re_pcorter's Record Volume 4 of 11 _page 5 lines 14-25 and _page 6 lines 1-3.(0ral Order)
The failure to enter the proper proceedings onto the applicant's criminal docket sheet and or the trial
court's record ·concealed the Orders of the Court from the Court and the Applicant .
. Fraud is defi1ned as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure,
for the purpos.e ,of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some calculable thing belonging to
him or a false representation of a matter of fact by words, conduct or by concealment of what should
have been disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury. (li!mphasis added) In re: E.P. 185 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App. -Austin 2006).
The Clerk of the Court has custody of and shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or
lawfully deposited in the clerk's office the clerk shall record the acts and_proceedin_gs ofthe court and
enter all judgr:nents of the court under the direction of the judge. Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 Duties of
the Clerk. In a Post Conviction Letter dated October the 51h 2012 See Ex# 9 Letter from Judge
Wellborn { i1n Response to Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisps letter Ex# 10 to him asking for an
explanation im Response to Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisps letter Ex# 10 to him asking for an
explanation , He explained that he had signed the Order Granting the Motion by Mistake, and that he
had meant to sign the Order on The State's Motion for Continuance.
Even after he was notified of this, he made no effort to issue a Nunc Pro Tunc Order reversing his
23
decision (tampering with a trial court/government record) and by this time the Court of Appeals had
already deniedlApplicant's Appeal.
Applicant did not waive his right to appear at pre trial proceedings .
This was an an.nouncement where Applicant's Motion for Severance was a Defense Motion , and any
decision on hi:s motion would decide the course of his entire trial and direct his defense strate_gy. There
was no reasont that the motion could not have been decided that day.
The State's attorney had not made any objection to the Motion for Severance either that day or any day
_prior to 9 25/0•8. Applicant filed his motion on 7/31108 and certified a co_py to the States attorney. See
Ex # 1 page 2 ..
Neither Judge 'Wellborn John Gilmore or the State questioned why defendant was not present at the
hearing thus the hearing was held Ex parte because Applicant had a right to be there and to 'be heard .
. The Manner ,i[n which the proceedings were conducted displays a clear deception and fraud.
These Officer's of the Court committed Fraud upon the Court by the Court. "Fraud Upon the Court"
has been definted as that fraud committed b_y an officer of the court in an_y attempt to deceive, either b_y
commission, by omission,by speech, by silence, by gesture, by innuendo by look, etc. Whenever this
fraud is commLitted by any attorney or judge, it is a "Fraud upon the Court" In Eugene Lee
Armentrout e~t. al.., Ill. 2D 242 75 Ill Dec 703 457 N.E.2d 1262 (198~): Re_genold v. by Fol«:l, Inc._,
68 Ill. 2D 41``,435 12 Ill Dec. 151.369 N.E. 2D 858 (1977); In re Lamberis, 93 Ill. 2D 222,229, 66
Ill.Dec.623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982); Bulloch v. United States k 763 F 2d 1115,1121 (1985); Root
Refining Co. ·v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F2d 514 (1948).
Fraud is defined as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for
the purpose oE inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some calculable thing belonging to him
or a false repn~sentation of a matter of fact b_y words, conduct or b_y concealment of what should have
been disClosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal
24
injury.(empha1sis added) In re: E.P. 185 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App. -Austin 2006)
Title 1 Chapt,er 28 Article 28.01 Pre Trial Section 1. (defendant's presence is Reguired at any pre
trial hearing) 4(5) Motions for continuances either by the State or defendant provided that grounds for
continuance n1ot existing or not known at the time may be presented and considered at any tine before
the defendant announces ready for trial. Section 2 When a criminal case is set for such _pre trial
hearing any such preliminary matters not raised or filed seven days before the hearing will not
thereafter be aU owed to be raised or filed, except by permission of the court for good cause
shown; _providled that the defendant shall have sufficient notice of such hearing to allow him not
less than 10 datys in which to raise or file such preliminary matters. The record made at such pre
trial hearing the rulings of the court and the exceptions and objections thereto shall become a
_part of the tria.! record of the case u_pon it's merits. Texas CR. Code Ann: 29.02 Article 29.02: By
agreement A ~criminal action may be continued by consent of the parties thereto, in open court at any
time on a shov.ving of good cause, but a continuance may be only for as long as necessary.
TCCP Title 1 'Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1.05 Ri_ghts of Accused. He shall have the right
of being heardl by himself or counsel or both. The Trial Court had already lost Jurisdiction over the
Applicant and the matter at this 9/25/08 proceeding but continued on with Illegal Proceedings.
Fact 7.
10/23/08
Court Reporters Record Volume 3 of 9 Chadrick B. Pate A-08-5080-4CR Motion to Dismiss EX# 11
Entered onto Ap_plicant's Criminal Docket sheet is EX #4
10/23/08 Case called for Pre 'trial Conference
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 3, AND 4
Ineffective Counsel Violation of Statutory Procedures
Judge Joel Johnson presided over this proceeding and those appearing were Applicant (the only pre
25
trial proceedimg that he was allowed to appear) Defense Attorney John Gilmore and States Attorney M
Rod_grigez.
This hearing was on Applicant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for the Jail and Detectives violation
of his 6th Ame1ndment due Process and Violation of Attorney Client Privilege.
All prisoners were transported to anotherjail in Crystal City due to a Hurricane Warning. and before
the State trans:ported Applicant he prepared all of his Notes that he had made for his Defense Attorney
on his Defense. He had records on discovery at this point and was able to rebut co defendant's claims.
Before leaving for transport the jail told A_p_plicant that he could not take his _paperwork. He told them
that it was unlawful for them to not allow him to take his paperwork. The told him to put the
paperwork in :a clear plastic bag and label it with his name and the title of the papers and then to place
it on to_p ofhis bunk. He did so. When he returned, his bag of_pa_perwork was missing. He demanded it
back and supp(osedly the jail personnel said they looked but could not find it. Applicant was told by an
Honest Jailer that he had seen two of the other jailer take it out to a dumpster and place it there and
afterward he s.aw two of the Investigators retrieve the ba_g form the DU!llpster.
Judge Johnson Denied the Motion to Dismiss without written order, he did not record any factual
findings on th1e record for his Decision to Deny Applicant's Motion. When a judge does not follow
statutory ~proct~dures, he loses jurisdiction to ~proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led
2d.
John Gilmore ..:dd not ask Judge Johnson for a Decision on Applicant's Motion for Severance of
Defendant andB. Offenses however Judge Johnson told Gilmore that Applicant's trial date was for
11/03/08 and that he would be the Presiding Judge. See Ex# 11 page 33 line 8-21
Fact 8.
10/23/08
Ex Parte Hearing
APPLICANT'S CASE WAS SEVERED
COURT REPORTER RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 11 CHRISTOPHER HALL A-08-5080-2CR
PRE TRIAL SEE EX# 8
26
Entered on Chuistopher Hall's Criminal Docket sheet is Ex# 12
Reset: 115/08 9~.ooam
12/22/0)8 9.00am
11/25/08 9.00am
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
FRAUD 01~ THE COURT BY THE COURT, INEFFECTIVE CONUSEL, VIOLATION OF
DUEPROCESSANDSTATUTORYPROCEDURES
At this pre tria] hearing Judge Joel Johnson also presided. Those present were: Christopher Hall, his
defense Attorr1ey Stan Turpin, States Attorney Flanigan and Rodrigues and John Gilmore Applicant's
Defense Attonney.. The Applicant did not appear.
