Pink, Reginald Keith

776-/5 7-77-/5 778-/5
77?./5
IN THE
ORIGINAL COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
/\/M IPW »^b» •«•
uwim wr vniii/mwL HhTtALS)
AUG 2 7 2015
REGINAL KEITH PINK,
Abe! AcftsteuQterk
Petitioner rILED IN
v.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
AUG 27 2015
Respondent
Abel Acosta, Clerk
From the 5th Court of Appeals, Cause Nos:
05-14-00877-CR, 05-14-00878-CR, 05-14-00879-CR, 05-14-00880-CR;
From the 283rd Judicial District Court, Cause Nos.
F09-55346-T, F13-60732-T, F13-60733-T, F13-721123-T, the Honorable
Judge Rick Magnis , presiding
PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Reginald Keith Pink, Pro Se
TDCJ# 1938997 McConnell Unit'
3001 S. Emily Dr.
Beeville, Texas 78102-8583
361.362.2300 (ph.)
361.362.3011 (fax)
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents i
Index of Authorities ii
Statement Regarding Oral Argument iii
Statement of the Case iii
Procedural History 1
Ground For Review No. 1 1
The Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed petitioner's
conviction holding that the Anders brief represents a
professional evaluation of the appellate record—
Ground For Review No. 2 2
The Court of Appeals erred in denying multiple pro se
requests for evidentiary hearing to resolve issue of
lost/missing transcripts—
Ground For Review No. 3 2
The Court of Appeals erroneously confirmed the convictions
holding petitioner was given a copy of the appellate reco
rd and advised of his right to file a pro se response...
Ground For Review No. 4 3
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that it reviewed
the record, counsel's brief and pro se motions finding
nothing in the record one might arguably raise on app
eal ...
Conclusion 4
Prayer 5
Certificate of Service 6
Appendix 1V
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Amendment 6 5
Amendment 14 5
FEDERAL LAW
28 U.S.C §2254 2
Federal Cases
Anders v. California 386 U.S. 738 (1967) 1
Dalton v. Battaglia 402 F.3d 729, 736 (7th Cir. 2005) 2
Hall v. Quarterman 543 F.3d 365, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2008) 2
Harich v. Wainwright 813 F.2d 1082, 1090 (11th Cir. 1987) 2
Jackson v. Estelle 570 F.2d 546, 547 (5th Cir. 1978) 2
Woodcock v. McCauley 563 F.2d 806, 808-09 (7th Cir.) 2
Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 34.6 4
Rule 38.9 3
Texas State Cases
Dunn v. State 733 S.W.2d 212-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) 4
Emery v. State 800 S.W.2d 530-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) 4
Gianous v. State 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969) 1
Harris v. State 790 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) 4
Kelly v. State 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex.- Crim. App. 2014) 2
Ortiz v. State 862 S.W.2d 170 (Tx. App. 4th Dist. 2014) 4
n
STATEMENT REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT
Petitioner believes strongly that oral argument would be helpful to the
Court in assisting them in deciphering exactly what occured during the Janu
ary 23, 2014 arrignment/plea hearing that was recorded yet not made part of
the appellate record. Further, oral argument is necessary to make the Court
aware of. the harm and prejudice caused to the petitioner by not allowing the
issues and Constitutional.violations which occured during that hearing to be
raised on Direct Appeal to the Appellate Court.
Petitioner believes oral argument should be permitted to reveal how the
Court of Appeals erred in its fact finding, determinations thereof, and in
the denials of pro se motions and requests to show documentary or otherwise
evidence from either the Appellate Record or the Dallas Co. Judicial System
Electronic Docket sheets, that, the January 23, 2014 hearing did in fact "take
place, was recorded by the Court Reporter, and that portion of the Appellate
Record is lost and or missing. Petitioner has shown due diligence by request
ing these transcripts from the Court Reporter of the 283rd District Court, the
Trial Court, as well as the 5th Court of Appeals/ and attempted to properly
address the issue of the lost portions of the transcript prior to the submi
ssion of the substantively defective Anders Brief.
Petitioner intends to argue how his repeated requests for evidentuary
hearing, which are the generaly accepted and usual course of jurisprudence
in such situations. For these reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests oral
argument be granted ,-
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 26, 2013, Petitioner, ReginaMPink (Pink) was convicted of
robbery, two aggravated robbery w/ deadly weapon,,and one aggravated assault
on a public servant in the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas. The trial Court assessed punishment as LIFE imprisonment in each case.
Petitioner appealed the convictions, and appellate counsel filed an Anders
brief. On May 26, 2015 the 5th Court of Appeals filed a memorandum opinion
affirming the convictions.
in
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 26, 2015, Petitioner Received notification of Opinion and Judg
ment from the 5th Court of Appeals, informing him that his convictions had
been modified and affirmed. On July 10, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for
rehearing with the Court of Appeals. On August 3, 2015 Petitioner received
the Order from the 5th Court of Appeals denying the rehearing.
GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER ONE
The Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed petitioner's conviction holding
that the Anders Brief represents a professional evaluation of the Appellate
Record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California.
ARGUMENT:
The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the convictions based on an
Anders brief that was based on appellate counsel's evaluation of an incompl
ete appellate record which was void of transcripts from an arringment/plea
hearing- held on January 23, 2014, where issues to be raised on direct appeal
occured. These transcripts have been diligently sought in Pro Se motions to
the Court of Appeals making the Court aware of the issue of lost and/or miss
ing portions of the Appellate Record prior to counsel's submitted Anders brief.
All such pro se motions were denied. Review should be granted based simply
on the Court of Appeals decision to affirm on an incomplete appellate record,
and any evaluation ignores the record and evidence giving rise to meritor
ious issues that could be raised therefrom, (see Appendix Exhibits 3, 4, 5,
& 6, as well as Dallas Co. Judicial Sys. docket sheets Ex. 2). These are
documentary evidence, by a preponderance.of the evidence, that a hearing
occured on January 23, 2014 and should have been recorded at the request of
the parties and/or as a matter of regular Rules of Court.
The Court of Appeals decision to affirm departs so far from the usual
course of jurisprudence as to call for the exercise of the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals powers of supervision, for the fundamental reason that an
incomplete record makes any brief invalid, therefore, the .Anders brief filed
in this ease does.not meet the requirements of Anders v• California 386 U.S.
738 (67') for the fact, it is based on an incomplete Appellate Record and the
petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity to respond, (see Gianous
v. State 436 S.W.2d .137. (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER TWO
The Court of Appeals erred in its decisions denying multiple pro se
motions and requests for evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue of the
lost/missing transcripts and docket sheets being evidence of lost/missing
portion of the Appellate Record.
ARGUMENT:
Careful review would show all petitioner's pro se motions were not fair
ly evaluated, thusly, the Court of Appeals erred in. denying the requested evid-
entuary hearing and ignoring the federally recognized standard entitling the
petitioner to such a hearing when he can show clearly and convincingly with
the evidence presented,. (see appendix exhibits) that its reasonable the pro
ceedings in which he refers are to have taken place, (see also 28 U.S.C
§2254). The Federal Courts have set the precedence in holding that petitioner
is entitled to an evidentuary hearing in cases such as these, (see Dalton
v. Battaglia 402 F.3d.729, 736 (7th Cir. 2005); Hall v. Quarterman 543 F.3d
365, 367-69 (5th Cir. 2008; Woodcock v. McCauley 563 F.2d 806, 808-09 (7th
Cir. ); Jackson v. Estelle 570 F.2d 546, 547 (5th Cir. 1978); and Harich v.
Wainwright 813 F.2d 1082, 1090. (11th Cir. 1987). Petitioner submitted exhibits
2-6 in his requests for an evidentiary hearing, and argues that the Dallas
County Judicial System Electronic Docket Sheets in and of themselves entitled
him to an evidentiary hearing. The above cited cases are examples of how the
Appellate Courts decision denying petitioner's properly presented motions
departed from the precedence in the proceedings creating a fundamentally unfair
environment and depriving him of due process so as to call for the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals to exercise its power of supervision.
For these reasons the Court should grant review.
GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER THREE
The Court of Appeals erroneously confirmed the convictions holding that,
petitioner was given a copy of the Appellate Record, advised of his right to
file a Pro Se response to the Anders brief, but failed to do so.
ARGUMENT:
The petitioner was not given a "complete" copy of the Appellate Record by
either Counsel or the Court when counsel's Anders brief was filed as required.
(see Kelly v. State 436 S.W.3d 313, 316, 318, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Therefore, petitioner was not able ,to properly respond without the lost/miss
ing portion of the appellate record containing the hearing on Jan. 23, 2014
encompassing the constitutional violations to be' raised on appeal. Depriving
petitioner of a "complete" record after due diligence requests also nullifies
any opportunity to adequately respond to counsel's Anders, brief. (see Gianous
v. State 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). In an attempt to obtain a
complete record of the actual proceedings, petitioner sought and was granted
a 30 day extension of time to file his' response to counsel's brief. In this
time petitioner utilized all of his resources to gain a copy of the Dallas
Co. Judicial Sys. Docket Sheets, (see Ex.2). The Court Advised petitioner to
reply by the Feb. 4, 2015 deadline, however, his evidence was yet to be rec
eived and timely requested an additional extension as other state agencies were
less that expedicious in relinquishing the requested documentary evidence that
would show that a hearing did in fact transpire as insisted upon by the pet
itioner. Irregardless of petitioner's "just cause" the 5th Court of Appeals
denied the motion for the second extension. A denial after a showing of good
or just cause conflicts with.the decisions of other Courts on the same issue,
who generally grant pro se litigants second request for extension when making
a showing of just cause as petitioner in this case.
