Levee, Theodore Floyd

WR-82,754-01
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
Transmitted 1/14/2015 9:09:44 PM
Accepted 1/23/2015 11:28:47 AM
MANDAMUS – RE; THEODORE LEVEE ABEL ACOSTA
CLERK
NO. C-432-009597-1239907-A RECEIVED
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
1/23/2015
ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
Theodore Floyd Levee )
Relator, )
v. )
Hon. Ruben Gonzales ) IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF
Jr. ) THE STATE OF TEXAS
Respondent )
)
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS:
In re: Theodore Floyd Levee
Please accept this document in the interest of justice and to correct a wrongful
prosecution
Theodore Floyd Levee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TABLE OF CONTENTS
2. INDEX OF AURTHORITIES
3. DESIGNATION OF PARTIES
4. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS - TFL 001
5. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION – TFL 003
6. AFFIDAVIT FOR TRUTHFULNESS - TFL 008
7. REQUEST LEAVE TO FILE WRIT TFL 011
8. JURISDICTION - TFL 017
9. WORD COUNT – TFL 010
10. STATEMENT OF THE CASE –
TFL 018
11. ISSUES PRESENTED – TFL 019
a. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion interfering with
plea, in violation of Rule 11 prohibition of judicial
involvement in plea discussions
b. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion in the action
following the relator refusals of the agreement, thereby
indicating absence of fact that the waiver was knowing,
voluntary, and absent coercion, and then the Court
persisting after statement by relator of intention to appeal in
that action
c. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion because relator
was denied opportunity to present evidence during
punishment phase of the trial in conviction and as it
pertained to appeal waiver of felony conviction in Cause
No. 1196215 Protective Order violation separate from
conviction of Aggravated Assault
d. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion because of it’s
failing to meet the requirements of a valid contract in the
plea agreement -appeal waiver
e. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion in court’s refusal
to allow withdrawal of appeal waiver because of the
ineffective assistance of counsel, and without a hearing, as
requested informally immediately post-trial by newly
attained Counsel Regan Wynn
f. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion in refusal to
allow Motion for New Trial by Attorney Wynn, because of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel and without a hearing?
g. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion because of
refusal of writ and because of error in the order of the court
in Habeas Corpus §11.072 application based on ineffective
assistance of counsel and without a hearing as presented by
newly retained Counsel David Richards
h. Whether the Court abuse its discretion because it failed to
notice the ineffective assistance of counsel, in trial,
punishment, withdraw request, motion for new trial and
§11.072 application
12. STATEMENT OF FACTS – TFL 021
a. FACT ONE TRIAL COURT INTERFERED WITH THE
RIGHT TO APPEAL INPLEA AGREEMENT AND
CAUSED HARM
b. FACT TWO TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT
IMMEDIATE REQUEST TO WITHDRAW APPEAL
WAVER, DENIED ANYHEARING AND CAUSED
HARM
c. FACT THREE TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO ACT
UPON MOTION FORNEW TRIAL THAT CLAIMED
INEFFECTIVE COUNSELAND WITHOUT HEARING
THEREBY CAUSING HARM
d. FACT FOUR ABUSE OF DISCRETION OCCURRED IN
ACTIONS OFTHE TRIAL COURT IN THE 11.072
APPLICATION BASED ON INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL
AND THE COURTS FLAWED ORDER
e. FACT FIVE COURT ABUSED DISCRETION
13. SUMMATION OF ARGUMENT – TFL 063
14. ARGUMENT – TFL 073
15. PRAYER – TFL 103
16. APPENDIX
17. PARTIES
Williams v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1965, 354 F.2d 698, 704 TFL 64
DESIGNATION OF PARTIES
Relator
Theodore Floyd Levee
925Altara Ave
Coral Gables FL 33146
Thelevee@yahoo.com
Tel. 972-835-6777
Fax 305-665-5138
Respondent
Hon. Judge Ruben Gonzalez Jr.
432nd District Court of Texas,
401 W. Belknap
Fort Worth, TX 76196-0219
817-884-2935
817-884-3361 (fax)
Party of Interest
United States Magistrate Judge
Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton
501 West 10th Street, Room 520
Fort Worth, TX 76102
(817) 850-6690
E-Mail
USDCemergencyfile@txnd.uscourts.gov
Trial Defense Counsel
Mr. Steven Scott Bell
Bar Card Number: 00785689
9400 N Central Expy Ste 416
Dallas, TX 75231-5069
(214)-739-4477
Fax (214)-234-0062
Appellant Counsel
Mr. William Reagan Wynn
Bar Card Number: 00797708
3100 W 7th St Ste 420 Fort Worth,
TX 76107-2793
(817)-336-5600
Fax: (817)-336-5610
Assoc. Appellant Counsel
Mr. David L. Richards
Bar Card Number: 16845500
3001 West 5th Street, Suite 800
Fort Worth, TX 76107
(817)-332-5567
Fax: 817-885-7688
Assistant Prosecutor
Mr. Timothy Scott Rodgers
Bar Card Number: 24046741
401 W. Belknap
Fort Worth, TX 76196-0001
(817)-884-1400
Fax: 817-884-3333
Assistant Prosecutor
Mr. Lloyd Edward Whelchel
Bar Card Number: 00798579
401 W. Belknap St
Fort Worth, TX 76196
(817)-884-1641
Fax: (817-)884-3333
Assistant Criminal Prosecutor
Mr. Joe Shannon Jr.
Bar Card Number: 18107000
400 W Weatherford
Fort Worth, TX 76196-0201
(817)-884-1620
Fax: 817-884-3333
Federal Habeas Corpus Respondent Counsel
Assistant Criminal Prosecutor
Steven Waller Conder
Bar Card Number: 04656510
401 W Belknap St
Fort Worth, TX 76102-1913
(817)-884-1687
FAX (817) 884-1672
E-Mail sconder@tarrantcounty.com
Federal Habeas Corpus Respondent
Leighton Isles,
Director, Community Supervision
& Corrections Dept.
Tarrant County Texas
200 West Belknap Street
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone:
(817)-884-1600
Fax: (817)-531-5639
Persons of Interest
Complainant
Cathey Edmondson 0lds Mehl Levee 0lds
217 Harrison
Hurst TX 76053
Tele. Number (817) 282-6122
Alexandra Levee- Witness
217 Harrison
Hurst TX 76053
Tele. Number (817) 282-6122
Catherine Levee- Witness
217 Harrison
Hurst TX 76053
Tele. Number (817) 282-6122
Andrea Levee-Witness
217 Harrison
Hurst TX 76053
Tele. Number (817) 282-6122 Civil
Counsel
Charles Bennett 'Charlie' Mitchell Jr.
Naman Howell Smith & Lee, PLLC 405
Fort Worth Club Building
306 W 7th St Ste 405 Fort
Worth, TX 76102 Phone:
(817)-509-2040
Fax : (817)-509-2060
INDEX OF AUTHORITY
354 F.2nd 698,704 TFL 77
Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656, 97 S. Ct. 2034, 2038, 52
L. Ed. 2d 651 (1977). APP 1
Anderson v. Johnson, 338 F.3d 382, 392 (5th Cir. 2003) APP 1
Arnold v. State, 685 P.2d 1261, 1265, 1267 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984)
APP 1
Beans v. Black, 757 F.2d 933 (8th Cir.) , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979
(1985) ; APP 1
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L.
Ed. 2d 353 (1993) APP 18
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174(1959) TFL 74
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S. Ct. 2464, 91 L. Ed. 2d
144 (1986) APP 18
DeMoulin v. Kissir,446 S.W.2d 162, 165 (Mo.App.1969) TFL 82
Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
TFL 107
Ex parte Villanueva (April 30, 2008, PD-1836-06) TFL 107
Ex parte Wilson, 724 S.W.2d 72, 74(Tex.Cr. App.1987) TFL 105
Griggs v. A.B. Chance Company, 503 S.W.2d 697, 704 (Mo.App.1973)
TFL 82
Johnson v. Sublett, 63 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 1995) APP 18
Kercheval v. United States,274 U.S. 220, 224, 71 L.Ed. ,1009, 47 S. Ct.
582 (1927). TFL 76
Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S.790, 802-03 (1952) TFL 73
McCoy v. Wainwright, 804 F.2d 1196, 1198 (11th Cir. 1986) APP 1
Mclntire, 698 S.W.2d at 660. TFL 105
Pharo v.Chambers Cnty., 922 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Tex. 1996) TFL 78
Randle v. State, 847 S.W.2d 576 (Tex.Cr.App.1993) TFL 105
re Estate of Rhea, 257 S.W.3d 787, 790 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008,
TFL 78
Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) TFL 105
Rogers v. Maggio, 714 F.2d 35, 37 (5th Cir. 1983) APP 1
Scott v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 427, 429 (11th Cir. 1983) APP 1
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219, 102 S. Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78
(1982). APP 18
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219, 102 S. Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78
(1982). APP 18
State v Guerrero (June 5, 2013, PD-1258-12) TFL 106
State v. Osborne, 684 P.2d 683, 691 (Wash. 1984) APP 1
State v. Williams, 666 N.W.2d 58, 60, 65 (Wis. 2003) TFL 104
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 TFL 64
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.
Ed. 2d 674 (1984) . APP 1
Strickland v. Washington, supra,466 U.S. at 687(III), 104 S. Ct. 2052
TFL 72
Strickland v. Washington, supra,466 U.S. at 687(III), 104 S. Ct. 2052
TFL 101
STRICKLAND v.WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) TFL 78
Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1984) APP 1
Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571 (9th Cir. 1996 APP 18
United States v. Henderson, 72 F.3d 463, 465 APP 1
United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449, 106 S. Ct. 725, 88 L. Ed. 2d
814 (1986) APP 18
United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir.1992). APP 1
United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir.1994) APP 1
United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.1994) APP 1
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 TFL 72
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 8407 Id. at 840. TFL 101
Will. v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1965 TFL 77
Will. v. Beto, 5th Cir. 1965, 354 F.2d 698, 704 TFL 64
MOTION SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
NO. C-432-009597-1239907-A
Theodore Floyd Levee ) THE COURT
Relator, ) OF CRIMINAL
v. ) APPEALS OF
Hon. Ruben Gonzales Jr. ) THE STATE OF
Respondent ) TEXAS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS:
In re: Theodore Floyd Levee
MOTION SEEKING AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS
TFL001
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SEEKING
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED IN FROMA PAUPERIS
NO. C-432-009597-1239907-A
Theodore Floyd Levee )
Relator, )
v. )
Hon. Ruben Gonzales ) IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF
Jr. ) THE STATE OF TEXAS
Respondent )
)
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS:
In re: Theodore Floyd Levee
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION SEEKING
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED IN FROMA PAUPERIS
TFL003
I, Theodore Floyd Levee, declare that I am the relator in the above
entitled case; that in support of my motion to proceed without being
required to prepay fees, costs or give security therefor, I state that
because of my poverty I am unable to pay the costs of said proceeding
or to give security therefor; that I believe I am entitled to redress; and
that the issues which I desire to present are the following: Did the trial
court abuse its discretion?
IN support of the establishment of current financial state are the
following questions and answers;
1. Are you presently employed? No x
If the answer is "no," state the date of last employment and the
amount of the salary and wages per month which you received.
December 15 2010, salary of $108,000.00 per year.
_
2. Have you received within the past twelve months any money from
any of the following sources?
TFL004
a. Business, profession or form of self-employment? No x
b. Rent payments, interest or dividends? No x
c. Pensions, annuities or life insurance payment? Yes x
d. Gifts or inheritances? Yes x
e. Any other sources? Yes x
If "yes," describe each source and amount received during the past
twelve months. ANSWER;
f. May 2014, $1100.00 surrender of Annuity Lincoln National Life
g. SNAP Food Stamp Assistance 1405127147 $189.00 per month
h. Gift of 250.00 Family
3. Do you own cash, or have money in checking or savings account?
No x
4. Do you own any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or
other valuable property (excluding ordinary household furnishings and
clothing)?
Yes x
TFL005
If “yes," describe the property and state its approximate
value.
ANSWER; 1997 Acura CL 2.0 in poor condition with
over 200,000 miles. Cash value approximately $500.00
5. List the persons who are dependent upon you for support, state your
relationship to those persons, and indicate how much you contribute
toward their support.
Self .
I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 20 2104.
TFL006
Signature of Petitioner
TFL007
AFFIDAVIT FOR TRUTHFULNESS
NO. C-432-009597-1239907-A
Theodore Floyd )
Levee )
Relator, )
v. ) IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Hon. Ruben ) OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Gonzales Jr. )
Respondent )
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS:
In re: Theodore Floyd Levee
TFL008
AFFIDAVIT FOR TRUTHFULNESS
Signed in the State of Florida. County of Dade
My legal name is Theodore Floyd Levee. I am presently 61 years old.
My current address of residence is 925 Altara Ave. Coral Gables.
Florida 33146
I hereby state that the information contained in this application for a writ
of Mandamus is true, to the best of my knowledge I also confirm that the
information here is both accurate and complete and relevant information
has not been omitted.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Signature of Individual
Date
December 28 2014
TFL009
AFFIDAVIT OF WORD COUNT
This mandamus is below the required word count limit of 15,000 words.
Elec Sig Theodore LEvee
TFL010
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND JURISDICTION
NO. C-432-009597-1239907-A
Theodore Floyd )
Levee )
Relator, )
v. ) IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
Hon. Ruben ) OF THE STATE OF TEXAS
Gonzales Jr. )
Respondent )
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS:
In re: Theodore Floyd Levee
REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
4-1
TFL011
Comes now Theodore Floyd Levee, Relator, and request permission of
the Court to file this application for writ of mandamus.
1. The purpose of the writ is to correct a manifest injustice and
request this Court of Criminal Appeals to intervene by granting
relief from the applicable actions and rulings of the 432nd District
Court of Texas, Tarrant County, Hon. Judge Gonzales.
2. Relator, is innocent, wrongfully accused, convicted and denied his
rights under due process and ineffective counsel.
3. Relator has been prevented in the intention to prove innocence,
from obtaining review of or appeal from the wrongful felony
conviction as it pertains to the allegation of aggravated assault and
protective order violation, at the actions of the parties and the
Court and is made in the interest of justice.
4. Failure in the application of due process and on the part of counsel
at nearly every phase of adjudication has resulted in a grave
miscarriage of justice due to factual innocence, in that substantive
4-2
TFL012
evidence does not support allegation.
5. The medical records have never been factually considered, never
been reviewed and those records conclusively prove realtors
innocence and no crime occurred.
6. The timeliness of this writ is asked waived, in the interest of
justice and the factual innocence of the relator.
7. Indigence, the complexity of the issues, ineffectiveness of
retained counsel, actions on the part of the Court and its officers
and the inability to gain any pro bono support, required time
learning procedure in an attempt to protect and defend the
constitutional rights of the relator acting pro se.
8. Actions of the part of the parties has contributed to the delay and
untimeliness of this application.
9. As the result of the failure in
A. the due process of law and,
B. ineffective assistance of counsel and,
C. the abridgement the Constitution of the United
4-3
TFL013
States,
D. Actions and the abuse of discretion have, as such,
contributed to relator’s inability to
i. Obtain effective assistance,
ii. Obtain review,
iii. Obtain appeal,
iv. Obtain habeas corpus,
v. Obtain new trial
vi. Obtain any post-conviction consideration
vii. Obtain hearing
1. Of abuse of discretion
2. Of the absence of fact in substantive
medical evidence
3. Of Proof that no crime occurred in
the false claim of Aggravated
Assault.
10. Actions of parties resulted in an erroneous conviction and the
4-4
TFL014
inability to gain any hearing to consider the absolute truth
reflected in the substantive evidence contained in the records
before the court.
A. Fraud on the Federal Court is alleged by relator on the part
of The Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office in the
attempt to prevent review of the trial and proceedings.
i. Respondent Conder’s misstatement of Texas
Statutes Chaper 11 requirement of service in 28
in U.S.C. 2254 necessitating Mandamus.
ii. Prosecutor Rodgers misstatement of fact in
affidavit he submitted in the support of denying
28 U.S.C. 2254
11. Mandamus is appropriate in a criminal case if the relator
shows that he has no other adequate legal remedy and the act
sought to be compelled is purely ministerial; a "ministerial act"
is one which is accomplished without the exercise of discretion
or judgment.
4-5
TFL015
12. The mistrial act requested has been an opportunity to present
evidence in the records before the court in support of
innocence in the allegation and conviction of aggravate assault.