Stan Turpin co' defendant Christoper Hall's Defense Attorney (he was co defendant's second court
appointed atto,rney. The first court appointed attorney was Tamara Cochran who was hired at the
County AttornLey's office and could no longer represent Hall) asked for a Continuance and Judge
Johnson granted the co defendant's Motion to Continue and Reset his Jury Trial Date to 1/5/09,
Announcement 12/22/09 and Pre trial11/25/09. See EX# 8 Volume 4 of 11 page 3 line 22-23 page
5 line 1-25. pa.ge 6 line 1-24.
Rigbt.afJer Judge Jnhn.c;;ao gr.ante!l ibe .crultin~e,. _Mr. G.ilronreApp.licant.~" .affru:oey Mid tn Judge
Johnson, Judge I have a co defendant in this matter,and then immediately The States Attorney told
Judge Johnsona that they would like to carry Applicants case as well. Judge Johnson told John Gilmore
that he was hLearin_g A_p_plicant's case when he came back in November. See page 5 lines 15-25 and
page 6 lines l-6. Judge Johnson had already told Gilmore at the pre trial hearing just prior to
this one that he was coming back in November to hear Applicant's case and he had reaffirmed
the trial date o•f 11/3/08. John Gilmore abandoned A_pplicant's defense and assisted the State's
Attorney in ant attempt to keep the trials of Applicant and Co defendant joined.
John Gilmore and the State's attorney knew from the beginning that Applicant had a right to be at these
27
hearings and tlhat he had not waived his rights to appear, and they continued to appear at proceedings
where his defe1nse and pre trial matters were a part of the proceedings, these officer's of the court
concealed pro·ceedings from him all together. These officer's of the court committed fraud on the court
and fraud in run effort to keep knowledge of these proceedings from the Applicant. "Fraud Upon the
Court" has been defined as that fraud committed by an officer of the court in any attem_pt to deceive.
either by comnnission, by omission;by speech, by silence, by gesture, by innuendo by look, etc.
Whenever this; fraud is committed by any attorney or judge, it is a "Fraud upon the Court"
In Eugene Le~e Armentrout et. al.;, Ill. 2D 242 75 Ill Dec 703 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983): Regenold v.
Baby Fold, Inc., 68 Ill. 2D 419,435 12 Ill Dec. 151.369 N.E. 2D 858 (1977); In re Lamberis, 93 Ill.
2D 222,229, 66 Ill.Dec.623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982); Bulloch v. United States k 763 F 2d 1115,1121
(1985); Root llRef"ming Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F2d 514 (1948).
Clearly Judge .Johnson had severed the cases and the trials of Applicant and the co defendant when he
made it clear to the State's Attorney that Hall's new Trial Date would be 1/5/09 and that he was corning
back in Novennber to ~preside over f\p_plicant's Trial that had been set for 11/3/08.
The District Cllerk did not enter Judge Johnson Oral Order that severed the cases onto
Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet or onto the trial court record. Only the Court Reporter's
Record Ex# 8~ reflects the Severance. See Article 36.10 TCCP
The District Cllerk did not issue a new Cause No. on either Applicant's case or co defendant case.
(Tampering with a trial court. government document.)
There was no need for a hearing to decide which defendant would go to trial first, as Judge Johnson had
just set the co defendant's trial date to 115/09 far ahead of Applicant's 11/03/08 trial date.
The District Clerk committed fraud upon the court for purposeful failing to complete the duties of the
office. The Di:strict Clerk with other officers of the court by this failure illegally disposed of Judge Joel
Johnson's ord(:!r severing Co defendant's trial from Applicant's trial date. The failure to enter the proper
28
proceedings cmto the applicant's criminal docket sheet and or the trial court's record concealed the
Order of the Court from the Court and the Applicant. Fraud is defined as trickery or deceit, intentional
misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it
to part with so, me calculable thing belonging to him or a false representation of a matter of fact by
words, conduet or by concealment of what should have been disclosed that deceives or is intended to
deceive anoth1er so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.(emphasis added) In re: E.P. 185
S.W.3d 908 (1fex. App. -Austin 2006).
The Clerk of the Court has custody of and shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to or
lawfully depo:sited in the clerk's office the clerk shall record the acts and proceedings of the court and
enter all judgnnents of the court under the direction of the judge. Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 Duties of
the Clerk.
Although Judge Joel Johnson did not hold a statutorily required hearing and enter factual fmdings on
the record, andl a Written Order Granting or Denying At?t?licaht's Motion for Severance, he did sever
the trial of Ap]plicant and the co defendant by his Oral Orders .. When a judge does not follow statutory
requirements ]he loses jurisdiction and cannot proceed. Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led
2d, Aoude v. lltvlobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d 1115, 1118(1 st Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266 S.W. 2D @
001:King v. ~lanch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (Tex.2003)
.F..a.cl_9~
10/30/08
"f·Rh\~l~Y0L£~H £Xlli\R1:£ l}ROC££n~VQ'b £~H£TRt:,n 0AH'0 J\l?l}"Ll£h~H''b C~l1.``h"L
DOCKET SHEET SEE EX# 4
CCOURT REPORTER'S RECORD ON 10/30/08 PROCEEDJNGS (NONE)
Entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet is Ex # 4
Defendants MliJtion for Continuance
Reset 1/5/09 Jmry Trial
12/22/0& Announcement
2/9/09 Jury Trial
29
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2, 3 AND 4
Fraud on tthe Court Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedures Ineffective Counsel
Applicant did mot appear or know about any proceedings for 10/30/08 If these proceedings did occur
then they were: in fact EXPARTE proceedings and unrecorded by a Court Reporter. Applicant's
attorney did not advise him of any t>roceedings and did not tell him about any continuance. If defense
attonery John Gilmore did in fact file a motion for continuance (and there is no record of one being
filed) the he vi,olated TCCP Article 1.052 (a)(d) which is contempt of court.
There were no scheduled proceedings for 10/30/08. TCCP Title 1 Chapter 1 General Provisions
Article 1.05 Rights of Accused. He shall have the right of being heard by himself or counsel or both.
Applicant was not notified of any proceedings for 10/30/08 either by his Attorney or the Court.
Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc.
Forrest, 795 S:. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990). These fraudulent proceedings are not recorded by a
Court Reporter and are not in the Court's Records. The trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed
that _parties may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed of order,
that appeared to allow the court to proceed was in violation of the 1st amendment to the Constitution.
Near Minneso•ta ex rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v.
Karmer, 334 U.S. 1. 68 S. Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (194~).
Jnce a court orders per trial orders the court cannot disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867
S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(1933). A court's jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the court
of the _proceedi.n_gs due to com_plete the court as the 14th amendment reguires. If the U.S. Constitution
amendments mre not complied with the court loses jurisdiction to proceed. Johnson v. Zerbst 304
U.S.. 4.SJ!~ Ct. t'lYl.
The District Cl_erk entered fraudulent proceedings onto the Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet and
perhaps onto other Court Records that have been concealed from him. The District Clerk committed
fraud on the c1ourt and the Applicant. The District Clerk committed fraud upon the court for
purposeful faillure to complete the duties of the office. The District Clerk with other officers of the
court by this failure illegally disposed of Judge Joel Johnson's order severing Co defendant's trial from
30
Applicant's triial date. The failure to enter the proper proceedings onto the applicant's criminal docket
sheet and or fue trial court's record concealed the Order of the Court from the Court and the Applicant.
Fraud is defin·ed as trickery or deceit, intentional misrepresentation concealment or nondisclosure, for
the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some calculable thing belonging to him
or a false re..Presentation of a matter of fact by words, conduct or by concealment of what should have
been disclosed that deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal
injury.(emphatsis added) In re: E.P. 185 S.W.3d 908 (Tex. App. -Austin 2006)
The Clerk of the Court has custody of and shall carefully maintain and arrange the records relating to 01
lawfully depo:sited in the clerk's office the clerk shall record the acts and proceedings of the court and
enter all judgnnents of the court under the direction of the judge. Govt. Code Sec. 51.303 Duties of
the Clerk.