This consequently, denied petitioner his guaranteed constitutional right
of appeal. These aforementioned issues caused egregious harm and prejudice and
created procedural defaults and errors petitioner sought to raise on direct
appeal. This also created a legal prejudice affecting collateral review of
these errors which, could be supported by the lost/missing transcripts. It is
alleged these transcripts are being held by the trial Court leaving the App
ellate Record incomplete. Petitioner made the Appeals Court aware of these
issues in his submissions, hence are judicially noticed, (see Tex. R. App.
Proc 38.9 (b) making the Anders brief substantively defective).
For these reasons review should be granted.
GROUND FOR REVIEW NUMBER FOUR
The Court of Appeals erred in holding thet it reviewed the record, cou
nsel's brief and petitioner's pro se motions and finding nothing in the rec
ord that might arguably support the appeal.
ARGUMENT:
The Court of Appeals erred in its investigation, review, and determinarion
of the Appellate Record and petitioner's pro se motions filed. A close and exh
austive review of the submitted record reveals undisputedly in comments made
by the trial Court Judge, (see Ex. 3), the lead prosecutor,, (see Ex. 6) and the
petitioner., (see Exs. 4 & 5).which were made in a Feb. 3, 2014 proceeding
show unquestionably that a hearing was held prior to the 2.3.14 hearing and was
held on the record. The transcripts of the "hearing" prior to 2.3.14 are not
included in the submitted Appellate Record, thusly, the Court of Appeals could
not have reviewed them. The certified copies of the Docket sheets, (see Ex. 2)
and petitioner's motions, in the very least, gives rise that the Court of App
eals review was not based on a "complete Appellate Record", and any determin
ation thereon arguably removes subject matter jurisdiction, hence, voiding the
resulting determination. The references made in the record submitted reflect
other record portions not included, clear and convincing evidence that the rec
ord in fact is incomplete. Affirming a case with an incomplete record conflicts
with precedence set under substantially similar circumstances of other Courts
of Appeals, (see Ortiz v. State 862 S.W.2d 170 (Tx. App. 4th Dist. 1993); also
Emery v. State 800 S.W.2d 530-33 (Tx. Crim. App. 1990); Dunn v. State 733 S.W.
2d 212-214 (Tx. Crim.. App. 1987); Harris v. State 790 S.W.2d 568 (Tx. Crim. App.),
holding that it has long been the rule in Texas that when an appellant, thro
ugh no fault of his own or his counsel's is deprived of a portion of the state
ment of facts [the appellate record] which he diligently requested, the app
ellate Court cannot affirm, (see Tex. R. App. Proc. 34.6).
For these reasons review should be granted.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner, Reginald K. Pink, in the above and foregoing information has
showa the Court that issues exist, namely in the lost/missing transcripts, which ,
would show constitutional violations that could have been presented on direct
appeal. Petitioner alleges these constitutional violations are specifically:
1. petitioner's counsel, admitted in open Court, that he
purposely did not tell petitioner all his rights;
2. trial counsel refused petitioner's requests to do any
investigation because he believed petitioner to be
guilty;
3. trial counsel refused to file any motions on petitioner's
behalf claiming it would be a waste of the Court's money;
4. petitioner and trial counsel, due to counsel's opinions of
petitioner continuously on the record and off the record
had conflicts of interests, such as: a) counsel refused to
provide petitioner copies of police reports related to the
causes; b) counsel refused to thoroughly explain the ele
ments of the indictments and the repercussions thereof; e)
counsel's request to the Court to force petitioner to give
a plea;
5. the Trial Court's refusal to grant petitioner's repeated
requests for appointment of different counsel, responding
"its not your counsel's fault we are here," and indicating
he agreed with counsel's assessments;
6. the trial Court's denials violated petitioner's 6th and 14th
guaranteed constitutional right to effective representation
and due process.
Petitioner alleges there are other issues/violations but without the
record cannot effectively cite nor argue them. For these reasons the Court
should grant review.
PRAYER
Wherefore premises having been duly considered, Reginald K. Pink, petitio
ner pro se, humbly and respectfully prays that the Honorable Court would grant
his Petition for Discretionary Review. Petitioner seeks to have the record
developed so as to include the portions that were intentionally or unintention
ally not admitted as part of the Appellate Record, and once the record is
whole he be permitted appointed counsel and new direct appeal of the above
cited issues. Further, petitioner respectfully requests he be granted any
general relief the Court deems appropriate or to which he is entitled under
either Federal or Texas law.