4-6
TFL016
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction to hear this original proceeding
under Texas Government Code section 22.221(b)
4-7
TFL017
6. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion in refusal to allow
Motion for New Trial by Attorney Wynn, because of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel and without a hearing?
7. Whether the trial Court abuse its discretion because of refusal of
writ and because of error in the order of the court in Habeas Corpus §
11.072 application based on ineffective assistance of counsel and
without a hearing as presented by newly retained Counsel David
Richards
8. Whether the Court abuse its discretion because it failed to notice
the ineffective assistance of counsel, in trial, punishment, withdraw
request, motion for new trial and §11.072 application
TFL020
presence of two witnesses see App 19 Aff of Ruso 22 Aff of Levee
iii. Presentation of plea and terms contractually deficient,
9. Trial Court abused its discretion in failing to honor the refusal of
agreement after acceptance of that refusal.
TFL023
FACT TWO
TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO ACCEPT IMMEDIATE
REQUEST TO WITHDRAW APPEAL WAVER, DENIED ANY
HEARING AND CAUSED HARM.
Immediately upon sentencing and adjournment new counsel, Regan
Wynn was retained and immediately requested withdraw of appeal
waiver based on ineffective assistance of counsel and permission to
file appeal.
a. Court refused request to withdraw appeal waiver
b. Court refused appeal
c. Court refused hearing.
i. Mr. Wynn would not produce records per request – See
end note Feb 2012 Regan Wynn
TFL024
assistance of counsel- See end note ix(COURT’S DEFECTIVE ORDER
11.072) and absent a hearing. Id App 11 State reply and order
6. Counsel David Richards never informed relator of writ
7. Counsel David Richards did not inform relator a of right to appeal
8. In the pro se filing of a § 28 U.S.C.2254 habeas application relator
learned of the existence of a state writ.
a. Realtor informed the United States District Court he was
unaware of the writ
b. Absence of service as required by § Chapter 11.5 see APP 24 Service
e. Respondent Counsel Mr. Conder misinformed the court in
the requirement of service in a state write- see APPENDIX EIGHTEEN;
CONDOR FRAUD ON FEDRAL COURT -MISTAMEMENT OF LAW
d. Prosecution issued an affidavit deficient in truth, fact and
validity prejudicing The United States District Court.- See 13.
APPENDIX THIRTEEN; PROSECUTOR RODGERS SWORN
AFFIFDAVIT TO MAGISTRATE
United States District Court dismissed 28 U.S.C. 2254 with
prejudice for failing to exhaust states remedies
I. See A End Note RULING IN FEDERAL COURT
ii. See also 13. APPENDIX THIRTEEN; PROSECUTOR RODGERS
SWORN AFFIFDAVIT TO MAGISTRATE
f. The writ was not appealed because its existence was unknown
TFL027
TFL029
TFL030
ii
Arrest for Protective Order Violation
FIRST ALLEGATION PO VIOLATION April 11 2010
1. Based on realtor not understanding the arrest – as he did not hurt
his wife
a. And the fact he was taking a pain medication administered by
his wife and know by her to cause him harm
i. As stated in Victims Voluntary Statement
b. And the Hurst Jail continued to administer pain medication as
the incisions from surgery was causing pain
c. And the inability to talk to his wife
d. And the magistrate hearing being unrepresented
2. Signing paper he could not read because eyeglasses where still at
residence
3. Being told he could not live at home any more
a. Realtor did not understand he could not have his wallet,
pants, glasses or car.
TFL031
4. Realtor was accosted by screaming spouse as he entered unlock
residence
a. Gathered his pants and glasses and his computer
b. Was in car pulling out of drive way
c. When Hurst Police ordered him out of car as he was backing
out of drive way
d. Placing him under arrest for PO violation
e. The black coat described in police report was actually a
support Velcro immobilizer that supported the operative arm
post-surgery.
TFL032
TFL033
TFL034
TFL035
TFL036
SECOND ACCUSATION OF PO VIOLATION
FALSE CLAIM P.O. VIOL RESULTING IN ARREST APRIL 28 2010
It was impossible for Theodore Levee to be at 401 Parkview Hurst
Texas at the time as sworn to by Cassie Figueroa in the PO violation
arrest.
“Figueroa said that on Wednesday 04-28-2010 atabout 1330 hours…
Drive by once every ten minutes or so
Frequency increased to about once every five minutes
Drove by six or seven times before he parked
Watched for three or four minutes and called Alexandra Levee
Who called Cathey Levee
6/1/2010 police report states Cathey did not answer Alexandra’s call
4/28/10
Claim Cathey returned call at 1430 (2:30 PM)
Five minutes after he left Alexandra returned from school
Cathey Levee called Officer Tooker #638 (Sequence #100405367)
Police report shows first call to HPD at 21:15 (9:15 PM)
Claim Theodore Levee drove around for 40 minutes
TFL037
Court confirmed Theodore Levee was scheduled to be in Magistrate’s
Court on April 28 2010 at 1 PM.
Attorney Bell instructed Theodore Levee to meet him at 12:45 -15
minutes prior to call to order.
Relator signed papers in probation office at 1524 (3:24 PM)
Mr. Levee was at court at 12:45 - Mr. Bell met Theodore Levee at appox
1:30 as Bell was late for court
Theodore Levee appeared before magistrate without Mr. Bell and
entered pro se plea of not guilty at 1:15
Mr. Bell met and then discussed what was happening and also discussed
a plea bargain with ten years’ probation when he arrived. Mr. Bell then
delivered a letter of representation to the Clerk of the Court Time
stamped 2:09 PM
Mr. Bell further discussed the case and left at approximately 3 PM
Theodore Levee walked to probation department and signed in.
PO Vio. hearing in Judge Polous's courtroom Mr. Bell failed to confirm
Mr. Levee was with him at the time he registered with court per time
stamp. resulting in the divorce courts finding and increase in bond and
TFL038
the additional requirement of GPS at $800.00 per month
The confirmation of times Levee:
a. Court PM call was 1 PM and Levee was second case called
b. Bell and Levee were together at 2:09 PM
c. Levee was at Probation at 3:24 PM
Times in accusation;
a. Arrived at 1:30
b. Drove around several times
c. Six or seven times starting at ever ten minutes and then ever five
minutes
d. Smallest computation of time would be 35 minutes - 1x 10 minutes
and 5 X 5 minutes
2 x10 minutes and 4 x 5 minutes = 40 minutes
3X 10 and 3 x 5 =45 minutes d. 4X 10 and 2X 5 = 50
Estimated time alleged driving around house was then between 35
and 50 minutes
Waited three or four minutes = 55 minutes
TFL039
Giving time for allegation of exchange
Arrived 1:30 earliest departure 2:15
Latest 2:20
Telephone records are available to show the times do not add up
Based on court appearance and time stamp on Clerks letter it is
impossible for Theodore Levee to be at the residence at 1:30
Based on allegation it is impossible to depart residence and be in court.
a. depart at 2:15 to 2:30
b. Drive and park downtown Fort Worth – appox. 45 minutes (3:00
or 3:30 PM)
c. Appear in Magistrates court at 1 PM call to order
d. And then sign into Probation office several blocks away at 3:24
PM
TFL040
Counsel time stamped notice of representation
TFL041
TFL042
TFL043
TFL044
iii
COURT 34.2 Don’t—Do not say another word.
TFL045
iv
35.5 May we go outside?
TFL046
v
(37.6 Based on Advice of Counsel…)
TFL047
vi
Wynn refused to send all records dispite request.
Print - Close Window - Click More at the bottom of the email to print single message
Subject:Re: Reagan Wynn
From: Theodore Levee (thelevee@yahoo.com)
To: rwynn@kearneywynn.com;
Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:04 AM
Theodore Laurenzana - Levee
Coral Gables Florida
972-835-6777
From: Reagan Wynn
To: Thelevee@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Reagan Wynn
Ted - i am out of state this week. I will get thefile together and forwarded to Mr Mitchell next
week.
Reagan
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 13, 2012, at 7:18 PM, "Thelevee@yahoo.com" wrote:
Please forward ALL attorneys work and a copy of the contract to Mr. Mitchell, as well as all
notes, memos and any other material concerning my relationship with your firm as soon as
possible. According to Mr. Amitchell he has only received the trust.
It was offered to assist me in obtaining what the court agreed to and was never done, that is
return to Florida. I have lost the tuition for one class, with constitutional and administrative law
classes not too far behind.
I took the on line training for the compact and according to the sources I talked to Florida has
never recieved the request.
This is contrary to the agreement that was made and I am the only one that seems to follow the
rules and keep agreements.
I am curious however, because in the cites I found.
The false accusations made in the 404 claiming I was accused of sexual assault of my daughter
was found to be without merit and the statement did not constitute the claim according to Hurst
PD Det. Noone. In the cases I read that action would prejudice the court if were not presented to
TFL048
identify or if it was not substantiated. The negative cite I read said if but not for the prior
ARREST, then the 404 action could be the grounds for a new trial.
I have had other attorneys read the transcript and the general consensus is the testimony against
me contradicted itself many times.
While Mr. Bell referenced the medical statements, he presented no evidence and no witness.at
the same time referring to them in closing argument. These statements - prior claims of how the
accident happened on no way match the testimony. The statements were in a sworn bus.
Affidavit of HEB ER records.
The claim of 80% disability has no merit especially in light of the statement Cathey
made to Dr. Kadoko's that she is in the chair on the advice of counsel and is really quite active.
In the transcript Mr. Bell stated he recieved states evidence as late as two days prior to trial.
Meaning he did not excersize his discovery opportunity and he actually said the discord did not
exist in Texas.
Mr. Bell bullied my daughter and my friend to accept the offer to plea post finding. I can only
say I am the process of getting a psych evaluation.
The mortgage lawsuit cathey filed against CITI was defeated in summary judgement. The car
accident is coming up soon.
Perhaps the two greatest points were that Mr. Bell refused my request for expert medical
testimony. You see one of the claims is I kicked her and broke her leg. The bone claimed is the
small bone in the back of the leg. A kick from the front would have had to break both bones.
Mr. Bell was completely unprepared. He actually told the judge he did not do appeals when the
judge asked if he advised his client concerning appeal rights. It was not in the transcript however
but Risa and my daughter heard it as well . The court may have been off the record at the time.
I ask that you please excuse my bitterness.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Charles Mitchell
Date: February 28, 2012 2:39:58 PM CST
To: 'Theodore Levee'
Cc: Patty Rien
Subject: Reagan Wynn
Ted:
I’ve spoken with Reagan. He is forwarding his contract to me and the monies you have in
escrow. You owe the Probation Department or the monitoring company $845.00 I instructed
TFL049
Reagan to pay that out of the escrow monies. He also said he’d be happy to assist you in trying to
get you transferred to Florida. He advised that prior to deduction for the $845.00 there was
$13,300.00 in escrow.
Yours truly,
Charles B. Mitchell, Jr., Esq.
Naman Howell Smith & Lee, PLLC
Fort Worth Club Building
306 West 7th Street, Suite 405
Fort Worth, Texas 76102-4911
(817)509-2025 (main)
(817)509-2040 (direct)
(817)509-2060 (fax)
Email: cmitchell@namanhowell.com
Licensed in Texas and Arkansas
To Learn More visit www namanhowell.com
*******************
The information contained in this e‐mail message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may
be an attorney‐client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged
and confidential.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or
an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that you have received this document in error and that any review,
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us
immediately by e‐mail, and delete the original message.
Important/Confidential: This communication and any files or documents attached to it are intended only for the use
of the person or entity to which it is addressed. It contains information that may be privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are
hereby notified that the copying, distribution or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication by mistake, please notify the sender immediately by electronic mail and destroy all
forms of this communication (electronic or paper). Thank you.
=
TFL050
MITCHELL EMAIL STRATEGY FOLLOWING MEETING
vii
WITH WYNN
TFL051
TFL052
JUDGEMENT BY THE COURT showing plea of guilty and plea
viii
in open court
TFL053
ix
COURTS DEFECTIVE 11.072 ORDER
TFL054
x
RULING OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 28 U.S.C.
2254
TFL055
TFL056
TFL057
TFL058
TFL059
TFL060
TFL061
TFL062
SUMMATION OF ARGUMENT
1. The court was misled because prosecution and defense failed in
their duty as officers of the court to investigate and conduct a fair
trial.
2. The court abused its discretion.
a. Because it interfered in the Rule 11 agreement in sentencing
agreement / appeal waiver
b. Because it failed to note ineffective counsels failure to
present defense or evidence or contradict obvious
inconsistencies.
c. Because of its actions preventing review
d. Because it failed to perform due process of law.
3. The trial court abused its discretion because it never heard any
post-conviction evidence
It was the general rule, that relief from a final conviction on the
grounds of incompetent or ineffective counsel will be granted only
when the trial was a farce, or a mockery of justice, or was shocking
TFL063
the hospital records, is not sufficiently explained by
prosecutors claim transposition errors. The testimony fails to
equate to commonly known medical fact that in a lateral
cause of injury to the knee the lateral ligaments will show
disturbance before the ACL tears, - there are NO
disturbances of lateral ligaments. (APPENDIX THE
FORENSIC EXAMINER Spring 2005 By Matthew
Donohoe, MA, ATC; Helen Aslanian, BS; and Kenneth
Solomon, PhD, PE, Post PhD .
“In order to achieve rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament due to
abduction, the medial collateral ligament must first be ruptured.
When the medial collateral ligament is ruptured due to abduction,
the rupture of the anterior cruciate liga-ment is inevitable.)
Smilli IS. Injuries of the Knee Joint. UCLA BIOMED WE 870
S641i; 1951. )
d. The radiology report and orthopedic surgeon state no
collateral ligament damage is apparent.
TFL065
TFL066
e. The complaints made at the time of the injury are far too
different than the story made up after the hospital visit.(see
PRIOR INCONSISTANT STATEMENTS)
i. And differ from Testimony
`43.10 He wrapped his ankle around the lower part of my
leg and flipped it out at a right angle
TFL067
ii.
TFL068
f. The addition of the rib injury, a month later, never
substantiated as an injury and testimony the pictures of the
right side of the body reflect and verify an injury to the left
side of the body is too far a reach.
4. The complaint, in that it was a preexisting injury as shown in the
evidence submitted and not attested to, and is absent the collateral
ligament damage, lacking substantive evidence proving such an
action, when in fact it could not have occurred. The additional
allegation of a rib injury, unsubstantiated despite the complete total
physical of April 10 2010, and the release in the business records
affidavit stating no other injury no other claim. Proof does not in
fact exist in the medical evidence as it supposes the possibility and
complainant’s testimony of the photos reflecting the allegation of a
later discovered rib injury, as testified, is outrageous – it refers to
an injury on the other side of the body. The allegation of 80%
disabled told to prosecutor and police but differing in examination
of Doctor
TFL069
see APPENDIX 4 ; COMPLAINT OF RIB INJURY
Dr. Kadoko and the subsequent admission of fraud in a car accident,
contradicts itself in the record. see APP 25 DR. Kadoko APRIL 28 2010
The failure to present evidence in the records of prior statements referred
to in opening and again in closing of multiple claims cannot be
trivialized as prosecutor stated as transposition errors. There is no logic
nor reason that can explain all of the actions that have resulted in arrival
at this point of mandamus. Why the court gave this much credit can only
be an abuse of discretion. Given a fair opportunity, a fighting chance, the
reasonable doubt standard would be exceeded and clear, compelling
substantial evidence shown in the record, the complainant desires to gain
materially and to hide contention of relator of the addiction and abuse of
prescriptions by complainant, was the purposes of fictional evidence
made to appear real. The court’s refusal to exercise discretion in
substandard performance of defense counsel is a bit outrageous. It
exceeds
TFL070
APP 24
TFL071
guilty. Actions violated relator’s rights and prejudiced the outcome.8
The court abused its discretion by the rule of law.
6 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840
7 Id. at 840.
8 “counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair
trial, a trial whose result is reliable,” Strickland v. Washington, supra,
466 U.S. at 687(III), 104 S. Ct. 2052
TFL072
ARGUMENT
Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter stated that “it is the duty of the
Government to establish … guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is
basic in our law and rightly one of the boasts of a free society—is a
requirement and safeguard of due process of law in the historic,
procedural context of ‘due process’.” See: Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S.
790, 802-03 (1952) [dissenting opinion].