Fact 10.
11/03/08
Sclheduled Trial Date for Applicant Chadrick B. Pate in Cause A-08-5080-4CR
Court Reporters Record 11103/08 Trial Proceedings (None)
Courts Violation of it's Court Ordered
Tr.lal Dat.e 0-£ U/1/Q& In. Cause. NcL A-08.-508.0-4CR Cbad.J:U:k.. B Pat.e R£.Q.nrters. R£.cnrd Vnbun.£.1
of9 Ex# 5
APPL1CrL¥T'S CLAR~l VNDER 2,3, rL¥» 4
Fraud on the Court by the Court, Ineffective Counsel
Violation of Due Process and Statutory Procedure and Rules.
The court did not provide a court ordered jury trial for the applicant on 11/03/08 and stated no reason
for failing to do so and _gave applicant NO notice. Applicant's Attorney _provided no reason or notice,
and there is no Recorded Record of any Proceeding that effected a change in Applicant Court Ordered
Trial Date. There are no Written or Oral Orders that would indicate a change in Applicant's 11/03/08
scheduled and Court Ordered Trial Date.
A court's j·urisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the court of the proceedings due to
31
complete tlhe court as the 141h amendment requires. If the U.S. Constitution amendments are not
COII\Plied with the court loses jurisdiction to proceed. Johnson Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
There are no legitimate court proceedings that overrules or voids Applicant's Court Date.
The court had 1no jurisdiction to proceed to a joint trial or a separate trial of Applicant or to hold any
other ~proceedi.n_gs other than Acguittal. The trial court was without jurisdiction to ~proceed that parties
may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed of order, that appeared
to allow the court to proceed was in violation of the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Near v.
Minnesota ex_ rei. Olson. 283 U.S. 697.. 51 S. Ct. 625.. 75 L.Ed.. 1357 (1931).
~ " ... . Shelly
., v. Karmer.
. 334
U.S. 1. 68 S. f!~t. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948). Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot
disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(l933).
See: Fa_y v. No•ia 372 U.S. 391 63 S. Ct. 822 9 Led 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d 1115,
742,752 (Tex. 2003).
F"K\.ot 11.
11/25/08
CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL PRE TRIAL HEARING A-08-5080-2CR COURT
REPORTER RECORD VOLUME 5 OF 11 EX# 13
FRAUDULENT EX PARTE DISCUSSIONS OF APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR SEVERANCE AND
TRIAL DATES.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Ineffective~ Counsel, Fraud on the Court by the Court, Violation of Due Process a Statutory
Procedures and Rules
Judge MichaeL Wellborn presided over this pre trial hearing with co defendant Hall appearing with his
Defense Atton:1ey Stan Turpin and State's Attorney M. Rodrigues.
Applicant Chadrick Pate did not appear nor did his Defense Attorney John Gilmore. Applicant was not
32
before the cou.rt for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction, and these proceedings were ex
parte proceedings. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990).
At this proceeding Judge Wellborn, Stan Turpin and M. Rodrigues discussed Applicant's pre trial
motions and t1rial date when he was not present or represented. The Court had already lost iurisdiction
over Applicant and the Subject Matter, and committed fraud on the court by the court in having thes(;
discussions that would make it appear that Applicant was still in the jurisdiction of the court. A court's
jurisdiction at the beginning of trial may be lost in the court of the proceedings due to complete the
court as the 14}1h amendment requires. If the U.S. Constitution amendments are not complied with the
court loses juri[sdiction to proceed. Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
There are no legitimate court proceedings that overrules or voids Applicant's Court Date.
The court had 1no jurisdiction to proceed to a joint trial or a separate trial of Applicant or to hold any
other proceediings other than Acquittal. The trial court was without jurisdiction to proceed that parties
may have agreed to it are immaterial. The verbal, written or illegally disposed of order, that appeared
to allow the court to proceed was in violation of the 1st amendment to the Constitution. Near v.
Minnesota ex: rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697,51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334
U.S. 1. 68 S. t!Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (1948). Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot
disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867 S. W. 2d 48,51 Tex. App.(1933).
SEE Reportf!rs Record Vol 5 of 11 page 4 lines 1-13.
Judge Wellborn ask when Pates trial date is scheduled Stan Turpen answers Right now on January
the 51h. Judge 'Wellborn responds Okay well both cases on the same trial docket at this time? M.
Rodriguez re~10onds Yes_. _your Honor. Judge Wellborn responds Ok~y well its kind of hard to try them
on the same ti:me if it's not on the same docket.
Mr. Turpen responds I understand Judge. Judge Wellborn responds Minor technicality.
Then a Deputy Clerk responds And also Mr. Gilmore is not Sl.!P~posed to be here on the 5th. He will be
33
on vacation til the 9'h See page 6 lines 2-7. Stan Turpin : Judge, what I would like to do on that is
leave it in the file just in case we need it because I did talk to Mr. Gilmore. Gilmore says he didn't see
any reason to sever unless his client told him otherwise , but I haven't talked back with him to know
that, and I dom't think he has a motion on file.
At the time of lthis discussion ~p~plicant's trial date had already been severed from that of the co
defendant Christopher Hall and the Trail Court refused to proceed to trial. Applicant was not before the
court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d
700, 703 (Tx. 1990).
The trial court and it's officers had already begun entering and concealing fraudulent proceedings,
motions. Orders, and trial dates onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet.
This discussion among officers of the court without appearance of Applicant and his Attorney is fraud
and a violatiom of Applicant's due process right to be present, opportunity to be heard and notice. This
is a manipulation of the judiciary and concealment of proceedings from Applicant.
JOHNSON '1. ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938 and Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 63 S.
Ct. 822 9 Ledl 2d , Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d 1115, 1118(rt Circuit 1989). Alexander, 266
S.W. 2D@ 1001:KingRanch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742,752 (fex. 2003).
Y.»d J2
12/22/08
'tRh\)'L>L£~·H
£-x-9-hl\.1£ "?ROC££'L>"'rl~ffi £1H£l\£'L> ~1~ "'O~TH. .h"?"?Ll'Chl~l' 'Clih'L>Rl'CK "'0.
PATE AND CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL'S CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEETS
S"EEEX#·4·
AND EX# 12
COURT REPORTER'S RECORD FOR 12/22/08 PROCEEDINGS (NONE)
On Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet the following fraudulent proceedings are entered. Ex # 4
Continuance Granted
Reset 2/9/09 Jury Trial
2/5/09 Announcement
34
On Co Defendant Christoper Hall's Criminal Docket Sheet the following fraudulent proceedings are
entered. Ex# 12
12/22/08 Contiinuance Granted.
Resett to Feb. Trial Docket
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraud on tbne Court by the Court, Ineffective Counsel, Violation of Due Process and Statutory
Procedures and Rules.
Applicant did mot know about any 12/22/08 proceedings and did not appear at any such proceedings.
Applicant was; not told by his attorney or the Court about any proceedings for 12/22/08. Applicant was
not before the court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction AND THESE HEARINGS
WEJ~E. EX .P.~iRTE. ."M.spctl J»e~ "- Ytv".rJ>N,- 795 .S.. W.. 2iJ 7Df\. 7ft3 fT.L J991l,\-
Applicant does not know if co defendant asked for a continuance or if he appeared at any 12/22/08
proceedings, hwwever the Trial Court Record clearly reflects that there was no such proceeding~
recorded on thte record of the court.