Respectfully Submitted,
Reginald Keith Pink, Pro Se
TDCJ# 1938997 McConnell Unit
3001 S. Emily Dr.
Beeville, Texas 78102-8583
361.362.2300 (ph.)
361.362.3011 (fax)
APPENDIX
EXHIBIT 1
Memorandum opinion 5th Court of Appeals
EXHIBIT 2
Dallas Co. Judicial Sys. Electronic Docket Sheets, Certified
EXHIBIT 3*
Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4, pg 30
Line* H^-
EXHIBIT 4*
Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4, pg 31
EXHIBIT 5* l^'nes /-Y
Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4, pg 34
EXHIBIT 6*
Court Reporter's Record Feb. 3, 2014, vol 2 of 4 pg 35
*(NOTE: Please see the Reporter's Record as indicated).
IV
DECLARATION
I, Reginald Pink, does now attest that the foregoing documents and info
rmation are true and correct and are thusly sworn to under penalty of perjury
to their validity. (T.G.P. & R. §132.001-132.003 and 28 U.S.C. §1746).
911 P4
Reginald Pink, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing and
included documents have been properly served upon, the parties listed below at
their respective addresses, as well as delivered to this Court. The documents
were placed in the McConnell Unit mailbox with first class, pre-paid postage
affixed, addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, c/o the Clerk of the Court,
Abel Acosta at Capital Station, P.O. Box 12308, Austin, Texas 78711-2308.
Executed on this the '£.£> day of A^USf , 2015.
Reginald Pink, Pro Se
also served:
Micheal Casillas
Dallas Co. Dist. Attorny's Off.
133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB19
Dallas, Texas 75207
State Prosecuting Attorney
P.O. Box 12405
Austin, Texas 78711
Deemed Filed: Warner v. Glass 135 S.W.3d 681, 682 (Tex. 2004)
,/*
MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 26, 2015.
In The
Court ot Appeals!
jftftl) Btetttct of tKexaa at Ballatf
No. 05-14-00877-CR
No. 05-14-00878-CR
No. 05-14-00879-CR
No. 05-14-00880-CR
REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-55346-T, F13-60732-T, F13-60733-T, F13-72123-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Reginald Keith Pink appeals his convictions for robbery, two aggravated robbery with a
deadly weapon offenses, and one aggravated assault on a public servant offense. See TEX.
Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.02(a)(2), 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). The trial court assessed
punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at life imprisonment in each case. On
appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous
and without merit.* The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there
are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. * We advised
appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties "of appellate courts
and counsel in Anders cases). Appellant did, however, file several pro se motions.
' We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se motions. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's
duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in
the record that might arguably support the appeals.
Although not an arguable issue, we note the judgments in cause nos. 05-14-00877-CR
and 05-14-00879-CR do not correctly reflect appellant's pleas to, nor the trial court's findings
on, the enhancement paragraphs. In each case, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement
paragraphs alleging prior felony convictions, and the trial court found the enhancement
paragraphs true. The judgment adjudicating guilt in cause no. 05-14-00877-CR contains no
reference to the enhancement paragraphs and the judgment in cause no. 05-14-00879-CR states
"N/A" in the sections regarding the first enhancement paragraph. As a result, the judgments are
incorrect. Accordingly, we modify the judgment adjudicating guilt in cause no. 05-14-00877-CR
to show that appellant pleaded true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs and the trial
court found the paragraphs are true. We modify the trial court's judgment in cause no. 05-14-
00879-CR to show appellant pleaded true to the first enhancement paragraph and the trial court
found the paragraph true. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991,
pet. refd).
-2-
In cause nos. 05-14-00878-CR and 05-14-00880-CR, we affirm the trial court's
judgments. In cause nos. 05-14-00877-CR and 05-14-00879-CR, we affirm the trial court's
judgments as modified.
'UJ^?
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
140877F.U05
-3-
Court of Appeals
jfiftFi ©tatrtct of tEexaa at ©alia*
JUDGMENT
REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00877-CR V. F09-55346-T).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt is
MODIFIED as follows:
Add section "Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True."
Add section "Plea to 2nd Enhancement /Habitual Paragraph: True."
Add section "Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True."
Add section "Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: True."
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt.
Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
Court of Appeals!
$ iftfi ©tetrtct of t&exaa at Ballasi
JUDGMENT
REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00878-CR V. ' F13-60732-T).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and WhitehiU participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
-5-
Court of appeals
jftftl) Btsitrtct of Cexa* at ©alias
JUDGMENT
REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00879-CR V. F13-60733-T).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and WhitehiU participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled "Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph" is modified to show "True."
The section entitled "Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph" is modified to show
True."
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.
Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
-6-
Court of Appeals!