That due process was subverted and abused in an unexplainable failure
befuddling the relator, because in fact, there is no substantial evidence a
crime took place because the injuries testified to do not match medical
evidence, because the testimony varies from the prior statements
dramatically and because forensic facts do not support the allegation.
Because the Court Ignored the hard evidence, the failure of counsel, and
the conviction was by dubious testimony that a reasonable person could
see was conflicted, it resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice and was
outrageously compounded because the Tarrant County District
Attorney’s Office actions to prevent revue, later, outright misleading the
TFL073
and property.” See: Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174
(1959).”
It is obvious these rules were ignored because facts in evidence,
neglected by counsel and prosecution and the Court resulted in false
conviction.
“The Supreme Court in Winship recognized that the reasonable doubt
standard protects three fundamental interests. First, it protects the
defendant’s interest in liberty; second, it protects an innocent person
charged with a crime from the stigma of conviction; and, third, it
engenders public confidence in criminal law by giving “concrete
substance” to the constitutional presumption of innocence. Id., 397 U.S.
at 363-64.”
“In a concurring opinion in Winship, Justice Harlan pointed out that the
reasonable doubt standard is “bottomed on a fundamental value
determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent
man than to let a guilty man go free.” Id., 397 U.S. at 372.”
TFL075
TFL077
APPENDIX 3. PRIOR
STATEMENTS OF COMPLAINANT. This is
explained by ADA Rodgers in closing;
Trl. Rcd. II STATE VS. THEODORE FLOYD LEVEE Prosecutors closing
argument Pg. 21
4 medical records, what we have is the victim In a very
5 pained and upset state giving reports to doctors and
6 police officers, and they are writing that information
7 down.
8 So, yes, there may be some transposition
9 issues, but the fact remains someone hooking an ankle
10 and pulling their leg out could be a kick, could be a
11 sweep. Grabbing with the ankle and pulling out, those
12 are semantics that can be explained as to she’s Just
13 gIving the description to people who are transposing it.
14 Regardless, we have physical, medical
15 evidence showing these injuries took place, and they’re
16 absolutely consistent with what the victim stated, not
17 to mention this good relationship that the Defendant has
18 with these girls, that he’s demonstrated this whip-kick
19 to Alex.
This “whip kick” was created by complainant’s
father as sworn in AFFIDAVIT FOR DIVORCE and
is in the manifestation of the lie perpetuated in
coached false testimony, by evidence prosecution
court and counsel failed to review or allow under a
perverted MOTION IN LIMINE. See APPENDIX
TFL079
25 2006. The complainant actually appeared in
court with a like fracture in the opposite fibular.
Inconsistencies are not sufficiently explained by
prosecutors claim in closing of transposition
errors. See also APPENDIX 5. ARGUMENT
FAILURE DEFENSE OPENING; See also
APPENDIX 6. ARGUMENT DEFENSE
CLOSING STATEMENT referencing facts not
presented in testimony.
TFL081
4. The court failed to recognize the testimony did not establish
any medically substantive fact for cause of injury and was
contrary to evidence.
a. “Under the sudden onset doctrine, a causal connection may
be inferred if the injury ‘develops coincidentally with the
negligent act, such as broken bones ․, immediate, continuing
back pain ․, or an obvious wound․’ DeMoulin v. Kissir,
446 S.W.2d 162, 165 (Mo.App.1969). The testimony of a
lay witness is sufficient to establish the nature, cause and
extent of an injury ‘when the facts fall within the realm of lay
understanding.’ Griggs v. A.B. Chance Company, 503
S.W.2d 697, 704 (Mo.App.1973).”
“However, when the injury is a ‘sophisticated injury, which
requires surgical intervention or other highly scientific
technique for diagnosis, the proof of causation is not within
the realm of lay understanding.’ ” Id. quoting from Griggs v.
TFL082
A.B. Chance Co., 503 S.W.2d 697, 704 (Mo.App.1973).
Testimony conflicts commonly known medical fact that in an
abduction as a cause of injury to the knee the lateral
ligaments will show disturbance before the ACL tears, - there
are NO disturbances of lateral ligaments. See APPENDIX 8.
ARGUMENT; THE FORENSIC EXAMINER, Spring 2005
e.g. By Matthew Donohoe, MA, ATC; Helen Aslanian, BS;
and Kenneth Solomon, PhD, PE, Post PhD .)
“In order to achieve rupture of the anterior cruciate
ligament due to abduction, the medial collateral ligament
must first be ruptured. When the medial collateral
ligament is ruptured due to abduction, the rupture of the
anterior cruciate liga-ment is inevitable.”
Smilli IS. Injuries of the Knee Joint. UCLA BIOMED
WE 870 S641i; 1951 e,g. )
b. Illustration show facts inconsistent with prosecutions
presentation. See Argument 10. OF THE KNEE
TFL083
APPENDIX 9. ARGUMENT; RADIOLOGY REPORT TEXAS
HEALTH HARRIS HEB 4/10/2010
TFL085
f. The complaints made at the time of the injury are far too
different than the story made up after the hospital visit.
APPENDIX 3. ARGUMENT; PRIOR INCONSISTANT
STATEMENTS IN EVIDENCE -BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT
TEXAS HEALTH HARRIS HEB ER RECORDS 4/10/2010
CL PRIOR STATEMENTS 4/10/10 HEB EMERGENCY ROOM AFFIDAVIT IN EVIDENCE
4/10/2010  19:28  (7:28)  Domestic dispute with husband kicked in knee fell now cannot stand on leg  ER pg 11‐13
PD not notified 51 y.o. DOB: 911111958
Visit Date: 411012010
Account Number9:0 60052031 MRN:0 70013282
Room #: 61
Chief Complaint: Knee Injury (Major)
HPI
7:28 PM Cathe  L  51   f male presents to the ER complaining of right
knee injury onset pta.
Pt. states her husband allegedly kicked her right knee.
Pt. reports her husband did a type of maneuver where he grabbed her ankle
and kicked her knee, severely twisting her knee.
Pt. states when she tries to walk on knee it feels wobbly and goes out on
her.
No other injuries at this time.
No other complaints.
Pt. has RA and mild right knee menisectomy as a teenager.
Denies any other injury during this incedent.
4/10/2010  19:33  (7:33)  Admiting Diag. Possible broken knee Injury: kicked in knee,pain.  ER pg 24
TFL086
4/10/2010  19:45  (7:45)  kicked right knee  ER pg 11
4/10/2010  20:13  (8:13)  Comment Dr. Peckepaugh PTA Domestic dispute with husband Kicked in  ER pg 10
knee.
4/10/2010  20:27  (8:27)  Husband tripped her ER pg 9
4/10/2010  20:32  (8:32)   Patient stated a below‐DF,  My husband tripped me.‐DF ER Pg 8
4/10/2010  23:01  (11:00)  he purposely bumped me into the wall , I stumbled  & he did a “military take  Vic Vol Statement Pg1
down” kick to my right knee.
g. And differ from TestimonyAPPENDIX 11. ARGUMENT
Trl Rcd 43.10 He wrapped his ankle around the lower
TFL087
part of my leg and flipped it out at a right angle
TFL088
id APP 4
TFL089
See APPENDIX 12 DENIES ANY OTHER INJURIES AT
THIS TIME exceeds reasonable doubt of a crime.
TFL091
id 1. APP One
TFL095
APP FIFTEEN
TFL097
TFL099
In Walker v. Packer, the Texas Supreme Court attempted to re-instate
mandamus as an “extraordinary remedy, available only in limited
circumstances.” The Court’s analysis focused on reaffirming two basic
requirements: there must be a clear abuse of discretion committed by the
trial court in applying the law and there must be no adequate remedy by
appeal.
It is clear in the complete record the Court exceeded this standard and
actually stonewalled any attempt at relief.
If not but for the abuse of discretion of the court the relator would
succeeded in attempts to appeal and stood trial in protective order
allegations.
The courts blindness to the wrongful actions of counsel in this
adjudication are apparent in the record.
Taken as a whole, evidence in record utilized, no reasonable jurist would
find the relator guilty nor would a reasonable court circumvent every
attempt to correct the gross errors.
TFL100
Actions of the officers of the court violated relator’s rights and
prejudiced the outcome.
The court abused its discretion by the rule of law.
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 8407 Id. at 840.
“Counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair
trial, a trial whose result is reliable,” Strickland v. Washington, supra,
466 U.S. at 687(III), 104 S. Ct. 2052; See id. 2. ARGUMENT;
CONSTITUTIONALY INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL
The trial Court abused its discretion in failing to perform in compliance
with Canon 1: Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the
Judiciary CODE OF JUDICAL CONDUCT
“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in
our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and
enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe
those standards so that the integrity and independence of the
TFL101
Judiciary is preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed
and applied to further that objective.”
This Trial Court, in the preponderance of this record, failed to administer
justice
TFL102
PRAYER
Relator is innocent. It is because of that fact the request is made for
any opportunity to substantiate evidence.
Medical evidence supports relators contention no crime took place.
Medical evidence refutes contention of complainant who was using
the claim and in fact succeeded in obtaining favorable treatment in
divorce court.
Complainant was suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and suffered
from a narcotics addiction at the time of the incident and used a
campaign of distortion and fear to destroy credibility of relator to
avoid detection. Later, the orthopedic surgeon discovered the
addiction and refused to treat the complainant any further.
Overall the possible relief is in remand to the State Court of Criminal
Appeals for a full and fair hearing of the merits of the relator.
A hearing for relief from the judgments of trial court that prevented
review or appeal affording a forum that allows the factual
presentation of all the evidence is desired.
TFL103
Any opportunity to prove by substantial evidence, innocence before
lawful authority is relator’s outcome.
Because of interference with the Rule 11 procedure and denial of
withdrawal of guilty plea, the court may allow return to plea, sentence
and allow the appeal.
Citing State v. Williams, 666 N.W.2d 58, 60, 65 (Wis. 2003)
(prohibiting the judge from playing any role in the plea bargaining
process and allowing the defendant to withdraw a plea resulting from
the trial judge’s invitation to the defendant, his counsel, and the
prosecutor to “have a little chat in chambers”).
Realtor submits interference on the part of the trial court
Because the motion for new trial was allowed to expire then the court
may allow the motion and hold a hearing to determine if substantial
evidence verifies contentions of relator.
“Appellant', s motion for new trial, supported by his affidavit was
filed in a timely manner.
TFL104
The motion raised a matter not determinable from the record, namely,
that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to inform appellant of a
plea bargain offered by the State. Because appellant's motion for new
trial raised a matter not determinable from the record, upon which he
could be entitled to relief, see, Ex parte Wilson, 724 S.W.2d 72, 74
(Tex.Cr. App.1987); and Randle v. State, 847 S.W.2d 576
(Tex.Cr.App.1993), we hold the trial judge abused his discretion in
failing to hold a hearing pursuant to Rule 31(d). Mclntire, 698 S.W.2d
at 660. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed
and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a hearing on allegation
IX of appellant's motion for new trial. Mclntire, 698 S.W.2d at 661.
Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)
Because of the failures in 11.072 Habeas Corpus, the court may
allow an amended writ and allow hearing to determine if substantial
evidence verifies contentions of relator
TFL105
b. As stated in State v Guerrero (June 5, 2013, PD-1258-12)
“Def did not meet his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, facts that would entitle him to relief;
counsel did not file a proper habeas application under 11.072;
counsel’s statements were not competent evidence, and even if they
were, those statements did not prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that def was improperly denied right to counsel before
pleading guilty”;
it was not sworn to, and it evaded the requirement of a sworn
pleading for an application for habeas corpus relief.
The motion did not contain affidavits, associated exhibits, a
memorandum of law, or anything else to establish specific facts that
might entitle def to relief.
Even if counsel’s statements were accepted as competent evidence,
def still was not entitled to relief because those statements did not
prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that def’s waiver of counsel
was unknowing, unintelligent or involuntary.
TFL106
As stated in 11.072 sec. 4, described in Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d
866, 868-69 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and employed in Ex parte
Gonzales, 12 S.W.3d 913, 914-15 (Tex. App. - Austin 2000, pet.
ref'd), no longer applies to applications for a writ of habeas corpus
filed by a person who is serving or who has served a community
supervision term. Ex parte Villanueva (April 30, 2008, PD-1836-06)
The writ issues by operation of law, represents a significant departure
from prior writ law that allowed a judge, in his or her discretion, to
refuse to issue a writ.
Under prior law, when the trial judge refused to issue a writ, an
applicant had no right to appeal. In providing for automatic issuance,
Section 4 eliminates a trial judge's discretion to refuse to issue a writ.
Sections 4 and 8, taken together, signify that the rule governing appellate
review.
Because this relator had no knowledge of 11.072 writ then no appeal
could be offered.
Because it is in the interest of justice, relator prays this court apply its
TFL107
discretion in order to obtain any hearing that will determine truth in
the conviction of an innocent person.
Because of the failure to act on “a judicial writ issued by the proper
court to the individual, official, or board to whom it is addressed, to
perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the
writ is entitled under legal right to have performed”, will result in the
continued miscarriage of justice, persecution of an innocent person
and allow those who chose to abuse the law for their own outcome to
flourish unchecked.
Because it is in the interest of the State of Texas and its people to
insure the State and Federal Constitutions are upheld and justice be
served this prayer is for the lawful authority to assess the true
substantive facts that would have prevented this miscarriage of
justice.