These illegal e:ntry's onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet were all a part of the scheme by officer's
of the court to' make it appear that the court still had _iurisdiction over the Applicant and the sub.iect
calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by
improperly init1uend.ng the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's
claim or defemse Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F 2d 1115,1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
Applicant was not before the court for adjudation the court had already lost jurisdiction. Mapco Inc. v.
Forrest, 795 s.. W. 2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990).
The Court hadl alreaqy lost jurisdiction for the violation of the A_p_plicant's 14th amendment rights.
Johnson v. Ze:rbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
Fact 13.
2/5/09
35
FRAUDLENT EXPARTE PROCEEDINGS ENTERED ONTO APPLICANT'S CRIMINAL
DOCKET SHEET SEE EX # 4
COURT REPORTER'S RECORD FOR 2/5/08 UNDER APPLICANT'S NAME OR CAUSE
NUMBER (NONE)
The following fraudulent proceedings were entered onto Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet.
2/5/09 All ReadJv (TAMPERING WITH A TRIAL COURT/GOVERNMENT RECO~)
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3 AND 4
F~awl Q.Q. tb.~ Ow.rt b.~ tb..e O!.urt., l~"~ Oluu.~ Vi.lil.atin.o.. Q.( D~ 1.1```` awl Sta.tu.in.~
Procedures and Rules
tier of fact. Fr;aud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme calculated to interfere with the
judicial systenns' ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or
unfairly ham_p,ering the _presentation of the o_p_posing_parcy's claim or defense. Aoude v. Mobil Oil
Corp. 892 F. :ld 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
Applicant did not know about any such proceedings and did not appear at any such proceedings and
was not told by his attorney or the Court about any such _proceedings. He did not announce ready.
Applicant was not before the court for adjudication the court had already lost jurisdiction. THESE
WERE ILLEGAL EXPARTE HEARINGS Mapco Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tx. 1990)
Fact 14.
2/5/09
CHRISTOP:HER HALL PRE TRIAL HEARING CAUSE NO. S-08-5080-2 VOLUME 5-A OF 11
SEE EX# 14
FRAUDULEJNT EXPARTE PROCEEDINGS CASE NUMBER AND VOLUME NUMBERS WERE
ENTERED OJN CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL'S 2/5/09 PRE TRIAL HEARING COURT
REPORTERS RECORD.
This hearimg with the fraudulent cause number and volume numbers was not entered onto the co
defendant's judgment roll under the table of contents that listed all the other volume numbers and
36
cause numbers in the trial court recorded proceedings. SEE EX # 15 page 2 of Reporters /record
Volume 1-11 MASTER INDEX
FACT 15
2/5/09
FRAUDULENT EXPARTE DISCUSSION OF APPLICANT'S DECISION ON PUNISHMENT
BETWEEN JUDGE WHATLEY AND DEFENSE ATTORNEY JOHN GILMORE
20NCEALMENT OF FRAUDULENT PROCEEDINGS FROM APPLICANT, PUBLIC CRIMINAL
COURT OF APPEALS AND THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AND SOUTHERN DIST.
COURT HOUSTON TEXAS
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3, AND 4
Fraud and Fraud om the Court, Ineffective Counsel, Violation of Due Process and Statutory
Procedur,es and Rules And Tampering with Trial Court/Government Document/Record
Co defendant Christoper Hall's Ex# 16 Indictment, Ex# 12 Criminal Docket Sheet, and all other
. Court Report·er's Records identify Hall's Cause No.A-08-5080-2CR not S-08-5080-2
The Court Reporter's Record show under Christopher Halls Recorded Proceedings Volumes
1-11. these Volumes are listed in the Courts Table of Contents of the Co Defendant's Judgment Roll
that was submtitted to the 13th Court of Appeals Corpus Christi Texas Cause No. 2:12-cv-00093.
The Court Reporters Record actually contain 12 volumes on Christopher Hall's pre trials. But the 12th
Volume is stvled Court Reporters Record Volume 5-A of 11 and instead of the proper Cause No. of A-
., ..L . .a. .a; .
-08-5080-2CR it is represented as S-08-5080-2.
See EX# 15 3RD PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume 1 of 1lll Master Index
Volume 2 of 11 Pre trial Motions (7/24/08) (there is no Court Reporter's Record on this)
Volume 3 of 11 Announcement (9/25/08)
Volume 4 of 11 Pre Trial Hearing (10/23/08)
Volume 5 of 111 Pre Trial Hearing (11/25/08)
Volume 6 of 1Jt · Jury Trial Voir Dire Proceedings (2/9/09)
VnJnnu~ 1 nf 111 .Jnry T.riaJ Gnili J.DDD!'nJU (.2/..9./R9)
Volume 8 of 11 Jury Trial Guilt Innocence (2/10/09)
Volume 9 of 11 Jury Trial Guilt Innocence (2/11/09)
'1\'la"tl1M; 1~ m 11 3uTj '\:TWA {;>t.Wi. \~ \1.~11.~)
Volume 11 of JU Punishment-Sentencing (2/13/09)
2/5/09 Court Reporters Record Volume 5-A of 11 was not recorded onto the Table of Contents of co
defendant's Judgment Roll like all the other above listed volumes were, and was not submitted to The
13 1h Court of Appeals where co defendant filed his Appeal.. Judge Whately and Pam Heard the District
Clerk submitte:d a fraudulent Judgment Record to the Court of Appeals (Tampered with trial
court/governm.ent document.) This fraudulent Cause No entered onto the Court Reporters Record and
frawiu.lmt 'I"O.b..UlJi! tlJ.l.JXINJ: 1.~ ~- o.f tbi! ~...br..rol! tbm. tbi! o.ffiJ~r.·~ o.f the OOJJ.rt. ~id.~£d.l.t~. t.n oot``..al.
proceedings from the court and applicant and influence the tier of fact, and deceive any future
proceedings he:ld by any other officer's of the court. THIS IS TAMPERING WITH A
GO~'ERl,ThlE/.~.{T lXJCU!~lENT lFHlCH lS A CRli~lE.
At this hearing Trial Judge Janna Whately presided and those that appeared were Co defendant
Christopher Hall with his Attorney Stan Turpin, State's Attorney Patrick Flanigan, and Applicant's
Defense Attonney John Gilmore. A_p_plicant did not a_p_pear. A_p_plicant was not before the court for
adjuration the court had already lost jurisdiction.
THIS WAS AJ\;J ILLEGAL EXPARTE PROCEEDING DISCUSSING APPLICANT'S TRIAL AND
CAUSE WITHOUT HIS A_p_pearance MAPCO Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700,703 {Tx.
1990). Judge 'Whatley and all the other officer's in appearance schemed to make it appear that
Applicant had announced Ready for trial when he was not before the court for adjudication and did no
announce readly for trial this scheme included ke~ping the A_p_plicant and the co defendant joined for
the trial held em 2/9/09. Officer's of the court continued their scheme to defraud the court and the
appJicant and 1to influence the tier of fact. Fraud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme
calculated to iJnterfere with the judicial systems' ability inlpartially to aqjudicate a matter by
improperly in1fluencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's
claim or defemse. Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp. 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (rt Cir. 1989).
The Court hadl already lostjurisdiction for the violation of the A_o._plicant's 14th amendment ri_ghts.
JOHNSON V.. ZERBST 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938. The court had no jurisdiction to proceed to a
joinJ trial or a separate trial of Applicant or to hold any other proceedings other than Acquittal.
The trial court~ was without jurisdiction to _proceed that parties may have agreed to it are immaterial.