$ tftl) Btetrtct of Cexas at ©alias
JUDGMENT
REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00880-CR V. F13-72123-T).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and WhitehiU participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
4JI66 < DA .CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE' ID F-13607:
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NARB-EIKK RE
JUDICIAL INFORMATION
A010-020-030-040 FILE DATE 101013
DEF NAME PINK_REGINALD_KEITH RACE B SEX M DOB 09151962 AGE 52
DEF ADR1 646_LACEWOOD DR AC PH SS
DEF CITY DALLAS ST TX ZIP 75224 DLNUM DLST
DT 092613 TYP/CL F 1 GOC/CAT CODE RB000000
COMT 3RD SID NUM 03736319 OF AMT
COMPLAINANT TAPE # ARREST DATE 092613
JUV STAT N REPEAT OFFENDER N CAREER OFFENDER N ORIG-LOC DSO CURR-LOC P
FILING AGENCY TXDPD0000 SER/CAS NO 247449A
_247449A ARREST NUM 13046113
LAI NUM ; 493406 AIS/DSO NO 1828536
1828536 BOOKIN
BOOKIN NUM
NUM 13063777
JP FILE DATE OOOO00 JP CASE ID JP COURT ID FED EVH AFF
MAGISTRATE DATE 092613 MAGIS COURT 97 MAGIS JUDGE TURLEY BOUND OVER _
EXAM TRIAL DATE OO000O EXAM COURT EXAM JUDGE IND METH IHD
GJ/H/R DT 103013 H GJ# 2171 A2 GJ/W/FILE 110113 GJ OS T DA DSP A ACC X REAS
DA DISPOS DATE 101013 MISDEMEANOR REDUCTION _ SENTENCE PROBATED _
JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732 GJ CT FP PROS STAT A 656 PROS NAME PRYOR_CHRIS
COURT ASSIGNED TO FT DATE ASSIGNED 092613 ASSIGNED BY O REASON A
PRECEEDING DA CASE ID SUCCEEDING DA CASE ID
TRN 9176431916 TRS A001 WARRANT STATUS S STATE OFF CD 12990002
NEXT
* <*£ f^f <* &t- (m -tf)t>«»*»^
pq u
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE
APPEALS
C020-50 CT DISP NO 01
DATE APPEAL MADE 062714;rCOPY STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED 000000 EXTENDED 000000
DESIGNATION OF RECORD DEFENSE 071614 STATE 000000 TRANSCRIPT FILED 082614
OBJECTION 000000 DATE NOTICE SENT 000000
DATE SENT TO APPEALS 000000 OPINION DATE 052715 MANDATE RECEIVED OOOOOO DISP _
MANDATE ENFORCED DATE 000000 APPEAL WITHDRAWN 000000 CT REPORTER INITIALS BB_
APPEAL REF CODE 0150 REC NO 50 _
GENERAL COMMENTS
C080 062714_WAIVER_OF_JORY_616/598 ;_2NDS3RD_TRUE-TRUE_2ND£3RD ;_FINDINGS_OF_DEAD
LY_WEAPON_KNIFE_AND_CUTTINGTOOI. DATE 062714 _
C080 062714_DEFT_EXCEPTS_AND_GIVESJNOTICE_OF_APPEALS_TO_THE_COXJRT_OF_APPEALS_5T
_PISTRICTJPAT.T.AS DATE 071614 _
C080 08062014 REPORTER'S REC /JR
DATE 080614
C080 08/20/2014_REPORTER•S_REC_CHECKED_OUT_BY ,_MATTHEW_J._KITA_/JR_
' DATE 082014
NEXT
#•
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE
DISPOSITION
C020-01-02 CT DISP NO 01
VERDICT DATE 062714 BY JG DISP PGJG TC DISM TYP VOL 616 PAGE 597_
SENTENCE DATE 062714 BY JG TO L YEARS MTHS DAYS HOURS
SENTENCE TO BEGIN 062714 SENTENCE VOL PAGE DISCHARGE N TYPE _ NUM
PROBATED SENTENCE TO _ YEARS MONTHS DAYS _____ MULT SENT C
PROBATED FOR YEARS MONTHS DAYS PROBATION START DATE
SPEC COND 1 FOR 2 FOR
FINE CODE _ AMT 0.00 COST CODE _ AMT 0.00 PAYMENT DUE 000000
REDUCED/ENHANCED CHARGE
DESC COMT TYP/CL GOC _
COUNTY CODE STATE CODE
PROBATION REVOCATION FILE DATE 000000 WARRANT ISSUED DATE 000000
DISPOSITION COMMENT 092613-062714
MOTIONS
C020-30 CT DISP NO 01
DT/ FILED 071614:: MOTN TYPE MNT; MOTN PENDING STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED
D^Sd;:>PT/NEWl/TRIA-.>::F^-jaP;$. • SENT PENDING _ DISPOSED DT 090514 TYPE D
COMMENT MTN/NEW_TRIAI_pENIED_617/802 REC NO 30
NEXT
3.