TFL108
TFL109
APPENDIX
22. APPENDIX TWENTY TWO “I can’t give up my right to appeal”
APPENDIX TWENTY ONE; TRIAL RECORD PACER DOCUMENT
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 76 PageID 502
RA 001
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 76 PageID 503
RA 002
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 3 of 76 PageID 504
RA 003
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 4 of 76 PageID 505
RA 004
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 5 of 76 PageID 506
RA 005
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 6 of 76 PageID 507
RA 006
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 7 of 76 PageID 508
RA 007
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 8 of 76 PageID 509
RA 008
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 9 of 76 PageID 510
RA 009
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 10 of 76 PageID 511
RA 010
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 11 of 76 PageID 512
RA 011
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 12 of 76 PageID 513
RA 012
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 13 of 76 PageID 514
RA 013
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 14 of 76 PageID 515
RA 014
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 15 of 76 PageID 516
RA 015
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 16 of 76 PageID 517
RA 016
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 17 of 76 PageID 518
RA 017
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 18 of 76 PageID 519
RA 018
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 19 of 76 PageID 520
RA 019
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 20 of 76 PageID 521
RA 020
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 21 of 76 PageID 522
RA 021
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 22 of 76 PageID 523
RA 022
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 23 of 76 PageID 524
RA 023
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 24 of 76 PageID 525
RA 024
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 25 of 76 PageID 526
RA 025
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 26 of 76 PageID 527
RA 026
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 27 of 76 PageID 528
RA 027
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 28 of 76 PageID 529
RA 028
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 29 of 76 PageID 530
RA 029
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 30 of 76 PageID 531
RA 030
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 31 of 76 PageID 532
RA 031
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 32 of 76 PageID 533
RA 032
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 33 of 76 PageID 534
RA 033
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 34 of 76 PageID 535
RA 034
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 35 of 76 PageID 536
RA 035
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 36 of 76 PageID 537
RA 036
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 37 of 76 PageID 538
RA 037
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 38 of 76 PageID 539
RA 038
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 39 of 76 PageID 540
RA 039
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 40 of 76 PageID 541
RA 040
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 41 of 76 PageID 542
RA 041
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 42 of 76 PageID 543
RA 042
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 43 of 76 PageID 544
RA 043
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 44 of 76 PageID 545
RA 044
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 45 of 76 PageID 546
RA 045
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 46 of 76 PageID 547
RA 046
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 47 of 76 PageID 548
RA 047
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 48 of 76 PageID 549
RA 048
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 49 of 76 PageID 550
RA 049
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 50 of 76 PageID 551
RA 050
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 51 of 76 PageID 552
RA 051
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 52 of 76 PageID 553
RA 052
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 53 of 76 PageID 554
RA 053
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 54 of 76 PageID 555
RA 054
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 55 of 76 PageID 556
RA 055
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 56 of 76 PageID 557
RA 056
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 57 of 76 PageID 558
RA 057
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 58 of 76 PageID 559
RA 058
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 59 of 76 PageID 560
RA 059
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 60 of 76 PageID 561
RA 060
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 61 of 76 PageID 562
RA 061
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 62 of 76 PageID 563
RA 062
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 63 of 76 PageID 564
RA 063
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 64 of 76 PageID 565
RA 064
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 65 of 76 PageID 566
RA 065
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 66 of 76 PageID 567
RA 066
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 67 of 76 PageID 568
RA 067
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 68 of 76 PageID 569
RA 068
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 69 of 76 PageID 570
RA 069
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 70 of 76 PageID 571
RA 070
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 71 of 76 PageID 572
RA 071
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 72 of 76 PageID 573
RA 072
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 73 of 76 PageID 574
RA 073
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 74 of 76 PageID 575
RA 074
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 75 of 76 PageID 576
RA 075
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-2 Filed 08/23/13 Page 76 of 76 PageID 577
RA 076
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 74 PageID 655
RA 154
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 74 PageID 656
RA 155
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 3 of 74 PageID 657
RA 156
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 4 of 74 PageID 658
RA 157
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 5 of 74 PageID 659
RA 158
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 6 of 74 PageID 660
RA 159
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 7 of 74 PageID 661
RA 160
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 8 of 74 PageID 662
RA 161
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 9 of 74 PageID 663
RA 162
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 10 of 74 PageID 664
RA 163
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 11 of 74 PageID 665
RA 164
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 12 of 74 PageID 666
RA 165
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 13 of 74 PageID 667
RA 166
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 14 of 74 PageID 668
RA 167
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 15 of 74 PageID 669
RA 168
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 16 of 74 PageID 670
RA 169
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 17 of 74 PageID 671
RA 170
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 18 of 74 PageID 672
RA 171
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 19 of 74 PageID 673
RA 172
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 20 of 74 PageID 674
RA 173
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 21 of 74 PageID 675
RA 174
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 22 of 74 PageID 676
RA 175
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 23 of 74 PageID 677
RA 176
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 24 of 74 PageID 678
RA 177
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 25 of 74 PageID 679
RA 178
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 26 of 74 PageID 680
RA 179
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 27 of 74 PageID 681
RA 180
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 28 of 74 PageID 682
RA 181
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 29 of 74 PageID 683
RA 182
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 30 of 74 PageID 684
RA 183
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 31 of 74 PageID 685
RA 184
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 32 of 74 PageID 686
RA 185
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 33 of 74 PageID 687
RA 186
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 34 of 74 PageID 688
RA 187
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 35 of 74 PageID 689
RA 188
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 36 of 74 PageID 690
RA 189
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 37 of 74 PageID 691
RA 190
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 38 of 74 PageID 692
RA 191
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 39 of 74 PageID 693
RA 192
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 40 of 74 PageID 694
RA 193
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 41 of 74 PageID 695
RA 194
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 42 of 74 PageID 696
RA 195
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 43 of 74 PageID 697
RA 196
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 44 of 74 PageID 698
RA 197
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 45 of 74 PageID 699
RA 198
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 46 of 74 PageID 700
RA 199
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 47 of 74 PageID 701
RA 200
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 48 of 74 PageID 702
RA 201
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 49 of 74 PageID 703
RA 202
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 50 of 74 PageID 704
RA 203
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 51 of 74 PageID 705
RA 204
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 52 of 74 PageID 706
RA 205
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 53 of 74 PageID 707
RA 206
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 54 of 74 PageID 708
RA 207
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 55 of 74 PageID 709
RA 208
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 56 of 74 PageID 710
RA 209
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 57 of 74 PageID 711
RA 210
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 58 of 74 PageID 712
RA 211
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 59 of 74 PageID 713
RA 212
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 60 of 74 PageID 714
RA 213
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 61 of 74 PageID 715
RA 214
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 62 of 74 PageID 716
RA 215
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 63 of 74 PageID 717
RA 216
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 64 of 74 PageID 718
RA 217
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 65 of 74 PageID 719
RA 218
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 66 of 74 PageID 720
RA 219
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 67 of 74 PageID 721
RA 220
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 68 of 74 PageID 722
RA 221
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 69 of 74 PageID 723
RA 222
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 70 of 74 PageID 724
RA 223
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 71 of 74 PageID 725
RA 224
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 72 of 74 PageID 726
RA 225
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 73 of 74 PageID 727
RA 226
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-4 Filed 08/23/13 Page 74 of 74 PageID 728
RA 227
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 45 PageID 729
RA 228
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 45 PageID 730
RA 229
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 3 of 45 PageID 731
RA 230
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 4 of 45 PageID 732
RA 231
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 5 of 45 PageID 733
RA 232
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 6 of 45 PageID 734
RA 233
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 7 of 45 PageID 735
RA 234
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 8 of 45 PageID 736
RA 235
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 9 of 45 PageID 737
RA 236
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 10 of 45 PageID 738
RA 237
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 11 of 45 PageID 739
RA 238
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 12 of 45 PageID 740
RA 239
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 13 of 45 PageID 741
RA 240
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 14 of 45 PageID 742
RA 241
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 15 of 45 PageID 743
RA 242
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 16 of 45 PageID 744
RA 243
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 17 of 45 PageID 745
RA 244
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 18 of 45 PageID 746
RA 245
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 19 of 45 PageID 747
RA 246
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 20 of 45 PageID 748
RA 247
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 21 of 45 PageID 749
RA 248
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 22 of 45 PageID 750
RA 249
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 23 of 45 PageID 751
RA 250
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 24 of 45 PageID 752
RA 251
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 25 of 45 PageID 753
RA 252
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 26 of 45 PageID 754
RA 253
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 27 of 45 PageID 755
RA 254
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 28 of 45 PageID 756
RA 255
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 29 of 45 PageID 757
RA 256
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 30 of 45 PageID 758
RA 257
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 31 of 45 PageID 759
RA 258
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 32 of 45 PageID 760
RA 259
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 33 of 45 PageID 761
RA 260
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 34 of 45 PageID 762
RA 261
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 35 of 45 PageID 763
RA 262
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 36 of 45 PageID 764
RA 263
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 37 of 45 PageID 765
RA 264
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 38 of 45 PageID 766
RA 265
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 39 of 45 PageID 767
RA 266
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 40 of 45 PageID 768
RA 267
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 41 of 45 PageID 769
RA 268
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 42 of 45 PageID 770
RA 269
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 43 of 45 PageID 771
RA 270
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 44 of 45 PageID 772
RA 271
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y-BJ Document 40-5 Filed 08/23/13 Page 45 of 45 PageID 773
RA 272
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
21 INTERROGATORIES
22 1. Are you the daughter of Theodore Floyd Levee and his former wife, your mother,
23 Pamela Levee Fitzgerald?
24 a. Answer;
25
26 2. Were you in attendance at this trial? ;
27 Criminal Cause # 1239907R, styled The State of Texas v. Theodore Floyd
28 Levee, in which relator is charged with the offense of Aggravated Assault
29 Causing Serious Bodily Injury (22.02(a)(1) of Cathey Edmondson Levee, in
30 the 432nd District Court of Tarrant County Texas conducted October 13 -14
31 2011
32 a. Answer;
33
34 3. Were you available to testify at that trial if called?
35 a. Answer;
36
37 4. Was there any occasion where Defense Counsel Steven Bell and you met or talked
38 before that trial?
39 a. Answer
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 2 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
40 5. Following the courts verdict, in recess pending answer concerning bond to Florida
41 were you in the company of Risa Runo and Theodore Levee during the
42 conversation of an agreement instigated by Steven Bell counsel for the defense?
43 a. Answer:
44
45 6. Did you observe Mr. Bell specifically state Mr. Levee “needed to plead guilty or
46 he was going straight to jail for the next ten years and if he pleaded guilty he could
47 be on a plane by tomorrow going home to Miami and continue his life”?
48 a. Answer;
49
50 7. Did Mr. Bell address Mr. Levee, Ms. Runo and you, in his discussion of the terms
51 of that offer of an agreement?
52 a. Answer;
53
54 8. Did Mr. Levee participate in that discussion?
55 a. Answer;
56 9. Did you observe Ms. Runo ask Mr. Bell questions of appealing the guilty verdict?
57 a. Answer;
58
59 10.Did you observe Mr. Bell state he would not appeal?
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 3 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
60 a. Answer;
61
62 11.Did you observe Mr. Bell stating no appeal of the court’s verdict was available?
63 a. Answer;
64
65 12.Did you observe Mr. Bell state no attorney would appeal this case?
66 a. Answer;
67
68 13.Was the exact word Mr. Bell used to “plead”?
69 a. Answer;
70
71 14.Did you observe Mr. Bell advising Mr. Levee to agree with the court and accept
72 the offer in spite of his continued profession of innocence?
73 a. Answer;
74
75 15.Is it your opinion Mr. Bell instructed Mr. Levee to agree to the courts offer and to
76 misstate his guilt in order to obtain the probation and immediate return home to
77 Florida?
78 a. Answer;
79
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 4 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
80 16.Upon return to the court did you observe the Judge asking Mr. Bell if he advised
81 his client of his right to appeal?
82 a. Answer;
83
84 17.Did you observe Mr. Bell answering the Judges question as “I don’t do appeals”?
85 a. Answer;
86
87 18.Did you observe Mr. Bell at any time stating he was “through with this case”?
88 a. Answer;
89
90
91 19.Please state you recollection of the demeanor and actions of Mr. Bell during that
92 period of time
93 a. Answer;
94
95
96
97
98
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 5 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
99
100 20.Please state your recollection of the demeanor and actions of Mr. Levee during that
101 period of time
102 a. Answer;
103
104
105
106
107
108
109 21.Is the attached affidavit bearing your signature your statement requested when
110 Theodore Floyd Levee attempted to obtain relief?
111 a. Answer;
112 Subject: Court date and what I remember
113 From: Skye (skyebcd@yahoo.com)
114 To: Thelevee@yahoo.com;
115 Date: Sunday, March 18, 2012 5:48 PM
116
117 My name is Skye Levee, and i was in the hearing all day of Ted Levee. I am Ted Levee's
118 daughter. What I remember most about the trial was how Ted Levee's attorney came out
119 to tell him he had to take What the judge was offering and that if he didn't he would be in
120 the mercy of the judge and go straight to jail. The judge was offering "10 to 10”.. Which
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 6 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
121 I think was 10 yrs probation, but what I didn't realize that meant forever with a felony.
122 Ted Levee sat on a bench outside of court room in a state of shock.. Head down.. Saying
123 nothing.. What seemed to be an eternity. When he finally went into the court room.. He
124 was confused.. And spoke out of disbelief.. Which I understand came across as
125 disrespectful towards the judge. Ted Levee requested to go outside to speak to his
126 attorney again. This is after being outside for a while, so the judge again wasn't happy.
127 This was a late afternoon on Friday.. Already way paste the normal time of the court.
128 Several times during testimony Ted Levee's attorney didn't say things that should have
129 been said. Ted Levees attorney did say the other side had to prove without a reasonable
130 doubt. This was the only thing the kept us very positive.. Their was doubt all over the
131 place!! Ted Levee's attorney failed to show light of several things and the other side
132 showed many things that were not relevant.. But was painting Ted Levee as a person
133 capable of doing what he was accused of
134 Doing.
135 Thank you so much. Skye Levee
136
137
138
139
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 7 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
140 My name is Skye Levee, and i was in the hearing all day of Ted Levee. I am Ted Levee's
141 daughter. What I remember most about the trial was how Ted Levee's attorney came out
142 to tell him he had to take What the judge was offering and that if he didn't he would be in
143 the mercy of the judge and go straight to jail. The judge was offering "10 to 10”.. Which
144 I think was 10 yrs probation, but what I didn't realize that meant forever with a felony.
145 Ted Levee sat on a bench outside of court room in a state of shock.. Head down.. Saying
146 nothing.. What seemed to be an eternity. When he finally went into the court room.. He
147 was confused.. And spoke out of disbelief.. Which I understand came across as
148 disrespectful towards the judge. Ted Levee requested to go outside to speak to his
149 attorney again. This is after being outside for a while, so the judge again wasn't happy.
150 This was a late afternoon on Friday.. Already way paste the normal time of the court.
151 Several times during testimony Ted Levee's attorney didn't say things that should have
152 been said. Ted Levees attorney did say the other side had to prove without a reasonable
153 doubt. This was the only thing the kept us very positive.. Their was doubt all over the
154 place!! Ted Levee's attorney failed to show light of several things and the other side
155 showed many things that were not relevant.. But was painting Ted Levee as a person
156 capable of doing what he was accused of
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 8 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
157 Doing. Affidavit of Skye Levee
158
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 9 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
159
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 10 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
160
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 11 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
161
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 12 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
162
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 13 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
163
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 14 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
164
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 15 of 16
20. APPENDIX 20; AFFIDAVIT OF SKYE LEVEE
165
APPENDIX SKYE LEVEE Page 16 of 16
19. APPENDIX NINETEEN ; AFFIDAVIT OF RISA RUSSO
1 I, Risa Runo, went to court with Ted Levee and his daughter, Skye, on Oct. 2011 to hear closing
2 statements and be there for support for both Ted and his daughter.
3 We returned to the court room
4 where judge Gonzales found Ted guilty. I was shocked , along with Skye, and Ted went into shut down.
5 We went back to the hail where Ted just kept looking at the floor saying, “But I didn’t do it. Bell was
6 telling us that Ted needed to plead guilty or he was going straight to jail for the next ten years.
7 If he pleaded guilty he could be on a plane by tomorrow going home to Miami and continue his life. I
8 said,
9 I asked about an appeal and he said that he would not appeal. That he was done with this case. I said
10 what about another attorney appealing and he said that there was no way we would find any attorney
11 to appeal this case.
12 Said his best chance was to plead guilty and both violations would go away, they would be
13 dismissed, there would be a $100 fine, and he could go home tomorrow and get on with his life,
14 Mr. bell was speaking to Skye and me, more like bullying.
15 Skye kept saying, “Papa just plead guilty and get on with your life.”
16 She did not understand until later, that a felony on your record never goes away.
17 Ted never said anything or even looked up. He just told his attorney,
18 “I will do whatever you want me to do, but I didn’t do it, and I want to die.”
19 It’s like he wasn’t there anymore. When they went back into court and the judge asked Ted for his plea
20 he said I can’t do this, I can’t plead guilty to something I did not do.
21 He and Bell went back outside, Bell was visibly agitated and so were the other people working in
22 the court.
23 I even heard one of them complaining about “This would be happening on Fri afternoon.” I
24 don’t know what was said in the hall this time because Bell told Skye and me to stay.
25 When they came back before the judge he asked Bell if he had advised Ted of his rights to an appeal?
26 Bell replied” No, your honor, I don’t do appeals”
27 This was the first Skye and I had ever heard about this, he had led us to believe that he did appeals but
28 that there would never be a chance of one with him or any other attorney.
29 Ted pled guilty and the next shocker was that the judge wanted to know how he plead on the
30 Po violations( the ones that were supposed to be dismissed according to Bell)
31 Bell did get one dismissed considering Ted was standing with Bell in the court in front of a judge when
32 the supposed violation happened.
33 The next let-down by Bell in the court room was that the $100 fine was now a $1000.
34 We still thought Ted would at least be able to go home to Miami and go back to school.
35 After court, Ted was not in his right mind. He wanted to die. My parents and I were very worried about
36 him and all agreed that one of us needed to be with him at all times for fear that he would commit
37 suicide. I am not sure how he could have been found guilty, but I do not feel that he was represented
38 properly by his attorney and find this all to be a travesty of justice.
39
40
41 AFFIDAVIT OF RISA RUNO
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
APPENDIX EIGHTEEN; Fraud on the Federal Court –
Misstatement of law Responant Conder Affidavit
In the matter of the attempt for relief by Theodore Floyd Levee in application for
Habeas Corpus writ 28 U.S.C.2254 materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent
statements and representations where made under oath.
Criminal District Attorney Joe Shannon, Assistant Criminal District Attorney
Steven W. Condor and Assistant District Attorney Timothy Rodgers, filed false
statements in deference to the law and the direction of the United States District
Court Magistrate in comment and in submitted and filed affidavit.
The federal false statement statute1 is used in a number of areas when information
or reports must be filed with a department or agency of the United States, or when
the government gathers information from individuals and companies in the course
of exercising its authority. The statute prohibits making "any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" in relation to any matter
"within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
Government of the United States." 2
The following affidavit and sworn by Assistant prosecutor Rodgers and utilized by
Mr. Shannon and Mr. Condor in the denial of the Habeas Corpus of Theodore
1
§ 14.07 False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
2
1-14 The Prosecution and Defense of Public Corruption §
4-001
Levee is a fraud, a sham and an intentional act of misrepresentation of facts with
the intention of depriving relator of constitutional rights.