The verbal, w1ritten or illegally disposed of order, that appeared to allow the court to proceed was in
38
violation ofthe P 1 amendment to the Constitution. Nearv. Minnesota ex rei. Olson, 283 U.S. 697,51
S. Ct. 625, 7S L.Ed, 1357 (1931), Shelly v. Karmer, 334 U.S. 1. 68 S. Ct. 836 92 L. Ed 1161 (194~).
Once a court orders per trial orders the court cannot disregard it's own orders. Dennis v. Haden, 867
S. W. 2d 48,511 Tex. App.(1933).
At this pre trialL hearing Judge Janna Whately did not call Applicant's Name or Cause Number, she did
not call co defendant Hall's name or cause number. However at the very beginning of the proceedings
Flanigan anno,unced Ready on Hall see Ex#l4 page 3lines 3-5. Flanigan never announced ready on
Pate, and Johm Gilmore never announced Ready on Pate.
After some dis:cussions on Hall's pre trial motions, Stan Turpin finally announced ready as well.
See Ex# 14 f?'age 31ines 8-13.
Judge Whately's only question to John Gilmore was Who is doing Punishment and Gilmore's response
was I think we are going to Jury on that. See Ex# 14 page 9lines 16-25 and page 10 lines 1-4.
The court had no iurisdiction over Applicant or the Subiect Matter at this time, the court had already
lost jurisdiction for violating Applicant's 14th amendment to a fair and impartial trial, opportunity to be
heard, and nottice. Johnson v. Zerbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup. Ct. 1938.
FACT 16.
2/9/09. The Illegal Trial of Applicant
FRAUDULElNT PROCEEDINGS OF JOINT JURY TRIAL OF APPLICANT CHAD RICK B. PATE
AND CO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER HALL
In Spite of a Court Order by Judge Joel Johnson given by Oral Order on 11/25/08 that Severed the
Trials of A_pjJlicant and Co defendant Hall and in s_pite of a Pending Motion for Severance in the _pre
trial court, Judge Whately and Officer's of the Court simply set about
jurisdiction o·ver the Applicant and the subject matter and then tried him in an illegal proceeding that
they submtitted as a fair and impartial Jury trial.
39
Be(ore the triall started on 2/9/09 at the Voire Dire proceeding See Ex# 17 Court Reporter Record
Volume 4 of 9) page 102 lines 5-25 .
Applicant's Wlother was entering the Court room and was stopped at the door and told
that she could not come in for the trial. She went to the District Clerk's Office and asked to see a Judge
The clerk asked her why and she told her that she was not bein_g allowed to _go inside the court room.
Clerk went to announce her to the Judge, when she came back she told her that the Judge told her to go
back down there and she would be allowed to go in. She went inside and was told to stand on the back
wall because there was no seating for her.
At the Voire D:ire a potential Juror Ms. Voss kept asking John Gilmore (Applicant's Attorney)
about why both Applicant and Co defendant were at the same trial. Gilmore finally gave her an
answer. See E:x# 17 Court Reporters Record Volume 4 of 9 Chadrick B. Pate page 102 lines 5-25.
He said we are: being forced to do it this way okay. We don't want to.Ms.Voss was not picked for the
jury trial.
After the Voire: Dire Proceedings the Jury Trial_proceeded, and before it did , Applicants Mother was
;;tanding outside the Court Room Doors in the Lobby Area when a woman who did not identify herself
and who was unknown to his Mother stated loudly. I am invoking "The Rule" Applicant's Mother
Asked first. Wlho the woman was and she identified herself as Assistant District Attorney and then
Applicant's Mother asked what rule she was talking about and the woman's response was you cannot
come into the court room during the trial unless you are called to testify. See Texas Rules of
Evidence Inv,oking Rule 614 Under this rule at the request of a _party the court shall order witnesses
excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses and it may make the order of it's
. own 1110tion. This·rule does not authorize exclusion of (3) a person whose presence is shown by at
_paey to be ess:ential to the _presentation of the _party's cause. The Court violated Applicant's right to be
heard and not:iice.
40
There is no on the record request from any party to exclude Applicant's Mother . Applicant was not
given an o~p~portunity to be heard to challenge the Rule and to present his case that his Mother should
not be excluded under Rule 614 (3). There is no record that Applicant was given and opportunity to
be heard or notice. Applicant's Mother was not called to testify. It was the State that subpoena her to
testizy.
Applicant was brought to the trial in Leg Restraints. There is no Court Order ordering him to wear Leg
Restraints and. no hearing on the matter. Someone in the audience stated out loud.( that person was a
witness for the State who obviously was sitting in the court room) He is in jail I can see
his Leg Restraints. See Ex# 18 Trial Transcript page 259,260 and 261 and Ex# 19 Applicant
Affidavit. The court must make independent determination that restraints are justified and must state
its reason on 1the record. See Deck ck v. Missouri 544 U.S. 622 (2007).
Defense Atton:1ey John Gilmore, Co Defendant's Attorney Stan Turpin, and the State's Attorney
stayed silent as to the justification of Leg Restraints on Applicant violating Applicant's Due Process
rights and corrunitting fraud on the court.
Defense Atton:1ey motioned for a severance numerous times at trial, to which Judge Whately simply
overruled and held no hearing, and made no on the record factual findings for her reasons to deny the
s.everance. See Ex# 20 Trial Transcript Reporters Record Volume 6 of9 pa_ge 22111-25.
Judge Whately allowed the State to bring in the statement of a co defendant that was not testifying
that Applicant 1could not confront. She simply told the Jurors to disregard the statement.
At the sentenci.ng and punishment proceedings John Gilmore did not call one Witness on Applicant's
behalf, and he: did not tell Applicant's family that they could testify for him until about an hour before
the proceedings. Applicant's Best Friend and Sister had already left the proceedings for the day and
Applicant's Mrother could not reach them. Applicant would not allow his Mother to testizy because she
was still in sho1ck and devastated from the Jury having found a Guilty Verdict against her oldest child
41
and only son.
APPLICANT'S CLAIM UNDER 2,3. AND 4
Every single: event at the 2/9/09 joint trial of Applicant was Fraud upon the Court and a violation of
A4?-?11.c:IDJ~'s. Ri<~,b1. t.11 UlJ£. l?tQI'.£.`` lJ.Dili'.J: OOtb. tbi!. '(eya~ Cmtstit.ut.iroJ.::.u:IJi tbi!. TJ. S.. O!t~Bfit.JJtjn.TJ•.
THE EVENTS AFTER THE TRIAL AND CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT
AND CERTIFICATION TO THE 13TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
FACT 17
FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN CERTIFICATION-OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT ROLL TO THE
l3TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS , CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEALS,
AUSTIN, TEXAS AND THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT
HOUSTON TEXAS
Applicant's Claim under 2,3, and 4
6/24/09
FRAUDULENT RECORDS IN CERTIFICATION OF APPLICANT'S JUDGMENT ROLL TO THE
13TH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS
On June 24th 2009 The District Clerk Pam Heard and Presiding Judge Janna K.Whately certified
Judgment Records to the 13th Court of Appeals Cotpus Christi,. Texas . Judge Whatley certified See
EX# 24 Judgre Whately's Certification the proceedings that were held, instruments and other papers
that were filedl in cause A-08-5080-4 CR Chadrick B Pate.See EX# 14 INDEX CHADRICK B.
PATE A-08-51080-4CR _page 1 under last entry on the _page showing Order on Motion for Severance.
See Ex # 6 . This is the same Order that Judge Wellborn called a Mistake and said that it had
not been officiially filed. See Ex# 9. It is also the same Order that the District Clerk Pam Heard
said had not bteen filed and was just a _piece of_pa_per in the file. See Ex# 7. Yet Judge Whately
says it was a p1roceeding that was held and it was filed into Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR.
