404 U.S. 5l9,
92 S. Ct. 594, (1972), Where in the
Court, asserted that " PLEADINGS OF PRO-SE Litigants are to
be construed liberally and held to less stringent standards
than FORMAL Pleadings drafted by Professional Lawyers"
_1_
ll.
A. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Applicant was indicted for the Offense of AGGRAVATED ROBBERY/
Habitual Offender, by a Henderson County Grahd Jury on_§§§§§§§§_
lBth, 1998-
A HendersonmCounty Jury Convicted this Applicant of
AGGRAVATBD ROBBERY as was charged in the lndictment. The Jury
found Applicant guilty of the allegedd Offense. Applicant chose
to have the Trial Court Judge senbence Applicant to (40) FORTY
YEARS confinement in the Texas Department of Criminaa Justice-
lnstitutional Division.
Applicant appealed his conviction and the (thh) TWELFTH
COURT of APPEALS affirmed the Conviction on JANUARY 3lst, 2000.
A Pro-Se Petition for Discretionary Review was refused
by the Court of Criminal Appeals on JULY 26th, 2000.
Applicant filed his first Writ of Habeas Corpus ll.07,
on SBPTBMBER 05th, 2000. The Trial Court found there are no
controverted previously unresolved facts material to the
Applicant's Confinement. " The COURT of CRIMINAL APPEALS
denied the same without written order.”
GROUND OF ERROR NO: I
THIS IS``A SUBSEQUENT WRIT OF APPLICATION -
APPLICANT IS CHALLENGING THE IMPROPER ENHANCEMENT
PARAGRAPH - ACTUAL INNOCENCE OF THE CRIME-
~k*k*~k~k~k*~k~k'k~k*'k~k~k'k~k'k``k~k*~k~k'k~k~k~k'k*~k~k'k~k~k*~k~k‘k*~k~k~k'k~k~k~k~k*~k~k*~k~k~k~k~k~k~k*'k*
_2--
GROUND OF ERROR NO: l
ARGUMENT and AUTHORITIES
~k~k~k*~k~k**~k~**~k~k~k~k*~k~k~k‘k~k~k~k'k*'k~k'k*~k~k~k~k~k~k~k~k~k'k~k*~k'k~k*~k*~k**~k~k~k~k~k~k'k~k~k~k~k
1.) The current claims and issues have not been and could not
have been presented previously in an original APPLICATION filed
under thisa rticle because the factual / or Legal Basis for the
claim was un-available on the date that Applicant filed the
previous Application. and (2)... By a preponderence of the
evidence, but for a Violation of the United states Constitution,
No rational Juror could have found that Applicant was Guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Subsequent Application provision adopted the “ABUSE of
the Writ Doctrine used in state and Federal Practice which limits
to ONE (l) Application writ Of Habeas Corpus except in exceptional
circumstances specifically.
The subsequent Application in 11.07, and 11.071, were
enacted in response to SCHLUP Vs. DELO,
513 U.S. 298,
115 S. Ct.
851.
130 L. Ed. 2d. 808. In Schlup, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that the Federal Habeas Corpus Applicant must show
that a Constitutional Violation " More Likely than Not",
resulted in the Conviction of an innocent Person, I.d. at
327,
115 S. Ct. 851. This was an adoption of the Carrier Case.
See: MURRAY VS. CARRIER,
477 U.S. 473, 496,
106 S. Ct. 2639¢
91 L. Ed. 2d. 397 (1986).
The CARRIER Standard requires the Habeas Corpus Applicant
to show that a Constitutional Violation has probably resulted
in the Conviction of one who is actually innocent to establish
_3_
the requisite probability. fhe Petitioner must show that it
is more likely than not, that no reasonable Juror would have
convicted him in light of the new information and evidence.
SCHLUP, 513 U.S. at 377,
115 S. Ct. 851, Standard, the “More
Stringent". SAWYER VS.``WHITLE!)
505 U.S. 333, 112, S. Ct. 2514,
120 L. Ed. 2d 2691 (1992) .. Holding that a Habeas Petitioner
must show by clear and convincing evidence. but for a Constitutional
error, No Reasonable Juror would have found the Petitioner eligible
for the 0eath Penalty standard was re-enacted and the court then
reasoned .. that a Constitutional error resulted in the
conviction of one who is actually innocent of,the crime.
The Carrier Standard strikes the babance between thesocial
interest of finality and the Individual lnterest in Justice.
SCHLUP,
513 U.S. 324,
115 S. Ct. 851. The Court dismissed
the need for an exception to adequately protect against the kind
of miscarriage of Justice that would result from the execution
of a person who is actually innocent. " To Ensure that the
fundemental mis-carriage of Justice exception would remain "RARE".
and would be applied in the extraordinary case.
Which at the same ensuring, that the exception would extend
relief to those who were truely deserving. This Court explicity
tied the miscarriage of Justice exception to the Petitioner's
lnnocence., ldl at 321,
115 S. Ct. 851, while SCHLUP involved
1
a Federal Habeas Corpus Petition in a Death Penalty Case.
The reasoning can be equally applied to both TEXAS CODB OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTlCLES, 11.07, Section 4(a) (2) and 11.071,
Section 5 (A) (2) A required claim of actual Innocence to bring
_4_
the Petitioner's within the "narrow Class of Cases", implicating
a Fundemental miscarriage of justice, ld. at 315,
115 S. Ct. 851.
In other words, showing actual innocence by a preponderence
of the evidence is a gateway through which a Habeas Petitioner
``\
must pass in Order to have an otherwise barred Constitutional
claim considered on the merits
Id. Citing: HERRERA VS. COLLINS,
§@@ u.s. at 404;.113 sp cc. 853.
GROUND OF BRROR NO: 2
IMPROPER / ILLEGAL SENTENCE WITH
TWO ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS.
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 2
ARGUMENTS and AUTHORITIES
Applicant WILLIE DONNELL BEASLEY, was charged with the Felony
Offense of AGGRAVATED ROBBERY / HABITUAL. The lndictment, A-9192-J
contained TWO enhancement Paragraphs. See: INDICTMENT EXHIBIT
(A),'attached hereto, which alleged TWO Enhancement paragraphs,
showing for BURGLAR! OF A BUILDING,-Cause No: A-4667, and ROBBERY,
Cause No: A~6883, in MARCH OBth¢ 1999. Applicant plead Not Guilty
to the AGGRAVATED ROBBERY and after been found guilty of the
Aggravted~Robbery, Applicant chose to be §€Dtepced by the Trial
Court Judge, the Honorable Jack H. HOLLAND, of the 173rd Judicial
District Court of henderson County, Texas. During the penalty
phase of the frial, the Trial Court Judge was mislead by the
State Prosecutor, into believing that'the TWO Priors, enhancement
paragraphs, were in fact final convictionsL when she knew that
the prior enhancements were not ... They were unavailable for
enhancement purposes. See: EXHIBIT (A), the INDICTMENT and
_5_
EXHIBIT (B), The JUDGEMENT and SENTENCEING, BECAUSE AFTER Bsing
mislead, by the State Prosecutor, and not knowing it, the Trial
Court Judge did take into consideration the enhancement paragraphs
when he pronounced and informed Applicant that he hereby sentenced
him to 40 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice -
Institutional Division., based upon information put before him
.by the prosecutor and the defense Attorney should have objected
to the improper and illegal enhancement. Also, See a LETTER from
the HBNDERSON COUNT¥, TEXAS DISTRICT COUNTY OFFICE, showing NO
MANDATE was filed in either case entered as EXHIBIT (c),
Id.
UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT CONSIDBRED THE ERROR AND
REVERSBD FOR A NBW PUN$SHMENT HBARING, in the lnterest Of
Justice.-Id. Thus, Under SANDERS, When a Defendant pleads TRUE
to an enhancement paragraph, but, the record affirmatively reflects
that the prior conviction was not final for enhancement purposes,
the "INTEREST OF JUSTICE" REQUIRES THB REVIEWING COURl to
Consider this Brroe.
The First Court of Appeals has extended the SANDERS
Exception.. Applying it not only to cases in which a Non-Final
'Conviction was improperly used to Enhance Punishment, but, to
any case in which a "DEFENDANT PLBADS TRUE to an Enhancement
Paragraph Allegation. [and], The Record affirmatively reflect
[s] that the Prior Conviction should not have been used for
enhancement purposes.