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1360732 JUDCL CASE ID F-1360732
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE
'NAMES
B070
ASSOCIATED NAME KITA,_MATTHEW_2146991863 NAME REF CODE AA1406270
CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 24050883 BOND MAKER _ DT BOND MADE '
B070
ASSOCIATED-NAME LACY,_WAYNE_2146531317 NAME REF CODE CD1309270
CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 11787200 BOND MAKER _ DT BOND MADE.
B070
ASSOCIATED NAME BRAY_J NAME REF CODE LP1310110
CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE
B070
ASSOCIATED NAME PRYOR_CHRIS_ NAME REF CODE LP1310111
CT APPOINTED BAR NO BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE
CHARGE
C010
DEF NAME PINK_REGINALD_KEITH_ OFFENSE CD RBOOOOOO STATE CD 12990002_
DESC AGG ROBBERY COMT:: 3RD -^ TYP/CL: F 1 ^: GOC _
GJ COURT FP CURRENT COURT FT PREVIOUS COURTS CHOV DT
NEXT

STATES RECOMMENDATION NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 012714 i SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 020314 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS •
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
NEXT
PS
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE
SETS AND PASSES
B060
SET FOR DATE 050814 y'; SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 051214 y SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE PLEA PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 062714 .':' SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE SENT PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS.
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 090514 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE HEAR PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS EVIDENTIARY
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
NEXT
«JI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE
SETS AND PASSES
BO 60
SET FOR DATE 100114 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE OTHE PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS OVERRULE/MOT_NEW_TRIAL
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 _
NAMES
B070
ASSOCIATED NAME KITA,_MATTHEW_2146991863 NAME REF CODE AA1406270
CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 24050883 BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE
B070
ASSOCIATED NAME LACY,_WAYNE_2146531317 _ NAME REF CODE CD1310300
CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO 11787200 BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE
B070
ASSOCIATED NAME PRYOR_CHRIS NAME REF CODE LP1311120
CT APPOINTED _ BAR NO BOND MAKER DT BOND MADE
CHARGE
C010
DEF NAME PINK REGINALD KEITH OFFENSE CD RBOOOOOO STATE CD 12990002_
DESC;/AGG^OBBERY^ COMT 3RD_F TYP/CL F 1 GOC _
GJ COURT FU CURRENT COURT FT PREVIOUS COURTS CHOV DT
NEXT
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE
DISPOSITION
C020-01-02 CT DISP NO 01
V/ERDICT: DATE; 662714, BY JG DISP PGJG TC DISM TYP VOL 616 PAGE 599_
SENTENCE DATE 062714 BY JG TO L YEARS MTHS DAYS HOURS
SENTENCE TO BEGIN 062714 SENTENCE VOL PAGE DISCHARGE N TYPE _ NUM
PROBATED SENTENCE TO _ YEARS MONTHS DAYS MULT SENT C
PROBATED FOR YEARS MONTHS DAYS PROBATION START DATE
SPEC COND 1 FOR 2 FOR
FINE CODE _ AMT 0.00 COST CODE _ AMT 0.00 PAYMENT DUE
REDUCED/ENHANCED CHARGE
DESC COMT TYP/CL GOC _
COUNTY CODE STATE CODE -
PROBATION REVOCATION FILE DATE WARRANT ISSUED DATE
DISPOSITION COMMENT 092 613-062714
MOTIONS
C020-30 CT DISP NO 01
DT FILED 071614 MOTN TYPE MNT MOTN PENDING _ STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED _
DESC MOT/NEW TRIAL FILED SENT PENDING _ DISPOSED DT 090514 TYPE D
COMMENT MTN/NEW_TRIAL_DENIED_617/802 REC NO 30 _
NEXT
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE
APPEALS
C020-50 CT DISP NO 01
DATE APPEAL MADE 062714 COPY STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED 000000 EXTENDED 000000