The District Clerks Office (Pam Heard's Office ) also certified that the Order was a proceeding
that was held and filed in Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR. See Ex# 23 District Clerk Pam Heard's
Certification. By submitting the Order on the Motion for Severance Judge Whately and Pam
Heard committed Fraud on the Court and Tampered with a Trial Court/Government Document..
Th~ Index (Judgment Record in A-08-5080-4CR) that Judge Whately and Pam Heard submitted to the
Court of Appe:als is not only fraudulent for listing the Order on the Motion for Severance as a
_proceedin_g that was held and filed into Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR Chadrick B. Pate.
It is also fraudlulent because the Index does not list all of the Fraudulent Proceedings that the Court
entered and re.corded as held and filed in Cause No. A -08-5080-4CR on Applicant's Criminal
Docket Sheet See Ex# 4. The illegal Proceedings that Judge Whately and Pam Heard did not certifiy
to the Court o:f Appeals, are the Proceedings that were used to make it appear that Applicant had been
legally rejoine:d to the Co defendant for a joint trial after they refused to hold the Court Ordered Trial
for A_p_plicant (on 11/3/08. These events stijJulate a tampering of government documents. The listed
Proceedings had to be Concealed from the Court of Appeals otherwise the Fraud committed against
the Applicant :and The Court of Appeals, Criminal Court of Appeals and the Federal Court would
have been rev185 S.W. 3D 908 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006)
FACT 18
The District Clerk's Responsibility to report fraudulent documents
See Govt COllie Sec. 51.303.Duties of the Clerk (a)The clerk of a district court has custody of and
;hall carefully' maintain and arrange the records relating to or lawfully deposited in the clerk's
office. (b) the clerk of a district court shall ((1) record the acts and proceedings of the court (2)
enter all judgr.nents of the court under the direction of the judge.
also see Govt.. Code Title 2 Subtitle D. Chap. 51 Section 51.901 Subsection J. showing: It is the
duty of the Di:strict clerk if the clerk has reasonable basis to believe in good faith that a
fraudulent document or instrument has been previously filed or recorded or offered or
43
submitted for :filing or for filing and recording is fraudulent, the clerk shall:(l) ifthe document is
a _pm:ported judgment or other document purporting to memorialize or evidence an act, an
order, a directive, or process of a purported court, provide written notice of the filing, recording
, or submissiom for filing or for filing and recording to the stated or last known address of the
person a_gainst whom the _pm:portedjud_gment, act, order, directive, or _process is rendered;
Applicant's Claim Under 2 and 3
"£~awl Q.Q. tbJ!. T~tat O!.urt, awl CQ.JJ.:rt~ Q.( A.~l~
The District Cl_erk did not provide notice to Applicant of Fraudulent Judgment, Criminal Docket Shee1
Court Order or Index Sheet that their office certified to the 131h Court of Appeals. The District Clerk
did not l)rovidle notice of the PUfl)orted Motions for Continuances._ PUfl)orted Orders on Continuances,_
Purported Coart Ordered Reset Dates, Purported Announcements (that do not exists in the Court
Records,) onl~v on the Applicant's Criminal Docket Sheet. The District Clerk tampered with the
Record in the Applicant's Criminal Trial. The District Clerk and Court should have
had a reasonable basis to believe in good faith that the above mentioned documents were fraudulent.
1. Becaus:e the clerk's office is the party that discovered with the court that the Order Granting
Applicant's M otion was a mistake but yet allowed it to be certified to the 13th Court of Appeals Corpus
Christi, Texas 2. Because the clerk's office has custody of and shall carefully maintain and arrange the
records relating to or lawfully deposited in he clerk's office.
The Clerk recOJrded as filed the above mentioned documents when the clerk's office knew that
every proceeding/document, order, reset day, announcement motion and order entered onto the
Ap_plicant's Criminal Docket Sheet after the 10/23/08 hearing on his Motion to Dismiss were
fraudulent entries.
The Clerk's oflice tampered with government documents. The Clerk's office knew that there were no
Recorded Proceedin_gs in the Trial Court Record showin_g evidence of any of the entries that the
44
Clerks' office 1made onto the Criminal Docket Sheet after the 10/23/08 hearing. The District Clerk and
Judge Janna "\!hatley committed fraud and fraud on the court when they tampered with the
government d•ocuments in the Applicant's Criminal Trial Case, submitted a Fraudulent Judgment to
the 13 1h Court of Appeals and failed to Report Fraudulent Records filed and entered into the Trial
Court and the l3 1h Court of Appeals Co:r:ous Christi. Texas.
Letter fnlllm Judge Wellborn in Response to Letter from Habeas Attorney Carrie Crisp.
Ex#9
Without quoting Judge Wellborn, he in essence stated that he was the pre trial judge at a hearing for a
Motion for Severance by Avvlicant on 9/25/08 but that the State req).lested a Motion for Continuances
that same day and that both parties agreed to continue said matter. He said that while he meant to sign
an Order Granting the Motion for Continuances, he instead had signed the Order Granting the Motion
for Severance by mistake. He said that there were several orders in the Clerks file and they brought
him the wrong~ Order but that they discovered it quickly and that is why the order was never formally
filed and did not get a file stamp. He went on to explain that normally all Orders received a file stamp
when they we:re filed . He also stated that when someone announced that one or more of the parties
were waving there rights to a jury trial that the Motion for Severance became Moot.
Judge Wellbo1rn did not explain why the Order Granting the Motion remained in the file or why he
did not reverste the action of signing the Order. He also did not say who made the announcement and at
what proceeding it was announced, or why there was no record on an announcement or factual
findings on hi:s reasons for determining the Motion was Moot. See EX# 9 Letter from Judge
Michael WeU.born to Carrie Crisp.
Facts in The Trial Court Record regarding the claims in Judge Wellborn's letter do not comport with
i~ .cJ.ai..ttt.<::.
45
There is no rec:orded proceeding of any Announcement announcing that one or more of the defendant's
were going to waive their rights to a jury trial.
There is no rec:orded t>roceeding where Judge Michael Wellborn rendered the Motion Moot and
provided a decision with factual findings on the Record
There is no Record.ofnotice of any such hearing and there is no notice to Applicant of a decision
finding the M~otion Moot.
There are laws and procedures that must be followed at pre trial and trial.
Announcemen:ts are suppose to be made on the record and Notice given.
Defense Motioms must be ruled on prior to trial and a hearing had to determine the facts presented in
the Motion, a :Decision must be made on the Motion with factually findings that support either the
Granting or Denial of same and notice provided.
When a MotiOJn is presented to the judge the maker of the Motion must also prepare a Order for the
Judge to sign and provide said order to the judge and they go over the Motion and Order together.
v
[t is not the cle:rk that prepares or presents the Order, it is the Maker of the Order.
John Gilmore 1told the Apt>licant and his Mother who both inq_uired numerous times that the Motion for
Severance was denied, He told Applicant's Mother this only a few days before trial when she insisted
that he find out what was going on with the severance.
46
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court proceeded to a joint jury trial with the co defendant when Applicant
2hadrick B. P'ate and the natter were not properly before the court for adjudication, the trial
court had no jmrisdiction to enter a Void Judgment, Sentence and Conviction against him and
illegally impri son him in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice System.
Because the trial court and it's officers committed fraud on tlie court and tampered with the documents
in Applicant's criminal trial court record, the court had no jurisdiction to try applicant at either a
separate orjoint trial with the co defendant.