CRUZ VS. STATE, NO: 01-00-00463~CR,
2001 WL 1168273, at
TEX. APP. HOUSTON [lst DISTRICE] (OCtOber 04th, 2001.) NO
Petition, Not desiginated for Publication.)
_6_
The situation here falls within the gateway, as the
records affirmatively reflects, that the TWO PRIORS should not
have been used to enhance Applicant‘s Punishment range to that
of an Habitual Offender.
A Claim of an ILLEGAL SENTENCE is cognizable in a writ of
HABEAS CORPUS. See: Ex Par_``te RICH, 194 S.W.. 3d. 508, 511,'
(TE.X. CRIM. A``PP. 2006.)
An lllegal Sentence is one that is not authorized by Law.
Therefore, A Sentence that is outside the range of
punishment, authorized by Law, is considered lllegal.
MIZELL vs. sTATa, 119 s.w. 3d. 804, 806, ( Tex. crim. App£ 2003)
ex vance BECK, 922 s.w. 2d. iai, 182, 1 Tax. crim. App~ t 1996).
Therefore, an Applicant's sentence must be within the
range under which he / or she, was admonished and sentenced.
See: Ex Parte PARROTT,
396 S.W. 3dd» 531,-533.
See: Also: Ex Parte Mc Cain,
67 S.W. 3d. 204, 210, (TEX. Crim.
App. 2002).
GROUND OF ERRO NO: 3
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DURING THE PENALTY PHASE
'Gaoune or BRRoR No; 3
Applicant, Willie donnell Beasley, contends that he was
subjected to lneffective Assistance of Counsel during the Penalty
Phase, due to Defense Counsel's failure to investigate the'prior'
convictions abd the enhancement paragraphs, used for enhancement
purposes.
Defense Counsel failed to file a Motion with the Trial Court
to dismiss the improper enhancement paragraph when in fact, said
paragraph were not final convictions, and could not be used for
enhancement purposes. Had the defense Counsel investigated this,
she would have known about the improper enhancement, and would
have also filed a motion to dismiss the Indictment, due in fact
that the TWO ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPHS were un-available. 'The
Indictment is defective because it's missing essential elements of
the primary Offense. The Defense Counsel sat there and allowed
the State Prosecutor to mislead the Courts into believing these
n were final convictions. The indictment is missing essential
elements of the crime. See: COOK Vs. LYNAUGH,
821 F. 2d. 1072,
15th Cir. 1987) .. DOUGLAS Vs. WAINWRIGHT, 714 Ft Zd. 1532, llth
CIR. 1983.
The indictment, under which Applicant, WILLIE DONNELL BEASLEY
was convicted, alleged for enhancement purposes, §QQ Prior Con-
Victions for BURGLARY of a Building, Cause No: A-4667 and for
Robbery, Cause No; A-6883: lt was incumbent upon the State
PROSECUTO§ TO Prove that these prior Convictions became FINAL
Before Commission of the Primary Offense. See: DBREMIGGIO,
Vs. STATE,
637 S.W. 2d. 926 - 928. ( TEX. CRIM. APP. 199_.)
The state sought to prove the enhancement allegation by introducing
into evidence, a PEN PACKETT, containing a JUDGBMENT and SENTENCE,
However, the copy of the sentence contained in the pen packett,
lndicates that defendant gave notice of appeal in OPEN Court;
" A conviction from which an appeal has been taken is not con-
sidered final until the Appellate Court Affirms the conviction
and issues its mandate ... See:» CARTER Vs. STATB,
510 S.W. 2d.
323, 324 ( TEX. Crim. App. (1974) .. However, in the instant case,
no mandate from this court or / any other manner of proof, showing
the disposition of the appeal was introduced into evidence BEFORE
the Jury or Judge as such.. Our holding in JONES Vs. STATE,
711
S.W. 2d. 634 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1981).v Controls.
In JONES, this Court determined: " In this instance, Because
the sentence that was introduced into evidence by the state to
prove up the alleged Prior Felony Conviction, reflects that the
conviction was appealed. The state itself could have raised the
question as to what disposition was made of the appeal, was
introduced into evidence BEFORE the Judge or Jury as such...Our
holding in JONES, this Court determined:
The State thus had the burden of Proof to establish what o
disposition was made of the appeal, Because the State Failed to'm
_g_
make a Prima Facia showing of finality. The Applicant had no
Burden to carry ... The case is simply one of failure of the
State to sustain its burden of proof. JONES,
711 S.W. 2d. at
636.
Although Applicant relied upon RICH and JONES, in his
memorandum of Law, In support of Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, Before This Court ahd the Court of Criminal Appeals,
that Court did not discuss the'case. The lower Court simply
determined that the evidence was " CIRCUMSTANTIALLY SUFFICIENT".
to prove that the prior conviction was final. This is In-Correct.
After the State establishes that a defendant has been previously
convicted, this Court will presume that a conviction is final
when faced with a silent record regarding such.
DIREMIGGIN,
637 S.W. 2d. at 9281
Citinq JOHNSON=VS. State, 583 S.W. 2d, 399 t Tex. Crim. App. 1979)
and TINNE! Vs- STATE,
578 S.W. 2d. 137, ( TEX CRIM. APP. 1979)¢ Our
holding in JONES, However requires the State to Proceed with
Proof of finality has been over come. That is the evidence
cannot be ciscumstantially sufficient when there has been no
evidence of finality and other evidence established that the case
has been appealed.
_10_
RICH,
194 S.W. 3d. 511 Ex Parte ELIZONDO,
947 S.W. 2d. 202
CaSe Law On INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE PRIOR
CONVICTION WAS FINAL ....
The resolution of this case depends upon whether Applicant‘s
sentence is actually lllegal when the Judge delivered the sentence
based.on the indictment before him,
He acted within his authority and the law.
It was not until the Trial Court discovered that one of the
Applicant's Felony charges was NON~Final Offense, thatwthe problem
with the sentence became known. Clearly, the Trial Judge himself
did not knowingly act illegally when issuing Applicant's sentence
of 40 Years. However. since Aoplica\t's BURGLARY of a Building
Cause No: 4661. and ROBBERY¢.Conviction was NON-FINAL.,
as a matter of Law, the Prior'Conviction could not be used to
sentence him as an Habitual Offender.
Applicant is currently serving the 40 Year sentence of an
enhanced sentence for AGGRAVATED ROBBERY/HABITUAL, when the actual
range of punishment for his offense with one prior felony
conviction, is 2~20 years.
Those Precedent involving claims of illegal sentences have
dealt with situations in which illegality of the judgement was
apparent from the facts before the Trial Court. Although this
instant case involves a different situation, because the mis-
characterization of one of the prior convictions only later
became known for previous cases in this area l..., and the rational
when they are raised, are not only Applicable, but also instrumental
in evaluating Applicant's Claim.
_ll_
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 4
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DURING THE GUILT and INNOCENT PHASE
cRouND oF E:RRoR No: 4
ARGUMENT and AUTHORITIES
Applicant, WILLIE DONNELL BEASLEY, Contends that he received
ineffective assistance of Counsel during the Guilt / Innocent
Phase. Applicant raised a substantial issue concerning a missing
material witness for the defense's ORlGINAL PETITION for WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.
The Applicant alleged that there was favorable evidence
that could have cleared Applicant of the alleged offense of
Aggravated Robbery. The Applicant made it known at the time of
the trial to his defense Counsel, that he had an alibi witness to
substantiate his location at the time of the alleged offense.
Trial Counsel's failure to interview and call the alibi witness w
who put the Applicant in another location at the time of the offense
constituted performance below and obiective Standard of
reasonableness. There existed a reasonable probability that the
that the results of the trial would have been different. absent Trial
Counsel's un-professional errors and omissions. [ U.S. Vs. DAWSON,
851 F. 2d. 923 (5th Cir) 1988. WADE Vs. Aamontrout.
798 F. 2d.
308, (Bth Cir) 1986. U.S. EX Rel PATTERSON VS. NEAL,
678 F. Supp.
749 i}N.D. iii 19881.