This action further hampered relator’s ability to obtain due process and is
instrumental in the delay in filing this extraordinary writ of mandamus.
Theodore Levee
Relator
4-002
Fraud on the Federal Court
The District Attorney of Tarrant County Texas was respondent counsel in
22 U.S.C. 2254 application and committed fraud on the court.
As respondent counsel The District Attorney Office of Tarrant County Texas
misstated the requirement of service for the applicant in as 11.072 writ of Habeas
Corpus to the Magistrate of the United States District Court of North Texas Fort
Worth Division. That misstatement of law concerning the requirement of service
was contrary to fact of law and caused the dismissal with prejudice of the federal
habeas corpus 28 U.SW.C. 2254
The statement to Federal Magistrate was;3
“The petitioner further suggests some misfeasance by the Tarrant County District
Clerk's Office because he was not personally served with the State's answer by the
district clerk's office. That service requirement applies to article 11.07 writs. See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art.11.07 §7.
Article 11.072 places the onus of service on the State. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc.
art. 11.072 §5(d).
The State fulfilled its responsibility by serving Mr. Richards (the petitioner's state
writ attorney) on May 11, 2011. What information provided to the petitioner by
Mr. Richards is outside the State's knowledge or control.”
3
Case 4:13-cv-00211-Y Doc 43 1 of 5 Page ID 789
4-003
FACTUAL Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.072 Sec. 5. (d) Any answer, motion, or
other document filed by the state must be served on the applicant by certified mail,
return receipt requested, or by personal service.
11.13 APPLICANT - The word applicant, as used in this Chapter, refers to the
person for whose relief the writ is asked, though the petition may be signed and
presented by any other person.
In that act relator was prevented from review of wrongful conviction, with
prejudice. The action was based on failure of relator to appeal the 11.072 Writ of
Habeas Corpus presented to the trial court; Relator contends that he knew nothing
about the writ and could not appeal what he did not know.
Respondent in claim relator failed to exhaust states remedies chided the court in
the misstatement of requirement of service specifically to the applicant / relator as
made by The District Attorney Office of Tarrant County Texas and was further
proof of the unknown writ.
The actions of The Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office in the trial and then
in attempts at circumvented the 28 U.S.C. 2254 application for review further
suppressed review and delayed this ultimate mandamus writ.
4-004
In that the federal 2254 writ was dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust
state court remedies, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), the respondent lied.
The proper focus is not on the conduct of the prosecutor, but whether the trial was
fair. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. at 219.
The action of the Tarrant County District Attorney’s Office is additionally
compromised in the affidavit filed by the assistant prosecutor in the trial - Mr.
Rodgers in that the court was clear all evidence would only be considered was in
the trial record.
That affidavit as stated by Mr. Rodgers – was on information not a part of and
actually refuted in trial record. It is obviously intended to mislead. (see Affidavit
Rodgers )
Petitioner next alleges that the prosecutor committed more than thirty acts of
misconduct. Only five of these alleged acts of misconduct are set forth with
sufficient particularity in the instant petition to enable this Court to make a
determination on the merits. Petitioner claims that the prosecutor misstated the
law, misstated the facts, made impermissible statements of personal belief or
opinion, and presented arguments based on facts not in evidence.
4-005
The standard for granting habeas relief on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is
that the prosecutor's conduct renders the trial "fundamentally unfair." See Darden
v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181, 106 S. Ct. 2464, 91 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1986); Smith
v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 219, 102 S. Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1982). A trial is
"infected with unfairness," and habeas relief is warranted, when the prosecutor
makes improper remarks and these remarks resulted in "actual" prejudice. Brecht
v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637-38, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 123 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1993)
(citing United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 449, 106 S. Ct. 725, 88 L. Ed. 2d 814
(1986)); Johnson v. Sublett, 63 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 1995). Habeas relief is
available only if the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the
jury's verdict. Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571, 1576 (9th Cir. 1996). The proper
focus is not on the conduct of the prosecutor, but whether the trial was fair. Smith
v. Phillips, 455 U.S. at 219.
4-006
4-007
MISTATEMENT OF LAW
4-008
4-009
4-010
4-011
DISTRICT CLERK MANUEL
4-012
4-013
APPENDIX SEVENTEEN; SWORN AFFIDAVIT FOR DIVORCE
Affidavit for Divorce (Ambiguities)
05/23/2011 Mail Receipt # CCL-0306945 Modjarrad & Associates PC (223.00)
CASE NO. 2011-003833-1
Cathey Levee vs Michael Musacarella § Case Type: Injury/Damage - Motor Vehicle Accident
§ Date Filed: 05/23/2011
§ Location: County Court at Law No. 1
§
§
PARTY INFORMATION
Lead Attorneys
Defendant Musacarella, Michael JASON N THOMAS
467 Arwine DR Retained
Hurst, TX 76053 817-424-1001(W)
Plaintiff Levee, Cathey Gabriel A.. Riveros
Retained
469-209-7725(W)
EVENTS & ORDERS OF THE COURT
DISPOSITIONS
12/07/2012 Order of Non Suit (Judicial Officer: Pierson, Don)
OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
05/23/2011 Original Petition Doc ID# 1
05/26/2011 Citation
Musacarella, Michael Served 06/02/2011
Response Received 06/27/2011
Returned 06/06/2011
06/27/2011 Defendant's Original Answer Doc ID# 2
06/27/2011 Vacation Letter Doc ID# 3
08/08/2011 Designation of Lead Counsel Doc ID# 4
08/17/2011 Letter Re: Objection & Response to Discovery Doc ID# 5
08/25/2011 Notice to Take Deposition Doc ID# 6
09/27/2011 Defendant's First Amended Original Answer Doc ID# 7
11/22/2011 Certified Deposition of Custody Records Doc ID# 8
11/29/2011 Certified Deposition of Custody Records Doc ID# 9
12/30/2011 Certified Deposition of Custody Records Doc ID# 10
02/21/2012 Vacation Letter Doc ID# 11
06/06/2012 Motion to Substitute Counsel Doc ID# 12
06/08/2012 Order to Substitute Counsel Doc ID# 13
07/16/2012 Notice of Dismissal by Court Doc ID# 14
07/30/2012 Letter Requesting Setting for Trial Doc ID# 15
10/02/2012 Order Setting Trial Doc ID# 16
10/29/2012 Rule 11 Agreement Doc ID# 17
11/26/2012 CANCELED Jury Trial (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Pierson, Don)
Settled
11/26/2012 Reset by Court to 11/26/2012
12/06/2012 Motion for Non Suit Doc ID# 18
12/07/2012 Order for Non-Suit Doc ID# 19
12/07/2012 Civil Docket Doc ID# 20
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Defendant Musacarella, Michael
Total Financial Assessment 22.00
Total Payments and Credits 22.00
Balance Due as of 10/17/2014 0.00
06/28/2011 Transaction Assessment 22.00
06/28/2011 Mail Receipt # CCL-0308748 Amis & Farish (22.00)
Plaintiff Levee, Cathey
Total Financial Assessment 223.00
Total Payments and Credits 223.00
Balance Due as of 10/17/2014 0.00
05/23/2011 Transaction Assessment 219.00
05/23/2011 Transaction Assessment 4.00
05/23/2011 Mail Receipt # CCL-0306945 Modjarrad & Associates PC (223.00)
APPENDIX FIFTEEN; NEW EVIDENCE –ABUSE OF
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, CHRONIC FOR FRACTURES
3|Page
4|Page
8|Page
11 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
17 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e
22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e
31 | P a g e
APPENDIX FIFTEEN; NEW EVIDENCE –ABUSE OF
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, CHRONIC FOR FRACTURES
3|Page
4|Page
8|Page
11 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
17 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e
21 | P a g e
22 | P a g e
23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
27 | P a g e
28 | P a g e
29 | P a g e
30 | P a g e
31 | P a g e
Cathey Levee's claim of 80% disabled is not supported anywhere in medical evidence.This page from the
business records affidavit of the states shows a contradiction to the statement Yet Prosecutor Rodgers
made it a major point in his closing to accuse Theodore Levee of being untruthful.
Prosecutor Rodgers is guilty of malfeasance
Claim to Hurst PD 80% disabled - 1st report of rib inj.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
5:50 PM
5/13/10 HPD Report 10-2679.2
 Victim services
 Cleared out bank account
 Unable to pay bills
 Crime Victims comp.
 Other photos o bruises taken several days later
 Broken rib overlooked
 Advised to call prosecutor
 Get med record and photo to prosecutor
5/14/10HPD Report 10-2679.3
 80% Disabled
 Mostly wheelchair bound
 Advised DA Injury to a disabled person
Business Aff. obtained from
Tarrant County Court House.
TX Ortho & Spine 4/12/10. Dr. Kadoko
 "We had a long discussion again. She wants knee fixed, but came a motorized scooter.
 Given that she uses that, it is suggested that functional level is limited; coupled with RA it is not
clear that ACL reconstruction is indicated.
 She really said the scooter was obtained on the recommendation of her attorney.
 That she is otherwise "very active'.
Theodore Levee observations.
Cathey Levee is involved in a questionable auto accident lawsuit alleging a debilitating back injury
6/2009. Ted Levee started questioning the need and scope of injury in third quarter of 2009.
Major source of contention based on Ms. Levee's ability to go dancing for hours wearing high heels,
possibly exaggerating symptoms and comments concerning "ducking meetings" at work.
Injury based on Mr. Levee's observations and the Levee's could not show a correlation to the level of
pain and evidence of injury.
Ms. Levee climbed stairs, shopped and behaved as if nothing was wrong when she was away from work
and not in the public eye.
This was the same time frame as Dr. Callaghen commenting Ms. Levee was creating illness in the
children and Ms. Levee ordered Katy removed from mental health and drug treatment ADA.
Mid - October 2009.
1. Does Cathey Levee have a disability?
2. Does Cathey Levee have a impairment
3. What is the basis for Cathey Levee's claim to the Hurst Police Dept. of being 80% disabled at the
time of the allegation of assault on 3/10/10?
4. Has Cathey Levee had a Functional Capacity Evaluation?
5. What is the original injury?
6. What is the original cause of the injury?
7. Did Cathey Levee make the number up?
APPENDIX THIRTEEN; PROSECUTORS FALSE
AFFIDAVIT TO FEDERAL COURT
3-001
3-002
3-003
3-004
3-005
3-006
3-007
AS STATED BY TIMOTHY RODGERS;
(Mr. Rodgers statements are in italics)
(1) Summary of Facts
(As reported by Catherine Levee and the Hurst Police Department)
a. A Federal Courts review is limited to the record that was before the
state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.1
On Saturday April 10, 2010 at about 8:53 PM, Officer Jimenez with the Hurst Police
Department was dispatched to Hurst-Euless-Bedford Hospital in reference to a
domestic violence assault. Once there Jimenez spoke to Catherine Levee (Cathy) who
reported that she had been assaulted by her husband, Theodore Levee. She stated that
she and Theodore had gotten into an argument about inappropriate comments he had
been making to their-
1
As quoted in Magistrates Order , second page, Document 37 Page 2 of 2 Page ID 464
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S.Ct. 1388,1398
3-008
3-009
3-010
(3) Theodore kicked Cathy numerous times in the leg.
a. Incorrect.
1. Fact in the trial record that was before the state court
Defense Bell cross of Cathey Levee with objection by Mr. Rodgers
80.7 Q. Do you remember if you told them what had
80.8 happened? Did you give them -- the -- the officers your
80.9 version from the Hurst Police Department as to what
80.10 happened?
80.11 A. Yes.
80.12 Q. Okay. Do you remember telling the police that
80.13 he had kicked you numerous times in the legs?
80.14 A. No.
80.15 Q. So if the police report says that, would it be
80.16 accurate or inaccurate?
80.17 MR. RODGERS: Objection, Your Honor. The
80.18 police report is hearsay, and if he wanted to
80.19 cross-examine about what an officer may say, I
80.20 understand that, but he's cross-examining off of a
80.21 document with nobody to impeach on that.
3-012
3-013
(4) Her anterior cruciate ligament was torn
a. Surgery in 1975 for right knee and was part of a prior injury
1. In fact the evidence in Business Record Affidavit Texas
Health HEB 00022
a. Anterior cruciate ligament disrupted
2. Allegation was part of an going complaint of pain from
1975 Preexisting right knee surgery Business Records
Affidavit 06/26/2002 Arthritis Center of Texas (pg. 2
Medical History)
3. Examples – sampling of Past complaints of right knee
injury
3-014
3-016
3-017
Examples in evidence of Past Complaints of Right Knee Injury
3-018
3-019
3-020
3-021
(6)And medial meniscus torn
a. Partially incorrect
1. The fact in evidence in Affidavit Texas Health
HEB 00022
a. medial meniscus diffusely abnormal
i. Prior surgery 1975
3-023
(7)Fibula fractured in two places
a. Incorrect – medical evidence shows one slight subtle proximal
fibular fracture (crack).
1. Second fracture is untrue and nowhere in medical
evidence.
2. Based on history in evidence fractures as a chronic
condition existed, occurring before and since April
10 2010.
a. 4/25/06 Casting for fibular fracture
b. 12/30/10 Casting for fibular fracture
c. Acute on chronic for fractures (Dr. Kadoko)
3. In fact the evidence in Affidavit Texas Health HEB
00024 indicates a single possible fracture barely
evident
4/25/06 Casting for fibular fracture (Subjective)
3-024
3-025
12/30/10 Casting for fibular fracture (Subjective third paragraph)
Acute on Chronic for Fractures per Dr. Kadoko (Assessment)
3-026
3-028
(8)Later learned a rib had been broken during assault
a. Untrue
1. HEB Business Affidavit 000013 –No other Injuries
at this time. No other Complaints. Denys any other
injury during this incident
2. No complaint made from 4/10/2010 to 5/09/2010
despite numerous doctor and therapy visits
3. Medical report 5/09/2010 cannot state any time of
injury – only “Focal soft tissue adjacent to the left
lateral fourth rib which has areas of cortical
disruption. This could be a minimally displace
fracture although malignant etiology is not
excluded”.
b. No medical evidence before the court of a rib injury
c. Photograph and testimony indicate injury to right side of chest.
3-030
HEB Bus. Rec. Aff. 000013 –denies any other injury
Medical Report 05/09/2010 – left lateral rib
3-031
3-033
Copy of Pictures submitted into evidence indicate right side of body
10/06/2010 Radiology report indicating Left side injury of unknow time.
3-034
(9) Suffering from Rheumatoid arthritis form many years She
occasionally used a wheel chair to move around
a. False
1. The wheel chair is unrelated to the Rheumatoid
Arthritis as stated in the record
2. Wheel chair was the result of an attempt at a civil
lawsuit in a 2009 auto Accident(pg. ID 531)
3. Wheelchair was admitted to Dr. Kadoko as being
“At the recommendation of my attorney” (Bus. Rec
Aff. Dr. Kadoko 4/23/2010)
Wheelchair was result of claim of lower back injury in 2009 Auto
Accident attempted lawsuit and additional source of Pain Medications.
3-039
3-040
(10) But was able to function with a cane.
a. Cathey Levee never ever used a cane – not in testimony nor in
evidence
3-042
(11) The State's witnesses testified, inter alia, that they had seen
Theodore demonstrate what they all called a "whip kick" in the past.
a. False.
1. Mr. Rodgers asserts “they”, “inter alia”.
2. Alexandra is the only one of the children to claim in
testimony anything about a “whip kick”
3. Term whip kick was in April 2010 Divorce
Affidavit in that the term was from Cathey Levee’s
father in the ER on April 10 2010 as sworn April
2010 by Cathey Levee (page 3)
3-043
3-044
3-045
3-046
3-047
3-048
3-049
(12) Theodore claimed it was a movement he learned while in the
military.
a. Totally false.
b. Not in testimony
1. There was no testimony or statement in existence
where the claim of any such statement by Theodore
Levee- again Mr. Rodgers made this up.
3-050
(13) After the conviction, attorneys for the State and the defense had a
discussion off of the record regarding how the trial was going to
proceed. As a result, both parties agreed on a punishment for Levee.In
exchange for his admission of guilt and waiver of right to appeal his
conviction, Levee agreed to a sentence of ten years in prison which, by
agreement, was probated over a period of ten years. In addition,
Levee pleaded guilty to one pending violation of a protective order
case and the State agreed to dismiss another.
a. Incorrect
1. In 28 U.S.C. 2254 states reply in 11.072 is that
Levee did not plead guilty
2. The actual occurrence in the record of the trial was
the Court ordered defense counsel to find
COMPACT AGREEMENT authority to bond
awaiting a presentencing Investigation.