All of the Facts Presented Both On The Record of the trial court and Outside the Courts Record and
Supported by 1the Courts records or sworn affidavit verify the Conclusion that Applicant's Judgment i~
Void . Becau:se the Conviction was acguired through the Violation of A_pplicant's Due Process
Rights to a fair and impartial trial, opportunity to be heard and Notice, and that Officers of the Court
committed Framd on the Court by the Court and tampered with the trial court records in order to obtain
an illegal Comviction of the Applicant. Then it is evident that the Judgment is Void.
The trial courlt and it's officers misrepresentations to the Court, were deceitful, used trickery
concealed facts, were passively silent, prevented a decision on a defense motion presented fraudulent
documents, emtered fraudulent proceedings and used deception by commission, by omission, ~y
~peech, by silence, and by innuendo to obtain the conviction.
The trial court: proceeded to trial when they had no jurisdiction over Applicant or the matter
and gained an illegal conviction that illegally imprisoned Applicant,
Applicant nor the issue were properly before the court for adjudication. The trial court violated
Applicant's Due Process Rights to a impartial and fair trial, opportunity to be heard, and notice
through their violations of A_p_plicant's Due Process, fraud and fraud ~pon the court that caused the
2ourt to lose jjurisdiction to proceed to trial and to enter a Void Judgment, Conviction and Sentence.
47
Johnson v. Zenrbst 304 U.S. 458 Sup Ct , Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 (1963)
Mapco Inc. v: Forrest, 795 S W 2d 700.703 (Tx. 1990) See Armstrong v. Obucino 300 III
140,143 (192ll), Bracey v. Warden US Supreme Court No 96-6133 (June 9th 1997)
Exparte Youn;g 418 S.W.2d 214.223(Tx. Crim. App. 1977.
Fraud may consist ofboth active misrepresentation and _passive silence. Vela v. Marywood
L7 S. W. 3d ?rso, review denied with per curiam opinion 53 S W 3d 684 rehearing of petition for
review denierll (Tex App. Austin 2000).
"Fraud Upon tlhe Court" has been defined as that fraud committed by an officer of the court in any
attempt to dec:eive, either by commission, by omission,by speech, by silence, by gesture, by innuendo
by look, etc. \Vhenever this fraud is committed by any attorney or judge, it is a "fraud upon the Court"
In Eugene Le~e Armentrout et. al., Ill. 2D 242 75 Ill Dec 703 457 N.E.2d 1262 (1983): Regenold v.
Baby Fold, Inc., 68 Ill. 2D 419,435 12 Ill Dec. 151.369 N.E. 2D 858 (1977) ; In re Lamberis, 93 Ill.
2D 222,229, 646 Ill. Dec.623, 443 N.E.2d 549 (1982); Bulloch v. United States k 763 F 2d 1115,1121
(1985); Root ]!Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 169 F2d 514 (1948)
Fraud occurs when a party sets into motion a scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's
ability impartially to adiudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly
hampering the: .presentation ofthe opposing party's claim or defense. AOUDE v. Mobil Oil Corp.,
892 F.2d 111.5,1118 (1st Cir. 1989).
lt is fraud that denies a losing litigant the opportunity to fully litigate at trial his rights or
defenses that could have been asserted. Alexander, 266 S W 2d@ 1001: King Ranch, Inc. v.
Chapman, 118 S W 3d 742,752 (Tex. 2003). In Fay v. Noia the court observed: Criminal
proceedings s'o fundamentally defective as to make imprisonment pursuant to them constitutionally
intolerable should not be allowed to obscure the basic continuity in the conception of the Writ as
remedy for su!ch imprisonment.
48
PRAYER
Whereforte Petitioner Prays that the Court grant Chadrick B. Pate relief from which he is
entitled in tlltis proceeding, that includes an Immediate Emergency Decision, an Order for his
Immediate Release from Incarceration, Order Vacating and Dismissing the Void Judgment,
Sentence, and Conviction, an Order Removing/Expunging the Conviction from all Judaical and
Government Records, And an Order that Sanctions the Trial Court and it's Officers of the Court
for the Fratud and due process violations inflicted upon Applicant Chadrick B Pate. And any
other relief that is available to him.
49
:·.:·: ....: ..: :'
' ·. ·~ i.'..'.. ; . :
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICANT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARDtiN
PETITIONER
v.
JUDGE JAN~NA K. WHATELY
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELEIF
REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE BAIL DECISION AND IMMEDIATE RELEIF
PURSUA!~T TO THE UNDERLYING ORIGINAL EMERGENCY WRIT FOR HABEAS
CORPUS WR-78.165-02
COVER SHEET
RECEIVED IN
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
JUN 02 2015
Abel Acosta, Clerk
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDHN
YETJTJO.NE'B
v.
JUDGEJAN~NAK. WHATELY
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELEIF
REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE BAIL DECISION AND IMMEDIATE RELEIF
PURSUAr'U TO THE UNDERLYING ORIGINAL EMERGENCY WRIT FOR HABEAS
CORPUS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
NOW COME$, Petition~r Nema Bardin on behalf of A_p_plicant Chadrick B. Pate and respectfully
mbmits this Emergency Motion for Relief pursuant to and on the Original Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed in this Court on May, 19th, 2015 .AND Amended Emergency Original Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
on this date Jume 02_. 2015 seeking relief from Cause No. A-08-5080-4CR a Voi~ Judgment.
Sentence and Conviction ordered in the 36th Judicial District Trial Court Aransas, County Texas, and
certified by Trial Judge Janna K. Whately. Because the Trial Court Judgment in Cause No: A-08-5080-
4CR is Void fo.r lack of Jurisdiction, Fraud on the Court, and Tanwering with a Trial Court Government
Record then tl:lls Motion also pertains to relief from Cause No. WR-78.-165-01 The Intial Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed into this Court on or about 6/21/2011 and was denied on 3/6/2013 without
1
written order by Judge Cochran, and from Cause No. 13-09--00112CR affirmed 10/27/2010 from the
Thirteenth Dis;trict Court of Ap_peals.
in A-08-5080-4CR. Chadrick B. Pate.
JURISDICTION
Because this Motion flows from the filing of Petitioner's Original Writ ofHabeas Corpus it has
jurisdiction for the same reasons it has Jurisdiction over the Original Writ filed on the 19th day of May
2015 andArr.11.ended Writ filed on this date June 02:. 2015 pursuant to Article V Section 5 of the Texas
Constitution amdAmendments 1, 5,6 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution . See Exparte Thompson 273
S.W.3d 17 7, 181 (fex. Crim. App.2008) showing this court to have general jurisdiction over
Original Habeas Corpus See Tex Const. Article V
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Nem.a Bardin filed an Original Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court on May 19th, 2015, and
then filed an amended Writ on June 02, 2015 by hand delivering it and speaking personally with Mr.
Abel Acosta Clerk for the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals. Petitioner asked to speak with Mr. Acosta
in order to exp·lain that the Writ being filed was not a 11.07 Writ and therefore not a Second or
· Successive Pe·tition under 11.07. Petitioner explained the nature of the Writ and why it was being filed
as an OriginaL Writ under this Courts inherent power and jurisdiction to provide the relief requested.