Applicant did supply his Attorney, Ms. Drum, with the name
of the material Witness for the defense.. I.E. TRACY SOWELL‘S
and after Ms. Drum had the trail Court to issue a suoena for
-12_
Mr. Sowell's to be in Court on MARCH 09th, 1999, She, Ms. Drum
phoned Ms. Sowell and told him that she would not be needing him.
Ms. Drum also had the Applicant's Brother, Thomas G. Spencer. and
Tom Perdue, to come to Court to offer testimony, but, prohibited
them from testifying for the Applicant.
Failure by the defense Counsel to produce these alibi
witnesses, under the facts and circumstances of this case,
constituted ineffective assistance of Counsel. JOSH Vs. LOCKHART,
879 F. 2d. 412 (8th Cir) 1989. Trial Counsel also abandoned
Applicant only defense which was inherently_prejudicial. U.S. Vs.
SWANSON,
943 F. 2d. 1070 (8th Cir. 1991).
The applicant also made it known, the location of §WQ other
WITNESSES THAT COULD HAVE FURTHER TESTIFIED THAT THE ALLEGED
victim had accused them of taking property from her and failure
of Counsel to contact and interview and investigate all potential
witnesses of possible alibi witnesses, When Applicant provided his
Counsel with their names, which would have supported a Defense of
mis-i@entification, constituted Ineffective Assistance of counsel,
LAWREBCE Vs. Aamontrouts
900 F. 2d. 127 (8th Cir 1990)-,
ana u.s. vs. Asalni, aaa F.zd. 643 ( 7ch cir. 1991). seth
Mr. Sowell's and.Mr. Spencer were willing aHd ready to testify for
the Applicant. This can be verified through Trial Records.
Applicant further contends that Counsel had a duty to
perform in conducting a reasonable amount of Pre-Trial investigation
which includes: SEEKING OUT and INTERVIEWING POTENTIAL WITNESSES,
As in NEALLY vs. cABANA.'}b% F. zd. 1173, 1177, ( sch Cir. 1980)
and Ex Parte DUFF!,
607 S.W. 2d. 507, ( Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
_13_
and U.S. Vs. GRAY,
898 F. 2d. 702 (3rd Cir. 1989).
Please Note that the 6TH Amendment provided that..." IN ALL
COMPULSORY PROCESSES, FOR' OBTAINING WITNESSES IN HIS FAVOR,“
U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT V;I... This right was held Applicable
to the State through the 14th Amendment in WASHINGTON Vs- TEXAS,
380 U.S. 14.19 (1987). Simply-put, the Applicant's right to
compulsory process was denied.
The Sixth Amendment right to Counsel is the right to
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL as in SERICKLAND Vs. WASHINGTON,
466 U-S. 688. The U.S. Supreme Court established a TWO Prong test
with which to evaluate INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL Claims.
The Court in STRICKLAND STATES THAT, " THE PURPOSE OF THE
EFFBCTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARENTEE lF THE 6TH AMENDMENT is
.... to ensure that the Criminal Defendent receives a fair Trial...
Id. at 689 .. To obtain reversal of a conviction that defendant must
prove:
(l.) That Counsel's performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness.v KYLES Vs. WHITLE!,
5 F. 3dd. 806, 819
(5th Cir. 1993, and (2) ... That Counsel's deficient performance
prejudiced the defendant resulting in an un-reliable or fundemen-
tally Unfair outcome of the proceedings .. U.S, Vs. SPRINGS,
968
F. 2d. 796, 748, (7th Cir. 1993).
The Court has held that the Second Phase of STRICKLAND,
REQUIRED MORE THAN JUST A SHOWING THAT THE OUTCOME OF THE PRO
CEEDING WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT.
For the Counsel's errors, LOCKHART Vs. FRETWELL, 113 S.
Ct. 838, 842-843 (1993), in BLACKBURN VS. FORTS,
828 F. 2d.
_14_
177. (8TH Cir. 1987) .. Defendant was denied the EFFECTIVE ASSIS~
tance of Counsel based on a combination of Counsel's erroneous
Legal Advice, concerning possible Use of Prior Convictions if
Applicant testified ... And was the refusal to allow defendant
testifying denied an opportunity to observe Defendant demeanor
and to Judge his credibility first hand against that of the
prosecutors witnesses.
( NICOLAS VS. BUTLER,
951 F. 2d. 1550 (11th Cir. 1992;)
This action deprived the defendant of a fair Trial and
also constitutes lneffective Assistance of Counsel.
The Court should-find that his right to testify at his own Trial,
is so basic to a Fair Trial. that Counsel's actions preventing
Defendant from testifying can never be treated as a harmless
error' (U.S. Vs. BUTTS,
630 F. Supp. 1145 (D.ME. 19861.
lt is obviously clear that a potential conflict of interest
had occurred some time during the Course of the Trial proceeding.
and that the court. as well as Aoplicant's Attorney. has knowingly
and intentially and willfully neglected their duty and failed
or refused to investigate the Unapproved
private communication and tampering of a Juror.
This Court must consider and review and apply the Laws
which have been set forward. not only by the Court of Criminal
Appeals. but also the U.S. Court of APPEALS, as well as the
U;s. supreme court.
_15_
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 5
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 5
ARGUMENT and AUTHORITIES
Applicant argues that there was a Conflict of interest
between himself and his Court Appointed Attorney, Ms. Teresa
A. Drum, who represented Applicani at his Trial.
Aside from the fact there exhisted a close friendship between
Ms. Drum and the Assistant D.A. Ms. Shari Moore.
Ms. Drum was also employed by the County of Henderson.County,
as a City Attorney for Gun BArrell. City, Texas.
See: Exhibit ( E, H- K,) The Trial Court erred in its decision
not to investigate the Applicant's claim of conflict of interest.
which is regonized under the 6th Amendment and the 14th Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution under Due Process abd the right to
effective assistance of Counsel, which is also recognized by
the Court.
Furthermore, Applicant's Attorney verbally motioned to
withdraw, citing possible Conflict of interest.
However. the Trial Court Judge totally disregarded Applicant
and Applicant's Attorney's claim of conflict of lnterest.
When Defendant made a sufficient showing that a Conflict
of lnterest existed, which adversely affected Counsel's
reoresentation. prejudice is presumned. MANHALL Vs. REEDS.
847 F. 2d. 576 (5th Cir. 1988) See AlSO CUYLER VS. SULLIVAN,
_16__
_446 U.S. 335, 348, 100 S..Ct. 1708
64 L. Ed. 2d. 333 (1980).
Applicant argues that the possible Conflict of interest
did become a complete conflict when Defense Counsel. Ms. Drum,
had to choose between actually protecting Applicant's rights
to Trial by Jury.
( A JURY NoT TAMPERED wi'rn...)
See: EXHIBIT ( D, E. ``[". G. H._) AND REPORTING A FELLOW Officer
of the State. Detective Kay LAngford... for Possible Jury
tampering.
Under GUYLER; the Court must presume prejudice of a conflict
of lnterest adversely affects the Attorney's Performance.
Applicant would like to redirect the Courts attention to
the following:
Applicant did file his affidavit of Juror misconduct with
the Trial Court on March 10th, 1999 ..- See: EXHIBIT (D) which
is part of the Court Record on File. .
The Trial Court Judge received said affidavit and sent a copy
of the same on Applicant's Trial Attorney. See EXHIBIT'(F),
Also a Part of the Trial Court Records. A Reading of EXHIBIT
(D) clearly demonstrates that Ms. T. Drum knew of the Jury
tampering prior to Applicant filinq.his affidavit.
Defense Counsel, T.``Drum, at no time prior to Applicant filing
his affidavit, and at no time following the Trial Court Judge,
serving her a copy of said Affidavit. did Ms. Drum move for
an in»camera hearing to voir dior Ms. P. Hamieh.. who did become
Jurorr# 6, nor Detective Kay LANGFORD. The Applicant would
like to point out at this time, that. the Trial Court Judge
_17_
has a limited duty to avoid potential conflicts of lnterest
which constitutes a 6TH Amendment Violation on the Conflict
of lnterest. The reviewing Court must find, (l.)- THB DEFENSE
COUNSEL ACTIVEBY REPRESENTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND (2.) -
that an actual Conflict of lnterest adversely affected Defense
Attorney's performance as cited. See: GUYLER Vs. SULLIVAN,
qé¢,u.$. 335,, 348, 100 S. c_c. 703, 64 L. Ea. 2d. 333 (1989)
and the Court must initiate an inguirey if it knows or reasonably
should know that a potential conflict estts.