3. Mr. Bell never attempted to get information, instead
making an agreement to prevent the review of the
trial to suppress the ineffective assistance of
counsel.
3-051
States reply to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
3-052
3-053
3-054
Trial recess for COMPACT information
3-055
3-056
3-057
(14) In prosecuting this case, I did not suppress any sworn statements of
Catherine Levee. I did not seek to suppress any statements and only
moved the Court to prevent both sides from mentioning circumstances
surrounding the pending divorce that were not relevant to the criminal
trial.
a. False
1. A June 10 2010 letter to Mr. Rodgers stated there
existed a sworn statement by reputed eye witness
Catherine Levee.
a. Mr. Rodgers hid this letter and the sworn
statement.
b. Theodore Levee submitted a request to
authenticate the document to Tarrant County
District Attorney’s Office and was denied
evidence – from a “Open File Discovery
Rules” trial.
c. The subsequent action on Mr. Rodgers part to
keep the information of the sworn statement of
Catherine Levee suppressed shows the
3-058
involvement of Texas Attorney General
suppressing the documents in open file
discovery and request under open records act.
d. The request was made in the 28 U.S.C.2254
action as well as in the attempt to appeal the
civil ruling of the Divorce Court depriving
Theodore Levee of all rights and property.
Ordinarily, a witness may not be impeached by a pending
charge. However, a court may permit impeachment by pending
charges to show the bias, prejudice, or interest of the witness
in testifying. Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 699 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1985) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1110, 88 L. Ed. 2d
931, 106 S. Ct. 897 (1986). An issue regarding the general
credibility of a witness in a criminal trial is not a material issue
in the sense that it will justify the admission of inherently
prejudicial evidence of details of an extraneous offense
committed by the witness. Murphy v. State, 587 S.W.2d 718,
722 (Tex. Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
3-059
Letter June 10 2010 to ADA Rodgers stating “Katy has written a notarized
statement of the events of 4/10 /10 and both of us are willing to testify.”
Cathey.Levee@fwisd.org
To 'TSRodgers@TarrantCounty.com', 'Beverly Storey', 'Jeanne Insuaste', 'thelevees5@msn.com'
From: Levee, Cathey (Cathey.Levee@fwisd.org)
Sent: Thu 6/10/10 7:23 PM
To: 'TSRodgers@TarrantCounty.com' (TSRodgers@TarrantCounty.com)
Cc: 'Beverly Storey' (bevstorey@gmail.com); 'Jeanne Insuaste' (jeannecpl@sbcglobal.net);
'thelevees5@msn.com' (thelevees5@msn.com)
Hotmail Active View
Tim,
Ted continues to contact and harass my family. He claims to have not been to my home on 4/28 because
he was at Dr. Grant’s office. Please see the attached map and how close it is to my home, 7 minutes (or
less). Additionally he claims he wasn’t at my home on 5/19 or 5/25 which is shown on the temporary
computer file I sent you earlier. On June 3rd when I checked my computer again, the temporary file from
CWA6215 had been deleted, so that would be the third time he has entered my home. The time to get to
the court house from my home says 21 minutes on the attached map but I can assure you that it does not
take that long without traffic. According to several sources the ankle monitor is not perfect and if it is a
range, my home would not be off the path he was supposed to be on. Also, I have been told that you can
wrap them with aluminum foil to prevent the signal from going through. It would only take 5 minutes for
him to do these things. He also has letters from my three daughters they wrote their biological father in
2005 when we started the adoption process.
When he was arrested and Officer Disraeli came to pick up his belongings, I gave him ALL his clothes, jewelry
and medication. NOTHING ELSE! If he has these letters, then he has gotten them from my file cabinets at
the house. He also has taken tools and the original copy of the two year protective order, my daughter
graduation announcements and other various items. He also has a signed note from the doctor in Ennis who
performed the rotary cuff surgery stating that he gave Ted hydrocodone and “hi
3-060
wife” gave him something else that would make him crazy. I find it hard to believe that a doctor who
has never met me or seen my medical records would write such a letter, but that is what he is using
for his defense. Also, on the original form in February from Dr. Grant’s office, he wrote that he was
only allergic to iodine and Demerol. On the 4/28 form he added vicodin (hydrocodone, Norco) to the
list. He has used this medication for pain multiple times and I have a prescription bottle that he was
given for pain when he burned his hand a few years ago. This is the bottle I gave him his medicine from
before the assault because it was too late and the pharmacy was closed when I got home to pick up
the one from the Ennis doctor. He has also taken my hydrocodone on MULTIPLE occasions when his
shoulder hurt before his surgery. He also has several copies of my medical claims for my car wreck and
I do not know how he has gotten them without being in my house. He is trying to claim medical fraud
from my car accident last year. I had all these records in my home by my bed. He IS entering my house!
Why won’t anyone with any authority believe me?
Also, when Ted first started going to Dr. Grant in February of 2010 he signed a HIPPA form that I could
access his records. So I did. The doctor diagnosed him at that time as Bipolar II, ADD, with paranoid and
narcissistic tendencies, in addition to rage and control issues. According to the medical records he is
NOT taking any medication to control his Bipolar Disorder. He is only taking Adderall and Valium. I can
tell you that Adderall exacerbates his delusional behavior. If you would like me to FAX you those
documents I can. As a Licensed Professional Counselor I can tell you that this combination is dangerous
and prone to stalking and unpredictable behavior. This is exactly the kind of behavior that he exhibited
when he kicked my oldest daughter out of the house is 2009. He stalked her, remotely accessed her
computer and called her work multiple times to get her fired. I also recently discovered that he had a
key logger on our home computer and had cameras pointed at the girls bedrooms and bathroom.
Alexandra has also confided in me that he tried to touche her inappropriately on a volley ball
tournament in Houston in 2006. I have always thought he was sexually inappropriate with her but
never really put the pieces together until all three girls told me comments that he has said to them. My
family therapist has said that Ted is a sexual predator who is after Alexandra and Katy. The girls had not
told me many things because they knew I was sick and need the income and insurance. I do not feel
safe, protected or that anyone is listening to how crazy this man is. He has contacted Katy (my
youngest daughter) three times on FaceBook, “pinged” my cell phone to locate me and changed the
passwords on my ATT account so I cannot access the internet at home. I cannot close the account nor
do anything with it because he is listed as the only authorized user. He repackages the bill, which is sent
to his Kaufman address and then resends it to me the day before the utility is disconnected.
Do I have to die or suffer more physical injuries in order to get this man to leave us alone? I
understand he is going to court on the 23rd of this month. I would like to be there. Katy has written a
notarized statement of the events of 4/10 /10 and both of us are willing to testify. Please help us. If
something happens to me or my girls, my family and attorney will hold your office accountable. I do
not care if he is fired; this is not about money, I want to feel safe in our home. I should not have to
enter the witness protection plan to live our lives. This is exactly what the Battered Women’s
Foundation has recommended. We are NOT safe.
Thank you, Cathey
3-061
OPEN RECORD REQUEST FOR JUNE 10 2010 ADA RODGERS LETTER
Theodore Levee
925 Altara Ave
Coral Gables FL 33146
Ashely Forth
ADA
Tarrant County District Attorneys’ Office
401 W Belknap
Ft Worth TX 76196
In the matter OR 2013-19273
According to the letter from the AG of Texas Office, AAG Jennifer Burnett,
We are past deadline for the release of the requested documents referred to in this
correspondence
#OR 2013 -19273
That would include June 10, 2010 and all other correspondence between the DA
office and Cathay Levee, sent from
The levees5@msn.com
Cathey.Levee fwisd.org
And any other and all correspondence in the completed criminal case.
The deadline according to the AG was 10 days after the issuance of the letter dated
November 5 2013.
This action is jeopardizing factual claims in another action and as such
considerably jeopardized the conviction and integrity of the District Attorney’s
office of Tarrant County.
Please comply at once as a like correspondence has been forwarded with the AG.
Theodore Levee
925 Altara Ave
Coral Gables FL
3-062
Jennifer Burnett
PO Box 12548
Austin TX 78711-2548
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
OR 2013-19273
Email between DA and Cathy Levee
Per your correspondence and the opinion of the Attorney General I have not
received the requested documents and ask the assistance of the State of Texas in
enforcing and holding all accountable equally under the law.
I have contacted the ADA Ashely Fourt date same and it is imperative to
have these records in an action before the United States District Court North Texas
Fort Worth Civil Action No. 4;13-cv-211-y, The matter is time sensitive.
Sincerely
Theodore Levee
3-063
3-064
3-065
3-066
From: "Thelevee@yahoo.com"
Date: August 26, 2013, 3:53:47 AM EDT
To: "8178843333@metrofax.com" <8178843333@metrofax.com>
Subject: Fwd: thelevee@yahoo.com has sent you a file
Theodore Levee
925 Altara Ave
Coral Gables Florida
33146
972-835-6777
Fax 305-665-5597
Email thelevee@yahoo.com
August 23, 2013
Tarrant County District Attorney
Public Information Officer
Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
401 West Belknap
Fort Worth, TX 76196
Fax 817-884-3333
Dear Officer for Public Records:
This request is made under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Texas
Government Code, which guarantees the public's access to information in the custody of
governmental agencies. I respectfully request copies of the following information:
Email records concerning;
State v.Theodore Floyd Levee
Correspondence between assistant district attorney Tim Rodgers and Cathey Levee.
While request is for all correspondence, specifically included is the email sent to Mr.Rodgers by
Cathey Levee on the account of Mr.Levee's - thelevees5@msn.com and also the email address -
cathey.levee@fwisd.org.
The email of June 10, 2010 is specific to the actions and knowledge of the district attorneys
office in the prosecution of above case.
In the interest of expediency, and to minimize the research and/or duplication burden on your
staff, I would be pleased to personally examine the relevant records if you would grant me
immediate access to the requested material. Additionally, and since time is a factor, please
communicate with me by telephone or fax rather than by mail. My telephone number is:
972-835-6777
3-067
Fax 305-665-5138
Disclosure of this information is in the public interest because providing a copy of the
information primarily benefits the general public. I therefore request a waiver of all fees and
charges pursuant to Section 552.267 of the act.
I shall look forward to hearing from you promptly, as specified in the law. Thank you for
your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Theodore Floyd Levee
Electronically signed 5690
3-068
(15) At no time did I move to suppress any mention of the term "whip
kick." The term was used frequently throughout the trial by both the
State and defense without objection.
a. Untrue
1. In cross examination of Theodore Levee
Prosecutor Rodgers asked where the term came
from and objected to answer.
3-069
Mr. Rodgers objection to answer of origination of the kick from divorce
affidavit as stated by Cathey Levee’s father April 10 2010.
3-070
3-071
(16) The Tarrant county District Attorney's Office maintains an open
file policy. All records and reports that are not work product for the
office are made available to the defense throughout the life of a
criminal case
a. Untrue
1. See OPEN RECORD REQUEST FOR JUNE 10
2010 ADA RODGERS LETTER
3-072
(17) All reports and records, including those detailing Catherine
Levee's medical condition before and after the assault, were made
available to the defense before the trial began.
a. False
1. Evidence was missing radiology files necessary to
evaluating the evidence where not in record and
make any medical evaluation to cause impossible.
2.
3-073
Attorney Mitchell upon discovery the files in criminal case where
incomplete and discovering the needed documents to evaluate how
injury occurred. New evidence shows injury was inconstant with
testimony and prior statements of Cathey Levee and Catherine Levee.
3-074
Records Deposition Service of Texas notification of additional records
3-075
3-076
3-077
Incomplete Records affidavit from HEB Texas Health Harris Hospital
3-078
3-079
(18) I am not aware of any perjury committed by any witness for the
State. Further, I do not believe based on the case and my
investigation, that any of the State's witnesses committed perjury.
Per my continuing ethical obligation of candor to the tribunal, had I
become aware of or suspected a State's witness committed perjury, I
would have reported it to the Court immediately.
a. False
1. Shotgun
a. Presence of a Shotgun in testimony of
Catherine Levee contradicted Cathey
Levee’s Testimony
b. Officer Jimenez stated under oath he asked
if any weapon was involved and he replied
he did and the response was no.
2. Testimony stating witnesses saw Theodore Levee
prior to the incident.
a. Police report Cathey Levee stated
3. Whip kick testimony was false and was known or
should have been known to be in divorce affidavit
by Mr. Rodgers.
3-080
4. Injuries do not match medical evidence and was
known or should have been known by Mr.
Rodgers
5. Prior statements in HEB Business Records
Affidavit are contrary to testimony in trial and Mr.
Rodgers knew or should have known.
3-081
SHOTGUN ALLEGATION IN TESTIMONY
It is in direct contradiction in testimony concerning a shotgun. Cathey
Levee stated she saw it and Mr. Levee was cocking it despite having a
rotator cuff replaced in surgery less than 24 hours before. Catherine
Levee stated she never saw the shotgun.
The officer taking the report testified in a separate civil trial that on
April 10 2010 he ask if a weapon where involved and Cathey Levee
told him no.
There is an obvious and compelling discrepancy in testimony.
3-082
3-083
3-084
3-085
3-086
3-087
HURST POLICE OFFICER TESTIMONY IN CIVIL COURT
3-088
3-089
(19) Through testimony, photographs and medical records, I provided
evidence to the judge in this case of the serious bodily injury this
victim suffered as a result of the offense.
a. Incorrect
1. In determining whether an injury constitutes
serious bodily injury, the relevant inquiry is the
extent of the injury as inflicted, not after its
effects have been ameliorated by medical
treatment. Tex Jur Criminal Law: Offenses
against the Person § 282
2. The facts of a preexisting ongoing complaint for
several years in a knee injury, factual historical
medical records supporting chronic hairline bone
fractures of unknown origin, coupled with the
plea of not guilty should have warranted some
degree of integrity in verifying evidence. No
verification exists
3. Suppression and lack of diligence investigating
caused a flawed prosecution and the misleading
and completely untrue statements and substandard
3-091
performance of Mr. Welchell and Mr. Rodgers
predicated the necessity to suppress any form of
review.
3-092
(20) During the Judge's admonishments of Mr. Levee, my co-counsel
Assistant District Attorney Lloyd Whelchel brought to the Court's
attention that there may be issues with transferring any probation
Mr. Levee was on to Florida
a. Untrue, misleading and erroneous.
1. It was after admonishments and the Court asked if
the state had any further conditions.
2. The state then made the COMPACT statement
and is complete contradiction to the law as
contained in that agreement
3. The game of gotcha as played with malice and
intent by the district attornety office is clearly
evidence
4. The additional insult of failing to apply for
COMPACT transfer is evident in the records.
a. The Court and the District Attorney’s Office
are tr4ained by COMPACT AGREEMENT
and knew or should have known the rules as
they apply and instead used false and
3-093
misleading actions to violate the integrity of
the Court.
5. The actions of the District Attorney’s Office in
the entire adjudication fails to conform to the
statues of the state as it apply to the obligation of
a prosecutor.
a. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CHAPTER 2. GENERAL
DUTIES OF OFFICERS
Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS. It shall be the primary duty
of all prosecuting attorneys, including any
special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see
that justice is done. They shall not suppress
facts or secrete witnesses capable of
establishing the innocence of the accused.
3-094
(21) Mr. Whelchel stated on the record that, per the interstate compact,
any probation Mr. Levee received could not be transferred to
Florida unless Florida consented to the transfer
a. False, malfeasant, incorrect performance by District
Attorney’s office.
1. The Court and the prosecutor knew or should
have known COMPACT agreement. Courts
officers have an obligation to be abreast of the law
and procedures and incorrectly stating facts
causing distortion, disruption, and incorrect
information in process was egregious,
irresponsible and unethical.
2. This allegation is further enforced in that the 7
day requirement was not follow and in fact the
transfer was not submitted for over 11 months
after sentencing.
ii. The TDCJ Interstate Compact Office provided training
to Community Supervision and Parole Officers, the
Judiciary, District Attorneys and the Board of Pardons
3-095
and Paroles to ensure compliance with compact laws,
standards, policies, and procedures.