Mr. Acosta too'k the Document after reviewing some of the paperwork with Petitioner and stated that he
would file it. On May 22nd, 2015 after checking her mail box, Petitioner found that there was no
notification fr•om the Court providing notice that the Documents had been filed. Because Petitioner's
address is local she called Mr. Acosta to inq_uire about the filing of the documents. He stated that she
should have re•ceived a post card. A conversation regarding the filing and docketing and the rules and
2.
procedures that are required on the kind of Writ that Petitioner filed left Petitioner confused. Because
Petitioner was told that there were no deadlines for the Court to make a decision on the Writ that she
had filed, and because she was told that the Case No. for the Writ that she filed was the same as the
Initial Writ that Applicant Pate had filed with the exception of the last two digits, Petitioner was in a
quandary, and decided that she had better study the Trap rules more thoroughly. Petitioner checked he1
mail again onJMay 23, 2015 and the Post Card had still not arrived at her downtown P 0 Box 772
Austin, Texas .. After reviewing the Trap Rules, Petitioner felt that there should be a req_uirement on the
time frame for a decision on the Serious Matter of a Writ that challenged the Judgment of the Trial
Court as being Void for Lack of Jurisdiction. Petitioner filed an Amended Emergency Writ of Habeas
Corpus on this date June 02, 2015 hand delivered to the Clerk and has at the same time filed this
Emergency M·otion for Releif also hand delivered on June 02, 2015 to the Clerk.
It is not Petitioner's intent to overide this Court with endless Petitions/Motions, it is only her intent to
follow the pro~cedures (~though as a layman they are incredibly confusing to her)
she does not w.ant the Writ to be denied for failure to follow the rules or procedures. Applicant lost his
liberty because the trial court purposely failed to follow the rules and the procedures required of them.
Petitioner·does not q_uestion that Mr. Acosta is not following the rules. She is sure that he is, but
because she has no idea which rules that are being followed then she has determined it best to file this
"Motion for Emergency Relief', with the hope that the Original Writ of Habeas Corpus will not be
denied for her failure in misunderstanding the Trap Rules and Procedures/Protocols that the Clerk's
Office uses to see that these kinds of Writs are filed and journaled properly and expeditiously.
The Petitioner has filed her Original Writ for Habeas Corpus into the proper Court See Thompson 273
S W 3d 177, 1.81 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
If what Mr. Ac,osta says is true, that the Court has no time limit for a decision on the Writ, and it could
be .years befor·e a decision, then Petitioner and Applicant do not have an adeguate remedy for relief.
3
See In re Me Cann 422 S W 3d 201 (fex. 2013) showing:that the remedy is not adequate if the
remedy is: u:ncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient or, inappropriate, then it is deemed to
be ineffective (quoting from Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist 159 S.
W. 3d 645,64 8-9 (fex. Crim. App 2005).
With this in tnind Petitioner respectfully request that this Court take immediate action and grant
Applicant Bail on a Personal Recognizance Bond freeing him from incarceration until which time
this Court can reach a decision on the merits of the Petitioner's claims and that immediate action be
taken on this !lvtotion and on the Odginal Wdt of Habeas Cowus filed on the 19th day of May 2015. and
the Writ filed amending on this date June 02, 2015 ..
More than a (114) days have passed since the filing of the Odginal Writ, and Applicant has been
ille~ally restradned for 7 years.
Petitioner has supported the Wdt with undeniable proof that the Trial Court Tampered with the trial
court records, violated Applicant's dght to a fair and impartial trial, lied to jurors held ex parte hearings
and manipulatN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JANNA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 1
MOTION OF DEFENDANT CHADRICK PATE FOR SEVERANCE OF DEFENDANT'S
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAI'JT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDHN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JANNA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXIDBIT 2
INDICTMENT
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr'lT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARDJIN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JAN~NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHffiiT 3
CHARGE OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAI'IT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDIN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JAN~NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXIDBIT 4
CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET APPLICANT CHADRICK B. PATE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICA!~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDHN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGEJAN:NAK. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 5
9/:25/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 2 OF 9 CHADRICKB. PATE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLI CAI'lT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARDniN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JAN~NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 6
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SEVERANCE 9/25/08
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARJ)IN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 7
AFFIDAVIT STACEY DEVILLE
DISTRICT CLERK PAM HEARD'S STATEMENT ABOUT THE MOTION OF SEVERANCE
ORDER SIGNED BY JUDGE MICHAEL WELLBORN 9/25/08
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr'lT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARD, IN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGEJAN~NAK. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 8
10/23/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 11 PRE TRIAL HEARING CHRISTOPHER
HALL A-08-5080-2CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAI~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARD»IN
YJ!.TJTJO.NE'R
v.
JUDGEJAN~NAK. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 9
JUDGE WEILLBORN'S LETTER TO CARRIE CRISP APPLICANT'S HABEAS ATTORNEY
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAf~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARD~ IN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JAN~NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 10
CARRIE CRISP LETTER TO JUDGE WELLBORN
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTEe FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK lB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICM~T ARANSAS COUNT~ TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARD»IN
PETITIONEGR
v.
JUDGE JANNA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 11
10/23/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 3 OF 9 CHADRICK PATE MOTION TO
DISMISS A-08-5080-4CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAI~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TExAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARDPIN
PETITIONE:R
v.,
JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIDIT 12
CRIMINAL DOCKET SHEET CHRISTOPHER HALLA-08-5080-2CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARDPIN
J>.F.TJTJO.NE:R
v.
JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHffiiT 13
11/25/08 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 5 OF 11 PRE TRIAL HEARING CHRISTOPHER
HALL A-08-5080-2CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAI~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARD»IN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JAN-NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 14
Z/5/09 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 5-A OF 11 PRE TRIAL HEARING CHRISTOPHER
HALL S-08-5080-2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK JIB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARDHN
PETITIONE~R
v.
JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 15
MAS'TER INDEX CHRISTOPER HALL REPORTERS RECORD 1-11 PAGE 2
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAI~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDIN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGE JANNA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXIDBIT 16
INDICTMENT CHRISTOEHER HALLA-08-5080-2CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAt~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARD, IN
PETJTJONE:B
v.
JUDGEJAN:NAK. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXillBIT#17
2/9/09 REPORTERS RECORD VOLUME 4 OF 9 PAGE 102 LINE 9-25 CHADRICK PATE
A-08-5080-4CF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDIN
PETITIONE:R
v.
JUDGEJAN~NAK. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 18
REPORTER~S RECORD VOLUME CHADRICK B PATE LEG RESTRAINTS PAGE 259
LINE 1-25
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDHN
.P.E.TJTJO.NE'R
v.
JUDGE JAN~NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 19
AFFIDAVIT OF CHADRICK PATE (LEG RESTRAINTS)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMA BARD,IN
Y.E.TJTJO.NE'Jl
v.
JUDGEJAN.NAK. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 20
REPOR']fERS RECORD VOLUME 6 OF 9 PAGE 221 LINES 1-25 CHADRICK PATE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICANT ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDniN
.PETJTJONKR
v.
JUDGE JAN:NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 21
INDEX OF" EVENTS CERTIFIED TO THE OURT OF APPEALS CHADRICK PATE A-08-
5080-4CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK :B. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAi~T · ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDIN
YETJTJONE'B
v.
JUDGE JAN.NA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 22
JUDGMENT FRONT PAGE CHADRICK PATE A-08-5080-4CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EXPARTEC FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK JIB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAU~E NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDHN
PETITIONEGR
v.
JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 23
DISTRICT CLERK CERTIFICATION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS CHADRICK PATE
A-08-5080-4CR
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
WRIT NO. WR-78, 165-02
EX PARTE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT
CHADRICK JIB. PATE TDCJ NO. 01563340 36TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPLICAr~T ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS
CAUSE NO. A-08-5080-4CR
NEMABARDIN
PETITIONEGR
v.
JUDGE JANJNA K. WHATELY
COVER SHEET
EXHIBIT 24
JUDGE~ WHATELY'S CERTIFICATION TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ALL
PROCEEDINGS