The Applicait would once again like to draw the Courts
attention to EXHIBIT (K), which further substantiates
Applicant's claim of Conflict of interest. According to JAMISON
Vs. LOCKHART,
975 F.2d 1377 (BTh Cir. 1992), Applicant's
Trial Court Appointed Attorney was also-employed as a City Attorney
and created a conflict of lnterest and constitutes "CAUSE" for
procedural default. The Applicant would show that Defense Counsel
T. Drum, had in her possession, which constituted Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel which the Courts should pay attention
to evidence in the form of al investigation report from her
investigator. That clearly shows that the Applica\t was 38.4
miles away from the scene of the crime. at the time of the alleged
robbery .. and she, Ms. T. Drum, failed or refused to use the
evidence abd did not offer any explanation.
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 6
JUROR MIS~CONDUCT ( UN-APPROVED §
JURY COMMUNICATION )
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 6
ARGUMENT and AUTHORITIES
._18_
Applicant, WILLIE DONNELL BBASLEY, Contends that on March
O9th, 1999, the Applicant made it known to his Trial Attorney,
Ms. T. Drum. that one of the State Investigators involved in
the investigation of the Applicant, case. was observed talking
to one of the perspective Juror members.
This individual was identified as JUROR No: 6, as, Ms. Paula
Hamlet.
See: 'EXHIBIT``B ..:APPLICANT‘S AFFIDAVIT and EXHIBIT H-I.J¢.
The Applicant's Attorney failed to report this UN-AUTHORIZED
Juror Communication to the Trial Court Judge.
Ms. HAMLET and state Investigator Detective Kay Langford, were
observed having this conversation with one another in the Jury
Paeiibefore Jury selection began.
Ms. Hamlet was chosen as one of the TWELVE JUROR MEMBERS.
As a result of the Defense Attorney neglecting her duties
aid affidavit was filed on MARCH lOth, 1999, by this Applicant.
See: EXHIBIT E .., Please note that the Trial Court Judge.
I.E. HONORABLE JACK H. HOLLAND, acknowledged receiving the
Applicant's Affidavit.. See: EXHIBIT E.- Letter from Judge
Holland to the Applicant. But, the issue of Jury Mis~conduct
has never been investigated by the Trial Court or Defense Attorney.
instead the Trial Court Juige and Defense Attorney should have
investigated JURORS exposed to extraneous influences to determine
whether there was or has been prejudicial impact when the
Applicant pointed out the fact of un-approved communication,
conflict, or Jury Tampering during a Criminal Trial.
The Trial Court should have investigated and enguiry by investigating
the detectives ulterior motives.
_19_
In the Case Of CRAMMER VS. UNITED STATES,
347 U.S. 277.
" The U.S. Supreme Court held that any un-approved private
communication contact or tampering with a Juror during a Criminal
Trial, is presumed Preiudicial ... 1746
Id. at 229."
The imparticular circumstances is the fact that there was
UN-APPROVED COMMUNICATION Concerned, Reasonable Jurist would
find these Constitutional claims debatable or just plain wrong.
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 7
NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION
LEGALLY - INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
GROUND OF ERROR NO: 7
ARGUMENT and AUTHORITIES
APPLICANT CONTENDS``THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS
conviction. The Applicant argued that he was convicted, not
because of conclusive evidence that showed that he was guilty
of aggravated Robbery, but, based upon Two Prior convictions
and Applicant's past.
Applicant further argued that the mis-Identification was
not raised at trial and that the alleged victim's identification
of the Applicant w§§ 50 f§f Out Of fOCPS that the trial Court
Judge had to guestion the testimony of the alleged victim.
When the victim was asked if she could identify the
perpetrator of this alleged crime. a spectator in the back of
the court-room shouted, " Yes, Thats Willie Beasley!"
And the alleged Victim could not describe for the Trial Court
Judge what the Applicant was wearing and Defense Counsel's Failure
to move to correct testimony, which she knew to be false, and or
_20_
mis-leading, constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
( MILLS vs- scuLLY, 635 F. supp§ 885 ( s.D.N.Y. 1987)
When questioned about what had taken place on November l4th.
1998¢ the alleged victim started to testify as to someone in a
field with a pick-up truck and displayed problems of remembering
anything. She spoke about someone trying to " WHO-DO-HER!"
And that someone had come in and taken matteresses from her
residence. ~
The Applicant would point out that the State Chief Witness
in the case. Mr. Eddie Pace. was the one who allegedly found the
'Victim's wallett. The same witness that the Applicant had told
to his Defense Attorney. Ms. T. Drum, was a wanted fugitive out
of SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS. Trial Counsel's failure to investigate
impeachable evidence for attacking the credibility of the State
witness may constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and she'
Ms. Drum, had a duty to investigate leads affecting the credibility
of witnesses which would serve to bolster her clients credibility
and undercut the State's witnesses testimony,
MILLER VS. WAINWRIGHT,
798 F. 2d. 426 ( llth Cir. 1986) and
WILLIAMS VS. WASHINGTON.
59 F. 3d. 673 ( 7th Cir. 1995).
CONCLUSION
There was insufficient evidence to support Applicant's
sentence and conviction and there was evidence in the record to
support an actual Innocense claim. The Court will find that
this type of circumstances that a fundemental miscarriage of Justice
has occured. See: SMITB Vs. DAHM,
779 F. 2d. l045 l99l) ...
_2]__.
The Applicant failed or refused to address these issues
which further establishes a pattern of Ineffective Assistance of
Counsel.
There is no evidence that a reasonable Jurist would find the
DistrictCourts assessment of the Constitutional claims debatable
Of`` WI``OI'!C| .
The Court found in LBVINE Vs. TORVIK.
986 F. 2d. 1506 (6th
Cir. 1993). That even if it is concluded that Applicant fairly
presented his Constitutional claims to the Trial Court. the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals would be able to consider it
now by applying the doctrine of MURRY``VS. CARRIER,
477 U.S. 478.
488 (3) 106 S..Ct. 2639, 2645, 9l-L. Edr 2d. 297 (1986).
There it established that in the extraordinary case. " WHERE
CONSTlTUTIONAL VIOLATIONS HAS PROBABLY RESULTED IN THE CONVICTION
OF QNE WHO IS ACTUALLY INNOCENT .. A COURT MAY CONSIDER the Claim
even absent a showing of cause and preiudice.
_22_
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, The Applicant Respectfully
Prays that this Honorable Court. in it's review, would Vacate
all previous Orders and reverse 317 remand for aguittal. this
case, with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing and
order a New Trial and Appoint Counsel for the Applicant.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
WILLIE D. BEASLBY
T.D.C.J.-I.D. CID # 870844
Mark Michael Unit
2664 FM 2054
Tennessee Colony. Texas
Pro-Se 75886
DONE THIS _LQQ DAY oF §&Zéj , 2015.
VERIFICATION
The following verification is made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. l746
and 28 USC 1651 of the All writ att. l have read and the attached
memorandum of Law in support of the Application for WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, and I am familiar with its facts and allegations.
I verify under Penalty of Perjury, that, the foregoing is
True and Correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
EXECUTBD oN THIS 553 _ DAY oF,§§&§£E{zOlB.
At the MARK MICHAEL UNIT, TEXAS DEPARTMENT oF cRIMINAL JUSTICE
IN ANDERSON COUNTY. TEXAS, 75886-0001.
/S/ J/i/%;<%
wILLIE_D. BEASLEY # v 44
APPLICANTS EXHIBITS FOR 11.07 AMENDED
HABEAS CORPUS
A-)
D.)
E-)
F.)
G-)
H.)
I.)
J-)
K_)
INDICTMENT IN CAUSE NO: A-9192. The State Of Tean VS.
WILLIE DONNELL BEASLEY
JUDGBMENT AND SENTENCE IN CAUSE``NO: A~9l92.
LETTER FROM HENDERSON COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK OFFICE
SHOWING NO MANDATE FILED IN EITHER CAUSE NO: A-4661 §
(BURGLARY) Or A- 6883( ( ROBBERY)...