1. Tarrant County District Attorney’s office
misstated COMPACT Rule Rule 3.103 -
Reporting instructions; offender living in the
receiving state at the time of sentencing-
(a)(1) A reporting instructions request for an
offender who was living in the receiving state at
the time of sentencing shall be submitted by the
sending state within 7 business days of the
sentencing date or release from incarceration to
probation supervision. The sending state may
grant a 7 day travel permit to an offender who was
living in the receiving state at the time of
sentencing. Prior to granting a travel permit to an
offender, the sending state shall verify that the
offender is living in the receiving state.
(22) In this point, Mr. Levee references the assault where he was the
listed victim.
a. The Tarrant County District Attorney is ultimately
responsible for all cases and passing the buck is not
acceptable practice.
3-096
1. The DA not only failed to protect the rights under
the law of Theodore Levee – the ensuing action
actual made the DA an accessory after the fact to
the crime in covering up the assault.
2. The failure to even bring the second assailant to
justice is an insult.
3. The rights of Mr. Levee as a victim of family
violence where abridged by The Tarrant County
District Attorneys Office.
(23) In 2010, it was the common practice of' prosecutors in Tarrant
County to convey this offer to offenders with misdemeanor assault
charges pending but who have little to no criminal record. Mr.
Edmondson’s case was dismissed.
a. Mr. Rodgers statement is made in reference to an act of
family violence. Mr. Edmondson was Mr. Levee’s father –
in-law at the time of the assault.
b.
§ 71.004. FAMILY VIOLENCE. "Family violence" means:
3-097
(1) an act by a member of a family or household against
another member of the family or household that is intended to result
in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that
is a threat that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent
physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does
not include defensive measures to protect oneself;
(2) abuse, as that term is defined by Sections
261.001(1)(C), (E), and (G), by a member of a family or household
toward a child of the family or household; or
(3) dating violence, as that term is defined by
Section 71.0021.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 34, § 1, eff. May 5, 1997.
Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 91, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
c. Mr. Rodgers again offends the commons senses of the
average person to state this was the “common practice” in
family violence.
d. The second perpetrator, Cameron Mendez was cited and
dismissed by Tarrant County District Attorney’s office,
despite eyewitness testimony Mr. Levee did not provoke the
attack, Mr. Edmondson hit him several times and Mr.
Mendez jumped in. Mr. Levee was still recuperating from
shoulder surgery three months before, had limited use of his
right arm and never threw a punch. He was attacked in front
of his attorney at the time Dawn Roberts, who was never
questioned in the investigation. Never adjudicated. Mr.
3-098
Mendez has prior arrest for assault. His accomplice who was
also arrested was Mr. Levee’s daughter Alexandra Levee.
i. From The Tarrant County Sheriffs Department security
camera in the parking garage showing Mr. Edmondson
holding Mr. Levee and Mr. Mendez punching him.
ii. From The Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department security
camera in the parking garage Mr. Mendez kicked Mr.
Levee after Mr. Edmondson pulled him to the ground.
3-099
iii. The full sequence of the security camera is available.
(24) Any agreement between Mr. Edmondson and Mr. O’Toole )(ADA
Tarrant County) was made without my knowledge.
a. It was in the knowledge of the District Attorney’s Office of
Tarrant County and this is a lame attempt at avoiding the
D.A.’s responsibility.
i.
3-100
Summary
This information is a clear and concise record of and abridgment of the law.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DUTIES OF OFFICERS Art. 2.01. DUTIES OF DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS. Each district attorney shall represent the State in all criminal
cases in the district courts of his district and in appeals therefrom, except
in cases where he has been, before his election, employed adversely. When
any criminal proceeding is had before an examining court in his district or
before a judge upon habeas corpus, and he is notified of the same, and is at
the time within his district, he shall represent the State therein, unless
prevented by other official duties. It shall be the primary duty of all
prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but
to see that justice is done. They shall not suppress facts or secrete
witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused. Acts 1965,
59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722.
It is a clear and concise record of the neglect of duty.
Art. 2.03. NEGLECT OF DUTY. (a) It shall be the duty of the attorney
representing the State to present by information to the court having
jurisdiction, any officer for neglect or failure of any duty enjoined upon
such officer, when such neglect or failure can be presented by information,
whenever it shall come to the knowledge of said attorney that there has been
a neglect or failure of duty upon the part of said officer; and he shall
bring to the notice of the grand jury any act of violation of law or neglect
or failure of duty upon the part of any officer, when such violation, neglect
or failure is not presented by information, and whenever the same may come to
his knowledge.
(b) It is the duty of the trial court, the attorney representing the
accused, the attorney representing the state and all peace officers to so
conduct themselves as to insure a fair trial for both the state and the
defendant, not impair the presumption of innocence, and at the same time
afford the public the benefits of a free press.
Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722. Amended by Acts 1967, 60th
Leg., p. 1733, ch. 659, Sec. 3, eff. Aug. 28, 1967.
3-101
Perjury only happens under oath. Timothy Rodgers vowed to tell the truth to
someone who is authorized to administer the oath.
And, the proceeding was “competent,” that is, authorized by law. Perjury
requires a statement and Timothy Rodgers intent was to mislead. Timothy Rodgers
knew that his testimony is false and with the intent to mislead the court
Inconsistent statements can lead to perjury. Timothy Rodgers testimony viewed
as a whole is shameful.
Sworn, written statements submitted to courts or government agencies are
statements made in a proceeding and subject to perjury laws.
Timothy Rodgers “material” statements can be perjury. The false statements
influenced the proceedings.
Timothy Rodgers made some material statements that are superfluous to the
outcome and may still be perjury. Even where the false sworn statements does not
affect the outcome of a case, Timothy Rodgers may be prosecuted for perjury.
Timothy Rodgers perverted the truth.
3-102
3-103
3-104
3-105
APPENDIX TWELVE; MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
APPENDIX ELEVEN; STATES REPY AND HABES COURTS ORDER
11.072
APPENDIX TEN; INJURY OF THE KNEE IN THIS CASE
The Injury of the Knee
APPENDIX 10. ARGUMENT; INJURY OF THE KNEE
A. The injury showing the lateral ligaments of the knee.
The claim is the knee was injured by an outward motion to the side
or 90 degree angle injuring the ACL.
The prior injury and lack of specificity make the records
inconclusive and vague as to the cause.
A more logical explanation better fitting the injury is as pictured
above. This type of injury is consistent with the description in the
radiology report and the lack of involvement of the other ligaments.
The following pages show the claim and the explanation of the
injury.
1
The Injury of the Knee
C. In an ACL disruption based on a rotary knee instability anteromedial instability - when medial platue
of tibia rotates anteriorly and externally as joint opens on medial side ,this implies disruption of medial
capsular ligament, medial collateral ligament, posterior oblique ligament and anterior cruciate ligament.
D. One plane anterior instability is present when the tibia moves forward on femur due to anterior pull
of leg when foot is in neutral position. This include disruption of anterior cruciate ligament, lateral
capsular ligament [partial or complete], medial capsular ligament [partial or complete].
3
The Injury of the Knee
E. Front View - Normal Ligaments
F. Strain and bruise – no ligament tear.
4
The Injury of the Knee
G. Medial Collateral Ligament is torn, Anterior Crucial Ligament is torn , Medial Meniscus
Is damaged.
Conclusion; In a sideways, moderate movement, the ACL, MCL and Meniscus are involved.
5
The Injury of the Knee
H. In a sever movement to the side, tears occur in the ACL, MCL and Meniscus.
I. The evidence in the MRI indicates an injury inconsistent with testimony.
1. The anterior cruciate ligament is disrupted
6
The Injury of the Knee
2. Posterior cruciate ligament is intact.
3. The medial collateral ligament appears intact
4. The lateral meniscus appears intact.
5. The quadriceps and patellar tendons are intact.
6. The medial meniscus is diffusely abnormal
7. Complex tear of the anterior horn, body and part of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus
8. Prior history same injury treated previously .
J.
MRI EXT LWR RT JOINT WO 04/10/2010 2229 EM1308-10 561609
CONT
7
The Injury of the Knee
Examination: MRI right knee without contrast
Ordering Physician: DANIEL E PECKENPAUGH
Date: 4/10/2010 10:29 PM
History: DERANGEMENT
technique: Multiplanar, multi-sequential and right right knee without
contrast
Findings:
The anterior cruciate ligament is disrupted. Posterior cruciate
ligament is intact. Contusions are seen in the postero-medial and
posterior lateral tibia, anterior aspect of the tibia and anteromedial
femoral condyles. Fat fluid level seen within a moderate joint
effusion suggest articular disruption. Discrete cortical disruption
on MRI is not appreciated. Consider thin section CT to identify the
sites of likely nondisplaced fracture which is not clearly evident but
likely in one of the area of contusions and likely in the posterior
aspect of the tibial plateaus.
The medial meniscus is diffusely abnormal with no significant
identifiable anterior horn or body and a truncated posterior horn.
There is a displaced meniscal fragment seen within the posterior
intercondylar notch, image 8 series 6. The lateral meniscus appears
intact.
The quadriceps and patellar tendons are intact. The medial collateral
ligament appears intact. Extensive soft tissue edema noted about the
knee including edema superficial to the medial collateral ligament,
likely reactive. The lateral collateral ligament complex is intact.
Small hypointense normality within patient's joint effusion measuring
3.6 mm on image 4 series 6 likely a loose osteocartilaginous body,
possibly from either the postero-medial or posterior lateral tibial
plateau.
Impression:
Disrupted anterior cruciate ligament
Bone contusions in the posterior medial and lateral tibia and anterior
tibia and anteromedial femur. Lipohemarthrosis indicates articular
disruption although the discrete fracture line is not identified on
this MRI. Consider thin section CT as clinically appropriate.
Complex tear of the anterior horn, body and part of the posterior horn
of the medial meniscus with a displaced meniscal fragment in the
intercondylar notch
Small osteocartilaginous body
8
The Injury of the Knee
9
The Injury of the Knee
10
APPENDIX NINE; COURT: DON'T – DO NOT SAY ANOTHER WORD
APPENDIX EIGHT; KNEE INJURIES AND HOW THEY OCCUR
COMMON MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE
APPENDIX SEVEN; PREEXSISTING CONDITION
APPENDIX PREEXSISITNG FIBULAR FRACTURE APRIL 25 2006
APPENDIX SIX; DEFENSE CLOSING STATEMENT FAILED
TO PROVIDE PREDICATE FOUNDATION OR TESTIMONY
FOR CONFLICTING PRIOR STATEMENTS
Trl Rcd.II
Pg 12.25 If you look at the record again
Pg. 13.1 There is several versions from the complaint
APPENDIX FIVE; FAILURE OF DEFENSE OPENING
STATEMENT TO SHOW PROMISED VARING STATEMENTS
APPENDIX 4; COMPLAINT OF RIB INJURY
Statement and pictures entered into evidence of the allegation of rib
injury in assault in criminal trial are in conflict with medical evidence.
1. Medical records in evidence clearly show the radiology report as a
past fracture and appearing on the left side of the body.
a. Pictures and testimony claim an injury to the RIGHT side of
the body.
2. Cathey Levee’s medical record indicate a continuous use of
steroids.
a. Ecchymosis existed and has been a persistent presentation
throughout treatment.
i. Ecchymosis during prolonged steroid therapy is most
likely due to the fragmentation of elastic staining fibers,
the elastotic degeneration of the collagen fibers, and
their absence in the pericapillary spaces as a result of
corticosteroids. Vol 86, No. 5 © 2014 American
Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
3. Cathey Levee convinced court ribs were part of injury
a. however, the bruising she claimed on her right
side is the opposite side of the rib injury discovered a month
later.
RADIOLOGY REPORT AND ILLISTRATION These appear to be
bruises however they are
An ecchymosis is the medical term for a subcutaneous purpura larger
than 1 centimeter or a hematoma, commonly, but erroneously, called a
bruise.[1] That is, bruises are caused by trauma whereas ecchymoses, a
type of purpura, are not caused by trauma.[2]
A broader definition of ecchymosis[3][4] (noun) \e-ki-ˈmō-səs\ is as: the
escape of blood into the tissues from ruptured blood vessels. The term
also applies to the sub-cutaneous discoloration resulting from seepage of
blood within the contused tissue.
TRIAL RECORD
PICTURE ( COPY ) SUBMITTED INTO EVIDENCE
R10/06/2010 Radiology Associates There is a healed lateral left fourth rib fracture and
posterior fourth and fifth rib and seventh rib fracture
1. The location of specific rib fractures is an important indicator of
related injury.
a. Healed lateral left fourth rib fracture
b. Healed posterior fourth rib fracture
2. Healed posterior left fifth rib fracture
3. Healed posterior left fifth rib fracture
4. Area photographs in evidence indicate
a. Area on the RIGHT side of body.
5. Frontal image of the rib cage. Ribs 1-12 demonstrate the variable
shape of the upper 9 ribs. The 12th rib does not articulate anteriorly.
The sternum consists of the manubrium (M), the body (S), and the
xiphoid (X). The ribs articulate with the sternum via the
costochondral (CC) junction. C = clavicle. Posterior image of the
thorax. The ribs are numbered 1-12. The clavicle (C) and scapula (S)
are often involved in injuries that include rib fractures.
RADIOLOGY REPORT AND ILLISTRATION
4/10/2010 20:13 (8:13) Comment Dr. Peckepaugh PTA Domestic dispute with husband Kicked in ER pg 10
knee.
4/10/2010 20:27 (8:27) Husband tripped her ER pg 9
4/10/2010 20:32 (8:32) Patient stated a below-DF, My husband tripped me.-DF ER Pg 8
4/10/2010 23:01 (11:00) he purposely bumped me into the wall , I stumbled & he did a “military take Vic Vol Statement Pg1
down” kick to my right knee.
APPENDIX TWO; HEB EMERGENCY ROOM RECORDS
APPENDIX ONE ;Constitutionally ineffective trial counsel.
Index of Authorities
Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656, 97 S. Ct. 2034, 2038, 52 L. Ed. 2d
651 (1977). 1
Anderson v. Johnson, 338 F.3d 382, 392 (5th Cir. 2003) 6
Arnold v. State, 685 P.2d 1261, 1265, 1267 (Alaska Ct. App. 1984) 5
Beans v. Black, 757 F.2d 933 (8th Cir.) , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979 (1985) ; 7
Beans v. Black, 757 F.2d 933, 936 (8th Cir.) , cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979 (1985)
. 6
McCoy v. Wainwright, 804 F.2d 1196, 1198 (11th Cir. 1986) 6
Rogers v. Maggio, 714 F.2d 35, 37 (5th Cir. 1983) 5
Scott v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 427, 429 (11th Cir. 1983) 5, 7
See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.1994) 1
State v. Osborne, 684 P.2d 683, 691 (Wash. 1984) . 5
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d
674 (1984) . 6
Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1984) 7
Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304, 308 (8th Cir. 1984) 6
Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304, 308-09 (8th Cir. 1984) 7
United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir.1992). 1
United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir.1994) 1
United States v. Henderson, 72 F.3d 463, 465
Henderson argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to
withdraw the guilty plea.
The motion, Henderson asserts, should have been granted because he was
denied adequate assistance of counsel.
We must first determine whether Henderson has waived the right to raise
such a claim on direct appeal. The right to appeal a criminal conviction is
a statutory right, not a constitutional right. Abney v. United States, 431
U.S. 651, 656, 97 S. Ct. 2034, 2038, 52 L. Ed. 2d 651 (1977).
A defendant may waive statutory rights, including the right to appeal, as
part of a plea bargaining agreement. United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d
566, 567 (5th Cir.1992).
However, we have previously noted, without deciding the issue that
waivers of rights to appeal may not apply to ineffective assistance of
counsel claims. See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th
Cir.1994) (noting that waiver of postconviction relief in plea agreement
may not apply to collateral attacks based on ineffective assistance of
counsel).
Without deciding the issue, the Ninth Circuit has expressed similar
sentiments. See United States v. Pruitt, 32 F.3d 431, 433 (9th Cir.1994)
("We doubt that a plea agreement could waive a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel based on counsel's erroneously unprofessional
inducement of the defendant to plead guilty or accept a particular plea
bargain.").
I. Defense counselor Steven Bell admitted in court record he did not
investigate the eye witness or have any knowledge of what the witness testimony
would be.
6:22 THE COURT: Okay. Now, with regard to the
6:23 respective witnesses that will be testifying, if either
6:24 side has an issue with regard to whether or not that
6:25 That witness should be heard by the Court, I expect you to
7:01 make a timely objection
(Prosecution)
8:1 she is a witness in the case. He understands that we
8:2 are not going to go into any matters related to that
8:3 assault above and beyond the fact that it is pending.