DESIGNATION OF RECORD DEFENSE 071614 STATE 000000 TRANSCRIPT FILED 082614
OBJECTION 000000 DATE NOTICE SENT 000000
DATE SENT TO APPEALS 000000 OPINION DATE 052715 MANDATE RECEIVED OOOOOO DISP _
MANDATE ENFORCED DATE 000000 APPEAL WITHDRAWN 000000 CT REPORTER INITIALS BB_
APPEAL REF CODE 0150 REC NO 50 _
GENERAL COMMENTS
C080 062714_WAIVER_OF_JURY_616/600;_2NDS3RD_TRUE-TRUE_2NDS3RD;_FINDXNGS_OF_DEAD
LY_WEAPON_FIREARM DATE 062714 _
C080 062714_DEFT_^EXC»PTS_AND_GXVES_NOTICE_pF_^PEALS_^TO_THE^COURT_pF_APPEALS_5T
HJDISTRICTJDALLAS DATE 071614 _
C080 08062014 REPORTER'S REC /JR
DATE 080614
C080 08/20/2014_REPORTER•S_REC_CHECKED_OUT_BY ,_MATTHEW_J._KITA_/JR_
DATE 082014
NEXT
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-1372123 JUDCL CASE ID F-1372123
A010 DEF NAME PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE
GENERAL COMMENTS
C080 08/26/2014_CLERK' S_REC_FILED_5TH_CQA_/JR
DATE 082614
C080
DATE 082614
C080 101014_DESIGNATION_pF_ITEMS_FOR_SUPPUEMENTAL_CLERK' S_RECORD_
DATE 101414
C080 10/21/2014_SUPPLEMENTAL_CLERK•S_REC_FILED_5TH_COA_/JR_
DATE 102114
C080 11/03/2014_REPORTER•S_REC_RET_BY,_MATTHEW_J._KITA__/JR_
DATE 110314
NEXT
*,JI66 * DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE i/f-0955346
-v- A010 DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE
A010-020-030-040 J " D* " — * * >r o k MAT x 0 ^
DEF NAME PINK^GINAI^KSITH RACE B gEX MDQB OkIIm^IIe^II0
DEF ADR1 646_LACEWOOD Z!ZZZIZIZ``~ AC PH «TET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS OPEN
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
JET FOR DATE 052410 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE OTHE PASSED TO DATE
JET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS HF.LD_AT_ATTY' S_REQUES'
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 062510 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE PLEA PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS OPEN
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
NEXT
9,
4JI.6 6 DA CASE I D F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID F-0955346
AOlO DEF
NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE
SETS AND PASSES
B060
SET FOR DATE 040413 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01 <
B060
SET FOR DATE 041613 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 042313 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 042513 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE PLEA PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION
REC NO 01
NEXT
to.
CJI66 DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID F-0955346
AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE
C010 DEF NAME PINK RE
SETS AND PASSES
BO 60
SET FOR DATE 050113 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE 00000
SET DISPOSITION CODE ___
_ PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION
REC NO. 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 050613 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 051013 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 052013 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION
REC NO 01
NEXT
//,
* JI66
DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID P-0955346
AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME piNR m
SETS AND PASSES
B060
SET FOR DATE 052413 SET FOR TIME 0845 SET TYPE DISP PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION
REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 062113 SET FOR TIME 0900 SET TYPE REVK PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 100913 SET FOR TIME 0815 SET TYPE VIOL PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY COMMENTS
STATES RECOMMENDATION
REC NO 01
B060
SET FOR DATE 110113 SET FOR TIME 0830 SET TYPE STAT PASSED TO DATE