AFFIDAVIT oF wiLLiE D. BEASLEY{ coNcERNiNG JUROR Mis-coNDucT
MARCH oach, 1999.
LETTER FROM STATE DISTRICT JUDGE( HONORABLE JACK H. HOLLAND'
DATE: MARCH thh¢ l999@ CONCERNING JUROR MIS-CONDUCT.
AFFIDAVIT oF THOMAS G. sPENcER, ABOUT DEFENSB coUNSEL“s
DATE; DECEMBBR 29th¢ 2001.
AFFIDAVIT OF MELISSA ANN BEASLEY¢ ABOUT FLEEING INVESTIGATING
KAY LANGFORD{ FROM COURT ROOM ON APRIL OQCHiZQ@BL_
AFFIDAVIT OF LUTHER TALIAFERRO( DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR ON
JANUARY 07th, 2005.
AFFIDAVIT OF TOM PERDUE CONCERNING MARCH OBthu 1999.
FLEEING FROM COURTROOM ON JANUARY 03rd( 2006.
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIE D. BEASLEY CONCERNING PROSECUTION
DETECTIVE KAY KANGFORD ON JANUARY 07th{ 2006.
NEwsPAeER;ARilQL§S §BQWLNG.T»A:.DRPM£ SSBVED A§ THE §IT¥
ATTORNEY AND ciTY PROSECUTOR FRoM 1996 - 1999.
ARTICLE DATED; JANUARY 05th{ 2002.
A/%////V/\/
//-i/(Aig// 220
No. § »j[j&
The State of Texas Vs.
Bond$ 0 666(
WILLlE DONNELL BEASLEY
Court l73rd Judicial Distric
____________________‘-_
Charge'. AGGRAVATED ROBBERY/HABITUAL
IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHOR!TY OF THE- STA'I``E OF TEXAS;
"i_``l'{E GRAND JURY, for the County of __l-IENDERSON . State of Texas, duly selected, empaneled,
sworn. cbarged, and organized as s:uch at the JULY Term A.D. 19__9§_ of the 173 rd Judicial District Court for
said County, upon their oaths present in and to said court at said term that
waite DONNELL BEASLEY
hereinafter styled Defendant, on or about the 14"`` of NOVEMBER A.D. l9 _9§ and before the
presentment of this indictment in tlhe County and State aforesaid, did then and there, while in the course of
committing theft of property and With intent to obtain and maintain control of said property, intentionally and
knowingly threaten and place GOLDEN ROBERSON in fear of imminent bodily injury or death1 and the
defendant did then and there use or exhibit a deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife; v
And it is further presented ``un and to said Court tbat, prior t``o the commission of the aforesaid offense '
(hereafter styled the p``l~irnary offense), on the 24°`` day of January, 1990, in cause number A-4667 in the 173"l
Judicial District Court of Henders®n County, Texas, the defendant was convicted of the felony of Burglary oft
Building.
And it is further presented in amd to said Court that, prior to the commission of the primary offense. and afte
the conviction in cause number A-4667 was final, the defendant committed the felony offense of Robbery and
was``convicted on the 10‘h day ofjianuary, 1994, in cause number A-6883 in the 173rd Judicial District Court of
Henderson County, Texas.
against the peace and dignity of the State.
/`` ,
q'\. f"
the Grand jury 00\)\)-
,CAUS-E NO. A-9,192
THE STATE OF TEXAS () IN THE 173RD JUDICIAL
vs. - `` 0 Dlsratc'r coURT or
wi:LLi-E DONNELL B-EASLEY 0 _ HvaERsoN couNrY, rExAs-
JUDGMENT- PL_EA OF NOT GUILTY
PENALTY BY COURT
2
l - " .' ' !A -,l
`` Judgc Prcciding:JACKH HQLLAND _ A’/(//%/z/[A))
`` ncic cf ordcr. APRi_L s_ 1999 ``
A-ncmcy §cr state , '- a norms
' Attorne§' for Defendant TERESA DRUM
Offense convic-ted ofz AGGRAVATED R.OBBERY
Degree: FIRST DEGREE, FELONY
Date of Offense:~NOVEMBER 14,' 1998
. chcrging``lncmcm: INDICTMENT
Plea: NO'l`` GUILTY
Jury vcciici¢ GUILTY . Forcmcn: RoY LAw'roN cLAY
Plea to Enhancement Paragraph: Not true to Fz'rst Enhancement Paragraph; True to Second
Enhancement Paragraph _
' Findings on Enhancement: The Court found both Enhance-ment Paragraphs to be true.
F indings on Use of Deadly Weapon: N/A
Punishment Assessed by: COURT
Date Sentence Imposed: APRIL 8, 1999
Qr"1 cc(~“`` 7
;n"
~.....-¢/
q
»<
vox _M_L__Pg. _fl?_jfa,,.~.c;;; m
CERT|F|ED COPY
ll"'lV-ill"J
c - 7c
v
Date to Commence: APRJL '8, 1999 _
Punishment and Place of Confx'nement:
FOR'I``V (40) years confinement in the Texas Depanment of Criminal Justice,
institutional Division; _
'Tintc Cr-edited: 146 _Days_ .
Concurrent Unless Otherwise Spe'ciffed =
Restitution: None v
' l``~ine: None
- Court Costs: $_2,721..25
The Defendant having been indicted in the above entitled and numbered cause for the
felony offense of AGGRAVATED.RQB"BERY,» and on the 8"’~ day o_f March, 1999, this cause
being called for trial, the State appeared by Shari D. Moore, her Assistant District Attomey, and
the Defendant.appea'red in person and by his counsel, TERESA DRUM, and both parties l
announced ready 'for trialz and_the said Defendant in open Court was duly arraigned and pled
NOT GUI-"LTY to the charge contained in the.indicunent herein; thereupon, a jury, to-wit: ROY
‘ . 'LAWT_ON 'CLA.Y, Foreperson, and eleven others, was duly selected, impaneled and swom, who,
having heard the indictment read, and the Defendant’s plea of not guilty »thereto, and having
heard the evidence submitted, and having been duly charged by the Coun, as to their duty to
determine the guilt or innocence of the Defendant and after hearing arguments of counsel, the
Jury, on the 9°' day of March, 1999, retired in charge of the proper officer to consider their
verdict, and afterward were brought into open Coun, by the proper officer, the befendant and the
Defendant’s counsel being present, and in due form of law returned into open Court the l
`` 2
following verdict, which w¥received and accepted by the Court and{is here now entered upon
the minutes of the Court, to-wit: “We, the Jury, find the Defendant, WILLLIE DONNELL
BEASLEY, Guilty oi``/;GGRAVA'I``ED ROBB-ERY, as charged in the indictment.” /s/ ROY
LAWTON C'LAY, Foreperson. n
-'l``he Defendant having been formdgarlty by verdict of the jury, it_ is hereby ADJUDGED
and DECREED that the Defendant is‘g_.ui_l;ty of the offense of Aggravated Robbery, a First Degree
Felony. d '
ON the 8"' day of April, 11999, the punishment phase of the trial was had. The court,'after'
hearing testimony and considering the evidence and arguments of counsel and having made
findings as to_ the enhancement paragraphs as shown above, assessed the'Defendant’s punishment
at confinement in the T-exas Department of Criminal Justice, Instituti_onal Division for FORTY
(40) years. lt is, therefore, I-``OUND AND ADJUDGED by the Court, that the said,Defendant is
guilty of the felony offense of Aggravated Robber-y, that``said Defendant committed said offense
on the 14"' day of November, 1998, as found by the jury, that the two enhancement paragraphs
of the indictment are tn-'re and that he be punished as has been assessed by the Court, at
confinement' m the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for FORTY
(¢tO) yearsz and that the State lof Texas do have and recover of the said Defendant all costs in this _
prosecution expended for which execution will issue.
lt is fin‘ther ORDERED that Defendant be given credit forjail time served of one hundred
forty-six_ (146) days.
Thereupon, the said Defendant was asked by the Court whether he had anything to say
why said sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he answered nothing in bar
3
\‘J;\'_ C°UR)~
._J‘)’-
``,,\......,,,n
'>»°‘i?~.-i-.°/ "“
…;-....-
"'l§.).(.§§.\\\‘
415``ON co-"
.