8:4 And that-- I just want to make the Court
8:5 aware that we have made Defense Counsel aware of that
8:6 fact through Brady Notice, it's in existence, and we
8:7 have talked to Defense Counsel for Katy Levee about it.
8:8 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bell, are you
8:9 going to limit your cross-examination of this particular
8:10 witness, or do –
8:11 MR. BELL: Iwill-- Iwill—
8:12 THE COURT: I need to have the defense
8:13 attorney on standby.
8:14 MR. BELL: I will limit it only to the
8:15 extent that obviously she would take the Fifth with
8:16 regard to that offense.
8:17 THE COURT: Okay. Does she need to have
8:18 her attorney present in your opinion?
8:19 MR. BELL: I would not anticipate so, but
8:20 again.
8:21 THE COURT: Well --
8:22 MR. BELL: Yeah. Yeah. I'm not-- she’s
8:23 not my client, so I can’t-- I mean, obviously, I don’t
8:24 know--
8:25 THE COURT: No, but what I'm asking is that
Page 9
8:1 do you anticipate to go into any matters to try --
8:2 attempt to impeach her And if you are, that's fine.
8:3 just need to have her attorney present.
8:4 Now, I don’t want to limit your
8:5 cross-examination. She's not your client. However, in
8:6 good faith and as an officer of the Court, can you tell
8:7 me whether or not that would be a prudent step? The
8:8 State’s telling me that they don’t anticipate the need
8:9 of the -- of the attorney to -- to be present that's
8:10 representing that particular witness.
8:11 MR. BELL: At this response -- at -- at
8:12 this juncture, it's difficult for me to tell you that
8:13 because she hasn't given any type of statement that I
8:14 have seen –
8:15 THE COURT: All right.
8:16 MR. BELL: --so, I mean, she-- if-- from
8:17 what I can tell, unless Tim can tell me wrong, she
8:18 didn't talk to the police. She's never testified
8:19 apparently in the divorce hearing. She didn't testify
8:20 in the protective order. So I don't know exact --
8:21 exactly what she’s going to say. So it’s difficult to
8:22 make that determination.
8:23 Now, what I can tell you is if I get to
8:24 that point, we can stop it at that point and have her
8:25 lawyer present.
Page 11
11:1 MR. BELL: Now, what I can tell you that I
11:2 have learned -- and I work to determine whether or not
11:3 this is going to become a factor-- that there were some:
11:4 prior issues with regard to your complainant and this
11:5 individual that if-- you know, depending on how she
11:6 testifies, we -- we might very well get into that they
11:7 were assaultive in nature and some prior violence
11:8 between the two.
11:9 So that -- and quite honestly, that’s why I
11:10 said it’s difficult for me to determine what the
11:11 Court -- what I might got -- get into prior to hearing
11:12 her testify. She's never said anything.
11:13 THE COURT: I understand that, Mr. Bell --
11:14 MR. BELL: But I do understand the Court's
11:15 reservation with that, and honestly, probably, she
11:16 should have somebody present, but...
11:17 THE COURT: I understand that.
1. "Effective assistance of counsel" requires defense counsel to assist
his client in deciding whether to stand trial or enter a plea of guilty or
nolo contendere.
i. Rogers v. Maggio, 714 F.2d 35, 37 (5th Cir. 1983) ; Scott
v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 427, 429 (11th Cir. 1983) ;
Arnold v. State, 685 P.2d 1261, 1265, 1267 (Alaska Ct.
App. 1984) ; People v. Hunt, 219 Cal. Rptr. 731, 737 (Ct.
App. 1985) ; State v. Osborne, 684 P.2d 683, 691 (Wash.
1984) .
2. To be able to advise his client adequately of the available options,
defense counsel must be familiar with the facts of the case and the
applicable law.
i. Rogers v. Maggio, 714 F.2d 35, 37 (5th Cir. 1983) ; Scott
v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 427, 429 (11th Cir. 1983) ;
Arnold v. State, 685 P.2d 1261, 1265, 1267 (Alaska Ct.
App. 1984) ; People v. Brown, 223 Cal. Rptr. 66, 70-71
(Ct. App. 1986) .
Thus, for example, in Scott v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 427 (11th
Cir. 1983) , where defense counsel conducted only limited
legal research, procured no witnesses, took no depositions, and
interviewed neither the prosecution's witnesses nor the
witnesses the defendant wanted to call, the court concluded that
the defendant received ineffective assistance and that
consequently his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary.
ii. See also Arnold v. State, 685 P.2d 1261 (Alaska Ct. App.
1984) (holding that defense counsel's assistance was
ineffective where he did not understand the applicable
law, did not review police and medical reports, did not
examine any of the testimony before the grand jury, and
did not interview any witnesses).
3. The amount of investigation required of the attorney to familiarize
himself with the relevant facts and law depends upon the nature of
the particular case.
i. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 690-91, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) .
4. Including the strength of the prosecution's case.
i. Rhoades v. Henry, 611 F.3d 1133, 1142 (9th Cir. 2010)
5. As a general rule, defense counsel should attempt "to secure
information in the possession of the prosecution and law
enforcement authorities,"
i. Standards Relating to the Defense Function § 4-4.1 (3d
ed. 1993), available at
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice
_section_archive/crimjust_standards_dfunc_toc.html (last
visited Dec. 24, 2012). interview witnesses, Foster v.
Wolfenbarger, 2012 FED App. 0224P, 687 F.3d 702, 708
(6th Cir.) ; Beans v. Black, 757 F.2d 933, 936 (8th Cir.) ,
cert. denied, 474 U.S. 979 (1985) .
ii. For example, in Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304, 308
(8th Cir. 1984) , the court held that the defendant received
ineffective assistance of counsel where his attorney
merely reviewed the file of the prosecutor and did not
follow up on the names of three alibi witnesses given to
him by the defendant or interview either the victim of the
crime or any of the police officers who obtained a
statement from the defendant or who were involved in his
pretrial identification. The court distinguished the
situation in which the defendant did not supply his
attorney with information casting doubt on the events as
portrayed in the prosecutor's file.
iii. See also Anderson v. Johnson, 338 F.3d 382, 392 (5th
Cir. 2003) (concluding that the defense attorney's failure
to interview eyewitness rose to the level of
constitutionally deficient performance); Hawkman v.
Parratt, 661 F.2d 1161 (8th Cir. 1981) (the defendant
received ineffective assistance of counsel where his
attorney did not interview the three eyewitnesses to the
crime).
6. and investigate potential defenses, both factual and legal..
i. McCoy v. Wainwright, 804 F.2d 1196, 1198 (11th Cir.
1986) (remanding the cause for an evidentiary hearing to
determine whether defense counsel's failure to investigate
a possible insanity defense constituted ineffective
assistance of counsel);
ii. Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304, 308-09 (8th Cir.
1984) (faulting defense counsel for not investigating the
seriousness of the defendant's mental problems);
7. However, counsel need not investigate every conceivable defense.
i. Scott v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 427, 429 (11th Cir. 1983)
8. Nor must he always independently interview witnesses. For
instance, defense counsel is not required to interview witnesses
where, after discussing the case with the defendant and reviewing the
police reports and the statements of witnesses, he reasonably
concludes that further investigation would not lead to unknown facts.
9. The duty to investigate applies in all cases, even when the defendant
insists throughout that he wants to plead guilty -.
i. Smith v. Mahoney, 611 F.3d 978, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) ;
Beans v. Black, 757 F.2d 933 (8th Cir.) , cert. denied, 474
U.S. 979 (1985) ; Thomas v. Lockhart, 738 F.2d 304 (8th
Cir. 1984) ; Arnold v. State, 685 P.2d 1261 (Alaska Ct.
App. 1984) ; People v. Hunt, 219 Cal. Rptr. 731, 737 (Ct.
App. 1985) .
ii. See also Standards Relating to the Defense Function § 4-
4.1 (3d ed. 1993), available at
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice
_section_archive/crimjust_standards_dfunc_toc.html (last
visited Dec. 24, 2012).
II. Defense counselor Steven Bell admitted in court record he did not
investigate or examine the Brady statement concerning the arrest of the eye
witness for Assault- Deadly weapon and the Attorney General investigation
concerning the attempt to obtain funds from Victims Assistance that were paid
by relators medical insurance Court interfered with admission of ineffective
defense counsel.
A. Bell did not review Brady Report
Pace Pg. ID 639 Ln. 136.10
Mr. BELL: The report was not a part of it.
B. Court attempted to cover ineffective counsel admission and took discussion off the
record.
Pace Pg. ID 639 Ln. 136.10
THE COURT: Are we off the record?
wife” gave him something else that would make him crazy. I find it hard to believe that a doctor who
has never met me or seen my medical records would write such a letter, but that is what he is using
for his defense. Also, on the original form in February from Dr. Grant’s office, he wrote that he was
only allergic to iodine and Demerol. On the 4/28 form he added vicodin (hydrocodone, Norco) to the
list. He has used this medication for pain multiple times and I have a prescription bottle that he was
given for pain when he burned his hand a few years ago. This is the bottle I gave him his medicine from
before the assault because it was too late and the pharmacy was closed when I got home to pick up
the one from the Ennis doctor. He has also taken my hydrocodone on MULTIPLE occasions when his
shoulder hurt before his surgery. He also has several copies of my medical claims for my car wreck and
I do not know how he has gotten them without being in my house. He is trying to claim medical fraud
from my car accident last year. I had all these records in my home by my bed. He IS entering my house!
Why won’t anyone with any authority believe me?
Also, when Ted first started going to Dr. Grant in February of 2010 he signed a HIPPA form that I could
access his records. So I did. The doctor diagnosed him at that time as Bipolar II, ADD, with paranoid and
narcissistic tendencies, in addition to rage and control issues. According to the medical records he is
NOT taking any medication to control his Bipolar Disorder. He is only taking Adderall and Valium. I can
tell you that Adderall exacerbates his delusional behavior. If you would like me to FAX you those
documents I can. As a Licensed Professional Counselor I can tell you that this combination is dangerous
and prone to stalking and unpredictable behavior. This is exactly the kind of behavior that he exhibited
when he kicked my oldest daughter out of the house is 2009. He stalked her, remotely accessed her
computer and called her work multiple times to get her fired. I also recently discovered that he had a
key logger on our home computer and had cameras pointed at the girls bedrooms and bathroom.
Alexandra has also confided in me that he tried to touche her inappropriately on a volley ball
tournament in Houston in 2006. I have always thought he was sexually inappropriate with her but
never really put the pieces together until all three girls told me comments that he has said to them. My
family therapist has said that Ted is a sexual predator who is after Alexandra and Katy. The girls had not
told me many things because they knew I was sick and need the income and insurance. I do not feel
safe, protected or that anyone is listening to how crazy this man is. He has contacted Katy (my
youngest daughter) three times on FaceBook, “pinged” my cell phone to locate me and changed the
passwords on my ATT account so I cannot access the internet at home. I cannot close the account nor
do anything with it because he is listed as the only authorized user. He repackages the bill, which is sent
to his Kaufman address and then resends it to me the day before the utility is disconnected.
Do I have to die or suffer more physical injuries in order to get this man to leave us alone? I
understand he is going to court on the 23rd of this month. I would like to be there. Katy has written a
notarized statement of the events of 4/10 /10 and both of us are willing to testify. Please help us. If
something happens to me or my girls, my family and attorney will hold your office accountable. I do
not care if he is fired; this is not about money, I want to feel safe in our home. I should not have to
enter the witness protection plan to live our lives. This is exactly what the Battered Women’s
Foundation has recommended. We are NOT safe.
Thank you, Cathey
B. Request for record to authenticate letter
OPEN RECORD REQUEST FOR JUNE 10 2010 ADA RODGERS LETTER
From: "Thelevee@yahoo.com"
Date: August 26, 2013, 3:53:47 AM EDT
To: "8178843333@metrofax.com" <8178843333@metrofax.com>
Subject: Fwd: thelevee@yahoo.com has sent you a file
Theodore Levee
925 Altara Ave
Coral Gables Florida
33146
972-835-6777
Fax 305-665-5597
Email thelevee@yahoo.com
August 23, 2013
Tarrant County District Attorney
Public Information Officer
Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center
401 West Belknap
Fort Worth, TX 76196
Fax 817-884-3333
Dear Officer for Public Records:
This request is made under the Texas Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Texas
Government Code, which guarantees the public's access to information in the custody of
governmental agencies. I respectfully request copies of the following information:
Email records concerning;
State v.Theodore Floyd Levee
Correspondence between assistant district attorney Tim Rodgers and Cathey Levee.
While request is for all correspondence, specifically included is the email sent to Mr. Rodgers by
Cathey Levee on the account of Mr. Levee's - thelevees5@msn.com and also the email address -
cathey.levee@fwisd.org.
The email of June 10, 2010 is specific to the actions and knowledge of the district attorney’s
office in the prosecution of above case.
In the interest of expediency, and to minimize the research and/or duplication burden on your
staff, I would be pleased to personally examine the relevant records if you would grant me
immediate access to the requested material. Additionally, and since time is a factor, please
communicate with me by telephone or fax rather than by mail. My telephone number is:
972-835-6777
Fax 305-665-5138
Disclosure of this information is in the public interest because providing a copy of the
information primarily benefits the general public. I therefore request a waiver of all fees and
charges pursuant to Section 552.267 of the act.
I shall look forward to hearing from you promptly, as specified in the law. Thank you for
your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Theodore Floyd Levee
Electronically signed 5690
From;
Theodore Levee
925 Altara Ave
Coral Gables FL 33146
To;
Ashely Forth
ADA
Tarrant County District Attorneys’ Office
401 W Belknap
Ft Worth TX 76196
In the matter 2013-19273
According to the letter from the AG of Texas Office, AAG Jennifer Burnett, we are past deadline for the
release of the requested documents referred to in this correspondence #OR 2013 -19273
That would include June 10, 2010 and all other correspondence between the DA office and Cathey
Levee, sent from thelevees5@msn.com, and Cathey.Levee fwisd.org.
And any other and all correspondence in the completed criminal case.
The deadline according to the AG was 10 days after the issuance of the letter dated November 5 2013.
This action is jeopardizing factual claims in another action and as such considerably jeopardized the
conviction and integrity of the District Attorney’s office of Tarrant County.
Please comply at once as a like correspondence has been forwarded with the AG.
Theodore Levee
925 Altara Ave
Coral Gables FL
Jennifer Burnett
PO Box 12548
Austin TX 78711-2548
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
OR 2013-19273
Email between DA and Cathy Levee
Per your correspondence and the opinion of the Attorney General I have not received the
requested documents and ask the assistance of the State of Texas in enforcing and holding all
accountable equally under the law.
I have contacted the ADA Ashely Fourt date same and it is imperative to have these records in
an action before the United States District Court North Texas Fort Worth Civil Action No. 4;13-cv-211-y,
The matter is time sensitive.
Sincerely
Theodore Levee
V. Counsel failed to impeach witness based on conflicted statements in
testimony concerning a shot gun
A. Witness testimony conflicted
B. Hurst Police Officer Juminez stated under oath that he ask if a weapon where
involved and Cathey Levee said “No”. But in testimony he was cocking a shot gun and
running upo and down stairs and she saw it in his hand. But Catherine – who is in
testimony as to never leaving her side never saw a gun.
VI. Defense counselor Steven Bell admitted in court record he failed to
impeach witness complainant based on conflicted statements in medical
records affidavit in closing argument
VII. Counsel failed to impeach witness Alexandra Levee based on conflicted
statements concerning whip kick and held proof in affidavit of April Divorce
sworn and in conflict
VIII. Defense counselor Steven Bell refused to investigate claim of injury in
medical records
A. Several rendition to not equate to trial testimony
B. Medical fact refutes testimony and claim of ACL rupture in that
According to all radiology reports no collateral ligament damage
occurred.
IX. Defense counselor Steven Bell failed to properly advise relator of appeal
right in front of two witnesses.
(see Affidavits Skye Levee and Risa Ruso)
X. Defense counselor Steven Bell abandoned relator
Admission by defense counsel of failure to investigate witness.
Eyewitness Catherine Levee
Appendix Defense failed to examine Brady Statement in eye witness
account
Appendix June 10 2010 Letter Cathey Levee Tim Rodgers cc’d to
relators email account.
Other Authorities
See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir.1994) ...................................................... 1