SET DISPOSITION CODE PASSED GENERALLY _ COMMENTS AWAITING_NEW_INDICt"
STATES RECOMMENDATION
_ _ REC NO 01
NEXT
IX
NO
SENTENCE DATE 062510 BY JG TO years — D^M TYP V0L 5" PAGE 907
SENTENCE TO BEGIN 000000 SENTENCE VOL P*™ °AYS HOURS
PROBATED SENTENCE TO P YEARS SriFiii n DISCHARGE N TYPE Nu"m~
PROBATED FOR YEARS 10 MONT^i" nfye °*YS MOLT SENT "
SPEC COND 1 SF SAFEP~ FOR 365``D~ 9 PROBATION START DATE 000000
FINE CODE N AMT __2000Tob COST CODE N~ AMT 490-00™ "^Tv ~
DESC ROBBERY EDUCED/ENHANCED C^RG^0-00 PAYMENT °UE °00°°°
— — COMT TYP/PT v o r*^r<
PROBATION REVOcL0"?"^0"""^-
DISPOSITION COMMENT ™™™^
101013 WARRANT ISSUED "
DAt¥ 100413
NEXT
' ' ?nnnASE ID P-095534* JUDCL CASE ID P-0955346
AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PlS B
C020-01-02 dispositxon
7ERDICT DATE 062113 BY JG DISP RFvr -n -.--w CT DI5P N0 '
SENTENCE DATE BY TO ^5L„« ~ °ISM TYP V°L 61° PAGE 728
SENTENCE TO BEcTi ~ENTENCE vS DAYS HOURS ~-
PROBATED SENTENCE TO YEARS MoVfSs 7^ DISCHARGE N Ty^ _ NUM _
PROBATED FOR YEARS ~ MONTHS day. »J MULT SENT
SPEC COND 1 FOR 2 probation start date ~
FINE CODE _ AMT 0.00
.0.00 rn"?T
COST ^nr
CODE ZHZ
_ AMT =-^/°R PAYMENT DUE
0.00
REDUCED/ENHANCED CHARGE^
DESC
COMT TYP/CL GOC
COUNTY CODE _ STATE rnnp
PROBATION REVOCATION FILE DATE
DISPOSITION COMMENT
WARRANT ISSUED DATE
l&SUED DATE
NEXT
"I66 • . _5iSR_.FISxS,S_,_,
name PINK RE CO 10 DEF NAME PINK RE
CO2O-01-02 DISPOSITION
VERDICT DATE 062714 BY JG DISP REVK TC DT^m tvd CT DISP NO
SENTENCE DATE 062714 BY JG TO L^EARS ~ n-^1mtL
SENTENCE TO BEGIN 062714 SENTFNPF vrvr
V°L 616 HOURS
DAYS —
PAGE 596
PROBATED SENTENCE TO YEARS ^THS ^ 7^ °ISCHARGE * TYPE - ™~-
PROBATED FOR YEARS ~ MONTHS~ nflvq ™-
SPEC COND 1 FOR DAYS PROBATION START MULT SENT C
DATE 000000
FINE CODE _ AMT-ZIZZO^O cdsF CODE _T AmFZswToo™ TFyM^NT DUE
DESC ROBBERY EDUCED/ENHANCED CHAR^i AYMENT
— . COMT TYP/CL F 2 POP
PROBATION REVOCA??ONYF?LEEDA^E00000 ^ ^ "0001_ ~
DISPOSITION COMMEN^O"IO"
C020-30 MOTIONS
DT FILED 071614 MOTN TYPE MNT MOTN PFNDTMr om*m CT DISP NO
DESC MOT/NEW TRIAL FILED SENT pZii" STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED
COMMENT MTN/NEW TR"iAL DENIED 617/802 PENDING _ DISPOSED DT 090514 TYPE D
NEXT
~=- CU10 DEF NAME PINK RE
CO20-50 APPEALS
DATE APPEAL MADE 062714 COPY STATFMFmt o- ™™o ' CT DI5P N0
DESIGNATION OF RECORD DE^lslT^xfs^l^CCCC!o^
OBJECTION OOOOOO DATE NOTICE SENT 000000
"^ EX™NDED OOOOOO
transcript filed 082614
DATE SENT TO APPEALS OOOOOO OPINION DATE 0527m MMIMalo
MANDATE ENFORCED DATE OOOOOO apn^T nxIL MANDATE RECEIVED OOOOOO DISP
APPEAL REF CODE 0350 WITHDRAWN 000000 CT REPORTER INITIALS BB_"
_„„ REC NO 50
eOftn o«9-m «--.-=.-. GENERAL COMMENTS
C080 062510_WATVER_OF_JURY_593/908
- DATEo 62 510 " ——————
C080 062510_TRUE_TO_2ND_AND_3RD;_2ND_AND_3RD_FODND_TRUE
DATE 062510 " "
C080 061511_E/O_jyrc>D_COND_OF_PROB_599/347
_ DATE 061511
C080 030712_E/O_MOD_COND_PROB_603/852
DATE 030712
NEXT
DA CASE ID F-0955346 JUDCL CASE ID P-0955346
- -- AOlO DEF NAME PINK RE C010 DEF NAME PINK RE
rnfln „,„,, -._,__, GENERAL COMMENTS
C080 062714_DEFT_EXCEPTS_AND~GIVESD-^TE
_DXSraiCTjDJ__iAs_ NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE COURT OF appfats WH
07^i-"~tJK-^_Ay_**M_^«V»T_OF_AFPEALS_5TH
C080 08062014_REPORTER'S_REC /OR
DATE 080614
C080 08/20/2014_REPORTER.S_REC_CHECKBD_OUT_BX,_MATTHBW J. RITA /JR
_ _____ DATE 082014 — — — -
C080 08/26/2014_CLERK-S_REC_FILED_5TH_COA_/jR
DATE 082614
C080 101014_DESI(SNATION_OF_ITEMS_FOR_SUPPLEMENTAL_CLERK'S RECORD
DATE 101414 ~
C080 10/21/2014_SUPPL_a_3NTAL_CLERK'S_REC_FILED_5TH_COA /JR
„__„ ; ; — . DATE 102114
uoit 1U^114 ~"
C080 H/03/2014_REPORTER'S_REC_RET_BY,_MATTHEW_J._KITA /JR
—— DATE 110314 ~
NEXT
J5
$
§7V
?>
v
^
t -ft
I -J
Is
c_> ^
<^
On
\ r_ 5-
i1 m \r. ?-• Mr
/7 // / ^ &
i h i I , s -3*
/ i ?h
;-f. ? r. i i •?••
!
f •.:••
'•» it"
f
" fa t /
l i t ! '- / ^ ^ - / ''
w i . t;,'. N