’*.
thereof, and it appearing to the Court that the Defendant is mentally competent and understands
the proceedings
lt rs, therefere CONSIDBR=EI AND ORDERED by the Court, in the presence of the said
_ j and his augm¢_y that the said judgment as set forth above, be and is hereby in all
things approved and confirmed, and that the Defendant, who has been adjudged guilty of the
. above named offense, as shown above, and whose punishment has been assessed by the Court as
shown above, be punished in accordance with the punishment set forth above and that the
_ Defendant shall be delivered by the Shen'ff of Henderson County to the Di'rector of the
Depart_ment of Criminal justices lnstitutional Division, of the State of Texas,`` or other person
legally authorized to receive-such convicts,fo_r the punishment assessed herein, and said
Defendant shall be confined forthe above named term in accordance with the provisions of law ,
governing such punishments and execution may issue as necessary. lt rs further ORDERED that
the Defendant pay court costs as set forth abcye. '
And the Defendant is remanded to'jail until the said Sheriff can obey the directions of this
judgment
~udge, 4173rd Judrcrai District Court of
Henderson County, Texas
o }.'-’.' ``\' . !()_ ./" "``.".``.’.f 4
-x . .. 0
ii l``it’_‘``~ -"Cj_').. - v "_ ``ptcua,C
:V
51
. .._ ..;T__. . .‘.j
~‘]'-" l~ -»,`` .~q_ d ", l"'~,? '_``_-k_
" _ soucu\>"
pgaT\Fi'éD 00l
``Mr. Willie D. Beasley
#870844
M.W. Michael Unit
2664 FM 2054
Tenn. Colony, TX 75886
Mr. Beasley,
Office of District Clerk
HENDERSON COUNTY
Jean Godwin
District Clerk
Regarding your letter dated June 2, 2013, we have no mandate filed in
either cause A-4667 (Burglary), Or A-6883 (Robbery).
Thank you,
rict Clerk
109 West Coreicana St.
Athens, Texas 75751
903-677~7244
manthony@CO.heHder§on.tXFuS
w
100 East Tyler Street, Suite 203 0 Athens, TeXaS 75751 0 (903) 675-6115 v Fax:
(903) 677~7274
www.co.henderson.tx.us
F\---_-----"_"’ _ ;
\)~r~¢\ ``;a_; ‘\\"‘\¢"'r'*‘\ "°'°"’°"“*``
(A``br. t"``§"``\'¥,t~¢y SC»L``~-i \\ M°\ ge C“\\'-'\ ' '
. >.Z¢U ou' lll"'_"'
:_(; v M444-1 XVZ";
‘ 1_;-.:. _*;:'_ c\f-* nl
' __{;? ,:¢.'_A/¢_. j__:_y££€________.__ -__M_M£x>\&f_l_%:``$ .Q .
"~"*_“'_"““ .i_z~q¢\
x__.z:./_z/a:_/y_r_:‘y¢/,z_v>;,¢ _____ ___________ _
_X__Z),;r/€,M_/;¢//_Z_A£.___'__. ____a___§_. __ __ _ __
;/a'_ __~,',-_'/)a:_¢-,s'_;é-.wl.v _ _
5' ~ ___
_.X'A'.I.¢»'_.Zba/A/FZZ_ Zc'/Z.)./¢)/_____ __________ ___ _ .r_ _ /%,»;A/_Z¢~;€;o,,/_'_ dpw/941 __'75(_ . _ _A’:JD¢¢M _
J __________.____________ _
. __ ____MJ/A/£Qyz:/a;_ _____ ' _ ___-
f - .. .-....-.-_-_.___......-__M______,_,_-_-.--._-_____¢_._.___ ..
11 /_,/€_//¢1»_/¢.€/)¢//¢?_..7.2/¢_@¢'_c/E'_,§Lz¢',,¢/¢WA___ .. ____ ____________________. _
__ _____ ``___ __a/a‘a,/___&~mz.rA/,_///.'r__a_-../A/;/__/j¢’/I.:///,_ 2¢-/_’¢"~ A../Lj_>,_’_.:£//_/?a£/c-é?/.,_////¢cé____
' 'v{-¢j@w¢"»a./_.!.'//w eraj_JNAMaé@M£QM¢/_B;%M///w/Ae_2)@,./,``/;/;``.&9¢.¢'*/7. A‘/_/,{';
','; ,_/?//3.»¢)//! o/l.z?.@a.e_¢za_'r¢a./Aa{_,¢s,/_&,e_é@aaLAw¢/:a.aén:néé_/S// './,~'.~_.»J,L;________ _
.. .. . . /-.__.O.r~.>_.;_M_ac_c,la__g_+.\¢»-_oF_i§lSi§t_:_L.Ol:»i_l=._llm._juci_j_'wu$__t.\)_a{)Q“l€-M ~--
Q.Q,“l'i o a _lla_j _- kaujl;.or.¢) ._§L,uo$_ClJS_e_c_u_o.d_§:lll``wcj__c;N_I\M,_ loadl-.§im!_lc\_\l<_l\.``~:s
___
_\'\_i~\n..O». (DC\Tl.'eAJ'.\'_\\Ci l..__~.§\¢\<``€>(`` /\Tlo``\< WOS .1metaa.clie\:i_l_j_(;e.(>o_t_``.¥icl_ja__M_\$_os$``l?o¢.v£ aj _
g ;ef_e_sa Drum _‘\'§m+ f\/L\~s.__l_aoq&o£_¢l_a.),.)a_<.___$aaa)_\c>oe§d:\ij_IY_/,\_il<;¢.)_aj __ ____
3_``\ Ilr\_-ct__[§_a:\_e.£li u_l_<\nc_ot‘_.__§_lcte,__§ ed cl__§\s,¢z__s)§_©.\').ch__\.oOK_msCl'_J-';or__Tv-» l 5
hud__dld__._\_\$c)'_l_'__f_ap_cr_°£__l]°.., _ll-'\``\S-__:dcoc_``_$___m_em\m_r``§ '\\)ow\a ‘\S (\A``\<<_; ___\_-.\Arv\\£
C
~‘S‘X_¢\;_o__m e._'_ @_o_~i_\o_) _P\_Qad%__$ks‘_otid§jncn£*§_(a mike M T\“°~' Tv*"“_l, W-C‘--" ; ~--
``* L\~a§…(``,\no&»_¢u__\m judge QUNF Tac<``au¢e_\§ -Q.Nr``\_, :;L_XS_»____£\\_SO_,N~_`` _ _
"~J``Ol-£"~-SW~leA)_,_‘~g~“: ;1:_, t - "“ _CENL\ 1
\"\d-‘a“~J``-L <---:H-“C\``l___.%``~lnod\cl__\adu.a._'\oj_e'.¢.)__$s_t\amii"m_el__``\_¢\)___¢_§.s;%_o~__»r_cl_``_€a__``(o_,l``:>!``-F\/``.“ \L``¥*»\ 1
\-q--Y--~B~¢\``\T.. .wo$_.i\)o'l__€;\_dqr;r``\_:\xgr;\__ 4 ______'_______(_ ._
.. ._ N\j ______ rhby___Ԥ_e_r__:n_e__aoan``rngj mm T\;o_t_j__< _- _ __Snin_e_\_.\s
\c _0 ____ _o,) o__$,__ ___'_‘_\)_. __ ___Qtilla$_(:l_l\ .a:,m'_o)a'£§&,°!: .Vj_§>_d``>@_ao_€_ad~ _ ;_J\_J____C. ottel_¢,.. las "Tl~. d
LSI£~N‘~CM.\I_ ~.Q,o.\t\.cl___\r_\_a.u.z___ha_ar\) gsw lr``\‘te rl \etj \< e ``\i\@ \\\ taft %_.C _
\ .. \ \ _ \
)\~'\'Q_b_**‘;"" -``::``~c~‘~§``-§l---»-WJ``~\j``-U``_ ;O" /"f\ Q» Q\_``\b_a_ul§___d>;u\\j____§_s_v_tam__._~ l\/.»W‘s_&@
``ll*'€F--~S»T~¢M£SQ»NL_e,_$__§ar_c_o ed ``\.o 3 T\M_ \)\`` cTQ;\/\`` § C c 1 d ``\'\'l:\ \'Rj
OQGST
l_ l':~ec_e_._'\§__ S'_Y§``_o<\)c$__@>o e£. \lotl_ fits _ _o§-___:§_\:e_,``§o.c_j_l>_e_\ nc§_jo._+r)lacl_o co a\
>.)t posed_:@__``i¢~_t§a§ad:'¢_o d ou'rS_\_)>_%_a_c_o.;d
~ -j _ _th _. _ch oi'lr_»_.¢¢_c____'_i_l>o Mo S_____S_(>_Q_ao c_a c__o\.\) _____N§_o€_c\\__el:l¢~_,_l<``_i\§_@_l_-:Le_ _r_¢_ _ l s
' .``~\ \l_. __cL_\i asfr_l on _S___§§_ba.l _v¢_\j _c_a_is ecl___o_\¢on'r __ _'_T\~_____¢.i)``_``\ aST_\_c a~__’_i\~_ax__\\a s
``>_ e_ 10 __ ¢,\0 \\).c___. . _ID__(L_Q__D_\AT__Q_E__\S¢.L\AC___(:f_e_€._g_ul;§__»_j_:_\_\)__ _l\l_¢._e__<.l_(l§;___ __
Mm».¢l_ l_. o:&_a____dtl'lte_t_ilom_)__§o_dc___l'\_O_¢\)oc__l___j~_o \l: TC) C n »iT\ OU_..\__\T:,-\.t _ .
``r."Y _ __.Q\;Tac _ _ \_.30.\»____\``__2.l``-_\i__s._ed___j©___d\\oo_~l ___T§,~_L____SXola_f;/\_e¢o_'l'__._ol:_._\\_/uj_.u§\ V- a_~
. § l_l$$ct _ AN_<¥J.___ __&_:w_. S l.e_\_._( ___'TO__ _\;>.z_ ___Ca_u‘i_au.?£ d __.\Q\j -_j_\\a,_..._§v``t_j_._l:[: _ ___;J\\¢ c-(
i\\'€_o\%ecl :Y.\¢_\ am ____¢.\3_0'_\'___ _``_T_o_ba,_otlo\<,__'§o_t``_e_u'\ 010__.__Se_<:)\_ei\»\'\@cj_._\éou~__k~_o.\._)_&_ Of_l ~“¢ cell
é_?_l:.¥e Cl -. .lo_) '\ .M M .e_ $S .\lo\ e,_»__.l§_§o.``\ _A.)_ _ _\_ S'_Y_o§_ e_ _ _``_l O___\_.SOQ_~__``>A) -_:V;;_$___lé§{:&:o _ l¥l:l'- rid t"-
‘ lea _.l _or\/r. ___Not__thh\)'_p_l;_'_¥\_~$§___&_\fmc;c 4_._______l-l'_\_e___i r_\)_T-_o aN_``\_l 'fiss__ol;-__p.u 6_3 Lr_~§ - _ __ - ___ __ . .
_ __\£~l _l_°_e__€.a §'_c>_¢_``_¢_. l> r~ gm\';§$_e$___f,n N_S_lc§ o_r_e_£l__j_iu___d_@_f»_e¢_\zc_\kc___€_¢$ (>.1. .O_‘§J___:S_\<\.<``.>§ ._»Nl\i``QO-UCl-\L C~T
N<:\. \..~J a ppm ex am______\s _¢\a_ ao_``\.¢.)c___o_(~_:_; _ a_ __S._..\) o¢st;aa:_ec``_s____'_\ showed .
l-/-”-i/-D'." .0FM£'A/__/)’.Z£_,'_____ ________________________ _l§;z__$_i>_z__c_.:§s»\_l_\ _____ _§.u\>m;\.“'l¢l
...__ _ _ ________ _________43‘/
Mn'”oOS;-Z
» .10...~¢ n_. _ ._ ..._-, 1
_________ _____________ _ d/,/A'L_D.,A”M->'¢é-/-~----~"
. L»'M_M_ALF¢ZLZ¢° _
________ __A/////¢'.-__D ,A’_w/j/_/z/:r§//./é:€/I_ zS/,¢A_./’//_o[_zé/_/£A/z_£d//§/__;p
,~,/~/_/z¢_¢é./,zfs/_mae_awaa/aa _/./»,_z>,:/_l_?,-M£/_,%_/ww//J€/,¢
_ -.A' // I//y_____A/_ év_//_:)ZS(/.s~q, _/za_/¢J_-_/J; _H_Y.>'j;/__Lv_.z_/§_i/g_/_'/_”M;%j_ __._ _________
_ _A»/£’// (' '- /
)z/;e_l/,/Aa__zaa/zwa%:;/
__ _ _ __ ________________2¢;._.!¢,<§_123_______
" ' jz'a/cP/),”_B-__ZF_Z$Z____
d . //.4_{"2?¢"/7\//_
_' J_T//_/A//A./Q{ _
BETH WlLLlAMS
COURT COORD|NATOR
903/675-6107
JAcK 'H_ HoLLAND
JUDGE
903/675-6107
FAx 903/675-6106 MARTHA LAM
%’M~z@wé£>
Thomas G.Spencer,AFFIANT
BEFORE ME,the undersigned authority on this day personaly appeared Thomas G.Spencer and
have been duly sworn ,states that,to the best of his knowledge,the foregoing affidavit
of material witness is true and correct inevery respect and is a correct and complete
statement of the matters to which it relates
¢_q SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME BY THOMAS G.SPENCER on this the
2{2 ,- DAY 0F :I§§ZS 2001: certify which witness my hand and seal of
office.
1 \``
4 Arndavn ’"'”’”’{ /;P)
ms s'rATE or TEXAS
coUNrY or HENDERSON
Before Me, 'l``he undersigned authority on this day personally appeared Melissa Ann
Beasley, who is known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
instrument and acknowledge to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration
therein expressed: '
l\/Iy Name is Melissa vAnn Beasley; I am over twenty-one years of age_, of sound mind,
capable of making this affidavit and personally acquainted with the facts here in stated
On the 8th day of March 1999, While waiting in the lobby of the Henderson County Court
House l observed Det. Kay langford fleeing from Judge Carter Terrance’s Court Room. Det.
l'";xy langford was the Chief lnvestigating Oflicer in the case against my husband Willie Donnell
Beasley. l was standing in the lobby talking with another potential Witness for my husband I. E.
Tom Purdue when this officer emerged from the Court with a manila folder clenched to her chest
fleeing from the Court room. Also, l have personnel knowledge that my husband was very
dissatisfied with his attorney in her performance before his trial started. l
lt is also to my understanding that both Wiilie and his Attorney requested the Courts to
allow his Attorney to withdraw citing possible conflicts of interest 'l``he court refused to allow
my husband to dismiss his Attorney and appoint another attorney-to represent him on his case
in witness thereof, I have hereto set my hand this the i_ day of/_Z/L.lZOOQ
Lii/il.§ze ®x;\. Ctx'l,l() Lizl&(;t \Cu \)~
\/Ieli‘ssa Ann Beasley
Sworn to and Subscribed before me by the said Melissa Ann Beasley on this {/ ____day of
/;;)/¢ 2001,3
cit Yz';
To certify Which Witness my hand and seal of oiEc;e.
NoT ARY et IBLiC 1N AND FoR THE
STA 1" E OF TEXAS
AFFIDAVIT ) .~’/./'j'.'.;;a,»~/fi-'"l»s, " § 7“/!'} //')
`` h’
Before-me, the undersigned authority on this day personally appeared Luther Taliaferro, who is
known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and '
acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purpose and consideration therein
expressed:
My name is Luther Taliaferro.~ I am over 21 years of age, of sound mind, capable of making this
affidavit and personally acquainted With the facts here stated.
On February ll, 1999, I met with attorney Teresa A. Drum at her office in»Gun Barrel Cityw Ms.
Drum requested l conduct an investigation involving an Agg. Assault charge against Willie
Beasley. Ms. Drum said Willie Beasley is,-accused of assaulting and robbing his next door
neighbor Ms. Drum said Beasley denies these charges and says h_e was visiting a friend when the
offense occurred ivis. Drum requested 1 contact this fiiend and any other person l ieei wiil help
this case
On February l3, 1999, I interviewed the victim in this case, Mrs. Golden Robinson, at her
residence. Robinson lives at 18246 FM 317, Chandler, Texas. I observed Mrs. Robinson to be an
older black female She did not seem to be in the best of health. She seemed to spend most of her
time in a wheelchair and When she did get up to walk she had to use a cane I began my interview
with simple conversation Robinson participated in the conversation very well.
Robinson told me about the day she was robbed She related the same story as She related in her
statement to the police Robinson said she has known Willie Beasley for 6 or 7 years. She said
she knows Willie has been in the penitentiary but did not lmow Why. Robinson said she has no
doubt that Willie B_easley is the person who assaulted and robbed her. Robinson said Willie
Beasley knew that she kept her money inside her clothes She said Willie Beasley has seen her
put money in the purse, which she kept pinned inside her bosom area.
Robinson said she did not call the police She did not know who called the police Robinson said
she thought'Willie’s wife, Melissa, called the police to report the crime. Robinson Said she
thought Willie had also took some money from his wife, Melissa. Robinson said She did not call
the police that day.
l observed Mrs. Robinson to be very alert and sane She gave me no indication of any type of
mental problems she may have
On February l3', 1999, l contacted Melissa Beasley at her place of employment I talked to
Melissa about her statement she gave to the police She verified the information in the statement
she gave to the police on the day of the offense.
Melissa said she was in full support of her husband She said she just could not believe Willie
committed this crime Melissa told me Willie did not steal money from her on that day, she said
he asked for. some and she gave it to him. Melissa said She did not think her husband had a drug
problem or an alcohol problem
10f3
Melissa said she did not call the police on the day of the offense. Melissa said she thought Mrs.
Robinson's sister-in-law, ala Mae Stewart reported the crime to the police about five minutes
after the offense occurred.
On Febi'ii§fy l4“ 1999 I interviewed Tracy Sowles by telephone. He did remember the day 111
question very well Tracy said he contacted Willie Beasley by phone at Willie' s job at
approximately 8:45 AM. Tracy said he only spoke briefly with Willie and inquired about a small
loan. Tracy said at approximately 4:45 PM he called Willie's house. Tracy said he did not get an
answer so he called Willie's pager (#903-525-5031) trying to make contact. Tracy said in ``
approximately five minutes Willie returned his call. Tracy said when he was talking with Willie
he could hear a television in the background and assumed that Willie was at home. Tracy said he
l again inquired about a small loan and Willie agreed Tracy said he asked Willie to meet him at
"F at Dogs" liquor store on State Hwy 155 in Coffee City. Tracy said he told Willie he (Tracy)
had to go to this location to pickup a friend and give him a ride to Tyler. Tracy said he thinks
Willie met him at this store sometime between 5:00 PM and 5:15 PM. Tracy said if Willie
traveled on an oil top road through Coffee City, it would have only taken him 10 or 15 minutes
to get from his residence to F at Dogs Liquor Store. Tracy said when he contacted Willie at the
store, Willie was in a very cheerful mood and indicated that he was going back horne and spend
time with his family Tracy said Willie stayed for only 3 or 4 minutes and then left Tracy said he
also left with his friend named David Johnston, who now lives Somewhere in Dallas Tracy said
he went home to check on his children and arrived there at approximately 5: 25 PM. Tracy said
he lives only a few minutes drive from Fat Dogs Liquor Store Tracy said he then left his house
with his hiend and went to Tyler. Tracy said he dropped his friend off at approximately 5: 55 or
6: 00 PM at the Oakwood Apartments located on Loop 323. Tracy said he then paid Some bills
and ate a Big Mac and arrived back home at approximately 7: 00 to 7: 30 PM. Tracy said he called
Willie' s house and was told by Melissa that Willie had been arrested Tracy said he was very
shocked with this news.
Tracy said he did not think Willie had a drug or alcohol problem, Tracy'said Willie's wife,
Melissa, is his niece.. _
As instructed I located the pay phone at Turn Forks Liquor Store. The number was not available
on this phone but there was a sign posted above indicating the owner of the pay phone The
owner was posted as Swin- Tel. lnc. (903) 854- 2237 1 also spoke with the owner of this liquor
stoie He indicated to me that he would probably allow someone to use the store if he knew him
or her. The store phone number is (903) 852-6153 and the store address is 6947 FM 314.
I also went to Tip Top Liquor Store located north of Turn Forks on FM 315 approximately 1/2
mile There was a pay phone at this location with the same ownership sign as the one mentioned
above, The Tip Top Liquor Store' s phone number is (903) 852- 7490 l spoke with an employee,
Robert Harmon. Harinon told me he knew Willie Beasley but did not know anything about the
offense in question He said he had heard a rumor about it.
As instructed 1 also measured the mileage from Willie's house to Fat Dogs Liq``uor Store. From
the Victim's house to Turn Forks Liquor I measured 6.7 miles. From Tum Fork's, north on FM
315 to Hwy 31 l measured 12.7 miles. From the intersection of Hwy 31 and FM 315 to Fat Dogs
l measured approximately 19 miles. If Willie used this route from his residence to F at Dogs he
would have traveled approximately 38.4 miles.
20113
As instructed 1 also ran a computer search on Eddie Pace to locate an address for him. l located
an Eddie Roy Pace, RT.l Box 210, LaRue, Texas 75770, TX DL#010253166, DOB 1-20-70,
B/M, 5'11" tall, 275 pounds, black hair and black eyes. This was the only Eddie Pace who had an
address in this area.
Subscribed on this 7th day of J anuary, 2005
‘\. _ fg."~._“_,\``,¢__`` 11\_ WLVM (L___w 7
' Notary Publicj
DoNNAJoHNsoN
Nowry Pubuc
sTAnE 01-' TEXAS
3of3
Cause No. A~9l92
AFFIDAVIT 1 5 1114/553
STATE OF TEXAS} _.7:
COUNTY OF SMITH}
BEFORE ME, the under signed authority on this day the 3rd day of January, 2006
personally appeared Tom Perdue, who is known to be the person whose'name is subscribed to
the foregoing instrument and acknowledge to that the executed the same for the purpose and
considered therein expressed:
My name is Tom Perdue; I am over twenty-one years old and of sound mind, capable of
making this affidavit, and__personally acquainted with the facts herein stated.
On the 8th day of March 1999, while waiting in the lobby of _ the Henderson County
Courthouse l observed Det. Kay Langford fleeing from Judge Carter Terrance's Courtroom. Det.
Kay Langford was the Chief Investigator in the case against Willie ‘Donnell Beasley. I was
standing in the lobby talking with another Potential witness for Willie I.E. Melissa Ann. Beasley,
when this officer emerged from the Courtroom with a Vanilla Folder clenched to her chest
fleeing from the Courtroom, also I have personnel knowledge that my friend Willie Donnell
Beasley, was very dissatisfied with his attorney Teresa A. Drum in her performance before trial
started. '
lt is also to my understanding that both Willie Beasley and his Attorney Teresa A. Drum,
requested the Court to allow Beasley's Attorney to withdraw citing possible conflict of interest
The Court refused to allow Willie Donnell Beasley to dismiss his Attorney and appoint another
`` attorney to represent him on his case. ,
This affidavit is being made freely and voluntarily. I understand that any and all false statements
in this affidavit will subject me to penalties of perjury. l declare (or certify, verify or/state) under
57 penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct on this the 3rd day of January, 2006.
. QZWUM
Torn Perdue
3449 Iberville Dr.
Tyler, Tx. 75701
FURTHER, affiant sayeth not.
STATE OF TEXAS}
__.,_..*GOU__N_'P_Y_“GF_.S.MI.T.H.}._.__~..._......,-__.__.._ -…,__-» ..……...,.s... .… '_ v.,..._.v,,_.,._.__,_._..._____._,__....__._...-_... .,_'__., ,. .… _ . _, “,_._ .,_
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the 3rd day of January, 2006 by Tom Perdue.
'- --\.. -;.< :¢..- c a<'»wv<:~ '
`` ; x1131-fnl C. KING
Notaiy Put:&c
S‘!``ATE O¥ TEXAS
,;,>,» ifrcmm. Exp &%-2007
``, ``.:\
CAUSE NUMBER: A-QlQZ
ExPARTE § IN ran 173rd JUDICIAL
j § nrsTRIcT coURT or
erLrE DoNNELL BEASLEY § HENDERSON coUNTY TEXAS
AFFInAvIT 4
J»